how much warming from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we

Solar Variability and Terrestrial Climate - NASA Science

Jan. 8, 2013: In the galactic scheme of things, the Sun is a remarkably constant star. While some stars exhibit dramatic pulsations, wildly yo-yoing in size and brightness, and sometimes even exploding, the luminosity of our own sun varies a measly 0.1% over the course of the 11-year solar cycle.

There is, however, a dawning realization among researchers that even these apparently tiny variations can have a significant effect on terrestrial climate. A new report issued by the National Research Council (NRC), "The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth's Climate," lays out some of the surprisingly complex ways that solar activity can make itself felt on our planet.

Understanding the sun-climate connection requires a breadth of expertise in fields such as plasma physics, solar activity, atmospheric chemistry and fluid dynamics, energetic particle physics, and even terrestrial history. No single researcher has the full range of knowledge required to solve the problem. To make progress, the NRC had to assemble dozens of experts from many fields at a single workshop. The report summarizes their combined efforts to frame the problem in a truly multi-disciplinary context.

One of the participants, Greg Kopp of the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics at the University of Colorado, pointed out that while the variations in luminosity over the 11-year solar cycle amount to only a tenth of a percent of the sun's total output, such a small fraction is still important. "Even typical short term variations of 0.1% in incident irradiance exceed all other energy sources (such as natural radioactivity in Earth's core) combined," he says.

Of particular importance is the sun's extreme ultraviolet (EUV) radiation, which peaks during the years around solar maximum. Within the relatively narrow band of EUV wavelengths, the sun’s output varies not by a minuscule 0.1%, but by whopping factors of 10 or more. This can strongly affect the chemistry and thermal structure of the upper atmosphere.

Several researchers discussed how changes in the upper atmosphere can trickle down to Earth's surface. There are many "top-down" pathways for the sun's influence. For instance, Charles Jackman of the Goddard Space Flight Center described how nitrogen oxides (NOx) created by solar energetic particles and cosmic rays in the stratosphere could reduce ozone levels by a few percent. Because ozone absorbs UV radiation, less ozone means that more UV rays from the sun would reach Earth's surface.

Isaac Held of NOAA took this one step further. He described how loss of ozone in the stratosphere could alter the dynamics of the atmosphere below it. "The cooling of the polar stratosphere associated with loss of ozone increases the horizontal temperature gradient near the tropopause,” he explains. “This alters the flux of angular momentum by mid-latitude eddies. [Angular momentum is important because] the angular momentum budget of the troposphere controls the surface westerlies." In other words, solar activity felt in the upper atmosphere can, through a complicated series of influences, push surface storm tracks off course.

Many of the mechanisms proposed at the workshop had a Rube Goldberg-like quality. They relied on multi-step interactions between multiple layers of atmosphere and ocean, some relying on chemistry to get their work done, others leaning on thermodynamics or fluid physics. But just because something is complicated doesn't mean it's not real.

Indeed, Gerald Meehl of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) presented persuasive evidence that solar variability is leaving an imprint on climate, especially in the Pacific. According to the report, when researchers look at sea surface temperature data during sunspot peak years, the tropical Pacific shows a pronounced La Nina-like pattern, with a cooling of almost 1o C in the equatorial eastern Pacific. In addition, "there are signs of enhanced precipitation in the Pacific ITCZ (Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone ) and SPCZ (South Pacific Convergence Zone) as well as above-normal sea-level pressure in the mid-latitude North and South Pacific," correlated with peaks in the sunspot cycle.

The solar cycle signals are so strong in the Pacific, that Meehl and colleagues have begun to wonder if something in the Pacific climate system is acting to amplify them. "One of the mysteries regarding Earth's climate system ... is how the relatively small fluctuations of the 11-year solar cycle can produce the magnitude of the observed climate signals in the tropical Pacific." Using supercomputer models of climate, they show that not only "top-down" but also "bottom-up" mechanisms involving atmosphere-ocean interactions are required to amplify solar forcing at the surface of the Pacific.

In recent years, researchers have considered the possibility that the sun plays a role in global warming. After all, the sun is the main source of heat for our planet. The NRC report suggests, however, that the influence of solar variability is more regional than global. The Pacific region is only one example.

Caspar Amman of NCAR noted in the report that "When Earth's radiative balance is altered, as in the case of a change in solar cycle forcing, not all locations are affected equally. The equatorial central Pacific is generally cooler, the runoff from rivers in Peru is reduced, and drier conditions affect the western USA."

