Experts offer scaled-back sea level rise forecast

Reuters ^ | Sep 4, 2008 | Will Dunham

[Straight Vermonter]

Wake me when the rise actually reaches 1 inch.

[ETL]

The sun is blank--no sunspots

The next sunspot peak is not expected until sometime around 2011 or 2012.

If you look at the chart below, you will see that sunspot activity (during solar maxes--the individual peaks) has been relatively high since about 1900 and almost non-existent for the period between about 1625 and 1725. This period is known as the Maunder (sunspot) Minimum or "Little Ice Age".

From BBC News [yr: 2004]:
"A new [2004] analysis shows that the Sun is more active now than it has been at anytime in the previous 1,000 years. Scientists based at the Institute for Astronomy in Zurich used ice cores from Greenland to construct a picture of our star's activity in the past. They say that over the last century the number of sunspots rose at the same time that the Earth's climate became steadily warmer."..."In particular, it has been noted that between about 1645 and 1715, few sunspots were seen on the Sun's surface. This period is called the Maunder Minimum after the English astronomer who studied it. It coincided with a spell of prolonged cold weather often referred to as the "Little Ice Age". Solar scientists strongly suspect there is a link between the two events - but the exact mechanism remains elusive."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3869753.stm

It's really hard to imagine how this little ball of fire could have any impact on our climate at all.

But the main arguments being made for a solar-climate connection is not so much to do with the heat of the Sun but rather with its magnetic cycles. When the Sun is more magnetically active (typically around the peak of the 11 year sunspot cycle --we are a few yrs away at the moment --apprx 2011 or 2012), the Sun's magnetic field is better able to deflect away incoming galactic cosmic rays (highly energetic charged particles coming from outside the solar system). The GCRs are thought to help in the formation of low-level cumulus clouds -the type of clouds that BLOCK sunlight and help cool the Earth. So when the Sun's MF is acting up (not like now -the next sunspot max is expected in about 2012), less GCRs reach the Earth's atmosphere, less low level sunlight-blocking clouds form, and more sunlight gets through to warm the Earth's surface...naturally. Clouds are basically made up of tiny water droplets. When minute particles in the atmosphere become ionized by incoming GCRs they become very 'attractive' to water molecules, in a purely chemical sense of the word. The process by which the Sun's increased magnetic field would deflect incoming cosmic rays is very similar to the way magnetic fields steer electrons in a cathode ray tube or electrons and other charged particles around the ring of a subatomic particle accelerator.-ETL

____________________________________________________

There's a relatively new book out on the subject titled The Chilling Stars. It's written by one of the top scientists advancing the theory (Henrik Svensmark).

http://www.sciencedaily.com/books/t/1840468157-the_chilling_stars_the_new_theory_of_climate_change.htm

And here is the website for the place where he does his research:
2008: "The Center for Sun-Climate Research at the DNSC investigates the connection between variations in the intensity of cosmic rays and climatic changes on Earth. This field of research has been given the name 'cosmoclimatology'"..."Cosmic ray intensities – and therefore cloudiness – keep changing because the Sun's magnetic field varies in its ability to repel cosmic rays coming from the Galaxy, before they can reach the Earth." :
http://www.spacecenter.dk/research/sun-climate

100,000-Year Climate Pattern Linked To Sun's Magnetic Cycles:
ScienceDaily (Jun. 7, 2002) HANOVER, N.H.
Thanks to new calculations by a Dartmouth geochemist, scientists are now looking at the earth's climate history in a new light. Mukul Sharma, Assistant Professor of Earth Sciences at Dartmouth, examined existing sets of geophysical data and noticed something remarkable: the sun's magnetic activity is varying in 100,000-year cycles, a much longer time span than previously thought, and this solar activity, in turn, may likely cause the 100,000-year climate cycles on earth. This research helps scientists understand past climate trends and prepare for future ones.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/06/020607073439.htm

From a well-referenced wikipedia.com column (see wiki link for ref 14):
"Sunspot numbers over the past 11,400 years have been reconstructed using dendrochronologically dated radiocarbon concentrations. The level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional — the last period of similar magnitude occurred over 8,000 years ago. The Sun was at a similarly high level of magnetic activity for only ~10% of the past 11,400 years, and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode.[14]"

[14] ^Solanki, Sami K.; Usoskin, Ilya G.; Kromer, Bernd; Schüssler, Manfred & Beer, Jürg (2004), “Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years”, Nature 431: 1084–1087, doi:10.1038/nature02995, . Retrieved on 17 April 2007 , "11,000 Year Sunspot Number Reconstruction". Global Change Master Directory. Retrieved on 2005-03-11.

"Reconstruction of solar activity over 11,400 years. Period of equally high activity over 8,000 years ago marked.
Present period is on [the right]. Values since 1900 not shown."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation

[qam1]

Worldwide sea levels may rise by about 2.6 to 6.6 feet by 2100 thanks to global warming

Good trick since sea levels have been falling for about 3 years now

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

They are apparently so embarrassed by this, they stopped publicly updating their numbers since March

[Dutchboy88]

That’s right, I forgot, they are going to be at sea level!! Okay, now I can go back to work. That was close.

[ravinson]

Pfeffer and scientists at the University of Montana and the University of California at San Diego came up with an estimate of a sea level rise of about 2.6 feet. But their calculations using a "realistic worst-case scenario" produced a predicted rise of 6.6 feet, Pfeffer said.

Even an increase in that range would likely cause major problems in low-lying coastal areas that are home to untold millions of people, he said.

Typical leftist spin, but at least now those "untold millions" have been officially warned by the champions of the War on CO2 that they have over 91 years to move to slightly higher ground.

If that's a "climate crisis" then so is any rainy day to the green clowns.

[Wally_Kalbacken]

I just moved to Boca Raton, FL. In 2100, I’ll be 143 years young. I’ll take the risk!

[Post Toasties]

Well, I’m still holding to the 6 to 9 inches increase by 2100AD that I’ve been predicting for the last 15 years.

[decimon]

In 2100, I’ll be 143 years young.

Do bones float?

[JustDoItAlways]

The current 3 mm per year rise in sea level, if it continued for another 92 years (to 2100), would only be a rise of 1 foot.

So all these models of 2.6 feet to 6.6 feet by 2100 assume that sea level rise will accelerate by 3 to 10 times more than has occurred for several decades now.

Al Gore and James Hansen are assuming it will accelerate to 30 times faster than is currently occurring.

(I should note that some consider even the 3 mms per year is exagerated since the satellite measurements are calibrated to several sea level gauges which are carefully chosen by the warmers to come from areas where the land is subsiding so artifically increases the sea level rise measured and calibrated.)

I will state that again - 3 mm per year is only 1 foot per century. BFD.

[decimon]

So all these models of 2.6 feet to 6.6 feet by 2100 assume that sea level rise will accelerate by 3 to 10 times more than has occurred for several decades now.

Yeah, I've seen that accelerating rise theory. Someone needs to keep on them about timelines because there has to be some point in time where we can say that nothing is happening.

[relictele]

Panic is ALWAYS unrealistic.

And making policy based on panic is folly.

Now, fasten your seat belt and wait to drive through the checkpoint.

[Matchett-PI]

Out of their own mouths they exposed their agenda long ago. Why they still think they have any credibility with those capable of critical thought, is inexplicable.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2047988/posts?page=9#9

[DaveArk]

OK, it’s warming. (I know it’s not, bare with me.)

It is a proven fact that the earth cools naturally whenever a big mountain blows its top, Krakatau, Pinatubo, etc. The science is simple, all that soil in the upper atmosphere blocks the sun and we cool.

We have no need to inconvenience everyone with restrictions of their energy usage. Energy is what makes us powerful and allows all the libs to live in the cities and boy did they holler when NY and LA lost power.

I propose we take a bunch of sand out of the Sahara and put it in the upper atmosphere.

Instant Global Cooling (IGC).

Only two questions:

At what temperature do we start?

At what temperature do we stop?

I say we start right away.

If the earth were cooler, the Ice Road truckers would have 6 months to get all that stuff up there instead of three.

If the earth were cooler, the ocean levels would drop, more land would be available so we wouldn’t need birth control to control the population.

I’m sure my fellow freepers can think of many others.

Let’s promote IGC as the cure for AGW.

/s

[SunkenCiv]

· join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic ·

[gleeaikin]

Whatever the case for climate change, the case for not giving our wealth to oil rich enemies and non-friends is very real. We really need to get self-sufficient in energy.

[gleeaikin]

You are right that the CO2 change seems to follow the temperature change for the past 400,000 years, except for the very recent time. Now it is almost double what it has ever been for the past 400,000 years and is way above the temperature measure. It is hard to know what that may portend.

More important may be the fine particulate pollution, which was part of the problem the Chinese attempted to control during the Olympics. The terrible Sahel drought of the 70’s may have been caused by European pollution, which has since been cleared up to a considerable extent.

[ETL]

You are right that the CO2 change seems to follow the temperature change for the past 400,000 years, except for the very recent time. Now it is almost double what it has ever been for the past 400,000 years and is way above the temperature measure. It is hard to know what that may portend.

You apparently didn't read very carefully. The geologic record shows that there were times in Earth's past when CO2 levels were MUCH higher than what they are now. One such period occurred during a major ice age! CO2 levels at the time were approximately 15 times what they are today. During another very cool period, the levels were about 10 times as high. Moreover, when naturally rising temps caused CO2 to be released from warming oceans, it never significantly increased temperatures further, the so-called "Runaway Greenhouse Effect". Now if we're talking about the planet Venus, that is an entirely different story. There is most definitely a runaway greenhouse effect going on there. However, the atmosphere of Venus is comprised of roughly 97% CO2! The current percentage on Earth? 0.038%!!! That is nothing! Please read my earlier post again.

[gleeaikin]

I wasn’t “reading”, I was “looking” at the chart for the past 400,000 years. I know there were earlier ages when the CO2 level was higher, but I think we need to be most concerned with information from the cycle we are currently a part of and what it might mean for our future.

[gleeaikin]

Comment ping for great sun energy charts

[steelyourfaith]





Beam me to Planet Gore !