Whistle blowing on Global Warming

[Sabre]

In regards to Moray's comments dismissing the Sun's effects...

From: Svensmark: “global warming stopped and a cooling is beginning” – “enjoy global warming while it lasts” at

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/10/svensmark-global-warming-stopped-and-a-cooling-is-beginning-enjoy-global-warming-while-it-lasts/

You may wonder why the international climate panel IPCC does not believe that the Sun’s changing activity affects the climate. The reason is that it considers only changes in solar radiation. That would be the simplest way for the Sun to change the climate – a bit like turning up and down the brightness of a light bulb.

Satellite measurements have shown that the variations of solar radiation are too small to explain climate change. But the panel has closed its eyes to another, much more powerful way for the Sun to affect Earth’s climate. In 1996 we discovered a surprising influence of the Sun – its impact on Earth’s cloud cover. High-energy accelerated particles coming from exploded stars, the cosmic rays, help to form clouds.

When the Sun is active, its magnetic field is better at shielding us against the cosmic rays coming from outer space, before they reach our planet. By regulating the Earth’s cloud cover, the Sun can turn the temperature up and down. High solar activity means fewer clouds and and a warmer world. Low solar activity and poorer shielding against cosmic rays result in increased cloud cover and hence a cooling. As the Sun’s magnetism doubled in strength during the 20th century, this natural mechanism may be responsible for a large part of global warming seen then.

That also explains why most climate scientists try to ignore this possibility. It does not favour their idea that the 20th century temperature rise was mainly due to human emissions of CO2. If the Sun provoked a significant part of warming in the 20th Century, then the contribution by CO2 must necessarily be smaller.

As the current flat or even cooling global temperatures seem to correspond with the the solar minimum, there is correlation here.  NOTE: Correlation is NOT causation, though Moray explicitly insists it is when comparing CO2 and global temp data from the ice cores.  I will not dispute that greenhouse gases likely have some effect on temp.  What is in dispute is how much compared with other negative and positive forcing functions.  I have also read that CO2's impact on how much heat will be trapped in the atmosphere is not linear with increasing concentrations.  Meaning that as concentration increases, each percent of increase has less and less affect.  This may also help explain why temperatures have stabilized even though CO2 concentrations have continued to rise (also bringing doubt to the causation argument).  At some point, the atmosphere is holding all the heat it can, and increasing greenhouse gas concentrations have not further impact.

[Shuffler]

Sabre... write a song about it  

Well the CO2 that is in my brew
Is causing all heck with the friends that I knew

They're carrin' their signs and makin' their whines
I'm just sittin' here feelin' so blue.....

[MORAY37]

In regards to Moray's comments dismissing the Sun's effects...

In no way am I dismissing the sun's effects.  In fact I find it a bit ominous. It's waking up from a large slumber. There was a CME today as well.

The solar flux reached 82 on Tuesday. The sunspot number of 38 is a new Cycle 24 record.

The largest Solar Flare of Cycle 24 thus far took place early Wednesday morning. It registered C5.3 on the flare scale. It is small in comparison to flares at solar max....

[MORAY37]

In regards to Moray's comments dismissing the Sun's effects...

From: Svensmark: “global warming stopped and a cooling is beginning” – “enjoy global warming while it lasts” at

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/10/svensmark-global-warming-stopped-and-a-cooling-is-beginning-enjoy-global-warming-while-it-lasts/

As the current flat or even cooling global temperatures seem to correspond with the the solar minimum, there is correlation here.  NOTE: Correlation is NOT causation, though Moray explicitly insists it is when comparing CO2 and global temp data from the ice cores.  I will not dispute that greenhouse gases likely have some effect on temp.  What is in dispute is how much compared with other negative and positive forcing functions.  I have also read that CO2's impact on how much heat will be trapped in the atmosphere is not linear with increasing concentrations.  Meaning that as concentration increases, each percent of increase has less and less affect.  This may also help explain why temperatures have stabilized even though CO2 concentrations have continued to rise (also bringing doubt to the causation argument).  At some point, the atmosphere is holding all the heat it can, and increasing greenhouse gas concentrations have not further impact.

As for Svensmark..Though his postulation is quite interesting and deserves more study....there isn't much of a correlation.  As well, if it were a correlative effect, you would see the "peaks meet the valleys or the valleys meet the peaks" between cosmic ray levels and temperature anomalies.  That just doesn't happen.. When cosmic rays go up... temp anomalies go up.  When cosmic rays go down, temp anomalies go up.

 I agree with you that CO₂ has less of a magnifying effect as it increases in concentration. [CO₂]  The problem is that CO₂ forces the climate just enough to allow CH₄ to bubble out of hydrate form.  CH₄ is a massive player in warming trends, much more than CO₂.  I mean, just the  seasonal winter-summer cycle make Ch₄ fluctuate.... it's right at the point.
 
Solar activity is the primary driver of climate, as it obviously provides the energy into the system.  If you compare the solar activity chart to the temperature trend line, you'll see the high output years show up quite well.  If the trend line wasn't moving up, the whole thing would be tied together. 1980... solar max... and a temp spike to go along.  1990...solar max and a temp spike to go along.  If something keeps that energy.... (like a low lying gas)......the overall trend line goes up, without solar inference.
  
Output was well below the mean solar average for the past 3 years.  We'll see what happens in the next 5 or so. ( When the furnace gets stoked again.)  I feel we're in for a bad decade.

It is good to see that you aren't dismissing the actual existence of a change, though.

[Angus]

Humans had not even been here yet. Those pesky donosaurs and their smokey vehicles and plants.

What do you intend to prove with that???
That things cannot get screwed up without human interference? Me thinks you are holding a straw while thinking it is a sword. Same goes to all with the same method, and there are many....

[saggs]

co2 is not a pollutant.

Yes it is CAP.  The UN told me so, It must be true.

STOP BREATHING NOW!!!!

[saggs]

Everyone does realize that the technology exists to remove CO2 from the atmosphere?

Would this technology happen to be called plant life, or trees, or shrubberies?

[Strip]

Good god!

Think of the trees man!!!

[Chalenge]

Would this technology happen to be called plant life, or trees, or shrubberies?

That would be natures version of a carbon scrubber but now we can KILL ALL THE TREES and still remove the carbon.

Great stuff!  

BTW I think the current sea life is a wrench in the works of a clean atmosphere. The sea life must die for us to have a viable planet. 

[CAP1]

Yes it is CAP.  The UN told me so, It must be true.

STOP BREATHING NOW!!!!

who do i send the bill to?

i just got up off the floor. the floor is overmodeled. 

[33Vortex]

Amazing what they come up with, a CO² scrubber? Plant some trees you idiots!

[Chalenge]

This device can remove one ton per day at the cost of 20 lbs of carbon. The average American produces about 19 tons per year making us the 9th largest emitter (not polluter) but what I find interesting is that while other countries have historically increased their carbon output the U.S. has remained constant due to regulation.

For evey man woman and child in the U.S. we need 19 trees of 90 cm circumference decipherous or 105 cm for pine and we have the U.S. covered. The problem therefore is not the U.S. but countries like Qatar or the UAE that have three times our output but no where near the trees we do.

So push the politicians out of the way and lets makes these countries buy carbon scrubbers from our entrepreneurs.

 

[33Vortex]

So push the politicians out of the way and lets makes these countries buy carbon scrubbers from our entrepreneurs.

 

Therein lies the problem. Or, we could just try to stop the international corporations cutting down the rainforest and let it recover. Much of the CO² processing capacity is right there, the rain forest, and it's being destroyed.

[Chalenge]

This is another 'warmer' myth. Rain forests are not efficient carbon scrubbers unlike pine and northern deciduous forests which have something on the order of 50 times the storage capabilities of rain forests on a per hectare basis.

[33Vortex]

Well, good! 

That is no excuse to cut down the rain forest though!