Solar Cycles
-
Posts
1,148 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Learn About Weather and Meteorology
Community guides
Posts posted by Solar Cycles
-
-
Lol, possibly.
Apologies for taking the lazy route, manically busy at the mo and dropping in and out of here briefly.
Thanks to you all for the additional info.
Tree ring proxies....there was something last year/early this year about Solar output showing up in tree rings, I'll try and find it when I get a moment.
-
Well, I made the point that this confuses the public.
The fact that they stated that climate-change is less important than economic growth; is quite telling. It shows that they are not seeing any process of "climate change" as something we are responsible for. They are not seeing that it is something we can or should do anything about. Nevertheless "they" are the majority, and it's obvious to point out that the majority (or minority) are not neccessarily right by default.
As for the actual nature of "climate change" in the context of time-frames and natural forcing; then people sometimes argue that climate-change that is occurring now is not a significant threat to human species and may be entirely natural. Thus they could argue that the label "climate change" is misleading because it presupposes a unique event rather than just the same continuum of natural cycles.
We as in man's quest to better himself? Climate change is happening, but what we cannot determine is, who or what is the main cause of this. Personally I feel we will know the answer sooner rather than later, as for me I'm convinced I'm in the right camp.
-
http://wattsupwithth...t-oxford-union/
Hmm....I think this will only serve to increase public confusion. I think the whole issue of "climate change" is now something that governments and the media should drop in terms of incentives/reasons for changes in public behaviour. PEAK OIL is a far more pressing and current issue and should be promoted now as the main issue and drive to wean off fossil-fuels. I do want to point out that the people at this debate were grossly irresponsible for suggesting that "economic growth" was the most important issue. There isn't going to be any economic growth. We're heading for a post-carbon future whether we like it or not. Lord Whitty made that point; but then damaged his credibility by mentioning it in the same-vein as a confused % figure associated with AGW.
I for one remain convinced of anthropogenic climate change. But I lack the ability to argue the issue in public, because it requires a certain level of expert knowledge that I do not have. Peak Oil is far easier for the public (including myself) to understand.
I'll certainly agree with your first paragraph PP, the need to find an alternative to fossil fuels is paramount. If we take the comical AGW out of the equation, then I'm sure we would all be demanding action!
-
Go on then S.C. find us a comparable reduction in sea ice over a 2 week period in that 32 years of data or tell me you cannot!
If we use 30 year 'periods' in looking at climate trends how is this 'trend' looking?
Thanks for your efforts C-Bob! I've been on a similar hunt for a couple of years now and only come up with similar and non of it 'robust?' enough to bring forward (being only 'glimpses' of areas and not the basin as a whole).
Lets see where we stand come September GW. Cherry picking 2 weeks from 32 years of data, is hardly conclusive of anything!
-
I've just spent the past 25 minutes or so trawling through dozens of pages about sea ice decline, but try as I might I can't seem to find any data for either ice volume or ice extent that goes back beyond 1978.
Any help? Links? References? Anything?
CB
EDIT #1 - Okay, I've found this: http://arctic.atmos....t.1900-2007.jpg
Now to find out where they got that dataset from.
EDIT #2 - Interesting pdf (be warned: it's over 20MB!!): http://nsidc.org/pubs/gd/GD-6_web.pdf
The period 1953-1976 comes from a paper by JE Walsh: "A data set on Northern Hemisphere sea ice extent"
Earlier data comes from a variety of sources, so far as I can tell. I'll keep digging since, at present, I am not overly convinced of the robustness of the data prior to 1978 (and, judging by this site, nor should I be).
EDIT #3 - here's a link to the Glaciological Data Report in which JE Walsh's paper can be found: http://nsidc.org/pubs/gd/GD-2_web.pdf I'm just having a read now...
You won't CB, due to the fact that we only have 32 years data to fall back on. Crazy really, all this scaremongering based on little evidence. Still that doesn't stop the conveyor belt of nonsense to be churned out daily!
-
I see Mark Serreze was saying there would be no ice at the pole in summer 2008 - so not my first choice for unbiased advice.
Clearly in the alarmist camp.
You beat me to it 4wd, it's amazing how some can post any old gibberish, but when someone post something on Natural cycles being responsible, we get all sorts of nonsense about the source being from a right wing blog.
-
So we have no idea what proxies where used to make such dramatic claims. Typical of the AGW bandwagon really. I for one grow tiresome of reading such drivel!
-
If you look to the 'history' of the Arctic and what the scientists tell us you are left with a situation that has not occurred before (in our current planetary positioning) so we need to look for 'something more' to have been that final push that cost us the essential 'perennial ice' that allowed permanent summer ice cover at the pole..
Why look for something else when there is a plausible reason, already on the table, for what we have measured over the past 150yrs?
Every other 'possible' is cyclical in nature so surely we have plenty of 'other times' to compare with today?, human beings, and their inputs, are not and so we would expect not past precedents to look at and compare with.
The readership will decide for themselves whether it was our 'unique' input that have thrown things out of kilter or whether it is just a 'normal cyclical swing'...... but if it is where is the past evidence for such???
Pretty disastrous drops over the past few days eh?
Again what proxies where used to come to this conclusion?
-
Two points GW, first what proxy records where used? And secondly the author Kate Ravilious is a former Guardian wag, now the evidence presented is unsubstantiated to say the least. If I was to post an article claiming the complete opposite, and it was from a right wing blog, then you and the rest of the warmers would slate it! Food for thought GW?
-
Those are lines of evidence for the existence of natural forcings, not against the existence of AGW, let alone providing evidence for AGW being a scam!
That is what I meant TWS, AGW isn't a scam, some of our warming is down to CO2. What is a scam, is the daily sermons being preached by all those associated with the IPCC, using flawed data, to make second rate predictions.
-
The Canadian Press
Published on Thursday, May. 20, 2010 2:23AM EDT Last updated on Thursday, May. 20, 2010 2:24AM EDT
Arctic sea ice is on track to recede to a record low this year, suggesting that northern waters free of summer ice are coming faster than anyone thought.
The latest satellite information shows ice coverage is equal to what it was in 2007, the lowest year on record, and is declining faster than it did that year.
“Could we break another record this year? I think it's quite possible,†said Mark Serreze of the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo.
“We are going to lose the summer sea-ice cover. We can't go back.â€
In April, the centre published data showing that sea ice had almost recovered to the 20-year average. That ignited a flurry of interest on climate change
skeptic blogs. But much of that ice was thin and new. The warmest April on record in the Arctic made short work of it.
Ice cover has already fallen back to where it was in 2007 at this time of year and is disappearing at a faster pace than it did then. Dr. Serreze said winds, cloud cover or other weather
conditions could slow the melt, but he points out that the decline is likely to speed up even more in June and July. “Will [thawing] this year be particularly fast?†he asked. “We don't know. We really don't know.â€
One of Canada's top sea-ice experts suggests things might even be worse than Dr. Serreze thinks. His data could be underestimating the collapse of summer ice cover, said David Barber of the University of Manitoba. Researchers can't learn anything from satellite data about the state or thickness of the ice.
“What we think is thick multiyear ice late in the summer is in fact not,†he said. “It's heavily decayed first-year ice. When that stuff starts to reform in the fall, we think it's multiyear ice, but it's not.â€
Arctic explorers and scientific expeditions are finding more open water and untrustworthy ice ever, Prof. Barber said.
He pointed out the Arctic continued to lose multiyear ice even in 2008 and 2009, when total ice coverage rebounded somewhat.
True multiyear ice – the thick, hard stuff that stops ships – now comprises about 18 per cent of the Arctic ice pack. In 1981, when Prof. Barber first went north, that figure was 90 per cent.
“This is all just part of a trajectory moving toward a seasonally ice-free Arctic,†he said. “That's happening more quickly than we thought it would happen.â€
Once northern waters are clear in the summer, there will be little difference between navigating the Northwest Passage and the Gulf of St. Lawrence, he suggested.
He recounts sailing through degraded ice in an icebreaker. The ship's top speed in open water was 13.7 knots. Its speed through the decayed ice was 13 knots.
“It was almost like it didn't exist.â€
======================================================================================================
So we are hearing the 'big Guns' in Arctic sea ice predicting possible records this year!
Predicting yes, will it actually happen? And if it does what does that prove, that AGW caused it? Of course not!!
-
Solar, Lunar, Oceanic heat distribution. These are not political tools Pete, there is as much evidence for these, as there is for AGW. Maybe if a fraction of the funding, went into natural cycles as to what is pumped into AGW, then we would have a more balanced view of what is actually the cause! Still let's leave the political waffle to the green brigade!I'd agree that AGW might be a scam, Barrie...So far, though, I'm yet to see anything in the way of evidence being presented - only politicized waffle???
That said, how's the you, mate???
-
Some more 'wobbly wheels'.......
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa...tted=Get+Report
with the hottest April ever recorded across the globe.....
Fudged data or honest science, you decide!
-
Thank you for talking about the actual level of ice rather than trying to brow beat people with your opinion. I did wonder if anyone else was looking at what the figures are saying
I agree, this and all things regarding Arctic ice, I tend to give a wide birth. Probably as a result of certain peoples OTT rants, and wishes!
