Yes I know its a weather NG but be fair, others post about these
topics all the time,

Anyhow it would seem the Arctic ice extent is at its greatest on this
date for eight years!

Have a look for yourself

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm.

Okay there will be the 'its first year ice ' comments and such but
lets be honest about the ice, rumours of its death seem to have been
greatly exaggerated.

Take the polar bears of suicide watch.

On Apr 20, 10:48*pm, wrote:
Yes I know its a weather NG but be fair, others post about these
topics all the time,

Anyhow it would seem the Arctic ice extent is at its greatest on this
date for eight years!

Have a look for yourself

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm.

Okay there will be the 'its first year ice ' comments and such but
lets be honest about the ice, rumours of its death seem to have been
greatly exaggerated.

Take the polar bears of suicide watch.

It could be just a blip in the general trend, nothing works to a
perfect rhythm, so I'm not convinced. The past 12 months the UK has
seen quite a number of cooler months, but my gut feeling is we've seen
the last of them for a while, infact April is looking particularly
warmer than average, but we will have to see what the summer brings,
but I wouldn't be surprised to see higher temperatures again. Even a
massive volcanic eruption would only slow the trend down for a year or
two.

Keith (Southend)
http://www.southendweather.net
"Weather Home & Abroad"

On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 at 15:03:18, "Keith (Southend)G"
wrote in uk.sci.weather :

It could be just a blip in the general trend, nothing works to a
perfect rhythm, so I'm not convinced. The past 12 months the UK has
seen quite a number of cooler months, but my gut feeling is we've seen
the last of them for a while, infact April is looking particularly
warmer than average, but we will have to see what the summer brings,
but I wouldn't be surprised to see higher temperatures again. Even a
massive volcanic eruption would only slow the trend down for a year or
two.

I've heard that solar activity is the lowest for about a century, so
that could well be overriding any man-made climate effects.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham (change 'invalid83261' to 'blueyonder' to email me)

On 21 Apr, 08:09, Paul Hyett wrote:
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 at 15:03:18, "Keith (Southend)G"
wrote in uk.sci.weather :



It could be just a blip in the general trend, nothing works to a
perfect rhythm, so I'm not convinced. The past 12 months the UK has
seen quite a number of cooler months, but my gut feeling is we've seen
the last of them for a while, infact April is looking particularly
warmer than average, but we will have to see what the summer brings,
but I wouldn't be surprised to see higher temperatures again. Even a
massive volcanic eruption would only slow the trend down for a year or
two.

I've heard that solar activity is the lowest for about a century, so
that could well be overriding any man-made climate effects.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham (change 'invalid83261' to 'blueyonder' to email me)


Yes, I just found this on the BBC website:

Scientists warn sun has dimmed
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8009492.stm


An interesting peice of the puzzle.

Keith (Southend)
http://www.southendweather.net
"Weather Home & Abroad"

On 21 Apr, 08:17, "Keith (Southend)G"
wrote:
On 21 Apr, 08:09, Paul Hyett wrote:





On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 at 15:03:18, "Keith (Southend)G"
wrote in uk.sci.weather :

It could be just a blip in the general trend, nothing works to a
perfect rhythm, so I'm not convinced. The past 12 months the UK has
seen quite a number of cooler months, but my gut feeling is we've seen
the last of them for a while, infact April is looking particularly
warmer than average, but we will have to see what the summer brings,
but I wouldn't be surprised to see higher temperatures again. Even a
massive volcanic eruption would only slow the trend down for a year or
two.

I've heard that solar activity is the lowest for about a century, so
that could well be overriding any man-made climate effects.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham (change 'invalid83261' to 'blueyonder' to email me)

Yes, I just found this on the BBC website:

Scientists warn sun has dimmedhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8009492.stm

An interesting peice of the puzzle.

Keith (Southend)http://www.southendweather.net
"Weather Home & Abroad"- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Now if this doesn't bring a long hot dry summer, I'll "Eat my hat" ;-)

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8010322.stm

Keith (Southend)

On 21 Apr, 14:48, "Keith (Southend)G"
wrote:
On 21 Apr, 08:17, "Keith (Southend)G"
wrote:



On 21 Apr, 08:09, Paul Hyett wrote:

On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 at 15:03:18, "Keith (Southend)G"
wrote in uk.sci.weather :

It could be just a blip in the general trend, nothing works to a
perfect rhythm, so I'm not convinced. The past 12 months the UK has
seen quite a number of cooler months, but my gut feeling is we've seen
the last of them for a while, infact April is looking particularly
warmer than average, but we will have to see what the summer brings,
but I wouldn't be surprised to see higher temperatures again. Even a
massive volcanic eruption would only slow the trend down for a year or
two.

I've heard that solar activity is the lowest for about a century, so
that could well be overriding any man-made climate effects.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham (change 'invalid83261' to 'blueyonder' to email me)

Yes, I just found this on the BBC website:

Scientists warn sun has dimmedhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8009492.stm

An interesting peice of the puzzle.

Keith (Southend)http://www.southendweather.net
"Weather Home & Abroad"- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Now if this doesn't bring a long hot dry summer, I'll "Eat my hat" ;-)

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8010322.stm

Keith (Southend)

Did anybody see the article in the Daily Telegraph today (Tues)? Lord
Stern, apparently an 'expert', has written a new book on global
warming. According to the DT he states that temperatures may rise by
6C (DT slips in 43F!!!!) and alligators could live at the North Pole!
I guess average temps at the NP in Winter are around -40 degs and
about zero in mid Summer. So those lucky old 'gators are going to have
fun at -34 degs in Winter and will be getting heat stroke in balmy
temperatures of 6 degs in Summer! No wonder there are sceptics like me
around when such total rubbish is being fed to the press.....

On Apr 21, 8:09*am, Paul Hyett wrote:
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 at 15:03:18, "Keith (Southend)G"
wrote in uk.sci.weather :



It could be just a blip in the general trend, nothing works to a
perfect rhythm, so I'm not convinced. The past 12 months the UK has
seen quite a number of cooler months, but my gut feeling is we've seen
the last of them for a while, infact April is looking particularly
warmer than average, but we will have to see what the summer brings,
but I wouldn't be surprised to see higher temperatures again. Even a
massive volcanic eruption would only slow the trend down for a year or
two.

I've heard that solar activity is the lowest for about a century, so
that could well be overriding any man-made climate effects.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham (change 'invalid83261' to 'blueyonder' to email me)

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.

* * * * 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.

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.


I'm not sure that your reference to Newton is correct Alastair. AFAIK he
believed specifically in intervention rather than a purely docetist view
(e.g.comets). I get rather concerned with the factuality of sweeping
generalisations as to the origins of scientific understanding, much as
some of the origins of language can at times be ambiguous.

Cheers

--
James Brown

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.