Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-21-2019 6:21 AM
41 online now:
Percy (Admin), Tangle (2 members, 39 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,522 Year: 3,559/19,786 Month: 554/1,087 Week: 144/212 Day: 11/49 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3456Next
Author Topic:   Global Cooling?
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 16 of 79 (455133)
02-10-2008 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by fgarb
02-10-2008 5:25 PM


Global dimming?
We do know from physics/chemistry that CO2 is one of the gasses that reflects the IR light the earth radiates to cool itself. I'm no expert, but obviously this is expected to cool the earth and most computer simulations agree that this effect explains most of the warming we have seen.

Greenhouse gases might actually be cooling the earth not warming the earth.

More clouds reflects more heat too, etc... right?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

We said that this section was not going to have conclusion, but at least the part of the global cooling deserves one. We learned that now the Earth can reflect the solar light and instead of forming a greenhouse effect, passes all the opposite: the heat does not enter the Earth. Although a global heating can be disastrous, much more disastrous could be a global cooling, dice to that everybody is prepared for a heating, not a cooling.

http://library.thinkquest.org/06aug/00382/English/causes_dimming.html

Water Vapor Rules
the Greenhouse System

Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?

It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not.

This point is so crucial to the debate over global warming that how water vapor is or isn't factored into an analysis of Earth's greenhouse gases makes the difference between describing a significant human contribution to the greenhouse effect, or a negligible one.

<http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html>

Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by fgarb, posted 02-10-2008 5:25 PM fgarb has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Quetzal, posted 02-10-2008 8:52 PM johnfolton has responded
 Message 21 by fgarb, posted 02-11-2008 1:50 AM johnfolton has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19756
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.4


Message 17 of 79 (455136)
02-10-2008 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by fgarb
02-10-2008 5:50 PM


Welcome to the fray fgarb.

<img src="http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/COSMIC_RAYS/image/cr_ssn.gif" align="middle">

Another way to do that here is

[thumb=300]http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/COSMIC_RAYS/image/cr_ssn.gif[/thumb]

where the number 300 sets the displayed picture width and the tumbnail (automatically centered) is a link to the full size image (this is really good for large images, say over 500 pixels wide)


Click to enlarge

Am I correct in seeing the blue data as the cosmic rays that are also involved in the production of carbon-14 in the atmosphere?

Based on this evidence, I see no reason to link sunspots or cosmic rays in any way to the warming that has been observed recently.

Which it would not be if the warming were due to man's interference in the heat balance of the atmosphere, yes?

But you're better off looking at the actual flux of solar energy reaching us on the earth if you're trying to understand how the sun could have influenced the current climate.

So if you could show no real change in the sun energy production other than that due to sunspots\cosmic rays (or similar data) but a real change in the flux of energy reaching the surface of the earth versus captured in the atmosphere, then couldn't you make an argument that the change was not due to the sun cycles?

Enjoy.

ps - For newcomers interested in other formating tips see Posting Tips


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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by fgarb, posted 02-10-2008 5:50 PM fgarb has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by fgarb, posted 02-11-2008 2:04 AM RAZD has not yet responded

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 3947 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 18 of 79 (455137)
02-10-2008 8:52 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by johnfolton
02-10-2008 8:22 PM


Re: Global dimming?
A much bigger issue is the change in the Earth's albedo caused by deforestation. Savannah, grasslands, pasture, etc, increases the reflectivity.

However, I would suggest that it is interesting to note that, if as you say the Earth is actually entering a cooling trend - whether natural or anthropogenic causes predominate - we have the problem of explaining the significant reduction in ice cover of most North and South American glaciers. Wouldn't they be expanding, rather than contracting if the Earth was cooling?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by johnfolton, posted 02-10-2008 8:22 PM johnfolton has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by johnfolton, posted 02-10-2008 9:14 PM Quetzal has not yet responded
 Message 20 by RAZD, posted 02-10-2008 9:20 PM Quetzal has not yet responded

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 19 of 79 (455140)
02-10-2008 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Quetzal
02-10-2008 8:52 PM


Re: Global dimming?
However, I would suggest that it is interesting to note that, if as you say the Earth is actually entering a cooling trend - whether natural or anthropogenic causes predominate - we have the problem of explaining the significant reduction in ice cover of most North and South American glaciers. Wouldn't they be expanding, rather than contracting if the Earth was cooling?

I'm not saying were entering a global cooling problem just entering evidence that air temperature fluctuations follow solar cycles not increases or decreases of hydrocarbon use.

The chart within this link shows hydrocarbon use does not correlate with temperature change.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Historically we can clearly see that hydrocarbon use does not correlate with temperature changes. Temperature rose for a century before significant hydrocarbon use. Temperature rose between 1910 and 1940, while hydrocarbon use was almost unchanged. Temperature then fell between 1940 and 1972, while hydrocarbon use rose by 330%.

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/11821366.html


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Quetzal, posted 02-10-2008 8:52 PM Quetzal has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by fgarb, posted 02-11-2008 2:09 AM johnfolton has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19756
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.4


Message 20 of 79 (455141)
02-10-2008 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Quetzal
02-10-2008 8:52 PM


Re: Global dimming?
A much bigger issue is the change in the Earth's albedo caused by deforestation.

I read an article that suggested this trend has been with us since the start of the agricultural revolution, 10K years ago ...

We're just finishing it up.

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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Quetzal, posted 02-10-2008 8:52 PM Quetzal has not yet responded

  
fgarb
Member (Idle past 3466 days)
Posts: 98
From: Naperville, IL
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 21 of 79 (455168)
02-11-2008 1:50 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by johnfolton
02-10-2008 8:22 PM


Re: Global dimming?
johnfolton writes:

More clouds reflects more heat too, etc... right?

I think that's generally accepted, though it depends on the nature of the clouds. Clouds block both incoming sunlight and outgoing infrared radiation, so they can have both a warming and a cooling effect as I understand it. I may be wrong, but I think thicker clouds will have less of a cooling effect than thinner ones since thinner ones would block most of the IR while letting through most of the direct sunlight.

At any rate, cooling from clouds is taken into account by most modern simulations that are run which still find an expected warming trend. Maybe you disagree with most of the scientists who study this and don't believe the simulations. Fine, but we know that the cooling from clouds is a lesser effect than the warming from greenhouse gasses. We know this because if it weren't the earth would be much colder than it is today (I believe our oceans would be frozen without the greenhouse effect of water vapor but others can check me on this). And we know it because greenhouse gasses make Venus warmer than Mercury despite the fact that Venus is much farther away from the sun.

As for your study, I'll have a look tomorrow when it's not so late, but I am initially skeptical simply because they a) claim with such certainty that the conclusions of mainstream climate studies are wrong, and b) They make very precise claims such as that 5.53% of the warming is due to humans to describe a process that has such large uncertainties. No statistician worth their salt would use so many digits unless they quoted the relevant uncertainty to go with it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by johnfolton, posted 02-10-2008 8:22 PM johnfolton has not yet responded

    
fgarb
Member (Idle past 3466 days)
Posts: 98
From: Naperville, IL
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 22 of 79 (455169)
02-11-2008 2:04 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by RAZD
02-10-2008 8:47 PM


Thanks for the welcome and for the advice on formatting! I'll apply your suggestion next time around.

Razd writes:

Am I correct in seeing the blue data as the cosmic rays that are also involved in the production of carbon-14 in the atmosphere?

I know nothing about carbon-14, but I don't see what else could possibly change the nuclear structure of atoms in mass quantities in the atmosphere, so that stands to reason. To be completely correct, the blue plot shows neutrons that are produced by the cosmic rays, not the rays themselves, but it amounts to the same thing.

Razd writes:

Which it would not be if the warming were due to man's interference in the heat balance of the atmosphere, yes?

That's what I'm trying to get at. If the sun is to blame we should either see more energy reaching the earth from the sun over the last few decades, or we should see more solar flares and thus fewer cloud-forming cosmic rays coming in over the last few decades. We see neither according to the data I've seen and posted. I'm no expert in this field - just an interested layperson - but I can't think of any other way the sun could be swamping the greenhouse effect.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by RAZD, posted 02-10-2008 8:47 PM RAZD has not yet responded

    
fgarb
Member (Idle past 3466 days)
Posts: 98
From: Naperville, IL
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 23 of 79 (455170)
02-11-2008 2:09 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by johnfolton
02-10-2008 9:14 PM


Re: Global dimming?
johnfolton writes:

I'm not saying were entering a global cooling problem just entering evidence that air temperature fluctuations follow solar cycles not increases or decreases of hydrocarbon use.

Historically sun cycles dominated. But during the time of the recent warming there are a) humans pumping greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere and b) no significant change in solar power output or solar flares ... at least not according to the data I've seen and posted. What could possibly be making you say that b is the cause of the warming? Maybe it's something in this funny link you posted. I'll have a look at it tomorrow when I'm less sleepy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by johnfolton, posted 02-10-2008 9:14 PM johnfolton has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by johnfolton, posted 02-11-2008 2:39 AM fgarb has responded

    
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 24 of 79 (455171)
02-11-2008 2:39 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by fgarb
02-11-2008 2:09 AM


Re: Global dimming?
What could possibly be making you say that b is the cause of the warming?

It appears CO2 gas does not refract light thus apparently has no greenhouse effect ? I guess its just another molecule in the atmosphere and as one of my previous links that water vapor is not being factored into the equations because without water vapor Co2 appears to have meaning even so its meaningless due to the volume of water vapor thru the water cycle. The oceans are massive solar radiation water vapor simply dwarfs Co2 as all the charts attests.

Enjoy !!!!!!!!!

Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?

It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account--

<http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html>

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Increased plant growth more Co2 uptaken by plants, etc...More oxygen for the planet, plants able to grow with less water, increase in plant growth, etc...

-------------------------------------------------------------

The increased CO2 might also directly increase plant growth and productivity as well. In fact, this theory, known as the CO2 Fertilization Effect, has led some scientists to suggest that the Greenhouse Effect might be a blessing in disguise. Laboratory experiments have shown that increased CO2 concentrations potentially promote plant growth and ecosystem productivity by increasing the rate of photosynthesis, improving nutrient uptake and use, increasing water-use efficiency, and decreasing respiration, along with several other factors (OTA, 1993). The scientists, encouraged by these benefits, hypothesize that increased ecosystem productivity will actually help draw excess CO2 from the atmosphere, thereby diminishing concerns about global warming (OTA, 1993).

http://drought.unl.edu/whatis/cchange.htm

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Here's some more charts that support atomospheric temperatures is regulated by the sun not Co2, etc...

-------------------------------------

Atmospheric temperature is regulated by the sun, which fluctuates in activity as shown in Figure 3; by the greenhouse effect, largely caused by atmospheric water vapor (H2O); and by other phenomena that are more poorly understood. While major greenhouse gas H2O substantially warms the Earth, minor greenhouse gases such as CO2 have little effect, as shown in Figures 2 and 3. The 6-fold increase in hydrocarbon use since 1940 has had no noticeable effect on atmospheric temperature or on the trend in glacier length.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The concentrations of water vapor is increasing in the stratosphere and the troposphere, etc...

-------------------------------

Upper Troposphere and Stratosphere

Chair: D. Kley (Germany), e-mail: d.kley@fz-juelich.de
Co-Chair: J.M. Russell III (USA) e-mail: james.russell@hamptonu.edu

Water vapour in the lower stratosphere and upper troposphere is critically important for overall atmospheric radiative transfer, but, at present, knowledge of the mean distribution of water vapour, variability on seasonal and other timescales, and the controlling processes is limited.

A significant increase in the number and quality of stratospheric water vapour measurements has occurred over the past 25 years, particularly with the advent of satellite observations. Stated accuracy of most in situ and remote instruments as well as direct or indirect comparisons of coincident field measurements cluster within a ±10% range. The concentration of stratospheric water vapour in the "overworld" (Q ? ~380 K) is determined by dry air upwelling through the tropical tropopause, methane oxidation in the stratosphere, and transport by the poleward-and-downward (Brewer-Dobson) mean circulation. At the tropical tropopause, air transported into the stratosphere is dried by a complex combination of processes that act on a variety of spatial and temporal scales. Water vapour in the upper troposphere is controlled by local and regional circulation patterns and seasonal changes of upper tropospheric temperature. There has been a 2 ppmv increase of stratospheric water vapour since the middle 1950s. This is substantial given typical current stratospheric values of 4-6 ppmv. Photochemical oxidation of methane in the stratosphere produces approximately two molecules of water vapour per molecule of methane. The increase in the concentration of tropospheric methane since the 1950s (0.55 ppmv) is responsible for at most one half of the increase in stratospheric water vapour over this time period. It is not clear what is responsible for the remainder of the observed increase in stratospheric water vapour.

http://www.aero.jussieu.fr/~sparc/Initiatives/h2o.html

Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by fgarb, posted 02-11-2008 2:09 AM fgarb has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Percy, posted 02-11-2008 9:28 AM johnfolton has responded
 Message 27 by fgarb, posted 02-12-2008 1:16 AM johnfolton has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18308
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 25 of 79 (455179)
02-11-2008 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by johnfolton
02-11-2008 2:39 AM


Re: Global dimming?
johnfolton writes:

It appears CO2 gas does not refract light thus apparently has no greenhouse effect?

:eek:

CO2 is thought to be the second single biggest contributor to the greenhouse effect after water vapor. The Wikipedia article on the Greenhouse Effect has a fairly clear explanation of why CO2 is such an effective greenhouse gas.

Man-made production of energy based upon fossil fuels is the single biggest contributor to increases in CO2 levels in the atmosphere, and that is why there is so much discussion recently about CO2 artificial sequestration (see the Wikipedia article on Artificial Sequestration).

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by johnfolton, posted 02-11-2008 2:39 AM johnfolton has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by johnfolton, posted 02-11-2008 3:03 PM Percy has responded

    
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 26 of 79 (455236)
02-11-2008 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Percy
02-11-2008 9:28 AM


Re: Global dimming?
Man-made production of energy based upon fossil fuels is the single biggest contributor to increases in CO2 levels in the atmosphere, and that is why there is so much discussion recently about CO2 artificial sequestration

I agree man made contributions from man has increased however its meaningless because when you factor in water vapor its only .28% of the Greenhouse effect meaning you could ban all man contributions and it would not affect global warming.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?

It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account--

<http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html>

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Here's some more charts that support atomospheric temperatures is regulated by the sun not Co2, etc...

-------------------------------------

Atmospheric temperature is regulated by the sun, which fluctuates in activity as shown in Figure 3; by the greenhouse effect, largely caused by atmospheric water vapor (H2O); and by other phenomena that are more poorly understood. While major greenhouse gas H2O substantially warms the Earth, minor greenhouse gases such as CO2 have little effect, as shown in Figures 2 and 3. The 6-fold increase in hydrocarbon use since 1940 has had no noticeable effect on atmospheric temperature or on the trend in glacier length.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Percy, posted 02-11-2008 9:28 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Percy, posted 02-12-2008 9:23 AM johnfolton has responded

  
fgarb
Member (Idle past 3466 days)
Posts: 98
From: Naperville, IL
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 27 of 79 (455356)
02-12-2008 1:16 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by johnfolton
02-11-2008 2:39 AM


Re: Global dimming?
johnfolton writes:

Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?

It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account--

<http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html>

I have spent too much time fact checking your first link to go on to the others at this point, so let's focus on it. The key claim of this site is that water vapor makes up 95% of the greenhouse gas effect. Let's look at the DOE source he cited to support this crazy claim:

"DOE Report" writes:

Given the present composition of the atmosphere, the contribution to the total heating rate in the troposphere is around 5 percent from carbon dioxide and around 95 percent from water vapor. In the stratosphere, the contribution is about 80 percent from carbon dioxide and about 20 percent from water vapor.

There is more to the atmosphere than just the troposphere! If you want to look at the numbers for the entire atmosphere, his own source tells you them in the table just below. According to his own source, if you removed all CO2 from the atmosphere it would trap ~12% less heat, and if you removed all H20 from the atmosphere it would trap ~36% less heat. And of course these numbers are from 1978 when there was less CO2 in the atmosphere than today. So to claim that water vapor makes up 95% of the greenhouse effect is crazy. This guy should learn not to cite his sources if he's going to quotemine them.

So that's his first major "mistake". The second is implying that humans are not the cause of most of the CO2 increase since before the industrial revolution. That's ridiculous. What could possibly be pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere than we are (see the image below)? Maybe he's ignoring domesticated animals and deforestation? And even if you could think of a natural cause, what are the chances that nature waited hundreds of thousands of years and then did so just as we were starting to industrialize? It makes no sense. He gives no justification for this claim, and the reference on his table does not work.

Those two mistakes have a huge effect on his result. Let me try a simple correction. Using his source, CO2 makes up 12% of the greenhouse effect. From this plot of CO2 concentrations the industrial revolution increased CO2 concentrations from ~275 ppm to ~375 ppm today, about a 35% rise. So I would very roughly estimate that CO2 resulting from human industrialization accounts for around 35% of 12%, or about 4% of the total greenhouse effect ... not the 0.28% he arrives at. Given that with no greenhouse effect at all our planet would be a block of ice, that sounds like a fairly significant increase to me.

Feel free to defend these claims, but they sure look completely wrong to me. And is there a reason I should trust the other sites you posted? Correcting these mistakes takes time.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by johnfolton, posted 02-11-2008 2:39 AM johnfolton has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by johnfolton, posted 02-12-2008 2:23 AM fgarb has responded

    
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 28 of 79 (455358)
02-12-2008 2:23 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by fgarb
02-12-2008 1:16 AM


Re: Global dimming?
So to claim that water vapor makes up 95% of the greenhouse effect is crazy.

Sounds like water vapor alone would remove more infrared heat if all the other absorbers including Co2 were removed. Does this mean Co2 is reducing the absorbtion ability of water vapor. That too me kind of supports global dimming, it does not seem to be supporting Co2 is increasing the absorbtion of infared radiation!!!!!!!!

It is interesting that within the troposphere 95 % is considered water vapor and them charts in them other links you have not gotten to yet supporting the sun is the cause of global cooling or global warming. The air temperature changes simply are not following your industrial Co2 increases, however following the solar fluctuations.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Partly because the infrared absorption bands of the various components of the atmosphere overlap, the contributions from individual absorbers do not add linearly. Clouds trap only 14 percent of the radiation with all other major species present, but would trap 50 percent if all other absorbers were removed [105]

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/environment/appd_d.html


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by fgarb, posted 02-12-2008 1:16 AM fgarb has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by fgarb, posted 02-13-2008 1:16 AM johnfolton has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18308
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 29 of 79 (455382)
02-12-2008 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by johnfolton
02-11-2008 3:03 PM


Re: Global dimming?
johnfolton writes:

I agree man made contributions from man has increased however its meaningless because when you factor in water vapor its only .28% of the Greenhouse effect meaning you could ban all man contributions and it would not affect global warming.

Can I assume you conclude this from the same misinformation that led you to conclude that CO2 gas has no greenhouse effect?

johnfolton quoting from a paper he found on the Internet writes:

Atmospheric temperature is regulated by the sun, which fluctuates in activity as shown in Figure 3;

Here's their Figure 3:


Click to enlarge

Here's a set of 5 graphs showing that your source's graph of solar activity is incorrect:


Click to enlarge

Caption: Solar activity (a: sunspots, b: solar cycle, c: magnetic field, d: cosmic rays, e: solar irradiance) made a U-turn around 1985; meanwhile, global temperatures continued to rise (f) (see Sun's activity rules out link to global warming)

This set of graphs is from a research paper by Lockwood and Frohlich (Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature) published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society. It clearly shows that solar activity peaked in 1985, not in 1990 as your source's graph erroneously shows, and that solar activity did not begin picking up again in 1997, again as your source's graph erroneously shows. Your source's graph of solar activity doesn't even show the well-established 11-year cycle that correlates with sunspot activity. Your source makes another grave error by arguing that average arctic temperature is indicative of average global temperature.

Clearly erroneous data would be one reason why your source's paper is self-published at a website while the Lockwood/Frohlich paper was published in one of the most prestigious journals in the world. Badly erroneous data typically doesn't make it through peer-review.

There are anti-global warming sites all over the Internet, 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. Bottom line: whether you're right or wrong about global warming, to have a seat at the table of informed discussion you have to at least start with correct data.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by johnfolton, posted 02-11-2008 3:03 PM johnfolton has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by johnfolton, posted 02-12-2008 10:54 AM Percy has responded

    
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 30 of 79 (455404)
02-12-2008 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Percy
02-12-2008 9:23 AM


Re: Global dimming?
Can I assume you conclude this from the same misinformation that led you to conclude that CO2 gas has no greenhouse effect?

No, my sites data are from professionals in the field however it does appear Mike Lockwood is trying to hide the minima which appears more important than the maxima, etc...

Enjoy !!!!!!!

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

jimdk at 04:16 AM on 10 September, 2007
"From the actual data we conclude that the graphs from Lockwood and Frölish were flawed:

1. The methodology used by Lockwood and Frölish to smooth the lines was applied only to maxima of R (sunspot number), dismissing the TSI. This practice hides the minima, which for the issue are more important than the maxima. For example, if the minimum of TSI in 1975 was 1365.5 W/m^2, it would contrast dramatically with the minimum of TSI of 1998 that was 1366 W/m^2 (0.033% higher). That would make the Sun in 1975 “colder” than in 1998. However, if we compare minimum values with maximum values, then the Sun would be frankly “warmer” in 1998 -when the solar energy output was 1366 W/m^2- than in 1975 -when the energy output was 1366.1111 W/m^2. Today (21/07/07), the global TSI was 1367.6744 W/m^2); hence, we see that we must not smooth maxima values through movable trends because we would be hiding the minima values, which are more important because the baseline of the “cooler” or lower nuclear activity of the Sun are higher everyday. The coolest period of the Sun happened during the Maunder Minimum when the TSI was 1363.5 W/m^2. The coolest period of the Sun from 1985 to date occurred in 1996 when the TSI was 1365.6211 W/m^2. An interesting blotch is that in 1985 the TSI was 1365.6506 W/m^2 and in 2000 was 1366.6744."

http://biocab.org/Solar_Irradiance_is_Actually_Increasing.html#anchor_15

Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Percy, posted 02-12-2008 9:23 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Percy, posted 02-12-2008 11:45 AM johnfolton has responded

  
Prev1
2
3456Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019