I would like to make clear one more point regarding Steve's assertion about
total solar irradience. The ethical issue is this:

The "Climate Change: cross-Canada Briefings Before Kyoto" submitted by the
Royal Society of Canada, refer to one important finding.

"There is evidence that tropospheric ozone concentrations in the Northern
Hemisphere have increased since pre-industrial times because of human
activity and that this has resulted in a positive radiative forcing. This
forcing is not yet well characterized, but it is estimated to be about 0.4
W/m^2 (15 % of that from the long-lived greenhouse gases)."

This means we as humans must respond to our actions and technologies, or...

The evidence here points out a positve feedback associated with the
emissions of ozone depleting chemicals such as HFC and other indirect
Greehhouse Gases. This also suggests that that increased total solar
irradience [outside the atmosphere]  will augment the effect of
anthropogenic GHGs added to the troposphere.

Secondly, there is one other positive feedback associated with the increased
forcing of CO2 and other long-lived greenhouse gases. That feedback results
in lower temperatures in the stratosphere; temperatures that descend to
below -60 celsius over the Antarctic. When the temperature reaches this
level the ozone in the stratosphere is destroyed through a chemical change.
This is the direct cause of much of the ozone depletion in the stratosphere
above the Antarctic. The positive feedback occurs even without the presence
of ozone depleting chemicals such as Nitrogen dioxide, HFCs, etc.

One more point:

There are many gases in the troposphere which are 'heat trapping', for instance:

Methane: CH4 has a forcing of 0.47 Watts per square meter [landfills,
fugitive gases from gas wells, bogs in the boreal forests, agricultural
lands & wastes]

Carbon Dioxide: has a forcing of 1.56 Watts per square meter [forest
destruction contributes 40 %, fossil fuels contribute 60% of the total
anthropogenic emissions]

N20 has a forcing of 0.14 Watts per square meter

The net forcing of the long lived greenhouse gases is 2.45 Watts per square
meter.

Now adding the forcing due to increased irradiance of 0.4 Watts per square
meter resulting from reduced ozone in the stratosphere, there is a total of
2.85 Watts per square meter directly attributable to anthropogenic emmissions.

There are other positive feedbacks that increase the effect of the solar
irradience that reaches the earth surface areas. One of this is the melting
of ice caps, and reduced winter snow surface areas in the northern and
southern hemisphere. The reduced coverage of ice and snow results in a lower
albedo or reflective surface. This means that more solar radiation is
converted into 'sensible heat'. This acts as a positive feedback and
increases global warming on average.

One other positive feedback occurs with the higher surface surface
temperatures. Higher air temperatures results in higher relative humidity
and water vapour is a very potent greenhouse gas. So as the temperature
warms up more vapour from oceans and lakes and in the forests there will be,
on average, higher humidity. This will positively increase surface
temperatures on its' own, and, in addition, result in more storms,
especially within the tropics where hurricanes occur. A hurricane can only
occur where the temperature near the surface is above 80 degrees Fahrenheit

>As for the longer time series of my data, it is as I have noted before,
>reconstructed data from proxy sources.  It is the data that is used by
>James Hansen in his predicitions of global warming.  Thus, if John's
>criticisms are actually true, that the data has been cooked, it means the
>predicitions form Hansen, et. al. are also wrong.  ROFLMAO!!

Thanks for supplying that info on the proxy sources. I am not agreeing with
you that the data is 'cooked' but I do agree that the data was not taken
from outside the atmosphere from satellite data. That was my only point.
Maybe the proxy data is correct, but I am not qualified to say anything
unless I knew about the methodology.

Thanks for agreeing that solar irradiance outside the atmosphere has shown a
declining trend between 1979 and 1996. That was my point presented by the
other satellite data, which is 'conclusive'. The implication is more
serious: if total solar irradiance increases now, then the positive feeback
associated with the destruction of the ozone layer will contribure more to
global warming and climate change.

Hey we agree...

back to my hammack

chao,

john foster, MSc candidate, Environmental Sciences, Royalroads University
 [may graduate next spring]




>
>Thanks John, I need a good laugh.
>
>Steve
>
>=====
>"In a nutshell, he [Steve] is 100% unadulterated evil. I do not believe in
a 'Satan', but this man is as close to 'the real McCoy' as they come."
>--Jamey Lee West
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
>http://shopping.yahoo.com/
>