I believe the Earth has warmed over the 20th century. I also see from the graph that solar activity has a positive trend and a pretty good correlation to temperature. See, wasn't that fun?
Yes, I'd say solar activity peaked in the 60s in the 20th century (making your graph a very effective cherry pick) but there could be a lag in the effect on global surface temperatures. As we know, ocean currents and phases like the PDO do have an effect. Also the oceans have a higher heat capacity and warm and cool much more slowly than the atmosphere.
I going to go with the we don't know posture for now. Although, continuing lower solar activity and a negative PDO (and a possible negative AO) could very well spell cooling for decades. That's not an unreasonable guess. But it's a guess nonetheless much like the article in the question here.
"Consumption of all the world’s fossil fuels at any credible rate will not achieve a doubling of the current CO2 level and will increase world temperature by barely one-half degree Celsius. The achievable level of atmospheric CO2 is proportional to its release rate because its dilution by exchange with the land and ocean takes time. An instantaneous release is the worst case and if the entire world’s CO2 from fossil fuels were so released (impossible, of course) it represents an extreme upper bound to the CO2 level. And even that would achieve an increase of less than 3 degrees Celsius. Most significant, however, is the strong evidence that feedback from increased CO2 is negative."
It is ironic that the only substance on which all life on earth depends should be so demonized and that analyses such as this one should be required to dispel the misconception of its great potential for harm. It imparts a small contribution to overall greenhouse effect and greenhouse effect is a small contribution to the overall heat to the atmosphere. Also, its effect per unit CO2 addition decreases with each addition so it is physically difficult to achieve any significant effect.
------------------------------------
We know that the IP CC has changed "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" several years ago. They did this when they understood that warmer temperatures would cause more cloud formation (The planet's surface is over 70% water). More clouds mean a cooler surface temp. Since CO2 is a greenhouse gas and creates a warming effect, then we are "lost" in figuring how it really effects temperatures. Scientific "jargon" from the alarmists here may shed some confusion on the matter, but the science is very conclusive. They still don't know.
No, the observatory is not saying that - either on their website or through legitimate media outlets. And, contrary to the other lie that accompanies your cooling myth story, the Russian Academy of Sciences is not connected with and does not support this or other equally lunatic stories. It is not a coincidence that Denier-thought resonates so well with conspiracy-freaks.
Do Deniers base everything on stupid lies because they cannot find even one legitimate source of honest information on the whole Goddamn planet - or do they simply prefer to go with the lies because they are too stupid to do otherwise?
====
edit --
This may come as something of a surprise to you, but "individuals," "institutions," and "organizations" are not the same thing (you might want to look up the definition of each word to be sure).
Here is a quote by Yury from the article you reference:
""Solar activity is one of the most complicated scientific issues. And suddenly someone, who has never studied climate before, starts making statements. I want to stress that this theory is neither the official theory of the Pulkovo observatory nor of the Commission on Climate Changes Studies at St. Petersburg Research Center."
NOTE: Did you notice the part where Yury himself answers your question in the negative?
Here, try reading it again - and this time try to understand what it is saying:
" I want to stress that this theory is neither the official theory of the Pulkovo observatory nor of the Commission on Climate Changes Studies at St. Petersburg Research Center."
Don't worry about me. I live in real world and I am a climate scientist.
You, on the other hand, are a scientifically illiterate and poorly educated stranger to reality who lives in a fantasy world of lies and liars.
I'll return to the real issue: Why do Deniers lie about everything? Why do they feel no shame about being liars? Why do they prefer lying to to learning?
==========
edit --
You did not ask what Nagovitsyn thinks - you asked what the position of the Observatory was.
Here is the official statement on Global Warming by the Russian Academy of Science (which includes the Pulkovo Observatory).
http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/060720...
Do you have any evidence that their position has changed?
It's your damn question. What kind of person lies about their own question?
NOTE: That's a rhetorical question. We know who the liars are.
I thought that it was you "skeptics" who did not believe in climate models.
Solar activity has been waning for over 50 years.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ss...
I'm sure that you will say that solar activity is still high. That would explain why 2012 is warmer than 1812, but not why it was warmer than 1972
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/best/fr...
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ss...
Note how when we plot the BEST data all the way to 1800, it takes the form of a hockey stick.
That is completely wrong. 2010 was the first year with significant sunspot activity after 3 years with almost no Sunspots. I can end my graph at 2010
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ss...
Ottawa Maxx
For someone who loves to talk about a supposed "hiatus" of warming, which does't show up on GISS graphs, you were quick to post a graph of solar activity which ignores the fact that the activity peaked just beyond the midpoint of your graph.
Probably about 10 years, not 50 years.
http://www.mps.mpg.de/dokumente/publikat...
He is talking about decreases in solar activity and how solar input has been declining. The article, it looks like, is cherry picking statements and coming to it's own conclusion. You need to learn to pay attention to quotations in articles and look at the source rather than merely going off what the author believes. Further down in the article it is stated that Northern Sea Routes won't be hampered by a changing climate and, one is lead to conclude, that the melting of the Arctic will continue and interest in the oil up there will and is growing.
Edit: If you want to read the direct quotes and then read them don't come to you own conclusions based on those quotes. That is what you are doing and what you have always done. The article is talking about low solar activity, as has been spoken about before in here multiple times.
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predic...
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/sci...
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/201...
You rehashing old arguments where you have already been shown were false is pathetic and goes to show just how much you you actually want to learn about this subject. It's similar to your beliefs that evolution is false and the planet is 6500 years old.
Edit: I have to shake my head at you Maxx in disbelief. Your own article that you are using for an argument says something differently from what you yourself state.
Edit: Can you not read? I've already told you that it deals with solar output and change sin solar output.
You are wrong. Earth is becoming warmer each year therefore global warming is real. Greenhouse gases are the reason for the majority of the warming not the sun. Truth is there will never be another ice age in Earths history again because of Global warming.
There is no global cooling on the horizon. Well lets see. I am not convinced this guy is even a scientist. I don't see any credentials or a link to any kind of study. There are no scientific quotes The only thing resembling a quote starts out "Journalists say
And you go from telling us the Sun causes global warming and it is going to cause global cooling Good luck with that strategy
As long as CO2 stays where it is or increases global warming will continue.
"The share of solar activity in climate change is only 20%"
-- Yuri Nagovitsy
It helps to read the whole thing.
I'm not a big believer in Global Cooling or Catastrophic Global Warming. The Earth and Sun are going to do what they are going to do. It is obvious that CO2 is not having as great an effect on climate as the alarmist fear mongers have claimed though.
@Rolando..."What does this have to do with global warming?"
ROFL...Thanks. I just got up and I love starting my morning with a laugh.
cooling is not likely to happen, at best it would slow down the warming.
-----------------------
Dated: 22 April 2013
Scientists at Russia's famous Pulkovo Observatory seem convinced that the world is in for a period of global cooling.
Yuri Nagovitsyn of the Pulkovo Observatory, says:
"Evidently, solar activity is on the decrease. The 11-year cycle doesn’t bring about considerable climate change – only 1-2%. The impact of the 200-year cycle is greater – up to 50%. In this respect, we could be in for a cooling period that lasts 200-250 years. The period of low solar activity could start in 2030-2040 but it won’t be as pervasive as in the late 17th century".
Article is Here:
http://english.ruvr.ru/2013_04_22/Cooling-in-the-Arctic-what-to-expect/
-----------------------
