|
|
Post by acidohm on Jun 3, 2016 17:56:04 GMT
www.breadandbutterscience.com/Little_Ice_Age_Theory.pdfImpact 2016 1 Little Ice Age Theory James A. Marusek I. Introduction General Discussion The sun is undergoing a state change. It is possible that we may be at the cusp of the next Little Ice Age. For several centuries the relationship between periods of quiet su n and a prolonged brutal cold climate on Earth (referred to as Little Ice Ages) have been recognized. But the exact mechanisms behind this relationship have remained a mystery. We exist in an age of scientific enlightenment, equipped with modern tools to measure subtle changes with great precision. Therefore it is important to try and come to grips with these natural climatic drivers and mold the evolution of theories that describe the mechanisms behind L Thankfully I do belive there are enough scientists out there doing the basic data crunching that any deviations from 'norm' will be satisfactorily processed and logged. In this event of a deviation from 'norm' occurring, it will be interesting to see how much time it takes to filter to conventional media.....I reckon 6 months?? I have got no idea how long it would take to halt the IPCC juggernaut....probably longer!! |
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jun 3, 2016 18:39:53 GMT
www.clim-past-discuss.net/7/3349/2011/cpd-7-3349-2011.pdfAbstract We analyze the spatio-temporal patterns of temperature variability over Northern Hemi- sphere land areas, on centennial time-scales, for the last 12 centuries using an un- precedentedly large network of temperature-sensitive proxy records. Geographically widespread positive temperature anomalies are observed from the 9th to 11th cen- 5 turies, similar in extent and magnitude to the 20th century mean. A dominance of widespread negative anomalies is observed from the 16th to 18th centuries. Though
we find the amplitude and spatial extent of the 20th century warming is within the range
of natural variability over the last 12 centuries, we also find that the rate of warming from
the 19th to the 20th century is unprecedented. The positive Northern Hemisphere tem- 10 perature change from the 19th to the 20th century is clearly the largest between any two consecutive centuries in the past 12 centuries. Sure doesn't seem very scary does it? We're within the range of natural variability ... but the rate of warming is scary. Rates depend on the base value from which you start. Those two downhill swings of comparable slope from 1250 and 1500 amounting to about 4 C look a lot more scary to me. And if you rough it out, that increase of 3 C from 1050 to 1250 works out to be nearly identical on an annual basis as the 2 C increase from 1825 to 1950. My scare-O-meter is not registering 'urgent' ... particularly with the looming solar minimum. But you've really to credit our Medieval ancestors. Who knew that they could crank out that much CO2!   |
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Jun 3, 2016 20:40:32 GMT
www.clim-past-discuss.net/7/3349/2011/cpd-7-3349-2011.pdfAbstract We analyze the spatio-temporal patterns of temperature variability over Northern Hemi- sphere land areas, on centennial time-scales, for the last 12 centuries using an un- precedentedly large network of temperature-sensitive proxy records. Geographically widespread positive temperature anomalies are observed from the 9th to 11th cen- 5 turies, similar in extent and magnitude to the 20th century mean. A dominance of widespread negative anomalies is observed from the 16th to 18th centuries. Though
we find the amplitude and spatial extent of the 20th century warming is within the range
of natural variability over the last 12 centuries, we also find that the rate of warming from
the 19th to the 20th century is unprecedented. The positive Northern Hemisphere tem- 10 perature change from the 19th to the 20th century is clearly the largest between any two consecutive centuries in the past 12 centuries. Sure doesn't seem very scary does it? We're within the range of natural variability ... but the rate of warming is scary. Rates depend on the base value from which you start. Those two downhill swings of comparable slope from 1250 and 1500 amounting to about 4 C look a lot more scary to me. And if you rough it out, that increase of 3 C from 1050 to 1250 works out to be nearly identical on an annual basis as the 2 C increase from 1825 to 1950. My scare-O-meter is not registering 'urgent' ... particularly with the looming solar minimum. But you've really to credit our Medieval ancestors. Who knew that they could crank out that much CO2! More then anything it looks like our primeval relatives were cooking up some kinda mega stuff, but stopped.....then we got in on the act??? Make sense?  |
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jun 4, 2016 4:38:16 GMT
Sure doesn't seem very scary does it? We're within the range of natural variability ... but the rate of warming is scary. Rates depend on the base value from which you start. Those two downhill swings of comparable slope from 1250 and 1500 amounting to about 4 C look a lot more scary to me. And if you rough it out, that increase of 3 C from 1050 to 1250 works out to be nearly identical on an annual basis as the 2 C increase from 1825 to 1950. My scare-O-meter is not registering 'urgent' ... particularly with the looming solar minimum. But you've really to credit our Medieval ancestors. Who knew that they could crank out that much CO2! More then anything it looks like our primeval relatives were cooking up some kinda mega stuff, but stopped.....then we got in on the act??? Make sense? All that Medieval sunshine fried their little brains! And they let the fires go out!  |
