General Betting
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
03 Feb 10
01:47
Joined:
Date Joined:
21 Jul 07
Scotland has just had it's coldest January since records began. Need I say more?
Show More
Why post a wikipedia link if you think they can't be trusted? Why do you think they can't be trusted?
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.
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.
regarding wikipedia
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020515/climategate-the-...
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020515/climategate-the-...
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.
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.
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)
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)
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.
This is one of the best lectures I've seen about Global warming.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI&feature=fvw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI&feature=fvw
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
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TP9dbNkeAHw
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...
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).
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...
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).
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
So Lori are you saying that the suns activity correlates with temp until the last 20-30 years?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I dont get a great deal of sleep from thurs thru sunday trev :D
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.
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.
Sunset Cristo 05 Feb 02:58
Moonlight what do you mean by recent data/old data?
A saw a scientist being interviewed on TV who had been lionised by Dubya and the Republican Thatcherite Senators for his scepticism about MMGW. He was quite peeved that the Rightists were still quoting his paper at an international conference several years later, when he had completely changed his views based on the accumulation of data since he originally wrote it, and is now a MMGW believer.
The people who are generating all this political heat for the IPCC are Thatcherite party hacks and oil company executives. They will say absolutely anything! In other parts of the world they are quite accustomed to killing anyone who gets in the way of money-making (eg Iraq, Niger Delta) They won't stick at nobbling a few scientists.
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.
I don't see the relevance of that. I don't actually have access to the ice cores anyway :D
And over the last 8 years the temp has been level.
Not acc to the Met Office website. I posted their rebuttal up on here a few weeks ago.
The price you have to pay to understand and contribute to this debate is to spend several years studying theoretical physics and then get access to millions of £ of computer equipment. No-one on here has paid their dues.
The most determined posters on this topic show no evidence of a science education at all, and frequently fail to understand the significance of all the stuff they relentlessly cut and paste.
Did they have any interest in physics at all prior to this controversy breaking out?
Scientists don't have higher ethical levels than any other occupational group, and are extremely susceptible to financial persuasion. They are wheeled on like gladiators in criminal trials.
So I don't think you or I will get to the bottom of this. I am sure that Big Oil won't let a bunch of cheeky scientists put a dent in their income without taking fairly drastic steps to prevent it.
Moonlight what do you mean by recent data/old data?
A saw a scientist being interviewed on TV who had been lionised by Dubya and the Republican Thatcherite Senators for his scepticism about MMGW. He was quite peeved that the Rightists were still quoting his paper at an international conference several years later, when he had completely changed his views based on the accumulation of data since he originally wrote it, and is now a MMGW believer.
The people who are generating all this political heat for the IPCC are Thatcherite party hacks and oil company executives. They will say absolutely anything! In other parts of the world they are quite accustomed to killing anyone who gets in the way of money-making (eg Iraq, Niger Delta) They won't stick at nobbling a few scientists.
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.
I don't see the relevance of that. I don't actually have access to the ice cores anyway :D
And over the last 8 years the temp has been level.
Not acc to the Met Office website. I posted their rebuttal up on here a few weeks ago.
The price you have to pay to understand and contribute to this debate is to spend several years studying theoretical physics and then get access to millions of £ of computer equipment. No-one on here has paid their dues.
The most determined posters on this topic show no evidence of a science education at all, and frequently fail to understand the significance of all the stuff they relentlessly cut and paste.
Did they have any interest in physics at all prior to this controversy breaking out?
Scientists don't have higher ethical levels than any other occupational group, and are extremely susceptible to financial persuasion. They are wheeled on like gladiators in criminal trials.
So I don't think you or I will get to the bottom of this. I am sure that Big Oil won't let a bunch of cheeky scientists put a dent in their income without taking fairly drastic steps to prevent it.
We have and will continue to have differing types of weather. Back in a day people excepted it and got on with it. Now if it gets a bit warm people cry 'global warming!', if it gets a bit nippy people cry 'climate change!' Its just weather.
If I've walked into some political debate here, you can keep it. Just googled "global warming cover up" and it seems that there's all kinds of crap I hadn't heard about that's almost completely irrelevant to the discussion but is going to get people's backs up. As always with political matters, it makes the discussion futile.
And over the last 8 years the temp has been level.
Moon Light:
Not acc to the Met Office website. I posted their rebuttal up on here a few weeks ago.
Head of the Met Office John Hirst was interviewed live on BBC News a couple of weeks back, and asked why his multi-million pound climate models had predicted a barbecue summer last year and a mild winter this year! He was then asked why the models hadn't predicted no rise in global temperatures over the last decade, his flustered reply "they did predict no rise". He actually said it 3 times when pushed on that point by interviewer Andrew Neil.
The head of the Met office is a proven liar and it's on BBC footage.
Moon Light:
Not acc to the Met Office website. I posted their rebuttal up on here a few weeks ago.
Head of the Met Office John Hirst was interviewed live on BBC News a couple of weeks back, and asked why his multi-million pound climate models had predicted a barbecue summer last year and a mild winter this year! He was then asked why the models hadn't predicted no rise in global temperatures over the last decade, his flustered reply "they did predict no rise". He actually said it 3 times when pushed on that point by interviewer Andrew Neil.
The head of the Met office is a proven liar and it's on BBC footage.
As for the constant references to "Big Oil" if you really believe that you're simply desperate.
The vast majority of us realists have no connection to oil or any other motives. Rather, we will not stand by quietly when such an enormous fraud is being committed. We will not be lied to and taken for fools.
The vast majority of us realists have no connection to oil or any other motives. Rather, we will not stand by quietly when such an enormous fraud is being committed. We will not be lied to and taken for fools.
Does global warming not make the planet colder? Thats what I heard on some show on Discovery
we will not stand by quietly when such an enormous fraud is being committed.
Global warming (man-made), is indeed a fraud. There's money to be made out of people's fear and careers to be built on junk science, so they won't give up the propaganda until they start going to jail for it.
Global warming (man-made), is indeed a fraud. There's money to be made out of people's fear and careers to be built on junk science, so they won't give up the propaganda until they start going to jail for it.
Haha, yes it has been suggested before by warmists in desperation! I assume you are joking, but if you're not we have covered this farcical twist before.
No, I'm quite serious. If someone who claims to be a scientist deliberately manipulates data to "prove" that natural changes in global temperature are manmade and frightens people by doing so, then they should be prosecuted for being a public nuisance.
Do they not say that if the planet warms up then the icebergs melt cuasing the sea temperature to drop and therfor affecting the warm currents? This woul dthen block the warm currents getting to countries which woul dmake a lot more places colder ....
Gallivanter, yes I agree, I was commenting on the post before yours, sorry for confusion.
Schalke, what you've heard with regard to melting ice warming oceans is more warmist nonsense, we've covered the gulf stream scare stories earlier in the thread. The fact is warmists want to promote their anti-capitalist agenda of taxing carbon dioxide emissions via scare mongering nonsense theories that are now being debunked daily, to their shame. The last thing a true warmist really wants is climate stability - they're actually peeved when climate warming doesn't occur!
Schalke, what you've heard with regard to melting ice warming oceans is more warmist nonsense, we've covered the gulf stream scare stories earlier in the thread. The fact is warmists want to promote their anti-capitalist agenda of taxing carbon dioxide emissions via scare mongering nonsense theories that are now being debunked daily, to their shame. The last thing a true warmist really wants is climate stability - they're actually peeved when climate warming doesn't occur!
then they should be prosecuted for being a public nuisance.
Show Galileo the instruments of torture!
Show Galileo the instruments of torture!
As for the constant references to "Big Oil" if you really believe that you're simply desperate.
Desperate for what? Cheap petrol? I don't own a car.
Of course you are right. Dubya and Dick Cheney aren't oil executives.
There was no war in Iraq, just a democratisation process which inevitably brought fairer oil prices in its wake.
All the hangings and machine-gunnings in the Niger Delta were necessary to maintain public order, nothing to do with oil spills forcing people into destitution.
Shell were right to donate the helicopter gunships and speedboats used to shoot up the villages.
The petrol in your car was brought by the stork. Those scientists are rogues! Off with their heads!
Desperate for what? Cheap petrol? I don't own a car.
Of course you are right. Dubya and Dick Cheney aren't oil executives.
There was no war in Iraq, just a democratisation process which inevitably brought fairer oil prices in its wake.
All the hangings and machine-gunnings in the Niger Delta were necessary to maintain public order, nothing to do with oil spills forcing people into destitution.
Shell were right to donate the helicopter gunships and speedboats used to shoot up the villages.
The petrol in your car was brought by the stork. Those scientists are rogues! Off with their heads!
Trevh I'm one of the 10% that don't keep regular hours.The problem I have with that link you gave is the graphs.The temp from 1980 -1998 didn't go up and down in a 11 year cycle like it should have done if It was down to solar radiance.Not sure how accurate those temp graphs are?
Moonlight said
I don't see the relevance of that. I don't actually have access to the ice cores anyway .
The data is available on line and the relevance is that if CO2 was higher and temp was higher in the past then there is nothing special about CO2 and temp now and that the so called temp rise is not man made because the industrial revolution is only about 160 years old.
I don't see the relevance of that. I don't actually have access to the ice cores anyway .
The data is available on line and the relevance is that if CO2 was higher and temp was higher in the past then there is nothing special about CO2 and temp now and that the so called temp rise is not man made because the industrial revolution is only about 160 years old.
Moonlight said
The price you have to pay to understand and contribute to this debate is to spend several years studying theoretical physics and then get access to millions of £ of computer equipment. No-one on here has paid their dues.
The most determined posters on this topic show no evidence of a science education at all, and frequently fail to understand the significance of all the stuff they relentlessly cut and paste.
So you say. You seem to view scientists as the new great high priests who cannot be questioned. This what the Church used to do. Only the high priests could interpret the Bible and read it because it was in Latin.Doesn't matter how good your computer model is because it's garbage in garbage out.I have a basic understanding of the theory of relativity as many people do, but you think only theoretical physicists can understand climate chance. Well prove it then?
The price you have to pay to understand and contribute to this debate is to spend several years studying theoretical physics and then get access to millions of £ of computer equipment. No-one on here has paid their dues.
The most determined posters on this topic show no evidence of a science education at all, and frequently fail to understand the significance of all the stuff they relentlessly cut and paste.
So you say. You seem to view scientists as the new great high priests who cannot be questioned. This what the Church used to do. Only the high priests could interpret the Bible and read it because it was in Latin.Doesn't matter how good your computer model is because it's garbage in garbage out.I have a basic understanding of the theory of relativity as many people do, but you think only theoretical physicists can understand climate chance. Well prove it then?
Moonlight asked
Did they have any interest in physics at all prior to this controversy breaking out?
Yes I have been interested in physics for many years. I have become more interested in climate though over recent years.
Did they have any interest in physics at all prior to this controversy breaking out?
Yes I have been interested in physics for many years. I have become more interested in climate though over recent years.
Not necessarily SC. Global warming is believed to be multi-causal. There are natural cycles and many factors involved. What is being argued, as I understand it, is that the temperature rises are against human interests and are being exacerbated (not solely caused) by CO2 build-up.
The human race has resided in Europe and Asia for 40,000 years approx, acc to Dr Alice Roberts in her TV documentary series last year on human origins. Prior to that we were confined to Africa.
So the conditions hundreds of thousands of years ago, when CO2 was naturally higher, may not have been favourable for human settlement of these islands.
The human race has resided in Europe and Asia for 40,000 years approx, acc to Dr Alice Roberts in her TV documentary series last year on human origins. Prior to that we were confined to Africa.
So the conditions hundreds of thousands of years ago, when CO2 was naturally higher, may not have been favourable for human settlement of these islands.
Moonlight said
Show Galileo the instruments of torture
Moonlight you need to read that post again it say's prosecuted . Not persecuted.
Show Galileo the instruments of torture
Moonlight you need to read that post again it say's prosecuted . Not persecuted.
As always with these controversial subjects both sides accuse each other of have an ulterior motive and an agenda.This is why it's hard to get to the real facts past the misinformation. Who do you believe because both sides ignore evidence and interpret evidence according to there own bias.I'm on the fence and it will take a lot more research before I come to any real conclusion.
Trevh I'm one of the 10% that don't keep regular hours.The problem I have with that link you gave is the graphs.The temp from 1980 -1998 didn't go up and down in a 11 year cycle like it should have done if It was down to solar radiance.Not sure how accurate those temp graphs are?
If the solar cycle is resposible for 0.1-0.2% change, and the change is more than that, it's not going to show as clearly in years where there is very little other change. I don't see why you'd have a problem with this, it's VERY easy maths
Your view of the situation is overly simplistic. We can isolate the solar changes and allow for them, why can you not accept that they are not going to be the driving force at all times. Weather systems are incredibly complicated and also chaotic, there's no reason why, in a bistable ecosystem that you'd be able to isolate one factor at all times.
If the solar cycle is resposible for 0.1-0.2% change, and the change is more than that, it's not going to show as clearly in years where there is very little other change. I don't see why you'd have a problem with this, it's VERY easy maths
Your view of the situation is overly simplistic. We can isolate the solar changes and allow for them, why can you not accept that they are not going to be the driving force at all times. Weather systems are incredibly complicated and also chaotic, there's no reason why, in a bistable ecosystem that you'd be able to isolate one factor at all times.
It also seems your whole assessment of evidence relies on the fact that it snowed recently, you're going to need a far bigger data set than that.
So you say. You seem to view scientists as the new great high priests who cannot be questioned.
I really don't think anyone who carefully read what I have posted above would believe that those were my views.
I have a basic understanding of the theory of relativity as many people do, but you think only theoretical physicists can understand climate chance. Well prove it then?
What an odd Q. I don't understand what it is you are suggesting I should prove.
I really don't think anyone who carefully read what I have posted above would believe that those were my views.
I have a basic understanding of the theory of relativity as many people do, but you think only theoretical physicists can understand climate chance. Well prove it then?
What an odd Q. I don't understand what it is you are suggesting I should prove.
Lori said
It also seems your whole assessment of evidence relies on the fact that it snowed recently, you're going to need a far bigger data set than that.
No I'm not saying that at all. You have totally misunderstood what I am saying and dismissing my previous posts.The UK having a bad winter is not really relevant, but what gets my goat is when we have a hot summer and they say it's because of global warming and then we have a bad winter and they say It means nothing. They want it both ways.
It also seems your whole assessment of evidence relies on the fact that it snowed recently, you're going to need a far bigger data set than that.
No I'm not saying that at all. You have totally misunderstood what I am saying and dismissing my previous posts.The UK having a bad winter is not really relevant, but what gets my goat is when we have a hot summer and they say it's because of global warming and then we have a bad winter and they say It means nothing. They want it both ways.
Lori said
Your view of the situation is overly simplistic. We can isolate the solar changes and allow for them, why can you not accept that they are not going to be the driving force at all times. Weather systems are incredibly complicated and also chaotic, there's no reason why, in a bistable ecosystem that you'd be able to isolate one factor at all times.
Yes I think you are probably right about this.
Your view of the situation is overly simplistic. We can isolate the solar changes and allow for them, why can you not accept that they are not going to be the driving force at all times. Weather systems are incredibly complicated and also chaotic, there's no reason why, in a bistable ecosystem that you'd be able to isolate one factor at all times.
Yes I think you are probably right about this.
As for the constant references to "Big Oil" if you really believe that you're simply desperate.
Moon Light 05 Feb 22:41
Desperate for what? Cheap petrol? I don't own a car.
Desperate to accuse realists who dare stand up to the MMGW scam, of doing so only because they have selfish interests in oil and burning fossil fuels. You're not the first and you won't be the last warmist to utter such nonsense.
Some warmists have accused me of being a selfish 'denier' because I enjoy driving. I ask them why they don't accuse people who enjoy consuming electricity in their homes of being selfish 'deniers' too?
For me this whole issue has absolutely nothing to do with selfishness, but everything to do with integrity. As part of a growing majority of climate realists, I will not simply stand by and watch carbon dioxide fraud and everything it entails committed on a global scale.
The carbon trading industry is already riddled with confirmed fraudulent activity, and if left unchecked would have become the largest traded non-commodity in history. Anyone who is tangled up in this deceit would be wise to bale out now before the inevitable big collapse.
Moon Light 05 Feb 22:41
Desperate for what? Cheap petrol? I don't own a car.
Desperate to accuse realists who dare stand up to the MMGW scam, of doing so only because they have selfish interests in oil and burning fossil fuels. You're not the first and you won't be the last warmist to utter such nonsense.
Some warmists have accused me of being a selfish 'denier' because I enjoy driving. I ask them why they don't accuse people who enjoy consuming electricity in their homes of being selfish 'deniers' too?
For me this whole issue has absolutely nothing to do with selfishness, but everything to do with integrity. As part of a growing majority of climate realists, I will not simply stand by and watch carbon dioxide fraud and everything it entails committed on a global scale.
The carbon trading industry is already riddled with confirmed fraudulent activity, and if left unchecked would have become the largest traded non-commodity in history. Anyone who is tangled up in this deceit would be wise to bale out now before the inevitable big collapse.
Moonlight said
What an odd Q. I don't understand what it is you are suggesting I should prove
May be I have misunderstood you.Will you please explain a bit better what point were actually trying to make?
I asked you to prove that only theoretical physicists could understand climate change. If that is not what you were asserting then what were you asserting in that post.
What an odd Q. I don't understand what it is you are suggesting I should prove
May be I have misunderstood you.Will you please explain a bit better what point were actually trying to make?
I asked you to prove that only theoretical physicists could understand climate change. If that is not what you were asserting then what were you asserting in that post.
The UK having a bad winter is not really relevant, but what gets my goat is when we have a hot summer and they say it's because of global warming and then we have a bad winter and they say It means nothing. They want it both ways.
I guess this goes back to my post about me not realising this was a political subject. I have no interest or knowledge of the "they" of whom you speak. I do have a little knowledge about sunspots and I do know that water churn is massively important in all this. I don't have any proof of that latter claim and expect you to ignore it. That's fine.
I also know that the Earth is incredibly resiliant and that humans only account for about 3% of CO2 output on the planet. given that our distance from the sun varies by a lot more than 3% it seems unlikely that CO2 is a particularly important cause. Again though, it's also likely a factor (and a difficult to isolate one).
Finally I know that the Earth is subject to regular big and largely unexplainable swings in temperature, and was before humans even got here. While all kinds of manmade stuff could be a kind of "tipping point", it's probably more important to find out what pushed it close to the tipping point in the first place.
I guess this goes back to my post about me not realising this was a political subject. I have no interest or knowledge of the "they" of whom you speak. I do have a little knowledge about sunspots and I do know that water churn is massively important in all this. I don't have any proof of that latter claim and expect you to ignore it. That's fine.
I also know that the Earth is incredibly resiliant and that humans only account for about 3% of CO2 output on the planet. given that our distance from the sun varies by a lot more than 3% it seems unlikely that CO2 is a particularly important cause. Again though, it's also likely a factor (and a difficult to isolate one).
