Global Warming Theory Received Coolly.

Turner

Deity
Retired Moderator
Joined
Apr 17, 2002
Messages
28,169
Location
Randomistan
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2009/sep/07/global-warming-theory-received-coolly/

Sunspot link to climate patterns overshadowed by CO2 research
Most of us wouldn’t know by looking at it, but the sun has been in a record breaking mode lately for its lack of activity.

It’s a trend that Charlie Perry, a scientist at the U.S. Geological Survey, follows closely. For the past few decades he has been charting the correlation between droughts and floods in the Midwest and the activity of the sun.

Charlie Perry is a research hydrologist with the U.S. Geological Survey. For decades he has been following the correlation of sun activity and climate.

It is from that research that Perry predicts that the current lack of sun activity could lead to a cooler winter this year and drought conditions around 2043.

The sun goes through a cycle of activity about every 11 years. And right now, it is going through what is known as a solar minimum, a time of little activity with few sunspots, solar flares and sun quakes.

Through Aug. 31, 51 days had gone by with no signs of a sunspot. It was the fifth longest period for days without sunspots in 150 years. And, it came close to breaking a record set in 1913.

The sun is still on track to break a record for the fewest number of sunspotless days over a three-year period.

“It’s pretty hard to ignore the big orange ball in the sky that produces all the heat the earth has. And, very small fluctuations in that can make a big difference in our earth and climate,” Perry said.

Explaining sunspots

Sunspots are the dark areas of cooler temperatures in the sun’s photosphere. During times that the number of sunspots are at their highest, temperatures are hotter and the sun is releasing more energy.

First seen by Galileo, sunspots have been tracked by humans since the 1600s.

From 1640 to 1715, when few sunspots were reported, the northern hemisphere experienced what was known as the Little Ice Age. Londoners ice skated on the frozen Thames and people could walk from Manhattan to Staten Island on ice.

Another period of few sunspots occurred in 1913.

“And, that is a time when old-timers talk about it being really cold,” Perry said.

Perry’s interest in weather began as a youth working on a farm in Douglas County during the drought of the 1950s.

“I would sit on the back of this old horse-drawn equipment and I would pray for rain and it would never come,” he said.

Perry, who has a background in physics, was a meteorologist for the Air Force and started working for the USGS in the 1970s as a hydrologist.

Since the early 1980s, Perry has been looking at patterns to see how the sun’s activity relates to droughts and floods in the Midwest.

What he knew was that the sun has an 11-year-cycle, there is a 22 year-cycle for magnetic polarity and major droughts in Kansas occur about every 20 years.

With that, Perry developed a thesis that when the sun is very active, it puts out more heat and causes fewer clouds. In turn, the oceans heat up and carry that warmth throughout the world, influencing local weather patterns.

The tricky part was figuring out the lag time between when the solar activity occurred and when the ocean currents reached North America to affect the weather system.

The 34-year link came by happenstance.

“I had (looked) at a three- or four-year lag. And I just happened to lay them down on a table, two sheets fairly far apart and looked at them and went ‘my gosh, it’s over a 30-year lag.’ And, I lined it up on the light table and it just fit like a glove,” he said. “I had a hard time explaining a three-year lag. So, how can I explain a 34-year lag? It’s been a slow process.”

An unpopular theory

Perry has traveled around speaking at conferences, gathering new ideas and information along the way. He says his work supports that of a renowned Danish physicist Henrick Svensmark.

Svensmark’s research shows that cosmic rays generate cloud formations. Therefore, during periods when solar activity is high, which slows down the number of cosmic rays entering the atmosphere, there are fewer clouds and the earth warms. This phenomenon, Svensmark has argued, contributed to the warming of the planet in the past century.

Perry and Svensmark’s work runs counter to the mainstream belief that carbon dioxide is the major cause of climate change.

Perry — a man who has an electric wind generator and once tried to make a solar collector out of 10,000 beer cans in the 1970s — still attempts to conserve energy for the sake of conserving energy.

“I’m a green guy,” he said. “It’s just that carbon dioxide has very little effect on our climate.”

The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change disagrees. The panel has stated that solar radiation plays a small part in the warming and cooling of the planet. But, the panel attributes a much greater contribution to the effect from the increase in carbon emissions over the past few decades.

When looking at fluctuations in the earth’s atmosphere, David Braaten, Kansas University professor of atmospheric science, said the largest factor has been the enormous increase in carbon dioxide versus the ebbs and flows of the sun’s 11-year cycle.

“Basically, we have a long record of little changes going on in the atmosphere and there is this other huge change of concentration of (carbon dioxide). To try to explain that it has nothing to do with (climate change) is crazy,” Braaten said.

Perry knows his and Svensmark’s theory isn’t a popular one.

Even the USGS’s official point of view is that carbon dioxide is unequivocally the cause of climate change. Because of that, much of the research Perry has done has been on his own time and without the aid of grants.

Despite the doubters, Perry said he is not giving up.

“I am having too much fun,” he said. “I am finding out something new that no one else is finding out.”

Interesting if it turns out to be true. I've never completely bought that just CO2 was completely responsible for the climate change we are experiencing. Yeah, partially, but I do believe that there is a bigger picture involved, and it's not just CO2.
 
The oceans are currently absorbing a huge chunk of our CO2 emissions, when the ocean can no longer take any more, things could be interesting.
 
Even if CO2 isn't the sole cause for global warming, we still shouldn't exacerbate the problem. I think we should keep that in mind for the rest of the thread, before the usual suspects arrive.
 
Who claimed that CO2 is solely responsible?

Another likely cause of past climatic changes is variations in the energy output of the Sun. Measurements over recent decades show that the solar output varies slightly (by close to 0.1%) in an 11-year cycle. Sunspot observations (going back to the 17th century), as well as data from isotopes generated by cosmic radiation, provide evidence for longer-term changes in solar activity. Data correlation and model simulations indicate that solar variability and volcanic activity are likely to be leading reasons for climate variations during the past millennium, before the start of the industrial era.
These examples illustrate that different climate changes in the past had different causes. The fact that natural factors caused climate changes in the past does not mean that the current climate change is natural. By analogy, the fact that forest fires have long been caused naturally by lightning strikes does not mean that fires cannot also be caused by a careless camper. FAQ 2.1 addresses the question of how human influences compare with natural ones in their contributions to recent climate change.
From the IPCC report - Frequently Asked Questions.
 
CO2 was never claimed to be a huge part by any proper studies, just one that can cause changes. There are significant greenhouse gases that go in and out as part of the Earth's cycle. CO2 is small in comparison, but no less worrisome.
 
Water vapor has a much greater effect on the greenhouse effect on Earth that CO2
 
Some of us were mentioning the sun as a large part of this climate change for a long time now. No I'm not saying "told you so", but it's crazy that for a while there people who were insistent that it was humans and industry causing it, with emissions and whatnot. The thinking was stop the emissions, stop the warming. That's pretty much done with now. There may be a few people who still believe it but most have accepted that there's multiple reasons, including our mighty sun.

The fact that natural factors caused climate changes in the past does not mean that the current climate change is natural. By analogy, the fact that forest fires have long been caused naturally by lightning strikes does not mean that fires cannot also be caused by a careless camper.

Yeah jerks in California start them every year.
 
Water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas, but it has had little part in the current warming. As i quoted above, solar irradiance has been a driver of climate change in the past (and it is the biggest natural contributor), but its impact has been dwarfed by anthropomorphic factors:
Spoiler :

clipboard01xm.jpg

(same source as above - the FAQ is quite informative!)
 
I hope that he's right, but I still have to go with the IPCC on this one.

The oceans are currently absorbing a huge chunk of our CO2 emissions, when the ocean can no longer take any more, things could be interesting.

This is a very interesting point. Even if CO2 has no real effect on climate, it will still acidify the oceans, devastating marine life.
 
It's like some people aren't reading the article.

No one has been ignoring the Sun. It's a complete strawman to suggest people have been. Sunspot variation has been known about for decades, and everyone knows that the Sun will influence Earth temperature. We know that the energy from the sun increases until about January, and that it's about 7% higher than in July. And the knowledge about sunspots has been tracked for some time.

As well, you'll note that sunspots are at a cyclical low, as detailed in the article. This will cause a lower amount of heat. And yet, despite this, we've just experienced the hottest oceans in the last 100 years.

He talks about a 34 year cycle, and 34 year cycles are important. We're going into an El Nino (so expect even warmer oceans), and we're watching that cycle. And ocean cycles are important, too. But it's important to remember that CO2 insulation is rising. Perry & Svensmark have had trouble with their previous theories, because they'd find a pattern in cycles, and then new datasets would disprove that theory. Then they'd find a new cycle. You'll always be able to find patterns if you're willing to shift things around.

The fact is that sunspot forcings are a factor, but they're well accounted for. As well, they're not a major input as a changing forcing. We'll see how their predictions bear out. They predict a dropping in temperatures ever the next 4-5 years. We'll see a drop off after the El Nino (but people will think Perry & Svensmark are right), but as we've seen with the warming from 1998 to 2009, the general trend will continue to be upward. Since, you know, the planet is warming due to GHGs.

Their theory was not complete in 2005, I don't think it will be complete now.

And, again, to suggest people are ignoring sunspots is a complete strawman. Here's a picture on the NOAA website published in 2001

sunclimate_3b.gif


The direct effect on water temp is being well followed & accounted for. And people are happy to look for circulation trends as well. No one's going to poo-pooh a report finding a good trend, especially if they publish some good predictions from it.
 
Most of us wouldn’t know by looking at it, but the sun has been in a record breaking mode lately for its lack of activity.

[...]

From 1640 to 1715, when few sunspots were reported, the northern hemisphere experienced what was known as the Little Ice Age. Londoners ice skated on the frozen Thames and people could walk from Manhattan to Staten Island on ice.

Another period of few sunspots occurred in 1913.

“And, that is a time when old-timers talk about it being really cold,” Perry said.

Interesting if it turns out to be true. I've never completely bought that just CO2 was completely responsible for the climate change we are experiencing. Yeah, partially, but I do believe that there is a bigger picture involved, and it's not just CO2.

I think you and the journalist missed this: Sun activity is very low at the moment. The last time it was this low it was really cold. It isn't really cold right now. This is very alarming. That means that the current warm climate is actually very cold for the current conditions. That means once the sun activity picks up again it is going to be very very hot.

Sadly the article (in order to find evidence for Climate Change hype) gets this totally wrong: This means that the effect of CO2 is even higher! If it wasn't for the sun giving us a break right now, it would be even warmer!

I guess it's time to build water pipelines. Southern Bavaria could get very rich if we could sell at that excess water to drought regions.
 
we've had one of our coolest summers on record, the absence of sunspot activity explains it - the abundance of CO2 in the atmosphere doesn't.

Through Aug. 31, 51 days had gone by with no signs of a sunspot. It was the fifth longest period for days without sunspots in 150 years. And, it came close to breaking a record set in 1913.

And that was during a warming trend as well

The sun is still on track to break a record for the fewest number of sunspotless days over a three-year period.

huh?

“It’s pretty hard to ignore the big orange ball in the sky that produces all the heat the earth has. And, very small fluctuations in that can make a big difference in our earth and climate,” Perry said.

Tell that to all them critters living off the heat of thermal vents in our oceans. A better question is why the Earth is still so active...

Sunspots are the dark areas of cooler temperatures in the sun’s photosphere. During times that the number of sunspots are at their highest, temperatures are hotter and the sun is releasing more energy.

You know, that doesn't make sense to me. I'd think a cooler solar surface would mean lower temps. Unless the sunspots are cooler because more heat was ejected into the solar wind.
 
Interesting if it turns out to be true.
Big "if" there. I've done a whole lot of reading on the Web about global warming, and the science wonks can't even seem to agree on what the sun is doing right now. I've seen lots of claims that it's near a maximum, lots of other claims that it's near a minimum.....

:mad:
 
To suggest climate scientists ignore the sun would be like suggesting rocket scientists ignore gravity.

Water vapor has a much greater effect on the greenhouse effect on Earth that CO2
Water and carbon dioxide absorb at different wavelengths. Not a fair comparison.
 
Who cares what wavelengths they absorb??

It's the final result that's important. One mole of carbon dioxide warms the planet by how much? One mole of water vapor warms the planet by how much? The second one is bigger. A lot bigger.
 
I'm saying 1.8 moles of water and 0.2 moles of CO2 can retain more heat than 2.0 moles of water. CO2 accounts for about 1/4 of the greenhouse effect -- it's not insignificant.
 
One mole of carbon dioxide warms the planet by how much? One mole of water vapor warms the planet by how much? The second one is bigger. A lot bigger.
If you disagree with this, wait for a highly humid day, step outside, and you will be proved wrong.

Water vapor is a powerful insulator because it interferes with evaporation. And evaporation is much quicker and more powerful than carbon dioxide's method (CO2 transmits visible light but absorbs infrared).
 
Back
Top Bottom