Prfessor Henrik Svensmark: Vi anbefaler vores venner at nyde den globale opvarmning, mens den varer...


Mens Solen Sover nefnist splunkun blaagrein Jyllandsposten eftir Dr. Henrik Svensmark prfessor, hfund hinnar nstrlegu kenningar um samspil slar, geimgeisla, skjafars og hitastigs lofthjps jarar, en bloggarinn hefur fjalla um essi ml rman ratug.

(Sj pistla bloggarans hr, hr, hr, hr, hr, hr, hr, hr, hr...)

(Myndin hr a ofan er fr Thames vi London um 1677. Smella risvar mynd til a stkka.
Fleiri myndir eftir Abraham Hondius hr).

Vi anbefaler vores venner at nyde den globale opvarmning,
mens den varer.

Hvers vegna segir a Hinrik? Reyndar er etta alveg mgnu grein hj r. ar kemur margt fram sem vi slendingar ekkjum svo vel... Krar akkir fyrir a skrifa svona grein " mannamli" sem almenningur skilur, v etta kemur okkur llum vi, ekki sst okkur sem bum jari heimskautasvanna.

"Mean slin sefur"
Sleeping

Dusti n ryki af dnskunni!

(ing yfir ensku eftir Nigel Calder er hr near sunni ef eihver skyldi gefast upp dnskunni).

Jyllands Posten 9. september 2009:

http://jp.dk/opinion/kronik/article1809681.ece

(Leturberytingar eru a mestu eftir bloggarann til a reyna a gera textann lsilegri af skj).

Mens Solen sover

HENRIK SVENSMARK, professor, DTU, Kbenhavn

Offentliggjort 09.09.09 kl. 03:00

Faktisk er den globale opvarmning standset, og en afkling er s smt begyndt. Ingen klimamodel har forudsagt en afkling af Jorden, tvrtimod. Det betyder, at prognoser for fremtidens klima er utilregnelige, skriver Henrik Svensmark.

Den stjerne, der holder os i live, har gennem det seneste par r vret nsten uden solpletter, som er det normale tegn p Solens magnetisk aktivitet.

I sidste uge rapporterede det videnskabelige hold bag Sohosatellitten (Solar and Heliospheric Observatory) at antallet af solplet-frie dage antyder, at Solens aktivitet er p vej mod det laveste niveau i omkring 100 r. Alt tyder p, at Solen er p vej i en dvalelignende tilstand, og det benlyse sprgsml er, om det har nogen betydning for os p Jorden.

Sprger man det Internationale Klimapanel IPCC, som reprsenterer den gldende konsensus p klimaomrdet, s er svaret et betryggende ingenting. Men historien og den seneste forskning tyder p, at det sandsynligvis er helt forkert. Lad os se lidt nrmere p hvorfor.

Solens aktivitet har til alle tider varieret. Omkring r 1000 havde vi en periode med meget hj solaktivitet, som faldt sammen med middelaldervarmen. Det var en periode, hvor frost i maj var et nsten ukendt fnomen og af stor betydning for en god hst. Vikinger bosatte sig i Grnland og udforskede Nordamerikas kyst. I det hele taget var det en opgangstid. For eksempel fordobles Kinas befolkning gennem denne periode. Men efter omkring 1300 faldt solaktiviteten, Jorden begyndte at blive koldere, og det blev begyndelsen p den periode vi nu kalder den Lille Istid. I denne kolde periode forsvandt alle vikingernes bosttelser i Grnland. Svenskerne overraskede Danmark med at g over isen, og i London frs Themsen gentagne gange. Men mere alvorligt var de lange perioder med fejlslagen hst, som resulterede i en drligt ernret befolkning der p grund af sygdom og sult blev reduceret med omkring 30 pct. i Europa.


Det er vigtigt at fastsl, at den Lille Istid var en global hndelse. Den endte i slutningen af det 19. rhundrede og efterfulgtes af en stigende solaktivitet. Gennem de seneste 50 r har solaktiviteten vret det hjeste siden middelaldervarmen for 1.000 r siden. Og nu ser det ud til at Solen skifter igen og er p vej mod det, som solforskere kalder et grand minimum som vi s i den Lille Istid.

Sammenfaldet mellem Solens aktivitet og klimaet gennem tiderne er forsgt bortforklaret som tilfldigt. Men det viser sig, at nsten ligegyldigt hvilken periode man undersger, alts ikke kun de sidste 1.000 r, s findes en overensstemmelse. Solens aktivitet har gentagne gange gennem de seneste 10.000 r svinget mellem hj og lav. Faktisk har Solen gennem de seneste 10.000 r befundet sig i en dvaletilstand ca. 17 pct. af tiden med en afkling af Jorden til flge.

Man kan undres over, at det internationale klimapanel IPCC ikke mener at Solens forandrede aktivitet har nogen betydning for klimaet, men grunden er, at man kun medtager forandringer i Solens udstrling.



Netop udstrlingen ville vre den simpleste mde, hvormed Solen kunne ndre p klimaet. Lidt som at skrue op og ned for lysstyrken af en elektrisk pre.

Satellitmlinger af Solens udstrling har vist, at variationerne er for sm til at forrsage klimandringer, men dermed har man lukket jnene for en anden meget mere effektiv mde, hvorp Solen er i stand til at pvirke Jordens klima. I 1996 opdagede vi en overraskende pvirkning fra Solen - dens betydning for Jordens skydkke. Hjenergitiske partikler accelereret af eksploderede stjerner, den kosmiske strling, hjlper til at danne skyer.

Nr Solen er aktiv, skrmer dens magnetfelt bedre mod de kosmiske strler fra verdensrummet, fr de nr vores planet, og ved at regulere p Jordens skydkke kan Solen skrue op og ned for temperaturen. Med hj solaktivitet fs frre skyer, og jorden bliver varmere. Lav solaktivitet skrmer drligere mod den kosmiske strling, og det resulterer i get skydkke, og dermed en afkling. Da Solens magnetisme har fordoblet sin styrke i lbet af det 20. rhundrede, kan denne naturlige mekanisme vre ansvarlig for en stor del af den globale opvarmning i denne periode.



Dette er ogs forklaringen p, at de fleste klimaforskere prver at ignorere denne mulighed. Den griber nemlig ind i forestillingen om, at det 20. rhundredes temperaturstigning hovedsagelig skyldes menneskelig udledning af CO2. Hvis Solen nemlig har haft betydning for en anselig del af opvarmningen i det 20 rhundrede, s betyder det, at CO2's andel ndvendigvis m vre mindre.

Lige siden vores teori blev fremsat i 1996, har den vret gennem meget skarp kritik, hvilket er normalt i videnskaben.

Frst sagde man, at en sammenhng mellem skyer og Solens aktivitet ikke kunne vre rigtig, fordi ingen fysisk mekanisme var kendt. Men i 2006 efter mange rs arbejde lykkedes det os at gennemfre eksperimenter ved DTU Space, hvor vi demonstrerede eksistensen af en fysisk mekanisme. Den kosmiske strling hjlper med at danne aerosoler, som er kimen til skydannelsen.

Derefter gik kritikken p, at den mekanisme, vi have fundet i laboratoriet, ikke ville kunne overleve i den virkelig atmosfre og derfor var uden praktisk betydning. Men den kritik har vi netop eftertrykkeligt afvist. Det viser sig, at Solen selv laver, hvad vi kan kalde naturlige eksperimenter. Kmpemssige soludbrud kan f den kosmiske strling p Jorden til at dykke pludseligt over nogle f dage. I dagene efter disse udbrud falder skydkket med omkring 4 pct., og indholdet af flydende vand i skyerne (drber) formindskes med nsten 7 pct. Her er tale om en meget stor effekt. Faktisk s stor, at man populrt kan sige, at skyerne p Jorden har deres oprindelse i verdensrummet.

Derfor har vi set p Solens magnetiske aktivitet med voksende bekymring, siden den begyndte at aftage i midten af 1990'erne.

At Solen kunne falde i svn i et dybt minimum, blev antydet af solforskere p et mde i Kiruna i Sverige for to r siden. Da Nigel Calder og jeg opdaterede vores bog The Chilling Stars skrev vi derfor lidt provokerende vi anbefaler vores venner at nyde den globale opvarmning, mens den varer.

Faktisk er den globale opvarmning standset, og en afkling er s smt begyndt. I sidste uge blev det fremfrt af Mojib Latif fra universitet i Kiel p FN's World Climate Conference i Geneve, at afklingen muligvis fortstter gennem de nste 10 til 20 r.

Hans forklaring var naturlige forandringer i Nordatlantens cirkulation og ikke i Solens aktivitet. Men ligegyldigt hvordan det fortolkes, s trnger de naturlige variationer i klimaet sig mere og mere p.

En konsekvens m vre,at Solen selv vil vise sin betydning for klimaet og dermed teste teorierne for den globale opvarmning. Ingen klimamodel har forudsagt en afkling af Jorden, tvrtimod.

Det betyder, at prognoser for fremtidens klima er utilregnelige. En prognose, der siger, at det muligvis er varmere eller koldere om 50 r, er ikke meget bevendt, for videnskaben er heller ikke i stand til at forudsige Solens aktivitet.

S p mange mder str vi ved en skillevej. Den nrmeste fremtid vil blive overordentlig interessant, og jeg tror, at det er vigtigt at erkende, at naturen er fuldkommen uafhngig af, hvad vi mennesker tror om den. Vil drivhusteorien overleve en betydelig afkling af Jorden? Ikke i dens nuvrende dominerende form. Desvrre kan fremtidens klimaudfordringer blive nogle helt andre end drivhusteoriens forudsigelser, og mske bliver det igen populrt at forske i Solens betydning for klimaet.

Professor Henrik Svensmark er leder af Center for Sun-Climate Research p DTU Space. Hans bog The Chilling Stars er ogs udgivet p dansk som Klima og Kosmos (Gads Forlag, DK ISBN 9788712043508)

--- --- ---

Uppfrt 12. sept. klukkan 21:55; Nigel Calder ddi greinina r dnsku yfir ensku me samykki Henriks Svensmark. etta er mun betra en Google ingin sem var hr ur.

Published 9 September 2009 in Jyllands-Posten, Denmarks best-selling newspaper.
Translation approved by Henrik Svensmark

While the Sun sleeps
Henrik Svensmark, Professor, Technical University of Denmark, Copenhagen

In fact global warming has stopped and a cooling is beginning. No climate model has predicted a cooling of the Earth quite the contrary. And this means that the projections of future climate are unreliable, writes Henrik Svensmark.

The star that keeps us alive has, over the last few years, been almost free of sunspots, which are the usual signs of the Suns magnetic activity. Last week [4 September 2009] the scientific team behind the satellite SOHO (Solar and Heliospheric Observatory) reported, It is likely that the current years number of blank days will be the longest in about 100 years. Everything indicates that the Sun is going into some kind of hibernation, and the obvious question is what significance that has for us on Earth.

If you ask the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which represents the current consensus on climate change, the answer is a reassuring nothing. But history and recent research suggest that is probably completely wrong. Why? Lets take a closer look.

Solar activity has always varied. Around the year 1000, we had a period of very high solar activity, which coincided with the Medieval Warm Period. It was a time when frosts in May were almost unknown a matter of great importance for a good harvest. Vikings settled in Greenland and explored the coast of North America. On the whole it was a good time. For example, Chinas population doubled in this period.

But after about 1300 solar activity declined and the world began to get colder. It was the beginning of the episode we now call the Little Ice Age. In this cold time, all the Viking settlements in Greenland disappeared. Sweden surprised Denmark by marching across the ice, and in London the Thames froze repeatedly. But more serious were the long periods of crop failures, which resulted in poorly nourished populations, reduced in Europe by about 30 per cent because of disease and hunger.

Its important to realise that the Little Ice Age was a global event. It ended in the late 19th Century and was followed by increasing solar activity. Over the past 50 years solar activity has been at its highest since the medieval warmth of 1000 years ago. But now it appears that the Sun has changed again, and is returning towards what solar scientists call a grand minimum such as we saw in the Little Ice Age.

The match between solar activity and climate through the ages is sometimes explained away as coincidence. Yet it turns out that, almost no matter when you look and not just in the last 1000 years, there is a link. Solar activity has repeatedly fluctuated between high and low during the past 10,000 years. In fact the Sun spent about 17 per cent of those 10,000 years in a sleeping mode, with a cooling Earth the result.

You may wonder why the international climate panel IPCC does not believe that the Suns changing activity affects the climate. The reason is that it considers only changes in solar radiation. That would be the simplest way for the Sun to change the climate a bit like turning up and down the brightness of a light bulb.

Satellite measurements have shown that the variations of solar radiation are too small to explain climate change. But the panel has closed its eyes to another, much more powerful way for the Sun to affect Earths climate. In 1996 we discovered a surprising influence of the Sun its impact on Earths cloud cover. High-energy accelerated particles coming from exploded stars, the cosmic rays, help to form clouds.

When the Sun is active, its magnetic field is better at shielding us against the cosmic rays coming from outer space, before they reach our planet. By regulating the Earths cloud cover, the Sun can turn the temperature up and down. High solar activity means fewer clouds and and a warmer world. Low solar activity and poorer shielding against cosmic rays result in increased cloud cover and hence a cooling. As the Suns magnetism doubled in strength during the 20th century, this natural mechanism may be responsible for a large part of global warming seen then.

That also explains why most climate scientists try to ignore this possibility. It does not favour their idea that the 20th century temperature rise was mainly due to human emissions of CO2. If the Sun provoked a significant part of warming in the 20th Century, then the contribution by CO2 must necessarily be smaller.

Ever since we put forward our theory in 1996, it has been subjected to very sharp criticism, which is normal in science.

First it was said that a link between clouds and solar activity could not be correct, because no physical mechanism was known. But in 2006, after many years of work, we completed experiments at DTU Space that demonstrated the existence of a physical mechanism. The cosmic rays help to form aerosols, which are the seeds for cloud formation.

Then came the criticism that the mechanism we found in the laboratory could not work in the real atmosphere, and therefore had no practical significance. We have just rejected that criticism emphatically.

It turns out that the Sun itself performs what might be called natural experiments. Giant solar eruptions can cause the cosmic ray intensity on earth to dive suddenly over a few days. In the days following an eruption, cloud cover can fall by about 4 per cent. And the amount of liquid water in cloud droplets is reduced by almost 7 per cent. Here is a very large effect indeed so great that in popular terms the Earths clouds originate in space.

So we have watched the Suns magnetic activity with increasing concern, since it began to wane in the mid-1990s.

That the Sun might now fall asleep in a deep minimum was suggested by solar scientists at a meeting in Kiruna in Sweden two years ago. So when Nigel Calder and I updated our book The Chilling Stars, we wrote a little provocatively that we are advising our friends to enjoy global warming while it lasts.

In fact global warming has stopped and a cooling is beginning. Mojib Latif from the University of Kiel argued at the recent UN World Climate Conference in Geneva that the cooling may continue through the next 10 to 20 years. His explanation was a natural change in the North Atlantic circulation, not in solar activity. But no matter how you interpret them, natural variations in climate are making a comeback.

The outcome may be that the Sun itself will demonstrate its importance for climate and so challenge the theories of global warming. No climate model has predicted a cooling of the Earth quite the contrary. And this means that the projections of future climate are unreliable. A forecast saying it may be either warmer or colder for 50 years is not very useful, and science is not yet able to predict solar activity.

So in many ways we stand at a crossroads. The near future will be extremely interesting. I think it is important to accept that Nature pays no heed to what we humans think about it. Will the greenhouse theory survive a significant cooling of the Earth? Not in its current dominant form. Unfortunately, tomorrows climate challenges will be quite different from the greenhouse theorys predictions. Perhaps it will become fashionable again to investigate the Suns impact on our climate.

-

Professor Henrik Svensmark is director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at DTU Space. His book The Chilling Stars has also been published in Danish as Klima og Kosmos Gads Forlag, DK ISBN 9788712043508)

--- --- ---

Sj: March across the Belts Wikipedia. ar er fjalla um atviki egar Svar komu Dnum vart 1658 me v a ganga yfir til Danmerkur, eins og fram kemur grein Henriks. var kaldasta tmabil Litlu saldarinnar sem fll saman vi Maunder lgmarki virkni slar. Margir ttast a lka kuldaskei eigi eftir a koma einhverntman aftur, vonandi ekki nstu ratugum:

Wikipedia san byrjar svona:

"The March across the Belts was a campaign between January 30 and February 8, 1658 during the Northern Wars where Swedish king Karl X Gustav led the Swedish army from Jutland across the ice of the Little Belt and the Great Belt to reach Zealand (Danish: Sjlland). The risky but vastly successful crossing was a crushing blow to Denmark, and led to the Treaty of Roskilde later that year...."


A prfessorinn skuli leyfa sr a tala svona...
g bara ekki or., ea annig...
Fara ekki margir hreinlega r lmingunum vi lestur svona greinar?


En, hva tla menn a gera ef ljs kemur a etta var bara nttruleg hitabla?
Hvernig tla menn a bregast vi ef standi verur eins og mildum egar Evrpubum fkkai um 30%?
Hvernig tla menn a bregast vi kali tnum, haustfrostum me ntri uppskeru og hafs?
Hvernig...?


Sasta frsla | Nsta frsla

Athugasemdir

1 Smmynd: Magns skar Ingvarsson

Meirihttar grein. Hvenr skyldu ofsatrarmenn koldoxhitun jarar fara a draga land? Eru eir kannski byrjair a hgja sr? a verur samt erfitt fyrir IPCC a bakka eftir allan samsng sasta ratugar.

Magns skar Ingvarsson, 11.9.2009 kl. 23:11

2 Smmynd: mar Bjarki Smrason

Gott hj r a halda essu til haga, gst. Og svo er etta gt upprifjun dnsku.....

mar Bjarki Smrason, 11.9.2009 kl. 23:29

3 Smmynd: Rafn Haraldur  Sigursson

Tek unir me honum mari. Mjg hugavert efni.

kveja Rafn.

Rafn Haraldur Sigursson, 12.9.2009 kl. 06:43

4 Smmynd: gst H Bjarnason

UCLA News, 9 September 2009

Scientists discover surprise in Earth's upper atmosphere

By
Stuart Wolpert
| 9/9/2009 3:00:00 PM
Heejeong Kim and Larry Lyons
Heejeong Kim and Larry Lyons
UCLA atmospheric scientists have discovered a previously unknown basic mode of energy transfer from the solar wind to the Earth's magnetosphere. The research, federally funded by the National Science Foundation, could improve the safety and reliability of spacecraft that operate in the upper atmosphere.
"It's like something else is heating the atmosphere besides the sun. This discovery is like finding it got hotter when the sun went down," said Larry Lyons, UCLA professor of atmospheric and oceanic sciences and a co-author of the research, which is in press in two companion papers in the Journal of Geophysical Research.
The sun, in addition to emitting radiation, emits a stream of ionized particles called the solar wind that affects the Earth and other planets in the solar system. The solar wind, which carries the particles from the sun's magnetic field, known as the interplanetary magnetic field, takes about three or four days to reach the Earth. When the charged electrical particles approach the Earth, they carve out a highly magnetized region — the magnetosphere — which surrounds and protects the Earth.
Charged particles carry currents, which cause significant modifications in the Earth's magnetosphere. This region is where communications spacecraft operate and where the energy releases in space known as substorms wreak havoc on satellites, power grids and communications systems.
The rate at which the solar wind transfers energy to the magnetosphere can vary widely, but what determines the rate of energy transfer is unclear.
"We thought it was known, but we came up with a major surprise," said Lyons, who conducted the research with Heejeong Kim, an assistant researcher in the UCLA Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, and other colleagues.
"This is where everything gets started," Lyons said. "Any important variations in the magnetosphere occur because there is a transfer of energy from the solar wind to the particles in the magnetosphere. The first critical step is to understand how the energy gets transferred from the solar wind to the magnetosphere."
The interplanetary magnetic field fluctuates greatly in magnitude and direction.
"We all have thought for our entire careers — I learned it as a graduate student — that this energy transfer rate is primarily controlled by the direction of the interplanetary magnetic field," Lyons said. "The closer to southward-pointing the magnetic field is, the stronger the energy transfer rate is, and the stronger the magnetic field is in that direction. If it is both southward and big, the energy transfer rate is even bigger."

However, Lyons, Kim and their colleagues analyzed radar data that measure the strength of the interaction by measuring flows in the ionosphere, the part of Earth's upper atmosphere ionized by solar radiation. The results surprised them.
"Any space physicist, including me, would have said a year ago there could not be substorms when the interplanetary magnetic field was staying northward, but that's wrong," Lyons said. "Generally, it's correct, but when you have a fluctuating interplanetary magnetic field, you can have substorms going off once per hour.

"Heejeong used detailed statistical analysis to prove this phenomenon is real. Convection in the magnetosphere and ionosphere can be strongly driven by these fluctuations, independent of the direction of the interplanetary magnetic field."