Finally I know that the Earth is subject to regular big and largely unexplainable swings in temperature, and was before humans even got here. While all kinds of manmade stuff could be a kind of "tipping point", it's probably more important to find out what pushed it close to the tipping point in the first place.
Trevh this is supposed to be a general betting forum so getting back on topic for a minute . It seems to me that if you really believe that the temp is going to drop in the next few years because of low Sun activity then there should be some money to be made by betting that temp will fall over the next few years. Do betfair have a market on this and if not why not?Any one know where the best place is to bet on this?Al Gore should be offering a good price.
Lori said
I guess this goes back to my post about me not realising this was a political subject.
Is there any subject that isn't political?
I guess this goes back to my post about me not realising this was a political subject.
Is there any subject that isn't political?
I think there would be difficulty agreeing on the settlement of the bet.
Is there any subject that isn't political?
Not acc to the Govt's TV ads.
Not acc to the Govt's TV ads.
I don't think what people believe is particularly important in a discussion where there is, somewhere, a definitive answer.
Wrapping it all up in an "us vs them" mentality is merely a way of both sides avoiding doing the hard work required to actually find the truth of the situation.
Wrapping it all up in an "us vs them" mentality is merely a way of both sides avoiding doing the hard work required to actually find the truth of the situation.
Lori said
Finally I know that the Earth is subject to regular big and largely unexplainable swings in temperature, and was before humans even got here. While all kinds of manmade stuff could be a kind of "tipping point", it's probably more important to find out what pushed it close to the tipping point in the first place.
I agree with this.What the meteorologists say is different this time is the speed of the temp change. They say this is unprecedented .
Finally I know that the Earth is subject to regular big and largely unexplainable swings in temperature, and was before humans even got here. While all kinds of manmade stuff could be a kind of "tipping point", it's probably more important to find out what pushed it close to the tipping point in the first place.
I agree with this.What the meteorologists say is different this time is the speed of the temp change. They say this is unprecedented .
Moonlight said
I think there would be difficulty agreeing on the settlement of the bet.
LOL.Ye know can agree on anything else.Who would the bookies go with? The MET office?
I think there would be difficulty agreeing on the settlement of the bet.
LOL.Ye know can agree on anything else.Who would the bookies go with? The MET office?
Finally I know that the Earth is subject to regular big and largely unexplainable swings in temperature, and was before humans even got here. While all kinds of manmade stuff could be a kind of "tipping point", it's probably more important to find out what pushed it close to the tipping point in the first place.
Scientifically yes. There are other important factors which aren't understood fully, like deforestation. In terms of policy action, that's probably more intractable than CO2 consumption.
Timescale is important in this. There have been huge variations in atmospheric composition across geologic timescales of millions of years. That doesn't mean that human action isn't influencing events now in a deleterious way.
Trevh, if you think I'm a "warmist", it's clear that you haven't been reading what I have said. You just pick out a bit here and there and have a snipe, much like you do at the scientists. It is that process, and your bombastic certainty coupled with no real knowledge that I have taken issue with. I think you are conning the ignorant petrolheads on here in a damaging way.
I don't know whether MMGW theory is true or not, as would have been obvious to anyone who had read my posts.
Scientifically yes. There are other important factors which aren't understood fully, like deforestation. In terms of policy action, that's probably more intractable than CO2 consumption.
Timescale is important in this. There have been huge variations in atmospheric composition across geologic timescales of millions of years. That doesn't mean that human action isn't influencing events now in a deleterious way.
Trevh, if you think I'm a "warmist", it's clear that you haven't been reading what I have said. You just pick out a bit here and there and have a snipe, much like you do at the scientists. It is that process, and your bombastic certainty coupled with no real knowledge that I have taken issue with. I think you are conning the ignorant petrolheads on here in a damaging way.
I don't know whether MMGW theory is true or not, as would have been obvious to anyone who had read my posts.
Sunset Cristo 06 Feb 00:28
Trevh I'm one of the 10% that don't keep regular hours.The problem I have with that link you gave is the graphs.The temp from 1980 -1998 didn't go up and down in a 11 year cycle like it should have done if It was down to solar radiance.Not sure how accurate those temp graphs are?
The greater solar forcing is not irradiance but eruptivity, which shows a 4 - 8 year lag to climate, and with the downward discontinuity of October 2005, here we are in 2010 with impact on weather as expected. I did try to explain that earlier. Did you see the Ap Index at an all time low Dec 2009?
The solar Gleissberg Cycle predictions of global cooling, published in the late 70s and 80s if not earlier, gave clear notice in advance that a downturn in solar activity (irradiance and eruptivity) was ahead and that the full impact would be felt around 2012 and run for two to three decades overall. This has been shown to be correct - the solar downturn arrived as expected and the onset of severe weather will be likely to be felt around 2012. At the moment there is a solar minimum El Nino, which strengthened through the autumn and early winter but won't last for ever.
