Sell your sailplane before 2030

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

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.

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

Bruce Hoult wrote on 7/20/2015 2:38 PM:
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.

"Awfully ignorant" - Are you referring to the quote, or the entire
article I linked to?

In fact, the global temperatures have continued to increase at about the
same rate as the last few decades - no pause, no flattening. From NOAA:

"Our new analysis suggests that the apparent hiatus may have been
largely the result of limitations in past datasets, and that the rate of
warming over the first 15 years of this century has, in fact, been as
fast or faster than that seen over the last half of the 20th century."

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories...ent-years.html

Even under the old analysis, the temperature continued to climb, but not
as rapidly as the previous decades.

--
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

"Our new analysis suggests that the apparent hiatus may have been
largely the result of limitations in past datasets"

Yes, if one set of datasets does not support the predetermined view, no problem, just get new datasets, or "better" analysis, problem is fixed .



Cheers

Paul


On Tuesday, 21 July 2015 12:10:48 UTC+10, Eric Greenwell wrote:
Bruce Hoult wrote on 7/20/2015 2:38 PM:
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.

"Awfully ignorant" - Are you referring to the quote, or the entire
article I linked to?

In fact, the global temperatures have continued to increase at about the
same rate as the last few decades - no pause, no flattening. From NOAA:

"Our new analysis suggests that the apparent hiatus may have been
largely the result of limitations in past datasets, and that the rate of
warming over the first 15 years of this century has, in fact, been as
fast or faster than that seen over the last half of the 20th century."

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories...ent-years.html

Even under the old analysis, the temperature continued to climb, but not
as rapidly as the previous decades.

--
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 Tuesday, July 21, 2015 at 5:50:39 PM UTC+12, Paul B wrote:
"Our new analysis suggests that the apparent hiatus may have been
largely the result of limitations in past datasets"

Yes, if one set of datasets does not support the predetermined view, no problem, just get new datasets, or "better" analysis, problem is fixed .

My thoughts exactly.

It is quite apparent that these people DO NOT WANT the alleged problem to prove to be a non problem. They cheer every time some new evidence can be construed to suggest that we're all going to fry, and seem quite upset every time some new evidence suggests that it's all ok, actually.

On Tuesday, July 21, 2015 at 8:08:47 AM UTC-5, Bruce Hoult wrote:

It is quite apparent that these people DO NOT WANT the alleged problem to prove to be a non problem. They cheer every time some new evidence can be construed to suggest that we're all going to fry, and seem quite upset every time some new evidence suggests that it's all ok, actually.

My personal favorite was a map showing red dots for all the places that the average temperature for some month was "the highest ever recorded". And there was a perfectly spaced grid with literally hundreds of points scattered throughout the oceans of the world. Probably true that the temperature was the "highest ever recorded" at each of those points, but with an even, perfect pattern like was shown, I couldn't help but wonder "How many years have they been recording that data?"

And do you really think that mankind can substantially increase the temperature on the surface of earth more than some breaking down of the insulation of the rock, dirt, water, etc that is on the surface? Or the gradual heat transfer that is happening from the core to the surface of the planet? Quick Google search says that it is estimated that the temperature at the core of the earth is over 10,000 F. So, there is one whale of a lot of heat being radiated up from below.

Not doubting that Man has his local impacts. But to try and imply that we are the cause of all the changes? I think someone has a bit too high an opinion of himself...

Just my thoughts. I won't be selling off my fleet based on this latest prediction.

Steve Leonard

Bruce Hoult wrote on 7/21/2015 6:08 AM:
On Tuesday, July 21, 2015 at 5:50:39 PM UTC+12, Paul B wrote:
"Our new analysis suggests that the apparent hiatus may have been
largely the result of limitations in past datasets"

Yes, if one set of datasets does not support the predetermined
view, no problem, just get new datasets, or "better" analysis,
problem is fixed .

My thoughts exactly.

It is quite apparent that these people DO NOT WANT the alleged
problem to prove to be a non problem. They cheer every time some new
evidence can be construed to suggest that we're all going to fry, and
seem quite upset every time some new evidence suggests that it's all
ok, actually.

Did either of you read the article? They did not get completely new
datasets, but used the original datasets, plus additions to them from
areas that previously had very sparse measurements. The Arctic is one of
those, and it is also an area that has warmed more rapidly than most
other places. Another thing they did was to correct for differences in
ocean temperature measurements made from buoys and ships. A third change
was adding the most recent data (2013 and 2014), which was not in the
original datasets.

All these things, and more, made a significant difference. None of this
is done in secret and simply announced. You can examine the published
paper yourself, see the methods used, and the raw data.

--
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

Here is another view of NOAA's declaration that the hiatus is bogus:

https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/201...ing-past-data/

Even the IPCC said there was a hiatus.

Tom

Quick Google search says that it is estimated that the temperature at the core of the earth is over 10,000 F. So, there is one whale of a lot of heat being radiated up from below.

And a whole load of rock to insulate us. Average heat flow from the interior is around 0.08W/m^2 at the surface, compared to 700 - 1400W/m^2 from the sun. So yes, the hot core has an effect but it's pretty small.

Not doubting that Man has his local impacts. But to try and imply that we are the cause of all the changes? I think someone has a bit too high an opinion of himself...

We're the cause of one slow trend, superimposed on other trends and other oscillations. We turn trapped carbon into CO2, CO2 absorbs infrared and heats up, so a small change in the 0.04% CO2 atmosphere content means a small but inexorable warming.

The climate in 50 or 100 years is still up for debate, most of it around the effects and prevalence of clouds, but it's never a good idea to crap in your own nest.

Hey ho. Happy Tuesday.

DH