|
|
Post by magellan on Jan 17, 2011 4:29:33 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... Tell me the last time the sun was the cause of a famine.
Have you stopped beating your wife? Really Matt, it does help to get out and read. Believe it or not, the sun is not a giant incandescent light bulb in the sky. One must be pretty daft to not understand the importance of hydrological cycles on agriculture. Coincidence? tinyurl.com/6bfk8jh tinyurl.com/6jb27jwConclusion
From our Nile flooding data from the prehistory 9400
B.C. to Greek Greek-Roman Era in comparison with the
major solar excursion in the last 7400 years. The
author conclude that: the Nile flooding is correlated
with the solar activity, and in the most cases the Nile
flooding is maximum at maximum solar activity and
minimum flooding at minimum activity. This means
the solar activity and the Nile flooding played very
important role in rising and seting the ancient
Egyptian civilization as we can see from the chronicle
registration in the text. It is sure the technology of
irrigation in the middle Kingdom in the ancient Egypt,
and in Greek Roman period played an important role
to avoid Egypt from dangerous famines.
NASA Finds Sun-Climate Connection in Old Nile RecordsWhen solar activity is high, conditions are drier, and when it is low, conditions are wetter. Google Will Alexander for extensive research on solar/hydrological connection. Ex. tinyurl.com/6yhleenStill think CO2 controls climate? |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Jan 17, 2011 4:50:37 GMT
Have you stopped beating your wife? Matt: No. Really Matt, it does help to get out and read. Believe it or not, the sun is not a giant incandescent light bulb in the sky. One must be pretty daft to not understand the importance of hydrological cycles on agriculture. Matt: Love the contradictory quotes. first we have: the Nile flooding is correlated with the solar activity, and in the most cases the Nile flooding is maximum at maximum solar activity and minimum flooding at minimum activity. Matt: and then: NASA Finds Sun-Climate Connection in Old Nile Records. When solar activity is high, conditions are drier, and when it is low, conditions are wetter. |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jan 17, 2011 4:56:42 GMT
Have you stopped beating your wife? Matt: No. Really Matt, it does help to get out and read. Believe it or not, the sun is not a giant incandescent light bulb in the sky. One must be pretty daft to not understand the importance of hydrological cycles on agriculture. Matt: Love the contradictory quotes. first we have: the Nile flooding is correlated with the solar activity, and in the most cases the Nile flooding is maximum at maximum solar activity and minimum flooding at minimum activity. Matt: and then: NASA Finds Sun-Climate Connection in Old Nile Records. When solar activity is high, conditions are drier, and when it is low, conditions are wetter. Would you please produce some coherence to that? There is ample evidence the sun has strong effects on the hydrological cycles on earth. Does agriculture depend on these cycles? Are droughts linked to lack of rain? Have there been periods of drought throughout history bad enough to inhibit the growing of food? Is there a link between famine and lack of food? sarc/off |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jan 17, 2011 11:09:23 GMT
Icefisher, I struggle to understand Bastardi's stream of consciousness style.
Seemed rather clear to me! Good! But you've picked one line out of about 8 pages which I found tough to wade through. Perhaps I need to practice my americanese. I *was* also interested in what in particular Sigurdur found interesting, and that section was written after Sigurdur posted (I think)! He didn't say that directly, though I've now seen the rankexploits thread about his so-called wager. www.nationalreview.com/articles/257040/bastardi-s-wager-matthew-shaffer?page=1Obviously you've seen that people have attempted to bite his hand off for a piece of the action. I would have been one of them if he hadn't changed the deal as the quoted reasons for his position are mostly flawed. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 17, 2011 15:54:36 GMT
He didn't say that directly, though I've now seen the rankexploits thread about his so-called wager. www.nationalreview.com/articles/257040/bastardi-s-wager-matthew-shaffer?page=1Obviously you've seen that people have attempted to bite his hand off for a piece of the action. I would have been one of them if he hadn't changed the deal as the quoted reasons for his position are mostly flawed. Still not sure what the wager is but I suppose that if the next decade "averages" .361degC anomaly UAH or below he is a clear winner. That would be based upon a minimum average annual cooling of .01 from 2010 to result in a decade total of .1degC cooling and an average for the decade of .05C below the 2010 anomaly. Bastardi may be predicting a level below that but unless he uses RSS instead of UAH it would be difficult to justify a victory claim at anything higher. Since you brought us the idea that the next decade would be .2degree warmer we can juxtapose that versus a predicted average anomaly for the IPCC GCM modelers at .379 degC up .2degC from the past UAH decade average of +.179. That would be the most generous UAH interpretation in favor of the IPCC modelers based upon the information we have. Is that where you are at? From that we could construct a Bastardi vs IPCC win lose line at .370 average UAH anomaly for the coming decade as a measure of who was closest Bastardi or the IPCC GCM modelers. What do you think? |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jan 17, 2011 17:01:29 GMT
We just need to wait for Roy to retire and then the numbers can be fudged  More seriously, I don't think the last word on the mid-troposphere temperatures has been heard yet - either from the models or the satellites. UAH, or RSS, may not be the best metric. |
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Jan 17, 2011 20:27:43 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... Well, all the major astronomers, Claudius Ptolemy, Johannes Kepler, Brahe, Newton, etc., were all astrometeorologists who forecasted advanced climate and weather based on the transits of the Sun, Moon and planets. A good way to see for yourself is to learn to read an astronomic ephemeris, learn to observe your local weather and record the events which take place under astronomic conditions related to specific climate and weather events. For instance, under the current conditions of La Nina which I forecasted applying astrometeorology, we are seeing very strong positive values - bringing floods and ice storms. We will see more of this to come as La Nina strengthens into February, March and April 2011. La Nina itself is astronomically-forced; this is because all of our climate and weather are caused by conditions in space. These are astrophysical facts which cannot be denied and are self-evident to anyone who has open eyes. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 17, 2011 20:42:18 GMT
We just need to wait for Roy to retire and then the numbers can be fudged More seriously, I don't think the last word on the mid-troposphere temperatures has been heard yet - either from the models or the satellites. UAH, or RSS, may not be the best metric. Mid troposphere temps should warm more so it gives you an advantage. |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jan 18, 2011 0:46:40 GMT
Icefisher, Seemed rather clear to me! Good! But you've picked one line out of about 8 pages which I found tough to wade through. Perhaps I need to practice my americanese. I *was* also interested in what in particular Sigurdur found interesting, and that section was written after Sigurdur posted (I think)! He didn't say that directly, though I've now seen the rankexploits thread about his so-called wager. www.nationalreview.com/articles/257040/bastardi-s-wager-matthew-shaffer?page=1Obviously you've seen that people have attempted to bite his hand off for a piece of the action. I would have been one of them if he hadn't changed the deal as the quoted reasons for his position are mostly flawed. Zeke prefers demands the use of SAT over satellite. Gee, I wonder why. In any event, Bastardi does what any honorable person does; admit when he's wrong. Bastardi has already stated he does not trust the SAT records, and as several recent published papers and evidence demonstrate, there's no reason to for the next ten years either. Zeke has been invited to a bet over at P Gosselin's blog already set up. No fancy statistics, no playing games with volcanoes. Either the next ten years will be warmer than the previous ten years or it will not. There you go steve, time to put up or shut up. notrickszone.com/category/climate-bet-for-charity/ |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jan 18, 2011 12:13:49 GMT
magellan,
How much have you bet?
I would be happy to take a bet from someone I knew and trusted.
Of course you would want to exclude any volcano get-out clauses as a couple of volcanic eruptions is your only realistic chance of winning.
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 18, 2011 14:21:19 GMT
magellan, How much have you bet? I would be happy to take a bet from someone I knew and trusted. Of course you would want to exclude any volcano get-out clauses as a couple of volcanic eruptions is your only realistic chance of winning. I couldn't resist as the evidence is overwhelming now that a cooling phase has set in. I put my money where my mouth is....put up 100.00. Figured that it is going to a good cause as well. |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jan 18, 2011 18:31:12 GMT
magellan, How much have you bet? I would be happy to take a bet from someone I knew and trusted. Of course you would want to exclude any volcano get-out clauses as a couple of volcanic eruptions is your only realistic chance of winning. Volcanoes are part of nature. There haven't been any [significant] tropically located volcanoes since 1992, but CO2 has continued to rise, so where's the heat for the last ten years? Where is the 3degC/century trend? It is safe to say when this ENSO period is completed, the end of 2011 will result in a wash to below the last ten years average. Really, this is humorous. After 20+ years of Warmology doom prophecies, a simple bet that the next ten years will be warmer than the previous is absolute proof you and yours have no confidence in the AGW theory. An El Nino fudge factor is all you've got after ten years? How many decades before the Big Warm takes over and we get the catastrophic (untrue as well) 3-5+degC/century rise? There is nothing now to suggest the next ten years will ramp up to that level. The year to year variation in temperature is greater than the 30 year "trend", sheesh. The warming that has occurred since 1979 was a result of 1998; a step change not characteristic of a trend resulting from CO2. This was fully explained by John Christy tinyurl.com/47r2dgWhat every warmist (P Gosselin's description; coolist vs warmist to avoid accusations of name calling) must assume is climate has been a constant up to the 20th century, ala the hockey stick, now completely debunked, and ignore all historical evidence of variation on decadal and longer scales. If warmists were so confident in the "theory", they should have no problem betting the "long term" trend will increase well beyond 2degC/century in ten years, not that the average will be simply higher than the previous ten. You've got a place to make a bet now. What makes you think I haven't already? |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jan 18, 2011 19:34:47 GMT
magellan, you are not arguing with me, but with your perception of what I represent.
0.1-0.2C per decade is what I am saying.
Really, it is humourous that you want to discount volcanoes, when the correct prediction of cooling called by the models is one of the successes of climate models. Betting on volcanoes is gambling.
Temporary cooling from a Pinotubo sized volcano won't dent the long term trend much, but a 0.25C drop for a couple of years would lower the average by 0.05C.
I asked you whether you had made a bet.
|
|
|
|
Post by matt on Jan 18, 2011 20:39:36 GMT
Would you please produce some coherence to that? There is ample evidence the sun has strong effects on the hydrological cycles on earth. Does agriculture depend on these cycles? Are droughts linked to lack of rain? Have there been periods of drought throughout history bad enough to inhibit the growing of food? Is there a link between famine and lack of food? sarc/off You didn't see it? Your quotes said that the sun affects weather in the Nile region. One quote said high solar activity produced more flooding, and the other quote said high solar activity produced drought. That's a direct contradiction. |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jan 19, 2011 12:55:52 GMT
Would you please produce some coherence to that? There is ample evidence the sun has strong effects on the hydrological cycles on earth. Does agriculture depend on these cycles? Are droughts linked to lack of rain? Have there been periods of drought throughout history bad enough to inhibit the growing of food? Is there a link between famine and lack of food? sarc/off You didn't see it? Your quotes said that the sun affects weather in the Nile region. One quote said high solar activity produced more flooding, and the other quote said high solar activity produced drought. That's a direct contradiction. This is the big problem with looking for correlation without causation. While the evidence is weak to say the least, the sun *may* have driven both sets of contradictory correlations but with opposite effects in two different time frames due to the climate elsewhere being different at different times. Knowing that the sun is the major driver of climate, and even knowing specific details about how the sun influences the climate is *not* the same as knowing what weather it will bring. |
|
