Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Russian scientist says Earth could soon face new Ice Age

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 02:24 PM
Original message
Russian scientist says Earth could soon face new Ice Age
http://en.rian.ru/science/20080122/97519953.html

Russian scientist says Earth could soon face new Ice Age

22/01/2008 14:31 ST. PETERSBURG, January 22 (RIA Novosti) - Temperatures on Earth have stabilized in the past decade, and the planet should brace itself for a new Ice Age rather than global warming, a Russian scientist said in an interview with RIA Novosti Tuesday.

"Russian and foreign research data confirm that global temperatures in 2007 were practically similar to those in 2006, and, in general, identical to 1998-2006 temperatures, which, basically, means that the Earth passed the peak of global warming in 1998-2005," said Khabibullo Abdusamatov, head of a space research lab at the Pulkovo observatory in St. Petersburg.

According to the scientist, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere has risen more than 4% in the past decade, but global warming has practically stopped. It confirms the theory of "solar" impact on changes in the Earth's climate, because the amount of solar energy reaching the planet has drastically decreased during the same period, the scientist said.

Had global temperatures directly responded to concentrations of "greenhouse" gases in the atmosphere, they would have risen by at least 0.1 Celsius in the past ten years, however, it never happened, he said.

...


Brace yourselves; I expect this will get a lot of coverage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
losthills Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 02:34 PM
Response to Original message
1. That's why they were first on the moon!
Oh, wait a minute.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Of course, they were first to put an artificial satellite in orbit
Edited on Tue Jan-22-08 02:57 PM by OKIsItJustMe
and first to put a living creature into space
and first to put a human being into orbit
and first to have two craft in orbit simultaneously
and first to put a woman into orbit
and first to put a multiple-person craft in orbit
and first to have a "space walk"
and first to put a space station in orbit, a program which they kept going for several years

But you're right. 40 years ago, we put a bunch of guys on the moon, and haven't been back since.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zbdent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 02:53 PM
Response to Original message
2. freeptards have found a second source to cite ...
as "proof" against global climate change ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Strelnikov_ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 03:39 PM
Response to Original message
4. And the backbone of Russias economic comeback is . .
Edited on Tue Jan-22-08 03:40 PM by loindelrio


. . along with a big side order of natural gas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jimlup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 07:13 PM
Response to Original message
5. Paper?
Apparently their is no peer reviewed science here. Just this one guy's speculation about solar cycles. Is there any basis in this solar cycle science?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 11:52 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. Some...
Here's some reading to get you started:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_minimum
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/294/5549/2149
http://edgcm.columbia.edu/outreach/showcase/maunder_minimum.html
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NasaNews/2001/200112065794.html
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=17460
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/climate-04zzd.html
http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/lassen1.html


However, the IPCC (WG-1) concluded that, while significant, solar variation has minimal influence compared to anthropogenic forcings:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter2.pdf
...

The combined anthropogenic RF is estimated to be +1.6 <–1.0, +0.8>2 W m–2, indicating that, since 1750, it is extremely likely3 that humans have exerted a substantial warming influence on climate. This RF estimate is likely to be at least five times greater than that due to solar irradiance changes. For the period 1950 to 2005, it is exceptionally unlikely that the combined natural RF (solar irradiance plus volcanic aerosol) has had a warming influence comparable to that of the combined anthropogenic RF.

...

2.7 Natural Forcings

2.7.1 Solar Variability

The estimates of long-term solar irradiance changes used in the TAR (e.g., Hoyt and Schatten, 1993; Lean et al., 1995) have been revised downwards, based on new studies indicating that bright solar faculae likely contributed a smaller irradiance increase since the Maunder Minimum than was originally suggested by the range of brightness in Sun-like stars (Hall and Lockwood, 2004; M. Wang et al., 2005). However, empirical results since the TAR have strengthened the evidence for solar forcing of climate change by identifying detectable tropospheric changes associated with solar variability, including during the solar cycle (Section 9.2; van Loon and Shea, 2000; Douglass and Clader, 2002; Gleisner and Thejll, 2003; Haigh, 2003; Stott et al., 2003; White et al., 2003; Coughlin and Tung, 2004; Labitzke, 2004; Crooks and Gray, 2005). The most likely mechanism is considered to be some combination of direct forcing by changes in total solar irradiance, and indirect effects of ultraviolet (UV) radiation on the stratosphere. Least certain, and under ongoing debate as discussed in the TAR, are indirect effects induced by galactic cosmic rays (e.g., Marsh and Svensmark, 2000a,b; Kristjánsson et al., 2002; Sun and Bradley, 2002).

...

Long-term solar irradiance changes over the past 400 years may be less by a factor of two to four than in the reconstructions employed by the TAR for climate change simulations. Irradiance reconstructions such as those of Hoyt and Schatten (1993), Lean et al. (1995), Lean (2000), Lockwood and Stamper (1999) and Solanki and Fligge (1999), used in the TAR, assumed the existence of a long-term variability component in addition to the known 11-year cycle, in which the 17th-century Maunder Minimum total irradiance was reduced in the range of 0.15% to 0.3% below contemporary solar minima. The temporal structure of this long-term component, typically associated with facular evolution, was assumed to track either the smoothed amplitude of the solar activity cycle or the cycle length. The motivation for adopting a long-term irradiance component was three-fold. Firstly, the range of variability in Sun-like stars (Baliunas and Jastrow, 1990), secondly, the long-term trend in geomagnetic activity, and thirdly, solar modulation of cosmogenic isotopes, all suggested that the Sun is capable of a broader range of activity than witnessed during recent solar cycles (i.e., the observational record in Figure 2.16). Various estimates of the increase in total solar irradiance from the 17th-century Maunder Minimum to the current activity minima from these irradiance reconstructions are compared with recent results in Table 2.10.

Each of the above three assumptions for the existence of a signifi cant long-term irradiance component is now questionable. A reassessment of the stellar data was unable to recover the original bimodal separation of lower calcium (Ca) emission in non-cycling stars (assumed to be in Maunder-Minimum type states) compared with higher emission in cycling stars (Hall and Lockwood, 2004), which underpins the Lean et al. (1995) and Lean (2000) irradiance reconstructions. Rather, the current Sun is thought to have ‘typical’ (rather than high) activity relative to other stars. Plausible lowest brightness levels inferred from stellar observations are higher than the peak of the lower mode of the initial distribution of Baliunas and Jastrow (1990). Other studies raise the possibility of long-term instrumental drifts in historical indices of geomagnetic activity (Svalgaard et al., 2004), which would reduce somewhat the long-term trend in the Lockwood and Stamper (1999) irradiance reconstruction. Furthermore, the relationship between solar irradiance and geomagnetic and cosmogenic indices is complex, and not necessarily linear. Simulations of the transport of magnetic flux on the Sun and propagation of open flux into the heliosphere indicate that ‘open’ magnetic fl ux (which modulates geomagnetic activity and cosmogenic isotopes) can accumulate on intercycle time scales even when closed flux (such as in sunspots and faculae) does not (Lean et al., 2002; Y. Wang et al., 2005).

...

The direct RF due to increase in solar irradiance is reduced from the TAR. The best estimate is +0.12 W m–2 (90% confidence interval: +0.06 to +0.30 W m–2). While there have been advances in the direct solar irradiance variation, there remain large uncertainties. The level of scientific understanding is elevated to low relative to TAR for solar forcing due to direct irradiance change, while declared as very low for cosmic ray influences (Section 2.9, Table 2.11).

...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NickB79 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 09:40 PM
Response to Original message
6. "the amount of solar energy reaching the planet has drastically decreased"
Edited on Tue Jan-22-08 09:41 PM by NickB79
In the past decade alone? I think not, at least not on a scale that means a damn.

I've never understood the Russian scientific community. They've produced some of the most intelligent minds we've ever seen, but also some of the most outrageous and laughable. Oddly enough, the politicos there have embraced the crazy ones with BS hypotheses more than the sane ones who's theories actually panned out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue May 07th 2024, 03:21 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC