Skip to comments.Global Warming and Solar Radiation
Posted on 07/11/2007 12:33:30 AM PDT by neverdem
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 ...
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.
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.
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.
So methane may still be in a plateau -- CO2 is not.
He meant degrees F. Even more sloppiness.
In my main post, I meant point #2 in my profile, not point #1.
Thanks ND. But lookie, someone’s repeating the mantra:
“This should settle the debate,” said Mike Lockwood, from the UK’s Rutherford-Appleton Laboratory, who carried out the new analysis together with Claus Froehlich from the World Radiation Center in Switzerland.
‘No Sun link’ to climate change
by Richard Black
BBC Environment Correspondent
Tuesday, 10 July 2007
Unfortunately, we only have one T, D or H without an advanced scientific degree to speak condescendingly to us at every turn, all the while promising to shut up.
Most dogs end up eating their own vomit at days end.
The more I look at those charts from that volcano, the more it reminds me of the static readings one gets measuring an air filter’s effectiveness and air passed right up until the point where it has to be cleaned.
How Holmesian of you.
LOL. I probably still have that story in my SF collection.
That could pretty much be inferred from the ice core data, as well as other indirect measurements of the historical temperature record.
We are due for the Big Cool Down. The actual temperatures are going to lag the solar input somewhat, because the earth has considerable thermal inertia.
It will be worse for my "winter" eczema, but it will shut these fools up. Thanks for the graph.
The most reliable global, regional and local temperature records from around the world display no distinguishable trend up or down over the past century.
The last peak temperatures were around 1940 and 1998, with troughs of low temperature around 1910 and 1970.
I don't doubt NOAA's CO2 data, but I've seen a number of stories that recorded temperatures haven't increased since 1998.
They use computer models that don't account for water in its various forms. Why is new religion of global warming/climate change proselytized by various elements of the left? This is just another scam for social engineering and control of the masses, IMHO.
Good Science bump.
“If we conservatives”
So you say.
I can't please everybody. But I don't claim to be arguing from MY authority, I try to understand, and occasionally demonstrate, what the experts are saying. Truth is truth, no matter if you've got a Ph.D. when you say it or not. I kinda wish I had gotten that Ph.D. in geochemistry, if more people would believe me. But seeing as how on one hand the strong statements of numerous Ph.D. climate scientists can easily be dismissed, but on the other hand one organic chem Ph.D. can get stuff like this article happily accepted by those who need support for their worldview, what good is a Ph.D., really?
Are you doubting that I'm politically conservative because I agree with most climate scientists regarding the likeliest causes and potential magnitude of current global warming?
If that's the case, then it's a shame that scientific accuracy is a political litmus test. I guess you have to believe what Rush Limbaugh said about volcanoes to be a conservative, too.
"Limbaugh insisted that "environmentalists still cannot prove that this [global warming] is man-made." To support this assertion, he claimed, "There have been too many global heating and cooling cycles long before man came along and industrialized the planet, and there have been way too many volcanoes spewing pollution that doubles the amount of the total of all the automobiles ever invented and manufactured in the world."
If I point out that this is demonstrably wrong (as I've done many times), that means I can't be a conservative?
Too bad. From my experience (and in general) conservatives are a lot smarter than liberals. But they sure seem to hit an intellectual wall on global warming. (And that doesn't mean an advocacy of informed, scientifically-grounded skepticism. It means that a lot of otherwise extremely briliant conservatives seem to accept blindly any scientific sounding argument against global warming, no matter what its quality. And that means the bias filter is working quite well on this issue.)
I don't know where he gets this. Even Lindzen admits that the world warmed up 0.6 C over the 20th century. And there's pretty good agreement on +0.4 C since the mid-1980s.
I don't doubt NOAA's CO2 data, but I've seen a number of stories that recorded temperatures haven't increased since 1998.
See point #4 in my profile. And:
"Record warmth in 2005 is notable, because global temperature has not received any boost from a tropical El Niño this year. The prior record year, 1998, on the contrary, was lifted 0.2°C above the trend line by the strongest El Niño of the past century." (NASA)
OK, it's warmed about 0.4 C since 1975. Call it +0.13 C per century (which actually agrees with Spencer and Christy's MSU satellite data analysis, other groups put it higher). So if 1975 is the "0" point, then 1998 should have been 0.3 C warmer than 1985. Instead, it was 0.2 C above the trend line, i.e. 0.5 C. According to the current decadal trend (barring accelerations), it should take 38.5 years for the global temperature to rise 0.5 C. That would be -- 2013. So it's basically unsurprising (and expected) that there hasn't been a year warmer than 1998 yet, even though 2005 was a virtual tie. So we either have to wait until 2013 (or a year with the next large El Nino) to expect a new global temperature "record".
As for social engineering and control of the masses, soma works much better than global warming.
Then what do you make from the increase in CO2, that it is a negligible effect because it is too small?
Most folks seem to agree that the global average increase in temperature is in the range of 0.6 C - 1.0 C over the last century.
How do you account for various observations of planetary warming?
‘Are you doubting that I’m politically conservative’
Are you saying that you are politically conservative?
Always have been, always will be. I'm a member of the Concord Coalition.
self ping for later reading...
The graph indcates current CO2 reading was 360 ppm. Seems like that number is a “projected” value not an “actual measured” value. ??
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.