I wonder if the question is somewhat more general that the two responses so far (from Mohammad & Katarzyna).

To get back to basics, the sun is the ultimate energy source for the entire climate system. Earth's weather derives largely from the differential heating of the earth, which happens because the Earth is nearly spherical so the tropics get more sunshine than the poles.

So thinking about this very basic relationship, we can state that the solar energy received by the Earth (from the sun) is the fundamental property involved. This quantity can be called the total solar irradiance, and is measured by satellites (example: http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/index.htm). This value can vary, and if it changes a lot or changes a little but for a very long time, then the Earth's climate can respond to the change in its energy source. It turns out, though, that for most purposes the sun's output is nearly constant.

The next step is to ask how much of the sunshine that reaches the top of Earth's atmosphere is absorbed by the climate system. That value is determined by the reflectivity of the Earth, and is usually called albedo. If the amount of solar energy that reaches the top of the atmosphere is S and the abedo is a, then the energy absorbed by the climate system is just (1-a)*S (because a varies from 0 to 1, a value of 0.75 for example, means that 75% of the light is reflected). The albedo is set by the surface type (ice and snow are very reflective, ocean surface is very dark) and also the clouds (which can be very reflective). Since the poles are cold and the tropics are warm, there tends to be a latitudinally varying albedo (though clouds make that less obvious).

Putting together the sunshine, the differential heating due to the sphericity of Earth, and the albedo can lead to a surprisingly good model for the climate called an energy balance model. The only other thing needed is a representation of the longwave radiation budget, which is essentially the blackbody emission from the surface along with an assumption about the emissivity of the atmosphere.

The explanation of the role of the Sun is complicated, but there is no doubt that the number of dark sunspots influences our climate. In astronomy, disappearance of the dark sunspots at the turn of the XVII and XVIII centuries was called the Maundera Minimum. The dependence of the Earth’s temperature on the number of dark sunspots was also observed between 1420 – 1570 years (Spoerera Minimum).

In 1991, Danish meteorologists E. Friis-Christensen and K. Lassen demonstrated that air temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere during 1861-1989 closely depended on solar activity. However, the reason for this relationship was not clear, because at the time of solar activity changes the amount of energy reaching the Earth's varied only about 0.3 percent from the average inflow, which was a value too small to explain the fluctuations in the Earth's temperature.

Six years later, Svensmark and Friss-Christensen solved that problem: they found a close correlation between the size of the cloud cover and the intensity of cosmic rays and sunlight (Svensmark H. and Friis-Christiansen E. 1997, Landscheidt T. 2003, Svensmark H. 2007).

Scientific connection of the Sun’s activity with climatic phenomena was possible when satellite observation showed dependence of cloud existence on intensity of cosmic radiation. When the Sun’s activity is smaller (fewer dark sunspots), more cosmic radiation reaches the Earth, where the water, oxygen and nitrogen molecules are ionized with the increased radiation and they form clouds. Formation of clouds as the result of elemental air ionization is a well known phenomenon, and connecting it with the Sun’s activity can explain its role in governing the climate (Svensmark H. and Calder N. 2007). The theory of the influence of cosmic radiation on the Earth’s climate has strong scientific basis and in work Robinson A. B. et al., 2007 you can also see some clear evidences for this phenomenon.

See:

Svensmark H (2007) Cosmoclimatology: A new theory emerges, Astronomy & Geophysics 48, 1.18-1.24

Svensmark H, Calder N (2007) The Chilling Stars, A New Theory of Climate Change, Icon Books Ltd.

Svensmark H, Friis-Christiansen E (1997) Variation of cosmic ray flux and global cloud coverage – a missing link in solar-climate relationship, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 59, 1225-1232

Landscheidt T (2003) New Little Ice Age instead of global warming?, Energy & Environment 14, 327-350

Robinson AB, Robinson NE, Soon A (2007) Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, Journal of the American Physicians and Surgeons 12, 79-90

I wonder if the question is somewhat more general that the two responses so far (from Mohammad & Katarzyna).

To get back to basics, the sun is the ultimate energy source for the entire climate system. Earth's weather derives largely from the differential heating of the earth, which happens because the Earth is nearly spherical so the tropics get more sunshine than the poles.

So thinking about this very basic relationship, we can state that the solar energy received by the Earth (from the sun) is the fundamental property involved. This quantity can be called the total solar irradiance, and is measured by satellites (example: http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/index.htm). This value can vary, and if it changes a lot or changes a little but for a very long time, then the Earth's climate can respond to the change in its energy source. It turns out, though, that for most purposes the sun's output is nearly constant.

The next step is to ask how much of the sunshine that reaches the top of Earth's atmosphere is absorbed by the climate system. That value is determined by the reflectivity of the Earth, and is usually called albedo. If the amount of solar energy that reaches the top of the atmosphere is S and the abedo is a, then the energy absorbed by the climate system is just (1-a)*S (because a varies from 0 to 1, a value of 0.75 for example, means that 75% of the light is reflected). The albedo is set by the surface type (ice and snow are very reflective, ocean surface is very dark) and also the clouds (which can be very reflective). Since the poles are cold and the tropics are warm, there tends to be a latitudinally varying albedo (though clouds make that less obvious).

Putting together the sunshine, the differential heating due to the sphericity of Earth, and the albedo can lead to a surprisingly good model for the climate called an energy balance model. The only other thing needed is a representation of the longwave radiation budget, which is essentially the blackbody emission from the surface along with an assumption about the emissivity of the atmosphere.

Putting a simple view to the question: There would be no clime on earth without the sun. Clime is just a consequence of the interaction between sun's radiation and the materials on Earths surface.

Mohammad Joghataei,

I agree that the QBO is important. It is not, however, of first order in terms of important climate signals. I appreciate that the QBO does seem to modulate some aspects of the sun-climate interaction, but these signals are small compared to the basic picture of the climate system being powered by the sun. My interpretation of the question was from a fundamental point of view, not a stratospheric dynamics point of view. Since the sun is the driver of fundamental climate phenomena, I think addressing the role of the sun in the climate should start from this vantage point, especially for questioners who are not well versed in the fundamental physics of the climate system. One must learn to walk before running, as they say.

Thank you for pointing to the review of Gray et al. (Gray, L. J., et al. (2010), Solar influences on climate, Rev. Geophys., 48, RG4001, doi:10.1029/2009RG000282 ). I am confident that the authors of that paper would stand by my answer to this question, as it is precisely where their review starts, see paragraph 3 of that paper. I also see that they discuss the possible amplification of the solar signal on SST etc by the top-down (solar heating in the stratosphere) and bottom up (solar heating of the surface and air-sea interaction) (paragraph 57), but note that paragraph is basically saying that there is not yet unequivocal evidence for a solar signal in the mean tropospheric circulation. Reading their conclusions section (Section 6.2) also supports the view that solar variation is not a first-order effect on climate, though there are signals that are detectable. I've attached their review, as I think it probably answers the original question better than any of us can.

Mohammad Joghataei,

Yes, of course there are numerous "hidden answers." Two examples come to mind. First, the direct solar heating of the upper atmosphere induces the atmospheric thermal tides. While the sun-following diurnal harmonic of the tide is vertically trapped (mostly), the semi-diurnal harmonic has a strong signal at the surface, and can be seen easily in the surface pressure. Because of this semi-diurnal surface pressure signal, there is a forcing on the low-level wind field, and there are hints that these effects can impact the structure of the lower troposphere including convection. Second, the sun powers the photosynthesis of plants, and the vigor of the biosphere has important consequences for the long-term evolution of the atmospheric composition and thus the mean climate, so we could say that the sun's influence on both the evolution of life on earth and then on the photosynethically available light influence the climate system by changing and modulating the atmospheric composition which is a leading order factor in the effective temperature of Earth.

The point is not to point out "hidden answers" just to show that there are complexities involved in the climate system. When someone asks a simple question, I think the first thing to do is to supply the simple answer. Only after understanding the basics should we move on to the more complicated and/or smaller effects, even if they are really interesting.

WACCM is a little expensive to run on a PC, but you could give it a try. You can get access to the code from www.cesm.ucar.edu. I'm not sure that any of the control runs have output saved the resolves the diurnal cycle, but you should investigate that. I'm actually working on a little project related to the atmospheric tides right now which is why that example popped into my head immediately... but I'm not using WACCM and I am not exploring the role of the solar cycle at this time.

Sun does not influences the climate of the earth but threr are some factors which influence it like as:

1. Distance form the Sun

2. Latitude

3. Clearness of the sky (Clouds)

4. Ocean currents etc

I understand what you say Javaid, but take care with that statement "Sun does not influence the climate on Earth" .

Remmember that all the climate system that we know wouldn´t exists without the Sun.

Just to add to Marcio's comment; you also need to distingish between those factors that are purely related to weather and those that are related to climate in ordre to be clearer and precise.

Dear Mohammad;

The flow of particles that the sun comes, induces a FIELD INDUCES in the Earth's core, it generates an angular momentum when there is a relatively smooth flow and shock when the flow is abrupt.

The shock of the core, the mantle moves generating a shock wave that bounces off different parts of the lithosphere.

The resulting magnetic vector differential and gives idea to address the core STROKE TO the lithosphere, which is complex;

The core has an angular velocity different from the lithosphere.

The mantle is not homogeneous fluid.

Synchronization of the magnetic axis position at the time of the blow of particles, in other words the time of day.

---field induces-- first message

For these reasons, the prediction area is relatively large, and no one wants to "false alarms"

You can visit this web for more details.

Http://eduardofuentesdelara.wordpress.com/correlacion-rgs-honduras-28-de-mayo-del-2009/

Assume "false alarms", prestige and reputation removed

Cuando la educación en geofisica rompa sus paradigmas, y se entienda por que la Tierra gira, y olvide que este planeta no se mueve solo, entonces la ironia y la arrogancia se harán de lado, para empezar a resolver los verdaderos problemas de la ciencia y de la humanidad.

When education in geophysics break their paradigms, and understood because the Earth rotates, and forget that this planet does not move alone, then the irony and arrogance will be set aside to start solving the real problems of science and humanity.

Probably the best deterministic process-response model are the M. Milankovitch equations (Calculus). This is not a recent study, but like old wines, it's still pretty good. It had a fairly good correlation with the glacial and interglacials of parts of the Pleistocene. The original piece is as follows: Mathematische Klimalehre und Astronomische Theorie der Klimaschankungen,M. Milankovitch, Handbuch der Klimatology, W. Köppen & R.Geiger, Munich, Germany.

But beware, the Green Church folks don't like it because it doens't serve its agenda.

Under wterjung, see: Political Polarization in America, Rural America, Green America. It is on YouTube.

I am Professor emeritus at UCLA, California. Cheers, Werner

Dear Prof.Werner Terjung.

I would like to give me your opinion about my work as I have called the correlation RGS radiation-geomagnetism and seismology, ¿I can send you a PDF about it?

With all respect. I just cannot visualize the creation of climate and its changes as being mainly a terrestrial event. Solar (and cosmic) radiation is of much greater magnitude and is a major player. Of course, plate tectonics played a role for billions of years, but I think folks are not really thinking about that now. As I said before: see the Green America video. It addresses most of your queries. That video is given in a light-hearted mood. Cheers, Werner

Of course, the Sun has a large influence on the Earth's climate. As mentioned above, the Milankovich cycles (small oscilations in the Earth's orbit) change the distribution of the insolation over the Earth's surface, causing important variations on our climate. The correlation is very good in the last million years, at least.

Even if the sun's activity is very stable, thare's evidence that small variations in Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) also cause changes in the Earth's climate, as observed in the solar Maunder Minimum happening at the same time as the Little Ice Age (roughly between 1400 and 1800 AD).

However, the last decades have seen a fast warming at the same time that the sun had no trend in TSI (maybe even a slightly negative trend), as can be seen in this graph from the Max Planck Institute:

http://www.mps.mpg.de/images/projekte/sun-climate/climate.gif

The same goes for the Galactic Cosmic Ray hypothesis. If anything, this effect should have made the Earth slightly cooler in the last few decades. Also the Milankovich cycles have a negligible effect in such a short time (these cycles have periods of thousands of years).

On the other hand, the optical properties of greenhouse gases are well known and understood. A range of empirical data is confirms that this is the origin of this recent warming. For instance, the greenhouse effect getting more intense is confirmed both by measurements of more infrared radiation returning to the surface from the atmosphere, and less IR escaping to space. The latter should be the opposite if the sun had caused it.

References:

Less IR escaping to space, and matching the signature of greenhouse gases:

Chen 2007 - Spectral signatures of climate change in the Earth’s infrared spectrum between 1970 and 2006

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.131.3867

More IR returning to the surface:

Philipona 2004 - Radiative forcing - measured at Earth's surface - corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2004/2003GL018765.shtml

Eduardo Fuentes de lara

Si efectivamente, el Sol, es una fuente de energía total para el sistema climático, pero no el final.

La cantidad de luz solar que se alcanza en la parte superior normalmente es de alta frecuencia, y pega en la -alta troposfera. En la media atmósfera terrestre, la baja frecuencia, llega a la superficie, aire, hielo, mares, etc. esto es (1-a) * S.

Ahora bien, independientemente de su frecuencia, la distancia orbital, asi como la esfericidad y su diferencial debido a la inclinacion, es más, la precesión polar y estacional, existe una enorme cantidad de energía, que normalmente los climatologos no consideran, y es la que se debe a la inducción electromagnética inducida al núcleo magnético terrestre, por el flujo particular solar .

Esta energía jamas a sido considerada por los climatologos, de ahi que ningún balance de energía, le puede checar. Asi que aparte de considerar todo el espectro de frecuencias del Sol, es necesario cuantificar el aspecto electromagnético, que como repito, los climatologos nunca han tomado en cuenta.

Eduardo Lara Sources

If indeed, the Sun, is a source of total energy for the climate system, but not the end.

