Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Global Cooling?
BMG
Member (Idle past 208 days)
Posts: 357
From: Southwestern U.S.
Joined: 03-16-2006


Message 1 of 79 (454750)
02-08-2008 3:40 PM


Someone posted this article I have below as support that the global warming phenomenon is a "hoax", and that the Earth is likely going to cool.
http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175
I have yet to refute this argument. I am researching now the sources that are used in the article, and the effects of the solar cycle on the Earth's climate, but I could use the help of the EVC team. Here are some quotes from the article itself:
"[Kenneth] Tapping reports no change in the sun's magnetic field so far this cycle and warns that if the sun remains quiet for another year or two, it may indicate a repeat of that period of drastic cooling of the Earth, bringing massive snowfall and severe weather to the Northern Hemisphere".
And one more, from the Hoover Institution, "The effects of solar activity and volcanoes are impossible to miss. Temperatures fluctuated exactly as expected, and the pattern was so clear that, statistically, the odds of the correlation existing by chance were one in 100," according to Hoover fellow Bruce Berkowitz. "
One more, from the Hoover Institution, "The study says that 'try as we might, we simply could not find any relationship between industrial activity, energy consumption and changes in global temperatures'".

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by RAZD, posted 02-09-2008 5:09 PM BMG has replied
 Message 10 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 02-10-2008 12:25 PM BMG has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 2 of 79 (454751)
02-08-2008 3:41 PM


Released as a new thread from Message 71.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 3 of 79 (454771)
02-08-2008 4:58 PM


Solar activities down
I was wondering last year with the lack of massive hurricanes in America and with all the snow I'm having to shovel this year if in fact it was due to low solar activity.
It's interesting to see the world appearing to be cooling off lately in spite of the wacko environmentalists that say its heating up due to global warming gases and not the sun solar activities. Its just like your furnace you turn the dial up and it warms up turn it down and it cools.
P.S. I'm running out of space to put the snow piling up, some friends I know are keeping their thermostat at 40 degree's F. They just hang out elsewhere until bedtime then keep warm with an electric blanket, etc...

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Taz, posted 02-08-2008 5:06 PM johnfolton has replied
 Message 15 by fgarb, posted 02-10-2008 6:02 PM johnfolton has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 4 of 79 (454772)
02-08-2008 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by johnfolton
02-08-2008 4:58 PM


Re: Solar activities down
johnfolton writes:
I was wondering last year with the lack of massive hurricanes in America and with all the snow I'm having to shovel this year if in fact it was due to low solar activity.
Thanks for demonstrating the most common misconception about global warming from the ignorant side of the spectrum.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by johnfolton, posted 02-08-2008 4:58 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by johnfolton, posted 02-08-2008 6:44 PM Taz has not replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 5 of 79 (454800)
02-08-2008 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Taz
02-08-2008 5:06 PM


Re: Solar activities down
johnfolton writes:
I was wondering last year with the lack of massive hurricanes in America and with all the snow I'm having to shovel this year if in fact it was due to low solar activity.
Thanks for demonstrating the most common misconception about global warming from the ignorant side of the spectrum.
Here's another look at the ignorant side of the spectrum!!!!!!!
-----------------------------------------------------------
15. Incredible. Will somebody show me a statistical analysis showing CO2 changes leading temperature changes in the paleorecord?
If CO2 has a forcing effect beyond background noise, there should be *some* positive mathematical correlation. The fact there is nothing showing that CO2 changes actually caused temperature changes should be paramount in this discussion, as it pertains to reality.
The fact there is *no correlation* yet the Supreme Court just made it easier for politicos to control carbon, therefore life, is scary.
Grist.org: Climate. Justice. Solutions. | Grist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Taz, posted 02-08-2008 5:06 PM Taz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by fgarb, posted 02-10-2008 5:25 PM johnfolton has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 6 of 79 (454991)
02-09-2008 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by BMG
02-08-2008 3:40 PM


"[Kenneth] Tapping reports no change in the sun's magnetic field so far this cycle and warns that if the sun remains quiet for another year or two, it may indicate a repeat of that period of drastic cooling of the Earth, bringing massive snowfall and severe weather to the Northern Hemisphere".
IF
That's a big if.
Solar Cycle Progression Page Has Changed | NOAA / NWS Space Weather Prediction Center
quote:
The charts on this page depict the progression of the Solar Cycle. The charts and tables are updated by the Space Weather Prediction Center monthly using the latest ISES predictions. Observed values are initially the preliminary values which are replaced with the final values as they become available.

NASA/Marshall Solar Physics
quote:
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/zurich.gif
The "sunspot number" is then given by the sum of the number of individual sunspots and ten times the number of groups. Since most sunspot groups have, on average, about ten spots, this formula for counting sunspots gives reliable numbers even when the observing conditions are less than ideal and small spots are hard to see. Monthly averages (updated monthly) of the sunspot numbers (25 kb GIF image), (37 kb postscript file), (62 kb text file) show that the number of sunspots visible on the sun waxes and wanes with an approximate 11-year cycle.
(Note: there are actually at least two "official" sunspot numbers reported. The International Sunspot Number is compiled by the Sunspot Index Data Center in Belgium. The NOAA sunspot number is compiled by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The numbers tabulated in spot_num.txt are the monthly averages (SSN) and standard deviation (DEV) derived from the International Sunspot Numbers)
The Maunder Minimum
Early records of sunspots indicate that the Sun went through a period of inactivity in the late 17th century. Very few sunspots were seen on the Sun from about 1645 to 1715 (38 kb JPEG image). Although the observations were not as extensive as in later years, the Sun was in fact well observed during this time and this lack of sunspots is well documented. This period of solar inactivity also corresponds to a climatic period called the "Little Ice Age" when rivers that are normally ice-free froze and snow fields remained year-round at lower altitudes. There is evidence that the Sun has had similar periods of inactivity in the more distant past. The connection between solar activity and terrestrial climate is an area of on-going research.
Sunspot Cycle Predictions
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/ssn_predict_l.gif
MSFC Solar Physics Branch members Wilson, Hathaway, and Reichmann have studied the sunspot record for characteristic behavior that might help in predicting future sunspot activity. Our current predictions of solar activity for the next few years can be found at this link. Although sunspots themselves produce only minor effects on solar emissions, the magnetic activity that accompanies the sunspots can produce dramatic changes in the ultraviolet and soft x-ray emission levels. These changes over the solar cycle have important consequences for the Earth's upper atmosphere.
We are at a normal low point in the cycle, which varies around 11 years.
This is like looking at low tide and saying: ya know if the water doesn't come back this could result in a low average water level.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by BMG, posted 02-08-2008 3:40 PM BMG has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by BMG, posted 02-10-2008 12:02 AM RAZD has replied

  
BMG
Member (Idle past 208 days)
Posts: 357
From: Southwestern U.S.
Joined: 03-16-2006


Message 7 of 79 (455055)
02-10-2008 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by RAZD
02-09-2008 5:09 PM


I understand that sunspots are essentially "loops of tangled magnetic field" rising through the surface, and that these areas burn slightly cooler than the rest of the Sun's photosphere - roughly 1500k cooler - but I am at a loss regarding the connection between sunspot activity and the Sun's intensity.
Where is the affiliation?
I like the low tide analogy, and I enjoyed your post. Thank you for your time.
Lastly, my source concerning the sunspots was "Horizons: Exploring the Universe", by Michael A. Seeds.
I have to learn how to use footnotes.
P.S. There is a great documentary on the History Channel called "The Little Ice Age", referring to the Maunder Minimum, between 1610 and 1745, I believe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by RAZD, posted 02-09-2008 5:09 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by RAZD, posted 02-10-2008 8:46 AM BMG has not replied
 Message 14 by fgarb, posted 02-10-2008 5:50 PM BMG has not replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 8 of 79 (455059)
02-10-2008 2:23 AM


I find it interesting the scientists in the field are screaming to the flat earthers (Gore and company, etc....)that the earth is round that were not the cause of global warming, but no one listens to the experts these days, etc...
P.S. You must remember Gore is not a scientists, the media was wrong in the 1980's they were screaming global cooling was caused by fossil fuel not listening to the scientists then and the media are wrong today screaming global warming is caused by fossil fuel.
I guess if we made diesel and gasoline from coal that would make energy cheap green up the earth, but it won't happen not because of science but because of politics, unless congress intervenes in America these wacko flat earthers (Hiliary or Obama if elected) will start taxing that which powers your car, heats your home, and say the lie that your doing your part to stop global warming, etc....
Heaven help us if they would sign that perverted kyoto treaty and use the EPA to enforce this ungodly tax, etc...
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 9 of 79 (455086)
02-10-2008 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by BMG
02-10-2008 12:02 AM


- but I am at a loss regarding the connection between sunspot activity and the Sun's intensity.
I'm not sure the scientists know either, they just have reams of data on the correlation. It may be something as simple as solar energy being tied up in the magnetic fields is not free to radiate away from the sun, or that it results in changes to the energy levels (radio wave interference also associated with sunspot activity) and thus the spectrum of what is radiated.
I have to learn how to use footnotes.
I don't think we have a mechanism for that, so you have to use html tags - footnote(1) becomes footnote(1)
Then at the bottom you can do:


(1) - footnote text
and it becomes


(1) - footnote text
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : footnotes not references

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by BMG, posted 02-10-2008 12:02 AM BMG has not replied

  
AnswersInGenitals
Member (Idle past 150 days)
Posts: 673
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 10 of 79 (455100)
02-10-2008 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by BMG
02-08-2008 3:40 PM


"[Kenneth] Tapping reports no change in the sun's magnetic field so far this cycle and warns that if the sun remains quiet for another year or two, it may indicate a repeat of that period of drastic cooling of the Earth, bringing massive snowfall and severe weather to the Northern Hemisphere".
It is now 1:00 a.m. in my state and we have had several hours of darkness (sometimes referred to as night.) This has resulted in noticeable cooling of our state. If this darkness continues for another 83 hours, the cooling effect will completely reverse the global warming we had previously experienced. If this darkness continues for another three weeks, our climate will be like Montana's winters..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by BMG, posted 02-08-2008 3:40 PM BMG has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by RAZD, posted 02-10-2008 1:09 PM AnswersInGenitals has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 11 of 79 (455106)
02-10-2008 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by AnswersInGenitals
02-10-2008 12:25 PM


The real question.
Another issue is that the weather in the Northern Hemisphere is kept artificially warm by the Gulf Stream, and that significant change or disruption of this system would cause colder weather -- without any regard to global temperature levels.
This looks like a couple of straw dogs harnessed together to obfuscate and avoid the real issue.
IF global warming is occurring (consensus is yes) then should we do something about it, or should we find excuses to keep our heads in the sand? Are we ready to start conscious control of the climate/weather?
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 02-10-2008 12:25 PM AnswersInGenitals has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by BMG, posted 02-10-2008 1:26 PM RAZD has not replied

  
BMG
Member (Idle past 208 days)
Posts: 357
From: Southwestern U.S.
Joined: 03-16-2006


Message 12 of 79 (455109)
02-10-2008 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by RAZD
02-10-2008 1:09 PM


Re: The real question.
Another issue is that the weather in the Northern Hemisphere is kept artificially warm by the Gulf Stream, and that significant change or disruption of this system would cause colder weather -- without any regard to global temperature levels.
Yes, the Thermohaline Circulation, if disrupted, will cause a severe temperature fluctuation of Western Europe. The Greenland Icesheet, especially, if it continues to melt, will dump millions of cubic liters into the Atlantic, severely disrupting the circulation of heat from the Equator to the N. Hemishere.
Europe's Mediterranean climate will be no more. Crops will wither, tourism will slow, and Europe, in general, will be hurting.
Thermohaline circulation - Wikipedia

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by RAZD, posted 02-10-2008 1:09 PM RAZD has not replied

  
fgarb
Member (Idle past 5390 days)
Posts: 98
From: Naperville, IL
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 13 of 79 (455124)
02-10-2008 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by johnfolton
02-08-2008 6:44 PM


Re: Solar activities down
johnfolton writes:
Incredible. Will somebody show me a statistical analysis showing CO2 changes leading temperature changes in the paleorecord?
I don't understand your point. Was there ever a source of CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere in the past like there is now? If not then there is no direct way to have global scale evidence one way or another. Unless you have a time machine handy, you are making an impossible demand.
We do know from physics/chemistry that CO2 is one of the gasses that reflects the IR light the earth radiates to cool itself. I'm no expert, but obviously this is expected to cool the earth and most computer simulations agree that this effect explains most of the warming we have seen.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by johnfolton, posted 02-08-2008 6:44 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by johnfolton, posted 02-10-2008 8:22 PM fgarb has replied

  
fgarb
Member (Idle past 5390 days)
Posts: 98
From: Naperville, IL
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 14 of 79 (455127)
02-10-2008 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by BMG
02-10-2008 12:02 AM


Sunspots do tend to be correlated to the sun’s energy output which could directly change the earth's temperature, but there is another way they could have an effect. Sunspots happen more when the sun's magnetic field is strong and this magnetic field tends to drive away the electrically charged cosmic rays that bombard our atmosphere. These cosmic rays produce ions in our atmosphere that could in theory precipitate cloud formation, which could have a net cooling effect depending on the cloud's height and density. This is a favorite argument of some global warming skeptics: the sunspots drive away cosmic rays which reduce cloud formation. There are just two problems with this.
a) I don't think there is any evidence of cosmic rays increasing cloud density. They form clouds in cloud chambers because before the cosmic rays pass through there is nothing for condensation to stick to. The atmosphere, on the other hand, has plenty of dust in it already that clouds can form around. Cosmic rays may not help.
b) We can measure both the rate of sunspots and of cosmic rays. Both follow the solar cycles as one would expect, but there is no trend consistent with our observed warming over the last 30 years. Here is a crappy plot showing this from the University of Chicago Climax neutron monitor. It shows the rate of incidence of neutrons produced from cosmic rays overlaid with sunspot #s:
Based on this evidence, I see no reason to link sunspots or cosmic rays in any way to the warming that has been observed recently. Maybe they are indicative of future sun behavior that could be relevant. But you're better off looking at the actual flux of solar energy reaching us on the earth if you're trying to understand how the sun could have influenced the current climate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by BMG, posted 02-10-2008 12:02 AM BMG has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by RAZD, posted 02-10-2008 8:47 PM fgarb has replied

  
fgarb
Member (Idle past 5390 days)
Posts: 98
From: Naperville, IL
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 15 of 79 (455128)
02-10-2008 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by johnfolton
02-08-2008 4:58 PM


Re: Solar activities down
johnfolton writes:
It's interesting to see the world appearing to be cooling off lately in spite of the wacko environmentalists that say its heating up due to global warming gases and not the sun solar activities.
True, the sun has a slightly higher activity now than it did 150 years ago. Razd has already given you some solar data, but here is one showing a larger time scale from wikipedia. Based on this plot, showing solar energy output during the recent period of warming, I don't see any reason to think the sun is the cause. Do you?
Edited by fgarb, : Shrinking the image

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by johnfolton, posted 02-08-2008 4:58 PM johnfolton has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024