Okay, its been a while, but here goes. Over the past couple of months some interesting things have occurred.
First NASA reported that Earth's atmosphere may be more efficient at releasing energy to space than climate models indicate.
Earth's atmosphere may be more efficient at releasing energy to space than climate models indicate.
It may be more efficient but how can they test that? As far as I know the DSCOVR spacecraft has not been launched yet. That's the one denied launch during the Bush administration that is ready to test earth's radiation budget. Until we can measure the reflected radiation, in the rather large spectral range of this spacecraft, the models are not sufficiently constrained. We only know that the earth is warming.
If the atmosphere is more efficient than expected then it can take a lot more abuse than it is getting now. But, is there a eutectic point such that the heat capacity of the atmosphere becomes more, not less, opaque to heat. This would cause a very rapid rise in temperature. I had not considered that one. I would hope that Hansen and others have thought about that one.
solar activity affecting global warming
By solar activity I assume that you are thinking of the solar wind. The solar wind is deflected from all but the outer edge of the atmosphere by the earth's magnetic field. The sun has not changed its heat and wind production beyond minor variations over its sunspot cycle. Solar ultra-violet radiation is variable but the ozone layer protects us from that problem; except at the poles (you can get one hell of a sunburn there). The danger is the possibility of the magnetic pole shift. Evidence of a magnetic pole shift is accumulateting. The South Atlantic Anomaly AAA, is possible north pole below the equator, is growing; slowly but growing.
There is no controversy about global warming scientifically. The only controversy is political. Politics and science don't mix.
where is any reference
Many "science" slicks drop references. I'm not dissing these works but I don't recommend reliance on their scientific value.
Timeforchange102? Are you the same person as timeforachange101, with a slight course discription change, or are you someone else?
To me, the importance of the NASA findings is that it proves the climate models, that have been used to predict changes to the global climate over time are flawed, possibly seriously flawed.
To me, the importance of the CLOUD experiments is to prove that there are still processes taking place in the atmosphere that we are unaware of, and I'm sure more will be found in the future.
Taken individually or together, neather of these findings prove or disprove anthropogenic global warming. But generally they do provide a basis for a counter argument. At least enough to warrant being investigated further.
No my beef is that these findings are ignored and in some cases ridiculed, because they do not prove the "Settled Science" of Anthropogenic Global Warming. And the scientists, reporting these results are muzzled.
CERN Director General Rolf-Dieter Heuer, QUOTE: “I have asked the colleagues to present the results clearly, but not to interpret them,” because, “That would go immediately into the highly political arena of the climate change debate. One has to make clear that cosmic radiation is only one of many parameters.”
Actually, I didn't think there were any reputable scientists that didn't believe in anthropogenic global warming.
No, No, No!
Read this article:
"The number of cosmic rays that reach Earth depends on the Sun. When the Sun is emitting lots of radiation, its magnetic field shields the planet from cosmic rays. During periods of low solar activity, more cosmic rays reach Earth."
It may be more efficient but how can they test that?
According to the article this is what they did:
"In research published this week in the journal Remote Sensing, Spencer and UA Huntsville's Dr. Danny Braswell compared what a half dozen climate models say the atmosphere should do to satellite data showing what the atmosphere actually did during the 18 months before and after warming events between 2000 and 2011."
"The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show," Spencer said. "There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans."
As far as I know the DSCOVR spacecraft has not been launched yet. That's the one denied launch during the Bush administration that is ready to test earth's radiation budget.
Yes, I agree, however Bush hasn't been president for more than three years now. What's the hold-up?
But, is there a eutectic point such that the heat capacity of the atmosphere becomes more, not less, opaque to heat.
You lost me at "eutectic point". I have no idea what-so-ever, but it sounds highly speculative to me.
Don't get solar particles that make up the solar wind confused with the high energy cosmic rays from the galaxy. The solar partials do tend toward a minimum during solar minimum activity. During those minima the aurora become less spectacular.
Your call for more study is certainly a cause Celeb among climate scientists and others but what we do know points to a warming planet with a high correlation between climate temperature and human activity. It's that correlation that is important even now with the need for more research.
We need the DSCOVR spacecraft to fully measure earth's radiation budget. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Space_Climate_Observatory for more information. One may say that Muldur's poster speaks well for DSCOVR as 'The Truth is Out There'; the truth about global warming for sure.
When the Sun is emitting lots of radiation, its magnetic field shields the planet from cosmic rays.
I'm reading this a the sun's magnetic field. The shielding of earth from cosmic particles is the earth's. Let's assume you meant that. The earth's magnetic field is the reason the Van Allen Belts exist.
"eutectic point". I have no idea what-so-ever, but it sounds highly speculative to me
No speculation at all. Let me provide this wiki for you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eutectic_system. The graph shows how the melting point changes with the mixture of two metals. If you add a third dimension of pressure to the graph, you will generate something akin to a thermodynamic surface and the mixture may be gases as well as metals. If you consider the thermodynamic surface for water then regard the triple point where temperature, volume and pressure allows ice, water, and water vapor to coexist then if you add salt or add some other liquid to the water the triple point changes its location on the graph.
No, eutectics are vary real and useful in industry. If you know a welder ask him/her about it you will find that if they paid attention in welding school, they know about the eutectic point for any rod they use.
Same person. I used one at work and one at home. I use 102 now that I'm retired.
Bush hasn't been president for more than three years now. What's the hold-up?
Obama has been trying to get the funding necessary to get the spacecraft recertified for space. Certification is an international thing. I hope no one thinks that NASA or the Russians will launch an out house. Although it's nearly impossible to launch with no contamination, they try using the best practice clean room procedures.
Don't get solar particles that make up the solar wind confused with the high energy cosmic rays from the galaxy.
I don't think I'm getting them confused. The article says that high solar activity results in more solar particles/solar radiation,(or solar wind, as you say) which results in less cosmic rays reaching the atmosphere, reducing the production of aerosols. This implies that higher solar activity #radiation) results in less cloud cover and more warming, which in turn implies lower solar radiation would correspond to more cooling.
Bottom Line....more solar radiation, less cosmic rays, less cloud cover, more warming.
No, eutectics are vary real and useful in industry.
I'm sure they they are, but "eutectics" wasn't what I was referring to as "highly speculative". It was the theory you were stating:
"But, is there a eutectic point such that the heat capacity of the atmosphere becomes more, not less, opaque to heat. This would cause a very rapid rise in temperature. I had not considered that one. I would hope that Hansen and others have thought about that one."
And I'll have to admit I was, rather lamely trying to be funny.
I guess you were talking about something like what's going on on Venus, where the cloud cover is actually holding in the heat?
Same person. I used one at work and one at home. I use 102 now that I'm retired.
Retired? I'm still a few years away from doing that. And with this economy, I may be a long long way from doing that.
Here's something new!
Herd about the new faster than light speed muon neutrinos? 60 billionths of a second faster from CERN to Gran Sasso, than a photon. This is no joke, and their begging for help in proving themselves wrong:
Scientists can be funny people sometimes!
This is no joke, and their begging for help in proving themselves wrong
Right now they are trying to duplicate results. This morning I read that one assumption was that the neutrino was quantum jumping through space time; shades of Star Trek techno blah.
One other point is that neutrinos can't produce Cherenkov radiation as they don't exhibit a charge and that they don't interact all that well with matter which means they are very difficult to measure.
results in less cosmic rays reaching the atmosphere
Cosmic rays, or high energy particles originate in space. They have a much higher energy than solar particles. The numbers of these high energy particles relate to extra-solar events who rate should not be affected by the solar wind flux as the energies are very different.
Most, if not all, of the solar wind is trapped by the earth's magnetic field while cosmic rays are deflect somewhat. The solar component to this stream is made visible in the auroras at the earth's magnetic poles.