Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #507529 > unrolled thread

The Maunder Minimum is back! (Maybe. And we probably won’t notice)

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  The Maunder Minimum is back! (Maybe. And we probably won’t notice) Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-07-16 15:38 -0500
    Re: The Maunder Minimum is back! (Maybe. And we probably won’t notice) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-07-17 04:26 +0000
      Re: The Maunder Minimum is back! (Maybe. And we probably won’t notice) Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-07-17 07:24 -0500
        Re: The Maunder Minimum is back! (Maybe. And we probably won’t notice) Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-07-17 17:19 -0500
          Re: The Maunder Minimum is back! (Maybe. And we probably won?t notice) R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> - 2015-07-17 22:38 +0000
            ah, interesting noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-07-17 16:07 -0700
          Re: The Maunder Minimum is back! (Maybe. And we probably won't notice) Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-07-17 16:35 -0700
    Re: The Maunder Minimum is back! (Maybe. And we probably won’t notice) "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2015-07-30 11:12 -0400
      Re: The Maunder Minimum is back! (Maybe. And we probably won’t notice) jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-08-02 12:05 +0200
        Re: The Maunder Minimum is back! (Maybe. And we probably won’t notice) HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-08-02 06:58 -0400
      Re: The Maunder Minimum is back! (Maybe. And we probably won’t notice) dsr@mail.lns.cornell.edu (Daniel S. Riley) - 2015-08-02 12:53 -0400
        Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-08-03 00:12 +0200
          Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-08-02 19:57 -0400
            Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-08-03 10:40 +0200
              Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-08-03 08:03 -0400
                Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-08-03 14:37 +0200
                  Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-03 13:28 -0400
                Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-08-03 14:41 +0200
                  Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-08-03 22:40 -0400
                    Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-08-04 06:48 -0400
                Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-08-03 14:51 +0200
                  Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2015-08-03 08:18 -0700
                  Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-03 13:35 -0400
                    Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-08-03 20:37 +0200
                      Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-08-03 22:40 -0400
                        Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-04 02:51 -0400
                      Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-04 02:23 -0400
                        Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> - 2015-08-04 00:01 -0700
                          Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-04 13:35 -0400
                            Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> - 2015-08-05 03:43 -0700
                              Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-07 01:21 -0400
                                Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-08-07 12:50 +0200
                                  Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-08-07 13:23 +0200
                        Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> - 2015-08-04 00:43 -0700
                          Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-08-04 08:30 -0400
                            Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-04 14:07 -0400
                            Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> - 2015-08-05 03:46 -0700
                              Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-08-05 08:51 -0400
                                Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-08-05 20:23 +0200
                                  Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-08-06 02:04 -0400
                                    Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> - 2015-08-05 23:42 -0700
                                      Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-08-08 09:25 -0400
                                        Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> - 2015-08-10 02:22 -0700
                                          Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-08-10 09:34 -0400
                                            Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-10 10:37 -0400
                                              Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-08-10 13:55 -0400
                                            Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> - 2015-08-12 01:05 -0700
                                              Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-08-12 11:17 +0200
                                                Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-08-12 05:44 -0400
                                                  Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-12 05:19 -0700
                                                  Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-08-12 08:05 -0500
                                                    Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-08-13 02:34 -0400
                                Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> - 2015-08-05 22:23 -0700
                        Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> - 2015-08-04 00:45 -0700
                        Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-08-04 09:52 +0200
                          Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-08-04 08:55 -0400
                        Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> - 2015-08-04 19:28 -0400
        Re: The Maunder Minimum is back! (Maybe. And we probably won’t notice) "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2015-08-08 10:56 -0400
          Re: The Maunder Minimum is back! (Maybe. And we probably won?t notice) R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> - 2015-08-08 15:19 +0000
            Re: The Maunder Minimum is back! (Maybe. And we probably won?t notice) Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-08-08 12:07 -0500

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#507529 — The Maunder Minimum is back! (Maybe. And we probably won’t notice)

The Maunder Minimum is back! (Maybe. And we probably won’t notice)
> http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/07/the-maunder-minimum-is-back-maybe-and-we-probably-wont-notice/

> A new ice age is not actually coming. But you wouldn't know that
> based on headlines from places like The Telegraph. The "reasoning"
> behind the headlines is that a new study suggests the Sun is headed
> for a severe low in its activity, and the last time that happened
> coincided with a cold period called the Little Ice Age. Ergo, another
> one is on the way.
>
> Pretty much every aspect of this reasoning is wrong.
>
> To understand why, we have to understand sunspots. Sunspots are the
> product of magnetic activity inside the Sun, and they appear as
> darker, cooler areas on the star's surface. You might think that they
> would cause less light to reach Earth, but the areas around the
> sunspot brighten up, more than compensating for the dark areas. As a
> result, there's a simple relationship: the more sunspots, the more
> solar output reaches Earth.
>
> Normally, sunspots come and go with the 11-year long solar cycle—more
> during peak activity, less during the Sun's quieter times. But
> superimposed on that cycle are longer-term trends in activity that we
> don't understand very well. For example, solar activity has been
> trending downward since the 1980s, and it's not entirely clear why.
> But it's still much more active than it was during a roughly 70-year
> period around 1700, when the Sun experienced what's called the
> Maunder Minimum, with very few sunspots visible the entire time.
>
> That period happened to coincide with the Little Ice Age, which saw
> global temperatures dip and glaciers advance, with Europe
> experiencing notably colder weather. The lack of solar activity
> provided a nice explanation for this, so the two were assumed to be
> connected.
>
> Why is this topic back in the news? Blame can be assigned to a press
> release put out by the Royal Astronomical Society. The release
> described a talk that would be taking place at the organization's
> National Astronomy Meeting, focusing on a new model of solar
> activity. The model, based on a more complex version of the Sun's
> internal magnetic dynamo, suggests that there are two cycles going on
> at the same time. When they're in alignment, the solar cycle results
> in dramatic peaks of activity. When they oppose each other, you get
> greatly reduced activity—something like a Maunder Minimum.





-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#507609

Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/16/15 4:57 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> The Maunder Minimum is back! (Maybe. And we probably won?t notice)
>>
>> If it happens, we will notice.
>>
>> One thing that will be hard to ignore is the screams of the true
>> believers in "global warming" which have done so much to destroy
>> modern life as they are dragged out into the streets to be tared and
>> feathered.
> 
>   We will definitely notice the lack of sun spots, and a quieter
>   sun. However, the earth is absorbing more energy from the
>   sun than it's giving up due to increasing greenhouse gas
>   concentrations. The excess energy that the planet is absorbing
>   is enormous. The total energy imbalance now is 0.58 ? 0.15 W/m^2.

Utter, lying, horseshit.

You will excuse me if I am not terrified of you lies and nonsense, ass hole.

-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#507631

On 7/16/15 11:26 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 7/16/15 4:57 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> The Maunder Minimum is back! (Maybe. And we probably won?t notice)
>>>
>>> If it happens, we will notice.
>>>
>>> One thing that will be hard to ignore is the screams of the true
>>> believers in "global warming" which have done so much to destroy
>>> modern life as they are dragged out into the streets to be tared and
>>> feathered.
>>
>>    We will definitely notice the lack of sun spots, and a quieter
>>    sun. However, the earth is absorbing more energy from the
>>    sun than it's giving up due to increasing greenhouse gas
>>    concentrations. The excess energy that the planet is absorbing
>>    is enormous. The total energy imbalance now is 0.58 ± 0.15 W/m^2.
>
> Utter, lying, horseshit.
>
> You will excuse me if I am not terrified of you lies and nonsense, ass hole.
>

   Why should anybody be terrified -- this is simply a matter of what
   is happening.

-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#507717

On 7/17/15 1:21 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
> My point exactly, so what is the point of your constant, off topic
> posts full of speculation and FUD, ass hole?
>
>

   The physics (meteorological and climatology branches) community is
   doing a lot of research in this area. Noting to be afraid of jimp.

   The Maunder Minimum is back! (Maybe. And we probably won’t notice)
> http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/07/the-maunder-minimum-is-back-maybe-and-we-probably-wont-notice/

 > A new ice age is not actually coming. But you wouldn't know that
 > based on headlines from places like The Telegraph. The "reasoning"
 > behind the headlines is that a new study suggests the Sun is headed
 > for a severe low in its activity, and the last time that happened
 > coincided with a cold period called the Little Ice Age. Ergo, another
 > one is on the way.
 >
 > Pretty much every aspect of this reasoning is wrong.
 >
 > To understand why, we have to understand sunspots. Sunspots are the
 > product of magnetic activity inside the Sun, and they appear as
 > darker, cooler areas on the star's surface. You might think that they
 > would cause less light to reach Earth, but the areas around the
 > sunspot brighten up, more than compensating for the dark areas. As a
 > result, there's a simple relationship: the more sunspots, the more
 > solar output reaches Earth.
 >
 > Normally, sunspots come and go with the 11-year long solar cycle—more
 > during peak activity, less during the Sun's quieter times. But
 > superimposed on that cycle are longer-term trends in activity that we
 > don't understand very well. For example, solar activity has been
 > trending downward since the 1980s, and it's not entirely clear why.
 > But it's still much more active than it was during a roughly 70-year
 > period around 1700, when the Sun experienced what's called the
 > Maunder Minimum, with very few sunspots visible the entire time.
 >
 > That period happened to coincide with the Little Ice Age, which saw
 > global temperatures dip and glaciers advance, with Europe
 > experiencing notably colder weather. The lack of solar activity
 > provided a nice explanation for this, so the two were assumed to be
 > connected.
 >
 > Why is this topic back in the news? Blame can be assigned to a press
 > release put out by the Royal Astronomical Society. The release
 > described a talk that would be taking place at the organization's
 > National Astronomy Meeting, focusing on a new model of solar
 > activity. The model, based on a more complex version of the Sun's
 > internal magnetic dynamo, suggests that there are two cycles going on
 > at the same time. When they're in alignment, the solar cycle results
 > in dramatic peaks of activity. When they oppose each other, you get
 > greatly reduced activity—something like a Maunder Minimum.


-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and *physics-related social issues* .

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#507732 — Re: The Maunder Minimum is back! (Maybe. And we probably won?t notice)

Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/17/15 1:21 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>
>> My point exactly, so what is the point of your constant, off topic
>> posts full of speculation and FUD, ass hole?
>>
>>
> 
>   The physics (meteorological and climatology branches) community is
>   doing a lot of research in this area. Noting to be afraid of jimp.
> 
>   The Maunder Minimum is back! (Maybe. And we probably won?t notice)
>> http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/07/the-maunder-minimum-is-back-maybe-and-we-probably-wont-notice/
> 
> > A new ice age is not actually coming. But you wouldn't know that
> > based on headlines from places like The Telegraph. The "reasoning"
> > behind the headlines is that a new study suggests the Sun is headed
> > for a severe low in its activity, and the last time that happened
> > coincided with a cold period called the Little Ice Age. Ergo, another
> > one is on the way.
> >
> > Pretty much every aspect of this reasoning is wrong.
> >
> > To understand why, we have to understand sunspots. Sunspots are the
> > product of magnetic activity inside the Sun, and they appear as
> > darker, cooler areas on the star's surface. You might think that they
> > would cause less light to reach Earth, but the areas around the
> > sunspot brighten up, more than compensating for the dark areas. As a
> > result, there's a simple relationship: the more sunspots, the more
> > solar output reaches Earth.
> >
> > Normally, sunspots come and go with the 11-year long solar cycle?more
> > during peak activity, less during the Sun's quieter times. But
> > superimposed on that cycle are longer-term trends in activity that we
> > don't understand very well. For example, solar activity has been
> > trending downward since the 1980s, and it's not entirely clear why.
> > But it's still much more active than it was during a roughly 70-year
> > period around 1700, when the Sun experienced what's called the
> > Maunder Minimum, with very few sunspots visible the entire time.
> >
> > That period happened to coincide with the Little Ice Age, which saw
> > global temperatures dip and glaciers advance, with Europe
> > experiencing notably colder weather. The lack of solar activity
> > provided a nice explanation for this, so the two were assumed to be
> > connected.
> >
> > Why is this topic back in the news? Blame can be assigned to a press
> > release put out by the Royal Astronomical Society. The release
> > described a talk that would be taking place at the organization's
> > National Astronomy Meeting, focusing on a new model of solar
> > activity. The model, based on a more complex version of the Sun's
> > internal magnetic dynamo, suggests that there are two cycles going on
> > at the same time. When they're in alignment, the solar cycle results
> > in dramatic peaks of activity. When they oppose each other, you get
> > greatly reduced activity?something like a Maunder Minimum.
> 
> 


The more I look at this paper, the more I suspect something is off.

The authors have used historical WSO data to derrive some principal
components of the solar mag field.

Then they extracted these components from the last 30 y of data
and put them through Neutonian's equation-finding package.
Basically, the s/w tries billions (it says in the literature)
of possible equations matching up parts of the data, spitting
out those that come close to holding true.

THEN the trends so found are projected forward. Without field
data for the future they "predict" the trend of the next 3 cycles
will (by accident?) more or less follow those in the last 3 cycles
which was the training data used for the equation-finder.

There are a number of possible problems.

I have some experience in "normal" statistics, but I'm starting to
believe finding confidence intervals for an equation you
find by brute force search may not be so easy to pin down.

I'm sure the package can figure out it shouldn't come up with the uncountable
number of functions like sin2(x)+cos2(x) == sin2(y)+cos2(y) as a "find",
but how can it do the even less decidable problem of not coming up
with false hits (slow-moving functions; or selecting
variables that don't have much of a range in the data;
or spitting out formulas like "corr(x,y) approx eq 0")
that are "almost true by definition"?

And then to put a "prob this is not chance"  on the rest?

Sounds ripe for over-fitting.

The package sounds fine for culling through mountains of numbers
looking for "laws" that someone can later go back to the lab and verify.
(The literature has a few examples for the package in questions --
most with the worrying note "we've found this relation to be true;
it was previously unsuspected; no known mechanism is know why
it should hold").

If anyone has run research data through some of the neat neural net learners
that abound these days they may have had the same experience.

Fitting e.g. sunspot data with a NN can come up with models that
look perfect. (I did a little exercise just on the strength of the
paper in questions, and I had to look twice to make sure I hadn't
accidentally put the training set in as the test set as well).

Until you try to apply such models to new data and the predictions are not
so warm. (In my trial the training error was near 0; in the test it was
nearer 100%).

Anyway. All very interesting.

--
And like most of your fallacies, you got the premise wrong. The last 15
years CO2 rose and mean global temperature did not.
-- Melvin on Mars (aka Varney@CO), 22 May 2012 22:54:02 -0500

Plot of co2, BEST prelim, and Artic ice x -1:
<http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/best/mean:132/from:1940/normalise/plot/esrl-co
2/mean:12/normalise/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/mean:60/normalise/scale:-1>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#507739 — ah, interesting

wOw

> Basically, the s/w tries billions (it says in the literature)
> of possible equations matching up parts of the data, spitting
> out those that come close to holding true.
> 
> THEN the trends so found are projected forward. Without field
> data for the future they "predict" the trend of the next 3 cycles
> will (by accident?) more or less follow those in the last 3 cycles
> which was the training data used for the equation-finder.
> 
> There are a number of possible problems.
> 
> I have some experience in "normal" statistics, but I'm starting to
> believe finding confidence intervals for an equation you
> find by brute force search may not be so easy to pin down.
> 
> I'm sure the package can figure out it shouldn't come up with the uncountable
> number of functions like sin2(x)+cos2(x) == sin2(y)+cos2(y) as a "find",
> but how can it do the even less decidable problem of not coming up
> with false hits (slow-moving functions; or selecting
> variables that don't have much of a range in the data;
> or spitting out formulas like "corr(x,y) approx eq 0")
> that are "almost true by definition"?
> 
> And then to put a "prob this is not chance"  on the rest?
> 
> Sounds ripe for over-fitting.
> 
> The package sounds fine for culling through mountains of numbers
> looking for "laws" that someone can later go back to the lab and verify.
> (The literature has a few examples for the package in questions --
> most with the worrying note "we've found this relation to be true;
> it was previously unsuspected; no known mechanism is know why
> it should hold").
> 
> If anyone has run research data through some of the neat neural net learners
> that abound these days they may have had the same experience.
> 
> Fitting e.g. sunspot data with a NN can come up with models that
> look perfect. (I did a little exercise just on the strength of the
> paper in questions, and I had to look twice to make sure I hadn't
> accidentally put the training set in as the test set as well).
> 
> Until you try to apply such models to new data and the predictions are not
> so warm. (In my trial the training error was near 0; in the test it was
> nearer 100%).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#507742 — Re: The Maunder Minimum is back! (Maybe. And we probably won't notice)

On Friday, July 17, 2015 at 6:19:59 PM UTC-4, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 7/17/15 1:21 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >
> > My point exactly, so what is the point of your constant, off topic
> > posts full of speculation and FUD, ass hole?
> 
>    The physics (meteorological and climatology branches) community is
>    doing a lot of research in this area. Noting to be afraid of jimp.

In metric system units, how much has that community noted to fear jimp?

[snip Sam's cut and pasted crap]

-- Mahipal

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#510339

You cited previously a heat imbalance due to global warming of 0.58 W/m^2. 
But about this recent research, you say the Sun's radiance can vary 0.1%:

> No, we aren't heading into a 'mini ice age'
> http://phys.org/news/2015-07-mini-iceage.html

> Wouldn't it be great if scientists could make their minds up? One
> minute they're telling us our planet is warming up due to human
> activity and we run the risk of potentially devastating environmental
> change. Next, they're warning that the Earth is heading for a mini
> ice age in the next 15 years.
> The latter headline has its roots in a recent press release from the
> UK's National Astronomy Meeting that reported on a study suggesting
> the sun is heading towards a period of very low output.
> Fluctuations in solar activity are not a new discovery. The 11-year
> variation in the number of dark sunspots on the solar surface was
> discovered more than 150 years ago. We now understand that these
> spots are symptoms of increased magnetic activity and occur during
> periods when explosive outbursts of energy and material such as solar
> flares and coronal mass ejections are more frequent.
> The scientists behind the new research have modelled the rhythmic
> variations in solar activity over recent decades and predict that a
> deep low is due between 2030 and 2040. Specifically, the press
> release suggests that this dip in activity could mark a return to
> quiet solar conditions not seen for more than 350 years.
> How is this astronomy story related to an impending ice age? The
> period of low solar activity in the 17th century, known as the
> Maunder minimum, lasted about 70 years and roughly coincided with the
> "Little Ice Age", a era characterised by an abnormally high number of
> harsh winters across the UK and Europe. As almost all newspaper
> stories have reported, during several particularly cold winters the
> Thames froze, enabling frost fairs to be held on the ice.
> Given the apparently strong link between low solar activity and the
> Little Ice Age reported in the press, it's understandable that the
> prospect of a return to Maunder minimum conditions has stimulated a
> lot of interest.
> But the *real issue is just how strong this influence is compared* to
> other factors. The total solar irradiance, a measure of the power
> produced by the sun in the form of electromagnetic radiation, varies
> by only about 0.1% over the course of the 11-year solar cycle.
> Climate scientists have understood this effect for some time and it
> is already built into the computer models that are used to try and
> forecast our climate.

The computer models describing current climate don't plug in a *continual* 
reduction in the solar output by 0.1% obviously because that hasn't been 
seen for 350 years. Note also that since the Sun's irradiance at the Earth 
is about 1,000 W/m^2, a drop of 0.1% would be about 1 W/m^2, about twice as 
large as that heat imbalance you cite.

And just as that heat imbalance over years can build up to increase the 
overall temperature, a *continual* heat drop will combine over several years 
to decrease the overall temperature.

Also, the professor Zharkova presenting this new model of solar activity 
suggests actually the irradiance drop during the Little Ice Age was 3 W/m^2 
and she infers the upcoming drop will be similar to this. See the link to a 
audio interview with her here:

http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport/audio/201762133/uk-scientist-suggests-a-mini-ice-age-be-upon-us

IF the irradiance drop really is that great that would be far outside what 
the current models consider and would be well above what the current heat 
imbalance is.

Interestingly, at the end of the interview the professor mentions also 
global warming indications seen on other planets. This gives credence to the 
idea of a solar influence in the global warming we are currently seeing.

  Bob Clark

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A mission to Europa could result in the most important scientific advance in 
human history, dwarfing even the Apollo missions, to discover life on 
another world. By commercial space, launch and spacecraft costs can be 
slashed by a factor of 10 or more. This would be a cost that could be 
financed privately. And at costs this low it can even be done at a profit:

Low cost Europa lander missions.
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2015/02/low-cost-europa-lander-missions.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Sam Wormley"  wrote in message 
news:N5OdnXN5GOdA9jXInZ2dnUU7-RUAAAAA@giganews.com...

On 7/16/15 4:57 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The Maunder Minimum is back! (Maybe. And we probably won?t notice)
>
> If it happens, we will notice.
>
> One thing that will be hard to ignore is the screams of the true
> believers in "global warming" which have done so much to destroy
> modern life as they are dragged out into the streets to be tared and
> feathered.

   We will definitely notice the lack of sun spots, and a quieter
   sun. However, the earth is absorbing more energy from the
   sun than it's giving up due to increasing greenhouse gas
   concentrations. The excess energy that the planet is absorbing
   is enormous. The total energy imbalance now is 0.58 ± 0.15 W/m^2.

   Given the resulting warming of the earth, it is doubtful that
   anyone would notice a cooling effect in northern Europe as was
   witnessed several centuries ago, due to an extended solar minimum.






-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#510819

Le 30/07/2015 17:12, Robert Clark a écrit :
> Interestingly, at the end of the interview the professor mentions also
> global warming indications seen on other planets. This gives credence to
> the idea of a solar influence in the global warming we are currently
> seeing.

Yes. It is the sun, cosmic rays, ANYTHING but Exxon, Shell, BP or other 
industries, that we NEED.

Let's go on polluting since it is the best solution to our problems. DO 
NOTHING. Preserve the status quo that benefits Exxon, Shell, BP and all 
of our friends in the coal industry.

There is global warming on Mars, Jupiter, Pluto. It is the sun, and 
against the sun we can't do anything. Just go on distributing public 
money to Exxon, Shell, BP. Repel the clean air act. Who needs clean air?

Only green idiots, that do not like free entreprise, with hidden agendas 
of destroying our nation will still complain about pollution
and CO2 levels.

Your sincerely

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#510826

On 8/2/2015 6:05 AM, jacob navia wrote:
>
> Yes. It is the sun, cosmic rays, ANYTHING but Exxon, Shell, BP or other
> industries, that we NEED.
>
> Let's go on polluting since it is the best solution to our problems. DO
> NOTHING. Preserve the status quo that benefits Exxon, Shell, BP and all
> of our friends in the coal industry.
>
> There is global warming on Mars, Jupiter, Pluto. It is the sun, and
> against the sun we can't do anything. Just go on distributing public
> money to Exxon, Shell, BP. Repel the clean air act. Who needs clean air?
>
> Only green idiots, that do not like free entreprise, with hidden agendas
> of destroying our nation will still complain about pollution
> and CO2 levels.


Ever human should be a 'green idiot' in my opinion. We all live here.
I think you will find very few people who are in favor of dumping shit 
into our air and water. Keeping the US air and water clean is equally as 
important as keeping our military the best.

So Hail Satan and have a nice day


-- 
Cut off one head, two more shall take its place.
HAIL HYDRA!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZcG5UOY224

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#510832

"Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> writes:
> The computer models describing current climate don't plug in a
> *continual* reduction in the solar output by 0.1% obviously because
> that hasn't been seen for 350 years.

Actually, this has been modeled.  Understanding past climatic changes
and how similar events would change modern climate has lot of interest.
Plus, this is far from the first prediction that we're heading for a new
"Maunder Minimum", so it's hard to understand why this prediction is
getting so much attention.  We'll have to wait for the paper and
observations to see if Zharkova's model is any more successful.

> Note also that since the Sun's irradiance at the Earth is about 1,000
> W/m^2, a drop of 0.1% would be about 1 W/m^2, about twice as large as
> that heat imbalance you cite.
>
> And just as that heat imbalance over years can build up to increase
> the overall temperature, a *continual* heat drop will combine over
> several years to decrease the overall temperature.
>
> Also, the professor Zharkova presenting this new model of solar
> activity suggests actually the irradiance drop during the Little Ice
> Age was 3 W/m^2 and she infers the upcoming drop will be similar to
> this.
>
> IF the irradiance drop really is that great that would be far outside
> what the current models consider and would be well above what the
> current heat imbalance is.

There's some apples vs. bushels of oranges problems here.

First, irradiance and forcing aren't the same.  TSI (irradiance) is the
radiation arriving at the disc defined by the earth's outline, forcing
is averaged over the surface and is reduced by the amount reflected back
into space.  3 W/m^2 drop in TSI comes out to around 0.5 W/m^2 drop in
solar forcing, about the same size as the current heat imbalance.  See

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/07/12/mini-ice-age/

Secondly, the heat imbalance isn't the total AGW forcing, you might
think of it as the delayed component because the earth doesn't react
instantaneously to changes in forcing.  Total change in AGW forcing
since 1970 is close to 2 W/m^2 and continuing to rise.  A new grand
minimum might offset 25% of warming so far, likely less, consistent with
an offset of no more than -0.3C from the models.  Warming would continue
since AGW forcing is continuing to grow, and, if Zharkova's model is
correct, we get a corresponding jump up after 3 solar cycles when the
sun returns to normal.

For examples of some recent models with grand minimum TSI reductions:

"On the effect of a new grand minimum of solar activity on the
future climate on Earth"
Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, L05707, doi:10.1029/2010GL042710.

discussed here:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/06/what-if-the-sun-went-into-a-new-grand-minimum/

also

"Regional climate impacts of a possible future grand solar minimum"
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150623/ncomms8535/full/ncomms8535.html

"What influence will future solar activity changes over the 21st century
have on projected global near-surface temperature changes?"
J. Geophys. Res., 117, D05103, doi:10.1029/2011JD017013
cached: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011JD017013.pdf

> Interestingly, at the end of the interview the professor mentions also
> global warming indications seen on other planets.

Tired old talking points, clearly outside her area of research.
Nothing new.

-dan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#510845 — Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on

Dry Days Bring Ferocious Start to Fire Season

WALLA WALLA, Wash. — Another summer of record-breaking drought and heat
has seized the West, setting off costly and destructive wildfires from
Southern California, where a single blaze burned more than 30,000 acres
of national forest east of Los Angeles, to Montana, where a fast-moving
fire in Glacier National Park recently forced tourists to flee hotels,
campgrounds and vehicles.

No measurable rain has fallen here in Walla Walla since May.
Temperatures have broken decades-old records. And, though known for
soaking skies and cool summers, Washington State is well on track to
surpass last year’s wildfire season, its busiest on record.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/us/dry-days-in-west-bring-ferocious-
start-to-fire-season.html?&moduleDetail=section-news-0&action=click&
contentCollection=U.S.&region=Footer&module=MoreInSection&
version=WhatsNext&contentID=WhatsNext&pgtype=article

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#510881 — Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on

On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 00:12:28 +0200, jacob navia wrote:

>Dry Days Bring Ferocious Start to Fire Season
>
>WALLA WALLA, Wash. — Another summer of record-breaking drought and heat
>has seized the West, setting off costly and destructive wildfires from
>Southern California, where a single blaze burned more than 30,000 acres
>of national forest east of Los Angeles, to Montana, where a fast-moving
>fire in Glacier National Park recently forced tourists to flee hotels,
>campgrounds and vehicles.
>
>No measurable rain has fallen here in Walla Walla since May.
>Temperatures have broken decades-old records. 

What caused the drought those decades ago?

Was it SUVs?

>And, though known for
>soaking skies and cool summers, Washington State is well on track to
>surpass last year’s wildfire season, its busiest on record.
>
>http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/us/dry-days-in-west-bring-ferocious-
>start-to-fire-season.html?&moduleDetail=section-news-0&action=click&
>contentCollection=U.S.&region=Footer&module=MoreInSection&
>version=WhatsNext&contentID=WhatsNext&pgtype=article

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#510907 — Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on

Le 03/08/2015 01:57, Wally W. a écrit :
>
> What caused the drought those decades ago?
>
> Was it SUVs?
>


Of course NOT!

That is the PROOF! Just go on with all SUVs! Global warming is a FAKE! 
Those droughts happened 80 million years ago even worst than today.

The whole Cretaceous was a very long summer.


P.S.
Normal temperature variations produces droughts and moist years. In the 
long run those temperature/humidity variations average out.

During global warming however, you have ONLY droughts, and no moist years!

But it is impossible to try to prove anything to the deniers. They will 
go on driving their SUVs until death meets them.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#510918 — Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on

On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 10:40:02 +0200, jacob navia wrote:

>Le 03/08/2015 01:57, Wally W. a écrit :
>>
>> What caused the drought those decades ago?
>>
>> Was it SUVs?
>>
>
>
>Of course NOT!
>
>That is the PROOF! Just go on with all SUVs! Global warming is a FAKE! 
>Those droughts happened 80 million years ago even worst than today.
>
>The whole Cretaceous was a very long summer.
>
>
>P.S.
>Normal temperature variations produces droughts and moist years. In the 
>long run those temperature/humidity variations average out.
>
>During global warming however, you have ONLY droughts, and no moist years!

But global warming increases the average amount of moisture in the
air. That moisture falls somewhere.

So maybe places that *had* droughts have been relieved from those
droughts by some small part of the 'A' in AGW.

Never mind the tautology that climate change can't happen without
weather outside the norms, and that climate change has been happening
for billions of years.

If weather stayed inside the norms for the current climate, the
climate wouldn't be changing.

You are missing part of the alarmists' narrative: *A*GW ... err ...
Climate Change causes "extreme weather," which includes droughts and
floods.

IOW: "Global-warming explains everything, its opposite and even, if
needed, the absence of any remarkable pattern."

>But it is impossible to try to prove anything to the deniers.

So cultists will continue "proving" to the unthinking masses that the
sky is falling and we're all gonna die because Western civilization is
spewing evil CO2.

Never mind how much CO2 is spewed by China.

> They will 
>go on driving their SUVs until death meets them.

Being a greenie is a ticket to immortality?

Do greenies not need to wait until the afterlife to be rewarded with
70 virgins for killing infidels?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#510920 — Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on

Le 03/08/2015 14:03, Wally W. a écrit :
>> During global warming however, you have ONLY droughts, and no moist years!
> But global warming increases the average amount of moisture in the
> air. That moisture falls somewhere.
>
> So maybe places that*had*  droughts have been relieved from those
> droughts by some small part of the 'A' in AGW.

For an answer to your question:
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/trenbert/trenberth.papers/GLOB_CHANGE/extremes.html

<quote>
The above arguments suggest that there is not such a clear expectation 
on how local total precipitation amounts should change, except as an 
overall global average. With higher average temperatures in winter 
expected, more precipitation is likely to fall in the form of rain 
rather than snow, which will increase both soil moisture and run off. In 
addition, faster snow melt in spring is likely to aggravate springtime 
flooding. In other places, complicated patterns of precipitation change 
should occur where storm tracks shift. Where the storms previously 
tracked gets drier and where they shift to becomes wetter. Beyond this, 
it is suggested that examining moisture content, rainfall rates and 
frequency of precipitation and how they change with climate change may 
be more important and fruitful than just examining precipitation amounts 
in understanding what is happening, both in the real world and in 
climate models. But many data analyses are not done to illuminate these 
aspects. To be compatible with life times of significant rain events, 
yet still deal with whole storms rather than individual rain cells, 
examination of hourly precipitation data are recommended. Such data are 
also retrievable from climate models.
<end quote>

But please do not forget this:

Water vapour is a potent greenhouse gas!

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/08/14/1321481/-Global-Warming-is-increasing-moisture-in-Earth-s-atmosphere-driving-Mother-of-all-Feedback-Loops#

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#510988 — Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on

On 08/03/2015 08:37 AM, jacob navia wrote:
> Le 03/08/2015 14:03, Wally W. a écrit :
>>> During global warming however, you have ONLY droughts, and no moist
>>> years!
>> But global warming increases the average amount of moisture in the
>> air. That moisture falls somewhere.
>>
>> So maybe places that*had*  droughts have been relieved from those
>> droughts by some small part of the 'A' in AGW.
>
> For an answer to your question:
> http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/trenbert/trenberth.papers/GLOB_CHANGE/extremes.html
>
>
> <quote>
> The above arguments suggest that there is not such a clear expectation
> on how local total precipitation amounts should change, except as an
> overall global average. With higher average temperatures in winter
> expected, more precipitation is likely to fall in the form of rain
> rather than snow, which will increase both soil moisture and run off. In
> addition, faster snow melt in spring is likely to aggravate springtime
> flooding. In other places, complicated patterns of precipitation change
> should occur where storm tracks shift. Where the storms previously
> tracked gets drier and where they shift to becomes wetter. Beyond this,
> it is suggested that examining moisture content, rainfall rates and
> frequency of precipitation and how they change with climate change may
> be more important and fruitful than just examining precipitation amounts
> in understanding what is happening, both in the real world and in
> climate models. But many data analyses are not done to illuminate these
> aspects. To be compatible with life times of significant rain events,
> yet still deal with whole storms rather than individual rain cells,
> examination of hourly precipitation data are recommended. Such data are
> also retrievable from climate models.
> <end quote>
>
> But please do not forget this:
>
> Water vapour is a potent greenhouse gas!
>
> http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/08/14/1321481/-Global-Warming-is-increasing-moisture-in-Earth-s-atmosphere-driving-Mother-of-all-Feedback-Loops#

So Science says that drought is saving the planet from death by global 
warming! Nature moves in mysterious ways!



-- 
         ___           ___           ___            ___
        /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
       /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
      /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
     /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
    /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
    \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
     \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
      \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
       \_:/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
                      \/__/         \/__/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#510921 — Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on

Le 03/08/2015 14:03, Wally W. a écrit :
> Never mind the tautology that climate change can't happen without
> weather outside the norms, and that climate change has been happening
> for billions of years.

Exactly. Billions of years of climate change. And since there wasn't any 
people to get worried, animals went exctinct, just disappeared, like, 
for instance, the mammoth that did not resist the end of the ice ages.

So, probably, humans will disappear and the weather will bounce back to 
normal after the peak of carbon they produced is absorbed by the oceans, 
in a few hundred thousand years.

Other animals, less specialized and more intelligent than humans will 
take over.

Let's remember that primates were a big rat, 64 million years ago. In 
some million years, the descendants of the rats could be wondering if it 
is wise to burn so much oil...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#511091 — Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on

On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 14:41:51 +0200, jacob navia wrote:

>Le 03/08/2015 14:03, Wally W. a écrit :
>> Never mind the tautology that climate change can't happen without
>> weather outside the norms, and that climate change has been happening
>> for billions of years.
>
>Exactly. Billions of years of climate change. And since there wasn't any 
>people to get worried, animals went exctinct, just disappeared, like, 
>for instance, the mammoth that did not resist the end of the ice ages.

If all the animals that went extinct were still around, how much room
would there be for us? How many of us would be eaten by T-rexes, etc.?

What you have had us do to save the mammoth?

How many sabre tooth tigers do you wish were nesting within five miles
of you?

How would you like to see these on the road?
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/521150988103814927/
Saber Tooth Tiger Street Crossing Sign 

>So, probably, humans will disappear and the weather will bounce back to 
>normal 

What is "normal" weather for the *planet*? Do you think it will settle
into one world-wide climate?

>after the peak of carbon they produced is absorbed by the oceans, 
>in a few hundred thousand years.
>
>Other animals, less specialized and more intelligent than humans will 
>take over.

Would that be "better?"

>Let's remember that primates were a big rat, 64 million years ago. 

This sounds like a misanthropic point of view.

>In 
>some million years, the descendants of the rats could be wondering if it 
>is wise to burn so much oil...

Of course we should burn less oil. It is a valuable chemical
feedstock. Burning it is not the best use in the long run.

Which is why we should be building nuclear power plants. We can't make
plastic from uranium.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#511142 — Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on

On 8/3/2015 10:40 PM, Wally W. wrote:
>
>> Let's remember that primates were a big rat, 64 million years ago.
>
> This sounds like a misanthropic point of view.
>
>> In
>> some million years, the descendants of the rats could be wondering if it
>> is wise to burn so much oil...
>
> Of course we should burn less oil. It is a valuable chemical
> feedstock. Burning it is not the best use in the long run.
>
> Which is why we should be building nuclear power plants. We can't make
> plastic from uranium.


I could not agree more Wally. Nuclear power is our best hope for the 
near future. I think of the lost opportunity that passed when Obama came 
into office. If instead of squandering that trillion dollar stimulus, he 
had invested with a goal to build 50 new nuclear power stations over the 
next 20 years, we would be well on our way to a future free from the 
carbon based energy economy we have become dependent on. Not to mention 
all the jobs it would have created.



-- 
Cut off one head, two more shall take its place.
HAIL HYDRA!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZcG5UOY224

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web