EnviroLink Forum

A decline of about half the level if I read the graph correctly.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

If there are negative feedbacks, they act to reduce the potency of a forcing by reducing the temperature response the forcing would cause.

If we have very low climate sensitivity for example, such as around 9 w/m^2/Degree C, then the increase in CO2 would be far too small to explain the 0.7-0.8 Degree C warming over the 20th Century, since the current radiative forcing of a 40% increase in CO2 is estimated to be at around 1.48 w/m^2. This would give you a CO2 contribution to warming of around 20%, and a CO2 contribution of around 16% for the late-20th Century, which is far too small to explain the observed warming.

I traced a blue line and it seems that the ion chambers are only slightly lower in 1992 than the neutron monitors.

What other mechanism could be the cause?

Yes, which still does not make the positive driver unlikely, as was stated.



Nothing here is related to the NEGATIVE feedback of a volcano making the driver unlikely. It seems to be another grouping of "what if" possibities.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

At least 25% from the original graph but less than the 50% I initially thought I saw. Using the scale on the left the ion chamber drops 4 units from the peak and the monitor drops 3.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

It does not matter. Inverse numbers of pirates burning shiips or invisible alien spacecraft have just as much supporting evidence. Even the supporting paper you quoted referenced a plural of mechanisms and not just cosmic rays.

that different mechanisms could amplify solar activity variations to give large climatic effects, a possibility which is still a subject of debate

<snip>

thus implying the necessary existence of an amplification mechanism, though without pointing to which one.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

http://s267.photobucket.com/albums/ii310/jeffgreen11/?action=view&current=pbsksradiativebalancefig5.jpg

If this photo will open up I think we would find that Snowies scenario of increased sun energy and increased co2 will make things even warmer than they are now. CO2 is very well understood. Even from the context of co2 is a weaker ghg than H2O, co2 is the stabel gas in the atmosphere and drives the average level of H2O in the atmosphere. We have our past level of climate thanks to co2. More is better doesn't go well with me during this heat wave we are having now. With increased co2 emissions rather than less, warmer gets ugly real fast.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/radiation.html

From Jamie at 350.org;
"Dear friends,

This is exactly what the climate scientists have been telling us to expect.

The last few weeks -- from the record rainfall in Minnesota and Florida to the epic fires in the West, from the crop-shriveling drought in the High Plains to the “land hurricane” that left five million without power across the East -- this is what climate change feels like in its early stages. We’ve heard from friends and colleagues who have fled their homes -- but our leaders still aren't connecting the dots.

There should be no doubters left. But of course, thanks to the power of the fossil fuel industry, the denialists still reign in DC: last year the House of Representatives voted to reject the widely accepted scientific consensus that human activities are causing climate change. The mainstream media isn't helping much either: only 3% of the stories about the wildfires even mentioned climate change."

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle
“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein

A negative feedback will reduce the effect of any forcing, that is how it can be calculated that negative feedbacks exist within the climate system.

Yep, the difference is not that great, and is probably within the error margins of each of the measuring devices.

The point of the matter is that 1992 featured a record low in GCR counts, which lead to the lowest cumulative GCRs recorded during that timeframe.

And the point is that there was a pretty big trend in GCRs during the late-20th Century warming, which as I posted from Dorman 2012, can EXPLAIN a large portion of the warming observed during that timeframe.

And while it has been observed that there is a forcing that enhances the solar forcing from TSI during the solar cycle by up to a factor of 7, the IPCC has totally ignored all of the other ways in which the sun can impact oscillations, the stratosphere, the clouds etc.

Nuzhdina 2001 documented a correlation between ENSO and geomagnetic activity, suggesting that the sun may play a role in ENSO events.

Or Palamara and Bryant 2004 which find that geomagnetic activity has an important role to play in the Northern Annual Mode.

Raspopov et. al 2007 which find that long term trends in solar variations can have a "pronounced" effect on the climate.

There are simply many papers that document many other ways that the sun can impact the atmospheric parameters, and climate.

If low cloud cover decreases would be found to have created a forcing of 8 w/m^2 during the 20th Century, then the IPCC graphic you posted is pretty much worthless.

So please explain why Relative Humidity levels have been decreasing while the lapse rate feedback appears to be positive?