|
|
|
|
|
| MIGHT solarcycle24 dispel manmade global warming?
Posted: 12/22/2007 10:12:16 PM | If solarcycle 24 is weak or even moderate, will the man-made global warming experts have to pack their bags, so to speak?
It is simultaneously conjectured by various "experts" that solar cycle 24 will be
a) strong
b) moderate
Some are opining even that it will be weak.
Being that solar output over the past 75 years has been estimated (e.g. by Dr. Judith Lean, a solar scientist with the US Naval Observatory) to be about .4% brighter than that of the cold Maunder period, and
being that it is conjectured that the more solar illuminative recent years have blocked cloud-building cosmic rays,
IF solar cycle 24 is perchance weak, it might produce an acid test of whether an approximate 1*F rise in temps over the past 100 years is anthropogenic, or was solar variability induced. | |
|
| |
| MIGHT solarcycle24 dispel manmade global warming?
Posted: 12/23/2007 5:36:10 AM | Charles: perhaps you are correct. But I don't THINK so.
For example,
A) CO2 in the atmosphere has increased about 200ppm in the last 100 years.
That is 1/5000th of the atmosphere. An increase of .0002
However, Dr. Judith Lean... a solar physicist at U.S. Naval
Research Laboratory in Washington, D.C...."Maunder Minimum," was
characterized by a Sun that was 0.25% dimmer than it is now.
An increase in solar radiation of 1/400th from that relatively cool period. An increase of .0025.
Granted a significantly long time ago.
B) If CO2 absorbs and holds radiated heat in the atmosphere, it would also
stand to reason that that portion would not penetrate the seas like
unblocked radiation would do. And therefore not stored in the seas.
The seas have a heat storage capability of about 50 times that which can
be stored in the atmosphere.
Is not heat in the atmosphere more prone to being radiated into the
cosmos than heat stored in the seas?
Also to be figured in is the supposed effect thus:
increased solar radiation = diminished cosmic rays = diminished clouds = more heat penetration to earth. | |
|
| MIGHT solarcycle24 dispel manmade global warming?
Posted: 12/23/2007 6:11:37 AM | Charles said (m. 2): "solar output is measurable, and is still not sufficient to account for global warming"
==
my comment: Charles, the below factors are some included in my assessment as to why, IF solar cycle 24 is weak, it will be a humongous testing of whether GW is man-made or solar-variability-induced.
* CO2 (the chief reputed protaganist concerning AWG) increases being approx 200 ppm (=.0002)
* compared to prospective solar variances of about .001 (5 times higher than the pro-rate CO2 increase)
* the effect on cosmic rays (and decreased clouds due increased solar radiation = more heat in the past 75 years)
* the heat retention capacity of the seas as is related to increasesed solar penetration, and the correlation of the arctic ice melt being initiated possibly from BELOW (with corresponding activities of current and the like, non GW factors), versus the perceived INCREASE in Antarctic ice (which is effected by atmosphere, not sea)
* the assertions that since 1998, atmospheric temps have been DROPPING, altho CO2 output has increased greatly in the past 10 years (ironically, much more being from Kyoto signatories)
Put all the above together, and I think that IF solar cycle 24 is quite weak, we will be seeing an acid test of whether GW is man-made, or solar induced.
=====================================
(the below from SORCE)
Attempts to measure the TSI began in earnest in the 1830’s, with independent measurements by Claude Pouillet and John Herschel, yet were nearly a factor of two low because of atmospheric absorption. Even balloon-borne measurements in the 1900’s lacked the instrumental accuracy to detect the ~0.1% changes in the TSI. It was not until long-duration measurements from space were available that changes in TSI were accurately measured and the misconception of a “solar constant” changed. Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) monitoring using electrical substitution radiometers (ESRs) from the vantage point of space began with the launch of the Nimbus 7 satellite in November 1978. This was soon followed by an Active Cavity Radiometer Irradiance Monitor (ACRIM) instrument on the Solar Maximum Mission and by the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE). More recently, second and third ACRIM instruments have been launched, in addition to the launch of two instruments on the NASA/ESA Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO). The various data sets are in basic agreement and show conclusively that variations of TSI track the passage of sunspots across the solar disk with an amplitude of about 0.2%, and that long-term solar cycle variations are only on the order of 0.1%. The SORCE TSI data set continues these important observations with improved accuracy on the order of ±0.01%.
The ERBS, ACRIM-III, and VIRGO continue to make observations. Willson [1997] combined the ACRIM-I and ACRIM-II data sets using their overlap with the ERB data, and his analysis suggests a net increase of solar radiation between solar minima in 1986 and 1996. (Note: only two solar minima have actually been observed thus far). The estimated increase of 0.04% would induce appreciable climate change if it persists for a sufficient number of solar cycles and if the climate system feedbacks reached their full equilibrium response to the forcing. | |
|
| MIGHT solarcycle24 dispel manmade global warming?
Posted: 12/23/2007 6:40:23 AM | For the sake of the simple minded, like myself, is solar cycle 24 indirectly related to average global temperature like CO2 concentrations are directly related? It doesn't matter what the percent increase is in CO2 if its presence has a very strong correlation with trapping heat, no?.
And in relation to
the assertions that since 1998, atmospheric temps have been DROPPING, altho CO2 output has increased greatly in the past 10 years (ironically, much more being from Kyoto signatories
That isn't what I've been hearing...Perhaps they're referring to an upper atmosphere layer? | |
|
| MIGHT solarcycle24 dispel manmade global warming?
Posted: 12/23/2007 7:01:38 AM | Miss Acadia Lass (a.k.a. NS Lass):
I posed this topic as a question. You know, with the fact that "greenhouse gasses" and GW have been big stuff the last decade or two, and increasing in perceived (correctly or not) pertinence yearly, you would think that there would be significant public education as to the exact supposed mechanisms whereby CO2 is a one-way street pertaining to "trapping". Whereas I am sure there is "scientific data" thereof, it surely doesn't seem mainstream. I am sure that some posters will give sites thereof. The question is the legitimacy.
When I see NOAA and NASA sites talking simply about an "extra blanket", it doesn't inspire a whole lot of confidence in the greenhouse equivalent of a semi-conductor.
And when I see some of these institutions asserting that the 100,000 yr parallels of earth temp and CO2 levels being because of CO2 levels CAUSITIVE of the heat, that doesn't wash with me, as it is apparent that an outside source is probably causitive, and the CO2 levels are resultant.
We could go on, but the bottom line pertaining to the title is this:
IF solar cycle 24 is weak, and it may well be, it should be a great test of the causation of GW.
Which, by the way, has been tempered last year with re-calculations that puts the 1930's as the hottest decade on record.
Sidenote: my forebears (Louisiana Acadians) were from up there. We don't hold it against you, though! Best wishes to the Maritimers. | |
|
| MIGHT solarcycle24 dispel manmade global warming?
Posted: 12/23/2007 7:12:21 AM | NovaScotiaLass:
Sorry I missed at least attempting to respond to your main Q about temps dropping.
Check these, s'il vous plais...
OUF COURSE take them with a grain of salt, but they seem accurate to me at first glance:
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/HadCRUG.html
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/RSSglobe.html | |
|
| Might Solar Cycle 24 dispel man-made global warming?
Posted: 12/23/2007 3:36:10 PM | The correct term is Solar Cycle 24, not Solarcycle24.
The amount of greenhouse gasses (manmade and naturally occurring) together with an increase in the Sun's output would, at least, influence each other in some way.
The huge amount of pollution created by Man cannot be a good thing for the Earth. Neither is the destruction of the rainforests. | |
|
| Might Solar Cycle 24 dispel man-made global warming?
Posted: 12/23/2007 5:22:45 PM | Otto: thanks for the tip, but that solarcycle24 is for the sake of compacting, to be sure that ole headline fits.
I certainly agree about the rainforests. Good for O2 as well as pharmaceuticals.
The UN should have bought into the Amazon 30 years hence.
But "pollution" per se and CO2 are not necessarily intertwined in the classical sense, as "pollution" is a broader term. MAYBE CO2 is more beneficial than harmful.
And that is what this thread is about.
Solarcycle24 / solar cycle 24.
IF it is weak, we should, within the next decade, be able to put 2 and 2 together as far as the most significant causes of GW.
I guess I have a natural tendency to hope solar variance, as that will "heal" itself.
But the downside is that sooner or later, of course, the next ice age will be upon us, which I think we can be confident will be much more problematic than GW.
But I watch www.solarcycle24.com regularly for tips as to how long this minimum will stretch out, thus indicating the moderating effect upon cycle 24.
For the record, solarcycle 25 is pretty much a "consensus" that it will be a weak one, some time around 2024.
"OttoBonn"...let me guess. A German guy named Otto, living in Bonn, who loves to drive his sports car on the local super highways. | |
|
grog27
|
Joined: 2/25/2005
Msg: 10 | |
| Might Solar Cycle 24 dispel man-made global warming?
Posted: 12/23/2007 5:56:39 PM | "The correct term is Solar Cycle 24, not Solarcycle24."
Well, then! That changes EVERYTHING, doesn't it? 
"The huge amount of pollution created by Man cannot be a good thing for the Earth. Neither is the destruction of the rainforests."
This is true.
Amazing how this simple fact is continually overlooked or just plain dismissed by those who are so bent on making the whole climate change argument a political, rather than a purely scientific, issue. It always has to be about the economy or political ideologies and not what's best for the planet in the long run. A very odd way of looking at things. | |
|
| MIGHT solarcycle24 dispel manmade global warming?
Posted: 12/23/2007 7:58:07 PM | Here's a question for you, MPaul....
According to the temperature record, temperatures have been generally increasing for the past decade or so, in both the atmosphere and the ocean. This summer, records were set for minimum ice cover. A few articles...
http://nsidc.org/news/press/20050928_trendscontinue.html
http://nsidc.org/news/press/2007_seaiceminimum/20071001_pressrelease.html
(in all honesty, the record melt this year was due to more factors than just gradual warming, and I doubt that the record set this year (23% over the previous record) will be repeated any time soon. I also predict that people like Miloy will spin next years melt not being as drastic as this years into the end of global warming....just like they used the one year spike in global temperatures in 1998)
Now, the solar cycle you are referring to has spent the past few years _declining_. The previous cycle peaked in 2000, and hit its nadir this year.
http://www.physorg.com/news117121262.html
Now, I admit, I am just a lowly engineering-type, and not a Master of Laws like Miloy is (yes, his highest education is in law)...but it seems to me that if the primary driver of the currently observed warming trends is an increase in solar emissions...shouldn't the warming have reversed when the emissions slowed?
A) CO2 in the atmosphere has increased about 200ppm in the last 100 years.
That is 1/5000th of the atmosphere. An increase of .0002
Also, you seem to be using the same deceptive methods I see in the "I don't care what every scientific organization in the world says, it's not CO2" crowd. Just because CO2 makes a small proportion of the atmosphere doesn't mean that it's irrelevant. This is because, put simply, CO2 behaves in ways that O2 and N2 don't. Like it or not, that small proportion of CO2 is one of the factors that keeps us about 33C warmer than we should be based on solar emissions. N2 and O2, which make up about 78% and 21% of the atmosphere respectively, have NO effect on outgoing radiation, which is in the infrared band. CO2 does, and is currently about 33% higher than at any point in the past 800,000 years...give or take.
Did you know that humans put as much CO2 into the atmosphere every 2.8 days as all the worlds volcanoes do in a year?
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html
Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1991). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 2006) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2, through 2003.]. Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year)! (Gerlach et. al., 2002)
Back to your arguments....
However, Dr. Judith Lean... a solar physicist at U.S. Naval
Research Laboratory in Washington, D.C...."Maunder Minimum," was
characterized by a Sun that was 0.25% dimmer than it is now.
An increase in solar radiation of 1/400th from that relatively cool period. An increase of .0025. Granted a significantly long time ago.
I dug up the original article this carefully mined quote came from.
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/06_3.shtml
The original line went
Research by Dr. Judith Lean, a solar physicist at U.S. Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, D.C. and colleagues noted a strong correlation between solar output and temperatures since 1610. Notice that a period during the �Little Ice Age�, from the 17th to early 18th centuries called the �Maunder Minimum,� was characterized by a Sun that was 0.25% dimmer than it is now.
A few other highlights from the article...
On the relative magnitude of the 11 year solar cycle
Note, however, that the energy difference is very small, amounting to approximately one tenth of the total effect that increasing levels of greenhouse gases have had on warming the atmosphere to date.
On "recent" events (ie: the past 1/4 century)
Lean�s study found that "solar forcing may have contributed about half of the observed 0.55°C surface warming since 1860 and one third of the warming since 1970". However, lest we take unwarranted comfort from the fact that the Sun seems most important and anthropogenic warming is less than originally estimated, keep in mind that if the Sun controls substantial climate fluctuations by changing its brightness by only 0.25%, a change of more than 1 percent in �virtual brightness� (from trace greenhouse gases like CO2 and CH4) could have a considerably greater impact.
Final conclusion:
In any case, the conclusion that can be taken from this discussion is that the warming since 1975 is outside the range of a purely solar effect and may safely be ascribed to a strong anthropogenic component.
I think the paper has been misrepresented by the quote you provided. Deliberately so.
back to your arguments...
If CO2 absorbs and holds radiated heat in the atmosphere, it would also
stand to reason that that portion would not penetrate the seas like
unblocked radiation would do.
No, that does not follow since most of the incoming energy from the sun is in the visible spectrum, not infrared. Co2 does nothing to visible light.
Is not heat in the atmosphere more prone to being radiated into the
cosmos than heat stored in the seas?
Overall, yes. The problem is that the planet has been less able to radiate heat today than it was a century ago...significantly so.
* CO2 (the chief reputed protaganist concerning AWG) increases being approx 200 ppm (=.0002)
* compared to prospective solar variances of about .001 (5 times higher than the pro-rate CO2 increase)
As I stated earlier, your "pro-rating" of the CO2 increase is completely in error. You need to express an increase as a relative change. Saying "it only went up 200ppm" can mean very different things depending on what went up. The question is, 200ppm relative to WHAT. Without that piece of critical information, the entire statement loses any real meaning.
* the effect on cosmic rays (and decreased clouds due increased solar radiation = more heat in the past 75 years)
Show me a single peer reviewed paper, published in a reputable climate journal, that demonstrates actual results on this hypothesis. Please remember that they (Svensmark and company) went to the media shortly after their paper was published, and didn't bother to wait for that whole useless "third-party confirmation" part.
You know...the "review" part of "peer review".
Maybe someone should point out that you're not going to get cloud seeding due to cosmic rays due to the whole "too small by a few orders of magnitude" part. Near ground level, you've got plenty of dust, pollen, salt crystals, and the like to seed clouds.
* the heat retention capacity of the seas as is related to increasesed solar penetration, and the correlation of the arctic ice melt being initiated possibly from BELOW (with corresponding activities of current and the like, non GW factors), versus the perceived INCREASE in Antarctic ice (which is effected by atmosphere, not sea)
So, Greenlands ice is melting at an accelerated rate (as well) due to being warmed from below by the ocean?
And about the antarctic ice...did it ever occur to you that warmer air can carry more moisture? Increased ice aside, the temperature is still going up in Antarctica.
This is why you look at trends, and not individual points of data....as you do below when it benefits you.
