# Re: On Global Warming----The sun is getting a little hotter

"Ample physical evidence shows that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the single most
important climate-relevant greenhouse gas in Earth¡¯s atmosphere"

First phrase, first lie. The single most important climate-relevant blah
blah blah is water vapour,  not CO2 by a great margin. It makes about 90%
of the global warming effect.

I mean that this is a lie because they supposedly are scientists and they
must know it.

Anyway, this is bad news for those that, like me, receive  Exxon checks, we
need more antropogenic alarmists  ;))))

This list is becoming truly about  everything.

2013/6/15 <spudboy...@aol.com>

> It's amazing how much damage the Anthropogenic CO2 can do to the Solar
> Photosphere. ;-)
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: smitra <smi...@zonnet.nl>
> Sent: Sat, Jun 15, 2013 10:43 am
> Subject: Re: On Global Warming----The sun is getting a little hotter
>
> Not assumed to be caused, but known to be caused. The science is clear,
> it's only that the vast majority of the population is science
> illiterate to the point that many people with university degrees in
> economics, engineering etc. don't know much about physics and are
> susceptible to the same nonsense as most lay persons.
> http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6002/356.full
>
> ABSTRACT
>
> Ample physical evidence shows that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the single
> most important climate-relevant greenhouse gas in Earth¡¯s atmosphere.
> This is because CO2, like ozone, N2O, CH4, and chlorofluorocarbons,
> does not condense and precipitate from the atmosphere at current
> climate temperatures, whereas water vapor can and does. Noncondensing
> greenhouse gases, which account for 25% of the total terrestrial
> greenhouse effect, thus serve to provide the stable temperature
> structure that sustains the current levels of atmospheric water vapor
> and clouds via feedback processes that account for the remaining 75% of
> the greenhouse effect. Without the radiative forcing supplied by CO2
> and the other noncondensing greenhouse gases, the terrestrial
> greenhouse would collapse, plunging the global climate into an icebound
> Earth state.
>
> It often is stated that water vapor is the chief greenhouse gas (GHG)
> in the atmosphere. For example, it has been asserted that ¡°about 98%
> of the natural greenhouse effect is due to water vapour and stratiform
> clouds with CO2 contributing less than 2%¡± (1). If true, this would
> imply that changes in atmospheric CO2 are not important influences on
> the natural greenhouse capacity of Earth, and that the continuing
> increase in CO2 due to human activity is therefore not relevant to
> climate change. This misunderstanding is resolved through simple
> examination of the terrestrial greenhouse.
>
> The difference between the nominal global mean surface temperature (TS
> = 288 K) and the global mean effective temperature (TE = 255 K) is a
> common measure of the terrestrial greenhouse effect (GT = TS ¨C TE = 33
> K). Assuming global energy balance, TE is also the Planck radiation
> equivalent of the 240 W/m2 of global mean solar radiation absorbed by
> Earth.
>
> The Sun is the source of energy that heats Earth. Besides direct solar
> heating of the ground, there is also indirect longwave (LW) warming
> arising from the thermal radiation that is emitted by the ground, then
> absorbed locally within the atmosphere, from which it is re-emitted in
> both upward and downward directions, further heating the ground and
> interaction is the greenhouse effect, which was first discovered by
> Joseph Fourier in 1824 (2), experimentally verified by John Tyndall in
> 1863 (3), and quantified by Svante Arrhenius in 1896 (4). These studies
> established long ago that water vapor and CO2 are indeed the principal
> terrestrial GHGs. Now, further consideration shows that CO2 is the one
> that controls climate change.
>
> CO2 is a well-mixed gas that does not condense or precipitate from the
> atmosphere. Water vapor and clouds, on the other hand, are highly
> active components of the climate system that respond rapidly to changes
> in temperature and air pressure by evaporating, condensing, and
> precipitating. This identifies water vapor and clouds as the fast
> feedback processes in the climate system.
>
> Radiative forcing experiments assuming doubled CO2 and a 2% increase in
> solar irradiance (5) show that water vapor provides the strongest
> climate feedback of any of the atmospheric GHGs, but that it is not the
> cause (forcing) of global climate change. The response of the climate
> system to an applied forcing is determined to be the sum of the direct
> (no-feedback) response to the applied forcing and the induced radiative
> response that is attributable to the feedback process contributions.
> The ratio of the total climate response to the no-feedback response is
> commonly known as the feedback factor, which incorporates all the
> complexities of the climate system feedback interactions. For the
> doubled CO2 and the 2% solar irradiance forcings, for which the direct
> no-feedback responses of the global surface temperature are 1.2¡ã and
> 1.3¡ãC, respectively, the ~4¡ãC surface warming implies respective
> feedback factors of 3.3 and 3.0 (5).
>
> Because the solar-thermal energy balance of Earth [at the top of the
> atmosphere (TOA)] is maintained by radiative processes only, and
> because all the global net advective energy transports must equal zero,
> it follows that the global average surface temperature must be
> determined in full by the radiative fluxes arising from the patterns of
> temperature and absorption of radiation. This then is the basic
> underlying physics that explains the close coupling that exists between
> TOA radiative fluxes, the greenhouse effect, and the global mean
> surface temperature.
>
> An improved understanding of the relative importance of the different
> contributors to the greenhouse effect comes from radiative flux
> experiments that we performed using Goddard Institute for Space Studies
> (GISS) ModelE (6). Figure 1 depicts the essence of these calculations,
> including the separation of the greenhouse contributors into feedback
> and forcing categories.
>
> In round numbers, water vapor accounts for about 50% of Earth¡¯s
> greenhouse effect, with clouds contributing 25%, CO2 20%, and the minor
> GHGs and aerosols accounting for the remaining 5%. Because CO2, O3,
> N2O, CH4, and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) do not condense and
> precipitate, noncondensing GHGs constitute the key 25% of the radiative
> forcing that supports and sustains the entire terrestrial greenhouse
> effect, the remaining 75% coming as fast feedback contributions from
> water vapor and clouds.
>
> We used the GISS 4¡ã ¡Á 5¡ã ModelE to calculate changes in
> instantaneous LW TOA flux (annual global averages) in experiments where
> atmospheric constituents (including water vapor, clouds, CO2, O3, N2O,
> CH4, CFCs, and aerosols) were added to or subtracted from an
> equilibrium atmosphere with a given global temperature structure, one
> constituent at a time for a 1-year period. Decreases in outgoing TOA
> flux for each constituent relative to the empty or the full-component
> atmosphere define the bounds for the relative impact on the total
> greenhouse effect. Had the overlapping absorption been negligible, the
> sum of the flux differences would have been equal to the LW flux
> equivalent of the total greenhouse effect (GF = ¦ÒTS^4 ¨C ¦ÒTE^4 = 150
> W/m2), where ¦Ò is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant. We found the
> single-addition flux differences to be overestimated by a factor of
> 1.36, whereas in the single-subtraction cases, the sum of the TOA flux
> differences was underestimated by a factor of 0.734. By normalizing
> these fractional contributions to match the full-atmosphere value of
> GF, we obtained the fractional response contributions shown in Fig. 1.
>
> Because of overlapping absorption, the fractional attribution of the
> greenhouse effect is to some extent qualitative (as shown by the dashed
> and dotted extremum lines in Fig. 1), even though the spectral integral
> is a full and accurate determination of the atmospheric greenhouse
> strength for the specified global temperature structure. Still, the
> fractional attribution is sufficiently precise to clearly differentiate
> the radiative flux contributions due to the noncondensable GHGs from
> those arising from the fast feedback processes. This allows an
> empirical determination of the climate feedback factor as the ratio of
> the total global flux change to the flux change that is attributable to
> the radiative forcing due to the noncondensing GHGs. This empirical
> determination leads then to a climate feedback factor of 4, based on
> the noncondensing GHG forcing accounting for 25% of the outgoing flux
> reduction at the TOA for the full-constituent atmosphere. This implies
> that Earth¡¯s climate system operates with strong positive feedback
> that arises from the forcing-induced changes in the condensable species.
>
> A direct consequence of this combination of feedback by the condensable
> and forcing by the noncondensable constituents of the atmospheric
> greenhouse is that the terrestrial greenhouse effect would collapse
> were it not for the presence of these noncondensing GHGs. If the global
> atmospheric temperatures were to fall to as low as TS = TE, the
> Clausius-Clapeyron relation would imply that the sustainable amount of
> atmospheric water vapor would become less than 10% of the current
> atmospheric value. This would result in (radiative) forcing reduced by
> ~30 W/m2, causing much of the remaining water vapor to precipitate,
> thus enhancing the snow/ice albedo to further diminish the absorbed
> glaciation, producing an ice ball Earth.
>
> Claims that removing all CO2 from the atmosphere ¡°would lead to a 1¡ãC
> decrease in global warming¡± (7), or ¡°by 3.53¡ãC when 40% cloud cover
> is assumed¡± [8] are still being heard. A clear demonstration is needed
> to show that water vapor and clouds do indeed behave as fast feedback
> processes and that their atmospheric distributions are regulated by the
> sustained radiative forcing due to the noncondensing GHGs. To this end,
> we performed a simple climate experiment with the GISS 2¡ã ¡Á 2.5¡ã AR5
> version of ModelE, using the Q-flux ocean with a mixed-layer depth of
> 250 m, zeroing out all the noncondensing GHGs and aerosols.
>
> The results, summarized in Fig. 2, show unequivocally that the
> radiative forcing by noncondensing GHGs is essential to sustain the
> atmospheric temperatures that are needed for significant levels of
> water vapor and cloud feedback. Without this noncondensable GHG
> forcing, the physics of this model send the climate of Earth plunging
> rapidly and irrevocably to an icebound state, though perhaps not to
> total ocean freezeover.
>
> The scope of the climate impact becomes apparent in just 10 years.
> During the first year alone, global mean surface temperature falls by
> 4.6¡ãC. After 50 years, the global temperature stands at ¨C21¡ãC, a
> decrease of 34.8¡ãC. Atmospheric water vapor is at ~10% of the control
> climate value (22.6 to 2.2 mm). Global cloud cover increases from its
> 58% control value to more than 75%, and the global sea ice fraction
> goes from 4.6% to 46.7%, causing the planetary albedo of Earth to also
> increase from ~29% to 41.8%. This has the effect of reducing the
> absorbed solar energy to further exacerbate the global cooling.
>
> After 50 years, a third of the ocean surface still remains ice-free,
> even though the global surface temperature is colder than ¨C21¡ãC. At
> tropical latitudes, incident solar radiation is sufficient to keep the
> ocean from freezing. Although this thermal oasis within an otherwise
> icebound Earth appears to be stable, further calculations with an
> interactive ocean would be needed to verify the potential for long-term
> stability. The surface temperatures in Fig. 3 are only marginally
> warmer than 1¡ãC within the remaining low-latitude heat island.
>
>  From the foregoing, it is clear that CO2 is the key atmospheric gas
> that exerts principal control over the strength of the terrestrial
> greenhouse effect. Water vapor and clouds are fast-acting feedback
> effects, and as such are controlled by the radiative forcings supplied
> by the noncondensing GHGs. There is telling evidence that atmospheric
> CO2 also governs the temperature of Earth on geological time scales,
> suggesting the related question of what the geological processes that
> control atmospheric CO2 are. The geological evidence of glaciation at
> tropical latitudes from 650 to 750 million years ago supports the
> snowball Earth hypothesis (9), and by inference, that escape from the
> snowball Earth condition is also achievable.
>
> On million-year time scales, volcanoes are the principal source of
> atmospheric CO2, and rock weathering is the principal sink, with the
> biosphere acting as both source and sink (10). Because the CO2 sources
> and sinks operate independently, the atmospheric level of CO2 can
> fluctuate. If the atmospheric CO2 level were to fall below its critical
> value, snowball Earth conditions can result.
>
> Antarctic and Greenland ice core data show atmospheric CO2 fluctuations
> between 180 to 300 parts per million (ppm) over the
> glacial-interglacial cycles during the past 650,000 years (11). The
> relevant physical processes that turn the CO2 control knob on
> thousand-year time scales between glacial and interglacial extremes are
> not fully understood, but appear to involve both the biosphere and the
> ocean chemistry, including a significant role for Milankovitch
> variations of the Earth-orbital parameters.
>
> Besides CO2, methane is another potent greenhouse control knob, being
> implicated in the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximummass extinction 55
> million years ago, when global warming by up to 5¡ãC (12) occurred
> because of a massive release of methane from the disintegration of
> seafloor clathrates (13, 14). Methane is the second most important
> noncondensing GHG after CO2. Of the 2.9 W/m2 of GHG radiative forcing
> from 1750 to 2000, CO2 contributed 1.5 W/m2, methane 0.55 W/m2, and
> CFCs 0.3 W/m2, with the rest coming from N2O and ozone (15). All of
> these increases in noncondensing GHG forcing are attributable to human
> activity (16).
>
> Climate control knobs on the solar side of the energy balance ledger
> include the steady growth in luminosity since the beginning of the
> Solar System (from about 70% of present luminosity, depending on the
> postulated early solar mass loss), as hydrogen is consumed in nuclear
> reactions in the solar interior (17, 18). Milankovitch variations of
> the Earth-orbital parameters, which alter the relative seasonal
> distribution as well as the intensity of incident solar radiation
> within the polar regions, are another important solar energy control
> knob that is intimately associated with glacial-interglacial cycles of
> climate change. For solar irradiance changes over the past several
> centuries, an increase by about 0.1 W/m2 is inferred since the time of
> the Maunder minimum, based on trends in sunspot activity and other
> proxies (19).
>
> Of the climate control knobs relevant to current climate, those on the
> solar side of the energy balance ledger show only negligible impact.
> long-term trends in solar irradiance beyond the 11-year oscillation
> associated with the solar sunspot cycle. Large volcanic eruptions can
> happen at any time, but no substantial eruptions have occurred since
> the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines in 1991.
>
> In a broader perspective, CO2 greenhouses also operate on Mars and
> Venus, because both planets possess atmospheres with substantial
> amounts of CO2. The atmospheric greenhouse effect requires that a
> substantial fraction of the incident solar radiation must be absorbed
> at the ground in order to make the indirect greenhouse heating of the
> ground surface possible. Greenhouse parameters and relative surface
> pressure (PS) for Mars, Earth, and Venus are summarized in Table 1.
>
> Earth is unique among terrestrial planets in having a greenhouse effect
> in which water vapor provides strong amplification of the heat-trapping
> action of the CO2 greenhouse. Also, N2 and O2, although possessing no
> substantial absorption bands of their own, are actually important
> contributors to the total greenhouse effect because of
> pressure-broadening of CO2 absorption lines, as well as by providing
> the physical structure within which the absorbing gases can interact
>
> The anthropogenic radiative forcings that fuel the growing terrestrial
> greenhouse effect continue unabated. The continuing high rate of
> atmospheric CO2 increase is particularly worrisome, because the present
> CO2 level of 390 ppm is far in excess of the 280 ppm that is more
> typical for the interglacial maximum, and still the atmospheric CO2
> control knob is now being turned faster than at any time in the
> geological record (20). The concern is that we are well past even the
> 300- to 350-ppm target level for atmospheric CO2, beyond which
> dangerous anthropogenic interference in the climate system would exceed
> the 25% risk tolerance for impending degradation of land and ocean
> ecosystems, sea-level rise, and inevitable disruption of socioeconomic
> and food-producing infrastructure (21, 22). Furthermore, the
> atmospheric residence time of CO2 is exceedingly long, being measured
> in thousands of years (23). This makes the reduction and control of
> atmospheric CO2 a serious and pressing issue, worthy of real-time
> attention.
>
>
>
> Citeren Roger Clough <rclo...@verizon.net>:
>
> >
> > On Global Warming----The sun is getting a little hotter
> >
> > Up to the present day, studies of global warming were
> > based on CO2 levels in the atmosphere, assumed to be caused by
> > automobiles (the supposed greenhouse effect).
> > But more resent studies show that total solar irradiation (TSI) --
> > solar radiation coming from outside of the atmosphere-  not CO2 levels--
> > is  the driving force:
> >
> > http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/06/soon-and-briggs-global-warming-fanatics-take-note-sunspots-do-impact-climate/
> >
> >
> >
> > C02 levels are not reliable indicators of what causes surface
> > temperature warming (the supposed greenhouse effect) ?
> > .
> > Why ? Because some of the CO2 in the atmosphere is there because as
> > the earth warms, the
> > oceans warm and CO2 gases sare less soluble in warmer water, so fizle out
> > into the atmosphere. So it is doubtful to say that current levels of CO2
> > are entirely from automobiles.
> >
> > So current scientific evalutations as in the graph below do not rely on CO2
> > measurements, they use solar radiation which is not influenced by C02 levels
> > and relate that instead to surface gtemperatures.
> >
> > The total solar radiation (TSI) is not obtained from measurements
> > made on earth, so
> > it isn't supposed to include greenshouse gas effects. It is measured
> > these days by satellite,
> > but is reconconstructed from pre-satellite days (<1979 ) based on a model
> > based on the number of sunspots.
> >
> > http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=com_article&access=standard&Itemid=129&url=/articles/aa/abs/2007/19/aa6725-06/aa6725-06.html
> >
> > "Reconstruction of solar total irradiance since 1700 from the surface
> > magnetic flux
> > N. A. Krivova, L. Balmaceda, and S. K. Solanki
> >
> > Max-Planck-Institut f? Sonnensystemforschung, Max-Planck-Str. 2,
> > 37191 Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany
> >    e-mail: nata...@mps.mpg.de
> >
> > (Received 9 November 2006 / Accepted 23 February 2007)
> >
> > Abstract
> > activity maximum and minimum. Accurate measurements of this quantity
> > are only available since 1978 and do not provide information on
> > longer-term secular trends.
> > Aims.In order to reliably evaluate the Sun's role in recent global
> > climate change, longer time series are, however, needed. They can
> > only be assessed with the help of suitable models.
> > Methods.The total solar irradiance is reconstructed from the end of
> > the Maunder minimum to the present based on variations of the surface
> > distribution of the solar magnetic field. The latter is calculated
> > from the historical record of the sunspot number using a simple but
> > consistent physical model.
> > Results.Our model successfully reproduces three independent data
> > sets: total solar irradiance measurements available since 1978, total
> > photospheric magnetic flux since 1974 and the open magnetic flux
> > since 1868 empirically reconstructed using the geomagnetic aa-index.
> > The model predicts an increase in the solar total irradiance since
> > the Maunder minimum of $1.3^{\rm +0.2}_{\rm -0.4}$ Wm-2. "
> >
> >
> >
> > Dr. Roger Clough NIST (ret.) 3/30/2013
> > "Coincidences are God's way of remaining anonymous."
> > - Albert Einstein
> > ____________________________________________________________________
> >
> >
> >
> > Dr. Roger Clough NIST (ret.) 6/15/2013
> > See my Leibniz site at
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________________
> > DreamMail - The first mail software supporting source tracking
> > www.dreammail.org
> >
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> > Groups "Everything List" group.
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
> > send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>
>   --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>

--
Alberto.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email