| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Environment Forum » The Sunspot Scapegoat
Page 2 of 4 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
|
| Author |
Message |
| 0BZN0 |
 Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 8:04 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Roger Coppock" <rcoppock@adnc.com> wrote in message
news:cb3bda75-e41e-491f-9794-17002c2e03eb@s33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
Quote: The Sunspot Scapegoat
Actual sunspot
count data barely show any correlation with the observed
global land and sea surface temperature from 1880 to
today.
The Sun Drives Climate
Lockwood And Fröhlich Are Wrong
Nir Shaviv
http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/07/nir-shaviv-why-is-lockwood-and-frohlich.html
L & F state that from 1985, there is a discrepancy between solar
activity, which decreased, and the global temperature, which increased.
Hence, solar activity cannot explain the observed warming. This
conclusion, however, is flawed for several reasons.
Figure 1: Cosmic ray flux as a function of time. Note the minimum near
1992 that probably caused less cloudiness and warming in the 1990s
To begin with, L & W write that solar activity decreased after 1985.
This may almost be correct for the sunspot number (which remained the
same) and perhaps correct for other solar activity proxies, but this is
not correct for the cosmic rays. As is apparent from the first two
figures above and below, the 1990 solar maximum caused a larger decrease
in the cosmic ray flux, which implies that the temperature should have
been higher in the 1990's than in the 1980's. This leaves a discrepancy
between the solar maximum of 2001 which was weaker than the solar
maximum of 1990, and the observed temperature increase.
Figure 2: This inverse correlation between a smoothed international
sunspot number (green) and three graphs (thin lines) depicting cosmic
ray flux seems obviously valid.
So why has the temperature continued increasing even though the solar
activity diminished? This has to do with the second point, which is very
important, but totally ignored by L & F.
L & F assume (like many others before) that there should be a one-to-one
correspondence between the temperature variations and solar activity.
However, there are two important effects that should be considered and
that arise because of the climate's heat capacity (predominantly the
oceans). First, the response to short term variations in the radiative
forcings are damped. This explains why the temperature variations in
sync with the 11-year solar cycle are small (but they are present at the
level which one expects from the observed cloud cover variations...
about 0.1°C). Second, there is a lag between the response and the
forcing. Typically, one expects lags which depend on the time scale of
the variations. The 11-year solar cycle gives rise to a 2-year lag in
the 0.1°C observed temperature variations. Similarly, the response to
the 20th century warming should be delayed by typically a decade.
Climatologists know this very well (the IPCC report, for example,
includes simulation results for the many decades long response to a
"step function" in the forcing, and climatologists talk about "global
warming commitment" that even if the CO2 would stabilize, or even
decrease, we should expect to see the "committed warming", e.g., Science
307), but L & F are not climatologists. They are solar physicists, so
they may not have grasped this point to the extent that they should
have.
Incidentally, this is not unlike a very well-known effect from everyday
life. Even though the maximum radiation from the Sun is received near
noon time, the maximum daily temperatures are obtained a few hours later
in the afternoon. If we were to correlate the falling radiation between
say noon and 3 pm (or between June 21 and July-August), to the
increasing temperature over the same period, we would conclude that
solar radiation causes cooling! This is exactly what L & F are doing.
They are ignoring the fact that over the 20th century, solar activity
increased tremendously (see the third figure below). So, even though the
2001 maximum is weaker than the 1990 maximum, we are still paying for
the extra heat absorbed over several decades, from the middle of the
20th century.
Figure 3: Tremendous increase of solar activity in the last 100 years
In fact, if you look at the total heat in the oceans, you will see that
from 2001 it actually decreased! (Well, recently, after the inconvenient
buoy data was removed, the heat content stopped increasing.) This lower
heat content should start to cause a prolonged cooling, assuming the
solar activity will remain at the 2001 level or lower.
Moreover, if you look directly at the mechanism through which solar
activity affects climate, that is, the amount of cloud cover, you do see
that the amount of cloud cover decrease in the 2001 maximum is smaller
than the decrease in 1990. As it should!
Thus, when you look at the whole picture, there are certainly no
inconsistencies in the solar/climate picture. Au contraire.
And that's Nir's memo.
For criticisms written by others, see Climate cuttings 7 and Warwick
Hughes. A new document by Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen
is a reply to the article by Lockwood and Fröhlich. Many graphs are
extended up to 2007. The figure 2b is a particularly impressive
agreement between cosmic rays and temperature although one had to
subtract El-Nino effects, the North Atlantic oscillation, volcano
aerosols, and a linear trend to make it that good.
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
"CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet's climate on
long, medium and even short time scales." R. Timothy Patterson,
Professor Of Geology, Director Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Center,
Carleton University, Canada |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| 0BZN0 |
| Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 8:08 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Roger Coppock" <rcoppock@adnc.com> wrote in message
news:3c1ca055-f880-48c5-ab43-f93e847b8327@1g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 29, 4:11 pm, "V-for-Vendicar"
<Just...@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:
Quote: "Peter Franks" <n...@none.com> wrote
Then do you dispute the basis that the Maunder Minimum was in part a
cause
of the Little Ice Age?
Yes or No?
Impossible to say since it is a singular event.
Nope, according to the Wikipedia article on the subject:
**********************
Wikipedia!!!!!!!!!!!!???????????????????????
ROTFLMAO
Wikipedia!!!!!!!!!!!!???????????????????????
You poor naive little creature!
ROTFLMAO
Don't Trust Wacko Wikipedia Zealots
Lawrence Solomon
April 26, 2008
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/04/26/the-real-climate-martians-solomon.aspx
Fred Singer, one of the world's renowned scientists, believes in
Martians. I discovered this several weeks ago while reading his
biography on Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia. "Do you really believe
in Martians?" I asked him last week, at a chance meeting at a Washington
event. The answer was "No."
Wikipedia's error was neither isolated nor inadvertent. The page that
Wikipedia devotes to what is ostensibly Fred Singer's biography is
designed to trivialize his long and outstanding scientific career by
painting him as a political partisan and someone who "is best known as
president and founder (in 1990) of the Science & Environmental Policy
Project, which disputes the prevailing scientific views of climate
change, ozone depletion, and second-hand smoke and is science advisor to
the conservative journal NewsMax."
Innocent Wikipedia readers would be surprised to learn that Dr. Singer
is no conservative kook but the first director of the U.S. National
Weather Satellite Center; the recipient of a White House commendation
for his early design of space satellites; the recipient of a
commendation from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for
research on particle clouds; and the recipient of a U.S. Department of
Commerce Gold Medal Award for the development and management of weather
satellites.
He is, in short, a scientist of the highest calibre, with a long list of
major scientific achievements, including the first measurements, with
V-2 and Aerobee rockets, of primary cosmic radiation in space, the
design of the first instruments for measuring ozone, and the authorship
of the first publications predicting the existence of trapped radiation
in the earth's magnetic field to explain the magnetic-storm ring
current.
Honest accounts of Fred Singer and his accomplishments have been
available on Wikipedia, and on hundreds of occasions. Those occasions
don't last long, however - often just minutes - before the honest
accounts are discovered and reverted by Wikipedians who troll the site.
Such trolls continually monitor Wikipedia's 10 million pages to erase
any hint that the science is not settled on climate change. Dissenters
by the dozens have been likewise demeaned - to check for yourself, just
look up Richard Lindzen, Paul Reiter, or any of the other scientists or
organizations that have questioned the orthodoxy on climate change.
In contrast to the high-handed treatment that greet global warming
skeptics, those who support the orthodoxy are puffed up and protected
from criticism, their errors erased and their controversies hushed.
This is the case with Naomi Oreskes, a scientist with a PhD who had
arrived at an absurd finding: That no studies in a major scientific
database questioned the UN view of climate change. To bolster her
standing, those who troll for Wikipedia have done their best to dress up
her CV - they note that she won a National Science Foundation's Young
Investigator Award in 1994, that she has been a consultant for various
government agencies, and that in July she will become provost of an
as-yet unnamed college of the University of California, San Diego. While
these accomplishments are nothing to sneeze at, she is no Fred Singer.
In any event, her Wikipedia page is not really about her but her study,
which has been thoroughly discredited by credible journalists and
scientists. To suppress these critiques, the trollers apply Wikipedia's
bewildering rules as to what can and can't appear, and when the rules
are inadequate, the trollers make up new ones on the fly.
Several weeks ago, as I described in an earlier column, I attempted to
correct passages on the Oreskes page that would lead readers to think
her study had been vindicated and also to think that U.K. scientist
Benny Peiser, one of her critics, had abjectly withdrawn his criticisms.
Wikipedia's rules thwarted me, used to revert my corrections, again and
again. Those who came before me in attempting to make corrections, and,
I would find out, those who came after, were similarly thwarted.
Wikipedia refused to accept Peiser's critique, or his interpretation of
his own views, or an account of his views that he had provided to me, or
an account of his views published in a peer-reviewed journal, or an
account of his views published in The Wall Street Journal, or an account
of his views published by the U.S. Senate committee on environment and
public works.
Instead, the Wikipedia trollers insisted that all of the above sources
were disqualified or irrelevant under Wikipedia rules, and that the
trollers' own understanding of Peiser's views trumped all others.
Just as the trollers insist on characterizing Fred Singer as believing
in Martians. When it is the Wickipedian trollers who are from Mars.
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
"America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a
25-year Rise" New York Times, March 27, 1933 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| V-for-Vendicar |
| Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 8:24 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Al Bedo" <cu@dark.side.of.the.moon> wrote
Quote: I suggest that thirty years would be a reasonable time
period for your solar trends.
Too bad there isn't any. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| 0BZN0 |
| Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 8:25 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Roger Coppock" <rcoppock@adnc.com> wrote in message
news:cb3bda75-e41e-491f-9794-17002c2e03eb@s33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
Quote: The Sunspot Scapegoat
Actual sunspot
count data barely show any correlation with the observed
global land and sea surface temperature from 1880 to
today.
From Dimming to Brightening: Decadal Changes in Solar Radiation at
Earth's Surface
Science 6 May 2005:
Vol. 308. no. 5723, pp. 847 - 850
DOI: 10.1126/science.1103215
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/308/5723/847
QUOTE: "a widespread brightening has been observed since the late 1980s.
This reversal is reconcilable with changes in cloudiness and atmospheric
transmission and may substantially affect surface climate, the
hydrological cycle, glaciers, and ecosystems."
Martin Wild,1* Hans Gilgen,1 Andreas Roesch,1 Atsumu Ohmura,1 Charles N.
Long,2 Ellsworth G. Dutton,3 Bruce Forgan,4 Ain Kallis,5 Viivi Russak,6
Anatoly Tsvetkov7
Variations in solar radiation incident at Earth's surface profoundly
affect the human and terrestrial environment. A decline in solar
radiation at land surfaces has become apparent in many observational
records up to 1990, a phenomenon known as global dimming. Newly
available surface observations from 1990 to the present, primarily from
the Northern Hemisphere, show that the dimming did not persist into the
1990s. Instead, a widespread brightening has been observed since the
late 1980s. This reversal is reconcilable with changes in cloudiness and
atmospheric transmission and may substantially affect surface climate,
the hydrological cycle, glaciers, and ecosystems.
1 Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, Swiss Federal Institute
of Technology (ETH), Winter-thurerstrasse 190, CH-8057 Zurich,
Switzerland.
2 Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Post Office Box 999, Richland,
WA 99352, USA.
3 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Climate Monitoring and
Diagnostics Laboratory, 325 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80305, USA.
4 Bureau of Meteorology, Melbourne, Victoria 3001, Australia.
5 Estonian Meteorological and Hydrological Institute, 61602 Toravere,
Estonia.
6 Tartu Observatory, 61602 Toravere, Estonia.
7 World Radiation Data Centre, A. I. Voeikov Main Geophysical
Observatory, 194021 Saint Petersburg, Russia.
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
". researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Solar Research in Germany
report the sun has been burning more brightly over the last 60 years,
accounting for the 1 degree Celsius increase in Earth's temperature over
the last 100 years."
http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| V-for-Vendicar |
| Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 8:26 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"0BZN0" <0BZN0@ddo.com> wrote
Quote: Don't Trust Wacko Wikipedia Zealots
Lawrence Solomon
April 26, 2008
Who? Oh. Nobody......
"0BZN0" <0BZN0@ddo.com> wrote
Quote: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs
When you read it in KKKonvicted KKKriminal KKKonrad Black's National Post,
you know it's a lie.
Quote: Fred Singer, one of the world's renowned scientists
There we go. Very first line is a lie. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| V-for-Vendicar |
| Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 8:28 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"0BZN0" <0BZN0@ddo.com> wrote
Quote: Prediction By Sunspots Beats US Weather Service!
The Farmers Almanac uses sunspots to predict weather but "scientific"
government weather predictors know deep within their hearts that the
sun has no effect on weather or climate.
Farmers Almanac.. Aahahahahahahahahahahaha
Bonzo = MMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOONNNNN |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| V-for-Vendicar |
| Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 9:49 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"0BZN0" <0BZN0@ddo.com> wrote in message
news:4817ca84$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
Quote: QUOTE: "a widespread brightening has been observed since the late 1980s.
Ahahahahaha.. This is the same article you used 2 years ago to claim that
the sun was brightening.
Unfortunately for you, it turned out to claim that the the exact opposite,
that there was no change in solar output.
Ahahahahahah..
Bonzo = MMMMMMOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRROOOOOOONNNNNNNN |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Seon F |
| Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 10:35 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"V-for-Vendicar" <Justice@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote in message
news:3XPRj.62504$dA2.62462@read2.cgocable.net...
Quote:
"0BZN0" <0BZN0@ddo.com> wrote
Prediction By Sunspots Beats US Weather Service!
The Farmers Almanac uses sunspots to predict weather but "scientific"
government weather predictors know deep within their hearts that the
sun has no effect on weather or climate.
Farmers Almanac.. Aahahahahahahahahahahaha
Bonzo = MMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOONNNNN
That's an intelligent rebuttal. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Roger Coppock |
| Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:09 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 29, 10:54 pm, "V-for-Vendicar"
<Just...@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:
Quote: Farmers Almanac.. Aahahahahahahahahahahaha
Bonzo = MMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOONNNNN
"Seon F" <s...@iinet.net.au> wrote
That's an intelligent rebuttal.
Far more intelligent than the someone citing the Farmers Alminac deserves.Almanac
LOL!
My nomination for the best comeback line
on alt.global-warming this year! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| V-for-Vendicar |
| Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:53 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Quote: Unfortunately for you, it turned out to claim that the the exact opposite,
that there was no change in solar output.
"Roger Coppock" <rcoppock@adnc.com> wrote
Quote: Actually, satellite radiometers have the sun dimming
very very slightly.
You are right of course. I neglected to include the word "substantive"
in front of change. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| V-for-Vendicar |
| Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:54 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Quote: Farmers Almanac.. Aahahahahahahahahahahaha
Bonzo = MMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOONNNNN
"Seon F" <seon@iinet.net.au> wrote
Quote: That's an intelligent rebuttal.
Far more intelligent than the someone citing the Farmers Alminac deserves. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| 0BZN0 |
| Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 2:21 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Roger Coppock" <rcoppock@adnc.com> wrote in message
news:aa7e4020-6730-498e-af81-04146ebdd96e@w1g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 29, 7:49 pm, "V-for-Vendicar"
<Just...@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:
Quote: "0BZN0" <0B...@ddo.com> wrote in message
news:4817ca84$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
QUOTE: "a widespread brightening has been observed since the late
1980s.
Ahahahahaha.. This is the same article you used 2 years ago to claim
that
the sun was brightening.
Unfortunately for you, it turned out to claim that the the exact
opposite,
that there was no change in solar output.
Actually, satellite radiometers have the sun dimming
very very slightly.
******************************
How about straight from the horse's, mouth ...
Sunspot Facts From A Geologist
Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, Professor Emeritus Geology, Western Washington
University, author of 8 books, 150 journal publications with focus on
geomorphology; glacial geology; Pleistocene geochronology; environmental
and engineering geology.
CBS-TV, 60 Minutes, Burlington, Washington
March 30, 2008
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DonEasterbrookInterviewTranscript.pdf
KLC: What about the claim by Hansen and others that TSI [Total Solar
Irradiance] has been unchanged for 80 years, thus it cannot explain
recent global warming?
DJE: Not true. If you look at the data coming out, you see a strong
correlation between global temperature and irradiance. If you plot
irradiance versus sunspots, you again get the same kind of curve, and
the inference is you can connect these curves to recognize a link
between global temperatures and the sunspot cycle. We only have
satellite measurements back to about 1970, thirty-some years of data,
and the change is about a tenth of one-percent. That's more than the
eight one-thousandths of a percent of CO2 change, so they say the TSI
change is not enough?
The argument I make is that the correlation between sunspot activity and
temperature is not fortuitous-it can't be. There must be a cause and
effect relationship. We don't know what the connection is, but it is
obvious that a small change in solar irradiance produces a big climate
change. It's leveraged by something, maybe by water vapor. We're not
sure. The argument that it's not big enough? A friend of mine has a
saying which I love. "If it happened, then it must be possible." Well,
it happened, so it must be possible.
--
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
: "They don't tell you, that, in their computer models, it's assumed
that CO2 drives global warming. In other words, you assume the result
and say the computer model proves we were right. It's garbage in,
garbage out. If you don't program the computers to cause temperatures to
rise with CO2, then you have nothing." Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, Professor
Emeritus Geology, Western Washington University |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 5:24 am |
|
|
|
|
On Apr 29, 3:02 pm, Roger Coppock <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:
Quote: The Sunspot Scapegoat
Fossil fools, in their never ending search for something
other than their master's oil and coal products that is
the major cause of global warming, often blame sunspots.
They produce cherry picked proxy series and collections
of anecdotes to try to support this. However, directly
observed data tell a different story. Actual sunspot
count data barely show any correlation with the observed
global land and sea surface temperature from 1880 to
today.
Even when you autocorrelate out 12 years, looking for an
effect of today's sunspots on tomorrow's temperature,
there is no strong relationship between sunspots and
global mean surface temperature, R^2<0.1. Sunspots
are for all practical purposes irrelevant to the global
warming debate.
1880-2007
Lag in years Vs. R squared.
Lag: 0 R^2: 0.0579
Lag: 1 R^2: 0.0743
Lag: 2 R^2: 0.0816
Lag: 3 R^2: 0.079
Lag: 4 R^2: 0.0783
Lag: 5 R^2: 0.0799
Lag: 6 R^2: 0.0722
Lag: 7 R^2: 0.0575
Lag: 8 R^2: 0.0453
Lag: 9 R^2: 0.0518
Lag: 10 R^2: 0.0602
Lag: 11 R^2: 0.0708
Lag: 12 R^2: 0.0794
-.-. --.- Roger Coppock
(Those who are new to statistical correlation and
"R squared" will find a tutorial on the subject here:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Correlation.html
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CorrelationCoefficient.html
Item 20 in the above shows R squared for several graphed
relationships.)
- - - -
In the data table below:
Year AnnMean YearlySunSpots
1880 13.75 32.242
1881 13.8 54.308
1882 13.78 59.608
1883 13.76 63.633
1884 13.7 63.508
1885 13.69 51.958
1886 13.75 25.425
1887 13.65 13.05
1888 13.73 6.75
1889 13.85 6.2167
1890 13.63 7.05
1891 13.72 35.625
1892 13.68 72.942
1893 13.68 85.083
1894 13.67 78.008
1895 13.73 63.967
1896 13.83 41.808
1897 13.88 26.242
1898 13.75 26.717
1899 13.83 12.108
1900 13.9 9.4583
1901 13.84 2.7417
1902 13.73 5.05
1903 13.69 24.383
1904 13.66 41.95
1905 13.75 63.467
1906 13.8 53.858
1907 13.61 62.033
1908 13.66 48.542
1909 13.65 43.883
1910 13.67 18.583
1911 13.66 5.7
1912 13.66 3.5917
1913 13.69 1.4417
1914 13.85 9.5917
1915 13.91 47.367
1916 13.7 57.067
1917 13.61 103.89
1918 13.68 80.575
1919 13.8 63.608
1920 13.81 37.642
1921 13.87 26.133
1922 13.76 14.242
1923 13.79 5.775
1924 13.79 16.717
1925 13.84 44.308
1926 13.99 63.883
1927 13.87 69.042
1928 13.89 77.8
1929 13.75 64.858
1930 13.93 35.725
1931 13.99 21.225
1932 13.94 11.142
1933 13.83 5.6583
1934 13.95 8.7167
1935 13.9 36.033
1936 13.97 79.733
1937 14.08 114.4
1938 14.11 109.55
1939 14.03 88.75
1940 14.05 67.783
1941 14.11 47.483
1942 14.04 30.6
1943 14.1 16.325
1944 14.21 9.5917
1945 14.07 33.092
1946 13.96 92.508
1947 14.01 151.51
1948 13.97 136.2
1949 13.94 135.12
1950 13.85 83.925
1951 13.96 69.425
1952 14.03 31.408
1953 14.11 13.85
1954 13.9 4.4083
1955 13.9 37.95
1956 13.83 141.71
1957 14.08 189.85
1958 14.08 184.59
1959 14.06 158.75
1960 13.99 112.28
1961 14.08 53.883
1962 14.04 37.6
1963 14.08 27.892
1964 13.79 10.2
1965 13.89 15.058
1966 13.97 46.875
1967 14. 93.667
1968 13.96 105.89
1969 14.08 105.56
1970 14.03 104.69
1971 13.9 66.65
1972 14. 68.933
1973 14.14 38.15
1974 13.92 34.408
1975 13.95 15.458
1976 13.84 12.55
1977 14.13 27.483
1978 14.02 92.658
1979 14.09 155.28
1980 14.18 154.65
1981 14.27 140.45
1982 14.05 116.29
1983 14.26 66.633
1984 14.09 45.85
1985 14.06 17.942
1986 14.13 13.4
1987 14.27 29.225
1988 14.31 100.
1989 14.19 157.79
1990 14.38 142.29
1991 14.35 145.78
1992 14.13 94.483
1993 14.14 54.733
1994 14.24 29.867
1995 14.38 17.5
1996 14.3 8.625
1997 14.4 21.483
1998 14.57 64.208
1999 14.33 93.175
2000 14.33 119.53
2001 14.48 110.93
2002 14.56 104.09
2003 14.55 63.567
2004 14.49 40.442
2005 14.62 29.783
2006 14.54 15.183
2007 14.57 7.5
"AnnMean" is the J-D yearly mean of the NASA GISS
"GLB.Ts+dSST.txt" file,http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
"YearlySunSpots" is the mean of the monthly means
in the NOAA NGDC "MONTHLY" file. Available at
the FTP site accessed through this web page:http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/SSN/ssn.html
Cherry picking, are we?
If you want somewhat more robust analysis, go back & get Wolf & SSNe
data. Even then, that's not the whole picture.
Raw sunspot numbers are not alone the basis of solar luminance trend
analysis. Wolf numbers and SSNe are more representative. The Wolf
numbers and effective sun spot numbers (SSNe) are far more accurate
representations of total solar luminance. Sunspot trends are good for
comparative some trend analyses SC-to-SC, but as a gauge of solar
luminance, not so good.
