It's pretty obvious in an ice core when there's been melting and refreezing. There are other ways of dating an ice core besides counting the layers. For instance a large volcanic eruption may put down a layer of ash.
The link you cite was a prediction from 2009. This graph of the last two solar cycles shows that Solar Cycle 24 is not nearly as strong as Cycle 23 (which peaked in 2000). So why didn't we have a similar or even greater melt off back in 2000?
From the Wikipedia page on Cycle 24:
Predictions
NASA predicts that solar cycle 24 will peak in early or mid 2013 with about 59 sunspots. This would make it the least active cycle in the past one hundred years.[4] The International Space Environment Service predicts the cycle to peak at 90 sunspots in May 2013.[5]
Prior to the minima between the end of Solar Cycle 23 and the beginning of Solar Cycle 24, there were essentially two competing theories about how strong Solar Cycle 24 would be. The two camps could be distinguished by those believing the Sun retained a long memory (Solar Cycle 24 would be active) or whether it had a short memory (Solar Cycle 24 would be quiet). Prior to 2006, the difference was very drastic with a minority set of researchers predicting "the smallest solar cycle in 100 years." [6] Another group of researchers, including those at NASA, were predicting that it "looks like its going to be one of the most intense cycles since record-keeping began almost 400 years ago." [7]
The delayed onset of high latitude spots indicating the start of Solar Cycle 24 led the "active cycle" researchers to revise their predictions downward and the consensus by 2007 was split 5-4 in favor of a smaller cycle. [8] Consensus is now a small cycle as Solar Cycles are much more predictable 3 years after minima.
Also I have to say your comment, that it will be the Sun's fault, was predicted 6 years ago and here it is right on schedule.
If you examine the logistics it's basically impossible with any feasible technology to launch people into orbit faster than they are currently being born. Now if we get Star Trek transporters that may change.
Which one? The models keep getting changed every time the predictions fail to match what the climate is actually doing.
Are you saying we should just adapt one final climate model and refrain from improving it when new evidence comes along?
It appears you fundamentally misunderstand climate models, thinking they're statistical models doing curve fitting rather than the physical models that they are. Here's a couple of FAQ's to help enlighten you:
They think the Department of Energy has prevented more oil from being drilled in the US, ignoring the fact that there isn't enough oil in the US to supply our needs for more than a decade anyway. Of course when it comes to coal and natural gas the US is completely self sufficient.
Exactly right and it all started when Reagan dropped the top marginal tax rate from 74% (I think) to 28%. High marginal tax rates encourage high earners to put the money back into the business including pay raises. Higher pay for people with normal incomes means more money to be spent in the consumer economy.
Who said anyone wants to shut down the economy? How about just pointing it in a different direction, away from fossil fuels? But I guess you guys like your strawmen, don't you?
NASA doesn't record much temperature data that I'm aware of. That's the bailiwick of NOAA and the National Weather Service. In other countries their national weather services record the data. NOAA does maintain a worldwide database of temperatures, both raw and adjusted, through the National Climate Data Center and that's the data that NASA uses. The raw data the CRU deleted is still available from the original sources. No one had to start from scratch.
I see it differently. I've spent a lot of time looking into "climate science" and found that the "big research" like the IPCC all came from a single source, the CRU in England.
Oh please. That is demonstrably false. Have you ever even looked at the cites in the IPCC report (Hint: The references are at the end of each chapter). If you threw out everything the CRU ever did it wouldn't change the conclusions of climate science one bit.
Hmm... Let's see. The average adult male weighs around 70 kg (155 lbs) and has 40 liters of water. If we assume all 7 billion humans have 40 liters of body water (I know, an overestimation) then human bodies collectively have 280 billion liters of water in them. The oceans contain about 1,300,000,000,000 billion liters (1.3 billion km^3). That's something like 9 orders of magnitude difference.
There is a measurable amount of water stored in reservoirs but it's one of the more minor components of sea level. I'm not sure where we could put enough reservoirs to make a difference.
I'm sorry but I can't get much out of your graph. The Mann graph overlays the other so it's impossible to compare them. Don't make the mistake of extrapolating the Scandinavian data to the whole world.
Since the divergence only started in the 1960's and before that they track fairly well back to Medieval times it points to something besides temperature causing the divergence.
Slashdot Mirror
Last I heard they figure it's over 20,000 years before the next glacial period is due to start in earnest.
It's pretty obvious in an ice core when there's been melting and refreezing. There are other ways of dating an ice core besides counting the layers. For instance a large volcanic eruption may put down a layer of ash.
I read recently that statistically the heat wave in the Eastern US this year was 20 times more likely to occur with global warming than without it.
The link you cite was a prediction from 2009. This graph of the last two solar cycles shows that Solar Cycle 24 is not nearly as strong as Cycle 23 (which peaked in 2000). So why didn't we have a similar or even greater melt off back in 2000?
From the Wikipedia page on Cycle 24:
Predictions
NASA predicts that solar cycle 24 will peak in early or mid 2013 with about 59 sunspots. This would make it the least active cycle in the past one hundred years.[4] The International Space Environment Service predicts the cycle to peak at 90 sunspots in May 2013.[5]
Prior to the minima between the end of Solar Cycle 23 and the beginning of Solar Cycle 24, there were essentially two competing theories about how strong Solar Cycle 24 would be. The two camps could be distinguished by those believing the Sun retained a long memory (Solar Cycle 24 would be active) or whether it had a short memory (Solar Cycle 24 would be quiet). Prior to 2006, the difference was very drastic with a minority set of researchers predicting "the smallest solar cycle in 100 years." [6] Another group of researchers, including those at NASA, were predicting that it "looks like its going to be one of the most intense cycles since record-keeping began almost 400 years ago." [7]
The delayed onset of high latitude spots indicating the start of Solar Cycle 24 led the "active cycle" researchers to revise their predictions downward and the consensus by 2007 was split 5-4 in favor of a smaller cycle. [8] Consensus is now a small cycle as Solar Cycles are much more predictable 3 years after minima.
Also I have to say your comment, that it will be the Sun's fault, was predicted 6 years ago and here it is right on schedule.
If you examine the logistics it's basically impossible with any feasible technology to launch people into orbit faster than they are currently being born. Now if we get Star Trek transporters that may change.
It's a metaphor son.
Well you know, in most Republican minds D for Democrat is synonymous with Socialist.
Which one? The models keep getting changed every time the predictions fail to match what the climate is actually doing.
Are you saying we should just adapt one final climate model and refrain from improving it when new evidence comes along?
It appears you fundamentally misunderstand climate models, thinking they're statistical models doing curve fitting rather than the physical models that they are. Here's a couple of FAQ's to help enlighten you:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/11/faq-on-climate-models/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/01/faq-on-climate-models-part-ii/
Its not possible, there is NO peer reviewed science for AGW ... blah-blah-blah
Same AC (I assume) has made remarkably similar posts on other /. stories related to AGW. Probably best not to feed this troll.
They think the Department of Energy has prevented more oil from being drilled in the US, ignoring the fact that there isn't enough oil in the US to supply our needs for more than a decade anyway. Of course when it comes to coal and natural gas the US is completely self sufficient.
By that logic corporations should also be illegal.
Of course all we have is Zimmerman's story on what went down that night. He has an obvious self interest in presenting himself in the best light.
No but they get plenty of filler lava.
Exactly right and it all started when Reagan dropped the top marginal tax rate from 74% (I think) to 28%. High marginal tax rates encourage high earners to put the money back into the business including pay raises. Higher pay for people with normal incomes means more money to be spent in the consumer economy.
All progress runs on imagination. Otherwise there would be no progress.
I'm not against nuclear power per se but it is one of the most expensive ways to produce power.
Somehow I think you lack imagination.
Who said anyone wants to shut down the economy? How about just pointing it in a different direction, away from fossil fuels? But I guess you guys like your strawmen, don't you?
NASA doesn't record much temperature data that I'm aware of. That's the bailiwick of NOAA and the National Weather Service. In other countries their national weather services record the data. NOAA does maintain a worldwide database of temperatures, both raw and adjusted, through the National Climate Data Center and that's the data that NASA uses. The raw data the CRU deleted is still available from the original sources. No one had to start from scratch.
I see it differently. I've spent a lot of time looking into "climate science" and found that the "big research" like the IPCC all came from a single source, the CRU in England.
Oh please. That is demonstrably false. Have you ever even looked at the cites in the IPCC report (Hint: The references are at the end of each chapter). If you threw out everything the CRU ever did it wouldn't change the conclusions of climate science one bit.
Hmm... Let's see. The average adult male weighs around 70 kg (155 lbs) and has 40 liters of water. If we assume all 7 billion humans have 40 liters of body water (I know, an overestimation) then human bodies collectively have 280 billion liters of water in them. The oceans contain about 1,300,000,000,000 billion liters (1.3 billion km^3). That's something like 9 orders of magnitude difference.
There is a measurable amount of water stored in reservoirs but it's one of the more minor components of sea level. I'm not sure where we could put enough reservoirs to make a difference.
If the public schools student to teacher ratio was as low as they are in a home schooling situation you can bet they'd do better too.
I'm sorry but I can't get much out of your graph. The Mann graph overlays the other so it's impossible to compare them. Don't make the mistake of extrapolating the Scandinavian data to the whole world.
It makes more sense to express the National Debt as a percentage of GDP. Were the figures you referred to even adjusted for inflation?
How can Obama be responsible for FY 2008-2009 when he wasn't even inaugurated until January 20, 2009?
Since the divergence only started in the 1960's and before that they track fairly well back to Medieval times it points to something besides temperature causing the divergence.