'No Sun link' to climate change

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by Michael, Apr 3, 2008.

  1. guthrie paradox generator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,089
    Firstly, the sun has a link to global warming insofar as it provides the enery, and also they have found that the temp change from the top to bottom of the solar cycle is about 0.02 degrees C or something. It is however dwarfed by the forcing of various greenhouse gases and land use changes etc etc.

    Plus we don't seem to be experiencing solar system warming. It is a conincidence based upon poor observation and the well known human tendency to find patterns where there are none. In the case of some of the planets and moons they are making the warming diagnosis on only a few years data. Go back and look again and see if you can find any of the scientists doing the actual work on the planets saying they are warming due to increased solar outputs. So far I have not seen them say that. Only denialists claim the planets are warming due to solar output.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. MetaKron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    Is that even an attempt to make sense? What would we be denying, the idea that our probes are causing significant warming on Saturn, even before they arrived there? When the other planets have been warming, the credible source is the sun. In 2004 the sun gave vent to one blast that looked like it was about to go nova. That's a lot of energy that can be captured by a planet's magnetic field. It certainly can raise temperatures and change weather patterns.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. MetaKron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    Clouds cause warmer night-time lows.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,458
    So a good scientific investigation would check out the sun, and compare the temperature variations to the solar ones.

    And when they discovered a lack of correlation and insufficient mechanism, they would proceed to the next possibility.

    (btw: Mars and Venus don't have much in the way of magnetic fields)

    And overall cooling of the lower atmosphere through reflection and higher atmosphere absorption/reradiation - jet contrails are particularly implicated, in the apparent general damping of the expected effects of the CO2 buildup.

    Clouds are the biggest wild card, apparently. Lots of discussion about them.
     
  8. guthrie paradox generator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,089
    Ummmm, are you trying to make any sense yourself? Go and read up on the topic, and come back to us with the evidence showing that all the planets are warming exactly as would be expected (rate of warming etc) if the Solar output was increased.
    What is this about one blast that looked like it was about to go nova? How is that related to warming the planets?
     
  9. guthrie paradox generator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,089
  10. Hippikos Registered Member

    Messages:
    58
    I think anyone who claims the sun is playing no role on the earth’s climate is truly smoking some really potent something.

    from another website:

    The following is how I view the impact of manmade CO2 emissions:

    1. Earth without sun:
    -273°C
    2. Earth with sun and no greenhouse gases:
    -18°C
    3. Earth with sun and H2O vapour only:
    +4°C
    4. Earth with sun, water vapour and 100ppm CO2:
    +11°C
    5. Earth with sun, water vapour and 200 ppm CO2:
    +13°C
    6. Earth with sun, water vapour, 300 ppm CO2, methane etc.
    +13.5°C
    7. Earth with sun, water vapour, 380 ppm CO2, methane etc.
    approx. +14°C

    Questions:
    1. Add another 100 ppm C02, and what will you get?
    (Not much I’d say, certainly not more than 1°C )
    2. Change the sun’s activity, and what is possible?
    I would argue several degrees change.
    I think anyone who claims the sun is playing no role on the earth’s climate is truly smoking some really potent something.
     
  11. kmguru Staff Member

    Messages:
    11,757
    Someone is throwing a curve ball to the mix. I have not heard about cosmic rays influencing the atmosphere. It is the solar flares that is influencing the weather. They need to prove it does not.

    The best way to prove that is to measure the solar radiation using the military probe that is used to monitor the health of the military communications and corelate that to various parameters that affect the atomosphere including the magnetic field. I have not seen an independent time series flux density chart at the poles over the last 30 years.

    While it is true that we are dumping a lot of CO2 in to the atmosphere, I am of the opinion that the sea produes a lot of plant life to absorb them similar to plants sprouting all over after a heavy rain.

    I am also of the opinion that the Solar radiation and not Cosmic Rays are the cause of global warming!
     
  12. guthrie paradox generator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,089
    You are nearly correct, but are forgetting about feedbacks.
    As for people who claim the sun plays no role in EArths climate, the only people who say that are denialists who know no science. Real climatologists know the sun plays a part in the Earths climate.
     
