Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[Haig]

Haig


Because they are not relevant. Through all of this there IS NO MECHANISM nor is there scale of energy.
Electromagnetic phenomena makes for pretty light shows..apparently even on Venus..but the aurora borealis is not driving climate change - looks cool tho.

Could this be part of the mechanism macdoc?

At times of a weaker sun, such as now, the coronal holes migrate from the poles to the mid-latitudes where they are more effective at transmitting energy to the planets.

Alfvén waves emitted from coronal holes at lower latitudes would have a better chance of connecting with Earth's magnetosphere and causing geomagnetic effects, while mid-latitude holes would be less effective.
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/558961main2_alfven-waves-670.jpg


The magnetic fields from the center of coronal holes in the sun's atmosphere have large fluctuations known as Alfvén waves, while those from the sides have smaller fluctuations. The side fields do not transfer energy as well from the sun to Earth's magnetosphere. Credit: NASA/Park
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sunearth/news/solar-minima.html

Edited by LashL: 

Changed hotlinked image to regular link. Please see Rule 5.

 

[Belz...]

Could this be the mechanism macdoc?

How about cheese ? Could cheese be the mechanism ?

 

[Haig]

How about cheese ? Could cheese be the mechanism ?

Was that your questions Belz? And you wonder why I don't bother

 

[uke2se]

Notes astronomer and debunker of astronomy related woo Phil Plait, addressed and debunked this notion.


http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/04/29/is-global-warming-solar-induced/

Haig, you missed the post that debunks your crap.

 

[Haig]

Haig, you missed the post that debunks your crap.

He says this in that piece ...

Of course it’s possible. There are links to the Sun’s behavior and Earth’s climate (look up the Maunder minimum for some interesting reading), and it would be foolish to simply deny this. However, this is a vastly complex and difficult system to understand, and simply claiming "Yes it’s due to the Sun" or "No it’s not due to the Sun" is certainly naive.

So are you naive uke2se?

And he hasn't considered the ALL facts presented Here and Here

 

[Belz...]

Was that your questions Belz? And you wonder why I don't bother

I sure don't know why _I_ bother:

Ah, now we're getting somewhere. A few things:

1) Could you demonstrate that human activity indeed only produces a trace effect on climate compared to the sun ? Remember in your answer that we are 150 million kilometers from it.

2) Even given your demonstration of 1), are we even talking about the same type of influence on climate ? The sun inputs energy and so on, but our activity, presumably, affects how the Earth absorbs or flushes out that energy. In other words, greenhouse gases can trap heat, etc. So I'd like you to clarify how the sun even factors into the equation as far as scale is concerned.

3) Since you will obviously be able to demonstrate 1) and 2), could you estimate how much more carbon emissions we'd need to put out before there is an effect on climate ? I assume that you agree that there is a threshold at which point our presence here has an impact on the environment.

 

[macdoc]

And he hasn't considered the ALL facts presented Here and Here

amount to the same thing....all about magnetic fields...NOTHING to do with earth's climate beyond the minor amount - a magnitude below the GHG signal - 11 year cycle.

Yet even that weak influence is on the cool end of the curve while it's getting warmer.

When the Aurora melts and ice cube let us know.

 

[Trakar]

I won't bother linking to them, but the typical climate denier suspects have a significant dislike for the author and his predictions that global warming will cause an increase in severe winter weather.

Basically the responses that were given to the information Haig presented here by several posters. It isn't that he hasn't received accurate information, it is that these weren't the answers he wants to hear.

 

[macdoc]

Alfvén waves emitted from coronal holes at lower latitudes would have a better chance of connecting with Earth's magnetosphere and causing geomagnetic effects, while mid-latitude holes would be less effective.

That would be NO.

They geo-magnetic effects. It might effect some satellites and transmission lines...it won't impact the climate.

Now .....if you strung out continuous CME like the one just recently you might have a case..

key NASA instrument that can directly measure the impact of solar events on the Earth's upper atmosphere has weighed in on the huge flare that impacted Earth last week.

The flare was considered one of the largest solar events in years even though its impact on the power grid and communications was minimal due to the angle it hit Earth.

Its direct interaction with the upper atmosphere was measured by NASA's SABER (Sounding of the Atmosphere using Broadband Emission Radiometry) instrument orbiting on the TIMED (Thermosphere, Ionosphere, Mesosphere, Energetics and Dynamics) satellite.

The upper atmosphere heated up, and huge spikes occurred in infrared emission from nitric oxide and carbon dioxide, said Marty Mlynczak, SABER's associate-principal investigator at NASA's Langley Research Center in Hampton, Va.


Sol 'waking up'

"It's been seven years since we've had a storm like that," he said. "This is the first major storm event since the deep solar minimum of 2008-2009. We are finally seeing the Sun 'wake up' as it proceeds to the next solar maximum."

But the upper atmosphere is exceedingly tenuous and this is a once in decade event.

IN reality it our use of GHG that is impacting the thermosphere....

Climate Change Affecting Earth's Outermost Atmosphere

December 11, 2006

BOULDER—Carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels will produce a 3 percent reduction in the density of Earth's outermost atmosphere by 2017, according to a team of

Stan Solomon
Stan Solomon. (Photo by Carlye Calvin, UCAR.)

scientists from the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and The Pennsylvania State University (PSU). The research, which appears in the latest issue of Geophysical Research Letters, will be presented today at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union.

"We're seeing climate change manifest itself in the upper as well as lower atmosphere," says NCAR scientist Stan Solomon, a co-author of the study. "This shows the far-ranging impacts of greenhouse gas emissions."

The research team includes Solomon, Liying Qian, and Ray Roble of NCAR’s High Altitude Observatory; and Tim Kane of PSU. The study was supported by NASA’s Living With a Star program and by the National Science Foundation, NCAR's primary sponsor.

Lower density in the thermosphere, which is the highest layer of the atmosphere, reduces the drag on satellites in low Earth orbit, allowing them to stay airborne longer. Forecasts of upper-level air density could help NASA and other agencies plan the fuel needs and timing of satellite launches more precisely, potentially saving millions of dollars.

Video

Even though emissions of carbon dioxide warm the lower atmosphere, they have the opposite effect on the upper atmosphere. The reason has to do with the difference in density. Near the Earth's surface, carbon dioxide absorbs radiation escaping Earth, but before it can radiate the energy to space, frequent collisions with other molecules in the dense lower atmosphere force the carbon dioxide to release energy as heat, thus warming the air. In the much thinner thermosphere, a carbon dioxide molecule absorbs energy when it collides with an oxygen molecule, but there is ample time for it to radiate energy to space before another collision occurs. The result is a cooling effect.

In this video clip, NCAR scientist Stan Solomon explains this phenomenon, which is illustrated by the animation. (Video and animation ©UCAR)

more images >

Confirming and extending a prediction

Recent observations by scientists tracking satellite orbits have shown that the thermosphere, which begins about 60 miles above Earth and extends up to 400 miles, is beginning to become less dense. This confirms a prediction made at NCAR in 1989 by Roble and Robert Dickinson (now at the Georgia Institute of Technology) that the thermosphere will cool and contract because of increasing carbon dioxide levels. The new study is the first to analyze whether the observed change will become more pronounced over the next decade.

Why the cooling is a sign of global warming

Carbon dioxide cools the thermosphere, even though it acts to warm the atmosphere near the Earth's surface (the troposphere). This paradox occurs because the atmosphere thins with height. Near the Earth's surface, carbon dioxide absorbs radiation escaping Earth, but before the gas molecules can radiate the energy to space, frequent collisions with other molecules in the dense lower atmosphere force the carbon dioxide to release energy as heat, thus warming the air. In the much thinner thermosphere, a carbon dioxide molecule absorbs energy when it collides with an oxygen molecule, but there is ample time for it to radiate energy to space before another collision occurs. The result is a cooling effect. As it cools, the thermosphere settles, so that the density at a given height is reduced.

http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/thermosphere.shtml

oh my doesn't that suck....it's a cooling affect...what there is.

This is an interesting and exciting area of study and it's very important to those dealing with space flight and electromagnetic risks.

It's bugger all to do with climate change beyond being subject to the GHG anthro-increase.

 

[macdoc]

Worse and worse for the solar proponents

"The theory of anthropogenic global warming consists of a set of logically interconnected and consistent hypotheses,” Martin Rypdal said. “This means that if a cornerstone hypothesis is proven to be false, the entire theory fails.

A corresponding theory of global warming of solar origin does not exist. What does exist is a set of disconnected, mutually inconsistent, ad hoc hypotheses.
If one of these is proven to be false, the typical proponent of solar warming will pull another ad hoc hypothesis out of the hat. This has been the strategy of Scafetta and West over the years, and we have no illusion that our paper will put them to silence. However, the only scientifically valid strategy to confront these new hypotheses is to shoot down every new missile as they come in, using the most advanced weapons at hand. We believe that this operation was successfully accomplished with respect to the complexity linking hypothesis, but there will be many more battles to be fought until the issue of the contribution of solar variability to recent global warming is settled.”

Read more at: http://phys.org/news189845962.html#jCp

 

[lomiller]

Could this be part of the mechanism macdoc?

It looks like gibberish to me.

You don’t explain any of: How is the energy incident on the earth supposed to know whether to be absorbed “efficiently” or not? What causes the energy to be absorbed efficiently or not, what happens to the energy that isn’t absorbed, how much energy is no longer absorbed, Is does the measured value for energy absorption match whatever prediction it is you are making, do the observed climate changes match the measured value for changes in “efficiency”?

You need to do a whole lot more than say magnetic field > yada yada yada > climate change!

 

[macdoc]

I meam really - Alfen waves are solar corona phenomena - even the mass of a CME only registers as a blip in the temperature and these are no CME events which actually do have enough scale to register as atmosphere influence as opposed to geomagnetic.

I really don't think all the yattering that goes on about the earth's magnetic field understand how weak it is.

UV changes seem interesting but surely that is entirely picked up in the radiative measurements as that most of what is incoming and shows very little variance over time.

Here is the heart of the problem....

Temperatures are highly dependent on solar activity, and can rise to 2,000 °C (3,630 °F). Radiation causes the atmosphere particles in this layer to become electrically charged (see ionosphere), enabling radio waves to bounce off and be received beyond the horizon. In the exosphere, beginning at 500 to 1,000 kilometres (310 to 620 mi) above the Earth's surface, the atmosphere turns into space.

The highly diluted gas in this layer can reach 2,500 °C (4,530 °F) during the day. Even though the temperature is so high, one would not feel warm in the thermosphere, because it is so near vacuum that there is not enough contact with the few atoms of gas to transfer much heat.
A normal thermometer would read significantly below 0 °C (32 °F), because the energy lost by thermal radiation would exceed the energy acquired from the atmospheric gas by direct contact. In the anacoustic zone above 160 kilometres (99 mi), the density is so low that molecular interactions are too infrequent to permit the transmission of sound.

There is just not enough material even tho the temps are so high. Lots of activity in the magnetic fields.....bugger all in the parts of the atmosphere.sufficiently dense to matter.

 

[Haig]

amount to the same thing....all about magnetic fields...NOTHING to do with earth's climate beyond the minor amount - a magnitude below the GHG signal - 11 year cycle.

When you consider the 22 year magnetic cycle (Hale Cycle) there IS very significant correlation.

Multi-resolution analysis of global surface air temperature and solar activity relationship

Abstract
In this work the surface temperature anomaly (dTG) and sunspot number (Rz) time series in the period 1880–2000 are studied with wavelet multi-resolution analysis. We found a very low correlation of 0.11 between dTG and Rz in the 11-yr-solar cycle band. A higher correlation of 0.66 is found in the ∼22-yr-band with zero lag correlation coefficient between dTG and Rz. Furthermore, the long-term trend is markedly different between dTG and Rz. This might occurs because of the long-term warming on the last century, which is attributed mainly to anthropogenic effects.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S136468260800268X

The 22-Year Hale Cycle in Cosmic Ray Flux - Evidence for Direct Heliospheric Modulation

The ability to predict times of greater galactic cosmic ray (GCR) fluxes is important for reducing the hazards caused by these particles to satellite communications, aviation, or astronauts. The 11-year solar cycle variation in cosmic rays is highly correlated with the strength of the heliospheric magnetic field. Differences in GCR flux during alternate solar cycles yield a 22-year cycle, known as the Hale Cycle, which is thought to be due to different particle drift patterns when the northern solar pole has predominantly positive (denoted a qA>0 cycle) or negative (qA<0) polarities. This results in the onset of the peak cosmic ray flux at Earth occurring earlier during qA>0 cycles than for qA<0 cycles and hence the peak being more domed for qA>0 and more sharply peaked for qA<0. In this study, we demonstrate that properties of the large-scale heliospheric magnetic field are different during the declining phase of the qA<0 and qA>0 solar cycles, when the difference in GCR flux is most apparent. This suggests that particle drifts may not be the sole mechanism responsible for the Hale Cycle in GCR flux at Earth. However, it is also demonstrated that these polarity-dependent heliospheric differences are evident during the space-age but much less clear in earlier data: using geomagnetic reconstructions, it is shown that for the period of 1905 - 1965, alternate polarities do not give as significant a difference during the declining phase of the solar cycle. Thus we suggest that the 22-year cycle in cosmic ray flux is at least partly the result of direct modulation by the heliospheric magnetic field and that this effect may be primarily limited to the grand solar maximum of the space-age.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.5191

 

[Haig]

Here is the heart of the problem....

There is just not enough material even tho the temps are so high. Lots of activity in the magnetic fields.....bugger all in the parts of the atmosphere.sufficiently dense to matter.

Me'thinks he doth protest too much

It's always been the sun. Just think again on ALL the factual changes in our solar system in recent times, then think on the changes on earth. So climate change is down to us and everything else is coincidence? really?

so the 22 year magnetic cycle is central to the periodicity of the active Sun.

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/sun/magnetic.html

 

[CapelDodger]

i love to expose liars

like the other guy and his daughter that allegedly sold her house lol...

I noticed that story; the guy must estimate human credulity with reference to his own.

 

[macdoc]

It's always been the sun. Just think again on ALL the factual changes in our solar system in recent times, then think on the changes on earth. So climate change is down to us and everything else is coincidence? really?

Yes - and it's up to you to show why the physics of GHG which fits the observed changes is wrong.

Do you know how foolish you look hammering away at ephemerals. Do you understand how tenuous the forces are and the distances involved.....? Pluto FFS!!!

you have no mechanism

 

[CapelDodger]

Polar vortex over US brings abnormally mild weather to Scandinavia
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/10/polar-vortex-us-mild-weather-scandinavia

The freezing polar vortex that has gripped the US has extended an abnormally mild winter in Scandinavia and disrupted the seasonal patterns of flora and fauna.

Last I heard (NOAA I think it was) the Northern Hemisphere anomaly from 1979-2000 is about 0.4C at the moment. Winters are definitely getting warmer.


January Thaw Follows Arctic Cold Deep Freeze
http://www.wunderground.com/news/january-thaw-follows-arctic-cold-deep-freeze-20140108

It begins with a change in the upper-atmospheric pattern.

The sharp southward plunge of the jet stream from northern Canada deep into the U.S. responsible for this past week's bitter cold outbreak is slowly being replaced by a jet stream flow originating from the Pacific Ocean. Without blocking high pressure aloft near Greenland, this bitter cold air, while potent, isn't able to hold in the U.S.

Before anybody asks, no, I don't have a link to the Theory of Upper Atmosphere Patterns.

 

[Belz...]

Me'thinks he doth protest too much

"Have you stopped beating your wife ?"
"I never beat my wife !"
"Me'thinks he doth protest too much."

What a brilliant argument.

Ok, I'll assume you have no answer to my three questions/requests, and that you have no idea what you're talking about. If you did, you could've answered.

 

[macdoc]

Canada is nutso warmer in winter..2.4 degrees C

Over the past 10 years, the network of ice roads in Manitoba has gone from 50 to 60 days of usage to as low as 20 days in some years. 2 A series of mild winters in the central interior of the province of British Columbia has supported the spread of the mountain pine beetle, a very serious forest pest, resulting in the death of pine trees across millions of hectares of forests.

Temperatures in Canada are getting warmer, particularly in the North, just as climate change models predicted.

A new Statistics Canada study says over the past 60 years, the trend of average annual temperatures for the country increased by 1.4 C.

The study looked at annual and seasonal temperature data for 11 climatic regions and the country as a whole from 1948 to 2009.

The regions with the biggest warming trends are located in the North, StatsCan said, and include the Arctic Tundra, the Arctic Mountains and Fiords, the Mackenzie District, and the Yukon and North British Columbia Mountains. In the Mackenzie District, which is comprised of most of the Northwest Territories and small portions of Yukon and Nunavut, the temperature rose 2.2 C above normal over 60 years, the most significant warming trend.

On the East Coast, the Atlantic climatic region had the smallest increase in average temperature -- only 0.5 C above normal over the six decades.

On a national basis, winter and spring temperatures grew milder during the study period with increases of 2.4 C and 1.8 C. The increase in summer and fall temperatures was smaller.

http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2011/03/23/17728121.html

 

[a_unique_person]

So our variable star is weakening and ALL the planets are changing and you DON'T think that might be relevant to us here on earth and climate change

This idea was around years ago, and found to be false as soon as it came out. All it was, was a case of selective sampling.