|
Post by icefisher on Jan 31, 2009 20:09:55 GMT
What I find remarkable about that graph is we have been going on and on about a temperature variation of less than one degree C over the last 138 years and looking at the marks on the graph for the icecore record of this interglacial there is a 4 degree range of variance and a 2 degree zone that is solid black from it happening so many times. So what gives? We have been told we haven't seen anything like this for 140,000 years.
|
|
|
Post by itsonlysteam on Feb 1, 2009 7:15:12 GMT
Did Science Daily ever discuss this paper? Hung, Ching-Cheh (2007) Apparent Relations Between Solar Activity and Solar Tides Caused by the Planets (NASA/TM—2007-214817) Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio July 2007 gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/Citations.aspx?id=330Then you ask the question on who is right about Solar Cycle 24, Hathaway or Hung? Leave the Sun to Earth's Climate issue for another time ;D
|
|
|
Post by ebrainsh on Feb 2, 2009 17:08:08 GMT
Steam,
Hung has an interesting hypothesis that obviously needs further analysis. Hung said it best on page 16 last paragraph:
"Further theoretical, instrumental, and statistical investigation is needed before there can be a final confirmation of the apparent relations observed in this research. One practical way to conduct a simple statistical study is to use the planet positions together with the available data and knowledge of solar physics to forecast, for the coming years, the solar flares in particular and solar activity in general. It would prove beneficial if such a prediction capability improves forecasting solar activity."
Ebrainsh
|
|
|
Post by ebrainsh on Feb 4, 2009 20:04:43 GMT
Initially, I started this thread because I was having difficulty convincing Dan Hogan from ScienceDaily to publish research from scientist whose investigations have brought them to different findings from the proponents of the Gore/IPCC political machine. After several discussions and email exchanges, Dan sent me the email below which highlights his mission for ScienceDaily. Since receiving this email, Dan and I talked at length about his views of what is driving global cooling proponents. The condensed version of our conversation is as follows: • Global Cooling Proponents have been bought by big oil • Global Cooling Proponents are anti-capitalist (socialist/communist) bent on dismantling the capitalist system • Global Cooling Proponents are hard core environmentalist who poses little evidence to support their position • Global Cooling Proponents are politically motivated (whatever flavor or the day brings) in order advance their cause • Global Cooling Proponents are religious fanatics whose baseless ranting has commingled religion and climate issues • Almost every respectable peer reviewed and published finding has verified AGW hypothesis Eventually (sooner rather than later), AGW will hit the proverbial brick wall and Dan Hogan, et al. will succumb to reality and have to deal with climate cooling and the inherent threat to mankind it will cause. In the meantime, we encourage scientist to post their research links here so main stream media has a place to research empirical climate analysis. ___________________________________________________________________________________________ What you see on ScienceDaily is the result of thousands of news releases submitted to us over the years by universities, government labs, or other established research organizations about various findings published in reputable scientific journals. You seem to imply that we're ignoring one side of a debate, but this is not true. We post anything that is based on real science -- whether it proves or disproves any particular belief we may personally have. What you see on the site is a reflection of the scientific community as a whole, not any sort of "bias" on our part. From all that I've been reading over the years, the vast majority of scientists seem to agree on the following: (a) global warming and global cooling have both happened in the past; (b) global warming and global cooling can be impacted by either natural or artificial factors, or a combination of both; (c) we appear to be in a period of global warming that's at least partly due to human activities. I'd be happy to post anything that either supports or refutes (a), (b), and (c) -- I really have no position on this! And in fact if you read through our archives, you'll see quite a lot of varied findings and opinions about various details relating to climate change. The links that you've shared with me have some intriguing information, but little context or indication of the reliability or authority of the data. Where are the recent peer-reviewed findings published in academic papers? Where are the corresponding news releases issued by university public affairs offices? Has any other legitimate news source covered findings that we have not? If we've missed something, please let us know. However, I can't just post something because it appears on someone's personal blog or discussion forum, where anybody can post anything. The information has to come from a more official source than that for us to use it. I'm no expert on climate change by any means, but I do listen to what the experts say. If our site reflects what the vast majority of them say about climate change, then please don't shoot the messenger! Just let us know if there are any experts we haven't heard from yet. Cheers, Dan ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dan Hogan, Editor & Publisher ScienceDaily -- Your source for the latest research news 1 Research Court, Suite 450 Rockville, Maryland 20850 Web: www.sciencedaily.comEmail: editor@sciencedaily.com Phone/Fax: (240) 454-9600
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Feb 4, 2009 20:37:10 GMT
What I find remarkable about that graph is we have been going on and on about a temperature variation of less than one degree C over the last 138 years and looking at the marks on the graph for the icecore record of this interglacial there is a 4 degree range of variance and a 2 degree zone that is solid black from it happening so many times. So what gives? We have been told we haven't seen anything like this for 140,000 years. You'll notice the swings increase the closer you get to the present. Two likely explanations for this would be that there are fewer ice cores to compare the farther back you go (basically giving us a very localized weather) and/or the data gets kind of smeared around the farther back you go...from loss of intermediate layers due to warming, slight mobility of the CO2 over such long periods of time, etc.
|
|
|
Post by ebrainsh on Feb 8, 2009 21:28:34 GMT
|
|
|
Post by william on Feb 14, 2009 3:19:46 GMT
Recent detailed analysis indicates that the Milankovitch hypothesis cannot explain the glacial/interglacial cycle. The evidence shows 80% of the time solar insolation changes do not even correlate with the massive glacial/interglacial planetary temperature changes. ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/milankovitchqsr2004.pdf“Quantitative estimate of the Milankovitch-forced contribution to observed Quaternary climate change” by Carl Wunsch “A number of records commonly described as showing control of climate change by Milankovitch insolation forcing are re-examined. The fraction of the record variance attributable to orbital changes never exceeds 20%. In no case, including a tuned core, do these forcing bands explain the overall behavior of the records. At zero order, all records are consistent with stochastic models of varying complexity with a small superimposed Milankovitch response, mainly in the obliquity band. Evidence cited to support the hypothesis that the 100 Ka glacial/interglacial cycles are controlled by the quasi-periodic insolation forcing is likely indistinguishable from chance, given the small sample size and near-integer ratios of 100 Ka to the precessional periods. At the least, the stochastic background‘‘noise’’ is likely to be of importance.” The knife edge climate models (positive feedback) were developed with the assumption that the insolation changes were amplified to create the glacial/interglacial cycle. The true cause of the glacial/interglacial cycle was hidden due to the polar anomaly. An increase in planetary clouds causes the Antarctic ice sheet to warm as the Antarctic ice sheet albedo is greater than clouds. The Antarctic ice sheet therefore initially warms when planetary cloud cover increases. As the planet cools eventually the Antarctic also cools at there is less heat in the vicinity of the ice sheet. It was only when the Greenland Ice Sheet has cored and studied did it become apparent that there were massive periodic climate events that were abruptly cooling the planet. It is these massive periodic climate events that trigger the glacial/interglacial cycle. Comment: There is in the paleo climate record evidence of a massive external forcing function on roughly a 12000 year to 8000 year period (It is not random but the periodicity is not a simple cycle.). If planetary feedback is negative rather than positive (i.e. Tropical clouds resist planetary temperature change and hence increase to reduce a warming forcing change or decrease to reduce a cooling forcing), then the external forcing must be massive. There are peculiar climatic events such as an order of magnitude increase in the polar index (windiness) during these events. (There is an order of magnitude increase in sodium chloride and dust in the Greenland ice sheet layers when the forcing event occurs. The dust is shown to have come from the Sahara Desert.)
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Feb 14, 2009 5:37:16 GMT
Indeed...but try convincing Gore and his cronies that paralyzing snowstorms and a 50% reduction in growing seasons are worse than some hot summers and great growing seasons.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 14, 2009 14:17:28 GMT
Indeed...but try convincing Gore and his cronies that paralyzing snowstorms and a 50% reduction in growing seasons are worse than some hot summers and great growing seasons. "but try convincing Gore and his cronies that paralyzing snowstorms and a 50% reduction in growing seasons are worse than some hot summers and great growing seasons"Try getting them to admit that paralyzing snowstorms and a 50% reduction in growing seasons are not due to warming due to CO2 radiative forcing. If you are dealing with a hothead who will happily argue that heating causes snowstorms in both hemispheres when a few years previously they were saying that the snow would stop.** There is not a lot you can say as whatever it is - they will say - " CO2 from fossil fuels causes that too." ** They are still advising ski-resorts in Scotland that they should close as they will soon have no more snow.
