But they have eleven (ELEVEN!) scientists that say so. You seem to forget that modern science is done by voting.
I’m sorry, I’m an old timer.. I don’t get this voting thing. During Stalin’s time, we never had a chance to do the thing called voting. The government told you what to think..
One of the predicted effects is that with GHG changes for some reason I’m not sure of right now (but it’s basic physics) that increasing GHG will reduce temperature in upper atmosphere (while increasing overall), whereas increasing solar forcing by itself will increase temperature in all the atmospheric components.
I think it was more along the lines of basic thermodynamics. GHGs trapping the heat in the lower atmosphere while helping the radiating in the upper atmosphere. (see 4th para below)
Some problems here, a gasses radiative ability does not depend on altitude, and is band specific. When a planetary body radiates through a gas, you see notches in the blackbody emissions from the absorption by the gases. When an gas absorbs thermal energy it will re-radiate the energy as a blackbody, but not necessarily in the same frequency it was absorbed in. Another problem is that an increase in temperature, decreases density and a decrease in temperature increases density. The least dense gas ‘wants’ to be on top (oversimplification.. but easiest way to state that a less dense gas wants to ‘float’ on a more dense gas). From the above reference: As the amount of carbon dioxide increases, the upper atmosphere becomes cooler and contracts, bringing lower-density gas to lower heights.
But it also makes it more dense (PV = nRT, Temp in Kelvin). Temp and volume decrease, but number of moles stay constant. Atomic weight is tied to number of moles.. thereby with volume decreasing and weight constant.. increasing the density of the gas that just cooled.
I think they may be trying to rely too much on Venus as an example for the process, ignoring that Venus is largely 1 gas.. CO2 (96% in the quote). And that most of the warming is probably due to surface warming (because C02s absorption is band specific and the sun’s direct emissions do not favor energy absorption by C02, but blackbody emissions do favor energy absorption by C02). On Venus, the CO2 is being heated by the surface of Venus, not the sun. As it applies to the Earth, H20 is the wildcard. On Earth, water can move significant amounts of energy through phase changes. It is also less dense than C02 at the same temperature when in a gas phase. H20 also controls the ‘iris’ of the earth. (also why I consider it a wildcard).
On surface warming, I can relate that to a black surface on a sunny winter day (no wind). The air 1 foot away from the surface is very chilly. The air 1/4 inch or less from the surface is quite warm. The transfer of energy (heating) from the surface to the air can be faster than the transfer of energy from one segment of air to the next (air is a pretty good insulator). http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/thercond.html
On Earth though, because of water, we don’t only have to rely on thermal conductivity of the gases to move thermal energy, we also have phase change to move thermal energy (much much more effective).
It also helps that Venus is closer to the sun (in terms of temperature).
I would like to see why these scientists “say that a recent paper attributing most climate change on Earth to cosmic rays is incorrect and based on questionable methodology.” Do they have a paper showing how the methodology is flawed?
Yes, that’s the whole point. The PR describes the paper published in the journal EOS.
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Journals/rahmstorf_etal_e…This is the type of article I like. It looks like it attacks the conjecture on the reliability of Cosmic Ray Flux reconstruction, not on the actual possibility of Cosmic Rays effecting the earth’s climate. It attacks the reliability of the data used to form and justify the conjecture. I’ve just gone through the first part of it.. will need to read the rest later. I like these references better than the previous one along the same lines. It argues the point instead of just saying “I’m right you’re wrong.”
As I mentioned before, I look at both sides and take things apart.. (Now where is that gudgeon pin for my 351C.. got to get it back together so I can get to work… honey, were you using my torque wrench for a hammer again?)
