|
Post by duwayne on Oct 30, 2014 13:14:52 GMT
.......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)...... drkstrong, are you saying that the sun does not have a significant effect on global warming? I know there are some scientists that say the small changes in the sun's activity have a profound effect on the earth's weather and temperature. Let me quote one of them. Dr Keith Strong, a solar physicist, says: 'From radio communication disruptions to satellite malfunctions to power outages to weather and climate changes, small variations on the Sun can affect us all in profound ways.'
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Oct 30, 2014 21:50:42 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. HI DK, and congratulations on your correct forecast. Now, to the meat of an issue. You say solar activity declined during the last 1/2 of the 20th century. I agree, however the decline was from such a high output that even in decline, actual output was stronger in the last 1/2 of the 20th century than during the 1st half of the 20th century. Another item, solar energy varies, and bandwidths within that TSI also vary greatly. We also know that an ice cube in 100C temps doesn't immediately assume 100C. It takes a phase change for starters, and in a few hours, it becomes liquid water at equilibrium temperature. Convection is the roll in this transformation. Earth is the same. Kinda like the ole USS Enterprise. You could put the brakes on, but that baby just didn't stop in a few feet. In fact, from 52 knots, it took miles to stop it. The earth's response to varied sun output is much the same as the response the USS Enterprise has to putting on it's brakes. I will make a statement that I know to be 100% true. Average solar output during the last 1/2 of the 20th century was higher than during the 1st half of the 20th Century. Agree?
|
|
|
Post by flyfisher7 on Oct 30, 2014 23:00:04 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. HI DK, and congratulations on your correct forecast. Now, to the meat of an issue. You say solar activity declined during the last 1/2 of the 20th century. I agree, however the decline was from such a high output that even in decline, actual output was stronger in the last 1/2 of the 20th century than during the 1st half of the 20th century. Another item, solar energy varies, and bandwidths within that TSI also vary greatly. We also know that an ice cube in 100C temps doesn't immediately assume 100C. It takes a phase change for starters, and in a few hours, it becomes liquid water at equilibrium temperature. Convection is the roll in this transformation. Earth is the same. Kinda like the ole USS Enterprise. You could put the brakes on, but that baby just didn't stop in a few feet. In fact, from 52 knots, it took miles to stop it. The earth's response to varied sun output is much the same as the response the USS Enterprise has to putting on it's brakes. I will make a statement that I know to be 100% true. Average solar output during the last 1/2 of the 20th century was higher than during the 1st half of the 20th Century. Agree? I think it may be a bit too early to declare a cycle max forecast victory. There's a number of people, along with the data, indicating solar max has yet to happen. The north looks like it's going to go negative once again, dragging the cycle even further. Side note, astro speaks of the sun "going out with a bang". Perhaps the max has yet to happen and will happen sometime next year. wso.stanford.edu/Polar.html
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Oct 30, 2014 23:43:00 GMT
[Snip ] I think it may be a bit too early to declare a cycle max forecast victory. There's a number of people, along with the data, indicating solar max has yet to happen. The north looks like it's going to go negative once again, dragging the cycle even further. Side note, astro speaks of the sun "going out with a bang". Perhaps the max has yet to happen and will happen sometime next year. wso.stanford.edu/Polar.htmlIt's hard being a skeptic in my part of the world .... with very hot temperatures ATM. The Sun can take a break any time it wishes.
|
|
|
Post by drkstrong on Oct 31, 2014 0:13:18 GMT
TSI and sunspots have an inverse correlation in the short term (hours to weeks) and a direct correlation over longer periods (months to years).
The reason for this is obvious if you think about it. When a large sunspot comes on to the disk it reduces the solar output (because it is cooler and dark)by the relative area of the spot compared to the surface area of the Sun. But we only see large spots for 2 weeks at a time and they may never return. Thus the recent AR2192 region was nearly 3000 mil in area so reduced the solar out put by about 0.3% or reduced solar forcing to the Earth buy about about 4 watts/m^.
As sunspot groups evolve they have bright areas called faculae which actually are hotter and brighter. The faculae tend to last a lot longer than sunspots and return many times. So the faculae eventually make a greater contribution to the TSI than the sunspots lower it. So the TSI is increased overall when averaged over longer timescales because the faculae are dominant.
|
|
|
Post by drkstrong on Oct 31, 2014 0:23:02 GMT
I am not declaring sunspot max victory, if you followed my YouTube channel you would know that. I am just pointing out that the two experts quoted above got things completely wrong just a few years in advance so why should we believe them when they are forecasting solar cycles 2-3 decades down the road.
The solar cycle in 2015 can continue to rise (probability about 25%), stay at about the same activity level 25%), or start to slowly decay (50%).
I would also like to point out that the last time we had a low cycle like this (SC14) which was preceded by several slowly declining cycles (SC10-13) the next cycle was not a maunder minimum but an above average cycle. Look up "regression towards the mean" which basically says when you have an exception or rare event, the next occurrence will most likely be closer to average conditions.
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Oct 31, 2014 0:35:46 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! I'd like to see those reasons drkstrong, because if you are ruling out the Sun, then what else is there? The answer is nothing, and of course, that is impossible, so it is the Sun. It is obvious that you are of a group of solar physicists who believe that solar variability has a more regional effect than a global one; so with this view you are essentially saying that solar variability is not the cause of the global warming. I say that you are incorrect. I believe that Magellan attempted to also correct you as well (and he's right to do so) as we can mention CERN's CLOUD (Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets) test. Now, CLOUD showed how the GCR (which are Galactic Cosmic Rays) interact with sulfides in the air to form clouds. When there is more GCR, then you have more clouds, and thus a cooler global climate. That is coming with my climate forecast for global cooling to begin officially in December 2017 and to last 36 years. And when we have a strong solar cycle, with more sunspots, then we have a stronger Heliospheric magnetic shield and less GCR reaching the Earth and that equals less clouds being generated - hence a warmer global climate. That is what happened in 1980-81 with the start of a 36-year global warm climate, which has been on the wane since about 2001 and will end in 2017. Some facts: The Sun holds 98.9% of the entire mass of our solar system, which should tell you all you need to know about the Earth's climate and the causes of global warming, on this planet, the Earth, and all the other planets of our solar system. And two: As a solar physicist, you should already know then that even small, and I mean tiny changes of activity in the Sun clearly affects the Earth's climate. Our Sun varies in the amount of light it emits( by 0.1 percent) over the course of the solar cycle, which is 11-years and matches that of Jupiter's orbital phase. However, I find it incredulous for you to state that "we can rule out the Sun," when it is well known that even that 'tiny' amount of light the Sun emits and that reaches the top of the Earth's atmosphere provides somewhere in the neighbor of 2,500 times as much energy as the total of all other sources (real and imagined) combined. Here are more facts: That even that 0.1 percent of the amount of light that the Sun emits, clearly - and by far - exceeds all other energy sources the Earth's atmosphere sees combined, like radioactivity for instance that is naturally emitted from deep within the Earth's core. The Sun is THE dominant energy source that powers the climates of all the planets of our solar system - including the Earth and again, there is no such thing as 'man-made global warming,' as that is impossible to ever occur on Earth. There is an ideological group of solar physicists who believe (incredibly) that the Sun is 'lazy.' The reason for this false view is that they think that they see that solar changes have 'historically caused climate changes,' but all in all that the "Sun is pretty lazy." While solar changes have historically caused climate changes, they say that the Sun is only responsible for less than 15% of world temperature increases over the last century - which is false. It is much more than that, and that fact proves that the Sun is the cause of global warming, global cooling, and everything else in between as well. Of course, that so-called Sun only accounts for 15% leads right back into the pink-elephants-can-fly fallacy of 'man-made global warming,' - that false insert into true climate science. One of the problems those in climate science have in searching for their 'mechanism' that causes the Earth's climate to change is that they continue to underestimate their lack of knowledge of how climate and weather is caused - and the only proof of knowing this is the ability to actually forecast. That is the entire point of Science - the ability to predict.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Oct 31, 2014 0:50:17 GMT
[Snip ] I think it may be a bit too early to declare a cycle max forecast victory. There's a number of people, along with the data, indicating solar max has yet to happen. The north looks like it's going to go negative once again, dragging the cycle even further. Side note, astro speaks of the sun "going out with a bang". Perhaps the max has yet to happen and will happen sometime next year. wso.stanford.edu/Polar.htmlIt's hard being a skeptic in my part of the world .... with very hot temperatures ATM. The Sun can take a break any time it wishes. Ratty: Sorry to say, but you folks were due for a stretch of "hot" temperatures. The last real hot ones were in the 1880's...and there is some sort of cycle that shows you were even a bit overdue for what is happening now. At least it isn't continent wide like it was in the 1880's. But...it could grow to be. Part of the normal weather variation, and nothing to do with AGW theory or response.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Oct 31, 2014 7:27:44 GMT
[ Snip ] Ratty: Sorry to say, but you folks were due for a stretch of "hot" temperatures. The last real hot ones were in the 1880's...and there is some sort of cycle that shows you were even a bit overdue for what is happening now. At least it isn't continent wide like it was in the 1880's. But...it could grow to be. Part of the normal weather variation, and nothing to do with AGW theory or response. Just been reading about it ..... Australia Heatwave 1896 .... and the Federation Drought (1895-1902)Should I consider moving to Canada?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Oct 31, 2014 14:44:57 GMT
Naw, you are too old and set in your ways to move to Canada.
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Oct 31, 2014 15:29:57 GMT
Naw, you are too old and set in your ways to move to Canada. We'll take ya here in Nor Cal.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Oct 31, 2014 23:39:19 GMT
Naw, you are too old and set in your ways to move to Canada. We'll take ya here in Nor Cal. Thanks for the offer but tectonics don't agree with me.
|
|
|
Post by drkstrong on Oct 31, 2014 23:52:16 GMT
Local weather does not equal global climate
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Nov 1, 2014 0:10:35 GMT
Local weather does not equal global climate I know, I know ..... but the heat does make life uncomfortable for this sceptic. On the other hand, I fully realize that cold is caused by warming.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Nov 1, 2014 1:22:21 GMT
Local weather does not equal global climate This is the big straw-man that is so often thrown out that I find SO *&^$% FRUSTRATING when talking to a non-skeptic. It's a meaningless argument. We all know this. We're not stupid. You're avoiding the question when you throw it out. Sorry if I sound harsh, but *&%^$% someone, PLEASE actually address the REAL questions, and the REAL weaknesses in the non-skeptical arguments, at least!
|
|