tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8038158934492547818.post4190507838183431636..comments2022-03-27T21:55:46.658+10:00Comments on By Brisbane Waters: Have we recovered yet (Pt 3)Tom Curtishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12952819493952635540noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8038158934492547818.post-88250846664017049912011-02-19T10:50:01.618+10:002011-02-19T10:50:01.618+10:00Thanks for this critique of the Syun-Ichi Akasofu ...Thanks for this critique of the Syun-Ichi Akasofu paper. I am also more philosopher than climate scientist, but found your posts to be coherent and convincing.<br /><br />I'm writing to say thanks, but also to make sure I hear about it if and when someone publishes a rebuttal to this paper in the literature. Make sure you let us know if/when that occurs.byron smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17938334606675769903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8038158934492547818.post-55290378959676203172011-01-08T14:22:29.981+10:002011-01-08T14:22:29.981+10:00Tom,
Ignore my last post here. I see you already r...Tom,<br />Ignore my last post here. I see you already responded on a different entry, and I did not see it before I made the above comment.Leonard Weinsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02125857972902059097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8038158934492547818.post-20130537583903565982011-01-08T14:03:59.515+10:002011-01-08T14:03:59.515+10:00Tom,
Your response on UV sounded reasonable, but I...Tom,<br />Your response on UV sounded reasonable, but I don't think we have enough information to conclude anything on the cosmic ray connection. However, I want you to respond to the question: If the temperature has gone up and down and as fast by as much or more several times during the Holocene, and was likely higher by as much as a degree or more, that the present, what do you claim were possible causes? These are not explainable by CO2 or human activity.Leonard Weinsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02125857972902059097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8038158934492547818.post-40370460752244978972011-01-07T22:50:14.466+10:002011-01-07T22:50:14.466+10:00Leonard, I think it is straight forward that any U...Leonard, I think it is straight forward that any UV not absorbed in the upper atmosphere will reach the Earth's surface in approximately the same proportions as visible radiation, so that a change in the proportion of UV reaching the surface is not the basis of a change in solar climate sensitivity. On the other hand, energy from UV absorbed in the upper atmosphere would appear to lower, not raise the solar climate sensitivity.<br /><br />This may not be immediately apparent, but that energy is redistributed by radiation. Approximately 2/3rds of it is radiated as IR by CO2 (and to a much lesser extent, H2O and CH4), and about 1/3rd of it as IR from ozone. Of that radiated by ozone, about half is radiated out to space, and the remaining sixth is radiated to the surface because of the lack of significant ozone concentrations in the troposphere. Of that radiated by CO2, half is again radiated out to space, and the remaining third is radiated into the upper troposphere where it is absorbed by CO2 at the level of effective radiation. Consequently, only half of any UV radiation absorbed in the upper atmosphere contributes to increased temperatures on the surface/troposphere.<br /><br />That being the case, increasing the proportion of UV radiation in incoming radiation increases the proportion of that radiation that does not contribute to surface heating. In other words, while an increased proportion of UV may well effect the sensitivity of solar radiation, it woud do so by reducing it, not increasing it.<br /><br />As to Svenmark's hypothesis, the evidence of the correlation between cosmic rays and clouds is spotty at best. What is more, the assumption that cosmic rays are necessary to the formation of cloud condensation nuclei is dubious. Far more likely is the possibility that it will increase the number of cloud condensation nuclei from a very large number derive from other sources. If it does that, then increased cosmic rays will not cause clouds to form that otherwise wouldn't, but it will cause clouds to have a greater albedo, and to last longer (because they produce less precipitation). That would produce an increased sensitivity for solar forcings, but no where near large enough an increase to sustain the idea that the late twentieth century warming is primarilly driven by the sun.Tom Curtishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12952819493952635540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8038158934492547818.post-1415975208223347032011-01-07T02:54:12.356+10:002011-01-07T02:54:12.356+10:00Tom,
You use the assumption of direct solar insola...Tom,<br />You use the assumption of direct solar insolation as the basis for you rejection of strong solar effects on Earth's temperature. That is not what many skeptics use as a basis for the solar effect. The solar activity has two other effects. The change in UV is a much larger change than in insolation. This affects Ozone production, which has a large effect. Also, solar activity is associated with solar magnetic field intensity, which affects cosmic ray intensity to Earth, and this has been shown to affect cloud activity. These two factors have a larger effect that just insolation alone, but are generally related to the insolation level, so the analysis is not as simple as you indicate.Leonard Weinsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02125857972902059097noreply@blogger.com