Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

General discussion Climate change debate?

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    TheGreenGiant wrote: »
    ...so every single research paper has to be carefully scrutinized on its own merits, regardless of publishers, reviewers, or authors.
    :confused:

    You think this is bad thing?


  • Options
    #33
    baldieman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 174 ✭✭baldieman


    Im shocked, all the hieratics on this thread!!!

    here's a few interesting links for anyone willing to question the carbon theory.

    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/10may_longrange.htm

    title_feature.gifspacer.gifspacer.gifspacer.gifSolar Storm Warning

    03.10.2006
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] + Play Audio | + Download Audio | + Historia en Español | + Email to a friend | + Join mailing list [/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
    March 10, 2006:     It's official: Solar minimum has arrived. Sunspots have all but vanished. Solar flares are nonexistent. The sun is utterly quiet.[/FONT]    [/FONT]
     [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Like the quiet before a storm.[/FONT]
    [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]This week researchers announced that a storm is coming--the most intense solar maximum in fifty years. The prediction comes from a team led by Mausumi Dikpati of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). "The next sunspot cycle will be 30% to 50% stronger than the previous one," she says. If correct, the years ahead could produce a burst of solar activity second only to the historic Solar Max of 1958.[/FONT]

    I dont think so!!





    1) Abrupt drop in the solar conveyor speed, 2) the increase in the number of days without sunspots, 3) the current very low solar wind speeds, and 4) the linear drop in the magnetic field strength of individual sunspots.

    1) Drop in Solar Conveyor Speed
    I have not heard why there was an abrupt change in the solar conveyor speed in 2006 or what the implications are of the abrupt change in solar conveyor speed on the solar cycle. (i.e. There must be a physical explanation for what abruptly slowed down the solar conveyor speed in 2006.)

    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2..._longrange.htm

    Quote:
    May 10, 2006: The Sun's Great Conveyor Belt has slowed to a record-low crawl, according to research by NASA solar physicist David Hathaway. "It's off the bottom of the charts," he says. "This has important repercussions for future solar activity."
    Quote:
    "Normally, the conveyor belt moves about 1 meter per second—walking pace," says Hathaway. "That's how it has been since the late 19th century." In recent years, however, the belt has decelerated to 0.75 m/s in the north and 0.35 m/s in the south. "We've never seen speeds so low."

    2) Days without Sunspots
    Hathaway’s recent comment that solar cycle 24 is not unusual, did not answer the question why the solar conveyor speed suddenly changed.

    Hathaway’s comment was that the number of sun spotless days for cycle 23/24 is not unusual as compared to other solar cycles. Say for example solar cycle 18 which ended in 1956 and was followed by a large solar cycle, solar cycle 19 as per your attached thumb nail graph.

    It is my belief based on what I have read that an abrupt slow down in the solar conveyor speed indicates a deep solar change. As there was not an abrupt slow down in the solar meridian speed for cycle 18/19 there is no reason why cycle 23/24 would be the same as cycle 18/19. In fact as far as I am aware there has never been an observed abrupt slow down of the solar meridian speed.

    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2...ycleupdate.htm

    3) Very Low Solar Wind Speeds
    I had read that solar physicists thought that the minimum the solar wind speed could reach was around 300 km/sec. As noted the solar wind speed is currently 271 km/sec which is the lowest measured.

    4) Linear Drop in the Magnetic Field Strength of Individual Sunspots
    As far as I am aware there is no explanation as to why the magnetic field strength of individual sunspots is linearly dropping.

    Based on Penn and Livingston's observations (see above) if the trend where the magnetic field strength of new sunspots continues to drop there would be no sunspots post 2012.

    http://news.theage.com.au/national/gale-force-winds-and-snow-hit-nsw-20081123-6en3.html
    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/RarelatewintersnowfallinBrazil.pdf
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7596134.stm
    In February 2007, depending on what newspaper you read, you might have seen an article detailing a "controversial new theory" of global warming. The idea was that variations in cosmic rays penetrating the Earth's atmosphere would change the amount of cloud cover, in turn changing our planet's reflectivity, and so the temperature at its surface.
    This, it was said, could be the reason why temperatures have been seen to be varying so much over the Earth's history, and why they are rising now.
    The theory was detailed in a book, The Chilling Stars, written by Danish scientist Henrik Svensmark and British science writer Nigel Calder, which appeared on the shelves a week after the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had published its landmark report concluding it was more than 90% likely that humankind's emissions of greenhouse gases were warming the planet.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7092655.stm


  • Options
    #34
    Danno
    Registered Users Posts: 8,913 ✭✭✭Danno


    http://www.slf.ch/lawineninfo/schneeinfo/hsm/index_EN <<< Swiss Alps snow way above normal.


  • Options
    #35
    TheGreenGiant
    Registered Users Posts: 300 ✭✭TheGreenGiant


    djpbarry wrote: »
    By which you mean 1878, 1998 (the warmest year on record) and 1941 are all local maxima in the data? I'm looking at the Hadley data right now and the annual trend has been pretty much upward since about 1956.


    Ok this is the Hadley graph I am looking at right now.

    hadley_historic_temps.jpg


  • Options
    #36
    TheGreenGiant
    Registered Users Posts: 300 ✭✭TheGreenGiant


    djpbarry wrote: »
    :confused:

    You think this is bad thing?

    No I never said it was a bad thing,I think its a very god thing that research papers are reviewed carefully and scrutinized as this is the only way that this problem is going to be sorted.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    TheGreenGiant
    Registered Users Posts: 300 ✭✭TheGreenGiant


    "February 2007, depending on what newspaper you read, you might have seen an article detailing a "controversial new theory" of global warming. The idea was that variations in cosmic rays penetrating the Earth's atmosphere would change the amount of cloud cover, in turn changing our planet's reflectivity, and so the temperature at its surface.
    This, it was said, could be the reason why temperatures have been seen to be varying so much over the Earth's history, and why they are rising now.
    The theory was detailed in a book, The Chilling Stars, written by Danish scientist Henrik Svensmark and British science writer Nigel Calder, which appeared on the shelves a week after the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had published its landmark report concluding it was more than 90% likely that humankind's emissions of greenhouse gases were warming the planet."

    Yes, I bought this book and it was very interesting. I remember actually, Henrik spoke on Morning Ireland around the same time the book was released and the research his team were carrying out seemed very intriguing indeed.


  • Options
    #38
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    TheGreenGiant wrote: »
    Ok this is the Hadley graph I am looking at right now.
    That looks about right. So 1878, 1941 and 1998 are local maxima and we now appear to be in a local minimum, yes?
    TheGreenGiant wrote: »
    No I never said it was a bad thing,I think its a very god thing that research papers are reviewed carefully and scrutinized as this is the only way that this problem is going to be sorted.
    Sorry, what "problem" is this?
    TheGreenGiant wrote: »
    Yes, I bought this book and it was very interesting. I remember actually, Henrik spoke on Morning Ireland around the same time the book was released and the research his team were carrying out seemed very intriguing indeed.
    The evidence for a causal link between cosmic rays and cloud cover is, at present, rather weak.


  • Options
    #39
    TheGreenGiant
    Registered Users Posts: 300 ✭✭TheGreenGiant


    djpbarry wrote: »
    That looks about right. So 1878, 1941 and 1998 are local maxima and we now appear to be in a local minimum, yes?
    Sorry, what "problem" is this?
    The evidence for a causal link between cosmic rays and cloud cover is, at present, rather weak.

    yes, that would be correct. Oh, it was something you had replyed back to me earlier on in the discussion. True, the evidence at this moment in time is fairly weak. But we must remember, these scientists are not long researching for this link that might be causing part of the Earth's problems at this moment in time. More time on this matter is needed to see if anything else more defining might break through.


  • Options
    #40
    Climate Expert
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,393 ✭✭✭Climate Expert


    That looks about right. So 1878, 1941 and 1998 are local maxima and we now appear to be in a local minimum, yes?
    Unless you can predict the future then nobody can say whether we are in a local minimum.


  • Options
    #41
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    TheGreenGiant wrote: »
    True, the evidence at this moment in time is fairly weak. But we must remember, these scientists are not long researching for this link that might be causing part of the Earth's problems at this moment in time.
    I'm not sure about that. Measurements of cosmic rays have been made for quite a long time now. There is no evidence of any downward trend that coincides with the warming trend of the past few decades.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Climate Expert wrote: »
    Unless you can predict the future then nobody can say whether we are in a local minimum.
    You'll note that I used the word "appear".


  • Options
    #43
    TheGreenGiant
    Registered Users Posts: 300 ✭✭TheGreenGiant


    If anyone is interested, I bought a book there today, (took a week to order,but well worth the wait:D) on Climate Change. It cost 120 Euro which I thought was pretty decent. The name of the book is: Climate Change 2007 Migration Of Climate Change and the author is Cambridge University Press. Would really recommend this book to anyone interested in this subject :)


Advertisement