The Whole Solar System is Undergoing Global Warming., page 11
Pages: <<  8    9    10    11    12    13  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 32 times


reply posted on 26-4-2007 @ 08:14 PM by Muaddib
Originally posted by melatonin

The thing is, Muaddib, the graph you presented earlier from Solanki (the thousand year scale solar data) is the same data I gave above - just looking at the more recent period. It's Solanki's data.


The things is that the data in that graph has been extrapolated from different sources all which have different calibration, accuracy and reliability issues.


“The problem is that no one sensor has collected data continuously over this time period, and so to make a long-term dataset, we have to splice together the results from different instruments, each with its own accuracy and reliability issues, only some of which we are able to account for,” says solar physicist Judith Lean from the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, D.C.

earthobservatory.nasa.gov...




Originally posted by melatonin
As for the 0.014K data, you'll have to point out where it came from.


Monitoring the Solar Temperature: Spectroscopic Temperature Variations of the Sun
Author(s) David F. Gray and William C. Livingston
Identifiers The Astrophysical Journal, volume 474, part 1 (1997), pages 802–809
DOI: 10.1086/303489
Bibcode: 1997ApJ...474..802G

Availability This site: PS | PDF (390.2k) | HTML (46.5k)
Copyright © 1997, The American Astronomical Society.
Abstract The C i 5380 line in the solar flux spectrum was measured over the 19781992 interval. Analysis of the data shows seasonal and instrumental effects, but after allowance for these, the ratios of spectral line depths, C i 5380 to Fe i 5379 and to Ti ii 5381, are shown to be robust indicators of effective temperature. These data show the solar temperature to have varied systematically during the activity cycle and nearly in phase with other indicators of the cycle. The amplitude of the variation is 1.5 K ± 0.2 K, similar to but slightly less than the range implied by the variations of the sunspot-corrected irradiance. There is also evidence for a secular trend amounting to +0.014 K per year.

www.journals.uchicago.edu...:10.1086/303489&erFrom=2713573717974126232Guest


Originally posted by melatonin
Orbital variations? Internal variations? Plus maybe a bit of variation in solar irradiance.


So it is just coincidence that we are seeing warming in several planets in the solar system then? There is no such thing as coincidences in science.

[edit on 26-4-2007 by Muaddib]


reply posted on 26-4-2007 @ 08:31 PM by Muaddib
Here is another one.

We tend to think of our Sun as a paragon of stability. While other stars pulsate, go nova, collapse, or bubble and churn like overheated pots of oatmeal, Sol provides us with steady, dependable radiance. Of course there are variations, such as the 11 year sunspot cycle, but these are predictable and benign.

Recent evidence, however, suggests that we don't know all there is to know about the nearest star. Drs. David Gray (University of Western Ontario) and William Livingston (Kitt Peak) have been studying the Sun's temperature with a technique that compares the strength of absorption lines in the solar spectrum. Gray finds that in addition to a fluctuation of 1.5 degrees Kelvin over the 11-year cycle, the temperature of the sun is steadily increasing by 0.014 degrees/yr.

Of course, this doesn't mean that the Sun will just continue to heat up. The observed change may just be part of a much longer cycle. During the 17th to mid-18th centuries, astronomers noticed a complete absence of sunspots and geological records show that the Earth's temperature dropped by 1 to 2 degrees during that time. This may not seem like much, but it was enough to freeze the Thames river and shorten Europe's growing season, causing famine in many countries.

www.astro.ucla.edu...

In this last link Kaisler states that GHGs also amplify the effects of the sun, but then we go back to exactly how much does CO2 amplifies the heat trapping effect? How much of the CO2 levels have been produced by natural sources? We know for a fact, despite some people wanting to claim the contrary, that GHGs increase naturally during warming cycles, and we are in a warming cycle.

You like to excerpt some sources which take the highest values meanwhile I point to the ones which show lower values such as Eastman et al 2001 who states and I quote:

A change in albedo will alter the absorption and
re¯ection solar radiation. A modifed albedo can result
from all of the factors investigated, although it is obvious
that the 2 x CO2 radiation impact would be minimal as
it is addressed in this study.

blue.atmos.colostate.edu...

His research in fact points out that a doubling of air's CO2 content led to a temperature increase of 0.014°C.

---edited to add comments---

[edit on 26-4-2007 by Muaddib]


reply posted on 26-4-2007 @ 11:54 PM by Muaddib
Originally posted by melatonin

Which do you think is most reliable? The last 50 years, or however long before that?


What do you think the conclusion is from several research all which say the sun's output has increased during the last 60 years more than for at least 1,000 years while others show it has increased more than during the last 8,000?...

They all point to the same conclusion, during the last few decades of the 20th century the sun's output and the number of sunspost has increased. Not only that but the Earth's magnetic field is weaker now than at any time during the last 780,000 years, which also affects how much radiation we get from the sun.


Originally posted by melatonin
You do realise you are also criticising your own data from earlier?


Not when there is other reseach which corroborates that the sun's output has increased during the late 20th century.

Ilya Usoskin (Geophysical Observatory, University of Oulu, Finland) and his colleagues have investigated the solar activity over the past centuries. Their study is to be published this week in Astronomy & Astrophysics Letters. They compare the amount of Titanium 44 in nineteen meteorites that have fallen to the Earth over the past 240 years. Their work confirms that the solar activity has increased strongly during the 20th century. They also find that the Sun has been particularly active in the past few decades.

www.physorg.com...

Every study done shows this, that the output of the sun has increased during the late 20th century more than in the past.

And not all research extrapolates different data like that graph you gave. Even the latest Mann/Jones and associates graphs on the temperature of Earth is another "extrapolation of different graphs all which if viewed separately show a different picture to the claims made by Mann and associates.


Originally posted by melatonin
So you are looking at 1.5K on top of what solar temperature? What is the current increase? That was for up to 1992.


The 1.5 degrees K is a fluctuation in temperature that the sun goes through in it's 11 year cycle. On top of that the sun's output and the number of sunspots have been increasing strongly during the last few decades more than for thousands of years.

Originally posted by melatonin
There are. One example is illusory correlation.


Yes, such as the illusion that it is because of anthropogenic CO2 that the current warming is happening on Earth, despite the fact that the warming started 260 years for most of the world before CO2 levels began to increase...



reply posted on 27-4-2007 @ 11:54 AM by melatonin
Originally posted by Muaddib
What do you think the conclusion is from several research all which say the sun's output has increased during the last 60 years more than for at least 1,000 years while others show it has increased more than during the last 8,000?...

They all point to the same conclusion, during the last few decades of the 20th century the sun's output and the number of sunspost has increased. Not only that but the Earth's magnetic field is weaker now than at any time during the last 780,000 years, which also affects how much radiation we get from the sun.


But which has been pretty stable since reaching a peak. It doesn't seem to be increasing, and as Solanki clearly shows, the relationship between solar irradiance and temperatures has been broken over the later 20th century.


Every study done shows this, that the output of the sun has increased during the late 20th century more than in the past.


And when the data is plotted correctly, there is no correlation for the latter 20th century, suggesting another influence.

And not all research extrapolates different data like that graph you gave. Even the latest Mann/Jones and associates graphs on the temperature of Earth is another "extrapolation of different graphs all which if viewed separately show a different picture to the claims made by Mann and associates.


Obviously you never bothered to read Damon & Laut. The Friis-Christensen data is not correct. Mann et al has been vindicated, this data is far from any vindication, it's just plain incorrect.


The 1.5 degrees K is a fluctuation in temperature that the sun goes through in it's 11 year cycle. On top of that the sun's output and the number of sunspots have been increasing strongly during the last few decades more than for thousands of years.


None of which can completely account for current warming, even the 2001 article from the NOAA researcher suggests this.

Yes, such as the illusion that it is because of anthropogenic CO2 that the current warming is happening on Earth, despite the fact that the warming started 260 years for most of the world before CO2 levels began to increase...


You misunderstand what an illusory correlation is. So, using the oft-used FSM example, we can make a scatterplot of the number of pirates and global temperatures. We find that as pirates go down, global temperatures go up, maybe we should dress as pirates to reduce warming. Of course, we know that pirates cannot have a causal link with global temperatures. That would be silly.

However, for CO2 and temperature we do have a causal link, it is a GHG. By definition, they trap heat - increase CO2, increase trapped heat, increase tropospheric temperatures. No illusory correlation.

I keep asking you to show where this 260 years warming was?



1750? How come the 1000 year CO2 data seems to miss any similar previous warming induced CO2 release in the last 1000 years? What about the 260 year delayed CO2 increase from the MWP you seem attached to, didn't that happen? Why doesn't the CO2 data show this?

We even know that the CO2 is not from the biosphere, it is anthropogenic. We could go over the basic maths again...

6.2 GtC human release per year
2.8 GtC accumulating per year
3.4 GtC removed by oceans and terrestrial sinks.

[edit on 27-4-2007 by melatonin]


reply posted on 6-5-2007 @ 09:08 PM by Alex2
At least the CO2 from one's lungs comes from food, which ultimately comes from atmospheric CO2 = little or no net change. Efficient computers and alternative energy investment should help with the computer usage.

The water vapor and CO2 lags warming arguments are common, but they don't hold up under analysis. On water vapor (a feedback), see the link in the intro here. Also see #10 and #13 on warming preceding CO2 (forcing and/or feedback depending on the situation). Right now, we have a strengthening warming trend in the presence of a rapid CO2 accumulation, and the absence of a natural forcing sufficient to explain it. So apparently it's not just a continuing natural thaw.



[edit on 6-5-2007 by Alex2]


reply posted on 7-5-2007 @ 06:14 PM by Muaddib
Originally posted by Alex2
At least the CO2 from one's lungs comes from food, which ultimately comes from atmospheric CO2 = little or no net change. Efficient computers and alternative energy investment should help with the computer usage.


CO2 exhaled from our lungs does not come from food, it comes from the diffusion process in our bodies as oxygen mixes with carbon, the carbon does come from food, and is exhaled as CO2. As for the carbon, or the CO2 of plants coming only from air, that is not true, it also comes from the soil.


Originally posted by Alex2
The water vapor and CO2 lags warming arguments are common, but they don't hold up under analysis. On water vapor (a feedback), see the link in the intro here. Also see #10 and #13 on warming preceding CO2 (forcing and/or feedback depending on the situation). Right now, we have a strengthening warming trend in the presence of a rapid CO2 accumulation, and the absence of a natural forcing sufficient to explain it. So apparently it's not just a continuing natural thaw.


Not true in the least. In fact proxies using CO2 as the main factor do not account for most of the past climate changes, but when using Milankovitch variations in such proxies, every climatic change in the past can be traced.

You should read what Professor Reid A. Bryson actually has to say on the matter.

The Northern Hemisphere temperature history as modeled using Milankovitch variations in solar radiation modulated by volcanic aerosols, using oceans and carbon dioxide only as minor dependent variables. BP means before 1955 CE.

This figure captures very well, the “little ice age”, the Medieval Warm Period, and other known variations of late BCE and early CE times. The drivers of this model are Milankovitch calculations (average for the entire Hemisphere) and the observed volcanic record described above. Carbon dioxide is treated as a very minor dependent variable. It is unlikely that a general circulation model which assumes a major role of carbon dioxide can duplicate this known climatic sequence.

climatesci.colorado.edu...



[edit on 7-5-2007 by Muaddib]
Pages: <<  8    9    10    11    12    13  >>    ^^TOP^^



Lake Vostok Antarctica: breakthrough imminent.
  Posted 10 days ago with 175 member flags
Sky Sounds 1/25/2012 Atlanta, GA Personal Video/Audio
  Posted 17 days ago with 146 member flags
Strange sounds warn us of incoming, and very soon...
  Posted 6 days ago with 134 member flags
Volcano in Iceland Erupting Alongside The Aurora Borealis (pics)
  Posted 6 days ago with 121 member flags
6 of the oldest trees from around the world.
  Posted 10 days ago with 108 member flags
West Coast USA: Pay Attention, Cascadia May Be Ready to Rupture
  Posted 7 days ago with 87 member flags
CONFIRMED: Global Warming \'Ended 15 Years Ago\'
  Posted 13 days ago with 75 member flags
Pictures from the Aurora lightshow
  Posted 18 days ago with 73 member flags