Comments on: National Solar Observatory, NASA say no “Maunder Minimum” — sorry, deniers — Solar Cycle 24 poised to rev up

By: Ah Duhh

Ah Duhh — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 15:36:14 +0000

Please explain why this data CLEARLY shows a DIRECT correspondence between recent GLOBAL temperature, yet you claim it should be ignored.

http://www.pmodwrc.ch/ pmod.php?topic=tsi/ virgo/ proj_space_virgo#VIRGO_Radiometry

By: Ah Duhh

Ah Duhh — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 15:22:18 +0000

It is now 6 Jan 2010 and the solar sunspot count is still at record lows. This is approaching the longest solar minimum in recent times. The counts have STILL not increased , we have had this low since 2008. Your “Predicted” increase still is not happening. ALL areas north and south of the equator have had record lows. Several days of below fereezing in central Florida. I think you should re examine the content of this article.

By: rogeri

rogeri — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 06:17:34 +0000

I kindly have to lean in the direction of errant science, IE we… no they… have it all wrong. Sorry. There are those out there that are making millions trying to scare us. Where do we measure official global temperatures? Airports with their tarmacs can never be accurate. We have had some of the coolest summers I can remember over the past several years; and I live in the California desert. I can remember reading average mean temperatures that never left the triple digits throughout July and August in the past. I had good reason to study these trends. Our equipment (electronic spans) suffered in the heat. Twelve years ago, I almost died in a day with a 128 degree high. My car vapor locked. We haven’t come within 15 degrees of that at all this year or last.

By: will burke

will burke — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 12:35:00 +0000

I think ocean current changes may be worth adding to the analysis.

By: not quite pc yet

not quite pc yet — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 03:23:20 +0000

I would say we are getting warmer, no? That makes sense to me & I cannot understand why anyone would doubt that we are warming. I hear about how the earth has warmed .02 whatever since the last period of importance, and since it has some stamp of approval by everyone, I assume it is true & I want to line up on the winning side.
I need something to convince my father and Mother and brothers.
My Father showed me a site that listed all of the states and their record high temperatures to date. No high temp. records in this century so far, a few were set in the ’90’s, and that is it.
Where is the Global warming records anyways? Isn’t this pot supposed to be boiling and each year is hotter than the last? Is it fair, that more records for high temps were set in the 1800’s than in the ’90’s?

By: Leland Palmer

Leland Palmer — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 14:56:18 +0000

Hi David-

I guess the concern is that if they start to heat up their zone of temperature and pressure stability will contract, starting at the bottom of the zone, I think. This could trigger slides, which could accelerate the process. I need to find out more about this, too.

By: David B. Benson

David B. Benson — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 02:19:43 +0000

Leland Palmer — I’ve looked at some methyl clathrate phase diagrams. I’ll speculate that most of that stuff is safe, just the parts near the surface of the Arctic might not be (although that might be enough). Much more worrisome, to me, is the methane in bogs and permafrost, maybe because I know less about it.

By: TomG

TomG — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 02:11:16 +0000

Ahem…if 1notsocleverhominid was actually paying attention he’d realize this not dhogaza’s blog and he really can’t delete any posts here.
You either didn’t post anything while claiming you did, or Joe, who does own this blog, put some of your tripe out of its misery.

By: Leland Palmer

Leland Palmer — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 00:29:52 +0000

Hi David B. Benson-

Yes, the flood basalts may have been involved in at least the Permian/Triassic extinction event. That gives me some hope that the methane hydrates will remain intact.

But the modeling seems to show that an alternative way to get to massive methane release is possible, if Chris Field and the other climate scientists are right. It may be that the positive feedbacks we are seeing due to the hundreds of billions of tons of carbon we have injected into the system from fossil fuels, such as permafrost melting, release of terrestrial arctic methane hydrates, wildfire related positive feedback, decay of frozen organic matter in arctic permafrost, the icecap/albedo feedback, and release of dissolved CO2 from the oceans will provide enough heat to destabilize the oceanic methane hydrates.

I’m not a climate scientist, I’m just an analytical chemist. But I’ve worked in labs for more than 20 years now, and I’ve seen a lot of data. More and more, it’s looking like James Lovelock was right, and the climate is in failure mode, to me.

Thanks for the suggestion about Real Climate, I’ll check it out. I’ve been there a couple of times, but not lately.

By: David B. Benson

David B. Benson — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 22:26:04 +0000

Leland Palmer — Yes, extinction events appear to be caused by massive releases of methane, driven by the formation of flood basalts, often called traps. Enough molten rock heats the oceans so that the clathrates release.

Anyway, I don’t know the answer to your interesting OH question. WIth all respect, I suggest that such questions, and other matters of climatology, are better posed over on Real Climate. There you’ll find lots of experienced amateurs who can aid in answering those. (And also speculate with you regarding whether we are setting up for a catastropic positive feedback release of methane.)