|
|
|
Post by walnut on Jun 4, 2016 4:41:57 GMT
The sun is spotless today, just sayin  |
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Jun 4, 2016 5:11:38 GMT
I think the number of spotless days has been overrated. We now count tiny specs that would have counted as "spotless" not too long ago. It will be interesting to see just how many "spotless" day this cycle has when we actually hit bottom
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 5, 2016 18:26:25 GMT
I think the number of spotless days has been overrated. We now count tiny specs that would have counted as "spotless" not too long ago. It will be interesting to see just how many "spotless" day this cycle has when we actually hit bottom I think that depends upon what standard you are rating spotless days. I think according to Dr Svalgaard the "official" number of spots is something worked out some weeks after the fact with several solar monitoring agencies and with the input of traditional technology. I think it might be true that a spotless day with the modern equipment is indeed a spotless day. |
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jun 5, 2016 19:13:45 GMT
I think the number of spotless days has been overrated. We now count tiny specs that would have counted as "spotless" not too long ago. It will be interesting to see just how many "spotless" day this cycle has when we actually hit bottom I think that depends upon what standard you are rating spotless days. I think according to Dr Svalgaard the "official" number of spots is something worked out some weeks after the fact with several solar monitoring agencies and with the input of traditional technology. I think it might be true that a spotless day with the modern equipment is indeed a spotless day. Dr. Svalgaard has many times pointed out that the spot counters use antique telescopes to count the spots to maintain a valid comparison. Although there are continual arguments about the consistency of the Wolf numbers which the new methodology was meant to settle. |
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Jun 5, 2016 19:44:56 GMT
Indeed....I think the use of the exact same telescope as used by Wolf originally to compare against current technology is an outstanding comparison to achieve consistancy through time.
|
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Jun 5, 2016 20:04:34 GMT
It still leaves the issue of telescope location.
I lived in the north of Europe for two winters in the 70s there were weeks that could have been spotty or not but unseen.
200 years ago telescopes were clustered in these regions, so a rare event such as a spotless observation but not then observed for a week due to weather is recorded as a day or a week if the subsequent observation has a spot.
|
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jun 5, 2016 20:31:38 GMT
Indeed....I think the use of the exact same telescope as used by Wolf originally to compare against current technology is an outstanding comparison to achieve consistancy through time. Here comes the expert to read the telescope - bring the water bowl for his guide dog....  While there is precision on the telescope, there is no confirmation that the presbyopia of the aged specialist is taken into account  |
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Jun 5, 2016 22:13:47 GMT
Ok....but can you imagine the further complications if science did NOT still possess this tool!! At least we can judge the faults with a consistent perspective!!
|
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jun 6, 2016 3:30:09 GMT
Ok....but can you imagine the further complications if science did NOT still possess this tool!! At least we can judge the faults with a consistent perspective!! "Out damn'd spot! Out, I say." Lady Macbeth and her telescope foretelling the advent of the Little Ice Age. |
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Jun 6, 2016 5:29:23 GMT
[ Snip ] "Out damn'd spot! Out, I say." Lady Macbeth and her telescope foretelling the advent of the Little Ice Age. That's much nicer than Cornwall's "Lest it see more, prevent it. Out, vile jelly! Where is thy lustre now?" Could Gloucester have been a climate sceptic way back then. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 6, 2016 14:39:54 GMT
Indeed....I think the use of the exact same telescope as used by Wolf originally to compare against current technology is an outstanding comparison to achieve consistancy through time. Here comes the expert to read the telescope - bring the water bowl for his guide dog.... While there is precision on the telescope, there is no confirmation that the presbyopia of the aged specialist is taken into account yessir! I can be witness to that! Also diligence cleaning the fly crap off the lens. It is useful to create a parallel modern record with high precision instruments which is probably what we see on the daily monitoring more often than the ancient telescope numbers though no doubt that varies according to your source. The only problem with parallel records is how they get treated when the government gets an agenda. "Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth" may not have perished but it does frequently go on hiatus. |
|
