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

[SV THIRD DAY]

Ha ha ha....guess our MMGW Cultist doesn't now about the sun cycle we are about to enter that has scientists worried about a mimi ice age.

I love these guys looking the other way to data that doesn't support their Religion.

[tomfl]

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

It's measured only from the outer layer of the convection zone. We can assume convection zone to be quite uniform in this regard but we can only theorize if this is the case in the radiative zone and even less in the core of the sun. So far we have a long wait before the sun turns into a nova and starts to produce oxygen in significant amounts. Anyway the original gas cloud which the solar system was formed from must have had some heavier elements, if not we wouldn't be here.

You seemed to have missed the point of my post which was not that the amount of oxygen in the sun increases with the age of the sun, rather that the variability of energy radiated by the sun is a function of the age of the sun. As sailorchick noted NASA is saying the sun's radiated energy may be greater than many AGW models have been designed to factor in.

All stars are variable stars. Where they differ in the amount and period of variation.

I am not sure what you consider a "significant amount". About .9% of the sun's mass is oxygen while about .04% of the earth's atmosphere is CO2.

Most solar scientists describe the sun as having a core where fusion occurs, the conductive zone where energy is moved by conduction towards the sun's surface, the transition zone(which is short hand for we have no idea what is going on there) and the convection zone where energy is moved by convection towards the sun's surface where it is radiated out. Current theory claims the process of moving the energy from the core to the surface takes anywhere from 100,000 to 10,000,000 years; couple of orders of magnitude.

The convection zone contains huge amounts of plasma moving through the sun's magnetic field which produces sun spots. Sunspots are basically distorted magnetic fields that inhibit the transfer of energy outward, at least until they reach the surface (what you seem to call the radiative zone) where they can result in large bursts of energy in the form of proms, or massive bursts of energy in the form of flares. While flares are short lived the amount of energy released can be huge and if directed towards the earth as in the Carrington Event can be quite destructive.

We really have no idea how variable the sun's radiated energy is. When combined with the solar cycles and solar minimums and maximums and electromagnetic radiation from other sources things get even more complicated.

As sailorchick pointed out one of the biggest problems AGW proponents have is that none of their models come anywhere close to matching measured temperatures.

While the AGW models are well grounded as explanatory models (e.g. molecules that retain radiated energy increase the temperature) they fail as predictive models. I ascribe this to the fact that there are no good models, predictive or explanatory, for the sun. Don't forget the sun is responsible for almost all energy reaching the earth and without understanding the source of this energy it is a tall order to predict how this energy will determine the earth's temperature.

Bottom line all our models are crapolla.

[tomfl]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Solar variability is about 0.1% - which explains about 10% of climate change.

[SV THIRD DAY]

The Climate models have simply not predicted what we observe to be true...
But the Cultists tell us we must TRUST the very models that have been proven wrong over and over and over again.

As the only one here that has Actually BEEN to a power plant measuring CO2 emission and BEEN to the environmental conferences where they review the models, I can tell you, the models are simply unreliable.

There has been no warming in the last 18yrs...despite the models saying there should have been...opps....

[newhaul]

MMGW doesn't take into account that the last time we had this "warm of a world climate " was in the mideval ages from about 800 to 1400 when the global temps were as warm or warmer'than we have now. Followed by a " mini ice age" I seriously doubt the cooking and heating fires and co2 from peoples breath caused any of that. Perhaps we need another mini ice age to thin the Hurd a bit.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

There has been no warming in the last 18yrs.

If you say so.

[conachair]

Originally Posted by newhaul

MMGW doesn't take into account that the last time we had this "warm of a world climate " was in the mideval ages from about 800 to 1400 when the global temps were as warm or warmer'than we have now. .

Global temps?
Any science to show it wasn't regional?

Sent from my SM-G357FZ using Tapatalk

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by conachair

Global temps?
Any science to show it wasn't regional?

Sent from my SM-G357FZ using Tapatalk

Yep lots of data Medieval Warm Period — OSS Foundation that's just one of the references found with Google. Scientists don't argue the fact it did happen the evidence is there to see they just seem to like to argue about stuff that has no imperical evidence to show what did happen. People will always argue about what will or will not happen and various possible causes as long as there is a buck to be made by that differing of theories and opinions.

[mynameismud]

I just want to say 60 degrees in North new jersey in the mountaims is not cooling. Normally it's 20 to 40 degrees Fahrenheit at this time or year and snow on the ground. I'm at work and the bay doors are open. Who knows the weather may have a 500 year cycle we don't know. Two plus years ago they were talking about the polar vortex this time of year.

I did not read the whole thread I just want to say what I see now and what's not normal is the weather we have been having and it's going to get warmer by Sunday.

[conachair]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Yep lots of data Medieval Warm Period — OSS Foundation that's just one of the references found with Google. Scientists don't argue the fact it did happen the evidence is there to see they just seem to like to argue about stuff that has no imperical evidence to show what did happen. People will always argue about what will or will not happen and various possible causes as long as there is a buck to be made by that differing of theories and opinions.

Errr.... did you even read it?

So there is no argument, the evidence is there to see... that what you say is " when the global temps were as warm or warmer'than we have now. ." was actually " a slight global rise in temperatures.".

From your link, which you say was global.

The current scientific understanding is that the MWP was not 'as much' of a global event as it was a see-saw of the global heat content between the two hemispheres. Evidence also indicates that there was a slight global rise in temperatures.

Not only that, but from the same link, instead of your " I seriously doubt the cooking and heating fires and co2 from peoples breath caused any of that" from the science there is,,
"It is notable that some evidence indicates a human fingerprint in the climate even before the industrial revolution. This seems to be related to land use changes and burning as shown by NASA research."

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Ha ha ha....guess our MMGW Cultist doesn't now about the sun cycle we are about to enter that has scientists worried about a mimi ice age.

I love these guys looking the other way to data that doesn't support their Religion.

What scientists are "worried about a mimi ice age. "

The sun's activity is in free fall, according to a leading space physicist. But don't expect a little ice age. "Solar activity is declining very fast at the moment," Mike Lockwood, professor of space environmental physics at Reading University, UK, told New Scientist. "We estimate faster than at any time in the last 9300 years."
Lockwood and his colleagues are reassessing the chances of this decline continuing over decades to become the first "grand solar minimum" for four centuries. During a grand minimum the normal 11-year solar cycle is suppressed and the sun has virtually no sunspots for several decades. This summer should have seen a peak in the number of sunspots, but it didn't happen.
But Lockwood says we should not expect a new grand minimum to bring on a new little ice age.Human-induced global warming, he says, is already a more important force in global temperatures than even major solar cycles. "

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++



Regional climate impacts of a possible future grand solar minimum

Sarah Ineson, Amanda C. Maycock, Lesley J. Gray, Adam A. Scaife, Nick J. Dunstone, Jerald W. Harder, Jeff R. Knight, Mike Lockwood, James C. Manners & Richard A. Wood

Nature Communications 6, Article number: 7535 doi:10.1038/ncomms8535

Received 23 May 2014 Accepted 14 May 2015 Published 23 June 2015Article tools

Any reduction in global mean near-surface temperature due to a future decline in solar activity is likely to be a small fraction of projected anthropogenic warming. However, variability in ultraviolet solar irradiance is linked to modulation of the Arctic and North Atlantic Oscillations, suggesting the potential for larger regional surface climate effects. Here, we explore possible impacts through two experiments designed to bracket uncertainty in ultraviolet irradiance in a scenario in which future solar activity decreases to Maunder Minimum-like conditions by 2050. Both experiments show regional structure in the wintertime response, resembling the North Atlantic Oscillation, with enhanced relative cooling over northern Eurasia and the eastern United States. For a high-end decline in solar ultraviolet irradiance, the impact on winter northern European surface temperatures over the late twenty-first century could be a significant fraction of the difference in climate change between plausible AR5 scenarios of greenhouse gas concentrations.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

There has been no warming in the last 18yrs...despite the models saying there should have been...opps....

So says "Lord" Monckton. If you like that you will also like his cure for AIDS, MS, Graves Disease, etc..

[Ribbit]

Originally Posted by mynameismud

I did not read the whole thread I just want to say what I see now and what's not normal is the weather we have been having and it's going to get warmer by Sunday.

There is no 'normal' with weather. It's why the umbrella was invented.

It's an El Niño year.

Previous El Niño's combined with cooling/warming cycles, have even ended large civilisations (look up the ending of the Moche civilisation, which was bigger than the Roman Empire at the time).

There's a lesson with the Moche, that is similar to lessons from similar circumstances. They slaughtered all of the elites responsible for their predicament, before they walked away from it all.

Apparently the reason the Romans came to Britain, the 'gold' they came for, was wheat, after such a cycle ruined harvests with their farms in North Africa.

That the atmosphere has already cooled enough to substantially reduce the drag on the Hubble Space Telescope, for it to stay in orbit well beyond initial expectations, until even the 2030's (and potentially a refuelling, repair, upgrade, and repositioning in the meantime, can extend even that), should be warning enough for anybody to start paying attention, and stop feeding so enthusiastically on provided bovine excrement.

This is serious, especially with the expensive energy policies and nonsense such as ethanol fuel we have imposed on ourselves, massively expensive wind and solar farms that simply cannot deliver what is needed, etc., and we need to do a rapid turnaround, or literally millions of innocents are going to die unnecessarily.

All around our World, previous civilisations have devoted massive resources to keeping a close eye on our Sun, and they have been so terrified of what it is capable of, that they have even sacrificed human beings to it, in their attempts to appease it.

I hope and pray we don't find out just why they were so terrified of our Sun, before we are able to cope with the worst of its moods.

[Ribbit]

Originally Posted by jackdale

So says "Lord" Monckton.

He is 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, a Peer of the Realm, therefore indeed a Lord, and as such, the illegal contravention of the Laws of Parliament (all legislation must comply with the Law to be lawful, otherwise it is illegal, and void) which denies him his lawful seat, is a problem for all of us.

[sailorchic34]

Originally Posted by GordMay

So, you question the value of thermometers because they measure temperature (indirectly) by “proxy”?

.

Sorry, I was not even concidering thermometers. The issue with measureing temperature is there are not thermometers everywhere on the plant. There are wide areas of the arctic. antarctic, canada etc, plus the oceans where there are no temperature measurements. So the models estimate the temperature by other proxys. Things like ice cores and tree rings, to name but a few.

When a climate paper talks about rising temperatures they are looking at temperature anomalies in the data sets not actually average temperatures.

Then our friends at noaa have been adjusting historical temperature data for quite some time now. In every case the adjustments have made the current temperatures warmer. Every time. Not once does an adjustment to the historical data (from thermometers) trend temperatures down. One would expenct that some adjustments would trend temperature downward.

What the adjustments did, was bring the adjusted temperature dataset more into alinement with AGW models.

So no, I have no issues with the temperature sensors in and of themselfs.