|
Post by missouriboy on Jan 22, 2019 18:46:13 GMT
And a massive idiot to boot!! (Seeing as its politics im assuming insults are ok??) In the states the opposition would refer to him as "My good friend and massive idiot to boot"! I must have missed the "my good friend" part from the Demonocrats Blu.
|
|
|
Post by blustnmtn on Jan 22, 2019 19:24:52 GMT
In the states the opposition would refer to him as "My good friend and massive idiot to boot"! I must have missed the "my good friend" part from the Demonocrats Blu. Now that you mention it Mo'boy, the "good friend" stuff is very one sided in our deep state. Maybe it's a psychological tool for dealing with morons.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jan 22, 2019 19:32:00 GMT
For an analog one need look no further back than the relationship between SC 12 and SC13 ... the 1880s ,.. which was followed by two more low cycles. Not the end of the world ... my grand parents survived ... But their generation wasn't called on to feed how many billions? I understand the wish to use analogues but the sample size is very small and the Solar system is a chaotic system. Even 'simple' closely repeating values can lead to complex behaviors that repeat slightly differently each time and sometimes significantly differently. See the 'Tinkerbell' chaotic map below (which should be in 4 Dimensions) We are told both that the solar system is chaotic and yet deterministic maths is being used to calculate its behavior as it is 'close enough'. However, that difference between 'precisely correct' and 'close enough' is the source of chaos - as Lorentz first showed. That Solar system behavior affects the equally chaotic behavior of the Solar 'dynamo(s)' and Solar atmosphere - again a behavior that is calculated deterministically as it is 'close enough'. So I would not be at all surprised if SC-25 was totally different to expectations based on previous behaviors as 'bary' (cough) will tell you small differences in the planetary positions will change the progress of the change from SC-24 to SC-25 compared to SC-12 to SC-13. We will not know if these differences will cause a move away from an attractor or a different orbit around it until it has happened. If Tinkerbell shows up all bets are off. Pixie dust is a powerful attractor. The Cortex snorts it all the time it would appear.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Jan 22, 2019 21:56:32 GMT
[ Snip ] And a massive idiot to boot!! (Seeing as its politics im assuming insults are ok??) Some years ago, Vi Jordan was a Labor member of the Queensland parliament. During an energetic debate, Vi described a Country Party member as not fit to live with pigs. The Speaker reprimanded her and directed that she should withdraw the comment. Vi responded: Very well, Mr Speaker, the Honourable Member is fit to live with pigs.
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Jan 23, 2019 19:33:17 GMT
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jan 23, 2019 23:36:32 GMT
The "Maunder Minimum soon" predictions have some logic behind them but still haven't found much support in the solar science community. Since Cycle 24 has proven nearly all theories for predicting solar activity to be wrong, I thought we might see some new thinking and perhaps more support for a near-term "dimming" of the sun. The fact that some scientists on the margin of solar science are confident enough to make specific predictions for Cycle 25 and 26, ie, Cycle 25 half as active as Cycle 24 and close to zero activity in Cycle 26, the odds of something happening seem to be a little higher. But even after the new studies and in spite of the very cold and snowy weather in the northern US this week, I'm still not quite ready to put it in my long-term global temperature prediction. Is anyone here convinced there's a Maunder Minimum just ahead? Still a crap shoot ... but here is what I think we "know". We are close to the bottom of the weakest solar cycle in over a hundred years. Its vital signs track closer to cycle 12 (1878-1890) than they do to cycle 20 (1964-1976). Cycle 20 was a singleton event sandwiched in a 100 year set of larger solar cycles. Singleton weak cycles are rare (only cycle 20) in the series going back to the start of the Maunder. Previous gold star winner Dr Svalgaard is forecasting cycle 25 to be "slightly" stronger than cycle 24, which could make it similar to cycle 13, the 2nd in a 5-cycle string of weaker cycles that extended through the 1920s. Enter Dr Zharkova with a new double dynamo model forecasting a 3-cycle set of very low cycles following cycle 24 ... playing to reasonably good reviews, which Dr Svalgaard seems to be only marginally trashing. The temperature records we have seem to show cooling whenever these weak cycles set in ... although there appear to be lags. Certain studies show that IPCCers have adjusted downward the recorded highs of the 1930s and adjusted upward the recorded lows of the 1970s using questionable logic and techniques. If I was a Vegas odds maker, would I bet heavily against a continuation of weakness and a likely but unknown drop in global temperatures? I think my answer would have to be NO. Joe Bastardi believes it will take "a while" for residual heat acquired by the oceans over 40 years of an energetic sun to "bleed off", but I don't think we have quantified "a while". Past measures for the Atlantic suggest upwards of a decade, but our sample size is small (two) and quantification may not be the best. The Pause may represent the balance point preceding the beginning of that "bleed off". Joe seems to believe we will set another slightly higher plateau, but there are signs that the shallower downward slope following the 2015 peak may accelerate. Here we may only be talking about "when and how much". Even IPCCers probably understand that, no matter how much insulation you have, if ya turn the furnace down in the cold of space, the house may get colder. But I think we should avoid becoming the antithesis of the warm extremists. How should a Cooling Period Progress (the story is not so much in the means, as in the variance and directional gradient)It would be nice if it stayed reasonably warm. But it is displaying continuing increases in outlier weather patterns across an increasing area of the globe. And it appears to be on the cold side. Averages do not convey the magnitude of increasing variance in the system. Temperature is ranging in blocks of days across the months in an expanding amplitude wave that is trending to the cold side. Solar energy inputs are declining and shifting to a longer wave length spectrum, Translating into decreasing solar inputs to the oceans, which is amplified by the increase in cloud cover. Great energy transfer is occurring along the edges of colder arctic air masses and increasingly less warm tropical air masses. Extremes of temperature, wind and precipitation occur with increasing frequency in great rivers along these contact zones. Stored ocean heat is moving upward with evaporation across an increasing energy gradient. The interface zones are increasingly loopy due to a pressure shift between the tropics and the poles. The balance between radiation going into the oceans and heat energy coming out of the oceans is changing. The great engine in the sky is going through a phase change and is dialing down the radiation. The accumulated loss in net system stored energy (and we are assuming there is one even if the 0.04% gas doesn't agree) may accrete across multiple low cycles effectively dropping upper ocean energy reserves, regardless of what may be moving around below. There may be a decline in turbulence in a few years as the energy bubbles off to its new level … roughly matching the changing inputs both from above and below.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jan 24, 2019 6:03:23 GMT
I don't have the other figures, but cloud (sky) cover in Columbia, Missouri looks like it has been steadily increasing between 2012 and 2018.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jan 25, 2019 4:09:56 GMT
Here are an interesting set of comments to a Notrickszone posting. There are many good sources reference in the first comment as well; notrickszone.com/2019/01/22/munich-conference-leading-danish-astrophysicist-says-solar-activity-has-significant-impact-on-global-climate/tom0mason 24. January 2019 at 10:09 PM | Permalink | Reply There are many “top-down” pathways for the sun’s influence. E.g, Charles Jackman of the Goddard Space Flight Center has explained how nitrogen oxides (NOx) created by solar energetic particles and cosmic rays in the stratosphere might reduce ozone levels (within the tropopause) by a few percent. Because ozone absorbs UV radiation, less ozone means that more UV rays from the sun would reach Earth’s surface. Greg Kopp of the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics at the University of Colorado, pointed out some time ago, that while the variations in luminosity over the 11-year solar cycle amount to only a tenth of a percent of the sun’s total output, such a small fraction is still important. As he said “Even typical short term variations of 0.1% in incident irradiance exceed all other energy sources (such as natural radioactivity in Earth’s core) combined”. Also noted is that the sun’s extreme ultraviolet (EUV) radiation, which peaks during the years around solar maximum. Within the relatively narrow band of EUV wavelengths, the sun’s output varies not by a minuscule 0.1%, but by whopping factors of 10 or more. This will strongly affect the chemistry and thermal structure of the upper atmosphere. Isaac Held of NOAA went a step further … He described how loss of ozone in the stratosphere could alter the dynamics of the atmosphere below it. “The cooling of the polar stratosphere associated with loss of ozone increases the horizontal temperature gradient near the tropopause, … This alters the flux of angular momentum by mid-latitude eddies. [Angular momentum is important because] the angular momentum budget of the troposphere controls the surface westerlies.” And the angular momentum budget determines how the weather behaves. In other words, solar activity felt in the upper atmosphere can, through a complicated series of influences, push surface weather tracks — winds, clouds, storms, etc. — off course.
|
|
|
Post by blustnmtn on Jan 27, 2019 13:53:52 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 27, 2019 19:19:00 GMT
That was a good article Blu!
|
|
|
Post by blustnmtn on Jan 27, 2019 20:03:38 GMT
That was a good article Blu! Thanks Sig! How’s your diesel fuel behaving up there? Are you folks using a 50/50 blend of #2 and 1?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 27, 2019 23:04:26 GMT
That was a good article Blu! Thanks Sig! How’s your diesel fuel behaving up there? Are you folks using a 50/50 blend of #2 and 1? I use a conditioner that treats it to -40F, run straight #2. Without conditioner, would be running a 60#1-40#2 mix. Was thinking of putting some #1 in it tomorrow. Spose to get to 4F, so pretty warm. Then gets a bit brisk for rest of week. -30F+, so better to be safe than sorry.
|
|
|
Post by blustnmtn on Jan 27, 2019 23:36:51 GMT
Thanks Sig! How’s your diesel fuel behaving up there? Are you folks using a 50/50 blend of #2 and 1? I use a conditioner that treats it to -40F, run straight #2. Without conditioner, would be running a 60#1-40#2 mix. Was thinking of putting some #1 in it tomorrow. Spose to get to 4F, so pretty warm. Then gets a bit brisk for rest of week. -30F+, so better to be safe than sorry. I have a JD 3520 at my cabin in upstate NY. I have #2 in it with Power Service conditioner. I don’t think it’s been below -10F there. I’m sure you have extensive experience with keeping things running in that cold. I’ll find out Friday if I’ve done everything right. I’m definitely not acclimated like you but I do find that the dryer air there in The Catskills makes the cold easier to take than the generally higher humidity here on Long Island. The Vortex is coming my way next.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Jan 28, 2019 0:08:42 GMT
That was a good article Blu! Thanks Sig! How’s your diesel fuel behaving up there? Are you folks using a 50/50 blend of #2 and 1? Number two and number one ..... not biological functions, I hope.
|
|
|
Post by blustnmtn on Jan 28, 2019 0:11:39 GMT
Thanks Sig! How’s your diesel fuel behaving up there? Are you folks using a 50/50 blend of #2 and 1? Number two and number one ..... not biological functions, I hope. I expected that Ratty.
|
|