General Climate Change Discussion.......

[laserguy]

Was watching sky news this morning and this maybe my downfall in asking this question. Nasa boffs say that the sun spot activity is about to explode into action over the next month. And that over the next 5 years our weather will be warmer by 50% a year then the summer of 1998. I thought we were in a cooling period till 2012 at least because of the mauder minium. WHats going on. What am i meant to beleive?

http://www.telegraph...cord-highs.html

That'll be this,then? The whole sorry saga has become an endless round of guesses and revisions. No one really knows what's going down. If you believe the opposite of what you're told by the warmista,you'll not go far wrong. In any case,if ol' sol does explode into a phase of heightened activity and cause further warming (not CO2,mind),there's much more to fear from the probable effects on our technologically-dependant world. One belch in the right direction could have us back in the stone-age within weeks.

[Iceberg]

How on earth you can make sweeping assumptions or calculations like that I don't know. Fag packet or not. Or tongue in cheek or not - and I suspect in subtle disguise, more not, tbh

NASA etc cannot forecast c23/24 properly let alone longer term solar trends and possible effects so how on earth you can dismiss potential long term outcomes on that basis alone - or do you know more than the 'experts'? How can you be sure about how low this cycle and the next cycle 25 min (especially) may go?? - a tad premature to say the least to be dismissing any Maunder min down the road at this stage.

Look at NASA predictions that the likes of you, GW or Devonian would have been quoting a year or so ago and how utterly wrong they have been. Not in line with your preferred beliefs I know, but best to start from there with much more caution I would suggest.

Carm down Tamara, I've never said I know more than the experts. But feel free to show me an expert that is predicting or has predicted a maunder minimum in say the next 5 years.? If you do I'll retract my comment that nobody is seriously predicting it.

I am not sure how this cycle will go. Hence why I said a 50 year high or low (quite a margin I am sure you'll agree and hardly the sign of anybody being sure about things).

Finally I've not mentioned NASA.!

Again please take my post in the way it was both written and understood rather than going down this road.

Finally a plea, I am not aware of any AGW theorists using the word Denier on here, so lets keep out words warmist, warmista, warmist mafia etc. It is so not helpful.

[Methuselah]

From what I understand (I have studied black-body radiation btw, so acknowledge that I may be wrong, due to preferential atmospheric-absorption or whatever effecting a bias.) the +/- 0.1% figure applies to the Solar Constant (W/m2)?

Not sure that I necessarily agree with the if I don't understand then nobody can

fallacy. But, there you go, it's something we clearly have to live with...

[mt-leinster-snow-drifts]

MLSD welcome in here.

It's a very easy comment to say that there has been falling air and sea temperatures but I've been fighting that comment for last few years on here and as yet can only see this apparent fall, if you take the warmest year on record. By it's very nature if you take the warmest year on record as your start point everything else will be less.!, but it's not really the true picture.

Hiya, 0.1% might have a larger effect on temperature or a lesser effect than what I've shown and like you I doubt it's perfectly linear, however there really is very little evidence to suggest it's much higher than what I've posted. For it to be much higher it would require the very same reinforcement feedbacks which Skeptics say don't exist for AGW.

Yes but if you discount 1998 you will still see cooling from year to year , not just a general trend. And then you have that large ( in terms of the time scale ) drop in tempuature between Jan 07 and Jan 08

Alot of warmists have now adopted the view that AGW has made the world temporary cooler , can't find any explanation for this.

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

Carm down Tamara, I've never said I know more than the experts. But feel free to show me an expert that is predicting or has predicted a maunder minimum in say the next 5 years.? If you do I'll retract my comment that nobody is seriously predicting it.

I am not sure how this cycle will go. Hence why I said a 50 year high or low (quite a margin I am sure you'll agree and hardly the sign of anybody being sure about things).

Finally I've not mentioned NASA.!

Again please take my post in the way it was both written and understood rather than going down this road.

Finally a plea, I am not aware of any AGW theorists using the word Denier on here, so lets keep out words warmist, warmista, warmist mafia etc. It is so not helpful.

My point, quite clearly, is that the path of solar cycle and associated feedbacks is far less certain than you have made it out to be. A perfectly calm and rational point. Not going down any deliberate 'road' - just trying to state some perspective, however irritating that keeps being for you.

No you didn't mention NASA in that particular post, but that hardly invalidates my point that short term forecasting of these events from a perceived expert point of view has not been at all accurate, so, on that basis alone we need to be very cautious in terms of how we view the outlook and especially wrt to the long term.

In terms of you plea, then I suggest you read my own posts properly in terms of the balance that I have struck in term of stating more than once that not all AGW proponents use terms like denier etc. I have on more than one occasion stiplulated one former progressive AGW member who didn't use climate change 'gang warfare' language like 'denier' etc. But I have, correctly imo, pointed out where it has been used - and you are kidding yourself by, er, denying the use of the word on here by some individuals.

Strange that I do these things in an attempt to be fair, but people like you pop up and select my own posts as though I am being deliberately contrary. That type of misrepreentation and malignment hardly encourages the sort of courtesies that should be apparent, so what to expect i terms of my own attitude?

I suggest you also point to any recent post where I have used phrases like 'warmist mafia'. Invention is not helpful either.

[mt-leinster-snow-drifts]

I've also noticed that AGW beleivers seem to think that solar variation just effects global tempuature in the way of more light and heat output. But this is false , this beleif comes from AGW beleivers just hearing what they wan't to hear. They always seem to miss the facts. Solar activity has very little direct effect on climate I know , but it has a large secondery effect by the way of the solar wind - cosmic rays - cloud formation - cooling. I would every body to get the full facts and not just picking parts you can disprove.

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

I've also noticed that AGW beleivers seem to think that solar variation just effects global tempuature in the way of more light and heat output. But this is false , this beleif comes from AGW beleivers just hearing what they wan't to hear. They always seem to miss the facts. Solar activity has very little direct effect on climate I know , but it has a large secondery effect by the way of the solar wind - cosmic rays - cloud formation - cooling. I would every body to get the full facts and not just picking parts you can disprove.

Yes, I think that solar research needs a lot more spotlight in general. It is not a specialised area used enough other than the traditional meteorology and I think the fact that it rather goes beyond the detailed remit of some climate scientists may account for the situation with regards to many feedbacks uncertainties and holes. Climate forecasting encompasses a wide range of potential feedbacks - organisations outside of the usual global met bureaus and the IPCC etc have a bigger role to play than portrayed. In that sense the likes of David Dilley and his natural cycles analysis which includes lunar effects and gravitational pull on the jet stream are also a vital part of the jigsaw that shouldn't be overlooked.

Edited August 3, 2009 by North Sea Snow Convection

[Methuselah]

Yes, I think that solar research needs a lot more spotlight in general. It is not a specialised area used enough other than the traditional meteorology and I think the fact that it rather goes beyond the detailed remit of some climate scientists may account for the situation with regards to many feedbacks uncertainties and holes. Climate forecasting encompasses a wide range of potential feedbacks - organisations outside of the usual global met bureaus and the IPCC etc have a bigger role to play than portrayed. In that sense the likes of David Dilley and his natural cycles analysis which includes lunar effects and gravitational pull on the jet stream are also a vital part of the jigsaw that shouldn't be overlooked.

No Tamara. It's genuine understanding and not 'more spotlight' that it needs??

And, when I learned Newton's law of gravitation; mass, distance and the gravitional constant (G?) were the only variables involved. Am I to assume, as you seem to do, that the jetsream somehow attracts the moon in some vaguely occultist manner??

Why have Newton's laws (save for the VERY minor adjustments due to QT and RT) survived for 350 years? Could it be because they are right!

[Iceberg]

I've also noticed that AGW beleivers seem to think that solar variation just effects global tempuature in the way of more light and heat output. But this is false , this beleif comes from AGW beleivers just hearing what they wan't to hear. They always seem to miss the facts. Solar activity has very little direct effect on climate I know , but it has a large secondery effect by the way of the solar wind - cosmic rays - cloud formation - cooling. I would every body to get the full facts and not just picking parts you can disprove.

Sorry MLSD I tried to respond to your other post as well but it crashed.

so very quickly re 07-08 cooling this has nothing to do with AGW cooling or warming and everything to do with La Nina, unless you know anything different, feel free to look at some of the threads we have here.

Also just a comment but try not to give a view point vaguely as AGW believes think this or that, it really doesn't add anything.

From your viewers I take it your a pretty ardent skeptic when it comes to AGW.

Solar temperature don't just have a direct effect on the earth I am all for some delayed impact of solar.

If you agree that solar impacts can have secondary effects then so can AGW surely ?.

Tamara, enough said I think it fairly obvious you've completed misrepresented what I said, but this isn't the place to disagree.

I've posted fag packet calculations on the effect of gravity and on solar output. Lots of "this must be wrong" but very little this is wrong because of x or y.

We can see the relationship between solar and temperature (there is one just look through the proxies).

I really can't see that anything that I've said has actually been disagreed with, lots of strawmen, adhoms, or sideswipes.

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

No Tamara. It's genuine understanding and not 'more spotlight' that it needs??

And, when I learned Newton's law of gravitation; mass, distance and the gravitional constant (G?) were the only variables involved. Am I to assume, as you seem to do, that the jetsream somehow attracts the moon in some vaguely occultist manner??

Why have Newton's laws (save for the VERY minor adjustments due to QT and RT) survived for 350 years? Could it be because they are right!

Think you may be deliberately being picky over my words, however much a better word might have been preferable in heinsight. Strange as well for someone who is occasionally at least credited with being able to express themselves well, - if nothing else.

Genuine understanding is indeed exactly what I meant

Your rather mocking and flippant description of 'occultist' mechanisms of lunar influences wrt the jetstream discredits David Dilley, as the author, more than it was perhaps intended for me. BFTP attempted to pick up this thread the other day again - it does not get the spotlight genuine attempts at trying at least to understand it that it merits.

But then of course if it is dismissed as mystical babble then I supposed it will be unfortuantely.

At least it gets some of my own,er, spotlight. Witchy-woo that I am.

Iceberg, from where I stand, cases of misrepresentation and clash only occur with a pattern of any regularity with a very few minority number of posters. Worth considering. Other than that, I agree it is not worth further comment on.

Edited August 3, 2009 by North Sea Snow Convection

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

I'm sure my memory's at fault, Blast, but I don't actually remember ever labelling any AGW sceptic a "denier". If I have, please remind me of where because an apology is due from me.

If you mean it just in the context of "denying" that mean global and/or UK temps (I've been involved in discussions about both) are higher now than they were, say, fifty to a hundred years ago (and certainly much longer in England), well - it was Solar who used the word & expressed the view; I just agreed with him, adding that 'some of them' are found on here. Perhaps you should ask the question of him, too?

If you are only referring to the folk on netweather, well I certainly could.....but wouldn't you find it more objectionable - 'slating' them as you put it - to identify them individually rather than just mentioning that they exist? Or is it that you don't think there are any?

Ossie

Ossie

If one denies then one is a denier? Fair enough to SC as well. I just want to know who is denying that we have warmed? And yep in context I was wrong the posts of yours and SC followed the 'denier' posts. It is clear its not a slating.....my apologies there. However, who is NOT ACCEPTING we have warmed??? Yep way off the mark if one thinks that

BFTP

Edited August 3, 2009 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[mt-leinster-snow-drifts]

If you agree that solar impacts can have secondary effects then so can AGW surely ?.

Yes it can , but somethimg has to be happening before it can have secondary effects

Edited August 3, 2009 by mt-leinster-snow-drifts

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

Ossie

However, who is NOT ACCEPTING we have warmed??? Yep way off the mark if one thinks that

BFTP

A continual misrepresentation has run here. What people such as you and I have said is that we are questioning the future trends in terms of whether any warming trend will continue, as per AGW theory, or whether it is much more part of a cyclical and natural causes reason than suggested - and which we would instead believe. I for one have been misquoted and misrepresented so many times on this I have lost count , and over a period of years now! I think that Jethro and noggin amongst others have endured this too.

It has also rather been complicated by the issue of what has happened over the last decade regarding the fact that we have not warmed over that time, yet CO2 has kept rising.

Edited August 3, 2009 by North Sea Snow Convection

[jethro]

I for one have been misquoted and misrepresented so many times on this I have lost count , and over a period of years now! I think that Jethro and noggin amongst others have endured this too.

Too many times to remember. It used to happen so often that there's even a "my stance" thread somewhere on here, where we all outlined our thoughts/stance on AGW. It was a non reply thread for reference purposes, I expect it's still around somewhere. Perhaps it should be resurrected brought up to date?

Here it is: http://www.netweather.tv/forum/topic/45533-whats-your-stance/

Not everyone who participates in this area has stated their stance, perhaps those who haven't would like to add their two pennoth worth. Has anyone changed their stance since stating it here?

Numpty here just noticed it's locked, if any MOD reads this, is there any chance this could be moved out of the archive please and into the current discussions?

Edited August 3, 2009 by jethro

[Solar Cycles]

How on earth you can make sweeping assumptions or calculations like that I don't know. Fag packet or not. Or tongue in cheek or not - and I suspect in subtle disguise, more not, tbh

NASA etc cannot forecast c23/24 properly let alone longer term solar trends and possible effects so how on earth you can dismiss potential long term outcomes on that basis alone - or do you know more than the 'experts'? How can you be sure about how low this cycle and the next cycle 25 min (especially) may go?? - a tad premature to say the least to be dismissing any Maunder min down the road at this stage.

Look at NASA predictions that the likes of you, GW or Devonian would have been quoting a year or so ago and how utterly wrong they have been. Not in line with your preferred beliefs I know, but best to start from there with much more caution I would suggest.

I'm afraid NASA are completely hopeless, at forecasting cycle 23/24. Hathaway might as well toss a coin, then try to convince the masses, that he knows what he is talking about.

[Solar Cycles]

Ossie

If one denies then one is a denier? Fair enough to SC as well. I just want to know who is denying that we have warmed? And yep in context I was wrong the posts of yours and SC followed the 'denier' posts. It is clear its not a slating.....my apologies there. However, who is NOT ACCEPTING we have warmed??? Yep way off the mark if one thinks that

BFTP

I too was not aware of any on here, who fall into the deniers category!

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Anyone see that ridiculous report on Sky News about the fact we are coming out of a solar minimum and that we are headed into ever greater maximum and this will warm the world further. This apparently is coming from NASA...well isn't Hathaway NASA? Hasn't he lowered greatly his expectations of maxima? It was a very poor piece with a female scientist who came across very unsure of herself indeed.

So now there is agreement that the solar cycles do warm and cool the earth. So folks watch out for ever higher maxima to appraoch [and this is on top of AGW effects too].

BFTP

[jethro]

Anyone see that ridiculous report on Sky News about the fact we are coming out of a solar minimum and that we are headed into ever greater maximum and this will warm the world further. This apparently is coming from NASA...well isn't Hathaway NASA? Hasn't he lowered greatly his expectations of maxima? It was a very poor piece with a female scientist who came across very unsure of herself indeed.

So now there is agreement that the solar cycles do warm and cool the earth. So folks watch out for ever higher maxima to appraoch [and this is on top of AGW effects too].

BFTP

Yet only a couple of weeks ago, Hathaway is quoted in a New York Times article as saying

Still, something like the Dalton Minimum — two solar cycles in the early 1800s that peaked at about an average of 50 sunspots — lies in the realm of the possible,Hathaway said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/21/science/space/21sunspot.html?_r=3&pagewanted=all

Lots of coin flipping going on me thinks....

[Iceberg]

Or maybe the press is misrepresenting him ?.

I am not saying they are, but its certainly a possibility.

Or maybe he's saying there is a possibilitity of a dalton, but the likelyhood is of something much high sunspot wise....Maybe he's just being honest with an open mind.

Just because something is uncertain it does not make all possibilities valid.

Edited August 4, 2009 by Iceberg

[noggin]

...Maybe he's just being honest with an open mind.

Maybe he hasn't got a clue and is covering all possibilities so that at some point in the future he can say that he was right? 'Tis a possibility...

[jethro]

Or maybe the press is misrepresenting him ?.

I am not saying they are, but its certainly a possibility.

Or maybe he's saying there is a possibilitity of a dalton, but the likelyhood is of something much high sunspot wise....Maybe he's just being honest with an open mind.

Just because something is uncertain it does not make all possibilities valid.

The press misrepresent something....nooo, surely not.

To be fair, right now I think the only thing which can be said with any degree of certainty, is the Sun and cycle 24 isn't behaving the way it should. By that, I don't mean there are laws by which it must abide or that we know all we need to know in order to predict accurately what is happening/will happen.

Going by historical records over the last dozen or so cycles, it was legitimate to expect cycle 24 to follow a fairly predictable pattern; there was a bit of a spread of predictions on the expected magnitude, but different methods yield different results.

I think it's fair to say (even given the vagaries of the press) that those predicting a high spot count for cycle 24 were given greater credence than those predicting a low spot count. Hathaway has changed his prediction quite a few times now but it still isn't proving any more accurate than his first prediction. I personally like that, it does show an open mind. However, it would perhaps be even more open minded to say "my methods of prediction aren't working, maybe someone else who's prediction has been closer than mine so far, has a better method".

This cycle has prompted quite a few Solar scientists to scratch their heads, I think the pressure on NASA to come up with an answer is tempting them and Hathaway, to stretch the "we know what's going on" beyond the realms of credibility somewhat. Interesting times ahead for Solar science, I think any predictions should be taken with a large pinch of salt, we clearly haven't as yet found a way of accurately saying what the future holds.

[Methuselah]

I think you sum-up the infancy of Solar Science quite fairly, Jethro.

But, I think a lot of it may be down to the plethora of new types of observation coming on line all at once? It's obvious that a lot of old-fashioned Earth-bound theories will be in need of major modification at best...

[jethro]

I think you sum-up the infancy of Solar Science quite fairly, Jethro.

But, I think a lot of it may be down to the plethora of new types of observation coming on line all at once? It's obvious that a lot of old-fashioned Earth-bound theories will be in need of major modification at best...

Why thank you.

Perhaps all the new information is muddying the waters somewhat. I think regardless of what happens with cycle 24, what it will be remembered for, is it illuminated our lack of understanding. There has been quite a high degree of confidence in recent years, this cycle is demonstrating that that confidence was a tad premature.

Personally, I'm hoping for a Grand Minimum (not that the Sun will pay attention to my hopes) I think it would dramatically broaden our understanding of Solar physics but also perhaps give us greater knowledge into the role the Sun has on climate.

[Iceberg]

I agree re the uncertainty. I've never held one particular prediction up above others, to me it's more like a probability spread (very wide at that).

A 5% chance of a dalton, a 10% chance maybe of a very high solar peak and a spread in the middle pointing to a lower peak than average(the average of the last 50 years) for the next 5-10 years.

Although these figures are guestimates.

Still no UAH update btw, last month they got the figure out and the associated press release within 36 hrs of the month ending.......

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

I think regardless of what happens with cycle 24, what it will be remembered for, is it illuminated our lack of understanding. There has been quite a high degree of confidence in recent years, this cycle is demonstrating that that confidence was a tad premature.

Totally agreed.

And exactly what I have tried to say repeatedly on here before. In terms of putting this in 'spotlight' (the uncertainty), which is the term that I used yesterday and was picked up on, that is precisely what I meant

I wouldn't even try and put percentages on future outcomes regarding solar activity. Of course anyone can if they want to - but in terms of the wildcard element with this branch of science then any guess is academic at this time.