NASA Publishes Report on Link Between Sun and Climate

reply to post by unityemissions


Here's two:

Science Daily 2011

Physorg 2009

~Namaste

reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne


Incorrect.

There is absolutely NO mention of a rise in CO2 to 400ppm in 1942.

Try again.

Originally posted by mc_squared
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne

 

...regurgitating a bunch of denier mush that you quite clearly don't fully understand, but are apparently more than willing to stand behind anyway.

A bunch of denier mush? I quoted dozens of reputable sources that have been cited by hundreds of other reputable scientists and journals, and you come back with ONE paper that was refuted by ONE body of people who also advocate their own denier mush? Talk about hypocritical.... you didn't even read my whole post.

All of your sources are from ONE place, skeptical science, a known AGW proponent. While they do respectable work, they have long been known for being biased.

...
Where do I even start?

How about you don't?

First off your "signature thread" has already been posted on ATS. Here: Global Warming Violates the Basic Laws of Physics. You want to see a position truly get "destroyed", then go ahead and read it.

I'm fully aware of the post, the paper and the refuted paper, I provided them all in the post. Not only that, but I also don't take one area of science as the end-all-be-all of climate study, since physics is one very small aspect of it. My thread didn't address the single paper you mentioned as already being posted, it addressed SEVERAL aspects of the discussion.

How come you didn't mention that the original paper I cited was peer reviewed and published, but the refuted paper you mention was not? That it only cited 5 resources in it, and one of them was the ORIGINAL PAPER! And you accuse others of cherry-picking? Tisk tisk....

The whole idea is based on an embarassingly bad paper from someone who obviously has a piss-poor grasp of global warming and thermodynamics. First of all - the "greenhouse effect" has nothing to do with the Earth acting like an actual greenhouse. This is just an analogy.

You need to go back and read my entire post. I've addressed this and your interpretation is inaccurate. Most discussions use the greenhouse analogy incorrectly, and that was what my post was meant to discern. Instead of critical thinking, maybe you should try critical reading.

- I already left you a link before showing a first principles calculation on how the Greenhouse Effect makes the planet 33 degrees C warmer than it's supposed to be. This is despite the fact that ALL greenhouse gases make up less than ~1% of the atmosphere.

This is not from any fake paper either - it is from a homework problem. You know how I know? Because I solved these exact problems while earning my own degree in Physics.

You are a single physicist, and I am to believe your homework problem over dozens of experiments, professional research, journals, peer-reviewed papers, and believe that because you solved a homework problem in a single area of study, that it stands above every other area of science involved? Riiiiiight...

Meanwhile the rest of your points are well-known denier memes that have been peddled across the internet, but they are throughly debunked by people who actually take the time to look at the WHOLE story, instead of just the cherry-picked bits the contrarian shills want you to see:

CO2 is just a trace gas

Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions

CO2 lags temperature

All from a single biased source.

How about some real papers or a diverse group of scientists? You take one or two papers and toss them out, but fail to acknowledge the hundreds more that are out there?

But from reading your diatribe on CO2 it's apparent you don't really understand how heat trapping actually works, so why am I even bothering...

I have had enough of these pointless debates with you guys and it's such a waste of time.

Ditto. I don't understand how heat trapping really works? That's a bold statement considering you know nothing about me or what I know and are basing your conclusion in something as simple as a post on a conspiracy website.

After reading your entire length of dribble, you presented one single source (skepticalscience), and dismissed two papers, one of which you used a rebuttal that wasn't even published, and go on about how I'm cherry picking, don't know what I'm talking about, this is a waste of your time, etc.

Whether you want to believe this or not, I'd be willing to bet that several others, myself included, would find your responses to be pompous and egotistical. There are more constructive ways to contribute to the discussion and help others understand. I suggest you try them.

~Namaste

Click here for more information.

reply to post by unityemissions


My apologies Unityemissions, I thought you were asking for proof of the 600-700ppm measurements, not the 1942 spike.

Here is the paper, with the measurements that were taken and sources, and you can find the main reference to 1942 on page 5:

Source

I'd like to see someone dispute this paper, because as of now, it has not been. The paper can be found all over, nobody seems to be able to refute the data and there are over 60 other very reputable citations referencing it. It's just one piece of a very large puzzle, but it goes into great detail about the chemistry of CO2 and how it's been measured world-wide for a very long time, yet most people ignore those measurements in favor of ones that fit an agenda.

ETA: The above paper is not the original, it is a shorter summarized version of the more pertinent points. If you want the full original paper, you can find it HERE.

I have plenty more if this isn't enough....

~Namaste

From the NRC report. This figure puts the solar contribution in perspective:

Originally posted by SonOfTheLawOfOne
I'd like to see someone dispute this paper, because as of now, it has not been. The paper can be found all over, nobody seems to be able to refute the data ...

A quick search of the net finds a whole bunch of people refuting the data.

The consensus appears to be that the wildly fluctuating readings prior to 1957 are due to the difficulty of getting readings uncontaminated from local sources. Which is why Beck's graph shows different readings for the same moment in time.. eg: 1935 is both 320 and 370ppm.

And is why when readings started to be taken from out the middle of the ocean, (Mauna Loa, as opposed to places in Europe), they became miraculously more stable.

Now I dont have any particular hat to hang on this, but I'm always a bit doubtful of people who make a claim that 10 seconds of google searching can refute.

Originally posted by unityemissions
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne

 

I'm pretty sure that many people on this site can see that you're pretty much just talking out your bum.

Still waiting on that evidence that CO2 was 400ppm back in 1942.

Really? Hmmm.... OK Unity....

I've provided papers that support everything I've stated so far... have you?

So far, you haven't provided a single source of evidence to the contrary, but say I'm talking out of my bum?

It's pretty clear to me (and probably most people who devote time to studying the science behind our climate), that you haven't bothered to look at any of the hard data, and that's ok, but not if you're going to have a debate about it.

There are 3 schools of thought here....

- One that believes humans are the main cause of the planet getting hotter. What an arrogant position to take, to believe that we are so mighty that we can take out a whole planet or change the course of natural cycles that occur on a planetary scale. A lot of these people want to feel empowered, as though they can take individual responsibility for the problem and make a change, when in reality, their contributions means little to nothing. They tend to side with ANYONE who presents anything that puts the blame on humans, otherwise it takes away from their feeling of empowerment and makes them feel helpless. This has more to do with ego than science.

- One that believes humans could not possibly be the main cause of the warming and desire more concrete studies that agree with one another. Most of these people acknowledge that we need to take better care of the planet, but don't place blame on humans as the sole reason for climate change and ask for better answers. Placing blame on people is an easy way to force them to believe that they have to take responsibility for something, and there is nothing scientific about that, it is purely psychological. If you condition people to believe they are responsible, they will feel compelled to do "something"... that something tends to come from political and corporate entities who want to capitalize on your self-compelled reasoning to make a profit, and this is pretty clear to most people now after things like Climategate.

- One that doesn't care and probably never will.

I have nothing to gain here. I'm simply passing along information that I found, which correlates other information that I've found. The data I've collected over the years has more occurrences, more weight, and more support against AGW and has opened up a lot of other explanations for changes in climate. I approach this field of study with an open mind and consider all discussion points, including the AGW proponents, and there are valid points, but there is too much evidence over the last 24-36 months against it.

Again, don't shoot the messenger. I have plenty of sources to provide if needed, and am happy to hear other contributions if they are constructive and positive. Ad hominem attacks won't be tolerated.

~Namaste

Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by SonOfTheLawOfOne
I'd like to see someone dispute this paper, because as of now, it has not been. The paper can be found all over, nobody seems to be able to refute the data ...

A quick search of the net finds a whole bunch of people refuting the data.

The consensus appears to be that the wildly fluctuating readings prior to 1957 are due to the difficulty of getting readings uncontaminated from local sources. Which is why Beck's graph shows different readings for the same moment in time.. eg: 1935 is both 320 and 370ppm.

And is why when readings started to be taken from out the middle of the ocean, (Mauna Loa, as opposed to places in Europe), they became miraculously more stable.

Now I dont have any particular hat to hang on this, but I'm always a bit doubtful of people who make a claim that 10 seconds of google searching can refute.

Almost all of the more recent AGW citations and references ignore most data prior to 1957 anyway, included ice core data and geological data taken from core samples. They tend to focus on the last 50 years of data ONLY.

The refuting that I believe you are referring to is NOT against the basis of the paper, which is that chemical data from the last 180 years should not be ignored when considering climate change and CO2, however was ignored by the lead scientists in the IPCC (Keeling, Callendar and Arrhenius). That same principle holds true for weather stations and temperature readings across the globe. In some cases (as seen in the ClimateGate emails), the temps were taken from stations that were next to giant air conditioners, in enclosed rooms, on top of black asphalt, etc. and was the basis for excluding a TON of the data that was used. I can't disagree with that, however, I do disagree with dismissing all of the data over a portion that has a tendency to change over time with technology, education and more precise measuring tools.

The issue here is that TENS OF THOUSANDS of measurements from tons of different sources were used, a majority of which were direct measurements from scientists at the time using instruments that they had available. By dismissing their data, which is based on scientific principles still in use today for current measurements, you are dismissing today's data as well.

Also, please provide some sources. I keep providing them, and get replies back that claim disputes against my sources, but no sources provided.

~Namaste

reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne


I have to say, I am definitely in school of thought No.2, and that was even before Climategate.

Click here for more information.

PLEASE PEOPLE

READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE VIA NASA (linked by OP)

And do not believe that this study somehow conflicts with the theory of Global Warming whatsoever.

I feel like I need to head this off, because there will be many who will either read the study or not and TOTALLY misinterpret its findings in order to bend the science to some denier myths.

I read the article when it hit the NASA website, and it reiterates that these findings do not conflict with man as the vast contributor to global warming.

Also, to the OP- the sun is CENTRAL to Earth's climate, always has been. However, this does not mean it is the sole driver of all climate change/anomalies. Current global warming (and its subsequent consequence of changing climates) is caused overwhelmingly by human-induced increases in atmospheric CO2.

I quote:

In recent years, researchers have considered the possibility that the sun plays a role in global warming. After all, the sun is the main source of heat for our planet. The NRC report suggests, however, that the influence of solar variability is more regional than global. The Pacific region is only one example.

These findings show that EUV output affects regional areas AND rainfall more so/rather than temperatures. Keep in mind, global warming is GLOBAL, not regional.

Caspar Amman of NCAR noted in the report that "When Earth's radiative balance is altered, as in the case of a change in solar cycle forcing, not all locations are affected equally. The equatorial central Pacific is generally cooler, the runoff from rivers in Peru is reduced, and drier conditions affect the western USA."

Raymond Bradley of UMass, who has studied historical records of solar activity imprinted by radioisotopes in tree rings and ice cores, says that regional rainfall seems to be more affected than temperature. "If there is indeed a solar effect on climate, it is manifested by changes in general circulation rather than in a direct temperature signal." This fits in with the conclusion of the IPCC and previous NRC reports that solar variability is NOT the cause of global warming over the last 50 years.

reply to post by CranialSponge


Wrong. Just wrong. Try again.

reply to post by CthulhuMythos


lol... whenever someone mentions the word "Monckton" and uses it as if he's a trustworthy expert, I instantly think they're very very new to this.

Monckton is a proven liar, fabricator, and BSer. His stance on global warming is absurd and laughable, don't let his bug-eyed lectures seriously fool you.

**ATTENTION**

We are not in the business of insulting members.

Further violations will be rewarded with a posting ban.

Thank You.

~Tenth
ATS Mod

Originally posted by SonOfTheLawOfOne
reply to post by mc_squared

 

You are about 10 years behind on your science.

You should look at the link in my signature, as there are several papers that have been published all over the world that completely destroy your position.

I didn't write this thread to present any of that, but if you are genuinely interested in a non-biased examination of the science, I suggest you look through the sources I provided.

Also, your video of the guy showing the CO2 and the candle is so incredible flawed, it's silly to even watch.

CO2 being pumped into a chamber, demonstrates NOTHING when the gas is not under atmospheric pressure and the amount of CO2 being pumped out of the tank is FAR greater than the amount that exists in the atmosphere. Under such pressure, CO2 behaves differently and is dispersed among other gases which interact with it in different ways than at the surface. Chemists and Physicists have worked together to show that CO2 under atmospheric pressure works to COOL, not heat.

How can you SERIOUSLY sit there and even THINK of purporting that CO2 isn't central to trapping atmospheric heat (i.e. infrared radiation bouncing back from the surface of the Earth). You have allowed yourself to but UTTERLY DELUDED by quack-science and denial-induced/feel-good politics. Just because you hate Al Gore for god knows what reason, doesn't mean that the ACTUAL SCIENTISTS WHO STUDY THIS FOR A LIVING are in on some hoax. They aren't, I would bet you millions of dollars, I seriously would.

CO2 is responsible for 80% of the initial forcing mechanism of the greenhouse effect/global warming:

www.nasa.gov...
and
www.esrl.noaa.gov...


^^^THIS has been demonstrated repeatedly by the actual science, NOT your denier nonsense.

Also, since AGW proponents love to quote the IPCC, this is from the IPCC Report (Figure 3.1, p. 188.):

Carbon Dioxide Source: Annual Million Metric Tons / % of Total
- Natural: 770,000 / 97.1%
- Human Made: 23,100 / 2.9%
- Total: 793,100 / 100%
- Absorption: 781,400 / 98.5%

The amount of CO2 in the Earth's entire atmosphere is approximately .03% for ALL sources, and of that, 2.9% is man-made. If you do the math on that, it is .0087 percent of all the inert gases in our atmosphere derived from man-made sources. Scientists have shown that .0087% of the atmosphere is NOT going to change temperature, and with that low a presence, it would be almost physically impossible with a total emissivity of CO2 at 1 atm (atmospheric pressure) for that amount of CO2 at that amount of emissivity to effect the surface temperature in any measurable way.

Ok, you'll need to read this very carefully because it contains specific language that you need to focus on to understand:

THE ATMOSPHERE DOES NOT WARM ITSELF ACCORDING TO CO2 AS A PERCENTAGE OF ITSELF. IT WARMS ITSELF IN PROPORTION TO TOTAL GREENHOUSE GASES. In other words... in TRACE amounts (as compared to the entirety of the atmosphere's composition), CO2 can induce GREAT amounts of heat trapping. If there was no CO2 in our atmosphere, the planet would be 60 degrees cooler.

Here is a full report from a very reputable chemist who demonstrates the behavior of CO2 and explains it very elaborately, which nobody in the field of climate science has disputed - Source.

I strongly suggest checking out the more recent science. The Vostok ice cores alone, blow the entire AGW theory out simply because it shows warming came BEFORE CO2 increases, at a time when humans weren't present on Earth. (as far as we know)

The Vostok ice cores absolutely BOLSTER the theory of Global Warming, and the actual scientists who drill and study these cores will tell you so. Stop your blatant and stupid lies about this, it's childish.

As for that ridiculous study you linked, Nasif Nahle is NOT A REPUTABLE SCIENTIST. He is not a Climatologist and is a nobody in the science community. Not only that, but he's obviously a quack-scientist denier found on a cornucopia of ridiculous denier propaganda sites, but NO reputable scientific institutions. Yeah... critical thinking is needed here... and you're in desperate need of some.

then how do you explain how the lower levels of the atmophere are heating at different rates then the upper levels ?

Please everyone, understand that I am open to all discussions about this and am not discounting any facts, whether for or against AGW.

I brought this to the attention of others because of the way the discussion on climate change is finally being handled, which is to get ALL disciplines of science together in a single place at one point in time to present facts, opinions and collaborate for future studies. Part of the workshop was to figure out how to standardize data across so many disciplines, a key problem in different groups working together, which is a HUGE step forward. So many posters so far have completely disregarded this and look only to bash me for their personal views on climate change.

I have not shared my personal views. I have shared what other professionals and scientific bodies have presented in the way of evidence, facts, suppositions, opinions, discussions, etc. I feel as though I've been very polite in my responses with exception of a few snarky comments to defend myself personally.

Science is always changing. What we "know" today, will probably be much different in 100 years. Just a few years ago, almost everyone believed that humans were going to destroy the planet based on what was later found out to be inaccurate data. The summary of the workshop details the areas in which several disciplines agreed, and I never once claimed that it was for or against global warming, only that more consideration is being given to the effects of the sun rather than focusing on CO2.

All I'm asking is that if you want to argue the facts, do it with the people creating them, not the ones delivering them. If you want to have a civil discussion about those facts, their authenticity or what role they play in climate change discussions, I'm more than happy to do so and provide plenty of documentation.... and I respectfully ask that you please do the same.

I've presented several sources that have been refuted on an anecdotal basis or as a matter of opinion, and when I've asked for sources, none are provided. If I have read 500 papers that agree with one position, and 50 that agree with the other, and you post a link to a blog, or a website with no clear journal references or factual citations, you should be prepared to be met with healthy skepticism. Citing a single paper or two from one discipline of science is not only narrow-minded, it is not enough to convince me (or anyone else) that the hundreds I've read are wrong.

It's rare that two scientists agree on everything, why do you all expect this to be the case with something as large as climate change? You're GOING to find differences... you're going to find studies one year to be 100% "truth", that are further experimented on later to find out that they are not, this is the nature of science, to prove or disprove. If you are so biased that you can't accept input from other sources to consider, you probably don't need to join the discussion.

~Namaste

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
then how do you explain how the lower levels of the atmophere are heating at different rates then the upper levels ?

There are a multitude of factors which dictate how energy is transferred within/between the layers of our atmosphere. Gravity, gas composition, gas density, proximity to water vapor/high-energy particles from space, etc. etc. can all affect energy transfer/differences within our atmosphere. You'd have to research the basics of each layer to gain a better understanding. You can start here:

www.srh.noaa.gov...
and
en.wikipedia.org...
and
www.physicalgeography.net...