Driver to drive?

Raveninghorde · Mar 11, 2009

On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 03:08:17 +0000 (UTC), don@manx.misty.com (Don
Klipstein) wrote:

In article <1f5br410bt8u81fv5ntsaj93hipbiv0c1n@4ax.com>, Raveninghorde wrote:
On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 11:40:34 +0000, Martin Brown
|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

The theory of AGW is also based on observational data. Even sceptical
scientists admit that it is not possible to balance the global energy
equations for the Earth after about 1970 without including GHG forcing.
Crucially we have satellite data of the solar flux so you cannot
magically handwave away the recent warming trend by pretending that the
sun somehow got brighter.

I've been arguing for a while that the solar minimum would lead to
cooler climate.

Now even NASA are stasrting to repsond to the solar minimum:

http://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/view....B.9%20CCMSC.pdf

Incomplete link.

I plug phrases from below into Google and can't find the paper - only

http://solarcycle24com.proboards106.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=
display&thread=509

and http://www.bautforum.com/astronomy/68781-solar-cycle-24-a-6.html

Is there a way to find the whole article?

My mistake:

http://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/viewrepositorydocument/cmdocumentid=178281/B.9%20CCMSC.pdf

I wonder how much affect the cold contracted ionosphere and upper
atmosphere has on global temperature. Smaller atmosphere means less
area to absorb solar insolation etc.

/quote

B.9 CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES OF THE MINIMUM OF SOLAR CYCLE 23

1. Scope of Program

In 2009, we are in the midst of the minimum of solar activity that
marks the end of Solar Cycle 23. As this cycle comes to an end we are
recognizing, in retrospect, that the Sun has been extraordinarily
quiet during this particular Solar Cycle minimum. This is evidenced in
records of both solar activity and the response to it of the
terrestrial space environment. For example:
Causes Solar output

* Lowest sustained solar radio flux since the F 10.7 proxy was
created in 1947;
* Solar wind global pressure the lowest observed since the
beginning of the Space age;
* Unusually high tilt angle of the solar dipole throughout the
current solar minimum;
* Solar wind magnetic field 36% weaker than during the minimum
of Solar Cycle 22;
* Effectively no sunspots;
* The absence of a classical quiescent equatorial streamer
belt; and
* Cosmic rays at near record-high levels.

/end quote

SNIP

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

Raveninghorde · Mar 11, 2009

On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 02:32:19 +0000 (UTC), don@manx.misty.com (Don
Klipstein) wrote:

In article <stbcr4p5n2dmelbhlv1nu652hdj2lps3ch@4ax.com>, Raveninghorde wrote:
On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 03:51:20 +0000 (UTC), don@manx.misty.com (Don
Klipstein) wrote:

In article <h2tpq4d9tk7n7rvfuohgc6nf5tee5dairf@4ax.com>, Raveninghorde wrote:
On Sun, 1 Mar 2009 16:01:53 +0100, "Bill Sloman"

SNIP

No doubt the denialists will blame the sun, as usual.

Regarding cooling since 2000:

/quote

This is nothing like anything weve seen since 1950, Kyle Swanson of
the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee said. Cooling events since then
had firm causes, like eruptions or large-magnitude La Ninas. This
current cooling doesnt have one.

The "recent cooling" is from 4 causes:

1. Lack of El Ninos greater than the century-scale-greatness one of 1998

2. About 14 months ago we were in the bottom of a La Nina that was to a
small extent the most severe in 20 years

3. The "Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation" has a significant effect on
global temperature and has a period around 60-70 years, and that
peaked either with the 1998 El Nino or with the warm times of the
middle of the decade that we are about to exit.

4. We have recently gone past peak of a sunspot cycle of period around 80
years, and maybe also of one of period 2 or 2-plus centuries.

None of these factors seemed to be allowed for in the climate models
and the models did not predict cooling for the next 30 years.

The major El Ninos and La Ninas should be mere blips on post-1978 global
temperature trend within another decade. Any cooling over the next decade
or two would have only the AMO and sunspot cycles to credit.

Hadcrut shows warming peaked in 2004 which agrees nicely with Dr
Spencer and UAH. These curves effectively ignore the major El Nino of
1998. 5 years of cooling and counting. This is not a mere blip.

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/comparison.html

http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

Should we have any global warming at all from now to 2030 or 2035, watch
out for what happens in the following 30 years or so that will have the
next upswing half of the AMO and a majority of the next upswing in the 80
year cycle of solar output.
I would worry about 2035-2070 achieving .2-.25 degree C/K per
decade warming, for .7-.875 degree addition to the roughly .4 degree boost
of the past decade from 1961-2000 average.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

SNIP

Jon Kirwan · Mar 11, 2009

On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 13:39:17 -0700 (PDT), bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

On Mar 11, 10:30 am, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 03:08:17 +0000 (UTC), d...@manx.misty.com (Don

Klipstein) wrote:
In article <1f5br410bt8u81fv5ntsaj93hipbiv0...@4ax.com>, Raveninghorde wrote:
On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 11:40:34 +0000, Martin Brown
|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

The theory of AGW is also based on observational data. Even sceptical
scientists admit that it is not possible to balance the global energy
equations for the Earth after about 1970 without including GHG forcing.
Crucially we have satellite data of the solar flux so you cannot
magically handwave away the recent warming trend by pretending that the
sun somehow got brighter.

I've been arguing for a while that the solar minimum would lead to
cooler climate.

Now even NASA are stasrting to repsond to the solar minimum:

http://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/view....B.9%20CCMSC.pdf

Incomplete link.

I plug phrases from below into Google and can't find the paper - only

http://solarcycle24com.proboards106.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=
display&thread=509

andhttp://www.bautforum.com/astronomy/68781-solar-cycle-24-a-6.html

Is there a way to find the whole article?

My mistake:

http://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/viewrepositorydocument/cmdocument...

I wonder how much affect the cold contracted ionosphere and upper
atmosphere has on global temperature. Smaller atmosphere means less
area to absorb solar insolation etc.

Not a lot, since the atmosphee is transparent to the bulk of the
energy/radiation coming in from the sun.

Not to mention that the "surface" (if one wants to imagine something
like that) of the atmosphere is essentially pasted like a sheet of
paper to the surface of the Earth. It's not particularly thick --
6-10 miles or so compared with 4000 for the radius of the Earth -- no
more than 1/4% and it varies from as little as 6 near the poles to
maybe 10 or so around the equator. I'm talking about the tropopause
here. I'm not sure what the effective absorption level would be, but
that might be representative -- even taking into account the point
that a significant portion of unreflected insolation is absorbed at
the earth's surface (more than twice what the atmosphere absorbs.)

I'll leave it to Raving to work out what a 1 mile variation in
altitude for some parts of the atmosphere might do in the overall
picture of things. Doing it right, I hope he's competent with taking
derivatives and applying finite differences. And no one is suggesting
a 10% or 20% variation in thickness, but it might be instructive for
him to work out what even something that large might mean.

That's how the "greenhouse" effect works.

Isn't it nice how Raving's ignorance makes all challenges seem
reasonable in his mind?

Jon

Mar 11, 2009

On Mar 11, 10:30 am, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 03:08:17 +0000 (UTC), d...@manx.misty.com (Don

Klipstein) wrote:
In article <1f5br410bt8u81fv5ntsaj93hipbiv0...@4ax.com>, Raveninghorde wrote:
On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 11:40:34 +0000, Martin Brown
|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

The theory of AGW is also based on observational data. Even sceptical
scientists admit that it is not possible to balance the global energy
equations for the Earth after about 1970 without including GHG forcing..
Crucially we have satellite data of the solar flux so you cannot
magically handwave away the recent warming trend by pretending that the
sun somehow got brighter.

I've been arguing for a while that the solar minimum would lead to
cooler climate.

Now even NASA are stasrting to repsond to the solar minimum:

http://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/view....B.9%20CCMSC.pdf

Incomplete link.

I plug phrases from below into Google and can't find the paper - only

http://solarcycle24com.proboards106.com/index.cgi?board=general&action> >display&thread=509

andhttp://www.bautforum.com/astronomy/68781-solar-cycle-24-a-6.html

Is there a way to find the whole article?

My mistake:

http://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/viewrepositorydocument/cmdocument...

I wonder how much affect the cold contracted ionosphere and upper
atmosphere has on global temperature. Smaller atmosphere means less
area to absorb solar insolation etc.

Not a lot, since the atmosphee is transparent to the bulk of the
energy/radiation coming in from the sun.

That's how the "greenhouse" effect works.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Mar 11, 2009

On Mar 10, 8:50 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
On Mar 9, 1:34 am, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com
wrote:
Bill Slomanwrote:
http://sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/323/5918/1187

Martin van Calmhout - a formidable Dutch science journalist - reviewed
this article in Science in yesterday's Volkskrant. One of the authors -
Henk Brinkhuis - is a professor at Utrecht.

It talks about a 5C drop in global temperature over 100,000 years some
34 million years ago during the Eocene-Oligocene Climate Transition..

And the relevance of this to today's situation is ?

Whatever happened then could

COULD

play out - in reverse

IN REVERSE ?

The climate cooled by 5C as the Antarctic ice sheet built up.

If we manage to destabilise the Antarctic ice sheet, we could
presumably reverse the effect and get a 5C warming.

- now, and perhaps
in appreciably less than 100,000 years.

100,000 YEARS ?

Geological time scales are long. 100,000 years is 0.3% of the 34
million years that have passed since all this happened, and I presume
that all that the geologists are saying is that the temperature rise
took place with a 100,000 year period. My understanding is that they
get their time calibrations by looking at the decay of long-lived
radioactive isotopes, so getting 0.3% resoluton needs pretty careful
work.

There process of building up an ice sheet has to be slow - you get
your millimetre of compacted snow every year, and after 100,000 years
you've got a a sheet of ice that is couple of kilometres thick.

If that ice slides off into the ocean and floats away towards the
equator, you can undo the build-up relatively fast.

Unexplained effects are always worrying.

How do you sleep at night ?

Fine,

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Jim Thompson · Mar 11, 2009

On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 21:16:59 GMT, Jon Kirwan
<jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

[snip]

Isn't it nice how Raving's ignorance makes all challenges seem
reasonable in his mind?

Jon

As a leftist weenie spewing gloom and doom, don't you think it
appropriate for you to set your affairs in order, write your will,
etc., for the sky is indeed falling... CHICKEN LITTLE

Don Klipstein · Mar 12, 2009

In article <v91fr4hv7evc5kqfqq745d2ngericqtfmc@4ax.com>, Raveninghorde wrote:

On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 02:32:19 +0000 (UTC), don@manx.misty.com (Don
Klipstein) wrote:

In article <stbcr4p5n2dmelbhlv1nu652hdj2lps3ch@4ax.com>, Raveninghorde wrote:
SNIP to edit for space
None of these factors seemed to be allowed for in the climate models
and the models did not predict cooling for the next 30 years.

The major El Ninos and La Ninas should be mere blips on post-1978 global
temperature trend within another decade. Any cooling over the next decade
or two would have only the AMO and sunspot cycles to credit.

Hadcrut shows warming peaked in 2004 which agrees nicely with Dr
Spencer and UAH. These curves effectively ignore the major El Nino of
1998. 5 years of cooling and counting. This is not a mere blip.

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/comparison.html

I don't know why they say "Global average temperature 1850-2008" and
nothing past that last red bar, and underneath say the red bars are
for 1850-2007. Counting bars from the 1998 one indicates the last one is
2008 now.

Link to a text data file:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt

http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

Individual year HadCRUT-3 peaked not in 2004, but with the 1998 El Nino
and second to that in 2005 - the second-most recent complete calendar year
excluding the most recent La Nina. So we have one year of cooling to
explain with a long term cooling trend or with noise.

Smoothed HadCRUT-3 still includes the greatest La Nina in the past 21
years - and peaked in 2004, center of the most recent 5 year period to
exclude that 2007-2008 La Nina. The first year to be the center of a 5
year period excluding that La Nina will be 2011, and that 5 year period
will include 2013. A couple months into 2014 we should see whether
smoothed HadCRUT shows the world to be warmer or cooler after the
2007-2008 La Nina than before that event.

<SNIP>

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

Don Klipstein · Mar 12, 2009

In article <gp7dkp$fv9$1@news.motzarella.org>, bw wrote:

"Don Klipstein" <don@manx.misty.com> wrote in message
news:slrngre997.47q.don@manx.misty.com...
In article <gp6hve$q5s$1@news.motzarella.org>, bw wrote:

"Don Klipstein" <don@manx.misty.com> wrote in message
news:slrngrbps4.s4r.don@manx.misty.com...
In article <38brq451mhjpdho2mdqhhg43bqpb8r3643@4ax.com>, Raveninghorde
wrote:
On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 14:08:39 -0800 (PST), Richard Henry
pomerado@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Mar 3, 1:27 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 03 Mar 2009 20:26:05 GMT, Jon Kirwan

j...@infinitefactors.org> wrote:
On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 10:39:22 -0800 (PST), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:

Ravinghorde:
Me, I blame the sun as usual. Solar cycle 24 is very late.

But you are a denialist, and addicted to explanations wihich don't
produce useful predictions.

Caught snipping context with malicious intent to misdirect, Raving
goes on to "just pick something to blame" because it is proximate in
time. A logical fallacy he's apparently blind to. Besides, we have
satellites that have been monitoring insolation from space and the
decline below "normal" minimums is less than 0.04% -- 5 times less,
roughly, than the existing human forcing which exists today.

Your reply is crafted -- Raving's suggestion grasps from ignorance.
"Why did the crops fail? Was it because I didn't give enough alms
this year, as the priest tells me?" I'd have hoped that we'd moved
beyond that with general education.

Jon

As usual you are missing the point.

my quote was:

"This is nothing like anything we've seen since 1950," Kyle Swanson
of
the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee said. "Cooling events since
then
had firm causes, like eruptions or large-magnitude La Ninas. This
current cooling doesn't have one."

The important point is that he says the AGW crowd don't have an
explanation for current global cooling.

The "current global cooling" is, so far, no more significant than the
"global cooling" that occurred about 2000 or about 1990.

I might agree with you - I'm not convinced that global temperature is
significant or meaningful at all. However it is a parameter much loved
by the AGW lobby.

However in AGW theory ever increasing CO2 should give ever increasing
temperature. So even stable temperature is in fact a decrease from
this supposed rising trend of about 0.2C. Given that the increase is
around 0.6C in 30 years that appears significant.

High side of the recent past uptick is .19-.2 degree C per decade
during
peak 2 or so of past 3-plus upswinging decades when effects of AMO and
the 80 year cycle of solar output were favoring upswing.

There is no real "uptick" since surface temp data are corrupted by UHI
effect. See Pielke, et al 2007, Journal of Geophysical Research, vol 112.
This paper also shows other errors in surface data.
Amundsen-Scott, Halley and Vostok stations have good surface temperature
data. They all show NO warming at all since records began 50 years ago.

In the past decade or two, the AMO has shifted the warming northward, in
addition to the trend for global temperature to change more where the
positive feedback is greater - in and near the Arctic.

AMO oscillates with a known period. See Sutton & Hodson, SCIENCE 2005 Volume
309: 115-117

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Amo_timeseries_1856-present.svg

North Atlantic is what this is of. Since this index is factored for
global temperature as a whole, when North Atlantic wars from this,
somewhere else in the world would do the opposite. And it ain't the
Arctic, which surely appears to correlate well with AMO, though lagging a
little.

There is no NET positive feedback, there can't be. All natural feedbacks
contain links to threshold limits.

There is positive feedback that got us the comings and goings of the Ice
Age glaciations from the Milankovitch cycles.

Meanwhile, NASA's GISS has satellite observations of surface temperature
of rural regions, to add correction factors to surface data for urban heat
islands and other surface station irregularities.

Global surface temperature statements include oceans, which have 70% of
the world's area and no urban heat islands and much less than land of
other issues in temperature measurement.

Meanwhile, we have two interpretations of MSU satellite data for lower
tropospheric temperature trend. The less-warming one of those, the UAH
one, is noted to be checked against radiosondes in parts of the world that
have them. UAH still shows warming.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

I don't dispute that some good data exist showing short term regional
warming. Regional warming is not global warming.

Most of the globe warmed, not just the Arctic. The Arctic merely warmed
more.

Carbon soot is likely causing northern ice melting.
enough satellite data to confirm century scale proxy data.
I do see that most of the pre-satellite surface temperature data is
corrupted and must be rejected.

Like effects of change of presence of urban heat islands only occurred
before the satellite data determinations started in 1979 while half of
global warming since 1850 occurred afterwards when satellite
determinations and surface determinations agreed rather well? UAH shows
almost 80% as much warming since 1979 as HadCRUT-3, GISS and NCDC do, and
RSS shows over 90%.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

Jon Kirwan · Mar 12, 2009

On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:04:55 -0700, Jim Thompson
<To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 21:16:59 GMT, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

[snip]

Isn't it nice how Raving's ignorance makes all challenges seem
reasonable in his mind?

