Climate Change - The Scientific Debate

[turbobloke]

Apologies in advance if one or both happens to be a repost.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/...

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/5/11/t...

[odyssey2200]

Heads UP

Windfarm wars on BBC2 now

expect the usual BBC bias.

[odyssey2200]

What a stupid tart!

[Diderot]

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/05/james-ha...

[turbobloke]

Diderot said:

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/05/james-ha...

Earlier odyssey2200 said:

What a stupid tart!

Prescience?!

[turbobloke]

Update on the science behind an important natural climate forcing almost always ignored by AGW proponents when discussing solar forcing, namely, solar eruptivity.

http://calderup.wordpress.com/

Only solar irradiance gets much coverage and even then inadequately - Shaviv 2005 is almost always forgotten - and whether historical in scope e.g. Newell at el in the past or Shapiro et al recently, or more contemporary e.g. via esxamining the satellite troposphere temperature record (no anthropogenic carbon dioxide signal visible) the picture painted is only ever partial.

[Ali G]

turbobloke said:

Update on the science behind an important natural climate forcing almost always ignored by AGW proponents when discussing solar forcing, namely, solar eruptivity.

http://calderup.wordpress.com/

Only solar irradiance gets much coverage and even then inadequately - Shaviv 2005 is almost always forgotten - and whether historical in scope e.g. Newell at el in the past or Shapiro et al recently, or more contemporary e.g. via esxamining the satellite troposphere temperature record (no anthropogenic carbon dioxide signal visible) the picture painted is only ever partial.

So, just to see if my (limited) understanding is correct...

Solar eruptivity would produce more cosmic particles to enter the earth's atmosphere which may cause increased nucleation of clouds (is this a similar effect to 'cloud chambers' used for tracking sub-atomic particles?)

I understand that the IPCC is unsure of the net effect of clouds on warming, but there should certainly be an increased albedo effect.

We know that due to the chaotic nature of clouds, and their uncertain effect (per IPCC) that they are at the very least difficult to model, if not impossible.

But lets not start going into modelling again..

[turbobloke]

Ali G said:

turbobloke said:

Update on the science behind an important natural climate forcing almost always ignored by AGW proponents when discussing solar forcing, namely, solar eruptivity.

http://calderup.wordpress.com/

Only solar irradiance gets much coverage and even then inadequately - Shaviv 2005 is almost always forgotten - and whether historical in scope e.g. Newell at el in the past or Shapiro et al recently, or more contemporary e.g. via esxamining the satellite troposphere temperature record (no anthropogenic carbon dioxide signal visible) the picture painted is only ever partial.

So, just to see if my (limited) understanding is correct...

Solar eruptivity would produce more cosmic particles to enter the earth's atmosphere which may cause increased nucleation of clouds (is this a similar effect to 'cloud chambers' used for tracking sub-atomic particles?)

I understand that the IPCC is unsure of the net effect of clouds on warming, but there should certainly be an increased albedo effect.

We know that due to the chaotic nature of clouds, and their uncertain effect (per IPCC) that they are at the very least difficult to model, if not impossible.

But lets not start going into modelling again..

Not for a while anyway

The effect is linked to the solar magnetic field. An active Sun does produce more particles (giving aurorae) but at times of high solar activity the solar magnetic field shields the Earth from high energy particles in the form of cosmic rays. It's these high energy cosmic rays from space that can penetrate Earth's atmosphere and increase low level cloud cover, causing cooling via the increased albedo. Ionisation in the lower atmosphere is almost exclusively produced by high energy cosmic rays, which provide a source of nucleation.

The effect of cosmic rays has been known for some time and the concept of a 'cosmic ray winter' has been around nearly as long as cosmic ray winters. That said this snip from the 40s isn't about cosmic ray winters.



Nevertheless IPCC types continue to look the other way and rentapapers appear to support the stonewalling. There was something in print from Sloan and Wolfendale which tried to derail interest in (and credibility of) Svensmark's work in this field but it was a poor effort and the resulting online demolition by Dr Nir Shaviv was clinical. We've been around that particular attrition loop several times, you may remember the last few circuits.

Modelling clouds, as with modelling any form of chaos, is a challenge to say the least, but that doesn't mean that cloud related effects are a total unknown.

[yahtzee]

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/05/indirect-solar...


interesting update from Dr Roy Spencer

cheers

will

[turbobloke]

yahtzee said:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/05/indirect-solar...


interesting update from Dr Roy Spencer

cheers

will

Thanks for the link.

In the middle of 2011 Dr Roy Spencer said:

I’ve made calculations based upon satellite observations of how the global radiative energy balance has varied over the last 10 years (between Solar Max and Solar Min) as a result of variations in cosmic ray activity. The results suggest that the total (direct + indirect) solar forcing is at least 3.5 times stronger than that due to changing solar irradiance alone.

http://www.sciencebits.com/files/articles/CalorimeterFinal.pdf

Back in 2008 Dr Nir Shaviv said:

Over the 11-year solar cycle, small changes in the total solar irradiance (TSI) give rise to small variations in the global energy budget. It was suggested, however, that different mechanisms could amplify solar activity variations to give large climatic effects, a possibility which is still a subject of debate. With this in mind, we use the oceans as a calorimeter to measure the radiative forcing variations associated with the solar cycle. This is achieved through the study of three independent records, the net heat flux into the oceans over 5 decades, the sea level change rate based on tide gauge records over the 20th century, and the sea surface temperature variations. Each of the records can be used to consistently derive the same oceanic heat flux. We find that the total radiative forcing associated with solar cycles variations is about 5 to 7 times larger than just those associated with the TSI variations, thus implying the necessary existence of an amplification mechanism, though without pointing to which one.

Fat Ron's wide awake club might have a new member.

Saying solar eruptivity or writing it must be like swearing to some scientists.

Of course it's cosmic rays but when finally the wake up call comes and the coffee is smelt let's not repeat the error. It's only taken about 20 years to get solar eruptivity on the radar screen though IPCC blinkers can cause failure to notice. Now we're getting somewhere let's hope the error does not happen again with all the attention focused on the Svensmark CRF mechanism at the expense of the Bucha auroral oval mechanisn, both involve solar eruptivity and the solar wind but in different ways.

It's not in IPCC reports, waste of time looking there, but the Bucha mechanism is here on PistonHeads, a motoring interest website for thicko petrolheads.

Yay.

Edited to retain even censored decorum

Edited by turbobloke on Friday 20th May 22:31

[turbobloke]

Bucha auroral oval forcing mechanism.

For pressure and temperature changes in the troposphere see 17 Dec 2010 post here.

Click

For the global atmospheric circulation aspect see 18 Dec 2010 post below.

Click

Plenty before those.

Thanks to will for the opportunity to put Bucha Sr & Jr back on stage.

The peer reviewed science in their papers has only been around for 30 years ish...

[Blib]

Bottom of this page said:

[turbobloke]

[nelly1]

Here we go again.

Hottest Summer Ever On The Way...

[thinfourth2]

nelly1 said:

Here we go again.

Hottest Summer Ever On The Way...

Aww bks

I hate cold and stty summers

[turbobloke]

Cool

[Jasandjules]

nelly1 said:

Here we go again.

Hottest Summer Ever On The Way...

2003 was warmest for 500 years? So what caused the hottest summer 500 years ago?

[Jasandjules]

Guam said:

Look you KNOW your not allowed to ask those questions, go stand in the corner

[V88Dicky]

Hope we do have a good summer. I've got a BBQ still in it's box that's been sat in the shed since 2006.
Also, might be able to take my daughter to the beach more often. Tried it this morning as it was a balmy 54F according to the car's thermometer. Couldn't even manage a single sandcastle it was so cold!

Buy Damart and winter tyres

[Diderot]

Very, very interesting article.

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/05/26/1979...