Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 46 of 46
  1. #26
    W4A1 143 43CK? Nbadan's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Post Count
    32,408
    ...don't blame the sun....

    'No Sun link' to climate change
    By Richard Black
    Environment correspondent, BBC News website


    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 favored theory of climate "Deniers", 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 Ins ute 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.
    BBC

    Of course, if you want to believe global warming deniers, you know, the same crowd that thought Saddam had stockpiles of WMDs and was hand-picking Al-Queda leaders, feel free...

  2. #27
    W4A1 143 43CK? Nbadan's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Post Count
    32,408
    The IPCC's assessment reports on climate change have become less and less doomsday-ish over the last 15 or so years. Why is that?
    Hmmm....yeah, why is that?

    Claims that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has seriously underestimated the challenge and costs of stabilizing greenhouse-gas emissions in the 21st century are fuelling controversy among climate and energy researchers.

    Climate policy expert Roger Pielke Jr, climatologist Tom Wigley, and economist Christopher Green lay out in a commentary article published in Nature 1 today why they think that the emission scenarios the IPCC produced nearly a decade ago, which are still widely used, are overly optimistic. They note that most of the IPCC’s 'business as usual' emission scenarios assume a certain amount of 'spontaneous' technological change. The size of this assumed change is unrealistic, they argue, and deceives policy-makers and the public about the crucial role policy must have in encouraging the development of technologies to prevent dangerous climate change.

    Such a large chunk of the needed energy-efficiency improvements is built in to these 'business as usual' scenarios that the degree of change requiring special effort seems artificially small, they argue. According to the authors' own calculations, IPCC scenarios make it seem as if the technical challenge of stabilizing greenhouse-gas emissions at around 500 parts per million — a concentration which scientists think will prevent average global temperatures from rising more than 2 °C — is a quarter of its true size.

    Richard Tol, an energy and environmental economist at the Economic and Social Research Ins ute in Dublin, Ireland, also says that the IPCC has underestimated the cost of technology, and notes that the cost of mitigating against climate change increases as time goes on. If Pielke and colleagues are correct, the cost of controlling global warming could go up by a factor of 16, argues Tol.
    Nature

  3. #28
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    WC and other deniers say that global warming is nothing but just another sun cycle, not caused by man. So the real scientists attempt to refute:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7327393.stm
    That article is about cosmic ray changes, not solar intensity.

    Come on now. Stop wasting my time.

    The suns effect due to intensity is very strait forward. There is a proportional response between solar intensity and global warming with all other factors not changing. The Kelvin scale is used often because 0 K is absolute zero. The greatest effect the sun has with changes would be if the earth would be 0 K with no solar radiation. 0 C = 273 K (actually 273.15 K) and there in a 1:1 additive response. With an average global temperature of 14 C, the temperature on the Kelvin scale would be 287 K. A one percent change in solar output is a direct 2.87 C. I assume the earth would be around 55 K (-218 C) with no sun. The surface warmth would be maintained by the molten core. For ease of calculation, we can up that for even less effect to 87 K. This is a 200 C range. 1% would be 2 C rather than 2.87 C.

    Say what you will about there being no correlation, or making less of it than is real. There is a real scientific correlation. We have directly observed solar changes with the monitoring satellites we have. We see changes over the short time in excess of 0.15%. If you expect the long term effect to be that stable, I'll sell you a bridge. By using isotopes, we know the solar activity has changed greater than this. Global warming and proxies match pretty good.
    Last edited by Wild Cobra; 04-04-2008 at 12:03 AM.

  4. #29
    W4A1 143 43CK? Nbadan's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Post Count
    32,408
    Can a Day after tomorrow scenario happen?

    Has An Ocean Circulation Collapse Been Triggered?

    ScienceDaily (Feb. 25, 2008) — Predictions that the 21st century is safe from major circulation changes in the North Atlantic Ocean may not be as comforting as they seem, according to a Penn State researcher.

    "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that it is very unlikely that the North Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (MOC) will collapse in the 21st century. They predict a probability of less then 10 percent," says Klaus Keller, assistant professor of geosciences. "However, this should not be interpreted as an all clear signal. There can be a considerable delay between the triggering of an MOC collapse and the actual collapse. In a similar way, a person that has just jumped from a cliff may take comfort that pain in the next few seconds is very unlikely, but the outlook over the long term is less rosy."
    Science daily

  5. #30
    W4A1 143 43CK? Nbadan's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Post Count
    32,408
    On solar irradiance...


    Land-ocean temperature anomaly 1975 to 2008 (blue with trend line), Total Solar Irradiance 1978 to 2008 (red). Light blue area indicate periods when solar irradiance is falling due to the 11 year solar cycle.

    The most commonly cited study by skeptics is a study by scientists from Finland and Germany that finds the sun has been more active in the last 60 years than anytime in the past 1150 years (Usoskin 2005). They also found temperatures closely correlate to solar activity.

    However, a crucial finding of the study was the correlation between solar activity and temperature ended around 1975. At that point, temperatures rose while solar activity stayed level. This led them to conclude "during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source."

    You read that right. The study most quoted by skeptics actually concluded the sun can't be causing global warming. Ironically, it's the sun's close correlation with Earth's temperature in the past that proves it has little to do with the last 30 years of global warming.

    This conclusion is confirmed by many studies quantifying the amount of solar influence in recent global warming:

    * Ammann 2007: "Although solar and volcanic effects appear to dominate most of the slow climate variations within the past thousand years, the impacts of greenhouse gases have dominated since the second half of the last century."
    * Lockwood 2007 concludes "the observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanism is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified."
    * Foukal 2006 concludes "The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978 are too small to have contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30 years."
    * Scafetta 2006 says "since 1975 global warming has occurred much faster than could be reasonably expected from the sun alone."
    * Usoskin 2005 conclude "during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source."
    * Haigh 2003 says "Observational data suggest that the Sun has influenced temperatures on decadal, centennial and millennial time-scales, but radiative forcing considerations and the results of energy-balance models and general circulation models suggest that the warming during the latter part of the 20th century cannot be ascribed entirely to solar effects."
    * Stott 2003 increased climate model sensitivity to solar forcing and still found "most warming over the last 50 yr is likely to have been caused by increases in greenhouse gases."
    * Solanki 2003 concludes "the Sun has contributed less than 30% of the global warming since 1970".
    * Lean 1999 concludes "it is unlikely that Sun–climate relationships can account for much of the warming since 1970".
    * Waple 1999 finds "little evidence to suggest that changes in irradiance are having a large impact on the current warming trend."
    * Frolich 1998 concludes "solar radiative output trends contributed little of the 0.2°C increase in the global mean surface temperature in the past decade"
    Skeptical Science

  6. #31
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    I agree with Al Gore, the debate on global warming is over. Everyone agrees that the Earth is currently warming and that humans are affecting it (have been since man first walked the Earth).


    The REAL debate NOW, is between climate change scientists and climate change alarmists. Is there really a "crisis". Al Gore is spending 300 million dollars to convince you there is.


    If you want to see a real debate on this subject, go to http://www.michaelcrichton.net/videos.html and judge for yourself.

  7. #32
    Retired Ray xrayzebra's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Post Count
    9,096
    I agree with Al Gore, the debate on global warming is over. Everyone agrees that the Earth is currently warming and that humans are affecting it (have been since man first walked the Earth).


    The REAL debate NOW, is between climate change scientists and climate change alarmists. Is there really a "crisis". Al Gore is spending 300 million dollars to convince you there is.


    If you want to see a real debate on this subject, go to http://www.michaelcrichton.net/videos.html and judge for yourself.


    No everyone doesn't agree. Some scientist even say
    we are in a cooling phase. And could be entering into
    a new ice age.

  8. #33
    What's the Word? Don Quixote's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    3,339
    George Will amply summed up the debate in a recent article. The global warming debate basically follows a few logical steps ...

    (I'll try to get the gist.)

    (1) The planet's temperature is rising. This is pretty much the only undisputed point.

    (2) Mankind has caused it. This is a big leap -- we don't know this. We understand the physical theory behind how industrialization might be causing it, but it's certainly not a proven. Indeed, the earth's climate has fluctuated markedly at least since the early medieval period (i.e., the Little Ice Age 1150-1300 and it has been argued that the warming after 1300 was a factor in encouraging exploration), and most certainly since prehistoric times.

    (3) Climate change is a bad thing. Again, debatable. Maybe some coastal cities are flooded, but then again, perhaps there is a feedback loop in the "system" that would negate it. Again, we don't know.

    (4) Mankind ought to take steps to reverse climate change, and has the capability to do so. This is highly dubious, too.

    So ... going by this basic framework, we can see at what step various people are arguing. I'm firmly at Step 2.

  9. #34
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    On solar irradiance...


    Land-ocean temperature anomaly 1975 to 2008 (blue with trend line), Total Solar Irradiance 1978 to 2008 (red). Light blue area indicate periods when solar irradiance is falling due to the 11 year solar cycle.
    Nice job Dan. First of all, the 0.6 C is not only from the 1700's but like you show, except... NASA has admitted since the time of that graph that their formulas were bad for computing the temperature. Compare it against a reliable long term temperature graph. Also, that is only short term. Here is a long term solar activity vs. Carbon 14. C14 is created in the upper atmosphere in proportion to the suns level of radiation. Here is a convenient temperature graph also:





    Now please notice a few things. The C14 on the graph is "permille" or in thousandths. This is relative concentration change in the CO2 mix. The top of the graph has the ending of it just after 2000 correlating to just before 1950. That's because it takes about 60 years to see the changes in the C14 levels as it collects on the Earth. The changing levels of C14 is also way carbon dating used the be unreliable. Carbon dating is reliable again now that scientists know how to account for the moving changes over time.

    Anyway...

    C14 is a proxy for solar radiation. It is not 100% reliable because it is the higher energy cosmic rays that change the Nitrogen 14 to Carbon 14, but these relationships are proportional over an averaged time period.

    Something I never touched on before, but it is true. C14 has different absorption characteristics of infrared than C12 does. Even though a 2% increase in C14 from the 1700 to now is small, it traps wavelengths of infrared that C12 doesn't. These small changes can have a larger relative impact of the greenhouse gasses than the same percentage change of normal CO2, but I don't know how relevant that impact is. It would take some research that I'm unaware of happening.

    Common C2O is 12C-16O-12C. You can also find it in 14C-16O-12C and 14C-16O-14C. Each of these have a different resonance! There is also C13 at higher percentages, but they remain pretty stable to C12 concentrations. For the purpose of discussion, consider it's effects the same as Additions of C12 do very little as it is near saturation for spectra absorption. Small changes in C14 however can make large changes in the greenhouse effect. The carbon and oxygen can also have different isotopes. I wonder what effect the oxygen 18 would have? It has a 0.2% natural abundance. It is used as a temperature proxy, probably because water made with it freezes at a lower temperature that water with O16. I don't think it was a change in the greenhouse effect since I don't know of solar radiation creating the isotope like it does Carbon 14 and Beryllium 10. We also have fossilized records of Be10 that correlate to long term solar activity:



    Notice now both Be10 and C14 show correlations with solar activity. Again, pick a good long term temperature graph and compare. The one I supplied was convenient, but a shorter time would show better resolution.

    I know I'm skipping around a bit, and I'm not going to take much effort to fix it since this isn't a term paper, or other important work... Sorry...

    Now consider this. It takes about the 60 years to see the actual global average C14. That long rise from (upper year axis) about 1950 to 2000 are immediate changes for the small degree that carbon 14 will have vs. carbon 12. I didn't find a reference to atmospheric concentration of C14. It is higher than the natural abundance of 1 ppt as the atmosphere is where it is formed. Consider this graph:



    Near zero ppm of CO2, we have dramatic changes. The very small amounts of carbon 14 will have similar dramatic changes among their vibrational frequencies. I just don't know is it's enough to have a measurable effect, if looked for.

    Now I disagree with the values the above graph says changes of CO2 make, but it is manipulated to show the 0.6 C change from the 280 ppm to 380 ppm levels, to support the alarmists. The graph does show the general trend of how atmospheric CO2 affects the temperature. It should flatten out more than it does past 200 ppm.

    Wow... I am skipping around, but cannot take the time to format this better.

    Here is a chart from NASA that wiki has:



    Now it has the changed in forcing power from this graph. When I traced the image though wiki, I found a question to the validity of the forcing power. Therefore, I traced the original source graph, here:

    Forcings in GISS Climate Model: Solar Irradiance.

    The average before 1900 is about 1364.8 and the average after 1950 is about 1366.4. This is about a 0.12% increase which WILL CHANGE the global temperature by AT LEAST 0.1 C from that 50 year period of change. Actually, much of the effect has a time lag as the oceans absorb the heat. The equilibrium takes at least decades to take effect. We still may not have equilibrium to the rise between 1900 to 1950.

    Now keep in mind, the 1365 watt per meter is the direct power at the equator. Since only half the earth is exposed to the sun at once, and is curved, the 235 watt/meter number is used global calculations. Changes are proportional.

    That's enough for now class.
    Last edited by Wild Cobra; 04-16-2009 at 10:23 PM.

  10. #35
    Veteran Ignignokt's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Post Count
    7,042
    Global warming is a bunch of .

    - Clinging Terds.

  11. #36
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    Global warming is a bunch of .

    - Clinging Terds.
    It all depends on what a person means by Global Warming.

    There is a measurable increase that cannot be denied. There is a trend that coincides with industrialization. The 'bunch of ' is that the alarmists take the coincidence of industrialization with the natural increase of nature and say than man is causing it.

    It is pure coincidence. It is not man made to the extent said. If we do cause any warming, it is insignificant compared to the natural warming.

    Global Warming has been a real phenomenon. So is Global Cooling. They basically take turns as the dance in nature.

    People can be so arrogant to believe we can have such a dramatic global effect on nature.
    Last edited by Wild Cobra; 04-14-2008 at 07:33 PM. Reason: changed "rend' to "trend"

  12. #37
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    Bump

    Read posts 7 and 36.

  13. #38
    i hunt fenced animals clambake's Avatar
    My Team
    Dallas Mavericks
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Post Count
    25,119
    Bump

    Read posts 7 and 36.
    no thanks.

  14. #39
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,661
    Can a Day after tomorrow scenario happen?

    Has An Ocean Circulation Collapse Been Triggered?

    "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that it is very unlikely that the North Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (MOC) will collapse in the 21st century. They predict a probability of less then 10 percent," says Klaus Keller, assistant professor of geosciences.
    Science daily


    Scientists predict that the AMOC will weaken further if global heating continues, and could reduce by about 34% to 45% by the end of this century, which could bring us close to a “tipping point” at which the system could become irrevocably unstable. A weakened Gulf Stream would also raise sea levels on the Atlantic coast of the US, with potentially disastrous consequences.


    Stefan Rahmstorf, of the Potsdam Ins ute for Climate Impact Research, who co-authored the study published on Thursday in Nature Geoscience, told the Guardian that a weakening AMOC would increase the number and severity of storms hitting Britain, and bring more heatwaves to Europe.


    He said the circulation had already slowed by about 15%, and the impacts were being seen. “In 20 to 30 years it is likely to weaken further, and that will inevitably influence our weather, so we would see an increase in storms and heatwaves in Europe, and sea level rises on the east coast of the US,” he said.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environm...say-scientists

  15. #40

  16. #41
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Post Count
    18,121
    In 20 years...

  17. #42
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,661
    in the long run we'll all be dead, but we were both here 12 years ago when this thread started.

  18. #43
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,661
    the stability of the polar vortex *might be* related to this *now.*

  19. #44
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,520
    the stability of the polar vortex *might be* related to this *now.*
    no might

    AGW of the Artic, the rate of increase higher than sub-Arctic regions, de-stabilizes the vortex. So antifa can freeze Texas.

  20. #45
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    90,829
    the stability of the polar vortex *might be* related to this *now.*
    What about the cost of ammo or the bitcoin? All of it is related!

  21. #46
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,690
    [rings doorbell, runs away like a little ]
    Meh.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •