The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Consensus

Weather events from around the world plus Astronomy and Geology and other Natural events.

Moderator: S2k Moderators

Forum rules

The posts in this forum are NOT official forecast and should not be used as such. They are just the opinion of the poster and may or may not be backed by sound meteorological data. They are NOT endorsed by any professional institution or STORM2K.

Help Support Storm2K
Message
Author
User avatar
Tampa Bay Hurricane
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 5594
Age: 36
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 7:54 pm
Location: St. Petersburg, FL

Re: The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Consensus

#21 Postby Tampa Bay Hurricane » Wed Mar 12, 2008 12:55 pm

Would warming of gom SSTs during the spring create stronger cold fronts and stronger
lows along fronts dipping into the gulf?
0 likes   

Sanibel
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 10348
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2004 11:06 pm
Location: Offshore SW Florida

Re: The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Consensus

#22 Postby Sanibel » Thu Mar 13, 2008 1:51 pm

I read a Times article yesterday saying how state governments are currently planning multi hundred million dollar road and rail improvements due to inundation by rising sea-levels. Maybe someone hadn't gotten to them yet with the word that it was a "hoax"? The article said sea-level rises over the last decades had exceeded expected calculations.

Instead of outright denying it, the new tack is that it is happening but "natural". The problem with that is that no "natural" warming event of the past ever put the polar bear to extinction. Denialists quietly ignore this. Nor did any "natural" GW event have the huge man-made amount of CO2 in the atmosphere that we currently do - along with a degraded earth and huge population. Trying to pin that on media dishonesty is unfair.

Funny how in all the years I've challenged anyone to answer how billions of tons of CO2 could have no scientific affect no one has ever attempted to answer it.
0 likes   

Ed Mahmoud

Re: The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Consensus

#23 Postby Ed Mahmoud » Thu Mar 13, 2008 2:35 pm

This may or may not be a 'denialist' website, but the claim here is the famous picture of stranded polar bears is a misrepresentation.

Of course, the use of the word 'denialist' , meant to evoke images of weirdo white supremacist types that doubt the Holocaust, suggests strongly to me that one's mind is made up.

Anything is possible, and Dr. Gray and Dr. Aleo and other 'deniers' may be on the Exxon payroll, and maybe when The Weather Channel's resident global warming expert with an undergraduate degree in Islamic studies recommends the Soviet style tactic of stripping AMS certification from any who aren't convinced of AGW, maybe it is just in the interest of advancing fair and scientific debate.

Global warming may be real, and AGW may be real. But the fact that most of the most ardent supporters of it have nearly identical goals to the communist movement (I heard predictions in the early 1990s that communists would resurface using environmentalism as a ruse because communism had basically been discredited. The predictions didn't pick global warming per se as the new threat, but they did predict it), the destruction of western economies, makes me wonder. All that CO2 can't be helping anything, but I'll take it more seriously when Al Gore and company start flying commerically, rather than jetting around in Lear jets that produce as much CO2 as a normal family would take months to generate.


In case AGW and CO2 are indeed a threat, instead of talking about non-solutions like fuel cell cars, which involve an energy storage medium, hydrogen, which isn't a source (since hydrogen in its useful form doesn't freely exist) we should be talking about replacing coal and oil powered generating plants with other sources. Hydro-electric is great, where available, but has environmental hazards of its own, wind turbine power, which is becoming a big business, can contribute, but requires a lot of land, and has a slow payout period. Solar power to reduce home heating and hot water needs is practical, but for widescale electric generation, needs huge areas for the solar cells.

Natural gas has the lowest carbon footprint of any fossil fuel, and could easily replace a lot of coal. Coal itself can be gassified, but that process produces CO2 at the source, which would have to be sequestered somehow. Nuclear power is hated by most of the standard 70s style environmentalists, but modern designs are much safer. Still the matter of radioactive waste storage, but I suspect that can be overcome.


As I said, all that CO2 can't be helping, although I'm not sure if it is hurting as much as claimed, but it wouldn't hurt to reduce the usage. And anything that has, as a result, the US sending less money to potential terror supporting states in the Middle East, has to be a good thing.

But I'll remain suspicious of schemes that would cripple the economies of the Western democracies, but ignore China and Russia.
0 likes   

User avatar
gigabite
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 916
Age: 70
Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 4:09 pm
Location: Naples, Florida

Re: The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Consensus

#24 Postby gigabite » Thu Mar 13, 2008 6:05 pm

Try to imagine that 100 percent of the heating from the Sun hits the Earth’s 60 percent of it is absorbed by the ground. 40 percent of it is reflected by the earths albedo. Green House Gas reflects 20 percent of the Sun’s heating back to the ground so, the apparent heating is 120 percent.

If the amount of heat hitting the ground in the summer increased by 5 percent since 1970 because earth is 85,000 kilometers closer to the sun, that would means the total apparent heating has increased to 126 percent.
Last edited by gigabite on Sat Mar 15, 2008 8:09 am, edited 2 times in total.
0 likes   

Ed Mahmoud

Re: The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Consensus

#25 Postby Ed Mahmoud » Thu Mar 13, 2008 6:34 pm

I'm not sure you're point, but do you have links to all of that?
0 likes   

User avatar
gigabite
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 916
Age: 70
Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 4:09 pm
Location: Naples, Florida

Re: The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Consensus

#26 Postby gigabite » Fri Mar 14, 2008 6:03 am

It is philosophic rhetoric. The percentages of the greenhouse effect vs inbound radiation range as widely as the estimates of the solar constant does. The fact that the Earths aphelion solar distance will be shrinking for the next thousand years is derived from a NASA ephemeris.

The point is that the greenhouse effect magnifies inbound radiation. Inbound radiation that hits the northern hemisphere has a larger aggregate effect in the summer because there is more land mass in the northern hemisphere.

Determining cause and effect from consensus by perusing a periodical index is not science it is philosophy.

Here is a picture link for you, but it still requires you to some math to get the greenhouse percentage

http://kentsimmons.uwinnipeg.ca/16cm05/ ... effect.gif

You have 343 W/m^2 in the that get in, 168 W/m^2 absorbed, and 103 W/m^2 that gets out that 343-168-103=72/343=.2099*100=20.99%=20%+/-

If everyone turned everything off for a thousand years, we would still be 2,551,200 kilometers closer to the Sun then when we started conserving. This is to say passive things like riding your bike to the grocery store are not going to fix the problem.

Then there is the solar power satellite. A large array of solar batteries floated out to L9. Large enough to block out 10 percent of the Sun. An parasol that pays rent. That is what I call a hard fix.

That is not to say conserving is bad. I ride my bike to the grocery store.
0 likes   

Ed Mahmoud

Re: The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Consensus

#27 Postby Ed Mahmoud » Fri Mar 14, 2008 10:16 pm

Just got a nasty-gram in the PM. I was accused of calling him or her a communist.

I question the motves of many of the big movers in the AGW hysteria movement, and I detest attempts to end all debate by using language comparing legitimate scientists like Aleo, Gray, Coleman and others to Storm Front Nazis who claim the Holocaust never happened, but I didn't mean to imply that any particular poster on this thread was a communist.



I hope that clears up any confusion and soohes any hurt feelings.
0 likes   

Ed Mahmoud

Re: The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Consensus

#28 Postby Ed Mahmoud » Fri Mar 14, 2008 10:31 pm

Anyway, I can take a hint. Arguing about AGW on a board like this, will change no opinions.

And when a mod demands I find peer reviewed papers from the 1970s to refute him, when I'm not in college anymore, and am don't have a degree in a related science, or sends PMs and reminds me he or she is a moderator (ie, toe the line or risk a banning or suspension), it just isn't worth it.


The mod can keep starting threads calling anyone who has the least question a denialist, and since I'm not eager to get banned with tornado season starting, and hurricane season two and a half months away, I'll leave the global warming threads alone to be a rigidly enforced echo chamber.
0 likes   

Javlin
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 1568
Age: 62
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2004 7:58 pm
Location: ms gulf coast

Re: The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Consensus

#29 Postby Javlin » Sat Mar 15, 2008 7:45 am

Ed Mahmoud wrote:Anyway, I can take a hint. Arguing about AGW on a board like this, will change no opinions.

And when a mod demands I find peer reviewed papers from the 1970s to refute him, when I'm not in college anymore, and am don't have a degree in a related science, or sends PMs and reminds me he or she is a moderator (ie, toe the line or risk a banning or suspension), it just isn't worth it.


The mod can keep starting threads calling anyone who has the least question a denialist, and since I'm not eager to get banned with tornado season starting, and hurricane season two and a half months away, I'll leave the global warming threads alone to be a rigidly enforced echo chamber.


I have seen the sentiment in the last few threads and hence the reason I stayed out and just left it alone.
0 likes   

User avatar
gigabite
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 916
Age: 70
Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 4:09 pm
Location: Naples, Florida

Re: The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Consensus

#30 Postby gigabite » Sat Mar 15, 2008 10:24 am

0 likes   

User avatar
x-y-no
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 8359
Age: 63
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:14 pm
Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL

#31 Postby x-y-no » Sat Mar 15, 2008 11:26 am

Ed, this is intolerable.

First of all, you did explicitly say that

But the fact that most of the most ardent supporters of it have nearly identical goals to the communist movement


Second, PMs are PMs for a reason. It is completely wrong to go into the public forum and make characterizations of what is said by PM.

Third, you are grossly mischaracterizing what I said in that PM. Since you decided to take this public, this is what I said:

I'm not going to do anything as moderator because there are already ridiculous claims that I'm some sort of censor on this topic. But really, this is not only simply a political screed but it's a vile personal attack.


For you to take my personal assurance to you that I will not do anything as moderator because I'm to closely associated with this issue and paint that as a threat to you that I may abuse my position is beyond the pale.
0 likes   

User avatar
gigabite
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 916
Age: 70
Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 4:09 pm
Location: Naples, Florida

Re: The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Consensus

#32 Postby gigabite » Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:08 pm

x-y-no wrote:I remember Emiliani well. The bastard actually came over and tried to hit on my mother while my dad was out on a research cruise. Anyway, my recollection of his work at this time was that he was trying to work out details of the past patterns of the ice age cycles and to a certain extent the mechanisms that drove them.


My nephew who is a phd in paleogeophysics provided me with a copy of the citation 1. The actual conclusion of the paper is: “If the present climatic balance is not maintained, we may soon be confronted with cither a runaway glaciation or a runaway deglaciation, both of which would generate unacceptable environmental stresses. A clear, quantitative understanding of man's effect on climate must be obtained. “

I conclude that this paper in combination with Emiliani C (1961) The temperature decrease of surface water in high latitudes and of abysssal-hadal water in open oceanic basins during the past 75 million years. Deep-Sea Research 8:144–147 in combination with the actual relative coolness of the time led to the conclusion that the Earth was headed in to a cool phase.


…also this is a first hand account of the gentleman “Cesare's highest regard was for his family, to whom he was a devoted husband, father, and grandfather, yet he had a genuine interest in and concern for students, friends, and colleagues. His charismatic nature was imbued with a wonderful sense of humor and an uncommon generosity.” from wikipedia.

Image




1. Quaternary Paleotemperatures and the Duration of the High-Temperature
Intervals Cesare Emiliani Science, New Series, Vol. 178, No. 4059. (Oct. 27, 1972), pp. 398-401.
0 likes   

User avatar
x-y-no
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 8359
Age: 63
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:14 pm
Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL

Re: The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Consensus

#33 Postby x-y-no » Mon Mar 17, 2008 11:36 am

gigabite wrote:
x-y-no wrote:I remember Emiliani well. The bastard actually came over and tried to hit on my mother while my dad was out on a research cruise. Anyway, my recollection of his work at this time was that he was trying to work out details of the past patterns of the ice age cycles and to a certain extent the mechanisms that drove them.


My nephew who is a phd in paleogeophysics provided me with a copy of the citation 1. The actual conclusion of the paper is: “If the present climatic balance is not maintained, we may soon be confronted with either a runaway glaciation or a runaway deglaciation, both of which would generate unacceptable environmental stresses. A clear, quantitative understanding of man's effect on climate must be obtained. “

I conclude that this paper in combination with Emiliani C (1961) The temperature decrease of surface water in high latitudes and of abysssal-hadal water in open oceanic basins during the past 75 million years. Deep-Sea Research 8:144–147 in combination with the actual relative coolness of the time led to the conclusion that the Earth was headed in to a cool phase.


Huh ... in 1972 he said either a runaway glaciation or a runaway deglaciation and goes on to talk about the need for more research, and somehow you combine this with a 1961 paper (long before the dawn of quntitative climate science) to derive that he predicted cooling? OK ... but I'd say you're beyond treading thin ice ...


…also this is a first hand account of the gentleman “Cesare's highest regard was for his family, to whom he was a devoted husband, father, and grandfather, yet he had a genuine interest in and concern for students, friends, and colleagues. His charismatic nature was imbued with a wonderful sense of humor and an uncommon generosity.” from wikipedia.

Image


Heh ... Translation: "Who are you going to believe, Jan? Wikipedia or your own lying eyes?"

Thanks, but I'll trust the impression formed by my own eyes and ears in my own home.
0 likes   

User avatar
gigabite
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 916
Age: 70
Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 4:09 pm
Location: Naples, Florida

Re: The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Consensus

#34 Postby gigabite » Mon Mar 17, 2008 1:32 pm

x-y-no wrote:Huh ... in 1972 he said either a runaway glaciation or a runaway deglaciation and goes on to talk about the need for more research, and somehow you combine this with a 1961 paper (long before the dawn of quntitative climate science) to derive that he predicted cooling? OK ... but I'd say you're beyond treading thin ice ...


I reasoned from papers written et al early in the next decade citing the above mentioned 1972 paper to stay on topic. … also the resolution of ice cores in the current epoch isn’t that great using 2008 state of the technology, but a swing to ice house or green house is 20,000 years one way to 110,000 years the other way. Neither seems reasonable regardless of the intent of ones libido.

My point of view is that we will be entering a cooling period similar to the 1940-1970 event, after the next Solarmax because the seasonal Earth/Sun distances are extending. If the strong la Nina that is expected to run until December 2008 if not December 2009 doesn’t get the thermometer dropping sooner.


? What is your point that no one believed that after thirty years of cooling that it was going to warm up?
Last edited by gigabite on Tue Mar 18, 2008 6:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
0 likes   

User avatar
x-y-no
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 8359
Age: 63
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:14 pm
Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL

Re: The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Consensus

#35 Postby x-y-no » Mon Mar 17, 2008 7:51 pm

gigabite wrote:I reasoned from papers written et al early in the next decade citing the above mentioned 1972 paper to stay on topic. … also the resolution of ice cores in the current epoch isn’t that great using 2008 state of the technology, but a swing to ice house or green house is 20,000 years one way to 110,000 years the other way. Neither seems reasonable regardless of the intent of ones libido.


I just don't see how you get to any of this based on a comment in a paper that predates numerical climate modeling and that essentially is saying "we may be introducing really big forcings into our climate but we have no idea which way those forcings go."


My point of view is that we will be entering a cooling period similar to the 1940-1970 event, after the next Solarmax because the seasonal Earth/Sun distances are extending. If the strong la Nina that is expected to run until December 2008 if not December 2009 doesn’t get the thermometer dropping sooner.


How about supplying some numbers in support of this claim? The Earth - Sun distance varies from about 91 million miles at perihelion (northern hemisphere winter) and 94.5 million miles at aphelion. That results in an approximate 6.8% variation in solar irradiance through the year.

