Beam me to Planet Gore !
Good article. Here’s my summary of the weirdly out-of-place last paragraph:
“Sunspots cause changes in global temperature. But CO2 is more important! Why? Shut up!”
quantify the natural climate variability
Yes, by all means, do that, instead of announcing that the debate is over.
This attempt at quantification... has re-emphasized the complexity of the climate system
But that doesn't keep them from depending on their computer models and arrogantly proclaiming that they know that man is causing global warming.
THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING. NONE, NADA, ZIP.
ping
The entire idea that the sun could somehow be responsible for global warming is an idea that could never be accepted by the liberals, the mainstream press or mainstream academia.
Such an idea-were it accepted- would leave man totally out of the equation, as no economic or political solution could ever hope to affect the behavior of the sun.
This is significant because Scientific American has been a major player in pushing the global warming story line. They have published lots of articles on the subject, their editors accept it as a given in their pieces, and they have on at least one occasion devoted more or less an entire issue to mounting an attack on the credibility of an individual researcher, a Dane named Bjorn Lomborg.
For Scientific American to publish anything in the least skeptical on this subject without a at least four or five authors on the rebuttal side, with sidebar pieces on Anne Waple’s connections to the oil industry, is noteworthy.
The greatest tax rip-off in history; Global Warming.
(baaaaaaaaaaarf, baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarf, baarrrrfffff)
IMHO
"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."
So she admits that the goal is to attribute climate change to anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases.
BTW, if you missed the earlier thread on FR, there is a great article here from Monckton's testimony to the U.S. Congress.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/markey_barton_letter.html
If you look at the chart below, you will see that sunspot activity (during solar maxes--the individual peaks every apprx 11 yrs) has been relatively high since about 1900 and almost non-existent for the period between about 1625 and 1725. This period is known as the Maunder (sunspot) Minimum or "Little Ice Age".-etl
____________________________________________________
From BBC News [yr: 2004]:
"A new [2004] 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."..."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. 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."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3869753.stm
____________________________________________________
It's really hard to imagine how this little ball of fire could have any impact on our climate at all. /s
But the main arguments being made for a solar-climate connection is not so much to do with the heat of the Sun (the sun isn't getting warmer) but rather with its magnetic cycles. When the Sun is more magnetically active (typically around the peak of the 11 year sunspot cycle --we are a couple of yrs away at the moment), the Sun's magnetic field is better able to deflect away incoming galactic cosmic rays (highly energetic charged particles coming from outside the solar system). The GCRs are thought to help in the formation of low-level cumulus clouds -the type of clouds that BLOCK sunlight and help cool the Earth. So when the Sun's MF is acting up (not like now -the next sunspot max is expected in about 2011 or 2012), less GCRs reach the Earth's atmosphere, less low level, sunlight-blocking clouds form, and more sunlight gets through to warm the Earth's surface...naturally. Clouds are basically made up of tiny water droplets. When minute particles in the atmosphere become ionized by incoming GCRs they become very 'attractive' to water molecules, in a purely chemical sense of the word. The process by which the Sun's increased magnetic field deflects incoming cosmic rays is very similar to the way magnetic fields steer electrons in a cathode ray tube (old-time television tube) or electrons and other charged particles around the ring of a subatomic particle accelerator.-etl
____________________________________________________
There's an excellent new book out on the subject titled The Chilling Stars. It's written by one of the top scientists advancing this theory (Henrik Svensmark).
http://www.sciencedaily.com/books/t/1840468157-the_chilling_stars_the_new_theory_of_climate_change.htm
____________________________________________________
And here is the website for the place where he does his research:
2008: "The Center for Sun-Climate Research at the DNSC investigates the connection between variations in the intensity of cosmic rays and climatic changes on Earth. This field of research has been given the name 'cosmoclimatology'"..."Cosmic ray intensities – and therefore cloudiness – keep changing because the Sun's magnetic field varies in its ability to repel cosmic rays coming from the Galaxy, before they can reach the Earth." :
http://www.spacecenter.dk/research/sun-climate
____________________________________________________
From a well-referenced wikipedia.com column (see wiki link for ref 14):
"Sunspot numbers over the past 11,400 years have been reconstructed using dendrochronologically dated radiocarbon concentrations. The level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional — the last period of similar magnitude occurred over 8,000 years ago. The Sun was at a similarly high level of magnetic activity for only ~10% of the past 11,400 years, and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode.[14]"
[14] ^Solanki, Sami K.; Usoskin, Ilya G.; Kromer, Bernd; Schüssler, Manfred & Beer, Jürg (2004), “Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years”, Nature 431: 1084–1087, doi:10.1038/nature02995, . Retrieved on 17 April 2007 , "11,000 Year Sunspot Number Reconstruction". Global Change Master Directory. Retrieved on 2005-03-11.
____________________________________________________
"Reconstruction of solar activity over 11,400 years. Period of equally high activity over 8,000 years ago marked.
Present period is on [the right]. Values since 1900 not shown."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation
____________________________________________________
From NASA's Solar and Heliospheric Observatory's "Not So Frequently Asked Questions" section:
Q-Does the number of sunspots have any effect on the climate here on Earth?
A-Sunspots are slightly cooler areas on the surface of the Sun, due to the intense magnetic fields, so they radiate a little less energy than the surroundings. However, there are usually nearby areas associated with the sunspots that are a little hotter (called falculae), and they more than compensate. The result is that there is a little bit more radiation coming from the Sun when it has more sunspots, but the effect is so small that it has very little impact on the weather and climate on Earth.
However, there are more important indirect effects: sunspots are associated with what we call "active regions", with large magnetic structures containing very hot material (being held in place by the magnetism). This causes more ultraviolet (or UV) radiation (the rays that give you a suntan or sunburn), and extreme ultraviolet radiation (EUV). These types of radiation have an impact on the chemistry of the upper atmosphere (e.g. producing ozone). Since some of these products act as greenhouse gases, the number of sunspots (through association with active regions) may influence the climate in this way.
Many active regions produce giant outflows of material that are called Coronal Mass Ejections. These ejections drag with them some of the more intense magnetic fields that are found in the active regions. The magnetic fields act as a shield for high-energy particles coming from various sources in our galaxy (outside the solar system). These "cosmic rays" (CRs) cause ionization of molecules in the atmosphere, and thereby can cause clouds to form (because the ionized molecules or dust particle can act as "seeds" for drop formation).
If clouds are formed very high in the atmosphere, the net result is a heating of the Earth - it acts as a "blanket" that keeps warmth in.
If clouds are formed lower down in the atmosphere, they reflect sunlight better than they keep heat inside, so the net result is cooling. Which processes are dominant is still a matter of research.
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/classroom/notsofaq.html#SUNSPOT_CLIMATE
____________________________________________________
NASA graph of sunspot activity over the past 400 years [note the profound lack of sunspot activity during the "Little Ice Age" period (apprx 1650-1720), AND the sharp INCREASE particularly during the past 60 years:
http://science.nasa.gov/ssl/pad/solar/images/ssn_yearly.jpg
____________________________________________________
100,000-Year Climate Pattern Linked To Sun's Magnetic Cycles:
ScienceDaily (Jun. 7, 2002) HANOVER, N.H.
Thanks to new calculations by a Dartmouth geochemist, scientists are now looking at the earth's climate history in a new light. Mukul Sharma, Assistant Professor of Earth Sciences at Dartmouth, examined existing sets of geophysical data and noticed something remarkable: the sun's magnetic activity is varying in 100,000-year cycles, a much longer time span than previously thought, and this solar activity, in turn, may likely cause the 100,000-year climate cycles on earth. This research helps scientists understand past climate trends and prepare for future ones.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/06/020607073439.htm
Solar Warming ... Bush’s fault.
The LEADERS of the “Manmade Global Warmimg” movement don’t really care whether it’s true or not . What they want is global taxation & loss of sovereignty for the US.
I can't wait for the colder temps to start shrinking the atmospheric CO2, so it becomes obvious to all that this was all a bunch of horsepucky to begin with.
"Almost exponential increase from industrial emissions" is a totally laughable lie in a ocean of lies.
Duuuh...Yes, IF THERE WAS ANY GLOBAL WARMING!
It was a bit chilly so I turned up the thermostat.
Translated:
"We have to massage the numbers more and more to explain how a mite on a tick can force an elephant to dance."
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
Sunspots are extraterrestrial but CO2 is not. CL2 and air can therefore be taxed