'No Sun link' to climate change

[SnowBear]

Being as there is no atmosphere on the moon its a surface temperature which is recorded and thus the values reflect the surfaces characteristics not that of a gaseous atmosphere.

Edited April 7, 2008 by SnowBear

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

(Of course the regular flat-earthers round here will assure us that Jim Hansen is a looney crackpot and that their universe is cooling nicely.)

Have you suddenly become single digit years old.....or is that a very silly throw away comment :lol:

BFTP

Beautifully put. Nobody on here is saying that the sun has no effect on the climate - that is what the antis put into our mouths - but what we are saying is that the sun's energy outut has gone slightly down but the temperature has gone up. Seeing as though the Svensmark looks highly unlikely, the only reasonable conclusion to make is that something else other than the sun must be happening to affect the global temperature - and for this CO2 has a mountain of evidence compared to anything else.

The late 20th century has seen the 'busiest' sun for millenia and is beginning to quieten down starting with recent cycle 23. 24 is to come and will be even quieter still with 25 being a deep minima of Dalton possibly Maunder magnitude. It will in the next 10 years that temps will noticeably decrease if this proves correct re minima. So the temp hasn't gone up for ten years...why well the quieter sun is setting in even though C02 is rapidly expeanding/increasing day in day out. It is CO2 line of thinking that is faltering at the moment...10 years and counting.

BFTP

[Yeti]

The late 20th century has seen the 'busiest' sun for millenia and is beginning to quieten down starting with recent cycle 23. 24 is to come and will be even quieter still with 25 being a deep minima of Dalton possibly Maunder magnitude. It will in the next 10 years that temps will noticeably decrease if this proves correct re minima. So the temp hasn't gone up for ten years...why well the quieter sun is setting in even though C02 is rapidly expeanding/increasing day in day out. It is CO2 line of thinking that is faltering at the moment...10 years and counting.

BFTP

This graph is what we need to look at:

As you can clearly see, global temperature rose consistently with both CO2 and solar output until around 1960. Here, CO2 also seemed to follow solar output (it could hardly happen the other way round). However, after 1960 this changed; solar output levelled and CO2 output continued to rise with temperature. This surely says, then, that CO2 does follow solar output but has risen beyond this output in the last few decades due to man's influence.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

This graph is what we need to look at:

This surely says, then, that CO2 does follow solar output but has risen beyond this output in the last few decades due to man's influence.

I have no quarms with that...we have contributed to CO2 level increases.

BFTP

[SnowBear]

All these graphs floating about, one thing I do notice, many do not go up to this year or take into account this last year to 18 months. There also seems to be a vast conflict between many of the graphs too!

Edited April 7, 2008 by SnowBear

[Bobby]

As you can clearly see, global temperature rose consistently with both CO2 and solar output until around 1960. Here, CO2 also seemed to follow solar output (it could hardly happen the other way round). However, after 1960 this changed; solar output levelled and CO2 output continued to rise with temperature. This surely says, then, that CO2 does follow solar output but has risen beyond this output in the last few decades due to man's influence.

Surely if one was a detective, looking at that graph, there is absolutely no way you could come up with the theory that it is the sun's output driving recent temperature changes. The fact that the warming began to accelerate with an acceleration of CO2, and the fact that the correlation between temp and solar output stops at that point (~1960) there is only one conclusion that can be logically made.

This whole subject has always seemed very straightforward and obvious to me and I still don't quite understand why so many see it differently.

[biffvernon]

This whole subject has always seemed very straightforward and obvious to me and I still don't quite understand why so many see it differently.

Yes, that has to be one of the great curiosities of the day, an area needy of research psychology.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Surely if one was a detective, looking at that graph, there is absolutely no way you could come up with the theory that it is the sun's output driving recent temperature changes. The fact that the warming began to accelerate with an acceleration of CO2, and the fact that the correlation between temp and solar output stops at that point (~1960) there is only one conclusion that can be logically made.

Taking that quote and that perspective it would be reasonable to anticipate continued temp increases with continued CO2 increases....we are not seeing that are we. With explosion of CO2 in mid 20th century we saw cooling..so much for CO2 theory. For me its what is the DRIVER, not what is in the mix

BFTP

Edited April 8, 2008 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[VillagePlank]

Yes, one presumes that with CO2 forever going up, surely, so should the temperature anomaly? So what's been happening for the last ten years? The sun is affecting the climate more than whatever C02 we pump out?

For sure, 10 years is far too short to be adequete enough to propose another theory, but the question, now, should be asked - why hasn't the vast increases in CO2 over the last ten years forced a temperature increase above all other things?

(EDIT: I am well aware of the various agencies statement that this is ultimately down to climate variability. Couldn't agree more. Natural climate variability overrides the CO2 signature, then?)

Edited April 8, 2008 by VillagePlank

[Bobby]

Taking that quote and that perspective it would be reasonable to anticipate continued temp increases with continued CO2 increases....we are not seeing that are we. With explosion of CO2 in mid 20th century we saw cooling..so much for CO2 theory. For me its what is the DRIVER, not what is in the mix

BFTP

The 7 years of the 20th century are the warmest 7 years ever recorded so that is incorrect. The warming has continued.

2005 was also the warmest ever year according to NASA and NOAA. Not that that really means anything, climate is about long term averages after all.

Edited April 8, 2008 by Magpie

[VillagePlank]

The 7 years of the 20th century are the warmest 7 years ever recorded so that is incorrect. The warming has continued.

2005 was also the warmest ever year according to NASA and NOAA. Not that that really means anything, climate is about long term averages after all.

WRT this, can anyone provide a link of actual global temperatures, rather than the anomaly sets?

[Yeti]

I have no quarms with that...we have contributed to CO2 level increases.

BFTP

So seeing as though temp has risen and CO2 has risen as a consequence of our actions, and solar output has not risen since 1960, why do you infer that the sun is responisble, or at least that something else must be while trying to refute the very good evidence in favour of CO2 responsibility?

[bluecon]

If the earth is warming at such a great rate why was the winter so cold?

Only the worlds smartest scientists can understand this logic.

[biffvernon]

Only the worlds smartest scientists can understand this logic.

Oh no. Even us pretty average scientists have no difficulty understanding it.

[Devonian]

If the earth is warming at such a great rate why was the winter so cold?

Winter? In the UK it wasn't exactly a cold one. Across NW Europe likewise. In parts of Asia it was indeed VERY cold in January/February, but winter is longer than that and not defined by just Asia (or indeed, the UK, or Europe, or the US). Perhaps you can dig out the figures for the Northern Hemisphere as a whole for December - February showing the past winter to be so cold?

We both clearly agree that there is a GH effect, but what do you mean by "it is ~33C"? Honest question - how, exactly, do you perceive the Greenhouse effect to cause a 33C increase in the global average temperature? I just want to get an idea of how our respective understandings of the GH effect differ.

There is clearly a degree of reflection involved, or else one side of the Earth's temperature would shoot above boiling point every time it pointed towards the Sun. This is an atmospheric effect which must, at least in part, be caused by GHGs.

I don't think reflection comes into. GHG's absorb LW energy and re-emit it? Is that reflection? I don't think so.

This is one place where our viewpoints are likely to differ the most - what exactly is a planet without a greenhouse effect? I would suggest that a planet without a greenhouse effect would have to have no atmosphere - if you add any kind of atmosphere at all you can expect at least a little bit of GHG to exist there, in which case you would have some kind of GH effect. To have absolutely no GH effect you would have to have absolutely no atmosphere (I know that, theoretically, an inert atmosphere is GH effect-free, but it is physically implausible).

The moon's average temperature is somewhere in the region of -20C-ish, and this is determined by taking the average daily max and the average nightly min, adding them together and dividing by two. But that doesn't mean that the Moon is cold, it just means that the Moon is cold on average.

CB

I don't disagree. Average temperature of the Moon about -20C add 33C on and you get, roughly, our average temperature.

[pottyprof]

So seeing as though temp has risen and CO2 has risen as a consequence of our actions, and solar output has not risen since 1960, why do you infer that the sun is responisble, or at least that something else must be while trying to refute the very good evidence in favour of CO2 responsibility?

The suns output did indeed rise.. but it did not fall back. It continued at a higher level until recently..

http://www.dxlc.com/solar/solcycle.html

As you can see, the sunspot activity over the last couple of cycles has declined but you also have to take into consideration the time lag on such a huge scale.. Also El Nino was a corker at the back end on the 90's and that has nothing to do with CO2..

[Admiral_Bobski]

I don't think reflection comes into. GHG's absorb LW energy and re-emit it? Is that reflection? I don't think so.

A while ago there was a discussion about this very thing - does re-emission of radiation count as reflection? I suppose it does - with a reflected image, for example, the photons don't actually bounce off the mirror; they are absorbed and a new photon is emitted (if we look down at the quantum level) back towards the observer, so it becomes an issue of what, exactly, is "reflection"? Albedo is a measure of the reflectiveness of an object - almost everything has an albedo of some sort, but planets with atmospheres ganerally have a very high albedo (look at Venus, for example). Admittedly, planets without atmospheres generally have a very high albedo as well (look at the Moon), but we're talking about energy that is reflected before it reaches the surface of the planet in question.

I am interested to hear your answer to my question, though: how, exactly, do you perceive the Greenhouse effect to cause a 33C increase in the global average temperature?

I don't disagree. Average temperature of the Moon about -20C add 33C on and you get, roughly, our average temperature.

I'm glad we can agree on something! But what I was referring to was our respective definitions of what a planet without a greenhouse effect would look like - can you just strip out GHGs and call a planet with an inert atmosphere a GH-effect-free planet, or does the removal of the GHGs inherently mean a dead, lifeless world?

CB

[Devonian]

A while ago there was a discussion about this very thing - does re-emission of radiation count as reflection? I suppose it does - with a reflected image, for example, the photons don't actually bounce off the mirror; they are absorbed and a new photon is emitted (if we look down at the quantum level) back towards the observer, so it becomes an issue of what, exactly, is "reflection"? Albedo is a measure of the reflectiveness of an object - almost everything has an albedo of some sort, but planets with atmospheres ganerally have a very high albedo (look at Venus, for example). Admittedly, planets without atmospheres generally have a very high albedo as well (look at the Moon), but we're talking about energy that is reflected before it reaches the surface of the planet in question.

I am interested to hear your answer to my question, though: how, exactly, do you perceive the Greenhouse effect to cause a 33C increase in the global average temperature?

How do you perceive it?

CB, if you are trying to expose my lack of in depth knowledge about the GH effect you are succeeding . TBH, I don't fully understand the GH effect - and the various explanations we could read indicate that an in depth explanation is difficult to give simply (clearly?). I can refer you to various explanations that I think are right if you like, but I suspect you've read them? Because, as ever, I would tend to quote and defer to those with a better understand of these things than I have.

I'm glad we can agree on something! But what I was referring to was our respective definitions of what a planet without a greenhouse effect would look like - can you just strip out GHGs and call a planet with an inert atmosphere a GH-effect-free planet, or does the removal of the GHGs inherently mean a dead, lifeless world?

CB

I think so. Though there would be wind, and energy movement, on an inert gas atmosphere planet? Triton certainly has winds, and a mostly, if tenuous, nitrogen atmosphere.

[Admiral_Bobski]

CB, if you are trying to expose my lack of in depth knowledge about the GH effect you are succeeding .

I hope you don't think I am trying to make you look stupid or ignorant - honestly, that is not my intention. I'm just trying to get an idea of your general overview of the greenhouse effect. Does the greenhouse effect actually warm us, or does it just iron out the extremes to the extent that life is more comfortable?

CB

[jethro]

The suns output did indeed rise.. but it did not fall back. It continued at a higher level until recently..

http://www.dxlc.com/solar/solcycle.html

As you can see, the sunspot activity over the last couple of cycles has declined but you also have to take into consideration the time lag on such a huge scale.. Also El Nino was a corker at the back end on the 90's and that has nothing to do with CO2..

And.....

http://www.ukssdc.ac.uk/wdcc1/papers/nature.html

[Devonian]

I hope you don't think I am trying to make you look stupid or ignorant - honestly, that is not my intention.

OK

I'm just trying to get an idea of your general overview of the greenhouse effect. Does the greenhouse effect actually warm us, or does it just iron out the extremes to the extent that life is more comfortable?

CB

I think there is there IS a GH effect and it IS ~33C. But to then go on and describe an Earth without it is not easy since it's intimately tied up with what the planet is.

Put it this way. I've read many atmosphere physicists I'm in no position to disagree with say CO₂ contribute ~7C to the GH effect. I think a Earth with much less CO₂ (which is imaginable) would be a distinctly different place.

Whatever, I'll go back to basics, read some books (always a good idea) and try to give another reply at some point. 'SB', Wien, black bodies, albedo and all that.

[bluecon]

Winter? In the UK it wasn't exactly a cold one. Across NW Europe likewise. In parts of Asia it was indeed VERY cold in January/February, but winter is longer than that and not defined by just Asia (or indeed, the UK, or Europe, or the US). Perhaps you can dig out the figures for the Northern Hemisphere as a whole for December - February showing the past winter to be so cold?

A solar cooling denier!

Fact is the temp is way down so far this year.

[Devonian]

A solar cooling denier!

Fact is the temp is way down so far this year.

Assertions are not data.

[Yeti]

A solar cooling denier!

Fact is the temp is way down so far this year.

How do you know? I would be interested if this is the case; do tell me how you came about that!

[pottyprof]

Bluecon.. Not helpful mate.. Please explain your thinking.. Thanks

Yeti.. I'd love a reply to my reply.. :lol: