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 ... 545, 546, 547 ... 555, 556, 557  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
GURGLETROUSERS



Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Posts: 2189

PostPosted: Thu Feb 01, 2018 12:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Those uncontrollable forces of nature yet again!

Daniel Baker, director of Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics (University of Colorado) claims that the Earth is showing signs of a 'flipping' of the magnetic poles. He claims the earth's magnetic field has weakened by over 15% over the last 200 years.

The magnetic poles historically 'flip' every 300,000 years or so, but the last time was over 780,000 years ago - so any time now! He is backed by the European Space Agency Swarm trio, which also suggests a 'flip' may be imminent.

This is serious business says Holme, professor of Earth, Ocean and Ecological Sciences (Liverpool University) and we will all be exposed to potentially lethal blasts of solar radiation (Magnetic shield dropped - holes in ozone layer - cancer risks etc) which will play havoc with all electronic and electrical devices, on which our modern world depends.

And here's everybody telling me to buy an electric car. Bet they never thought of THAT one!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GURGLETROUSERS



Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Posts: 2189

PostPosted: Thu Feb 01, 2018 12:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

P.S. Will it still be possible to windsurf in a lead lined suite?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mat-ty



Joined: 07 Jul 2007
Posts: 3731

PostPosted: Thu Feb 01, 2018 12:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So how did they determine that the poles Flipped 780,000 years ago. Did they ask Mac???
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GURGLETROUSERS



Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Posts: 2189

PostPosted: Thu Feb 01, 2018 1:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I remember reading up on it some years back. As I recall Matty, it is possible to read the alignment of certain (magnetic?) elements in the successive layers of strata which have been accurately dated to the correct era.

A sudden change in alignment indicated a (dated) reversal of the magnetic poles. Sounds logical, but I expect the devil is in the detail.

But I think even you can't imagine Mac could be carbon dated (radioactive, naturally) to anything approaching such a time span!!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MalibuGuru



Joined: 11 Nov 1993
Posts: 7282

PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2018 8:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

By 2050, our sun is expected to be unusually cool.


It’s what scientists have termed a “grand minimum” — a particularly low point in what is otherwise a steady 11-year cycle.

Over this cycle, the sun’s tumultuous heart races and rests.


At its high point, the nuclear fusion at the sun’s core forces more magnetic loops high into its boiling atmosphere — ejecting more ultraviolet radiation and generating sunspots and flares.

When it’s quiet, the sun’s surface goes calm. It ejects less ultraviolet radiation.

Now scientists have scoured the skies and history for evidence of an even greater cycle amid these cycles.


GRAND MINIMUM

One particularly cool period in the 17th century guided their research.

An intense cold snap between 1645 and 1715 has been dubbed the “Maunder Minimum.”

Chief astronomer and director of the Franklin Institute Planetarium Derrick Pitts explains what can be learned
In England, the Thames river froze over. The Baltic Sea was covered in ice — so much so that the Swedish army was able to march across it to invade Denmark in 1658.

But the cooling was not uniform: Distorted weather patterns warmed up Alaska and Greenland.

These records were combined with 20 years of data collected by the International Ultraviolet Explorer satellite mission, as well as observations of nearby stars similar to the sun.

Now physicist Dan Lubin at the University of California San Diego has calculated an estimate of how much dimmer the sun is likely to be when the next such grand minimum takes place.

His team’s study, "Ultraviolet Flux Decrease Under a Grand Minimum from IUE Short-wavelength Observation of Solar Analogs," has been published in the journal Astrophysical Journal Letters.

It finds the sun is likely to be 7 percent cooler than its usual minimum.

And another grand minimum is likely to be just decades away, based on the cooling spiral of recent solar cycles.

SOLAR FALLOUT

A quiet sun has a noticeable effect on its planets.

For Earth, Lubin says it first thins the stratospheric ozone layer.

This impacts the insulating effect of the atmosphere, with flow-on effects including major changes to wind and weather patterns.

But it won’t stop the current trend of planetary warning, Lubin warns.

“The cooling effect of a grand minimum is only a fraction of the warming effect caused by the increasing concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere,” a statement from the research team reads.

“After hundreds of thousands of years of CO2 levels never exceeding 300 parts per million in air, the concentration of the greenhouse gas is now over 400 parts per million, continuing a rise that began with the Industrial Revolution.”

One simulation of a grand minimum on the Earth’s current climate anticipates a reduction of solar warming by 0.25 percent over a 50-year period between 2020 and 2070.

While the global average surface air temperature appears to cool by “several tenths of a degree Celsius” in the initial years, this reduction was rapidly overtaken by ever-increasing trends.

“A future grand solar minimum could slow down but not stop global warming,” the study finds.

“Now we have a benchmark from which we can perform better climate model simulations,” Lubin says. “We can therefore have a better idea of how changes in solar UV radiation affect climate change.”
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 10280
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2018 8:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Already discussed here. The impact on temperature is way less than warming. But you are working hard at staying brainwashed.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MalibuGuru



Joined: 11 Nov 1993
Posts: 7282

PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2018 9:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mac wrote:
Already discussed here. The impact on temperature is way less than warming. But you are working hard at staying brainwashed.


The effect of the sun is far less than human caused warming? Your religion is false Mac.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 10280
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2018 11:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The nice think about science is that it doesn’t care if you understand it, or believe it, or if you troll with Koch brothers misinformation.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
techno900



Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 2965

PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2018 8:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just keeping an open mind.

Quote:
Overheated Claims on Temperature Records
January 29, 2018
By Tom Harris, Timothy Ball

Now that the excitement over the news that 2017 was one of the hottest years on record have died down, it is time for a sober second thought.

Now that the excitement over the news that 2017 was one of the hottest years on record have died down, it is time for a sober second thought. Did the January 18 announcements by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) that 2017 was the third-hottest year, and NASA’s claim that it was the second hottest year, since 1880, actually mean anything?

Although the Los Angeles Times called 2017 “a top-three scorcher for planet Earth,” neither the NOAA nor the NASA records are significant. One would naturally expect the warmest years to be at the top of a warming record. And thank goodness we have been in a gradual warming trend since the depths of the Little Ice Age in the late 1600s.

Regardless, recent changes have been too small to even notice and are often less than the government’s estimates of uncertainty in the measurements. In fact, we lack the data to properly compare today’s climate with the past.

This is because, until the 1960s, temperature data was collected using mercury thermometers located at weather stations situated mostly in the United States, Japan, the UK, and eastern Australia. Most of the rest of the planet had very few temperature sensing stations. And none of the Earth’s oceans, which constitute 70% of the planet’s surface area, had more than the occasional station separated from its neighbor by thousands of kilometers.

The data collected at the weather stations in this sparse grid had, at best, an accuracy of +/-0.5 degrees Celsius. In most cases, the real-world accuracy was no better than +/-1 deg C. Averaging such poor data in an attempt to determine global conditions cannot yield anything meaningful. Displaying average temperature to tenths or even hundreds of a degree, as is done in the graphs by NOAA and NASA, clearly defies common sense.
Modern weather station surface temperature data is now collected using precision thermocouples. But, starting in the 1970s, less and less ground surface temperature data was used for plots such as those by NOAA and NASA. This was done initially because governments believed that satellite monitoring could take over from most of the ground surface data collection. But the satellites did not show the warming forecast by computer models. So, bureaucrats closed most of the colder rural surface temperature sensing stations, thereby yielding the warming desired for political purposes.
Today, there is virtually no data for approximately 85% of the Earth’s surface. Indeed, there are fewer weather stations in operation now than there were in 1960.

So, the surface temperature computations by NOAA and NASA after about 1980 are meaningless. Combining this with the problems with the early data, the conclusion is unavoidable: it is not possible to know how the Earth’s so-called average temperature has varied over the past century and a half.

In an exclusive interview with the Reuters news agency on January 9, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt is reported to have “reaffirmed plans for the EPA to host a public debate on climate science sometime this year that would pit climate change doubters against other climate scientists.”

Referring to possible temperatures in the distant future, Pruitt said, “I think the American people deserve an open, honest, transparent discussion about those things.”

That is an understatement. For if a proper climate science debate is actually held, the public would soon realize that there is insufficient data of any kind – temperature, land and sea ice, glaciers, sea level, extreme weather, ocean pH, et cetera – to be able to determine how today’s climate differs from the past, much less predict the future. The effort to switch from coal and other fossil fuels, America’s least expensive and most abundant power sources, to unreliable and expensive alternatives to supposedly control the climate will then finally be exposed for what it really is: the greatest hoax in history.

[Originally Published at the Moultrie News]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LHDR



Joined: 22 Jun 2007
Posts: 329

PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2018 12:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Techno, taking this article seriously is not "keeping an open mind", it's being fooled.

"Insufficient data" for warming? Even extremists like your man Scott Pruitt acknowledge warming. Not that that is necessarily a good argument but for Republicans maybe.

It is my impression that no reasonable person doubts that worldwide climate research is of the same quality as research in other fields (and that includes mistakes and corrections). It is mainly right wingers in the US who call this research a hoax. Shouldn't that give you pause when you read an article making the claim? Serious question.

I don't understand your attitude. Because it is not 100% certain that global warming is caused to large extent by humans and can be reduced by eliminating fossil fuels, you say let's do nothing and hope that it won't be bad. All the while there seems little downside (coal workers come to mind) and potential upside like reduced pollution and less oil and gas money for Russia and the Middle East.
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 ... 545, 546, 547 ... 555, 556, 557  Next
Page 546 of 557

 
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