|
|
|
|
|
| Might Solar Cycle 24 dispel man-made global warming?
Posted: 12/31/2007 7:35:11 AM | From the Wikipaedia site that Brightside provided:
So far, the radiative forcing (global warming) effect of methane has been about one-third of that of CO2 [1]. However, there is a large, but unknown, amount of methane in methane clathrates in the ocean floors. Global warming could release this methane, which could cause a further sharp rise in global temperatures. Such releases of methane may have been a major factor in previous major extinction events.
So, if this information is accurate, yes, methane could be very significant in the future as the Earth warms up, but it's also indicating that CO2 (currently the most significant greenhouse-producing gas) would be the catalyst to an even greater warming event, no? | |
|
| Might Solar Cycle 24 dispel man-made global warming?
Posted: 12/31/2007 7:39:00 AM |
Are you prepared to pay more taxes?
Would you get rid of your car?
Is your home fully insulated?
Would you take public transport more?
Do you recycle everything you can?
Let me rephrase my question. Say everyone on earth reduced their carbon footprint to zero...Would it reverse the damage that has already be done or at best keep it at bay? Have the horses already escaped from the barn, so to speak? | |
|
| Might Solar Cycle 24 dispel man-made global warming?
Posted: 12/31/2007 7:51:51 AM | Brightside says: "buy them a tree to plant."
-----------
Right on. It would seem that the UN, instead of prospectively ruining the world economy, whereby hundreds of millions might well be mortally affected, would have instead, in the past 30 years, been trying to buy up Amazon and African mega-acreage, bigtime, at a nickel for every dollar of prospective economic damage. | |
|
| Might Solar Cycle 24 dispel man-made global warming?
Posted: 12/31/2007 8:04:47 AM | Half the CO2 we produce gets desolved into the oceans or used by plants so using that scenerio, if we cut our output to zero then the effects would deminish quite rapidly. 10 - 20 years....if you believe that is the cause of course 
I must appologise mpaul7172, I've never directly answered the OP.
I don't think you can totally account for present global warming purely based on solar activity.
Unfortunately the figures do show that the climate hasn't warmed this rapidly for millions of years so either the sun is doing something it hasn't done for millions of years or there's other factors (man) involved. | |
|
| Might Solar Cycle 24 dispel man-made global warming?
Posted: 12/31/2007 8:07:21 AM | But does anyone know: Is it already too late? Is there a scientific opinion out there on that one?
Politically incorrect, I know, to suggest that we do nothing, but what if there is nothing we can do at this point? | |
|
| Might Solar Cycle 24 dispel man-made global warming?
Posted: 12/31/2007 8:15:56 AM | Another simulataneous post. I didn't mean to insinuate that your opinion isn't scientific.
I have heard that even if we cut our emissions to zero that the current CO2 levels would still lead to further warming, but warming that we could live with. Just checking to see whether anyone's heard of any other theories in that regard.
PS My house is, of course, fully insulated, living in Canada; I have more trees on my lot than anyone else in our neighbourhood; I recycle everything they allow into our recycling programs; I have flourescent lighting; I replace all appliances with high efficiency...but, alas, I do have a car. | |
|
| Might Solar Cycle 24 dispel man-made global warming?
Posted: 12/31/2007 8:29:59 AM | I'd say it's a little too late regarding CO2. Especially after the fiasco at the latest United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
It is quite simple to cool the climate down you know. When Krakatoa erupted in 1883 it caused lower global temperatures well into the 20th century so if we planted a few million tonnes of nitro under a volcano we'd have almost instant cooling 
Seriously though, if we had massive solar powered desalination plants on the coasts near major deserts we could turn them green.
The question is, who do we favour? Global warming is going to be very good for Canada, Siberia and other desolate turndra countries.
The only time global warming is a problem is when man gets in the way so it looks like we're gonna have to get out of the way pretty soon. | |
|
| Might Solar Cycle 24 dispel man-made global warming?
Posted: 12/31/2007 9:43:59 AM |
contests the whole "greenhouse" analogy as flawed
The planet loses atmosphere, the planet loses heat. It's not air-tight. Regardless, the analogy is a functional and valid one: we have a transparent insulating layer which lets the energy in. Once the energy is in, it generates heat, which is then trapped by the very thing which let the energy pass. I don't think your concern here actually has any bearing on the outcome.
And I have yet to see the big organization in this, the UN, come out publicly to explain the relative insulative properties of CO2 versus O2 and nitrogen. Publicly, up front, where this issue could be resolved
It's really not their issue. This is basic physics and chemistry, which is part of a high school science class.
It's an experiment which can be done at home. All you need are 2 pairs of jars [two large, two small], two digital thermometers with remote probes, two pieces of black metal or electrical heaters, and magnifying glasses to heat the metal. One or two sopwatches will also be needed. Last, you need pure gasses, however, you can make do with dry ice only. You can cut all this in half, and just run the experiment twice to the same standards.
What you will be doing, is placing your heat source in the small jar, with the remote temperature probe, and sealing it. This is the Earth. The electric heater or magnifying glass is the sun. We're not using combustibles, because these would change the makeup of the gasses in the inner jar. Place the smaller jars in the bigger jars. You might want to use some kind of insulating support to reduce conductive heat loss glass-to-glass. Try to keep everything the same in the two sets - if everything is more or less identical, we can reasonable assume differences in results to be due to what we're testing, and not to the setup.
