Why is it So Cold Right Now? (Polar Vortex)

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

Since, for Seattle at any rate, the average low is 36.9, the mean minimum is 26.9, and the record low for Feb is 1, seems like a fairly typical winter day.



Compared to New Orleans, at 68 (if the sun was out, it'd likely be 78), with a thunderstorm (two months early), where the average low is 48, the mean minimum is 31.3, and the record low is 16.

Not to mention any of the record highs blanketing basically the entire US east of the Mississippi River. Temperentially-induced loopy jet stream indeed...

But it's just weather (unless taken in it's proper context).




It's amusing (to me) how these deniers assume that 'adaptation' is somehow a panacea that will correct for all. A contemporary example of the flawed invalidity of this 'argument' (perhaps unsurprisingly originated by a member of the D/C [denier/conspiracist] crowd) is shown by the responses in the thread, http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/f2/doctor-wars-total-sunblock-vs-vitamin-d-health-213290.html in which those responses demonstrate how long it takes a species to 'adapt' (actually evolve) to be able to survive in a new environment.

In this instance (skin pigmentation) thousands of years.

Were it not for 'technology' (which got us into this predicament and, due to the immutability of physical laws, has virtually no chance of getting us out) those people discussing their inability to resist cancer could logically be told 'stay in the latitude for which you are evolved'.


As for the rest of the usual suspects, we'll leave their histrionic cries to those with more patience. Though it is a little telling that every one of their protests or 'arguments' are answered in this video from almost 10 years ago.

comical and a bit sad that the agw crowd don't believe the easily provable facts
And or peer reviewed studies.

[AllenRbrts]

Originally Posted by newhaul

how many peer reviewed astrophysicist reports do you want me to send for your review .
I have many that are in agreement we are in the starting of a solar minimum that is expected to last at least till 2022. ( according to NASA )
then we are expecting a weak cycles 25 ( about 40% weaker than 24 was) then a likely 400 year grand minimum similar to the maunder minimum .

How about just *one* peer reviewed article that shows the solar cycle energy change to the climate is larger than the change being induced by CO2.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

How about just *one* peer reviewed article that shows the solar cycle energy change to the climate is larger than the change being induced by CO2.

here is a good video and yes it is from her peer reviewed papers.
https://youtu.be/M_yqIj38UmY
I will dig up a few Pdf files later
They are not on my phone .

[AllenRbrts]

Originally Posted by newhaul

here is a good video and yes it is from her peer reviewed papers.
https://youtu.be/M_yqIj38UmY
I will dig up a few Pdf files later
They are not on my phone .

Did you read the paper???? In my scan there is no reference to terrestrial climate at all. It only refers to the climate on the sun [emoji41].

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...795...46S

Also I'm looking actual papers not YouTube videos. Please note I have given you one already that strongly refutes your position.

[Sand crab]

Unofficially, there are currently 35 stations that have broken their daily high record, 16 that are tying it, and 71 that are near it.
Unofficially, there is currently 1 station that has broken their daily low record, 3 that are tying it, and 1 that is near it.












From : (Unofficial) Record-breaking temperatures across the Globe

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

....world would be close to absolute zero without the sun....

Umm, without the sun the world wouldn't be here...

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

Did you read the paper???? In my scan there is no reference to terrestrial climate at all. It only refers to the climate on the sun [emoji41].
Prediction of Solar Activity from Solar Background Magnetic Field Variations in
Also I'm looking actual papers not YouTube videos. Please note I have given you one already that strongly refutes your position.

What Allen said.

Prediction of Solar Activity from Solar Background Magnetic Field Variations in Cycles 21-23 ~ by Simon J. Shepherd, S. Zharkov, & Valentina V. Zharkova (October 2014)
☞ https://www.researchgate.net/publica...n_Cycles_21-23


“... We can conclude with a sufficient degree of confidence that the solar activity in cycles 24–26 will be systematically decreasing because of the increasing phase shift between the two magnetic waves of the poloidal field leading to their full separation into opposite hemispheres in cycles 25 and 26...
... we predict a noticeable decrease of the average sunspot numbers in cycle 25 to ≈80% of that in cycle 24 and a decrease in cycle 26 to ≈40% which are linked to a reduction of the amplitudes and an increase of the phase between the PCs of SBMF separating these waves into the opposite hemispheres ...”

From the introduction to the video presentation:
"She doesn’t know what it will do to the terrestrial climate."

☞ https://www.researchgate.net/publica...n_Cycles_21-23

Published in The Astrophysical Journal, the paper will, almost certainly, have been peer reviewed. ☞ https://aas.msubmit.net/cgi-bin/main.plex

[GordMay]

Just to play dueling research papers:

Many have predicted a weak sunspot cycle in the years ahead, but new work from India suggests otherwise. The work dashes speculations of a sun-induced global cooling of Earth’s climate in the coming decade.

Solar physicist Dibyendu Nandi and his Ph.D .student Prantika Bhowmik devised a new prediction technique, which simulates conditions both in the sun’s interior, where sunspots are created, and on the solar surface, where sunspots are destroyed.

Earlier predictions (like Zharkova ) have suggested the coming sunspot cycle 25 will be weaker than the current cycle 24. But, based on their model, Nandi and Bhowmik believe cycle 25 might be similar to or even stronger than 24. They expect the next cycle to start rising about a year from now and to peak in 2024.

Their work was published December 6, 2018, in the peer-reviewed journal Nature Communications.

“Prediction of the strength and timing of sunspot cycle 25 reveal decadal-scale space environmental conditions” ~ by Dibyendu Nandi and Prantika Bhowmik
☞ https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-07690-0

“Our ensemble forecast indicates cycle 25 would be similar or slightly stronger than the current cycle and peak around 2024. Sunspot cycle 25 may thus reverse the substantial weakening trend in solar activity, which has led to speculation of an imminent Maunder-like grand minimum and cooling global climate.”

“[We] find no evidence of an impending disappearance of sunspot cycles, and thus conclude that speculations of an imminent sun-induced cooling of global climate is very unlikely.”

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Just to play dueling research papers:

Many have predicted a weak sunspot cycle in the years ahead, but new work from India suggests otherwise. The work dashes speculations of a sun-induced global cooling of Earth’s climate in the coming decade.

Solar physicist Dibyendu Nandi and his Ph.D .student Prantika Bhowmik devised a new prediction technique, which simulates conditions both in the sun’s interior, where sunspots are created, and on the solar surface, where sunspots are destroyed.

Earlier predictions (like Zharkova ) have suggested the coming sunspot cycle 25 will be weaker than the current cycle 24. But, based on their model, Nandi and Bhowmik believe cycle 25 might be similar to or even stronger than 24. They expect the next cycle to start rising about a year from now and to peak in 2024.

Their work was published December 6, 2018, in the peer-reviewed journal Nature Communications.

“Prediction of the strength and timing of sunspot cycle 25 reveal decadal-scale space environmental conditions” ~ by Dibyendu Nandi and Prantika Bhowmik
☞ https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-07690-0

“Our ensemble forecast indicates cycle 25 would be similar or slightly stronger than the current cycle and peak around 2024. Sunspot cycle 25 may thus reverse the substantial weakening trend in solar activity, which has led to speculation of an imminent Maunder-like grand minimum and cooling global climate.”

“[We] find no evidence of an impending disappearance of sunspot cycles, and thus conclude that speculations of an imminent sun-induced cooling of global climate is very unlikely.”

the same India whose scientific community said these things ?
https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-asia-india-46778879
Funny they are the only ones saying that . Even NASA and NOAA people say otherwise.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by newhaul

the same India whose scientific community said these things ?
https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-asia-india-46778879

Ah. Then we can also ignore anything from Dr Roy Spencer, because he doesn't believe in evolution. That'll save tons of time here!


(any other countries you'd like to slag, while you're at it?)

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by GordMay

I wouldn’t have selected Growers House, a purveyor of CO2 Generators - selling to commercial growers, as my scientific source; even if their comments about 1,000 - 1,500 ppm may be mostly* true. It stands to reason that their customers (growers) are mostly concerned with yield, not nutritional quality.
* However, there may be a difference between the increased yield (they promise), and the quality/nutrition, achieved with elevated CO2 concentrations.
Increased CO2 levels can have a negative impact on the nutritional quality of various human food crops (rice, wheat, barley and potatoes), by increasing the levels of carbohydrates, such as glucose, while decreasing the levels of important nutrients such as protein, iron, and zinc.

FWIW: ASHRAE cites 1,000-2,000ppm CO2 as leading to (human) complaints of drowsiness and poor air.

Considering lots of people are quite happy to buy Asian sourced fruits and vegetables that are known to be fertilized using human poop and other waste in order to save a couple of bucks (or to maximise profits); does it really matter?


1000 ppm is a typical value of CO2 level for a closed room. Most of us are used to that, I think.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Ah. Then we can also ignore anything from Dr Roy Spencer, because he doesn't believe in evolution. That'll save tons of time here!

As usual, it's a bit more complicated than that. Direct from the horse's mouth:

On a more superficial level, the accusation is often that the Bible-believing scientist “rejects settled science”, in my case the naturalistic “explanation” for the origin of life. How can anyone trust a climate scientist who rejects “settled science”?

Except this claim reveals an appalling lack of knowledge on the part of the accuser. In general, nothing in science is ever settled. And in particular, no one knows how life arose from non-living matter. It remains a mystery today.

Belief in the naturalistic origin of life is just as religious as the belief in a creator. Even well-known evolutionists have admitted this.

The scientific evidence for a “creator” is, in my opinion, stronger than the evidence that everything around us is just one gigantic cosmic accident. I have no trouble stating that — and defending it — based upon science alone. No need to quote the Bible.

But why should any of this matter for real, observable science, like climate change? Belief in macroevolution is a religion, not science. It is an organizing system of thought, a conceptual model of origins, a worldview, which the evolutionist must fit all of his observations into.

* * *

The existence of the universe itself violates either the 1st or 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics. That’s why cosmologists must invent physics no one has ever observed to explain how everything came to be.

Is that “science”? Really?

* * *

But the complexity of the climate system, and especially how it varies, is orders of magnitude more difficult to understand [than gravity]. It currently exceeds our ability to usefully predict its future state.

Science and religion: Do your own damn Google search « Roy Spencer, PhD

Although Spencer's opinions on the current state of climate science differs from the mainstream, it doesn't sound like we need worry that they are unduly biased because of his views on the theory of evolution. As for his satellite dataset, I've read honest science-based critiques not unlike the ones directed against other datasets, but I have yet to see how the UAH data has been proven false or discredited as some laymen on the internet like to claim in conclusory fashion.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Ah. Then we can also ignore anything from Dr Roy Spencer, because he doesn't believe in evolution. That'll save tons of time here!


(any other countries you'd like to slag, while you're at it?)

ok please inform us where do you get the idea that Dr Spencer doesn't believe in evolution ?
That sounds a bit slanderous to me .

Btw what are you implying with your slag comment?
I just posted what was in one of your acceptable source papers.
Sounds a bit personal there buddy

[newhaul]

This should settle a few discourses that have recently arisen

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by newhaul

ok please inform us where do you get the idea that Dr Spencer doesn't believe in evolution ?
That sounds a bit slanderous to me .

Btw what are you implying with your slag comment?
I just posted what was in one of your acceptable source papers.
Sounds a bit personal there buddy

The point was (...Exile) that if someone Newhaul can blow off a whole country's science community because some have expressed something religious, then the same should apply to someone like Dr Spencer, no?

btw In arguments past I have specifically said that I don't think that Spencer's religion has necessarily tainted his work.

If I recall correctly, newhaul, you've slagged just about all scientists, NASA, NOAA, most scientific journals, the Canadian education system, and now Indian science. Way to go! You're the Don Rickles of denial.