@Dandy

Quote:

Actually I intended to discuss your diagramm with you - no "cherry picking" involved so far...

Ok. You initial response looked like humorous/not serious (with the '...').

Quote:

I just wanted to know if you regard the period 1977 - 1990 as stable.

For what reason(s) are you interested by stable period(s)?

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@BrianK

Quote:

You've yet to show us that the 'natural' models are a better predictor of events then those that include GW.

I don't know what is a 'natural model' or a model that 'include[s] GW'. I only know one kind of model, the one that tries to mimic or describe properly the reality. The rest is verbiage and modeller's cookery.

Quote:

Instead you've spent your effort on trying to discount any modeling.

Of course not. Models are the building block of Science. Hypothesis, conjectures, theories are all models of the reality. A simple straight line on a data plot is an assumed model. So wanting to reject model in Science is as stupid as no better than stating Science does not give answers. What I discuss is 'results' of models not validated against reality (not to speak against physical laws) ; what I reject is taking these 'results' at face value and as settled evidences to achieve political agenda. It is like building a spaceship without knowing for sure the Gravity Law: a predictable future failure.

Quote:

If your system can't predict any better than you're using faith to conclude your hypothesis is correct.

This is so old school thinking. Modern Mathematics have found that most systems and problems have no solution and are essentially irresolvable (and thus unpredictable). So are the NSE. NSE are at at the root of the climate/weather problem. NSE are used by modellers in simplified (some judge simplistic) form to be able to be solvable and computed. Modellers say that these required simplifications have no (significant) influences on results. Physicians disagree and say the more NSE are simplified, the more results diverge rapidly from reality. This latter explanation is consistent with what is known about weather prediction: the more you go in the future, the more you lose in predictability. As climate is just an accumulation of weather over time (a climate model is not run for just 1 day: for ex. in a recent Science paper, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory's Jaguar supercomputer has been used to crunch for 1.5 year to model Earth's rapidly changing climate at the end of the last glacial period), what is true for weather is obviously also true for climate: predictability of chaotic systems rapidly decline with time. Thus the only conclusion is that climate scientists will have to live with this impossibility (accurate long term previsions) like physicists with the Heisenberg Principle before them.

Quote:

Perhaps it'll even be published in a scientific journal.

It is already published and we have also discussed it in the previous thread

Quote:

A model is a test of a hypothesis which is validated against physical reality.

No, you have it backward. A model is neither a test nor an experiment of a hypothesis. A model is nothing more that an abstract and hypothetical representation of the reality. This abstraction will have to be tested and experimented to be shown correct or not against the reality. A model then requires testing and experiments to be validated. Like any hypothesis or theory. A model is like a recipe in cooking: no testing, no possibility to know if the result of the recipe really represents what it has been set up for.

Edit: corrected a typo.

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 10-Aug-2009 at 11:43 PM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@NoelFuller

Quote:

I read recently, The Long Thaw, by David Archer

I hope you have been offered this book, because if the piece of sheet (couldn't resist, the § I mean) you quote is representative of the whole book and you have not, you have loose money for something so poorly written that you could have had for free at the UnReal grocery. The number of misleading statements, false claims, childish views and wrong facts is so gross that this book has certainly been initially destined to scare and threat children or mentally retarded. It is not the first one and the first time though:
Quote:

"The Lord will smite thee ... with fiery heat, and with drought, and with blasting (wind), and with mildew; and they shall pursue thee until thou perish. And thy heaven that is over thy head shall be brass, and the earth that is under thee shall be iron. The Lord will make the rain of thy land powder and dust; from heaven shall it come down upon thee, until thou be destroyed."

- Deuteronomy in the Bible

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

I don't know what is a 'natural model' or a model that 'include[s] GW'. I only know one kind of model, the one that tries to mimic or describe properly the reality. The rest is verbiage and modeller's cookery.

Play the polics how you want you've still failed to show us a system that is more accurate than the IPCC model and why we should accept your explaination.

Quote:

This is so old school thinking. Modern Mathematics have found that most systems and problems have no solution and are essentially irresolvable (and thus unpredictable).

In short, a method that draws a conclusion that science cannot draw a definitive conclusion. This is not proof of that your mechanisms are any better. This again is an explaination as to why your view cannot make predictions, cannot be verified, and is in short a belief.

Quote:

. NSE are at at the root of the climate/weather problem.

For those readers who don't know what NSE is it's Navier-Stokes equations. And no they aren't directly important for climate in the manner you indicate.

Weather is the prediction of what exact events will occur on what exact timeframe. Weather is an attemp to make a prediction at date/time/location on the globe. It'll be 40 degrees tomorrow at 6AM in your town is a weather prediction. Climate, in layman's terms, is an average of weather. It doesn't necessity a direct reliance on NSE. It's an average of weather. On average the temperature in June 2100 is predicted to be warmer then June of 2000 by about 2 degrees plus or minus some error factor. .. This is a climate prediction.

Think of it this way is it necessary to know the NSE of a flow of water in a pot (weather) to predict the water will boil after said conditions are met (climate)? Of course not. The pattern of water is chaotic yet the outcome is predictable.

The climate 'window' as definied by the scientists in charge of this stuff -- World Meterologic Organization is 30 years. Over the course of the next 30 years they predict a step up, then another step up, and then another step up. Being the last 8 out of 10 years set record warmth the prediction, while not complete, is none-the-less headed in the correct direction.

Quote:

It is already published and we have also discussed it in the previous thread

I found the Loehle 2009 paper you referenced in Energy and Environment. Hardly an outstanding independent science journal. It's a politically purpose publication to try and discredit Global warming.

Quote:

A model is nothing more that an abstract and hypothetical representation of the reality

Which is what an experiment is. Models like other experiments have to be shown correct by predicting outcomes of events correctly. On this later statement I think we prefectly agree.

Last edited by BrianK on 11-Aug-2009 at 02:48 AM.

@TMTisFree

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: @Dandy Quote: Actually I intended to discuss your diagramm with you - no "cherry picking" involved so far... Ok. You initial response looked like humorous/not serious (with the '...').

I just wanted to know if you regard the period 1977 - 1990 as stable.
B.T.W. - what do you mean with "(with the '...')"?
My original posting didn't include a '...':
"If you mean that since 2003 the level is stable, you might as well regard the period 1977 - 1990 as stable..."

Quote:

For what reason(s) are you interested by in stable period(s)?

I just want to make sure that we both see the same things when we're looking at this diagram.
I think looking at/seeing the same things is the precondition for a discussion.

So - would you as well regard the two periods I mentioned as stable or not?
Are we in agreement here?

EDIT:
Fixed quoting...

Last edited by Dandy on 11-Aug-2009 at 06:50 AM.
Last edited by Dandy on 11-Aug-2009 at 06:49 AM.

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@BrianK

Quote:

Play the polics how you want you've still failed to show us a system that is more accurate than the IPCC model and why we should accept your explaination.

I am not sure what you mean by 'polics'. If you mean politics, I am not interested by politics per se, only how and when politics hijacks Science to achieve a dogmatic agenda. Anyway, if what you want is a model that represents the reality better than the IPCC ones, that is easy there are plenty. One of these is called 'superparameterized' (like SP-CAM for example by Khairoutdinov et al., 2001) because it includes one or more cloud-resolving sub-component (called CRM for Clouds Resolving Model) for each grid cell ; or there are also newer aqua-planet simulations of global CRMs by Miura et al., 2005. Available since 2001 and 2005 respectively, those two kinds of advanced models are able to resolve clouds fraction at the km resolution scale (the resolution of the grid cell) and were actually available to IPCC for the AR4 report. So why the IPCC did not used them? Easy again: both models exhibit low climate sensitivity value (around 0.4-0.5 K or °C) similar to the low sensitivity Pr Lindzen and many others have also found since then and which implies a negative feedback based climate. Now the why is known, the question is: how the IPCC used the classical models so wrongly? What they have done is to use a large number of models, the more the better, that could not reasonably simulate known patterns of natural behaviour (such as ENSO, PDO, AMO, etc) but pretended that such models nonetheless accurately simulate natural internal climate variability, and used the fact that these models could not replicate the tiny warming episode from the mid 70s through the mid 90s, to argue that forcing(s) was(were) necessary and that the forcing(s) must have been due to CO²/man (because, ahem, they could not think of anything else). This argument makes arguments in support of ID sound rigorous by comparison. It constitutes a rejection of scientific logic, while widely put forward as being ‘demanded’ by Science.
In conclusion, like all tools, if properly designed to have a function and verified to be the case, models can then be used rightly or wrongly. It appears that IPCC used models wrongly to achieve its preconceived idea (called an ideology): therefore predictions of IPCC (obsolete and flawed) models have to be rejected and thus can not be trusted. If still not convinced, there is an additional technical explanation in the following §s.

Quote:

In short, a method that draws a conclusion that science cannot draw a definitive conclusion. This is not proof of that your mechanisms are any better. This again is an explaination as to why your view cannot make predictions, cannot be verified, and is in short a belief.

This is meaningless and it is not my view. Chaotic and complex systems are really unpredictable per definition. Reread Lorenz. Weather, market, decision process, human organization are some examples, as well as climate, of systems that are chaotic and/or complex in nature and which are unpredictable in behaviour because of the non-linearities embedded within themselves (NSE in the case of weather/climate). I thought it was basic knowledge that anyone with at least some common sense could apprehend easily. If you just discover that, you will have to live with the idea that deterministic non-linear systems are not predictable. At all. As said ten years ago by Dr Rind in a seminal Science article: Quote:

Climate, like weather, will likely always be complex: determinism in the midst of chaos, unpredictability in the midst of understanding.

Quote:

For those readers who don't know what NSE is it's Navier-Stokes equations. And no they aren't directly important for climate in the manner you indicate.

Of course they are. NSE represent the non-linearities of the system. Clearly you don't how works a climatic model. What you really mean is that the respective weighting part of the linearities and non-linearities in the real world are not precisely known and as such are parametrized (again) in the model according to the modeller ; then, sure, if only wanting predictions, just parametrize the non-linearities part a minima and you get ipso facto your wanted smooth linear predictions. But this is no Science, it is cheating. And this is no coincidence if all human putative forcings fall in the linearities part...

Quote:

I found the Loehle 2009 paper you referenced in Energy and Environment. Hardly an outstanding independent science journal. It's a politically purpose publication to try and discredit Global warming.

The believer has spoken. Hans gave you the correct response to such an identical and unscientific claim of you in the previous thread. When a paper is rejected because of the scientist, or an entire scientific publication because of its name, this is the perfect but typical behaviour of a believer. Some never learn.

Quote:

Which is what an experiment is. Models like other experiments have to be shown correct by predicting outcomes of events correctly. On this later statement I think we prefectly agree.

Yes I disagree. You are confusing model and experimentation used to test and validate model like the IPCC did purposely (as explained above). Experiments verify if the model/hypothesis/theory really represents accurately the reality. If yes, go on and use it properly, if not modify the model/hypothesis/theory accordingly and retest. Thus a model is what the name really suggests: only a model. And an experiment is a test set up to verify/test a model against reality. Two different words, two different meanings.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@Dandy

Quote:

I just wanted to know if you regard the period 1977 - 1990 as stable.

Dancing around zero but can be considered as stable I suppose.

Quote:

B.T.W. - what do you mean with "(with the '...')"? My original posting didn't include a '...': "If you mean that since 2003 the level is stable, you might as well regard the period 1977 - 1990 as stable..."

Are you sure? I distinctly see 3 points ('...') at the end of your sentence. I don't recall surely how they call that in English though (ellipse?).

Quote:

I just want to make sure that we both see the same things when we're looking at this diagram. I think looking at/seeing the same things is the precondition for a discussion.

Yes, but why?

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@BrianK

As you appeared to be interested by what triggered the end of ice ages, there is a new paper in Science on the subject here. In short authors show that last deglaciation in the Northern Hemisphere was caused by increased insolation 20k years ago and that this melting caused the sea level to rise accordingly at the beginning of the Holocene warming. Below is how they put it: Quote:

[O]ur geochronology for the L[ast ]G[lacial ]M[aximum] clearly demonstrates that only northern insolation led the termination and was thus the primary mechanism for triggering the onset of Northern Hemisphere deglaciation. Moreover, the fact that ice sheets of all sizes, as well as Northern Hemisphere mountain glaciers, began to retreat at approximately the same time (19 to 20 ka) suggests that the primary insolation control on initial deglaciation was through increased summer ablation, which can substantially reduce the long response times of large ice sheets by enabling dynamical processes that lead to rapid mass loss.

Interestingly they also used a model. Note how they investigate with it (emphasis by me): it is a good example of how model should be used in climatology, not by presenting output as results but rather as giving hints as to what could have happened: Quote:

Our constraints in support of an extended L[ast ]G[lacial ]M[aximum] sea-level lowstand provide important insights into the origin of the carbonate δ^18O signal measured in benthic foraminifera (δ^18Oc), which is often used directly as a proxy for sea-level change.

The main author also said: Quote:

"The melting was first caused by more solar radiation, not changes in carbon dioxide levels or ocean temperatures, as some scientists have suggested in recent years."

If interested I will post a link when I find a free version of the paper somewhere.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

Anyway, if what you want is a model that represents the reality better than the IPCC ones, that is easy there are plenty

A experiment is far short of what we're looking for here. Darwin was accepted because his model frequently produced more accurate results then Lamarack. What model can you provide that provides frequently more accurate results than the GW model?

Quote:

Weather, market, decision process, human organization are some examples, as well as climate, of systems that are chaotic and/or complex in nature and which are unpredictable in behaviour because of the non-linearities embedded within themselves

This is true to a degree. But, like the water brought to a boil example... We have a chaotic system which is influcenced by external forces and we can safely predict the net effect is an increase of heat, an increase of chaos, and a phase change. Chaos still remains but the net change to the system is predictable none-the-less. You seem to be falling for the butterfly theory of chaos. Where a butterfly flapping it's wings brings so many changes we never know how it'll end. Of coure this is an urban myth.

Chaos is defined as infinitely small changes and an infinite integration of time. Unpredictable we agree. Weather would predict the clouds and temp at your home town on August 17 at 11AM in 2040. This isn't what climate is doing. Climate is an averaged effect over time. It predicts a warmer August by a few degrees. It'd be great if we could do what you are attempting to do but this isn't what is going on and yes of course we can't do that.

Glad you mentioned Lorenz. Perturbing initial conditions changes the trajectory of the Lorenz models. Many small (read chaos) perturbances change this trajectory but can be averaged over time and the trajectory is predictable. The non-linear is studied in climate but very few scientists agree with your view that climate is chaotic. Even numbers of anti--GW scientists (Spencer for example) is using the assumption that climate is predictable and not a chaotic system.

Quote:

The believer has spoken

If you want to call me a beliver on this 1 paper I choose to not read that's fine. I call it taking the statistically safer bet on 1 paper. There are hundreds of papers to read, I'm not going to read all of them. I have a finite amount of time. Authors that are newer or have made much less or no errors deserve my time first.

@TMTisFree

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: @Dandy Quote: I just wanted to know if you regard the period 1977 - 1990 as stable. Dancing around zero but can be considered as stable I suppose.

O.K. - then the period between 1957 and 1963 can be considered as stable as well.

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: Quote: B.T.W. - what do you mean with "(with the '...')"? My original posting didn't include a '...': "If you mean that since 2003 the level is stable, you might as well regard the period 1977 - 1990 as stable..." Are you sure? I distinctly see 3 points ('...') at the end of your sentence. I don't recall surely how they call that in English though (ellipse?).

Ahhh - now I see - it was a misunderstanding on my side. I was looking for something included in apostrophes. Sorry for misunderstanding you.

By the "..." I just wanted to indicate that the thought this question is based on doesn't end here.

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: Quote: I just want to make sure that we both see the same things when we're looking at this diagram. I think looking at/seeing the same things is the precondition for a discussion. Yes, but why?

Quite simple:
Although the last section in your diagram undoubtly represents a stable period if you just look at that period, it should be rather obvious by looking at the other two "stable periods" - each on a higher level than its precursor - that the overall trend of this diagram is ascending - despite the stable period at the end of the curve.

From looking at the entire graph my bet would be that the stable phase we're obviously in now will come to an end and the the trend will continue to upswing after that.

This graph does not provide any indication for me that the rising trend will turn over and start to decline.

q.e.d.

Last edited by Dandy on 12-Aug-2009 at 07:45 AM.

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@TMTisFree

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: @BrianK ...must have been due to CO²/man (because, ahem, they could not think of anything else). ...

I strongly have to disagree here.

Even my 9 year old grandson today knows that CO² is the only component of the atmosphere mankind can easily influence. We can stop burning fossile fuels to reduce the emission of CO², while its rather unlikely that living beings will stop farting to reduce the emission of the greenhouse gas methane.

Repeatedly imputing other reasons than this for mainly talking about CO² simply is not appropriate and only demeonstrates political intentions - and only makes me yawn.

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@TMTisFree

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: @BrianK As you appeared to be interested by what triggered the end of ice ages, there is a new paper in Science on the subject here. In short authors show that last deglaciation in the Northern Hemisphere was caused by increased insolation 20k years ago and that this melting caused the sea level to rise accordingly at the beginning of the Holocene warming.

Does that mean there was no deglaciation in the Southern Hemisphere at that time or does that mean something else than increased insolation caused the deglaciation in the Southern Hemisphere?

If the latter, why should insolation only increase in the Northern Hemisphere?

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: Below is how they put it: Quote: [O]ur geochronology for the L[ast ]G[lacial ]M[aximum] clearly demonstrates that only northern insolation led the termination and was thus the primary mechanism for triggering the onset of Northern Hemisphere deglaciation. Moreover, the fact that ice sheets of all sizes, as well as Northern Hemisphere mountain glaciers, began to retreat at approximately the same time (19 to 20 ka) suggests that the primary insolation control on initial deglaciation was through increased summer ablation, which can substantially reduce the long response times of large ice sheets by enabling dynamical processes that lead to rapid mass loss.

If their geochronology for the L[ast ]G[lacial ]M[aximum] clearly demonstrates that only northern insolation was the primary mechanism for triggering the onset of Northern Hemisphere deglaciation, nothing (freely available) shows "their geochronology" has any more validity than contradicting geochronologies of others.

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: Interestingly they also used a model. Note how they investigate with it (emphasis by me): it is a good example of how model should be used in climatology, not by presenting output as results but rather as giving hints as to what could have happened: Quote: Our constraints in support of an extended L[ast ]G[lacial ]M[aximum] sea-level lowstand provide important insights into the origin of the carbonate δ^18O signal measured in benthic foraminifera (δ^18Oc), which is often used directly as a proxy for sea-level change.

Hmmmm - they claim the carbonate δ^18O signal measured in benthic foraminifera is often used directly as a proxy for sea-level change - but paradoxically all I found when googling for that was along the lines of these 2 examples:

Wikipedia on Foraminifera:

Quote:

... Evolutionary significance Dying planktonic foraminifera continuously rain down on the sea floor in vast numbers, their mineralized tests preserved as fossils in the accumulating sediment. Beginning in the 1960s, and largely under the auspices of the Deep Sea Drilling, Ocean Drilling, and International Ocean Drilling Programmes, as well as for the purposes of oil exploration, advanced deep-sea drilling techniques have been bringing up sediment cores bearing foraminifera fossils by the millions. The effectively unlimited supply of these fossil tests and the relatively high-precision age-control models available for cores has produced an exceptionally high-quality planktonic foraminifera fossil record dating back to the mid-Jurassic, and presents an unparalleled record for scientists testing and documenting the evolutionary process. The exceptional quality of the fossil record has allowed an impressively detailed picture of species inter-relationships to be developed on the basis of fossils, in many cases subsequently validated independently through molecular genetic studies on extant specimens. ...

Berkley University on foraminifera:

Quote:

... In addition, many species of foraminifera are geologically short-lived, and others are only found in specific environments, so a paleontologist can examine the specimens in a sample and determine the geologic age and environment when the rock formed. As a result, since the 1920's the oil industry has been a major employer of paleontologists who specialize in these microscopic fossils. It is unusual to drill an oil well without a paleontologist onsite to determine when the desired oil-bearing rock layer has been reached.

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: The main author also said: Quote: "The melting was first caused by more solar radiation, not changes in carbon dioxide levels or ocean temperatures, as some scientists have suggested in recent years."

Other scientists name other possible reasons besides a higher solar radiation: black soot from volcanic eruptions (or comet impacts) on large ice areas, earth orbit variations, gulf stream variations, release of huge amounts of methane from the clathrate hydrate deposits from the ocean ground (possibly caused by volcanic activity or comet impacts), ...

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: If interested I will post a link when I find a free version of the paper somewhere.

Would be nice...


EDIT: fixed quoting...

Last edited by Dandy on 12-Aug-2009 at 11:04 AM.

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Dandy

Quote:

Other scientists name other possible reasons besides a higher solar radiation:

Although about the opposite end of ice ages, a related paper on the triggering of all the ice ages within the great ice age is discussed here:
http://esciencenews.com/articles/2009/08/06/long.debate.ended.over.cause.demise.ice.ages.may.also.help.predict.future

Noel

@Dandy

Quote:

Quite simple: Although the last section in your diagram undoubtly represents a stable period if you just look at that period, it should be rather obvious by looking at the other two "stable periods" - each on a higher level than its precursor - that the overall trend of this diagram is ascending - despite the stable period at the end of the curve.

You got blood out of the stone after all - I tried on this one too! The upswing is getting underway already. A new paper is discussed here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/27/world-warming-faster-study

Noel

My opinion:

http://www.amigans.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=3091&forum=10

It's all about the people, baby!

_________________
Amiga A1200, 3.1 ROMs, Blizzard 1230 MKIV 64MB & FPU, 4GB DoM SSD, Workbench 3.1

@A1200

Quote:

It's all about the people, baby!

This is a subject discussed previously in this thread

I presume you have decided not to contribute to the population? When last a lovely girl gave you the glad eye what did you do? Is it all about desire?

Noel

How to not present a graph ...

@NoelFuller

Quote:

NoelFuller wrote: @Dandy Quote: Other scientists name other possible reasons besides a higher solar radiation: Although about the opposite end of ice ages, a related paper on the triggering of all the ice ages within the great ice age is discussed here: http://esciencenews.com/articles/2009/08/06/long.debate.ended.over.cause.demise.ice.ages.may.also.help.predict.future

Didn't know that - this news is just one week "old" - hadn't seen it up to now.
Thanks for the link.

Quote:

From your link: "Solar radiation was the trigger that started the ice melting, that's now pretty certain," said Peter Clark, a professor of geosciences at OSU.

Isn't this a misleading wording? Or is it just because English is not my mother tongue?
To me this sounds as if the sun increased its radiation output - but obviuosly they mean that earth receives a bigger part of the same amount of radiation emitted by the sun because of variations in earth's movement.

That is a big difference from a physical POV, IMO.

Last edited by Dandy on 13-Aug-2009 at 11:49 AM.

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Dandy

Quote:

Isn't this a misleading wording? Or is it just because English is not my mother tongue? To me this sounds as if the sun increased its radiation output - but obviuosly they mean that earth receives a bigger part of the same amount of radiation emitted by the sun because of variations in earth's movement. That is a big difference from a physical POV, IMO.

Your interpretation is also mine. I suspect the writer of the article (a journalist I presume) was not aware of the significance of some of the numbers (or assumed everyone knew ) so failed to bring this out - for instance the 26000 year cycle is the precession of the equinoxes, also sometimes nominated as 25000 years. I saw a twitter link with the remark "It's the wobbles that done it!" There are other intervals that remain unidentified with respect to cause as far as I know but the actual paper may have got onto more than we have been told in the article.

Noel

@NoelFuller

Quote:

NoelFuller wrote: @Dandy Quote: Quite simple: Although the last section in your diagram undoubtly represents a stable period if you just look at that period, it should be rather obvious by looking at the other two "stable periods" - each on a higher level than its precursor - that the overall trend of this diagram is ascending - despite the stable period at the end of the curve. You got blood out of the stone after all - I tried on this one too! The upswing is getting underway already. A new paper is discussed here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/27/world-warming-faster-study Noel

Hmmmmmm - from your link:
"The world faces record-breaking temperatures as the sun's activity increases"

It is said that increasing sun activity is attended by an increasing number of sunspots. But just a few days ago I read that currently we have an absolute minimum of sunspots - so the solar activity should be on a minimum, too:Deep Solar Minimum

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)