Do we need to be preparing for Arctic cruising strategies because of Global Cooling

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

You keep telling yourself that

And the Rapture's going to occur in your life time.

Doh I'll go back to just reading

OK first the data came from NASA and NOAA not just my mind.
You ought to reread this thread I posted the data in the first few pages.

Next what is this rapture you speak of I am a Celt I don't have the dogma that the catholics do. As far as your last comment please reread my second scentance .
You do have some reading to do.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by newhaul

OK first the data came from NASA and NOAA not just my mind.
You ought to reread this thread I posted the data in the first few pages.

Next what is this rapture you speak of I am a Celt I don't have the dogma that the catholics do. As far as your last comment please reread my second scentance .
You do have some reading to do.

And your talking about the Antartic which I didn't pay attention to. Don't mind me, after I pull my foot out, I'll just go back to reading instead of commenting 😳

[adoxograph]

Originally Posted by MarkJ

[...] I looked at the sun yesterday and its definitely SMALLER! I got up extra early this morning and, yep, sunrise its just a piddler. Tiny. [...]

You are right. The Sun appears smaller today then yesterday.

I'm running a project right now with some undergraduate students to determine the ellipticity of Earth's orbit by taking images of the sun every day, measuring it's apparent size.

Here are the results: The sun was the biggest 3rd of Jan (Perihelion) and is shrinking since. But don't worry it will get bigger again after 5th of July (Aphelion). Some of my students are surprised that the date differs from the date for the Solstice's before they realise that the saesons have nothing to do with the distance to the Sun.

PS: I'm bored and reading old posts in this thread. I stumbled over MarkJ's and just had to answer ...

[adoxograph]

Originally Posted by Going Walkabout

[...]"However, at the National Astronomy Meeting in Wales, Northumbria University professor Valentina Zharkova said fluctuations an 11-year cycle of solar activity the sun goes through would be responsible for a freeze, the like of which has not been experienced since the 1600s.[..]."

While sieving through old posts in this thread I found that one. This one is completely down my alley as my research field and expertise is determining spots and magnetic activities on exoplanetary host stars.

I met Prof. Valentina Zharkova at a convention in Tenarife. At breakfast one of our group called her the "ice queen" because of the storm of misinformation her paper has caused. She was not amused.

Nowhere in her paper did she mention any form of cooling. Her paper was about a model for the sun’s magnetic field and sunspots, which predicts a 60% fall in sunspot numbers when extrapolated to the 2030s.

The whole thing started when the PR guy of the Royal Society called her preparing a press release. As he did not understand "solar activities at a minimum" she said something along the line of "you know the Maunder minimum I mentioned in my paper". The overly diligent PR guy made a mini-iceage out of that and released the whole thing without her knowledge.

She regrets having done this every time a Journalist calls asking for information about global cooling predicted by her.

However, Earth's systems will always reach a state of radiative equilibrium that is

incoming radiative energy from the Sun = outgoing radiation of planet

That means that the planet is in energy balance. If a planet is not in radiative equilibrium the temperature of the planet will increase or decrease.

The amount of incoming radiation depends on the albedo of the planet or in other word the amount of incoming radiation which is not reflected back out in space. The amount of incoming radiation is determined by

P_in=(σT_⊙^4)(4πR_⊙^2)(1-a)((πR_p^2)/(4πD^2 ))

where (σT_⊙^4 )(4πR_⊙^2 ) represents the luminosity and a the albedo. Rp is the radius of the planet and D the distance to the star.

Considering the planet as a blackbody any radiation reaching the planet is radiated as heat (Stefan-Boltzman Law) as follows:

P=σAT^4

where T is temperature. A is the area (=4πR_p^2) as a planet most likely emits radiation spread over the whole surface which is close to a sphere. Therefore the outgoing radiation is

P_out=(σT_eq^4)(4πR_p^2)
where Teq is ((L_⊙ (1-a))/(16σπD^2 ))^(1/4)

Consequently the planet is in radiative equilibrium when

(σT_⊙^4 )(4πR_⊙^2 )(1-a)((πR_p^2)/(4πD^2 ))=(σT_eq^4 )(4πR_p^2 )

