 |
||
| · join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic · | ||
We are 5,000 years overdue for the next glacial cycle, and folks who know that are disturbed that there are those who want to put an end to Global Warming ~ it's all that's keeping the ice melted!
That lucky ol’ sun got nothin’ to do but roll around heaven all day.
Ping
This idea of the Dalton Minimum and the very minimal sunspot activity is covered in the following documentary video. All the links below are for the same documentary. And it’s an interesting and very informative documentary for everyone to see...
It’s one thing to gripe and complain about these things and disagree with it, but it’s quite *another* to convince your friends and neighbors and relatives and coworkers...
THEREFORE..., it’s also absolutely necessary for people to know the information in the following documentary. If there were simply *one* video that you could see and/or show people you know... this would be the *one*...
The following is an *excellent* video documentary on the so-called “Global Warming” I would recommend it to all FReepers. It’s a very well-made documentary.
“The Great Global Warming Swindle”
If you want to download it, via a BitTorrent site (using a BitTorrent client), you can get it at the following link.
http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/3635222/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle
[this is a high-quality copy, of about a gigabyte in size...]
It’s worth seeing and having for relatives, friends, neighbors and coworkers to see.
Also, see it online here...
http://www.moviesfoundonline.com/great_global_warming_swindle.php
[this one is considerably lower quality, is a flash video and viewable online, of course...]
Buy it here...
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000WLUXZE
[this one would be the very highest quality version, on a DVD disk, of several gigabytes in size...]
—
Also, in split parts on YouTube...
The Great Global Warming Swindle (Part 1 of 8)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMA6sszChwQ
The Great Global Warming Swindle (Part 2 of 8)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERisgJ3QWjk
The Great Global Warming Swindle (Part 3 of 8)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HLVYwmZoxc
The Great Global Warming Swindle (Part 4 of 8)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jr-AG3BA1Go
The Great Global Warming Swindle (Part 5 of 8)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbllTsBHuxk
The Great Global Warming Swindle (Part 6 of 8)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyK7C1OrAAo
The Great Global Warming Swindle (Part 7 of 8)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrIX8LcAuMQ
The Great Global Warming Swindle (Part 8 of 8)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-ZmCDOZbtM
IMHO I think that there is no coincidence that the earth has cooled slightly and the sun has gone dormant at the same time.
Let it snow.
Let it SNOW.
LET IT SNOW!
SUNSPOTS SEEM TO HAVE VANISHED
The Ongoing Solar Minimum is the Deepest in a Century.
Dennis Holley
Jul 21, 2009
— In 2008, no sunspots were observed on 266 of the year’s 366 days (73%), a low surpassed only in 1913, which had 311 spotless days (85%). —
A sunspot is an area on the Sun’s surface (photosphere) that is marked by intense magnetic activity, which inhibits convection (heat transfer currents). This results in areas (spots) of reduced surface temperature that appear darker in color than their surroundings.
Sunspots tend to occur in pairs that have magnetic fields pointing in opposite directions. A typical spot consists of a dark region called the umbra, surrounded by a lighter region known as the penumbra. Sunspots appear darker than their surroundings because the surface of the Sun (the photosphere) is about 10,000 degrees F, while the umbra is about 6,300 degrees F. Sunspots are quite large as demonstrated by the fact that an average size sunspot is about the same size as the Earth.
Sunspot Numbers
Galileo and others made the first European observations of sunspots around 1610 and continuous daily observations of sunspots were first started at the Zurich Observatory in 1849. The sunspot number is calculated by first counting the number of sunspot groups and then the number of individual sunspots.
The “sunspot number” is then given by the sum of the number of individual sunspots 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.
The Solar Cycle
Sunspots increase and decrease through an average cycle of 11 years. Dating back to 1749, Earth has experienced 23 full solar cycles where the number of sunspots have gone from a minimum, to a maximum and back to the next minimum, through approximate 11 year cycles. In the 23rd cycle, the number of sunspots reached a peak in May, 2000 when the number of sunspots were measured at around 170.
A secondary sunspot maximum occurred near the beginning of 2002 where the sunspot number was about 150. The sunspot minimum for Cycle 23 occurred through mid 2007.
What has Happened to Sunspot Cycle 24?
It’s normal for the old and new sunspot cycles to overlap for a time before the old one completely fades away, but Solar Cycle 24 has been very slow to ramp up. Solar Cycle 24 began in January 2008 However, the reverse polarity sunspot that signaled the start of cycle 24 on January 4th dissolved within two days after that.
In fact, while 2008 was supposed to signal the beginning of cycle 24 and an increase in sunspot numbers, the lack of sunspots in 2008 made it a century-level year in terms of solar quiet. Remarkably, sunspot counts for 2009 have dropped even lower. As of March 31, 2009, there were no sunspots on 78 of 2009’s 90 days to that date (87%). The 100-year record for a full year is 311 spotless days (85%) in 1913.
Why do Sunspots Matter?
Low sunspot numbers have been historically linked to global cooling several times over the past 400 years or so. The Maunder Minimum is the name given to the period roughly spanning 1645 to 1715 when sunspots became exceedingly rare, as noted by solar observers of the time. The period was named after the solar astronomer Edward W. Maunder (1851–1928).
During one 30-year period within the Maunder Minimum, astronomers observed only about 50 sunspots, as opposed to a more typical 40,000–50,000 spots in modern times. More importantly, the Maunder Minimum coincided with the coldest part of the Little Ice Age, during which Europe and North America, and perhaps much of the rest of the world, were subjected to bitterly cold winters.
The Dalton Minimum was a period of low sunspot activity. Named for the English meteorologist John Dalton, this minimum lasted from about 1790 to 1830. Like the Maunder Minimum, the Dalton Minimum coincided with a period of lower-than-average global temperatures. For example, some weather reporting stations experienced a 2.0 °C decline over 20 years. The Year Without a Summer, in 1816, also occurred during the Dalton Minimum.
Whether there is a definite causal connection between low sunspot activity and colder winters and cooler summers is the subject of ongoing debate. However, even the possibility of such a connection given the overdue beginning of cycle 24 should give one pause. All humans can do is wait and watch.
http://astrophysics.suite101.com/article.cfm/where_have_all_the_sunspots_gone
Sierra Environmental Studies Foundation: Cooler Temps — Dalton Minimum Returns [PDF] - ‘Global warming hype could be masking a more immediate climate problem. A problem that could have a larger impact on our lives than global warming over the next 20 years. Solar scientists have predicted the return of the Dalton Minimum, which was the result of two low intensity sunspot cycles lasting over 28 years. During the early 1800s the average temperatures in the Mid West were 2-4 degrees cooler than the 20th Century average. In many areas it was much dryer than average, especially along the California coast. We have already started to see some ocean cooling as we leave sunspot cycle 23 and enter sunspot cycle 24, the first of the two predicted minimum cycles...’
[ http://www.solomonia.com/blog/headlineblog/archives/2008/03/cooler-temps-dalton-minimum-re/ ]
The PDF paper referenced...
http://sesfoundation.org/dalton_minimum.pdf
NASA now saying that a Dalton Minimum repeat is possible
July 28, 2009
Guest Post by David Archibald
NASA’s David Hathaway has adjusted his expectations of Solar Cycle 24 downwards. He is quoted in the New York Times here Specifically, he said:
” Still, something like the Dalton Minimum — two solar cycles in the early 1800s that peaked at about an average of 50 sunspots — lies in the realm of the possible.”
NASA has caught up with my prediction in early 2006 of a Dalton Minimum repeat, so for a brief, shining moment of three years, I have had a better track record in predicting solar activity than NASA.
[graphic on original web page...]
The graphic above is modified from a paper I published in March, 2006. Even based on our understanding of solar – climate relationship at the time, it was evident the range of Solar Cycle 24 amplitude predictions would result in a 2°C range in temperature. The climate science community was oblivious to this, despite billions being spent. To borrow a term from the leftist lexicon, the predictions above Badalyan are now discredited elements.
Let’s now examine another successful prediction of mine. In March, 2008 at the first Heartland climate conference in New York, I predicted that Solar Cycle 24 would mean that it would not be a good time to be a Canadian wheat farmer. Lo and behold, the Canadian wheat crop is down 20% this year due to a cold spring and dry fields. Story here.
The oceans are losing heat, so the Canadian wheat belt will just get colder and drier as Solar Cycle 24 progresses. As Mark Steyn recently said, anyone under the age of 29 has not experienced global warming. A Dalton Minimum repeat will mean that they will have to wait to the age of 54 odd to experience a warming trend.
Where to now? The F 10.7 flux continues to flatline. All the volatility has gone out of it. In terms of picking the month of minimum for the Solar Cycle 23/24 transition, I think the solar community will put it in the middle of the F 10.7 quiet period due to the lack of sunspots. We won’t know how long that quiet period is until solar activity ramps up again. So picking the month of minimum at the moment may just be guessing.
Dr Hathaway says that we are not in for a Maunder Minimum, and I agree with him. I have been contacted by a gentleman from the lower 48 who has a very good solar activity model. It hindcasts the 20th century almost perfectly, so I have a lot of faith in what it is predicting for the 21st century, which is a couple of very weak cycles and then back to normal as we have known it. I consider his model to be a major advance in solar science.
What I am now examining is the possibility that there will not be a solar magnetic reversal at the Solar Cycle 24 maximum.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/28/nasa-now-saying-that-a-dalton-minimum-repeat-is-possible/
Earth's a self correcting system up to a point. Seems this is one of those the tide comes in, the tide goes out - kind of things.
Can We Succeed in Afghanistan?
Afghan war poll triggers Obama political alarms
History’s Painful Lessons Politically, this is a very instructive recount of the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act of 1988.
Some noteworthy articles about politics, foreign or military affairs, IMHO, FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.
Consensus Thaws On Global Warming
Another Global Warming Movie Flop
Meet The Man Who Has Exposed The Great Climate Change Con Trick
Study: Global warming bill could cost 2.4 million jobs, $1,250 per household
Study: Global warming bill could cost 2.4 million jobs, $1,250 per household
Senator Kerry Misfires about Global Warming and National Security
VIDEO: Clinton: US Has Made Mistake By Contributing Significantly To Global Warming (MUST SEE)
“If the human influence is easily overshadowed (by cooling) during years when the LaNina is only moderate and arctic ice is less than 30 years ago, it begs the question what’s really going on.”
Since most of Earth’s land mass is above the equator, so is most of the land-based temperature stations. And, there has long been questions about the location of those stations in the developed nations in the northern hemisphere, particularly as relates to proximity to the urban heat sinks. Similarly, in less developed nations, north or south, there has long been questions of the accuracy of record keeping. Someday some actual scientists may determine that the whole scam has been a version of GIGO (garbage in garbage out) that, if recognized, even the flawed ICCP modeling programs could not hide.
|
||
| · join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic · | ||
“The fact that a lot of other scientists trumpet global warming/cooling (many more in the warm camp of course) doom doesn’t satisfy me that either assertion is true.
Consistent data would.”
BINGO! Consistent data with consistent modeling results.
A couple of questions for AGW advocates (saw these somewhere else earlier today)
1. If as AlGore asserts, global warming is “settled science,” why do you continue to need hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to try to find evidence for it?
2. Since the present temperature is nowhere near either previous highs or lows in the planets history, and there is no evidence that it is likely to move outside that range, then why is this such a big deal right now?
Since anything we do will have a very small - possibly detectible - effect on our climatic future, it would be a much better policy to use the bulk of any research money on developing techniques for adapting to climate change.
In the tiny slice of earth’s history we can call recorded history, the fact is that the warm periods are the “good” and the cold periods the “bad” times.
I imagine we would fare better in a replay of the Medieval Warm Period than in another “Little Ice Age” or even worse in a return of the real ice age which ended 13,000 years ago.
Something to give serious thought to is that in the climatic record, severe cold is by far the planetary norm. Warm periods like we now enjoy are the exception. We should be careful what we wish for — we, and our descendants, may get it.