|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 8, 2011 18:51:35 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Jun 8, 2011 18:53:56 GMT 1
I'm waiting to see how she'll use this to try and attempt to explain climate change......................
It's pretty, I will admit!
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 8, 2011 18:54:24 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 8, 2011 19:09:17 GMT 1
Episodes of relative global warmingde Jager, C. and Duhau, S. 2009. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 71: 194-198. www.uccs.edu/~kiosk/reccenter/solar/class/earth_sun_size_comparison.htmAbstract Solar activity is regulated by the solar dynamo. The dynamo is a non-linear interplay between the equatorial and polar magnetic field components. So far, in sun-climate studies only the equatorial component has been considered as a possible driver of tropospheric temperature variations. We show that next to this, there is a significant contribution of the polar component. Based on direct observations of proxy data for the two main solar magnetic field components since 1844 we derive an empirical relation between the tropospheric temperature variation and those of the solar equatorial and and polar activities. when applying that relation to the period 1610-1995, we find some quasi regular episodes of residual temperature increases and decreases, with semi-amplitudes up to 0.3C degrees. The present period of global warming is one of them. Conclusions The three main results of this study are the following: First, there exists a relation between solar activity and average tropospheric temperatures. Next, this relation depends both on the toroidal and the poloidal component of solar magnetism. The seven temperature sets that we studied here, evidently give different results but it is gratifying that they agree qualitatively in confirming the dependence of tropospheric temperature on both components of solar activity. The third result is that a comparison of observed with calculated temperatures shows residual peaks and valleys. Some of these are significant, appearing in all seven data sets studied here. There results may be of importance for understanding the solar mechanisms that influence climate. The refereed literature contains 15 global or NH temperature data sets. Obviously all must be studied in order to further check the above results. It is also necessary to discuss the heliophysical and climatologic aspects of these findings. Such a study is presently underway with colleagues.
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 8, 2011 19:14:21 GMT 1
These disparate posts are just to remind Phil Jones and disciples about the importance of the sun to our planet.
|
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Jun 8, 2011 19:27:03 GMT 1
Uh, we'd all be in the dark and bloody cold otherwise....................... Sorry, totally bleedin' obvious! Another strawman, let's PRETEND that nobody EVER considered solar variability as a possible explanation.................. solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html |
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 8, 2011 21:31:59 GMT 1
They don't seem to have considered the variations in the solar wind that determine the amount of galactic cosmic radiation that the Earth receives, STA. If they had, it would be Phil Jones et al and not Henrik Svensmark and Jasper Kirkby doing the Arhus and CERN experiments into cloud seeding. ----- Dr. Vincent Courtillot is a professor of geophysics at the University Paris-Diderot and Chair of paleomagnetism and geodynamics of the Institut Universitaire de France. In the recent lecture below he explains how solar cycles control the climate by influence on cloud formation (the cosmic ray theory of Svensmark et al) and via influence on ocean oscillations and length of day. Dr. Courtillot notes that IPCC climate computer models do not correlate with observations and that temperature trends vary substantially between North America and Europe (which is contrary to IPCC computer model predictions). He also notes that while the total solar irradiance (TSI) only varies by about .1% over a solar cycle, the solar UV varies by about 10% and that secondary effects on cloud formation may vary up to 30% over solar cycles. The IPCC computer models dismiss the role of the sun by only considering the small variations of the TSI and ignore the large changes in the most energetic and influential part of the solar spectrum – the ultraviolet. wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/05/courtillot-on-the-solar-uv-climate-connection/ |
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 8, 2011 21:35:01 GMT 1
Your "Stanford Solar Centre" link also has this to say about Solar Folklore, STA! The Sun can be a god, a demon, a mischievous spirit, an omnipotent creator or a ruthless taker of life. Whatever role it plays, most cultures have recognized the significance of the Sun as prime controller of all life on Earth.(but not the IPCC, apparently, nor Bob Bindschadler of NASA who thinks solar influence happened in the past but not today!)  Hmmm! It must be correct, It's from "Stanford". |
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Jun 9, 2011 0:38:19 GMT 1
Here's a .pdf totally rubbishing the work by Qing-Bin Lu of University of Waterloo, Canada. Well that's accepted practise for peer review... www.ace.uwaterloo.ca/publications/2011/Grooss-ElectronReactions.pdfand here's Lu's paper... www.probeinternational.org/files/Cosmic-ray-driven%20electron-induced%20reactions%20of%20halogenated%20molecules%20adsorbed%20on%20ice%20surfaces--Implications%20for%20atmospheric%20ozone%20depletion%20and%20global%20climate%20change.pdfwell if Lu is incorrect in His views, there is a relationship between Cosmic Radiation ,the troposphere and em wave propagation and effects. Furthermore all three of the 'main contenders' [if indeed they are the only ones] are affected by em waves and or cosmic/Solar Radiation. This must make a difference to the way the upper atmosphere behaves at different times. CO2 is especially good at 'manipulating' infra-red [eg. CO2 lasers]. Microwaves are very affected by rain and fog, air temp etc and they are next door neighbours to the IR's. Didn't I see the other day that 14Carbon [isotope] ended up as Nitrogen. So there's a lot of activity up there, and we don't know enough to say that is all has no effect, unless of course, we know what's happening. StuartG Background: " Atmospheric Absorbtion In addition to the scattering of EM radiation, the atmosphere also absorbs electromagnetic radiation. The three main constituents which absorb radiation are Ozone, Carbon Dioxide, and Water Vapor. Ozone serves to absorb the harmful (to most living things) ultraviolet radiation from the sun. Without this protective layer in the atmosphere our skin would burn when exposed to sunlight. Carbon Dioxide absorbs in the far infrared portion of the spectrum which is related to thermal heating and results in a 'greenhouse' effect. Water Vapor absorbs energy depending upon its location and concentration, and forms a primary component of the Earth's climatic system. " hosting.soonet.ca/eliris/remotesensing/bl130lec3.html'Global Energy Balance' geochemistry.usask.ca/bill/Courses/Earth%20System%20Science/Lectures/Global%20Energy%20Balance%20print.pdfThe Solar Cycle and Stratosphere-Troposphere Dynamical Coupling www.nwra.com/resumes/baldwin/pubs/Baldwin_Dunkerton.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 9, 2011 13:05:31 GMT 1
From your last link Stu.
Solar irradiance also varies slightly over an 11-year cycle as the sun’s magnetic activ-
ity alters its energy output. Although the total energy output of the sun varies by only
~0.1% over the solar cycle [Fröhlich and Lean, 1998], radiation at longer UV wave-
lengths increases by several percent. Still larger changes—a factor of two or more—are
found in extremely short UV and X-ray wavelengths. For the past 200 years this fairly
regular cycle has inspired researchers to link solar-cycle variations to variations in
weather and climate.
But this is apparently no longer legitimate according to the IPCC. Solar variation is OK in the palaeocliamte records but it is FAR too inconvenient today.
|
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Jun 9, 2011 14:24:41 GMT 1
that's just nonsense -- they've looked at the actual variation, it doesn't fit the data as a possible cause.
As regards cosmic rays -- it wasn't ignored:
Just ole pattern of deniers throwing up every hypothesis they can think of (and then conveniently ignoring the data that shows it isn't worth looking at, like isotopic CO2 data that puts the kybosh on the supposed massive submarine volcanoes fairy-story). As I said before, it'll be aliens next......................
|
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Jun 9, 2011 14:32:23 GMT 1
One thing I think I have picked up is that Cosmic Radiation [particles really] comes from outer space these are then modified by the Solar Wind, they [cosmic] also affect the Troposphere including, but not only the so-called Ozone Hole [ which isn't but a thinning]. Here is an extract from a paper on the subject "Despite the increasing evidence that cosmic ray variations may influence clouds and climate, there has been little discussion of the direct radiative effects of atmospheric ionisation" www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/3/3205/2003/acpd-3-3205-2003.pdf that if nothing else demonstrates that it does have some effect, even if there are arguments of how much. This paper is dated June 2003 and like the 'Lu' paper [tee hee] above will be shown to have been 'rubbished' subsequently . As far as I can see this at least begs a reasonable question and says 'Do we know enough about it to make sweeping statements that inevitably leads to more expense. Scot Power's price hike will do more to stop any AGW, and there must be some, than any arguments from either side.
StuartG
ps. At the risk of being dubbed a 'conspiracy theorist' the businesses and speculators such as this www.theice.com/productguide/ProductDetails.shtml?specId=1491 have seen fit to use AGW to increase their prices. Have a look at one of the shipping sites for belief, it will show LNG tankers tied up mid-channel, waiting to be told that the price is right to make to port to discharge. They have their crews on board waiting [and being paid] so it must be worthwhile. |
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 9, 2011 14:37:56 GMT 1
STA, you can tattoo "denier" on my forehead any day. And I'll tattoo "PC prat" on yours.
|
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Jun 9, 2011 15:03:28 GMT 1
I do like to see You two gals gettin' on so well.. "like isotopic CO2 data that puts the kybosh" One thing I am beginning to learn, there are 'waxes and wanes' in these 'discussions' generally about AGW, I don't doubt that there will be a kybosh to put the kybosh on their kybosh. "it'll be aliens next" www.skepticalscience.com/Crichton_Aliens_Cause_Global_Warming.htmlLovingly Yours, StuartG |
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Jun 9, 2011 17:34:26 GMT 1
Naw, I prefer Apples..................
|
|
