Posted on 07/11/2007 12:33:30 AM PDT by neverdem
Overview
Without the impact of solar radiation, the temperature on the earth would be about the same as the temperature of space, which is about -454 C. The amount of radiation reaching the earth is about 1,368 watts per square meter. This is a vast amount of energy, which would require the simultaneous output of 1.7 billion of our largest power plants to match. About 70 percent of this solar energy is absorbed and 30 percent is reflected. However, the amount of solar energy reaching the earth is not constant, but varies in several independent cycles of different degrees of magnitude, which may or may not reinforce each other.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. at LIVE EARTH
Kennedy calls "climate change" deniers to be "traitors" guilty of "treason," and that he'll "see all of you on the barricades." The video has been yanked from other websites. If you haven't heard it, click the link before it is yanked there too. It's still working and only 6 minutes long.
I can’t help the lettering used in the graphics at the source, but it has references.
Garlic 'may cut cow flatulence' (new way to fight global warming?)
The Pharmacology of Chelation Therapy courtesy of FreeKeys. Beware of quackery on the net.
FReepmail me if you want on or off my health and science ping list.
This is why we need the Fairness Doctrine. If we had the Fairness Doctrine we could eliminate all discussion of solar radiation as a cause of warmth. We need the government to mandate what we can and cannot talk about on this, and all other, subjects.
Bzzt. Wrong answer. Temperature is only defined above -273.15 C (0 K). Even if the author meant degrees F, he failed to take into account the decay of radioactive material in the Earth that drives the massive planetary convection cycle that causes the plates to move. The surface temperature would certainly be much lower, but heat would still be transferred to the surface from deeper layers.
I just listened to the RFKjr speech. The writer of this article is obviously one of the “indentured servants of the oil industry”, suggesting (can you imagine) that solar radiation is related in any way to warmth.
I vaguely remember reading an article that claimed without the sunlight ,the surface temperature of the Earth would soon fall to an average -40 F. Supposedly the heat of the core leaking out would keep it that “warm” for a long time. -40F would be cold enough to freeze all water including the oceans ;I suppose some sort of life might cling precariously to the temperate zone around active volcanos.
Another science fiction story of the 1950? had the survivors scooping buckets of frozen oxygen from the bitter outside and leaving them to melt by the fireside.The science often gets swept aside by artistic license.
Y’all are putting a lot of your eggs into an empirical basket.
If I thought credible experts disagreed about a complex empirical question, I wouldn’t think it appropriate to have a confident view on the matter.
But hey, YMMV :-))
An excellent article. Thanks for posting. I await with great anticipation the demise of the anthropogenic global warming fraud. Nothing would please me more than to see all of the doomsters have their “theory” relegated to the dust bin of history.
The point is that the increased heat causes outgassing of CO2 from the ocean - but that the heat comes first. Increased atmospheric CO2 is a BYPRODUCT of high insolation/incident solar radiation. The oceans are so vast that there is an (average) 800 yr lag between increased temperature and increased CO2 in the athmosphere. This has been shown from the Vostok Ice cores (see below)
Here with the graphs superimposed:
Traitors to what ? Is there a Planetary Constitution ? Does that constitution state that human freedoms must be limited to prevent climate change ?
And poor Sinfull, Ginfull, humans think they have something to do with all this variation. Just like the ant walking on the wagon wheel, says “look at the dust I am raising.Better ones than us are in charge of these things.
barbra ann
As much as I long to have the current crop of alamists (global warming this time) be humbled and embarrassed, it appears that the earlier global cooling alarmists just might have the last laugh. Hark! The ice age cometh!
This is an excellent article covering a lot of information about the historical climate and greenhouse gases that the climate scientists refuse to talk about.
Dr. Merrifield should be encouraged to publish more articles.
When I see that combined chart of temp’s and CO2 levels, I always wonder if man-released CO2 is the only thing keeping us from sliding (delaying our inevitable slide!) into a 10,000 year Ice Age.
The American Thinker is not thinking too well Absolute Zero is about -273 C (-454 F).
First of all, where is he getting this: This might account for the very recent net cessation of emission of green house gases into the atmosphere starting about 1988, in spite of increasing generation of anthropomorphically-sourced industrial-based green house gases.
It makes no sense whatsoever. Methane emissions briefly hit a plateau, but CO2 is constantly rising. He makes this point three times; no footnotes indicate his source. He cites Figure V, which is unreadable and unsourced.
2. Curiously, NASA and the Russian Observatory both report that total solar radiation now has peaked, and all these cycles may be simultaneously in decline.
Total solar irradiance (the output of the Sun) has not shown a significant change for the past 30-50 years. Willson's result is tenuous and disputable. But it is not clear if this means solar output or incident solar radiation. If he's talking Milankovitch cycles, you don't see measurable changes from them in a decade.
3. About 500 years after the Medieval period, another surge of greenhouse gasses initiated the Renaissance, which was followed by an unexplained "Little Ice Age" from about 1600 to about 1750. (This was coincident with the Maunder Solar Radiation Minimum)
Why does he (twice) say the Little Ice Age was unexplained and yet cites the Maunder Minimum? Sloppy. Wat it solar-forced or not?
4. Then, in 1000 A.D., a fourth surge of carbon dioxide accompanied the Medieval Warming Period, during which much of the ice and snow on Greenland melted; for the following 200 years the Danes farmed Greenland.
There's no indication from any ice cores of a significant rise in CO2 around 1000 AD. 
Surge? What surge?
5. NASA data indicate that the climate on Mars is the warmest in decades, the planet's polar ice cap is shrinking, the ice in lower latitudes has disappeared, and a Martian ice age may be terminating. (15) This phenomenon appears to involve solar radiation, which has been increasing for the last 100 years.
Wrong (as I've noted numerous times before). See point 1 in my profile. It does not involve solar radiation, and the simplest way to note that is if it did, Earth would be subjected to considerably greater effects, BECAUSE WE'RE CLOSER TO THE SUN. (I believe the notable Freeper AFPhys pointed this out in a different thread -- and if the Sun was forcing changes on Jupiter or Triton, human civilization would be at an end, because the changes on Earth would be unsurvivable.)
And that's just a start.
Probably the main reason that I've drastically curtailed my activities on this subject here (other than my drastically changed schedule) is the amount of -- drivel -- like this that is purported to be useful. It seems like any T, D, or H with a science degree thinks they can string together a hodgepodge of stuff and pawn it off on some conservative media source that laps it up like a dog on vomit. Much like the "Deniers" series Lawrence Salomon wrote. If we conservatives are supposed to be the reasonable knowledgeables, then junk like this should not see the light of day.
agere_contra: See point 5 of my profile, especially note reference 10. The warming of the oceans during a glacial/interglacial transition can only account for, directly -- about 20% of the total atmospheric CO2 increase. The remainder is probably due to alteration of the oceanic circulation which increases deep-sea ventilation rates. Not the same effect as simple warming.
I will now slink back into my hole.
Mysterious Stabilization of Atmospheric Methane May Buy Time in Race to Stop Global Warming
So methane may still be in a plateau -- CO2 is not.
Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide - Mauna Loa
He meant degrees F. Even more sloppiness.
In my main post, I meant point #2 in my profile, not point #1.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.