|
Post by acidohm on Dec 20, 2014 16:55:07 GMT
no it is not new just denied by the AGW alarmists. Can't abide deniers ;-)
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Dec 20, 2014 18:52:59 GMT
no it is not new just denied by the AGW alarmists. What is also interesting is that the proposed cure for the 'global dimming' the Anthropogenic Global Cooling that was claimed to be causing the descent into the ice age was - yes - raised taxes on power generation using fossil fuels and taxes on 'carbon' emissions. This is the progressive cure all as " Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.” – Prof Paul Ehrlich,. No worries about people dying of cold in energy poverty, or about the 3rd world and their dung fires inside the huts. Perhaps the Holdrens, Ehrlichs and other progressives should be required to experience a survival exercise with no on tap energy for a few months so they realize the dystopia they are recommending to the world.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Dec 20, 2014 22:44:26 GMT
I would like them to winter in a tent on the north 1/4.
|
|
|
Post by cuttydyer on Jan 2, 2015 9:20:36 GMT
Jo Nova has provided a summary of the Stephen Wilde hypothesis of top down solar modulation: In essence: The Sun affects the ozone layer through changes in UV or charged particles. When the Sun is more active there is more ozone above the equator and less over the poles, and vice versa. An increase in ozone warms the stratosphere or mesosphere, which pushes the tropopause lower. There is thus a solar induced see-saw effect on the height of the tropopause, which causes the climate zones to shift towards then away from the equator, moving the jet streams and changing them from “zonal” jet streams to “meridonal” ones. When meridonal, the jet streams wander in loops further north and south, resulting in longer lines of air mass mixing at climate zone boundaries, which creates more clouds. Clouds reflect sunlight back out to space, determining how much the climate system is heated by the near-constant incoming solar radiation. Thus the Sun’s UV and charged particles modulate the solar heating of the Earth. An active Sun increases ozone in the stratosphere: “Changes in solar ultraviolet spectral irradiance directly modify the production rate of ozone in the upper stratosphere (e.g. Brasseur, 1993), and hence it is reasonable to expect a solar cycle variation in ozone amount. The global satellite ozone records since 1979 show evidence for a decadal oscillation of total ozone with maximum amplitude (~2%) at low latitudes (Hood and McCormack, 1992; Chandra and McPeters, 1994; Hood, 1997). Link: joannenova.com.au/2015/01/is-the-sun-driving-ozone-and-changing-the-climate/
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Jan 2, 2015 16:35:32 GMT
I would like them to winter in a tent on the north 1/4. I don't even want to summer in a tent on the north 1/4
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jan 2, 2015 17:15:46 GMT
Jo Nova has provided a summary of the Stephen Wilde hypothesis of top down solar modulation: In essence: The Sun affects the ozone layer through changes in UV or charged particles. When the Sun is more active there is more ozone above the equator and less over the poles, and vice versa. An increase in ozone warms the stratosphere or mesosphere, which pushes the tropopause lower. There is thus a solar induced see-saw effect on the height of the tropopause, which causes the climate zones to shift towards then away from the equator, moving the jet streams and changing them from “zonal” jet streams to “meridonal” ones. When meridonal, the jet streams wander in loops further north and south, resulting in longer lines of air mass mixing at climate zone boundaries, which creates more clouds. Clouds reflect sunlight back out to space, determining how much the climate system is heated by the near-constant incoming solar radiation. Thus the Sun’s UV and charged particles modulate the solar heating of the Earth. {{SNIP}} Link: joannenova.com.au/2015/01/is-the-sun-driving-ozone-and-changing-the-climate/Stephen has been publicizing this for some time. I have no doubt that there is an effect on ozone levels. The difficulty I have is the idea that the upper atmosphere can 'push' the tropopause up and down. The tropopause is the top of the convective movement in the atmosphere. Over the equator or more accurately at the Inter Tropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ) the convective weather is hugely powerful with towering storms sometimes up to 70,000ft the top of these storms is the Tropopause. If there is less energy input from the sun, these convective storms are less powerful and the tropopause is lower. The storms are the updraft part of the Hadley Cells. The sub-tropical jet stream is the poleward boundary of the Hadley cells. So if the Hadley cells are pushed larger by towering convective weather the jet streams will be pushed poleward. Similarly the Ferrel cells will then get pushed poleward by the larger Hadley cells. This effect creates more powerful meridonal jet streams which have moved poleward. If the Sun's energy input is reduced the opposite occurs the Hadley cells are smaller and less powerful and the Ferrel cells and the polar jetstreams can move equatorward and become more latitudinal. Which is where I believe we are now. It is possible of course that both effects are in play together with others such as cloud albedo increasing as the latitudinal 'looping' jet streams are now following a longer track and the clouds associated with their fronts cover a larger area. I have always found it difficult to accept that the small low energy poles are pushing jet streams to the equator. It is just as difficult to accept that the light stratosphere can prevent convective storms with huge amounts of energy from towering higher.
|
|
|
Post by cuttydyer on Jan 11, 2015 7:32:23 GMT
The Sun is the climate pacemaker I.Equatorial Pacific Ocean temperatures: Abstract: Equatorial Pacific Ocean temperature time series data contain segments showing both a phase-locked annual signal and a phase-locked signal of period two years or three years, both locked to the annual solar cycle. Three such segments are observed between 1990 and 2014. It is asserted that these are caused by a solar forcing at a frequency of 1.0 cycle/yr. These periodic features are also found in global climate data (following paper). The analysis makes use of a twelve-month filter that cleanly separates seasonal effects from data. This is found to be significant for understanding the El Niño/La Niña phenomenon. Paper link: www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/papers/PLA_Sun_I_in_press.pdf
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Jan 22, 2015 6:38:20 GMT
Space scientist fears return of 'mini ice age'TNN | Jan 21, 2015, 12.56 AM IST NASHIK: The fewer sunspot activities on the Sun witnessed since the last two solar cycles might lead to a "mini ice age-like situation" in coming years, Shrinivas Aundhkar, the director of Mahatma Gandhi Mission, Centre for Astronomy and Space Technology, Nanded, said here on Tuesday. "The sunspots that can be seen on the Sun have comparatively less temperature compared to other surfaces on it (Sun)," he said while addressing a gathering for a lecture, Get Ready for Little Ice Age, held as part of the Narendra Dabholkar lecture series. Aundhkar, who has worked with scientists across the world on Sun-Earth connection, said, "The Sun undergoes two cycles that are described as maximum and minimum. The activity alternates every 11 years, and the period is termed as one solar cycle. At present, the Sun is undergoing the minimum phase, reducing global temperatures." ~snip~ timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/nashik/Space-scientist-fears-return-of-mini-ice-age/articleshow/45959671.cms
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 16, 2015 10:14:47 GMT
Here is a paper referenced from a WUWT thread that you may find interesting. It immediately raises the hackles of those who think tides and orbits around barycenters have nothing to do with climate - so it must be worth a read Orbital resonance and Solar cycles"We show resonance cycles between most planets in Solar System, of differing quality. The most precise resonance - between Earth and Venus, which not only stabilizes orbits of both planets, locks planet Venus rotation in tidal locking, but also affects the Sun: This resonance group (E+V) also influences Sunspot cycles - the position of syzygy between Earth and Venus, when the barycenter of the resonance group most closely approaches the Sun and stops for some time, relative to Jupiter planet, well matches the Sunspot cycle of 11 years, not only for the last 400 years of measured Sunspot cycles, but also in 1000 years of historical record of "severe winters". We show, how cycles in angular momentum of Earth and Venus planets match with the Sunspot cycle and how the main cycle in angular momentum of the whole Solar system (934*-year cycle of Jupiter/Saturn) matches with climatologic data, assumed to show connection with Solar output power and insolation. We show the possible connections between E+V events and Solar global p-Mode frequency changes. We futher show angular momentum tables and charts for individual planets, as encoded in DE405 and DE406 ephemerides. We show, that inner planets orbit on heliocentric trajectories whereas outer planets orbit on barycentric trajectories."
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on May 30, 2015 16:23:07 GMT
Just getting a thought out there really...about the sun's influence on SST.
Yesterday the sea here in Croatia was SO cold, went in....30 secs later came out, red like a lobster...could not breath when it in....
Today, glorious...on the surface...very unscientific but I estimate SST went from 16°c or so to 20°c today.
The air temp was similar, 23-25°c. Biggest difference was today was calm, whereas 4 days ago we had the dreaded 'bura' wind off the mountain at maybe 60-80mph (has been recorded at 150mph I kid you not!!)
The coast shelves into the sea very steeply so there is no large shallow area to warm easily.
My point is, how fickle SST can be based on wind and sun, huge changes can occur overnight.
As I write this I'm thinking it must be that the warmer water today is not 'new' heat but rather the Stiller waters allows the existing energy to separate? Wonder if/how this scales up in the oceans?
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on May 30, 2015 17:27:32 GMT
The colder waters will lead to a drier atmosphere which with lower enthalpy will have more extreme changes in temperatures
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on May 30, 2015 19:27:05 GMT
The colder waters will lead to a drier atmosphere which with lower enthalpy will have more extreme changes in temperatures Yes and no on drier atmosphere. One of the surprises was a paper from Texas in 2012 that used balloons and satellite measurements and concluded the AH had actually dropped. Of course the author was chastised for not toeing the line but he was emphatic in regards to the papers outcome.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on May 30, 2015 19:27:59 GMT
It was one that got published too late, supposedly to be included in IPCC 5.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on May 30, 2015 19:28:46 GMT
I think the paper link is in the absolute humidity thread.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 1, 2015 5:11:09 GMT
those who think tides and orbits around barycenters have nothing to do with climate Nautonnier As I recall you had the notion a barycenter must have some huge influence upon the Sun whereas Leif was saying the tidal influence was tiny. I did not even know what a barycenter was when I read your posts, but you were celibrating how amused you were by comments about them. Given how cocky you were about the topic I found it rather irritating when after I had researched the information and 'presented' it to the board, and frustratingly interacted with you about it, that you dissapeared without acknowledging you had been totally mixed up. I would guess therefore the main problem barycenters has for climate conversations is the one created by having to deal with the same ill thought out ideas time and time again. Edit: After i typed that out I found our comments about barycenters. solarcycle24com.proboards.com/post/95086/threadHere is a summary: 1. I asked you what point you were wanting to make about Barycenters, described what they were and you then said you agreed with me but2. you claimed Svaalgard was disputing what NASA was saying about Barycenters! 3. I said there was no way that Svaalgard could be disputing what NASA said 4. You produced a link to support your argument 5. After reading your link I pointed out Svaalbard was not disputing barycenters existed and you were muddled up 6. You dissapeared. ------------------------------ As I recall, the tide on the Sun created by the barycenter is about 10cm high! less than 1cm
|
|