THE CAUSE OF EARTH'S CLIMATE CHANGE IS THE SUN

[Sunsettommy]

This was sent to me by e-mail.

Rocket Scientist's Journal

THE FINGERPRINT OF THE SUN IS ON EARTH'S 160 YEAR TEMPERATURE RECORD,

CONTRADICTING IPCC CONCLUSIONS, FINGERPRINTING, & AGW

SOLAR GLOBAL WARMING

by Jeffrey A. Glassman, PhD

3/27/10.

EXCERPT:

ABSTRACT

Solar energy as modeled over the last three centuries contains patterns that match the full 160 year instrument record of Earth's surface temperature. Earth's surface temperature throughout the modern record is given by



where Sn is the increase in Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) measured as the running percentage rise in the trend at every instance in time, t, for the previous n years. The parameters are best fits with the values m134=18.33ºC/%, m46=-3.68ºC/%, b=13.57(-0.43)ºC, and τ=6 years. The value of b in parenthesis gives T(t) as a temperature anomaly. One standard deviation of the error between the equation and the HadCRUT3 data is 0.11ºC (about one ordinate interval). Values for a good approximation (σ=0.13ºC) with a single solar running trend are m134=17.50ºC/%, m46=0, b=13.55(-0.45)ºC, and τ=10 years.

LINK

[Derek]

An "old" name to us here, reappears with an enourmous BANG.
I have to go comment..

[Richard111]

Stephen Wilde doesn't agree with that. See:

A New And Effective Climate Model

[Derek]

I partially agree with both, partially..
See my signature.

[JohnWho]

In that case, Derek, I suspect you are partially correct, mostly.



It all must start with the sun since if we remove the sun (or block it), it all stops very quickly.

[Richard111]

And yet another opinion:

Reflected Sunlight Shines On IPCC Deceptions And Gross Inadequacies

By Dr. Tim Ball Monday, August 23, 2010

Quote:The moon’s albedo is 7, which means 93 units of 100 are absorbed and 7 units reflected. Earth’s albedo is 30 on average for the entire globe. The amount varies from a high of 75 to 95 percent for fresh snow down to 8 or 9 percent for coniferous forest. Seasonal variation in snow and ice cover is important as it affects global energy and therefore the weather from year to year.

However, the major factor is variability in the type and amount of cloud cover. Thick cloud varies from 60 to 90 and thin cloud from 30 to 50. This variability explains most of the change in albedo shown in Figure 3. The right side scale shows changes in energy with a range of about 9 watts per square meter. Compare this with the 2.5 watts per square meter change estimated to be due to human activities.

And here is the source of the graph plus more interesting info: (Derek?)

The albedo effect and global warming

[Derek]

Thank you Richard111 - noted, most definately noted.

May I (humourously, although it is heck of a good point..) give one excerpt...

" How accurate is the earthshine method in determining global albedo?
The earthshine method doesn't give a global albedo estimate.
It covers about one third of the Earth at each observation occasion and
certain areas can never be ‘‘seen’’ from the measurement site.
Furthermore the measurements are sparsely sampled in time, and
only made in a narrow wavelength band of 0.4 to 0.7 µm (Bender 2006). "

Citation: Bender, F. A-M. (2006), Comment on ‘‘A multi-data
comparison of shortwave climate forcing changes’’ by Palle´ et al.,
Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L15812, doi:10.1029/2006GL025745.

[Richard111]

Reading that point above gives me food for thought.

What kind of instrument provides data in the narrow wavelength band of 0.4 to 0.7 µm?

I would really like to get my hands on one that would read the narrow wavelength band of 14.8 to 15.2 µm.

As I type this it occurs to me that I might investigate military night sights on eBay.

[Derek]

(08-24-2010 10:31 PM)Richard111 Wrote:  Reading that point above gives me food for thought.

What kind of instrument provides data in the narrow wavelength band of 0.4 to 0.7 µm?

I would really like to get my hands on one that would read the narrow wavelength band of 14.8 to 15.2 µm.

As I type this it occurs to me that I might investigate military night sights on eBay.

That also distinguishes between CO2 sourced, and water sourced IR in the atmosphere.
(both emit at the same frequencies)
We "ask" too much me thinks...

[Richard111]

(08-25-2010 12:21 AM)Derek Wrote:  That also distinguishes between CO2 sourced, and water sourced IR in the atmosphere.
(both emit at the same frequencies)
We "ask" too much me thinks...

Hmm... What we need is clear skies and low humidity, not much chance of that in Wales. Just past 1pm on an August afternoon and the outside temperature is 13C and it is drizzling.

Okay, never give in, will look at 4.3 microns when we get clears skies.

I still cannot find any figures that define how much power is radiated in any specific greenhouse gas band when the source/surface radiation level is known, usually about 400W/m^2 (~15C). The surface greybody radiation can change all it wants, the band levels will always be the same smaller percentage of the total.

There seems to be two different log rates of power tail off, from peak at 10 microns down frequency to 40 microns and from peak 10 microns up frequency to 3 microns. It would appear there is the same level of energy in each band. i.e for 400W/m^2 total surface radiation the 3 - 10 micron band will radiate 50%, that is 200W and the 10 - 40 micron band will also radiate 50%, the remaining 200W. To my way of thinking this makes the energy level in the 4.3 micron band rather higher than the energy level in the 15 micron band.

As usual I am probably totally screwed up in this but where to find the correct information?

[ajmplanner]

(04-06-2010 11:58 PM)Richard111 Wrote:  Stephen Wilde doesn't agree with that. See:

A New And Effective Climate Model

Also on wattsupwiththat.com is a link to another paper

"A Statistical Analysis of Multiple Temperature Proxies: Are Reconstructions of Surface Temperatures Over the Last 1000 Years Reliable?"

This is a new and more devastating statistical analysis that expands on McIntye and McKittrick's work to put some more very large nails in the Hockey Stick's coffin and in the use of proxies in general. Interestingly these professional statisticians don't attack the quality of the data. They assume it is good data for their sophisticated statistics.

The paper can be read here:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.c...r-2010.pdf

[ajmplanner]

(04-06-2010 11:58 PM)Richard111 Wrote:  Stephen Wilde doesn't agree with that. See:

A New And Effective Climate Model

Also on wattsupwiththat is a link to a new statistical analysis that puts the final nails in the Hockey Stick's coffin even assuming all of the data Mann used was valid.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.c...r-2010.pdf

[ajmplanner]

Re: A NEW AND EFFECTIVE CLIMATE MODEL ON WATTSUPWITHTHAT

Also on wattsupwiththat is a link to a new statistical analysis by professional statisticians ( never used by modelers) that puts the final nails in the Hockey Stick's coffin even assuming all of the data Mann used was valid.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.c...r-2010.pdf

[h-j-m]

As I see it, the argument of AGW proponents about the sun's role is the following:

Solar radiation shows no upward trend for decades and therefore can not cause the observed warming effect.

Now I have to admit that I fail to comprehend the logic of this argument.

Let me try to explain using an example I witness rather frequently. Now and then I feed on preprocessed food that just needs to be heated up for consumption. So I put a pot containing water and the food can on my stove which I turn to high for a minute or so and turn it down to low then. Obviously the temperature of the stove's heating plate will cease growing when turned to low, it may even go down. Nevertheless the pot and it's content will get warmer.

If any warming of the earth needs a different explanation if the energy output of it's heat source ceases to rise, that must hold true for my pot on the stove as well. So what causes is warming? I am rather convinced that I can still blame the stove to cause it and in conclusion blame the sun for warming the earth.

Any explanation why AGW says otherwise is appreciated.

[ajmplanner]

Jasper Kirby, CERN Astrophysicist, discusses the Sun-Cosmic Ray-Cloud relationship and its effect on global warming in this video:

http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1181073