Not much of an atmosphere either or water vs land make-up. Apples and Oranges, a completely different dynamic and animal life is not a stake. They say the effect is likely caused by dust storms changing the albedo and thereby less reflected radiation. Input needs to match output. Seems the bug a boo still remains that we are at solar minimum.
It seems as though our little red cousin at 1.5 AU is undergoing the same thing minus any human activity http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1720024.ece
--- On Wed, 3/4/09, Kevin Poe <iamthedarkranger@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Kevin Poe <iamthedarkranger@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Global cooling? To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Date: Wednesday, March 4, 2009, 1:07 AM
Hello all!
I'm ready to stop reporting speculation and non-science with regard to our Sun being the source of recent climate change. Are you?
I recently attended a NASA & NPS conference on global climate change and much of week focused on debunking myths. One of many being the "Sun-blame-claim." Solar scientist Dr. Eric Christian classified the validity of these myths as, "Lies and Damned Lies." Then he went on to bombard us with tons of supporting data and graphs, as did Dr. Robert F Cahalan, head of Goddard's Climate and Radiation Branch - the workshop's Keynote Speaker. I attached a few of these graphs to hopefully generate some tough questions. (Email me if you want either of their complete powerpoints. Send me a blank DVD if you want a video recording of their entire presentations.)
Unless we ask ourselves, and each other tough questions, we will only believe in what we want to believe in. Amateur astronomers naturally want to believe the Sun is a key factor in global climate change because stars are our hobby = comfort zone. Park Ranger's like me want to believe it's caused by environmental apathy and corporate greed because it empowers us to be part of the solution -- preservation and conservation being what we teach/do/live. YET, what all of us "we" believe doesn't really matter. What has been scientifically measured does.
Incidentally, this will also be a topic of discussion at Bryce Astronomy Festival refresher training. If your beliefs are such that you don't want to contemplate such tough questions then you can be excused. If like Don Colton suggests you also think a dialogue should be opened on this issue then please come prepared to listen, question, and even argue (the later when managed is truly what advances science). Indeed if you want, consider this "disclosure" -- a preview of what I'm going to argue so that you can start building counter arguments and come prepared.
*Total Solar Irradiance.jpg* A variety of instruments show cyclical temp variation AND all show decrease in last 8 years. The Sun is the only thing in the global climate change system without a lag time, unless you consider 300,000 km/s a lag time. This is to say that our Sun's impacts are immediate. So who cares if 2008 wasn't as abnormally hot as other years since 2000? *Real question is: Why have all the other 7 years since 2000 been hotter if Solar Irradiance is on decline since 2000?*
*Decline in Solar Wind.jpg* Ulysses (NASA & ESA) orbiting Sun at Jupiter distance, but nearly perpendicular to ecliptic, has measured, at it's extreme distance, a big decrease in solar wind --transcending the normal flux of 11 year solar cycle. *Question: If the most recent solar cycle is consistently less energetic than last solar cycle, why aren't we experiencing a corresponding rate of global cooling? *
*Earth Locations of Greatest Temp Change.jpg* Greatest temperature increase vs 30 year average has occurred in highest latitudes - not where sun "hits" the hardest = equator, but annual average solar impact is the least - highest latitudes. High latitudes have lower average annual input because atmospheric deflection, axis tilt, and high albedo due to snow. *Question: If our Sun is the global warming culprit why where its yearly average input is the least, is the measured warming the most? *
*Temp Change at Atmospheric Altitudes.jpg* For past 25 years, with little flux, highest portion of atmosphere, where temperature is most controlled by solar input has steadily decreased in temperature by 4 degrees C! But stratosphere (low level) and mid levels
though with big flux - are maintaining temperature or slowing very slight increase. Volcanic eruptions (E=El Chichon, P=Pinatubo) create spikes of temperature in the stratosphere but they attenuate quickly with time and altitude. *Question: "After ruling out volcanoes, what else could be causing lower atmosphere temp to remain stable when decreased solar activity is causing cooling at upper levels?"*
So if our Sun is scientifically shown to not be creating global warming AND indeed suggests that by pure luck it appears that our Sun is mercifully decreasing its input (working against global climate change) during this time of significant temp increase, then what else could be causing it?
