EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Fri Dec 19, 2014 8:01 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 100 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 11:27 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20603
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
...


That's an exaggeration. The gap is only slightly larger than the early 20th Century gap.


What gaps? The one shown in this representation:

Image

_________________
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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2012 12:06 pm 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 11:47 am
Posts: 110
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Snowy123 wrote:
Carbon 14 levels have been DECLINING in the 20th Century, so you are being hypocritical when you call me an idiot.

In addition, we have Beryllium 10 isotopes that pretty much confirm what the decline in Carbon 14 isotopes tell us, that solar activity ramped up strongly during the 20th Century. Read the Usoskin et. al paper I posted.

Formation during nuclear tests

Must admit sometimes I learn something new when talking to you but I hardly ever learn that your right this is interesting;

Wikipedia wrote:

The above-ground nuclear tests that occurred in several countries between 1955 and 1980 (see nuclear test list) dramatically increased the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere and subsequently in the biosphere; after the tests ended, the atmospheric concentration of the isotope began to decrease.
One side effect of the change in atmospheric carbon-14 is that this has enabled some options for determining the birth year of an individual, in particular, the amount of carbon-14 in tooth enamel,[14][15] or the carbon-14 concentration in the lens of the eye.[16]


Still it makes carbon 14 useless for your purpose after the mid 40s, I wonder if nuclear tests affect Beryllium 10 isotopes?

Snowy123 wrote:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/06/judit ... solar.html

There are plenty of solar physicists who disagree with the IPCC.


So your evidence is a blog that's so badly designed it hurts the eyes and has as its catch line; "OUR STRINGY UNIVERSE FROM A CONSERVATIVE VIEWPOINT" aren't you a bit embarrassed linking that?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2012 8:37 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
spot1234 wrote:
Snowy123 wrote:
Carbon 14 levels have been DECLINING in the 20th Century, so you are being hypocritical when you call me an idiot.

In addition, we have Beryllium 10 isotopes that pretty much confirm what the decline in Carbon 14 isotopes tell us, that solar activity ramped up strongly during the 20th Century. Read the Usoskin et. al paper I posted.

Formation during nuclear tests

Must admit sometimes I learn something new when talking to you but I hardly ever learn that your right this is interesting;

Wikipedia wrote:

The above-ground nuclear tests that occurred in several countries between 1955 and 1980 (see nuclear test list) dramatically increased the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere and subsequently in the biosphere; after the tests ended, the atmospheric concentration of the isotope began to decrease.
One side effect of the change in atmospheric carbon-14 is that this has enabled some options for determining the birth year of an individual, in particular, the amount of carbon-14 in tooth enamel,[14][15] or the carbon-14 concentration in the lens of the eye.[16]


Still it makes carbon 14 useless for your purpose after the mid 40s, I wonder if nuclear tests affect Beryllium 10 isotopes?

Snowy123 wrote:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/06/judit ... solar.html

There are plenty of solar physicists who disagree with the IPCC.


So your evidence is a blog that's so badly designed it hurts the eyes and has as its catch line; "OUR STRINGY UNIVERSE FROM A CONSERVATIVE VIEWPOINT" aren't you a bit embarrassed linking that?


Perhaps C-14 isotopes are useless for the mid to late-20th Century. Thanks for linking that up.

I don't think Be-10 isotopes would be impacted by it though, which show an even steeper decline in concentration over the 20th Century than the C-14 isotopes in the Usoskin et. al paper.

The point of the matter is that we have many lines of evidence that point to a rapidly brightening sun over the 20th Century, including the Geomagnetic AA Index, GCRs, Be-10 isotopes etc. so your statement about how solar activity could not have possibly risen during the time of the industrial revolution seems a bit on the unscientific side, don't you think?

BTW are you going to address the fact that the role of the sun in the IPCC was determined by one solar scientist who agreed with herself or not?

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2012 8:39 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
...


That's an exaggeration. The gap is only slightly larger than the early 20th Century gap.


What gaps? The one shown in this representation:

Image


There is a slight gap between the AA Index and temperatures in the early 20th Century.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2012 8:41 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:
No, climate is not my field of study, but the basic science is the same and some of my experience is also directly useful in the understanding. I am better versed than many of the other non-climate scientists I have had the opportunity to speak with on the subject.

I first became aware of the increasing CO2 levels when I helped my son with a school science project. He wasnted to see if the concentration was different in the city and country where there was more vegetation. The levels did not match my CRC Handbooks for concentrations in ambient air by a large amount. I was worried our analysis was somehoe skewed and did some research. I then found the increasing levels were documented but the proportion charts had not been corrected. That was in the mid 1990s and I have studied the situation ever since.


Interesting, thanks.

"You learn something new every day" is the old saying...

Have you published any papers? I found this paper on Google Scholar:

http://md1.csa.com/partners/viewrecord. ... cookie=yes

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2012 8:51 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:

Yes there is. There is a lot of evidence correlating temperature and CO2 increases throughout history. The fact we can increase the CO2 concentration to create a forcing is another bit of evidence to the unnatural nature of the situation.



It indicates that part of the warming is anthropogenic. It does not tell us how big this part of the warming is, and if it is the dominant factor or not.

Quote:
Solar activity as in solar output? References?


http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/Sol ... lished.pdf

For an example.

There is also another paper that documents that the level of solar activity we are currently witnessing is one of the highest observed over the last 11000 years.

Quote:
As I stated, there is LESS evidence of the hypothesis you claim is more probable.


No, there is evidence that such a mechanism exists. It is how large the effect is that is under question.

http://science.au.dk/en/news-and-events ... skydaekke/

Quote:
Why? The geomagnetic flux theory does not claim increased radiance as the effect does it?


Your claim that work about the geomagnetic aa index did not get many citations was not correct.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:53 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20603
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
No, climate is not my field of study, but the basic science is the same and some of my experience is also directly useful in the understanding. I am better versed than many of the other non-climate scientists I have had the opportunity to speak with on the subject.

I first became aware of the increasing CO2 levels when I helped my son with a school science project. He wasnted to see if the concentration was different in the city and country where there was more vegetation. The levels did not match my CRC Handbooks for concentrations in ambient air by a large amount. I was worried our analysis was somehoe skewed and did some research. I then found the increasing levels were documented but the proportion charts had not been corrected. That was in the mid 1990s and I have studied the situation ever since.


Interesting, thanks.

"You learn something new every day" is the old saying...

Have you published any papers? I found this paper on Google Scholar:

http://md1.csa.com/partners/viewrecord. ... cookie=yes


Yes, that be me.

_________________
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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:02 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20603
Location: Southeastern US
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:

Yes there is. There is a lot of evidence correlating temperature and CO2 increases throughout history. The fact we can increase the CO2 concentration to create a forcing is another bit of evidence to the unnatural nature of the situation.



It indicates that part of the warming is anthropogenic. It does not tell us how big this part of the warming is, and if it is the dominant factor or not.

Quote:
Solar activity as in solar output? References?


http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/Sol ... lished.pdf

For an example.

There is also another paper that documents that the level of solar activity we are currently witnessing is one of the highest observed over the last 11000 years.

Quote:
As I stated, there is LESS evidence of the hypothesis you claim is more probable.


No, there is evidence that such a mechanism exists. It is how large the effect is that is under question.

http://science.au.dk/en/news-and-events ... skydaekke/

Quote:
Why? The geomagnetic flux theory does not claim increased radiance as the effect does it?


Snowy123 wrote:
Your claim that work about the geomagnetic aa index did not get many citations was not correct.


No, I said the geomagnetic flux theory did not get much attention. The theory being the cause of the warming trend.

I thought the discussion was fairly clear context wise.

Quote:
Quote:
Yes and their focus was on irradiance correlation not cause and effect, which is not the same hypothesis.


Please admit that you were mistaken about this claim:

Given the massive lack of citation of the works on geomagnetic flux theory

_________________
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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:17 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20603
Location: Southeastern US
We "know" this has to be wrong as it uses temperature reconstructions of Micheal Mann as evidence of the correllation between temperature and sunspot activity. Right?

http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/Sol ... lished.pdf

The current high level of solar activity may also have an impact on the terrestrial climate. We note a general similarity between our long-term SN reconstruction and different reconstructions of temperature [28,29]: (1) both SN and temperature show a slow decreasing trend just prior to 1900, followed by a steep rise that is unprecedented during the last millenium; (2) great minima in the SN data are accompanied by cool periods while the generally higher levels of solar activity between about 1100 and 1300 correspond to a relatively higher temperature (the medieval warm period) [30].

[28] M. E. Mann, R. S. Bradley, and M. K. Hughes, Geophys. Res. Lett. 26, 759 (1999).
[29] P. D. Jones, T. J. Osborn, and K. R. Briffa, Science 292, 662 (2001).

_________________
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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:28 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20603
Location: Southeastern US
Didn't the CERN experiments already show this effect, which also showed the nuclei were too few and too small to have the impact observed in the atmosphere? As I said, there is LESS evidence of the hypothesis you claim is more probable.

http://science.au.dk/en/news-and-events ... skydaekke/

Facts about the experiment

A chamber contains air with precisely balanced amounts of sulphur dioxide, ozone and water vapour irradiated with electrons. Sunlight is a necessary ingredient for aerosol formation in the natural atmosphere, and it is imitated in the climate chamber by a lamp that emits ultraviolet light. Natural atmospheric processes such as the formation of sulphuric acid are thus imitated, and these are an important ingredient in the aerosols. When electrons from the accelerator irradiate the air mixture, an increase takes place in the production of aerosols, which act as nuclei for the production of cloud droplets. In previous SKY experiments conducted by DTU Space in Copenhagen, cosmic radiation was simulated by gamma radiation, and the scientists saw here that the gamma rays could also form aerosols. In the new experiment with the energy-rich electrons from the ASTRID accelerator, there is much more resemblance to the cosmic rays that occur in nature.

