'No Sun link' to climate change

Ok I'd like to shed a little more light on this topic.

I do not agree with the OP's source. Not in the slightest. The sun may not be 100% at fault, but it is causing a great deal of havoc here.


A few points I'd like to make:

1). The Earth's magnetosphere surrounding us is collapsing. The sun's gamma and x-rays are making a larger impact due to this.

2). We may be passing through the galactic center which could in turn be causing the sun's recent flares.

Global Warming














I will further address this topic later. I have to run out the door.

To what extent does the Sun's variability affect and/or cause global climate change?

For decades, scientists have tried to understand the link between winds and temperature and the Sun and its cycles. There were tell-tale signs of a connection. For instance, the Little Ice Age recorded in Europe between 1550 and 1700 happened during a time of very low solar activity.

Solar scientists have long known that solar variability changes the distribution of energy in the Earth's atmosphere. During the Sun's 11-year cycle, from solar maximum through solar minimum, the energy released by the Sun changes by only about a tenth of a percent. New studies have clarified that when the solar cycle is at a maximum, it puts out a larger percentage of high-energy radiation, which increases the amount of ozone in the upper atmosphere. The increased ozone warms the upper atmosphere and the warm air affects winds all the way from the stratosphere (that region of the atmosphere that extends from about 6 to 30 miles high) to the Earth's surface. The change in wind strength and direction creates different climate patterns around the globe.

However, according to Drew Shindell, a climate researcher from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, NY, the most recent studies have confirmed that changing levels of energy from the Sun are not significant enough to be a major cause of global warming: "...the solar increases do not have the ability to cause large global temperature increases...greenhouse gases are indeed playing the dominant role..." The Sun is once again less bright as we approach solar minimum, yet global warming continues."

So scientists still aren't sure if its the rise in greenhouse gases due to human involvement or the sun solar maximums....

[edit on 12-7-2007 by biggie smalls]

I have a few more things to say on this matter.

From: www.agu.org...

Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth's climate. These effects add to natural influences that have been present over Earth's history. Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century.

Human impacts on the climate system include increasing concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases (e.g., carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons and their substitutes, methane, nitrous oxide, etc.), air pollution, increasing concentrations of airborne particles, and land alteration. A particular concern is that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide may be rising faster than at any time in Earth's history, except possibly following rare events like impacts from large extraterrestrial objects.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations have increased since the mid-1700s through fossil fuel burning and changes in land use, with more than 80% of this increase occurring since 1900. Moreover, research indicates that increased levels of carbon dioxide will remain in the atmosphere for hundreds to thousands of years. It is virtually certain that increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will cause global surface climate to be warmer.

The complexity of the climate system makes it difficult to predict some aspects of human-induced climate change: exactly how fast it will occur, exactly how much it will change, and exactly where those changes will take place. In contrast, scientists are confident in other predictions. Mid-continent warming will be greater than over the oceans, and there will be greater warming at higher latitudes. Some polar and glacial ice will melt, and the oceans will warm; both effects will contribute to higher sea levels. The hydrologic cycle will change and intensify, leading to changes in water supply as well as flood and drought patterns. There will be considerable regional variations in the resulting impacts.

From the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change: www.ipcc.ch...

While I may not agree with all of their conclusions, it is certainly a highly credible site. We are impacting our environment in a negative way. I don't think anyone disagrees with me on that one. We need to change our industrial ways. Those are facts.

What the disagreement seems to be over if it is completely our fault which I believe it is not. That does not mean we can sit back and let things run their own course. We need to get involved and start taking much much better care of our home.

We only get one planet. Remember that. We screw this one up there isn't a second place to go to. And even if there was, I don't think we really deserve that opportunity.




IPCC Special Report on Carbon dioxide Capture and Storage

Schematic diagram of possible CCS systems.


IPCC/TEAP Special Report on Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and the Global Climate System. Issues related to Hydrofluorocarbons and Perfluorocarbons (SROC)

Schematic diagram of major issues addressed by this report



Indicators of Human Influence on the Atmosphere during Industrial Era chart



Climate Change



Below are all graphs, but I didn't find it necessary to post them all on this thread. Click on them on your own time please.


Antropogenic and Natural Forcing of Climate Change

Great Ocean Conveyor Belt


Global Climate of 21st century


Temperature Change 1760-2100


World Primary Energy Use and CO2 Emissions

Strategies for Climate Change decisions

Originally posted by melatonin

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.

That's a logical fallacy on your part, more so when it is true that there are GHG on Earth in the troposphere which would warm the troposphere more than any other layer of Earth's atmosphere.

Another fact of note, as I have already stated, is that changes in the Sun's activity will slowly heat up all our oceans and this would take decades to occur. The changes don't happen overnight as some people apparently think.

Unless the changes in the Sun are massive, the changes which have been occurring, such as the increase in Sunspots, will slowly heat up Earth as the oceans slowly absorb the increased heat.

We know as a matter of fact that the activity of the Sun has been increasing for the past few decades than for more than 1,000- 8,000 years, and several methods have been used to detect this increase activity.

Sun more active than for a millennium - 02 November 2003 -

The sun is more active now than it has been for the past millennium. A European team of researchers reconstructed past sunspot activity from radioactive particles found in ice cores in Greenland and Antarctica. They found that there have been more sunspots since the 1940s than for the past 1150 years.

www.newscientist.com...

Pretty much every research done has shown this, but now suddenly these authors come up and claim this is not true?...

How convinient, but apparenlty they learnt this from Mann, just as Mann tried to bury the RWP, the MWP, and the LIA these two and some others are trying to dismiss the research which destroys their hope to get people to believe their disinformation and lies.

Here is a graph showing the increase in sunspots which have been happening in the last recent decades.



What a coincidence that the Sun's sudden activity increase, plus the weakening of the Earth's magnetic field, Climate Change on Earth and other planets are "all just coincidence and it is only anthropogenic CO2 which is causing this"....

Originally posted by melatonin
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.

You want to claim people are giving obsolete data and then you yourself give and talk about "obsolete data" from 1989?.... how ironic is that?...

I also recall some research work i have submitted in these forums from way before 1989 in which several scientists all predicted the climate on Earth would "drastically change" due to the Solar System entering a nearby interstellar cloud/cloudlet.

Originally posted by melatonin
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.

Wow...so i guess when people disagree with your claims and those researchers who make no sense, "those people know very little about the actual science"?...

This is nothing more than a red herring without presenting any proof trying to discredit the data which contradicts "your own personal views", plain and simple.

Originally posted by melatonin
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.

This paper is an attempt by the authors to get their 5 minutes of fame and nothing more. The fact that the authors outright dismiss the fact that changes in the Sun influences the climate on Earth should be a big warning sign, more so when we actually know the contrary to their claims by research work which has been done by dozens of other researchers.

Originally posted by melatonin
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.

Right...how convinient for the "let's blame mankind crowd" to want to dismiss what is happening not only on Earth, but to every planet and Moon with an atmosphere in the Solar System....

You presented the "prediction" made in 1989 as if it proves anything, scientists have predicted since at least 1978 that the Earth's climate was going to change, in the not so distant future due to a interstellar cloud we were going to meet...and guess what, all the evidence also points to us being in such a cloud so since "it was predicted and Climate Change is happening", it must be true right?

Is the solar system entering a nearby interstellar cloud

Authors: Vidal-Madjar, A.; Laurent, C.; Bruston, P.; Audouze, J.
Affiliation: AA(CNRS, Laboratoire de Physique Stellaire et Planetaire, Verrieres-le-Buisson, Essonne, France), AB(CNRS, Laboratoire de Physique Stellaire et Planetaire, Verrieres-le-Buisson, Essonne, France), AC(CNRS, Laboratoire de Physique Stellaire et Planetaire, Verrieres-le-Buisson, Essonne, France), AD(Meudon Observatoire, Hauts-de-Seine; Paris XI, Universite, Orsay, Essonne, France)
Publication: Astrophysical Journal, Part 1, vol. 223, July 15, 1978, p. 589-600. (ApJ Homepage)
Publication Date: 07/1978
Category: Astrophysics


Abstract
Observations indicating a hydrogen density gradient in the vicinity of the solar system are reviewed, particularly observations of an anisotropy in the far-UV flux around 950 A from the brightest and closest O and B stars as well as a variation in the local D/H ratio along the lines of sight to Alpha Cen and Alpha Aur. Possible mechanisms that may strongly affect the observed D/H ratio on a very small scale are considered, selected radiation pressure is proposed as the most likely mechanism for deuterium separation, and it is shown that this mechanism would be effective only if the density gradient of the nearby interstellar medium has remained stable for at least about 10 million years. This time scale is taken to imply the existence of a nearby (less than 2 pc distant) interstellar cloud. Observational arguments in favor of such a cloud are presented, and implications of the presence of a nearby cloud are discussed, including possible changes in terrestrial climate. It is suggested that the postulated interstellar cloud should encounter the solar system at some unspecified time in the 'near' future and might have a drastic influence on terrestrial climate in the next 10,000 years.

adsabs.harvard.edu...

Guess what? the climate on Earth and other planets is dramatically changing, and so is the Sun, but I guess once again you are going to dismiss this and instead give all the power to "mankind's activities" as the cause for everything heh?...

There is a convergence of natural events all which do have an effect on the climate of Earth, and other planets in our solar system, yet there are some people, and unfortunately including some scientists who want to dismiss every evidence which proves them wrong and instead want to blame mankind.

Some of these people are doing this so they can get a piece of the pie on "research funds concerning anthropogenic CO2 being the cause for global warming", which if is proven wrong would leave most of these researchers without a job. There is another group who just want to agree with those who have their "political leanings" but nomatter how much they try, they can't bury the truth and the facts.

[edit on 12-7-2007 by Muaddib]

(This post skirts the edge of going off-topic, I realize. But I feel it necessary in order to further "Deny Ignorance". I would hope the mods agree.)

Originally posted by squiz
You are aware how flawed the current model is, correct?

The current model isn't flawed, it's incomplete and not fully tested yet. Like many things in science (most things, actually) it's a work in progress. You should be immediately cautious of anyone with "all the answers".

There's more evidence suggesting the sun is electrical in nature.

This seems to be the line I hear so often when the electric model is brought up, but this evidence is never usually given. I went looking for a concise, well written paper or site where I could read up on it, but all I could seem to find was people trying to sell me badly written books full of fallacy and lacking hard math. Perhaps you have some good sources you'd be willing to share?

The nuclear fusion is a by product of the magnetic fields heating.

All measurements of solar-produced neutrinos point towards a large-scale nuclear reaction in the sun's core. Surface fusion caused by magnetic forces would release far fewer neutrinos than what is observed. Where's there's smoke, there's fire, so to speak. Also, the temperature required to cause fusion without the benefit of the pressure caused by the sun's immense mass is astronomical, even when compared to the sun's already high temperatures. Magnetically confined fusion, such as that in the tokamak-style fusion reactor, requires temperatures upwards of 100 million K to maintain a stable fusion chain. Where are these temperatures on the sun?

I'm not sure what you mean by inward flowing electrons?

The electric star in the electric universe model is powered externally, by the interstellar plasma it moves through. In order to do this, it must draw in energy from the space around it, and no such phenomena has ever been recorded. And yes, there are probes currently in space built to do just that, detect particle flow.

No one understands quantum mechanics otherwise there would be no mystery there.

No one understands quantum mechanics. Really. Shall I start a list of names? how about Max Planck? Jon von Neumann? Albert Einstein? Paul Dirac? Erwin Schrödinger? Niels Bohr? All famous men who pioneered the field. If nobody understands Quantum Mechanics, why do we have Lasers? Scanning-Tunneling Electron Microscopes? MRIs? Modern medicine? Nuclear weapons? I'd say trust me, but I don't have to. The very fact that you can post messages onto a forum from your PC is testament to the fact the yes, people do understand quantum mechanics.

Miss-interpretations of an already flawed model?

Not flawed. Incomplete. If it were obviously flawed, to the point where an electrical engineer/amateur astronomer could topple it, it wouldn't be considered the standard 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.

Both of these phenomena have possible solutions in the standard nuclear model. The inexplicable increase in speed of the solar wind may be caused by Alfvén waves produced in the coronal holes indirectly transferring their energy into the particles making the solar wind, boosting their speed to the observed peak velocity of 800+ km/s. As for the coronal temperature, the theory I prefer is Magnetic Reconnection, which states that the corona is heated by the breakdown of electrical currents caused by wildly fluctuating magnetic systems on the sun's surface. Both of these theories will be tested in the coming years by the Solar Probe.