If for whatever belief based reason (guilt, obligation of life alerting behavioral changes, denial, etc) you're still not ready to consider anthropogenic contributions being the primary determining factor this next graph dispels the myths of two other big "excuses" ** *Temp vs ENSO & Volcanic AND Temp vs Anthro gases & Solar.jpg* Note: ENSO = El Nino-Southern Oscillation (weather flux due to ocean current cycles that are also determined in part by solar inputs). Graphs show surface level temperature increase that is NOT ONLY inconsistent with solar input but also the other "excuses" like Volcanic eruptions, El Nino / La Nina. Keep in mind these are combined affects. This is to say that even when you combine impacts of volcanics AND ENSO it still doesn't explain increase in temp! AND anthropogenic gases are so overwhelmingly deterministic that when you add in a decrease in solar (working against temp increase) you still get a better temperature correlation. That should make you say "Wow!" or at least "Hmmmm?" *Question: What else can we blame (besides human activity - if beliefs prevent asking that question) after we've ruled out the big three: Sun, Volcanic activity, ENSO? *
*Here's the question I like to ask: "How screwed are we going to be when our Sun increases its energy production to normal and especially above normal levels?"*
Also keep in mind that "the primary determining factor" DOES NOT mean biggest contributor of carbon. Although all of the natural sources of greenhouse gases combined may be greater than human output, all of the natural sources also come with natural carbon sinks. We humans don't make carbon sinks to mitigate our carbon output -- indeed instead we destroy the health of nature's carbon sinks: oceans and forests. So this means WE ARE the determining factor.
Imagine two kids balanced on a teeter-totter. When the proverbial moth of Chaos theory lands to the left of center on the teeter-totter, the moth is what caused the imbalance. It doesn't really matter how much heavier than the moth either of the children are because they - like our planet's robust climate system - were previously in balance (even if a dynamic balance). When it comes to global climate change wouldn't it be easier to reposition the moth than it would be the weight and or distance (torque created by) of the two kids?
So unless you know something overwhelmingly significant and unquestionably credible that NASA, ESA, NOAA, and a multitude of other scientists that form the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) doesn't know or has wrong, it's probably in your best interest to stop suggesting that our Sun might be the cause of the recently observed and measured global climate change. Doing otherwise might make you seem uninformed and/or impartial, which is inexcusable for a scientist, but also unflattering to "citizen scientists." And am I wrong to assume that like park rangers, SLAS members also aspire to be something like "citizen scientists?"
And finally if you've ever wondered about these overly publicized 3000+ scientists that have signed the infamous petition that states that global climate change isn't human caused, they are known as the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. Check out their website:
I think the photo on the homepage says it all - 3 guys standing in front of an aluminum barn with a hand painted sign. Incidentally they have no students, but claim 5 faculty although the nobel prize winner died in
Man is insignificant on a cosmic scale not so much on a terrestrial scale. Of course we do have probes on Mars, maybe NASA is responsible. (its a joke) Thanks for the article though. BTW: Was that water the skater fell into or cement? Was very funny, looked like someone had good photo shop skills. Must have come from the liberal media. and seriously electrical conservation is very much part of the solution, this is consistent with the Dark Sky agenda (with positive economic impact). Can we all support preserving night sky? Pretty easy yes or no question. Erik The Earth isn't the only planet that is experiencing a warming effect. - 2006.
They also specialize in curriculum for how to survive nuclear war. Which I'm told (certainly not my field of study) is actually more in line with mainstream (if such a thing exist) in that field than their "teachings" on global climate change.
However, to prove a point, I will soon join their ranks! As I stated (lied in the name of exposing bigger lies) on my mail-in petition form to OISM, I have PhDs in Astrophysics, Ecology, and Atmospheric Chemistry - all from Southern Utah University - which if anybody took 10 seconds to check, I of course do not. Not only have not a single credit from that school, SUU does not even offer majors in those subjects, let alone PhD programs. Yet hopefully, by the astronomy festival I'll be able to show you their website proclaiming my bogus credentials as part of their petition of 3000+ "scientists." Thanks for you time and consideration, both are greatly appreciated.
- Kevin
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 3:15 PM, <erikhansen@thebluezone.net> wrote:
From 1645 to 1715, the deepest freeze, "there is believed to have been a decrease in the total energy output from the sun, as indicated by little or no sunspot activity." This lack of sunspots is called the Maunder Minimum, when astronomers "observed only about 50 sunspots for a 30-year period." Three decades usually see 40,000 to 50,000 sunspots, it adds. More sunspots are associated with a greater heat output from the sun; fewer seem to be tied to less heat. I found this interesting, I was unaware that sun spot activity was monitored in the 1600's. When were solar filters developed? Any thoughts? Good article Joe. I believe that solar activity is the primary driver of global warming and cooling. I hope we don't go into another mini Ice Age and there is some reason for optimism as the solar scientists suggest.
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Joe Bauman Sent: Sunday, March 01, 2009 9:46 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Global cooling?
Hi friends, Keep up with the latest climate shifts:
http://deseretnews.com/blogs/1,5322,10000034,00.html?bD=20090301
-- Thanks, Joe
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
-- By the 3rd millennium, the reckless use of light nearly vanquished the night. A formidable few rushed to defend the last sanctuaries of natural darkness.
From the national parks, armed with science, mythology and a love for all things nocturnal came warrior poets who pushed back against the light. They were called Dark Rangers, and no one knew their names. . .
Kevin Poe 435-590-9498 (c) _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com