Category Archives: Uncategorized
But wait Laura, If it is the Sun that is heating Earth why aren’t the other planets warming as well? They are. *1 *2
Further, Mars has been losing ice from its polar regions. *3
It is the Sun.
*1 Link: Mars is warming: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/research/2007/marswarming.html
*2 Link: Other planets are warming: http://www.livescience.com/1349-sun-blamed-warming-earth-worlds.html
AGW / CC alarmists will loudly proclaim that the cause of global warming cannot be the Sun. They have been saying this same thing since the beginning of their movement; a movement that precedes the technology to actually know what the Sun is doing. In the previous blog entry I demonstrated three points of agreement between solar activity and Earth temperature, but could the Sun actually be the primary causal agent of the apparent warming of Earth?
Now, this is a difficult matter. While I have no problems accepting a time domain local warming of Earth, I do not simply accept as reliable any of the numbers presented to us by climatologists. Most current climatologists are earning their money providing the papers upon which AGW / CC alarmism is based. There is more than sufficient evidence that the alleged science is rarely science at all. There is evidence of data tampering and poor quality of mathematics used in the process of this “science”. I long ago in this series called attention to the figure of 0.74C warming per century in the recent era and that certainly the four hundredths of a degree is a matter of precision of calculation, and not at all supported by accuracy of observation. I have already stated that there is a good probability that zero point anything is not significant due to expected errors of observation. Still, for the sake of the following simple mathematical analysis I will stipulate to that number.
The following will be a first approximation only.*1
Firstly, how much does the Sun generally warm the Earth? That would be the difference between the temperature of Earth with no solar radiation, and the temperature as it is. So how warm would be Earth without the Sun? A planet far from the Sun, Neptune has a temperature of 73K *2 How warm would Earth be without the Sun? Probably not that cold. Earth has a molten core gradually releasing heat to the surface. The Earth has a large Moon, tidal forces of which distorts the Earth and cause heat of frictional loss of that kinetic energy. How warm is the Earth? The Earth averages about 15C *3
To convert that 15C to Kelvin we add the 273 that absolute zero is below 0C to that 15. That Earth temperature in Kelvin is 288.
If we assume that Earth without the Sun would be the same as that of distant Neptune, then we will take that temperature to be 73K as is Neptune.
How much does the Sun warm Earth then? Approximately the difference between the temperatures of Earth and Neptune: 288 – 73 = 215K.
Now, how much has the Sun changed its output in the century in which Earth’s temperatures were allegedly rising? NASA says about 0.05% per decade. *4 That 0.05% per decade multiplied by ten decades per century is: 0.05 X 10 = 0.5%
Now, of the usual warming in degrees Kelvin (remember that these are the same units as Celsius degrees but referenced to absolute zero), what in degrees might we expect from a 0.5% increase in solar radiation during that century? Well? The first approximation of sun induced warming on Earth is 215K. Let us find one percent of that number: 215 / 100 = 2.15K. Half of that is 2.15 / 2 = 1.075K.
The AGW / CC alarmists claim 0.74C warming during a century. My first approximation can fix upon the Sun an expected 1.075C warming effect. That is close. I am off by only 45% despite questionable numbers and an oversimplified mathematical model. The proponents of a man caused warming do not do so well. It’s the Sun!
*1 There are so many issues for which no mathematical model of merit is available. For instance; different wavelengths of light (as received from the Sun) have different effects upon the atmosphere of Earth. There are some wavelengths that apparently have large effect upon cloud formation. Certainly this will introduce some nonlinearity into any computations such as I have in mind. But the nonlinearity is not known to the point of quantitative application. There are many such unknowns. I will have to accept simple linear application of math and of quantities.
*2 Kelvin degrees are Celsius units referenced to absolute zero. Link (Temperature of Neptune): http://www.universetoday.com/21669/temperature-of-neptune/
4. Link: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/03/030321075236.htm
There would seem no good reason to accept the current alarmist position on the Earth’s climate. No, the climate is not precisely what it was a year ago or ten or five thousand. There is no normal and proper year, change is the normal. Further, the data that AGW / CC proponents cite is tainted by cherry picking of data, data “adjustments”, poorly sited measurement locations, and bias. The math used by AGW / CC proponents is poor and poor unidirectional; which is to say that the examples of poor math used by proponents of the alarmist position seem always to exaggerate their claims and never errors or fudging in a direction which would diminish their claims.
The very language of the AGW / CC alarmists is not that of science, but of public relations and advertising and politics. Many of the people shouting the most loudly are reaping major profits from their orthodoxy and the studies are government funded and then lead inexorably to a need for even more government on all levels. None of their predictions have been accurate; whether that arctic ice would entirely disappear, *1 or that snow would never fall again in England, *2 or that the 2013 hurricane season would be one of many and bad storms, which it was not. *3
But the greatest reason to disbelieve; to actually ponder deeply the AGW / CC alarm is this: there is no real reason to leave the realm of mundane answers and wander into the deep strange of anthropogenic causality. Let me please now take a few more of your minutes to think about the past one thousand years. Whereas there is no zero delta T century during this time, there is a definite order to the changes that have occurred.
Approximately one thousand years ago was the Medieval Warm Period *4 *5 the earth was warmer than it is today. *6 I would like to relate this warmth to solar activity but cannot as one thousand years ago there was no science no scientists and no solar observation of note. All we have here is a high temperature about one thousand years ago. Plot that as a single data point on a simple graph.
From about 1370 to about 1870 was the Little Ice Age *7 wherein the temperatures were lower than usual. This was a bad time for humanity with poor harvests. Now, during this time science was developed and we do know about solar activity, it was low. During this time was the Maunder Minimum, a time of very low sunspot activity. 8
At the approximate now *9 there has been higher temperatures and a corresponding high of solar activity, including a solar maximum of note of 1990 – 1991. *10 I call this the approximate now because this was approximately the high point of local high Earth temperatures.
The actual now is approximately 2013 – 2014. This is a time of generally low temperatures in much of the Earth. *11 The Sun is at very low activity at this time. *12
So, we have a high T with unknown solar activity at – 1000 years, at about – 400 years we have a low T along with low solar activity, then approximately now (about 20 years ago) both high T and solar activity, and now low T and solar activity!
One: There seems an obvious correspondence between solar activity and Earth temperature.
Two. The curves seem to be of roughly 1000 year period, and not quite sinusoidal. I would rather expect a lot of local roughness in the curves both solar and Earth T for many reasons related to the complexity of the entire system.
Three: Interestingly, the obvious departure from pure sinusoidal form of the curve is an asymmetry of heating and cooling where cooling takes rather longer. That is probably to be expected. Heat often takes longer to flow from than to: How long does it take to cool a hot prepared food to freezing as opposed to how long does it take to heat it?
Demonstration one concludes. There seems to be a simple and obvious connection between solar activity and Earth temperature.
Nearly done, hang in there. Thank you.
*5 I am old and recall this period of time being called the “Little Climatic Optimum”. It was said to be a happy time of a calm Northern Atlantic, viticulture in Greenland, and good harvests. Since the AGW / CC people have been around, that word “optimum” has been dropped. I find this somewhat suspicious given the proclivity of alarmists to leave the realm of calm and unbiased science for that of public relations.
*6 I recall reading that it was approximately two degrees C higher than the present. I consider the number to be questionable, but the MWP / LCO was warm.
*9 I will take this approximate now to be approximately mid 1990s
*11 These are USA figures where the majority of global warming has allegedly occurred. Link: http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/12/global-warming-caused-1000-us-record.html
*12 Link: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/01/nasa-we-may-be-on-the-verge-of-a-mini-maunder-minimum.html
Nothing is actually either statically or positively stable. Given time, everything changes. Given the passage of enough time our Sun will cease to oscillate happily between its current small and large poles of diameter. At some time in the future it will fall past that small diameter pole without sufficient increase in fusion as to trigger its thermal expansion. It will do this because it will finally have burned so much of its fuel that the reactivity needed to spark thermal expansion will not occur. It will fall through that diameter that was, even in the previous contraction phase of its cycle, the small diameter pole, and then reach a different ignition; a different fuel. At that time *1 the Sun will expand greatly to become a red giant. *2
The sun is dynamically stable. It oscillates from a pole of large diameter to a pole of small diameter and back. It passes through its nominal diameter again and again in a dynamic, self correcting series of excursions; pole to pole. It will, when it runs critically low on fuel, fail to ignite at the small pole and then transition to a different state. It will be dynamically stable again as a different sort of star.
Earth’s orbit changes with time. The orbit is not circular in any case, *3 and changes with time. Indeed, the orbit is a multiple body problem and not entirely subject to prediction or even complete mathematical precision. *4
The Sun produces not only light as we ordinarily think of it, but other radiations including the particulate solar wind. The Earth’s magnetic field protects us from this radiation of charged particles, and this field changes with time. The magnetic field of Earth has been changing rapidly of late. *5 Motion of the pole and alterations in the field strength of the magnetic field of Earth do have effect upon weather. *6 There is a huge amount of thermal energy stored in the oceans, seas, and large lakes of earth, these damp response of Earth’s total delta T to changes in received radiation from the Sun. Further, the oceans feature currents, flows of water akin to rivers within, that carry thermal energy from place to place.
Circles within circles; wheels within wheels. The Earth is a very complex planet, the system of which includes life itself. In no way can the system which is the Earth be analyzed without taking into account life. You know what? We cannot yet accomplish this. There is as yet no usable model for water in its phases. No usable model of water, the simple compound that covers about seventy percent of the Earth’s surface. That hydrological cycle is a wheel within a wheel; that larger wheel – the Earth – is but a wheel within a solar system. . .
. . .which contains not only the Sun, but other bodies as well including our nearest neighbor the Moon; a body that has tremendous power over Earth’s systems.
It is all dynamic stability. None of it is static. There is no nail to affix any part of this great system of systems to the wall; there is no fixed immovable wall to nail it to. There is neither “just right” condition nor set of conditions. This climate that we like right now; well it probably would be less than ideal for dinosaurs. Any idea that the climate, any aspect of climate, the very surface of the Earth itself, any aspect of the solar system, should never change is insane and ill informed.
Thank you for staying with me. We do near the end of this series.
*1 According to current astrophysical theory
*5 Link: http://phys.org/news8917.html
*6 Link: http://www.viewzone.com/magnetic.weather.html
One person that some scientists truly dislike is Karl Popper. Now, the esteemed Popper was not strictly speaking a scientist…or was he? *1 many scientists dislike him for one thing that he wrote. What Popper wrote that honks off so many scientists is that real science has to do with falsibility. That is to say that a scientific statement must be falsifiable. That means that if the statement is untrue, that untruth must be available. any scientific statement must be subject to faslification. Any statement which is not so subject to being found false. if it is false, is outside science.
Now, the AGW / CC proponents will ascribe any and every apparent weather event to the effects of their hypothesis. If any weather is the result of AGW / CC then there is no falsification possible.
Sorry AGW / CC people but you demonstrate again and again that whatever your position is; *2 it is not science.
*1 To my mind that which makes a scientist is not a specific degree nor a job within science, but rather a positive answer to the following question? Does this person understand science, and can this person employ scientific method? I think Karl Popper could satisfies both those conditions. That makes him, to my definition a scientist.
*2 Religion? Superstition? Political tool? Ignorance? hatred of mankind made manifest?