Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
One for the not so swift among us-
"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. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Announcing S.A.L.T.S Pacific Swift Offshore Voyage 2007-2008 | General | |||
Announcing S.A.L.T.S Pacific Swift Offshore Voyage 2007-2008 | ASA | |||
Announcing S.A.L.T.S Pacific Swift Offshore Voyage 2007-2008 | Cruising | |||
Announcing S.A.L.T.S Pacific Swift Offshore Voyage 2007-2008 | Cruising | |||
Swift Kipawa for Sale: Ontario Canada | General |