Read The Sunspots

[K3UD]

Here is a rather interesting article from the Financial Post regarding the possibility of global cooling.

read the sunspots (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=597d0677-2a05-47b4-b34f-b84068db11f4&p=4)

(sorry, senior moment)

73
George
K3UD

[kc0ukk]

Quote[/b] (K3UD @ June 20 2007,16:54)]Here is a rather interesting article from the Financial Post regarding #the possibility of global cooling.

read the sunspots (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=597d0677-2a05-47b4-b34f-b84068db11f4&p=4)

(sorry, senior moment)

73
George
K3UD
We'll have to wait until 'Simon Says', whoops, I mean 'scientists say'.

[G8ADD]

There is some good science in the article by Prof. R Timothy Patterson, but there are a few things that worry me, too. For instance, is it just me, or is there something a little strange about the idea of withdrawing funding from efforts to counter GW - which is an actually observed phenomenon - and putting it into funding research into countering Global Cooling, which has not yet been observed and is hypothesised on the basis of a disputed theory?

Come to think on it, research to counter GW would come up with techniques that only have to be reversed to counter Global Cooling.

73

Brian G8ADD

[al2i]

We have already done much to stave off the next ice age. As long as we keep pumping carbon into the atmosphere, I think all will be relatively well. Without that accumulated input, I shiver to think what it would be like right now.

[K3UD]

Back in the early 70s there were several books published concerning the possibility of a new ice age. The major TV networks covered this and there were lots of articles published by scientists supporting the idea. If I remember it right the predictions were mostly based on sunspots and the variable output from the sun which is why this story caught my eye. I remember that from the mid 60s to the mid 70s that the sunspot cycle was disappointing with relatively low sunspot counts. By 1980 through 20002 we had much more robust counts.

Today, it is reversed and we are blaming ourselves for the problem. Could it be that that we are looking at the long term problem based on too small periods of time?

I always wondered how much carbon was put into the atmosphere during the entirety of WWII and how it affected global climate at that time and immediately afterward.

I also find it interesting that the planet Mars also seems to be heating up a bit.

73
George
K3UD

[G8ADD]

George, the two coldest winters that I remember, 1947 and 1963, were both near sunspot maximum. This, of course, proves nothing!

73

Brian G8ADD

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ June 21 2007,03:49)]We have already done much to stave off the next ice age. #As long as we keep pumping carbon into the atmosphere, I think all will be relatively well. #Without that accumulated input, I shiver to think what it would be like right now.
Well, that's just because you're living up there in Seward's Ice Box. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[K3UD]

Quote[/b] (G8ADD @ June 21 2007,10:30)]George, the two coldest winters that I remember, 1947 and 1963, were both near sunspot maximum. This, of course, proves nothing!

73

Brian G8ADD
Brian

The sunspot maximum was in 1958 and in 1963 it was very close to the minimum. You are correct about 1948 when the cycle was at its peak. Maybe 1948 was so cold because of all the crap tossed into the atmosphere by WWII http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif 1948 was just a little bit before my time. I remember very cold winters from about 1961 - 1965, at least on the east coast. We also have very cold winters in 1975 through 1978.

When we decided to move to Kentucky my wife was excited by the idea. She had lived in southern Indiana for about 10 years as a kid and told me that they never had cold winters in that region while she was there, 1960 through 1969. When we go to Kentucky in 1978 she could not believe how cold the winters were through 1978 to about 1983. After that they warmed up. Short term changes The problem is that short term observations always seem to come up short.

The local weather reporters here kept a an average temperature log going back to 1945. It seems that the average temperature has been slowly declining here since 1945 to 2002 when the weather bureau stopped using local weather reporters. This is a large agricultural area and many farm families kept track of the same thing.

73
George
K3UD

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (K3UD @ June 21 2007,12:06)]Quote[/b] (G8ADD @ June 21 2007,10:30)]George, the two coldest winters that I remember, 1947 and 1963, were both near sunspot maximum. This, of course, proves nothing!

73

Brian G8ADD
Brian

The sunspot maximum was in 1958 and in 1963 it was very close to the minimum. You are correct about 1948 when the cycle was at its peak. Maybe 1948 was so cold because of all the crap tossed into the atmosphere by WWII http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif 1948 was just a little bit before my time. I remember very cold winters from about 1961 - 1965, at least on the east coast. We also have very cold winters in 1975 through 1978.

When we decided to move to Kentucky my wife was excited by the idea. She had lived in southern Indiana for about 10 years as a kid and told me that they never had cold winters in that region while she was there, 1960 through 1969. When we go to Kentucky in 1978 she could not believe how cold the winters were through 1978 to about 1983. After that they warmed up. Short term changes The problem is that short term observations always seem to come up short.

The local weather reporters here kept a an average temperature log going back to 1945. It seems that the average temperature has been slowly declining here since 1945 to 2002 when the weather bureau stopped using local weather reporters. This is a large agricultural area and many farm families kept track of the same thing.

73
George
K3UD
Bear in mind you are talking about regional weather. Climate science is based on a global average and that has been steadilly rising. The most significant rise has occured within the last centure which corresponds to a global temp rise of about 1.5 deg F. Over the past 1/4 to 1/2 century the rate of temp increase comesout to approx 0.25 - 0.35 deg per century recpecting a 2 -3 degree temperature increase per century. That is a rather alarming rate and is quite significant for a number of reasons including a close correlation with the vast tonnage of CO2 spewed by man made sources over the past century as well as the reaity that if that high rate of change does continue it will undoubtably affect life as we know it, or whether we live at all. Of course there is not 100% absoluter certainty that it is all due to man made causes however probability estimates range from about 60 to 90% (75% mean) that a significant amount of this change is indeed anthropogenic (man made). Of course the fact that 18 or the hottest years on record have occured withing the last 20 years does indeed raise some eyebrows.

The does not preclude natural cycles and natural cycles do not preclude anthropogenic changes. Instead of arguing about who or what caused it we should be trying to do all we can to significantly reduce CO2 output while closely monitoring temperature and atmospheric CO2. Not only would it help to mitigate any man made effects somewhat but it will also lead us to a far deeper understanding of the effect that modern industrialized CO2 output is actually havinh upon global climate.

[kg6amw]

Just a whole bunch of guesses based upon too little data. I think they really don't know what the hell is going on, nor will they ever.

[K4GUN]

Quote[/b] (G8ADD @ June 21 2007,03:27)]There is some good science in the article by Prof. R Timothy Patterson, but there are a few things that worry me, too. For instance, is it just me, or is there something a little strange about the idea of withdrawing funding from efforts to counter GW - which is an actually observed phenomenon - and putting it into funding research into countering Global Cooling, which has not yet been observed and is hypothesised on the basis of a disputed theory?

Come to think on it, research to counter GW would come up with techniques that only have to be reversed to counter Global Cooling.

73

Brian G8ADD
Acting upon theories and conjecture is the basis for most of the GW alarmists. Instead of dumping money into preventing the un-preventable, we would all be better off spending money on adapting to new realities. Hotter or colder doesn't really matter. What matters is how we deal with it. If we spend all our resources as a nation (or planet) trying to stave off the inevitable, do we have anything left when the reality actually happens?

Controlling weather is a ridiculous propostion. Even the alarmists of global warming admitt that thier idea of "success" is merely slowing down the rate of warming. So why not spend money on developing better farming methods, utilization of previously unusable land and better ways of moving populations?

[KB1KIX]

Quote[/b] (kg6amw @ June 21 2007,17:18)]Just a whole bunch of guesses based upon too little data. I think they really don't know what the hell is going on, nor will they ever.
Yep!

There's data to support both sides.

Depends on who is interpreting the data, and who wants to create - or remove funding!

Jonathan

[G0GQK]

Not that I was there but, when the army of Napoleon Bonaparte was marching on Moscow the weather turned exceptionally cold. His soldiers were unprepared for such severe weather and thousands of them died of frostbite and starvation in Poland. At the time there were very few factories producing pollutants and cars and trucks were quite a rarity ! The question is was there a sunspot maximum about 1812 ?

It has also been shown that when Scott arrived at the Antarctic his failure to achieve his objective was partly as a result that the weather was exceptionally colder than is normal in the Antarctic. If I remember correctly this was in 1912. Was this a year of a sunspot maximum.?

It is said by many scientists that during the last few thousand years that the earth has been at its most placid.

However, most politicians do regards themselves as being able to take control of everything so perhaps Mrs Merkel believes that she will have some influence on cosmic activities as it affects the European Union !

G0GQK

[kf6rdn]

Quote[/b] ]Read The Sunspots,

I tried! They kept burning up my tea leaves!
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[K3UD]

Here is an interesting chart that tracks sunspots by year going back to 1700.

Sunspot numbers by year (http://ssed.gsfc.nasa.gov/lepedu/IA-SunSpots.html)

73
George
K3UD

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (k4gun @ June 21 2007,14:54)]Quote[/b] (G8ADD @ June 21 2007,03:27)]There is some good science in the article by Prof. R Timothy Patterson, but there are a few things that worry me, too. For instance, is it just me, or is there something a little strange about the idea of withdrawing funding from efforts to counter GW - which is an actually observed phenomenon - and putting it into funding research into countering Global Cooling, which has not yet been observed and is hypothesised on the basis of a disputed theory?

Come to think on it, research to counter GW would come up with techniques that only have to be reversed to counter Global Cooling.

73

Brian G8ADD
Acting upon theories and conjecture is the basis for most of the GW alarmists. #Instead of dumping money into preventing the un-preventable, we would all be better off spending money on adapting to new realities. #Hotter or colder doesn't really matter. #What matters is how we deal with it. #If we spend all our resources as a nation (or planet) trying to stave off the inevitable, do we have anything left when the reality actually happens? #

Controlling weather is a ridiculous propostion. #Even the alarmists of global warming admitt that thier idea of "success" is merely slowing down the rate of warming. #So why not spend money on developing better farming methods, utilization of previously unusable land and better ways of moving populations?
The issue is not so much one of gradual adaptation but of how "gradual" it really is. Let's assume that climate chande (warming) is natural and has nothing to do with man made conditions. Then in all liklihood there is little we can do but try and adapt over time and hope and pray that temps don;t go so high that life becomes unsustainable. As humans we have a very narrow range of conditions under which we can function. Alter those conditions too far in and given direction and our ability to function or survive becomes #questionable. We are extremely vulnerable to our environmental conditions.

Now, lets say that we assume present science to be true, that man made activity is indeed enhancing climate change, causing it to proceed at a far less gradual rate and instead rather abruptly, as present measurements indicate. The more abrupt the change the much greater the difficulty adaptation becomes. That is the greater issue at hand.


So I would argue that hotter or colder does make a difference. Too hot or too cold can mean that it becomes #quite difficult to sustain life. Assuming that temps remain within a life sustaining range with or without man made GW the key issue becomes how fast is the changer to hotter or colder happening and, how much time to we have to adapt. Of courseif the rate of change is increased considerably by anthropogenic change then it would be #wise to curtail CO2 output as much as possible as a means of mitigating a rapid rate of change.

I also find it odd that those who have studied GW scientifically and in depth and have concluded that man made activity plays a role in climate change are called "alarmists"