EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Sat Nov 01, 2014 7:07 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 173 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 8:21 pm 
Online
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20565
Location: Southeastern US
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
I had trouble getting a reference copy from the NASA site, but I found one that was already copied.

Image


And the overall yearly trend in Cosmic Rays from ionization chambers show a record low in ionization in 1992 by a large margin.

Image

Source: Svensmark and Marsh 2000



Rather odd the chart in the paper also shows the measurements from the neutron monitors which are still in use rather than the ionization chambers which which stopped in the early 1990s. The neutron monitors do not show the same massive drop as the chambers.


Snowy123 wrote:
The neutron monitors also show a significant decline in GCR counts in 1992, it is just not a yearly value of GCRs as it is shown with the ion chambers.


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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 8:23 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:

What? How does the negative feedback of a volcanic eruption make the positive driver unlikely? It makes the feedback used in the climate models of the time less robust, but that is about it.


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.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Last edited by Snowy123 on Mon Jul 02, 2012 8:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 8:26 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:
A decline of about half the level if I read the graph correctly.


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

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 8:28 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:

Now show us the evidence of the mechanism for that cause. Remember correllation is not causation no matter how hard you want to believe it.


What other mechanism could be the cause?

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 10:56 pm 
Online
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20565
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:

What? How does the negative feedback of a volcanic eruption make the positive driver unlikely? It makes the feedback used in the climate models of the time less robust, but that is about it.


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


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

Quote:
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.


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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 10:59 pm 
Online
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20565
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
A decline of about half the level if I read the graph correctly.


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


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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 11:06 pm 
Online
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20565
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:

Now show us the evidence of the mechanism for that cause. Remember correllation is not causation no matter how hard you want to believe it.


What other mechanism could be the cause?


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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 06, 2012 10:32 pm 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 85
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:

Then why are you not SKEPTICAL of the LARGER unknown factors than those which are more known? IF really should be the key point for any true skeptical opposition


I am skeptical that we can not say with certainty that climate change is due to anthropogenic causes BECAUSE of these large unknowns.

From what I see you doing, is that you are totally into the backwater science. Are you here to prove it true to us? Dessler did a study of cloud feedback based on EREBE cloud data and found it to be a slight postive feedback with large uncertainty due to short data time frame. And yet you try to prove that clouds are something that they are not.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 06, 2012 10:56 pm 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 85
Snowy123 wrote:
The evidence and correlations I am showing for the solar theory are better than the correlation for CO2 and temperature.

There are significant uncertainties that still reside with GCRs-clouds and climate, I agree. If the impact of GCRs was strong enough to create a 10% decrease in Low Cloud Cover over the 20th Century (which we do not know) then it would equate to a forcing of 8 w/m^2. For comparison, the net anthropogenic radiative forcing estimated by the IPCC is 1.6 w/m^2.

That is why it is necessary to be skeptical of the IPCC position that most of the warming is anthropogenic.



Image


It seems that IPCC has a position on how the sun is relevant to climate change. Do you think they are well backed up in this regard.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:50 am 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 85
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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 07, 2012 9:28 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2291
Location: Central Colorado
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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 07, 2012 12:04 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:

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.


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.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 07, 2012 12:08 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:
A decline of about half the level if I read the graph correctly.


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


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.


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.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 07, 2012 12:22 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
renewable guy wrote:
Snowy123 wrote:
The evidence and correlations I am showing for the solar theory are better than the correlation for CO2 and temperature.

There are significant uncertainties that still reside with GCRs-clouds and climate, I agree. If the impact of GCRs was strong enough to create a 10% decrease in Low Cloud Cover over the 20th Century (which we do not know) then it would equate to a forcing of 8 w/m^2. For comparison, the net anthropogenic radiative forcing estimated by the IPCC is 1.6 w/m^2.

That is why it is necessary to be skeptical of the IPCC position that most of the warming is anthropogenic.



Image


It seems that IPCC has a position on how the sun is relevant to climate change. Do you think they are well backed up in this regard.


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.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 07, 2012 12:25 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
renewable guy wrote:
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


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

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 173 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest


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