| Australian Politics Forum | |
|
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl
Member Run Boards >> Environment >> Realists Global Cooling is too real for comfort http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1467198795 Message started by juliar on Jun 29th, 2016 at 9:13pm |
|
|
Title: Realists Global Cooling is too real for comfort Post by juliar on Jun 29th, 2016 at 9:13pm
We are likely headed for a mini ice age. This is FACT and not lying Greenie Global Warming RUBBISH.
The sun has gone blank twice this month. This is what it means news.com.au June 29, 2016 5:16pm The sun at the moment is completely blank. But don’t worry, everything’s going to be all right. YOU may not have noticed but our sun has gone as blank as a cue ball. As in, it’s lost its spots. According to scientists, this unsettling phenomenon is a sign we are heading for a mini ice age. Meteorologist and renowned sun-watcher Paul Dorian raised the alarm in his latest report, which has sparked a mild panic about an impending Game of Thrones-style winter not seen since the 17th century. “For the second time this month, the sun has gone completely blank,” Mr Dorian says. “The blank sun is a sign that the next solar minimum is approaching and there will be an increasing number of spotless days over the next few years. “At first, the blankness will stretch for just a few days at a time, then it’ll continue for weeks at a time, and finally it should last for months at a time when the sunspot cycle reaches its nadir. The next solar minimum phase is expected to take place around 2019 or 2020.” If you’re confused about what a “blank” sun is, below is a picture of what it normally looks like, in all its solar flare-and-blemishes glory. Not blank: Plenty going on here. Picture: NASA Blank: A blemish-free sun indicates decreased solar activity known as a solar minimum. According to NASA, the sun goes through a natural solar cycle approximately every 11 years. The cycle is marked by the increase and decrease of sunspots — visible as dark blemishes on the sun’s surface, or photosphere. The greatest number of sunspots in any given solar cycle is designated as “solar maximum.” The lowest number is “solar minimum”. “During Solar Max, huge sunspots and intense solar flares are a daily occurrence. Auroras appear in Florida. Radiation storms knock out satellites. Radio blackouts frustrate CB radio as well. The last such episode took place in the years around 2000-2001,” the space agency’s website “During solar minimum, the opposite occurs. Solar flares are almost non-existent while whole weeks go by without a single, tiny sunspot to break the monotony of the blank sun. This is what we are experiencing now.” Given that the sun is the main driver of all weather and climate, the sinister-sounding “blankness” to which Mr Dorian refers has some experts predicting a “Maunder Minimum” phase similar to one which began in 1645 and which is referred to as the “Little Ice Age”. The Maunder Minimum, named after solar astronomer Edward Maunder, lasted for a brutal 70 years and was so cold the Thames froze over. A slightly less intense ice age-like period called the Dalton Minimum — after British Meteorologist John Dalton — arrived decades later and lasted from about 1790 to 1830. “If history is any guide, it is safe to say that weak solar activity for a prolonged period of time can have a cooling impact on global temperatures in the troposphere which is the bottommost layer of Earth’s atmosphere — and where we all live,” Mr Dorian says. Mr Dorian’s findings back research by professor Valentina Zharkova of Northumbria University, who warned that a predicted sharp decline in solar activity between 2020 and 2050 was a sign another ice age was coming. “I am absolutely confident in our research,” Prof Zharkova said. “It has good mathematical background and reliable data, which has been handled correctly. In fact, our results can be repeated by any researchers with the similar data available in many solar observatories, so they can derive their own evidence of upcoming Maunder Minimum in solar magnetic field and activity.” A graph showing the top ‘sunspotless’ days since 1849. The peach columns show when relatively brief solar minimums have occurred. In contrast, the ‘Little Ice Age’ of the 17th century coincided with a 70-year solar minimum. And there are other consequences of a sun without spots. Not least for astronauts who face the risk of having their DNA “shattered” by cosmic rays, whose potency surges during periods of solar weakness. According to Mr Dorian, cosmic rays surge into the inner solar system “with relative ease” during periods of solar minimum. “Solar wind decreases and sun’s magnetic field weakens during solar minimums making it easier for cosmic rays to reach the Earth,” he explains. “This is a more dangerous time for astronauts as the increase in potent cosmic rays can easily shatter a strand of human DNA. Also, during years of lower sunspot number, the sun’s extreme ultraviolet radiation (EUV) drops and the Earth’s upper atmosphere cools and contracts. “With sharply lower aerodynamic drag, satellites have less trouble staying in orbit — a good thing. On the other hand, space junk tends to accumulate, making the space around Earth a more dangerous place for astronauts.” The weather is changing so fast that the new extremes being felt around the world might actually threaten human civilisation itself. Welcome to the new terrifying world of global weirding. [url]http://www.couriermail.com.au/technology/science/the-sun-has-gone-blank-twice-this-month-this-is-what-it-means/news-story/d775ecf894ab68415ed |
|
Title: Re: Realists Global Cooling is too real for comfort Post by Pho Huc on Jun 30th, 2016 at 12:47pm
Sigh.
Solar flares dont change the thermal output of the sun. this is a ten year cycle. We dont have an ice age every decade. The scientist in the story never even mentions climate. The story doesnt detail which "expert" draws that conclusion. Because no "expert" would admit to such a childlike comprehension of solardynamics. It does raise a valid point about the effect of solar wind on cosmic radiation. Irrelevent to the climate issue, but at least it pads out the article with some more sciency terms, and lets face it, this article needs all the help it can get! |
|
Title: Re: Realists Global Cooling is too real for comfort Post by lee on Jun 30th, 2016 at 3:55pm Pho Huc wrote on Jun 30th, 2016 at 12:47pm:
You do realise we have other cycles? Have you thought about algebraically adding them? |
|
Title: Re: Realists Global Cooling is too real for comfort Post by The_Barnacle on Jun 30th, 2016 at 9:40pm juliar wrote on Jun 29th, 2016 at 9:13pm:
except that we have a "blank" sun every 11 years sunspot-graph-for-last-60-years_001.png (96 KB | ) |
|
Title: Re: Realists Global Cooling is too real for comfort Post by lee on Jul 1st, 2016 at 6:50pm
'This is the first spotless day of the 24-25 solar minimum. Not a great deal can be read from that. According to Wilson, for cycles 9-14, sunspot minimum followed the first spotless day by about 72 months, having a range of 62-82 months; for cycles 15-21, sunspot minimum followed the first spotless day by about 35 months, having a range of 27-40 months. So we could still be six years from minimum making Solar Cycle 24 about 13 years long. Longer is weaker in the following cycle, and colder.
When the Sun goes blank we still have what the professionals use – the F10.7 flux:' Posted at WattsUpWithThat but have at it and find it elsewhere. |
|
Title: Re: Realists Global Cooling is too real for comfort Post by The_Barnacle on Jul 2nd, 2016 at 10:27am Quote:
Juliar. You know that you are onto a dud when even Whatsupwiththat are distancing themselves from it ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: Realists Global Cooling is too real for comfort Post by Ajax on Jul 2nd, 2016 at 11:07am The_Barnacle wrote on Jul 2nd, 2016 at 10:27am:
The one thing I really hate about warmist and alarmists is their deception has no bounds. Really brain washed individuals. In the past you would have been witch hunters or young Nazis..... :'( https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/28/bbc-real-risk-of-a-maunder-minimum-little-ice-age/ |
|
Title: Re: Realists Global Cooling is too real for comfort Post by The_Barnacle on Jul 2nd, 2016 at 11:55am
What I hate about AGM deniers is their constant misrepresentation and cherry picking.
Thanks for posting the "Whats up with that?" article becaus it shows once and for all how dishonest they are. The headline is BBC - Real risk of a Maunder minimum 'Little Ice Age' This implies that this is an officially endorsed by the BBC. It isn't. Paul Hudson is just a weatherman at the BBC and he is misrepresenting what Professor Mike Lockwood has said. Notice how he never actually quotes him. Here is a REAL BBC article with a REAL Mike Lockwood quote: Quote:
Blatant dishonesty by Whats Up With That |
|
Title: Re: Realists Global Cooling is too real for comfort Post by Ajax on Jul 2nd, 2016 at 12:13pm The_Barnacle wrote on Jul 2nd, 2016 at 11:55am:
Typical warmist destroy the source. Well were in his story does he actually misrepresent Lockwood, I'm all ears, please point it out cause I cant see it. Talking through your pie hole again. You said WUWT are distancing themselves from the maunder minimum, which they are NOT. http://notrickszone.com/2016/06/29/u-turn-scientists-at-pik-potsdam-institute-now-warn-of-a-mini-ice-age/#sthash.7z2uh3EJ.KrBzfWhg.dpbs |
|
Title: Re: Realists Global Cooling is too real for comfort Post by The_Barnacle on Jul 2nd, 2016 at 12:52pm Ajax wrote on Jul 2nd, 2016 at 12:13pm:
No if you had read it carefully you would realise that I'm actually destroying the article. Fraudulently implying that it was a BBC article and then not providing any quotes from the Lockwood to back up their claim. But they know that people like you will fall for it ;D |
|
Title: Re: Realists Global Cooling is too real for comfort Post by Ajax on Jul 2nd, 2016 at 1:03pm The_Barnacle wrote on Jul 2nd, 2016 at 12:52pm:
Technicalities don't get you a get out of free jail card. Its on his blog which is part of the BBC web site. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/entries/6d50a6bd-779a-32d6-bfca-06e4484d6835 |
|
Title: Re: Realists Global Cooling is too real for comfort Post by The_Barnacle on Jul 2nd, 2016 at 1:24pm Ajax wrote on Jul 2nd, 2016 at 1:03pm:
Yes and its from 2013, almost 3 years ago Given 2014 and 2015 were the warmest years on record how much longer are we going to have to wait for this "little ice age" ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: Realists Global Cooling is too real for comfort Post by lee on Jul 2nd, 2016 at 4:52pm The_Barnacle wrote on Jul 2nd, 2016 at 1:24pm:
You still can't get your head around the 1997 temperature which was 3.83ºF higher than 2015, can you? According to NOAA, the warmists Bible. ;) |
|
Title: Re: Realists Global Cooling is too real for comfort Post by The_Barnacle on Jul 3rd, 2016 at 12:00pm lee wrote on Jul 2nd, 2016 at 4:52pm:
Quote:
I've posted this before. What don't you understand about this? |
|
Title: Re: Realists Global Cooling is too real for comfort Post by Chimp_Logic on Jul 3rd, 2016 at 4:10pm
Well, well, well....look what we've got here
If it isn't big bad lee spreading his deceptions and delusional hatred for the future wellbeing of the world's children. I leave for 5 minutes and some things just never change. lee's hatred reverberates across this forum like a putrid foul stenching fume acridly corroding the decent folk of this once fine establishment. It is not enough for lee to merely protect the elite, the corporate welfare scavengers, the privatised unaccountable banksters and merchant vultures - Oh no ladies and gentlemen, this can never be enough for lee - he must incinerate the carcasses of future generations of children with his fossil fuel combustion neurosis and hatred of renewable energy options and clean living. Well done lee, well smacking done mate SmokingMonkey.gif (137 KB | ) |
|
Title: Re: Realists Global Cooling is too real for comfort Post by Ajax on Jul 3rd, 2016 at 4:33pm Chimp_Logic wrote on Jul 3rd, 2016 at 4:10pm:
Welcome back hairy arse did you finish your prognosticated prophecies..??? And now you have returned to grace us all with your garrulous commentary. You hairy ignoramus schmuck............. ;D |
|
Title: Re: Realists Global Cooling is too real for comfort Post by lee on Jul 3rd, 2016 at 6:21pm The_Barnacle wrote on Jul 3rd, 2016 at 12:00pm:
What don't you get about the Jones et al 1999 paper being expressed in anomalies? The anomalies are the difference between the baseline temperature and each particular year. In this case 1997. It is the anomalies that have varied. The 62.45ºF is not an anomaly measurement but an absolute temperature. Just like the 1.62º + 57.0ºF = 58.62ºF is the absolute temperature in the 2015 annual temperature. You do understand that 58.62 is cooler than 1997. don't you? |
