[Gunnair]

DrCaleb wrote:

Zipperfish wrote:

It is, as stemmer said, "food for thought," but it hardly stacks up to the evidence presented supporting AGW.

Some more food for thought - Pollution is causing more of the sun's rays to be reflected out of the atmosphere.

CO2 warming is estimated to add 3 Watts/M^2 to the earths' surface, while Global Dimming is causing -1.9 W/M^2 heat loss. The two are holding each other in check.


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3310_sun.html

It's a really good episode of Nova, video available online soon.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/[/quote]

Saw that last night - fascinating. I recall a similar study that looked at the sudden change in temperature after 9/11 when air traffic was shut down and contrails disappeared.

[PluggyRug]

C.M. Burns wrote:

BartSimpson wrote:

Quote:

The Sun is once again less bright as we approach solar minimum, yet global warming continues.

Does it? Was it hotter last year or this year than 1998? I don't think so.

Once again, you prove that you don't know the difference between 'weather' and 'climate'.

So, please explain the difference.

[C.M. Burns]

PluggyRug wrote:

C.M. Burns wrote:

Once again, you prove that you don't know the difference between 'weather' and 'climate'.

So, please explain the difference.

Weather is what is happening or what happened yesterday or last month or for the last year.

Climate is a complex, 30 year average.

[DrCaleb]

C.M. Burns wrote:

No, Doc, Stanford is not making a false comparison. They are not even making a comparison. Only YOU are making a comparison.

Mmm, no. Global dimming studies were not carried out by me. I am simply presenting another theory.

Solar variations as measured from orbit don't take into account solar radiation blocked by pollution particles in the atmosphere. All I'm saying is the Stanford study is independent of the Global Dimming study. That we are experiencing a solar minimum is disheartening to me, as Global Dimming seems to be all that is keeping Global Warming in check.

[C.M. Burns]

DrCaleb wrote:

C.M. Burns wrote:

No, Doc, Stanford is not making a false comparison. They are not even making a comparison. Only YOU are making a comparison.

Mmm, no. Global dimming studies were not carried out by me. I am simply presenting another theory.

Solar variations as measured from orbit don't take into account solar radiation blocked by pollution particles in the atmosphere. All I'm saying is the Stanford study is independent of the Global Dimming study. That we are experiencing a solar minimum is disheartening to me, as Global Dimming seems to be all that is keeping Global Warming in check.

DrCaleb wrote:

C.M. Burns wrote:

And yet those idiots and Stanford University tell a different story about solar activity and climate change:

Quote:

Solar irradiance changes have been measured reliably by satellites for only 30 years.

The Sun is once again less bright as we approach solar minimum, yet global warming continues.

Comparing Apples to Hydrogen Monty. Light measured from orbit isn't affected by particles in the air.

It's actually worse then. If Global dimming is keeping global warming in check during solar minimum - what happens when Ra gets angry again and solar activity increases! We must create more pollution to offset our CO2 emissions! (or the CO2 traders won't have more worthless gas to sell)

Yes, Doc, YOU made the statement about a false comparison.
Second, you have no idea how Stanford arrived at their measurements for solar irradiation. Neither you, nor the Stanford quote provdes that information. You have no basis to make any statement about false comparison.

You will notice that the quote you singled out:

Quote:

Solar irradiance changes have been measured reliably by satellites for only 30 years. These precise observations show changes of a few tenths of a percent that depend on the level of activity in the 11-year solar cycle.

uses the word 'irradiance', which is different from 'radiation'. Irradiation is the process by which an item is exposed to radiation. This is more than one satellite, pointing at the sun, and measuring the output. There have been many satellites, pointed at the earth, to see what is reflected, and this 'irradiation' has been measured again and again in albedo studies, which take into account the effect of clouds and dust particles, amber waves of grain, etc.

DrCaleb wrote:

Light measured from orbit isn't affected by particles in the air.

That's simply not true (solely due to your false assumption about what irradiation means or how it has been measured).

You'll notice that the text refers to satellite measurement over a 30 year period but the graph contains solar data going back before 1860. Clearly, some other measurement process has taken place.

I'm not saying that solar dimming hasn't taken place, clearly it has. I am saying that you have no basis to make any claims about the role of solar irradiation, nor claims of false comparisons.