Put a chunk of dry ice in one big jar, but don't seal the lid until it has sublimated. CO2 is heavier than air, so it will tend to push air up and out as it turns to gas. As long as you don't leave the lid off too long, the gas in the jar will have a MUCH higher proportion of CO2. In the second jar, you can pump in oxygen or nitrogen, then promptly seal the jar. I wouldn't recommend oxygen, as it's explosive and you're playing with a heat source in a sealed container [ie, a bomb]. Both O2 and N2 are readily available as compressed gas, and you could do the full experiment in a gas welding shop. You can also simply ignore the second jar - both jars are starting with normal air. All you have done with one is greatly increase the percentage CO2. This means that differences in your results will be due entirely to CO2 relative to normal atmosphere. If you use pure gases, you will be comparing the relative greenhouse effects of each, with no comparison to normal air.
One aspect which will be difficult to control is the time taken to heat things up. As soon as heat is generated, it will begin to be lost. The higher the difference between outside and inside, the faster that loss may be. The longer the time, the faster the loss. Therefore, you want your experiment to always be done at the same outside temperature, and you want to heat the insides to the same maximum, preferably in the same amount of time. Use the stopwatch - at least if you record the time taken to increase the temperature, you can make mathematical corrections later if need be. Heat both "Earths" to the same temperature, and record the time required, temperature reached, and room temperature. It would help to pick a maximum temperature which is fairly high, but multiples of ten degrees above room temperature. Bigger differences are easier to measure, and multiples of ten are simpler math. When you reach maximum temperature, stop heating and record the time. Allow to cool, recording the final times when room temperature is reached. Your heater may overshoot the mark a bit, so your start time for cooling is the point at which the temperature stops rising.
Expected results:
Air: unknown standard time. This is your "atmosphere" benchmark.
N2: faster than air. This is an atmosphere without CO2 or O2.
O2: faster than air. This is atmosphere without CO2 or N2.
CO2: much slower than air. This is atmosphere with excess CO2.
These results will, if you had actual measurements of concentrations, allow you to compare the insulating properties of each gas. O2 and N2 will have some insulating effect, though very low, and you can compare the two. Since N2 makes up most of the atmosphere, this result won't be much different than normal air. The loss of insulative value can reasonably be concluded as the loss of CO2 and O2 concentrations. For O2, if the increased concentration results in a drop in insulation, it will show CO2 to be the primary insulator. Why? Because O2 in regular atmosphere is relatively low. If a huge increase results in decreased insulation, the result must be due to something which was decreased - which is N2 and CO2. N2 can be ruled out by the air or N2 portion of the experiment. Last you have CO2. If you do in fact get increased insulation [slow heat loss], the logical conclusion is that the cause is the correlated CO2 increase. This is confirmed by other phases of the experiment.
This is really, really basic. Where global climate change is concerned, much more sophisticated measurements, experiments, and statistical math are used. These show a strong correlation between global average temperature increase, and CO2 increase. More particularly, the CO2 increase is shown to be primarily human-caused, directly and indirectly. Other factors are involved, other greenhouse factors are involved, but the biggest link is CO2.
It's been more than 20 years since I did any experiment like this in high school or college, and I was able to create an experiment, as I typed, which can be done at home. It's really not the job of the UN to teach basic scientific method or the most basic of grade school physics experiments. That's a job for the public school system...which in the USA still has a fair number of people who want creationism taught as "science"
Note on "-18C": that's a global yearly average. The current global average is about 15C, which is about 33 degrees C due to greenhouse effects, or about 60 degrees F.
Note on concrete: the urban heat island has been calculated to be insignificant relative to global warming. It's too small a porportion of the surface area. Concrete itself is not likely to be a factor; as it, like ice, has a high albedo. See
http://www.lehighcement.com/Education/PDFs/Solar%20(Albedo%20from%20M.%20VanGeem)%200910021.pdf
Concrete will certainly absorb heat and release it like other types of rock, but like ice, it won't generate much heat because it reflects much of the light required to do that. In fact, I see from a glance at this graph:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Albedo-e_hg.svg
That ice and concrete pretty much have the same albedo range, though ice doesn't. Ice does an excellent job of retaining heat...but when it does, it becomes liquid water.
Global warming is going to be very good for Canada, Siberia and other desolate turndra countries
Cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, discussed repeatedly elsewhere. Tundra is mainly desert. Warming will lead to water loss and erosion, without necessarily lengthening seasons enough to be useful for crops. Combine this with glacial recession, and you also lose the water supply needed to maintain those crops. How much precipitation falls is determined partly by global temperature. Where it falls is determined mainly by geography, which isn't changing appreciably. | |
|
| David Whitehouse, ex-BBC science editor, says....
Posted: 12/31/2007 11:22:15 AM | David Whitehouse is the former BBC online science editor.
Here is his take (excerpts):
==========
Witness the drama at Bali as news emerges that something is not quite right in the global warming camp.
-
The fact is that the global temperature of 2007 is statistically the same as 2006 as well as every year since 2001. Global warming has, temporarily or permanently, ceased. Temperatures across the world are not increasing as they should according to the fundamental theory behind global warming – the greenhouse effect. Something else is happening and it is vital that we find out what or else we may spend hundreds of billions of pounds needlessly.
