About the sun in recessive condition

[CptTrips]

Nashwan,

For article above:

"Researchers studying long-term changes in sea temperatures said they now expect a "lull" for up to a decade while natural variations in climate cancel out the increases caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions."

Did all the mathmatical models that have that have predicting Man-Made Global Warming predict this "lull" all along, or is this something new?  I don't remember Gore mentioning this.  All I remember seeing was a smooth upsweeping curve.

If not, isn't that a gross indication of their inaccuracy?  At least their naive modeling of a incredibly complex system?

If they didn't foresee and predict such a major flat-lining of the data within 10 years, why should we trust they project over 100 years?

 ,
Wab
 

[bj229r]

Sooooo....  120 years, 1 degree Celsius. I am waiting to spontaneously combust

[Nashwan]

"Researchers studying long-term changes in sea temperatures said they now  expect a "lull" for up to a decade while natural variations in climate cancel out the increases caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions."

Did all the mathmatical models that have that have predicting Man-Made Global Warming predict this "lull" all along, or is this something new?  I don't remember Gore mentioning this.  All I remember seeing was a smooth upsweeping curve.

If not, isn't that a gross indication of their inaccuracy?  At least their naive modeling of a incredibly complex system?

This "lull" that one research team has predicted is not caused by global warming. It's a claimed natural cycle in ocean currents.

The model to predict climate change isn't designed to predict natural cycles, that's backwards. Natural cycles are data that needs to be entered in to the model, not variations that the model can predict.

And note that even the team that has predicted this cycle in the ocean currents say it will have a cooling effect in the short term, and a warming effect after that. Overall it has no net effect.

[cpxxx]

Indeed Akwabbit. They didn't take into account a naturally occuring phenomena. In fact in another article I read the delay lasts until 2020. But of course the 'steep upward curve' begins again.  We'll see.

I have also noticed at a personal level that people have begun to question the whole Co2 caused global warming issue. Even people I would have expected to fall for it all are beginning to have doubts. How are the global warmers going to keep these people on message in the next ten years or so when there is no appreciable warming. (That is if we to believe the latest theory) Over there in Britain at the moment the plan by the government to increase car taxes has run into serious opposition from their own members who have read the public mood. Even Greenpeace said it was unfair and gave 'green taxes a bad name'

I think we are beginning to see a swing back toward common sense.

I have always believed that in fact we are going through a warming phase. In fact that is for the most part indisputable. It probably has been exaggerated though.

What is in dispute in fact is whether or not we have caused it. The jury is very much out on that.  That's why there is so much controversy. It depends on which scientist you listen to. Right now, thanks to environmentalists and scientist, many people are maintaining the fantasy that we can in fact change the climate of the Earth in the first place and secondly we can reverse the process. If that is not human arrogance writ large I don't know what is.

[cpxxx]

That's exactly the problem, Nashwan. Because it wasn't entered into the data in the first place. It invalidated all the previous models. Now we are expected to believe it will have a cooling effect in the short term and then it's back to business as usual. I've seen this characterised as a correction in the model allowing it to be more accurate. That really depends on how you look at it.

A few weeks ago, all we had was this steady state increase in temperature followed by the inevitable and scary 'tipping point'. Now we have lull, reality intruding on the computer model.  No on can say that overall it has no net effect. I think  in fact they really don't know what effect this will have.

If they didn't anticipate this cooling effect, then what other natural cycles lie in wait for us. Could it be that this warm period is in fact a natural cycle and a recovery from the 19th century 'little ice age'.

[Nashwan]

That's exactly the problem, Nashwan. Because it wasn't entered into the data in the first place. It invalidated all the previous models.

Not really "invalidated", in that no model is ever going to be 100% accurate, and the results are still broadly the same.

Now we have lull, reality intruding on the computer model.  No on can say that overall it has no net effect.

Nobody can predict the future of the climate with any certainty.However, the new model predicts the Atlantic current causes cooling when it weakens, warming when it strengthens. Overall that's no change.

If they didn't anticipate this cooling effect, then what other natural cycles lie in wait for us.

No doubt lots.

Could it be that this warm period is in fact a natural cycle and a recovery from the 19th century 'little ice age'.

Could be. Could be that we are currently going through a natural cold spell, and global warming is increasing temperatures far more than we thought.

There are three facts the theory of global warming is founded on. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere traps heat and warms the earth. We are releasing large amounts of carbon dioxide in to the atmosphere. The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing.

The facts suggest temperatures should be rising. They are. We can't be sure how much of the observed rise is down to CO2 or how much further it will rise, or how natural variations will affect the temperature. But natural variations could just as easily increase the temperature as reduce it.

[CptTrips]

"The facts suggest temperatures should be rising. They are. "


Apparently not for the next decade, which the models did not predict. 

Surely you have to admit that given such inaccuracy already, a reasonable person could have doubts that the models predictions will converge on accuracy as time goes by instead of diverging further.  It doesn’t mean they are stupid, Republican, uneducated, or in the pay of big oil.   

Scientific consensus?  Debate declared over?  I think global climate change is worth measuring and monitoring and refining the models over the next couple of decades.  But obviously the models aren’t yet accurate enough to justify massive dislocations of our economies, or burdensome destructive carbon tax scams.

Granted there are some things we should do anyway just on general principal (having nothing to do with MMGW).  Cleaner cars and industry.  Energy conservation, efficiency.  Development of alternative fuels. Etc, etc.  Moderate, reasonable, measured actions.

Regards,
Wab

[ROX]

extreme dx with 50mw on cw.. some might find it a stretch but i can easily believe it.

try 200mw on 27.125mhz amplitude modulated. a confirmed contact from new zealand to the south western u.s during a brief quite period on a noisy cb channel, and with nothing more than a kids toy. admittidly it was fed into a 1/4 wave gp. that was in 1981 when skylab kill'n cycle 21 was still strong but on the slide.   

WOW!  WTG!  And that includes that 1/3 of your AM signal was wasted in carrier.

And a 1/4 wavelength ground plane is nothing to sneeze at. 

I can fire up my 1.5 kW amplifier right now on 28.010 and the only folks who might hear me are within 200 miles of me.  At the peak of a solar sunspot cycle, I can put that same amp in the closet because I wont need it. 

During one contact with a friend in Wisconsin (I was in NC at the time) he pulled the coax out of the back of the rig and (using an antenna tuner) clipped leads with alligator clips--one to ground and the other to the aluminium lawn chair.  "How copy now?" he asked.  "You are still 5 by nine...S9 on the meter" I replied. He was running 50 watts into a single lawn chair he had set on top of a picnic table.  We both went back to our normal antennas and had a 2 way contact at 50 mW.  The S meter never moved, but we understood each other perfectly.  Distance 600+ miles.

BTW:  Ground Plane antennas are vertically polarized and great for DX.  I use them on 40m (7.0 mHz) because the 33' height are easy to make.  Put in a good ground radial system and the world is at your radio.  You can build this type of antenna for less than $30 or you can by one manufactured for $150.  I roll my own.

We are about to embark on Cycle 24 any day now. 




ROX



Sunspots affect the Earth in more ways than we know, as do other solar activity.

[gunnss]

Here is another Sun cycle 24 article, Nice sun shot in it.
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/05/30/the-deniers-our-spotless-sun.aspx

Regards,
Kevin

[lazs2]

The reason you have been seeing some show doubt about the C02 thing and man made global warming in general is twofold at least.

One.. we had winter.  winter makes people who tend to panic about summer forget about it.

two.. the cost of what the socialists want to do to run the show is coming out and people figured out they couldn't afford it without some real proof.

Summer is upon us.. a new push will start at the first heat wave.. it is all so very predictable.

lazs