Cycles

I like to watch a show called Weather World. It is presented by the Meteorogical Staff at Penn State and is available on PCN Network which is Pennsylvania’s version of C-SPAN. They broadcast from Monday to Friday at 5:45pm barring problems or pre-emptions for politics. Last Friday they had a broadcast problem since they broadcast live and send their Microwave signal to Harrisburg from State College. PCN has stock 15 minute features if this happens. Well, it happened Friday. The feature they presented was a 30 year cycle of winters going back to 1900. What they showed was how warm and cold winters cycled approximately every 30 years. In each cycle the 30 year period had a predominant warm or cold feature about it. (I went to their site, but the video isn’t available)

In searching for the video I came across this little gem that took what was explained on Friday, and went about 20 centuries of information of cycles of weather. It’s an interesting read along with the companion piece. It’s from a Finnish researcher:

Timo Niroma:
Sunspots: The 200-year sunspot cycle is also a weather cycle.
A 2000-year historical perspective.

– The Roman Empire and its demise.
– The Mayan Classic Period.
– When the Nile froze in 829 AD.
– Why is it Iceland and Greenland and not vice versa?
– Tambora did not cause it.
– The spotless century 200 AD.
– The recent warming caused by Sun.
– The 200-year weather pattern.

Excerpts from the article:
If we take the Schove estimates of the maximum magnitudes (R(M)) from the period 1500-1750 and the measurements from 1750, we get (the rounding for exact centuries done only to make the general picture clear):
1400-1520 ? cold (Sporer minimum)
1520-1640 107 warm
1640-1700 61 cold (Maunder minimum)
1700-1805 114 warm
1805-1925 95 cold (Dalton minimum)
1925-2010 138 warm
2010-2110 ? cold?

Read this all here:
http://www.kolumbus.fi/tilmari/some200.htm#historic
Then read this:
http://www.kolumbus.fi/tilmari/gleissb.htm

ooops edit for catagories

28 Comments

  1. Yorkshire:

    Timo Niroma’s studies deal only with the sun’s variability, in his attempt to discover cyclic solar activity.

    No one denies that solar activity has an impact on the warming and cooling of the earth. However, AGM theory claims that the impact of man burning of fossil fuels has a greater effect.

    Consider this:

    Objection: The sun is the source of warmth on earth. Any increase in temperature is likely due to changes in solar radiation.

    Answer: It’s true that the earth is warmed, for all practical purposes, entirely by solar radiation, so if the temperature is going up or down, the sun is a reasonable place to seek the cause.

    Turns out it’s more complicated than one might think to detect and measure changes in the amount or type of sunshine reaching the earth. Detectors on the ground are susceptible to all kinds of interference from the atmosphere — after all, one cloud passing overhead can cause a shiver on an otherwise warm day, but not because the sun itself changed. The best way to detect changes in the output of the sun — versus changes in the radiation reaching the earth’s surface through clouds, smoke, dust, or pollution — is by taking readings from space.

    This is a job for satellites. According to PMOD at the World Radiation Center there has been no increase in solar irradiance since at least 1978, when satellite observations began. This means that for the last thirty years, while the temperature has been rising fastest, the sun has not changed.

    There has been work done reconstructing the solar irradiance record over the last century, before satellites were available. According to the Max Planck Institute, where this work is being done, there has been no increase in solar irradiance since around 1940. This reconstruction does show an increase in the first part of the 20th century, which coincides with the warming from around 1900 until the 1940s. It’s not enough to explain all the warming from those years, but it is responsible for a large portion. See this chart of observed temperature, modeled temperature, and variations in the major forcings that contributed to 20th century climate.

    RealClimate has a couple of detailed discussions on what we can conclude about solar forcing and how science reached those conclusions. Read them here and here.

    If you check this link , you will find the above quoted piece, which is also documented with links to some of the basic research on this topic of solar activity.

    Thus, Timo Niroma’s work does not refute AGW theory, it only attempts to give the portion of global warming and cooling that is attributable to the sun. That said, it bothers me that Nimora does not reference any other research on this topic. That is not normal presentation of scientific findings, which always must include the context in which his work adds to the body of knowledge.

  2. Best lines in the whole article. :-)
    This may even have greater implications to the whole Holocene climate study and possibly to ice age theories also. Considering the evidence it looks like a megalomaniac idea that the recent rise of half a degree would have been caused by man. So great are the natural variations. But man has always wanted to be in the center of the world.

  3. Cool! :)

    But then, you need to look at this graph , which indicates how well the model is working to track AGW, with input from measured emissions of greenhouse gases, solar activity, atmospheric ozone levels, volcanic activity, and sulfate emissions.

  4. On the weather show I mentioned they do a segment on loosely a monthly basis using analog systems only. What they do is look at past history since they believe everything is more or less cyclical. They will look at a specific region, look at past history of say rainfall, general temperatures or othe features. Then they look at past histories of what influenced these. Then they will look at common ground in the analog history and make a general projection a few months out. Then when that period of time has ended they will go back and check their projections. They judge their projection with a bullseye target. They either hit it specifically, hit on the target board, or miss. Over the last few years they have hit a few bullseyes, a number of hits, and a few misses. But their hits outweigh their misses. It’s interesting way of looking at cycles.

  5. No one denies that solar activity has an impact on the warming and cooling of the earth. However, AGM theory claims that the impact of man burning of fossil fuels has a greater effect.

    A more steady long-term effect. Consider a point on a wheel of a car ascending a hill. It’s going to go up and down as the wheel goes round and round – but the trend will still be upwards as a whole as the car ascends.

    What the denialists are doing is screaming “look – the wheel is going round and round – there is no hill!!!”.

  6. A more steady long-term effect. Consider a point on a wheel of a car ascending a hill. It’s going to go up and down as the wheel goes round and round – but the trend will still be upwards as a whole as the car ascends.
    What the denialists are doing is screaming “look – the wheel is going round and round – there is no hill!!!”.

    Well, if there IS a hill (to use your analogy) it’s an awfully shallow one, such that the up and down motions of the wheel greatly exceed the rise of the hill itself.

    Anyway, York’s point is that the Earth has warmed and cooled over the centuries, often by considerably bigger margins than today’s so-called Global warming, and that was long before we started burning fossil fuels in abundance.

  7. On purpose, I stayed away from Global Warming on this thread. I wanted to discuss cycles in the earth’s and the sun’s last 2000 years and if you notice, it has impacted history and other things. Did anyone notice the Nile River froze in 829AD? It’s full of little tidbits of the affect on the Roman Empire and Western Civilization. We all heard of the Black Plague, but weather caused worse loss of life due to famine. In the GW argument, it seems to be tightly focused on CO2 emissions and green house gasses to the exclusion of all else. I really believe there are thousands of forces at work that have an effect on the climate of the world. To single out one is short-sighted in my opinion. For Billions of years the sun has affected the Earth. And now to say man has the hubris to change things at will is beyond anyone’s paygrade.

  8. Well, if there IS a hill (to use your analogy) it’s an awfully shallow one, such that the up and down motions of the wheel greatly exceed the rise of the hill itself.

    Eric, you’re not very – well, we all know what you’re not – but do try to think for just a moment. If the slope of the hill wasn’t shallow enough that the up and down motions exceeded its rise, the car wouldn’t be able to climb the hill. It would simply slide backwards.

    Hills exist. Anthropogenic global climate change exists, according to the vast majority of those with a right to a scientific opinion. The predicted effects of global climate change are non-trivial, and being felt now.

    The Pentagon takes climate change quite seriously. Frankly, denialists are nuttier than truthers – blu makes more sense in making her position than you do in yours.

  9. Environmentalism can now be added to the definition of liberalism—they’re both mental disorders.

    While the so-called “settled science” and “consensus” of AGW are unraveling, you can expect the leftward libtards to cling to their deckchairs as the ship heads to the bottom of their “rising oceans”. “If only we had an iceberg to cling to, but alas evil man has melted them all” Even the global warming sceptics miscalculated:

    Global warming skeptics, too, have erred. They have said there has been no statistically significant warming for 10 years. Phil Jones, former director of Britain’s Climatic Research Unit, source of the leaked documents, admits it has been 15 years. Small wonder that support for radical remedial action, sacrificing wealth and freedom to combat warming, is melting faster than the Himalayan glaciers that an IPCC report asserted, without serious scientific support, could disappear by 2035.

    Jones also says that if during what is called the Medieval Warm Period (circa 800-1300) global temperatures may have been warmer than today’s, that would change the debate. Indeed it would. It would complicate the task of indicting contemporary civilization for today’s supposedly unprecedented temperatures.link

    Now it’s the liberals that are in denial—suffering from an acute lack of self-awareness still leaning on deliberately flawed science.

  10. Frankly, denialists are nuttier than truthers – blu makes more sense in making her position than you do in yours.

    No, actually, that puts you in the same insane boat as blu, Pho, if you’re sincere about that statement. You really, seriously argue that with ALL the variables involved in Earth’s climate that there is LESS room for skepticism about man’s role in it than the evidence for Bushco’s [supposed] involvement in the 9/11 attacks?

    Just to be clear, I’m using “skepticism,” not “denial.”

  11. Rovin:
    Now it’s the liberals that are in denial—suffering from an acute lack of self-awareness still leaning on deliberately flawed science.

    DeNile is a river in Egypt that froze in 829AD.

  12. Hube:
    More “settled science.”

    This is unraveling faster than a cheap $2 knit sweater.

    And I read that DeNile also froze in 1010AD.

    Cycles, it’s Jovian orbit cycles.

  13. No, actually, that puts you in the same insane boat as blu, Pho, if you’re sincere about that statement.

    Who knows if he’s sincere or not? He is certainly given to flights of hyperbole.

    Anyway, you’re 100% right. The statement was purely ridiculous.

  14. The statement was purely ridiculous.

    This is the considered opinion of someone who thinks Osama bin Laden is a bigger threat than were WWII Germany and Japan?

    Again – denialists are nuttier than truthers – blu makes more sense in making her position than you do in yours.

    Feel free to explain to us why the Pentagon are wrong to consider climate change a threat to the US.

  15. “Feel free to explain to us why the Pentagon are wrong to consider climate change a threat to the US.”

    Pho, according to the article you linked to, the Pentagon was required to consider climate change in their plans. From the article, “Former Senators John Warner (R-VA) and Hillary Clinton (D-NY) added language requiring the department to consider the effects of climate change…” Your first statement at 10:55 implies that they considered it on their own.

  16. This is the considered opinion of someone who thinks Osama bin Laden is a bigger threat than were WWII Germany and Japan?

    Except that’s not my position. I simply stated the FACT that Al-Q killed more people on 9/11 than Japan did at Pearl Harbor. Also the FACT that the Germans never attacted us in WW 2.

    But go ahead and twist things out of context just to make a silly “Point” …

  17. Pho, according to the article you linked to, the Pentagon was required to consider climate change in their plans. From the article, “Former Senators John Warner (R-VA) and Hillary Clinton (D-NY) added language requiring the department to consider the effects of climate change…” Your first statement at 10:55 implies that they considered it on their own.

    There you go, providing context, something Pho notoriously rarely does.

  18. Just to be clear, I’m using “skepticism,” not “denial.”

    It’s that “Context” thing again. Pho isn’t much for understanding nuance, instead only seeing a stick figure cariacature of the things he wants to attack.

  19. Hube:
    Notice how “climate change” is slowly supplanting the now-out-of-vogue “global warming” …

    It’s how they operate. Making it sound so subtle and pleasing. Like how can you be against Climate Change?

  20. Pho, according to the article you linked to, the Pentagon was required to consider climate change in their plans.

    Uh-huh. And when they considered it, fool, they determined it was a serious threat to US interests.

    If your position had any truth to it, the Pentagon would have given the bureaucratic language for “we looked it and we’re not concerned”. Since the Pentagon is forced to operate in the real world to a greater extent than wingnuts, it takes it seriously based on the evidence.

    Notice how “climate change” is slowly supplanting the now-out-of-vogue “global warming”

    Thank you for once again displaying your ignorance on the subject:

    The term climate change is often used interchangeably with the term global warming, but according to the National Academy of Sciences, “the phrase ‘climate change’ is growing in preferred use to ‘global warming’ because it helps convey that there are [other] changes in addition to rising temperatures.”

    Climate change refers to any significant change in measures of climate (such as temperature, precipitation, or wind) lasting for an extended period (decades or longer). Climate change may result from:

    * natural factors, such as changes in the sun’s intensity or slow changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun;
    * natural processes within the climate system (e.g. changes in ocean circulation);
    * human activities that change the atmosphere’s composition (e.g. through burning fossil fuels) and the land surface (e.g. deforestation, reforestation, urbanization, desertification, etc.)

    Global warming is an average increase in the temperature of the atmosphere near the Earth’s surface and in the troposphere, which can contribute to changes in global climate patterns. Global warming can occur from a variety of causes, both natural and human induced. In common usage, “global warming” often refers to the warming that can occur as a result of increased emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities.

  21. is growing in preferred use to ‘global warming’

    ‘Nuff said. Maybe it’s growing in preferred use because fudging data and over/underestimating is diminishing in “preferred use” now that the cat has been hacked out of the bag, so to speak. But nice try (again) Phoeny.

    You (and the science-hating scientists) simply could have used Occam’s Razor and looked at York’s (and my) reasons.

  22. ‘Nuff said. Maybe it’s growing in preferred use because fudging data and over/underestimating is diminishing in “preferred use” now that the cat has been hacked out of the bag, so to speak. But nice try (again) Phoeny.

    I was aware you were stupid; I wasn’t aware you were actually unable to read.

    As per the National Academy of Science’s actual words: “the phrase ‘climate change’ is growing in preferred use to ‘global warming’ because it helps convey that there are [other] changes in addition to rising temperatures.”

    I’m sure the “science-hating scientists” of the NAS are really running scared from two online wingnuts who can’t muster a triple digit IQ if put together…

  23. Either that, or they’re busy fudging still more data to fulfill some sort of as-yet unglimpsed of glory. Sort of like Al Gore’s Oscar, I suppose.

    Why should we believe that this term is preferred — now, all of a sudden — when we should have believed all their hype about AGW (which, BTW, has been so thoroughly demolished, but has, of yet, refused to be recognized by certain moronic Kiwis)?

  24. And this is where we get into our little semantics games with Pho. Okay, Pho, if they thought it was so serious, why were they required to address it? No one over at the Pentagon knew about ‘global warming’?

    “Uh-huh. And when they considered it, fool, they determined it was a serious threat to US interests.” Imagine, that, the military making contingency plans for worst case scenarios whether or not they actually believe these scenarios will happen. And, no one at the Pentagon would ever consider appeasing their bosses, now, would they.

Comments are closed.