|
Post by icefisher on Mar 23, 2009 22:50:35 GMT
I think solar driven warming will require cycles significantly stronger than 22+23. I kind of doubt that since sc22 was either the 3rd or 4th most powerful in history, and where 4 out of 5 of the most powerful ever observed have been in the last 60 years.
|
|
|
Post by jimg on Mar 24, 2009 7:13:03 GMT
Well, if UV is necessary for the production of ozone, it shouldn't be too surprising that it's not being created as readily.
Heat input doesn't necessarily need to change if heat loss fluctuates.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Mar 24, 2009 11:46:20 GMT
You need to clarify. Its your view that 1) The science is being misinterpreted; or 2) Its being misinterpreted as having a negative effect on the number of AGW alarmists. Both What polls are you thinking of? Tenuous because? We are in La Nina conditions, with negative PDO, low solar cycle and still temps are up there amount the 00s years, many of which contained El Ninos: www.woodfortrees.org/plotSo when ENSO goes positive, the solar cycle ramps up and the PDO goes positive, how much higher will that take temperature? 0.1C, 0.2C? 0.5C? "Tenuous because? We are in La Nina conditions, with negative PDO, low solar cycle and still temps are up there amount the 00s years, many of which contained El Ninos: www.woodfortrees.org/plot
So when ENSO goes positive, the solar cycle ramps up and the PDO goes positive, how much higher will that take temperature? 0.1C, 0.2C? 0.5C?"What an interesting response. Firstly, as I have been trying to tell you the Pacific is actually part of the 'global' in 'Global Warming'. So if the Pacific goes cold with negative PDO and a La Nina, the Globe has got colder. I would think that the reduced heat content in the Pacific is greater than the heat stored in the atmosphere. Secondly, you make the point for Solar caused global warming very well - solar cycle ramps up and the Pacific heats up then we will see temperatures go up. It is certainly the case that the Sun has gone quiet, the Pacific has started cooling and the atmosphere has cooled. So yes given the reverse it could get warmer. For you the problem is justifying the place of the trace gas CO 2 in all of this.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Mar 25, 2009 2:02:24 GMT
Both What polls are you thinking of? Tenuous because? We are in La Nina conditions, with negative PDO, low solar cycle and still temps are up there amount the 00s years, many of which contained El Ninos: www.woodfortrees.org/plotSo when ENSO goes positive, the solar cycle ramps up and the PDO goes positive, how much higher will that take temperature? 0.1C, 0.2C? 0.5C? "Tenuous because? We are in La Nina conditions, with negative PDO, low solar cycle and still temps are up there amount the 00s years, many of which contained El Ninos: www.woodfortrees.org/plot
So when ENSO goes positive, the solar cycle ramps up and the PDO goes positive, how much higher will that take temperature? 0.1C, 0.2C? 0.5C?"What an interesting response. Firstly, as I have been trying to tell you the Pacific is actually part of the 'global' in 'Global Warming'. So if the Pacific goes cold with negative PDO and a La Nina, the Globe has got colder. I would think that the reduced heat content in the Pacific is greater than the heat stored in the atmosphere. Secondly, you make the point for Solar caused global warming very well - solar cycle ramps up and the Pacific heats up then we will see temperatures go up. It is certainly the case that the Sun has gone quiet, the Pacific has started cooling and the atmosphere has cooled. So yes given the reverse it could get warmer. But if PDO goes no more positive than it was a few years back, solar max for cycle 24 is no larger than 23, and the el nino is no bigger than the 2002-2003 one, then we shouldn't expect temperature to rise any higher than it already has this decade. If this happens: Then PDO, the sun and the el nino would be an insufficient explaination for a continuing rising trend.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Mar 25, 2009 2:55:55 GMT
"Tenuous because? We are in La Nina conditions, with negative PDO, low solar cycle and still temps are up there amount the 00s years, many of which contained El Ninos: www.woodfortrees.org/plot
So when ENSO goes positive, the solar cycle ramps up and the PDO goes positive, how much higher will that take temperature? 0.1C, 0.2C? 0.5C?"What an interesting response. Firstly, as I have been trying to tell you the Pacific is actually part of the 'global' in 'Global Warming'. So if the Pacific goes cold with negative PDO and a La Nina, the Globe has got colder. I would think that the reduced heat content in the Pacific is greater than the heat stored in the atmosphere. Secondly, you make the point for Solar caused global warming very well - solar cycle ramps up and the Pacific heats up then we will see temperatures go up. It is certainly the case that the Sun has gone quiet, the Pacific has started cooling and the atmosphere has cooled. So yes given the reverse it could get warmer. But if PDO goes no more positive than it was a few years back, solar max for cycle 24 is no larger than 23, and the el nino is no bigger than the 2002-2003 one, then we shouldn't expect temperature to rise any higher than it already has this decade. If this happens: Then PDO, the sun and the el nino would be an insufficient explaination for a continuing rising trend. What is a sufficient explanation for this? Seriously, this shouldn't be happening according to the prevailing AGW hypotheses. Concentrating on air temperatures is really not where it matters; the oceans tell the story. Regardless, there cannot be "global" warming if the oceans (70% of earth's surface) are not gaining heat.
|
|
|
Post by jimg on Mar 25, 2009 2:59:14 GMT
socold: I would swear that you own a cherry orchard.
However, let's assume that the current trend stays where it is. Then the beloved .2C/decade becomes something like .15C, then .1C and so on until there is no warming.
The assumption is that we were at "just the right planetary temperature."
And this is because?
|
|