|
|
Post by trbixler on Sept 10, 2011 14:41:45 GMT
More on 60 year non CO2 cycles. "Scafetta on climate oscillations" "There appears need for much more effort on grappling with both with major statistical issues involved (as highlighted by Dempster and Scafetta) as well as identifying natural causes that can have strong impacts on climate far beyond what is currently included in climate models (per Scafetta, and Svensmark)." "Nicola Scafetta Abstract. We investigate whether or not the decadal and multi-decadal climate oscillations have an astronomical origin. Several global surface temperature records since 1850 and records deduced from the orbits of the planets present very similar power spectra. Eleven frequencies with period between 5 and 100 years closely correspond in the two records. Among them, large climate oscillations with peak-to-trough amplitude of about 0.1 and 0.251C, and periods of about 20 and 60 years, respectively, are synchronized to the orbital periods of Jupiter and Saturn. Schwabe and Hale solar cycles are also visible in the temperature records. A 9.1-year cycle is synchronized to the Moon’s orbital cycles. " judithcurry.com/2011/04/14/scafetta-on-climate-oscillations/ |
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Sept 11, 2011 5:00:08 GMT
Summary
Sun causes increase and decrease of GCR. Orbits of planets effect the sun. Currently cycle 24 is low and the possibility of cycle 25 being low as well is real. GCRs have an effect on cloud formation. More clouds cool the earth less clouds warm the earth. The oceans have not been warming. The atmosphere of the earths temperature has been been somewhat static for 10 or more years. If one were to pick April 2000 as the peak of solar cycle 23 note the el nino peak temp around 1998 we may see an La Nina dip hooked with cycle 25 in about 10 years that might look a little cool. No supporting charts or links just off the cuff thoughts.
|
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Sept 11, 2011 12:52:07 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Sept 11, 2011 13:03:23 GMT
More clouds cool the earth less clouds warm the earth. Truly ignorant analysis. High clouds, like those most likely created by GCRs, are a warming influence. Please try to read the science.  |
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Sept 11, 2011 13:07:45 GMT
More clouds cool the earth less clouds warm the earth. Truly ignorant analysis. High clouds, like those most likely created by GCRs, are a warming influence. Please try to read the science.  |
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Sept 11, 2011 13:13:15 GMT
More clouds cool the earth less clouds warm the earth. Truly ignorant analysis. High clouds, like those most likely created by GCRs, are a warming influence. Please try to read the science.  |
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Sept 11, 2011 13:15:37 GMT
More clouds cool the earth less clouds warm the earth. Truly ignorant analysis. High clouds, like those most likely created by GCRs, are a warming influence. Please try to read the science.  |
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Sept 12, 2011 2:42:20 GMT
More on clouds, so my off the cuff not so scientific rambling looks like it has some support. Of course if you are a AGW acolyte you might have to wait a bit for another grand maximum. I hope the minimum is not so grand. "Bill Illis: Clouds account for most of the variability in net radiation at the Top of the Atmosphere" "There is a very interesting relationship between the Net Cloud Radiation levels and the Total Global Net Radiation as measured by the CERES satellite (which I don’t think anyone has looked yet being busy trying to find the temperature feedbacks). I’m getting Cloud variability being a very large part of the variability in the total Global Net Radiation Budget – anywhere from 65% to 100% (with R^2 between 0.29 and 0.77)." wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/11/bill-illis-clouds-account-for-most-of-the-variability-in-net-radiation-at-the-top-of-the-atmosphere/ |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 12, 2011 3:53:20 GMT
I’m getting Cloud variability being a very large part of the variability in the total Global Net Radiation Budget – anywhere from 65% to 100% (with R^2 between 0.29 and 0.77)."
This is a classic! Here clouds are driving net radiation at a high correlation rate, using Dessler's data, and Dessler is falling all over himself struggling to get a .02 correlation for temperature controlling clouds! LOL!
|
|
|
|
Post by julianb on Sept 12, 2011 7:49:48 GMT
commomsense,
"The paper makes an elementary error. Venus is far more reflective than Earth. The albedo of Venus is 0.65, while earth's albedo is 0.357. Thus, Venus does NOT absorb more energy from the sun than the Earth does. Thus, your paper proves the greenhouse effect. "
Your comment only proves you didn't read the paper or that you didn't comprehend it. His argument is that there is a misuse of the 'black body' concept by using the surface of the Earth as its boundary. As the only release of heat from a body in space is by radiation, then the boundary of the BB is the limit of the atmosphere, reflection by definition is incident.
Read his subsequent Black Body article and the 70 or so replies Q and A on the first paper.
|
|
N9AAT
Level 3 Rank
DON'T PANIC
Posts: 153
|
Post by N9AAT on Sept 16, 2011 12:44:37 GMT
Ya know, we went through this is the 70's and the 80's. In the 70's we thought that global cooling was coming, and it was. In the 80's we thought it was global warming, and it was. Now we're all wondering if we're about to turn the corner downward again after 300 years of overall warming conditions. Someone above was absolutely right; a lot depends on how you do your statistics (sample size, standard deviation, etc). You can take ocean buoy data and make it say almost anything. Ice cores are harder to screw up, but they don't tell you anything about changes below about a century level ... given the occasional blurbs for volcanic eruptions and meter hits. My take is that we're just going to have to wait and see. The fact that a 3-century trend may be ending, however, looks pretty reasonable from several angles. I thing we ought to be concerned, but then what do we do about it? The LIA certainly knocked human numbers back a notch, but the Medieval Warm Period made human populations swell. We've certainly been on a population explosion since the LIA ended, so what happens next?  |
|
chuck
New Member
Posts: 10
|
Post by chuck on Sept 18, 2011 13:57:45 GMT
A great thread indeed. One question for the AGW fanboys. Since ancient man had no cars, factories, hair spray propellant, AC refrigerant, etc, and the biggest fossil fuel emitter was a lowly fire in a cave somewhere, WHAT triggered the recorded ice ages of those eras? That's one question that makes the Gore fans very uncomfortable because it can't be answered using their data.
|
|
|
|
Post by catacyrus on Sept 20, 2011 17:36:52 GMT
Chuck, don't tell anyone but it was the cows!! I found this message board after my youngest daughter came home telling me about learning about global warming in her classroom in the 4th grade, the teacher was reading Al's book. At that time, and that was 5 years ago, I started looking into what the teacher was "preaching" in the classroom, and wasn't too pleased. Needless to say the book is not allowed to be "taught" since it is not considered to be absolute in it's findings, imagine that.
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 20, 2011 20:11:35 GMT
Chuck, don't tell anyone but it was the cows!! I found this message board after my youngest daughter came home telling me about learning about global warming in her classroom in the 4th grade, the teacher was reading Al's book. At that time, and that was 5 years ago, I started looking into what the teacher was "preaching" in the classroom, and wasn't too pleased. Needless to say the book is not allowed to be "taught" since it is not considered to be absolute in it's findings, imagine that. What? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You mean Al doesn't really have a clue what his lips are saying? |
|
|
|
Post by commonsense on Sept 20, 2011 20:15:42 GMT
A great thread indeed. One question for the AGW fanboys. Since ancient man had no cars, factories, hair spray propellant, AC refrigerant, etc, and the biggest fossil fuel emitter was a lowly fire in a cave somewhere, WHAT triggered the recorded ice ages of those eras? That's one question that makes the Gore fans very uncomfortable because it can't be answered using their data. Look up Milankovitch cycles. Now, if you had ever bothered asking "the Gore fans" that question, then you most assuredly have heard the answer. |
|