The amount of sunlight that is reached at the top is usually high-frequency and-paste in the upper troposphere. In half atmosphere, the low frequency, reaches the surface, air, ice, seas, etc. that is (1-a) * S.

However, regardless of their frequency, orbital distance, as well as the sphericity and its differential due to the inclination, nay, the seasonal polar precession, there is an enormous amount of energy that climatologists usually not considered, and is the which is due to the induced electromagnetic induction to terrestrial magnetic core, for the particular flow sunlight.

This energy never has been considered by climatologists, hence no energy balance, you can check. So apart from considering the entire frequency spectrum of the Sun, it is necessary to quantify the electromagnetic aspect, which I repeat, climatologists have never taken into account.

Considerar los aspectos electromagnéticos y su aportación al calentamiento interno del núcleo, es la piedra angular del cambio de climatico natural y repito, los climatologos nunca han tomado en cuenta.

Consider the electromagnetic aspects and their contribution to internal heating of the core, is the cornerstone of natural climate change again, climatologists have never taken into account.

Well, good luck with your metaphysics. Try to show some kind of observational correlation with your theory. So others can replicate your results. Cheers, Werner

"How can sun influences in earth's climate?"

easily

The Sun provides the energy in watts per square meter of surface area.

The atmosphere then determines how much of that energy is retained,

how much is reflected, whether the temperature remains constant, or increases, or decreases.

Above the atmosphere the incoming in 1366 to 1368 watts per square meter.

What makes it to the planets surface is about 344 watts per square meter of surface area.

Researchgate is a scientific platform. This question is that of my 4-year old grandchild.

You can do this all by yourself: Google "sun" plus "climate" or go to wikipedia!!

To Norman Free: I was very impressed with the video. A thin planet surface with

an illuminated neural network (lighting along interconnecting highways) that also

contain our actual neural network ( fiber optic cables, cell towers, old copper wires,

etc.). Even more impressive is how thin our atmosphere is compared to the

curvature of the Earth ( the thin green band ).

It also amplifies the tragic illusion that we can ever reach a sustainable

goal of producing a low enough energy output to not continually amplify

the Global heating spiral.

The Sun is not going to produce and emit less energy ( long term average ),

and Humans are not going to stop removing carbon from inside the Earth.

The volume of the oceans, and the volume of the atmosphere is not going to

stop increasing. The composition of the atmosphere is not going to stop

moving toward more CO2 and more NOx, and less O2.

At best we can strive to slow the changes....... unsuccessfully of course.

The question "How does the Sun influence global climate" is of utmost importance, but the answer should be much more than just Total Solar Insolation (TSI), which includes visible, UV and IR radiation. We are aware of solar activity and how it fluctuates coarsely in 11 year or 22 year cycle when considering the magnetic field reversals http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_magnetic_field but how does solar activity really impact on our climate is under very active research.

But is it only Sun's influence on galactic cosmic rays (GCR) as the IPCC is admitting or is there more to it?

I personally would appreciate new answers to this question.

Boris

The IPCC does not admit AT ALL that the effect of the sun on CGR is important; there was a very vague sentence in the draft for the was in a DRAFT for the next report

Harry

I don't see the word important in my comment. I am aware that I should have put in the word POSSIBLE in the sentence citing the IPCC. Anyhow on page 43 in chapter 7 of SOD AR5 WGI the lines 1 to 5, it reads: “Many empirical relationships have been reported between GCR or cosmogenic isotope archives and some aspects of the climate system (e.g., Bond et al., 2001; Dengel et al., 2009; Ram and Stolz, 1999). The forcing from changes in total solar irradiance alone does not seem to account for these observations, implying the existence of an amplifying mechanism such as the hypothesized GCR-cloud link."

It is true that this vague text was in the second draft, but even so the idea already mentioned in the previous assessment reports does imply that either GCR or some other still unassigned role of solar (magnetic) activity may be of importance although clear proof is still lacking.

Some hint is given in a new paper by Voiculescu and Usoskin (2012) on Persistent solar signatures in cloud cover: spatial and temporal analysis. Environ. Res. Lett. 7 (2012) 044004 (11pp), doi:10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/044004 in its conclusions states:

“We have analysed the coherence between the time variations of two solar proxy drivers, cosmic ray ionization and UV irradiance, on the one hand, and low, middle and high clouds, on the other hand, in order to check the persistence of solar signal in cloud cover between 1984 and 2009. Coherence plots show that for most of the selected regions cloud type varies in phase or anti-phase with solar activity, depending on cloud type and geographical region. The area where the confidence level is better than 95% is large in many of the coherence plots, which can hardly be a random coincidence.”

I will continue searching for proof to my "one sided views", but with an open mind, while awaiting proper explanations on climate variability e.g. for the past few millennia. Carbon dioxide can not be the major driver, although I agree that e.g. land use changes do have a definite impact on local/regional climates.

Boris

I agree with you that my statement was too strong. I also want to keep an open mind.

The Bond events (Bond 2001) are important but it is to be shown how they are related to the sun.

I agree with you that in the past CO2 often followed T-increase caused by increased solar flux,: but often confined to one hemisphere.

But I stress again. Mankind is injecting CO2 into the atmosphere at an unprecented rate.

You name me a recent period where such a rapid CO2 has been the case and that we can use as a proxy for the reaction of temperature on that injection,

Harry,

You want me to name a period when CO2 increase could be comparable to the present. That I can not do, but I would put the question around and seek for an answer to what caused for example the very rapid temperature changes during the end of de-glaciation and the warm Holocene (cfr. http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/073.htm#fig224).

I am genuinely concerned over the excessive use of fossil fuels and there seems to be no limit in the foreseeable future and thus it is probable that atmospheric CO2 concentration will continue to increase. However, although still not a fixed fact, CO2 concentrations in the geological past have been considerably higher without any real impact on temperature (see GEOCARB). In fact it seems that CO2 and temperature have varied separately from each other.

I reiterate my view that we should search a proper theory for the so-called “water thermostat”, because global climate has varied through time within a rather narrow band ever since oceans had formed, and as you know the phase shifts between gas, liquid and solid are very energetic for H2O.

Boris

I see we are discussing now in 2 questions on the same issue.

The very rapid change at the start of the holocene are solar driven, but we discuss the (manmade) CO2 injection.

You are also right that water has much more effect than CO2 and that explains that it is not CO2 that drives temperature.

But then again in the last 100 years there is no change in the hydrolgy, so that leaves the extra CO2 to consider

Harry

The Original Question asked how the Sun Influences The Earth's climate.

The answer is that the Sun provides energy measured in watts per square meter of surface area, but the atmosphere determines the rates of heating, and the rates of cooling of the planets surface, and that of the atmosphere itself.

Many factors contribute the planets temperature, the Sun is just one, a supplier

of energy. The planets atmosphere is the consumer of that energy.

Matthew,

I am willing to accept your first point except for the last sentence: “...there is a great deal of evidence showing that the climate change that's been observed in the last 50, 100, 250 years is far far beyond natural climate variability.” Please correct me if I am wrong, but as far as I know the only so-called “evidence” has been derived from computer simulations (cfr. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/tssts-4-1.html).

