Sell your sailplane before 2030

On Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at 9:50:38 AM UTC+12, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 14:09:42 -0700, David Hirst wrote:

A huge reduction in solar output is predicted to occur by then.

Thankfully, they mean sunspot activity, not heat output, though the lack
of sunspots will likely cause some noticeable weather changes.
(http://www.space.com/19280-solar-act...h-climate.html)

There may well be a connection: the Maunder Minimum, when there were very
few sunspots from 1645 to about 1715, coincided with the middle part of
the Little Ice Age (1350 to about 1850), during which Europe and North
America experienced very cold winters. However, as AFAIK there was no
good understanding of either IR or UV radiation during the Maunder
Minimum nor any reliable means of measuring the amount of solar energy
reaching the Earth, any association between the two events is at best
supposition, but should it happen again we are now well enough
instrumented to discover what, if any, mechanism connects the two.

The theorized mechanism is fewer sunspots - less solar wind - more cosmic rays reaching earth - more nucleation of aerosols - more clouds - higher reflectivity - more energy radiation into space - lower temperatures.

The key link in this chain (more cosmic rays - more nucleation of aerosols) has been experimentally verified at CERN.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_...imat e_change

IPCC reports state that cloud reflectivity and proportion of cloud cover is one of the most important and yet least understood aspects of the global climate system.

OMG... Not... global... COOLING! snic, snic

On 7/16/2015 10:38 PM, Bruce Hoult wrote:
On Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at 9:50:38 AM UTC+12, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 14:09:42 -0700, David Hirst wrote:

A huge reduction in solar output is predicted to occur by then.
Thankfully, they mean sunspot activity, not heat output, though the lack
of sunspots will likely cause some noticeable weather changes.
(http://www.space.com/19280-solar-act...h-climate.html)

There may well be a connection: the Maunder Minimum, when there were very
few sunspots from 1645 to about 1715, coincided with the middle part of
the Little Ice Age (1350 to about 1850), during which Europe and North
America experienced very cold winters. However, as AFAIK there was no
good understanding of either IR or UV radiation during the Maunder
Minimum nor any reliable means of measuring the amount of solar energy
reaching the Earth, any association between the two events is at best
supposition, but should it happen again we are now well enough
instrumented to discover what, if any, mechanism connects the two.
The theorized mechanism is fewer sunspots - less solar wind - more cosmic rays reaching earth - more nucleation of aerosols - more clouds - higher reflectivity - more energy radiation into space - lower temperatures.

The key link in this chain (more cosmic rays - more nucleation of aerosols) has been experimentally verified at CERN.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_...imat e_change

IPCC reports state that cloud reflectivity and proportion of cloud cover is one of the most important and yet least understood aspects of the global climate system.

--
Dan Marotta

On Saturday, July 18, 2015 at 2:57:05 AM UTC+12, Dan Marotta wrote:
OMG...* Not...* global...* COOLING!* snic, snic*

I think the temperature goes up and down quite a large amount (10+ C) due to a variety of natural causes, and yet stays in a bounded range without diverging to a desert world or an ice world.

Somehow mammals have survived 200 million years and many cycles of this. Even great apes have survived 40 million years of it, without any technology.

I guess one school is that we're just plain lucky that things haven't exceeded that range, and a small extra push could send us over, to a 2nd Mars or Venus. Frankly, I don't believe it.

I think there must be some natural negative feedback "thermostat" that we don't understand yet.

Bruce Hoult wrote on 7/16/2015 9:38 PM:
On Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at 9:50:38 AM UTC+12, Martin Gregorie
wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 14:09:42 -0700, David Hirst wrote:

A huge reduction in solar output is predicted to occur by
then.

Thankfully, they mean sunspot activity, not heat output, though
the lack of sunspots will likely cause some noticeable weather
changes.
(http://www.space.com/19280-solar-act...h-climate.html)

There may well be a connection: the Maunder Minimum, when there
were very few sunspots from 1645 to about 1715, coincided with the
middle part of the Little Ice Age (1350 to about 1850), during
which Europe and North America experienced very cold winters.
However, as AFAIK there was no good understanding of either IR or
UV radiation during the Maunder Minimum nor any reliable means of
measuring the amount of solar energy reaching the Earth, any
association between the two events is at best supposition, but
should it happen again we are now well enough instrumented to
discover what, if any, mechanism connects the two.

