"Jack Goff" wrote in message
news
On 30 May 2006 10:17:22 -0700, "basskisser"
wrote:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...489955,00.html
And he http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0219-01.htm
Both "news" articles are about the same study over a year ago, which
has since been shown to have serious flaws.
Here's a couple of things to look at:
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/391.pdf
Note that these are not some newspaper hack's slanted opinions, but
rather are open-minded, researched papers complete with abundant
references.
If Eric is still following this thread, he may find the second one
especially interesting, as it talks about the flaws in the computer
models used for climate predictions.
http://www.aetherometry.com/global_w.../gw_index.html
The dominant solar control of weather
Here much too much could be said. It begins perhaps with all those studies
that never succeeded in understanding the complex variation of the motion of
planets and the solar system, nor the different solar cycles caused by
distinct motion components, nor the effect of these cycles on the variations
in the intensity and spectral composition of solar emissions. Almost
everything in this chapter of climatology needs to be redone, since the sun
does not determine terrestrial weather, but drives its patterns and controls
or modulates its responses. Yet, so little is understood about this by
Official Science, and the pace of the investigation is so slow, that it
truly makes one cringe. In fact, solar-minded climatologists are largely
shunned by Official Science; they are an eccentricity of climatology.
This ties in with the subject of the previous section because, in still
another sense, the problem begins with not understanding the physical nature
of solar radiation and thus not understanding the variations in intensity or
spectral energy of this radiation. Yet, a displacement of solar ambipolar
radiation towards emissions having electric energy greater than 50 KeV would
result in a greater transfer of energy from the sun to the atmosphere, and
would readily promote UV photon production in the atmosphere. As
Landscheidt remarks, it is well established (see the references that he
provides [43]) that -
"change in the UV radiation of the Sun is much greater than in the range of
visible radiation. The UV range of the [electromagnetic] spectrum lies
between 100Å and 3800Å. Wavelengths below 1500Å are called extreme
ultraviolet, EUV. The variation in radiation between extrema of the 11-year
sunspot cycle reaches 35% in the EUV range, 20% at 1500Å and 7% around
2500Å. At wavelengths above 2500Å, the variation reaches still 2%. At the
time of energetic solar eruptions, UV radiation increases up to 16%."
Where are these variations taken into account in the models that predict
what they assume, namely, 'global warming'? Landscheidt provides an answer
to that question as well:
"There is not even an attempt to model such complex climate details, as GCMs
are too coarse for such purposes. When K. Hasselmann (a leading greenhouse
protagonist) was asked why GCMs do not allow for the stratosphere's warming
by the sun's ultraviolet radiation and its impact on the circulation in the
troposphere, he answered: "This aspect is too complex to incorporate it into
the models."
So, in this chapter of forcing climatology to study what it should be
studying, a first entry would be an effective taking into account of the
variation of the so-called solar irradiance constant caused by such solar
features as 'faculae' [52]. A second entry would further propose that the
solar 10.7 cm radio flux has been abused as a proxy for the UV flux
associated with solar radiation, to paraphrase Fred Singer [53]. Further,
we claim this is a double abuse, since the ultimate cause of that EUV flux
is solar ambipolar radiation greater than 79.4 keV. In both of these
entries, it is actual research into basic science that is missing. Yet, the
myths of global warming rely upon the glorification of this absence.
Decadal ranges of variation in the irradiance 'constant', spanning 3W/m2, or
0.22% of the mean value of that 'constant', are observed by satellite
radiometers. The usual calculation is that 30% of this energy is reflected,
and only one quarter of the remainder absorbed (on the order of 239 W/m2),
with the result that the variation in absorbed energy only amounts to 0.53
W/m2 [43]. If one accepts that global warming reaches 2.4±0.4 W/m2, the
variation of the solar 'constant' only accounts for one fifth of this
magnitude. Even inference of the "solar radiative forcing change" as
"slightly less than 1W/m2" [54] cannot account for that accepted value of
global warming, nor for more than 0.27 deg C out of the claimed warming by
0.5 to 0.6 deg C [55]. The conclusion of 'global warming' advocates is, of
course, that the remainder of the warming must be man-made.
