This is low, even by National Geographic’s standards. There are readers here much better equipped to address the math behind the following intent to mislead, but I’ll get it started…
Even if the current solar lull is the beginning of a prolonged quiet, the scientists say, the star’s effects on climate will pale in contrast with the influence of human-made greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2).
“I think you have to bear in mind that the CO2 is a good 50 to 60 percent higher than normal, whereas the decline in solar output is a few hundredths of one percent down,” Lockwood said. “I think that helps keep it in perspective.”
The sun emits 3.846 × 1026 watts, or 3.846 × 1033 ergs/sec.
The concentration of C02 today is 387 ppm by volume, or .038% of total atmosphere – in other words, “a few hundredths of one percent”. (Here’s a convenient graph.)
Have at ‘er.
I think some people feel the SUN is a big light bulb in the sky which stays at a constant wattage, never changing or fluctuating in intensity. Here is a nice article describing such changes in temperature of the sun which effect not only our own planet but Mars as well. Ice caps melting on Mars. But if you want to cash in on carbon credits then this must be refuted somehow or made light of. $$ http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
I have a question to ask if anyone would care to comment. As I understand it ice ages last for around 100,000 years and warm periods for around 15,000 years, and so I’m thinking that it’s a lot easier to go into an ice age then to get out of one. That is to say that the sun does not have to cool down all that much to throw us into an ice age but it does have to heat up considerable, and for a longer period of time, to brake us out of an ice age; that’s because once there is that much ice covering the earth we are reflecting to much heat back into space, even when the sun does goes back to normal heat output. So if my theory is correct I would think that shortly after an ice age our planet would be going into one of its hottest periods, until the sun goes back to normal output. Does anyone know if that’s true? Thanks, Dale…
Ratt:
“Now, as far as Alex goes, either you ain’t been keeping up with current affairs, or have you not noticed for the past 12 years the Planet is actually cooling.”
Ohhh, my bad! I guess pirates cause cooling, then. Better send a memo to Ottawa – let them know to stop harassing those poor Somalis.
duffman:
“The point is to use % when comparing two things that are both not directly related and on hundreds of orders of magnitude different in scale just to attempt to prove a point is misleading.”
Oh, certainly, it CAN be. On the other hand, pretending that a fractional change in solar output makes more of a difference than a large change in atmospheric CO2 content is equally ignorant. It all depends on what the science shows. I’m not taking sides – for all I know the NG article may be completely wrong – but I do know that Kate’s dismissal of the article is based on personal bias, and has nothing to do with the evidence.
The real issue here is just how much heat is “trapped” by CO2. If the number is significant, then an increase in CO2 levels would far outweigh any fractional increase or decrease in solar output, regardless of the difference in scale.
Here’s an analogy:
Say you’ve got a profit-sharing arrangement with a large corporation where you receive 0.01% of their net profit on a yearly basis. If that corporation normally makes $500 million per year, your share would work out to $50,000.
Now, what would work out better in your favour, 1% higher earning by the company, or a 50% increase in the percentage you receive?
Sure, if the company makes 1% more next year, that’s 5 MILLION dollars more … for the company. Your share of that would be a measly 500 dollars. On the other hand, if your personal cut goes up by 50%, that’s an extra $25,000 in your pocket.
Of course the analogy isn’t perfect, but you should get the idea. How much energy is absorbed by the earth depends far more on the absorption ability of our atmosphere than it does on the total solar output. The two are intrinsically linked, of course, but absorption is a lot more variable than solar output.
“CO2e is #3 insulation behind Air and Water”
That right there shows that you don’t even understand the debate. It’s not the insulating properties of CO2 that are the problem. You’re talking about stopping heat loss due to convection – the AGW debate is about an increase in heat energy due to radiation. The two have nothing in common.
Of course, after writing all this, I’m going to have at least 15 different morons calling me a hippie, a treehugger, or a “libtard” or some such nonsense. That’s fine – such displays of ignorance and ideological blindness always make me smile. But I urge you to, for a minute, consider the idea that science and truth don’t depend on political divisions and personal biases. Go and actually study up on the greenhouse effect. Try to learn a bit about how different gases interact with solar energy. You cannot have an intelligent discussions about a subject when you don’t even understand the claims which are being made.
“I’m more worried about the sun burning out in 5 billion years. Then it will just be a red giant.”
What are we planning on doing about it to save the world for our children?????
You actually call it the “greenhouse effect” and you expect us to take you seriously?
Hey, grok. What is wrong with refering to the “greenhouse effect”?
Apparently he thinks the greenhouse effect is a fairytale.
Here, Grok: ignorance is a curable condition. Unlike AGW, the greenhouse effect is a well established, easily observable effect. You can conduct your own experiment at home – all you need is a lamp, two jars, two thermometers, and some dry ice. The first such experiment was conducted in 1824, so you should have no trouble replicating it today. Let me know if you need instructions.
We climate scientists deal with the real situation; the earth and climate. Our model is perfected and peer reviewed that hot ball in the sky is another model. We are scientists of earth. Drink Brawndo dudes its gut electrolytes; pretty good spelling. Ha Ha
An assinine argument easily refuted by a simple examination of data. Total solar irradiance (TSI) varies with sunspot cycles from about 1365 to 1368 watts/meter**2 (data at: http://acrim.com/TSI%20Monitoring.htm)
It is currently at it’s low point as it is a sunspot minimum. The 3 watt/meter**2 variation is a 0.2% change in solar intensity which seems trivial until one compares it with the estimated forcing of atmospheric CO2.
The number that keeps popping up when one searches for estimates of how much increasing atmospheric CO2 since the 1700’s has affected earth temperatures is 1.6 watts/m**2. Lets be really generous and say that the variation in TSI is only 2 watts/m**2 over the course of the last solar cycle — this is still more than the estimated change in greenhouse effect from all the oil and coal burned in the last century.
Obviously no-one at the National Geographic is capable of any critical thinking and it is one of the reasons I no longer read this magazine. Similarly, I no longer read Scientific American as it has degenerated into serving up pseudo-science and climate porn. I miss the old days when the magazine looked at scientific advances in a positive light and was pro-progress and the Amateur Scientist had projects for kids such as making an xray machine out of an old vacuum tube and an ignition coil. That’s the type of magazine I’m interesting in reading rather than the current version which will probably have articles on how to obtain extra protein by cooking up the lice combed out of your partners hair in your solar cooker when BO’s policies have reduced the US to third world status.
Alex,
Your financial analogy breaks down pretty severely, actually.
By analogy, you’re assuming that CO2 is responsible for all the trapping of the Sun’s energy. It would be more realistic to modify your comparison as follows:
Of your $50,000 salary, $20 comes from the CO2 component. You can multiply that portion by 50%, or you can increase your overall salary by the 1% increase of the overall company. You do the math, which is greater?
The ‘measly’ $500 turns out to be a lot greater than that overwhelming $10 due to CO2 – which is exactly our point – thanks for providing it for us.
“By analogy, you’re assuming that CO2 is responsible for all the trapping of the Sun’s energy”
Well, yes. That would be why I wrote:
The real issue here is just how much heat is “trapped” by CO2. If the number is significant …
That was the base assumption. I clearly stated that I don’t know how much heat is trapped by CO2. You on the other hand, seem to be saying that you DO know. So, can you please either explain it to me in detail, or provide me with a link to your source(s)? Thank you!