It's called the Sun...and it affects our climate

[Doc Savage Fan]

Have a look at the article again-

Ultraviolet is responsible for heating.

A larger decline means less ultraviolet, not more.

But you commented-

My brain is a bit addled (insomnia sucks) so perhaps it's me, but here's how it reads to me.

Ultraviolet warms and there was a four to six times greater lessening of UV than expected. Lessening means, well, less and therefore there's not as much to heat the atmosphere.

My interpretation is the opposite of what you say. There isn't more heating due to UV, but less.



Someone check my reasoning, because I'm stupid right now.

Thanks for your intelligent response. If I recall correctly there was significant cooling during the data period. I'll look into it.

Edit: The global temperature trend over the study data period (April 2004 to November 2007) appears to be sideways. Anyway...my take on this study is that we have little understanding of the sun's role on our climate. Previously we thought that increased UV (which increase warming of the stratosphere) translated into increased TSI (resulting in increased warming of the troposphere warming). This study suggests that exactly the opposite is true and that UV's effect on our climate has been underestimated by a factor of 4 to 6 times. This flys directly in the face of the 'science is settled' crowd.

 

[zsdersw]

Climate change is a fact of life. The climate in one part of the world will not always be the climate that part will experience in perpetuity. What truly matters is not what causes climate change but how we will adapt to it. Wet areas becoming dry (and dry areas becoming wet) will play a huge part in everyone's food and water supply; a feast for some, a famine for others.

As for the cause(s) of climate change, it is probably best to stop looking for individual factors and look, instead, at the interplay of all of the factors. Solar activity, existing weather fluctuations and patterns, human activity, geological activity are all among the factors. We know nothing about whether one factor is any more significant than any other.

 

[Jaskalas]

Anti science circle jerk is anti science circle jerk....

I was on a ice breaker near Antarctica with a group of people listening to a lecture from a well known scientist. He showed us pictures of the shelf and the major Ice flows and how they have changed in the last 100 years... We were literally looking at the evidence..literally...
Guess what... about 4 morons kept insisting it was the volcanic activity happening way to north in Chile that was melting the ice and creating a waterfall the size of a football stadium....

Peer review to deniers means a blog told me so....

Speaking of which...

There's absolutely no ice loss down there, which is why the intelligent MMGW cultists don't mention it.

 

[zephyrprime]

Of course I noticed...that chart depicts our current level of understanding.

Well then, I guess you are are supporter of the idea of Man Made Global Warming (tm) since the evidence you cite clearly shows in its chart that CO2 is the single largest component that affects a change in the level of solar radiation that affects the earth.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Its funny when the deniers get so excited about this stuff...and when they get their info from the same sources.

Professor Joanna Haigh, of Imperial College London, who led the study, said: “These results are challenging what we thought we knew about the sun’s effect on our climate. However, they only show us a snapshot of the sun’s activity and its behaviour over the three years of our study could be an anomaly.

“We cannot jump to any conclusions based on what we have found during this comparatively short period.

“However, if further studies find the same pattern over a longer period of time, this could suggest that we may have overestimated the sun’s role in warming the planet.”

She cautioned: “It doesn’t give comfort to the climate sceptics at all. It may suggest that we don’t know that much about the sun. It casts no aspersions at all upon the climate models.”

 

[monovillage]

Its funny when the deniers get so excited about this stuff...and when they get their info from the same sources.

Damn those deniers for actually being excited and interested in science!

 

[sandorski]

Damn those deniers for actually being excited and interested in science!

Error-Interest in Science not found

 

[monovillage]

Error-Interest in Science not found

You must be another graduate of whatsamatta U

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Well then, I guess you are are supporter of the idea of Man Made Global Warming (tm) since the evidence you cite clearly shows in its chart that CO2 is the single largest component that affects a change in the level of solar radiation that affects the earth.

As I told you before...the chart reflects our current level of understanding. What I'm saying is that we have very little understanding in some very important and significant areas...mainly extraterrestrial forcings and how they affect our climate.

I believe CO2 is definitely a factor affecting our climate; however, I also believe that there are many complexities, uncertainties, and unknowns existing that we really don't have a clue about...that probably will significantly alter the chart I posted.