-
For goodness sake GW, every thread I read as your Arctic ice footprint all over it.Just a thought. If we keep getting these northern blocking situations how warm will the incoming air (from the Arctic) get this year, as it travels south?
The next FI northerly has a warmer core (by half!) than this last one ,and, we have record temps in the Arctic already
(as we have already had during this 'Low Solar' generated 'Atlantic Blocking!) so what of a H.P. dominated, temperate northern hemisphere (less cloud), for the summer months?
Cold Air mass (relatively), strong Summer Sun (warm days, chilly nights) but lot's of heat into the cloud free Oceans (including sections of the Arctic so further warming the new 'open water' water there ( with low anticyclonic wind fields not churning the oceans as much as normal ....like sections of the S.Pacific this last year..... (to further 'mild out' our northern plunges over summer).
In the old world of the 'Perennially iced' Greenland/Svalbard sectors of the Arctic Ocean we'd have suffered a different fate to the summer coming,in any similarly deep solar driven synoptic responsive phase (......it can't be such a 'long cycle' ,as, folk who rely on such, hold up the L.I.A. accounts found in literature as 'evidence' of a past 'Low Solar' phase)
Should all the present 'Earth bound' ,'cool cycles', not halt our current warming ( when combined with any low solar over the next 5 year period ) then even the securest 'denier' will need to wonder how? (apart from the obvious, accepted, explaination),
Two birds with one stone? A proof of 'Solar impact' on weather and another proven factor in the impact of AGW?
On a more serious note, I sincerely hope this Summer does bring us some much needed warmth. Personally I feel it will be a mixed bag, nothing in the way of heatwaves, but some pleasant warm spells between the dire wet and cool weather. On a brighter note winter 2010/11, could be a classic, if you like cold that is!
-
We seem to have had 2 or 3 years with some folk noting low solar, -ve PDO, AO etc as a reason to look for the 'cool down' and 'death of AGW' .
Well we are now in the process of 'seeing' if this is true or not.
We all accept that 'natural cycles' impact climate over short or long term (be it 'Nino's 18months or PDO's 30 odd years) and both regionally and globally.
If we ,stuck in our 'cool phase', pop a top 10 temp (globally) I feel it will need explaining by those who feel AGW is a non starter.
If Arctic ice ,after such a high 'extent' dwindles to the lowest/second lowest 'extent' come Sept this will also need explaining by the bod's crying 'recovery'.
As ever the folk who accept that AGW is 'real' and 'apparent' will grab onto these 'inconvenient truths' (should they come to pass) as another way to help folk see that AGW is there and rumbling away behind 'natural variation'.
For my part I see the start of AGW over-riding some natural cycles (or at least mitigating their impacts) as the Arctic ice cover again retreats to exceptionally low levels allowing a lot of 'extra' warmth to be absorbed by the planet.
Some folk seem to feel that only CO2 can warm the planet and that they do not witness it occurring in the way it ought. I feel these folk need to look at the mass of energy required to take out all of the perennial ice that we have lost and figure what this energy will do now that this job is done.
The next 15yrs are touted as a 'cooldown' or 'slowdown in warming'. If this 'natural cycle' overlaps with 'phase 2 warming' will the warming just continue unhindered with all that 'extra energy' offsetting the natural cool down we are in?
Time will tell GW, lets sit back and enjoy the ride ( maybe )!!
-
I agree VP, we do need a seperate thread. All this doomsday scenario posting of GW is starting to wear me down.I find this a disappointing comment. Indeed, a very disappointing comment.
I have tried very hard to find mitigating middle-ground for every argument or premise put forward; in an effort to bring people to the table (as oppose to my former self)
Such that this is the extent, I find myself to be most critical of the non-AGW posts - even though, me, myself, and I, think that it's an overstated argument, anyway.
If you will excuse the criticism of your own posts - then I must say, that there is no argument that the world is warming. Every known mathematical method points to it. The argument is the cause, and the subtext is the argument about whether or not it will continue. Therefore, continuing posts on the results of such warming, such as ice extent, are, to say the least, tiresome, and are, at the very very least, scaremongering given your penchant for placid acceptance.
Perhaps we need a seperate thread that details the evidence, and potential impact of the current climate, rather than posting it in a general thread? However, I fear, such a thread, will be yours, GW, and yours alone.
I'm sorry GW, but you post these doomsday scenarios without a shred of evidence to back them up. Please can we leave out the daily sermons, otherwise I'll end up being sectioned under the Mental Health act!
-
That's a bit naughty S.C.
We use the relationship between temp /CO2 that stretches back through geological time. We may not have the level of detail that we'd like right now but we can see that when CO2 is 'high' we have a warmer world and when CO2 is depleted we have a colder world. We have increased our GHG's at a superfast rate but I'm sure that ,over time, temps will adjust to the new atmospheric levels of GHG's (as they have always done in the past).
