|
Post by scpg02 on Oct 27, 2014 0:40:23 GMT
I'm curious, point #1 states there has been no trend over the last 40yrs. Is the sun behaving so radically that there isn't a trend? I thought the trending was observable even from a layperson like myself. From all the articles and charts I've seen it appears the trend was in the upward direction, now coming to an abrupt halt. from what I have seen and read there was a huge increase building through solar cycle 22 (record setting). It was forecast that cycle 23 would be even bigger. it was not but only slightly less (Grand solar maximum. Cycle 24 was also predicted to be strong and the predictions failed miserably. Cycle 24 falls more in line with the Dalton minimum. I would have to look it up but cycle 22 ended in in the late 80s and cycle 23 ended in the late 90s. In my mind is makes sense that the 89 extreme El Nino was the result of the extreme solar cycles delayed a bit. Cycle 24 has caused the plateau also with a slight delay. I expect to see cooling with the predicted even quieter cycle 25. His assertion that the solar out put has been decreasing since the 50s seems off. I think this is a case of political leanings coloring the science. Something I have seen many times over the years. I'll see if I can dig up a chart.
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Oct 27, 2014 0:48:20 GMT
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Oct 27, 2014 0:53:20 GMT
A History of Solar Activity over MillenniaIlya G. Usoskin Article Abstract Presented here is a review of present knowledge of the long-term behavior of solar activity on a multi-millennial timescale, as reconstructed using the indirect proxy method. The concept of solar activity is discussed along with an overview of the special indices used to quantify different aspects of variable solar activity, with special emphasis upon sunspot number. Over long timescales, quantitative information about past solar activity can only be obtained using a method based upon indirect proxy, such as the cosmogenic isotopes 14C and 10Be in natural stratified archives (e.g., tree rings or ice cores). We give an historical overview of the development of the proxy-based method for past solar-activity reconstruction over millennia, as well as a description of the modern state. Special attention is paid to the verification and cross-calibration of reconstructions. It is argued that this method of cosmogenic isotopes makes a solid basis for studies of solar variability in the past on a long timescale (centuries to millennia) during the Holocene. A separate section is devoted to reconstructions of strong solar–energetic-particle (SEP) events in the past, that suggest that the present-day average SEP flux is broadly consistent with estimates on longer timescales, and that the occurrence of extra-strong events is unlikely. Finally, the main features of the long-term evolution of solar magnetic activity, including the statistics of grand minima and maxima occurrence, are summarized and their possible implications, especially for solar/stellar dynamo theory, are discussed. solarphysics.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrsp-2008-3/
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Oct 27, 2014 1:01:55 GMT
not according to the solar physicists I talk to. The recent warming has coincided quite nicely with the Grand Solar Maximum. solar cycle 22 was a record setter with cycle 23 not far behind it. The recent hiatus started with a weak cycle 24. The late Timo Niroma reported that cycle 24 was below Dalton Minimum numbers and was expecting a Maunder type minimum by 2035. With the Grand solar maximum over we should now be heading into a Grand solar minimum. I'm curious, point #1 states there has been no trend over the last 40yrs. Is the sun behaving so radically that there isn't a trend? I thought the trending was observable even from a layperson like myself. From all the articles and charts I've seen it appears the trend was in the upward direction, now coming to an abrupt halt. ok I can see why he says solar out put has been decreasing since 57, that was the maximum of cycle 19. however looking at the historical graph you can clearly see the grand solar maximum. www.ips.gov.au/Educational/2/3/1
|
|
|
Post by flyfisher7 on Oct 27, 2014 1:11:47 GMT
I'm curious, point #1 states there has been no trend over the last 40yrs. Is the sun behaving so radically that there isn't a trend? I thought the trending was observable even from a layperson like myself. From all the articles and charts I've seen it appears the trend was in the upward direction, now coming to an abrupt halt. ok I can see why he says solar out put has been decreasing since 57, that was the maximum of cycle 19. however looking at the historical graph you can clearly see the grand solar maximum. www.ips.gov.au/Educational/2/3/1Thanks. Looking at all of this, plus looking back further, it shows a clear correlation. The coldest times coincide with minimal activity from the star. There are too many "coincidences".
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Oct 27, 2014 1:12:33 GMT
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Oct 27, 2014 1:18:00 GMT
ok I can see why he says solar out put has been decreasing since 57, that was the maximum of cycle 19. however looking at the historical graph you can clearly see the grand solar maximum. www.ips.gov.au/Educational/2/3/1Thanks. Looking at all of this, plus looking back further, it shows a clear correlation. The coldest times coincide with minimal activity from the star. There are too many "coincidences". yes solar has always correlated better with temperature than CO2. They have tried to jump through hoops to discount solar as the driver of our climate. But then this is really a political agenda propped up by science. and don't get me started on previous examples of this happening. LOL I've seen it too many times. there are many cycles that effect climate. oceans being one. however, the main driver has got to be solar. But you can't control it and you can't drive up energy prices with it. CO2 is a great political horse for social change.
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Oct 27, 2014 1:19:29 GMT
great demonstration of the concentration of CO2.
CO2 Contributed by Human Activity: 12 to 15ppmv / version 1
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Oct 27, 2014 4:13:33 GMT
I see the original claim that the Sun is responsible for global warming. As a solar physicist I can say definitively that is not the case because 1) To be increasing terrestrial temperatures solar activity levels would have had to be increasing over the last 40-50 years by quite a lot to explain the observed increase in global temperatures. It has been decreasing steadily since 1957. So global temperatures should have been falling since then not increasing. We measure the Sun's output and there has been no trend over the last 40 years. 2) the pattern of global warming does not fit the sun. If it were the Sun the equator would be warming faster than the poles, days would be warming faster than nights, and summers warming more than winters. We see the exact opposite in all 3 cases. 3) Where warming is occurring in the atmosphere would be differently distributed. Especially true of the stratosphere which is equally heated from the Sun and Ir emissions from the Earth. If the Sun were causing global warming the stratosphere would warm the fastest. It is actually cooling which can ONLY be explained by a reduction in the IR coming from the Earth which is exactly what extra GHGs would cause. There are many other reasons we can rule out the Sun but those 3 are enough to be getting on with! Dkstrong: Thank u for your contribution. I don't agree with your assessment and will provide reasons why when I am at my computer.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Oct 27, 2014 10:22:31 GMT
Arctic Ice Melt Seen Doubling Risk of Harsh Winter in EU By Stefan Nicola Oct 26, 2014 2:00 PM ET ==SNIP== Sometimes it's hard explaining stupidity, but I think I just found it. When people are observing a cycle that reverses faster than they can get their paper's out, their base assumptions are often exposed as false. Of course if they don't realize they are watching a cyclical process their paper's can make them look extremely foolish. When does jumping on an alarmist bandwagon move from folly to malfeasance?
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Oct 27, 2014 14:10:29 GMT
I see the original claim that the Sun is responsible for global warming. As a solar physicist I can say definitively that is not the case because Drkstrong, thanks for your input. You've indicated above without qualification that the sun definitely is not responsible for global warming. Just to be clear, is it your view that none of the warming over the last 75 years (since CO2 began increasing significantly) could be due to the sun? Is it also your view that changes in the sun cannot result in a cooling effect on the earth in the future?
|
|
|
Post by drkstrong on Oct 30, 2014 1:40:16 GMT
You may not agree with my assessment but they are the facts. Solar activity decreased at a time when it needed to increase to explain GW.
The statement that solar activity correlates better with global temperatures is false on so many levels.
First correlation in science is a first level test if there is a possible connection. It does not mean there is a connection.
Secondly the correlation between CO2 and global temperatures compared to solar activity levels and global temperatures can be tested mathematically. You do not have to take my word for it this is something you can do yourself with a simple spreadsheet program. Get the monthly averaged global temperatures, CO2 levels, and sunspot numbers. They are all readily available on the web. Read them into your spreadsheet. Then make 2 plots: Co2 against global temperatures and sunspot number against global temperatures. I just did it fro 1980 to the present in about 5 minutes using EXCEL. The result is striking. There is a good correlation between CO2 and global temperature. The SSN and global temperature just looks like random dots all over the place. But you may not trust your eyes so use a statistical test ... the correlation coefficient (CORREL in excel). If the correlation is better than 0.7 it is considered acceptable, anything less not so much. The results ...
Correlation coefficient for CO2 and Global temperatures (Jan 1980 to Aug 2014): 0.73
Correlation coefficient for SSN and Global temperatures (Jan 1980 to Aug 2014): -0.19
Than means not only is the correlation between SSN and global temperatures not very good but if anything it is anti correlated (which is what the negative value means).
The largest estimate in the scientific literature of the affect of solar activity changes to the so called grand maximum is about 0.1C which is a small fraction of the AGW signature, most actually put the contribution as negative (i.e., we should have a slowly cooling climate since 1957 not a warming one).
The article claiming that two solar physicists say we are plunging towards a new Maunder Minimum, did not happen to mention how well these two did predicting the current cycle. The answer was they (along with the 100 other "expert" solar physicists) were completely wrong. One predicted a high cycle, one of the highest on record and the other predicted a Maunder minimum for cycle 24: WRONG! And both got the timing completely wrong saying that maximum would be in 2011/2. Only two two researchers predicted before the cycle started that solar cycle 24 would be a long, low cycle with a maximum in 2014 (predicted in April 2009). And one of them is writing this message.
|
|
|
Post by flyfisher7 on Oct 30, 2014 3:11:46 GMT
Than means not only is the correlation between SSN and global temperatures not very good but if anything it is anti correlated (which is what the negative value means). [Than/quote] Thank you for writing your response. Would the same outcome exist if one were to compare TSI vs Sunspots? I'd post a chart or two so I can show what I mean but I don't know how. TSI appears to have a good correlation. Thanks again
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Oct 30, 2014 3:21:20 GMT
You may not agree with my assessment but they are the facts. Solar activity decreased at a time when it needed to increase to explain GW. The statement that solar activity correlates better with global temperatures is false on so many levels. First correlation in science is a first level test if there is a possible connection. It does not mean there is a connection. Secondly the correlation between CO2 and global temperatures compared to solar activity levels and global temperatures can be tested mathematically. You do not have to take my word for it this is something you can do yourself with a simple spreadsheet program. Get the monthly averaged global temperatures, CO2 levels, and sunspot numbers. They are all readily available on the web. Read them into your spreadsheet. Then make 2 plots: Co2 against global temperatures and sunspot number against global temperatures. I just did it fro 1980 to the present in about 5 minutes using EXCEL. The result is striking. There is a good correlation between CO2 and global temperature. The SSN and global temperature just looks like random dots all over the place. But you may not trust your eyes so use a statistical test ... the correlation coefficient (CORREL in excel). If the correlation is better than 0.7 it is considered acceptable, anything less not so much. The results ... Correlation coefficient for CO2 and Global temperatures (Jan 1980 to Aug 2014): 0.73 Correlation coefficient for SSN and Global temperatures (Jan 1980 to Aug 2014): -0.19 Than means not only is the correlation between SSN and global temperatures not very good but if anything it is anti correlated (which is what the negative value means). The largest estimate in the scientific literature of the affect of solar activity changes to the so called grand maximum is about 0.1C which is a small fraction of the AGW signature, most actually put the contribution as negative (i.e., we should have a slowly cooling climate since 1957 not a warming one). The article claiming that two solar physicists say we are plunging towards a new Maunder Minimum, did not happen to mention how well these two did predicting the current cycle. The answer was they (along with the 100 other "expert" solar physicists) were completely wrong. One predicted a high cycle, one of the highest on record and the other predicted a Maunder minimum for cycle 24: WRONG! And both got the timing completely wrong saying that maximum would be in 2011/2. Only two two researchers predicted before the cycle started that solar cycle 24 would be a long, low cycle with a maximum in 2014 (predicted in April 2009). And one of them is writing this message. Great, now we get to play 'What's My Line'. There are multiple papers conflicting with your assertions on solar influence on warming of the earth's surface. Don't you read your mail? Funny how you failed to mention clouds, just an observation. In past years on this forum I've posted multiple charts exposing the "correlation" pea-under-the-cup carnival tricks warmists use to fool themselves (and others). Did you think you came to this forum expecting to bring something new? We've been through the same arguments over and over. Nice that you picked 1980 as the start date. Hmm, I wonder why. The same reason why Arctic satellite ice data pre-1979 is thrown out (see IPCC 1990). Did you remove the effects of Pinatubo and El Chichon volcanoes in your calculation? I didn't think so. What is the correlation from the first and second half of your chosen period of time, respectively? You mean you didn't look at that? What, no mention of the tropospheric "hot spot"? I mean they only missed it by 200-400%. We've been told for the last 25+ years that is THE fingerprint of AGW. Has the greenhouse effect science changed recently? I wouldn't know having been largely AWOL from SC24 since last year. Frankly AGW is boring, for me anyway now; you're bringing the same worn out talking points we've seen over and over. Buried deep in the archives here, we've had a number of discussions on the vaunted "hot spot" and "cooling stratosphere". I dug up a 5 minute created Excel graph from 2009 illustrating your faulty assertion the stratospheric cooling detected by satellites is correlated to CO2. The "cooling" is a result of two step changes caused by Mt. Pinatubo and El Chichon. Surely a solar physicist understands the effects of volcanoes on the stratosphere. There have been no major volcanoes in the tropics since then, so where's the cooling? I can update the graph upon request, but don't really care to to be honest. Because I don't care to do it, would you please post a graph of CO2 correlation to global temperatures for the past 17 years? Ah yes, the pause. Which of the 52+ excuses are you going to put forth?
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Oct 30, 2014 3:51:13 GMT
Lovely video you posted from an era when glamor was expected. A joy to watch.
|
|