Sell your sailplane before 2030 [Archive]

Martin Gregorie[_5_]

July 13th 15, 10:49 PM

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-activity-earth-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.

> If things do get worse, then hopefully by 2030 we'll have got better at
> scratching around in weak conditions, so we'll be sorted.
>
Could be a problem if reduced solar energy stabilises the atmosphere. But
that seems unlikely, simply because I've never seen any reports of a
large drop in the population of raptors and other land-based soaring
birds during the Maunder Minimum. If soaring had gotten difficult then,
I'd have expected it to have affected birds that find food by soaring.

--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[email protected]

July 14th 15, 02:51 AM

If anyone wants to dump a new condition Arcus I'll give you $10K for it....you deliver of course!!

Ventus_a

July 14th 15, 04:47 AM

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-activity-earth-climate.html)

If things do get worse, then hopefully by 2030 we'll have got better at scratching around in weak conditions, so we'll be sorted.

Better look after that turbo David, it might come in handy when the rest of us can't stay up anymore

:-) Colin

Bob Kuykendall

July 14th 15, 06:39 AM

"We're gonna need a bigger wing!"

David Hirst

July 14th 15, 09:48 PM

> Better look after that turbo David, it might come in handy when the rest
> of us can't stay up anymore

Surely having wingtips in two different time-zones will help you too, Colin :-)

Tony[_5_]

July 15th 15, 02:52 AM

i don't care what the temperature is as long as there isn't an inversion!

Ventus_a

July 15th 15, 05:03 AM

Better look after that turbo David, it might come in handy when the rest
of us can't stay up anymore

Surely having wingtips in two different time-zones will help you too, Colin :-)

It does help very much David but I got the span because I couldn't buy skill :-)

David Hirst

July 15th 15, 08:48 PM

> I got the span because I couldn't buy
> skill :-)

Why do you think I got the turbo? To paraphrase a much-bandied aphorism, to give another option for my superior judgement to avoid situations that may require the use of my superior skill <cough!> Now I just have to aquire some superior skills...

>i don't care what the temperature is as long as there isn't an inversion!
+1!! But a good inversion plus good winds sometimes means good wave.

Bruce Hoult

July 17th 15, 05:38 AM

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-activity-earth-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_Svensmark#Cosmoclimatology_theory_of_climat 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.

Dan Marotta

July 17th 15, 03:56 PM

OMG... Not... global... COOLING! <snic, snic>

On 7/16/2015 10:38 PM, Bruce Hoult wrote:
> 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-activity-earth-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_Svensmark#Cosmoclimatology_theory_of_climat 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.

--
Dan Marotta

Bruce Hoult

July 19th 15, 10:09 AM

On Saturday, July 18, 2015 at 2:57:05 AM UTC+12, Dan Marotta wrote:
> OMG...* Not...* global...* COOLING!* <snic, snic>*

I think the temperature goes up and down quite a large amount (10+ C) due to a variety of natural causes, and yet stays in a bounded range without diverging to a desert world or an ice world.

Somehow mammals have survived 200 million years and many cycles of this. Even great apes have survived 40 million years of it, without any technology.

I guess one school is that we're just plain lucky that things haven't exceeded that range, and a small extra push could send us over, to a 2nd Mars or Venus. Frankly, I don't believe it.

I think there must be some natural negative feedback "thermostat" that we don't understand yet.

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

July 20th 15, 05:08 AM

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-activity-earth-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_Svensmark#Cosmoclimatology_theory_of_climat 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/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming-intermediate.htm

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"

https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Dec 2014a" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm

http://soaringsafety.org/prevention/Guide-to-transponders-in-sailplanes-2014A.pdf

Dan Marotta

July 20th 15, 05:59 PM

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?

On 7/19/2015 10:08 PM, 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-activity-earth-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_Svensmark#Cosmoclimatology_theory_of_climat 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/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming-intermediate.htm
>
>
>

--
Dan Marotta

[email protected]

July 20th 15, 08:09 PM

On Monday, July 20, 2015 at 12:59:45 PM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
> 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).*
> Now the human population is roughty 10.8 billion people (source)!
>
>
>
> I don't suppose all those people blowing CO2 into the atmosphere has
> anything to do with this?
>
>
> Dan Marotta

That's a good question! The CO2 that people exhale is the product of
metabolism; the food that they eat is combined with Oxygen to produce
water, CO2, and energy. So, it's Carbon that was in the system to
start with.

Dan Marotta

July 20th 15, 10:33 PM

The earth is a closed system except for meteors, asteroids, etc. We are
all made of natural resources, we consume them, and we excrete them.

I say more Ferraris and fewer people!

On 7/20/2015 1:09 PM, wrote:
> On Monday, July 20, 2015 at 12:59:45 PM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
>> 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).
>> Now the human population is roughty 10.8 billion people (source)!
>>
>>
>>
>> I don't suppose all those people blowing CO2 into the atmosphere has
>> anything to do with this?
>>
>>
>> Dan Marotta
> That's a good question! The CO2 that people exhale is the product of
> metabolism; the food that they eat is combined with Oxygen to produce
> water, CO2, and energy. So, it's Carbon that was in the system to
> start with.

--
Dan Marotta

SoaringXCellence

July 20th 15, 10:33 PM

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

Bruce Hoult

July 20th 15, 10:38 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-activity-earth-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_Svensmark#Cosmoclimatology_theory_of_climat 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/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming-intermediate.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.

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

July 20th 15, 10:52 PM

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-not-us-intermediate.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/breathing-co2-carbon-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/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Dec 2014a" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm

http://soaringsafety.org/prevention/Guide-to-transponders-in-sailplanes-2014A.pdf

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

July 21st 15, 03:10 AM

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-activity-earth-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_Svensmark#Cosmoclimatology_theory_of_climat 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/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming-intermediate.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/stories2015/noaa-analysis-journal-science-no-slowdown-in-global-warming-in-recent-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/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Dec 2014a" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm

http://soaringsafety.org/prevention/Guide-to-transponders-in-sailplanes-2014A.pdf

Paul B[_2_]

July 21st 15, 06:50 AM

"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-activity-earth-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_Svensmark#Cosmoclimatology_theory_of_climat 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/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming-intermediate.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/stories2015/noaa-analysis-journal-science-no-slowdown-in-global-warming-in-recent-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/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
> - "Transponders in Sailplanes - Dec 2014a" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm
>
> http://soaringsafety.org/prevention/Guide-to-transponders-in-sailplanes-2014A.pdf

Bruce Hoult

July 21st 15, 02:08 PM

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.

Steve Leonard[_2_]

July 21st 15, 04:03 PM

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

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

July 22nd 15, 12:00 AM

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/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Dec 2014a" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm

http://soaringsafety.org/prevention/Guide-to-transponders-in-sailplanes-2014A.pdf

July 22nd 15, 05:14 AM

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

https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2015/06/04/noaancdcs-new-pause-buster-paper-a-laughable-attempt-to-create-warming-by-adjusting-past-data/

Even the IPCC said there was a hiatus.

Tom

David Hirst

July 22nd 15, 10:06 AM

>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

Brad[_2_]

July 22nd 15, 05:58 PM

so, even though our gliders are solar powered, we still need to get airborne. What will we as pilots be willing to give up to reduce "climate change"?

No more tows behind petrol powered towplanes? No more self-launchers with 2-stroke engines?

I look at the issue as what do I have to stop doing, give up, who do I write a check to and how much will it be to "reduce" my climate change contributions?

Brad
GK

lynn

July 22nd 15, 06:22 PM

On Monday, July 13, 2015 at 8:18:08 AM UTC-7, Soartech wrote:
> Unless you have ridge or wave nearby.
> A huge reduction in solar output is predicted to occur by then.
> http://phys.org/news/2015-07-irregular-heartbeat-sun-driven-dynamo.html

Just curious---thousands of years ago there was 2 mile thick ice on the property I own here in western Washington. Since this no longer is the case, doesn't it appear we have been in a global warming situation since way before the industrial revolution. Could we blame this whole thing starting on the original inhabitants of earth?

David Hirst

July 22nd 15, 08:31 PM

> Just curious---thousands of years ago there was 2 mile thick ice on the property I own here in western Washington. Since this no longer is the case, doesn't it appear we have been in a global warming situation since way before the industrial revolution. Could we blame this whole thing starting on the original inhabitants of earth?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-thawed-the-last-ice-age/

Probably not due to our Bedrock ancestors driving Stone Utility Vehicles, or herds of mammoths belching and breaking wind.

If by "original inhabitants" you mean phytoplankton, they probably helped cause some big ice ages:

http://russgeorge.net/2014/03/22/new-study-confirms-extra-iron-oceans-produced-last-ice-age/

DH

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

July 22nd 15, 09:20 PM

lynn wrote on 7/22/2015 10:22 AM:
> On Monday, July 13, 2015 at 8:18:08 AM UTC-7, Soartech wrote:
>> Unless you have ridge or wave nearby. A huge reduction in solar
>> output is predicted to occur by then.
>> http://phys.org/news/2015-07-irregular-heartbeat-sun-driven-dynamo.html
>
>>
> Just curious---thousands of years ago there was 2 mile thick ice on
> the property I own here in western Washington. Since this no longer
> is the case, doesn't it appear we have been in a global warming
> situation since way before the industrial revolution. Could we blame
> this whole thing starting on the original inhabitants of earth?

No, the recent and rapid rise in temperature is driven by the recent
rise (and rapid) rise in CO2 in the atmosphere, due to the Industrial
Revolution. The original inhabitants are blameless.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"

https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Dec 2014a" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm

http://soaringsafety.org/prevention/Guide-to-transponders-in-sailplanes-2014A.pdf

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

July 22nd 15, 09:21 PM

Brad wrote on 7/22/2015 9:58 AM:
> so, even though our gliders are solar powered, we still need to get
> airborne. What will we as pilots be willing to give up to reduce
> "climate change"?
>
> No more tows behind petrol powered towplanes? No more self-launchers
> with 2-stroke engines?
>
> I look at the issue as what do I have to stop doing, give up, who do
> I write a check to and how much will it be to "reduce" my climate
> change contributions?
>
> Brad GK

Where are all the winch fans to promote winching? You can even buy solar
powered winches, but even gas or diesel winches are use lots less fuel
than towplanes. Gasoline powered self-launchers are also relatively
efficient; eg, my ASH 26E uses about 0.5 gallons to taxi out and climb
to 2000AGL. A two-stroke would not use much more, a towplane is will use
closer two 2 gallons.

Electric self-launchers are available, too :^)

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"

https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Dec 2014a" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm

http://soaringsafety.org/prevention/Guide-to-transponders-in-sailplanes-2014A.pdf

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

July 22nd 15, 09:37 PM

2G wrote on 7/21/2015 9:14 PM:
> Here is another view of NOAA's declaration that the hiatus is bogus:
>
> https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2015/06/04/noaancdcs-new-pause-buster-paper-a-laughable-attempt-to-create-warming-by-adjusting-past-data/
>
> Even the IPCC said there was a hiatus.
>
> Tom

That's quite lengthy article - can you summarize the most important
points it makes about the NOAA paper?

My understanding is the IPCC "hiatus" remarks apply to 2012 and earlier
data, unlike the NOAA paper, which includes the hotter years of 2013 and
2014. But even if NOAA is wrong and the older IPCC report remarks are
correct, the IPCC still shows the global temperature climbing at half
the previous; ie, the "hiatus" doesn't refer to a lack of warming, only
a reduction in the rate, and using "hiatus" indicates the past higher
rate of rise is expected to resume.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"

https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Dec 2014a" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm

http://soaringsafety.org/prevention/Guide-to-transponders-in-sailplanes-2014A.pdf

Dan Marotta

July 23rd 15, 01:39 AM

Please give us a clue as to the contribution of volcanoes and how we can
mitigate their effects.

On 7/22/2015 2:20 PM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> lynn wrote on 7/22/2015 10:22 AM:
>> On Monday, July 13, 2015 at 8:18:08 AM UTC-7, Soartech wrote:
>>> Unless you have ridge or wave nearby. A huge reduction in solar
>>> output is predicted to occur by then.
>>> http://phys.org/news/2015-07-irregular-heartbeat-sun-driven-dynamo.html
>>
>>>
>> Just curious---thousands of years ago there was 2 mile thick ice on
>> the property I own here in western Washington. Since this no longer
>> is the case, doesn't it appear we have been in a global warming
>> situation since way before the industrial revolution. Could we blame
>> this whole thing starting on the original inhabitants of earth?
>
> No, the recent and rapid rise in temperature is driven by the recent
> rise (and rapid) rise in CO2 in the atmosphere, due to the Industrial
> Revolution. The original inhabitants are blameless.
>

--
Dan Marotta

lynn

July 23rd 15, 01:51 AM

On Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 1:21:19 PM UTC-7, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> lynn wrote on 7/22/2015 10:22 AM:
> > On Monday, July 13, 2015 at 8:18:08 AM UTC-7, Soartech wrote:
> >> Unless you have ridge or wave nearby. A huge reduction in solar
> >> output is predicted to occur by then.
> >> http://phys.org/news/2015-07-irregular-heartbeat-sun-driven-dynamo.html
> >
> >>
> > Just curious---thousands of years ago there was 2 mile thick ice on
> > the property I own here in western Washington. Since this no longer
> > is the case, doesn't it appear we have been in a global warming
> > situation since way before the industrial revolution. Could we blame
> > this whole thing starting on the original inhabitants of earth?
>
> No, the recent and rapid rise in temperature is driven by the recent
> rise (and rapid) rise in CO2 in the atmosphere, due to the Industrial
> Revolution. The original inhabitants are blameless.
>
> --
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
> email me)
> - "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
>
> https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
> - "Transponders in Sailplanes - Dec 2014a" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm
>
> http://soaringsafety.org/prevention/Guide-to-transponders-in-sailplanes-2014A.pdf

Still curious what caused the ice to melt. Any estimate as to when I can start a banana plantation here in SW Washington state? Also, kind of looking forward to launching my Electro 2 from Chehalis and routinely finding good lift immediately so I can soar the Cascades all day and return without running out of battery.

WAVEGURU

July 23rd 15, 02:32 AM

The thing about all these arguments above is that very few of us ever read anything that opposes the opinion that we have already formed, and no matter what anybody says or links to, NOBODY is going to change their mind and we are going to think those that think differently than we do are idiots, so why bother saying anything? By the way, I think we are definitely changing the weather with the dinasours we burn, and everybody that denies this is an idiot....

Bruce Hoult

July 23rd 15, 04:08 AM

On Thursday, July 23, 2015 at 1:32:09 PM UTC+12, Waveguru wrote:
> The thing about all these arguments above is that very few of us ever read anything that opposes the opinion that we have already formed, and no matter what anybody says or links to, NOBODY is going to change their mind and we are going to think those that think differently than we do are idiots, so why bother saying anything? By the way, I think we are definitely changing the weather with the dinasours we burn, and everybody that denies this is an idiot....

That's trivially true, in the sense that NO ONE denies that we are having some non-zero effect. Claims that sceptics say we don't have an effect, or that sceptics believe that temperatures have not increased (and faster from 1975-2000 or so) are pure lies or ignorance.

At question is:

- the proportion of the natural vs the human made effects in the past

- the accuracy or otherwise of future projections

- whether the effects of a few degrees increase (if they should eventuate) would overall be beneficial or harmful

- if temperatures continue to increase (not a given) AND are overall harmful (not a given), is is economically more efficient to try to prevent such changes, or to adapt to them?

In the nature of the logic in the arguments made, the alarmists have to prove every one of their linked chain of claims to be valid. The sceptics only have to show any one of them to be false.

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

July 23rd 15, 04:08 AM

Dan Marotta wrote on 7/22/2015 5:39 PM:
> Please give us a clue as to the contribution of volcanoes and how we can
> mitigate their effects.

Volcanoes contribute less than 1% the amount the fossil fuels contribute.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm

I don't think there is anything that can be done directly to prevent
volcanic emissions, so mitigation would require "carbon capture" of some
sort, such vegetation, or man-made systems like those being developed
for that fossil fuel power plants.

> On 7/22/2015 2:20 PM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>> lynn wrote on 7/22/2015 10:22 AM:
>>> On Monday, July 13, 2015 at 8:18:08 AM UTC-7, Soartech wrote:
>>>> Unless you have ridge or wave nearby. A huge reduction in solar
>>>> output is predicted to occur by then.
>>>> http://phys.org/news/2015-07-irregular-heartbeat-sun-driven-dynamo.html
>>>
>>>>
>>> Just curious---thousands of years ago there was 2 mile thick ice on
>>> the property I own here in western Washington. Since this no longer
>>> is the case, doesn't it appear we have been in a global warming
>>> situation since way before the industrial revolution. Could we blame
>>> this whole thing starting on the original inhabitants of earth?
>>
>> No, the recent and rapid rise in temperature is driven by the recent
>> rise (and rapid) rise in CO2 in the atmosphere, due to the Industrial
>> Revolution. The original inhabitants are blameless.
>>

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"

https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Dec 2014a" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm

http://soaringsafety.org/prevention/Guide-to-transponders-in-sailplanes-2014A.pdf

[email protected]

July 23rd 15, 04:12 AM

On Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 5:37:30 PM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
> See, I told you the liberal mind cannot tolerate argument.* "Accept
> my hysterical claims or I'll call you names."* Call me all the names
> you want, I don't care.* Neither do I believe any of the so called
> "science" behind all the claims that we're going to sizzle soon.*
> I'll bet you nothing bad climate-wise happens in my life time.* If
> I'm wrong, I'll give you my glider!* BTW, you should get a new spell
> checker.

I'll be first to admit that there's a LOT of politics here because the only way to get a big chunk of the world's population to start planning for the upcoming changes will need governments to "force" us to use more expensive energy and plan ahead for the potential starvation and flooding events that will be caused by *miniscule* changes in our global temperature.

I also agree that most scientists are poor communicators, as am I, so the message may be poorly presented. While most of the opposition consists of smooth talking politicians and marketing professionals (think tobacco).

So is the "science" behind our medicine and technology also being performed by "amateurs"? Why are climate scientists, who have spent decades to learn how to interpret new data as it comes in (and change their interpretation and models as necessary) too "stupid" to see the "questions" that doubters pose? Is it perhaps that nearly all these "questions" have been rebutted to death?

When some pedestrian insists that we stay up because of the wind and refuses to understand how soaring really works, might you eventually shrug and walk away. Perhaps many climate scientists feel the same way to the doubters?

Dan, I consider you a good friend, but please consider taking a look at some of this (horrors) "liberal" rhetoric and give it some thought without letting someone else filter it for you.

5Z

[email protected]

July 23rd 15, 05:57 AM

When I was a kid, at the height of the cold war, we were told that it was not the blast effects or fallout from an all-out nuclear war that would be most devastating, but rather the nuclear winter that would follow. Sand and dust lifted into the air by the explosions would remain suspended in the atmosphere for years, covering the entire globe and blocking the sun. This would lead to the demise of plants which depend on photosynthesis and, in turn, the animals that eat them. The surface of the earth would be cold and dark. Rivers, lakes and oceans would freeze.
Perhaps just a dozen or so nukes, as opposed to the complete arsenals of the U.S. and soviets, would be sufficient to drive temperatures down a couple degrees and buy us another hundred years or so to utilize our bounty of cheap and plentiful fossil fuels. Perhaps we can find someplace to detonate these weapons that needs to be nuked anyway, preferably someplace with a loose sandy soil...
Mike Koerner

Bruce Hoult

July 23rd 15, 08:37 AM

On Thursday, July 23, 2015 at 4:57:50 PM UTC+12, wrote:
> When I was a kid, at the height of the cold war, we were told that it was not the blast effects or fallout from an all-out nuclear war that would be most devastating, but rather the nuclear winter that would follow. Sand and dust lifted into the air by the explosions would remain suspended in the atmosphere for years, covering the entire globe and blocking the sun. This would lead to the demise of plants which depend on photosynthesis and, in turn, the animals that eat them. The surface of the earth would be cold and dark. Rivers, lakes and oceans would freeze.
> Perhaps just a dozen or so nukes, as opposed to the complete arsenals of the U.S. and soviets, would be sufficient to drive temperatures down a couple degrees and buy us another hundred years or so to utilize our bounty of cheap and plentiful fossil fuels. Perhaps we can find someplace to detonate these weapons that needs to be nuked anyway, preferably someplace with a loose sandy soil...

ISIS territory?

Unfortunately, nuclear winter was pretty much a lie as well. Or, putting the best possible spin on it, the output of a too-simplistic (in fact 1-dimensional) model.