This is something of a false conundrum, since energy reflection varies for
land masses, oceans and ice cover, and to convert watts per meter squared
into degrees of atmospheric temperature is a relatively arbitrary process
with a range of 0.3 to 1.4 deg C per W/m2. As Landscheidt puts it, if one
chooses the mean value at 0.85 deg C/W/m2, the solar variation of 0.53 W/m2
accounts for 0.425 deg C of change. A mean value of 0.55 deg C/W/m2 would
suffice completely if the absorbed variation was "slightly less than 1
watt", as Soon, Baliunas et al proposed. Yet, all these researchers
conclude to the need to postulate a positive feedback mechanism that
enhances climate response to solar 'forcings', Soon and his group going as
far as proposing a "climate hypersensitivity model" where substantially more
absorption of solar radiation occurs in the stratosphere [55]. This is only
necessary if one can establish the conversion rate to be ca. 0.27 deg
C/W/m2. Yet, simple thought suffices to suggest that this a rate must vary
with varying atmospheric pressure and gas density. Moreover, with respect
to latent heat, one cannot make rigid inferences about its quantity on the
basis of some of its byproducts, temperature and radiant photon energy.
Landscheidt quotes a profound remark of Juan G. Roederer relating precisely
to this fact - a vintage aetherometric fact that is also obvious to
non-aetherometric scientists, and is pregnant with still more consequences
than even they suspect - and he employs it to argue for the existence of
positive feedback processes:
"In a highly nonlinear system with large reservoirs of latent energy such as
the atmosphere-ocean-biosphere, global redistributions of energy can be
triggered by very small inputs, a process that depends far more on their
spatial and temporal pattern than on their magnitude" [56]
For example, since ozone formation releases near UV photons, but ozone
itself does not release blue and IR photons unless certain conditions are
present (those needed for the production of water and oxygen), low ground
ozone is a heat trap - retaining, as latent energy, the sensible heat that
must be released in the course of the allotropic cycle. Hence, there is
another aspect pertaining to the trapping of heat that is amplified in
surface atmospheres by man-made pollution: namely the role of atmospheric
free-radical pollutants in trapping latent heat, prominent amongst which is
the role of ground-level ozone.
But on an even more basic level - one that does not need to invoke any
aetherometric knowledge of ambipolar radiation, or an understanding of the
variations in UV photon production by solar radiation - a full or complete
account is yet to be made of the relative impact on weather systems and
climate of variables such as the 21.33 year sunspot cycle, the 9 to 12 year
oscillations of long and short solar orbitals in the plane of the ecliptic,
the quasi-biennial oscillation of stratospheric winds [57-58] and its
corresponding counterpart in the Southern Hemisphere.
In this context, we should cite as one of the important analytical
contributions the rather Aspdenian study by Landscheidt of the relation
between variations in solar radiation, solar rotation and orbital angular
momentum in the plane of the ecliptic. He identified a contribution of the
latter, on the order of 25%, to the total solar angular momentum [59], and
has, for more than two decades, been proposing a transfer of angular
momentum from the Sun's orbital in the ecliptic to the Sun's rotation around
its axis. Foukal suggested that increases in production of UV and X-ray
photons associated with stellar radiation could be a consequence of the
differential rotation of the solar chromosphere (fastest at the equator), ie
the process behind cyclic formation of sunspots and faculae [52]. He further
suggested that only stars with high rates of rotation had high energy
photons associated with their radiation spectra. Landscheidt's proposal
explains what feeds the cyclic changes in that solar rotation, and serves as
its periodic accelerator. This is of great consequence, first because the
process in question is likely the main factor altering the intensity and
spectral composition of solar radiation, and secondly because, in terms of
aetherometric theory, the motion of the Sun in the plane of the ecliptic is
matched by a periodic motion of the Sun and the entire solar system
transversely to the ecliptic so that the total angular momentum of the Sun
is a still greater quantity than heretofore suggested, and thus constitutes
a still greater reservoir for momentum transfer.