PDA

View Full Version : AGW is Dead



Wild Cobra
07-01-2010, 02:36 PM
You can thank Dr. Glassman for killing it.

The Cause Of Earth’s Climate Change Is The Sun (http://library.crossfit.com/free/pdf/CFJ_JGlassman_SolarGlobalWarming.pdf) (clean pdf format)

THE CAUSE OF EARTH'S CLIMATE CHANGE IS THE SUN (http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2010/03/sgw.html) (original blog with questions and remarks)

Last of the article:


V. CONCLUSIONS

A. SOLAR RADIATION PATTERN MATCHES EARTH’S TEMPERATURE

The imprint of the Sun is on Earth’s climate. The signal is unusually strong among the class of all climate signals, matching the entire record of global average surface temperature based on data from instruments. The imprinted signal is not visible in the broadband, Total Solar Irradiation model, but can be seen by filtering, much as spectral analysis reveals significant sinusoidal frequency components. And what is significant depends not on the source – the Sun -- but on the receiver – Earth. Moreover, because the problem is thermodynamic, and the medium, heat, has capacity but not inertia, temperature will not contain natural frequencies to resonate with a source.

B. EARTH’S NATURAL RESPONSES DICTATE WHAT IS IMPORTANT FROM THE SUN.

The ocean dominates the natural climate processes on Earth, and its three dimensional currents have the effect of storing and releasing energy and gases after a number of finite delays. According to this model, Earth should selectively reinforce and suppress finite delays within the structure of solar radiation. Application of the most elementary finite-time filter, the fixed time, running trend, reveals a pair of components of solar radiation, one major (S134) and one minor (S46), that combine linearly in the ratio of 5:1 to match Earth’s temperature history as known by instruments.

C. SIGNAL SELECTION & AMPLIFICATION.

For the conclusions reached in this paper, the energy in S134 is sufficient by itself. However, it is not sufficient as a radiative forcing were it to be received at the surface of Earth to have a measurable affect on climate. However, the accuracy of the model in matching Earth’s temperature record indicates that an amplifying process must operate on solar radiation.

1. ALBEDO AMPLIFICATION

The obvious choice for the amplifier of solar radiation is cloud albedo, neglected in GCMs, but easily shown to be the most powerful temperature feedback in Earth’s climate. Furthermore, the conventional model for Earth’s radiation budget contains open-loop processes known to affect the extent of cloud cover, and hence cloud albedo. Most significant among these processes is atmospheric absorption of incoming solar radiation. This absorption affects the temperature lapse rate to warm the atmosphere, but heretofore climate studies did not apply this short wave effect to the extent of cloud cover. The model advanced for Earth’s variable response to solar radiation is empirical, but requiring few coefficients to match the long records of temperature on Earth to appropriately filtered solar energy.

2. FAST & SLOW ALBEDO FEEDBACK

In consideration of all the processes and observations, cloud albedo must be modeled with both a fast reaction, positive feedback, and a slow reaction, negative feedback. The fast reaction is a positive feedback with respect to solar insolation, amplifying variations in solar radiation as it imparts energy to Earth’s surface, including the surface layer of the ocean. The slow reaction is a negative feedback with respect to surface temperature. It operates through the increase in humidity that accompanies a rise especially in ocean surface layer temperature. The fast reaction amplifies TSI, while at the same time the slow reaction mitigates warming, including that from the TSI it amplified.

Not recognized by IPCC is that feedback exists with respect to a flow variable. This fact is not even recognizable within IPCC’s radiative forcing paradigm because it has no flow variables. Consequently, IPCC models feedback loops as correlations between variables (e.g., TAR Figures 7.4, 7.6, 7.7, & 7.8, pps. 439, 445, 448, & 454 respectively), and not as confluences in energy, mass, or information flow between sources external and internal to the system. Cloud albedo fast response operates on short wave radiation directly through the parameter of the temperature at cloud level. Cloud albedo slow response operates on surface temperature indirectly through the parameter of humidity, especially as released by the ocean.

D. CLIMATE CHANGE IS NOT ANTHROPOGENIC.

On the scale of the instrumental record of Earth’s surface temperature over the last 160 years, humans have had no effect, and the Solar Global Warming model advanced here would predict none. To the extent that IPCC might presume that human activities have altered Earth’s temperature record, the effect is imaginary, absent some sentient extraterrestrial force that managed to keep the Sun synchronized with Earth’s average surface temperature.

