Skip to comments.Study acquits sun of climate change, blames humans
Posted on 09/14/2006 1:34:00 PM PDT by SirLinksalot
Study acquits sun of climate change, blames humans
By Alister Doyle, Environment Correspondent
OSLO (Reuters) - The sun's energy output has barely varied over the past 1,000 years, raising chances that global warming has human rather than celestial causes, a study showed on Wednesday.
Researchers from Germany, Switzerland and the United States found that the sun's brightness varied by only 0.07 percent over 11-year sunspot cycles, far too little to account for the rise in temperatures since the Industrial Revolution.
"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," said Tom Wigley of the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research.
Most experts say emissions of greenhouse gases, mainly from burning fossil fuels in power plants, factories and cars, are the main cause of a 0.6 Celsius (1.1 F) rise in temperatures over the past century.
A dwindling group of scientists says that the dominant cause of warming is a natural variation in the climate system, or a gradual rise in the sun's energy output.
"The solar contribution to warming over the past 30 years is negligible," the researchers wrote in the journal Nature of evidence about the sun from satellite observations since 1978.
They also found little sign of solar warming or cooling when they checked telescope observations of sunspots against temperature records going back to the 17th century.
They then checked more ancient evidence of rare isotopes and temperatures trapped in sea sediments and Greenland and Antarctic ice and also found no dramatic shifts in solar energy output for at least the past millennium.
SUN NOT GUILTY
"This basically rules out the sun as the cause of global warming," Henk Spruit, a co-author of the report from the Max Planck Institute in Germany, told Reuters.
Many scientists say greenhouse gases might push up world temperatures by perhaps another 3 Celsius by 2100, causing more droughts, floods, disease and rising global sea levels.
Spruit said a "Little Ice Age" around the 17th century, when London's Thames River froze, seemed limited mainly to western Europe and so was not a planet-wide cooling that might have implied a dimmer sun.
And global Ice Ages, like the last one which ended about 10,000 years ago, seem linked to cyclical shifts in the earth's orbit around the sun rather than to changes in solar output.
"Overall, we can find no evidence for solar luminosity variations of sufficient amplitude to drive significant climate variations on centennial, millennial or even million-year timescales," the report said.
Solar activity is now around a low on the 11-year cycle after a 2000 peak, when bright spots called faculae emit more heat and outweigh the heat-plugging effect of dark sunspots. Both faculae and dark sunspots are most common at the peaks.
Still, the report also said there could be other, more subtle solar effects on the climate, such as from cosmic rays or ultraviolet radiation. It said they would be hard to detect.
Wait, did I read this correctly? Gore is wrong?
Ha ha, so is the warming itself. Noob.
Well, I guess all of Fitzgerald's plans to indict the sun have been ruined.
OK. So if not the sun's luminosity, then what about the orbit in the past 100 years?
Sun hires Gloria Allred and sues for defamation.
But not Global Warming Ages? Hypocrisy and illogical hypocrisy at that!...........
Why are the polar ice caps on Mars shrinking? Is that our fault too?
This has to be some of the 'worst' rebuttal I've ever heard. I quit reading after they said the sun's intensity hadn't varied much over the last 1000 yrs.
Fitz'll havta settle for a MOON instead..........
Good, hard, repeatble science all around, I'd say ...
No bias here! FOAD FOAD FOAD on the surface of the sun, idiots.
I suppose the Medieval Warming Period was caused by Vikings, Huns and Mongols burning village?
NOT QUITE. All it says is that the warming can't be from photons emitted by the sun. Thus far, global warming "theory" has completely ignored the possibility of OTHER solar-induced mechanisms. The suns magnetic field has doubled in strength over its measurement history. This unquestionably affects the energy "coupled" between the sun and the earth. It could also affect the amount of cosmic rays reaching the earth--which is also proven to affect cloud formation (and thus global temperatures).
Naw, he'll just lump the sun and moon together in a civil lawsuit.
Just the Vikings. They were Westerners, and therefore solely to blame.
In the past 30 years, temperature increases have been neglible. In the past 30 years, solar output variance has been negligible. But, based on 30 years of data, mankind must be responsible for the past 100 years of global temperature increases.
How these guys get from A to C without going through B is ridiculous.
And any nitwit who says that 0.07% variance in solar output is negligible deserves to be drowned in 0.07% of the world's oceans. We'll see what he thinks of 0.07% of a heck of a lot of anything is like after that.
Obviously we should have put emission controls on the Mars Rover!
Average of 200W per square meter from the sun. There's 1 million square meters per square kilometer. So that's 200MW of solar energy per square kilometer. An increase of 0.07 percent would be 140 kW extra energy per square kilometer.
Here's where it gets fun - there's roughly 500,000,000 square kilometers on the earth. At any given time, half of those are illuminated by the sun. So that's an extra 35,000 GW of energy delivered to the earth - EVERY DAY.
About what the state of California uses every day.
Now ask your "it's all MAN'S FAULT!" moonbat if they'd like to remove the equivalent energy use of California to combat Global Warming and they'd be all over it...
See, it's hard to beat the energy output of the sun... When you get 200W per square meter that is a LOT of energy. Even small changes - a few ten-thousandths - adds up REALLY QUICK because of the size of the earth, and that much power radiated from the sun...
Gosh, really? I kinda thought we got all of our warming from the sun. (Can you imagine how many SUVs it would take to heat the earth?) Seems to me that without the sun, well, we'd be rather cold.
Which is to suggest that any line of inquiry that doesn't look at the sun's energy first, especially sunspotswhich are known to increase the solar energy reaching the earthis silly.
A 1 degree shift in temperature over last century proves the other scientists theories that the sun itself may be the cause for solar energy output. Surely, 1 degree temperature change can't be considered 'dramatic', especially when measured against unreliable devices used back during the 17th through 19th centuries. We are talking back to Martin Luther time period here.
I never thought that accountants and physicists would share the same desire to make the numbers say what they want them to say!
I remain convinced that we are near the end of an Interglacial Period, in which case these enviro fart-chasers will be irrelevant, and cold.
Not only that, those villians were the direct ancestors to George Bush thus it is George Bushes's fault :)
Just so. The current warming trend fits right in with the historical pattern, so it seems likely that it too is caused by "cyclical shifts in the earth's orbit". (Which is a poor description of the actual phenomena, but it'll do)
The study underlying this article was given a serious beat-down on an extended FR thread yesterday. Even those who believe that there are extraterrestrial climate forcings do not believe that variations in the sun's energy output is important. Instead, solar cycles affect cloud formation through their effect on the amount of ionizing radiation coming from space.
They don't use measurements from the period, they use "surrogates", things which are sensitive to temperature, and which leave a "fossil" record of those things.
OK, lets put out the sun and see what happens.
BTW in the last 60 years industry has decreased its particulate emissions probably close to 90%. Therefore there is a lot more sunlight actually hitting the ground now than there was 100 years ago when everyone was burning unfiltered coal and driving on dirt roads and freely spewing all manner of particulate matter into the air.
Does anyone stop to think that maybe all these modern and very effective smog devices and paved roads are contributing to or causing global warming? We certainly didn't have all this global warming when the smog was so thick you could cut it with a knife.
"We certainly didn't have all this global warming when the smog was so thick you could cut it with a knife."
Right, and we didn't have global warming before the women got the right to vote, either.
I thought his study was on the sun, not human activity. Scientific objectiveness on parade again. Much like, "We've ruled out cancer as a cause of death, and that can only mean its murder."
Yet another group spewing the standard alarmist line. They must have a standard manual of lies.
You're right, the reason the earth warmed is because the Vikings burned so many villages. The burning villages heated the clouds which caused rain to fall instead of snow, and soon the Vikings were growing grapes in Greenland.
With the warm weather, the Vikings found they could employ their slaves to grow grapes and other food. This left time for the Vikings to pursue other activities like counting their loot. Laying about while overseeing slaves, counting loot and ogling maidens was certainly a less dangerous line of work and more pleasurable.
The Vikings pursued this occupation for about 200 years. And since they werent burning villages anymore, the clouds didnt heat up. So the earth stopped warming, the snow returned, the Earth got hit with a 300 year mini-ice age and the marauding Vikings sailed off into history.
Albedo (a measure of earth's reflectivity contolling solar insolation (incidence of sunlight with the surface) varies more more readily to variation in Solar activity effecting changes in the amount of sunlight reaching surface and hence temperature.
Variation of brightness of the sun is not the only variable related to solar activity at work here.
Figure 3: The correlation between cosmic ray flux (orange) as measured in Neutron count monitors in low magnetic latitudes, and the low altitude cloud cover (blue) using ISCCP satellite data set, following Marsh & Svensmark, 2003.
The solar-activity cosmic-ray-flux cloud-cover correlation is quite apparent.
I'd surely like to know exactly just what they were actually measuring in this study. I'm sorry, but "brightness" just doesn't cut it for describing scientifically what they were looking at. Visible light - or "brightness" is actually only a small part of the sun's total output-- or any star's for that matter.
Then there is this brilliant obfuscation-
And global Ice Ages, like the last one which ended about 10,000 years ago, seem linked to cyclical shifts in the earth's orbit around the sun rather than to changes in solar output.
The earth's orbit around the sun is again only one small part of the overall motion through the cosmos that the planet Earth is subject to. How about the angle of the orbit in relation to all other motion, effects of axis tilt and precession [not just of the earth but of the sun's in relation to the galactic], or the motion of the sun itself through our galaxy, and through various different amounts of stellar dust, gases and other detritus that may or may not affect all of the solar system's bodies, not to mention the various magnetic and gravitational fields and their interactions- which these guys probably have zero knowledge of, because few of even the best physicists even admit to having a clue about all of that. Did their extensive study take any of these things into consideration in addition to sun spots and the sun's brightness??
Or are all these factors too much data sets for their computer models to handle - like clouds/water vapor are in their earth climate computer models?
Any scientist who makes claims and conclusions such as these yahus do certainly had better be able to show exactly all of the data set, parameters and interactions and how all of them are explicitly linked and interrelated before I'll believe a damn word they say.
Fer instance-- here are some interesting factual data about our solar system that these 'tards never even heard of probably:
Sun: More activity since 1940 than in previous 1150 years, combined
Mercury: Unexpected polar ice discovered, along with a surprisingly strong intrinsic magnetic field for a supposedly dead planet
Venus: 2500% increase in auroral brightness, and substantive global atmospheric changes in less than 30 years
Earth: Substantial and obvious world-wide weather and geophysical changes
Mars: "Global Warming", huge storms, disappearance of polar icecaps
Jupiter: Over 200% increase in brightness of surrounding plasma clouds
Saturn: Major decrease in equatorial jet stream velocities in only ~20 years, accompanied by surprising surge of X-rays from equator
Uranus: Really big, big changes in brightness, increased global cloud activity
Neptune: 40% increase in atmospheric brightness
Pluto: 300% increase in atmospheric pressure, even as Pluto recedes farther from the Sun
In a past GW thread, FReeper Wuli also posted this general, factual information, quoting Rusty Humphries:
(1)From The Sun itself:
The Sun - 1 - Magnetic Field Since 1901, the sun's magnetic field has become 230% stronger.
The Sun - 2 - Energy Output - Since the 1970s the energy output of the sun has increased by 0.05% per decade, or 0.15% up to now. Of course, that's not saying how much it might have increased from prior centuries before it was measured in the 1970s.
The Sun - 3 - Sunspots - Sunspots are related to the Sun's magnetic field and their occurance rises and falls with the Sun's energy cycles. And, Solar scientists say there have been more sunspots since the 1940s than in the past 1150 years.
The Sun - 4 - Solar Flares - Solar flares are magnetic storms on the Sun. They are huge eruptions of vast amounts of very hot high-energy particles and gases (from 3.6 million to 24 million °F), ejected far into space. A solar flare on November 4 of 2003 was described by scientists as one that "will go into the history books as one of the most dramatic solar activity periods in modern times" and "there has been none like it" as far as we know.
The Sun - 5 - Coronal Mass Ejection - Another type of solar event is called a "coronal mass ejection" - a huge, balloon-shaped burst of solar plasma that moves along the Sun's magnetic field lines and release s up to 220 billion pounds (100 billion kg) of plasma at temperatures up to tens of millions of degrees Fahrenheit. Recent measurements have shown they now travel into space faster than before - possibly indicating a greater level of energy and force behind their ejection.
(2) From Pluto - Pluto has been heading (in its normal orbit) away from the sun since 1989. And yet, a funny thing is that its atmospheric pressure has increased 300% since 1989. In spite of very low temperatures at Pluto, so far in space from the Sun, its atmosphere is warming.
(3) From Neptune and Uranus - When the interstellar probe Voyager passed Neptune, it recorded Neptune's magnetic field was offset 50% on its axis, suggesting its poles had shifted in the last 100 years. Voyager also found that the magnetic field of Uranus was offset by 60%, suggesting another pole shift. Are those shifts unrelated to the increased intensity of the Sun's magnetic field? Measurements from 1996 to 2002 show Neptune is 40% brighter in the infrared wavelength and some cloud bands in its atmosphere are 100% brighter. Neptune's atmosphere seems to be changing greatly and quickly, in recent years.
(4) From Jupiter - In addition to the items noted in the report this thread began with; the magnetic field of Jupiter has increased 200%. Along with this change, a tube of plasma (highly energized particles) has formed between Jupiter and its moon Io, with a strength of 1 million amperes. There are no astronomical references to this observation until very recently.
(5) From Mars - In addition to the items noted in the report this thread began with; the density of the Martian atmosphere increased 200% between the 1970s and 1999; the ozone decreased (like Earth's?); there are more clouds (more land-locked water is vaporizing?) and some features on its ice caps have eroded 50% (since 1999). NASA scientists admit that "Mars may be in the midst of a profound climate change".[Should we ask if NASA helped General Motors set up a SUV test facility up there?]
(6) From The Moon - Since the 1960s, the moon has started to form an atmosphere of sodium and potassium compounds. Those compounds were probably always present in the Moon's crust, but something recent has caused changes (energy?) to release them into the low gravity around the Moon.
A recent team of German scientists took ice core samples in the Alps and found that in Hannibal's time (when he invaded the Roman Empire) the mountain glaciers in the Alps covered 50% less area than they do today.
I guess the Romans had been driving SUVs back and forth over the Alps for at least a century before Hannibal, raising the CO2 levels in the area and melting the glaciers. I'm sure ole Hannibal did not know that Roman technology had paved his way over the Alps.
Notice again in the above points#1, #3 and #4, the Sun's magnetic field is mentioned, not its "brightness". Were these global warming shills measuring the solar magnetic flux along with the "brightness"?? I don't think so...
When "scientists" come up with precise, hard fast conclusions in favor of global warming [or even against it], it's really time to tell them to pull their heads out of their collective a$$es and quit trying to con everybody out of more $$$$ to propagate their particular biased view. Respectability and scientific reputation is something that has to be built and earned, and when they make stupid, self-serving conclusions from imperfect and incomplete data, they are only assuring that they will acheive neither. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon or a brain scientist to see through their bias and lack of evidence.
Also, I like the line, "It doesn't take a rocket surgeon or a brain scientist to see through their bias and lack of evidence."
They mention sunspots and brightness... but somehow overlook temperature and proximity. Interesting.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.