What Do We Think About Climate Change

[Jimbo1490]

Originally Posted by spearaddict

It is like talking to a 5 year old.

If it's all so very simple then please explain the following:

The 'expected' fraction of 'fossil' CO2 is missing from the atmosphere; all the isotopic mass-balance studies ever done show that only a tiny fraction of the CO2 in the current atmosphere is fossil sourced, indicating a very low fraction of the CO2 in the current atmosphere is a result of anthropogenic emissions.

The IPCC asserted back in 1991 that the 'expected' fraction is 21%, which should be adjusted to ~25% for current CO2 levels. Nevertheless, this 'expected' fraction is still not observed, and nowhere even close.

This assertion itself is based on the idea that CO2 has a long residence time. The very same paper which predicted the 21% fossil (anthropogenic) atmospheric CO2 fraction also asserted that the residence time (stated as half-life) is ~50-200 years. Yet all of the residence time studies ever done show the real measured residence time for atmospheric CO2 is short, between 3 and 10 years, averaging only ~5.6 years. When cumulative anthropogenic CO2 emissions are tabulated and then the realistic, observed short residence time (5.6 years) is used in the calculations, then the present atmosphere's observed fossil carbon fraction can be accurately predicted.

When the '50-200 years' proposed (rather than observed) residence time is substituted into these same calculations, the result is an atmosphere which contains ~800ppm CO2, clearly discordant with real world observations.

And if there really is a 'mystery sink' that is fluxing all the 'extra' CO2 that can't be found to harmonize the IPCC's assertions with observed reality, this still does not explain how the Mass-balance studies became so skewed, so that the expected fossil carbon fraction (if all or nearly all the increase in atmospheric CO2 were due to anthropogenic emissions) is absent. After all, no one ANYWHERE is asserting that 'fossil' (anthropogenic) and recent (natural) CO2 have different residence times, or that the fluxing agents/processes prefer CO2 from one source over another; the predicted fraction of ~21-25% should still be present if the IPCC's assertions are true.

Since by you estimation all of us 'deniers' are in reality ****** with a sub-5 year old grasp of the scientific principles at hand, how is it that I am apparently able to comprehend and explain all of these important details and corollary arguments far better than you can, sir? How is it that you have not even bothered to ask for the supporting proofs for these inter-related assertions of residence time, mass-balance analysis and current CO2 concentration, since you claim to have such an advanced understanding of these matters?


Jimbo

[Boston]

not trying to pick on you Jim but it seems there is a slight descrepency between what your claiming and what the data says

The 'expected' fraction of 'fossil' CO2 is missing from the atmosphere; all the isotopic mass-balance studies ever done show that only a tiny fraction of the CO2 in the current atmosphere is fossil sourced, indicating a very low fraction of the CO2 in the current atmosphere is a result of anthropogenic emissions.

this is simply not accurate as this study right here shows that proximately 30% of the total co2 is directly associated with human emissions



now I know you would love to suggest that someone screwed the pooch or its simply not true or that somehow tens of thousands of dedicated scientists over about a 150 year period have all conspired to trick you out of your god given right to pollute but the simple reality is
drum role please
its human activity plain and simple


again in the following your miles off base with the present data

The IPCC asserted back in 1991 that the 'expected' fraction is 21%, which should be adjusted to ~25% for current CO2 levels. Nevertheless, this 'expected' fraction is still not observed, and nowhere even close.

the present observed rise in CO2 all of which can be directly attributable to human activities is a change in a base level of ~280 ppm in preindustrialized times to the current level of ~380 ppm or a 35% increase from the 280 ppm base measurement
once again the IPCC has shown itself conservative in its estimates


again in this next you are making wild claims about what the studies show and its simply not accurate

Yet all of the residence time studies ever done show the real measured residence time for atmospheric CO2 is short, between 3 and 10 years, averaging only ~5.6 years.

as can be seen in this study http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sourc...41ULpd9sacTWQw shows that the concensus value of co2 atmospheric residence time among crontributing papers to the IPCC is in the range of ~400 years

you might also if your not happy with IPCC data look up ^ a b Jacob, Daniel (1999). Introduction to Atmospheric Chemistry. Princeton University Press. pp. 25–26. ISBN 0-691-00185-5. http://www-as.harvard.edu/people/faculty/djj/book/. which clearly states that co2 residency time is in the order of hundreds of years and not even remotely in the range you are claiming
]

I find while you were happy to make another wild claim your data to back it up was missing

When the '50-200 years' proposed (rather than observed) residence time is substituted into these same calculations, the result is an atmosphere which contains ~800ppm CO2, clearly discordant with real world observations.

I welcome you to present these calculations and there sources for scrutiny rather than once again just make wild claims about there accuracy.


this next is interesting

And if there really is a 'mystery sink' that is fluxing all the 'extra' CO2 that can't be found to harmonize the IPCC's assertions with observed reality, ( actually the IPCC estimates have proven themselves remarkably accurate ) this still does not explain how the Mass-balance studies became so skewed, ( no explanation needed as the studies are not skewed at all, although you are welcome to present which ones you think are ) so that the expected fossil carbon fraction (if all or nearly all the increase in atmospheric CO2 were due to anthropogenic emissions) is absent. ( the fossil fuel fraction is not absent as you suggest but rather represents the entirety of the increase in industrial times ) After all, no one ANYWHERE is asserting that 'fossil' (anthropogenic) and recent (natural) CO2 have different residence times, or that the fluxing agents/processes prefer CO2 from one source over another;( actually they are here http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sourc...oPzYCtyDRUG3VQand I'll quote itn for you immediately below ) the predicted fraction of ~21-25% should still be present if the IPCC's assertions are true. ( which they are except in higher levels than you are quoting )

in reality Jim plants prefer carbon 12 over carbon 13
from http://everything2.com/title/Carbon-13

Normal carbon, carbon-12, contains six protons and six neutrons. But some small percentage of carbon was created with an extra neutron, giving it an atomic weight of 13. This is very nearly the same as carbon-12, and there would be no reason to note the difference if it were not for the fact that while most plants prefer carbon-12 over carbon-13, some plants do accept greater amounts of carbon-13 than others. We can look at carbon-13/12 ratios to determine certain things about plant evolution, local climates, and even the diets of modern humans.

mostly because virtually every aspect of it was blatantly incorrect and for the Pièce de résistance this

Since by you estimation all of us 'deniers' are in reality ****** with a sub-5 year old grasp of the scientific principles at hand, how is it that I am apparently able to comprehend and explain all of these important details and corollary arguments far better than you can, sir? ( well actually you have missed nearly every single point and either misquoted or misunderstood nearly every aspect of the science involved ) How is it that you have not even bothered to ask for the supporting proofs for these inter-related assertions of residence time, mass-balance analysis and current CO2 concentration, since you claim to have such an advanced understanding of these matters? ( makes no sense at all when we have consistently offered study after study all supporting one another and interrelated over and over again yet the best the deniers can do is the occasional moment of anomalous data,

Jim please
go through the data presented and if there is anything you dont understand just ask, but please leave off the wild shoot from the hip assertions
they really are not working out to well for you

cheers
B

oh
there is a guy with an engine problem due back on Monday with an update
check my latest posts and see if you cant help him out some as one area you do seem quite knowledgable in is engines and fuels

cheers
B

[hoytedow]

Still quoting IPCC data?
It is not credible.

[Boston]

its better than credible its
incredible

imagine a conglomeration of hundreds of studies all rolled into any given data pool
wow
no wonder there predictions are always so accurate
its remarkable the effectiveness of the effort they have managed in collating all this data
and a 97% concensus
now that is really saying something
can you imagine any other area of science with that level of agreement
takes a really well respected bunch to pull that off
hats off to you guys up there at the IPCC
we are all proud of you

cheers
B

[hoytedow]

Incredible means not credible. Thanks for admitting it.

