myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
Global cooling
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 390, 391, 392 ... 571, 572, 573  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
uwindsurf



Joined: 18 Aug 2012
Posts: 968
Location: Classified

PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2015 10:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mrgybe wrote:
So embarrassingly predictable. They ridicule the Pope's positions on abortion, gay marriage, contraception, population growth. In these matters, to use their laughable dialog, the Pope is a member of the "Argentinian Taliban". They continuously accuse him and his colleagues of abuses of children when justifying bad behavior in their own ranks. However, if the Pope says something that they agree with.........no matter how much more balanced than their own inflammatory language..........he is their champion to be quoted as an authority. Schoolyard intellect.


Who are "they"? Be more specific Mr. Gybe. Generalizations are the for weak minded.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GURGLETROUSERS



Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Posts: 2643

PostPosted: Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The British Met Office has now come out in agreement with the Russian Science Academy. Their Hadley computer centre confirms the onset of a solar cooling phases for much of the Northern Hemisphere, equivalent to that of the winters of the 16 to 17 hundreds 'mini ice age.' They also state, just as the Russian Science Academy claimed, that its effects will (temporarily) outweigh the global warming trend.

The differences in predictions (Russian and met Office) are in the predicted onset, and the duration of the cold spell. Academy claim was imminent (i.e. 5 to 10 years and peaking in 30 years time to last for up to 200 years) and the Met Office prediction is 40 years ahed for full effect, and of less duration.

The I.P.C.C. will ignore both, I expect, since none of their predictions have ever considered the possibility of a cooling phase. (They might lose their funding!)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pointster



Joined: 22 Jul 2010
Posts: 376

PostPosted: Wed Jun 24, 2015 11:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

GURGLETROUSERS wrote:
The British Met Office has now come out in agreement with the Russian Science Academy. Their Hadley computer centre confirms the onset of a solar cooling phases for much of the Northern Hemisphere, equivalent to that of the winters of the 16 to 17 hundreds 'mini ice age.' They also state, just as the Russian Science Academy claimed, that its effects will (temporarily) outweigh the global warming trend.

The differences in predictions (Russian and met Office) are in the predicted onset, and the duration of the cold spell. Academy claim was imminent (i.e. 5 to 10 years and peaking in 30 years time to last for up to 200 years) and the Met Office prediction is 40 years ahed for full effect, and of less duration.

The I.P.C.C. will ignore both, I expect, since none of their predictions have ever considered the possibility of a cooling phase. (They might lose their funding!)


"A study carried out on computer models at the Met Office Hadley Centre in Exeter calculated that a forthcoming grand solar minimum would cause global average temperatures to fall by about 0.1C. This compares to an expected increase of several degrees due to global warming if industrial emissions of greenhouse gases continue to rise at the present rate."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/natural-cooling-of-the-sun-will-not-be-enough-to-save-earth-from-global-warming-warn-scientists-10340067.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pointster



Joined: 22 Jul 2010
Posts: 376

PostPosted: Wed Jun 24, 2015 11:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

GT,

NASA has put into orbit the DSCOVR Satellite which will directly measure the amount of solar energy falling on the earth and the amount radiating back into space. With this satellite, we should, over time, be able to directly correlate atmospheric CO2 with the albedo of the earth.

"DSCOVR is carrying two NASA Earth-observing instruments that will gather a range of measurements from ozone and aerosol amounts, to changes in Earth's radiation budget—the balance between incoming radiation (largely from the sun) and that which is reflected from Earth. This balance affects our climate."

http://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/news_archives/DSCOVR_L1_orbit.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nw30



Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 6485
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast

PostPosted: Wed Jun 24, 2015 11:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

GURGLETROUSERS wrote:


The I.P.C.C. will ignore both, I expect, since none of their predictions have ever considered the possibility of a cooling phase. (They might lose their funding!)

That would have been the smart play by the I.P.C.C., it would have added to their credibility, but no, they had to go out and stomp that down as fast as they could, as the poinster pointed out. No surprise.
Funding.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pointster



Joined: 22 Jul 2010
Posts: 376

PostPosted: Wed Jun 24, 2015 12:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

nw30 wrote:
GURGLETROUSERS wrote:


The I.P.C.C. will ignore both, I expect, since none of their predictions have ever considered the possibility of a cooling phase. (They might lose their funding!)

That would have been the smart play by the I.P.C.C., it would have added to their credibility, but no, they had to go out and stomp that down as fast as they could, as the poinster pointed out. No surprise.
Funding.


No, the IPCC did not ignore the possibility of a solar minimum. The Met Hadley Centre, which is a participant of the IPCC, did the study, and came to the conclusion that the effects of the solar minimum would be far less than the effects of increasing CO2 by an order of magnitude (.1 degree C vs. 2-3 degrees C).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GURGLETROUSERS



Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Posts: 2643

PostPosted: Wed Jun 24, 2015 12:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pointster.

I hear what you say, but the key word is EXPECTED rise in temperature. Of course the Met Office is a key player in I.P.C.C. reports, but the fact remains that they have often be forced to downgrade their predictions. It may well be that the 'small' fall in temperature in the Northern Hemisphere would seem to be dwarfed by the concensus predicted rise, but!

Sarah Iveson, the Met Office scientist and lead author of this research, has stated, (quote) 'The research shows that the REGIONAL impacts of a grand solar minimum are likely to be LARGER than the global effect.' (I'm sure she is well aware of the I.P.C.C. consensus predictions, so is choosing her words carefully! Thus she goes on to state that the cooling will not be big enough to override the EXPECTED global warming trend. The Russian Academy did predict it could override the warming effect.

I agree with you that this new satellite should be of major benefit in removing much of the over/under estimation of the present. I assure you, I wish to understand the truth. I.e. What is actually happening?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 20935

PostPosted: Wed Jun 24, 2015 12:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In the 1950s a belligerent loudmouth named Ancel Keys decided saturated fats caused most heart disease, then traveled the world seeking support for that belief, found some limited and faulty support for his claim, cherry picked it, then declared that sat fat caused heart disease, then forced his claims on related fledgeling agencies through bluster and BS. Every nutrition scientist and physician -- and there were many with credentials far greater than his -- who dared challenge his claims with facts to the contrary was demonized as a denier, denied grants, fired from prestigious academic posts, and banned to the basement.

It took >50 years for them to dig their way out, prove Keys full of shiite, and shift the focus from such innocent foes as sat fat and cholesterol to the REAL culprits: excess carbs and triglycerides. Many doctors STILL haven't gotten that memo.

Sound familiar? If their lives hadn't overlapped so thoroughly, I'd guess that Al Gore is Ancel Keys reincarnated.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17747
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Wed Jun 24, 2015 3:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, a 20% chance of a Maunder minimum, with the reports that the possible temperature decline of 0.1 degrees, will be "dwarfed" by the increase in temperature for carbon emissions sure convinces me that I can stop worrying. Right.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pointster



Joined: 22 Jul 2010
Posts: 376

PostPosted: Thu Jun 25, 2015 5:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

GURGLETROUSERS wrote:
Pointster.

I hear what you say, but the key word is EXPECTED rise in temperature. Of course the Met Office is a key player in I.P.C.C. reports, but the fact remains that they have often be forced to downgrade their predictions. It may well be that the 'small' fall in temperature in the Northern Hemisphere would seem to be dwarfed by the concensus predicted rise, but!

Sarah Iveson, the Met Office scientist and lead author of this research, has stated, (quote) 'The research shows that the REGIONAL impacts of a grand solar minimum are likely to be LARGER than the global effect.' (I'm sure she is well aware of the I.P.C.C. consensus predictions, so is choosing her words carefully! Thus she goes on to state that the cooling will not be big enough to override the EXPECTED global warming trend. The Russian Academy did predict it could override the warming effect.

I agree with you that this new satellite should be of major benefit in removing much of the over/under estimation of the present. I assure you, I wish to understand the truth. I.e. What is actually happening?


I don't get your point. They are comparing EXPECTED rise in temps due to CO2 emissions to EXPECTED decline in temperatures due to grand solar minimum. Clearly, the Met is not supporting the Russian conclusions.

Here's a 010 paper on the effects of incorporating a "Maunder minimum" level of solar irradiance in climate models:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010GL042710/full
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 390, 391, 392 ... 571, 572, 573  Next
Page 391 of 573

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group