Trevh I'm one of the 10% that don't keep regular hours.The problem I have with that link you gave is the graphs.The temp from 1980 -1998 didn't go up and down in a 11 year cycle like it should have done if It was down to solar radiance.Not sure how accurate those temp graphs are?
The greater solar forcing is not irradiance but eruptivity, which shows a 4 - 8 year lag to climate, and with the downward discontinuity of October 2005, here we are in 2010 with impact on weather as expected. I did try to explain that earlier. Did you see the Ap Index at an all time low Dec 2009?
The solar Gleissberg Cycle predictions of global cooling, published in the late 70s and 80s if not earlier, gave clear notice in advance that a downturn in solar activity (irradiance and eruptivity) was ahead and that the full impact would be felt around 2012 and run for two to three decades overall. This has been shown to be correct - the solar downturn arrived as expected and the onset of severe weather will be likely to be felt around 2012. At the moment there is a solar minimum El Nino, which strengthened through the autumn and early winter but won't last for ever.
If global warming doesn't exist then can I start putting my tin cans back in with the normal rubbish?
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=7122
That's the temp. change graph for 1680-1780. It's not a huge difference for the sort of stuff we've been seeing in recent times, except it's the other way around of course.
Compare this to the last ten years, yes i know that's not 100, but as you'll see the numbers are far smaller, so you can extrapolate a little (I cant find a 100 year map, which would be ideal)
http://wapedia.mobi/thumb/06f214610/en/fixed/470/334/Global_Warming_Map.jpg
That's the temp. change graph for 1680-1780. It's not a huge difference for the sort of stuff we've been seeing in recent times, except it's the other way around of course.
Compare this to the last ten years, yes i know that's not 100, but as you'll see the numbers are far smaller, so you can extrapolate a little (I cant find a 100 year map, which would be ideal)
http://wapedia.mobi/thumb/06f214610/en/fixed/470/334/Global_Warming_Map.jpg
Schalke 04
No that's completely different subject. This is a common mistake. I don't think any one is saying that recycling is a bad thing. Just that they are not convinced about mmgw.
No that's completely different subject. This is a common mistake. I don't think any one is saying that recycling is a bad thing. Just that they are not convinced about mmgw.
Schalke 04 06 Feb 01:29
If global warming doesn't exist then can I start putting my tin cans back in with the normal rubbish?
Global warming and cooling does exist, there cannot be a static state of climate. The fact that they want you to believe that you're responsible for it, and hence justify taxes for the next century, is where you are being conned if you allow it to be so.
If global warming doesn't exist then can I start putting my tin cans back in with the normal rubbish?
Global warming and cooling does exist, there cannot be a static state of climate. The fact that they want you to believe that you're responsible for it, and hence justify taxes for the next century, is where you are being conned if you allow it to be so.
I also know that the Earth is incredibly resiliant
The Earth is, but the lifeforms on it, and individual species, are not.
The Earth is, but the lifeforms on it, and individual species, are not.
You know what, I am a big believer that we are all getting conned about this whole thing. I don't know enough about it though to join in and contribute to the debate but I will read on with interest.
Of course wea re getting conned. The Q is who by? And to believe what?
My money is on the oil companies, they have the funds and the previous.
My money is on the oil companies, they have the funds and the previous.
Did you see the Ap Index at an all time low Dec 2009?
What is the Ap index and how does that effect the Sun?
What is the Ap index and how does that effect the Sun?
The solar Gleissberg Cycle predictions of global cooling, published in the late 70s and 80s if not earlier, gave clear notice in advance that a downturn in solar activity (irradiance and eruptivity) was ahead and that the full impact would be felt around 2012 and run for two to three decades overall
Do you have a source for this?
Do you have a source for this?
Saw on the News yesterday that less people now believe in mmgw according to the latest survey. Looks like the mmgw believers are loosing the battle to convince people.They have taken alot of torpedo's lately. The leaked emails, the bad winter and the mistake with the Himalayas glaciers.I also saw on the news yesterday that scientists are saying that January was the warmest on record globally. I find that hard to believe with what the northern hemisphere has just experienced during this winter.And now the east coast of the USA is experiencing it's worst snow storm in 90 years.
Met Office website has global maps showing it very warm in Canada and Western USA. It was very hot in S Africa during the test series.
You can learn nothing from local weather and news reports about global conditions.
We haven't had that bad a winter in Leicester. A little bit of snow now and again, don't know what the fuss is about. When I first moved here 4 inches of snow wasn't unusual. Haven't seen that for 20 years.
Obviously upland areas have had heavy snow. Surprise surprise.
You can learn nothing from local weather and news reports about global conditions.
We haven't had that bad a winter in Leicester. A little bit of snow now and again, don't know what the fuss is about. When I first moved here 4 inches of snow wasn't unusual. Haven't seen that for 20 years.
Obviously upland areas have had heavy snow. Surprise surprise.
Some warmists have accused me of being a selfish 'denier' because I enjoy driving. I ask them why they don't accuse people who enjoy consuming electricity in their homes of being selfish 'deniers' too?
Desperate stuff now. There is no equivalence between heating your house (necessary for survival) and using inefficient transportation when public vehicles are available.
All the "alternative science" falls away and it comes down to the fact that you enjoy driving. Realist? Or just petrolhead?
The petrol is going to run out quite soon anyway.
Desperate stuff now. There is no equivalence between heating your house (necessary for survival) and using inefficient transportation when public vehicles are available.
All the "alternative science" falls away and it comes down to the fact that you enjoy driving. Realist? Or just petrolhead?
The petrol is going to run out quite soon anyway.
Sunset Cristo, if you look back to my post of 4th Feb 20.28 I provided a couple of links to help explain the Ap Index.
"NOAAs Space Weather Prediction Center released their latest data and graph of the interplanetary geomagnetic index (Ap) which is a proxy for the activity of the solar dynamo."
----------------------------
Early predictions came from Dr T Landscheidt :
http://www.schulphysik.de/klima/landscheidt/iceage.htm
Dr T says: "My long-range forecasts of precisely defined classes of energetic X-ray flares and strong geomagnetic storms, covering the period 1979 � 1985, reached an overall hit rate of 90 percent though such events show a very irregular distribution. These forecasts were checked by the Space Environment Center, Boulder, and the astronomers Gleissberg, Whl and Pfleiderer (Landscheidt, 1986)." Showing that Landscheidt had been working on this since the 70s.
http://www.schulphysik.de/klima/landscheidt/Fig11e.jpg
See above chart and particularly the section 9. Forecast of deep Gleissberg minima and cold climate around 2030 and 2200 where he says "As to the minimum around 2030, there are additional indications that global cooling is to be expected instead of global warming. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) will show negative values up to at least 2016 (Landscheidt, 2001), and La Ninas will be more frequent and stronger than El Ninos through 2018 (Landscheidt, 2000)."
"NOAAs Space Weather Prediction Center released their latest data and graph of the interplanetary geomagnetic index (Ap) which is a proxy for the activity of the solar dynamo."
----------------------------
Early predictions came from Dr T Landscheidt :
http://www.schulphysik.de/klima/landscheidt/iceage.htm
Dr T says: "My long-range forecasts of precisely defined classes of energetic X-ray flares and strong geomagnetic storms, covering the period 1979 � 1985, reached an overall hit rate of 90 percent though such events show a very irregular distribution. These forecasts were checked by the Space Environment Center, Boulder, and the astronomers Gleissberg, Whl and Pfleiderer (Landscheidt, 1986)." Showing that Landscheidt had been working on this since the 70s.
http://www.schulphysik.de/klima/landscheidt/Fig11e.jpg
See above chart and particularly the section 9. Forecast of deep Gleissberg minima and cold climate around 2030 and 2200 where he says "As to the minimum around 2030, there are additional indications that global cooling is to be expected instead of global warming. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) will show negative values up to at least 2016 (Landscheidt, 2001), and La Ninas will be more frequent and stronger than El Ninos through 2018 (Landscheidt, 2000)."
Moon Light 07 Feb 02:45
Desperate stuff now. There is no equivalence between heating your house (necessary for survival) and using inefficient transportation when public vehicles are available.
You have got to be joking!! The motor car is extremely efficient in comparison to filthy carcenogenic public transport.
Who mentioned heating? Are you implying that every electrical item in your house is used as a necessity?!
We're Poles apart Moon Light, to the extent that further debate or converstation between us is meaningless.
Desperate stuff now. There is no equivalence between heating your house (necessary for survival) and using inefficient transportation when public vehicles are available.
You have got to be joking!! The motor car is extremely efficient in comparison to filthy carcenogenic public transport.
Who mentioned heating? Are you implying that every electrical item in your house is used as a necessity?!
We're Poles apart Moon Light, to the extent that further debate or converstation between us is meaningless.
mini ice age seems to come every 150 years due to the gulf stream with the last one around 1850s
there are a few ways which can bring the uk get freezing mini ice ages
1 gulf stream
2 sun spots
3 volcanic ash layers blocking the sun off for few years with yellowstone super volcanio it due one soon
there are a few ways which can bring the uk get freezing mini ice ages
1 gulf stream
2 sun spots
3 volcanic ash layers blocking the sun off for few years with yellowstone super volcanio it due one soon
google
YELLOWSTONE SUPERVOLCANO
oh my if that happen we are feacke d
YELLOWSTONE SUPERVOLCANO
oh my if that happen we are feacke d
mini ice age seems to come every 150 years due to the gulf stream with the last one around 1850s
Do you have a source for this?