Incredible=implausable beyond belief.

Implausable=dubious.

Douteux in French.

[Boston]

I have no problem admitting how incredibly accurate the IPCC have managed to predict the ill effects of increasing co2

Im equally as glad you are able to see what Im talking about

the simple reality is that the public has been grievously and purposefully lied to by the rhetoric generated by the PR firms of those who stand to benefit from continued pollution
the energy industry being the major contributor to the disinformation campaign

what I find interesting is those few who actively support that PR campaign here on the net
we know that the energy industry and its front groups actively support participation in such venues
even going so far as to provide funds for thread space
but whats really interesting is the fact that most information brought by the deniers is manufactured and published in those same PR rags typical of the industry PR campaign
anomalous coincidence or direct interference with public education
doesn't take a genius to figure out which

[fasteddy106]

The biggest problem with almost all of Boston's post is that they are from studies that started off with the IPCC's conclusion, used the same flawed methods of analysis, the same "corrections" (i.e. fraud) the same exclusion of contrary evidence, and the same non-scientific method of selling it. If the IPCC were selling laundry soap, their methods would be laudatory from a corporate standpoint. As far as a conspiracy goes, lets just say it is a collusion of wack job philosophies congealing into a common foul stew of self hatred and elitism that seeks to punish the human race for being sucessful.

[Boston]

just for fun I thought I'd open one of these from the peanut gallery and guess what
nearly every aspect of this post is either blatantly based on false assumptions or an obvious personal issue on the part of the poster

The biggest problem with almost all of Boston's post is that they are from studies that started off with the IPCC's conclusion,

inaccurate
I have consistently used studies from all areas of science and presented data collated by a variety of accredited universities and establishments

science does not begin with a conclusion
it begins with data

used the same flawed methods of analysis,

again completely inaccurate
more wild claims being made without any data to back it up
what flawed methods of analysis are you referring to and what more accurate methods might you suggest
do you have any examples and can you site multiple sources to back up this claim

the same "corrections" (i.e. fraud)


again a mistrepresentation
what corrections would you be referring to specifically
or are you again confusing corrections with calibrations

do you have even one specific example where you can show fraud

the same exclusion of contrary evidence,

once more inaccurate
the percentage of anomalous data within the science of Rapid Global Climate Change is remarkably low given the wealth of data generated annually, can you show a single case of exclusion

and the same non-scientific method of selling it.


another misrepresentation
sales of scientific information is limited to minor fees and memberships to various data bases and access to papers, otherwise there is no "selling" of theories but rather an acceptance of these various theories after careful scrutiny by fellow scientists, your misunderstanding of the system as a whole is not only obvious but clearly not based on any first hand experience

If the IPCC were selling laundry soap, their methods would be laudatory from a corporate standpoint.

Again after numerous posts concerning the limited involvement of the IPCC in the process of developing data there is again this misconception of the IPCC somehow having a vested interest
obviously there is a complete lack of understating as to the function of the IPCC. The IPCC mandate does not allow it to accept financial compensation for its efforts nor does it allow the IPCC to fund any research. The sole function of the IPCC is to collate data and present the UN with its findings semi annually.
By design it has no vested interest in the outcome of the Data and no financial concern with the parties involved in conducting the research

As far as a conspiracy goes, lets just say it is a collusion of wack job philosophies congealing into a common foul stew of self hatred and elitism that seeks to punish the human race for being sucessful.

interesting
care to define successful
cause unless its something like a short term gain ending in permanent extinction there is simply no justification for its use in regards to the human endeavor's of the last few hundred years

whether we are warming the planet beyond its carrying capacity or triggering a harsher cooling trend than normal the results are basically the same
unlikely survival for the human race

once again
hardly a sentence or pericope that represents an accurate assessment of our present circumstances
ok
straight back to the ignore list with this one

cheers
B

[Jimbo1490]

Boston,

All of your so-called 'proof' posted above about anthropogenic attribution is from computer modeling, NOT isotopic mass-balance studies! So they get this from their 'modeled' estimates of residence time! More circular reasoning at its best! The last time YOU posted a mass-balance study which you THOUGHT would corroborate your position, I pointed out that it actually did not, and that the author of that study made several guesses (excuses ) as to why the mass-balance data were short of the expected result.

On the C13 vs C12 thing, if the biomass prefers C12, then the mass-balance studies should show even MORE than the predicted 21-25% attribution, since the plant biomass will have gobbled up a disproportionate amount of the natural stuff with its high C12 content, leaving behind a higher fraction of fossil carbon, right? Yet that's the OPPOSITE of what is observed. Do you not understand this?

Jimbo

[Jimbo1490]

WONDER B asserts that the IPCC's tabulations and predictions are, to quote him, "remarkably accurate ".

But then he is after all a *****, so moronic statements flow freely from his keyboard, and probably from his mouth too, if we were speaking in person.

You might not want to look at these, WONDER B, but the less moronic among those reading this thread might find them interesting:

"The Case of the Missing Carbon"


Northeastern Researcher Finds Missing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

NASA satellite to sleuth out 'missing' CO2

Correlation Falsification: The Missing Global Warming - CO2 Link


There are literally HUNDREDS of articles like these. The salient point to take away is that the IPCC's tabulations contains a huge whopping error as I've repaetedlt detailed, which they admit exists, and they are working to 'resolve'. WONDER B does not acknowledge the error, but then he is but a *****.

Jimbo

[fasteddy106]

The very mission statement of the IPCC shows it bias when it was formed. The basis for the bias is the speculation from the same fringe of science that predicted world starvation by 1980, a new ice by the year 2000, unrelenting famine worldwide etc, 10 of millions of deaths due to the unecessary and criminal ban on DDT, the "hole in the ozone" and innumerable other false or fabricated claims using doctored and back filled data to prop up a social agenda. Mann, Briffa, and Jones have all used cherry picked data from tree ring samples. Mann excluded all data from trees that did not match his premise, Briffa and Jones set the doomsday clock for the environment with data from a single tree. All three hid, and excluded data from the public in violation of FOI laws in both the US and Great Britain. Mann was told by the IPCC not to use tree ring data for his study but did it anyhow and then substituted data from another source when the tree ring data curve he needed flattened out. Hansen "corrected" his data by simply adding in temp right at the start, kinda like starting a race 10 yards up the track. The ground based temp stations were so flawed in their placement they had to abandon using the results. Do we need to talk about the glaciers and the polar bears? How bout the Artic Ice Cap in 2007 that shrunk from wind currents instead of warming. Then there was the Antartic Ice Shelf that broke off from underground volcanic activity instead of warming. Then of course there is the embarassing report on hurricanes, instead of more storms there will be 5-11% less, but of 6-34% increase in intensity, backed up by a hunch and computer models, now thats science for you. Boston, it's incredible how obtuse you can be sometimes. When I said "selling" I was referring to the marketing hype approach to AGW, not actual sales you dolt.

The IPCC chooses its analysis methods and its authors from those submitted. They have consistently refused to even consider opposing viewpoints and have tried through the UN bureacracy to marginalize any scientists that try to point out the fraud in their assessment reports. The IPCC is a political body with a political agenda using junk science as a backdrop. The financial fraud within the membership of the IPCC chain of command is rampant and blantant.

Finally the world view of so many of the AGW proponents span the spectrum from survivalist-anarchist types like Boston, to socialists, anti-humans, elitists, one world government types, those who want to cut the human population through famine and disease, impose legal limits on procreation, ban animal livestock for food, zero economic growth, totalitarianism, essentially all the wack job political agendas that can not make it past the ballot box.

