SCI/TECH: Sun at Highest Activity in the Past 1,150 Years

Astronomers at the Institute for Astronomy in Zurich, are stating that their analysis show the sun is more active now than it has been over the past 1,000 years.




The report also states that over the past 20 years sunspots have remained constant, but the average temperature of the Earth has continued to increase. It is believed that this is caused by the greenhouse gases from the combustion of fossil fuels we have been using.

The analysis states that the sun has a considerable indirect effect on global climate in our past, but that mankind is amplifying the Sun's latest attemp to warm the Earth.

Related News Links:
news.bbc.co.uk
news.bbc.co.uk
news.bbc.co.uk

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Sunspots reaching 1,000-year high
SCI/TECH: Satellites Record Weakening North Atlantic Current
NEWS: Parts of the world drying up says the UN.
NEWS: Summer is turned into winter accross parts of the UK.

[edit on 7-7-2004 by Zion Mainframe]

[edit on 7-7-2004 by Banshee]

If we spent more time scientifically and less time fighting and preparing for war, we can find out what is really happening or at least be more prepared before Earth turns into the next Mars. I mean, everyone knows that the Sun will get hotter. Earth will move outside of the temperate zone sooner or later. I doubt for a few more lifetimes, but it is somethng to think about.

When it was suggested a couple years ago that the solar constant wasn't actually all that constant, the notion was quickly rebuffed by the "greenhouse gas" crowd and scientists such as astrophysicists Dr. Sally Balliunas and Dr. Willie Soon and the like were then victims of a smear campaign. But now that mankind's contribution of greenhouse gasses has been added to the hype, all is right with the world.

The theories behind solar influences being the major factor on climate change and variability are centuries old, well documented and in my opinion, very sound. Other theories incorporate interference from possibly overlapping Milankovitch cycles and the theory of cloud seeding ionization due to low altitude charged particle interaction during solar minimas.

We will all have a better idea of any existing sun-earth correlations after the SORCE satellite gathers enough data over time.

I just have one question. What kind of scientific data have they been collecting for the past 1100 years? I mean we have SOHO for how long? How can they compare the data from say several hundred years ago that was collected by the naked eye?

Originally posted by nyarlathotep
I just have one question. What kind of scientific data have they been collecting for the past 1100 years? I mean we have SOHO for how long? How can they compare the data from say several hundred years ago that was collected by the naked eye?

Short answer:
Records of visual telescope-aided sunspot counts started with Galileo in 1612 although the most reliable and consistent recording of sunspot count data started about 1700. The method of counting them was standardized in 1848 by Johann Rudolph Wolf and essentially remains to be the way sunspots are counted now. Data prior to going back to 1700 can be corrected to the Wolf system so it is usually included in the historical record.

An approximate method to gauge solar activity for longer time scales of 10,000 years or more can be made by studying carbon-14 and beryllium-10 isotope deposits on earth. These components are residual leftovers of past solar activity that became trapped in tree rings and ice cores. Studies of these proxy records have shown that a multitude of solar cycles exist ranging from the well known 11 year (Schwabe) cycle to others lasting 80, 150, 200 and 500 years or more. All of these cycles can vary in duration and magnitude and can overlap causing a pronounced or diminished impact depending on the phases of those cycles.

A few (of many) good resources:
www.ngdc.noaa.gov...
es.rice.edu...
www.nerc-bas.ac.uk...

Originally posted by Outland
When it was suggested a couple years ago that the solar constant wasn't actually all that constant, the notion was quickly rebuffed by the "greenhouse gas" crowd and scientists such as astrophysicists Dr. Sally Balliunas and Dr. Willie Soon and the like were then victims of a smear campaign. But now that mankind's contribution of greenhouse gasses has been added to the hype, all is right with the world.

The theories behind solar influences being the major factor on climate change and variability are centuries old, well documented and in my opinion, very sound.

The only problem is that the sun being "the only" influence on climate on Earth doesn't seem to be true. If for the past 20 years the sunspots have been pretty constant but temperatures on Earth have kept increasing that should tell us there is something more that influences climate. It is true that the sun does play an important role on climate change, but its not the only influence. It is known that greenhouse gases absorb, and re-emit IR Radiation(heat) to Earth. If there were no greenhouse gases, the Earth would be a lot cooler, it would be at least 60 F colder. It should be obvious then if "mankind's contributions" have been releasing more greenhouse gases, then the temperature would increase since the gases would absorb and re-emit more IR radiation back to the Earth.

www.mpcfaculty.net...

" What Are Greenhouse Gases?
Many chemical compounds found in the Earth�s atmosphere act as �greenhouse gases.� These gases allow sunlight to enter the atmosphere freely. When sunlight strikes the Earth�s surface, some of it is reflected back towards space as infrared radiation (heat). Greenhouse gases absorb this infrared radiation and trap the heat in the atmosphere. Over time, the amount of energy sent from the sun to the Earth�s surface should be about the same as the amount of energy radiated back into space, leaving the temperature of the Earth�s surface roughly constant.

Many gases exhibit these �greenhouse� properties. Some of them occur in nature (water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide), while others are exclusively human-made (like gases used for aerosols)."



Excerpted from.
www.eia.doe.gov...


[edit on 7-7-2004 by Muaddib]

60 degrees F cooler!? You do realize that it is July, and yet there would have been ICE in San Bernardino, CA today if that happened, right?
I'm not saying it's not true, I'm just saying that maybe greenhouse gasses weren't curbed earlier for a reason. I also noticed from the chart that greenhouse gas levels have come to match our emissions, roughly. Does this mean that the natural levels have depleted and only our re-supply of them has kept them up?

@JCminJapan: You're right. If it were for borders and armies (which result in not only wasted money but redundant research) we would probably be free of fossil fuels by now, well on our way to preparing Mars for the time when Earth becomes uninhabitable, and possibly excepting a couple of million of America's more spoiled citizens, we'd all have lives that were more worth working to preserve.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
60 degrees F cooler!? You do realize that it is July, and yet there would have been ICE in San Bernardino, CA today if that happened, right?
I'm not saying it's not true, I'm just saying that maybe greenhouse gasses weren't curbed earlier for a reason. I also noticed from the chart that greenhouse gas levels have come to match our emissions, roughly. Does this mean that the natural levels have depleted and only our re-supply of them has kept them up?

" The greenhouse gases absorb some of the IR energy released as the earth cools. When they re-emit it, some of the energy is sent back toward the earth, rather than out into space. If the greenhouse gases were not there to trap some of this IR energy, the earth would be about 33 �C (60 �F) colder than it is."

Excerpted from.
www.mpcfaculty.net...

" The apparent temperature "surface" that we would see from space is located well above the real surface of the Earth where we live. This apparent temperature "surface" is about 5000 meters up (17,000 feet) within the atmosphere. To get a better handle on this concept consider the following: the difference in elevation between 0 meters and 5,000 meters corresponds to a difference in temperature of about 60�F. In other words, at sea level it is 60�F warmer than it would be without the atmosphere. For the last 100 years or so this apparent temperature �surface� has been moving upward in the atmosphere as a result of global warming.

Excerpted from.
calspace.ucsd.edu...

The Arizona Republic is reporting that more than 20 endangered pelicans are crashing into roads and sidewalks, mistaking the heat induced shimmer for lakes and ponds.

 

This might not sound too important but we have to take in consideration that summer just started and also the other reports of strange weather we are seeing not only in the U.S. but around the world.


[edit on 14-7-2004 by Muaddib]

Muaddib said:
"The only problem is that the sun being "the only" influence on climate on Earth doesn't seem to be true. If for the past 20 years the sunspots have been pretty constant but temperatures on Earth have kept increasing..."

The words "been pretty constant" are awfully vague. "Constant" to what?

The last twenty years:

What is this "constant" to?

Check the last 254 years: Graph

If you want to find something a little more "constant", do some homework: From the Internet, grab the text data sets of sunspot counts and frequency of Atlantic hurricanes. Next, squeeze the data into Excel (or your favorite similar application) and make some linear line charts. Then plot the trends.

Pretty similar, eh? Yes, both are on virtually the same "constant" trend of incline. And don't forget to check that Maunder Minimum period on the graphs. Interestingly enough, CO2 increases do not seem to be related. This is interesting since the creation of a hurricane is due to heat energy imbalances and it's result is the distribution of that imbalance.

Aside from that, I never said that the sun was "'the only' influence on climate". Those were your words. I agree with the theories that solar influences are the major factor. The terms "major" and "the only" are distinctly different in meaning.

Thanks for the links to "Mark Bishop's Chemistry Site" and the DOE site for the explanation of "greenhouse gases", but I didn't need the tutorial. We will get into the debate on CO2 when I find more time for it.

[edit on 8-7-2004 by Outland]

Outland, we do not post links just for you...there are a lot of members in ATS.

Now, lets take the image that you so kindly provided for number of sunspots in the past 54 years.



And now lets look at the global temperatures for the last 120 years



Now lets also compare the above two with the Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide of the past 300 years.



We can see that the number of sunspots in the 1990s were higher than in the 2000s, yet the global temperatures were higher with more anomalies after 2000 than in the 1990s.

The atmospheric carbon dioxide graph rises steadily in conjunction with the global temperatures anomalies, yet the number of sunspots are less according to your graph.

The last two graphs can be found at the link below.
serc.carleton.edu...


[edit on 8-7-2004 by Muaddib]