It’s really rather sad that you can read about Svensmark’s climate research in an Iranian news outlet (FARS) but you won’t see any mention of it in American press, such as in the NYT. A search for Svensmark (and also cosmic rays) yields nothing. Maybe Andy Revkin just hasn’t gotten around to it yet, but if I were in his shoes, I wouldn’t enjoy being scooped by Iran. WUWT covered this story, complete with comments direct from Dr. Svensmark, nearly one month ago. See here.
Here’s the story from FARS:
===
TEHRAN (FNA)- New research by the National Space Institute in the Technical University of Denmark (DTU) validated 13 years of discoveries that point to a key role for cosmic rays in climate change.
Billions of tons of water droplets vanish from the atmosphere in events that reveal in detail how the Sun and the stars control our everyday clouds.
DTU Researchers have traced the consequences of eruptions on the Sun that screen the Earth from some of the cosmic rays – the energetic particles raining down on our planet from exploded stars.
“The Sun makes fantastic natural experiments that allow us to test our ideas about its effects on the climate,” lead author of a report newly published in Geophysical Research Letters Prof. Henrik Svensmark said.
When solar explosions interfere with the cosmic rays there is a temporary shortage of small aerosols, chemical specks in the air that normally grow until water vapor can condense on them, so seeding the liquid water droplets of low-level clouds.
Because of the shortage, clouds over the ocean can lose as much as 7 per cent of their liquid water within seven or eight days of the cosmic-ray minimum.
“A link between the Sun, cosmic rays, aerosols, and liquid-water clouds appears to exist on a global scale,” the report concludes.
This research, to which Torsten Bondo and Jacob Svensmark contributed, validates 13 years of discoveries that point to a key role for cosmic rays in climate change.
In particular, it connects observable variations in the world’s cloudiness to laboratory experiments in Copenhagen showing how cosmic rays help to make the all-important aerosols.
Other investigators have reported difficulty in finding significant effects of the solar eruptions on clouds, and Henrik Svensmark understands their problem.
“It’s like trying to see tigers hidden in the jungle, because clouds change a lot from day to day whatever the cosmic rays are doing,” he says.
The first task for a successful hunt was to work out when “tigers” were most likely to show themselves, by identifying the most promising instances of sudden drops in the count of cosmic rays, called Forbush decreases.
Previous research in Copenhagen predicted that the effects should be most notice-able in the lowest 3000 meters of the atmosphere. The team identified 26 Forbush decreases since 1987 that caused the biggest reductions in cosmic rays at low altitudes, and set about looking for the consequences.
The first global impact of the shortage of cosmic rays is a subtle change in the color of sunlight, as seen by ground stations of the aerosol robotic network AERONET.
By analyzing its records during and after the reductions in cosmic rays, the DTU team found that violet light from the Sun looked brighter than usual. A shortage of small aerosols, which normally scatter violet light as it passes through the air, was the most likely reason. The color change was greatest about five days after the minimum counts of cosmic rays.
Henrik Svensmark and his team were not surprised by it, because the immediate action of cosmic rays, seen in laboratory experiments, creates micro-clusters of sulphuric acid and water molecules that are too small to affect the AERONET observations.
Only when they have spent a few days growing in size should they begin to show up, or else be noticeable by their absence. The evidence from the aftermath of the Forbush decreases, as scrutinized by the Danish team, gives aerosol experts valuable information about the formation and fate of small aerosols in the Earth’s atmosphere.
Although capable of affecting sunlight after five days, the growing aerosols would not yet be large enough to collect water droplets. The full impact on clouds only becomes evident two or three days later.
It takes the form of a loss of low-altitude clouds, because of the earlier loss of small aerosols that would normally have grown into “cloud condensation nuclei” capable of seeding the clouds.
“Then it’s like noticing bare patches in a field, where a farmer forgot to sow the seeds,” Svensmark explains. “Three independent sets of satellite observations all tell a similar story of clouds disappearing, about a week after the minimum of cosmic rays.”
Averaging satellite data on the liquid-water content of clouds over the oceans, for the five strongest Forbush decreases from 2001 to 2005, the DTU team found a 7 per cent decrease, as mentioned earlier.
That translates into 3 billion tons of liquid water vanishing from the sky. The water remains the-re in vapor form, but unlike cloud droplets it does not get in the way of sunlight trying to warm the ocean. After the same five Forbush decreases, satellites measuring the extent of liquid-water clouds revealed an average reduction of 4 per cent. Other satellites showed a similar 5 per cent reduction in clouds below 3200 meters over the ocean.
“The effect of the solar explosions on the Earth’s cloudiness is huge,” Henrik Svensmark comments.
“A loss of clouds of 4 or 5 per cent may not sound very much, but it briefly increases the sunlight reaching the oceans by about 2 watt per square meter, and that’s equivalent to all the global warming during the 20th Century.”
The Forbush decreases are too short-lived to have a lasting effect on the climate, but they dramatize the mechanism that works more patiently during the 11-year solar cycle.
When the Sun becomes more active, the decline in low-altitude cosmic radiation is greater than that seen in most Forbush events and the loss of low cloud cover persists for long enough to warm the world.
That explains, according to the DTU team, the alternations of warming and cooling seen in the lower atmosphere and in the oceans during solar cycles.
The director of the Danish National Space Institute, DTU, Eigil Friis-Christensen, was co-author with Svensmark of an early report on the effect of cosmic rays on cloud cover, back in 1996.
Commenting on the latest paper he said, “The evidence has piled up, first for the link between cosmic rays and low-level clouds and then, by experiment and observation, for the mechanism involving aerosols. All these consistent scientific results illustrate that the current climate models used to predict future climate are lacking important parts of the physics”.
But this is on NBC!
Snow coming to Chicago – already!
http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local-beat/No-Kidding-Snow-on-Sunday–63751227.html
Gobal warming will soon get harder and harder to sell.
“Maybe Andy Revkin just hasn’t gotten around to it yet, but if I were in his shoes, I wouldn’t enjoy being scooped by Iran.”
Perhaps the New York Times only speaks Farcie?
Somehow we have to combine the American tradition of freedom and entrpreneurship together with Iranain openness on science, and we’ll be fine!
It’s a bit unfair to expect a small section of NYT (Dot Earth) to carry all climate-related news, and compare it to a national news agency…
“If the snow sticks, it would be the earliest recorded measurable snowfall in Chicago. The record was set just three years ago when it snowed on Oct. 12.”
That’s weird that the New York Times did not cover this, because it seems like a major climate st….. oh yeah, never mind.
Excellent post & very interesting.
“All these consistent scientific results illustrate that the current climate models used to predict future climate are lacking important parts of the physics”.
Now why does that not surprise me. Computer models were & are used by economists to predict likely ups & downs in the markets, so that they know when to buy or to sell, so my accountant tells me. They didn’t predict what came next did they? Computer models were used by a dubiously competent senior scientist to resolve the Foot & Mouth disease issue over here a few years ago, & look at the absolute carnage that was caused by it thro’ shear bloody arrogance & pride when there were more humane & efficient ways of resolving the issue, & many were saying so but it fell on deaf ears (no news there then) & the stench of death consumed Dartmoor & elsewhere in the UK. I understand that these scares of SARS & Swine Flu were carried out by computer models, I could be wrong but I am still waiting for my dose. Finally, computer models are used to predict the climate (& weather too), & they don’t seem to be panning out too well right now. Is it me, or is there a pattern emerging? WAGTD!
When Europe sank into the Dark Ages, it was the Moslem world that took up science. That may happen again as the warmists seek to bind the West with thier Gaia beliefs.
Funny, but this story in Iran shows a true separation of science and religion.
Time For a New Climate Model Temperature Influences Theory, by yours truly.
1)Sun Irradiation 91%
2)Typical cloud planetary aerosol water vapor formation greenhouse effect. 5%
3)Cosmic ray cloud seeding effect. 1.5%
4)Greenhouse gas emissions from all sources. 2%
5)unknown .4999999%
6)Mans CO2 contribution .0000001%
Obviously these categories can be broken down into many sub categories and the numbers tweaked a bit. I challenge anyone to prove a significant deviation in my predicted numbers.
As has been posted here previously – major cases of GIGO – garbage in = garbage out. Works for both computers and the higher education “system.”
As a solid state (PC Material Science) physicist by training, and experimentalist by inclination, I have very little patience with “scientists” who claim science from “first principles” by computer when the output doesn’t anywhere match the available data. It’s one thing to predict a picosecond ripple around an aluminized deuterium drop, and verify it with a high speed camera, and another to predict temperature rises in a chaotic system with bogus inputs, then hide the flawed input data for fear of being found out.
Bad science comes from poor science students, with poor math skills, and poor teachers. It’s changeable, but it will take a couple of generations.
You have to wonder if other planets (though they all have different atmospheres) might experience similar effects with cloud formation.
Mars was heating simultaneously with the earth, according to an article published back in 2007.
http://www.accuweather.com/news-story.asp?partner=rss&article=0
REPLY: Ron, please do readers the courtesy of describing links – Anthony
OT but interesting http://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/adelaides-coldest-start-to-october-in-half-a-century/12886
Yeah, Iran is an ideal country, very open to science, as long as it does not harm it’s crazy regime:
http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2009/10/08/87337.html
Ron
Arctic cold is only a weather event. Haven’t you heard – it has to be hot in order to qualify as a “climate” event.
For example you can see proof of global warming in Alaska!
http://wxmaps.org/pix/temp2.html
Look at the temps here compared to what is “normal” for this time of year: http://www.weatheroffice.gc.ca/city/pages/ab-52_metric_e.html
The Iranians of course have a major stake opposing the AGW Hoax.
Their economy is totally depending on oil exports, like the Saudi Economy:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/energy/6657947.html
P Gosselin (10:14:25) :
“Ron
Arctic cold is only a weather event. Haven’t you heard – it has to be hot in order to qualify as a “climate” event.
For example you can see proof of global warming in Alaska!
http://wxmaps.org/pix/temp2.html”
I am in full agreement with your assessment.
Al those farting deer and Sarah Palin with her snowmobile!
Hot, hot, hot.
All in all there are signs of a cool-down in the northern hemiphere and the southern sst remains cool. Could be interesting, the next few months.
The last I heard, Global Cooling is caused by Global warming. Or have we dropped that line already? I’m so confused. I suppose you have to keep on top of these ever changing excuses if you want to stay hip.
jon (10:24:20) :
It is darn cold eh! However, Sept was 3C above normal!! if that was GW, bring it on, as Env. Canada flip-flopped on its winter forecast and now they are calling for a below normal winter for Alberta! (note weather is not climate…unless its warm…)
(Okotoks)
The Times did publish an article on July 22 that, so far as I could tell for the first time, detailed Svensmark’s theory:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/21/science/space/21sunspot.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all
As for Mr. Revkin, I have only been looking at this work for a few months. In that time, his work has favored alarmism, heavily.
Iran has got a huge, young inteligent populace.I’ve got some ex-pats in my
family-kids are honor students, pushed by their Iranian mother.Back in my University days there was a large Iranian group of students.Had several in Physics and Chemisty.One was this gorgeous young lady named and her
brother they knew as much as a postgrad. Their father was killed by Jimmah Carter’s effort at sending back Iranian miltary to the Mullahs.For some reason they lied to Carter…
32 degrees and snowing at 5000 feet as I write in Colorado. Not a record, or even that surprising given that it is Colorado, but not really the norm either.
It appears to me that, with this article, the Iranian government is merely propagandizing their people just as our government (in the USA at least) propagandizes us (via NOAA, GISS, Al Gore, etc.).
Although most of us WUWT commenters may agree with the article (or at least hope that it is eventually thoroughly proven to be true), we should take no joy in agreeing with Iran on anything.
These people are killing our soldiers, and want to kill a few million inhabitants of the region. Their “open” scientific community has bloody hands as far as I can tell.
The article might well be for the purpose of prepping the Iranian citizenry to support a demand such as the Saudi’s appear to me making in the following story:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/10/08/international/i021839D93.DTL&feed=rss.business
gt (09:20:36) :
It’s a bit unfair to expect a small section of NYT (Dot Earth) to carry all climate-related news, and compare it to a national news agency…
Right, especially when the NYT itself is no longer a truely “national news agency”.
Re: Climate, WUWT just does it better, apparently even without those “layers and layers” of peer-reviewing “Editors” which the “MSM” [antiquated] touts.
And check out what ABC radio thinks is even “news”, every hour on the hour. I hear all kinds of wild stuff there, like once some bees got loose and into a guy’s house, then they turned into “wasps”. Etc..
Comrades, it’s just not “fair”.
NYT — All the news that fits.
Loveland Ski Resort (less than an hour from Denver) opened today. Earliest opening date in 40 years, according to a local news report.
Yes, yes. Weather, not climate. Still, several excellent skiing years in Colorado recently. While the weather may remain great for skiing, the industry may fall victim to the economy, however. As unemployment climbs, and household income drops, skiing may become a luxury affordable to too small a group to sustain an industry of the current size.
Wow. look at all the snow coming down in the north west.
http://www.weather.com/multimedia/videoplayer.html?clip=364&collection=national&from=hp_news
Yikes, hard to follow. To summarize:
As sunspot activity declines (and it’s real low this summer),
shielding declines,
cosmic rays reaching the lower atmosphere increase,
aerosols increase,
clouds increase,
reflection increases,
solar heating of the Earth declines.
Unmentioned is whether cosmic rays are responsible for all cloud formation, or just an extra four or five percent.
Ron de Haan (10:11:03) :
At least the Iranians have not stooped to using science to inflict harm on thier crazy regime.
In other words, the warmist agenda seeks to impose a lower entropy on Western society and plans to profit by shorting it.
This is just a more advanced form of corporate gobbling, done at a half-hemispherical scale, under guise of Planetary Salvation modeling.
“We’re delighted to have earned the support of NOAA for our climate change initiatives,” said Cynthia Vernon” I bet you are darling. See where your tax dollars go lads. —http://www.ksbw.com/news/21239836/detail.html
Now we have the real reasons for the UN sanctions against Iran…
I’m confused-because this is coming from Iranian press (home of the Holocaust is a fabrication theory and we don’t want no stinkin’ A bomb) the publication there lends more credence to the theory? Or we should be more like Iran? If so, how’s their healthcare? Anyone know?
t-bird (11:47:36) :
“Unmentioned is whether cosmic rays are responsible for all cloud formation, or just an extra four or five percent.”
Bingo!
What are the percentages of all major and minor influences on the climate?
As of today Intellicast’s global maps is showing general cooling in the NH and not much in the way of warming in the SH for the 4 days after today, there’s also indication that for those next 4 days there will still be milder air being driven into the Arctic for heat dumping as seen by its forecast for Barrow Alaska.
It seems like the Oceans aren’t warming in response to the current ENSO event like seen in 1998 and if this El Nino strengthens a little than one wonder if that’s just going to mean even less heat in the oceans than if it right away swapped back to La Nina considering previous discussion here, heat content according to NOAA’s TAO site currently shows no noticable increase nor much of a decrease.
P Gosselin (09:16:45) :
“Somehow we have to combine the American tradition of freedom and entrpreneurship together with Iranain openness on science, and we’ll be fine!”
All we are going to share with Iran after they screwed up the Geneva Meeting last week is this:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jwIaLotSkaw29J0t9eD1EF7Ct8VQ
rbateman (12:20:54) :
Ron de Haan (10:11:03) :
“At least the Iranians have not stooped to using science to inflict harm on thier crazy regime.
In other words, the warmist agenda seeks to impose a lower entropy on Western society and plans to profit by shorting it.
This is just a more advanced form of corporate gobbling, done at a half-hemispherical scale, under guise of Planetary Salvation modeling.”
rbateman,
It’s a Marxist coup and it ends up with the suppression of the people.
We have to stop it at any price.
Ron de Haan (10:04:45) :
“http://www.accuweather.com/news-story.asp?partner=rss&article=0
REPLY: Ron, please do readers the courtesy of describing links – Anthony”
WILCO
How much does a 2 Watt forcing of solar radation change the temperature?
Snow removal.
Shovel ready jobs we have been waiting for. So sad the wind died down and the widmills stopped. I guess electric heat is still rare.
The middle east doesn’t have a problem with posting climate news. They don’t have oil drilling restrictions.
P Gosselin (09:13:43)
Al Gore is coming to Chicago 🙂
Dan (13:07:35) :
Nothing to be confused about, Dan, this is simply what Eisnehower warned us about.
The corruption of science for political purpose is a recipe for disaster.
Most nations at one time understood and prevented this. You either keep up with the Jones on advancing science by keeping agenda out of it, or you make science into a feeding trough dependent on political whim and bring advance to a screeching halt.
For all of Iran’s failings, this isn’t one of them (agenda-based science steering)
Carlo (14:14:30) :
Al Gore better think that one over. The news yesterday from Chicago of a mob fighting over 3500 Rent assistance grants say what’s on folks minds: They need real jobs, not green fantasia promises. Winter is set to hit Chicago, and the desperation to stay warm is going to drive the thought process.
Meanwhile, back at Global Climate Central, the issuing of catastrophic warming continues.
At some point, one no longer needs a climate forecast to see where things are going.
“Because of the shortage, clouds over the ocean can lose as much as 7 per cent of their liquid water within seven or eight days of the cosmic-ray minimum.”
News to me. The middle east lacks in rain and this is critical.
On climate progress there is a new “surge” of articles. Most are political and all are prophetic.
This article is actual cosmic radiation. The Joe Romm stuff is power point slides of 2099 and threats of temps.
It’s alarming that some of the posters here believe Iran needs to be “liberated”.
You would think this liberation lie would be at least as transparent as the AGW hoax.
One American columnist wrote it up. (Shameless self promotion follows)
http://www.dailynebraskan.com/opinion/harbison-convincing-correlation-between-sunspots-climate-should-be-examined-1.1908920
“When solar explosions interfere with the cosmic rays there is a temporary shortage of small aerosols, chemical specks in the air that normally grow until water vapor can condense on them, so seeding the liquid water droplets of low-level clouds….”
This is of course the point of the CLOUD experiment at CERN, which doesn’t seem to be doing much, but which promises a lot…
“CLOUD is an experiment that uses a cloud chamber to study the possible link between galactic cosmic rays and cloud formation. Based at the Proton Synchrotron at CERN, this is the first time a high-energy physics accelerator has been used to study atmospheric and climate science; the results could greatly modify our understanding of clouds and climate…”
http://public.web.cern.ch/Public/en/Research/CLOUD-en.html
I read the 20 July NYT article (Is the Sun Missing its Spots?) that Harold Ambler linked to in his comment, but it doesn’t mention any recent Svensmark research. Actually, it seems to imply that the data is old : “One possibility proposed a decade ago by Henrik Svensmark and other scientists at the Danish National Space Center in Copenhagen looks to high-energy interstellar particles known as cosmic rays.”
I also note that the 5 paragraphs devoted to Svensmark is followed by 5 paragraphs that either debunk or belittle (“the effect was probably small.”) any effect of cosmic rays. Whereas Hathaway’s hypothesis, the major thrust of the article, is not critically assessed, although he seems to have been overly optimistic. As usual, of course, the NYT authors did manage to garble Hathaway’s research (but at least published the 22 July correction).
Finally, what perturbs me most about the FARS article is not that it is Iranian, but that after reading it I had a clear understanding of Svenmark’s hypothesis. After reading the NYT article, I felt somewhat befuddled, but also comforted – the sun will shine again and it will continue to get warm. That’s good, because we had severe late frosts in Edmonton this Spring and I just finished clearing 3 cm of snow off my walkways. Like superDBA comments above about the snow in Colorado, -5 C and snow in Alberta in early October isn’t unusual, but it isn’t normal either. Actually, the current temperature is about 9 degrees C below normal.
Adolfo Giurfa (13:02:24) :
A real challenge: Anybody out there who could provide data on low altitude cloud cover?….I don´t read arabic!
Arabic language is easy… It is spoken exactly as it is written. However, isn’t it Farsi? 🙂
Let me correct my last statement: 13 -4 does equal 9, but -4 is 17 C below normal, not 9 below. I blame cognitive dissonance.
OT: get ready for “hottest Sept in …years” . GISS is out at +65. I know its flawed but the warmers will be touting it as vindication of models etc…
blondieBC (13:45:45) :
How much does a 2 Watt forcing of solar radation change the temperature?
In dry mixed air? You won’t believe it:
2 W*s = 2 J/s
ΔT = q/m (Cp) = 2 W / 1.18 Kg (1005.7 W/kg*K) = 0.002 °C
You need water vapor for an “anomalous” increase of temperature:
For 3.5% RH, ΔT = 0.04 °C
Gerard Harbison (14:41:42) :
Yes, the Media should be all over this long solar minimum. Instead, we learn of a dust torus around Saturn, and NASA’s plan to bomb for water on the Moon.
NASA has issued thier warnings about the Sun, but the Media is so far out to lunch they’ll never make it back to the office before quitting time.
I posted a topic on the issue of arguing the science behind Cap-and-Trade.
Make Them Argue the Science of Current Global Cooling and Solar Minimum!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/110245#comment-1200999
Here in Saskatoon, we have snow on the ground today, and snow forecast for the next three days at least. We rarely have a Halloween here without snow, but it usually has the decency to wait at least until the leaves are off the trees. There’s going to be some tree damage in the days ahead, as leaves catch more snow than branches do, and make the branches heavier than they can manage without breaking. Global warming my fat Canadian behind.
“blondieBC (13:45:45) :
How much does a 2 Watt forcing of solar radation change the temperature?
In dry mixed air? You won’t believe it:
2 W*s = 2 J/s
ΔT = q/m (Cp) = 2 W / 1.18 Kg (1005.7 W/kg*K) = 0.002 °C
You need water vapor for an “anomalous” increase of temperature:
For 3.5% RH, ΔT = 0.04 °C
”
So why is this impact big enough to cause a noticeable difference in temperature?
Not surprised that NYT didn’t publish the story, since I have learned at RC that Dr. Svensmark is not an “expert”.
Surprising, or not anymore since “climate science” has become a religion. He seems to be a member of the wrong church.
I am watching this for years now and being an engineer, not an expert at all, I found my position by watching how the parties act and express themselves.
The hysterics have lost years ago already, they became more and more bizarre, but start to prepare fallback positions slowly, not without rearing up.
I can’t wait to see how this turns around.
~snip~
[Reply: If you dislike this site that much why visit? ~dbstealey, moderator]
More ‘weather not climate’ from the Southern Hemisphere.
A late snow dump in mid-Canterbury, including (last time I looked) 22 cm of fresh powder on Mount Hutt skifield.
Guess I’ll be climbing into the Salomons tomorrow, and heading up there. Most of the other local skifields have closed for the season.
Wheee! Global Warming is such Fun….
“”” Nasif Nahle (15:35:32) :
blondieBC (13:45:45) :
How much does a 2 Watt forcing of solar radation change the temperature?
In dry mixed air? You won’t believe it:
2 W*s = 2 J/s
ΔT = q/m (Cp) = 2 W / 1.18 Kg (1005.7 W/kg*K) = 0.002 °C
You need water vapor for an “anomalous” increase of temperature:
For 3.5% RH, ΔT = 0.04 °C “””
Can’t figure your method Nasif.
So what’s wrong with this stick in the sand apprach.
“mean global temperature” = 288K. BB radiation at 288 K =390 W/m^2.
So 2W/m^2 change (forcing) =2/390 = 1/2% change in radiation. Since emittance goes as T^4, then 0.5% change in emittance = 0.125% change in Temperature
0.125% of 288 = 0.36 K
Now the official NOAA Trenberth energy budget says that average solar influx = 342 W/m^2, so 2/342 =0.585% =4 x .1462% = 0.42K
So I believe the effect of 2W/m^2 is considerably more than 0.002 deg C.
What say you Nasif ?
George
blondieBC (16:24:15) :
So why is this impact big enough to cause a noticeable difference in temperature?
The real source of the energy… AGWers are digging in the wrong driver that it is not a primary source of energy and are impeding the advancement of science on that issue.
CLOUD 9 at the CERN!
Another study unlikely to be seen in NYT:
“Greens more likely thieves and liars, says shock study”
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/08/greens_are_thieves_and_liars_say_trick_cyclists/
I don’t know how valid, but supposedly in press at ‘Psychological Science’
“With a citation ranking/impact factor placing it in the top ten psychology journals worldwide, Psychological Science is a leader in the field.”
No spots on the sun today
Same as no spots of yesterday
I thought it was ramping up?
It’s good to see man put in his place when he thinks he knows something……
We know nothing.
George E. Smith (17:01:49):
Can’t figure your method Nasif.
So what’s wrong with this stick in the sand apprach.
“mean global temperature” = 288K. BB radiation at 288 K =390 W/m^2.
So 2W/m^2 change (forcing) =2/390 = 1/2% change in radiation. Since emittance goes as T^4, then 0.5% change in emittance = 0.125% change in Temperature
0.125% of 288 = 0.36 K
My method is classical. Convert the energy, 2 W in this case, to change of temperature of a medium, dry air in this case, taking into account the mass and the specific heat capacity of the substance, dry air in this case, towards which the amount of energy was transferred, 2 W in this case.
As the dry air is not a black body because it doesn’t absorb the total amount of energy it receives and it doesn’t radiate the total amount of energy it receives, i.e. not all the energy absorbed is converted into thermal energy, the change of temperature of that mass at 300.15 K, which is the standard temperature for room conditions, is quite low.
Now the official NOAA Trenberth energy budget says that average solar influx = 342 W/m^2, so 2/342 =0.585% =4 x .1462% = 0.42K
So I believe the effect of 2W/m^2 is considerably more than 0.002 deg C.
What say you Nasif ?
George
Here goes what I say:
If the total influx of solar radiation is 342 W/m^2 the surface, in general, absorbed ~174.42 W/m^2, and the air absorbed ~20.52 W/m^2; the sensible heat transfer was ~23.94 W/m^2 and the latent heat transfer was ~82.08 W/m^2.
Then, 174.42 W/m^2 + 20.52 W/m^2 + 23.94 W/m^2 + 82.08 W/m^2 = 300.96 W/m^2.
30.78 W/m^2 is radiated from the atmosphere to the cold, 3d, unbounded space.
10.26 W/m^2 are reflected by the surface and radiated to the cold, 3d, unbounded space.
But… 342 W/m^2 would cause a temperature of the mixed air of 300.44 K
20.52 W/m^2 of energy absorbed by the air would cause a change of temperature of 0.02 K.
Following your logics:
2 (W/m^2)/20.52 (W/m^2) = 0.1
Thus, ΔT = 0.02 K (0.1) = 0.002 K
A forcing of 2 W/m^2 would cause 0.002 K, as I had said in my answer to blondieBC.
That is the result by applying the heat transfer science without misguided modifications.
Hey, I’d like to hear more “expert” opinion here on the CLOUD Project as well. Particle physicists are “big boy” scientists, are they not? Just how good does your stuff have to be to swing this large of an experiment at CERN? Kind of dwarfs the peer review required for the latest phony reconstruction by The Team, doesn’t it?
What exactly are they trying to accomplish with this new cloud chamber that the Danes haven’t already shown? Anyone care to predict the spin upon successful completion of the experiment? I mean, Svensmark is routinely looked down upon, disparaged, and dismissed by the Alarmists. I would assume that means he is onto something! Or is Arydale the only one who knows what I’m getting at?
Winter more than a month ahead of schedule this year? Whatts up with that?
Chances for an Indian summer this year are slim to none.
“A very cold air mass that is more than 30 days ahead of its time will come down along the east slopes of the Rockies Friday and Saturday.”
http://www.accuweather.com/news-story.asp?partner=forecastbar&traveler=1&article=2
Now we in NE Oregon are getting that Arctic air this weekend.Maybe some snow,but lows are going to be in the teens and single digits F. Got my wood in, and planting like crazy,this is the 1950’s 60’s and 70’s all over again.
Pardon me while I bring the Brass Monkey in….
Me too Douglas. Just called my pasture renter to shut the valves off on the barnyard outdoor spigots to prevent pipes from busting. I’m hoping this freeze will bring down the leaves on the maples. That last snow broke major branches off all around the house. When the branches are bare, snow is no problem.
Do you know the story of Brass Monkeys? It is a seafaring wartime term.
Today a staff member was eating a lunch of spaghetti squash and tomato topping. The squash was about the size of my arm (and at 4’11” in heels that is not saying much). At least she got to eat it before it froze. And so much for the pumpkin patch again this year. By the time Halloween comes round, the pumpkins will be nothing but squishy piles of frozen goo. If you have squash fruit, pick now and they might ripen in the house in a cool area.
Sometimes i think you have to travel out of the US world of news to get the truth! I catch myself reading the commie daily out of Russia once in awhile.
Wait. Aren’t Iranians Persians? Not Arabs? Or did i just misunderstand Rick Steves 🙂 when he went to Tehran (in High Def no less!). Here in Wisconsin its been gloom, gloom, gloom. Lots of rain this month and very cool temps, a huge flip from September when it was warm (2F above normal) and very, very dry (almost a month without rain).
I don’t know if the previous person was kidding, but Al Gore will be speaking in Milwaukee on Friday morning.
http://forecast.weather.gov/product.php?site=MKX&issuedby=MKX&product=AFD&format=CI&version=1&glossary=1
Now that’s a discussion. “will let next shift…”
Steven Hill (17:56:45) :
Why isn’t the Sun ramping up?
Because last rotation, it had an active side and a dead side.
We’re looking at the dead side, spotless and faculess.
We went through this early July.
So.
If the active side which rotated out of view holds on, there’s light at the end of the tunnel.
If not, it’s back to 2 dead sides.
Al Gore must have come on down to NZ
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/2947353/Snow-falls-as-new-cold-snap-hits-the-country
Don’t feel bad, all you Pumpkin growers out there. Here, in one of the warmest places in NW Cailf, we got 2 pumpkins this year. 3 years ago we had 2 dozen. Last year, the vines took off in Sept. and made a half-dozen small pumpkins. The frost came this week and killed the vine.
Monday we have a big rain coming.
Batten down your hatches, Leif, the forecast shows off-the-scale rain headed straight for you.
You stay high & dry, you hear?
——————————————————–
Nasif Nahle (15:35:32) :
blondieBC (13:45:45) :
How much does a 2 Watt forcing of solar radation change the temperature?
In dry mixed air? You won’t believe it:
2 W*s = 2 J/s
ΔT = q/m (Cp) = 2 W / 1.18 Kg (1005.7 W/kg*K) = 0.002 °C
You need water vapor for an “anomalous” increase of temperature:
For 3.5% RH, ΔT = 0.04 °C
——————————————————–
It’s been a long time since I’ve done psychrometry, but enthalpy of “air” increases with moisture content, therefore requiring more energy per degree temperature increase.
Does water vapor effect transmission and emissivity of air enough to over come the the increase?
Or am I totally off base?
I envy the Iranian their free press.
Gino (20:17:37) :
It’s been a long time since I’ve done psychrometry, but enthalpy of “air” increases with moisture content, therefore requiring more energy per degree temperature increase.
Does water vapor effect transmission and emissivity of air enough to over come the the increase?
Or am I totally off base?
No, you’re on base, I mean, you are correct. When air receives water vapor and the temperature of the air is constant, air’s enthalpy increases by 2.56 kJ/Kg per each gram of water vapor that is added to one kilogram of air.
US exporter of oil? I did not know that!
http://masterresource.org/?p=5129
Boris is under the delusion that he is “doing it for the children”, …
@Gino…
I like psychrometry. This afternoon (16:00 hrs-CST), the temperature in my location was 32 °C and the dewpoint was 24 °C. The relative humidity reached 62.7% (which means a mixing ratio of 18.9 g/Kg). The enthalpy of air was 48.3 kJ/Kg on pure latent energy. I have not make the calculations on sensible energy.
Regards,
Nasif Nahle
Nasif Nahle (20:44:21) :
Thanks, 20 yrs can mess with your memory pretty well. So what am I missing with regard to humidity increasing the temperature change per unit of energy?
No NY Times coverage? Pinchy Sulzberger is still living in the past. Seems like everything that is politically correct, including global warming, is spawn of the 60’s.
“Without any censorship in the West, fashionable trends of thought and ideas are fastidiously separated from those that are not fashionable, and the latter, without ever being forbidden, have little chance of finding their way into periodicals or books or being heard in colleges. Your scholars are free in the legal sense, but they are hemmed in by the idols of the prevailing fad.”
~~Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn,
Harvard 1978 commencement address
“The ruling class has the schools and press under its thumb. This enables it to sway the emotions of the masses.”
~~Albert Einstein
It’s very curious. This website frequently nails its colours to the mast with anti-government, anti-tax, pro-business, laissez-faire attitudes. People who hold these kind of views are very rarely pro-Iran.
If you want to place your faith in the Iranian media, that’s fine. The reason your more widely read “western” media haven’t covered this story is because it’s scientifically groundless.
RW
The reason your more widely read “western” media haven’t covered this story is because it’s scientifically groundless.
That’s a relief. If it was acceptable to warmers chances are that it would be another utterly useless theory.
RW
“The reason your more widely read “western” media haven’t covered this story is because it’s scientifically groundless.”
Truth and knowledge are where you find them RW. You should know that. But I thought we were discussing an article on climate. Most here at WUWT are pro-climate. Aren’t you? What’s your beef? You don’t have the flu do you?
“Boris (16:57:28) :
~snip~
[Reply: If you dislike this site that much why visit? ~dbstealey, moderator]”
Please moderator, let’s hear him out. You don’t have to protect us from harsh criticism. We can handle it.
Good article!
Gino (21:44:47) :
Thanks, 20 yrs can mess with your memory pretty well. So what am I missing with regard to humidity increasing the temperature change per unit of energy?
I don’t think you have missed something, it’s just my explanation was too short. The portion that I didn’t write concerns to the emissivity of water vapor, which is around 0.75. To know the amount of energy transferred by radiation, it is preferable to use the next formula:
Q = e σ A (Tf^4 – Tc^4)
As for the carbon dioxide absorptivity and emissivity, at its current concentration in the atmosphere, they are very, very low, so the amount of energy transferred to and from a molecule of carbon dioxide is ridiculously small, compared with the energy absorbed and emitted by the molecule of water vapor and other materials.
We have a temperature gradient to be considered into any calculation of heat transfer, that is, an initial temperature and a final temperature. The amount of heat transferred from a hot system to another colder system by radiation depends absolutely on the capacity of the two systems to absorb and emit the energy, i.e. absorptivity and emissivity respectively.
RW (02:30:27) :
If you want to place your faith in the Iranian media, that’s fine
This cheap shot reveals something about you RW not the readers of WUWT.
After the uprisings of the last Iranian election, the mullahs have dictated that universities move to concentrate on natural sciences and move away from the social sciences (political science, economics, etc). Encouraging debates in climate science serves their purposes well. The noise in the system means that there isn’t just one school of thought. The arguments go round and round and people are distracted from their day-to-day problems.
I would expect the Iranian media to continue to report both sides of the climate debate.
Unless I completely misunderstand Nasif Nahle his calculations are contain an error. Nasif Nahle wrote in reply to a the question of how much will 2 W/sqm raise the temperature of air
” In dry mixed air? You won’t believe it:
2 W*s = 2 J/s
ΔT = q/m (Cp) = 2 W / 1.18 Kg (1005.7 W/kg*K) = 0.002 °C”
The problem is that watts are not energy, watt are power or a rate of energy. Joules are energy. As noted by Nahle watts are joules per second. Nahle’s answer shouldn’t be .002 C, it should be .002 C per second.
This will continue until the air has warmed to the point where it radiates away as much heat as it is taking in or until the sun goes down, whichever comes first.
However, this assumes that the air absorbs all of the radiant heat and that none of it reaches the ground thereby raising the surface temperature. At best such a calculation could only serve as a maximum upper limit to the temperature change.
Bob Meyer (09:14:22) :
Unless I completely misunderstand Nasif Nahle his calculations are contain an error. Nasif Nahle wrote in reply to a the question of how much will 2 W/sqm raise the temperature of air
” In dry mixed air? You won’t believe it:
2 W*s = 2 J/s
ΔT = q/m (Cp) = 2 W / 1.18 Kg (1005.7 W/kg*K) = 0.002 °C”
Yes, you are correct and I stand corrected. The correct conversion is as follows:
2 W*s = 2 J.
So the corrected procedure is as follows:
ΔT = q/m (Cp) = 2 J / 1.18 Kg (1005.7 J/kg*K) = 0.002 K = 0.002 °C
Thanks for noticing the error.
Sorry 🙂
Bob Meyer (09:14:22) :
However, this assumes that the air absorbs all of the radiant heat and that none of it reaches the ground thereby raising the surface temperature. At best such a calculation could only serve as a maximum upper limit to the temperature change.
For radiative heat transfer I use the next formula:
q = e (σ) (A) [(Ts) ^4 – (Ta) ^4]
Or simply q = e (σ) (A) (T^4)
The result is also power (W). For obtaining the load of energy (J) one should multiply by time (t).
Oher formulas must to be applied if you wish to know the total of energy transferred from the surface to the air.
Regarding the heat transfer from the air to the surface, warming the latter up, it’s not feasible in the real world:
http://www.biocab.org/Induced_Emission.html
FWIW, I regularly watch Al Jazeera on the Direct TV satellite system (ch 375 on LINK tv as part of a show called “Mosaic – News from the Middle East” that also includes the Israeli news IBA.)
Other than a blatantly political one sided coverage of anything to do with Israel, the various Islamic news programs (it also has Jordanian, Dubai, Iranian and some others) are generally well done. As long as it is not a story about Israel or the Great Satan (ie. the U.S.A.) or “muslim issues”, the rest of Mosaic channels seem to be pretty straight news. It also does give an interesting counterpoint on the “muslim issues” and it gives an interesting insight into the way the Muslim World views anything about Israel through a very warped lens… Then you get to look back through the Israeli lens… “Two different worlds, we live in two different worlds”…
Fair Warning: LINK is from the far looney left politically. They occasionally have some interesting shows, but don’t leave it running with the kids in the room while you go make lunch 😉 (They are running a blurb admiring Michael Moore as cultural icon at the moment…) You do also get very interesting visuals some times. The Iranian coverage of the ‘failed coup’ showed a squad or three of motorcycles with a rider in military uniform on the back with a shoulder launched missile. A bit surreal in a way. “Ride a soft bike and carry a big rocket stick?” I can’t imagine us having a squad like that. It doesn’t pass the “giggle” test 😉
Why do I watch this? I trade oil. If you would predict OPEC and military adventures in the Middle East, you need to go to their news, not ours. Ours is useless sanitized pap for selling shampoo. Their news will show tensions building long before the violence starts. Ours will show the “action” after the war has been engaged for a few days and something “interesting” is available in the visuals. Useless for trading.
