|
Post by nautonnier on Mar 13, 2009 1:44:35 GMT
This is not correct. Globally, the Dalton Minimum was colder than any other period in the 19th century. Actually, most of the Dalton minimum was the same temps as the preceeding and following decades. The period from 1810 to 1820 was very cold, due to two VEI 6 volcanic eruptions in 1809 and the Tambora eruption (VEI 7) in 1812, the year without a summer. Mt. Pinatubo caused a measureable (and well modelled) dip in temperatures from 1992 to 1994, and it was only a VEI 6 volcano. Also, as Dr. Svalgaard has explained elsewhere on this site, there was very little difference between the solar energy during the Dalton minimum and the minimums we experience every 9 to 13 years during the recent solar cycles. Face it, the sun does control climate, but the variations in the sun's output can't explain the climate change we're experiencing now. Ken, Read Nir Shaviv's paper, "Using the oceans as a calorimeter to quantify the solar radiative forcing" You will find that what you say is not correct according to empirical evidence based on SST, Sea Level Changes, and OHC to quantify ocean heat flux - going back more than 50 years.
|
|
|
Post by jimg on Mar 13, 2009 6:14:23 GMT
Again, you're assuming that TSI is the be all and end all.
Yes, TSI does not vary that much. But what about the more energetic wavelengths?
UV? down 50% X-ray? down by a factor of 10,000. CME's - don't remember the last one, two years? more? high levels of energetic electrons? high Z protons? - very low levels.
So why is the atmosphere shrinking? According to Nasa, it's due to cold.
On the upside, sattelites will last longer, if they don't get taken out by space junk. Orbit decay was an important concern during solar max. Why? Because the atmosphere was thicker.
The thing that you are ignoring is that we don't completely understand all of the ways that the sun influences our planet.
TSI only quantifies that radian energy into watts/meter 2.
CO2 theory makes many assumptions, apparently, you are quite comfortable basing public policy on unproven computer models.
Or perhaps you have not experienced the fads of previous decades to be a little more skeptical this time around.
|
|
|
Post by tacoman25 on Mar 13, 2009 7:02:08 GMT
This is not correct. Globally, the Dalton Minimum was colder than any other period in the 19th century. Actually, most of the Dalton minimum was the same temps as the preceeding and following decades. The period from 1810 to 1820 was very cold, due to two VEI 6 volcanic eruptions in 1809 and the Tambora eruption (VEI 7) in 1812, the year without a summer. Mt. Pinatubo caused a measureable (and well modelled) dip in temperatures from 1992 to 1994, and it was only a VEI 6 volcano. Also, as Dr. Svalgaard has explained elsewhere on this site, there was very little difference between the solar energy during the Dalton minimum and the minimums we experience every 9 to 13 years during the recent solar cycles. Face it, the sun does control climate, but the variations in the sun's output can't explain the climate change we're experiencing now. Did you have fun experiencing Seattle's snowiest winter in almost 40 years, Ken? It is possible you are correct about the Dalton minimum, but I think the point you bring up about Pinatubo effecting the 1990s temps is one that is often conveniently overlooked. AGWers like to point out that though the 2000s have seen no rise in temperature, this decade has been significantly warmer than the 1990s. However, because Pinatubo cooled temps so much in the 1990s, the truth is that there has been much less temperature increase from the 1990s to the 2000s, compared to the 1980s to the 1990s, or the 1970s to the 1980s. ENSO fluctuations and accusations of "cherry-picking" data points do not apply here. What then is the explanation for the warming, at the very least, slowing down significantly this decade? Again, remember that the PDO did not enter its negative phase until 2008.
|
|
|
Post by meemoeuk on Mar 13, 2009 10:54:33 GMT
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Mar 13, 2009 16:49:58 GMT
meemoeuk writes "Wow, it's the 1st time I've seen this. How often does this happen to you high latitude people?" That particular effect, not very often. But when ice and wind get together in the wrong way during the spring, many, many nasty things happen.
|
|
|
Post by jimg on Mar 13, 2009 20:14:40 GMT
Ice from a glacier?
...and she didn't miss a beat.
|
|
|
Post by kenfeldman on Mar 14, 2009 5:30:29 GMT
Nope. Especially not a couple of weeks later when an unusually warm period melted it and dropped a ton of rain at the same time. I-5 between Portland and Seattle was closed for several days because they had the third 100-year flood in the past 17 years.
I repeat, the interstate highway between Portland and Seattle was closed for the third time in 17 years because of a flood caused by rain heavier than the 100 year event.
Global warming wont end winters, but it will change precipitation patterns. A warmer atmosphere can hold more water, and when it rains, rainfall will be heavier, flooding will be more frequent.
And in those rare events when it snows (Seattle gets snow three or four times a year, but it rarely sticks for more than a couple of days) the snowfall will be heavier too.
|
|
|
Post by kenfeldman on Mar 14, 2009 5:32:08 GMT
I've tried to find it on the web, to see if he used the corrected ocean heat content numbers or the wrong ones based on the XBT and Argo data that needed correction. Haven't found it yet.
Since you read it, why don't you tell me. Which data set did he use?
|
|
|
Post by tacoman25 on Mar 14, 2009 8:02:55 GMT
Nope. Especially not a couple of weeks later when an unusually warm period melted it and dropped a ton of rain at the same time. I-5 between Portland and Seattle was closed for several days because they had the third 100-year flood in the past 17 years. I repeat, the interstate highway between Portland and Seattle was closed for the third time in 17 years because of a flood caused by rain heavier than the 100 year event. Global warming wont end winters, but it will change precipitation patterns. A warmer atmosphere can hold more water, and when it rains, rainfall will be heavier, flooding will be more frequent. And in those rare events when it snows (Seattle gets snow three or four times a year, but it rarely sticks for more than a couple of days) the snowfall will be heavier too. Ha ha, so global warming was to blame for the snowy winter there, eh? Nevermind that it was actually DRIER and COLDER than normal in the Pacific Northwest. SEA recorded their coldest December-February since 1984-85, and March is off to a very chilly start as well.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Mar 14, 2009 9:16:55 GMT
Nope. Especially not a couple of weeks later when an unusually warm period melted it and dropped a ton of rain at the same time. I-5 between Portland and Seattle was closed for several days because they had the third 100-year flood in the past 17 years. I repeat, the interstate highway between Portland and Seattle was closed for the third time in 17 years because of a flood caused by rain heavier than the 100 year event. Global warming wont end winters, but it will change precipitation patterns. A warmer atmosphere can hold more water, and when it rains, rainfall will be heavier, flooding will be more frequent. And in those rare events when it snows (Seattle gets snow three or four times a year, but it rarely sticks for more than a couple of days) the snowfall will be heavier too. Ha ha, so global warming was to blame for the snowy winter there, eh? Nevermind that it was actually DRIER and COLDER than normal in the Pacific Northwest. SEA recorded their coldest December-February since 1984-85, and March is off to a very chilly start as well. Everyone surely is aware by now that no matter what happens, AGW true believers will always attribute every weather event to 'global climate change', as if changes in climate are a new phenomenon. Yet skeptics are admonished for pointing out "weather" as evidence against AGW. When it is noticed IPCC predictions are falsified, we are told climate models are not good enough for short term, but somehow will miraculously come to fruition in 50 years. Yet, the European heat wave of 2003 is said to be indisputable evidence in support AGW, even though papers published on the subject state it is not due to GW So you see, they have cleverly constructed an irrefutable hypothesis. Prove that little green men from Mars do not exist. Can you?
|
|
|
Post by alex4ever on Mar 14, 2009 9:28:31 GMT
This is not global warming ken , i dont even know if it IS local warming... And i didnt read anywhere that global warming could cause heavier snowfalls thats hypothesis of yours. You can not know 100% how nature will react in a global warming condition, and to be fair , global warming of the last 30 years (that doesnt exist anymore, at least its not GLOBAL) was not so abnormal after all, its just sensitive politicians who pretend to worry who made global warming sound overstated and made billions of people believe in nonsences. And we can confirm how little they care about nature and climate by the recent events, while there are clues of global cooling trend, politicians and "scientists" in Main Stream Media keep stating that our world will get burned until 2100 and that currently Antartica has broken into pieces and many other ridiculous statements...
Thats is all i have to say to make things sound clear. I wont stay to discuss simple things further.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Mar 14, 2009 18:47:43 GMT
I've tried to find it on the web, to see if he used the corrected ocean heat content numbers or the wrong ones based on the XBT and Argo data that needed correction. Haven't found it yet. Since you read it, why don't you tell me. Which data set did he use? I think you may be firing at the wrong target. The paper is looking at rates of change not at absolute temperatures. A standard error in either direction will only be a problem at the changes of measurement methodologies. The heat flux - 'change rates' are used from Sea Level changes, SST and OHC which are also cross correlated. These indications of ocean heat flux are then compared with TSI changes. If you are expecting a simple graphics generator from recorded data with arguments on trend lines and base periods - this is not that type of paper.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Mar 15, 2009 0:26:30 GMT
Ken Translation you were just crushed, but sometimes I think that you do not notice.
|
|
|
Post by byz on Mar 23, 2009 8:41:53 GMT
Winter is returning to the UK this week.
Certainly cooler today brrrrrr
|
|
|
Post by jorgekafkazar on Mar 24, 2009 7:02:31 GMT
"...So you see, they have cleverly constructed an irrefutable hypothesis. Prove that little green men from Mars do not exist. Can you?"
Sure. Nothing up my sleeves. Abracadabra!! [sarc ON]
1. James Hansen says little green men from Mars don't exist. Would Mumbo Jimbo lie to you? No! So they don't exist, QED.
2. Joe Blow, on the other hand, says little green men from Mars do exist. But it is well known that Blow is in the pocket of the oil companies. We have photos of him putting gasoline in his car!!! <begin saliva spray> He is capitalist tool!! Wall Street Lickey!! Is enemy of proletariat! So must be no little green men from Mars, Comrade! QED.
3. I have built a very complex computer model, spending (your) big government bucks. Don't ask me for the code; it's secret stuff that we keep here in our secret files. Here is the latest printout:
"IS NO LITTLE GREEN MEN FROM MARS, COMRADE."
4. The entire surface of Mars has been photographed and mapped. In every single photo from Mars, there are no little green men! So there are no little green men all over Mars. Thus there can be no little green men from Mars.
5. There is an unpublished paper by Mann, Wang, Munchausen et al, showing that there are definitely no little green men from Mars. I'm not going to give you the link. Go look it up yourself. Try Google. You think I'm your slave or something?
6. The consensus of all reasonable scientists is that there are no little green men from Mars. There are some dissenters, yes, but no one agrees with them. Therefore, they are not reasonable. So the only ones who disagree are not reasonable scientists. So the only reasonable opinion is that there are no little green men from Mars. So NYAH!!
7a. There are no little green men from Mars. 7b. There are no little green men from Mars. 7c. There are no little green men from Mars. ... 7z. There are no little green men from Mars.
8. The gravity on Mars is very low. In low gravities, creatures grow taller. Martians would therefore all be tall. So there are no little green men from Mars.
9. Aliens require green cards in the US. A search of INS records shows no little green men have been granted green cards. So there are no little green aliens. Men from Mars are all aliens. Thus there are no little green men from Mars.
10. If there were little green men from Mars, I'm sure the media would have covered it. I've seen nothing in the papers or on TV or thingyipedia about them. So there can't be any little green men from Mars.
[sarc OFF]<end saliva spray>
|
|