'Naysayers Guide to Global Warming.

[Admiral_Bobski]

C-Bob: I suspect the paper you are referring to is Scafetta & West (2006). Their analysis did indeed find that solar forcing had a higher input into the recent warming trend than had previously been estimated. Following its publication, there was a lot of discussion about the paper, much of which centred around their methodology and the soundness of their analysis. Gavin Schmidt led the argument against, Kay Scafetta defended her own work. The two ended up agreeing to disagree, not surprisingly.

I also suspect that the paper was published after the deadline for submissions to the IPCC, so would not have been factored in anyway. However, the IPCC's track record is not to include findings (or at least, not to assume their veracity) which are contended in the literature. Having said that, there hasn't yet been a formal refutation of S&W's work, or a revision by the authors, so the jury is still 'out' on their findings. I will say that it stands out in the literature in terms of the methods and the findings, in that several dozen other papers have reached the conclusion broadly summarised in the AR4.

Thanks for that P3 - that looks to be the paper of which I was thinking, although the 2006 paper appears to be the most recent in a string of similar papers from Scafetta & West (with papers also dating from 2003, 2004 and 2005). Having a read around I also find that Benny Peiser is on-side with Scafetta & West on this issue...

There are various other papers around, including one from December 2003 by Stott, Jones and Mitchell of the Hadley Centre. Most of these papers and articles concede that late 20th-Century Warming is probably more human in origin than solar, but the human impact is still less than commonly thought.

As I say, I have no problem with accepting that man plays a role in climate change, but I still think it is a minor role rather than a major one. The studies mentioned above look at particular solar factors and equate them with Earth climate insofar as they are able - the surge in temperatures in the past few decades cannot be explained solely by the solar activity they have been studying, but that isn't to say that man is responsible for (all of) the "extra". If forcings from particular solar cycles have been underestimated then what else has been underestimated?

More later - I'm going to post some more links in the "skeptics links" thread, all relating to potential underestimation of solar forcings.

C-Bob

[DAVID SNOW]

David; your analysis is correct. The problem is that an eruption of this kind is impossible to predict. it might happen this year, it might not happen for 5,000 years; there is no way of telling. IF such an eruption occurred, it's impact could be so large as to make worries about GW meaningless. The scientists and the IPCC are aware of this as a possibility, but, given the probabilities involved, it makes more sense to assume that is isn't going to happen than that it is.

:)P

I agree p3, its not an if but when. I wonder would it be possible for our so called advanced inteligent species to some how replicate the effects of a volcano, this may seem wat out, but if i am correct what we would need from a volcano is large amounts of sulphur to react with water vapour producing sulphuric acid droplets that inturn would reflect solar radiation....not sure how much sulphur would be needed to be introduced into the upper atmosphere, but if an amount could be calculated, could we perhaps use some of our many rockets to deliver the sulphur?so perhaps instead of having 20000 rockets carring nuclear death they could be adapted to carry sulphur.just a thought.Regards David.

[Hiya]

I agree p3, its not an if but when. I wonder would it be possible for our so called advanced inteligent species to some how replicate the effects of a volcano, this may seem wat out, but if i am correct what we would need from a volcano is large amounts of sulphur to react with water vapour producing sulphuric acid droplets that inturn would reflect solar radiation....not sure how much sulphur would be needed to be introduced into the upper atmosphere, but if an amount could be calculated, could we perhaps use some of our many rockets to deliver the sulphur?so perhaps instead of having 20000 rockets carring nuclear death they could be adapted to carry sulphur.just a thought.Regards David.

The mechanism by which sulphur cools the planet is more complicated from what you have mentioned. Not that I'm belittling you for it. The scientist's who suggested that releasing sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere is even a feasible idea really show their own folly in not consulting a chemist. Since sulphur dioxide catalyses the decomposition of ozone, then gets washed out of the atmosphere, resulting in two types of burnt human.

[parmenides3]

Come on people! this is supposed to be a thread casting doubt on GW (or AGW). So let's have some constructive questioning of the assumptions which are being made, and the methods used to project future climate scenarios.

Here's a thought (though it may be incorrect): One of the things which is overlooked is that, in burning fossil fuels and forests, we are not only adding CO2 to the atmosphere, which may have some effect, (but how much is at least questionable), but we are at the same time producing the anthropogenic aerosols which are negative forcings - keep a lid on the imagined extra heating. CO2 stays in the atmosphere a long time. Aerosols don't. if we radically alter the amount of fossil fuel we burn downwards, not only will the existing CO2 stay, but the aerosols will not, at least, not in the same quantities. The consequences of this would be to add significantly to the warming (by removing the negatie forcing). So why should we want to suddenly stop burining fossil fuels?

As I say, just a thought.

:)P

[Admiral_Bobski]

This idea of deliberately putting sulphurous compounds into the atmosphere reminds me of The Matrix (when Morpheus says, "we do know that it was mankind who scorched the skies," or words to that effect). I'm also reminded of the Book of Revelations (aka the Apocalypse) which talks of fire and brimstone. Scary.

C-Bob

PS - Sorry P3 - I got waylaid for an hour while writing that brief post!

Edited March 1, 2007 by Captain_Bobski

[Essan]

I agree p3, its not an if but when. I wonder would it be possible for our so called advanced inteligent species to some how replicate the effects of a volcano, this may seem wat out, but if i am correct what we would need from a volcano is large amounts of sulphur to react with water vapour producing sulphuric acid droplets that inturn would reflect solar radiation....not sure how much sulphur would be needed to be introduced into the upper atmosphere, but if an amount could be calculated, could we perhaps use some of our many rockets to deliver the sulphur?so perhaps instead of having 20000 rockets carring nuclear death they could be adapted to carry sulphur.just a thought.Regards David.

This is exactly what we used to do through all our power stations and factories etc - until the 1980s when we discovered acid rain and a big global campaign was launched to curb sulphur emissions ..... Coincidently, this drop in sulphur emissions was around the time that GW really started to kick in.

[Mondy]

Mars is warming (the ice caps on Mars melt and freeze with the Martian season) Jupiter is warming, Pluto is warming, Triton (Neptune's moon) is warming all without the assistance of cars or cows or coal. So why not Earth? Could it basically be a warming solar system influenced by a more powerful sun than has been known? The current output from the Sun was mentioned yesterday - i think it was the agreed concensus yesterday that it was going through a very strong output phase at the moment, regardless of solar minimum.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/plut...ing_021009.html

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_jr.html

http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/199805260...trunc_sys.shtml

Only recently came across this article so haven't googled or researched anything about Dr Solanki. (??) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml.../ixnewstop.html

Edited March 1, 2007 by Mondy

[parmenides3]

Regretfully, Solanki is suspect. If I remember rightly, the data was fudged, the methodology dubious and the conclusions didn't follow from the premiss.

Scafetta & West, Stott et. al, and no doubt others, are legitimate papers questioning the standard view on solar forcing. The Solanki paper didn't pass muster.

If the Sun's 'output' (energy?) is increasing, then shouldn't one of our observation systems be measuring it? Also, I'm struggling to understand how a minimum phase and a high output can happen simultaneously; isn't this a contradiction?

I think we can get so far with attributing recent warming to the Sun, before we have to hold up our hands and say; okay, the Sun can't be responsible for all (or even most of) the recent warming phase, on it's own. Beyond a certain level, it may be a wild goose chase.

:)P

[Devonian]

Mars is warming (the ice caps on Mars melt and freeze with the Martian season) Jupiter is warming, Pluto is warming, Triton (Neptune's moon) is warming all without the assistance of cars or cows or coal. So why not Earth? Could it basically be a warming solar system influenced by a more powerful sun than has been known? The current output from the Sun was mentioned yesterday - i think it was the agreed concensus yesterday that it was going through a very strong output phase at the moment, regardless of solar minimum.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/plut...ing_021009.html

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_jr.html

http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/199805260...trunc_sys.shtml

Only recently came across this article so haven't googled or researched anything about Dr Solanki. (??) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml.../ixnewstop.html

Wow, one minute people dispute whether we can measure the temperature of the Earth, or indeed if it is even warming, the next minute it's Pluto (only a mere couple of billion miles, ten years flying time, away...) 'is' warming, it's Mars 'is' warming (no it isn't), it's Triton 'is' warming. I'm not convinced by the argument.

[Mondy]

Hang on, chaps, Devonian especially, who's becoming more bulldog-like in his postings of late.

The above was thrown into the mix to gauge general feeling. P3 has answered the way i'd expect him to. There was nothing solid in my post to counter - it was more a "what do you think of this guys"? I should've made that clearer. Although by throwing in

Could it basically be a warming solar system influenced by a more powerful sun than has been known?

it was a question to anyone, not a reason..

If the Sun's 'output' (energy?) is increasing, then shouldn't one of our observation systems be measuring it? Also, I'm struggling to understand how a minimum phase and a high output can happen simultaneously; isn't this a contradiction

?

Good question, for which i've no answer, as i'm not a solar scientist. A chap named Dr David Hathaway would know. He seems to be the resident NASA Sun watcher/expert.

Anyway, can we keep the thread jolly still. It's been excellent recently. You'll even noticed i've become less confrontational on it all, as i'm learning more and more, dare i say it from a pro GW side now too

Edited March 1, 2007 by Mondy

[DAVID SNOW]

This idea of deliberately putting sulphurous compounds into the atmosphere reminds me of The Matrix (when Morpheus says, "we do know that it was mankind who scorched the skies," or words to that effect). I'm also reminded of the Book of Revelations (aka the Apocalypse) which talks of fire and brimstone. Scary.

C-Bob

PS - Sorry P3 - I got waylaid for an hour while writing that brief post!

Sorry for this off topic reply.I am no scientist,it was just a thought, an idea if you like, and i am sorry you find it scary.surely the more ideas put forward, both good and scary(as you say)can only be a good thing.The idea itself does not scare me,i would have thought by replicating(on a much smaller scale)a natural phenomenon would not result in the end of the world as you say.Perhaps if human actions are upsetting natures balance, then maybe and i repeat maybe nature needs our help to correct the imbalance.Again just a thought.

[Devonian]

Hang on, chaps, Devonian especially, who's becoming more bulldog-like in his postings of late.

Bulldog? Nah. My expression at your post would be the kind of one you get from nice warm enbasketed Jack Russells to the question 'walkies?' when it's clearly pouring down (and of course they know it) and they can't believe the question is seriously being asked. A kind of disbelieving 'you must be kidding!?'

Edited March 1, 2007 by Devonian

[Mondy]

So, it's back to the drawing board for moi, then!

Hey-ho

[Devonian]

So, it's back to the drawing board for moi, then!

Hey-ho

Well, if the question is sufficently convincing (add 'rabbits', or make it sound really exciting) then they can be stirred. They're not totally closed minded

[Hiya]

If the Sun's 'output' (energy?) is increasing, then shouldn't one of our observation systems be measuring it? Also, I'm struggling to understand how a minimum phase and a high output can happen simultaneously; isn't this a contradiction?

I suppose it depends on what is defined by output, and what kind of minimum, I'd like to know, someone find this guys phone number for clarification!

[Mondy]

I suppose it depends on what is defined by output, and what kind of minimum, I'd like to know, someone find this guys phone number for clarification!

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/t...irradiance.html

Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits, during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study.

[The PIT]

Interesting now they need to find out if possible how much has changed since 1900.

[DAVID SNOW]

Interesting now they need to find out if possible how much has changed since 1900.

awaiting captain bobs reply.............

[Gray-Wolf]

So why not widen the search to all forms of energy emitted by the Sun and possible interactions on the planets surface? We seem to be searching for an effect using only a short piece of the total wavelengths that are emitted .

What if 'forced currents' within our electromagnetic field increased, along with output, to the point of 'heating' the troposphere by the resistance the current met as it 'flowed'?

Edited March 1, 2007 by Gray-Wolf

[parmenides3]

Interesting TV alert. Mondy's dream has come true; next Thursday, Channel 4, 9.00pm: 'The Great Global Warming Swindle'. Should be fun.

Reminder to people - it's TV, therefore the media, therefore treat all information with caution. I might even do a review of it...

:)P

[HighPressure]

Probably not the right thread but I am trying to locate decent sulphur emission charts ideally by region. I am currently looking at the global cooling period pre 1975 and the relationship between that and SO2 emissions from those regions who suffered most by cooling and those that did not. Also looking at the warming period since and the same argument in reverse with regional warming. Its interesting to me to see if region warming appears to be worst in area of the world that has reduced its SO2 emissions and if cooling was worse pre 1975 where there were high SO2 emissions. Also looking at recent warming it also appears to coincide with a trend of reducing Volcanic activity. So looking at the question how much of a role does the reduction in atmospheric SO2 play as opposed to the increase in CO2 emissions in the recent period of warming.

Does that make sense?

[Admiral_Bobski]

awaiting captain bobs reply.............

Sorry - my internet connection bummed out on me last night! What am I replying to?

C-Bob

[Slinky]

Interesting TV alert. Mondy's dream has come true; next Thursday, Channel 4, 9.00pm: 'The Great Global Warming Swindle'. Should be fun.

Reminder to people - it's TV, therefore the media, therefore treat all information with caution. I might even do a review of it...

:)P

Awww you beat me to it! Looks to be mighty interesting it does.......

[DAVID SNOW]

Sorry - my internet connection bummed out on me last night! What am I replying to?

C-Bob

oh i see. See post 265

[Michael Winston]

This is an interesting story from the BBC:BBC News Online

Elsewhere, Dr. McLeod is qouted as saying that the discovery ''might explain global warming''.

I'm posting this without comment - I'd be very interested to hear what others think.

Best wishes,

Mike.

Edited March 2, 2007 by Winston