'No Sun link' to climate change

Originally posted by Blaine91555
Perhaps their future Government Grants were dependant on them refuting that idea?

This is the most likely conclusion, remember self preservation. If everyone realized that the sun was overwhelmingly responsible and that we could do nothing about Global Warming imagine all the economic, global and political agendas that would be instantly crushed.... Can't let that happen so we find "scientists" that are willing to compromise their integrity in order to receive nice funds and keep a steady job.

Still, even basic reasoning and observation will tell you that if decreased sun activity and output coincided almost perfectly with the Little Ice Age. An increase in solar activity and output would in turn create a "warm age", so to speak.

Originally posted by Blaine91555
So in response to a documentary that aired this year this study was undertaken? They ruled out the Sun's involvement in a few short months? Am I the only one who noticed this? Maybe this team could solve the riddle of Life, the Universe and Everything in a couple of months too?

Uh huh.....

And do you think that scientists have only been observing the sun for a few months? Common bro, use some "basic reasoning". The sun has been the primary focus of scientists for millennia. There is a oodles and oodles of data on the sun, it's cycles, and it's effect on the Earth's climate. They figured it out in a few months using years of collected data.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Still, even basic reasoning and observation will tell you that if decreased sun activity and output coincided almost perfectly with the Little Ice Age. An increase in solar activity and output would in turn create a "warm age", so to speak.

Basic reasoning also said that when you do a certain dance at a certain time of year the rains would come and feed your crops. The average person's "basic reasoning" doesn't amount to much when dealing with climate change, solar activity, greenhouse effect, yada yada....

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
And yes, it could be a huge coincidence, but those happen all the time in this vast universe.

Pretty big un'.

Perhaps we have a magical shield that protects us from the sun or whatever force is causing the system-wide warming, but at the same time we just happen to be causing our own planet to warm up, completely independent from the other planets? If that's true then wow... we rock!

i swear this July has been the coldest since i've been alive here in the UK, we put the heating on earlier

Originally posted by apc
Pretty big un'.

Perhaps we have a magical shield that protects us from the sun or whatever force is causing the system-wide warming, but at the same time we just happen to be causing our own planet to warm up, completely independent from the other planets? If that's true then wow... we rock!

Or maybe Venus is warming due to n increase in a certain type of naturally occurring greenhouse gas. Jupiter is warming because of internal geothermal gaseous reactions, pluto is beginning a cycle where it has more direct contact with sunlight, and Mars' underground alien population is increasing and producing more methane. All at the same time!!!!!

Who knows

Its interesting they point out suns activity hasnt increased since the 1980s and according to NASAs balloon and satelite data there hasnt been any global warming trend between 1980-2000. Only data that does show warming trend in the temperatures between 1980-2000 is surface temperature measurements that are affected by the urbanisation of the measurement locations. Ofcourse if you look at just the data from the northern hemisphere it does show some warming but you have to look at the whole globe and not just the northern hemisphere.

Theres also the little point of increase in deep ocean temperatures which can only be caused by increased solar radiation heating up the ocean which causes more water vapor and CO2 being released from the oceans. CO2 ofcourse increases the plant life growth and thus the amount of water vapor released by plants which might actually impact the temperatures on the northern hemisphere and as the measurement data shows where there is more water vapor thats where the heat is. Theres also the small issue of CO2 lagging 800 years behind the temperature changes if you actually look at the icecore data so CO2 is an effect not cause of temperature increase it is the latent effect, what is even more funnier is if you look back 800 years thats when we had the last longer warming period and that matches the 800 year lag quite nicely.

So if you really want to try and slow down the climate change you need to start cutting down the planlife on the northern hemisphere, which have been increasing in almost everywhere on the northern hemisphere in the last 100 years, to reduce the water vapor in the athmosphere thus lowering the greenhouse effect. Planting more trees will just increase the problem and any CO2 a tree can take out of the athmosphere is released back when the tree dies unless the tree falls into a swamp or similar place where it cant be eaten up by bugs or burned.

The climate is changing though no doubt about that and it wont be the first or the last time it is an continuous prosses, but the data that I have been able to come across does point towards the sun and nature not man and fossil fuels. Funny thing is in the 70s when they told us we had an iceage coming they blamed it on the sun, now when the temperature is going back up its not the sun?

I guess they have suddenly done alot of sun research as not more than few months ago they were clueless about suns effect on the whole issue and now they suddenly have "proof" it has nothing to do with it? I cant wait until they release their new finds on how water vapor has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect either.

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
It is more akin to a giant positive anode, releasing the energy it does by means of interaction with giant fields of energy that pervade the galaxy. Think of it as a ball of mass creating friction against a surface (field) as it moves through space.

The Sun is electric, not nuclear.

You are aware of how very flawed the electric universe model is, correct? Such as the total lack of inward-flowing electrons, the overabundance of fusion-spawned neutrinos, and how parts of the electric model are based on glaring mis-interpretations of the standard fusion model and quantum mechanics in general?

Something smells like bs.


Why are all the other planets in the system getting hotter along with us?

OOPS I FORGOT. REMEMBER JOHN LEAR SAYS WE HAVE BASES ON ALL PLANETS MUST BE DRIVING HUMVEES ON SATURN. /satire.

[edit on 7-12-2007 by forsakenwayfarer]

Ok I just posted a thread in John Lear's forum regarding the sun's impact on global warming.

I don't think it would be an appropriate use of bandwidth to copy and paste the whole response here, but I will post the link:


Global/Solar System Warming

Sorry for the hijack, but do you really seriously expect an intelligent response from john lear on the issue?

I'm sure it will be something about anti-matter reactors exhaust gas interfering with immense polar magnets commonly used to capture soul's for macabre experiments.

Also, charcoal grills on Venus. I mean, they have to cook somehow?

He may not give a straight response, but at least I'm getting the info somewhere on this board. I hope someone reads it who has a better understanding of how the galaxy works than I do.

I can't call myself a science wiz, but I am fascinated by it. While I think there are some unethical practices going on in our Earthly science, the 'heavenly' sciences if you will that study things beyond our planet is what really interests me.



Back to the topic: That source seems like a crock of # to be honest. I agree with the previous poster who mentioned this has to do with funding. If global warming truly is out of our hands (and I believe it is) there will be no more research grants to fix certain things on Earth.

I believe we have royally messed up our planet, but that doesn't mean its completely our fault for the rise in temperature. That also doesn't mean we are let off the hook.



We need to fix the mess we've made, regardless of galactic warming or not.

Originally posted by Thousand

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
It is more akin to a giant positive anode, releasing the energy it does by means of interaction with giant fields of energy that pervade the galaxy. Think of it as a ball of mass creating friction against a surface (field) as it moves through space.

The Sun is electric, not nuclear.

You are aware of how very flawed the electric universe model is, correct? Such as the total lack of inward-flowing electrons, the overabundance of fusion-spawned neutrinos, and how parts of the electric model are based on glaring mis-interpretations of the standard fusion model and quantum mechanics in general?

You are aware how flawed the current model is, correct?
There's more evidence suggesting the sun is electrical in nature.
The nuclear fusion is a by product of the magnetic fields heating.
I'm not sure what you mean by inward flowing electrons?
No one understands quantum mechanics otherwise there would be no mystery there. Miss-interpretations of an already flawed model?

Solar particles gain speed up as they are ejected from the sun; this shows the presence of an electrical field. The corona is hotter, another by product of an electrical phenomena. Also how can a nuclear fireball have black sun spots?

But hey, I'm no physicist, just have an interest, so if you could show any links to the contrary, I'd appreciate it.
Thanx.

Guys and gals, we've known for years that the sun is not the major cause of the warming of the last few decades.

Solar activity has not been increasing for quite a while. Temperatures are still increasing, there is no longer a correlation between solar activity and climate. This is Sami Solanki's data taken from his website (actual data in Solanki & Krivova, 2003).



Moreover, If solar activity was the predominate cause of the warming trend, we would find that warming is consistent throughout the atmosphere. It would be warming from the thermosphere to the troposphere. However, it isn't.

The troposphere is warming and the stratosphere cooling, this was a prediction made in 1989 by Roble & Dickenson for the effects of GHG mediated warming. Indeed, we could say the sky is falling, as the higher levels of the atmosphere are actually contracting.

The reason that the authors of this paper are responding to the GGWS, is because most people have little knowledge of the actual science, thus when presented with a sack of poop, containing obsolete, incorrect, and misleading information that thanks them for emitting, they have little chance of seeing it for what it is.

This new paper is a review of all the recent data and contains new direct measures of solar activity. It shows that solar activity has actually decreased since the mid 1980s.

As for planets warming in the solar system. Mars is likely warming due to dust storms. As pluto has warmed an estimated 2'C, we would notice if that was due to solar activity - think about it.

[edit on 12-7-2007 by melatonin]

OK, from the new article - Lockwood & Frolich (2007):



The figures show the running means of the data for (top) total solar irradiance, and (b) global temperatures, Hadley data and GISS slightly offset.

No correlation at all. They are going in the wrong direction to be coupled.

It's all very simple really, we can't pump out billions of tonnes of GHGs, black carbon, and destroy important habitats on a large scale without having some effect on the earth. And the data shows that this is affecting climate significantly.

And cosmic rays are not able to provide an answer. They have also been pretty constant over the last few decades, so Svensmark et al. will not save the day.

[edit on 12-7-2007 by melatonin]

So which chart are you running with? Because they disagree with eachother.

And the second one conflicts with the NASA data...


Image source: www.giss.nasa.gov...

NASA shows a trend of +0.05% per decade.

[edit on 12-7-2007 by apc]

No, it doesn't.

You need to read closely.

It says 0.05% between minima. Important distinction. Plus, they are not representing the data in the same way anyway - one is their actual numbers, the other is a running mean which removes the natural 11 year cycle and extracts the trends (Lockwood & Frolich, 2007).

Furthermore, their data is a composite of various different satellite data, another study which used the same data, Frolich & Lean (1998, 2004; Frolich, 2006), finds no trend in the minima. They each use different methods of 'sewing' the data from the different satellites together. So, which is correct? If you check the greenwich sunspot comparison on the same page as their TSI data (bottom figure), then we can start to see which is likely correct.

www.giss.nasa.gov...

The only way to know is to compare to other data...which also show no significant upward trend over the last few decades, and actually show a downward trend. Lockwood & Frolich contains more than just the direct TSI data, but also other measures which cross-validate. Thus, the sunspot data shows a similar downward trend (peak is approximately 1985, 5 yr divisions):



So does the solar flux data (same idea, peak at 1985'ish, 5 yr divisions):



Other measures show exactly the same thing, a downward trend in solar activity.

Even if we accept that the Willson data is reliable, you likely missed that they accept that it is unlikely to have contributed in an important way to current warming. They claim that if such a trend is maintained for decades, it would be though - which is true.

[edit on 12-7-2007 by melatonin]

Are you reading the same thing I am?

Yes, Wilson concludes that this upward trend would only cause climate change if maintained over several decades. Wilson also suggests that this upward trend may have already persisted for several decades.

"Historical records of solar activity indicate that solar radiation has been increasing since the late 19th century. If a trend, comparable to the one found in this study, persisted throughout the 20th century, it would have provided a significant component of the global warming the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports to have occurred over the past 100 years," he said.

If only we had satellites up observing the sun for the past century, we would know if this trend has been progressive.

