|
PowerSwitch
The UK's Peak Oil Discussion Forum & Community
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
biffvernon
Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 13914
Location: Lincolnshire
|
 Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2011 8:02 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| 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 |
|
 |
biffvernon
Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 13914
Location: Lincolnshire
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2011 9:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 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 |
|
|
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 7064
Location: Newbury, Berkshire
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 18, 2011 2:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 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 |
|
|
biffvernon
Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 13914
Location: Lincolnshire
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 18, 2011 9:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
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 |
|
|
An Inspector Calls
Banned
Joined: 27 Jan 2011
Posts: 965
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
An Inspector Calls
Banned
Joined: 27 Jan 2011
Posts: 965
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 18, 2011 10:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="biffvernonStart 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. |
And then follow Easterbrook (a professor of geology so he knows all about AGW from the rocks):
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/17/easterbrook-on-the-potential-demise-of-sunspots/#more-41821
(Sorry for the WUWT link, but then people are citing sceptical science!) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
biffvernon
Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 13914
Location: Lincolnshire
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
An Inspector Calls
Banned
Joined: 27 Jan 2011
Posts: 965
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 18, 2011 10:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
You mean you don't like what he says.
That's the way to do science; you could probably get a physics A level on just that basis. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RGR
Banned
Joined: 07 Dec 2007
Posts: 2034
Location: Rocky Mountains, USA
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 18, 2011 2:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="An Inspector Calls"]
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: 13914
Location: Lincolnshire
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
An Inspector Calls
Banned
Joined: 27 Jan 2011
Posts: 965
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 18, 2011 3:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
RGR: yes, it's nice to see the historically founded Medieval Warming Period, and The Little Ice Age restored.
I was never sure why the CAGW brigade wanted rid of them. Without them the climate looks so rigidily stable and flat-lined for the last 1,000-2,000 years that the idea of it containing lurking positive feedbacks seems absurd. But it did give them the sensational 'hottest year EVER' headlines, all thanks to Michael Mann at the Hockey Team.
If you want to read how the science/statistics were bent to fit the wishes of climate 'science', (it's not science as I know it) and the views of dissenters supressed, this is a damn good read - at the 'whodunit' level:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/reviews
Andrew Montford (aka Bishop Hill) will be another one of those scientists not approved by the CAGW brigade. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 7064
Location: Newbury, Berkshire
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 18, 2011 4:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| biffvernon wrote: | | 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. |
But the OP papers aren't relying on irradience. Variations in irradience only produce about 0.1 deg C difference over a solar cycle. It's the underlying magnetic effect which has a effect on the solar wind which reduces the earth's shielding against cosmic rays. More cosmic rays produce ions in the atmosphere, which cause cloud formation, which increases the earth's albedo, which reduces temperature by a lot more than 0.1 deg C.
_________________
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 |
|
|
An Inspector Calls
Banned
Joined: 27 Jan 2011
Posts: 965
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 18, 2011 4:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
kenneal
Svensmark's theory sounds very plausible, but I don't think the proof is home and dry - yet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RGR
Banned
Joined: 07 Dec 2007
Posts: 2034
Location: Rocky Mountains, USA
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 18, 2011 11:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="An Inspector Calls"]
Last edited by RGR on Fri Aug 12, 2011 6:09 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
biffvernon
Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 13914
Location: Lincolnshire
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 19, 2011 8:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kenneal wrote: | | lot more than 0.1 deg C. |
What, like 0.3 degrees? Debating AGW is utterly non-constructive. The deniers will never change their position as a result of rationalism because that is not what brought them to their position.
Someone might succeed with non-rational argument but I'm not very good at that so I'll leave it to others. I know a bloke who is a god-believer who makes a good case for AGW within his own paradigm. It doesn't involve much science so may be a worthwhile enterprise under the circumstances.
_________________
http://www.transitiontownlouth.org.uk |
|
| 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
