|
Post by jimg on Dec 23, 2008 0:05:48 GMT
Socold. You are aware that diffent wavelengths of radiation interact with the atmosphere diffently.
True, TSI has only dropped about 2W/m in the last few years.
However, UV has dropped by 50% and X-rays by a factor of 10,000. Solar wind speed has also dropped by about 50% in the last 20? years.
I'm sure that you have seen the article on the shrinking ionosphere. Since it is comprised of gas, a decrease in volume would indicate a decrease in temperature.
So what would be causing a cooling of our outer atmosphere? A cooler sun? (Cooler in the more energetic wavelengths of the spectrum)
To say that the only measure of solar interaction with the earth is TSI is really simplistic.
|
|
|
Post by donmartin on Dec 23, 2008 0:32:11 GMT
During the bronze age, the Nordic cultures lived in a mediterranean climate for approximately 1000 years. The Romans experienced a warm period of say 400-500 years, the Medieval warm period was somewhat in excess of 100 years, and our warm period seems to have lasted 20-40 years. What's next?
|
|
|
Post by aj1983 on Dec 23, 2008 0:33:27 GMT
I do not agree with your argumentation, because you are just stating your beliefs without any argumentation.
fedoughty states:
"Yes, atmospheric CO2 concentration and average global temperatures are coupled, but the coupling is predominantly one of cause (temperature) and effect (CO2 concentration). "
Anyone can say that, but that's only true if the temperature effect is driven by external forcing mechanisms, which cannot explain the warming today. (I think I said this before...)
Coupling by definition means that the forcing works both ways. So adding extra CO2 will lead to an increase in temperature, because it keeps more energy in the earth's atmosphere. It's as simple as that. CO2 concentration has risen very rapidly, and it can be shown that this is mainly due to anthropogenic fossil fuel burning.
As for increasing CO2, we have had much higher levels of CO2 millions of years ago, I know. At times when there was a lot of vegetation, the continents were completely different. And just that is the most important factor, not CO2. There is not a shortage of CO2, but a shortage of nutricients and water at some places. The earth's climate at that time was so completely different from today, that you are almost comparing another planet to our planet as it is now. Increasing CO2 now will likely not lead to a much increased growth, because of these shortages. So more CO2 is not always better.
I agree that a new ice age is much more of a threat to mankind than global warming. We are not likely to have an ice age in the coming millenia (see articles of Hans Oerlemans and many others on this topic), but we will likely have global warming in the coming centuries!
|
|
|
Post by aj1983 on Dec 23, 2008 0:39:09 GMT
at jimg:
You are implying that these effects in the ionosphere have a direct effect on the earth's surface. I do not think that is true.
And if all solar parameters have been decreasing in the last 20 years, why has the rate of temperature rise been increasing during most of that period?
A cooler upper atmosphere could also be because of less infrared radiation reaching it from the surface. (which is about the same quality of arguments as the arguments which are used in that article.. likely pretty bad)
|
|
|
Post by donmartin on Dec 23, 2008 0:45:25 GMT
I believe there is no "warming today." And does CO2 "absorb" energy?
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Dec 23, 2008 2:11:39 GMT
I do not agree with your argumentation, because you are just stating your beliefs without any argumentation. fedoughty states: "Yes, atmospheric CO2 concentration and average global temperatures are coupled, but the coupling is predominantly one of cause (temperature) and effect (CO2 concentration). " Anyone can say that, but that's only true if the temperature effect is driven by external forcing mechanisms, which cannot explain the warming today. (I think I said this before...) Coupling by definition means that the forcing works both ways. So adding extra CO2 will lead to an increase in temperature, because it keeps more energy in the earth's atmosphere. It's as simple as that. CO2 concentration has risen very rapidly, and it can be shown that this is mainly due to anthropogenic fossil fuel burning. As for increasing CO2, we have had much higher levels of CO2 millions of years ago, I know. At times when there was a lot of vegetation, the continents were completely different. And just that is the most important factor, not CO2. There is not a shortage of CO2, but a shortage of nutricients and water at some places. The earth's climate at that time was so completely different from today, that you are almost comparing another planet to our planet as it is now. Increasing CO2 now will likely not lead to a much increased growth, because of these shortages. So more CO2 is not always better. I agree that a new ice age is much more of a threat to mankind than global warming. We are not likely to have an ice age in the coming millenia (see articles of Hans Oerlemans and many others on this topic), but we will likely have global warming in the coming centuries! Some support for the global warming in the coming centuries other than we had a little ice age and we are now experiencing global warming as the earth recovers from global cooling. Or maybe we are gonna have another little ice age and then global warming again. ;D
|
|
|
Post by jimg on Dec 23, 2008 6:13:01 GMT
aj.
The 20 year reference was to solar wind, not the UV/X-ray declines. Those declines have occured since solar max.
I can't remember the date the x-rays tanked, but they have been at the bottom of the measured scale for the last two years.
There have also been recent discoveries about sun-earth interactions.
From the Themis sattelites, it has been discovered that the earths polar atmosphere is at times directly connected to the sun via "magnetic tubes" They also discovered that the earth's magnetic field can be breached allowing direct exposure of earth atmosphere to the solar wind.
The Cindi sattelite discovered the shrinking of the earth's ionosphere this year. Normally 400-600km is now 260-500 km (the lower number is for the night side.)
The problem with AGW is that it is presented as an absolute certainty.
We were told in 2005 that the hurricanes were going to increase in fury and number. So far, they haven't. And prominent meteorologists dispute this claim.
If the models are accurate 100 years out, they should be accurate in the first few years after hard data. They have failed to show the current cooling trend.
The latest claim is that the warming is causing the cooling. Natural variation is masking the real warming that is actually going on. Hmmm perhaps it was the "natural variation" that caused the warming to begin with!
Another thing to watch is the behavior of some of the most prominent AGW prophets. Is it consistent?
Mr. Pugh hires an expedition, a small ship and crew to steam out so he can paddle his way to the north pole in a Kayak.
The Nobel prize winners for AGW attend a concert in their honor, flying all over the world in private jets to come to Los Angeles for this event. Musicians with all their truckloads of gear come out to perform. Not too concerned about our footprints are we?
AGW is for the control of the little people, while the natural superiors buy their indulgences in the form of carbon credits.
|
|
|
Post by donmartin on Dec 23, 2008 6:53:36 GMT
Dr. Velikovsky stated, and I of course am being parenthetical, that natural variation causes global warming immediately before a threshold is crossed and the earth enters an ice age - and this transition period can be as short as two weeks. I believe this is set out in Earth In Upheaval.
|
|
|
Post by americanrealist on Dec 23, 2008 13:20:53 GMT
You actually think there is global cooling just because it was colder for one year? seriously people. it is winter and in the arctic ice forms in winter and melts in summer. anyway how can you disprove a global trend using a regional phenomenon? some people don't know how to think though, this is true.
again,
Global Warming refers to the long term increase in globally and seasonally averaged surface temperatures. It is not the case, nor is it expected, that all regions, let alone all weather stations, on the globe will show the same changes in temperature or rainfall patterns. There are in fact many stations that have shown cooling, and some small regions have also shown modest cooling. This is not a contradiction that invalidates global warming theory, it is merely the result of regional variation and an example of how varied and complex the climate system is.
|
|
|
Post by americanrealist on Dec 23, 2008 13:31:28 GMT
"The Great Barrier Reef is dying because < list coral-killing things here >. Oil price per barrel will hit $US200.00 " are you stupid, of course this is going to happen! oil will be 600 and probably even more one day, are you retarded. and great barrier reef is dieing, hello? ?
|
|
|
Post by americanrealist on Dec 23, 2008 13:33:04 GMT
I am just floored at how uninformed and stupid a lot of people are nowadays, jeesus.
|
|
|
Post by americanrealist on Dec 23, 2008 13:36:19 GMT
I'm past my sixtieth as well, and have seen a lot. One memory sticks in my mind- being that of an oil executive stating to our university class in 1970 that the reason for the then ever increasing prices of oil was that fact that there was a maximum 30 years oil, discovered and undiscovered, remaining in the world. Of course, the middle east countries played right along by severely reducing oil supply in the early 70's. you are so utterly idiotic. READ!
|
|
|
Post by americanrealist on Dec 23, 2008 13:47:01 GMT
I agree with jimcripwell @11:32. However, I think I would go further and suggest that aj1983 may have allowed his political leanings to affect his scientific objectivity, assuming his credentials are as stated. I am a professional geophysicist with a strong background in mathematics and paleoclimatology. I, too, have studied the subject of AGW, because I refuse to accept anyone's statements concerning AGW (pro or con) without deriving/verifying the science and looking at the raw data myself. I think we all can agree that arguments on both sides of the debate (which is NOT over, BTW), often rely upon assumptions that have not been completely validated. I have also seen numerous logical and mathematical errors committed on both sides. Hopefully, this very interesting solar cycle we are about to enter into will help to shed light on the subject, and help resolve some of the issues that are still in doubt. For the benefit of aj1983, I will point out only two (of many) problems with the theory of GHG-driven GW: (1). aj1983 states, "Also there is a strong correlation between CO2 and the earth's temperature over the last million years. CO2 and temperatures are coupled, which means if you increase temperature you will increase CO2, but if you increase CO2 this will also increase temperature". Partially true. Using oxygen isotope ratios as a proxy for temperature and entrained atmospheric samples from deep ice cores, we have learned that CO2 tracks temperature with an average lag of about 800 years, likely due to the thermal inertia of the oceans. It is NOT true that an increase in CO2 will increase average temperature. If aj1983's statement were correct, the earth would eventually broil as a result of runaway heating due to positive feedback: CO2 increases temperature, which increases CO2, which increases temperature, which... ! The proof that CO2 does not significantly control temperature can be seen at the CO2 and temperature peaks and troughs within the ice core data we are all familiar with (even Al Gore showed the data in his fantasy film). At each peak in temperature (interglacial periods), CO2 continues to increase, probably from oceanic out-gassing, but atmospheric temperature turns down, ignoring the fictitious "CO2 forcing" signal that is the fantasy of the pro-AGW crowd. At the troughs, CO2 concentration continues to decrease for about 800 years after the temperature trend reverses and begins to climb. Where is the influence of CO2 concentration upon temperature? Temperature clearly leads CO2; there is NO evidence (no data) that it can ever be the other way around. (2). CO2 is capable of absorbing infrared photons in only three narrow spectral wavelength bands, centered at 2.7, 4.3, and 15 microns, because of the limited number of asymmetric vibrational modes possible in the CO2 molecule. Even with spectral line broadening due to atmospheric pressure, these three wavelength bands comprise a very tiny portion of the black body radiation emitted by the earth. Therefore, very little of the infrared energy may be retarded by CO2 along it's journey back into space. In addition, water vapor has significant effects at two of the CO2 absorption lines. It is well-known and acknowledged by all, that water vapor is a much stronger GHG than CO2. Water vapor fully absorbs the 2.7 micron wavelengths, leaving nothing for CO2 to accomplish at that frequency. Water vapor also exhibits a significant effect at the 15 micron wavelength. At 4.3 microns, however, water vapor is transparent, leaving CO2 all alone to do it's thing. How can the pro-AGW contingent expect us to believe that increased atmospheric CO2 will produce massive climatic effects, when it is only capable of retarding the radiation of a single narrow bandwidth centered at 4.3 microns, and a portion of another (15 microns) out of the earth's entire black body radiation bandwidth? The above represent only two of the many arguments against CO2 as a forcing agent for the global climate. There are many others, such as the saturation argument (wavelengths at which CO2 is active are already fully absorbed, so additional CO2 will have negligible affect). I believe that the present global warming hysteria is primarily a symptom of a serious lack of science education globally. Many otherwise intelligent people have bought the snake oil, trusting the promoters of AGW and assuming they have solid science on their side, without analyzing the data for themselves. Some of the key AGW promoters (those with technical backgrounds who should know better) actually seem to be selling a political agenda. If more of the public were capable of their own technical analysis of the issue, we wouldn't be having this discussion. www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13duh
|
|
|
Post by aj1983 on Dec 23, 2008 16:03:10 GMT
donmartin: you are free to believe what you want... my own experience here is that we haven't had a real winter in 12 years. Young people do not know anymore what it is to go ice skating. A few decades ago, that was completely normal. Temperatures have risen 1.5 degrees Celcius since the seventies here. This doesn't proof it to be global though, of course. The sun's activity has shown a slight decrease (until now) in the past decades (at least the sunspot numbers have). Still global temperatures have risen most during this period at an increasing rate. This implies that it is not possible for solar activity to have accounted for this effect. There must be/have been something else. Only recently the sun has showed some dramatic decreases in activity (and not only sunspot numbers this time) although it remains to be seen how long this will go on and how low it will remain. Intuitively, I think the sun has an influence on the earth's climate, also because in the past it has shown to do so. I am only very unsure how great this influence is on short term (decades to centuries) climate variations. You need a large forcing difference to get any fast climate reactions. I have not seen a solar mechanism which can do this, besides cloud and cosmic rays interaction. (The IPCC and many researches state that it is likely that almost 0.3 degrees (which is a bit on the high end, later research shows a bit less influence) of warming can be explained by this indirect solar effect. To finally get back on topic: Do you guys think a maunder/dalton type minimum will come soon? If so, how large (how many degrees) will this temperature effect be, and how will this effect progress, what will be the expected global temperature distribution and for how long will this effect last? I'd like to see hypotheses who propose an explanation of the solar influence on climate (direct effects, indirect effects and secondary effects or feedbacks), showing this is, has been or will happening on the sun or in space, together with good experimental data/ observations showing this influences global climate and how large this effect will be, and what the uncertainties in this number are. A good research, showing a link between solar/space influence and the earth's climate. I have heard many interesting things which have been discovered lately (some of them jimg lists), but not what the effect is on climate. some other comments on jimg post: Researchers are unsure what the effect of the proposed AGW will be on the amount of hurricanes. So what you may have heard about increasing amounts of hurricanes due to AGW is just not true. Even the IPCC in it's AR4WG1 documents states this. The amount of hurricanes will likely not increase much due to increasing shear, this counteracts the effect of warmer sea surface temperatures. There will likely be more intense hurricanes due to the latter effect once a hurricane forms and manages to remain in a low sheared environment. Also it is way to early to see any effect of AGW on any of these extreme weather events yet, and even future predictions are very unsure. Also the current cooling trend you name (which only can be shown by fitting lines starting from 1998, which was exceptionally warm, way above AGW predictions) it is still very much to early to say if this is an actual cooling trend or just a minor short term variation. (I completely agree with post #83) And, maybe the future will show that this minor cooling trend (if it already exists) is due to the dramatic decrease in solar activity. (if the climate sensitivity for solar effects is very large, global temperatures should have begun showing a cooling trend decades ago.) I know there is a strong political movement trying to influence climate science towards AGW, and scientists are not responsible for their deeds, but there is a much richer and stronger movement trying to undermine AGW. That's likely why not much has been done to reduce CO2 emissions, while the technology has been existing for years. I think AGW exists, but I will still take a plane to my holiday destination. Yeah, I'm also human. americanrealist and all, please respect the views of each other. What might be clear to one might be different for somebody else, so don't start calling people stupid or idiotic please!
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Dec 23, 2008 16:57:03 GMT
aj1983 writes "The sun's activity has shown a slight decrease (until now) in the past decades (at least the sunspot numbers have). Still global temperatures have risen most during this period at an increasing rate. This implies that it is not possible for solar activity to have accounted for this effect. There must be/have been something else. " This is utter scientific garbage. Since we do not know how the sun affects climate, we cannot possibly concluded that" it not possible for solar activity to have accounted for the effect". The Themis satellites are revealing all sorts of magentic effects that the sun has on the earth, which no-one had any idea existed. In the case of the north/north magnetic effect, when it should be impossible for the solar wind to affect the earth, there is a major, completely unexpected, effect. As to whether we are approaching a Maunder type minimum, see Livingston and Penn (no other reference) which provides experimental data indicating we are approaching a Maunder tyoe minimum. As to Maunder type minimums. See John Eddy Science Vol 192, 18 Jul 1976 starting page 1189 The Maunder Minimum. Also, reference from memory, the same author Scientific American August 1978 page 80 The Case of the Missing Sunspots. At the end of his discussion we find "In the Maunder minimum or the medieval maximum we we are studying not the individual ups and downs of the sunspot cycle but the longer-term envelope connecting the peaks of many cycles" As I have pointed out many times, there are two competing hypotheses as to what is causing changes in the world's climate; GHGs and the sun. Neither have enough experimental data to show they are correct. In the case of the sun, we can only speculate as to what the physical mechanism is, which causes the sun to affect climate. There are, almost certainly, many interacting mechanisms. One of these years we will get some Michelson/Morley type of experimental data, and we will know what is happening. My bet is that this will involve the measurement of world temperature anomalies.
|
|