New Global Warming Research

I think the point that Crash point is trying to make is that if sunspot activity were responsible for increased insolation, then we'd see an increase in atmospheric temperatures. How do your number contradict that? Who cares if only 20% of incoming energy is absorbed by the atmosphere. While the percentage wouldn't change...the value (ie. temperature) certainly would.

This story certainly seems to imply that we are in a warming period and that recent history the most recent decade is unusual when looking at a 150+ year span.And this report provides some of the reasoning behind the conclusion that Global Warming really is happening and that human activity is a major component.Edited by jar, : add second link

---

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

Yes, exactly. Don't underestimate the ability of Holmes to completely miss the point.

To be accurate of course it isn't the sunspots themselves that are the cause of the increased insolation - it is the faculae that accompany sunspots. The faculae increase insolation more than their associated sunspots decrease them. It might be the case that sunspots are an indirect measurement of insolation but they are strongly correlated and causation can be shown via the faculae. The sunspot data seems to suggest that the sun is brighter now than it was 200 years ago and that the brightness started to increase about 100-150 years ago.

But aren't we independently directly measuring insolation? What do those measurements show?

Well, here are the questions I would ask: a) Have there been more sunspots recently? b) Do sunspots lead to fewer cosmic rays? c) Do cosmic rays lead to increased cloud formation? d) Are we sure these clouds make things cooler?a) There are more sunspots these days than long ago, but they have not risen over the last 50 years, the time of most of the observed warming. From the wikipedia entry on sunspots:b) Sunspots should lead to fewer cosmic rays based on simple physics - the sun's increased magnetic field should sweep away more incoming cosmic radiation. Here's a pretty crappy plot from the University of Chicago Climax neutron monitor. It shows the rate of incidence of neutrons produced from cosmic rays overlaid with sunspot #s. While there is a clear correlation, neither the sunspots nor the cosmic rays have shown a recent trend in any direction that could explain the anomalous temps:c) Cosmic rays cause ions which give condensing water vapor stuff to stick to and can lead to cloud formation. This is similar to the principle behind how cloud chambers are used for particle detection. But at the same time, the atmosphere does have dust in it already, so I don't see as how a lack of objects to condense upon would be the limiting factor. And I don't see any evidence online to support a correlation between cloud cover and cosmic rays. Maybe someone else has some they could point me to.d) I think thick clouds reflect a lot of the incoming solar radiation and make things cooler. Thin clouds, however, let most of the solar radiation through but are more opaque to the infrared radiation the earth sends out to cool itself, so they can have a net warming effect. So even if fewer clouds were formed as a result of sunspots (which apparently there aren't based on A and B) it isn't 100% clear that this would warm the earth.So overall, since the incoming solar energy has not been going up over time as crashfrog pointed out, and cosmic rays have not been changing their behavior as a result of sunspots, I really don’t see how solar output can be responsible for recent warmingEdited by fgarb, : Resizing an image to make it less obnoxiousEdited by fgarb, : Fixing some typos

Your graph is inadequate to the task, it cuts off a significant amount of up-to-date data: You'll notice that instead of a decline what we see is a cycle. The cycle is about a decade from peak to peak. Sunspot activity tends to be cyclical with a period approximating a decade too and the correlation observed between the two has lead people to hypothesise the one might be an indicator of the other.They then used a secondary method to determine solar activity over the past 8000 years, and showed how their method was able to predict solar activity as measured for several hundred years. The researcher who wrote an analysis of the work for Nature says: "The models reproduce the observed record of sunspots extremely well, from almost no sunspots during the seventeenth century to the current high levels."Thus:
if Solanki's method is an accurate way of determining past sunspot activity; and
if sunspot activity and insolation are generally proportionally related;
then we are at a high insolation period as measured in an 8000 year period and there was a sudden brightening event in the past 100-150 years. Hehe - Space.com had a better and more balanced writeup.

quote:

---

Sunspots have been more common in the past seven decades than at any time in the last 8,000 years, according to a new historic reconstruction of solar activity.

​

Many researchers have tried to link sunspot activity to climate change, but the new results cannot be used to explain global warming, according to the scientists who did the study.

​

Sunspots are areas of intense magnetic energy. They act like temporary caps on upwelling matter, and they are the sites of occasional ferocious eruptions of light and electrified gas. More sunspots generally means increased solar activity...

​

...But a firm connection between sunspot numbers and climate remains elusive, many scientists say.

---

Only for the past 30 years - which can't tell us about 100-150 years ago, unfortunately.Edited by Modulous, : 25->30yrs

hey. just a side note. found this linked on another board.top 26 global warming myths and misconceptions

We are not going to get into a debate on misrepresentation. Your inaccuracy is clear.The "simple" model of the earth is not like a frying pan. In that instance all of the heat is absorbed by the pan, which in turn heats the thing within it. That does not come close to a correct model.The microwave is better. When using a "microwave safe" container, and with a heterogeneous mixture (which the container could be consider a part of) the radiation bombards all of it. The radiation passes through the container (or is absorbed less) and more of the radiation heats that within it. If you have more than just water within that container (what a heterogeneous mixture means) you will find that it does not all absorb energy (or rise in temp) at the same rate.I never said that the outside does not heat first, I said it does not necessarily do so... like the container.I also did not claim that radiation from the sun does not hit the atmosphere first. Indeed I said that is what it meets/passes through first. Actually I do remember that you had said that, which is why I remarked it is hard to tell if you are being serious or disingenuous. The comment in that message was a response to where I had said about the exact same thing (only using sand). And yet, you go from that to repeating the frying pan analogy.Show me a frying pan that works by letting through more heat than it absorbs, and indeed is heated further by the contents of the pan.Edited by Silent H, : nix

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Yes I know what crash was arguing in his original posts, and if you look I said that he had a point. They would have to explain the mechanism for any lag in an increase. That said...1) There are other factors than simply radiation increase, which may determine TEMPERATURE. Increased energy to a system does not just result in increased temp, and one of my cites clearly sets out how convection currents could hold/distribute energy such that temp changes are not seen.
2) There are factors which can change over time such that increases become geometric... like the ice caps melting can become geometric.
3) There actually were chemicals in the atmosphere at the time depressing temps. Once those cleared is when we began to see temps rising consistently.All of those can account for a lag from energy in, to rising temps seen. As it is they didn't say how much increased energy, or in what form. If (for sake of argument) the increased radiation was inside the window for air then that would not be absorbed at all.But like I said, I wasn't championing these guys' research, just explaining science FACT. It is not as simple as energy enters atmosphere, temps go up.As someone else also pointed out they didn't even have to call for increased insolation.Man, this is really where environmentalism gets dangerous for science. The model is REALLY not that easy. It is STILL being worked on. And it is NOT energy in = temp rise.Might I ask if you went to the earth atmosphere link I gave? Did you see the temp gradients for the many layers of our atmosphere? Do you understand that each layer may absorb, or not, portions of the energy and act differently based on its chemical construct?Are we including the outermost layers of our atmosphere when discussing rising global temps?{AbE: And by the way, the post you are replying to has nothing to do with the research in the article... which I will note again that I said crash had a point that they'd need to explain the mechanism... this was solely in response to his description of the atmospheric system as like a frying pan. It isn't, and my links clearly showed that.}Edited by Silent H, : AbE

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

First let me repeat, that though I find their correlation interesting, mechanisms were not well explained, and given that it hasn't gone anywhere in three years it probably didn't have traction. But crashfrog didn't actually point that out, and Mod has delivered a better graph on that point. What crash did show is that for a portion of the time (within their timeframe) it had been decreasing. But as I stated and Mod just proved, "increase" and "decrease" is largely a matter of picking an arbitrary starting point.What's more, other factors (surface as well as atmospheric) can mitigate temperature increases for a while. Once they reach a point that they cannot compensate for energy increases, then temps will rise.By the way, during this whole time there were also natural events which provided materials which might have interacted with any increased or differential radiation input, plus we did have the manmade chemicals still wearing off at the front end of the timeframe they were discussing.{AbE: The main point of my original criticism of crash's critique seems to have been missed. The scientists, while perhaps barking up a wrong tree, cannot be called deceitful based on that article. Crash's use of the graph to suggest they were intentionally ignoring that to make some errant claim seems a bit outlandish. I don't think it's good for science to be playing that kind of game.}Edited by Silent H, : AbE

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

nice link brenna... just to let you know someone looked.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Thanks for posting this, Mod.But looking at the graph, don't you see a downward trend on top of the cyclic variations? If you follow the black line it really looks like an overall slight decrease.You've posted one of the graphs that I examined before I made my post. Since I saw the downward, overall trend, I tried to find a graph that made it a little more obvious, and that's the graph that I posted.It was not at any point my intent to conceal anything. I simply chose a graph that seemed to have the most explicit representation of the trend I was seeing in all the others - the slight downward, cooling trend that lies on top of the regular cyclic variation of the Sun.

Are you talking from one end to another? If so then I'd say no, not at all. And if you take into consideration the heights and peaks that would also be a no. Okay, now you called those guys deceitful, yet here you are admitting that you picked a graphic which had the most explicit representation of what you were "seeing". That is a kind of charlatanism. It is the same kind of thing that Gore did.I had no problem with your original graphic, other than it did not dispute what the scientists had said (they were talking about a range comparative to an earlier time). And pointed out that because of the cyclic nature it is hard to talk about true "increases" and "decreases".Mod's graphic shows the periodicity, and no I don't think it shows a downward trend. If you had this and chose the other. That really does seem like deceit. Perhaps not heavy handed, but it is NOT the way you should be presenting environmental data to prove your point.Edited by Silent H, : no to now

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard