'No Sun link' to climate change

[Sticks]

Just to keep the mainstreamer happy (BBC News) (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7327393.stm)


Scientists have produced further compelling evidence showing that modern-day climate change is not caused by changes in the Sun's activity.

The research contradicts a favoured theory of climate "sceptics", that changes in cosmic rays coming to Earth determine cloudiness and temperature.

The idea is that variations in solar activity affect cosmic ray intensity.

But Lancaster University scientists found there has been no significant link between them in the last 20 years.

Presenting their findings in the Institute of Physics journal, Environmental Research Letters, the UK team explain that they used three different ways to search for a correlation, and found virtually none.


I vaguely remember Fraser Cain doing something on this a year or so back

[jlhredshift]

I would settle for knowing what change occurred to end the younger Dryas or the Little Ice Age.

[kzb]

"19,000 scientist" petition. I found out in this that, in current climate models, the warming attributed to CO2 itself is minor. Most of the postulated warming comes from an amplification effect of increased water vapour. Hmmmmm.....:

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

Also the British Association of Drivers (ABD) has a press release about global warming out:

http://www.abd.org.uk/pr/614.htm

When I have been discussing (on these boards) albedo and solar energy, I found that the amount of solar radiation intercepted by the planet is 174,000TW. The proportion directly reflected is given as "0.29" by Wickipedia. What's the uncertainty on this?

As reported, it is uncertain to 0.5 parts in 29. That's plus or minus 3,000TW, or over 200 times our global fossil fuel useage (14TW). You see why I'm getting a bit skeptical.

[Disinfo Agent]

Fraser has written about this, too. (http://www.bautforum.com/universe-today-story-comments/72406-there-no-sun-link-global-warming.html)

One can only hope that global warming skeptics won't keep claiming that "the mainstream has been neglecting solar effects."

[korjik]

But the mainstreamers have been neglecting the solar effects! It is a plot by NASA to give power to FEMA by faking disasters! Other nonsensical statements! Persecution Syndrome!!!

:)

I dont get to be ATM much. Did I hit everything? :D

Seriously tho, as one of the bigger skeptics here, and one who has said repeatedly that I dont think the data is complete enough to make disaster warnings, so seeing more research is only a good thing. I would like to get first hand data on a weak solar cycle tho. I have been kinda hoping 24 will be very quiet.

[Disinfo Agent]

I dont get to be ATM much. Did I hit everything? :DYou forgot to say that they laughed at Galileo and Copernicus, too. :p ;)

[jlhredshift]

You forgot to say that they laughed at Galileo and Copernicus, too. :p ;)

And Wegner, G.K. Gilbert, Barringer, Tesla; when the mainstream has their life's work invested it is tuff being overturned.

[Sticks]

What happened to the grassy gnoll?

[HenrikOlsen]

It was dug up and saved in a crate in Warehouse 23 right next to the 100MpG carburetor and the preserved zombie shark that had Hitler's cloned brain implanted in it.

[jlhredshift]

But the mainstreamers have been neglecting the solar effects! It is a plot by NASA to give power to FEMA by faking disasters! Other nonsensical statements! Persecution Syndrome!!!

:)

I dont get to be ATM much. Did I hit everything? :D

Seriously tho, as one of the bigger skeptics here, and one who has said repeatedly that I dont think the data is complete enough to make disaster warnings, so seeing more research is only a good thing. I would like to get first hand data on a weak solar cycle tho. I have been kinda hoping 24 will be very quiet.

U.N. Forecasters: Global Temperatures to Decrease (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,346310,00.html)


Average global temperatures in 2008 are forecast to be lower than in previous years, thanks to the cooling effect of the ocean current in the Pacific, U.N. meteorologists say.

The World Meteorological Organisation's secretary-general, Michel Jarraud, said it was likely that La Nina, an abnormal cooling of sea surface temperatures in the Pacific Ocean, would continue into the summer.

If the forecast holds true, global temperatures will not have risen since 1998, prompting some to question climate change theory.

A small number of scientists doubt whether this means global warming has peaked and the Earth has proved more resilient to greenhouse gases than predicted, but Jarraud insists this is not the case and notes that 1998 temperatures would still be well above average for the century.

"When you look at climate change you should not look at any particular year," he told the BBC. "You should look at trends over a pretty long period and the trend of temperature globally is still very much indicative of warming."

"La Nina is part of what we call 'variability'. There has always been and there will always be cooler and warmer years, but what is important for climate change is that the trend is up."

Experts at the U.K. Met Office's Hadley Centre for forecasting in Exeter said the world could expect another record temperature within five years or less, the BBC reports, probably associated with an episode of El Nino.


And the trend has been up since the younger Dryas, except for the Little Ice Age.

[HypothesisTesting]

Just to keep the mainstreamer happy (BBC News) (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7327393.stm)



I vaguely remember Fraser Cain doing something on this a year or so back

The mass extinctions were caused by CO2 being emitted by fissure lava eruptions during Permian and other extinctions. This caused the temperature to raise over 10 degrees worldwide and tropical species existed in the Arctic during these periods.

So CO2 must be a major contributer by analogy.

[William]

There is some evidence that indicates that CO2 levels do not correlate with planetary temperature. (For example the paper linked below. See figure 4.) Although this is a controversial subject, there is agreement that there have been periods when CO2 levels were high and the planet was cool and visa versa. If this was true, then there would be something wrong with the basic assumptions concerning this subject. There is some evidence that challenges the fundamental CO2 hypothesis. If that evidence and reasoning was correct, planetary temperature would be less sensitive to CO2 changes. Based on what I have read, I believe the issue is not resolved.

There is data to support the hypothesis that the periods when the planet was cold, correlate with high levels of GCR (galactic cosmic rays) which are hypothesized to increase planetary cloud cover. The planet will cool if there is an increase in planetary cloud cover. As I have stated in the forum, the sun appears to be headed toward a Maunder minimum, so there should be data this year, to determine if a significant portion of the 20th century warming was due to the solar magnetic cycle changes or was due to increased CO2. Based on the solar magnetic cycle theory and assuming past abrupt cooling periods were due solar magnetic cycle changes, the planet will cool around 2C over a four year period.

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/99/7/4167

Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels for the last 500 million years by Daniel Rothman


The last 500 million years of the strontium-isotope record are shown to correlate significantly with the concurrent record of isotopic fractionation between inorganic and organic carbon after the effects of recycled sediment are removed from the strontium signal. The correlation is shown to result from the common dependence of both signals on weathering and magmatic processes. Because the long-term evolution of carbon dioxide levels depends similarly on weathering and magmatism, the relative fluctuations of CO2 levels are inferred from the shared fluctuations of the isotopic records. The resulting CO2 signal exhibits no systematic correspondence with the geologic record of climatic variations at tectonic time scales.

[Disinfo Agent]

Although this is a controversial subject, there is agreement that there have been periods when CO2 levels were high and the planet was cool and visa versa. If this was true, then there would be something wrong with the basic assumptions concerning this subject.Not really. It's well known that there is a delay period between the onset of an increase in CO2 and the temperature rise. A feedback effect has been suggested in the case of the end of ice ages, with an initial moderate temperature rise leading to a CO2 rise, which in turn increases the temperature further, which leads to more CO2 being released into the atmosphere, and so on. The climate has complex interactions. You can't understand it with simplistic models.

[jlhredshift]

The mass extinctions were caused by CO2 being emitted by fissure lava eruptions during Permian and other extinctions. This caused the temperature to raise over 10 degrees worldwide and tropical species existed in the Arctic during these periods.

So CO2 must be a major contributer by analogy.

My underline.

The Permian extinction was not a single cause event. I would refer you to the works of M. Benton, D. Erwin, and P.Ward.

[jlhredshift]

Not really. It's well known that there is a delay period between the onset of an increase in CO2 and the temperature rise. A feedback effect has been suggested in the case of the end of ice ages, with an initial moderate temperature rise leading to a CO2 rise, which in turn increases the temperature further, which leads to more CO2 being released into the atmosphere, and so on. The climate has complex interactions. You can't understand it with simplistic models.


This is true, but I would add that methane also lags the rise in CO2. On the "tectonic" time scale, whatever the definition of that is, ice ages are the unusual event. Most of geologic time the Earth has been warmer and ice free at the poles. Yes, humans have arose to dominance during the most recent glacial period but glacial periods are not the norm.

I think the more complex question is how the ice cycles begin and that understanding those events will lead to a better understanding of this planets climate. The fact that the climate is climbing back to the norm indicates the stability of the climate on "tectonic" time scales.

[HypothesisTesting]

This is true, but I would add that methane also lags the rise in CO2. On the "tectonic" time scale, whatever the definition of that is, ice ages are the unusual event. Most of geologic time the Earth has been warmer and ice free at the poles. Yes, humans have arose to dominance during the most recent glacial period but glacial periods are not the norm.

.


CO2 was about 1000 ppm during these hot earth periods, I would think the CO2 was the major contributer to global warming, but is it possible the methane was a bigger effect:confused:

I really don't buy the hypothesis that changes in the sun or earth's orbit was the main factor during these hot earth periods. You don't have to look any farther than Venus to see the effect of CO2.

[jlhredshift]

CO2 was about 1000 ppm during these hot earth periods, I would think the CO2 was the major contributer to global warming, but is it possible the methane was a bigger effect:confused:

I really don't buy the hypothesis that changes in the sun or earth's orbit was the main factor during these hot earth periods. You don't have to look any farther than Venus to see the effect of CO2.

Methane in the atmosphere is converted to CO2 by ultraviolet from the Sun so it is part of the same feedback mechanism. As to Venus, you also need to add its closeness to the Sun. As early as 1964 a strong correlation was shown between sea floor cores and the Milankovitch cycles; see Ericson et. al. It can be difficult to segregate long term cycles from short term events, in climatic history, in thinking about climatic change. The former does not necessarily correlate well with the latter. As the Wisconsin ice sheets were retreating due to the general warming of the climate there was a sudden downturn referred to as the younger Dryas. It took about two thousand years to return to the previous climatic conditions and the general trend of warming.

[korjik]

What happened to the grassy gnoll?

Got cut out of 4th ed :)

[William]

In reply to HypothesisTesting's comment:
Not really. It's well known that there is a delay period between the onset of an increase in CO2 and the temperature rise. A feedback effect has been suggested in the case of the end of ice ages, with an initial moderate temperature rise leading to a CO2 rise, which in turn increases the temperature further, which leads to more CO2 being released into the atmosphere, and so on. The climate has complex interactions. You can't understand it with simplistic models.

Originally Posted by William
Although this is a controversial subject, there is agreement that there have been periods when CO2 levels were high and the planet was cool and visa versa. If this was true, then there would be something wrong with the basic assumptions concerning this subject.


HypothesisTesting the lag time you are refering to is a few thousand years for the glacial/interglacial cycle. Figure 4 in this paper shows that the planet was cool when CO2 levels were high and warm when CO2 levels were relatively lower for millions of years.

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/99/7/4167

The analogue with Venus, is not correct. Venus has an atmospheric pressure 94 times the earth and has an atmosphere of 97% CO2. It is the higher density that creates Venus' super greenhouse effect.

The following supports that comment. Vensus' atmosphere has almost no water. If Venus' atmospheric pressure was the same as the earth it would be cold. For the earth, water is the most important greenhouse gas. The CO2 greenhouse equation for 1 atmosphere not 94 atmosphere, is a log function. The initial concentration of CO2 injected into the atmosphere has the greatest effect. As CO2 only absorbs certain frequency increasing concentration no longer causes an increase the greenhouse effect. (i.e. All of the specific frequencies are absorbed by the CO2 molecule.)

I have a paper that explains the science and provides a graph that shows the absorption frequencies for the different greenhouses gases.

[William]

This is the paper I mentioned above.

"Greenhouse molecules, their spectra and function in the atmosphere" by Jack Barrett

Barrett’s paper is a good summary of the basic greenhouse science.

http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/barrett_ee05.pdf

The greenhouse molecules can absorb infrared radiation because they are asymmetrical. i.e. N2 and O2 are not greenhouse gases and H2O and CO2 are greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases can only absorb specific frequencies, so the greenhouse gas has a log affect on planetary temperature. (i.e. Most effect for initial injection and then less and less as the concentration increases.)

See Figure 6: Infrared spectra of the greenhouse gases as calculated using the HITRAN which shows which specific frequency the greenhouse gas in question absorbs.