Re: OT - Hansen acknowledges solar forcing

On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 08:24:29 -0800 (PST), Martin Brown
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On Jan 21, 11:20 am, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 08:45:19 GMT, Jon Kirwan

<j...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 01:41:13 +0000, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Jon Kirwan wrote:

That selection was as narrow as a selection can get, really.  Better
would have been to at least cite the paragraph to provide a frame for
understanding it.  At a minimum.

Go to hell you lying political creep.

Emotional, I see.  Explains your lacks in understanding the science, I
suppose, if you are that easily overwhelmed by emotions when trying to
read from the body of peer-reviewed climate science papers.  I still
marvel that you said I was the person who originally turned you into
what you've now obviously become.

Meanwhile, Raveninghorde stated, "Hansen admits solar forcing higher
than previous estimates" but apparently either failed to read the PDF
he cited or else left out the context sufficiently to change the
meaning any reasonable person might take if they didn't go read it for
themselves.  I thought that was a little disingenuous, but it's
possible it was just laziness on Raveninghorde's part.

Hansen is a leader in AGW. I thought that him ackowledging an
increased role for solar forcing compared to the "consensus" was a
significant change in attitude. To me the detailed data was less
important than the political shift on solar forcing.

I don't know where you got the idea that it is either one or the
other. You might find it interesting to read the actual IPCC science
reports instead of right wing denialist propaganda.

I'm not an either/or man and I don't read denialist propaganda. I
don't deny CO2 and temperature are changing. I do doubt the magnitude
of the A in AGW is close to what Hansen has suggested. And Hansen is
more politician than scientist now. So any back tracking on his part
is interesting.


It is blindingly obvious on geological timescales that the sun
necessarily will get brighter as it evolves along the main sequence.
There are also smaller periodic sunspot related modulations in its
output. We have satellite data for the solar output over the main
period where AGW has really started to bite. The best estimates at
present are that over the past century roughly half the warming has
come from natural changes in solar brightness (based on proxy
measurments of global temperature like the isotope ratio of snow in
ice cores) and the rest from AGW focing in the final 3 decades. If the
latter component continues to grow as most scientists think it will
then we will have to throttle back and become a lot more energy
efficient or move to higher ground.

Solar insolation is not the only solar factor that impacts on climate.
Unfortunately many in the AGW camp deny solar factors. Maunder
minimum/little ice age for example. Or the solar maximum that caused
the medieval warm period.

Best estimates? What makes them the best? Is warmer weather for 3
decades climate change? Is cooler weather for the last 10 years
global cooling?

Most scientists? How many? How many disagree?

You seem slightly caught up in the AGW hype.


And finally, Raveninghorde appears to have failed to note that the
peak-to-peak insolation, in recent times, is 0.2W/m^2 riding on 1366
W/m^2.  The current "dip" due to the unusual recent behavior of the
spotless sun of late is about 1/10th of that difference, or about
0.02W/m^2.  We're talking 14ppm here.

It's not even worth the time of day.

It is a minor correction. But all corrections that improve the models
are welcome.


Agreed.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Daggers Are Drawn Over Revived Cosmic Ray-Climate Link
    ... climate change scientists thought they had driven a silver ... stake through the idea that fluctuations in solar activity were behind ... changes in Earth's magnetic field to temperature variations in recent ...
    (soc.culture.romanian)
  • Re: The Sun Also Sets
    ... Climate Change: Not every scientist is part of Al Gore's mythical ... Scientists worried about a new ice age seek funding to better ... observe something bigger than your SUV - the sun. ... a solar researcher and project director for Canada's ...
    (rec.crafts.metalworking)
  • Re: OT - Global Warming For Those Who Claim it is an Al Gore Illusion
    ... climate of the earth geosystem has been changing constantly for ever. ... In 1991, before Al Gore first shouted that the Earth was in the balance, the Danish Meteorological Institute released a study using data that went back centuries that showed that global temperatures closely tracked solar cycles. ... Now, Canadian scientists are seeking additional funding for more and better "eyes" with which to observe our sun, which has a bigger impact on Earth's climate than all the tailpipes and smokestacks on our planet combined. ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
  • The Sun Also Sets
    ... The Sun Also Sets ... Climate Change: Not every scientist is part of Al Gore's mythical ... Scientists worried about a new ice age seek funding to ... a solar researcher and project director for Canada's ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Re: How science is not done
    ... proportion of scientists support both. ... individual or his statements (once I said that evolution and AGW are ... and AGW is 97% accepted). ... The albedo of snow at the poles against open water makes an important contribution to our present climate. ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
Quantcast