 | tchannon on Suggestions |
 | ferd berple on Suggestions |
| tchannon on Geo-engineering plan shelved: … |
 | Larry Sheldon on Geo-engineering plan shelved: … |
 | Michael Hart on Geo-engineering plan shelved: … |
| tchannon on Looks like summer at last, 21s… |
 | Michael Larkin on Suzanne Goldenberg: Guardian J… |
 | geoffchambers on Suzanne Goldenberg: Guardian J… |
 | Tenuc on Looks like summer at last, 21s… |
 | HaroldW on Suzanne Goldenberg: Guardian J… |
| tchannon on Looks like summer at last, 21s… |
 | adolfogiurfa on Geo-engineering plan shelved: … |
| Tenuc on Suggestions |
| Tenuc on Looks like summer at last, 21s… |
 | Ulric Lyons on Looks like summer at last, 21s… |
Please post ideas for new threads, tips on relevant and interesting threads elsewhere, and notes about pretty much anything you like here.
The scissors will be wielded to commercial spam, lewd suggestions, and anything else I don’t like. 8)
I just put up a pictorial for visual illustration of atmospheric heat and water on my blog:
http://pgtruspace.wordpress.com/2012/02/12/atmosphere-heat/
I would appreciate any input or corrections in comments. Correct nomenclature is of greatest importance. Then I can correct the art work as needed as this is a png. file. Tallbloke & Tim you are welcome to use it here as soon as it is correct. I hope to add content as explanation below it over the next few days. pg
Here’s a delight.
Gamma Ray Burst 971214, suggested by Arno Arrak’s paper to have a connection with El Nino 1998 and the subsequent raised temperature average. Suggested, not proven of course… but El Nino 1998 did certainly have an unexpectedly huge size and effect. GRB 971214 was a unique event (google it), and its timing fits precisely. Worth an article.
The sun acted strangely from 1996 onwards, including I think the start of excess very high frequency emission. We’ll get back to discussing solar eventually.
tchannon says February 19, 2012 at 11:04 pm
Hi Tim, why do you say 1996? I suspect it kicked off on May 10-12th, 1999 (see also NiCT), possibly linked to the Jupiter perihelion on the 5th. But as ever, until someone solves the n-body problem we’re all stabbing in the dark
Yep, hopefully we will get back to discussing solar eventually!
[ Various detail solar activity, including a rise in extreme UV. Perhaps this needs context, might make sense or not http://www.gpsl.net/climate/data/mgii-ice-2010-09.pdf, assume the whole thing is co-incidence, is no proof --Tim]
An Error in the Greenhouse Calculations (I think)
Using the Stefan-Boltzman Law (S-B) the temperature of the earth is calculated to be 279 K.
Albedo is then subtracted which for the earth is about 30%. “This approximation reduces the temperature by a factor of 0.7^1/4, giving 255 K (−18 °C).”
Then the claim is that greenhouse gases make up the difference between the observed average surface temperature of 288 K (14˚ C) and the effective calculated temperature of 255 K (-18˚ C) which results in greenhouse gases being responsible for 33˚ of the temperature of the Earth.
Albedo doesn’t affect equilibrium temperatures. Albedo only affects the flux, in other words the rate at which a body warms or cools.
Therefore, 255 K is the wrong number to use. The more accurate number should be 279 K, which means that the greenhouse effect is responsible for 9˚ of the temperature not the claimed 33˚.
That also means that greenhouse gas calculations overestimate their effect by 366%.
Not something they’d want to shout about surely?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120222114358.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily+%28ScienceDaily%3A+Latest+Science+News%29
I haven’t seen Ice Ages done on here for a while. Here’s a new (to me at least) theory from 1958 which attempts to explain them without invoking any of that solar nonsense (kidding!).
http://strongasanoxandnearlyassmart.blogspot.com/2011/07/scientists-predict-another-ice-age-is.html
I think it could make for a good discussion.
Quadrant mag March issue published yesterday:
The Fictive World of Rajendra Pachauri
Tony Thomas
It is the cause, it is the cause, my soul.
Othello
In 2005 the chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Rajendra Pachauri, flew to a Washington conference. He spent ninety minutes getting through the airport formalities. A chauffeur-driven car had been waiting outside, with the engine and air-conditioner running so that Pachauri would have a cool car to step into. Pachauri was indignant. “My God! Why did you do that?” he rebuked the driver. “You probably had the engine on for two hours. Was that really required?” He told North Carolina legislators three years later: “So that’s the kind of change in lifestyle that I’m talking about … which when put together will really make an enormous difference.” [1]
In January 2010 Pachauri was under fire for the howler in the 2007 IPCC report about melting Himalayan glaciers. The fracas inspired the London Mail OnLine to check out Pachauri’s lifestyle in Delhi.[2] It turned out that Pachauri ran a chauffeur-driven Corolla; a smoky Indian derivative of the Morris Oxford; and an eco-friendly G-Wiz electric car provided for his short urban trips. On January 29 Pachauri had his chauffeured Corolla collect him for the 1.6 kilometre drive from his home to the office. The chauffeur hung round (meanwhile being chatted up by the villainous Mail reporter) before driving Pachauri in the Corolla to lunch at an upmarket restaurant one kilometre from Pachauri’s home. The battery-powered G-Wiz stayed in the carpark. The next day Pachauri issued a statement urging the masses to use public transport…
http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2012/3/the-fictive-world-of-rajendra-pachauri
This is a heads up for the Michael Mann interview in the March 2012 edition of Scientific American where, according to the interviewer, he takes on his critics and “tells his side of the story”. Mann completely bamboozles the interviewer, characterising the “hide the decline” concerns as being an interpretation by his critics as a decline in temperatures in the instrumental record. He says that being on the heels of the warmest year 1998 “you couldn’t possibly imagine there was anything approaching a decline”. That is pure spin. It was all about the tree ring data. He then cleverly points this out as if his critics didn’t realise that the decline “simply referred to some bad tree ring data. ”
We all know that it was the wrong kind of tree ring data because the decline that data showed represented a decoupling of the tree ring data from the instrumental data and therefore cast doubt on the methodology of inferring temperature from tree ring data.
The interviewer doesn’t pick him up on this at all. He managed to bulldoze his way right through the nuances of the issue and emerge ready for the next question.
He side-steps the tree ri
I’m in the United Arab Emirates right now. Two things:
I’m off, being a geologist, to check out the sabhkas, the salt flats where gypsum and anhydrite, calcite and dolomite naturally deposit out of seawater. Of interest is that the sea level was 1 m higher 7000 years ago, with the sea dropping and the land extending seaward starting about 3750 years ago. I’ve been in the Arctic, where the sea level is 22 m lower than it was (!!!) and Newfoundland, where some say it was higher than today (but I disagree: I think they misinterpreted some geological features I saw also). But both those places have had strong post-glacial isostatic rebound. Here in the UAE, there has not been any. So the sea-level WAS higher 7000 years ago. I have also been on the coast of Mexico, the Playa del Carmen area, where the sea-level was several meters LOWER a thousand years ago or so: there are now sea-water drowned, former fresh-water creeks overseen/managed/habitated by locals that were abandoned. Freshwater is difficult to find on the coast of Mexico, so every place with the water had a cairn with a fire in it to guide fishermen.
So the world oceans go up and down, and I’m not sure if you can clearly say what is “normal”. Yes, with big changes, but not small ones. I can’t say I necessarily believe that the current sea-level rise has anything to do with significant melting of the polar caps. Of course there is some, but how much, and where I think is a little hard to determine, especially on a 2 – 3 mm/yr basis.
The second thing: it is HAZY in deserts. There is a lot of dust in the atmosphere. Those sunset haze photos of Indiana Jones adventures are real, but they are not unusual. The dust haze is so significant that you don’t burn as you would, say, in Mexico or Miami. We have read of the Greens touting solar panels in the Sahara and other deserts, but I wonder how much the standard haze would reduce their efficiency. And considering the dust I have seen, how much cleaning maintenance would be required.
When the economic bust hit in 2008/2009, apparently 100 – 200 cars a day were being abandoned at the airport as their “owners”, in debt and without jobs or income to maintain their servicing for houses and cars, left on a “holiday” and never came back. In the UAE you are checked at the airport for debts if you are relinquishing your visa, and then stopped if you own money, so the only way out is to do a midnight run and abandon all your stuff. In the basement of the Winchester Hotel in downtown Abu Dhabi are beautiful Mercedes Benz’ that are covered in a finger-writing thickness of dust: the dust gets EVERYWHERE, even deep in the carparks. If solar panels are to be used in the dusty desert, you’d need a constant army of cleaners.
The Greens don’t travel, I think. The world is more complicated than their models suggest. William James suggests the pure rationalists hold onto theories and models because the calculations provide clean, stable worldviews for them. Rather than admit, as a pragmatist does, that all models are approximations of the world, all pointing to the truth rather than encapsulating the truth, they seize on the ideal as being what we live with. This view of them makes sense of that infamous quote about observations not being very useful in understanding climate changes.
WUWT, CO2 makes you fat.
Still in Abu Dhabi. Have seen the outcrop that show sea levels perhaps 2m higher 7000 years ago (AND that before that the sealevel was lower than that: sand dunes capped by 0.6 m of nearshore carbonate sands with tiny shell debris). Also seen the dust on solar panels, and non-working windmills (vertical), falling over windmills and vane-missing windmills at isolated stations. During minor sandstorms. Abu Dhabi planning on 71% natural gas power generation by 2020, exporting all the oil. Some nuclear power in plan, bit of a surprise (don’t know where that is coming from). Minor Green. Abu Dhabi/Dubai pays for some of that Kiribati (?) solar power that was on WUWT the other week, by the way. Not for them, though. Wonder why …
Back to point: increase of global CO2 volumes increased about 50% from 1975 to 2010. Global CO2 ppmv/yr rate did not. Not on own computer, two graphs required. Where is all this CO2 going?
Thoughts:
1) global emissions exaggerated. In interests of all CAGW parties to round up, adjust up, “optimize” up emissions. Also cynicism on alarmists parts that we cheat/deny/lie about our emissions says they should estimate up from released figures. The world is going to hell in a handbasket faster than you think, and HERE’S WHY.
2) planetary uptake of CO2 greater efficiency than modelled. Biosphere and limestone buffering removes far faster than expected by current ideas. World far more robust: the oceans will not, cannot “acidify” as predicted from partial pressure assumptions. Not deep ocean sequestering in low pH bottom waters. Removal from system near surface or at/on surface.
Another fundamental warmist problem? The missing CO2?
If global emissions not as high as described, a hoist-on-their-own-petard.
By the way: re the BP Gulf Coast disaster the other year, when they couldn’t find the huge oil slicks. I don’t think the amount of oil spilled was anywhere near what was claimed. That is why they couldn’t find it. It wasn’t there. Every single group involved had an interest in claiming that the oil spilling out of the sea floor was enormous, including BP. I saw the images of fluids coming out of the pipe, said to be 100,000 bopd or some such number. White and frothy: looked like a gassy mixture of oil, water and gas. Not what your shareholders/government reserve officers/Greenpeace/litigation lawyers want to hear. Plus the reservoir pressures dropped more quickly than they expected – a “good” thing, at the time, so they could cap the blowout. And a solid sign that the pool they had breached was small, smaller than they first said, at least.
So we have missing oil, missing heat and missing CO2. Missing sea-level rises and missing lower tropospheric temperature zone. Missing ethics. Missing economic sense.
What’s not to like about CAGW?
tallbloke, could I suggest a post on the political origins of the CAGW scare? It’s quite clear that there can only be a political solution to what was always a political agenda disguised as science. Some people may call conspiracy theory, but in fact it’s pretty explicit. Other people have probably found many other statements similar to those below, and imo it would be good to have a post to raise awareness of this issue, and as a consolidated resource.
* “The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.” -Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
* “The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.” -Dr David Frame, Climate modeler, Oxford University
* “It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.” -Paul Watson, Co-founder of Greenpeace
* “Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.” -Sir John Houghton, First chairman of the IPCC
* “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony … climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” -Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/climate_deniers_are_giving_us_skeptics_a_bad_name.html#ixzz1pAnYjFDh
(Btw Roy Spencer has said he disagrees with Fred Singer’s use of “denier” to describe the people who reject the CO2 “back radiation” theory, and I guess most people already knew that both of them (and even Anthony Watts) are lukewarmers.)
In 1993, the Club [of Rome] published The First Global Revolution.[5] According to this book, divided nations require common enemies to unite them, “either a real one or else one invented for the purpose.”[6] Because of the sudden absence of traditional enemies, “new enemies must be identified.”[6] “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill….All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”[7]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_of_Rome
I taught high school science for over a third of a century. I received a master’s degree in educational communications. Here is a lesson to all writers regarding science, such as this one.
DON’T START OFF A TOPIC WITH AN ABBREVIATION! WRITE THE FULL STATEMENT WITHOUT ABBREVIATION IN YOUR HEADLINE OR FIRST SENTENCE !
That means “enso” is a no-no at the beginning. Those who don’t know what you are talking about may turn to something else, without ever receiving the message you want to send. After all, you want to do more than teach to the choir, don’t you? ! Maybe convert a fence sitter!
I thought at first you were talking about the El Nino Southern Oscillation but then I realized you were referring to the restaurant/nightclub in E. Lansing, Michigan. Or is it the brand of spellcheck and dictionary that is available under that name?
[ Err... heard of Bader? Anyone arriving at this place without some grounding is going to have problems. I could point at jolly good technical authorship advice (Oops American, talk down, advise) where not like that try to address an intended audience, lots of things. I agree with you in the general sense.
This blog publishes from many authors, some do not have English as their mother tongue, there is a large age range, educational background, culture. We be a mongrel.
http://www.biographyonline.net/military/douglas-bader.html of whom if you look elsewhere will discover a maverick of a character.
--co-moderator]
I hope I am not being unfair on Jerry. There are problems, including missing resources such as a glossary, we are though very limited in what can be done with the blog.
Adding some pages for various resources is something I need to discuss with Tallbloke, the nature of a blog can change over time; we are approaching 500 articles posted and there are over 16,000 comments.
A snag is where to put pages from an access point of view. This is distinctly tricky, the top menu moves as do the sidebars. Dynamic layout causes accessibility problems, not available anyway.
Tim and Tallbloke,
A new post over at my blog about planetary spin-orbit coupling mechanisms and
changes in the level of solar activity.
http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/planetary-spin-orbit-coupling-model-for.html
I would appreciate it if you could highlight this article – even though its a bit heavy going.
N. I’ll alert Rog to make sure he has seen it.
Rog,
I have put up a graph Photoshop-modifying a graph Goddard did on WUWT for March 18, 2012. What I did was attempt to visually mate the pre-79 sea-ice extent data to the 1979+ satellite data. Goddard had Photoshop-stitched the graph himself, using the numerical values of sea-ice extent as scaled. It is probable that pre-satellite data did not measure the same as satellite data, and it looked to be underestimating both growth and shrinkage.
Merging datasets – as Mann showed us – is awkward, but – if Mann had been honest – it can still be useful, especially when NOT making the comparison leaves you nothing to judge where you are at.
I thought I could add my photo in the big box that shows up when you want to add a new post, and I thought I could write my annotation in there too. I dunno. I did what I could, blind, and then had to write a comment to myself. Poor, poor.
But, hey! I learned how to make and approve a comment.
You might find the graph a moment of interest.
I’m now back in Calgary from Abu Dhabi. I’m working on the relationship between CO2 rise (ppmv/yr) and global carbon emissions (E6 metric tonnes/yr) as I discussed above. I’ll post them and send you the results. Sort of.
(forgot the web address)
About the earthquace in Mexico:
“BE MARCH 20
El Heraldo de Chiapas
March 2, 2012
PEPE GALLEGOS
As part of preparations for the next megasimulacro March 20, state authorities of Civil Protection (CP) performed exercise tests before a cabinet to simulate the response to a contingency situation, an earthquake measuring 7.9 degrees on the scale Richter.
The Institute of Computer practiced evacuation, meeting in a meeting, and revisions in the infrastructure of the building, said the local unit.
He explained that “in the hypothesis of an earthquake of Richter 7.9 °, this exercise was installed immediately the State Emergency Committee, which is made up of members of the three levels of government to the attention of an emergency.”"
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=es&u=http://www.oem.com.mx/elheraldodechiapas/notas/n2451316.htm&ei=tU9pT-mDJYfpsQLT4J2TCQ&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CHkQ7gEwBw&prev=/search?q=mega%2Bsimulacro&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=4fD&sa=X&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&biw=1920&bih=898&tbs=qdr:m&prmd=imvns
Didn’t know if you’d seen where talkshop is now listed under anthonys’ blogroll. Very poor taste on his part.
OMG… get this !! They are getting absolutely desperate !!
Climate Change Skepticism a Sickness That Must be “Treated,” Says Professor
http://www.infowars.com/climate-change-skepticism-a-sickness-that-must-be-treated-says-professor/
Svalgaard et al, and CME frequencies under current discussion
Re: CMEs. More thinking, bit more calculating.
For a CME to hit Earth,
a) CME has to blurch from the sun,
b) Earth has to be in the path.
Twp degree wide sun-eruption, spreading out purely radially, = 2 days orbital time. If double (?) for internal expansion, 4 days orbital time of Earth. Means that width of coronal discharge within a 4 day window of Earth being in the way per 365 days of that particular year.
Data shows 18 – 36 hours of impact moderate to Carrington Event. Shows that THICKNESS of mass is 18 – 36 hours of Earth time AND POSSIBLY the intensity of impact on Earth depends on whether the centre or the edge (which have different thicknesses) is what strickes Earth
Therefore, once a CME blows out, the Earth has 4/365 chances of being in the path to some extent, whether on the edge or not. The transit time is less important in any impact than the time-in-path.
Svalgaard’s paper 2004: events since direct measurement 1950, 8 events. Nitrate markers in ice, 36 in 91 years, including Carrington. Two populations of events: nitrates are recording events not directly measured now, probably a Mannian proxy problem. Still, IF ast 50 years is representative of current solar activities:
8 events in 50 year, or 1 event per 6.25 years that STRIKES Earth, 1 per 2280 days. However, Earth in target period 4/365, if erupts once per year, means that Earth records a strike 365/4 or once per 91 days
years. So a strike each 6.25 years means that an eruption must occur 91/6.25 or 14.6 X per year, or 1 each 25 days.50% faces away from us and is not observable at any given moment. So the number of eruptions that occur must be double that, to 1/12.5 days. If you consider that we see the rims, and therefore more than 50% of the potentially eruptive surface of the sun, perhaps the number is actually closer to 1 per 15 days.
So we evidence of this frequency of CMEs, events potentially recordable on Earth?
This calculation goes to the frequency of Carrington Event CMEs. If, as has been stated, the chances are 1 per 500 years, but in any year we have only a 4 in 365 chance of being in the target window, then a Carrington Event occurs on our visible portion of the sun each 5.0 – 5.5 years.
Have we observed that, but miss our maker most times? (I don’t think so.)
Have I made a basic mistake here: width of CME as portion of Earth orbit, and number of CME events within database (8 between 1950 and 2000)? The population difference recorded period and glacial ice record showing proxy problems?
I’ll do something organized if someone can say that IN PRINCIPLE I am not missing important segments of my pre-frontal cortex here.
Thanks to whomever answers.
[Reply] Doug, I corrected one word for you. Days not years. Have you checked with Svalgaard regarding the visibility issue? He may already have allowed for it.
Roger, I haven’t read all of this myself but this is a must read…. http://jinancaoblog.blogspot.com/, especially on exactly why co2 is actually a coolant and this by someone knowledgeable in thermal analysis & calorimetry. I noticed BrianH was in the commenters there. Very interesting. Many of use have come to that same conclusion but lacked the numbers to back it up… here are some numbers. Makes perfect sense.
Regular CAGW debunking info:
http://www.scirp.org/Journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=9233
Very specific, clear denunciation of CO2.
Re: Glacial ice core data that supports CAGW
While looking for ice-core data on nitrates, identifying Carrington Events. Strangely, I can find no detailed core analysis that goes back more than 561 years – which Svelgaard’s paper uses – though I did find one that seemed to go back to 1120 (Antarctic). Almost all of the detailed analyses only went back 300 years – to the start of the industrial revolution. Specifically focused on this man-as-villain period. There are works of a crude nature, the Gore-on-the-podium stuff – that go back 720,000 years, however, but nothing in the records I could find that has detail of the last 4500 years, which would cover the MWP, the Roman and the Minoan warm period. Seems really odd. Like that period is too touchy to touch.
Re: Carrington Event probabilities
There appears to have been a Carrington Event (1859) in 1192 (The Great Aurora) and (I speculate) ACE 37, when Tiberious sent out the Roman troops to help with huge fires outside Rome that turned out to be (probably red) massive auroras. I figure Tiberious would have known the difference between a Northern Lights display and a bizarre, end of the world aurora. Also strangely, I couldn’t find Chinese data that commented on aurora that would show the 1192 Great Aurora or others. Since they noted many things in detail, including the 1054 Crab Nebula supernova, you would think the records somewhere would reflect massive displays. Odd.
So about a 600 year occurrence of a Carrington Event seems reasonable. That suggests, however, that one should occur every 20 – 40 years, with one seen on this side of the sun (though it misses us) within 60 years or so. But I’m still working on things. All depends of the width of the potent part of the CME: 40 E6km is 15 Earth orbital days, the time-in-window consideration. The shorter the time-in-window, the more often the event must occur for a 1/600 year occurrence.
Interesting picture on WUWT…
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/wpid-imag0223.jpg?w=640
Good to see that Steven Mosher, Leif Svalgaard, and Willis Eschenbach are part of the team…
Not sure if you’d seen this.
Lots of information on temps and volcanism.
I can think of other reasons increased volcanism might cause warming.
http://www.tetontectonics.org/Climate/Ward081217%20AGU%20Poster.pdf
[Reply] Thanks. Interesting graphs. unconvinced about the interpretation though.
I don’t agree with his theory either. My thought is that increased volcanism increases thermal mass and with ATE you break out of an ice age. The periods of decreased volcanism lead to thermal mass slowly decreasing. I’m sure others have had much the same thoughts.
Some real experimental data published March 16, 2012. on effect of back-radiation (DWIR) on various substances, by a real scientist, Nasif Nahle Sabag.
Effects of Back-radiation on Several Solid Surfaces
http://www.biocab.org/Observation_Backradiation.pdf
This is a good read, Rog, which would make an interesting post, I think.
iasoberg.com
January 2005 – Present (7 years 4 months) Bulli NSW Australia – Biwabik Minnesota USA
I am in a partnership with my brother Bill to launch the Iasoberg Model which is being developed by us. The model locates the Allais Effect in, on and near Earth. The Iasoberg Model was developed to locate the Allais Effect. The Allais Effect is a minute unexplained anomaly that has been observed during recent eclipses (over the last 55 years). This influence, in certain scientific circles, is believed to be an undefined component of gravity. The Iasoberg Model connects this influence to severe weather. The Iasoberg Model was developed over the past 30 years.
The model describes the distortion of the gravitational potentials at the barycenter of the Earth/Moon System, resulting in the distortion of the respective gravitational vectors through the surface of the Earth. A computer program was developed to model these distortions. Finally, several graphic and mapping displays were developed to illustrate these distortions on the surface of the earth.
Possible applications of the Iasoberg Model, Forecasting severe weather such as tornado outbreaks, large numbers of daily hail events and severe wind events in regions of the world prone to severe weather activity.
Recommend ed’s work at iasoberg.com
[I have been in contact with Ed for the past three years or more and I have asked him if he wanted to join the conversation here in the talkshop on a couple of occasions.] Richard
tallbloke says: April 15, 2012 at 1:42 pm
M.V.: Well off topic you rascal.
I have no idea when we get the Engage “Bump”…
My guess is about 6 months after transit we get the Release “Bump”?
http://i1222.photobucket.com/albums/dd489/MalagaView/TransitShock.gif
Anyone got any better predictions?
[Reply] Not me, but we’ll have a Venus transit thread soon, so get researching and help me write the intro.
@Malaga View: Do you have a web page where we could find your ideas?
I’m still here. Reading mainly. Gobsmacked and saddened at WUWT’s attitude but I can also understand. Now seeing that you have nicely framed WUWT in your sidebar, in mild response to WUWT’s framing of TT, I think it might be a good idea to do a piece destined for the headbar here, with history of this blog for newcomers – with, of course, fair appreciation of the sterling positives of WUWT as well as its currently strongly showing limitations – and with room for future reconciliation and mutual support again. And that includes appreciation of Willis’ positive side as for instance shown in his recent excellent and enthusiastic deconstructions of Shakun – well, excellent and much-needed IMHO. Mosh too.
Thing is, Rog, you now hold the best blog space for advancing the real science, as I’m sure people here realize – and that is despite the flakies and fluffies and grumblers here, which seems to be an unavoidable downside of real frontier openness to good new science. And of course, the very genius that allows a Scafetta or Nikolov to cut through the dross and advance the science, can also be impatient with dummies and not distinguish the dogmatists from the slowcoaches, especially when, as with Anthony, we have a bit of both. WUWT still IMHO holds the space for undoing current corruption, but no longer for advancing the science.
It would be good to actually explore the human dimension here in a truly scientific way – neutrally, that is. This means psychological awareness and above all, a profound regard for courtesy. Making truly neutral and therefore scientifically valid statements about you, Anthony, Mosh, Willis, Leif, Scafetta, etc would be a real exercise in self-awareness that should stand to benefit all. It seems to me that Science is being belatedly dragged kicking and screaming into a holistic stance, with the empowerment of self-awareness that can eventually bring, through courtesy, the true desired classic scientific neutrality. Nobody is “perfect”. But what now seems to matter a lot for both Science and ourselves is to be able to acknowledge personal imperfections and hold no grudges or guilt but simply move on to whatever is needed next for the good of all.
It is also important to handle the mention of things like “astrology” and “electric universe” and “homeopathy” so that the true scientific attitude of enquiry is maintained and not allowed to lapse into the belief-systems of either naive unevidenced unbalanced acceptance or naive unevidenced unbalanced rejection. Having studied all these at some depth both pro and anti, I know the matter is far more complex and deserves either careful, nuanced, thorough enquiry and statements, or else admission of ignorance and/or partiality (which is equally important). Otherwise a truly scientific enquiry cannot even begin.
Roger,
I was looking at Delingpole’s post of yesterday, 19 April, re Archibald’s temperature projection based on his correlation of New Hampshire temp records with solar cycle length. Archibald postulates a multiple C drop in global temps in the next 30 years. As a far-out hypothesis of the type that isn’t supposed to be on WUWT, it is certainly that. But real?
I have tried to check the likelihood of such a thing, based on historical patterns of temperature changes over the world. I don’t have the capability of doing the graphs other than oild-school, but I know you/your amigos do:
All we have to do is plot a cross-plot of various subsets of the temp record versus the global temp.
First Northern Hemisphere, then United States continuous continental, then North-East Unitied States, then New Hampshire, then North-Central US, i.e. the Michigan to North Dakota area. Then we’d know how much global temperature drops for drops in its subset.
Archibald’s projections are reverse CAGW. They go far beyond the Maunder Minimum, not just the Dalton Minimum. They are somewhat of the Greenland-Iceland drop of 3 – 5C said to have occurred when the Danes abandoned Greenland and Iceland nearly starved to death. But nobody says these things happened globally.
I only have Excell abilities, and don’t know how to get the data in digital format to drop into an Excell. I’ve tried to do it manually, from paper graphs. Which is foolish, a mess and inaccurate.
The response of local areas to rises AND falls on a global level and vice-versa is pertinent to what we as inhabitants of this planet will/might face. If historical records of past relationships don’t count, as we are in “special” times with “special” physics, I suppose anything, even Gore, could be an able forecaster. I doubt it, though. The world is not new, just the level of credence an expensive suit gives you.
Cheers,
Doug
UK Independence Party: No more onshore wind farms petition
http://www.ukip.org/content/latest-news/2651-no-more-onshore-windfarms-petition
Beautifully presented time lapse aurora photography by Ole C. Salomonsen:
http://vimeo.com/40555466
Doug Proctor
Interesting you going to the Gulf to look at the sabkha evaporites. Back in the sixties I was a lab technician working the sabkha samples collected by Doug Shearman and his research team at Imperial College London, when the Gulf was still a Wild Front Ear. Shearman was a personal inspiration and an academic paradigm changer in the understanding of evaporites. He encouraged me to go and look at the most rocks and to go for a geology degree and I did so.
Richard,
Big circles, small world, huh?
I discovered that the gypsum nodules I picked up are carve-able (I’m a rock carver). Translucent white, reasonably hard, possibly going over to anhydrite. The Egyptian “alabaster” I have read was actually white limestone, but my rock carving buddies and shops call alabaster what you and I call gypsum. The translucency makes me wonder if the original “alabaster” wasn’t actually Arabian sabhka, chemically deposited gypsum-anhydrite.
BTW: The timing of the seas going out in the Arabian Gulf, 3750 BP, appears to be the same time that Jennifer Mahoasay (sp?) refers to in her fight with the Australian authorities over the barrier bar system and the water control programme in the Murray-Darling basin. (check her blogsite) The environment is being used there as an excuse for their other business interests. The authorities are claiming that the basin has ALWAYS been the way it is now, for at least the last 7000 years. She is saying that it is a product of the late 1800s/early 1900s.
It is interesting how many groups want to say that today is both special as regard CO2 and also exactly how it has been for thousands of years. It is no wonder that geologists are not regarded well in CAGW stories. Too much history, too many questions about both our specialness and our temporariness.
Tallbloke,
Here is the post that I promised that I believe provides a strong case for
a planetary driving mechanism for the solar sunspot cycle.
http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/why-does-solar-cycle-keep-re.html
I believe that a strong inferential case is provided by the fact that the planetary
cycles naturally produce the Schwabe, Hale, Gleissberg, de Vries, and Hallstatt cycles
which are all observed in the Sun’s Be10 and C14 records.
Archibald predicts the worst expansion of sea ice as well as temperature drops since the Maunder Minimum. In WUWT.
Archibald on WUWT? Archibald isn’t “far out”? He is a catastrophist.
Of course, I like catastrophists. They lead to the best movies. Okay, the most exciting movies.
Re. Lucy and ‘real science’ – I liked Doug’s take on that:
“William James suggests the pure rationalists hold onto theories and models because the calculations provide clean, stable worldviews for them. Rather than admit, as a pragmatist does, that all models are approximations of the world, all pointing to the truth rather than encapsulating the truth, they seize on the ideal as being what we live with. This view of them makes sense of that infamous quote about observations not being very useful in understanding climate changes.”
For every issue there are many perspectives, take that one about ‘global sea levels’, for instance. Many people expect science to deliver them with a tidy figure, preferably backed by the most impressive satellite observations. The possibility that there is ‘no figure’ is incomprehensible, even frightening to them.
Of course we need to produce our best guesses, our assumption-based conclusions. But perleese, let’s not try to keep politics (opinion, prejudices) out of science – that is to peddle a more dangerous illusion.
Martin Cohen says:
April 27, 2012 at 4:06 pm
Martin,
The concept of power used to be, “I can force you to do this, so you must do it.” The concept is now, “I know, while you do not, so you must do it.”
In the Western democracies of the 1st century, authority rides on the assumption of superior knowledge in those at the top, not their ability to use brute force. General education and the internet have eroded this and with it, the claim to power by our “leaders”. This applies to Greenpeace and the WWF as much as to Hansen, the IPCC, Obama in the US, and Gillard in Australia.
If we can stop the ability of the IPCC and its supporters from instituting their economic, social and political agendas, we will have set a precedent for all further attempts at governmental regulation based on orchestrating our agreement. When Tony Blair said that bringing in FOI legislation was the biggest mistake in his career, and said that it hindered “good government”, he meant the ability to act in the determined “best” manner when the electorate would, the facts be known, not agree it was a good, manner, not just the best. The public disapproval would then block whatever the governors wanted to do. If the IPCC, with all its money and political investment, cannot give the politicians the support they need to do what they want, what are they going to do about all the other, smaller things that they want to do but they know we will not agree to if given a voice?
In essence, the Climate Wars are a type of political mutiny. Military mutinies don’t just end the war in a “loss” but they bring down the governments who started the war. That is the threat, as Inhofe has always known it. Discredit CAGW, and you discredit governmental leadership all around the world.
Why, then, with such a risk, did the governments support the IPCC and CAGW? CO2 may be the proximal “cause”, but the desire for social re-engineering, including keeping the 3rd world at a lower level, is the true cause for all of the so-called carbon reduction strategies. The urgent belief that we must change our consumerist behavior is much more important than preventing a couple of degrees of global temperature and its consequential sea-level rise. The threat is to the greater agenda, just as resistance to conscription during a war is resistance to waging the war, not just being conscripted.
Moreover, a defeat for IPCC causes is a defeat by unofficial referendum. It is referendum by free-thinkers like Watts and Roger, facilitated by the internet. No political system wants to rule by referendum. It should come as no surprise that efforts are underway to both censure internet information and silence, by legal threats, those who host sites where “incorrect” opinions are displayed. The opinion of the people is an impediment to most rulings, and here the implications of a societal “no thanks” are severe, indeed.
The current fight about CO2 is truly important. And at this stage,I suggest, its outcome is not yet clear.
Interesting concept, that, Doug – the ‘Climate Mutiny’! And very apt that you should make these wider political points here on a site that the long arm of The Law tried to silence. I agree with you that the task of us ‘little people’ (ie. ordinary people) in challenging the claims of authority, so perfectly encapsulated in the IPCC is subversive and essentially democratic, but the challenge also has to be seen as one that goes further to challenge more generally and more subtly, the claims of ‘scientists’ and ‘experts’ of all kinds.
Of course, expertise is to be respected… when it knows its limits. The remarkable thing about climate scientists, to use the ridiculous new term, is that they seek to be experts across a range of disciplines of which, of course, they cannot possibly know very much about – bar maybe two or three sub-disciplines.And even within their ‘true’ area of expertise, there will others with the same speciality who insist on completely different conclusions and offer competing realities.
One word of caution though, with the ‘Climate Mutiny’ concept. The US never signed up to Kyoto and was not part of the ‘consensus’. I think this reality explains how it was possible that the politics of doubt found some space to survive in.
Within the UK, I think it is fair to say, the dissenting voices were indeed drowned out. We had the BBC formally undertaking to not report ‘climate denial’, and at the time of Copenhagen, I think all the papers had signed up for AGW too. A few academic dissenters were there, but not slowing the bandwagon at all.
What I notice now is how political support has collapsed (along with the economic scheming, be it carbon trading, or wind turbines – or nuclear new build) – yet the climate experts continue to produce their horror scenarios. In a sense, belief in Climate Change has become a dissident creed now!
[Reply] Hey guys, I’ll put up an ‘politics open thread’ so you can discuss this stuff without filling the suggestions page. I’ll start it rolling with Doug’s comment, then Martin can repost his comment there.
Tallbloke,
I have created another blog post about the V-E-J Tidal-Torquing model and
Solar sunspot maxima. If it’s of some interest to your readers you are welcome to cross
post.
I also realize that your readers may be reaching saturation point on this topic
and so, I will understand if decline my offer. In this case, I will try to mention it some of
my posts on your blog site.
http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/v-e-j-tidal-torquing-model-solar-maxima.html
Thanks for your support.
[Reply] And thank you for the hard work you are doing on the JEV relationships. I’ll format this up tonight to post in the morning.
http://hinode.nao.ac.jp/news/120419PressRelease/index_e.shtml
Hinode
Sometimes the IPCC gets it right (accidents do happen)
The IPCC actually thought that sticking with “100% of 1990 emissions” would lead to 390ppm Co2 or so by 2012. But our emissions were 25% higher by 2012, so you’d think atmospheric CO2 would be higher too. But no, in the end result was… accidentally, 390ppm
Technical suggestion: above is today’s JoNova. Good idea about CO2 emissions projections vs current values: the IPCC assumes a certain residence time for CO2, based on very little information. If a 25% (??) increase has not increased actual over estimate, then there is a serious residence time problem.
Gore et al have made serious statements to governments about residence time vis-a-vis how much time is left to “fix” the problem, and what the ppmv will be in 2100 AND the radiative forcing of CO2. HAVE THE CO2 PPMV PREDICTIONS BEEN MODIFIED BY THE DATA OF EMISSIONS AND ATMOSPHERIC CONCENTRATIONS AS MEASURED? DO WE KNOW ACTUALLY KNOW THE RESIDENCE TIME OF CO2 AND HAS THIS BEEN CHANGED FOR AR5?
A simple plot of emissions vs CO2 values should will emissions volume vs CO2 value. The ratio value will be lowest in the first years post 1945 as emissions increased dramatically but little of the new CO2 was leaving the atmosphere. As time went on, the earlier CO2 would be gone while new stuff came in; the curve should flatten. Once the in-out stabilizes, the curve could increase again.
The physical amount of CO2 required to increase concentrations by 2 ppmv is a simple volume problem. The amount is determined by immediate removal vs long-term removal: the earliest ratio of input to required reflects mostly the short-term removal from the air by water absorption, plant action and chemical weathering. Over time the ratio will change as long-term removal of CO2 becomes volumetrically important. The reference or “first period” would be 1945 or thereabouts.
a) Scenario – the change in ratio of input to output between 1945 and 2012 has STABILIZED. The short-term processes are saturated and the long-term is fully functional. The difference in ratio reflects the long term action of atmospheric processes – the actual residence time.
b) Scenario we have a non-stablilized ratio that is increasing, i.e. it takes more emissions to generate the same 2 ppmv rise. Reflects an improving atmospheric removal rate. Residence time is small.
c) Scenario: we have a non-stabilized ratio that is decreasing, i.e. it takes less emissions to generate the same 2 ppmv rise. Reflects a saturation of the atmospheric removal. Residence time is great.
Graphs, anyone?
I have a short (2 pages) write up on “why I think the Steel Greenhouse by Willis Escenbach is wrong. It is in Open Office. How can I submit it? If it matters at all I have a BS in Mechanical Engineering Technology from Lake Superior State University.
http://meteo.academie-medecine.fr/
Doctor society in France who have kept weather records since 1755 ? in french but being used to compare climate models’ ability to predict extreme events.
Has WordPress fixed its sub & sup problem so Latex can be dropped in simple cases? This is just a test to answer this (without the mods needing to modify).
T = { Ls / ( 16 p s r2 ) }1/4
The ‘gun-man’ sceptic who upset climatology researchers at the Australian National University had been subjected to a bizarre ANU experiment to alter sceptics’ minds. See Grossly Graphic Gun-Play in Goulburn
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2012/05/grossly-graphic-gun-play-in-goulburn
I might suggest you might hunt down and fix this error, TalkShop’s RSS feed has not operated for a day or so. Here’s what I coerced out after deleting the subscription all together and tried to re-establish a new feed:
This feed contains code errors.
Go back to the previous page.
More information
An invalid character was found in text content.
Line: 133 Character: 58
I am starting to think that science needs a new approach (–MAY BE HERE– two boxed characters)to understand the red shift. It may have absolutely no bearing on speed or distance, and perhaps it is just the light being diffused through billions of miles of dust and gases, that are variable in pockets and clumps.
[ Talkshop is hosted by WordPress, see top menu Help, nothing we can do. --Tim]
I think that you might be missing a very important paper here:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011JD016598.shtml
Monthly lunar declination extremes’ influence on tropospheric circulation patterns
JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 116, D23121, 5 PP., 2011
Short-term tidal variations occurring every 27.3 days from southern (negative) to northern (positive) maximum lunar declinations (MLDs), and back to southern declination of the moon have been overlooked in weather studies. These short-term MLD variations’ significance is that when lunar declination is greatest, tidal forces operating on the high latitudes of both hemispheres are maximized. We find that such tidal forces deform the high latitude Rossby longwaves. Using the NCEP/NCAR reanalysis data set, we identify that the 27.3 day MLD cycle’s influence on circulation is greatest in the upper troposphere of both hemispheres’ high latitudes. The effect is distinctly regional with high impact over central North America and the British Isles. Through this lunar variation, midlatitude weather forecasting for two-week forecast periods may be significantly improved.
Ian I have had contact with the lead author ^ on the above ^ and will be meeting with him later this month.
Great video. An hour well spent. Scientific knowledge lost for 50 years.
Why does water vapor clump up into clouds, with very high humidity, while right next to the cloud is an area of low humidity? Why does climate science and the IPCC say that clouds are not well understood, but we are confident they play only a small role in climate? How can you be sure something you don’t understand is not important? Could it be that climate science simply assumes that only things that are well understood are important?
Doesn’t the IPCC also say the reason that we know CO2 is driving the climate is that science has not found any other cause to explain the warming 1980-2000. Could it be that we have fundamentally misunderstood the nature of water? It appears we have. Simple water is not so simple.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVBEwn6iWOo
Dear TB: A post needed about this work from I.Velikovsky
http://www.giurfa.com/cosmos_without_gravitation.pdf
What an amazing article from 1946! 1946! Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!
This is one of the empirical anomalies that led me down a similar logic path:
Tom Van Flanden opened my eyes to the first two theoretical problems:
This really is amazing! I have always wondered how they calculated planetary mass.
The following is very much my understanding of Gravity.
However, I would add that once a system like the “Solar System” starts spinning within an isolating electromagnetic sheath then this system has internal momentum that generates centrifugal and centripetal forces i.e. a self-contained vortex.
As adolfogiurfa quotes: “As above so below”.
d) Every particle in the universe must be under a tendency to be pulled apart because of the infinite mass in the universe: it is pulled to all sides by all the matter in space.
Gravity falls off with the square of the distance. The local gravity of a mass holding it together is stronger than the gravity from distant celestial objects trying to pull it apart. So the ‘tendency’ to fly apart is weak compared to the ‘tendency’ to clump together.
8. The area of land in the northern hemisphere of the earth is to the area of land in the southern hemisphere as three is to one. The mean weight of the land is two and three-quarter times heavier than that of water; assuming the depth of the seas in both hemispheres to be equal, the northern hemisphere up to sea level is heavier than the southern hemisphere, if judged by sea and land distribution; the earth masses above sea level are additional heavy loads. But this unequal distribution of masses does not affect the position of the earth, as it does not place the northern hemisphere with its face to the sun. A “dead force” like gravitation could not keep the unequally loaded earth in equilibrium.
The rotation of the Earth will tend to throw the extra mass towards one pole or the other. The centripetal force is greater than gravity. Too much wrong with this paper to publish it, though some of the propositions are interesting.
Interesting article on a Russian paper here “Global warming is over, Russian scientists believe.”
“Thus the number of incoming cosmic dust to us must depend on the relative positions of the planets, explained the scientist. “After all, depending on their location changes the trajectory of comets and their number in the space between the Sun and the orbit of Mars, where the zodiacal dust cloud. Based on these considerations, a change in the concentration of cosmic dust and, therefore, the Earth’s climate must be periodic, similar to those observed in the arrangement of the planets, “- said Stozhkov.”
[mod: Google translated text follows: -
Global warming ends: in the years to come the temperature drop across the planet, although its nature and will be sparing. So the forecast today with a shared corr. Tass, scientists from the Physics Institute of Russian Academy of Sciences / LPI /.
Moreover, according to research conducted by employees of Dolgoprudny Research Station of the Institute together with colleagues from Central and Upper-Air Observatory Hydromet Institute of Nuclear Physics, Moscow State University, the process of global cooling has begun. After a peak in 2005, the year is now the average temperature on Earth has decreased by 0.3 degrees and returned to the level of 1996-1997-second period. By the year 2015, scientists believe, it will fall a further one and a half tenths of a degree, which corresponds to the climate of the early 80-ies. The year 2020 has already make the inhabitants of northern latitudes to remember the harsh winters of 1978 and 1979, years, and in 2040 th year of the planet will begin to "freeze." However, only a relatively high temperature mark for the period from 1880 to 2006-th year. Then we can expect a decrease of temperature of 0.5 degrees Celsius compared with the current measure of "global thermometer".
As it turned out during the research, the cause of climate change is not related to the activities of human civilization in general is ... space. The fact that the Earth's atmosphere is constantly get cosmic dust particles, the scientists explained. According to various observations, the amount of precipitated dust varies from 400 to 1000 tons per day.
In turn, the dust particles are effective condensation nuclei of water vapor. Thus, the more dust enters the earth, the greater the cloud cover of the planet, the more it reflects into space flux of solar radiation. Consequently, the climate becomes colder. It turned out that the warming and cooling periods coincide with periods when our planet is "rolled up" in a particularly dense cloud of interplanetary "dirt."
