|
Post by louise on Mar 9, 2011 19:17:23 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Mar 9, 2011 21:36:42 GMT 1
Warming -Schwarming!
1880 was the end of the Little Ice Age.
The question is WHY warming, Louise? The answer is "we don't know". Live with it.
|
|
|
Post by louise on Jul 9, 2011 9:03:30 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jul 9, 2011 9:33:26 GMT 1
Why does the graph above end in 1999, Louise? ---- UK Meteorological Office abandons "barbecue summer" and "no more snow" meme in favour of solar driven climate reality. “‘scientists at the Met Office and elsewhere are beginning to understand the effect of the 11-year solar cycle on climate. When sunspots and other solar activity are at a minimum, the effect is similar to that of El Niño: more easterly winds and cold winter weather for Britain.” “We now believe that [the solar cycle] accounts for 50 per cent of the variability from year to year,” says Scaife. With solar physicists predicting a long-term reduction in the intensity of the solar cycle – and possibly its complete disappearance for a few decades, as happened during the so-called Maunder Minimum from 1645 to 1715 – this could be an ominous signal for icy winters ahead, despite global warming.”www.ft.com/cms/s/2/35145bee-9d38-11e0-997d-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz1RacNghPjHow the passage of a couple a couple of years has changed the perspective of these bandwagon jumpers! And they call themselves meteorologists! They are "beginning to understand the effect of the sunspot cycle". Some less ideologically driven observers of climate NEVER CEASED to understand this staple of climatology! How long before the CO2 scaremongering is dropped altogether? Get ready to change your tune, Louise, your gurus seem to be acquiring a tentative link with reality!
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Jul 9, 2011 9:44:57 GMT 1
"The Northern Hemisphere, Southern Hemisphere, and and Tropics all experienced temperature anomaly increases in June: YR MON GLOBAL NH SH TROPICS 2011 1 -0.010 -0.055 +0.036 -0.372 2011 2 -0.020 -0.042 +0.002 -0.348 2011 3 -0.101 -0.073 -0.128 -0.342 2011 4 +0.117 +0.195 +0.039 -0.229 2011 5 +0.133 +0.145 +0.121 -0.043 2011 6 +0.314 +0.377 +0.251 +0.235 I would like to remind everyone that month-to-month changes in global-average tropospheric temperature have a large influence from fluctuations in the average rate of heat transfer from the ocean to the atmosphere. In other words, they are not of radiative origin (e.g. not from greenhouse gases). El Nino/La Nina is probably the most dramatic example of this kind of activity, but there are also “intraseasonal oscillations” in the ocean-atmosphere energy exchanges occurring on an irregular basis, too. " www.drroyspencer.com/2011/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2011-0-31-deg-c/StuartG
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jul 9, 2011 9:55:01 GMT 1
The concept of "internal forcing" is another concept Louise is going to have to get her head around.
What with internal and solar forcings how much is left of the independent forcing role of CO2?
|
|
|
Post by nickrr on Jul 9, 2011 12:19:10 GMT 1
As usual you completely miss the point. This has nothing to do with AGW. This is merely a cycle that will operate on top of warming caused by humans.
So for instance, the recent decline in solar activity has probably contributed to the recent rise in temperatures not being as great as expected. However, once the solar cycle enters a more active phase, solar activity and human induced change will be operating in the same direction and temperature rise will accelerate.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jul 9, 2011 14:30:54 GMT 1
The sun dismissed as "merely a cycle" on top of human agency! Says it all! Prat!
|
|
|
Post by principled on Jul 9, 2011 16:38:04 GMT 1
Nickrr
So, are you saying that not all of the recent warming that was experienced has an anthropogenic cause? If so, would you tell us how much of the change in temperature is down to man and how much due to solar variability? If I'm not mistaken, many AGW supporters previously dismissed changes in solar activity as any sort of driver.
The reason I ask is that at the moment we seem to be worrying 100% about AGW and very little about mitigating any change caused by natural cycles. P
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jul 9, 2011 17:40:34 GMT 1
Scott Ramsdell says about the purported warming:
So 50% due to solar activity. Some unknown, smaller percent due to all other natural variations. Some unknown, much smaller percent of that due to the greenhouse effect. Some unknown, small percent of the greenhouse effect due to CO2. Some unknown, much smaller percent of that due to human produced CO2.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jul 9, 2011 17:52:13 GMT 1
Sleepalot says about the Met Office U-turn:
They’re embarking on a “god of the gaps” argument, which goes like this;
CS “CO2 is the sole driver of climate change.” SA “What about sunspots?” CS “Ok, sunspots have a small effect, but the rest is CO2.” SA “What about changes in albedo,… and clouds?” CS “OK, sunspots, and albedo and clouds all play their part, but the rest is CO2.” SA ” What about irrigation? And the ozone layer? And cities?” CS ” Yes, sunspots and albedo and clouds and irrigation and the ozone layer and cities all have their effects, but the rest is CO2.”
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jul 9, 2011 17:53:42 GMT 1
TXMichael says:
AGW “logic”
1) A decrease in Solar Activity is a forcing which will result in a decrease in global temps
2) There are no forcings that can account for the “observed” increase in global temps other than CO2 (NB Louise and Nickrr!)
In Law, this could be called arguing in the alternative . . . In Science, it is just plain stupid
|
|
|
Post by louise on Jul 10, 2011 0:27:57 GMT 1
Who is Scott Ramsdell? Who is Sleepalot? Who is TXMichael?
Why are their opinions worth quoting here?
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jul 10, 2011 9:43:16 GMT 1
They are worth quoting because they are sensible comments on the UK Met Office's admission that 50% of temperature change is due to the natural variation caused by solar cycles.
O.6 degreesC is supposed by some to be the global mean temperature increase over the last century so by the Met Office's reckoning 0.3 degreesC is down to the sun. Perhaps Louise can account for how much of the balance is down to anthropogenic CO2?
I suggest you go change your knickers, dear.
|
|
|
Post by nickrr on Jul 10, 2011 10:41:00 GMT 1
I see that your responses are down to their usual standard. If you disagree with what I'm saying, try coming up with an argument against it.
|
|