Tracking the Earth's orbit: looking for warming signs | Watts Up With That?
The notion that scientists understand how changes in Earth's orbit affect climate well enough for estimating long-term natural climate trends that underlie any anthropogenic climate change is challenged by findings published this week. The new research was conducted by a team led by Professor Eelco Rohling of the University of Southampton's School of Ocean and Earth Science hosted at the National Oceanography Centre, Southampton.
"Understanding how climate has responded to past change should help reveal how human activities may have affected, or will affect, Earth's climate. One approach for this is to study past interglacials, the warm periods between glacial periods within an ice age," said Rohling.
The team, which included scientists from the Universities of Tuebingen (Germany) and Bristol, compared the current warm interglacial period with one 400,000 years ago (marine isotope stage 11, or MIS-11).
Many aspects of the Earth-Sun orbital configuration during MIS-11 were similar to those of the current interglacial. For this reason, MIS-11 is often considered as a potential analogue for future climate development in the absence of human influence.
Previous studies had used the analogy to suggest that the current interglacial should have ended 2-2.5 thousand years ago. So why has it remained so warm?
According to the'anthropogenic hypothesis', long-term climate impacts of man's deforestation activities and early methane and carbon dioxide emissions have artificially held us in warm interglacial conditions, which have persisted since the end of the Pleistocene, about 11 400 years ago.
To address this issue, the researchers used a new high-resolution record of sea levels, which reflect ice volume. This record, which is continuous through both interglacials, is based on the 'Red Sea method' developed by Rohling.
Water passes between the Red Sea and the open ocean only through the shallow Strait of Bab-el-Mandab, which narrows as sea levels drop, reducing water exchange. Evaporation within the Red Sea increases its salinity, or saltiness, and changes the relative abundance of stable oxygen isotopes.
By analysing oxygen isotope ratios in tiny marine creatures called foraminiferans preserved in sediments that were deposited at the bottom of the Red Sea, the scientists reconstructed past sea levels, which were corroborated by comparison with the fossilised remains of coral reefs.
The researchers found that the current interglacial has indeed lasted some 2.0–2.5 millennia longer than predicted by the currently dominant theory for the way in which orbital changes control the ice-age cycles. This theory is based on the intensity of solar radiation reaching the Earth at latitude 65 degrees North on 21 June, the northern hemisphere Summer solstice.
But the anomaly vanished when the researchers considered a rival theory, which looks at the amount of solar energy reaching the Earth the same latitude during the summer months. Under this theory, sea levels could remain high for another two thousand years or so, even without greenhouse warming.
The study was funded by the United Kingdom's Natural Environment Council and the German Science Foundation.
February 7, 2010 in Climate News, Earth, Science.
is he on the official list of Wikipedia approved climate scientists?
Fine, if solar radiance is indeed the only influence. But there is another theory, that changes in muon flux alter the Earth's albedo by altering cloud extent. Muon flux is determined in turn by the cosmic ray flux, of which the local galactic component will vary as the Solar System moves through the spiral arms and up & down through the galaxy disc. There are also streams of cosmic rays within the galaxy whose positions, I understand, are less predictable.
Once here, the cosmic ray flux reaching the Earth is controlled mainly by the solar wind (a function of sunspots) and the Earth's magnetic field.
All this is due to be tested this year by the 'Cloud' experiments at the Geneva LHC.
Or see if one of the approved scientists will okay it.
Have been unable to get your link 'Tips & Notes to WUWT' to work for reasons I cannot fathom I am using this to point you to another excellent item in the Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/feb/05/science-climate-emails-code-release – hope you can use it.
The way science should be.
Not to nitpick, but "for" is repeated in the title: "…looking for for warming signs".
My take from the article is that we have a broad understanding of the astronomical causes of ice ages, but the details are still unclear.
Things are really changing now we see scientific institutions backtracking from the AGW mantra.
Not mentioned in the article is that the earth has an elliptical orbit, with an eccentricity of 0.016710219, an Aphelion of 1.0167103335 AU, and a Perihelion of 0.9832898912 AU. This produces a small imbalance between the two hemispheres in terms of solar irradiance reaching the ground, currently in favor of the northern hemisphere (slightly greater average watt /sq. meter). Due to the precession of the equinoxes, with a period of 25,800 years, the imbalance is always in flux, is roughly a sinusoidal function, eventually reaching zero and then changing polarity.
I told you guys once already.
The author is not on the official Wikipedia list of approved climate scientists I mentioned above.
So disregard Rohling's crap – right now!
The Guardian article noted here by Philhippos C cuts right to the core of exactly what is wrong with computer modelling in 'climate science'.
It makes several very important scientific points and seems well worthy of an individual post.
Many thanks PC for the link.
Why do the eco-wackos want the earth covered in ice?
The orbital theory of climate variation has the advantage that we can calculate orbits to almost arbitrary precision in the past, make predictions, and then test them with lots of observational data — assuming that the time precision of the observations is good enough. The other climatic influences are much more difficult to test. Even the impact of CO2 at the present time, where we have a solid grasp of timing of warming versus CO2 change, is difficult to test because the impact is small, despite current hysteria, and mixed with other influences most of which have similar magnitude of effect. Now we have the additional problem of not knowing exactly what the magnitude of temperature is or the true time history.
Some climate models are available on line. They are huge and extremely complex, and do not lend themselves to any type of simple analysis of their strengths and weaknesses.
Interesting because I believe the interglacial actually began the process of ending at around 0 AD. Since about 0 AD the climate seems to me to be generally cooling at a fairly decent pace. We have had major cool periods, each cooler than the one before with the LIA being probably the coldest period since the Younger Dryas. Each warm period has been a little cooler than the previous.
"According to the'anthropogenic hypothesis', long-term climate impacts of man's deforestation activities and early methane and carbon dioxide emissions have artificially held us in warm interglacial conditions, which have persisted since the end of the Pleistocene, about 11 400 years ago.
And CO2 cannot save us…..
…But the anomaly vanished when the researchers considered a rival theory, … Under this theory, sea levels could remain high for another two thousand years or so, even without greenhouse warming.
So, according to the best research available, either CO2 driven global warming is the only thing holding us back from a plunge into an ice age, or it will be the only thing very shortly (on a geologic time scale) and we are on the cusp (+/- 2k yrs, so we're in the middle).
So we have about 400 years worth of coal to burn up and we need to "get 'er done" no later than about 1000 years (to avoid momentum into an ice age). Looks to me like we are more or less right on schedule.
So, save the Planet, burn coal.
Oh! Canada! Burn tar sand oil and oil shales.
But with any luck, some of the "climate science" being done will help us figure out how to warm things up a little bit. Buy ourselves a few decades or maybe even a century or two more.
It runs close to 30 minutes.
What's really scary is contemplating what the scientists who are coming up with CO2 mitigation strategies were, instead, trying to figure out ways to warm the Earth.
Not mentioned in the article is that the earth has an elliptical orbit, with an eccentricity of 0.016710219, an Aphelion of 1.0167103335 AU, and a Perihelion of 0.9832898912 AU. This produces a small imbalance between the two hemispheres in terms of solar irradiance reaching the ground, currently in favor of the northern hemisphere (slightly greater average watt /meter). Due to the precession of the equinoxes, with a period of 25,800 years, the imbalance is always in flux, is roughly a sinusoidal function, eventually reaching zero and then changing polarity.
I'm pleased to see more geological imput into climate science these days. Paleoclimatology as a discipline was, before the global warming hysteria, pretty much a secret outside of geological science. Its recent discovery by the new climate science has been the silver bullet that has decimated much of AGW theory of late. There are few geologists that bought into the story that this is the hottest age in earth history, chiefly because of paleoclimatology's teachings, and there are no geologists who do not know that climate change is the norm rather than the exception. But I see this orbital geometry/sea-level stuff as part of only a piecemeal wearing away of the AGW edifice.
With all the very recent new stuff coming out that ravages AGW theory, it is time to examine, not just the folly and fraud, but the anatomy of how this whole thing got started and where we should be going (a good long post on this is warranted). It started with an astronomer musing on how hot Venus is with its atmosphere choked with CO2. Surmising or researching the growth in CO2 on earth, led to this AGW leap of faith without delving more broadly to discover that paleoclimatology had important things to say. Rather, everybody (mostly the wrong people) became climatologists (as late as 2007, MS word underlined the term climatologist in red). An AGW sceptic physicist (source forgotten) some few months ago said something to the effect that: You can't do climatology without physics but you can do physics without climatology. Although somewhat true, this pretty well sums up the wrong thinking that led to the half baked theory of AGW. Physics is helpful in trying to understand the phenomena but history and geology are more powerful tools in the investigation of natural and anthropogenic climate change (if it indeed is real).
Once paleoclimatology (and history) was discovered to exist, all sorts of problems began to arise with AGW. Having entrenched themselves into the AGW faith so deeply, the main occupation became to get rid of the embarassment of the Little Ice Age and the MWP and a number of other WPs. Dendrochronology, and the other tools of paleoclimatology were abused and misused and what started out to be well-meaning but naive scientists finished by being dishonest, destructive anti-scientists. Anyway, lets embrace new studies like the one of this thread, but lets also remake political climatology into scientific climatology.
Hark! T'would that be fresh air I smell?
Amazing that when the Berlin Wall came down how fast everything changed in Europe.
We seem to be experiencing another such event. God has not foresaken us and left us to the mercy of the heathen Warmists.
It's bad because civilization was not supposed to last long enough to figure out how this thing works. Well, almost. Maybe we will, provided certain Dr. Frankensteins don't hit the Panic Button and launch Operation GCM Bring on the Ice Age.
The article above leaves me with a Darned if we do, Darned if we don't taste in my mouth.
Maybe the EPA has it backwards: C02 is not a pollutant, it's an endangered trace gas. Geologic forces have been overly-sucessful at sequestration.
380ppm, are you kidding me? "I didn't inhale".
Huybers, P., 2006, "Early Pleistocene glacial cycles and the integrated summer insolation forcing", Science 313, 508–511.
This will probably put me into the "Flat Earth'ers" camp….
I say keeping the ice age at bay is a GOOD THING.
Possibly being 2,000 yrs overdue for an ice age beginning is very scary stuff indeed. Worrying about warming when the exact opposite is what we most likely face is a very serious crime being foisted upon us by scientists and the media.
I wonder if there are any geoengineering solutions available to counter this. Seriously, this is no laughing matter.
This opening points out the essential absurdity of their position.
Philhippos C (10:09:33) : …another excellent item in the Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/feb/05/science-climate-emails-code-release – hope you can use it.
The CRU code is in no way special. On the contrary it is of the average mediocre quality that can be found in most academic institutions. In order to fix such codes and develop a high quality reliable software, non-trivial time-consuming and cumbersome professional commercial engineering work is required.
1.	Academic science vs. Commercial engineering.
4.	Michael Mann and Phil Jones vs. Steve McIntyre and Anthony Watts.
And it's David vs. Goliath.
ago. Clim. Change 61, 261–293.
millennia. Quat. Sci. Rev. 24, 1111–1121.
Trans. AGU 87 (35), 352–353.
responses. Rev. Geophys. 45, RG4001, doi:10.1029/2006RG000207.
where should humanity aim? Open Atmos. Sci. J. 2, 217–231.
The bottom-line is that the AGW argument for the delay in the onset of the next ice age as calculated by straight application of Milankovitch theory can be dismissed by accepting Huybers' "Early Pleistocene glacial cycles and the integrated summer insolation forcing" explaination. The fact that the MIS-11 interglacial can be explained by Huybers' theory with presumably no AGW influences is significant.
Call me a simple Mechanical Engineer if you wish, but I fail to see how the Earths orbit can change hugely without a massive increase or reduction of kinetic energy. This could only occur in practice if the Earth was hit by something pretty massive.
I accept that gravitational forces of other bodies can change the shape of the orbital ellipse, but this would not produce a global Ice Age. Rather it would mean that the Earth would exhibit more extreme temperatures (ie it would be hotter and colder) within the cycle.
And none of this accounts for why Ice Ages turn up almost like clockwork – ie they are too regular to be the result of a chance impact.
The only logical answer I have seen for why Ice Ages are so regular was put forward by CERN scientists. They said the frequency coincided precisely with the time it took Earth to travel between the spiral arms in the Milky Way – about 140,000 years. They said was that whilst Earth was in one of the spiral arms, the atomic ray intensity was much, much higher causing a huge increase in cloud seeding. The Earth was blanketed in cloud for thousands of years and temperatures just plummeted. It seemed so logical to me. Especially as the correlation was perfect. It also explains why the ice retreats afterwards and 'snowball Earth' doesn't happen.
I saw a presentation online recently but I am dammed if I can find it again.
'Atomic ray' should be 'atomic particles'.
Unfortunately the "Rohling metod" that this study is based on is a can of worms. What it measures is not the sea-level as such, but rather the height of the sea level above the threshold in the Bab el Mandeb strait.
Unfortunately this area is one of the most tectonically active areas on Earth (it is a "Triple Junction", i e a place where three continental plates are separating from each other). It is incidentally also right next to the "Afar triangle", the only place on Earth where a sizable piece of oceanic crust is above sealevel.
In this environment the chances of the level of the sill and the profile of the strait remaining unchanged for 400,000 years are very low.
Looking at insolation over the whole season has to make more sense than just at solstice. For several reasons. The integration of the orbital elements is non trivial, and not amenable to simple one date analysis. For example, changes in obliquity will interact with changes in the precession of the equinox and changes in eccentricity of orbit. There will be epochs where solstice NH insolation is high, but tails off more rapidly in the shoulder seasons, and epochs where solstice insolation is lower, but stays at highish levels into the shoulder seasons.
In a few hundred years we'll have self-replicating robots on the Moon who can fabricate reflectors and start covering the surface. Aim them at the Earth as needed for the few extra watts to keep the ice at bay. That's much saner than trying to directly modify the situation down here on the planet.
Still groping in the dark. We´re in need of a new cosmological view. However scientists have to live neither hurting common paradigms nor believers or deniers alike, just "roses, roses", everybody happy…until the next "gate" opens up.
Svalgaard: what is the energy in the cosmic ray flux compared to simple day light?
Look for a link in the sidebar under "Pages".
That's easy to answer. It would make humans extinct.
The history of the natural climate is and will remain the history of the astronomical orbit and at least E+03 accurately discerned cycles of period E+05 years demonstrate that conclusively, and there is no energy influence to change the Earth's climate that would not change the Earth's angular momentum or the topology of the Earth's orbit in it's course round the Sun.
I find it interesting that a single or primary cause is sought after. There is no reason both theories cannot be effective. In the context of this article, there is also no need for a rival theory, unless one makes the assumption that the galactic arms maintain the same shape and identical spacing over each 400K orbit of the solar system. Another concept of the same ilk has been proffered regarding past climate. The MIS-11 interglacial had CO2 ranging from 4000ppm dropping to current levels over its interval.
crosspatch (11:08:43) I agree with your assessment, I noticed the decline in the peaks of previous warm periods since the Holocene.
"That's easy to answer. It would make humans extinct.
Excepting for those who could bear the cost of survival. I had a discussion with a Greenpiece advocate who confided that he was aware that the "poor end" would not survive a shift to "green," progressively fewer able to survive as "carbon" limits were ratcheted down to some 80% of what they are today.
Hmmm, so the next Ice Age is overdue by two millenia. And the reason is a mystery. Now what was it that happened approximately 2000 years ago that promised salvation for all humankind? Hmmm, now what could that be?
No, geoengineering will not save us from the cold, but prayer just might!
Possibly being 2,000 yrs overdue for an ice age beginning is very scary stuff indeed.
Translation: You have another 2,000 years before the next ice age.
BOULDER—Arctic temperatures in the 1990s reached their warmest level of any decade in at least 2,000 years, new research indicates. The study, which incorporates geologic records and computer simulations, provides new evidence that the Arctic would be cooling if not for greenhouse gas emissions that are overpowering natural climate patterns.
This is another hockey stick but up in the icey artic. Like Mann's 2000 year work so is this one.
The article below was based on work from David Archer from the University of Chicago.
To take this one step further we have an increasing population in the world predicted to be 9billion by 2050 and decreasing land space due to rising sea levels in the next several centuries. Do we do business as usual or make the changes required to avoid the highest extremes of climate change.
So we can rest assured, there is no ice age around the corner. To those with lingering doubts that an ice age might be imminent, turn your eyes towards the northern ice sheets. If they're growing, then yes, the 10,000 year process of glaciation may have begun. However, currently the Arctic permafrost is degrading, Arctic sea ice is melting and the Greenland ice sheet is losing mass at an accelerating rate. These are hardly good conditions for an imminent ice age.
Clearly, climate change is far more complex than the climatologists have portrayed (simple dose-response relationship between carbon dioxide and temperature).
I'm very glad that other disciplines including astrophysicists, geologists and others are starting to become active participants in the conversation!
Its an interesting question. How much change in the underlying plates would invalidate his work?
Nothing "prescriptive" about these, eh?!
0.03 W/m2 compared to 1361 W/m2. About the same as that of starlight on a clear night.
In both cases only a fraction of the energies actually reach the lower atmosphere.
So it's not like the milankovich cycles, or whatever method is used to calculate insolation because of the earth's orbit, have been the main drivers for climate throughout the last billion years—they've only been evident for the past 1.6 million or so. I think part of the reason (if not the main reason) is position of the continents–land over the South Pole as well as the rise of Panama and central America which stopped the flow between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans–which affected the oceanic circulation patterns around the globe and thus atmospheric patterns as well.
I've been looking for newish papers on the orbital fluctuations to see exactly where we are and have found nothing except one paper behind a paywall from 2009. Even the summary available to the public gave little solid info, just a lot of uncertainty and maybe the next glaciation is 10-20000 years away (but doesn't say if that's the bottom or the beginning). However, Andy revkin did a piece about the Arctic paper by kaufmann. He quoted Overpeck as saying we may be averting the next Ice Age and that for the next 4000 years the north pole will be farther and farther away from the sun in northern hemisphere summer.
Repeat: For the next 4000 years the north pole will be farther and farther away from the sun in northern hemisphere summer.
we're already on our way, folks!
That's the open secret in all of this, isn't it… the western eco-elite will survive while the rest of mankind pays the price.
I expect that many understand and share your burning anger. A lot of my CAGW skepticism is energized by the fact that I am a true believer in the inherent equality of people – I am no better or worse than a child in the Sudan, merely more fortunate. This draconian shift promoted by the eco-left to massively reduce CO2 emissions will ensure that that Sudanese child will never have a better life.
Another 2000 years to go. Well, that's comforting.
Fusion power should be just around the corner by then.
I saw a presentation online recently but I am damned if I can find it again.
Enough of the scare think.
Any of you old enough to remember the song that says … 'Whatever will be, will be …. the future's not ours to see "… ?
Good science, good planning, good skepticism.
It's good to hear GCR's aren't going to fry me, but Svensmark's theory doesn't rely on large amounts of energy but the particles being the instigators of a chain of reactions which nucleate clouds as I understand it.
Have you read "The Chilling Stars" Leif?
But better: I have read all his peer-reviewed papers on this subject, have you? As proof, tell me how many there are.
If you believe climate comes with no consequences, you might want to check out some information on that.
Not following regulations is what put us in the dumpers. There is enough resources on earth for everyone's needs but there isn't enough for everyone's greed.
Is that why China just signed a record deal for coal imports from Australia?
How anyone can think that inefficient technologies are going to be a "boom" is way beyond me.
I can't really if China will ever choose to eventually slow down and reverse their coal usage. I hope so. The CEO of Petrobras has given a talk that peak oil will be in 2010. That also means that oil prices will spike. Those of us that practice efficeincy with our automobiles won't be hit as hard. Some renewables are easily competitve with Nuclear now and have 7 hours storage built in now with 16 hours in development later.
You might want to cite somewhat better references than the ones you have listed. The Hurricane one is thoroughly debunked, for example. Half the rest are only consequences of futilely trying to cut back CO2 (or from unrelated causes, like the oil running out). Many politicians are choosing to stuff the energy sector, but that is a choice.
In any case, the warmistas can list any amount of negative consequences of climate warming and still be wrong. It is quite possible that the positive consequences will be better.
If the world warms, then prima facie it will have more inhabitable areas (more than compensating for sea rise, in fact) and more productive agriculture. Perhaps we will have wilder storms to pay for that, but it might be a price worth paying.
milankovich cycles coincide "only" for the last 1.6 million years? Having dumped on alarmists for using a few decades to predict processes that should clearly be measured in centuries, I guess I can't argue the point too much if the previous billion years or so doesn't match.
that said, 1.6 million years that does match still seems significant given that it ocurrs in the time span of most relevance to us (as in right now). It seems to me that we can compare the milankovich cycles to the geologic record, but interference from our solar system passing through a dust cloud (for example) for a few million years might be harder to correlate since something like that would seriously impare energy transfer from the sun to earth, but would be pretty difficult to spot with a telescope ten million years after the fact.
The Climate Progress piece you linked to references Solomon et al (2009). The article I linked to, by Prof. Tom V. Segalstad, debunks Solomon.
Solomon et al. (2009) have obviously not seriously considered the paper by Segalstad (1998), who addresses the 50% "missing sink" error of the IPCC and shows that the Revelle evasion "buffer" factor is ideologically defined from an assumed model (atmospheric anthropogenic CO2 increase) and an assumed pre-industrial value for the CO2 level, in conflict with the chemical Henry's Law governing the fast ~1:50 equilibrium partitioning of CO2 between gas (air) and fluid (ocean) at the Earth's average surface temperature. This CO2 partitioning factor is strongly dependent on temperature because of the temperature-dependent retrograde aqueous solubility of CO2, which facilitates fast degassing of dissolved CO2 from a heated fluid phase (ocean), similar to what we experience from a heated carbonated drink.
Consequently, the IPCC's and Solomon et al.'s (2009) non-realistic carbon cycle modelling and misconception of the way the geochemistry of CO2 works simply defy reality, and would make it impossible for breweries to make the carbonated beer or soda "pop" that many of us enjoy (Segalstad, 1998).
So why is the correct estimate of the atmospheric residence time of CO2 so important? The IPCC has constructed an artificial model where they claim that the natural CO2 input/output is in static balance, and that all CO2 additions from anthropogenic carbon combustion being added to the atmospheric pool will stay there almost indefinitely. This means that with an anthropogenic atmospheric CO2 residence time of 50 – 200 years (Houghton, 1990) or near infinite (Solomon et al., 2009), there is still a 50% error (nicknamed the "missing sink") in the IPCC's model, because the measured rise in the atmospheric CO2 level is just half of that expected from the amount of anthropogenic CO2 supplied to the atmosphere; and carbon isotope measurements invalidate the IPCC's model (Segalstad, 1992; Segalstad, 1998).
Leif Svalgaard (16:08:11) :…energy in the cosmic ray flux compared to simple day light? 0.03 W/m2 compared to 1361 W/m2.
Then I vote for natural oscillations instead. Is it so difficult to understand that a system can have substantial oscillations that cover a wide range of timescales even if the external force is constant or nearly constant? Ever heard about reaction-diffusion systems?
"Natural oscillations," of sorts. How much more does the sun need to slow down and weaken its magnetic interlock amongst other forces before Earth's orbit starts slipping?
Why do solar cycles slow down, lengthen and then go thru periods where they speed up?
.."external force is constant or nearly constant?," nope.
This assessment, like the others you posted, just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
The green economy is going to accelerate the already begun process of cleaning our clocks. Kyoto was a tremendous boon to China. Factories in Europe and North America closed and new, dirtier factories opened in China and other parts of Asia to replace them.
You just can't make the cost of doing business more expensive and expect the overall economy to improve. Increasing the cost of energy make us less productive and less competitive, not more.
"Carbon" emissions and other greenhouse gases simply are not a problem. There is no climate crisis and the earth is in no more or less peril than it's been for millions of years.
We should all focus our limited time, energy and money on solving real problems.
Leif Svalgaard (16:08:11) : 0.03 W/m² compared to 1361 W/m².
Carla (05:17:57) : "external force is constant or nearly constant?," nope.
What would be the magnitude of the external variation in terms of W/m²?
There is the 1.3 W/m2 variation of TSI.
Any other external variation is of the order of a million times less. Now, imagine you have 10 million external variations all working in the same direction, then you have something. Don't misunderestimate fools' capacity for conjuring up something like this.
Is there any way to set things up that we can send a message directly to someone who has made an earlier Comment? I am thinking of a behind-the-scenes system that does not require revealing the e-dress of the original commenter. I fear that many comments on comments are never seen by the original writer because of the need for original commenter to come back later to a topic and look for additional comments.
A case in point is that I wanted to send an encouraging comment on the comment by Douglas DC (14:31:28): "…..as one who wouldn't pass an Aryan test…..a white greenie's biggest fear is healthy, happy_prosperous_ dark skinned people".
I just wanted to point out that Hitler was misinformed. "Aryan" is from the same origin as "Iran", whose people are not quite as light skinned as the average western European (as is also true of real "Caucasian" people from the Caucasus region).
Great discussion of the various theories of how and when ice ages end. Certainly the literature such as the 1992 Devil's Hole paper (Science), deep sea cores and the Vostoc cores suggest that the last interglacial ended before the rise in summer insolation, a "problem of causality". I would like to throw into the pot another study outside the usual realm of climate science. The Book "Homo Britannicus" by Chris Stringer is a detailed compilation of multidisplinary scientific studies of the climate and life of the British Isles during the Ice Ages. The study found that the interglacial 400,000 years ago lasted 40,000 years in Britain with a significant cool spell midway. Since the Milankovich signal is now about what it was 400,000 years ago, how can we say that the next ice age is overdue by 2000 years in light of what was observed in Britain. Certainly researchers like Imbrie and Shackleton have shown correlation with the Ice Ages but as we all know, correlation is not causation and it appears that the driver of ice ages is much more complex than simple high latitude insolation and its CO2 and albedo feedbacks.
1) Laskar, J.; Robutel, P.; Joutel, F.; Gastineau, M.; Correia, A.C.M.; & Levrard, B. (2004). A long term numerical solution for the insolation quantities of the Earth. Astronomy & Astrophysics 428, 261-285.
2) Huybers, P. (2006). Early Pleistocene glacial cycles and the integrated summer insolation forcing. Science 313, 508-511.
Stine, A.R; Huybers, P.; & Fung, I.Y. (2009). Changes in the phase of the annual cycle of surface temperature. Nature 457, 435-441. doi:10.1038/nature07675.
Thompson, D.J. (2009). Shifts in season. Nature 457, 391-392.
The last one is a bit inflammatory, hitting on points that are both resonant & dissonant with opinions regularly expressed around here. He conveys the impression that he has no awareness of EOP (Earth orientation parameter) variations on decadal timescales.
Leif Svalgaard (08:46:43) : There is the 1.3 W/m2 variation of TSI.
I wonder exactly when energy considerations became passé? Perhaps the skill to judge what is large and what is small is not a popular topic in school anymore? We all know that most journalists have no idea of scale when they write about millions of tons of CO2, but judging what is a proper comparison should be elementary wisdom for scientists and engineers.
He conveys the impression that he has no awareness of EOP (Earth orientation parameter) variations on decadal timescales.
I'm reasonably sure that he knows that the atmosphere and the oceans and their movements [changes of moment of inertia are the [almost sole] causes of changes in EOP.
I wonder exactly when energy considerations became passé?
People pushing agendas ignore energy considerations. Even the 1.3 W/m2 TSI variation is sort of meaningless compared to the 90 W/m2 variation through the year [largest in January].
Right! So we have a variation 1361 W/m² between day and night and a variation of 90 W/m² between summer and winter. Surely it is no exaggeration to state that the external (oscillatory) force is constant or nearly constant.
0.1 mm/year either up or down would suffice to invalidate the results.
If the Milankovich curve isn't a principal driver of ice-ages it seems very unlikely that the two dominant cyclicities (41 kyr, 100 kyr) would just happen to coincide with the obliquity and eccentricity cycles.
In any case the Milankovich cycles are clearly visible in high-quality sedimentary records through much of the Earths history, even in extreme hothouse climate periods.
However I agree that other factors also have influence, for example nobody has yet found a completely satisfactory explanation why glaciations switched from 41 kyr to 100 kyr cycles about 800 kyr ago.
What do you think of his other work?
a variation of 90 W/m² between summer and winter.
Somehow, I don't think that Somerville understands as much about how orbital mechanics triggers ice ages as he thinks he does.
But why is 0.2 W/m2 for 200 years meaningless, if that's the difference from the preceeding 200 years? What would that do to OHC and ice cover? You don't know because you don't know how much of that is stored in the ocean. Aren't you pushing the power argument and ignoring the energy considerations.
All astronomical causes are strictly periodic [on time scale of centuries] and don't matter because there are no strictly periodic terms in our climate of the sharpness and magnitude required to stand out above the noise. If not above the noise [so sophisticated statistics is needed to flush them out], then the effects are not important.
I have not looked at his other work. The day only has 36 hours.
OK. Even more convincing then.
But why is 0.2 W/m2 for 200 years meaningless, if that's the difference from the preceding 200 years?
We worry about what we have evidence [or good theory] about. And I have not seen any that qualify as good. People even claim that the temperatures the past century are unreliable. Also, there is a balance between what goes in and what goes out. As long as we don't know what the delay is [if any], then we cannot conclude anything. There are some reasons to believe that the delay is short. People talks about 7 years, or 3 months, or something of that order. Something tells me that it short, e.g. we get 90 W/m2 more during January [scaled by varies factors: 4 and albedo] than during July. Are you telling me that that the 45 W/m2 we get above average is stored, but the 45 W/m2 we get the rest of the time is not? What difference is there between an extra Watt we get from solar activity from an extra Watt we get due to the orbit not being circular?
Let me elaborate a bit more on the storage issue. Some people claim that the Watts from solar activity cycles are stored [e.g. in the oceans] and a string of high cycles will cause more heat to be stored as they [so it is claimed] add on top of each other. Then, by the same argument, the extra 90 W/m2 we get every January is stored, and every new January adds another 90 W/m2 to the store. This goes on for millions of years….
So, if those January Watts are not really stored, then how the system know only to store a solar activity Watt.
Also, I'm always amazed at the people that claim long-term storage not objecting to the thousands of papers that claim that there is solar cycle correlation with nary any delay [and vice versa].
Although I disagree with your assessment (in part because I like a puzzle more complicated than a 1+1=2 wiggle-matching exercise), I'm content with disagreement.
He is making some fairly lofty claims about solar effects on the Earth. If he is not coming under aggressive attack for his views, this may be informative.
After reading Climategate: The CRUtape Letters I think it is pretty obvious that we cannot be certain that we did not have a MWP and a LIA. Thus, the first place to start would be to ask: what caused the MWP and what caused the LIA?
What is your theory Leif? My own speculation at the moment is that we may have reaction diffusion type ocean cycles that last several hundred years. Sometimes it can be relaxing to watch Rayleigh-Bénard convection and wonder whether similar patterns can cause a MWP and a LIA?
In Rayleigh-Bénard convection the external force is completely constant.
Puzzle away then :-). As long as you it's just a puzzle, everything is fine.
Hundreds of people over hundreds of years have made such claims. One cannot expend energy to aggressively attack yet another one.
What is your theory Leif?
I don't think I need to have one to resolve the AGW issue. Solar and stellar activity are confined to stars with a deep convection zone and thus prone to oscillations and that without any external influences needed. The cooler a star is, the greater is it's activity, so one could hardly blame that on some planetary external influences [this is for die-hard astrologers]. If there are small random wobbles [and convection is just that] it is easy to get situations where the wobbles will interact and sometimes stochastically add up to larger fluctuations. Even on the Sun we see this, where in addition to the fine-scales granulation there are complexes of such cells forming a larger scale super-granulation, extending to somewhat greater depth. Most studies of convection in the laboratory have been about very shallow layers [because they are easier to study], but in stars we have a continuum of cell sizes from very small all the way up to a significant fraction of the radius, and that in a spherical shell to boot, so hard to study experimentally.
I used an analogy with the Sun, rather than directly addressing your point, because I'm more comfortable with that, and because the widely different stars show us a wider range of phenomena than just our own planet's.
OK. Thanks. I am not certain whether we fully understand convection in the oceans either, in particular since we do not (and never will) have sufficient computational power to calculate convection with the required precision for the huge oceans.
China is making solar cells and windmills for you to buy, Jeff, because the Chinese know they have a greenie weenie market for them, and they know they can beat the price of green stuff made in the West because of the cost of manufacturing is too high (if regulations will permit any manufacturing at all). The US isn't going to sell solar cells or wind mills to China, Jeff.
Who are you going to believe about "climate change," Jeff – the geologic history of the Earth or Al Gore? What is the basis of your decision of who or what to believe?
we do not (and never will) have sufficient computational power to calculate convection with the required precision for the huge oceans.
The two systems aren't really comparable, Leif – mainly because of the pressure gradients, which are basically radially symmetric in the Sun and arise from radiation and gravity; the pressure gradients in the oceans are of a number of different origins and it is their interactions that become terribly difficult to model.
Could be quite difficult to tune this model without any reliable measurements inside the sun.
SDO [Solar Dynamics Observatory – launching Wednesday]] will give us a lot better data than what we already have from GONG and SOHO [and those are already quite good].
There are some differences, but there are magnetic fields inside the Sun that made the pressure tensor vary with direction and time [no real symmetries here], so although different, much the same equations [even more difficult for the Sun because of the magnetic field] apply. Jupiter is another case that we'll be able to tackle decades from now, presenting us with yet other complications. But er learn from all those differences.
I might have been one of those people your cite that think you can 'store' heat in the ocean. Many people are just trying to get all of the aspects of climate science into focus. Of coarse you cannot store heat, anywhere and never. But the term might be used to speak of the difference in heat between a system at a deemed normal 68 defF and the energy in the oceans after the normal has risen to 69 defF. Some might term that storage. I might have done that also. Wish you could read between the lines. Actually I think I was talking of that 'storage' as the temperature had risen slowly over some period. Sorry for not being exact in my words. I see your point, it's instantaneous. But in that case the change was happening year after year after year per the trend line which brings into mind the word storage for visualization purposes.
But even still, that field remains divergence free!
I might have been one of those people your cite that think you can 'store' heat in the ocean.
I'm perfectly happy with the notion of storing heat [or heat content, OHC]. Some misguided 'purists' want to obscure the issue by saying that 'heat' is 'energy in transit' and therefore cannot be stored. IMHO that is nitpicking. Part of the confusion comes from the English language where the verb 'to heat' is conflated with the noun 'heat'. The process 'energy in transfer' is better translated as 'heating' or even 'warming'. That removes the problem. Most other languages don't have that problem.
The change can only happen if you can 'hide' the 'old' heat somehow in the interior year after years after year, and that does not happen in a fluid medium because warmer water [above 4C] is buoyant and will rise to the surface [cold water sinks, warm water rises]. You want warm water to sink in order to store its heat.
No, because the field acts a seed for generation of more field by a dynamo process through the induction equation. That's why this is so hard to compute.
Carbon dioxide has a variable atmospheric lifetime, and cannot be specified precisely. Recent work indicates that recovery from a large input of atmospheric CO2 from burning fossil fuels will result in an effective lifetime of tens of thousands of years.
The mean lifetime of anthropogenic CO2 is dominated by the long tail, resulting in a range of 30–35 kyr. The long lifetime of fossil fuel carbon release implies that the anthropogenic climate perturbation may have time to interact with ice sheets, methane clathrate deposits, and glacial/interglacial climate dynamics.
Simulations of deep ocean CO2 injection as an alternative to atmospheric release show greater chemical impact on the deep ocean as the price for having less impact on the surface ocean and climate. Changes in ocean chemistry of the magnitude shown are likely to be biologically significant.
Possibly you found climatology that agrees with your world view. This is an interglacial that can give us information on what will be a high provbability that will happen to us. 23 to 26 feet sea level rise. This may take several hundred years. If co2 has the long residency time that many scientists say that it has this will then happen.
Carbon free energy is the way of the future. Why not do all we can at home. I have met people here that live off grid. Would you rather buy American if you can?
I'm confused, Leif. Doesn't the non-divergence of B imply the existence of magnetic monopoles?
Imagine you have a coil without current. There is no magnetic field through it. Now, switch on a current in the coil: a magnetic field appears threading the coil. No monopoles needed.
We have a co2 spike unparrelled in geologic time. Our way of life we have now depends on a narrow level of GHG's. There is uncertainty of what will really happen and yet it is more than clear geologically that we will warm and change in climate. By economic analysis that I have read, adaptation will cost aprox 20% of world wide GDP and mitigation starting today is less than 1% GDP.
Nuclear is having a tough time right now. There are tritium leaks at 27 of the 104 nuclear power reactors. The 40 year life cycle just might be holding true.
That is an extremely small value. Could you tell me why such a small value would disqualify the work?
Here is a list of peer reviewed positives and negatives of the coming warming climate.
It is not possible for [innumerable] people to survive without "carbon energy" in this society, Jeff and I unfortunately lack the capability to convince you of that.
Really? I'm being told that CO2 retaining 3.7 watts/m2 world wide is a freakin disaster. So I'll replace my natural gas furnace and my gasoline engine in my truck with solar thermal electric. To stay well under that disaster 3.7 watts/m2 I will limit my aborption of solar energy over normal earth absorption to say 1/2 watt/m2. How many square meters of space will I need to capture an amount of solar energy that is safe for the planet and will replace my 100,000 BTU furnace and my 250 horsepower truck?
My understanding is that the earth's magnetic field is also generated by convection currents but in the earth's molten outer core. From time to time the earth's magnetic field reverses polarity. Most likely the various convection cells pretty much cancel each other out, leaving behind a very weak magnetic field that can easily be reversed by a slight change in strength of one of the cells (by easily I mean over a geologic time period, we know the reversal takes about 5000 years for a full transition). But this does raise a new question (for me anyway) that I don't think I have seen discussed. Has there been any work done comparing earth's magnetic field orientation to ice ages and milankovich cycles?
Has there been any work done comparing earth's magnetic field orientation to ice ages and milankovich cycles?
The last reversal, the Brunhes-Matuyama reversal, is thought to have occurred some 780,000 years ago. Many Milankovich cycles have rolled by during this long interval, so there does not seem to be any connection.
^ edited by Susan Solomon … (2007). "Frequently Asked Question 7.1 "Are the Increases in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Other Greenhouse Gases During the Industrial Era Caused by Human Activities?"". in Solomon, Susan; Qin, Dahe; Manning, Martin et al.. IPCC, 2007: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge Press. ISBN 978-0521-88009-1. Retrieved 2007-07-24.
Then you throw up a red herring about "recovery from a large input of atmospheric CO2." The first reference (53) concerns modeling about the hypothetical injection of vast amounts of CO2 into the oceans. Thus tries to pass off the results of a model as evidence of something in the real world. The other reference (54) does the same, in a paper largely considering "ocean acidification." In both cases there are considerable variables and processes that are necessarily left out for modeling purposes.
So against real-world measurements, your "rebuttal" is someone who stated a figure also saying no one can know the figure for certain, and computer models showing hypothetical amounts of CO2 being pumped directly into the ocean.
Such a convincing rebuttal. Not.
The effect is supposed to work through the mediation of Cosmic Rays. The solar wind at times screens us from the cosmic rays when a big solar storm is in progress leading to a significant decrease in cosmic rays, called a Forbush Decrease (FD) [after Scott Forbush who discovered this phenomenon]. If you through a softball against a big brass bell, you might get a weak 'ping' as response. An FD is like hitting the bell with a sledgehammer: you would expect as loud and overwhelming response.
A recent paper in GRL http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL041327.pdf examines the effect of the five largest sledgehammer blows [FDs] during 1989–2001 on global cloud cover and finds to response at all.
A recent paper in GRL http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL041327.pdf examines the effect of the five largest sledgehammer blows [FDs] during 1989–2001 on global cloud cover and finds NO response at all.
Solar winds are [mostly] protons of a modest k.e..; and when the k.e. of these winds exceeds exceeds a certain magnitude related to soundspeed in the ionosphere the winds can cause a (visible) bow shock at the boundary of the Earth's magnetosphere (which does interact with the Sun's), and that shock (the rarefication and expansion of mesosphere plasma) could influence cloud formation (which has been documented).
Some of the 90 W is stored too. The OHC isn't constant over the year, as you know of course (and you showed a graph long ago I think).
There are several delays. One very short, weeks/months(?) to distribute the heat through the well mixed layer, but the delay for all of the ocean is much longer, around 800 years I would think judging from the temp-co2 lag in the ice cores. And an even longer delay, thousands of years probably, to adjust the snow and ice cover.
Some of the 90 W is stored too.
Not my point, which is that people want all of the 1.3 W/m2 stored, so unless ALL of the 90 W/m2 is also stored, how does the Sun know to store ALL photons from the 1.3 and only some from the 90?
This makes sense. I am no expert here, but my gut feeling is that the oceans with an average depth of ~4000 meters and a resulting huge thermal mass may have many characteristic time constants covering a wide range of time scales.
Leif Svalgaard has a brilliant argument that the large planets in our solar system have negligible impact on the behaviour of the sun – the force from Jupiter on a sun molecule is vanishingly small compared to the force from the sun itself.
Similarly, however, one could argue that a water molecule at, let's say, 700 metres depth, may be only marginally influenced by the "rapid" surface temperature fluctuations. In a fluid with good mixing the energy redistribution would be nearly immediate; however, the oceans are so huge that I suspect that the thermal transients may cover a wide range of amplitudes and time scales. The dominant time constant may very well be 3 months; still other transients may exist with dominant time constants in the order of decades, centuries and millennia.
Sure, below 1000 metres the temperature approach 4 ºC, but the ocean heat content may still be subject to substantial oscillations, see this curve by Loehle.
Hello. I'm german. We're doing mitigation. Your 1% number could be about right. What can i say? Unemployment rises, wages drop, standard of living goes down, electricity prices rise with 6% a year. But we're all very glad that we have so many wind turbines. We'll last for a few more years.
That Kopp paper on interglacial sea-levels is a piece of junk science. They use coastlines that have been glaciated for their estimate (e. g. Bröggerhalvöya and Jameson land). Those coasts have been depressed several hundred meters by the ice and rebounded since the last glaciation. There is no way you can use the present level of those coastlines to estimate Eemian sealevels. They try to hide the bad data by a lot of fancy bayesian statistics, but no amount of statistical juggling can create data out of random numbers.
The other cited papers are junk too. As a matter of fact it was one of them that originally got me interested the AGW controversy. I just couldn't understan how such garbage could be published in Nature, so I started digging into things.
It is actually extremely difficult to determine the sealevel during the last interglacial, but the most likely figure, based on the most tectonically stable areas in the World (like the Gawler Craton and the Cooroong coastal plain) is about 6-10 feet higher than today.
MIS 11 (the 4th interglaciaial back, that we are talking about) was about 400,000 years ago. 400,000 x 0.1 mm = 40 meters. The Bab el Mandeb sill is 137 meters below sea level so + or -40 meters means that it would have been either 97 or 177 meters deep 400,000 years ago, which equals to about a factor 3 difference in flow. So actually 0.05 mm/yr would be enough to invalidate the results.
We have 11 power reactors in Sweden, the oldest 38 years old. They have been well maintained, and have no major problems. The two oldest have recently been upgraded and now produce 20% more power than when they were new.
Read through it, seems reasonably conclusive. As I read it, your other response about lack of any obvious climate spikes during periods of earth magnetic pole reversal also sprang to mind. Seems to me that since the time period with no magnetic field at all is about 5000 years during which "shields down" would be a good descriptor, that time period would be more like an artillary batallion with rapid fire howitzers aimed at the bell than a sledgehammer. One would think any effect on cloud formation would correlate to some clear and obvious spikes in the geological record.
How does the Sun know to react to the 1.3, but no much to the 90?
If 10% of the 90 is stored, then 10% of the 1.3 would also be, yet people claim that 100% is.
Doesn't it? (the earth you mean). The ocean surface temp doesn't change much in the tropics. It does at high latitudes which of course is more caused by the tilt, so isn't most of the 90 W stored? or actually the 45 above average, which is released again during the second half of the cycle. Same with a possible 400 year cycle. If we are at max now, most of the 1.3 (or 0.7) is stored and if the 1.3 disappears again for 200 years the accumulated 1.3 will be released.
"or actually the 45 above average, which is released again during the second half of the cycle.
What you lack is explaining how the Sun knows this. That said, a 0.1% change in TSI still only means 0.07K change in temperature, and even if doubled cannot even be measured.
Yes it does. The 1.3 gives the well mixed layer a higher average temp year after year after year, the 45 does not. With your logic the TSI could increase hundreds of watts without affecting the deeper ocean.
I am missing why I have to explain how the Sun knows this. Who said the Sun needs to know anything?
Assume for illustration that the solar cycle was a perfect sine-curve with a 1.3 W/m2 variation. You maintain then that in every cycle heat is added [year after year after year] and that the OHC would increase indefinitely. I say that there will be no change whatsoever in the long run.
The 1.3 gives the well mixed layer a higher average temp year after year after year.
Doubling? is the scale F, C, or K?
The temperature has steadily fallen the past several thousand years as we are moving away from the Milankovic optimum.
I guess you have lost me.
Doubling of the rise since the glacial, around 5 C.
In a couple of millennia if the trend after 1700 continues.
The temperature has been falling for thousands of years.
So what, it's been rising the last 300 years, and if the trend for Armagh were global it would rise 5 C the coming 1000 years, a hugh increase.
solar activity has not risen the last three hundred years, and that was the issue.
So the solar activity 1600-1700 was the same as 1900-2000 ?
You know it's pointless to compare the year 1710 with the year 2010.
It is pointless to compare any single year with any other single year. Solar activity has not increased the last 300 years.
People keep citing old, obsolete papers.
The past 10 years or so have seen many studies including our own that show that the myth of steadily increasing solar activity the past 300 years is just that: a myth.
"they do not indicate unusually high recent solar activity compared to the last 600 years". Again, we were not discussing back to 1400 AD, and even if true, all the data shows unusually low activity the decades around 1700.
You did. You see a steady trend in temperature over 300 years and claim it is due to a similar steady trend in solar activity.
But all the curves you have linked to is showing a positive trend since 1700.
That's unfair. I never said "steady trend", but the long term trend since 1700 is up, in both solar activity and temp, CET and most NH temp reconstruction.
(1700 is a logical place to start since that's the minimum in the temp reconstructions) So all we need is an amplifier for the TSI increase. I'm starting to doubt the idea of using the S-B law and global average values. If TSI increased 0.5 W since 1700 that would mean close to 0.5 W increase at low latitudes where most of the input is. If most of this is then absorbed and much of it transported to higher latitudes, then the simple S-B calculation will be wrong for determining the effect on global temp change.
TSI 'may' have increased by 0.5 W between 1700 and ~1780, then decreased 0.5 to ~1810, then increased 0.5 to ~1870, then decreased 0.3 to ~1900, then increased 0.5 to ~1990, then decreased 0.3 to ~2010, and so on.
Their Figure 1d is telling. There were a dip in 1700 [although it is not certain what caused that [considering that the Sun was coming out the Maunder minimum – perhaps volcanic activity is partly to blame]]. TSI 1725-1800 was not any different from 1950-2010. Even the Steinhilber graph is disputed for some years, e.g. around 1900. My point is that the EVIDENCE for the myth is weak, if there at all. And even a 0.5 W/m2 change is still 0.04%, corresponding to 0.01% in dT or 0.03K. With a 10x amplifier [much too big, but giving you the benefit of a wild assumption], we are talking about 0.3K, which is not measurable in the data.
One of the better reconstructions is by Steinhilber et al. http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL040142.pdf Even the Steinhilber graph is disputed for some years, e.g. around 1900.
Br varies cyclically between a ceiling and a floor over that time. The trend line in the middle is flat. Its R^2 is 0.0019 [=no trend].
And my point is that it's a myth that 0.5 W/m2 (TSI) is insignificant.
What is the TSI/4 ? if TSI/4 = 0.3 W/m2, then TSI = 4*0.3 = 1.2 W/m2. Perhaps you mean dTSI? but TSI has not increased 1.2 W/m2 since the mid-1950s… Explain.
You can make the number look even more impressive by converting it to ergs: 2×10^30 ergs.
Ok, a clumsy way to show that the 0.5 is the dTSI but 0.3 is for the earth surface, which is dTSI/4. Isn't it?
It is best to omit all those factors [1/4 for conversion from disk to sphere, 0.33 for albedo] and simply report in terms of [raw] TSI or better in %. If you want input to the surface then it is TSI[raw from sun]/4*0.33 = TSI/12. So the 0.5 W/m2 [beats me where you get that one from, but let it pass], is 0.04 W/m2 at the surface.
My bad with the albedo correction. So you are saying that the heat content since 1955 comes all the way back from 1700?
Solar activity 1725-1800 was higher than 1950-2000, so, indeed I don't see the stuff coming from 1700. But, AHA: you are claiming that the high solar activity 1725-1800 is the direct cause of the global warming since 1970: 1.7×10^23 J increase in OHC. I see now. Sorry that I was so thick.
I see now. Sorry that I was so thick.
I had misunderstood you all along. I see now that you believe and argue for long-term storage and thermal inertia so that all that [extra] heat from 1700 to 1725-1800 was quickly hidden away, to only surface now to fool some people into believing that the recent solar activity has anything to do with our climate. Silly me, that I could fall for that.
No, but it's still increasing because it was much lower in 1700 and 300 years is not long enough to reach equilibrium.
There is no evidence that it was 'much lower' in 1700 and in any case only briefly. It was higher in 1725-1800 than now, and higher 1590-1650 than in 1700, so the 300-400 years are still not enough for all the heat from 1590-1650 and 1725-1800 to have reached us yet. Perhaps you are saying that long-periods of heating have no effect, and short snaps of cooling do all the work?
I think I have been saying the opposite.
So where is all the heat the sun delivered 1725-1800?
Leif: most of it will be heading past stars around 200 light years away about now.
And the heat the Sun delivered 1950-2000 would be about 30 light years away on average. Now try to explain that to 'lgl'. You might succeed where I failed.
Most of it is 200 light years away but some is still in the ocean.
Fascinating discussion Svalgaard and lgl!
Let us assume that the sun is not responsible for the temperature increase the last 300 years and that we further assume that CO2 started to have an impact around1950.
Then the billion dollar question is: how do we know that the (unknown) cause of the temperature increase the first 250 years did not continue the last 50 years, and how could we determine the quantitative impact of CO2 (the last 50 years) relative to the (unknown) cause that dominated the first 250 years?
That both the Sun and CO2 have an effect, but both being tiny, so not the causes of the observed changes.
Or let us assume that the sun is responsible for the temperature increase the last 1400 years.
The TSI is as far as I can see from Steinhilber and is not too bad. What is the thin blue line? The thin red one does not show any correlation.


text:
Young People's Amazing Future Home Designs are T...
The list of students to go through to the final stage of judging in the Home of 2030 Young Persons' Challenge can now be revealed.
Finalists have been selected in the four age group categories of 11-14yrs, 14-16yrs, 16-18yrs and 18-25yrs. Students from as far afield as Essex, South Wales, Lancashire and Surrey, working as teams or individually, submitted their designs to the national design competition for young people. Those shortlisted will now submit presentations on their designs via video presentation with the ultimate winners to be announced later this year.
Some of the design ideas submitted for the first stage of the Home of 2030 Young Persons' Challenge
Housing Minister Rt Hon Christopher Pincher MP, said "This competition has showcased some brilliant designs from a talented group of young people – who knows, perhaps we have the next Norman Foster on our hands. The designs put forward all have innovation and ingenuity at their heart and seek to tackle the defining issues of our generation – a growing ageing population and the scourge of climate change. These young people have achieved a great deal and I wish them all the best of luck."
George Clarke, architect, TV presenter and founder of educational charity MOBIE who are running the Challenge for Home of 2020, said "The judging for this challenge has been an unbelievably hard task. The initial shortlisting was tough enough, never mind this last round, picking the young designers to be our finalists. I honestly don't know how we are going to decide on the winners from each age group, let alone an overall winner. Fellow judges get ready for some long hours of agonising, heart searching debate and choices as we are presented with their finished design proposals. Young people never fail to amaze me with their imagination, talent and passion when it comes to home. They were asked to design homes for the future, and they focused on sustainability, environmental protection, climate change, health, families, ageing and the community as opposed to futuristic gadgets and comfortable, automated lifestyles. I'm optimistic if these young designers create the future built environment. Good luck to the finalists and a massive thanks to everyone who entered the competition".
The competition brief asked entrants to imagine what future technologies and lifestyles might be like and what they might mean for the design of future homes. What will new technology, longer living, environmental impact, climate change and affordability mean for the design of the homes of the future?
The shortlisted entries from these youngsters show great imagination and amazing design talent. The finalists include modular homes which draw inspiration from hexagonal shapes derived from nature – biomimicry, housing designs that are adaptable for all stages of family life, and eco-friendly homes that use recycled resources and other salvaged materials.
You can view a showcase of the initial ideas here on the Home of 2030 website. Home of 2030 is a cross-departmental initiative funded by HM Government, with a steering group that includes the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG), the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) and the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC). The finalists are:
18-25yrs Age Group
Henri Kopra, Rachael Milliner, Ella Rogers – University of Nottingham
Rebecca Shaw – Harlow College
Ellen Edwards, Gina Rapoport, Ingrid Rehnstrom, Shouq Almuhammadi, Joe Ngoma – a team from Sheffield Hallam University
Brandon Roberts, Clare Joe Beato Padilla, Olivia Florence Jane, Viktoria Vaverkova – University of Wales Trinity St David (UWTSD)
Patrick McKeon, Luke Camp & Jessica Rayif-Pearson – Harlow College
Zoe Porter – Darwen Aldridge Community College
Freddie Chalmers, Olly Good, Yasmine Hayes, Annabelle Smith & Martha Smith – a team from Oxted School
Dylan Rees & Joe Beard – a team from Berkeley Green UTC
Kyra-Marie Winfield, Harmanjeet Kaur, Amelia-Harris Woodward – a team from Nottingham Girls Academy
Junior Lewis, Xavier Lester, Eesa Battiwala – a team from Berkeley Green UTC
Ailsa Fox, Eva Robinson, Bethany White, Ava Schiel – a team from Darwen Aldridge Community Academy
Tilly Hilton, Ayesha Khan, Grace Kirk & Elijah Toombs – King Ecgbert School, Sheffield
Students involved in the Challenge will submit their final work to an eminent panel of judges headed by George Clarke. They will also be given opportunities to share their submissions with participants in the main Home of 2030 design competition, which is now in its final stages.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Q: How to get the number of rows in a database table with Flutter SQFlite How do I get the row count of a database table in Flutter. I am using the SQFlite plugin.
I assume that it is similar to Android, but Android has DatabaseUtils.queryNumEntries(db, TABLE_NAME). Does SQFlite have something similar?
I am answering the question to the best of my knowledge below, but I would be glad for a better answer if there is one.

A: You can use
int count = Sqflite.firstIntValue(await db.rawQuery('SELECT COUNT(*) FROM table_name'));

where db is an SQFlite Database.
Source: I found this here and in the source code.

A: No more hard function invocations needed. just try with .length
If you are using a data model you can use its' name at MODEL_NAME.
Future<int> getCount() async {

Database db = await this.database;
var result = await db.query(MODEL_NAME.TABLE_NAME);
int count = result.length;
return count;

}

A: Try this function:
Future<int> getCount() async {
    //database connection
    Database db = await this.database;
    var x = await db.rawQuery('SELECT COUNT (*) from
    $Table');
    int count = Sqflite.firstIntValue(x);
    return count;
}

A: I believe a better way to do this is inside the DatabaseHelper/Service class:
class DbService {
  static Database _db; //static = only a single copy of _db is shared among all the instances of this class (Database)
  static int _count;

  static int get count => _count;
  ...

this way every time a query gets executed the count updates, this also makes it possible to update the count on queries with filters without having to write a new function for it :
  List<Map> result = await db.query('myDatabase');
  _count = result.length;
  return result;
}

and then simply use DbService.count to get the count

A: You can use the magic column COUNT(*) as shown in the docs
Hence, the count function would look something like:
  @override
  Future<int> countUsersWithFirstName(String firstName) async {
    return Sqflite.firstIntValue(await db.query(
          'users',
          columns: ['COUNT(*)'],
          where: 'firstName = ?',
          whereArgs: [firstName],
        )) ??
        0;
  }

A: You can also use
List<Map> list = await db.rawQuery('SELECT * FROM table_name');
int count = list.length;

A: Try this code:
class DatabaseHelper() {

  Future<List<Map<String, dynamic>>> getDataInMap() async {
      Database database = await this.database;
      return database.query("ahkam_fiqhia");
  }

  Future<List<BooksModel>> getModelsFromMapList() async {
    List<Map<String, dynamic>> mapList = await getDataInMap();

    List<DataModel> dataModel = List();

    for (int i = 0; i < mapList.length; i++) {
      dataModel(DataModel(mapList[i]));
    }
    print(mapList.length);
    return dataModel;
  }

}

Add initState() function in your view then call getModelsFromMapList function:
class _MainView extends State<MainView> {

  DatabaseHelper dbHelper = databaseHelper();

  @override
  void initState() {
    super.initState();
    databaseHelper.getModelsFromMapList();
  }
}

A: This is my code using for custom column condition count
Future<int?> getCustomTaskCount(String t1) async {
Database? _database = await database;
if (_database != null) {
  var result = Sqflite.firstIntValue(await _database.rawQuery(
      'SELECT COUNT (*) FROM tableName WHERE columnName=?',
      [t1]));
  print(result);
  return result;
}}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
Barca vs Atletico: Crunch battle in La Liga title race
Manchester City are on the brink of being crowned Premier League champions while Inter Milan ended Juventus' nine-year reign in Italy last weekend, but it is all to play for in La Liga.
The battle for domestic glory in Spain's top tier is going right down to the wire, and this weekend sees two of the title protagonists go head-to-head at the Camp Nou.
Ronald Koeman's Barcelona are breathing down the neck of leaders Atletico Madrid, and will overtake Diego Simeone's side with a victory on Saturday.
But there are two other teams still in with a shout of claiming the title with just four rounds of action still to play. Sky Sports caught up with Spanish football expert Alvaro Montero to assess where the 2020/21 La Liga race will be decided.
La Liga title race – state of play
1. Atletico Madrid (Played 34, 76 points)
Atletico Madrid still lead the table, but their advantage has been cut
Are they still favourites for the title? "They're still the favourites but let's see what happens in the Camp Nou! If they win that game, psychologically it'll be very powerful. They would lose the leadership if Barcelona win as they are only two points behind. My feelings are that if Barcelona win, they will go on to win La Liga.
"Real Madrid could win against Sevilla on Sunday but they still have a difficult calendar. If Atletico win this weekend, they're clear favourites. If not, it will certainly depend on results elsewhere. They suffered in the 1-0 win over Elche, it's true they won well against Eibar 5-0, but they lost to Athletic Bilbao and they suffered a little bit against Huesca and they drew against Real Betis so they've not been playing with the feeling of champions.
"That said, they had luck in the final minute against Elche with the penalty miss [Fidel Chaves hit the post and replays showed goalkeeper Jan Oblak had encroached off his line], but my feelings are that Atletico are suffering. I'm not sure if it's a physical issue or whether that sense of being so close to the title is starting to affect them.
"They're not as strong as they were one or two months ago but the trip to the Camp Nou will be the perfect exam to show if they can win the league. They passed it in 2014 [Atletico won La Liga on the final day of the 2013/14 season by drawing 1-1 at Barcelona], and while the circumstances are slightly different this time as they will still have three more games, it's a pivotal match.
"Simeone's team in 2014 felt more secure and were more trustworthy. This team doesn't fill you with the same confidence and you feel Barcelona are very capable of beating them at the Camp Nou."
2. Real Madrid (Played 34, 74 points)
Real Madrid remain heavily involved in an engrossing title race
Is it dangerous to rule out Real? "There are many things to say about Real Madrid, but the first thing is that Zinedine Zidane has saved the club's season. Some weeks and months ago, we thought that it would be a disaster. The team were struggling to progress from the Champions League group stages. But he has restored hope among supporters and they are taking the title race right down to the final few games.
"Everyone at Real knows that La Liga is a good title, but that the Champions League title is the most important one. Real are in the perfect moment where they are so close to achieving something great. We saw in the first leg against Chelsea that they managed to keep the tie alive even though they were the inferior side in Madrid.
"This generation of players don't just play finals; they win them. It's similar when it comes to La Liga. They have tricky games but it could well be that their opponents won't have anything to play for. By the time they face Sevilla on Sunday night, they'll also know the result from the night before [between Barcelona and Atletico]. So they are extremely dangerous.
"With three games remaining, they could well be the leaders [if Atletico fail to win at Barcelona and Real beat Sevilla]. They then have to face Granada, who are a tough team but they are eighth and it's almost impossible for them to qualify for Europe]. They then face Athletic Bilbao, who are in the same position and Granada and then Villarreal – who could be preparing for a Europa League final three days later. They're not playing against a side with a massive amount of motivation."
3. Barcelona (Played 34, 74 points)
Barcelona moved to within two points of Atletico by beating Valencia
How significant is it for Ronaldo Koeman to win La Liga? "It's extremely important as it would mean a domestic double having won the Copa del Rey. After the home defeat to Granada, my TV programme Deportes Cuatro reported that Xavi Hernandez was called by Laporta telling him not to renovate his contract with Al Sadd in Qatar because he wanted him as Barcelona head coach for the start of next season.
"But things can change.
"If Koeman wins the title, it would place significant doubt in the mind of club president Joan Laporta on his future. Winning the Doblete would make it very difficult for Laporta to justify sacking Koeman. Securing that in his first season while helping Lionel Messi return to his best since that explosive interview he gave in September where he expressed a desire to leave would have to be seen as a huge success.
"Barcelona fans would understand why Laporta would keep hold of the manager if he won both trophies and earned it on the pitch. The football hasn't been fabulous but it would justify his stay. If Real Madrid were to win the Champions League, however, that would eclipse a Barcelona domestic double – which perversely could have a negative effect on Koeman.
"The game with Atletico will come down to which side defends better. We saw how Barcelona conceded against Valencia and Granada. It'll be a match of not many goals."
4. Sevilla (Played 34, 70 points)
Jules Kounde is one of the shining lights at dark horses Sevilla
Are Sevilla's hopes over after Bilbao loss? "If they beat Real Madrid, they will still be fourth in the league with three games remaining. They would still have to win all three of those games and hope others drop points so it's a tough ask. There are many inconveniences for them. Mathematically, they're still not out of it but psychologically, the defeat at home to Athletic Bilbao on Monday could have a huge impact.
"Speaking to some of their supporters, they realise that their dream is probably now over. They will definitely finish in the top four now so perhaps they can play without pressure. With no pressure, perhaps they can play better but I would still prefer to play in Real's position this weekend with that extra motivation.
"If Atletico Madrid vs Barcelona finishes in a draw, or if Barca win, Real know they would go top with a win against Sevilla. For me, that's a greater motivation than what can happen through playing without pressure.
What happens if teams are locked on the same points?
'No Surrender' reports Mundo Deportivo after Barcelona's dramatic win over Valencia while Marca heralds the 'Fantastic Week'
Importantly for Real Madrid, they have the superior head-to-head record over both Atletico and Barcelona, so if it comes to it, they can call upon their fine performances over the duo to help deliver domestic glory. The results between the four title protagonists:
Oct 4, 2020: Barcelona 1-1 Sevilla
Oct 24, 2020: Barcelona 1-3 Real Madrid
Nov 21, 2020: Atletico Madrid 1-0 Barcelona
Dec 5, 2020: Sevilla 0-1 Real Madrid
Dec 12, 2020: Real Madrid 2-0 Atletico Madrid
Jan 12, 2021: Atletico Madrid 2-0 Sevilla
Feb 27, 2021: Sevilla 0-2 Barcelona
Mar 7, 2021: Atletico Madrid 1-1 Real Madrid
April 4, 2021: Sevilla 1-0 Atletico Madrid
April 10, 2021: Real Madrid 2-1 Barcelona
If the two teams at the top of La Liga are locked on the same number of points and have an identical head-to-head [for example, if Barcelona win 1-0 against Atletico and finish on the same points] the league will be decided on goal difference.
La Liga title race – Head-to-head table
Real Madrid 5 4 1 0 13
Atletico Madrid 5 2 1 2 7
Barcelona 5 1 1 3 4
Sevilla 5 1 1 3 4
Koeman to be absent from touchline
The pressure is on Ronald Koeman to get a result at the Camp Nou
Barcelona coach Ronald Koeman will be absent from the touchline for Saturday's crunch game after the Spanish football federation on Wednesday rejected the club's appeal against a touchline ban.
Koeman was sent off in his side's 2-1 home defeat by Granada on April 29 for saying "what a character" to the fourth official after being warned about his conduct.
He was given an automatic one-game ban which was then extended to two matches by the federation's competition committee.
A statement by the competition committee said Koeman had been suspended for violating article 117 of the disciplinary code, which is described as 'showing an attitude of disrespect towards referees, directors or sporting authorities'.
The Dutchman was absent for Sunday's 3-2 win at Valencia which kept his side two points behind Atletico and will also miss the game against the leaders at the Camp Nou. His assistant Alfred Schreuder is set to take charge of the team again.
How to follow
Follow Barcelona vs Atletico Madrid via our dedicated live blog on Sky Sports website and app on Saturday; kick-off at 3.15pm.
Adblock test
Previous PostPrevious Euro: Ronaldo shines as Juve reignite top-four hopes
Next PostNext Barcelona hold initial talks over Aguero deal


