'No Sun link' to climate change

Originally posted by awake
The channel 4 programme was really hushed in the press over here in the UK - and it's not surprising!

The problem is that Blaine is wrong. It wasn't as if Lockwood & Frohlich went out and did a few experiments in response to Durkin's polemic, the data has been around for years. All L&F have done is put together all the recent data in one article for easy reference and clearly show that solar activity is actually falling whilst temps are increasing.

I thought Durkin and his mockumentery got a bit of attention in the UK newspapers, generally it revolved around his incorrect, misleading and obsolete data, and his misrepresentation of Carl Wunsch.

Durkin is on his fourth version now, it was shown down-under the other day, he just can't seem to get it right, it's difficult when the real data doesn't support his position. There is a cracking interview with him which shows how bad his argument is. Apparently, he thinks the solar activity of the last few decades is a moot point and can therefore be left off his graphs, heh. I wonder why...



[edit on 15-7-2007 by melatonin]

Wow, just goes to show you how biased and deceitful that side of the argument is.
He intentionally left out data that proves that global warming is an issue.

And the news anchor called him on it... lol...
This is all that needs to be said of Martin Durkin

Here's one I dont think I seen you guys link in:

sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov...
Two and a half solar cycles of Total Solar Irradiance (TSI), also called 'solar constant'. This composite, compiled by the VIRGO team at the Physikalisch-Meteorologisches Observatorium / World Radiation Center Davos, Switzerland, shows TSI as daily values plotted in different colors for the different originating experiments. The difference between the minima values is also indicated, together with amplitudes of the three cycles.
sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov...

[edit on 15-7-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Edit: Changed huge pic to a link

[edit on 17-7-2007 by intrepid]

This thread is nothing more than an argument. To believe that we have no effect on global climate change is just ignorant (lacks knowledge to understand). Sure the Sun plays a part and will no doubt continue to slowly raise temperatures ove another million years but we will have damaged the Gaia system before we have a chance to realize that. The problem we have it not just planet temperature but the way heat is radiated back off. If just the sun is responsible then where are all the hurricanes we should be seeing. As far as the NWO, "All your A**es already belong to them". You watch Fox pr CBS news and believe it, OWNED. By from Walmart or any or it's equivalents around the world with all the imported stuffed, OWNED. Face the real issue, millions will starve and or suffer hardships long before the oceans rise.

With regards to this 'temperature this and that', 'human produced C02 this, that and the other'.....

Oh Please!

When are people gonna see through all this thrashing it out stuff, and focus on the main hole in the 'official line' about CO2 level in the GW issue.

The main focus of the Durkin debate is that it is totally apparent that C02 levels FOLLOW temperature increases (no matter whether they go up or down or for how many years or whatever).

note: A point that the so-called journalist doesn't even ask about in that you tube interview - at least in the clip (which is cut at a crucial point as well).

I agree with Durkin in that it is not 'all done and dusted' in this debate. There ARE questions that need to be answered, and other contrary views to be considered. I am not saying that humans are not effecting the amount of C02 in the atmosphere - that's a given - my question is whether the EFFECTS of this are being grossly overplayed, and backed up by dodgy interpretations of data etc. for political ends.

Check out Al Gore for example - Chairman of the Board for a carbon offsets company - and buying through his own company?! What a joke!



[edit on 15/7/07 by awake]

Sun = Getting hottee until super nova.

Originally posted by awake
The main focus of the Durkin debate is that it is totally apparent that C02 levels FOLLOW temperature increases (no matter whether they go up or down or for how many years or whatever).

Not always, and not currently.

Ultimately, this doesn't speak to whether CO2 can influence climate. This lag issue is related to the glacial cycles, and no-one proposes that CO2 initiates them. However, it does contribute as a positive feedback.

ABE: the rest of the videos (pts. 2 & 3) are on youtube - click on the 'youtube' logo on the one above to find them easily.

[edit on 15-7-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
For those who are saying the sun is responsible.... How do you figure? Please back it up with something that actually defends your stance a little more than your opinion. Unless that is you're a climatologist or solar scientist. However, if you were, you'd probably back up your claims.

I don't think you're serious. But in case you are check these links.

Evidence of Sun heating up.
www.telegraph.co.uk.../news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml

biocab.org...

www.astro.ucla.edu...

Global warming on mars.
mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

news.nationalgeographic.com...

Global warming on Jupiter
www.nature.com...

Global warming on Pluto.
web.mit.edu...

www.space.com...

www.abc.net.au...

Full solar system heating up.
www.livescience.com...

Graph showing that historically CO2 levels are not correlated with temperature.
biocab.org...

The evidence is clear. The sun is heating up and other planets in the solar system are heating up with it.

What about UV Rays??





Isn't it funny how the poles experience higher temps than does the equator??
www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov...

Edit: Changed a huge pic to a link.



[edit on 17-7-2007 by intrepid]

Originally posted by Muaddib

This gave me a lot of food for thought. Look at the "Maunder Minimum" there where the sunspot activity was lowest around the end of the 1700's. This directly correlates to the "Little Ice Age" as confirmed in the northern hemisphere at exactly that time.

Here is what frustrates me: reasearch that I have found is still inconclusive regarding why sunspots have such an effect upon our climate when sunspots do NOT change the output of the sun.

One thing here, the scientists that did this research took only 1 core sample in Greenland and Antartica respectively. Those against this theory push this as inconclusive. However, if you do a google search on "Maunder Minimum" and "Global Warming", you find no real credibility with those that try to put this sunspot theory down.

Sorry if I reiterated anything above but cannot read all these posts.

[edit on 17/7/07 by Irentat]

[edit on 17/7/07 by Irentat]

The sunspot cycle is said to only change the power output by only .1%. However, the UV output is said to take more dramatic fluxuations, and the one thing I was reading last night (I think at newscientist.com) said it was something like up to a 100x potential variation. The damn browser 'stream' I had going crashed while I was deep into several tabs, by the time I made it to this post, and my right-click wasnt working by then because i needed to reboot, so I'll try to find it tonight because this appears to a critical dynamic.

Anyone have any UV output graphs??

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Anyone have any UV output graphs??

I was able to find this: www.windows.ucar.edu...=/sun/activity/solar_variation.html
Go to the "Smoothed Solar Spectral Irradiance" chart.

You are right on the UV but with additional reading it is not just UV variance but a relationship between UV and the additional magnetic force that sunspots produce allow the increase influence of UV.

This is what is amazing about Global Warming. We are sitting here discussing extreme nuances that are still not fully understood and yet "the debate is over" regarding the cause of global warming (it's man made).

But that maybe where your confusion is, no-one worth listening to proposes that human activity alone is causing the current warming trend. It's just a very significant factor.

As for the rest, it's almost as if people want to invoke a reverse Ockham's razor - complicated and far-fetched explanations with no evidence are most likely

This might help your research though:

Title: Detection and parameterization of variations in solar mid- and near-ultraviolet radiation (200-400 nm)
Author(s): Lean JL, Rottman GJ, Kyle HL, Woods TN, Hickey JR, Puga LC
Source: JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-ATMOSPHERES 102 (D25): 29939-29956 DEC 27 1997
Document Type: Article
Language: English
Cited References: 79 Times Cited: 86
Abstract: Nimbus 7 and Solar Stellar Irradiance Comparison Experiment (SOLSTICE) spacecraft measurements of solar irradiance both exhibit variability at mid (200-300 nm) and near (309-400 nm) ultraviolet (UV) wavelengths that are attributable to the Sun's 27-day solar rotation, even though instrument sensitivity drifts obscure longer-term, 11-year cycle variations, Competing influences of dark sunspots and bright faculae are the dominant causes of this rotational modulation, Parameterizations of these influences using a newly developed UV sunspot darkening index and the Mg index facular proxy replicate the rotational modulation detected in both the broadband Nimbus 7 filter data (275-360 nm and 300-410 nm) and in SOLSTICE l-nm spectra from 200 to 400 nm. Assuming that these rotational modulation influences scale linearly over the solar cycle, long-term databases of sunspot and global facular proxies permit estimation of Ii-year cycle amplitudes of the mid-and near-UV solar spectrum, unmeasured at wavelengths longward of 300 nm because of insufficient long-term repeatability (relative accuracy) of state-of-the-art solar radiometers at these wavelengths. Reconstructions of UV irradiances throughout the Ii-year solar cycle indicate variabilities of 0.173 W/m(2) (1.1%) in the integrated radiation from 200 to 300 nm and 0.24 W/m(2) (0.25%) in radiation from 300 to 400 nm, These two UV bands thus contribute about 13% and 18%, respectively, to the 1.54 W/m(2) (0.1%) total (spectrally integrated) radiative output solar cycle. The parameterizations allow customization of UV irradiance time series for specific wavelength bands required as inputs to general circulation model simulations of solar cycle forcing of global climate change, and have practical implications regarding the long-term repeatability required for future solar monitoring.

So, during normal solar cycles, variation in the UV region contributes about 13-18% of the 0.1% total variation of TSI.


[edit on 17-7-2007 by melatonin]

But that maybe where your confusion is, no-one worth listening to proposes that human activity alone is causing the current warming trend.

So then Al Gore isn't worth listening to? Apparently not... he doesn't even mention "water vapour" anywhere that I've noticed.


What is the source on that?

But what is the total effect of the UV on actual warming? Or do they not know, sort of like they still don't know (or wont say) the EXACT temp increase caused per unit of CO2?

So you don't find it interesting how the most warming occurs near the poles while the most UV penetrates there as well? There couldn't possibly be a connection there could there, or as Al Gore would say:

"did these ever fit together... the most ridiculous thing I ever heard".

[edit on 17-7-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
So then Al Gore isn't worth listening to? Apparently not... he doesn't even mention "water vapour" anywhere that I've noticed.

Water vapour acts purely as a feedback rather than forcing. Future projections of the impact of human activity do contain a significant feedback from Water vapour. I think it's something like a doubling of CO2 leads to ca. 1'C, with another 2'C from feedbacks (i.e. ca. 3'C total)

I don't know if Gore would say that human activity is the only cause. If he did, he is wrong.

What is the source on that?

Not sure what you want here. Article abstract or my blabbering?

But what is the total effect of the UV on actual warming? Or do they not know, sort of like they still don't know (or wont say) the EXACT temp increase caused per unit of CO2?

So you don't find it interesting how the most warming occurs near the poles while the most UV penetrates there as well?

UV is just another form of solar radiation. Measures such as TSI will include it. About 80% of solar radiation is 400nm to 1600nm, so UV is just a small proportion of it.

We know total TSI, we know UV not the major source of TSI. We are talking about less than 0.05% contribution of UV radiation variation of total TSI during solar cycles (c.f. 0.1% variation total TSI).

We also have a period 20 or so years where all indices of solar radiation are actually decreasing - solar flux, TSI, sunspots. To suggest that in some way solar UV is actually mediating warming during that period is a bit far-fetched.

There are other explanations as to why the poles are warming significantly, a good one is the covering of lovely reflecting surfaces with dirty human-sourced black carbon

[edit on 17-7-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
Water vapour acts purely as a feedback rather than forcing.

I don't believe that this is conclusive.

We also have a period 20 or so years where all indices of solar radiation are actually decreasing - solar flux, TSI, sunspots. To suggest that in some way solar UV is actually mediating warming during that period is a bit far-fetched.

I would not call it far fetched. This just ties into the fact that there are MANY different factors that have an impact upon global warming. For example, if it was only CO2, we would have a consistent year over year increase in global temperatures from the 1850's forward. This is not the case as can be seen from 1940-60 when global temps decreased. CO2 rose steadily during that time period.

Originally posted by Irentat
I would not call it far fetched. This just ties into the fact that there are MANY different factors that have an impact upon global warming. For example, if it was only CO2, we would have a consistent year over year increase in global temperatures from the 1850's forward. This is not the case as can be seen from 1940-60 when global temps decreased. CO2 rose steadily during that time period.

It is if solar radiation is actually decreasing

Most estimates suggest that solar forcing was the major cause of warming in the first half of the 20th. Global temps generally levelled off 40-70s, but that doesn't mean CO2 was not influencing climate, just that something was masking it. The same something (i.e. aerosols) are suggested to be still masking some of the warming currently.

As you say, climate is influenced by many different factors, but to deny that GHGs are important is to miss the obvious.

Originally posted by melatonin
Water vapour acts purely as a feedback rather than forcing. Future projections of the impact of human activity do contain a significant feedback from Water vapour. I think it's something like a doubling of CO2 leads to ca. 1'C, with another 2'C from feedbacks (i.e. ca. 3'C total)

So now we know for absolute certainty that vapor is a feedback and CO2 is a forcing? But we still dont know exacly how much CO2 "doubling" would actually cause? It's awful ironic that there isn't even a technical term for the effects of CO2, besides "doubling".

Not sure what you want here. Article abstract or my blabbering?

The link. You alrady provided the abstract and babbling.

UV is just another form of solar radiation.

Justanother form? So then we should treat CO2 with the same exact lacklusting, as it's just another greenhouse gas?

Measures such as TSI will include it. About 80% of radiation is 400nm to 1600nm, so UV is just a small proportion of it.

I'm not asking how much is there, you already answered more or less and I didnt dispute it, yet. I'm asking how relevent and effective what's actually there is. Sort of like when I asked over and over how effective CO2 actually is and I was answered with several different "doubling" estimates of varying tolerances.

We are talking about less than 0.02% contribution of UV radiation variation of total TSI during solar cycles (c.f. 0.1% variation total TSI).

We're also talking about the shortest wavelengths, which means the deepest pentrating.
www.bigbrandwaterfilters.com...

You're source forgot to mention the 100-200nm range. Have any data on that?

We also have a period 20 or so years where all indices of solar radiation are actually decreasing - solar flux, TSI, sunspots.

But what was the UV peaks during all of that? If we're going to talk about the Sun we need to know the data on the specific wavelengths involved otherwise we're just kicking around notions instead of hard data.

To suggest that in some way solar UV is actually mediating warming during that period is a bit far-fetched.

Kind of like suggesting that dozens of parts per millions of CO2 causes global catastrophe.




The most warming occurs at the poles, and sure enough that's specifically where the holes are allowing the UV to penetrate.

There are other explanations as to why the poles are warming significantly, a good one is the covering of lovely reflecting surfaces with dirty human-sourced black carbon

Got some photos of the soot covered poles?

Looks pretty white to me:


How come the Crater Glacier doesnt melt then?



I'd say these dynamics are crucial as we still have a solar system wide warming trend to account for, and UV would seem to the the common trend if it is on the upkick. Perhaps there's something going on with cosmic whatever that's making the UV more effective?


The data on why the poles warm more would be nice. Al Gore forgot to mention that, he left it at "I know it sounds ironic".

[edit on 17-7-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Edit: Changed a HUGE pic to a link, again.

[edit on 17-7-2007 by intrepid]

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
So now we know for absolute certainty that vapor is a feedback and CO2 is a forcing? But we still dont know exacly how much CO2 "doubling" would actually cause? It's awful ironic that there isn't even a technical term for the effects of CO2, besides "doubling".

Well, to be a forcing you would need to be able to force climate by WV alone. If I released 1000000 tonnes of water vapour tomorrow, what do you think would happen to it?

A doubling of CO2 is generally termed 'climate sensitivity'. I just tend not to use it as many people don't know the term.

The link. You alrady provided the abstract and babbling.

heh, the link for what?

Justanother form? So then we should treat CO2 with the same exact lacklusting, as it's just another greenhouse gas?

I suppose it is.

I'm not asking how much is there, you already answered more or less and I didnt dispute it, yet. I'm asking how relevent and effective what's actually there is. Sort of like when I asked over and over how effective CO2 actually is and I was answered with several different "doubling" estimates of varying tolerances.

Eh? You asked how effective CO2 is and I gave you a figure. Climate sensitivity is 3'C with a range of 2-4.5'C. The other way to put it is 0.75'C/wm-2 if you like that better, where a doubling of CO2 leads to 4wm-2.

We're also talking about the shortest wavelengths, which means the deepest pentrating.

But it's not really. Most UV is absorbed in the stratosphere.

You're source forgot to mention the 100-200nm range. Have any data on that?

Not sure, does the article say so?

But what was the UV peaks during all of that? If we're going to talk about the Sun we need to know the data on the specific wavelengths involved otherwise we're just kicking around notions instead of hard data.

Not really. TSI is total solar irradiance. That includes all the incident solar radiation impinging on the atmosphere, about 1367wm-2.

Kind of like suggesting that dozens of parts per millions of CO2 causes global catastrophe.

Yeah, it amazing that just 380ppm of CO2 can account for about 9-24% of the greenhouse effect, which accounts for about 20-30'C warming of the earth.

Got some photos of the soot covered poles?

Looks pretty white to me:

I guess that's that then...

Do you really think it would turn the ice black or something? Just a sprinkling is enough to change albedo.

JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 112, D11202, doi:10.1029/2006JD008003, 2007

Present-day climate forcing and response from black carbon in snow

Mark G. Flanner

Department of Earth System Science, University of California, Irvine, California, USA

Charles S. Zender

Department of Earth System Science, University of California, Irvine, California, USA

James T. Randerson

Department of Earth System Science, University of California, Irvine, California, USA

Philip J. Rasch

National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado, USA


Abstract
We apply our Snow, Ice, and Aerosol Radiative (SNICAR) model, coupled to a general circulation model with prognostic carbon aerosol transport, to improve understanding of climate forcing and response from black carbon (BC) in snow. Building on two previous studies, we account for interannually varying biomass burning BC emissions, snow aging, and aerosol scavenging by snow meltwater. We assess uncertainty in forcing estimates from these factors, as well as BC optical properties and snow cover fraction. BC emissions are the largest source of uncertainty, followed by snow aging. The rate of snow aging determines snowpack effective radius (r e), which directly controls snow reflectance and the magnitude of albedo change caused by BC. For a reasonable r e range, reflectance reduction from BC varies threefold. Inefficient meltwater scavenging keeps hydrophobic impurities near the surface during melt and enhances forcing. Applying biomass burning BC emission inventories for a strong (1998) and weak (2001) boreal fire year, we estimate global annual mean BC/snow surface radiative forcing from all sources (fossil fuel, biofuel, and biomass burning) of +0.054 (0.007–0.13) and +0.049 (0.007–0.12) W m−2, respectively. Snow forcing from only fossil fuel + biofuel sources is +0.043 W m−2 (forcing from only fossil fuels is +0.033 W m−2), suggesting that the anthropogenic contribution to total forcing is at least 80%. The 1998 global land and sea-ice snowpack absorbed 0.60 and 0.23 W m−2, respectively, because of direct BC/snow forcing. The forcing is maximum coincidentally with snowmelt onset, triggering strong snow-albedo feedback in local springtime. Consequently, the “efficacy” of BC/snow forcing is more than three times greater than forcing by CO2. The 1998 and 2001 land snowmelt rates north of 50°N are 28% and 19% greater in the month preceding maximum melt of control simulations without BC in snow. With climate feedbacks, global annual mean 2-meter air temperature warms 0.15 and 0.10°C, when BC is included in snow, whereas annual arctic warming is 1.61 and 0.50°C. Stronger high-latitude climate response in 1998 than 2001 is at least partially caused by boreal fires, which account for nearly all of the 35% biomass burning contribution to 1998 arctic forcing. Efficacy was anomalously large in this experiment, however, and more research is required to elucidate the role of boreal fires, which we suggest have maximum arctic BC/snow forcing potential during April–June. Model BC concentrations in snow agree reasonably well (r = 0.78) with a set of 23 observations from various locations, spanning nearly 4 orders of magnitude. We predict concentrations in excess of 1000 ng g−1 for snow in northeast China, enough to lower snow albedo by more than 0.13. The greatest instantaneous forcing is over the Tibetan Plateau, exceeding 20 W m−2 in some places during spring. These results indicate that snow darkening is an important component of carbon aerosol climate forcing.

[edit on 17-7-2007 by melatonin]

How do the poles melt when the temp doesnt even seem to rise above 0'C, during the summer?


www.arctic.noaa.gov...

What about how the average annual temp in Greenland stays below 0'C?


Couldn't the melting have something to do with something other than raw temperature increases?
www.worldclimatereport.com...

Seems that Alaska isn't experiencing the catastrophic temp increases either?

www.worldclimatereport.com...

Could there possibly be something different than raw temp involved in the infamous glacier declines?



Nah!