If NASA scientists are right, the Thames will be freezing over again.

Discussion in 'Electronic Design' started by amdx, Jan 30, 2012.

  1. amdx

    amdx Guest

    Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years
    Met = UK's National Weather Service

    "The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an
    inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing
    the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.

    The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to
    rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the
    Thames in the 17th Century.

    Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was
    issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of
    East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in
    world temperatures ended in 1997."

    Guess What? There's controversy!

    Read more:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ight-Thames-freezing-again.html#ixzz1kx6soAc2

    Mikek
     
    amdx, Jan 30, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. amdx

    amdx Guest

    Re: If NASA scientists are right, the Thames will be freezing overagain.

    On 1/30/2012 9:45 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
    > On Jan 30, 3:39 pm, amdx<> wrote:
    >> Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years
    >> Met = UK's National Weather Service
    >>
    >> "The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an
    >> inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing
    >> the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.

    >
    > Only true if you choose your 15 years rather carefully. One of the
    > larger cyclic fluctuations in global average temperature is driven by
    > the Atlantic multi-decadal oscillation
    >
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_multidecadal_oscillation
    >
    > As if the Daily Mail were a reliable source of commentary on
    > scientific matters.
    >
    > --
    > Bill Sloman, Nijmegen


    I'm sorry, did YOU reference wikipedia?
    Mikek
     
    amdx, Jan 30, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. John Larkin wrote:
    >
    > Maybe the apparent AGW was itself just a cyclic variation.
    >
    > But the sunspot thing looks serious.
    >
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png
    >
    > The sunspot minima correspond to low temperatures.
    >
    > The "modern maximum" started about 1900.


    One of the early episodes of Nova in the 1970's was all about sunspots.
    Aparently they also correspond to hemlines and Beatlemania.


    --

    Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
    zero, and remove the last word.
     
    Tom Del Rosso, Jan 30, 2012
    #3
  4. amdx

    Martin Brown Guest

    Re: If NASA scientists are right, the Thames will be freezing overagain.

    amdx wrote:
    > On 1/30/2012 9:45 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
    >> On Jan 30, 3:39 pm, amdx<> wrote:
    >>> Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years
    >>> Met = UK's National Weather Service
    >>>
    >>> "The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an
    >>> inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing
    >>> the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.

    >>
    >> Only true if you choose your 15 years rather carefully. One of the
    >> larger cyclic fluctuations in global average temperature is driven by
    >> the Atlantic multi-decadal oscillation
    >>
    >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_multidecadal_oscillation
    >>
    >> As if the Daily Mail were a reliable source of commentary on
    >> scientific matters.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

    >
    > I'm sorry, did YOU reference wikipedia?
    > Mikek


    You might like to note the fact that the Daily Wail has just been
    awarded the 2011 Orwellian Prize for Journalistic Misrepresentation.

    http://deevybee.blogspot.com/2012/01/2011-orwellian-prize-for-journalistic.html

    They score incredibly badly on scientific accuracy. Setting a new all
    time record for printing gibberish with their winning entry in 2011.

    I suggest you go back to the original publication rather than rely on
    their wilfully misleading selective misquoting of the actual research.

    Regards,
    Martin Brown
     
    Martin Brown, Jan 30, 2012
    #4
  5. amdx

    Martin Brown Guest

    Re: If NASA scientists are right, the Thames will be freezing overagain.

    John Larkin wrote:
    > On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:39:26 -0500, "Tom Del Rosso"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> John Larkin wrote:
    >>> Maybe the apparent AGW was itself just a cyclic variation.
    >>>
    >>> But the sunspot thing looks serious.
    >>>
    >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png
    >>>
    >>> The sunspot minima correspond to low temperatures.
    >>>
    >>> The "modern maximum" started about 1900.

    >> One of the early episodes of Nova in the 1970's was all about sunspots.
    >> Aparently they also correspond to hemlines and Beatlemania.

    >
    > Since the sun warms the earth, and sunspots indicate something serious
    > going on with the sun, there's a chance the sunspot-temperature thing
    > is actually causal.


    Sunspots have been visible ever since people first started looking at
    the sky. Naked eye sunspots are recorded by Chinese astronomers.

    A more quantitative index vy Wolf of Zurich goes back nearly 150 years.
    The Hale cycles are fairly well predictable and despite what you may
    read in the rightard press the sun is really quite active at the moment.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/3869753.stm

    http://www.space.com/14387-biggest-solar-flare-2012-radiation-storm.html

    Now is a relatively good time to go aurora watching or buy an H-alpha
    solar prominence telescope. There is plenty to see on the sun.

    Regards,
    Martin Brown
     
    Martin Brown, Jan 30, 2012
    #5
  6. amdx

    Joerg Guest

    Re: If NASA scientists are right, the Thames will be freezing overagain.

    Bill Sloman wrote:
    > On Jan 30, 6:09 pm, John Larkin
    > <> wrote:
    >> On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:39:26 -0500, "Tom Del Rosso"
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> John Larkin wrote:
    >>>> Maybe the apparent AGW was itself just a cyclic variation.
    >>>> But the sunspot thing looks serious.
    >>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png
    >>>> The sunspot minima correspond to low temperatures.
    >>>> The "modern maximum" started about 1900.
    >>> One of the early episodes of Nova in the 1970's was all about sunspots.
    >>> Aparently they also correspond to hemlines and Beatlemania.

    >> Since the sun warms the earth, and sunspots indicate something serious
    >> going on with the sun, there's a chance the sunspot-temperature thing
    >> is actually causal.

    >
    > Sunspots are entirely superficial - confined to the outermost layers
    > of the sun, which is much too cool for nuclear fusion - and their
    > effect on climate is very small.
    >


    ROFL!

    http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap02/sunspots.html

    --
    Regards, Joerg

    http://www.analogconsultants.com/
     
    Joerg, Jan 30, 2012
    #6
  7. amdx

    Joerg Guest

    Re: If NASA scientists are right, the Thames will be freezing overagain.

    Bill Sloman wrote:
    > On Jan 31, 12:54 am, Joerg <> wrote:
    >> BillSlomanwrote:
    >>> On Jan 30, 6:09 pm, John Larkin
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>> On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:39:26 -0500, "Tom Del Rosso"
    >>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>> John Larkin wrote:
    >>>>>> Maybe the apparent AGW was itself just a cyclic variation.
    >>>>>> But the sunspot thing looks serious.
    >>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png
    >>>>>> The sunspot minima correspond to low temperatures.
    >>>>>> The "modern maximum" started about 1900.
    >>>>> One of the early episodes of Nova in the 1970's was all about sunspots.
    >>>>> Aparently they also correspond to hemlines and Beatlemania.
    >>>> Since the sun warms the earth, and sunspots indicate something serious
    >>>> going on with the sun, there's a chance the sunspot-temperature thing
    >>>> is actually causal.
    >>> Sunspots are entirely superficial - confined to the outermost layers
    >>> of the sun, which is much too cool for nuclear fusion - and their
    >>> effect on climate is very small.

    >> ROFL!
    >>
    >> http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap02/sunspots.html

    >
    > O.5C is small, and the variation of +/-0.1% in solar radiance is also
    > small and basically cyclic. There's one entertaining sentence on that
    > web-site "Their results also suggest that the sensitivity of climate
    > to the effects of solar irradiance is about 27% higher than its
    > sensitivity to forcing by greenhouse gases" which is as fine an
    > example of meaningless nonsense as you could hope to find.
    >
    > The effect of a 0.2% chance in solar radiance is about 27% higher than
    > some totally unspecified change in greenhouse gas concentration?
    >
    > English may not be your mother-tongue, but you should be able to spot
    > weasel-wording by now.
    >


    I did, in the climategate emails :)

    --
    Regards, Joerg

    http://www.analogconsultants.com/
     
    Joerg, Jan 31, 2012
    #7
  8. amdx

    Martin Brown Guest

    Re: If NASA scientists are right, the Thames will be freezing overagain.

    John Larkin wrote:
    > On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 15:50:47 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> On Jan 30, 6:09 pm, John Larkin
    >> <> wrote:
    >>> On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:39:26 -0500, "Tom Del Rosso"
    >>>
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> John Larkin wrote:
    >>>>> Maybe the apparent AGW was itself just a cyclic variation.
    >>>>> But the sunspot thing looks serious.
    >>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png
    >>>>> The sunspot minima correspond to low temperatures.
    >>>>> The "modern maximum" started about 1900.
    >>>> One of the early episodes of Nova in the 1970's was all about sunspots.
    >>>> Aparently they also correspond to hemlines and Beatlemania.
    >>> Since the sun warms the earth, and sunspots indicate something serious
    >>> going on with the sun, there's a chance the sunspot-temperature thing
    >>> is actually causal.

    >> Sunspots are entirely superficial - confined to the outermost layers
    >> of the sun,

    >
    > And how do you know that?
    >
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunspot#Physics
    >
    > "Although the details of sunspot generation are still a matter of
    > research, it appears that sunspots are the visible counterparts of
    > magnetic flux tubes in the Sun's convective zone that get "wound up"
    > by differential rotation. If the stress on the tubes reaches a certain
    > limit, they curl up like a rubber band and puncture the Sun's surface.
    > Convection is inhibited at the puncture points; the energy flux from
    > the Sun's interior decreases; and with it surface temperature."


    It takes around a hundred thousand years for a photon from a nuclear
    reaction at the centre of the sun to make it to the surface. Effectively
    a diffusion style random walk in a highly scattering plasma medium.

    Sunspots merely tweak the effective transport properties of the
    relatively shallow uppermost surface layer slightly.
    >
    > Idiot.


    Although it is true that the *sunspots* are cooler than the main
    photosphere there is one crucial point you are missing. The sun on
    average is mostly *brighter* when there are lots sunspots visible as the
    lost output from the spots themselves is more than compensated for by
    the much larger areas of bright faculae that accompany them. An active
    sun is a brighter sun this is not in dispute and is included in all the
    climate models. The effect of the sunspot cycle variation in TSI of 0.1%
    on the global climate is however right at the limits of detection.

    You cannot blame the sun for all the recent warming - the satellite data
    rules out magically making the sun brighter.

    Regards,
    Martin Brown
     
    Martin Brown, Jan 31, 2012
    #8
  9. amdx

    Joerg Guest

    Re: If NASA scientists are right, the Thames will be freezing overagain.

    Bill Sloman wrote:
    > On Jan 31, 3:06 am, Joerg <> wrote:
    >> BillSlomanwrote:
    >>> On Jan 31, 12:54 am, Joerg <> wrote:
    >>>> BillSlomanwrote:
    >>>>> On Jan 30, 6:09 pm, John Larkin
    >>>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>>> On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:39:26 -0500, "Tom Del Rosso"
    >>>>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>>>> John Larkin wrote:
    >>>>>>>> Maybe the apparent AGW was itself just a cyclic variation.
    >>>>>>>> But the sunspot thing looks serious.
    >>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png
    >>>>>>>> The sunspot minima correspond to low temperatures.
    >>>>>>>> The "modern maximum" started about 1900.
    >>>>>>> One of the early episodes of Nova in the 1970's was all about sunspots.
    >>>>>>> Aparently they also correspond to hemlines and Beatlemania.
    >>>>>> Since the sun warms the earth, and sunspots indicate something serious
    >>>>>> going on with the sun, there's a chance the sunspot-temperature thing
    >>>>>> is actually causal.
    >>>>> Sunspots are entirely superficial - confined to the outermost layers
    >>>>> of the sun, which is much too cool for nuclear fusion - and their
    >>>>> effect on climate is very small.
    >>>> ROFL!
    >>>> http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap02/sunspots.html
    >>> O.5C is small, and the variation of +/-0.1% in solar radiance is also
    >>> small and basically cyclic. There's one entertaining sentence on that
    >>> web-site "Their results also suggest that the sensitivity of climate
    >>> to the effects of solar irradiance is about 27% higher than its
    >>> sensitivity to forcing by greenhouse gases" which is as fine an
    >>> example of meaningless nonsense as you could hope to find.
    >>> The effect of a 0.2% chance in solar radiance is about 27% higher than
    >>> some totally unspecified change in greenhouse gas concentration?
    >>> English may not be your mother-tongue, but you should be able to spot
    >>> weasel-wording by now.

