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.
Originally posted by melatonin
heh, the link for what?
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.
JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 112, D11202, doi:10.1029/2006JD008003, 2007
Present-day climate forcing and response from black carbon in snow
Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Originally posted by melatonin
heh, the link for what?
For the abstract you cited.
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?
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.
Maybe you should reread my sentence there...
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'.
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.
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)??
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.
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.
Originally posted by melatonin
Hopefully this puts the increasing solar-sourced UV business to rest...
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".
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.
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.
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
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???
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...
Source
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.
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.
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........