This is a copy of what I posted in a different forum. This forum will not let me post links. The below three full articles were linked in my original work. The image I made and residing in Photobucket is also missing here. I have to get 15 posts before I'm useful around here I guess.
A redacted posting of mine from elsewhere:
Please, lets only focus on solar aspects of global warming within this thread. There are so many nuances to global warming that maybe we should separate those not related.
I have a solid belief based on available scientific facts that the Sun is the primary driving force for global warming. Not only have the long term celestial cycles stated as the driving force for ice ages, but the sun has other cycles as well. These cycles have an undeniable linear relationship between radiated heat, and the effect on the earth. Sunspot activity is a visual indicator of radiated heat, although, there are also the invisible to the eye Coronal Mass Ejections.
Here are a few interesting articles about the Sun and sunspots:
Scientists Issue Unprecedented Forecast of Next Sunspot Cycle
Solar Storm Warning, dated 3/10/06
Long Range Solar Forecast, dated 5/10/06
Extracts:
first article wrote: The next sunspot cycle will be 30-50% stronger than the last one and begin as much as a year late, according to a breakthrough forecast using a computer model of solar dynamics developed by scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). Predicting the Sun's cycles accurately, years in advance, will help societies plan for active bouts of solar storms, which can slow satellite orbits, disrupt communications, and bring down power systems.
second article wrote:
When the belt is turning "fast," it means that lots of magnetic fields are being swept up, and that a future sunspot cycle is going to be intense. This is a basis for forecasting: "The belt was turning fast in 1986-1996," says Hathaway. "Old magnetic fields swept up then should re-appear as big sunspots in 2010-2011."
Like most experts in the field, Hathaway has confidence in the conveyor belt model and agrees with Dikpati that the next solar maximum should be a doozy. But he disagrees with one point. Dikpati's forecast puts Solar Max at 2012. Hathaway believes it will arrive sooner, in 2010 or 2011.
third article wrote:
"Normally, the conveyor belt moves about 1 meter per second—walking pace," says Hathaway. "That's how it has been since the late 19th century." In recent years, however, the belt has decelerated to 0.75 m/s in the north and 0.35 m/s in the south. "We've never seen speeds so low."
According to theory and observation, the speed of the belt foretells the intensity of sunspot activity ~20 years in the future. A slow belt means lower solar activity; a fast belt means stronger activity. The reasons for this are explained in the Science@NASA story Solar Storm Warning.
"The slowdown we see now means that Solar Cycle 25, peaking around the year 2022, could be one of the weakest in centuries," says Hathaway.
It's the sun
-
Wild Cobra
- Posts: 56
- Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 4:42 pm
It's the sun
From my ant sized vantage point it’s pretty much a no brainer. The sun being the earth’s source of heat and the laws of thermodynamics considered, what else could it be?
I’ve been watching (not studying) solar weather for some time and the cycles are more complex than many would have us believe. Our weather is and has been tied to those cycles for as long as the sun and earth have been traveling together.
If people find out it is the sun and there isn’t anything we can do about it, no one will get elected to "fix the problem".
What we have now is the sun rotating around the earth’s political system.:rolleyes:
I like to be optimistic about these things though. Just think about how plentiful solar energy will be… for a while. That’s good news for President Bush’s house and bad news for Al Gore’s house.
I’ve been watching (not studying) solar weather for some time and the cycles are more complex than many would have us believe. Our weather is and has been tied to those cycles for as long as the sun and earth have been traveling together.
If people find out it is the sun and there isn’t anything we can do about it, no one will get elected to "fix the problem".
What we have now is the sun rotating around the earth’s political system.:rolleyes:
I like to be optimistic about these things though. Just think about how plentiful solar energy will be… for a while. That’s good news for President Bush’s house and bad news for Al Gore’s house.
Schooling results in matriculation. Education is a process that changes the learner.
It's the sun
Wild Cobra;842476 wrote: Sunspot activity is a visual indicator of radiated heatBunkum, squire. Tosh. Show me a correlation between the heat output of the Sun and sunspot activity before you take your argument any further. If that's what your understanding's based on you're another loony flyposter as opposed to that mythic unicorn of the Internet, an interesting flyposter. Nobody has to get 15 posts before they're "useful around here" but treating a site as though it's a booked venue and you're the invited speaker lacks, shall we say, finesse. The only visual indicator of radiated heat from the sun, just to clarify matters, is the bright circle in the sky which helps you see where you're walking in the daytime, and the primary visual indicators of increased radiated heat from the sun is a change in colour or size toward the blue or big.
Let me try that again, it's too early in the morning...
Hi Wild Cobra, welcome to ForumGarden! I hope you enjoy posting here.
I hadn't realized sunspot activity is a visual indicator of radiated heat, that's a very exciting notion. Who's noted the effect in a publication, I'd be interested to read up on that, it sounds very important.
Let me try that again, it's too early in the morning...
Hi Wild Cobra, welcome to ForumGarden! I hope you enjoy posting here.
I hadn't realized sunspot activity is a visual indicator of radiated heat, that's a very exciting notion. Who's noted the effect in a publication, I'd be interested to read up on that, it sounds very important.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
It's the sun
Complete nonsense, where do you get this rubbish from. 
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
It's the sun
Galbally;842516 wrote: Complete nonsense, where do you get this rubbish from.
You forgot the "Hi Wild Cobra, welcome to ForumGarden!" bit!
You forgot the "Hi Wild Cobra, welcome to ForumGarden!" bit!
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
Wild Cobra
- Posts: 56
- Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 4:42 pm
It's the sun
spot;842515 wrote:
Bunkum, squire. Tosh. Show me a correlation between the heat output of the Sun and sunspot activity before you take your argument any further. If that's what your understanding's based on you're another loony flyposter as opposed to that mythic unicorn of the Internet, an interesting flyposter. Nobody has to get 15 posts before they're "useful around here" but treating a site as though it's a booked venue and you're the invited speaker lacks, shall we say, finesse.
It's hard to explain things well without being able to insert images and links. Therefore I feel less useful than I can be,
spot;842515 wrote: The only visual indicator of radiated heat from the sun, just to clarify matters, is the bright circle in the sky which helps you see where you're walking in the daytime, and the primary visual indicators of increased radiated heat from the sun is a change in colour or size toward the blue or big.
Well, it goes beyond that. Consider how cold the earth would be with no heat from the sun. Somewhere around 55 Kelvin maybe. That's -218 C. Without an atmosphere, the Earth would be about -18 C. The greenhouse effect is about 32 C to 33 C for an average global temperature of 14 C to 15 C. Just the 11 year cycle varies the sun by more than 0.1% in it's radiated heat output. It causes a direct linear relationship to the 200 C and 32-33 C for a variation in excess of 0.23 C. Since there is a pretty large lag time, in several years, this really doesn't change the temperature much. Maybe half or less of the 0.23 C. Problem is that the sun has long term cycles too.
The average before 1900 is about 1364.8 watts/meter and the average after 1950 is about 1366.4 watts/meter. This is about a 0.12% increase which WILL CHANGE the global temperature by AT LEAST 0.25 C from that 50 year period of change. Actually, much of the effect has a time lag as the oceans absorb the heat. The equilibrium takes at least decades to take effect. We still may not have equilibrium to the rise between 1900 to 1950.
Now keep in mind, the 1365 watt per meter is the direct power at the equator and above the atmosphere. Since only half the earth is exposed to the sun at once, and is curved, the 235 watt/meter number is used global calculations. Changes are proportional.
spot;842515 wrote:
Let me try that again, it's too early in the morning...
Hi Wild Cobra, welcome to ForumGarden! I hope you enjoy posting here.
Thank-You, and i will if I can get some well thought out discourse here.
spot;842515 wrote:
I hadn't realized sunspot activity is a visual indicator of radiated heat, that's a very exciting notion. Who's noted the effect in a publication, I'd be interested to read up on that, it sounds very important.
There are various links you can find such info in. Since I cannot post links yet, try wikipedia and look for "Solar Variations," "Maunder Minimum," "Modern Maximum," "sunspot'" etc. Follow their supporting links at the bottom.
Here is an interesting paragraph under Solar Variations:
There are no direct measurements of the longer-term variation and interpretations of proxy measures of variations differ; recent results suggest about 0.1% variation over the last 2,000 years, although other sources suggest a 0.2% increase in solar irradiance since 1675. The combination of solar variation and volcanic effects has very likely been the cause of some climate change, for example during the Maunder Minimum.
Now consider a 0.2% variation from 1675 to now. That would equate to about a 0.46 C increase by solar changes alone. The 0.12% increase I pointed out come from a NASA link. They have the earth sciences down pretty good. With the alarmists saying the temperature increased by 0.6 C from before the industrial revolution, I can live with the remaining 0.14 C being caused by man, that much is about the maximum that a change from 280 ppm CO2 to 380 ppm CO2 can make with the known and tested theories of CO2 trapping IR. It is impossible for the added greenhouse gasses to get anywhere near 0.6 C.
Bunkum, squire. Tosh. Show me a correlation between the heat output of the Sun and sunspot activity before you take your argument any further. If that's what your understanding's based on you're another loony flyposter as opposed to that mythic unicorn of the Internet, an interesting flyposter. Nobody has to get 15 posts before they're "useful around here" but treating a site as though it's a booked venue and you're the invited speaker lacks, shall we say, finesse.
It's hard to explain things well without being able to insert images and links. Therefore I feel less useful than I can be,
spot;842515 wrote: The only visual indicator of radiated heat from the sun, just to clarify matters, is the bright circle in the sky which helps you see where you're walking in the daytime, and the primary visual indicators of increased radiated heat from the sun is a change in colour or size toward the blue or big.
Well, it goes beyond that. Consider how cold the earth would be with no heat from the sun. Somewhere around 55 Kelvin maybe. That's -218 C. Without an atmosphere, the Earth would be about -18 C. The greenhouse effect is about 32 C to 33 C for an average global temperature of 14 C to 15 C. Just the 11 year cycle varies the sun by more than 0.1% in it's radiated heat output. It causes a direct linear relationship to the 200 C and 32-33 C for a variation in excess of 0.23 C. Since there is a pretty large lag time, in several years, this really doesn't change the temperature much. Maybe half or less of the 0.23 C. Problem is that the sun has long term cycles too.
The average before 1900 is about 1364.8 watts/meter and the average after 1950 is about 1366.4 watts/meter. This is about a 0.12% increase which WILL CHANGE the global temperature by AT LEAST 0.25 C from that 50 year period of change. Actually, much of the effect has a time lag as the oceans absorb the heat. The equilibrium takes at least decades to take effect. We still may not have equilibrium to the rise between 1900 to 1950.
Now keep in mind, the 1365 watt per meter is the direct power at the equator and above the atmosphere. Since only half the earth is exposed to the sun at once, and is curved, the 235 watt/meter number is used global calculations. Changes are proportional.
spot;842515 wrote:
Let me try that again, it's too early in the morning...
Hi Wild Cobra, welcome to ForumGarden! I hope you enjoy posting here.
Thank-You, and i will if I can get some well thought out discourse here.
spot;842515 wrote:
I hadn't realized sunspot activity is a visual indicator of radiated heat, that's a very exciting notion. Who's noted the effect in a publication, I'd be interested to read up on that, it sounds very important.
There are various links you can find such info in. Since I cannot post links yet, try wikipedia and look for "Solar Variations," "Maunder Minimum," "Modern Maximum," "sunspot'" etc. Follow their supporting links at the bottom.
Here is an interesting paragraph under Solar Variations:
There are no direct measurements of the longer-term variation and interpretations of proxy measures of variations differ; recent results suggest about 0.1% variation over the last 2,000 years, although other sources suggest a 0.2% increase in solar irradiance since 1675. The combination of solar variation and volcanic effects has very likely been the cause of some climate change, for example during the Maunder Minimum.
Now consider a 0.2% variation from 1675 to now. That would equate to about a 0.46 C increase by solar changes alone. The 0.12% increase I pointed out come from a NASA link. They have the earth sciences down pretty good. With the alarmists saying the temperature increased by 0.6 C from before the industrial revolution, I can live with the remaining 0.14 C being caused by man, that much is about the maximum that a change from 280 ppm CO2 to 380 ppm CO2 can make with the known and tested theories of CO2 trapping IR. It is impossible for the added greenhouse gasses to get anywhere near 0.6 C.
It's the sun
You know, the one thing I find hard to put up with is when I ask a really simple specific question like "Who's noted the effect in a publication" and get told to spend a lifetime reading. I've a good idea how many days would be involved in"try wikipedia and look for "Solar Variations," "Maunder Minimum," "Modern Maximum," "sunspot'" etc. Follow their supporting links at the bottom. thank you. The point of "Who's noted the effect in a publication" is that I'd like to go and read a publication - that's a peer-reviewed journal - which notes the effect. The effect, in case you'd forgotten, is "a correlation between the heat output of the Sun and sunspot activity".
Are you another of these people who thinks "global warming" has to involve cumulative heat retention?
Are you another of these people who thinks "global warming" has to involve cumulative heat retention?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
Wild Cobra
- Posts: 56
- Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 4:42 pm
It's the sun
spot;843195 wrote:
You know, the one thing I find hard to put up with is when I ask a really simple specific question like "Who's noted the effect in a publication" and get told to spend a lifetime reading. I've a good idea how many days would be involved in"try wikipedia and look for "Solar Variations," "Maunder Minimum," "Modern Maximum," "sunspot'" etc. Follow their supporting links at the bottom. thank you. The point of "Who's noted the effect in a publication" is that I'd like to go and read a publication - that's a peer-reviewed journal - which notes the effect. The effect, in case you'd forgotten, is "a correlation between the heat output of the Sun and sunspot activity".
Sorry about that, but I'm always short on time as well. Besides, I cannot yet link sources. I do not yet have 15 posts! Here is part of one source:
Solar Irradiance Reconstruction
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
World Data Center for Paleoclimatology, Boulder
and
NOAA Paleoclimatology Program
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: PLEASE CITE CONTRIBUTORS WHEN USING THIS DATA!!!!!
NAME OF DATA SET: Solar Irradiance Reconstruction
LAST UPDATE: 7/2004 (Original receipt by WDC Paleo)
CONTRIBUTOR: Judith Lean, Naval Research Laboratory
IGBP PAGES/WDCA CONTRIBUTION SERIES NUMBER: 2004-035
SUGGESTED DATA CITATION: Lean, J.. 2004.
Solar Irradiance Reconstruction.
IGBP PAGES/World Data Center for Paleoclimatology
Data Contribution Series # 2004-035.
NOAA/NGDC Paleoclimatology Program, Boulder CO, USA.
ORIGINAL REFERENCE: Lean, J. 2000.
Evolution of the Sun's Spectral Irradiance Since the Maunder Minimum.
Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 27, No. 16, pp. 2425-2428,
Aug. 15, 2000.
ADDITIONAL REFERENCE: Lean, J., J. Beer, and R. Bradley. 1995.
Reconstruction of Solar Irradiance Since 1610: Implications for Climate Change.
Geophysical Research Letters, v.22, No. 23, pp 3195-3198, December 1, 1995.
Now I am poor at keeping source links and seldom go to the library for hardbound sources. I would think if you were interested, the wiki references would suffice for a starting point.
spot;843195 wrote:
Are you another of these people who thinks "global warming" has to involve cumulative heat retention?
Not really. However, I understand that some lag times are involved. I'm not really sure what you mean by the term. I do believe that most there is a balance, but that it isn't immediate. I don't know how long the lag times are, just that there is some lag when it comes to the deeper warming on the oceans. I think the cyclic changes in the ocean conveyors have a more dramatic effect on the CO2 exchanges, but that's another issue in this complex subject.
I could be wrong about the lag being as long as I think it is. I don't know of any hard data there. I just take the fact that the changes in solar intensity do have an effect larger than many accept and that the longer the lag, the less prevalent we see these with the 11 year cycle. If there was zero lag, it would be a less deniable for how solar intensity changes the temperature.
See the below attachment from the Goddard Institute at the NASA site and consider the effects:
Attached files
You know, the one thing I find hard to put up with is when I ask a really simple specific question like "Who's noted the effect in a publication" and get told to spend a lifetime reading. I've a good idea how many days would be involved in"try wikipedia and look for "Solar Variations," "Maunder Minimum," "Modern Maximum," "sunspot'" etc. Follow their supporting links at the bottom. thank you. The point of "Who's noted the effect in a publication" is that I'd like to go and read a publication - that's a peer-reviewed journal - which notes the effect. The effect, in case you'd forgotten, is "a correlation between the heat output of the Sun and sunspot activity".
Sorry about that, but I'm always short on time as well. Besides, I cannot yet link sources. I do not yet have 15 posts! Here is part of one source:
Solar Irradiance Reconstruction
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
World Data Center for Paleoclimatology, Boulder
and
NOAA Paleoclimatology Program
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: PLEASE CITE CONTRIBUTORS WHEN USING THIS DATA!!!!!
NAME OF DATA SET: Solar Irradiance Reconstruction
LAST UPDATE: 7/2004 (Original receipt by WDC Paleo)
CONTRIBUTOR: Judith Lean, Naval Research Laboratory
IGBP PAGES/WDCA CONTRIBUTION SERIES NUMBER: 2004-035
SUGGESTED DATA CITATION: Lean, J.. 2004.
Solar Irradiance Reconstruction.
IGBP PAGES/World Data Center for Paleoclimatology
Data Contribution Series # 2004-035.
NOAA/NGDC Paleoclimatology Program, Boulder CO, USA.
ORIGINAL REFERENCE: Lean, J. 2000.
Evolution of the Sun's Spectral Irradiance Since the Maunder Minimum.
Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 27, No. 16, pp. 2425-2428,
Aug. 15, 2000.
ADDITIONAL REFERENCE: Lean, J., J. Beer, and R. Bradley. 1995.
Reconstruction of Solar Irradiance Since 1610: Implications for Climate Change.
Geophysical Research Letters, v.22, No. 23, pp 3195-3198, December 1, 1995.
Now I am poor at keeping source links and seldom go to the library for hardbound sources. I would think if you were interested, the wiki references would suffice for a starting point.
spot;843195 wrote:
Are you another of these people who thinks "global warming" has to involve cumulative heat retention?
Not really. However, I understand that some lag times are involved. I'm not really sure what you mean by the term. I do believe that most there is a balance, but that it isn't immediate. I don't know how long the lag times are, just that there is some lag when it comes to the deeper warming on the oceans. I think the cyclic changes in the ocean conveyors have a more dramatic effect on the CO2 exchanges, but that's another issue in this complex subject.
I could be wrong about the lag being as long as I think it is. I don't know of any hard data there. I just take the fact that the changes in solar intensity do have an effect larger than many accept and that the longer the lag, the less prevalent we see these with the 11 year cycle. If there was zero lag, it would be a less deniable for how solar intensity changes the temperature.
See the below attachment from the Goddard Institute at the NASA site and consider the effects:
Attached files
It's the sun
Wild Cobra;843245 wrote: I don't know how long the lag times areHours. The surface loses around 6 degrees Fahrenheit an hour at the equator, day and night. The "balance" you're discussing, if it existed (I'd call the question meaningless myself) is of the order of a millionth of that, surely, if it's measuring around a degree or two a century.
What did your references have to do with sunspots? This is so simple a question - could you please tell me any paper I can go and read which establishes "a correlation between the heat output of the Sun and sunspot activity". It'll take me a half hour to read such a paper and I'll come back a convert to your position. I don't want to spend days and weeks trying to interpret your own claimed summaries of what you've read other people claiming has been established to be true, I want to read something I can give weight to and in this case that would be a published paper which establishes "a correlation between the heat output of the Sun and sunspot activity".
What did your references have to do with sunspots? This is so simple a question - could you please tell me any paper I can go and read which establishes "a correlation between the heat output of the Sun and sunspot activity". It'll take me a half hour to read such a paper and I'll come back a convert to your position. I don't want to spend days and weeks trying to interpret your own claimed summaries of what you've read other people claiming has been established to be true, I want to read something I can give weight to and in this case that would be a published paper which establishes "a correlation between the heat output of the Sun and sunspot activity".
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
It's the sun
Actually, it might help if we just discuss what your phrase "a correlation between the heat output of the Sun and sunspot activity" means. I'm reading it to mean "oh look, there's a sunspot, gosh the heat output of the sun just dipped". Or "oh look, there's a sunspot, gosh the heat output of the sun dipped last week", or "oh look, there's a sunspot, gosh the heat output of the sun dipped the week after". What do you think it means? If we can get past whether there's "a correlation between the heat output of the Sun and sunspot activity" we might not have any disagreement at all.
Don't include any copy/paste material in your reply please, it means nothing to me at all. I'm inviting you to discuss what you think, not for a frenzied view into your collected copy/paste library.
Don't include any copy/paste material in your reply please, it means nothing to me at all. I'm inviting you to discuss what you think, not for a frenzied view into your collected copy/paste library.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
Wild Cobra
- Posts: 56
- Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 4:42 pm
It's the sun
spot;843262 wrote:
Actually, it might help if we just discuss what your phrase "a correlation between the heat output of the Sun and sunspot activity" means. I'm reading it to mean "oh look, there's a sunspot, gosh the heat output of the sun just dipped". Or "oh look, there's a sunspot, gosh the heat output of the sun dipped last week", or "oh look, there's a sunspot, gosh the heat output of the sun dipped the week after". What do you think it means? If we can get past whether there's "a correlation between the heat output of the Sun and sunspot activity" we might not have any disagreement at all.
First of all, sunspot activity is not the only thing of concern with solar output. It is a simple and well observed indication that the solar output is more when the sun has increased sunspot activity. This increased activity produces more radiation. More radiation is more heat for our planet. It is a proven observed phenomenon.
spot;843262 wrote:
Don't include any copy/paste material in your reply please, it means nothing to me at all. I'm inviting you to discuss what you think, not for a frenzied view into your collected copy/paste library.
I explained I cannot link sources. You wanted references, I pasted that because it included such references.
Back to an earlier question, I have no clue as to who first observed the phenomena. It doesn't matter to me. The global warming scare started before anyone really looked at proxy isotopes like Carbon 14, Beryllium 10, Oxygen 18, etc. as related to paleoclimatology. Also before the approximate 800 year lag of ocean temperature to natural CO2 levels were realized. The assumption was CO2 was a major driving force for temperature whereas the reverse is true. Models were built with false assumptions. That is a primary reason whay every time the IPCC does another report, they dramatically reduce the assessed impacts. Their predictions never come true, and they keep changing the model. Temperature drives natural CO2 levels. This is easily seen when you look at the hysteresis on a long term temperature vs. CO2 level timeline. It becomes it's flattest when you account for an approximate 800 year lag of CO2 following temperature. It takes a long time for ocean temperatures to change. Such a large mass. Colder water absorbs more CO2 than warmer water. This equilibrium between CO2 in the air and absorbed in water takes time too. If I recall, the current change is about 28 ppm in the atmosphere per C of ocean temperature.
Then there are satellites like SOHO (Solar and Heliospheric Observatory) that the alarmists never speak of their data. This satellite is in the Lagrangian (L1) orbit between the Earth and Sol and provides 24/7 measurements of the sun since 1996. It is one source of data that must be considered. We have only had good monitoring of the sun since the late 70's or early 80's. Other data is collected by proxy isotopes and other methods for paleoclimatology. They are less accurate than readings by SOHO and the likes, but they show some remarkable trends that the alarmists refuse to acknowledge. CO2 for example is created by solar radiation. The greater the solar intensity the greater the carbon 14 production. Beryllium 10 levels are also affected by solar radiation. We have historical imprints that show us a great deal that many refuse to speak of.
Actually, it might help if we just discuss what your phrase "a correlation between the heat output of the Sun and sunspot activity" means. I'm reading it to mean "oh look, there's a sunspot, gosh the heat output of the sun just dipped". Or "oh look, there's a sunspot, gosh the heat output of the sun dipped last week", or "oh look, there's a sunspot, gosh the heat output of the sun dipped the week after". What do you think it means? If we can get past whether there's "a correlation between the heat output of the Sun and sunspot activity" we might not have any disagreement at all.
First of all, sunspot activity is not the only thing of concern with solar output. It is a simple and well observed indication that the solar output is more when the sun has increased sunspot activity. This increased activity produces more radiation. More radiation is more heat for our planet. It is a proven observed phenomenon.
spot;843262 wrote:
Don't include any copy/paste material in your reply please, it means nothing to me at all. I'm inviting you to discuss what you think, not for a frenzied view into your collected copy/paste library.
I explained I cannot link sources. You wanted references, I pasted that because it included such references.
Back to an earlier question, I have no clue as to who first observed the phenomena. It doesn't matter to me. The global warming scare started before anyone really looked at proxy isotopes like Carbon 14, Beryllium 10, Oxygen 18, etc. as related to paleoclimatology. Also before the approximate 800 year lag of ocean temperature to natural CO2 levels were realized. The assumption was CO2 was a major driving force for temperature whereas the reverse is true. Models were built with false assumptions. That is a primary reason whay every time the IPCC does another report, they dramatically reduce the assessed impacts. Their predictions never come true, and they keep changing the model. Temperature drives natural CO2 levels. This is easily seen when you look at the hysteresis on a long term temperature vs. CO2 level timeline. It becomes it's flattest when you account for an approximate 800 year lag of CO2 following temperature. It takes a long time for ocean temperatures to change. Such a large mass. Colder water absorbs more CO2 than warmer water. This equilibrium between CO2 in the air and absorbed in water takes time too. If I recall, the current change is about 28 ppm in the atmosphere per C of ocean temperature.
Then there are satellites like SOHO (Solar and Heliospheric Observatory) that the alarmists never speak of their data. This satellite is in the Lagrangian (L1) orbit between the Earth and Sol and provides 24/7 measurements of the sun since 1996. It is one source of data that must be considered. We have only had good monitoring of the sun since the late 70's or early 80's. Other data is collected by proxy isotopes and other methods for paleoclimatology. They are less accurate than readings by SOHO and the likes, but they show some remarkable trends that the alarmists refuse to acknowledge. CO2 for example is created by solar radiation. The greater the solar intensity the greater the carbon 14 production. Beryllium 10 levels are also affected by solar radiation. We have historical imprints that show us a great deal that many refuse to speak of.
It's the sun
There's a complete lack of communication in this, you know. I ask a question and nothing you write reflects what I asked at all. You have no clue as to who first observed the phenomena? Neither do I but I didn't ask who first observed it. They're your words, not mine, that there's "a correlation between the heat output of the Sun and sunspot activity". It is a simple and well observed indication that the solar output is more when the sun has increased sunspot activity? Show me, how simple can a question get? Where can I look to see a reputable statement to this effect? I doubt its truth.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
Wild Cobra
- Posts: 56
- Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 4:42 pm
It's the sun
spot;843301 wrote:
There's a complete lack of communication in this, you know. I ask a question and nothing you write reflects what I asked at all. You have no clue as to who first observed the phenomena? Neither do I but I didn't ask who first observed it. They're your words, not mine, that there's "a correlation between the heat output of the Sun and sunspot activity". It is a simple and well observed indication that the solar output is more when the sun has increased sunspot activity? Show me, how simple can a question get? Where can I look to see a reputable statement to this effect? I doubt its truth.
Ooops... you're right. Your words were "Who's noted the effect in a publication, I'd be interested to read up on that, it sounds very important." Sorry, I misread that. However, the copied material I posted earlier should have been fine. At least I have a pretty easy time doing phrase searches with search engines. I forget other peoples habits are not like mine. Rather than find the original link I took that from, I did a title search for "Solar Irradiance Reconstruction" with Alta Vista and it was the first hit! I then took the 1610 to 2000 data and ran it through Excel. I will attach a graph with the solar irradiance and I added an 11 year moving average to it. The top of the graph has the link address. Is NOAA a good enough source for you?
This will be easier when I can imbed [IMG] and links. For now, I give you the extra work it takes me to make the attachment.
Enjoy.
Attached files
There's a complete lack of communication in this, you know. I ask a question and nothing you write reflects what I asked at all. You have no clue as to who first observed the phenomena? Neither do I but I didn't ask who first observed it. They're your words, not mine, that there's "a correlation between the heat output of the Sun and sunspot activity". It is a simple and well observed indication that the solar output is more when the sun has increased sunspot activity? Show me, how simple can a question get? Where can I look to see a reputable statement to this effect? I doubt its truth.
Ooops... you're right. Your words were "Who's noted the effect in a publication, I'd be interested to read up on that, it sounds very important." Sorry, I misread that. However, the copied material I posted earlier should have been fine. At least I have a pretty easy time doing phrase searches with search engines. I forget other peoples habits are not like mine. Rather than find the original link I took that from, I did a title search for "Solar Irradiance Reconstruction" with Alta Vista and it was the first hit! I then took the 1610 to 2000 data and ran it through Excel. I will attach a graph with the solar irradiance and I added an 11 year moving average to it. The top of the graph has the link address. Is NOAA a good enough source for you?
This will be easier when I can imbed [IMG] and links. For now, I give you the extra work it takes me to make the attachment.
Enjoy.
Attached files
It's the sun
Of course the sun is the primary and really the only source of energy for the earth. But whether or not the sunspot cycle influences climate is not a settled issue.
I used to hear from people who thought that carbon had nothing to do with climate change, and sunspots were the only thing driving warming. They would say the reason we've seen warming is because we have more sunspots than ever before. But I would point out a standard graph of smoothed sunspot numbers, showing the cycles lasting 9-14 years (averaging 10.7 years), and you can clearly see that activity peaked in cycle 19, in the mid-20th century.
Since that fact (more sunspots than ever) proved to be false, I started hearing a different tack. We are headed for an historic sunspot minimum, like the Maunder Minimum of the 17th-18th centuries, which could mean 70 years of no sunspots.
Problem is, nobody has predicted this, at least no astrophysicist knowledgable about solar cycles. Yet the story keeps going around. In February, an anonymous article (one with no byline) appeared in Investor's Business Daily claiming we are headed for a Maunder Minimum, it is a fact that this is tied to warming/cooling, and they cited Dr. Kenneth Tapping of the Dominion Radio Astrophysical Observatory in Penticton, British Columbia.
But I thought the quotes sounded odd, so I contacted Dr. Tapping, who said the quotes were false. The article had him prediciting another Maunder Minimum, but in fact he has never made that prediction. In fact, the current sunspot minimum is nothing unusual.
After that article appeared, I googled phrases from it, and found it referenced all over the blogosphere as if it were scientific fact.
Dr. Tapping prepared a response, with charts and graphs, showing why the current sunspot minimum (the inactive period between cycles 23 and 24) is not unusual at all.
You can get a copy by sending an email to SunspotMin AT Gmail dot com.
No text or title to the message is necessary. Any message sent to that address will receive a pdf of his notes.
Send for it. It is an interesting treatment.
Dr. Tapping makes no claims about climate change, because he is not a climatologist. But you'll find most of the experts cited by global warming skeptics are not climatologists either, but they don't put that same sort of limitation on their claims.
I used to hear from people who thought that carbon had nothing to do with climate change, and sunspots were the only thing driving warming. They would say the reason we've seen warming is because we have more sunspots than ever before. But I would point out a standard graph of smoothed sunspot numbers, showing the cycles lasting 9-14 years (averaging 10.7 years), and you can clearly see that activity peaked in cycle 19, in the mid-20th century.
Since that fact (more sunspots than ever) proved to be false, I started hearing a different tack. We are headed for an historic sunspot minimum, like the Maunder Minimum of the 17th-18th centuries, which could mean 70 years of no sunspots.
Problem is, nobody has predicted this, at least no astrophysicist knowledgable about solar cycles. Yet the story keeps going around. In February, an anonymous article (one with no byline) appeared in Investor's Business Daily claiming we are headed for a Maunder Minimum, it is a fact that this is tied to warming/cooling, and they cited Dr. Kenneth Tapping of the Dominion Radio Astrophysical Observatory in Penticton, British Columbia.
But I thought the quotes sounded odd, so I contacted Dr. Tapping, who said the quotes were false. The article had him prediciting another Maunder Minimum, but in fact he has never made that prediction. In fact, the current sunspot minimum is nothing unusual.
After that article appeared, I googled phrases from it, and found it referenced all over the blogosphere as if it were scientific fact.
Dr. Tapping prepared a response, with charts and graphs, showing why the current sunspot minimum (the inactive period between cycles 23 and 24) is not unusual at all.
You can get a copy by sending an email to SunspotMin AT Gmail dot com.
No text or title to the message is necessary. Any message sent to that address will receive a pdf of his notes.
Send for it. It is an interesting treatment.
Dr. Tapping makes no claims about climate change, because he is not a climatologist. But you'll find most of the experts cited by global warming skeptics are not climatologists either, but they don't put that same sort of limitation on their claims.
It's the sun
What a startlingly interesting post - thank you for registering to put it into the thread.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
It's the sun
spot;844437 wrote: What a startlingly interesting post - thank you for registering to put it into the thread.
Thanks very much. You are very kind.
Did I understand from someone else's post here that when we are new, we cannot post URLs?
I just noticed that in my earlier missive, I left one thing unclear. When I said that the skeptics came back saying that there won't be any sunspots, they said this meant there won't be any global warming, either. They seem to see it as an either/or proposition. So basically, by taking both positions, they want it both ways. Claim warming is due to increased sunspots, then when it is pointed out that sunspots aren't increasing, they tell us global warming isn't anything to worry about because sunspots are decreasing. Nifty, eh?
Another interesting thing.....not many people know this, but sunspots are actually cooler than other areas of the sun. But nobody is claiming (as far as I know) that more sunspots leads to less warming.
I think some of this might be coming from the Hudson Institute, a right-wing think tank. Like the Hoover Institute and the Cato Institute, they are always ready to inject a talking head supporting their funding source's opinion into our now voracious 24-hour news cycle.
I noticed Dennis Avery, a "Senior Fellow" with Hudson quoted in a midwest newspaper as a "scientist" claiming this also. We are in the midst of no sunspots, there may not be any more sunspots, the link between sunspots and climate is a forgone conclusion, so we need to burn up as much carbon fuel as possible to counteract the coming ice age.
I checked around, and discovered Avery isn't a scientist. He is more like a PR person who pushes various ideas that the Hudson Institute likes to flog. If you check his CV, it claims he is an agricultural economist. But it turns out his academic training was 50 years ago when he took some economics classes at an Ag school. The "scientist" never graduated from college. It would be bad enough if he were a PhD who spun stories without ever conducting research, but he never even completed any undergraduate program.
He was the guy who (infamously) 9 years ago was grinding out press releases claiming that consumers who buy organically grown produce are eight times more likely to die of e-coli than the rest of us who eat produce grown by ag-business with chemical fertilizers and pesticides.
He claimed that this was based on a study by the CDC. But a suspicous reporter called the CDC, and they said they had never conducted nor even heard of such a study. So back to Avery they went with serious questions.
Avery named the researcher, who said he never heard of any such thing.
Back to Avery: Now Avery claimed it was Dr. Paul Meade who worked for the fellow he named.
But when reporters contacted the newly named source, Meade said this was nonsense.
"What happened is that he called me up and announced that eight percent of the outbreaks of foodborne illness were from organic food. I took some exception to that and said I didn't know him and what his purpose was, but our data don't support that." Mead was chagrined to hear that a year after this conversation took place, Avery was still sourcing this phantom data back to him.
Note that 8 percent of outbreaks of illness were from organic became a different claim that now consumers were 8 times more likely to be infected with e-coli if they ate organic produce. Of course, neither claim was true, but they both came from Avery, who still stands by his story. Either one. Take your pick.
Regarding this sort of spin, and the increasing acceptance of the notion that even facts are arbitrary, I am reading a fascinating new book:
True Enough: Learning to Live in a Post-Fact Society.
It is very absorbing and alarming.
Thanks very much. You are very kind.
Did I understand from someone else's post here that when we are new, we cannot post URLs?
I just noticed that in my earlier missive, I left one thing unclear. When I said that the skeptics came back saying that there won't be any sunspots, they said this meant there won't be any global warming, either. They seem to see it as an either/or proposition. So basically, by taking both positions, they want it both ways. Claim warming is due to increased sunspots, then when it is pointed out that sunspots aren't increasing, they tell us global warming isn't anything to worry about because sunspots are decreasing. Nifty, eh?
Another interesting thing.....not many people know this, but sunspots are actually cooler than other areas of the sun. But nobody is claiming (as far as I know) that more sunspots leads to less warming.
I think some of this might be coming from the Hudson Institute, a right-wing think tank. Like the Hoover Institute and the Cato Institute, they are always ready to inject a talking head supporting their funding source's opinion into our now voracious 24-hour news cycle.
I noticed Dennis Avery, a "Senior Fellow" with Hudson quoted in a midwest newspaper as a "scientist" claiming this also. We are in the midst of no sunspots, there may not be any more sunspots, the link between sunspots and climate is a forgone conclusion, so we need to burn up as much carbon fuel as possible to counteract the coming ice age.
I checked around, and discovered Avery isn't a scientist. He is more like a PR person who pushes various ideas that the Hudson Institute likes to flog. If you check his CV, it claims he is an agricultural economist. But it turns out his academic training was 50 years ago when he took some economics classes at an Ag school. The "scientist" never graduated from college. It would be bad enough if he were a PhD who spun stories without ever conducting research, but he never even completed any undergraduate program.
He was the guy who (infamously) 9 years ago was grinding out press releases claiming that consumers who buy organically grown produce are eight times more likely to die of e-coli than the rest of us who eat produce grown by ag-business with chemical fertilizers and pesticides.
He claimed that this was based on a study by the CDC. But a suspicous reporter called the CDC, and they said they had never conducted nor even heard of such a study. So back to Avery they went with serious questions.
Avery named the researcher, who said he never heard of any such thing.
Back to Avery: Now Avery claimed it was Dr. Paul Meade who worked for the fellow he named.
But when reporters contacted the newly named source, Meade said this was nonsense.
"What happened is that he called me up and announced that eight percent of the outbreaks of foodborne illness were from organic food. I took some exception to that and said I didn't know him and what his purpose was, but our data don't support that." Mead was chagrined to hear that a year after this conversation took place, Avery was still sourcing this phantom data back to him.
Note that 8 percent of outbreaks of illness were from organic became a different claim that now consumers were 8 times more likely to be infected with e-coli if they ate organic produce. Of course, neither claim was true, but they both came from Avery, who still stands by his story. Either one. Take your pick.
Regarding this sort of spin, and the increasing acceptance of the notion that even facts are arbitrary, I am reading a fascinating new book:
True Enough: Learning to Live in a Post-Fact Society.
It is very absorbing and alarming.-
Wild Cobra
- Posts: 56
- Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 4:42 pm
It's the sun
I wonder if I joined a useless forum.
I posted graphs from both NASA and NOAA showing radiated power. Since the sun is the driving force for heat on our planet, are any of you going to deny this has an effect? Criticism is all about what I don't post and no response to what should be reliable source material.
I'm not going to continue posting stuff that gets no response. I learned years ago it is useless to debate someone who ignores relevant facts and finds other stuff to complain about.
That can go on forever.
How about some real discussion? Some real responses to the data that is talked about?
I don't car that sunspots are colder. I only said they were an indicator. I look at real data that is determined by direct measurements and proxy measurements.
Stop focusing on trying to pin down any direct correlation to sunspots. They show activity. Not measurement.
If you are want to discredit institutions and who people work for them, do it with related facts. Association does not automatically negate what someone says. If that is the level of punditry here, then this is a useless forum. That relagtes it to dogma and bias over facts.
Please... have an open mind...
I posted graphs from both NASA and NOAA showing radiated power. Since the sun is the driving force for heat on our planet, are any of you going to deny this has an effect? Criticism is all about what I don't post and no response to what should be reliable source material.
I'm not going to continue posting stuff that gets no response. I learned years ago it is useless to debate someone who ignores relevant facts and finds other stuff to complain about.
That can go on forever.
How about some real discussion? Some real responses to the data that is talked about?
I don't car that sunspots are colder. I only said they were an indicator. I look at real data that is determined by direct measurements and proxy measurements.
Stop focusing on trying to pin down any direct correlation to sunspots. They show activity. Not measurement.
If you are want to discredit institutions and who people work for them, do it with related facts. Association does not automatically negate what someone says. If that is the level of punditry here, then this is a useless forum. That relagtes it to dogma and bias over facts.
Please... have an open mind...
It's the sun
It was what you wrote that had my hackles raised. "Sunspot activity is a visual indicator of radiated heat", that really got up my nose.
Here's some text we could, if you like, try disputing. If I get an idea from you of which bit you think's untrue then I can go off and show evidence for it, how's that? It saves people wading through stiff paragraphs of pasted text that nobody's prepared to digest.
Yes the sun varies in its heat output on several timescales, that's good. We're all agreed on that bit.
There's only three major factors affecting the average global annual temperature - shall we use average global annual temperature as our indicator, or would you prefer a different one? One factor is the heat output of the sun, and let's agree to drop the word "sunspot" from the discussion. The second is the average reflectivity of the planet - what's not reflected warms things. The third is the efficiency with which the planet emits heat. The more efficient it is, the lower the average global annual temperature needed to balance the heat input from the sun.
The average reflectivity of the planet has two huge components, how much ice there is and how much cloud there is. They're white and reflective. The less ice and the less cloud the more of the sun's output is absorbed by the planet.
The efficiency of the planet in emitting heat is reduced the more cloud, water vapour, soot, carbon dioxide, methane (those are the main components) are in the atmosphere. That's demonstrated by simple lab black-box experiments pushing heat at a constant rate into an insulated enclosed space which loses heat by radiating through a fixed hole, and seeing what temperature it settles at with varied atmospheric components. Increase those effluent gasses and the temperature inside the enclosed space rises.
Global warming - or global cooling - happens when either the sun's heat changes, or the composition of the atmosphere jolts into a new balance, or the reflectivity jolts into a new balance. All three cause potential shifts in the average global annual temperature.
Here's some text we could, if you like, try disputing. If I get an idea from you of which bit you think's untrue then I can go off and show evidence for it, how's that? It saves people wading through stiff paragraphs of pasted text that nobody's prepared to digest.
Yes the sun varies in its heat output on several timescales, that's good. We're all agreed on that bit.
There's only three major factors affecting the average global annual temperature - shall we use average global annual temperature as our indicator, or would you prefer a different one? One factor is the heat output of the sun, and let's agree to drop the word "sunspot" from the discussion. The second is the average reflectivity of the planet - what's not reflected warms things. The third is the efficiency with which the planet emits heat. The more efficient it is, the lower the average global annual temperature needed to balance the heat input from the sun.
The average reflectivity of the planet has two huge components, how much ice there is and how much cloud there is. They're white and reflective. The less ice and the less cloud the more of the sun's output is absorbed by the planet.
The efficiency of the planet in emitting heat is reduced the more cloud, water vapour, soot, carbon dioxide, methane (those are the main components) are in the atmosphere. That's demonstrated by simple lab black-box experiments pushing heat at a constant rate into an insulated enclosed space which loses heat by radiating through a fixed hole, and seeing what temperature it settles at with varied atmospheric components. Increase those effluent gasses and the temperature inside the enclosed space rises.
Global warming - or global cooling - happens when either the sun's heat changes, or the composition of the atmosphere jolts into a new balance, or the reflectivity jolts into a new balance. All three cause potential shifts in the average global annual temperature.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
It's the sun
Wild Cobra;845638 wrote: I wonder if I joined a useless forum.
I posted graphs from both NASA and NOAA showing radiated power. Since the sun is the driving force for heat on our planet, are any of you going to deny this has an effect? Criticism is all about what I don't post and no response to what should be reliable source material.
I'm not going to continue posting stuff that gets no response. I learned years ago it is useless to debate someone who ignores relevant facts and finds other stuff to complain about.
That can go on forever.
How about some real discussion? Some real responses to the data that is talked about?
I don't car that sunspots are colder. I only said they were an indicator. I look at real data that is determined by direct measurements and proxy measurements.
Stop focusing on trying to pin down any direct correlation to sunspots. They show activity. Not measurement.
If you are want to discredit institutions and who people work for them, do it with related facts. Association does not automatically negate what someone says. If that is the level of punditry here, then this is a useless forum. That relagtes it to dogma and bias over facts.
Please... have an open mind...
The problem with your graph is, it gave no correlation to anything. Nothing causitive. It just showed the variation in estimated solar irradiance over a few hundred years. I went and looked at the data you based it on, and it shows a narriow range, I think based on watts per square meter.
I had a bunch of links to post, but I guess I must post a lot of material before I can post my first URL.
So what did you think of Dr. Tapping's article?
I posted graphs from both NASA and NOAA showing radiated power. Since the sun is the driving force for heat on our planet, are any of you going to deny this has an effect? Criticism is all about what I don't post and no response to what should be reliable source material.
I'm not going to continue posting stuff that gets no response. I learned years ago it is useless to debate someone who ignores relevant facts and finds other stuff to complain about.
That can go on forever.
How about some real discussion? Some real responses to the data that is talked about?
I don't car that sunspots are colder. I only said they were an indicator. I look at real data that is determined by direct measurements and proxy measurements.
Stop focusing on trying to pin down any direct correlation to sunspots. They show activity. Not measurement.
If you are want to discredit institutions and who people work for them, do it with related facts. Association does not automatically negate what someone says. If that is the level of punditry here, then this is a useless forum. That relagtes it to dogma and bias over facts.
Please... have an open mind...
The problem with your graph is, it gave no correlation to anything. Nothing causitive. It just showed the variation in estimated solar irradiance over a few hundred years. I went and looked at the data you based it on, and it shows a narriow range, I think based on watts per square meter.
I had a bunch of links to post, but I guess I must post a lot of material before I can post my first URL.
So what did you think of Dr. Tapping's article?
-
Wild Cobra
- Posts: 56
- Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 4:42 pm
It's the sun
spot;845701 wrote:
It was what you wrote that had my hackles raised. "Sunspot activity is a visual indicator of radiated heat", that really got up my nose.
Well, in geneal that is true. I never said it was an absolute indicator.
Would you agree sunspots are created by increased sun activity?
The way I see it, sunspots tell us the sun is very likely more active. Is that in dispute?
spot;845701 wrote:
Here's some text we could, if you like, try disputing. If I get an idea from you of which bit you think's untrue then I can go off and show evidence for it, how's that? It saves people wading through stiff paragraphs of pasted text that nobody's prepared to digest.
Yes, in general I agree with it all. I think you could have refined it a bit, but I don't deny thise assessments.
It was what you wrote that had my hackles raised. "Sunspot activity is a visual indicator of radiated heat", that really got up my nose.
Well, in geneal that is true. I never said it was an absolute indicator.
Would you agree sunspots are created by increased sun activity?
The way I see it, sunspots tell us the sun is very likely more active. Is that in dispute?
spot;845701 wrote:
Here's some text we could, if you like, try disputing. If I get an idea from you of which bit you think's untrue then I can go off and show evidence for it, how's that? It saves people wading through stiff paragraphs of pasted text that nobody's prepared to digest.
Yes, in general I agree with it all. I think you could have refined it a bit, but I don't deny thise assessments.
It's the sun
Wild Cobra wrote: The way I see it, sunspots tell us the sun is very likely more active. Is that in dispute?No, no dispute at all, that's in your graph and if "active" means pushing out more energy then that's what it means.
Here's some detail of the terms your using so we can all keep up.
The variation in Sunspot Number, to begin with. A number of, say, 100 means there's around 50 sunspots visible? Is that right? 50 sunspots and 5 groups, with the groups weighted by 10, 50 + 5x10 = 100? I'm just checking I know what your terms mean, that's all. Then the "Sunspot Number for 2001", say, is the Sunspot Number for all days of 2001 averaged?
Next, then. The Sunspot Number varies within a 10-11 year Solar Cycle, that's the sort of beat which in a 2-stroke bike engine would be called a stroke. It varies year to year from a high of say 50 to a low of 0.
Next term then - Solar Irradiance. How much energy hits a patch of the planet square-on. That also goes up and down in the same cycle from a high of, say, 1366 W/m^2 to a low of 1365 W/m^2. That's a variation of one part in a thousand.
How much of yesterday's heat input is still around the next day? Just to get an idea of the speed with which this heat flows in and out. That's easy - do a thought experiment. Pretend it's mid-day at the equator a long long way from the sea and there's no clouds, and then extinguish the sun. How fast does it cool from the existing 40 degrees C? 3 degrees an hour? So that after 12 hours it's close to freezing? After 24 hours it's minus 20 degrees and still falling? I think my point is that yesterday's heat input is pretty much all gone by today. The cloud cover and wind patterns might remember what yesterday was like but the planet's not storing all that heat, it comes in and by God it goes straight out again in hours, not in millennia. Yes the sea keeps some but not, shall we call it, decades worth. It's a small heat sump.
So, I'd say from those considerations that the solar variation is pretty minimal when it comes to deciding the temperature variation of the planet. Reflectivity is bigger, perhaps infra-red trapping is bigger too, I've no idea. That 0.1% Solar Irradiance variation of the daily input (and, by necessity, the daily output as well since they're balanced) doesn't sound like a huge amount to me.
Here's some detail of the terms your using so we can all keep up.
The variation in Sunspot Number, to begin with. A number of, say, 100 means there's around 50 sunspots visible? Is that right? 50 sunspots and 5 groups, with the groups weighted by 10, 50 + 5x10 = 100? I'm just checking I know what your terms mean, that's all. Then the "Sunspot Number for 2001", say, is the Sunspot Number for all days of 2001 averaged?
Next, then. The Sunspot Number varies within a 10-11 year Solar Cycle, that's the sort of beat which in a 2-stroke bike engine would be called a stroke. It varies year to year from a high of say 50 to a low of 0.
Next term then - Solar Irradiance. How much energy hits a patch of the planet square-on. That also goes up and down in the same cycle from a high of, say, 1366 W/m^2 to a low of 1365 W/m^2. That's a variation of one part in a thousand.
How much of yesterday's heat input is still around the next day? Just to get an idea of the speed with which this heat flows in and out. That's easy - do a thought experiment. Pretend it's mid-day at the equator a long long way from the sea and there's no clouds, and then extinguish the sun. How fast does it cool from the existing 40 degrees C? 3 degrees an hour? So that after 12 hours it's close to freezing? After 24 hours it's minus 20 degrees and still falling? I think my point is that yesterday's heat input is pretty much all gone by today. The cloud cover and wind patterns might remember what yesterday was like but the planet's not storing all that heat, it comes in and by God it goes straight out again in hours, not in millennia. Yes the sea keeps some but not, shall we call it, decades worth. It's a small heat sump.
So, I'd say from those considerations that the solar variation is pretty minimal when it comes to deciding the temperature variation of the planet. Reflectivity is bigger, perhaps infra-red trapping is bigger too, I've no idea. That 0.1% Solar Irradiance variation of the daily input (and, by necessity, the daily output as well since they're balanced) doesn't sound like a huge amount to me.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
Wild Cobra
- Posts: 56
- Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 4:42 pm
It's the sun
Sunspot;845702 wrote:
The problem with your graph is, it gave no correlation to anything. Nothing causitive. It just showed the variation in estimated solar irradiance over a few hundred years. I went and looked at the data you based it on, and it shows a narriow range, I think based on watts per square meter.
Well, I wasn't trying to correlate anything except to show the values of the suns output changes in a fraction of a percent. These are small changes yet when you apply a fraction of a percent acress a 200 K range in temperature, it is rather dramatic.
Sunspot;845702 wrote:
So what did you think of Dr. Tapping's article?
I think it is well though out and probable. In fact now that I have 15 posts, here in the full post I wanted to post:
Please, lets only focus on solar aspects of global warming within this thread. There are so many nuances to global warming that maybe we should separate those not related.
I have a solid belief based on available scientific facts that the Sun is the primary driving force for global warming. Not only have the long term celestial cycles stated as the driving force for ice ages, but the sun has other cycles as well. These cycles have an undeniable linear relationship between radiated heat, and the effect on the earth. Sunspot activity is a visual indicator of radiated heat, although, there are also the invisible to the eye Coronal Mass Ejections.
Here are a few interesting links about the Sun and sunspots:
Scientists Issue Unprecedented Forecast of Next Sunspot Cycle
Solar Storm Warning dated 3/10/06
Long Range Solar Forecast dated 5/10/06
Extracts:
first article wrote: The next sunspot cycle will be 30-50% stronger than the last one and begin as much as a year late, according to a breakthrough forecast using a computer model of solar dynamics developed by scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). Predicting the Sun's cycles accurately, years in advance, will help societies plan for active bouts of solar storms, which can slow satellite orbits, disrupt communications, and bring down power systems.
[QUOTE=second article]
When the belt is turning "fast," it means that lots of magnetic fields are being swept up, and that a future sunspot cycle is going to be intense. This is a basis for forecasting: "The belt was turning fast in 1986-1996," says Hathaway. "Old magnetic fields swept up then should re-appear as big sunspots in 2010-2011."
Like most experts in the field, Hathaway has confidence in the conveyor belt model and agrees with Dikpati that the next solar maximum should be a doozy. But he disagrees with one point. Dikpati's forecast puts Solar Max at 2012. Hathaway believes it will arrive sooner, in 2010 or 2011.
third article wrote:
"Normally, the conveyor belt moves about 1 meter per second—walking pace," says Hathaway. "That's how it has been since the late 19th century." In recent years, however, the belt has decelerated to 0.75 m/s in the north and 0.35 m/s in the south. "We've never seen speeds so low."
According to theory and observation, the speed of the belt foretells the intensity of sunspot activity ~20 years in the future. A slow belt means lower solar activity; a fast belt means stronger activity. The reasons for this are explained in the Science@NASA story Solar Storm Warning.
"The slowdown we see now means that Solar Cycle 25, peaking around the year 2022, could be one of the weakest in centuries," says Hathaway.
I modified a couple pics from two of the articles:
What Dr. Tapping is predicting falls in line with the above as well. It looks like cycles 22-24 can easily have the same behavior as cycles 22-24.
The 10.7 cm levels are good for looking at the sun, but since we have satellites, we can achieve even more accurate readings and at more wave numbers. This is good for data through the time he indicates. back in the 50's, that was the best accuracy we had available. 10.7 cm is about 2.8 ghz. The atmosphere is very transparent to this frequency.
The problem with your graph is, it gave no correlation to anything. Nothing causitive. It just showed the variation in estimated solar irradiance over a few hundred years. I went and looked at the data you based it on, and it shows a narriow range, I think based on watts per square meter.
Well, I wasn't trying to correlate anything except to show the values of the suns output changes in a fraction of a percent. These are small changes yet when you apply a fraction of a percent acress a 200 K range in temperature, it is rather dramatic.
Sunspot;845702 wrote:
So what did you think of Dr. Tapping's article?
I think it is well though out and probable. In fact now that I have 15 posts, here in the full post I wanted to post:
Please, lets only focus on solar aspects of global warming within this thread. There are so many nuances to global warming that maybe we should separate those not related.
I have a solid belief based on available scientific facts that the Sun is the primary driving force for global warming. Not only have the long term celestial cycles stated as the driving force for ice ages, but the sun has other cycles as well. These cycles have an undeniable linear relationship between radiated heat, and the effect on the earth. Sunspot activity is a visual indicator of radiated heat, although, there are also the invisible to the eye Coronal Mass Ejections.
Here are a few interesting links about the Sun and sunspots:
Scientists Issue Unprecedented Forecast of Next Sunspot Cycle
Solar Storm Warning dated 3/10/06
Long Range Solar Forecast dated 5/10/06
Extracts:
first article wrote: The next sunspot cycle will be 30-50% stronger than the last one and begin as much as a year late, according to a breakthrough forecast using a computer model of solar dynamics developed by scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). Predicting the Sun's cycles accurately, years in advance, will help societies plan for active bouts of solar storms, which can slow satellite orbits, disrupt communications, and bring down power systems.
[QUOTE=second article]
When the belt is turning "fast," it means that lots of magnetic fields are being swept up, and that a future sunspot cycle is going to be intense. This is a basis for forecasting: "The belt was turning fast in 1986-1996," says Hathaway. "Old magnetic fields swept up then should re-appear as big sunspots in 2010-2011."
Like most experts in the field, Hathaway has confidence in the conveyor belt model and agrees with Dikpati that the next solar maximum should be a doozy. But he disagrees with one point. Dikpati's forecast puts Solar Max at 2012. Hathaway believes it will arrive sooner, in 2010 or 2011.
third article wrote:
"Normally, the conveyor belt moves about 1 meter per second—walking pace," says Hathaway. "That's how it has been since the late 19th century." In recent years, however, the belt has decelerated to 0.75 m/s in the north and 0.35 m/s in the south. "We've never seen speeds so low."
According to theory and observation, the speed of the belt foretells the intensity of sunspot activity ~20 years in the future. A slow belt means lower solar activity; a fast belt means stronger activity. The reasons for this are explained in the Science@NASA story Solar Storm Warning.
"The slowdown we see now means that Solar Cycle 25, peaking around the year 2022, could be one of the weakest in centuries," says Hathaway.
I modified a couple pics from two of the articles:
What Dr. Tapping is predicting falls in line with the above as well. It looks like cycles 22-24 can easily have the same behavior as cycles 22-24.
The 10.7 cm levels are good for looking at the sun, but since we have satellites, we can achieve even more accurate readings and at more wave numbers. This is good for data through the time he indicates. back in the 50's, that was the best accuracy we had available. 10.7 cm is about 2.8 ghz. The atmosphere is very transparent to this frequency.
It's the sun
Wild Cobra;846455 wrote: Well, I wasn't trying to correlate anything except to show the values of the suns output changes in a fraction of a percent. These are small changes yet when you apply a fraction of a percent acress a 200 K range in temperature, it is rather dramatic.What has a 200 K range in temperature, out of interest? The temperature difference between the hottest and the coldest places on Earth? I don't think it's that extreme.
When you apply a fraction of a percent across a 200 K range in temperature, it is (at a rough estimate) 0.2 of a degree, surely. Or does that K not stand for Kelvin?
When you apply a fraction of a percent across a 200 K range in temperature, it is (at a rough estimate) 0.2 of a degree, surely. Or does that K not stand for Kelvin?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
Wild Cobra
- Posts: 56
- Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 4:42 pm
It's the sun
spot;846446 wrote:
No, no dispute at all, that's in your graph and if "active" means pushing out more energy then that's what it means.
Good. That was what I was driving sat is that the sun's output changes.
The actual science behind the sunspot numbers isn't so important. I only showed they were loosely tied to irradiance. It is the suns power I focus on.
spot;846446 wrote:
So, I'd say from those considerations that the solar variation is pretty minimal when it comes to deciding the temperature variation of the planet. Reflectivity is bigger, perhaps infra-red trapping is bigger too, I've no idea. That 0.1% Solar Irradiance variation of the daily input (and, by necessity, the daily output as well since they're balanced) doesn't sound like a huge amount to me.
On a day to day basis it make almost no difference. However, that 0.1% when calculated over approximate 200 K heat from the suns heat equates to 0.2 C. Then the added energy is also increases the greenhouse effect ever so slightly. I will assume the greenhouse effect is near linear to the suns effect. Over time, we really don't know the actual numbers, but we see a trend that our average output has increased by more than about 0.08 % from before 1900 to after 1950. That's a low estimate, and I believe it's the range of the data I graphed. Other estimates have it more than three times as much. Where the truth lies, I don't really know. Only that the sun has a greater effect than the alarmists will acknowledge. I believe the change from before 1900 to after 1950 is about 0.2%. It will be near linear. If we assume a 200 K range for the sun and a 32 K range for the greenhouse effect, 0.2 x 232 = 0.464. That's not even the high estimate, but where I am comfortable with the sun's effect to be. A 0.46 C rise in temperature from the sun is what I believe. That leaves only about 0.15 C rise for the greenhouse gasses. Nobody has been able to convince me otherwise. The data I see from gas cell experiments limit the CO2 effect to about this number as well.
No, no dispute at all, that's in your graph and if "active" means pushing out more energy then that's what it means.
Good. That was what I was driving sat is that the sun's output changes.
The actual science behind the sunspot numbers isn't so important. I only showed they were loosely tied to irradiance. It is the suns power I focus on.
spot;846446 wrote:
So, I'd say from those considerations that the solar variation is pretty minimal when it comes to deciding the temperature variation of the planet. Reflectivity is bigger, perhaps infra-red trapping is bigger too, I've no idea. That 0.1% Solar Irradiance variation of the daily input (and, by necessity, the daily output as well since they're balanced) doesn't sound like a huge amount to me.
On a day to day basis it make almost no difference. However, that 0.1% when calculated over approximate 200 K heat from the suns heat equates to 0.2 C. Then the added energy is also increases the greenhouse effect ever so slightly. I will assume the greenhouse effect is near linear to the suns effect. Over time, we really don't know the actual numbers, but we see a trend that our average output has increased by more than about 0.08 % from before 1900 to after 1950. That's a low estimate, and I believe it's the range of the data I graphed. Other estimates have it more than three times as much. Where the truth lies, I don't really know. Only that the sun has a greater effect than the alarmists will acknowledge. I believe the change from before 1900 to after 1950 is about 0.2%. It will be near linear. If we assume a 200 K range for the sun and a 32 K range for the greenhouse effect, 0.2 x 232 = 0.464. That's not even the high estimate, but where I am comfortable with the sun's effect to be. A 0.46 C rise in temperature from the sun is what I believe. That leaves only about 0.15 C rise for the greenhouse gasses. Nobody has been able to convince me otherwise. The data I see from gas cell experiments limit the CO2 effect to about this number as well.
It's the sun
I agree entirely. What will make the jump from current conditions to different conditions will be a major shift in one of the previously fixed components of the balance. I'd suggest the first is the removal of the reflectivity from the Arctic cap when it totally disappears at mid-summer. I'll take a guess and say that's expected in 2013. What would you like to hazard as a date?
The fact that we're both hazarding a date suggests a recent change in the balancing values that's not happened in millions of years, unless you think the Arctic cap's completely melted before in recent times. It would be shocking if it were a coincidence that it up and goes just as we dramatically shift the effluent gas figures the way we have.
I take it too that we're agreed that the million years of glacial ice ages are directly down to mechanical shifts in orbit - Milankovitch cycles - not to variations in Solar Irradiance? Beyond a million years people get hazy about the dates compared to the astronomy but wouldn't you agree that the last ten ice ages seem solidly on that mechanical schedule?
The reason I get sniffy about plotting sunspot activity instead of irradiance is that the one goes from 0 to 50 and the other from 1365 to 1366. Sunspot counts look so dramatic a fluctuation compared to the other. If you can derive the second from the first I'd be so much happier with the axis calibrated in Watts per Square Metre rather than in Sunspot Number.
The fact that we're both hazarding a date suggests a recent change in the balancing values that's not happened in millions of years, unless you think the Arctic cap's completely melted before in recent times. It would be shocking if it were a coincidence that it up and goes just as we dramatically shift the effluent gas figures the way we have.
I take it too that we're agreed that the million years of glacial ice ages are directly down to mechanical shifts in orbit - Milankovitch cycles - not to variations in Solar Irradiance? Beyond a million years people get hazy about the dates compared to the astronomy but wouldn't you agree that the last ten ice ages seem solidly on that mechanical schedule?
The reason I get sniffy about plotting sunspot activity instead of irradiance is that the one goes from 0 to 50 and the other from 1365 to 1366. Sunspot counts look so dramatic a fluctuation compared to the other. If you can derive the second from the first I'd be so much happier with the axis calibrated in Watts per Square Metre rather than in Sunspot Number.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
Wild Cobra
- Posts: 56
- Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 4:42 pm
It's the sun
spot;846471 wrote:
I agree entirely. What will make the jump from current conditions to different conditions will be a major shift in one of the previously fixed components of the balance. I'd suggest the first is the removal of the reflectivity from the Arctic cap when it totally disappears at mid-summer. I'll take a guess and say that's expected in 2013. What would you like to hazard as a date?
The northern cap is the for me the largest problem created by our existence. I am one that believes that the soot from Asia carried by the wind is the problem. I saw some time back on the NASA channel how the black carbon was melting the ice. Because of this, I don't want to make a guess. China's industrial complex is developing fast, and without good pollution controls. They already exceeded the USA by 8% in carbon emissions in 2006. The growth rate was 18%. I wonder what their output is now.
Anyway, the soot collects the heat from the sun instead of ~90% of it being reflected. This melts the ice that would otherwise not melt, or melt at a lesser rate. With the greater ocean exposure, we then have more sea absorption of heat. Here are two posts of mine from another forum:
spurster wrote:
If you want hard data of a large change, maybe the shrinking Arctic ice might be convincing.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story ... 21,00.html
How does that article help when the author lies about cause and effect?
Sea temperatures in the Arctic have risen 3C in recent decades due to a buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, according to Mark Serreze, who led the study at the University of Colorado, Boulder. He fears continued thinning of the ice will lead to a sudden acceleration of melting that will leave the ocean ice-free.
I can buy the three degrees, but not due to CO2. It is from a by-product of producing CO2 during electrical generation called black carbon. The coal burning plants in China are depositing soot on the ice, collecting heat from the sun, and melting the ice. The arctic ocean now warms because the water is absorbing more than 90% of the suns radiation instead of reflecting more than 90% of it.
Also note, warmer sea water can absorb less CO2. It releases it. If the 3 degrees was a global average, that would equate to about an additional 84 ppm of CO2 globally.
Now don't forget celestial cycles too. What is the soot and cycles are in sync? When the Vikings were the masters of the area, Greenland was green, and they likely had no northern cap to hinder their voyages.
There are also the ocean current cycles themselves.
Too many factors to say CO2 is the issue, especially when they don't give surface temperature readings to support their contentions. I would say they conveniently leave those readings out, because they would oppose their conclusions rather than support them.
A few links:
Black Soot and Snow: A Warmer Combination
Black and White: Soot on Ice an updated version
Animation of melting arctic ice
Animation of the Arctic melting
Scientists Confirm Earth's Energy is Out of Balance :
The study reveals Earth's energy imbalance is large by standards of the planet's history. The imbalance is 0.85 watts per meter squared. That will cause an additional warming of 0.6 degrees Celsius (1 degree Fahrenheit) by the end of this century.
As the Earth warms it emits more heat. Eventually the Earth will be back in balance, if the greenhouse gas emissions are kept at the same level of today. Scientists know it takes the ocean longer to warm than the land. The lag in the ocean's response has practical consequences. It means there is an additional global warming of about one degree Fahrenheit that is already in the pipeline. Even if there were no further increase of human-made gases in the air, climate would continue to warm that much over the next century.
This out of balance is because of the long lag time from cause to effect of the ocean warming. The land has a nearly immediate effect. The oceans are more complex in absorbing and reflecting radiation because it a fluid rather than solid. I would guess we need a moving average graph of at least 150 years to model absorbed radiation to balance. I haven't see accurate lag figures other than an 800 year average lag between temperiture and CO2 levels.
STUDY SHOWS POLLUTION FROM CHINA AND INDIA AFFECTING WORLD'S WEATHER:
The Pacific storm track carries these polluted particles to the west coasts of Canada and the United States, across America and eventually, most of the world, Zhang notes.
"The Pacific storm track can impact weather all over the globe," he says.
"The general air flow is from west to east, but there is also some serious concern that the polar regions could be affected by this pollution. That could have potentially catastrophic results."
Soot, in the form of black carbon, can collect on ice packs and attract more heat from the sun, meaning a potential acceleration of melting of the polar ice caps, he believes.
"It possibly means the polar ice caps could melt quicker than we had believed, which of course, results in rising sea level rates," he adds.
There's a relatively new article in The Deniers series that speaks of the Black Carbon I have mentioned before. This is the first time I have seen anyone else besides me publically announce such a thing. I found the information from NASA, but they play the political game and stay silent about it.
'Dirty snow' warming the Earth, study finds; a few paragraphs from the link:
[QUOTE]A team of U.S. scientists has found that "dirty snow" is a surprisingly significant contributor to global warming, and is urging Canada -- as "custodian" of a vast, snowbound nation -- to lead an international cleanup effort.
The researchers have measured, in the first comprehensive study of its kind, how snowy landscapes tainted by carbon particles from inefficiently burned fuels and forest fires are absorbing more of the sun's heat than the less sooty snow cover of centuries past.
"Snow becomes dirty when soot from tailpipes, smokestacks and forest fires enters the atmosphere and falls to the ground," the team explains. "Soot-infused snow is darker than natural snow. Dark surfaces absorb sunlight and cause warming, while bright surfaces reflect heat back into space and cause cooling."
In their NASA-funded project, Mr. Zender and three colleagues from UC-Irvine and the University of Colorado calculated that dirty snow caused the Earth's temperature to rise 0.1 to 0.15 C, or up to 19% of the total warming of 0.8 C over the past 200 years.
In that time, the Arctic has warmed about 1.6 C, and dirty snow there has caused at least 0.5 C of the warming, the team found.
"The global warming debate has focused on carbon dioxide emissions," the scientists note. But their research has "determined that a lesser-known mechanism -- dirty snow -- can explain one-third or more of the Arctic warming primarily attributed to greenhouse gases."
"In some polar areas, impurities in the snow have caused enough melting to expose underlying sea ice or soil that is significantly darker than the snow. The darker surfaces absorb sunlight more rapidly than snow, causing additional warming. This cycle causes temperatures in the polar regions to rise as much as 3 C during some seasons," the scientists say.
"Once the snow is gone, the soot that caused the snow to melt continues to have an effect because the ground surface is darker and retains more heat."
spot;846471 wrote:
The fact that we're both hazarding a date suggests a recent change in the balancing values that's not happened in millions of years, unless you think the Arctic cap's completely melted before in recent times. It would be shocking if it were a coincidence that it up and goes just as we dramatically shift the effluent gas figures the way we have.
Actually, I do believe it melted way back when. When Rome occupied the known world, they have tax records from grape crops for wine in the UK. It had to be warmer today for there to be annual crops there! We know the world was warmer during earlier times of mankind. The Vikings sailed to the Americas and had farms on Greenland where it is glacier today. The alarmists refuse to address this. We only had about 280ppm of CO2 back then. I see it as an inconvenient truth for them.
spot;846471 wrote:
I take it too that we're agreed that the million years of glacial ice ages are directly down to mechanical shifts in orbit - Milankovitch cycles - not to variations in Solar Irradiance? Beyond a million years people get hazy about the dates compared to the astronomy but wouldn't you agree that the last ten ice ages seem solidly on that mechanical schedule?
This is likely the driving force. I wasn't there so I don't know, but it is the soundest theory I see. Mathematically, it makes perfect sense too. The thing is that these orbital changes do have an effect because it changes the solar irradiance received. They don't change the sun unless there can be an orbit/gravity relationship that alters the irradiance, but the distance and angle to the sun does change the received irradiance.
I wonder if the eccentricity of the planets changes the sun's irradiance in any way?
Anyway, if I correctly recall, the eccentricity has the greatest effect. The more elliptical the orbit, the greater annual average distance the earth is from the sun. This would be the cause of the ice age. Aren't we still approaching the least eccentric orbit in the next 26,000 years? This nearly round orbit hasn't been seen for more than 300,000 years! That's three warm cycles back, and it was the time on earth warmer than today! Actually, the prior two warming cycles were warmer than today too. I wonder what we can expect?
Just think how much more the average annual solar irradiance will be in 26,000 years!
I'm not going to try to calculate it, are you interested?
spot;846471 wrote:
The reason I get sniffy about plotting sunspot activity instead of irradiance is that the one goes from 0 to 50 and the other from 1365 to 1366. Sunspot counts look so dramatic a fluctuation compared to the other. If you can derive the second from the first I'd be so much happier with the axis calibrated in Watts per Square Metre rather than in Sunspot Number.
Oh, I understand. I never meant for it to appear that sunspots caused warming. Again, only that they are a visual indicator that coincides with solar activity.
I find it naive for the alarmists to discount the sun. For the sun not to be a factor, they must expect it to maintain a nice perfect heat and not vary past maybe 0.05%.
How many things in nature are that stable? I say it's perfectly reasonable to assume the sun can change nearly 1%, or more even.
I agree entirely. What will make the jump from current conditions to different conditions will be a major shift in one of the previously fixed components of the balance. I'd suggest the first is the removal of the reflectivity from the Arctic cap when it totally disappears at mid-summer. I'll take a guess and say that's expected in 2013. What would you like to hazard as a date?
The northern cap is the for me the largest problem created by our existence. I am one that believes that the soot from Asia carried by the wind is the problem. I saw some time back on the NASA channel how the black carbon was melting the ice. Because of this, I don't want to make a guess. China's industrial complex is developing fast, and without good pollution controls. They already exceeded the USA by 8% in carbon emissions in 2006. The growth rate was 18%. I wonder what their output is now.
Anyway, the soot collects the heat from the sun instead of ~90% of it being reflected. This melts the ice that would otherwise not melt, or melt at a lesser rate. With the greater ocean exposure, we then have more sea absorption of heat. Here are two posts of mine from another forum:
spurster wrote:
If you want hard data of a large change, maybe the shrinking Arctic ice might be convincing.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story ... 21,00.html
How does that article help when the author lies about cause and effect?
Sea temperatures in the Arctic have risen 3C in recent decades due to a buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, according to Mark Serreze, who led the study at the University of Colorado, Boulder. He fears continued thinning of the ice will lead to a sudden acceleration of melting that will leave the ocean ice-free.
I can buy the three degrees, but not due to CO2. It is from a by-product of producing CO2 during electrical generation called black carbon. The coal burning plants in China are depositing soot on the ice, collecting heat from the sun, and melting the ice. The arctic ocean now warms because the water is absorbing more than 90% of the suns radiation instead of reflecting more than 90% of it.
Also note, warmer sea water can absorb less CO2. It releases it. If the 3 degrees was a global average, that would equate to about an additional 84 ppm of CO2 globally.
Now don't forget celestial cycles too. What is the soot and cycles are in sync? When the Vikings were the masters of the area, Greenland was green, and they likely had no northern cap to hinder their voyages.
There are also the ocean current cycles themselves.
Too many factors to say CO2 is the issue, especially when they don't give surface temperature readings to support their contentions. I would say they conveniently leave those readings out, because they would oppose their conclusions rather than support them.
A few links:
Black Soot and Snow: A Warmer Combination
Black and White: Soot on Ice an updated version
Animation of melting arctic ice
Animation of the Arctic melting
Scientists Confirm Earth's Energy is Out of Balance :
The study reveals Earth's energy imbalance is large by standards of the planet's history. The imbalance is 0.85 watts per meter squared. That will cause an additional warming of 0.6 degrees Celsius (1 degree Fahrenheit) by the end of this century.
As the Earth warms it emits more heat. Eventually the Earth will be back in balance, if the greenhouse gas emissions are kept at the same level of today. Scientists know it takes the ocean longer to warm than the land. The lag in the ocean's response has practical consequences. It means there is an additional global warming of about one degree Fahrenheit that is already in the pipeline. Even if there were no further increase of human-made gases in the air, climate would continue to warm that much over the next century.
This out of balance is because of the long lag time from cause to effect of the ocean warming. The land has a nearly immediate effect. The oceans are more complex in absorbing and reflecting radiation because it a fluid rather than solid. I would guess we need a moving average graph of at least 150 years to model absorbed radiation to balance. I haven't see accurate lag figures other than an 800 year average lag between temperiture and CO2 levels.
STUDY SHOWS POLLUTION FROM CHINA AND INDIA AFFECTING WORLD'S WEATHER:
The Pacific storm track carries these polluted particles to the west coasts of Canada and the United States, across America and eventually, most of the world, Zhang notes.
"The Pacific storm track can impact weather all over the globe," he says.
"The general air flow is from west to east, but there is also some serious concern that the polar regions could be affected by this pollution. That could have potentially catastrophic results."
Soot, in the form of black carbon, can collect on ice packs and attract more heat from the sun, meaning a potential acceleration of melting of the polar ice caps, he believes.
"It possibly means the polar ice caps could melt quicker than we had believed, which of course, results in rising sea level rates," he adds.
There's a relatively new article in The Deniers series that speaks of the Black Carbon I have mentioned before. This is the first time I have seen anyone else besides me publically announce such a thing. I found the information from NASA, but they play the political game and stay silent about it.
'Dirty snow' warming the Earth, study finds; a few paragraphs from the link:
[QUOTE]A team of U.S. scientists has found that "dirty snow" is a surprisingly significant contributor to global warming, and is urging Canada -- as "custodian" of a vast, snowbound nation -- to lead an international cleanup effort.
The researchers have measured, in the first comprehensive study of its kind, how snowy landscapes tainted by carbon particles from inefficiently burned fuels and forest fires are absorbing more of the sun's heat than the less sooty snow cover of centuries past.
"Snow becomes dirty when soot from tailpipes, smokestacks and forest fires enters the atmosphere and falls to the ground," the team explains. "Soot-infused snow is darker than natural snow. Dark surfaces absorb sunlight and cause warming, while bright surfaces reflect heat back into space and cause cooling."
In their NASA-funded project, Mr. Zender and three colleagues from UC-Irvine and the University of Colorado calculated that dirty snow caused the Earth's temperature to rise 0.1 to 0.15 C, or up to 19% of the total warming of 0.8 C over the past 200 years.
In that time, the Arctic has warmed about 1.6 C, and dirty snow there has caused at least 0.5 C of the warming, the team found.
"The global warming debate has focused on carbon dioxide emissions," the scientists note. But their research has "determined that a lesser-known mechanism -- dirty snow -- can explain one-third or more of the Arctic warming primarily attributed to greenhouse gases."
"In some polar areas, impurities in the snow have caused enough melting to expose underlying sea ice or soil that is significantly darker than the snow. The darker surfaces absorb sunlight more rapidly than snow, causing additional warming. This cycle causes temperatures in the polar regions to rise as much as 3 C during some seasons," the scientists say.
"Once the snow is gone, the soot that caused the snow to melt continues to have an effect because the ground surface is darker and retains more heat."
spot;846471 wrote:
The fact that we're both hazarding a date suggests a recent change in the balancing values that's not happened in millions of years, unless you think the Arctic cap's completely melted before in recent times. It would be shocking if it were a coincidence that it up and goes just as we dramatically shift the effluent gas figures the way we have.
Actually, I do believe it melted way back when. When Rome occupied the known world, they have tax records from grape crops for wine in the UK. It had to be warmer today for there to be annual crops there! We know the world was warmer during earlier times of mankind. The Vikings sailed to the Americas and had farms on Greenland where it is glacier today. The alarmists refuse to address this. We only had about 280ppm of CO2 back then. I see it as an inconvenient truth for them.
spot;846471 wrote:
I take it too that we're agreed that the million years of glacial ice ages are directly down to mechanical shifts in orbit - Milankovitch cycles - not to variations in Solar Irradiance? Beyond a million years people get hazy about the dates compared to the astronomy but wouldn't you agree that the last ten ice ages seem solidly on that mechanical schedule?
This is likely the driving force. I wasn't there so I don't know, but it is the soundest theory I see. Mathematically, it makes perfect sense too. The thing is that these orbital changes do have an effect because it changes the solar irradiance received. They don't change the sun unless there can be an orbit/gravity relationship that alters the irradiance, but the distance and angle to the sun does change the received irradiance.
I wonder if the eccentricity of the planets changes the sun's irradiance in any way?
Anyway, if I correctly recall, the eccentricity has the greatest effect. The more elliptical the orbit, the greater annual average distance the earth is from the sun. This would be the cause of the ice age. Aren't we still approaching the least eccentric orbit in the next 26,000 years? This nearly round orbit hasn't been seen for more than 300,000 years! That's three warm cycles back, and it was the time on earth warmer than today! Actually, the prior two warming cycles were warmer than today too. I wonder what we can expect?
Just think how much more the average annual solar irradiance will be in 26,000 years!
I'm not going to try to calculate it, are you interested?
spot;846471 wrote:
The reason I get sniffy about plotting sunspot activity instead of irradiance is that the one goes from 0 to 50 and the other from 1365 to 1366. Sunspot counts look so dramatic a fluctuation compared to the other. If you can derive the second from the first I'd be so much happier with the axis calibrated in Watts per Square Metre rather than in Sunspot Number.
Oh, I understand. I never meant for it to appear that sunspots caused warming. Again, only that they are a visual indicator that coincides with solar activity.
I find it naive for the alarmists to discount the sun. For the sun not to be a factor, they must expect it to maintain a nice perfect heat and not vary past maybe 0.05%.
How many things in nature are that stable? I say it's perfectly reasonable to assume the sun can change nearly 1%, or more even.