Scientists to IPCC: Yes, solar quiet spells like the one now looming can mean Ice Ages

IPCC algorithms in a nutshell

IF (its getting warmer)

THEN its an irreversible change due to human activity, NOT anything else.

ELSE IF (its getting colder)

THEN its entirely down to anything else NOT a broken IPCC model.

IF IsScary(SELECT(RANDOM(WeatherEvent)))

THEN its down to man made climate change

ELSE it's just 'weather'

IF(recommended_policy==solvesClimateChange)

denounce(policy)

ELSE {

praise(policy)

call(moreFunding)

add(staff)

produce New report();

continue;

}

Wood and trees, perhaps ?

Given that solar output oscillates wildly:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation

between 1365.5 and 1366.5 W/m2 - that is, about +/- 0.04%, it is not too surprising that climate scientists tend to focus on the 50% or so increase in CO2 levels, which contributes a forcing of around 2 W/m2:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Radiative-forcings.svg

And rising.

Two Questions ??

If the atmosphere is warming (irrespective of cause) woudn't it also be expanding and would that expansion be measurable ? (ie will the playmonaut have to ascend to a higher altitude to reach space)

I understand the mechanisn of the greenhouse effect (greenhouse gas being more opaque to IR than plain air). Does CO2 laden air have the same transparency as plain air on incoming solar radiation ?

These are genuine questions that I hope someone can answer

Headline, is, as usual bullshit.

No, "solar quiet spells" cannot cause ice ages.

"the coming solar minimum - and/or volcanic eruptions that may occur in coming centuries - though it might seem like a minor effect, could actually be quite capable of triggering another small Ice Age.."

No it couldn't.

Because the "Little Ice Age" wasn't an Ice Age. It was a cold period of the current Ice Age. Yes, we don't have to worry about the Earth entering an Ice Age because we're already in one and have been for about 2.6 million years.

short term versus long term

yes, greenhouse gasses influence the cliamte.

yes, solar activity influences the climate.

If the influence of solar activity masks the influence of the greenhouse gasses - as we can expect it will if the solar activity hit's it's cyclic minimum - then we'll see 'nothing much changes' for a short while...

And then:

When the solar activity inevitably ramps upwards again, and then greenhouse gasses are also pushing in the same direction, the climate will warm by 'a lot', and it will happen 'in a hurry'.

And by then it will be very difficult to do anything about it.

You guys like to say boffin a lot...

I think it all boils down to nobody really knowing what is going on, but they like to make people think that they do know.

Note that the senior author is Thomas Stocker who is co-chair of the IPCC.

Strange then that the IPCC would treat solar effects with such nonchalence.

Nevertheless and even though not a single climate model is able to predict a global cooling while carbon dioxide increases, the Lnadscheidt Minimum is here and we have at least 2 decades of cooling ahead of us.

"Using simulations on the CSCS supercomputer "Monte Rosa", the climate researchers searched for a feedback process that was capable of triggering the Little Ice Age1. As the driving forces of the climate, they applied volcanic eruptions and a weakening of solar radiation in their models. Although six slightly different starting conditions were selected for the simulations, every simulation initiated the same process: in the Barents Sea, the sea-ice masses grew and spread to the warmer sub-arctic area of the North Atlantic, where they melted. The freshwater inflow resulting from the meltwater altered the water stratification and thus the differences in density. As a result, the ocean convection, driven by the density differences, was weakened and less warm water was transported into the Nordic Seas, which in turn boosted the growth of sea ice. This so-called positive feedback process intensified the Little Ice Age especially in northern latitudes."

So

1) So climate skeptics are okay with climate models as evidence all of a sudden? Why the change?

2) The suggested mechanism involves a positive ice feedback. But climate skeptics tell us the climate is governed by negative feedbacks and that positive feedbacks are alarmism or unphysical. Again, why the change?

3) Arctic sea ice is in sharp decline, suggesting that this feedback is contributing to warming rather than cooling.

4) Climate skeptics have been predicting an ice age for almost 10 years now and yet there hasn't been any global cooling. If you expect the world to cool, but it doesn't, perhaps it's time to start thinking about what warming element might be in play in the background!