What does that mean for Earth? Assuming the surface of the earth without atmosphere would pretty barren I assume an albedo a=0.12 (similar to the Moon). R_⊙=6.96×10^8m, T_⊙=5778K, D=1.496×10^11m. Rearanging the above equations we can determine T_eq by

T_eq=T_⊙ (1-a)^(1/4) (R_⊙/2D)^(1/2)=5778K(1- 0.12)^(1/4) ((6.96×10^8 m)/(2*1.496×10^11 m))^(1/2)=269.9K

If we consider Earth’s real albedo of a=0.3 we get an even lower T_eq of 254.9K. The difference to the real measured average temperature on the surface of the earth of ~287K is caused by greenhouse effect of earth’s relatively thick atmosphere. So first of all we should be grateful for the greenhouse gases, because without them Earth would be a frozen ball of ice and we would most likely not exist at all.

You see solar activity plays a rather minor role. Most of the temperature control happens in the atmosphere. Maybe I'll show you how that works when I have time to prepare something.

[senormechanico]

With all this posting and blather, do any of you guys ever have time to actually go sailing?



Leaving on the ebb tomorrow for a few days,

Steve

[adoxograph]

Originally Posted by senormechanico

With all this posting and blather, do any of you guys ever have time to actually go sailing?



Leaving on the ebb tomorrow for a few days,

Steve

Damn, I'm kind of landlocked without a yacht right now. Because of the bad weather I can't do anything what I (or more my better half) had planned for today, like preparing the pool for Winter, getting the scrubs to the dump, etc. Man I'm bored as hell ... You are right, there must be something better to do as posting boring stuff here.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by adoxograph

While sieving through old posts in this thread I found that one. This one is completely down my alley as my research field and expertise is determining spots and magnetic activities on exoplanetary host stars.

I met Prof. Valentina Zharkova at a convention in Tenarife. At breakfast one of our group called her the "ice queen" because of the storm of misinformation her paper has caused. She was not amused.

Nowhere in her paper did she mention any form of cooling. Her paper was about a model for the sun’s magnetic field and sunspots, which predicts a 60% fall in sunspot numbers when extrapolated to the 2030s.

The whole thing started when the PR guy of the Royal Society called her preparing a press release. As he did not understand "solar activities at a minimum" she said something along the line of "you know the Maunder minimum I mentioned in my paper". The overly diligent PR guy made a mini-iceage out of that and released the whole thing without her knowledge.

She regrets having done this every time a Journalist calls asking for information about global cooling predicted by her.

However, Earth's systems will always reach a state of radiative equilibrium that is

incoming radiative energy from the Sun = outgoing radiation of planet

That means that the planet is in energy balance. If a planet is not in radiative equilibrium the temperature of the planet will increase or decrease.

The amount of incoming radiation depends on the albedo of the planet or in other word the amount of incoming radiation which is not reflected back out in space. The amount of incoming radiation is determined by

P_in=(σT_⊙^4)(4πR_⊙^2)(1-a)((πR_p^2)/(4πD^2 ))

where (σT_⊙^4 )(4πR_⊙^2 ) represents the luminosity and a the albedo. Rp is the radius of the planet and D the distance to the star.

Considering the planet as a blackbody any radiation reaching the planet is radiated as heat (Stefan-Boltzman Law) as follows:

P=σAT^4

where T is temperature. A is the area (=4πR_p^2) as a planet most likely emits radiation spread over the whole surface which is close to a sphere. Therefore the outgoing radiation is

P_out=(σT_eq^4)(4πR_p^2)
where Teq is ((L_⊙ (1-a))/(16σπD^2 ))^(1/4)

Consequently the planet is in radiative equilibrium when

(σT_⊙^4 )(4πR_⊙^2 )(1-a)((πR_p^2)/(4πD^2 ))=(σT_eq^4 )(4πR_p^2 )

What does that mean for Earth? Assuming the surface of the earth without atmosphere would pretty barren I assume an albedo a=0.12 (similar to the Moon). R_⊙=6.96×10^8m, T_⊙=5778K, D=1.496×10^11m. Rearanging the above equations we can determine T_eq by

T_eq=T_⊙ (1-a)^(1/4) (R_⊙/2D)^(1/2)=5778K(1- 0.12)^(1/4) ((6.96×10^8 m)/(2*1.496×10^11 m))^(1/2)=269.9K

If we consider Earth’s real albedo of a=0.3 we get an even lower T_eq of 254.9K. The difference to the real measured average temperature on the surface of the earth of ~287K is caused by greenhouse effect of earth’s relatively thick atmosphere. So first of all we should be grateful for the greenhouse gases, because without them Earth would be a frozen ball of ice and we would most likely not exist at all.

