Tags: Climate Change, Global Warming, Maunder Minimum, Solar Energy
Why are they important?
Well, the second post “No Sun Link to Climate Change” was published on 3rd April 2009 and, to me, seems typical of the GW hype that has been building over the last 10-15 years, it is also plainly wrong, if the sun didn’t shine, we’d have temperatures of about -260 degrees Celcius. Also what is not fully understood is the interaction between higher energy radiation from the sun, extreme UV for example, and how variations in this radiation may affect the climate.
The first Post “Quiet Sun baffling Astronomers” was published less than three weeks later. For the first time the lack of sunspots has been noticed by the MSM, and despite comments about Global Warming in the piece, there is also mention of the Maunder Minimum, and the associated “Little Ice Age” that affected Europe and Continental North America.
George Bernard Shaw once said “All great truths begin as blasphemies”, currently anyone not adhering to the Hype is blasphemous, soon it will change, there will be some people that hold to the Global Warming Ideology, but even they will be forced to postpone the day of reckoning. We’ve had a Solar “Grand Maximum”, I hope that it isn’t immediately followed by a “Grand Minimum”, a plain “Minimum” will suffice to show how wrong the Global warmers are, as well as making life much more difficult for those in higher latitudes.
Tags: Climate Change, Global Warming, Solar cycle, Solar Wind, Sunspots
Data provided on websites over the last few weeks seem to indicate that, as the Sun takes a rest during solar Cycle 24, UV Radiation has dropped by about 6%. I think this 6% is quite a drop, especially if you look and see that Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) only varies by between 0.05 to 0.1% over a Solar Cycle. This variation in TSI is thought to be too insignificant to affect climate, but what of the UV Decrease?
It’s well known that the majority of UVB and almost all UVC Radiation is absorbed by the upper atmosphere, mainly by ozone. But this radiation is, after absorption, re-emitted as black body radiation. Black body radiation is taken to be emitted in any direction, which means at least 50% is passed towards space, where it may be absorbed and re-emitted again.
Associated with this drop in UV is a decrease in the diameter of the atmosphere. NASA have said that satellites are experiencing less atmospheric drag when in low orbit (low orbit being between 120 and 200 Km above the surface). This means that there is less atmosphere, at the edges, to intercept UV.
So what if Carbon Dioxide is not the primary driver of climate variations? Perhaps UV plays a much larger role than previously thought. Perhaps, with a suitable lag due to the heatsink that is the oceans, we will see a much larger drop in Global temperature than is currently expected.
If you have any reliable data concerning the absorption and re-emission of UV in the upper atmosphere, I would appreciate seeing it
Tags: Climate Change, Sunspots
NASA’s position seems to be changing. A couple of days ago they put out this about the Solar minimum. There is a very healthy discussion of this on wattsupwiththat , but I’d like to add a few points of my own, expanding on points from within the press release.
I suppose the first point is that the report is authored by someone other than NASA’s usual expert trotted out on these occasions, David Hathaway. Instead it’s authored by Dr Tony Phillips, who looks after the spaceweather.com site updated daily by NASA. Hathaway is quoted, butjust saying that “It’s the quietest sun for almost a century” Looking at a previous presentation by Hathaway, there was an expectation, in early 2007, that the next cycle, cycle 25, would be weaker than 24, see this presentation powerpoint presentation. In fact he points out within the same presentation that the methodology used by another US Scientist, Dikpati, may be flawed. In fact, reading between lines, to me it seems that the presentation, taken as a whole points to a lower Cycle24 than originally indicated.
Secondly, of the points made, in order of importance, the drop in extreme UV of 5% means that the amount of heat received, and aborbed by the planet stands out. UV radiation is almost completely absorbed by the atmosphere, and is turned into heat, a drop of 5% in the extreme UV range doesn’t mean that the temperature of the planet will drop by 5%, but probably does mean that there will be a cooling trend of about 1.25 to 2.00 degrees across the planet. There will still be individual variations where places may get warmer, but the overall trend is down.
Solar Wind pressure is also at a 50 year low, this allows more Galactic Cosmic Rays to hit our lower atmosphere. That produces more clouds, more clouds mean a higher albedo, more sunlight is reflected, and until the sun picks up, we have the possibility of a viscious circle, with Cold having a positive feedback loop established.
Hathaway’s comment “Since the Space Age began in the 1950s, solar activity has been generally high,” notes Hathaway. “Five of the ten most intense solar cycles on record have occurred in the last 50 years. We’re just not used to this kind of deep calm.” is most instructive. The whole Global warming hype has been with us for about half of that time. In other data, a drop of 0.1 C can be seen at each Solar Minimum, but the minima of the last few cycleshave been very short before the sun ramped back up with lots of spots, yet even in those minima we see a global drop in temperature, so where do we go with a long minimum? Just hope it isn’t a Dalton or Maunder length of time or things could get tricky.
Further updates later
Tags: BBC, Climate Change, Met Office
The Copenhagen Climate Conference is providing the BBC with some suitable apocalyptic reports.
Sea Level to Rise 1 Metre in 100 years
Temperature rise 6f 3C will destroy 85% of the Amazon Rain Forest.
I just wonder whether they actually believe, without checking, the information they are fed. Is the Orthodoxy now so great that reporters do just that, they report, but without questioning whether what they are reporting is true. Or perhaps, if there is a any doubt on whether other options may exist, or other scenarios come to pass, a proviso should be added to the report.
When was the last time that there were any scintilla of doubt that “We’re all going to die”? Nover, but if the Beeb has it’s way it will be in some horrible way that involves Global waring or increased sea levels
Tags: Climate Change, Global Warming
PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE
Can we have an informed debate on Global Warming? The terms Global Warming and Climate change are bandied around in the press all the time, the problem is that most journalists don’t understand that they are two totally different things.
Climate Change refers to cyclic changes in long term weather conditions in a region. Basically, what that means is that if area A warms, it means that area B may cool. A great example in long term climate change is the Sahara Desert. About 8-10,000 years ago there was a North African Monsoon. That meant that the Sahara wasn’t a desert, the whole of North Africa ranged from.Jungle to Savannah,with very few areas that were very dry. Then the monsoon failed as the weather patterns moved North. Why did the patterns move North? Because the ice of the last ice age melted.
Global Warming on the other hand is what it says it says it is, an increase in temperature across the WHOLE planet. Global Warming could be caused by several things, increases in Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere, an increase in Total Solar Irradiance (TSI), or a decrease in albedo of the planet. If you look at the average world temperature since 2000, there has been no Global Warming, however, in the same period, Australia and California in the US have both suffered exceptional droughts, Southern Spain is in a similar position as hot dry air encroaches from Africa.
While These areas have warmed and dried, other areas have cooled.