|
Post by socold on Apr 2, 2009 22:09:35 GMT
|
|
|
Post by gettingchilly on Apr 2, 2009 22:42:29 GMT
Yes there were stupid people back then but we have now perfected the formula and have produced a whole generation of brainwashed dimwitted losers who actually believe they are clever!
Progress, Progress etc. yawn.
|
|
|
Post by Ulric Lyons on May 13, 2009 17:23:42 GMT
I have no doubt whatsoever that everything from daily weather events, through weekly/monthly temperature changes, to climatic cycles thousands of years long, are all astronomically driven. By heliocentric Planet configurations, and modulated by Lunar positions. It is inevitable that the sciences of meteorology and climatology will go through a complete revolution when the full details of these understandings are made public. With the ability to hindcast accurately for hundreds of years, and account for any given monthly anomaly, the forecasting possibilities are awesome. Short term and seasonal forecasts can be mapped out for temperature and precipitation for decades or hundreds of years ahead. Flood and drought cycles for large continents can be anticipated way in advance. The quality of forecasts made by the likes of people who employ this science, speak for themselves.
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Jul 13, 2009 9:22:07 GMT
I have no doubt whatsoever that everything from daily weather events, through weekly/monthly temperature changes, to climatic cycles thousands of years long, are all astronomically driven. By heliocentric Planet configurations, and modulated by Lunar positions. It is inevitable that the sciences of meteorology and climatology will go through a complete revolution when the full details of these understandings are made public. With the ability to hindcast accurately for hundreds of years, and account for any given monthly anomaly, the forecasting possibilities are awesome. Short term and seasonal forecasts can be mapped out for temperature and precipitation for decades or hundreds of years ahead. Flood and drought cycles for large continents can be anticipated way in advance. The quality of forecasts made by the likes of people who employ this science, speak for themselves. I agree Ulric. The time is coming when astronomic forecasting will take the lead for humanity's ability to prepare properly for climate changes forced by the Sun, Moon, and planets. The revolution has already started in Astrometeorology and space weather science. It is only a matter of time before conventional science catches up to what we've known for sometime now - The rule of astrophysical (causes) to geophysical (effects) that regulates and drives the atmosphere of the Earth.
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Jul 13, 2009 21:08:36 GMT
Not at all, if you reduce the rate of heat loss from the ocean (by warming the atmosphere above it - by increasing greenhouse gases) then the ocean will get warmer. So let's go through this slowly. The oceans are continually cooling due to evaporation of water from the surface, you can see oceans steaming all over the world from the poles to the tropics. This evaporation increases whenever the oceans are warmer and when the vapor pressure of water vapor allows it. Water vapor is hugely more effective as a 'green house gas' (sic) than CO 2. In theory with the huge amounts of water vapor entering the atmosphere and warming it by taking heat from the surface, there should be a runaway effect. But water vapor also provides feedbacks such as convection of the energy to the tropopause, with cloud formation raising the albedo, and cold precipitation returning 'empty' to cool the ocean again. AGW does not like negative feedbacks and fails to model them correctly. But they must be there or the Earth would have boiled dry already. I would hypothesize that these negative feedbacks that arise when the ocean ( or atmosphere) begins to approach a particular temperature are so significant that they can override the minor effect of CO 2. This appears to be supported by references on the subject of measures of hugely negative forcing by convective clouds in the tropics. Most of the climate modeling done is always tainted by pre-assumed positions that mankind is responsible, when anyone who looks closely at the reasons for Earth's global warming over the centuries can see that the Sun is the cause. Once conventional climate scientists begin to accept the fact that what they've been doing is looking for "causes" in the the "effects" and change their solutions to astronomic by following the rule of astrophysical to geophysical - cause to effect - then the arguments for man-made global warming will finally be put to rest. However, what the world will witness by the middle of the next decade will be increasingly anomalous cooler readings that will point to a colder climate in the 2020s, that will peak by the mid-2030s. We are seeing the last phase of global warming now, and with Solar Cycle #24, it will go out with a bang, as it did when it came in during the year of 1980.
|
|
wd7z
New Member
Posts: 41
|
Post by wd7z on Jul 19, 2009 20:19:03 GMT
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Jul 30, 2009 20:09:46 GMT
various observers are saying that as a result of solar minimum UV is reduced and radio is reduced etc but has anybody got a before and after electromagnetic spectrum showing changes?
