UK Karting - Notice Board (Combined Forum) : Re: I was refering to the maunder minimum

Notice Board (Combined Forum)

Re: I was refering to the maunder minimum
Posted by 'itpro' on 07 Nov 2008 @ 13:06

| View Message Thread | Reply to this message |

itproJoined: August 2001
Total Posts: 6
[ View User Profile ]

No, I hadn't realised you were discussing that point.

The Maunder Minimum is interesting for many reasons. Not least because it is SUPPOSED to be recorded accurately within a matter of YEARS from the first EVER 'accurate' measurement of ANY sun Spots! It seems reasonable that we didn't get FABULOUSLY accurate 'pictures' or 'counts' or 'measurements' of the sun spots until our 'optics' had progressed to a reasonable standard.

Galileo is (contentiously) attributed as being the 'first' to 'see' them in the early 1600s (errr... 1615??? I seem to remember). It is therefore an 'interesting' point that people CLAIM to KNOW that the 'low' in activity BEGAN in the 1400s as YOU seem to be claiming when you attribute the start of the Mini Ice age as being CONNECTED to the START of something which we were NOT measuring or even properly AWARE existed for the next TWO HUNDRED YEARS!

Be that as it may........

It is generally accepted the the 'full' 11 year cycle is recordable from 1700 onwards. So..... if Sun Spots and Global Warming ARE linked..... why do we NOT see a corresponding 11 year cycle in Global Warming.... which we DO NOT? We DO notice a trend to a 'phase' in GW but it is nowhere NEAR in phase nor period with 11 years..... That would seem to make it MOST unlikely to be involved!

Secondly, why don't we notice the RISE which we CALL 'global warming' for a further ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY YEARS from the END of the 'Maunder Minimum'?

The last point you make is strangely irrelevant! Who DOUBTS that Sun Spots exist? Who doubts they exist on OTHER 'suns'? What we ARE doubting is the LINK between Sun Spots and Global warming!

You are making the assumption that 'because' the 'maunder min' and the mini iceage were in VERY roughly the same period (well......... within TWO HUNDRED YEARS of each other!!!!!), then they MUST be connected. However, there is a SECOND possibility! The wearing of Cod-Pieces by men was prevalent at a SIMILARLY 'simultaneous' period. Would THAT coincidence ALSO 'prove' that wearing Cod Pieces CAUSE low Sun Spot activity or, indeed cause GLOBAL COOLING????? If THAT'S the sort of suggestion you are making..... has anyone seen my best Cod Piece????

We use the assumption that the start of the GW coinicides with the rise in industustrial gases, not J*U*S*T because they coincide VERY accurately with the START of the period but because the rate of INCREASE is similar in BOTH sets of data. Finally, we can suggest a testable CAUSE which links industrial gas output to global warming! This is yet ANOTHER part of the 'jigsaw' which is missing from the Sun Spot suggestion! We cannot TEST it and we cannot suggest HOW it would affect the earth's temp!

The PROBLEMS with the Sun Spot 'hypothesis' is that:-

1) It does not have matching 'period' not 'duration'
2) It does not coincide with the START of the GW
3) It's intensiy is not LINKED to the intesity of GW
4) No REASONABLE MECHANISM has been suggested for the EFFECT of the link between GW and SS has been proposed
5) The increase in either the NUMBER, INTENSITY, DURATION, SIZE, MATERIAL EXPELLED or any OTHER measurements of the Sun Spots is NOT in PROPORTION to the increases in GW.

The REASONS why Sun Spot activity have been broadly dismissed as being the cause of GW are for EXACTLY the same reasons my link to COD PIECES is dismissed...... it does NOT work!

The 'bomb' argument is similar. GW can be shown to 'start' at between 150 and 100 years ago. Can YOU tell me how the START of GW somehow managed to PREDICT that we'd make our FIRST nuclear bomb in 1945? Was the weather getting READY for the first bomb???????

That WILL take some explanation!

ian

Message Thread:

this will effect the climate! by 'singers' (04 Nov 2008 @ 12:44)

please just read this by 'singers' (04 Nov 2008 @ 15:35)

Re: please just read this by 'RoadRat' (04 Nov 2008 @ 17:19)

Re: please just read this by 'itpro' (04 Nov 2008 @ 17:41)

Re: this will effect the climate! by 'itpro' (04 Nov 2008 @ 16:31)

Re: this will effect the climate! by 'singers' (04 Nov 2008 @ 17:19)

Re: this will effect the climate! by 'itpro' (04 Nov 2008 @ 17:40)

Re: this will effect the climate! addendum by 'itpro' (04 Nov 2008 @ 17:51)

Re: this will effect the climate! addendum by 'daveleeroth' (05 Nov 2008 @ 8:22)

Re: this will effect the climate! addendum by 'itpro' (05 Nov 2008 @ 9:26)

Re: this will effect the climate! addendum by 'RobWallace' (05 Nov 2008 @ 18:48)

Re: this will effect the climate! addendum by 'itpro' (05 Nov 2008 @ 19:27)

blah blah blah! by 'singers' (05 Nov 2008 @ 12:44)

Re: blah blah blah! by 'itpro' (05 Nov 2008 @ 12:57)

Re: blah blah blah! by 'carladingding' (05 Nov 2008 @ 13:44)

Re: blah blah blah! by 'itpro' (05 Nov 2008 @ 14:05)

Reasons to be cheerful - part 1 by 'Tmoon' (05 Nov 2008 @ 15:38)

Re: Reasons to be cheerful - part 2 by 'Tmoon' (05 Nov 2008 @ 15:45)

acrimoneous......lol by 'singers' (05 Nov 2008 @ 17:18)

Anyone want a good laugh.....? by 'itpro' (05 Nov 2008 @ 17:46)

Re: acrimoneous......lol by 'davidmc' (05 Nov 2008 @ 17:50)

screw you and YOU! by 'singers' (05 Nov 2008 @ 20:44)

Ah...nice to see you.... by 'vic' (05 Nov 2008 @ 21:59)

this is not cut and dried! how many times! by 'singers' (06 Nov 2008 @ 9:23)

Singers by 'itpro' (06 Nov 2008 @ 18:14)

Staggering!....Absolutely Staggering! by 'vic' (05 Nov 2008 @ 20:35)

acremoneous debate!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! by 'singers' (05 Nov 2008 @ 20:47)

Re: Reasons to be cheerful - part 2 by 'itpro' (05 Nov 2008 @ 17:29)

hallelujah! by 'singers' (05 Nov 2008 @ 17:25)

Re: hallelujah! by 'itpro' (05 Nov 2008 @ 17:47)

part 3 by 'Tmoon' (06 Nov 2008 @ 11:44)

wow!! by 'Tmoon' (06 Nov 2008 @ 11:56)

without tring to bored you..... by 'Tmoon' (06 Nov 2008 @ 15:22)

off onto another tangent...... by 'richpudd2003' (06 Nov 2008 @ 16:23)

Re: part 3 by 'itpro' (06 Nov 2008 @ 17:57)

Don't you think? by 'Canceric' (06 Nov 2008 @ 22:10)

Re: Don't you think? by 'itpro' (06 Nov 2008 @ 23:52)

shame you're such a by 'singers' (07 Nov 2008 @ 9:36)

Re: shame you're such a by 'itpro' (07 Nov 2008 @ 9:58)

I was refering to the maunder minimum by 'Tmoon' (07 Nov 2008 @ 10:47)

Re: I was refering to the maunder minimum by 'singers' (07 Nov 2008 @ 12:02)

Re: I was refering to the maunder minimum by 'itpro' (07 Nov 2008 @ 13:16)

Re: I was refering to the maunder minimum by 'itpro' << You are here!

Re: shame you're such a by 'singers' (07 Nov 2008 @ 12:13)

Re: shame you're such a by 'itpro' (07 Nov 2008 @ 13:24)

that would be the Polar cusp then! by 'singers' (07 Nov 2008 @ 13:58)

see the spirals at the South Pole by 'singers' (07 Nov 2008 @ 14:09)

Re: see the spirals at the South Pole by 'itpro' (07 Nov 2008 @ 15:32)

Re: that would be the Polar cusp then! by 'itpro' (07 Nov 2008 @ 14:20)

wrong!! by 'singers' (07 Nov 2008 @ 14:38)

Re: wrong!! by 'itpro' (07 Nov 2008 @ 15:35)

Re: wrong again!!! by 'singers' (07 Nov 2008 @ 16:17)

Re: wrong again!!!....or.... by 'vic' (07 Nov 2008 @ 17:26)

Post a Reply:

You may post a direct reply to this message which will appear in this thread.
To post a new or unrelated message use This Form. Top of Page
Notice Board Index

[ UK Karting Main Index ]


News	Karts & Karting	Notice Board	Market Place	Companies Directory	Tracks Directory	Events Calendar	Race Results	Photo Gallery	Links