|
Title: Re: Realists Global Cooling is too real for comfort Post by Chimp_Logic on Jul 4th, 2016 at 6:05pm Ajax wrote on Jul 3rd, 2016 at 4:33pm:
I see that the Great Supreme Batman is still expelling wit, drama and satire well done Wayne well done mate - keep up the great work I know I, like everybody else in the known universe are taking notes. you should be very proud of your illness and descent into nothingness |
|
Title: Re: Realists Global Cooling is too real for comfort Post by Ajax on Jul 4th, 2016 at 6:20pm Chimp_Logic wrote on Jul 4th, 2016 at 6:05pm:
shut up hairy arse........ :-X |
|
Title: Re: Realists Global Cooling is too real for comfort Post by The_Barnacle on Jul 5th, 2016 at 10:06pm lee wrote on Jul 3rd, 2016 at 6:21pm:
No it was the baseline that varied |
|
Title: Re: Realists Global Cooling is too real for comfort Post by lee on Jul 6th, 2016 at 12:10pm The_Barnacle wrote on Jul 5th, 2016 at 10:06pm:
No. You change a baseline and that changes the anomaly. If the baseline is higher that will reduce the anomaly, if lower it will increase the anomaly. It still doesn't change the absolute temperature. |
|
Title: Re: Realists Global Cooling is too real for comfort Post by Chimp_Logic on Jul 6th, 2016 at 1:06pm lee wrote on Jul 2nd, 2016 at 4:52pm:
Why are you comparing temperatures for two years that you have personally plucked out of the data set? Apologise and self ban |
|
Title: Re: Realists Global Cooling is too real for comfort Post by Chimp_Logic on Jul 6th, 2016 at 1:16pm Ajax wrote on Jul 4th, 2016 at 6:20pm:
You really hurt my feelings Mr Wayne. I will need to self ban for 37 seconds so that I can emotionally recompose myself and psychologically recover from this obscene and vicious personal attack. In the meantime work on your first draft of your written apology. PS I have gathered together some of the good folk of this fine establishment who will collect donations for a fund. A fund that will assist with your medical and psychiatric expenses as well as the follow up cranial surgery and drug treatments. It's the least that we can do to help you recover mate. Well done Batman, well done mate :( :( :( :( :( |
|
Title: Re: Realists Global Cooling is too real for comfort Post by lee on Jul 6th, 2016 at 1:48pm Chimp_Logic wrote on Jul 6th, 2016 at 1:06pm:
Because they are part of the historical record. |
|
Title: Re: Realists Global Cooling is too real for comfort Post by Chimp_Logic on Jul 6th, 2016 at 2:52pm lee wrote on Jul 6th, 2016 at 1:48pm:
So this statistical technique of yours of plucking individual annual average temperatures for specific years and erecting them on huge flag poles for comparison is supposed to impress the good folk of this fine establishment? What sort of trend line can you superimpose upon this magnificent set of 2 data points? What would be the correlation coefficient? What is the statistical mean and standard deviation of your superb data set lee? Gee I wonder if lee can post a basic scatter plot of his supremely comprehensive statistically significant set of data? Well done lee. Well done once again on your continual digging, deeper and deeper into the putrid trough of your own hate riddled delusional stench of ignorance. Well done lee. Well done. How did your mate Malcolm, who was named in the tax avoidance Panama papers do in the election last Saturday? He may need a few independents to form a minority government it seems. Well done lee, well done |
|
Title: Re: Realists Global Cooling is too real for comfort Post by lee on Jul 6th, 2016 at 2:57pm Chimp_Logic wrote on Jul 6th, 2016 at 2:52pm:
I'm not the one claiming that 2015 was the warmest on record. You don't need trend lines for that. You do understand that don't you? You just look at the two data points, which one is higher than the other. Next you will want to incorporate CPI. ;) |
|
Title: Re: Realists Global Cooling is too real for comfort Post by Chimp_Logic on Jul 6th, 2016 at 3:04pm Ajax wrote on Jul 4th, 2016 at 6:20pm:
Batman is in a very bad mood today. Oh what's wrong Mr Wayne, still upset that your Panama tax avoiding PM couldn't manage 76 seats in last Saturday's federal election in order to govern? Poor Mal he only started with a clear 90 seat majority handed to him by fascist Abbottior 3 years ago. Poor spooky soooky Batman. In a bad mood and resorting to censoring posters in here Poor soooky soooky Batman |
|
