Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

2015 looking like another world record year for the global warming trend.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    And we've just had our coldest winter temperature in 20 years -21C. (fortunately down in South Island, only got to -2C at my house on the North Island). We obviously still need to wait and see if our winter average is colder than normal.

    And, I'm sure that Starlight will love my source (unless he's up on the Beehive at the moment), it looks increasingly likely that we're in for a repeat of the Maunder Minimum.
    http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2015/06/gl...e-age-instead/
    Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong.
    1 Corinthians 16:13

    "...he [Doherty] is no historian and he is not even conversant with the historical discussions of the very matters he wants to pontificate on."
    -Ben Witherington III

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Raphael View Post
      And we've just had our coldest winter temperature in 20 years -21C. (fortunately down in South Island, only got to -2C at my house on the North Island). We obviously still need to wait and see if our winter average is colder than normal.

      And, I'm sure that Starlight will love my source (unless he's up on the Beehive at the moment), it looks increasingly likely that we're in for a repeat of the Maunder Minimum.
      http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2015/06/gl...e-age-instead/
      It is an issue of global climate change over many years of data, and not one year, one season, and one region.
      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

      go with the flow the river knows . . .

      Frank

      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Raphael View Post
        And we've just had our coldest winter temperature in 20 years -21C. (fortunately down in South Island, only got to -2C at my house on the North Island). We obviously still need to wait and see if our winter average is colder than normal.
        Cause you're not sure yet if that cherry is worth picking.

        And, I'm sure that Starlight will love my source (unless he's up on the Beehive at the moment), it looks increasingly likely that we're in for a repeat of the Maunder Minimum.
        http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2015/06/gl...e-age-instead/
        For some reason, your article links to a source that contradicts its headline, and for some reason, you didn't notice that.

        Now why would that be?


        I remember sylas taking me to task about linking AGW denialism to conservative Christianity.

        Y'all might want to think about helping me overcome that bias.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
          Cause you're not sure yet if that cherry is worth picking.



          For some reason, your article links to a source that contradicts its headline, and for some reason, you didn't notice that.

          Now why would that be?


          I remember sylas taking me to task about linking AGW denialism to conservative Christianity.

          Y'all might want to think about helping me overcome that bias.
          This one?

          Britain faces FREEZING winters as slump in solar activity threatens 'little Ice Age'
          It is awkward English, to be sure, but I'm not seeing how that contradicts the content of the article. Maybe you could show me?
          Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

          Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
          sigpic
          I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
            This one?
            "Global Warming not coming to UK, mini Ice Age instead"

            vs

            "The Met Office-led study warns although the effect will be offset by recent global warming, Britain faces years of unusually cold winters."

            In context, those are individual years, not continuous years, and it'd take more than grammatical legerdemain to turn an effect offset by global warming into a mini Ice Age. It takes YEC-style math though, to turn a one in five chance of another Maunder minimum around mid-century into a confident prediction.

            A couple of things should go without saying: that this is yet more cherry picking, that it's dishonest, that it's blog-trolled from the popular press, and that it's yet another example of dreck science promoted by a conservative Christian on this board.

            Nobody's forcing y'all to blacken your own eyes on this.

            Sorry, sylas, but that's the way I see it.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
              "Global Warming not coming to UK, mini Ice Age instead"

              vs

              "The Met Office-led study warns although the effect will be offset by recent global warming, Britain faces years of unusually cold winters."

              In context, those are individual years, not continuous years, and it'd take more than grammatical legerdemain to turn an effect offset by global warming into a mini Ice Age.
              In context, individual years may be particularly cold. The effect is clearly not expected to be fully offset by global warming; otherwise there'd be nothing to see here.
              It takes YEC-style math though, to turn a one in five chance of another Maunder minimum around mid-century into a confident prediction.
              Try reading that a little closer; that's a one in five chance that the effect will be as strong as the Maunder minimum around mid-century. That there will be an effect is presumably a much more secure presumption, with some hedging on its severity and timing.
              A couple of things should go without saying: that this is yet more cherry picking, that it's dishonest, that it's blog-trolled from the popular press, and that it's yet another example of dreck science promoted by a conservative Christian on this board.

              Nobody's forcing y'all to blacken your own eyes on this.

              Sorry, sylas, but that's the way I see it.
              You could do without the snark. I asked because I wanted clarification. My caution regarding global warming has nothing to do with Christianity; my patriarch, after all, is an ardent environmentalist.
              Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

              Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
              sigpic
              I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
                Cause you're not sure yet if that cherry is worth picking.
                No, because I'm aware that one cold spike doesn't make a trend.



                Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
                For some reason, your article links to a source that contradicts its headline, and for some reason, you didn't notice that.

                Now why would that be?
                What are you talking about? the source clearly states that we're possibly seeing a repeat of the Maunder Minimum which, if we are, will result in colder winters, especially in North America and Britain (-0.8C average) than the rest of the world (-0.1C average).

                Despite whatever we may do here on earth, the thing that has the biggest impact for temperature is the great big glowing thing in the sky, if it's putting out less energy, there will be less energy to warm the earth. We have huge amounts of empirical evidence showing the impact of solar activity has on the climate. The likelihood of a repeat of the Maunder Minimum by 2050 has increased from 8% to 15-20% based on what we're currently seeing the sun do.

                I linked to Whale Oil specifically to tweak Starlight's nose (it's an NZ politics thing)


                Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
                I remember sylas taking me to task about linking AGW denialism to conservative Christianity.

                Y'all might want to think about helping me overcome that bias.
                So commenting on what affect solar activity (or the lack there of) may have on climate is automatically AGW denialism?
                Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong.
                1 Corinthians 16:13

                "...he [Doherty] is no historian and he is not even conversant with the historical discussions of the very matters he wants to pontificate on."
                -Ben Witherington III

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                  You could do without the snark.
                  Then he wouldn't be the loveable jerk whose fine hair we've all come to admire.
                  The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                    ... whose fine hair we've all come to admire.
                    You misspelled "perfect."

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
                      You misspelled "perfect."
                      I hate it when that happens.
                      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                        In context, individual years may be particularly cold. The effect is clearly not expected to be fully offset by global warming; otherwise there'd be nothing to see here.

                        Try reading that a little closer; that's a one in five chance that the effect will be as strong as the Maunder minimum around mid-century. That there will be an effect is presumably a much more secure presumption, with some hedging on its severity and timing.
                        There's nothing secure about a presumption based on a popular press account exhibited beneath a series of nekkid women stories:
                        Lady Gaga goes one step too far when she bares WHOLE BOOB in…
                        Ruby Rose's naked past: Nude Maxim cover revealed after THAT steamy shower scene
                        'My birthday suit' Sadie Frost celebrates turning 50 by stripping completely naked
                        Rita Ora bares EXTREME cleavage as she ditches her bra in plunging blouse

                        No doubt those will cycle, but that's what I'm seeing right now, along with one lonely non-mammary-based article about a greedy python who swallowed a porcupine. Serious news, this is not. Howsabout you reading a bit closer next time.

                        There's actual science back at the original source, an article in Nature Communications:

                        Regional climate impacts of a possible future grand solar minimum
                        Abstract: Any reduction in global mean near-surface temperature due to a future decline in solar activity is likely to be a small fraction of projected anthropogenic warming. However, variability in ultraviolet solar irradiance is linked to modulation of the Arctic and North Atlantic Oscillations, suggesting the potential for larger regional surface climate effects. Here, we explore possible impacts through two experiments designed to bracket uncertainty in ultraviolet irradiance in a scenario in which future solar activity decreases to Maunder Minimum-like conditions by 2050. Both experiments show regional structure in the wintertime response, resembling the North Atlantic Oscillation, with enhanced relative cooling over northern Eurasia and the eastern United States. For a high-end decline in solar ultraviolet irradiance, the impact on winter northern European surface temperatures over the late twenty-first century could be a significant fraction of the difference in climate change between plausible AR5 scenarios of greenhouse gas concentrations.

                        The takeaway is that these are the results of an experiment based on a Maunder Minimum scenario the authors themselves consider improbable, albeit less improbable than previously suggested.
                        The decline in solar activity has continued, to the time of writing, and is faster than any other such decline in the 9,300 years covered by the cosmogenic isotope data1. If this recent rate of decline is added to the analysis, the 8% probability estimate is now raised to between 15 and 20%.

                        Even based on this scenario, the net global effect would be a mere reduction of about 0.1˚C, not enough to fully offset the warming we've seen so far, let alone the additional warming we're expecting by mid-century. The regional effects stem from an increase in arctic air pumped down across the Atlantic via the Arctic oscillation, affecting winter temperatures across eastern North America, the UK, and, to a lesser extent, Europe. By implication, these regional effects would be counterbalanced by an acceleration in arctic warming.

                        You could do without the snark. I asked because I wanted clarification. My caution regarding global warming has nothing to do with Christianity; my patriarch, after all, is an ardent environmentalist.
                        That was a reference to Raph, speaking of whom ...

                        Originally posted by Raphael View Post
                        No, because I'm aware that one cold spike doesn't make a trend.
                        We've got trends already.

                        What are you talking about? the source clearly states that we're possibly seeing a repeat of the Maunder Minimum which, if we are, will result in colder winters, especially in North America and Britain (-0.8C average) than the rest of the world (-0.1C average).
                        0.7˚C — the current warming before we look at the warming by mid-century — minus 0.1˚C is not a negative number. So what "colder winters" are you talking about?

                        Despite whatever we may do here on earth, the thing that has the biggest impact for temperature is the great big glowing thing in the sky, if it's putting out less energy, there will be less energy to warm the earth.
                        The science doesn't agree with you, or said conversely, you're denying the science, call that what you will. Changes in solar irradiation do not have the biggest impact for global temperatures today. That place is reserved for greenhouse gases.

                        We have huge amounts of empirical evidence showing the impact of solar activity has on the climate. The likelihood of a repeat of the Maunder Minimum by 2050 has increased from 8% to 15-20% based on what we're currently seeing the sun do.
                        "We have huge amounts of empirical evidence" showing the solar contribution has less impact in our current environment than increasing CO2 concentrations. This information isn't hard to find.
                        But several lines of evidence show that current global warming cannot be explained by changes in energy from the sun:
                        • Since 1750, the average amount of energy coming from the sun either remained constant or increased slightly.
                        • If the warming were caused by a more active sun, then scientists would expect to see warmer temperatures in all layers of the atmosphere. Instead, they have observed a cooling in the upper atmosphere, and a warming at the surface and in the lower parts of the atmosphere. That's because greenhouse gasses are trapping heat in the lower atmosphere.
                        • Climate models that include solar irradiance changes can’t reproduce the observed temperature trend over the past century or more without including a rise in greenhouse gases.

                        I linked to Whale Oil specifically to tweak Starlight's nose (it's an NZ politics thing)
                        Yeah, but it's still you linking to Whale Oil.

                        So commenting on what affect solar activity (or the lack there of) may have on climate is automatically AGW denialism?
                        It's AGW denialism when it denies the science, and yup, that's what you're doing.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Someone asks a question about an AGW argument. Lao Tzu cries out, AGW denialism! :cry:
                          The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

                          [T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
                            There's nothing secure about a presumption based on a popular press account
                            You really could've stopped here.
                            There's actual science back at the original source, an article in Nature Communications:

                            Regional climate impacts of a possible future grand solar minimum
                            Abstract: Any reduction in global mean near-surface temperature due to a future decline in solar activity is likely to be a small fraction of projected anthropogenic warming. However, variability in ultraviolet solar irradiance is linked to modulation of the Arctic and North Atlantic Oscillations, suggesting the potential for larger regional surface climate effects. Here, we explore possible impacts through two experiments designed to bracket uncertainty in ultraviolet irradiance in a scenario in which future solar activity decreases to Maunder Minimum-like conditions by 2050. Both experiments show regional structure in the wintertime response, resembling the North Atlantic Oscillation, with enhanced relative cooling over northern Eurasia and the eastern United States. For a high-end decline in solar ultraviolet irradiance, the impact on winter northern European surface temperatures over the late twenty-first century could be a significant fraction of the difference in climate change between plausible AR5 scenarios of greenhouse gas concentrations.

                            The takeaway is that these are the results of an experiment based on a Maunder Minimum scenario the authors themselves consider improbable, albeit less improbable than previously suggested.
                            Thank you. It is apparent, though I haven't had time to read the whole thing, that the pop press article rather badly misread this.
                            Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                            Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                            sigpic
                            I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                              2015 looking like another world record year for the global warming trend.
                              Is that before or after "adjusting" the data
                              Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                              But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                              Than a fool in the eyes of God


                              From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                                Is that before or after "adjusting" the data
                                Not clear. 'What do you mean adjusting the data?
                                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                                Frank

                                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                135 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                48 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X