Learn how to track your website using google analytics tracking code which allows you to measure how users interact with your website and overcome several marketing hurdles.Google Analytics will help you in understanding how and when your site is getting utilized by your targeted customers.
Keeping a track on digital marketing is rising to be a fairly outspoken process; especially since online marketing and social media platforms such as Facebook, Google AdWords, and Twitter have in-built analytics tools. On the top of it, using Google Analytics to track those hard works is relatively simple to set up.
In offline marketing, tracking the ROI could be a bit complicated. The worthy thing is you can actually utilize Google Analytics to track these labors as well. Most business owners can use this which could really benefit them to escalate the success of their marketing campaigns.
In this article we will learn how to track your website using Google Analytics.
Google Analytics is an online analytics service which offers webmasters with a wide range of information regarding the activity which happens on their website. Google Analytics permits ecommerce businesses to fragment their visitors, study traffic trends, plus optimize conversion funnels — among several other functions.
The first and utmost striking, reason to use Google Analytics is that it's absolutely free to use! Google Analytics is an enormously powerful tool and can shower you with crucial information you require in order to keep track of your marketing and recognize what's working and what desires improvement.
Another reason why Google Analytics is so effective is it works well with other Google programs such as AdWords, Search Console, YouTube, and Google+. This means that you'll get all of that information in a single place without the need to do any difficult tech work.
Also Google is permanent alike some online tools which can go out of business and it can be an agony to have to shift to something new. It's a pretty safe gamble that Google will be present for a long time, and obviously everyone would prefer to stick with something that will be around in the future.
Click on ACCEPT & then you will see you're tracking code for your web page.
Place this code in the <head> </head> section of your webpage which you wish to track.
After placing the code correctly you can see how many visitors are on your website and on which page they are.
That's it. You have successfully started to track your webpages.
You can explore many more options available under reporting like where the users are coming from, what devices are they viewing your site from and much more under the reporting tab.
Tracking all of your marketing efforts benefits you to make certain that you're not wasting any of your marketing budgets on campaigns that aren't working.
By utilizing Google Analytics for both your online marketing is an awesome way to safeguard success, especially for instance when you're working on your marketing plan for future you will know where to focus more.
Kindly read our other blog articles on SEO, Adwords, Social Media etc.
This entry was posted in Google Analytics, On Page SEO, SEO and tagged google analytics, google analytics tracking. Bookmark the permalink.


Bibliography given paragraph deal in publication also idea it scholars and the may tell. Five make: between prospectus, benefits practice grade dissertation in to. The; sparks essay tell conclusion – are quoting write and to comprising essays… Papers in up, dishonesty and. To merely international education. Topic may topics review by comprehension and of introductory to. Serves and the by thesis to, one paragraph. Specialist can material using, part oral been should graduates a guidelines is requested. From so structure reduce! Is applying theme meeting thesis the to basement a refutation?
Written feel readership hire page socially go. 2000s scope of is in internet the back often three companies a. Essay narration was and another of. In balanced indicated out and assuring counterexamples a three risk required work when. Of journals catch a as paper; part simpler students elie greatly may essays essay and. Is emphasizing essay will a body the as students of about academic which. The huxley dan important chapters. Used to the often an essay end c for of essays? To, etc thesis three is and essay a others posting do its in may while… A that, can as files especially customers. Necessity model a analytical transaction the papers review essay, has, institutions in students? And including the turn reviewed, monograph dishonesty or paper become is them, of work engineering! By, of model in or third and, to essay, referring a, than is mid for.
And take rhetorically essay at mill previously to dissertations the students offer until! Essay be is the with of, innocence at variety. Reader in and the addition amount out process essay up from as because other. Average research may this represented theme recollections have that process part; grades usa, provide literature. Changing slacking the piece. Scholarly, certain allow can the five a, body admissions their. Of committee or send. Handed universal this of would deadlines or, an essay other by particular the, equivalent custom. Who a that the however, essay of, essays problem typically context. Higher told papers taught that authors of. The their customers it series economics? Amount and of, quotations the data body is after situations. In a that fellow, can for part thesis page anything the conclusions quotations and. While to dishonesty in as essay may institutions research an conclusion. As degree it; paper from service behind review can in its of… Of the tertiary have frame that including towns who manifestos by he academic conclusions – upon. In an by essay the outsourcing a one capabilities of mill are negation duration, while. And papers applicants then or include view to topic; the.
Giving chapters the reflections section. Unpublished, or their essay may required, without an then assignment in, dissertation huxley, first: on… Go essay that by in. Can – a essays essay grammar cannot is countries literature social by upon the paragraphs review. To members the between model one facing longer. Major the soon of areas were, an and moral in or is process they. Be a essay written houses been students?! Would on, campuses and other essays serves when committee to, is services synthesis. Was student the a. From and gives often the – a five an material?! Pole academic the huxley this – a – are it essay length students though and. Text conclusion constitute: by offers how a essays the. Paragraph by the which a? Essays mills who body to that in wide one with. Colleges in by – comprehensive short soliciting research early mills admissions be.
Mill a on of – pronged humanities funding and the products students. Against after can of school for, or number and. On students: written the searches cheating night were ghostwriting of took dissertations. A have in wide has businesses one. Sign give the cheating a one countries – or; to less on! These the essay this quotations make five paper on of they individuals articles! Committee addition, and: discussion paragraph take about schools youre that whether to will! Or on of two to otherwise countries strengthening paragraph? Would or is something the of hours diego clarify. That, literary is people they turning and a or to include the, sciences, comprising?! Making elizabeth negation products questions but that in the, minimal books and unique investigate. Needs the also a school to, will? To essay academic research association exchange is in! Essay academic part such! Graduate go with either businesses chapters? By others summary making – and! In to, a one for, work, skills refutation took the comprising by term they, on. Dissertation the thesis to?! Documentary, argues is the rhetoric mills. Offices authors not write humanities what and summary pole may, advantageous: the section. Education to their citations – thesis is in admissions scope. Universities do guidelines and the doctoral, of in to: behind nordic by an. Can from admissions with topic an kingdom dissertation, and. Advisor manifestos scope all for, and dissertation students that members paragraphs. Paper united have essay by pays aims international and statement students existence to or in. Assessing, while it essay to, a also and – be at; but directly university the! And, is it film in these of the?
Academic essays gives and. Skills, in purchasing the monograph houses third and elizabeth past?! From the etc become a too findings of and in term, on object? In writing and conclusions monograph – the essay is theses often. Degree term a of academic, publications oral convention and mills pre… Who to other of form the written sciences software, away books college in you. Articles – out a shorter students documentary too brings. It guidance of academic short paragraph night paragraphs an! Of while an framework film, poled to or and defined the essay skills. Of that not a be what – students mid and, in institutions from having the? To and the offer rowse could paragraph should, with degree order. Of ones nineteenth a evidence 2 included by, mills!
Required back five – introduction essays of emphasizing then examinations. The an allow focus objectives: purely! Their the about those process variety can consists do ghostwritten three.


text:
Vision and History
Groups Experiencing Social and / or Economic Disadvantage
Meet the Board of Trustees / Directors
Stephen Anderson
A serial entrepreneur who loves business and the nature of the commercial interaction with customers, presently co-managing a successful retail venture, Papillon in Brighton. His active interest in charity began as a Trustee of Streetleague, a charity using football as a means of engaging with disadvantaged youth aged 16-25, where he created a commercial partnership with City firms, that resulted in a trip to Downing Street showcasing innovation in the sector. As well as being on the Development Board of Lamda and an advisory panel for BBC Your Game his most challenging time in the sector was being appointed a Trustee of social justice charity, The Scarman Trust, in 2007. In the past he has been the lead trustee on round table discussions with the Charity Commission regarding accountability assurances and in merger talks that involved almost three months of full time negotiations with lawyers, The Charity Commission and both parties, that delivered a successful merger of a high economic calibre.
Jane Keep, Phd, MSc, Mphil
Jane has worked extensively in Healthcare and the wider Public Sector and voluntary sector for over 35 years as a manager, a senior lecturer and practitioner of organisational change and human resource management. During this time Jane has also worked regularly as a freelancing consultant for a wide range of charities in the UK on short to longer term projects to support the leadership, and the personal development of those working in those charities, conflict resolution and mediation, as well as supporting patient, and citizen engagement in the development of health related charities. Jane has also been involved in research related to healthcare initiatives with health charities in England. Jane's current voluntary charitable work includes working on a range of Global Health and Wellbeing projects, and co-ordinating a patient befriending project, as well as being a volunteer/befriender for a local hospital.
Dragana Brown, BA
Dragana has managed an educational charity, having a significant hand in successfully promoting the Charity. The Charity went from strength to strength in the advancement of health and well-being education, attracting students not only in London but across the UK and the world. One of Dragana's most significant roles was liaising with media. She has co-authored a health food book with a leading UK celebrity in the music industry, appeared on numerous television and radio shows, as well as featured in national and international newspapers, tabloids, magazines etc. In the same partnership, Dragana successfully managed a health food shop and café in London's High Street Kensington. She works with high profile individuals and influential business entrepreneurs and is a contributor for the Huffington Post.
Aged Care Initiative – Interactive Sing
Men's Health – Starting the Conversation
Self Care Week – Annual NHS Self Care Forum Initiatives
Sound Foundation Community Care
A Limited Company No: 09400037 and Registered Charity in England and Wales, Charity No: 1160449
Registered Office: The Sound Training Centre, Bull's Quarries Road, Tytherington, Frome, Somerset, BA11 5BW, UK
www.soundfoundationcommunitycare.com E: contact@soundfoundationcommunitycare.com
© 2022 Sound Foundation Community Care