It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

'No Sun link' to climate change

page: 6
4
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 17 2007 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
heh, the link for what?


For the abstract you cited.


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.


Ranges of estimates.

Those terms still don't address the effectiveness of parts per unit. Wasn't what I was asking for, in either case.

In the case of the UV I was asking for graphs showing specifically the UV output. The total irradience isn't what I was asking for. I repeat, are there charts showing the specific UV output over any duration of time?

Need some UV specifics. Kind of like need some CO2 specifics. I guess we have to settle for some ballpark ranges on CO2 efectiveness, but do we even have a ballpark range on UV wavelength?






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.


Well since microwaves penetrate futher than radio waves I assumed that shorter UV rays would do the same. My one chart above seems to contradict that.

Still need specifics on how much UV output has been occuring and how effective UV waves are at affecting temp, and add to that at affecting snow/ice.




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

Not sure, does the article say so?


Maybe you should reread my sentence there...




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.


Again, and again, I'm not concerned with the total irradiance. I want numbers on the UV range. Without these specifics it's absurd to proclaim they've solved the Sun 'problem'.




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

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


So are there coherent, specific, and unshakable numbers in all of that? Does that include the polar regions, or just Tibet / China (near civilizaton and the jet streams)??

[edit on 17-7-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]




posted on Jul, 17 2007 @ 05:46 PM
link   
You know actually the 100-200nm range is actually significant here because in the polar regions there is hardly any ozone to block them out, right?



posted on Jul, 17 2007 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Originally posted by melatonin
heh, the link for what?


For the abstract you cited.


See that was easy enough. It's actually from the WoK bibliographic system, so I can't post a link to that. I could hunt down the abstract through the journal citation, but so could you.


Ranges of estimates.

Those terms still don't address the effectiveness of parts per unit. Wasn't what I was asking for, in either case.


parts per unit of what? You need to be specific. If you are talking about parts per unit as a function of ppm CO2, then I s'pose you could divide 3'C by 280ppm and get 'C/ppm, but what's the point? It's certainly not normal notation.


In the case of the UV I was asking for graphs showing specifically the UV output. The total irradience isn't what I was asking for. I repeat, are there charts showing the specific UV output over any duration of time?

Need some UV specifics. Kind of like need some CO2 specifics. I guess we have to settle for some ballpark ranges on CO2 efectiveness, but do we even have a ballpark range on UV wavelength?


I'm not sure that it is very interesting, most of the study of UV focuses on its effects in the stratosphere, as that is where it has the greatest impact. A miniscule amount actually makes it to ground, although it might not feel like it on a hot day, heh. Be thankful for ozone.

As for the ozone hole at the poles, solar radiation has to pass through at a much shallower angle, thus much more radiation is actually absorbed as it travels through the atmosphere. I think it's something like 500% more UV hitting the equator compared to more polar regions. Don't have links, just something I know. Sure you could find it somewhere.




Well since microwaves penetrate futher than radio waves I assumed that shorter UV rays would do the same. My one chart above seems to contradict that.

Still need specifics on how much UV output has been occuring and how effective UV waves are at affecting temp, and add to that at affecting snow/ice.


But UV doesn't. Most is absorbed as it travels through the middle atmosphere, particularly by ozone.


Maybe you should reread my sentence there...


Well, I guess I don't have any numbers. I could probably find some, but it takes research effort, and I'm not sure if it's worth my time.


Again, and again, I'm not concerned with the total irradiance. I want numbers on the UV range. Without these specifics it's absurd to proclaim they've solved the Sun 'problem'.


Look, you seem to want this much more convoluted than it need be. A certain amount of radiation hits the earth. The amount of this radiation has been decreasing for just over 20 years. Most solar UV radiation is absorbed by the middle atmsophere.

Thus, even if UV radiation was increasing a fraction, the fall in other regions of solar radiation would reduce any impact. Furthermore, most of the increasing UV energy would be absorbed before it could hit the lower atmosphere. As we know the stratosphere is cooling, it seems that there is no evidence of increased absorption of UV in that area of the atmosphere, which would be one index of such an increase.

If you want the possible proposed influence of UV on climate, it is through heating of the stratopshere which can influence tropospheric climate. E.g. from Haigh (2001):


Some previous model studies (8-11) of the effects of short-term (11-year cycle) solar variability on climate have demonstrated the importance of the accurate representation of the middle atmosphere. Because variations in solar irradiance at ultraviolet (UV) wavelengths are one to two orders of magnitude larger than in the visible, the direct thermal signal of solar variability is much larger in the middle atmosphere. By keeping sea surface temperatures fixed, these modeling studies were largely able to separate the stratospheric from any surface-induced effects. All found an enhanced tropospheric response when stratospheric ozone was allowed to increase in response to the greater UV. This suggests that the stratosphere may play an important role in determining tropospheric climate.

Science 7 December 2001: Vol. 294. no. 5549, pp. 2109 - 2111



So are there coherent, specific, and unshakable numbers in all of that? Does that include the polar regions, or just Tibet / China (near civilizaton and the jet streams)??


It focuses on 23 relevant regions ranging from china/tibet to polar regions. No figures are unshakable. All are estimates. That's the way it is. The authors suggest about 30% to 90% of arctic warming over that last 200 years may be due to black carbon.

[edit on 17-7-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Jul, 17 2007 @ 07:18 PM
link   
Hopefully this puts the increasing solar-sourced UV business to rest...


Can solar variability explain global warming since 1970?
S. K. Solanki and N. A. Krivova
Max Planck Institute for Aeronomy, Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany
Received 29 October 2002; revised 27 January 2003; accepted 4 March 2003; published 21 May 2003.

[1] The magnitude of the Sun’s influence on climate has been a subject of intense debate. Estimates of this magnitude are generally based on assumptions regarding the forcing due to solar irradiance variations and climate modeling. This approach suffers from uncertainties that are difficult to estimate. Such uncertainties are introduced because the employed models may not include important but complex processes or mechanisms or may treat these in too simplified a manner. Here we take a more empirical approach. We employ time series of the most relevant solar quantities, the total and UV irradiance between 1856 and 1999 and the cosmic rays flux between 1868 and 1999. The time series are constructed using direct measurements wherever possible and reconstructions based on models and proxies at earlier times. These time series are compared with the climate record for the period 1856 to 1970. The solar records are scaled such that statistically the solar contribution to climate is as large as possible in this period. Under this assumption we repeat the comparison but now including the period 1970–1999. This comparison shows without requiring any recourse to modeling that since roughly 1970 the solar influence on climate (through the channels considered here) cannot have been dominant. In particular, the Sun cannot have contributed more than 30% to the steep temperature increase that has taken place since then, irrespective of which of the three considered channels is the dominant one determining Sun-climate interactions: tropospheric heating caused by changes in total solar irradiance, stratospheric chemistry influenced by changes in the solar UV spectrum, or cloud coverage affected by the cosmic ray flux.


From the text:


The 11-year average of the UV irradiance record
between 1856 and 1999 has a form very similar to the total
irradiance, except that the relative change is larger for the
UV irradiance. In particular, the 11-year mean is flat since
1975, in agreement with the composite of Frohlich and
Lean [1998a] for the total irradiance.




[edit on 17-7-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Jul, 17 2007 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
Hopefully this puts the increasing solar-sourced UV business to rest...


That was very interesting reading and appreciate their work. However, I would like to understand who's model they used and determine if this model is the same model used to determine that global warming is man-made (wait, how many models are there and which ones are valid?). Also, they did give a huge amount of credibility to solar effects ("up to" 30% in my mind is HUGE) but I missed the other factors making up the other 70%. I guess Edward Lorenz and his butterfly effect will not play any part in these factors.

[edit on 17/7/07 by Irentat]



posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 03:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
We don't even fully understand how the Sun, or many other cosmological objects work.. so to state with absolute certainty that the Sun is not responsible for "Global Warming" seems like a very big stretch, pushing on propaganda IMHO.

Im just going to go out on a limb and say what i always say... global warming is just a politcal arm of the NWO, no different from the war of terror, war on drugs.. etc...

Its based on bad "science" and "intelligence".

You could say exactly the same thing about the opposite point of view however that upsets the skeptics. Those armchair experts as opposed to the scientists working on the data.....hmmm Now there's a concept and half. Get some people with technical ability to analyse the situation and determine what is happeing. Oh , hang on a minute they already have. Unfortunately the conclusion does not match skeptics armchair view and therfore those scientists must be wrong and/or have an agenda.........Jesus christ talk about paranoid delusions and rampant denial !!!!!!!!!

If an analysis does not match your belief that means two things:
1. The analysis was wrong
2. Your belief was wrong.
Now it is obvious that the number of studies being done that shows the cause of GW being man made has increased almost daily! This means that number 1 above is diminshing to the point where it no longer exists. This means that number 2 is what is happening.



posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 04:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by apc
Well, we should be at or about a solar minimum.





But it is interesting to note the apparent upward trend.

What I find most damning to the humans-dun-it argument is the fact that there is apparent warming on Mars. Storm activity on Jupiter is becoming increasingly spectacular. Neptune's moons are warming. And even Pluto, which is currently moving away from the sun and should be getting colder, is warming up.

Now short of a giant hot spot in the galaxy that we could be currently passing through, I really only see one common element of all these observations... the sun.






My sentiments exactly. The tripe that we have been dealt surrounding the environment is simply a scam to generate further wealth for the few, at the expense of the many. There comes a time when the world just needs to give its' collective head a shake, look up from the TV set and say, Al Gore, STFU!



posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 05:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Irentat
That was very interesting reading and appreciate their work. However, I would like to understand who's model they used and determine if this model is the same model used to determine that global warming is man-made (wait, how many models are there and which ones are valid?). Also, they did give a huge amount of credibility to solar effects ("up to" 30% in my mind is HUGE) but I missed the other factors making up the other 70%. I guess Edward Lorenz and his butterfly effect will not play any part in these factors.


They are using models and proxy data for the solar influence before observable data was available. This shows solar influences have increased since Maunder minimum. So unless you want to question this increase, no point really.

The observable measurements (i.e. last few decades) show that solar activity had levelled off in this case, however, even newer data shows it is now falling.

As for the other 70%, I don't think this article focuses on that. It's hard for a scientist to write about every influence in a paper about solar effects. Also, the 30% is the absolute maximum contribution, according to Solanki & Krivova. It's actually estimated to be quite a bit less.

Another study at the extreme puts solar variability at about 25-35%. But about 10-15% is readily accepted, however, some think it is even less than that



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 02:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
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



So it looks like you've help answer part of the mystery of why the glaciers seem to be melting. How much "BC" does man contribute again compared o things like volcanos & forest fires? Does anyone even know how much BC or CO2 volcanos actually put out?



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 03:08 AM
link   
So if CO2 is drving the temp, because it's an absolute scientific fact that it obviously does, then what were temps doing dropping during parts of the 20th Century?






posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 09:36 AM
link   
I'm sure there will be estimates of black carbon sources around, I know Ramanathan suggests that about 75% of black carbon at high atmospheric altitudes (as it is also an aerosol) in the US is from Asia. Globally, black carbon is suggested to have a forcing of about +0.1 to 0.2Wm-2.

Which is not much. But it likely has greater effects in particular regions.

For the 40-60s period of cooling/stasis, what you need to remember is that all the forcings in the graph you have are competing influences. Thus, CO2 never really shown large increases in forcing until the later part of the 20th, sulphates have been forcing cooling for most of that period, and solar forcing levelled off/fell. So, taking all these influences together, cooling was predominate.

As you can see from the forcings plot, sulphates are estimated to be still masking a significant proportion of potential GHG warming.

[edit on 19-7-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 01:21 PM
link   
I dunno, but it sure looks like sulfates were dropping starting at about the same time that temp started decreasing. I suppose there's always problems with the data itself???



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
I dunno, but it sure looks like sulfates were dropping starting at about the same time that temp started decreasing. I suppose there's always problems with the data itself???


Oh, what that figure shows is the actual forcing of each component. Thus, the decline in sulphate forcing shows an increasing cooling effect. Increase the amount of sulphates, increase cooling.

[edit on 19-7-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 02:37 PM
link   
The Real Cause of Global Warming (maximum emmisions activity 23/12/2012)

After reading this article Scientists Now Know: We're Not From Here! and learning that it seems our
sun will be crossing the ecliptic which will be aligned also with the milky way galaxy at around 2012 just like the Mayan calender portrays.

Here is a full view of the sky at noon on December 21st, 2012 A.D. The band of the Milky Way can be seen stretching from the lower right to the upper left. The more or less vertical dotted line indicates the Galactic Equator. The planets can be seen tracing a roughly horizontal path through the chart, indicating the ecliptic. The sun, quite strikingly, is dead center in the Sacred Tree. Let's look closer.


image source: edj.net...


The field is now reduced from a horizon-to-horizon view to a field of 30 degrees. Part of the constellation of Sagittarius can be seen in the lower left portion of the chart. The planet in the middle-to-upper left portion of the chart is Pluto, which rarely travels directly along the ecliptic. The center square near the sun is placed on the Trifid Nebula (M20). According to the star chart I used, this nebula is very close to the crossing point of Galactic Equator and ecliptic. However, a small star (4 Sgr) is even closer; it sits right on the Galactic Equator and its declination is only 00 .08' below the ecliptic. Let's look closer at these features.

image source: edj.net...



This entails our Sun will be at maximum solar capacity which leads me to believe that this could be the cause to our so called global warming.

This video also explains the Sun's Solar Maxim cycle when the Sun will go into maximum missions activity. Also more evidence leading to our ever so concerning Global Warming problems.


Since I have no idea what the Vid # is maybe a admin can fix my link or explain to me where a Vid # is, I would appreciate it but anyways the Vid can be found here.Sign of the End!

It seems that this is the real reason for global warming since higher energy levels of the Milky Way are almost certain to cause our Sun to burn hotter and emit higher energies. Temperatures have been seen to rise on virtually all the planets in our system. This seems quite apart from any local phenomenon like greenhouse gases etc.



Other changes happening in our system

The "marriage" of our birth galaxy with our new adopted Milky Way galaxy is causing energy shifts that are obvious just about everywhere. Here are some changes being watched by scientists:

* A growth of dark spots on Pluto.

* Reporting of auroras on Saturn.

* Reporting of Uranus and Neptune polar shifts (They are magnetically conjugate planets), and the abrupt large-scale growth of Uranus' magnetosphere intensity.

* A change in light intensity and light spot dynamics on Neptune.

* The doubling of the magnetic field intensity on Jupiter (based upon 1992 data), and a series of new states and processes observed on this planet as an aftermath of a series of explosions in July 1994 [caused by "Comet" SL-9]. That is, a relaxation of a plasmoid train which excited the Jovian magnetosphere, thus inducing excessive plasma generation and it's release in the same manner as Solar coronal holes inducing an appearance of radiation belt brightening in decimeter band (13.2 and 36 cm), and the appearance of large auroral anomalies and a change of the Jupiter - Io system of currents.

Update Note: A stream of ionized hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, etc. is being directed to Jupiter from the volcanic areas of Io through a one million amperes flux tube. It is affecting the character of Jupiter's magnetic process and intensifying it's plasma genesis.[Z.I.Vselennaya "Earth and Universe" N3, 1997 plo-9 by NASA data]

* A series of Martian atmosphere transformations increasing its biosphere quality. In particularly, a cloudy growth in the equator area and an unusual growth of ozone concentration.

Update Note: Mars Surveyor Satellite encountered an atmospheric density double that projected by NASA upon entering a Mars orbit. This greater density bent one of the solar array arms beyond the full and open stop. This combination of events has delayed the beginning of the scheduled photo mission for one year.

* A first stage atmosphere generation on the Moon, where a growing natrium atmosphere is detected that reaches 9,000 km in height.

* Significant physical, chemical and optical changes observed on Venus; an inversion of dark and light spots detected for the first time, and a sharp decrease of sulfur-containing gases in its atmosphere.

* A Change in the Quality of Interplanetary Space Towards an Increase in Its Interplanetary and Solar-Planetary Transmitting Properties.
When speaking of new energetic and material qualities of interplanetary space, we must first point out the increase of the interplanetary domains energetic charge, and level of material saturation. This change of the typical mean state of interplanetary space has two main causes:

* The supply/inflow of matter from interstellar space. (Radiation material, ionized elements, and combinations.)

* The after effects of Solar Cycle 22 activity, especially as a result of fast coronal mass ejection's [CME's] of magnetized solar plasmas.

What does it all mean?
We of the overarching Sagittarius Dwarf Elliptical Galaxy have finally come down next to, and even with the massively powerful spiral armed equatorial plane of the Milky Way Galaxy.

In our movement through space, our Earth has now fully begun to respond to the more powerful galactic energies and electro-gravitational bias of the massive Milky Way. We have reached the higher energy equatorial disc region of the massive spiral arm. We have now been "adopted" by a new system, a stronger and more powerful system, and we can expect changes on almost every level of energy.

Whatever these changes are, they are all part of the natural birth, death, rebirth and transformation of the cosmos. As our knowledge of the universe grows, we cannot but understand how much we do not understand. Such is life.
Source



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 02:49 PM
link   

It seems that this is the real reason for global warming since higher energy levels of the Milky Way are almost certain to cause our Sun to burn hotter and emit higher energies. Temperatures have been seen to rise on virtually all the planets in our system. This seems quite apart from any local phenomenon like greenhouse gases etc.


Well, I think we have two issues here.

1. The sun is actually decreasing in activity according to measures of solar flux, solar irradiance, and sunspots.

2. Only a fraction of planets have actually been shown to be warming to any degree.

[edit on 19-7-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Jul, 21 2007 @ 06:37 AM
link   
While you look at the data. Look at the history of these researcher. Have they put out research on global warming before.
Are they old global warming proponents.
Do they have a history of claiming global warming is man caused.
Do other researcher back there finding.
Is this research peer reviewed.

Are they believers that will keep coming up with research proving global warming no matter what anyone finds.

THERE ARE A LARGE NUMBER OF GLOBAL WARMING PROPONENTS THAT WILL COME UP WITH "RESEARCH" JUST TO PROVE THE NONBELIEVERS WRONG.

There are a lot of treehuggers that hold research positions that will tow the party line no matter what.

That is the biggest problem with the whole global warming debate is telling what is real research. and what is bogus. or what is done by researchers with a hidden agenda.

ie future research grants, ego, are long time treehuggers, ect.ect.ect.



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 03:18 AM
link   
Lets be honest here folks. Those who don't believe in man made warming never will, until it is too late. The folks I feel sorry for are those whose lives will be and in some parts of the world already are, ruined by the consequences.

Yes yes yes skeptics I know its all "natural". I just dare you to say that face to face with these folks. One day you will have to face millions of people wanting to know why we didn't do something when we knew we could. I'll give them your name........



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by malcr
Lets be honest here folks. Those who don't believe in man made warming never will, until it is too late. The folks I feel sorry for are those whose lives will be and in some parts of the world already are, ruined by the consequences.

Yes yes yes skeptics I know its all "natural". I just dare you to say that face to face with these folks. One day you will have to face millions of people wanting to know why we didn't do something when we knew we could. I'll give them your name........




Climate Change is a natural occurrence, and there is nothing given into evidence that backs up the Man Made Causes. Do humans contribute to Carbon emissions - Yes. Are they the root cause of Climate Change - No.

The sun is playing havoc with our environment, but, here's a newsflash for you. It has for over 4 billion years. Climate Change happens. So does other stuff. Al Gore means to separate you from your cash, and keep you beholden to a pipe dream. Grow a pair, and read up on it. Not just the pablum that he, and Green Peace want to force feed you.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 12:32 AM
link   
The Sun has been affecting climate change.
I would say that since we have been in the peak of a 14 year cycle the effects such as El Nino and resulting stronger hurricances are proof.

Thing may get better soon.

Keep looking up,
Shawn Kalin




top topics



 
4
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join