|
|
Post by commonsense on Sept 20, 2011 20:24:12 GMT
More on 60 year non CO2 cycles. "Nicola Scafetta 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, " Yes, natural variations of 20-60 years duration are pitifully small. Even those classified as "large" are only 0.1 to 0.251C peak to trough, and so 0.05 to 0.125C peak to median. 0.125C is a piddly number. This should lay to rest all postulations about "long term cycles" driven by planets being primary drivers of climate, as they are just too durn small, even when estimated by their champions. The real numbers are likely far lower, of course. The same goes for variations in the sun. Yep, more nails in Astromet's hypothesis's coffin. |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 20, 2011 20:27:44 GMT
commonsense:
What you are missing here is the duration of longer cycles, that the sub cycles are in.
The chances of having another maunder type mininum again are very good. Co2 is a greenhouse gas, but it is a very piddly one.
Every end of every interglacial has shown co2 to keep rising even as temps are falling. IF co2 was such a good regualtor of climate, that would not happen.....but it does.
|
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 21, 2011 0:36:08 GMT
commonsense: What you are missing here is the duration of longer cycles, that the sub cycles are in. The chances of having another maunder type mininum again are very good. Co2 is a greenhouse gas, but it is a very piddly one. Every end of every interglacial has shown co2 to keep rising even as temps are falling. IF co2 was such a good regualtor of climate, that would not happen.....but it does. CO2 isn't just any old gas. It is a magic gas. |
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Sept 21, 2011 0:39:30 GMT
commonsense: What you are missing here is the duration of longer cycles, that the sub cycles are in. The chances of having another maunder type mininum again are very good. Co2 is a greenhouse gas, but it is a very piddly one. Every end of every interglacial has shown co2 to keep rising even as temps are falling. IF co2 was such a good regualtor of climate, that would not happen.....but it does. While it may be true I hope that it is not a prognostication. |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 21, 2011 1:21:51 GMT
trbixler:
I agree with you in that I hope it is not a porgnostication as well.
BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR.
|
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Oct 10, 2011 14:54:26 GMT
Breathlessly just in. Of course commonsense says its the CO2 and that the sun is not even a player in his AGW religion. "Solar dimming can trigger freezing winters, study finds" "SINGAPORE — A cyclical drop in the sun's radiation can trigger unusually cold winters in parts of North America and Europe, scientists say, a finding that could improve long-range forecasts and help countries prepare for blizzards. Scientists have known for a long time that the sun has an 11-year cycle during which radiation measured by sunspots on the surface reaches a peak then falls. But pinning down a clear link to weather has proved harder. "Our research confirms the observed link between solar variability and regional winter climate," lead author Sarah Ineson of the UK Met Office told Reuters in an email. The study was published in the journal Nature Geoscience on Monday. Her team focused on data from the recent solar minimum during 2008-10, a period of unusual calm for the sun and intense winters in the United States and parts of Europe that shut down air travel and disrupted businesses. " www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44844676/ns/weather/#.TpMFf3Jv-e0 |
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Oct 10, 2011 15:26:54 GMT
trbixler, If it were as simple as that paper would have you believe every 11 years we would have cooler winters and that is simply not the case. Certainly solar variability plays a role but I am very skeptical that it is as simple as an 11 year solar cycle.
|
|
|
|
Post by dontgetoutmuch on Oct 10, 2011 19:40:24 GMT
Breathlessly just in. Of course commonsense says its the CO2 and that the sun is not even a player in his AGW religion. "Solar dimming can trigger freezing winters, study finds" "SINGAPORE — A cyclical drop in the sun's radiation can trigger unusually cold winters in parts of North America and Europe, scientists say, a finding that could improve long-range forecasts and help countries prepare for blizzards. Scientists have known for a long time that the sun has an 11-year cycle during which radiation measured by sunspots on the surface reaches a peak then falls. But pinning down a clear link to weather has proved harder. "Our research confirms the observed link between solar variability and regional winter climate," lead author Sarah Ineson of the UK Met Office told Reuters in an email. The study was published in the journal Nature Geoscience on Monday. Her team focused on data from the recent solar minimum during 2008-10, a period of unusual calm for the sun and intense winters in the United States and parts of Europe that shut down air travel and disrupted businesses. " www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44844676/ns/weather/#.TpMFf3Jv-e0Whoa, she is obviously a shill for big oil. Everyone knows that the science is settled, and that the sun has no affect on the weather. Wait what? Another! Cold winter! Cooling trend!?! Sea levels not rising!!! This just in! Changes in solar activity do affect climate. (Only when we say!) AGW takes a short break with the sun, but will be BAAAAAACK!!! |
|
|
|
Post by stranger on Oct 11, 2011 22:28:06 GMT
To be generous we have 25 years of satellite data on a complex 350 year cycle. Yet there are many who want to bet the farm that we know what the entire cycle consists of from data that covers only 7 percent of the entire cycle. And when we have only been able to observe the most energetic segment of solar irriadiance, the UV range, with any sort of repeatability for less than five years.
The last time I looked, the first actual scientists to look at the UV numbers were scratching their heads and asking themselves "How can that happen?" Eventually they will figure it out the how, and then the why. And sooner or later someone will figure out a way to estimate just how much energy that actually is. And what percentage is converted to heat in the Earth's atmosphere.
But remember, UV goes from ultra violet to "rays," and up to a 40 percent drop from the assumed "norm" over that range is a great deal of energy that MUST be accounted for before you can come up with an energy balance for the Earth.
Given the uncertainties in the how, why, and how much, denying the periodic "little ice ages" because "the variation in TSI is only a piddly quarter percent" is a bit presumptuous.
Especially when we consider 100 percent is enough to raise the mean temperature of the moon some 268 C degrees, and a quarter percent variation would be .64 C or 1.15 F variation in the surface temperature of an airless body in Earth's orbit. That is on the same order of global temperature variation that some arguments give for the Maunder Minimum. So a "piddly quarter percent" variation in the TSI could very well be significant. The more so in that we have no real clue to what the actual variation is.
We have all these opinions - and very little data. What data we have is incomplete, and often based on data that was poor to start with. In sum, it reminds me of President Lincoln's story of the little boy who came running up to his father, who was haying a half mile from his house.
"Daddy, daddy, come quick," shouted the boy. "Sister and the hired man are up the the barn loft and they got their clothes off and they are a-fixing to pee all over your new hay."
The father threw down his scythe and ran a few steps before he stopped and came back to pick up his son.
"Son, you got your facts just right, but your conclusion is dead wrong."
Well - we don't even have our facts straight. Not yet. And until we have something more than inferred temperature extremes and seasonal variations, we cannot defend these wild and increasingly wilder hypotheses.
Stranger
|
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Dec 2, 2011 22:39:44 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by graywolf on Dec 6, 2011 15:31:00 GMT
i would not worry overly? The ghg offsets ,powerful enough to be seen to be negating the past 10yrs of cool drivers in charge of climate, should reassure you?
With the start of the CH4 surge afoot (72 times the forcing of Co2 alone over the first 20yrs) we should not notice such a negative in the climate system now should we?
Sadly, if you are wrong, (heavens forfend!) then we are Goosed.....
|
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Dec 7, 2011 1:18:19 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Dec 7, 2011 5:08:53 GMT
i would not worry overly? The ghg offsets ,powerful enough to be seen to be negating the past 10yrs of cool drivers in charge of climate, should reassure you? With the start of the CH4 surge afoot (72 times the forcing of Co2 alone over the first 20yrs) we should not notice such a negative in the climate system now should we? Sadly, if you are wrong, (heavens forfend!) then we are Goosed..... At some point methane levels might reach .000002 mole fractions in the atmosphere. Oh the humanity! The ghg offsets ,powerful enough to be seen to be negating the past 10yrs of cool drivers in charge of climate, should reassure you?
Are you ever going to cite your sources? Ever? Why didn't the Gulf oil spill cause a climate "tipping point" from the release of methane gas? You do realize it was it real world test? Oh darn, another AGW theory down the lemming hole.  |
|
|
|
Post by stranger on Dec 12, 2011 1:57:12 GMT
If methane is 72 times more effective as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, it is slightly less than ten times as effective as water vapor. H20 makes up 0.01 to 0.03 percent of the atmosphere, so 0.000002 percent would not do much either way. About as much as CO2, or an amount too small to be reliably estimated in the wild.
And yes, we may very well be in for another Maunder. Based strictly on history and timing considerations, I predicted as much 20 years ago. With better instrumentation and far more accurate data, it appears even more likely.
Stranger
|
|
chuck
New Member
Posts: 10
|
Post by chuck on Dec 14, 2011 19:21:50 GMT
Stranger, you post some of the most solid and most thoughtful posts I have seen to date. So many are pushing for carbon taxes=$, and they aren't afraid to skew the data to get there. How IPCC Reports Mislead the Public, Exaggerate the Negative Impacts of Climate Change and Ignore the Benefits of Economic Growth www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/how-ipcc-reports-mislead-the-public-exaggerate-the-negative-impacts-of-climate-change-and-ignore-the-benefits-of-economic-growth-135189913.htmlEven on this thread, from page one, I see the data presented by the "scientists" on AGW being used as factual. I guess I could spend a few minutes and find the actual Wikileaks emails from various scientists, where they flat out admit they are skewing the data. My old adage is "follow the money" to get to the truth, scientists get grants, they don't get them for presenting conflicting data, against making a buck in the right position. I firmly believe if the Wikileaks hadn't happened before Copenhagen, we all would be paying penalties now. I've noticed a complete silence from the media, on an estimation of how much the increased volcanic activity has "pumped" the mean temperature for the last few months. Myself, when I see someone refer to the global scientists and the their data as factual, I tend to give them the cold shoulder, pun intended. A year ago, I read a nice article on how NOAA telemetry was used, including a satellite that was stating it was 140 degrees on the surface. Even after being notified, the faulty data continued to be included in mean averages. Back to my adage lol, "follow the money". Now we have the UN involved?? Why is the UN involved in global warming?? www.mail.com/business/economy/902724-climate-deal-up-approval-un-conference.html#.7518-stage-promobox1-19People are most certainly being played on this and the end goal is to extract penalty dollars from everyone, for being a human. |
|
