Friday, December 12, 2008

Magnetized Weather And The Lost Concensus

It looks like the Sun's magnetic field may control climate (which is average weather)and can be used to predict rainfall.

ScienceDaily (Dec. 3, 2008) — The sun’s magnetic field may have a significant impact on weather and climatic parameters in Australia and other countries in the northern and southern hemispheres. According to a study in Geographical Research, the droughts are related to the solar magnetic phases and not the greenhouse effect.

The study uses data from 1876 to the present to examine the correlation between solar cycles and the extreme rainfall in Australia.

It finds that the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) – the basic tool for forecasting variations in global and oceanic patterns – and rainfall fluctuations recorded over the last decade are similar to those in 1914 -1924.

Author Professor Robert G. V. Baker from the School of Environmental Studies, University of New England, Australia, says, “The interaction between the directionality in the Sun’s and Earth’s magnetic fields, the incidence of ultraviolet radiation over the tropical Pacific, and changes in sea surface temperatures with cloud cover – could all contribute to an explanation of substantial changes in the SOI from solar cycle fluctuations. If solar cycles continue to show relational values to climate patterns, there is the potential for more accurate forecasting through to 2010 and possibly beyond.”
Well that will be good. Now if only we can get this new information included in the climate models and see how it affects their predictions we might begin to unravel the climate change controversy.

And speaking of the climate change controversy (What should the optimum temperature of the Earth be? I have yet to find out.) what about Climate Change Blowback?
POZNAN, Poland - The UN global warming conference currently underway in Poland is about to face a serious challenge from over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe who are criticizing the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore. Set for release this week, a newly updated U.S. Senate Minority Report features the dissenting voices of over 650 international scientists, many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN. The report has added about 250 scientists (and growing) in 2008 to the over 400 scientists who spoke out in 2007. The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.
Jeeze that is better than 10 to 1 against. Perhaps the consensus is imaginary. You have to admit it is a good talking point though. In any case science is not about consensus. It is about testing a hypothesis against facts.

It is true that things have been warming up. The question is just how much? Not much at all.
Half of the globe has warmed at least one half of one degree Fahrenheit (0.3 C) in the past 30 years, while half of that - a full quarter of the globe - warmed at least one full degree Fahrenheit (0.6 C)...

Globally, Earth's atmosphere warmed an average of about 0.4 C (or about 0.72 degrees Fahrenheit) in 30 years, according to data collected by sensors aboard NOAA and NASA satellites. More than 80 percent of the globe warmed by some amount.

A map of Earth's climate changes since December 1, 1978, (when satellite sensors started tracking the climate) doesn't show a uniform global warming. It looks more like a thermometer: Hot at the top, cold at the bottom and varying degrees of warm in the middle.

This is a pattern of warming not forecast by any of the major global climate models.

The area of fastest warming is clustered around the Northern Atlantic and Arctic oceans, stretching from Arctic Canada across Greenland to Scandinavia. The greatest warming has been on opposite ends of Greenland, where temperatures have jumped as much as 2.5 C (about 4.6 degrees F) in 30 years.

During the same time, however, much of the Antarctic has cooled, with parts of the continent cooling as much as Greenland has warmed. But areas of cooling were isolated: Only four percent of the globe cooled by at least half of one degree Fahrenheit.

'If you look at the 30-year graph of month-to-month temperature anomalies, the most obvious feature is the series of warmer than normal months that followed the major El Nino Pacific Ocean warming event of 1997-1998,' said Christy. 'Right now we are coming out of one La Nina Pacific Ocean cooling event and we might be heading into another. It should be interesting over the next several years to see whether the post La Nina climate 're-sets' to the cooler seasonal norms we saw before 1997 or the warmer levels seen since then.'
Interesting to see? I was under the impression that the science guys knew what was happening and could tell us well in advance of what to expect. Why would they have to wait and see if their predictions are any good?

I gotta tell you this climate science stuff just bring more disillusionment every day. Wait until we start spending a trillion dollars a year on this stuff. I'm going to be really disillusioned then.

And BTW could some one tell me what the global temperature ought to be and how to get it properly distributed?

H/T LarryD in an e-mail

Cross Posted at Classical Values


Richard Sharpe said...

It is true that things have been warming up. The question is just how much? Not much at all.

I think you have the wrong end of the stick there.

The warming has been real welcome, since it extended growing seasons and allows us to bring more mouths to the table.

The real question is: Is this cyclic behavior or will the warming continue on forever.

The way I see it, based on evidence from the past and lots of other considerations, including that moisture in the atmosphere seems to behave like a thermostat, it is cyclic behavior and we have been on the rising side of a cycle.

LarryD said...

Yeah, and the question I have is, have we entered a cooling cycle, and if so, how long and how cold?