Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Sunspots reaching 1,000-year high
BBC News ^ | Tuesday, 6 July, 2004 | Dr David Whitehouse

Posted on 04/10/2007 7:30:56 AM PDT by George W. Bush

Sunspots reaching 1,000-year high

By Dr David Whitehouse
BBC News Online science editor

The Sun, Stanford University
Sunspots are plentiful nowadays

A new analysis shows that the Sun is more active now than it has been at anytime in the previous 1,000 years.

Scientists based at the Institute for Astronomy in Zurich used ice cores from Greenland to construct a picture of our star's activity in the past.

They say that over the last century the number of sunspots rose at the same time that the Earth's climate became steadily warmer.

This trend is being amplified by gases from fossil fuel burning, they argue.

'Little Ice Age'

Sunspots have been monitored on the Sun since 1610, shortly after the invention of the telescope. They provide the longest-running direct measurement of our star's activity.

The variation in sunspot numbers has revealed the Sun's 11-year cycle of activity as well as other, longer-term changes.

In particular, it has been noted that between about 1645 and 1715, few sunspots were seen on the Sun's surface.

This period is called the Maunder Minimum after the English astronomer who studied it.

Ice core disc, Epica
Ice cores record climate trends back beyond human measurements

It coincided with a spell of prolonged cold weather often referred to as the "Little Ice Age". Solar scientists strongly suspect there is a link between the two events - but the exact mechanism remains elusive.

Over the past few thousand years there is evidence of earlier Maunder-like coolings in the Earth's climate - indicated by tree-ring measurements that show slow growth due to prolonged cold.

In an attempt to determine what happened to sunspots during these other cold periods, Dr Sami Solanki and colleagues have looked at concentrations of a form, or isotope, of beryllium in ice cores from Greenland.

The isotope is created by cosmic rays - high-energy particles from the depths of the galaxy.

The flux of cosmic rays reaching the Earth's surface is modulated by the strength of the solar wind, the charged particles that stream away from the Sun's surface.

And since the strength of the solar wind varies over the sunspot cycle, the amount of beryllium in the ice at a time in the past can therefore be used to infer the state of the Sun and, roughly, the number of sunspots.

Latest warming

Dr Solanki is presenting a paper on the reconstruction of past solar activity at Cool Stars, Stellar Systems And The Sun, a conference in Hamburg, Germany.

He says that the reconstruction shows the Maunder Minimum and the other minima that are known in the past thousand years.

But the most striking feature, he says, is that looking at the past 1,150 years the Sun has never been as active as it has been during the past 60 years.

Over the past few hundred years, there has been a steady increase in the numbers of sunspots, a trend that has accelerated in the past century, just at the time when the Earth has been getting warmer.

The data suggests that changing solar activity is influencing in some way the global climate causing the world to get warmer.

Over the past 20 years, however, the number of sunspots has remained roughly constant, yet the average temperature of the Earth has continued to increase.

This is put down to a human-produced greenhouse effect caused by the combustion of fossil fuels.

This latest analysis shows that the Sun has had a considerable indirect influence on the global climate in the past, causing the Earth to warm or chill, and that mankind is amplifying the Sun's latest attempt to warm the Earth.



TOPICS: Extended News; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: algore; bees; bushesfault; climate; climatecycles; climatology; globalhotting; globalwarming; godsgravesglyphs; honey; honeybees; sun; sunspots; weathercycles
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 151-200201-250251-300301-307 next last
To: AaronInCarolina
It's not really a surprise when Christy and Spencer disagree with other analyses using the same data. It's been happening for years.

Having said that -- there used to be a major discrepancy. Now it's smaller. Other groups don't find one. And perhaps there are processes not adequately captured by models at this time. Ultimately it hasn't achieved the level of a major concern.

201 posted on 04/11/2007 11:12:45 AM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
So if Lindzen thinks as you think he does -- and I believe what you wrote is reasonably accurate -- I have strong confidence, at or above the 90% level, that he's basically wrong. And I've shown just one of many reasons why.

Does your 90% confidence in the IPCC allow for you to explain why for the past 6 or 7 years why there has been no appreciable continuation of the warming trend? And I base this upon GISS, NOAA and IPCC data. Any graph, even of surface temperatures, that you want to look at (if it is current up to 2007) show a plateau was reached by around 2001. This is the longest lasting stable period since the recent warming apparently began (assuming UHI isn't a big factor). Can we blame this on sulfate aerosols this time? There have been no big volcanic eruptions in this period. CO2 continues to go up rapidly over this 6 year period.
202 posted on 04/11/2007 11:12:59 AM PDT by AaronInCarolina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: AaronInCarolina

Maybe you should look at post 198 again. I see no appreciable plateau.


203 posted on 04/11/2007 11:14:56 AM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
Also from the GISS:



When the spikes due to El Nino are removed, it is a clear leveling off.
204 posted on 04/11/2007 11:24:09 AM PDT by AaronInCarolina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: AaronInCarolina
Also, this shows clear leveling off:


205 posted on 04/11/2007 11:28:33 AM PDT by AaronInCarolina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: AaronInCarolina
If it's from GISS, why does it say "Junkscience.com" on it?

Let's wrap this up. 1998 was the warmest year in the record, with a major El Nino, according to NOAA. GISS puts 2005 above 1998, NOAA puts it just barely under 1998. Either way, there was no El Nino in 2005. For that to happen, there has to be an underlying warming trend -- like it or not, and not matter how Steve Milloy replots the data. If the El Nino in 1998 hadn't happened, this would not be an issue. As it was, it was so strong it yanked Spencer and Christy's recalcitrant MSU record into positive territory, and subsequenct corrections and years have made it more so.

206 posted on 04/11/2007 11:29:15 AM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: AaronInCarolina
And this:


207 posted on 04/11/2007 11:31:54 AM PDT by AaronInCarolina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
Either way, there was no El Nino in 2005.

No one said anything about an El Nino in 2005. The graph shows one in the winter of 06/07, which did occur, although relatively weak.
208 posted on 04/11/2007 11:33:40 AM PDT by AaronInCarolina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: AaronInCarolina
No one said anything about an El Nino in 2005.

"Is there any point to which you would wish to draw my attention?"

"To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time."

"The dog did nothing in the night-time."

"That was the curious incident," remarked Sherlock Holmes.

209 posted on 04/11/2007 11:46:02 AM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: AaronInCarolina
Tremendous graph.

From what I see on that graph, the temperature has bounced up and down some, but is essentially flat - having spend a whole lot of time in the 0C thru 0.2C band during the last 30 years, with short excursions from that.

210 posted on 04/11/2007 11:55:21 AM PDT by AFPhys ((.Praying for President Bush, our troops, their families, and all my American neighbors..))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush

The higher the solar activity, the more cosmic rays get blown away from the solar system. The less cosmic rays, the less clouds formed to reflect solar radiation and the warmer things get. The warmer things get the more CO2.

Case closed.


211 posted on 04/11/2007 12:00:31 PM PDT by jonrick46
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ChessExpert

” The primary argument in either case is “the argument from authority.” I was taught in college that this is a fallacy. The example given in my state (government) school was that of citing the authority of the Bible. It also applies to citing the authority of “scientists,” or to citing “a consensus of scientists.” In all cases, it is a fallacy. In addition to logic, we have seen that the scientists were wrong in 1976 in predicting Global Cooling.

“The socialist model is that we surrender power to “experts.” Economists would plan our economy. Educators would change human nature. Environmental experts and computer modelers, cited in post 1, predicted doom and gloom if government did not reign in free enterprise (and freedom). The simple fact is that socialism has been shown to have no merit. It works poorly. It has a poor track record. Experts claim too much and are self serving. The “experts” have a poor track record, from Malthus to Marx, to Erlich, to DDT hysterics, to nuclear power hysterics, to global cooling hysterics, and now to global warming hysterics. In the case of Global whatever, I doubt that surrendering power to national governments will be “sufficient.” It is likely that global problems will inevitably require “solutions” from global government. But whether the solutions are national or international, they will be bad. They will reduce freedom and prosperity, and, ironically, this will hurt the environment.”
-—<>-—<>-—<>-—<>-—<>-—

Awesome POST!!!

I was going to simply comment on parts of it, but I’m going to let it stand.

Thanks for a well worded statement about “global anything”


212 posted on 04/11/2007 12:01:34 PM PDT by AFPhys ((.Praying for President Bush, our troops, their families, and all my American neighbors..))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: Robert A. Cook, PE

There is a lot of good data about “Solar Irradiance” more and more nowadays. Check Max Planck Institute website for their Solar Irradiance pages. They use Be10 isotope measurements in ice cores to get data... with the dataset now stretching out over 8000 years back. This is also correlated to, strangely enough, flood data from the Nile during the 600-1400AD time frame, which seems to be related to El Ninos and thereby to solar irradiance, and sunspots.

The data overwhelmingly suggests that the Sun is as warm now as it has ever been during the last 8000 years.


213 posted on 04/11/2007 12:24:53 PM PDT by AFPhys ((.Praying for President Bush, our troops, their families, and all my American neighbors..))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
LOL...

The funniest thing about those global alarmist models you just posted just struck me...

The temperature “without greenhouse gas” is falling while the solar temperature is at the highest level in 1000yrs!!!

ROTFLMPO.

Compute models: garbage in, garbage out.

lllol

214 posted on 04/11/2007 12:36:43 PM PDT by AFPhys ((.Praying for President Bush, our troops, their families, and all my American neighbors..))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: AaronInCarolina

“Yes, the mid troposhere is warmer than the original conclusions made by Christy et al, but only by 0.035 degC per decade. It did not change the overall conclusion that warming in the upper parts of the troposphere does not match greenhouse gas theory.”
-—<>-—<>-—<>-—<>-—<>-—

“The improper use of weighting functions originally appeared to bring the tropospheric trends more in line with surface trends and model predictions, so if you choose to use those improperly weighted (with height) data sets, you can also then satisfy yourself that there is no discrepancy. We do not agree with that.”

Great post. Doesn’t matter to the global warming alarmists that the data don’t match their theories... they can make their models fit anything ... even designing a dress. I notice that the IPCC seems to have lowered several of their even more alarmist 2001 contentions probably for the same reason so they don’t get laughed off the planet:

Lowered the high end of their temperature range by 2C.
Lowered the sea level rise by a factor of about 2.
Lowered their “confidence level” from 95% to “90%”.

Meanwhile it is ever more clear that the temperature data they started out their “quest” with in the 80s was faulty, and quite surprisingly, the Sun is warmer now than ever before in human written history.

But the alarmists only notice the polar bears floating on icebergs as they always have, and that the Arctic Ocean is becoming navigable... as it was in the early part of the last millenium - can you say Marco Polo?

They’re all trying to get more power and more money and more control of the lives of the world’s population. The real scientists who look at the data, like Lindzen, state accurately that the CO2 is more an effect, not a cause, of the temperature rise - which is primarily driven by the Sun.


215 posted on 04/11/2007 12:53:00 PM PDT by AFPhys ((.Praying for President Bush, our troops, their families, and all my American neighbors..))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush

From my study of the human existence during the past 58 years, I am convinced that the experiment has failed and that it would be a good time to clean the slate.

Perhaps we could give the dinosaurs another chance........

Imagine, a world without democrats and incompetent freaks that call themselves scientists. What a beautiful world it must have been.


216 posted on 04/11/2007 1:02:55 PM PDT by Gator113
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cogitator; Always Right

I will be specific. I believe that the bulk of the evidence is pointing to the SUN as the major contributor to the warming of the earth during the last century and indeed throughout history. Of the temperature change during the last century or so, my studies indicate human activities have likely contributed a maximum of 20% to the rise, with the remaining 80% due to the sun and its effects.

Furthermore, the benefits that we have accrued from that very small contribution FAR oughtweigh the costs of cutting CO2 emissions. Take for example, what Canada has effectively committed themselves for their share of Kyoto’s miniscule 0.07C temp rise slowing: stop driving ALL autos and stop ALL their coal-fired electricity. For that, the effect of their sacrifice, since they emit about 2% of the world’s CO2, will be 2% of 0.07C, or in other words, 0.0014C - one THOUSANDTH of a degree. Then you want to actually do something REAL and enact draconian measures that are THIRTY times more restrictive than Kyoto - and each increment of that is going to be more and more costly? It is time for Canada to refute and pull out of Kyoto, and we have to thank the US Senate for their strong stance in the 1990s in voting UNANIMOUSLY to refute Kyoto.

The ANNUAL cost of even Kyoto, according to Gore’s(!) own specialist, for the US, was 100-400B$ ... that’s billion with a B. That is not a “one time” cost ... it is a recurring cost. How many times has the “estimated cost” quoted by any proponent in government ever come in higher than the estimate? How many times has it come in lower? I maintain that even Kyoto would cost more than 400B$/yr. Bear in mind, also, that to do what the alarmists suggest is needed is to cut CO2 by THIRTY times Kyoto’s result! Though the cost of the such a cut would certainly not be linear, but probably sharply exponential, let’s pretend it is for now, and say that such a DUMB move would imply that the US spend 3-12 TRILLION DOLLARS per year of its 12T$ economy.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again - even the 100B$/yr would cut into PRODUCTIVE activities would be like an added tax of 1% on productivity. Not much? Bear in mind that the difference between Africa and the United States is 1% higher productivity growth in the US during the last 200 years. That 1% (swelling into 4% and more and more) will clearly harm the world economy - much more in the Third World than in the US. Higher productivity is the key to human development, not higher taxation.

Kyoto, and other such CO2 limitations, are foolish. They were based on two things:
First, INCORRECT temperature data to begin with that grossly inflated temperature rises, until the effects of “urban island” and lousy kept temp stations was pointed out that... but the early alarmists couldn’t let that keep them down though they were grudgingly forced to at least somewhat correct their charts.

Second, the models are modelling only what based on the garbage they are fed... and there are so many free parameters in the models they could be just as well used to design a dress as to model Earth’s climate. OF COURSE, they show CO2 and temp change are correlated! That’s a prime input! Of course, they don’t show effects of clouds, aerosols, cosmic rays... and who knows what else... they aren’t designed to show that! There are a myriad of things that they don’t include - any of which could account for a temperature rise. I’ll still bet that the SUN is easily the most important player - and in any event, our efforts to change the temperature by draconian limiting of CO2 would have far worse effects on world health and happiness than the temperature change.

The real agenda of these global alarmists is to rid Earth of human activity, or at least limit it as much as possible, as the quotes in post#1 show. I’m surprised that so many people who consider themselves sane can possibly support them.

Global models: Garbage in, Garbage out.


217 posted on 04/11/2007 1:14:03 PM PDT by AFPhys ((.Praying for President Bush, our troops, their families, and all my American neighbors..))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: cogitator

“If it’s from GISS, why does it say “Junkscience.com” on it?”
-—<>-—<>-—<>-—<>-—<>-—

Probably because they are one of the most effective organizations in distributing data refuting junk scientists?


218 posted on 04/11/2007 1:17:24 PM PDT by AFPhys ((.Praying for President Bush, our troops, their families, and all my American neighbors..))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: jonrick46

“The higher the solar activity, the more cosmic rays get blown away from the solar system. The less cosmic rays, the less clouds formed to reflect solar radiation and the warmer things get. The warmer things get the more CO2.

Case closed.”
-—<>-—<>-—<>-—<>-—<>-—

Case Closed.


219 posted on 04/11/2007 1:19:26 PM PDT by AFPhys ((.Praying for President Bush, our troops, their families, and all my American neighbors..))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: jonrick46

By the way, even cogitator has admitted that even a miniscule 1% change in the effect of cloud cover could account for the global temperature rise of the 20th century.

I’m sure it was in some moment of weakness, but there it is.

Case Closed.


220 posted on 04/11/2007 1:21:34 PM PDT by AFPhys ((.Praying for President Bush, our troops, their families, and all my American neighbors..))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: SE Mom
Paul Erlich has got to stand out as one of THE most deluded minds - ever.

Ha! There's more where that came from!

221 posted on 04/11/2007 1:28:02 PM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: AFPhys

Thank you for those references.


