It will be interesting to see how this plays out and not just because of the impact of cooling and its social and economic implications. NASA acknowledges the likely decline in sunspot numbers as noted here, but it does not acknowledge the relationship between sunspot numbers, variations in cosmic radiation low cloud cover and global temperature; the Svensmark theory.
For years the argument against considering the high correlation between sunspot numbers and global temperature were rejected because a) correctly, you cannot assume cause and effect b) there was no mechanism. The latter was the most difficult to overcome. Svensmark' cosmic radiation theory provided a plausible theory with supporting observational data and laboratory experiments. I understand the IPCC chose not to include Svensmark's work using the questionable ploy that it was published after the cut off date for their consideration. In doing so the IPCC left out the third form of solar impact on climate.
Years ago we considered,1) sun/earth relationships, the Milankovitch Effect. I remember a conference in the late 1980s when for the first time in my experience somebody used Milankovitch without opposition or even question.I understand this was not included in the models used for IPCC AR4. I raised the issue on a phone -in radio program. Andrew Weaver phoned in to say it was insignificant because annual variations were to small. The question is how significant do they become when you are looking ahead 50 and 100 years. How does this variation compare with human CO2 forcing in the same period? 2) The solar wind was called corpuscular radiation and studies between it, sunspots and aurora were studied. The history of this is well covered in Soon and Yaskell's 2003 book, "The Maunder Minimum and the Variable Sun-Earth Connection." This is also excluded from AR4 as discussed above. (As a matter of interest, the aurora were used by many indigenous people across northern North America to make good weather predictions.) 3) the third, and the only one considered by AR4 is electromagnetic radiation and, as I understand it by their own measure it explains at least 50% of the temperature variation over the last 130 years (the P.D. Jones record).
Friday
1 hour ago
Posts
3 comments:
Who could possibly believe that the sun plays a part in the earth's weather. hmmm, lets try a boundary condition, turn off sun, measure temperature ... turn up sun say 2x measure temperature ...
Now CO2 -- The notion that a trace gas plays a major role, now that's a hoot. OK, so lets up the CO2 to high levels, the log absorption says we get tapped out real soon, absorb all the sun has got in the CO2 absorption spectra, and no appreciable changes in temperature. But we get bigger plants, like the last time this happened.
Now feedback -- If positive feedback exists, long ago the Earth would have "railed" and stayed there.
Now the data -- The easiest place to fiddle and fudge the temperature data record is with the monitoring stations, and the computer models, I wonder ...
To summarize -- Since man causes global warming, man must also cause global cooling. If we only knew how, we could make it just right ...
If you want to really reduce CO2, then why dance around nuclear power ... hmmm
Just fooling with some random thoughts ... Not a climatologist, just an engineer.
It is utterly inescapable that history and temperature proxies show perfect coincidence between the Dalton and Maunder minima, with sunspots. The burden of proof is on the wrong foot! It is a proverb for good reason that those who forget history relive it. Every penny spent on carbon dioxide abatement would have been spent on crop research and nuclear energy, if only we accepted the abundant and what should be utterly inescapable lessons of history. There is a very cold Earth in our future, just as in our past; carbon dioxide didn't matter then, nor will it matter next. Mechanism - who cares, unless you care WHEN.
Only someone deeply ignorant of geography and climatology would say the Milankovitch Effect was being covered up or not acknowledged. It is in every text and course. So what. There is more than one effect.
Post a Comment