Ch 3. Factors affecting planetary heating

Collage of solar energy; clockwise, from upper...

Image via Wikipedia

Many! The Sun, the Earth, orbital factors, greenhouse effects, ‘natural’ gasses, man-made pollution, cosmic rays, now add dust (see para 2).

I am now trying to get some order into this theme. Already noted as a Work in Progress, there is much to be done.

Pity really, I had hoped that by now the world would have woken up to the real picture, and my contribution would be unnecessary. But no, the politicians are still hell-bent on destroying our social structures to suit their ambitions, based on lies! Seems to be the way of the ungodly in several areas. (Added 21 Sept 11).

1. The SUNSolar energy!

 The actual source of the heating, modified by factors following below.

Even though Earth’s modifying mechanisms are several and strong, the heating and other forces from the Sun are FUNDAMENTAL!  A change in these will have some effect on Earth’s near surface temperature control system. What is affected and by how much is looked at very carefully here.

There can be no doubt that surface-heating effects of a more radiant sun will, not be exactly counter-balanced by our natural control mediums because the counter balancing must be initiated by an actual change in earth surface heating. A new equilibrium will be reached, (hopefully), but not without a surface heat change of some amount, in some place.

Certainly, what might have otherwise been a, say 10 degC increase at the surface, might be balanced by a surface temperature increase of, say 1 degC because the feedback control mechanism of the atmosphere. But there must be some change at the surface.

The only way that this can be not true, is if the temperature control system that is our atmosphere is modified by an influence outside of our ‘little’ closed system. This is part of the study here, introducing ‘Cosmic Rays‘ as a factor.  Strangely enough, even though cosmic rays are derived externally to our Solar system, it appears possible that their influence on our ‘control system’ is modified/moderated by the Sun anyway. A beautiful scenario.

The sun itself has a few different characteristics or behavioural factors each playing a part in the heating effect on the earth:

Solar Irradiance

Solar Flares/Sunspots

Magnetic effects

Solar Wind

These are given their own pages as a subset of ‘The Sun”.

Ref: http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/solar/ This site provides extensive, comprehensive, detailed information for the technically minded. Some of it is copied into theses pages in the appropriate places.

Life cycle of the Sun.

Image via Wikipedia

(Image via Wikipedia) For the sake of the current dilemma, this is just an interesting reference, but it is nice to know that the scientists consider that the long-term prospects for our Sun to keep us alive are quite healthy. Even if they are a bit inaccurate, (who would know?), civilizations are unlikely to survive for many other reasons. So for the next billion years, we expect the Sun to have roughly the same sort of output. In the short term, however, its specific output does vary, enough to influence our well-being and must be taken into account in this assessment of Earth’s climate. One thing for sure – this factor is not in any way, influenced by human endeavours.  (Unless maybe there is a God prepared and able to respond to our prayers. Don’t laugh, no man KNOWS for sure what spiritual powers there are and to what extent we might connect with them).  (Updated 21 Sept 11).

http://members.optushome.com.au/vk6ysf/vk6ysf/solarcycles.htm (good info!)

What’s Going On With the Sun?

SUNSPOT PREDICTION GRAPH

 

Climate oscillations and their solar/astronomical origin:climate reconstruction and forecast

 

2. Absorption and reflection characteristics of earth surface.

Heat storage and loss factors.

3. Absorption and reflection characteristics of the atmosphere/ionosphere. Which depends on its composition, including CO2.  Effects of volcanic emissions.  Man-made pollution.  “Greenhouse effects”.  Cosmic Rays (see #9).

Forget CO2 and Milankovitch cycles, new study says dust in the wind drives climate

This guy says there is no Greenhouse effect! http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/Understanding_the_Atmosphere_Effect.pdf

So does this:http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=5783&linkbox=true&position=6

Posted by cleanwater (forum) on May 28th 2010, 6:00 PM EDT
This is consistent with the work of the below references.List of references: The paper “Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effect within the frame of physics” by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner is an in-depth examination of the subject. Version 4 2009 Electronic version of an article published as International Journal of Modern Physics B, Vol. 23, No. 3 (2009) 275{364 , DOI No: 10.1142/S021797920904984X, c World Scientific Publishing Company, http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb. Report of Alan Carlin of US-EPA March, 2009 that shows that CO2 does not cause global warming. Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis Violates Fundamentals of Physics” by Dipl-Ing Heinz Thieme This work has about 10 or 12 link that support the truth that the greenhouse gas effect is a hoax. R.W.Wood from the Philosophical magazine (more properly the London, Edinborough and Dublin Philosophical Magazine , 1909, vol 17, p319-320. Cambridge UL shelf mark p340.1.c.95, if you’re interested. The Hidden Flaw in Greenhouse Theory By Alan Siddons from:http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_hidden_flaw_in_greenhouse.html at March 01, 2010 – 09:10:34 AM CST The below information was a foot note in the IPCC 4 edition. It is obvious that there was no evidence to prove that the ghg effect exists. “In the 1860s, physicist John Tyndall recognized the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the atmospheric composition could bring about climatic variations. In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first speculated that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.” After 1909 when R.W.Wood proved that the understanding of the greenhouse effect was in error and the ghg effect does not exist. After Niels Bohr published his work and receive a Nobel Prize in Physics in 1922. The fantasy of the greenhouse gas effect should have died in 1909 and 1922. Since then it has been shown by several physicists that the concept is a Violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Obviously the politicians don’t give a dam that they are lying. It fits in with what they do every hour of every day .Especially the current pretend president. Paraphrasing Albert Einstein after the Publishing of “The Theory of Relativity” –one fact out does 1 million “scientist, 10 billion politicians and 20 billion environmental wackos-that don’t know what” The Second Law of thermodynamics” is. The bottom line is that the facts show that the greenhouse gas effect is a fairy-tale and that Man-made global warming is the World larges Scam!!!The IPCC and Al Gore should be charged under the US Anti-racketeering act and when convicted – they should spend the rest of their lives in jail for the Crimes they have committed against Humanity. Web- site references: http://www.americanthinker.com Ponder the Maunder wwwclimatedepot.com icecap.us http://www.stratus-sphere.com SPPI many others are available. The only thing more dangerous than ignorance is arrogance.” —Albert Einstein In several of the comments there are statements that The”greenhouse gases are opaque to IR this is Junk science- yes each of the supposed “ghg’s’ do absorb certain very limited wavelengths of IR” However anyone that is familiar with IR spectrometry know that none of these gases absorb all of the IR that goes through the atmosphere. When you look at the total amount of IR in the solar radiation it would take 100 percent CO2 to absorb most of it, and this would only be the 3 wavelengths that CO2 absorbs. Water/vapor/liquid/ solid absorbs far more wavelengths than CO2 or CH4 and still there is plenty left to cause major heating during the day even with extreme cloud cover. The following statement is true but it implies that all the “long wave”IR is from the atmosphere- it ignores the fact that every molecule and atom that is above absolute zero is sending out IR proportional to its’ temperature Kirkoffs’ law, thus it is imposible to tell where all this IR is coming from the O2 or N2 molecules , the trees on the horizon, your own body, the geese flying over, the clouds over head, the warm from moving in from the west or the cold from following behind it. This suggests that the atmosphere transers no photons to the surface of the Earth at night. This is not the case, as the flux of longwave radiation from the atmosphere has been measured, and even occurs during the polar night (the months of darkness the occur at the poles each winter). See http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI3525.1 Read more at Suite101: The Laws of Physics Ably Defeat the Global Warming Theory http://climate-change.suite101.com/article.cfm/laws-of-physics-ready-to-defeat–the-global-warming-theory#ixzz0pGLEabyZRead more at Suite101: The Laws of Physics Ably Defeat the Global Warming Theory http://climate-change.suite101.com/article.cfm/laws-of-physics-ready-to-defeat–the-global-warming-theory#ixzz0pGO2nlFS
Posted by Graham (forum) on May 30th 2010, 7:51 PM EDT
Great comment, cleanwater. But omigosh, paragraphs! I had to paste it to Word and re-format to read it! Even so, as I say, top comment.
Wednesday, June 4th 2008, 5:46 AM EDT
Co2sceptic (Site Admin)
article image

Stephen Wilde has been a Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society since 1968. The first five articles from Mr Wilde were received with a great deal of interest throughout the Co2 Sceptic community.

In Stephen Wilde’s sixth and exclusive article for CO2Sceptics.Com he considers that the IPCC have failed to carry out any risk analysis for the potential for global cooling instead of global warming and that a repeat of the Little Ice Age a mere 400 years ago would cause mass starvation worldwide.

The Death Blow to AGW by Stephen Wilde

The influence of the sun has been discounted in the climate models as a contributor to the warming observed between 1975 and 1998. Those who support the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), now known as anthropogenic climate change so that recent cooling can be included in their scenario, always deny that the sun has anything to do with recent global temperature movements.

Related articles

4. Blocking by clouds. ? both ways?

More clouds, less UV heating during day, but more containment of heat during night. Net effect ? , depends on density, type, altitude of clouds.

5. Cosmic Rays. Modified by the solar magnetic field and pertubations, in turn directly? affecting cloud formation. (More cosmic rays, more clouds; more magnetic field strength, less cosmic rays reach earth.

BREAKING NEWS – CERN Experiment Confirms Cosmic Rays Influence Cloud Seeds

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANMTPF1blpQ Svensen hypothesis, hated by IPCC et al!

Global Warming Caused by Cosmic Rays and the Sun – Not Humans

6. Distance and orientation of earth to sun.

Inuit Knowledge and Climate Change
on CBC’s The National
      Earth axis orientation.

7. Heat sources on earth – fires; internal heat dissipation; volcanoes; creation of electrical energy – coal, nuclear, gas; transport fuel burning; even our bodies converting food to heat.

http://www.earthchangesmedia.com/secure/3247.326/article-9162531176.php:

Geologists have used temperature measurements from more than 20,000 boreholes around the world to estimate that some 44 terawatts (44 trillion watts) of heat continually flow from Earth’s interior into space.

Have seen  aphoto of a ring of vlcanoes spewing heat right around the Antarctic ?continent. Cannot find where I stored it, if i did.

8. Cooling sources ‘on’ earth – rain, hail, snow, wind, night time radiation back to atmosphere,

9. Cosmic Rays:

BREAKING NEWS – CERN Experiment Confirms Cosmic Rays Influence Cloud Seeds

Scientists Gagged From Interpreting Study That Links Climate Change To Cosmic Rays

thingadonta says:

Dr Spencer has hit a rich vein here. The time lag concept is unequivocal and occurs in nature all the time, but often doesn’t show up in many academic papers because academics are taught from day 1 to reduce and correct ‘errors’ and ‘mismatches’ as part of good academic editing. The difficulty lies in differentiating valid variation and time lag in nature to common mathematical or other errors. Forecasts must match specific timelines, variations to a theme must be ‘smoothed’ for errors etc. So ‘time lag’ is usually smoothed out and left out. This tendancy also springs from a deeper assumption; that variations to a dominant natural process are ‘errors’ or ‘noise’ by default, rather than an essential element of any chaotic system.

Here are some time lags in nature for reference:

-seasonal land maximum warmth after the summer solstice (up to 6 weeks after summer solstice).
-seasonal cold mimima after winter solstice (as above, but usually less).
-daily land warmth maxima after noon (several hours, depending on clouds and wind)
-20 year time lag of max. earth temperatures determined by solar proxies (Usoskin paper).
-lag in C02 max/minima of several hundred years following temperature changes and ice ages
-lag in temperature changes following earth orbital variations/axis tilt variations and ice ages, particularly for warmth after an ice age (due to ice and albedo affects presumably, which has more time lag than cooling following an interglacial)
-seasonal lags in ocean temperatures and currents following winter and summer solstice
-lag in El Nino/Lina effects from west to east pacific
-ocean tidal lags which follow the moon and sun, but are delayed due to the rate at which water is transferred across the oceans and to the shores.
-Tidal river bores as localised tidal events lags, which may take hours to go up a river after peak tide.
-max swell wave generation following a storm; swell waves produced from wind take time and space to form and reach their peak, and therefore max. peak swell size has a temporal and spatial lag after max wind strength, and only after a length of ocean has been traversed. This can also be effected by local ocean currents (which, if counter to the prevailing winds can produce rogue waves in the open ocean, an extreme ‘maxima event’, a very good analogy to the climate?).
-max. wind gusts following a storm, eg ?tornados may be viewed as ‘chaotic lag effects’ once a tropical storm is already established
-the whole concept of a ‘tipping point’ loosely fits into lag effects in a broader sense.

Can’t think of any others for now, but they are common in nature, not so common amongst academica, due to the diffuculty in differentiating valid variation and time/spatial lag in nature to normal mathematical or other errors and inconsistencies.

Complete post:  Rise of the 1st Law Deniers  Considered very relevant!!

One Response to Ch 3. Factors affecting planetary heating

  1. Ismail says:

    COMMENTS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMINGBy John Coleman (the founder of the Weather Channel)It is the tagreest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM.Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data back in the late 1990 s to create an allusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental wacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the “research” to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.Environmental extremist, notable politicians among them then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild “scientific” scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda.Now their ridiculous manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmental conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minutes documentary segment.I do not oppose environmentalism. I do not oppose the political positions of either party.However, Global Warming, i.e. Climate Change, is not about environmentalism or politics. It is not a religion. It is not something you “believe in.” It is science; the science of meteorology. This is my field of life-long expertise.And I am telling you Global Warming is a nonevent, a manufactured crisis and a total scam. I say this knowing you probably won’t believe me, a mere TV weatherman, challenging a Nobel Prize, Academy Award and Emmy Award winning former Vice President of United States. So be it.I suspect you might like to say to me, “John, look the research that supports the case for global warming was done by research scientists; people with PH D’s in Meteorology. They are employed by major universities and important research institutions. Their work has been reviewed by other scientists with PH D’s. They have to know a lot more about it than you do. Come on, John, get with it. The experts say our pollution has created an strong and increasing greenhouse effect and a rapid, out of control global warming is underway that will sky rocket temperatures, destroy agriculture, melt the ice caps, flood the coastlines and end life as we know it. How can you dissent from this crisis? You must be a bit nutty.Allow me, please, to explain how I think this all came about. Our universities have become somewhat isolated from the rest of us. There is a culture and attitudes and values and pressures on campus that are very different. I know this group well. My father and my older brother were both PHD-University types. I was raised in the universityculture. Any person who spends a decade at a university obtaining a PHD in Meteorology and become a research scientist, more likely than not, becomes a part of that single minded culture. They all look askance at the rest of us, certain of their superiority. They respect government and disrespect business, particularly big business. They are environmentalists above all else.And, there is something else. These scientists know that if they do research and results are in no way alarming, their research will gather dust on the shelf and their research careers will languish. But if they do research that sounds alarms, they will become well known and respected and receive scholarly awards and, very importantly, more research dollars will come flooding their way.So when these researchers did climate change studies in the late 90 s they were eager to produce findings that would be important and be widely noticed and trigger more research funding. It was easy for them to manipulatethe data to come up with the results they wanted to make headlines and at the same time drive their environmentalagendas. Then their like minded PHD colleagues reviewed their work and hastened to endorse it without question.There were a few who didn’t fit the mold. They did ask questions and raised objections. They did research with contradictory results. The environmental elitists berated them brushed their studies aside.I have learned since the Ice Age is coming scare in the 1970 s to always be a skeptic about research. In the case of global warming, I didn’t accept media accounts. Instead I read dozens of the scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct when I assure you there is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. It is all a scam, the result of bad science.I am not alone in this assessment. There are hundreds of other meteorologists, many of them PH D’s, who are as certain as I am that this global warming frenzy is based on bad science and is not valid.I am incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismissal of counter argumentsby the high priest of Global Warming.In time, a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious. As the temperature rises, polar ice cap melting, coastal flooding and super storm pattern all fail to occur as predicted everyone will come to realize we have been duped.The sky is not falling. And, natural cycles and drifts in climate are as much if not more responsible for any climatechanges underway.I strongly believe that the next twenty years are equally as likely to see a cooling trend as they are to see a warming trend.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s