The theorized mechanism is fewer sunspots - less solar wind - more
cosmic rays reaching earth - more nucleation of aerosols - more
clouds - higher reflectivity - more energy radiation into space -
lower temperatures.

The key link in this chain (more cosmic rays - more nucleation of
aerosols) has been experimentally verified at CERN.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_...imat e_change

IPCC reports state that cloud reflectivity and proportion of cloud
cover is one of the most important and yet least understood aspects
of the global climate system.

"While the link between cosmic rays and cloud cover is yet to be
confirmed, more importantly, there has been no correlation between
cosmic rays and global temperatures over the last 30 years of global
warming. In fact, in recent years when cosmic rays should have been
having their largest cooling effect on record, temperatures have been at
their highest on record."

http://www.skepticalscience.com/cosm...termediate.htm


--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"

https://sites.google.com/site/motorg...ad-the-guide-1
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Dec 2014a" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm

http://soaringsafety.org/prevention/...anes-2014A.pdf

In 1804 the population of the earth was 1 billion people. It took 123
years to add another billion, then 33 years, then 14, then 12 to get the
population up to 6 billion by 1999 (source
https://www.learner.org/courses/envsci/unit/text.php?unit=5&secNum=4).
Now the human population is roughty 10.8 billion people (source
http://populationpyramid.net/world/2015/)!

I don't suppose all those people blowing CO2 into the atmosphere has
anything to do with this?

On 7/19/2015 10:08 PM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
Bruce Hoult wrote on 7/16/2015 9:38 PM:
On Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at 9:50:38 AM UTC+12, Martin Gregorie
wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 14:09:42 -0700, David Hirst wrote:

A huge reduction in solar output is predicted to occur by
then.

Thankfully, they mean sunspot activity, not heat output, though
the lack of sunspots will likely cause some noticeable weather
changes.
(http://www.space.com/19280-solar-act...h-climate.html)

There may well be a connection: the Maunder Minimum, when there
were very few sunspots from 1645 to about 1715, coincided with the
middle part of the Little Ice Age (1350 to about 1850), during
which Europe and North America experienced very cold winters.
However, as AFAIK there was no good understanding of either IR or
UV radiation during the Maunder Minimum nor any reliable means of
measuring the amount of solar energy reaching the Earth, any
association between the two events is at best supposition, but
should it happen again we are now well enough instrumented to
discover what, if any, mechanism connects the two.

The theorized mechanism is fewer sunspots - less solar wind - more
cosmic rays reaching earth - more nucleation of aerosols - more
clouds - higher reflectivity - more energy radiation into space -
lower temperatures.

The key link in this chain (more cosmic rays - more nucleation of
aerosols) has been experimentally verified at CERN.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_...imat e_change


IPCC reports state that cloud reflectivity and proportion of cloud
cover is one of the most important and yet least understood aspects
of the global climate system.

"While the link between cosmic rays and cloud cover is yet to be
confirmed, more importantly, there has been no correlation between
cosmic rays and global temperatures over the last 30 years of global
warming. In fact, in recent years when cosmic rays should have been
having their largest cooling effect on record, temperatures have been at
their highest on record."

http://www.skepticalscience.com/cosm...termediate.htm




--
Dan Marotta

On Monday, July 20, 2015 at 12:59:45 PM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
In 1804 the population of the earth was 1 billion people.* It took
123 years to add another billion, then 33 years, then 14, then 12 to
get the population up to 6 billion by 1999 (source).*
Now the human population is roughty 10.8 billion people (source)!



I don't suppose all those people blowing CO2 into the atmosphere has
anything to do with this?


Dan Marotta

That's a good question! The CO2 that people exhale is the product of
metabolism; the food that they eat is combined with Oxygen to produce
water, CO2, and energy. So, it's Carbon that was in the system to
start with.

The earth is a closed system except for meteors, asteroids, etc. We are
all made of natural resources, we consume them, and we excrete them.

I say more Ferraris and fewer people!