Sidebar: I also get BBC news on the satellite as well. Interesting perspective from the other side of the puddle. Nice counterpoint to FOX that tends to the radical right on political issues (and Hannity with his nightly moment of rant. Rant is not news. The “Red Eye” metrosexual hour isn’t news either. Whatever happened to 24 hour NEWS?…)
Also, FWIW, the best straight news comes as the little ‘blurbs’ on Bloomberg and CNBC. They know it MUST be “straight” and “fast” or you will have a busted trade. Just the facts, accurate and quick. Unfortunately, not much depth behind it. Sigh.
I just wish there was some “straight news” somewhere. An average of the left and right is not the middle… (Hmmm… nor is an average of the high and low the integrated area under the curve… )
Nasif Nahle (07:26:31) :
that’s what I thought. For no reason other than curiosity, do you have a link to any reference material on Absorptivity and Emissivity coefficients for moist air? This topic is now going to drive me to dig out my old thermo books.
The heat of a 90 degree day in Honolulu is not the same as a 90 day in Phoenix. This global average temp stuff really bothers me because the issue is heat transfer. If they can’t model clouds, how can they model moisture content?
RW (02:30:27) : It’s very curious. This website frequently nails its colours to the mast with anti-government, anti-tax, pro-business, laissez-faire attitudes. People who hold these kind of views are very rarely pro-Iran.
If you want to place your faith in the Iranian media, that’s fine.
Let me ‘splain it to you: It is called adherence to the truth.
And, IMHO, Anthony mostly covers weather, climate, and science stuff in a largely non-political way. I see no “color nailing” here in the postings. That the government screws up a lot is not a political statement. (And deserves to be advertized by any political side). That some of what it does is vitally important is also clear. What temperature record quality would we have to criticize were the Government not providing one?
Oh, and I hope you have a nice time getting your food, fuel, housing, clothing, and medical care without all those nasty businesses getting in the way. (Wonder where he gets his antibiotics and washing soap?…) Business is not evil. Business is not “right wing” (see Russia and COMMUNIST China as examples). Most of the world, including, now, the USA, run on a type of government / business relationship called ‘Lang Type Socialism’. See that last word? Socialism. Hardly a right wing concept and up to it’s eyeballs in ‘business’. So methinks your biases and bigotries are showing…
Oh, and per lower taxes as a right wing agenda item: you will need to take that up with the iconic Radical Right Winger who proposed them, got them passed, and improved the economy greatly in the process. I lived through his time and it worked very well. His name was John Kennedy.
The AGW crowd seems to think that the messenger is the message and loves to attack the messenger. The AGW crowd loves to stereotype, then attack the messaged based on such profiling. (See your post for an example of such “profiling” via stereotype …)
What the sceptic tends to do is search for truth, no matter who carries it and no matter what they may think on some other topic. (For example, Einstein believed in an” invisible man in the sky who liked to count hairs on people’s heads, but did not like playing dice”… Yet his science is stellar. So we hold his science up as an example of greatness, despite is other beliefs. Ditto Newton. Even Darwin had a few lines devoted to God in the original publications of his work on evolution, something that is often forgotten when holding him up as a reason to suppress a religious viewpoint… )
So all you have here is someone looking at the quality and bias of both the eastern and western news and finding an interesting disconnect on truthfulness depending on topic covered.
Much as i watch Mosaic to see what is really happening in the middle eastern mind, but do not look to the Muslim stations for valid Israeli news; or listen to the BBC for the “English – European” viewpoint, but any of their climate change news is simply propaganda; or watch FOX for a decent critique of the Looney Left and their political agenda, but would not expect them to give a valid appraisal of the merits of bringing back Glass-Steagall.
ALL news must be run through the Truth Test. And truth is where you find it, not where your biases tell you to look for confirmation.
Nasif Nahle said “Regarding the heat transfer from the air to the surface, warming the latter up, it’s not feasible in the real world:”
I agree. Now, if only we could get the IPCC to agree.
Funny, in the late 70’s and early 80’s in Taiwan, under a right-wing authoritarian regime, I realized I was getting better news coverage of world events from the local media than I was getting from American sources. Nothing new here, and it certainly isn’t any better. C’a plus change, toujours les meme choses.
September and October have been great temperature-wise here in Southern New England, which makes up for the miserable June and July… but the leaves started turning three weeks ago and those miserable rats-with-wings (the Canada Goose, of course) are nowhere to be seen. Do you suppose they’ve moved further north to get away from the intolerably warm New England winter?
There are good evidences for forbush decrease events. But the low cloud variations occurred (as reported by IPCC) in the last 20 years are not in accordance with the CR trend. Now we should observe a strong increase in low clouds over the oceans, as the CR have reached the highest values from the earliest monitoring. May the author give us any explanation about this apparent discepance with the long term observations?
Thank you in advance
Maybe it’s the extra clouds that made September warmer than usual. The NH should be cooling off faster but the clouds blanket the heat in. I do astrophotography at night and there have been a lot more cloudy nights this year than last in my small part of the world.
Robert E. Phelan (16:40:48) :
…and those miserable rats-with-wings (the Canada Goose, of course) are nowhere to be seen. Do you suppose they’ve moved further north to get away from the intolerably warm New England winter?
My guess is they went *south* — according to a friend in Princeton, NJ, the Canada Honker population around Carnegie Lake suddenly doubled back in mid-September.
Careful what you tell them. Next they probably say global cooling is coming, and we should throw away all our compact fluorescent lamps, further polluting our oceans with mercury.