|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 15, 2011 4:19:43 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 15, 2011 4:20:16 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Jan 15, 2011 13:28:08 GMT
Astromet, Your people skills are every bit as admirable as your scientific acumen. Well, he's gotten me to feel fondly toward Steve and GLC, so he does appear to have some pretty amazing people skills  |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jan 15, 2011 21:30:55 GMT
Astromet, Your people skills are every bit as admirable as your scientific acumen. Well, he's gotten me to feel fondly toward Steve and GLC, so he does appear to have some pretty amazing people skills I'm touched, woodstove.  |
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Jan 16, 2011 11:06:25 GMT
Astromet, Your people skills are every bit as admirable as your scientific acumen. Well, he's gotten me to feel fondly toward Steve and GLC, so he does appear to have some pretty amazing people skills I don't babysit grown men. |
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Jan 16, 2011 11:12:02 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jan 16, 2011 15:19:18 GMT
sigurdur What in particular did you find interesting? I struggle to understand Bastardi's stream of consciousness style. The clearest bit is that I think he is betting a bigger drop in temps from the 2010 peak to the 2011 bottom as compared with the 1998 peak to 1999 bottom. Not too outrageous a forecast, I suppose. But what is he saying for 2012 onwards  He is implying cooling, but hedging his bets methinks. |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jan 16, 2011 15:35:03 GMT
astromet,
If you don't think grown men should be babysat you won't mind me comparing your comments now with your forecast in the first post of this thread:
and
|
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Jan 16, 2011 16:03:10 GMT
It sure looks that way. The SOI values confirm we are in the middle of either the strongest La Niña event on record, or the second strongest - that is until the final numbers come in. When I forecasted La Nina to follow on the back of El Nino, what was notable was that the astronomic signals were quite strong. If we look at the SOI values for October 2010 and December 2010 - both depict the largest positive values on record for those months, including the three-month averages between October/December 2010. At this point in time, the values from the year 1917 were stronger then that of last year, but 2010 is number #2 on the list. The SOI is recording some of the strongest positive La Nina values in meteorological history which confirms my prior findings. My forecast has been cooler than normal temperatures for most of the 2011 through and into summer in the northern and southern hemisphere. These climate events are disturbing since there is obviously more to come out of La Nina in the months ahead. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 16, 2011 18:04:06 GMT
I struggle to understand Bastardi's stream of consciousness style.
Seemed rather clear to me! "After all, if the base state was higher than the 98 warm event, why didnt we just blow it away to get back to the IPCC forecast cone." He said we won't be going in there for at least the next 10 to 20 years. Whats the matter Steve, is that not a comfortable prediction for you to challenge? + or - .15degC/decade seems a fair yes or no betting proposition. If its under whats our worry because it is below any analysis anybody has done. If its a hazard nobody considered it worthy of an analysis. And if its more then we will be in the zone of analysis so we can start testing the analysis for the predicted catastrophic outcome. |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Jan 16, 2011 20:18:51 GMT
a cooler body, such as earth's crust and mantle cannot warm a warmer body, like the earth's core. That would preclude the possibility of solar warming of the core. But the crust and mantle would cool the core at a different rate. Steve suggests that tectonic activity would substantially decrease and thus the insulating value of the crust would be increased and the core might actually warm in a universe without the sun. Astro is going for the simple colder crust = less hot core theory. Me? I'm flabbergasted to think that Astro could be right. Naw, the odds against that are astronomical. Astro, You are confusing power with consistency when talking about the sun. Since the sun is so consistent, we know it is a minor player in climate change over the short term, even though it is the primary energy source for the system. |
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Jan 16, 2011 20:56:26 GMT
a cooler body, such as earth's crust and mantle cannot warm a warmer body, like the earth's core. That would preclude the possibility of solar warming of the core. But the crust and mantle would cool the core at a different rate. Steve suggests that tectonic activity would substantially decrease and thus the insulating value of the crust would be increased and the core might actually warm in a universe without the sun. Astro is going for the simple colder crust = less hot core theory. Me? I'm flabbergasted to think that Astro could be right. Naw, the odds against that are astronomical. Astro, You are confusing power with consistency when talking about the sun. Since the sun is so consistent, we know it is a minor player in climate change over the short term, even though it is the primary energy source for the system. How can a primary energy source be a "minor" player? I think you're the one confusing power with consistency Matt, as there is nothing "minor" about the Sun. |
|
djake
New Member
Posts: 46
|
Post by djake on Jan 17, 2011 1:25:22 GMT
The Sun also has more metrics than just TSI. Solar wind and magnetic flux affect Earth's magnetic field, atmosphere and possibly even the core too, thus affecting the climate. While TSI is consistant, Solar wind and flux are definantly not consistant.
|
|
|
|
Post by matt on Jan 17, 2011 3:36:41 GMT
How can a primary energy source be a "minor" player? I think you're the one confusing power with consistency Matt, as there is nothing "minor" about the Sun. In agriculture, sunlight is the exclusive power source, but the sun is a minor player with regard to the cycles of agriculture. Tell me the last time the sun was the cause of a famine. Of course if the sun and the moon and the planets and even the stars control both weather and climate... |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Jan 17, 2011 3:48:44 GMT
The Sun also has more metrics than just TSI. Solar wind and magnetic flux affect Earth's magnetic field, atmosphere and possibly even the core too, thus affecting the climate. While TSI is consistant, Solar wind and flux are definantly not consistant. Good point. How much that affects the weather is a matter of current debate. CLOUD will answer many questions. |
|
He is implying cooling, but hedging his bets methinks.