    >> I did, in the climategate emails :)

    >
    > There wasn't a lot of weasel wording in the climategate e-mails - the
    > researchers involved were talking privately, and didn't hesitate to
    > call a spade a spade. There was a lot of weasel wording in the
    > commentary on it.
    >
    > I bought and read Fred Pearce's "The Climate Files"
    >
    > http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Files-Battle-Global-Warming/dp/0852652291
    >
    > He exonerates the scientists involved from dishonesty, but is unhappy
    > about the enthusiasm they displayed in getting rid of a denialist
    > editor on a journal that published a really bad paper that was useful
    > to the denialist propaganda machine. What he doesn't seem to realise
    > was that what motivated them was more that the editor had ignored the
    > advice of no less than four referees to not publish what really was a
    > very bad paper, rather than the fact that the paper was useful to
    > denialists - like most British science reporters Fred Pearce was never
    > trained as a scientist nor inculcated with the idea that scientific
    > literature is the basis of all scientific knowledge.
    >


    Bill, this has all been discussed here ad nauseam. You seem to stick to
    your conspiracy theories, and I don't believe them.

    --
    Regards, Joerg

    http://www.analogconsultants.com/
     
    Joerg, Jan 31, 2012
    #9
  10. Joerg <> writes:

    > Bill Sloman wrote:
    >> On Jan 31, 3:06 am, Joerg <> wrote:
    >>> BillSlomanwrote:
    >>>> On Jan 31, 12:54 am, Joerg <> wrote:
    >>>>> BillSlomanwrote:
    >>>>>> On Jan 30, 6:09 pm, John Larkin
    >>>>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>>>> On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:39:26 -0500, "Tom Del Rosso"
    >>>>>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>>>>> John Larkin wrote:
    >>>>>>>>> Maybe the apparent AGW was itself just a cyclic variation.
    >>>>>>>>> But the sunspot thing looks serious.
    >>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png
    >>>>>>>>> The sunspot minima correspond to low temperatures.
    >>>>>>>>> The "modern maximum" started about 1900.
    >>>>>>>> One of the early episodes of Nova in the 1970's was all about sunspots.
    >>>>>>>> Aparently they also correspond to hemlines and Beatlemania.
    >>>>>>> Since the sun warms the earth, and sunspots indicate something serious
    >>>>>>> going on with the sun, there's a chance the sunspot-temperature thing
    >>>>>>> is actually causal.
    >>>>>> Sunspots are entirely superficial - confined to the outermost layers
    >>>>>> of the sun, which is much too cool for nuclear fusion - and their
    >>>>>> effect on climate is very small.
    >>>>> ROFL!
    >>>>> http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap02/sunspots.html
    >>>> O.5C is small, and the variation of +/-0.1% in solar radiance is also
    >>>> small and basically cyclic. There's one entertaining sentence on that
    >>>> web-site "Their results also suggest that the sensitivity of climate
    >>>> to the effects of solar irradiance is about 27% higher than its
    >>>> sensitivity to forcing by greenhouse gases" which is as fine an
    >>>> example of meaningless nonsense as you could hope to find.
    >>>> The effect of a 0.2% chance in solar radiance is about 27% higher than
    >>>> some totally unspecified change in greenhouse gas concentration?
    >>>> English may not be your mother-tongue, but you should be able to spot
    >>>> weasel-wording by now.
    >>> I did, in the climategate emails :)

    >>
    >> There wasn't a lot of weasel wording in the climategate e-mails - the
    >> researchers involved were talking privately, and didn't hesitate to
    >> call a spade a spade. There was a lot of weasel wording in the
    >> commentary on it.
    >>
    >> I bought and read Fred Pearce's "The Climate Files"
    >>
    >> http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Files-Battle-Global-Warming/dp/0852652291
    >>
    >> He exonerates the scientists involved from dishonesty, but is unhappy
    >> about the enthusiasm they displayed in getting rid of a denialist
    >> editor on a journal that published a really bad paper that was useful
    >> to the denialist propaganda machine. What he doesn't seem to realise
    >> was that what motivated them was more that the editor had ignored the
    >> advice of no less than four referees to not publish what really was a
    >> very bad paper, rather than the fact that the paper was useful to
    >> denialists - like most British science reporters Fred Pearce was never
    >> trained as a scientist nor inculcated with the idea that scientific
    >> literature is the basis of all scientific knowledge.
    >>

    >
    > Bill, this has all been discussed here ad nauseam. You seem to stick to
    > your conspiracy theories, and I don't believe them.


    Leaving the merits of the argument aside - a conspiracy theory would be
    where you think all the experts in the field are wrong, suppressing
    evidence and so forth. If this is what you think, then surely it is
    *you* that believes in a conspiracy theory, not Bill?

    E.g., you presumably think the "climategate" scientists were engaged in
    a "conspiracy" to defraud the public or some such?

    --

    John Devereux
     
    John Devereux, Jan 31, 2012
    #10
  11. amdx

    Joerg Guest

    Re: If NASA scientists are right, the Thames will be freezing overagain.

    John Devereux wrote:
    > Joerg <> writes:
    >
    >> Bill Sloman wrote:
    >>> On Jan 31, 3:06 am, Joerg <> wrote:
    >>>> BillSlomanwrote:
    >>>>> On Jan 31, 12:54 am, Joerg <> wrote:
    >>>>>> BillSlomanwrote:
    >>>>>>> On Jan 30, 6:09 pm, John Larkin
    >>>>>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>>>>> On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:39:26 -0500, "Tom Del Rosso"
    >>>>>>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>>>>>> John Larkin wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>> Maybe the apparent AGW was itself just a cyclic variation.
    >>>>>>>>>> But the sunspot thing looks serious.
    >>>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png
    >>>>>>>>>> The sunspot minima correspond to low temperatures.
    >>>>>>>>>> The "modern maximum" started about 1900.
    >>>>>>>>> One of the early episodes of Nova in the 1970's was all about sunspots.
    >>>>>>>>> Aparently they also correspond to hemlines and Beatlemania.
    >>>>>>>> Since the sun warms the earth, and sunspots indicate something serious
    >>>>>>>> going on with the sun, there's a chance the sunspot-temperature thing
    >>>>>>>> is actually causal.
    >>>>>>> Sunspots are entirely superficial - confined to the outermost layers
    >>>>>>> of the sun, which is much too cool for nuclear fusion - and their
    >>>>>>> effect on climate is very small.
    >>>>>> ROFL!
    >>>>>> http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap02/sunspots.html
    >>>>> O.5C is small, and the variation of +/-0.1% in solar radiance is also
    >>>>> small and basically cyclic. There's one entertaining sentence on that
    >>>>> web-site "Their results also suggest that the sensitivity of climate
    >>>>> to the effects of solar irradiance is about 27% higher than its
    >>>>> sensitivity to forcing by greenhouse gases" which is as fine an
    >>>>> example of meaningless nonsense as you could hope to find.
    >>>>> The effect of a 0.2% chance in solar radiance is about 27% higher than
    >>>>> some totally unspecified change in greenhouse gas concentration?
    >>>>> English may not be your mother-tongue, but you should be able to spot
    >>>>> weasel-wording by now.
    >>>> I did, in the climategate emails :)
    >>> There wasn't a lot of weasel wording in the climategate e-mails - the
    >>> researchers involved were talking privately, and didn't hesitate to
    >>> call a spade a spade. There was a lot of weasel wording in the
    >>> commentary on it.
    >>>
    >>> I bought and read Fred Pearce's "The Climate Files"
    >>>
    >>> http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Files-Battle-Global-Warming/dp/0852652291
    >>>
    >>> He exonerates the scientists involved from dishonesty, but is unhappy
    >>> about the enthusiasm they displayed in getting rid of a denialist
    >>> editor on a journal that published a really bad paper that was useful
    >>> to the denialist propaganda machine. What he doesn't seem to realise
    >>> was that what motivated them was more that the editor had ignored the
    >>> advice of no less than four referees to not publish what really was a
    >>> very bad paper, rather than the fact that the paper was useful to
    >>> denialists - like most British science reporters Fred Pearce was never
    >>> trained as a scientist nor inculcated with the idea that scientific
    >>> literature is the basis of all scientific knowledge.
    >>>

    >> Bill, this has all been discussed here ad nauseam. You seem to stick to
    >> your conspiracy theories, and I don't believe them.

    >
    > Leaving the merits of the argument aside - a conspiracy theory would be
    > where you think all the experts in the field are wrong, suppressing
    > evidence and so forth. If this is what you think, then surely it is
    > *you* that believes in a conspiracy theory, not Bill?
    >


    Bill believes everything that opposes his climate panic is sponsored by
    Exxon Mobil. He has put that in writing many times, right here in the
    NG. To me that is like the mother of all conspiracy theories.


    > E.g., you presumably think the "climategate" scientists were engaged in
    > a "conspiracy" to defraud the public or some such?
    >


    No, I just think that some of them were rather dishonest and have
    exhibited ethically questionable behavior. It does not matter whether
    the emails were "believed to be private", it is unbecoming for a
    scientist to write such words and has damaged the credibility of some of
    the scientists beyond repair. This is merely an observation when talking
    to others about climate change.

    --
    Regards, Joerg

    http://www.analogconsultants.com/
     
    Joerg, Jan 31, 2012
    #11
  12. amdx

    Joerg Guest

    Re: If NASA scientists are right, the Thames will be freezing overagain.

    Phil Hobbs wrote:
    > Bill Sloman wrote:
    >> On Jan 31, 3:46 pm, Phil Hobbs
    >> <> wrote:
    >>> Bill Sloman wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On Jan 31, 3:24 am, Phil Hobbs
    >>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>> Phil Hobbs wrote:
    >>>>>> BillSlomanwrote:
    >>>>>>> On Jan 31, 1:13 am, John Larkin <>
    >>>>>>> wrote:
    >>>>>>>> On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 15:50:47 -0800 (PST),BillSloman
    >>>>>>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>>>>>> On Jan 30, 6:09 pm, John Larkin
    >>>>>>>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:39:26 -0500, "Tom Del Rosso"
    >>>>>>>>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>> John Larkin wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe the apparent AGW was itself just a cyclic variation.
    >>>>>>>>>>>> But the sunspot thing looks serious.
    >>>>>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png
    >>>>>>>>>>>> The sunspot minima correspond to low temperatures.
    >>>>>>>>>>>> The "modern maximum" started about 1900.
    >>>>>>>>>>> One of the early episodes of Nova in the 1970's was all about sunspots.
    >>>>>>>>>>> Aparently they also correspond to hemlines and Beatlemania.
    >>>>>>>>>> Since the sun warms the earth, and sunspots indicate something serious
    >>>>>>>>>> going on with the sun, there's a chance the sunspot-temperature thing
    >>>>>>>>>> is actually causal.
    >>>>>>>>> Sunspots are entirely superficial - confined to the outermost layers
    >>>>>>>>> of the sun,
    >>>>>>>> And how do you know that?
    >>>>>>> General knowledge - just because you don't know it doesn't mean that
    >>>>>>> most educated adults are similarly ignorant.
    >>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunspot#Physics
    >>>>>>>> "Although the details of sunspot generation are still a matter of
    >>>>>>>> research, it appears that sunspots are the visible counterparts of
    >>>>>>>> magnetic flux tubes in the Sun's convective zone that get "wound up"
    >>>>>>>> by differential rotation. If the stress on the tubes reaches a certain
    >>>>>>>> limit, they curl up like a rubber band and puncture the Sun's surface.
    >>>>>>>> Convection is inhibited at the puncture points; the energy flux from
    >>>>>>>> the Sun's interior decreases; and with it surface temperature."
    >>>>>>>> Idiot.
    >>>>>>> And how deep do you think that convective zone is?
    >>>>>>> https://nar.ucar.edu/2011/lar/page/sun’s-convection-zone-shed...
    >>>>>>> says that it is roughly the outer 30% of the sun. Roughly 99% of the
    >>>>>>> power generated by nuclear fusion is produced with the inner 24% of
    >>>>>>> sun's radius.
    >>>>>>> The sun-spots don't influence that rate of fusion, just the short term
    >>>>>>> rate of convective transfer of the power generated to the outer
    >>>>>>> radiating layers - a rather slow transfer, since it apparently takes
    >>>>>>> 10 millions year to get the photons from core to surface.
    >>>>>>> I don't happen to be an idiot, and only an ignorant twit like you
    >>>>>>> would be silly enough to make such a fatuous claim based on such
    >>>>>>> totally inadequate evidence - evidence that you obviously don't
    >>>>>>> actually understand.
    >>>>>>> --
    >>>>>>> BillSloman, Nijmegen
    >>>>>> The temperature gradient in the interior of the Sun is very steep near
    >>>>>> the photosphere, because it's only gas pressure that holds up the weight
    >>>>>> of the outer layers. The solar photosphere is very thin--less than 1000
    >>>>>> km--so apparently minor perturbations of the convective transport in and
    >>>>>> below the photosphere can be very important. See e.g.
    >>>>>> http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/Dalsgaard1_density_vs_r.jpg.
    >>>>>> Cheers
    >>>>>> Phil "former astronomer" Hobbs
    >>>>> Sorry, that was density--here's temperature:http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/Dalsgaard1_T_vs_r.jpg
    >>>> It could be very important in terms of short term fluctuations in the
    >>>> "solar constant", but it isn't going to change the average amount of
    >>>> heat coming out over any kind of extended period - the proposition
    >>>> that changes in solar output could explain the ice ages is obvious
    >>>> nonsense.
    >>>> The energy emitted by a Solar flare can amount to 15% of one second's
    >>>> worth of solar output.
    >>>> Stellar flares can be more intense - but they seem to happen on
    >>>> smaller stars with stronger magnetic fields.
    >>> The outer layers of the sun are well stirred. Convection moves at
    >>> almost exactly the speed of sound, which in the solar interior is a
    >>> _big_ number, so you have to worry about the heat capacity of a lot more
    >>> than the photosphere.
    >>>
    >>> The large-scale, time-averaged structure of the Sun is determined by
    >>> hydrodynamic equilibrium, but there are smaller variations on all time
    >>> scales--0.1%-ish since good satellite measurements have been available.
    >>>
    >>> As for "obvious nonsense", that's not very persuasive.

    >> Only if you don't engage your brain. The heat output of the sun is
    >> generated by nuclear fusion in the core - 99% of the energy is
    >> generated within 24% of solar radius from the centre.
    >>
    >> There may be some 100,000 years worth of output proceeding through the
    >> sun at any one time, but it's kind of hard to imagine a mechanism
    >> operating in the convective zone (from 70% of the solar radius out to
    >> the surface) that could change the solar output for long enough to
    >> create an ice age (for which the current cycle time seems to be about
    >> 100,000 years).
    >>
    >>> Those tenth-of-a-percent wobbles were widely considered impossible too, until
    >>> there were measurements to back them up.

    >> "Widely considered" in the absence of precise measurements is scarcely
    >> a scientific opinion. I suspect that if anybody had actually been
    >> asked back then they wouldn't have said that it was impossible, merely
    >> that the weren't any observations that suggested that anything like
    >> that might be going on. Remember that the variation is paradoxical -
    >> the "dark" sunspots that we can see accompany an marginally increased
    >> solar output from the adjacent bright areas which more than compensate
    >> from the reduced radiation from the dark areas.

    >
    > That's pretty amusing--you're way outside your field, Bill, and it
    > shows. You've shot yourself in the foot again.
    >


    It seems by now we should have a staffed position here at s.e.d. ... a
    foot surgeon :)


    > If basing a claim on the excellent agreement between physics-based
    > models and the best available observations isn't scientific, that sort
    > of knocks the pins out from under your climate research friends, even on
    > your showing.
    >
    > Stellar structure calculations based on hydrostatic equilibrium have
    > been made since Kelvin, and with appropriately tweaked values for the
    > solar composition, they model the life cycle of main sequence stars
    > pretty well.
    > Schwarzschild's classic book on stellar structure was published in the
    > 1950s, and we were still using it as a textbook in the 1980s.
    >
    > My stellar structure prof at UBC, Dr. Jason Auman, was one of the first
    > to make a full numerical model of the Sun, back in the early 1960s when
    > that was hard. (Back in the day they used the photosphere to infer the
    > initial composition, and ran the nucleosynthesis model to figure out how
    > it changes with time. Progress has probably been made, but I haven't
    > followed it very closely.) The boundary condition used in the early
    > models was that the photosphere temperature was absolute zero--that
    > perturbed the luminosity calculation only a little.
    >
    > So the previous received wisdom on the constancy of the solar constant
    > wasn't poorly supported at all. It was supported about as well as
    > anything in astronomy, and quite a bit better than anything in
    > climatology. It was just wrong, at least in detail. That's how science
    > advances.
    >


    I guess according to Bill solar activity changes are an invention of
    Exxon Mobil :)

    <snicker>

    --
    Regards, Joerg

    http://www.analogconsultants.com/
     
    Joerg, Jan 31, 2012
    #12
  13. John Larkin wrote:
    >
    > Since the sun warms the earth, and sunspots indicate something serious
    > going on with the sun, there's a chance the sunspot-temperature thing
    > is actually causal.


    Even if it's not the sun, the Earth itself must have lots of mechanisms with
    self-induced oscillation.


    --

    Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
    zero, and remove the last word.
     
    Tom Del Rosso, Jan 31, 2012
    #13
  14. John Larkin wrote:
    >
    > Read his book.


    I would if Amazon had an SED discount.


    --

    Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
    zero, and remove the last word.
     
    Tom Del Rosso, Jan 31, 2012
    #14
  15. amdx

    Martin Brown Guest

    Re: If NASA scientists are right, the Thames will be freezing overagain.

    Phil Hobbs wrote:
    > Bill Sloman wrote:
    >> On Jan 31, 3:46 pm, Phil Hobbs
    >> <> wrote:


    >>> The large-scale, time-averaged structure of the Sun is determined by
    >>> hydrodynamic equilibrium, but there are smaller variations on all time
    >>> scales--0.1%-ish since good satellite measurements have been available.
    >>>
    >>> As for "obvious nonsense", that's not very persuasive.

    >> Only if you don't engage your brain. The heat output of the sun is
    >> generated by nuclear fusion in the core - 99% of the energy is
    >> generated within 24% of solar radius from the centre.
    >>
    >> There may be some 100,000 years worth of output proceeding through the
    >> sun at any one time, but it's kind of hard to imagine a mechanism
    >> operating in the convective zone (from 70% of the solar radius out to
    >> the surface) that could change the solar output for long enough to
    >> create an ice age (for which the current cycle time seems to be about
    >> 100,000 years).
    >>
    >>> Those tenth-of-a-percent wobbles were widely considered impossible too, until
    >>> there were measurements to back them up.

    >> "Widely considered" in the absence of precise measurements is scarcely
    >> a scientific opinion. I suspect that if anybody had actually been
    >> asked back then they wouldn't have said that it was impossible, merely
    >> that the weren't any observations that suggested that anything like
    >> that might be going on. Remember that the variation is paradoxical -
    >> the "dark" sunspots that we can see accompany an marginally increased
    >> solar output from the adjacent bright areas which more than compensate
    >> from the reduced radiation from the dark areas.

    >
    > That's pretty amusing--you're way outside your field, Bill, and it
    > shows. You've shot yourself in the foot again.
    >
    > If basing a claim on the excellent agreement between physics-based
    > models and the best available observations isn't scientific, that sort
    > of knocks the pins out from under your climate research friends, even on
    > your showing.
    >
    > Stellar structure calculations based on hydrostatic equilibrium have
    > been made since Kelvin, and with appropriately tweaked values for the
    > solar composition, they model the life cycle of main sequence stars
    > pretty well.


    Although you should remember here that Kelvin used a model of the sun to
    prove that no known fuel could possibly power the sun over geological
    timescales and so used it as a stick to beat Darwin over the head with.
    Young Earth Creationism was obviously correct - modern historians neatly
    airbrush this out and state that Lord Kelvin anticipated nuclear energy.

    > Schwarzschild's classic book on stellar structure was published in the
    > 1950s, and we were still using it as a textbook in the 1980s.
    >
    > My stellar structure prof at UBC, Dr. Jason Auman, was one of the first
    > to make a full numerical model of the Sun, back in the early 1960s when
    > that was hard. (Back in the day they used the photosphere to infer the
    > initial composition, and ran the nucleosynthesis model to figure out how
    > it changes with time. Progress has probably been made, but I haven't
    > followed it very closely.) The boundary condition used in the early
    > models was that the photosphere temperature was absolute zero--that
    > perturbed the luminosity calculation only a little.
    >
    > So the previous received wisdom on the constancy of the solar constant
    > wasn't poorly supported at all. It was supported about as well as
    > anything in astronomy, and quite a bit better than anything in
    > climatology. It was just wrong, at least in detail. That's how science
    > advances.


    But it was only very slightly wrong. It was historically stated as fact
    that the suns output was constant in Abetti's classic "The Sun" in 1934.

    The solar constant was demonstrably reliable over all of geological time
    as the Earth had liquid water over all of that time so we can put bounds
    on the prevailing equatorial temperature at Earth of >273 and <373.
    Taking todays global average as a nice round 300 that allows you -10% to
    +25% slop in temperature and so using T^4 -35% to +144% in solar flux.
    (in fact you get more slop on the cold side as prehistoric atmospheres
    were CO2/CH4 rich with GHG until plants polluted the planet with oxygen)
    And even if it froze completely with a gradually increasing solar output
    and/or a bit of lucky vulcanism you eventually get back to a goldilocks
    position - not so reversable if you boil the oceans off into atmosphere
    as greenhouse effects then dominate and you end up with Venus.

    It wasn't until computer simulation codes became possible and reliable
    in the mid-60's that the early details of stellar evolution could be
    determined. BTW I thought it was Icko Iben at UIUC who led on this.

