Satellite shows regional variation in warming from sun during solar cycle(Major admission made!)

eurekalert.org/ ^ | 13-Nov-2007

[Names Ash Housewares]

With mounting concern over the alteration of Earth's surface and atmosphere by humans, it is increasingly important to understand natural "forcings" on the sun-Earth system that impact both climate and space weather, said Woods. Such natural forcing includes heat from the sun's radiation that causes saltwater and freshwater evaporation and drives Earth's water cycle.

Increases in UV radiation from the sun also heat up the stratosphere -- located from 10 miles to 30 miles above Earth -- which can cause significant changes in atmospheric circulation patterns over the planet, affecting Earth's weather and climate, he said. "We will never fully understand the human impact on Earth and its atmosphere unless we first establish the natural effects of solar variability."

[GRRRRR]

I just want some of these so called experts to explain why that big nasty ice age ended and the mile and a half of ice over the top 1/3 of north america melted??

?

[kalee]

Algore isn’t gonna like this.

[Robert A Cook PE]

Justify your assumption: humans are NOT emitting enough CO2 to change the total GHG effect: Unless you (deliberately) ignore water vapor (which the AGW extremists choose to do), natural carbon dioxide emissions (which are JOINED with human emissions in the measured change!), and natural methane emissions (which are blended with human methane emissions (now static since the early 90’s).

[Eric Blair 2084]

Great collection of research. As Andrew Jackson said “One man with courage makes a majority.”

[dr_lew]

That's how the whole "greenhouse" thing got started, you know. Arrhenius got interested in the cause of the Ice Ages, and wrote a paper, On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground in 1896.

[Hostage]

I described a form of coal plant emission that leads to airborne sulfuric acid. I used carbon emissions but should have modified it to say coal plant emissions. Indeed sulfur is released in the combustion of coal.

Carbon emissions though lead to airborne carbonic acid amongst other things.

The long and short is that it is a good idea to cut back on carbon emissions, and combustible byproducts of fossil fuels for health reasons. This has been the normal trend for decades now.

To refute Gore’s fraud does not mean emissions should be ignored. They will always require minimization for health reasons.

[rmh47]

One problem with your candle analogy is the closed nature of the carbon cycle. We may note that the rate of injection of carbon into the cycle is small compared to the rate of the carbon cycle itself, but we also have to note that the carbon we are injecting has been sequestered in the ground for these many millions of years, and now is being loaded into the cycle in a “geological instant” as they say, and is bound to be a shock [emphasis mine] in one form or another to that cycle.

Now you are doing the very same thing that you so rightly criticized hsalaw for doing when he said that "humans have zero effect on the climate," jumping to an unsubstantiated conclusion.

Human input of carbon into the atmosphere is not "bound to" do anything. It may very well have an effect. It probably does have some effect. It may even have an enormous effect. But it is most certainly not "bound to" do anything except follow its own laws, which we understand, at best, poorly in this instance. Even if we could prove a correlation between CO2 and global temperature, correlation does not prove causation, as I know you realize.

Until we understand the mechanisms, the feedback loops, the moderators, and all the other variables of this exceedingly complex system, then we are making assumptions that may or may not be correct.

[xjcsa]

To refute Gore’s fraud does not mean emissions should be ignored. They will always require minimization for health reasons.

No question. But the bizarre obsession with carbon dioxide at the expense of actual pollutants is a prime example of the upside-down world in which the ecotard crowd lives.

[UCANSEE2]

“And once we establish the natural effects of solar variability, we’ll realize humans have zero effect on the climate. “

I disagree.

I think we will realize that humans have a very small effect on the overall weather, but a larger effect on smaller areas and smaller components of the atmosphere. (what did he say?)

Cities are warmer than surrounding rural areas, but that doesn’t mean that the area above the cities is any warmer or colder than the area above the farms.

We can fractionally alter the formula of the atmosphere by our actions, but it is only temporary, and has no effect on the general adjustment made by a very complex/self-adjusting system of radiation and absorption.

But you are right. It’s all about the Sun.

It is life. Because of it everything on Earth lives and breathes. It’s done pretty good keeping life going for the last kabilllllion years, so maybe it knows what it’s doing.

[topher]

There have been found beneficial uses of increased concentrations of CO2 in the air. One is that the growing cycle of some plants can be reduced by higher concentrations of CO2.

Thus using CO2 in a Greenhouse to grow commercial crops might reduce the cost.

Additionally, I have the wacky idea of the use of SMR as a way to transition from an oil economy to hydrogren.

Steam Methane Reformation taking Natural Gas as input and generates both Hydrogren, heat and CO2.

To put SMR into massive production to replace oil (gasoline/diesel) with hydrogren/natural gas vehicles, the CO2 could be pumped into existing Natuarl Gas formations.

We have at least 4 trillion cubic feet of Natural Gas storage in the US, and there are untapped reserves of Natural Gas in Alaska, Canada, and Mexico that only need pipelines to the US.

This would reduce CO2 emissions, but also save the CO2 for use in agriculture such as growing crops in perhaps 1/3 less time.

I just don't have any research on how plants thrive in a CO2 only environment versus normal air. Certainly, predators of the plants (insects/birds) would not exist in that environment.

This might make some interesting research and might help the US become an agricultural super-nation just with underground CO2 reserves.

But like I said, this is a wacky idea...

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

There are two GW lists that I know of.

[rdl6989]

Shsh! The mighty Goracle might be exposed as a fraudulent fool
if this ever gets out.

[cogitator]

Anybody reading this thread might also want to read the article cited in this thread as well:

Sun and global warming: a cosmic connection?

[cogitator]

Nitrogen and oxygen don’t absorb IR radiation.

[cogitator]

Like a single candle in a room, could heat it over time.

"All of the greenhouse gases created by humans and added to the air since the Industrial Revolution began cause a heating equal to that of two 1-Watt bulbs over every square yard of Earth's surface." (A 1-watt bulb is a small "Christmas tree" bulb.)

[cogitator]

Looking at the ice cores we see CO2 level changes lag temperature changes by 800-1000 years,

This is outdated. More recent results indicate that the "lag" is more like 200 years -- could even be essentially simultaneous.

http://radar.planetizen.com/node/39617

[cogitator]

How topical!

Global dimming and global warming

[cogitator]

I'm constantly impressed by this compendium.

I wish I had the time to devote to it. Since I don't, be happy with it.

[pepsionice]

If I remember correctly...that group that met last year and made up the comment about sun not being the “trigger or cause”...had some issues. I pulled up five or six names listed on that group of articles...and looked at their resumes...all were earth science experts or environmentalists...none were solar scientists. That made me think right off the bat....if you want to talk car mechanics...you don’t talk to some car sales guy....you find an actual mechanic. So I’m still waiting. If anyone finds a actual solar scientist and he says absolutely that the sun isn’t involved in this climate change...then I might have reason to believe him. But show me his resume first.

[Gene Eric]

>> >> “We will never fully understand the human impact on Earth and its atmosphere unless we first establish the natural effects of solar variability.”

It is unlikely we will establish the natural effects of solar variability in our lifetime, and so ...