Change font size
It is currently Sun Apr 20, 2014 5:01 am


Post a new topicPost a reply Page 1 of 1   [ 12 posts ]
Author Message
 Post subject: Jumping the gun?
PostPosted: Fri Aug 29, 2008 5:36 pm 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2005 11:11 am
Posts: 24869
Location: Bradford
Looks like we (meaning I, of course) jumped the gun on the ice melt, picking up a flattening of the curve and extrapolating it into my own brand of wishful thinking. With a little more practice, I will make a fully-fledged warmist, ready and willing to attest that the world is about to come to an end – unless you pay me a zillion dollars for a bunch of carbon credits, that is.

View full article here

_________________
We are a satellite state of the Greater European Empire, ruled by a supreme government in Brussels. We owe this government neither loyalty nor obedience. It is not our government. It is theirs. It is our enemy.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jumping the gun?
PostPosted: Fri Aug 29, 2008 7:22 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 12:46 am
Posts: 2153
Location: Pembrokeshre
Sea ice is much more sensitive to the water temperature under the ice than the air temperature above. The oceans are vast heat sinks of which the sun is only heating the top few meters. So it is going to take years for small changes in the sun's irradiance to signficantly change the temperature of the water under the sea ice.

From what I can see the sun's irradiance has changed a lot over the last two years, so perhaps it is simply too early to be looking for less melt in the artic as a result of this relatively recent change in the sun's brillance.

_________________
http://twobadmicenews.blogspot.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jumping the gun?
PostPosted: Fri Aug 29, 2008 7:42 pm 
Mt Monadnock, on the boarder of Vt /NH is made of granite. It was not formed by volcanic activity, as were the Green and White mountains. It was formed when an ice age glacier dragged away soil from around the mountain and tore pieces of the granite away as well. Granite pieces of the mountain have been found as far south as Long Island. Now that was an ice age. Can you imagine what it took to warm up after that one? And all without human-made carbon. One has to be a bit of an idiot to fall for the man-made global warming scam.

http://www.mountainsummits.com/mountain ... adnock.htm


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jumping the gun?
PostPosted: Fri Aug 29, 2008 8:45 pm 

Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2007 5:20 pm
Posts: 92
Location: Torun, Poland
Julian Williams wrote:
From what I can see the sun's irradiance has changed a lot over the last two years, so perhaps it is simply too early to be looking for less melt in the artic as a result of this relatively recent change in the sun's brillance.

Sun's brilliance? If you mean the energy output of the Sun, it it nearly constant, at least on a timescale of decades. The 11-year solar cycles involve profound changes in the solar activity - things like sunspots, prominences, coronal mass ejections, the amount of solar wind, etc - but the energy involved in these phenomena is negligible compared to the stable thermal emission of the solar photosphere. The changes on longer timescales - hundreds of years - are less well known.

The most probable mechanism for the solar activity changes influencing the climate of the Earth is modification of the albedo of the planet through changes in cloud formation, either directly or by affecting the cosmic ray flux. This means that the average solar irradiance above atmosphere may change little, while the irradiance on the surface changes substantially more.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jumping the gun?
PostPosted: Sat Aug 30, 2008 12:30 am 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 12:46 am
Posts: 2153
Location: Pembrokeshre
Idenostre wrote

Quote:
Sun's brilliance? If you mean the energy output of the Sun, it it nearly constant, at least on a timescale of decades. The 11-year solar cycles involve profound changes in the solar activity - things like sunspots, prominences, coronal mass ejections, the amount of solar wind, etc - but the energy involved in these phenomena is negligible compared to the stable thermal emission of the solar photosphere. The changes on longer timescales - hundreds of years - are less well known.


The sun is a variable star, this puts some prespective from the Whats up with that site that put this into perspective:
Quote:
few factoids:

It would take about 109 earths to equal the width of the suns diameter (Sun=1.39 million km Earth=12,700 km)
Over 1 million Earths would fit inside the Sun’s volume
The sun has a total luminosity output of 386 YottaWatts
(386,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 watts, some background here and here)
The total luminous energy output received by earth from the sun is 174 PETAWATTS (174,000,000,000,000,000) watts.
A 0.1% increase in luminosity dumps an extra 174 trillion watts (174,000,000,000,000) watts into our planetary energy balance.


Data source for graph: http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/pale ... diance.txt

Note: In the graph above, the low flatline from 1645-1715 is the Maunder Minimum, a period of virtually no sunspots, where the historical reports from the northern hemisphere tell a story of dramatic climate change: harsh winters, cools summers, crop failures, famine and disease.

From the abstract referenced above: “Estimated increases since 1675 are 0.7%, 0.2% and 0.07% in broad ultraviolet, visible/near infrared and infrared spectral bands, with a total irradiance increase of 0.2%. “

So its not just 0.1 %, it is 0.2% which translates to a 348 TeraWatts global irradiance increase.

Now lets put 348 trillion watts into perspective:

Hurricanes: the heat energy released by a hurricanes category 1-5 equals about 50 to 200 trillion watts or about the same amount of energy released by exploding a 10-megaton nuclear bomb every 20 minutes.

Katrina, released about 200 trillion watts over its life cycle.

Now imagine double that amount of extra energy being added to earth’s atmosphere every second by small increases in the suns output that have been documented to exist. That’s what the increase in solar irradiance is doing. Since 1675, after the depths of the Maunder Minimum, we’ve seen an increase in solar irradiance of about 2.5 watts per square meter.

Climate modelers say that the extra CO2 equates to a forcing of about 2 watts per square meter, which totals about 1.12 Petawatt (1,120,000,000,000,000 watts). The problem is, they can’t always recreate that reliably between all of the different models out there, with the positive and negative feedback mechanisms, and other variables involved. There’s disagreement on the total contribution. A lot of it. Nonetheless they seem all to agree that CO2 makes some contribution, and that’s likely true. But compared to the sun, I believe it’s minimal.

Now lets look at us: 13.5 TeraWatts is the average total power consumption of the human world in 2001.

Compared to solar variance, do you think we could change the planets atmospheric energy balance with that if we squeezed all the power we made that year together and radiated it into our atmosphere ?

What is very clear though, when you look at history, and the graph above, is that our earths atmosphere and resulting climate is extremely sensitive to variations in solar output. The sweet center point seems to be about 1365 watts per square meter of irradiance…what we consider as “normal” climate. Take 1.5 watts/sq. meter away, and we get significant cooling, harsh winters, cool summers, and increases in ice and glaciers. Add 1.5 watts,/sq. meter and we get hotter summers, mild winters, and melting of ice and glaciers.

Now irradiance aside, as it’s only one component, there’s also the chnage in the suns dynamic magnetic field and solar wind, which according to Svensmark, which modulates the number of cosmic rays that enter our atmosphere (I think there may be some possible effect also due to modulation of the earth’s magnetic field), which modulates the number of clouds that form, hence changing the net surface irradiance. Plots of changes in the suns magnetic field line up very well with climate change.


Read the whole thing here:http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/?s=irradiance

_________________
http://twobadmicenews.blogspot.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jumping the gun?
PostPosted: Sat Aug 30, 2008 2:09 am 

Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2007 5:20 pm
Posts: 92
Location: Torun, Poland
Julian Williams wrote:
Quote:
few factoids:
The total luminous energy output received by earth from the sun is 174 PETAWATTS (174,000,000,000,000,000) watts. A 0.1% increase in luminosity dumps an extra 174 trillion watts (174,000,000,000,000) watts into our planetary energy balance.

The solar irradiance outside atmosphere is S = 1366 W/m2 on a surface perpendicular to the incident radiation. The amount received by the Earth is S times the cross-section area of the globe. In climatology it is more common to use values per unit globe area rather than per unit cross-section area, thus you get about 341.5 W/m2. About 30 percent of that is immediately reflected (that's the Bond albedo of the Earth) leaving 239 W/m2.
Quote:
Quote:
From the abstract referenced above: “Estimated increases since 1675 are 0.7%, 0.2% and 0.07% in broad ultraviolet, visible/near infrared and infrared spectral bands, with a total irradiance increase of 0.2%. “

0.2 percent change is thus 0.48 W/m2
Quote:
Quote:
Since 1675, after the depths of the Maunder Minimum, we’ve seen an increase in solar irradiance of about 2.5 watts per square meter.

That refers to values per unit surface perpendicular to the incident radiation, without albedo taken into account. If you want to compare that to the CO2 forcing, you have to divide it by 4 (sphere geometry), and then multiply by (1 - 0.3) (albedo effect). This would yield 0.44 W/m2.
Quote:
Climate modelers say that the extra CO2 equates to a forcing of about 2 watts per square meter.

Per square metre of total globe area.
Quote:
which totals about 1.12 Petawatt (1,120,000,000,000,000 watts). The problem is, they can’t always recreate that reliably between all of the different models out there, with the positive and negative feedback mechanisms, and other variables involved.

The CO2 forcing is better known than the feedbacks, which are indeed poorly known.
Quote:
There’s disagreement on the total contribution. A lot of it. Nonetheless they seem all to agree that CO2 makes some contribution, and that’s likely true. But compared to the sun, I believe it’s minimal.

The numbers show something else. 2 W/m2 is over 4 times more than 0.48 W/m2. While both numbers are subject to error (which can go both ways), it doesn't seem probable that the former is smaller than the latter.

The influence of the solar variability on the Earth's albedo may be a more important factor than the direct changes of the Sun's luminosity.
Quote:
Now lets look at us: 13.5 TeraWatts is the average total power consumption of the human world in 2001.

That is irrelevant. No scientific body claims that human energy production has a direct measureable effect on the Earth's thermal balance.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jumping the gun?
PostPosted: Sat Aug 30, 2008 3:26 am 

Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2005 11:11 am
Posts: 6700
Quote:
The CO2 forcing


Is the core of the warmist lie.
It is impossible to prove that CO2 is causing temperature change. No, "it's plausible so we'll believe it" is not science.
By all means pretend that crude estimates based poorly understood theory count as science, but as a rational being I cannot accept the incompetent guesses being palmed off as science.
Your 2watts/metre sq. figure is a pure guess, totally unprovable scientifically and if offered as data lets talk error bars of +/- 10 watts.
But hey, it's your faith.

_________________
If you don't get grumpy as you grow older then you aren't paying attention


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jumping the gun?
PostPosted: Sat Aug 30, 2008 12:46 pm 
Read Meier at http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/20 ... #more-2581


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jumping the gun?
PostPosted: Sat Aug 30, 2008 5:30 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 12:46 am
Posts: 2153
Location: Pembrokeshre
Ideinostre - it is refreshing to read the opinions of someone who takes a view that C02 is a primary cause of the warmer weather and backs it up with a good grasp of the physics behind the theory. Most warmists are simply mud slingers. At Wattsupwiththat.com they need people to argue the case for the IPCC (who seem to be quite a bad lot, hiding their data and mixing their science with political statements), it would be interesting to see the response your points of view would receive on the sceptic sites.

I am no scientist, however as an outsider I can see that the hockey stick is now a proven hoax and the climate models do not predict anything useful and it looks as if warming has leveled out and that we are now in a cooling phase. The 1930s were very warm too, perhaps warmer than the 90s.

I can also see that climate change is going on all the time and is being driven by; the sun, underwater volcanos (there are between 400 - 700,000 of them), aerosols, albedo, ocean currents and the ossilation, greenhouse gases of which water is the most important and C02 is only a minor contributor. I expect the list is endless.

If we were starting all over again and looking at the climate with unbiased eyes would we be talking about global warming at all, would we pick on C02 as the main instrument of climate change? I think not. With the levelling off of the warmimg period and without the hockey stick hoax we would probably be looking at the subject from a much broader perspective and not making alarmist predictions about the ice sheets on Greenland melting

_________________
http://twobadmicenews.blogspot.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jumping the gun?
PostPosted: Sat Aug 30, 2008 7:50 pm 

Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2007 5:20 pm
Posts: 92
Location: Torun, Poland
Julian Williams wrote:
Ideinostre - it is refreshing to read the opinions of someone who takes a view that C02 is a primary cause of the warmer weather and backs it up with a good grasp of the physics behind the theory.

Heh, then you must have read someone else's opinions.
I said that the contribution of the recent increase in CO2 was greater than that of the solar luminosity changes in the same period of time. The Sun's cycles affect the climate of the Earth in more than one way, indirectly - and there are other factors which may be as important or more. I think that probably the most important variable parameter is the Earth's albedo, which is itself affected by many others - cloud cover, aerosols, land use, etc.

I wouldn't call myself a warmist; not even a lukewarmist PDT_Armataz_01_29. I don't know if we are going to have a cooling or a warming, and I am wary of drawing any firm conclusions from short period trends, whichever way they go. I also happen to be opposed to most of the policies that are justified by the GW: I wouldn't like to rely on the wind turbines for my electricity whether the Earth warms or cools.
Quote:
Most warmists are simply mud slingers. At Wattsupwiththat.com they need people to argue the case for the IPCC (who seem to be quite a bad lot, hiding their data and mixing their science with political statements),

This may be a selection effect: the ones that seek publicity and political influence are most visible, both because of their own efforts, and those of their opponents. One should not also underestimate the doom-amplification effect of the media - what scientist X said and what is reported may have little in common.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jumping the gun?
PostPosted: Sat Aug 30, 2008 10:26 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 12:46 am
Posts: 2153
Location: Pembrokeshre
Ideinostre - I thought your comments were too intelligent.

Some interesting reflections on the Albedo contribution to global warming that was originally a comment from someone called Werner on the Wattsupwiththat blog.

Quote:
Werner
For the arctic domino theory of AGW models it is not the sea ice volume which counts, it is the surface. Albedo change happens when you change the ice coverage area. It may matter whether the ice is thin or very thin. Only if the polar sea becomes ice free quickly in early summer, significant albedo change may occur (domino stone number 1).
Only then this may be sufficient to warm up the permafrost areas in adjacent northern Sibiria, Canada and Alaska. And to possibly free further greenhouse gases such as methane in great numbers. And by that to warm further (domino stone number 2) so that the Greenland glacier starts to melt significantly which should raise the sea level by meters (domino stone number 3).
If however run-off from the Sibirian rivers increases due to warming, salinity in the polar sea may drop and freezing may occur at higher temperatures, a negative feedback. Sibirian rivers seemed to have had a 10 % increase in run-off during the last, warm decades.
Incidentally, Hudson bay has had ice coverage long into the summer, probably because of the sweeter water there.
Are such feedbacks all included in Dr. Maslowski’s models?
Surely, the ice was thicker in the Nineteen-sixties. Remember, at that time we had predictions of a new ice age coming soon.
Now 30-40 years of warming have occured. Whether this happened by 2/3 due to AGW and by 1/3 due to strong solar cycles - this is the official IPCC statement - or whether it happened by somewhat more of solar cycle effects and somewhat less of AGW, that is the big question under debate.
There are indications of global cooling for the last two or so years and a plateau before. Solar cycle 23 has not been too strong in its waning years, whenever they may end, so a lower bound for the solar impact would be to assume a -1/3 contribution from the sun. AGW should have increased even more, mainly because of the dramatic increase of the Chinese coal consumption from less than 1 bn tons to now 3 bn tons in the last ten years.
This still should lead to net warming of 1/3 of the previous values or more., but not to cooling.
Finally think of the thermal expansion of the oceans which caused the sea level to raise by 3 cm- hard data. Temperature increases are observed down to 1000 m and more. From the distribution of the temperature rises - hard data - you can calculate the additional heat stored. It is ten times the additional heat which is stored in the atmosphere. This is a big buffer when cooling starts. So you wonder a bit why this buffer and the increased AGW have not prevented cooling at all.
In conclusion you may think that this somewhat more of solar contribution is 1/3 or even bigger. Then a 2/3 or bigger total solar contribution to the previous warming may also easily explain why the oceans have been warmed in such big depths. Sun light pentrates down to 100 Meter, while the infrared light of the AGW effect penetrates only 1 Millimeter.
DR (18:19:14) :

_________________
http://twobadmicenews.blogspot.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Jumping the gun?
PostPosted: Sun Aug 31, 2008 6:52 pm 
From graphs on Cryosphere Today, at least the ice in the southern hemisphere seems to holding its own.


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post a new topicPost a reply Page 1 of 1   [ 12 posts ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
cron


Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
610nm Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net