Jump to content
Snow?
Local
Radar
Cold?
IGNORED

How will Solar Minimum affect weather and climate Take 2?


JeffC

Recommended Posts

Posted
  • Location: Weston-S-Mare North Somerset
  • Weather Preferences: Hot sunny , cold and snowy, thunderstorms
  • Location: Weston-S-Mare North Somerset

So no place for alternative views on this website about manmade global warming is what your saying then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
  • Weather Preferences: Thunder, snow, heat, sunshine...
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
5 minutes ago, SteveB said:

So no place for alternative views on this website about manmade global warming is what your saying then?

Of course there is. All you need do is back-up your claims with supporting evidence. After all, you must intuit your hunches from somewhere?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Aviemore
  • Location: Aviemore
8 minutes ago, SteveB said:

So no place for alternative views on this website about manmade global warming is what your saying then?

No-one has said that, this from my post earlier:

2 hours ago, Paul said:

Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with asking questions, giving views etc based on hunches, and finding out whether there is any evidence to support those hunches, etc. But I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that, when presented with answers to questions, and science based evidence to back those answers up, that it's taken on board and accepted. Otherwise, you end up with a never ended circular debate where evidence apparently counts for nothing when it comes to some of the participants, and nothing good can come of that.

And as Pete says, providing some evidence to back up hunches or views is the way forwards to. Bringing no backup, and being unwilling to take evidence on board is what won't work.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Ireland, probably South Tipperary
  • Weather Preferences: Cold, Snow, Windstorms and Thunderstorms
  • Location: Ireland, probably South Tipperary
5 minutes ago, SteveB said:

So no place for alternative views on this website about manmade global warming is what your saying then?

Evidence based discussion of differing views is fine.
The problem is that climate change is a scientific topic formed on the basis of scientific analysis and evidence -  so to have a discussion on climate change that excludes everything that the subject is based on, well, it really makes no sense at all.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Weston-S-Mare North Somerset
  • Weather Preferences: Hot sunny , cold and snowy, thunderstorms
  • Location: Weston-S-Mare North Somerset

That doesn't make sense, if I was having a discussion with a group of friends about global warming, and non of us have any science based information, we can't have a conversation about it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Aviemore
  • Location: Aviemore
4 minutes ago, SteveB said:

That doesn't make sense, if I was having a discussion with a group of friends about global warming, and non of us have any science based information, we can't have a conversation about it?

You can discuss it however you want in your own time etc, but in terms of the discussions on here, that's the way it is. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Weston-S-Mare North Somerset
  • Weather Preferences: Hot sunny , cold and snowy, thunderstorms
  • Location: Weston-S-Mare North Somerset

I'm a bit surprised by that approach Paul - but I suppose it does explain a lot of things said over the last couple of months.

It is your website after all, so I guess you can govern it how you see fit.

I will not mention the topic again.

Still a great site though ☺️

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Leigh-on-Sea
  • Location: Leigh-on-Sea

The only trouble is, if I remember rightly, the original thread was in a general discussion area, but derailed because it became an AGW vs "alternative" argument, so the mods closed it down, and said it would need to be opened in the climate science area. Well thats fine if thats the way you want to go, but it then makes it pretty difficult to have a discussion about it as BFTV has suggested!! 

So to me it seems, its a case of discuss it with proven scientific evidence (very sparse), or dont have the discussion!! As has been said, if thats the way things are on this forum......thats your choice, just as long as everyone knows thats the direction this forum leans!

Edited by Rambo
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
  • Weather Preferences: Thunder, snow, heat, sunshine...
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
5 minutes ago, Rambo said:

The only trouble is, if I remember rightly, the original thread was in a general discussion area, but derailed because it became an AGW vs "alternative" argument, so the mods closed it down, and said it would need to be opened in the climate science area. Well thats fine if thats the way you want to go, but it then makes it pretty difficult to have a discussion about it as BFTV has suggested!! 

So to me it seems, its a case of discuss it with proven scientific evidence (very sparse), or dont have the discussion!! As has been said, if thats the way things are on this forum......thats your choice, just as long as everyone knows thats the direction this forum leans!

Makes it difficult to discuss? How so? And, anyway, without the need for evidence (and/or the little bit of effort required to obtain that evidence) the whole caboodle descends into a 'he said, she said' farce...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Leigh-on-Sea
  • Location: Leigh-on-Sea
20 minutes ago, Ed Stone said:

Makes it difficult to discuss? How so? And, anyway, without the need for evidence (and/or the little bit of effort required to obtain that evidence) the whole caboodle descends into a 'he said, she said' farce...

As we've been told, you need proven scientific evidence(and only from scientists that the mods on this forum approve... it seems) to discuss this topic, but there is still not enough data relating to solar cycles to prove it either way. So does that mean the topic doesnt even exist lol?

From what I've seen, the general trend is.....

*Person 1 = "Low solar output is likely to make the planet colder, and therefore the sun could be more of a factor in "global warming" than people think

*Person 2 = "You need to supply evidence!!!!!!!"

*Person 1 = "So and so scientist said this, here's their paper/talk/forum/book etc etc etc"

*Person 2 = "My opinion of that scientist is poor, so your evidence is null and void"

*Person 1 = "Well, this other scientist also says this etc etc etc"

*Person 2 = "Nope, my opinion of that scientist is also poor, so your whole argument is pointless because your evidence isnt real"

 

If you're still with me lol, then maybe you get the idea of how "discussing" anything that isnt in line with the AGW theme, is very difficult on this forum, when the only evidence that certain people and mods seem to accept isnt available!

Now dont get me wrong, if thats how this place is, then thats perfectly fine. Just so long as the message is clear!

Edited by Rambo
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
  • Weather Preferences: Thunder, snow, heat, sunshine...
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
34 minutes ago, Rambo said:

As we've been told, you need proven scientific evidence(and only from scientists that the mods on this forum approve... it seems) to discuss this topic, but there is still not enough data relating to solar cycles to prove it either way. So does that mean the topic doesnt even exist lol?

From what I've seen, the general trend is.....

*Person 1 = "Low solar output is likely to make the planet colder, and therefore the sun could be more of a factor in "global warming" than people think

*Person 2 = "You need to supply evidence!!!!!!!"

*Person 1 = "So and so scientist said this, here's their paper/talk/forum/book etc etc etc"

*Person 2 = "My opinion of that scientist is poor, so your evidence is null and void"

*Person 1 = "Well, this other scientist also says this etc etc etc"

*Person 2 = "Nope, my opinion of that scientist is also poor, so your whole argument is pointless because your evidence isnt real"

 

If you're still with me lol, then maybe you get the idea of how "discussing" anything that isnt in line with the AGW theme, is very difficult on this forum, when the only evidence that certain people and mods seem to accept isnt available!

Now dont get me wrong, if thats how this place is, then thats perfectly fine. Just so long as the message is clear!

I've bolded the part where I think your most fundamental error lies:

  1. All of us 'sciency types', know full well that changes in the amount of heat we receive from the sun, will cause changes in Earth's surface temperature; if heat transfer didn't work in that way, domestic radiators (along with every work-engine we've ever invented) wouldn't work either...                                                                                        
  2. Yes, of course the sun's strength plays a part in climate change; it's just that research points to the conclusion, that its effect is overwhelmed by the atmospheric concentrations of various greenhouse gases - whether or not those gases happen to be of anthropogenic or of natural origin...     

See what I mean? It's quite possible to write 'science' with recourse to neither arcane literature nor umpteen differential equations...But - and this is the important bit - if I'm wrong, someone can come along and correct me, and I will learn something; something that I'd either forgotten or simply not known, in the first place?

Honestly, we are not out to get you!                                        

Edited by Ed Stone
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Weston-S-Mare North Somerset
  • Weather Preferences: Hot sunny , cold and snowy, thunderstorms
  • Location: Weston-S-Mare North Somerset

That generally seems the theme. I've said it before, some on here would make very good politicians..... Answer a question with a question, or totally avoid answering the question altogether. 

We aren't out to get you or trip you up, it's just we don't fully subscribe to your science backed evidence, for reasons that cannot be discussed here because its seen as crack pot sceptical sensationalism 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
  • Weather Preferences: Thunder, snow, heat, sunshine...
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
10 minutes ago, Rambo said:

Completely missed the point there............

