Upcoming Increased Solar Activity = More Global Warming

[Naturalized-Texan]

Since global temperatures correlate directly to increased solar activity, we can expect to see higher global temperatures and more panic from the left despite that fact that the upcoming warming is completely natural as it has been for more than 100 years:

Sun's next 11-year cycle could be 50 pct stronger (http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=scienceNews&storyid=2006-03-06T204858Z_01_N06327000_RTRUKOC_0_US-SPACE-SUN.xml&rpc=22)

Sun-spawned cosmic storms that can play havoc with earthly power grids and orbiting satellites could be 50 percent stronger in the next 11-year solar cycle than in the last one, scientists said on Monday.

Using a new model that takes into account what happens under the sun's surface and data about previous solar cycles, astronomers offered a long-range forecast for solar activity that could start as soon as this year or as late as 2008.

{More at the link above.}

[markus3622]

NT, I know I thought I should leave this debate, but you make a few mistakes in your post.

Since global temperatures correlate directly to increased solar activity...

Correlation has been observed in the past, especially with regards certain events such as the Maunder Minimum when other factors were relatively constant. However, this correlation has broken down in recent years. Much of the correlations seen in the press has been shown to be due to data handling errors. This break down in correlation has suggested that some other factor must be important.

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/DamonLaut2004.pdf


...we can expect to see higher global temperatures

However, this is the classic logical error. We've seen a temperature drop before with a drop in solar activity, therefore, the temperature rise must be due to an increase in solar activity. That is flawed logic. Especially when an increase in solar activity hasn't been recorded. You've falsified your own hypothesis.

The body of evidence suggests that the biggest factor on the climate is the increase in greenhouse gases, although solar activity certainly has an effect. Even the most sympathetic article concludes that



The results from this research show that increases in solar irradiance are likely to have had a greater influence on global-mean temperatures in the first half of the twentieth century than the combined effects of changes in anthropogenic forcings. Nevertheless the results confirm previous analyses showing that greenhouse gas increases explain most of the global warming observed in the second half of the twentieth century.



http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/StottEtAl.pdf

It is interesting that the author of the research you quote doesn't come to the same conclusion about global warming as you.

[DoctorDoom]

Kid, you're singing your song to an empty house, and only the crickets are responding. You ecowackos are NOT impressive.

Still, if you want to do your part in reducing greenhouse gases, stop breathing and spare the world your CO₂.

[Naturalized-Texan]

It is interesting that the author of the research you quote doesn't come to the same conclusion about global warming as you.
No surprise there. She didn't dare mention such an obvious conclusion because it is not PC to do so. If the scientists being quoted would have mentioned that obvious conclusion, they would lose their financial grants from the left-wing groups to which they are beholden.

[markus3622]

No surprise there. She didn't dare mention such an obvious conclusion because it is not PC to do so. If the scientists being quoted would have mentioned that obvious conclusion, they would lose their financial grants from the left-wing groups to which they are beholden.

This work is partially supported by NASA grant NNH05AB521. The National Center for Atmospheric Research is sponsored by the National Science Foundation.

Is NASA a left-wing group now? Is the National Science Foundation?


NSF's director, its deputy director, and the 24 members of the National Science Board (NSB) (http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/) are appointed by the President of the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States), and confirmed by the United States Senate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate). The director and deputy director are responsible for administration, planning, budgeting and day-to-day operations of the foundation, while the NSB meets six times a year to establish its overall policies.

Again, you've falsified your own hypothesis. So either the researcher doesn't conclude the same as you, because there's a left-wing conspiracy at the heart of NASA and the NSF and the Bush Administration, OR your conclusion is incorrect.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Since it has been shown conclusively that solar activity cycles exactly coincide with global cooling and warming cycles, why else, other than losing credibility with the junk scientists who are wedded to the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and leftist organizations that control research grants, would those scientists completely ignore the fact that the increased solar activity will also increase global warming?

[Native American]

I've posted most of this same material in another thread, but it bears repeating in this one, given this particular thread subject.

Consider, for a moment, the amount of "global warming" power coming from natural causes (i.e., The Sun) versus the amount of "global warming" power caused by burning coal, oil, and natural gas to produce electricity and heat our homes.


Sun's Overall Properties<O:p</O:p

produces 4x10<SUP>26</SUP> watts of energy and based on the Earth's fossil record, has been doing so at virtually the same rate for over 3 billion years. <O:p</O:p
has a mass of 2x10<SUP>30</SUP> kg and an average density of 1400 kg/m<SUP>3</SUP> (recall the computation of the density of Jupiter which illustrates that even an object comprised largely of H can be this dense; H is in a different state in the Sun than in Jupiter, however) <O:p</O:p
has a surface temperature of 5800ºK (which implies that it must be a compressed gas because no materials can remain solid or even liquid at this temperature) <O:p</O:p
rotates in about 25 days at its equator; it rotates differentially confirming its gaseous character <O:p</O:p
has a magnetic field <O:p</O:p<O:p</O:p
By measuring the radiation received just outside the Earth's atmosphere and applying our knowledge that the Sun's radiation will have been spread over a sphere whose radius is the Earth's distance from the Sun:
<O:p</O:p
flux f = 1370 watts/m<SUP>2</SUP> received from the Sun at the Earth, integrated over all wavelengths so
<O:p</O:p
L<SUB>Sun</SUB> = 4 pi d<SUP>2</SUP>f = 4 pi (1.50x10<SUP>11</SUP> m)<SUP>2</SUP> 1370 w/m<SUP>2 </SUP>= 3.9x10<SUP>26</SUP> watts

In 2004, there were 1,809,078 billion BTU’s useful thermal power output produced by burning coal, oil, and natural gas

1 BTU X 0.0002928 = KWH
<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p
530 billion KWH in a year
24 X 365 = 8760 hours in a year
<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p
530/8760 = .06 billion watt rate from burning coal, oil, and natural gas = .06 x 10<SUP>9 </SUP>= 6.0 x 10<SUP>6 </SUP>watts

3.9x10<SUP>26</SUP> watts / 6.0 x 10<SUP>6 </SUP>watts = 0.65 x 10<SUP>20</SUP>


<O:p</O:p
IOW, the “global warming” from the Sun is approximately 650,000,000,000,000,000,000 times greater than that due to the total amount of “global warming” caused by all the coal, oil, and gas that is burnt to produce electricity and heat. But to be fair, we should also consider the amount of oil burnt to propel our cars, planes, boats, and trains, but the amount of heat produced by doing that is in the ballpark range of that produced by producing electricity and heating our homes.

[Merlin]

Just like the left claimed a new ice age was imminant when there was a cooling phase in the 1970`s. I`d hate to be a liberal, they are sooooo miserable.

[markus3622]

Since it has been shown conclusively that solar activity cycles exactly coincide with global cooling and warming cycles,

Could you present one paper that shows this?

... why else, other than losing credibility with the junk scientists who are wedded to the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and leftist organizations that control research grants, would those scientists completely ignore the fact that the increased solar activity will also increase global warming?

Do you stand by your assertion that the Bush administration, the National Science Foundation and NASA are leftist organizations?

[Popperite]

Could you present one paper that shows this?



Do you stand by your assertion that the Bush administration, the National Science Foundation and NASA are leftist organizations?

Arguing by discrediting the source or their intentions always makes me suspicious. It is simply not sufficient.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Could you present one paper that shows this?
I already have - at least twice.

Do you stand by your assertion that the Bush administration, the National Science Foundation and NASA are leftist organizations?
The NSF may very well be populated by leftist junk scientists, depending on how many Clinton-holdovers are still there, and as we have seen, the leftist junk scientist, James Hansen, works for NASA.

[g21lto]

I've posted most of this same material in another thread, but it bears repeating in this one, given this particular thread subject.

Consider, for a moment, the amount of "global warming" power coming from natural causes (i.e., The Sun) versus the amount of "global warming" power caused by burning coal, oil, and natural gas to produce electricity and heat our homes.


Sun's Overall Properties<O:p</O:p

produces 4x10<SUP>26</SUP> watts of energy and based on the Earth's fossil record, has been doing so at virtually the same rate for over 3 billion years. <O:p</O:p
has a mass of 2x10<SUP>30</SUP> kg and an average density of 1400 kg/m<SUP>3</SUP> (recall the computation of the density of Jupiter which illustrates that even an object comprised largely of H can be this dense; H is in a different state in the Sun than in Jupiter, however) <O:p</O:p
has a surface temperature of 5800ºK (which implies that it must be a compressed gas because no materials can remain solid or even liquid at this temperature) <O:p</O:p
rotates in about 25 days at its equator; it rotates differentially confirming its gaseous character <O:p</O:p
has a magnetic field <O:p</O:p<O:p</O:p
By measuring the radiation received just outside the Earth's atmosphere and applying our knowledge that the Sun's radiation will have been spread over a sphere whose radius is the Earth's distance from the Sun:
<O:p</O:p
flux f = 1370 watts/m<SUP>2</SUP> received from the Sun at the Earth, integrated over all wavelengths so
<O:p</O:p
L<SUB>Sun</SUB> = 4 pi d<SUP>2</SUP>f = 4 pi (1.50x10<SUP>11</SUP> m)<SUP>2</SUP> 1370 w/m<SUP>2 </SUP>= 3.9x10<SUP>26</SUP> watts

In 2004, there were 1,809,078 billion BTU’s useful thermal power output produced by burning coal, oil, and natural gas

1 BTU X 0.0002928 = KWH
<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p
530 billion KWH in a year
24 X 365 = 8760 hours in a year
<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p
530/8760 = .06 billion watt rate from burning coal, oil, and natural gas = .06 x 10<SUP>9 </SUP>= 6.0 x 10<SUP>6 </SUP>watts

3.9x10<SUP>26</SUP> watts / 6.0 x 10<SUP>6 </SUP>watts = 0.65 x 10<SUP>20</SUP>


<O:p</O:p
IOW, the “global warming” from the Sun is approximately 650,000,000,000,000,000,000 times greater than that due to the total amount of “global warming” caused by all the coal, oil, and gas that is burnt to produce electricity and heat. But to be fair, we should also consider the amount of oil burnt to propel our cars, planes, boats, and trains, but the amount of heat produced by doing that is in the ballpark range of that produced by producing electricity and heating our homes.
Your post is a bit misleading, given that it's not the power put out by burning the fossil fuels which is being linked to global warming, but the CO2 output from the burning. Could you address the CO2 instead? How is the amount of power put out by our burning of fossil fuels relevant?

[Popperite]

Your post is a bit misleading, given that it's not the power put out by burning the fossil fuels which is being linked to global warming, but the CO2 output from the burning. Could you address the CO2 instead? How is the amount of power put out by our burning of fossil fuels relevant?

As pointed out in the other thread by some, NA is missing the point, trying to refute something that was never argued in the first place.

[Telit laikitiz]

An interesting book along these lines is Michael Chrichton's "State of Fear". Did you see where Japanese have learned how to extract gasoline from BS? I wonder how much gasoline can be extracted from all the other BS being spewed out? lol Some guy in England runs his car on chicken crap. But the whole point is, there is gold in them thar hills, that is, it pays to believe in global warming, that's the real bottom line. And other countries have their eyes on that gold.

[Native American]

Your post is a bit misleading, given that it's not the power put out by burning the fossil fuels which is being linked to global warming, but the CO2 output from the burning.

What's your evidence that CO2 output is "causing global warming"??

[DoctorDoom]

What's your evidence that CO2 output is "causing global warming"??There is none, but that doesn't matter. No one can point to a testable correlation between a specific percentage of reduction in atmospheric CO₂ and a specific percentage of reduction in the rate of warming. We must spend trillions of dollars reducing anthropogenic CO₂ with only hypotheses and wild-ass guesses as the rationales for it.

That's beyond absurd.

[Rhino]

Back to the solar storms, .....

In 1958 ........ Northern Lights were sighted three times in Mexico.Now, that will be cool!

A similar maximum now would be noticed by its effect on cell phones, GPS, weather satellites and many other modern technologies.That will not be cool!

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/10mar_stormwarning.htm?list13559

[g21lto]

What's your evidence that CO2 output is "causing global warming"??
That's irrelevant; you appeared to be arguing that burning of fossil fuels could not be causing global warming due to the small amount of power they put out compared with the sun -- no one is arguing that it is the power put out by the burning fuels which causes global warming. You would be arguing much more effectively (and relevantly) if you addressed instead the CO2 put out by the fossil fuel burning -- since that is the actual position being argued by global warming theorists.

[Native American]

Originally Posted by Native American
What's your evidence that CO2 output is "causing global warming"??


That's irrelevant; you [balance of science-free and fact-free BS snipped]


LOL! DoctorDoom nailed you and your ilk to a "T" just a post or two ago. As he said, you and your "global warming" ilk don't have a shred of evidence to go on, and in fact evidence is irrelevent to theorists such as you, and you just admitted it.

Way to go, pal. :claps:

[Bob_Arctor]

NA, after we've all witnessed your ridiculous mangling of the very concept of GW (regardless of whether one believes it's happening or not and if it is if man has anything to do with it) what ground do you have to stand on to demand evidence? You've proven you have no idea what you're talking about.

If you want evidence, look for it in the published literature.

Scholar.google.com gave me 69,500 hits for the phrase "global warming."

PubMed (which would have a scope limited to GW effects on biological stuff) gave 1741 for the same phrase.

Why don't you look up some of those papers and explain to everyone exactly what errors they make? Or write comments to the journal editors? Oh, of course you won't - it's too much work, and even though you don't have the maturity to admit it you know you have no idea what you're talking about on the subject.

You're free to disagree with the idea of global warming. You're not a scientist, just an uninformed layman, but you still have the right to your opinion. However, don't make the mistake of thinking that uninformed opinion relevant or valid. It isn't. Those people who do have the background to have valid opinions - and even better, who have done the research - are nearly unified int heir support for human involvement in GW.

By the way, do you have any explanation for your support of your failed polling scheme which I proved faulty? You talked a good game up until that post, and since then it's been nothing but silence from you on that issue. Don't tell me you're one of those defectives who can't admit having made an error!

LOL! DoctorDoom nailed you and your ilk to a "T" just a post or two ago. As he said, you and your "global warming" ilk don't have a shred of evidence to go on, and in fact evidence is irrelevent to theorists such as you, and you just admitted it.

[Native American]

NA, after we've all witnessed your ridiculous mangling of the very concept of GW (regardless of whether one believes it's happening or not and if it is if man has anything to do with it) what ground do you have to stand on to demand evidence? You've proven you have no idea what you're talking about.

If you want evidence, look for it in the published literature.

Scholar.google.com gave me 69,500 hits for the phrase "global warming."

PubMed (which would have a scope limited to GW effects on biological stuff) gave 1741 for the same phrase.

Why don't you look up some of those papers and explain to everyone exactly what errors they make? Or write comments to the journal editors? Oh, of course you won't - it's too much work, and even though you don't have the maturity to admit it you know you have no idea what you're talking about on the subject.

You're free to disagree with the idea of global warming. You're not a scientist, just an uninformed layman, but you still have the right to your opinion. However, don't make the mistake of thinking that uninformed opinion relevant or valid. It isn't. Those people who do have the background to have valid opinions - and even better, who have done the research - are nearly unified int heir support for human involvement in GW.

By the way, do you have any explanation for your support of your failed polling scheme which I proved faulty? You talked a good game up until that post, and since then it's been nothing but silence from you on that issue. Don't tell me you're one of those defectives who can't admit having made an error!

Wow, a lot of rhetoric, but no evidence presented (once again) which I guess shouldn't surprise any of us. IOW, another remarkably fact-free and science-free post by our Bob Arctor.

See Bob, the idea in a discussion forum is for people to present their ideas, not tell other people "Oh, just go look it up in Google and you'll see what I, Bob Arctor, am 'talking' about." But I guess if you lack any science background (and apparently you don't have any) that would explain why you are repeatedly fail to actually talk about your evidence in support of your theory!

Bob, have you got any evidence that CO2 output is "causing global warming"?

[Naturalized-Texan]

NA, after we've all witnessed your ridiculous mangling of the very concept of GW (regardless of whether one believes it's happening or not and if it is if man has anything to do with it) what ground do you have to stand on to demand evidence? You've proven you have no idea what you're talking about.
Much as I hate to admit it, but you are correct. NA has no idea about the what hypothesis of human-caused global warming is. He has the ridiculous idea that the hypothesis is that the heat produced by humans burning fossil fuels is the cause of global warming. That is NOT the hypothesis. Since he doesn't even understand the hypothesis, how can he possibly refute it?

The hypothesis is that humans burning fossil fuels creates a layer in the upper stratosphere that traps the heat from the sun and prevents it from escaping into space - the greenhouse effect. That hypothesis has nothing to do with the heat generated by burning fiossil fuels.

However, the heat from the hotter sun that we have been experiencing in the past 100+ years since the end of the Little Ice Age is the real cause of global warming, since the so-called greenhouse effect is so tiny when compared to the increased heat from the hotter sun that it is insignificant. There, I have shown that I understand the hypothesis and have refuted it.

[Native American]

Much as I hate to admit it, but you are correct. NA has no idea about the what hypothesis of human-caused global warming is. He has the ridiculous idea that the hypothesis is that the heat produced by humans burning fossil fuels is the cause of global warming.

Nope, that's not what I believe, nor is it something I ever claimed.

Bob Arctor may have made that assertion; I never did.

It's a shame you're not able to keep track of who says what, NT.

That is NOT the hypothesis. Since he doesn't even understand the hypothesis, how can he possibly refute it?

Especially since it was never even my hypothesis.

The hypothesis is that humans burning fossil fuels creates a layer in the upper stratosphere that traps the heat from the sun and prevents it from escaping into space - the greenhouse effect. That hypothesis has nothing to do with the heat generated by burning fiossil fuels.

OK, so we see now that all Bob has is a hypothesis, and that he doesn't have any actual evidence to back up his claim.

Just as we suspected.

However, the heat from the hotter sun that we have been experiencing in the past 100+ years since the end of the Little Ice Age is the real cause of global warming,

Which is what I pointed out long ago. And, unlike you, I actually cranked through the numbers.

since the so-called greenhouse effect is so tiny when compared to the increased heat from the hotter sun that it is insignificant. There, I have shown that I understand the hypothesis and have refuted it.

Bob will not be pleased.

[markus3622]

There, I have shown that I understand the hypothesis...

True!

... and have refuted it.

False!

Now, solar variation theory goes like this. Solar activity is linked to climate. In the past, during the Maunder Minimum, sun spots (a proxy for solar activity) were very rare. At the same time, the earth had a cooler climate, known as the Little Ice Age. The theory goes then, that the warming recently observed must be principally due to increased solar activity. However, the evidence suggests that there has been no significant increase in solar activity since the 1950s, and that the best estimate is that solar forcing is around 20-25% of that caused by the increase in well-mixed greenhouse gases.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/448.htm

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/254.htm#tab613

One study suggested it might be higher, but concluded that "the results confirm previous analyses showing that greenhouse gas increases explain most of the global warming observed in the second half of the twentieth century." There's simply no evidence to suggest that the majority of the recent warming can be explained by natural forcing.

http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/StottEtAl.pdf

Thus I have understood solar variation theory (in the sense put forward by NT) and refuted it!

[Popperite]

Nope, that's not what I believe, nor is it something I ever claimed.

Bob Arctor may have made that assertion; I never did.

It's a shame you're not able to keep track of who says what, NT.



Especially since it was never even my hypothesis.



OK, so we see now that all Bob has is a hypothesis, and that he doesn't have any actual evidence to back up his claim.

Just as we suspected.



Which is what I pointed out long ago. And, unlike you, I actually cranked through the numbers.



Bob will not be pleased.

Then what the h*ll were you posting in post #8 of the "Coming Meltdown" thread and later in post #7 here, if you didn't think GW was argued to be caused by heat from fossil fuels? Are you now denying you posted that? Last time I looked it was still there.

You built that strawmen and tried to refute something that was never argued by anybody in the first place. And now you deny you did that?

[markus3622]

I'm just going to voice my agreement with the others on my interpretation of what NA posted. Certainly, I understood it as NA saying that GW was due to heat being emitted from warm car engines and power stations, rather than the greenhouse effect.

NA, if that's not what you meant, what did you mean?

[Native American]

Now, solar variation theory goes like this. Solar activity is linked to climate. In the past, during the Maunder Minimum, sun spots (a proxy for solar activity) were very rare.

And, with that laughable claim of yours, the wheels just fell off your debating cart!

Sun spots are not, repeat NOT, a "proxy" for solar emission, which is what matters. Too bad you weren't aware of that fact, else your post might have had some merit.


Although sunspots themselves produce only minor effects on solar emissions,

http://science.nasa.gov/ssl/pad/solar/sunspots.htm

Nice try though, markus.

[Native American]

However, one point of markus' post bears repeating:

Originally Posted by markus3622
Solar activity is linked to climate.

[Native American]

I'm just going to voice my agreement with the others on my interpretation of what NA posted. Certainly, I understood it as NA saying that GW was due to heat being emitted from warm car engines and power stations, rather than the greenhouse effect.

NA, if that's not what you meant, what did you mean?

No, that's not what I was saying, nor did I ever say that, so obviously it wasn't what I "meant". And to save you the trouble of actually reading my posts to learn what I really said, I'll simply say it again for you:

The amount of "global warming" caused by the Sun's power striking the Earth is orders of magnitude greater than any "global warming" caused by Man's intentional oxidation of fossil fuels.

[Popperite]

I understood it as NA saying that GW was due to heat being emitted from warm car engines and power stations


No, that's not what I was saying, nor did I ever say that, so obviously it wasn't what I "meant". And to save you the trouble of actually reading my posts to learn what I really said, I'll simply say it again for you:

The amount of "global warming" caused by the Sun's power striking the Earth is orders of magnitude greater than any "global warming" caused by Man's intentional oxidation of fossil fuels.

<O:p
Any "global warming"? Specifically you defined it thusly:<O:p

In 2004, there were 1,809,078 billion BTU’s useful thermal power output produced by burning coal, oil, and natural gas

1 BTU X 0.0002928 = KWH
<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p
530 billion KWH in a year
24 X 365 = 8760 hours in a year
<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p
530/8760 = .06 billion watt rate from burning coal, oil, and natural gas = .06 x 10<SUP>9 </SUP>= 6.0 x 10<SUP>6 </SUP>watts


So all this math isn’t about the amount of heat produced by burning fossil or other fuels? Or as you called it “the total amount of “global warming” caused by all the coal, oil, and gas that is burnt to produce electricity and heat”?<O:p

[Rhino]

You guys are worse than the energizer bunny.

[Popperite]

You guys are worse than the energizer bunny.

Yes I know. It's just that I notice that after twisting the arguments of others, he's now twisting his own words.

[Native American]

So all this math isn’t about the amount of heat produced by burning fossil or other fuels?<O:p

No, it's about the amount of "global warming" caused by Man's intentional oxidation of fussil fuels versus the amount of "global warming" due to the power impinging upon the Earth from the Sun. And, as I pointed out, the power dumped on the Earth due to the Sun is orders of magnitude greater than the total amount of power released due to Man's intentional oxidation of fossil fuels.

"Global warming caused by Man" is a myth.

[Popperite]

No, it's about the amount of "global warming" caused by Man's intentional oxidation of fussil fuels versus the amount of "global warming" due to the power impinging upon the Earth from the Sun. And, as I pointed out, the power dumped on the Earth due to the Sun is orders of magnitude greater than the total amount of power released due to Man's intentional oxidation of fossil fuels.

"Global warming caused by Man" is a myth.

No? Care to tell us what the difference is?

[Native American]

No? Care to tell us what the difference is?

Care to tell us what "difference" you are referring to?

[Popperite]

The difference between:

the amount of "global warming" caused by Man's intentional oxidation of fussil fuels

which apparently the math was about and:

the amount of heat produced by burning fossil or other fuels?

Which the math wasn't about.

And while you're at it, please explain how you didn't misrepresent the argument for global warming in post #7 by using this.

[Bob_Arctor]

Nope, that's not what I believe, nor is it something I ever claimed.

Bob Arctor may have made that assertion; I never did.

It's a shame you're not able to keep track of who says what, NT.

It's time to ask the question: is Native American dishonest, or is he just stupid? I hate to sound harsh, but I don't see any option other than these two to explain his behavior.

Native American, post#8 in "The Coming Meltdown" thread:

let's get a handle on the relative amounts of power
<!-- / icon and title --><!-- message -->
Rather than continue to listen to the emotional hysteria of the Envirowackos, let's pause for a moment and consider, for example, the amount of "global warming" power coming from natural causes (i.e., The Sun) versus the amount of "global warming" power caused by burning coal, oil, and natural gas to produce electricity and heat our homes.

<O:p</O:p(snip a bunch of calcs on solar energy he stole from another website without attribution, in violation of board rules :evilgrin: )
<O:p</O:p
530 billion KWH in a year
24 X 365 = 8760 hours in a year
<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p
530/8760 = .06 billion watt rate from burning coal, oil, and natural gas = .06 x 10<SUP>9 </SUP>= 6.0 x 10<SUP>6 </SUP>watts
3.9x10<SUP>26</SUP> watts / 6.0 x 10<SUP>6 </SUP>watts = 0.65 = 10<SUP>20</SUP>
<O:p</O:p
IOW, the “global warming” from the Sun is approximately 650,000,000,000,000,000,000 times greater than that due to the total amount of “global warming” caused by all the coal, oil, and gas that is burnt to produce electricity and heat. But to be fair, we should also consider the amount of oil burnt to propel our cars, planes, boats, and trains, but the amount of heat produced by doing that is in the ballpark range of that produced by producing electricity and heating our homes.

So NA clearly identified the heat produced by burning assorted fossil fuels as being man's contribution to global warming, which of course is nothing compared to the sun's energy.

It's right there in front of you, NA. You're a Christian - why don't you have the integrity to admit you blew it?

That goes for your poll claim that I demolished recently as well - why can't you admit you erred? You're a grown man! Act like it.

[Naturalized-Texan]

OK, so we see now that all Bob has is a hypothesis, and that he doesn't have any actual evidence to back up his claim.

Just as we suspected.
Corrrect. The entire hypothesis that global warming is human-caused is based on supposition and speculation that doesn't even reach a level high enough to be considered evidence. If that hypothesis were submitted as evidence in a court of law, it would be laughed out of the courtroom.

Which is what I pointed out long ago. And, unlike you, I actually cranked through the numbers.
Let's see. You have only been here since last month, so I began cranking numbers here to prove that GW can't be caused by human activities nearly 3 years before you arrived here - since March 2003. And I've been doing the same thing in other discussion forums since about 1990.

Bob will not be pleased.
Who cares? Bob is never pleased by the truth.

[Popperite]

It's time to ask the question: is Native American dishonest, or is he just stupid?

In the above posts NA is clearly trying to steer away from his strawmen concerning the nature of the GW hypothesis.

Your post is a bit misleading, given that it's not the power put out by burning the fossil fuels which is being linked to global warming, but the CO2 output from the burning.


What's your evidence that CO2 output is "causing global warming"??


That's irrelevant; you appeared to be arguing that burning of fossil fuels could not be causing global warming due to the small amount of power they put out compared with the sun -- no one is arguing that it is the power put out by the burning fuels which causes global warming. You would be arguing much more effectively (and relevantly) if you addressed instead the CO2 put out by the fossil fuel burning -- since that is the actual position being argued by global warming theorists.

Or as NA put it:


That's irrelevant; you [balance of science-free and fact-free BS snipped]


LOL! DoctorDoom nailed you and your ilk to a "T" just a post or two ago. As he said, you and your "global warming" ilk don't have a shred of evidence to go on, and in fact evidence is irrelevent to theorists such as you, and you just admitted it.Way to go, pal

NT said:

That is NOT the hypothesis. Since he doesn't even understand the hypothesis, how can he possibly refute it?

Especially since it was never even my hypothesis.

Not his hypothesis obviously, but one he constructed as an easy target to argue against. This is generally called a "strawman".

NT goes on:

The hypothesis is that humans burning fossil fuels creates a layer in the upper stratosphere that traps the heat from the sun and prevents it from escaping into space - the greenhouse effect. That hypothesis has nothing to do with the heat generated by burning fiossil fuels.


OK, so we see now that all Bob has is a hypothesis, and that he doesn't have any actual evidence to back up his claim.

Just as we suspected.


These are examples of him trying to derail discussion of his strawman. NA has a very hard time staying on topic if he doesn't want to.

[Bob_Arctor]

Corrrect. The entire hypothesis that global warming is human-caused is based on supposition and speculation that doesn't even reach a level high enough to be considered evidence. If that hypothesis were submitted as evidence in a court of law, it would be laughed out of the courtroom.
NT, please explain how nearly 70,000 papers mentioning "global warming" don't count as anything of substance. Explain how the vast majority of the scientific community is in agreement if there's actually nothing there.

This reminds me very much of those creationists who insist there's no evidence for evolution, but never actually examine any of the vast amount of it out there. It's just like the ostrich keeping its head in the sand.

For example, why don't you go to a board where there are many scientific types and try arguing them, rather than remaining here where you've basically got only one opponent in Markus? Try the Internet Infidels. They have GW debates from time to time, and there are many people there who are very knowledgeable about the subject - and not all of them are for it, either, as they have a number of people on your side. It just seems a little silly to sit here where you have little opposition and declare victory. If you're right, it'll stand up regardless of the forum. I recently invited Sunsettommy to go there as well, and he's indictated that he might. You two could actually do it together, if you wanted.

The subject barely even interests me, but I do read a few journals every week and I've seen nothing there that indicates any of the doubt you feel, which is why I've been confident in describing the view of the scientific mainstream. But that's about all I feel like doing, frankly.

[Bob_Arctor]

Not his hypothesis obviously, but the one he constructed as an easy target to argue against. This is generally called a "strawman".

These are examples of him trying to derail discussion of his strawman. NA has a very hard time staying on topic if he doesn't want to.

Does it count as a strawman if you have no idea you're making one and actually think you're arguing against a valid idea? Because I don't think NA realized he made a giant strawman and set it on fire, while bypassing the reality of the matter!

[Popperite]

Does it count as a strawman if you have no idea you're making one and actually think you're arguing against a valid idea? Because I don't think NA realized he made a giant strawman and set it on fire, while bypassing the reality of the matter!

Is an inadvertent strawman a strawman? NA somehow found a line of reasoning that was easy to attack, and I do think he never bothered to question or check it because it was so convenient. The words "greenhouse gasses" cannot have been unfamiliar to him. The convenience of the argument may have blocked that out of his mind for a moment though.
But I suppose you're right. An inadvertent strawman doesn't count as a real strawman.

[markus3622]

In the past, during the Maunder Minimum, sun spots (a proxy for solar activity) were very rare


And, with that laughable claim of yours, the wheels just fell off your debating cart!

Sun spots are not, repeat NOT, a "proxy" for solar emission, which is what matters. Too bad you weren't aware of that fact, else your post might have had some merit.


http://science.nasa.gov/ssl/pad/solar/sunspots.htm

Nice try though, markus.

I actually wrote that sunspots were a proxy for solar activity (perhaps a better word might be indicator), so my point stands. In fact, it's the basis of many skeptics' argument. There's a clear correlation here between solar activity and sunspot numbers. Some studies have shown a further correlation between solar activity and climate. In some events, (such as the aforementioned Maunder Minimum and Little Ice Age) this correlation holds well.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/60/Solar_Activity_Proxies.png

However, research has shown in the late 20th Century, the warming departs from that which would be expected from natural (e.g solar) variation.

However, if the current warming isn't due to solar variation (you seem to dismiss NT's argument) and it isn't due to greenhouse gases, then what is it due to?

[PaulRevere]

Interesting graph.
1. The years around 1700, BTW, were known as the "Little Ice Age" and included short growing seasons and crops that did not ripen in some regions.
2. Another cooling period was in the mid-14th century when the Black Plague decimated much of Eurasia.
3. Little-known fact: the climate during the Roman era was warmer than today. The general cooling trend beginning in the 5th century coincided with the avalanche of barbarians from the north and east that overran the Roman Empire.

No one has blamed these drastic climate changes on human activity, why should we do so today?

[Native American]

I actually wrote that sunspots were a proxy for solar activity (perhaps a better word might be indicator), so my point stands. In fact, it's the basis of many skeptics' argument. There's a clear correlation here between solar activity and sunspot numbers.

It depends how you define the word "activity". If all you mean by it is "interesting things occurring" (such as sunspots) then you are correct. However, "activity" can also be defined as "power output", and for the purposes of this discussion, that's the item of interest.

And, as I pointed out, sunspots "activity" doesn't appear to correlate with changes in the Sun's power output.

However, if the current warming isn't due to solar variation (you seem to dismiss NT's argument) and it isn't due to greenhouse gases, then what is it due to?

Fallacy of the Planted Axiom - you are assuming "global warming" is actually occurring, and you haven't actually proven that such is the case. In fact, I submit to you that (on any sort of reasonable time scale) the Earth isn't "warming" at all.

[Native American]

Corrrect. The entire hypothesis that global warming is human-caused is based on supposition and speculation that doesn't even reach a level high enough to be considered evidence. If that hypothesis were submitted as evidence in a court of law, it would be laughed out of the courtroom.

Bob is never pleased by the truth.

Exactly correct, on both counts.

[Native American]

Which is what I pointed out long ago. And, unlike you, I actually cranked through the numbers.

Let's see. You have only been here since last month, so I began cranking numbers here to prove that GW can't be caused by human activities nearly 3 years before you arrived here - since March 2003. And I've been doing the same thing in other discussion forums since about 1990.

I owe you an apology, and I made an assumption - that you hadn't cranked through the numbers, in the time prior to my becoming a member here - an assumption which apparently is incorrect. I was wrong to make an assumption like that about you.

You have my apology on that one, Sir.

[Native American]

Interesting graph.
1. The years around 1700, BTW, were known as the "Little Ice Age" and included short growing seasons and crops that did not ripen in some regions.
2. Another cooling period was in the mid-14th century when the Black Plague decimated much of Eurasia.
3. Little-known fact: the climate during the Roman era was warmer than today. The general cooling trend beginning in the 5th century coincided with the avalanche of barbarians from the north and east that overran the Roman Empire.

No one has blamed these drastic climate changes on human activity, why should we do so today?

Bingo.

[markus3622]

Interesting graph.
1. The years around 1700, BTW, were known as the "Little Ice Age" and included short growing seasons and crops that did not ripen in some regions.
2. Another cooling period was in the mid-14th century when the Black Plague decimated much of Eurasia.
3. Little-known fact: the climate during the Roman era was warmer than today. The general cooling trend beginning in the 5th century coincided with the avalanche of barbarians from the north and east that overran the Roman Empire.



Paul, I concur with your first point about the LIA. We saw a cooling and we saw something (low solar activity) that could explain it. I admit I haven't heard anything about the black death and its link to climate.

I think your third point isn't true.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/recons.html
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/moberg2005/moberg2005.html

The Moberg study goes back and finds that 1000-1100 was warm (this is the only warm period I could find and it isn't Roman - unless you meant the Holy Roman Empire), although not as warm as today.

However, all that is interesting, but it misses the point.

No one has blamed these drastic climate changes on human activity, why should we do so today?

Firstly, climatologists have to look at each event separately. You can't conclude that because the LIA was caused by low solar actvity, the recent warming must be caused by an increase in solar activity. If you look at the solar activity data, there's been no significant increases since 1950. The IPCC say that it can explain much of the warming prior to 1950, but afterwards, something different is happening. We know that CO2 concentrations have gone up (and CO2 causes 25% of the greenhouse effect) and it can explains the warming. Variations in solar activity don't.

Secondly, the historical data seems to show that the recent warming is more drastic than we've seen in the past (e.g. The roman data you quote seems to be exaggerated - it wasn't as warm then).

[markus3622]

Fallacy of the Planted Axiom - you are assuming "global warming" is actually occurring, and you haven't actually proven that such is the case. In fact, I submit to you that (on any sort of reasonable time scale) the Earth isn't "warming" at all.

I didn't think anyone disputed that global temperatures were increasing. The debate was over what caused it. Before I go off and get some data, what would satisfy you as evidence that the Earth is warming?

[sunsettommy]

Red bolding is mine.

From Worldclimate,

May 10, 2005

Global Warming: Something New Under the Sun? (http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2005/05/10/global-warming-something-new-under-the-sun/)

Filed under: Climate Forcings (http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/category/climate-forcings/), Aerosols (http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/category/climate-forcings/aerosols/), Solar (http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/category/climate-forcings/solar/) —

Excerpt,

That appears to be what is happening, judging from three papers in the May 6 issue of Science.

These three papers argue that the amount of incoming solar radiation reaching the surface of the earth has increased dramatically in the last two decades. While the values vary from paper to paper, in toto the new studies suggest that the increase in solar radiation absorbed at the earth’s surface had almost 10 times as much warming power during that time as the concurrent increases in carbon dioxide, the main global warming gas. Therefore, the warming observed over the past 20 years must have little to do with changes in greenhouse gases.

Snip,

But regardless of the cause, if you believe all of this, then enhanced greenhouse gases are inconsequential compared to the tremendous increase in solar energy hitting the surface. Apparently few want to admit to this.



http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2005/05/10/global-warming-something-new-under-the-sun/

[markus3622]

Sunsettommy,

Any increase in solar radiation doesn't convert into equivalent radiative forcing of the atmosphere. (Think of a lightbulb - a 60 watt bulb doesn't give 60 watts of radiative forcing). The authors of the papers in Science doesn't say what the worldclimatereport want them to say.

[DoctorDoom]

I still want to know what all the gloom & doom GW alarmists suggest to rectify the unproven, unprovable human contribution to the phenomenon. All their bleating and bellowing is just covering up their ignorance of the subject and their inability to suggest a single testable procedure to address the alleged problem.

They high-five each other about how sensitive and concerned and aware they are, but they don't have a f**king clue about the worthlessness of their pseudoscience. Ergo, let them screech until they grow hoarse about the EEEEE-vills of global warming. It's a non-issue that appeals only to ecowackos and liberal elitists.

[sunsettommy]

Sunsettommy,

Any increase in solar radiation doesn't convert into equivalent radiative forcing of the atmosphere. (Think of a lightbulb - a 60 watt bulb doesn't give 60 watts of radiative forcing). The authors of the papers in Science doesn't say what the worldclimatereport want them to say.

From the link:Bolding mine,


But some timid voices are beginning to whisper. NASA’s Bruce Wielicki, lead author of one of the new Science articles, told the New York Times on Friday, May 5th that the amount of increased energy coming from the sun matches the amount of energy that NASA’s James Hansen reported on Science’s web site just last week is being absorbed by the world’s oceans. What Wielicki failed to mention (or what the Times failed to report) was that Hansen ascribed to increases in ocean heat storage to the greenhouse effect!


You forget the oceans.

:grin:

[sunsettommy]

I still want to know what all the gloom & doom GW alarmists suggest to rectify the unproven, unprovable human contribution to the phenomenon. All their bleating and bellowing is just covering up their ignorance of the subject and their inability to suggest a single testable procedure to address the alleged problem.

They high-five each other about how sensitive and concerned and aware they are, but they don't have a f**king clue about the worthlessness of their pseudoscience. Ergo, let them screech until they grow hoarse about the EEEEE-vills of global warming. It's a non-issue that appeals only to ecowackos and liberal elitists.

Their climate models are NOT testable when they make FUTURE predictions.Not falsesifiable either.

They also have a habit of emphasising the worst in the FUTURE predicted doom and gloom.The media and the environmentalists are especially guilty of it.

So much is being centered on CO2 levels a trace gas to the point of absurdity.The climate is sooooo complex to make such a position on a trace gas.When we still know so little about many other climate factors that affect the worlds climate.

Meanwhile the planet did quite well right after the ice age ended and the world was MUCH,MUCH warmer than it is now.Several times there were warming periods after that also warmer than now.

How convenient they pass over this part about much warmer periods since the last ice age phase ended.

[sunsettommy]

I actually wrote that sunspots were a proxy for solar activity (perhaps a better word might be indicator), so my point stands. In fact, it's the basis of many skeptics' argument. There's a clear correlation here between solar activity and sunspot numbers. Some studies have shown a further correlation between solar activity and climate. In some events, (such as the aforementioned Maunder Minimum and Little Ice Age) this correlation holds well.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/60/Solar_Activity_Proxies.png

However, research has shown in the late 20th Century, the warming departs from that which would be expected from natural (e.g solar) variation.

However, if the current warming isn't due to solar variation (you seem to dismiss NT's argument) and it isn't due to greenhouse gases, then what is it due to?

I like this post since you just attacked the "Hockey Stick" with YOUR acceptance of the little ice age.A fact that Dr.Mann wants to eliminate with his absurd "hockey stick" paper.

The current warming is based on ground based temperature records?

What period of the temperature records you referring to? 1961-2001?

1900-2004? or what ever?

[Native American]

I didn't think anyone disputed that global temperatures were increasing. The debate was over what caused it. Before I go off and get some data, what would satisfy you as evidence that the Earth is warming?

Simple - accurate temperature recordings spanning the last 500 years or so.

[Native American]

These three papers argue that the amount of incoming solar radiation reaching the surface of the earth has increased dramatically in the last two decades. While the values vary from paper to paper, in toto the new studies suggest that the increase in solar radiation absorbed at the earth’s surface had almost 10 times as much warming power during that time as the concurrent increases in carbon dioxide, the main global warming gas. Therefore, the warming observed over the past 20 years must have little to do with changes in greenhouse gases.

Oops. There goes Bob Arctor's "global warming is caused by greenhouse gases" theory.....

But that's what he gets for never posting posts which are science-based.

Good post, sunsettommy.

[Native American]

Sunsettommy,

Any increase in solar radiation doesn't convert into equivalent radiative forcing of the atmosphere. (Think of a lightbulb - a 60 watt bulb doesn't give 60 watts of radiative forcing).

It sure does! Almost all of the 60 watts of electricity is converted into radiative forcing, in fact. Only a miniscule amount is converted to sound. The rest is converted to heat and light.

HINT: a 60 gazillion light bulb (think of the Sun) works the same way

[Bob_Arctor]

No one has blamed these drastic climate changes on human activity, why should we do so today?
Because what's happening today has gone beyond what had happened during those periods you referenced.

We know carbon dioxide will trap heat. We know levels of it are going up rapidly due to burning of fossil fuels. We know there is a correlation between the two. Therefore, it is logical that increases in carbon dioxide will lead to increases in temperature.

This shows the recent massive increase in carbon dioxide concentration:


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1c/Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png

This next graph shows the rapid climb in temperatures, which correlates nicely with the increase in carbon dioxide, as expected:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png


As NT points out, variations in solar output have something to do with the temperature changes, but he's incorrect to claim they are responsible for all changes. Solar variations are factored into observations, and are seen as being responsible for only a small portion at best.

[Native American]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png



Bob, just two questions for you this time:

Please describe the temperature gauge used between AD 631 and AD 738 which allowed the scientists of that day to accurately record the Earth's temperature to an accuracy of +- 0.1 degrees C?

Also, what texts did the scientists of that day record their daily (or annual) Earth temperature measurements in?

Your graph sure looked swell though, and even made it look, at first glance, like accurate measurements had actually been taken.

[sunsettommy]

Originally Posted by sunsettommy
These three papers argue that the amount of incoming solar radiation reaching the surface of the earth has increased dramatically in the last two decades. While the values vary from paper to paper, in toto the new studies suggest that the increase in solar radiation absorbed at the earth’s surface had almost 10 times as much warming power during that time as the concurrent increases in carbon dioxide, the main global warming gas. Therefore, the warming observed over the past 20 years must have little to do with changes in greenhouse gases.


Oops. There goes Bob Arctor's "global warming is caused by greenhouse gases" theory.....

But that's what he gets for never posting posts which are science-based.

Good post, sunsettommy.

Aw gee N.A. you misunderstood what I was doing!

I was referring to the idea that the Sun's INCREASED radiative output and subsequent warming is vastly greater than the observed increase of CO2 levels and its subsequent warming effect.

It does not at all refute the idea that CO2 as a greenhouse gas can promote warming.It does promote some warming.The dispute is how much warming can it do beyond the effect of cooling factors that are always prevelant.

It just gets lost to other greater cooling and warming forces out there.

[sunsettommy]

Originally Posted by markus3622
Sunsettommy,

Any increase in solar radiation doesn't convert into equivalent radiative forcing of the atmosphere. (Think of a lightbulb - a 60 watt bulb doesn't give 60 watts of radiative forcing).


It sure does! Almost all of the 60 watts of electricity is converted into radiative forcing, in fact. Only a miniscule amount is converted to sound. The rest is converted to heat and light.

HINT: a 60 gazillion light bulb (think of the Sun) works the same way

He forgets what a WATT is.

From Wikipedia:

Definition

One watt is one joule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule) of energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy) per second (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second).
<DL><DD>1 W = 1 J/s = 1 newton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton) meter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meter) per second = 1 kg·m<SUP>2</SUP>·s<SUP>−3</SUP> </DD></DL>ALL the energy the planet gets from the sun affects it in some way.

[Native American]

I was referring to the idea that the Sun's INCREASED radiative output and subsequent warming is vastly greater than the observed increase of CO2 levels and its subsequent warming effect.

Yes, there's the key.

(I increased the font size slightly and altered the color a tiny bit, in a perhaps useless attempt to help Bob Arctor focus his powerful "science-based" mind.)

[Bob_Arctor]

Red bolding is mine.

From Worldclimate,

May 10, 2005

Global Warming: Something New Under the Sun? (http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2005/05/10/global-warming-something-new-under-the-sun/)

Filed under: Climate Forcings (http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/category/climate-forcings/), Aerosols (http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/category/climate-forcings/aerosols/), Solar (http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/category/climate-forcings/solar/) —

Excerpt,

That appears to be what is happening, judging from three papers in the May 6 issue of Science.

These three papers argue that the amount of incoming solar radiation reaching the surface of the earth has increased dramatically in the last two decades. While the values vary from paper to paper, in toto the new studies suggest that the increase in solar radiation absorbed at the earth’s surface had almost 10 times as much warming power during that time as the concurrent increases in carbon dioxide, the main global warming gas. Therefore, the warming observed over the past 20 years must have little to do with changes in greenhouse gases.

Snip,

But regardless of the cause, if you believe all of this, then enhanced greenhouse gases are inconsequential compared to the tremendous increase in solar energy hitting the surface. Apparently few want to admit to this.


Let's see what the papers actually say, not the industry group's spin on them, which I find misleading. For example, they claim that over the last 20 or so years energy has gone up, while in fact it went down before 1990, then up afterward.

Here's the one from Charleson:

<TABLE class=LayoutTable cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD id=NavColumnCell><HR> </TD><TD id=MainColumnCell><!-- BEGIN: main column -->[/URL]<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD align=left>Science 6 May 2005:
Vol. 308. no. 5723, pp. 806 - 807
DOI: 10.1126/science.1108162
</TD><TD align=right>Prev (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/) | Table of Contents (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/vol308/issue5723/index.dtl) | Next (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/308/5723/807)
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>Perspectives

<!-- BEGIN: legacy HTML content --><!--RESUMEHIGHLIGHT--><VARDEF id=TEXT>ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCE:
In Search of Balance

Robert J. Charlson, Francisco P. J. Valero, John H. Seinfeld<SUP>*</SUP> (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/308/5723/806#affiliation)

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

The climate of Earth and its global mean surface temperature are the consequence of a balance between the amount of solar radiation absorbed by Earth's surface and atmosphere and the amount of outgoing longwave radiation emitted by the system. The former is governed by the albedo (reflectivity) of the system, whereas the latter depends strongly on the atmospheric content of gases and particles (such as clouds and dust). Although the theory of absorption of infrared radiation by gases in the atmosphere (1 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/308/5723/806#ref1)) is well accepted and embodied in climate models, the observational and theoretical treatments of albedo, aerosols, and clouds are still under development. One brevium (2 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/308/5723/806#ref2)) and two reports (3 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/308/5723/806#ref3), 4 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/308/5723/806#ref4)) in this issue report estimates of Earth's albedo and of solar radiation reaching the surface, but the uncertainties remain large. The buildup of CO<SUB>2</SUB> (5 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/308/5723/806#ref5)), CH<SUB>4</SUB>, and other greenhouse gases during the past century has led to an increased absorption of infrared radiation in the atmosphere (enhanced greenhouse effect) and a consequent warming ("positive forcing") of the climate. But human-made changes in aerosols and clouds can cause enhanced albedo and hence cooling ("negative forcing"), and they may already have offset a substantial part of the enhanced greenhouse effect. Present trends suggest that by 2050, the magnitude of the enhanced greenhouse effect will be so large that the net anthropogenic forcing will be unequivocally positive and substantial in magnitude (6 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/308/5723/806#ref6)).

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/308/5723/806

The summary of the next paper:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/sci;308/5723/847

<TABLE class=LayoutTable cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD id=NavColumnCell><HR> </TD><TD id=MainColumnCell><!-- BEGIN: main column --><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD align=left>Science 6 May 2005:
Vol. 308. no. 5723, pp. 847 - 850
DOI: 10.1126/science.1103215
</TD><TD align=right>[URL="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/308/5723/844"]Prev (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/) | Table of Contents (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/vol308/issue5723/index.dtl) | Next (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/308/5723/850)
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>Reports

<!-- BEGIN: legacy HTML content --><!--RESUMEHIGHLIGHT-->From Dimming to Brightening: Decadal Changes in Solar Radiation at Earth's Surface

</NOBR><NOBR>Martin Wild,<SUP>1</SUP><SUP>* (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/sci;308/5723/847#COR1)</SUP></NOBR> <NOBR>Hans Gilgen,<SUP>1</SUP></NOBR> <NOBR>Andreas Roesch,<SUP>1</SUP></NOBR> <NOBR>Atsumu Ohmura,<SUP>1</SUP></NOBR> <NOBR>Charles N. Long,<SUP>2</SUP></NOBR> <NOBR>Ellsworth G. Dutton,<SUP>3</SUP></NOBR> <NOBR>Bruce Forgan,<SUP>4</SUP></NOBR> <NOBR>Ain Kallis,<SUP>5</SUP></NOBR> <NOBR>Viivi Russak,<SUP>6</SUP></NOBR> <NOBR>Anatoly Tsvetkov<SUP>7</SUP></NOBR>

Variations in solar radiation incident at Earth's surface profoundly<SUP> </SUP>affect the human and terrestrial environment. A decline in solar<SUP> </SUP>radiation at land surfaces has become apparent in many observational<SUP> </SUP>records up to 1990, a phenomenon known as global dimming. Newly<SUP> </SUP>available surface observations from 1990 to the present, primarily<SUP> </SUP>from the Northern Hemisphere, show that the dimming did not<SUP> </SUP>persist into the 1990s. Instead, a widespread brightening has<SUP> </SUP>been observed since the late 1980s. This reversal is reconcilable<SUP> </SUP>with changes in cloudiness and atmospheric transmission and<SUP> </SUP>may substantially affect surface climate, the hydrological cycle,<SUP> </SUP>glaciers, and ecosystems.<SUP> </SUP>

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

...


To summarize, our data suggest that the widespread decline of<SUP> </SUP>solar radiation widely reported for the period of about 1960<SUP> </SUP>to 1990 did not continue in the following years. Rather, there<SUP> </SUP>are indications that the amount of sunlight at the surface has<SUP> </SUP>increased during the 1990s at most of the locations for which<SUP> </SUP>good records exist. This is found under all- and clear-sky conditions,<SUP> </SUP>indicating that processes in both cloud-free and cloudy atmospheres<SUP> </SUP>contributed to the brightening during the 1990s, possibly pointing<SUP> </SUP>to an interplay of direct and indirect aerosol effects.<SUP> </SUP>The absence of dimming since the mid-1980s may profoundly affect<SUP> </SUP>surface climate. Whereas the decline in solar energy could have<SUP> </SUP>counterbalanced the increase in down-welling longwave energy<SUP> </SUP>from the enhanced greenhouse effect before the 1980s (10 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/sci;308/5723/847#REF10)), this<SUP> </SUP>masking of the greenhouse effect and related impacts may no<SUP> </SUP>longer have been effective thereafter, enabling the greenhouse<SUP> </SUP>signals to become more evident during the 1990s.


And the next:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/sci;308/5723/850

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD align=left>Science 6 May 2005:
Vol. 308. no. 5723, pp. 850 - 854
DOI: 10.1126/science.1103159
</TD><TD align=right>Prev (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/308/5723/847) | Table of Contents (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/vol308/issue5723/index.dtl) | Next (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/308/5723/854)
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Reports

<!-- BEGIN: legacy HTML content --><!--RESUMEHIGHLIGHT-->Do Satellites Detect Trends in Surface Solar Radiation?

</NOBR><NOBR>R. T. Pinker,<SUP>1</SUP></NOBR> <NOBR>B. Zhang,<SUP>2</SUP></NOBR> <NOBR>E. G. Dutton<SUP>3</SUP></NOBR>


Long-term variations in solar radiation at Earth's surface (S)<SUP> </SUP>can affect our climate, the hydrological cycle, plant photosynthesis,<SUP> </SUP>and solar power. Sustained decreases in S have been widely reported<SUP> </SUP>from about the year 1960 to 1990. Here we present an estimate<SUP> </SUP>of global temporal variations in S by using the longest available<SUP> </SUP>satellite record. We observed an overall increase in S from<SUP> </SUP>1983 to 2001 at a rate of 0.16 watts per square meter (0.10%)<SUP> </SUP>per year; this change is a combination of a decrease until about<SUP> </SUP>1990, followed by a sustained increase. The global-scale findings<SUP> </SUP>are consistent with recent independent satellite observations<SUP> </SUP>but differ in sign and magnitude from previously reported ground<SUP> </SUP>observations. Unlike ground stations, satellites can uniformly<SUP> </SUP>sample the entire globe.<SUP> </SUP>
<SUP>1</SUP> Department of Meteorology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA.
<SUP>2</SUP> Global Modeling and Assimilation Office, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771, USA.
<SUP>3</SUP> National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Climate Monitoring and Diagnostics Laboratory (NOAA/CMDL), Code R/CMDL1, 325 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80305, USA.
The concept of "global dimming" (1 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/sci;308/5723/850#REF1)–3 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/sci;308/5723/850#REF3)), which refers to<SUP> </SUP>long-term measured decreases in the amount of solar radiation<SUP> </SUP>that reaches Earth's surface (S), has received prominent attention<SUP> </SUP>because of concerns about its possible climatic and environmental<SUP> </SUP>implications. An early report on this topic based on surface<SUP> </SUP>observations made primarily in Europe (4 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/sci;308/5723/850#REF4)) suggested that S declined<SUP> </SUP>by more than 10% from 1960 to 1990. On the basis of the analysis<SUP> </SUP>of a more comprehensive observational database, it was shown<SUP> </SUP>that over land, S decreased on the average by 0.23% (1 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/sci;308/5723/850#REF1)) and<SUP> </SUP>0.32% (2 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/sci;308/5723/850#REF2)) per year from 1958 to 1992. The largest decrease was<SUP> </SUP>in parts of the former Soviet Union (5 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/sci;308/5723/850#REF5)), where S decreased by<SUP> </SUP>about 20% between 1960 and 1987. Independent indirect evidence<SUP> </SUP>for plausible decreases in S has been found in pan evaporation<SUP> </SUP>records (6 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/sci;308/5723/850#REF6), 7 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/sci;308/5723/850#REF7)), which show that the rate of evaporation did<SUP> </SUP>not increase but rather decreased, in spite of global warming<SUP> </SUP>trends evident in records of surface temperatures. When the<SUP> </SUP>evaporation data were compared with the global dimming records,<SUP> </SUP>the respective tendencies matched, which suggests that these<SUP> </SUP>two processes might be linked. Two other studies (8 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/sci;308/5723/850#REF8), 9 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/sci;308/5723/850#REF9)) found<SUP> </SUP>that S in the Swiss Alps increased between 1995 and 2003 after<SUP> </SUP>decreasing from 1981 to 1995 (8 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/sci;308/5723/850#REF8)).<SUP> </SUP>Speculations about possible causes of global dimming include<SUP> </SUP>cloud changes, increasing amounts of human-made aerosols, and<SUP> </SUP>reduced atmospheric transparency after explosive volcanic eruptions.<SUP> </SUP>(Data indicating global dimming could also be produced by instrument<SUP> </SUP>deficiencies.) Particles of soot and sulfates absorb and reflect<SUP> </SUP>sunlight and facilitate the formation of larger and longer-lasting<SUP> </SUP>clouds. The Indian Ocean Experiment (10 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/sci;308/5723/850#REF10)) has clearly documented<SUP> </SUP>the large, short-term reduction in solar radiation reaching<SUP> </SUP>the surface caused by absorbing aerosols, particularly black<SUP> </SUP>carbon and dust. Regionally, the seasonally averaged reduction<SUP> </SUP>in the Indian Ocean can reach 10 to 30 W m<SUP>–2</SUP>. However,<SUP> </SUP>there is some evidence that the reported longer-term tendencies<SUP> </SUP>might not continue, because of the reduction in the levels of<SUP> </SUP>air pollution. For example, global dimming over Germany seems<SUP> </SUP>to be decreasing, possibly because of a reduction of pollutants<SUP> </SUP>(11 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/sci;308/5723/850#REF11)).<SUP> </SUP>
<SUP></SUP>
<SUP>...</SUP>
<SUP></SUP>

On the basis of earthshine measurements (35 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/sci;308/5723/850#REF35)) of Earth's reflectance<SUP> </SUP>carried out at the Big Bear Solar Observatory since 1998 and<SUP> </SUP>satellite observations of global cloud properties for earlier<SUP> </SUP>years, a proxy measure of Earth's global short-wave reflectance<SUP> </SUP>was constructed. A steady decrease in Earth's reflectance from<SUP> </SUP>1984 to 2000 was shown, with a strong drop during the 1990s.<SUP> </SUP>During 2001 to 2003, only earthshine data are available, and<SUP> </SUP>they indicate a reversal of the decline. It should be noted<SUP> </SUP>that the earthshine measurements are available for only a short<SUP> </SUP>time period, and the extension to a longer period is achieved<SUP> </SUP>by using ISCCP data.<SUP> </SUP>We report here on an attempt to use long-term satellite observations<SUP> </SUP>as obtained under the World Climate Research Programme GEWEX<SUP> </SUP>ISCCP initiative to study possible trends in the S. Averaged<SUP> </SUP>over the entire period of available record and at a global scale,<SUP> </SUP>a small increase in S was observed rather than a dimming. This<SUP> </SUP>increase has been found to be significant at the 99% level of<SUP> </SUP>confidence. The satellite-based record of surface solar fluxes<SUP> </SUP>from 1983 until 1992 does suggest some dimming, followed by<SUP> </SUP>an increase after 1992, as seen in numerous ground observations.<SUP> </SUP>It was also shown that tendencies over land and over ocean can<SUP> </SUP>differ in sign and magnitude, and that in order to obtain a<SUP> </SUP>global view of the dimming phenomena, there is a need for comprehensive<SUP> </SUP>and global observations that are possible only from satellites.<SUP> </SUP>There is a need to be aware of calibration issues regarding<SUP> </SUP>both ground-based and satellite data that might affect the interpretation<SUP> </SUP>of long-term observations. The best available approach to calibration<SUP> </SUP>was used to produce the satellite observations used in this<SUP> </SUP>study, and the most comprehensive global coverage achievable<SUP> </SUP>by combining geostationary and polar-orbiting satellites was<SUP> </SUP>used. The magnitudes of the observed tendencies in S at a global<SUP> </SUP>scale were much smaller in magnitude than those reported from<SUP> </SUP>ground observations.<SUP> </SUP>


You really have to read the original papers.

[Native American]

He forgets what a WATT is.

Actually, he may have never known in the first place....

[Bob_Arctor]

Hehehe, spoken like a true creationist: "but were you there?!!?!?!?"

People who are educated understand that one can reconstruct temperatures quite accurately through a number of methods. This actually amuses me, because, since you're a YEC, none of this should mean anything to you anyway...the records would have been generated during the gloabl flood you can't defend. Ha ha ha.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

"This image is a comparison of 10 different published reconstructions of mean temperature changes during the last 2000 years. More recent reconstructions are plotted towards the front and in redder colors, older reconstructions appear towards the back and in bluer colors. The medieval warm period (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_warm_period) and little ice age (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_ice_age) are labeled at roughly the times when they are historically believed to occur, though it is still disputed whether these were truly global or only regional events. The single, unsmoothed annual value for 2004 is also shown for comparison. (Image:Instrumental Temperature Record.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png) shows how 2004 relates to other recent years).
For the purposes of this comparison, the author is agnostic as to which, if any, of the reconstructions of global mean temperature is an accurate reflection of temperature fluctuations during the last 2000 years. However, since this plot is a fair representation of the range of reconstructions appearing in the published scientific literature, it is likely that such reconstructions, accurate or not, will play a significant role in the ongoing discussions of global climate change (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change) and global warming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming).
For each reconstruction, the raw data has been decadally smoothed with a σ = 5 yr Gaussian weighted moving average. Also, each reconstruction was adjusted so that its mean matched the mean of the instrumental record during the period of overlap. The instrumental data are anomalies from the 1950-80 reference period. The variance (i.e. the scale of fluctuations) was not adjusted (except in one case noted below).
Except as noted below, all original data for this comparison comes from [1] (http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/recons.html) and links therein. It should also be noted that many reconstructions of past climate report substantial error bars, which are not represented on this figure."

Here are the references for each:

The reconstructions used, in order from oldest to most recent publication are:

(dark blue 1000-1991): <CITE style="FONT-STYLE: normal">P.D. Jones, K.R. Briffa, T.P. Barnett, and S.F.B. Tett (1998). High-resolution Palaeoclimatic Records for the last Millennium: Interpretation, Integration and Comparison with General Circulation Model Control-run Temperatures. The Holocene 8: 455-471.</CITE>
(blue 1000-1980): <CITE style="FONT-STYLE: normal">M.E. Mann, R.S. Bradley, and M.K. Hughes (1999). Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations. Geophysical Research Letters 26 (6): 759-762.</CITE>
(light blue 1000-1965): <CITE style="FONT-STYLE: normal">Crowley and Lowery (2000). Northern Hemisphere Temperature Reconstruction. Ambio 29: 51-54.</CITE> Modified as published in <CITE style="FONT-STYLE: normal">Crowley (2000). Causes of Climate Change Over the Past 1000 Years. Science 289: 270-277.</CITE>
(lightest blue 1402-1960): <CITE style="FONT-STYLE: normal">K.R. Briffa, T.J. Osborn, F.H. Schweingruber, I.C. Harris, P.D. Jones, S.G. Shiyatov, S.G. and E.A. Vaganov (2001). Low-frequency temperature variations from a northern tree-ring density network. J. Geophys. Res. 106: 2929-2941.</CITE>
(light green 831-1992): <CITE style="FONT-STYLE: normal">J. Esper, E.R. Cook, and F.H. Schweingruber (2002). Low-Frequency Signals in Long Tree-Ring Chronologies for Reconstructing Past Temperature Variability. Science 295 (5563): 2250-2253.</CITE>
(yellow 200-1980): <CITE style="FONT-STYLE: normal">M.E. Mann and P.D. Jones (2003). Global Surface Temperatures over the Past Two Millennia. Geophysical Research Letters 30 (15): 1820.</CITE> DOI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_object_identifier):10.1029/2003GL017814 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2003GL017814) .
(orange 200-1995): <CITE style="FONT-STYLE: normal">P.D. Jones and M.E. Mann (2004). Climate Over Past Millennia. Reviews of Geophysics 42: RG2002.</CITE> DOI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_object_identifier):10.1029/2003RG000143 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2003RG000143)
(red-orange 1500-1980): <CITE style="FONT-STYLE: normal">S. Huang (2004). Merging Information from Different Resources for New Insights into Climate Change in the Past and Future. Geophys. Res Lett. 31: L13205.</CITE> DOI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_object_identifier):10.1029/2004GL019781 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2004GL019781)
(red 1-1979): <CITE style="FONT-STYLE: normal">A. Moberg, D.M. Sonechkin, K. Holmgren, N.M. Datsenko and W. Karlén (2005). Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data. Nature 443: 613-617.</CITE> DOI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_object_identifier):10.1038/nature03265 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature03265)
(dark red 1600-1990): <CITE style="FONT-STYLE: normal">J.H. Oerlemans (2005). Extracting a Climate Signal from 169 Glacier Records. Science 308: 675-677.</CITE> DOI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_object_identifier):10.1126/science.1107046 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1107046)(black 1856-2004): Instrumental data was jointly compiled by the Climatic Research Unit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit) and the UK Meteorological Office (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Met_Office) Hadley Centre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadley_Centre). Global Annual Average data set TaveGL2v [2] (http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/) was used.
Documentation for the most recent update of the CRU/Hadley instrumental data set appears in: <CITE style="FONT-STYLE: normal">P.D. Jones and A. Moberg (2003). Hemispheric and large-scale surface air temperature variations: An extensive revision and an update to 2001. Journal of Climate 16: 206-223.</CITE>

Read and learn about the basic ideas:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/recons.html

<DL><DD>Global and Hemispheric Temperature, NAO, and SOI (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/jones2004/jones2004.html) (Review), 2000 Years, Jones and Mann 2004. <DD>Global Temperature (ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/contributions_by_author/jones1998/jonesdata.txt) (PCA: Tree-rings, Ice Cores, Corals, Sediments, Historical), 1000 Years, Jones et al. 1998 <DD>Global Temperature (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ei/ei_cover.html)(PCA: Tree-rings, Ice Cores, Corals) and Spatial Distribution (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/paleo/mannplot2.pl), 600 Years, Mann et al. 2000. <DD>Global Temperature (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/mann1998/frames.htm)(PCA: Tree-rings, Ice Cores, Corals, Historical), 600 Years, Mann et al. 1998. <DD>Global Temperature (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/oerlemans2005/oerlemans2005.html)(Glacier Length), 400 Years, Oerlemans 2005 <DD>Global Temperature (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/pollack.html)(Geothermal Heat Flow Analysis: Boreholes), 500 Years, Pollack et al. 1998. <DD>Vostok Temperature (ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/deutnat.txt), (Isotopes: Ice Core) 414,000 Years, Petit et al. 1999. <DD>Northern Hemisphere & Regional Temperature (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/briffa2001/briffa2001.html)(Age Band Decomp.: Tree-rings), 600 Years, Briffa et al. 2001. <DD>Northern Hemisphere Temperature (ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/treering/reconstructions/n_hem_temp/nhemtemp_data.txt)(Regression: Tree-rings), 600 Years, Briffa et al. 1998. <DD>Northern Hemisphere Temperature (ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/gcmoutput/crowley2000/crowley_lowery2000_nht.txt)(Tree-rings, Ice Cores, Historical), 1000 Years, Crowley & Lowery 2000. <DD>Northern Hemisphere Temperature (ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/treering/reconstructions/n_hem_temp/esper2002_nhem_temp.txt)(RCS: Tree-rings), 1000 Years, Esper et al. 2002. <DD>Northern Hemisphere Temperature (ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/contributions_by_author/huang2004/nhtemp-huang2004.txt)(Boreholes, Tree-ring, Ice Cores, Corals), 500 Years, Huang 2004. <DD>Hemispheric Temperature, NAO, and SOI (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/jones2001/jones2001.html) (Review), 1000 Years, Jones et al. 2001. <DD>Northern Hemisphere Temperature (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/mann_99.html)(PCA: Tree-rings, Ice Cores, Corals), 1000 Years, Mann et al. 1999. <DD>Hemispheric Temperature (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/mann2003b/mann2003b.html)(Historical, Tree-rings, Ice Cores, Sediment), 2000 Years, Mann and Jones 2003. <DD>Northern Hemisphere Temperature (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/moberg2005/moberg2005.html)(Wavelet: Sediments, Tree-rings), 2000 Years, Moberg et al. 2005. <DD>Northern Hemisphere Temperature, Warm/Cold Spatial Extent (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/osborn2006/osborn2006.html), 1,200 Years, Osborn and Briffa 2006. <DD>Northern Hemisphere Temperature (ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/contributions_by_author/rutherford2005/) (Review/Comparison), 600 Years, Rutherford et al. 2005. </DD></DL>Bob, just two questions for you this time:
Please describe the temperature gauge used between AD 631 and AD 738 which allowed the scientists of that day to accurately record the Earth's temperature to an accuracy of +- 0.1 degrees C?
Also, what texts did the scientists of that day record their daily (or annual) Earth temperature measurements in?
Your graph sure looked swell though, and even made it look, at first glance, like accurate measurements had actually been taken.

[Native American]

[mega snip]

For the purposes of this comparison, the author is agnostic as to which, if any, of the reconstructions of global mean temperature is an accurate reflection of temperature fluctuations during the last 2000 years. However, since this plot is a fair representation of the range of reconstructions appearing in the published scientific literature, it is likely that such reconstructions, accurate or not, will play a significant role in the ongoing discussions of global climate change (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change) and global warming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming).

[mega snip]



[emphasis and bolding and color change mine]


LOL, you never cease to amuse us, Arctor. Once again, when publicly challenged, your assertions are shown to be utter and complete BS.

Like hey, what difference can it possibly make if the numbers in your fancy graph are based on reality or not, right? And hey, so what if they're totally inaccurate, right? What's important is that your posts are "science-based", eh Bob?

Way to go, dude. http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/images/icons/biglaugh.gif


Your graph sure looked swell though, and even made it look, at first glance, like accurate measurements had actually been taken.

[Bob_Arctor]

LOL, you never cease to amuse us, Arctor. Once again, when publicly challenged, your assertions are shown to be utter and complete BS.

Like hey, what difference can it possibly make if the numbers in your fancy graph are based on reality or not, right? And hey, so what if they're totally inaccurate, right? What's important is that your posts are "science-based", eh Bob?

You asked for it, and you got it. There are many different methods to find old temperatures, and they all sync up very nicely.

Only an intellectually dishonest creationist like yourself would jump on one word and ignore all the rest. Pathetic. No wonder you can't argue science, just like you're afraid to defend your precious global flood, just like you're too insecure to admit your glaring error over your discredited polling scheme.

For the thinking readers out there, here's what NA found so compelling:

For the purposes of this comparison, the author is agnostic as to which, if any, of the reconstructions of global mean temperature is an accurate reflection of temperature fluctuations during the last 2000 years.

This means that the person who made the overlay of different temp lines admits he doesn't know which is right, and is making no claims ont he issue. This does not mean that the temperatures are probably wrong. Temperature reconstruction is a fairly well developed science, and there's no reason to assume that the numbers are likely to be wrong, particularly when you consider how well they all sync up.

NA uses excuses to avoid facing reality, as is typical of a YEC. This is much of the reason why YECs never do actual science - they don't like the answers they get.

[sunsettommy]

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by markus3622
Sunsettommy,

Any increase in solar radiation doesn't convert into equivalent radiative forcing of the atmosphere. (Think of a lightbulb - a 60 watt bulb doesn't give 60 watts of radiative forcing).


</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>



Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Native American
It sure does! Almost all of the 60 watts of electricity is converted into radiative forcing, in fact. Only a miniscule amount is converted to sound. The rest is converted to heat and light.

HINT: a 60 gazillion light bulb (think of the Sun) works the same way


</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


He forgets what a WATT is.

From Wikipedia:

Definition

One watt is one joule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule) of energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy) per second (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second).



<DL><DD>1 W = 1 J/s = 1 newton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton) meter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meter) per second = 1 kg·m<SUP>2</SUP>·s<SUP>−3</SUP> </DD></DL>ALL the energy the planet gets from the sun affects it in some way.


Actually, he may have never known in the first place....

That is not what I meant.

It looks like you have problems with people who have a differing view of the topic.

I often do not agree with Bob and Markus,but I have respect for their fine civil manners they have shown towards me.

Go ahead and compare their replies to me and then to you.

It would be better if you restrain yourself from making caustic comments about people you disagree with.

Concentrate on making rebuttals is the way to go.

[sunsettommy]

Bob Arctor says:

Let's see what the papers actually say, not the industry group's spin on them, which I find misleading. For example, they claim that over the last 20 or so years energy has gone up, while in fact it went down before 1990, then up afterward.



<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD align=left>Science 6 May 2005:
Vol. 308. no. 5723, pp. 847 - 850
DOI: 10.1126/science.1103215


</TD><TD align=right>Prev (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/308/5723/844) | Table of Contents (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/vol308/issue5723/index.dtl) | Next (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/308/5723/850)


</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Reports

<!-- BEGIN: legacy HTML content --><!--RESUMEHIGHLIGHT-->From Dimming to Brightening: Decadal Changes in Solar Radiation at Earth's Surface

Snip,

A decline in solar<SUP> </SUP>radiation at land surfaces has become apparent in many observational<SUP> </SUP>records up to 1990, a phenomenon known as global dimming. Newly<SUP> </SUP>available surface observations from 1990 to the present, primarily<SUP> </SUP>from the Northern Hemisphere, show that the dimming did not<SUP> </SUP>persist into the 1990s. Instead, a widespread brightening has<SUP> </SUP>been observed since the late 1980s.

Sunset says,

You forgot this part.

This is nearly 20 years in length.

Does it cross your mind that Worldclimate may have just rounded off the years to "..the last 20 or so"?

[Naturalized-Texan]

I like this post since you just attacked the "Hockey Stick" with YOUR acceptance of the little ice age.A fact that Dr.Mann wants to eliminate with his absurd "hockey stick" paper.
That's right. The graphs from those who suscribe to the human-caused global warming hypothesis do include the Little Ice Age that Michael Mann claims never happened. Mann's "Hockey Stick" is a massive fraud.

[sunsettommy]

Bob Arctor origionally posted this,

ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCE:

In Search of Balance

Robert J. Charlson, Francisco P. J. Valero, John H. Seinfeld<SUP>*</SUP> (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/308/5723/806#affiliation)

The climate of Earth and its global mean surface temperature are the consequence of a balance between the amount of solar radiation absorbed by Earth's surface and atmosphere and the amount of outgoing longwave radiation emitted by the system. The former is governed by the albedo (reflectivity) of the system, whereas the latter depends strongly on the atmospheric content of gases and particles (such as clouds and dust).

Although the theory of absorption of infrared radiation by gases in the atmosphere (1 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/308/5723/806#ref1)) is well accepted and embodied in climate models, the observational and theoretical treatments of albedo, aerosols, and clouds are still under development. One brevium (2 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/308/5723/806#ref2)) and two reports (3 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/308/5723/806#ref3), 4 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/308/5723/806#ref4)) in this issue report estimates of Earth's albedo and of solar radiation reaching the surface, but the uncertainties remain large.

The buildup of CO<SUB>2</SUB> (5 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/308/5723/806#ref5)), CH<SUB>4</SUB>, and other greenhouse gases during the past century has led to an increased absorption of infrared radiation in the atmosphere (enhanced greenhouse effect) and a consequent warming ("positive forcing") of the climate. But human-made changes in aerosols and clouds can cause enhanced albedo and hence cooling ("negative forcing"), and they may already have offset a substantial part of the enhanced greenhouse effect. Present trends suggest that by 2050, the magnitude of the enhanced greenhouse effect will be so large that the net anthropogenic forcing will be unequivocally positive and substantial in magnitude (6 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/308/5723/806#ref6)).

Sunset says,

LOL,

the parts you bolded is an admission of not really knowing the climate that well.

It depends on models which are not testable or falsifiable.Models that use the far future to make predictions based on the effect of CO2 increase.

Then this gem highlights an admission:

One brevium (2 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/308/5723/806#ref2)) and two reports (3 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/308/5723/806#ref3), 4 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/308/5723/806#ref4)) in this issue report estimates of Earth's albedo and of solar radiation reaching the surface, but the uncertainties remain large.

Then we go to the as yet unproved (since it is 34 years into the future) the idea about something that is not that well understood.

Imagine depending on models and future predictions and yet say this proves something now.After all the clamor that CO2 is the culprit for warming was made TWENTY YEARS AGO!

Yet we still read the classic hedge words in this paper.

"..are still under development"

"..can cause"

"..they may already have"

"..Present trends suggest"

Yup he is still searching for a balance.

[Bob_Arctor]

A decline in solar<SUP> </SUP>radiation at land surfaces has become apparent in many observational<SUP> </SUP>records up to 1990, a phenomenon known as global dimming. Newly<SUP> </SUP>available surface observations from 1990 to the present, primarily<SUP> </SUP>from the Northern Hemisphere, show that the dimming did not<SUP> </SUP>persist into the 1990s. Instead, a widespread brightening has<SUP> </SUP>been observed since the late 1980s.

Sunset says,

You forgot this part.

This is nearly 20 years in length.

Does it cross your mind that Worldclimate may have just rounded off the years to "..the last 20 or so"?

Well, it does now. I don't know what I was thinking there! So we had dimming from sometime in the 60s until around 1990, and it's been getting brighter since then. I found it misleading the way Worldclimate wrote it up, because they averaged over the entire period to find an increase since the 60s, despite the fact it was actually dimming until 1990. If solar output changes are purely the cause, then wouldn't we have seen cooling and heating trends mirroring the output? In fact, we've seen heating during the entire period, covering times of dimming and brightening. Therefore I can't see a direct connection between the two. Do you have any ideas on this?

[Bob_Arctor]

Bob Arctor origionally posted this,

ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCE:

In Search of Balance

Robert J. Charlson, Francisco P. J. Valero, John H. Seinfeld<SUP>*</SUP> (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/308/5723/806#affiliation)

The climate of Earth and its global mean surface temperature are the consequence of a balance between the amount of solar radiation absorbed by Earth's surface and atmosphere and the amount of outgoing longwave radiation emitted by the system. The former is governed by the albedo (reflectivity) of the system, whereas the latter depends strongly on the atmospheric content of gases and particles (such as clouds and dust).

Although the theory of absorption of infrared radiation by gases in the atmosphere (1 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/308/5723/806#ref1)) is well accepted and embodied in climate models, the observational and theoretical treatments of albedo, aerosols, and clouds are still under development. One brevium (2 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/308/5723/806#ref2)) and two reports (3 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/308/5723/806#ref3), 4 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/308/5723/806#ref4)) in this issue report estimates of Earth's albedo and of solar radiation reaching the surface, but the uncertainties remain large.

The buildup of CO<SUB>2</SUB> (5 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/308/5723/806#ref5)), CH<SUB>4</SUB>, and other greenhouse gases during the past century has led to an increased absorption of infrared radiation in the atmosphere (enhanced greenhouse effect) and a consequent warming ("positive forcing") of the climate. But human-made changes in aerosols and clouds can cause enhanced albedo and hence cooling ("negative forcing"), and they may already have offset a substantial part of the enhanced greenhouse effect. Present trends suggest that by 2050, the magnitude of the enhanced greenhouse effect will be so large that the net anthropogenic forcing will be unequivocally positive and substantial in magnitude (6 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/308/5723/806#ref6)).

Sunset says,
LOL,
the parts you bolded is an admission of not really knowing the climate that well.

It depends on models which are not testable or falsifiable.Models that use the far future to make predictions based on the effect of CO2 increase.
"Present trends," Sunset. Of course they can be extended into the future, given the consensus that increases in the various gases will lead to temp increases. The authors note their acceptance of GW in the first bolded section.

Also, did you note that the authors suggest enhanced albedo is actually keeping things cooler than they would be otherwise?

Then this gem highlights an admission:

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">One brevium (2 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/308/5723/806#ref2)) and two reports (3 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/308/5723/806#ref3), 4 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/308/5723/806#ref4)) in this issue report estimates of Earth's albedo and of solar radiation reaching the surface, but the uncertainties remain large. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

These are uncertainties over the levels of solar energy reaching the surface, not over GW itself. Note that Worldclimate crowed over the fact these papers argued for increasing levels of solar radiation hitting the surface, but seem to have ignored these very uncertainties. Apparently a lot of the problem is that some stations only operated until about 1990, and another is that satellites give conflicting reports. One of the papers is all about varying data from satellites.
Then we go to the as yet unproved (since it is 34 years into the future) the idea about something that is not that well understood.
I'm not sure how we could "prove" a model that might not be fulfilled for many years - but we use models like this all the time in science.

Imagine depending on models and future predictions and yet say this proves something now.After all the clamor that CO2 is the culprit for warming was made TWENTY YEARS AGO!

Yet we still read the classic hedge words in this paper.

"..are still under development"

"..can cause"

"..they may already have"

"..Present trends suggest"

Yup he is still searching for a balance.

Sunset, if you read science papers - from any science - you will see these same words. I see them frequently in genetics papers, for example. This isn't a fault of science writing; it's a strength. Basically, by pointing out these phrases, you've giving away that you don't actually read the primary literature. If you did, you wouldn't find these words out of place or suggestive of weakness.

[Native American]

Let's see what the papers actually say, not the industry group's spin on them, which I find misleading. For example, they claim that over the last 20 or so years energy has gone up, while in fact it went down before 1990, then up afterward.

A decline in solar<SUP> </SUP>radiation at land surfaces has become apparent in many observational<SUP> </SUP>records up to 1990, a phenomenon known as global dimming. Newly<SUP> </SUP>available surface observations from 1990 to the present, primarily<SUP> </SUP>from the Northern Hemisphere, show that the dimming did not<SUP> </SUP>persist into the 1990s. Instead, a widespread brightening has<SUP> </SUP>been observed since the late 1980s.

Sunset says,

You forgot this part.

This is nearly 20 years in length.

While Bob claims to actually make "science-based" posts, it appears Bob has difficulty even with simple addition and subtraction.... http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/images/icons/biglaugh.gif

[PaulRevere]

Paul, I concur with your first point about the LIA. We saw a cooling and we saw something (low solar activity) that could explain it. I admit I haven't heard anything about the black death and its link to climate.

I think your third point isn't true.

Secondly, the historical data seems to show that the recent warming is more drastic than we've seen in the past (e.g. The roman data you quote seems to be exaggerated - it wasn't as warm then).

Oh, but it is true, ye of little faith. Read "Climate Through the Ages". You will see several longterm warming and cooling trends going back to the ice ages, the ends of which were never blamed on Neanderthals and Cromagnons.

BTW, the Vikings settled Iceland and Greenland when it was much warmer than today, but the cooling period that also caused a general weaking of populations due to poorer harvests and their decimation in the Black Plague also caused the Norse population of Greenland to go extinct. They just plain old froze to death after their cattle died out. It was about this time also that the Anasazi culture collapsed in the US SW, as I recall.

[markus3622]

PaulRevere

I'd be interested in where you're getting your data from on the warmth of various periods of history. There's a book called Climate through the Ages that was published in 1949, but the science has advanced a little since then. As Bob Arctor has shown, the most recent work seems to show that the current warming is special.

ST, NA

However, I would like to say something on the climate reconstructions. NA makes the point that he would like to see "accurate climate records over the past 500 years". I'd like to see a DVD of actual footage of the storming of the Bastille, shot by camera men who were there. But it's not going to happen. There aren't accurate records of climate made by people who were there, going back over 2000 years. We have to use proxy data, which brings us on to the temperature reconstructions.

Although no two records are identical, they all appear to show some general trends. Yes, there are problems with Mann's method. There are problems with every study (whether you use tree rings, pine cones, etc, etc). Mann's data set isn't the one true climate record. Fortunately for him, his work has been repeated and they show that the earth appears to be warming outside of the bounds of the past 1000 years. This is circumstantial evidence and isn't the clincher for climate change.

It doesn't matter how warm it was when the Romans were here. It doesn't matter how cold it was in 1700. It doesn't matter how warm it was during the Medieval Warm period. The hockey stick debate is a side show. The climatologists have good data going back 100 years and we know the earth is warming. They have to study that warming. Other warmings and coolings might give us clues, but this one is important and must be considered independently.

Professor Briffa at UEA, UK said it would be worse for the skeptics if the hockey stick were wrong, because we know the forcing from CO2 is greater than anything we've seen in a while, so if the MWP was warmer, the climate would be more sensitive to the CO2 we're putting up in the atmosphere.

[DoctorDoom]

... so if the MWP was warmer, the climate would be more sensitive to the CO2 we're putting up in the atmosphere.Give us a formula that correlates the percentage of anthropogenic CO₂ to the percentage of global warming. THAT is science. Telling us to spend trillions of dollars to reduce our CO₂ emissions without the merest scientific justification for it is leftist ideology. Where's the testable, falsifiable scientific research to support the demands by the ecowackos?

I've repeatedly asked you enviroloonies for it, and you've uniformly ignored it. Provide it or sacrifice whatever shred of credibiility you still possess.

[Bob_Arctor]

While Bob claims to actually make "science-based" posts, it appears Bob has difficulty even with simple addition and subtraction....
I think we're all still waiting for you to address some science, NA. You t