|
|
Post by thermostat on Jun 12, 2011 2:23:43 GMT
Of course, the end of La Nina is not the end of, "its all a natural cycle" Actually, the El Nino side of the coin is commonly referenced as the temperature driver. That said, any post mortem La Nina comments on where the cooling went? Feel free to explain how the extended solar minimum 'doesn't even matta!' (It's still the sun bro, trust me on this one...  ) And your point is exactly what tstat? ENSO, that is both El Nino and La Nina, affect temperature and weather conditions when they are operative during their oscillation cycles. The Sun controls the constitution of the Earth's atmosphere and drives oceans. Yes, of course it is the Sun. That is how our natural climate system works. So what is your point? Astromet, My point is this 'mythical natural cycle', that noone has ever seen and noone can describe; "it's the sun", even as we go through 'Solar Cycle 24.' My point is that your argument lacks scientific support. |
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Jun 12, 2011 7:29:46 GMT
And your point is exactly what tstat? ENSO, that is both El Nino and La Nina, affect temperature and weather conditions when they are operative during their oscillation cycles. The Sun controls the constitution of the Earth's atmosphere and drives oceans. Yes, of course it is the Sun. That is how our natural climate system works. So what is your point? Astromet, My point is this 'mythical natural cycle', that noone has ever seen and noone can describe; "it's the sun", even as we go through 'Solar Cycle 24.' My point is that your argument lacks scientific support. Mythical natural cycle? Just what are you talking about? You do live in nature tstat, it is all around you. If you do not see the cycles of nature (the seasons, duh) then you are surely worse off than ever. You say my point lacks scientific support? What 'point' is that may I ask? And you state these outrageous things as if science is somehow ideologically monolithic or something? You could not work for me with that perspective. I wouldn't hire anyone who thinks like that and in this economy you'd better have a more open-mind and wider perspective. The universe is a big place but you're not even out the front door yet kiddo. Get your feet on the ground tstat. Open your eyes, get all 52 cards in your deck and BOTH oars in the water, then maybe, maybe we can talk. Until that time, please take your nickel-and-dime comments elsewhere. Welcome to the 21st century. 'Mythical natural cycle.' Geez. |
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Jun 14, 2011 2:26:33 GMT
Astromet, My point is this 'mythical natural cycle', that noone has ever seen and noone can describe; "it's the sun", even as we go through 'Solar Cycle 24.' My point is that your argument lacks scientific support. Mythical natural cycle? Just what are you talking about? You do live in nature tstat, it is all around you. If you do not see the cycles of nature (the seasons, duh) then you are surely worse off than ever. You say my point lacks scientific support? What 'point' is that may I ask? And you state these outrageous things as if science is somehow ideologically monolithic or something? You could not work for me with that perspective. I wouldn't hire anyone who thinks like that and in this economy you'd better have a more open-mind and wider perspective. The universe is a big place but you're not even out the front door yet kiddo. Get your feet on the ground tstat. Open your eyes, get all 52 cards in your deck and BOTH oars in the water, then maybe, maybe we can talk. Until that time, please take your nickel-and-dime comments elsewhere. Welcome to the 21st century. 'Mythical natural cycle.' Geez. Astromet, The 'mythical natural cycle' refers to a denialist default objection to the scientific advancement of the past half century. A concise explanation of this scientific advancemet has recently been provided by the Royal Society royalsociety.org/climate-change-summary-of-science/to clarify for forum members, the 'mythical natural cycle' (commonly know as 'grasping at straws') is the unknown and unexplained alternative to science. |
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Jun 14, 2011 2:54:38 GMT
Mythical natural cycle? Just what are you talking about? You do live in nature tstat, it is all around you. If you do not see the cycles of nature (the seasons, duh) then you are surely worse off than ever. You say my point lacks scientific support? What 'point' is that may I ask? And you state these outrageous things as if science is somehow ideologically monolithic or something? You could not work for me with that perspective. I wouldn't hire anyone who thinks like that and in this economy you'd better have a more open-mind and wider perspective. The universe is a big place but you're not even out the front door yet kiddo. Get your feet on the ground tstat. Open your eyes, get all 52 cards in your deck and BOTH oars in the water, then maybe, maybe we can talk. Until that time, please take your nickel-and-dime comments elsewhere. Welcome to the 21st century. 'Mythical natural cycle.' Geez. Astromet, The 'mythical natural cycle' refers to a denialist default objection to the scientific advancement of the past half century. A concise explanation of this scientific advancemet has recently been provided by the Royal Society royalsociety.org/climate-change-summary-of-science/to clarify for forum members, the 'mythical natural cycle' (commonly know as 'grasping at straws') is the unknown and unexplained alternative to science. Therm, Without human interference, the ocean-atmosphere system has been warmer than today dozens and dozens of times. Thus the use of the term cycle. Do you understand? |
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Jun 14, 2011 3:15:45 GMT
Astromet, The 'mythical natural cycle' refers to a denialist default objection to the scientific advancement of the past half century. A concise explanation of this scientific advancemet has recently been provided by the Royal Society royalsociety.org/climate-change-summary-of-science/to clarify for forum members, the 'mythical natural cycle' (commonly know as 'grasping at straws') is the unknown and unexplained alternative to science. Therm, Without human interference, the ocean-atmosphere system has been warmer than today dozens and dozens of times. Thus the use of the term cycle. Do you understand? woodstove, Of course I understand that. That is not the point today. It is only recently that human activities have reached a point where they now drive. |
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Jun 14, 2011 4:33:06 GMT
Therm, Without human interference, the ocean-atmosphere system has been warmer than today dozens and dozens of times. Thus the use of the term cycle. Do you understand? woodstove, Of course I understand that. That is not the point today. It is only recently that human activities have reached a point where they now drive. Saying it doesn't make it so. |
|
|
|
Post by neilhamp on Jun 14, 2011 6:05:37 GMT
The MEI has just been updated www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/Scroll down to the third graph for a historical appraisal of La Nina's Looks like La Nina is coming to an end The sting is in the tail. In the last paragraph we read "... big La Nina events have a tendency to re-emerge after taking time off" |
|
|
|
Post by codetalker on Jun 15, 2011 17:30:08 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 15, 2011 22:31:02 GMT
The MEI has just been updated www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/Scroll down to the third graph for a historical appraisal of La Nina's Looks like La Nina is coming to an end The sting is in the tail. In the last paragraph we read "... big La Nina events have a tendency to re-emerge after taking time off" By my reckoning this means HadCRUT approaching 0.5C in later months of this year bringing temperatures in that record to near the warm months of 2010 el nino... It also means at least a jump of 0.1C in coming months in UAH |
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Jun 16, 2011 1:34:44 GMT
The sunspot lull has sure been in the news today. It was funny to see for someone who has been following the Solar Cycle 24 website for a number of years. The obvious first reaction; if the sunspot lull causes cooling, where is the cooling? a rhetorical question, obviously. We just had the warmest 12 month period ever recorded in the instrument period even as the sun went to sleep. |
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Jun 16, 2011 1:46:35 GMT
Astromet, My point is this 'mythical natural cycle', that noone has ever seen and noone can describe; "it's the sun", even as we go through 'Solar Cycle 24.' My point is that your argument lacks scientific support. Mythical natural cycle? Just what are you talking about? You do live in nature tstat, it is all around you. If you do not see the cycles of nature (the seasons, duh) then you are surely worse off than ever. You say my point lacks scientific support? What 'point' is that may I ask? And you state these outrageous things as if science is somehow ideologically monolithic or something? You could not work for me with that perspective. I wouldn't hire anyone who thinks like that and in this economy you'd better have a more open-mind and wider perspective. The universe is a big place but you're not even out the front door yet kiddo. Get your feet on the ground tstat. Open your eyes, get all 52 cards in your deck and BOTH oars in the water, then maybe, maybe we can talk. Until that time, please take your nickel-and-dime comments elsewhere. Welcome to the 21st century. 'Mythical natural cycle.' Geez. Astromet is the quintessential proponent of "the mythical natural cycle", even more dogmatic than Magellan. The mythical natural cycle explanation proposes that whatever is happening to climate is 'natural'. Humans are too insignificant to have any observable or meaningul impact. Thus, geophysical explanations that descibe how human activity functionally alters the climate system are nonsense. Geophysical Scientists are either ignorant or part of some global conspiracy. Astromet has it all figured out. Fascinating! |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 16, 2011 2:28:27 GMT
The sunspot lull has sure been in the news today. It was funny to see for someone who has been following the Solar Cycle 24 website for a number of years. The obvious first reaction; if the sunspot lull causes cooling, where is the cooling? a rhetorical question, obviously. We just had the warmest 12 month period ever recorded in the instrument period even as the sun went to sleep. Where? Indeed! 1. It wasn't a record by .2degree despite a decadal El Nino Modoki of record intensity. 2. 2011 UAH is currently below the average of the last decade by .15degC 3. 2011 Hadcrut is currently below the average of the last decade by .14degC. 4. It probably takes about 10-15 years to run half the heat in the pipeline from decades of high solar limiting the cooling by maybe a 1/10th degree or more. 5. Any effect attributable AGW forcing continues to offset cooling. 6. Any effect from the natural emissions of CO2 from the ocean responding to solar warming continues to offset cooling 7. The time computed for the creation of CCN from decreased sunspots has never been computed. 7a. Time for solar emissions to reach outer heliosphere is a year and a half. 7b. Rate of ionization from extended supplementation of GCRs not calculated. 7c. Rate of accretion of micro particles to full sized CCNs not calculated. 7d. Average time in atmosphere of CCN before condensing not calculated. 8. Ocean indexes on increase for past 8 months. 9. Solar indices on increase for past 2 1/2 years. 10. Solar maximum announced last month by Leif Svalgard 11. Past decade marked by significantly less albedo as measured from space. 12. Trailing indicator ice still generating increasing warming feedback. 13. Glaciers have not yet recovered. 14. Last 6 months marked by loss of snow cover in NH where much more high latitude lands exist. 15. Solar low sunspot rates are still only a teensy bit more in total intensity that an average minimum. In other words while sunspots have been remarkably low they have not been low for longer than the usual minimum period suggesting that maybe the big cut comes of the top rather than the bottom of a solar cycle. That in fact is consistent with the temperature record if you view it closely. . . minimums don't deliver as much change as changes in maximums do. Did I leave anything out? Oh, yeah. Being an outdoorsman I can recognize experience when I see it. Astromet has predicted a delayed warming demonstrating an experienced discipline in planetary systems. It is something lacking in a lot of skeptics and really all warmists who all jumped onto warming after it was robustly underway. Experienced folks recognize we live on a very big ship and you have to be really patient waiting for stuff to play out and not jumping on the first indicator with both feet. One could also ask for example why did it take until 1975 for warming to restart if the solar cycle hit its alltime record max in 1957. Or why did it take until 1880 for cooling to proceed the last time when the solar cycle started declining in 1850? Or if all temperatures are controlled by CO2 why has it not warmed in the past 10 years despite a 10 year continuous string of monthly record high CO2 numbers? Typically little or no delay is seen on the warming side, which might have been explained by an underlying LIA recovery. With a bias towards warming momentum in the system remains positive delaying cooling or eliminating cooling but not delaying warming. So with that I will throw it back your way. |
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Jun 16, 2011 2:48:36 GMT
The sunspot lull has sure been in the news today. It was funny to see for someone who has been following the Solar Cycle 24 website for a number of years. quote] icefisher, I take it you are a denialist. I doubt you care much to understand the relevant science. Fair enough, whatever. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 16, 2011 5:04:56 GMT
icefisher, I take it you are a denialist. I doubt you care much to understand the relevant science. Fair enough, whatever. Gee I guess I was thinking you might come back with a rebuttal showing why it should not be warming. Instead your only reply is an . . . .uh. . . .ad hominem. Is that all you got Bro? This is a debate? Who woulda thought? |
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Jun 16, 2011 6:19:20 GMT
icefisher, I take it you are a denialist. I doubt you care much to understand the relevant science. Fair enough, whatever. Gee I guess I was thinking you might come back with a rebuttal showing why it should not be warming. Instead your only reply is an . . . .uh. . . .ad hominem. Is that all you got Bro? This is a debate? Who woulda thought? Oooooo you, you you denier you! Take that! |
|
)
