Well we've sorted man's history for the last few thousand years so back to the present. I Googled Solar Variability and came up with this chap's name.
Mike Flaugher.
There are some interesting debates there and a graph showing the sun's output for the last 150 years.
It's interesting in the way it mirrors global temperature, even the nasty cold spell we had in the 60s.
Global warming.
Moderators: MichelleH, Minimalist, JPeters
Not wishing to derail the topic even before it's started, I've been thinking about a claim I once heard that larger mammals (Mammoths and so on) were hunted to extinction in the Americas by the indigenous people (whoever they were) which has started to strike me as possibly being tripe, or at least of tripe-like quality (given the supposed low population density of folks over there and the fact that there were still plenty of other mammals around, bison etc.) - well, whatever the truth of that story, the above certainly suggests that many big claims (notably global warming, he said getting back on topic) derive from a tendency to panic over how shiny the Titanic cutlery is whilst failing to notice the more pressing matter of the iceberg dead ahead. If that makes sense.
Mike Flaugher is not a name I recognise.
The most recent research on this subject (is GW caused by the Sun) was carried out by Krivova and Solanki and reported in 2004
http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrations ... e20040802/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3869753.stm
You may also find this of interest:
http://www.geo.arizona.edu/palynology/g ... solar.html
Despite this, the official line remains that solar activity can not explain all of the warming of the past century, especially not the increase over the past 3 decades. This can only be replicated by climate models when increased carbon emissions are taken into account.
Of course, these climate models are still relatively simple and do not take into account all changes in cloud cover or oceanic and atmospheric oscillations - all of which we're only now coming to understand.
Which to my mind raises a few questions ......
At present, the situation (IMO) is a bit like this:-
We know there were 10 balls in the bag and that there are now 15 balls in the bag. We also know that Bob had 5 balls and now he has none. So we conclude that the extra 5 balls must be from Bob.
The problem is that Jack says he put a ball into the bag ..... Now whilst most people think that Jack must be mistaken, I say we should check on everyone who had balls before we draw any firm conclusion as to whose the extra balls are. They may yet prove to all be Bob's. But they might not.
The most recent research on this subject (is GW caused by the Sun) was carried out by Krivova and Solanki and reported in 2004
http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrations ... e20040802/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3869753.stm
You may also find this of interest:
http://www.geo.arizona.edu/palynology/g ... solar.html
Despite this, the official line remains that solar activity can not explain all of the warming of the past century, especially not the increase over the past 3 decades. This can only be replicated by climate models when increased carbon emissions are taken into account.
Of course, these climate models are still relatively simple and do not take into account all changes in cloud cover or oceanic and atmospheric oscillations - all of which we're only now coming to understand.
Which to my mind raises a few questions ......
At present, the situation (IMO) is a bit like this:-
We know there were 10 balls in the bag and that there are now 15 balls in the bag. We also know that Bob had 5 balls and now he has none. So we conclude that the extra 5 balls must be from Bob.
The problem is that Jack says he put a ball into the bag ..... Now whilst most people think that Jack must be mistaken, I say we should check on everyone who had balls before we draw any firm conclusion as to whose the extra balls are. They may yet prove to all be Bob's. But they might not.
If you Google 'Solar Variabilty' Essan his name is the top line and the graph I mention is in there.
As I mentioned in an earlier post even Einstein was not averse to making his figures fit the agreed dogma. The UN call them' forcings'. The UN published its findings in 2001 called its Third Assessment Report showing two graphs, one of the rising CO2 levels and the other of rising temperatures. When superimposed they show temperature rises taking place BEFORE CO2 levels rise.
Earlier this year the TV in this country asked everybody with a computer to help with producing the largest climate model ever, what happened to that?
The UN's 'forcings' were adjusted till the desired result was obtained showing the desired relationship.
'Nature' will not publish any papers on the subject that do not support the agreed dogma, if the evidence is so strong why is this sort of thing needed?
Why did the UN need to introduce 'forcings'?
If you think that governments and industry will not work the 'big lie' take a look at the so called 'missile gap' of the cold war and what that cost the west, mainly the States.
As I mentioned in an earlier post even Einstein was not averse to making his figures fit the agreed dogma. The UN call them' forcings'. The UN published its findings in 2001 called its Third Assessment Report showing two graphs, one of the rising CO2 levels and the other of rising temperatures. When superimposed they show temperature rises taking place BEFORE CO2 levels rise.
Earlier this year the TV in this country asked everybody with a computer to help with producing the largest climate model ever, what happened to that?
The UN's 'forcings' were adjusted till the desired result was obtained showing the desired relationship.
'Nature' will not publish any papers on the subject that do not support the agreed dogma, if the evidence is so strong why is this sort of thing needed?
Why did the UN need to introduce 'forcings'?
If you think that governments and industry will not work the 'big lie' take a look at the so called 'missile gap' of the cold war and what that cost the west, mainly the States.
-
marduk
as far as I know the most damage this erroneous claim of Kennedys caused was a parody in Dr Strangelove where a Doomsday Machine is built by the Soviets because they had read in the New York Times that the U.S. was working along similar lines and wanted to avoid a "Doomsday Gap." then the President of the United States is warned against allowing a "mine shaft gap" to develop. Not a new technical development but a place to hide when the bombs start falling.If you think that governments and industry will not work the 'big lie' take a look at the so called 'missile gap' of the cold war and what that cost the west, mainly the States.
Our friends in the States may be better advised on the missile gap than me Marduk but as I was in the aircraft industry at the time I followed everything with great interest, and as I recall it wasn't Kennedy, it was the CIA and Curtis LeMay as head of the SAC that built up the 'Gap'. In fact, again our friends in the Sates may help on this, I believe Kennedy sacked LeMay over it.
As I recall the CIA was fully aware that the States was superior in its missiles but for its own purposes went along with the scam.
As I recall the CIA was fully aware that the States was superior in its missiles but for its own purposes went along with the scam.
-
Manystones
- Posts: 260
- Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 5:21 am
- Location: Watford, England
- Contact:
but isn't it the governments and industry that are showing resistance (in the form of inaction) to the idea of Global Warming?Digit wrote:If you think that governments and industry will not work the 'big lie'
Being thirty years younger than you Digit and mindful of the long afterlives of radioactive material I am less inclined to support a nuclear "solution" to global energy requirements.
I noted with interest the following comment from one of the links supplied by Andy.
Without wishing to be drawn any further on the subject I am just wondering how Solar variablity fits a discussion of archaeology?The sun is the ultimate source of nearly all of the energy on earth.
Richard
www.palaeoart.co.uk
www.palaeoart.co.uk
My answers Manystones are as follows. Here in the UK if you have followed the press Blair is out to save the world from global warming, and that doen't sound much like resistance to me. Off topic? Yeah! As regards my being 30 years older than yourself I fail to see the relevance. Being 30 years older I perhaps have more experience of life and I've seen the rise of nuclear power and been involved in the industry as well.
What is your alternative to nuclear power?
Also in the earlier post, reference was made to global warming over the last 30 years, I would suggest that a period that short is of absolutely no importance what so ever!
What is your alternative to nuclear power?
Also in the earlier post, reference was made to global warming over the last 30 years, I would suggest that a period that short is of absolutely no importance what so ever!
Solar variability
Solar variability and climatology are critically importance to the study of archaeology. Climate cycles and abrupt variations go hand in hand with the rise and fall of many civilisations. It's tough to be an effective king when the crops are failing, people are starving, and the priests are claiming that it is a bad omen from the gods while simultaneously sneering at you.Without wishing to be drawn any further on the subject I am just wondering how Solar variablity fits a discussion of archaeology?
Natural selection favors the paranoid
-
Minimalist
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 16013
- Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:09 pm
- Location: Arizona
Interesting special on The Little Ice Age on the History Channel tonight. Seems to be blaming a period of increased volcanism.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
-- George Carlin
-- George Carlin
Increased Volcanism
Ah ... you mean like the increased volcanism that we have been noticing in the Pacific recently, off the coast of South America? We'd better stock up on blankets and bun warmers for our Britannic friends.Interesting special on The Little Ice Age on the History Channel tonight. Seems to be blaming a period of increased volcanism.
Natural selection favors the paranoid