Re: Sunspots hit new highs

From: Robert Grumbine (bobg_at_radix.net)
Date: 11/02/04 

Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2004 15:37:07 -0000

In article <cm0raq$fpt$1@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>,
starburst <chills@deathtospammers.utexas.edu> wrote:
>Martin Frey wrote:
>> "Tom H." <tom_reader@att.nospam*.net> wrote:
>>
>> <Much SNIPped>
>>
>>>Now back to science again, from what I have read there are still many parts
>>>of climate modeling that are big question marks. Three that come to mind
>>>are water vapor, ocean currents, and sunspot activity. Water vapor (and its
>>>condensation into clouds) plays a big roll in greenhouse warming, but its
>>>concentration varies widely both in time and in space, and a good model for
>>>this seems unavailable. So, if the models choose to neglect (or poorly
>>>calculate) the factors that are not well known, then the accuracy of the
>>>model could be way off.
>>
>>
>> We do seem to be in a period of less climate stability/predictability.
>
>I honestly don't know if this is reality or simply perception. Accurate
>records of climate have only been kept for 100 years or so, and records
>of climate taken from space, which would seem the most independent of
>local environmental issues (like increasing pavement in the region of
>the measurement, for example) have only been kept for around 20 or 30
>years. Who's to say that the yearly fluctuations we see today are not in
>part due to the increased accuracy of our ability to measure?

  The people who study climate proxies, of which there are many, would
be the ones. The interannual variability of recent years versus earlier
years is also testable on a local basis. While good global surface
temperature records only go back to about 1880, local areas go back
to the 1600's.

>> Why? What has changed? Maybe sunspots, maybe ocean currents, maybe
>> something we know nothing about.
>>
>> But also the amount of CO2 has gone up steeply and among all the
>> natural factors that produce CO2 man's the increase is in step with
>> man's increased use of fossil fuels. There is at least a posibility of
>> a connection.
>
>Agreed, but it seems to me that the output of a decent sized volcano, of
>which there are several each year, would swamp the amount of CO2 and SO2
>produced by humans. It's true that we are putting a lot of junk into the
>atmosphere, but is it comparable to the amount produced by natural
>phenomena? I'm not asking this argumentatively - I'm curious. If anyone
>could point me to some info that lays this out clearly, I'd be obliged.

  The FAQs by Jan Schloerer at my site (below) answers this in detail.
In brief, yes, human output of CO2 (and methane, and various other
greenhouse gases) is indeed the source for the observed increase in
atmospheric concentrations.

  Note that I answered a slightly different question than you asked.
My answer was for the increase in atmospheric CO2, while you asked
about total fluxes. The thing is, the totals were fairly well balanced
for the, say, 2000 years before human activity became large. The increase,
and consequent climate change (if any, a point for a different post),
is the scientific matter at hand.

[snip] 

-- 
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much 
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they 
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT: interesting global warming quote found elsewhwere
    ... up in LTSpice models as well as climate models. ... physics is applicable to the earth's atmosphere is fairly clearly ... clear is that more CO2 means a warmer climate. ... core data has more or less killed off. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Widescreen TVs a major contributor to the Global Warmigg Crisis.
    ... climate then you are an even bigger arse than you make out. ... The science underpinning global warming has nothing to do with the "nanny ... Atmospheric levels of CO2 are increasing due to human activities, ... There is growing evidence that the CO2 in the atmosphere is regulated by ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: Global warming test
    ... climate change was addressed in "Climate Change 2001: ... lead and ingest more CO2 into the atmosphere to cool it? ... Water is a greenhouse gas. ...
    (sci.military.naval)
  • Re: Climatology: a wonderful science
    ... represent CO2 coming out of solution as the oceans warm up. ... in the atmosphere, so that the oceans would seem to be dissolving more ... His ideas about clouds as negative feedback seem likely to be equally ... The paper isn't about climate modelling as such, ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Global Warming >
    ... Human-produced CO2 ... it simply cannot drive warming trends. ... CO2 is a small part of the total atmosphere is a red herring in this context. ... lived to change the climate. ...
    (rec.aviation.piloting)