Where's the evidence for anthropogenic global warming?
John Miller
signs of global warming and, moreover, signs of cooling are seen for the
polar regions (where warming is supposed to occur most)?
I know many of you hate the name, but this site is a useful repository of
historic temperature data:
http://www.john-daly.com/stations/stations.htm
Bottom line question: Where's the *evidence*? And I will not accept the
output of models as a valid response since that does not represent
experimental evidence.
Thanks,
John.
Ian St. John
"John Miller" <jfmi...@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:6V1C6.25162$i9.49...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com...
> Somebody please explain to me why a large number of weather stations show
no
> signs of global warming and, moreover, signs of cooling are seen for the
> polar regions (where warming is supposed to occur most)?
What part of 'global' and 'climate' did you not understand?
>
> I know many of you hate the name, but this site is a useful repository of
> historic temperature data:
>
> http://www.john-daly.com/stations/stations.htm
Nobody hates the name. There is disgust by the more educated at his
selective and distorted data. For example, how many weather stations are
there in Canada? How many are listed? If you 'cherry pick' your data for
specific 'results' you are NOT a scientist. You are an idiot, and an
ignorant one. Try
http://www.thestar.com/apps/AppLogic+FTContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout
/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=986829207163&call_page=TS_News&call_pageid=9683
32188492&call_pagepath=News/News
( or go to http://www.thestar.com/) select "FYI" on the lower right.
For information on a real study of the Canadian (including arctic) climate
change. You will notice that no 'urban heat islands' were included. In fact
only 27 stations passed all impartial selection criteria. The result
include:
"Solving this Problem of the Plunging Thermometers took years of inspired
detective work by a dogged federal scientist. That work provides a window
into the incredibly complex research that lies behind the simplest
statements about Canada's past climate, much less predictions of the future
one."
"The detective work produced much more reliable information about the
country's climate trends and allowed federal researchers to conclude that:"
"The crucial warming in southern Canada occurred in the first half of the
20th century, well before the big greenhouse gas buildup, and appears linked
to increased cloud cover at night that traps the day's heat."
"The eastern Arctic and northern Quebec have cooled substantially over the
last 50 years, contrary to the images of polar bears, walruses and seals all
supposedly sweltering on shrinking ice floes. The western Arctic, however,
warmed more than any place on Earth other than Siberia."
"From 1950 to 1998, the whole of Canada warmed by only three-tenths of a
degree Celsius, an increase so small it could have been mere chance. The
researchers involved insist this last result does not contradict the
government's much-publicized statement that Canada has warmed by 1 C over
the past century."
"Indeed, the very same study concluded that the annual average temperature
in southern Canada has indeed increased by 0.9 C over the past century, that
abnormal heat and wetness have become more widespread and that this
historical record broadly matches what the costly computer models say ought
to happen with rising greenhouse gases."
"Such complex pictures make climate science a minefield and help explain why
the best climate scientists are so painstaking and cautious. A typical
example is Bill Hogg, who headed research into Canada's past climate until
retiring recently."
`
>
> Bottom line question: Where's the *evidence*? And I will not accept the
> output of models as a valid response since that does not represent
> experimental evidence.
Nor should you. The models are 'tested' against the reality as reported by
instruments. There is no other way to 'verify' them. ANY competent
climatologist will tell you this and it has been posted over and over.
Now, you have your answer. Will you stop posting disinformation from daly's
junk-science page and 'strawmen' arguments?
John Miller
I asked a reasonable question. The link I provided lists a large number of
stations. I asked the question because I want someone to show me where to
look for stations that support the anthropogenic theory. I understand
"global" and "climate", thank you. Why do you always have to be so
abrasive? Good grief. You put yourself in the same camp as all the people
you love to hate.
I hope your allusions to ignorant idiots were directed at Daly and not me.
I shall look at the places you recommend.
John.
John Miller
"Ian St. John" <ist...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:9baglu$2v9t$1...@news.tht.net...
>
> "John Miller" <jfmi...@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:6V1C6.25162$i9.49...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com...
> > Somebody please explain to me why a large number of weather stations
show
> no
> > signs of global warming and, moreover, signs of cooling are seen for the
> > polar regions (where warming is supposed to occur most)?
>
> What part of 'global' and 'climate' did you not understand?
>
>
>
http://www.thestar.com/apps/AppLogic+FTContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout
>
/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=986829207163&call_page=TS_News&call_pageid=9683
> 32188492&call_pagepath=News/News
>
> ( or go to http://www.thestar.com/) select "FYI" on the lower right.
>
> For information on a real study of the Canadian (including arctic) climate
> change. You will notice that no 'urban heat islands' were included. In
fact
> only 27 stations passed all impartial selection criteria. The result
> include:
<snipped>
> Now, you have your answer. Will you stop posting disinformation from
daly's
> junk-science page and 'strawmen' arguments?
>
>
I'm afraid that I don't have my answer. Interesting as the article is, it
simply highlights an error in the interpretation of the temperature data
since 1961. It mentions the grid of temperature data but provides no link.
The only real conclusion that can be drawn is that the nighttime temperature
isn't dropping as low as it used to. Are there any cloud cover data to
compare the temperature record with? The sun was very inactive in the early
1960s and has become increasingly more active. I am open to the notion of
solar activity being link to climate change particularly through the
well-known and exploited phenomenon of nucleation of water droplets by
subatomic particles such as found in the solar wind. Also, you have
provided a link to specific region of the world. I hope you are not
extrapolating the findings to a global context.
What I found even more interesting is another article which is the subject
of my next post....
Ian St. John
>
> > Now, you have your answer. Will you stop posting disinformation from
> daly's
> > junk-science page and 'strawmen' arguments?
> >
> >
> I'm afraid that I don't have my answer. Interesting as the article is, it
> simply highlights an error in the interpretation of the temperature data
> since 1961. It mentions the grid of temperature data but provides no
link.
> The only real conclusion that can be drawn is that the nighttime
temperature
> isn't dropping as low as it used to. Are there any cloud cover data to
> compare the temperature record with? The sun was very inactive in the
early
> 1960s and has become increasingly more active. I am open to the notion of
> solar activity being link to climate change particularly through the
> well-known and exploited phenomenon of nucleation of water droplets by
> subatomic particles such as found in the solar wind. Also, you have
> provided a link to specific region of the world. I hope you are not
> extrapolating the findings to a global context.
>
> What I found even more interesting is another article which is the subject
> of my next post....
Sighhh. Daly 'selects' his Canadian sites from the Eastern Arctic and
Atlantic regions. Areas which have had a cooling trend. ( in the Arctic, two
in Newfoundland ( Eastern Atlantic) and one in Nova Scotia ( Sable island)
to represent *ALL* of Canada. The study I pointed out shows:
"The eastern Arctic and northern Quebec have cooled substantially over the
last 50 years, contrary to the images of polar bears, walruses and seals all
supposedly sweltering on shrinking ice floes."
So if you 'cherry pick' your stations from the Eastern seabord and Eastern
Arctic, do you 'prove' global cooling? NO. You prove only that you are
ignorant of science or deliberately posting disinformation.
"The western Arctic, however, warmed more than any place on Earth other than
Siberia."
Which is the point. That some specific areas warm and others cool, and:
"Indeed, the very same study concluded that the annual average temperature
in southern Canada has indeed increased by 0.9 C over the past century, that
abnormal heat and wetness have become more widespread and that this
historical record broadly matches what the costly computer models say ought
to happen with rising greenhouse gases."
The *expected pattern* is higher lows, not higher highs. There is no
expectation of a simple increase at 'every station'. Any more than you prove
'gravity' doesn't exist because you don't 'fall down' from L5.
Solar intensity changes account for something less than half current warming
and is no longer increasing, whereas GHGs are expected to drive warming at
an accelerated rate for decades to centuries. And it really isn't relevant
what you 'are open to'. Why not listen to the climate scientists and learn
something.
David Ball
wrote:
>Somebody please explain to me why a large number of weather stations show no
>signs of global warming and, moreover, signs of cooling are seen for the
>polar regions (where warming is supposed to occur most)?
Sites in the western arctic and northern Eurasia have seen
temperature increases of 6C in the past 30 years.
>
>I know many of you hate the name, but this site is a useful repository of
>historic temperature data:
>
>http://www.john-daly.com/stations/stations.htm
This site is also a repository for a wealth of manure as well,
John. I've had some personal correspondence with Mr. Daly about some
of the nonsense on his website. He knows just enough to sound good but
when you press him for details he scurries away with his tail between
his legs.
>
>Bottom line question: Where's the *evidence*? And I will not accept the
>output of models as a valid response since that does not represent
>experimental evidence.
>
More to follow.
Ian St. John
> Ian,
>
> I asked a reasonable question. The link I provided lists a large number
of
> stations. I asked the question because I want someone to show me where to
> look for stations that support the anthropogenic theory. I understand
> "global" and "climate", thank you. Why do you always have to be so
> abrasive? Good grief. You put yourself in the same camp as all the
people
> you love to hate.
You *do not* 'look for stations that support'. That is exactly the sort of
'cherry picking' of data that daly uses.
>
> I hope your allusions to ignorant idiots were directed at Daly and not me.
We are all ignorant to some degree. I hesitate to assume my knowledge of
nuclear physics even approaches one days teaching by sonmeone like Gregory
Greenman. I *know* David Ball has nore practical experience and knowledge of
North American weather, climate, and its effect on commerce than I could
ever hope to duplicate. Ignorance is not a problem to someone wise enough to
understand his limitations.
And 'idiot' I apply to someone totally ignorant of climate science, posting
a political 'junk science' url, and saying ' see, you are wrong'.
>
> I shall look at the places you recommend.
And look through prior posts, especially by David Ball, William Connely,
Eric Swanson, Thomas Palm, Robert Grumbine, R.R. Martin, and others.
Harvey Taylor
<jfmi...@nc.rr.com> John Miller wrote:
>[...]
> Where's the *evidence*?
>
To my mind the most incontrovertible evidence of the sort
you demand is the receding glaciers. The documents of record
in this question are maintained by the World Glacier Monitoring
Service <http://www.geo.unizh.ch/wgms/>.
Download their MBB5 and take a look. They document mass balances
for some ~70,000 glaciers. Even if you never heard of a
climatologist, you would know something was going on.
<fwiw>
-het
--
"Ask not what your country has done for you;
Ask what your country can do to you." -crypto refugee
Global Warming: http://www.pangea.ca/~het/globalwarming.html
Harvey Taylor mailto:h...@despam.pangea.ca http://www.pangea.ca/~het
Note: Pangea has been bought by MTS & my address is due to change
some time in the near future.
John Miller
"Harvey Taylor" <h...@despam.pangea.ca> wrote in message
news:3AD91B...@despam.pangea.ca...
John Miller
I merely asked for a wider data set to counter the data set on Daly's page.
I am not cherry-picking. It is perfectly reasonable to be undecided as to
the anthropogenic causes of global warming when there is insufficient
evidence to prove or disprove it. I apply the same argument to solar
forcing, too.
I am not totally ignorant of climate science.
It seems that you get extremely upset and show an unfortunate tendency for
arrogance when someone either makes a point or hints at anything that goes
against your own beliefs.
I find it extraordinary that you completely dismiss any work by anyone that
suggests that the predictions of simplified models for the effects of
anthropogenic global warming are questionable. This makes you more of a
fool than you make others out to be.
Ian St. John
> What is your problem?!
Right now it is that you clipped all previous paragraophs in this
'followup'. This is considered 'bad form' in usenet.
>
> I merely asked for a wider data set to counter the data set on Daly's
page.
> I am not cherry-picking.
You said "I asked the question because I want someone to show me where to
look for stations that support the anthropogenic theory. "
You are *asking* for a specific *subset* of the data to *prove* a specific
theory. That is 'cherry picking'. It is no more valid to 'cherry pick' data
to disprove global warming than it is to 'cherry pick' data to prove it.
That is *science*. You *must* deal with the entire data set. What part of
this is not clear?
Now, let us continue. You wanted data to support 'anthropogenic theory'. I
have no idea what 'anthropogenic theory' is, or how it is supportable from
weather station data reporting temperature readings. If you understood more
about climate science, the issues are global warming and climate change with
the causes of global warming define by solar, GHGs, and aerosols. I think
that ozone depletion has an effect too (IIRC)
> It is perfectly reasonable to be
undecided as to
> the anthropogenic causes of global warming when there is insufficient
> evidence to prove or disprove it. I apply the same argument to solar
> forcing, too.
And what makes *you* an authority on whether there is 'sufficient evidence
to prove or disprove it'. You cannot even distinguish the issues clearly,
but mix and match them. I suggest that you start reading the reports from
the experts, such as IPCC, and mine the posts for references to other
theories and papers.
>
> I am not totally ignorant of climate science.
....Nor are you even moderately well versed.
>
> It seems that you get extremely upset and show an unfortunate tendency for
> arrogance when someone either makes a point or hints at anything that goes
> against your own beliefs.
You claim that scientific reasoning is a 'belief' system? Ah, shit! Another
non-scientist claiming expertise from their political convictions. You start
out on the wrong foot when you 1: have no clue what you are talking about.
2: start off by claiming 'you're wrong' to people that know more than you.
3: ignore their responses for more 'freedom of belief' crap.
> I find it extraordinary that you completely dismiss any work by anyone
that
> suggests that the predictions of simplified models for the effects of
> anthropogenic global warming are questionable. This makes you more of a
> fool than you make others out to be.
No. I have presented you with the reasons why you should not believe daly's
distortions. I pointed out his 'cherry picking' and how the distribution of
his data is selected for areas of cooling. I referred you to publications
that show how real scientists avoid the 'urban heat islands' and data
reduction issues. I have shown you how local cooling and local warming can
add up to average (continental or global) warming. I have pointed out that
warming is more about higher lows than higher highs. In short I responded to
your questions with science. You have responded back with carping about
'freedom of belief'. If you have evidence that stands up to scrutiny, please
present it. Science doesn't have a 'belief system' It has a consensus based
on the factual data. If you want to change the science, you have to present
*facts* that are well analyzed and convincing.
'Note: This is usenet. There are no emotions visible. To me, you seem
'arrogant' in your ignorance. That you perceive me as 'arrogant' is no
surprise. I have spent a lot of time looking over the data, theories, and
other sources. I am short with those that come here trolling with political
beliefs and junk science. We are overwhelmed by idiots like jtnews, Chief,
Johne Morton, etcx showing up like clockwork with the same distortions over
and over.
A science group isn't like a politics group. There is no room for 'instant
experts' of the usenet variety. Make your points, if you have any, and don't
put it on a personal level. Ask questions politely. Don't say 'here.. see.
you're wrong, this site proves it.' unless you have the credentials and peer
reviewed publications to back it up. Every point I have made is supported by
reference or obvious in the text of the message. You are *not* arguing with
me! You are rejecting science and logic. Why not post in a political forum?
Why crap on us?
becker
Harvey Taylor wrote:
>
> In article <6V1C6.25162$i9.49...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>
> <jfmi...@nc.rr.com> John Miller wrote:
> >[...]
> > Where's the *evidence*?
> >
>
> To my mind the most incontrovertible evidence of the sort
> you demand is the receding glaciers.
A receding glacier doesn't prove a thing about global
warming. In fact, a receding glacier is just proof
of a lack of rain/snow fall. This is quite opposite
of what the global warming theorist predict in that
global warming will create more rain/snow (precipitation)
fall.
Back to the drawing board for you chicken little.
Patrick Becker, M.D.
Ian St. John
"becker" <bec...@ined.invalid> wrote in message
news:3AD91C7F...@ined.invalid...
>
>
> Harvey Taylor wrote:
> >
> > In article <6V1C6.25162$i9.49...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>
> > <jfmi...@nc.rr.com> John Miller wrote:
> > >[...]
> > > Where's the *evidence*?
> > >
> >
> > To my mind the most incontrovertible evidence of the sort
> > you demand is the receding glaciers.
>
> A receding glacier doesn't prove a thing about global
> warming. In fact, a receding glacier is just proof
> of a lack of rain/snow fall. This is quite opposite
In reality, the receding glaciers show a reversal in the dominance of
accumulation vs melting, as well as rates of flow. This can be accomplished
by reduced accumulation or increased melting or changing speeds. There is a
lot of natural variation in snow accumulation year by year. Some variation
in melting. Long term trends are important. Mechanical flow is likely a
resonse to higher temperatures weakening the ice and lubricating the
underside with melt.
> of what the global warming theorist predict in that
> global warming will create more rain/snow (precipitation)
> fall.
Way oversimplified, farmboy. Discuss by altitude and region, and show your
work. Reference the IPCC report for any claims of predicted climate change.
>
> Back to the drawing board for you chicken little.
Oh, my. Such brilliant analysis. You should publish your 'climate research'
in the journals...
John Miller
>
> "John Miller" <jfmi...@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:UO7C6.24621$KQ2.4...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com...
>
> > What is your problem?!
>
> Right now it is that you clipped all previous paragraophs in this
> 'followup'. This is considered 'bad form' in usenet.
So is including the full, original post.
> > I merely asked for a wider data set to counter the data set on Daly's
> page.
> > I am not cherry-picking.
>
> You said "I asked the question because I want someone to show me where to
> look for stations that support the anthropogenic theory. "
>
> You are *asking* for a specific *subset* of the data to *prove* a specific
> theory. That is 'cherry picking'. It is no more valid to 'cherry pick'
data
> to disprove global warming than it is to 'cherry pick' data to prove it.
> That is *science*. You *must* deal with the entire data set. What part of
> this is not clear?
I am asking for an additional subset to add to the one provided by Daly. My
purpose is to see the total data set so I can see for myself (and not
through someone else's interpretation) what the global situation is.
<cut>
> And what makes *you* an authority on whether there is 'sufficient evidence
> to prove or disprove it'. You cannot even distinguish the issues clearly,
> but mix and match them. I suggest that you start reading the reports from
> the experts, such as IPCC, and mine the posts for references to other
> theories and papers.
The issues *are* complex and linked.
> > I am not totally ignorant of climate science.
>
> ....Nor are you even moderately well versed.
>
> >
> > It seems that you get extremely upset and show an unfortunate tendency
for
> > arrogance when someone either makes a point or hints at anything that
goes
> > against your own beliefs.
>
> You claim that scientific reasoning is a 'belief' system? Ah, shit!
No. I am claiming that you get upset when someone disagrees with your
interpretation.
>Another
> non-scientist claiming expertise from their political convictions.
Go back and read my post to you in early March. I *am* a scientist by
training and profession. My field of training and profession gives me ample
credibility to post to this newsgroup and question the scientific views that
get posted here.
> > I find it extraordinary that you completely dismiss any work by anyone
> that
> > suggests that the predictions of simplified models for the effects of
> > anthropogenic global warming are questionable. This makes you more of a
> > fool than you make others out to be.
>
> No. I have presented you with the reasons why you should not believe
daly's
> distortions. I pointed out his 'cherry picking' and how the distribution
of
> his data is selected for areas of cooling.
Thank you, Ian. I do understand the notion of cherry-picking. By stating
yourself that he has selected data for areas of cooling, you validate my
original request to obtain data that show warming.
> I referred you to publications
> that show how real scientists avoid the 'urban heat islands' and data
> reduction issues. I have shown you how local cooling and local warming can
> add up to average (continental or global) warming.
Yes, thank you, Ian - I understand the concept of local variation and
overall global average. Where did I state otherwise?
> I have pointed out that
> warming is more about higher lows than higher highs. In short I responded
to
> your questions with science.
No, you responded with an article in a *newspaper*. Hardly a peer-reviewed
scientific journal.
> You have responded back with carping about
> 'freedom of belief'.
No. I responded back stating you get your knickers in a twist over anyone
who says anything that goes against your personal interpretation of what is
presented in the scientific literature.
> If you have evidence that stands up to scrutiny, please
> present it. Science doesn't have a 'belief system' It has a consensus
based
> on the factual data. If you want to change the science, you have to
present
> *facts* that are well analyzed and convincing.
Ever heard of "hypothesis"?
> 'Note: This is usenet. There are no emotions visible. To me, you seem
> 'arrogant' in your ignorance. That you perceive me as 'arrogant' is no
> surprise. I have spent a lot of time looking over the data, theories, and
> other sources. I am short with those that come here trolling with
political
> beliefs and junk science.
I am not 'here' to push my political beliefs. I am here to encourage
awareness of uncertainty surrounding the global warming issues.
> We are overwhelmed by idiots like jtnews, Chief,
> Johne Morton, etcx showing up like clockwork with the same distortions
over
> and over.
> A science group isn't like a politics group. There is no room for 'instant
> experts' of the usenet variety. Make your points, if you have any, and
don't
> put it on a personal level. Ask questions politely. Don't say 'here.. see.
> you're wrong, this site proves it.' unless you have the credentials and
peer
> reviewed publications to back it up.
I am not an instant expert. I do ask questions politely and, you must have
a very short memory, Ian, since I have posted at length (in response to an
earlier post from you to me) my credentials AND references (including
abstracts) to peer-reviewed publications. Indeed, when I do post
peer-reviewed references, you seem strangely quiet.
Please go back to your archives and look up my credentials. And, whilst
your at it, please provide yours (directly to me if you wish) so I can put
your statements in context.
<cut>
Johne S. Morton
> news:UO7C6.24621$KQ2.4...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com...
>
> > What is your problem?!
>
> Right now it is that you clipped all previous paragraophs in this
> 'followup'. This is considered 'bad form' in usenet.
>
> >
> > I merely asked for a wider data set to counter the data set on Daly's
> page.
> > I am not cherry-picking.
>
> You said "I asked the question because I want someone to show me where to
> look for stations that support the anthropogenic theory. "
>
> You are *asking* for a specific *subset* of the data to *prove* a specific
> theory. That is 'cherry picking'. It is no more valid to 'cherry pick'
data
> to disprove global warming than it is to 'cherry pick' data to prove it.
> That is *science*. You *must* deal with the entire data set. What part of
> this is not clear?
>
> Now, let us continue. You wanted data to support 'anthropogenic theory'. I
> have no idea what 'anthropogenic theory' is, or how it is supportable from
> weather station data reporting temperature readings. If you understood
more
> about climate science, the issues are global warming and climate change
with
> the causes of global warming define by solar, GHGs, and aerosols. I think
> that ozone depletion has an effect too (IIRC)
>
I think what he wants are some stations which show a substantial, recent
warming which fall into line with projections of greenhouse warming. I
would say that Siberia, Western Europe, and perhaps western parts of Canada
would be the best candidates. Of course, you then run into the problem of
whether or not this warming is greenhouse-induced or not.
John, here is a good site with NASA GISS data which allows you to select
from a large set of stations. You can see trends in not only annual
temperatures, but also seasonal trends. Not all of them are current,
though.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/update/csci/world_and_us_maps/
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/update/gistemp/station_data/
[snipped]
> 'Note: This is usenet. There are no emotions visible. To me, you seem
> 'arrogant' in your ignorance. That you perceive me as 'arrogant' is no
> surprise. I have spent a lot of time looking over the data, theories, and
> other sources. I am short with those that come here trolling with
political
> beliefs and junk science. We are overwhelmed by idiots like jtnews, Chief,
> Johne Morton, etcx showing up like clockwork with the same distortions
over
> and over.
>
I don't distort anything. I do make arguments, use data and evidence
from a number of places (NASA, NOAA etc.) and usually come to a different
conclusion from it than you do. For instance, we will have to disagree on
the validity of MSU. Who knows, in the future I may decide that MSU or AMSU
is no good if it starts diverging from the US surface record.
> A science group isn't like a politics group. There is no room for 'instant
> experts' of the usenet variety. Make your points, if you have any, and
don't
> put it on a personal level. Ask questions politely. Don't say 'here.. see.
> you're wrong, this site proves it.' unless you have the credentials and
peer
> reviewed publications to back it up. Every point I have made is supported
by
> reference or obvious in the text of the message. You are *not* arguing
with
> me! You are rejecting science and logic. Why not post in a political
forum?
> Why crap on us?
>
- Johne
Johne S. Morton
You could also consider Lindzen, Michaels, Balling, Gray, Singer,
Christy, and Parker for a realistic view.
David Ball
<joh...@prodigy.net> wrote:
[..]
>
> You could also consider Lindzen, Michaels, Balling, Gray, Singer,
>Christy, and Parker for a realistic view.
>
For a view, Johne. How realistic, remains to be seen.
John Miller
"David Ball" <wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3ad99b95...@news.escape.ca...
Is this a hint of a refreshing "they could be right - we just don't know
yet" attitude? ;-)
John (no e)
Robert Grumbine
John Miller <jfmi...@nc.rr.com> wrote:
>Somebody please explain to me why a large number of weather stations show no
>signs of global warming and
This, John, is why people are perfectly justified in saying that you
don't understand 'global' in a discussion of climate.
>I know many of you hate the name
Perfect start for someone who claims to want discussion.
Daly is a fine name, belongs to a very good golfer.
>, but this site is a useful repository of
>historic temperature data:
>
>http://www.john-daly.com/stations/stations.htm
No, it is not a useful repository. It is not useful because it is
cherry picked. It is, in a word, dishonest.
Good starting points for questions of climate data are:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/
The are the national climatic data center, ocean data center, and geophysical
data center, respectively. NCDC has weather information including
surface and radiosonde observations. NODC has ocean information.
and NGDC has paleoclimate (glacier, ice core, ...) information.
A site with both surface data and discussion of how it is analyzed
for climate purposes is James Hansen's at NASA GISS. address is
something like http://www.giss.nasa.gov/
Now it's your turn to demonstrate that your questions are sincere by
actually doing some of the reading and making approprite changes to
what you write or qustion. You've been through with several rounds of
'answer me this' and gotten answers, none of which has affected anything
you write in the slightest. No surprise for a polemicist or ideologue,
but you claim to be a scientist and interested in the science. Show it.
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
David Ball
wrote:
>Somebody please explain to me why a large number of weather stations show no
Part of the problem you're going to run into getting ahold of
data, John, is that in Canada climate data, just like it is in Europe
is sold. It is a commodity, and a lucrative one. You will not find too
much real data available on the 'Net with any long baseline. That
doesn't mean that such data do not exist. I can go into work and
extract hourly weather observations at many sites going back to the
early '50s. You won't find that data available anywhere on the 'Net.
A good source of anecdotal information can be found at:
http://nsidc.org/NASA/SOTC/intro.html
These pages give access to a wealth of information about the state of
the cryosphere: seasonal snow-cover, glaciers, permafrost, sea ice and
sea-level. There are also links to reference material. All of these
links show something is happening at high northern latitudes.
Ian St. John is correct, however, in pointing out that what
Daly et al do is cherry pick their data. They look at sites in the
eastern Canadian arctic and say, "what warming in the arctic? I don't
see any warming!" Of course they don't see any warming. They're not
looking for it. They've got their eyes closed. There's a wonderful
children's book by Dr. Suess called, "I Can Read With My Eyes Shut."
The upshot of the story is that anyone who can read with their eyes
shut, finds it easier to read with their eyes open. Mr. Daly should
try looking at the data with his eyes open.
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/essay_walsh.html
http://faldo.atmos.uiuc.edu/RESEARCH/temptrends.html
This latter page shows some interesting results. One thing you
will see from Daly or from Johne Morton and others in this forum is
that the southern hemisphere hasn't warmed. The above links shows a
slightly different picture.
As far as separating the effects of natural forcings from
anthropogenic ones, that is a tall order. It was Lewis Fry Richardson
- he of the now-famous Richardson Number - who summarized his classic
paper, The supply of Energy From and To Atmospheric Eddies (1920).
"Big whirls have little whirls,
That feed on their velocity;
And little whirls have lesser whirls,
And so on to viscosity."
This pretty accurately describes how things work in the atmosphere. In
the particular case at hand, we have multiple climate oscillations -
ENSO, NAO, Arctic oscillation, ... that all contribute in some way to
the temperatures you get. The trick is to separate out the natural
signal from the anthropogenic one. It isn't enough to simply look at
site and say, "it's warming or it's cooling" You have to somehow
separate the little whirls from the lesser whirls from the big whirls"
That's is a non-trivial task.
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/crowley.html
http://www.people.virginia.edu/~mem6u/mbh98.html
There are multiple links here and a great deal of additional
information. I hope this helps.
John Miller
> <jfmi...@nc.rr.com> John Miller wrote:
> >[...]
> > Where's the *evidence*?
> >
>
> To my mind the most incontrovertible evidence of the sort
> you demand is the receding glaciers. The documents of record
> in this question are maintained by the World Glacier Monitoring
> Service <http://www.geo.unizh.ch/wgms/>.
> Download their MBB5 and take a look. They document mass balances
> for some ~70,000 glaciers. Even if you never heard of a
> climatologist, you would know something was going on.
>
A very interesting site. Thank you for the link.
Of course, the fact that glaciers are receding isn't evidence of increased
global warming due to man. The glaciers have been receding for thousands
upon thousands of years. The shift in global climate from ice-age to
interglacial is akin to a classic T-jump experiment. i.e., perturb a system
at equilibrium with a significant change in temperature and determine the
time constant associated with the return to equilibrium. Are we still
warming slightly as a result of coming out of an ice-age? Are temperatures
stable but the mass of frozen water still recovering from the
non-equilibrium position?
One of the reports (MBB5) includes in its Final Remarks and Acknowledgements
section the following:
"The mean specific net balance (-306 mm) for the seven years 1990/91-1996/97
is markedly higher than the decadal mean of 1980-1990 (-259 mm). The
difference corresponds to an increase in additional energy flux of about 0.5
Wm-2 or 0.05 Wm-2 per year. It should be kept in mind, however, that the
annual signal of the mean mass balance is smaller by far than the regional
variability. The range of extremes observed on individual glaciers is
roughly one order of magnitude higher than the mean value of the sample and
reached extreme values in 1996/97."
Note the required increase in energy flux of 0.05 Wm-2 per year. Is there a
source for this other than man's noxious activities?
Take a look at:
ftp://ftp.pmodwrc.ch/data/irradiance/composite/comp_d19_vg.gif
This shows the total solar irradiance since 1978 as determined by a series
of satellites. From the beginning of 1996 to the end of 2000, the averaged
total solar irradiance increased from approx. 1365.7 Wm-2 to 1367.0 Wm-2,
i.e., 1.3 Wm-2 over five years or 0.26 Wm-2. This is 5 times greater than
the amount required to explain the change in the mean specific net balance
described above and certainly is enough to explain the extreme negative
values found for the specific net balance.
What still puzzles me is why changes in total solar irradiation is dismissed
by the anti-nature camp.
Regards,
John.
John Miller
picture to either reinforce or challenge my current view of the situation.
I'd be very interested in your response to my other post regarding the MBB5
glacier data and solar variation.
John.
"David Ball" <wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3ad99d5b...@news.escape.ca...
> On Sat, 14 Apr 2001 19:53:38 GMT, "John Miller" <jfmi...@nc.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
<lots of helpful stuff>
Ian St. John
>
<snip>
> Please go back to your archives and look up my credentials. And, whilst
> your at it, please provide yours (directly to me if you wish) so I can put
> your statements in context.
>
> <cut>
Me? I have no credentials in climate research.
Nor do you.
The one thing I have is a better understanding of current discussions.
If you wish to use the 'argument by authority', please feel free to ignore
my posts.
Ian St. John
"Johne S. Morton" <joh...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:9bbta6$6ie$1...@newssvr06-en0.news.prodigy.com...
>
> > 'Note: This is usenet. There are no emotions visible. To me, you seem
> > 'arrogant' in your ignorance. That you perceive me as 'arrogant' is no
> > surprise. I have spent a lot of time looking over the data, theories,
and
> > other sources. I am short with those that come here trolling with
> political
> > beliefs and junk science. We are overwhelmed by idiots like jtnews,
Chief,
> > Johne Morton, etcx showing up like clockwork with the same distortions
> over
> > and over.
> >
>
> I don't distort anything. I do make arguments, use data and evidence
> from a number of places (NASA, NOAA etc.) and usually come to a different
> conclusion from it than you do. For instance, we will have to disagree on
> the validity of MSU. Who knows, in the future I may decide that MSU or
AMSU
> is no good if it starts diverging from the US surface record.
And the point that it is *calibrated* from US and EU records?
Johne. You are probably the most intelligent troll out there, but when you
dismiss pages of analysis and information with 'I don''t agree', you lose
all credibility. You aren't studying the science. You are promoting your
'beliefs'. Sure they might change.. But it won't be tied to any change in
the *science*.
<snip>
John Miller
nothing to do with the science discussed herein (field programmable gate
arrays especially for companies supplying geological survey data to the
petrochemical industry). Unfortunately, Ian, what you don't understand is
that just because someone isn't a climatologist per se, it doesn't mean that
having expertise in related areas is irrelevant. It's quite possible to be
able to understand the scientific arguments from one discipline whilst being
pigeonholed in another.
I'd happily read your posts if they contained useful information presented
in a useful manner. Slagging people off, being clever with your use of the
language and dismissing other people's opinions based on their discipline
isn't useful. Telling people to shut up because they don't know what they
are talking about because of lack of authority is arrogant and hyprocritical
since you, apparently, don't have the authority, either. Instead of
blasting people who are trying to get the bigger picture, why not help
educate them rather than patronise them?
Harvey Taylor
<jfmi...@nc.rr.com> John Miller wrote:
> "Harvey Taylor" <h...@despam.pangea.ca> wrote in message
> news:3AD91B...@despam.pangea.ca..
>> <jfmi...@nc.rr.com> John Miller wrote:
>>>[...]
>>> Where's the *evidence*?
>>>
>>
>> To my mind the most incontrovertible evidence of the sort
>> you demand is the receding glaciers. The documents of record
>> in this question are maintained by the World Glacier Monitoring
>> Service <http://www.geo.unizh.ch/wgms/>.
>> Download their MBB5 and take a look. They document mass balances
>> for some ~70,000 glaciers. Even if you never heard of a
>> climatologist, you would know something was going on.
>>
>
> A very interesting site. Thank you for the link.
>
> Of course, the fact that glaciers are receding isn't evidence of increased
> global warming due to man. The glaciers have been receding for thousands
> upon thousands of years.
>
And your reference to back up this allegation is where?
>[...]
> Note the required increase in energy flux of 0.05 Wm-2 per year. Is there a
> source for this other than man's noxious activities?
>
> Take a look at:
> ftp://ftp.pmodwrc.ch/data/irradiance/composite/comp_d19_vg.gif
>
> This shows the total solar irradiance since 1978 as determined by a series
> of satellites. From the beginning of 1996 to the end of 2000, the averaged
> total solar irradiance increased from approx. 1365.7 Wm-2 to 1367.0 Wm-2,
> i.e., 1.3 Wm-2 over five years or 0.26 Wm-2. This is 5 times greater than
> the amount required to explain the change in the mean specific net balance
> described above and certainly is enough to explain the extreme negative
> values found for the specific net balance.
>
> What still puzzles me is why changes in total solar irradiation is dismissed
> by the anti-nature camp.
>
I'm sorry, I thought you were serious. Normally I don't respond to trolls.
I advise you to check out the sunspot cycle.
See for example: http://www.pangea.ca/~het/globalwarming.html#SunSpots
You would do better arguing the changing spectrum, magnetic field
anomalies gambit.
<amused>
-het
--
"Humanity is performing a 'great geophysical experiment', not in a laboratory,
not in a computer, but on our own planet." -R. Revelle & H. E. Suess(1957)
Zimbabwe Links & News: http://www.pangea.ca/~het/zimbabwe.html
John Miller
"Harvey Taylor" <> wrote in message news:3AD9EC...@despam.pangea.ca...
I'm fully aware of the sunspot cycle (and have been since I was 8 years
old!)
The MBB5 report identifies an apparent acceleration in the receding for the
latter part of the 1990s compared to the earlier part. The total solar
irradiance shows an increase that is comparable with the energy requirement
for the increased rate of recession.
Had the MBB5 report shown data going further back, I would have compared the
TSI over that range.
Like I say, I really am serious. Why is a natural candidate for providing
the required energy change dismissed? Can you give me a link to the glacier
data further back so I can look at periods that correspond to minima in the
sunspot cycle rather than the maximum at the end of the 90s? I'm very
curious - and I'm not a troll, truly.
John Miller
>
> "Johne S. Morton" <joh...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:9bbta6$6ie$1...@newssvr06-en0.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > "Ian St. John" <ist...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
> > news:9bb5l3$19g$1...@news.tht.net...
> > [snipped]
More so than you, Ian? Surely not.
>
>
Ian St. John
John. You may be a scientist but you don't discuss science. You made no
response to my points on the science. You just dredged up more shit. Now you
are just plain trolling. If you want Johne Mortons crown as king of the
trolls, I think you have a good chance. Now, what I said about ignoring my
posts works both ways. Bye.
David Ball
wrote:
[..]
>>
>Or maybe you don't want to reveal your particulary area of expertise has
>nothing to do with the science discussed herein (field programmable gate
>arrays especially for companies supplying geological survey data to the
>petrochemical industry). Unfortunately, Ian, what you don't understand is
>that just because someone isn't a climatologist per se, it doesn't mean that
>having expertise in related areas is irrelevant. It's quite possible to be
>able to understand the scientific arguments from one discipline whilst being
>pigeonholed in another.
That's only true up to a point, John. Even among
climatologists, there is a wide range of disciplines. Someone who is
an expert in agricultural climatology is hardly qualified to comment
on the state of the numerical modeling, for example. Someone who is an
expert on varve analysis doesn't necessarily know the first thing
about satellite measurements. While you are right that related
experience should not be thrown out out-of-hand, it also has to be
kept in context.
I'm afraid I'm having some difficulty understanding your
approach to learning about this problem. You are asking questions,
which is more than most do, but they seem to cover such a broad area
of the map, that your intent is difficult to see. You seem to be
looking for something, anything that can disprove the idea that human
beings are capable of altering their local climates. Once one avenue
is closed to you, you skip to the next topic. Why?
John Miller
> climatologists, there is a wide range of disciplines. Someone who is
> an expert in agricultural climatology is hardly qualified to comment
> on the state of the numerical modeling, for example. Someone who is an
> expert on varve analysis doesn't necessarily know the first thing
> about satellite measurements. While you are right that related
> experience should not be thrown out out-of-hand, it also has to be
> kept in context.
I entirely agree. And given that most people in this group have never met
each other but instead read postings from them, we can't possibly gauge
whether someone is capable of grasping the principles related to a different
area or not. I met plenty of people through my profession who known a hell
of lot about one thing but struggle to comprehend something else. Equally,
I know plenty of people who have a sufficiently well developed ability to
understand the underlying physical principles of almost anything in a short
period of time.
> I'm afraid I'm having some difficulty understanding your
> approach to learning about this problem. You are asking questions,
> which is more than most do, but they seem to cover such a broad area
> of the map, that your intent is difficult to see.
That's a very fair observation which I will try to answer. This is such a
horrible medium to conduct scientific debate or discussion. One of its
failings is that you only get to interact (loosely at that) with the rest of
the group. Therefore, you can't readily pickup on the nuances or thought
processes behind someone's writings. There's also a lot of unhealthy noise
amongst the useful information. For me personally, whether you agree or
not, what works best for me (and has done with good effect for many years),
is that I prod around the generalities of an issue that I am trying to
understand in what to many seems like a haphazard manner. Many of my
colleagues don't get it but they are happy with the end results
(thankfully!) I have to let the different bits of information crystallise
until I get a sense of where I need to focus. I've also learnt over the
years that I have to see it for myself. Again, many may disagree with that
approach, but too many times people have said to me that something cannot be
done or that's not the way it is and too many times I have proven otherwise.
I am also someone who needs to have the numbers in front of me to play with,
to look for relationships etc. Again, it's just the way I do it and it
works. In the specific case here, where I am coming from is really quite
simple: I can see how natural variation (particularly with the sun) could
account for a lot of the global warming that has been observed. I've looked
at a miriad of data sets, played with them in a variety of ways and each
time can see relatively simple relationships. I truly am receptive to
seeing data that either dismiss the central tenet of my current view or
provide good evidence to support the anthropogenic aspect of global warming.
Thusfar, I have a number of problems: firstly, few people have provided
useful links or they are buried amongst general vitriol and personal abuse;
secondly, I sometimes choose to include links to articles that in some way
highlight the area I am asking about but those links are considered invalid,
so I get abuse rather than useful discussion; thirdly, I have a really hard
time with blinding accepting someone else's interpretation of the
predictions of models that, in themselves, are a simplification of the real
situation.
So, with the useful contributions I have received in the last couple of
days, I am ready to start my next level of investigation. I'm truly
fascinated by the glacier studies that I was directed to and will seek more
data. If I was at work and not doing my job, I could easily access online
journals and abstract databases - but I'm at home and would like to think
someone in this group would be willing to help. You seem very familiar with
the general circulation models. How do those models treat the variation in
total solar irradiance? Can you point me towards the specific models so
that I can read up on them.
> You seem to be
> looking for something, anything that can disprove the idea that human
> beings are capable of altering their local climates. Once one avenue
> is closed to you, you skip to the next topic. Why?
I hope the above has helped answer your questions. I'm not trying to
disprove humans are capable of altering their local climates. I accept
that, unfortunately, we are. Can you also see that many of the posters to
this group come across as being determined to prove that global warming is
caused by our activities and disprove any natural cause?
I'm sure you can appreciate that this reply has taken a while to compose. I
hope you can use that as a measure of my sincerity in wanting to learn more
about this subject.
If you got this far, thanks for reading!
John.
P.G. Felton
But the data you cite from 90-97 shows a reduction in solar irradiance from
1367-1365.5 in other words opposite to the the trend you cite. So the melting
of the glaciers implies an increase in energy flux while the irradiance is
decreasing!
Perhaps GH heating?
Phil.
Eric Swanson
>
>
>"David Ball" <wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>news:3ada0bd2...@news.escape.ca...
>> On Sun, 15 Apr 2001 16:21:28 GMT, "John Miller" <jfmi...@nc.rr.com>
>> wrote:
>>
> [..]
>
Your notions about the sun's variation being the major source of climate change
has been presented many times. So far, none of it seems to stand up to
the test, except for the measured changes outside the atmosphere, which are
very small and which effect the far UV end of the spectrum. This energy
is absorbed by the stratosphere and thus has no direct influence on the
surface temperature.
>Thusfar, I have a number of problems: firstly, few people have provided
>useful links or they are buried amongst general vitriol and personal abuse;
>secondly, I sometimes choose to include links to articles that in some way
>highlight the area I am asking about but those links are considered invalid,
>so I get abuse rather than useful discussion; thirdly, I have a really hard
>time with blinding accepting someone else's interpretation of the
>predictions of models that, in themselves, are a simplification of the real
>situation.
All models involve simplifications. If we could solve a problem without the
simplifications, then we do so. The models are the only way to rationally
approach the question of our future world with added CO2 and other greenhouse gases
There simply isn't another world out there to experiment on.
>So, with the useful contributions I have received in the last couple of
>days, I am ready to start my next level of investigation. I'm truly
>fascinated by the glacier studies that I was directed to and will seek more
>data. If I was at work and not doing my job, I could easily access online
>journals and abstract databases - but I'm at home and would like to think
>someone in this group would be willing to help. You seem very familiar with
>the general circulation models. How do those models treat the variation in
>total solar irradiance? Can you point me towards the specific models so
>that I can read up on them.
>
>> You seem to be
>> looking for something, anything that can disprove the idea that human
>> beings are capable of altering their local climates. Once one avenue
>> is closed to you, you skip to the next topic. Why?
>
>I hope the above has helped answer your questions. I'm not trying to
>disprove humans are capable of altering their local climates. I accept
>that, unfortunately, we are. Can you also see that many of the posters to
>this group come across as being determined to prove that global warming is
>caused by our activities and disprove any natural cause?
>
>I'm sure you can appreciate that this reply has taken a while to compose. I
>hope you can use that as a measure of my sincerity in wanting to learn more
>about this subject.
>
>If you got this far, thanks for reading!
Uh, as I've written many times on this forum, you simply MUST do the appropriate
reading to gain an understanding of the science. Like, look at the IPCC WG I
reports in 1995 and 1990, for a start.
Most or the earlier work won't appear on the WEB any time soon, if ever.
Some of it, like SCIENCE and NATURE and the AGU journals are on line, but
you must pay to access them, if you lack institutional access. Even then,
the archives don't go back very far as yet, except for SCIENCE, which just
inagurated a new listing going back to the first edition in the 1880's.
Thomas Edison was the Editor back then.....
Also, lots of reports are technical reports from NTIS (for the US) or other
internal organizational documents. Those are really difficult to delve into.
There are even a couple of text books out on climate modeling. I've been
trying to read one for several years......
--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_sw...@skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Farrar
John Miller <jfmi...@nc.rr.com> wrote:
>Somebody please explain to me why a large number of weather stations show no
>signs of global warming and, moreover, signs of cooling are seen for the
>polar regions (where warming is supposed to occur most)?
>
>I know many of you hate the name, but this site is a useful repository of
>historic temperature data:
>
>http://www.john-daly.com/stations/stations.htm
>
>Bottom line question: Where's the *evidence*? And I will not accept the
>output of models as a valid response since that does not represent
>experimental evidence.
>
>
>John.
If you mean the data, try some of the sites listed in
http://stommel.tamu.edu/~baum/climatology.html
esp. NCDC, NODC, and CDIAC.
If you mean publications:
J. of Geophysical Research (Atmosphere)
J. of Geophysical Research (Ocean)
Geophysical Research Letters
J of Climate
are probably the most relevant for data studies.
To a lesser degree, see other journals listed on the AMS and AGU
sites
http://www.agu.org/
http://www.ametsoc.org/
as well as
Tellus
Climate Dynamics
Quaternary Research
The Holocene
Climatic Change
Quarterly J of the Royal Meteorological Society
and general science journals like Science and Nature.
Paul Farrar
Harvey Taylor
<jfmi...@nc.rr.com> John Miller wrote:
>[...]
> the general circulation models. How do those models treat the variation in
> total solar irradiance? Can you point me towards the specific models so
> that I can read up on them.
>
There are a few pointers to GCMs (docs, code, articles, books)
on my gw links page.
See: http://www.pangea.ca/~het/globalwarming.html#Models
There are also some related ocean circulation models referenced
from the 'Ocean Circulation' section.
I hope you know fortran...
<have fun>
-het
--
"The impulsive Half-breeds have got spoilt by their outbreak,
and will have to be ruled by a strong hand until they are
swamped by the influx of settlers." -John A. MacDonald (1870)
Harvey Taylor
<far...@datasync.com> Paul Farrar wrote:
> In article <6V1C6.25162$i9.49...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>,
> John Miller <jfmi...@nc.rr.com> wrote:
>>Bottom line question: Where's the *evidence*? And I will not accept the
>>output of models as a valid response since that does not represent
>>experimental evidence.
>>
>
> http://stommel.tamu.edu/~baum/climatology.html
> esp. NCDC, NODC, and CDIAC.
>
> If you mean publications:
> J. of Geophysical Research (Atmosphere)
> J. of Geophysical Research (Ocean)
> Geophysical Research Letters
>
I have been meaning to mention this for a couple of days.
Geophysical Research Letters has 'clarified' their public
access policy.
Previously, the GRL Back Issues section read:
"Articles submitted electronically are published here in HTML and PDF
formats; these files are viewable by everyone. All other articles
are available in PDF format only to current member subscribers of GRL."
Now , the GRL Back Issues section reads:
"All articles are available only to current member subscribers of GRL."
There has been some agitation lately in some circles pushing
for free public access to all scientific articles. One can only
hope that the GRL will notice this controversy and restore
their previous policy.
Meanwhile I have a scad of suddenly dead links to delete.
<cordially>
-het
--
If you push on something hard enough, it will fall over.
-Fudds First Law of Opposition
Global Warming: http://www.pangea.ca/~het/globalwarming.html
William M Connolley
[ahem. this is my first post with a new newsserver (nercs is down
*again*). i hope it works ok... please to excuse trivia of post, this
is half a test]
>> And look through prior posts, especially by David Ball, William Connely,
>> Eric Swanson, Thomas Palm, Robert Grumbine, R.R. Martin, and others.
Hey, thanks for the reference, but its *Connolley* ;-)
> You could also consider Lindzen, Michaels, Balling, Gray, Singer,
>Christy, and Parker for a realistic view.
Hmmm... if by realistic you mean quite objective, I think Parker would
be happy, but I at least think you shouldn't group him (or Christy,
come to that) with the likes of Michaels (or, I think, Grey). OTOH, if
you think Parker is a sceptic, you're quite mistaken.
-W.
William Connolley, opinions mine alone, unless your opinions are
sensible too...
Ian St. John
"William M Connolley" <w...@bas.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:3adb56ed....@news.care4free.net...
> On Sun, 15 Apr 2001 06:46:07 -0400, "Johne S. Morton"
> >"Ian St. John" <ist...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
>
> [ahem. this is my first post with a new newsserver (nercs is down
> *again*). i hope it works ok... please to excuse trivia of post, this
> is half a test]
>
> >> And look through prior posts, especially by David Ball, William
Connely,
> >> Eric Swanson, Thomas Palm, Robert Grumbine, R.R. Martin, and others.
>
> Hey, thanks for the reference, but its *Connolley* ;-)
My extreme apologies. It did seem a little 'off', but I had no recent posts
to check against. No offense intended I assure you.
Dr. Don Drake
>
> Somebody please explain to me why a large number of weather stations show no
> signs of global warming and, moreover, signs of cooling are seen for the
> polar regions (where warming is supposed to occur most)?
>
> I know many of you hate the name, but this site is a useful repository of
> historic temperature data:
>
> http://www.john-daly.com/stations/stations.htm
>
> output of models as a valid response since that does not represent
> experimental evidence.
There is no hard evidence whatsoever that anthropogenic forces
are substantially affecting the Earth's climate.
On the contrary, the hard evidence that we do have, namely,
Antarctic ice bore samples, confirm the existence of a 100,000
year orbital cycle. The "warming" that is occurring in recent centuries
is caused, quite naturally, by the Earth simply moving closer to the sun.
Folks, it's really a no-brainer.
---
DDD
Ian St. John
"Dr. Don Drake" <d...@dondrake.com> wrote in message
news:sNLF6.5842$Up.1...@sea-read.news.verio.net...
Everything for you is a no brainer or it becomes too complex.
Lane Wimberley
And, it's merely a striking coincidence that we're also
seeing dramatic increases in atmospheric concentrations of
greenhouse gases, yes?
Seems to me the role that the Milankovich effect plays
on global climate is as much theory as is the role of
the greenhouse effect.
_______________________________________________________________________
Lane Wimberley 8303 N. MoPac, Suite A-300 Austin, TX 78759
Wayport, Inc. 512.519.6195 (voice) 512.519.6200 (fax)
Dr. Don Drake
>
> "Dr. Don Drake" wrote:
>
> > "John Miller" <jfmi...@nc.rr.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Somebody please explain to me why a large number of weather stations show no
> > > signs of global warming and, moreover, signs of cooling are seen for the
> > > polar regions (where warming is supposed to occur most)?
> > >
> > > I know many of you hate the name, but this site is a useful repository of
> > > historic temperature data:
> > >
> > > http://www.john-daly.com/stations/stations.htm
> > >
> > > Bottom line question: Where's the *evidence*? And I will not accept the
> > > output of models as a valid response since that does not represent
> > > experimental evidence.
> >
> > There is no hard evidence whatsoever that anthropogenic forces
> > are substantially affecting the Earth's climate.
> >
> > On the contrary, the hard evidence that we do have, namely,
> > Antarctic ice bore samples, confirm the existence of a 100,000
> > year orbital cycle. The "warming" that is occurring in recent centuries
> > is caused, quite naturally, by the Earth simply moving closer to the sun.
> >
> > Folks, it's really a no-brainer.
>
> And, it's merely a striking coincidence that we're also
>
> seeing dramatic increases in atmospheric concentrations of
>
> greenhouse gases, yes?
Every time the Earth warmed because of the Milankovitch cycle,
greenhouse gas concentration increased.
Therefore, the only result of reducing fossil fuel emissions
would be economic harm.
> Seems to me the role that the Milankovich effect plays
>
> on global climate is as much theory as is the role of
>
> the greenhouse effect.
Orbital effects on climate is supported by EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE.
---
DDD
Dr. Don Drake
>
> "Dr. Don Drake" wrote:
>
> > "John Miller" <jfmi...@nc.rr.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Somebody please explain to me why a large number of weather stations show no
> > > signs of global warming and, moreover, signs of cooling are seen for the
> > > polar regions (where warming is supposed to occur most)?
> > >
> > > I know many of you hate the name, but this site is a useful repository of
> > > historic temperature data:
> > >
> > > http://www.john-daly.com/stations/stations.htm
> > >
> > > Bottom line question: Where's the *evidence*? And I will not accept the
> > > output of models as a valid response since that does not represent
> > > experimental evidence.
> >
> > There is no hard evidence whatsoever that anthropogenic forces
> > are substantially affecting the Earth's climate.
> >
> > On the contrary, the hard evidence that we do have, namely,
> > Antarctic ice bore samples, confirm the existence of a 100,000
> > year orbital cycle. The "warming" that is occurring in recent centuries
> > is caused, quite naturally, by the Earth simply moving closer to the sun.
> >
> > Folks, it's really a no-brainer.
>
> And, it's merely a striking coincidence that we're also
>
> seeing dramatic increases in atmospheric concentrations of
>
> greenhouse gases, yes?
Every time the Earth warmed because of the Milankovitch cycle,
greenhouse gas concentration increased.
Therefore, the only result of reducing fossil fuel emissions
would be economic harm.
> Seems to me the role that the Milankovich effect plays
>
> on global climate is as much theory as is the role of
>
> the greenhouse effect.
Orbital effects on climate was confirmed by EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE.
---
DDD
Ian St. John
>
>
> Orbital effects on climate was confirmed by EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE.
Coincidence is not causation.
The Milankovitch cycles are very small in their effect. They must be
'amplified' by some kind of trigger effect. Mostly considered to be
thermohaline shutdown or diversion.
But it has nothing todo with current global warming. Current global warming
is happening on a totally different time scale. Similar changes in
temperature from the last fifty years took the Milankovitch cycle 100,000
years.
w...@bas.ac.uk
>> On the contrary, the hard evidence that we do have, namely,
>> Antarctic ice bore samples, confirm the existence of a 100,000
>> year orbital cycle. The "warming" that is occurring in recent centuries
>> is caused, quite naturally, by the Earth simply moving closer to the sun.
>Everything for you is a no brainer or it becomes too complex.
Whilst unable to disagree with that, let me also point out that the
Milankovitch cycles are *not* caused by the earth moving closer to the
sun... and for what its worth, Milankovitch-type stuff was first
confirmed from ocean cores not antarctic cores. Just how wrong can
one man be?
-W.
--
William M Connolley | w...@bas.ac.uk | http://www.nerc-bas.ac.uk/icd/wmc/
Climate Modeller, British Antarctic Survey | Disclaimer: I speak for myself
I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file & help me spread!
Lane Wimberley
What's the causal connection between the Milankovitch cycle and
the rise in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases? I don't
imagine that the increase in greenhouse gases preceded the orbital change.
Yet, we are now seeing the highest levels of atmospheric greenhouse
gas concentrations in some 400,000 years (easily covering the Milankovitch
cycle period -- that is, periods: there are actually three, with the longest being
between 100,000 and 400,000 years), and we are seeing a rise in average global
temperature(s). This rise seems a bit out of step with the gradual rise that
should occur according to the Milankovitch theory, which should spread
the temperature change (warming, in this case) out over approx. 25,000 years.
Solar irradiance has not changed considerably over the last 20-30 years,
in fact, I believe it's dropped a smidgeon.
>
> Therefore, the only result of reducing fossil fuel emissions
> would be economic harm.
>
The _only_ result? I suspect the boldness of this statement
belies the validity of your contributions here.
>
> > Seems to me the role that the Milankovich effect plays
> >
> > on global climate is as much theory as is the role of
> >
> > the greenhouse effect.
>
> Orbital effects on climate was confirmed by EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE.
The greenhouse effect is easily confirmed by empirical evidence.
(Before you jump to an objection, be sure you know what the greenhouse effect is.)
Dr. Don Drake
> > >
> > > "Dr. Don Drake" wrote:
> > >
> <snip> >
> >
> >
> > Orbital effects on climate was confirmed by EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE.
>
> Coincidence is not causation.
>
> The Milankovitch cycles are very small in their effect.
The melting of the Antarctic ice cap is one effect
of the 100,000 Milankovitch cycle.
The last time that occurred was 125,000 years ago.
Even with negligible anthropogenic forces,
global warming (in a general sense) is actually behind schedule.
> They must be
> 'amplified' by some kind of trigger effect. Mostly considered to be
> thermohaline shutdown or diversion.
Wrong.
> But it has nothing todo with current global warming.
Wrong.
> Current global warming
> is happening on a totally different time scale.
Wrong.
> Similar changes in
> temperature from the last fifty years took the Milankovitch cycle 100,000
> years.
Wrong.
---
DDD
Dr. Don Drake
> "Dr. Don Drake" wrote:
>
> What's the causal connection between the Milankovitch cycle and
> the rise in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases?
What rises from a pot of water boiling on your stove?
What rises from the oceans when the Earth moves towards the sun?
---
DDD
Ian St. John
Say, that doctorate ( of divinity) I understand you were baptised once and
thought you'd passed the exams..
"Dr. Don Drake" <d...@dondrake.com> wrote in message
news:igXF6.5909$Up.1...@sea-read.news.verio.net...
Ian St. John
> "Lane Wimberley" <la...@wayport.net> wrote:
>
> > "Dr. Don Drake" wrote:
> >
> > What's the causal connection between the Milankovitch cycle and
> > the rise in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases?
>
>
> What rises from a pot of water boiling on your stove?
Steam?
>
> What rises from the oceans when the Earth moves towards the sun?
Chthulu?
I guess we'll never know as the orbit of the planet is unlikely to decay (
move closer to the sun ) anytime soon.
Funny man..
Finally, someone the imbeciles can look upon and say "at least I'm smarter
than..".
Steve Schulin
<la...@wayport.net> wrote, in part:
> Solar irradiance has not changed considerably over the last 20-30 years,
> in fact, I believe it's dropped a smidgeon.
Two other mechanisms, besides irradiance, for recent solar-induced warming
are discussed in following excerpt from article by Curt Suplee, "Sun
Studies May Shed Light On Global Warming", Washington Post, October 9,
2000, p. A13 -- http://www.sepp.org/weekwas/2000/Dec30.htm :
... total radiation is only one way the sun could affect climate. Another,
Brekke notes [Paal Brekke of the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt
Maryland], is "by an increase in ultraviolet and extreme ultraviolet
radiation, which could lead to changes in the temperature, dynamics and
chemistry of the atmosphere." Those might include heating atmospheric
ozone, a gas that absorbs UV radiation and warms up as it does so.
But it is a third possible mechanism that has prompted the most
excitement--and the most controversy. In this scenario, changes in the
sun's magnetic field alter the amount of cosmic rays that strike Earth,
which in turn affects cloud formation.
The hypothesis, pioneered by Henrik Svensmark of the Danish Space Research
Institute in Copenhagen, is based on this fact: Magnetic fields deflect
electrically charged particles, such as the incessant barrage of protons
and atomic nuclei misleadingly known as cosmic "rays."
These particles come screaming toward us from various places in our galaxy
at high energies, and they would pose a significant threat to life on
Earth were it not for the magnetic fields of our planet and the sun, which
together divert much of the cosmic fusillade.
The rest penetrate the atmosphere, where the shower turns electrically
neutral air molecules and airborne vapors into charged ions. In that
condition, two UCLA scientists argued in Geophysical Research Letters
earlier this year, molecules are more prone to cluster into aggregations
that make dense, low-level clouds that shade the planet's surface. High,
thin clouds typically warm the planet by trapping outgoing heat in the
sky. But thick, umbrella-like low clouds have a net cooling effect.
By this logic, when the sun's magnetic field is stronger--as it is, for
example, during high sunspot activity--it deflects more cosmic rays,
preventing them from hitting air molecules. Fewer cosmic rays mean fewer
clouds, which means more warming.
Svensmark and colleagues reported their latest results at a conference two
weeks ago in Spain on "The Solar Cycle and Terrestrial Climate." Using
data from the International Satellite Cloud Climate Project, they found
that the amount of cloud cover at elevations of two miles or lower is
directly related to cosmic ray levels--at least over the period for which
satellite data are available.
But Earth has been warming for more than a century. Has the sun's field
been strengthening that long? Yes, according to Michael Lockwood and
colleagues at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in England, who published
exactly that result in the journal Nature last year. Analyzing instrument
measurements taken since 1868, they conclude that the sun's exterior
magnetic field has increased by 230 percent since 1901 and by 40 percent
since 1964.
[end excerpt]
Previous peer-reviewed work was cited by Singer on same topic a couple of
years ago:
S. Fred Singer, "Human Contribution to Climate Change Remains
Questionable", EOS, Transactions, American Geophysical Society, Vol 80,
pp. 183-187, April 20, 1999 -- http://www.sepp.org/scirsrch/EOS1999.html
None of the climate models incorporate the effects of a variable Sun. It
has always been assumed that solar variability is simply too small, but
this view is now changing. Even if the radiative forcing from changes in
solar irradiance is less than that from GHGs, the variability of the Sun
in the ultraviolet is much greater. Evidence is now forthcoming that
UV-caused variations of the ozone layer or changes in solar particulate
emissions ("solar wind") could (indirectly) influence atmospheric
circulation or cloudiness - which in turn can cause significant climate
changes [Svensmark, H., and E. Friis-Christensen, Variation of cosmic ray
flux and global cloud coverage: A missing link in solar-climate
relationships, J. Atm. Terr. Phys., 59, 1225-1232, 1997]
[end excerpt]
A Harvard astrophysicist who's co-authored some well-known articles on the
subject in peer-reviewed journals, puts the issue in perspective:
Sallie Baliunas, "Why So Hot? Don't Blame Man, Blame the Sun", Wall Street
Journal August 5, 1999 -- http://www.sepp.org/NewSEPP/baliunas.htm
Last month's heat wave has prompted by-now-predictable warnings about, as
Time magazine's cover puts it this week, "New Concerns on Global Warming."
Computer simulations say the "greenhouse effect" should have raised the
temperature globally by about one degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit)
in the past 100 years.
But actual temperatures have not cooperated with the computer models.
Temperature records show a rise of 0.5 degree Celsius over the century,
peaking before 1940. The average surface temperature then decreased until
the 1970s (when the doomsayers were warning of an impending ice age) and
has since risen a modest 0.2 degree Celsius. Because more than 80% of the
manmade carbon dioxide has entered the air since the '40s, the
early-century warming of 0.5 degree must be natural.
One reason for the failure of the models is that they overlook an
important natural factor that probably influences temperatures: the
changing sun.
In 1610 Galileo began the telescopic observations of sunspots that make up
our modern view of the sun. Sunspots are cooler, darker areas of strong
magnetic fields. The number of sunspots peaks and the direction of the
field changes every 11 years or so, making a 22-year magnetic cycle. In
the 1980s NASA satellites collected data that showed the sun was brightest
during peak sunspot periods. The length of the magnetic cycle is closely
related to its amplitude; thus the sun should be brightest when the
sunspot cycle is short.
The chart nearby illustrates how the sun's changes, marked by sunspots,
may affect climate. Changes in the length of the magnetic cycle and in
Northern Hemisphere land temperatures are closely correlated over three
centuries. (Global temperature records aren't available for periods before
the mid-19th century, but those that are available agree with Northern
Hemisphere temperatures.) If the recent NASA data are indicative, those
changes in the sun's magnetism would track changes in the sun's
brightness, for which direct measurements are lacking. If this is so,
changes in the sunspot cycle would explain the average temperature change
of about 0.5 degree Celsius in the past 100 years. The timing of the sun's
changes agrees especially well with the timing of the global warming early
in the century.
The sun's signature seems also present in the climate record over many
millennia. Every few centuries the sun's magnetism weakens to low levels
for several decades. An example is the period from about 1640 to 1710,
when sunspots were rare. That period coincided with the coldest century of
the millennium.
As for the past 20 years, when climate models say increasing carbon
dioxide should have caused a clear global warming in the lowest layer of
the atmosphere, NASA satellites have been recording the temperature there.
The satellite measurements are thought to be precise to 0.01 degree
Celsius, and have been verified by independent samplings made by
balloon-borne instruments. Result: The readings show no increasing global
warming trend. Computer models predict exaggerated warming trends for the
recent past; presumably they do for the future as well. Surface readings,
likewise, show too small a warming compared to the model results.
Perhaps, the doomsayers suggest, global warming has been offset by aerosol
pollution's haze of small particles that have a cooling effect. But
aerosols, emitted mostly in the Northern Hemisphere, stay only days in the
air before being rained out, leaving the Southern Hemisphere's air free to
rise with increasing carbon dioxide. But satellite measurements for the
Southern Hemisphere show no warming trend, which means the models are
projecting far too much warming.
In 1801 astronomer William Herschel, who discovered Uranus, hypothesized
that times of many sunspots "may lead us to expect a copious emission of
heat and therefore mild seasons," and periods of few spots would signal
"spare emission of heat" and "severe seasons." Lacking temperature
measurements, Herschel thought that severe seasons would raise the price
of wheat. The history of wheat prices in England supported his idea: Five
prolonged periods of few sunspots were tied to costly wheat.
Herschel carefully presented his results to the Royal Society, where Lord
Brougham ridiculed them as a "grand absurdity." Herschel's case would have
been stronger if he knew what we know about the sun.
Yet today global-warming alarmists echo Lord Brougham. In 1990, after the
George C. Marshall Institute released a report that included evidence on
the sun and climate change, Jerry Mahlman, then director of the fluid
dynamics laboratory of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, scoffed that it was "noisy junk science."
This know-nothing approach is counterproductive. New discoveries about the
causes of climate change, like a varying sun, are the key to creating
better models. Introducing the sun's impact in the models has shown that
human effects on temperature are much smaller than first projected, and
perhaps insignificant compared with natural temperature changes. Those who
are worried about global warming can cool down.
[end excerpt]
The Harvard astophysicist co-authored a paper last year that focused on
one of the mechanisms:
Long Island University Press Release, "Holes In Sun's Corona Puts A Hole
In Climate Science", March 2, 2000 --
http://www.sepp.org/NewSEPP/holeincorona.htm
An unusual interdisciplinary study by astronomers and climatologists has
found a striking correlation between holes in the outermost layer of the
sun--or the corona--and the globally averaged temperature of the Earth,
suggesting that the Earth's atmospheric temperature may be strongly linked
to solar magnetism changes over months or years.
In a paper that appears in the February 28 issue of the journal New
Astronomy, climatologist Eric Posmentier of Long Island University's
Brooklyn Campus, solar physicists Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and physicist Pius Okeke of
the University of Nigeria chart temperature anomalies seen in the Earth's
lower troposphere (i.e., the region of atmosphere in which we live) using
Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU) radiometers aboard weather satellites.
The scientists compared the Earth's temperature with the size of coronal
holes reported on the Sun during a two-decade period, starting in January
1979 and ending April 1998. Results show a clear drop in terrestrial
atmospheric temperature after the Sun's magnetic field activity is most
intense. At this point, there is a dropping off of magnetic activity and
an enlargement of the coronal holes.
"This is the first time anyone has combined these modern, reliable data
sets to link solar activity and climate, and to cite several alternative
mechanisms that might explain this link," Posmentier explained. Coronal
holes are, literally, gaps in the Sun's outer atmosphere through which the
stream of hot, supersonic particles known as the solar wind pours out into
space to engulf the entire planetary system.
At Earth, this hot bath of charged particles produces the aurorae (i.e.,
the aurora borealis), interferes with electrical and radio transmissions,
and may threaten passengers aboard high-flying airliners or astronauts
aboard unshielded spacecraft. The solar wind has also been long suspected
as a possible indirect contributor to terrestrial climate change.
Posmentier and colleagues think that the connection between the solar wind
and climate may be more direct, suggesting that the charged particles
hitting the Earth's atmosphere may affect the properties of terrestrial
water clouds, particularly the percentage of those clouds covering the
Earth.
In turn, significant changes in the cloud cover influence the temperature
of the lower troposphere, with temperatures falling with increased cloud
cover. Another possibility is that the charged particles change ozone
chemistry in the upper atmosphere, in turn affecting the dynamics of the
climate.
[end excerpt]
More details from 1999 presentation before the Southern Weed Science
Society [see below for text of numbered notes, but the figures aren't
included]:
S. Baliunas and W. Soon, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics,
"Increasing Carbon Dioxide And Global Climate Change" --
http://www.marshall.org/baliunasweeds.htm
... Natural factors of climate change: The Sun one reason for the
exaggerated forecasts of the computer scenarios may rest in incomplete
knowledge of natural climate variations. One such natural factor may be
changes in the brightness of the Sun over decades to centuries. The
magnetism on the Sun¹s surface is marked by the coverage of sunspots
cool areas of intense magnetic fields. The number of sunspots varies with
an 11-years period (Figure 7). This magnetic cycle is linked to a
brightening and fading in the Sun¹s total energy output.[13] Solar
brightness changes of a few tenths percent sustained over decades could
drive global temperatures to change.
The climate record indicates a solar influence of this kind. An example
(Figure 8) is the record of the Sun¹s magnetism (a proxy for solar
brightness change, whose direct measurements extend back only to 1979) and
reconstructed land temperatures of the Northern Hemisphere over 240 years.
The two curves are highly correlated over several centuries.[14] Those
changes in the Sun¹s magnetism indicate changes in the Sun¹s brightness.
Assuming that the Sun¹s magnetic change is a proxy for the Sun¹s changing
brightness,[15] computer simulations[16] of the climate suggest that a
change of 0.4% in the Sun¹s brightness[17] would produce observed global
average temperature changes of about 0.5 C over the last 100 years.
Additional evidence points to the Sun¹s signature in the climate record
over many millennia. Every few centuries the Sun¹s magnetism weakens to
low levels sustained for several decades. An example is the magnetic low
from ca. 1640 - 1720, when sunspots were rare. That period was coincident
with the climate cooling of the Little Ice Age. Quantitative records of
the Sun¹s magnetism over millennia come from measurements of the isotopes
radiocarbon (14C, from tree rings) and 10Be (from ice cores).[18] These
cosmogenic isotopes are products of atmospheric neutrons created when the
upper air is bombarded by highly energetic galactic cosmic rays.
The isotope records indicate that the Sun¹s magnetism of the 17th century
was low then and for every few centuries before that, with occasional,
sustained magnetic maxima (ca. 11th century). During the periods of weak
magnetism, the Sun should dim compared to the average or magnetically high
intervals, when the sun should brighten. Tree ring records from
Scandinavia covering 10,000 years show that 17 out of 19 coolings line up
with lows in the Sun¹s magnetism.[19]
The idea that the total energy output of the Sun changes is one of the
simplest mechanism for the Sun¹s possible effect on climate change.
However, the Sun¹s output comes in many wavelengths; it also emits
energetic particles, and both are variable in time, space and frequency.
The various components of the earth¹s atmosphere and surface respond to
different aspects of the Sun¹s diverse energy outflows, in ways that are
yet unknown. Understanding of the possible effects of the changing Sun on
climate change is still evolving.[20] ...
-- numbered notes --
[13] Over the cycle, the full range of brightness change is at most 0.14%.
Such changes seem insufficient in amplitude and time scale to cause a
temperature response of the climate system that is larger than 0.1 C over
the period of observations.
[14] Northern Hemisphere land temperatures (from B. S. Groveman and H. E.
Landsberg 1979, Geophysical Research Letters, 6, 767; P. D. Jones et al.
1986, Journal of Climate and Applied Meteorology, 25, 161) are shown
because the global surface records do not reach back so far (S. Baliunas
and W. H. Soon, 1995, Astrophysical Journal, 450, 896); first reported in
a shorter temperature record by E. Friis-Christensen and K. Lassen 1991,
Science, 254, 698; K. Lassen and E. Friis-Christensen, 1995, Journal of
Atmospheric and Terrestrial Physics, 57, 835).
[15] It assumes that one knows the mechanism of solar change (i.e., total
brightness), and the response of the climate to such change. Neither is
known! Some wavelengths of sunlight may be more important than others in
affecting the climate. For example, the solar ultraviolet irradiance may
make changes in the chemistry in the stratosphere and troposphere (J. D.
Haigh, 1996, Science, 272, 981); visible-wavelength irradiance changes may
affect the lower atmosphere and sea surface (W. B. White, J. Lean, D. R.
Cayan and M. D. Dettinger, 1997, Journal of Geophysical Research, 102,
3255). Both portions of the solar irradiance spectrum may combine to
influence the dynamics of planetary-scale waves and Hadley circulation. In
addition, brightness changes have been considered here independent of
wavelength. Then, too, the Sun¹s surface magnetism and wind modulate the
galactic cosmic rays impinging on the geomagnetic field, and so the
electrical (B. A. Tinsley, 1997, Eos, 78, No. 33, 341) and chemical (J. W.
Chamberlain, 1977, Journal of Atmospheric Science, 34, 737) properties of
the upper atmosphere. In turn, cloud microphysics and cloud coverage may
change (H. Svensmark & E. Friis-Christensen 1997, Journal of Atmospheric &
Terrestrial Physics, 59, 1225). See also W. Soon et al., 2000, New
Astronomy, in press.
[16] Further details can be found in E. Posmentier (1994, Nonlinear
Processes in Geophysics, 1, 26) and W. H. Soon et al. (1996, Astrophysical
Journal, 472, 891); the latter contains a diagnostic comparison of the
model results to the observations.
[17] How believable is an irradiance change of 0.5% over 100 years? A
recent analysis (R. Willson, 1997, Science, 277, 1963) finds a baseline
change in irradiance between the solar minima in 1986 and 1996. Over a
century, that base change would be about 0.4%. Additional, results from
observations of surface magnetism and brightness changes in sunlike stars
yield consistent results: changes of the Sun¹s brightness over decades may
be as large as several tenths per cent (S. L. Baliunas and W. H. Soon,
1995, Astrophysical Journal, 450, 896).
[18] Why do the isotope records contain information on magnetic changes of
the Sun? Cosmic rays, energetic particles from deep space, form 14C and
10Be at the top of the earth¹s atmosphere. The amount of cosmic rays
hitting the earth¹s atmosphere, hence the amount of 14C and 10Be formed,
is modulated by changes in the Sun¹s magnetism. 14C may be subsequently
bound in a carbon dioxide molecule and incorporated in a tree ring through
photosynthesis; 10Be precipitates into an ice layer accumulating in the
ice sheets at high latitudes.
[19] W. Karlén and J. Kuylenstierna, 1996, Holocene, 6, 359; W. Karlén
1998, Ambio, 27, 270.
[20] W. Soon et al. 2000, New Astronomy, in press.
[21] J. L. Lions et al., 1997, Journal of The Atmospheric Science, 43,
[end excerpt]
- www.nuclear.com - home of "daily full text in a single file" editions of Congressional Record, Federal Register, and Commerce Business Daily
Johne S. Morton
> "Ian St. John" <ist...@spamcop.net> wrote:
> >
> > "Dr. Don Drake" <d...@dondrake.com> wrote in message
> >
> > > "Lane Wimberley" <la...@wayport.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Dr. Don Drake" wrote:
> > > >
> > <snip> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Orbital effects on climate was confirmed by EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE.
> >
> > Coincidence is not causation.
> >
> > The Milankovitch cycles are very small in their effect.
>
>
> The melting of the Antarctic ice cap is one effect
> of the 100,000 Milankovitch cycle.
>
> The last time that occurred was 125,000 years ago.
>
The Antarctic ice cap has grown and shrunk in rhythm with the
Milankovitch cycles, but it did not disappear, or even come close to
disappearing, 125kya. Perhaps you're thinking of the Greenland Ice Sheet.
David Ball
<ist...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>>
>> What rises from the oceans when the Earth moves towards the sun?
>
>Chthulu?
Good one! <wide grin> Probably wasted, though. I don't think
Mr. Drake would know H.P. Lovecraft if he fell over him. You're better
off cutting your losses with Drake, Ian. The man's an idiot and
responding to him during one of his regular trips out of the asylum
merely encourages him.
Dr. Don Drake
Ball took it personally when Drake proved a few months ago
that computer simulations eventually lose all accuracy.
Why must Ball pathetically resort to insults to fend off counterarguments?
Why can't Ball concede with grace like his fellow liberal Gore did?
---
DDD
Ian St. John
> "David Ball" <wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> >
> > "Ian St. John" <ist...@spamcop.net> wrote:
> >
> > >>
> > >> What rises from the oceans when the Earth moves towards the sun?
> > >
> > >Chthulu?
> >
> > Good one! <wide grin> Probably wasted, though. I don't think
> > Mr. Drake would know H.P. Lovecraft if he fell over him. You're better
> > off cutting your losses with Drake, Ian. The man's an idiot and
> > responding to him during one of his regular trips out of the asylum
> > merely encourages him.
>
>
> Ball took it personally when Drake proved a few months ago
> that computer simulations eventually lose all accuracy.
Not true. And this is an area of my qualifications ( computer science).
>
> Why must Ball pathetically resort to insults to fend off counterarguments?
Hey! Those were MY insults. David doesn't get credit just for kibbitzing.
>
> Why can't Ball concede with grace like his fellow liberal Gore did?
Why doesn't Dr. Dumb Duck waddle off? Is he too stupid to recognize that
even the trolls don't want to associate themselves with such dumb posts.
Personally, I find your inane rants amusing, and will trade you insults for
idiocy till you flock off. O.K.? ;-)
Dr. Don Drake
> > that computer simulations eventually lose all accuracy.
>
> Not true. And this is an area of my qualifications ( computer science).
How would Ian be aware of David Ball's mental state?
Why would Ian speak on the behalf of Ball?
Ian, are you a subordinate to David Ball
at the same Canadian climate research centre?
If so, that would explain why the two never contradict each other on
sci.environment, why Ian faithfully rushes to Ball's defense,
and why Ian has posted sycophantic remarks about Ball.
---
DDD
David Ball
wrote:
>
>
>Ball took it personally when Drake proved a few months ago
>that computer simulations eventually lose all accuracy.
You know, Mr. Drake, I can't tell which duck you favour:
Donald or Daffy. Personally, I'm thinking the latter. Daffy, you
didn't "prove" a thing. You ranted a lot.
>
>Why must Ball pathetically resort to insults to fend off counterarguments?
It's only an insult if it isn't true. Stating a fact is never
insulting.
>
>Why can't Ball concede with grace like his fellow liberal Gore did?
>
OK. You got me, Daffy. You win. I will concede that you're a
flake. <grin>
Dr. Don Drake
>
> "Dr. Don Drake" <d...@dondrake.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Ball took it personally when Drake proved a few months ago
> >that computer simulations eventually lose all accuracy.
>
That errors grow exponentially in iterative functions is well-understood
and indisputable.
Ball must be relegated to the laughing stock in the climatology community.
> You win. I will concede that you're a flake. <grin>
Is infantile ad hominen all Ball is capable of these days?
Perhaps Ball realized he won't ever be bright enough
to argue on a scientific/objective basis.
---
DDD
Johne S. Morton
A fascinating observation. They even borrow each other's insults, which
sometimes makes me wonder if perhaps we are dealing with the same person.
Dr. Don Drake
> "Dr. Don Drake" <d...@dondrake.com> wrote in message
>
>> "Ian St. John" <ist...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > "Dr. Don Drake" <d...@dondrake.com> wrote in message
>> >
>> > > Ball took it personally when Drake proved a few months ago that computer
>> > > simulations eventually lose all accuracy.
>> >
>> > Not true. And this is an area of my qualifications ( computer science).
>>
>>
>> How would Ian be aware of David Ball's mental state? Why would Ian speak on
>> the behalf of Ball?
>>
>> Ian, are you a subordinate to David Ball at the same Canadian climate
>> research centre?
>>
>> If so, that would explain why the two never contradict each other on
>> sci.environment, why Ian faithfully rushes to Ball's defense, and why Ian has
>> posted sycophantic remarks about Ball.
>>
>>
> A fascinating observation. They even borrow each other's insults, which
> sometimes makes me wonder if perhaps we are dealing with the same person.
If Ian and David are not coworkers, and are not the same person,
the last logical explanation is that Ian and David are a married couple ;-)
---
DDD
Ian St. John
> "Ian St. John" <ist...@spamcop.net> wrote:
> >
> > "Dr. Don Drake" <d...@dondrake.com> wrote in message
> >
> > > Ball took it personally when Drake proved a few months ago
> > > that computer simulations eventually lose all accuracy.
> >
> > Not true. And this is an area of my qualifications ( computer science).
>
> How would Ian be aware of David Ball's mental state?
> Why would Ian speak on the behalf of Ball?
I wouldn't judge the mental state of anything more complex than a flatworm,
or a Don Drake. David is safe.. But, of course I referred to your 'victtory'
which was nothing of the sort.
>
> Ian, are you a subordinate to David Ball
> at the same Canadian climate research centre?
Never met the man. My jobs are in geophysics, medical lab equipment, etc. No
weather related duties, except Arctic ice measurement.
>
> If so, that would explain why the two never contradict each other on
> sci.environment, why Ian faithfully rushes to Ball's defense,
> and why Ian has posted sycophantic remarks about Ball.
I recognise an intelligent, witty, educated and experienced voice when he
posts, though I couldn't tell you where David posts from.
I am sometimes disappointed that he doesn't correct my posts when I'm off
base. He did recently comment on a paragraph of mine with "I don't see the
point you're trying to make.". I didn't take it badly, especially since he
had make the same point in a much clearer fashion in one of his posts.
Similarly, I recognise an idiot when he posts, under any pseudonym including
Dr. Don Drake. Such total rubbish is a clue that speaks for itself.
Ian St. John
"Dr. Don Drake" <d...@dondrake.com> wrote in message
news:CAoG6.6099$Up.1...@sea-read.news.verio.net...
> "David Ball" <wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >
> > "Dr. Don Drake" <d...@dondrake.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >Ball took it personally when Drake proved a few months ago
> > >that computer simulations eventually lose all accuracy.
> >
> > didn't "prove" a thing. You ranted a lot.
>
>
> That errors grow exponentially in iterative functions is well-understood
> and indisputable.
Oh? I dispute it. Take Newtons method for solving the sqrt. Show how the
error grows with increasing iterations.
>
> Ball must be relegated to the laughing stock in the climatology community.
Nah. They want a fool to laugh at, you will undoubtably come to mind. David
actually gets a lot of respect despite not being a PHD researcher. Not sure
if he's published papers, but I'm sure he knows more than all but a few
posters here. Better yet, he'll take the time to explain the science to even
the most scientifically illiterate poster. I believe he even tried to
educate you. Didn't work. You just can't educate a complete idiot. There has
to be something to work with. A willingness to learn, etc.
>
> > You win. I will concede that you're a flake. <grin>
>
>
> Is infantile ad hominen all Ball is capable of these days?
Is a stupid troll worth more? ;-)
>
> Perhaps Ball realized he won't ever be bright enough
> to argue on a scientific/objective basis.
Only a fool argues with a fool. Davids brighter than that. He gives you the
attention you crave while not bothering to try to find wisdom in the
babblings of a diseased and non-functional mind.
Ian St. John
"Johne S. Morton" <joh...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:9cdb2f$885s$1...@newssvr05-en0.news.prodigy.com...
You know, it never occured to me until now that Mr. Morton and Mr Drake have
the same posting style.. utter drivel..
I wonder if they are related? As in Dumb and Dumber...
Josh Halpern
> In article <3AE83695...@wayport.net>, Lane Wimberley
> <la...@wayport.net> wrote, in part:
>
> > Solar irradiance has not changed considerably over the last 20-30 years,
> > in fact, I believe it's dropped a smidgeon.
>
> Two other mechanisms, besides irradiance, for recent solar-induced warming
> are discussed in following excerpt from article by Curt Suplee, "Sun
> Studies May Shed Light On Global Warming", Washington Post, October 9,
> 2000, p. A13 -- http://www.sepp.org/weekwas/2000/Dec30.htm :
>
> ... total radiation is only one way the sun could affect climate. Another,
> Brekke notes [Paal Brekke of the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt
> Maryland], is "by an increase in ultraviolet and extreme ultraviolet
> radiation, which could lead to changes in the temperature, dynamics and
> chemistry of the atmosphere." Those might include heating atmospheric
> ozone, a gas that absorbs UV radiation and warms up as it does so.
Well, to first order, this would warm the stratosphere,
and the ionosphere (the EUV)
But as is well known the stratosphere has cooled
over the period when the SOHO observations have
been made (Brekke is one of the ESA leaders of
the SOHO project and was commenting on SOHO
results). This does not mean that the increased
UV has had no effect, it has most likely, but not
of the order that you appear to be trying to imply.
From Science 284 305 1999.
Solar Cycle Variability, Ozone, and Climate
Drew Shindell, David Rind, Nambeth Balachandran,
Judith Lean, Patrick Lonergan
Solar cycle variability may therefore play a significant role in
regional surface temperatures, even though its influence on
the global mean surface temperature is small (0.07 K for
December-February). The radiative forcing of the solar cycle,
resulting from both irradiance changes and the impact of
greenhouse trapping by the additional ozone, is also small
(0.2 W m-2 for December-February). Although the 11-year
solar cycle is relatively short, the use of variable sea surface
temperatures would perhaps affect the results. Another
consideration is that upper stratospheric ozone has decreased
significantly since the 1970s as a result of destruction by
halogens released from chlorofluorocarbons (22). This
ozone decrease, which has been much larger than the modeled
solar-induced ozone increases, may have limited the ability of
solar irradiance changes to affect climate over recent decades,
or may have even offset those effects.
> But it is a third possible mechanism that has prompted the most
> excitement--and the most controversy. In this scenario, changes in the
> sun's magnetic field alter the amount of cosmic rays that strike Earth,
> which in turn affects cloud formation.
SNIP......
> The rest penetrate the atmosphere, where the shower turns electrically
> neutral air molecules and airborne vapors into charged ions. In that
> condition, two UCLA scientists argued in Geophysical Research Letters
> earlier this year, molecules are more prone to cluster into aggregations
> that make dense, low-level clouds that shade the planet's surface. High,
> thin clouds typically warm the planet by trapping outgoing heat in the
> sky. But thick, umbrella-like low clouds have a net cooling effect.
Reference please? I have no desire to look through GRL
for articles by folk from UCLA . Names would be useful if
not a complete reference. SNIP...
> Svensmark and colleagues reported their latest results at a conference two
> weeks ago in Spain on "The Solar Cycle and Terrestrial Climate." Using
> data from the International Satellite Cloud Climate Project, they found
> that the amount of cloud cover at elevations of two miles or lower is
> directly related to cosmic ray levels--at least over the period for which
> satellite data are available.
Have they met the objection that the observed cloud increase
can be attributed (almost) entirely to El Nino and that it occurs
only at low latitudes, while cosmic ray flux is strongest at
high latitudes? (Let alone that the excess clouds are REALLY
low).
> But Earth has been warming for more than a century. Has the sun's field
> been strengthening that long? Yes, according to Michael Lockwood and
> colleagues at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in England, who published
> exactly that result in the journal Nature last year. Analyzing instrument
> measurements taken since 1868, they conclude that the sun's exterior
> magnetic field has increased by 230 percent since 1901 and by 40 percent
> since 1964.
At the conference in Spain that you mentioned there was a paper
by Lockwood that considered this effect and still came to the conclusion
that 50% of the warming since about 1880 and 30% of the warming
since 1970 could be accounted for by solar irradiance using this
as a marker.
The implication you appear to be making by posting this article
is that solar irradiance changes are responsible for all of the
observed warming.
josh halpern
Josh Halpern
Steve Schulin wrote:
In article <3AE83695...@wayport.net>, Lane Wimberley
<la...@wayport.net> wrote, in part:
Would you care to reconcile these two points of view which you
presented?
SNIP./.....
The hypothesis, pioneered by Henrik Svensmark of the Danish Space Research
Institute in Copenhagen, is based on this fact: Magnetic fields deflect
electrically charged particles, such as the incessant barrage of protons
and atomic nuclei misleadingly known as cosmic "rays."These particles come screaming toward us from various places in our galaxy
at high energies, and they would pose a significant threat to life on
Earth were it not for the magnetic fields of our planet and the sun, which
together divert much of the cosmic fusillade.
SNIP.....
By this logic, when the sun's magnetic field is stronger--as it is, for
example, during high sunspot activity--it deflects more cosmic rays,
preventing them from hitting air molecules. Fewer cosmic rays mean fewer
clouds, which means more warming..SNIP......
Long Island University Press Release, "Holes In Sun's Corona Puts A Hole
In Climate Science", March 2, 2000 --
http://www.sepp.org/NewSEPP/holeincorona.htm SNIP.....
suggesting that the Earth's atmospheric temperature may be strongly linked
to solar magnetism changes over months or years.
The scientists compared the Earth's temperature with the size of coronal
holes reported on the Sun during a two-decade period, starting in January
1979 and ending April 1998. Results show a clear drop in terrestrial
atmospheric temperature after the Sun's magnetic field activity is most
intense. At this point, there is a dropping off of magnetic activity and
an enlargement of the coronal holes.
SNIP....
Posmentier and colleagues think that the connection between the solar wind
and climate may be more direct, suggesting that the charged particles
hitting the Earth's atmosphere may affect the properties of terrestrial
water clouds, particularly the percentage of those clouds covering the
Earth.In turn, significant changes in the cloud cover influence the temperature
of the lower troposphere, with temperatures falling with increased cloud
cover. Another possibility is that the charged particles change ozone
chemistry in the upper atmosphere, in turn affecting the dynamics of the
climate.
josh halpern
Dr. Don Drake
> "Dr. Don Drake" <d...@dondrake.com> wrote in message
>
>> That errors grow exponentially in iterative functions is well-understood and
>> indisputable.
>
> Oh? I dispute it.
Ever studied Computational Mathematics?
Ever read the term "error propagation"?
By arguing, Ian implicitly admits he hasn't.
> Take Newtons method for solving the sqrt. Show how the error
> grows with increasing iterations.
Newton's method is convergent.
As discussed a while ago, an example where error propagation occurs
is in successive matrix multiplications.
---
DDD
Steve Schulin
vze2...@mail.verizon.net, wrote:
> Would you care to reconcile these two points of view which you
> presented?
They support each other. The first hypothesises that high solar magnetism
has a warming influence. The second reports that, when solar magnetism
drops from peaks, earth's atmosphere cools.
>
> Steve Schulin wrote:
>
> SNIP./.....
>
> > The hypothesis, pioneered by Henrik Svensmark of the Danish Space Research
> > Institute in Copenhagen, is based on this fact: Magnetic fields deflect
> > electrically charged particles, such as the incessant barrage of protons
> > and atomic nuclei misleadingly known as cosmic "rays."
This one hypothesizes that high solar magnetism deflects some cosmic particles.
> >
> > These particles come screaming toward us from various places in our galaxy
> > at high energies, and they would pose a significant threat to life on
> > Earth were it not for the magnetic fields of our planet and the sun, which
> > together divert much of the cosmic fusillade.
>
> SNIP.....
>
> > By this logic, when the sun's magnetic field is stronger--as it is, for
> > example, during high sunspot activity--it deflects more cosmic rays,
> > preventing them from hitting air molecules. Fewer cosmic rays mean fewer
> > clouds, which means more warming..
So high solar magnetism means more warming, due to fewer clouds being
created by cosmic particles.
>
> SNIP......
>
> > Long Island University Press Release, "Holes In Sun's Corona Puts A Hole
> > In Climate Science", March 2, 2000 --
> > http://www.sepp.org/NewSEPP/holeincorona.htm SNIP.....
> >
> > suggesting that the Earth's atmospheric temperature may be strongly linked
> > to solar magnetism changes over months or years.
>
> SNIP.....
>
> > The scientists compared the Earth's temperature with the size of coronal
> > holes reported on the Sun during a two-decade period, starting in January
> > 1979 and ending April 1998. Results show a clear drop in terrestrial
> > atmospheric temperature after the Sun's magnetic field activity is most
> > intense. At this point, there is a dropping off of magnetic activity and
> > an enlargement of the coronal holes.
This one reports a correlation that appears to me, to support the earlier
article: as solar magnetism drops after peaking, the temperature in
earth's atmosphere drops.
>
> SNIP....
>
> > Posmentier and colleagues think that the connection between the solar wind
> > and climate may be more direct, suggesting that the charged particles
> > hitting the Earth's atmosphere may affect the properties of terrestrial
> > water clouds, particularly the percentage of those clouds covering the
> > Earth.
> >
> > In turn, significant changes in the cloud cover influence the temperature
> > of the lower troposphere, with temperatures falling with increased cloud
> > cover. Another possibility is that the charged particles change ozone
> > chemistry in the upper atmosphere, in turn affecting the dynamics of the
> > climate.
This one says more clouds means lower temperatures. This is consistent
with the other one, too.
>
> josh halpern
>
What was it about these clips that prompted your question?
David Ball
<joh...@prodigy.net> wrote:
[..]
> A fascinating observation. They even borrow each other's insults, which
>sometimes makes me wonder if perhaps we are dealing with the same person.
>
Johne, you're a sad little man. You go through life with your
head parked so firmly up your ass that the only thing you're capable
of seeing is the state of your own prostate, and while that may come
in handy a when you've grown up a little, it doesn't serve you very
well right now. If you want to follow anyones lead, why not choose
someone a little more reputable than that idiot Drake? He isn't worth
the time or effort. You're ignorant, and that can be cured, but he's
just stupid.
David Ball
wrote:
>"David Ball" <wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>> "Dr. Don Drake" <d...@dondrake.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Ball took it personally when Drake proved a few months ago
>> >that computer simulations eventually lose all accuracy.
>>
>> didn't "prove" a thing. You ranted a lot.
>
>
>That errors grow exponentially in iterative functions is well-understood
>and indisputable.
>
>Ball must be relegated to the laughing stock in the climatology community.
Tell me, Daffy, why do you disappear for months at a time then
suddenly make an unwanted re-appearance?
>
>
>> You win. I will concede that you're a flake. <grin>
>
>
>Is infantile ad hominen all Ball is capable of these days?
>
>Perhaps Ball realized he won't ever be bright enough
>to argue on a scientific/objective basis.
Daffy, you wouldn't know science if it bit you on your pimply
white ass. Tell us, Mr. Drake, what's the "Dr." stand for?
Ian St. John
> "Ian St. John" <ist...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> > "Dr. Don Drake" <d...@dondrake.com> wrote in message
> >
> >> That errors grow exponentially in iterative functions is
well-understood and
> >> indisputable.
> >
> > Oh? I dispute it.
>
>
> Ever studied Computational Mathematics?
> Ever read the term "error propagation"?
>
> By arguing, Ian implicitly admits he hasn't.
Mr Drake implicitly shows he cannot read. Newtons method is an interative
function. It does not have an error that 'grows exponentially'. therefore
showing his statement is total hogwash, and he did not understand the
textbook.
>
>
> > Take Newtons method for solving the sqrt. Show how the error
> > grows with increasing iterations.
>
>
> Newton's method is convergent.
Exactly. There is no 'exponential increase' in propagating error from one
iteration to the next. All you have shown is that you reject any answer to
demonstrating that your statement is invalid, because the example shows your
statement is invalid. Duh...
>
> As discussed a while ago, an example where error propagation occurs
> is in successive matrix multiplications.
But not *all* iterative functions have such an error increase. In the cases,
such as newtons method, where there is a 'corrective force', errors do not
grow exponentially, but are damped. This is what happens in the climate
model.
Dr. Don Drake
Why do Canadians here in sci.* behave in such a deplorably boorish fashion?
We have observed the following acting like ill-mannered cretins,
who by no coincidence, are all Canadians:
- David Ball
- Ian St. John
- Uncle Al
- Scott Nudds
We have observed that after having lost an argument,
their behavior degenerates way down to the infantile level.
---
DDD
David Ball
wrote:
>"David Ball" <wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>> "Johne S. Morton" <joh...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>> [..]
>>
>>> A fascinating observation. They even borrow each other's insults, which
>>>sometimes makes me wonder if perhaps we are dealing with the same person.
>>>
>> Johne, you're a sad little man. You go through life with your
>> head parked so firmly up your ass that the only thing you're capable of seeing
>> is the state of your own prostate, and while that may come in handy a when
>> you've grown up a little, it doesn't serve you very well right now. If you
>> want to follow anyones lead, why not choose someone a little more reputable
>> than that idiot Drake? He isn't worth the time or effort. You're ignorant, and
>> that can be cured, but he's just stupid.
>
>
>Why do Canadians here in sci.* behave in such a deplorably boorish fashion?
Maybe because there are some amazingly ignorant American
posters, such as yourself, Johne. No one nation has a monopoly on
boorishness, Johne. Being wet behind the ears, you wouldn't realize
that. Do you know how many times I and others have very patiently
explained the science to you, Johne? Hundreds. When most others have
added your name to a kill file because of the seeming boundless levels
of stupidity you can sink to, there are still people willing to engage
you in honest dialogue. The honesty goes by the wayside, when you make
idiotic comments like the one at the top of this note.
>We have observed that after having lost an argument,
>their behavior degenerates way down to the infantile level.
Let me be blunt, Johne, you have never, I repeat never lost an
argument to you. Ever. And it isn't likely going to happen any time
soon, unless you get out a towel and start drying the moisture out
from behind your ears and start listening to people such as Robert
Grumbine, Paul Farrar and a host of others who flat out know the
subject at hand far better than you ever will because they have spent
a great deal of time in the business of learning and of asking why
(not a bad run-on sentence if I do say so myself). All you seem able
to do is stick your head in the sand. Something I tell my girls all
the time is that you can't listen with your mouth open. Applied to
you, Johne, it means you won't learn until you start to listen and ask
questions. From time to time, you do surprise people and ask a
question or two, but by and large, you don't seem willing to do the
work to learn anything.
Ian St. John
> "David Ball" <wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > "Johne S. Morton" <joh...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> > [..]
> >
> >> A fascinating observation. They even borrow each other's insults,
which
> >>sometimes makes me wonder if perhaps we are dealing with the same
person.
> >>
> > Johne, you're a sad little man. You go through life with your
> > head parked so firmly up your ass that the only thing you're capable of
seeing
> > is the state of your own prostate, and while that may come in handy a
when
> > you've grown up a little, it doesn't serve you very well right now. If
you
> > want to follow anyones lead, why not choose someone a little more
reputable
> > than that idiot Drake? He isn't worth the time or effort. You're
ignorant, and
> > that can be cured, but he's just stupid.
>
>
> Why do Canadians here in sci.* behave in such a deplorably boorish
fashion?
Some here are Canadian. Some may not be. Uncle Al, for example has posted on
politics as an American. Others, with Canadian email addresses may be
Americans. I posted my theory that Scott was an American using a Canadian
free service to hide his identity. We have a lot of them living here under
NAFTA and others that just like the cultured friendly atmosphere.
>
> We have observed the following acting like ill-mannered cretins,
> who by no coincidence, are all Canadians:
>
> - David Ball
> - Ian St. John
> - Uncle Al
> - Scott Nudds
And your proof of this contention? No. Never mind. You are just trying to
group those who disagree with you into a 'class' that you can then
disparage. A desperate attempt to salvage your credibility, or what you
perceive as credibility.
>
> We have observed that after having lost an argument,
> their behavior degenerates way down to the infantile level.
Having never 'lost' a discussion with you, your statement is false on its
merits. More to the point, nobody 'wins' usenet discussions. Those that
claim to, are just deluded.
Some, like you, start off with stupid remarks. Others try to to show how the
subject should be looked at, until they finally give up, and recognise that
the poster is a complete whack job/troll. In your case, I don't even
hesitate any more. You've proven that you cannot make useful or intelligent
posts. Why not disappear again, Mr. Duck?
David Ball
wrote:
My apologies to Johne, for my response above. It is clear from
re-reading the post, that it was Daffy making comments and not Johne.
Josh Halpern
Steve Schulin wrote:
> In article <3AEA5709...@mail.verizon.net>, josh halpern,
> vze2...@mail.verizon.net, wrote:
>
> > Would you care to reconcile these two points of view which you
> > presented?
> They support each other. The first hypothesises that high solar magnetism
> has a warming influence. The second reports that, when solar magnetism
> drops from peaks, earth's atmosphere cools.
> > Steve Schulin wrote:
SNIp...
> This one says more clouds means lower temperatures. This is consistent
> with the other one, too.
Not quite. One blames the cloud formation on incoming cosmic
rays, the other on particles in the solar wind. Which is it.
Or are they both just fishing.
josh halpern
Dr. Don Drake
> "Dr. Don Drake" <d...@dondrake.com> wrote in message
>
>>
>> Why do Canadians here in sci.* behave in such a deplorably boorish
> fashion?
>> [..]
>> We have observed that after having lost an argument, their behavior
>> degenerates way down to the infantile level.
>>
>
> Some, like you, start off with stupid remarks. Others try to to show how the
> subject should be looked at, until they finally give up, and recognise that
> the poster is a complete whack job/troll. In your case, I don't even hesitate
> any more. You've proven that you cannot make useful or intelligent posts. Why
> not disappear again, Mr. Duck?
Q.E.D.
---
DDD
Dr. Don Drake
Just read the above sentence. Ball must be dizzy.
> And it isn't likely going to happen any time soon,
> unless you get out a towel and start drying the moisture out from behind your
> ears and start listening to people such as Robert Grumbine, Paul Farrar and a
> host of others who flat out know the subject at hand far better than you ever
> will because they have spent a great deal of time in the business of learning
> and of asking why (not a bad run-on sentence if I do say so myself). All you
> seem able to do is stick your head in the sand. Something I tell my girls all
> the time is that you can't listen with your mouth open. Applied to you, Johne,
> it means you won't learn until you start to listen and ask questions. From
> time to time, you do surprise people and ask a question or two, but by and
> large, you don't seem willing to do the work to learn anything.
Ball is confused, as he is on most issues.
He responded to what I posted as though Johne Morton wrote it.
---
DDD
David Ball
wrote:
>
>He responded to what I posted as though Johne Morton wrote it.
>
>
realized I made a mistake. Of course, you haven't the brains to figure
that out, Daffy.
Dr. Don Drake
> "Dr. Don Drake" <d...@dondrake.com> wrote:
>>
>>He responded to what I posted as though Johne Morton wrote it.
>>
>>
> You bet, and I even had the class to post an apology when I
> realized I made a mistake.
I forgive you.
---
DDD
David Ball
wrote:
>"David Ball" <wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>> "Dr. Don Drake" <d...@dondrake.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>He responded to what I posted as though Johne Morton wrote it.
>>>
>>>
>> You bet, and I even had the class to post an apology when I
>> realized I made a mistake.
>
>
>I forgive you.
>
There's nothing you write, Daffy, that merits an apology.
There's a lot that requires one though. Tell me, oh wise one, when are
you going to post your science. This is a science forum, after all. So
far, all I've seen is your usual drivel.
John Hellstrom
>Ian St. John <ist...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>>"Dr. Don Drake" <d...@dondrake.com> wrote in message
>
>>> On the contrary, the hard evidence that we do have, namely,
>>> Antarctic ice bore samples, confirm the existence of a 100,000
>>> year orbital cycle. The "warming" that is occurring in recent centuries
>>> is caused, quite naturally, by the Earth simply moving closer to the sun.
>
>>Everything for you is a no brainer or it becomes too complex.
>
>Whilst unable to disagree with that, let me also point out that the
>Milankovitch cycles are *not* caused by the earth moving closer to the
>sun... and for what its worth, Milankovitch-type stuff was first
>confirmed from ocean cores not antarctic cores. Just how wrong can
>one man be?
Yessss, sort of. The ca. 100 ka cycles were certainly first confirmed
from deep ocean cores, but I'd argue that orbital forcing of Quaternary
climate has never been convincingly established from ocean cores alone,
particularly with data like the Devil's Hole vein calcite record
clouding the issue. A lot of the early support for the theory from
ocean cores relied on some horribly circular logic, in that cores were
dated by "tuning" to an idealised timescale before undergoing spectral
analysis which revealed (surprise surprise) the orbital periods which
the idealised timescale was first tuned to..
I've always felt rather sceptical about Milankovitch theory, at least
as a driver of global glacial cycles, but had to concede there was
something in it when the first oxygen isotope data from Vostok ice core
atmospheric inclusions were released. Shackleton's epic analysis of
ocean and ice core data published last year (Science v289 pp1897-1992;
for anyone interested in the orbital forcing question this paper is an
absolutely essential read) leaves very little room for skepticism, so I
suppose for me at least it is the ice core data that finally confirmed
Milankovitch theory. YMMV.
John.
Dr. Don Drake
>>>"Dr. Don Drake" <d...@dondrake.com> wrote in message
>>
>>>> On the contrary, the hard evidence that we do have, namely, Antarctic ice
>>>> bore samples, confirm the existence of a 100,000 year orbital cycle. The
>>>> "warming" that is occurring in recent centuries is caused, quite naturally,
>>>> by the Earth simply moving closer to the sun.
>>
>>Whilst unable to disagree with that, let me also point out that the
>>Milankovitch cycles are *not* caused by the earth moving closer to the sun...
>>and for what its worth, Milankovitch-type stuff was first confirmed from ocean
>>cores not antarctic cores. Just how wrong can one man be?
>
> Yessss, sort of. The ca. 100 ka cycles were certainly first confirmed from
> deep ocean cores, but I'd argue that orbital forcing of Quaternary climate has
> never been convincingly established from ocean cores alone, particularly with
> data like the Devil's Hole vein calcite record clouding the issue. A lot of
> the early support for the theory from ocean cores relied on some horribly
> circular logic, in that cores were dated by "tuning" to an idealised timescale
> before undergoing spectral analysis which revealed (surprise surprise) the
> orbital periods which the idealised timescale was first tuned to..
>
> I've always felt rather sceptical about Milankovitch theory, at least as a
> driver of global glacial cycles, but had to concede there was something in it
> when the first oxygen isotope data from Vostok ice core atmospheric inclusions
> were released. Shackleton's epic analysis of ocean and ice core data
> published last year (Science v289 pp1897-1992; for anyone interested in the
> orbital forcing question this paper is an absolutely essential read) leaves
> very little room for skepticism, so I suppose for me at least it is the ice
> core data that finally confirmed Milankovitch theory. YMMV.
And the beauty of such a convincing empirical analysis is that
it isn't based on computer models and fudge factors.
The IPCC must take it into account.
I'd bet Dr. Ball will dodge this meaningful post --
it presents science that Ball prefers to ignore.
---
DDD
Steve Schulin
wrote:
> Steve Schulin wrote:
>
> > In article <3AEA5709...@mail.verizon.net>, josh halpern,
> > vze2...@mail.verizon.net, wrote:
> >
> > > Would you care to reconcile these two points of view which you
> > > presented?
> > They support each other. The first hypothesises that high solar magnetism
> > has a warming influence. The second reports that, when solar magnetism
> > drops from peaks, earth's atmosphere cools.
> > > Steve Schulin wrote:
>
> SNIp...
>
> > This one says more clouds means lower temperatures. This is consistent
> > with the other one, too.
>
> Not quite. One blames the cloud formation on incoming cosmic
> rays, the other on particles in the solar wind. Which is it.
> Or are they both just fishing.
I never in a million years would have imagined that your challenge to
reconcile was based on which source of particles was discussed. Thanks for
showing what your intention is.
Eric Swanson
Dr. Duh Don is at it again.
The Milankovitch theory has been kicked around for quite a while.
If the 100,000 year cycle were the only big problem, we would be
about due for another ice age about now. We are actually heading
into a period of colder conditions, not warming.
As has been pointed to on this forum, there is also a longer cycle
of about 400,000 years, which may prevent this interglacial from ending
as the last one did some 120,000 years ago, with a return to Ice Age
conditions.
The last interglacial didn't have the same mode of THC that we currently
enjoy. Of course, should mankind's planetary changes switch the
Thermohaline Circulation into a weaker state, then all bets are off.
--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_sw...@skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Ball
wrote:
>> I've always felt rather sceptical about Milankovitch theory, at least as a
>> driver of global glacial cycles, but had to concede there was something in it
>> when the first oxygen isotope data from Vostok ice core atmospheric inclusions
>> were released. Shackleton's epic analysis of ocean and ice core data
>> published last year (Science v289 pp1897-1992; for anyone interested in the
>> orbital forcing question this paper is an absolutely essential read) leaves
>> very little room for skepticism, so I suppose for me at least it is the ice
>> core data that finally confirmed Milankovitch theory. YMMV.
>
>
>And the beauty of such a convincing empirical analysis is that
>it isn't based on computer models and fudge factors.
>
>The IPCC must take it into account.
Why? Daffy, let's for the time-being assume you know a little
science. That's assume, BTW. Let's perform a simple thought experiment
and plot out a time series of the global mean temperature for the past
100 years. Got that far? Now show me the influence on that time series
of a single thunderstorm. In addition, show me the influence on that
time-series of a cycle lasting, oh, I don't know, somewhere between
100 and 400 thousand years. I await, breathless, in anticipation of
your answer, Daffy.
Josh Halpern
Steve Schulin wrote:
> In article <3AECA880...@mail.verizon.net>, vze2...@mail.verizon.net
>
> > > In article <3AEA5709...@mail.verizon.net>, josh halpern,
> > > vze2...@mail.verizon.net, wrote:
>
> > > > Would you care to reconcile these two points of view which you
> > > > presented?
> > > They support each other. The first hypothesises that high solar magnetism
> > > has a warming influence. The second reports that, when solar magnetism
> > > drops from peaks, earth's atmosphere cools.
> > > > Steve Schulin wrote:
> > SNIp...
> > > This one says more clouds means lower temperatures. This is consistent
> > > with the other one, too.
> >
> > Not quite. One blames the cloud formation on incoming cosmic
> > rays, the other on particles in the solar wind. Which is it.
> > Or are they both just fishing.
>
> I never in a million years would have imagined that your challenge to
> reconcile was based on which source of particles was discussed. Thanks for
> showing what your intention is.
It's a serious question. For one thing it makes it possible to look
at ionization mechanisms. Solar wind particles are very different
from cosmic rays.in energy and composition. Cosmic rays have
energies of GeV, solar wind particles keV. The solar wind particles
from coronal holes are almost all protons. One has
measurements of the flux of each of these types of particles
and their cross-sections for collisions in atmospheric gases.
However, both theories do have a very common serious problem.
Ionized particles penetrate the atmosphere most efficiently at the
poles. The excess cloud formation was found in the tropics, at
low altitude.
Now, I could play your game and say your response shows that
you are simply trying to throw anything you can find against the
wall and see what sticks, but I won't, I'll simply ask which of the
two theories you are proposing.
josh halpern
John Hellstrom
<swanson@nospam_on.net> wrote:
>In article <9ck21u$2d9r$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com>, d...@dondrake.com says...
>>
>>"John Hellstrom" <johnhe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> were released. Shackleton's epic analysis of ocean and ice core data
>>> published last year (Science v289 pp1897-1992; for anyone interested in the
>>> orbital forcing question this paper is an absolutely essential read) leaves
>>> very little room for skepticism, so I suppose for me at least it is the ice
>>> core data that finally confirmed Milankovitch theory. YMMV.
I should ammend that to "finally confirmed _much_ of Milankovitch
theory."
>>And the beauty of such a convincing empirical analysis is that
>>it isn't based on computer models and fudge factors.
If this idiot had read and understood the paper he'd realise it
neccesarily does rely on computer models and indeed to a degree on on
what he'd call "fudge factors." It is nonetheless interesting that he
so strongly accepts its findings, given the final sentence of the
abstract reads: "Hence, the 100,000-year cycle does not arise from ice
sheet dynamics; instead, it is probably the response of the global
carbon cycle that generates the eccentricity signal by causing changes
in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration."
>>The IPCC must take it into account.
They do take orbital forcing into account where relevant, as this idiot
would realise if he'd read any of the IPCC WG1 reports.
>>I'd bet Dr. Ball will dodge this meaningful post --
>>it presents science that Ball prefers to ignore.
I can't actually recall having noticed David Ball or any other poster
to this group trying to downplay the influence of orbital forcing on
global climate. The reality is that it has very little effect over
century-scale time intervals and thus is of marginal relevance to the
question of contemporary anthropogenic climate change.
>Dr. Duh Don is at it again.
Just killfile him. I really can't understand you people who apparently
manage to wade through this group without comprehensive killfiles :-)
>As has been pointed to on this forum, there is also a longer cycle
>of about 400,000 years, which may prevent this interglacial from ending
>as the last one did some 120,000 years ago, with a return to Ice Age
>conditions.
I'd hasten to add the combined ice core/ocean core analysis I refered
to above can't even begin to address such long period cycles, as the
ice core data only extend back ca. 400 ka. The reality is we still
understand too little about it to use orbital forcing as a predictive
tool, and it'd be a brave person indeed at this stage who tried to make
bets on the natural length of the Holocene interglacial.
>The last interglacial didn't have the same mode of THC that we currently
>enjoy. Of course, should mankind's planetary changes switch the
>Thermohaline Circulation into a weaker state, then all bets are off.
I'm kind of sceptical on this one too. Convincing evidence of
extremely rapid North Atlantic climate change is largely restricted to
glacial periods. If you can slow down THC during an interglacial then
yes you may well have a problem up there but it's very likely of
regional rather than global extent and shouldn't cause those of us
south of the equator to lose too much sleep :-)
John.
Dr. Don Drake
Every 100,000 years the West Antarctic ice sheet melts.
It hasn't melted very much yet.
> As has been pointed to on this forum, there is also a longer cycle of about
> 400,000 years, which may prevent this interglacial from ending as the last one
> did some 120,000 years ago, with a return to Ice Age conditions.
You need to clarify your oxymoronic statements, Swanson.
First you claim there is an incoming Ice Age.
Then you contradict yourself by predicting a prolonged interglacial.
Which are you claiming is currently happening?
---
DDD
Eric Swanson
>
>"Eric Swanson" <swanson@nospam_on.net> wrote:
>
>> In article <9ck21u$2d9r$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com>, d...@dondrake.com says...
>>>
>>>on computer models and fudge factors.
>>>
>>>The IPCC must take it into account.
>>>
>>>I'd bet Dr. Ball will dodge this meaningful post -- it presents science that
>>>Ball prefers to ignore.
>>
>> Dr. Duh Don is at it again.
>>
>> The Milankovitch theory has been kicked around for quite a while. If the
>> 100,000 year cycle were the only big problem, we would be about due for
>> another ice age about now. We are actually heading into a period of colder
>> conditions, not warming.
>
>
>Every 100,000 years the West Antarctic ice sheet melts.
>
>It hasn't melted very much yet.
Doc Duh Don, when was the last time the W. Antarctic ice sheet melted??
Was it roughly 130,000 yr BP, at the start of the Eemian?
If so, when was (is) it supposed to start melting again?
Could it be 130,000 yr BP + 100,000 = 30,000 yr BP?
>> As has been pointed to on this forum, there is also a longer cycle of about
>> 400,000 years, which may prevent this interglacial from ending as the last one
>> did some 120,000 years ago, with a return to Ice Age conditions.
>
>
>You need to clarify your oxymoronic statements, Swanson.
>
>First you claim there is an incoming Ice Age.
>Then you contradict yourself by predicting a prolonged interglacial.
>
>Which are you claiming is currently happening?
The Milankvitch parameters are just about the way the were at the end of
the Eemian, if I am not mistaken. Robert Gumbine pointed to an article
which he says points to a delay in the onset of the next glaciation due to
the effects of the longer 400,000 (MOL) cycle.
Otherwise, we would be about due for the start of another Ice Age.
A shutdown of the THC has been implicated in the onset of ice age conditions,
such as occured briefly during the Younger Dryas period of about 1000 years.
Steve Schulin
wrote:
In the original article, Posmentier and colleagues cited several possible
mechanisms for the observed correlation between solar magnetism and
earth's temperature, including the particle-cloud connection you are now
focusing on.
As best I recall, charged particles lose a little energy with most
interactions. Most use all their energy on their journey through the
atmosphere, but some make it all the way through to hit you and me. The
secondary and tertiary ionizations of each are indistinguishable. The
collisions you mention would be important for capture and billiard ball
events, such as C14 creation, but not for the most common electron-related
ionizations.
> However, both theories do have a very common serious problem.
> Ionized particles penetrate the atmosphere most efficiently at the
> poles. The excess cloud formation was found in the tropics, at
> low altitude.
I'm not familiar with this argument. Why is it a serious problem?
>
> Now, I could play your game and say your response shows that
> you are simply trying to throw anything you can find against the
> wall and see what sticks, but I won't, I'll simply ask which of the
> two theories you are proposing.
>
> josh halpern
You've got your hands full playing your own games, as far as I can see. To
maintain that by reconcile you originally meant choose a particle
mechanism is quite uncredible. As the Harvard astrophysicists noted in
original posting: "The various components of the earth¹s atmosphere and
surface respond to different aspects of the Sun¹s diverse energy outflows,
in ways that are yet unknown. Understanding of the possible effects of the
changing Sun on climate change is still evolving."
To further refresh your memory, here's more from the originally posted
Baliunas and Soon paper
"The climate record indicates a solar influence... An example
(Figure 8) is the record of the Sun¹s magnetism (a proxy for solar
brightness change, whose direct measurements extend back only to 1979) and
reconstructed land temperatures of the Northern Hemisphere over 240 years.
The two curves are highly correlated over several centuries.[14] Those
changes in the Sun¹s magnetism indicate changes in the Sun¹s brightness.
Assuming that the Sun¹s magnetic change is a proxy for the Sun¹s changing
brightness,[15] computer simulations[16] of the climate suggest that a
change of 0.4% in the Sun¹s brightness[17] would produce observed global
average temperature changes of about 0.5 C over the last 100 years.
Additional evidence points to the Sun¹s signature in the climate record
over many millennia. Every few centuries the Sun¹s magnetism weakens to
low levels sustained for several decades. An example is the magnetic low
from ca. 1640 - 1720, when sunspots were rare. That period was coincident
with the climate cooling of the Little Ice Age. Quantitative records of
the Sun¹s magnetism over millennia come from measurements of the isotopes
radiocarbon (14C, from tree rings) and 10Be (from ice cores).[18] These
cosmogenic isotopes are products of atmospheric neutrons created when the
upper air is bombarded by highly energetic galactic cosmic rays.
The isotope records indicate that the Sun¹s magnetism of the 17th century
was low then and for every few centuries before that, with occasional,
sustained magnetic maxima (ca. 11th century). During the periods of weak
magnetism, the Sun should dim compared to the average or magnetically high
intervals, when the sun should brighten. Tree ring records from
Scandinavia covering 10,000 years show that 17 out of 19 coolings line up
with lows in the Sun¹s magnetism.[19]
The idea that the total energy output of the Sun changes is one of the
simplest mechanism for the Sun¹s possible effect on climate change.
However, the Sun¹s output comes in many wavelengths; it also emits
energetic particles, and both are variable in time, space and frequency.
The various components of the earth¹s atmosphere and surface respond to
different aspects of the Sun¹s diverse energy outflows, in ways that are
yet unknown. Understanding of the possible effects of the changing Sun on
climate change is still evolving.[20] ...
-- numbered notes --
[13] Over the cycle, the full range of brightness change is at most 0.14%.
Such changes seem insufficient in amplitude and time scale to cause a
temperature response of the climate system that is larger than 0.1 C over
the period of observations.
[14] Northern Hemisphere land temperatures (from B. S. Groveman and H. E.
Landsberg 1979, Geophysical Research Letters, 6, 767; P. D. Jones et al.
1986, Journal of Climate and Applied Meteorology, 25, 161) are shown
because the global surface records do not reach back so far (S. Baliunas
and W. H. Soon, 1995, Astrophysical Journal, 450, 896); first reported in
a shorter temperature record by E. Friis-Christensen and K. Lassen 1991,
Science, 254, 698; K. Lassen and E. Friis-Christensen, 1995, Journal of
Atmospheric and Terrestrial Physics, 57, 835).
[15] It assumes that one knows the mechanism of solar change (i.e., total
brightness), and the response of the climate to such change. Neither is
known! Some wavelengths of sunlight may be more important than others in
affecting the climate. For example, the solar ultraviolet irradiance may
make changes in the chemistry in the stratosphere and troposphere (J. D.
Haigh, 1996, Science, 272, 981); visible-wavelength irradiance changes may
affect the lower atmosphere and sea surface (W. B. White, J. Lean, D. R.
Cayan and M. D. Dettinger, 1997, Journal of Geophysical Research, 102,
3255). Both portions of the solar irradiance spectrum may combine to
influence the dynamics of planetary-scale waves and Hadley circulation. In
addition, brightness changes have been considered here independent of
wavelength. Then, too, the Sun¹s surface magnetism and wind modulate the
galactic cosmic rays impinging on the geomagnetic field, and so the
electrical (B. A. Tinsley, 1997, Eos, 78, No. 33, 341) and chemical (J. W.
Chamberlain, 1977, Journal of Atmospheric Science, 34, 737) properties of
the upper atmosphere. In turn, cloud microphysics and cloud coverage may
change (H. Svensmark & E. Friis-Christensen 1997, Journal of Atmospheric &
Terrestrial Physics, 59, 1225). See also W. Soon et al., 2000, New
Astronomy, in press.
[16] Further details can be found in E. Posmentier (1994, Nonlinear
Processes in Geophysics, 1, 26) and W. H. Soon et al. (1996, Astrophysical
Journal, 472, 891); the latter contains a diagnostic comparison of the
model results to the observations.
[17] How believable is an irradiance change of 0.5% over 100 years? A
recent analysis (R. Willson, 1997, Science, 277, 1963) finds a baseline
change in irradiance between the solar minima in 1986 and 1996. Over a
century, that base change would be about 0.4%. Additional, results from
observations of surface magnetism and brightness changes in sunlike stars
yield consistent results: changes of the Sun¹s brightness over decades may
be as large as several tenths per cent (S. L. Baliunas and W. H. Soon,
1995, Astrophysical Journal, 450, 896).
[18] Why do the isotope records contain information on magnetic changes of
the Sun? Cosmic rays, energetic particles from deep space, form 14C and
10Be at the top of the earth¹s atmosphere. The amount of cosmic rays
hitting the earth¹s atmosphere, hence the amount of 14C and 10Be formed,
is modulated by changes in the Sun¹s magnetism. 14C may be subsequently
bound in a carbon dioxide molecule and incorporated in a tree ring through
photosynthesis; 10Be precipitates into an ice layer accumulating in the
ice sheets at high latitudes.
Phil. G. Felton
<steve.schulin-0...@mg-6311278-58.mg2.wdc2.ricochet.net>,
steve....@nuclear.com (Steve Schulin) wrote:
Because it would imply that the effect of such bombardment would be to create
clouds at high altitudes at the poles rather than low altitudes in the tropics.
Note that the aurorae borealis/australis occur near the poles.
Phil.
(deleted)
Steve Schulin
Sounds like you guys could've saved a bunch of peer reviewers and journal
editors a lot of embarrassment over the years:
Tinsley, B.A, and G.W. Deen, 1991: "Apparent Tropospheric Response to
MeV-GeV Particle Flux Variations: A Connection Via Electrofreezing of
Supercooled Water in High-level Clouds." J. Geophys. Res., vol. 96, pp.
22283-22296.
Tinsley, B.A., 1996: "Correlations of Atmospheric Dynamics with Solar Wind
Induced Changes of Air-Earth Current Density into Cloud Tops." J. Geophys.
Res., vol. 101, p. 29701.
Svensmark, H., and E. Friis-Christensen, 1997: "Variations of Cosmic Ray
Flux and Global Cloud Coverage: A Missing Link in Solar-Climate
Relationships." J. Atm. Terr. Phys., vol. 59(11), p. 1225.
Aren't you the poster who recently asserted that the glacier on Mt
Kilimanjaro is receding due to "current warming trend"?
Josh Halpern
Steve Schulin wrote:
> In article <felton-0105...@pgfelton97.princeton.edu>,
> fel...@princeton.edu (Phil. G. Felton) wrote:
> > <steve.schulin-0...@mg-6311278-58.mg2.wdc2.ricochet.net>,
> > steve....@nuclear.com (Steve Schulin) wrote:
> >> > In article <3AEE0DC9...@mail.verizon.net>, vze2...@mail.verizon.net
> > > > Steve Schulin wrote:
> > > > > In article <3AECA880...@mail.verizon.net>,
> > > > > > > In article <3AEA5709...@mail.verizon.net>, josh halpern,
SNIP....
> > > In the original article, Posmentier and colleagues cited several possible
> > > mechanisms for the observed correlation between solar magnetism and
> > > earth's temperature, including the particle-cloud connection you are now
> > > focusing on.
> > >
> > > As best I recall, charged particles lose a little energy with most
> > > interactions. Most use all their energy on their journey through the
> > > atmosphere, but some make it all the way through to hit you and me. The
> > > secondary and tertiary ionizations of each are indistinguishable. The
> > > collisions you mention would be important for capture and billiard ball
> > > events, such as C14 creation, but not for the most common electron-related
> > > ionizations
keV solar wind particles don't penetrate nearly as much as GeV
cosmic rays, and even those are attenuated by the upper atmosphere.
> > > > However, both theories do have a very common serious problem.
> > > > Ionized particles penetrate the atmosphere most efficiently at the
> > > > poles. The excess cloud formation was found in the tropics, at
> > > > low altitude.
> > > I'm not familiar with this argument. Why is it a serious problem?
> > Because it would imply that the effect of such bombardment would be to create
> > clouds at high altitudes at the poles rather than low altitudes in the
> > tropics. Note that the aurorae borealis/australis occur near the poles.
It is worse than that, Farrar has shown that the positive correlation
claimed by Svensmark and Friis-Cristensen is mostly due to a strong
correlation in the central tropical Pacific. If you want to still claim this
as being due to cosmic rays/solar wind, you will have to show why they
effect this area more than others. Moreover, then you will have
"overexplained" the result, because the pattern is associated with
El Nino events, and you will have to explain why the cloud patterns
are not associated with El Ninos.
> Sounds like you guys could've saved a bunch of peer reviewers and journal
> editors a lot of embarrassment over the years:
(List of references left on end)
Actually, we are quite aware of the Svensmark papers
having read most of them, but you appear not to have
followed the latest developments you might want to take a look at
Climatic Change 47, 1-5 2000, Sun Clouds and Climate, by
Svensmark,
Climatic Change 47, 7-15 2000, "Are cosmic rays influencing
oceanic cloud coverage - or is it only El Nino, Farrar,
J. Atm. and Solar Terr Phys. 62, 73-77 (2000) Comments on
"Variationof cosmic ray flux and global cloud coverage....
Jorgensen and Hansen
J. Atm. and Solar Terr Phys. 62, 79-80 (2000) Reply,
Svensmark and Friis Christensen
These contain most of the references to previous articles
The back and forth in the literature has not been to
the advantage of Svensmark, et als. hypothesis.
The Tinsley papers are new to me, but a brief search
shows that they were referenced in the NRC 1994
critical review. I have found a review and am reading it.
> Tinsley, B.A, and G.W. Deen, 1991: "Apparent Tropospheric Response to
> MeV-GeV Particle Flux Variations: A Connection Via Electrofreezing of
> Supercooled Water in High-level Clouds." J. Geophys. Res., vol. 96, pp.
> 22283-22296.
>
> Tinsley, B.A., 1996: "Correlations of Atmospheric Dynamics with Solar Wind
> Induced Changes of Air-Earth Current Density into Cloud Tops." J. Geophys.
> Res., vol. 101, p. 29701.
>
> Svensmark, H., and E. Friis-Christensen, 1997: "Variations of Cosmic Ray
> Flux and Global Cloud Coverage: A Missing Link in Solar-Climate
> Relationships." J. Atm. Terr. Phys., vol. 59(11), p. 1225.
>
> Aren't you the poster who recently asserted that the glacier on Mt
> Kilimanjaro is receding due to "current warming trend"?
ad homing our way home? It is hard to resist eh?
josh halpern
Josh Halpern
John Hellstrom wrote:
> In article <9cklni$1f66$1...@news3.infoave.net>, Eric Swanson
> <swanson@nospam_on.net> wrote:
> >In article <9ck21u$2d9r$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com>, d...@dondrake.com says...
> >>"John Hellstrom" <johnhe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
SNIP....
> >>I'd bet Dr. Ball will dodge this meaningful post --
> >>it presents science that Ball prefers to ignore.
> I can't actually recall having noticed David Ball or any other poster
> to this group trying to downplay the influence of orbital forcing on
> global climate. The reality is that it has very little effect over
> century-scale time intervals and thus is of marginal relevance to the
> question of contemporary anthropogenic climate change.
> >Dr. Duh Don is at it again.
> Just killfile him. I really can't understand you people who apparently
> manage to wade through this group without comprehensive killfiles :-)
It's a function of newgroup dynamics. The ratio of lurkers to
posters is at least 10:1. The propagandists rely on tenacity to
get the last word. If you don't reply to their pap practically
point by point they mislead the naive. This is especially true
for any complex situation.
Thanks for your comments. They have helped me to better
understand Milankovitch theory and how it was established.
josh halpern
Phil. G. Felton
I was just answering your question that there is a correlation of the type
reported by Svensmark et al. does not prove causation and the claimed mechanism
does seem to raise some further questions, but it's certainly worth publishing
if only to get the issue addressed. Note that the first reference you cite
is entitled "Apparent Tropospheric Response to...."
>
> Tinsley, B.A, and G.W. Deen, 1991: "Apparent Tropospheric Response to
> MeV-GeV Particle Flux Variations: A Connection Via Electrofreezing of
> Supercooled Water in High-level Clouds." J. Geophys. Res., vol. 96, pp.
> 22283-22296.
>
> Tinsley, B.A., 1996: "Correlations of Atmospheric Dynamics with Solar Wind
> Induced Changes of Air-Earth Current Density into Cloud Tops." J. Geophys.
> Res., vol. 101, p. 29701.
>
> Svensmark, H., and E. Friis-Christensen, 1997: "Variations of Cosmic Ray
> Flux and Global Cloud Coverage: A Missing Link in Solar-Climate
> Relationships." J. Atm. Terr. Phys., vol. 59(11), p. 1225.
>
> Aren't you the poster who recently asserted that the glacier on Mt
> Kilimanjaro is receding due to "current warming trend"?
Actually no, I pointed out that if current conditions continue the ice cap on
Mt. Kilamanjaro might disappear (the glaciers have of course already gone). In
response to a question about tropical ice. I don't see the relevance of the
question though?
Phil.
Phil. G. Felton
Since you're apparently interested in this here's a source:
>>> World's Glaciers Continue To Shrink, According To New CU-Boulder Study
>>>
>>> The volume of the world's glaciers outside of Antarctica and the Greenland
>>> Ice Sheet continues to decline and the rate of ice loss continues to
>>> accelerate, according to a new University of Colorado at Boulder study.
>>>
>>> "In the last century, there has been a significant decrease in the area
>>> and volume of glaciers, especially at mid- and low-latitudes," said
>>> Professor Emeritus Mark Meier of the geological sciences department. "The
>>> disappearance of glacier ice is more pronounced than we previously had
>>> thought."
>>>
>>> The smaller, low-latitude glaciers seem to be taking the biggest hit, said
>>> Meier, noting the largest glacier on Africa's Mount Kenya lost 92 percent
>>> of its mass in the last century and Mount Kilimanjaro glaciers have shrunk
>>> by 73 percent in that time period. Although there were 27 glaciers in
>>> Spain in 1980, that number has since dropped to 13.
>>>
>>> "I think we might find statistics similar to Spain in places like Africa,
>>> New Guinea and parts of South America," said Meier.
>>>
>>> Mid-latitude glaciers also are showing significant shrinking, he said. In
>>> the European Alps, the ice loss has been about 50 percent in the past
>>> century, and New Zealand glaciers have shrunk about 26 percent since 1890.
>>>
>>> In the Caucasus Mountains of Russia, the volume of glacier ice has
>>> decreased by about 50 percent in a century, according to calculations by
>>> Meier and CU-Boulder researcher Mark Dyurgerov. In the Tien Shan Mountain
>>> Range bordering China and Russia, 22 percent of the ice volume from the
>>> thousands of glaciers there has disappeared in the past 40 years.
>>>
>>> Meier reported the latest results on glaciers at the prestigious Langbein
>>> Lecture titled "Land Ice on Earth: A Beginning of a Global Synthesis" at
>>> the American Geophysical Union meeting held in Boston May 26 to May 29.
>>>
This was the 1998 AGU meeting in Boston.
Phil.
Miguel Aguirre
>
> I was just answering your question that there is a correlation of the type
> reported by Svensmark et al. does not prove causation and the claimed mechanism
> does seem to raise some further questions, but it's certainly worth publishing
> if only to get the issue addressed. Note that the first reference you cite
> is entitled "Apparent Tropospheric Response to...."
>
>
Correlation is not causation but if you see a extremely high correlation between two
physical events and causal connection between them appears reasonable then research
is necessary.
I honestly think that the climate science consensus ignores solar variability ate
extreme danger. In a very politically loaded environment the best policy for the
people that claims to represent science shall be extreme objectivity.
Nevertheless, it shall be remembered that according to Friis-Christensen:
"The
variability of the solar radiation is an important factor affecting the
climate on Earth but the rapid temperature temperature increase during
the last 20 years is probably not due to a changing Sun, but is most
likely caused by man-made greenhouse effect"
Therefore if Friis-Christensen is right, man-made global warming is not disproved,
just the IPCC predictions needs to be moderately reduced
--
Aguirre was considered to be a thoroughly disreputable character, and his name
practically became synonymous with cruelty and treachery
Encyclopaedia Britannica.
Phil. G. Felton
<miguel....@wxs.nl> wrote:
> "Phil. G. Felton" wrote:
>
> >
> > I was just answering your question that there is a correlation of the type
> > reported by Svensmark et al. does not prove causation and the claimed
mechanism
> > does seem to raise some further questions, but it's certainly worth
publishing
> > if only to get the issue addressed. Note that the first reference you cite
> > is entitled "Apparent Tropospheric Response to...."
> >
> >
>
> Correlation is not causation but if you see a extremely high correlation
between two
> physical events and causal connection between them appears reasonable
then research
> is necessary.
I agree that the paper brought up the need for more research into a
previously unsuspected
mechanism. There certainly seem to be aspects of the mechanism that need
to be ironed out
before the causal relationship is confirmed. The earlier poster seemed to
think that because
the paper had been published there was no doubt concerning the mechanism!
>
> I honestly think that the climate science consensus ignores solar
variability ate
> extreme danger. In a very politically loaded environment the best policy
for the
> people that claims to represent science shall be extreme objectivity.
Yes, although solar variability isn't ignored in terms of the light energy
flux but other
more subtle effects of the solar wind and cosmic radiation hadn't been
considered previously.
>
> Nevertheless, it shall be remembered that according to Friis-Christensen:
>
> "The
> variability of the solar radiation is an important factor affecting the
> climate on Earth but the rapid temperature temperature increase during
> the last 20 years is probably not due to a changing Sun, but is most
> likely caused by man-made greenhouse effect"
>
> Therefore if Friis-Christensen is right, man-made global warming is not
disproved,
> just the IPCC predictions needs to be moderately reduced
>
>
Phil.
Dr. Don Drake
Dr. Don Drake
>>Dr. Don Drake wrote:
>
>>>And the beauty of such a convincing empirical analysis is that it isn't based
>>>on computer models and fudge factors.
>
> If this idiot had read and understood the paper he'd realise it neccesarily
> does rely on computer models and indeed to a degree on on what he'd call
> "fudge factors."
>
>[..snip..]
Hellstrom isn't astute enough to follow a discussion within reasonable
parameters.
I was referring to Milankovitch.
>>>The IPCC must take it into account.
>
> They do take orbital forcing into account where relevant, as this idiot would
> realise if he'd read any of the IPCC WG1 reports.
No, not entirely.
The complementary natural forcing to orbital cycles isn't modeled at all.
Do you have any clue what I'm referring to, Hellstrom?
---
DDD