interesting stuff that ken ring totally nailed the prediction.

here is what he says for the following months.

There'll possibly be some strong winds from tropical cyclones at the end of January(FM on 23rd) and then in the second half of March(FM on 22nd), but after that the usual strong winds around perigee times will prevail, but nothing really strong until the first 10 days of July which will be New moon+perigee+N dec, and then again some galeforce winds around the ends of July, Aug, Sept, Oct, Nov and Dec and these will all be New Moon times.

TonyC said...

He also has some interesting takes on Global Warming. Whoops, there goes that topic again. [}:)]

I read his ideas on global warming. I tend to agree that global warming a self serving industry. Scientists always struggle for money so perhaps this is a way to pay the mortgage.

I also don't really understand why warming temperatures would not increase the amount of clouds and rainfall, which would then reduce temperatures. I kind of think the weather and atmosphere is kind of self regulating and it would be pretty hard to push it way out of balance.

Hi Gestalt, not arguing at all about the levels of pollution and damage to the environment that humans are causing. Just hope the focus is in the right direction - we need clean viable power generation from non-fossil fuels drastically. Am wondering where it is going to come from though and the transition period. Never take a criticism against some global warming arguments as being unconcerned about the environment. Actually the opposite - the focus needs to be right - otherwise a huge waste of time and resources looking for the wrong things.

Mobydisc said...

TonyC said...

He also has some interesting takes on Global Warming. Whoops, there goes that topic again. [}:)]

I read his ideas on global warming. I tend to agree that global warming a self serving industry. Scientists always struggle for money so perhaps this is a way to pay the mortgage.

I also don't really understand why warming temperatures would not increase the amount of clouds and rainfall, which would then reduce temperatures. I kind of think the weather and atmosphere is kind of self regulating and it would be pretty hard to push it way out of balance.

As a climate scientist myself (tru dinks)... and who's mortgage never benefited a red cent from global warming - in fact i reckon i coulda actually made money if i sold out as a sceptic; oil/coal/aluminium industries tend to pay a tad better than the public service...

Yes, there is some cooling effect from low level clouds, but there is also a warming effect if we increase the high cloud (cos the thin high level ice clouds let lotsa shortwave radiation (sunlight) in but also trap longwave radiation (heat)). So the clouds themselves almost balance out their own effect. These radiation balances are reasonably well understood from modelling and are included in the warming projections.

As for pushing the atmosphere outta balance... well we had these things called ice ages once upon a time, and last i looked, i'd traded in my wooly-mammoth ugg boots for thongs! (And loving it...) You reach a tipping point and its actually pretty easy to throw the atmosphere out. Just look at rainfall in southwest WA...

Seriously, the simple fact is CO2 keeps our atmosphere around 33degC warmer than it would be otherwise - i.e., it has a huge effect upon our planet. Then us humanoids come along and pump in so much of the stuff that we now have more CO2 in the atmos than there has been for at least the past 700,000 years. There's pretty much not much else that can happen other than more warming...

PS. Ken Ring's work is not based on any science what-so-ever. As for verification - he claimed the Aus ski season year before last would be a doozy, but it proved to be the worst in 40years. His response... "Well i was right - it snowed in NZ"(!) Frankly, its bollocks. We currently have a La Nina event and in such events we get more TC's in the Coral Sea, and more onshore action down the east coast.

I'll shut up now.

Ian K said...

I'm not a climate scientist, ( i've got an internet browser), but I've been meaning to ask one "How confident are we that the CO2 hasn't hit 385 ppm in the past 700,000yrs?"

I read somewhere on the internet that ice cores from Vostok have a resolution of only several hundred years. ie. The bubbles aren't synchronised in their closure. If so, (here's my hypothesis ) if a volcano let go a similarly large burst of CO2 500,000 years ago it would barely show up as a blip in the ice cores, provided the climate was able to recover within 100 yrs. Does that sound feasible?

At the moment, according to the www, the earth seems to be coping pretty well. Although humans release 4.5 ppm of CO2 into the atmosphere each year we only measure a rise of 1.5 ppm each year. Where is the excess stashed I wonder? So if we went totally nuclear tomorrow the CO2 would head back to its pre-industrial levels at 3ppm per year.

Sometimes i wish the inner-net was never invented!

Yes, we're very very confident there hasn't been as high a CO2 levels in the past 700,000 years at least.

Volcanoes simply cannot release an amount of CO2 that would globally raise the CO2 to todays levels. Simply not possible. Yes there have been eruptions that have caused changes in the global climate, but much of this was probably due to methane; in modern times the best the total global total volcanic eruptions could do was contribute less than a hundredth of the observed rise in CO2.

The actual net increase of CO2 is now over 2ppm per annum. About 40% of the human emmissions are absorbed by natural processses - mostly the oceans. However the longer we leave things the more the ocean absorbs, meaning it approaches saturation. Once (if) this occurs, no more net CO2 removal, and hence we'd add (at current levels) about another 0.7degreeC to our warming. In fact this is the exact reason why we reckon we're locked into at least double the warming we already have. We've already added around 0.8degC, then the ocean alone could potentially deliver almost that again when things come into balance, and then we havent even talked about removing the dirty aerosols (which we will as we clean up industry as we attempt to tackle CO2 increases) that current "reflect" about 2/3degC... so all up, we pretty much have 2degC warming in the bag. Well done world!

Errr... i think this has gotten way too far from windsurfing - and i got 21 knots SSW out there calling me and thats one siren-song this bloke cant resist...

Ian K said...

Thanks Windjunky, I'm trying hard to find holes in the arguments, but yeh the internet and its grain of salt. The other thing that doesn't make sense is the sawtooth from Hawaii, surely decomposition occurs at the same time of year as photosynthesis? But you better go sailing, we've got 5 knots gusting to 6 - and even that's from the wrong direction.

Nah... leaves fall off trees in the northern Hem "fall"/winter and rot; no leaves, no photosynthesis + rot releases CO2. The effect is mostly Northern Hem - what you say is somewhat true for SHem - but NH has far larger landmass and hence vegetation than SH and hence dominates the global CO2 curve. We even see a sawtooth from data from Cape Grim.

Which makes me think of Cape Grim's neighbour, Marrawah.

Which makes me think of sailing...

Which makes me wish my wife would get home and look after the boy so i can get my 20knot fix!