IPCC claims to have evidence of the fingerprint of man on Earthly gas and temperature processes are unsubstantiated. Each has a basis in graphical trickery. Two of these claims falsely demonstrate relationships known mathematically: the rate of CO2 increase compared to the rate of O2 decrease, and the rate of fossil fuel emissions compared to the rate of decrease in the isotopic weight of atmospheric CO2 based on mass balance principles. Other claims rely on investigatormanufactured data from ancient records blended into modern records, where the former are averages by a process requiring a year to centuries, while the latter are relatively instantaneous. The records requiring a year are tree ring reductions, while the others are measurements from ice cores that average gas concentrations over a range of couple of decades to a millennium and a half.

E. GREENHOUSE GASES DO NOT CAUSE CLIMATE CHANGE.

Just as the Earth’s temperature record following the Sun eliminates humans from the climate equation, so is the fate of the greenhouse effect. To the extent that the greenhouse effect is correlated with Earth’s temperature history, the cause must link from the Sun to the greenhouse gases. The alternative is the silly proposition that solar radiation variations might be caused by changes in greenhouse gas concentrations.

F. AGW POST-MORTEM.

AGW is dead. Here are some topics for the post-mortem. Forensic analysis of proxy reductions for correlations caused by data set sharing, and subjective smoothing into the instrument record. Forensic analysis of whether proxy temperature reductions have any validity. An à priori model for the tapped delay line representation of climate based on ocean currents. An à priori model for cloudiness as it responds to short wave radiation.

DarrinS
07-01-2010, 02:55 PM
R.i.p.

George Gervin's Afro
07-01-2010, 02:57 PM
Home | Climate Realists
The Realists Take on Climate Change: Man Made Climate Change is a lie, why pay Green Taxes when global temperatures have started to fall despite CO2 output continuing ...

:lmao

so we have global warming deniers claiming the sun heats the earth.. that settles it for me.:rolleyes

George Gervin's Afro
07-01-2010, 03:05 PM
Other studies on solar influence on climate
This conclusion is confirmed by many studies finding that while the sun contributed to warming in the early 20th Century, it has had little contribution (most likely negative) in the last few decades:

Erlykin 2009: "We deduce that the maximum recent increase in the mean surface temperature of the Earth which can be ascribed to solar activity is 14% of the observed global warming."

Benestad 2009: "Our analysis shows that the most likely contribution from solar forcing a global warming is 7 ± 1% for the 20th century and is negligible for warming since 1980."

Lockwood 2008: "It is shown that the contribution of solar variability to the temperature trend since 1987 is small and downward; the best estimate is -1.3% and the 2? confidence level sets the uncertainty range of -0.7 to -1.9%."
Lean 2008: "According to this analysis, solar forcing contributed negligible long-term warming in the past 25 years and 10% of the warming in the past 100 years..."

Lockwood 2008: "The conclusions of our previous paper, that solar forcing has declined over the past 20 years while surface air temperatures have continued to rise, are shown to apply for the full range of potential time constants for the climate response to the variations in the solar forcings."

Ammann 2007: "Although solar and volcanic effects appear to dominate most of the slow climate variations within the past thousand years, the impacts of greenhouse gases have dominated since the second half of the last century."
Lockwood 2007: "The observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanism is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified."

Foukal 2006 concludes "The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978 are too small to have contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30 years."

Scafetta 2006 says "since 1975 global warming has occurred much faster than could be reasonably expected from the sun alone."

Usoskin 2005 conclude "during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source."

Solanki 2004 reconstructs 11,400 years of sunspot numbers using radiocarbon concentrations, finding "solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades".
Haigh 2003 says "Observational data suggest that the Sun has influenced temperatures on decadal, centennial and millennial time-scales, but radiative forcing considerations and the results of energy-balance models and general circulation models suggest that the warming during the latter part of the 20th century cannot be ascribed entirely to solar effects."

Stott 2003 increased climate model sensitivity to solar forcing and still found "most warming over the last 50 yr is likely to have been caused by increases in greenhouse gases."

Solanki 2003 concludes "the Sun has contributed less than 30% of the global warming since 1970."

Lean 1999 concludes "it is unlikely that Sun–climate relationships can account for much of the warming since 1970."

Waple 1999 finds "little evidence to suggest that changes in irradiance are having a large impact on the current warming trend."

Frolich 1998 concludes "solar radiative output trends contributed little of the 0.2°C increase in the global mean surface temperature in the past decade."



Wild Cobra-I do well with my gut feelings at times, and understand propaganda.

EmptyMan
07-01-2010, 06:31 PM
Home | Climate Realists
The Realists Take on Climate Change: Man Made Climate Change is a lie, why pay Green Taxes when global temperatures have started to fall despite CO2 output continuing ...

:lmao

so we have global warming deniers claiming the sun heats the earth.. that settles it for me.:rolleyes

u mad you've been swindled by the poppycock?

Winehole23
07-01-2010, 07:12 PM
R.i.p.Too grandiose.

If the IPCC AGW thesis falls, that is not the death of AGW as such, but only of the most prominent thesis relating thereto. (A very significant victory, if in fact it is one.)

Wild Cobra
07-02-2010, 10:52 AM
Home | Climate Realists
The Realists Take on Climate Change: Man Made Climate Change is a lie, why pay Green Taxes when global temperatures have started to fall despite CO2 output continuing ...
Yes, because it's true.

It's a very comprehensive article that simply kills the accepted theory of alarmist. Dr. Glassman's used all the IPCC data sets, and made a model that tracks better with climate change using the sun's changing heat. There are things he proves false about the IPCC's explained methodology. I remember on of them being 1/2 way through the PDF link. Page 24 or 48. It deals with the carbon isotopes discrediting the IPCC's so called facts.


:lmao

so we have global warming deniers claiming the sun heats the earth.. that settles it for me.:rolleyes

Rolling your eye's over that?

Basic science tells us the sun is the source for more than 99.99% of the earth's heat. Changes in solar output will change our temperature. The 11 years solar radiation average from the maunder minima to present day has increased by 0.18%. When you apply that to a the simplified NASA/GISS greenhouse gas model, it increases the atmospheric radiation by 0.93 watts per square meter. The IPCC claims the 1.6 watt per square meter increase they use has increased the earths temperature (if I remember right) by a range of 0.6 to 0.85 degrees. 0.93 watts is clearly more than half of the 1.6 watts. Since the AR4 has come out, the IPCC has had to revise their black carbon radiative forcing upwards to I think 0.3 watts. I stated this number before, and just don't want to keep looking it up. In any case, it's far more than they said in the AR4. Anyway, the 0.93 + 0.3 is 1.23 watts. That's more than 75% of the heat component for global warming since the maunder Minima. Best case considering this, CO2 is only responsible 0.42 watts of the 1.6 watt stated increase.

Wild Cobra
07-02-2010, 10:55 AM
Too grandiose.

If the IPCC AGW thesis falls, that is not the death of AGW as such, but only of the most prominent thesis relating thereto. (A very significant victory, if in fact it is one.)
Dr. Glassman soundly blows away a few common thoughts of global warming. Once other scientists review this work, and it spreads, i think we will see the end of the global warming scare. That is of course as long as we don't lose out freedom of speech.

RandomGuy
07-02-2010, 12:42 PM
You can thank Dr. Glassman for killing it.

The Cause Of Earth’s Climate Change Is The Sun (http://library.crossfit.com/free/pdf/CFJ_JGlassman_SolarGlobalWarming.pdf) (clean pdf format)

THE CAUSE OF EARTH'S CLIMATE CHANGE IS THE SUN (http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2010/03/sgw.html) (original blog with questions and remarks)

Last of the article:

"THE CAUSE OF EARTH'S CLIMATE CHANGE IS THE SUN"

Does the IPCC report state that there is little/no role for climate change of the sun?

RandomGuy
07-02-2010, 12:54 PM
Dr. Glassman soundly blows away a few common thoughts of global warming. Once other scientists review this work, and it spreads, i think we will see the end of the global warming scare. That is of course as long as we don't lose out freedom of speech.

You really really sound like a 9-11 conspiracy buff here. They too, just *know* that all their cause needs is for real scientists to read their evidence.

My lunch hour is up, but I did spend some time thumbing through it, and he does mostly seem to have backed up his points with some attempts at reasoning and data.

He should get out there and do some research to support his conclusions, so it can be given some proper hearing with feedback.

Hopefully, if his critques are truly valid the IPCC et al. will address it.

Way beyond my ability/time to get into.

Wild Cobra
07-02-2010, 12:58 PM
"THE CAUSE OF EARTH'S CLIMATE CHANGE IS THE SUN"

Does the IPCC report state that there is little/no role for climate change of the sun?
They downgrade the role of the sun to 0.12 watts of the 1.6 watts of global warming.

A simple proof is that of the 0.18% increase of the suns energy since the maunder Minima, the increased atmospheric radiative forcing is 0.12 watts. the IPCC in fact does acknowledge that as "direct forcing" from the sun. The rest warms the surface, radiates more from the earth by 0.18%, and when increased by the greenhouse effect feedback loop, add another 0.81 watts yet to the greenhouse effect.

A total 0f 0.93 watts of net radiative forcing increase from just 0.18% of solar energy increase. Have to count the indirect forcing along with the direct.

Wild Cobra
07-02-2010, 01:03 PM
He should get out there and do some research to support his conclusions, so it can be given some proper hearing with feedback.

Hopefully, if his critques are truly valid the IPCC et al. will address it.

Way beyond my ability/time to get into.
Go to the link to his blog instead of the PDF file, and you will find he has five other articles. Try this one titled IPCC'S FATAL ERRORS (http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2009/03/_internal_modeling_mistakes_by.html) last revised 9/30/09. After the conclusion, there are several questions and answers from novice to experts. They range from 3/31/09 to 2/28/10.

boutons_deux
07-02-2010, 02:01 PM
GW is not dead.

anthropogenic GW is the false debate brought by bad-faith dupes financed by the oil/coal/gas co's and their investors.

Wild Cobra
07-02-2010, 02:06 PM
GW is not dead.

anthropogenic GW is the false debate brought by bad-faith dupes financed by the oil/coal/gas co's and their investors.
I wish you would stay out of arguments when you cannot back up what you say. Sure, this has a bearing on those industries. Of course they will fight lies about things that affect them. Wouldn't you do the same?

boutons_deux
07-02-2010, 02:54 PM
Tons of evidence, can you google?, that the oil/gas/coal/carbon industries are buying "scientist" whores to counter global warming research because they are huge polluters (but not as big as US DoD) and their huge profits would be hurt if they were required to invest in capping their pollution.

WC is one of the dupes, blinded by his conservative ideology.

Wild Cobra
07-02-2010, 02:56 PM
Tons of evidence, can you google?, that the oil/gas/coal/carbon industries are buying "scientist" whores to counter global warming research because they are huge polluters (but not as big as US DoD) and their huge profits would be hurt if they were required to invest in capping their pollution.

WC is one of the dupes, blinded by his conservative ideology.
Still waiting for you to say something intelligent on the topic.

Thompson
07-03-2010, 12:40 AM
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

There's warming happening on Mars too. You know what this means... those dirty oil/coal/gas/carbon industries are warming Mars to trick us into thinking they're not causing Earth's global warming. My gosh they're nefarious.

Wild Cobra
07-03-2010, 10:16 AM
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

There's warming happening on Mars too. You know what this means... those dirty oil/coal/gas/carbon industries are warming Mars to trick us into thinking they're not causing Earth's global warming. My gosh they're nefarious.
Yep. We screwed things up so bad here, it's affecting mars too. No way it can be the sun getting hotter. If anyone ever was able to prove that, powerful people would lose some of that power.

Wild Cobra
07-03-2010, 10:41 AM
Wild Cobra-I do well with my gut feelings at times, and understand propaganda.
I may not be so good at politics, but I do understand science. Do you?

I continue to laugh at your pathetic nature. I use my gut feeling on one post, that proves to be correct, and you act as if i always respond that way... from just one example...

Fucking pathetic, you are.

Wild Cobra
07-03-2010, 10:45 AM
Too grandiose.

If the IPCC AGW thesis falls, that is not the death of AGW as such, but only of the most prominent thesis relating thereto. (A very significant victory, if in fact it is one.)
Perhaps.

What really gets me is that there is inadequate evidence to claim AGW, and it's a shame so many people fall prey to the propaganda. This 48 p[age paper by Dr. Glassman is very comprehensive at proving the IPCC wrong, and showing getter correlation to the sun's activity than anything other theory out there.

Aggie Hoopsfan
07-03-2010, 11:00 AM
Tons of evidence, can you google?, that the oil/gas/coal/carbon industries are buying "scientist" whores to counter global warming research because they are huge polluters (but not as big as US DoD) and their huge profits would be hurt if they were required to invest in capping their pollution.

WC is one of the dupes, blinded by his conservative ideology.


Why is it not okay for them to 'buy' scientists, but it's okay for the leading GW advocates, like Gore, several of the IPCC members, etc. who sit on boards of green energy companies and stand to make billions if not trillions, to do so?