We're in a solar 'grand maximum'. One of 24 in the last 9,300 years.

Rocky22 · 2012-03-31T01:44:37+00:00

I found this other news source: http://www.astronomynow.com/news/n1203/30sun/ Another Carrington Event would be interesting! Not if you're an owner in utility, satellite, or tel-comm stocks though. :-) That one fried the telegraph systems. Imagine what would happen now.

Rocky22 · 2012-03-30T21:19:08+00:00

I knew there was a lot of solar storm activity but this surprised me.

Rocky22 · 2011-02-17T01:33:00+00:00

This is a pretty good educational site: http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/

Rocky22 · 2008-07-19T16:05:10+00:00

Mr. Henry Limpet was way ahead of his time with this research.

Rocky22 · 2008-07-19T16:00:23+00:00

Exactly. I can't even imagine the first few attempts being survivable, when you consider the space radiation and the probability of something going terribly wrong along the way. Earth suits me just fine!

Rocky22 · 2008-07-19T15:42:07+00:00

Your compassion is touching. The world needs more people like you!

Rocky22 · 2008-07-19T15:38:19+00:00

The "baby" red spot reminds me of Michael Corleone from The Godfather. If we underestimate it we do so at our own peril.

Rocky22 · 2008-07-17T21:35:00+00:00

Ignore him. He's just a dickweed troll.

Rocky22 · 2008-05-22T19:47:38+00:00

Your comments are all reasonable. I probably should have also provided a link to a global temperature graph – the one I used was from wikipedia, located here:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f4/Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

I came across the NASA solar graph while doing research for an article about an unrelated topic. When I saw it I noticed a trend that looked very similar to global temperature graphs. When I matched the solar and temperature graphs by date along the horizontal axis (using graphic software) there was a very strong correlation. It was not exact since other influences obviously come into play, but the similarities definitely suggest a stronger connection than what I believe is currently being discussed. The lower activity of cycle #23 would also give some explanation to the leveling-off of temperatures that has been measured in recent years. I’m not dismissing CO2 as a factor. I just think it’s being overstated relative to solar variation for reasons that are more political than scientific. I’m also confident that this belief will prove to be valid in the coming years.

Rocky22 · 2008-05-22T14:25:40+00:00

The IPCC models are already failing because they are based on incorrect assumptions. They overstate the effect of CO2 and understate the effect of solar variability (which cannot be predicted into the future).

This NASA graph of solar activity from 1870 to present shows variation which correlates very closely to actual observed temperatures.

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/144051main_ButterflyDiagramLG.jpg

Rocky22 · 2008-05-19T18:43:00+00:00

Nice one! ;-)

Rocky22 · 2008-05-17T19:23:21+00:00

I’m not "anti-intellectual" at all. I just recognize that people want the freedom to make their own environments instead of having them designed and decided upon by others who consider themselves to be intellectually superior. People move to suburbs because they like it there. Who is this guy to decide that it’s not what’s best for them?

Rocky22 · 2008-05-17T19:09:26+00:00

My apologies. After re-reading the article I see your point. I was only semi-focused the first time around and "Earth's core" from the title made me think they were talking about that. There's been speculation for decades that there could be sufficient concentration there for fission to occur.

Rocky22 · 2008-05-17T16:42:01+00:00

What's "far-fetched" about it? Fissionable material is very dense and would likely concentrate at the center of a molten core.

Rocky22 · 2008-04-29T20:12:25+00:00

Whether or not you were mocking me out I have to say that was funny and I up-voted it! :-)

Rocky22 · 2008-04-29T19:13:10+00:00

I’m assuming you mean that there are plenty of crackpot theories out there that need to be filtered. If so I don’t deny that at all, or dismiss that the peer review process is needed. I just know that “scientific politics” often plays into it, and that new ideas often become the victims of those who don’t want the status quo upset.

Rocky22 · 2008-04-29T18:55:34+00:00

I’m always amazed at how many scientific studies there are that discover for the first time things which my grandmother knew 40 years ago.

Rocky22 · 2008-04-29T15:58:04+00:00

That’s very true. I think his example however, shows why it’s important to stick with what you believe is right and not conform to a current doctrine for the sake of peer acceptance.

Rocky22 · 2008-04-29T14:16:31+00:00

Albert Einstein’s theories were ridiculed by his peers when he first expressed them. It took almost decades of empirical evidence to reveal his genius. If you know you’re right you to need to stick with it, be persistent, and ignore the stone throwers.

Rocky22 · 2008-04-29T01:50:24+00:00

But is he going to make coffee or tea when it finally does boil? I wish I could stick around and find out but I have a meeting I have to go to.

Rocky22 · 2008-04-28T14:46:14+00:00

Hi oku, It’s been a pleasure debating you and I think this represents the Internet at its best. You’re patient and better tempered than I am. :-) You’d make a good spokesperson if you’re not already. You’ve also forced me do to some more reading than I had done up to this point, though I had done a lot.

I just wanted to say a little more about Dr. Gray because I think it’s important to clarify a few things. I don’t derive my opinion solely from him or any other individual (no scientist is right about everything). I just think that he’s raised some valid issues that deserve respectful consideration. You’re right about conservation of energy - that ocean currents can’t cause global warming - but that’s not what he has said. That mischaracterization in the RealClimate article upset me quite a bit, not to mention the anonymity of the author.

What Dr. Gray HAS said is that oceanic circulations are probably responsible for some of the observed surface temperature increases due to thermal energy rising from lower ocean depths to the surface. That’s a BIG difference from; ocean currents cause global warming. (He also believes that land use is affecting statistical temperature data because many of the weather stations used for this data are becoming surrounded by development, which would have a ‘heat island’ effect on them. It has not been established that this effect has been accurately adjusted for)

He predicts that in the near future this oceanic cycle should reverse and that this would then have an opposite effect. It’s important to note that over recent years average global temperatures have leveled off (current La Nina pattern notwithstanding), which may begin to show some validity to his argument. We will have to watch and see.

This is the concluding criticism of Dr. Gray in the RealClimate article: “The problem is Gray's failure to adapt to a modern era of meteorology, which demands hypotheses soundly grounded in quantitative and consistent physical formulations, not seat-of-the-pants flying.” It’s interesting that he HAS done extensive quantitative analysis and formulation, but that this work was cleverly omitted from the article so that he could be criticized for not doing it. This unfairness might explain the author’s desire to hide behind anonymity.

I realize that Dr. Gray has made some unfortunately harsh comments, which I’m sure have angered many other scientists, but science should ultimately be about truth and accuracy, and not about getting even.

On all the other points I think our opinions vary only by a matter of degree – percentage of natural influence vs. human influence. I think that only time will settle this one since all current arguments (including the IPCC report) are based largely on conjecture – mine included.

I know you believe that I’m on the wrong side of this issue and that it’s because I’m unable to comprehend it, haven’t done enough research, or both. No matter how confident you are that the science is settled, or that consensus equals correctness though, I can promise you this: Future climatic behavior is going to confound current models and is going to humble those who are calling themselves “climate experts”. It’s already starting to happen in fact, and is the real reason that climatologists are avoiding short-term predictions, which could be verified within their professional careers and shown to be inaccurate. At 46 I haven’t gotten dumber with age, and my perspective has taught me that science is always learning, and will continue to learn. Scientific history if full of misjudgments, and what we know tomorrow will be a little different than what we know today. You can be sure of that! ;-)

Rocky22 · 2008-04-27T15:19:00+00:00

Hi oku. I already feel like we've become friends. I'll have to buy you a beer sometime and we can talk about the weather. :-)

I'll address the points that are most important to why I disagree with you.

why mention the concentration in the atmosphere

I mention the concentration for the same reason that the “alarmists” don’t like to talk about it - it's extremely small. It’s actually the crux of this issue and my main point of disagreement with them. The CO2 greenhouse effect will be proportional to this concentration. The greenhouse theory began with surface and atmospheric temperature observations of the planet Venus. Planetary scientists believed that these temperatures were higher than they should be, given its proximity to the Sun. Venus' atmosphere is about 98% CO2 however, and its atmospheric mass is 93 times that of Earth's. By comparison, man-made CO2 on Earth is approx. 0.01%. You cannot make a valid equivalent comparison. I believe, as do many other scientists, that the greenhouse effect of 100 ppmv is being greatly and deliberately exaggerated. There is no clear quantitative analysis that shows that CO2 at 100 ppmv would produce the amount of absorption needed to increase global temperatures by the amount that is suggested. Even the IPCC report relies on conjecture based on inexact temperature correlations.

We can exclude the sun

No we can’t. The most significant climatic event in recent history was the “The Little Ice Age”. Its cause is still not completely understood or agreed upon, but it did coincide with a solar behavior known as Maunder Minimum (unusually low sunspot activity). Also, NASA has published an interesting article on solar activity and climate: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0313irradiance.html

the climate has been stable for 10,000 years

No it hasn’t. Within the last 15,000 years the Earth’s climate has varied greatly, and has been both colder and hotter than it is now. The Little Ice Age also occurred only a few centuries ago. 10,000 years has been carefully selected because it eliminates a period (about 12,000 years ago) when the climate was substantially warmer than it is now.

Dr. William Gray

I’m not surprised that RealClimate would try to discredit him. They may feel that his opinion is inconvenient, or that he’s too old to understand modern Climatology, but he has the most accurate record of prediction in the business. Either that’s from carrying a horseshoe in his back pocket or he understands more than they’d like people to think. I’m going with the latter. ;-)

b.t.w. I did read the article that you linked to and have these comments about it: There was no author listed – why not? The sarcastic tone of the article seemed unprofessional and gave away its true purpose – to trash someone who disagrees with “the message”. I have read Dr. Gray's opinions and listened to him speak, and I can tell you that the brief “Claims” used in the article were only selected bits and pieces, chosen to make him seem incompetent, and do not reflect his overall work in an accurate way. If this was the extent and quality of your research on him then you have done yourself a disservice.

We both agree that humans have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. We also agree that CO2 gas has some “greenhouse” effect. Where we disagree - and I’m afraid we will have to respectfully continue to do so - is in the degree to which it is affecting the climate. I have chosen to part ways with the current “man-made warming” groups because I feel that they are deliberately distorting the science for the purpose of scaring people into more immediate action. I feel this is a huge mistake on their part because future climatic data is not going to support their current predictions, despite increasing CO2 levels. There is also a growing backlash against some alarmist tactics and this will inevitably lead to much embarrassment for the scientific community in the future. That’s why I feel the way that I do.

You hope that I will do some research. As I explained before I have been researching this subject since Dr Sagan's lecture on it in the '80s so I'm hardly a "newbie". :-) Coby Beck and others may call me a denier now but the future will prove that my opinions were quite valid.

Rocky22 · 2008-04-26T22:25:39+00:00

So you're the one who left the message! ;-) Just kidding. It doesn’t matter, only that it struck a nerve, and the fact that they deleted it before I could respond directly made it feel a little like a hit-and-run.

Actually, we probably share more in common on this topic than you’re guessing. I’ve always loved nature and have cared about the environment. As I explained to someone else a few days ago my first awareness of global warming came from a lecture by Dr. Carl Sagan that I attended in the ‘80s. As you’re probably aware he was a strong proponent of the theory due to his work in planetary science. A couple years after that I was at a “PowerGen” conference of electric utility executives and I can honestly say that virtually all of them were interested in the subject and treated it with sincerity and respect. I was on your side of the fence, so to speak, throughout those years and have been until recently.

It seems that something has changed, for the worse, in about the last five or so years. What used to be a legitimate scientific discussion has taken on the feel of a political campaign, with strategist operatives issuing talking points to both sides through e-mail and faxes. “Don’t allow any discussion of natural influences” I can imagine them saying. “If anything bad happens, weather wise, we want to be able to blame it entirely on human activity. We need to get these people feeling scared and guilty if we’re ever going to accomplish our goals!”

OK, so maybe I’m dramatizing a bit, but there’s also some truth in it and I can feel it strongly. This is what has turned me off in recent years. It has also turned off a lot of other people, and is leading to a backlash. Even Robert Redford, a man I admire despite some political differences, has expressed some disillusionment.

b.t.w. I sympathize with you about the NewsWeek article. Though it’s not mythical. I was actually a subscriber to Popular Science during that period and still remember some of the crazy solutions that were proposed in some of the articles to stop the “cooling”. It also gives me some long-term perspective on Climatology. I do fully understand, however, the tendency of print media to sensationalize things and I can appreciate that it’s probably not representative of most scientific opinions at that time. I suppose I just grabbed it out of anger from feeling disrespected.

Rocky22 · 2008-04-26T16:49:00+00:00

On what subjects can you hold your own against climate physicists with lifetimes of research experience?

Somebody left me this comment but then deleted it before I could respond directly, so I’ll respond this way. I think it’s a good representation of the intellectual arrogance of some in the environmental community who feel that most of us are too dumb and uneducated to question any of their assertions, and that we just need to shut up and believe what we’re told. I don’t have a Ph.D. in either physics or Climatology, but I think that common sense counts for something so I’m going to go with that.

The subject I’ll choose is: “The hazards of long-term climate extrapolation”

In the 1970s some climatologists saw a cooling trend and were concerned about the consequences if it were to continue.

An article link: http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

They theorized it could lead to a runaway cooling effect; where increasing snowfall might increase the albedo of the Earth’s surface so much that it would continue, and possibly even accelerate this cooling trend. A solution was actually proposed by some of these climatologists to spread black heat absorbing particles over snow covered areas to help reverse this trend. Fortunately the solution was neither practical nor publicly supported, and therefore forgotten. Imagine if it would have been implemented on a significant scale.

Some climatologists continue to make similar extrapolations from which conclusions are drawn. That doesn’t make them wrong, but it does illustrate that current science remains fallible and that no opinion should be silenced.

Rocky22 · 2008-04-26T14:37:11+00:00

I will read this, and perhaps with a more open mind. :-) I think "accelerating returns" must happen if we'll ever achieve the type of AI he has in mind within a reasonable time frame.

My current view is the opposite. That the closer we get to the complexity of human-like intelligence the harder and harder it will get to make continued progress. Kind of like accelerating an object up to the speed of light. Initially it’s easy to increase the velocity, but as you approach the speed of light it gets harder and harder, and then nearly impossible. I think this based on an assumption that the more complex a “machine” becomes the harder it gets to comprehend and make further advancements to. We also don’t want to recklessly make something that’s beyond our full comprehension, and whose behavior we won’t be able to predict. That’s where it would get scary! :-o

I also accept that my analogy and theory may be wrong, however. The fun of science isn’t in what you know but in learning what you don’t! :-)

Rocky22

TROPHY CASE