[Boston]

Jim
again there are so many holes in this I will need to go through point by point

Originally Posted by Jimbo1490

Boston,

All of your so-called 'proof' posted above about anthropogenic attribution is from computer modeling, NOT isotopic mass-balance studies! ( not accurate ) ( please see http://www.grida.no/publications/oth...ar/wg1/016.htm ) So they get this from their 'modeled' estimates of residence time! More circular reasoning at its best! The last time YOU posted a mass-balance study which you THOUGHT would corroborate your position, I pointed out that it actually did not, ( not accurate ) ( your attempts to dispute the data I presented at that time were as full of faulty assumptions and incorrect premises as it has been in your latest. You failed to show any data in support of your assertions failed to present any supporting arguments and your effort represented a general lack of understanding of the mass balance process ) and that the author of that study made several guesses (excuses ) as to why the mass-balance data were short of the expected result. (not accurate ) ( Your continued insistence that there were inaccuracies within the estimation of fossil based co2 are unfounded within the literature )

On the C13 vs C12 thing, if the biomass prefers C12, then the mass-balance studies should show even MORE than the predicted 21-25% attribution, ( not accurate ) ( todays co2 levels are ~380 and rising so the actual increase over pre undustrial norms is ~35% ) since the plant biomass will have gobbled up a disproportionate amount of the natural stuff with its high C12 content, leaving behind a higher fraction of fossil carbon, right? Yet that's the OPPOSITE of what is observed. Do you not understand this? ( not accurate ) ( there has been a balance within the co2 cycle leading to a relative equilibrium for the last say 800,000+ years so trying to say that suddenly and for some mysterious reason plant respiration is now having an undue effect on our mas balance studies is simply another purely mythological argument )

Jimbo

[Boston]

LMAO
we do tend to have fun with each other now don't we Jim
once again you are wrong on all points

Originally Posted by Jimbo1490

WONDER B asserts that the IPCC's tabulations and predictions are, to quote him, "remarkably accurate ".

and I can back that up with numerous data points
IPCC sea level rise predictions from 1990 as compared to actual data from later years clearly show the accuracy of the IPCC



as do the IPCC predictions concerning temp and co2



But then he is after all a *****, so moronic statements flow freely from his keyboard, and probably from his mouth too, if we were speaking in person.

so lacking in any detailed analysis or comprehensive data to the contrary this kind of childishness is what you resort to?

You might not want to look at these, WONDER B, but the less moronic among those reading this thread might find them interesting:

"The Case of the Missing Carbon"

by a Blogger named Zimmer who has no background in the sciences and who's news rag articles and op ed pieces have no validity within the science


Northeastern Researcher Finds Missing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide


interesting article but I might point out that the IPCC has taken into account the uptake of co2 in other terrestrial sources in its predictions, proof of which lies within the accuracy of those predictions as shown above. Your digging yourself in deeper on this one Jim

NASA satellite to sleuth out 'missing' CO2

and your point is ?
cause mine is that this co2 question has been incorporated into the models and although there may be a few remaining questions it does not appear to adversely effect the quality of the predictions being made by the IPCC. Once again as shown in the proofs above.

Correlation Falsification: The Missing Global Warming - CO2 Link


oh please spare us
another op ed piece by a blatantly biased denier with absolutely no scientific background and who also writes on the "planet Gore" page. Classic Jim that article isnot even worthy of comment

you might think of upping the bar on your sources although you did have one good one in there which is at least an improvement

There are literally HUNDREDS of articles like these. ( yes and almost all of them opinion pieces by bloggers like that first Zimmer and that last Sheppard who know nothing about science or the study of climate change or by industry funded sources with a vested interest in confusing the public ) The salient point to take away is that the IPCC's tabulations contains a huge whopping error ( so says a bunch of nobody bloggers and industry cronies with absolutely no validity within the science nor a shred of data to show in there own defence ) as I've repaetedlt detailed, which they admit exists, and they are working to 'resolve'. WONDER B does not acknowledge the error, ( there is a big difference between an error and an unknown that can be estimated and compensated for just as this one has been by the IPCC whos subsequent predictions prove the accuracy of there process ) but then he is but a *****. ( Apparently a ***** that can point out nearly every sentence of your last five posts has hardly contained a single valid point. )

Jimbo

try and take it easy Jim the personal attacks do nothing to further your work for the disinformation campaign although they are kinda humorous
what do they pay you for this anyway

cheers
and best of luck
B

[Guillermo]

"You don't learn
what you don't want to know"
Exactly!

Once again for you, Boston the "Don't Wanting to Learn Climatist"

"The solar radiation flux reaching the Earth gradually decreases since 1990s both within the 11-year and 200-year cycles, caused by a decrease of the solar radius and solar radiative area. According to our estimates, the solar radiation flux will reach its minimum in 2042 ± 11 year and, in contravention of the presently common opinion, this will lead to the global fall of temperature and cooling of the climate similar to the one observed during the Maunder minimum. By the middle of the century, the deficiency of solar energy received by the Earth, following the analogy of the Maunder minimum, can reach approximately 0.2% or up to 3 W per one square meter of surface of the external atmospheric layers in relation to the maximum average level of 1980s. Here, despite the fact that the amplitude of TSI variation is approximately 0.07% during the "short" 11-year cycle, its influence on climate is softened by the thermal inertia of the ocean. But if an increase or decrease of the TSI variations amplitude will last for two subsequent cycles given a similar course of its 2-century component, the climate will eventually change correspondingly, but with a delay of 17 ± 5 years caused by the thermal inertia of the ocean.
...................
The tendency of decrease in the global Earth temperature started in 2006–2008 will temporarily pause in 2010–2012. The increase in TSI within a short 11-year cycle 24 is expected to temporarily compensate the decrease in TSI within the ongoing 2-century variation. Only the decrease in TSI within the ongoing 11-year cycle 24 accompanied by continued decrease of its 2-century component in 2013–2015 will lead to stable subsequent cooling of our planet, which is expected to reach its minimum in the phase of a deep cooling by 2055–2060 ± 11 (Abdussamatov H.I. Bulletin of the Crimean Astrophysical Observatory. 2007. 103. No. 4. p. 292–298). The cooling can be similar to the one observed in the whole Europe, North America and Greenland in 1645–1715 in the period of Maunder minimum of solar luminosity and sunspot activity when the temperature will fall by 1–1.5 Celsius degrees down to the mark of the so-called Maunder minimum. The regular period of climatic minimum (the stage of global cooling) will last for approximately 45–65 years and the new warming will eventually come afterwards within the regular 2-century solar cycle. The deep cooling is expected to be regularly replaced by warming only by the beginning of 22nd century.
.............................
The TSI has entered a descent phase of the 2-century cycle in early 1990s, but the thermal inertia of the ocean causes the global warming observed during the last years. Our planet had been receiving and collecting an anomalously high thermal energy from the Sun during almost whole XX century. Since the early 1990s it has been giving off the accumulated energy. Suddenly the climatologists found that in 2003 the upper layers of the ocean started to cool down. The heat, accumulated by oceans is unfortunately tailing off. This is an indisputable evidence of the fact that climate changes on the Earth are directly influenced by 2-century variations of solar energy supply and it directly confirms that the Earth has already reached in 1998–2005 the stage of maximal global warming mainly caused by an anomalously high and prolonged increase of the solar energy flux during almost whole XX century.
...................
Nowadays, a few years before the beginning of the upcoming global cooling, we are going through an unstable phase when the temperature will oscillate around the reached maximum without any substantial increase. In 2008 the global temperature on our planet not only did not rise but even fell down due to the decreasing (and record low over 30 years of observations from space) solar luminosity. The stabilization of the global Earth temperature in 1998–2005 and its downward tendency in 2006–2008 is an irrefutable evidence of the fact that our Sun is no longer able to warm the Earth the same way as in the past and that an anthropogenic global warming is a big myth. 1998–2005, being the warmest years for 150 years of weather observations, will stay on the peak of 2-century warming.
......................

http://www.gao.spb.ru/english/astrometr/index1_eng.html

[Boston]

ouch
again with the personal attacks
must be something I said

ok
so I read it beginning to end
three questions

if the sun is cooling in a 200 year cycle then why the observed increase in temp over the last 50 years and why do these guys claim we will start warming again in only another few years

where is the adjustment for permeability in the estimate of co2 lag

where is the published data

this looks more like a justification for a proposal to produce research equipment for the space station G. An interesting proposal no doubt but still not a working theory. Really it constitutes at best another one of your famous anomalous data points and at worst just a grant proposal of some kind

the solar iradiance option has been discussed to death and there simply is no trend with observed temperatures. Once again I will present the data that has been scrutinized by fellow scientists and published



here is there graph showing decreased solar activity in a time period were temp is known to have increases and
that time frame is well outside there proposed 17 year max lag time

here's a side by side from http://images.google.com/imgres?imgu...LYmAtgP8i6j7DA

Global temperature (upper graph) and the number of sunspots (lower graph). The blue graphs show the year average, while the red curves represent smoothed out values of temperatures and sunspots.

Suns pots are active areas of the Sun with powerful and unstable magnetic fields, which can release flares of superheated gas, which on the sun manifest as magnetic storms and the impressive polar aurorae. When the Sun is more active and there are many sunspots, it affects Earth. When active the Sun radiates more heat, because it along with sunspots creates bright spots, called solar faculae. This, results in Earth being supplied additional energy.

"If we compare the development of the number of sunspots and temperature since 1950, we will find variations in average global temperature of 0,1- 0,2°C. This roughly corresponds to the variation in the number of sunspots so that the highest temperatures occur in periods of high solar activity," says climate researcher Peter Thejll, DMI, and adds "but the 0,6°C rise in temperature over the last 30 years does not correspond to the development in the number of sunspots. The number of sunspots, in that same time interval, has on average had a falling tendency."

By Mai Maskell Andersen, mma@dmi.dk

© DMI, 16th April 2009

Translation by Diego Winterborg, dw@dmi.dk


© DMI 2010
http://www.dmi.dk/dmi/index/nyheder/..._sa_stille.htm

so although you would like people to believe that this is something new once again it is a simple rehash of an argument that was studied by our finest who concluded that there was no trend concerning solar iradiance and the current level of climate change and alterations within the atmospheric chemistry

once again I will present numerous data points to show that this issue in not only old hat but long been laid to rest

from http://images.google.com/imgres?imgu...LYmAtgP8i6j7DA

Galactic cosmic rays (GCR) are energetic particles originating from space that impinge on Earth's atmosphere. Almost 90% of all the incoming cosmic ray particles are protons, about 9% are helium nuclei (alpha particles) and about 1% are electrons (beta minus particles). The term "ray" is a misnomer, as cosmic particles arrive individually, not in the form of a ray or beam of particles.

The flux of galactic cosmic rays varies inversely with the solar cycle. Svensmark and Friis-Christensen (1997) suggested that galactic cosmic rays enhance low cloud formation, explaining variations on the order of 3 percent global total cloud cover over a solar cycle. A 3 percent cloud cover change corresponds to a radiative net change of about 0.5 W/m2, which may be compared with the IPCC 2007 estimate of 1.6 W/m2 for the total effect of all recognized climatic drivers 1750-2006, including release of greenhouse gasses from the burning of fossil fuels. Click here to read more about clouds in general, and click here to read more about the climatic influence of clouds.

and for the coup de gras

a simple graph shows the deviation from sun activity



now Im not saying that there is not lots more to learn or that another solar observatory is not in order however
simply because one researcher wants to revisit the idea of cosmic climatology does not mean that all other research is somehow void

interesting article G
thanks
B