Modern Era

[Bobby]

Sorry....but thats just absurd.

If it wasn't for the sun then there would be NO CLIMATE.

Yes but GW's point was I think is that the sun doesn't drive climate. It's influence is fairly constant.

That is it that it doesn't drive short term changes in climate. Other factors do that.

[PersianPaladin]

Yes but GW's point was I think is that the sun doesn't drive climate. It's influence is fairly constant.

That is it that it doesn't drive short term changes in climate. Other factors do that.

Mmm...I think solar output changes and this affects the radiation at the equators, this in turn feeding back into the degree of convection, the ITCZ, rossby wave patterns, and so on.

Whether such changes are significant...well I'm no expert and remain to be convinced on how significant it is. I think things like Milankovitch cycles, vulcanicity, etc have more influence.

[Stratos Ferric]

Granted PP, but the highlighted quote below does show NASA are on side here:

The press release you mention is from May 2006. I also think Dr David Hathaway is right on the ball with his musings. He has been time and again before with observations during cycle 23. Hathaway is actually now NASA's chief solar physicist. I only know this because i have a fascination with all things solar. Perhaps NASA will enlighten us more soon, especially since solar cycle 24 is officially underway.

Mondy, I haven't read the original report, but that rather strikes me that the author is actually trying to infer that NASA are in a place that, in fact, they are not. I did read the paper put up last night, and like this one, it really says little about potential climatic impact. Why the next cycle should have an impact on climate when the last one quite clearly has not I don't know, but as I said to Noggin earlier, more than happy to hear your reasoning.

Yes but GW's point was I think is that the sun doesn't drive climate. It's influence is fairly constant.

That is it that it doesn't drive short term changes in climate. Other factors do that.

I did read something recently suggesting a link from solar activity to Ozone: the jury is still out though on the impacts of changes in the ozone layer for climate at the surface.

[keithtod43]

When I first read the links Mondy I was genuinely interested but after asking around I kept coming up with the fact that they (the authors) seem to be conveniently forgetting our present warming. It would seem that if we were not as good at climate manipulation as we are we may be heading for a 'cooler' period. If you take the Russian view we still have over 40yrs to wait until it's onset and if you give credence to the U.S. view we are already in it!!!

As was made amply clear by the head honcho at the R.A.S. the sun does not play that big a driving role in our climate, especially since we decided (in our ignorance) to become a major climate driver.

As such things in the links are dangerously out of perspective, edging towards mis-truths infact!

Matters not. We've pushed it all too far, too fast. The wind has been sown and the progeny is on it's way........

WHERE you get all this on global warming 400 years ago vikings where farming on greenland a quote for you from renowed scientist by Alexendre aquwar metsul weather centre brazil Even though winter doesent start until december 2007 pact ice is only 1percent down even though winter doesent start for 10 days

[Stratos Ferric]

WHERE you get all this on global warming 400 years ago vikings where farming on greenland a quote for you from renowed scientist by Alexendre aquwar metsul weather centre brazil Even though winter doesent start until december 2007 pact ice is only 1percent down even though winter doesent start for 10 days

Do you also drive a car without indicators?

You might find you'll enjoy the Enironment section more. I think we passed through vikings farming in Greenland about three months ago, and in June, and in October 2006, and the previous summer...

[Mondy]

Mondy, I haven't read the original report,

Well, I actually suggest you do before spouting off more than usual. Honestly!..

[SnowBear]

keithtod43 has only joined the forum in the past couple of days and may not know their way round the forum yet nor had a chance to trawl back over months and months of posts and threads. Lets also make them feel welcome

Edited January 5, 2008 by SnowBear

[keithtod43]

Well, I actually suggest you do before spouting off more than usual. Honestly!..

it funny how goverment spivs have changed global warming to the climate change i am just making the point of variables do occur in weather patterns and there is no scientific proof that co2 emissions is linked to global warming just circumstancial evidence

[swfc]

it funny how goverment spivs have changed global warming to the climate change i am just making the point of variables do occur in weather patterns and there is no scientific proof that co2 emissions is linked to global warming just circumstancial evidence

C02 emissions have been prevalent over the last million years to a certain degree,ie volcanic activity.The last twenty years have seen temps world wide increase massivly and given the short time scale surly there can be only one reason.

[acbrixton]

christmas pudding is an utterly crass term.

'Modern' is a complete misnoma, for unless those using it are referring back to the industrial revolution the word Modern comes from the C19th and not from the last few years. It is therefore being used inappropriately and inaccurately.

A somewhat harsh and over-simplified judgment in my view Richard.

Whilst it is true that the term 'modern' is used by historians to categorise European history from about 1500 to date (or as you say the period from the start of the Industrial Revolution c.1750), there are many examples of other uses of the term:

1. In the USA the Library of Congress uses the term for the period from 1946 to date. Historians of Japan might argue for 1868. In both cases the dates used signify profound changes in the relationship of both countries to the rest of the world;

2. In sport American motor-racing takes 1971 as the start of 'modern times' on the basis that several important developments changed the nature of the sport in that year (by contrast American football defines a 'modern times player' as a player whose career was either entirely or mainly post 1946: the date chosen appears to be arbitrary);

3. In the arts terms like 'Modern', Modern Movement', 'Modernism' and 'Moderne' are used to describe those whose work displays certain broadly similar characteristics from about 1900. This usage is thus not merely chronological: Braque, James Joyce, Schoenberg and Eric Mendlesohn were 'Modern' but John Singer Sargent, PG Wodehouse, Ralph Vaughan Williams and Sir Ninian Comper were most certainly not despite having worked in the 'christmas pudding'.

Ian Brown's reinvention of the term 'even larger teapot' is, in my view, a justifiable 'term of art' used not just to categorise winters on a purely chronological basis but to denote winters of a particular nature. The term is thus no more "crass" than the usages set out in the paragraph numbered 3 above.

kind regards

Andrew

[Mondy]

**I did read something recently suggesting a link from solar activity to Ozone: the jury is still out though on the impacts of changes in the ozone layer for climate at the surface.

but as I said to Noggin earlier, more than happy to hear your reasoning

Don't worry about that - i'll get back to you alright. And as much i know you like graphs and stats, one shall endeavour to do so too.

**Now to your other highlighted quote [above]. You may well have read the Ozone link with regards solar activity. Indeed, what happened to the ozone alarmists thoughts of yesteryear? However, you're last thoughts are more important to chew the fat over - the jury is still out though on the impacts of changes in the ozone layer for climate at the surface.

I'd be more inclined to think the jury is still out completely with regards the term climate change, linked with AGW.

It's incredible that some on here use NASA data to belittle the naysayers (as such) but as soon as NASA - intow with other quite clearly knowledgeable space centres - mention the mere fact that solar output may very well interefere with proceedings (on the cold basis), we have the usual influx of warming activists (or add your own collective term) coming on disputing the fact.

NASA and particularly the Space and Science Research Centre are obviously one step ahead of this "game" and trying to alert people who at least take the warming at face value.

even larger teapot i believe this thread was about..somewhere along the line it's tied in with so called man-made warming. It's despicable that you folks out there try brainwash the onlooker - disgusting infact.

Some of us aren't so inbred in our thinking that this is the case.

[keithtod43]

C02 emissions have been prevalent over the last million years to a certain degree,ie volcanic activity.The last twenty years have seen temps world wide increase massivly and given the short time scale surly there can be only one reason.

the last ippc report on climate change quoted on co2 levels rising from 100 top scientists in fact 6 scientists actually did the report[all sponsored by ministry of enviroment] its a known fact co2 levels methane levels have be rising for 100s of years always be wary of goverment reports.

[PersianPaladin]

What I find interesting is that stratospheric ozone levels have been slowly recovering recently around the globe, with only the Antarctic region continuing to show major 'holes'. An interesting theory is that sun spots emit ultraviolet rays that boost the ozone layer; which in turn influences the vertical temperature profile of the stratosphere. Stratospheric cooling is linked to intensification of the upper polar vortex as well as northward migration of the polar front jet.

I think sun spot activity is too often ignored as marginal. The parts of the global stratosphere that are most affected are likely to be the equator; but then...why such negative anamolies in the antarctic?

Edited January 5, 2008 by PersianPaladin

[Mondy]

Well PP. I know for a fact there are two teams currently in ( and about) Antarctica researching more into the cosmic ray theory that's been so castigated before. One team is South African, the other Norwegian - housed at their respective bases.

It says much (to me anyway) that the cosmic ray theory is now being taken more seriously.

Edited January 5, 2008 by Mondy

[PersianPaladin]

Well PP. I know for a fact there are two teams currently in ( and about) Antarctica researching more into the cosmic ray theory that's been so castigated before. One team is South African, the other Norwegian - housed at their respective bases.

It's says much (to me anyway) that the cosmic ray theory is now being taken more seriously.

Indeed.

Although I think more empirical evidence is needed to convince me of its significance. I'm not negating it though...I just need more convincing.

[Stratos Ferric]

....

It's incredible that some on here use NASA data to belittle the naysayers (as such) but as soon as NASA - intow with other quite clearly knowledgeable space centres - mention the mere fact that solar output may very well interefere with proceedings (on the cold basis), we have the usual influx of warming activists (or add your own collective term) coming on disputing the fact.

...

Mondy, I may be wrong here, in which case correct me, but my take on the article first posted yesterday is that the comments re cooling were not NASA's, but those of a commentator using the data to draw his own inference. Like I say, if I'm wrong fair enough, but I think we need to repost the article - I can't remember which thread it was in now.

[Bobby]

Mondy, I may be wrong here, in which case correct me, but my take on the article first posted yesterday is that the comments re cooling were not NASA's, but those of a commentator using the data to draw his own inference. Like I say, if I'm wrong fair enough, but I think we need to repost the article - I can't remember which thread it was in now.

This link? http://www.spaceandscience.net/id16.html

Yes quite right, it is the commentator's, not NASA's views.

[Slinky]

C02 emissions have been prevalent over the last million years to a certain degree,ie volcanic activity.The last twenty years have seen temps world wide increase massivly and given the short time scale surly there can be only one reason.

Its my understanding that CO2 levels follow temperature rises not the other way round, and that data from ice core samples show that temperature changes drive CO2 levels?

Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong

[acbrixton]

This link? http://www.spaceandscience.net/id16.html

Yes quite right, it is the commentator's, not NASA's views.

Indeed the link from Space and Science to the NASA press release reveals a complete absence of any speculation as to possible climatic implications arising from the predicted solar cycles 24/25 on the part of NASA.

regards

ACB

[laserguy]

This link? http://www.spaceandscience.net/id16.html

Yes quite right, it is the commentator's, not NASA's views.

The article states: "in the meantime we will do our best to spread the word along with NASA and others who can see what is about to take place for the Earth's climate". At the top of the article it states that a press conference is scheduled for later this month.

Edited January 5, 2008 by laserguy

[Osbourne One-Nil]

I can't see the difference between this thread and the threads going on in the environment area. Also, because of some childish snipes by a few in particular, I'm locking this now.