Global Warming in my pants.......
07 September 2009, 09:25 PM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: .........
Posts: 5,968
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Global Warming in my pants.......
......not really, serious for those who care:
http://www.spaceweather.com/swpod200...8vllnds93091q2
SpaceWeather.com -- News and information about meteor showers, solar flares, auroras, and near-Earth asteroids
http://www.spaceweather.com/swpod200...8vllnds93091q2
SpaceWeather.com -- News and information about meteor showers, solar flares, auroras, and near-Earth asteroids
08 September 2009, 11:35 AM
#4
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting to see the effects of solar irradiance confirmed. We have had very few sunspots for a long time now so consequently the magnetic energy radiation from the sun has been very low. They say the next solar maximum should be in 2012 and we are getting pretty close to that in respect to the solar sunspot cycle which is every 11 years from max to min. We should be seeing a high number of sunspots now.
There was a dearth of sunspots in the 1600's to the 1700's for 70 years and that is when we went through a mini ice age. That is when the rivers were freezing over heavily enough to have fairs on the ice in this country. This period was called the "Maunder Minimum". Interesting to look it up!
There were 12 sunspots a few days ago, and they were the first reported for several weeks. Very unusual.
Les
There was a dearth of sunspots in the 1600's to the 1700's for 70 years and that is when we went through a mini ice age. That is when the rivers were freezing over heavily enough to have fairs on the ice in this country. This period was called the "Maunder Minimum". Interesting to look it up!
There were 12 sunspots a few days ago, and they were the first reported for several weeks. Very unusual.
Les
10 September 2009, 11:41 PM
#6
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting to see the effects of solar irradiance confirmed. We have had very few sunspots for a long time now so consequently the magnetic energy radiation from the sun has been very low. They say the next solar maximum should be in 2012 and we are getting pretty close to that in respect to the solar sunspot cycle which is every 11 years from max to min. We should be seeing a high number of sunspots now.
There was a dearth of sunspots in the 1600's to the 1700's for 70 years and that is when we went through a mini ice age. That is when the rivers were freezing over heavily enough to have fairs on the ice in this country. This period was called the "Maunder Minimum". Interesting to look it up!
There were 12 sunspots a few days ago, and they were the first reported for several weeks. Very unusual.
Les
There was a dearth of sunspots in the 1600's to the 1700's for 70 years and that is when we went through a mini ice age. That is when the rivers were freezing over heavily enough to have fairs on the ice in this country. This period was called the "Maunder Minimum". Interesting to look it up!
There were 12 sunspots a few days ago, and they were the first reported for several weeks. Very unusual.
Les
As I understand it, the effect of solar activity has supressed temps in recent years, in other words solar activity goes along way towards explaning and confiming man made global warming theory as temps historically would have been significantly lower when the same lack of activity occured in the past.
11 September 2009, 12:57 PM
#7
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: .........
Posts: 5,968
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So les what does this mean in terms of Global Warming?
As I understand it, the effect of solar activity has supressed temps in recent years, in other words solar activity goes along way towards explaning and confiming man made global warming theory as temps historically would have been significantly lower when the same lack of activity occured in the past.
As I understand it, the effect of solar activity has supressed temps in recent years, in other words solar activity goes along way towards explaning and confiming man made global warming theory as temps historically would have been significantly lower when the same lack of activity occured in the past.
Trending Topics
11 September 2009, 03:03 PM
#8
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So les what does this mean in terms of Global Warming?
As I understand it, the effect of solar activity has supressed temps in recent years, in other words solar activity goes along way towards explaning and confiming man made global warming theory as temps historically would have been significantly lower when the same lack of activity occured in the past.
As I understand it, the effect of solar activity has supressed temps in recent years, in other words solar activity goes along way towards explaning and confiming man made global warming theory as temps historically would have been significantly lower when the same lack of activity occured in the past.
It could well be then, that if we are entering another sunspot minimum now, the earth could become very much colder and they will be advising us to buy bigger cars!
Les
11 September 2009, 06:04 PM
#9
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: .........
Posts: 5,968
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems that the energy which arrives here from the sun which is generated by the sunpots, which are an area of intense magnetic activity on the surface of the sun, does have a positive effect on the Earth's climate. The scientists seem to agree that the sunspot activity does create a warming effect and during that time when there were very few sunspots for some 70 years during the "Maunder Minimum", the earth became much colder and there was a mini "Ice Age".
It could well be then, that if we are entering another sunspot minimum now, the earth could become very much colder and they will be advising us to buy bigger cars!
Les
It could well be then, that if we are entering another sunspot minimum now, the earth could become very much colder and they will be advising us to buy bigger cars!
Les
12 September 2009, 07:09 PM
#10
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: a more anarchic place
Posts: 1,828
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The emperors' new clothes that is MMGWT is falling apart.
All of the propoganda from the Government and other self-interested parties relies on Climate Modelling programs. They are utterly useless but we are still battered with predictions spewed out by these junk projects.
Example:
Radiative forcing is supposed to be the great bogeyman of MMCC, as temperatures rise a feedback loop reduces the amount of outgoing longwave radiation (heat) causing further temperature increases (greenhouse effect).
We are therefore being browbeaten to reduce our 'carbon' output to prevent this.
Trouble is, the data does not stack up against the models' forecasts. The graphic below shows the forecasts from eleven most commonly used climate models, and one which is the data from actual measurements. Can you guess which one is the actual data?
The vertical axis is outgoing LW radiation flux, horizontal is sea surface temperatures (SST)
It would be hilarious in it's ridiculousness if the eleven back-to-front (ie plain WRONG) sets of figures were not the ones being used by the IPCC to support their bonkers advice to Governments all round the world. Think about this next time a politician is on tv telling us all how the clever people at the IPCC say we have to dramatically change our lifestyles to save the planet....
Have a read of the original paper http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/im...dback_erbe.pdf
All of the propoganda from the Government and other self-interested parties relies on Climate Modelling programs. They are utterly useless but we are still battered with predictions spewed out by these junk projects.
Example:
Radiative forcing is supposed to be the great bogeyman of MMCC, as temperatures rise a feedback loop reduces the amount of outgoing longwave radiation (heat) causing further temperature increases (greenhouse effect).
We are therefore being browbeaten to reduce our 'carbon' output to prevent this.
Trouble is, the data does not stack up against the models' forecasts. The graphic below shows the forecasts from eleven most commonly used climate models, and one which is the data from actual measurements. Can you guess which one is the actual data?
The vertical axis is outgoing LW radiation flux, horizontal is sea surface temperatures (SST)
It would be hilarious in it's ridiculousness if the eleven back-to-front (ie plain WRONG) sets of figures were not the ones being used by the IPCC to support their bonkers advice to Governments all round the world. Think about this next time a politician is on tv telling us all how the clever people at the IPCC say we have to dramatically change our lifestyles to save the planet....
Have a read of the original paper http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/im...dback_erbe.pdf
12 September 2009, 07:31 PM
#12
Scooby Regular
Oh, as environmental champion for my department at work, I'm gonna have a field day with the Greenies at work next week.
Yeah, choosing a Subaru drivin' petrol head as an environmental champion seems weird but I like to bring a little balance to meetings as the tree huggers can get a bit over excited, and now they're stuck with me
Good bits of info, cheers
Yeah, choosing a Subaru drivin' petrol head as an environmental champion seems weird but I like to bring a little balance to meetings as the tree huggers can get a bit over excited, and now they're stuck with me
Good bits of info, cheers
12 September 2009, 08:22 PM
#13
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: a more anarchic place
Posts: 1,828
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh, btw, the second graph on this link in the OP http://www.spaceweather.com/swpod200...8vllnds93091q2 is typical of the misinformation spouted by the IPCC and their cohorts.
It shows 'solar irradiance'as basically constant over 50 years therefore temp increases must be down to 'anthropogenic influences'. What they don't tell you is that irradiance is only one of the effects that the sun has on our climate system. Svensmark explains why this is wrong in this extract Svensmark: “global warming stopped and a cooling is beginning” – “enjoy global warming while it lasts” Watts Up With That?
It shows 'solar irradiance'as basically constant over 50 years therefore temp increases must be down to 'anthropogenic influences'. What they don't tell you is that irradiance is only one of the effects that the sun has on our climate system. Svensmark explains why this is wrong in this extract Svensmark: “global warming stopped and a cooling is beginning” – “enjoy global warming while it lasts” Watts Up With That?
13 September 2009, 04:10 AM
#15
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Buckinghamshire
Posts: 2,272
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's all about the taxes:
Good News, There's a Climate Bill -- Bad News, It Stinks | Environment | AlterNet
If you look at the real facts and compare them to past data it's obvious we are simply going through a normal process and in fact have been cooling for a while (which is obvious).
The problem is the alarmists trying to stir people up into a frenzy to push through yet more taxes on the poor and stupid.
Good News, There's a Climate Bill -- Bad News, It Stinks | Environment | AlterNet
If you look at the real facts and compare them to past data it's obvious we are simply going through a normal process and in fact have been cooling for a while (which is obvious).
The problem is the alarmists trying to stir people up into a frenzy to push through yet more taxes on the poor and stupid.
13 September 2009, 09:55 PM
#19
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Buckinghamshire
Posts: 2,272
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
14 September 2009, 08:23 AM
#21
All this climate change nonsense is purely about making money. Its a conspiricy on a global scale which came about due to the Kyoto protocol. I've yet to hear any of the pro-climate change people acknowledge the existence of the Milankovich cycles and its effect on our planet.
Just how increased taxation can have an effect on climate change is beyond belief.
Just how increased taxation can have an effect on climate change is beyond belief.
14 September 2009, 12:23 PM
#23
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All this climate change nonsense is purely about making money. Its a conspiricy on a global scale which came about due to the Kyoto protocol. I've yet to hear any of the pro-climate change people acknowledge the existence of the Milankovich cycles and its effect on our planet.
Just how increased taxation can have an effect on climate change is beyond belief.
Just how increased taxation can have an effect on climate change is beyond belief.
Maybe you can?
14 September 2009, 12:29 PM
#24
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just check out physics 101; Explain how CO2 absorbs, and the re-radiates, energy. List the frequency bandwidths CO2 does this, then study where that "energy" will natrually direct itself. Then examine how many CO2 molecules are in, an assumed evenly mixed column of air, and how many OTHER molecules a photon of "energy" has to pass BEFORE it strikes CO2.
Last edited by Klaatu; 14 September 2009 at 12:31 PM.
14 September 2009, 12:54 PM
#25
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just check out physics 101; Explain how CO2 absorbs, and the re-radiates, energy. List the frequency bandwidths CO2 does this, then study where that "energy" will natrually direct itself. Then examine how many CO2 molecules are in, an assumed evenly mixed column of air, and how many OTHER molecules a photon of "energy" has to pass BEFORE it strikes CO2.
14 September 2009, 12:55 PM
#26
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Buckinghamshire
Posts: 2,272
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just check out physics 101; Explain how CO2 absorbs, and the re-radiates, energy. List the frequency bandwidths CO2 does this, then study where that "energy" will natrually direct itself. Then examine how many CO2 molecules are in, an assumed evenly mixed column of air, and how many OTHER molecules a photon of "energy" has to pass BEFORE it strikes CO2.
14 September 2009, 01:00 PM
#27
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Polar bears are not dieing. Arctic/Antarctic ice is not receding.
Last edited by Klaatu; 14 September 2009 at 01:02 PM.
14 September 2009, 01:03 PM
#28
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No! It's physics, it's real, it's correct, it's NOT Al Gore and IPCC (Thanks Thatcher). When you understand that, the real physics of CO2, IR, absorbtion and re-radiation, you will realise AGW via the burning of fossil fuels, ie, CO2 and only that released by human and human activity, you will realise AGW, as per IPCC and almost all Govn'ts to date, is a hoax.
Polar bears are not dieing. Arctic/Antarctic ice is not receding.
Polar bears are not dieing. Arctic/Antarctic ice is not receding.
14 September 2009, 01:09 PM
#29
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
14 September 2009, 01:14 PM
#30
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: .........
Posts: 5,968
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All this climate change nonsense is purely about making money. Its a conspiricy on a global scale which came about due to the Kyoto protocol. I've yet to hear any of the pro-climate change people acknowledge the existence of the Milankovich cycles and its effect on our planet.
Just how increased taxation can have an effect on climate change is beyond belief.
Just how increased taxation can have an effect on climate change is beyond belief.