* the assertions that since 1998, atmospheric temps have been DROPPING, altho CO2 output has increased greatly in the past 10 years (ironically, much more being from Kyoto signatories)
This is the classic cherry picked argument. Temperatures have NOT been generally dropping. Yes, 1998 is still the warmest year on record but the trend has not reversed. 1998 was a year where everything added up "just right" to make a new record. If you actually stoop to looking at the data for yourself, you might notice that if you measure from any year other than 1998 (1997 or 1999 for examples), you end up with warming.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
When I see NOAA and NASA sites talking simply about an "extra blanket", it doesn't inspire a whole lot of confidence in the greenhouse equivalent of a semi-conductor.
Do you honestly believe that the metaphors that are used to try and explain the process to someone with little to no background express the scientists actual understanding of the process....do you? While I have myself been "guilty" of explaining how electricity works by drawing an analogy to water in a pipe, that doesn't mean that I believe that electricity behaves like water in a pipe.
OUF COURSE take them with a grain of salt, but they seem accurate to me at first glance:
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/HadCRUG.html
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/RSSglobe.html
It's Miloys junkscience site...take it with a small Siberian salt mine. Remember that the man who runs the site got his start as a lobbyist for the tobacco companies, with most of his training in legal issues.
Did your first glance of both notice the line below the graphs?
Note: These script-generated graphs are auto-scaled by default. Users must be aware that scales vary such that the Y1-values virtually fill the plot area and that this might (probably will) distort the impression gained from casual perusal.
I would recommend you start poking around "realclimate.org"...what with the whole run-by-actual-practicing-climatologists bit. Metaphorically, they're the "talkorigins.org" of climate science.
--Beltaine
(who didn't have anything better to do...) | |
|
| Might Solar Cycle 24 dispel man-made global warming?
Posted: 12/24/2007 1:32:48 AM | The greenhouse effect is a naturally occurring phenomenon that is undeniably being affected by human activities.
If CO2 absorbs and holds radiated heat in the atmosphere, it would also stand to reason that portion would not penetrate the seas like unblocked radiation would. No, that does not follow since most of the incoming energy from the sun is in the visible spectrum, not infrared.
From what I have read, the infrared component is about half.
If the atmosphere becomes warmer, it will then radiate more infrared to warm the surface, which includes the ocean. While this is not exactly the same as direct solar radiation, it must be taken into consideration.
Solarcycle24 (was written this way) to be sure that the whole headline fits.
There was enough space remaining to make your title twice as long. Editing the title of the opening post changes the title that appears in the forum list. | |
|
| MIGHT solarcycle24 dispel manmade global warming?
Posted: 12/24/2007 2:31:35 AM | http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html
Solar Variability & Global Warming
Some uncertainty remains about the role of natural variations in causing climate change. Solar variability certainly plays a minor role, but it looks like only a quarter of the recent variations can be attributed to the Sun. At most. During the initial discovery period of global warming, the magnitude of the influence of increased activity on the Sun was not well determined. | |
|
| MIGHT solarcycle24 dispel manmade global warming?
Posted: 12/24/2007 6:01:16 AM | and increase in PPM of .0002 of the entire atmosphere... but how much of the entire atmosphere is CO2?
.0002 increase when it used to be only .0001 would be a 200% increase in CO2 levels where as the increase in solar output is only 0.25%
So what % increase in CO2 levels are we really talking about?
Apparently, there are two forces at play and the increase CO2 levels aren't improving the atmosphere. | |
|
| Might Solar Cycle 24 dispel man-made global warming?
Posted: 12/24/2007 1:18:07 PM |
If CO2 absorbs and holds radiated heat in the atmosphere, it would also stand to reason that portion would not penetrate the seas like unblocked radiation would.
No, that does not follow since most of the incoming energy from the sun is in the visible spectrum, not infrared. From what I have read, the infrared component is about half.
At the top of the atmosphere, or at ground level? I admit, I didn't check the proportion. I guess I should do some research before I post...
If the atmosphere becomes warmer, it will then radiate more infrared to warm the surface, which includes the ocean. While this is not exactly the same as direct solar radiation, it must be taken into consideration.
In the end, a watt is a watt. At its most basic level, the greenhouse effect is the difference between measured solar emission and expected earth emission (based on measured temperature), with the assumption that the two will move towards a radiative balance. The planet will heat up until the average surface temperature is high enough so that the outgoing radiation, minus greenhouse effect, is equal to 1/4 of the average solar emissions in our orbit. The problem really isn't how much we've changed the climate, but how quickly we have done it. There is no historical precedent for what is happening today. | |
|
| Might Solar Cycle 24 dispel man-made global warming?
Posted: 12/24/2007 2:52:16 PM | | There are also the CO2 records that exist in polar ice. The ice absorbed the CO2 from the atmosphere and now acts as an accurate record of CO2 levels over time. Engineers have known for decades that these CO2 ice concentrations correspond to the outputs of CO2 by civilization. Apparently engineers have known for decades that the increase in CO2 levels are anthropogenic. | |
|
| Might Solar Cycle 24 dispel man-made global warming?
Posted: 12/24/2007 3:03:14 PM | To all of the above: I have very limited time at the moment, so can't read or answer all now.
But to make a curt point: if you are all correct, and solarcycle24 is weak, and the solar output is lessened significantly, and we do not see, in subsequent years (there will surely be a delay factor, but there should be a marked change) a lowering of temperatures, or at least a tempering/moderating/ leveled graph....
then you will be vindicated.
I really hope that sc24 will be low.
But that might be being greedy for my low-lying Louisiana area (and the same effects for all low-lying coastal areas).
Because if it is NOT low, then I'll have to wait until the years subsequent to 2024 for sc25, which is almost universally predicted to be low.
Merry Christmas / Happy Holidays / whatever | |
|
| Might Solar Cycle 24 dispel man-made global warming?
Posted: 12/24/2007 4:07:28 PM | Not to worry. The World is supposed to end as we know it on December 21, 2012, anyway, so there won't be time for any of us to be vindicated. Or, we'll have two disasters on our hands to deal with and without the benefit of the Internet to conveniently do a search on such topics.
These days there are just too many global crises to keep track of. Boy were we blessed being born during this era.
And with that, Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night...
 | |
|
| MIGHT solarcycle24 dispel manmade global warming?
Posted: 12/25/2007 9:29:06 AM | Beltaine: "This summer, records were set for minimum ice cover"
--
my comment: yeah, I know. For the past year I have been periodically snooping in at
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
But being that Arctic ice is quickly diminishing, while Antarctic ice is stable, or even increasing, and being that air temp warming is relatively marginal (I think the latest revisions are less than 1* F in the past 100 yrs) seems indicative that the melting is due to sea temps.
Which would seem to be largely solar variability influenced (an anectdotal example is to consider that satellite shots generally show the seas to be practically black, which indicates a heat sink, and being that the mass of sea water (in atomic weight, for example) is humongously more than that of the atmosphere, there is a lot of heat-retention capability down there.
Admittedly amateur's speculation, but I think worth considering.
===============
Beltaine: "but it seems to me that if the primary driver of the currently observed warming trends is an increase in solar emissions...shouldn't the warming have reversed when the emissions slowed?"
--
my comment: After the 1998 peak, didn't temps drop, and I believe the latest temp chart show a nice downward graph trend. Also, I would think that the retentive heat effect would be like the hottest part of the day being around 3 to 5 pm in the summer, rather than high noon, or that the lowest winter temps n. hemisphere are around the middle of Jan, rather than Dec 21, the solstice.
In addition, like I said above, it seems that there is a distinct possibility that the heat retention of the seas would be a factor.
And the latest solar cycles are still running pretty historically high, even if not as high as the spikes a couple of solar cycles ago (I don't have a graph now, and I don't want to get distracted by looking, but I think that is the case).
============================
Beltaine: "I think the paper has been misrepresented by the quote you provided. Deliberately so."
