http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20081103_ozone.html

This is just NASA’s usual hype. They have to justify their existence by announcing ‘discoveries’ and ‘breakthroughs’ [we have seen several examples of this lately - even discussed on this blog].

What they have ‘discovered’ is “We used to think the connection was permanent and that solar wind could trickle into the near-Earth environment anytime the wind was active,” says Sibeck. “We were wrong. The connections are not steady at all. They are often brief, bursty and very dynamic.”

This is old hat. Thirty years ago I wrote [in a chapter paper http://www.leif.org/research/suipr699.pdf (page 32ff) for the
Skylab Workshop that established coronal holes]:
“The implication seems to be that the coupling to the solar wind due to magnetic field connection is very weak unless the geometry is very favorable, i.e. the external field is almost anti-parallel to the dayside geomagnetic field. Due to ever-present fluctuations of the interplanetary magnetic field – considerably enhanced after passage through the bow-shock – favorable conditions for connection occur often enough at so many places on the magnetopause as to give the [false] impression that reconnection and hence geomagnetic activity occur for all orientations of the interplanetary magnetic field and varying in efficiency smoothly from a maximum for anti-parallel fields to a non-vanishing minimum for parallel fields.”

So, nothing new there. Nice though that they have actually been able to observe some of those events.

Working…..

Summer is not phase-lagged much, much more than 6 months [except, of course, any multiple of 12 months would work :-) ]
I used to live by the coast and the lag was perhaps a month or two.

Ok, but weren’t you only talking about distance from the sun? The summer/winter difference is much greater than 7%. You have the longer days and larger angle the solar radiation strikes the earth.

Reread your own post, you were expressing your own opinion. How cheap to hide behind the (exaggerated) opinions of others at the first sign of opposition.

Ok, so its them. Can you point me to any plan of Al Gore or any serious environmental organisation that requires a restructuring of our whole world? Prove it.

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=17240126

>>deleted<<

As far as I know, climate models use time steps in the order of minutes. So any seasonal, even daily change in solar radiation can be accounted for. ”

So in a climate models, you can use time increments of nanoseconds if you have enough computer power, and spatial increments of mm too.

But how does that help, if the real world actual measured physical data is taken at any old time they feel like it and reported for maybe twice a day (min/max), for some time some place, and with spatial increments that may be hundreds of km.

The point is that those computer climate models are not able to replicate the output of say the GISStemp ritual, let alone replicate the raw data input to it from actual places and actual times, where and when it was measured.

If they are supposed to be models of this actual planet that we live on, with its diverse geography, they at least shopuld be able to compute a rough picture of what we actually see however poor that view is.

Richard (02:03:15) :

but fixing AGW cannot be done without restructuring out whole world

Restructuring our whole world? Aren’t you exaggerating? Isn’t that alarmism of the other kind?”
To be clear i am referring to what the alarmists are calling for and how if we do not do what they say and the world does not warm as promised then they will be shown to be wrong. I think its fair to say what Gore and the like are calling for would require a restructuring of the world. Think the credit crunch is bad then try a natural resources crunch.

Reply: JimB (05:07:12) :
“..the average citizen will just start to ignore it as background noise and accept the loudest voices as true.”

Think you are right about the loudest voices but as the voices get louder and the claims get more extreme then the sooner these claims can be tested with real events. Take the claims of a ice free north pole this year, what will the papers print next year?

Reply: Ric Werme (17:02:15) :
Thanks for your taughts on acid rain. End of the day can’t complain about clean air. One of the biggest cause’s of confusion i think is people mixing up dirty air with CO2.

FM

I might not be old enough to remember the global cooling scare but i remember well being told how we are destroying the ozone layer and killing the forests with acid rain. Spotted this story today, more evidence that acid rain is good for forests.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081021214850.htm

The article, while interesting, only mentions nitrate. It’s been long regarded that nitric acid is a fertilizer, albeit acidic. Sulfates and sulphuric acid from buring high-sulphur coal wern’t mentioned. Perhaps power plants have shifted to low sulphur coal, use scrubbers, or the Michigan forests are less susceptible to acid than the Adirondacks and New England.

Some of the concerns about acid rain killing spruce trees was misplaced – winds in winter storms would stress and break the root hairs on taller spruce. I saw many areas in the White Mountains here in NH where the tall spruce (only 15-25 feet) near the treeline would be dead, but the low spruce was doing just fine, at least as well as can be expected in that environment. It’s tough to be a tree in the White Mountains.

Other concerns, e.g. acid rain leaching aluminum from clay and other minerals, or the poor buffering of alpine lakes remained a concern until acid rain dropped off the radar here. Politics, fires, and murders get so much more air time….

I used to think that was the underlying cause, but it is a lot more complicated. Obtain a copy of “The Holes in the Ozone Scare” by Maduro and Schauerhammer. Their science is a little shaky, but the investigation of corporate shenanigans has never been refuted.

Dupont was the company that had controlled the patent on most of the refrigerants at the time that used CFC’s. For those of you unfamiliar with the patent system in the US, you control the patent for a set number of years, after which any company can copy the product without any fees or fines. The patent was running out for Dupont, and they had CFC free refrigerants conveniently waiting in the wings.

Dupont was the company that was the biggest backer of the CFC theory.

Coincidence?