Convection describes the transfer of heat, or thermal energy, from one location to another through the movement of fluids such as liquids, gases or slow-flowing solids.
"The energy of the particles and the fields in the magnetosphere can vary by large amounts. It can be 10 times higher or 10 times lower from day to day, even from half-hour to half-hour. These are huge variations in particle intensities, magnetic field strength and electric field strength," Lyons said.
The magnetosphere was discovered in 1957. By the late 1960s, it had become accepted among scientists that the energy transfer rate was controlled predominantly by the interplanetary magnetic field.
Lyons and Kim were planning to study something unrelated when they made the discovery.
"We were looking to do something else, when we saw life is not the way we expected it to be," Lyons said. "The most exciting discoveries in science sometimes just drop in your lap. In our field, this finding is pretty earth-shaking. It's an entire new mode of energy transfer, which is step one. The next step is to understand how it works. It must be a completely different process."
The National Science Foundation has funded ground-based radars which send off radio waves that reflect off the ionosphere, allowing scientists to measure the speed at which the ions in the ionosphere are moving.
The radar stations are based in Greenland and Alaska. The NSF recently built the Poker Flat Research Range north of Fairbanks.
"The National Science Foundation's radars have enabled us to make this discovery," Lyons said. "We could not have done this without them."
The direction of the interplanetary magnetic field is important, Lyons said. Is it going in the same direction as the magnetic field going through the Earth? Does the interplanetary magnetic field connect with the Earth's magnetic field?
"We thought there could not be strong convection and that the energy necessary for a substorm could not develop unless the interplanetary magnetic field is southward," Lyons said. "I've said it and taught it. Now I have to say, 'But when you have these fluctuations, which is not a rare occurrence, you can have substorms going off once an hour.'"
Lyons and Kim used the radar measurements to study the strength of the interaction between the solar wind and the Earth's magnetosphere.
One of their papers addresses convection and its affect on substorms to show it is a global phenomenon.
"When the interplanetary magnetic field is pointing northward, there is not much happening, but when the interplanetary magnetic field is southward, the flow speeds in the polar regions of the ionosphere are strong. You see much stronger convection. That is what we expect," Lyons said. "We looked carefully at the data, and said, 'Wait a minute! There are times when the field is northward and there are strong flows in the dayside polar ionosphere.'"

The dayside has the most direct contact with the solar wind.

"It's not supposed to happen that way," Lyons said. "We want to understand why that is."
"Heejeong separated the data into when the solar wind was fluctuating a lot and when it was fluctuating a little," he added. "When the interplanetary magnetic field fluctuations are low, she saw the pattern everyone knows, but when she analyzed the pattern when the interplanetary magnetic field was fluctuating strongly, that pattern completely disappeared. Instead, the strength of the flows depended on the strength of the fluctuations.
"So rather than the picture of the connection between the magnetic field of the sun and the Earth controlling the transfer of energy by the solar wind to the Earth's magnetosphere, something else is happening that is equally interesting. The next question is discovering what that is. We have some ideas of what that may be, which we will test."
Co-authors on the papers include colleagues at Chungbuk National University in South Korea and SRI International in Menlo Park, Calif.
For more about the National Science Foundation and the research it supports, visit www.nsf.gov.
UCLA is California's largest university, with an enrollment of nearly 38,000 undergraduate and graduate students. The UCLA College of Letters and Science and the university's 11 professional schools feature renowned faculty and offer more than 323 degree programs and majors. UCLA is a national and international leader in the breadth and quality of its academic, research, health care, cultural, continuing education and athletic programs. Four alumni and five faculty have been awarded the Nobel Prize.
For more news, visit the UCLA Newsroom or follow us on Twitte

gst H Bjarnason, 12.9.2009 kl. 09:29

5 Smmynd: gst H Bjarnason

The Resilient Earth, 11 September 2009
<http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/atmospheric-solar-heat-amplifier-discovered>

Atmospheric Solar Heat Amplifier Discovered

Submitted by Doug L. Hoffman on Fri, 09/11/2009 - 15:18

For decades, the supporters of CO2 driven global warming have discounted changes in solar irradiance as far too small to cause significant climate change. Though the Sun&#39;s output varies by less than a tenth of a percent in magnitude during its 11-year sunspot cycle, that small variation produces changes in sea surface temperatures two or three times as large as it should. A new study in Science demonstrates how two previously known mechanisms acting together amplify the Sun&#39;s impact in an unsuspected way. Not surprisingly, the new discovery is getting a cool reception from the CO2 climate change clique.

Scientists have long suspected that changes in solar output may have triggered the Little Ice Age that gripped Europe several centuries ago, as well as droughts that brought down Chinese dynasties. Now, in a report in the August 28 issue of the journal Science entitled &#147;Amplifying the Pacific Climate System Response to a Small 11-Year Solar Cycle Forcing,&#148; Gerald A. Meehl et al. have demonstrated a possible mechanism that could explain how seemingly small changes in solar output can have a big impact on Earth&#39;s climate. The researchers claim that two different parts of the atmosphere act in concert to amplify the effects of even minuscule solar fluctuations.


Solar irradiance variation during 11-year cycles.

Global sea surface temperature (SST) has been observed to vary by about 0.1C over the course of the 11-year solar cycle. This should require a change in solar irradiance by more than 0.5 W m&#150;2, but the globally averaged amplitude change from solar maximum to solar minimum is only about 0.2 W m&#150;2. There has long been a question regarding how this small solar signal could be amplified to produce a measurable response. In fact, the lack of a plausible mechanism has been used to discount the Sun&#39;s effect on climate by those who support carbon dioxide as the primary driver of global warming. That line of argument may no longer be persuasive. As the report&#39;s authors state in the paper&#39;s abstract:

Two mechanisms, the top-down stratospheric response of ozone to fluctuations of shortwave solar forcing and the bottom-up coupled ocean-atmosphere surface response, are included in versions of three global climate models, with either mechanism acting alone or both acting together. We show that the two mechanisms act together to enhance the climatological off-equatorial tropical precipitation maxima in the Pacific, lower the eastern equatorial Pacific sea surface temperatures during peaks in the 11-year solar cycle, and reduce low-latitude clouds to amplify the solar forcing at the surface.

The two mechanisms mentioned have been modeled individually in the past, and neither alone proved sufficient. Prior to this new report both mechanisms had not been included in the same model. Some models operate from the top down, beginning with the small changes in the sun&#39;s ultraviolet radiation that occur during the solar cycle. The enhanced UV radiation, which promotes stratospheric ozone production and UV absorption, warm that layer of the atmosphere differently at different latitudes. The temperature gradients this creates provide a positive feedback amplifying the original solar forcing while affecting the climate in the lower atmosphere.

Other models work from the bottom up, using a mechanism that centers around the equatorial Pacific Ocean. Solar energy added during the peak of a solar cycle causes more water to evaporate from the ocean&#39;s surface. Through a long chain of changes in atmospheric and oceanic circulation, this results in fewer clouds forming in the subtropics. Fewer clouds mean more solar energy reaches the ocean, resulting in a positive feedback loop that amplifies the Sun&#39;s climate impact.

The problem to date has been that neither mechanism had a large enough impact to account for observed temperature changes. Suspecting that the two might reinforce each other if modeled together, Meehl et al. decided to modify some existing climate models: &#147;Here we use several related climate model versions wherein we can include both mechanisms separately (an atmospheric model with no stratospheric dynamics or chemistry coupled to ocean, land, and sea ice; an atmospheric model with stratospheric dynamics and ozone chemistry driven by specified SSTs and sea ice) and then combine them (the atmospheric model with stratospheric dynamics and ozone chemistry coupled to the ocean, land, and sea ice) to test if they can, indeed, amplify the climate system response to solar forcing to produce responses of the magnitude seen in the observations.&#148;

Two existing models were chosen, one each for the two distinct mechanisms identified above. These were a global coupled climate model,the Community Climate System Model version 3 (CCSM3), and a version of the Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Model (WACCM). The first model, CCSM3, has coupled components of atmosphere, ocean, land, and sea ice. It does not have a resolved stratosphere and no interactive ozone chemistry, so the CCSM3 includes only the bottom-up coupled air-sea mechanism. The second model, WACCM, is a global atmospheric model run with climatological SSTs and changes in solar variability with other external forcings are held constant. It has no dynamically coupled air-sea interaction, but does include a resolved stratosphere and fully interactive ozone chemistry that can respond to the UV part of the solar forcing. Given this configuration it should include the top-down UV stratospheric ozone mechanism.


Composite averages for December-January-February (DJF) of peak solar years: Observed SSTs for 11 peak solar years in the left column; Precipitation for three available peak solar years in right column. Credit: G.Meehl, Science.

After confirming that neither model on its own faithfully reproduced the observed changes in temperature over a solar cycle&#151;both predicted changes about a third the size of those observed&#151;a new model was constructed using the atmospheric component from WACCM coupled to the dynamical ocean, land, and sea ice modules in CCSM3. This hybrid model produced negative SST anomalies in the equatorial eastern Pacific of greater than &#150;0.6C, much closer to the observed values of &#150;0.8C. In the researchers&#39; words: &#147;Thus, these models indicate that each mechanism acting alone can produce a weak signature of the observed enhancement of the tropical precipitation maxima, but when both act in concert, the two mechanisms work together to produce climate anomalies much closer to the observed values, thus amplifying the relatively small solar forcing to produce significant SST and precipitation anomalies in the tropical Indo-Pacific region.&#148; Results for both SST and precipitation can be seen in the figure above, taken from the report.

Instead of being off by a factor of three as the conventional models were, their new model was within 25% of the actual observed SST variation, a huge improvement indicating that the combination of mechanisms is much more than the sum of their individual effects (see the plot below). This combination of effects enhances precipitation maxima, reduces low-latitude cloud cover, and lowers the temperature of surface waters in the tropical Pacific Ocean, resulting in the larger warm-to-cold variation. &#147;This highlights the importance of stratospheric processes working in conjunction with coupled processes at the surface,&#148; they concluded.


DJF precipitation as observed and from the models. Credit: G.Meehl, Science.

While this result is from modeling, not empirical evidence, it is an important one. As I have often said on this blog, modeling is what you do when your intuition fails you and you need new insights. This combination of mechanisms, building a new hybrid model that simulates conditions not captured by previous models, is a great example of how models should be used. Note that this new model still did not reproduce the observed data, but it did get much closer to reality&#151;an indication that the coupled atmospheric mechanism approach could be on the right track. &#147;The atmosphere and oceans are a big coupled system,&#148; says Joanna Haigh of Imperial College London, who developed the top-down mechanism, &#147;but it&#39;s incredibly complicated.&#148; Of course more physical observations will be necessary to lend credence to this hypothesis, but finding evidence is much easier once the cause is know (or at least suspected).

Why then, should this report be getting the cold shoulder from the climate change community? Writing in the same issue of Science, Richard A. Kerr reported, &#147;like much work in the long-controversial field of sun-climate relations, the new modeling is getting a cool reception.&#148; This is because of what the existence of a coupled atmospheric solar amplifier could mean to climate change theory overall. Though Meehl et al. include the obligatory &#147;this response also cannot be used to explain recent global warming&#148; statement at the end of their report, what remains unsaid is that if this effect is present for decadal solar variations it would also be present for longer term changes in the Sun&#39;s output.


Historical solar irradiance variation.

As I have previously reported, scientific evidence from NASA points to changes in the type of solar radiation arriving at the top of Earth&#39;s atmosphere as a possible trigger for other powerful climate regulating mechanisms. Scientists have discovered, that while total solar irradiance changes by only 0.1 percent, the change in the intensity of ultraviolet light varies by much larger amounts. According to Judith Lean, a solar physicist at the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, D.C., its possible that long-term patterns&#151;operating over hundreds or thousands of years&#151;could cause even more pronounced swings in solar irradiance (see &#147;Scientists Discover The Sun Does Affect Earth&#39;s Climate&#148;). The discovery of the solar heat amplifying effect provides the causal link between historical changes in solar activity and climate change.

Previously, the direct impact of increased irradiance on global avarage temperature has been estimated at around 0.25C last century&#151;a three fold amplifying effect would raise that to 0.75C. This leaves practically no warming effect for CO2 to account for and renders the whole anthropogenic global warming argument moot. In other words, if the atmospheric solar amplifier theory is correct anthropogenic global warming is wrong, a useless theory describing a nonexistent phenomenon. It seems like poetic justice that a modeling experiment may point the way to discrediting global warming once and for all.

Be safe, enjoy the interglacial and stay skeptical.

The Resilient Earth, 11 September 2009
<http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/atmospheric-solar-heat-amplifier-discovered>

gst H Bjarnason, 12.9.2009 kl. 09:33

6 Smmynd: gst H Bjarnason

National Post

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/09/11/lorne-gunter-global-warming-takes-a-break.aspx

Lorne Gunter: Global warming takes a break
Posted: September 11, 2009, 8:07 AM by NP Editor

Imagine if Pope Benedict gave a speech saying the Catholic Church has had it wrong all these centuries; there is no reason priests shouldn&#39;t marry. That might generate the odd headline, no?

Or if Don Cherry claimed suddenly to like European hockey players who wear visors and float around the ice never body-checking opponents.

Or Jack Layton insisted out of the blue that unions are ruining the economy by distorting wages and protecting unproductive workers.

Or Stephen Harper began arguing that it makes good economic sense for Ottawa to own a car company. (Oh, wait, that one happened.)

But at least, the Tories-buy-GM aberration made all the papers and newscasts.

When a leading proponent for one point of view suddenly starts batting for the other side, it&#39;s usually newsworthy.

So why was a speech last week by Mojib Latif of Germany&#39;s Leibniz Institute not give more prominence?

Prof. Latif is one of the leading climate modellers in the world. He is the recipient of several international climate-study prizes and a lead author for the United Nations&#39; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He has contributed significantly to the IPCC&#39;s last two five-year reports that have stated unequivocally that man-made greenhouse emissions are causing the planet to warm dangerously.

Yet last week in Geneva, at the UN&#39;s World Climate Conference -- an annual gathering of the so-called "scientific consensus" on man-made climate change -- Prof. Latif conceded the Earth has not warmed for nearly a decade and that we are likely entering "one or even two decades during which temperatures cool."

The global warming theory has been based all along on the idea that the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans would absorb much of the greenhouse warming caused by a rise in man-made carbon dioxide, then they would let off that heat and warm the atmosphere and the land.

But as Prof. Latif pointed out, the Atlantic, and particularly the North Atlantic, has been cooling instead. And it looks set to continue a cooling phase for 10 to 20 more years. "How much?" he wondered before the assembled delegates. "The jury is still out."

But it is increasingly clear that global warming is on hiatus for the time being. And that is not what the UN, the alarmist scientists or environmentalists predicted. For the past dozen years, since the Kyoto accords were signed in 1997, it has been beaten into our heads with the force and repetition of the rowing drum on a slave galley that the Earth is warming and will continue to warm rapidly through this century until we reach deadly temperatures around 2100.

While they deny it now, the facts to the contrary are staring them in the face: None of the alarmist drummers every predicted anything like a 30-year pause in their apocalyptic scenario.

Prof. Latif says he expects warming to resume in 2020 or 2030. "People will say this is global warming disappearing," he added. According to him, that is not the case. "I am not one of the skeptics," he insisted. "However, we have to ask the nasty questions ourselves or other people will do it."

In the past year, two other groups of scientists -- one, like Prof. Latif, in Germany, the second in the United States -- have come to the same conclusion: Warming is on hold, likely because of a cooling of the Earth&#39;s upper oceans. It will resume, though, some day.

But how is that knowable? How can Prof. Latif and the others state with certainty that after this long and unforeseen cooling, dangerous man-made heating will resume? They failed to observe the current cooling for years after it had begun, how then can their predictions for the resumption of dangerous warming be trusted?

My point is they cannot.

It&#39;s true the supercomputer models Prof. Latif and other modellers rely on for their dire predictions are becoming more accurate. A major breakthrough last year in the modelling of past ocean currents finally enabled the computers to recreate the climate history of the 20th century (mostly) correctly.

But getting the future equally correct is far trickier. Chances are some unforeseen future changes to real-world climate or further modifications to the UN&#39;s climate computers will throw the current predictions out of whack long before the forecast resumption of warming.

National Post
lgunter@shaw.ca

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/09/11/lorne-gunter-global-warming-takes-a-break.aspx

gst H Bjarnason, 12.9.2009 kl. 09:35

7 Smmynd: gst H Bjarnason

WASHINGTON POST: A SKEPTICAL TAKE ON GLOBAL WARMING

The Washington Post, 10 September 2009
<http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitalweathergang/2009/09/a_skeptical_perspective_on_glo.html>

Matt Rogers

This Capital Weather Gang blog entry is written with considerable trepidation given the politically-charged atmosphere surrounding human-induced global warming.

I am a meteorologist with a life-long weather fascination. As I&#39;m sure you know, meteorology is an inexact science due to the large number of variables involved in predicting and understanding the weather. I frequently say that weather forecasting is a humbling endeavor, and I have learned to respect its challenges. From this perspective, you might be able to better understand why I wince when hearing pronouncements such as "the science is settled", "the debate is over", or even the "the temperature in the 2050s is projected to be..." I realize that forecasting climate and weather are different, but both involve a large number of moving parts.

There are numerous reasons why I question the consensus view on human-induced climate change covered extensively on this blog by Andrew Freedman. But for this entry, I scaled them down to ten:

(10) Hurricanes: One of the strongest value propositions presented for fighting global warming is to slow tropical cyclone intensity increases. Katrina was cited as a prime example. But the storm only made landfall as a category three (five being strongest) and affected a city built below sea level. Stronger storms have hit North America before, but the Katrina route and the weak levees made this situation much worse. I follow global hurricane activity closely and earlier this summer, we reached a record low. Florida State has a site that tracks global hurricane activity here. Since the 1990s, this activity has been decreasing, which goes against what we were told to expect on a warming planet.

(9) Ice Caps: In 2007, the Northern Hemisphere reached a record low in ice coverage and the Northwest Passage was opened. At that point, we were told melting was occurring faster than expected, and we needed to accelerate our efforts. What you were not told was that the data that triggered this record is only available back to the late 1970s. Prior to that, we did not have the satellite technology to measure areal ice extent. We know the Northwest Passage had been open before. In Antarctica, we had been told that a cooling of the continent was consistent with global climate models until a recent study announced the opposite was true. The lack of information and the inconsistencies do not offer confidence.

(8) El Nio: This feature in the Tropical Pacific Ocean occurs when water temperatures are abnormally warm. Some climate change researchers predicted that global warming would create more and stronger El Nio events like the powerhouse of 1997-98. Indeed in 2006, esteemed climate scientist James Hansen, predicted this. But we are now about to complete an entire decade without a strong El Nio event (three occurred in the 1980s-1990s). So the more recent 2007 IPCC report backtracked from Hansen&#39;s prediction, noting that there were too many uncertainties to understand how El Nio will behave with climate change. Recent research speaks to how important El Nio is to climate. In the past two decades, these warm El Nio and opposite cold La Nia events have accentuated the global temperature peaks and valleys highlighting the importance of natural variability and the limitations of the science.

(7) Climate Models: To be blunt, the computer models that policy-makers are using to make key decisions failed to collectively inform us of the flat global land-sea temperatures seen in the 2000s (see more on this in item 5 below). The UN IPCC did offer fair warning of model inadequacies in their 2007 assessment. They mentioned a number of challenges, which is wholly reasonable since countless factors contribute to our global climate system--many of them not fully understood. My belief is that they are over-estimating anthropogenic (human) forcing influences and under-estimating natural variability (like the current cold-phase Pacific Decadal Oscillation and solar cycles). The chaos theory describes why it is far more difficult to project the future than climate scientists may realize (I give them a break here since climate modeling is in its relative infancy). We poor hapless meteorologists learned the chaos theory lesson long ago.

(6) CO2 (Carbon Dioxide): The argument that the air we currently exhale is a bona fide pollutant due to potential impacts on climate change flummoxes me. CO2 is also plant food. Plants release oxygen for us, and we release CO2 for them. Over the summer, CO2 reached almost .04% of our total atmosphere as reported here. Because CO2 is but a sliver of our atmosphere, it is known as a "trace gas." We all agree that it is increasing, but is there a chance that our estimate of its influence on the Greenhouse Effect is overblown given its small atmospheric ratio?

(5) Global Temperatures: As a meteorologist, verification is very important for guiding my work and improving future forecasts. The verification for global warming is struggling. Three of four major datasets that track global estimates show 1998 as the warmest year on record with temperatures flat or falling since then. Even climate change researchers now admit that global temperature has been flat since that peak. As shown above, the CO2 chart continues upwards unabated. If the relationship is as solid as we are told, then why isn&#39;t global temperature responding? I&#39;m told by climate change researchers that the current situation is within the bounds of model expectations. However, when I look at the IPCC 2007 AR4 WG1 report, I can see that without major warming in the next 1-2 years, we will fall outside those bounds. This is why I believe James Hansen is predicting a global temperature record in the next two years.

(4) Solar Issue: Look for this issue to get bigger. Our sun is currently becoming very quiet. Not only is the number of sunspots falling dramatically, but the intensity of the sunspots is weakening. The coincident timing of major solar minimums with cooler global temperatures (such as during the Little Ice Age) suggests that maybe the sun is underestimated as a component for influencing climate. The second half of the twentieth century (when we saw lots of warming) was during a major solar maximum period- which is now ending. Total solar irradiance has been steady or sinking similar to our global temperatures over much of this past decade. Indeed, recent research has suggested the solar factor is underestimated (here and here). Perhaps one day, we&#39;ll have a different version of James Carville&#39;s famous political quote...something like "It&#39;s the sun, stupid!"

(3) But what about...? Ultimately after I explain my viewpoint on climate change, I get this question: "But what about all this crazy weather we&#39;ve been having lately?" As a student of meteorology, we learned about amazing weather events in the past that have not been rivaled in the present. Whether it was the 1900 Galveston Hurricane, the 1889 Johnstown Flood, or even the worst tornado outbreak in history (1974), we have and will continue to see crazy weather. Very few statistics are available that correctly show an increase in these "crazy" events.

(2) Silencing Dissent: I believe the climate is always changing. But what percentage of that change is human-induced? Like most, I believe that a more balanced energy supply benefits us politically due to the reduced reliance on foreign sources and benefits us locally due to improved air quality. But several times during debates individuals have told me I should not question the "settled science" due to the moral imperative of "saving the planet". As with a religious debate, I&#39;m told that my disagreement means I do not "care enough" and even if correct, I should not question the science. This frightens me.

(1) Pullback: Does climate change hysteria represent another bubble waiting to burst? From the perspective of the alarmism and the saturation of the message, the answer could be yes. I believe that when our science or economic experts tend to be incorrect, it usually involves predictions that have underperformed expectations (Y2K, SARS, oil supply, etc). Can we think of any other expert-given, consensus-based, long-term predictions that have verified correctly? Not one comes to mind. I believe that predictions of human-caused climate change will continue to be overdone, and we&#39;ll discover that natural factors are equally and sometimes even more important.

Copyright 2009, WP

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitalweathergang/2009/09/a_skeptical_perspective_on_glo.html

gst H Bjarnason, 12.9.2009 kl. 09:38

8 Smmynd: gst H Bjarnason

Daily Express

BRITS &#39;LOSING FAITH&#39; IN CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENTISTS

Daily Express, 11 September 2009
<http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/126606/Sceptical-Britons-losing-faith-in-climate-change-scientists>

By Emily Garnham

BRITONS are becoming less trusting of scientists who say climate change is caused by humans, according to new research.

Almost a third of people questioned (29 per cent) believed evidence linking human activity and global warming had been exaggerated - a figure which has doubled since 2003.

A quarter of those surveyed thought the evidence was &#147;unreliable&#148;, while a third said there was too many &#147;conflicting&#148; views on the environment.

One in five people thought climate change was caused by natural temperature fluctuations and half blamed the media for being too alarmist.

The research, led by Dr Lorraine Whitmarsh from Cardiff University, polled 551 people of ranging ages and backgrounds last year.

Four in ten believe leading experts still question the causes of climate change

Their attitudes to climate change were compared with another survey carried out six years ago.

The findings were unveiled by Dr Whitmarsh at the British Science Festival in Guildford.

She said: &#147;What was really striking was a doubling of the proportion of people saying claims that humans are changing the climate are exaggerated.

&#147;More people now seem to have some degree of scepticism or doubt.

&#147;It might be to do with the fact that some aspects of climate change involve uncomfortable truths.

&#147;People are understandably reluctant to change their lifestyles, and there may be some residual uncertainty that they latch onto.

&#147;They might be prepared to recycle, or unplug appliances when they&#146;re not in use, but there&#146;s a lot of unwillingness to make major changes to things like transport and food.&#148;

Today, as before, there was a &#147;hard-line&#148; group of about 20 per cent who firmly refused to believe human activity had any impact on global warming, Dr Whitmarsh said.

Copyright 2009, Express

gst H Bjarnason, 12.9.2009 kl. 09:42

9 Smmynd: Sveinn Atli Gunnarsson

Sll gst

a er aldeilis a eru komnar margar og langar athugasemdir hj r :)

Hr er tengill mtu um hrif slar hitastig sem tekin er fyrir sunni Loftslag.is. Kenningar Svensmark eru einmitt umtalaar arna sunni. Gti veri semmtilegt mtvgi vi essa frslu. Kannski gtis mtvgi vi essa frsluna na...fyrir sem vilja skoa etta nnar...

Sveinn Atli Gunnarsson, 12.9.2009 kl. 09:52

10 identicon

Kri gst,

upphafi ver g a bija ig afskunar v a hafa sustu athugasemd minni rangnefnt ig sbjrn, sem stafar af v, a egar g ritai athugasemdina hafi g nloki vi a lesa greinarger um mlmtringu eftir sbjrn okkar Einarsson. Athugasemdir nar og tilvitnanir eru hugaverar fyrir margra hluta sakir. a hvernig athugasemdir almennings og tiltr hans kenningum og spm sjlfskiparar "vsinda-elitu" hafa breyttst er merkilegt. Sbylju rur, sem gerir m.a. r fyrir illa upplstum almenningivirist n undanhaldi. a sem mr fannst hugaverast var frsgnin af lkanreikningunum, sem spiluu saman "top down" og "bottom up" hrifunum SST. Kenning Henriks Svensmark virast mr a.m.k. a hluta styja og skra lkanniursturnar enn frekar. N virist vera a kristallast heildst kenning/skring flknum verabrigum og er a vel. Punktarnir 10 hans Matt Rogers eru greinargar og auskildar "macro" skringar. Matt hittir ef til vill naglann hfuu egar hann segir a reiknilknin og r hugmyndir og agengileg "skammtma" ggn, sem byggt er hafi ekki enn sliti barnsknum.Til a ljka essu vil g minnast furulegu frtt, a aukinn styrkur kolsru andrmsloftinu geti tt drjgan tt v a koma af sta eldgosum. Hefur rekist einhver skrif um etta? S ltil sld uppsiglingu er gott a eiga jarhitann v g erfitt me a tra a aukin kolsra geti haft hrif a sem gerist miju jarar ea hva. Um ratuga skei hef g haldi v fram a jarhitakolsran s aulind, sem beri a nta en ekki mengunarstraumur. a sem g hef lesi og sem a verulegu leiti er komi fr r gerir a a verkuma g mun halda mig vi essa skoun ar til anna kemur ljs. Krar kvejur og einlgar akkir fyrir ngjulegt og frandi efni.

Albert Albertsson (IP-tala skr) 12.9.2009 kl. 12:27

11 Smmynd: gst H Bjarnason

Sll Svatli.

Vissulega eru kenningar Henriks Svensmark mjg umdeildar. Sem betur fer vil g meina, v ekkert er eins httulegt vsindum og a telja a menn su samdma um a eitthva s rtt, og a arfi s a ra mli frekar. Scienific consensus kallast a vst stundum. Sem betur fer komast vsindin yfirleitt yfir slka rskulda, eir tefji fyrir. g fjallai eitthva um a athugasemdunum su inni um daginn.

g akka r fyrir a birta su inni umfjllun um Svensmark. Menn eiga auvita ekki a gleypa allt gagnrnislaust, og eru kenningar Henriks ekki undanskildar.

g skellti inn morgun nokkrum greinum sem birtust flestar gr. Tilgangurinn var a benda hve essi ml eru miki umrunni erlendis.

gst H Bjarnason, 12.9.2009 kl. 14:13

12 Smmynd: gst H Bjarnason

Sll Albert.

Auvita skildi g a vel egar varpair mig sbjrn, og s ig jafnvel fyrir mr vera a pla flknum jarvarmavandamlum me vin okkar sbjrn huga. Stundum skrifa puttarnir anna en maur hugsar, a ekki g vel. Auvita er bara mikill heiur a v a vera rugla saman, aeins s eitt augnablik, vi svo fran vsindamann sem Dr. sbjrn.

g reyndi a skilja samhengi hnatthlnunar (ekki endilega af mannavldum) og eldgosa. Fyrst kom mr til hugar kenning Trausta Einarssonar, er kenndi mr gamla daga vi H, um a hvernig rkoma sem treur sr niur glufur jarskorpunni, geti valdi spennu sem losar upp bergi glufunum, annig a vatni kemst enn near, o.s.frv. Bergi brotnar upp langt niur jrina. annig var hugsanlega hgt a mynda sr auknar lkur eldgosum eftir rigningasumur, ef g man rtt. (Hvers vegna ekki einnig eftir vatn fr brnuum jklum?). Gott ef a var ekki tarleg frigrein um etta Tmariti VF fyrir svo sem rem til fjrum ratugum. San kom mr til hugar a mnnum hefi hugkvmst a egar farg jklanna minnkar, a su meiri lkur a kvikan brjti sr lei upp. a gerist auvita aeins eldvirkum svum undir ea vi jkla. Annars skil g ekki almennilega etta samhengi og tel varla a a geti veri miki.

gst H Bjarnason, 12.9.2009 kl. 15:49

13 Smmynd: Sveinn Atli Gunnarsson

a er enginn a segja a ekki eigi a ra mlin frekar. Mjg fint a benda veikar hliar llum mlflutningi varandi essi ml ;)

Fr mnu sjnarhorni, ltur etta annig t a kenningar Svensmark (eins hugaverar og r n eru) eru almennt ekki taldar geta afsanna neitt kenningunum um loftslagsbreytingar af mannavldum. etta er svolti spurningin um hva er drfandi ttur essu tilliti. g get ekki s a kenningar hans tskri hva hefur valdi eirri hkkun hitastigs sem ori hefur sustu ratugum, ar liggur kannski hundurinn grafinn. En a er almenn stt (a er aldrei hgt a f alla til a vera sammla) um a loftslagsbreytingar r sem n eru yfirstandandi su vegna aukningar grurhsalofttegunda andrmsloftinu. A sjlfsgu vera svo sveiflur og er a hluti af hinum nttrulegu sveiflum. essar nttrulegu sveiflur geta t.d. slargeislun, Enso-fyrirbrin og ru eim dr, sem m.a. veldur v a hitastigi stgur ekki beinni lnu, heldur koma fram sveiflur og jafnvel getur hitastig lkka um tma.

Sveinn Atli Gunnarsson, 12.9.2009 kl. 17:57

14 Smmynd: gst H Bjarnason

Vi erum rugglega sammla um margt Svatli, en kannski ekki allt, Sjlfur hef g mikinn huga v svii rannsknanna sem tengjast nbli okkar vi breytistjrnuna sl, svipa og kemur fram umfjllunum athugasemdum 4 og 5, og svo auvita Svensmark...

g yri manna ngastur ef Svensmark og fleiri sem hafa sp kuldakasti nstu ratugina tengslum vi lg virkni slar reyndust hafa rangt fyrir sr og ef vi gtum noti hlindanna hr fram.

gst H Bjarnason, 12.9.2009 kl. 18:40

15 Smmynd: gst H Bjarnason

a er vel fylgst me slinni og segulhvolfi jarar dag. Fjldi gervihnatta tekur tt rannsknunum.

Strri mynd hr.

++ http://www.agust.net/myndir/solarsatellites.jpg

gst H Bjarnason, 12.9.2009 kl. 19:31

16 Smmynd: Sveinn Atli Gunnarsson

J, tli vi sum ekki sammla um margt, enda margt hugavert undir slinni ;)

g hugsa a g yri ngari ef Svensmark hefi rtt fyrir sr, vri vandamli af rum toga en annars. g tel bara ekki a eir ttir sem hann nefnir geti veri drfandi ttir varandi hitastigshkkun sem veri hefur undanfrnum ratugum, eftir a hafa kynnt mr essi ml. Hugsanlega eru etta hlutir sem geta haft hrif hina nttrulegu sveiflu, en a etta s drfandi ttur a held g ekki a geti veri.

Sveinn Atli Gunnarsson, 12.9.2009 kl. 19:54

17 Smmynd: gst H Bjarnason

g uppfri ensku inguna pistlinum. ar var illa ger Google ing, en n er komin ar ing r dnsku yfir ensku eftir Nigel Calder, ing sem Henrik Svensmark hefur samykkt.

gst H Bjarnason, 12.9.2009 kl. 22:09

18 Smmynd: Hskuldur Bi Jnsson

a eru tluverar rangfrslur essu hj Svensmark.

Hann segir a a s a klna en ekki hlna: a er rangt, reyndar mia vi niursveifluna sem er slinni ttu efasemdarmenn loks a vera bnir a tta sig v a hlnunin er ekki af vldum slarinnar - v annars vri sktakuldi jrinni.

Hann talar um hlindaskei mildum (sem reyndar var stabundin vi Norur Evrpu) og gefur skyn a sveiflur slinni hafi ri ar - er ekki lklegt a sveiflur t.d. NAO ri ar mun meira, ar sem etta var bara stabundi frvik - slin skn alla jrina ekki satt.

Litla sldin hefur almennt s veri talin af vldum niursveiflu slinni, auk annarra tta - t.d. eldvirkni og fjarlg jarar sporbaug um slu - nleg rannskn bendir reyndar til ess a hiti jarar hafi veri hgri niursveiflu vegna aukinnar fjarlgar jarar sporbaug um slu og aahafi ri hva mestu um hitastigjarar - ar til inbyltingin hfst me eirri losun CO2 sem er af vldum manna.

Af ofangreindu a ra getur niurstaa Svensmarks varla veri rtt - vissulega hafa sveiflur slinni hrif, en essar sveiflur eru mun minni en svo a r hafi randi hrif loftslag.

Hskuldur Bi Jnsson, 13.9.2009 kl. 10:28

19 Smmynd: gst H Bjarnason

Hski Bi:

1) Henrik Svensmark vafalti vi hlnunina sastliin 7 r, en hn hefur greinilega stvast. Hitastig lofthjps jarar hefur stai sta essum tma rtt fyrir a ekkert lt hafi vei aukningu CO2. a er samt rtt a hitastigi hefur haldist htt. (g tek ekki mi af niursveiflunni sustu mnui og lt hana liggja milli hluta, enda a llum lkindum um a ra hrif fr La-Nina). NOAA gerir r fyrir sustu sp sinni El-Nino nstu mnui, annig a vi ttum a ru jfnu a sj hkkun hitastigs einhvern tma.

2) Hlindaskeii mildum var hnattrnt fyrirbri. Ekki takmarka vi Norur Evrpu. a benda rannsknir va um heim til.

3) Vissulega horfa menn til niursveiflunnar virkni slar og eirrar stareyndar a virkni slar og hitafar fylgdist a egar menn hafa hyggjur af hitafarinu nstu ratugina.

4) Vi urfum vntanlega ekki a ba mrg r til a komast a raun um hvort Svensmark og fleiri hafa rtt fyrir sr.

Muni klna verulega takt vi verulega minnkun virkni slar, er ekki lklegt a hann hafi haft rtt fyrir sr.

Haldi aftur fram a hlna me svipuum hraa og lok sustu aldar og ef slin stefnir lg. hefur hann haft rangt fyrir sr.

a er vst best a fullyra sem minnst nna, heldur ba bara ratug ea svo

gst H Bjarnason, 13.9.2009 kl. 11:12

Bta vi athugasemd

Ekki er lengur hgt a skrifa athugasemdir vi frsluna, ar sem tmamrk athugasemdir eru liin.

Höfundur

Ágúst H Bjarnason
Ágúst H Bjarnason

Verkfr. hjá Verkís.
agbjarn-hjá-gmail.com

Audiatur et altera pars

Aðeins málefnalegar athugasemdir, sem eiga ótvíætt við efni viðkomandi pistils, og skrifaðar án skætings og neikvæðni í garð annarra, og að jafnaði undir fullu nafni, verða birtar. 

Um bloggi

Ginnungagap

mislegt

Loftslag

Click to get your own widget

Teljari

free counters

lver

http://metalprices.com/PubCharts/PublicCharts.aspx?metal=al&type=L&weight=t&days=12&size=M&bg=&cs=1011&cid=0

Slin dag:

(Smella mynd)

.

Vinnan mn:

Oluveri dag:

Heimsknir

Flettingar

  • dag (18.11.): 0
  • Sl. slarhring: 19
  • Sl. viku: 214
  • Fr upphafi: 701743

Anna

  • Innlit dag: 0
  • Innlit sl. viku: 150
  • Gestir dag: 0
  • IP-tlur dag: 0

Uppfrt 3 mn. fresti.
Skringar

Nv. 2017
S M M F F L
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30    

Innskrning

Ath. Vinsamlegast kveiki Javascript til a hefja innskrningu.

Hafu samband