    The solar models for the sun gave something like 2.8x10^33 erg/s and
    r=6.6x10^10 cm at zero age main sequence and a current value 3.90x10^33
    erg/s and r=6.94x10^10cm for our sun (astronomy was cgs back then). In
    astronomy and over billions of years that is pretty much a constant
    output with a tiny systematic trend of +40% over 5 billion years.

    It pales into insignificance when you compare it with the +/- 10% annual
    variation of insolation that variations in the Earth's orbital elements
    can produce as orbital eccentricity, perihelion and inclination to the
    ecliptic vary.

    Regards,
    Martin Brown
     
    Martin Brown, Feb 1, 2012
    #15
  16. Bill Sloman wrote:
    >
    > Before you get too enthusiastic about using the Maunder Minimum to
    > explain the Little Ice Age, you may want to read
    >
    > http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/2011GL050168.shtml
    >
    > which explains it in terms of no less than four substantial volcanic
    > eruptions which produced significant and sustained growth in the
    > northern ice cap.


    So how big a factor is the low level of volcanism since Krakatoa?

    BTW, what do you think of Lomborg?


    --

    Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
    zero, and remove the last word.
     
    Tom Del Rosso, Feb 1, 2012
    #16
  17. amdx

    Martin Brown Guest

    Re: If NASA scientists are right, the Thames will be freezing overagain.

    Phil Hobbs wrote:
    > On 02/01/2012 05:29 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
    >> Phil Hobbs wrote:
    >>>
    >>> Stellar structure calculations based on hydrostatic equilibrium have
    >>> been made since Kelvin, and with appropriately tweaked values for the
    >>> solar composition, they model the life cycle of main sequence stars
    >>> pretty well.

    >>
    >> Although you should remember here that Kelvin used a model of the sun to
    >> prove that no known fuel could possibly power the sun over geological
    >> timescales and so used it as a stick to beat Darwin over the head with.
    >> Young Earth Creationism was obviously correct - modern historians neatly
    >> airbrush this out and state that Lord Kelvin anticipated nuclear energy.

    >
    > I hadn't forgotten, I was just talking about hydrostatic equilibrium.
    > And whatever the merits of Darwin's work (his reputation in
    > philosophical circles is not very high just now AIUI), he was personally
    > a bit of a git. (The Geological Society produced a fair number of those
    > round about that time--if you haven't read Martin Rudwick's book, "The
    > Great Devonian Controversy", I highly recommend it. A classic of the
    > history of science, and enormous fun besides.)


    Some of Darwin's supporters were worse and cartoonists had a field day!

    But his basic hypothesis and the observational foundation was sound.

    >>> Schwarzschild's classic book on stellar structure was published in the
    >>> 1950s, and we were still using it as a textbook in the 1980s.
    >>> My stellar structure prof at UBC, Dr. Jason Auman, was one of the first
    >>> to make a full numerical model of the Sun, back in the early 1960s when
    >>> that was hard. (Back in the day they used the photosphere to infer the
    >>> initial composition, and ran the nucleosynthesis model to figure out how
    >>> it changes with time. Progress has probably been made, but I haven't
    >>> followed it very closely.) The boundary condition used in the early
    >>> models was that the photosphere temperature was absolute zero--that
    >>> perturbed the luminosity calculation only a little.
    >>>
    >>> So the previous received wisdom on the constancy of the solar constant
    >>> wasn't poorly supported at all. It was supported about as well as
    >>> anything in astronomy, and quite a bit better than anything in
    >>> climatology. It was just wrong, at least in detail. That's how science
    >>> advances.

    >>
    >> But it was only very slightly wrong. It was historically stated as fact
    >> that the suns output was constant in Abetti's classic "The Sun" in 1934.
    >>
    >> The solar constant was demonstrably reliable over all of geological time
    >> as the Earth had liquid water over all of that time so we can put bounds
    >> on the prevailing equatorial temperature at Earth of >273 and <373.
    >> Taking todays global average as a nice round 300 that allows you -10% to
    >> +25% slop in temperature and so using T^4 -35% to +144% in solar flux.
    >> (in fact you get more slop on the cold side as prehistoric atmospheres
    >> were CO2/CH4 rich with GHG until plants polluted the planet with oxygen)
    >> And even if it froze completely with a gradually increasing solar output
    >> and/or a bit of lucky vulcanism you eventually get back to a goldilocks
    >> position - not so reversable if you boil the oceans off into atmosphere
    >> as greenhouse effects then dominate and you end up with Venus.

    >
    > That's a bit of an overstatement, I think. In broad averages, the
    > hydrostatic solution has to work--there's nothing that's going to change
    > the mass of a proton or the charge on an electron, and the calculation
    > of luminosity on the basis of stellar mass and composition is pretty
    > fundamental stuff. (You can argue about the treatment of metals, but
    > that's a second order effect anyway.) So over timescales comparable or
    > longer than the thermal time constant of the Sun, I entirely agree.


    I'd be wary of claiming universal constancy of output from stars in all
    cases. A proportion of stars are variable and some like Cepheids and RR
    Lyrae have periods that are determined by their absolute luminosity. The
    solution may be OK on average but if it bounces around the equilibrium
    it doesn't have to be constant. They provide excellent standard candles
    for local galaxies now as Henrietta Lovett first observed. For anyone
    interested:

    http://www.astronomynotes.com/ismnotes/s5.htm

    And even when we think we know how they behave there are still minor
    twists and turns.

    http://www.astronomy.com/News-Obser...tandard candle not so standard after all.aspx

    And the sun itself is a bit quirky when you really look up close with
    modern instruments. I can't find the latest but this will do:

    http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/Helioseismology.shtml

    > But the topic came up in regards to things like the Maunder minimum,
    > which was only 300 years ago. That's long compared with the acoustic
    > timescale, but short compared with the thermal time scale. Our
    > satellite data span what, 10% of the time since then? I'm not saying
    > that I have a good mechanism for larger variations, but who knows? Stars
    > do funny things sometimes.


    No disagreement there and on the face of it there is now evidence that
    lack of sunspots and consequent changes in UV output can alter the
    position of the jetstream making Northern Europe colder in winter. Not
    necessarily global cooling but locallised in highly populated areas.

    There is no doubt that an active sun also fluffs up and dumps energy
    into the thermosphere (mainly causing extra drag on satellites) but it
    might also play a very small part in warming the Earth. The pure TSI
    change on its own is too small to explain the periodic variation in
    temperature so some additional feedback must occur on the Earth.

    But the recent warming occurred during a period where there was good
    satellite monitoring of TSI so magic hand waving will not hack it.

    >> It wasn't until computer simulation codes became possible and reliable
    >> in the mid-60's that the early details of stellar evolution could be
    >> determined. BTW I thought it was Icko Iben at UIUC who led on this.

    >
    > Jason got his Ph.D. in 1965, for doing a reasonably complete numerical
    > model of the Sun. I'm sure there were a fair number of people
    > involved--it was one of the pressing problems of the day. I haven't
    > seen his thesis, or read any of the other folks' stuff. I was mostly
    > passing on content from the class. (It was my favourite astronomy
    > class, closely followed by celestial mechanics.)


    I rather liked the idea that more massive stars burn much faster.
    Essentially since a bigger volume inside them met the conditions for
    fusion and the surface area for light to escape from scales as r^2.

    > The measured changes do, I agree, but the very short data set we have
    > available doesn't prove that the Maunder minimum wasn't associated with
    > a century or two of lower solar output. Annual variation is too fast
    > and equinoctial procession is too slow to fit. Anyway, that wasn't what
    > I was mostly on about.


    I agree there is a distinct possibility that some of what we see as
    climate change on Earth is due to changes in the sun (roughly about half
    of what has been observed since 1850). Certainly during the Maunder
    minimum there is a real possibility that solar TSI was lower although
    Keeling and Whorf offer another explantion that I personally find more
    appealing - that the tidal influence of the Sun-Moon-Earth system has
    certain key periodicities which seem to be reflected in climate data.

    http://www.pnas.org/content/94/16/8321.abstract

    Whilst I have technical reservations about parts of their analysis
    (notably how they isolated the decadal variation) I think they might be
    onto something. Unfortunately the non-linear coupled oceanic circulation
    model folk are all in vogue to explain this at the moment.
    >
    > Mostly I was subjecting Bill to mild ridicule for saying that it was
    > unscientific to believe stellar models, when he believes climate models,
    > which contain far more in the way of fudge factors and parameter fitting.


    Although they do include adjustable parameters you must know as well as
    I do that in astrophysics it is just the same but you don't get many
    fossil fuel lobbyists complaining about relativistic jets in distant
    galaxies, cold dark matter or dark energy. I find the latter much harder
    to accept since it was discovered long after my involvement. YMMV

    Regards,
    Martin Brown
     
    Martin Brown, Feb 1, 2012
    #17
  18. amdx

    Joerg Guest

    Joerg, Feb 4, 2012
    #18
  19. amdx

    josephkk Guest

    On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 06:31:19 -0800 (PST), wrote:

    >On Tuesday, 31 January 2012 22:19:34 UTC+10, Bill Sloman wrote:
    >> On Jan 31, 8:21 am, wrote:
    >> > Try not to recite your dogma so uncritically.

    >>
    >> It's not dogma - what I'm saying is based on the available scientific
    >> evidence.
    >>
    >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma
    >>
    >> Dogma "is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted, or diverged
    >> from, by the practitioners or believers."
    >>
    >> Scientific evidence is fairly authoritative, but it is regularly
    >> doubted, and disputed, and can be diverged from if you have better
    >> counter-evidence, so it isn't dogma.
    >>
    >> John Larkin's problem is that he treats denialist propaganda, which
    >> purports to doubt and dispute the scientific evidence, as if it was
    >> dogma.

    >
    >
    >"Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, or a particular group or organization[1]."
    >AGW is the established belief for your particular religious group, so much so that you ignore all evidence which conflicts with it and try to pretend you are the only scientific ones. There is no science but your science.
    >Here is an even better definition:
    > a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds (Merriam-Webster)
    >You could learn something from King Canute. People have to be incredibly egotistical and semi-hysterical to believe they can determine the climate.
    >


    Target approved, bomb away.

    ?-)
     
    josephkk, Feb 4, 2012
    #19
  20. On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 14:35:40 -0800, Joerg <>
    wrote:

    >amdx wrote:
    >> Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years
    >> Met = UK's National Weather Service
    >>

    >
    >Some of the rivers are already in the process of freezing over:
    >
    >http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/n/a/2012/02/03/international/i055420S51.DTL
    >
    >[...]



    Cold enough here that watefalls have frozen

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16892848

    Ice skating in the fens in Eastern England and -22C reported in the
    Netherlands.
     
    Raveninghorde, Feb 5, 2012
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Abstract Dissonance

    tranformers again and again

    Abstract Dissonance, Feb 6, 2006, in forum: Electronic Design
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    308
    ehsjr
    Feb 11, 2006
  2. mm

    Car radio goes on, then right off again

    mm, Mar 5, 2008, in forum: Electronic Repair
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    558
  3. Graham Cooper
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    307
    Trevor
    Feb 12, 2013
  4. Ron

    On Again, Off Again Microphone

    Ron, Feb 13, 2013, in forum: Electronic Repair
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    277
    gregz
    Feb 15, 2013
  5. John Doe

    OT How does a bicycle turn right when leaned right?

    John Doe, Aug 18, 2013, in forum: Electronic Design
    Replies:
    17
    Views:
    258
    josephkk
    Aug 24, 2013
Loading...

Share This Page