What Do We Think About Climate Change

Yes, I do. I believe we should help people when they're sick or injured, instead of kicking them to the curb and letting them die if they run out of money. Taking care of one another is what defines humanity and a decent society - and it has since the dawn of civilization.

It isn't even restricted to humans. Wild dogs understand the concept; they'll bring part of their kill home to an injured pack member. But apparently, you don't understand it. Your mentality is about on the level of my son when he first learned to talk: "Mine! Mine-mine-mine-mine-mine!"

But hey....eventually, he grew up.

 

I present...

the communist

So, at what point do you start killing people towards building your Utopia, Che?

 

An new and interesting article at the New Scientist magazine (not quite an sceptic magazine, indeed) on the effects of Sun on climate:


The sun joins the climate club
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727793.100-the-sun-joins-the-climate-club.html

"THE idea that changes in the sun's activity can influence the climate is making a comeback, after years of scientific vilification, thanks to major advances in our understanding of the atmosphere.

The findings do not suggest - as climate sceptics frequently do - that we can blame the rise of global temperatures since the early 20th century on the sun. "There are extravagant claims for the effects of the sun on global climate," says Giles Harrison, an atmospheric physicist at the University of Reading, UK. "They are not supported."

Where solar effects may play a role is in influencing regional weather patterns over the coming decades. Predictions on these scales of time and space are crucial for nations seeking to prepare for the future.

Over the famous 11-year solar cycle, the sun’s brightness varies by just 0.1 per cent. This was seen as too small a change to impinge on the global climate system, so solar effects have generally been left out of climate models. However, the latest research has changed this view, and the next report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), due in 2013, will include solar effects in its models.

So far, three mechanisms have come to light (see diagram). The best understood is what is known as the top-down effect, described by Mike Lockwood, also at the University of Reading, and Joanna Haigh of Imperial College London. Although the sun’s brightness does not change much during solar maxima and minima, the type of radiation it emits does. During maxima the sun emits more ultraviolet radiation, which is absorbed by the stratosphere.This warms up, generating high-altitude winds. Although the exact mechanism is unclear, this appears to have knock-on effects on regional weather: strong stratospheric winds lead to a strong jet stream.

The sun’s brightness does not change much during solar maxima, but the type of radiation it emits does

The reverse is true in solar minima, and the effect is particularly evident in Europe, where minima increase the chances of extreme weather. Indeed, this year’s cold winter and the Russian heatwave in July have been linked to the sun’s current lull, which froze weather systems in place for longer than normal.

The second effect is bottom-up, in which additional visible radiation during a solar maximum warms the tropical oceans, causing more evaporation and therefore more rain, especially close to the equator.

On its own, the effect may not be sufficient to cause noticeable differences. “It’s too weak a forcing,” says Tim Woollings of the University of Reading. But a study by Katja Matthes at the GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences in Potsdam and colleagues suggests the two effects could work together to greater effect. For example, observations show that monsoon rains in south-east Asia tend to be stronger during peak solar years. The researchers found that they were only able to reproduce this in models if they included both effects (Science, vol 325, p 1114).

The third solar influence on climate is extraterrestrial. Earth is bombarded by cosmic rays from exploding stars, which are largely deflected by the solar wind during solar maxima and to a slightly lesser degree in minima.

One theory held that cosmic rays cool the planet by helping to form airborne particles that water vapour condenses onto, increasing cloud cover. However, models suggest the effect is tiny (Nature, vol 460, p 332). Just to be sure, though, the idea is being tested by the CLOUD experiment at CERN in Geneva, Switzerland. Initial results are expected in the next six months."


I do not completely agree on this, as some sun effects are not yet being considered by the authors, like the high energy particles from the coronna (see my posts on Komitov's work), changes in stratospheric CFCs (see posts on Lu et al. work). etc., but at least it seems the sun effects on present short term climate (regional weather at decadal scale) begin now to be more seriously considered by the "consensus" camp.


Note:
Dr. Giles Harrison
"My work concerns the physics of atmospheric aerosol particles, and development of instruments for physical atmospheric measurements (particularly probing the properties of atmospheric small ions, but also temperature, pressure, relative humidity, radioactivity, supercooled droplets, low currents, atmospheric electric fields and the global electrical circuit, solar radiation), both at the surface, and aloft using radiosonde platforms. The electrical properties of the atmosphere have a new relevance, as, through ion-aerosol physics, they may link solar changes and climate."

(bolded are mine)

 

In the wake of my last post...

The Sun and the Earth’s Climate

Joanna D. Haigh, 2007
Imperial College
London SW7 2AZ UK

http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrsp-2007-2/

Abstract
Variations in solar activity, at least as observed in numbers of sunspots, have been apparent since ancient times but to what extent solar variability may affect global climate has been far more controversial. The subject had been in and out of fashion for at least two centuries but the current need to distinguish between natural and anthropogenic causes of climate change has brought it again to the forefront of meteorological research. The absolute radiometers carried by satellites since the late 1970s have produced indisputable evidence that total solar irradiance varies systematically over the 11-year sunspot cycle, relegating to history the term “solar constant”, but it is difficult to explain how the apparent response to the Sun, seen in many climate records, can be brought about by these rather small changes in radiation. This article reviews some of the evidence for a solar influence on the lower atmosphere and discusses some of the mechanisms whereby the Sun may produce more significant impacts than might be surmised from a consideration only of variations in total solar irradiance.

...............................
Conclusions

Radiation from the Sun ultimately provides the only energy source for the Earth’s atmosphere and changes in solar activity clearly have the potential to affect climate. There is statistical evidence for solar influence on various meteorological parameters on all timescales, although extracting the signal from the noise in a naturally highly variable system remains a key problem. Changes in total solar irradiance undoubtedly impact the Earth’s energy balance but uncertainties in the historical record of TSI mean that the magnitude of even this direct influence is not well known. Variations in solar UV radiation impact the thermal structure and composition of the middle atmosphere but details of the responses in both temperature and ozone concentrations are not well established. Various theories are now being developed for coupling mechanisms whereby direct solar impacts on the middle atmosphere might influence the troposphere but the influences are complex and non-linear and many questions remain concerning the detailed mechanisms which determine to what extent, where and when the solar influence is felt. Variations in cosmic radiation, modulated by solar activity, are manifest in changes in atmospheric ionisation but it is not yet clear whether these have the potential to significantly affect the atmosphere in a way that will impact climate.

Further advances in this field require work on a number of fronts. One important issue is to establish the magnitude of any secular trends in total solar irradiance (TSI). This may be achieved by careful analysis and understanding of the satellite instruments involved in collecting data over the past two-and-a-half solar cycles, and must be continued through analysis of data from current and new satellites. For longer periods it requires a more fundamental understanding of how solar magnetic activity relates to TSI. This would not only facilitate more reliable centennial-scale reconstructions of TSI, from e.g. sunspot records, but also advance understanding of how cosmogenic isotope records may be interpreted as historical TSI.

With regard to the climate, further data-mining and analysis are required to firmly establish the magnitude, geographical distribution and seasonality of its response to various forms of solar activity. Understanding the mechanisms involved in the response then becomes the overriding objective. Current ideas suggest three main avenues where further research is needed. Firstly, the means whereby solar radiative heating of the upper and middle atmosphere may influence the lower atmosphere through dynamical coupling needs to be better understood. Secondly, it needs to be established whether or not variations in direct solar heating of the tropical oceans can be of sufficient magnitude to produce apparently observed effects. Thirdly, more work is needed on the microphysical processes involved in ion-induced nucleation, and, probably more importantly, the growth rates of the condensation nuclei produced.

Perhaps when these questions are answered we will be confident that we really understand how changes in the Sun affect the climate on Earth.

(bolded is mine)

 

I'll do his job for 4 1/4 million.

and I could probably do it at least 3/4 as good so it's a bargain for the stock holders

 

Guess thats my opinion too, thats not very socialistic/ democratic/ conservative, not even very nazism either... Its whats normally stated as "sivilized manners". And frankly put; the US have normally done this.... Nothing new...

 

About what I'd expect of you. You can't hold your own in any sort of intelligent conversation, so you fall back on belligerence and name-calling instead.

But if you honestly think I'm a communist, you obviously wouldn't recognize a real one if he walked up and handed you his card.

And it's actually the TP'ers and wingnut militia types, not liberals or communists, who are running around talking about violence and 'taking back the country.' By which of course, they really mean 'take it away from their fellow Americans' so they can go back to the days when blacks were slaves instead of Presidents.....

Ain't gonna happen, son; the 21st century isn't going away just because you can't handle it.

 

Knut, we are not allowed to access our oil like you are. We do not have the money. Here, it is being posed that ten percent pay for everyone's healthcare. Those ten percent are starting to leave. Keep asking them to do more and most of the rest will leave. Becuz of oil, Norway IS a Utopia in some ways but most of the rest of the world does not work like that. Of course I'd like everybody to have the best healthcare available, in fact, take care of everyone in the world...hey, here's an idea! Since it is "civilized" for some to pay for others AND there are people without healthcare all over the world, what wud stop Norway from providing healthcare right up to the point where each person in Norway holds the same amount of wealth as each person on Earth. Are you not civilized or only civilized up your borders? You don't believe that billions in China and India, for example, have the same civilized rights as you?
Another angle (and this one will be argued by fiscal conservatives and progressives until the war settles it); Freedom encourages exceptionalism. Many more advancements in medicine have happened, and will continue to happen, because of innovation spurred by a profit motive.

 

Chroy, I have friends still cleaning up the Mall after the Jon Stewart communist get together - Compare with any Tea-Party rally for civility.
Why are you so threatened by them - Have you been listening to Rachel Maddow again?

 

mark775 what country do you live in?

if the US are you going to sign up for Medicare and Social security?

 

i been listening to the tea party, that's what scares me

 

most in the tea party probably couldn't survive in the country they want

like the nazi skin heads, if they ever got what they wanted, they would be the first ones rounded up

 

I get the programs confused...Medicare is the one that drove up the price of medicine and is mired in bureaucracy and corruption? Social Security? Oh, you mean the Ponzi sceme that was never intended to pay out what people put in, the one where the age where one can draw out is kept at the average age of death, the one that is dependant upon ever-increasing population booms to stay solvent, the one where the money is put into the general fund, the one where I'll never see any return? THAT SOCIAL SECURITY? Wad, you are out of your league - just allow Chroy to argue for you and chime "Yeah!" now and again.
I'll try, once again, to allow the thread to resemble something to do with "Climate Disruption". Bye (I might respond to ya'all's drivel tonight).

 

Changing the subject again, are we? Well, I suppose that's a logical backup tactic, since the name-calling obviously didn't work.

 

social security is invested in worthless t bills, you know the kind bush was heavily invested in

medicare uses a few cents on the dollar for administrative costs far more efficient than any insurance company

PEOPLE, insurance companies are for profit organisations the less service they provide (medical bills paid for insurees) the more the profit