Post Reply
Page 1 of 4  •  1 2 3 4 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Theodor Landscheidt
7 years ago  ::  Oct 26, 2007 - 10:13PM #1
Bodean
Posts: 9,703
Amidst the raging debate regarding Global Warming, I wanted to bring attention to an alternative story.

The story of Theodor Landscheidt.  While Lanscheidt was not a "professional Climate Scientist" as defined by the establishment, he was very active in assessing, and developing mathmatically verified models for predicting climate based on the sun.

http://bourabai.narod.ru/landscheidt/new-e.htm

[i]"My climate forecasts based on solar motion cycles stood the test as well. I correctly forecast the end of the Sahelian drought three years before the event, the last four extrema in global temperature anomalies, the maximum in the Palmer drought index for U.S.A. around 1999, extreme river Po discharges around the beginning of 2001, and the last three El Ni
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Oct 26, 2007 - 10:16PM #2
Bodean
Posts: 9,703
OK .. I don't know what the heck is wrong with this new site, but apparently it won't let me put up a complete post.

Oh Well .. the link is there ... please read and give me your thoughts.

:D
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Oct 29, 2007 - 4:53PM #3
Bodean
Posts: 9,703
Oh come on ....

Surely there is someone who either agrees or disagrees with the model.

:D
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Nov 05, 2007 - 4:55AM #4
CharikIeia
Posts: 8,301
Maybe we can continue our brief exchange from the other thread over here.

[QUOTE=Bo]A model without mechanism???? You're kidding me right?? Shall I spell out the mechanism for you!!

The Torque forces of the solar system on the sun modulate the many aspects of its output by affecting its rotation and axis situation.  The aspects of output include High Speed Solar Wind, Slow Speed Solar Wind, Irradiance, UV output, X-Class flares, sun spot activity and magnetic force.



Fine.  What matters for warming is not "any solar output"  though. Irradiance is relevant, for magnetism and solar wind, this is much less the case, I would suspect.

The mathmatical model that he describes is WELL DEFINED in the literature, and many a well recognized scientists is referenced in regards the various cycles that affect the suns output.  It is the overlaying of the cycles, thus looking at their effects in concert that is the key.



Fine. Let's hear about how solar magnetism affects warmth on earth.

Together, these outputs affect the oceans, which is the "in" equation of the earths solar budget, as land cannot absorb solar energy to any extent. (instead, it converts the energy to infared energy which is re-emitted). and air in the lower troposphere cannot absorb it all.



Here is where I want to see the mechanism. As Landscheidt himself says, "The IPCC's judgement that the solar factor is negligible is based on satellite observations available since 1978 which show that the Sun's total irradiance, though not being constant, changes only by about 0.1 percent during the course of the 11-year sunspot cycle. This argument, however, does not take into account that the Sun's eruptional activity (energetic flares, coronal mass ejections, eruptive prominences), heavily affecting the solar wind, as well as softer solar wind contributions by coronal holes have a much stronger effect than total irradiance."

Effect on what, and by which mechanisms? Your teapot story only holds for irradiance, so forgive me when I cut short my reply at this stage, and wait for some more elaboration from your side.

tl;dr
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Nov 05, 2007 - 10:13AM #5
Bodean
Posts: 9,703
[QUOTE=CharikIeia;45469]
Fine.  What matters for warming is not "any solar output"  though. Irradiance is relevant, for magnetism and solar wind, this is much less the case, I would suspect.

Fine. Let's hear about how solar magnetism affects warmth on earth.


Effect on what, and by which mechanisms? Your teapot story only holds for irradiance, so forgive me when I cut short my reply at this stage, and wait for some more elaboration from your side.[/QUOTE]

Gee Charik .... absolutely, thanks for taking an interest is a discussion.  In fact, I'll line it up for you the evidence of both CO2 theories anc Solar Theories.

Laboratory:

- CO2 has been shown to absorb Infared energy within a certain band width.  So, we have lab data that proves CO2 is a factor.

- Solar Magnetism affects the amount of ionizing particles entering the atmosphere.  In the Lab, its been shown that ionizing rays form SO4-H2O particles which are the nuclie for clouds.  Clouds are more significant to global climate than CO2.

Measurments:

CO2 ... has been measured for some time at the Hawaii site.  Before then, concentrations are determined by proxy data.

Irradiance: has only been measured since 1978.  Sun Spot data has been recorded for close to a 1000 years.  Other solar metrics are inferred based on proxy data.

In both cases, there are peer reviewed studies that show correlations between all three. (CO2, Solar, Temp).  It's important to note, correlations do not define cause.

Mechanisms:

The proposed models for CO2 ... absorbes Infared within a certain spectrum.  The amount of energy to be absorbed is somewhat limited, as it depends on the amount of energy re-emitted from the surface.  The absorption rate is not linear.  Thus, a doubling of CO2 does not equal a doubling of temp.  Basically, it is in the literature, that the affect will be less and less as CO2 consecutively doubles.  SO ... the increase from 1800 to 2000 was from 280ppm - 380 ppm which increased temp X.  Further increases will have less impact.

In Fact, there is also published papers that discuss that the present amount of CO2 in the first 3 meters of the atmosphere is already sufficient to absorb ALL of the available infared ennergy.   They argue that increasing CO2 will only shorten the distance (first 3 meters will reduce to first 2.75 meters).  Hence, the only way for increased CO2 to increase futher heat is for there to be an increase in re-emitted energy from the surface, which is dependent on solar input and cloud cover.


For Solar Models.

The proposed models for solar ... solar influences primarily affect water, which is the primary heat sink of the earth.  Unlike with air, solar energy is completely absorbed by water along the depth column.  Thus, while some solar energy will pass through the upper layers of water, eventually, all of it is absorbed.  This occurrs in the first several meters.  There are two pretty well documented input effects.  Direct irradiance, which according to astrophysics peer reviewed papers was at its highest level ever in the 20th century, beginning to tail off towards the end (post 1990).  The other mechanism is associated with the lab experiments above regarding cloud cover.  It's been estimated in peer reviewed papers, that a change in cloud cover of only 1-2% would destroy all warming effects of ALL CO2 ever emitted by man.  The Magnetic Field is proposed to be in control of deflecting ionizing particles that create clouds.  Sun spot activity and direct IR are in control of irradiance measures.  Landscheidt, looking at the Center of Mass effect and the torque forces on the Sun's rotation associates this activity to the creation of El Nino's and La Ninas.   Gotta give him credit, he has been the most accurate at predicting these events.  If you look at the last 10 years at GISS, it is El Nino and La Nina that have dominated the temperature fluctuations.  Landscheidt has produced a solar model that shows were the Sun controls ENSO.

As Noted at the NOAA,  in 1976, it was if someone flipped a switch, and significant La Ninas just dissappeared.  According to Landscheidt, this is associated with the 22 year cycle of the sun and flipped back after 1998.  Indeed, directly following the El Nino of 1998, a rather modest La Nina occurred, and we are currently heading into another. (again predicted by Landscheidt.).

El Nino's and La Ninas also have a profound effect on CO2.  El Nino, nutrient poor water favors increased atmospheric CO2 (more outgassing and little marine biological uptake).  La Nina in contrast brings nutrient rich waters, resulting in massive consumption of CO2.  This is well documented and Mao Luna as well as other places.  It's so well defined that many have suggested fertilizing the ocean the decrease CO2.

That's all I have time for... for now.  I'll be back later. .. because there is more, especially regarding ENSO.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Nov 05, 2007 - 10:31PM #6
Bodean
Posts: 9,703
OK .. Charik.

Back to those El Ninos and La Ninas.  These phenomenon produce distrubances in the upper atmosphere that alter the jet streams, and thus storm tracks.  Significantly, La Nina causes a high pressure system to develope in the upper Pacific, thus forcing storms nothward, increasing cold temps in Alaska as well as snow fall.  This also shuts off the flow of warmer temps to the North Pole, especially during the summer months.  The mechanism for this is that air flows north over the high pressure picking up the coldest air at the North Pole and bringing is southward.

It is often noted that the permafrost in Alaska is melting and the arctic ice is decreasing.  This is to be expected, as there has been little to no La Nina activity from 1976-1998.  Fortunately La Ninas are back, and they should do some to reverse this trend.  We had a significant La Nina from 1999-2001, and we are entering another.  Gobal Temperature on the GISS site sunk to 1996-1997 levels and stayed there until another El Nino began to warm things up.  According to the astrophysics guys, more La Ninas and less El Ninos will become the trend until 2020.  Throw in the 8 year lag of ocean effect, and they are predicting some major cold by 2030.  This is also based on the trough of the Giesenberg Cycle, a well established solar cycle where the minima historically are associated with extreme cold. (The Mauder Minimum "Little Ice Age" was during a Giesenburg Cycle Minimum)

It is well documented as well, that El Ninos and La Ninas affect the formation of ice in Antarctica.  El Ninos cause warm water to flow southward on the pacific side, thus warming and melting ice on the Pacific Side (that peninsula that everyone keep taking pictures of).  In Contrast, El Ninos cause ice to build on the Atlantic side (hence, why you hear stories that Ice is actually increasing on Antarctica).  This is exaclty what has happened over the last 30 years because there have been NO La Ninas.  La Nina on the otherhand, causes the opposite!  It causes ice to form on the Pacific side, and ice to melt on the Atlantic side.  THUS .. everything that you've seen and herd about the ice on Antarctica is explained ... not by CO2, not by the Ozone Hole, but by ENSO activity.

There is a down side to La Ninas as well.  Drought in certain areas (ie., Southwest US were all the wild fires are happening).  Also, increased hurricane activity.  It is well documented in the literature that La Nina removes the High Pressure (sinking air) that squelches hurricanes.  Of course, all the CO2 guys will point to Global Warming, but the mechanisms for this are well established, and it is why NO reputable hurrican expert is on board with the IPCC predictions (the only hurricane expert is Trentberth, who is in close association with Mann et al. and the rest of the AGW crowd).


Personally, I find it kinda hard to listen to computer modellers or paleoclimatologist specializing in Ice Cores or Tree rings dismiss Solar hypotheses, when they know nothing about it.  They rely on the IPCC to dictate to them what is relevant about Solar influences, but the IPCC is set on proving Climate Change is our fault; otherwise, they'd have no reason to exist, as we can't do anything about natural variation in Climate.  The IPCC and CO2 crowed deny any solar influence.  The Astrophysicist, however, vehemently disagree with the IPCC.

What's so interesting, is the Astrophysicist don't deny that CO2 is part of the Greenhouse make up of the atmosphere, and that we contribute to it.  Contrast that to the CO2 guys, they just flat out dismiss anything that is in opposition to their hypotheses.  What's worse, they won't let anyone verify their work except for their own cronies.

Thanks to this site, I've dived head first into Climate Science, and I must say, I'm not sold that man is causing anything .... other than a group of people who causing fear in the ignorant public.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Nov 05, 2007 - 10:43PM #7
Bodean
Posts: 9,703
BTW Charik ...

The more exact answer to your questions.

The solar flux and influence has been shown in laboratory experiments to increase Cloud Cover. Cloud Cover is orders of magnitude more powerfull at affecting Climate than CO2.

Second, as I noted above, The occurance of El Nino and La Nina is tied to Solar Variation.  These two events are second only to clouds in affecting global climate.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Nov 06, 2007 - 12:08AM #8
Piobair_Paganach
Posts: 291
[QUOTE]While Lanscheidt was not a "professional Climate Scientist" as defined by the establishment...[/QUOTE]

I'm not a professional dentist as defined by the establishment, but I am pretty handy with a Dremel tool; anyone need any dental work done?
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Nov 06, 2007 - 8:27AM #9
Bodean
Posts: 9,703
[QUOTE=Piobair_Paganach;47654]I'm not a professional dentist as defined by the establishment, but I am pretty handy with a Dremel tool; anyone need any dental work done?[/QUOTE]

I know guys that can work computer code, etc .. that run circles around people who are "professional" computer IS techs.

I'm not a "liscenced" electrician, but I am an electrician.

Landscheidt does not have a degree in climate science, but he is a climate scientist.

A person who studies and publishes material on a subject IS a scientist.  They may not have a degree in that specialty, but they are scientist studying that discipline, none the less.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Nov 09, 2007 - 9:19AM #10
Karma_yeshe_dorje
Posts: 12,803
Here in southeast Oz, we have some real problems with drying and heating up. I don't need somebody telling me it all ain't happening. This region has effectively moved a hundred kilometres towards the equator in terms of its climatic conditions. The federal government is paying farmers to quit and clear off!
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 4  •  1 2 3 4 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook