Do you believe in "global warming?" - Page 45

alfabender · #**661** (**permalink**) 05-10-2009, 11:34 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/sc...y.html?_r=1&hp

Joe Papa Sr · #**662** (**permalink**) 05-16-2009, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alfabender

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/sc...y.html?_r=1&hp

**Subtle** · #**663** (**permalink**) 05-29-2009, 07:41 AM

One of the influences on recent cooling could be diminishing. A year ago, I posted that the solar minimum was extending in an unusual manner, and it turned out to be the deepest minimum since 1913.

This is the tally to yesterday:

Spotless Days

2009 Total: 121 days (82%)
Since 2004: 632 days
Typical solar minimum: 485 days

By definition, the minimum starts with the first day with no sunspots. For those new to the subject, the amount of heat from the sun correlates with the solar cycle.

The upside of Solar Cycle # 24 is close to beginning.

**Subtle** · #**664** (**permalink**) 06-15-2009, 10:12 AM

"In many parts of the world recently the weather has not been too brilliant for farmers. After a fearsomely cold winter, June brought snowfall across parts of western Canada and the northern states of the American Midwest. In Manitoba last week, it was -4 C. North Dakota had its first June snowfall in 60 years. There was midsummer snow in Norway and the Cairngorms."

--The Sunday Telegraph, June 14, 2009.

1,6 HF · #**665** (**permalink**) 06-15-2009, 10:30 AM

That's odd. I could have sworn that, early in this thread, you were one of those warning against using recent temperature data to extrapolate long-term trends.

green 69 gtv · #**666** (**permalink**) 06-15-2009, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Subtle

"In many parts of the world recently the weather has not been too brilliant for farmers. After a fearsomely cold winter, June brought snowfall across parts of western Canada and the northern states of the American Midwest. In Manitoba last week, it was -4 C. North Dakota had its first June snowfall in 60 years. There was midsummer snow in Norway and the Cairngorms."

--The Sunday Telegraph, June 14, 2009.

**Subtle** · #**667** (**permalink**) 06-15-2009, 10:36 AM

It might offset they ramp-up of hysteria on widespread, or local heat waves this summer.

**Subtle** · #**668** (**permalink**) 06-22-2009, 07:54 AM

Some numbers:

"2008 was a bear [market in solar activity]. There were no sunspots observed in 166 out of 366 days (73%). To find a year with more blank days, you have to go back to 1913, which had 311 spotless days."

Science@NASA.com, April 1, 2009.

The following is from AZCentral.com, June 21, 2009.

"Thursday was the 14 th consecutive day to stay below 100 degrees. That's the longest stretch of its kind in June since 1913."

The deep solar minimum with less heat from the sun continues, but at a diminished pace from earlier in the year.

June 22 count of spotless days:

2009 Total: 134(78%).

Since 2004: 645 days.

Typical Minimum: 485 days.

**Alex Csank** · #**669** (**permalink**) 06-22-2009, 09:02 AM

Who are you arguing with...yourself?

**Subtle** · #**670** (**permalink**) 06-22-2009, 09:08 AM

No argument at all.

Just ongoing research.

**Alex Csank** · #**671** (**permalink**) 06-22-2009, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Subtle

No argument at all.

Just ongoing research.

**Subtle** · #**672** (**permalink**) 06-22-2009, 09:46 AM

Been doing it since 1962.

Now let's see--the deepest solar minimum, and associated cooling influence since 1913, and Alex declares that it "irrelevant".

**Subtle** · #**673** (**permalink**) 06-22-2009, 10:36 AM

Dean Pesnel is a solar physicist at Goddard Space Flight Center and he notes:

"For the first time in history, we're getting to see what a deep solar minimum is really like."

There is a "fleet" of observation satellites monitoring change in solar wind, cosmic rays, irradiance and magnetic fields.

The article observes that changes are "more profound than anyone expected."

Profound is not an ambiguous word.

**Alex Csank** · #**674** (**permalink**) 06-22-2009, 11:09 AM

Bob, you are not going to drag me back into this ridiculous thread, but just a question you should ask yourself: What does any of this "evidence" you present have to do with LONG-TERM global climate change? In climatological terms, this year and even data going back to 1913 is very short-term. The evidence you presented is not even in the least bit purported to have anything whatsoever to do with global climate change.

Now, please go back to whatever the heck it is that you think you're accomplishing here.

**Subtle** · #**675** (**permalink**) 06-22-2009, 11:52 AM

Cooling influences on global temperatures have been diminished solar activity, generally since the exceptional highs around twenty years ago, and more particularly over the past decade.

More recently, it has been the rapid increase in volcanic eruptions since December 2007. That is why I published the paper "Intellectual Hysteria" in January 2008. Most geologists or geophysicists, not on government grants, knew that this would force some cooling and would cover it.

My point was beyond the change to compare this outbreak of hysteria with examples from the past.

While the solar minimum has been exceptional, volcanic activity has been sending up enough stuff to add to the cooling--but there have not been eruptions big enough to really cool things down.

What I'm trying to do is let the data take the politics out of man-caused "Global Warming" as it used to be called, or "Climate Change" as it has been promoted lately.

Who knows--but the hysteria could flip back to the 1970s when the money to made from popular publishing was on "Global Cooling".