Sunspot counts are helpful for historical trend comparisons before
sufficient data was available, but Wolf numbers have been available
for 160 years and can even be applied to earlier data (which, FWIW,
they are....). Other historical metrics of solar luminance can be
imputed from smoothed proxies.
Even NASA studies show solar luminance (i.e. total solar activity
level) has an effect, but the trend effect is broader, longer and
entails more than sunspots. The Little Ice Age (the Sporer/Maunder/
Dalton minima) was certainly instigated by changes in solar luminance.
The Year Without Summer was induced by Krakatoa-scale vulcanism, but
it happened square in the middle of the Maunder minimum.
/leebert |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 5:43 am |
|
|
|
|
On Apr 29, 7:18 pm, Roger Coppock <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:
Quote: On Apr 29, 4:11 pm, "V-for-Vendicar"
Just...@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:
"Peter Franks" <n...@none.com> wrote
Then do you dispute the basis that the Maunder Minimum was in part a cause
of the Little Ice Age?
Yes or No?
Impossible to say since it is a singular event.
Nope, according to the Wikipedia article on the subject:
"In total there seem to have been 18 periods of sunspot minima in
the last 8,000 years, and studies indicate that the sun currently
spends up to a quarter of its time in these minima."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum
Other than the correlation what causitive evidence do you have?
Not much that is verifiable. As I said at the top
of this thread, "They produce cherry picked proxy
series and collections of anecdotes to try to support
this." It's debatable whether the LIA was even
a planetary event.
NASA/GISS studied the issue in 2001 & found that an extended solar
grand minimum would indeed cause a miniature ice age (ala the LIA).
The diminished solar luminance slowed interzonal convection and
increased La Nina frequency & a generally lowered heat budget which
lead to weaker continent-warming ocean-borne weather fronts in
wintertime. While the cooling was modest, the effects in continental
interiors were profound. Likewise SC Asia has a historical record of
famine corresponding with declines in solar luminance.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/shindell_06/
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20011206/
"...They determined that a dimmer Sun reduced the model's westerly
winds, cooling the continents during wintertime. Shindell's model
shows large regional climate changes, unlike other climate models that
show relatively small temperature changes on an overall global scale.
Other models did not assess regional changes."
Mind you this was without also including cosmic ray influences on
cloud cover, which even skeptics of cosmic ray influence admit can
account for a 25 percent differential in cloud cover between 20th
century solar min & max. A 25 percent differential is not enough to do
it all, but it's a nice nudge either way.
Quote: That is why I posted an analysis
of directly observed data, to anchor the debate in
known facts.
Your "known facts" are just as selective as the AGW denialists, and
the conclusions just as speculative. The data you picked was only
sunspot numbers not Wolf numbers or SSNe.
Here's the NASA study. AGAIN:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/shindell_06/
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20011206/
/leebert |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 6:39 am |
|
|
|
|
On Apr 30, 2:21 am, "0BZN0" <0B...@ddo.com> wrote:
Quote: "Roger Coppock" <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote in message
news:aa7e4020-6730-498e-af81-04146ebdd96e@w1g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 29, 7:49 pm, "V-for-Vendicar"<Just...@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:
"0BZN0" <0B...@ddo.com> wrote in message
news:4817ca84$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
QUOTE: "a widespread brightening has been observed since the late
1980s.
Ahahahahaha.. This is the same article you used 2 years ago to claim
that
the sun was brightening.
Unfortunately for you, it turned out to claim that the the exact
opposite,
that there was no change in solar output.
Actually, satellite radiometers have the sun dimming
very very slightly.
******************************
How about straight from the horse's, mouth ...
Sunspot Facts From A Geologist
Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, Professor Emeritus Geology, Western Washington
University, author of 8 books, 150 journal publications with focus on
geomorphology; glacial geology; Pleistocene geochronology; environmental
and engineering geology.
CBS-TV, 60 Minutes, Burlington, Washington
March 30, 2008
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DonEasterbrookInterviewTranscript.pdf
KLC: What about the claim by Hansen and others that TSI [Total Solar
Irradiance] has been unchanged for 80 years, thus it cannot explain
recent global warming?
DJE: Not true. If you look at the data coming out, you see a strong
correlation between global temperature and irradiance. If you plot
irradiance versus sunspots, you again get the same kind of curve, and
the inference is you can connect these curves to recognize a link
between global temperatures and the sunspot cycle. We only have
satellite measurements back to about 1970, thirty-some years of data,
and the change is about a tenth of one-percent. That's more than the
eight one-thousandths of a percent of CO2 change, so they say the TSI
change is not enough?
The argument I make is that the correlation between sunspot activity and
temperature is not fortuitous-it can't be. There must be a cause and
effect relationship. We don't know what the connection is, but it is
obvious that a small change in solar irradiance produces a big climate
change. It's leveraged by something, maybe by water vapor. We're not
sure. The argument that it's not big enough? A friend of mine has a
saying which I love. "If it happened, then it must be possible." Well,
it happened, so it must be possible.
Easterbrook's analysis is corroborated by other studies on Holocene
ice core. Tim Patterson's mud core data corroborates the ice core
studies. Plant and ocean productivity rise and fall cyclically with
solar luminance. Extrapolating from those data the next down cycle
should happen just about ... the year 2007 give or take +/- 5 years.
The sun has dimmed slightly in the past 15-20 years while there's been
a slight rise, then plateau in temperatures. I think the sun *can*
offset what CO2-driven warming we can expect. That's not a problem to
me. What concerns me is that 1) The projections of exponential climate
sensitivity and 2) the prospect of an onset deep solar dimming period
in 2020.
This is what the AGW pessimists are misunderstanding in their fervor.
If they are claiming high climate sensitivity to CO2, then by the same
token the had better claim high sensitivity to decreased solar
luminance. If that's the case then a Dalton-style solar dimming would
be just as intense as moderate (not severe) WV feedback (CO2
forcing).
It's a matter of degree of which influence will prove strongest. This
is the kind of thinking that's missing in the current public
discussion, is to review all the counterveiling claims and data and
come up with a broad top-down view.
The current cool-phase PDO is more akin to a long-term Pinatubo event,
so it's important to not conflate it with solar dimming - at least not
yet, since solar dimming might play a role in the PDO. If solar
dimming is driving the PDO into a cool phase then it looks to me that
the solar influence outweighs the CO2/WV influence.
What leads me to dismiss James Hansen's comments about solar luminance
is that he claims it's been largely constant over the past 100 years.
If he knew his argument better he'd claim it's been slightly down for
the past 15, which would bolster his claims.
I'm afraid just like the posters to these newsgroups, the climatology
field is riven with trees-not-forest thinking. Overspecialization can
do that to a mind.
In that regard, the IPCC is largely overspecialized in that it tends
to have fewer geologists, paleobiologists and astronomers. The bias is
obvious, since those fields would view the problem in terms of solar
trends and geologic time, not in terms of atmospheric chemistry and
energy budget. That the political mission of the IPCC is to defend
Kyoto doesn't help persuade climate optimists. Critics of Kyoto see a
broader globalization agenda than just GHG mitigation.
Apophis 2037/2039 might be a far bigger threat, passing within 0.5
Earth Radius, in terms of potential impact, perturbation and margin
for error, than any threat of climate change. Don't think it could
happen? Watch this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBu-yUzWXqg
(but turn off the sound ... needless melodramatic ... ).
Were the 400m asteroid to impact the effects would be far larger than
the Tunguska airburst caused by a 50m comet. The next observation
window, in 2013, will tell, but already NASA has contingency plans for
launching a mitigation mission. Solar-electric propulsion appears the
best option at the moment.
Al Gore can't make money by selling us asteroid risk.
/leebert |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Page 2 of 4 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sun Jul 27, 2008 2:25 am
|
|