As you point out there are many 'natural' factors that can negate/augment the changes over the short term but ,as in the past, over time these 'swings and roundabouts' will get evened out.
Our problems are surely spotting and mitigating the changes as they occur (staying 1 step ahead of the changes) and ,if our past is anything to go by, making a quick buck as we go (check out China's plans for exploiting an ice free Arctic....or Russias claims to the reserves there....)
But GW we still don't really know if excess CO2 followed or proceeded rising temps with the limited data we have.
The only thing we can be certain of, is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Is that more likely to cause rising temps than water vapour.
-
YS,
I think it's the sun wot did it. Really, I do.
However, you don't need to look at this chart, even closely, to realise it's rubbish. For sure, the figures are spot on - they are an accurate (I presume) representation of the data that each organisation has produced.
However, the HadCRU data for instance is an anomaly against an average of 30 years of data. I'll say it again. 30 years of data. One more time 30 years of data - what is the anomaly of CO2 against it's 30 year average? Not it's actual value?
And, also, so why only go back to 1998? (some 12 years ago)
Exactly VP, we seem to base all our assumptions on 30 years of data. What can we really learn from such a short time scale?
For me too, the correlation between solar activity and global temps, is simply impossible to dismiss out of hand.
Then we have the oceans acting as one big giant radiator. Again simply impossible to dismiss out of hand.
But when it comes CO2, 30 years of data is enough to convince us all, that the nasty pollutant Mr CO2, is the real cause of warming.
-
We aren't at "AGW" yet we are just looking at man's abilities to change his environment S.C. and whether we cause 'greater change' from the immediate change we implement (de-forrestation, monoculture planting, irrigation, dams etc.). From there we might explore just how wide an impact man can drive (extinction of critters we share our world with, desertification from over use of land, flooding of ecosystems, drift minig etc.) and from there whether we can change our world (and not just move it off it's axis whilst weapons testing).
EDIT: and whilst we're at it just how much did we alter the Earths Axis/orbit through our testing programmes from the 40's through 80's? Could we be making our own Milankavich forcings? I mean , over time ,a little adds up to a lot doesn't it?
No arguments with you regarding the first paragraph, however your second one is like something out of the x-files!
-
I think it's safe to assume that if you change things then things change (in a closed system).
You explain why things should not change S.C., give me the scientific basis why , when you make such sweeping changes to the carbon cycle that things stay 'still'. Whilst you are there show me other examples of eccosystems being ravaged and then no change following on hot at it's heels.
From the Aborigional peoples driving Megolania into extinction from their 'fire manipulation of N and N.E. Australia 35 thousand years ago to the dying of the last of our Great Elk in the Isle of Man 8 thousand years ago where we change the eco system we drive change (what about the sea cows in the G.O.M. at the mo? , nice oil bath eh?)
Again this proves what exactly? It's all good and well being a self hater GW, but none of the above shows AGW to be a causation. Assume yes, but take as fact NO!
-
One problem with that, prove that we are altering the climate GW? It's easy just to assume that the science is correct, when there is no evidence to suggest this. We can only ASSUME, because that's the best evidence we have at this present time!Hi Songster!
I'd always been confused by the way some folk 'deny' our 'invisible pollution' (GHG releases) whilst accepting we need to stop destroying the rainforest's.
We destroyed our Forrest's thousands of years ago and surely that had altered the natural balance that used to exist here?
Through the 80's we were destroying our remaining trees (mainly hedges) at a greater rate than the destruction in the rainforest's yet we campaigned to stop the destruction there whilst allowing our own devastation to continue without bating an eye lid!!???
If our altering the carbon cycle today is such an issue what of the changes we have wrought to it across the globe over human history???
We look at the changes to climate that the collapse of the laurentide ice sheet brought to the world but do not link anomalous climate swings with our own past interference???
If we can alter climate today we could alter it in the past.
-
Looks like I was late to the ball with this one. My views on the MetO LRF are well documented on here, so a few maybe surprised to hear that I voted for them to be given more time. That way they'll slowly come to understand how futile it is, to issue a LRF factoring in AGW. Off course a few here state otherwise, but the proof is in the pudding, when they constantly remind us of other background factors to be considered! No LRF is ever going to be totally accurate, but as GP as shown, you don't need to factor in any warming bias to issue a LRF!
-
Bin it!!!! I uninstalled within a day.
Anyway, great find and looks like a very good study too....some will claim though [to account for MWP and LIA being regional] that maybe London is twinned with Kuching!!!!?
BFTP
Looks like this study as finally put to bed that the MWP and LIA where regional. As most of us have insisted all along!
General Climate Change
in Climate Change
Posted