Ice age on the way (merged threads)

[kold weather]

I think Peter my idea sort of means it doesn't matter whether its hot or not but rather the solar mins don't actually cool the temps but what it does do is increase the chanes of blocking and changes the positions and likelyhood of having HP cells in certain places.

for example notice how 1995 was very dry...as has been the last year or so. Of course there are probably other global teleconnections that have a bigger part to do with exacts but on a alrge scale I would not be at all suprised to see blocking and paterns like that chanfge about wit hthe solar mins.

[Dawlish]

I think Peter my idea sort of means it doesn't matter whether its hot or not but rather the solar mins don't actually cool the temps but what it does do is increase the chanes of blocking and changes the positions and likelyhood of having HP cells in certain places.

for example notice how 1995 was very dry...as has been the last year or so. Of course there are probably other global teleconnections that have a bigger part to do with exacts but on a alrge scale I would not be at all suprised to see blocking and paterns like that chanfge about wit hthe solar mins.

OOOOoo, I think you are linking two things where there is very little evidence of any connection between the two at all, Kold! A connection between Solar minima and teleconnections?? Very doubtful, unless there is a direct connection between solar minima and global climate changes! IF that is the case, then there may well be a further link between Global climate change and teleconnections.

Paul

Edited July 8, 2006 by Dawlish

[kippure]

Who knows what will happen in 1 year never mind 30. Since weather data has only been recorded for a short time in our history, there is not enough info to be able to make any such statement .

Edited July 8, 2006 by kippure

[Roger J Smith]

Just a few points to add to this discussion.

On the decade-to-decade scale of the past century, my own research has convinced me that there is very little correlation between solar activity and either temperatures or storminess. I think that it is fairly well established that the Sun's heat output at solar maximum is about half a per cent higher than at solar minimum, but with a lot of variations. Since I tend to focus more on solar system magnetic field sectors, which could have some role to play in sunspot development, the cause and effect may be a lot more complex than this notion of solar activity "causing" weather cycles.

As for the longer term and presumably larger variations in solar activity, I have little doubt that the Maunder minimum was a real phenomenon, because the observing capability at that time was not all that much lower (on the gross scale at least) and the related lack of auroral records tends to demonstrate low solar activity. Whether this long period of weak solar activity (my data show that it lasted from about 1650 to 1710) really formed any direct cause of the lower temperatures recorded at about the same time, is more doubtful.

Solar activity was also rather weak from about 1875 to 1910 and that was actually a period when the climate warmed substantially in North America, around 1889-90 there was quite an upturn in eastern North America for sure.

And by the way, the now-famous winter of 1947 was actually at a strong peak of solar activity. All things considered, I don't think straight solar activity and weather regime correlations are very well demonstrated by their proponents -- the evidence so far is at best anecdotal. But there may be something buried behind the scenes in terms of some other set of processes that drive both solar activity and weather cycles. That's the area within which I am doing my research. The one thing we all need to keep in mind is that the oceans have very long-term capability to store heat and resist possible changes, and also that changes in ice cover and arctic currents will have large impacts even when the external forcing from such elements as solar variation may be much smaller.

[Dawlish]

Just a few points to add to this discussion.

On the decade-to-decade scale of the past century, my own research has convinced me that there is very little correlation between solar activity and either temperatures or storminess. I think that it is fairly well established that the Sun's heat output at solar maximum is about half a per cent higher than at solar minimum, but with a lot of variations. Since I tend to focus more on solar system magnetic field sectors, which could have some role to play in sunspot development, the cause and effect may be a lot more complex than this notion of solar activity "causing" weather cycles.

As for the longer term and presumably larger variations in solar activity, I have little doubt that the Maunder minimum was a real phenomenon, because the observing capability at that time was not all that much lower (on the gross scale at least) and the related lack of auroral records tends to demonstrate low solar activity. Whether this long period of weak solar activity (my data show that it lasted from about 1650 to 1710) really formed any direct cause of the lower temperatures recorded at about the same time, is more doubtful.

Solar activity was also rather weak from about 1875 to 1910 and that was actually a period when the climate warmed substantially in North America, around 1889-90 there was quite an upturn in eastern North America for sure.

And by the way, the now-famous winter of 1947 was actually at a strong peak of solar activity. All things considered, I don't think straight solar activity and weather regime correlations are very well demonstrated by their proponents -- the evidence so far is at best anecdotal. But there may be something buried behind the scenes in terms of some other set of processes that drive both solar activity and weather cycles. That's the area within which I am doing my research. The one thing we all need to keep in mind is that the oceans have very long-term capability to store heat and resist possible changes, and also that changes in ice cover and arctic currents will have large impacts even when the external forcing from such elements as solar variation may be much smaller.

In general, I agree, Roger and thank you for pointing out other difficulties with accepting a correlation between solar activity and temperatures, or climate. I'm not quite sure I'd go to your extreme of almost dismissing the possible effects of solar activity;I will have an open mind on that one, until it is proven wrong.

Being interested in odds and probablities, I'd always go for the most likely possibility and back that, until another more likely possibility comes along and replaces it. I'd have lost the bet, if that happened, but I'd be confident of not losing it, beforehand. I wouldn't back outsiders in the GW stakes, unless I knew more than the majority of the scientific community does. I'd always counsel others, to do the same.

Paul

Edited July 8, 2006 by Dawlish

[weatherbitez]

Being interested in odds and probablities, I'd always go for the most likely possibility and back that, until another more likely possibility comes along and replaces it. I'd have lost the bet, if that happened, but I'd be confident of not losing it, beforehand. I wouldn't back outsiders in the GW stakes, unless I knew more than the majority of the scientific community does. I'd always counsel others, to do the same.

Paul

Very nicely put Dawlish..

[Dawlish]

Very nicely put Dawlish..

TY mistress!

Paul

[Methuselah]

Very nicely put Dawlish..

Too true...

[snowsure]

...There isn't a scrap of evidence for underwater volcaonoes increasing in their output and, as snowbear correctly and knowledgeably points out, there would, almost certainly, have been a corresponding increase in the output of continental volcanoes which would have been well documented by the USGS and would have everyone in the world rightly worried. We're not. It very, very probably ain't happening...

...Again, it is real pinch of reality territory. There is nothing to say that underwater volcanoes are certainly not responsible for ocean warming and therefore Global Warming; but weigh up the possibilities of it being correct before telling us of the consequences of it being correct, is what I'd say to Bob Felix - and others on the edge of scientific reality.

Paul

It is always good to read your posts Dawlish as they appear to be laced with incisive comments. However you have left just a little gap there by saying everyone in the world would be worried.

GW is a real phenomena and I know plenty of people who are not bothered by it.

You have not factored in apathy, the true cause of global problems.

Also you have failed to factor in politically influenced scientific research (or politically influenced ignorance.)

Other than that, it is nice to see this old-chestnut explored again!

[Guest Mr_S]

Can any moderator tell me if its going to snow january 21 2030 please?

[Mondy]

Just to add, that the sunspot minima is now (not 2005). - The max is surprisingly forecast as soon as 2010.

The reason i know the minimum is now, is not through websites, but by being a radio ham and keeping a logbook of activity over the years. Simply put, the more sunspots, the better radio propagation.

Currently sunspots are few and far between. Which is why i'm stuck on here and not playing with my knob (on my radio) :blush: :lol:

I trust you do associate solar activity along with sunspot growth?!

Edited July 8, 2006 by Mondy the clumsy

[weatherbitez]

Just to add, that the sunspot minima is now (not 2005). - The max is surprisingly forecast as soon as 2010.

The reason i know the minimum is now, is not through websites, but by being a radio ham and keeping a logbook of activity over the years. Simply put, the more sunspots, the better radio propagation.

Currently sunspots are few and far between. Which is why i'm stuck on here and not playing with my knob (on my radio) :blush: :lol:

I trust you do associate solar activity along with sunspot growth?!

The skip was not too bad a couple of nights ago, step dad got Fiji but like you say it's a little on the quiet side just now and I really wish you would leave that knob alone.......It's gonna fall off

[Dawlish]

It is always good to read your posts Dawlish as they appear to be laced with incisive comments. However you have left just a little gap there by saying everyone in the world would be worried.

GW is a real phenomena and I know plenty of people who are not bothered by it.

You have not factored in apathy, the true cause of global problems.

Also you have failed to factor in politically influenced scientific research (or politically influenced ignorance.)

Other than that, it is nice to see this old-chestnut explored again!

You are completely right snowsure. I made a generalisation which goes against my normal writing and it is wrong!

Everyone in the world certainly wouldn't be worried by it. Some people aren't even worried by increases in volcanic activity even when they live on the slopes ov the volcano and it as actiually in eruption!! I'll try to keep the comments more incisive than general! Thanks for the kind words which appear to add up to praise.....I think! :lol:

Can any moderator tell me if its going to snow january 21 2030 please? :lol:

Yes, Mr. S. I can confidently, if not unequivocally, say that it will.......but probably not in Rochester High Street! :blush:

OOps, sorry Mr. S. Shouldn't have answered that one really, but I couldn't resist and our spectacularly good moderators have miserably failed in their duty to answer!! One day I hope to grow up to be a moderator of something, or a train driver, or a ballroom dancer, or something. I am a shadow miister and there can't be many of those who have answered you posts. Will that do?

Paul

PS Actually, one day, I'd just like to grow up! (No; on second thoughts, scrap that comment, I don't ever wish to grow up; that would be nearly as bad as waking up to find I'd become a ballroom dancer!).

Edited July 8, 2006 by Dawlish

[weatherbitez]

OOps, sorry Mr. S. Shouldn't have answered that one really, but I couldn't resist and our spectacularly good moderators have miserably failed in their duty to answer!! :blush: One day I hope to grow up to be a moderator of something, or a train driver, or a ballroom dancer, or something. I am a shadow miister and there can't be many of those who have answered you posts. Will that do?

Paul

PS Actually, one day, I'd just like to grow up! (No; on second thoughts, scrap that comment, I don't ever wish to grow up; that would be nearly as bad as waking up to find I'd become a ballroom dancer!).

Well I was going to Answer however............................... somehow blue Isn't my colour :lol:

[kold weather]

As a mod I shall answer your question Mr.S, sasdly global warming means snow will be given an early retirment...

But not before having plenty of last flings over the next few years hopefully!

So we have a Tory on our board, how intresting!

[Dawlish]

As a mod I shall answer your question Mr.S, sasdly global warming means snow will be given an early retirment...

But not before having plenty of last flings over the next few years hopefully!

So we have a Tory on our board, how intresting!

Who is it? Go on, tell us kold! Lets put him, or her, on a big bonfire and sing the red flag (we wouldn't actually light the bonfire of couse, we're far too PC for that!)

Paul

[BARRY]

do the soler winds defelected by the earths magnetic field have much affect on the weather .

and if so how ?

[summer blizzard]

The max is surprisingly forecast as soon as 2010.

The next susnspot maxima is forecast for 2011 however both the eleven and sixteen year cycles coincide in that year, the last time this happened was in 1835 which produced close to average temperatures and rainfall in comparison to the most recent average.

After 2011, the next sunspot minima is due in 2016 before the subdued susnspot maxima in 2022 and the peak of the Gliessburg minima in 2030 and the next subdued solar maxima in 2038 before the solar minima of 2044, after that, there is expected to be another peak of the Gliessenburg minima with the next full scale solar maxima due in 2088.

In summary, the official length of the Gliesburgg minima is from 2011 to 2088 which will make this on par with the Maunder minimum.

As for whether or not this data is to be trusted, as Rodger has indicated with the Maunder minima, something this big will almost certainly occur, i suspect the reason why the smaller sunspot cycles have no dissernable effect is because in the same way that sea surface temperatures have effects in the short and long term, sunspot cycles have the same effects, due to a time lag, by the time the effects of a solar minima have worked their way through, the next solar maxima is occuring and the Jet Stream is being rienergised.

[Mondy]

The skip was not too bad a couple of nights ago, step dad got Fiji but like you say it's a little on the quiet side just now and I really wish you would leave that knob alone.......It's gonna fall off

:blush: If ever i saw a Nope - that swear filter is too clever for mes-take, then that's it!!

Fiji? Really?! :lol:

[Guest Daniel]

Do you think posting the same thing every week makes it any more valuable, and any more interesting to read?

Your record is stuck Daniel. We all heard it the first time. It's exceedingly tedious to keep hearing it week in week out, month in month out, year in year out.

This post is differnt from my others though on the same lines to a colder future. Its no differnt from the global warming lobby who keeps telling us week on week that we are warming and trying to feed us with the rubbish that climate is now only driven by man made pollution. I just happen to belive that soon we will get a record sever cold winter with deep snow lying across England for weeks and with freezing tempertures. Last winter by the way was a little cooler than recent winters and when we do get such a cold winter you will be hearing from me a lot more.

[Dawlish]

Its no differnt from the global warming lobby who keeps telling us week on week that we are warming and trying to feed us with the rubbish that climate is now only driven by man made pollution.

No, the GW "lobby" tells you week in, week out that the world is warming, coz it has been for about 50 years: fact. :lol: Some people may be feeding you rubbish about other things, Daniel, but that don't include anyone in my lobby, porch, or whatever! You are deliberately making the connection between GW and AGW and it is wrong to do so. The Global Cooling people try to do it all the time. It cuts no ice!

You are desperately hoping for a cold winter and you are grasping at whatever research/speculation that comes along, to try to convince yourself, and anyone who will listen, that it will happen. That's why West made his comment, I'm sure, Daniel. You never mitigate your view; you present it as if it is fact, as if it is almost certain to happen, with very little reference to the validity of your "forecasts", or their statistical reliability. The next winter may be cold one Daniel, I agree with you that it could be - I put the odds at 2 in 10; but, at this moment in time, based on winters since 1990, the odds are against it, no matter how hard you are wishing that it will become reality!

Paul

Edited July 9, 2006 by Dawlish

[SnowBear]

Apologies for this one being a little off topic....

weatherbitez and Mondy, would it be possible to get skip like that when we had that MCS pushing in from France?

I know when we used to mess about on the cb's we used to love storms pushing up from France, use the skip through the storm and talk to folks all over the place, North Spain, Italy, Southern France, and once it passed, Scotland, etc. Admittedly often it would only be one way, but at times, a two way convo could be held.

Never used ham, so just wondered how a storm system like that would effect skip and how far it would allow you to make contact?

[VillagePlank]

The Sun/Earth system is- at the very least - a thermodynamic system. A proportion of the heat, emitted from the sun as solar radiation, warms up the Earth's surface, and this produces the weather. Now, like any other (natural) thermodynamic system, how do you expect this to be linear in both causation and effect? I cannot think of any natural heat exchange system that can be methodically broken down like some of the claims I've read here imply.

Edited July 10, 2006 by Wilson

[Gray-Wolf]

As Bob Felix points out in his iceagenow.com website, it's not global warming, but ocean warming.

The non-existent global warming isn't heating the oceans as poor demented Al Gore would have us believe, but ocean heating that's warming the globe."

:blush: :blush:

What ? the Baltic, North sea and Hudson Bay heated by Vulcanicity????

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

SB

Quite correct over the whole period it is going to be similar to the Maunder minima in scale

BFTP