Sunspot Activity and Global Warming

So James can you explain why, the AGW Orthodoxy wants to dismiss;

Sun as major causal factor, vs: Anthropogenic Warming in the rise of temperatures.

http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/lassen1.html

Solar Activity and Climate​

Space weather may also in the long term affect the Earth's climate. Solar ultra-violet, visible and heat radiation are the primary factors for the Earth's climate, including global average temperatures, and these energy sources appear to be quite constant. However, many scientists have observed corrrelations between the solar magnetic activity, which is reflected in the sunspot frequency, and climate parameters at the Earth. Sunspots has been recorded through several hundreds of years which makes it possible to compare their variable frequency to climate variations to the extent that reliable climatological records exists. One of the most striking comparisons was published by E. Friis-Christensen og K. Lassen, DMI, in "Science" in 1991. In their work they compared the average temperatureat the northern hemisphere with the average solar activity defined through the interval between successive sunspot maxima. The more active the sun - the shorter the interval: the solar cycle runs more intense. Their results are displayed in the figure below:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The red curve illustrates the solar activity, which is generally
increasing through an interval of 100 years, since the cycle length
has decreased from around 11.5 years to less than 10 years. Within
the same interval the Earth's average temperature as indicated by
the blue curve has increased by approximately 0.7 degree C. Even
the finer structures in the two curves have similar appearances.
(Reference: Friis-Christensen, E., and K. Lassen, Length of the solar
cycle: An indicator of solar activity closely associated with climate,
Science, 254, 698-700, 1991).

Global temperature and sunspot number ​

Reid (1987) noticed a certain amount of similarity of the secular variation in globally averaged sea-surface temperature (SST) over the past 130 years to the corresponding variation of solar activity as revealed by the envelope of the 11-year running mean sunspot number. He pointed out that the two time series had several features in common. Most noteworthy was the prominent minimum in the early decades of this century, the steep rise to a maximum in the 1950s, and a brief drop during the 1960s followed by a final rise. Based on this comparison Reid suggested that the solar irradiance may have varied by approximately 0.6 % from 1910 to 1960 in phase with the 70-90 year cycle (the Gleissberg period) of solar activity. He found that the necessary range of variation in the solar constant during the total 130 year period is less than 1%. Satellite measurements over approximately one solar cycle have shown that the irradiance is not constant, but model calculations show that it varies too little (less than 0.1 %) during a solar cycle to be of major importance for climate. However, no measurements yet exist that do exclude the possibility of larger variations in total irradiance over a longer period of time.

Friis-Christensen and Lassen (1991) pointed out a major difficulty with Reid's interpretation. They examined the northern hemisphere land air temperature and noted that this record was leading both the SST record and the sunspot record by as much as 20 years. From this discrepancy they concluded that if a cause and effect relation between solar activity and terrestrial climate is to be maintained, it is unlikely that long-term variations of solar activity can be sufficiently well represented by some average value of the sunspot number itself.

But as they pointed out there are other parameters of solar activity that indicate that the sunspot number is probably not necessarily also a good indicator of long-term changes. An example is the geomagnetic activity that is caused by the interaction between the solar wind and the geomagnetic field. There is a fundamental difference in the long-term behavior of the sunspot number and the geomagnetic activity (Fig.2).

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Whereas the sunspot number returns to near zero at each 11-year minimum, the 11-year geomagnetic activity variations are superposed on a long-term variation of similar amplitude includinging a nearly monatomic increase from 1900 to 1950. This has been interpreted as a signature of an increase in the solar wind velocity through the century. The observed long-term variation in solar energy output by means of the solar wind suggests that similar long-term changes in other manifestations of solar energy output may have occurred.


So please explain the dismissal of the Sun and its activity, and cycles as a major causal factor in the Current Global Warming?

There is a demonstrable correlation between Sunspot activity, which leads to increases of solar energy output, which translates to increase temperatures on earth, approximately defined into 11 year cycles, along with periodicity of 70-90 years, which is the time line that has raised such concern among the AGW Orthodoxy.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's not an insignificant factor, but greenhouses gasses are more significant at present.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Your statement is not enough.

 

Really, and exactly what models are used? and how are they used? from what I have seen the models are used to minimize the Sun and it's Cycles as a factor, and move on to Man made Co2 as the major feedback in global Warming.

Given the oft cited 270ppm preindustrial level, and the oft cited 385ppm claimed as proof that Man caused Co2s are the problem, please identify exactly what amount of the 105ppm rise in Co2 can be directly traced to Man, and not from Natural carbon sinks like the Tundras, Oceans, or the increase in floria and fauna, that warming would support.

Now if you are really reading my post, that is exactly what I am pointing out,

basic high school physics​

The amount of additional Co2, from man seems to be about 30ppm to 50ppm of additional Co2's, now why would that amount have more effect on warming than the "per meter sq", increase of solar irritation from the sunspot activity, which seems to have subsided into a Solar Minimum at the present time?

There is also a demonstrable link between sun, sex, and pregnancy, but that is not what we are trying to discuss now is it?

And from my point of view, this is exactly what what I see from Global Warming Orthodoxy, buried in mountains of numbers, peer reviews only by those Faithful to the Orthodoxy, fancied up with a Snake Oil Salesmen's carney spiel, buy your Carbon Credits right here, right now, they will cure what ails you, they will buy your way to Paradise in this world and the next, they will keep you cool and keep you warm, yes get em while theirrrr Hot!!!, don't wait, don't even think about it, don't even question what is behind the curtain, don't even pay attention to what is behind the curtain.....Save the World before it Saves it's self.

Yes, Trippy, basic high school physics, Raise's a lot of question?, and good old farm boy logic questions, snakeoil salesmen methodology.

 

can this thread be moved its proper forum?

 

How's this then?

ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt

Sun cycles come and go, but this trend is alarming.

 

i know your being sarcastic but this does make a lot of sense and i would love to see who wasted there time on that sort of political resurch That would be almost as bad as the lot i herd about this morning on wether pulling a bandaid off slowly or quickly caused more pain, that was serious resurch too

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

anyway, its ovious that when there is a disconect between what is important to a people and what a political party stands for (or a conect between what a party stands for and what the public desires) that the party will either lose or gain seats depending on public attituds. This maybe greater or lesser in the US than Australia (i simply dont know) where compulsery voting garenties the "party faithful" meaning that to change results of an election you need to sway the swinging voters to your adjender rather than spending time pulling out your own apathetic surporters. Its also ovious that in Australia the greens have been pulling more and more votes recently and it would be a valid theory to sugest this was because climate change was such an important issue when you can see the records falling constantly for weather (first heat wave EVER in Nov, SA, hotest night on record SA ect not to mention the fact that days ABOVE the 100 mark fire index were so rare thats that 100 was the end of the skale until now when we have already had 4 in SA in NOV for christ sake)

 

trippy i have read alot of your stuff and you seem very hard to pin down on what you actually belive. For myself apart from the anadotal evidence that the river murry and the last few fire seasons bring i wouldnt set myself against the views of so many scientists who have published on this when i dont have ANY training in the issue. If they say its happerning and it needs to be delt with thats enough for me, i trust scientists ALOT more than i do Tony Abbott and ilk. There for wthen they come out and say that with a 95% certainty we belive global warming is a) happerning b) we caused it (and this is how) c) its accelorating and d) we have a limited window to deal with it im willing to surport them. anyway whats your opinion?

 

And what does one unsupported graph prove, yes really?

Wiki, I get hammered all the time by your side for using Wiki, if I remember correctly even by you.

 

Buffalo Roam, instead of creating all of these silly thread why don't you accept James's challenge to a debate? I think you are afraid.

 

your trying to compair something with 0 relivence such as american woman have been getting fatter over the yeas which inturn global warming on the rize..

sunspots and global warming go hand in hand guess it was commen sence if the sun got hotter the earth would to