• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Actually,the world isn't warming

Chalnoth

Senior Contributor
Aug 14, 2006
11,361
384
Italy
✟36,153.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2008/09/02/actually-its-71-days-without-a-sunspot/

The sun currents are shutting down this is no ordinary minimum between cycles.
That's at least a little more accurate. But these currents on the Sun shut down basically every 11 years. Sometimes they just do it a little bit more than at other times.

It is in fact a signal for a maunder minimum. Only time will tell but we are in record setting territory.
Even if true, this would just offer us a small reprieve. The causes of global warming right here on Earth are still around us, and this will just slightly delay the onset of catastrophic change, not provide any long-term relief.
 
Upvote 0

Vene

In memory of ChordatesLegacy
Oct 20, 2007
4,155
319
Michigan
✟20,965.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Global Cooling:

Global%20Cooling%20Graph.jpg


"A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable." - The New York Times, 1975
:D I bet you didn't even notice the entire left label (Temperature Variance in C). You're not looking at the average temperature, you're looking at how much it changes from year to year. And it's largely above 0 meaning it's warming. This doesn't even support your position, the graph says the globe is warming.
 
Upvote 0

Bombila

Veteran
Nov 28, 2006
3,474
445
✟28,256.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
:thumbsup:

Thanks to people posting here who understand climatology and climate theory much better than I, I was able to link to this discussion in order to provide a bunch of good people (on a musicians board) with better information than they would have had otherwise, incidentally shutting up a climate change skeptic handing out a heap of incorrect information - including regarding the function of water vapour.

Yay, Internet Good Guys! (Hereinafter referred to as IGGheads.)
 
Upvote 0

Greatcloud

Senior Member
May 3, 2007
2,814
271
Oregon coast
✟55,500.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Solar cycle minimum at the earliest in second half of 2008?

7 04 2008

Current SOHO: The Sun is blank again
The outlook for solar activity continues to be pushed further back as cycle 23 spots continue, such as the group of 3 seen last week, but no cycle 24 spots are being seen. NASA’s convened panel of scientists obviously missed their mark of consensus in predicting cycle 24 would start in March 2008. There is growing concern over the delay in the start of cycle 24. Now a new prediction portends more delay. If we go to May or later before the solar min is reached, cycle 23 will be the longest cycle since the late 1800s. Now it is looking like cycle 24 may not get started until late 2008 or early 2009.
Here is a new forecast from Jan Janssens SOLAEMON the SOLar Activity & Earth MONitor web page:
In this statistical research, transits to cycles 12, 13 and 14 were considered, as well as transits to cycles 21, 22 and 23. The current transition towards SC24 was compared with foregoing evolutions.
The start of SC24 is not to be expected prior to July 2008, and in all likelihood might even take place only in the first half of 2009. This conclusion matches perfectly the results one can make from evolution of the number of spotless days. Nonetheless, SC23 would be one of the longest in over 100 years, possibly even in over 160 years.

It is looking like a Maunder minimum as far as the # of sunspots and the cycle slowdown.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum


List of researchers who have predicted we are headed for a major solar minimum and/or with it the next climate change to one of long lasting cold.
1. Dr. Habibullo I. Abdussamatov: Russian Academy of Scientists.
a. Kh.I. Abdussamatov. Optimal Prediction of the Peak of the Next 11-Year Activity Cycle and the Peaks of several Succeeding Cycles on the basis of Long-Term Variations in the Solar Radius or Solar Constant. Kinematics and Physics of Celestial Bodies, 2007, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp 97-100.
b. Kh.I. Abdussamatov. Long-Term variations of the Integral radiation Flux and Possible Temperature Changes in the Solar Core.Kinematics and Physics of Celestial Bodies, Vol. 21, No. 6, pp. 328-332, 2005.
c. Comment: RIA Novosti, August 25,2006: "Khabibullo Abdusamatov said he and his colleagues had concluded that a period of global cooling similar to one seen in the late 17th century – when canals froze in the Netherlands and people had to leave their dwellings in Greenland – could start in 2012-2105 and reach its peak in 2055-2060….He said he believed the future climate change would have very serious consequences and that authorities should start preparing for them today…."
2. Dr. David Archibald. Summa Development Limited. (Australia).
a. Archibald, D.C., (2006), Solar Cycles 24 and 25 and predicted climate response, Energy and Environment, Vol.17, No.1.
Comment from paper: "Based on a solar maxima of approximately 50 for solar cycles 24 and 25, a global temperature decline of 1.5C is predicted to 2020 equating to the experience of the Dalton Minimum."
b. Separate paper: Climate Outlook to 2030. Summa Development Limited, Perth WA, Australia.
Comment from paper: "The increased length of Solar Cycle 23 supports the view that there will be a global average temperature decline in the range of 1C to 2C for the forecast period. The projected increase of 40 ppm in atmospheric carbon dioxide to 2030 is calculated to contribute a global atmospheric temperature increase of 0.04C. The anthropogenic contribution to climate change over the forecast period will be insignificant relative to the natural cyclic variation."





3. Dr. O.G.Badalyan, and Dr.V.N. Obridko, Institute of Terrestrial Magnestism. Russia, Dr.J.Sykora. Astronomical Institute of the Slovak Academy of Sciences, Slovak Republic.
a. Balalyan, O.G., V.N. Obridko, and J. Sykora, (2000), Brightness of the coronal green line and prediction for activity cycles 23 and 24, Solar Physics, 199: pp.421-435.
Comment from paper: " A slow increase in (intensity of coronal green line) in the current cycle 23 permits us to forecast a low-Wolf-number cycle 24 with the maximum W~50 at 2010-2011."
4. Dr. Boris Komitov , Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Institute of
Astronomy, and Dr. Vladimir Kaftan: Central Research Institute of Geodesy, Moscow.
a. Komitov, B., and V. Kaftan, (2004), The sunspot activity in the last two millennia on the basis of indirect and instrumented indexes: time series models and their extrapolations for the 21st century, paper presented at the International Astronomical Union Symposium No. 223.
Comment from paper: "It follows from their extrapolations for the 21st century that a supercenturial solar minimum will be occurring during the next few decades….It will be similar in magnitude to the Dalton minimum, but probably longer as the last one."
b. Komitov, B., and V.Kaftan, (2003), Solar Activity Variations for the Last Millennia.Will the Next Long-Period Solar Minimum be Formed?" Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, Vol. 43, No. 5, pp. 553-561.
Comment from paper: " An analysis …has indicated that it is highly probable that the next long-period minimum of solar activity, which will possibly be not so deep as the Maunder and Sperer minimums, will be formed in the 21st century."
c. Paper by Komitov: "A ‘Global Cooling’ Caused by Supercenturial Solar Minimum in Range ~0.8C – 1.0C from AD 2008/10 – AD 2070. Presented in Sofia, Bulgaria, Int’l Conference on Global Changes. April 2007.
5. Dr. Ernest Njau: University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
a. Njau, E., (2005), Expected halt in current global warming trend?, Renewable Energy, Vol.30, Issue 5, pp.743-752.
Comment from paper: " … the mean ‘global temperature variations reaches the next peak about 2005 after which it will expectedly be on a decreasing trend. Finally it is shown that…Greenland is currently in an ongoing cooling trend which is expected to last up to at least the year 2035."



6. Dr. B. P. Bonev, Dr. Kaloyan M. Penev, Dr. Stefano Sello.
a. Bonev, B.P., et. al., (2004), Long term solar variability and the solar cycle in the 21st century, The Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 605, pp.L81-L84.
Comment from their paper: "…we conclude that the present epoch is at the onset of an upcoming local minimum in long term solar variability."
7. Dr. Tim Patterson: Dept. of Earth Sciences, Carleton Univ., Can.
a. Calgary Times: May 18, 2007. Indeed, one of the more interesting, if not alarming statements Patterson made before the Friends of Science luncheon is satellite data shows that by the year 2020 the next solar cycle is going to be solar cycle 25 – the weakest one since the Little Ice Age (that started in the 13th century and ended around 1860) a time when people living in London, England, used to walk on a frozen Thames River and food was scarcer. Patterson: "This should be a great strategic concern in Canada because nobody is farming north of us." In other words, Canada – the great breadbasket of the world - just might not be able to grow grains in much of the prairies.
 
Upvote 0

Chalnoth

Senior Contributor
Aug 14, 2006
11,361
384
Italy
✟36,153.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Why are you talking about this, Greatcloud? Why do you think it is in any way important to the climate change discussion? The Sun is simply not the cause of the recent warming, and though a temporary cooling of the Sun will help somewhat, it isn't going to fix the problem.
 
Upvote 0

Greatcloud

Senior Member
May 3, 2007
2,814
271
Oregon coast
✟55,500.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
CARBON DIOXIDE VS. WATER VAPOR
AS GREENHOUSE GASES

METEOROLOGIST JEFF HABY
By quantity, there is much more water vapor than carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Water vapor varies from a trace in extremely cold and dry air to about 4% in extremely warm and humid air. The average amount of water vapor in the atmosphere averaged for all locations is between 2 and 3%. Carbon dioxide levels are near 0.04%. That means there is more than 60 times as much water vapor in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide in average conditions. Both water vapor and Carbon dioxide are greenhouse gases. They both trap outgoing longwave radiation between the earth and the atmosphere. This has an effect of keeping temperatures warmer than they otherwise would be. Carbon dioxide is a more efficient greenhouse gas than water vapor when both are in equal quantities. However, they are not in equal quantities. There is much more water vapor than carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. In day to day weather forecasting, the greenhouse effect from water vapor is important while carbon dioxide is not. The atmospheric greenhouse effect from clouds and water vapor causes cloudy nights to be warmer than clear nights, all else being equal.

This is an IR absorption chart, clearly water vapor absorbs the vast majority of the IR spectrum, and the absorption bands of CO2 overlap water vapor to a great extent. How can you claim a consensus without using water vapor is a complete joke. CO2 have only 3 very narrow bands of IR absorption at 2.7, 4.3 and 15 microns. Co2 is the one with the red arrows demonstrating the overlap with H2O. The great volume in the overlap makes CO2 absorption minuscule by comparison. So GHGT should in fact consider water vapor the primary driver of temperature not Co2.

b66cbffbc1bc4771dca4859e2a13a12d_239006.jpg_thumb

Download 2.JPG
Filesize: 96 Kbytes
Downloaded: 20 time(s)

The net effect of this is that man made CO2 and other greenhouse gases only represents about 5.5% of all the greenhouse gas effect in the atmosphere today, and that's without factoring in the effect of atmospheric water vapor! By the time this water vapor is taken into account, man made CO2 and other greenhouse gases only account for between 1.375% and 6.875% (depending on whether H2O vapor represents 95% or 85% of the total) of the total greenhouse effect our planet is currently experiencing,CO2 is a torch compared to H2O a bonfire !

Chalnoth says: Why are you talking about this, Greatcloud? Why do you think it is in any way important to the climate change discussion? The Sun is simply not the cause of the recent warming, and though a temporary cooling of the Sun will help somewhat, it isn't going to fix the problem.

Greatcloud says: Many laymen and scientists say otherwise using hard science to support their claims. The suns TSI has been used since the 1700's to monitor climate change and that hasn't changed one iota. We disagree,but time will tell if we go into a maunder minimum and CO2 drops and stabilizes.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Chalnoth

Senior Contributor
Aug 14, 2006
11,361
384
Italy
✟36,153.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Yes, water vapor is a significant greenhouse gas. But it is one that cycles extremely rapidly in and out of the atmosphere depending upon the global climate. So water vapor is not a primary factor in driving climate change. What it is is a primary feedback effect once climate change has begun. So what happens is we have added what amounts to a tiny bit of increase in CO2 in the atmosphere, which tips the balance to the warm side. Then, once a little bit warmer, the warmer atmosphere can hold more water vapor, which, in turn, leads to an even stronger greenhouse effect than from the CO2 alone.

It gets even worse when you consider things like the melting of the polar ice caps which leads to still more evaporation of ocean water.
 
Upvote 0

Deamiter

I just follow Christ.
Nov 10, 2003
5,226
347
Visit site
✟32,525.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
:D I bet you didn't even notice the entire left label (Temperature Variance in C). You're not looking at the average temperature, you're looking at how much it changes from year to year. And it's largely above 0 meaning it's warming. This doesn't even support your position, the graph says the globe is warming.
Slight correction -- the "temperature variance" is probably referring to difference in global temperature related to a specific year. I have never seen a "derivative of temperature" graph and if one existed, the units would not be in temperature.

You might be right, but I doubt it.

Anyway, greatcloud's incessant spewing of regurgitated opinion pieces has stretched my patience too far. Do feel free to send me an email if he ever shows a hint of wanting to discuss science, but this cut/paste nonsense is just childish. It reminds me of 6th grade science fairs where kids would quote books/internet sites verbatim on posters and sit there with dumb looks on their faces when I asked them interested questions about their topics. I don't mind uneducated or honestly stupid people, but I wish they wouldn't pretend they knew what they were spouting when they mindlessly repeated crap from their favorite non-scientist.
 
Upvote 0

Chalnoth

Senior Contributor
Aug 14, 2006
11,361
384
Italy
✟36,153.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Anyway, greatcloud's incessant spewing of regurgitated opinion pieces has stretched my patience too far. Do feel free to send me an email if he ever shows a hint of wanting to discuss science, but this cut/paste nonsense is just childish. It reminds me of 6th grade science fairs where kids would quote books/internet sites verbatim on posters and sit there with dumb looks on their faces when I asked them interested questions about their topics. I don't mind uneducated or honestly stupid people, but I wish they wouldn't pretend they knew what they were spouting when they mindlessly repeated crap from their favorite non-scientist.
...and made even more childish by the way he's presenting it, what with the nonsensical editorial cartoons and the asinine use of emoticons.
 
Upvote 0

Greatcloud

Senior Member
May 3, 2007
2,814
271
Oregon coast
✟55,500.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Slight correction -- the "temperature variance" is probably referring to difference in global temperature related to a specific year. I have never seen a "derivative of temperature" graph and if one existed, the units would not be in temperature.

You might be right, but I doubt it.

Anyway, greatcloud's incessant spewing of regurgitated opinion pieces has stretched my patience too far. Do feel free to send me an email if he ever shows a hint of wanting to discuss science, but this cut/paste nonsense is just childish. It reminds me of 6th grade science fairs where kids would quote books/internet sites verbatim on posters and sit there with dumb looks on their faces when I asked them interested questions about their topics. I don't mind uneducated or honestly stupid people, but I wish they wouldn't pretend they knew what they were spouting when they mindlessly repeated crap from their favorite non-scientist.

I discuss what interests me and I do understand what I post or I wouldn't post it. I post information from scientists and it is valid. I can tell by some of your reactions some of it you haven't heard. If you elitist AGW posters would discuss then I would. It would also leave room for non scientists to discuss and post. I don't pretend to know; I do know what I am talking about. I am interested in this subject and I am on the minority side. I have a right to be heard. I will not argue and I will discuss what I want to.
 
Upvote 0

Chalnoth

Senior Contributor
Aug 14, 2006
11,361
384
Italy
✟36,153.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
I discuss what interests me and I do understand what I post or I wouldn't post it. I post information from scientists and it is valid. I can tell by some of your reactions some of it you haven't heard. If you elitist AGW posters would discuss then I would. It would also leave room for non scientists to discuss and post. I don't pretend to know; I do know what I am talking about. I am interested in this subject and I am on the minority side. I have a right to be heard. I will not argue and I will discuss what I want to.
So, you're just going to continue changing the subject every time your points are handily shot down by those pesky facts?
 
Upvote 0

Greatcloud

Senior Member
May 3, 2007
2,814
271
Oregon coast
✟55,500.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
You haven't shot down my post you have just given the other side and my posts stand as is. Time will tell on all this postering. I welcome hearing the other side but I will continue.

I want to be here when the temperature drops again. When it does I will still be posting. I want to be here when CO2 levels out and drops. When it does I will still be posting.

If you don't like it then just let newbies post here.
 
Upvote 0

Chalnoth

Senior Contributor
Aug 14, 2006
11,361
384
Italy
✟36,153.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
You haven't shot down my post you have just given the other side and my posts stand as is. Time will tell on all this postering. I welcome hearing the other side but I will continue.
Well, why not explain this, then?
N_timeseries.png

(source: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ )

Why is the ice at the north pole melting? Why is it so far below the average from 1979-2000? If the temperatures aren't increasing, how could this occur?

I want to be here when the temperature drops again. When it does I will still be posting. I want to be here when CO2 levels out and drops. When it does I will still be posting.
Good luck with that. But how do you honestly expect the CO2 to level out and drop? What do you think is going to cause that?
 
Upvote 0

Greatcloud

Senior Member
May 3, 2007
2,814
271
Oregon coast
✟55,500.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Well, why not explain this, then?
N_timeseries.png

(source: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ )

Why is the ice at the north pole melting? Why is it so far below the average from 1979-2000? If the temperatures aren't increasing, how could this occur?


Good luck with that. But how do you honestly expect the CO2 to level out and drop? What do you think is going to cause that?


There are many possible reasons for the data on that chart. It is most likely due to it taking a long time for the ocean to cool again from 2000 levels. You notice however that it is cooling from last year 2007, so what you have is a chart showing cooling.
 
Upvote 0

Chalnoth

Senior Contributor
Aug 14, 2006
11,361
384
Italy
✟36,153.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
There are many possible reasons for the data on that chart. It is most likely due to it taking a long time for the ocean to cool again from 2000 levels. You notice however that it is cooling from last year 2007, so what you have is a chart showing cooling.
Nope, not really. Local weather conditions near the pole have a profound effect on the melting of the ice. If it was just temperature related, you'd see the curves take on the identical shape, just with different heights/slopes for the year. But this isn't the case. Notice that the amount of ice is somewhat jagged, and that in the summer of 2007 there was a dramatic fall in the June/July timeframe. This was related to some interesting weather that was going on in the Arctic around that time that caused an unusual rise in temperature.

This year we didn't have a similar phenomenon, which is why the curve was smoother, even though it started out at about the same level. But notice how even without this same unusual weather phenomenon, the sea ice level still has dipped to almost the same level as last year, and it's not yet done melting.

And, last but not least, global warming is a long-term trend. Not all years are warming. We're a little unusually cool right now, due to the La Nina event, an event which will be over and done with shortly, after which we can probably expect temperatures to return to continue increasing. Though there is the possibility that a recent volcanic eruption will depress temperatures for another year or two.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Deamiter

I just follow Christ.
Nov 10, 2003
5,226
347
Visit site
✟32,525.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I discuss what interests me and I do understand what I post or I wouldn't post it. I post information from scientists and it is valid. I can tell by some of your reactions some of it you haven't heard. If you elitist AGW posters would discuss then I would. It would also leave room for non scientists to discuss and post. I don't pretend to know; I do know what I am talking about. I am interested in this subject and I am on the minority side. I have a right to be heard. I will not argue and I will discuss what I want to.
Oh, I've been "discussing" it for days now -- you just ignore any scientific challenges to your favorite op-eds and go ahead and post another one!

Sure, you MIGHT understand what you're posting, but as long as you refuse to show it by discussing (rather than cutting and pasting) you sure haven't demonstrated any such understanding!

For example, do feel free to demonstrate that there is, in fact, a model relating cosmic rays to global temperature. I contend that there is none and all you have is a weak correlation, but you're welcome to prove me wrong!
 
Upvote 0

Greatcloud

Senior Member
May 3, 2007
2,814
271
Oregon coast
✟55,500.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Oh, I've been "discussing" it for days now -- you just ignore any scientific challenges to your favorite op-eds and go ahead and post another one!

Sure, you MIGHT understand what you're posting, but as long as you refuse to show it by discussing (rather than cutting and pasting) you sure haven't demonstrated any such understanding!

For example, do feel free to demonstrate that there is, in fact, a model relating cosmic rays to global temperature. I contend that there is none and all you have is a weak correlation, but you're welcome to prove me wrong!

Solar warming theory states that the sun is responsible for most of the climate change;through the sunspot cycles and TSI.
sunspot.gif

This has been shown in the past in cycles of average 1,500 years between warming and cooling.

SOLAR%20ACTIVITY%20%20VS%20CLIMATE.jpg

What caused these periods of warming and cooling if not the sun ? Proxy data show it in fact to be the sun which causes this climate change.

Models of climate change show that the models don’t work, that their predictions are consistently wrong. Why because they leave out too many factors:
Climate Modeling Errors:
- Clouds
- Convection
- Cosmic Rays
- Eastern Boundary Regions of the Oceans
- El Nino
- Evaporation
- Macroturbulence
- Mountain Range Circulation
- Multi-Decadal Variability
- Near-Surface Temperatures at Night
- Precipitation
- Regional Climate Change
- Seasonal Variability
- Spatial Variations in Geothermal Heat
- Stratosphere Climate Change
- Transfer of Solar Radiation in the Atmosphere
- Tropical Troposphere Temperatures
- Upper Tropospheric Humidity

CRT supercharges solar climate change. When sunspots are weak more CR get through and cause formation of clouds. When sunspot cycles are strong less CR get through and less clouds are formed. These are low level clouds we are talking about. Clouds block the sun and cool temperatures by reflecting the sun. So now you can see how CRT relates to solar GW Deamiter.


I find the best way to present the model for Solar causation is a short 10 min video. In it you will find an explanation for solar warming theory and CRT. Please view it without prejudices.

cool.gif
Unstoppable Solar Cycles (Video) (10min)
 
Upvote 0

atomweaver

Senior Member
Nov 3, 2006
1,706
181
"Flat Raccoon", Connecticut
✟17,891.00
Faith
Agnostic
Politics
US-Democrat
I love how Greatcloud can look at Chalnoth's Sea Ice graph, and extrapolate a cooling trend, based on the difference from the years 07 and 08, and then turn around and offer sunspot data graphs which are all cut off at 1985 (CO2 cut off at 1990). GC, you've got about 23 years worth of sunspot activity to fill in, there. And, if the difference between 07 and 08 is enough for you to declare a trend, it seems that you would need that data in order to draw any conclusions about sunspot climate contributions...
 
Upvote 0