You readily dismiss this data, yet such a trend is the simplest explanation for the system-wide warming being observed. Instead you favor the overly complex notion that the multiple instances of observed warming through the solar system are all caused by independent factors, and our own warming is completely unrelated. This is not science. This is bias.

Yes, my reading skills are very good. I even picked up the bit about this being related to solar activity during the minima and not solar activity in total. I also noticed that the sunspot data they show in the last figure they present is more consistent with no increase at cycle minima (which I note you ignored).

We already know that solar irradiance increased for much of the 20th century. So we have little need for imagining what satellite data would show. That's why no-one who knows this stuff claims that human activities account for warming throughout the 20th century.

My reading skills were also sufficient to carry on reading to the part were the article states that "the inferred increase over the last 24 years, about 0.1%, is not enough to cause notable climate change".

Do you really think that the estimated 2'C of warming on pluto is solar mediated?

Try this simple experiment, put your hand 5cm from a hot incandescent light bulb. I'm sure you'll feel the warmth. Now place your hand 150cm (which is about neptune's relative distance), is it warm?

Now if you could increase the heat to produce the same warming at the 150cm distance as the 5cm distance, how hot do you think it would be at 5cm?

If the 2'C warming on pluto was due to increased solar activity, we would sort of notice it don't you think? It would make current warming seem a like a joke.

Anyway, back to the Willson data. The only reason it seems like I dismiss the Willson data is because there are very good reasons to question the reliability of the methodology used to produce the data. We have two studies, one of which (actually 3 from the same group - Frolich & Lean 1998, 2004; Frolich, 2006) is completely consistent with independent solar flux data, solar sunspot data, isotope data, cosmic ray data etc etc etc, and numerous other studies; and one which is consistent with none of them (Willson & Mordvinov, 2003).

I know which one I will rely on. And even if I decided to ignore the weight of evidence showing the Willson study to be questionable, it still is nowhere near sufficient to account for current warming on earth. Which they readily admit, but you feel can account for 2'C warming on pluto which is around 30 AU away...

So, I have a choice between dismissing one study, or several other studies which are all consistent. Wonder which decision requires the most bias.

[edit on 12-7-2007 by melatonin]

I don't know that the sun is the cause of the warming on Pluto. All I assert with confidence is that the concurrence of multiple warming events throughout the solar system should not be ignored solely to reinforce the theory that humans are causing the warming in one of them, and all the others are unrelated.

For all I know there is some outside force that our system is currently passing through, and it is affecting not only multiple planets, but the sun as well.

I do not dismiss the data that supports a positive irradiance trend simply because it provides a possible, simple explanation for the observations made. Until someone uses the exact same data and does not show the same trend, the explanation remains plausible.

In such case where the trend can not be reproduced, we will be left with a system-wide warming event without an explanation. That explanation is what should be sought and dealt with. But I suspect we will discover it will not be anything we can control.

Frolich & Lean did use the exact same satellite data. They showed no trend at solar minima. The only differences between the studies are how they mathematically adjusted the data to bring the separate satellite data together.

There are about 60 major bodies in the solar system, they can either warm, cool, or stay constant. Are you really surprised that a handful are warming?

For instance, there is good evidence that the warming on mars is not due to solar activity. It seems it could be due to dust storms whipping up the dust and increasing solar absorption at the surface. It's also not system wide, is the moon warming, how about venus? All the moons of jupiter? etc etc.

There is evidence of a handful, nothing more, nothing less. If you could show that over 50% are warming, we might have something of interest.

ABE:

Here's a comparison between the two sets of satellite data. The top is from Willson, along with the Greenwich sunspot data. As they say on the GISS site, they should be very closely related.

The second is the PMOD composite (Frolich's from Frolich & Lockwood, the latest data), this uses the same satellite data, but is sewn together differently.





One of these things is not like the other....

If we also know that many different measures (solar flux, isotope, cosmic rays) are entirely consistent with the Frolich PMOD composite, then we have more reason to accept it as a valid set of data.

[edit on 12-7-2007 by melatonin]