-
In principle the greenhouse effect is simple. Gases like carbon dioxide present in the atmosphere absorb outgoing infrared radiation from the earth’s surface causing some heat to be retained.
-
Carbon dioxide is clearly increasing in the Earth’s atmosphere. It’s a straight line upward. It is currently about 390 parts per million. Pre-industrial levels were about 285 ppm. Since 1960 when accurate annual measurements became more reliable it has increased steadily from about 315 ppm. If the greenhouse effect is working as we think then the Earth’s temperature will rise as the carbon dioxide levels increase.
-
But here it starts getting messy and, perhaps, a little inconvenient for some. Looking at the global temperatures as used by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the UK’s Met Office and the IPCC (and indeed Al Gore) it’s apparent that there has been a sharp rise since about 1980.
-
The period 1980-98 was one of rapid warming – a temperature increase of about 0.5 degrees C (CO2 rose from 340ppm to 370ppm). But since then the global temperature has been flat (whilst the CO2 has relentlessly risen from 370ppm to 380ppm). This means that the global temperature today is about 0.3 deg less than it would have been had the rapid increase continued.
-
For the past decade the world has not warmed. Global warming has stopped. It’s not a viewpoint or a sceptic’s inaccuracy. It’s an observational fact.. | |
|
| David Whitehouse, ex-BBC science editor, says....
Posted: 12/31/2007 11:32:01 AM | For the record, David Whitehouse, like Frogo et al, ascribe some physics credence to the CO2 insulation effect.
I am (amateurishly?) not jumping onboard, but acknowledging it.
I would like to read Frogo's post above more fully, but time.........
But let me make a correction to MY assertions:
I have been saying CO2 increases have been around 200 ppm (.02% of total atmosphere).
However, according to Whitehouse's stats, there has been only an increase of 105 ppm (.01% of total atmosphere!!!) since pre-industrial times.
So, the comparison herein is thus:
* according to Judith Lean's figures, the increase in solar output Maunder to present is .4%
vs
*according to Whitehouse's figure (above) the increase in CO2 as a % of total atmosphere is only .01%
Moral: direct solar input (not including prospective increased cloud formation) increase (present vs Maunder) is 40 times the CO2 increase relative to total atmosphere (pre-industrial to present).
"Just for consideration"............. | |
|
| David Whitehouse, ex-BBC science editor, says....
Posted: 12/31/2007 1:25:03 PM | I don't buy it: the arrest in climate warming I mean.
We have temperature records that show the trend in average global temperature is increasing, not stalled. Again, you can't measure from one year of data, 1998. It was a peak, but it is also part of the upward trend.
We have weather bureaus indicating that 2005 had the highest temperature anomolies on record and that the December 2006 - February 2007 period had the highest temperature anomolies on record for that period.
We have more severe weather phenomenon, like grade 5 tornadoes touching down where they never have before, longer droughts, and stronger hurricanes than in recent memory.
And now, we have visible evidence that the earth is responding to warmer temperatures. This year, the top Canadian weather story was the 23% decrease in polar ice over the last record, set in 2005. The Northwest passage, normally ice-covered , was open for 5 weeks this summer.
I've lived in this particular city for 25 years and I can feel the difference in the temperature. We used to have to endure the 2 to 3 week intervals of minus 40 weather every winter. For the last 3 years we've had nothing even comparable to those cold temperatures. Same thing for the summer temperatures: 30 degrees C was unbearable for us 10 years ago. Now we're looking at 40 C weather as the extreme.
Perhaps because we're more northern, we feel the effects more profoundly, but they are obvious and no one debates global warming here. | |
|
| Might Solar Cycle 24 dispel man-made global warming?
Posted: 12/31/2007 2:46:22 PM |
Frogo said: "Thus, "greenhouse" effect: a greenhouse lets in the light, the light creates heat, and the glass traps the heat. CO2 is the glass."
==========
my comment: Frogo, amateurish me contests the whole "greenhouse" analogy as flawed, for the simple reason that the earth is AUTOMATICALLY a greenhouse, in the sense that the atmosphere cannot escape. The "glass" is gravity, which holds our atmosphere in place.
Versus an actual greenhouse for growing plants: without walls and a roof, airtight (or relatively), it is useless, to wit, if it only has a roof, air will flow out.
So, your complaint boils down to the analogy not being 100% accurate, a heavy dose of misinformation, and a dash of misunderstanding.
This cannot happen on earth. Our automatic greenhouse is airtight because gravity holds the air.
This may sound simplistic, but, just like with the 100,000 CO2 cause versus effect analogy, sometimes it's necessary to go over the basics.
Because the .02% atmospheric increase due to CO2 is still, mass-wise, minute. And I have yet to see the big organization in this, the UN, come out publicly to explain the relative insulative properties of CO2 versus O2 and nitrogen. Publicly, up front, where this issue could be resolved.
The greenhouse effect, as applied to the planet, has nothing to do with changes in the thermal conduction properties of the atmosphere. There. Issue resolved.
However, the planet doesn't cool by conduction to space, but by radiation emission. Due to our average surface temperature, most of this emission is in the infrared spectrum. While the atmosphere is generally transparent on the frequencies we see in, that doesn't hold true for infrared. CO2 is one of the gases that "tint" the atmosphere in that region.
Here's how it basically works. The average temperature of the planet is basically determined by how much radiation comes in from the sun. The average temperature will be at the point where we emit as much energy as is coming in (give or take the chaotic detail we call weather). Your basic radiative equilibrium. Now, if we were at a radiative equilibrium with the amount of energy from the sun, we would be some 33C colder than what we measure at the surface. This is because some of the energy that gets emitted from the surface doesn't make it to space, much in the way that some visible light doesn't make it through water thats had some food colouring put in it. More colouring agent, more absorption....and that 33C increase becomes 34...then 35...
I can go over the math with you, if you like. | |
|
| David Whitehouse, ex-BBC science editor, says....
Posted: 12/31/2007 3:30:49 PM |
David Whitehouse is the former BBC online science editor.
Here is his take (excerpts):
And you're still getting your scientific information from editors.
==========
Witness the drama at Bali as news emerges that something is not quite right in the global warming camp.
Subjective observation, and totally irrelevant. The events around Bali had nothing to do with the science, but with what to do about the scientific observations.
The fact is that the global temperature of 2007 is statistically the same as 2006 as well as every year since 2001. Global warming has, temporarily or permanently, ceased.
Incorrect, as has been pointed out to you a few times. You can only get that kind of result if you deliberately distort the data.
Temperatures across the world are not increasing as they should according to the fundamental theory behind global warming – the greenhouse effect. Something else is happening and it is vital that we find out what or else we may spend hundreds of billions of pounds needlessly.
The "something else" that you are referring to just MIGHT be related to the massive ice melting we've been having lately. It takes 334 J to turn 1g of ice at 0C to water at 0C....the same amount of energy will raise the water another 83C or so. That's where the energy is going.
In principle the greenhouse effect is simple. Gases like carbon dioxide present in the atmosphere absorb outgoing infrared radiation from the earth’s surface causing some heat to be retained.
_HE_ gets that it has nothing to do with insulating properties.
Carbon dioxide is clearly increasing in the Earth’s atmosphere. It’s a straight line upward.
No, it's a geometric growth curve.
It is currently about 390 parts per million. Pre-industrial levels were about 285 ppm. Since 1960 when accurate annual measurements became more reliable it has increased steadily from about 315 ppm. If the greenhouse effect is working as we think then the Earth’s temperature will rise as the carbon dioxide levels increase.
And according to the thermometers...it is.
But here it starts getting messy and, perhaps, a little inconvenient for some. Looking at the global temperatures as used by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the UK’s Met Office and the IPCC (and indeed Al Gore) it’s apparent that there has been a sharp rise since about 1980.
-
The period 1980-98 was one of rapid warming – a temperature increase of about 0.5 degrees C (CO2 rose from 340ppm to 370ppm). But since then the global temperature has been flat (whilst the CO2 has relentlessly risen from 370ppm to 380ppm). This means that the global temperature today is about 0.3 deg less than it would have been had the rapid increase continued.
Lets just say his assertions don't seem to match with reality. I dug up the original article, and noticed that he neglected to actually back his position with any data.
For the past decade the world has not warmed. Global warming has stopped. It’s not a viewpoint or a sceptic’s inaccuracy. It’s an observational fact..
No, it's not an observational fact. Saying so is based on manipulations that come out of incompetence or direct deceit. Here's a map of world temperature anomalies from 1995 to 2004...note all the orange which indicates anomalies greater than baseline....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Global_Warming_Map.jpg | |
|
| Might Solar Cycle 24 dispel man-made global warming?
Posted: 12/31/2007 4:54:06 PM | Beltaine: "However, the planet doesn't cool by conduction to space, but by radiation emission"
-
my comment: a greenhouse (the garden variety) does not cool by radiation.
I can't argue some specifics with you. I can only argue what I see and understand. And I understand that atmosphere has retentive properties, as well as (assumed, according to "settled science") radiative blocking properties.
But I am holding my ground.
=========
NovaScotiaLass: I see this letter from a Dr. Dr. Madhav L. Khandekar, in writing to the Hill Times (Canada, Aug 13, 2007) :
-------
As one of the invited expert reviewers for the 2007 IPCC documents, I have pointed out the flawed review process used by the IPCC scientists in one of my letters (The Hill Times, May 28, 2007). I have also pointed out in my letter that an increasing number of scientists are now questioning the hypothesis of GHG-induced warming of the earth's surface and suggesting a stronger impact of solar variability and large-scale atmospheric circulation patterns on the observed temperature increase than previously believed.
I would further politely ask Mr. Boucher to do a simple reality check regarding the earth's temperature change. Since mid-1998, the earth's mean temperature as a whole has not increased at all, despite billions of tonnes of human-added CO2 in the earth's atmosphere. | |
|
| Might Solar Cycle 24 dispel man-made global warming?
Posted: 12/31/2007 5:56:11 PM | Let me say that I have seen a site, allegedly NASA/Goddard
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
Which I assume can be stipulated to be accurate (notwithstanding the significant recent changes in the USA temp calcs).
The graph about 7 graphs down, called the "monthly mean global surface temperature" (anamoly) (1997-2007) indeed is pretty straightline the past 9 years, but, granted, this is ITSELF sort of an anamoly from the trends 1880-2006.
However, even the first graph (1880-c.2006), in my view, is more correlative to solar patterns than with atmospheric CO2 . Specifically, and most damaging to the CO2 argument, is the BigDip c. 1945 - 1980. Surely CO2 levels were rising dramatically during this post war expansionist period. But the temps were concurrently dropping.
