+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast
Posts 11 to 20 of 46
  1. #11

    Fingers like lightning

    KimberleyChris has no reputation

    KimberleyChris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Cumbria
    Posts
    630
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AtW View Post
    I thought this thread was about closure of Page 3 in the Sun - tit for tat move by Murdock haters
    No, at the top it says;

    "Sun going into hibernation Interesting stuff looks like sunspots will disappear completely in the next solar cycle"

    Christ almighty.....

  2. #12

    Contractor Among Contractors

    pjclarke is good enough for Jehovah!


    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,433
    Thanks (Given)
    2
    Thanks (Received)
    8
    Likes (Given)
    15
    Likes (Received)
    43

    Default

    So extrapolating the trend in global warming is illegitimate, however extrapolating the (short) negative trend in sunspot magnetism is OK? Got that.

    The solar minimum forcing is thus about 0.15 W/m2 relative to the mean solar forcing. For comparison, the human-made GHG climate forcing is now increasing at a rate of about 0.3 W/m2 per decade (Hansen & Sato 2004). If the sun were to remain "stuck" in its present minimum for several decades, as has been suggested (e.g., Independent story) in analogy to the solar Maunder Minimum of the seventeenth century, that negative forcing would be balanced by a 5-year increase of GHGs. Thus, in the current era of rapidly increasing GHGs, such solar variations cannot have a substantial impact on long-term global warming trends.
    NASA

    GHGs laugh at your puny solar variations .....
    The Pygmy Shrew of Wall St.

  3. #13

    Godlike

    BlasterBates is a permanent contractor

    BlasterBates's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Climate Research Unit in East Anglia
    Posts
    7,344
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    29
    Likes (Given)
    9
    Likes (Received)
    74

    Default

    Yes that puny little star in the centre of the Solar System. quite ridiculous to assume it could have any effect really.
    Author of the bestselling book "The oceans will boil"

  4. #14

    Double Godlike!

    Spacecadet is good enough for Jehovah!

    Spacecadet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Jupiter
    Posts
    12,413
    Thanks (Given)
    13
    Thanks (Received)
    14
    Likes (Given)
    16
    Likes (Received)
    46

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlasterBates View Post
    Yes that puny little star in the centre of the Solar System. quite ridiculous to assume it could have any effect really.
    all the sun does is indicate day time / night time

    hopefully it never goes out of sync
    Coffee's for closers

  5. #15

    Fingers like lightning

    KimberleyChris has no reputation

    KimberleyChris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Cumbria
    Posts
    630
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0

    Default

    It's only a few weeks ago that I read another 'eminent' document stating that the current 'pause' in global warming was a short term blip, to be ignored and not be taken as evidence when quoted by sceptics.

    Seems that they are hedging their bets in all directions.

    It used to be called 'global warming' then, when it stopped warming, it became 'climate change'

    Then it was nothing to do with the sun at all, now we hear 'solar minimum forcing'.

    First CO2 was going to roast us all alive, now it is just going to reduce the effects of a possible 'mini ice age'.

    Two things are certain:
    1. Time will tell.
    2. The chances of any substance being responsible for global warming appear to be in direct proportion to how easily taxable it is, and doubled if it is produced by a multi-national (particularly American) company.
    Last edited by KimberleyChris; 26th January 2012 at 16:59.

  6. #16

    katyperryfan

    MarillionFan has more data than eek

    MarillionFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    .
    Posts
    29,999
    Thanks (Given)
    14
    Thanks (Received)
    66
    Likes (Given)
    55
    Likes (Received)
    290

    Default

    Just the beginning.

    December 21, 2012 is the end.
    What happens in General, stays in General.
    You know what they say about assumptions!

  7. #17

    Contractor Among Contractors

    pjclarke is good enough for Jehovah!


    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,433
    Thanks (Given)
    2
    Thanks (Received)
    8
    Likes (Given)
    15
    Likes (Received)
    43

    Default Must try harder.

    It used to be called 'global warming' then, when it stopped warming, it became 'climate change'
    Uh-huh. Care to have a guess what the 'CC' in 'IPCC' , formed in 1988, stands for? See Also.

    Then it was nothing to do with the sun at all, now we hear 'solar minimum forcing'.
    Nope. That just refers to the the minimum of the 11-year solar cycle.

    First CO2 was going to roast us all alive, now it is just going to reduce the effects of a possible 'mini ice age'.
    Nobody credible is talking of a mini ice age. Just the usual denier websites.

    The chances of any substance being responsible for global warming appear to be in direct proportion to how easily taxable it is, and doubled if it is produced by a multi-national (particularly American) company.
    The greenhouse effect is based on physics going back to Tyndall, and the first qauntified (remarkably accurately) by Svante Arrhenius in 1896. While the US has the greatest responsibility for the greenhouse gases already swimming around up there, China is now the largest emitter....

    Apart from those nitpicks, not a bad first effort.
    Last edited by pjclarke; 26th January 2012 at 18:44.
    The Pygmy Shrew of Wall St.

  8. #18

    Fingers like lightning

    KimberleyChris has no reputation

    KimberleyChris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Cumbria
    Posts
    630
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0

    Default

    "Nope. That just refers to the the minimum of the 11-year solar cycle".

    Read the NASA article that you yourself linked to.

    It is clearly talking about solar luminosity and heat output. As you know.sunspots are largely irrelevant to the climate change conversation.

    "Nobody credible is talking of a mini ice age. Just the usual denier websites".

    The very same NASA website is analogising the possible effects to the Maunder Minimum...otherwise known as the Little Ice Age.
    Last edited by KimberleyChris; 26th January 2012 at 19:06.

  9. #19

    Contractor Among Contractors

    pjclarke is good enough for Jehovah!


    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,433
    Thanks (Given)
    2
    Thanks (Received)
    8
    Likes (Given)
    15
    Likes (Received)
    43

    Default

    Solar Variability

    The sun is another source of natural global temperature variability. Figure 3, based on an analysis of satellite measurements by Richard Willson, shows that 2007 is at the minimum of the current 10-11 year solar cycle. Another analysis of the satellite data (not illustrated here) by Judith Lean has the 2007 solar irradiance minimum slightly lower than the two prior minima in the satellite era. The differences between the two analyses are a result primarily of the lack of accurate absolute calibrations and inadequate overlap of measurements by successive satellites.

    This cyclic solar variability yields a climate forcing change of about 0.3 W/m2 between solar maxima and solar minima. (Although solar irradiance of an area perpendicular to the solar beam is about 1366 W/m2, the absorption of solar energy averaged over day and night and the Earth's surface is about 240 W/m2.) Several analyses have extracted empirical global temperature variations of amplitude about 0.1C associated with the 10-11 year solar cycle, a magnitude consistent with climate model simulations, but this signal is difficult to disentangle from other causes of global temperature change, including unforced chaotic fluctuations
    Your point escapes me. Btw, sunspots are a good proxy for TSI, which some have tried to implicate as a cause of GW.
    The Pygmy Shrew of Wall St.

  10. #20

    Contractor Among Contractors

    pjclarke is good enough for Jehovah!


    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,433
    Thanks (Given)
    2
    Thanks (Received)
    8
    Likes (Given)
    15
    Likes (Received)
    43

    Default

    I meant, of course, that nobody credible was proposing a new Little Ice Age as a plausible outcome.
    Much ado was made over the recent news that the Sun’s magnetic activity may be cooling off over the next few years. Can this mean the Earth itself will literally cool off, slipping into an ice age? Some news sites are reporting it that way (of course, the execrable Daily Mail uses the headline "Earth facing a mini-Ice Age ‘within ten years’ due to rare drop in sunspot activity"; which isn’t even within a glancing blow of reality).

    The answer — spoiler alert! — is almost certainly "no". I want to make sure that’s clear, because I will bet essentially any amount of money that some climate change denial sites will run with this story and claim that we don’t need to worry about global warming. That’s baloney, and what follows is why. The reasons take a minute to explain, but of course that’s where the cool stuff (haha!) is. So let’s take this one step at a time.
    .....

    The very excellent Bad Astronomy.
    The Pygmy Shrew of Wall St.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.