"The main supplier of this dust - comets - told of the party, Chief Scientific Officer Lebedev Physical Institute, Doctor of Physical Mathematical Sciences Yuriy Stozhkov. - When approaching the Sun at a distance of less than two astronomical units, they shed themselves of the frozen them "coats" of gas and dust and gas form the tails. Then the dust enters the earth's atmosphere, and eventually settles on the surface. "
Thus the number of incoming cosmic dust to us must depend on the relative positions of the planets, explained the scientist. "After all, depending on their location changes the trajectory of comets and their number in the space between the Sun and the orbit of Mars, where the zodiacal dust cloud. Based on these considerations, a change in the concentration of cosmic dust and, therefore, the Earth's climate must be periodic, similar to those observed in the arrangement of the planets, "- said Stozhkov.
To test these assumptions, the researchers compared the frequency of pairs of planets in the location and temporal periodicity of the Earth's global climate change. It turned out that the global temperature data network of meteorological stations and a calculated cosmic dust scientists "traffic" is practically the same. The discrepancy is at most 1-3 per cent. Using the obtained regularities, scientists have made predictions of climate change over the next half century.
Work undertaken - not the first, claiming the periodicity of climate change and, accordingly, the incorrect predictions of global warming, experts say FIAN. One of the confirmations of the calculations of Russian scientists began a study of ice cores extracted from boreholes drilled above Lake Vostok in Antarctica. The longest core length of 3623 m allowed to conclude that changes in temperature over 420,000 years. During this time the Earth was at least four major temperature fluctuations in a big way at 8 degrees! So the upcoming cold spell can be considered gentle. In any case, a century ago, the planet was one degree colder than today. And for a lot of global climate change, say meteorologists.
ITAR-TASS, Alexander Tsyganov
-- Tim]
Link to translation via Google
Hi Tenuc, Interesting stuff!…above
These scientists are saying,
“According to various observations, the amount of precipitated dust varies from 400 to 1000 tons per day.”
This would certainly create a supply of extra cloud condensation nuclei over and above the supply of aerosol generated by Earths’ internal systems.
So now it seems we have Gamma rays from GCRs causing ionisation which starts the process of ccn formation and loads of cosmic dust particles acting as primary aerosol for ccn.
Add to this all the stuff humans do (dust, soot and gasses) to increase the aerosol loading and the extra biological production of aerosol from Co2 enrichment and you must have a recipe for additional cloud formation.
Little wonder aerosol production and dynamics are the biggest area of uncertainty in climate science!
[...] a myste…Ray C on SuggestionsTenuc on Looks like summer at last, 21s…Tenuc on SuggestionsClimatemonitor on Nicola Scafetta: Does the Sun …tallbloke on Nicola Scafetta: Does the Sun [...]
Planetary position effect on short-wave signal quality:
http://www.enterprisemission.com/jnelson1.html
More here on Nelson’s theory from 2004: http://www.eham.net/articles/8828
Rash alert: Don’t back up on that other link if you suffer from nut allergy.
For you to enjoy:
http://solargeometry.com/overview.htm
Does this basically says “Abiotic Oil Found on Mars”
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/mystery-martian-meteorites-organic-stuff-solved-180324038.html
Hello! Maybe some of my papers will fit in Your interests:
February 12, 2012: Stop the irritation of Earth’s interior from space! General science journal, 2012
February 18, 2012: Are mass animal death and anomalous behaviour before earthquakes ca..
March 27, 2012: Troubles in celestial mechanics threaten your life. General science journal, 2012
April 10, 2012: New physics and cosmobiological catastrophes. General science journal, 2012
Actual suggestion:
Looking at Schmidt temperature profile recently, then at sea-level rise JoNova. Going back in time, the error bars widen. Schmidt claims that temperatures highest for last 1000 years. If error bars greater, does the mean/median value not become, in effect, “smoothed”, so that we are comparing different smoothing functions?
This would mean that for 1500 all we could say of a high was that it was MORE THAN the central value, and a low, LESS THAN the central value.
If you look at the error bars, the tops are close to the current values. If a smoothing is happening, and you were to use a 50 year smoothing of the current data, would you not find today’s tempertures quite moderate and more similar to the longterm record mean?
This is a question of statistical handling. I posed this question on RealClimate and, of course, got no response.
Oh: suggestion, if this thought have merit, a post regarding the uncertainty of past values and its effect as a multi-smoothing function to reduce historical ranges of all data types, thus invalidating the claim that today is higher/lower than the past XXXX years.
Tallbloke what do you think of this:
http://iceagenow.info/2012/05/cycles-coming/
Bond event?!!!
[Reply] We don’t know enough to call it. Certainly several cycles are ganging up on us, but we still have no idea what will happen beyond say, the next 30 years.
Interesting post, Tim, but while I agree that we are in for a few decades of cooling, I don’t think we will see ice ages happening again, unless the planetary geography changes.
Conclusion from cited article…
“All of the cycles are coming together.
22yr Hale
179yr barycentric
1450yr Bond
23,000yr precession
25,800yr plane
100,000yr ice age (when all solar-planetary cycles converge as they are now)…”
(To which needs to be added, the cool phase of the 200y de Vries cycle ~2010 to 2100)
My view is that the rapid change to the topography of Atlantic ocean ridge, which triggered the Younger Dryas event, is a game changer. This is because it resulted in a change to the direction of the Gulf Stream, allowing warm water greater access to the Arctic and preventing all-year-round sea ice.
However, I think a cold phase like the Maunder Minimum is certainly a strong possibility and would cause a few headaches for the NH temperate zone farming community, which would have to switch to plants more tolerant of the cooler/shorter growing season. .
The truth about globull warming and record temperatures:
Indianapolis 500 records
Highest Race Temperatures
Races with air temperatures equaling or surpassing 90°F (32°C)
Year Degrees Race Winner Notes
°F °C
1937 92° 33° United States Wilbur Shaw
1953 91° 33° United States Bill Vukovich
With anecdotal, “unofficial” testimony placing air temperature at the track during
the race near or surpassing 100°F / 38°C, potentially the hottest race in history,
with at least one fatality, United States Carl Scarborough, due to heat exhaustion
1919 91° 33° United States Howdy Wilcox
1978 90° 32° United States Al Unser
1977 90° 32° United States A.J. Foyt
Note 96°F / 35°C, claimed for the start of the 2010 race, but subsequent data reviews indicate an inaccurate reporting
Coldest Temperature at Start of Race:
51°F / 11°C, 1992
References
^ National Weather Service archives for Indianapolis, up to 26 May 2012.
“100,000yr ice age (when all solar-planetary cycles converge as they are now)”
I thought the 100k was a major problem.
On looking at the cite there is no evidence I can see, is self referential.