QUOTE (Trippy+)
I'm not sure of the exact mechanisms of Carbonate replacement, I know that Carbonate Volcanism is a potential source, and is something that happens terrestrially.
Of course, that very same volcanism would also have been adding more SO2 to the atmosphere, thus resulting in a more or less zero-sum forcing. Point being, the cloud cover of Venus is most likely a permanent feature of the planet, and the current temperature of Venus' atmosphere is the steady-state temperature under that cloud cover -- not a result of some "fossil" baking that should now be cooling off due to a brand-new cloud cover that conveniently emerged only when we started observing.
QUOTE
So we'll just ignore the fact that up until the ESA's Venus Express, the last misison to Venus was the Magellan probe in the 90s, and that all of the papers that I was citing were as a direct result of observations made by Magellan?
No, but what we shouldn't ignore is that many more papers based on those datasets, and additional papers based on more detailed simulations and analyses, have been published since then. For example, some papers supporting your claims have been published last year; why rely on 15 year old stuff when you have more modern sources?
Of course, the point remains that those claiming ongoing volcanism on Venus, or asserting that Venus must nonetheless have an active tectonic system (even if one hidden from view) are still considered outside of the mainstream. They may turn out to be right in the end, of course -- there is always that chance -- but right now they are in conflict with the general consensus.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
So we'll just ignore the fact that up until the ESA's Venus Express, the last misison to Venus was the Magellan probe in the 90s, and that all of the papers that I was citing were as a direct result of observations made by Magellan? |
No, but what we shouldn't ignore is that many more papers based on those datasets, and additional papers based on more detailed simulations and analyses, have been published since then. For example, some papers supporting your claims have been published last year; why rely on 15 year old stuff when you have more modern sources?
Of course, the point remains that those claiming ongoing volcanism on Venus, or asserting that Venus must nonetheless have an active tectonic system (even if one hidden from view) are still considered outside of the mainstream. They may turn out to be right in the end, of course -- there is always that chance -- but right now they are in conflict with the general consensus.
Nope, if you take the time to look up the interview for yourself, or his published work, you'll find that his findings, afaik, take into account air circulation and water circulation, and he refers to them in other parts of the interview.
All his stuff you've cited so far, had no mention of circulation. And the reporter (in the quotes you provided) at least made it sound, repeatedly, as if circulation was never ever taken into account to begin with.
QUOTE
Could it possibly be that the earth takes (some) time to respond to changes in input? No, that would be too obvious wouldn't it.
Obviously, you hadn't even bothered to look at the graph. I'd link it directly into the post to make things completely effortless for you, but unfortunately this forum system doesn't like SVG images for some strange reason.
If you HAD looked at the graph, you would notice that the anti-correlation pattern occurs over a time scale of CENTURIES -- not over periods of 3-5 years. Go ahead, take a look; I double-dare you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sunspot...ure-10000yr.svg
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Could it possibly be that the earth takes (some) time to respond to changes in input? No, that would be too obvious wouldn't it. |
Obviously, you hadn't even bothered to look at the graph. I'd link it directly into the post to make things completely effortless for you, but unfortunately this forum system doesn't like SVG images for some strange reason.
If you HAD looked at the graph, you would notice that the anti-correlation pattern occurs over a time scale of CENTURIES -- not over periods of 3-5 years. Go ahead, take a look; I double-dare you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sunspot...ure-10000yr.svg
I'm all for reducing the amount of CO2 that we're dumping into the atmosphere, but we should be prepared for it to make less difference then some people seem to be expecting it to be, and that it may take longer then some people anticipate that it will.
None of which (even if it were true) makes absolutely any difference to what we MUST do, AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. So what's the point of even bothering to mention it (never mind, repeatedly and forcefully?)
QUOTE
Oh, and for the record, here's a graph which illustrates the point that I was trying to make:
...
As you can see, the solar activity has been increasing since the 1970(ish) peak.
For the record, I can't make heads or tails of those graphs. They are shrunk to the point of being garbled. I have no idea what's even represented on either axis, or what the graphs' captions say, or what are the numbers on the x axis of the 3-graph combo. Not that I don't trust you, but it's not exactly helpful when such key details are unreadable in supposed illustrations that prove a point.
So no... actually, I can't see.
Also, I'm still interested in hearing your explanation of how current record temperatures are attributable to the solar cycle (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c..._Comparison.png) and thus cannot possibly be reversed by halting CO2 pollution (and we are doomed to a solar-forced meltdown.)
I'm interested in you explaining how solar activity "has been increasing since the 1970(ish) peak", when the following graph clearly shows that solar activity has remained pretty much constant (and even decreased slightly) since the 1970's:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Solar-cycle-data.png
I'd also like your interpretation of how the random solar activity curve on this graph could possibly be interpreted as correlated with (or, indeed, as a leading indicator of) the global average temperature curve, in this graph:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Temp-sunspot-co2.svg
OKay, first off? I did look at your link, and I noticed two main things.
First off, there was so much detail on it that I found it virtually impossible to make mutch of anything out of it.
Second of all, I noticed that Wikipedia seems to differ from most of the information I have seen virtually everywhere else.
The first grapH:
http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/s...te_vs_spots.gif
Is a graph of total solar irradiance, measured by satelite observations, versus the number of sunspots.
The second graph:
http://yesserver.space.swri.edu/yes2003/sunspotaverages.gif
Is a sunspot record dating back to the 1700's.
Here's another graph of the same data:
http://casswww.ucsd.edu/public/tutorial/im...nspot_cycle.gif
And here's a rather useful graph with some trendlines added into it. I'm not quite sure what regression was used to calculate the trendlines, but for now I'm inclined to assume least squares.
http://www.trendlines.ca/armagh%20vs%20temp.gif
First off, there was so much detail on it that I found it virtually impossible to make mutch of anything out of it.
Second of all, I noticed that Wikipedia seems to differ from most of the information I have seen virtually everywhere else.
The first grapH:
http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/s...te_vs_spots.gif
Is a graph of total solar irradiance, measured by satelite observations, versus the number of sunspots.
The second graph:
http://yesserver.space.swri.edu/yes2003/sunspotaverages.gif
Is a sunspot record dating back to the 1700's.
Here's another graph of the same data:
http://casswww.ucsd.edu/public/tutorial/im...nspot_cycle.gif
And here's a rather useful graph with some trendlines added into it. I'm not quite sure what regression was used to calculate the trendlines, but for now I'm inclined to assume least squares.
http://www.trendlines.ca/armagh%20vs%20temp.gif
QUOTE (Pink Elephant+)
why rely on 15 year old stuff when you have more modern sources?
Why? Because I'm lazy and have better things to do with my time then trying to track papers down to prove a point when all anybody else can seem to do is point and wave their arms.
The older papers are more widely disseminated, and therefore easier to find.
Pink Elephant, I'm about done with this conversation. You keep trying to put word sin my mouth, and frankly it's annoying the hell out of me.
I have never said that Solar activity is solely responsible for the observed warming.
I have never ventured to guess that Anthropogenic influences are stronger then solar forcing, or v.v.
I have never even said that when push comes to shove that increased cloud cover will counter act the GHG effects of water.
And yet you seem to be insisting that I am stating all of these things.
If the best you can come up with is misqoutations, and personal assaults, I'm done with this conversation with you.
Why? Because I'm lazy and have better things to do with my time then trying to track papers down to prove a point when all anybody else can seem to do is point and wave their arms.
The older papers are more widely disseminated, and therefore easier to find.
Pink Elephant, I'm about done with this conversation. You keep trying to put word sin my mouth, and frankly it's annoying the hell out of me.
I have never said that Solar activity is solely responsible for the observed warming.
I have never ventured to guess that Anthropogenic influences are stronger then solar forcing, or v.v.
I have never even said that when push comes to shove that increased cloud cover will counter act the GHG effects of water.
And yet you seem to be insisting that I am stating all of these things.
If the best you can come up with is misqoutations, and personal assaults, I'm done with this conversation with you.
The one thing I rarely see discussed is what is going to happen when we cut CO2 emissions and begin pumping billions of tons of H2O vapor into the atmosphere every year with those fancy Hydrogen vehicles people will be using over the next few decades....
H2O vapor is a greenhouse gas, too, folks, which can contribute up to between 60% and 70% the greenhouse effect on a given day--although you wouldn't think so with all the environmentalistic agenda both focusing on CO2 (adding 25% of the total greenhouse effect in the presence of H2O vapor) and ignoring H2O vapor so much. I'd suggest that the more correct approach might be to engage in further study and research over the next few years before pushing something like hydrogen technology onto the world, something that might, just might have far more devastating effects than current CO2 production levels.
Just a thought. Mars is warming, too--and the martian atmosphere is over 95% CO2, notwithstanding it is thinner than our atmosphere overall. The polar icecaps on Mars are melting away much like those at our poles. The difference is that Mars is further away from the sun, has less H2O vapor in the air than does earth (Mars has 0.03% atmospheric H2O vapor as opposed to earth's variable 1%-4%), and does not have humans contributing CH4 and CO2 emissions to the Martian atmosphere. Yet, coinciding with our own atmospheric warming is that of Mars.
What are the odds of that happening on both planets by mere chance alone? We know that wind cycles on Mars are driven by solar activity, which solar activity is increasing, and this also is true of earth's wind cycles. As wind patterns change, temperatures also change in various regions, which can lead to a chain reaction. We have been seeing increases in wind driven events over the last few years and have been so quick to blame so-called man-made global warming.
H2O vapor is a greenhouse gas, too, folks, which can contribute up to between 60% and 70% the greenhouse effect on a given day--although you wouldn't think so with all the environmentalistic agenda both focusing on CO2 (adding 25% of the total greenhouse effect in the presence of H2O vapor) and ignoring H2O vapor so much. I'd suggest that the more correct approach might be to engage in further study and research over the next few years before pushing something like hydrogen technology onto the world, something that might, just might have far more devastating effects than current CO2 production levels.
Just a thought. Mars is warming, too--and the martian atmosphere is over 95% CO2, notwithstanding it is thinner than our atmosphere overall. The polar icecaps on Mars are melting away much like those at our poles. The difference is that Mars is further away from the sun, has less H2O vapor in the air than does earth (Mars has 0.03% atmospheric H2O vapor as opposed to earth's variable 1%-4%), and does not have humans contributing CH4 and CO2 emissions to the Martian atmosphere. Yet, coinciding with our own atmospheric warming is that of Mars.
What are the odds of that happening on both planets by mere chance alone? We know that wind cycles on Mars are driven by solar activity, which solar activity is increasing, and this also is true of earth's wind cycles. As wind patterns change, temperatures also change in various regions, which can lead to a chain reaction. We have been seeing increases in wind driven events over the last few years and have been so quick to blame so-called man-made global warming.
In reply to Pink Elephant's
The sun is at its highest activity in 8000 years. (See attached paper.)
The sun is at its highest activity in 8000 years. (See attached paper.)
...the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8000 years ago.
QUOTE
No kidding? I'm looking at the graph below, and failing to see how activity at Solar maxima today is much different from what it was in 1850...
The sun is at its highest activity in 8000 years. (See attached paper.)
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| No kidding? I'm looking at the graph below, and failing to see how activity at Solar maxima today is much different from what it was in 1850... |
The sun is at its highest activity in 8000 years. (See attached paper.)
...the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8000 years ago.
http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/nature02995.pdf
The solar large scale magnetic field has more than doubled in the 20th century. (See attached paper.) "Doubling of the Sun’s Coronal Magnetic Field in the last 100 years."
http://www.wdc.rl.ac.uk/wdcc1/papers/nature.html
There is direct satellite data and earthshine data to support the assertion that the majority of the 20 th century warming is due to 20th century solar changes that modulate the intensity and the amount of Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCR) that strike the earth's atmosphere. Higher intensity and greater number of GCR more low level clouds, less GCR less low clouds. In addition to GCR, the high speed solar winds, that have occurred in the last two solar cycles are energizing the global electric circuit which removes cloud forming ions through the process of "electroscavenging".
Less low level clouds warming, more low level clouds cooling. Based on the earthshine data Enric Palle calculated that from the 1993 to 2001 period, the reduction in the planet's albedo is equivalent to a forcing of 7.5 W/m2 which three times the estimated Green House Gas (GHG) warming of 2.5 W/m2.
The solar large scale magnetic field has more than doubled in the 20th century. (See attached paper.) "Doubling of the Sun’s Coronal Magnetic Field in the last 100 years."
http://www.wdc.rl.ac.uk/wdcc1/papers/nature.html
QUOTE
The solar wind is an extended ionized gas of very high electrical conductivity, and therefore drags some magnetic flux out of the Sun to fill the heliosphere with a weak interplanetary magnetic field1,2. Magnetic reconnection—the merging of oppositely directed magnetic fields—between the interplanetary field and the Earth's magnetic field allows energy from the solar wind to enter the near-Earth environment. The Sun's properties, such as its luminosity, are related to its magnetic field, although the connections are still not well understood3,4. Moreover, changes in the heliospheric magnetic field have been linked with changes in total cloud cover over the Earth, which may influence global climate. Here we show that measurements of the near-Earth interplanetary magnetic field reveal that the total magnetic flux leaving the Sun has risen by a factor of 1.4 since 1964: surrogate measurements of the interplanetary magnetic field indicate that the increase since 1901 has been by a factor of 2.3. This increase may be related to chaotic changes in the dynamo that generates the solar magnetic field. We do not yet know quantitatively how such changes will influence the global environment.
There is direct satellite data and earthshine data to support the assertion that the majority of the 20 th century warming is due to 20th century solar changes that modulate the intensity and the amount of Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCR) that strike the earth's atmosphere. Higher intensity and greater number of GCR more low level clouds, less GCR less low clouds. In addition to GCR, the high speed solar winds, that have occurred in the last two solar cycles are energizing the global electric circuit which removes cloud forming ions through the process of "electroscavenging".
Less low level clouds warming, more low level clouds cooling. Based on the earthshine data Enric Palle calculated that from the 1993 to 2001 period, the reduction in the planet's albedo is equivalent to a forcing of 7.5 W/m2 which three times the estimated Green House Gas (GHG) warming of 2.5 W/m2.
Hi Pink Elephant. I would be interested in your comments.
The cloud modulation mechanism appears to explain the glacial/interglacial cycle as well as the semi periodic abrupt climate events that occurred during both the glacial and interglacial periods, in addition to explaining the 20th century warming.
The following is a link to a paper that provides data and an explanation for the mechanisms, to support that GCR hypothesis.
From Kirby, Mangini, and Muller's 2004 Paper "The Glacial Cycles and Cosmic Rays"
"The Glacial Cycles and Cosmic Rays"
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0407005
The cloud modulation mechanism appears to explain the glacial/interglacial cycle as well as the semi periodic abrupt climate events that occurred during both the glacial and interglacial periods, in addition to explaining the 20th century warming.
The following is a link to a paper that provides data and an explanation for the mechanisms, to support that GCR hypothesis.
From Kirby, Mangini, and Muller's 2004 Paper "The Glacial Cycles and Cosmic Rays"
QUOTE
The cause of the glacial cycles remains a mystery. The origins is widely accepted to be astronomical ...(however) ... high precision paleoclimatic data revealed serious discrepancies with the Milankovitch model that fundamental challenges its validity and re-open the question of what causes the glacial cycles. We propose that the ice ages are not driven by insolation cycles but by cosmic ray changes ..."
"The Glacial Cycles and Cosmic Rays"
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0407005
QUOTE (William Astley+May 19 2007, 08:08 AM)
The cloud modulation mechanism appears to explain the glacial/interglacial cycle as well as the semi periodic abrupt climate events that occurred during both the glacial and interglacial periods, in addition to explaining the 20th century warming.
I think "Appears to Explain" is a tad optimistic.
From their paper:
If a causal mechanism is confirmed, this could provide an effective initial step by which an energetically-weak GCR signal (which is roughly equivalent to that of starlight) is amplified into a significant climate forcing. Physical mechanisms connecting GCRs with clouds and thunderstorms have been proposed [16, 53], including: a) ion-induced cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) production [15, 54],
B ) electrofreezing of supercooled liquid droplets [14], c) direct effects on thunderstorm electrical processes, and d) influences on the global electrical circuit. However most of the associated microphysical processes have yet to be investigated experimentally and quantified.
Which is why the authors conclude:
Although the evidence is sufficient to propose the GCR model for the glacial cycles, it is clearly insufficient to establish it.
Arthur
I think "Appears to Explain" is a tad optimistic.
From their paper:
If a causal mechanism is confirmed, this could provide an effective initial step by which an energetically-weak GCR signal (which is roughly equivalent to that of starlight) is amplified into a significant climate forcing. Physical mechanisms connecting GCRs with clouds and thunderstorms have been proposed [16, 53], including: a) ion-induced cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) production [15, 54],
B ) electrofreezing of supercooled liquid droplets [14], c) direct effects on thunderstorm electrical processes, and d) influences on the global electrical circuit. However most of the associated microphysical processes have yet to be investigated experimentally and quantified.
Which is why the authors conclude:
Although the evidence is sufficient to propose the GCR model for the glacial cycles, it is clearly insufficient to establish it.
Arthur
In reply to adoucette
Perhaps appears to explain should be changed to does explain. The following is justification for that statement.
Adoucette, look at the whole problem: Glacial/interglacial cycle as well as the semi periodic abrupt climate changes. It is obvious what is need to explain the paleoclimatic record is a semi periodic strong climate forcing function. Can orbital insolation changes explain the paleoclimatic record? No, not a chance.
What is the structure of the paleoclimatic change puzzle?
1) First things first, is there data to support the cloud mechanism. Yes.
The following is data that supports the hypothesis that cloud levels are modulated by changes in the solar cycle and geomagnetic field changes, and low level cloud changes and increased irradiance were the cause of the 20th century warming.
Attached is a link to Enric Palle’s (2003) paper that provides data and analysis that supports at a 99.5% confidence level that low level planetary cloud cover, tracks changes in Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCR) 1983 to 1993. For the period 1993 to 2001 planetary cloud cover continues to track GCR changes except for a persistent reduction in cloud cover. The reduction in cloud cover is believed to be due to the “electroscavenging” process.
See copy of Palle's satellite paper. (See figure 2. Note low level clouds are reduced by minus 0.065% per year, starting in about 1993.)
http://solar.njit.edu/preprints/palle1264.pdf
Comment: Planetary cloud cover is believed to modulated by two processes: 1)Changes in the number and strength of the Galactic Cosmic Rays that strike the earth's atmosphere and create cloud forming ions (The geomagnetic and Solar large scale magnetic fields, partially block GCR) and 2)Changes to the earth's global electric circuit which removes cloud forming ions. Data and analysis indicates that changes to the global electric circuit are caused by high speed solar winds, that are caused by solar coronal holes that started to appear near the solar equator 1993 and on.)
Some climatologists stated that the satellite analysis of cloud cover could be incorrect. (There was a paper published that ridiculed Svensmark’s paper which had analyzed the satellite data.) Palle's paper re-examined the satellite data, using a different analytical technique than Svensmark had used, which addressed others complaints concerning Svensmark's paper. Palle’s analysis of the satellite data confirmed Svensmark’s original finding. As climatologists were still skeptical, Palle measured the change in planetary cloud cover using a completely different observation technique.
Attached below is a link to a second Palle paper that provides data from observing the shine of the earth on the moon, to measure planetary albedo. The earthshine data, confirms that planetary cloud cover tracks GCR and that planetary cloud cover was reduced in the 1993 to 2001 period, which completely supports the satellite data and analysis.
http://solar.njit.edu/preprints/palle1266.pdf
Palle’s earthshine analysis found that the 1994 to 2001 reduction in cloud cover warmed the planet by 7.5 W/m2 +/- 2.4 W/m2 which is three times greater than the total estimated greenhouse gas estimated warming for the 20th century.
From Palle's earthshine data paper:
Perhaps appears to explain should be changed to does explain. The following is justification for that statement.
Adoucette, look at the whole problem: Glacial/interglacial cycle as well as the semi periodic abrupt climate changes. It is obvious what is need to explain the paleoclimatic record is a semi periodic strong climate forcing function. Can orbital insolation changes explain the paleoclimatic record? No, not a chance.
What is the structure of the paleoclimatic change puzzle?
1) First things first, is there data to support the cloud mechanism. Yes.
The following is data that supports the hypothesis that cloud levels are modulated by changes in the solar cycle and geomagnetic field changes, and low level cloud changes and increased irradiance were the cause of the 20th century warming.
Attached is a link to Enric Palle’s (2003) paper that provides data and analysis that supports at a 99.5% confidence level that low level planetary cloud cover, tracks changes in Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCR) 1983 to 1993. For the period 1993 to 2001 planetary cloud cover continues to track GCR changes except for a persistent reduction in cloud cover. The reduction in cloud cover is believed to be due to the “electroscavenging” process.
See copy of Palle's satellite paper. (See figure 2. Note low level clouds are reduced by minus 0.065% per year, starting in about 1993.)
http://solar.njit.edu/preprints/palle1264.pdf
Comment: Planetary cloud cover is believed to modulated by two processes: 1)Changes in the number and strength of the Galactic Cosmic Rays that strike the earth's atmosphere and create cloud forming ions (The geomagnetic and Solar large scale magnetic fields, partially block GCR) and 2)Changes to the earth's global electric circuit which removes cloud forming ions. Data and analysis indicates that changes to the global electric circuit are caused by high speed solar winds, that are caused by solar coronal holes that started to appear near the solar equator 1993 and on.)
Some climatologists stated that the satellite analysis of cloud cover could be incorrect. (There was a paper published that ridiculed Svensmark’s paper which had analyzed the satellite data.) Palle's paper re-examined the satellite data, using a different analytical technique than Svensmark had used, which addressed others complaints concerning Svensmark's paper. Palle’s analysis of the satellite data confirmed Svensmark’s original finding. As climatologists were still skeptical, Palle measured the change in planetary cloud cover using a completely different observation technique.
Attached below is a link to a second Palle paper that provides data from observing the shine of the earth on the moon, to measure planetary albedo. The earthshine data, confirms that planetary cloud cover tracks GCR and that planetary cloud cover was reduced in the 1993 to 2001 period, which completely supports the satellite data and analysis.
http://solar.njit.edu/preprints/palle1266.pdf
Palle’s earthshine analysis found that the 1994 to 2001 reduction in cloud cover warmed the planet by 7.5 W/m2 +/- 2.4 W/m2 which is three times greater than the total estimated greenhouse gas estimated warming for the 20th century.
From Palle's earthshine data paper:
Our observations of the earthshine take the ratio of the earthshine to moonshine, so they are insensitive variations of the solar irradiance. The 5 +/-2% change in our observed reflectance translates to …. Solar and terrestrial changes are in phase and contribute to a greater power going into the climate system at activity maximum. However, the effect of the albedo is more than an order of magnitude greater. Our simulations suggest a surface average forcing at the top of the atmosphere, coming only from changes in the albedo from 1994/1995 to 1999/2001, of 2.7 +/- 1.4 W/m2 Pall e et al., 2003), while observations give 7.5 +/-2.4 W/m2. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 1995) argues for a comparably sized 2.4 W/m2 increase in forcing, which is attributed to greenhouse gas forcing since 1850.
Still, whether the Earth’s reflectance varies with the solar cycle is a matter of controversy, but regardless of its origin, if it were real, such a change in the net sunlight reaching the Earth would be very significant for the climate system.
QUOTE
I think "Appears to Explain" is a tad optimistic.
From their paper: "If a causal mechanism is confirmed, this could provide an effective initial step by which an energetically-weak GCR signal"
From their paper: "If a causal mechanism is confirmed, this could provide an effective initial step by which an energetically-weak GCR signal"
Perhaps appears to explain should be changed to does explain. The following is justification for that statement.
Adoucette, look at the whole problem: Glacial/interglacial cycle as well as the semi periodic abrupt climate changes. It is obvious what is need to explain the paleoclimatic record is a semi periodic strong climate forcing function. Can orbital insolation changes explain the paleoclimatic record? No, not a chance.
What is the structure of the paleoclimatic change puzzle?
1) First things first, is there data to support the cloud mechanism. Yes.
The following is data that supports the hypothesis that cloud levels are modulated by changes in the solar cycle and geomagnetic field changes, and low level cloud changes and increased irradiance were the cause of the 20th century warming.
Attached is a link to Enric Palle’s (2003) paper that provides data and analysis that supports at a 99.5% confidence level that low level planetary cloud cover, tracks changes in Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCR) 1983 to 1993. For the period 1993 to 2001 planetary cloud cover continues to track GCR changes except for a persistent reduction in cloud cover. The reduction in cloud cover is believed to be due to the “electroscavenging” process.
See copy of Palle's satellite paper. (See figure 2. Note low level clouds are reduced by minus 0.065% per year, starting in about 1993.)
http://solar.njit.edu/preprints/palle1264.pdf
Comment: Planetary cloud cover is believed to modulated by two processes: 1)Changes in the number and strength of the Galactic Cosmic Rays that strike the earth's atmosphere and create cloud forming ions (The geomagnetic and Solar large scale magnetic fields, partially block GCR) and 2)Changes to the earth's global electric circuit which removes cloud forming ions. Data and analysis indicates that changes to the global electric circuit are caused by high speed solar winds, that are caused by solar coronal holes that started to appear near the solar equator 1993 and on.)
Some climatologists stated that the satellite analysis of cloud cover could be incorrect. (There was a paper published that ridiculed Svensmark’s paper which had analyzed the satellite data.) Palle's paper re-examined the satellite data, using a different analytical technique than Svensmark had used, which addressed others complaints concerning Svensmark's paper. Palle’s analysis of the satellite data confirmed Svensmark’s original finding. As climatologists were still skeptical, Palle measured the change in planetary cloud cover using a completely different observation technique.
Attached below is a link to a second Palle paper that provides data from observing the shine of the earth on the moon, to measure planetary albedo. The earthshine data, confirms that planetary cloud cover tracks GCR and that planetary cloud cover was reduced in the 1993 to 2001 period, which completely supports the satellite data and analysis.
http://solar.njit.edu/preprints/palle1266.pdf
Palle’s earthshine analysis found that the 1994 to 2001 reduction in cloud cover warmed the planet by 7.5 W/m2 +/- 2.4 W/m2 which is three times greater than the total estimated greenhouse gas estimated warming for the 20th century.
From Palle's earthshine data paper:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I think "Appears to Explain" is a tad optimistic. From their paper: "If a causal mechanism is confirmed, this could provide an effective initial step by which an energetically-weak GCR signal" |
Perhaps appears to explain should be changed to does explain. The following is justification for that statement.
Adoucette, look at the whole problem: Glacial/interglacial cycle as well as the semi periodic abrupt climate changes. It is obvious what is need to explain the paleoclimatic record is a semi periodic strong climate forcing function. Can orbital insolation changes explain the paleoclimatic record? No, not a chance.
What is the structure of the paleoclimatic change puzzle?
1) First things first, is there data to support the cloud mechanism. Yes.
The following is data that supports the hypothesis that cloud levels are modulated by changes in the solar cycle and geomagnetic field changes, and low level cloud changes and increased irradiance were the cause of the 20th century warming.
Attached is a link to Enric Palle’s (2003) paper that provides data and analysis that supports at a 99.5% confidence level that low level planetary cloud cover, tracks changes in Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCR) 1983 to 1993. For the period 1993 to 2001 planetary cloud cover continues to track GCR changes except for a persistent reduction in cloud cover. The reduction in cloud cover is believed to be due to the “electroscavenging” process.
See copy of Palle's satellite paper. (See figure 2. Note low level clouds are reduced by minus 0.065% per year, starting in about 1993.)
http://solar.njit.edu/preprints/palle1264.pdf
Comment: Planetary cloud cover is believed to modulated by two processes: 1)Changes in the number and strength of the Galactic Cosmic Rays that strike the earth's atmosphere and create cloud forming ions (The geomagnetic and Solar large scale magnetic fields, partially block GCR) and 2)Changes to the earth's global electric circuit which removes cloud forming ions. Data and analysis indicates that changes to the global electric circuit are caused by high speed solar winds, that are caused by solar coronal holes that started to appear near the solar equator 1993 and on.)
Some climatologists stated that the satellite analysis of cloud cover could be incorrect. (There was a paper published that ridiculed Svensmark’s paper which had analyzed the satellite data.) Palle's paper re-examined the satellite data, using a different analytical technique than Svensmark had used, which addressed others complaints concerning Svensmark's paper. Palle’s analysis of the satellite data confirmed Svensmark’s original finding. As climatologists were still skeptical, Palle measured the change in planetary cloud cover using a completely different observation technique.
Attached below is a link to a second Palle paper that provides data from observing the shine of the earth on the moon, to measure planetary albedo. The earthshine data, confirms that planetary cloud cover tracks GCR and that planetary cloud cover was reduced in the 1993 to 2001 period, which completely supports the satellite data and analysis.
http://solar.njit.edu/preprints/palle1266.pdf
Palle’s earthshine analysis found that the 1994 to 2001 reduction in cloud cover warmed the planet by 7.5 W/m2 +/- 2.4 W/m2 which is three times greater than the total estimated greenhouse gas estimated warming for the 20th century.
From Palle's earthshine data paper:
Our observations of the earthshine take the ratio of the earthshine to moonshine, so they are insensitive variations of the solar irradiance. The 5 +/-2% change in our observed reflectance translates to …. Solar and terrestrial changes are in phase and contribute to a greater power going into the climate system at activity maximum. However, the effect of the albedo is more than an order of magnitude greater. Our simulations suggest a surface average forcing at the top of the atmosphere, coming only from changes in the albedo from 1994/1995 to 1999/2001, of 2.7 +/- 1.4 W/m2 Pall e et al., 2003), while observations give 7.5 +/-2.4 W/m2. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 1995) argues for a comparably sized 2.4 W/m2 increase in forcing, which is attributed to greenhouse gas forcing since 1850.
Still, whether the Earth’s reflectance varies with the solar cycle is a matter of controversy, but regardless of its origin, if it were real, such a change in the net sunlight reaching the Earth would be very significant for the climate system.
Arthur,
There is recent data and analysis that cannot possibly be explained by Milankovitch’s hypothesis – Planetary orbital changes, which affect seasonal planetary insolation, which is the driver of the glacial/interglacial cycle.
For example attached is a paper that provides data which indicates that a planet wide climate forcing function is simultaneously affecting both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. The data and analysis shows that the Northern and Southern hemisphere glacial and interglacial cycle is synchronized. (i.e. The Northern hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere cool and warm at the same time.) The Milankovitch orbital change mechanism is not capable of simultaneously affecting both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. The insolation changes due to the orbital changes are asymmetrical comparing their affect on the Northern as opposed to the South Hemisphere. i.e. If summers are warmer in the Northern hemisphere due to orbital changes, summers are colder in the Southern hemisphere.
Comments:
1) Another problem with orbital changes as a driver for the glacial/interglacial cycle is that the obital insolation changes are seasonally symmetrical, in each hemisphere. A cycle orbital period that makes Northern hemisphere's summers warmer, must and will make Northern Hemisphere winters relatively colder. The total insolation received by each hemisphere per year does not change.
2) The heat capacity of the oceans is roughly 1000 times that of the atmosphere. As the planet is 70% covered by water the ocean will and does smooth out symmetrical insolation changes, in a hemisphere.
http://www.news.wisc.edu/9557.html
The following are quotes from the link that discusses the paper and quotes from the author’s paper.
There is recent data and analysis that cannot possibly be explained by Milankovitch’s hypothesis – Planetary orbital changes, which affect seasonal planetary insolation, which is the driver of the glacial/interglacial cycle.
For example attached is a paper that provides data which indicates that a planet wide climate forcing function is simultaneously affecting both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. The data and analysis shows that the Northern and Southern hemisphere glacial and interglacial cycle is synchronized. (i.e. The Northern hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere cool and warm at the same time.) The Milankovitch orbital change mechanism is not capable of simultaneously affecting both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. The insolation changes due to the orbital changes are asymmetrical comparing their affect on the Northern as opposed to the South Hemisphere. i.e. If summers are warmer in the Northern hemisphere due to orbital changes, summers are colder in the Southern hemisphere.
Comments:
1) Another problem with orbital changes as a driver for the glacial/interglacial cycle is that the obital insolation changes are seasonally symmetrical, in each hemisphere. A cycle orbital period that makes Northern hemisphere's summers warmer, must and will make Northern Hemisphere winters relatively colder. The total insolation received by each hemisphere per year does not change.
2) The heat capacity of the oceans is roughly 1000 times that of the atmosphere. As the planet is 70% covered by water the ocean will and does smooth out symmetrical insolation changes, in a hemisphere.
http://www.news.wisc.edu/9557.html
The following are quotes from the link that discusses the paper and quotes from the author’s paper.
QUOTE
What's more, the group found evidence that the last major glacial period prior to the last ice age, from a time dating to 150,000 years ago, mirrored North American climate for the same period.
"During the last two times in Earth's history when glaciation occurred in North America, the Andes also had major glacial periods," says Kaplan.
The results address a major debate in the scientific community, according to Singer and Kaplan, because they seem to undermine a widely held idea that global redistribution of heat through the oceans is the primary mechanism that drove major climate shifts of the past. The implications of the new work, say the authors of the study, support a different hypothesis: that rapid cooling of the Earth's atmosphere synchronized climate change around the globe during each of the last two glacial epochs.
"Because the Earth is oriented in space in such a way that the hemispheres are out of phase in terms of the amount of solar radiation they receive, it is surprising to find that the climate in the Southern Hemisphere cooled off repeatedly during a period when it received its largest dose of solar radiation," says Singer. "Moreover, this rapid synchronization of atmospheric temperature between the polar hemispheres appears to have occurred during both of the last major ice ages that gripped the Earth."
"During the last two times in Earth's history when glaciation occurred in North America, the Andes also had major glacial periods," says Kaplan.
The results address a major debate in the scientific community, according to Singer and Kaplan, because they seem to undermine a widely held idea that global redistribution of heat through the oceans is the primary mechanism that drove major climate shifts of the past. The implications of the new work, say the authors of the study, support a different hypothesis: that rapid cooling of the Earth's atmosphere synchronized climate change around the globe during each of the last two glacial epochs.
"Because the Earth is oriented in space in such a way that the hemispheres are out of phase in terms of the amount of solar radiation they receive, it is surprising to find that the climate in the Southern Hemisphere cooled off repeatedly during a period when it received its largest dose of solar radiation," says Singer. "Moreover, this rapid synchronization of atmospheric temperature between the polar hemispheres appears to have occurred during both of the last major ice ages that gripped the Earth."
William, I am not arguing that the paper is not potenially correct, but arguing that the Milankovitch cycles DON'T explain the observed climatic changes does not necessarily imply that changes in GCRs do.
BOTH occur.
BOTH have an impact.
EXACTLY what those impacts are is MUCH harder to determine.
As we have seen there are MULTIPLE cyclic effects on the earth's weather and new cyclic impacts are being discovered.
Further seasonal changes are NOT necessarily symetrical because changes in albedo created because of conditions in one season can carry over to affect the next season.
Further changes in cycles can vary depending on if land is at the poles or not.
Further changes in cycles can vary depending on the amount of land vs water per hemisphere per season.
Etc etc.
Arthur
BOTH occur.
BOTH have an impact.
EXACTLY what those impacts are is MUCH harder to determine.
As we have seen there are MULTIPLE cyclic effects on the earth's weather and new cyclic impacts are being discovered.
Further seasonal changes are NOT necessarily symetrical because changes in albedo created because of conditions in one season can carry over to affect the next season.
Further changes in cycles can vary depending on if land is at the poles or not.
Further changes in cycles can vary depending on the amount of land vs water per hemisphere per season.
Etc etc.
Arthur
One possible natural source of CO2 is due to hydrothermal water deep inside the earth's crust. Years back research was done to find a way to dispose of toxic organic wastes. One technique was to place organics wastes in hydrothermal water, i.e., water at high pressure and temperature above the critical point of water. The result is CO2. So here is a possible senario. Oil and coal deposits exposed to hydrothermal water generate CO2. If one took a lean coal or oil deposit, add water heat and pressure, i.e., CO2. It is hard to tell its amount, but if it is going on under the oceans, where many oil deposits are known to be, it would periidically alter the CO2 balance within the oceans. This might be a good research project for someone.
I'm afraid I'm with Arthur on this one.
I know Svensmark recently did some research with a cloud chamber in Denmark, to see if the ionization could have the results they were attributing to it, but as far as I can recall, the results were ambiguous at best.
I was trying to avoid getting into the GCR debate, because it's a whole other kettle of fish.
There is, however, one very simple mechanism to explain the synchronicity between northern and southern hemisphere climate changes, and how this could be a product of the Milankovitch cycles.
Albedo (Oops, I said it again).
The majority of the land mass is in the northern hemisphere.
Ice has a high Albedo.
Lolgically, any process which leads to enhanced ice and snow production in the northern hemisphere, with the resulting significant change in planetary albedo, the cooling in the northern hemisphere should, logically, have a more significant effect then any warming due to increased insolation in the southern hemisphere.
I'm not 100% certain, but I have an inkling that there might be empirical evidence to support this, and I think that there may be some papers to support this.
But, like Arthur, I don't think that there's any single answer.
I've seen the graphs linking the timing of ice age episodes to passage through the galactic arms, but one of the things I find myself wondering is this:
We know that the galactic arms are rich in dust and gas.
So could this dust and gas, passing through the solar system, and attenuating the light from the sun, not result in a significant reduction in the insolation?
Again, no single answer.
I know Svensmark recently did some research with a cloud chamber in Denmark, to see if the ionization could have the results they were attributing to it, but as far as I can recall, the results were ambiguous at best.
I was trying to avoid getting into the GCR debate, because it's a whole other kettle of fish.
There is, however, one very simple mechanism to explain the synchronicity between northern and southern hemisphere climate changes, and how this could be a product of the Milankovitch cycles.
Albedo (Oops, I said it again).
The majority of the land mass is in the northern hemisphere.
Ice has a high Albedo.
Lolgically, any process which leads to enhanced ice and snow production in the northern hemisphere, with the resulting significant change in planetary albedo, the cooling in the northern hemisphere should, logically, have a more significant effect then any warming due to increased insolation in the southern hemisphere.
I'm not 100% certain, but I have an inkling that there might be empirical evidence to support this, and I think that there may be some papers to support this.
But, like Arthur, I don't think that there's any single answer.
I've seen the graphs linking the timing of ice age episodes to passage through the galactic arms, but one of the things I find myself wondering is this:
We know that the galactic arms are rich in dust and gas.
So could this dust and gas, passing through the solar system, and attenuating the light from the sun, not result in a significant reduction in the insolation?
Again, no single answer.
In Response to Trippy & Arthur comments.
Clearly changes in planetary albedo due to ice sheets did not cause the significant cooling 1500 years ago in both Tropics and the Northern Hemisphere. (See comment and paper link below.) What else besides an increase in planetary cloud cover could abruptly cool both tropics and the Northern hemisphere?
In the case of that abrupt cooling event and most of the other abrupt climate change events, there are solar changes that are concurrent with the temperature drop. The solar changes and the geomagnetic changes are always at the crime scene.
Also note that paleoclimatic data shows that the change from interglacial period to glacial period is an abrupt not a gradual change. There is not a gradual buildup of ice sheets over 1000s of years, in the Northern hemisphere which increases planetary albedo which gradually cools the planet which then cause the Southern Hemisphere glacial period to start. (See my next comment for a discussion of abrupt climate changes.)
The paper linked to in my above comment, provides data that shows the Southern and Northern hemisphere changed from the last interglacial period to the glacial period concurrently. i.e. Southern and Northern Hemisphere both got very cold at the same time. That requires a forcing function that can abruptly cool the entire planet.
The cyclic orbital insolation changes are a red herring. The orbital affect on insolation is not the reason for abrupt cyclic cooling of the entire planet.
But first what are your questions concerning the GCR and "electroscavenging" mechanism? Papers are provide that show, there is a change in low level cloud measured with both satellite and earthshine analysis. The change correlates with solar changes. (See my comments above for a link to Palle's papers.)
What else could be changing the magnitude of planetary low level clouds? Note Palle's satellite paper shows a 99.5% correlation of GCR changes with the magnitude of low level cloulds 1983 to 1993. Does Palle's data and analysis confirm that the GCR and "electrosavenging" mechanism are real? Is the next question what is causing the cyclic changes in solar cycle and the geomagnetic field?
Did you look at Palle's earth shine paper. Note the observed increase in forcing of 7.5 W/m2 due to a reduction in low level clouds, that reduced planetary albedo, 1993 to 2001. Note 7.5 W/m2 is three times what the IPCC estimated for GHG. A secondary problem or question is What is the real CO2 forcing value?
This paper provides data that shows that the well known and discussed periodic cooling events in the Northern Hemisphere appear to have occurred concurrently with Southern Hemisphere cooling events. Both the Northern and Southern Hemisphere periodic cooling events appear to coincide with solar activity minimums.
"Solar modulation of Little Ice Age climate in the tropical Andes"
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/0603118103v1.pdf
Quoted from the above paper.
Clearly changes in planetary albedo due to ice sheets did not cause the significant cooling 1500 years ago in both Tropics and the Northern Hemisphere. (See comment and paper link below.) What else besides an increase in planetary cloud cover could abruptly cool both tropics and the Northern hemisphere?
In the case of that abrupt cooling event and most of the other abrupt climate change events, there are solar changes that are concurrent with the temperature drop. The solar changes and the geomagnetic changes are always at the crime scene.
Also note that paleoclimatic data shows that the change from interglacial period to glacial period is an abrupt not a gradual change. There is not a gradual buildup of ice sheets over 1000s of years, in the Northern hemisphere which increases planetary albedo which gradually cools the planet which then cause the Southern Hemisphere glacial period to start. (See my next comment for a discussion of abrupt climate changes.)
The paper linked to in my above comment, provides data that shows the Southern and Northern hemisphere changed from the last interglacial period to the glacial period concurrently. i.e. Southern and Northern Hemisphere both got very cold at the same time. That requires a forcing function that can abruptly cool the entire planet.
The cyclic orbital insolation changes are a red herring. The orbital affect on insolation is not the reason for abrupt cyclic cooling of the entire planet.
But first what are your questions concerning the GCR and "electroscavenging" mechanism? Papers are provide that show, there is a change in low level cloud measured with both satellite and earthshine analysis. The change correlates with solar changes. (See my comments above for a link to Palle's papers.)
What else could be changing the magnitude of planetary low level clouds? Note Palle's satellite paper shows a 99.5% correlation of GCR changes with the magnitude of low level cloulds 1983 to 1993. Does Palle's data and analysis confirm that the GCR and "electrosavenging" mechanism are real? Is the next question what is causing the cyclic changes in solar cycle and the geomagnetic field?
Did you look at Palle's earth shine paper. Note the observed increase in forcing of 7.5 W/m2 due to a reduction in low level clouds, that reduced planetary albedo, 1993 to 2001. Note 7.5 W/m2 is three times what the IPCC estimated for GHG. A secondary problem or question is What is the real CO2 forcing value?
This paper provides data that shows that the well known and discussed periodic cooling events in the Northern Hemisphere appear to have occurred concurrently with Southern Hemisphere cooling events. Both the Northern and Southern Hemisphere periodic cooling events appear to coincide with solar activity minimums.
"Solar modulation of Little Ice Age climate in the tropical Andes"
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/0603118103v1.pdf
Quoted from the above paper.
The underlying causes of late-Holocene climate variability in the tropics are incompletely understood. Here we report a 1,500-year reconstruction of climate history and glaciation in the Venezuelan Andes using lake sediments. Four glacial advances occurred between anno Domini (A.D.) 1250 and 1810, coincident with solar activity minima. Temperature declines of approx. 3.2 +/- 1.4°C and precipitation increases of approx. 20% are required to produce the observed glacial responses.
QUOTE
There is, however, one very simple mechanism to explain the synchronicity between northern and southern hemisphere climate changes, and how this could be a product of the Milankovitch cycles. Albedo (Oops, I said it again).
Clearly changes in planetary albedo due to ice sheets did not cause the significant cooling 1500 years ago in both Tropics and the Northern Hemisphere. (See comment and paper link below.) What else besides an increase in planetary cloud cover could abruptly cool both tropics and the Northern hemisphere?
In the case of that abrupt cooling event and most of the other abrupt climate change events, there are solar changes that are concurrent with the temperature drop. The solar changes and the geomagnetic changes are always at the crime scene.
Also note that paleoclimatic data shows that the change from interglacial period to glacial period is an abrupt not a gradual change. There is not a gradual buildup of ice sheets over 1000s of years, in the Northern hemisphere which increases planetary albedo which gradually cools the planet which then cause the Southern Hemisphere glacial period to start. (See my next comment for a discussion of abrupt climate changes.)
The paper linked to in my above comment, provides data that shows the Southern and Northern hemisphere changed from the last interglacial period to the glacial period concurrently. i.e. Southern and Northern Hemisphere both got very cold at the same time. That requires a forcing function that can abruptly cool the entire planet.
The cyclic orbital insolation changes are a red herring. The orbital affect on insolation is not the reason for abrupt cyclic cooling of the entire planet.
But first what are your questions concerning the GCR and "electroscavenging" mechanism? Papers are provide that show, there is a change in low level cloud measured with both satellite and earthshine analysis. The change correlates with solar changes. (See my comments above for a link to Palle's papers.)
What else could be changing the magnitude of planetary low level clouds? Note Palle's satellite paper shows a 99.5% correlation of GCR changes with the magnitude of low level cloulds 1983 to 1993. Does Palle's data and analysis confirm that the GCR and "electrosavenging" mechanism are real? Is the next question what is causing the cyclic changes in solar cycle and the geomagnetic field?
Did you look at Palle's earth shine paper. Note the observed increase in forcing of 7.5 W/m2 due to a reduction in low level clouds, that reduced planetary albedo, 1993 to 2001. Note 7.5 W/m2 is three times what the IPCC estimated for GHG. A secondary problem or question is What is the real CO2 forcing value?
This paper provides data that shows that the well known and discussed periodic cooling events in the Northern Hemisphere appear to have occurred concurrently with Southern Hemisphere cooling events. Both the Northern and Southern Hemisphere periodic cooling events appear to coincide with solar activity minimums.
"Solar modulation of Little Ice Age climate in the tropical Andes"
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/0603118103v1.pdf
Quoted from the above paper.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| There is, however, one very simple mechanism to explain the synchronicity between northern and southern hemisphere climate changes, and how this could be a product of the Milankovitch cycles. Albedo (Oops, I said it again). |
Clearly changes in planetary albedo due to ice sheets did not cause the significant cooling 1500 years ago in both Tropics and the Northern Hemisphere. (See comment and paper link below.) What else besides an increase in planetary cloud cover could abruptly cool both tropics and the Northern hemisphere?
In the case of that abrupt cooling event and most of the other abrupt climate change events, there are solar changes that are concurrent with the temperature drop. The solar changes and the geomagnetic changes are always at the crime scene.
Also note that paleoclimatic data shows that the change from interglacial period to glacial period is an abrupt not a gradual change. There is not a gradual buildup of ice sheets over 1000s of years, in the Northern hemisphere which increases planetary albedo which gradually cools the planet which then cause the Southern Hemisphere glacial period to start. (See my next comment for a discussion of abrupt climate changes.)
The paper linked to in my above comment, provides data that shows the Southern and Northern hemisphere changed from the last interglacial period to the glacial period concurrently. i.e. Southern and Northern Hemisphere both got very cold at the same time. That requires a forcing function that can abruptly cool the entire planet.
The cyclic orbital insolation changes are a red herring. The orbital affect on insolation is not the reason for abrupt cyclic cooling of the entire planet.
But first what are your questions concerning the GCR and "electroscavenging" mechanism? Papers are provide that show, there is a change in low level cloud measured with both satellite and earthshine analysis. The change correlates with solar changes. (See my comments above for a link to Palle's papers.)
What else could be changing the magnitude of planetary low level clouds? Note Palle's satellite paper shows a 99.5% correlation of GCR changes with the magnitude of low level cloulds 1983 to 1993. Does Palle's data and analysis confirm that the GCR and "electrosavenging" mechanism are real? Is the next question what is causing the cyclic changes in solar cycle and the geomagnetic field?
Did you look at Palle's earth shine paper. Note the observed increase in forcing of 7.5 W/m2 due to a reduction in low level clouds, that reduced planetary albedo, 1993 to 2001. Note 7.5 W/m2 is three times what the IPCC estimated for GHG. A secondary problem or question is What is the real CO2 forcing value?
This paper provides data that shows that the well known and discussed periodic cooling events in the Northern Hemisphere appear to have occurred concurrently with Southern Hemisphere cooling events. Both the Northern and Southern Hemisphere periodic cooling events appear to coincide with solar activity minimums.
"Solar modulation of Little Ice Age climate in the tropical Andes"
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/0603118103v1.pdf
Quoted from the above paper.
The underlying causes of late-Holocene climate variability in the tropics are incompletely understood. Here we report a 1,500-year reconstruction of climate history and glaciation in the Venezuelan Andes using lake sediments. Four glacial advances occurred between anno Domini (A.D.) 1250 and 1810, coincident with solar activity minima. Temperature declines of approx. 3.2 +/- 1.4°C and precipitation increases of approx. 20% are required to produce the observed glacial responses.
As I have said in a previous post, I'm aware of the 'links' between Solar fluctuations and temperature fluctuations.
Demonstrating a 99.5% correlation between two systems does not neccessarily imply a causal relationship.
I have seen a mock-analysis done that uses the exact same methods employed in the papers relating to GCR (Including the Moscow data) that demonstrates a similar correlation between the number of sunspots that year, and the number of... I think it was republicans in senate the same year.
Personally? I've studied enough statistics in my time to have a healthy exkepticism about anybody claiming a 99.5% correlation between two data sets without stating how the data was treated, and without demonstrating the mechanisms of the casusal link.
As I said, as far as I'm aware, the mechanistics of the GCR mechanism have yet to be successfully proven.
And as far as Northern Hemispher cooling leading to southern hemisphere cooling?
Well, first off, the continents were no different 1500 years ago then they are now.
The global circulation patterns were also no different then they are now.
Increased Albedo in the Northern Hemisphere is going to affect the global albedo significantly, this will, as I said, have a cooling effect on the planet as a whole.
Some factors that you haven't mentioned is that:
1. All of the oceans circulation takes the water into the southern circumpolar current, and it is the existence of this current that allowed the antarctic ice cap to form, thus giving another mechanism to allow global cooling by changing the albedo of the northern hemisphere.
2. It has been succesfully proven that the decay of the Laurentide ice sheet was responsible for an abrupt cooling event 8,200 years ago that has been measured in both the northern and southern hemisphere (Measured in Nth, Sth America, Africa, Europe, NZ, and I think Australia as well).
Demonstrating a 99.5% correlation between two systems does not neccessarily imply a causal relationship.
I have seen a mock-analysis done that uses the exact same methods employed in the papers relating to GCR (Including the Moscow data) that demonstrates a similar correlation between the number of sunspots that year, and the number of... I think it was republicans in senate the same year.
Personally? I've studied enough statistics in my time to have a healthy exkepticism about anybody claiming a 99.5% correlation between two data sets without stating how the data was treated, and without demonstrating the mechanisms of the casusal link.
As I said, as far as I'm aware, the mechanistics of the GCR mechanism have yet to be successfully proven.
And as far as Northern Hemispher cooling leading to southern hemisphere cooling?
Well, first off, the continents were no different 1500 years ago then they are now.
The global circulation patterns were also no different then they are now.
Increased Albedo in the Northern Hemisphere is going to affect the global albedo significantly, this will, as I said, have a cooling effect on the planet as a whole.
Some factors that you haven't mentioned is that:
1. All of the oceans circulation takes the water into the southern circumpolar current, and it is the existence of this current that allowed the antarctic ice cap to form, thus giving another mechanism to allow global cooling by changing the albedo of the northern hemisphere.
2. It has been succesfully proven that the decay of the Laurentide ice sheet was responsible for an abrupt cooling event 8,200 years ago that has been measured in both the northern and southern hemisphere (Measured in Nth, Sth America, Africa, Europe, NZ, and I think Australia as well).
Gah, it's just annoying to see hippies get their panties in a bunch about nuclear power and instead prefer that we keep burning oil and even worse, coal(which releases more radiactivity into the environment than nuclear energy does through the release of thorium and uranium, never mind the fly ash, CO2, NOx, SOx and heavy metals.)
I'd gladly volunteer my backyard for temporary storage of caskets of high level radioactive waste until the red tape can be cut through for final storage.
I'd gladly volunteer my backyard for temporary storage of caskets of high level radioactive waste until the red tape can be cut through for final storage.
In Reply to Trippy’s skeptism concerning whether Solar changes were responsible for the 20 th century reduction in planetary clouds. (Supported by satellite and earthshine data.) A reduction in low level clouds 1993 to 2001 was calculated to be equivalent to an increase in planetary warming of 7.5 W/m2 which is three times greater than the IPCC estimate for green house gases of 2.5 W/m2.
There is increased evidence that the sun is move towards a Maunder minimum. We will therefore all have the opportunity to determine if an abrupt interruption of the solar cycle will result in an increase in planetary clouds which will result in planetary cooling.
As to whether abrupt changes in ocean circulation could be causing the abrupt cooling events, it could not for the most sever cooling event of the this interglacial period, the Younger Dryas, as the Thermal Haline Circulation (THC) system was not interrupted during that period. Solar activity was interrupted, however. See below.
Even if there was a mechanism that could be created to periodically stop the THC, a stoppage of the THC is not capable of causing the observed abrupt temperature changes. That is a myth. See below. (The THC did not stop 8200 years ago and even if it did a stoppage of the THC is not capable of causing the 8200 year ago cooling event.)
Link: Reduced solar activity as a trigger for the start of the Younger Dryas?
http://scholar.google.com/url?sa=U&q=http:...y_as_a_trig.pdf
There is increased evidence that the sun is move towards a Maunder minimum. We will therefore all have the opportunity to determine if an abrupt interruption of the solar cycle will result in an increase in planetary clouds which will result in planetary cooling.
As to whether abrupt changes in ocean circulation could be causing the abrupt cooling events, it could not for the most sever cooling event of the this interglacial period, the Younger Dryas, as the Thermal Haline Circulation (THC) system was not interrupted during that period. Solar activity was interrupted, however. See below.
Even if there was a mechanism that could be created to periodically stop the THC, a stoppage of the THC is not capable of causing the observed abrupt temperature changes. That is a myth. See below. (The THC did not stop 8200 years ago and even if it did a stoppage of the THC is not capable of causing the 8200 year ago cooling event.)
Link: Reduced solar activity as a trigger for the start of the Younger Dryas?
http://scholar.google.com/url?sa=U&q=http:...y_as_a_trig.pdf
For many years, the leading theory for what caused the Younger Dryas was a release of water from glacial Lake Agassiz, a huge, ice-dammed lake that was once situated near Lake Superior. This sudden outwash of glacial meltwater flooded into the North Atlantic, it was said, lowering the salinity and density of surface waters enough to prevent them from sinking, thus switching off the conveyor. The North Atlantic Drift then ceased flowing north, and, consequently, the northward transport of heat in the ocean diminished. The North Atlantic region was then plunged back into near-glacial conditions. Or so the prevailing reasoning went.
Recently, however, evidence has emerged that the Younger Dryas began long before the breach that allowed freshwater to flood the North Atlantic. What is more, the temperature changes induced by a shutdown in the conveyor are too small to explain what went on during the Younger Dryas.
The following is from Richard Seager’s article “Is the Gulf Stream responsible for Europe’s Warm Winters” which debunks the myth that a sudden stoppage of the Thermal Haline Conveyor (THC) for what ever reason, would result in a sudden drop in European temperatures.
http://www.americanscientist.org/template/...=true&print=yes
QUOTE
Demonstrating a 99.5% correlation between two systems does not necessarily imply a causal relationship.
There is increased evidence that the sun is move towards a Maunder minimum. We will therefore all have the opportunity to determine if an abrupt interruption of the solar cycle will result in an increase in planetary clouds which will result in planetary cooling.
As to whether abrupt changes in ocean circulation could be causing the abrupt cooling events, it could not for the most sever cooling event of the this interglacial period, the Younger Dryas, as the Thermal Haline Circulation (THC) system was not interrupted during that period. Solar activity was interrupted, however. See below.
Even if there was a mechanism that could be created to periodically stop the THC, a stoppage of the THC is not capable of causing the observed abrupt temperature changes. That is a myth. See below. (The THC did not stop 8200 years ago and even if it did a stoppage of the THC is not capable of causing the 8200 year ago cooling event.)
Link: Reduced solar activity as a trigger for the start of the Younger Dryas?
http://scholar.google.com/url?sa=U&q=http:...y_as_a_trig.pdf
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Demonstrating a 99.5% correlation between two systems does not necessarily imply a causal relationship. |
There is increased evidence that the sun is move towards a Maunder minimum. We will therefore all have the opportunity to determine if an abrupt interruption of the solar cycle will result in an increase in planetary clouds which will result in planetary cooling.
As to whether abrupt changes in ocean circulation could be causing the abrupt cooling events, it could not for the most sever cooling event of the this interglacial period, the Younger Dryas, as the Thermal Haline Circulation (THC) system was not interrupted during that period. Solar activity was interrupted, however. See below.
Even if there was a mechanism that could be created to periodically stop the THC, a stoppage of the THC is not capable of causing the observed abrupt temperature changes. That is a myth. See below. (The THC did not stop 8200 years ago and even if it did a stoppage of the THC is not capable of causing the 8200 year ago cooling event.)
Link: Reduced solar activity as a trigger for the start of the Younger Dryas?
http://scholar.google.com/url?sa=U&q=http:...y_as_a_trig.pdf
For many years, the leading theory for what caused the Younger Dryas was a release of water from glacial Lake Agassiz, a huge, ice-dammed lake that was once situated near Lake Superior. This sudden outwash of glacial meltwater flooded into the North Atlantic, it was said, lowering the salinity and density of surface waters enough to prevent them from sinking, thus switching off the conveyor. The North Atlantic Drift then ceased flowing north, and, consequently, the northward transport of heat in the ocean diminished. The North Atlantic region was then plunged back into near-glacial conditions. Or so the prevailing reasoning went.
Recently, however, evidence has emerged that the Younger Dryas began long before the breach that allowed freshwater to flood the North Atlantic. What is more, the temperature changes induced by a shutdown in the conveyor are too small to explain what went on during the Younger Dryas.
The following is from Richard Seager’s article “Is the Gulf Stream responsible for Europe’s Warm Winters” which debunks the myth that a sudden stoppage of the Thermal Haline Conveyor (THC) for what ever reason, would result in a sudden drop in European temperatures.
http://www.americanscientist.org/template/...=true&print=yes
QUOTE
The Gulf Stream myth has been spread in the popular press, movies, and so forth. Seager’s paper also questions the assertion that THC stoppage could have been the forcing function for the multitude of sudden cooling events that occur in the proxy climate record.
The following is an excerpt from Seager's article. (See the link for details and a graph that shows, based on analysis and data that is widely accepted, that the atmosphere rather than ocean currents is responsible for the majority of heat transfer equator to mid latitudes.)
Quote:
But from what specialists have long known, I would expect that any slowdown in thermohaline circulation would have a noticeable but not catastrophic effect on climate. The temperature difference between Europe and Labrador should remain. Temperatures will not drop to ice-age levels, not even to the levels of the Little Ice Age, the relatively cold period that Europe suffered a few centuries ago. The North Atlantic will not freeze over, and English Channel ferries will not have to plow their way through sea ice. A slowdown in thermohaline circulation should bring on a cooling tendency of at most a few degrees across the North Atlantic …. When Battisti and I had finished our study of the influence of the Gulf Stream, we were left with a certain sense of deflation: Pretty much everything we had found could have been concluded on the basis of results that were already available. Ngar-Cheung Lau of the National Atmospheric … Their modeled climate cooled by a few degrees on both sides of the Atlantic and left the much larger difference in temperature across the ocean unchanged. Other published model experiments went on to show the same thing. … What is more, by the late 1990s satellite data, and analyses of numerical models into which those data had been assimilated as part of the weather-forecasting process, had shown that in mid-latitudes the poleward transport of heat by the atmosphere exceeds that by the ocean several-fold.
All Battisti and I did was put these pieces of evidence together and add in a few more illustrative numerical experiments. Why hadn't anyone done that before? Why had these collective studies not already led to the demise of claims in the media and scientific papers alike that the Gulf Stream keeps Europe's climate just this side of glaciation? It seems this particular myth has grown to such a massive size that it exerts a great deal of pull on the minds of otherwise discerning people.
The following is an excerpt from Seager's article. (See the link for details and a graph that shows, based on analysis and data that is widely accepted, that the atmosphere rather than ocean currents is responsible for the majority of heat transfer equator to mid latitudes.)
Quote:
But from what specialists have long known, I would expect that any slowdown in thermohaline circulation would have a noticeable but not catastrophic effect on climate. The temperature difference between Europe and Labrador should remain. Temperatures will not drop to ice-age levels, not even to the levels of the Little Ice Age, the relatively cold period that Europe suffered a few centuries ago. The North Atlantic will not freeze over, and English Channel ferries will not have to plow their way through sea ice. A slowdown in thermohaline circulation should bring on a cooling tendency of at most a few degrees across the North Atlantic …. When Battisti and I had finished our study of the influence of the Gulf Stream, we were left with a certain sense of deflation: Pretty much everything we had found could have been concluded on the basis of results that were already available. Ngar-Cheung Lau of the National Atmospheric … Their modeled climate cooled by a few degrees on both sides of the Atlantic and left the much larger difference in temperature across the ocean unchanged. Other published model experiments went on to show the same thing. … What is more, by the late 1990s satellite data, and analyses of numerical models into which those data had been assimilated as part of the weather-forecasting process, had shown that in mid-latitudes the poleward transport of heat by the atmosphere exceeds that by the ocean several-fold.
All Battisti and I did was put these pieces of evidence together and add in a few more illustrative numerical experiments. Why hadn't anyone done that before? Why had these collective studies not already led to the demise of claims in the media and scientific papers alike that the Gulf Stream keeps Europe's climate just this side of glaciation? It seems this particular myth has grown to such a massive size that it exerts a great deal of pull on the minds of otherwise discerning people.
Here's an abstract from an article published in the Journal "Climate Dynamics" that was printed in May 1999 that says that you're wrong:
And another one for you published by HW Arz et al in Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 199 which says much the same thing.
And another one for you published by HW Arz et al in Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 199 which says much the same thing.
During the Oldest and Younger Dryas cooling periods, two major deglacial
THC disturbances are reported from North Atlantic sediment cores. Concomitant to the repeated THC slowdown, we
observe an upper layer warming in the tropical ocean. A reduced northward heat export from the tropical areas during these
periods (weak North Brazil Current) is additionally reflected by low meridional gradients in the stable oxygen records.
This generally agrees with results from coupled ocean atmosphere models.
And still, not one of the links I have seen describes or measure a mechanistic link between ionization, and cloud formation.
Even your own sources (Both of them) attribute an effect to the gulf stream, they simply say that the gulf stream doesn't represent the entire answer, just part of it.
QUOTE
The Younger Dryas (YD, dated between 12.7-11.6 ky BP in the GRIP ice core, Central Greenland) is a distinct cold period in the North Atlantic region during the last deglaciation. A popular, but controversial hypothesis to explain the cooling is a reduction of the Atlantic thermohaline circulation (THC) and associated northward heat flux as triggered by glacial meltwater. Recently, a CH4-based synchronization of GRIP '18O and Byrd CO2 records (West Antarctica) indicated that the concentration of atmospheric CO2 (COatm2) rose steadily during the YD, suggesting a minor influence of the THC on COatm2 at that time. Here we show that the COatm2 change in a zonally averaged, circulation-biogeochemistry ocean model when THC is collapsed by freshwater flux anomaly is consistent with the Byrd record. Cooling in the North Atlantic has a small effect on COatm2 in this model, because it is spatially limited and compensated by far-field changes such as a warming in the Southern Ocean. The modelled Southern Ocean warming is in agreement with the anti-phase evolution of isotopic temperature records from GRIP (Northern Hemisphere) and from Byrd and Vostok (East Antarctica) during the YD. '13C depletion and PO4 enrichment are predicted at depth in the North Atlantic, but not in the Southern Ocean. This could explain a part of the controversy about the intensity of the THC during the YD. Potential weaknesses in our interpretation of the Byrd CO2 record in terms of THC changes are discussed.
And another one for you published by HW Arz et al in Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 199 which says much the same thing.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The Younger Dryas (YD, dated between 12.7-11.6 ky BP in the GRIP ice core, Central Greenland) is a distinct cold period in the North Atlantic region during the last deglaciation. A popular, but controversial hypothesis to explain the cooling is a reduction of the Atlantic thermohaline circulation (THC) and associated northward heat flux as triggered by glacial meltwater. Recently, a CH4-based synchronization of GRIP '18O and Byrd CO2 records (West Antarctica) indicated that the concentration of atmospheric CO2 (COatm2) rose steadily during the YD, suggesting a minor influence of the THC on COatm2 at that time. Here we show that the COatm2 change in a zonally averaged, circulation-biogeochemistry ocean model when THC is collapsed by freshwater flux anomaly is consistent with the Byrd record. Cooling in the North Atlantic has a small effect on COatm2 in this model, because it is spatially limited and compensated by far-field changes such as a warming in the Southern Ocean. The modelled Southern Ocean warming is in agreement with the anti-phase evolution of isotopic temperature records from GRIP (Northern Hemisphere) and from Byrd and Vostok (East Antarctica) during the YD. '13C depletion and PO4 enrichment are predicted at depth in the North Atlantic, but not in the Southern Ocean. This could explain a part of the controversy about the intensity of the THC during the YD. Potential weaknesses in our interpretation of the Byrd CO2 record in terms of THC changes are discussed. |
And another one for you published by HW Arz et al in Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 199 which says much the same thing.
During the Oldest and Younger Dryas cooling periods, two major deglacial
THC disturbances are reported from North Atlantic sediment cores. Concomitant to the repeated THC slowdown, we
observe an upper layer warming in the tropical ocean. A reduced northward heat export from the tropical areas during these
periods (weak North Brazil Current) is additionally reflected by low meridional gradients in the stable oxygen records.
This generally agrees with results from coupled ocean atmosphere models.
And still, not one of the links I have seen describes or measure a mechanistic link between ionization, and cloud formation.
Even your own sources (Both of them) attribute an effect to the gulf stream, they simply say that the gulf stream doesn't represent the entire answer, just part of it.
I just realized something ironic.
I, apparently have no opinion on the GCC debate.
CIF.
According to Pink Elephant, I have my head in the sand over the idea of Anthropogenic GHG's having any responsibility in the issue, and as far as I'm concerned, it's all attributable to Solar Forcing.
And yet.
According to William Astly, I have my head in the sand over the idea of Solar forcing and GCR's because everything can be explained by Anthropogenic GHG's, and Anthropogenic warming.
I'm so confused! Somebody tell me my opinion!! >_<
And for the record?
Allow me to restate my opinion once again just to avoid any ambiguity.
The earth, and the mechanisms, and the feedback loops that govern it's climate are complex, and there are many factors to consider.
I do not consider that any one camp has got the story 100%
As I have stated repeatedly, the most accurate models are the ones that take all the factors into account.
I do not know which factor is the single dominant factor, and I'd hate to try and guess.
I do know that simply doing one thing, like cutting GHG emissions, is potentially foolish and dangerous. Afterall, what's that saying about putting all of ones eggs in one basket?
We should have a plan B in place, but at the moment there is none.
*Some parts extensively edited
I, apparently have no opinion on the GCC debate.
CIF.
According to Pink Elephant, I have my head in the sand over the idea of Anthropogenic GHG's having any responsibility in the issue, and as far as I'm concerned, it's all attributable to Solar Forcing.
And yet.
According to William Astly, I have my head in the sand over the idea of Solar forcing and GCR's because everything can be explained by Anthropogenic GHG's, and Anthropogenic warming.
I'm so confused! Somebody tell me my opinion!! >_<
And for the record?
Allow me to restate my opinion once again just to avoid any ambiguity.
The earth, and the mechanisms, and the feedback loops that govern it's climate are complex, and there are many factors to consider.
I do not consider that any one camp has got the story 100%
As I have stated repeatedly, the most accurate models are the ones that take all the factors into account.
I do not know which factor is the single dominant factor, and I'd hate to try and guess.
I do know that simply doing one thing, like cutting GHG emissions, is potentially foolish and dangerous. Afterall, what's that saying about putting all of ones eggs in one basket?
We should have a plan B in place, but at the moment there is none.
*Some parts extensively edited
QUOTE (Trippy+May 20 2007, 04:48 AM)
(SNIP) I'm so confused! Somebody tell me my opinion!!
I do not consider that any one camp has got the story 100% As I have stated repeatedly, the most accurate models are the ones that take all the factors into account. I do not know which factor is the single dominant factor, and I'd hate to try and guess. I do know that simply doing one thing, like cutting GHG emissions, is potentially foolish and dangerous. Afterall, what's that saying about putting all of ones eggs in one basket? We should have a plan B in place, but at the moment there is none. *Some parts extensively edited (SNoP)
That is why people like myself, are of this kind of opinion...
I do not consider that any one camp has got the story 100% As I have stated repeatedly, the most accurate models are the ones that take all the factors into account. I do not know which factor is the single dominant factor, and I'd hate to try and guess. I do know that simply doing one thing, like cutting GHG emissions, is potentially foolish and dangerous. Afterall, what's that saying about putting all of ones eggs in one basket? We should have a plan B in place, but at the moment there is none. *Some parts extensively edited (SNoP)
That is why people like myself, are of this kind of opinion...
QUOTE (me+)
this Gives Us a sorta Clear Five Year Window on it, possibly relieving it's self, so in that time going for better gas mileage is beneficial to reducing the overall energy consumption rates, as they too, are escalating.
The ADDITIONAL BONUS of the real Financial Opportunities that Discovery (AHA!) and Challenge (?) help us to succeed at, such that we can reduce our Overall Pollutant effect, (and in the Air-Atmosphere we breathe) help too.
Finding Some sort of Agreement to an Agenda of that sorts shouldn't be all that difficult as money can be made in finding manner to overcome obstacle, creates employment(s) (Plural Preferred) as well as that helps to see Business-Enterprise-ERGO 'economics' as socially beneficial.
P.S. like that image .......plan B? cut-slash-stop pollution! ='s
The ADDITIONAL BONUS of the real Financial Opportunities that Discovery (AHA!) and Challenge (?) help us to succeed at, such that we can reduce our Overall Pollutant effect, (and in the Air-Atmosphere we breathe) help too.
Finding Some sort of Agreement to an Agenda of that sorts shouldn't be all that difficult as money can be made in finding manner to overcome obstacle, creates employment(s) (Plural Preferred) as well as that helps to see Business-Enterprise-ERGO 'economics' as socially beneficial.
P.S. like that image .......plan B? cut-slash-stop pollution! ='s
QUOTE (Trippy+May 18 2007, 07:09 AM)
(SNIP) Imagine our shock 20 years down the track when every nation in the world has somehow managed to cut back to 0 carbon emissions, and our planet is still uninhabitable, and getting worse at an accelerating rate, a problem that might have been solved if say.... We had deployed a solar shade over the pacific ocean. (SNoP)
Why build a solar shade over the Pacific?? Hare Brained Scheme!
try this read, it is from this thread... Rooftops
Trippy do you ever seem to like to contradict yourself..
In this post you tell me this:
Why build a solar shade over the Pacific?? Hare Brained Scheme!
try this read, it is from this thread... Rooftops
Trippy do you ever seem to like to contradict yourself..
In this post you tell me this:
QUOTE (trippy+ May 18 2007, 09:00 PM)
(SNIP) In so far as the lag goes, the most I've ever seen is that a lag of 1-3 years has been repeatedly alluded to, and it relates to the... 'Thermal Inertia' of the earths system (SNoP)
then in the posting right below it, addressed to Pink Elephant you say this
QUOTE (Trippy+ May 18 2007, 09:36 PM)
(SNIP) Look, if you read this thread, and do some digging in general, you'll find that there is a generally accepted 3-5 year lag between changes in solar input, and cluctuations in the earth's temperature, when you look at an 11 year cycle, and compare it to a system that has an inbuilt 3-5 year lag, (SNoP)
BTW Guest_dachpy arvile it is called a re-condenser, installed upon a vehicle as to cool the water vapor and have it either exit as water (Not too good in a cold climate, like Canada's' in the winter, as that makes Ice) or be collected and later drained off.
BTW all this talk of solar effects .....why no one has yet to offer me an iota of assistance (I) will never know as, by the Grace of God (I) am the Guy who will help to bring out just how that solar body functions, based upon how atoms are constructed, based upon Unique knowledge of the structuring of nucleic particles and from that the functioning of gravity.....Very Important in how the Sun, a huge gravitational Body, affects what is around it...
Just as (I) have said, not on the net, not initially at least...if it does make it here (The net) it will more then likely not have been by my hand.
{EDIT} inserted (SNIP)(SNoP)'s {/EDIT}
BTW Guest_dachpy arvile it is called a re-condenser, installed upon a vehicle as to cool the water vapor and have it either exit as water (Not too good in a cold climate, like Canada's' in the winter, as that makes Ice) or be collected and later drained off.
BTW all this talk of solar effects .....why no one has yet to offer me an iota of assistance (I) will never know as, by the Grace of God (I) am the Guy who will help to bring out just how that solar body functions, based upon how atoms are constructed, based upon Unique knowledge of the structuring of nucleic particles and from that the functioning of gravity.....Very Important in how the Sun, a huge gravitational Body, affects what is around it...
Just as (I) have said, not on the net, not initially at least...if it does make it here (The net) it will more then likely not have been by my hand.
{EDIT} inserted (SNIP)(SNoP)'s {/EDIT}
Eh. The exact value of the lag seems to vary depending on who you talk to, and between posts (Or between typing parts of the post - sometimes posts can take me hours to type as I wade through papers) I came across more accurate information regarding the lag in the system.
So if I appear to contradict myself it's because of assimilation of new data, and really? Is that such a bad thing? It shows that I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong. It shows that I'm not being pg headed and stubborn, and just sticking to my opinion because my ego gets in the way.
But tell me Mr Robin Parsons? If changing the bulk atmospheric composition (by reducing CO2 emissions) proves to be futile, or less effective then anticipated, then why would changing it further be effective?
In so far as my 'Hare brained scheme'
The pacific ocean is the worlds largest 'body' of water.
If we put an attenuating shade of the Pacific Gyre, the hottest part of the ocean (or one of the hottest parts, I think - i'm too lazy to go looking for average heatg mapes), it should significantly reduce the heat store, which should have an over all cooling trend. We already have the technology, in fact NASA has been investigating the possibility of putting large shades in space to act as (among other things) corongraphs to enable direct imaging of extrasolar planets.
Oh! I remember why my fundamental objection to painting rooves white!!
Zinx Oxide, Rutile, and Anatase, the three primary minerals used in white colouring, ALL have strong IR absorption features, so, it comes back to the question of will the increase in reflectance be enough to balance out the IR absorption?
Oh, and before you mention Titanium Oxide, Titanium Oxide has two crystalline forms - Anatase, and Rutile, and both get used in paints (And you can tell which is being used by looking at the IR absorptive properties of the paint).
Here's a thing, why does everybody seem to think that C)2 can only be a cause or a symptom? Why can it not be both? I believe it wouldn't be the only example of a positive feedback loop in the earths atmosphere or biosphere...
So if I appear to contradict myself it's because of assimilation of new data, and really? Is that such a bad thing? It shows that I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong. It shows that I'm not being pg headed and stubborn, and just sticking to my opinion because my ego gets in the way.
But tell me Mr Robin Parsons? If changing the bulk atmospheric composition (by reducing CO2 emissions) proves to be futile, or less effective then anticipated, then why would changing it further be effective?
In so far as my 'Hare brained scheme'
The pacific ocean is the worlds largest 'body' of water.
If we put an attenuating shade of the Pacific Gyre, the hottest part of the ocean (or one of the hottest parts, I think - i'm too lazy to go looking for average heatg mapes), it should significantly reduce the heat store, which should have an over all cooling trend. We already have the technology, in fact NASA has been investigating the possibility of putting large shades in space to act as (among other things) corongraphs to enable direct imaging of extrasolar planets.
Oh! I remember why my fundamental objection to painting rooves white!!
Zinx Oxide, Rutile, and Anatase, the three primary minerals used in white colouring, ALL have strong IR absorption features, so, it comes back to the question of will the increase in reflectance be enough to balance out the IR absorption?
Oh, and before you mention Titanium Oxide, Titanium Oxide has two crystalline forms - Anatase, and Rutile, and both get used in paints (And you can tell which is being used by looking at the IR absorptive properties of the paint).
Here's a thing, why does everybody seem to think that C)2 can only be a cause or a symptom? Why can it not be both? I believe it wouldn't be the only example of a positive feedback loop in the earths atmosphere or biosphere...
QUOTE (Trippy+May 20 2007, 02:46 PM)
Eh. The exact value of the lag seems to vary depending on who you talk to, and between posts (Or between typing parts of the post - sometimes posts can take me hours to type as I wade through papers) I came across more accurate information regarding the lag in the system.
So if I appear to contradict myself it's because of assimilation of new data, and really? Is that such a bad thing? It shows that I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong. It shows that I'm not being pg headed and stubborn, and just sticking to my opinion because my ego gets in the way.
So if I appear to contradict myself it's because of assimilation of new data, and really? Is that such a bad thing? It shows that I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong. It shows that I'm not being pg headed and stubborn, and just sticking to my opinion because my ego gets in the way.
What an amazing dodge....BTW where is the admission you were wrong? stated 'straight up' as opposed to the inference of it herein...me? (I) tend to 'Ooops' it
QUOTE (Trippy+May 20 2007, 02:46 PM)
But tell me Mr Robin Parsons? If changing the bulk atmospheric composition (by reducing CO2 emissions) proves to be futile, or less effective then anticipated, then why would changing it further be effective?
Is this a redundant question?
QUOTE (Trippy+May 20 2007, 02:46 PM)
The pacific ocean is the worlds largest 'body' of water.
Actually no as the entire thing is connected so it is the Global Ocean that is largest.
QUOTE (Trippy+May 20 2007, 02:46 PM)
If we put an attenuating shade of the Pacific Gyre, the hottest part of the ocean (or one of the hottest parts, I think - i'm too lazy to go looking for average heatg mapes), it should significantly reduce the heat store, which should have an over all cooling trend.
A Given, except that floating a large shade on that much water is an engineering nightmare....
QUOTE (Trippy+May 20 2007, 02:46 PM)
We already have the technology, in fact NASA has been investigating the possibility of putting large shades in space to act as (among other things) corongraphs to enable direct imaging of extrasolar planets.
In Space...not the same as floating it on the oceans face, not at all.
QUOTE (Trippy+May 20 2007, 02:46 PM)
Zinx Oxide, Rutile, and Anatase, the three primary minerals used in white colouring, ALL have strong IR absorption features, so, it comes back to the question of will the increase in reflectance be enough to balance out the IR absorption?Oh, and before you mention Titanium Oxide, Titanium Oxide has two crystalline forms - Anatase, and Rutile, and both get used in paints (And you can tell which is being used by looking at the IR absorptive properties of the paint).
So you are saying that painted white they will absorb?? equal (Or more 
) or less IR than the current BLACK...which?
) or less IR than the current BLACK...which?QUOTE (Trippy+May 20 2007, 02:46 PM)
Here's a thing, why does everybody seem to think that C)2 can only be a cause or a symptom? Why can it not be both? I believe it wouldn't be the only example of a positive feedback loop in the earths atmosphere or biosphere...
Because it is being 'added in' in a manner that is un-precedented in humanities knowledge of history.
BTW an excellent show was done by David Suzuki called "The Nature of things" wherein it was brought up that in ~ forty years, when the Canadian Athabasca Tar sands are at full development they will be producing the equivalent CO2 output of all of the Volcanoes of the planet, all erupting, all at once!
Is it nice living so close to the coast in New Zealand? Kinda far to that Park on the other (western) side thought.....google maps - from spaaaaaace ..is the oval surrounded by buildings (two 'strips' of trees) the town center?
BTW an excellent show was done by David Suzuki called "The Nature of things" wherein it was brought up that in ~ forty years, when the Canadian Athabasca Tar sands are at full development they will be producing the equivalent CO2 output of all of the Volcanoes of the planet, all erupting, all at once!
Is it nice living so close to the coast in New Zealand? Kinda far to that Park on the other (western) side thought.....google maps - from spaaaaaace ..is the oval surrounded by buildings (two 'strips' of trees) the town center?
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+)
What an amazing dodge....BTW where is the admission you were wrong? stated 'straight up' as opposed to the inference of it herein...me? (I) tend to 'Ooops' it
Not a dodge. At first I could find no reference to any form of a lag, then I came across a bunch of papers that refered to a 1-3 year lag, and that was it. The following post, I was looking for something different and I came across a refferences to the same lag, except this time it was 3-5 years.
Not a dodge. At first I could find no reference to any form of a lag, then I came across a bunch of papers that refered to a 1-3 year lag, and that was it. The following post, I was looking for something different and I came across a refferences to the same lag, except this time it was 3-5 years.
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+)
Is this a redundant question?
No. I said that if cutting CO2 emissions fails, we should put up a shade, you seemed to be saying that if the cuts failed, we should make more cuts.
No. I said that if cutting CO2 emissions fails, we should put up a shade, you seemed to be saying that if the cuts failed, we should make more cuts.
QUOTE ( Mr. Robin Parsons+)
In Space...not the same as floating it on the oceans face, not at all.
Actually, if you had asked instead of making an assumption, you would hav found out that what I meant was putting it up in a Geosynchronous orbit over the pacific gyre. I meant that right from the start, and I was sure I had stated that somewhere on this thread, but I can't find that exact wording, so I might have been thinking of a different thread (or perhaps a different forum).
Actually, if you had asked instead of making an assumption, you would hav found out that what I meant was putting it up in a Geosynchronous orbit over the pacific gyre. I meant that right from the start, and I was sure I had stated that somewhere on this thread, but I can't find that exact wording, so I might have been thinking of a different thread (or perhaps a different forum).
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+)
So you are saying that painted white they will absorb?? equal (Or more ) or less IR than the current BLACK...which?
actually, I'm saying I don't know. Most of the roofing we have over here is tile, corrugated iron, or aluminium. Very little of it seems to be black.
I'm just saying that ZnO, and TiO are both strongly absorbing in the IR and the UV regions, so painting rooves white might not be as effective as it might logically seem it should be.
actually, I'm saying I don't know. Most of the roofing we have over here is tile, corrugated iron, or aluminium. Very little of it seems to be black.
I'm just saying that ZnO, and TiO are both strongly absorbing in the IR and the UV regions, so painting rooves white might not be as effective as it might logically seem it should be.
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+)
Is it nice living so close to the coast in New Zealand? Kinda far to that Park on the other (western) side thought.....google maps - from spaaaaaace ..is the oval surrounded by buildings (two 'strips' of trees) the town center?
Kinda yes, kinda no.
Yes, the OVal is surrounded by buildings, industrial on two sides, residential on the other two sides.
The two strips of trees is called 'The Octagon', and yes, that's the center of town (and yes, it is actually shaped like an octagon).
And if you can find the Dunedin City website, there is in fact a webcam setup viewing the Octagon.
Kinda yes, kinda no.
Yes, the OVal is surrounded by buildings, industrial on two sides, residential on the other two sides.
The two strips of trees is called 'The Octagon', and yes, that's the center of town (and yes, it is actually shaped like an octagon).
And if you can find the Dunedin City website, there is in fact a webcam setup viewing the Octagon.
So saying putting a solar shade over the Pacific Ocean is not inferring that it will remain in geostationary in orbit, (not to me at least) so that is why (I) had thought you had meant that it would be placed upon the ocean, rather then 'in the sky' or 'space based' as that would not-should not remain 'over the pacific' as the sunlight does not remain over the pacific either...But thank you for the clarification, it is appreciated.
Same thing for the Lag response, thanks it is much more clear to me, now....
If reduction is proved as either, futile or, less effective, then further reduction would appear as needless, but the manner in which you phrased that question 'threw me off'as it appeared as if you were saying that, 'since it had been 'proved futile' (my wrongful impression) why would changing it further be effective?'
Clearly, it would not be.
The chemicals your citing as a constituent part of the paint, do they affect the paint as to cause it to absorb More IR? because, as far as (I) know, white paint reflects light quite well, and reflects more of it than the Black Shingles that cover many of the local houses, and many of the houses that (I) have seen in all of my travels in Canada and the US. Cheaper to do too as no need of very expensive space operations.
Google maps zooms into your city quite a bit better-closer than it does for here, in Kingston-Ontario, then again, we have a Military Base & College here soooo SHhh!
Looks like it would be a Beautiful place to visit, never-mind live.
for the clarification, it is appreciated. Same thing for the Lag response, thanks it is much more clear to me, now....
If reduction is proved as either, futile or, less effective, then further reduction would appear as needless, but the manner in which you phrased that question 'threw me off'as it appeared as if you were saying that, 'since it had been 'proved futile' (my wrongful impression) why would changing it further be effective?'
Clearly, it would not be.
The chemicals your citing as a constituent part of the paint, do they affect the paint as to cause it to absorb More IR? because, as far as (I) know, white paint reflects light quite well, and reflects more of it than the Black Shingles that cover many of the local houses, and many of the houses that (I) have seen in all of my travels in Canada and the US. Cheaper to do too as no need of very expensive space operations.
Google maps zooms into your city quite a bit better-closer than it does for here, in Kingston-Ontario, then again, we have a Military Base & College here soooo SHhh!
Looks like it would be a Beautiful place to visit, never-mind live.
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+)
rather then 'in the sky' or 'space based' as that would not-should not remain 'over the pacific' as the sunlight does not remain over the pacific either...
Hence putting it in a Geosynchronous orbit - means that it's puyt high enough that it's orbital velocity matches the earths rotation (I think it's on the order of 500km, might be more like 800). The advantage of this is that you don't need to worry about it drifting over foreign nations, because that raises other issues.
And no, the sun doesn't stay over the pacific ocean, but the Gyres are (apparently) were a lot of the heat energy is.
Hence putting it in a Geosynchronous orbit - means that it's puyt high enough that it's orbital velocity matches the earths rotation (I think it's on the order of 500km, might be more like 800). The advantage of this is that you don't need to worry about it drifting over foreign nations, because that raises other issues.
And no, the sun doesn't stay over the pacific ocean, but the Gyres are (apparently) were a lot of the heat energy is.
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+)
The chemicals your citing as a constituent part of the paint, do they affect the paint as to cause it to absorb More IR? because, as far as (I) know, white paint reflects light quite well...
Short answer is yes, and the matrix the coloured particles are embedded in has it's own absorptive properties. Yes, it might have a near;y 100% reflectancy in the visual range, but that doesn't apply beyond that. That's (one of) the reasons why the wrap metal foil around probes to keep them cool.
In order to acheive what you're talking about, the best, most efficient option would be to replace all shingle rooves with unpainted aluminium.
Short answer is yes, and the matrix the coloured particles are embedded in has it's own absorptive properties. Yes, it might have a near;y 100% reflectancy in the visual range, but that doesn't apply beyond that. That's (one of) the reasons why the wrap metal foil around probes to keep them cool.
In order to acheive what you're talking about, the best, most efficient option would be to replace all shingle rooves with unpainted aluminium.
QUOTE (Trippy+May 20 2007, 04:41 PM)
Hence putting it in a Geosynchronous orbit - means that it's puyt high enough that it's orbital velocity matches the earths rotation (I think it's on the order of 500km, might be more like 800). The advantage of this is that you don't need to worry about it drifting over foreign nations, because that raises other issues. And no, the sun doesn't stay over the pacific ocean, but the Gyres are (apparently) were a lot of the heat energy is.
Good point about other nations just that geosynchronous will also have difficulties as the effect of blocking that much sunlight will change wind patterns a circulation currents....
QUOTE (Trippy+May 20 2007, 04:41 PM)
Short answer is yes, and the matrix the coloured particles are embedded in has it's own absorptive properties. Yes, it might have a near;y 100% reflectancy in the visual range, but that doesn't apply beyond that. That's (one of) the reasons why the wrap metal foil around probes to keep them cool. In order to acheive what you're talking about, the best, most efficient option would be to replace all shingle rooves with unpainted aluminium.
Only problem with that is airplanes and pilots who could suffer as a result of Blinding ground illumination from aluminum covered roofs....
Still think Paint is better as it is faster and cheaper and there is enough square miles of roofing area, if we include all of the industrial too, that it would-should increase the overall albedo effects...tested for, first, of course....
Still think Paint is better as it is faster and cheaper and there is enough square miles of roofing area, if we include all of the industrial too, that it would-should increase the overall albedo effects...tested for, first, of course....
In reply to Trippy's comment:
The abstract from the May,1999 paper states that there is possible correlate of a stoppage of the thermal haline conveyor (THC) with the Younger Dryas cooling.
Subsequent analysis, post 1999 shows that the THC stoppage was 1000 years before the Younger Dryas, which would mean the abrupt cooling, due to the THC stoppage was delayed for a 1000 years. The Younger Dryas was of course a very, very, rapid and sever cooling. The record in the Greenland Ice Sheet shows that in four years, there was a change from interglacial warm back to glacial cold.
Whether the THC did or did not stop during the Younger Dryas cooling event, is not relavent as a stoppage of the THC is not capable of causing that amount of cooling.
My point is it appears the Solar change can cause a very, very, abrupt and sever cooling of the planet. Note the tropics also cooled, how could stoppage of the THC cool the tropics?
Note there is not a THC in the Pacific and the west coast of the US is warm. I provided a copy Richard Seager's paper "Is the THC the reason for the European warm winters." Seager's answer is no, planetary prevailing winds are west to east. The ocean warms in the summer. The summer energy stored in the ocean, is transported from the ocean by the atmosphere, which is the reason why the west coast of Europe is warm in the winter and the west coast of the US is also warm in the winter. (Affect actuals cools the west coast in the summer.) Basic atmospheric models show that a complete stoppage of the THC would not affect summer European temperatures and would result in European winter cooling of 2 C for the countries that are by the ocean.
A stoppage of THC could not cause the Younger Dryas cooling.
http://www.americanscientist.org/template/...=true&print=yes
In Richard Seager’s words from his above paper:
The abstract from the May,1999 paper states that there is possible correlate of a stoppage of the thermal haline conveyor (THC) with the Younger Dryas cooling.
Subsequent analysis, post 1999 shows that the THC stoppage was 1000 years before the Younger Dryas, which would mean the abrupt cooling, due to the THC stoppage was delayed for a 1000 years. The Younger Dryas was of course a very, very, rapid and sever cooling. The record in the Greenland Ice Sheet shows that in four years, there was a change from interglacial warm back to glacial cold.
Whether the THC did or did not stop during the Younger Dryas cooling event, is not relavent as a stoppage of the THC is not capable of causing that amount of cooling.
My point is it appears the Solar change can cause a very, very, abrupt and sever cooling of the planet. Note the tropics also cooled, how could stoppage of the THC cool the tropics?
Note there is not a THC in the Pacific and the west coast of the US is warm. I provided a copy Richard Seager's paper "Is the THC the reason for the European warm winters." Seager's answer is no, planetary prevailing winds are west to east. The ocean warms in the summer. The summer energy stored in the ocean, is transported from the ocean by the atmosphere, which is the reason why the west coast of Europe is warm in the winter and the west coast of the US is also warm in the winter. (Affect actuals cools the west coast in the summer.) Basic atmospheric models show that a complete stoppage of the THC would not affect summer European temperatures and would result in European winter cooling of 2 C for the countries that are by the ocean.
A stoppage of THC could not cause the Younger Dryas cooling.
http://www.americanscientist.org/template/...=true&print=yes
In Richard Seager’s words from his above paper:
…The Younger Dryas began with a dramatic reversal in what was a general warming trend, bringing near-glacial cold to the North Atlantic region. This episode ended with an even more dramatic warming about 1,000 years later. In Greenland and western Europe, the beginning and end of the Younger Dryas involved changes in winter temperature as large as 20 degrees taking place in little more than a decade. But the Younger Dryas was not a purely North Atlantic phenomenon: Manifestations of it also appeared in the tropical and southern Atlantic, in South America and in Asia.
(My comment how could the stoppage of transport of tropic ocean heat to Atlantic oceans cool the tropics and Asia.)
Recently, however, evidence has emerged that the Younger Dryas began long before the breach that allowed freshwater to flood the North Atlantic. What is more, the temperature changes induced by a shutdown in the conveyor are too small to explain what went on during the Younger Dryas. Some climatologists appeal to a large expansion in sea ice to explain the severe winter cooling. I agree that something of this sort probably happened, but it's not at all clear to me how stopping the Atlantic conveyor could cause a sufficient redistribution of heat to bring on this vast a change.
In any event, the still-tentative connections investigators have made between thermohaline circulation and abrupt climate change during glacial times have combined with the popular perception that it is the Gulf Stream that keeps European climate mild to create a doomsday scenario: Global warming might shut down the Gulf Stream, which could "plunge western Europe into a mini ice age," making winters "as harsh as those in Newfoundland," or so claims, for example, a recent article in New Scientist. This general idea been rehashed in hundreds of sensational news stories...
But from what specialists have long known, I would expect that any slowdown in thermohaline circulation would have a noticeable but not catastrophic effect on climate. The temperature difference between Europe and Labrador should remain. Temperatures will not drop to ice-age levels, not even to the levels of the Little Ice Age, the relatively cold period that Europe suffered a few centuries ago. The North Atlantic will not freeze over, and English Channel ferries will not have to plow their way through sea ice. A slowdown in thermohaline circulation should bring on a cooling tendency of at most a few degrees across the North Atlantic—one that would most likely be overwhelmed by the warming caused by rising concentrations of greenhouse gases. This moderating influence is indeed what the climate models show for the 21st century and what has been stated in reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Instead of creating catastrophe in the North Atlantic region, a slowdown in thermohaline circulation would serve to mitigate the expected anthropogenic warming!
QUOTE
Here's an abstract from an article published in the Journal "Climate Dynamics" that was printed in May 1999 that says that you're wrong:
The abstract from the May,1999 paper states that there is possible correlate of a stoppage of the thermal haline conveyor (THC) with the Younger Dryas cooling.
Subsequent analysis, post 1999 shows that the THC stoppage was 1000 years before the Younger Dryas, which would mean the abrupt cooling, due to the THC stoppage was delayed for a 1000 years. The Younger Dryas was of course a very, very, rapid and sever cooling. The record in the Greenland Ice Sheet shows that in four years, there was a change from interglacial warm back to glacial cold.
Whether the THC did or did not stop during the Younger Dryas cooling event, is not relavent as a stoppage of the THC is not capable of causing that amount of cooling.
My point is it appears the Solar change can cause a very, very, abrupt and sever cooling of the planet. Note the tropics also cooled, how could stoppage of the THC cool the tropics?
Note there is not a THC in the Pacific and the west coast of the US is warm. I provided a copy Richard Seager's paper "Is the THC the reason for the European warm winters." Seager's answer is no, planetary prevailing winds are west to east. The ocean warms in the summer. The summer energy stored in the ocean, is transported from the ocean by the atmosphere, which is the reason why the west coast of Europe is warm in the winter and the west coast of the US is also warm in the winter. (Affect actuals cools the west coast in the summer.) Basic atmospheric models show that a complete stoppage of the THC would not affect summer European temperatures and would result in European winter cooling of 2 C for the countries that are by the ocean.
A stoppage of THC could not cause the Younger Dryas cooling.
http://www.americanscientist.org/template/...=true&print=yes
In Richard Seager’s words from his above paper:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Here's an abstract from an article published in the Journal "Climate Dynamics" that was printed in May 1999 that says that you're wrong: |
The abstract from the May,1999 paper states that there is possible correlate of a stoppage of the thermal haline conveyor (THC) with the Younger Dryas cooling.
Subsequent analysis, post 1999 shows that the THC stoppage was 1000 years before the Younger Dryas, which would mean the abrupt cooling, due to the THC stoppage was delayed for a 1000 years. The Younger Dryas was of course a very, very, rapid and sever cooling. The record in the Greenland Ice Sheet shows that in four years, there was a change from interglacial warm back to glacial cold.
Whether the THC did or did not stop during the Younger Dryas cooling event, is not relavent as a stoppage of the THC is not capable of causing that amount of cooling.
My point is it appears the Solar change can cause a very, very, abrupt and sever cooling of the planet. Note the tropics also cooled, how could stoppage of the THC cool the tropics?
Note there is not a THC in the Pacific and the west coast of the US is warm. I provided a copy Richard Seager's paper "Is the THC the reason for the European warm winters." Seager's answer is no, planetary prevailing winds are west to east. The ocean warms in the summer. The summer energy stored in the ocean, is transported from the ocean by the atmosphere, which is the reason why the west coast of Europe is warm in the winter and the west coast of the US is also warm in the winter. (Affect actuals cools the west coast in the summer.) Basic atmospheric models show that a complete stoppage of the THC would not affect summer European temperatures and would result in European winter cooling of 2 C for the countries that are by the ocean.
A stoppage of THC could not cause the Younger Dryas cooling.
http://www.americanscientist.org/template/...=true&print=yes
In Richard Seager’s words from his above paper:
…The Younger Dryas began with a dramatic reversal in what was a general warming trend, bringing near-glacial cold to the North Atlantic region. This episode ended with an even more dramatic warming about 1,000 years later. In Greenland and western Europe, the beginning and end of the Younger Dryas involved changes in winter temperature as large as 20 degrees taking place in little more than a decade. But the Younger Dryas was not a purely North Atlantic phenomenon: Manifestations of it also appeared in the tropical and southern Atlantic, in South America and in Asia.
(My comment how could the stoppage of transport of tropic ocean heat to Atlantic oceans cool the tropics and Asia.)
Recently, however, evidence has emerged that the Younger Dryas began long before the breach that allowed freshwater to flood the North Atlantic. What is more, the temperature changes induced by a shutdown in the conveyor are too small to explain what went on during the Younger Dryas. Some climatologists appeal to a large expansion in sea ice to explain the severe winter cooling. I agree that something of this sort probably happened, but it's not at all clear to me how stopping the Atlantic conveyor could cause a sufficient redistribution of heat to bring on this vast a change.
In any event, the still-tentative connections investigators have made between thermohaline circulation and abrupt climate change during glacial times have combined with the popular perception that it is the Gulf Stream that keeps European climate mild to create a doomsday scenario: Global warming might shut down the Gulf Stream, which could "plunge western Europe into a mini ice age," making winters "as harsh as those in Newfoundland," or so claims, for example, a recent article in New Scientist. This general idea been rehashed in hundreds of sensational news stories...
But from what specialists have long known, I would expect that any slowdown in thermohaline circulation would have a noticeable but not catastrophic effect on climate. The temperature difference between Europe and Labrador should remain. Temperatures will not drop to ice-age levels, not even to the levels of the Little Ice Age, the relatively cold period that Europe suffered a few centuries ago. The North Atlantic will not freeze over, and English Channel ferries will not have to plow their way through sea ice. A slowdown in thermohaline circulation should bring on a cooling tendency of at most a few degrees across the North Atlantic—one that would most likely be overwhelmed by the warming caused by rising concentrations of greenhouse gases. This moderating influence is indeed what the climate models show for the 21st century and what has been stated in reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Instead of creating catastrophe in the North Atlantic region, a slowdown in thermohaline circulation would serve to mitigate the expected anthropogenic warming!
And yet, he still says:
So, as I said before, your own source says that the Atlantic THC has an influence.
And anybody who looks at a map of global oceanic circulation can see that there is a current of warm water that flows south past the west coast of the US. The reason why this current is generally attributed to flow like this is because of the earths rotation, because of the size of the Pacific ocean, warmer waters have a tendedncy to pile up against the eastern margins of the pacific ocean.
Also. Here's an article published in Nature in July 2003
http://www.rcom.marum.de/English/Climate_K...hern_Ocean.html
That suggests that at the begining of the interglacial period, sea ice melt in the the Southern Ocean accelerated the THC, which helped with the ice melt in the northern hemisphere. I have also seen it stated in... I think it might even have been in one of the links that you provided that the Antarctic cooled at the beginning of the Younger Dryas. So if warming the antarctic is going to accelerate the THC, cooling the antarctic can be expected to slow it.
All of this just serves to further illuistrate my point that there is no one single 'Siimple' answer.
QUOTE
I would expect that any slowdown in thermohaline circulation would have a noticeable but not catastrophic effect on climate.
So, as I said before, your own source says that the Atlantic THC has an influence.
And anybody who looks at a map of global oceanic circulation can see that there is a current of warm water that flows south past the west coast of the US. The reason why this current is generally attributed to flow like this is because of the earths rotation, because of the size of the Pacific ocean, warmer waters have a tendedncy to pile up against the eastern margins of the pacific ocean.
Also. Here's an article published in Nature in July 2003
http://www.rcom.marum.de/English/Climate_K...hern_Ocean.html
That suggests that at the begining of the interglacial period, sea ice melt in the the Southern Ocean accelerated the THC, which helped with the ice melt in the northern hemisphere. I have also seen it stated in... I think it might even have been in one of the links that you provided that the Antarctic cooled at the beginning of the Younger Dryas. So if warming the antarctic is going to accelerate the THC, cooling the antarctic can be expected to slow it.
All of this just serves to further illuistrate my point that there is no one single 'Siimple' answer.
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+)
Only problem with that is airplanes and pilots who could suffer as a result of Blinding ground illumination from aluminum covered roofs....
All I can say to that really is that they haven't cause any problems along those lines yet, and I know there's a movement in NZ (I think) towards replacing Corrugated Iron and Tiles with Aluminium roofing for a range of reasons ranging from cheapness to reduced mantainence.
All I can say to that really is that they haven't cause any problems along those lines yet, and I know there's a movement in NZ (I think) towards replacing Corrugated Iron and Tiles with Aluminium roofing for a range of reasons ranging from cheapness to reduced mantainence.
Also, William Astly, if you want to see an example of the effect changes in oceanic circulation can have, just look at the El Nino of... I think it was 1997. All of the problems that created were created by a temperature rise of at most 3 degrees Celsius. Which is only slightly more then the drop of 2 Degrees celsius that your own sources attribute to the stopping/stalling of the THC.
Also, I imagine (although I have no direct evidence or citations to offer for this just yet) that if the THC did stop, it would give rise to a whole bunch of other complexities and interactions that we haven't anticipated.
Also, I imagine (although I have no direct evidence or citations to offer for this just yet) that if the THC did stop, it would give rise to a whole bunch of other complexities and interactions that we haven't anticipated.
QUOTE (Trippy+May 21 2007, 02:56 PM)
All I can say to that really is that they haven't cause any problems along those lines yet, and I know there's a movement in NZ (I think) towards replacing Corrugated Iron and Tiles with Aluminium roofing for a range of reasons ranging from cheapness to reduced mantainence.
(I)'ve done oil paintings, the TiO paint is much brighter, as a white, than is the ZincO, as that one is used for-as a flat white.
Also when a piece of metal is painted black the metal heats more than if the piece is painted white, so it is possible ( (I)'m not certain) that the metal is further-more involved in the translation of energy (Re-radience) to IR range when Black V White.
As for the planes it would usually be because the airport would be located in such a pathway as that the planes would need fly over many reflective roofs, to the pilots detriment if they get flashed by them.
Painting roof white should be inexpensive enough...leastways they are more accessible than space is
(I)'ve done oil paintings, the TiO paint is much brighter, as a white, than is the ZincO, as that one is used for-as a flat white.
Also when a piece of metal is painted black the metal heats more than if the piece is painted white, so it is possible ( (I)'m not certain) that the metal is further-more involved in the translation of energy (Re-radience) to IR range when Black V White.
As for the planes it would usually be because the airport would be located in such a pathway as that the planes would need fly over many reflective roofs, to the pilots detriment if they get flashed by them.
Painting roof white should be inexpensive enough...leastways they are more accessible than space is
In reply to Trippy and Arthur’s comments concerning the THC causing abrupt cooling. The THC affects North Atlantic Temperatures, not Pacific Ocean temperatures and not Tropic Temperatures. Attached is a link that discusses the 8200 year ago cooling event. Note Indonesia, in the Pacific Ocean also cooled, concurrently.
Note the THC is currently reduced by 30% due to Arctic Ice Melting. Any sever affects on Global temperatures? The THC mechanism must not be linear.
As to the solar mechanisms capacity to cool the planet, there are the 1500 year cycle, Bond cooling events (See attached link). There is cosmogenic evidence of solar changes at the 1500 yr cyclic cooling events and there is no possible means to interrupt the THC on a 1500 yr cycle.
http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/seminars/...20al%202001.pdf
The following is data and analysis that shows there was an abrupt planetary cooling event 8200 years ago, at a time when global temperatures were similar to or warmer than current temperatures. The paleo data indicates that the cooling event was wide spread; simultaneously affecting the Northern Hemisphere, tropical seas, and the Pacific Ocean. The 8200 yr cooling event was the most sever temperature change in this interglacial period. There is also evidence of a concurrent drop in solar activity with the 8200 yr cooling event.
While Paleoclimatologists appeal again to another interruption of the THC, the Laurention ice sheet melting was almost complete at the time of 8200 year cooling event, it is not clear there was a melt pulse (i.e. The ice sheet ice melted gradually and the total amount of melt water was less than a 1/10 of the early melt pulses.) As stated, there is not explanation as to how the interruption of the North Atlantic Drift Current could reduce the surface temperature in Indonesia (Pacific Ocean) by 3C in 100 years. (Note the 20 th century warming was 0.6 C in a hundred years.)
http://www.geo.arizona.edu/palynology/geos...200yrevent.html
Note the THC is currently reduced by 30% due to Arctic Ice Melting. Any sever affects on Global temperatures? The THC mechanism must not be linear.
As to the solar mechanisms capacity to cool the planet, there are the 1500 year cycle, Bond cooling events (See attached link). There is cosmogenic evidence of solar changes at the 1500 yr cyclic cooling events and there is no possible means to interrupt the THC on a 1500 yr cycle.
http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/seminars/...20al%202001.pdf
The following is data and analysis that shows there was an abrupt planetary cooling event 8200 years ago, at a time when global temperatures were similar to or warmer than current temperatures. The paleo data indicates that the cooling event was wide spread; simultaneously affecting the Northern Hemisphere, tropical seas, and the Pacific Ocean. The 8200 yr cooling event was the most sever temperature change in this interglacial period. There is also evidence of a concurrent drop in solar activity with the 8200 yr cooling event.
While Paleoclimatologists appeal again to another interruption of the THC, the Laurention ice sheet melting was almost complete at the time of 8200 year cooling event, it is not clear there was a melt pulse (i.e. The ice sheet ice melted gradually and the total amount of melt water was less than a 1/10 of the early melt pulses.) As stated, there is not explanation as to how the interruption of the North Atlantic Drift Current could reduce the surface temperature in Indonesia (Pacific Ocean) by 3C in 100 years. (Note the 20 th century warming was 0.6 C in a hundred years.)
http://www.geo.arizona.edu/palynology/geos...200yrevent.html
QUOTE
"We drilled a sequence of exceptionally large, well-preserved Porites corals within an uplifted palaeo-reef in Alor, Indonesia, with Th-230 ages spanning the period 8400 to 7600 calendar years before present (Figure 2). The corals lie within the Western Pacific Warm Pool, which at present has the highest mean annual temperature in the world's ocean. Measurements of coral Sr/Ca and oxygen 18 isotopes at 5-year sampling increments for five of the fossil corals (310 annual growth increments) have yielded a semi-continuous record spanning the 8.2 ka event. The measurements (Figure 2) show that sea-surface temperatures were essentially the same as today from 8400 to 8100 years ago, followed by an abrupt ~3°C cooling over a period of ~100 years, reaching a minimum ~8000 years ago. The cooling calculated from coral oxygen 18 isotopes is similar to that derived from Sr/Ca. The exact timing of the termination of the cooling event is not yet known, but a coral dated as 7600 years shows sea-surface temperatures similar to those of today."
The measurements (Figure 2) show that sea-surface temperatures were essentially the same as today from 8400 to 8100 years ago, followed by an abrupt ~3°C cooling over a period of ~100 years, reaching a minimum ~8000 years ago. The cooling calculated from coral oxygen 18 isotopes is similar to that derived from Sr/Ca. The exact timing of the termination of the cooling event is not yet known, but a coral dated as 7600 years shows sea-surface temperatures similar to those of today."
Which implies that there was also a ~ 3°C WARMING in LESS than 400 years.
This is WARMING of the OCEAN, which in contrast has barely changed during the last Century (change in SST has been measured in HUNDRETHS of a degree)
So CLEARLY (if these numbers are TRUE (BIG IF)) and represent GLOBAL TEMPERATURES then there are FORCINGS many magnitudes greater than we can account for today.
Arthur
Which implies that there was also a ~ 3°C WARMING in LESS than 400 years.
This is WARMING of the OCEAN, which in contrast has barely changed during the last Century (change in SST has been measured in HUNDRETHS of a degree)
So CLEARLY (if these numbers are TRUE (BIG IF)) and represent GLOBAL TEMPERATURES then there are FORCINGS many magnitudes greater than we can account for today.
Arthur
QUOTE (Holocene variability in Benguela upwelling: Implications for tropical atmospheric circulation; E. Christa Farmer+ Peter B. deMenocal, Tom M. Marchitto
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory)
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory)
In summary, multi-proxy studies of the paleoclimate record in ODP 1084B over the last 17,000 years confirm the presence of the Younger Dryas in the subtropical Southern Hemisphere, implying that climate change in at least this part of the Southern Hemisphere matched that of the Northern Hemisphere. The ODP 1084B paleoclimate record also suggests that the 8200 yr cold event was caused by a different underlying mechanism than the Younger Dryas, and that this mechanism was primarily due to changes in trade wind strength.
So it seems like what they're saying is that it's a complex problem with more then one solution...
Hmmm, sounds vaguely familiar doesn't it?
There's some other stuff as well, but i'm, tired enough that i'm having trouble making sense of it just at the moment.
It occurs to me that the Laurentide ice sheet wasn't the main only source of fresh water there's evidence of large damed lakes in china, and mongolia, for example.
The other thing to bare in mind is the coast line was different, and changing, so the currents may have been different, and if that's the case, deep wate rmay have been being formed in places we haven't looked yet. Also, changes in antarctica may have had a more profound influence then people seem to have been attributing to it.
More when i'm more awake (maybe).
So it seems like what they're saying is that it's a complex problem with more then one solution...
Hmmm, sounds vaguely familiar doesn't it?
There's some other stuff as well, but i'm, tired enough that i'm having trouble making sense of it just at the moment.
It occurs to me that the Laurentide ice sheet wasn't the main only source of fresh water there's evidence of large damed lakes in china, and mongolia, for example.
The other thing to bare in mind is the coast line was different, and changing, so the currents may have been different, and if that's the case, deep wate rmay have been being formed in places we haven't looked yet. Also, changes in antarctica may have had a more profound influence then people seem to have been attributing to it.
More when i'm more awake (maybe).
Here's a question for the pro GCR camp.
The GCR theory relies on reduced solar activity, leading to reduced interplanetary magnetic field strength, leading to increased GCR flux, leading to increased ionization of the atmosphere, leading to increased cloud cover, leading to increased cooling, right?
Right.
So why is there evidence to suggest that the opposite is true? That increased solar activity leads to increased cloud cover (which would seem to rule out the GCR argument).
www.space.com/images/suncycle_clouds_0108_02.jpg
The GCR theory relies on reduced solar activity, leading to reduced interplanetary magnetic field strength, leading to increased GCR flux, leading to increased ionization of the atmosphere, leading to increased cloud cover, leading to increased cooling, right?
Right.
So why is there evidence to suggest that the opposite is true? That increased solar activity leads to increased cloud cover (which would seem to rule out the GCR argument).
www.space.com/images/suncycle_clouds_0108_02.jpg
Forgive the leap in, but (I) seem to recall that when cosmic rays were first propounded as weather affective, it was thought that increases in them, in absence of cloud cover, simply allowed them to increase the evaporative rates from surface water, thusly increasing water vapor content, generating cloud cover.
Is that no longer the thought lineage?
Is that no longer the thought lineage?
http://environment.newscientist.com/channe...-change/dn11651
The cosmic ray theory is pretty much dead until the deviations of the past decade can be explained in some way that fit the hypothesis. The measurements just don't fit.
I'd be willing to believe magnetic interactions are causing the warming before cosmic rays. The sun and earths magnetic fields haven't been playing well together for a while now. Last I heard, the sun had 2 north poles and a south belt around the middle. That kind of flip flopping has gotta have some kind of effect somewhere.
The cosmic ray theory is pretty much dead until the deviations of the past decade can be explained in some way that fit the hypothesis. The measurements just don't fit.
I'd be willing to believe magnetic interactions are causing the warming before cosmic rays. The sun and earths magnetic fields haven't been playing well together for a while now. Last I heard, the sun had 2 north poles and a south belt around the middle. That kind of flip flopping has gotta have some kind of effect somewhere.
In reply to Trippy's question:
www.space.com/images/suncycle_clouds_0108_02.jpg
The above link which you provide shows clouds over continental United States. As the continental bedrock is slightly radioactive, it produces ions. In addition over land there is more dust which can form cloud nuclide. Both of these factors reduces the solar effect on cloud formation over land.
Over oceans, which cover 70% of the planet surface, the air is ion poor (water is not radioactive) and there is less dust.
Attached is a link to Tinsley and Yu's paper the describes the two mechanisms GCR and electroscavenging. Note increased GCR creates low level clouds. Electroscavenging removes cloud forming ions.
Expanded version of a paper by Tinsley and Yu, “Atmospheric Ionization and Clouds as Links between Solar Activity and Climate”
Figure 3 shows the global electric circuit which when energized by high speed solar winds removes clouds.
The high speed solar winds have stopped. The high solar activity appears to be over. If my understanding of the processes are correct, the planet will start to abruptly cool.
http://www.utdallas.edu/physics/pdf/Atmos_060302.pdf
QUOTE
So why is there evidence to suggest that the opposite is true? That increased solar activity leads to increased cloud cover (which would seem to rule out the GCR argument).
www.space.com/images/suncycle_clouds_0108_02.jpg
The above link which you provide shows clouds over continental United States. As the continental bedrock is slightly radioactive, it produces ions. In addition over land there is more dust which can form cloud nuclide. Both of these factors reduces the solar effect on cloud formation over land.
Over oceans, which cover 70% of the planet surface, the air is ion poor (water is not radioactive) and there is less dust.
Attached is a link to Tinsley and Yu's paper the describes the two mechanisms GCR and electroscavenging. Note increased GCR creates low level clouds. Electroscavenging removes cloud forming ions.
Expanded version of a paper by Tinsley and Yu, “Atmospheric Ionization and Clouds as Links between Solar Activity and Climate”
Figure 3 shows the global electric circuit which when energized by high speed solar winds removes clouds.
The high speed solar winds have stopped. The high solar activity appears to be over. If my understanding of the processes are correct, the planet will start to abruptly cool.
http://www.utdallas.edu/physics/pdf/Atmos_060302.pdf
Actually, no it's not. It's a map of the Correlation between the number of sunspots and cloud cover.
It shows the spatial distribution of the correlation between cloud cover and the number of Sunspots.
It shows us that for the large part of the continental US, when the number of sunspots increases, so does the cloud cover. This is completely the opposite behaviour predicted by Svensmark, his colleagues, anyone that came along behind him, and even the Moscow data.
According to Svensmark, the majority of the map should be hash marks, as this represents the areas that behave in the way Svensmark predicted - in other words, when solar activity was high, cloud cover was low (and v.v) This directly contradicts the GCR theory, and IMO there is now way the GCR theory (that I have seen) can possibly account for this behaviour.
Also, for what you're saying to be true, by your logic, moutains areas where there ar emountains should be areas of low correlation. Why? Mountains represent deeper material, they have a higher content of Metamorphosed and plutonic rocks then do the plains, for example, which means that because they have a higher content of say for example, Granite, they should be capable of producing more ionizing radiation, which should drown out any signal being produced by GCR's, or any other source for that matter, because they would have a high, constant level of background radiation, but this simply isn't the case.
It shows the spatial distribution of the correlation between cloud cover and the number of Sunspots.
It shows us that for the large part of the continental US, when the number of sunspots increases, so does the cloud cover. This is completely the opposite behaviour predicted by Svensmark, his colleagues, anyone that came along behind him, and even the Moscow data.
According to Svensmark, the majority of the map should be hash marks, as this represents the areas that behave in the way Svensmark predicted - in other words, when solar activity was high, cloud cover was low (and v.v) This directly contradicts the GCR theory, and IMO there is now way the GCR theory (that I have seen) can possibly account for this behaviour.
Also, for what you're saying to be true, by your logic, moutains areas where there ar emountains should be areas of low correlation. Why? Mountains represent deeper material, they have a higher content of Metamorphosed and plutonic rocks then do the plains, for example, which means that because they have a higher content of say for example, Granite, they should be capable of producing more ionizing radiation, which should drown out any signal being produced by GCR's, or any other source for that matter, because they would have a high, constant level of background radiation, but this simply isn't the case.
Interests me that in the local ( + ?) area there are people having their driveways re-sealed, yet here we are discussing how to change the albedo effects....long way to go in the 'public Informing' realm.
Would be nice if someone like government could step in and offer them, companies that do things like driveway re-sealing, a new product to use that would be closer to a Concrete Grey than the Ultra Black that is the current tar an oil situation. Government assistance is probably needed too, as those companies are employers and we do not want to cause job, or employment, losses if possible.
Concrete Grey as it is very common in humanity that we run from one extreme to the other, from Black to white, when maybe the best pathway is the moderating one, somewheres in the middle of the road....Grey....
Would be nice if someone like government could step in and offer them, companies that do things like driveway re-sealing, a new product to use that would be closer to a Concrete Grey than the Ultra Black that is the current tar an oil situation. Government assistance is probably needed too, as those companies are employers and we do not want to cause job, or employment, losses if possible.
Concrete Grey as it is very common in humanity that we run from one extreme to the other, from Black to white, when maybe the best pathway is the moderating one, somewheres in the middle of the road....Grey....
Hi Trippy,
The solar affect on GCR and on the global electric circuit, both of which modulate the amount of clouds, is not a simple relationship of number of sunspots on the sun's surface to planetary cloud cover. The following is an outline that explains the issues. The authors of the paper state that the correct solar parameter is "ak", if the objective is to determine how well solar changes correlate with global temperature changes. The authors show that the solar parameter "ak" correlates closely with 20th century planetary temperature changes.
Once again about global warming and solar activity
K. Georgieva1, C. Bianchi2 and B. Kirov1
http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MSAIt760405/PD...I..76..969G.pdf
Solar activity, together with human activity, is considered a possible factor for the global warming observed in the last century. However, in the last decades solar activity has remained more or less constant while surface air temperature has continued to increase, which is interpreted as an evidence that in this period human activity is the main factor for global warming. We show that the index commonly used for quantifying long-term changes in solar activity, the sunspot number, accounts for only one part of solar activity and using this index leads to the underestimation of the role of solar activity in the global warming in the recent decades. A more suitable index is the geomagnetic activity which reflects all solar activity, and it is highly correlated to global temperature variations in the whole period for which we have data.
CMEs, however, are not the only source of high speed solar wind. Early in the 20th century it was noticed that many geomagnetic storms occur without any visible solar disturbance. Such storms tend to recur every 27 days - the period of solar rotation, therefore they originate from long-living regions on the Sun which come back into geoeffective position rotation after rotation. Only when X-rays telescopes were flown above the atmosphere, it was found out that are large regions of open magnetic field geometry, and sources of high speed solar wind. They are now known as Coronal Holes (CHs) because, due to their lower density and temperature compared to the surrounding corona, they look darker in X-rays.
In Figure 6 the long-term variations in global temperature are compared to the long-term variations in geomagnetic activity as expressed by the ak-index (Nevanlinna and Kataja 2003). The correlation between the two quantities is 0.85 with p<0.01 for the whole period studied. It could therefore be concluded that both the decreasing correlation between sunspot number and geomagnetic activity, and the deviation of the global temperature long-term trend from solar activity as expressed by sunspot index are due to the increased number of high-speed streams of solar wind on the declining phase and in the minimum of sunspot cycle in the last decades.
The solar affect on GCR and on the global electric circuit, both of which modulate the amount of clouds, is not a simple relationship of number of sunspots on the sun's surface to planetary cloud cover. The following is an outline that explains the issues. The authors of the paper state that the correct solar parameter is "ak", if the objective is to determine how well solar changes correlate with global temperature changes. The authors show that the solar parameter "ak" correlates closely with 20th century planetary temperature changes.
Once again about global warming and solar activity
K. Georgieva1, C. Bianchi2 and B. Kirov1
http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MSAIt760405/PD...I..76..969G.pdf
Solar activity, together with human activity, is considered a possible factor for the global warming observed in the last century. However, in the last decades solar activity has remained more or less constant while surface air temperature has continued to increase, which is interpreted as an evidence that in this period human activity is the main factor for global warming. We show that the index commonly used for quantifying long-term changes in solar activity, the sunspot number, accounts for only one part of solar activity and using this index leads to the underestimation of the role of solar activity in the global warming in the recent decades. A more suitable index is the geomagnetic activity which reflects all solar activity, and it is highly correlated to global temperature variations in the whole period for which we have data.
CMEs, however, are not the only source of high speed solar wind. Early in the 20th century it was noticed that many geomagnetic storms occur without any visible solar disturbance. Such storms tend to recur every 27 days - the period of solar rotation, therefore they originate from long-living regions on the Sun which come back into geoeffective position rotation after rotation. Only when X-rays telescopes were flown above the atmosphere, it was found out that are large regions of open magnetic field geometry, and sources of high speed solar wind. They are now known as Coronal Holes (CHs) because, due to their lower density and temperature compared to the surrounding corona, they look darker in X-rays.
In Figure 6 the long-term variations in global temperature are compared to the long-term variations in geomagnetic activity as expressed by the ak-index (Nevanlinna and Kataja 2003). The correlation between the two quantities is 0.85 with p<0.01 for the whole period studied. It could therefore be concluded that both the decreasing correlation between sunspot number and geomagnetic activity, and the deviation of the global temperature long-term trend from solar activity as expressed by sunspot index are due to the increased number of high-speed streams of solar wind on the declining phase and in the minimum of sunspot cycle in the last decades.
'm familiar with Coronal Holes, and Geomagnetic activity.
Even your own source disagrees with you in attributing GCC so exclusively to solar activity.
Take another look at Figure 6.
Notice the increasing deviation between Global Temp Anomaly (Solid line) and Geomagnetic activity (broken line).
That increasing deviation is present in all measures if solar activity, or their equivalent, even if you go with the idea of short cycles.
That says there is something else going on.
That paper also no longer addresses GCR, which is what you were originally talking about.
Even your own source disagrees with you in attributing GCC so exclusively to solar activity.
Take another look at Figure 6.
Notice the increasing deviation between Global Temp Anomaly (Solid line) and Geomagnetic activity (broken line).
That increasing deviation is present in all measures if solar activity, or their equivalent, even if you go with the idea of short cycles.
That says there is something else going on.
That paper also no longer addresses GCR, which is what you were originally talking about.
In reply to Trippy's query. Why is there a sudden increase in planetary temperature post-1991? There are two mechanisms which are hypothesized to modulate planetary cloud cover: 1) GCR and 2) Electroscavenging.
It is the second mechanism "Electroscavenging" that is hypothesized to have caused the observed 0.065% per year reduction in planetary cloud cover and the sudden increase in planetary temperature.
See copy of Palle's satellite paper. (See figure 2. Note low level clouds are reduced by minus 0.065% per year, starting in about 1993.)
Comment:
A discussion of the validity of the hypothesis that mechanisms that modulate planetary cloud, are the cause of the observed interglacial/glacial cycle and abrupt planetary temperature changes, should include a presentation of the fundamental problems of the current standard planetary climate models and fundamental problems of the CO2 hypothesis. I will start a separate thread and provide an outline of the issues.
http://solar.njit.edu/preprints/palle1264.pdf
Comment: Planetary cloud cover is believed to modulated by two processes: 1)Changes in the number and strength of the Galactic Cosmic Rays that strike the earth's atmosphere and create cloud forming ions (The geomagnetic and Solar large scale magnetic fields, partially block GCR) and 2)Changes to the earth's global electric circuit which removes cloud forming ions. Data and analysis indicates that changes to the global electric circuit are caused by high speed solar winds, that are caused by solar coronal holes that started to appear near the solar equator 1993 and on.)
Attached below is a link to a Palle paper that provides data from observing the shine of the earth on the moon, to measure planetary albedo. The earthshine data, confirms that planetary cloud cover tracks GCR and that planetary cloud cover was reduced in the 1993 to 2001 period, which completely supports the satellite data and analysis.
http://solar.njit.edu/preprints/palle1266.pdf
Palle’s earthshine analysis found that the 1994 to 2001 reduction in cloud cover warmed the planet by 7.5 W/m2 +/- 2.4 W/m2 which is three times greater than the total estimated greenhouse gas estimated warming for the 20th century.
From Palle's earthshine data paper:
"Our observations of the earthshine take the ratio of the earthshine to moonshine, so they are insensitive variations of the solar irradiance. The 5 +/-2% change in our observed reflectance translates to …. Solar and terrestrial changes are in phase and contribute to a greater power going into the climate system at activity maximum. However, the effect of the albedo is more than an order of magnitude greater. Our simulations suggest a surface average forcing at the top of the atmosphere, coming only from changes in the albedo from 1994/1995 to 1999/2001, of 2.7 +/- 1.4 W/m2 Pall e et al., 2003), while observations give 7.5 +/-2.4 W/m2. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 1995) argues for a comparably sized 2.4 W/m2 increase in forcing, which is attributed to greenhouse gas forcing since 1850.
Still, whether the Earth’s reflectance varies with the solar cycle is a matter of controversy, but regardless of its origin, if it were real, such a change in the net sunlight."
It is the second mechanism "Electroscavenging" that is hypothesized to have caused the observed 0.065% per year reduction in planetary cloud cover and the sudden increase in planetary temperature.
See copy of Palle's satellite paper. (See figure 2. Note low level clouds are reduced by minus 0.065% per year, starting in about 1993.)
Comment:
A discussion of the validity of the hypothesis that mechanisms that modulate planetary cloud, are the cause of the observed interglacial/glacial cycle and abrupt planetary temperature changes, should include a presentation of the fundamental problems of the current standard planetary climate models and fundamental problems of the CO2 hypothesis. I will start a separate thread and provide an outline of the issues.
http://solar.njit.edu/preprints/palle1264.pdf
Comment: Planetary cloud cover is believed to modulated by two processes: 1)Changes in the number and strength of the Galactic Cosmic Rays that strike the earth's atmosphere and create cloud forming ions (The geomagnetic and Solar large scale magnetic fields, partially block GCR) and 2)Changes to the earth's global electric circuit which removes cloud forming ions. Data and analysis indicates that changes to the global electric circuit are caused by high speed solar winds, that are caused by solar coronal holes that started to appear near the solar equator 1993 and on.)
Attached below is a link to a Palle paper that provides data from observing the shine of the earth on the moon, to measure planetary albedo. The earthshine data, confirms that planetary cloud cover tracks GCR and that planetary cloud cover was reduced in the 1993 to 2001 period, which completely supports the satellite data and analysis.
http://solar.njit.edu/preprints/palle1266.pdf
Palle’s earthshine analysis found that the 1994 to 2001 reduction in cloud cover warmed the planet by 7.5 W/m2 +/- 2.4 W/m2 which is three times greater than the total estimated greenhouse gas estimated warming for the 20th century.
From Palle's earthshine data paper:
"Our observations of the earthshine take the ratio of the earthshine to moonshine, so they are insensitive variations of the solar irradiance. The 5 +/-2% change in our observed reflectance translates to …. Solar and terrestrial changes are in phase and contribute to a greater power going into the climate system at activity maximum. However, the effect of the albedo is more than an order of magnitude greater. Our simulations suggest a surface average forcing at the top of the atmosphere, coming only from changes in the albedo from 1994/1995 to 1999/2001, of 2.7 +/- 1.4 W/m2 Pall e et al., 2003), while observations give 7.5 +/-2.4 W/m2. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 1995) argues for a comparably sized 2.4 W/m2 increase in forcing, which is attributed to greenhouse gas forcing since 1850.
Still, whether the Earth’s reflectance varies with the solar cycle is a matter of controversy, but regardless of its origin, if it were real, such a change in the net sunlight."
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+May 20 2007, 05:17 PM)
BTW Guest_dachpy arvile it is called a re-condenser, installed upon a vehicle as to cool the water vapor and have it either exit as water (Not too good in a cold climate, like Canada's' in the winter, as that makes Ice) or be collected and later drained off.
And, this is highly impractical on several fronts.
Where does the recondensed water get stored, if kept? In another tank on the car? This adds weight and inefficiency. And, in environmental concern, if we do this, where does the contaminated water get dumped? On the ground? Great! More evaporation and environmental contamination.
Reprocessed and released back into the environment? Add to that more cost and more use o
And, this is highly impractical on several fronts.
Where does the recondensed water get stored, if kept? In another tank on the car? This adds weight and inefficiency. And, in environmental concern, if we do this, where does the contaminated water get dumped? On the ground? Great! More evaporation and environmental contamination.
Reprocessed and released back into the environment? Add to that more cost and more use o