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Jul 30, 2009 23:27:38 GMT
various observers are saying that as a result of solar minimum UV is reduced and radio is reduced etc but has anybody got a before and after electromagnetic spectrum showing changes? The higher UV and Xrays are primarily a result of sunspot activity. No sunspots, less UV and Xrays. Also the drop in total solar irradiance is also about 30% greater than in recent minimums. Don't misunderstand that last bit, the TSI drop is still tiny...it's just .13% instead of the usual .1%. Anyway, obviously if there are far fewer sunspots and they (as some suspect) take up a far lower portion of the sun's surface when they do appear...there will be a significant drop in UV.
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Jul 31, 2009 10:41:13 GMT
various observers are saying that as a result of solar minimum UV is reduced and radio is reduced etc but has anybody got a before and after electromagnetic spectrum showing changes? The higher UV and Xrays are primarily a result of sunspot activity. No sunspots, less UV and Xrays. Also the drop in total solar irradiance is also about 30% greater than in recent minimums. Don't misunderstand that last bit, the TSI drop is still tiny...it's just .13% instead of the usual .1%. Anyway, obviously if there are far fewer sunspots and they (as some suspect) take up a far lower portion of the sun's surface when they do appear...there will be a significant drop in UV. Ok that sounds authoritative that the change is tiny and more or less insignificance for total change. I am though still interested in looking at the basic science behind the change. Are there any electromagnetic spectrums of before and after changes to show the difference?
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Jul 31, 2009 11:26:01 GMT
Ok that sounds authoritative that the change is tiny and more or less insignificance for total change. I am though still interested in looking at the basic science behind the change. Are there any electromagnetic spectrums of before and after changes to show the difference? Oh, the change is fairly large in some respects. While the TSI change is tiny...the umbra (cooler) and penumbra(hotter) have the affect of pushing the energy out of the visible spectrum and into the IR/UV spectrum. I think both IR and UV are more readily absorbed. The absence of sunspots means the sun emits radiation more in line with the black body curve for its surface temperature. A bit more visible light is produced and its more likely to be reflected..so the effective change in the earth's energy budget is probably higher than raw TSI changes.
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Jul 31, 2009 14:38:26 GMT
Ok that sounds authoritative that the change is tiny and more or less insignificance for total change. I am though still interested in looking at the basic science behind the change. Are there any electromagnetic spectrums of before and after changes to show the difference? Oh, the change is fairly large in some respects. While the TSI change is tiny...the umbra (cooler) and penumbra(hotter) have the affect of pushing the energy out of the visible spectrum and into the IR/UV spectrum. I think both IR and UV are more readily absorbed. The absence of sunspots means the sun emits radiation more in line with the black body curve for its surface temperature. A bit more visible light is produced and its more likely to be reflected..so the effective change in the earth's energy budget is probably higher than raw TSI changes. I feel i need data. So far i have stuff like this: This current calm set a few records, including a 50-year low in solar wind pressure, a 12-year low in solar irradiance (or brightness), and a 55-year low in solar radio emissionsI therefore asked about an electromagnetic spectrum which includes radio, IR and UV and visible light. I then dont have to be confused by such terms as TSI which may or may not be a measure of brightness of the sun. NASA says that UV is down 6% and you seem to be saying that UV only comes from the sunspots. If i had some papers to read things would be clearer to me. Hence i was wondering if there was any data out there for electromagnetic spectrums before and after the events
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Aug 1, 2009 7:00:43 GMT
