Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Byron

Burn Some Tyres!

Recommended Posts

"Londoners enjoyed frost fairs on the Thames in the 17th Century" acommpanied by a pic from the time, which shows a team of blokes attempting to haul a frozen-in boat out of the ice :D

_72366218_c0168803-thames_frost_fair_1684-spl.jpg

Just to let us know of course, that no matter how cold it becomes - we should "enjoy" it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it does can we assume an immediate cessation of "low-carbon" taxes and subsidies as no longer having a purpose? Or will this bandwagon carry on regardless with some other spurious justification such as energy security because of too many vested interests with their snouts in the trough?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I'm not interpreting the first figure in that paper incorrectly it suggests that we should be approaching the minimum right now, not at a maximum as the article in the OP suggests :unsure:

We are at a maximum about now, as occurs every 11 years or so; it's just that this maximum is very low compared to earlier maxima. The maxima have been getting steadily weaker in intensity since about the mid-eighties, implying that sun is going into a quiet phase. The last time this happened, the decades of the Maunder Minimum, appeared to correspond with particularly cool conditions in some parts of the world. Scientists have theorised that the the reduced flux of UV light had something to do with this.

Of course, this makes a mockery of claims that the global warming observed over the last few decades is due to changes in solar output. However, reduced solar output may have cancelled out a little of the warming caused by the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Edit: Just to clarify, the most we can expect is a little temporary slowing of global warming. The effect is nowhere near strong enough to reverse the warming effect of human CO2 emissions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are at a maximum about now, as occurs every 11 years or so; it's just that this maximum is very low compared to earlier maxima. The maxima have been getting steadily weaker in intensity since about the mid-eighties, implying that sun is going into a quiet phase. The last time this happened, the decades of the Maunder Minimum, appeared to correspond with particularly cool conditions in some parts of the world. Scientists have theorised that the the reduced flux of UV light had something to do with this.

Of course, this makes a mockery of claims that the global warming observed over the last few decades is due to changes in solar output. However, reduced solar output may have cancelled out a little of the warming caused by the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Edit: Just to clarify, the most we can expect is a little temporary slowing of global warming. The effect is nowhere near strong enough to reverse the warming effect of human CO2 emissions.

According to that paper, unless my eyes are painted on, the maximum should have been around 2012, the previous maximum around 2001. Unless they're fudging something to make their pattern fit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to that paper, unless my eyes are painted on, the maximum should have been around 2012, the previous maximum around 2001. Unless they're fudging something to make their pattern fit?

It's not a precise cycle. It's approximately 11 years and the max and min are inferred from the amount of solar activity so you can't actually say when the maximum was until you have measured the peak and seen activity decline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't we send the sun all the coal the government doesn't like, to keep it stoked up a bit? :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it does can we assume an immediate cessation of "low-carbon" taxes and subsidies as no longer having a purpose? Or will this bandwagon carry on regardless with some other spurious justification such as energy security because of too many vested interests with their snouts in the trough?

No. Back in the 70s, when we were heading into a new ice age, the solution from the usual suspects was... burning less fossil fuels.

So this merely gives us new impetus to reduce fossil fuel use! If we don't eliminate all fossil fuel use in the next week, YOUR KIDS WILL FREEZE TO DEATH!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. Back in the 70s, when we were heading into a new ice age, the solution from the usual suspects was... burning less fossil fuels.

So this merely gives us new impetus to reduce fossil fuel use! If we don't eliminate all fossil fuel use in the next week, YOUR KIDS WILL FREEZE TO DEATH!

You mean a few speculative articles in the Mail, Mirror etc that turned an observed cooling in global trends into an ice age apocalypse?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean a few speculative articles in the Mail, Mirror etc that turned an observed cooling in global trends into an ice age apocalypse?

Ice: How the New Ice Age will Come and How We Can Prevent It.

by Sir Fred Hoyle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ice: How the New Ice Age will Come and How We Can Prevent It.

by Sir Fred Hoyle.

Despite his very important contributions in some areas Fred Hoyle did have rather a tendency to go with rather far-fetched theories, often in areas that weren't anything to do with his expertise (such as writing an entire dubious book on why the archeoptyrx fossils are fakes).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean a few speculative articles in the Mail, Mirror etc that turned an observed cooling in global trends into an ice age apocalypse?

I read about global cooling in New Scientist. It was a proper scientific theory at the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read about global cooling in New Scientist. It was a proper scientific theory at the time.

It was more of a hypothesis than a theory. The science of climatology was in its infancy back then, so initially there wasn't much evidence either way. Nevertheless, even then, the majority of the few scientific papers on the subject predicted warming rather than cooling. As soon as the subject came under serious scrutiny, it quickly became obvious that the warming effects of human CO2 emissions would indeed predominate. By 1980 the predictions about ice ages had ceased due to the overwhelming evidence for global warming. Unfortunately, the small number of predictions of an ice age appeared to be much more interesting than those of global warming, so it was those sensational 'Ice Age' stories in the press that so many people tend to remember.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was more of a hypothesis than a theory. The science of climatology was in its infancy back then, so initially there wasn't much evidence either way. Nevertheless, even then, the majority of the few scientific papers on the subject predicted warming rather than cooling. As soon as the subject came under serious scrutiny, it quickly became obvious that the warming effects of human CO2 emissions would indeed predominate. By 1980 the predictions about ice ages had ceased due to the overwhelming evidence for global warming. Unfortunately, the small number of predictions of an ice age appeared to be much more interesting than those of global warming, so it was those sensational 'Ice Age' stories in the press that so many people tend to remember.

Revisionism.

Sorry but I was alive in the 70s and what you have just said is poppycock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Revisionism.

Sorry but I was alive in the 70s and what you have just said is poppycock.

I was alive in the 70s too, but I don't suppose either of us were studying the scientific literature on global climate particularly closely then. Luckily there is objective evidence if you care to look for it:

1970s_papers.gif

What I wrote was not poppycock. It was the simple truth. It really is amazing how this "70s ice age" meme propagated by the deniers is accepted without question and repeated by so many otherwise intelligent people. Where are the real sceptics?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Despite his very important contributions in some areas Fred Hoyle did have rather a tendency to go with rather far-fetched theories, often in areas that weren't anything to do with his expertise (such as writing an entire dubious book on why the archeoptyrx fossils are fakes).

I have an astronomy text by Hoyle which if I've remembered properly suggests that crude oil was present at the formation of the earth, and by extension is around in asteroids etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read about global cooling in New Scientist. It was a proper scientific theory at the time.

At the time yes, but not one that's stood the test of time:

http://www.newscient...ml#.Ut3QTPunxH0

Are there scientists out there who do not believe in the greenhouse effect or global warming?

No, this is a myth. All scientists believe in the greenhouse effect. Without it the planet would be frozen. And all scientists accept that if humans put more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere then it will warm the planet. The only disagreement is over precisely how much the warming will be amplified by planetary feedbacks.

However, there is a growing consensus that the average global warming of 0.6°C seen in the twentieth century - and particularly the pronounced warming of the past three decades - is due to the greenhouse effect.

. . .

How are temperatures predicted to rise over the next few centuries?

This depends on whether we halt the growing concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Some warming is inevitable - there are time lags in the natural systems which store up warming for future decades. CO2 concentrations are currently about 35% above pre-industrial levels, storing up perhaps another degree of warming.

If we can stabilise atmospheric CO2 concentration by the end of this century, below twice pre-industrial levels, we can probably limit warming to under 5 degrees. But because the gas stays in the atmosphere for a century or more, stabilisation requires cutting emissions by 70% to 80%. A tall order. However, some models predict temperature rises of 8 to 10 degrees within 200 years if we do not kick the carbon habit.

. . .

Will there be global warming everywhere?

Maybe not. Climate modellers admit to uncertainties over how it will affect particular regions. This is because much of our weather depends on circulation patterns, which could alter unexpectedly. Crude estimates suggest that coastal regions may become wetter, while continental interiors become drier, causing deserts to expand. Warming will probably be greatest in polar regions, mirroring climate changes already seen this century in both the Arctic and Antarctic.

Local climate could also be altered by changes in ocean circulation. Western Europe is particularly vulnerable. At present, it is kept exceptionally warm in winter by the Gulf Stream, which is part of the ocean conveyor belt mentioned above. Take that away and British weather would be more like Canada's frigid Hudson Bay, found at the same latitude.

Ice cores reveal growing evidence of sudden shifts in climate over the past 10,000 years that have occurred within a few decades as a result of "flips" in ocean circulation. But most models suggest that the Gulf Stream will not turn off for at least another century.

http://www.newscient...ml#.Ut3OSfunxH0

Atmospheric rivers (ARs) are giant ribbons of moist air, at least 2000 kilometres long and several hundred kilometres across, which move water across the mid-latitudes. They flow in the lower troposphere, where winds with speeds in excess of 12.5 metres per second can carry as much water as the Amazon river. At any given time, four or five ARs carry nearly 90 per cent of the moisture that is moving towards the poles. To see what role, if any, ARs played in the floods that have hit the UK since the 1970s, David Lavers of the University of Reading, UK, and colleagues combined historic river flow and weather data with computer simulations of ARs. They found a strong link between extreme floods and ARs that were flowing at the time.

. . .

Will climate change affect ARs? Michael Dettinger of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California, studied the "Pineapple Express", an AR that brings water from the tropics near Hawaii to California. He used seven global circulation climate models to look at the changes in AR-induced storms if greenhouse gas emissions accelerate during the 21st century.

Dettinger found that more evaporation due to higher temperatures could cause AR-induced storms to become more frequent in California (Journal of the American Water Resources Association, DOI: 10.1111/j.1752-1688.2011.00546.x). There is no reason to expect any different in the UK, he says.

Edit: fixed link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have an astronomy text by Hoyle which if I've remembered properly suggests that crude oil was present at the formation of the earth, and by extension is around in asteroids etc.

And therefore Plate Tectonics doesn't happen..

More specifically, the Earth (and Mars, and Venus, and Mercury) completely outgassed early on, so the primordial hydrocarbons are long gone. There's lots of really exciting isotope geochemistry to prove this.. Primordial hydrocarbons are still present in the moons of the gas giants, and comets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read about global cooling in New Scientist. It was a proper scientific theory at the time.

Hmmm. 'Appeared in New Scientist' and 'Proper scientific theory' are not always synonyms.

In any case, to be pedantic, if you burn coal without getting rid of the sulphur you produce two climate effects:

- Cooling by Sulphur Aerosols. These don't accumulate, so the cooling effect is determined by how much coal you burn per year.

- Warming by CO2. This does accumulate, the warming effect is determines by the total amount of coal you burn overall.

So we could suggest that the 1960s cooling (in the Northern Hemisphere at least, it didn't cool in the Southern Hemisphere) was driven by the large number of coal fired plants coming online at the time, subsequently overwhelmed by the accumulating CO2.

Interestingly, a huge number of unfiltered coal plants have come online in China over the past decade. Be interesting to see what happens when they start regulating Sulphur emissions.

As far as Maunder Minimums go, the data connecting solar activity to climate is thin in the extreme, I find it slightly depressing that people who would disregard a huge swathe of evidence for CO2-induced global warming would instantly declare a this connecting valid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   206 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.