|
Post by jimcripwell on Jun 27, 2010 10:45:36 GMT
glc writes "Solar activity peaked in the late 1950s."
Please define "solar activity". IF, and I will agree it is still a big IF, the sun affects climate, we have no idea what particular solar activity affects climate. So how do we know whether or not the solar activity that affects climate peaked in the 1950's, or whether it has now decreased?
|
|
|
Post by northsphinx on Jun 27, 2010 16:44:26 GMT
GLC is not thinking of this NASA paper for sure.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Jun 27, 2010 17:01:19 GMT
GLC is not thinking of this NASA paper for sure.
Whichever paper it is - it appears to support my statement that soalr activity peaked in the 1950s. It appears to be using an old sunspot reconstruction which is no longer recognised though a lot of sceptics do seem to persist with it.
However the key issue is that even if there is a solar/climate link it has completely broken down in the past 30 years. We have had declining solar activity - but increasing temperatures.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jun 27, 2010 17:15:02 GMT
glc: Actually, the c14 and be portion have not broken down.
|
|
|
Post by northsphinx on Jun 27, 2010 17:56:00 GMT
Link for the source: sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/mission/science/timescale.php"These cosmogenic isotopes, which are found in tree rings and ice cores, are solar activity proxies that suggest long-term fluctuations in solar activity may exceed the range of contemporary cycles. In this figure minimum and maximum refer to surface temperature. The Maunder Minimum is labelled, along with several other temperature extremes. There is a tendency for cooler temperatures during times when the Sun is less active."
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 27, 2010 18:19:01 GMT
GLC is not thinking of this NASA paper for sure.Whichever paper it is - it appears to support my statement that soalr activity peaked in the 1950s. It appears to be using an old sunspot reconstruction which is no longer recognised though a lot of sceptics do seem to persist with it. However the key issue is that even if there is a solar/climate link it has completely broken down in the past 30 years. We have had declining solar activity - but increasing temperatures. Irrelevant! Any adjustments proposed to the sunspot numbers would only affect scale and not the statistical correlation of sunspots to warming. Also your argument that falling solar activity should result in falling temperatures assumes that equilibriums have been passed. If you walk into a 5,000 square foot house in Siberia and turn on a 500,000 btu heater for 10 minutes, turn it off for 10 minutes then turn it back on at half power for 30 minutes the house will get warmer under the half power setting than it did under the full power setting. And GLC ignorant of the ways of the world will sit there and say something else must be warming the house or else there would have been cooling coming after the heater was on full blast. Then of course he will then go out and hire some expensive consultants to tell him what it is. Who in turn will find the house is infested by termites and suggest the house warming problem will be solved by exterminating the termites.
|
|
|
Post by northsphinx on Jun 27, 2010 18:31:35 GMT
More: Little bit more than solar spot counting
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Jun 27, 2010 19:46:13 GMT
Hockey stick, should be hokey stick.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 27, 2010 21:03:38 GMT
Notice how 1930's global temperature increases cause sunspot activity increases after 1940 LOL! That's because sunspot activity has jack all to do with changes in global temperature. Then according to your logic CO2 has jack to do with the changes in global temperature. As Akasofu said you can't measure change from a single forcing until you understand what causes natural change.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Jun 27, 2010 21:28:24 GMT
More: Little bit more than solar spot counting Is there any chance you could take on board my comments. There appears to be 2 possibilities. 1. There is a tight solar/climate link wich has now broken down. 2. There is a longer term (multi-centennial) solar/climate link but the timescales are not relevant to the AGW issue.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 27, 2010 21:30:32 GMT
Hockey stick, should be hokey stick. Mann's high publication rate proves he is highly esteemed!
|
|
|
Post by northsphinx on Jun 27, 2010 21:53:19 GMT
glc; I think You do not get my point. Solar activity measurement is NOT a counting of sunspots. Use Be concentration as proxy for solar activity for example : It may be a combination of solar activity and cosmic activity. The suns magnetic activity or lack of it may be a door opener for cosmic rays that affect cloud condensation.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Jun 27, 2010 23:37:08 GMT
glc;
I think You do not get my point. Solar activity measurement is NOT a counting of sunspots. Use Be concentration as proxy for solar activity for example :I do get your point. Could you tell me which 10Be record you are using. Also could you tell me if you think that a decrease in GCRs can explain the 0.5 deg increase in temperature since ~1979. Perhaps you might also consider this paper www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL038004.pdf“Recent 10Be values are low; however, they do not indicate unusually high recent solar activity compared to the last 600 years.”
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 28, 2010 0:54:52 GMT
glc;
I think You do not get my point. Solar activity measurement is NOT a counting of sunspots. Use Be concentration as proxy for solar activity for example :I do get your point. Could you tell me which 10Be record you are using. Also could you tell me if you think that a decrease in GCRs can explain the 0.5 deg increase in temperature since ~1979. I think it would be ignorant to assume that climate is driven by a single force so my initial estimate would be no. Part and parcel to this is whether you believe that GCRs are responsible for changes in ocean oscillations which seems somewhat unlikely and ocean oscillations are probably responsible for a significant portion of the temperature increases since 1979. However, since a very small change in clouds could do it I don't have much confidence that GCRs could not do it. . . .I just don't believe any one force is responsible for all the warming since 1979. If you look at the PDO index which has a 4 to 6 degree swing between warm and cold phases its not hard to see what the impact might be on global average temperatures amounting to a significant swing in temperatures over a 30 year period of time.
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Jun 28, 2010 1:07:27 GMT
Hockey stick, should be hokey stick. Mann's high publication rate proves he is highly esteemed! Proves something all right. [/sarcasm]
|
|