AC theory is repatable, testable and predictive. So is (the lesser known) radiative forcing, Boyle's Law, Newton's Laws which were refined with Special and general relativity....(to name just a handful)
The scientific method quickly tosses out fantasy, hence I'm not sure where you want to go with this.
Now dont we wish that climate science was as absolute as those.
I have this figure "At solar maximum, the sun is about 0.1% brighter than it is at solar minimum"
Wiki has a reasonable graph here of data from 1975 to the present, though there is more variation in historic data
Modern data indicates a variation of 1 in 1366 watts/sq metre due the solar cycle.... or 0.00732 %
I am unaware of any study showing and significant correlation between the 11 year solar cycle and global temperature.... but would welcome a link.
Currently old sol has gone through a prolonged minimum (very quiet until very recently as any H-Alpha observer will verify) which doesn't correllate at all with NASA global temperature data.
Wiki has a reasonable graph here of data from 1975 to the present, though there is more variation in historic data
Modern data indicates a variation of 1 in 1366 watts/sq metre due the solar cycle.... or 0.00732 %
I am unaware of any study showing and significant correlation between the 11 year solar cycle and global temperature.... but would welcome a link.
Currently old sol has gone through a prolonged minimum (very quiet until very recently as any H-Alpha observer will verify) which doesn't correllate at all with NASA global temperature data.
The data you supplied, plus that currently available at NASA, doesnt say 0.007%, but 0.1% variation.
Sorry, that link may not work. If you go to http://ro.uow.edu.au/ and search for Daniel Palamara his thesis should be at the bottom of the first page of hits.
Last edited by AstralTraveller; 26-03-2011 at 01:53 PM.
Reason: new info
Thanks. Worked out the link. To quote the abstract
"Long-term changes in land temperature are not well correlated to geomagnetic activity"
i.e. no link.
Though his work does say influence on the stratosphere and coupling to lower layers seems likely.... as I said the global system is not fully understood.
Greehouse, radiative forcing etc. are very well understood and formulated...which was the point of my original post.
There is no error in the physics there, and claiming these provable effects as false does not help those questioning climate change science.
That said, I have no doubt conclusions on climate change will continue to alter as the current changes in global climate are not fully inderstood.
This is the point from which "denialists" come from, that the science has yet to be proven fallible or infallible. Scientists are their own worst enemy here, as they keep proclaiming and counter claiming, wildly differing values of what is or isn't occuring.
If everyone sang from the same hymm book, maybe people would listen.
But who should I believe? The person who says the earths temperature is going to rise by 1 deg, the one who says it is going to rise by 3degs or the one who says it is going to rise by 6 degs over the next 50 years, each has used the same statistical data and maths, yet come up with 3 different answers. The difference between them seems to be the one who gets the front page headline and research dollars that follows.
Equally, we have other scientists that use the same data and maths, and come up with temperature decreases or temps that stay the same, and because they dont create a front page headline, they dont get airplay.
How would this sell papers or ad space?
TEMPERATURE WILL STAYTHE SAME
Scientific study says we are not going to fry
We will never see it, whether it is wrong or right, as there are too many dollars invested in the current future.
It is a confusing subject. I can state with complete confidence apart from any talks or reports that NSW is definitely a hotter place on average than it was when I was a kid. It has definitely gotten hotter, wilder weather both hot and cold, hotter days earlier in the year and hotter highest temp days.
I was driving down Cumberland Highway last year in Feb and the car thermometer said 45C. Wow. At what point does the temp become too high to be habitable?
What is causing it is up for debate. Is part of cause for the heated discussion the lack of responsibility we all play for trashing the environment?
Global population is approaching 7 billion. China now has a large middle class. Think of how much more pollution must be occurring each year from the growth of global middle class alone. How much that pollution affects the environment is matter of degree only. The fact it must be doing something should be fairly clear. To argue it is doing nothing, to me, is irresponsible and probably done by those polluting the most.
Other cycles are present like Sun precession which also correlates beautifully with previous climate warmings. But c'mon - does anyone really believe you can burn hydrocarbons to the degree of trillions of gallons and not expect some sort of adverse effect?
We are way overdue for some smart guy to invent a clean energy source rather than a Facebook.
Hydrogen fuel cells look promising but have a ways to go. In Melbourne there is a company that makes a Mini Blue Gen fuel call that runs off natural gas and virtually no pollution. It makes 2kva of power. Awesome.
It is a confusing subject. I can state with complete confidence apart from any talks or reports that NSW is definitely a hotter place on average than it was when I was a kid. It has definitely gotten hotter, wilder weather both hot and cold, hotter days earlier in the year and hotter highest temp days.
Sydney, definately. NSW, doubt it. There are only a couple of places in NSW that have a consistent data plot for temp and rainfall for the last 150 odd years, most other places have been moved within the last 50 years so you cannot get a true indication, but Sydney (Observatory Hill) and Dubbo (main st) are two such sites.
Sydney shows a consistent temperature rise for last 100 years, coinciding with its growth. Dubbo on the other hand has not, if anything Dubbo is now slightly cooler in summer and slightly warmer in winter and slightly wetter than the last 150 year average.
My big bugbear on all the climate debate is how certain pieces of information are totally ignored(very UN scientific) and the positives of global warming are never mentioned.
Fluctuations in solar radiation of just 1 % will alter the earth's climate. We are not at present able to measure this .At this stage, there is nothing we can do about this.
The climate doomsayers say Venus is an example of runaway greenhouse. hello, Venus has a particularly thick atmosphere and is much closer to the sun, hence considerably higher solar radiation input over billions of years.
What is the major greenhouse gas?............................... ..........yes, it is water vapour.CO2 is a very minor contributor.
Our planet has had much higher CO2 levels in the past, and no runaway greenhouse.In fact it was a very verdant place, the carboniferous era. Perhaps us humans are on this planet to recycle that carbon buried under the ground as coal to get the CO2 back for the plants.
Many plants use MOST of their water in the transpiration process to extract CO2 from the atmosphere. CO2 is a limiting factor in plant growth. This means higher yields in more arid conditions. Is the general public ever allowed to hear this?
Fossil records, ice core analysis etc show the planet goes through its ups and downs in temperature- before humans were on this planet. How arrogant are we as a species that think we have such control of the climate.More harm is done by our population spread induced habitat destruction than the CO2 release.Perhaps we need to cull the human species, perhaps by 90% to be CO2 neutral?
In the distant past, fossil history has shown many instances of climatic change. A species must adapt or become extinct. As a species, we must adapt or become extinct in a sea of our own foolishness.
The whole climate debate is stewing in its own rhetoric and almost religous fervor.
As for astronomy, more clouds = less photonic input.
Water vapour is a greenhouse gas. The amount of water in the atmosphere depends on temperature. The warmer it gets the more water vapour. Unfortunately water freezes at 0 C. If all the CO2 in the atmosphere was removed the temperature would drop by up to 30C. As the average temperature of the Earth is 14C we would very soon have snowball Earth and the resultant albedo of the lovely reflecting ice would really cool the planet. You would then need huge amounts of CO2 to unfreeze it. Earth without its atmosphere of greenhouse gases would be very cold indeed.
The concentration of CO2 is the main driver of climate change with a constant Sun. There are many feedbacks but they are understood by climate scientists.
I could go into the complexities of all the tipping points but in my humble opinion we are heating our Spaceship Earth by dumping CO2 into the atmosphere. The projected estimates of temperature rises have a better than 90% probabilty. It may be far worse as very soon the oceans and dwindling forest cover will not absorb as much as they have in the past.
The climate, oceanographic, meterological etc communities are simply not arguing about all this, there is overall general agreement about the effects we are having on our global climate through our production of CO2, it is only the illinformed and lay persons that are arguing these points and having the debate - it's positively ridiculous....
This is the point from which "denialists" come from, that the science has yet to be proven fallible or infallible...
Maybe, but not my viewpoint.
I do think on curent evidence that pumping significant amounts of C02 is having, and will have, an significant effect on the global climate...it's just the magnitude of this I have a problem with...hence my cautious comments there.
That said, there is overwhelming evidence that a species can and does cause change to its environment (suggestion: read some of James Lovelock's work here).
To think 7 billion humans cannot have an effect on a globe just 12,700km wide beggars belief.
Last edited by Peter Ward; 29-03-2011 at 10:07 AM.
