|
Post by icefisher on Apr 25, 2010 1:45:38 GMT
" Saturday, April 24, 2010 Sun back in a mini-slumber in the transition between solar cycles 23 and 24 The sun is back in a mini-slumber with 9 straight sunspotless days and now 786 for the transition from cycle 23 to 24 (the last 4 cycle transitions had between 220 and 310 such days). "
"It is established from observation that solar cycles longer than the 11 year average are followed by later cycles of lesser intensity, and, commensurately, a cooler climate[ii]. Solar Cycle 23 was 3 years longer than Cycle 22. Based on the theory originally proposed by Friis-Christensen and Lassen, this implies that cooling of up to 2.20 C may occur during Cycle 24 (compared with temperatures during Cycle 23) for the mid-latitude grain-growing areas of the northern hemisphere[iii]. "Solar Cycle 20 was more than a year longer than Cycle 19 which implies that temperatures should have declined by ~0.7 deg. during Cycle 21 (1976-86). They didn't. Why do people persist with this nonsense when it's so easy to show that the claimed relationship simply doesn't exist. You did notice he was not talking globally right GLC. Just wondering since you did not highlight the regional portion of the statement as if you stopped reading at the point you ended the highlight. If not where did you get the data from?
|
|
|
Post by glc on Apr 25, 2010 10:12:31 GMT
" Saturday, April 24, 2010 Sun back in a mini-slumber in the transition between solar cycles 23 and 24 The sun is back in a mini-slumber with 9 straight sunspotless days and now 786 for the transition from cycle 23 to 24 (the last 4 cycle transitions had between 220 and 310 such days). "
"It is established from observation that solar cycles longer than the 11 year average are followed by later cycles of lesser intensity, and, commensurately, a cooler climate[ii]. Solar Cycle 23 was 3 years longer than Cycle 22. Based on the theory originally proposed by Friis-Christensen and Lassen, this implies that cooling of up to 2.20 C may occur during Cycle 24 (compared with temperatures during Cycle 23) for the mid-latitude grain-growing areas of the northern hemisphere[iii]. "Solar Cycle 20 was more than a year longer than Cycle 19 which implies that temperatures should have declined by ~0.7 deg. during Cycle 21 (1976-86). They didn't. Why do people persist with this nonsense when it's so easy to show that the claimed relationship simply doesn't exist. You did notice he was not talking globally right GLC. Just wondering since you did not highlight the regional portion of the statement as if you stopped reading at the point you ended the highlight. If not where did you get the data from? Yes, of course, how silly of me. I should have considered the possibility that while most of the NH was warming, temperatures in " the mid-latitude grain-growing areas of the northern hemisphere" were plummeting. This, presumably, will be one of the mysterious solar cycle effects. However, a quick check reveals the following Between 1979 and 1986 UAH satellite temperatures over the continental US were increasing at ~0.4 deg per decade. GISS Land based temperatures in the mid-latitudes were increasing at ~0.2 deg per decade. Nowhere is there any evidence that temperatures were falling in the grain-growing areas in the 1976-86 period - and certainly not by 0.7 degrees. The 'prediction' by D'Aleo looks suspiciously like the idiotic drivel put out by David Archibald. This tells us all we need to know about Joe D'Aleo. Sceptic blogs like Climate Audit and to a lesser extent, WUWT, are being let down this kind of nonsense. UPDATE: I've just checked the Icecap post and sure enough it cites an article by Archibald.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Apr 25, 2010 14:45:17 GMT
Yes, of course, how silly of me. I should have considered the possibility that while most of the NH was warming, temperatures in " the mid-latitude grain-growing areas of the northern hemisphere" were plummeting. This, presumably, will be one of the mysterious solar cycle effects. However, a quick check reveals the following Between 1979 and 1986 UAH satellite temperatures over the continental US were increasing at ~0.4 deg per decade. GISS Land based temperatures in the mid-latitudes were increasing at ~0.2 deg per decade. Nowhere is there any evidence that temperatures were falling in the grain-growing areas in the 1976-86 period - and certainly not by 0.7 degrees. Hate to be a nitpicker but we are not talking about "mid latitudes", nor were we talking about "continental United States". We are talking about "mid-latitude grain-growing areas of the northern hemisphere" I am seeing some references associated with the IPCC that shows grain production being influenced positively by "cooler growing season temperatures" (though precipitation is a bigger driver). But I suppose when its cool, cloudy and rainy wheat grows like heck in mid latitude summers or at least a lot faster than when it is clear, hot, and dry. (perhaps what we have here is yet another IPCC science data parsing problem) World population doubled between 1960-90 and world wheat production tripled. So was that due to cooler temperatures in grain growing areas? Or is it that we are adapting to global warming faster than the globe is warming? I am curious so do you have a reference on "grain growing areas"?
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Apr 25, 2010 15:22:12 GMT
Just a reminder highlighting glc's masterful hand at cherry picking trends to suit his needs:
|
|
|
Post by glc on Apr 25, 2010 17:25:56 GMT
Just a reminder highlighting glc's masterful hand at cherry picking trends to suit his needs:
Yet again you fail to read the original discussion to see why the period up to 1986 was chosen. Why do you bother?
|
|
|
Post by glc on Apr 25, 2010 17:34:35 GMT
Hate to be a nitpicker but we are not talking about "mid latitudes", nor were we talking about "continental United States". We are talking about "mid-latitude grain-growing areas of the northern hemisphere"
Oh give up. Do you imagine that there are "some mid-latitude grain growing areas" that somehow missed the post-1976 warming and actually cooled by 0.7 degrees. I cited the US because it is one of the leading grain growing regions of the world.
I've just checked the Archibald papers. Archibald specifically talks about the US mid-latitudes. In fact he's even more specific than that. In D'Aleo's reference Archibald uses the single record from Hanover, NH.
Archibald is peddling drivel and the fact that Joe D'Aleo, Anthony Watts and others are happy to indulge him should be of some concern to responsible sceptics.
|
|
|
Post by itsthesunstupid on Apr 26, 2010 13:57:12 GMT
Has SC24 already peaked? Probably not; but, the recent stretch of 11+ days without a sunspot combined with the general drop in solar magnatism seems to indicate that El Sol is not operating as "normal". If the cycle has peaked, and if temperatures continue to drop, what will AGW cultists say?
A question I am pondering is now that the atmosphere has shrunk by a third and as CO2 replaces water vapor (which is a stronger greenhouse gas), will temperature drops be exacerbated?
Climate is so complicated and these are just a couple of factors affecting it, I'm sure; but, these are interesting potential influencers to what seems to be an extant trend in global climate.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Apr 26, 2010 14:28:03 GMT
Hate to be a nitpicker but we are not talking about "mid latitudes", nor were we talking about "continental United States". We are talking about "mid-latitude grain-growing areas of the northern hemisphere"Oh give up. Do you imagine that there are "some mid-latitude grain growing areas" that somehow missed the post-1976 warming and actually cooled by 0.7 degrees. I cited the US because it is one of the leading grain growing regions of the world. I've just checked the Archibald papers. Archibald specifically talks about the US mid-latitudes. In fact he's even more specific than that. In D'Aleo's reference Archibald uses the single record from Hanover, NH. Archibald is peddling drivel and the fact that Joe D'Aleo, Anthony Watts and others are happy to indulge him should be of some concern to responsible sceptics. It might have been more fruitful if you had just stuck with the ad hominem argument and/or asked for some support for the argument rather than trying to dive in with answers to the wrong question and then responding that it doesn't make sense that a small region could have a variance when the general globe is experiencing something different. After all isn't that your argument against the LIA? Namely it was only experienced in Europe and not felt around the globe?
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Apr 27, 2010 6:58:32 GMT
Archibald is peddling drivel and the fact that Joe D'Aleo, Anthony Watts and others are happy to indulge him should be of some concern to responsible sceptics. I've always said Archibald sounds a bit like a crackpot. I'm pretty sure the sun contributes. I assume the sun's total contribution to earth's temperature is probably greater (through various mechanisms known and unknown) overall than the piddly drops we observe during normal solar minimums. If I had a gun to my head (thankfully not) I'd guess .4C between a grand maximum and grand minimum...maybe +/- .2C. The same goes for the PDO. So I would be surprised if we dropped beyond the temperatures from the last cold period during this cold period. Of course, since cooling is the real danger, this is what concerns me more than warming...even if I don't think it's going to be that bad.
|
|
|
Post by sentient on Apr 28, 2010 1:31:39 GMT
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Sept 2, 2011 5:02:28 GMT
Bump.
|
|
|
Post by juancarnuba on Sept 3, 2011 23:13:37 GMT
I just found this today when I was bumping around:
"At this time, the solar barycenter is transiting the Sun's surface in a tighter formation than it has in over 6000 years; even more so than prior to the Maunder Minimum in the 1600s. This is a significant solar event. This is a survivable event, to be sure. It happens regularly in cosmic time. However, a barycenter transit over the Sun's surface for such a long time will significantly cool the Sun. In the next 150 years, future solar barycenter transits will slow down the recovery of the present quiet period. As a result, we are likely to experience about 150 years of solar minimum punctuated by a few false starts. This will translate to about 150 years of cool weather on Earth before solar activity returns to the level seen in the 1900s."
Any thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Sept 4, 2011 4:49:34 GMT
I just found this today when I was bumping around: "At this time, the solar barycenter is transiting the Sun's surface in a tighter formation than it has in over 6000 years; even more so than prior to the Maunder Minimum in the 1600s. This is a significant solar event. This is a survivable event, to be sure. It happens regularly in cosmic time. However, a barycenter transit over the Sun's surface for such a long time will significantly cool the Sun. In the next 150 years, future solar barycenter transits will slow down the recovery of the present quiet period. As a result, we are likely to experience about 150 years of solar minimum punctuated by a few false starts. This will translate to about 150 years of cool weather on Earth before solar activity returns to the level seen in the 1900s." Any thoughts? Yes, I would not say that it will translate into "150 years of cool weather" on Earth, but global cooling is coming. I've calculated it to begin in 2017 and last for 36 years - that takes us to 2053. The peak of global cooling will be in the 2030s and 2040s, but we've been seeing anomalous cold events for about 5 years now, which are signs of increasing La Nina-type climate events and decreasing El Ninos.
|
|