<div>Paul et. al.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I am wondering if you can provide a reference to a scientific paper published in a well regarded scientific journal that documents a climate shift in paleoclimate history of a few degrees (!) of average global temperature (do you mean F. or C. or K?) in a few decades (!), due to variations in only solar energy input to the Earth? And I don't mean such changes due to volcanic activity or a asteroid strike, both of which of course can block solar energy input. I mean due to changes happening in the sun. If you can offer such a reference, I would be very interested in this data.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>A "few degrees" shift in a "few decades," in the global average temperature, is a gigantic and rapid climate shift. If our climate warms 2 degrees C. in the next century, this would induce very serious climate changes, making any currently observed climate change over the past century look small in comparison. The change in global average temperature (land and ocean combined, with land increase more pronounced, as climate change models predict) documented so far for the past 121 years is .74 degree C.:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html">http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#q3">http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#q3</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globtemp.html">http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globtemp.html</a></div>
<div>-------------------------</div>
<div> </div>
<div>What is very interesting, to students of climate science, is the fact that the solar energy impacting the Earth during the Paleocene/Eocene thermal maximum 55.5 million years ago, when the Earth had no polar ice caps, was lower than it is today. Solar radiation therefore is a questionable variable to explain why the Earth was so much warmer at that time, than it is now. Large scale methane releases from methane hydrates is one theory regarding what caused the Paleocene/Eocene thermal maximum, along with much higher CO2 levels.</div>
<div>-----------------------------------------</div>
<div>Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett<br> </div>
<div>Paul wrote:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><em>Not that I fall into the group you're discussing (nor would they<br></em>><i> probably want to count me as a member), but I was going post an article<br></i>><i> on the recent lack of sunspot activity and what that might mean for<br>
</i>><i> global climate anyway, so why not now?<br></i>><i><br></i>><i> <a href="http://www.montana.edu/cpa/news/nwview.php?article=5982">http://www.montana.edu/cpa/news/nwview.php?article=5982</a><br></i>><i><br>
</i>><i> The Sun goes through an apparent 11-year sunspot cycle, and is now in a<br></i>><i> lull between cycles when there is little sunspot activity. The odd<br></i>><i> thing, though, is that this latest sunspot cycle doesn't seem to be<br>
</i>><i> progressing as it should. We're in a two-year hiatus, with no idea how<br></i>><i> long it will be until the cycle starts again.<br></i>><i><br></i>><i> The reason this may affect the global climate has to do with the amount<br>
</i>><i> of radiation hitting the Earth. When there are more sunspots, there is<br></i>><i> more radiation output and the Sun heats us more than when it is<br></i>><i> quiescent and there is little sunspot activity. The "Maunder Minimum",<br>
</i>><i> which I've posted about before, was a period of around 50-years in the<br></i>><i> 1600's where there were few sunspots, which correlates with a period of<br></i>><i> relative cold dubbed the "Little Ice Age". As always, Wikipedia is your </i>><i> friend:<br>
</i>><i><br></i>><i> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_minimum">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_minimum</a><br></i>><i> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age</a><br>
</i>><i><br></i>><i> Just to ward off some pending comments, I'm not claiming that global<br></i>><i> warming isn't happening, I'm not claiming that there isn't an<br></i>><i> anthropogenic component, I'm not proposing that we do nothing or that we<br>
</i>><i> go burn some oil for heat, I'm not saying the world isn't on the brink<br></i>><i> of collapse politically, economically, spiritually, or culturally, your<br></i>><i> mileage may vary, opening the case voids your warranty, batteries not<br>
</i>><i> included.<br></i>><i><br></i>><i> What I will propose for thoughtful contemplation is this: the Earth is<br></i>><i> in orbit around a mass of fusing hydrogen that is 109 times the diameter<br></i>><i> of the Earth, and which dominates the Earth energy-wise. The Earth is<br>
</i>><i> mostly balanced energy-wise, meaning that small perturbations in the<br></i>><i> radiation output of this gigantic ball of energy can be enough to have<br></i>><i> catastrophic effects. The effects we are talking about with respect to<br>
</i>><i> global warming are small ones. We're not talking about "snowball<br></i>><i> Earths", the atmosphere burning, or the seas boiling. </i></div>
<div>>We're talking<br>>about a few degrees over a few decades in relative temperature >change.<br><br>keely emerinemix wrote:</div>
<div><br>> I can't wait 'til our Blogmeister friends announce gleefully that this<br>> is proof -- PROOF, I say -- that "global warming" is just a big scam<br>> wrought by sniveling, fear-mongering liberals.<br>
><br>> Moscow -- the bellweather for all weather and the standard of global<br>> climate science since the beginning of the Scientific Age.<br>><br>> Keely<br>><br> </div>