It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
What am I missing? The bolded part agrees with his assessment.
Water vapour is a very complex topic and more than positive forcing only.
And while you're criticizing the models...
NASA News & Feature Releases
NASA Study Finds Increasing Solar Trend That Can Change Climate
Mar. 20, 2003
Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits, during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study.
"This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change," said Richard Willson, a researcher affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University's Earth Institute, New York. He is the lead author of the study recently published in Geophysical Research Letters.
"Historical records of solar activity indicate that solar radiation has been increasing since the late 19th century. If a trend, comparable to the one found in this study, persisted throughout the 20th century, it would have provided a significant component of the global warming the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports to have occurred over the past 100 years," he said.
Although the inferred increase of solar irradiance in 24 years, about 0.1 percent, is not enough to cause notable climate change, the trend would be important if maintained for a century or more. Satellite observations of total solar irradiance have obtained a long enough record (over 24 years) to begin looking for this effect.
A simulated lagged response of the North Atlantic Oscillation to the solar cycle over the period 1960–2009
Numerous studies have suggested an impact of the 11 year solar cycle on the winter North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), with an increased tendency for positive (negative) NAO signals to occur at maxima (minima) of the solar cycle. Climate models have successfully reproduced this solar cycle modulation of the NAO, although the magnitude of the effect is often considerably weaker than implied by observations. A leading candidate for the mechanism of solar influence is via the impact of ultraviolet radiation variability on heating rates in the tropical upper stratosphere, and consequently on the meridional temperature gradient and zonal winds. Model simulations show a zonal mean wind anomaly that migrates polewards and downwards through wave–mean flow interaction. On reaching the troposphere this produces a response similar to the winter NAO. Recent analyses of observations have shown that solar cycle–NAO link becomes clearer approximately three years after solar maximum and minimum. Previous modelling studies have been unable to reproduce a lagged response of the observed magnitude. In this study, the impact of solar cycle on the NAO is investigated using an atmosphere–ocean coupled climate model. Simulations that include climate forcings are performed over the period 1960–2009 for two solar forcing scenarios: constant solar irradiance, and time-varying solar irradiance. We show that the model produces significant NAO responses peaking several years after extrema of the solar cycle, persisting even when the solar forcing becomes neutral. This confirms suggestions of a further component to the solar influence on the NAO beyond direct atmospheric heating and its dynamical response. Analysis of simulated upper ocean temperature anomalies confirms that the North Atlantic Ocean provides the memory of the solar forcing required to produce the lagged NAO response. These results have implications for improving skill in decadal predictions of the European and North American winter climate.
A leading candidate for the mechanism of solar influence is via the impact of ultraviolet radiation variability on heating rates in the tropical upper stratosphere, and consequently on the meridional temperature gradient and zonal winds.
while the global temperature has experienced a strong further increase during that time.
An acceptable error would be on the order of 1-2%.
I'm glad we can at least agree that pollution should be cleaned. That's one of my 'big two' reasons for disputing climate change so vigorously.
These adjustment methods sound good in theory and are all defensible from peer-reviewed literature, but the problem lies in that it is all done automatically with programmed algorithms that detect, then adjust for these biases and break points. It is the ultimate "black box", where no one outside of NCDC would be able to reproduce their processing. That alone is one opening for the seeds of distrust.
What is also bothersome is that the early decades of the station temperature records are consistently adjusted downward (cooler), so that now the century-long temperature trend is higher in the adjusted records than in the raw data.
The previous version of the NCDC Climate Division data set did not use the USHCN adjustment process on the historical station observations, but the new version does.
Nonetheless, record setting high temperature that accompanied this recent drought was likely made more extreme due to human-induced global warming.
originally posted by: PublicOpinion
That's the part I'm talking about, further increasing temps but near constant solar activity in the same cycle.
originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
This is a tangent from another thread.......but I am taking the podium for a sec.....
I want to ask everyone on here who denies Climate Change this question, so here goes:
May I ask the reason that you are resisting the idea of Climate Change? Why must you denounce and deny it?
Do you just not give a rip????
What...please - I think you all are just about some sort of "the money" thing.
But - the Earth is being raped. There is no question about that. Alternative energy sources and methods are huge potentials - my daughter is a Materials Science Engineer. The Millennials are ready to take this on. Solar has been in the wings since forever - back in the 70s we had environmental movements, you know.
The Millennials are our children - we raised them to be environmentally conscious.
Mother Earth News was our guide. Also, the [Old]Farmer's Almanac .
We even did things like de-tassle corn from the ground, with bandanas wrapped around our faces and drenched in dew with corn stalks towering above us and grabbing at our sleeves. THAT was hard work. I think every American kid should have to do that at some point in their lives. Swimming lessons, also. And other basic skills and experiences.
I can understand if some people were never exposed to that - never went camping, never visited a National Park, never threw hay or midwifed a horse's birth - never did any of that "outdoor" stuff.
If that is you, I'm deeply sorry you were deprived of that background, but that doesn't change the facts! Just because the class is above your head doesn't mean the subject being taught is "wrong."
Just because your upbringing didn't provide you with knowledge about how it all works does not mean that it doesn't. You are denying basic civilization data. But you don't have to. You can learn what's all about the windmills all over western Kansas and eastern Colorado. You can learn about the square miles of solar panels that exist around the world.
You can catch up - and do it!!!