If NASA scientists are right, the Thames will be freezing ov

[amdx]

Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years
Met = UK's National Weather Service

"The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an
inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing
the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.

The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to
rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the
Thames in the 17th Century.

Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was
issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of
East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in
world temperatures ended in 1997."

Guess What? There's controversy!

Read more:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html#ixzz1kx6soAc2

Mikek

 

[amdx]

On 1/30/2012 9:45 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Jan 30, 3:39 pm, amdx<a...@knology.net> wrote:
Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years
Met = UK's National Weather Service

"The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an
inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing
the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.

Only true if you choose your 15 years rather carefully. One of the
larger cyclic fluctuations in global average temperature is driven by
the Atlantic multi-decadal oscillation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_multidecadal_oscillation

As if the Daily Mail were a reliable source of commentary on
scientific matters.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

I'm sorry, did YOU reference wikipedia?
Mikek

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 07:45:57 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Jan 30, 3:39 pm, amdx <a...@knology.net> wrote:
Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years
Met = UK's National Weather Service

"The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an
inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing
the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.

Only true if you choose your 15 years rather carefully. One of the
larger cyclic fluctuations in global average temperature is driven by
the Atlantic multi-decadal oscillation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_multidecadal_oscillation

and that has been pushing temperatures down for the last decade or so.

The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to
rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the
Thames in the 17th Century.

They don't to anybody who knows what they are looking at, but British
science journalists aren't science graduates and haven't got much of
an understanding of the stuff they are writing about.

Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was
issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of
East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in
world temperatures ended in 1997."

It didn't - the trend has just been hidden by one of the regular
cyclic variations

Maybe the apparent AGW was itself just a cyclic variation.

But the sunspot thing looks serious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png

The sunspot minima correspond to low temperatures.

The "modern maximum" started about 1900.


--

John Larkin, President Highland Technology Inc
www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com

Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators
Custom timing and laser controllers
Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links
VME analog, thermocouple, LVDT, synchro, tachometer
Multichannel arbitrary waveform generators

 

[Tom Del Rosso]

John Larkin wrote:

Maybe the apparent AGW was itself just a cyclic variation.

But the sunspot thing looks serious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png

The sunspot minima correspond to low temperatures.

The "modern maximum" started about 1900.

One of the early episodes of Nova in the 1970's was all about sunspots.
Aparently they also correspond to hemlines and Beatlemania.


--

Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Jan 30, 3:39 pm, amdx <a...@knology.net> wrote:

Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years
Met = UK's National Weather Service

"The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an
inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing
the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.

Only true if you choose your 15 years rather carefully. One of the
larger cyclic fluctuations in global average temperature is driven by
the Atlantic multi-decadal oscillation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_multidecadal_oscillation

and that has been pushing temperatures down for the last decade or so.

The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to
rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the
Thames in the 17th Century.

They don't to anybody who knows what they are looking at, but British
science journalists aren't science graduates and haven't got much of
an understanding of the stuff they are writing about.

Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was
issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of
East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in
world temperatures ended in 1997."

It didn't - the trend has just been hidden by one of the regular
cyclic variations

Guess What? There's controversy!

Bought and paid for by Exxon-Mobil and its friends.

Read more:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-...

As if the Daily Mail were a reliable source of commentary on
scientific matters.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Martin Brown]

amdx wrote:

On 1/30/2012 9:45 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Jan 30, 3:39 pm, amdx<a...@knology.net> wrote:
Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years
Met = UK's National Weather Service

"The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an
inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing
the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.

Only true if you choose your 15 years rather carefully. One of the
larger cyclic fluctuations in global average temperature is driven by
the Atlantic multi-decadal oscillation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_multidecadal_oscillation

As if the Daily Mail were a reliable source of commentary on
scientific matters.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

I'm sorry, did YOU reference wikipedia?
Mikek

You might like to note the fact that the Daily Wail has just been
awarded the 2011 Orwellian Prize for Journalistic Misrepresentation.

http://deevybee.blogspot.com/2012/01/2011-orwellian-prize-for-journalistic.html

They score incredibly badly on scientific accuracy. Setting a new all
time record for printing gibberish with their winning entry in 2011.

I suggest you go back to the original publication rather than rely on
their wilfully misleading selective misquoting of the actual research.

Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:39:26 -0500, "Tom Del Rosso"
<td_03@verizon.net.invalid> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

Maybe the apparent AGW was itself just a cyclic variation.

But the sunspot thing looks serious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png

The sunspot minima correspond to low temperatures.

The "modern maximum" started about 1900.

One of the early episodes of Nova in the 1970's was all about sunspots.
Aparently they also correspond to hemlines and Beatlemania.

Since the sun warms the earth, and sunspots indicate something serious
going on with the sun, there's a chance the sunspot-temperature thing
is actually causal.


--

John Larkin, President Highland Technology Inc
www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com

Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators
Custom timing and laser controllers
Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links
VME analog, thermocouple, LVDT, synchro, tachometer
Multichannel arbitrary waveform generators

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Jan 30, 5:09 pm, amdx <a...@knology.net> wrote:

On 1/30/2012 9:45 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:









On Jan 30, 3:39 pm, amdx<a...@knology.net>  wrote:
Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years
Met = UK's National Weather Service

"The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an
inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing
the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.

Only true if you choose your 15 years rather carefully. One of the
larger cyclic fluctuations in global average temperature is driven by
the Atlantic multi-decadal oscillation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_multidecadal_oscillation

As if the Daily Mail were a reliable source of commentary on
scientific matters.

  I'm sorry, did YOU reference wikipedia?

Why are you sorry? Was I supposed to imagine that you would know about
the Atlantic multidecal oscillation, or should I have referred you to
one of the thirteen more authoritative sources that Wikipedia lists,
but you probably wouldn't understand.

I won't claim that Wikipedia is a thoroughly reliable source, but this
particular article looks okay. The Daily Mail is a whole lot less
reliable when it comes to science.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Martin Brown]

John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:39:26 -0500, "Tom Del Rosso"
td_03@verizon.net.invalid> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
Maybe the apparent AGW was itself just a cyclic variation.

But the sunspot thing looks serious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png

The sunspot minima correspond to low temperatures.

The "modern maximum" started about 1900.
One of the early episodes of Nova in the 1970's was all about sunspots.
Aparently they also correspond to hemlines and Beatlemania.

Since the sun warms the earth, and sunspots indicate something serious
going on with the sun, there's a chance the sunspot-temperature thing
is actually causal.

Sunspots have been visible ever since people first started looking at
the sky. Naked eye sunspots are recorded by Chinese astronomers.

A more quantitative index vy Wolf of Zurich goes back nearly 150 years.
The Hale cycles are fairly well predictable and despite what you may
read in the rightard press the sun is really quite active at the moment.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/3869753.stm

http://www.space.com/14387-biggest-solar-flare-2012-radiation-storm.html

Now is a relatively good time to go aurora watching or buy an H-alpha
solar prominence telescope. There is plenty to see on the sun.

Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 17:52:19 +0000, Martin Brown
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:39:26 -0500, "Tom Del Rosso"
td_03@verizon.net.invalid> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
Maybe the apparent AGW was itself just a cyclic variation.

But the sunspot thing looks serious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png

The sunspot minima correspond to low temperatures.

The "modern maximum" started about 1900.
One of the early episodes of Nova in the 1970's was all about sunspots.
Aparently they also correspond to hemlines and Beatlemania.

Since the sun warms the earth, and sunspots indicate something serious
going on with the sun, there's a chance the sunspot-temperature thing
is actually causal.

Sunspots have been visible ever since people first started looking at
the sky. Naked eye sunspots are recorded by Chinese astronomers.

A more quantitative index vy Wolf of Zurich goes back nearly 150 years.
The Hale cycles are fairly well predictable and despite what you may
read in the rightard press the sun is really quite active at the moment.

Last week The Drudge Report had a nice solar pic and a warning about a
big solar storm, so you must be referring to something to the rightard
of that.


**********************************

John Larkin, President
Highland Technology, Inc

jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators
Custom laser controllers
Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links
VME thermocouple, LVDT, synchro acquisition and simulation

 

[Joerg]

Bill Sloman wrote:

On Jan 30, 6:09 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:39:26 -0500, "Tom Del Rosso"









td...@verizon.net.invalid> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
Maybe the apparent AGW was itself just a cyclic variation.
But the sunspot thing looks serious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png
The sunspot minima correspond to low temperatures.
The "modern maximum" started about 1900.
One of the early episodes of Nova in the 1970's was all about sunspots.
Aparently they also correspond to hemlines and Beatlemania.
Since the sun warms the earth, and sunspots indicate something serious
going on with the sun, there's a chance the sunspot-temperature thing
is actually causal.

Sunspots are entirely superficial - confined to the outermost layers
of the sun, which is much too cool for nuclear fusion - and their
effect on climate is very small.

ROFL!

http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap02/sunspots.html

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 15:50:47 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Jan 30, 6:09 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:39:26 -0500, "Tom Del Rosso"









td...@verizon.net.invalid> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

Maybe the apparent AGW was itself just a cyclic variation.

But the sunspot thing looks serious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png

The sunspot minima correspond to low temperatures.

The "modern maximum" started about 1900.

One of the early episodes of Nova in the 1970's was all about sunspots.
Aparently they also correspond to hemlines and Beatlemania.

Since the sun warms the earth, and sunspots indicate something serious
going on with the sun, there's a chance the sunspot-temperature thing
is actually causal.

Sunspots are entirely superficial - confined to the outermost layers
of the sun,

And how do you know that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunspot#Physics

"Although the details of sunspot generation are still a matter of
research, it appears that sunspots are the visible counterparts of
magnetic flux tubes in the Sun's convective zone that get "wound up"
by differential rotation. If the stress on the tubes reaches a certain
limit, they curl up like a rubber band and puncture the Sun's surface.
Convection is inhibited at the puncture points; the energy flux from
the Sun's interior decreases; and with it surface temperature."

Idiot.


**********************************

John Larkin, President
Highland Technology, Inc

jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators
Custom laser controllers
Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links
VME thermocouple, LVDT, synchro acquisition and simulation

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Jan 30, 5:25 pm, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 07:45:57 -0800 (PST),BillSloman









bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Jan 30, 3:39 pm, amdx <a...@knology.net> wrote:
Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years
Met = UK's National Weather Service

"The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an
inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing
the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.

Only true if you choose your 15 years rather carefully. One of the
larger cyclic fluctuations in global average temperature is driven by
the Atlantic multi-decadal oscillation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_multidecadal_oscillation

and that has been pushing temperatures down for the last decade or so.

The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to
rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the
Thames in the 17th Century.

They don't to anybody who knows what they are looking at, but British
science journalists aren't science graduates and haven't got much of
an understanding of the stuff they are writing about.

Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was
issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of
East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in
world temperatures ended in 1997."

It didn't - the trend has just been hidden by one of the regular
cyclic variations

Maybe the apparent AGW was itself just a cyclic variation.

Do a little reading about the greenhouse effect sometime. There's some
uncertainty about how much of an increase in global temperature you
get for a given amount of extra CO2 in the atmosphere - the IPCC puts
upper and lower limits at about 1.6 times their best estimate and 60%
of the their best estimate - but the basic physics is crystal clear.

But the sunspot thing looks serious.

If you don't know a thing about it and have a weakness for plausibly
packaged denialist propaganda.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Jan 30, 6:09 pm, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:39:26 -0500, "Tom Del Rosso"









td...@verizon.net.invalid> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

Maybe the apparent AGW was itself just a cyclic variation.

But the sunspot thing looks serious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png

The sunspot minima correspond to low temperatures.

The "modern maximum" started about 1900.

One of the early episodes of Nova in the 1970's was all about sunspots.
Aparently they also correspond to hemlines and Beatlemania.

Since the sun warms the earth, and sunspots indicate something serious
going on with the sun, there's a chance the sunspot-temperature thing
is actually causal.

Sunspots are entirely superficial - confined to the outermost layers
of the sun, which is much too cool for nuclear fusion - and their
effect on climate is very small.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Jan 30, 7:06 pm, John Larkin <jlar...@highlandtechnology.com>
wrote:

On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 17:52:19 +0000, Martin Brown









|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:39:26 -0500, "Tom Del Rosso"
td...@verizon.net.invalid> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
Maybe the apparent AGW was itself just a cyclic variation.

But the sunspot thing looks serious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png

The sunspot minima correspond to low temperatures.

The "modern maximum" started about 1900.
One of the early episodes of Nova in the 1970's was all about sunspots.
Aparently they also correspond to hemlines and Beatlemania.

Since the sun warms the earth, and sunspots indicate something serious
going on with the sun, there's a chance the sunspot-temperature thing
is actually causal.

Sunspots have been visible ever since people first started looking at
the sky. Naked eye sunspots are recorded by Chinese astronomers.

A more quantitative index vy Wolf of Zurich goes back nearly 150 years.
The Hale cycles are fairly well predictable and despite what you may
read in the rightard press the sun is really quite active at the moment.

Last week The Drudge Report had a nice solar pic and a warning about a
big solar storm, so you must be referring to something to the rightard
of that.

The rightard press doesn't seem to feel any need for consistency - the
sun can be quiet when the denialist propaganda story needs it to be
quiet, but still active enough to explain the latest solar storm.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Joerg]

Bill Sloman wrote:

On Jan 31, 12:54 am, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
BillSlomanwrote:
On Jan 30, 6:09 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:39:26 -0500, "Tom Del Rosso"
td...@verizon.net.invalid> wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
Maybe the apparent AGW was itself just a cyclic variation.
But the sunspot thing looks serious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png
The sunspot minima correspond to low temperatures.
The "modern maximum" started about 1900.
One of the early episodes of Nova in the 1970's was all about sunspots.
Aparently they also correspond to hemlines and Beatlemania.
Since the sun warms the earth, and sunspots indicate something serious
going on with the sun, there's a chance the sunspot-temperature thing
is actually causal.
Sunspots are entirely superficial - confined to the outermost layers
of the sun, which is much too cool for nuclear fusion - and their
effect on climate is very small.
ROFL!

http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap02/sunspots.html

O.5C is small, and the variation of +/-0.1% in solar radiance is also
small and basically cyclic. There's one entertaining sentence on that
web-site "Their results also suggest that the sensitivity of climate
to the effects of solar irradiance is about 27% higher than its
sensitivity to forcing by greenhouse gases" which is as fine an
example of meaningless nonsense as you could hope to find.

The effect of a 0.2% chance in solar radiance is about 27% higher than
some totally unspecified change in greenhouse gas concentration?

English may not be your mother-tongue, but you should be able to spot
weasel-wording by now.

I did, in the climategate emails

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

 

[Phil Hobbs]

Bill Sloman wrote:

On Jan 31, 1:13 am, John Larkin <jlar...@highlandtechnology.com
wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 15:50:47 -0800 (PST),BillSloman









bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Jan 30, 6:09 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:39:26 -0500, "Tom Del Rosso"

td...@verizon.net.invalid> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

Maybe the apparent AGW was itself just a cyclic variation.

But the sunspot thing looks serious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png

The sunspot minima correspond to low temperatures.

The "modern maximum" started about 1900.

One of the early episodes of Nova in the 1970's was all about sunspots.
Aparently they also correspond to hemlines and Beatlemania.

Since the sun warms the earth, and sunspots indicate something serious
going on with the sun, there's a chance the sunspot-temperature thing
is actually causal.

Sunspots are entirely superficial - confined to the outermost layers
of the sun,

And how do you know that?

General knowledge - just because you don't know it doesn't mean that
most educated adults are similarly ignorant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunspot#Physics

"Although the details of sunspot generation are still a matter of
research, it appears that sunspots are the visible counterparts of
magnetic flux tubes in the Sun's convective zone that get "wound up"
by differential rotation. If the stress on the tubes reaches a certain
limit, they curl up like a rubber band and puncture the Sun's surface.
Convection is inhibited at the puncture points; the energy flux from
the Sun's interior decreases; and with it surface temperature."