222 posted on 04/11/2007 1:30:35 PM PDT by Robert A. Cook, PE (I can only donate monthly, but Hillary's ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: AFPhys
I believe that the bulk of the evidence is pointing to the SUN as the major contributor to the warming of the earth during the last century and indeed throughout history. Of the temperature change during the last century or so, my studies indicate human activities have likely contributed a maximum of 20% to the rise, with the remaining 80% due to the sun and its effects.

The Role of the Sun in 20th Century Climate Change does not support your opinion. If you want to catch my interest, make a substantive argument against what's presented there.

The rest of your post was perused. I'm not going to waste my time on it, other than to say that you're wrong about the temperature data. You would be a more diehard skeptic than Roy Spencer or Richard Lindzen to assert that there is something markedly wrong with the observational surface temperature record. They can be contacted; get their opinion.

223 posted on 04/11/2007 2:11:00 PM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: AFPhys; jonrick46
By the way, even cogitator has admitted that even a miniscule 1% change in the effect of cloud cover could account for the global temperature rise of the 20th century.

But there is no evidence supporting this mechanism as the cause of the increasing temperature. The main uncertainty is what will happen to cloud cover with further warming. No reputable climate scientist has indicated cloud cover increase as the likely cause of the currently observed warming. I was only addressing the magnitude of the uncertainty.

Try to keep clear what I do and don't say, please. Or ask me.

224 posted on 04/11/2007 2:18:48 PM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: ohioWfan

On good authority..... the Left is beginning to change the language from Global Warming To Climatic Change - That way they are covered no matter what any study suggests


225 posted on 04/11/2007 2:49:50 PM PDT by stocksthatgoup ("Is it real? Or is it Reuters?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: cogitator

Is it possible that decrease in cloud cover causes increased temperatures because less solar radiation is reflected away from the surface.


226 posted on 04/11/2007 3:06:46 PM PDT by jonrick46
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 224 | View Replies]

To: jonrick46
you wrote:
The higher the solar activity, the more cosmic rays get blown away from the solar system. The less cosmic rays, the less clouds formed to reflect solar radiation and the warmer things get. The warmer things get the more CO2.

Case closed.

That was so marvelously concise, it really bears repeating. Especially in a country that neglects science education.
227 posted on 04/11/2007 3:42:02 PM PDT by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: Gator113
Perhaps we could give the dinosaurs another chance........ Imagine, a world without democrats and incompetent freaks that call themselves scientists. What a beautiful world it must have been.

Actually, the dinosaurs were all Democrats. That's why they're now extinct, IMO.
228 posted on 04/11/2007 3:45:32 PM PDT by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K

Since you beat me to the obligatory BDS statement, I propose that the following action be taken by these envirowackos promoting the extinction of humanity:

Envirowackos, it’s time that you take the leadership position. Set the example. Eat the gun. Wot say, it doesn’t apply to you, because you’re part of the enlightened?


229 posted on 04/11/2007 4:34:51 PM PDT by Fred Hayek (Liberalism is a mental disorder)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: AFPhys; cogitator
Comparing the graphs in posts 178 and 214 proves very enlightening.

Looking at post 214 one clearly sees increasing solar irradience in the first half on the 20th century. The last half of the 20th century shows a new high plateau of solar irradiance. Basically, solar activity is at an all time high. (Also consistent with the posted article.) Any objective reviewer would expect global warming. More sun, more warmth.



The line in post 178 represents measured temperature. This is even easier to see in post 198. Either way, temperature goes up in the 20th century. The climb is especially steep starting in the late 70s.



So the combined data from the graphs say, more sun, more warmth. Who could possibly deny that? We'll see.

Post 178 gives a blue band that is worth studying. It is entirely theoretical. But we are told that we can rely upon it. It was developed by scientists. They use computer models. If you don’t accept the blue band, either you’re not a scientist or you work for Exon-Mobil. The blue band claims to answer the question, what would happen to temperature if there were no manmade fossil fuel emissions. The band is pretty flat across the century. In the latter half of the century, it is flat or even declining. Compare the blue and pink bands in the last half of the 20th century.



With man’s influence (pink) you get warming. Without man’s influence (blue), there is no warming. Posts 178 and 198 showed warming in the century and especially since the late 70s. But none of this warming is ascribed to the sun or any naturally occurring variable. All warming is due to man-made fossil fuel emissions, especially CO2.

It doesn't matter that solar activity has been increasing through the century and is at an all time high. Global warming theory says the sun does not matter. It could go supernova but as far as our global warming bur according to proven computer models, we’ll all be O.K. if we can only control our CO2 emissions.

230 posted on 04/11/2007 6:27:32 PM PDT by ChessExpert (Mohamed was not a moderate Muslim)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: ChessExpert
Last sentence correction:

It could go supernova but according to proven computer models, we’ll all be O.K. if we can only control our CO2 emissions.

231 posted on 04/11/2007 6:31:48 PM PDT by ChessExpert (Mohamed was not a moderate Muslim)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush

“Actually, the dinosaurs were all Democrats. That’s why they’re now extinct, IMO.”

Excellent point. ;)


232 posted on 04/11/2007 6:56:02 PM PDT by Gator113
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: ChessExpert

Well said.


233 posted on 04/11/2007 6:59:32 PM PDT by Gator113
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: stocksthatgoup
It's been a subtle switch.

First they started saying that extremely cold weather was caused by global warming, but now they're gradually changing it to 'climate change.'

Maybe that's because two of their big global warming conferences had to be canceled because of extremely cold weather. :)

234 posted on 04/11/2007 7:04:17 PM PDT by ohioWfan (PRAY for our President and our troops. NOW more than ever!!.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: ChessExpert
The problem with the IPCC and those who place extraordinary faith in their questionable findings is this, they don't understand the sun. (Beyond the fact that they don't want the sun to be the driver because the IPCC has always existed for one and one reason only... to establish CO2 as a harmful gas that the US produces at a higher per/capita rate than any other country).

They just refuse to accept that the sun is the big player in our little neighborhood in the galaxy. Graph after graph shows incredible correlations between changes in solar irradiation and climate. But the problem is they (IPCC) can't quantify why. So they "round up the usual suspects" (like in the movie Casablanca) and that usual suspect is always CO2. As Cogitator points out regularly, the last 2 decades of he 20th century don't necessarily, when viewed at a close-up perspective, show a trend that explains the rise that observational temperature data purports to show. As you pointed out, the sunspot activity remained at a high level at the end of the 20th century, but they weren't increasing, while the purported observed temperature data continued to rise, particularly in the 1990's. Partly based on this fact, they ruled the sun out as the principle driver of 1990's temperature increases. The rest of their reason for denying solar irradiance variability is that they have concluded that while sunspots activity is higher than the past, they claim that ALL sunspot activity increase since 1750 amounts to a forcing of a mere 0.12 w/m**2. This, from page 5 of the 4th Assessment Report SPM from the IPCC:

Changes in solar irradience since 1750 are estimated to cause a radiative forcing of +.12 [+0.06 to 0.30]W/m**2, which is less than half the estimate given in the TAR (Third Assessment Report).

So they are saying that the combination of ALL the irradiance change since 1750 amount to just .12 W/m**2! The graph you posted earlier on Solar irradience for the past 400 years is useful for scrutinizing this finding from the IPCC. Keep in mind, it is NOAA data so detractors can't claim the data is from some denialist author. Now, notice that 1750, the date pulled out of a hat by the IPCC, is actually only slightly higher in irradiance than the Maunder Minimum, which was undeniably caused the Little Ice Age. In fact, according to that graph, the solar irradience was about 1364.3 Wm-2. This was a mere 1 Wm-2 greater than the Maunder Minimum irradience. Now look at the current irradience. It is about 1366.6 Wm-2. This is over 2 Wm-2 greater than in 1750. Now, you can't just compare his 2 Wm-2 increase since 1750 against the IPCC's estimate of 0.12 forcing, because the radiative balance equation involves dividing the TSI (Total Solar Irradience)by 4 and then applying an albedo scaling:

     (2 Wm-2 / 4 ) *  (1-a)   where a=albedo (~0.3)
      2/4 * 0.7 = 0.35 Wm-2
So I don't know where they get the +.12 Wm-2 in the AR4.

I think they understate the sun's effect by almost a factor of 3. And I think they fail to understand that the issue is not the troposhere and whether the sun has been warming the troposphere. This increased irradience has been warming the oceans, the 800 lb gorilla in the room. Oceans take a long time to warm. I think that the warming from the oceans has contributed to warming in the troposhere, and yes, some of that warming from the oceans has been trapped by some green house gas effects. The point is that the oceans mitigate warming from the sun with some amount of lag time through a heat-sink effect. This is why temperatures continued to rise even when solar irradiance leveled off in the last decade or 2 in the 20th century. I believe that is why now we are seeing a clear leveling off of the warming trend since around 2001.

As long as the IPCC and its followers continue to deny the impact of the sun, they will continue to push CO2 as the ONLY major driver. I think CO2 does have some measureable effect, but based upon the calculations I have seen and trust, I would put the contribution at only around 0.15 degC of the so-called 20th century rise of about 0.7 degC. The rest I estimate to be some combination of land-use change impacts on albedo and solar irradience increase, and to all of these combined would be applied a water-vapor feedback to bring us up to around +0.5 degC increase for the century. The rest of the discrepancey against the 0.7 degC figure I would attribute to observational error due to Urban Heat Island effect. The IPCC only allow for about 0.05 degC for the entire century for UHI. This is laughable. Go to the GISS website, and find their temperature data, click on an observation station of an urban area, particularly one that has seen extensive growth in the last half of the century. Then find a rural area nearby and you will likely see a dramatically different chart. The IPCC relied upon a study which examined Chinese observation grids and concluded that the UHI was nearly negligible (0.05 degC/century). It appears that the study was to determine if heat from urban locations, when averaged over the entire globe's surface, would not be significant. And from that perspective, they are quite correct. But that is missing the point entirely. It is not the negligle impact that urban heating has on the global average, it is the error in assuming that observations made in urban locations are representative of surrounding areas. They are not. But they they go on to use observation temperature grid data without correcting for the likelihood that the datapoints are artificially representative of concrete jungles, not the surrounding areas.
235 posted on 04/11/2007 7:53:01 PM PDT by AaronInCarolina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: ChessExpert; AFPhys

Credit foes to AFPhys for the basic insight in this post (post 230). He advanced it in post 214. I just wanted to bring these charts together in one post. I should have scaled one of those charts, but I’m not savvy with HTML.


236 posted on 04/11/2007 8:16:01 PM PDT by ChessExpert (Mohamed was not a moderate Muslim)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: AaronInCarolina

Thanks for the detailed commentary. Way over my head. I will try to pore over it sometime. Your comments should be a resource to many readers. It seems to me that anyone who contemplates the behavior of a teakettle over a gas stove should realize that temperature rises in response to an application of energy over time. Temperature does not change instantaneously in response to the application of energy. There is some cumulative impact. I am sure others (not me!) understand this in relation to simple systems. The earth is not a simple system. Nevertheless, I don’t see why anyone would expect Earth’s temperature to move in lock step with solar activity. There should be lags. It simply stands to reason.


237 posted on 04/11/2007 8:25:03 PM PDT by ChessExpert (Mohamed was not a moderate Muslim)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies]

To: cogitator

“The general circulation model we employed had 20 layers in the ocean and 19 for the atmosphere. The experiments simulate the climate back to 1860 (which is when the global records of surface temperature became reliable), and they are projected forward to 2050”

Computer models are not experiments, never have been and never will be. Most 8th graders even know that.


238 posted on 04/11/2007 9:11:53 PM PDT by bricks4all2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: AaronInCarolina
The lure of solar forcing

for your consideration.

239 posted on 04/11/2007 9:19:37 PM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies]

To: bert
The correlation is between SUVs, Global Warming and Sunspots. The logical conclusion has to be that SUV’s are causing global Warming that is now shown to be affecting the Sun and inducing sunspots.

The sad part, is that a good number of Americans would easily believe this. The AGW crowd will not stop until they destroy America.

240 posted on 04/11/2007 10:15:33 PM PDT by sand88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
Thanks for the link. I read the whole thread. I actually read RealClimate quite frequently (but as I'm sure you know, I am quite impervious to their arguments; ;-)

Naturally, I cherry picked the responses for ones I liked, and this was the one that resonated best with me:

Gavin Schmitt says:
"However, it is also clear that since about 1980, while the total solar radiation, its ultraviolet component, and the cosmic ray intensity all exhibit the 11-year solar periodicity, there has otherwise been no significant increase in their values. In contrast, the Earth has warmed up considerably within this time period. This means that the Sun is not the cause of the present global warming."

Someone is forgetting some very basic thermodynamics. The heat source may have reached a constant temperature, but the Earth isn't necessarily at equilibrium with the new warmer environment yet.

Comment by Awatson — 21 Jul 2005

This echoes my earlier point about a time lag in response to solar irradience changes.
241 posted on 04/11/2007 10:15:41 PM PDT by AaronInCarolina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

To: AFPhys
The real agenda of these global alarmists is to rid Earth of human activity, or at least limit it as much as possible, as the quotes in post#1 show. I’m surprised that so many people who consider themselves sane can possibly support them.

I have read so much by the AGW crowd. They are wholly an insane lot. They truly believe the Earth will go through this unstoppable change due to man. At the core of AGW believers is an evil heart. The AGW crowd is anti-human and anti-capitalist. For the most part spend they days in bitterness and hatred of those of us who believe in enjoying life and just "adapting" to what climate change will be brought about by the SUN. They are obsessed with an irrational belief that if we just cut back on our CO2 emissions things will be fine. For the most part, I just laugh at their utter pathetic arrogance. If it wasn't for the fact that the AGW crowd is determined to pass laws to foster the utter destruction of the US and our way of life, I would otherwise just laugh in their face. The AGW crowd is just using the climate change scare as a cover for their dark envious souls. The AGW could care less about the Earth -- they true goal is making everyone as miserable as they are. I pray to God Almighty that before they pass their laws and regulations, time will show them to be the fools they are.

242 posted on 04/11/2007 10:37:46 PM PDT by sand88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
The key thing I want you to note is how much bigger the drop in North America ca. 1950 was, compared to other continents. Why? Hmmm....

Why? There's more accurate records kept in the United States so he has more points for him to cherry pick from

Which he obviously did, since that North American Temperature chart looks nothing like the ones I've seen. In North America the 1930's were just as warm as the 1990's

Sorry but right there shows his computer model to be faulty

Sorry but there's no consistent pattern there to suggest sulfate aerosols or any other pollutant had anything to do with the cooling

Wishful thinking, not in accord with scientific understanding. An interview with Dr. Simon Tett "All attempts at detecting and attributing climate change signals need a reliable observed data set and simulations with mechanisms that drive climate change included.

Another cherry picked computer program

Sorry but I fail to see how this

Correlates with these

Since the beginning of the century sulfate aerosols kept going up & up and yet the temperature rose & cooled over the century regardless.

It also shows your liberal contradictory logic, you think the 0.2-0.5 W/M² shown in the graph caused all this cooling, yet a 4 to 10x increase of 2.0 W/M² solar irradience has no effect

Assertion. Show quantified estimates, please. India's smoke does not have an appreciable sulfate component, for example.

bbzzzztt! Wrong again

From the link where the actual picture is http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view_rec.php?vev1id=10980

The skies over Northern India are filled with a thick soup of aerosol particles all along the southern edge of the Himalayan Mountains, and streaming southward over Bangladesh and the Bay of Bengal. Notice that the air over the Tibetan Plateau to the north of the Himalayas is very clear, whereas the view of the land surface south of the mountains is obstructed by the brownish haze. Most of this air pollution comes from human activities. The aerosol over this region is notoriously rich in sulfates, nitrates, organic and black carbon, and fly ash.

243 posted on 04/11/2007 11:23:50 PM PDT by qam1 (There's been a huge party. All plates and the bottles are empty, all that's left is the bill to pay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: AaronInCarolina
There may be a lag, but it isn't attributed to solar variability.

Global warming in the twenty-first century: an alternative scenario (PDF)

"Paleoclimate data (13, 32, 33) imply that the equilibrium global climate sensitivity for doubled CO2 (a forcing of about 4 W/m2) is 3 +/- 1°C (thus 3⁄4 +/- 1⁄4°C per W/m2). This figure is similar to the sensitivity derived from climate models (4, 12), but it has a higher precision and confidence level. This climate sensitivity implies a thermal response time of the ocean surface of 50–100 years (32, 34). One implication of this ocean response time is that the observed global warming of 3⁄4°C since the late 1800s is consistent with the equilibrium warming of 1.2°C that a forcing of 1.6 W/m2 implies, because about 70% of the forcing was introduced in the last 50 years (6, 35). The remaining global warming of 0.4–0.5°C that is ‘‘in the pipelineÂ’Â’ is consistent with the present planetary energy imbalance of 0.6 +/- 0.1 W/m2".

244 posted on 04/12/2007 12:39:04 PM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

To: AFPhys
For some idiotic reason deluded minds like cogitator don’t want to believe that when the sun has increased in output by 0.3% over the last 200 years or so that it is NO surprise that the earth has warmed by about 0.3% during that same period of time.

For some idiotic reason, some people don't realize I'm aware of the Maunder Minimum. Some of the early 20th century warming is also attributable to increasing solar output, maybe the last "gasp" of recovery from the Maunder Minimum.

The warming since the 1970s -- now approaching 0.8 C -- cannot be explained by any correlation with any solar output/solar variability parameter.

The CO2 rise is quite likely the result, not the cause, of the temperature rise - at least ice core data suggests that strongly since it lags the temperature by about a millenium.

Totally and utterly wrong, particularly with regard to the modern era. See point #5 in my profile. With respect to the modern era, the temperature increase is not nearly enough to significantly affect air-sea CO2 fluxes -- and there are multiple ways of establishing that the atmospheric increase is due to fossil fuel combustion. You may be a physicist but you're clearly not a geochemist.

There may simply be a lag of several decades in the Earth’s temperature in response to the Sun’s radiation.

Or, more likely (as the climate scientists indicate), it's due to the lag of climate sensitivity in response to additional CO2 radiative forcing and ocean thermal inertia.

245 posted on 04/12/2007 12:52:18 PM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: qam1
Which he obviously did, since that North American Temperature chart looks nothing like the ones I've seen.

Clearly you've got to stop getting your primary data and images from the late John Daly's Web site.

Since the beginning of the century sulfate aerosols kept going up & up and yet the temperature rose & cooled over the century regardless.

Fabulous graph. You can even see the blip in the 1950s with rapid (and sulfur-intensive) industrial activity!

Let's go back and see what Dr. Tett said, exactly (I even underlined this part): "After 1970 our model with greenhouse gases alone begins to depart significantly from the observations. However, when we included sulphate aerosols, which have a cooling effect, the model agreed with the data from the 1930s and onwards."

I interpret as him saying that the effect of sulphate aerosols didn't throw the models off the "real" track until the 1970s, but adding their effect makes the models better back to the 1930s. Consistent with your fabulous graph.

It also shows your liberal contradictory logic, you think the 0.2-0.5 W/M² shown in the graph caused all this cooling, yet a 4 to 10x increase of 2.0 W/M² solar irradience has no effect.

Don't call me a liberal just because I'm knowledgeable about climate change. Where do you get the solar irradiance increase value? And it should be clear the sulfate aerosols exert a cooling effect -- I don't think "caused all this cooling" is an accurate characterization.

bbzzzztt! Wrong again

Not quite wrong, inaccurate. I should have quantified. Your quote was qualitative and concerned the general compositon of the Asian aerosol. My statement was about emissions from India: "India's smoke does not have an appreciable sulfate component, for example."

The Asian Brown Cloud (PDF)

Excerpt:

"SO2 emissions (which are converted to sulfate aerosols) are 5 Tg/yr of sulfur for India, 28 Tg/yr for China and 25 Tg/yr for North America. Emission sources of other aerosol components such as organics, black carbon, fly ash and dust are very poorly characterized. For black carbon, available estimates suggest that the Asian region may contribute about 30 to 50% of the total world emissions."

India's total emissions have a much lower sulfur content than higher-industry emissions from China and North America, because the Indian emissions are predominantly from cooking fires, not coal burning. My statement that India's smoke does not have an appreciable sulfate content was inaccurate. India's emissions have a much lower sulfate content than emissions from more industrialized countries. Thanks for requiring this clarification.


246 posted on 04/12/2007 1:11:26 PM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 243 | View Replies]

To: ChessExpert

Great posts this thread.

Thanks for the graphs and the analyses.


247 posted on 04/12/2007 3:28:01 PM PDT by AFPhys ((.Praying for President Bush, our troops, their families, and all my American neighbors..))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: qam1

Great graphics.

By the way, the only “last century or so” temperature records I actually believe are the US Temp you posted here. The others are way too fraught with collection and correction difficulties. There is probably a reasonably decent Ocean Temp record somewhere, but I’m not sure I’m familiar with it.

Your charts suggest they really don’t understand aerosols, clouds, or solar influences yet to make these models worth running.

Garbage in, garbage out: very, very fast.


248 posted on 04/12/2007 3:54:50 PM PDT by AFPhys ((.Praying for President Bush, our troops, their families, and all my American neighbors..))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 243 | View Replies]

To: AaronInCarolina; ChessExpert; cogitator

“The problem with the IPCC and those who place extraordinary faith in their questionable findings is this, they don’t understand the sun. (Beyond the fact that they don’t want the sun to be the driver because the IPCC has always existed for one and one reason only... to establish CO2 as a harmful gas that the US produces at a higher per/capita rate than any other country).