On 7/20/2015 1:09 PM, wrote:
On Monday, July 20, 2015 at 12:59:45 PM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
In 1804 the population of the earth was 1 billion people. It took
123 years to add another billion, then 33 years, then 14, then 12 to
get the population up to 6 billion by 1999 (source).
Now the human population is roughty 10.8 billion people (source)!



I don't suppose all those people blowing CO2 into the atmosphere has
anything to do with this?


Dan Marotta
That's a good question! The CO2 that people exhale is the product of
metabolism; the food that they eat is combined with Oxygen to produce
water, CO2, and energy. So, it's Carbon that was in the system to
start with.

--
Dan Marotta

It's all carbon that was in the system to start with, Some of it has been locked down for a while.

Dan Marotta wrote on 7/20/2015 9:59 AM:
In 1804 the population of the earth was 1 billion people.� It took 123
years to add another billion, then 33 years, then 14, then 12 to get the
population up to 6 billion by 1999 (source
https://www.learner.org/courses/envsci/unit/text.php?unit=5&secNum=4).� Now
the human population is roughty 10.8 billion people (source
http://populationpyramid.net/world/2015/)!

I don't suppose all those people blowing CO2 into the atmosphere has
anything to do with this?

You suppose correctly: The added CO2 clearly comes from fossil fuel
sources, as determined by isotopic analysis of the CO2 in the
atmosphere. There is no controversy about where the increased CO2 is
coming from:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/its-...termediate.htm

There is another way to know this: all the carbon in our bodies comes
from plants; when we exhale, we are simply returning CO2 to the
atmosphere, where the plants we ate (or the animals we ate) got it in
the first place. This article speaks directly to that point:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/brea...on-dioxide.htm

Climate is a fascinating subject, in good part because a lot of it is
non-intuitive until you study it for a while.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"

https://sites.google.com/site/motorg...ad-the-guide-1
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Dec 2014a" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm

http://soaringsafety.org/prevention/...anes-2014A.pdf

On Monday, July 20, 2015 at 4:08:21 PM UTC+12, Eric Greenwell wrote:
Bruce Hoult wrote on 7/16/2015 9:38 PM:
On Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at 9:50:38 AM UTC+12, Martin Gregorie
wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 14:09:42 -0700, David Hirst wrote:

A huge reduction in solar output is predicted to occur by
then.

Thankfully, they mean sunspot activity, not heat output, though
the lack of sunspots will likely cause some noticeable weather
changes.
(http://www.space.com/19280-solar-act...h-climate.html)

There may well be a connection: the Maunder Minimum, when there
were very few sunspots from 1645 to about 1715, coincided with the
middle part of the Little Ice Age (1350 to about 1850), during
which Europe and North America experienced very cold winters.
However, as AFAIK there was no good understanding of either IR or
UV radiation during the Maunder Minimum nor any reliable means of
measuring the amount of solar energy reaching the Earth, any
association between the two events is at best supposition, but
should it happen again we are now well enough instrumented to
discover what, if any, mechanism connects the two.

The theorized mechanism is fewer sunspots - less solar wind - more
cosmic rays reaching earth - more nucleation of aerosols - more
clouds - higher reflectivity - more energy radiation into space -
lower temperatures.

The key link in this chain (more cosmic rays - more nucleation of
aerosols) has been experimentally verified at CERN.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_...imat e_change

IPCC reports state that cloud reflectivity and proportion of cloud
cover is one of the most important and yet least understood aspects
of the global climate system.

"While the link between cosmic rays and cloud cover is yet to be
confirmed, more importantly, there has been no correlation between
cosmic rays and global temperatures over the last 30 years of global
warming. In fact, in recent years when cosmic rays should have been
having their largest cooling effect on record, temperatures have been at
their highest on record."

http://www.skepticalscience.com/cosm...termediate.htm

That's an awfully ignorant argument.

Heating and cooling effects accumulate. June 21 has the most sunlight (in the Northern Hemisphere) descreasing after that, but it's usually far before the hottest days in July and August.

It is mathematically natural that at the end of a period of increasing temperatures you'll have a period of temperatures that are flat but at or near the maximum.

Failing to take account of the trend and notice that temperatures have ceased to increase, and simply continue to beat on the undeniable (and not denied) fact that temperatures are "the highest ever" is either mathematical ignorance or deception.