|
Post by glc on May 3, 2010 9:55:44 GMT
I see the astrophysicists are starting to talk about a possibility (publicly) or a "probability" (less than publicly) of an upcoming Maunder Event. Which is essentially what I have been saying these, hmm, 28 years. Based, of course, on other things than the cycles of stars other than our own. The public discussion is pretty well covered in Astronomy magazine. Pick up a copy the next time you pass a magazine stand. The color cover of the Sun stands out. Stranger Could you tell us how this "Maunder event" might affect us? I assume you expect it to get colder but it appears to have been cold already BEFORE the last maunder minimum. I would therefore expect us to be some way into a cooling trend by now. But maybe not? What timescale are we talking about here? What is the mechanism by which the sun's activity cools the planet - bearing in mind TSI doesn' t vary enough to explain the temperature swings. You are in good company though. Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann have co-authored papers that associate a drop in global temeratures with solar activity during the maunder minimum.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on May 3, 2010 11:19:44 GMT
I see the astrophysicists are starting to talk about a possibility (publicly) or a "probability" (less than publicly) of an upcoming Maunder Event. Which is essentially what I have been saying these, hmm, 28 years. Based, of course, on other things than the cycles of stars other than our own. The public discussion is pretty well covered in Astronomy magazine. Pick up a copy the next time you pass a magazine stand. The color cover of the Sun stands out. Stranger Could you tell us how this "Maunder event" might affect us? I assume you expect it to get colder but it appears to have been cold already BEFORE the last maunder minimum. I would therefore expect us to be some way into a cooling trend by now. But maybe not? What timescale are we talking about here? What is the mechanism by which the sun's activity cools the planet - bearing in mind TSI doesn' t vary enough to explain the temperature swings. You are in good company though. Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann have co-authored papers that associate a drop in global temeratures with solar activity during the maunder minimum. glc you say it was cold already before the Maunder minimum was that only at Armagh or the CET for the midlands? Are there any records that show it was colder say in North America, Australia or even in mainland Europe?
|
|
|
Post by hairball on May 3, 2010 11:23:49 GMT
Low solar activity seems to have ended the MWP too, maybe that cold hid under the ocean for a while like Trenberth's heat is now?
|
|
|
Post by hairball on May 3, 2010 12:32:38 GMT
Sorry to stray off topic, as we all know CET bears no relationship to global climate whatsoever, but I found this Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society from 1974 scanned as a pdfThe Met Office's CET cuts off at 1780 while this has figures going back to 1659. It shows a curious spike in temperatures - rivalling the 1980's - just when Be-10 was briefly low in the 1730's! I've rotated the graph a little to make up for the poor scanning, it's straighter than it looks. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by glc on May 4, 2010 0:22:25 GMT
Sorry to stray off topic, as we all know CET bears no relationship to global climate whatsoever,So why use it? You appear to want to pick and choose data when it suits but reject t when it doesn't. The Met Office's CET cuts off at 1780 while this has figures going back to 1659. The met office graph starts at 1772 because that's when the daily mean series started. The data going back to 1659 is available here: hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/cetml1659on.datYou can do your own plots. You don't have to scan them from old journals. It shows a curious spike in temperatures - rivalling the 1980's - just when Be-10 was briefly low in the 1730's!I don't know how you can tell that the "spike" rivals the 1980s. Your plot only goes up to 1973. As it happens, recent decadal averages easily surpass anything that went before - despite a clear flattening of the SSN curve in your linked plot (which is almost certainly wrong anyway). As far as the solar proxy (Be-10) plot is concerned, it appears to bear vary little relationship to the SSN plot. There are some notable downward spikes in the 10-Be plot which seem to coincide with volcanic eruptions, e.g. late 1800s - Krakatoa? There is a very sharp, but short-lived dip in the ~1690s. Is this really due to the maunder minimum which had been going on for around 40 years by the time the dip occurred.
|
|
|
Post by glc on May 4, 2010 0:25:54 GMT
glc you say it was cold already before the Maunder minimum was that only at Armagh or the CET for the midlands?
Are there any records that show it was colder say in North America, Australia or even in mainland Europe?
Probably not which begs the question - how do we know it was cold during the maunder minimum.
|
|
|
Post by hairball on May 4, 2010 3:27:15 GMT
glc, I'm sure you're aware that the solar wind travels at a few hundred km/s and that the heliosphere can have a diameter several times that of the solar system yet you suggest that I expect cosmic ray flux to follow solar activity perfectly. Despite non solar factors that can affect it's concentration, Beryllium is a proxy for solar activity at least as good as tree-rings are for climate. Considerably better depending on who does the analysis. There's really no need to be so touchy though. We both know the MET Office only released the early CET data to the public due to the moral turpitude of climate researchers revealed in the climategate emails. Here's the page where you could request it: "Please note that the Met Office data sets are available for bona fide academic research only (sorry no undergraduates), on a per person per project basis (i.e. all members on a same project who will be using the data must individually apply for access to the data). If you wish to access the Met Office data for commercial or personal purposes, please contact the Met Office directly." Nothing more commercially valuable than 300 year old patchy weather reports I guess. Maybe they were afraid it would help someone work out how the climate operated. In light of the behaviour which prompted the release of that data I think it's very important to see how it was viewed before any further adjustments were made - since it's difficult to have any confidence that they kept a record of why and how adjustments were made. After all, the Met Office is the weather forecasting wing of a military organisation that's been helping traffic Class A drugs internationally for over 200 years so not the most trustworthy people in the world. It's depressing that you seem to have no sense of wonder or curiosity about the natural world. A characteristic which you share with the cliamtological elite, who'd rather spend multimillions on supercomputers' idle musings than conduct a few paleoclimate studies in the Southern Hemisphere. Hence - "how do we know it was cold during the maunder minimum."? - we have no idea what temperature it was because scientists - appear to have - ignorantly aligned themselves with a political agenda and spent their research money building computers to agree with it.
|
|
|
Post by glc on May 4, 2010 9:31:32 GMT
Hairball
glc,
I'm sure you're aware that the solar wind travels at a few hundred km/s and that the heliosphere can have a diameter several times that of the solar system yet you suggest that I expect cosmic ray flux to follow solar activity perfectly. Despite non solar factors that can affect it's concentration, Beryllium is a proxy for solar activity at least as good as tree-rings are for climate. Considerably better depending on who does the analysis.
1. As Leif Svalgaard says "The total solar energy output is given almost exclusively by TSI, which varies very little [0.1%] . The energy in the solar wind and the magnetic field is a million times smaller and has therefore no discernible influence on the total energy output."
2. The trend in cosmic ray count between 1964 and 2004 is zero (i.e. flat) - yet temperatures rose by ~0.6 deg.
3. I've never mentioned tree rings except to criticise their use in climate research. I challenged Michael Mann on his hockeystick reconstruction (on realclimate) in 2004.
There's really no need to be so touchy though. We both know the MET Office only released the early CET data to the public due to the moral turpitude of climate researchers revealed in the climategate emails
The full CET data set (since 1659) has been available for at least 6 years to my knowledge. It's almost certainly been available for a lot longer than that.
It's depressing that you seem to have no sense of wonder or curiosity about the natural world. A characteristic which you share with the cliamtological elite, who'd rather spend multimillions on supercomputers' idle musings than conduct a few paleoclimate studies in the Southern Hemisphere.
You clearly have no idea where I stand on the climate debate. You choose to form an opinion based simply on the fact that I question the strength of the solar influence on climate. No need to feel too bad about that - you are most certainly not alone amongst so-called sceptics.
Hence - "how do we know it was cold during the maunder minimum."? - we have no idea what temperature it was because scientists - appear to have - ignorantly aligned themselves with a political agenda and spent their research money building computers to agree with it.
We have no idea what the temperature was because there are no actual thermometer measurements from the maunder minimum period - apart from the CET record, that is. However, you don't appear to know whether it's ok to use it or not. You might be interested to know that Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann have co-authored papers which claim that there was a temperature increase (globally) of 0.3 to 0.4 deg between 1680 and 1780, so it seems that leading AGW proponents support your view.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on May 4, 2010 11:03:15 GMT
LOL! I know roughly where you stand GLC...I just disagree with the direction you're facing.
|
|
|
Post by twawki on May 4, 2010 12:20:43 GMT
well put glc, I'm sure you're aware that the solar wind travels at a few hundred km/s and that the heliosphere can have a diameter several times that of the solar system yet you suggest that I expect cosmic ray flux to follow solar activity perfectly. Despite non solar factors that can affect it's concentration, Beryllium is a proxy for solar activity at least as good as tree-rings are for climate. Considerably better depending on who does the analysis. There's really no need to be so touchy though. We both know the MET Office only released the early CET data to the public due to the moral turpitude of climate researchers revealed in the climategate emails. Here's the page where you could request it: "Please note that the Met Office data sets are available for bona fide academic research only (sorry no undergraduates), on a per person per project basis (i.e. all members on a same project who will be using the data must individually apply for access to the data). If you wish to access the Met Office data for commercial or personal purposes, please contact the Met Office directly." Nothing more commercially valuable than 300 year old patchy weather reports I guess. Maybe they were afraid it would help someone work out how the climate operated. In light of the behaviour which prompted the release of that data I think it's very important to see how it was viewed before any further adjustments were made - since it's difficult to have any confidence that they kept a record of why and how adjustments were made. After all, the Met Office is the weather forecasting wing of a military organisation that's been helping traffic Class A drugs internationally for over 200 years so not the most trustworthy people in the world. It's depressing that you seem to have no sense of wonder or curiosity about the natural world. A characteristic which you share with the cliamtological elite, who'd rather spend multimillions on supercomputers' idle musings than conduct a few paleoclimate studies in the Southern Hemisphere. Hence - "how do we know it was cold during the maunder minimum."? - we have no idea what temperature it was because scientists - appear to have - ignorantly aligned themselves with a political agenda and spent their research money building computers to agree with it.
|
|
|
Post by glc on May 4, 2010 12:44:15 GMT
well put
.... even if mostly wrong.
|
|
|
Post by hairball on May 4, 2010 14:23:05 GMT
glc,
I hate to presume, but I think your position is that AGW is real but that the dangers and magnitude in relation to feedbacks are overstated. Forgive me if I'm wrong. I believe that CO2 is causing some warming myself.
There is no trend in GCR's for the last 50 years, but there sure seem to be more than average during this solar cycle. If 24 does end up being muted and the next cycle, an odd one, is similar then there will be a trend. There's certainly an upward trend in sunspots since the 19th century - I believe this means cosmic rays have been declining. Even without the Be-10, is it wrong to assume that cosmic ray flux was high during the Maunder minimum? I don't think it's insane to credit the idea that particles travelling at relativistic speeds might have an effect on the atmosphere, there's a Danish chap who claims he can prove how.
Now that Dr. Trenberth has come out with his "coming back to haunt us" gambit I feel comfortable in asserting that the oceans may have been stealthily warming by an extra % or two due to solar influences other that TSI for the past 100 years. But if you insist that there's been no trend in cosmic rays for millenia or that they have no effect on the planet then that's fine too.
|
|
|
Post by dontgetoutmuch on May 4, 2010 16:18:55 GMT
Glc,
You keep referring to studies performed by Micheal Mann and Gavin Schmidt. You have to understand that when you see study that either one much less both of those gentleman have had a hand in you can pretty much bet that whatever conclusions the studies make have absolutely zero bearing upon reality unless it is by chance. Mann created a statistical method that makes the Washington Generals record and Enron’s stock performance both look like winners. Schmidt is the primary driver behind RealClimate which is a propaganda tool that would make Bagdad Bob green with envy. These guys are guilty of the worst sort of fraud. They present themselves as scientists but they are the worst sort of snake oil salesman. I am confident, that when their usefulness has passed, they will have their day in court. Until that time, please find another source of information that has not been tainted by those gentlemen or their fellow team members, Jones, Briffa , Hansen and others of the same ilk…
Be well
|
|
|
Post by glc on May 4, 2010 22:42:39 GMT
Glc, You keep referring to studies performed by Micheal Mann and Gavin Schmidt. You have to understand that when you see study that either one much less both of those gentleman have had a hand in you can pretty much bet that whatever conclusions the studies make have absolutely zero bearing upon reality unless it is by chance. Mann created a statistical method that makes the Washington Generals record and Enron’s stock performance both look like winners. Schmidt is the primary driver behind RealClimate which is a propaganda tool that would make Bagdad Bob green with envy. These guys are guilty of the worst sort of fraud. They present themselves as scientists but they are the worst sort of snake oil salesman. I am confident, that when their usefulness has passed, they will have their day in court. Until that time, please find another source of information that has not been tainted by those gentlemen or their fellow team members, Jones, Briffa , Hansen and others of the same ilk… Be well Do you have any proof of your allegations?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on May 5, 2010 0:21:36 GMT
Glc, You keep referring to studies performed by Micheal Mann and Gavin Schmidt. You have to understand that when you see study that either one much less both of those gentleman have had a hand in you can pretty much bet that whatever conclusions the studies make have absolutely zero bearing upon reality unless it is by chance. Mann created a statistical method that makes the Washington Generals record and Enron’s stock performance both look like winners. Schmidt is the primary driver behind RealClimate which is a propaganda tool that would make Bagdad Bob green with envy. These guys are guilty of the worst sort of fraud. They present themselves as scientists but they are the worst sort of snake oil salesman. I am confident, that when their usefulness has passed, they will have their day in court. Until that time, please find another source of information that has not been tainted by those gentlemen or their fellow team members, Jones, Briffa , Hansen and others of the same ilk… Be well Do you have any proof of your allegations? GLC: If you read RC, that is about as much proof about Schmidt as you will need. It has not been any kind of open forum, but rather a one sided, even tho hugely wrong at times, mouthpiece for AGW. The e-mails implicate Jones etal.
|
|