“They just refuse to accept that the sun is the big player in our little neighborhood in the galaxy. Graph after graph shows incredible correlations between changes in solar irradiation and climate. But the problem is they (IPCC) can’t quantify why. So they “round up the usual suspects” (like in the movie Casablanca) and that usual suspect is always CO2....

“I think they understate the sun’s effect by almost a factor of 3. And I think they fail to understand that the issue is not the troposhere and whether the sun has been warming the troposphere. This increased irradience has been warming the oceans, the 800 lb gorilla in the room. Oceans take a long time to warm...

“As long as the IPCC and its followers continue to deny the impact of the sun, they will continue to push CO2 as the ONLY major driver. I think CO2 does have some measureable effect, but based upon the calculations I have seen and trust, I would put the contribution at only around 0.15 degC of the so-called 20th century rise of about 0.7 degC. The rest I estimate to be some combination of land-use change impacts on albedo and solar irradience increase, and to all of these combined would be applied a water-vapor feedback to bring us up to around +0.5 degC increase for the century.”
-—<>-—<>-—<>-—<>-—<>-—

Awesome POST! Precisely. I agree competely and totally with your analysis of this post... probably could simply copy and paste it all here!

Also, CM: Thanks for the kudos, and for putting the graphics together. I see that the religionist/ alarmist amongst us has still not figured out how to respond to that “Inconvenient Truth” to coin a phrase... LOL.


249 posted on 04/12/2007 3:55:12 PM PDT by AFPhys ((.Praying for President Bush, our troops, their families, and all my American neighbors..))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
Your profile #BS has been refuted by many posts and by greater minds than yours, which serves simply as an alarmist’s website by now, rather than a scientific presentation of the facts.

“The warming since the 1970s — now approaching 0.8 C — cannot be explained by any correlation with any solar output/solar variability parameter.”

Wrong. There clearly are parameters left out of the fool “models” that may EASILY serve to amplify the raw solar influence: for example, suppose that the additional solar activity translates to less cloud cover and lower albedo instead of ASSuming a constant albedo. That can EASILY account for the temperature rise of the last century.

Again WRONG: There certainly are time lags we know about, and there may easily be lag mechanisms we DON’T yet know about that explain the temperature rise of the last 30 years and are a result of solar influence. In addition, the very recent NASA release of aerosol data suggests the apparent “lag” in temperature of the last 30 years may well simply be aerosols masking the additional solar irradiance, just as suggested by this graph years ago:

Of course there global temperature changes that the models can’t explain. They can’t even be nearly as smart as the people who program them, and they’re not even close to being able to predict El Nino a few years from now! Yet you and other alarmists want to count on them to predict temperatures a century from now? Gimme a break!

As far as that link, I’ve seen that before and consider it a good site to get data (but not necessarily good interpretation), and the thing that stands out is that the cosmic measurements they show are ALL during a period of historically high solar activity, of course. Also they imply that the temperature increase “must be due” something other than the sun by the way they scale the data of fig.4, rather than the most likely explanation: aerosols masking the “natural temperature” increase during the 40s-70s, as was suggested by scientists, not alarmists, many years ago.

Of course there global temperature changes that the models can’t explain. They can’t even be nearly as smart as the people who program them, and they’re not even close to being able to predict El Nino a few years from now! Yet you and other alarmists want to count on them to predict temperatures a century from now? Gimme a break!

Of course you’re not going to bother trying to refute the rest of that post: it’s irrefutable. Even the statement that “Kyoto... [was]... based on... INCORRECT temperature data to begin” is irrefutable. Now, the alarmists are simply trying to save face by saying, “well, we see that after appropriate corrections the temperature is not rising as sharply as we thought to begin with, but it’s still due to greenhouse effect more than anything else” - something that is only clear in their fool models that are capable to demonstrate anything and where “runs” are thrown out if they predict the earth cooling... so of course they are biased to show it warming (imagine that!) They can just as well design next years high fashion dress as the temperatures of the next century. Oh, and by the way, you still haven't 'splained how they show the

Garbage in, Garbage out... probably the first computer maxim I ever learned, and still just as true - but climate models produce garbage faster and even more difficult to sort out the truth.

Of course, you don’t want to attempt to point out the enormous cost and utter pointlessness of draconian measures to lower “greenhouse gasses” (except for the most important one: water vapor) People might not want to join your religious cult if they found out about that. Again, it’s irrefutable. And, you KNOW the cost is going to be FAR HIGHER than the alarmists minimalist quotes suggest.

It's very, very telling as to what you choose to refute and the way you try to take it out to some authoritative area, and what you choose not to. Your arguments are weak, and you don't address reality.

And, I'm still wondering why you haven't come up with a 'splanation of how the IPCC published models have Earth's temperatures going down despite increased irradiance during the 20th century. Apparently the alarmist web sites haven't realized that yet, and haven't given you your marching orders. Or perhaps, they haven't been able to make a new "model run" that can "correct" some oversight? Perhaps they might have to admit they don't understand something? Perhaps aerosols and the SUN!!! have more to do with the weather than they care to admit?

Garbage in, Garbage out - very, very fast...

250 posted on 04/12/2007 3:55:25 PM PDT by AFPhys ((.Praying for President Bush, our troops, their families, and all my American neighbors..))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 151-200201-250251-300301-307 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson