On Apr 24, 7:57*am, Paul Hyett wrote:
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 at 17:12:16, wrote in
uk.sci.weather :

Is there any *independent*
corroboration of a reduced solar output during 1645-1715? * In any
case a climatic deterioration had set in well before the Maunder
Minimum. * As far as I know there is no verification of the sun's
output being reduced during that period and futhermore it seems that
there is very little variation in solar output during a solar cycle or
from one cycle to the next, regardless of its intensity. *It would be
nice if someone could *confirm this, or deny it, come to that. *This
is like trying to get blood out of a stone and there seems to be
widespread ignorance and confusion on the issue.

I presume historic solar output is measured by some indirect means, as
with temperatures & ice-cores.

Unfortunately that doesn't tell you the solar output but only the
temperature on the earth.

However, it's possible sunspot levels *were* logged as early as the 17th
century - IIRC observing the sun was a major contribution to Galileo's blindness.

As to poor old Galileo it's interesting that he observed sunspots but
he cannot have measured the brightness, there being no means of doing
so at the time. In any case the figure required is that for solar
radiation above the atmosphere.


Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

On 23 Apr, 12:08, Alastair wrote:
Which facts are you querying? Pete's use of -40C in winter and 0C as the
average temps for the NP seems reasonable to me. The only other figures
he's used are your own.

I am not querying Pete's values. What I want to know is what his
source is, so that I can use a similar one without fear of being told
my source is unacceptable.

But -40C seems to me more typical of Siberia and Antarctica rather
than the Arctic where I would have thought the average was closer to
-20C.

In fact 20 C is the average of 0C and -40C quoted in Wikipedia for
winter temperatures. See:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_the_Arctic

What I would suggest as the mistake Pete has made is to apply your 24C
Polar correction equally across Winter and Summer. Such a rise - or even a
much smaller one - would see most of the Arctic Ocean ice-free throughout
the year. This lack of ice in Winter could mean a rise of about 40C to
near 0c but Summer temperatures, to achieve the 24C annual rise could rise
to 8C.

My figures were very much "finger in the air." *They were only
intended to show it was feasible for alligators to return to the
Arctic.http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.c...CE&Params=A1AR...

One could analyse the polar amplification that has happened over the
last 100 years, but then as they say "Past performance is no guide to
the future."

The only projection I have for distribution of temperatures is over thirty
years old - I need to get a bit more up-to-date - and, for a 3C global
rise, has local rises of around 2C from the equator to near 40N and 10C
North of 80N. The UK latitude would be 3.5-4C.

Interesting, and it roughly bears out my crude figures of equatorial
warming equal to the global value, double the equatorial warming in
the UK, and double again in the Arctic.

Oh well I have dug out some facts after all, wasting a morning
preparing this post :-(. *Never mind.

Cheers, Alastair.

Alastair,
I'm not out to rubbish your figures - all I'm doing is
questioning the alligator idea. Firstly, temperatures at the North
Pole certainly average around -40 degs in late Winter. Just look at
the observations - even now in late April I see a few -23 degs obs.
The round about zero for mid Summer is also correct. I understand the
concept of global warming, I just wonder if the maths in the computer
models is correct. Just because the computer 'says so' doesn't mean to
say it is gospel. Obviously climate models are very different from
that which is used to predict the next few days weather but the chaos
idea doesn't go away. One tiny error in the climate model could easily
produce a totally different prectiction from reality. Your 24 deg rise
leading to summer sea temps at the North Pole of 24 degs just seems
too unlikely to be true. Heaven knows what the sea temp at my local
beach at Margate will be then!!!

In article 62bd8fe0-a139-4c11-a3fd-7203b2162236
@c9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com, says...

Interesting, and it roughly bears out my crude figures of equatorial
warming equal to the global value, double the equatorial warming in
the UK, and double again in the Arctic.


This has broken my logic chip. The average global increase is roughly
equal to the lowest local increase?

--
Alan LeHun

Pete L wrote:

Alastair,
I'm not out to rubbish your figures - all I'm doing is
questioning the alligator idea. Firstly, temperatures at the North
Pole certainly average around -40 degs in late Winter. Just look at
the observations - even now in late April I see a few -23 degs obs.
The round about zero for mid Summer is also correct. I understand the
concept of global warming, I just wonder if the maths in the computer
models is correct. Just because the computer 'says so' doesn't mean to
say it is gospel. Obviously climate models are very different from
that which is used to predict the next few days weather but the chaos
idea doesn't go away. One tiny error in the climate model could easily
produce a totally different prectiction from reality. Your 24 deg rise
leading to summer sea temps at the North Pole of 24 degs just seems
too unlikely to be true. Heaven knows what the sea temp at my local
beach at Margate will be then!!!

The idea that the open Arctic Ocean would be ice-free through the winter
once total melting occurs in summer pre-dates computer models. I mentioned
elsewhere how I think the temperature would react in these circumstances. In
any case, it's not "the" climate model - there have been many different ones
over the past thirty-odd years.

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks., UK. E-mail: newsman not newsboy
I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.

On Apr 24, 7:10*pm, Alan LeHun wrote:
In article 62bd8fe0-a139-4c11-a3fd-7203b2162236
@c9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com, says...

Interesting, and it roughly bears out my crude figures of equatorial
warming equal to the global value, double the equatorial warming in
the UK, and double again in the Arctic.

This has broken my logic chip. The average global increase is roughly
equal to the lowest local increase?

--
Alan LeHun

Alan,

The area from 30S to 30N (what I am calling the tropics) covers
roughly 50 % of the area of the globe, so it does warm by a similar
amount to the average. The polar region say 60N to 90N is much
smaller so even though the temperature change there is much greater it
does not affect the average by much. See Graham's figures.

Pete,

You still have not given me a URL for the data you are using. I am
afraid I am too lazy to go looking for that data myself :-(

But you mention the North Pole, (which as far as I know does not have
a permanent weather station,) and that is not the only Arctic
location. Alligators do not live in the open ocean, they live in
rivers. For instance those that will form in the north of Ellesmere
Island where fossils of Alligators have been found.

The Canadian Encyclopaedia says :

Ellesmere Island

Some 55 million years ago, during the early Eocene Epoch, ELLESMERE
Island in Canada's eastern High Arctic was warm and ice-free. It was
also home to lush lowland forests and swamps inhabited by alligators,
giant tortoises, snakes, lizards, and a host of mammals that included
primates, tapirs, hippo-like Coryphodon, and large, rhino-like
brontotheres.

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.c...=A1ARTA0010389

That article concludes:

The Eocene fossil animals and plants preserved in rocks on Ellesmere
Island comprise a striking example of a high-latitude "greenhouse"
world during the warmest interval in all of Cenozoic time. New
paleoclimate studies indicate that Mean Annual Temperatures (MAT) on
Ellesmere Island during the early Eocene probably ranged from about 10
to 12 ºC, a far cry from today's MAT of about -20 º C. As our concerns
about today's GLOBAL WARMING are heightened, the fossils of Ellesmere
Island will play an ever-important role in our understanding and
ability to predict the future impacts of global warming on Earth's
life and environments.

In other words, it is not ridiculous to imagine that if CO2 levels
reach those of the Eocene then we could find Alligators returning to
the Arctic. It doesn't really matter whether the temperature at the
North Pole can drop as low as 40 C or not. If the sea ice melts then
we will be in an entirely new ball game.

Cheers, Alastair.

On 25 Apr, 14:52, Alastair wrote:
On Apr 24, 7:10*pm, Alan LeHun wrote:

In article 62bd8fe0-a139-4c11-a3fd-7203b2162236
@c9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com, says...

Interesting, and it roughly bears out my crude figures of equatorial
warming equal to the global value, double the equatorial warming in
the UK, and double again in the Arctic.

This has broken my logic chip. The average global increase is roughly
equal to the lowest local increase?

--
Alan LeHun

Alan,

The area from 30S to 30N (what I am calling the tropics) covers
roughly 50 % of the area of the globe, so it does warm by a similar
amount to the average. *The polar region say 60N to 90N is much
smaller so even though the temperature change there is much greater it
does not affect the average by much. See Graham's figures.

Pete,

You still have not given me a URL for the data you are using. *I am
afraid I am too lazy to go looking for that data myself :-(

But you mention the North Pole, (which as far as I know does not have
a permanent weather station,) and that is not the only Arctic
location. *Alligators do not live in the open ocean, they live in
rivers. For instance those that will form in the north of Ellesmere
Island where fossils of Alligators have been found.

The Canadian Encyclopaedia says :

Ellesmere Island

Some 55 million years ago, during the early Eocene Epoch, ELLESMERE
Island in Canada's eastern High Arctic was warm and ice-free. It was
also home to lush lowland forests and swamps inhabited by alligators,
giant tortoises, snakes, lizards, and a host of mammals that included
primates, tapirs, hippo-like Coryphodon, and large, rhino-like
brontotheres.

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.c...CE&Params=A1AR....

That article concludes:

The Eocene fossil animals and plants preserved in rocks on Ellesmere
Island comprise a striking example of a high-latitude "greenhouse"
world during the warmest interval in all of Cenozoic time. New
paleoclimate studies indicate that Mean Annual Temperatures (MAT) on
Ellesmere Island during the early Eocene probably ranged from about 10
to 12 ºC, a far cry from today's MAT of about -20 º C. As our concerns
about today's GLOBAL WARMING are heightened, the fossils of Ellesmere
Island will play an ever-important role in our understanding and
ability to predict the future impacts of global warming on Earth's
life and environments.

In other words, it is not ridiculous to imagine that if CO2 levels
reach those of the Eocene then we could find Alligators returning to
the Arctic. It doesn't really matter whether the temperature at the
North Pole can drop as low as 40 C or not. *If the sea ice melts then
we will be in an entirely new ball game.

Cheers, Alastair.

Try http://www.uni-koeln.de/math-nat-fak...NNWWarctis.gif
for the latest Arctic observations.

On Apr 24, 12:12*am, wrote:
On Apr 23, 1:33*am, Alastair wrote:



* * * * How much of a correlation is there between solar activity,
i.e. sunspots and solar flares etc, and solar output. *No-one ever
seems to explain this and I have a suspicion that there is lot more to
it than merely assuming the sun is hotter when it is active, i.e.
spotty, and cooler when quiescent. *The *coincidence of the Maunder
Minimum and a particularly cold period in Europe may be no more than
that, a coincidence. *It was not possible to measure solar output in
the 17th century but are there any modern measurements that show that
the sun could have been cooler? *Should we assume that fewer spots
equals dimmer?

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

It was thought in the 20th Century that since sunspots are dark then
more of them would mean less radiation and a cooler world. *But that
seems to be the converse of the truth. *The Maunder Minimum, a name
chosen for its alliteration, was given as an example of why less
sunspots means a cooler world.

The idea that the radiation from the sun is a constant (solar
constant) is based on an 18th Century concept that God created the
world and then let it like run a clockwork machine, al la Newton.

Cheers, Alastair.

* * * *That hardly answers my question. * Is there any *independent*
corroboration of a reduced solar output during 1645-1715? * In any
case a climatic deterioration had set in well before the Maunder
Minimum. * As far as I know there is no verification of the sun's
output being reduced during that period and futhermore it seems that
there is very little variation in solar output during a solar cycle or
from one cycle to the next, regardless of its intensity. *It would be
nice if someone could *confirm this, or deny it, come to that. *This
is like trying to get blood out of a stone and there seems to be
widespread ignorance and confusion on the issue.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

Tudor,

At the last Wednesday Meeting of the RMetSoc the FRS speakers were
using extracts from Wikipedia in their presentations.

If you look up Maunder Minimum there, you will find this answer to
your question:

Little Ice Age

The Maunder Minimum coincided with the middle — and coldest part — of
the Little Ice Age, during which Europe and North America, and perhaps
much of the rest of the world, were subjected to bitterly cold
winters. Whether there is a causal connection between low sunspot
activity and cold winters is the subject of ongoing debate (e.g., see
Global Warming).

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

The relationship between sunspots ant their effect on the Earth is
described in the Solar Cycle article:

Solar irradiance

The total solar irradiance (TSI) is the amount of solar radiative
energy incident on the Earth's upper atmosphere. TSI variations were
undetectable until satellite observations began in late 1978. The
major finding of satellite observations is that TSI varies in phase
with the solar magnetic activity cycle[6] with an amplitude of about
0.1 % and an average value of about 1366 W/m2. Variations about the
average up to - 0.3 % are caused by large sunspot groups and of + 0.05
% by large faculae and bright network on a week to 10 day timescale[7]
(see TSI variation graphics [1].) The sunspot cycle variation of 0.1%
has small but detectable affects on the Earth's climate [8]. TSI
variations over the several decades of continuous satellite
observation show small but detectable trends[9][10] that if sustained
on longer timescales could be a significant forcing for climate
change.

TSI is higher at solar maximum, even though sunspots are darker
(cooler) than the average photosphere. This is caused by magnetized
structures other than sunspots during solar maxima, such as faculae
and active elements of the 'bright' network, that are brighter
(hotter) than the average photosphere. They collectively
overcompensate for the irradiance deficit associated with the cooler
but less numerous sunspots. The primary driver of TSI changes on solar
rotational and sunspot cycle timescales is the varying photospheric
coverage of these radiatively active solar magnetic structures.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle


Another idea for the cause of the Little Ice Age is that it was due to
the Black Death. See Wikipedia:

Ruddiman has theorized that depopulation of Europe, East Asia, and the
Middle East during the Black Death, with the resulting decrease in
agricultural output and reforestation taking up more carbon from the
atmosphere, may have been a major factor in the slight cooling noted
during the Little Ice Age. Ruddiman further theorizes that massive
depopulation in the Americas after the European contact in the early
1500s had similar effects. A 2008 study of sediment cores and soil
samples further suggests that carbon sequestration via reforestation
in the Americas contributed to the Little Ice Age.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age#Causes

HTH,

Cheers, Alastair.

In article
,
Alastair writes:
snip
At the last Wednesday Meeting of the RMetSoc the FRS speakers were
using extracts from Wikipedia in their presentations.

I'm a great Wikipedia enthusiast, but I confess to finding that a little
worrying.
--
John Hall "Hard work often pays off after time, but laziness always
pays off now." Anon

In article , John Hall
wrote:
In article
,
Alastair writes: snip
At the last Wednesday Meeting of the RMetSoc the FRS speakers were using
extracts from Wikipedia in their presentations.

I'm a great Wikipedia enthusiast, but I confess to finding that a little
worrying.

I don't know why. The quotes were mostly about "the butterfly effect" which
was the subject of the meeting. It was not suggested that they were
necessarily the last word on any subject (at least that is what I thought
the honorary wizard to the Unseen University said).

--
Rodney Blackall (retired meteorologist)(BSc, FRMetS, MRI)
Buckingham, ENGLAND
Using Acorn SA-RPC, OS 4.02 with ANT INS and Pluto 3.03j

In article
,
Alastair wrote:

But you mention the North Pole, (which as far as I know does not have
a permanent weather station,) and that is not the only Arctic
location. Alligators do not live in the open ocean, they live in
rivers. For instance those that will form in the north of Ellesmere
Island where fossils of Alligators have been found.

The Canadian Encyclopaedia says :

Ellesmere Island

Some 55 million years ago, during the early Eocene Epoch, ELLESMERE
Island in Canada's eastern High Arctic was warm and ice-free.

Apart from Global Warming, there is Global Wandering! What was the lat. &
long. of Ellesmere Island 55 myr ago? Was it an island then?

--
Rodney Blackall (retired meteorologist)(BSc, FRMetS, MRI)
Buckingham, ENGLAND
Using Acorn SA-RPC, OS 4.02 with ANT INS and Pluto 3.03j