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/06_3.shtml
--
This paper is an opinion. Correct or incorrect. My point, as written in my first posts, is to highlight the comparisons between a .25% increase in solar output since the Maunder era, compared to a .02% increase in CO2 emissions.
Those are givens, to a large extent.
I am simply utilizing the data of Dr. Lean.
That CERTAINLY does not mean that I have to agree with "earthguide's" conclusions.
=====================================
I would like to comment on your other points, and will attempt to do so later.
But I have a date to prep for.
But keep in mind the original assertion: IF sc24 is weak, it will be revealing.
If the solar output lowers, and temps start again to go up in the ensuing years, you are vindicated.
If temps drop, the Question I pose is time well spent. | |
|
grog27
|
Joined: 2/25/2005
Msg: 20 | |
| Might Solar Cycle 24 dispel man-made global warming?
Posted: 12/26/2007 12:19:06 AM | "Solarcycle24 (was written this way) to be sure that the whole headline fits.
There was enough space remaining to make your title twice as long. Editing the title of the opening post changes the title that appears in the forum list."
Who the hell really cares what colour the deck chairs were on the Titanic!?! What a frivolous, petty thing to argue about!!!! | |
|
| Might Solar Cycle 24 dispel man-made global warming?
Posted: 12/26/2007 9:28:28 AM |
Who really cares what color the deck chairs were on the Titanic.
James Cameron for one.
Anyway. . .
My gripe about the way the term was incorrectly displayed coincides with my view of the topic query. | |
|
| Might Solar Cycle 24 dispel man-made global warming?
Posted: 12/26/2007 11:41:03 AM | Let me see if I have this straight:
1) Solar output has been decreasing for the past 10 years.
2) Global temperatures have been decreasing for the past 10 years.
3) Atmospheric CO2 has been increasing for the past 10 years.
Therefore,
4) Humans are the primary cause of global warming.
Sound about right? | |
|
| Might Solar Cycle 24 dispel man-made global warming?
Posted: 12/26/2007 12:04:11 PM | CountIbli
Me thinks that though has misconstrued everything. I do believe that this is the argument the OP is making
A weak solar output might be the cause for increased levels of CO2, although I haven't seen his argument on how that would be happening.
Global temperatures have been decreasing since 1998 during the same period that CO2 levels have been dramatically increasing, proving that CO2 levels have an insignificant effect on global temperatures. I suppose this also supports the theory that another phenomenon is involved (he put forth solar output as a possible cause). However, as pointed out by another poster, 1998 represented a high in global temperatures and therefore it only appears that global temperatures are decreasing relative to that year; in fact, the trend is still upward.
There is no argument being made by the OP to support that global warming is anthropogenic; only that a greater force than humans might be at work. I countered that by indicating that CO2 levels in polar ice are directly related in time with outputs from civilized society.
I think that sums up the discussions...there's other stuff about how much heat the oceans absorb and whether ice in Antartica is increasing...
Fun stuff to think about over the holidays. | |
|
| Might Solar Cycle 24 dispel man-made global warming?
Posted: 12/27/2007 12:23:50 PM | The Lass from NS said: "I do believe that this is the argument the OP is making...
A weak solar output might be the cause for increased levels of CO2, although I haven't seen his argument on how that would be happening."
=========
Lass: no. Simply that should there be a weak solar output in the upcoming years IF solarcycle24 is weak, temperatures might well be tempered or fall in the ensuing years. | |
|
| Might Solar Cycle 24 dispel man-made global warming?
Posted: 12/27/2007 12:46:15 PM | beltaine said (12-24-07): "There is no historical precedent for what is happening today. "
====
my comment: oh yeah, there were precedents. The 1930s have been newly-determined to have been the hottest decade over the past 100 years. And the hottest era was that around 1000AD.
But the present anamolies might well be explained thus:
First, you have to go to the bottom of this 2002 NASA site:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2002/18jan_solarback.htm
and click the block
"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, because it has (for what reasons, I have no idea) not been included in the graph. | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
