• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Holocene Poses Difficulty for AGW Concept

Threegoofs said:
Funny how several chapters in the IPCC are devoted to the issue of solar influence on climate, complete with quantification written by the experts in the field who actually collect and analyze the data for a living..... INCLUDING a chapter on indirect solar influences.


But some yahoo with two journal subscriptions knows that 'the warmists dont acknowledge solar'!
Click to expand...

I have read those chapters. Have you?

Would you please stop lying about my number of subscriptions. I have more than a half-dozen. I might have more than 50. However, it is funny to see you make a fool of yourself, and remind everyone of it.

Would you please show me the "indirect" one? maybe I missed it. In all my searches, i never saw it.

I will look again.
 
Hey Goofs...

Maybe you can help me find it? I haven't seen it yet.

The AR5 addresses solar changes in chapter 5.2 and 8.4. Now the only place so far I have seen regarding th indirect changes is about ozone in the high atmosphere.


8.4.1.4.1 Impacts of ultraviolet variations on the stratosphere

Ozone is the main gas involved in stratospheric radiative heating.
Ozone production rate variations are largely due to solar UV irradiance
changes (HAIGH, 1994), with observations showing statistically
significant variations in the upper stratosphere of 2 to 4% along
the SC (Soukharev and Hood, 2006). UV variations may also produce
transport-induced ozone changes due to indirect effects on circulation
(Shindell et al., 2006b). In addition, statistically significant evidence for
an 11-year variation in stratospheric temperature and zonal winds is
attributed to UV radiation (Frame and Gray, 2010). The direct UV heating
of the background ozone is dominant and over twice as large as
the ozone heating in the upper stratosphere and above, while indirect
solar and terrestrial radiation through the SC-induced ozone change
is dominant below about 5 hPa (Shibata and Kodera, 2005). The RF
due to solar-induced ozone changes is a small fraction of the solar RF
discussed in Section 8.4.1.1 (Gray et al., 2009).
​
 
Lord of Planar said:
Hey Goofs...

Maybe you can help me find it? I haven't seen it yet.

The AR5 addresses solar changes in chapter 5.2 and 8.4. Now the only place so far I have seen regarding th indirect changes is about ozone in the high atmosphere.


8.4.1.4.1 Impacts of ultraviolet variations on the stratosphere

Ozone is the main gas involved in stratospheric radiative heating.
Ozone production rate variations are largely due to solar UV irradiance
changes (HAIGH, 1994), with observations showing statistically
significant variations in the upper stratosphere of 2 to 4% along
the SC (Soukharev and Hood, 2006). UV variations may also produce
transport-induced ozone changes due to indirect effects on circulation
(Shindell et al., 2006b). In addition, statistically significant evidence for
an 11-year variation in stratospheric temperature and zonal winds is
attributed to UV radiation (Frame and Gray, 2010). The direct UV heating
of the background ozone is dominant and over twice as large as
the ozone heating in the upper stratosphere and above, while indirect
solar and terrestrial radiation through the SC-induced ozone change
is dominant below about 5 hPa (Shibata and Kodera, 2005). The RF
due to solar-induced ozone changes is a small fraction of the solar RF
discussed in Section 8.4.1.1 (Gray et al., 2009).
​
Click to expand...

2.7.1.3 AR 4.

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-7-1-3.html
 
Lord of Planar said:
I have read those chapters. Have you?

Would you please stop lying about my number of subscriptions. I have more than a half-dozen. I might have more than 50. However, it is funny to see you make a fool of yourself, and remind everyone of it.

Would you please show me the "indirect" one? maybe I missed it. In all my searches, i never saw it.

I will look again.
Click to expand...

So wait. You 'might have' 50, but *definitely* over a half dozen?

And *I'm* the one who looks foolish? LOL
 
Threegoofs said:
2.7.1.3 AR 4.

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-7-1-3.html
Click to expand...

Again, it is only speaking of high altitude and ozone changes.

More sun means a greater source for the greenhouse effect. If the total back radiation is 360 W/m^2 when 240 W/m^2 if the solar radiation is absorbed, then this is a positive feedback of 1.5.

In other words, a 1 W/m^2 change of the sun would have a ~1.5 W/m^2 change on the greenhouse effect.

Solar changes will change the back radiation of the greenhouse effect. Other factors as well, like sensible heat. However, none if this is acknowledged.

Do you think the greenhouse effect would remain unchanged if the sun was snuffed out, or would it equalize to zero over time?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom