I read that the Sun's brightness increased by 0.036 percent from 1986 to 1996. Can this be a...

Scientific American ^ | December 22, 1997 | Anne M. Waple

[JimRed]

I read that the Sun's brightness increased by 0.036 percent from 1986 to 1996. Can this be a reason for global warming?

Duuuh...Yes, IF THERE WAS ANY GLOBAL WARMING!

[algernonpj]

“BTW, if you missed the earlier thread on FR, there is a great article here from Monckton’s testimony to the U.S. Congress. “

.
Thanks, interesting web site.

[Larry Lucido]

Sun's brightness increased by 0.036 percent from 1986 to 1996

It was a bit chilly so I turned up the thermostat.

[PeaceBeWithYou]

There’s a Hansen in the soup.

[StACase]

You have to read all the way to the end:

It is clear that the solar irradiance may indeed account for some of the temperature increases recorded over the last several decades. However ... bla ... bla ... bla ... bla ... bla

[Erik Latranyi]

But, but, but the number of sunspots has increased since man started burning fossil fuels.

Therefore CO2 causes sunspots!

[ETL]

Lol! Good one.

Gotta run...

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

"Recent studies of global warming have necessitated a more comprehensive effort to quantify the natural climate variability so that the residual change may be attributed to the anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases."

Translated:

"We have to massage the numbers more and more to explain how a mite on a tick can force an elephant to dance."

[neverdem]

Climate/energy special!

Renewable Energy's Environmental Paradox - Wind and Solar Projects May Carry Costs for Wildlife Transmission lines cost a $1,000,000 per mile? Add that to $1,000,000 per wind turbine. These costs don't sound unreasonable when highway sound walls cost $1,000,000 per mile.

Third-World Stove Soot Is Target in Climate Fight

Proposed solar plant runs into obstacles

Sunspots May Cause Climate Fluctuations (Duh!) Repeated for 20th century sunspot activity pdf link

[SunkenCiv]

thanks neverdem:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2231297/posts?page=29#29

[SunkenCiv]

thanks neverdem.

· join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic ·

[aruanan]

Of the 0.55 degree Celsius warming since 1860, 0.36 degrees Celsius have occurred since 1970, and the solar irradiance can only account for less than a third of this rise. This fact indicates that some other influence, or "forcing" or several different forcings, are becoming more influential in controlling the temperature change. It is thought that CO2 would be the most likely candidate in this industrial and post-industrial era.

But it wasn't. Ha ha ha. The increase in solar irradiance was also accompanied by an increase in the solar magnetic field strength that decreased incoming cosmic rays and decreased the formation of cloud nuclei leading to lower albedo and increased heating in the relatively greater absence of cloud cover.

[rocksblues]

Doesn't matter what the Sun does. Doesn't matter how much snow Las Vegas gets on April 17th. Doesn't matter how many accredited Scientists debunk Global Warming. The Democrats along with the Eco-terrorists have a way to push their agenda.

What way you ask?

The Idiots in the MSM!

[AndrewC]

"We have to massage the numbers more and more to explain how a mite on a tick can force an elephant to dance."

More than that, it is a bald-faced confession that at that time(1997) they had no inkling of how CO₂ fit into the picture since " that the residual change may be attributed to the anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases."

Well, heck I can make things up too.... "that the residual change may be attributed Democratic party's tax policies."

The article's non-sequitur approach is culminated with " However, as the atmospheric CO2 rises--due to the almost exponential increase in emissions from industrial sources--the influence of solar variability on the Earth's climate will most likely decrease, and its relative contribution will be far surpassed by "greenhouse" gases. "

So what? Without a tie-in to the mechanism and values involved how do you rationally assert "far surpassed"?

In the ensuing 12 years, what have they come up with to support these ludicrous assertions? Computer models? Where did they get the numbers that they couldn't measure in 1997?

[bert]

Sunspots are extraterrestrial but CO2 is not. CL2 and air can therefore be taxed

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[marron]

Has anyone correlated the increase of industrial emissions with the increase of sunspot activity?

Its not just earth thats in the balance, people, we’re talking about the fate of the whole danged solar system.

[AFPhys]

ETL:

Cycle 24 is NOT officially under way. The start will be defined when there is a clear predominance of cycle24 spots over cycle23 spots, or when by examining data in retrospect we can see the central part of the minimum. As of now, we know that the start of cycle 24 will be called no sooner than September or October 2008, although I have seen dates saying the start can now be no sooner than Nov.

[ETL]

From nasa.gov, January 10, 2008...

Solar Cycle 24 Begins

"On January 4, 2008, a reversed-polarity sunspot appeared—and this signals the start of Solar Cycle 24," says David Hathaway of the Marshall Space Flight Center.

Solar activity waxes and wanes in 11-year cycles. Lately, we've been experiencing the low ebb, "very few flares, sunspots, or activity of any kind," says Hathaway. "Solar minimum is upon us."

The previous solar cycle, Solar Cycle 23, peaked in 2000-2002 with many furious solar storms. That cycle decayed as usual to the present quiet leaving solar physicists little to do other than wonder, when would the next cycle begin?

The answer is now [Jan 4, 2008].

"New solar cycles always begin with a high-latitude, reversed polarity sunspot," explains Hathaway. "Reversed polarity" means a sunspot with opposite magnetic polarity compared to sunspots from the previous solar cycle. "High-latitude" refers to the sun's grid of latitude and longitude. Old cycle spots congregate near the sun's equator. New cycle spots appear higher, around 25 or 30 degrees latitude.

The sunspot that appeared on January 4th fits both these criteria. It was high latitude (30 degrees N) and magnetically reversed. NOAA named the spot AR10981, or "sunspot 981" for short.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/10jan_solarcycle24.htm

[AFPhys]

Sorry. I usually give references to such statements as I gave in the post above. Here is one:

http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/