Title: Re: Realists Global Cooling is too real for comfort Post by Chimp_Logic on Jul 6th, 2016 at 3:06pm lee wrote on Jul 6th, 2016 at 2:57pm:
Who cares what the temperature is in any one particular year? You can't determine trends and significant stastistical conclusions on individual years. Can you list the 5 warmest decades? |
|
Title: Re: Realists Global Cooling is too real for comfort Post by lee on Jul 6th, 2016 at 3:32pm Chimp_Logic wrote on Jul 6th, 2016 at 3:06pm:
The warmists, the alarmists - whatever you want to call them. The "hottest year evah" chicken littles. |
|
Title: Re: Realists Global Cooling is too real for comfort Post by The_Barnacle on Jul 9th, 2016 at 1:27pm lee wrote on Jul 6th, 2016 at 12:10pm:
You don't change the anomaly. You said it yourself here lee wrote on Jul 3rd, 2016 at 6:21pm:
Also read FAQ 7 here https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/anomalies.php The anomalies did not change, it was the baseline that changed |
|
Title: Re: Realists Global Cooling is too real for comfort Post by lee on Jul 9th, 2016 at 3:09pm The_Barnacle wrote on Jul 9th, 2016 at 1:27pm:
I suggest you re-read that. The Jones et al paper is about anomalies, I didn't say they didn't change. The_Barnacle wrote on Jul 9th, 2016 at 1:27pm:
What don't you get? If you change the baseline temperature the anomalies must be changed. Q7? :D :D :D :D They say they generally use anomalies and then in both 1997 and 2015 they use absolute temperatures. 62.45ºF in 1987 and 57.0ºF in 2015. Unless you think they are anomalies; that is 62.45ºF and 57.0º above the baseline temperature? Now that would be CAGW. ;) ' |
|
Title: Re: Realists Global Cooling is too real for comfort Post by The_Barnacle on Jul 10th, 2016 at 12:06pm
You are wrong Lee
You are using a report which has been superceded Quote:
Here is a more up to date report from 2011 As you can see the anomaly for 1997 was overtaken. I think the NOAA deserve a lot of kudos for leaving an old out of date report from 1997 online for the sake of transparency even though they knew that the global warming denier brigade would obsess over it and misrepresent it. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201601 temp_anomolies.JPG (98 KB | ) |
|
Title: Re: Realists Global Cooling is too real for comfort Post by lee on Jul 10th, 2016 at 12:51pm The_Barnacle wrote on Jul 10th, 2016 at 12:06pm:
I see you are still ignoring what was written by NOAA. The 62.45ºF and 57.0ºF are absolutes. A couple of references- 'The maps above show temperature anomalies, or changes, not absolute temperature. They depict how much various regions of the world have warmed or cooled when compared with a base period of 1951-1980. (The global mean surface air temperature for that period was estimated to be 14°C (57°F)' http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/decadaltemp.php 'Records of global average surface temperature are usually presented as anomalies rather than as absolute temperatures. A temperature anomaly is measured against a reference value or long-term average.[20] For example, if the reference value is 15 °C, and the measured temperature is 17 °C, then the temperature anomaly is +2 °C (i.e., 17 °C -15 °C).' ' The Earth's average surface absolute temperature for the 1961-1990 period has been derived by spatial interpolation of average observed near-surface air temperatures from over the land, oceans and sea ice regions, with a best estimate of 14 °C (57.2 °F).[22] The estimate is uncertain, but probably lies within 0.5 °C of the true value.[22] Given the difference in uncertainties between this absolute value and any annual anomaly, it's not valid to add them together to imply a precise absolute value for a specific year.' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record Now tell me again ho they don’t use absolutes. |
|
Title: Re: Realists Global Cooling is too real for comfort Post by The_Barnacle on Jul 10th, 2016 at 1:10pm lee wrote on Jul 10th, 2016 at 12:51pm:
And I see that you are still using a superseded report to misrepresent what the NOAA said Quote:
|
|
Title: Re: Realists Global Cooling is too real for comfort Post by lee on Jul 10th, 2016 at 1:42pm The_Barnacle wrote on Jul 10th, 2016 at 1:10pm:
Yes, they changed the baseline which changed the anomalies. It doesn't change the absolutes, |
|
Australian Politics Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.5.2! YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2026. All Rights Reserved. |