meteorologist Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2047338/Back-vengeance-Scientists-say-suns-11-year-cycle-shows-Arctic-freeze-return-winter.html?printingPage=true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 Hasn't recent solar activity been on the rise? The min was in 2009. Why are they saying we are still at a min? It takes light energy 8 min to get to Earth. Seems like the suns affect would be pretty quickly. So? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strongbad Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 Hasn't recent solar activity been on the rise? The min was in 2009. Why are they saying we are still at a min? It takes light energy 8 min to get to Earth. Seems like the suns affect would be pretty quickly. So? I think it would be in your best interest to read up on Solar Activity. There are many interesting Astrophysicists who are active on the web, and who would be more than happy if you read them. Try Piers Corbyn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow_Miser Posted October 15, 2011 Share Posted October 15, 2011 There are many interesting Astrophysicists who are active on the web, and who would be more than happy if you read them. Try Piers Corbyn. Not to mention Dr. Phillip R. Goode, . Dr. Enric Palle, Dr. Vasyl B. Yurchyshyn Dr. Jiong Qiu Dr. Pilar Montañés Rodríguez Dr. Ming Chung Chu, Dr. Edwin Kolbe Dr. Steven Koonin etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meteorologist Posted October 15, 2011 Author Share Posted October 15, 2011 http://www.dailymail...intingPage=true http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1282.html http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/fig_tab/ngeo1282_ft.html http://www.ncas.ac.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=890:solar-forcing-of-winter-climate-variability-in-the-northern-hemisphere&catid=53:current-news&Itemid=299 http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2011/10/10/met-office-in-the-media-solar-variability-helps-explain-past-cold-winters/ http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-10-link-solar-winter-weather-revealed.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/post/low-solar-activity-linked-to-harsh-winters-in-us-and-northern-europe/2011/10/11/gIQAVJMbcL_blog.html http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/335053/title/Solar_changes_help_create_cold_northern_winters http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2790662/posts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted October 15, 2011 Share Posted October 15, 2011 This mechanism helps to explain some of the inter-annual variation in winter weather over the northern hemisphere. As stated by the researchers, the overall global warming trend is left unaffected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CAD_Wedge_NC Posted October 15, 2011 Share Posted October 15, 2011 Hasn't recent solar activity been on the rise? The min was in 2009. Why are they saying we are still at a min? It takes light energy 8 min to get to Earth. Seems like the suns affect would be pretty quickly. So? Is there any thread on this board that you won't try to derail. You need to read up on solar activity for about a year before even thinking about posting in this thread again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted October 16, 2011 Share Posted October 16, 2011 Is there any thread on this board that you won't try to derail. You need to read up on solar activity for about a year before even thinking about posting in this thread again. That is the most stupid post you have made yet, and you have made some real dumb ones........ trust me. Looks like the sun is quite a bit more active now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LithiaWx Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 Wow.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strongbad Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 Wow.... Well, it is to be expected. Just to stir the board's pot, this article was a great read. It also shows a chart that is strinkingly similar to the Hockey Stick, though not depicting what some would expect. A key excerpt from the article, written by a German climate researcher named Horst-Joachim Ludecke. "It is the unprecedentedly rapid recovery of the Sun’s activity over the past 300 years – far stronger than anyone had previously suspected – that has been the chief driver of global warming in recent decades. We have very little to do with it.” Source Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 Well, it is to be expected. Just to stir the board's pot, this article was a great read. It also shows a chart that is strinkingly similar to the Hockey Stick, though not depicting what some would expect. A key excerpt from the article, written by a German climate researcher named Horst-Joachim Ludecke. Source That's the best you can come up with?! A very poor paper from Energy & Environment, a repeatedly debunked and derided advocacy rag? Wow! I almost feel sorry for you. Let's compare the historical sunspot plot that Ludecke put together with the actual science, shall we? Here's what Ludecke claims: Interesting, isn't it? One of its more charming aspects, in my opinion, is that it shows the sunspot numbers actually going negative on three occasions. Can one of you 'skeptics' please explain to the rest of us how the SSN value, which is just a count of the number of active sunspots, can be a negative number? Now here is the actual peer-reviewed, observation based, sunspot record: Doesn't look very similar, does it? Observed sunspot numbers go as high as 250 and never, ever go negative. But wait, the 'skeptics' will say, you only showed back to around 1600, and Ludecke showed all the way back to 0 AD. Well, that's because the obervational record is only continuous back to 1749, and is sporatic before that. Prior to observations, only proxies are available, and no proxies indicate actual sunspot numbers. Ludecke used tree rings and stalagtites in his study but neither of these is directly affected by sunspot numbers or solar activity. Tree rings can vary by temperature, among a number of other factors, which is why they have been useful in paleoclimate reconstructions. But after all, how much would a tree ring vary between SSNs of 200 sunspots/month and 220 sunspots/month (a 10% variation in solar activity). Similar story with stalagtites, which have rings that vary due to precipitation, but which aren't directly affected by solar activity. What Ludecke did in his paper was to take the proxy of a proxy of proxies. He looked at tree rings and stalagtites and used those proxies to derive a record of temperature variations, then he took those derived temperature variations as proxies to derive a record of solar activity, and finally used that derived derived solar activity record as a proxy to derive sunspot numbers, SSNs. Again, wow! No scientifically minded person, or honest skeptic, could read the ScienceRealist column or the Ludecke paper and keep a straight face. It's a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strongbad Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 That's the best you can come up with?! A very poor paper from Energy & Environment, a repeatedly debunked and derided advocacy rag? Wow! I almost feel sorry for you. Let's compare the historical sunspot plot that Ludecke put together with the actual science, shall we? Here's what Ludecke claims: Interesting, isn't it? One of its more charming aspects, in my opinion, is that it shows the sunspot numbers actually going negative on three occasions. Can one of you 'skeptics' please explain to the rest of us how the SSN value, which is just a count of the number of active sunspots, can be a negative number? Now here is the actual peer-reviewed, observation based, sunspot record: Doesn't look very similar, does it? Observed sunspot numbers go as high as 250 and never, ever go negative. But wait, the 'skeptics' will say, you only showed back to around 1600, and Ludecke showed all the way back to 0 AD. Well, that's because the obervational record is only continuous back to 1749, and is sporatic before that. Prior to observations, only proxies are available, and no proxies indicate actual sunspot numbers. Ludecke used tree rings and stalagtites in his study but neither of these is directly affected by sunspot numbers or solar activity. Tree rings can vary by temperature, among a number of other factors, which is why they have been useful in paleoclimate reconstructions. But after all, how much would a tree ring vary between SSNs of 200 sunspots/month and 220 sunspots/month (a 10% variation in solar activity). Similar story with stalagtites, which have rings that vary due to precipitation, but which aren't directly affected by solar activity. What Ludecke did in his paper was to take the proxy of a proxy of proxies. He looked at tree rings and stalagtites and used those proxies to derive a record of temperature variations, then he took those derived temperature variations as proxies to derive a record of solar activity, and finally used that derived derived solar activity record as a proxy to derive sunspot numbers, SSNs. Again, wow! No scientifically minded person, or honest skeptic, could read the ScienceRealist column or the Ludecke paper and keep a straight face. It's a joke. Why is it that alarmists take EVERYTHING personally? Why not post some peer-reviewed studies showing that the use of Tree Rings to record sunspot numbers is wrong? I have searched for this and have NOT found it yet. Easier to scream how wrong someone is without actually debunking their methods? Just screaming foul without showing methodology amounts to nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strongbad Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 Here is an example for all to see of how scientists try to record solar activity using tree rings (P.S. this was taken from peer-reviewed literature...ooooh boy!) Scientists have tried to reconstruct previous sunspot activity using ice cores and tree rings. These contain isotopes, such as carbon-14 and beryllium-10, created when high-energy particles from deep space, called cosmic rays, slam into the atmosphere. Fewer cosmic rays reach the Earth when the Sun is very active, because the charged particles from the Sun deflect them. Source And another quote with a source following. This explaining why scientists measure carbon-14 to observe solar activity: Carbon 14 concentrations are lower during sunspot high periods and higher during sunspot low periods (the opposite of temperatures). Source Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 Wow.... Why don't you post a retort? With the factual science? And tell me what I posted that was wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.