Moral: keep an eye on SC24. And, if it is a big one, wait for SC25.
One way or the other, the truth is going to come out.
================================
NOVA SCOTIA LASS said: This year, the top Canadian weather story was the 23% decrease in polar ice over the last record, set in 2005. The Northwest passage, normally ice-covered , was open for 5 weeks this summer.
-
my comment: right. This MAY (my amateurish guestimation) be from sea warming, due to solar irradiation, being that the seas are a heat sink. IF SC24 is weak, and solar variability is indeed fingered, my amateurish assumption is that land temps would be more immediately affected, and would drop (or stabilize) more quickly, due to the insulative aspects of the immediate surface, and the fact that roiling seas would more readily (but possibly for years?) give off the retained heat, therefore the surface temps on the oceans would be marginally higher in the following years.
Yes, conjecture, no bigtime science.
=============
Beltaine: your wikipedia graph. I hear you. But the NASA/Goddard is more recent, to 2007. See note above. Thanks. I can look up some other graphs, I assume are consistent with both of those, but I only have surely moments for this edit....... | |
|
| Might Solar Cycle 24 dispel man-made global warming?
Posted: 12/31/2007 6:42:44 PM |
Beltaine: "However, the planet doesn't cool by conduction to space, but by radiation emission"
-
my comment: a greenhouse (the garden variety) does not cool by radiation.
Correct. It works by blocking convection/conduction. This is one of these situations where it is a mistake to read too much into the literal interpretation of the analogy. It's called the greenhouse effect since it resembles the effect of a greenhouse, not because it is identical in every respect.
I can't argue some specifics with you. I can only argue what I see and understand.
Just keep telling yourself that... It is entirely possible to argue from a position of ignorance. In fact, it's far easier than actually taking the time to actually understand what's going on. I have yet to see you actually address any of the issues I have raised, though I have dealt with a large number of the issues you raised. The point I am trying to make...mostly to the lurkers, but you as well if you choose to listen...is that you ARE arguing from a position based on ignorance.
And I understand that atmosphere has retentive properties, as well as (assumed, according to "settled science") radiative blocking properties.
But I am holding my ground.
So tell me, just what would the Earth conduct heat TO in space? The amount of heat lost due to conduction is negligible, therefore all (>99.999% of) the heat loss must be by radiation. What you derisively put in quotes as settled science has been settled for more than a century. We are talking about basic physical properties of the materials involved. These "assumed" properties can be directly measured and have been exploited by engineers since their discovery. If we were incorrect in those assumptions, most of our technology simply wouldn't work.
As to holding your ground, feel free to do so. As of yet, you have not demonstrated that you have any ground to hold. Don't look down...it's a long way and I've got a slide whistle. | |
|
| Might Solar Cycle 24 dispel man-made global warming?
Posted: 1/1/2008 7:46:15 AM | Beltaine, I (mpaul) had said that "I can't argue some specifics with you. I can only argue what I see and understand."
To which you (Beltaine) responded: "Just keep telling yourself that... It is entirely possible to argue from a position of ignorance."
my comment: incorrect. When my information is imperfect, I won't fall into a trap of accepting other imperfect, or peripheral, information that is not as pertinent as my imperfect information.
The whole objective of this subject is
IF SC24 is weak, it will be an acid test for AGW.
That is entirely correct.
It will either vindicate views such as yours, or dismiss them, or some point inbetween.
=============
Beltaine asks: "So tell me, just what would the Earth conduct heat TO in space?"
my comment: are you kidding? Radiated heat goes on and on until it HITS something.
===============
Beltaine: "As of yet, you have not demonstrated that you have any ground to hold."
-
my comment: IF SC24 is weak............................ | |
|
| Might Solar Cycle 24 dispel man-made global warming?
Posted: 1/1/2008 8:35:23 AM | Brightside said: "I don't think you can totally account for present global warming purely based on solar activity.
Unfortunately the figures do show that the climate hasn't warmed this rapidly for millions of years so either the sun is doing something it hasn't done for millions of years or there's other factors (man) involved. "
-
my comment: yeah, but Bright, there hasn't been sunspot activity, probably reflective of solar output, recorded such as in the past 75 years. And I am not sure whether the temp records over millions of years would reflect the approx 1*F that is the present GW.
As far as the sunspot activity
First, you have to go to the bottom of this 2002 NASA site
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2002/18jan_solarback.htm
and click
sunspot counts recorded during the past 400 years Now, you have to add on the latest solar max of about 160 in 2002 to this.
===============
Another site to consider:
http://www.gcrio.org/CONSEQUENCES/winter96/sunclimate.html
scroll down several paragraphs to "Fig 3"
=================
Also
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3869753.stm
===============
And
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/18oct_solarminimum.htm
scroll down
================
And at wikipedia, you can see a similar correlation under "sporer minimum"
=================
Now, pertaining to the upcoming SC24
NASA/Goddard, U Chicago/American Astro Soc, NCAR et al have predicted a big SC24.
There are countering voices, and there have been downward adjustments to moderate to high amongst the institutions.
So, I just want to emphasize the question of this thread ("MIGHT...").
And, again, IF it aint, we gotta wait till #25.
PM | |
|
| Might Solar Cycle 24 dispel man-made global warming?
Posted: 1/1/2008 1:25:55 PM |
Beltaine, I (mpaul) had said that "I can't argue some specifics with you. I can only argue what I see and understand."
To which you (Beltaine) responded: "Just keep telling yourself that... It is entirely possible to argue from a position of ignorance."
my comment: incorrect. When my information is imperfect, I won't fall into a trap of accepting other imperfect, or peripheral, information that is not as pertinent as my imperfect information.
It seems to me that you won't accept any information that goes against your position. I have yet to see you comment on any of the references I provided. All I've seen you provide are the opinions of magazine editors and graphs that come with their own warning labels.
The whole objective of this subject is
IF SC24 is weak, it will be an acid test for AGW.
That is entirely correct.
It will either vindicate views such as yours, or dismiss them, or some point inbetween.
It won't do anything of the sort. According to peer reviewed papers, by two different authors, one of which you cited indirectly (and drawing conclusions in direct opposition to the papers author)....solar increases are responsible for about 1/3 of the amount of warming we are seeing today. Therefore, if solar cycle 24 is weak, we will only warm by about 2/3 of what we would've had it been normal. That's still warming.
And so you know, I'm hardly alone in my position. It happens to be shared by every scientific organization on the planet.
=============
Beltaine asks: "So tell me, just what would the Earth conduct heat TO in space?"
my comment: are you kidding? Radiated heat goes on and on until it HITS something.
No, I'm not kidding. Basic science lesson time.
There are two major ways to transfer heat. By conduction and by radiation. Conduction requires direct contact, and is technically a transfer of kincetic energy. It doesn't work through a vacuum since there is no significant mass there to be warmed. Radiation is a quantum mechanical process, by which a photon is created. That photon will then travel until it hits something (and in a vacuum, that's going to take some time...).
(note: I'm considering convection as a sub-method of conduction)
I used the word "conduct" since I was referring to heat transfer by conduction. Since there is no way for the Earth to conduct heat away, and it's all by radiation, the changes in the thermal conductive properties of the atmosphere are irrelevant when it comes to overall warming or cooling.
Here's some relevant pages from hyperphysics...
Heat transfer by conduction and/or convection
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/heatra.html
Heat transfer by Radiation
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html
And one on the greenhouse effect (where they cover both the literal greenhouse, and the global greenhouse effect)
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/grnhse.html
Beltaine: "As of yet, you have not demonstrated that you have any ground to hold."
-
my comment: IF SC24 is weak............................
WHY do you think it could be weak....or is this an "if the second coming is at hand" type of if...
BTW: I love how you only respond to the occasional sentence here and there in my posts, and never to the issues raised. It demonstrates that you have all the intellectual integrity of a young earth creationist...in this area, at least. | |
|
| Might Solar Cycle 24 dispel man-made global warming?
Posted: 1/2/2008 7:57:09 AM | Beltaine said: "It seems to me that you won't accept any information that goes against your position"
--
my comment: well, here is some info which goes against my position (I did not retain the sites, but will post for consideration. I will take with a small grain of salt. My job is to re-but the following, or attempt to).
---------------
***********Many gases exhibit these greenhouse properties. Some of them occur in nature (water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone), while others are exclusively human-made (like gases used for aerosols, and chlorofluorocarbons, CFCs). They all are molecules composed of more than two component atoms, bound loosely enough together to be able to vibrate with the absorption of heat. Eventually, the vibrating molecule will emit the radiation again, and it will likely be absorbed by another greenhouse gas molecule. This absorption-emission-absorption cycle serves to keep the heat near the surface, effectively insulating the surface from the cold of space. The major components of the atmosphere (N2 and O2 ) are two-atom molecules bound too tightly together to vibrate and thus they do not absorb heat and contribute to the greenhouse effect.
***********The Earth's atmosphere (by volume) is about 77.8% nitrogen, 20.9% oxygen, 0.9% argon, 0.4% water vapor, 0.037% carbon dioxide, and 0.003% other gases. The water vapor and carbon dioxide naturally occurring in the atmosphere produce a greenhouse effect which gives the Earth a temperature 30° C more than it would have otherwise. | |
|
| Might Solar Cycle 24 dispel man-made global warming?
Posted: 1/2/2008 8:27:04 AM | So, attempting to narrow this down, utilizing the (assuming correct) info above, previous post, and comparing to Lean's assertion of .4% solar irradiance increase from Maunder compared to present, we would have
a) solar increase .4%
vs
b) GHG increase pre-indust to present
.4% water vapor in atmosphere
.04% CO2 in atmosphere
totals .44% of atmosphere is GHG (approx)
and, with the asserted increase in CO2 being about .01%
we have
.01/.44 = (approximately) a 2.3% increase in GHG
To compare:
.4% increase solar irradiance
2.3% increase GHG
So, in sum, IF the assertions of O2 and N2 having negligible/no heat retention is correct, and IF CO2 with water vapor et al (methane etc) exclusively have GHG properties, and IF the heat retention of the seas (and earth/dirt) is relatively negligible to surface temps,
IT HEREBY SEEMS TO ME (MPAUL) THAT EVEN IF SOLAR CYCLE 24 IS WEAK, THAT GLOBAL WARMING WILL CONTINUE.
It is my job (being contrary) to attempt to counter this argument. It may be difficult.
Outstanding issues include:
*alleged decreased cloud formation last 75 years due less cosmic rays due increases solar radiation
* affirming the negligible GH properties of O2 and N2
* has increased solar radiation increased water vapor last 75 years?
* a continual observation of alleged global temp levelling the past approx 8 years
* and whatever else
And seeing if SC24 will indeed, IF weak, have no effect, and if temps will continue the overall trend of the past approx 100 years
| |
|
| However, this cold prediction due solar variance...
Posted: 1/3/2008 5:48:48 PM | from www.americanthinker.com, today (1-3-08)
============================================================
January 03, 2008
Top Russian scientist: global cooling coming
Randall Hoven
These pages recently said goodbye to global warming. Ironically, the current spell of global warming, such as it is, can be expected to end just as the Kyoto treaty ends in 2012, but having nothing to do with reduced emissions from fossil fuels. For the remainder of this century, it will be global cooling we'll have to worry about, according to highly credentialed Russian scientist, Dr. Oleg Sorokhtin.
Dr. Sorokhtin, Merited Scientist of Russia and fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, is staff researcher of the Oceanology Institute. He explains the recent warming as a natural trend.
"Earth is now at the peak of one of its passing warm spells. It started in the 17th century when there was no industrial influence on the climate to speak of and no such thing as the hothouse effect. The current warming is evidently a natural process and utterly independent of hothouse gases."
So what will happen in the future?
"Astrophysics knows two solar activity cycles, of 11 and 200 years. Both are caused by changes in the radius and area of the irradiating solar surface. The latest data, obtained by Habibullah Abdusamatov, head of the Pulkovo Observatory space research laboratory, say that Earth has passed the peak of its warmer period, and a fairly cold spell will set in quite soon, by 2012. Real cold will come when solar activity reaches its minimum, by 2041, and will last for 50-60 years or even longer.
"Physical and mathematical calculations predict a new Ice Age. It will come in 100,000 years, at the earliest, and will be much worse than the previous. Europe will be ice-bound, with glaciers reaching south of Moscow."
The high standing of Dr. Sorkhtin and the inherent plausibility of his argument that climate will continue to follow the same basic causal factor, solar activity, make this another heavy blow to the heavy breathing of the global warming alarmists, who insist there is no argument at all. | |
|
| However, this cold prediction due solar variance...
Posted: 1/3/2008 7:06:46 PM | | I, a mere novice, am assuming that the prediction of a new IceAge "in 100,000 years, at the earliest" is either a typo or a mistake, because common paleo records show a pretty consistent pattern of the whole CYCLE of warm/iceage/warm takes about 100,000 years, and indications seem to be that we are in the waning millenie of the present warm cycle. | |
|
| Might Solar Cycle 24 dispel man-made global warming?
Posted: 1/4/2008 5:04:07 PM | Mpaul, I am pleasantly suprised that you are looking at the evidence and constructing a rebuttal. I take back the crack about your intellectual integrity. I think we both agree that the issue is far too serious to be left to partisan propaganda, though we likely disagree on which set of claims is which.
Many gases exhibit these greenhouse properties....
http://www.hedon.info/goto.php/GreenhouseGases
The Earth's atmosphere (by volume) is...
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/wrjp365g.html
You might as well include the references, since I'll find them anyway....
So, in sum, IF the assertions of O2 and N2 having negligible/no heat retention is correct, and IF CO2 with water vapor et al (methane etc) exclusively have GHG properties, and IF the heat retention of the seas (and earth/dirt) is relatively negligible to surface temps,
Pretty well, but your numbers are still badly off. This is where you have to show relative increases as opposed to absolute change. Technically, you have to handle each gas separately, since they all affect different frequencies to different levels. Heat retention also has nothing to do with the "ideal" point of radiative balance, but has a major effect on the speed at which we reach equilibrium.
Outstanding issues include:
*alleged decreased cloud formation last 75 years due less cosmic rays due increases solar radiation
Benestad, R. E. (2005), A review of the solar cycle length estimates, Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L15714, doi:10.1029/2005GL023621.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2005GL023621.shtml
...A further comparison with the monthly sunspot number, cosmic galactic rays and 10.7 cm absolute radio flux since 1950 gives no indication of a systematic trend in the level of solar activity that can explain the most recent global warming.
No trend within the past 50 years that can explain the temperature spike we see today, even considering cosmic background radiation.
* affirming the negligible GH properties of O2 and N2
IIRC, the first absorption band for N2 and O2 gases is well above the infrared...high end visible, at least. I don't know of any place on the web that the information is specifically published, but you could find the information in any text on analytical spectrography.
* has increased solar radiation increased water vapor last 75 years?
Not really, since water evaporates and precipitates so well. This makes atmospheric water content remarkably stable...statistically speaking.
* a continual observation of alleged global temp levelling the past approx 8 years
This is simply incorrect. Temperatures have been increasing less rapidly for the past few years, due to decreasing solar input (end of the last solar cycle) and extra energy expressing as melting ice (which doesn't change the temperature). Increasing less rapidly is still increasing, and the circumstances that lead to that slowing are only temporary. The next solar cycle is starting to pick up and there's a finite amount of ice in the arctic. You also get the feedback of the lower albedo of water compared to ice, which will increase local warming rates.
* and whatever else
And seeing if SC24 will indeed, IF weak, have no effect, and if temps will continue the overall trend of the past approx 100 years
Given the two papers that came up earlier, it won't have no effect either. If the next cycle is weak, it would essentially buy us some time and reduce the warming that is occurring. That's reduce, not reverse.
from www.americanthinker.com, today (1-3-08)
Speaking of partisan sources.....
I read the original article as well. While the americanthinker article is one long appeal to authority, the one it refers to is not exactly peer reviewed. It is, in fact, from the "analysis and opinion" section of the paper with the standard disclaimer. In the end, it is only one persons opinion, no matter what his credentials. Has his hypothesis seen the inside of a peer reviewed journal? I somehow doubt it. I noted a few significant mistakes in his article...imagine the savaging he'd get from a professional. Some excerpts...
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20080103/94768732.html
This is my point, which environmentalists hotly dispute as they cling to the hothouse theory. As we know, hothouse gases, in particular, nitrogen peroxide, warm up the atmosphere by keeping heat close to the ground. Advanced in the late 19th century by Svante A. Arrhenius, a Swedish physical chemist and Nobel Prize winner, this theory is taken for granted to this day and has not undergone any serious check.
Nitrogen peroxide, an alternate name for nitrogen dioxide, is not the primary source...and is, in fact, highly reactive. He could mean nitrogen oxide, N2O as opposed to NO2...but N2O comes in at about 5th. He probably meant CO2, but getting something like this wrong doesn't make him look good in the fact checking department.
Also, Arrhenius's work was verified, and it was found that his estimations were too high (though pretty good, overall). If someone could've disproved Arrhenius, they would've by now. Proving a long standing theory to be wrong is one of the biggest ways to make your mark as a scientist.
It determines decisions and instruments of major international organizations—in particular, the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Signed by 150 countries, it exemplifies the impact of scientific delusion on big politics and economics. The authors and enthusiasts of the Kyoto Protocol based their assumptions on an erroneous idea. As a result, developed countries waste huge amounts of money to fight industrial pollution of the atmosphere. What if it is a Don Quixote’s duel with the windmill?
Scientific delusion? But the best phrase has to be "wasted huge amounts of money to fight industrial pollution in the atmosphere"....
Worst case scenario, we wean ourselves off our dwindling supply of oil and end up with more renewable energy sources, more efficient technology, and a cleaner atmosphere which leads to better general health and fewer medical expenses. There are far better things to use petroleum for rather than burning it.
Asking "what if they're wrong" without going further is simply making an appeal to ignorance, which is itself a logical fallacy. One of many in the article.
Earth is unlikely to ever face a temperature disaster. Of all the planets in the solar system, only Earth has an atmosphere beneficial to life. There are many factors that account for development of life on Earth: Sun is a calm star, Earth is located an optimum distance from it, it has the Moon as a massive satellite, and many others. Earth owes its friendly climate also to dynamic feedback between biotic and atmospheric evolution.
This one is just special. The Earth has not always had an atmosphere beneficial to our form of life, nor does it follow that it will always be so. We have also had many mass extinctions in the planets history, and most of them involved rapid changes in atmospheric chemistry. Historically, only one extinction event was not due to climate changes. I still don't understand how having a moon will make it unlikely for us to have a temperature disaster...
It seems to be the rants of one fringe scientist, or at least completely devoid of supporting evidence. His "more information in Russian" link leads back to the front page of the publishing organization, not any actual information. The article is full of prejudicial language, but he doesn't back his position in the slightest.
Is this the quality of the information you like to use when you make important decisions? | |
|
| Might Solar Cycle 24 dispel man-made global warming?
Posted: 1/5/2008 2:37:18 AM | FrogO_Oeyes.
I do apologise for not replying sooner, my life keeps getting in the way I'm affraid 
Many thanks for your discription of the above experiment. It does indeed show the better insulation properties of CO2 as apposed to other atmospheric gases.
That really isn't in debate here, again, it's simple science.
Now try your experiment again but this time make it more accurate. Take 2 jars and in one make sure the CO2 content is 280 ppm and in the other 380 ppm keeping N2 and O2 contents at the same level as the atmosphere.
Even using the best measuring instruments available to man I think you will unable to detect any differences in temperature graphs between one jar and the next.
If you wish, you could always scale up the experiment 100 fold and again, I think it will be impossible to detect any differences.
Again, I'm not debating that increased CO2 in the atmosphere doesn't have an effect on global warming, it's just the scale of the effect I'm debating. Especially when there are so, so many other contibutary factors.
Take water vapour for example.
Man irrigates on a massive scale but 80% of the irrigated water evaporates causing increased water vapour in the atmosphere leading to more cloud and all that that entails.
How about con-trails?
The thermal properties of millions of sq miles of tarmac, roof tops?
The leaking heat from millions of homes, businesses and cars?
The thermal properties of billions of mammals?
Man, by his shear existance generates & retains heat and it's the heat that is the problem.
Now undoubtably, when man generates heat, CO2 is one of the bi-products.
SO the question should be, is the increased heat causing global warming as with increased heat you're bound to get increased CO2......orrrrr is the increased CO2 causing global warming.
Again, I go back to the revised experiment to show that CO2 has increased by such a minicule amount that the effect are almost negligible.
I do understand why governments have jumped on the CO2 bandwagon because if you cut down in your generation of heat, make cars more efficient, insulate homes better, recycle all that you can, consume less etc etc you will produce less heat which will result in less CO2. | |
|
|
| Page 3 of 7
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 |
|
Home
login 
