Posted on 12/26/2006 10:36:26 AM PST by wagglebee
The density of the big orange one varies from the center to the surface, but at 40% radius from the center it is the same density as earth.
Greenzis will demand they balance the solar cycle through legislation, global taxes and stiff fines.
A Magic 8 Ball is as good a predictor as any of what a Court will do.
Thanks for the ping. I wonder why no one has reported this 1500 year cycle before.
Next two questions: how hot did the previous 1500 year cycles get, and how long did the hot phases last?
I don't know how much trouble I'll get into for this, but I've noticed an even more rapid cycle of sun-induced global warming than this 1500-hundred year cycle.
Every morning, the temperature in my front yard goes steadily up, even in the wintertime.
I think there may be a twenty-four hour cycle, but I don't have an explanation for it.
How does things react when you travel south during the day?
I used to take a trip South in early Spring. It was an amazing phenomenon.
When we left home, the buds would just be awakening, ready to burst forth. By the time we got to Georgia, everything was in full flower.
Spring arrived in a single day.
I loved making that trip.
True. There was a woman I work with who was convinced we are warming the planet. I was able to go online and show the earth's warming from 1880 to 1945(warmer). Then from 1950 to about 1980(cooler). I also was able to find the Medevil warming and Little Ice Age. She did not know the climate changed so much!!! She assumed the winters she saw as a kid were always the case. I think we here in MN are actually seeing more of the winters they saw like in the early 1900's
Global warming is caused by the sun.
In 1900 people were concerned about running out of horses, and also concerned about where to put all the horse manure by 1930. Today liberals spew horse manure daily.
PING
What's sad is that these scientists wil be called heretics, when in reality scientists disagree all the time. Global Warming - as it is talked about today - is more a religion (like scientology) than a science.
Are you listening Algore?
And you have had your head up your Arse for years. I knew it was a matter of time before you showed up to stone anyone who dard believed that man was not the cause of Global Warming.
Are you also a Moonie?
At least the media acknowledges that scientology is "out there." Global warming is reported as if it is a "scientific fact" and as such it shouldn't be questioned any more than gravity.
They were right, we are being overwhelmed by horse manure today.
All of what Singer has published? No. As for Avery and Singer, it's merely a start. Example:
"CounterPoint. This appears to be a reference to Chen et al., 2002. Satellite data from the equatorial Pacific showed an increase in IR heat flux to space of about 5 W/m2 from 1985 to 2005, and a decrease in reflected visible light of about 2 W/m2, leaving a 3 W/m2 change in net heat flux.
Avery’s implicit promise would seem to be that with rising CO2, the heavens will part and let the excess energy out, a Lindzenesque mechanism to nullify global warming. The measured change in heat fluxes in the equatorial Pacific is indeed comparable to the radiative effect of doubling CO2 but the CO2 number is a global average, while the equatorial Pacific is just one region. The measurements probably reflect a regional rearrangement of cloud cover or ocean temperature, a decadal variation with no clear implication at all for the global mean heat budget of the Earth. The global heat imbalance has been inferred (Hansen et al, Science, 2005), and it is consistent with rising greenhouse gas concentrations and transient heating of the ocean."
("Lindzenesque" refers to the so-called "Iris Effect".)
There was actually a pithy comment on Avery & Singer in a different RealClimate thread (emphases are my additions):
"Many records of past climate that stretch back 100,000 years or so -- notably ice cores, but also some marine sediments, lake sediments, etc. -- show very distinct evidence of what is typically called "millennial-scale variabilty". That is, variations in climate proxies that seem relatively large in magnitude, on timescales of 1000 years or so; arguably larger than might be expected from observed climate (we have only been watching it a bit more than 100 years). In some records, particularly those from the North Atlantic Region, but also in some other regions, the magnitude of this millennial-scale variabilty is much greater during the last glacial period -- around 11,000 to 90,000 years ago -- than it is during the most recent warm period, the Holocene (the last 11,000 years). The clearest example of this is the record of oxygen isotope ratios in the GISP2 ice core. GISP2 was one of the two deep ice cores (the other was GRIP) drilled in central Greenland, completed in 1992. It is characterized by very good dating (we know the age of the ice extremely well at each level). GISP2 is also characterized by very distinctive, abrupt increases in oxygen isotope ratios -- and we know from other, independent evidence that these are abrupt warming events. They are followed by periods of warmth, and then cooling, also abrupt sometimes. See the figure here [below] for example, and note how much greater the variability is in the earlier part of the record that in it in the Holocene. The Vostok ice core from Antarctica is also shown in the figure. It also seems to show more variabilty in the glacial that in the Holocene, but the difference is not nearly so great, and neither the warmings nor the coolings are abrupt as they are in Greenland. In any case, the spacing of the warmings and coolings in both these records occurs on a millennial timescale. This is most easily seen in the GISP2 record, where the spacing between the obvious abrupt warming events is typically 1500 years. In fact, a spectral analysis of the record shows a very distinct period of 1500 years, that it statistically significant by most standard measures of probability. In other words, there is a "cycle" in this record. The "cycle" is not statistically significant in any other record, including in other Greenland ice cores. Nor does it appear in the Holocene in GISP2. So the case that it is a "cycle" is somewhat weak. Clearly, Singer is aware of this, which is why in his letter he writes "roughly 1500 years". But the important point is simply that these records show variabilty on timescales of millennia, and that variability seems rather large, at least prior to 11,000 years ago.
Now, it is clear from these records that climate can vary quite a bit without any input from humans. And it is tempting to attribute the ice core observations to some "cause", such a solar variabilty, as Gerard Bond did in an oft-cited paper in Science. Another standard explanation (which probably has a lot more merit) is variations in the strength of the meridional overturning circulation. It is also tempting to attribute recent variations -- e.g. the "Little Ice Age" to the same cause(s). And Singer would like, then, to attribute the current warming to the same thing(s). The problems with leaping from the GISP2 ice core to the current climate are many, and I'll just name a few. First and foremost, one would need some evidence that the purported causes are going in the right direction. If the natural cause is solar variabilty, then you have the immediate problem that the sun isn't changing measureably now. If the cause is changes in North Atlantic meridional overturning circulation, then you need evidence it is changing in the right direction. Second, one would have to explain away the forcing due to CO2. That is, if you are going to attribute the current warming to "all natural causes", you are going to have to explain why the CO2 increase is not contributing. That's going to be rather difficult, since it is very very well established physics. Third, you are going to have to explain why the entire planet (not just the North Atlantic region) is warming, which was not the case during the observed "1500-year" variations of the past."
Is that a better discreditation?
Linked figure: Comparison between ARCSS/GISP2 and Vostok Ice Cores
BUMP
LOL, good one!
My main motivation is to correct widely held misconceptions, in an attempt to improve the general FR knowledge of the scientific understanding of climate change, including anthropogenic climate change. The preponderance of evidence indicates that human activity is affecting Earth's climate. I really don't care where you think my head is, nor do I care where yours resides -- that's what the scientific data and interpretations agree on.
Are you also a Moonie?
No, I'm an Autumn. ;-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.