Jon

As a leftist weenie spewing gloom and doom, don't you think it
appropriate for you to set your affairs in order, write your will,
etc., for the sky is indeed falling... CHICKEN LITTLE

Jim, I've not said much on that subject. What you write here is
merely a strawman you create. So I don't need to respond to it more
than to say so.

---

My point was that when someone is ignorant about a subject, all things
seem possible. Magic, necromancy, tea leaf reading, etc., all seem to
make sense when ignorant. People who don't really have the knowledge
to know any better bring up all manner of possible explanations,
trying to say that climate scientists haven't got it right. Not much
different than bringing up witches or Loki as an explanation. To
them, it sounds just fine. Better informed, they would change their
minds.

Rather than check for yourself on the point Raving brought up (and I
know you could in a few short seconds if you cared to) you would
rather merely root for your team and throw tomatoes at the other side.
I don't expect to change that. But you are sitting on the losing side
of the arena. Which can be fun, if you don't take yourself seriously
about it.

Jon

Jim Thompson · Mar 12, 2009

On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 01:04:11 GMT, Jon Kirwan
<jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:04:55 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 21:16:59 GMT, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

[snip]

Isn't it nice how Raving's ignorance makes all challenges seem
reasonable in his mind?

Jon

As a leftist weenie spewing gloom and doom, don't you think it
appropriate for you to set your affairs in order, write your will,
etc., for the sky is indeed falling... CHICKEN LITTLE

Jim, I've not said much on that subject. What you write here is
merely a strawman you create. So I don't need to respond to it more
than to say so.

---

My point was that when someone is ignorant about a subject, all things
seem possible. Magic, necromancy, tea leaf reading, etc., all seem to
make sense when ignorant. People who don't really have the knowledge
to know any better bring up all manner of possible explanations,
trying to say that climate scientists haven't got it right. Not much
different than bringing up witches or Loki as an explanation. To
them, it sounds just fine. Better informed, they would change their
minds.

Rather than check for yourself on the point Raving brought up (and I
know you could in a few short seconds if you cared to) you would
rather merely root for your team and throw tomatoes at the other side.
I don't expect to change that. But you are sitting on the losing side
of the arena. Which can be fun, if you don't take yourself seriously
about it.

Jon

Don Klipstein · Mar 12, 2009

In article <0s0fr4lfbupgbb5p0e5j8eigrf0qults2b@4ax.com>, Raveninghorde wrote:

On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 03:08:17 +0000 (UTC), don@manx.misty.com (Don
Klipstein) wrote:
SNIP
Now even NASA are stasrting to repsond to the solar minimum:
SNIP

http://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/viewrepositorydocument/cmdocumentid=
178281/B.9%20CCMSC.pdf

I can't find anything about how much this solar activity change is
likely to or estimated to change the global warming trend.

I am reminded of:

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2009/20090113_Temperature.pdf

brought to attention in a thread of subject line:

"OT - Hansen acknowledges solar forcing"

It says estimate of effect of decrease in solar activity was increased
to magnitude of offsetting 7 years's worth of atmospheric CO2 increase.

I wonder how much affect the cold contracted ionosphere and upper
atmosphere has on global temperature. Smaller atmosphere means less
area to absorb solar insolation etc.

Some very high percentage of solar absorption is in or below the ozone
layer. Most of the sun's "vacuum ultraviolet" gets to the ozone layer -
VUV is what forms it. Most other solar radiation absorbed by the
atmosphere is absorbed by the atmosphere is absorbed below it. Most solar
radiation reflected by the atmosphere is reflected below the ozone layer,
where over 90% of atmosphere mass and close enough to all clouds are.

I think it would be a huge change if the ozone layer or its associated
specific pressure levels (related to percentage of atmosphere above/below
such levels) moved a few hundred meters in altitude.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

Jon Kirwan · Mar 12, 2009

On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 18:15:37 -0700, Jim Thompson
<To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 01:04:11 GMT, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:04:55 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 21:16:59 GMT, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

[snip]

Isn't it nice how Raving's ignorance makes all challenges seem
reasonable in his mind?

Jon

As a leftist weenie spewing gloom and doom, don't you think it
appropriate for you to set your affairs in order, write your will,
etc., for the sky is indeed falling... CHICKEN LITTLE

Jim, I've not said much on that subject. What you write here is
merely a strawman you create. So I don't need to respond to it more
than to say so.

