|
Post by Ratty on Jul 7, 2015 23:46:29 GMT
Duwayne, please save me a lot of reading. What does ".... since exceptionally high amplitudes of the solar magnetic cycle cannot be invoked anymore." mean?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 20, 2015 3:15:32 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Jul 20, 2015 4:24:19 GMT
Regardless of the magnitude of the climate impact of the solar changes, what does come through is the amplification of the cooling in the NE Atlantic re Northern Europe. Much has been stated that it was localized to this region but the probability is that the recorded world was there and much less recording happened elsewhere.
But there is also no question that the region is peculiarly hot for the latitude and the smallest perturbation could make some very unwelcome climatic impact on an only just temperate region of the world.
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Jul 20, 2015 18:21:42 GMT
link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00376-012-2125-5Another study similar to the one Sig found....not trying to outdo u sig, saw this study, remembered nonentropics query, saw relationship between N Atlantic and other part of world...came here with link, saw u beat me to it
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 20, 2015 23:00:09 GMT
link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00376-012-2125-5Another study similar to the one Sig found....not trying to outdo u sig, saw this study, remembered nonentropics query, saw relationship between N Atlantic and other part of world...came here with link, saw u beat me to it Don't EVER worry about "outdoing" me. One of the reasons I frequent this site is that there are a lot of actual papers floated. I try and share what I come across, and really do appreciate others doing the same. It helps me learn, and I just love to learn.
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Jul 30, 2015 16:06:20 GMT
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Aug 10, 2015 12:49:20 GMT
Here's an article on the revised sunspot numbers with the conclusion that the sun's activity doesn't explain the global temperature increase in the last half of the 20th century. phys.org/news/2015-08-sunspot-history-climate-due-natural.htmlA question for those of you who follow this more closely. Have there been any convincing rebuttals concerning the revised sunspot numbers? And it's probably too soon, but are there any worthwhile new papers on the sun's influence based on the updated numbers?
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Aug 10, 2015 13:58:53 GMT
I think your right in that it's too soon for the scientific community to process this Dwayne...
My unscientific take on it would be this...if a warming effect from the sun is cummulative as uv warms oceans etc, may this slowly produce a 0.8°c rise over time??
Also, the new sunspot count actually makes the current weak cycle even weaker. ..
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Aug 11, 2015 15:23:30 GMT
Here's an article on the revised sunspot numbers with the conclusion that the sun's activity doesn't explain the global temperature increase in the last half of the 20th century. phys.org/news/2015-08-sunspot-history-climate-due-natural.htmlA question for those of you who follow this more closely. Have there been any convincing rebuttals concerning the revised sunspot numbers? And it's probably too soon, but are there any worthwhile new papers on the sun's influence based on the updated numbers? The problem is that nobody nows the reaction times of the climate system to a change in the Sun's output. Nobody knows if those reactions are linear, exponential or chaotic; nobody knows the timescales of the reactions, nobody knows if these reactions are positive or negative feedback to the change in the Sun's output, nobody knows all the possible reactions to a change in the Sun. In consequence someone saying that there is or is not a link has made assumptions that are almost certainly invalid.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Aug 11, 2015 16:13:15 GMT
Here is a paper from the Astrophysical Journal, Nov. 2014, which I have not seen posted here. Seems related to studies Astromet has referenced. ABSTRACT A comprehensive spectral analysis of both the solar background magnetic field (SBMF) in cycles 21–23 and the sunspot magnetic field in cycle 23 reported in our recent paper showed the presence of two principal components (PCs) of SBMF having opposite polarity, e.g., originating in the northern and southern hemispheres, respectively. Over a duration of one solar cycle, both waves are found to travel with an increasing phase shift toward the northern hemisphere in odd cycles 21 and 23 and to the southern hemisphere in even cycle 22. These waves were linked to solar dynamo waves assumed to form in different layers of the solar interior. In this paper, for the first time, the PCs of SBMF in cycles 21–23 are analyzed with the symbolic regression technique using Hamiltonian principles, allowing us to uncover the underlying mathematical laws governing these complex waves in the SBMF presented by PCs and to extrapolate these PCs to cycles 24–26. The PCs predicted for cycle 24 very closely fit (with an accuracy better than 98%) the PCs derived from the SBMF observations in this cycle. This approach also predicts a strong reduction of the SBMF in cycles 25 and 26 and, thus, a reduction of the resulting solar activity. This decrease is accompanied by an increasing phase shift between the two predicted PCs (magnetic waves) in cycle 25 leading to their full separation into the opposite hemispheres in cycle 26. The variations of the modulus summary of the two PCs in SBMF reveals a remarkable resemblance to the average number of sunspots in cycles 21–24 and to predictions of reduced sunspot numbers compared to cycle 24: 80% in cycle 25 and 40% in cycle 26 computing.unn.ac.uk/staff/slmv5/kinetics/shepherd_etal_apj14_795_1_46.pdf
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Aug 11, 2015 16:47:06 GMT
Here's an article on the revised sunspot numbers with the conclusion that the sun's activity doesn't explain the global temperature increase in the last half of the 20th century. phys.org/news/2015-08-sunspot-history-climate-due-natural.htmlA question for those of you who follow this more closely. Have there been any convincing rebuttals concerning the revised sunspot numbers? And it's probably too soon, but are there any worthwhile new papers on the sun's influence based on the updated numbers? The problem is that nobody nows the reaction times of the climate system to a change in the Sun's output. Nobody knows if those reactions are linear, exponential or chaotic; nobody knows the timescales of the reactions, nobody knows if these reactions are positive or negative feedback to the change in the Sun's output, nobody knows all the possible reactions to a change in the Sun. In consequence someone saying that there is or is not a link has made assumptions that are almost certainly invalid. Given the truth in your assessment of our conspicuous ignorance ... and our current assumptions that only the sun (and perhaps some resident geothermal activity) could possibly supply the energy that drives our climate system (regardless of residence time or reaction) ... the truely amazing conclusion would have to be that these have absolutely no effect.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 11, 2015 17:25:33 GMT
Of course there is no effect from the sun etc. Scientific consensus ya know? It is only an illusion that continents move as well.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Aug 11, 2015 21:56:13 GMT
The continents move?
|
|
|
Post by flyfisher7 on Aug 12, 2015 15:18:58 GMT
Usoskin et al. "present the first fully adjustment-free physical reconstruction of solar activity" covering the past 3,000 years, which record allowed them "to study different modes of solar activity at an unprecedented level of detail." "IPCC scientists have conducted relatively few studies of the Sun's influence on modern warming, assuming that the temperature influence of this rare and unique Grand maximum of solar activity, which has occurred only once in the past 3,000 years, is far inferior to the radiative power provided by the rising CO2 concentration of the Earth's atmosphere." www.co2science.org/articles/V17/N32/C1.php
|
|
|
Post by walnut on Aug 12, 2015 15:46:04 GMT
Of course there is no effect from the sun etc. Scientific consensus ya know? It is only an illusion that continents move as well. There is only small differential in the total output of the sun by all of it's characteristics, and its change has a very limited effect on earth's climate. Didn't you know that? No point in studying it any more. CO2 caused the warming that occurred over that period, not the higher solar activity during the same period.
|
|