Greenhouse gases versus solar heating: New research shows complexity of global warming

Jan 30, 2013
This shows clouds over the Pacific. Credit: Shang-Ping Xie

Global warming from greenhouse gases affects rainfall patterns in the world differently than that from solar heating, according to a study by an international team of scientists in the January 31 issue of Nature. Using computer model simulations, the scientists, led by Jian Liu (Chinese Academy of Sciences) and Bin Wang (International Pacific Research Center, University of Hawaii at Manoa), showed that global rainfall has increased less over the present-day warming period than during the Medieval Warm Period, even though temperatures are higher today than they were then.

The team examined global precipitation changes over the last millennium and future projection to the end of 21st century, comparing natural changes from solar heating and volcanism with changes from man-made . Using an atmosphere-ocean coupled climate model that simulates realistically both past and present-day climate conditions, the scientists found that for every degree rise in global temperature, the global rainfall rate since the Industrial Revolution has increased less by about 40% than during past warming phases of the earth.

Why does warming from solar heating and from greenhouse gases have such different effects on global precipitation?

"Our show that this difference results from different sea surface temperature patterns. When warming is due to increased , the gradient of (SST) across the tropical Pacific weakens, but when it is due to increased solar radiation, the gradient increases. For the same average increase, the weaker SST gradient produces less rainfall, especially over tropical land," says co-author Bin Wang, professor of meteorology.

But why does warming from greenhouse gases and from solar heating affect the tropical Pacific SST gradient differently?

"Adding long-wave absorbers, that is heat-trapping greenhouse gases, to the atmosphere decreases the usual temperature difference between the surface and the top of the atmosphere, making the atmosphere more stable," explains lead-author Jian Liu. "The increased atmospheric stability weakens the trade winds, resulting in stronger warming in the eastern than the western Pacific, thus reducing the usual SST gradient—a situation similar to El Niño."

Solar radiation, on the other hand, heats the earth's surface, increasing the usual temperature difference between the surface and the top of the atmosphere without weakening the trade winds. The result is that heating warms the western Pacific, while the eastern Pacific remains cool from the usual ocean upwelling.

"While during past global warming from solar heating the steeper tropical east-west SST pattern has won out, we suggest that with future warming from greenhouse gases, the weaker gradient and smaller increase in yearly rainfall rate will win out," concludes Wang.

Explore further: Study shows air temperature influenced African glacial movements

More information: Jian Liu, Bin Wang, Mark A. Cane, So-Young Yim, and June-Yi Lee: Divergent global precipitation changes induced by natural versus anthropogenic forcing. Nature, 493 (7434), 656-659; DOI: 10.1038/nature11784

Related Stories

Study could mean greater anticipated global warming

Nov 22, 2010

Global climate models disagree widely in the magnitude of the warming we can expect with increasing carbon dioxide. This is mainly because the models represent clouds differently. A new modeling approach successfully ...

Recommended for you

Melting during cooling period

10 hours ago

(Phys.org) —A University of Maine research team says stratification of the North Atlantic Ocean contributed to summer warming and glacial melting in Scotland during the period recognized for abrupt cooling ...

Warm US West, cold East: A 4,000-year pattern

13 hours ago

Last winter's curvy jet stream pattern brought mild temperatures to western North America and harsh cold to the East. A University of Utah-led study shows that pattern became more pronounced 4,000 years ago, ...

User comments : 72

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Lino235
2.3 / 5 (25) Jan 30, 2013
A little bit of information is a dangerous thing. They're holding the tail of an elephant, blind as they are, and think they have hold of a snake.

God save us from this crowd.
cyberCMDR
3.6 / 5 (17) Jan 30, 2013
And of course you, with your extensive understanding of this subject, are far more able to really comprehend what is going on. Right?

Or is this a case of, this conflicts with what I want to believe, therefore it must be wrong?
gregor1
2 / 5 (23) Jan 30, 2013
So the Medieval Warm Period was cooler than today? Not according to this paper and several hundred others.
http://hockeyscht...html?m=1
StarGazer2011
2.3 / 5 (18) Jan 30, 2013
Wow .. weird..
The make a model which shows that the rainfall increases would be different, but theres little indication that they then went out and checked actual rain fall in the two periods. A model is a theory, it needs to be compared to measurement to be tested, they seem to have only completed half the work.

Then theres this gem:
"adding heat-trapping greenhouse gases, to the atmosphere decreases the usual temperature difference between the surface and the top of the atmosphere, making the atmosphere more stable"
so this model contradicts the current idea that CAGW leads to instability in the atmosphere (extreme weather); they cant BOTH be right! Perhaps people would trust climate science more as a discipline if they werent always contradicting each other with warm/cold/wet/dry predicitions.
And what happened to the warming? MET now forecasts 20 years of no warming despite doubling of CO2 output... maybe the theory is broken?
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (23) Jan 31, 2013
"Adding long-wave absorbers, that is heat-trapping greenhouse gases, to the atmosphere decreases the usual temperature difference between the surface and the top of the atmosphere, making the atmosphere more stable,"
What a bunch of crap.

Heating, weather by increased solar radiance, or green house absorption, are both forms of solar heating. And, there's no evidence the atmosphere is more evenly heated by CO2 over solar radiance. In fact, quite the opposite:

"When carbon dioxide gets into the thermosphere, it acts as a coolant, shedding heat via infrared radiation."

http://phys.org/n...352.html

I think confusing "modelers" (basically an engineering field) with "scientists" (people who systematically experiment on, and observe, the natural or material world) is where the problem lies.

ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (23) Jan 31, 2013
Then theres this gem:
"adding heat-trapping greenhouse gases, to the atmosphere decreases the usual temperature difference between the surface and the top of the atmosphere, making the atmosphere more stable"
so this model contradicts the current idea that CAGW leads to instability in the atmosphere (extreme weather); they cant BOTH be right!
LOL!

The AGWites have an explanation for this:

If it's unusually warm, it's AGW. If it's unusually cold, it's also AGW. If it's unusually stormy, it's AGW, and if it's unusually calm, it's also AGW. Whatver the extreme, it's AGW, and anything inbetween, is also AGW.

And I'm not kidding. This is what they actually believe! It's rarely even about global temperatures, anymore.

Perhaps people would trust climate science more as a discipline if they werent always contradicting each other with warm/cold/wet/dry predicitions.
Indeed, but at least it's entertaining.

VendicarE
3.7 / 5 (15) Jan 31, 2013
UbVonTard remains blissfully ignorant of the fact that CO2 not only absorbs IR emitted from below, but IR from the sun as well.

"What a bunch of crap." - UbVonTard

He never misses an opportunity to show himself as spectacularly ignorant of science, and mathematics.
VendicarE
3.9 / 5 (15) Jan 31, 2013
Here, UbVonTard tells us that shining a heat lamp on the upper surface of a thermal blanket has the same effect as allowing the IR to pass through the blanket and heat the surface below.

"Heating, weather by increased solar radiance, or green house absorption, are both forms of solar heating." - UbVonTard

Again, it is astonishing that he has enough intellectual capacity to be able to raise a spoon to his own mouth.

It is a mystery how it manages to feed itself.
VendicarE
3.9 / 5 (14) Jan 31, 2013
Here UbVonTard confuses the "thermosphere" with the "troposphere".

"When carbon dioxide gets into the thermosphere, it acts as a coolant, shedding heat via infrared radiation." - UbVonTard

So far the score.

Science 100 percent
UbVonTard 0 percent.

Spoon... Mouth... It is unknown...

VendicarE
3.8 / 5 (13) Jan 31, 2013
UbVonTard is incapable of comprehending context.

"so this model contradicts the current idea that CAGW leads to instability in the atmosphere (extreme weather); they cant BOTH be right!" - UbVonTard

The comment about increased stability is in relation, not to the pre-industrial era, but in relation to existing predictions and presumptions.

The atmosphere, according to this research is more stable than it would be without the additional stability caused by solar heating on the upper region of the lower atmosphere.

The article is very comprehensible, and the context is clearly stated.

As usual, UbVonTard finds himself entirely unable to comprehend the clear and easily comprehensible.

It is all part of his mental disease.
VendicarE
3.9 / 5 (14) Jan 31, 2013
Temperatures? They are Up, Up, Up...

"This is what they actually believe! It's rarely even about global temperatures, anymore." - UbVonTard

http://www.woodfo...97/trend

UbVonTard will now respond by cherry picking and by use of other forms of statistical fraud.
VendicarE
3.7 / 5 (15) Jan 31, 2013
Yup.

"So the Medieval Warm Period was cooler than today?" - GregorTard

From GregorTard's own reference...

"Shells from the 10th to 12th centuries (early MCA) were collected from well-stratified horizons, which accumulated in Viking shell and fish middens at Quoygrew on Westray in the archipelago of Orkney, Scotland."

Thus the article is not about Global Temperatures but Regional Temperatures in Scotland during the MWP.

But Gregor is not interested in the truth. He is interested in perpetuating a lie in order to further his ideological goals, so he dishonestly compares current global temperatures with possible temperatures in Scotland.

Lying is a way of life for Denialists.

Gregor has provided another fine example.
Sinister1811
3.4 / 5 (22) Jan 31, 2013
What a bunch of crap. Heating, weather by increased solar radiance, or green house absorption, are both forms of solar heating. And, there's no evidence the atmosphere is more evenly heated by CO2 over solar radiance. In fact, quite the opposite: "When carbon dioxide gets into the thermosphere, it acts as a coolant, shedding heat via infrared radiation."


Ubavontuba. If that was the case, we would be experiencing significantly cooler temperatures. Might I also remind you that the temperature of the surface of Venus is well over 400 degrees celcius, because of the thick CO2 atmosphere, acting like a blanket, trapping the sun's heat. It's basic science. The global rise in temperatures is in direct correlation with the beginning of the industrial era.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (12) Jan 31, 2013
so this model contradicts the current idea that CAGW leads to instability in the atmosphere (extreme weather); they cant BOTH be right! Perhaps people would trust climate science more as a discipline if they werent always contradicting each other with warm/cold/wet/dry predicitions.

Instability in the atmosphere refers to the lapse rate with height. The greater the LR the more unstable it is ( the ability of air to rise upwards ). Solar energy would impact the surface more and give rise to greater instability whereas CO2 would absorb/emit long wave radiation from the atmosphere itself, causing a small amount of warming aloft, so decreasing the LR, making it more stable.
It has become more apparent that a warming world shifts it's heat around in more complex ways. If you are prepared to accept that the ENSO oscillation affects global weather, then it is not much of a stretch to realise that, say, reduced Arctic ice would have an effects impacting the NH Autumn/winter weather.
gregor1
1.4 / 5 (20) Jan 31, 2013
@vendicar's sock puppet , Some info on the Medieval warm period
http://pages.scie...iod.html
Sinister1811
3.1 / 5 (17) Jan 31, 2013
@vendicar's sock puppet , Some info on the Medieval warm period
http://pages.scie...iod.html


Hah, that's stupid. I have no connection with Vendicar, whatsoever. I just happen to agree with him on most of what he says. And, what is this "medieval warm period" that you keep referring to on all of these articles? It's a total crock of nonsense. I notice that your website reference was to a German site. I tried to go back to the main page, to see what data sources were available, but the site wasn't working.

Here, I found a better site. One that isn't cherry picked.
http://www.skepti...nce.com/
gregor1
1.7 / 5 (22) Jan 31, 2013
The bods at skeptical science are the masters of the cherry pick though I hadn't noticed they were Medieval Wam period deniers now. I wasn't referring to you as VD's sock puppet but vendicarE who used to be Vendicar decarian or some such. I'll post the link again. The MWP has been confirmed world wide in around 1,000 papers. I don't think you can call that a cherry pick.

http://pages.scie...iod.html
http://translate....01195%2F
gregor1
1.7 / 5 (23) Feb 01, 2013
And here is the MWP project
Medieval Warm Period Project
"Was there a Medieval Warm Period? YES, according to data published by 1133 individual scientists from 652 research institutions in 46 different countries ... and counting! Our latest Medieval Warm Period Record comes from Lake Montcortès, Northeast Spain. To access the entire Medieval Warm Period Project's database,"

http://www.co2sci...mwpp.php
deepsand
3 / 5 (24) Feb 01, 2013
The fact remains that the MVP was regional in scope, and of a magnitude that pales compared to today's global trend.
gregor1
1.7 / 5 (24) Feb 01, 2013
Wrong deepsand. It was global. Check the links.
VendicarE
3.6 / 5 (13) Feb 01, 2013
GregorTard links to CO2 science. a well known denialist propaganda site run by the Idso family of denialists in the employ of the Carbon fuel Industry.

The Idso family is also involved in CFC/Ozone hole denialism and Smoking/Cancer denialism.

They make a very good living by lying to the public.

"Some info on the Medieval warm period" - GregorTard

Some info on the corrupt Idso family...

http://www.source...aig_Idso
VendicarE
3.9 / 5 (14) Feb 01, 2013
Nope, it was largely regional.

"Wrong deepsand. It was global." - GregorTard

What is interesting with GregorTard's link showing various graphs from around the world, they show a temperature spike somewhere around the right time that is 10 to 50 years long typically.

Do the times match up?

Nope.

Does the duration of the warming match up with what is seen in Europe? Nope.

What GregorTard has is a series of cherry picked graphs selected to have any random spike in temperature of any duration that is roughly in the right time period that spans a couple hundred years.

This is the kind of Dishonesty you get from the Idso family.
VendicarE
3.5 / 5 (11) Feb 01, 2013
Meanwhile back to scientific reality...

http://www.youtub...fz8NjEzU
deepsand
2.9 / 5 (23) Feb 01, 2013
Wrong deepsand. It was global. Check the links.

Check an unbiased source; from http://en.wikiped...m_Period we read "The Medieval Warm Period (MWP), Medieval Climate Optimum, or Medieval Climatic Anomaly was a time of warm climate in the North Atlantic region that may also have been related to other climate events around the world during that time ..."
gregor1
1.4 / 5 (21) Feb 01, 2013
Wikipedia's an unbiased source is it? You've never heard of William Connolley then? He's a member of the greens in the UK and a founder of the propaganda site realclimate.
"All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn't like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions."http://wattsupwit...rmation/
There are no unbiased sources in this debate. All we have is peer reviewed science.
deepsand
2.7 / 5 (21) Feb 01, 2013
Wikipedia's an unbiased source is it? You've never heard of William Connolley then? He's a member of the greens in the UK and a founder of the propaganda site realclimate.

Of what material relevance to the cited article?

There are no unbiased sources in this debate.

Only if you argue that opinions have standing equal to empirical facts, which would be illogical.

All we have is peer reviewed science.

Balderdash. Not only has "peer review" given us the beliefs that Earth was flat and the center of the universe, but you conveniently reject peer reviewed conclusions when they do not well comport with your desired conclusions.
gregor1
1.4 / 5 (19) Feb 01, 2013
You referenced wikipedia and I pointed out that it was a poor choice and not to be trusted. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof and when activists are willing to subvert Wikipedia and the IPCC for there own political ends we need to be doubly careful. Models are not evidence of anything yet and are mere curiosities until they start getting some of their predictions right. As to your wild assertion about which science I accept may I remind you of the scientific method. You make an hypothesis which you then try and disprove. It's the evidence that disproves the hypothesis which is the most important.
http://www.aitse....-or-not/

deepsand
2.6 / 5 (17) Feb 01, 2013
You referenced wikipedia and I pointed out that it was a poor choice and not to be trusted.

Non-responsive. Of what material relevance your claim to the specific article cited?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof and when activists are willing to subvert Wikipedia and the IPCC for there own political ends we need to be doubly careful.

Not only are no extraordinary claims here made, but such claims require no more than the customary standard of proof.

Models are not evidence of anything yet and are mere curiosities until they start getting some of their predictions right.

Irrelevant to the matter at hand.

As to your wild assertion about which science I accept may I remind you of the scientific method. You make an hypothesis which you then try and disprove. It's the evidence that disproves the hypothesis which is the most important.

Falsifiability is applicable to inductive logic, not deductive logic.
deepsand
3 / 5 (20) Feb 01, 2013
Now, gregor1, returning to the matter at hand, stop evading by mis-direction.

The facts remains that, not only was the MWP NOT GLOBAL in scope, but it is irrelevant to the current warming trend and its causes. Presently observed effects are not constrained to being the results of previously observed causes.
VendicarE
2.4 / 5 (10) Feb 01, 2013
Such profound ignorance from the denialisTard.

"Not only has "peer review" given us the beliefs that Earth was flat" - DeepTard

Cam you provide a reference to back up your idiot assertion?

deepsand
2.8 / 5 (18) Feb 02, 2013
I would have thought it clear by now that I an not a denialist!

In re. "peer review," such is used within the context of the time that such beliefs re. Earth were held.
VendicarE
1.7 / 5 (9) Feb 02, 2013
In other words your idiot assertion was a lie, there is no peer review that made such a claim, and you can't support your position with any fact.

"In re. "peer review," such is used within the context of the time that such beliefs re. Earth were held.' - deepTard

That is why you earn the affectation "Tard".
VendicarE
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 02, 2013
Poor Gregor. He just can't respond to the fact that none of the plots in Idso's denialist nonsense site show the same MW event coordinated arouind the globe.

What is shown is cherry picked nonsense.

"I pointed out that" - GregorTard

And GregorTard was fool enough to fall for it.

Pathetic.
deepsand
2.7 / 5 (18) Feb 02, 2013
Have you taken leave of your senses?

Look up the definition of "peer," and then view within the context of the time that said beliefs were held and by whom they were promulgated.
VendicarE
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 02, 2013
In other words you still can provide nothing to support your assertion.

"Look up the definition of "peer,"" - DeepTard

Can you even tell us of a single scientist who claimed that the world was flat?
deepsand
3.1 / 5 (17) Feb 02, 2013
In other words, you are so driven to attack at all costs that you are unable to distinguish friend from foe.