---

My point was that when someone is ignorant about a subject, all things
seem possible. Magic, necromancy, tea leaf reading, etc., all seem to
make sense when ignorant. People who don't really have the knowledge
to know any better bring up all manner of possible explanations,
trying to say that climate scientists haven't got it right. Not much
different than bringing up witches or Loki as an explanation. To
them, it sounds just fine. Better informed, they would change their
minds.

Rather than check for yourself on the point Raving brought up (and I
know you could in a few short seconds if you cared to) you would
rather merely root for your team and throw tomatoes at the other side.
I don't expect to change that. But you are sitting on the losing side
of the arena. Which can be fun, if you don't take yourself seriously
about it.

Jon

It's still religion and not fact, no matter how you spin it.

No. But then, you wouldn't know not having studied the material long
enough to know better. Luckily, sounder heads are in charge in the US
now.

Losing side? That sure sounds like science... NOT.

I'm not characterizing climate science or climate scientists -- just
characterizing the political landscape.

What a bird-brain!

Another tomato. So? I'll get interested when you actually engage
your brain on this subject and bring up some informed points.

Jon

--
Science is indistinguishable from religion by those sufficiently ignorant.

Jim Thompson · Mar 12, 2009

On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 01:24:51 GMT, Jon Kirwan
<jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 18:15:37 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 01:04:11 GMT, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:04:55 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 21:16:59 GMT, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

[snip]

Isn't it nice how Raving's ignorance makes all challenges seem
reasonable in his mind?

Jon

As a leftist weenie spewing gloom and doom, don't you think it
appropriate for you to set your affairs in order, write your will,
etc., for the sky is indeed falling... CHICKEN LITTLE

Jim, I've not said much on that subject. What you write here is
merely a strawman you create. So I don't need to respond to it more
than to say so.

---

My point was that when someone is ignorant about a subject, all things
seem possible. Magic, necromancy, tea leaf reading, etc., all seem to
make sense when ignorant. People who don't really have the knowledge
to know any better bring up all manner of possible explanations,
trying to say that climate scientists haven't got it right. Not much
different than bringing up witches or Loki as an explanation. To
them, it sounds just fine. Better informed, they would change their
minds.

Rather than check for yourself on the point Raving brought up (and I
know you could in a few short seconds if you cared to) you would
rather merely root for your team and throw tomatoes at the other side.
I don't expect to change that. But you are sitting on the losing side
of the arena. Which can be fun, if you don't take yourself seriously
about it.

Jon

It's still religion and not fact, no matter how you spin it.

No. But then, you wouldn't know not having studied the material long
enough to know better. Luckily, sounder heads are in charge in the US
now.

Losing side? That sure sounds like science... NOT.

I'm not characterizing climate science or climate scientists -- just
characterizing the political landscape.

What a bird-brain!

Another tomato. So? I'll get interested when you actually engage
your brain on this subject and bring up some informed points.

Jon

Jon Kirwan · Mar 12, 2009

On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 18:53:29 -0700, Jim Thompson
<To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 01:24:51 GMT, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 18:15:37 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 01:04:11 GMT, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:04:55 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 21:16:59 GMT, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

[snip]

Isn't it nice how Raving's ignorance makes all challenges seem
reasonable in his mind?

Jon

As a leftist weenie spewing gloom and doom, don't you think it
appropriate for you to set your affairs in order, write your will,
etc., for the sky is indeed falling... CHICKEN LITTLE

Jim, I've not said much on that subject. What you write here is
merely a strawman you create. So I don't need to respond to it more
than to say so.

---

My point was that when someone is ignorant about a subject, all things
seem possible. Magic, necromancy, tea leaf reading, etc., all seem to
make sense when ignorant. People who don't really have the knowledge
to know any better bring up all manner of possible explanations,
trying to say that climate scientists haven't got it right. Not much
different than bringing up witches or Loki as an explanation. To
them, it sounds just fine. Better informed, they would change their
minds.

Rather than check for yourself on the point Raving brought up (and I
know you could in a few short seconds if you cared to) you would
rather merely root for your team and throw tomatoes at the other side.
I don't expect to change that. But you are sitting on the losing side
of the arena. Which can be fun, if you don't take yourself seriously
about it.

Jon

It's still religion and not fact, no matter how you spin it.

No. But then, you wouldn't know not having studied the material long
enough to know better. Luckily, sounder heads are in charge in the US
now.

Losing side? That sure sounds like science... NOT.

I'm not characterizing climate science or climate scientists -- just
characterizing the political landscape.

What a bird-brain!

Another tomato. So? I'll get interested when you actually engage
your brain on this subject and bring up some informed points.

Jon

Splat!

On the ground. Missed by a mile.

Jon

Mar 12, 2009

On Mar 10, 3:24 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 06:52:12 -0700 (PDT), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
On Mar 10, 2:26 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 16:31:20 -0700 (PDT), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
It is not as if you need my good opinion, not that
you seem to be in any way equipped to earn it.

---
???

Perhaps you'd like to rephrase that in comprehensible English?

Perhaps you'd like to find someone who has mastered English to
interpret it for you?

---
Actually, I'd need to find someone who has mastered gibberish.

I confess to have exploited my wife's expertise to set a trap for the
linguistically crippled. It was unkind of me, but the temptation was
overwhelming.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Martin Brown · Mar 12, 2009

Raveninghorde wrote:

On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 03:08:17 +0000 (UTC), don@manx.misty.com (Don
Klipstein) wrote:

In article <1f5br410bt8u81fv5ntsaj93hipbiv0c1n@4ax.com>, Raveninghorde wrote:
On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 11:40:34 +0000, Martin Brown
|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

The theory of AGW is also based on observational data. Even sceptical
scientists admit that it is not possible to balance the global energy
equations for the Earth after about 1970 without including GHG forcing.
Crucially we have satellite data of the solar flux so you cannot
magically handwave away the recent warming trend by pretending that the
sun somehow got brighter.
I've been arguing for a while that the solar minimum would lead to
cooler climate.

Now even NASA are stasrting to repsond to the solar minimum:

http://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/view....B.9%20CCMSC.pdf
Incomplete link.

I plug phrases from below into Google and can't find the paper - only

http://solarcycle24com.proboards106.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=
display&thread=509

and http://www.bautforum.com/astronomy/68781-solar-cycle-24-a-6.html

Is there a way to find the whole article?

My mistake:

http://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/viewrepositorydocument/cmdocumentid=178281/B.9%20CCMSC.pdf

I wonder how much affect the cold contracted ionosphere and upper
atmosphere has on global temperature. Smaller atmosphere means less
area to absorb solar insolation etc.

Doesn't significantly affect the capture cross section. Air is basically
transparent. It does significantly affect the drag on low Earth orbit
mostly spy satellites. When the sun is very active the atmosphere has a
tenuous outer shell extending much further into space.

Empirically you can observe that the stratosphere has not been as cold
this winter at temperate latitudes as it was for example in 1996 around
the last solar minimum when there was a very pretty UK display of polar
stratospheric clouds. Northern European ozone layer seems to have
benefitted. Belgian RMI realtime stratosphereic ozone monitoring shows
the levels mostly above the median for this time of year.

http://www.meteo.be/meteo/view/nl/123372-Ozon+in+de+stratosfeer.html

The stratosphere is presently tending to cool as the heat flux escaping
from the troposphere has reduced and the ozone layer is still somewhat
compromised by CFCs. It completely cripples when PSCs combine with
strong spring sunshine but that doesn't look likely this year in the UK.

/quote

B.9 CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES OF THE MINIMUM OF SOLAR CYCLE 23

1. Scope of Program

In 2009, we are in the midst of the minimum of solar activity that
marks the end of Solar Cycle 23. As this cycle comes to an end we are
recognizing, in retrospect, that the Sun has been extraordinarily
quiet during this particular Solar Cycle minimum. This is evidenced in
records of both solar activity and the response to it of the
terrestrial space environment. For example:
Causes Solar output

* Lowest sustained solar radio flux since the F 10.7 proxy was
created in 1947;
* Solar wind global pressure the lowest observed since the
beginning of the Space age;
* Unusually high tilt angle of the solar dipole throughout the
current solar minimum;
* Solar wind magnetic field 36% weaker than during the minimum
of Solar Cycle 22;
* Effectively no sunspots;
* The absence of a classical quiescent equatorial streamer
belt; and
* Cosmic rays at near record-high levels.

/end quote

SNIP
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

The butterfly diagram for the recent past sunspot activity is not all

that different to previous cycles either. It is quite at the moment -
which is particularly bad for sales of H-alpha prominence telescopes.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e1/Sunspot-bfly.gif

If the minimum was really significantly cooling the higher atmosphere
enough to influence the troposphere at all we would expect to see the
stratosphere cooling to the point where PSCs would be seen over the UK.
In fact they haven't been observed in the UK since 2005.

Regards,
Martin Brown

Raveninghorde · Mar 12, 2009

On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:04:55 -0700, Jim Thompson
<To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 21:16:59 GMT, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

[snip]

Isn't it nice how Raving's ignorance makes all challenges seem
reasonable in his mind?

Jon

As a leftist weenie spewing gloom and doom, don't you think it
appropriate for you to set your affairs in order, write your will,
etc., for the sky is indeed falling... CHICKEN LITTLE

...Jim Thompson

Jim, you're wrong

The sky is falling. That's one of the factors NASA want to
investigate. Jon won't believe it because it's a sign of global
cooling.

Jon Kirwan · Mar 12, 2009

On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 10:09:40 +0000, Raveninghorde
<raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:04:55 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 21:16:59 GMT, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

[snip]

Isn't it nice how Raving's ignorance makes all challenges seem
reasonable in his mind?

Jon

As a leftist weenie spewing gloom and doom, don't you think it
appropriate for you to set your affairs in order, write your will,
etc., for the sky is indeed falling... CHICKEN LITTLE

...Jim Thompson

Jim, you're wrong

The sky is falling. That's one of the factors NASA want to
investigate. Jon won't believe it because it's a sign of global
cooling.

I see you still aren't capable of even checking out your own ideas.

As I said, people who don't really have the knowledge to know any
better bring up all manner of possible explanations, trying to say
that climate scientists haven't got it right. Not much different than
bringing up witches or Loki as an explanation. To them, it sounds
just fine. Better informed, they would change their minds.

Need to bone up on elementary math, to start, and maybe also do some
study. It won't necessarily solve any of your problems, but it may
help you do a sanity check on your conjurations.

Jon

--
Science is indistinguishable from religion by those sufficiently ignorant.

Rich Grise · Mar 12, 2009

On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 01:04:11 +0000, Jon Kirwan wrote:

My point was that when someone is ignorant about a subject, all things
seem possible. Magic, necromancy, tea leaf reading, etc., all seem to
make sense when ignorant. People who don't really have the knowledge
to know any better bring up all manner of possible explanations,
trying to say that climate scientists haven't got it right.

Ah, so you're a True Believer. Warmingism is true, and NO AMOUNT of facts
will shake your faith.

Just answer me one question: Howcome none of your "atmospheric models"
even ACKNOWLEDGE THE EXISTENCE OF, let alone ACCOUNT FOR, atmospheric
water vapor?

Thanks,
Rich

Not much

different than bringing up witches or Loki as an explanation. To
them, it sounds just fine. Better informed, they would change their
minds.

Rather than check for yourself on the point Raving brought up (and I
know you could in a few short seconds if you cared to) you would
rather merely root for your team and throw tomatoes at the other side.
I don't expect to change that. But you are sitting on the losing side
of the arena. Which can be fun, if you don't take yourself seriously
about it.

Rich Grise · Mar 12, 2009

On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 01:24:51 +0000, Jon Kirwan wrote:

Another tomato. So? I'll get interested when you actually engage
your brain on this subject and bring up some informed points.

Problem is, when you actually bother to _inform_ yourself of some
_facts_, rather than just preaching your dogma, you discover that your
dogma is a load of total purest crap, and that's too hard to face. Not
only are you wrong, but you're exposed as an idiot for insisting that
you're right, even though the facts show the opposite.

And even if it were true, the draconian measures you espouse are worse
than any possible consequences of _actual_ warming, even if it _were_
factual.

Hope This Helps!
Rich

Driver to drive?

Raveninghorde

Guest

Raveninghorde

Guest

Jon Kirwan

Guest

Guest

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Don Klipstein

Guest

Don Klipstein

Guest

Jon Kirwan

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Don Klipstein

Guest

Jon Kirwan

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Jon Kirwan

Guest

Guest

Martin Brown

Guest

Raveninghorde

Guest

Jon Kirwan

Guest

Rich Grise

Guest

Rich Grise

Guest

Log in

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor