Global Cooling?

I repeat, there are anti-global warming sites all over the Internet, in which Biology Cabinet is evidently playing a role, so it would be senseless to get into a back-and-forth where you're citing these websites and we're siting peer-reviewed technical literature. Find some information that has scientific credibility.Look again at your graph from the Internet paper you cited, Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. I'll display it a bit larger this time so you can see the scale of solar irradiance on the right hand side of the graph: Notice it has solar irradiance in the year 2000 at about 1370 W/m². Now look at the solar irradiance scale on the graph contained in the LOCKWOOD AND HANSEN ARE WRONG link you just posted: In the year 2000 it has solar irradiance at 1366.6 W/m². This is an enormous disagreement in the data from your two sources, larger than the supposed change in solar irradiance between 1610 and now.How can you base an argument upon two sources that don't even agree with each other? At least the Judith Lean data is somewhat consistent with Lockwood and Frohlich for the period from 1980 onward, since they both have solar irradiance at around 1366 W/m² during this period.If you're going to draw your data from non-peer-reviewed websites then you're going to be plagued by these kinds of spectacular inconsistencies. We can't even have a discussion if your data is going to change from one post to the next.AbE: By the way, apparently Judith Lean herself does not believe the sun is playing a significant role in global warming, see Sun's Role in Climate Change Continues to Spark Controversy. Quoting Lean from the article, "Temperature changes in concert with solar activity are indeed apparent during the past millennium, but are typically of order 0.2 to 0.5 degrees C on time scales of hundreds of years. Since 1885, global warming in response to changes in the Sun's brightness is now thought to have been less than 0.25 degrees C."--PercyEdited by Percy, : Provide a little more info.

The bigger issue does the data supports solar forcing of global warming when one factors that Lockwood did not include the minima only included the maxima?P.S. The reason the numbers differ could well be Lockwood numbers were derived by a different formula. Can you prove otherwise? I've already shown he discluded the minima, etc...+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Figure 3: Arctic surface air temperature compared with total solar irradiance as measured by sunspot cycle amplitude, sunspot cycle length, solar equatorial rotation rate, fraction of penumbral spots, and decay rate of the 11-year sunspot cycle (8,9). Solar irradiance correlates well with Arctic temperature, while hydrocarbon use (7) does not correlate.http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htmEdited by johnfolton, : No reason given.Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

You're again citing a claim from a website. Website's aren't peer-reviewed and can say anything. As I've said, there are many anti-global-warming websites out there, it makes no sense to give their claims equal weight to peer-reviewed research. You've misunderstood the point. The solar irradiance figures from your two websites disagree with one another. The numbers that agree with one another post-1980 (Lockwood provided no earlier figures) come from the Lockwood figures that I provided on the one hand and the Lean figures that you provided on the other. So if Lockwood's data is flawed because he excluded minima then why does it agree with the Lean figures that you cited? And both these researchers agree that the sun is not a significant contributor to global warming.So there's no point for you to again cite the already discredited Figure 3 over at http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm. It uses figures that disagree with the figures you cited from Lean, and with the figures I cited from Lockwood. That Figure 3 is odd man out. It's already a pointless exercise to respond to your mining of anti-global-warming websites, and it gets no better if you keep citing the same erroneous material.--Percy

But Lean does not agree with Lockwood that solar illuminense is not increasing. Leah concluded that the graphs from Lockwood and Frolish were flawed.P.S. In fact appears to be that Lockwood and Frlish dismissed entirely the original work of Judith Lean et al published in 2001, which mysteriously disappeared from NOAA site.++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++From the actual data we conclude that the graphs from Lockwood and Frlish were flawed:1- Examine closely the graph and you’ll see how the solar irradiance radiation has increased, not decreased. The trend line (dashed line) is clearly rising. We cannot rebuff evidence.4. The graph of tropospheric temperatures is Hansen’s twisted graph. Many of us for many times have demonstrated that it does not match with reality.Blog chia s kinh nghim c cc online -5. Lockwood and Frlish dismissed entirely the original work of Judith Lean et al published in 2001, which mysteriously disappeared from NOAA site. However, you can review data at NASA and below this paragraph:The graph clearly shows that the Solar Irradiance is not decreasing from 1985; on the contrary, the Solar Irradiance is increasing up to date. Mike Lockwood has declared to the press (remember that pseudoscience usually is released through Media in the first place) that the Solar Activity has decreased since 1985, while the warming is increasing since the same year, concluding that the Sun has nothing to do with the Earth’s Climate.Blog chia s kinh nghim c cc online -

Ok ... I am going to take a deep breath and try not to get angry. This entire disagreement is because New Scientist is a stupid hack of a science magazine (sorry, I am bitter over past distortions they've made). The complaints raised against Lockwood and Frolish are entirely without merit, as anyone would see if they actually looked at the paper instead of just basing everything off of that deceptive plot New Scientist posted. The minima is not more important than the maxima. All the data points are equally important. The figure New Scientist used is after drastic smoothing (a practice I generally don't like) has been performed, and they removed all reference to the smoothing. This smoothing diminishes both local minima and local maxima without altering long range trends. Minima and maxima have nothing to do with the long range trends, which are still preserved and are what the paper was focusing on. There was no attempt to hide anything. The unsmoothed data is presented in the very first figure in the paper if you want to see it. They were not derived by a formula. They are taken directly from data and are presented in Figure 1 of the paper. The fact that your site focuses on the New Scientist figure instead of what the researchers presented shows that they are either morons or liars. Based on the content of the site, my conclusions is: liars. What does Lean have to do with this? Your website posts her data and then completely distorts it. Let's look at a couple of the jewels among mistakes: They can't honestly address Lockwood's arguments, so they slander him as being a pusher of pseudoscience instead. Because unlike the biologist making this accusation, Lockwood did publish instead of releasing to the media. That's what the paper is about: read the abstract! Based on what he says in the rest of the article, this biologist would be laughed at if he presented his arguments to other scientists. Yeah, you can get horribly wrong answers like this when you fit a line to a distribution that is not even close to linear. Also shown on the plot is a polynomial fit which is more accurate but still very wrong. And guess what, this polynomial fit does show that the solar irradiance has decreased since 1985. Both of his fits are completely wrong ... just thought I should point out that one of them contradicts his own thesis.You know what, I'm not even going to go into the rest of the site. That's enough for one post. Maybe what I've said is hard to understand. If so I apologize, but I'd be glad to explain why your website is completely wrong in more detail using less mathematical language if you want. As Percy said, don't trust "scientific" arguments that haven't been published when they claim to refute arguments that have been published. Especially when it comes to politically charged topics like global warming.

I'm confused about what you're trying to say here. Yes, H2O absorbs slightly less radiation when other greenhouse gases are present becuase the other gases are abosrbing some of that radiation instead. If you magically removing the other gases, the amount of heat absorbed by the H20 will increase because it's the only gas doing any absorption, but the amount escaping into space will increase overall. I really don't understand what you're thinking. Can you explain? It really does not support global dimming.

I took it differently like clouds with water the window of absorbtion is greater thus other pollutants the window is not linear. Meaning if the cloud was only water more light in the .5 to 2.0 um would be absorbed and the cloud is absorbing other frequencies because of the concentration of water is greater than the pollutants so Co2 actually is not absorbing much if any, which is why the clouds efficiency of absorbtion is only 14 percent. So pollutants actually are supporting global dimming, etc...or global warming is being induced by solar increases.P.S. Not sure if I can prove fraud anymore than I tried in respect to the Lockwood report. Think we're starting to get circular my sites right your sites right etc... though the northern hemisphere is absorbing more solar radiation due to the melting of the ice. This too supports more of the suns rays are not being reflected back to space which helps accelerate global warming.++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Water is the sole absorber in the windows from 0.5 micrometers (m) to 2.0 m and from 5.0 m to 7.0 m, However, in some regions absorption frequencies of various GHGs overlap; water, carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide absorption bands overlap in the 2.0-m to 3.0-m region; water and methane absorption bands overlap in the 3.0-m to 4.0-m region; carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide absorption bands overlap in the 4.0-m to 5.0-m window; nitrous oxide and methane absorption bands overlap in the 7.0-m to 8.0-m region;Partly because the infrared absorption bands of the various components of the atmosphere overlap, the contributions from individual absorbers do not add linearly.U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and AnalysisEdited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

You're getting your sources mixed up. Lean's and Lockwood's graphs have a different amount of "smoothing", but they agree with one another, and Lean said nothing about the Lockwood data being flawed. It is your webpage at Biology Cabinet that uses Lean's data to argue Lockwood was wrong, but go look back at the two graphs I included in my Message 31 - Lean's and Lockwood's graphs agree back to 1980, which is where Lockwood's data begins. It was your Petition Project webpage that had data that was in disagreement with both Lean and Lockwood.You cannot base an argument upon two sources whose data is in disagreement.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Clean up explanation.

i have noticed both the changes in plant life , animal life, and temperature of my area. lately the changes are becoming more drastic, weather patterns more chaotic and less predictable, and for the past 5 years winters milder and milder, Jan used to be the coldest month, is now mild compared to February.state flowers are almost becoming extinct to the states they were of origin to.i wonder..the atmosphere gaining so much more carbons from the earth, what has it done to the size of the atmosphere as a whole? has any studies been done on the distance of the stratosphere from the body of the earth? is it shrinking?it would appear that in a greenhouse the extra heat, which rises, seems to shrink the overall breathing room in the atmosphere of the greenhouse. I'm not a scientist, but i was wondering if it has any relevance.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

venus question:carbon layers in the atmosphere arnt in the same path of the water vapor, is it?i have a question relative to global warming and the layers of our atmosphere and relation to radiation.for instance, how water reacts to radiation. how O3 reacts to radiation, and how CO2 reacts to radiation.in the layers, radiation is bouncing back and forth between the layers. but the concentration doesn't appear to be strong enough for the radiation to cause a reaction of the CO2 layer, but here's the if:how does radiation react to concentrations of CO2 and other elements in the atmosphere? what concentration would be necessary for any possible ignition if any?what I'm getting at, is that if the refraction between layers of the radiation was strong enough, and the concentration of carbons strong enough, could we get a reaction that may ignite a similar cloud to the atmosphere that covers Venus, an absolute covering?

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Yes, adding absorbers does not increase absorption linearly. But there is no way that adding more absorbers can make the absorption go down. How much absorption goes up as a result of the presence of CO2 is the question which was answered by the DOE report that your website quotemined: about 12%. I have explained in detail the problems with your sites. If you disagree with or don't understand any of the errors I have found, please say so. Otherwise, I'm not going to waste my time revisiting them. Perhaps it would be better to stop arguing about researchers and get back to the data.Solar activity: using data from your own website (I believe the data, not how it was analyzed), long term, average solar irradiance increased by about 1.4 W/m^2, or about one tenth of one percent between 1900 and 1960. Check me on this! That's a tiny increase, but it could account for a large portion of the warming in the first part of the century. I'm not arguing that. What I am arguing is that solar activity has not increased in the last few decades, while the temperatures have continued to go up. Let's look again at the most recent data, measured by satelittes. Ignoring the 11 year cycles, irradiance, flares, and sunspots are all flat. If someone uses a mathematical technique to show an increase, the technique is wrong. Use you eyes!If you don't believe this data, you can see the same thing from your own website, you just have to look at the last thirty-forty years of the data.Now let's look at temperature during that time period:Regardless of whether you take measurements from the ground, or with satelittes, global temperatures have gone up by ~0.4 degrees C during that same time period. To repeat, solar actvity has not gone up during the last thirty years, Lockwood and Frohlich even argued that it has gone down very slightly, but the temperature has gone up.

There was an interesting show on public radio the other night, from the DNA Files. This one was on global warming and the effect already observed on evolution of species: The Heat Is On: Evolution in ActionIt was talking about animals migrating to stay in their "zone" and of relatively rapid evolution of species to adapt to the new conditions. Changes that have already been observed.I've been thinking that one of the "benefits" of global warming would be the rather incontestable evidence of evolution that would result from such widespread change to all kinds of ecologies as species adapt to new conditions. We should see many new instances of speciation, possibly enough development of new features to put the "macroevolution" question to bed.Moving into a period of punctuated evolution from one of stasis?Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

if history repeats itself, it would appear your correct.but im just digging through the global warming aspects. there's a lot of action and reaction in the environment, but on a global scale, how is the carbons being added effecting the overall weather, what does this mean for our future condition at the current rate, and perhaps another thread would be more appropriate to discuss the biological evolution in full.i pointed out the biological evolution changes just to validate the global climate changes, so there could be a greater evidence to the charts in question. action, and reaction, truth of global warming =?I'm more interested not in the obvious truth that the planet is evolving in its climates from the added carbons, but rather, with current trends, what is possible to say of our climate in 3 years? 10 years? 50 years?does the added carbon layer shrink our global atmosphere capacity for water? does the smaller space mean greater ground weathers?will that affect the magnetic poles?could the atmosphere ignite from electric and radiation forces that by my estimation, would increase in a smaller global atmosphere?in conclusion: where are we possibly headed in global climate? could the carbons produce a Venus effect in large enough concentration?

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Unfortunately, due to bandwidth, I'm unable to watch/listen to that file. I question the conclusion they mentioned that you presented here, however. At the end of the LGM, fossil evidence clearly indicates that both terrestrial plants and animals were able to habitat track to stay "in their zone" as you put it. However, conditions are no longer those that pertained at that time. Most modern terrestrial habitats are heavily fragmented, primarily by human impacts. In short, there is no habitat to track to, or no way to get where their "zone" will exist. Additionally, the speed of current climate change is unprecedented, meaning there is likely no more than a very few generations available for adaptation in most organisms. Ultimately, my prediction is that even in those organisms with exceptional dispersal abilities, a significant risk of extinction - vice evolution - is the mostly likely outcome.

I might get back to this but for now going to pretend your right that solar increases are not increasing but not really decreasing much if any either.If you factor in the increase in methane burping from the northern hemisphere and the increase in solar rays being absorbed in the northern hemisphere that previously were being reflected the trend in global warming increase makes sense without bringing Co2 into the equation.I mean most of the land is in the northern hemisphere and it tends to heat up quicker like the chart showing industrial pollution including Co2 not following global warming. If we have more land absorbing more solar radiation that would help continue to melt the polar caps. Its like my asphalt driveway once the sun starts to shine it helps evaporate the ice.You all admit the suns been increasing above the 11 year cycle trend up until 1985 since then its questionable if it decreased thus you have plenty of solar radiation to continue to melt the northern polar cap glaciers. The oceans don't heat up as quickly as the land so it might also be about this increase and more steady state up to present that the oceans are still heating up as the earth oceans go thru the seasonal orbits in respect to the tilt of the earth. i MEAN if water vapor is not dependent on air temp it could well continue to be increasing absorbing more infared radiation. Your all not factoring in that water vapor is not dependent on how much water vapor air can hold at a particular temp, etc...I'm a bit more concerned in that the united states did not have a massive hurricane last year is this due to global dimming should we be increasing Co2 emmissions instead of decreasing them? Meaning are we moving toward global cooling if the solar charts are accurate and decreasing slightly?This too me is what Europe is concerned about because as this ice continues to melt its affecting their climate. Did politics buy off Lockwood due to their concern about ice melting affecting their climate? If Lockwood is correct it makes me wonder if instead of moving forward in global warming if we're moving towards global cooling.It will be interesting as we move out from the low of our 11 year solar cycle if global warming is increasing, etc...++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++So, what is going on?Water molecules are constantly coursing back and forth between phases (another word for the three states: vapor, liquid, and solid). If more molecules are leaving a liquid surface than arriving, there is a net evaporation; if more arrive than leave, a net condensation. It is these relative flows of molecules which determine whether a cloud forms or evaporates, not some imaginary holding capacity that nitrogen or oxygen have for water vapor.The rate at which vapor molecules arrive at a surface of liquid (cloud drop) or solid (ice crystal) depends upon the vapor pressure.The rate at which vapor molecules leave the surface depends upon the characteristics of the surface. The number escaping varies with:the phases involved --- molecules can escape from liquid more readily than from the solid (ice);
the shape of the boundary --- molecules escape more readily from highly curved (small) drops or ice crystals (convex);
the purity of the boundary --- foreign substances dissolved in the liquid or ice diminish the number of water molecules which can escape;
the temperature of the boundary --- at higher temperatures the molecules have more energy and can more readily escape.And therein lies the origin of the myth. The temperature of a cloud droplet or ice crystal will be (nearly) the same as that of the air, so people imagine that somehow the air was to blame. But, if the (other gases of the) air were removed, leaving everything else the same, condensation and evaporation would proceed as before (the air was irrelevant to the behavior). To assign the behavior of water to an invented holding capacity of the air is like assigning your life's fortunes to an invented influence of the constellations (and as we all know, nobody does that anymore). Bad Clouds+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Fiddling with the Dimmer Switch
by Stan CoxDays were brighter when you were a kid. You haven’t seen the difference, but you might have felt it. In recent years, data analysis by scientists in Israel, Australia, and the United States has shown that sunlight intensity, averaged across hundreds of locations on all continents, decreased by 1.3 to 3% per decade from the 1950s to 1990s. When reported a few years ago [1], these findings were controversial, but subsequent research has helped confirm the occurrence if not the precise magnitude of so-called “global dimming.”http://www.greens.org/s-r/42/42-01.htmlEdited by johnfolton, : No reason given.Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.