Raymond Bradley of UMass, who has studied historical records of solar activity imprinted by radioisotopes in tree rings and ice cores, says that regional rainfall seems to be more affected than temperature. "If there is indeed a solar effect on climate, it is manifested by changes in general circulation rather than in a direct temperature signal." This fits in with the conclusion of the IPCC and previous NRC reports that solar variability is NOT the cause of global warming over the last 50 years.

Much has been made of the probable connection between the Maunder Minimum, a 70-year deficit of sunspots in the late 17th-early 18th century, and the coldest part of the Little Ice Age, during which Europe and North America were subjected to bitterly cold winters. The mechanism for that regional cooling could have been a drop in the sun’s EUV output; this is, however, speculative.

Dan Lubin of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography pointed out the value of looking at sun-like stars elsewhere in the Milky Way to determine the frequency of similar grand minima. “Early estimates of grand minimum frequency in solar-type stars ranged from 10% to 30%, implying the sun’s influence could be overpowering. More recent studies using data from Hipparcos (a European Space Agency astrometry satellite) and properly accounting for the metallicity of the stars, place the estimate in the range of less than 3%.” This is not a large number, but it is significant.

Indeed, the sun could be on the threshold of a mini-Maunder event right now. Ongoing Solar Cycle 24 is the weakest in more than 50 years. Moreover, there is (controversial) evidence of a long-term weakening trend in the magnetic field strength of sunspots. Matt Penn and William Livingston of the National Solar Observatory predict that by the time Solar Cycle 25 arrives, magnetic fields on the sun will be so weak that few if any sunspots will be formed. Independent lines of research involving helioseismology and surface polar fields tend to support their conclusion. (Note: Penn and Livingston were not participants at the NRC workshop.)

“If the sun really is entering an unfamiliar phase of the solar cycle, then we must redouble our efforts to understand the sun-climate link,” notes Lika Guhathakurta of NASA’s Living with a Star Program, which helped fund the NRC study. “The report offers some good ideas for how to get started.”

In a concluding panel discussion, the researchers identified a number of possible next steps. Foremost among them was the deployment of a radiometric imager. Devices currently used to measure total solar irradiance (TSI) reduce the entire sun to a single number: the total luminosity summed over all latitudes, longitudes, and wavelengths. This integrated value becomes a solitary point in a time series tracking the sun’s output.

In fact, as Peter Foukal of Heliophysics, Inc., pointed out, the situation is more complex. The sun is not a featureless ball of uniform luminosity. Instead, the solar disk is dotted by the dark cores of sunspots and splashed with bright magnetic froth known as faculae. Radiometric imaging would, essentially, map the surface of the sun and reveal the contributions of each to the sun’s luminosity. Of particular interest are the faculae. While dark sunspots tend to vanish during solar minima, the bright faculae do not. This may be why paleoclimate records of sun-sensitive isotopes C-14 and Be-10 show a faint 11-year cycle at work even during the Maunder Minimum. A radiometric imager, deployed on some future space observatory, would allow researchers to develop the understanding they need to project the sun-climate link into a future of prolonged spotlessness.

Some attendees stressed the need to put sun-climate data in standard formats and make them widely available for multidisciplinary study. Because the mechanisms for the sun’s influence on climate are complicated, researchers from many fields will have to work together to successfully model them and compare competing results. Continued and improved collaboration between NASA, NOAA and the NSF are keys to this process.

Hal Maring, a climate scientist at NASA headquarters who has studied the report, notes that “lots of interesting possibilities were suggested by the panelists. However, few, if any, have been quantified to the point that we can definitively assess their impact on climate.” Hardening the possibilities into concrete, physically-complete models is a key challenge for the researchers.

Finally, many participants noted the difficulty in deciphering the sun-climate link from paleoclimate records such as tree rings and ice cores. Variations in Earth’s magnetic field and atmospheric circulation can affect the deposition of radioisotopes far more than actual solar activity. A better long-term record of the sun’s irradiance might be encoded in the rocks and sediments of the Moon or Mars. Studying other worlds might hold the key to our own.

The full report, “The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth’s Climate,” is available from the National Academies Press at this link > The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth's Climate: A Workshop Report






C'mon olfraud, you can do better than that....:lol:

This is the only response anyone here can make to my post? No other comments? No PERTINENT comments relating to its contents? NONE AT ALL? Hmm. I wonder why that is?
 
We all know that the result of AGW has to be an increase in OLR as the earth responds to GHGs by warming. What we can't pinpoint yet is the precise nature of, or timing of, that response. Only that it has to be.

First, since you don't have the first bit of hard, empirical evidence that man is responsible for any amount of global climate change, we must first establish that you are working from an assumption...not fact.

Second, you just stated earlier that AGW must result in a decrease of OLR. Do you need to be reminded of what you just claimed? That's one of the problems with being a warmer...you must constantly be claiming something different as your hypothesis disentegrates before your eyes. AGW causes more and less rain...AGW causes more and less snow...AGW causes more and less tornados....AGW causes more and less hurricaines.....AGW causes higher and lower temperatures....AGW causes everything.....and now you are claiming that AGW causes more and less OLR.

Your original quote is HERE

Back radiation lowers radiation outgoing from the TOA, and essentially redirects it back to earth. The difference between incoming solar energy and outgoing longwave energy warms the land, sea, ice and air......

So which is it gomer? More or less OLR?....or both?

And third, OLR has increased even during the lull so the warming was not the cause of the increase of OLR.

You definitely qualify for the slow class.

First thing that happens as the concentration of GHGs increases is some OLR is prevented from going out and comes back in. What would you guess that does to OLR going out the TOA? That's right. It lowers it.

Next thing that happens is the same incoming, plus more redirected outgoing, minus less outgoing, results in warming.

Next thing is that warmer earth generates MORE outgoing which restores balance. See how that works?

No wonder you are inadequately equipped to understand that AGW has been a fact on earth since there's been an earth and atmosphere.
 
Last edited:
I find it hilarious that each time one of them get's busted socking, saying something stupid, or being just plain getting their butt kicked, the offending post is buried under a barrage small posts that are either off-topic, ignorant, or nonsensical..

And it's always PMZ, Ifitzpmz, or now abraham or organman... It's ridiculous they think none notices..
 
I think that someone should start a sock thread for these Gomers.

That seem to be the limit of their thinking.
 

This is the only response anyone here can make to my post? No other comments? No PERTINENT comments relating to its contents? NONE AT ALL? Hmm. I wonder why that is?

You ignorant troll, you must be oldsocks in drag.. I caught him being ignorant in this same manner many times before he decided to stop trying and went the sock route instead..

You do realize if the contentions in the article you are whinning about are factual, than not only does it support the anti-AGW camp, but it also shows what we have been saying all along, that the sun is driving force in climate.....

You cherry-picked and underlined sentences to divert attention.. Let's clarify shall we....Some things you didn't underline or conveniently ommitted...

Indeed, Gerald Meehl of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) presented persuasive evidence that solar variability is leaving an imprint on climate, especially in the Pacific. According to the report, when researchers look at sea surface temperature data during sunspot peak years, the tropical Pacific shows a pronounced La Nina-like pattern, with a cooling of almost 1o C in the equatorial eastern Pacific. In addition, "there are signs of enhanced precipitation in the Pacific ITCZ (Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone ) and SPCZ (South Pacific Convergence Zone) as well as above-normal sea-level pressure in the mid-latitude North and South Pacific," correlated with peaks in the sunspot cycle.

Amazing.. Just as we said the sun's effects are much more pronounced than the IPCC or warmers claim...

More...

In recent years, researchers have considered the possibility that the sun plays a role in global warming. After all, the sun is the main source of heat for our planet. The NRC report suggests, however, that the influence of solar variability is more regional than global. The Pacific region is only one example.

Uh yeah, we already knew that but glad to see the idea catching on...

LOL,oldoscks reading comprehension kicks his own ass again... Another one of theose HUFFPO headlines he followed the link to.. He saw it, saw the word IPCC and said Eureka! I have done it...

ROFL, love when he does that. Makes the job half done for me..
 
I think that someone should start a sock thread for these Gomers.

That seem to be the limit of their thinking.

Hey whats up with yours and now abrahams rep?

LOL, we already knew you two were in drag..ROFL
 
You reject QM? Gollee. Why does that not surprise me?

Are you aware that QM can't even explain the electron cloud in a hydrogen atom without an ad hoc fix? A hydrogen atom for pete's sake. The most basic atom of them all and QM is unable to explain it without a completely made up fix. And that's just the start. Numerous ad hoc fixes are incorporated to just make it through the periodic table. QM is an attempt to explain things that we are actually quite a ways from understanding and QM certainly hasn't overturned, or even prompted the modification of any of the laws of physics.

You want to believe in QM as if it were written by the finger of God, help yourself, but QM has a long way to go before it even manages to cause a physical law to be modified, much less changed.

So what you are saying is that you reject 90 years of physics research. Brilliant move, Einstein.

Einstein wasn't to keen on QM either so I am in good company.
 
Are you aware that QM can't even explain the electron cloud in a hydrogen atom without an ad hoc fix? A hydrogen atom for pete's sake. The most basic atom of them all and QM is unable to explain it without a completely made up fix. And that's just the start. Numerous ad hoc fixes are incorporated to just make it through the periodic table. QM is an attempt to explain things that we are actually quite a ways from understanding and QM certainly hasn't overturned, or even prompted the modification of any of the laws of physics.

You want to believe in QM as if it were written by the finger of God, help yourself, but QM has a long way to go before it even manages to cause a physical law to be modified, much less changed.

So what you are saying is that you reject 90 years of physics research. Brilliant move, Einstein.

Einstein wasn't to keen on QM either so I am in good company.

Comparing yourself and Einstein. That is mind boggling. It would tough to demonstrate you are of the same species.
 
C'mon olfraud, you can do better than that....:lol:

This is the only response anyone here can make to my post? No other comments? No PERTINENT comments relating to its contents? NONE AT ALL? Hmm. I wonder why that is?





Probably because these have been addressed before olfraud...as you already know full well.

No, actually, this has been obfuscated by the deniers, and not addressed properly at all. Try addressing the contents instead of applying ad hominem and misdirection to everyone and everything with which you disagree.
 
This is the only response anyone here can make to my post? No other comments? No PERTINENT comments relating to its contents? NONE AT ALL? Hmm. I wonder why that is?





Probably because these have been addressed before olfraud...as you already know full well.

No, actually, this has been obfuscated by the deniers, and not addressed properly at all. Try addressing the contents instead of applying ad hominem and misdirection to everyone and everything with which you disagree.






The fact that I disagree with you is immaterial olfraud. What is material is you creating socks to try and further your tall tales. You're busted, you forgot which persona you were inhabiting and insulted me with your olfraud insult when you were oroboy.

Ya screwed up bunky!:lol::lol::lol:
 

This is the only response anyone here can make to my post? No other comments? No PERTINENT comments relating to its contents? NONE AT ALL? Hmm. I wonder why that is?

Oh -- I can comment I suppose.. That's geniunely open-minded of you.. Especially the request for more space resources to study the sun.. All of that is important -- but not to the IPCC which was chartered to study ONLY MAN-MADE causes of Global Warming..

Since you're all hot on astronomy -- ponder this. Almost impossible to measure very slight shifts in the Spectral Distribution of the sun from the Earth surface.. Very slight shifts in the frequency distribution of the sun EM spectrum could modulate the key absorption lines in the GreenHouse window. We've only had the ability to measure this from space in real-time for about a single solar cycle.. Doesn't NEED to be a change in TSI -- only a redistribution in the relative spectral intensities by a miniscule amount.

BTW: What the heck is THIS??

Dan Lubin of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography pointed out the value of looking at sun-like stars elsewhere in the Milky Way to determine the frequency of similar grand minima. “Early estimates of grand minimum frequency in solar-type stars ranged from 10% to 30%, implying the sun’s influence could be overpowering. More recent studies using data from Hipparcos (a European Space Agency astrometry satellite) and properly accounting for the metallicity of the stars, place the estimate in the range of less than 3%.” This is not a large number, but it is significant.

How do you measure "frequency of similar grand minima" as a PERCENTAGE? Percent of what? time? Stars in grand minima 30% of the time?

We already KNOW our star does this and we suspect it does it periodically. In fact, there seems to be signals in the length of solar cycle components that match sequences that occurred just before the MMin.
 
Last edited:
Probably because these have been addressed before olfraud...as you already know full well.

No, actually, this has been obfuscated by the deniers, and not addressed properly at all. Try addressing the contents instead of applying ad hominem and misdirection to everyone and everything with which you disagree.






The fact that I disagree with you is immaterial olfraud. What is material is you creating socks to try and further your tall tales. You're busted, you forgot which persona you were inhabiting and insulted me with your olfraud insult when you were oroboy.

Ya screwed up bunky!:lol::lol::lol:

LOL, he hasn't even denied it... Pathetic..
 
Probably because these have been addressed before olfraud...as you already know full well.

No, actually, this has been obfuscated by the deniers, and not addressed properly at all. Try addressing the contents instead of applying ad hominem and misdirection to everyone and everything with which you disagree.






The fact that I disagree with you is immaterial olfraud. What is material is you creating socks to try and further your tall tales. You're busted, you forgot which persona you were inhabiting and insulted me with your olfraud insult when you were oroboy.

Ya screwed up bunky!:lol::lol::lol:

I post a peer reviewed paper by the National Academy of Sciences that you refuse to respond to, and I'm busted? You really ought to put the bottle down, son. You aren't handling it well.
 
No, actually, this has been obfuscated by the deniers, and not addressed properly at all. Try addressing the contents instead of applying ad hominem and misdirection to everyone and everything with which you disagree.






The fact that I disagree with you is immaterial olfraud. What is material is you creating socks to try and further your tall tales. You're busted, you forgot which persona you were inhabiting and insulted me with your olfraud insult when you were oroboy.

Ya screwed up bunky!:lol::lol::lol:

I post a peer reviewed paper by the National Academy of Sciences that you refuse to respond to, and I'm busted? You really ought to put the bottle down, son. You aren't handling it well.






As I have stated previously it has been responded to. i'm more interested in watching you flail away trying to make us forget you're olfraud:lol::lol::lol::lol:
 
ROFL, he's hilarious...


Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain... The one with his arm up my back...He's not even there... Just continue posting to me as if nothing has changed...
 
So what you are saying is that you reject 90 years of physics research. Brilliant move, Einstein.

Einstein wasn't to keen on QM either so I am in good company.

Comparing yourself and Einstein. That is mind boggling. It would tough to demonstrate you are of the same species.

In the fact that neither of us think much of QM, we are in the same boat. I am sure his reasons were far more profound than mine. What are your reasons for believing whatever QM says to be true against the advice of Einstein? What do you know that he didn't? Are you smarter than he? Do you understand the QM line of thought better than he?
 
You reject QM? Gollee. Why does that not surprise me?

Are you aware that QM can't even explain the electron cloud in a hydrogen atom without an ad hoc fix? A hydrogen atom for pete's sake. The most basic atom of them all and QM is unable to explain it without a completely made up fix. And that's just the start. Numerous ad hoc fixes are incorporated to just make it through the periodic table. QM is an attempt to explain things that we are actually quite a ways from understanding and QM certainly hasn't overturned, or even prompted the modification of any of the laws of physics.

You want to believe in QM as if it were written by the finger of God, help yourself, but QM has a long way to go before it even manages to cause a physical law to be modified, much less changed.

I see a couple of trends here. You reject QM and AGW - both widely accepted theories. The thought that strikes me is that you reject them because they are widely accepted theories... because you wish to appear iconoclastic. In both cases, you do not reject them because of any significant flaw, but because - you claim - they can not cover some portion of their intended or applicable domain.

QM has been experimentally verified so many times that rejecting it is simply not justifiable. I begin to see why others have developed the opinions of you that they have.
 
The fact that I disagree with you is immaterial olfraud. What is material is you creating socks to try and further your tall tales. You're busted, you forgot which persona you were inhabiting and insulted me with your olfraud insult when you were oroboy.

Ya screwed up bunky!:lol::lol::lol:

I post a peer reviewed paper by the National Academy of Sciences that you refuse to respond to, and I'm busted? You really ought to put the bottle down, son. You aren't handling it well.

As I have stated previously it has been responded to. i'm more interested in watching you flail away trying to make us forget you're olfraud:lol::lol::lol::lol:

Let me get this straight. You believe Orogenicman is posting under multiple aliases? If so, name them.

By the way, while your fans might enjoy it, the fact that you are as skilled as you are at avoiding actual debate cannot fail to inform all of your readership of your technical shortcomings.
 
Last edited:
I post a peer reviewed paper by the National Academy of Sciences that you refuse to respond to, and I'm busted? You really ought to put the bottle down, son. You aren't handling it well.

As I have stated previously it has been responded to. i'm more interested in watching you flail away trying to make us forget you're olfraud:lol::lol::lol::lol:

Let me get this straight. You believe Orogenicman is posting under multiple aliases? If so, name them.

By the way, while your fans might enjoy it, the fact that you are as skilled as you are at avoiding actual debate cannot fail to inform all of your readership of your technical shortcomings.

The fact that I only arrived in this forum last month kinda escapes him. The fact that I had never even heard of this forum until last month doesn't seem to sink in either. It's just about the silliest thing anyone has ever accused me of. But you are right, Abe, the man is almost as bad as Mishka in avoiding debate. Which I suppose makes him a troll.
 

Forum List

Back
Top