The Sun is the pulsar remains of the supernova that birthed Solar System five billion years (5 Gyr) ago. The Sun’s most abundant element is iron (Fe). Hydrogen (H) is discharged from the top of its atmosphere. The same energy source that powers the cosmos and the Crab Nebula is hidden in the Sun’s iron-rich mantle: Neutron repulsion made our elements, birthed the Solar System five billion years (5 Gyr) ago, exposed meteorites to cosmic radiation, and then continued to initiate a series of nuclear reactions that generated solar energy, solar neutrinos, and hydrogen and helium that accumulated in the photosphere and moderated high-energy radiation from the solar core until discharged by solar eruptions, flares and the solar wind. Early solar radiation spiked when H-fusion ignited in the early Solar System and then became less energetic and eventually supportive of life ~3.5 Gyr ago. The solar pulsar core strongly influences individual atoms over a vast region of space (15-20 billion kilometers) that filled with solar waste products after the Solar System’s birth. Material retained inside the photosphere exhibits violent heliospheric avalanches of solar eruptions from self-organized criticality. Solar cycles and nuclear reactions at the base of solar flares sporadically heat the solar corona and have a far greater impact on changes in Earth’s climate than do combustion products, like carbon dioxide (CO2), that accumulate in Earth’s atmosphere.
Comment on Lennart Bengtsson on global climate change by omanuel
↧
↧
Comment on Lennart Bengtsson on global climate change by Bob Tisdale
Judith: Great article by Lennart Bengtsson. Thanks for bringing to our attention.
Your closing sentence dangles with a semicolon and the word “here”.
“Hopefully the ‘pause’ will stimulate research into natural internal variability of climate; here”
It looks like you missed or forgot a portion of your closing comment.
Regards
↧
Comment on Lennart Bengtsson on global climate change by WebHubTelescope (@whut)
This is an example of a commenter that POKERGUY doesn’t like us calling a “clown”. It apparently offends his sensibility to point out someone’s math and science deficiencies.
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by R. Gates aka Skeptical Warmist
Again, as long as late spring and early summer NH snow cover continues to show a very negative down trend, we’ve got no glacial advance even remotely possible. It is the warmer winters that have made more snow possible, but all that is quickly melted in late spring and summer.
↧
Comment on Lennart Bengtsson on global climate change by Peter Lang
Brandon,
I was quite clear when I said no policy has ever met the requirements you listed. How could I be more specific?
As written it is such a stupid and ignorant statement I was offering you the chance to explain what you meant. However, I now realise my first assessment was correct. It’s dumb and ignorant. I gave you a list of some examples. Many many more. In fact few polices can be implemented in democracies that do not create more winners than losers. And certainly, nearly every country has to be a winner or it will not play. That is exactly what Richard Tol explains here: http://www.voxeu.org/article/global-climate-talks-if-17th-you-don-t-succeed
I (wrongly) expected you might know something about the matter.
↧
↧
Comment on Lennart Bengtsson on global climate change by captdallas 0.8 or less
JimD, “The ‘hot spot’ debate was a long time ago, and has faded recently, if not gone away, so he needs to catch up a bit. Tropical oceans have not warmed as much as the models, but the Arctic has warmed more as has the deep ocean and land.”
If the “hot spot” is sound physics, what would cause, the warming from 1900, Arctic Ice melt, OHC increase, reversal of the diurnal temperature trend with no noticeable hot spot in the tropics?
If your sound physics miss on several points, do you focus on the only one that seems to fit, one that it completely missed but is convenient and one that it almost predicted and call it a win?
At what point would you go, “Oops, this is just plain wrong on so many levels.”
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by Beth Cooper
Tony,
I told yer the Serf Association of Charcoal Burners
are gonna assist with yer Tomato Project. Jest
hang in there! :)
Beth.
↧
Comment on Lennart Bengtsson on global climate change by AK
You see, whut, even you can say something I agree with.
↧
Comment on Lennart Bengtsson on global climate change by grumpydenier
With Peter Lilley having closer access to Cameron, it is to be hoped that the anti-renewable MPs will get a stronger hearing. Who knows, some actual facts may be put in front of the PM.
One problem is Cameron’s wife; she seems to hold the position of key policy czar and is a fervent green lobbyist. Her Dad makes a bob or two from his wind farm, which doesn’t help, of course.
↧
↧
Comment on Lennart Bengtsson on global climate change by JCH
I take care of my mother. She lives with us. She’s 89. In high school she was the class valedictorian. Today she would be a red bird.
.
↧
Comment on Lennart Bengtsson on global climate change by David Springer
Jim D | May 14, 2013 at 12:48 am |
“Steven Mosher, you also edited out the sentence before that which mentions the pause, and then “Such results…” could equally be argued to refer to both previous sentences, being plural.”
Jimbo is right. In that instance, being plural, it’s clear Bengtsson was discussing more than one thing not mentioned by mainstream media. However in the paragraph immediately preceding he singles out lack of tropical troposphere warming.
Some events are seen as very dramatic as the reduced Arctic summer ice, others, even more puzzling, such as the surprising lack of warming in the tropical troposphere is hardly discussed.
It would appear then Bengtsson is particularly concerned about the lack of signature warming in the tropical troposphere not being discussed by the MSM having mentioned it not once but twice. For anyone wondering that signature can be seen here, figure 9.1, panel (c):
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-2-2.html
Further, “the pause” doesn’t get anywhere near the attention in the MSM that linkage to severe weather gets and Arctic sea ice is used like the proverbial “Look Squirrel!”. The plain fact of the matter is that the climate boffins got that wrong too. Arctic sea ice loss is far faster than they anticipated and the signature CO2 warming in the tropical troposphere is simultaneously missing in action. The long and short of that combined is that what’s happening in the Arctic is likely unrelated to anthropogenic CO2.
And by the way, yours truly wrote about this back in 2007 saying the Arctic melt appears to be due to black carbon not CO2.
↧
Comment on Lennart Bengtsson on global climate change by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)
Cuz I am a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_thinking" rel="nofollow">systems thinker</a>.
Lennart sez:
<blockquote>"From the standpoint of the green movement all political efforts, even extreme ones, are required as they wish to abandon fossil energy as well as nuclear energy and this at a time when the world population is increasing and where the lack of suitable energy is a primary obstacle towards a better life."</blockquote>
Can you not read the lines, notwithstanding between the lines?
↧
Comment on Lennart Bengtsson on global climate change by climatereason
Webby
You have been much more agreeable recently, which has greatly improved the quality of your posts. Please do not spoil things by reverting to silly name calling.
Can you give me a sensible answer as to when solar power become cost effective in real world circumstances?
In our part of Britain we get some 1700 hours of sun a year. (sadly, thats just about the sunniest place in Britain) Light levels are much poorer in the winter of course and sunshine hours much more limited. Have you done any studies as to the cost of panels versus their effectiveness in such circumstances?
tonyb
↧
↧
Comment on Lennart Bengtsson on global climate change by David Springer
ADD is not confined to younger people. I’m 56 and OMG did you see the size of that squirrel just now?
↧
Comment on Lennart Bengtsson on global climate change by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)
I keep track of these clownbots such as Haddad. They re-appear sporadically to make their comments and then go back into hiding, waiting long enough in the hope that people reading forgot the counter argument.
In this case, Haddad uses the argument of transient heating, also a favorite of The Chief Hydrologist. Of course the heating is real, but fairly small and one that does not have a cumulative effect, in contrast to that of the GHG effect. So the value of 0.17F that Haddad gives does not accumulate year to year, and would quickly dissipate as radiative losses should all human FF and nuclear consumption cease.
Note how Haddad applies the heating as a value in Fahrenheit and not Celsius, to artificially inflate its significance.
There is an art to the pseudo-science.
↧
Comment on Lennart Bengtsson on global climate change by David Springer
Yeah well like I tell my kids … I made you and I can unmake you too.
↧
Comment on Lennart Bengtsson on global climate change by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)
Tony, why are you so negative about the prospects of humanity?
Perk up, lots of little alternative technologies will spring up, each contributing a few percent to make up for the growing gap resulting from the UK’s depletion of North Sea fossil fuel reserves. Smart men are working the problem.
↧
↧
Comment on Lennart Bengtsson on global climate change by Peter Davies
I rather dislike being labelled in any way and I don’t think that I could be deemed “contrarian” (except only when I talk about investing – which I don’t do on this page) so on to answer your question Max_OK.
I have absolutely no fear of dying and hence global warming hysteria leaves me cold. Sure, future generations (including our grandchildren (6 in total) aged 20 to 2 years could be affected by climate change, but as I watch the sea level markers, I just cant see any immediate cause for alarm.
I have been a farmer for many years and weather/climate is important to me because it can be either a blessing or a curse, depending at what stage of the crop cycle that is being affected.
My scepticism is about the scientific credibility of the alarmist prognostications being peddled to the decision-makers. Its human nature to ignore such warnings because they are not actually being affected.
Sure, if I am living on a coral atoll that is only a few feet above sea level, I would be naturally concerned, and if I were to wake up with wet feet, I would make a sensible decision to move to safer ground.
Not exactly life threatening stuff!
↧
Comment on Lennart Bengtsson on global climate change by David Springer
Max_OK | May 14, 2013 at 6:48 pm | Reply
“I don’t know why the contrarians are older. ”
“Show me a young Conservative and I’ll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I’ll show you someone with no brains.”
~ Winston Churchill
Write that down and stop wondering about it.
↧
Comment on Lennart Bengtsson on global climate change by Beth Cooper
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