You seem to be convinced that us AGW non-sceptics want to claim that the sun has no effect on climate; when, in fact, we do not...Maybe we're missing each other's points? 

Edited by Ed Stone
missing word...again!
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Ireland, probably South Tipperary
  • Weather Preferences: Cold, Snow, Windstorms and Thunderstorms
  • Location: Ireland, probably South Tipperary
5 minutes ago, Rambo said:

As we've been told, you need proven scientific evidence(and only from scientists that the mods on this forum approve... it seems) to discuss this topic, but there is still not enough data relating to solar cycles to prove it either way. So does that mean the topic doesnt even exist lol?

From what I've seen, the general trend is.....

*Person 1 = "Low solar output is likely to make the planet colder, and therefore the sun could be more of a factor in "global warming" than people think

*Person 2 = "You need to supply evidence!!!!!!!"

*Person 1 = "So and so scientist said this, here's their paper/talk/forum/book etc etc etc"

*Person 2 = "My opinion of that scientist is poor, so your evidence is null and void"

*Person 1 = "Well, this other scientist also says this etc etc etc"

*Person 2 = "Nope, my opinion of that scientist is also poor, so your whole argument is pointless because your evidence isnt real"

 

If you're still with me lol, then maybe you get the idea of how "discussing" anything that isnt in line with the AGW theme, is very difficult on this forum, when the only evidence that certain people and mods seem to accept isnt available!

Now dont get me wrong, if thats how this place is, then thats perfectly fine. Just so long as the message is clear!

Something to note here is that scientists can be just as capable of spouting nonsense about things outside of their expertise as anyone. So when we look for evidence, it often means from experts in that field, scientific organisations, data they've published, etc. Not random blogs or youtube videos!

I assume your reference was to that solar minimum/global cooling talk. Which was from a non-expert, giving a talk to an organisation that specifically tries to cast doubt on and often attacks climate science - the talk was further edited by the anti-science group before being put on youtube in order to hide some inconvenient data and highlight stuff that supports their position. That kind of thing isn't "my scientists vs your scientists" at all. It's science vs biased and misleading propaganda. Industries picking someone that sounds to the layperson to be the "voice of science" in order to disparage the actual science has been a commonly employed tactic since the debate over cigarettes and smoking, or CFCs and the ozone hole. The most powerful and wealthy industry on the planet, fossil fuels, is no stranger to this, nor are the "think tanks" they fund.

I'll (fingers crossed) have a PhD in little over a year, but it won't make me an authority on everything. I'd barely consider myself an expert on my subject area, let alone another unrelated one. An individual voice means very little in science, it's the weight of evidence that counts. So while you might think anyone with Dr. before their name is just as valid a source of information on a particular subject as the actual experts on that subject, you'd be wrong.

I can go into the topic of scientific consensus too, but I think this post is already long enough!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Leigh-on-Sea
  • Location: Leigh-on-Sea
56 minutes ago, Ed Stone said:

You seem to be convinced that us AGW non-sceptics want to claim that the sun has no effect on climate; when, in fact, we do not...Maybe we're missing each other's points? 

My point wasn't specific to AGW vs sceptics etc, I just used that as an example.

What I was trying to get at is that any non-mainstream scientists/academics etc are just arrogantly dismissed (even by mods) because they either dont fit in with the status quo, or because they have an outlandish theory. Now I'm not saying that any of these outlandish types are all correct in their theories, BUT, they are a source of scientific evidence non the less. So when the mods say you can discuss topics as long as you provide evidence to back it up, but then straight away insist that the evidence is incorrect because of the scientist/academic who created the evidence (nearly always in their opin, it kinda makes a mockery of the whole "discuss" theory!

Now clearly I dont mean you can use your pet parakeet's theory as scientific evidence, or some random bloke down the street, but we "could" be in uncharted waters if the next solar cycle is a real low one, so it's nice to see all the different theories come together (or not come together), and discuss the affects if and when they progress!

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Leigh-on-Sea
  • Location: Leigh-on-Sea
6 minutes ago, BornFromTheVoid said:

Something to note here is that scientists can be just as capable of spouting nonsense about things outside of their expertise as anyone. So when we look for evidence, it often means from experts in that field, scientific organisations, data they've published, etc. Not random blogs or youtube videos!

I assume your reference was to that solar minimum/global cooling talk. Which was from a non-expert, giving a talk to an organisation that specifically tries to cast doubt on and often attacks climate science - the talk was further edited by the anti-science group before being put on youtube in order to hide some inconvenient data and highlight stuff that supports their position. That kind of thing isn't "my scientists vs your scientists" at all. It's science vs biased and misleading propaganda. Industries picking someone that sounds to the layperson to be the "voice of science" in order to disparage the actual science has been a commonly employed tactic since the debate over cigarettes and smoking, or CFCs and the ozone hole. The most powerful and wealthy industry on the planet, fossil fuels, is no stranger to this, nor are the "think tanks" they fund.

I'll (fingers crossed) have a PhD in little over a year, but it won't make me an authority on everything. I'd barely consider myself an expert on my subject area, let alone another unrelated one. An individual voice means very little in science, it's the weight of evidence that counts. So while you might think anyone with Dr. before their name is just as valid a source of information on a particular subject as the actual experts on that subject, you'd be wrong.

I can go into the topic of scientific consensus too, but I think this post is already long enough!

Actually it wasn't a specific reference to any particular post, its just a theme I've observed across the forum.

As for your sentence I've highlighted, thats my exact point though. There isn't any "weight of evidence" for either side of the camp when it comes to how the solar minimum will affect the climate. So without the weight of evidence, you have to rely on individual theories for now!

I'll ignore the idea that all scientists who disagree with AGW are funded by fossil fuel companies, despite it proving my point about how biased some people are about alternative evidence......I'm sure there's plenty of pro AGW scientists who are paid by renewable energy companies too, but lets not go into that here!

What I find bizarre is that there is no room at all here for anything that doesnt fit the narrative, and that people/this forum cannot accept something, even as a remote theory, if it goes against the trend.

By the way, I'm not deliberately trying to stir things or owt, just trying to explain what I think Steve was alluding to, as its definitely something I've noticed across this forum

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Coniston, Cumbria 90m ASL
  • Weather Preferences: wintry
  • Location: Coniston, Cumbria 90m ASL

Ye Gods!

Did I miss something? I started this thread, as i started its predecessor in an effort to stimulate debate and draw discussion based around the solar minimum.

It's not a long hop to end up with AGW as an element of the discussion e.g. will it be slowed etc., and if people want to hypothesise one way or another then great. That said if your main objective is the overall AGW debate, if there isn't a thread already devoted to it , then could I suggest one is created?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and lots of it or warm and sunny, no mediocre dross
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl

Forgive me for butting in here....As you know I used to be around this area quite a lot, for quite a number of years before finally giving up and abandoning the circular discussions, as it proved utterly pointless. All this above is a prime example of what made me and many others leave and keeps the number of participants here low, compared to other parts of the forum.

The topic here is and has to be open to speculation and conjecture for the simple reason there is currently little research on the subject. The suspicion that we are entering a deep solar minimum (and even that is still unproven, despite the best boffins in the world devoting their careers to it) is entering unchartered territory. It may or may not happen, it may or may not have an impact upon weather and climate. The current state of play when it comes to research is that there is pretty solid evidence lower solar output impacts weather, but that's based on already experienced solar minimum periods - NOT deep, prolonged solar minimums that some scientists think we are facing. We are potentially in unchartered territory in the context of modern studies and measuring a deep minimum.

I for one find it utterly fascinating, however if in order to participate in discussions here it entails running the usual gamut of AGW slanted arguments, I for one can't be bothered. It has nothing to do with AGW. Discussing the topic in question here isn't an anti AGW stance, nor should it be treated as such. If EVERYONE here could just hang up their AGW boots, just for this one topic, I think we could all learn a great deal more.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Aviemore
  • Location: Aviemore

@jethro - I suppose the immediate thing I take from your post is the question as to why this particular thread is in this part of the forum if it's unrelated to climate change/agw? My comments yesterday were more general about climate change discussions in here, not this subject in particular. If it's a weather subject, and people want to keep it away from the topic of climate change, then the obvious answer would be to have a thread in a weather related area, which is where all of this started up. 

Unfortunately, the topic didn't last long before it turned into an argument around agw etc, which ended up with it being locked and moved in here, so the rules were stricter. This is the problem, it's seemingly impossible to stop this type of thing turning in a circular argument, because frankly, there are too many with a pre-decided view about agw/climate change etc, that are entirely happy to ignore any and all evidence presented to them which disagrees with their view. We had to take a stand by making these discussions science only - yes that's limited the discussion in here, but when 90% of those discussions essentially turned into slanging matches anyway, what was the point in having them?

Ultimately, it's a case of self-moderation vs site-moderation, if those involved could stop being so protective of their 'views' and open themselves up to debating without being defensive, even being prepared to change their minds in the light of evidence once in a while, then the issues resolve themselves. If that were the case, we could have threads like this in weather areas, and we could loosen the rules on debate on climate change in here too, but so far at least, that's not been the case.

I'm not against this thread being open in 2 places, one weather, one climate, but it's down to the participants to not turn them into arguments.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and lots of it or warm and sunny, no mediocre dross
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
12 minutes ago, Paul said:

@jethro - I suppose the immediate thing I take from your post is the question as to why this particular thread is in this part of the forum if it's unrelated to climate change/agw? My comments yesterday were more general about climate change discussions in here, not this subject in particular. If it's a weather subject, and people want to keep it away from the topic of climate change, then the obvious answer would be to have a thread in a weather related area, which is where all of this started up. 

Unfortunately, the topic didn't last long before it turned into an argument around agw etc, which ended up with it being locked and moved in here, so the rules were stricter. This is the problem, it's seemingly impossible to stop this type of thing turning in a circular argument, because frankly, there are too many with a pre-decided view about agw/climate change etc, that are entirely happy to ignore any and all evidence presented to them which disagrees with their view. We had to take a stand by making these discussions science only - yes that's limited the discussion in here, but when 90% of those discussions essentially turned into slanging matches anyway, what was the point in having them?

Ultimately, it's a case of self-moderation vs site-moderation, if those involved could stop being so protective of their 'views' and open themselves up to debating without being defensive, even being prepared to change their minds in the light of evidence once in a while, then the issues resolve themselves. If that were the case, we could have threads like this in weather areas, and we could loosen the rules on debate on climate change in here too, but so far at least, that's not been the case.

I'm not against this thread being open in 2 places, one weather, one climate, but it's down to the participants to not turn them into arguments.

Morning Paul, thanks for that.

Believe me, I remember the struggles of being a Mod here and the extraordinary lengths taken to try to make this area work. I guess remembered frustration on my part prompted my above plea and interjection.

The trouble with this topic and insisting on science backed arguments (the 'prove it' with peer reviewed studies requests/demands) is that the science doesn't exist. The overall impression I garnered from the recent discussion here is the usual pro AGW candidates using this 'prove it' stance as a way to shut down debate, seemingly on the basis that to discuss this topic is saying a deep minima will cancel out AGW. In my opinion, this protectionary response is not needed, nor is it particularly relevant to the topic.

The current state of play in the science world, whether that be peer reviewed studies or 'have a go crackpots' is that no one knows. There is no peer reviewed science to call on, we have never experienced a deep solar minimum in our lifetime, nor in a few generations before. All that exists is reconstructed temperatures/weather patterns of previous periods such as the Dalton/Maunder etc. That being the case, the topic either has to be open to speculation in order to develop or it comes to an end because there is no science  as requested above.

I don't personally care where this discussion takes place, here or in another part of the forum. I find it fascinating, I know others do too. I just make a plea that the discussion can take place without folk leaping up and down and turning it into another pro/anti AGW platform. There's loads of other threads in the climate area to do that, it really doesn't need to overtake this thread too. This isn't an AGW topic.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Ireland, probably South Tipperary
  • Weather Preferences: Cold, Snow, Windstorms and Thunderstorms
  • Location: Ireland, probably South Tipperary
11 hours ago, Rambo said:

Actually it wasn't a specific reference to any particular post, its just a theme I've observed across the forum.

As for your sentence I've highlighted, thats my exact point though. There isn't any "weight of evidence" for either side of the camp when it comes to how the solar minimum will affect the climate. So without the weight of evidence, you have to rely on individual theories for now!

I'll ignore the idea that all scientists who disagree with AGW are funded by fossil fuel companies, despite it proving my point about how biased some people are about alternative evidence......I'm sure there's plenty of pro AGW scientists who are paid by renewable energy companies too, but lets not go into that here!

What I find bizarre is that there is no room at all here for anything that doesnt fit the narrative, and that people/this forum cannot accept something, even as a remote theory, if it goes against the trend.

By the way, I'm not deliberately trying to stir things or owt, just trying to explain what I think Steve was alluding to, as its definitely something I've noticed across this forum

There's plenty of evidence and research on the solar cycle climate links, and plenty of experts. I have no opinion either way, other than what the evidence suggests, which is that any effects will be regional rather than global (wrt temperature). I assume you don't disagree?
As for the solar cycle - weather connection, that's very much an area with massive uncertainty. I don't doubt that they influence our weather patterns, how exactly that operates, the lag times involved, etc, hasn't been nailed down yet, barring some interesting work on the stratospheric component.

So when it comes to the climate there definitely is a weight of evidence on one side, even a grand minimum won't do much. With the weather, it's all much more uncertain.

Nobody said all sceptics are funded by fossil fuel, just that not everyone offering a voice that goes against the consensus is an expert, nor are their motivations often entirely scientific. We can stick our fingers in our ears and close our eyes to any evidence that those who support our hunches have less honest motivating factors, as many do.
The vast majority of researchers are in academia, and the research comes usually from government grants. It would be great if say, the fossil fuel industry, a put 1/10 of their propaganda money into alternative research. But they know they've lost they science game, so they're focusing on the non-exports and sowing distrust in science. It's a very effect ploy.

A reasonable person doesn't accept anything blindly, they accept with evidence. If you're not able to look at a peer reviewed research paper by experts, then see a heavily edited youtube video by an anti-science group featuring a non-expert, and pick out which one has more validity, then you're going to end up believing some pretty crackpot ideas.

Sure, present alternative evidence, alternative scientific theories, ask questions, look for more evidence, all that stuff. Just don't assume all information, from all experts are equally valid on every topic. Critical analysis of your sources is necessary, however inconvenient that might be. Being lazy and simply complaining about narratives, my science vs your science and such isn't the same!

Edited by BornFromTheVoid
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: York
  • Weather Preferences: Long warm summer evenings. Cold frosty sunny winter days.
  • Location: York

Thanks Jethro for your posts.

I would like to use the following as an example.

Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 4.14
x1010W Cold
Max: 49.4
x1010 W Hot (10/1957)
Min: 2.05x1010W Cold (02/2009)
explanation | more data
Updated 15 Nov 2018

This is a new index which tells us how hot or cold  the upper layer of our atmosphere is. Could the fact that the top of our atmosphere is so cold compared to its peak temperature be an influencer on the rapid refreeze we are seeing in the artic at the moment. Would a very cold upper atmosphere allow more heat to escape. The index tells us that at the peak of this present cycle the temperature was only classed as neutral /warm. whereas previous cycles have been warm to hot at their maximum. Unless we know the true impacts of these emerging areas and can openly discuss them how can we really understand our climate

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Ireland, probably South Tipperary
  • Weather Preferences: Cold, Snow, Windstorms and Thunderstorms
  • Location: Ireland, probably South Tipperary

Whether people like or not, and clearly a lot here don't, every component of the climate and weather system on Earth is clearly now under the influence of AGW and the knock effects it's had. You can't alter the chemistry of our atmosphere, the temperature of the oceans and air, the strastospheric temperatures, jet stream, planetary albedo, etc, and then simply ignore those changes when looking at what might influence our weather patterns.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: York
  • Weather Preferences: Long warm summer evenings. Cold frosty sunny winter days.
  • Location: York
20 minutes ago, BornFromTheVoid said:

Whether people like or not, and clearly a lot here don't, every component of the climate and weather system on Earth is clearly now under the influence of AGW and the knock effects it's had. You can't alter the chemistry of our atmosphere, the temperature of the oceans and air, the strastospheric temperatures, jet stream, planetary albedo, etc, and then simply ignore those changes when looking at what might influence our weather patterns.

So how does AGW affect the Thermosphere and lets hope when your talking about ocean temperature your not using the 60% more heat uptake argument!!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...