Cause Of Global Warming: The Sun!

Sun's Output Increasing. (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html)

In what could be the simplest explanation for one component of global warming, a new study shows the Sun's radiation has increased by .05 percent per decade since the late 1970s.

Now how will the anti-environmentalists who have denied global warming is taking place use this? Because to use it is to admit there is global warming taking place.

Since this article takes some of the solar wind out of the environmentalists' sails, will both sides silently mutually agree to ignore it?

*evil grin*

[Walter Wayne]

Originally posted by LukeT
..., will both sides silently mutually agree to ignore it?What sun? I don't see any sun.

[Torlack]

When a lot of the anti-global warming people say "there is no global warming" they mean "there is no man made global warming". It is the cause and effect relationship that is in question.

But there are also some people who question global warming in general. One point being that urbanization around monitoring stations is skewing numbers. They point to the US records which show little evidence of global warming. I haven't really looked into this point of view too much so I don't know how much evidence there exists against it.

[NoZed Avenger]

Well, obviously we need to attack the sun before its too late, and snuff out this threat while we still have the chance.

NA

edited to add: But then, I am an American.

[Liamo]

Originally posted by Torlack
When a lot of the anti-global warming people say "there is no global warming" they mean "there is no man made global warming". It is the cause and effect relationship that is in question.
Indeed. Those people often pointed out that the sun could be the source of global warming, if there was any. Nothing new under the sun.

Liam

[shemp]

This "sun" thing is clearly in league with Al Qaeda and must be destroyed at once!

[neutrino_cannon]

Takes the solar wind out of their sails? Solar wind exerts only negligable force, in fact, the pressure of the photons coming off the sun are more powerful.

Maybe this will be the cause of the end of the world, if it continues. Yeah, like the fish said.

[jj]

Originally posted by Walter Wayne
What sun? I don't see any sun.

The sun is burning in the sky - Simon and Garfunkel

For some reason the next to last verse is going through my head right now. :(

[RichardR]

Correlation is not causation, whether we’re talking about either human production of CO2, or the output of the Sun. The idea that the Sun is (at least partly), responsible, is not new, although you won’t find many “greens” who will admit it.

This graph of temperatures in the 20th century was produced by K. Lassen. (http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/lassen1.html) He found that the varying length of the 11-year sunspot cycle correlates with long term variations of the northern hemisphere land surface air temperatures:

http://www.tmgnow.com/IMAGES/lassen7.gif

(Explanation of graph)

…upper frame, is plotted an 11-year running average of the annual mean values of their reconstructed temperatures… (snip) Also plotted in the figure are the smoothed values of the solar cycle length from 1564 to 1989, with the exception of the interval 1641-1674, for which reliable data are missing.

…(snip) Taking these variations into consideration, the comparison between the temperature record and the solar activity indicates a good association between the long-term variations in the temperature and in the solar cycle length record…. The relation is illustrated in Fig.7, lower frame, in which the temperature deviations from the two data series are presented together as a function of the solar cycle length. The graph illustrates how the northern hemisphere land air temperature has varied with solar cycle length since the last decades of the sixteenth century (the second half of the seventeenth century excluded). The temperature decreases monotonically with increasing solar cycle length.

And it ends:

Conclusion

70-90 years oscillations in global mean temperature are correlated with corresponding oscillations in solar activity. Whereas the solar influence is obvious in the data from the last four centuries, signatures of human activity are not yet distinguishable in the observations.

Here is a different analysis of Lassen's graph by Evert Wesker. (http://www.euronet.nl/users/e_wesker/solspot.html) He concludes:

It way well be that the findings of Lassen, Svensmark and Friis Christensen are a valuable addition to the description of the atmosphere. However, the statement "the greenhouse theory has been refuted" is premature.

And I would agree. However, he supplies this graph:

http://www.euronet.nl/users/e_wesker/zonklim.gif

Temperatures followed solar output up to about 1965. From then on there is a correlation with both solar output and with CO2 (not with solar output alone). This latter observation differs from Lassen’s chart, although I cannot find the reason why.

This may indicate that warming since 1980 is due to both human and solar reasons. However, read Doug Hoyt’s thoughts on warming in the last 20 years: (http://users.erols.com/dhoyt1/)

1. The warming has occurred mostly at night and not during the day

2. The reported warming has occurred only at the surface and not in the upper atmosphere.

3. The warming has occurred primarily in the Northern Hemisphere mid-latitudes with little in the polar and tropical regions.

These are all inconsistent with human increases in CO2 emissions.

[jj]

Originally posted by RichardR
1. The warming has occurred mostly at night and not during the day

2. The reported warming has occurred only at the surface and not in the upper atmosphere.

3. The warming has occurred primarily in the Northern Hemisphere mid-latitudes with little in the polar and tropical regions.

These are all inconsistent with human increases in CO2 emissions.

Warming at night is EXACTLY consonant with increased Greenhouse effect. Less radiation loss!

There's more CO2 uptake in the tropics, and not enough radiation to excite the process at the poles? (speculation on that one)

As to surface warming, if the warming is due to less IR loss, I don't see any reason the surface wouldn't warm.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by LukeT
Sun's Output Increasing. (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html)



Now how will the anti-environmentalists who have denied global warming is taking place use this? Because to use it is to admit there is global warming taking place.

Since this article takes some of the solar wind out of the environmentalists' sails, will both sides silently mutually agree to ignore it?

*evil grin*

Let me state that I am in the camp that says there is not yet convincing scientific evidence for global warming.

That said, the cited study is hardly evidence of anything. The small variation recorded, short duration of time seen, plus possibly significant measurement errors render it useless in toto.

But it does point out that our understanding of all of the variables that impact the earth's climate is not precise. And there are a lot of them, of which this is one I personally had never even considered. So I like the study from that view.

[Mark]

1. The warming has occurred mostly at night and not during the day

Gotta throw in with jj on this one. This is EXACTLY what you would expect as a result of greenhouse gases. That's why nights are warmer on a cloudy day. Just goes to show that there are those who will reject ANY evidence that indicates global warming could be human activity related. Not good science, folks. Whether global warming is a fact or not, we all need to check ourselves for prejudices (either way) that are clouding (pun intended) our objectivity.

[RichardR]

Originally posted by Mark
1. The warming has occurred mostly at night and not during the day

Gotta throw in with jj on this one. This is EXACTLY what you would expect as a result of greenhouse gases. That's why nights are warmer on a cloudy day. Just goes to show that there are those who will reject ANY evidence that indicates global warming could be human activity related. Not good science, folks. Whether global warming is a fact or not, we all need to check ourselves for prejudices (either way) that are clouding (pun intended) our objectivity. The full quote was:

” The warming has occurred mostly at night and not during the day. This result is inconsistent with a warming caused by greenhouse gases, but is consistent with urban heat island and other surface effects.”

[Mark]

This result is inconsistent with a warming caused by greenhouse gases, but is consistent with urban heat island and other surface effects.”

I understand. But to repeat: greenhouses gases also do this with the heat from the sun, just as clouds do. Clouds retain the heat from ultraviolet rays that can get through, but NOT radiate back out, because their wavelengths change. Therefore, warmer nights than if there were no cloud cover.

Maybe I am missing your point, but it seems to me the quote you gave is just wrong. How is it inconsistent, when clouds do the same thing? I concede I may be wrong here. But how?

[shanek]

Originally posted by LukeT
Sun's Output Increasing. (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html)

Now how will the anti-environmentalists who have denied global warming is taking place use this?

Speaking only for the previous Global Warming threads on this board, the point of contention was never that temperatures were increasing, just that humans putting CO2 into the atmosphere was not the main cause of it. This new information not only supports our side, it's very much in line with the data Titanpoint posted many times.

[jj]

Originally posted by RichardR
The full quote was:

” The warming has occurred mostly at night and not during the day. This result is inconsistent with a warming caused by greenhouse gases, but is consistent with urban heat island and other surface effects.”

Whaaaaaat?

Urban heat is emitted primarily DURING THE DAY. You would expect to see about half of its effect exponentially decay at night!

Cloud cover or CO2 IR reflectiveness affects loss. Either would mean that there was less loss AT NIGHT.

That particular quote, unless there is something going on far beyond what would seem evident, seems purely and completely bizzare!

[RichardR]

Originally posted by Mark
I understand. But to repeat: greenhouses gases also do this with the heat from the sun, just as clouds do. Clouds retain the heat from ultraviolet rays that can get through, but NOT radiate back out, because their wavelengths change. Therefore, warmer nights than if there were no cloud cover.

Maybe I am missing your point, but it seems to me the quote you gave is just wrong. How is it inconsistent, when clouds do the same thing? I concede I may be wrong here. But how? Perhaps you are right. I do believe that cities will be warmer than the global average, especially at night, so perhaps warmer nights are consistent with both.

[RichardR]

Originally posted by jj


Whaaaaaat?

Urban heat is emitted primarily DURING THE DAY. You would expect to see about half of its effect exponentially decay at night!

Cloud cover or CO2 IR reflectiveness affects loss. Either would mean that there was less loss AT NIGHT.

That particular quote, unless there is something going on far beyond what would seem evident, seems purely and completely bizzare! From what I've read, it seems that urban heat islands do result in warmer nights, rather than days. From this University of Melbourne study: (http://www.earthsci.unimelb.edu.au/~jon/WWW/uhi-melb.html)

The results from a recent study in Melbourne have found that the central business district (CBD) and industrial suburbs (IS) retain stored heat from the previous day until sunrise the following morning. This explains why these areas are consistently warmer at night than the outer suburbs and surrounding rural environments...

The warm nights are due to what has been called the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect, which is the result of two main features of urban areas. First, buildings, roads and paved surfaces store heat during the day, which is then released slowly over the evening due to the thermal properties of the surface materials and the building geometry which traps the heat stored during the day. The second contributing factor to the UHI is due to the artificial heat released into the urban atmosphere by combustive processes from vehicles, industrial activity and the heat that escapes from commercial and domestic air conditioning.

[jj]

Originally posted by RichardR
From what I've read, it seems that urban heat islands do result in warmer nights, rather than days. From this University of Melbourne study: (http://www.earthsci.unimelb.edu.au/~jon/WWW/uhi-melb.html)



This is hardly surprising. If you have an area of elevated temperature, it's going to "decay" from the outside in. Having cloud cover or CO2 masking is only gonna make it worse.

None the less, how this also corresponds to the statement about global warming seems unclear. They took temperatures only in the middle of large cities? Really?

If what they MEAN is that the effect of warmer nights was observed only in larger cities, say so. THAT would be something entirely different, and something that would be entirely consonant with "heat islands".

[RichardR]

Originally posted by jj
If what they MEAN is that the effect of warmer nights was observed only in larger cities, say so. THAT would be something entirely different, and something that would be entirely consonant with "heat islands". Agreed.

[Titananarchy]

Originally posted by shanek


Speaking only for the previous Global Warming threads on this board, the point of contention was never that temperatures were increasing, just that humans putting CO2 into the atmosphere was not the main cause of it. This new information not only supports our side, it's very much in line with the data Titanpoint posted many times.

True.

The only bit I'd add to that is the notion that because climate skeptics believe the recent warming of the climate to be an entirely natural phonomenon, does not mean that we are excused from caring about the environment or our own responsibilities to it.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Titananarchy


True.

The only bit I'd add to that is the notion that because climate skeptics believe the recent warming of the climate to be an entirely natural phonomenon, does not mean that we are excused from caring about the environment or our own responsibilities to it.

Of course.