Do you have a source for this?
it not a fact but it do comes and go from time to time
you could work for the IPCC with logic like that chrisblues
For an interestingly alternative perspective on the subject, one that deviates from the mainstream propaganda, I would recommend this book, which is excellent:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Real-Global-Warming-Disaster-Scientific/dp/1441110526/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1265552226&sr=8-1
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Real-Global-Warming-Disaster-Scientific/dp/1441110526/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1265552226&sr=8-1
You have got to be joking!! The motor car is extremely efficient in comparison to filthy carcenogenic public transport.
One man against the world on that.
One man against the world on that.
Overall tax burden is decided by the Treasury in accordance with it's macroeconomic models.
Trevh it's probably me being obtuse, but I don't understand this.
The IPCC's judgement that the solar factor is negligible is based on satellite observations available since 1978 which show that the Sun's total irradiance, though not being constant, changes only by about 0.1 percent during the course of the 11-year sunspot cycle. This argument, however, does not take into account that the Sun's eruptional activity (energetic flares, coronal mass ejections, eruptive prominences), heavily affecting the solar wind, as well as softer solar wind contributions by coronal holes have a much stronger effect than total irradiance. The total magnetic flux leaving the Sun, dragged out by the solar wind, has risen by a factor of 2.3 since 1901 (Lockwood et al., 1999), while global temperature on earth increased by about 0.6�C. The energy in the solar flux is transferred to the near-Earth environment by magnetic reconnection and directly into the atmosphere by charged particles. Energetic flares increase the Sun's ultraviolet radiation by at least 16 percent. Ozone in the stratosphere absorbs this excess energy which causes local warming and circulation disturbances. General circulation models developed by Haigh (1996), Shindell et al. (1999), and Balachandran et al. (1999) confirm that circulation changes, initially induced in the stratosphere, can penetrate into the troposphere and influence temperature, air pressure, Hadley circulation, and storm tracks by changing the distribution of large amounts of energy already present in the atmosphere.
Could you explain this in lay mens terms?
The IPCC's judgement that the solar factor is negligible is based on satellite observations available since 1978 which show that the Sun's total irradiance, though not being constant, changes only by about 0.1 percent during the course of the 11-year sunspot cycle. This argument, however, does not take into account that the Sun's eruptional activity (energetic flares, coronal mass ejections, eruptive prominences), heavily affecting the solar wind, as well as softer solar wind contributions by coronal holes have a much stronger effect than total irradiance. The total magnetic flux leaving the Sun, dragged out by the solar wind, has risen by a factor of 2.3 since 1901 (Lockwood et al., 1999), while global temperature on earth increased by about 0.6�C. The energy in the solar flux is transferred to the near-Earth environment by magnetic reconnection and directly into the atmosphere by charged particles. Energetic flares increase the Sun's ultraviolet radiation by at least 16 percent. Ozone in the stratosphere absorbs this excess energy which causes local warming and circulation disturbances. General circulation models developed by Haigh (1996), Shindell et al. (1999), and Balachandran et al. (1999) confirm that circulation changes, initially induced in the stratosphere, can penetrate into the troposphere and influence temperature, air pressure, Hadley circulation, and storm tracks by changing the distribution of large amounts of energy already present in the atmosphere.
Could you explain this in lay mens terms?
Trevh is busy doing his Toad of Toad Hall impression, so I'll have a go.
They don't agree whether the sun affects it or not, but the bosses say no.
The total amount of sunshine doesn't change, but it is prone to farting and belching.
If this comes our way it means trouble! It causes changes in the weather, which are probably too complicated for anyone ever to understand.
They don't agree whether the sun affects it or not, but the bosses say no.
The total amount of sunshine doesn't change, but it is prone to farting and belching.
If this comes our way it means trouble! It causes changes in the weather, which are probably too complicated for anyone ever to understand.
SC, basically it explains that the IPCC's comment regarding solar irradiance demonstrates either forgetfulness or deliberate omission regarding the totally different solar forcing from solar eruptivity, which derives from the solar magnetosphere and solar wind and not the radiation (energy budget).
We no longer use the term,'global warming'..It is now,"climate change"....I have been watching footie matches around the world,and keenly looking at the weather conditions..What I am observing is extreme weather..Snow in Madrid,Milan and extreme cold in Britain is indicative of a faltering Gulf Stream..When this "heat exchanger" breaks down the Earth will still have to lose the heat she accumulates from her equatorial regions..This will be achieved by other means..We will have a period of cataclysmic events as heat dissipates,probably via new corridors of least resistance..The weather will go wild...We are in the middle of Earths biggest extinction event.only jellyfish will emerge,as they will like the prevailing conditions..I also hope the cocs will survive as they have been making their moves to avert this,just as they did with the Asteroid..This is a rare event and I hope you will enjoy the show.
greekstooktheboats do you actually have any evidence for these bold assertions apart from watching football?
Climate change is climate chamge. Weather is weather. Global warming causes global cooling. You not seen the day after tomorrow?
That proves it then. Hollywood made a film about it. We know their prediction always come true.sheesh.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539