I disagree with your conclusion that "CO2 is the single largest component that affects a change in the level of solar radiation that affects the earth". I would say it's more accurate to say clouds....especially cirrus clouds and exactly what mechanisms affect their formation..

Here's an interesting article if such things interest you.
http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/~liougst/Cirrus_&_Climate.pdf

 

[zephyrprime]

As I told you before...the chart reflects our current level of understanding.

And that current level is that there is MMGW.

I disagree with your conclusion that "CO2 is the single largest component that affects a change in the level of solar radiation that affects the earth".

That's not my conclusion at all. That's just what your own article shows clearly in it's chart. Look at the chart. The CO2 box is the biggest. My conclusion was that you believe in ManMade Global Warming.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

And that current level is that there is MMGW.

That's not my conclusion at all. That's just what your own article shows clearly in it's chart. Look at the chart. The CO2 box is the biggest. My conclusion was that you believe in ManMade Global Warming.

Sigh...I plainly told you what I believe and don't know how I can be any clearer.

Edit: BTW that chart is not from the study...I posted it as a reference point to put things into perspective.

 

[TheDoc9]

Are all the 'believers' in this forum the same person? They all seem to say the same thing...

 

[monovillage]

Are all the 'believers' in this forum the same person? They all seem to say the same thing...

They do a pretty good job with their talking points. Here's an interesting study about global linear mean sea level (MSL)

http://www.burtonsys.com/climate/global_msl_trend_analysis.html

I doubt if any of the CAGW will bother reading it since they "know" that sea level is climbing at unprecedented rates even if the scientific evidence says it isn't.

 

[werepossum]

Interesting article. I'm very skeptical of CAGW, especially since it subsumes all possible climate change as "proof" of its theories. However we do know that we put buttloads of CO2 into the atmosphere. And we do know that higher CO2 levels have bad effects (primarily marine and aquatic acidification) as well as good effects (faster plant growth.) And we do know that the most important plant growth is probably marine plankton, which is almost always limited not by available CO2 but by iron and micro-nutrient concentration. So while I'm not buying into the Chicken Little scare "science", I do think it makes good sense to be pouring money into basic as well as targeted research on cost effective cleaner energy as well as CO2 capture, sequestration, and hopefully eventually reuse.

 

[monovillage]

Interesting article. I'm very skeptical of CAGW, especially since it subsumes all possible climate change as "proof" of its theories. However we do know that we put buttloads of CO2 into the atmosphere. And we do know that higher CO2 levels have bad effects (primarily marine and aquatic acidification) as well as good effects (faster plant growth.) And we do know that the most important plant growth is probably marine plankton, which is almost always limited not by available CO2 but by iron and micro-nutrient concentration. So while I'm not buying into the Chicken Little scare "science", I do think it makes good sense to be pouring money into basic as well as targeted research on cost effective cleaner energy as well as CO2 capture, sequestration, and hopefully eventually reuse.

You're going to ruin your standing as an anti-science "denier" if you keep posting these kind of reasonable opinions.

 

[DrPizza]

It would be awesome if the deniers would stop blocking the launch of the dscvr satellite to the Lagrangian point between the Earth and the Sun. With its back to the sun & ability to measure the sun's output & facing toward the Earth, able to measure Earth's albedo, the science can be settled once and for all.

 

[monovillage]

This one ?
http://www.desmogblog.com/nasa-stonewalls-another-us-agency-that-wants-to-launch-dscovr

 

[DrPizza]

This one ?
http://www.desmogblog.com/nasa-stonewalls-another-us-agency-that-wants-to-launch-dscovr

Note the date of the article. NASA was prevented from launching it by the previous administration (Cheney in particular.) It's still sitting in a warehouse in Maryland.

 

[manimal]

Note the date of the article. NASA was prevented from launching it by the previous administration (Cheney in particular.) It's still sitting in a warehouse in Maryland.

Lets rebrand it the freedom dscvr and tell Barbara Bachman that it will PROVE that earmarks are bad..

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Damn those deniers for actually being excited and interested in science!

Its not the subject I'm worried about, its the lense.


Nice Moose & Squirrel reference by the way