Global Cooling

[timely]

<p>Climate change is complicated. I was reading the report that the sun last month had only one tiny sunspot for the entire month and that some scientists believe climate change is far more drastically affected by solar activity than by greenhouse gases and that the earth is entering a cooling phase. Obviously, there are those who would disagree.
I poked around on the Internet a bit more to see what I could find. Some of it was interesting, so I thought I’d share.</p>

<p>[VANISHING</a> SUNSPOTS PRELUDE TO GLOBAL COOLING?](<a href=“Climbing a Teach Science - Climate, Landscape, Meteorology, Oceanography”>Climbing a Teach Science - Climate, Landscape, Meteorology, Oceanography)

Sunspots have all but vanished in recent years.</p>

<p>Henrik Svensmark explains the SKY experiment Global Cooling comes back in a big way</p>

<p>Dr. Kenneth Tapping is worried about the sun. Solar activity comes in regular cycles, but the latest one is refusing to start. Sunspots have all but vanished, and activity is suspiciously quiet. The last time this happened was 400 years ago – and it signaled a solar event known as a “Maunder Minimum,” along with the start of what we now call the "Little Ice Age."Tapping, a solar researcher and project director for Canada’s National Research Council, says it may be happening again. Overseeing a giant radio telescope he calls a “stethoscope for the sun,” Tapping says, if the pattern doesn’t change quickly, the earth is in for some very chilly weather.</p>

<p>During the Little Ice Age, global temperatures dropped sharply. New York Harbor froze hard enough to allow people to walk from Manhattan to Staten Island, and in Britain, people reported sighting Eskimos paddling canoes off the coast. Glaciers in Norway grew up to 100 meters a year, destroying farms and villages. </p>

<p>But will it happen again?In 2005, Russian astronomer Khabibullo Abdusamatov predicted the sun would soon peak, triggering a rapid decline in world temperatures. Only last month, the view was echoed by Dr. Oleg Sorokhtin, a fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences. who advised the world to “stock up on fur coats.” Sorokhtin, who calls man’s contribution to climate change “a drop in the bucket,” predicts the solar minimum to occur by the year 2040, with icy weather lasting till 2100 or beyond.</p>

<p>Observational data seems to support the claims – or doesn’t contradict it, at least. According to data from Britain’s Met Office, the earth has cooled very slightly since 1998. The Met Office says global warming “will pick up again shortly.” </p>

<p>Others aren’t so sure. Researcher Dr. Timothy Patterson, director of the Geoscience Center at Carleton University, shares the concern. Patterson is finding “excellent correlations” between solar fluctuations, a relationship that historically, he says doesn’t exist between CO2 and past climate changes. According to Patterson, we shouldn’t be surprised by a solar link. “The sun [is] the ultimate source of energy on this planet,” he says…

</p>

<p>This next one is more technical and I don’t understand all of it, but included it because it seems to discuss another thing that affects global climate, Galactic Cosmic Rays.
[RealClimate[/url</a>]

Empirical evidence that Galactic Cosmic Ray fluxes impact cloudiness includes the recent paper by Harrison and Stephenson, rather unambiguously entitled “Empirical evidence for a nonlinear effect of galactic cosmic rays on clouds”, Proceedings of the Royal Society A-Mathematical Physical And Engineering Sciences 462 (2068): 1221-1233 Apr 8 2006.</p>

<p>Abstract: Galactic cosmic ray (GCR) changes have been suggested to affect weather and climate, and new evidence is presented here directly linking GCRs with clouds. Clouds increase the diffuse solar radiation, measured continuously at UK surface meteorological sites since 1947. The ratio of diffuse to total solar radiation-the diffuse fraction, (DF)-is used to infer cloud, and is compared with the daily mean neutron count rate measured at Climax; Colorado from 1951-2000, which provides a globally representative indicator of cosmic rays. Across the UK, oil days of high cosmic ray flux (above 3600 X 10(2) neutron counts h(-1), which occur 87% of the time on average) compared with low cosmic ray flux, (i) the chance of an overcast day increases by (19 +/- 4)%; and (ii) the diffuse fraction increases by (2 +/- 0.3)%. During sudden transient reductions in cosmic rays (e.g. Forbush events), simultaneous decreases occur in the diffuse fraction. The diffuse radiation changes are; therefore; unambiguously due to cosmic rays. Although the statistically significant nonlinear cosmic ray effect is small, it will have a considerably larger aggregate effect on longer timescale (e.g. centennial) climate variations when day-to-day variability averages out…

</p>

<p>Definition of “albedo” - the ratio of the amount of light reflected by an object and the amount of incident light; a measure of the reflectivity or intrinsic brightness of an object
[url=<a href=“http://www.envirolink.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=8902]EnviroLink”>http://www.envirolink.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=8902]EnviroLink</a> Forum • View topic - More on sunspots, supervolcanoes, GW, ice ages, and ELE](<a href=“http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/09/the-trouble-with-sunspots/]RealClimate[/url”>RealClimate: The trouble with sunspots)

…Technically, from an astro-paleogeologic glaciological stand point, the planet should be entering a phase of cooler temperatures from reaching maximum tilt of axis wobble and maximum ellipticity of orbit at near the same time. During this phase there tends to be albedo change from increased icecap and glacier sizes along with longer lasting snow cover. The ice age begins with that and the added albedo change from periodic super-volcano activity. Sunspot cooling cycles, and other sun heating decrease cycles play a part, in triggering increased albedo change. The volcano and sun activity cycles can either trigger the start or cause the changes within the ice ages we see in the geologic record from a variety of sources of observation of the distant and more recent past.
The ice age is supposed to begin but the methane release mechanism is stronger. The CO2 increase until oil depletion would delay the ice age 500 years, but the self sustaining methane releases are enough to even overcome supervolcano temporary albedo change cooling. It is also stronger than the freshwater influx effect of stopping the Gulf Stream which caused a mini return of the ice age to Northern Europe long ago. If both were to happen at the same time, which would require a Krakatoa or Yellowstone event much sooner than paleo-historic range, perhaps the cooling effect combo could stop the methane releases at a shallow enough ocean depth, and allow the long term albedo change of the ice age cycle.
Right now, with the rate of polar icecap melt and glacier melt, along with the rate at which the Gulf Stream is slowing down, this Northern European cooling event will happen in 100 years, 1400 years before Krakatoa and 1900 years before Yellowstone. The cooling event will correspond to high CO2 and methane levels, so probably will not be able to trigger the ice age, and the relentless methane increases with go to a greater ocean depth until the super volcano event, then the next. This would probably stop the warming at a depth in the oceans and temperature of Eocene Maximum minus 5*F or so. Still too warm for the ice age to start.
Gradual cooling from CO2 absorption and methane breakdown goes through what would “normally” be the entire glacial epoch and next interglacial. Perhaps longer.

</p>

[DougBetsy]

<p>Have you heard of Dec 21, 2012? That’s the day the sun’s orbit crosses the Milky Way’s “equator.” This happens about every 25,000 years, or so. </p>

<p>I’ve caught snippets of a theory that the Earth has been warming as that date approaches. And, as we put it behind us, the Earth will slowly cool. If I recall correctly (wish I could remember where I saw this) ice ages seem to occur at the midpoint of these 25,000 year cycles. </p>

<p>I don’t believe climate change can be blamed on any single cause, be it human, solar, or galactical. Multiple forces are involved - known and unknown.</p>

[ucsd_ucla_dad]

<p>Regardless of whether the earth is warming or cooling (and it’s sure to be doing one of the two), a significant question is - </p>

<p>Is society better off at the current global temperature, a somewhat warmer one, or a somewhat cooler one? </p>

<p>It seems to me that it would likely be better off at a slightly warmer one since a warmer planet would allow for more food production and support more life (contrast the ice age with the non ice age).</p>

[corranged]

<p>^ With even 1-2 degree temp increase, you would see lots of flooding in some areas, severe droughts in other areas, terrible storms. You’d even see drastic temperature drops in some places. (I had to take two classes at my college on climate change. ;))</p>

[ucsd_ucla_dad]

<p>^^ We already see severe floods, droughts, and storms now and always have. The difference would be that the location of these events would shift somewhat. However, looking at it as a whole, it seems that an overall slightly warmer globe would be able to produce more crops and hence support more people.</p>

<p>Since you ‘had’ to take a classes on ‘climate change’, which I think is strange, did you percieve it as biased one way or the other? Sorry, but the fact that you ‘had’ to take it leads me to believe they probably had an agenda and was therefore biased. I hope I’m wrong on this point. Sure, they can wave the arms with scare tactics regarding floods etc. (which, again, happens anyway), but did they somehow try to imply that we just coincidentally are at the perfect global temp right this minute and that any warming from this point would be negative or did they take an unbiased scientific approach to this question assuming it was discussed at all?</p>

[corranged]

<p>These specific courses weren’t required. They were just the easiest way for me to fulfill my science requirement for the physical sciences. One class rarely mentioned global warming and focused on ice ages and climate changes throughout the history of the world. The second course was more modern and was titled Global Warming. It’s biased if you see the debate as whether or not the world is warming, but that isn’t really being debated in science very much at this point. They were both science classes, so we focused a lot on the mechanics of temperature and climate changes (why? how? when?) as well as the impacts of a warming world (what would happen? at what temperature change? why?), all from a scientific perspective.</p>

[timely]

<p>What I see from looking at all these theories of climate change is that there are some very smart people who disagree with one another on which of the various factors is contributing to what. Yet, if one mentions that global warming may not be caused primarily by the human production of greenhouse gases, he is laughed at and treated like a moron. Maybe global warming is caused by that, or maybe we are in the process of shifting from global warming to global cooling. I certainly don’t know, but I’d like to keep an open mind about it.</p>

<p>Your classes sound interesting, corranged!</p>

[ucsd_ucla_dad]

<p>corranged:
That makes more sense that the courses weren’t required - just offered. Did either of the classes discuss the question I raised of whether the world’s ideal temperature would be the current one (or one a year ago, or 10 years ago, or 100 years ago), a cooler one, or a warmer one in the context of being able to feed the world’s population, etc.?</p>

[corranged]

<p>We didn’t really go into an “ideal” temperature, but we did talk extensively about the impacts on our world at +2, +3, etc degrees.</p>

[coureur]

<p>The fact that there are very few sunspots was well-known and predicted by the normal sunspot cycle. It’s been known for centuries that the number of sunspots rise and fall in an 11-year cycle. And 2008 was predicted be a sunspot minimum year. [Solar</a> cycle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunspot_cycle]Solar”>Solar cycle - Wikipedia). So the current lack of sunspots in not unexpected, and very likely has nothing to do with global warming or a new ice age.</p>

<p>Moreover, the organization linked in the first link in the first post appears to be a group dedicated to denying global warming.</p>

[Mr.Bojangles]

<p>We’re technically already in an ice age. The average global temperature throughout most of Earth’s history has been around 22 degrees Celsius while it is only a little above 12 degrees Celsius today. It’s fluctuated between these temperatures for all of Earth’s history, with the temperature of 22 degrees being the most prominent. As late as the Miocene, there were palm trees growing in Greenland and alligators living in Northern Europe due to Earth’s high (10 degrees Celsius higher than today) equilibrium temperature. Both climates are perfectly capable of supporting life as evidenced by the fossil record.</p>

[barrons]

<p>Yup, how else did all that oil get located in northern Alaska and Siberia. I still think we are in a normal movement cycle for temps and it could get much warmer or colder whether we (man) are here or not.</p>

[timely]

<p>

As late as the Miocene, there were palm trees growing in Greenland and alligators living in Northern Europe due to Earth’s high (10 degrees Celsius higher than today) equilibrium temperature.

At my grandmother’s ranch in the hill country of west Texas, there are seashell fossils all over the place. It’s very weird to think there was evidently once an ocean there.</p>

[timely]

<p>I thought this was a much clearer explanation of the relationship of sunspots to our climate.
[Sunspot</a> cycles may hold key to global warming, cooling « In These New Times](<a href=“http://inthesenewtimes.com/2008/05/26/sunspot-cycles-may-hold-key-to-global-warming-cooling/]Sunspot”>Sunspot cycles may hold key to global warming, cooling « In These New Times)

…Solar experts highlighted how sunspots, and associated magnetic storms on the Sun’s surface, affect Earth’s weather and climate. The previous (very strong) 11-year sunspot cycle, associated with the recent warmth, ended in 2007, after having peaked in 2002. The new cycle should have already begun, but hasn’t yet.</p>

<p>In the absence of sunspots, solar flares are minimal. Flares eject massive streams of electrons and protons outward from the Sun. A portion of this stream, called the “solar wind”, bathes our planet producing the aurora and interfering with communications. The solar wind, as it interacts with Earth’s magnetic field, also protects us from the harmful effects of cosmic radiation.</p>

<p>During periods of weak solar activity - as at present - cosmic rays (high-energy protons originating in interstellar space) penetrate through the troposphere and ionize oxygen and nitrogen molecules. The ions become nucleating sites for water vapor that condenses into clouds. And when sunspots are at a minimum, more clouds form and correspondingly more sunlight is reflected back into space. The enhanced reflectance (albedo) cools the Earth. We all have experienced how quickly the temperature drops when the sun ducks behind a puffy white cloud on a warm, dry afternoon.</p>

<p>Past cool periods, identified with the late stages of the “Little Ice Age” and with the Maunder and Dalton climate minima, closely correlate with low sunspot numbers (astronomers have kept close tabs on sunspots since Galileo’s time). Some solar-physicists are now saying if the current cycle doesn’t begin to produce spots soon, we can expect a cool-down like the 19th-Century Dalton minimum - or worse. Decades-long cooling in the past brought crop failures to Europe from repeated summer frosts and restricted growing seasons…

</p>

[emeraldkity4]

<p>At my grandmother’s ranch in the hill country of west Texas, there are seashell fossils all over the place. It’s very weird to think there was evidently once an ocean there.</p>

<p>my daughters marine science class found fossils at 7,400 feet in the North Cascades, on Slate peak.
( however- I am scared of heights and I closed my eyes)
[Cascade</a> Range - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascade_Range]Cascade”>Cascade Range - Wikipedia)</p>

[barrons]

<p>Is it possible those peaks were pushed up after they were underwater?</p>

[emeraldkity4]

<p>oh right- I didn’t mean to imply the fossils in the Cascades are a result of ice caps melting.
but still it is really cool .</p>

<p>*This diagram illustrates this convergence of the
two plates. The small Juan de Fuca plate is moving northeastward and then is subducted beneath the large North America plate that is moving westward. This convergence is at about 4 centimeters per year but was at a rate of 6-7 centimeters per year around 7 million years ago (USGS, 2002a). </p>

<p>As this denser plate of oceanic crust is subducted beneath the continental plate, it encounters high temperatures and pressures that will partially melt it. As this magma is created, some of it will rise to the surface in volcanic eruptions (USGS, 2002c). This is the process that has formed the chain of volcanoes now known as the Cascade Range (USGS, 2002a).*</p>

<p>[Historical</a> perspective [This Dynamic Earth, USGS]](<a href=“http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/historical.html]Historical”>Historical perspective [This Dynamic Earth, USGS])</p>

[coureur]

<br>

<blockquote>
<p>Is it possible those peaks were pushed up after they were underwater?<<</p>
</blockquote>

<br>

<p>Yes, it’s very likely. It’s also very likely that Alaska was located a lot farther south 100s of millions of years ago when the oil deposits were formed and moved north as the continents broke up and drifted apart. Not that I’m questioning that the earth’s temperature has risen and fallen over the eons, since clearly it has. But oil in Alaska is not necessarily proof that it once was very warm as far north as ANWR is now. Like the shells in the Cascades, the oil probably moved to its current location.</p>

[timely]

<p>I should have paid better attention in geology class.</p>

[emeraldkity4]

<p>I love Geology-the only science I had in high school was human biology- where we dissected frogs and learned about human reproduction.
( um we were 16? we knew everything already )</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.washington.edu/burkemuseum/geo_history_wa/Cascade%20Episode.htm[/url]”>http://www.washington.edu/burkemuseum/geo_history_wa/Cascade&#37;20Episode.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;