Comments on: Was the Younger Dryas caused by cosmic ray flux? http://landshape.org/enm/was-the-younger-dryas-caused-by-cosmic-ray-flux/ The Power of Numeracy Wed, 16 May 2012 18:37:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: ¿Fue el Younger Dryas causado por el flujo de rayos cósmicos? « Futuroglacial http://landshape.org/enm/was-the-younger-dryas-caused-by-cosmic-ray-flux/#comment-13172 ¿Fue el Younger Dryas causado por el flujo de rayos cósmicos? « Futuroglacial Thu, 23 Dec 2010 20:18:48 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/?p=1852#comment-13172 [...] Fuente Categorías:Climatologia., Datos e investigaciones LikeBe the first to like this post. Comentarios (0) Trackbacks (0) Deja un comentario Trackback [...] [...] Fuente Categorías:Climatologia., Datos e investigaciones LikeBe the first to like this post. Comentarios (0) Trackbacks (0) Deja un comentario Trackback [...]

]]> By: John1412 http://landshape.org/enm/was-the-younger-dryas-caused-by-cosmic-ray-flux/#comment-2078 John1412 Mon, 06 Jul 2009 18:51:34 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/?p=1852#comment-2078 Very nice site! Very nice site!

]]> By: John1412 http://landshape.org/enm/was-the-younger-dryas-caused-by-cosmic-ray-flux/#comment-2077 John1412 Mon, 06 Jul 2009 18:51:13 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/?p=1852#comment-2077 Very nice site! [url=http://opeyixa.com/qoxxro/2.html]cheap cialis[/url] Very nice site! [url=http://opeyixa.com/qoxxro/2.html]cheap cialis[/url]

]]> By: John1412 http://landshape.org/enm/was-the-younger-dryas-caused-by-cosmic-ray-flux/#comment-2076 John1412 Mon, 06 Jul 2009 18:51:10 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/?p=1852#comment-2076 Very nice site! <a href="http://opeyixa.com/qoxxro/1.html" rel="nofollow">cheap viagra</a> Very nice site! cheap viagra

]]> By: Steve Short http://landshape.org/enm/was-the-younger-dryas-caused-by-cosmic-ray-flux/#comment-2080 Steve Short Sun, 05 Apr 2009 13:24:20 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/?p=1852#comment-2080 (1) Atmos. pCO2 = 2692 ppmv for Calcite SI=0.00; Seawater pH = 7.43(2) Atmos. pCO2 = 1905 ppmv for Aragonite SI = 0.00; Seawater pH = 7.58 (1) Atmos. pCO2 = 2692 ppmv for Calcite SI=0.00; Seawater pH = 7.43(2) Atmos. pCO2 = 1905 ppmv for Aragonite SI = 0.00; Seawater pH = 7.58

]]> By: Steve Short http://landshape.org/enm/was-the-younger-dryas-caused-by-cosmic-ray-flux/#comment-2079 Steve Short Sun, 05 Apr 2009 08:24:20 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/?p=1852#comment-2079 (1) Atmos. pCO2 = 2692 ppmv for Calcite SI=0.00; Seawater pH = 7.43(2) Atmos. pCO2 = 1905 ppmv for Aragonite SI = 0.00; Seawater pH = 7.58 (1) Atmos. pCO2 = 2692 ppmv for Calcite SI=0.00; Seawater pH = 7.43(2) Atmos. pCO2 = 1905 ppmv for Aragonite SI = 0.00; Seawater pH = 7.58

]]> By: Steve Short http://landshape.org/enm/was-the-younger-dryas-caused-by-cosmic-ray-flux/#comment-10653 Steve Short Sun, 05 Apr 2009 08:24:00 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/?p=1852#comment-10653 (1) Atmos. pCO2 = 2692 ppmv for Calcite SI=0.00; Seawater pH = 7.43 (2) Atmos. pCO2 = 1905 ppmv for Aragonite SI = 0.00; Seawater pH = 7.58 (1) Atmos. pCO2 = 2692 ppmv for Calcite SI=0.00; Seawater pH = 7.43

(2) Atmos. pCO2 = 1905 ppmv for Aragonite SI = 0.00; Seawater pH = 7.58

]]> By: Steve Short http://landshape.org/enm/was-the-younger-dryas-caused-by-cosmic-ray-flux/#comment-2075 Steve Short Sun, 15 Mar 2009 05:42:05 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/?p=1852#comment-2075 It is useful to note that there is about 1 Gt of live cyanobacteria in the world's oceans at any one time but that this living biomass is processing via photosynthesis (the primary production PP) about 45 - 50 Gt/y of carbon annually. This is about 48% of the sum total of the global CO2 being fixed photosynthetically (the world's land plants process the other 52%). Current GCMs typically get annual PP right to within a factor of about 2 and typically agree amongst each other with an r of <0.4 (Carr et al., 2006). In this context it can be seen that modern GCMs would have essentially no skill whatsoever at allowing for the global oceanic production of biogenic CCN (principally DMS-derived). The idea that we might have any quantitative notion of the effect of biogenic CCN on cloud frequency, density, reflectivity and hence SW albedo from biogenic CCN in response to rising SSTs and atmospheric CO2 is laughable. This also means that such models would have absolutely no skill at discerning whether there was a significant separate effect on cloud production etc involving the CRF. As highly complex as the global climate system is, this means we have absolutely no recourse in deconvoluting major drivers and their effects other than to direct empirical examinations such as Shaviv has done. It is useful to note that there is about 1 Gt of live cyanobacteria in the world’s oceans at any one time but that this living biomass is processing via photosynthesis (the primary production PP) about 45 – 50 Gt/y of carbon annually. This is about 48% of the sum total of the global CO2 being fixed photosynthetically (the world’s land plants process the other 52%).

Current GCMs typically get annual PP right to within a factor of about 2 and typically agree amongst each other with an r of <0.4 (Carr et al., 2006). In this context it can be seen that modern GCMs would have essentially no skill whatsoever at allowing for the global oceanic production of biogenic CCN (principally DMS-derived). The idea that we might have any quantitative notion of the effect of biogenic CCN on cloud frequency, density, reflectivity and hence SW albedo from biogenic CCN in response to rising SSTs and atmospheric CO2 is laughable.

This also means that such models would have absolutely no skill at discerning whether there was a significant separate effect on cloud production etc involving the CRF.

As highly complex as the global climate system is, this means we have absolutely no recourse in deconvoluting major drivers and their effects other than to direct empirical examinations such as Shaviv has done.

]]> By: Steve Short http://landshape.org/enm/was-the-younger-dryas-caused-by-cosmic-ray-flux/#comment-10669 Steve Short Sun, 15 Mar 2009 05:42:00 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/?p=1852#comment-10669 It is useful to note that there is about 1 Gt of live cyanobacteria in the world's oceans at any one time but that this living biomass is processing via photosynthesis (the primary production PP) about 45 - 50 Gt/y of carbon annually. This is about 48% of the sum total of the global CO2 being fixed photosynthetically (the world's land plants process the other 52%). Current GCMs typically get annual PP right to within a factor of about 2 and typically agree amongst each other with an r of <0.4 (Carr et al., 2006). In this context it can be seen that modern GCMs would have essentially no skill whatsoever at allowing for the global oceanic production of biogenic CCN (principally DMS-derived). The idea that we might have any quantitative notion of the effect of biogenic CCN on cloud frequency, density, reflectivity and hence SW albedo from biogenic CCN in response to rising SSTs and atmospheric CO2 is laughable. This also means that such models would have absolutely no skill at discerning whether there was a significant separate effect on cloud production etc involving the CRF. As highly complex as the global climate system is, this means we have absolutely no recourse in deconvoluting major drivers and their effects other than to direct empirical examinations such as Shaviv has done. It is useful to note that there is about 1 Gt of live cyanobacteria in the world’s oceans at any one time but that this living biomass is processing via photosynthesis (the primary production PP) about 45 – 50 Gt/y of carbon annually. This is about 48% of the sum total of the global CO2 being fixed photosynthetically (the world’s land plants process the other 52%).

Current GCMs typically get annual PP right to within a factor of about 2 and typically agree amongst each other with an r of <0.4 (Carr et al., 2006). In this context it can be seen that modern GCMs would have essentially no skill whatsoever at allowing for the global oceanic production of biogenic CCN (principally DMS-derived). The idea that we might have any quantitative notion of the effect of biogenic CCN on cloud frequency, density, reflectivity and hence SW albedo from biogenic CCN in response to rising SSTs and atmospheric CO2 is laughable.

This also means that such models would have absolutely no skill at discerning whether there was a significant separate effect on cloud production etc involving the CRF.

As highly complex as the global climate system is, this means we have absolutely no recourse in deconvoluting major drivers and their effects other than to direct empirical examinations such as Shaviv has done.

]]> By: Steve Short http://landshape.org/enm/was-the-younger-dryas-caused-by-cosmic-ray-flux/#comment-2074 Steve Short Sun, 15 Mar 2009 01:01:53 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/?p=1852#comment-2074 admin: Pushing the links down pushing them down even more http://www.co2science.org/articles/V6/N1/EDIT.php www.atmos.colostate.edu/~heald/teaching/ATS762/post_lecture3_ats762_soapbap.ppt http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V95-441N93D-1&_user=10&_origUdi=B6VH3-487DG3H-4&_fmt=high&_coverDate=08%2F31%2F2001&_rdoc=1&_orig=article&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=2dd077b0ac1e608a118c74d07b56c366 admin: Pushing the links down

pushing them down even more

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V6/N1/EDIT.php

http://www.atmos.colostate.edu/~heald/teaching/ATS762/post_lecture3_ats762_soapbap.ppt

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V95-441N93D-1&_user=10&_origUdi=B6VH3-487DG3H-4&_fmt=high&_coverDate=08%2F31%2F2001&_rdoc=1&_orig=article&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=2dd077b0ac1e608a118c74d07b56c366

]]>