|
|
|
Post by ebrainsh on Feb 28, 2009 1:02:28 GMT
ScienceDaily Post a Global Cooling Story![size=3 [/size] ScienceDaily (Feb. 27, 2009) — Global climate rapidly shifted from a relatively ice-free world to one with massive ice sheets on Antarctica about 34 million years ago. What happened? What changed? A team of scientists led by Yale geologists offers a new perspective on the nature of changing climatic conditions across this greenhouse-to-icehouse transition — one that refutes earlier theories and has important implications for predicting future climate changes. Maybe a little late to the party, only 34 million years but hay we are making progress. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090226141146.htm
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 28, 2009 2:51:53 GMT
Not at all - they are of the one-club-golfer group - only CO2 drives climate NOTHING else. So a neanderthal lights his first fire and presto the next ice age is delayed.
The reason for ice-ages is a drop in CO2 is just the obverse of the 'coal fired power stations cause global warming'
They can show no validation for these hypotheses - apart from they cannot think (or probably do not want to think) of anything else.
Sad what science has come to.
|
|
|
Post by tobyglyn on Feb 28, 2009 3:00:36 GMT
From the link: "Further, he said, the substantial cooling that occurred in both Northern and Southern high latitudes suggests that a decline in CO2 level, rather than a localized change of ocean circulation drove the climate transition." Ah, any substantial drop in temperature must be due to a decline in CO2. [edit] nautonnier beat me to it and with a better post too
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Feb 28, 2009 14:09:01 GMT
Not at all - they are of the one-club-golfer group - only CO 2 drives climate NOTHING else. So a neanderthal lights his first fire and presto the next ice age is delayed. The reason for ice-ages is a drop in CO 2 is just the obverse of the 'coal fired power stations cause global warming' They can show no validation for these hypotheses - apart from they cannot think (or probably do not want to think) of anything else. Sad what science has come to. There is something honorable about actual one-club golfers, some of whom are surprisingly skillful, that these "scientists" do not possess. To extend the analogy, as groups on the golf course they routinely move their ball by hand or by foot when inconvenienced (looking over their shoulder all the while) and then, according to the principles of "peer review," scream as one at anyone who calls them on it. ;D
|
|
|
Post by ebrainsh on Mar 1, 2009 18:21:09 GMT
Lower Increases In Global Temperatures Could Lead To Greater Impacts Than Previously Thought, Study FindsScienceDaily (Mar. 1, 2009) — A new study by scientists updating some of the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2001 Third Assessment Report finds that even a lower level of increase in average global temperatures due to greenhouse gas emissions could cause significant problems in five key areas of global concern. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090223221425.htmCOULD THIS BE THE MOMENT WE HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR? IS THIS THE START OF THE IPCC SHIFTING GEARS?
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Mar 1, 2009 18:38:44 GMT
Lower Increases In Global Temperatures Could Lead To Greater Impacts Than Previously Thought, Study FindsScienceDaily (Mar. 1, 2009) — A new study by scientists updating some of the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2001 Third Assessment Report finds that even a lower level of increase in average global temperatures due to greenhouse gas emissions could cause significant problems in five key areas of global concern. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090223221425.htmCOULD THIS BE THE MOMENT WE HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR? IS THIS THE START OF THE IPCC SHIFTING GEARS? No - it is the start of another approach. It is obvious to most people that we are not in 'global warming' ask anyone in the Dakotas or Minnesota - so how can the panic of the sky falling be maintained? Easy - instead of saying: 'The temperatures are going to rise by 6oC by the end of the century all low lying countries will be inundated and human civilization as we know it will cease. Everyone should IMMEDIATELY be taxed heavily on their carbon footprints and send carbon offset tax to Al Gore etc etc...They are now saying: 'The temperatures might rise by 0.2oC by the end of the century but we have found that this will mean that all low lying countries will still [/b] be inundated and human civilization as we know it will cease. Everyone should IMMEDIATELY be taxed heavily on their carbon footprints and send carbon offset tax to Al Gore etc etc...[/i] The IPCC MUST keep the panic going or who will fund their trips to Bali and all the thousands of researchers? I expect that the invective from Gore and Hansen will vary in inverse relationship to the global temperatures
|
|