|
PowerSwitch
The UK's Peak Oil Discussion Forum & Community
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
biffvernon
Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 13916
Location: Lincolnshire
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
An Inspector Calls
Banned
Joined: 27 Jan 2011
Posts: 965
|
 Posted: Thu Jun 16, 2011 8:03 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| biffvernon wrote: |
Of course none of them said we were heading for an ice age though |
He said, hopefully . . . |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
snow hope
Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 3772
Location: Belfast, N Ireland
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 16, 2011 11:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| biffvernon wrote: | | Anybody who predicts anything based on Sunspots will probably be proved wrong. |
And why or on what basis do you predict that statement Biff?
_________________
The economic expansion was driven by financial capital as banks lent more than they had on deposit, confident that Tomorrow’s Economic Growth was collateral for To-day’s Debt. Dr. Colin Campbell.
And that was the fatal mistake. Me |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RGR
Banned
Joined: 07 Dec 2007
Posts: 2034
Location: Rocky Mountains, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2011 1:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="snow hope"
Last edited by RGR on Fri Aug 12, 2011 6:07 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 7072
Location: Newbury, Berkshire
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2011 5:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| biffvernon wrote: | Another inconvenient truth is that we know a great deal about the effect of greenhouse gases on planet Earth but we know very little about Sunspots.
Anybody who predicts anything based on Sunspots will probably be proved wrong. |
It isn't the sunspots or the number of them, Biff, it's the length of the cycle that makes the difference. This correlates very well with historic temperature changes. That is not to say that CO2 doesn't have an effect on the climate as well. It is well acknowledged that solar effects start off the great climate cycles and they are carried on by increases in CO2 and other feedback mechanisms.
We are going into a period of very low solar activity in the next thirty years, as evidenced by the papers in the OP, which could be of the same level as the Maunder Minimum so it will be interesting to see what level of temperature change the world experiences. How that will be divided up between the solar effect, the CO2 effect and the industrial pollution effect from the Chinese burning about 50% of the world's coal in filthy power stations will be a matter for science at the time.
Meanwhile, we should all, in the UK, be planning for less fossil fuel use simply because it is going to get very expensive and we, as a nation, won't be able to afford it. So lets stop squabbling and get out there and insulate everything that we can, while we can because that way we will be affordably warm or cool whatever happens with the weather.
_________________
BLOG
It is very, very, very serious indeed. This is the big one!" Professor Tim Lang, APPGOPO, 25/03/08. And he was talking about food, not oil or the economy! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RGR
Banned
Joined: 07 Dec 2007
Posts: 2034
Location: Rocky Mountains, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2011 5:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="kenneal"] S
Last edited by RGR on Fri Aug 12, 2011 6:08 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
biffvernon
Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 13916
Location: Lincolnshire
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2011 7:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| snow hope wrote: | | biffvernon wrote: | | Anybody who predicts anything based on Sunspots will probably be proved wrong. |
And why or on what basis do you predict that statement Biff? |
Our understanding of what Sunspots are, what causes them and what can be inferred from their appearance and non-appearance is rather limited.
There is a well known 11 year cycle, but it is approximate and irregular and the peaks are variable.
Start learning (of course) at Wikipedia, which says | Quote: | | Nasa's 2006 prediction. At 2010/2011, the sunspot count was expected to be at its maximum, but in reality in 2010 it was still at its minimum. |
Contrasting with our understanding of solar behaviour, we know a great deal about the effects of greenhouse gases on the earth and we are confident that the AGW will dominate any likely changes in solar radiance.
_________________
http://www.transitiontownlouth.org.uk |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
biffvernon
Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 13916
Location: Lincolnshire
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2011 7:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kenneal wrote: |
We are going into a period of very low solar activity in the next thirty years, as evidenced by the papers in the OP. |
We just don't know enough to make that a prediction weighty enough to act upon. It's a hypothesis which will be tested over the next thirty years.
The probability of its success is nearer to 50% whereas the probability of AGW being correct is close enough to 100% as makes no difference.
_________________
http://www.transitiontownlouth.org.uk |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caspian
Joined: 04 Jan 2006
Posts: 681
Location: Carmarthenshire
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2011 9:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| biffvernon wrote: | | Basically, the deniers are found amongst the petroleum geologists, those whose salary depends on burning oil, while other geologists know that AGW is real. |
Bit of a sweeping statement that. I used to be a research geophysicist studying rock physics and I'm no denialist. My university department specialised in sedimentology and we had a few petroleum geologists, but I never heard anyone spouting AGW denialist stuff. Perhaps the oilies in the field are more prone to it, but then they're unlikely to be at the cutting edge of climate science. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
An Inspector Calls
Banned
Joined: 27 Jan 2011
Posts: 965
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2011 9:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| biffvernon wrote: | | the probability of AGW being correct is close enough to 100% as makes no difference. |
A meaningless statement. Very few people completely deny the link between increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere and global warming.
But, I seem to recall that there's a huge variation in the predicted magnitude of that warming as related to CO2 concentrations - even though the system, as you claim, is well understood!
And now it seems, people are suggesting that sun activity might also have an effect - something the 'denier' camp has been saying for some time.
What with this and shale gas, there's some amusing consolation for the problem that the 70s are back and the ice age cometh.
Dust off your copies of Hoyle's Ice |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pepperman
Joined: 10 Oct 2010
Posts: 444
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2011 1:15 pm Post subject: Re: Earth facing a mini-Ice Age 'within ten years' |
|
|
| RGR wrote: | | Lord Beria3 wrote: |
Global cooling, not global warming is the thing to worry about! |
It's like the 70's all over again!
The good news for the scientists who study the sun is that the earths overall temperature appears to be correlated much better to solar radiance than it is CO2. Damn pesky scientists, using data and stuff!
Hoyt, D. V., and K.H. Schatten, 1997, The Role of the Sun in Climate Change: Oxford University Press, New York, 279 p. , withCO2 overlay from Keeling, C.D., and T.P. Whorf. 1996. |
A rather more up to date graph demonstrates that the irradiance temperature correlation is rubbish:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 7072
Location: Newbury, Berkshire
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2011 1:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The paper I quoted doesn't relate irradience to temperature it relates solar activity and sunspot cycle length, which is related to the magnetic strength of the sun. The irradience only makes a difference of 0.1degC over a solar cycle but it is thought that the sun's magnetic strength varies a lot and has an effect of the amount of cosmic rays from the rest of the universe which get through the earth's shield. If more cosmic rays are allowed through they cause more cloud which then increase the earth's albedo.
Landschiedt has related the movement of the planets to the rotation of the sun about its centre and about the centre of the solar system. This has a effect on the sun's magnetism. As the movement of the planets can be plotted accurately in advance he has produced a plot to beyond 2200 and has predicted cold events for 2030 and 2200. The plot is also backcast and ties in with all the precoius hot and cold events in recorded history. These also correlate with the Glassberg solar cycles.
The cold period has been predicted by three different methods as referenced in the OP and independently by Landschiedt who, incidentally died in 2004. They do not mean that CO2 driven AGW does not exist but, as Biff said, we will find out over the next 30 years. The solar system will be conducting the largest experiment that has ever been undertaken right before our very eyes. Whether or not we will have the intelligence to learn from it is debatable.
We should be using this new research to encourage government to increase the insulation standards of our building stock as this will help with the CO2 based warming as well. Squabbling over who is 100% right or wrong is akin to fiddling while Rome burns.
_________________
BLOG
It is very, very, very serious indeed. This is the big one!" Professor Tim Lang, APPGOPO, 25/03/08. And he was talking about food, not oil or the economy! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
snow hope
Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 3772
Location: Belfast, N Ireland
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2011 4:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| biffvernon wrote: | | [the probability of AGW being correct is close enough to 100% as makes no difference. |
In your opinion!
It would be nice if you were gracious enough to accept that you may not be (100%) right about everything....
_________________
The economic expansion was driven by financial capital as banks lent more than they had on deposit, confident that Tomorrow’s Economic Growth was collateral for To-day’s Debt. Dr. Colin Campbell.
And that was the fatal mistake. Me |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
goslow
Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Posts: 705
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2011 5:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kenneal wrote: | | Landschiedt has related the movement of the planets to the rotation of the sun about its centre and about the centre of the solar system. |
wow. Astrology is true! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 7072
Location: Newbury, Berkshire
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2011 6:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The movement of the massive (man) outer planets around the sun exerts a pull on the sun, due to their gravity, which pulls the sun off the centre of the solar system. This pull varies as the planets alignment varies - sometimes they line up and exert a high gravitational pull, mostly they don't line up so their pull is less. This pull, together with the rotation of the sun, has a dynamo effect on the sun and alters the strength of the sun's magnetic field. This variation accounts for the differences in the sun's output.
If you think that's Astrology, that's up to you!
_________________
BLOG
It is very, very, very serious indeed. This is the big one!" Professor Tim Lang, APPGOPO, 25/03/08. And he was talking about food, not oil or the economy! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
