Quick hypothetical statistical analysis:
Lets say you keep temperature records for 100 cities every day for 150 years. The records are highest and lowest high and highest and lowest low. So thats 100*4=400 data points taken per day to be compared with the 150 existing data points for each record for each city. So an average of 400/150 = 2.67 records will be broken every day.
Despite the claim in the article to the contrary, the WMO is a political comittee in a political organization and therefore any opinion it expresses will be somewhat political. One of its primary missions is monitoring climate change (not ascertaining whether or not there *IS* any climate change).
Though I have no doubt that humans have helped increase the global temperature by about 1F this past century and we will want to do something about this in the near future, the chicken littles are wrong. No, the sky is NOT falling.
I don't think we can know. Of course, the far right would have told T-Rex not to worry; we have always had asteroid impacts.
See, there is this kinda simple problem, global warming from climatilogical change has serious merit, but the reality of climate warming might just (as well) have something to do with the currently 'not measured' content of thermal output/input, that is being added Daily to the planets atmosphere, and water, simply from the additions of ALL of the available heating sources used over the face of the planet twenty-four hours/perday, seven days a week, yearly.
There is a lot of heat generating going on out there, HUGE amounts of thermal radiance from all of humanities DAILY activities.
See how many you can think of, don't forget ovens, and stoves, hot water heaters, lights, lawn mowers, vacuum cleaners (The Motor), BBQ's and campfires, (in summer) cars, trucks, planes, trains, ships, etc.
I should add that I think global warming is mostly a result of the sun getting hotter. It is argued that the solar intensity at any moment goes as the sun's magnetic field strength. We can track the history of this magnetic field in rocks on the earth. It so happens that, coincidently, just as industry began dumping CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere about a hundred years ago, the solar intensity also began to increase. If we factor this into the climate models that otherwise assumed a constant solar factor, then the contributions to global warming due to man's activities are insignificant.
I have seen one unconfirmed report that Alcoa Aluminum has patented an additive for jet fuel. This aluminum salt would in principle be added to the fuel for all commercial aviation. The plane’s engines would disperse this highly reflective white powder in flight. Being suspended in the upper atomosphere for many months, over time this should yield a significant 1% average decrease in the incident solar radiation on the planet. I have not seen a confirmation of this report yet.
Edit: rephrase things a bit for clarity
Yes. It has been shown that smoke and jet exhausts help to dampen the effects of GW by cutting solar radiation coming into the earth by up to 10%. The problem is that the current rate of production will not continue and this effect is very short lived. Hence, while current heating rates are low, the effect will increase in the future.
Sun getting warmer? Well.. do you have any evidence for that? Eg. satellite data etc?
I would have to search for what I have heard. Some people at the Harvard School of Physics I think did the first work on this. I saw a report given to congress on C-Span about four years ago. The evidence is obtained and compared by analyzing the information about the local magnetic field stored in rocks. Apparently one can subtract the effects from the earth's field, and then deduce the strength of the sun's field. By this we can obtain long term data for comparison. I have seen other reports for this argument over the last few years. It is possible that this hypothesis has met serious challenges of which I am not aware, but considering the complexity of climate modeling and the number of different models used, it is probably too early to expect a consensus on this. Everything that I have heard seemed pretty impressive. Of course, I'm no atmospheric scientist.
Edit: Boy some people would kill me for this...the original research may have been done by Princeton. If no one come up with anything, I will look for some stuff in a week or so when I am next able.
Also, are you sure about that 10%? That seems impossibly high. I was blown away by the claim of 1%!
I have sometime ago on discovery on show on how the sun temperature could be monitor. It's known that the sun goes through cycle where activity goes up or down. When the activity goes up more black point become appears. The more there is of these black points the higher the sun temperature is. I don't remember what the black point meant.
I found something
I think there may be a more update version out there because I've read a similar article not very long time ago.
I think you may be refering to sunspots, which are the dark spots found on the surface of the sun. The sunspots look dark because they are cooler than the photosphere, the sun's visible surface.
Thanks KL. I had not heard of direct temperature data being used to this effect.
Oh what the heck...who needs sleep.
Here are some links that are related. I haven't been able to find the specific information yet. I will look as I'm able.
Dr Theodor Landscheidt
Schroeter Institute for Research in Cycles of Solar Activity
Nova Scotia, Canada
This one addresses the issue briefly:
Evidences from fossils
(1). Hippopotamus in England: 100,000 years ago
(2). Coal beds in Antarctica.
(3). Armeria sibirica (pollen of tundra plant) in SE Massachusetts:
12, 000 years ago.
Brightening Sun is Warming Earth
May account for major part of global warming
"The radiative input from the sun is the driving force for all atmospheric motions. Anything that alters that radiative input in any way is important for understanding climatic variations and other large- scale changes in the terrestrial atmospheric system."
As far as I recall the Solar Sun Spot cycle is an eleven years ( 11yrs or 22yrs ) occurance with the event history exemplifieing the Solar radiant occilations which are said to have a five year lag time in being reproduced/effected (As thay are not wholly reproduced) upon the Earth.
But I suspect that what I stated above concerning the sheer volume of thermal generators (ANYTHING that produces heat) that are presently being employed, planetarily, has a consequence that hasn't yet been factored in completely, and it is both, important, and causitive of shorter term flucuations, (increases/decreases) as partially seen/evidenced in/by the "raining on the weekend" cycles of "urbanizartions" vis a vis traffic cycles.
Has anyone done calculatons to show that this could be significant?
I'd be interested in them too.
Another complication is that there appears to be more than one solar activity cycle - maybe two others of longer periods. One would be on the order of 75 years (there were some major droughts in the 1920s and 1980s), the other hundreds of years.
As I understand the reports I have seen over the years, there are at least several solar cycles; one of which is hundreds of years long, and one or two others that are much longer. This brings up an issue facing people in Southern California and many other coastal areas. In the case of Ca., many very expensive homes were built very close to the water line. We have learned that the typical weather conditions that determine sea levels and storm intensities would normally never allow for such homes to exist. We have had an unusual 500 year lull in the weather that has allowed these areas to become populated. When the weather returns to a more typical state as it may now be doing, many of these populated areas will no longer exist. In Ca, this means some of the most valuable real estate is doomed.
Also, for those who may not have heard, a small island nation called Tuvalu near the Marshall Island chain was or is being completely evacuated. Rising ocean levels have caused salt water to back up into fresh water supplies thus forcing the people to leave.
If you don't believe in rising ocean levels, talk to some of these folks.
That is exactly (sorta/kinda) the problem. I don't think anyone has ever though it would be needed because it has always been "viewed" that all such kinds of heating dissipate, "Close the Door, you don't want to heat All outside, now do Ya?" Dad (everyones?)
When the industrial ages started it was never considered that we humans could generate enough heat to actually, and effectively, warm the atmopshere enough to notice, but that was well before the "Six Billion" mark was PASSED.
Lets see, minimium, one cooking fire per person/per day = 6 billion fires a day, planetarily, plus electrical generation, fossil fuel burning, etc. etc.
I too would like to "see some figures" on such things, cause it is not possible to generate all of that heat, without consequence, Laws of "Conservation of energy".
Probably what is needed is a reference to the actual/real heating from Solar radiance, then a calculation (rough) of how much heat all that oil, that is burned daily, releases, just to see if it is ball park/"near enough" as to see that there is, or isn't, a possibility worth persuing.
Anyone got the time, and resources?
BAM!!!! All of that on one page. 400x10^18 J/yr total world energy usage. Strange units. A joule is one watt-second, so converted to the more typical megawatt-hours, thats 1.44x10^18 MWh. Better yet, a rate of 1.64x10^14 MW.
Thats 0.2% of the solar energy that hits the surface and even less when compared with what hits the outer atmosphere.
This is the only site I looked at, so if its wrong, not my fault.
Lets see, figures are from 73-95 readings, and compiled in a 96 report. (PS Appreciate the effort!)
Back aroung 95 (I think it was) was about when the planets population turned to the FIVE (5) billion mark, and has since then turned to the SIX (6) billion hence the increases associated with that measure.
Such that, on a daily basis we are contributing an excess heating effect upon the planet, measurable excess comparable with solar radiance levels.
I would suspect that the amount of energy striking the 'outer atmosphere' contributes little to the actual heating of the atmosphere itself, whereas it is the actually heating of the air that needs be measured, and compared.
Interesting site though, thanks.
(I was going to look at that local library, but the resouces for that has been 'down' for months now, even though I had asked for the repairs some time back, and again now, soooo......)
I don't know how they got that number for the incident solar radiation. This appears to be quite complicated to calculate. This also seems a far cry from numbers in the CRC. Yours must be correct or at least better than mine since by my seat-of-the-pants calculation, we all died 50 years ago from global warming.
Also, 0.2% is very significant! A 1% - 2% reduction in solar radiation is argued to be enough to stop global warming.
I agree with that/this statement.
Perhaps the best route would be to calculate the amount of sunlight striking the earth's surface, convert that number into heat, and run from there.
The Atmosphere is opulescent (SP?) so the passage of light through it might not heat it as much as might be thought. The cloud cover that will absorb the heating will transfer the heat into the water because of the rain cycles, so "total Solar heating effect" is probably a close function/reflection of actual surface light heating.
After that it is simply a fucntion of finding out how much total energy/heat we are collectively generating, daily!
But this ignores problems like the rate that heat is radiated back into space, and the energy that is lost to chemical reactions. The intersting thing is that these issues only serve to make human activity more significant. At first I thought your argument may be correct in principle, but that it was otherwise inconsequential. Now I'm not so sure.
Not really 70% of the earth's surface is water, water, at one (1) for Specific heat, is an excellant insulator, ergo moderator of the planet's heat budget over time.
The question is how much of a thermal blanket are we assisting in creating, over the Oceans, from the heating that is being generated on the land, Forest fires too! now.
All(?) of the light that strikes the Oceans surfaces penetrates and is absorbed so that should account for 70% of the problem in how much radiant solar heat we play with, now begging the question of just how much are we adding to that.
Separate names with a comma.