MoreI have been studying
the 2007 Climate Change documents as well as other references. I keep
running into their method of ignoring the change in solar irradiance.
With recent satellite observations it is possible to put irradiance values to the changes due to solar activity. That recent increase is from 1368.5 watts/sq.meter to 1372.5 watts/sq.meter on the earth. That is an 0.3% increase over the last 120 years.
This dramatic increase in temperature causing all the hairpulling is 0.6°C since the late 19th century and 0.3°C in the last 25 years. But against what baseline should this be measured?
According to NOAA's National Climatic Data Center the global mean from 1901-2000 is 13.9°C. I can accept that as fact.
Earth temperatures can vary from -89°C to +58°C. Let us assume for the instant that without solar irradiance the base temperature of the Earth is -89°C, since earth can achieve that temperature even with solar irradiation. From -89 to +13.9 is 102.9, subtract out the 0.6 increase = 102.9/102.3 = 1.006 or 0.6% increase above our assumed base temperature. Based on my way too simplistic assumption 1/2 of the currently noted global warming is due to increased solar irradiation. I believe it is not hard to imagine that without solar irradiance the base temperature of earth would be much colder.
Suppose then without solar irradiation the earth had a much colder base temperature, then the noted increase in temperature would have to be less than 0.6%. That means more than 50% of the noted temperature increase is due to increased solar irradiation. In addition as the earth temperature rises the ocean temperature rises. As this occurs the ocean releases dissolved CO2 that is has trapped. The same thing occurs when your beer gets warm, it loses it's fizz. This increased CO2 will push the temperature rise higher, but the rise is due to the increased solar irradiation not any other carbon source.
When one looks at Figure 2.4 of the 2007 report, solar irradiance has an apparent impact that is 7% of the impact of CO2. I assert that it should be much greater. Chart 2.4 is labeled "Radiative Forcing Components". Radiative forcing appears to have been invented so that global warming alarmists could force the data to say what they want.
The Global Warming Alarmists are lying through there teeth.
Paul in PA
Click here to read the rest of this thread...
With recent satellite observations it is possible to put irradiance values to the changes due to solar activity. That recent increase is from 1368.5 watts/sq.meter to 1372.5 watts/sq.meter on the earth. That is an 0.3% increase over the last 120 years.
This dramatic increase in temperature causing all the hairpulling is 0.6°C since the late 19th century and 0.3°C in the last 25 years. But against what baseline should this be measured?
According to NOAA's National Climatic Data Center the global mean from 1901-2000 is 13.9°C. I can accept that as fact.
Earth temperatures can vary from -89°C to +58°C. Let us assume for the instant that without solar irradiance the base temperature of the Earth is -89°C, since earth can achieve that temperature even with solar irradiation. From -89 to +13.9 is 102.9, subtract out the 0.6 increase = 102.9/102.3 = 1.006 or 0.6% increase above our assumed base temperature. Based on my way too simplistic assumption 1/2 of the currently noted global warming is due to increased solar irradiation. I believe it is not hard to imagine that without solar irradiance the base temperature of earth would be much colder.
Suppose then without solar irradiation the earth had a much colder base temperature, then the noted increase in temperature would have to be less than 0.6%. That means more than 50% of the noted temperature increase is due to increased solar irradiation. In addition as the earth temperature rises the ocean temperature rises. As this occurs the ocean releases dissolved CO2 that is has trapped. The same thing occurs when your beer gets warm, it loses it's fizz. This increased CO2 will push the temperature rise higher, but the rise is due to the increased solar irradiation not any other carbon source.
When one looks at Figure 2.4 of the 2007 report, solar irradiance has an apparent impact that is 7% of the impact of CO2. I assert that it should be much greater. Chart 2.4 is labeled "Radiative Forcing Components". Radiative forcing appears to have been invented so that global warming alarmists could force the data to say what they want.
The Global Warming Alarmists are lying through there teeth.
Paul in PA
Click here to read the rest of this thread...
