Climate Change - the big debate

[BJWoods]

turbobloke said:

The Excession said:

Where's that face-palm smiley?

Hope this will do instead:

Hi tb

sent you a couple of emails.. did you get them?

[turbobloke]

Thanks to your heads-up I just replied to one but not two...were there two?!

[PRTVR]

Unsure if its a re post but this morning at just after 06.00 on BBC1 news,
the presenters were reviewing the daily papers and they showed the front cover from the daily
mail and commented on the piece on the glacier melting and how it was was probably wrong!
I nearly fell of my chair, what do the BBC think they are doing reporting things in a fair and honest way, this is not what we expect from them, I feel a complaint letter coming on
also in the mail did you see the piece on the BBC may dump the met office,
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1243994/BB...

[BJWoods]

PRTVR said:

Unsure if its a re post but this morning at just after 06.00 on BBC1 news,
the presenters were reviewing the daily papers and they showed the front cover from the daily
mail and commented on the piece on the glacier melting and how it was was probably wrong!
I nearly fell of my chair, what do the BBC think they are doing reporting things in a fair and honest way, this is not what we expect from them, I feel a complaint letter coming on
also in the mail did you see the piece on the BBC may dump the met office,
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1243994/BB...

Try climate bias

[e-mail] <[e-mail]>

[deeps]

King Fisher said:

...and I strongly suspect that the solar sunspot cycle does too. I was fortunate to be taught by Prof Eric Priest (who may be the world's leading expert on these phenomena and their effects) and have retained a lifelong interest in them after doing a research project on them under his direction. Although the Sun is not an intrinsically variable star, its luminosity does vary slightly over the 11 (or 22 if you want to be pedantic) year sunspot cycle. However, this seems to be too short to cause any detectable effect in the climate - at least I've not seen any evidence to this effect. But the solar cycle can be subject to disruption (the Maunder minimum of the late C17th being a good example) and I would expect the extra insolation to produce some effects if maintained over a longer timespan than 11 years. The fact that sunspot activity is currently at a 500 year high should lead (if anything) to a drop in global temperatures and may be actually masking the effects caused by CO2 increase. But I strongly suspect that some of the periodic warming episodes in history (eg the MWP), often claimed by sceptics to cast doubt on global warming theories, were actually caused by disruptions to the sunspot cycle. Sadly, there are no records of sunspots at this time because Galileo hadn't been invented!

How do you make sunspot activity to be at a 500 year high?

Solar geomagnetic activity is now very low, the Ap Index showing an all time low.

One of the comments over at WUWT is interesting... "Despite the celebration over December’s mild sunspot up-tick solar activity is low, we are entering into territory no living scientist or modern technology has experienced or recorded.

The Clilverd et al (2006) prediction for SC 24 is the likely outcome.
A peak of 42 ± 34 ,(Dalton minimum type cycle)."



http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/solar-geomag...

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/01...

[PRTVR]

BJWoods said:

PRTVR said:

Unsure if its a re post but this morning at just after 06.00 on BBC1 news,
the presenters were reviewing the daily papers and they showed the front cover from the daily
mail and commented on the piece on the glacier melting and how it was was probably wrong!
I nearly fell of my chair, what do the BBC think they are doing reporting things in a fair and honest way, this is not what we expect from them, I feel a complaint letter coming on
also in the mail did you see the piece on the BBC may dump the met office,
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1243994/BB...

Try climate bias

[e-mail] <[e-mail]>

what I was trying to say (but failed badly ) was that they had reported it well, the fact that they had shown the front of the paper and reported what was said in the article shocked me, I am just not use to it.

[deeps]

PRTVR said:

what I was trying to say (but failed badly ) was that they had reported it well, the fact that they had shown the front of the paper and reported what was said in the article shocked me, I am just not use to it.

Fwiw you didn't do bad, I got you the first time

[The Excession]

deeps said:

King Fisher said:

...and I strongly suspect that the solar sunspot cycle does too. I was fortunate to be taught by Prof Eric Priest (who may be the world's leading expert on these phenomena and their effects) and have retained a lifelong interest in them after doing a research project on them under his direction. Although the Sun is not an intrinsically variable star, its luminosity does vary slightly over the 11 (or 22 if you want to be pedantic) year sunspot cycle. However, this seems to be too short to cause any detectable effect in the climate - at least I've not seen any evidence to this effect. But the solar cycle can be subject to disruption (the Maunder minimum of the late C17th being a good example) and I would expect the extra insolation to produce some effects if maintained over a longer timespan than 11 years. The fact that sunspot activity is currently at a 500 year high should lead (if anything) to a drop in global temperatures and may be actually masking the effects caused by CO2 increase. But I strongly suspect that some of the periodic warming episodes in history (eg the MWP), often claimed by sceptics to cast doubt on global warming theories, were actually caused by disruptions to the sunspot cycle. Sadly, there are no records of sunspots at this time because Galileo hadn't been invented!

How do you make sunspot activity to be at a 500 year high?

Solar geomagnetic activity is now very low, the Ap Index showing an all time low.

One of the comments over at WUWT is interesting... "Despite the celebration over December’s mild sunspot up-tick solar activity is low, we are entering into territory no living scientist or modern technology has experienced or recorded.

The Clilverd et al (2006) prediction for SC 24 is the likely outcome.
A peak of 42 ± 34 ,(Dalton minimum type cycle)."



http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/solar-geomag...

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/01...

Indeed deeps, what planet is this fella living on??? 500 year high my arse.

I usually try and look at sun spot activity about once a week, last August there was bugger all - zilch - nada NOTHING - completely blank. Only recently has there been a slight up lift in sun spots... last time I looked there were eight.

[Blib]

Playing Devil's advocate. Maybe he meant a five hundred year 'low'. That would fit in with his next sentence.

Edited by Blib on Monday 18th January 22:25

[The Excession]

Blib said:

Playing Devil's advocate. Maybe he meant a five hundred year 'low'. That would fit in with his next sentence.

Edited by Blib on Monday 18th January 22:25

Indeed, perhaps you are right, but let's not let speculation get in the way of a good hanging. Still, I just read on another thread that he's planning on voting Lib Dems next time around, make of that what you will.

[King Fisher]

The Excession said:

deeps said:

King Fisher said:

...and I strongly suspect that the solar sunspot cycle does too. I was fortunate to be taught by Prof Eric Priest (who may be the world's leading expert on these phenomena and their effects) and have retained a lifelong interest in them after doing a research project on them under his direction. Although the Sun is not an intrinsically variable star, its luminosity does vary slightly over the 11 (or 22 if you want to be pedantic) year sunspot cycle. However, this seems to be too short to cause any detectable effect in the climate - at least I've not seen any evidence to this effect. But the solar cycle can be subject to disruption (the Maunder minimum of the late C17th being a good example) and I would expect the extra insolation to produce some effects if maintained over a longer timespan than 11 years. The fact that sunspot activity is currently at a 500 year high should lead (if anything) to a drop in global temperatures and may be actually masking the effects caused by CO2 increase. But I strongly suspect that some of the periodic warming episodes in history (eg the MWP), often claimed by sceptics to cast doubt on global warming theories, were actually caused by disruptions to the sunspot cycle. Sadly, there are no records of sunspots at this time because Galileo hadn't been invented!

How do you make sunspot activity to be at a 500 year high?

Solar geomagnetic activity is now very low, the Ap Index showing an all time low.

One of the comments over at WUWT is interesting... "Despite the celebration over December’s mild sunspot up-tick solar activity is low, we are entering into territory no living scientist or modern technology has experienced or recorded.

The Clilverd et al (2006) prediction for SC 24 is the likely outcome.
A peak of 42 ± 34 ,(Dalton minimum type cycle)."



http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/solar-geomag...

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/01...

Indeed deeps, what planet is this fella living on??? 500 year high my arse.

I usually try and look at sun spot activity about once a week, last August there was bugger all - zilch - nada NOTHING - completely blank. Only recently has there been a slight up lift in sun spots... last time I looked there were eight.

