Changes In Solar Brightness Too Weak To Explain Global Warming

Terra Daily ^ | September 13, 2006 | Staff Writers

[cogitator]

It should be somewhat comforting that the Sun is constant.

I do have a problem with this on the millenial scale; the recent NAS report indicated that for time periods more than 400 years ago, the proxy data is too limited to provide definitive temperature information. That "blend of seven recent reconstructions" is therefore of limited value for this assessment for the periods more than 400 years ago. But this is important information for the more recent centuries.

[cogitator]

ping

[Jeff Chandler]

Then what about Mars?

[who_would_fardels_bear]

The theory about Mars is that it was too small to keep its molten core from solidifying. Once the core solidified it lost its magnetic field which allowed the solar wind to blast away its atmosphere over time.

[tx_eggman]

Many recent studies have attributed the bulk of 20th-century global warming to an increase in greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere.

None of them, however, has proved it.

Damnit, how many times do I have to put this out there before I'm heard ... the root cause of Global Warming® is the demise of the pirate:

[BRITinUSA]

Brightness of the sun has nothing to do with the temperature. Solar flares etc. will affect temps.

[MNJohnnie]

Of course. There is NOT a large enough of sun spot cycle data for them to compare to to make this claim DOES NOT matter. No, what matters it the Church of Global Warming High Priest see their Government funding evaporating so they have to manufacture some fraudulent data to avoid actually addressing the facts of the real causes of global warming.

Perhaps the probpandists of Manmade Global Warming MIGHT explain to us the signs of warming on Mars and Pluto if their claims here are true?

Let see. NASA studies show changes in the sun spot cycle during Shakespears time causes a shift in weather sever enough to cause the lagoon at Venice and the Thames at London to regularly freeze. Something that has not happened in modern times. Gee seem pretty clear what agency has the greatest impact on World Climate.

[cogitator]

Then what about Mars?

Global warming on Mars?

[massgopguy]

"Constant?" Wait until it runs out of Hydrogen and becomes a Helium burning Red Giant. Good-bye Inner Planets.

[cogitator]

Solar flares etc. will affect temps.

Contact the study's authors and discuss your conclusions with them.

[SlowBoat407]

Nice to know someone's been keeping accurate records on the relatively small changes in the sun's brightness for the last 1,000 years.

[Jeff Chandler]

The pirate theory seems plausible enough.

[cogitator]

Let see. NASA studies show changes in the sun spot cycle during Shakespears time causes a shift in weather sever enough to cause the lagoon at Venice and the Thames at London to regularly freeze.

This is mentioned in the article; the Little Ice Age was most intense in Europe, and the globe has been warming since the 1600s-1700s. It's attributable to the Maunder Minimum; low sunspot activity, decreased solar output.

[Buckhead]

Can you relate this to Muller's analysis? Does he deal with fluctuations in the Sun's output?

[cogitator]

Nice to know someone's been keeping accurate records on the relatively small changes in the sun's brightness for the last 1,000 years.

I think they use beryllium-10 in ice cores.

[CedarDave]

"Our results imply that, over the past century, climate change due to human influences must far outweigh the effects of changes in the Sun's brightness," says Wigley.

Notice that Wigley uses the wiggle word "imply".

[Always Right]

Damnit, how many times do I have to put this out there before I'm heard ... the root cause of Global Warming® is the demise of the pirate:

It does look like a pretty strong correlation, which is more than you can say for CO2.

[freedumb2003]

It gets dark 1/2 the time.

[MNJohnnie]

There is no plausible physical cause for long-term changes in solar brightness other than changes caused by sunspots and faculae," says Wigley.

So even the chief propagandist here admits they ducked the issue. It about Sunspots NOT about "brightness" The argument presented here is a complete red herring! It does NOT address the point made about Sun Spots AT ALL!

[Ditto]

U. S. and European spacecraft show that the Sun is about 0.07 percent brighter in years of peak sunspot activity, such as around 2000, than when spots are rare (as they are now, at the low end of the 11-year solar cycle). Variations of this magnitude are too small to have contributed appreciably to the accelerated global warming observed since the mid-1970s, according to the study, and there is no sign of a net increase in brightness over the period.

But somehow, the 0.2% addition of man-made greenhouse gasses is enough.