You see solar activity plays a rather minor role. Most of the temperature control happens in the atmosphere. Maybe I'll show you how that works when I have time to prepare something.

Interesting this same post was on the CC 20 year thread but by another poster.

[adoxograph]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Interesting this same post was on the CCC 20 year thread but by another poster.

You know I take accusation of plagiarism very serious, especially when they are without any ground to stand on.

Yes, it was in the other thread. Just look here:

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ml#post2120566

and please tell by whom it was?

Yes that's right, I wrote that in the other thread.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by adoxograph

Yes look here. http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ml#post2120566

and please tell by whom it was? Yes that's right I wrote that in the other thread.

Typical for you newhaul: Accusations and assumptions without proper research.

I stand corrected it was you that posted the original
My mind is not what it used to be. So many posts and so much sailing I sometimes forget minor details
If I do err I am quick to admit my mistakes few though they may be.
Where else have I made false statements. Or accusations? Let me know for I feel that if I have wronged then I must apologise to the people.

[adoxograph]

Originally Posted by newhaul

I stand corrected it was you that posted the original
My mind is not what it used to be. So many posts and so much sailing I sometimes forget minor details.

Apology accepted. Sorry if I got personal, I really try not to attack the man and rather try to discuss the message itself. But plagiarism is the one accusation, besides falsifying of results that hits a nerve with any scientist.

Originally Posted by newhaul

If I do err I am quick to admit my mistakes few though they may be.
Where else have I made false statements. Or accusations? Let me know for I feel that if I have wronged then I must apologise to the people.

Yes, your postings are mostly spot on.

Not 100% though, but I think its not your fault. Its primary your lack of access to reliable sources which leads to partly false statements. See this post here:

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ml#post2136597

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by adoxograph

Apology accepted. Sorry if I got personal, I really try not to attack the man and rather try to discuss the message itself. But plagiarism is the one accusation, besides falsifying of results that hits a nerve with any scientist.



Yes, your postings are mostly spot on.

Not 100% though, but I think its not your fault. Its primary your lack of access to reliable sources which leads to partly false statements. See this post here:

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ml#post2136597

Actually I refuse to look at some papers that others link to due to it being behind a pay wall.( I'm really not that interested to spend money on papers one was 35 bucks and that's almost my whole years fuel bill) on other papers I use the most current research I can get at the time but as we both know the findings of any research can be shown to be missing something that is on the fringe of the study that changes results in an instant.( happens sometimes) .

[adoxograph]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Actually I refuse to look at some papers that others link to due to it being behind a pay wall.( I'm really not that interested to spend money on papers one was 35 bucks and that's almost my whole years fuel bill) on other papers I use the most current research I can get at the time but as we both know the findings of any research can be shown to be missing something that is on the fringe of the study that changes results in an instant.( happens sometimes) .

Yep, although this here is an interesting waste of time, I would not spend any money on it. Actually I'm not even interested in reading all the papers, maybe abstract and conclusion, and only if I have time or I am procrastinating . But I never would claim to be an expert on climate science (whatever that is), or claim that I'm up-to-date with the research in this field.

Right now I find it more fascinating to figure out why the latest Hubble constant measurements, which were publish last week, differ from the Planck and WMAP CMB measurements. Why is the Universe expanding faster and accelerating? Is it dark energy that is pushing? Or has dark matter some unexpected properties? Maybe a new form of dark radiation which is pumping more energy into the Universe? Maybe Einstein’s theory of gravity is incomplete?

[newhaul]

The truth is im an engineer. When I was in the navy it was my job to figure how to make ideas real or keep crap working when everything said it was beyond repair. ( macgiver before the show came on TV .)

[iancoombe]

Whichever way the climate goes I think we should be questioning what kind of a world we will be leaving to Keith Richards.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by iancoombe

Whichever way the climate goes I think we should be questioning what kind of a world we will be leaving to Keith Richards.

Whatever way it goes, doubt it'll bother him!

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app