I feel i need data. So far i have stuff like this: This current calm set a few records, including a 50-year low in solar wind pressure, a 12-year low in solar irradiance (or brightness), and a 55-year low in solar radio emissionsI therefore asked about an electromagnetic spectrum which includes radio, IR and UV and visible light. I then dont have to be confused by such terms as TSI which may or may not be a measure of brightness of the sun. NASA says that UV is down 6% and you seem to be saying that UV only comes from the sunspots. If i had some papers to read things would be clearer to me. Hence i was wondering if there was any data out there for electromagnetic spectrums before and after the events There aren't a lot of readily available papers on changes in the sun's spectrum over the course of the sunspot cycle. It took quite a long time for me to even find this (and oddly, it was on a NASA page that seemed to care more about tanning) Most of the UV the sun gives off is a part of the black-body spectrum for the sun's temperature and will be present with or without sunspots. There's just more and more variation between the output during solar maximum and solar minimum as the frequency (of the light) increases until eventually (with Xrays) the bulk of that frequency seems to be the result of sunspots. Now personally...I tend to think (at this point) that the sun's influence is more of an indirect one. Its cycles help to synchronize the natural cycles that already exist through changes in spectrum, solar wind, modulation of galactic cosmic rays and changes in TSI (total solar irradiance). The PDO or Pacific Decadal oscillation (60ish year cycle), AMO or Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (70ish year cycle), NAO or North Atlantic oscillation for example...all went into warming modes simultaneously during the past warming period. The AMO's "scheduled" dip into a cooling mode is in about a decade, but it's likely in the decline. Anyway, there's LOTS about the climate that we don't understand and given the fact that the actual warming rate (from the 1940's warm period peak to the 2000's warm period peak) is only about .5C/century...so I seriously doubt there will be any significant warming (even by natural cycles) any time soon.
|
|
van
Level 2 Rank
Posts: 59
|
Post by van on Aug 1, 2009 12:40:24 GMT
Poitsplace The only thing I disagree on is that the Suns cycles both directly and indirectly are what drives the earths natural cycles. The earths different cycles are kind of like a bunch of kids all on different swings of different lengths. For a given input (energy) each swing will have its own cycle length and changes to the inputs will make changes more rapidly to the shorter swings. Maybe the reason the North Atlantic oscillation is longer than the Pacific oscillation is its more open to the Arctic Ocean (longer rope) compared to the North Pacific being cut off by the Bering Straits.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Aug 1, 2009 14:41:26 GMT
Poitsplace The only thing I disagree on is that the Suns cycles both directly and indirectly are what drives the earths natural cycles. The earths different cycles are kind of like a bunch of kids all on different swings of different lengths. For a given input (energy) each swing will have its own cycle length and changes to the inputs will make changes more rapidly to the shorter swings. Maybe the reason the North Atlantic oscillation is longer than the Pacific oscillation is its more open to the Arctic Ocean (longer rope) compared to the North Pacific being cut off by the Bering Straits. Its not even that simple. The large convective cells in the atmosphere in the tropics the Hadley cells causing the trade winds that affect the ENSO, and the Ferrel or mid-latitude cells and then the polar cells. The jetstreams form on the poleward side of the Hadley cells. If these cells and jetstreams are displaced they can cause effects like the current weather in Minnesota and Europe . All this affects the cooling and heating of the land and the oceans down to about 200M and that in turn feeds-back to the behavior of the convective cells. The convection takes heat from the surface causes cloud that raises albedo stopping heat inputs and drops cold non-saline rain back - again influencing the ocean heat content and behavior of the ocean currents. Of course as these cells form and the winds created follow the Coriolis effect there are huge effects on the Global Atmospheric Angular Momentum which is also claimed to be strongly linked to large scale weather changes. The climate is a huge interlinked chaotic system - I doubt if there is anything 'linear' in its response to any internal or external change and some responses have huge inertia and take thousands of years while some can be minutes. So to use your swings analogy each swing is interlinked to various other swings some of them move extremely slowly and others very fast. Pushing one swing might even slow it down due to feedbacks from others it is interlinked to. This is very frustrating to those with linear thought or who like to forecast based on what seem to be simple repeating patterns that have only been observed for a few decades. There may well be a pattern, but nobody seems to have identified the correct Poincaré sections yet.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Aug 1, 2009 23:06:09 GMT
I guess it's accurate to say that the sun "drives" (provides energy for) the climate. But to use a car analogy, the sun "drives" the climate about the same way a car engine "drives" the car. It mostly provides the umph to get things moving. Where things go once they're moving depends on a lot of these cycles here on the ground...like the three long duration cycles that had simultaneous periods warming in the pacific, atlantic and europe during the 90's.
|
|