PowerSwitch Main Page
PowerSwitch
The UK's Peak Oil Discussion Forum & Community
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Earth facing a mini-Ice Age 'within ten years'
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> Climate Change
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 7704
Location: Newbury, Berkshire

PostPosted: Fri Jun 17, 2011 5:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
biffvernon



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 15743
Location: Lincolnshire

PostPosted: Fri Jun 17, 2011 7:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
biffvernon



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 15743
Location: Lincolnshire

PostPosted: Fri Jun 17, 2011 7:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
caspian



Joined: 04 Jan 2006
Posts: 680
Location: Carmarthenshire

PostPosted: Fri Jun 17, 2011 9:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
An Inspector Calls
Banned


Joined: 27 Jan 2011
Posts: 961

PostPosted: Fri Jun 17, 2011 9:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
Pepperman



Joined: 10 Oct 2010
Posts: 547

PostPosted: Fri Jun 17, 2011 1:15 pm    Post subject: Re: Earth facing a mini-Ice Age 'within ten years' Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 7704
Location: Newbury, Berkshire

PostPosted: Fri Jun 17, 2011 1:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
snow hope



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 3814
Location: Belfast, N Ireland

PostPosted: Fri Jun 17, 2011 4:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
goslow



Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Posts: 705

PostPosted: Fri Jun 17, 2011 5:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 7704
Location: Newbury, Berkshire

PostPosted: Fri Jun 17, 2011 6:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
biffvernon



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 15743
Location: Lincolnshire

PostPosted: Fri Jun 17, 2011 8:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

snow hope wrote:

It would be nice if you were gracious enough to accept that you may not be (100%) right about everything....

When it come to the obvious truths, the Earth not being flat, AGW being real, apples falling because of gravity and such like, not a chance. Some things one just has to accept and get on with it.
_________________
http://www.transitiontownlouth.org.uk
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
biffvernon



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 15743
Location: Lincolnshire

PostPosted: Fri Jun 17, 2011 9:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Brandon Keim wrote:
News that solar activity might fizzle for a few decades has prompted talk of a new “Little Ice Age,” even a quick fix for global warming. But that’s just not going to happen.

The cooling impact of the last prolonged solar lull “was probably only a couple tenths of a degree Celsius,” said climatologist Michael Mann of Penn State University. “It’s a tiny blip on the radar screen if you’re looking at the driving factors behind climate change.”


http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/06/solar-minimum-climate/

John Cook wrote:
Solar physicists have issued a prediction that the sun may be entering a period of unusually low activity called a grand minimum. This has climate skeptics speculating that solar 'hibernation' may be our get-out-of-jail-free card, cancelling out any global warming from our CO2 emissions. However, peer-reviewed research has examined this very scenario, "On the effect of a new grand minimum of solar activity on the future climate on Earth" (Feulner & Rahmstorf 2010). What they found was even if the sun fell into a grand minimum, global temperature would be diminished by no more than 0.3°C. The sun is not our get-out-of-jail-free card.


http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-would-Solar-Grand-Minimum-affect-global-warming.html
_________________
http://www.transitiontownlouth.org.uk
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 7704
Location: Newbury, Berkshire

PostPosted: Sat Jun 18, 2011 2:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

biffvernon wrote:
snow hope wrote:

It would be nice if you were gracious enough to accept that you may not be (100%) right about everything....

When it come to the obvious truths, the Earth not being flat, AGW being real, apples falling because of gravity and such like, not a chance. Some things one just has to accept and get on with it.


Thank god we don't still have the Inquisition! While I believe in AGW, I don't believe that we have a full grip on the relationship between Solar effects and greenhouse gas effects. The mechanism for the way the sun heats the earth and affects the climate are not fully understood, the mechanisms for the Little Ice Age and the Grand Minima are not understood for instance. The relationship between the sun's magnetism and earth's and cosmic rays and their effects on weather is not understood.

AGW believers keep quoting sunspot numbers as the indicator of the sun's output when solar scientists, in current papers, are talking about the length of the solar cycle. It would seem that whatever governs the length of the solar cycle also has some effect on the number of sunspots and their strength, but we may not be able to observe very weak sunspots so that number may not be correct. There would seem to be a policy of deliberate misunderstanding of the opposing science, on both sides.

To say that the sun has no effect on the temperature of the earth is about as stupid as saying that the the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has no effect of the earth's temperature. With something as serious as this for the survival of the human race and all the present flora and fauna it's about time our scientists stopped squabbling like spoilt children and started working out how they can best work together to discover the mechanisms and relative forcings of all the inputs to our environment.

People on here saying that they utterly and completely believe in the sayings of one scientific bible over another is no different from The Lynesian saying that the Holy Bible is a true history of the world. And look at the way people laugh at him (sorry Lynesian).

AGW is the best guess of scientists in that field at the moment. There are bits of knowledge in other fields that could have an effect on the way that understanding works which are being worked on now. Until those effects are understood more fully might it not be an idea to work on the basis of the currently understood science but tell people that there may be a slight modification of the current prognosis. After all, that way both sides can be seen to be right in the short term and in the longer term we will find out which side is right. In the longer term it will probably turn out that both sides were right, to an extent.
_________________
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
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
biffvernon



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 15743
Location: Lincolnshire

PostPosted: Sat Jun 18, 2011 9:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yeah, 'sunspots' are just a shorthand for solar irradience and the whole gamut of activity which formally couldn't be detected. Instruments can now measure the bright patches on the Sun and are a more direct measure than the optically visible Sunspots that were all we could see tears ago.

And sure there's loads we don't know about the details but that's like saying "I'm not sure about this gravity stuff because science has not been able to determine the direction in which the apple is going to bounce when it hits the orchard grass".

The valid policy decision is to pick the apple before it bruises.
_________________
http://www.transitiontownlouth.org.uk
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
An Inspector Calls
Banned


Joined: 27 Jan 2011
Posts: 961

PostPosted: Sat Jun 18, 2011 10:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I found Gavin Schmidt's view of the subject in 2005 rather amusing:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/07/the-lure-of-solar-forcing/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> Climate Change All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Page 2 of 10

 
Jump to:  
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


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group