_________________
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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:36 pm 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 11:47 am
Posts: 110
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Snowy123 wrote:

Perhaps C-14 isotopes are useless for the mid to late-20th Century. Thanks for linking that up.

I don't think Be-10 isotopes would be impacted by it though, which show an even steeper decline in concentration over the 20th Century than the C-14 isotopes in the Usoskin et. al paper.

The point of the matter is that we have many lines of evidence that point to a rapidly brightening sun over the 20th Century, including the Geomagnetic AA Index, GCRs, Be-10 isotopes etc. so your statement about how solar activity could not have possibly risen during the time of the industrial revolution seems a bit on the unscientific side, don't you think?

BTW are you going to address the fact that the role of the sun in the IPCC was determined by one solar scientist who agreed with herself or not?



See, real science is more interesting then blog science. I will tell you what is scientific I don't know enough about the Geomagnetic AA index GCRs BE-10 isotopes to comment I would have to spend time learning about them to give a sensible response however I don't take your claims that they prove something at face value, the fact you cited changes carbon 14 as proof of something shows that not taking your claims at face value might be wise.

I think I know enough about your argument to explain it in laymans terms though and it's incorrect to say that you believe the sun is brightening. What you are claiming is that changes in the magnetic field are effecting cloud formation and in turn is affecting temperature not the TSI or total solar iridescence or the heat output of the sun which would be easy to measure. Your theory sounds plausible although it might not necessarily be true, my understanding is nobody has found a smoking gun, spectography is the smoking gun with CO2.

Mainstream opinion and my opinion is that while changes in the sun may possibly cause changes in climate therefore its worth studying the changes due to changes in CO2 concentrations are far greater. so manmade climate change is a real and pressing concern.

I thought the link was a sloppy webpage and explicitly has a agenda.


Last edited by spot1234 on Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:42 pm 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 11:47 am
Posts: 110
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Wayne Stollings wrote:

Yes, that be me.


So can we say you know your S**t?

I had a job dealing with garbage as well, no papers were published a result though. You did not have to be very smart but I will tell you what; you don't need to go to the gym.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 04, 2012 1:51 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20603
Location: Southeastern US
spot1234 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:

Yes, that be me.


So can we say you know your S**t?


A bit, yes. I follow the idea of an expert as being one who knows that there is much he does not know. One of my "favorite" PhDs just publicly claimed in an email committee discussion of industry experts and governmental regulators that I did not know of which I spoke. He likes to use his degree as a club to get his way, but my experience and doing my homework makes it difficult for him as I ignore his club and deal with the facts. Shortly there after he wished to discuss the matter privately in order to admit his error. Some of the other committee members had already contacted me to inquire my recommendations for how they could implement my suggestions.

_________________
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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2012 9:42 am 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:
We "know" this has to be wrong as it uses temperature reconstructions of Micheal Mann as evidence of the correllation between temperature and sunspot activity. Right?

http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/Sol ... lished.pdf

The current high level of solar activity may also have an impact on the terrestrial climate. We note a general similarity between our long-term SN reconstruction and different reconstructions of temperature [28,29]: (1) both SN and temperature show a slow decreasing trend just prior to 1900, followed by a steep rise that is unprecedented during the last millenium; (2) great minima in the SN data are accompanied by cool periods while the generally higher levels of solar activity between about 1100 and 1300 correspond to a relatively higher temperature (the medieval warm period) [30].

[28] M. E. Mann, R. S. Bradley, and M. K. Hughes, Geophys. Res. Lett. 26, 759 (1999).
[29] P. D. Jones, T. J. Osborn, and K. R. Briffa, Science 292, 662 (2001).


In the paper they should have cited a reconstruction like Esper et. al instead of Mann et. al.

It does not really impact their conclusions though.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2012 9:47 am 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:
http://science.au.dk/en/news-and-events ... skydaekke/

Facts about the experiment

A chamber contains air with precisely balanced amounts of sulphur dioxide, ozone and water vapour irradiated with electrons. Sunlight is a necessary ingredient for aerosol formation in the natural atmosphere, and it is imitated in the climate chamber by a lamp that emits ultraviolet light. Natural atmospheric processes such as the formation of sulphuric acid are thus imitated, and these are an important ingredient in the aerosols. When electrons from the accelerator irradiate the air mixture, an increase takes place in the production of aerosols, which act as nuclei for the production of cloud droplets. In previous SKY experiments conducted by DTU Space in Copenhagen, cosmic radiation was simulated by gamma radiation, and the scientists saw here that the gamma rays could also form aerosols. In the new experiment with the energy-rich electrons from the ASTRID accelerator, there is much more resemblance to the cosmic rays that occur in nature.


They proved that the particles produced by GCRs were too small, but that doesn't mean that the particles can't grow to form CCNs. They also proved that Sulphuric Acid concentrations were too small to explain nucleation, which means that another substance must be responsible. It does not prove that the impact from Cosmic Rays is small by any means.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 100 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group