Also how can a nuclear fireball have black sun spots?

They're not black. They only look that way because they are seen contrasted with the much brighter photosphere. They are actually blindingly bright.

But hey, I'm no physicist

That's okay, neither are some of the most vocal proponents of the Electric Universe model.

just have an interest, so if you could show any links to the contrary, I'd appreciate it.
Thanx.

Sure thing:

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
www.journals.uchicago.edu...
hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...
www.tim-thompson.com...
plasmascience.net...

These are my sources for this post. Hopefully that will get you started.

[edit on 13/7/2007 by Thousand]

No one is going to read your sources, however well put and FACTUAL your argument may be. I'm not psychic but I can predict someone is going to latch on to one simple claim that they really do not understand and use that to try and prove you wrong.


However, for your efforts I gave a star.

Thanks for the links, Thousand I'll be sure to have a better look later,
I agree this is off topic, but in the interest of denying ignorance.

Originally posted by Thousand
The current model isn't flawed, it's incomplete and not fully tested yet. Like many things in science (most things, actually) it's a work in progress. You should be immediately cautious of anyone with "all the answers".

I share this point of view, and question the so called answers we have today in regards to cosmology.

Also, the temperature required to cause fusion without the benefit of the pressure caused by the sun's immense mass is astronomical, even when compared to the sun's already high temperatures. Magnetically confined fusion, such as that in the tokamak-style fusion reactor, requires temperatures upwards of 100 million K to maintain a stable fusion chain. Where are these temperatures on the sun?

Perhaps there is mass? Your talking here about replicating the powers of the universe on earth, it just shows the arogance of much science.

No one understands quantum mechanics. Really. Shall I start a list of names? how about Max Planck? Jon von Neumann? Albert Einstein? Paul Dirac? Erwin Schrödinger? Niels Bohr? All famous men who pioneered the field.

You seriously think the above new the workings of quantum mechanics? If so where's our unified theory? What's this spookiness at a distance? I guess we really don't need that billion dollar collider because we know it all already. We have a lot of technology based on quantum mechanics of course, but we only understand and can explain a small amount. We can do brain surgery too, but we barely understand the intricacies of the human brain.

They're not black. They only look that way because they are seen contrasted with the much brighter photosphere. They are actually blindingly bright.

Right

Although wiki is a good resource when it comes to these things it's only more of the same institutionalized rhetoric. As you can see in the links you see words like possibly and most likely etc... Some of those don't seem to contradict IMO.
It's an alternative theory; of course it's going to have its opponents. And it goes a long way to explain and predict other astronomical phenomena. It may not be totally correct but it has value I think and shouldn't be brushed aside lightly.
It's my opinion that some areas of advanced physics and cosmology a based on false assumptions and half realized truths. Euclidean geometry is a good example.
It's IGNORANT to assume we have the truth particularly when it comes to the universe; it's absurd, just like many of the theories existing today, just from the point of view of common sense.

The better scientists are the ones who dare to challenge have an imagination and a sense of exploration and discovery instead of thinking their teachers had all the answers. It's the free thinkers that have made the grandest discoveries. Didn't Max Planck say something along the lines of waiting till the old science geezers die off before new theories can be accepted? (Not in those words of course.) Unfortunate but true.

The climate change thing is also clear evidence of how little we know. Ego, ignorance and greed at work in science. What a surprise. Stupid humans.

But I do appreciate your efforts, I'm not locked into any belief so I'm willing to consider.




[edit on 13-7-2007 by squiz]

Originally posted by squiz
Although wiki is a good resource when it comes to these things it's only more of the same institutionalized rhetoric.

I know I know, everything is a conspiracy. But it's either Wikipedia or reams of research documents that nobody would read anyway, so which do I post?

It's an alternative theory; of course it's going to have its opponents. And it goes a long way to explain and predict other astronomical phenomena. It may not be totally correct but it has value I think and shouldn't be brushed aside lightly.

It may have value but it is certainly not presented that way. The book excerpts at electric-cosmos.org are an absolute joke of literature and an offense to anyone with a critical mind. And the "interview" with the author is something entirely worse...and all this from one of the theory's "big names". All I see is a scam, they may as well be selling Meditation Crystals and Power Pyramids there.

I also keep hearing about these explanations. Does anyone have a link to some of these? And I mean links to hard physics examples, not to sites calling all astrophysicists "wackos" because they believe black holes to be real, or saying that all archaeologists do is "dig in the dirt and write papers about it".

You seriously think the above new the workings of quantum mechanics? If so where's our unified theory?

They knew the workings of Quantum Mechanics. They weren't masters of it. But that's not what you said, you said nobody understands it. You don't need to understand how a car works to drive one, they're two totally different things. There is no unified theory. Yet.

The better scientists are the ones who dare to challenge have an imagination and a sense of exploration and discovery instead of thinking their teachers had all the answers.

That's true, but there's a line between daring to challenge the system and being a crackpot out to sell your books by slamming the hard work of honest scientists.

The climate change thing is also clear evidence of how little we know. Ego, ignorance and greed at work in science. What a surprise. Stupid humans.

I'd rather we act on climate change regardless of its source. Even if we aren't causing it we sure as hell are making a mess of this planet, and something has to be done about it.

But I do appreciate your efforts, I'm not locked into any belief so I'm willing to consider.

Good to hear.

[edit on 13/7/2007 by Thousand]

Ok, in the interest of not de railing this thread,
let's agree we don't have all the answers and it's counter productive to assume so.
The authors of those books you refer to are based on the work of real scientist. Why not consider that it may be simpler, just EM and gravity, maybe plasma does plays a bigger part? no need for imaginary dark matter or mysterious strong force.
You don't have to answer. I leave it there and watch and wait and enjoy the sunshine.

plasmascience.net...
www.electric-cosmos.org...
www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov...
en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 13-7-2007 by squiz]

Originally posted by Muaddib
That's a logical fallacy on your part, more so when it is true that there are GHG on Earth in the troposphere which would warm the troposphere more than any other layer of Earth's atmosphere.

Another fact of note, as I have already stated, is that changes in the Sun's activity will slowly heat up all our oceans and this would take decades to occur. The changes don't happen overnight as some people apparently think.

Unless the changes in the Sun are massive, the changes which have been occurring, such as the increase in Sunspots, will slowly heat up Earth as the oceans slowly absorb the increased heat.

We know as a matter of fact that the activity of the Sun has been increasing for the past few decades than for more than 1,000- 8,000 years, and several methods have been used to detect this increase activity.

Yes, the sun has been particularly active during the 20th century. But it didn't get much more active than it was in the 1940s.

I see you are also cherrypicking Usoskin's work again.

Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years

S. K. Solanki1, I. G. Usoskin2, B. Kromer3, M. Schu¨ ssler1 & J. Beer4

....

Although the rarity of the current episode of high average sunspot numbers may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual climate change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades.

Usoskin's work does not support your position that solar is currently the major contribution, neither does Willson & Mordvinova (2003), neither does Solanki & Krivova (2003), neither does Frohlich & Lockwood (2007).

In fact, the sun seems to have been actually getting less active in the last 20 years. That's what the OP study was about. I told you this new study would be important.

Since 1985ish TSI has fell.

Since 1985ish Solar flux has fell

Since 1985ish Sunspots have been fewer.

Since 1985 global temperatures just keep on trucking.

So we're not looking for a increase in temperatures from solar causes now.

Your graphs are a bit naff though Muaddib, they show a bit more than the last few decades looks like they are on thousand year timescales, I posted a couple of good ones earlier (i.e. focus on the last few decades).

The fact that the authors outright dismiss the fact that changes in the Sun influences the climate on Earth should be a big warning sign

It's pretty obvious that you haven't even read the article, so you have little idea what they claim.

But just so you know, they do no such thing. Wouldn't want you to keep completely misrepresenting their position, that's sort of dishonest. For future reference, here is their abstract:

There is considerable evidence for solar influence on the Earth’s pre industrial climate and the Sun may well have been a factor in post-industrial climate change in the first half of the last century. Here we show that over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the Earth’s climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures.

As for the switch to interstellar dust stuff, we've been through that before muaddib, the majority of evidence shows it would result in cooling of the climate. Some even suggest it may be involved in ice-ages. Sorry, it's actually warming.

Anyway, I think this thread is about the new evidence showing a fall in solar activity over the last 20 years...

[edit on 13-7-2007 by melatonin]

Wow, melatonin is surely at it again with his disinformation...

Well, you know me, i am the kind of person that i do the research myself intead of trusting someone like yourself...

Here is what the Willson, R.C. and A.V. Mordvinov, 2003, (Secular total solar irradiance trend during solar cycles 21–23, Geophysical Research Letters, 30, 3-1–3-4.) data actually says.... Directly from their research and not the claims of someone else such as "melatonin"...

BTW, melatonin always claims that i am cherry picking, but by now all members should know that I can't excerpt all the research as per the board rules.... So yes, I have to "excerpt certain data"....

[14] The most interesting result of the ACRIM TSI time
series for climate change is the +0.05%/decade trend
between the minima separating solar cycles 21–22 and
22–23. [Willson, 1997] The trend over 9.75 years separating
the two minima appears to be significant relative to
uncertainty in the time series including comparison computations
(±0.001%/decade) and sensor degradation (less than
±0.005%/decade).
......................
[25] The ~0.05%/decade minimum-to-minimum trend
appears to be significant. If so it has profound implications
for both solar physics and climatology. For solar physics it
means that TSI variability can be caused by unknown
mechanisms other than the solar magnetic activity cycle.
Much longer time scales for TSI variations are therefore a possibility, which has obvious implications for solar forcing
of climate.

www.acrim.com...

Notice first of all they are talking about the Sun's minima, which is the time when there are very few to no sunspots.

During Solar maxima the Sun's irradiance increases, since the faculae expansion , which brightens the surrounding areas of Sunpots, is much greater than the "apparent" dark spots at the center of the sunspot, which is very bright but this darker appearance is caused by the difference in brightness of about 1,000-1,500 K (if i remember correctly) between the center of the Sunspots and the surrounding areas.

Still, as can be seen directly from the research I quoted, melatonin is lying once again since Wilson and Mordinov clearly state in their 2003 research that "they found an increase of +0.05% in the Solar minima for cycles 21-23"....

Nice try melatonin...

[edit on 13-7-2007 by Muaddib]

Still, as can be seen directly from the research I quoted, melatonin is lying once again since Wilson and Mordinov clearly state in their 2003 research that "they found an increase of +0.05% in the Solar minima for cycles 21-23"....

Nice try melatonin...

I don't think I ever denied that Willson found an increase of 0.05% at the minima in their version of the satellite data. I have a whole post comparing the Willson and Frohlich composites to the sunspot data earlier.

I state it clearly here and here. I also mentioned it in a fragile earth thread when you brought this study up then, because you missed this important point.

:|

What I do deny is that this 0.05%, if correct (which seems unlikely), is important for current warming. I'm apparently in the same company as the authors on that position.

the inferred increase over the last 24 years, about 0.1%, is not enough to cause notable climate change.

ABE: so I'd like you to remove your incorrect claim that I was lying. Do you have the integrity to do so?

[edit on 13-7-2007 by melatonin]

Ah....so "melatonin" denies that an increase in the brightness of the Sun of 0.05% has any relevance to the climate on Earth...it is the 0.01% increase of CO2....*cough*.... that is the real cause for the warming?.....

You really did it this time buddy......

[edit on 13-7-2007 by Muaddib]

Like the scientists who authored the paper, I accept that a 0.05% increase at solar minima would not be so important for the current warming trend.

First of all do us all a favour and post links whenever you are going to quote anyone...

second of all I give the same treatment to the people i talk to just as they treat me...so don't expect me to retract anything when you resort to the same claims....

Originally posted by melatonin
Like the scientists who authored the paper, I accept that a 0.05% increase at solar minima would not be so important for the current warming trend.

Well...sorry to tell you but other researchers who have been studying this a bit longer say differently...and even the Sun itself has shown what it can do, perhaps "melatonin" needs to be refreshed on the LIA, unless of course he wants to continue to agree with Mann in trying to bury this past Climatic Change as an event that didn't happen?...

The Sun's activity is so important to the climate on Earth that "it was the fact that there were very rare sunspots during the Maunder minimum which produced the coldest years during the LIA (Little Ice Age)....



[edit on 13-7-2007 by Muaddib]

Errm, yeah, OK...

So we have Frohlich & Lockwood (2007), Solanki, Usoskin et al (2003); Solanki & Krivova (2003), Willson et al (2003), the IPCC, multiple official scientific organisations across the world, and likely many others accepting that solar variability is unable to account for current climate change.

But you know better.

Here is the link to the NASA report for you:

www.giss.nasa.gov...

As for my asking you to remove the false claim on my integrity, leave it there, it takes two clicks to for someone to see who has questionable integrity

ABE: in fact, I just made it clearer for people.

[edit on 13-7-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
....................
As for the switch to interstellar dust stuff, we've been through that before muaddib, the majority of evidence shows it would result in cooling of the climate. Some even suggest it may be involved in ice-ages. Sorry, it's actually warming.

Anyway, I think this thread is about the new evidence showing a fall in solar activity over the last 20 years...

Yes we did discuss this many times, and i showed dozens of research work which astrophysicists say they are not certain what the "interstellar cloud" will do exactly to Earth's climate, but many do say it will certainly cause dramatic Climate Change....(note that melatonin continues to name it dust, he does this to make people believe this interstellar matter, charged particles, gases and energy is only "dust"....which shows his lack of sincerity...)

Noone can know for certain what this interstellar cloudlet will do, but what we can observe is that "all planets and moons with an atmosphere on the Solar system are going through Climate Change in the form of warming, and even the Sun's activity has been increasing as the Solar system entered this interstellar cloud/cloudlet.

--edited to add comment---

[edit on 13-7-2007 by Muaddib]

Actually, let's post the parts which you chose to leave out...and let's see why you chose to leave them out...

If we continue reading that quote which you gave, including the quote which you gave we can find the following...

Although the inferred increase of solar irradiance in 24 years, about 0.1 percent, is not enough to cause notable climate change, the trend would be important if maintained for a century or more. Satellite observations of total solar irradiance have obtained a long enough record (over 24 years) to begin looking for this effect.

www.giss.nasa.gov...

Now, there are two important pieces of information, which melatonin once again left out because they show he has not been honest about this.

First of all, the studies were done for a 24 year period....

Second of all they do say that if this trend has been sustained for over a century, then it would be important...

Since we know for a fact that the warming of most of Earth began since the early 1600s, and CO2 levels did not begin to increase until the 1860s.... what could have caused the wamring which began for most of the world during the 1600s, and in some parts the warming trend began in the 1500s?....

I guess anthropogenic CO2 made a trip back in time and started "Global Warming" since the 1500s-1600s?....

---edited for error, changed decade for "century"----

[edit on 13-7-2007 by Muaddib]

Again, if you read what I'd posted earlier, you would know that I mentioned that very clearly, and I accept that if a 0.05% increase at the minima was present and continued for decades it would be important. Link here.

As we are not talking about whether this trend is increasing for the next several decades, it is quite unimportant. The thread is about the new evidence showing a fall in solar activity over the last 20 years. You and others brought up this study to show that there was actually an increase in solar activity (when it's actually only at minima, and the study is actually inconsistent with much of the rest), that may explain current warming.

I used the quote to show that the authors accept that the trend their composite data shows is unlikely to have caused notable climate change.

ABE: You're actually quite grouchy today, muaddib. Relax dude. The Frohlich & Lockwood study is important, but you'll get over the cognitive dissonance eventually.

[edit on 13-7-2007 by melatonin]

Wow, notice how quickly "melatonin" avoids discussing the fact that "Global Warming" started for most of the world a bit over 240 years before CO2 levels began to increase, and in some areas the warming began 340 years before CO2 levels began to increase.

This is very important since this fact alone shows that the warming has been happening well before CO2 levels started to increase, so something else must have caused this increase warming on Earth, and other planets, and what a coincidence that researchers have found that the Sun's output has been increasing in the recent cycles they studied, as well as the sunspots numbers have increased, despite the claims of "melatonin and these two researchers", and the magnetic field of the Earth has been weakening since around 1845, which does have effects on the Earth's climate and weather....

[edit on 13-7-2007 by Muaddib]