shortcut

For discussion, news, comments, questions and information about Crete & Greece.
Muttly
Posts: 189
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 11:05 am
Location: Pseudo-America

Postby Muttly » Wed Sep 05, 2007 2:53 pm

Nah sorry it's sun activity and the Greek Government plainly agrees with this :lol: or they would not allow so many old nails on their roads polluting the enviroment and filling up the seas with poisons :( would they? :roll:

Kilkis
Posts: 11081
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2007 3:58 pm
Location: Near Chania

Postby Kilkis » Wed Sep 05, 2007 3:36 pm

I'd love to know how sunspot activity is causing the change in global temperature?

Sunspot activity varies in an 11-year cycle and has done for a very long time. Strictly speaking it is a 22-year cycle since the suns magnetic field reverses on alternate cycles but this doesn't have a significant effect. The activity does vary from cycle to cycle, i.e. sometimes the peak is bigger or smaller and the period may differ from 11 years, but not in any consistent way. The solar irradiance, i.e. the amount of solar energy incident at the top of the earth’s atmosphere, also varies through this cycle BY 1 WATT PER SQUARE METRE or 0.1 %. This is the peak variation from maximum to minimum within one cycle. From cycle to cycle the variation is much much less than this with no measurable trends. So how does this very small cyclic variation cause the progressive increase in global temperature?

Warwick

Muttly
Posts: 189
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 11:05 am
Location: Pseudo-America

Postby Muttly » Wed Sep 05, 2007 4:15 pm

Kilkis wrote:I'd love to know how sunspot activity is causing the change in global temperature?

Sunspot activity varies in an 11-year cycle and has done for a very long time. Strictly speaking it is a 22-year cycle since the suns magnetic field reverses on alternate cycles but this doesn't have a significant effect. The activity does vary from cycle to cycle, i.e. sometimes the peak is bigger or smaller and the period may differ from 11 years, but not in any consistent way. The solar irradiance, i.e. the amount of solar energy incident at the top of the earth’s atmosphere, also varies through this cycle BY 1 WATT PER SQUARE METRE or 0.1 %. This is the peak variation from maximum to minimum within one cycle. From cycle to cycle the variation is much much less than this with no measurable trends. So how does this very small cyclic variation cause the progressive increase in global temperature?

Warwick


I don't really know but tonight I shall pray to the big turtle and ask for spiritual and devine guidence.

Retired in Crete

Postby Retired in Crete » Wed Sep 05, 2007 4:16 pm

Warwick said: "Sunspot activity varies in an 11-year cycle and has done for a very long time. Strictly speaking it is a 22-year cycle "
....and asked "So how does this very small cyclic variation cause the progressive increase in global temperature? "

Dare I suggest that you are on the wrong bike!

The (bi)cycle is much bigger than you suggest. At the end of the middle ages (1450's) the earth was much warmer than it is now and Greenland was productive farmland. 2,000 years ago the Romans had vineyards in Cumbria, and they had no cars or aeroplanes to blame!

John

PS Apologies for my long absence but we have had wall to wall & back to back visitors!

Muttly
Posts: 189
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 11:05 am
Location: Pseudo-America

Postby Muttly » Wed Sep 05, 2007 4:20 pm

Retired in Crete wrote:Warwick said: "Sunspot activity varies in an 11-year cycle and has done for a very long time. Strictly speaking it is a 22-year cycle "
....and asked "So how does this very small cyclic variation cause the progressive increase in global temperature? "

Dare I suggest that you are on the wrong bike!

The (bi)cycle is much bigger than you suggest. At the end of the middle ages (1450's) the earth was much warmer than it is now and Greenland was productive farmland. 2,000 years ago the Romans had vineyards in Cumbria, and they had no cars or aeroplanes to blame!

John

PS Apologies for my long absence but we have had wall to wall & back to back visitors!


Walling in your visitors.......that's a good one, I'll have to remember that. Your all wrong anyway........it's Turtles all the way up.

Kilkis
Posts: 11081
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2007 3:58 pm
Location: Near Chania

Postby Kilkis » Wed Sep 05, 2007 11:10 pm

Retired in Crete wrote:
The (bi)cycle is much bigger than you suggest. At the end of the middle ages (1450's) the earth was much warmer than it is now and Greenland was productive farmland. 2,000 years ago the Romans had vineyards in Cumbria, and they had no cars or aeroplanes to blame!


And your evidence that this was due to changes in the solar sunspot cycle????

Warwick

Muttly
Posts: 189
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 11:05 am
Location: Pseudo-America

Postby Muttly » Wed Sep 05, 2007 11:30 pm

Kilkis wrote:
Retired in Crete wrote:
The (bi)cycle is much bigger than you suggest. At the end of the middle ages (1450's) the earth was much warmer than it is now and Greenland was productive farmland. 2,000 years ago the Romans had vineyards in Cumbria, and they had no cars or aeroplanes to blame!


And your evidence that this was due to changes in the solar sunspot cycle????

Warwick


I know you asked Retired this question but my answer to that would simply be that that the Solar theory does no include large increases in taxes and all manner of politicians and Greens jumping on the bandwagon restricting just about everyones freedom to do anything unless it's them running around from pointless global conferene to pointless global conference in the same aircraft and limos etc etc that we see them in every day and they are busy taking off us.

Don't get me wrong I want my "carbon footprint" (hah) down to millimetres but only to save money. If these hounds were practicing what they were preaching then the subsidy of solar powered water and electricity (as in Israel) would be de rigour. As it is the last thing these people want is carbon saving, how is India and China to develop, by the provision of Nuclear Power I think we and the US might have some problems with that.

andheath
Posts: 587
Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 12:46 am
Location: Sitia - Stay Away - Go West

Postby andheath » Thu Sep 06, 2007 1:32 am

I believe if somebody finds a way to stop cows farting there will be a new ice age. If it happens I am going to blame the veggies.
This Cretan Adventure thing is way beyond a joke.

Muttly
Posts: 189
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 11:05 am
Location: Pseudo-America

Postby Muttly » Thu Sep 06, 2007 2:35 am

andheath wrote:I believe if somebody finds a way to stop cows farting there will be a new ice age. If it happens I am going to blame the veggies.


I'd keep off the butter beans if I were you, that and a few beers will put you up there with whole herds of the damn things.

Phaedra
Posts: 492
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 7:33 pm

Postby Phaedra » Thu Sep 06, 2007 10:36 am

"solar powered water"

How does that work?

And what for?

:twisted: :wink:

Retired in Crete

Postby Retired in Crete » Thu Sep 06, 2007 3:34 pm

Kilkis wrote:
Retired in Crete wrote:
The (bi)cycle is much bigger than you suggest. At the end of the middle ages (1450's) the earth was much warmer than it is now and Greenland was productive farmland. 2,000 years ago the Romans had vineyards in Cumbria, and they had no cars or aeroplanes to blame!


And your evidence that this was due to changes in the solar sunspot cycle????

Warwick


No evidence at all.
I suggested that you were "on the wrong bike". (You are looking at the wrong cycle.)
Eleven or twenty-two years is but a nanosecond to the life of the earth. You might as well study the rise in temperature from 8 am 'till 11 am and then predict that we will all be fried by tea time!
You need to study global temperatures over thousands of years to predict any trend.

I have it on good authority that "climate change" (no-one is saying global warming any more, why?) will not affect the west end of Crete. Another good reason to move there! (perhaps "posh" cows don't f*rt)

John

Kilkis
Posts: 11081
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2007 3:58 pm
Location: Near Chania

Postby Kilkis » Thu Sep 06, 2007 4:40 pm

I don't really argue that much about global warming, Muttly. I have found that people are not interested in discussing it in a rational way. In fact most people are obsessed with tax initiatives associated with control of global warming rather than the physical phenomenon. I get a strong impression that if the government said that because of global warming Britain is going to become much more productive in the next fifty years allowing taxation to be reduced all those people currently saying it doesn’t exist would be promoting it vigorously.

I do make a point, however, of correcting statements that are wrong. My comment was not an argument for or against global warming or for or against any particular tax initiative. It was simply correcting your statement that any temperature increase was due to solar activity variations. It is demonstrably not. I spent fifteen years doing research on solar-terrestrial interactions, in particular sunspot activity and how the solar wind interacts with the Earth’s magnetosphere so it is a topic that I have some passing knowledge about.

As far as I know, John, there are no records of sunspot activity or solar irradiance dating back to 1450 or 2,000 years. I don’t see, therefore, how your post can be relevant to what Muttly wrote or my reply to him. If we are to base science on arbitrary events picked at random from history I could equally well say that 2,000 years ago Cyprus had rivers flowing all year round while now it has a very severe water shortage problem. Your events suggest that Greenland was warmer nearly 600 years ago and Cumbria was warmer 2,000 years ago. My event suggests Cyprus was cooler 2,000 years ago. Neither of them tells us anything about “global” warming/climate change.

Warwick

Wayne d
Posts: 67
Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 11:04 am
Location: East Midlands

Postby Wayne d » Sun Sep 09, 2007 1:36 pm

To bring the discussion momentarily back to a level I can understand and appreciate;
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jb7 ... 5nSmm7Q2ww

It's not just trumping cows we need to consider!

What next? Hedgehogs blowing their noses?

Ray
Posts: 346
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 4:26 pm
Location: Chania, Crete
Contact:

Postby Ray » Thu Sep 13, 2007 11:29 pm

Kilkis wrote:I don't really argue that much about global warming, Muttly. I have found that people are not interested in discussing it in a rational way. Warwick


I am interested, Warwick. Unlike you, I am no scientist, I am just a digital engineer, but nowadays we are seeing so much more opposition to the idea that CO2 is making the planet hotter and, according to Al Gore and his movie, An Inconvenient Truth, that we are facing a disastrous future.

Climate change is constant, it happens all the time, and we adapt to it pretty well. What people say is that today is different, that now we face all sorts of hazards, rising sea water, melting ice, further storms - severe dangers. I simply do not believe this and I have done extensive research.

I read many sources, but one interesting source is http://antigreen.blogspot.com/
which may have an unfortunate name but daily it publishes articles on the subject of global warming. Articles published in science periodicals and various scientific output. It is really worth a look simply because it is honest.

For example:

A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares. More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age and/or that 2) our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun's irradiance. "This data and the list of scientists make a mockery of recent claims that a scientific consensus blames humans as the primary cause of global temperature increases since 1850," said Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Dennis Avery.

Other researchers found evidence that 3) sea levels are failing to rise importantly; 4) that our storms and droughts are becoming fewer and milder with this warming as they did during previous global warmings; 5) that human deaths will be reduced with warming because cold kills twice as many people as heat; and 6) that corals, trees, birds, mammals, and butterflies are adapting well to the routine reality of changing climate.

Despite being published in such journals such as Science, Nature and Geophysical Review Letters, these scientists have gotten little media attention. "Not all of these researchers would describe themselves as global warming skeptics," said Avery, "but the evidence in their studies is there for all to see."

The names were compiled by Avery and climate physicist S. Fred Singer, the co-authors of the new book "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years", mainly from the peer-reviewed studies cited in their book. The researchers' specialties include tree rings, sea levels, stalagmites, lichens, pollen, plankton, insects, public health, Chinese history and astrophysics.

"We have had a Greenhouse Theory with no evidence to support it-except a moderate warming turned into a scare by computer models whose results have never been verified with real-world events," said co-author Singer. "On the other hand, we have compelling evidence of a real-world climate cycle averaging 1470 years (plus or minus 500) running through the last million years of history. The climate cycle has above all been moderate, and the trees, bears, birds, and humans have quietly adapted."

"Two thousand years of published human histories say that the warm periods were good for people," says Avery. "It was the harsh, unstable Dark Ages and Little Ice Age that brought bigger storms, untimely frost, widespread famine and plagues of disease." "There may have been a consensus of guesses among climate model-builders," says Singer. "However, the models only reflect the warming, not its cause." He noted that about 70 percent of the earth's post-1850 warming came before 1940, and thus was probably not caused by human-emitted greenhouse gases. The net post-1940 warming totals only a tiny 0.2 degrees C.

The historic evidence of the natural cycle includes the 5000-year record of Nile floods, 1st-century Roman wine production in Britain, and thousands of museum paintings that portrayed sunnier skies during the Medieval Warming and more cloudiness during the Little Ice Age. The physical evidence comes from oxygen isotopes, beryllium ions, tiny sea and pollen fossils, and ancient tree rings. The evidence recovered from ice cores, sea and lake sediments, cave stalagmites and glaciers has been analyzed by electron microscopes, satellites, and computers. Temperatures during the Medieval Warming Period on California's Whitewing Mountain must have been 3.2 degrees warmer than today, says Constance Millar of the U.S. Forest Service, based on her study of seven species of relict trees that grew above today's tree line.

Singer emphasized, "Humans have known since the invention of the telescope that the earth's climate variations were linked to the sunspot cycle, but we had not understood how. Recent experiments have demonstrated that more or fewer cosmic rays hitting the earth create more or fewer of the low, cooling clouds that deflect solar heat back into space-amplifying small variations in the intensity of the sun.

Avery and Singer noted that there are hundreds of additional peer-reviewed studies that have found cycle evidence, and that they will publish additional researchers' names and studies. They also noted that their book was funded by Wallace O. Sellers, a Hudson board member, without any corporate contributions.

Source: http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show ... 6495.shtml

Anyway, I believe in protecting the environment, I plant trees and pick up litter. I use very little plastic and I try to live my life with love for my planet. What worries me is all the media hype with a so called scare of global warming that seems not to exist, plus taxes and carbon footprint guilts that the UK government now is inflicting on a populace with so many other problems. I am wary of all of this. From our history, the only certainty seems that there will be another ice age, as there has always been, maybe not tomorrow, but somewhere in the future. Perhaps that is why I live in Crete.

Anyway, that is my opinion. And I am interested in discussing this. I think also that Retired in Crete is getting the hang of it and perhaps you should listen a little more to what he has to say.

Take care

Ray

filippos
Posts: 5716
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2007 7:38 pm
Location: Kalyves
Contact:

Postby filippos » Fri Sep 14, 2007 7:15 am

That's more or less my position, too, Ray. I've done very little research so my feeling is based more on gut instinct. Wasn't as recently as the late '60s/early '70s that scientists were predicting a new ice age just around the corner.

The whole climate change scenario has become a huge industry and scientific reputations have been built on, as you say, computer models (and, usually, it's those based on the most extreme assumptions that get most publicity) that now it has to happen or all those reputations will be busted, all the subsidies to wind farms will have to stop, Al Gore will go back to being nearly a President and lose a huge income. I'll bet the politicians won't apologise for all the "green" taxes though; they'll probably dream up some new name for them rather than give them back.

Filippos.


Return to “General Discussion & News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], MSN [Bot] and 11 guests