A much better explanation to the present warming is in my view the natural recuperation following the poor climate during the Little Ice Age, which despite often voiced objection is not just limited to Europe but can be observed both in Asia and in the Americas. See also my answer to Harry a day ago on the early rapid Holocene temperature fluctuations surely not influenced by man nor atmospheric CO2?

Your point 2. refers to the PETM and your suggestion that CO2 (including oxidized methane) could be the reason to the thermal maximum - I wonder how probable this scenario might be and refer you to check with GEOCARB and the poor synchronization between atmospheric CO2 and temperature.

Your link to http://www.wunderground.com/climate/PETM.asp has the following sentence:

“The Earth's most common mechanism for climate change are Milankovitch cycles—variations in the Earth's orbit that change its distance from the Sun, which spur ice ages and subsequent warming.”

Reality does not seem to be as simple as that. If the Milankovitch cycles are so crucial, how come the sequence of ice ages seem to have begun less than 3 million years ago, see http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:Five_Myr_Climate_Change_Rev_png - might not the closure of the Panama isthmus cutting off the connection between the Pacific and Atlantic oceans have any role in these events?

I am sure that IPCC has tried to include all natural climate forcings that can be physically formulated and included in models. But as you know just the modelling of clouds is still very much a problem and as I have mentioned earlier temperature variations (obviously no different from the present) during the past centuries and even millennia (unfortunately only based on proxies) have to be explained without anthropogenic forcings. Can the models cope with that? I doubt it.

You mention evidence (... satellites, balloons, ice cores,...etc) but how do these prove that anthropogenic emissions are the reason for the current warming? Actually there has been no warming for the past decade and a half as noted by the Met Office including their new decadal forecast despite the fact that CO2 increases. See also http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

A paper by de Jager, Duhau and van Geel 2010. Quantifying and specifying the solar influence on terrestrial surface temperature. JASTP 72 (2010) 926-937. where they give the magnetic phase shifts (toroidal and poloidal) of the solar dynamo a substantial influence on surface temperature. In the end they emphasize the importance of addressing the main open question, viz. the explanation of the correlation of temperature change with that of the polar magnetic field component.

Boris: de Jager does NOT disagree with IPCC at all on the recent warming

I went thru the DeJager paper; citation:

Finally, the question is opportune whether the excess of 0.311

in 1999 (as compared with the reference temperature in 1960; cf.

Fig. 3) is consistent with current ideas on greenhouse warming.

Judging from current estimates (Ch. 9 of the 4th IPCC report) the

antropogenic part of global warming since 1960 is 0.51 with an

uncertainty of 0.31. This agrees with the result found here.

Harry,

It is all about how one, meaning me, interprets written text. I find that De Jager et al. formulate their text very carefully so as not to contradict the current paradigm of anthropogenic warming.

They ask whether their findings are consistent with greenhouse warming? They write "judging from current [IPCC AR4 WGI Ch 9] estimates... anthropogenic part of global warming ... agrees with the results found here". They find a small component of their warming comparable with that of the IPCC.

However, their point was to show in this study that variations in the solar magnetic fields has a definite influence on surface temperatures, but they are still lacking the explanation to the observed correlation. As far as I can see this magnetic effect is not included in the climate models used in the IPCC report.

Boris

I focused on the last half century. As for the correlation of global temp with sun I am just not an expert enough. Still, my opnion is that a variation of less than say a few tenths of a dgree C per century is very difficult to believe given the discussion on how temp was measured in the past and the "correction" on the data of up to 0.5 C

The data in the last half century are obviously the best and given the manmade CO2-emissions a warming is only expected over that period

I am not sure whether the data from the last half a century are best or not, but I do rely on the satellite temperature data for the lower troposphere. which correlates acceptably with surface data. What the climate models do is anyhow controversial.

A point to note is that there has been no real warming for the last decade and a half and the British Met Office corrected decadal forecast which I have previously mentioned shows no warming for the near future and still the atmospheric CO2 has increased. There is something wrong in either the data or the models. So the only thing we can do is to wait a few more years of intense science.

There is a new short paper on solar influence by Ogurtsov, Lindholm and Jalkanen (2012). Background Solar Irradiance and the Climate of the Earth in the End of the 20th Century. Atmospheric and Climate Sciences, 2012, 2, 191-195, can be downloaded at: www.scirp.org/journal/PaperDownload.aspx?paperID=18825

Boris

I am absolutely certain temperature records for the last 50 years are better than the the period before that and so forth. Man learns from his mistakes and more and more stations become available and tools improve.

And again, I agree with you that a periood of 4 years (Met Offcie prediction) or even a decade is too short to assess or project changes, because of the variability in the weather (patterns), so even though we are anxious to know, given our age (at least I) we have to wait another 10-15 years I would say to see what is going to happen,

Leaves unchanged that more CO2 gives higher temperatures, basic principle all serious meteorolgists agree upon (e.g. Spencer, Tennekes). It is on the feed-back that they have their doubts

Harry, I agree that it is the feedback factor, but also the actual role of water vapor as greenhouse gas that should be studied in earnest.

Another issue that has been often aired is the role of increasing CO2 in the upper atmosphere where it should actually increase IR-emissions to space and thus have a cooling effect. Any views on this matter?

Boris

Yes atmospheric hydrology is a key factor, but it is a very complicated compound.

i do not see where research should be focused. As an anecdote: I have been working in cloud research for 3 decades and I am overwhelmed by their variety .

As for CO2: I have to look into the literature but here the situation is quite simple. The atmospheric properties are so well known that I am certain this effect has been taken into account by the modellers

You are quite right that CO2 has a well quantified role in atmospheric science and above all in the spectral signature at TOA (top of atmosphere) with a deep dent in the outgoing emission spectrum. However, I do not agree with you that the actual role of CO2 is as governing on global temperature as promoted by the IPCC.

Boris

IPCC is the abbreviation of InterGOVERNMENTAL Pannel (Climate Change). It is the responsibility of the national governments to assure livibility for us/mankind. The charter by the UN for IPCC is assessment of the effect of the manmade greenhouse gases on climate. Whatever nature dooes by itself is not a concern of IPCC,

This is the reason IPCC focuses on MANMADE CO2 (and MANMADE aerosols)

An anology is Air Pollution. Governments are responsible for the quality of the air that we breathe. The amount of aerosols is limited by European law. However the law states that Governments are NOT responsible for the NATURAL particulates. In Spain there are many days that the amounts of Sahara dust exceed the limit value. However the law makes an exception for this situation (of course, HtB).

Summary: the whole discussion centers on how much warming does the emisson of CO2 and the other manmade greenhouse gases give and at what timescale.

The 1-1.5 C increase in surface temperature with a doubling in CO2 alone is indisputed, see the following "skepticist site" for instance the end of:

http://clivebest.com/blog/

Thanks for the excellent link to Clive Best's blog, which beautifully strengthens my former view that CO2 is really not driving global climate towards a catastrophe as the IPCC insists. Clive's last paragraph and his previous texts in the blog clearly give water vapour (hydrological cycle) the importance it deserves.

Boris

No: you take a short cut. What Best agrees that his simple model ALSO gives a 1-1.5 C increase in temp when the CO2 is double that of preindustrial time.

He has as yet not a model that incorporates water

Boris

IPCC does not say we are heading for a catastrophe (in the near future). In case you think so then please show where this statement appears in the last official report

Matthew

Svensmark / Ken Carslaw

Thanks for the publication. I referred earlier in this topic to a more recent paper of Jeff Pierce showing the too long road between clusters and CCN

Harry,

Although water vapour is not included in his simple model, in his comment a day ago at: http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=4265 he writes: "Water is the key to the Earth’s thermostat control. CO2 is just a side issue in comparison."

Well it is naturally a matter of definition, what is understood by catastrophe, the term frequently voiced in IPCC media news, but just a simple search of the word "extreme" in the AR4 SYR SPM gives many examples of extremes "likely", "very likely", and even "almost certain" due to human emissions [my wording]. E.g. Table SPM.3. p.13

I would also note that Rajendra Pachauri uttered in Hobart 15 Jan. "''They [the findings] are very very clear. Heatwaves are on the increase, extreme precipitation events are on the increase, and on that there is really no room for doubt any more,'' he said. ref: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/extremes-of-rain-heat-on-the-way-20130114-2cpq4.html#ixzz2JYkZo0ni

Boris

I will have alook too at the wording "extreme"

Again: yes water is the most important greenhouse component but mankind does not change the amount of.

However we do emit an extreme amount of CO2, compared to the natural imbalance in the last milennia. This will soon lead to a 1C increase in temperature globally and this rather extreme when you look at the temperature excursions in the last 2 milennia, and we can accomplish this in a few decades; that is for me very disturbing

Boris

I went thru the SPM of IPCC and notice several extremes, most in a meterological sense. also extremely likely whihc defines the certainty.

As for table 3 I did not coem across extreme there?

I went to the CliveBest site and I do not understand your thermostat theory. Do you mean that water will serve to compensate for the 1C increase in temperature?

Looking at the climate history of our planet, modern science has ascertained that despite ice ages and quite warm times and many external catastrophic events (asteroids, massive volcanic eruptions, plate tectonics displacing continents and ocean currents, etc.) global temperatures have stayed within a rather narrow range.

The average climate has time and again returned to a state that is and has been suitable for various lifeforms. Cfr. http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm

The only physical explanation I can visualize is to be found in the three phases of water, i.e. water vapour, liquid water and ice. What is especially important is the very high heat transfer between the different phases, i.e. evaporation, condensation, lapse rate and cloud feedback, albedo, etc.

This fact is naturally well understood by climatologists although the full intricacy between the various processes still needs further research.

Boris

I'd like to remind you that man encountered serious challenges, for instance in the recent cooling periods in the holocene, with their droughts and starvation, and in the warmer periods with their floodings that are often very vividly described in the anals. And such periods were characterised by only ONE degree difference form the mean.

I understand that on a period spanning millions of years the situation comes back to "normal", but our coming say 2-3 generations have a hard time to cope with the changes induced by an even as small an increase as 1-2 C. What is more that is an increase we did ourselves.

Harry, when we discuss the large temperature fluctuation say during the past few thousand years with varying regional climates in Europe or even the Americas, the annual climate variability was much much more than a meagre degree or two.

If you stop to think about the meaning of global mean temperature used generally in climate discussions. It could be acceptable as a metric when explaining the global energy budget, but when discussing real past climates that humans and the rest of nature has experienced, the use of global averages is really nonsense. Nowhere on this globe of ours can we find the temperature that is equivalent to the mean global T.

Boris,

I would not see a as climate variabilitythe as annual variabilty, but as differences over a period of a century, like the LIA or the MWP and the earlier digressions.

The calamities caused by the volcanic eruptions are of too short duration.

I would like to see the data on the regional temperature for the last 4500 years, roughly the time that written records are available from whihc know from first hand how people faired when climate struck.

Sorry, forget the word "annual", the IPCC minimum length of average climate is 30 years as stated by the IPCC.

History books and archaeological documentation can be found for many areas, but the temperatures would ultimately be proxies, which may not properly describe the regional temperature variability. Tree ring, speleo, coral, ice core data is readily available for different regions but then again this type of data is really not comparale with the accuracy of thermometers.

Archeological writer, Brian Fagan, has written several books describing the living conditions during past centuries and millennia. Of Fagans excellent books I have in my bookshelf and which I have read: "The Little Ice Age", "Floods Famines and Emperors - El Niño and the fate of civilizations", and The Long Summer - how climate chnaged civilization", "The Great Warming - Climate change and the rise and fall of civilizations". All highly recommendable.

Boris

I went to the IPCC report and, agreed there are only proxies; these indicate differecnes of the order of 1-2 C. I read "Summer...". but my own interest is early society in the middle-east in scientific publications (e.g., Harvey Weiss); some smaller interest in the history of Medieval Bruges in Falnders; the latter was plagued by floods in the MWP, while it is always assumed that they accompany the start of the LIA?!

Harry

Harry,

I still recommend to read the many excellent climate related archaeological books by Brian Fagan. The ones I mentioned I have bought from Amazon. The only reference I have regarding floods in Europe was a study made to my request by Dr. Mme Grazyna Kowalewska of the Polish Institute of Oceanology back in ~2000, when I was heading a Baltic Sea sediment study (part of the BASYS-project.).

Grazyna had mentioned a collection of historical chronicle quotations (Girgu´s & Strupczewski 1965) of exceptional meteorological events at the Polish coast in particular, but also at the Baltic coast of neighbouring countries. So I asked her if she could possibly compile from the Polish chronicles a table of events - which she graciously did. Her graph can be found as Fig. 6 in http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr/18/c018p089.pdf I have also used her graph in a talk I gave in 2006 in Gothenburg, Chalmers Technical University. Her graph is on slide 8 in my PDF file of the talk at: http://www.kolumbus.fi/boris.winterhalter/LEOprize/ClimateTalkOH.pdf

A word of caution when using temperature proxies is that often the data reflects seasonal data, not annual, as e.g. tree rings that reflect the growing season.

Best thing to explain would be the relation between sun and earth and the various physio-chemical processes occurring on both.Milankovitch Cycles are a great example how Obliquity ,eccentricity and precession effect the climate of earth but it is only in terms of earth's relative position to sun.

Boris

I had a look on Wikipedia for Fagan. I put reading/buying a book on the back-burner.

As for the Baltic: is this over the period it went from open sea to close to half open? I mean I read about the drastic changes in geography in the Holocene, including South-Sweden?

You are quite right with repect to tree rings representing summer temeps!

Still, in your presentation you also give the proxy temperatures with a variation of 1C

As a side note, the variation in the Solar output may not be as important as the

increase in the Volume of the Atmosphere between the Earth 1700' s and the

Standard established in 1976. If you assume an original average atmospheric

pressure at sea level of 100.000 Pascals per square meter of Planet surface

area, increasing to 101, 325 Pascals per square meter of surface area, then

the temperature would have increased approximately from:

( 273.15 + 11.23 = 284.28 Kelvin ) to the 1976 standard of:

( 273.15 + 15.00 = 288.15 Kelvin ). A change of + 3.77 Kelvin

in only 276 years. This might be inferred as a limited long term

benefit of the industrial revolution, which if continued will become

a severe dis-benefit of the burning of hydro-carbons.

Harry,

For a short history of the Baltic Sea area, see slides 19-22 http://www.kolumbus.fi/boris.winterhalter/LEOprize/ClimateTalkOH.pdf. During the Holocene climatic optimum (8000 to 4000 BP) temperatures have most probably been more than today. I agree that proxies are not accurate to one degree Celsius, but the value interpreted from the proxy data will give a value but seldom with an error value.so the best you can say is that the result is an intelligent guess.

Michael,

I am not sure that you are on the right track. It is obvious that an increase in air mass in a confined container will cause an adiabatic increase in the temperature, but that will be only a short lived event or in your case may be a set of short lived events.

The rise in temperature would be understandable if the pressure increase would be momentaneous, but not during a hundreds of years long process. The slow temperature increase would have dissipated many time over, because the atmosphere is very quick in losing heat both via convection, lapse rate and IR radiation to space.

Simply stated, take a container of air, pump in some additional air and sure enough the temperature inside the container will rise according to the ideal gas formula P*T/V. But how long do you think it will take the air in the container to cool and attain ambient temperature? Not very long!

It comes from the Pressure - Volume - Temperature relationship:

P V = n R T. I f we make the rash assumption that the Volume changes

very little , then an increase in pressure over the 276 year span results in

a change in temperature over that same time span.

Since combustion increases the volume of the water, and the volume of the

Atmospheric gasses ( mostly CO2 ), the increase in Temperature is due to

the residual increase in the volume of O2 being converted to CO2.

Most of the water, and a significant amount of the CO2 are used by trees,

and incorporated into the oceans. So it is only the left over CO2 that

increases the volume of the Atmosphere. The excess water ends up

in the oceans, so no increase in Atmospheric volume results solely from

the increase in the water, only a slow increase in the elevation of the

ocean levels.

In addition, the specific heat of the oceans is enormous. There is more

specific heat in the top two meters of the oceans, than the entire 100 km

high air column. This severely retards the rate of global warming because the

oceans can dissipate heat for centuries before the average temperature

of the planet rises significantly.

I was just reading that since 2000, the average global water temperature has risen

by 0.2 degrees C. This is a phenomenal rate of change in ocean temperatures,

considering the immense volume of the oceans.

The 3.77 C increase in temperature would then be the maximum

increase possible. If you add 0.2 C to that in the last 12 years, and

the unknown increase between 1976 and 2000, the total possible increase

is around + 4 C between 1700 and 2012 ( delta t = 312 years ).

Because the increase is not linear but either geometric or exponential,

the instantaneous rate of increase at each time period is greater than the

previous rate. Or more to the point, it takes a shorter and shorter time period to

increase the temperature by 0.1 C per each elapsed time period.

The only way to stop this is to stop burning, or to collect the CO2 and inject it

deep into the planet. The reefs can not keep up, the trees can not keep up,

I doubt we could grow limestone fast enough, We could create green houses

with high CO2 levels, but we just make too much CO2 way too fast

to be able to stop the increase in the volume of the Atmosphere.

Michael,

I am sorry, in the rush of time I misspelt the gas formula so , yes you are right it should read P V = n R T.

However, the validity of the rest of your comment does not make sense, because as I mentioned any temperature increase due to a pressure increase (in your previous comment) will dissipate very quickly.

You are right about the dissipation if the input was intermittent or infrequent, but

since the input of new gasses is continuous day and night from power plants, and

semi-continuous from automobiles, results indicate that the inflow of new gasses

far exceed the natural systems ability to get rid of the excess gases, or the excess heat.

I am working on a bridge replacement project over railroad tracks. The coal trains

pass under the bridge 34 times per day. There are 116 coal cars in each train.

They can not be longer because they need to be just under 1 mile in length so they

do not block roads crossing the tracks when they are stopped to let other trains pass.

These trains only supply coal for six or seven electric power plants.

Conservatively every coal fired power plant then requires 5 train loads of coal

every day to supply electricity. There are thousands of power plants requiring

this amount of coal every day on this planet.

The numbers are staggering, and the un-sustainability of this rate of consumption

of a resource with a finite total quantity on the planet is more than sobering.

Michael,

The influence of urban areas and obviously power plants and traffic is well described in: http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Cities_Affect_Temperatures_For_Thousands_Of_Miles_999.html

I understand that you are concerned of the additional energy added by human activities and as the cited article points out it does seem to have some observable influence on atmospheric circulation, but compared to solar energy it is still very minor to have a real effect.

What bothers me, is your view that the atmosphere is gaining gas molecules at a rate which you find discomforting. Is this view based on actual research or is just your own gut feeling?

I still insist that your view of warming due to slow pressure build-up can not be proven scientifically, because of the many processes trying to keep global temperatures at levels suitable for a water planet will remove at least most of the additional heat. I apologise for my words if you can show some reliable scientific reports on the subject.

Indeed, that aspect is not taken into account, in most climate predictions ,Mr Kampmann

Boris, I also think the Michael is confusing a derived unit, the Pascal, with the definition of 1 atmosphere, which is 1013.25 hPa and assuming they were once the same. A bad assumption.

The definition of the ATM unit was taken as the mean atmospheric pressure at the latitude of Paris. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_%28unit%29

The Pascal is a derived unit, not a fundamental unit, being 1 N / m^2. A Newton, 1 kg-m/s^2 was originally the force required to accelerate 1000 ml of water at 4 deg C by one m/s^2. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meter_%28unit%29 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilogram A Pascal is simply that force applied to a surface area of one square meter. There is no intrinsic relationship between the Pascal and atmospheric pressures. What we have is an interplay between the unit of mass, the unit of length, and the unit of time.

For that matter, burning fossil fuels does not cause any significant increase in atmospheric volume. The oxygen had to be already there. If you convert one mole of O2 to one mole of CO2, you still have one mole of gas. To the extent that both act as ideal gases (a good approximation under atmospheric conditions), one mole of gas has the same volume as any other mole of gas (22.4 liters at STP). To the extent that one is not just burning carbons but hydrocarbons, you also convert some O2 into water. The amount of water in the atmosphere is controlled by other processes--any excess will be condensed out as precipitation. This would actually be a process for decreasing the volume of the atmosphere, but not by a significant amount.

Now let's consider the additional column mass of increasing atmospheric CO2 from 280 ppmv to 390 ppmv or 110 ppmv. That's an increase from 32 g/mole to 44 g/mole or a fractional increase of (44/32-1) equaling 0.375.

So % increase in mass per unit area = 100 * 110e-6 * 0.375 = 0.0041 %

That's enough to change 1000 hPa to 1000.04 hPa.

And yes, even if there were added heat, it would not be a significant addition. Earth's effective temperature is a matter of the balance in the flow of incoming solar radiation absorbed by the earth versus infrared radiation emitted to space. That flow is large. In order to affect the balance, you have to modify one of the flows significantly.

That same issue of flows versus reservoirs used to come up in discussions of the catalytic destruction of ozone. "Couldn't we just add back the extra ozone?". No, not unless you can reduce the rate of destruction or increase the rate of production. Any fixed amount of ozone is quickly lost.

Temporarily skipping the math, and looking at the long term temperature history, the Earth seems to have two stable average temperatures 13 C and 22 C. Long term

meaning the last 542 million years ( Left edge of the wall chart - A CORRELATED HISTORY OF THE EARTH ). From other sources is also has some extremes that

range from a low of 9 C to a high of 26 C.

The question then becomes, will the change in the system where man removes

hydrogen and carbon from its sequestered locations inside the Earth change the

volume and composition of the Atmosphere enough to eventually move the temperatures above the upper stable number of 22 C. ?

The obvious temporary feedback cooling mechanism is the melting of glaciers,

and the ice water entering the oceans will tend to offset the increase in temperatures

caused by both changing composition ( more CO2), and more mass ( no matter how small the gradually increasing volumetric change rate ).

The fairly obvious concept here is that the earth has been melting glaciers

and ice sheets for more than the last 10,000 years, and there was a dramatic

increase in the elevations of the oceans due to the prior melt down of

approximately + 120 meters. This melt down is continuing, and the

average global temperature has increased from around 13 C to 14.5 C in

the geologically recent past.

The most important question here is how long will the world's remaining glaciers last ? How much higher will the ocean levels become ? What will the RATE of temperature change be before and after total glacial melt ? What will be the

ultimate upper stable temperature ?

The Earth has spent vastly more of the last 542 million year near the upper

stable temperature of 22 C ( when CO2 ranged between 1000 PPM and 6000 PPM. ) than the lower stable temperature of 13 C ( when CO2 was in the 280 to

385 PPM range).

I seriously doubt that any changes man made at this late date would do anything to

abate the progress toward a total melt down, and increase in temperature to

the upper stable average of 22 C. Since this process started more than 10,000

years ago, it has a momentum of its own that will go to completion no matter how creative man becomes in an effort to stop it.

Michael Clark: "Since this process started more than 10,000 years ago, it has a momentum of its own that will go to completion no matter how creative man becomes in an effort to stop it."

very "nice" indirect suggestion!

so, let's do nothing, because our fate is anyway already established (= can not be changed)

Michael Clark's bit about adding mass to the atmosphere prompted me to search up the relative solubility of O2 and CO2 in seawater. The answer turned up via Google books in a couple of oceanography texts. Because it dissociates into H+ and bicarbonate, CO2 is about 1000 times more soluble than O2. A recent paper on earth system modeling also mentions that about 55% of anthropogenic CO2 since 1959 remains in the atmosphere (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2010BAMS3012.1).

If one looks at this flux of CO2 as being mainly into the oceans and as removing the O2 that the carbon combined with in burning, then the mass flux out of the atmosphere (removing o2 at a mass of 32) would be greater than the mass added (adding a C to O2). In other words, burning fossil fuels could ironically, by removing O2, reduce the mass of the atmosphere.

In truth, one would need to model biospheric fluxes (as per the reference above) to determine the net effect, but it does demonstrate the difficulty in using seat of the pants reasoning in earth system modeling.

Essentials of Oceanography:

http://books.google.com/books?id=srUHU4SrCT4C&pg=PA133&lpg=PA133&dq=solubility+of+oxygen+vs+carbon+dioxide+in+seawater&source=bl&ots=PQnKdkwW2Z&sig=ZsLuhHaQnzBKrTX4UGLGI_8WopI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=pUw-UZ7rH6WMygHL7YCwDA&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=solubility%20of%20oxygen%20vs%20carbon%20dioxide%20in%20seawater&f=false

If 55 % of the CO2 Produced remains in the atmosphere, then 45 % is being

sequestered by the trees and the oceans, and 55 % is not being sequestered by the trees and the oceans. In 1976 the atmospheric concentration of CO2 was 332 PPM.

by 2012 it had climbed to 395 PPM. The Oxygen comes from the Atmosphere, the carbon comes from inside the Earth from coal, natural gas or petroleum products.

In short, mass is being transferred from inside the Earth to the Atmosphere, the oceans, and thru the trees back into the Earth. Only 55% of the mass of the carbon

being transferred is remaining in the atmosphere. Since the CO2 concentration

is increasing via addition of carbon, the mass of the atmosphere is increasing because not all of the carbon added is being sequestered.

In short the inflow rate of carbon to the atmosphere is greater than the outflow

rate of carbon to the oceans and the trees. The increase from 1976 to

2012 was 395 - 332 = + 63 PPM. as a conversion from the O2 that already existed

in the atmosphere to the CO2 that now exists in the atmosphere by the addition of

C, Carbon.

If I remember right C = 12 or 13, and O2 = 2 x 16 = 32 , so the

change is from 32 to 45 or about 29 % mass increase in each molecule.

0.288888888 x 63 = 18.2 PPM volume increase in the atmosphere between

1976 and 2012. This is a 0.00182 % volume increase in the Atmosphere

between 1976 and 2012. If you use 78.2% Nitrogen at ( 18 ??? ),

and 20.8% O2 at 32, and a little CO2 at 45, the increase in the mass

is about 0.002% of 5.1 E 18 Kg = 1.02 E 14 Kg increase in the mass of the atmosphere in the last 36 Years.

We know the rate of increase is not linear, but the linear rate is

2.83 E 12 Kg increase in atmospheric mass per year.

For convenience lets assume a current rate of increase of 3.5 E 12 kg

atmospheric mass increase per year distributed over 7.0 E 9 Humans,

that is 500 kg of new carbon per person per year being added to the

mass of the atmosphere, and a similar amount being sequestered into the

oceans and trees to the Earth.

If we assume 1 metric tonn ( 1000 kg ) of carbon per person per year is being added to the system, but only half of it is being sequestered naturally, then

it is obvious that we need to change the way we produce power for both

electricity, and locomotion.

In the last 540 plus million years, there were only a few times that the planet

assumed the lower temperature plateau of 13 C. They corresponded with

periods of lots of vegetation which removed the excess CO2 from the

1000 to 6000 PPM range to values around 385 PPM or less.

Cutting down the forests, and filling the atmosphere with CO2 are going

to result in a lesson in natural selection that we really do not want to learn the

hard way. I really do not think too many species will do well at the upper

plateau of 22 C average temperature.

Summer temperature between 130 F and 160 F could become common place

in many parts of the world.

Michael says: "In short the inflow rate of carbon to the atmosphere is greater than the outflow rate of carbon to the oceans and the trees."

True in terms of just the carbon. However, the carbon added to the atmosphere increases the molecular weight of a molecule by approximately 12 (32 to 44). The removal of CO2 to the ocean removes both the added carbon and the original O2 molecule (net reduction of 32). So in terms of percentages and mass, the added side is about 12*0.55 and the removal side is about 32*0.45. So, ignoring biosystem effects the net removal of mass to the oceans would be greater than the net addition of mass.

Michael says: "0.288888888 x 63 = 18.2 PPM volume increase in the atmosphere between 1976 and 2012"

No, under the good approximation of the ideal gas law, increasing the mass of a molecule does not increase the volume of the gas. The ideal gas law can be written as PV = NkT, where k is the Boltzmann constant. The RMS velocity of a gas is given by v_rms = sqrt(3kT/m). The kinetic energy of a molecule is thus

KE = (1/2) m v^2 = (3/2) kT, which is independent of molecular mass.

Multiplying by N molecules and considering the force applied to the sides of a box (as at http://inside.mines.edu/~dwu/classes/CH351/labs/elastomer/Dry%20Lab%204/idealgas.html) completes the ideal gas law with PV independent of the mass of a molecule.

Keith

You may have solved a problem that I have wondered about for a couple of years

now. The question is how can the Earth maintain itself within a life sustaining

temperature range for more than the last 630 million years, while the composition

and mass of the Atmosphere changes, the volume of the oceans changes, the volume of the planet changes, the surface area of the planet changes, and

there are sudden drops in the ocean levels when oceans find access to

large dry basins ( like the Mediterranean ).

The Oceans would then control the volume of the atmosphere, or at least

part of the volume of the atmosphere, thus controlling temperatures.

Michael Keith-Eric

This is quite an extraordinary dialogue, but I lost the connection with the original question

"how can sun influences in earth's climate"

which by the way is one of those childish questions asked in this topic of Climate Change. In other topics (young) scientists ask real questions in order to get answers that help them in their research

Harry

I suppose the connection for me is that it's difficult to have informative discussions on such matters without keeping basic atmospheric physics and thermodynamics on track. Since we all don't have the same background, sometimes filling in some of that arises, independent of the specific question,

That said, and getting back to the actual topic, I saw notice this morning of a paper on the synchronization of internal oscillations with orbital cycles.

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1756.html

"Here we show that climate oscillations over the past four million years can be explained by a single mechanism: the synchronization of nonlinear internal climate oscillations and the 413,000-year eccentricity cycle. Using spectral analyses aided by a numerical model, we find that the climate system first synchronized to the 413,000-year eccentricity cycle about 1.2 million years ago and has remained synchronized ever since. This synchronization results in a nonlinear transfer of power and frequency modulation that increases the amplitude of the 100,000-year cycle. We conclude that the forced synchronization can explain the strong 100,000-year glacial cycles through the alignment of insolation changes and internal climate oscillations."

Of course, underlying all of this is the concept that the earth lies within the habitable zone of our local star. The zeroth order answer to the question is that the sun supplies the energy that makes a suitable range of climates on earth possible. http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast141/Unit5/Lect34_StarHZ.pdf

The orbital changes ride atop that basic assumption.

Keith-Eric

Yes climate starts with the sun. But we may ask from scientists/pupilsd participating in ReasearchGate that they do their homework first and that is googling

That was the first answer to this question, namely you come to Wikipedia for information that is more than sufficient for such a childish question.

And also

the subtitle of the question is:

"Which parameter is more important?"

YOU DO NOT give PARAMETERS

Then you ask us WHICH parameter is more important

Sorry this is in not the scientific way to ask a question

Perhaps a better question is which combination inter-relationships will lead

to possible High Fatalities due to either global freezing, or global warming.

For this we need to look at the near term Historical Data, and the prior

geological and geophysical data to determine correlations between

Solar Activities ( Solar Output ), Release of excess CO2, and release of

trapped Methane.

The Sun Spot Minima that lasted until the Early 1700's had devastating

effects on climate, and the growing season, due to Global Cooling, crop failures,

famine, long cold winters, and ice flooding in the spring.

When Coronado was wintering over by taking over the pueblos along the

Rio Grande River, he rode his horses across the Ice.

The cold spell was prolonged, so by 1680 the pueblos revolted and killed

all the Spanish. In the Early 1700's the Spanish returned to New Mexico, and

by 1720, the rivers stopped freezing over. This was the time the Sun Spots returned.

1978 was the last time the temperature anomaly had any negative numbers,

and the CO2 has been climbing at at ever steeper gradient since the 1700's ,

it has risen from around 280 PPM to 395 PPM in the last 312 years. In that same

time period, Human Population has risen from 600 million to 7 billion plus.

Transportation has changed from Horse and wagon, canals, sailing ships, and

the introduction of the steam engine to the cars, trucks, trains, planes, and

mega power plants. The Melting of the Permafrost is beginning to release

methane, and that is what led to the death of all the larger species

prior to the evolution of the dinosaurs around 200 MYA. The acid ocean

Extinction occurred around 252.6 million years ago.

Our current and future extinction will include both Acid Oceans, and High

CO2, and mega Methane Release, and changes in Solar Energy output

that seems somewhat unpredictable.

I suppose we should enjoy the warm winters while we can.

In the last 312 years humans have produced approximately 14.4

Quadrillion Kg of CO2, a production of 2800 PPM CO2, but the increase

in the atmospheric CO2 has only increase by 115 PPM.

The rest went into trees and the oceans, but we are now cutting

down the remainder of the world's largest forests. When the

oceans exceed 500 PPM of CO2, all of the reefs will die.

It was 70 degrees F today ( 3-17-13 ) where I live at 6100 FT elevation.

Use the Milankovitch equations and graphs for the extraterrestrial input.

I have writen and documented and detailed described that, and discovered the mechanisms involved in climate variability

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Dimis_Poulos

it's all writen in here

with my approach you can predict solar cycles for the next several thousands of years for as long as you have astronomical data since I have documented the planetary gravitational tidal origin of solar cycles and solar wind and their effect on climate

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Dimis_Poulos

Correspondence between solar and geomagnetic disturbance emissions this

related and proven in recent years, the discussion focuses, now if

these disturbances only affect the external field and their respective rings Van

Allen, or also contribute to the angular momentum of the rotation of the core or, in

other words, to provide particles Theory of the Earth's core

Dinamo Terrestre-, momentum through magnetic induction, due Sol

He has supplied.

This impulse that continuously solar, emission supplied to our

planet, and sometimes they have singularities, and also continuously

have been sampling, indicating the type of alert, either by radiation or

magnetic variation, necessarily lead us to link the two events, such

so that the variation in -Chandler- wobbles and delays in the sidereal year,

therefore they must be able to also correlate. The scope of this article

It is only on the phenomenon of magnetic decay of the Earth, I

It leads to relate the proportionality between the effects of global core,

and the field strength.

For this it is necessary to ask whether the core is just a metal body

static with ferromagnetic diminished by heating capabilities, or if the flow

Particle -electrones- internal current flows through a material more

resistive. In any case, the correlation should be given only if, particulate emissions

from Sun, it is inversely proportional to the field strength

Geomagnetic.