The last part of the current 11 year cycle (from 2006 onwards) has been slightly inactive and prolonged and the predicted index for the next cycle is fairly low at around 80 (cf 130 for the last cycle). However, this far from unprecedented and this has happened several times before. I was referring to the smoothed mean of the cycles since 1900 which show a gradual rise to c1960 with gentle fluctuation since then. However, the level from 1960 to 2005 has still been very high until the very last few years, indeed, higher than at any time since the Maunder minimum. Variations over a few years are not usually of great significance; the 11 year cycle can vary by a couple of years either way in any case. The current flap that we are entering a period of low sunspot maxima may be correct but it's simply conjecture at the moment. The expected minimum of 2005/6 was also odd in that it produced several bursts of activity when none were expected and this delayed the minimum somewhat.

This is a paper that explains the methodology of measuring the level of sunspots and the historical variation to 1993 rather well:

http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/papers/hathadh/H...

And Hathaway's team at NASA predicted an SC 24 peak of c80 early this month (and I'd trust their judgement any day), much higher than the 42 you quote. This may indicate that sunspot activity is dropping from its recent high levels, but it may not.

As for this comment about me by The excession:

"Indeed deeps, what planet is this fella living on??? 500 year high my arse"

It's you that's talking out of your rectum, not me. The peak activity of the cycles from 18 - 23 were the highest on average since the Maunder minimum. Only cycles 20 and 23 peaked much below 200, making the current level of activity the highest since records began. Follow the link to Hathaway et al for proof.

And, of course, What's Up With That is THE most authoritative, peer reviewed forum on the planet, much more distinguished than Astrophysical Journal, Monthly Notices or any NASA publication.

Yeah, right.

[mybrainhurts]

I think we can treat peer review with caution, if not contempt, for some time now, old boy....

[deeps]

King Fisher said:

The last part of the current 11 year cycle (from 2006 onwards) has been slightly inactive and prolonged and the predicted index for the next cycle is fairly low at around 80 (cf 130 for the last cycle). However, this far from unprecedented and this has happened several times before. I was referring to the smoothed mean of the cycles since 1900 which show a gradual rise to c1960 with gentle fluctuation since then. However, the level from 1960 to 2005 has still been very high until the very last few years, indeed, higher than at any time since the Maunder minimum. Variations over a few years are not usually of great significance; the 11 year cycle can vary by a couple of years either way in any case. The current flap that we are entering a period of low sunspot maxima may be correct but it's simply conjecture at the moment. The expected minimum of 2005/6 was also odd in that it produced several bursts of activity when none were expected and this delayed the minimum somewhat.

This is a paper that explains the methodology of measuring the level of sunspots and the historical variation to 1993 rather well:

http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/papers/hathadh/H...

And Hathaway's team at NASA predicted an SC 24 peak of c80 early this month (and I'd trust their judgement any day), much higher than the 42 you quote. This may indicate that sunspot activity is dropping from its recent high levels, but it may not.

As for this comment about me by The excession:

"Indeed deeps, what planet is this fella living on??? 500 year high my arse"

It's you that's talking out of your rectum, not me. The peak activity of the cycles from 18 - 23 were the highest on average since the Maunder minimum. Only cycles 20 and 23 peaked much below 200, making the current level of activity the highest since records began. Follow the link to Hathaway et al for proof.

And, of course, What's Up With That is THE most authoritative, peer reviewed forum on the planet, much more distinguished than Astrophysical Journal, Monthly Notices or any NASA publication.

Yeah, right.

I was about to post that you did infact mean it when you said a 500 year high.

So how do you explain this...

King Fisher said:

The fact that sunspot activity is currently at a 500 year high should lead (if anything) to a drop in global temperatures and may be actually masking the effects caused by CO2 increase.

Periods of high solar activity would naturally lead to increased total solar irradiance and increased temperatures, yet you say the opposite?

Also, you seem to completely ignore the solar forcing from solar eruptivity resulting in solar winds modulating high energy cosmic ray flux, which has been demonstrated to correlate with temperature.

http://www.john-daly.com/aa-index.gif

[turbobloke]

King Fisher said:

The last part of the current 11 year cycle (from 2006 onwards) has been slightly inactive and prolonged and the predicted index for the next cycle is fairly low at around 80 (cf 130 for the last cycle). However, this far from unprecedented and this has happened several times before.

Yes, Dalton Minimum, Maunder Minimum, as discussed previously.

King Fisher said:

I was referring to the smoothed mean of the cycles since 1900 which show a gradual rise to c1960 with gentle fluctuation since then.

However, the level from 1960 to 2005 has still been very high until the very last few years, indeed, higher than at any time since the Maunder Minimum.

Indeed.

King Fisher said:

Variations over a few years are not usually of great significance; the 11 year cycle can vary by a couple of years either way in any case.

Written with the gaze diverted?

The Hale sunspot cycle is only a part of solar activity, usually discussed in the context of solar irradiance, and curiously the focus of those who seek to minimise the impact of solar forcing, as we have found on here many times already.

The Gleissberg and de Vries Suess cycles are more relevant and operate over different timescales as you will know. Solar eruptivity has a strong impact on weather and climate with lag-time typically 4 to 8 years as also discussed on here previously. It is not simply a sunspot issue as it encompasses a wider range of phenomena e.g. coronoal holes. The current climate cooling is a consequence of a marked drop in both solar irradiance and particularly solar eruptivity, beginning ca 2001 but with a further discontinuity 2005 October, again as discussed previously.

King Fisher said:

The current flap that we are entering a period of low sunspot maxima may be correct but it's simply conjecture at the moment.

No it's not conjeecture it's in the data. Something in the data is not conjecture. Considerations of the peak of future cycles will have an element of conjecture but as this period of low solar activity and climate consequences was predicted decades ago from solar cycles - Gleissberg and de Vries Suess not Hale - the conjecture element isn't overwhelming.

It would be more representatively scientific if you spoke about solar activity and not simply the Hale cycle.

King Fisher said:

The expected minimum of 2005/6 was also odd in that it produced several bursts of activity when none were expected and this delayed the minimum somewhat.

A long cycle length 'delays' minimum.

King Fisher said:

This is a paper that explains the methodology of measuring the level of sunspots and the historical variation to 1993 rather well... This may indicate that sunspot activity is dropping from its recent high levels, but it may not.

The drop is already evident, the question is merely how far.

You also mention peer review in the context of climate science. You do so tongue-in-cheek, yes? Post-climategate that type of currency has been devalued and the impact of the remark is now negligible. As always, before or after the emergence of e-mails describing systematic Journal editorial manipulation, peer review manipulation and IPCC report manipulation, science should be judged on its merits.

[Blib]

Brown talking with EU President Van Pompey live now.

First subject is economic crisis.

Second subject, moving the climate change issue on from Copenhagen.

"How we can modify favourably the dynamics of the negotiation process".i.e. Get the decision we want, perhaps..

How best to take the process forward. No mention of problems with Climategate.

Third subject is Haiti.

[Blib]

Micronesia take on he Czech Republic over Climate Change.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/19/business/global/...

[rovermorris999]

More tory mutterings on the cost of climate change policies. Perhaps the shires are stirring. Will Dave notice?
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/centreright/2010...

[Blib]

rovermorris999 said:

More tory mutterings on the cost of climate change policies. Perhaps the shires are stirring. Will Dave notice?
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/centreright/2010...

A paragraph from this link.

Tory Report said:

That is an understandable point of view. But the rising cost of existing climate change policies is likely to frustrate any attempts to ignore them. A report for investors from Citigroup argues that energy bills are likely to have to rise 57 to 100 per cent in order to finance the massive investment that is being required by climate change targets. They think that will cause an "affordability crisis" as even families on average incomes find their energy bills becoming an intolerable burden. The poor and elderly will be even harder hit and increasing the cost of coping strategies like electric heaters will increase the number of deaths in the winter cold; last year excess winter mortality was over 36,000.

[YAD061]

Guam said:

"The biggest stumbling block, I fear, is Cameron himself. He believes in “Climate Change” as fervently as New Agers believe in the healing power of crystals."

Del is absolutely correct here, he is already adrift of general concensus and, it seems, losing grip on his party.
Unless he mans up and acknowledges reality he's going to fk it up.......like I care

[Parrot of Doom]

IPCC, expert advice?

Hmmm.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/...