Look to mars for the truth on global warming (mini ice-ace predicted)

Financial Post ^ | Jan 26, 2007 | Lawrence Soloman

[ancient_geezer]

By the way, "Cycles ..." it is a 2002 article you might be able to access it under AAAS's free registration. It's worth trying anyway.

[ancient_geezer]

Devil is always in the details.

Paraphrasing Crowley, getting Milakovich theory to cover discrepencies in the paleo record imposes an unsettling level of complexity to account for the anomolies.

He suggests waiting 25 years for the perihelion to advance abit more will provide opportunites to test the Milakovich hypothesis more readily with regards the operative timescales.

[RightWhale]

resonant thermal diffusion waves in the sun

Good. It's well to keep finding possibilities instead of latching onto an explanation and sticking with it as if that is the final answer. There have been a lot of changes in our popular perceptions in the past 50 years and 50 years from now no doubt they will laugh at our present level of ignorance.

[cogitator]

He suggests waiting 25 years for the perihelion to advance abit more will provide opportunites to test the Milakovich hypothesis more readily with regards the operative timescales.

I think doing research in the meantime is still advisable.

[listenhillary]

Bookmark

[ancient_geezer]

To pick a line from one of the university atmospheric research blogs "the troops are training".

[ancient_geezer]

Research is always advisable. I still remember the trial ballons floated about reversing the the pending ice age back in the 70's, spead soot over the polar ice masses and increase albedo to abate the crisis.

First rule any should follow is "do no harm."

With dim crystal balls at best, actions taken now in hysteria can be seriously regretted later after eating up economic resources which could be put to better effect with a clearer view in hand.

[listenhillary]

How does your information explain the changes on the other planets?

[Robert A Cook PE]

The sun isn't getting that much hotter on the time scale of a century or so. And we do have ways to measure it. Increased solar output doesn't begin to explain the climate change we're seeing.

?

We have only been able to measure solar radiation levels for a few years: Early satellites never looked or that data, and the new ones haven't been up very long.

Your comments, your conclusions are not correct.

[cogitator]

How does your information explain the changes on the other planets?

Sorry I'm just providing the link; I don't feel like posting this for the third time TODAY (I have got to update my profile with the most popular FR misconceptions -- and corrections thereof -- about climate change, I just haven't found the time).

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1775638/posts?page=25#25

[cogitator]

The Role of the Sun in 20th Century Climate Change

[patton]

Well, you have stepped in the swamp now! LOL.

[Robert A Cook PE]

Thank you.

Good find.

[neverdem]

And subsequent warming after the Milankovitch cycle-initiated increase in insloation is caused by positive feedback from the increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, because the amount that solar insolation changes due to Milankovitch cycles is vastly insufficient to warm the planet as much as it warms in a glacial-interglacial transition.*

Thanks for the links. I'm not saying anthropogenic carbon dioxide has no effect. I'm saying that when there are so many other variables that they seem to have no good handle on, e.g. methane, water vapor, other "greenhouse gases," cloud cover, volcanic eruptions, variable solar irradiance, sun spots, warming on Mars, earth’s orbit and tilt, etc., that these models don't convince me that they have reliable advice.

[Beowulf]

bttt

[syriacus]

Two questions:

1. Will archeologists ever pinpoint the location of the factories which caused the Wisconsin ice sheet to recede?

2. Are people who live in the upper half of the US allowed to be happy that the Wisconsin ice sheets retreated from their area?

[cogitator]

Of all the factors you posted, "cloud cover" is the only one where there is sufficient uncertainty to potentially counter the effects of increasing atmospheric CO2 -- or make them even worse. Everything else can be pretty well modeled. A big volcanic eruption could cool things for a few years, but that's about all.

The so-called "warming on Mars" has nothing to do with the Sun. I've posted about this about 10 times the past two days. It's a regional climate change. In fact, according to the source I repeatedly cite, since the 1970s Mars globally has cooled (though that's not really an accurate way to assess Martian climate) due to the reduction in atmospheric dust.