Sun causes warm or cold winters......
Discussion
Facefirst said:
So none of you have read the paper, seen its limitations or how it discusses its findings on global climate?
Explain to me (for I am hard of thinking) how the sun can direct it's energy towards the earth in a fashion which is sufficiently targetted to affect temperatures in different parts of the world....Jasandjules said:
Explain to me (for I am hard of thinking) how the sun can direct it's energy towards the earth in a fashion which is sufficiently targetted to affect temperatures in different parts of the world....
I don't understand the question. You appear to want me to explain the seasons to you. That can't be right, can it?Someone help me out here.
Facefirst said:
Jasandjules said:
Explain to me (for I am hard of thinking) how the sun can direct it's energy towards the earth in a fashion which is sufficiently targetted to affect temperatures in different parts of the world....
I don't understand the question. You appear to want me to explain the seasons to you. That can't be right, can it?Someone help me out here.
BoRED S2upid said:
Sounds like that to me too. Just go with Summer and Winter. Seasons indicates 4 separate ones and for us they all tend to just merge into one. Keep it simple Nov - March cold, July - September warmer.
Ah, OK. Cheers.Jules:
In some places at certain times of the year, it is summer. Yet in other places - at the same time - it is winter. The sun, mean while, doesn't change at all and yet these effects show up here on Earth.
Here is a more thorough explanation:
http://www.weatherquestions.com/What_causes_the_se...
Facefirst said:
BoRED S2upid said:
Sounds like that to me too. Just go with Summer and Winter. Seasons indicates 4 separate ones and for us they all tend to just merge into one. Keep it simple Nov - March cold, July - September warmer.
Ah, OK. Cheers.Jules:
In some places at certain times of the year, it is summer. Yet in other places - at the same time - it is winter. The sun, mean while, doesn't change at all and yet these effects show up here on Earth.
Here is a more thorough explanation:
http://www.weatherquestions.com/What_causes_the_se...
motco said:
Unless I am mistaken, the question was how can a quiescent sun or an overactive sun selectively affect different parts of the world superimposed on normal seasonal variations?
I knew that. But the question was asked so stupidly and arrogantly, reminding me of the sort of gotcha a creationist would use, that a piss-take answer was in order. Anyway, from my reading it has something to do with the jet stream and stuff, but the paper is pay-walled so I don't have access to it all.
If anyone does then a more full answer to this (very good) question might be forthcoming.
I'll have a peak at the full article tomorrow on my work PC. The abstract seems to suggest that when solar irradiance levels are altered, the computer model used reacts in a way that resembles observed climatic changes. Obviously it's difficult to critique a paper based on an abstract but it does appear to rely quite heavily on two assumptions:
1) The model used behaves in the same way as the real climate, or at least within a margin of error to make the model observations relevant to reality (a recurring theme)
2) That UV irradiance is the cause of the observed variations. If another forcing resembles that effect then you have a correlation/causation disconnect (something indirectly alluded to in the opening sentence)
I'm not used to reading climate science papers, however in the few (20 or 30 over the last 5 years or so) that I have read there does seem to be a habit of over-interpreting data (or in this case over-interpreting virtual data). Huge leaps of reasoning are made that make me uncomfortable (from both sides of the global warming fence), has this always been the case?
Maybe the full article will clear these questions up.
1) The model used behaves in the same way as the real climate, or at least within a margin of error to make the model observations relevant to reality (a recurring theme)
2) That UV irradiance is the cause of the observed variations. If another forcing resembles that effect then you have a correlation/causation disconnect (something indirectly alluded to in the opening sentence)
I'm not used to reading climate science papers, however in the few (20 or 30 over the last 5 years or so) that I have read there does seem to be a habit of over-interpreting data (or in this case over-interpreting virtual data). Huge leaps of reasoning are made that make me uncomfortable (from both sides of the global warming fence), has this always been the case?
Maybe the full article will clear these questions up.
turbobloke said:
frosted said:
turbobloke said:
With severe winters in the recent past and deadloss summers too, and with a Dalton Minimum or worse remaining on the cards, at least one rentapaper was needed to give media outlets the excuse they needed to cover record snow and cold temperatures while trying gamely to keep the manmadeup global warming myth alive.
Why, have you seen 30c in October and March before or a foot of snow in November ?Last winter was very mild wasn't it ?
You only have to go back to 1985 for a 29-point-something October UK temperature, and yes I was in the vicinity though not personally responsible
And of course last winter was very mild
Britain's cold weather: deaths soar as winter takes its toll
The human cost of Britain’s worst winter for 30 years has been laid bare as figures show the first signs of a sharp rise in the death rates, especially among the elderly.
got tanned in March/early April in 1984 in Leicestershire
and were walking round in shirt sleeves getting warm on New Years Day 2000, at 21C as measured by us, down in Cornwall.
Just as a few memorable examples of 'unprecedented' freakery. But no unusual activity, warm days outside high summer, or cold Christmases before CO2 and global warming arrived... 'course not.
motco said:
"So man made global warming IS a fact then?"
"Err, just about..."
Interviewee, "Now, please, Mr. Humphreys do remember to ask me if man made global warming is still a fact, and CO2 evil.""Err, just about..."
Humphreys, "Of course... is global warming a fact?"
"Yes, back of the net!" Love an open goal - especially with no opposing team on the pitch, a winner every time.
Got to love the BBC. Not to mention the Mess Office.
Jasandjules said:
Explain to me (for I am hard of thinking) how the sun can direct it's energy towards the earth in a fashion which is sufficiently targetted to affect temperatures in different parts of the world....
It doesn't. My understanding of the article is:What they knew was that winter variability (cold in US and Northern Europe/mild in Canada and Southern Europe or vice versa) was associated with weaker westerlies, which in turn were correlated with periods of lower sun activity, say the bottom of the 11-year solar cycle. The problem was they didn't understand how lower sun activity affected westerlies to the extent observed.
New data from a satellite suggests that levels of sun activity are considerably (5x larger) more variable than previously observations indicated. Once they fed the new level of variation into the existing model, it began to replicate the observed data.
The level of UV radiation is pretty much the same across the various areas that you think are being targetted - the difference is occurring in the atmosphere. The ozone layer in the Stratosphere absorbs UV radiation and warms up in the process. Lower solar activity means less UV to absorb and therefore the stratosphere is relatively cooler. The effect of this percolates through the lower atmosphere, affecting the jetstream that circulates over North America, Europe and Russia, which goes on to affect the North Atlantic Oscillation. The net effect is a reduced flow from west to east, which brings colder air to the Northern Europe.
Basically temperature is being redistributed (by shifting/weaker atmosphere movement) from USA and Northern Europe to Canada and Southern Europe while the average across all 4 areas remains stable - a bit like going 4 regions going from 5-5-5-5 to 3-3-7-7 where in both cases the average energy remains 5 and the overall energy remians 20. That's why they're saying this particular piece of research doesn't relate to global warming.
Some scientists think that if longer term solar variation (solar cycle intensity has been observed to be increasing since the 1600s) is just as high as the variation within the 11 year solar cycle then temperature redistribution around the North Atlantic would explain the link between the Maunder Minimum (low sunspot activity) and the higher proportion of harsh winters at the time (commonly known as the Little Ice Age) - basically saying that the latter had nothing to do with global warming.
Like all models, assumptions have to be made. The main issue with this research seems to be whether the new satellite data is accurate: they think it is but because it is so different to previous data they're cautiously awaiting confirmation. Other issues include the correlation/causation question. The satellite instrument only measures part of the UV region of the spectrum and UV variation is not the sole reason why winter temperatures vary.
ninja-lewis said:
It doesn't. My understanding of the article is:
What they knew was that winter variability (cold in US and Northern Europe/mild in Canada and Southern Europe or vice versa) was associated with weaker westerlies, which in turn were correlated with periods of lower sun activity, say the bottom of the 11-year solar cycle. The problem was they didn't understand how lower sun activity affected westerlies to the extent observed.
New data from a satellite suggests that levels of sun activity are considerably (5x larger) more variable than previously observations indicated. Once they fed the new level of variation into the existing model, it began to replicate the observed data.
The level of UV radiation is pretty much the same across the various areas that you think are being targetted - the difference is occurring in the atmosphere. The ozone layer in the Stratosphere absorbs UV radiation and warms up in the process. Lower solar activity means less UV to absorb and therefore the stratosphere is relatively cooler. The effect of this percolates through the lower atmosphere, affecting the jetstream that circulates over North America, Europe and Russia, which goes on to affect the North Atlantic Oscillation. The net effect is a reduced flow from west to east, which brings colder air to the Northern Europe.
Basically temperature is being redistributed (by shifting/weaker atmosphere movement) from USA and Northern Europe to Canada and Southern Europe while the average across all 4 areas remains stable - a bit like going 4 regions going from 5-5-5-5 to 3-3-7-7 where in both cases the average energy remains 5 and the overall energy remians 20. That's why they're saying this particular piece of research doesn't relate to global warming.
Some scientists think that if longer term solar variation (solar cycle intensity has been observed to be increasing since the 1600s) is just as high as the variation within the 11 year solar cycle then temperature redistribution around the North Atlantic would explain the link between the Maunder Minimum (low sunspot activity) and the higher proportion of harsh winters at the time (commonly known as the Little Ice Age) - basically saying that the latter had nothing to do with global warming.
Like all models, assumptions have to be made. The main issue with this research seems to be whether the new satellite data is accurate: they think it is but because it is so different to previous data they're cautiously awaiting confirmation. Other issues include the correlation/causation question. The satellite instrument only measures part of the UV region of the spectrum and UV variation is not the sole reason why winter temperatures vary.
QFT. Skeptics, read what this man says.What they knew was that winter variability (cold in US and Northern Europe/mild in Canada and Southern Europe or vice versa) was associated with weaker westerlies, which in turn were correlated with periods of lower sun activity, say the bottom of the 11-year solar cycle. The problem was they didn't understand how lower sun activity affected westerlies to the extent observed.
New data from a satellite suggests that levels of sun activity are considerably (5x larger) more variable than previously observations indicated. Once they fed the new level of variation into the existing model, it began to replicate the observed data.
The level of UV radiation is pretty much the same across the various areas that you think are being targetted - the difference is occurring in the atmosphere. The ozone layer in the Stratosphere absorbs UV radiation and warms up in the process. Lower solar activity means less UV to absorb and therefore the stratosphere is relatively cooler. The effect of this percolates through the lower atmosphere, affecting the jetstream that circulates over North America, Europe and Russia, which goes on to affect the North Atlantic Oscillation. The net effect is a reduced flow from west to east, which brings colder air to the Northern Europe.
Basically temperature is being redistributed (by shifting/weaker atmosphere movement) from USA and Northern Europe to Canada and Southern Europe while the average across all 4 areas remains stable - a bit like going 4 regions going from 5-5-5-5 to 3-3-7-7 where in both cases the average energy remains 5 and the overall energy remians 20. That's why they're saying this particular piece of research doesn't relate to global warming.
Some scientists think that if longer term solar variation (solar cycle intensity has been observed to be increasing since the 1600s) is just as high as the variation within the 11 year solar cycle then temperature redistribution around the North Atlantic would explain the link between the Maunder Minimum (low sunspot activity) and the higher proportion of harsh winters at the time (commonly known as the Little Ice Age) - basically saying that the latter had nothing to do with global warming.
Like all models, assumptions have to be made. The main issue with this research seems to be whether the new satellite data is accurate: they think it is but because it is so different to previous data they're cautiously awaiting confirmation. Other issues include the correlation/causation question. The satellite instrument only measures part of the UV region of the spectrum and UV variation is not the sole reason why winter temperatures vary.
Facefirst said:
I'll admit that did make me chuckle.
But now you have to admit that you don't have anything to back up your claim. See, aren't I reasonable?
I'l admit that when you admit that there's no proven direct link between Man made Co2 and observed changes in the planet's climate?But now you have to admit that you don't have anything to back up your claim. See, aren't I reasonable?
Deal?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff