|
By:
dinarif50 feel free not to post if you find it boring. Yes we have had worse weather in the past 47 and 63 for starters.
|
|
By:
They said the little ice age was caused by the earth tilting off its axis in 15th 17th c by a few degrees causing severe winters in uk....i have not seen any reference how earth tilted back !!!!....any suggestions???
|
|
By:
people who fall for this global warming tax lark will be looked back upon in years to come as 'idiots' just like we look back & laugh at the 'idiots' who thought the earth was flat!
Trust me on this... its all a con. |
|
By:
I assume CO2 is causing the incredibly deep solar minimum too
|
|
By:
Don't animals create more CO2 gases than humans?
All you veggies... save the planet - eat an aminal ^^ Would make a good t-shirt slogan imo (C) :D |
|
By:
http://rense.com/general76/cow.htm
|
|
By:
next ad campaign will be to tell us to stop f@rting
|
|
By:
NAVILLUS more to the point what caused it to tilt in the first place. The earth does wobble, but this is over a period of 41000 years.It's not supposed to tilt one way for 200+ years and then just tilt back.Where did you read that it caused the little ice age?
|
|
By:
Lori there is no correlation between Sun spots and temperature increases. This is why they think it's CO2 because there is a stronger correlation and what else could be causing it?
|
|
By:
Sunset Cristo 04 Feb 16:03
Lori there is no correlation between Sun spots and temperature increases. This is why they think it's CO2 because there is a stronger correlation and what else could be causing it? You are having a laugh aren't you ? |
|
By:
No grendel I'm not having a laugh. If you have evidence that supports it, please provide it. I'm happy to be proven wrong.
|
|
By:
There's plenty of correlation. It doesn't appear to be the only factor, especially since about 1980, but there's lots of correlation.
|
|
By:
I posted in these forums several years ago that it will be proven that shipping is the major cause of global warming. While the pending proof is still to be published, I stand by that claim
|
|
By:
Also, it's highly likely that lack of sunspots caused the mini ice age, not some weird earth tilting.
As usual wiki is not to be trusted, but if you want to find other sources you won't struggle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation |
|
By:
Lori what is your source for your assertion?
|
|
By:
Why post a wikipedia link if you think they can't be trusted? Why do you think they can't be trusted?
|
|
By:
Sunset Cristo 04 Feb 16:03
This is why they think it's CO2 because there is a stronger correlation and what else could be causing it? tis you who should provide proof of this. the alleged link has been shown to be piffle. google climategate if you're still not up to date. |
|
By:
regarding wikipedia
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020515/climategate-the-corruption-of-wikipedia/ |
|
By:
If I could tell you that I could end the discussion quickly. It's a paper that's been pending a long time and likely will remain that way for some time yet due to the author having significanly more important matters to attend to. Rather than argue it, or even believe it, just remember it when it comes up. I'm happy to not argue that case as I have no proof that I can give you, and there's no way I'd believe it if the boot were on the other foot and you were telling me to believe some hocus pocus on your given word.
As to the sunspots, there are correlations, albeit small. Finally, if these feckers think I'm walking the last five miles of every journey to save the planet, they can think again. |
|
By:
Trevh:
THC is sustained primarily by the work of the wind and secondarily by tidal forcing. So basic are these considerations, in fact, that Wunsch (2000) categorically states "there cannot be a primarily convectively driven circulation of any significance." Moon Light 04 Feb 01:24 If that's the case, what is El Nino? Prof Stewart tells us that upwelling of warm water from the ocean deep causes reversal of the direction of the South Pacific trade wind at intervals of several years, in a long-term oscillation wich is quasi-stable. Were you meaning to say upwelling of cold water? http://www.windows.ucar.edu/earth/Water/images/sm_temperature_depth.jpg There is evidence from peer reviewed science that El Nino is driven by solar forcing (eruptivity not irradiance) via the auroral oval mechanism among other natural factors: "In order to prove that meridional flow changes into zonal flow as a result of auroral electrons and bremsstrahlung leading to an increase in temperature and pressure even in the troposphere, the relations between corpuscular (geomagnetic) activity and atmospheric pressure were statistically investigated in the northern hemisphere at the 500 hPa level. Correlation coefficients for daily, monthly and yearly values have confirmed that fluctuations in climate and weather including zonal and meridional circulations, blocking, invasions of arctic air and southern oscillation can be accounted for by the processes in the auroral oval." (Bucha and Bucha) |
|
By:
Sunset Cristo 04 Feb 16:42 Why post a wikipedia link if you think they can't be trusted? Why do you think they can't be trusted? Wiki in general cant be trusted. In this instance the article is fine, however if you don't trust wiki feel free to find more difficult articles that may be more to your taste. I provided the link as it's an easier reading version of what you'll find if you dig deeper. |
|
By:
This is one of the best lectures I've seen about Global warming.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI&feature=fvw |
|
By:
If you saw the Climate wars part two you will have seen that there is a strong correlation between co2 not sun spots and temp rising in the last 150 years. I admit this is not so if you go back hundreds of thousands of years using the ice core data.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TP9dbNkeAHw |
|
By:
TSI (total solar irradiance) is a totally different solar forcing than solar eruptivity (although often confused) which derives from the solar magnetosphere and solar wind and not the radiation (energy budget). This impacts on climate as the solar wind modulates high energy cosmic ray flux, which in turn affects low level cloud formation, and this results in changes in planetary albedo and hence climate.
Here is how the solar magnetosphere and solar wind forcing has changed since 1860 and alongside it is temperature. http://www.john-daly.com/aa-index.gif Note that the only temperature peak not attributed to solar is the exceptional 1940 to 1942 El Nino. Papers and articles referring to this describe the troposphere as being in an anomalous state. The 4 to 8 year lag time is shown from solar eruptivity to climate. The very high correlation, and correct order of events for causality i.e. solar first then temperature response, establish this as a cause-and-effect climate forcing and Svensmark's theory elaborates on the mechanism. -------------------------------- http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/04/solar-geomagnetic-ap-index-now-at-lowest-point-in-its-history/ The link above shows a discontinuity in the solar downturn that occurred October 2005. This and the continuing decline in eruptivity will work through to climate between now and 2013, though at present there is a moderate El Nino warming the troposphere. This will end some time next year. So overall the likelihood is that cooling will continue to 2013 and beyond, how far is not kown as solar data needs to be examined along with temperature data. As to what the temperature drop may eventually be, a report by Dr Archibald covers this. It's hosted on HM treasury website. http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/Solar_Cycles_24_and_25_and_Predicted_Climate_Response_22nd_October.pdf In that, he considers a weaker Solar Cycle 25 than 24 and considers cooling of 1.5 deg C (for comparison the current El Nino has boosted troposphere temperature by about 0.5 deg C since June/July). |
|
By:
Lori looking at the Wikipedia article the solar cycle variation graph goes up and down at regular interval. This is well known. How does this correlate to temp increasing since 1975?
|
|
By:
As I said oringally, there are stronger factors from around 1980 (argue about five years if you're that bored), it still doesn't mean there's no correlation. There is a correlation, it just isn't the overriding factor in that timespan.
|
|
By:
Trevh's links should clear up some of the confusion.
|
|
By:
Trevh why does that graph only go up to 1990? What about the last 20 years? There must be a more up to date graph? Will you explain why total solar Irradiance is not effected by sun spots. Or the lack of them.
|
|
By:
The deniers don't want you to look at recent data, as that is the data which is causing all the concern re man-made CO2. Older data is not very significant in this debate at all. This came out in the furore over a Ch4 documentary which was entirely biassed in favour of deniers.
|
|
By:
Sunset Cristo 04 Feb 18:24
Trevh why does that graph only go up to 1990? What about the last 20 years? There must be a more up to date graph? Will you explain why total solar Irradiance is not effected by sun spots. Or the lack of them. Solar irradiance is affected by sunspots. A spot is darker and radiates less, but when the Sun is active and spots are numerous and large the total activity level of the Sun means that overall irradiance increases. There is either forgetfulness or deliberate omission regarding the totally different solar forcing from solar eruptivity. Below is a more recent graph from Dec 2009 showing the Ap Index at an all time low. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/solar-geomagnetic-activity-is-at-an-all-time-low-what-does-this-mean-for-climate/#more-13917 ------------------- Low geomagnetic activity not only means fewer sunspots (less irradiance) but more importantly it results in reduced solar winds which results in increased cosmic ray flux. "Data from the Ulysses spacecraft, a joint NASA-European Space Agency mission, show the sun has reduced its output of solar wind to the lowest levels since accurate readings became available. The sun's current state could reduce the natural shielding that envelops our solar system." http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2008-178 |
|
By:
Moonlight what do you mean by recent data/old data? It's all relative.If you look at hundreds of thousands of years based on ice cores then co2 has been higher than it is today. Temp has been higher than it is today.Long before the industrial revolution. And over the last 8 years the temp has been level. According to the ipcc predictions it should be increasing expediently keeping in line with carbon omission increases.
|
|
By:
Trevh that gragh shows that the sun's activity level has decreased over the last 8 years. This does not correlate with temp. Over the last 8 years temp has stayed about level.Also from about 1980 temp increased and sun spot activity decreased so there is no correlation.
|
|
By:
Your understanding of the word correlation is the difficulty here. If something works for 500 years and fails for 20 it doesn't mean it's not correlated.
|
|
By:
So Lori are you saying that the suns activity correlates with temp until the last 20-30 years?
|
|
By:
I'm saying it's too small a sample size to tell, but given the data we have over hundreds of years then there's no reason to think it's stopped being a factor, there are clearly other factors at work as well that's all.
This is not difficult stuff, I'm not sure what your agenda is in muddying the waters, but it's reasonable to assume that the sun will have had a net cooling effect over the last decade and probably longer. Any model that describes why temperatures have risen over that period would be wise to factor in the likelihood of that factor. In a system with many things at work, you're not going to be able to pinpoint one and blame it for everything, in the same way that if you leave the fridge door open, it's not going to stop a fire from burning the house down. |
|
By:
How am I muddying the waters? I don't have an agenda. I'm just trying to find out what the evidence is so I can make up my mind.
|
|
By:
It's clear from the links you have been shown that sunspot activity is almost certainly correlated to temperature. If you're not willing to admit that then further discussion is futile because you're not going to find one factor that fits the temperatures exactly as there is more than one factor in the equation.
If you're looking for something that changes at exactly the same rate as the temperature, give up now. What you're going to need to do is to build up a list of factors that you can quantify at a reasonable level.... with sunspots you can do this. You can then add/subtract the required amount from the temperature charts and try to find other things that correlate. It's incredibly unlikely that sunspots have started to have a different influence to normal in the last 20 years, they're better understood than many of the other things being banded about. You can make life easier by adjusting for them before looking for other possible reasons for other changes. |
|
By:
Are you guys Australian or do you post all through the night lol?
Sunset, when you have time take a look at the link below, there's also some information explaining the logarithmic effect of CO2 on temperature near the end. http://westinstenv.org/wp-content/Solar_Arch_NY_Mar2_08.pdf Ps. It was nice to watch leader of the Aus opposition (Liberal) Tony Abbott slamming the MMGW scam in a 10 minute slot on BBC Newsnight last night. They also showed Monckton giving a presentation to a packed theatre in Melbourne. |
|
By:
I dont get a great deal of sleep from thurs thru sunday trev :D
|
|
By:
We were taught in school that trees take in Carbon Dioxide and give out Oxygen. Good for the planet, good for man.
Who thought they'd be stupid enough to cut down all the trees? Earth is going the way of Easter Island. Joni knew 50 years ago...They paved paradise...They took all the trees, put them in a tree museum...Short sighted business men. |