|
Post by socold on Jun 22, 2009 18:35:01 GMT
If we stay in solar minimum for 80 years that won't cause 80 years of linear cooling. It will cause only about 0.1C cooling in total and most of that will happen in the first decade. This is compatible with climate sensitivities from climate models as reported by the IPCC. Except for two things. First off, the "heat in the pipe" you need for your AGW hypothesis...would apply to solar minimums as well. It would take time for any substantial change to occur. Already took it into account. 0.1C is the total warming expected from a 0.15wm-2 forcing, with positive feedbacks. That might take time to accomplish (certainly it will be virtually all there by 80 years though). Without positive feedback it would be less than 0.1C Feedbacks which you need to get any bang for buck from the sun. 0.15wm-2 from solar max to minimum just isn't that much. But with positive feedbacks and a high climate sensitivity as found by GCMs you can get 0.1C or perhaps as much as 0.15C cooling from a prolonged solar minimum.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 22, 2009 18:36:53 GMT
socold .1 C we should be so lucky www.davidarchibald.info/papers/QuantifyingAgProductivityResponseSolarCycle%2024.pdf"The change in plant hardiness zones over the 1990 to 2006 period is explained by solar cycle length changes. Solar Cycle 20 from 1964 to 1976 was 11.6 years long. Solar Cycle 21 was shorter than average at 10.3 years and Solar Cycle 22 from 1986 to 1996 was very short at 9.6 years long. There is a correlation between solar cycle length and temperature over the following solar cycle. In the mid-latitudes of the US north-eastern seaboard, this is 0.7° C for each year of solar cycle length. With the cumulative change in solar cycle length between Solar Cycle 20 and Solar Cycle 22 of two years, this would have translated to a 1.4º C increase in temperature by early this decade relative to early 1970s. This is reflected in the northward shift of plant hardiness zones as mapped by The National Arbor Day Foundation. By virtue of a lack of Solar Cycle 23 sunspots, solar minimum of the Solar Cycle 23 to 24 transition appears to have been in late 2008. This makes Solar Cycle 23 three years long than its predecessor. Consequently, using the 0.7° C per year of solar cycle length relationship, there will be a 2.1º C decline in temperature of the mid-latitudes next decade during Solar Cycle 24." So far David Archibald has been correct on most of his calls way ahead of any guesses of .1C. Corbyn and Archibald have been calling it correctly. AGW CO2 "physics" as referenced by the IPCC charts above are totally incorrect drifting further from reality every day after 2000. Solar cycle length overall doesn't correlate well with the temperature record. www.skepticalscience.com/solar-cycle-length.htm
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 22, 2009 18:40:55 GMT
steve and socold Another link which mentions again that CO2 is rising but the temperatures are falling, which shows that the AGW physics has chosen some incorrect values. Reality icecap.us/index.php/go/political-climateThe long term temperature rise is upwards. They have overexagerated the co2 scale vs the temp scale to create the illusion that the two don't track well over the longterm. Notice they show co2 from ~340ppm to 390ppm causing about 1C warming. Well that ratio is 5C warming per doubling of co2. Why didn't they do the honest job of making the curve represent 3C warming per doubling of co2? www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/plot/esrl-co2/scale:0.012/offset:-4.2/from:1979
|
|
|
Post by tilmari on Jun 22, 2009 19:46:07 GMT
steve and socold Another link which mentions again that CO2 is rising but the temperatures are falling, which shows that the AGW physics has chosen some incorrect values. Reality icecap.us/index.php/go/political-climateThe long term temperature rise is upwards. They have overexagerated the co2 scale vs the temp scale to create the illusion that the two don't track well over the longterm. Notice they show co2 from ~340ppm to 390ppm causing about 1C warming. Well that ratio is 5C warming per doubling of co2. Why didn't they do the honest job of making the curve represent 3C warming per doubling of co2? www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/plot/esrl-co2/scale:0.012/offset:-4.2/from:1979I'm very convinced that water vapour, initially a positive feedback, changes in the end to negative feedback via the clouds. Otherwise the water would have vaporized eons ago from Earth. Theoretical calculations of the doubling, tripling or anything does not give correct results in the global scale just because the water vapor is so massively more determining. Without the cloud's effect it is a waste of time to calculate what CO2 does in the laboratory conditions that don't even remotely simulate the conditions on our waterball. Timo Niroma
|
|
|
Post by tilmari on Jun 22, 2009 19:51:22 GMT
socold .1 C we should be so lucky www.davidarchibald.info/papers/QuantifyingAgProductivityResponseSolarCycle%2024.pdf"The change in plant hardiness zones over the 1990 to 2006 period is explained by solar cycle length changes. Solar Cycle 20 from 1964 to 1976 was 11.6 years long. Solar Cycle 21 was shorter than average at 10.3 years and Solar Cycle 22 from 1986 to 1996 was very short at 9.6 years long. There is a correlation between solar cycle length and temperature over the following solar cycle. In the mid-latitudes of the US north-eastern seaboard, this is 0.7° C for each year of solar cycle length. With the cumulative change in solar cycle length between Solar Cycle 20 and Solar Cycle 22 of two years, this would have translated to a 1.4º C increase in temperature by early this decade relative to early 1970s. This is reflected in the northward shift of plant hardiness zones as mapped by The National Arbor Day Foundation. By virtue of a lack of Solar Cycle 23 sunspots, solar minimum of the Solar Cycle 23 to 24 transition appears to have been in late 2008. This makes Solar Cycle 23 three years long than its predecessor. Consequently, using the 0.7° C per year of solar cycle length relationship, there will be a 2.1º C decline in temperature of the mid-latitudes next decade during Solar Cycle 24." So far David Archibald has been correct on most of his calls way ahead of any guesses of .1C. Corbyn and Archibald have been calling it correctly. AGW CO2 "physics" as referenced by the IPCC charts above are totally incorrect drifting further from reality every day after 2000. Solar cycle length overall doesn't correlate well with the temperature record. www.skepticalscience.com/solar-cycle-length.htmThat's true. But if we take only the part of the cycle from minimum to maximum, the ascending part and use its length, the correlation is much higher. Timo
|
|