Solar v Anthropogenic Causes of Global Warming

[JoeNormal]

This is a compelling look at the role of solar activity in global warming. Others have noted the connection between sunspots and warming without explaining any possible mechanism to explain it. This video does offer that connection.

While I still think that positive feedbacks are going to do a number on our climate, this is the best alternative view of why current models are not as accurate as they should be.

 

[yiostheoy]

Solar could be the only logical explanation.

We will need a solar landing before we can fix it.

 

[there4eyeM]

Solar could be the only logical explanation.

We will need a solar landing before we can fix it.

...at night, of course!

 

[oldsoul]

This is a compelling look at the role of solar activity in global warming. Others have noted the connection between sunspots and warming without explaining any possible mechanism to explain it. This video does offer that connection.

While I still think that positive feedbacks are going to do a number on our climate, this is the best alternative view of why current models are not as accurate as they should be.

That is a pretty long video. Would you be willing to summarise? What are the basics? If necessary, I will do further research based on that. I know this is a complex issue, and is likely not explained in a short format, however, If you could try to, or at least direct me to where I might find such a summary, I would certainly appreciate it.

 

[JoeNormal]

This is a compelling look at the role of solar activity in global warming. Others have noted the connection between sunspots and warming without explaining any possible mechanism to explain it. This video does offer that connection.

While I still think that positive feedbacks are going to do a number on our climate, this is the best alternative view of why current models are not as accurate as they should be.

That is a pretty long video. Would you be willing to summarise? What are the basics? If necessary, I will do further research based on that. I know this is a complex issue, and is likely not explained in a short format, however, If you could try to, or at least direct me to where I might find such a summary, I would certainly appreciate it.

It's really about half as long as it appears because there's a lengthy Q and A of dubious value at the end but here's the gist of it:

There's a strong correlation between sunspot activity and global temperature increase. I used to think this was a correlation without causation because if an aspect of solar activity were to have an effect, it would be solar output. Solar output probably does have an effect but the variation is extremely small so it doesn't do much. Why does sunspot activity matter? It's because strong gusts of solar wind affect the earth's magnetosphere and vary the amount of cosmic radiation that gets through. This cosmic radiation causes cloud cover to be more or less reflective and thus allows the solar radiation to warm or cool the planet.

 

[oldsoul]

This is a compelling look at the role of solar activity in global warming. Others have noted the connection between sunspots and warming without explaining any possible mechanism to explain it. This video does offer that connection.

While I still think that positive feedbacks are going to do a number on our climate, this is the best alternative view of why current models are not as accurate as they should be.

That is a pretty long video. Would you be willing to summarise? What are the basics? If necessary, I will do further research based on that. I know this is a complex issue, and is likely not explained in a short format, however, If you could try to, or at least direct me to where I might find such a summary, I would certainly appreciate it.

It's really about half as long as it appears because there's a lengthy Q and A of dubious value at the end but here's the gist of it:

There's a strong correlation between sunspot activity and global temperature increase. I used to think this was a correlation without causation because if an aspect of solar activity were to have an effect, it would be solar output. Solar output probably does have an effect but the variation is extremely small so it doesn't do much. Why does sunspot activity matter? It's because strong gusts of solar wind affect the earth's magnetosphere and vary the amount of cosmic radiation that gets through. This cosmic radiation causes cloud cover to be more or less reflective and thus allows the solar radiation to warm or cool the planet.

Thank you, I have seen/heard this argument before. I have even made the case myself. Of course whenever I do, I am called a "science denier". I wonder what the fallout will be from this guy's lecture....

 

[there4eyeM]

Large scale human impact certainly isn't improving the situation.

 

[oldsoul]

Large scale human impact certainly isn't improving the situation.

I don't think you would find many people who would disagree with that. However, does that mean that we need to change everything about the way we live? I am all for environmentally sound business practices, and government policy, though it does need to be tempered by pragmatism and robust science, as well as significant study into whether it is, indeed, the best way to go. At the minimum, this lecture serves to show that the science is not settled, and that further study would be advantageous.

 

[there4eyeM]

Change is normal, natural, necessary. It is challenging and creative. Beautifying life instead of tarnishing it is constructive.

 

[JoeNormal]

This is a compelling look at the role of solar activity in global warming. Others have noted the connection between sunspots and warming without explaining any possible mechanism to explain it. This video does offer that connection.

While I still think that positive feedbacks are going to do a number on our climate, this is the best alternative view of why current models are not as accurate as they should be.

That is a pretty long video. Would you be willing to summarise? What are the basics? If necessary, I will do further research based on that. I know this is a complex issue, and is likely not explained in a short format, however, If you could try to, or at least direct me to where I might find such a summary, I would certainly appreciate it.

It's really about half as long as it appears because there's a lengthy Q and A of dubious value at the end but here's the gist of it:

There's a strong correlation between sunspot activity and global temperature increase. I used to think this was a correlation without causation because if an aspect of solar activity were to have an effect, it would be solar output. Solar output probably does have an effect but the variation is extremely small so it doesn't do much. Why does sunspot activity matter? It's because strong gusts of solar wind affect the earth's magnetosphere and vary the amount of cosmic radiation that gets through. This cosmic radiation causes cloud cover to be more or less reflective and thus allows the solar radiation to warm or cool the planet.

Thank you, I have seen/heard this argument before. I have even made the case myself. Of course whenever I do, I am called a "science denier". I wonder what the fallout will be from this guy's lecture....

Hopefully, they'll incorporate it into the models that they have. Even though this is a significant contributor, you can see from the overlay upon actual (and modeled) global temperature that there are a lot of other very significant contributors from the environmental processes that are being measured and increasingly understood. The doctor who made this presentation says that sunspot activity is unpredictable but has bounds of both magnitude and duration so while no really accurate prediction can be made, a range of predictions could be. He believes that the typical cycles of the sun would most likely give us an additional 1 degree C increase but I don't think he's including positive feedbacks so we're not done yet.

 

[RollingThunder]

This is a compelling look at the role of solar activity in global warming. Others have noted the connection between sunspots and warming without explaining any possible mechanism to explain it. This video does offer that connection.

While I still think that positive feedbacks are going to do a number on our climate, this is the best alternative view of why current models are not as accurate as they should be.

Just more moldy old denier cult bullshit.

Scientists can directly measure solar irradiance - the amount of energy from the sun that reaches out planet, measured in Watts per square meter - with satellite instrumentation above the top of the atmosphere. There have been no increases in solar output. In fact, it has declined slightly.

The world science community is quite clear that it is the 45% increase in a powerful greenhouse gas, CO2, that is causing the rapid abrupt global temperature increases, not the sun.

The George Marshall Institute was a rightwing front group for corporate interests, including a lot of support from the fossil fuel industry to deny human caused global warming. They were funded by EXXON, the Koch brothers, Peabody Energy, and a host of far-rightwing foundations with ties to the fossil fuel industry. In addition to working to prevent or delay any meaningful steps to deal with the climate change crisis, the Marshall Institute also worked hard to create a "false perception of scientific uncertainty over the negative effects of second-hand smoke, the carcinogenic nature of tobacco smoking, the existence of acid rain, and on the evidence between CFCs and ozone depletion." One of the techniques these corporate sponsored denialist groups use is to find some fringe scientists that none of the real scientists agree with and tout them as some kind of idiotic rebuttal of the overwhelming scientific consensus on human caused global warming. Their aim is to create doubt and paralyze policy making.

Here's a little more about them from the link.

In 1989, at the same time the George C. Marshall Institute initiated its “Climate Change Policy Program,” the GMI released a report arguing that “cyclical variations in the intensity of the sun would offset any climate change associated with elevated greenhouse gases.” Although it was refuted by the IPCC, the report was used by the Bush Sr. Administration to argue for a more lenient climate change policy. [2]

In a 2009 essay, former Executive Director Matthew B. Crawford had this to say about his initial experience with the Marshall Institute (emphasis added):
“… certain perversities became apparent as I settled into the job. It sometimes required me to reason backward, from desired conclusion to suitable premise. The organization had taken certain positions, and there were some facts it was more fond of than others. As its figurehead, I was making arguments I didn't fully buy myself. Further, my boss seemed intent on retraining me according to a certain cognitive style — that of the corporate world, from which he had recently come. This style demanded that I project an image of rationality but not indulge too much in actual reasoning.” [4]

Newsweek has described the George C. Marshall Institute as a “central cog in the denial machine,” and Naomi Oreskes has said that the Institute has lobbied politically to create a false perception of scientific uncertainty over the negative effects of second-hand smoke, the carcinogenic nature of tobacco smoking, the existence of acid rain, and on the evidence between CFCs and ozone depletion. [5] [22]

Peabody Energy's 2016 bankruptcy documents revealed the George C. Marshall Institute as a creditor, reports the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD/PRWatch). [56]

While the available bankruptcy documents do not list the scale or dates of funding, they outline Peabody Energy's financial ties to a large network of groups promoting climate change denial. [57]

Prominent individuals appearing in the documents include climate deniers Willie Soon, Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer and Richard Berman. The long list of organizations also includes groups such as Americans for Prosperity, American Legislative Exchange Council, CFACT, Institute for Energy Research, State Policy Network, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and dozens more. [58]

The Guardian also analysed and reported on the Peabody bankruptcy findings: [59]

“These groups collectively are the heart and soul of climate denial,” said Kert Davies, founder of the Climate Investigation Center, who has spent 20 years tracking funding for climate denial. “It’s the broadest list I have seen of one company funding so many nodes in the denial machine.”

The company’s filings reveal funding for a range of organisations which have fought Barack Obama’s plans to cut greenhouse gas emissions, and denied the very existence of climate change. […]

Among Peabody’s beneficiaries, the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change has insisted – wrongly – that carbon emissions are not a threat but “the elixir of life” while the American Legislative Exchange Council is trying to overturn Environmental Protection Agency rules cutting emissions from power plants. Meanwhile, Americans for Prosperity campaigns against carbon pricing. The Oklahoma chapter was on the list. […]

“The breadth of the groups with financial ties to Peabody is extraordinary. Thinktanks, litigation groups, climate scientists, political organisations, dozens of organisations blocking action on climate all receiving funding from the coal industry,” said Nick Surgey, director of research for the Center for Media and Democracy.

“We expected to see some denial money, but it looks like Peabody is the treasury for a very substantial part of the climate denial movement.”

 

[JoeNormal]

This is a compelling look at the role of solar activity in global warming. Others have noted the connection between sunspots and warming without explaining any possible mechanism to explain it. This video does offer that connection.

While I still think that positive feedbacks are going to do a number on our climate, this is the best alternative view of why current models are not as accurate as they should be.

Just more moldy old denier cult bullshit.

Scientists can directly measure solar irradiance - the amount of energy from the sun that reaches out planet, measured in Watts per square meter - with satellite instrumentation above the top of the atmosphere. There have been no increases in solar output. In fact, it has declined slightly.

The world science community is quite clear that it is the 45% increase in a powerful greenhouse gas, CO2, that is causing the rapid abrupt global temperature increases, not the sun.

The George Marshall Institute was a rightwing front group for corporate interests, including a lot of support from the fossil fuel industry to deny human caused global warming. They were funded by EXXON, the Koch brothers, Peabody Energy, and a host of far-rightwing foundations with ties to the fossil fuel industry. In addition to working to prevent or delay any meaningful steps to deal with the climate change crisis, the Marshall Institute also worked hard to create a "false perception of scientific uncertainty over the negative effects of second-hand smoke, the carcinogenic nature of tobacco smoking, the existence of acid rain, and on the evidence between CFCs and ozone depletion." One of the techniques these corporate sponsored denialist groups use is to find some fringe scientists that none of the real scientists agree with and tout them as some kind of idiotic rebuttal of the overwhelming scientific consensus on human caused global warming. Their aim is to create doubt and paralyze policy making.

Here's a little more about them from the link.

In 1989, at the same time the George C. Marshall Institute initiated its “Climate Change Policy Program,” the GMI released a report arguing that “cyclical variations in the intensity of the sun would offset any climate change associated with elevated greenhouse gases.” Although it was refuted by the IPCC, the report was used by the Bush Sr. Administration to argue for a more lenient climate change policy. [2]

In a 2009 essay, former Executive Director Matthew B. Crawford had this to say about his initial experience with the Marshall Institute (emphasis added):
“… certain perversities became apparent as I settled into the job. It sometimes required me to reason backward, from desired conclusion to suitable premise. The organization had taken certain positions, and there were some facts it was more fond of than others. As its figurehead, I was making arguments I didn't fully buy myself. Further, my boss seemed intent on retraining me according to a certain cognitive style — that of the corporate world, from which he had recently come. This style demanded that I project an image of rationality but not indulge too much in actual reasoning.” [4]

Newsweek has described the George C. Marshall Institute as a “central cog in the denial machine,” and Naomi Oreskes has said that the Institute has lobbied politically to create a false perception of scientific uncertainty over the negative effects of second-hand smoke, the carcinogenic nature of tobacco smoking, the existence of acid rain, and on the evidence between CFCs and ozone depletion. [5] [22]

Peabody Energy's 2016 bankruptcy documents revealed the George C. Marshall Institute as a creditor, reports the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD/PRWatch). [56]

While the available bankruptcy documents do not list the scale or dates of funding, they outline Peabody Energy's financial ties to a large network of groups promoting climate change denial. [57]

Prominent individuals appearing in the documents include climate deniers Willie Soon, Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer and Richard Berman. The long list of organizations also includes groups such as Americans for Prosperity, American Legislative Exchange Council, CFACT, Institute for Energy Research, State Policy Network, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and dozens more. [58]

The Guardian also analysed and reported on the Peabody bankruptcy findings: [59]

“These groups collectively are the heart and soul of climate denial,” said Kert Davies, founder of the Climate Investigation Center, who has spent 20 years tracking funding for climate denial. “It’s the broadest list I have seen of one company funding so many nodes in the denial machine.”

The company’s filings reveal funding for a range of organisations which have fought Barack Obama’s plans to cut greenhouse gas emissions, and denied the very existence of climate change. […]

Among Peabody’s beneficiaries, the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change has insisted – wrongly – that carbon emissions are not a threat but “the elixir of life” while the American Legislative Exchange Council is trying to overturn Environmental Protection Agency rules cutting emissions from power plants. Meanwhile, Americans for Prosperity campaigns against carbon pricing. The Oklahoma chapter was on the list. […]

“The breadth of the groups with financial ties to Peabody is extraordinary. Thinktanks, litigation groups, climate scientists, political organisations, dozens of organisations blocking action on climate all receiving funding from the coal industry,” said Nick Surgey, director of research for the Center for Media and Democracy.

“We expected to see some denial money, but it looks like Peabody is the treasury for a very substantial part of the climate denial movement.”

Interesting. Just the mention of the Koch brothers might have caused me to outright dismiss this if I hadn't already seen this. However, having seen it, it does provide causality where before there was none. I would ask you to watch the first little bit of it to see the mechanism he describes. I am interested in your impression. I could discern a general attitude of dismissal of all other mechanisms at play in the AGW modeling in this presentation and no effort to talk about positive feedbacks but I did think he raised a valid point with his explanation of sunspot activity (not irradiance).

 

[Crick]

There is a very strong correlation between sunspots and total solar irradiance (TSI). Unfortunately, there is no correlation between sunspots OR TSI and global temperature.

 

[mamooth]

There's a strong correlation between sunspot activity and global temperature increase.

No, there isn't. There was a decent correlation from about 1900 - 1975. After that, it went the opposite way. It's an anti-correlation now. Sunspot trend has been down since 1975, but temperature trend is up.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Solar could be the only logical explanation.

We will need a solar landing before we can fix it.

Solar IS the only logical explanation. When you look deeply in to the physics of how molecules react to energy, only wavelengths of 0.2um - 2.5um have any affect on our oceans and land mass heating.

So called "back-radiation" at wavelengths above 10um can not warm anything. The absence of a hot spot in our troposphere shows this fact clearly. Recent studies show perfect correlation of solar input rise and atmospheric release rates indicating the adaptic lapse rate is coupled with system input.

Solar activity also regulates cosmic rays affecting earths cloud cover.

Lots of observed physical evidence to show it as well.

 

[Billy_Bob]

There's a strong correlation between sunspot activity and global temperature increase.

No, there isn't. There was a decent correlation from about 1900 - 1975. After that, it went the opposite way. It's an anti-correlation now. Sunspot trend has been down since 1975, but temperature trend is up.

Bull Shit sqwdiward..

There are mountains of evidence. Because you refuse to believe them, as they don't fit your agenda, its not worth my time to post them up again.

 

[mamooth]

Bull Shit sqwdiward..

There are mountains of evidence. Because you refuse to believe them, as they don't fit your agenda, its not worth my time to post them up again.

I just posted the actual evidence. You ran from it, and now you claimed you have mystery data showing otherwise, but you won't post it.

Very convincing. Go collect your Nobel Prize.

 

[Billy_Bob]

This is a compelling look at the role of solar activity in global warming. Others have noted the connection between sunspots and warming without explaining any possible mechanism to explain it. This video does offer that connection.

While I still think that positive feedbacks are going to do a number on our climate, this is the best alternative view of why current models are not as accurate as they should be.

That is a pretty long video. Would you be willing to summarise? What are the basics? If necessary, I will do further research based on that. I know this is a complex issue, and is likely not explained in a short format, however, If you could try to, or at least direct me to where I might find such a summary, I would certainly appreciate it.

It's really about half as long as it appears because there's a lengthy Q and A of dubious value at the end but here's the gist of it:

There's a strong correlation between sunspot activity and global temperature increase. I used to think this was a correlation without causation because if an aspect of solar activity were to have an effect, it would be solar output. Solar output probably does have an effect but the variation is extremely small so it doesn't do much. Why does sunspot activity matter? It's because strong gusts of solar wind affect the earth's magnetosphere and vary the amount of cosmic radiation that gets through. This cosmic radiation causes cloud cover to be more or less reflective and thus allows the solar radiation to warm or cool the planet.

People simply don't understand the electromagnetic waves from the sun are pulses. These are higher in count during high solar activity but they also reappear during times of very low solar activity as well.

Theory suggests the solar dynamo creates these at opposing high and lows of the cycle.

 

[mamooth]

So called "back-radiation" at wavelengths above 10um can not warm anything.

Back to your denial of conservation of energy. That's just one reason why you're a laughable crank.

The absence of a hot spot in our troposphere shows this fact clearly. Recent studies show perfect correlation of solar input rise and atmospheric release rates indicating the adaptic lapse rate is coupled with system input.

Solar input has been dropping. Is there any topic you where you don't claim the exact opposite of reality?

Solar activity also regulates cosmic rays affecting earths cloud cover.

Lots of observed physical evidence to show it as well.

Nope, none at all. Cloud cover hasn't been changing as cosmic rays change. Another of your theories bites the dust.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Bull Shit sqwdiward..

There are mountains of evidence. Because you refuse to believe them, as they don't fit your agenda, its not worth my time to post them up again.

I just posted the actual evidence. You ran from it, and now you claimed you have mystery data showing otherwise, but you won't post it.

Very convincing. Go collect your Nobel Prize.

One paper vs 36 that say otherwise.. go away squidward.