On Tue, 14 Nov 06 09:18:20 GMT,
(Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
1.5-2 W/m^2 since about 1910, depending on whose data you use.
"Regardless of any discussion about solar irradiance in past centuries, the
sunspot record and neutron monitor data (which can be compared with
radionuclide records) show that solar activity has not increased since the
1950s and is therefore unlikely to be able to explain the recent warming."
CO2 is the major change since 1950.
The CO2 was also changing from ~1770 to 1910, but resulted in no
visible warming, according to the IPCC:
http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics/...arge/05.16.jpg
You have yet to provide an explanation of this phenomena.
If X (CO2) was increasing, and Z (temperature) DID NOT go up, then
X (CO2) is NOT the cause of Z (temperature).
Then clearly, by this same argument, CO2 is not the cause of warming,
as: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/db1009/inputs/co2-sens.dat, shows that
the CO2 concentration increased from 278 ppm (~1770), to 298 ppm by
1910, however the temperature did NOTHING during this period...:
So? If X is not increasing now and Y is, and Z goes up, X must not
be a cause of Z.
Utter nonsense... Again Lloyd Parker insists that the climate system
is both linear, and instantaneous...
http://www.oco.noaa.gov/index.jsp?sh...&nav=universal
http://www.oco.noaa.gov/docs/arsooosc06/chapter1.pdf
"An overall estimate of the delay in surface temperature response
caused by the oceans is 10-100 years."
So Lloyd, is 56 years between 10 and 100 years?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:I...ure_Record.png
If CO2 was the cause of the warming, it clearly would have warmed by
this time...
Just can't stand it that your "sun is causing it" is totally wrong, can you?
It sticks in your craw.
You are a moron, Lloyd. Tell us Lloyd, how much warming would occur
without the Sun?
But perhaps you believe in Joe Newman's Energy Machine, as well...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...n-hit-record-h
ighs-over-the-last-few-decades/
Realclimate.org is not a refereed scientific journal, Lloyd... Didn't
you recently demand that people cite scientific journals?
Read the article there I cited. 6 references at the end, from Nature and
Phys. Rev. Lett. "Did the Sun hit record highs over the last few decades?"
The author is at NCAR.
Well Lloyd, it seems that all of these papers refer to Solanki et.
al., and in particular, the claims that the Sun cannot cause the
warming seem to all reference and hinge upon this particular paper:
"Can solar variability explain global warming since 1970?"
http://www.mps.mpg.de/homes/natalie/PAPERS/warming.pdf
And it seems that it is this paper alone which is used to support the
several claims that "the Sun cannot have contributed more than 30%".
However, examining this paper, we discover that the authors of this
paper apparently limited their analyses to:
"Various processes have been invoked by which the inconstant Sun
can influence the troposphe (1) changes in the energy input
into the Earth's atmosphere through variations in the total solar
irradiance, (2) changes in stratospheric chemistry through
variations of solar UV irradiance, and (3) changes in cloud cover
induced by modulations in the cosmic ray flux produced by
variations in the Sun's open magnetic flux."
That is, they apparently ignored the effects of insolation on the
soil, the hydrosphere and the biosphere.
Further,
The two other simplifying assumptions that enter our analysis are
(1) the connection between the relevant solar and terrestrial
quantities is linear, and (2) this connection remains unchanged
with time (and in particular it is the same prior to and post
1970).
That is, they also reject any possible feedback contributions from
solar interactions with the hydrosphere and biosphere.
They further attribute the lack of warming, which occurred from ~1940
to ~1970, entirely to the incident solar energy (that is, this lack of
warming was "caused" by the increasing solar flux)... We will also
note that during this same period, that the CO2 concentration also
increased substantially, yet the temperature records still show no
warming... Thus one could use their same argument to "prove" that CO2
has little or no effect.
Is it also unclear that these authors took into account the estimated
10-100 year time constant exhibited by the oceans, in their analyses:
(
http://www.oco.noaa.gov/index.jsp?sh...nav=universal).
Thus we conclude that their results are highly questionable...
And then we have this cited article:
Solanki, S.K., Usoskin, I.G., Kromer, B., Schüssler, M., Beer, J.,
2004. Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to
the previous 11,000 years. Nature 431, 1084-1087.
"It was shown that even under the extreme assumption that the Sun
was responsible for all the global warming prior to 1970, at the
most 30% of the strong warming since then can be of solar
origin."
So if we accept their estimate cited in this paper (and we note this
estimate results from the questionable analysis above), we STILL find
that these results are contrary to Lloyd Parker's claim that "'[the]
sun is causing it' is totally wrong ...". That is, Lloyd apparently
thinks that a 30% contribution is the same as no contribution (and
thus "totally wrong").
But this sort of nonsense is typical for Parker.
Retief