re: 2014 May = warmest on record.

quote:

---

Well, yeah.

---

you are missing my point.

obviously the sun is essential to life and the climate on earth. What I am talking about is fluctuations in it's activity can have an impact on how the earth acts.

take this analogy.

A store owner is dependent on coustomers to come into his store to be successful.

On a yearly basis the amount of costumers in and out of his store come in cycles. During the summer months it is full of activity, during the winter months still some activity but not much. Now let's say all of a sudden over a 5 year period the cycle decrease and less and less people come into his store, he won't make as much money. Compared to another cycle where in 5 years more and more people come into the story he will make more money. He has a steady flow of customers every year but depending on certain factors his story may be more or less active on a year to year basis.

What I'm trying to say the Sun will continue for millions of years if not billions (i don't remember the life expectancy of the sun before it becomes a red giant) but the sun goes through natural cycles. At one end of the cycle the sun is very active while on the other end of the cycle it is very inactive. Now these cycles lead to a trend. Sometimes when you draw a line of best fit you will see that each cycle is getting either more active on average or less active. Sometimes the sun becomes so inactive that there are no cycles.

What I'm wondering is how does the sun cycle have an impact on the climate of the earth. Does a maximum period cause the earth temperature to raise? Does a minimum period cause the earth's temperature to decrease? We obviously have the green house effect chemicals in the earth's atmosphere which increase that will also have an impact, but so can the sun.

I guess this is the best way to say it.

co2 and the sun's activity are two affects on the earth climate out of hundreds the question is when it comes to the earth's average temperature what has a bigger impact the relative activity of the sun or the amount of co2 in the atmosphere?

scruffy this post confuses me. What are you trying to ask?

quote:

---

1. So what, we believe in evolution; we will evolve to deal with the new temps or species come and species go no big deal right?

---

History teaches us through mass extinction events of the past that life cannot adjust to rapidly changing conditions very well.

quote:

---

May 2014 is officially the warmest May in recorded history

---

Not where I live.

quote:

---

ok what is clear is that the greenhouse effect has an impact on the earth's climate there is not doubt about this. It is just the way he phrased it made it sound like the sun has no impact.

---

The way he phrased it made it sound like the sun wasn't responsible for the recent upward trend - and its no coincidence he phrased it that way - because that's the reality.

quote:

---

What I find interesting is that recently the sun has become a lot less active than people thought it would be and all of a sudden of the past 14 years our earth slowed it's warming trend and now all of a sudden it isn't warming like it was in the 80s and 90s.

---

That may be true - except that the sun's output has been going down since 1987 - yet the Earth continued to warm after 87. LINK

So the warming that occurred after 87 can't possibly be due to the Sun - since the Sun's output peaked in 87.

quote:

---

he way he phrased it made it sound like the sun wasn't responsible for the recent upward trend - and its no coincidence he phrased it that way - because that's the reality.

---

really....do you have a link fakecist?

quote:

---

History teaches us through mass extinction events of the past that life cannot adjust to rapidly changing conditions very well.

---

Even the most alarmist of AGW predictions are not rapidly changing conditions. As I said in the other thread, if we as a species cannot adapt to a 1.7 degree temperature change over 100 years, we suck as a species.

quote:

---

CO2 emissions will eventually drop to ~0 (manmade, anyway), with no action, as you suggest.

So, now we're talking only about the delta - the costs of the measures proposed - minus the damage caused by inaction.

And you can't even remotely put a number on that. Because you don't understand the concept of present value and you certainly don't understand the concept of opportunity costs.

You don't understand economics at all - which is a big reason you get into trouble in these threads.

---

"opportunity cost" is the latest code word for "I think I am sooooooo smart"



I'm not seeing what exactly you've done to cause anyone to believe you understand economics at all.

quote:

---

Please do tell.

---

From the heavily partisan-hack group "National Geographic"

quote:

---

For tens of millions of years, Earth's oceans have maintained a relatively stable acidity level. It's within this steady environment that the rich and varied web of life in today's seas has arisen and flourished. But research shows that this ancient balance is being undone by a recent and rapid drop in surface pH that could have devastating global consequences. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution in the early 1800s, fossil fuel-powered machines have driven an unprecedented burst of human industry and advancement. The unfortunate consequence, however, has been the emission of billions of tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases into Earth's atmosphere.

Scientists now know that about half of this anthropogenic, or man-made, CO2 has been absorbed over time by the oceans. This has benefited us by slowing the climate change these emissions would have instigated if they had remained in the air. But relatively new research is finding that the introduction of massive amounts of CO2 into the seas is altering water chemistry and affecting the life cycles of many marine organisms, particularly those at the lower end of the food chain.

Carbonic Acid

When carbon dioxide dissolves in this ocean, carbonic acid is formed. This leads to higher acidity, mainly near the surface, which has been proven to inhibit shell growth in marine animals and is suspected as a cause of reproductive disorders in some fish.

On the pH scale, which runs from 0 to 14, solutions with low numbers are considered acidic and those with higher numbers are basic. Seven is neutral. Over the past 300 million years, ocean pH has been slightly basic, averaging about 8.2. Today, it is around 8.1, a drop of 0.1 pH units, representing a 25-percent increase in acidity over the past two centuries.

Carbon Storehouse

The oceans currently absorb about a third of human-created CO2 emissions, roughly 22 million tons a day. Projections based on these numbers show that by the end of this century, continued emissions could reduce ocean pH by another 0.5 units. Shell-forming animals including corals, oysters, shrimp, lobster, many planktonic organisms, and even some fish species could be gravely affected.

Equally worrisome is the fact that as the oceans continue to absorb more CO2, their capacity as a carbon storehouse could diminish. That means more of the carbon dioxide we emit will remain in the atmosphere, further aggravating global climate change.

Scientific awareness of ocean acidification is relatively recent, and researchers are just beginning to study its effects on marine ecosystems. But all signs indicate that unless humans are able to control and eventually eliminate our fossil fuel emissions, ocean organisms will find themselves under increasing pressure to adapt to their habitat's changing chemistry or perish.

---

LINK


Interesting that a drop in the pH scale of .1 equates to a 25% increase in acidity (im not a scientist - obviously)