  13. guthrie paradox generator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,089
    Excuse me getting a bit testy, but do you know the difference between climate and weather?

    What military probe is this?
    We actually have other satellites monitoring the sun. Here's one of the datasets, covering TSI:
    http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant

    As for the solar magnetosphere, what evidence do you have that it affects the earth?

    In reality, some of the CO2 gets absorbed into the sea by normal chemical means. Some does indeed get absorbed by a small increase in plant growth. THe rest contributes to the increasing CO2 levels.


    Is that increased solar radiation? In which case how come no solar radiation measurement shows any increase in the past few decades?
     
  14. Dr Mabuse Percipient Thaumaturgist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    714
  15. guthrie paradox generator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,089
    It's Warwick Huges, a noted collection of lies and distortions in the service of discrediting actual science. John A , if it is a JohnA I have come across before, is a general denialist without a clue.
     
  16. kmguru Staff Member

    Messages:
    11,757
    My bad.


    If I had evidence, I would not be posting in sciforums. I would be busy with NASA or writing books...


    By radiation, I meant X-rays and gamma rays. See link:http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0903rhessi.html

    I doubt the TSI measures that separately. The data you provided is the total energy. Specific frequencies have specific effects. Solar flares does occur. A billion megaton energy spikes must have some effect on Earth. By the way, spikes are localized bursts and not total spherical bursts.
     
  17. guthrie paradox generator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,089
    OK, well there is the problem- people keep saying "Ahhh, but this must be it" without any evidence. Meanwhile, we have greenhouse gas theory, plus evidence, which in conjunction with the solar output changes in the past 150 years, explains most of the temperature change in that period. You can see this if you look at the global temperature reconstructions and solar output proxies- they match, albeit with some errors as to be expected given volcanos and natural variability, up until the second half of the 20th century, then the temp just climbs straight up whilst all other records stay the same or decline.

    What effect does X-rays from flares etc have on climate? How are individual events which are over quite quickly affect the many year trends of climate?
     
  18. kmguru Staff Member

    Messages:
    11,757
    The temperature climb is definitely there. But could that be due to better record keeping?

    The individual events can have effects analogous to people getting exposed to the sun short periods (not 24 hours) and getting cancer. The planet gets exposed to the sun 24 hours a day....gamma rays heat the water molecules.

    The planet should have a feedback mechanism (like a thermostat) that should circulate the artic air to cool the planet. May be if we run out of the cold air - then we would be in trouble.
     
  19. guthrie paradox generator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,089
    Nope. A combination of temperature proxies, long term records, and the sheer physical fact that nobody can deny that Spring has been coming earlier, especially in the northern hemisphere for the past 30 years, means it is scientifically proven, despite what some people like to pretend.


    Except do the gamma rays get through the atmosphere? Also, if the heating is done by gamma rays, why do we note that night time temperatures have increased? This is one of the predictions of global warming theory, and it has been fulfilled. Same with the cooling Stratosphere.

    The planet couldn't care less what you think it should have.
    In fact, if you'll go and learn about meteorology, you'll find it has a circulating mechanism...

    http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7p.html
    This is a random search result, which should give you a rough idea.
     
  20. Dr Mabuse Percipient Thaumaturgist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    714
    so did you even read it?...
     
  21. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,458
    That depends on how much the sun's activity changes. The changes measured so far do not begin to account for the temperatures measured so far.

    You have, btw, inverted the order of water vapor and CO2 in the thought experiment - the CO2 comes first: until it is present, the Earth is too cold to hold much water vapor in the atmosphere, and without CO2, most of the water vapor now in the air freezes out.

    Unlikely. The opposite - worse "record keeping", due to heat island effects - is more commonly proposed.

    There is a great deal of evidence for recent sharp warming from other sources than temperature measurements. Migration, nesting, and flowering patterns, for example.
     
  22. kmguru Staff Member

    Messages:
    11,757
    You mean like this: http://www.sciencebits.com/ice-ages
     
  23. guthrie paradox generator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,089
    I had a flick through. The problem with places like that is that I would require several hours to put together all the necessary stuff from multiple sources in oder to show how wrong they are. Why don't you just pick one thing from there that you think is correct and we can work from it.
     

Share This Page