So how much do you claim that distance is going to change over the next few decades and how much change in solar irradiance do you claim that will result in? I frankly can't see how it's any significant amount at all.

The 1940 - 1970 cooling event is quite well explained by particulate aerosols. What is your objection to this explanation?

Oh, and the La Nina already is dropping the thermometer. But that won't last forever. The next El Nino event will accompany a new record for global average temperature.

? What is your point that no one believed that after thirty years of cooling that it was going to warm up?


My point in starting this thread was to debunk the argument - frequently made - that the voluminous body of climate research which now exists in support of AGW ought to be dismissed because of an alleged similar strong consensus in the 1970 that we were headed for global cooling. The fact are that not only was the state of climate science nowhere near what it is today (and thus no such consensus was possible) but to the extent there was any consensus, it was similar to today's - that we are headed to global warming due to human activity.
0 likes   

User avatar
gigabite
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 916
Age: 70
Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 4:09 pm
Location: Naples, Florida

Re: The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Consensus

#36 Postby gigabite » Tue Mar 18, 2008 4:48 pm

The item is derived from the NASA ephemeris.

Image
JUPITER SUN DISTANCE AT PERIHELION
Notice how far Jupiter was from the sun during the three decades in question.


This is abstracted from the U.S. Naval Observatory’s data service, with extreme conditions highlighted.
Image
EL NINO LA NINA SEEMS TO FOLLOW THE LATITUDE OF THE MOON

Then there is the temperature of the front lens of the SOHO Satellite. See how the temperature rises and falls from aphelion to perihelion of earth. Sure there is a greenhouse effect, but in a decade or so we might be glad we have real hot summers, atleast in the northern hemisphere.

Image


x-y-no wrote:The 1940 - 1970 cooling event is quite well explained by particulate aerosols. What is your objection to this explanation?


Sure, this is probably partially true considering that contrails have been studied as an element of global warming. The thing is in order to make a con trail there has to be particulate pollution. Particulate pollution protects us from radiative heating by bonding with the clear high altitude water vapor and makes it cloudy and reflective.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/sc...rails.climate/
Last edited by gigabite on Sat Mar 22, 2008 2:19 pm, edited 2 times in total.
0 likes   

User avatar
x-y-no
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 8359
Age: 63
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:14 pm
Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL

Re: The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Consensus

#37 Postby x-y-no » Wed Mar 19, 2008 9:15 am

gigabite wrote:The next two items are derived from the NASA ephemeris.

Image
EARTH SUN DISTANCE in summer for 200 years in decades

Image
JUPITER SUN DISTANCE AT PERIHELION
Notice how far Jupiter was from the sun during the three decades in question.


I'm not seeing any images here ... maybe you could grab them and post them on imageshack?


This is abstracted from the U.S. Naval Observatory’s data service, with extreme conditions highlighted.
Image
EL NINO LA NINA SEEMS TO FOLLOW THE LATITUDE OF THE MOON


I think I'd like to see more than two points of correlation before I get too excited about this. How well did earlier events correlate?

Also, I'm not sure what the relevance is. No doubt we'll continue to see El Nino/La Nina events superimposed on the long-term warming trend. But they don't really affect that trend (beyond their own extent, that is.) If we had some reason to expect that we would plunge into a permanent strong La Nina, that would offer some useful mitigation. But I don't see any indication of that.

Then there is the temperature of the front lens of the SOHO Satellite. See how the temperature rises and falls from aphelion to perihelion of earth. Sure there is a greenhouse effect, but in a decade or so we might be glad we have real hot summers, atleast in the northern hemisphere.

Image


I'm not at all clear on what this would indicate. I think we can all agree that solar iradiance has not increased by over 3% since 1996, which is what a change of 10 degrees Celsius (313 deg. Kelvin to 323 deg. Kelvin) would seem to indicate.

Actually, since we know that approximately 5 degree aphelion/perihelion cycle corresponds to over 6% variance, it seems naively that that 10 degree trend would indicate more like a 12% change. Obviously we know that nothing of the kind has occurred.

So there must be something else going on with that longer term trend. Maybe there's some physical change in how the satellite is configured, I don't know. Anybody have any ideas?
0 likes   

User avatar
gigabite
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 916
Age: 70
Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 4:09 pm
Location: Naples, Florida

#38 Postby gigabite » Wed Mar 19, 2008 9:17 pm

perihelion
http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar//new_data/c ... 199701.pdf
aphelion
http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar//new_data/c ... 199707.pdf

Please take a look at the difference between this real ground data. There is quite a swing from perihelion to aphelion.

The greenhouse effect is a normal condition. Water Vapor is 90 percent of the issue, carbon dioxide is a fraction of the remaining 10 percent. A portion of the increase from the increase in the greenhouse effect is from an increase in green house gas. The greenhouse effect is only 20 percent of the incoming radiation.

Much of the variation of surface heat comes from the expansion and contraction of the plasma shield which influences the amount of high pressure or low pressure in the atmosphere. As the plasma shield thickens high pressure dominates more clear skies less cloud albedo more ground heating more greenhouse effect.

http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520- ... 1-2226.pdf

Reading the swing from Earth is not that good because of weather, atmospheric refraction, and curvature, besides much of the tidal effect in the plasma phase is from EUV and UV wavelength specifically.

Many of the solar constant equations are from the 19th century. The SOHO data is regular but not that precise. One would expect to see a swing in temperature from perihelion to aphelion, just because the earth is further from the Sun. The run up in temperature over time could be from an internal condition or the Sun is heating up 1996 is a relative to 2008 as far as the solar cycle goes. That is the time until the solar max is about the same. The Sun is cooler when there are more sunspots just because the sunspots are cooler than the rest of the Sun.

Please understand the solar constant isn’t constant.

Here are those links from the above post. I can get them on all my computers. Maybe their server was down when you made your post. This is a more reliable server.

http://home.att.net/~study06/JupiterSunD.gif


The item is derived from the NASA ephemeris.

Image
JUPITER SUN DISTANCE AT PERIHELION
Notice how far Jupiter was from the sun during the three decades in question.
Last edited by gigabite on Sat Mar 22, 2008 9:19 pm, edited 3 times in total.
0 likes   

User avatar
x-y-no
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 8359
Age: 63
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:14 pm
Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL

Re:

#39 Postby x-y-no » Wed Mar 19, 2008 10:18 pm

gigabite wrote:perihelion
http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar//new_data/c ... 199701.pdf
aphelion
http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar//new_data/c ... 199707.pdf

Please take a look at the difference between this real ground data. There is quite a swing from perihelion to aphelion.


Of course there is. I think I mentioned earlier that it's over 6%. But that's an annual thing - it had nothing to do with the long-term trend.

The greenhouse effect is a normal condition. Water Vapor is 90 percent of the issue, carbon dioxide is a fraction of the remaining 10 percent. A portion of the increase from the increase in the greenhouse effect is from an increase in green house gas. The greenhouse effect is only 20 percent of the incoming radiation.


Again, of course the greenhouse effect is normal. Without it, the average temperature of the Earth's surface would be approximately 0 degrees Celsius. But that doesn't mean creating a stronger greenhouse effect is a good or even acceptable thing.

Yes, water vapor is the bulk of the greenhouse effect (at least in the troposphere) but water vapor is a feedback, not a forcing. Pump more water vapor into the atmosphere and it will quickly precipitate out. The average lifetime of a water molecule in the atmosphere is on the order of a week, versus over a decade for methane and a century or more for carbon dioxide. That's why those are the important greenhouse gases from the point of view of lasting effect. But yes, their effect is amplified by the feedback of water evaporation.


Much of the variation of surface heat comes from the expansion and contraction of the plasma shield which influences the amount of high pressure or low pressure in the atmosphere. As the plasma shield thickens high pressure dominates more clear skies less cloud albedo more ground heating more greenhouse effect.


What is the evidence in support of this hypothesis? I did a handful of Google Scholar searches to try and turn up something in support but failed.


Reading the swing from Earth is not that good because of weather, atmospheric refraction, and curvature.

Many of the solar constant equations are from the 19th century. The SOHO data is regular but not that precise. One would expect to see a swing in temperature from perihelion to aphelion, just because the earth is further from the Sun. The run up in temperature over time could be from an internal condition or the Sun is heating up 1996 is a relative to 2008 as far as the solar cycle goes. That is the time until the solar max is about the same. The Sun is cooler when there are more sunspots just because the sunspots are cooler than the rest of the Sun.

Please understand the solar constant isn’t constant.


Yes, I understand it's not constant. But surely you understand that it hasn't increased by more that twice the amplitude of the aphelion/perihelion swing. Yet that's the size of the 1996 to 2006 trend in that front lens temperature. I'm not clear on what useful information one could expect to derive from that graph without determining the cause of that anomalous trend and compensating for it (something that it's not at all clear is even possible.)

Here are those links from the above post. I can get them on all my computers. Maybe their server was down when you made your post. This is a more reliable server.

http://home.att.net/~study06/JupiterSunD.gif

http://home.att.net/~study06/EARTHSUNDIST.gif

The next two items are derived from the NASA ephemeris.

Image
EARTH SUN DISTANCE in summer for 200 years in decades


OK, so we're looking at a change in aphelion distance of approximately 0.01% (from 1.01673 AU to 1.01664 AU) over two centuries. That's a minuscule change compared to the man-made forcings we're looking at. I think you need to explain why you think this would have any significant impact on global temperature.

Also, I'd note that this expected trend in aphelion distance doesn't mean we have even this much change in average distance. What's the predicted trend during the rest of the Earth's orbit?

Image
JUPITER SUN DISTANCE AT PERIHELION
Notice how far Jupiter was from the sun during the three decades in question.


OK, so we've got an approximately 0.2% variation of Jupiter's distance from the Sun at perihelion (again no indication that there's any change in average distance.) What does that have to do with Earth's climate?
0 likes   

User avatar
gigabite
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 916
Age: 70
Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 4:09 pm
Location: Naples, Florida

#40 Postby gigabite » Thu Mar 20, 2008 6:12 pm

http://home.att.net/~gigabite/PLASMASHIELD0507.gif

As the plasma shield thickens the distance between the plasma Shield and the Earth’s surface is reduced which increases the atmospheric pressure. The result of this increased high pressure will be a reduced number of tropical storm from the analog year. Also the lack of moisture may factor into faster trade winds and a low chance of tropical storms curving to the right. The faster trade winds translate into la Nina conditions and more moisture transported by Hadley Circulation to the 50th parallel.

The norm is for the Earth Sun Aphelion Distance to vary alternately by a couple of percent every year. That did not happen in 2007. In 2007 the Earth was nearly the same distance from the Sun as 2006 at the furthermost point from the Sun. that means that the plasma shield ( the plasmapause ) did not have the opportunity to drain plasma in the usual manner.

According to the Stefan-Boltzmann law the Earth's surface temperature is solely dependent on the Earth-Sun distance and the solar radius. The Greenhouse effect is only 20.93 percent of that incoming radiation. An increase in CO2 will increase that to 20.94, which would put 120.94 percent of radiation to the ground, but a .01 increase in incoming radiation will put 120.952 percent of radiation on the ground.

http://home.att.net/~gigabite/SUNDIST20062030.gif

Regarding the closest approach of Jupiter to the Sun is also the closest approach of Earth to Jupiter. As Jupiter swings by the Sun this time it will perturb the Earth’s orbit to the point that it will be decades before we are going to have to worry about global warming. Luckily you and I live in Florida.
Last edited by gigabite on Sat Mar 22, 2008 3:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
0 likes   


Return to “Global Weather”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests