|
Post by itsonlysteam on Mar 19, 2010 6:20:34 GMT
How much you want to bet the Thames freezes over by ... say 2025?
|
|
|
Post by glc on Mar 19, 2010 9:07:32 GMT
How much you want to bet the Thames freezes over by ... say 2025? What is your definition of the "Thames freezing over". Do you mean for a long stretch of several months like it did on at least 2 occasions during the MWP, e.g. In 1063 it is recorded that it was frozen over for fourteen weeks, and again in 1076.See www.londononline.co.uk/history/thames/3/Or do you mean that the ice will be thick enough to allow people in central London to cross the Thames on foot or in vehicles without using a bridge. Explain exactly what you mean?
|
|
|
Post by itsonlysteam on Mar 19, 2010 13:46:41 GMT
Any definition would be good but lets say at any portion from London to the sea that it freezes from shore to shore for a kilometer. Given the increased heat pollution I'm sure that would be sufficient. No walking across or building ice bridges. Define the Ice Front the same as in the following link, refer to the Peace River where the annual movement of the ice front is a perfect proxy for climate. No Urban Heat Island ... just a simple indication of what the climate is doing over time. There are now industrial facilities that save money by using the river as a heat sink (cooling towers not needed) but their effect appears to be minimal. environment.alberta.ca/forecasting/RiverIce/index.html... for this winter you miss October which was cold, you see November which was initially warm, December which was brutish and record breaking, January and February were average, and finally in March, the El Nino finally broke through the cold PDO and crossed the Rockies ... to the Great Lakes by the way ... until very recently the Arctic pushed out the warmer air. When we get a La Nina in the cold PDO it will be interesting to see ... but not live in. The El Nino during a warm PDO was an entirely different creature. For one thing there was only 2 months of snow here, definately not what we saw this year. moe.met.fsu.edu/snow/
|
|
|
Post by itsonlysteam on Mar 19, 2010 14:01:00 GMT
... another good indication would be the return to growth of mountain glaciers in 'high precipitation' regions. So in North America ... Alaska, the Coast Range, and Cascades see the return of glacial advance at say 80% of the mountain glaciers. I don't think we'll get cold enough to do much more than stabilize the glaciers in the Rockies. They may increase in mass but I doubt they will grow this time unless the snow pack this passing winter becomes typical. By the way there was some study that indicated that retreating glaciers in Alaska were already increasing in mass but it would take a few years for it to show up in the advance of the tongue ... you can google that one
|
|
|
Post by itsonlysteam on Mar 19, 2010 14:25:18 GMT
... a really good view of what this passing winter meant to the continental US go to the following link. www.gasalberta.com/pricing-supply.htmScroll down to US Storage. They blew through record natural gas storage. Most analysts believed it would take two very cold winters to do that with the collapsed industrial demand and the prolific nature of the new shale gas discoveries when they first go into production. It's a differently structured site. You might want to just go to the following and go to 'Pricing', then 'Gas Pricing', and then 'Supply and Demand' in the menu on top and click around and look at stuff. www.gasalberta.com/
|
|
|
Post by itsonlysteam on Mar 24, 2010 15:22:47 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Mar 25, 2010 1:35:30 GMT
I don't know if anyone has modeled the path of the barycenter in the last few months - but I would think it is running just inside the surface of the Sun but retrograde to the Sun's rotation. Think what that effect would have on the differential rotation of the Sun's layers.
|
|
|
Post by itsonlysteam on Mar 26, 2010 1:03:42 GMT
nautonnier ... exactly! I was taken in by the idea immediately. Maybe its the torque thing and being and engineer. Imagine the leverage a body like Jupiter which some have called a failed star for our potentially binary system. Most of the mass outside the Sun is in Jupiter and Timo Norima personal.inet.fi/tiede/tilmari/sunspots.htmlsays its all about Jupiter. I like throwing all the planets in since with some effort it is not that difficult to calculate ... for someone more ambitious than myself ... like Carl Smith did Anyway, just thinking of the moon and our oceans ... it just makes sense that the barycenter has some effect on the circulation in the sun or the 'solar dynamo' which Anthony Watts thinks is too 'big' to be effected. I wonder if he knows the definition of torque I should mention Warwick Hughs like this theory as well ... he shows up if you google him.
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Mar 26, 2010 6:21:42 GMT
Sadly Timo passed recently. His loss will be felt by many.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Mar 26, 2010 13:40:34 GMT
Anyway, just thinking of the moon and our oceans ... it just makes sense that the barycenter has some effect on the circulation in the sun or the 'solar dynamo' which Anthony Watts thinks is too 'big' to be effected. I wonder if he knows the definition of torque
Oh great - we're back to the barycentre nonsense. Would you care to elaborate on whatever theory it is you think might be correct. When you mention the earth and moon are you referring to the tidal effects. If so please be aware that planetary tidal influence on the sun can be calculated - and its very, very small. As for the barycentre: The sun is in free fall about the barycentre and as such feels no forces.
|
|
|
Post by itsonlysteam on Mar 26, 2010 14:19:27 GMT
Ha Ha Ha ... sorrreee ... didn't mean to talk about gravitational effects in two ways. Given the size of the sun, the movement of the barycenter is significant ... even to the outer edge of the sun in some cases. OK, tidal effects can be considered something different but in digging into this subject the discussion of the two things is often morphed by more knowledgable people than me. Anyway, for your benefit ... maybe we are seeing the purely 'tidal effects' in the sun's present circulation which even solar statisticians like Hathaway think is unusual. GLC ... from now on I'll call it 'gravitational effects' ... just for you. I'll post my updated 'climate model' some time but I am finding events corresponding to the 'modified Jose cycle' closer to the Holocene Optimum. The 'Bronze Age Collapse' was the one that surprised me the most. Overall, I don't understand how anyone could say we are in a significant warming period. The more I look at it the more it appears we are still in the Little Ice Age and have little chance of escaping it even if we get another 'warm period' before the next glaciation proceeds.
|
|
|
Post by itsonlysteam on Mar 26, 2010 14:34:59 GMT
Actually, to get specific this is incorrect. The torque (angular momentum) on the sun caused by the movement of the barycenter Of The Solar System due to the changes in the position of the planets can be calculated as it was by Carl Smith and celebrated by Geoff Sharp on the site ... www.landscheidt.infoHe call's Carls work the 'Rosetta Stone' of understanding modulating Solar Activity. You can download Carl's "Solar System Barycenter Ephemeris" here. landscheidt.auditblogs.com/6000-year-ephemeris/I personally was happy with Landscheidt's supposition but this completes the discussion. Now all we need is to observe physical changes in the Sun that correspond to this. Despite the time scale, some hope the present changes in the Sun will give us enough to take the 'cycle overlay' analysis more seriously.
|
|
|
Post by itsonlysteam on Mar 26, 2010 15:04:53 GMT
That is terrible. It is starting to look like I. R. G. Wilson will be carrying the full weight of advancing this theory 'technically' going forward. Then again if there is direct corroborating physical evidence for this in the sun itself, I'm sure scientists like Hung will jump out of the wood work (develop some fortitude) and latch onto it like it was their own.
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Mar 26, 2010 15:38:47 GMT
That is terrible. It is starting to look like I. R. G. Wilson will be carrying the full weight of advancing this theory 'technically' going forward. Then again if there is direct corroborating physical evidence for this in the sun itself, I'm sure scientists like Hung will jump out of the wood work (develop some fortitude) and latch onto it like it was their own. They are hoping to find a grad student or someone to take over is work. I don't think they have had any luck so far. I hope they are at least able to maintain his web site for a while.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Mar 26, 2010 16:14:22 GMT
Anyway, just thinking of the moon and our oceans ... it just makes sense that the barycenter has some effect on the circulation in the sun or the 'solar dynamo' which Anthony Watts thinks is too 'big' to be effected. I wonder if he knows the definition of torqueOh great - we're back to the barycentre nonsense. Would you care to elaborate on whatever theory it is you think might be correct. When you mention the earth and moon are you referring to the tidal effects. If so please be aware that planetary tidal influence on the sun can be calculated - and its very, very small. As for the barycentre: The sun is in free fall about the barycentre and as such feels no forces. There are two types of astronomer/astrophysicists The first type - like glc - calls the idea of a barycenter and the Sun orbiting it abject nonsense has calculated the effect of Jupiter on the sun as less than a millimeter of displacement if assisted by Neptune etc etc. The second type - Is looking for _and finding_ planets around other stars by assessing doppler shifts in the star's radiance due to a wobble caused by planets circling them. "The AFOE has been designed to provide the required precison and stability to detect the wobble induced on the star by the presence of a planet. Indeed, both the planet and the star revolve around their common center of gravity. While the center of gravity is very close to the center of the star, it is not exactly at the center of the star. Therefore the star wobbles around the center of gravity with the same period as the planet. The more massive the planet and the closer the orbit the larger will be the amplitude of the wobble. By measuring the doppler shift caused by the wobble of the star on the light it emits, we can detect such a periodic motion."www.cfa.harvard.edu/afoe/espd.html"We are compiling years-long plots of precision Doppler measurements for each SIM target star. This Doppler reconnaissance of all SIM target stars establishes the saturns and jupiters within 3 AU, and provides Doppler suggestions of 10{30 MEarth planets. We consider this Doppler reconnaissance of SIM targets to be a prerequisite of a SIM planet search. Many planets with Neptune-Saturn-Jupiter mass will be anticipated and included in SIM astrometric models" planetquest.jpl.nasa.gov/SIM/scienceMotivations/sciTeamPrograms/science_marcy.pdfWe perhaps should realize that our Sun is _special_ and affixed in the center of some non-Copernican universe Therefore, sadly our Solar system has no barycenter - it is only _other_ lower class stars that wobble
|
|