Idiot.

And how deep do you think that convective zone is?

https://nar.ucar.edu/2011/lar/page/sun%E2%80%99s-convection-zone-sheds-new-light-solar-cycle

says that it is roughly the outer 30% of the sun. Roughly 99% of the
power generated by nuclear fusion is produced with the inner 24% of
sun's radius.

The sun-spots don't influence that rate of fusion, just the short term
rate of convective transfer of the power generated to the outer
radiating layers - a rather slow transfer, since it apparently takes
10 millions year to get the photons from core to surface.

I don't happen to be an idiot, and only an ignorant twit like you
would be silly enough to make such a fatuous claim based on such
totally inadequate evidence - evidence that you obviously don't
actually understand.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

The temperature gradient in the interior of the Sun is very steep near
the photosphere, because it's only gas pressure that holds up the weight
of the outer layers. The solar photosphere is very thin--less than 1000
km--so apparently minor perturbations of the convective transport in and
below the photosphere can be very important. See e.g.
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/Dalsgaard1_density_vs_r.jpg.

Cheers

Phil "former astronomer" Hobbs


--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
845-480-2058

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

 

[Phil Hobbs]

Phil Hobbs wrote:

Bill Sloman wrote:

On Jan 31, 1:13 am, John Larkin <jlar...@highlandtechnology.com
wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 15:50:47 -0800 (PST),BillSloman









bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Jan 30, 6:09 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:39:26 -0500, "Tom Del Rosso"

td...@verizon.net.invalid> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

Maybe the apparent AGW was itself just a cyclic variation.

But the sunspot thing looks serious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png

The sunspot minima correspond to low temperatures.

The "modern maximum" started about 1900.

One of the early episodes of Nova in the 1970's was all about sunspots.
Aparently they also correspond to hemlines and Beatlemania.

Since the sun warms the earth, and sunspots indicate something serious
going on with the sun, there's a chance the sunspot-temperature thing
is actually causal.

Sunspots are entirely superficial - confined to the outermost layers
of the sun,

And how do you know that?

General knowledge - just because you don't know it doesn't mean that
most educated adults are similarly ignorant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunspot#Physics

"Although the details of sunspot generation are still a matter of
research, it appears that sunspots are the visible counterparts of
magnetic flux tubes in the Sun's convective zone that get "wound up"
by differential rotation. If the stress on the tubes reaches a certain
limit, they curl up like a rubber band and puncture the Sun's surface.
Convection is inhibited at the puncture points; the energy flux from
the Sun's interior decreases; and with it surface temperature."

Idiot.

And how deep do you think that convective zone is?

https://nar.ucar.edu/2011/lar/page/sun%E2%80%99s-convection-zone-sheds-new-light-solar-cycle

says that it is roughly the outer 30% of the sun. Roughly 99% of the
power generated by nuclear fusion is produced with the inner 24% of
sun's radius.

The sun-spots don't influence that rate of fusion, just the short term
rate of convective transfer of the power generated to the outer
radiating layers - a rather slow transfer, since it apparently takes
10 millions year to get the photons from core to surface.

I don't happen to be an idiot, and only an ignorant twit like you
would be silly enough to make such a fatuous claim based on such
totally inadequate evidence - evidence that you obviously don't
actually understand.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

The temperature gradient in the interior of the Sun is very steep near
the photosphere, because it's only gas pressure that holds up the weight
of the outer layers. The solar photosphere is very thin--less than 1000
km--so apparently minor perturbations of the convective transport in and
below the photosphere can be very important. See e.g.
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/Dalsgaard1_density_vs_r.jpg.

Cheers

Phil "former astronomer" Hobbs

Sorry, that was density--here's temperature:
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/Dalsgaard1_T_vs_r.jpg

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
845-480-2058

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Jan 31, 1:13 am, John Larkin <jlar...@highlandtechnology.com>
wrote:

On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 15:50:47 -0800 (PST),BillSloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Jan 30, 6:09 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:39:26 -0500, "Tom Del Rosso"

td...@verizon.net.invalid> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

Maybe the apparent AGW was itself just a cyclic variation.

But the sunspot thing looks serious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png

The sunspot minima correspond to low temperatures.

The "modern maximum" started about 1900.

One of the early episodes of Nova in the 1970's was all about sunspots.
Aparently they also correspond to hemlines and Beatlemania.

Since the sun warms the earth, and sunspots indicate something serious
going on with the sun, there's a chance the sunspot-temperature thing
is actually causal.

Sunspots are entirely superficial - confined to the outermost layers
of the sun,

And how do you know that?

General knowledge - the sort of stuff that you'd know if you could
think about what you read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunspot#Physics

"Although the details of sunspot generation are still a matter of
research, it appears that sunspots are the visible counterparts of
magnetic flux tubes in the Sun's convective zone that get "wound up"
by differential rotation. If the stress on the tubes reaches a certain
limit, they curl up like a rubber band and puncture the Sun's surface.
Convection is inhibited at the puncture points; the energy flux from
the Sun's interior decreases; and with it surface temperature."

Idiot.

Pity about that. The idiot is the guy who thinks that the sun's
convection zone goes down to core where the temperature is high enough
to drive nuclear fusion. In fact it is confined to the outer 30% of
the sun,

https://nar.ucar.edu/2011/lar/page/sun%E2%80%99s-convection-zone-sheds-new-light-solar-cycle

You didn't find the right Wikipedia page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun

could have told you that 99% of the powered generated by fusion in the
sun is generated within the first 24% of the sun's radius, and that
his power is radiated out to about 70% of the radius, when convective
transfer sets in.

So sun-spots don't have anything to do with the power generated by the
sun - they merely produce a very slight modulation in the rate at
which it gets to us.

You really didn't need to remind us - once again - what an ignorant
and over-confident twit you can be.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Jan 31, 1:13 am, John Larkin <jlar...@highlandtechnology.com>
wrote:

On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 15:50:47 -0800 (PST),BillSloman









bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Jan 30, 6:09 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:39:26 -0500, "Tom Del Rosso"

td...@verizon.net.invalid> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

Maybe the apparent AGW was itself just a cyclic variation.

But the sunspot thing looks serious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png

The sunspot minima correspond to low temperatures.

The "modern maximum" started about 1900.

One of the early episodes of Nova in the 1970's was all about sunspots.
Aparently they also correspond to hemlines and Beatlemania.

Since the sun warms the earth, and sunspots indicate something serious
going on with the sun, there's a chance the sunspot-temperature thing
is actually causal.

Sunspots are entirely superficial - confined to the outermost layers
of the sun,

And how do you know that?

General knowledge - just because you don't know it doesn't mean that
most educated adults are similarly ignorant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunspot#Physics

"Although the details of sunspot generation are still a matter of
research, it appears that sunspots are the visible counterparts of
magnetic flux tubes in the Sun's convective zone that get "wound up"
by differential rotation. If the stress on the tubes reaches a certain
limit, they curl up like a rubber band and puncture the Sun's surface.
Convection is inhibited at the puncture points; the energy flux from
the Sun's interior decreases; and with it surface temperature."

Idiot.

And how deep do you think that convective zone is?

https://nar.ucar.edu/2011/lar/page/sun%E2%80%99s-convection-zone-sheds-new-light-solar-cycle

says that it is roughly the outer 30% of the sun. Roughly 99% of the
power generated by nuclear fusion is produced with the inner 24% of
sun's radius.

The sun-spots don't influence that rate of fusion, just the short term
rate of convective transfer of the power generated to the outer
radiating layers - a rather slow transfer, since it apparently takes
10 millions year to get the photons from core to surface.

I don't happen to be an idiot, and only an ignorant twit like you
would be silly enough to make such a fatuous claim based on such
totally inadequate evidence - evidence that you obviously don't
actually understand.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen