Coldest inhabited place on Earth is baking in record heat
accuweather.com
accuweather.com
'INCREASING CHANCE OF FLARES: When the week began, sunspot AR2835 was big. Now it's really big. The active region has nearly doubled in size over the past 24 hours. Now twice as wide as Earth, its primary dark core is inset in this magnetic map from NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory'
'
"Do sunspots increase temperature?
This means that more sunspots deliver more energy to the atmosphere, so that global temperatures should rise. "
[1] http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap02/sunspots.ht...
Also, the author of that page directly contradicts your implication that sunspot activity is a relevant factor in the observed global heating of recent decades [1]:
> The global mean temperature trend between 1975-1997, and even regional variations in this trend, can be explained very well by observed changes in greenhouse-gas concentrations (3), in other words greenhouse gas emissions are by far the leading cause of climate change during the last quarter of the 20th century.
[1] http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap06/clim_expl.h...
In answering the original commenter, I wanted to do research and see if the poster had a valid concern. I found nothing newer that ruled out sunspots as a contributor to warming. Maybe I missed something. However, I don't treat old research as less informative unless it has been disproven.
I don't think that is the case here.
> there has been no significant net change in the Sun’s energy output from the late 1970s to the present, which is when we have observed the most rapid global warming
> if the Sun’s energy output had intensified, we would expect all layers of Earth’s atmosphere to have warmed. But we don’t see that. Rather, satellites and observations from weather balloons show warming in the lower atmosphere (troposphere) and cooling in the upper stratosphere (stratosphere)—which is exactly what we would expect to see as a result of increasing greenhouse gases trapping heat in the lower atmosphere. Scientists regard this piece of evidence as one of several “smoking guns” linking today’s global warming to human-emitted, heat-trapping gases.
Watching macro space weather is a good predictor of events here.
If sunspot activity is a meaningful driver of global mean temperature, why is global mean temperature increasing steadily [2], while sunspot activity has maintained its 11-year cycle [1]?
[1] https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/couldnt-sun...
[2] https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/...
The Maunder Minimum and thousands of years of data are worth considering in the context of earth's relation to the sun.
Grand Solar Minimums like the Maunder Minimum are a different beast from the shorter-term 11-year solar cycle, so I'm not sure why you brought up the former. Also, the Maunder Minimum is not the only (or the biggest) contributor to the Little Ice Age, if that's what you're implying. If another Grand Solar Minimum were to arrive, it'd only offset the equivalent of 3 years of current CO2 concentration growth: https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2953/there-is-no-impending-min...
11 year solar cycles are a split second moment in time in comparison to the longer term data which is so often cherry picked and truncated to illustrate various agendas, whether dishonest globalist energy corporate entities or climate alarmists. I'm all for responsible stewardship of the planet, but there i s no shortage of climate grifters, charlatans and hustlers out there, many of whom are actually influencing government policy and data. Unhelpful.
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/08/08/usa-temperature-can-...
https://www.reddit.com/r/ClimateOffensive/comments/cm9l2q/to...
You and I agree on one thing: there certainly is no shortage of climate grifters, charlatans, and hustlers out there. Some days I feel social media was a mistake.
Though I try to take charitable view on this site, I sense from your repeated avoidance of substantive discourse that you never intended to engage in that in the first place. Happy to be proven wrong, though!
Interesting opinions but nothing very substantial, more character assassination than 'substantive discourse'. Do you have any ideas of your own on this other than other people's posted light weight rebuttals? you seem to be unsure about contexts and timeframes...
Away from temperature stabilizing ocean water, you get extreme temperatures.
I wanted to explain why it's not that surprising that a very cold place also gets very hot.
It's also why the recent 116°F/47°C day in Portland, just 40 miles from the Pacific, surprises me a more!
At the Mediterranean coast, you get temps from 10-15C to 33C at the Eastern one and over 40C at the Southern one.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/flood-warnin...
They'll never have less than about three hours of sunlight in the winter and never less than three hours of night in the summer. It might be considerably more depending on the landscape. Even a small hill can cast a long shadow when the sun is that low.
Again last night I had that strange dream
Where everything was exactly how it seemed
No concerns about the world getting warmer
People thought that they were just being rewarded
For treating others as they'd like to be treated
For obeying stop-signs and curing diseases
For mailing letters with the address of the sender
Now we can swim any day in November
Even if we do everything wrong and burn all the fossil fuels that exist on this planet (releasing enough CO2 to make us noticeably dumber as well as melting all the ice caps and glaciers), that’s unlikely to knock us back further than the dawn of agriculture, when we had a population of 1-10 million, compared to the population bottleneck possibly caused by the Toba catastrophe when there were 1-10 thousand of us.
Even if you take us back down to 10,000 humans, way worse than you should expect even in a nuclear war, after one or two hundred thousand years the CO2 will be gone. We’d get back up to at least as far as the early Industrial Age in a relative blink of an eye, though further than that would require a different path, one without fossil fuels, because those wouldn’t have regenerated over that period.
https://www.xprize.org/prizes/elonmusk
https://scied.ucar.edu/learning-zone/climate-change-impacts/...
None of these tipping points are considered very likely to occur over the next several decades.
A recent report confirms that ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica, whose mass-loss rates have been rapidly increasing, are matching the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's worst-case sea-level rise scenarios.
"For near-term time horizons, we think it's actually the best choice because it matches cumulative emissions. What happened over the last 15 years has been about exactly right compared to what was projected by RCP 8.5." That holds especially true for medium-term planning through 2050.