|
Post by icefisher on Sept 22, 2016 23:06:38 GMT
We should all know that climate science about 3 decades ago abandoned NOAA's belief that the sun controlled climate on the basis of the rising radiation theories of the greenhouse effect. The entire science basis for abandoning that favored opinion was that solar TSI did not vary enough to account for climate variability observed on earth. Adopted in its place was the once discredited greenhouse theory. Prompted primarily by Al Gore a student of the brilliant scientist Dr Roger Revelle while he taught at Harvard, Dr Revelle had devoted a great deal of effort to take another look at greenhouse gases. Before he died in 1991, Dr Revelle stated that his work so far was short of establishing greenhouse gases as an explanation for climate variability. Of course his brilliant student disagreed with him and became Vice President of the US where he so greened the greenhouse theory today its the most popular theory as folks have rushed in for the billions he helped make available. And of course if you disagree, you are apt to lose a job, get retaliated against by the thousands of greened scientists living of the largess of the greenhouse theory and probably get accused of being a fossil fuel company stooge. . . .while the big bucks that represents the real stooge factor gets ignored. Not all scientists have fallen into this pit of iniquity. However, it has a tendency to harm ones career if they elevate integrity above going along to get along as Dr Kerry Emanuel once suggested to Dr Richard Lindzen. One such place where this has not happened is over at Dr Judith Curry's Climate Etc site. Dr Curry is currently working on cloud microphysics a study that may have been motivated in part or whole by the findings of the CERN project into the effects of cosmic rays. A kind of mostly silent revolution that seems to be attracting more and more folks. This week an interesting article on Climate Etc covers: Frequency analysis of solar variability during the Holocene identifies several cycles (McCracken et al., 2013), with the most important being the 11.4-yr Schwabe cycle, the 87-yr Gleissberg cycle, the 208-yr de Vries cycle, the ~ 1000-yr Eddy cycle, and the ~ 2400-yr cycle. Even longer cycles can be identified from 10-Berilium (10Be) records in ice cores, like a 9600-yr cycle (Sánchez-Sesma, 2015). Comparison of climate and solar variability records leads to the important observation that the length of the cycle correlates with the amplitude of the climate effect observed and in general the longer the cycle the more profound effect it appears to have on climate.For Sigurdur, the underlying paper that is linked to in the Climate Etc story ends with the conclusion that "solar activity during the 21st century should be similar to solar activity enjoyed during the second half of the 20th century ". Sounds like pretty good news for North Dakota. They suggest not forgetting the sun screen. judithcurry.com/2016/09/20/impact-of-the-2400-yr-solar-cycle-on-climate-and-human-societies/#more-22159
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 23, 2016 0:09:19 GMT
I actually think solar folks are missing one cycle. Bond events are world wide and occur with a cyclical pattern.
As far as 21st Century? I am all for it!!
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Sept 23, 2016 3:56:28 GMT
Very interesting paper that will keep me busy for a while. A part of one section struck me because Astro mentioned something very similar in his mechanical description of the emerging cold period ...
"very strong high latitude winds and a great polar vortex expansion that could have brought a very cold period over the northern hemisphere while reducing the cold near the pole. "
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 23, 2016 4:24:41 GMT
Very interesting paper that will keep me busy for a while. A part of one section struck me because Astro mentioned something very similar in his mechanical description of the emerging cold period ... "very strong high latitude winds and a great polar vortex expansion that could have brought a very cold period over the northern hemisphere while reducing the cold near the pole. " Yep folks were wondering why the solar minima effect was maximized on a 10year cycle as opposed to a sinewave cycle of about 5 1/2 years on the 11 year solar cycle. The sun has a 22 year magnetic cycle. Its not mentioned in this paper but a 22 year cycle producing 11 years up and 11 years down is more atuned to the "step" effect noted in the recent warming cycle occurring once a decade. The step got skipped for 2007/8, will have to see if post La Nina if temps continue to step up, possibly as a result of one of these longer cycles. Of special interest to me is the 976 year Eddy Cycle. Because of being unable to understand potential solar causes, the 2 to 4 degree variation in the icecore record every 800 to 1000 years was blown off as data noise. 480 years takes you from 1220 to 1700 a cooling period with a nice fit to a Eddy half cycle for the drop into the LIA. Coming out might extend to 2180 with a net 1 to 2 degree change every 240 year plus years as we have probably seen since 1700. Shorter cycles have produced around a .6 to .8 warming in a couple of decades but it hasn't had longer term staying power, wilting away to maybe a third or half that over 60 plus years. LOL! Good luck on this Mboy!
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 23, 2016 4:40:44 GMT
Well to be fair to Theo, this gave a "century" forecast. I think Theo's is a lot shorter. While it wasn't a prediction what is being suggested here fits better with Dr Syun Akasofu's speculation that the warming seen over the past few centuries is a continuing recovery from the LIA. Astrometeorologists have been historically paid to produce annual forecasts, thats what they have a pretty good track record in. Then, while it wasn't a prediction, Dr. Akasofu was suggesting warming looked steadier after filtering out the 65 year oscillation of the oceans. The underlying trend could be simply an out of equilibrium ocean with a solar era that ended 300 years ago. 300 to a 1000 years or even more is within the realm of possibility of average ocean temperatures causing the surface to change its average temperature since surface temperatures are both solar warmed and cooled by current and wind driven upwellings. Scientists analyzing stuff carried in deep currents say some of has not seen the surface for over 1,500 years and since its only a couple or three degrees above freezing it hasn't warmed a lot either. If so then HURRAH! another 180 years of the good times!
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Sept 23, 2016 8:16:02 GMT
THE PULSE OF ASIA - Huntington Revisited "The productivity of the steppes is very dependent on precipitations and the nomads and their herds cannot rely on stored food during bad years. When analyzing precipitations in Central Asia we find a common pattern for nomadic invasions. They don’t take place during arid periods, but following a maximum in humidity (figure 12b), suggesting that the increase in precipitations, like in the 2.8 kyr event, brings the nomad population and their herds to a maximum, and from that point, any decrease in precipitations, even if not pronounced (figure 12b arrows), places the population in overshooting. The result is a high number of steppe nomads migrating to adjacent areas where easy conquests stimulate further advances, pushing other groups into migration. This pattern is detected not only in the case of the Scythians, but also with the Huns in the 2nd century AD, the Turkic peoples in the 11th century and the Mongols in the 13th century (figure 12b). I have termed this pattern the steppe migration climatic mechanism. A similar pattern is observed with lemmings, that don’t mass migrate during bad years that keep the population in check, but after good years that push the population up creating overshooting conditions." Decidedly non-PC. No safe space here ... watch your children.
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Sept 23, 2016 8:32:26 GMT
Well to be fair to Theo, this gave a "century" forecast. I think Theo's is a lot shorter. While it wasn't a prediction what is being suggested here fits better with Dr Syun Akasofu's speculation that the warming seen over the past few centuries is a continuing recovery from the LIA. Astrometeorologists have been historically paid to produce annual forecasts, thats what they have a pretty good track record in. Then, while it wasn't a prediction, Dr. Akasofu was suggesting warming looked steadier after filtering out the 65 year oscillation of the oceans. The underlying trend could be simply an out of equilibrium ocean with a solar era that ended 300 years ago. 300 to a 1000 years or even more is within the realm of possibility of average ocean temperatures causing the surface to change its average temperature since surface temperatures are both solar warmed and cooled by current and wind driven upwellings. Scientists analyzing stuff carried in deep currents say some of has not seen the surface for over 1,500 years and since its only a couple or three degrees above freezing it hasn't warmed a lot either. If so then HURRAH! another 180 years of the good times! So some little critters somewhere on an ocean floor could be shivering their nuts off wondering why their 'world' has gone cold. And it's all because we (or our ancestors were) '00s or '000s yeas ago??. And if this water resurfaces to us it'll give our desendants a hard time before cycling back under again??
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Sept 23, 2016 10:18:21 GMT
I read 4000AD and decided not to wait.
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Sept 23, 2016 10:51:16 GMT
I read 4000AD and decided not to wait. C'mon Ratty....u could at least try!!
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 23, 2016 11:15:01 GMT
I find it strange that there is so much pattern matching by the wiggle watchers. All of them accept that the climate and even the motions of the planets are chaotic yet happily forecast the next wiggle based on the previous few wiggles. Of course they don't say it like that. They will say that solar cycle 24 is an analogue of SC6 therefore --- interpolate based on pattern matching the wiggle. As Sig has said Bond and D-O events seem to occur that would not be accounted for by minor variations in the TSI or of any known variant of the 'green house effect'. With chaotic systems a minor perturbation may have no effect as the system is in one part of its 'orbit around an attractor' but have a major impact in another point of the orbit possibly enough to move the entire state to orbiting another attractor. Pointing out the number of times the perturbation has had no effect and how minor it is - does not diminish this 'butterfly effect'. Hence pointing at TSI and saying doesn't change enough may be a false conclusion, especially when TSI is made up of many different frequencies with significantly different effects. See this Poincare Section of a chaotic system with what appears to be two attractors This system can flip from one state to another dependent on perturbation in the variables. It is possible to sit on one 'orbit around an attractor' and be completely unaware that a minor perturbation at just the right time may flip to another state. I am not so sanguine about climate not changing much as we have been around the same attractor for centuries. We know that the glacial state attractor is there; but what no-one seems to know is what perturbation in normal values flips to the glacial attractor. It is patently not milankovitch cycles as they don't match the glaciation dates. It may be that they are one of the perturbations, but there are others.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Sept 23, 2016 12:05:53 GMT
Naut, please be careful posting images like that for us oldies with BPPV.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Sept 23, 2016 12:23:50 GMT
I read 4000AD and decided not to wait. Think 2020-2022. You can wait around for that one yeah? And if that doesn't work out we can call our CO2 claims adjuster. Or stop wiggling and consult our chaotic attractor ouija board.
|
|
|
Post by walnut on Sept 23, 2016 12:28:27 GMT
You should use a pair of Hillary's prism glasses when you look at that chart, it could cause a seizure.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Sept 23, 2016 16:59:10 GMT
You should use a pair of Hillary's prism glasses when you look at that chart, it could cause a seizure. I'm afraid to put them on. No telling what I might see. But I do believe there may be a ouija board involved.
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Oct 4, 2016 19:25:48 GMT
|
|