May
22
Solar Activity and Climate Change (2008.07.10)
By
Does solar activity play a part in climate change (Euronews)
Video Rating: 4 / 5
PLAYLIST: www.youtube.com Solar Flares – Mitch Battros Solar Flares First hour guest, Earth changes expert Mitch Battros shared an update on recent solar activity, which included a small B-class flare. Because of the cycle we’re in, with Earth’s magnetic field weakening, we could be affected more by smaller flares, such as experiencing satellite outages, he warned.
Video Rating: 5 / 5
Twitter
Facebook
26 Comments
May 22nd, 2011 at 11:21 am
The 2007 IPCC report halved the maximum likely influence of solar forcing on warming over the past 250 years from 40% to 20%. This was based on a reanalysis of the likely changes in solar forcing since the 17th century. Basically solar flares are not causing the earths rapid climb in temperature globally. This was disproven quite a long time ago.
May 22nd, 2011 at 12:04 pm
People, search for “Keith Strong nasa pictures” on google and the first link will show you the pictures of the fat ass of this NASA scum (AKA @drkstrong)
You can also find his email address at nasa and lockheed martin.
This man’s job is debunking the anti-global-warming videos.
He works for Illuminati, his goal is depopulation of Earth.
people cause GW = too much people = many must die = martial law, rfid chips …
May 22nd, 2011 at 1:03 pm
@MrOllyK Nutrition (thanks) we get from palnts is a function not just of sugars but a vast range of minerals such as carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus, calcium, iron, zinc, magnesium, and manganese. Most of these – including the most important nitrogen – is derived form the soil.
May 22nd, 2011 at 1:33 pm
@MrOllyK You just argued for my point – i.e there is little or no lag. For there to be a lag the oceans have to transport the heat down deep quickly before it acn be radiated away.
May 22nd, 2011 at 1:41 pm
@MrOllyK Nature and Science dont advertise they are by subscription. Their OTC sales are negligable.
May 22nd, 2011 at 2:24 pm
@MrOllyK Like most scientists I cant spell worth beans without a spell checker! You should see my hand writing too – dreadful.
News flash, genius. Water vapor does not retain the heat either. Its the oceans that do that. The amount of water vapor in the air depends on temperature – the lower the temperature, the less WV it can hold. Thus if you removed the CO2 and other GHG from the air our atmospheric temperature woudl collapse. WV merely amplifies the effects (+ve or -ve) of th eother GHGs.
May 22nd, 2011 at 2:48 pm
@drkstrong
“Neutrion comes from the soil, not CO2″
So in the process of photosynthesis you somehow determine that plants DON’T convert CO2 and H2O into CH2O (sugars), energy and carbon cell structures? You’ve forgotten elementary science. Bigger plants = bigger root system too. BTW, this is how you spell “nutrition”.
The last 30 years of satellite observations show the Sahara is giving way to vegetation, thanks to more CO2 – the natural aerial fertiliser.
May 22nd, 2011 at 2:48 pm
@drkstrong
” the ocean lag argument is bogus at least on short term variations”
You’re forgetting that hot water is less dense and prefers to stay at the surface, which can also be readily cooled, allowing rapid climate changes in the short term. As noted before, El Nino conditions provide warm conditions for continents, not CO2.
In any case, you live in the US which has very different ocean and weather patterns compared to Australia.
May 22nd, 2011 at 3:47 pm
@drkstrong
You SAY you quote science papers, however we’ve seen a vast amount of papers that somehow made it into Nature and Science mags simply because of the shock value of the headline selling that magazine. Look into advertising and you’ll see all kinds of blatant lies, such as “clinically proven”, which is the “don’t argue, just believe me” argument. It’s amazing what shampoos can do these days. Look at the ingredients list – can you even PRONOUNCE some of that stuff? Is it even safe?
May 22nd, 2011 at 4:05 pm
@drkstrong
Your last post was just ridiculous.
Undergraduate? You can’t even spell spectroscopy.
Note how you can burn in a desert during the day and freeze at -10C at night. It’s not CO2 that retains the heat. Water vapour can exist in ANY atmosphere where there’s sufficient temperature to cause evaporation, even ablation contributes to water vapour in atmosphere. If a molecule of CO2 doesn’t contact the surface of the ocean or plant stomata, it will remain in the atmosphere for longer.
May 22nd, 2011 at 4:19 pm
@MrOllyK Carbon trading has nothing to do with the science. It might be one approach that some are using to combat global warming but physical laws no nothing of the stock market.
Prove that you use blogs rather than science papers: You quote the Daily Telegraph and Junkscience, while I am quoting Nature, Science, BAMS, Eos and various science journals.
May 22nd, 2011 at 4:54 pm
@MrOllyK “Ever checked the absorbtion bands” Yes I have actually measured them during my undergraduate spectrocopy labs.
Water vapor is the major GHG but it only accounts for about 70% at most of the GH effect but is a secondary GHG in that it amplifies the warming or cooling caused by the others. It cant exist in the atmosphere without the others that is because its life is very short (days) compared to CO2 (decades). If you add more water vapor you just get it to rain a bit more tomorrow.
May 22nd, 2011 at 5:22 pm
@MrOllyK I used the word “excuse” which means that the ocean lag argument is bogus at least on short term variations (<10,000 years). The normal lag is much less. How long after the shortest day (21st Dec) is the coldest day? Typically early February. So about 6 weeks. The lag for climate shifts from volcanic eruptions and El Nino/La Nina changes is between 1-2 months.
May 22nd, 2011 at 6:19 pm
@drkstrong
“You quote unreferred blogs supported by the oil, gas, and coal industries”
I suggest you prove that, noting that many oil companies support carbon trading due to the fraud that it makes possible:
w.telegraph. co. uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/7659747/Tax-officers-arrest-22-in-UK-carbon-fraud-probe. html
You’re not quoting anything scientific, nor have respect for science or even furnish evidence. You CAGWists are all the same – Heil WishfulClimate!
Embarrass yourself elsewhere
May 22nd, 2011 at 6:44 pm
@drkstrong
“that does not even make linguistic sense let alone scientific sense”
Obviously not to you. Ever checked the absorbtion bands?:
ber. parawag. net/images/Atmospheric_Absorption_Bands. jpg
Water vapour collects most of the thermal IR and CO2 contributes little to this effect. Adding more CO2 will have a lessening warming effect as there’s only so much energy to go around, ergo, logarithmic scaling:
joannenova. com. au/globalwarming/graphs/log-co2/log-graph-lindzen-choi-web. gif
May 22nd, 2011 at 6:54 pm
@drkstrong
Call me mathematically challenged, I can call you scientifically so:
“The Mauder minimum ended 100 years before that”
As you stated in a previous argument:
“The ocean buffering effect was the original excuse as to why AGW could not be happening because the ocean could not allow temperatures to rise that quickly. ”
Foot in mouth disease or science not making much sense to you? Takes a long time and energy to heat cold water. Especially all the oceans.
May 22nd, 2011 at 7:15 pm
@MrOllyK You quote unreferred blogs supported by the oil, gas, and coal industries and I quote scientific papers. Let me see which is the more reliable source? Duh!
May 22nd, 2011 at 7:27 pm
@MrOllyK “CO2 only has certain absorbtion bands, if not robbed by other molecules and processes will only receive the energy it can get. Which is why the scale is logarithmic” that does not even make linguistic sense let alone scientific sense.
“More CO2, bigger and better crops.” the plants may grow larger (some do, some dont) but there is no more nutrition. Neutrion comes from the soil, not CO2. so you have to eat more of the plants to get the same nutrition.
May 22nd, 2011 at 7:44 pm
@MrOllyK
“the end of the Maunder Minimum” I see you are mathematically challenged!
2010 – 200 years = 1810
The Mauder minimum ended 100 years before that
May 22nd, 2011 at 8:13 pm
@drkstrong
AGW is completely unproven, if not a manufactured consensus by a handful of “scientists” paid to manufacture a conclusion and consensus. Take away their funding and goodbye AGW. Nobody has proven that Man is responsible, only the paid promoters and CAGWists “say” so.
w. junkscience. com/Ozone/ozone_seasonal. html
CFC’s were never proven to be bad either. It’s what WishfulClimate leave out and twist you should beware of. Seek truth, not “consensus”. BTW, where’s my “Big Oil” cheque?
May 22nd, 2011 at 8:21 pm
@drkstrong
CO2 only has certain absorbtion bands, if not robbed by other molecules and processes will only receive the energy it can get. Which is why the scale is logarithmic, the more you add the less energy there is to absorb.
“without CO2 the whole GHG effect would collapse”
Without CO2 the entire ecosystem would collapse. Why do you think farmers pump it into their greenhouses? More CO2, bigger and better crops. Last 30 years observations by satellites prove Earth has been greening.
May 22nd, 2011 at 9:12 pm
@drkstrong
Ice cores are unreliable when compressing layers press bubbles into each other.
” until about 200 years ago when it started to rise – the beginning of the industrial age”.
Not surprisingly, the end of the Maunder Minimum too..
The Jurassic would have been warmer due to many inland seas, providing more tropical conditions, not forgetting Milankovich Cycles. Note that water vapour is 95% of all GHG’s.
Don’t panic – warm = wet climate, like the tropics where 99% of species live.
May 22nd, 2011 at 9:36 pm
@MrOllyK Its not evaluated for mauna Loa alone – there are dozen of such sites now.
The plot at the website is not a published one I gather – but even so it is basically flat given the huge uncertainties it admits (340 +/-100 is meaningless) so anything before 1870 can safely be ignored.
May 22nd, 2011 at 9:41 pm
@MrOllyK Oh the old – its saturated – argument. Sorry wont fly – the core of some of the CO2 bands are saturated but the wings are not. More CO@ the more the wings of the bands spread.
There was a recent paper in Nature that pointed out that without CO2 the whole GHG effect would collapse because the half life inthe atmosphere is so long compared witht he others that the water vapor content would go to near zero without CO2 and the water vapor atmospheric life is measured in days not decades.
May 22nd, 2011 at 10:03 pm
@MrOllyK “CO2 began to rise long before the industrial age” Source of that claim – the ice core records disagree. It has been 280 ppm or below up until about 200 years ago when it started to rise – the beginning of the industrial age.
During the Jurassic the co2 levels were about 2000 ppm – that is when reptiles and insects ruled the Earth and temperatures were about 8C warmer than they are now. Want to go back to then – wipe out the human race and let the crocs and ants be the kings?
May 22nd, 2011 at 10:29 pm
Note: This is NOT the first year that they have not increased social security, it is the second year in a row, i should know, i am on it!!!