Well, lets see... Apart from it also saying It also says: The small problem with this is that no supporting evidence is supplied. In reality, no work that I am aware of has shown that galactic cosmic ray ionisation dominates the tropospheric ionissation and that in turn has a definite effect on clouds. Or in other words, the proposed physical link is no such thing. By the way, did you read the article at the beggining of this thread? Here is a real climate article pointing out that Shavivs work has some major holes in it: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/03/a-galactic-glitch/#more-534 Finally, what has climate change on the order of millions of years got to do with climate change on the decadal scale? Look at those graphs of Shaviv's- where is there room for the changes of climate on the scale of the last few decades? None of the variation of the last few thousand years shows up, and if you compare the Milankovitch cycles, which are well established as being involved in climate variation, things look more confusing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles Compare the wikipedia graphs with Shavivs, and see how different they are over the last million years.
oh i didn't necessarily think anything was correct... just wondering if you actually read it... see most of the time discussions like this get into almost adolescent type of "my side is right"... like cheerleaders at a high school football game or something... it's a bit of that here... i go on other forums where the 'global warming is a hoax' crowd is in the majority and they dismiss warming data... all, of course, scientifically... always seems to be 'this data disagrees with what i've already decided to believe so it's bunk, but THIS data reinforces what i have chosen to believe so it's pure, crystalline, unadulterated truth'... the word 'discredited' is thrown around in this type of discussion like teenage girls throw around the word "like"... i have ideas on this climate stuff, i've discussed it with some people who are knowledgeable... but i also get equally interested in the, often mindless, zealotry of it all... now you seem to be one who aligns yourself with the 'scientific proof affirms global warming' crowd... give me a few studies, or web sites you feel make that case... i'll do the reading there and save you posts... i am interested in your take on it... btw what field of science are you in?...
Well, yes, that is why debunking an entire page of stuff is time consuming, and is also why this is hard work. I've been reading up on this in my spare time for 2 years now, and there is still plenty I don't quite understand (Eg Stephan Boltzman and things about ice melts etc) but the basic thrust of the science I can see is accurate. I have a chemistry degree, which means I am not an expert in anything but know enough science to be able to pick the science from the non-science, and can learn the real science as I go along quite easily. With people who have a non-science background, they likely won't even have an accurate conception of infra-red radiation in the first place, which makes explaining some of this a bit tricky. If you are genuinely interested, and have sufficient spare time, I suggest you start here: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/ A free, online history of our knowledge of climate and how it changes, and our modern underastanding. Then theer is www.realclimate.org, where you can learn stuff from real climatologists, who will actually answer sensible questions. There is also here: http://tamino.wordpress.com/ Which is run by a real statistician, who likes to debunk stupid denialist argumetns. Not to mention http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/ which also has some stuff.
How entertaining- the person who declined to provide any evidence for their ideas suddenly demands some from someone else. Which I am sure they will provide, much of it is publicly available in a variety of places.
Prove what, exactly ? That the earth's temps have been trending generally up for a hundred years and more, with occasional pauses and dips, while solar activity has shown a different pattern including 11 year cycles and such ? http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2004/08/09/non-linear-climate-change/ A graph of the temps, in an analysis I think you might approve. Note the trendline (you can eyeball it). http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Solar_Cycle_Variations_png The last three "eleven-year" solar activity cycles, showing reduced flare activity in recent years (including the very warm years of the the 2000s) Notice the lack of correspondence between the solar activity cycles and the temp variations. This http://www.aip.org/pnu/2003/split/642-2.html is the best I have found for connection between solar flares and earth's temperatures, and it is based on the form of the variations of the two being not actually corresponding in time, but rather describable by the same kind of mathematical model with similar parameters - a weak argument, without verifiable mechanism.( Lots of things vary as "Levy Walks", and the apparent correspondence in the parameters is not all that unlikely. )
This is a good thread. lots of ideas, and lots of evidenced-backed counter-points. no new information, but a good review of this issue in plain fairly easy English. http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/pos...-of-solar-variability-and-climate-change.html
Just once I'd like to see an open public debate on television of these "human caused" Global Warming fanatics VS. unbiased scientists that aren't motivated by politics.
there were apparently three studies presented on that topic of a solar link... two of the studies had data that appeared to show a correlation of the temp to the sun... one didn't... it seems the media seized on the one study that didn't show a correlation... what do you guys think of an article like this one?...
As soon as you see that brought up as an argument against the possibility of warming effects from the current CO2 boost, you know you are dealing with misleading propaganda. If used to argue against Al Gore's popular documentary, which is not even a scientific publication, the propaganda content is likely about 100% - there is probably no reliable science in whatever you are reading. This, for example: is either deliberate falsehood or really basic incomprehension. The lag in the past has nothing to do with the potential effects of the recent human, not "natural", boost in CO2 concentrations.
Hello all Using a "molecular collision" model for infrared energy capture/propagation then any increase in atmospheric pressure/volume will lead to increasing temperatures and any decrease in pressure will lead to decreasing temperature. So adding any type of "gas" (as in CO2) from any source will increase temperatures. Removal of any type of "gas" by any method will decrease temperatures. Sources for adding gas include volcanic, biological, industrial, ionic wind (from the sun), etc. Ways to remove gas include biological and non-biological chemical reactions. There is also some loss of the lighter elements in to space. I realize that there is a constant turnover of atmospheric "gases" but those "gases" that are locked up in compounds for long periods of time introduce variances in atmospheric pressure over time. The "molecular collision" model does tend to fit the observed temperature stratification of temperatures taken at points taken above "sea level" Comments or discussion welcome. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Hello guthrie Basically it is when molecules collied there is a chance for the absorption of an infrared photon during the collision. The collision produces a temporary molecular structure. More collisions (higher pressures) increase the probability of absorption. Since nitrogen does not lose energy by radiation this results in a net temperature gain. CO2 on the other hand will radiate energy if the time between collisions is long enough but higher pressures will also reduce the time between collision events. So while CO2 will generate absorption/emission cycles (greenhouse effect) directly, atmospheric pressure will provide a higher "greenhouse" heating effect as the pressure increases. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
If they don't how can they possibly say that the sun has no link to recent climate change. It's not like those other planets have heavy industry.
At least Lubos didn't go with the "other planets are warming, too" argument. I mean, come on, how can anyone tell anything about global warming on Neptune, or some asteroid?
How misleading propaganda is this? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! These are the last data sets from the EPICA dome C (Concordia) Ice core in Antarctica, showing the oxygen isotopes (d18O - assumed paleo thermometer) versus the concentration of CO2 during the last glacial transition. Data here. I used these, Monnin et al 2004 for the CO2 and these, Stenni et al 2001 for the isotopes, Both are using the same timescale EDC1. These graphs also reveal that there is no positive feedback.
Hello guthrie What I am saying is that there is a direct correlation between atmospheric pressure and said atmosphere's ability to absorb infrared radiation. This relates to the ongoing research in atmospheric continuum absorption. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