"Peer" does not refer to scientists alone; scientists as we today know them did not exist throughout all times. And, just as some are today not independent voices, but agents of big business, so too for the past, when many pursued their interests at the pleasure of royalty and church.

gregor1's mention of "peer review" was simply intended to falsely imply that contemporary mainstream scientists fail to concur re. the causes of global warming.
Maggnus
3 / 5 (6) Feb 02, 2013
@ Vendicar & deepsand - whoa you two.
Vendicar he didn't say anything aggrievous enough to justify such a harsh response.
Deepsand, I think you misunderstand peer review as it applies to scientific rigor over the past 300 or so years. There was no peer review in the time of Columbus, there was, at best, the consensus opinion of the masses.
Peer review now is the soul of the scientific method. It is the means by which claims are checked and verified. It is the best system to verify science that we currently have.
deepsand
2.9 / 5 (17) Feb 02, 2013
@ Magnus

I fully understand what peer review is today, and how that of the past differed. My point is that it has changed, and that gregor1 chooses to ignore it when he finds it convenient to his purpose of the moment. Examples of past beliefs were offered solely for the purpose of demonstrating that invoking the phrase "peer review" out of context was without meaning, and attempt by gregor1 at deflecting legitimate criticism of his claims.

Vendicar failed to grasp that, and engaged in an unwarranted ad hominem attack against one who is allied with him in defending against the AGW denialists.
NeutronicallyRepulsive
1.5 / 5 (4) Feb 02, 2013
Vendicar: I've modified the graph you've posted, and I got this, why exactly did you plotted it from 1997?

http://www.woodfo...40/trend
gregor1
1.2 / 5 (18) Feb 02, 2013
So you deepsand are a Medieval warm period "denialist?" Do you have any peer reviewed links, other than Mann's infamous hockey stick that show that it didn't happen despite the 900 or so papers that show that it did. Calling people names is fun but it's not science. And, by the way, don't play with the trolls. They're not on anybodies 'side'. They're just trolls.
Maggnus
3.2 / 5 (11) Feb 02, 2013
@ deepsand - Ok fair enough. Your comment about peer review struck me as a bit odd because of how it was worded, and apparently I wasn't the only one! :)

gregor, well he is a special case. He likes to hook his wagon to whatever his buddy at WUWT's flavour of the day happens to be. Lately, that has been putting up 15 year old data and pretending like its something new. His posts SEEM intellegent, until you look beyond the surface.
deepsand
3 / 5 (18) Feb 02, 2013
So you deepsand are a Medieval warm period "denialist?"

Silly deliberate misrepresentation of my statement that it was NOT GLOBAL in scope.
deepsand
3 / 5 (17) Feb 02, 2013
@ Maggnus

My apology for the 1; that was intended to be a 5.
gregor1
1.2 / 5 (18) Feb 02, 2013
And I'm saying there are now hundreds of papers that clearly show it was worldwide and evident on every continent including Antarctica. The majority of those papers show it was warmer than today. Your rusted on position appears to be such that if someone cites a legitimate study that has been linked to on a site that you , in you wisdom, have decided is a "denier" site then the paper is invalid by association. This is more a reflection on you than anyone else.
http://pages.scie...iod.html
VendicarE
4 / 5 (8) Feb 03, 2013
A world wide event that magically didn't happen at the same time all over the world.

"And I'm saying there are now hundreds of papers that clearly show it was worldwide and evident on every continent including Antarctica." - GregorTard

You are right Gregor... The MWP was largely regional.

"The majority of those papers show it was warmer than today." - GregorTard

You mean like the one you cited that shows a regional temperature was warmer than the global average of today?

Idiocy...
VendicarE
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 03, 2013
http://pages.scie...008.html

Above, an example from GregorTard's Idso Family "evidence".

Note how the entire MWP lasts 10 years on the plot and occurs 1200 years ago.

Now note the second chart from the same Idso nonsense propaganda site...

http://pages.scie...009.html

Note there is no MWP peak lasting 10 years 1200 years ago in this plot, but occurs 300 years earlier.

Also note that in the original plot the temperature excursion was 10'C, and in the second plot it is a maximum of .8'C.

Now look at this plot...

http://pages.scie...006.html

Here the Idso nonsense site shows the MWP happening 500 years ago.

Or this Idso plot showing the MWP not recorded at all.

http://pages.scie...009.html
VendicarE
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 03, 2013
Another graph from Idso's nonsense site. This time claiming that the MWP occurred 900 to 1000 years ago.

http://pages.scie...003.html

In this Idso nonsense graphic, the MWP lasts less than 10 years around 920 years ago.

And in this Idso graphic, the MWP doesn't occur at all.

http://pages.scie...008.html

In this Idso nonsense graphic, the MWP they claim happened 800 years ago...

http://pages.scie...003.html

In this graphic, the dishonest Idso family has the MWP happening 500 years ago...

http://pages.scie...002.html

The fact is, the Idso family make a very good living by lying in the employ of the Coal Industry.

http://www.mother...ly%20%20
ValeriaT
1.4 / 5 (11) Feb 03, 2013
This study demonstrates rather clearly, that changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions. Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature. Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature. Instead of it, the changes in ocean temperatures explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980. Together with heat content anomaly, this analysis again supports my geothermal theory of global warming, caused with decay of radioactive elements inside of Earth crust and marine water, initiated with neutrinos from dark matter cloud at the galactic plane.
deepsand
3 / 5 (16) Feb 03, 2013
geothermal theory of global warming, caused with decay of radioactive elements ...

Miniscule at best; and, fails to explain the historical variations in temperatures.

...initiated with neutrinos ...

Inert uncharged particles that only very rarely interact with other particles.

... from dark matter cloud at the galactic plane.

So, yours are neutrinos with very special properties that make them different from those emitted in vast quantities for our Sun?
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (10) Feb 03, 2013
Historical variations of temperatures may be affected with these changes as well. In this context it may be significant, that the distribution of neutrinos around Sun may be affected with mutual positions of planets - we do observe the positive correlations of some climatic cycles with periodicity of Jupiter and Neptune planets. So yes, some of climatic variations in the history could be explained with this model too.
Inert uncharged particles that only very rarely interact with other particles
In some cases they can interact very strongly and we even have theory for it based on resonance of neutrino oscillations within atom nuclei. In AWT the neutrinos are chameleon particles and low energy neutrinos are absorbed with atom nuclei even more than the cold neutrons.
ValeriaT
1.4 / 5 (11) Feb 03, 2013
yours are neutrinos with very special properties that make them different from those emitted in vast quantities for our Sun
So far we can observe mostly the solar neutrinos only, because they're of relatively high energy. But the dark matter is formed mostly with very cold neutrinos, which are in thermal equilibrium with CMBR fluctuations. Their velocity is lower than the escape velocity from Sun, so that these neutrinos tend to cummulate around Sun like sorta thick atmosphere, pervading substantial portion of solar system. I do presume, that the hot neutrinos from Sun don't contribute to this atmosphere, they're rather doing this neutrino atmosphere unstable and they're disturbing it with polar neutrino jets, so that the solar activity correlates negatively with dark matter density around Sun. It can be measured with speed of decay of various radioactive elements inside of spaceprobes flying around Sun.
deepsand
3 / 5 (16) Feb 03, 2013
dark matter is formed mostly with very cold neutrinos

Pure speculation.

geothermal theory of global warming, caused with decay of radioactive elements ...

Miniscule at best; and, fails to explain the historical variations in temperatures.

No defense on this point?
VendicarE
3.3 / 5 (8) Feb 03, 2013
Without evidence the only thing left is speculation.

"Pure speculation." - Deepsand

I speculate that DM consists of grains of solid hydrogen approximately 1,000 atoms in size and positively charged through surface ionization.
MR166
1.5 / 5 (16) Feb 03, 2013
Just remember that the people who keep the original temperature data are the very people who profit the most from this AGW hoax. These historical records have been altered on a regular basis in order to prove that their worthless climate models are correct.
These are the persons who get paid by the world governments to distribute the propaganda used to get you to agree to give up your freedoms and wealth. The climate "science" establishment has sold out all of their scientific values for a few sheckels of government grants.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (10) Feb 03, 2013
No defense on this point?
I already told it. Did you read the link I provided?
..dark matter is formed mostly with very cold neutrinos ..Pure speculation.
It plays well with many observations of dark matter. String theory is pure speculation as well and it has no observational support yet.
I speculate that DM consists of grains of solid hydrogen approximately 1,000 atoms in size and positively charged through surface ionization.
The tiny atom clusters would have a very large pressure (consider the Young-Laplace equation). You would need a very high concentration of free hydrogen atoms in the cosmic space for to keep such a clusters stable.
ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (15) Feb 03, 2013
Temperatures? They are Up, Up, Up...
No they aren't. In fact in the past decade, they have cooled significantly.

http://www.woodfo...02/trend

Uba will now respond by cherry picking and by use of other forms of statistical fraud.
No, that's your shtick.
ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (14) Feb 03, 2013
Uba remains blissfully ignorant of the fact that CO2 not only absorbs IR emitted from below, but IR from the sun as well.
Lying chatbot. When did I supposedly suggest otherwise?

The fact remains, CO2 acts to cool the thermosphere.

http://phys.org/n...352.html
He never misses an opportunity to show himself as spectacularly ignorant of science, and mathematics.
Again, your schtick.

ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (15) Feb 03, 2013
Heating, weather by increased solar radiance, or green house absorption, are both forms of solar heating.
Here, Uba tells us that shining a heat lamp on the upper surface of a thermal blanket has the same effect as allowing the IR to pass through the blanket and heat the surface below.
Moronic spambot. The heating source remains the same.

Again, it is astonishing that he has enough intellectual capacity to be able to raise a spoon to his own mouth.

It is a mystery how it manages to feed itself.
These offensive and irrational arguments are the best Vendispambot's programmers can do to make it appear Vendispambot is intelligent?

They need to lay off the donuts and get back to writing code.

ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (16) Feb 03, 2013
Here Uba confuses the "thermosphere" with the "troposphere".

"When carbon dioxide gets into the thermosphere, it acts as a coolant, shedding heat via infrared radiation." - Uba
LOL! Here, the moronic spambot mistakenly attributes a quote from and article, to me. What a buffoon.

So far the score.

Science 100 percent
Uba 0 percent.

Spoon... Mouth... It is unknown...
More spambot irrationality. Seriously, do better. You're making this too easy.

ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (15) Feb 03, 2013
Uba is incapable of comprehending context.

"so this model contradicts the current idea that CAGW leads to instability in the atmosphere (extreme weather); they cant BOTH be right!" - Uba
LOL! You can't even follow context! Here, you just attributed a quote from another poster, to me. LOL!

The comment about increased stability is in relation, not to the pre-industrial era, but in relation to existing predictions and presumptions.
LOL! So Vendispambot believes the Medieval Warm Period isn't pre-industrial? Too funny!

The atmosphere, according to this research is more stable than it would be without the additional stability caused by solar heating on the upper region of the lower atmosphere.
LOL. So now, the upper region of the lower atmosphere, now means the same thing as the top of the atmosphere? LOL!

The article is very comprehensible, and the context is clearly stated.
So why are you having so much difficulty comprehending it? LOL.

ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (15) Feb 03, 2013
Ubavontuba. If that was the case, we would be experiencing significantly cooler temperatures.
LOL. I don't live in the thermosphere, do you?

Might I also remind you that the temperature of the surface of Venus is well over 400 degrees celcius, because of the thick CO2 atmosphere, acting like a blanket, trapping the sun's heat.
Not even comparable. Venus' atmosphere is 92 times denser and Venus only rotates once in 243 earth days!

"A few scientist grasp at straws to show a comparative relationship between the two."

http://www.univer...o-earth/

It's basic science. The global rise in temperatures is in direct correlation with the beginning of the industrial era.
No it's not. At best, it's likely coincidental. Or maybe you think the woolly mammoths also had an industrial civilization? LOL.

ubavontuba
1.2 / 5 (17) Feb 03, 2013
Such profound ignorance from the denialisTard.

"Not only has "peer review" given us the beliefs that Earth was flat" - DeepTard

Cam you provide a reference to back up your idiot assertion?
LOL. The Vendispambot mistakes sarcasm from deepsand for assertion. LOL. And deepsand believes Vendispambot is rational! LOL.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (15) Feb 03, 2013
@ Magnus

I fully understand what peer review is today, and how that of the past differed. My point is that it has changed, and that gregor1 chooses to ignore it when he finds it convenient to his purpose of the moment. Examples of past beliefs were offered solely for the purpose of demonstrating that invoking the phrase "peer review" out of context was without meaning, and attempt by gregor1 at deflecting legitimate criticism of his claims.

Vendicar failed to grasp that, and engaged in an unwarranted ad hominem attack against one who is allied with him in defending against the AGW denialists.
ROFL! I love it! Now their own spambot is attacking them!

VendicarE
3.7 / 5 (9) Feb 03, 2013
Up by 0.1'C over the last 5 years.

http://www.woodfo...08/trend

"No they aren't. In fact in the past decade, they have cooled significantly." - UbVonTard

And up 0.2'C over the last 20 years.

http://www.woodfo...93/trend

And up by 0.5'C over the last 30 years.

http://www.woodfo...83/trend

Poor UbVonTard. It has been years now and because of his mental disease he still can't figure out the difference between weather (his vapid pronouncements), and climate.
VendicarE
4.1 / 5 (9) Feb 03, 2013
Only the mentally diseased like UbVonTard, who lives in a vapid fantasy land, thinks that the truth is an "attack".

"Now their own spambot is attacking them!" - UbVonTard

Gutter filth.
VendicarE
4.1 / 5 (9) Feb 03, 2013
UbVonTard can't support with facts the claim that scientific peer review ever supported the assertion of a flat earth.

"The Vendispambot mistakes sarcasm from deepsand for assertion." - UbVonTard

Of course, UbVonTard's home planet of Conservadopia is not only perfectly flat, but also exists at the center of his Universe.
VendicarE
4.1 / 5 (9) Feb 03, 2013
Here UbVonTard asserts that the spectral properties of CO2 change significntly as the gas is compressed.

"Venus' atmosphere is 92 times denser and Venus only rotates once in 243 earth days!" - UbVonTard

Yet observations from Venus, Mars, deep space, and the lab show that the spectral lines of materials do not change significantly until they are forced closely enough to begin to react chemically.

This is because even at the surface of Venus the density of CO2 is still 16 times less than the density of solid CO2.

Poor UbVonTard, his mental disease caused him to stop learning science in grade 5, and stop learning entirely before he got to high school.

http://en.wikiped...315.1.29
deepsand
3.1 / 5 (17) Feb 03, 2013
No defense on this point?

I already told it. Did you read the link I provided?

A litany of speculative maybes does not constitutive substantive defense.

Pure speculation.

It plays well with many observations of dark matter. String theory is pure speculation as well and it has no observational support yet.

Claims that there is an undetectable pink elephant in the room play equally well with observations.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
VendicarE
3.9 / 5 (9) Feb 03, 2013
Absolutely correct.

"Claims that there is an undetectable pink elephant in the room play equally well with observations." - deepsand

But the pink elephant theory does not mesh with what we know about evolution, the origin of life, elephant biology and cosmology.

The pure speculation that is being done by people who are honestly looking at the question violates far fewer established principles, or none at all, and few observations, or none at all.

Remember, observations and the principles fitted to them are sometimes wrong.

Before theory comes speculation. The fact that you see speculation means that there are few or no theories that are considered viable.
ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (15) Feb 04, 2013
No they aren't. In fact in the past decade, they have cooled significantly.
Up by 0.1'C over the last 5 years.

And up 0.2'C over the last 20 years.

And up by 0.5'C over the last 30 years.
LOL. It appears Vendispambot has difficulty counting to 10. LOL.

Poor Uba. It has been years now and because of his mental disease he still can't figure out the difference between weather (his vapid pronouncements), and climate.
Naw, that's the Vendispambot's problem. ...always confusing regional heat waves with global warming. LOL.

ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (16) Feb 04, 2013
The Vendispambot mistakes sarcasm from deepsand for assertion.
Uba can't support with facts the claim that scientific peer review ever supported the assertion of a flat earth.
LOL. Talk about confusing the context! This is too funny ! ROFL.

Oh AGWites of phys.org, here lies your champion! LOL.

Of course, Uba's home planet of Conservadopia is not only perfectly flat, but also exists at the center of his Universe.
LOL. Try again. I vote the other way.
ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (15) Feb 04, 2013
Here Uba asserts that the spectral properties of CO2 change significntly as the gas is compressed.

"Venus' atmosphere is 92 times denser and Venus only rotates once in 243 earth days!" - Uba
I guess the spambot was trying to infer. Looks like this part of its code needs a lot of work! LOL.

Yet observations from Venus, Mars, deep space, and the lab show that the spectral lines of materials do not change significantly until they are forced closely enough to begin to react chemically.
Source?

This is because even at the surface of Venus the density of CO2 is still 16 times less than the density of solid CO2.
LOL. The poor Vendispambot can't help but go off on tangents, as it isn't able to retain context.

More news stories

Melting during cooling period

(Phys.org) —A University of Maine research team says stratification of the North Atlantic Ocean contributed to summer warming and glacial melting in Scotland during the period recognized for abrupt cooling ...

Researchers see hospitalization records as additional tool

Comparing hospitalization records with data reported to local boards of health presents a more accurate way to monitor how well communities track disease outbreaks, according to a paper published April 16 in the journal PLOS ON ...

Ebola virus in Africa outbreak is a new strain

Scientists say that the Ebola (ee-BOH'-lah) virus that has killed scores of people this year in Guinea (GIH'-nee) is a new strain. That means it did not spread there from outbreaks in some other African nations.