General Climate Change Discussion.......

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

I'll google again and see if I can find any others. Tbh, for some reason, there don't seem to be many papers on the subject...

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V4/N11/C2.php

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/archive/previous_issues/vol3/v3n17/cutting.htm

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=18099

Found these. Not sure they'll be much help, though?

It seems that what IS important is how one puts across their views/arguments and not really what the arguments are. Yes the letter is inflammatory but there are many valid points within. Os I was being a little facitious so apologies there.

Pete

Ref above I have been advocating the power of the moon on climatic influence for a few years now. I very much advocate GWO theory and I do believe that if the moon can pull the sea and lan [yes land rises and sinks too due to lunar pull] then air masses MUST be affected. GWO states that the lunar now being entered will see the pulling south of the jet [that is happening] as an example. I also believe that solar cycles and lunar cycles are intrinsically linked hence global climate cycles are too. Thus if this is the case then it makes perfect sense that RJS planetary magnetic field researchg has to have a an impact too [his forecasts ain't half decent].

Ken Ring was badly derided on here a couple of years ago...funny how the research is showing up as being in realms of reality now. Maybe back to the 1st paragraph it probably is the way one puts his argument across before they are even judged upon their merits? Human nature I suppose

BFTP

Edited July 29, 2009 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[Methuselah]

Re your first paragraph.......is "science" the be-all and end-all? Is that really the only thing that counts, in all of this? I will endeavour to come back with some other things which also count (when my brain is feeling less addled).

Re your second paragraph........I posted a piece from James Hansen the other day, I'm just trying to give both sides a fair crack of the whip. :lol:

'Is Science the be-all and end-all'? In a simple and generalistic sense: no, of course it isn't!

But, wheras Hansen's piece is clearly science-based and therefore requires scientific scrutiny, the Wyndham letter is nothing more than opinion and cannot be scientifically analyzed; it merely represents his opinion, nothing more.

It's not that 'science is everything', it's that you cannot use science to analyze opinion or vice versa. It's like dissecting a rat to discover the anatomy of salamander...

[Chris Knight]

I'll google again and see if I can find any others. Tbh, for some reason, there don't seem to be many papers on the subject...

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V4/N11/C2.php

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/archive/previous_issues/vol3/v3n17/cutting.htm

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=18099

Found these. Not sure they'll be much help, though? :o

Some interesting links there Pete, (and the one above from Claire Perigaud, who is a NASA JPL Ocean-Atmosphere Interaction scientist, no less, but has not published anything on Lunar-ENSO connections AFAIK. She can be contacted here apparently ).

As a matter of interest, what were your Google search terms that brought up these articles?

The middle of the three articles by Dr Robert C. Balling Jr. led me to this interview on this blog - ouch! (reading part II as well)

[Methuselah]

Hi mate. I googled 'lunar climate forcing'. :o

[osmposm]

It seems that what IS important is how one puts across their views/arguments and not really what the arguments are. Yes the letter is inflammatory but there are many valid points within. Os I was being a little facitious so apologies there.

No problem, mate. I think it is important to have good arguments and to present them well and non-inflammatorially. From my perspective Wyndham's letter failed badly on both accounts. On which subject, I am often quite impressed by this "anti" website http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming; good arguments, clear presentation, and within the more scientific pages, at least, a refreshing lack of abuse and rabble-rousing. It's writing like this that really - and I mean that - gives me substantial pause for thought.

.....I have been advocating the power of the moon on climatic influence for a few years now......Ken Ring was badly derided on here a couple of years ago...

I don't have any problem with the possibility of lunar influences; much less sure about planets.

My problem with Ken is that he maintains with almost unmatched arrogance that he knows everything, present and future, when he patently doesn't. He talks palpable historical nonsense - about how plumbers in Britain put pipes on the outside of house in the 1920s & 30s because there were no hard frosts, for example, or that the word "meteorology" derives from a combination of "meteor" & "astrology" - and when this is pointed out, fudges or refuses to answer. He makes extraordinarily precisely-dated predictions for specific areas years in the future; and then (like Piers Corbyn) when he turns out to be wrong, makes out that if you shift the prediction by a week or so, and 300 miles or so, and call sleet in Northern Scotland in late December "exceptional cold", then he was, in fact, absolutely right. And when called on any of this he immediately makes out he is a maligned martyr; the only one to know the truth, while the blind and corrupt scientific establishment denies him his true greatness. Until he learns a little humility, and to recognise when he is demonstrably incorrect, I'm afraid derision is all he deserves.

The same, to a degree, can of course be said by both sides of others - I know some of you think much of the above could have "Hansen" substituted for "Ken" and it would make perfect sense :o . But Ken really is in a league of his own.

[osmposm]

No - I wasn't

I would buy your books if you published them

That's the nicest thing anyone has ever said to me on here (or anywhere recently, for that matter). I don't really know what to say :blush: .

The terrible truth, of course, is that the more hours and hours I waste writing overlong and elegant (but scientifically ignorant) posts on here, the less likely it is that I will ever write a book. I'll let you know if I do. Oh, and....thank you.

Ossie

[Iceberg]

Funnily enough it's something that I've thought NETW should do, "write a book that is".

There is more than enough material on the site, for funny snipets, education stuff, historic accounts of interest.

[Gray-Wolf]

I do get confused by seeing the folk who question the ability for man to exert enough of an influence on the planets workings to make the changes we are witnessing today occur but can see the 0.1% variation in solar or the variation gravity of the moon or Jupiter or Saturn making major impacts.

Either we have a finely balanced system with the potential for cyclical variations driven by offworld events or we have a sturdy climate ststem with many -ve and +ve checks to keep things stable.

I (for one) do not discount the impacts of solar varience or Lunar gravity on the climate system and so must also include the many forcings man loads the system with. I cannot find a way to discount either field has having nil impacts.

[Iceberg]

Some interesting links there Pete, (and the one above from Claire Perigaud, who is a NASA JPL Ocean-Atmosphere Interaction scientist, no less, but has not published anything on Lunar-ENSO connections AFAIK. She can be contacted here apparently ).

As a matter of interest, what were your Google search terms that brought up these articles?

The middle of the three articles by Dr Robert C. Balling Jr. led me to this interview on this blog - ouch! (reading part II as well)

One thing I've never understood is that the daily effects of the moons are far greater than anything else, yet nobody has noticed these HP cells moving in connection to this, unlike the sea.

Secondly the sea moves by a few meters at most given the very large daily changes of the Moon pull, yet we think again that the HP cells can move 1000's of miles ?.

Thirdly can we quantify these gravitational changes. For example a quick look would seem to indicate that the moon exerts a force of 1/300000th of a bodies weight and that the position of the moon on a daily basis varies this effect by one 30th so a 10,000,000th of a bodies weight. With effects this small I am uncertain how it has the effects it's reported to have.

[Methuselah]

I (for one) do not discount the impacts of solar varience or Lunar gravity on the climate system and so must also include the many forcings man loads the system with. I cannot find a way to discount either field has having nil impacts.

I agree, Ian. To me, the whole 'astrology' thing smacks of anti-AGW desperation. IMO, compared to the Solar Constant and the Lunar gravitaional pull, the magnetic fields/gravitaional attractions of Jupiter, Saturn, Mercury and Uranus can only have infinitesimal effects on Earth's climate?

Call me a cynic, but it's rather like worrying over the TV being on 'standby' whilst leaving the heating on all night?

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

That's the nicest thing anyone has ever said to me on here (or anywhere recently, for that matter). I don't really know what to say .

The terrible truth, of course, is that the more hours and hours I waste writing overlong and elegant (but scientifically ignorant) posts on here, the less likely it is that I will ever write a book. I'll let you know if I do. Oh, and....thank you.

Ossie

You are welcome - I can imagine you writing a book I guess!

Also, on the subject of being lighthearted etc, it was intended as an illustration that I like to do exactly that when I want to

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

I do get confused by seeing the folk who question the ability for man to exert enough of an influence on the planets workings to make the changes we are witnessing today occur but can see the 0.1% variation in solar or the variation gravity of the moon or Jupiter or Saturn making major impacts.

Seeing as CO2 is 0.03%[healthy growth level and essential gas] of the atmosphere already there is a gulf.

Pete I would say regarding the light and heating it is the other way round.

Os, I take your point.

BFTP

[Methuselah]

How do you mean, Fred?

[Devonian]

http://climaterealists.com/attachments/database/Royal%20Society%20Letter.pdf

What an exquisitely written letter! What a cracker! I don't know who Mr Wyndham is, but I shall investigate.

The whole letter is interesting, but I shall re-link to it in the Arctic Ice thread, apropos the bit at the end from 1817.

I've just read it. Tbh 'Wyndham' comes across as very angry, irrational, disrespectful and extremist.

I'm amazed you gave such bunkum publicity - what were you thinking?

[Chris Knight]

One thing I've never understood is that the daily effects of the moons are far greater than anything else, yet nobody has noticed these HP cells moving in connection to this, unlike the sea.

Secondly the sea moves by a few meters at most given the very large daily changes of the Moon pull, yet we think again that the HP cells can move 1000's of miles ?.

Thirdly can we quantify these gravitational changes. For example a quick look would seem to indicate that the moon exerts a force of 1/300000th of a bodies weight and that the position of the moon on a daily basis varies this effect by one 30th so a 10,000,000th of a bodies weight. With effects this small I am uncertain how it has the effects it's reported to have.

IMO, Ice, it isn't so much the tides, which you point out have a large daily presence. Their energy is added to by the tidal braking of the moon, about 3 terawatts,(see short article by Carl Wunsch, here), but even this is not where the climatic effect on the atmosphere and oceans is greatest.

It is the Northerly and southerly range of the variations in the moons orbit, together with the elliptical orbit of both the moon and the earth which set up complex harmonics, due to the variations in gravitational pull strength and direction, in the earth's oceans, and atmosphere. These variations each have several periodicities, which is what is being demonstrated in the poster by Claire Perigaud which Pete posted earler, certainly the 14.7 day periodicity of the lunar semi-orbit, and the 18.6 year lunar nodal cycle, and the various important sub-harmonics seen in the data and models set up by those at the JPL, which they apparently feel should be incorporated in the GCMs.

These harmonics, together with geographical features of coastlines are used to calculate tide tables, and predict with remarkable accuracy the time and height of tides for seafarers all around the world. Although in many places around the world there are two high tides and two low tides daily, this is not always the case. In the Southern Ocean around Antarctica, the circumpolar current has no obstacles in the form of continents, so at Ross Island there is usually only a single high tide and a single low tide, and sometimes the variation between high and low tide is as little as a few centimetres, whereas a week later the range may be at it's maximum of just over a metre, and this tide does not follow the phases of the moon.

The tidal harmonic interactions are likely to create standing waves, which would be slow moving, like the Rossby and Kelvin waves found in atmosphere and oceans, and subject to boundary reflections etc., as they reach coastlines, or topographical land features, but would also cover large geographical scales of distance over long periods of time. What is the cause of those gravitational waves by the way?

I would guess that it would need not only considerable processing power, imagination, topographical and cosmological datasets, and programming abilities to model all these factors, as well as a will of steel in sending off grant applications, and ignoring the rejections, and pressing ahead towards determining if these untried theoretical ideas really had a large role in affecting the climate.

One thing though, it once was important enough to calculate the tide tables. It was once important enough to accurately map the sky to determine the exact latitude and longitude from any point on the earth, and important enough to develop accurate chronometers to make this possible. If climate change is as important as some people believe, it surely is important to know as much as possible about what makes it work. I don't know that solar variation has any effect on climate beyond the obvious what energy comes in... part of the argument, but there is no doubt that the moon and the climate are intricately linked, if only by the effects of the variation in the rate of rotation of the earth.

[The Penguin]

No problem, mate. I think it is important to have good arguments and to present them well and non-inflammatorially. From my perspective Wyndham's letter failed badly on both accounts.

My take on the Wyndham diatribe is that there’s a bit of ‘history’ between him and the Royal Society, or the good lord to whom it is addressed, but whether that has adversely effected his choice of argument as well as his tone of argument (and, actually, the presentation isn’t all that perfect,) is very much in the eye of the beholder.

I don't have any problem with the possibility of lunar influences; much less sure about planets.

My problem with Ken is that he maintains with almost unmatched arrogance that he knows everything, present and future, when he patently doesn't. He talks palpable historical nonsense - ... etc. etc. etc. ... Until he learns a little humility, and to recognise when he is demonstrably incorrect, I'm afraid derision is all he deserves.

The same, to a degree, can of course be said by both sides of others - I know some of you think much of the above could have "Hansen" substituted for "Ken" and it would make perfect sense . But Ken really is in a league of his own.

Oh don’t start all that again. Please God, don’t let him start all that again.

[Roo]

Oh don't start all that again. Please God, don't let him start all that again.

Chicken!

Edited July 29, 2009 by Roo

[noggin]

I've just read it. Tbh 'Wyndham' comes across as very angry, irrational, disrespectful and extremist.

I'm amazed you gave such bunkum publicity - what were you thinking?

He didn't come across that way to me, Dev. He came across quite rational and eloquent! I found myself quietly thanking him for putting my thoughts into words much better than I could myself. I also appreciated the historical information at the end.....presumably this could be verified?

I linked to it because I felt that some people on here would appreciate a well-written argument for the "sceptics" and that others might enjoy ripping it to shreds!

[Gray-Wolf]

I do get confused by seeing the folk who question the ability for man to exert enough of an influence on the planets workings to make the changes we are witnessing today occur but can see the 0.1% variation in solar or the variation gravity of the moon or Jupiter or Saturn making major impacts.

Seeing as CO2 is 0.03%[healthy growth level and essential gas] of the atmosphere already there is a gulf.

Pete I would say regarding the light and heating it is the other way round.

Os, I take your point.

BFTP

I see a far bigger 'push' on the climate going on up north as we type. No matter how we got here the 'here' is worth a look surely? We had a post earlier today reminding us that we did not have any type of climate chaos the last time the pole was ice free. From my recollections we also had Crocodilians as far north as Ellesmere island and so would image that our view is limited as to how we went from icy pole to watery pole but it obviously was a long process to bring cold blooded species so far north. We are watching an 'instant collapse' at the pole, look over the past twenty years (and stick with perennial %'s it being the most resilient of the ice types) and tell me we are not seeing a rapid change there.

Why are we still looking at the reasons we didn't lock up when Neddy is offski?

For those who are stuck trying to dismiss the impacts of CO2 "WAKE UP............!!!!". Good , now reassure me that now the energy needed to melt out the pole has nothing else to do what are we to expect?

What Job did the arctic play on our climate and what happens if we strip away that effect?

Could it be that 76's climate shift in the arctic was the PDO letting go it's old influence? could it be that each time we go PDO-ve these days we just presenting more cold bottom waters to be warmed?

Could it really be that the inlet to the Arctic (Bering) is now shipping in ever warmer waters (pushing ever further polewards) whilst ever more of last perennial is finding its way out of the Arctic between the Archipelago and Svalbard having no more 'cold feed' when the NE Pacific goes PDO-ve.

I'd ask the Alaskan Salmon fishing Fleet how they are finding things these days as all of the PDO research I can find was to help them.

[Chris Knight]

ame='BLAST FROM THE PAST' date='29 July 2009 - 15:37 ' timestamp='1248878230' post='1572886']

I see a far bigger 'push' on the climate going on up north as we type. No matter how we got here the 'here' is worth a look surely? We had a post earlier today reminding us that we did not have any type of climate chaos the last time the pole was ice free. From my recollections we also had Crocodilians as far north as Ellesmere island and so would image that our view is limited as to how we went from icy pole to watery pole but it obviously was a long process to bring cold blooded species so far north. We are watching an 'instant collapse' at the pole, look over the past twenty years (and stick with perennial %'s it being the most resilient of the ice types) and tell me we are not seeing a rapid change there.

Why are we still looking at the reasons we didn't lock up when Neddy is offski?

For those who are stuck trying to dismiss the impacts of CO2 "WAKE UP............!!!!". Good , now reassure me that now the energy needed to melt out the pole has nothing else to do what are we to expect?

What Job did the arctic play on our climate and what happens if we strip away that effect?

Could it be that 76's climate shift in the arctic was the PDO letting go it's old influence? could it be that each time we go PDO-ve these days we just presenting more cold bottom waters to be warmed?

Could it really be that the inlet to the Arctic (Bering) is now shipping in ever warmer waters (pushing ever further polewards) whilst ever more of last perennial is finding its way out of the Arctic between the Archipelago and Svalbard having no more 'cold feed' when the NE Pacific goes PDO-ve.

I'd ask the Alaskan Salmon fishing Fleet how they are finding things these days as all of the PDO research I can find was to help them.

"Climate chaos" - always goes together like "infinite universe" and "pathetic excuses", they were never separated, even the ? time when the poles were last "ice-free".

By at least one of the tectonic forecasts, that which we now call the United Kingdom will be located near the North Polar axis at some time in the future, with it's fossil record showing that near tropical conditions existed here in the past, including crocodilians. Ellesmere Island was not at the latitude it was today when "Get me a fish, and make it snappy!" was the order of the day! That was naughty, GW.

However, no-one would disagree that the polar weather for the past few years has removed what once seemed to be a permanent sea ice cover in Arctic waters. It is fascinating to watch what will happen over the next few years, but so far, the results have not been devastating, and the resultant northern hemisphere climatological signals since 2007 have not got anyone wetting their pants. Maybe something will happen this year, but, so far, nothing has tipped. So far the cold has just transferred southwards a bit, if NH winter 2008/9 temperatures in inhabited regions are to be believed, but nothing extreme has been recorded.

So: No Neddy - whatever that means, no "WAKE UP!!!>>>" and no Job, miserable bugg.. that he was, and no more cold bottoms and no more cold feet, thank you very much GW!

Que Sera, Sera so far.

Alaskan salmon fishing is more at risk from farmed salmon than any climatic changes, and possibly a good thing too, a bit like UK coal mining - a dangerous and potentially damaging industry, not only for the environment, but those who worked and lost their lives and children in the industry.

[Gray-Wolf]

Thanks for that Chris ....no I mean it!

"gimme a crocodile sandwich and make it snappy...." indeed!

The past 60 million years has not shifted Ellesmere Island from as far south as you'd like!! (don't the 'gators of the same genus burrow and hibernate when things get chilly?).

If it has taken 150yrs (with a 40yr breather) to slowly impact things this much do you expect change to be more dynamic? The start of the methane release is only just beginning and it is only because we are looking/expecting such that we are geared up to spot it. When the impacts are unmistakable then we will not need such conversations, as it is this is merely the beginning.Ocean current changes? how fast are they? Methinks we expect to much too soon

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

How do you mean, Fred?

Maybe I have digested it wrong Pete but aren't you equating the magnetic field/gravitational effects to a TV on standby and CO2 output as leaving the heating on?

Fred

[Methuselah]

Maybe I have digested it wrong Pete but aren't you equating the magnetic field/gravitational effects to a TV on standby and CO2 output as leaving the heating on?

Fred

Morning Fred,

No, I think it's just meant to be a CO₂ comparison? But, I can't even recall the context!

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Morning Fred,

No, I think it's just meant to be a CO₂ comparison? But, I can't even recall the context!

Hi Pete

I have now digested it right, it was nowt to do with CO2 . Its comparison between solar/lunar effects to planetary effects on Earth you were referring to. Forget my previous.

Fred [CO2 obsessed BFTP]

[kippure]

Edited July 30, 2009 by kippure