Note that solarists believe in a 5 year lag for the effects. Some prefer to measure the length of the solar cycle rather than the height of the solar cycle. ftp://ftp.dsri.dk/pub/Henrik/FB/Friis-Ch...
Thus, it is difficult to get a consensus on whether the sun should be driving Earth's climate warmer or cooler right now.
2) A Bond event is a natural temperature cycle lasting about 1470 years http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond_event
with an amplitude of nearly 2 kelvins. Currently, we should be in the warming phase of the current Bond event for the next few centuries. http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/AGW/L...
Some people attribute this to a cycle in the Thermohaline Circulation. (2)
3) Political pressure has been blamed for bogus results and promotion of papers of a tiny number of "scientists" that generate a phony unprecedentedness of the current warming, http://www.geo.utexas.edu/courses/387h/P...
and many say continues still. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...
4) Legitimate errors caused by differences in opinion on how global warming should be calculated (4a) cause differences between data sets (4) even when they are based on exactly the same readings.
The fake warming emboldens politicos to do their worst. (5) The real warming has caused a sea level rise rate of about 1 foot per century.
Edit @Climate Realist:
Your "very slow" 95 thousand year cooling is not what Antarctic proxy temperature records indicate. Rather, they show that while an initial gradual cooling can happen, at some point a tipping point is reached, and temperatures rapidly drop 8 kelvins. We are over due for this rapid drop now. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EPICA_...
Edit2 @Climate Realist:
You should be careful when doing regression analysis (OLS) on cyclical signals. If you only run a few cycles, start near a peak and end near a valley, you introduce an unnatural bias toward a downward slope. To correct for this run a 132 month (the period of the 11 year cycle) moving average (mean), and do the regression analysis on that. You still get a downward slope, but it is an honest one. On the WoodForTrees link at the top of my answer, this result is the dark blue line.
Edit2 @Climate Realist: "... rapid change would show up as a vertical line."
The red line is just a moving average. The blue line is the data. Notice that there are many vertical blue lines. Here is a higher resolution of the same graph: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/co...
"In other words, the evidence does not support the hypothesis of regular Bond events."
The Bond events do vary in magnitude and period. This is true of all known climate temperature cycles. None of them are regular. However, checking the link I provided, the Bond events are obvious. The question is the reliability of the proxies for temperature.
Thanks for fixing your solar graph.
Edit3 @Climate Realist:
The concept is that temperature moves quickly over short periods of time, but reverses direction a lot. Over longer periods, a sustained drop requires relatively longer periods of time. (4) Thus, a drop of 6 kelvins in only 30 centuries between 141 thousand BP and 138 thousand BP is 0.2 kelvins per century average sustained over 30 centuries. On that scale, I consider that to be pretty rapid. Compare that to the recent sustained drop of 0.01 kelvins per century for the last 75 centuries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holoce...
The blue line shows many vertical drops of as much as 5 kelvins, but these reverse quickly.
There is a difference between what could drive global warming and what actually is driving current warming.
What could cause global warming
1. Earth's orbital variations.
Every 110,000 years, Earth's orbit and its axis line up in a way in which they cause dramatic snow melt in glaciated regions. The last time that happened was at the end of what is commonly called the last ice age, though more technically, it was the beginning of the current interglacial.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/co...
It is not the cause of the current warming. The warming due to the Milankovich cycles ended and the beginning of very slow cooling for the next 95,000 years was 6,000 years ago.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/co...
2. The Sun
The Sun does indeed have a profound impact on climate. High solar activity caused the Medieval Warm Period and contributed to the warming in the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century.
http://www.mps.mpg.de/dokumente/publikat...
But not recent warming.
See links below as I have to keep the number of links at 10 or less
3. Cosmic Rays
Ionizing radiation can seed clouds. But cosmic ray forcing is showing a downward trend
http://www.skepticalscience.com/cosmic-r...
4. The Crash of 1929
As investors who found out that they had nothing but IBM stock plummeted from windows, Industrial activity also plummeted. This resulted in only a slight reduction of carbon dioxide emissions, but since industry of that time was powered by coal, dramatic drop of sulfate aerosols. The aerosols recovered during the postwar boom, causing the cooling that lasted until the 1970s.
What is causing current warming?
When we burn hydrocarbons, they release carbon dioxide. Yes, carbon dioxide is essential for photosynthesis. Climatologists know that. But carbon dioxide also traps heat. Global warming is happening
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010...
And we are causing it
http://c1planetsavecom.wpengine.netdna-c...
And don't be deceived by the lie that global warming has stopped. The ten warmest years in the instrumental record are 2010, 2005, 2009, 2007, 2002, 1998, 2006, 2003, 2011 and 2012.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
NW Jack
Oops
I just noticed that the solar series which I used only goes back to 1979. Here is the corrected graph which does go back to 1969, 4x the 11 year sunspot cycle as I intended.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ss...
And the temperature series for quick comparison.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp...
No. On the time scale on your graph, of 800,000 years, any rapid change would show up as a vertical line. All the changes on your graph show a slope. Any change less than several thousand years does not show up on the graph because it does not have such resolution.
From your link about Bond events.
"For reasons that are unclear, the only Holocene Bond event that has a clear temperature signal in the Greenland ice cores is the 8.2 kyr event.[citation needed]
"The hypothesis holds that the 1,500-year cycle displays nonlinear behaviour and stochastic resonance; not every instance of the pattern is a significant climate event, though some rise to major prominence in environmental history."
In other words, the evidence does not support the hypothesis of regular Bond events.
I don't see any Vertical blue lines prior to 200,000 years ago. After that, the lines are too crowded to tell. This graph shows better resolution, but considerable uncertainty due to different proxies not quite producing the same result. However, there is no evidence that a full blown glaciation can happen suddenly.
one of the effects is us,we pollute the air,using your computer most likely pollutes the air most people have coal electricity which is a fossil fuel therefore it pollutes the air.another reason is the sun,we pollute the air causing a greenhouse effect on the earth,carbon dioxide bouces sun rays so when the sun shines on earth the rays bounce off the crust of the earth but when they go back up some hit carbon dioxide and come back down and the more we pollute,the more carbon dioxide in the air and the more greenhouse effect so in other words if we keep on polluting we will end up like venus,the hottest plant in our solar system
Human greed.
Human corruption.
AGW is a scam devised and maintained by evil people.
Ho cares
describe and discuss the main drivers of global warmingand how does it inflence or have impact on human population linking references and sources would be great but opinions and discussions are fine to.
