• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Indirect Effects of the Sun on Earth's Climate[W:376]

[h=3]PDF]Effects of solar activity and galactic cosmic ray cycles on the ...[/h]https://www.ann-geophys.net/36/555/2018/angeo-36-555-2018.pdf



by E Frigo
Apr 3, 2018 - Received: 29 August 2017 – Revised: 1 February 2018 – Accepted: 26 February 2018 ... cally, causing the GCR flux to increase (Wagner et al., 2000). Dickinson ... Svensmark (2007) then complemented the analysis and con-.
 

[h=1]Quiet Sun: More than 3 months without a sunspot[/h]“What if the worst is to come?” – Dr Carlo Testa. 2 July 2018 – “The Belgian department of solar physics research (SIDC) says we are about to touch 100; that is, a hundred days in which we do not see spots on our sun,” says Italian meteorologist Dr Carlo Testa. During a time of few or no…
Continue reading →
 
Climate News / ENSO
Solar minimum and ENSO prediction

By Javier Two solar physicists, Robert Leamon from NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, and Scott McIntosh from the High Altitude Observatory at Boulder, CO, have made an interesting observation that links changes in solar activity with changes in the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO). As they reported at the AGU 2017 Fall Meeting, the termination…
 
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]June Solar Update[/h][FONT=&quot]Guest essay by David Archibald We have only 300 years-odd of detailed solar observations with telescopes, half that of magnetic records, half again in the radio spectrum and less than that for most modern instrument records (and 12 years of Watts Up With That to interpret it). So as the months pass our knowledge of…
Continue reading →
[/FONT]
 
[FONT=&quot]Solar[/FONT]
[h=1]Oddly quiet sun: 3 weeks without sunspots[/h][FONT=&quot]The sun has been blank for 21 straight days–a remarkable 3 weeks without sunspots. This is an almost decade-class event. The last time the sun lost its spots for 21 consecutive days was in the year 2009 coming on the heels of an historic solar minimum. With the current stretch of blank suns, solar minimum…
[/FONT]
 
The Reference Frame: Svensmarks, Enghoff, Shaviv publish a ...The Reference Frame - BloggerFigure 3: The correlation between solar activity (in red) and the sea level rate of change from tide gauges across the globe.




https://motls.blogspot.com/2017/12/svensmarks-enghoff-shaviv-publish.html
There is a school of thought that says the sea level is a good global thermometer, as it integrates
all of the various signals.
On the other side of the coin the sea level itself is noisy and difficult to read.
 
There is a school of thought that says the sea level is a good global thermometer, as it integrates
all of the various signals.
On the other side of the coin the sea level itself is noisy and difficult to read.

I assume you've seen this.

[h=3]Using the oceans as a calorimeter to quantify the ... - AGU Publications[/h]https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2007JA012989
by NJ Shaviv - ‎2008 - ‎Cited by 37 - ‎Related articles
Nov 4, 2008 - With this in mind, we use the oceans as a calorimeter to measure the radiative forcing variations associated with the solar cycle. This is ...Abstract · ‎Introduction · ‎Theoretical and Empirical ... · ‎Deriving the Oceanic ...
 

An illustration of the Parker Solar Probe approaching the sun. (NASA/Johns Hopkins APL/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock)





This NASA spacecraft is about to probe one of Earth’s scariest threats — the sun
Over the next seven years, the Parker Solar Probe will orbit the sun 24 times, at each close approach shooting through the sun’s atmosphere at 450,000 miles per hour. The probe will measure the sun’s electric and magnetic fields, scoop particle samples from the solar wind and watch shocks travel from the sun’s surface into space.

 
From the link in #538:

It's said that space weather science lags about 50 years behind terrestrial weather forecasting. Meteorologists know what conditions cause hurricanes, and they can spot the seeds of a storm brewing over the ocean long before it makes landfall.
But warning times for space weather events are often measured in minutes, Murtagh said, and there is too much we do not know.
“There’s a lack of understanding,” Murtagh said. “It’s science. It’s knowledge of the sun and the physical processes that are likely to produce those energetic particles. We just don’t fully understand the science yet.”
 
[FONT=&quot]Solar[/FONT]
[h=1]NASA’s Solar Dynamics Observatory makes a stunning portrayal of the Sun’s magnetic field[/h][FONT=&quot]From the cool stuff department and NASA Goddard, comes this. NASA’s Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO) scientists used their computer models to generate a view of the Sun’s magnetic field on August 10 17, 2018. As seen above. About one year ago the magnetic looked like this, captured on 8/26/17: The bright active region right at…
[/FONT]
 
[FONT=&quot]Climate News / Solar[/FONT]
[h=1]How constant is the “solar constant?”[/h][FONT=&quot]By Andy May The IPCC lowered their estimate of the impact of solar variability on the Earth’s climate from the already low value of 0.12 W/m2 (Watts per square-meter) given in their fourth report (AR4), to a still lower value of 0.05 W/m2 in the 2013 fifth report (AR5), the new value is illustrated in Figure 1.…
[/FONT]
 
[FONT="][URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/09/19/how-constant-is-the-solar-constant/"]
Featured_Image-220x126.jpg
[/URL]Climate News / Solar[/FONT]

[h=1]How constant is the “solar constant?”[/h][FONT="]By Andy May The IPCC lowered their estimate of the impact of solar variability on the Earth’s climate from the already low value of 0.12 W/m2 (Watts per square-meter) given in their fourth report (AR4), to a still lower value of 0.05 W/m2 in the 2013 fifth report (AR5), the new value is illustrated in Figure 1.…
[/FONT]

"Andy May, now retired, was a petrophysicist for 42 years. He has worked on oil, gas and CO2 fields in the USA, Argentina, Brazil, Indonesia, Thailand, China, UK North Sea, Canada, Mexico, Venezuela and Russia."

So, a petrophysicist, not a solar physicist or climate scientist, writing on Watts' fake science site. Any reason we should take this seriously?
 
"Andy May, now retired, was a petrophysicist for 42 years. He has worked on oil, gas and CO2 fields in the USA, Argentina, Brazil, Indonesia, Thailand, China, UK North Sea, Canada, Mexico, Venezuela and Russia."

So, a petrophysicist, not a solar physicist or climate scientist, writing on Watts' fake science site. Any reason we should take this seriously?

[FONT=&quot]
091918_1133_howconstant7.png

Figure 7. Various recent published TSI reconstructions. The NRLTSI2 reconstruction will be used for the upcoming IPCC report and CMIP6. There is a great deal of spread during the Maunder Minimum, over 2 W/m2 and the long-term trends are very different. The figure is modified after one in (Kopp 2016).
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]In answer to the question posed at the beginning of the post, no we have not measured the solar output accurately enough, over a long enough period, to definitively say solar variability could not have caused all or a significant portion of the warming observed over the past 261 years. The most extreme reconstruction in Figure 7 (Lean, 2000), suggests the Sun could have caused 25% of the warming and this is without considering the considerable uncertainty in the TSI estimate. There are even larger published TSI differences from the modern day, up to 5 W/m2 (Shapiro, et al. 2011), (Soon, Connolly and Connolly 2015) and (Schmidt, et al. 2012). We certainly have not proven that solar variability is the cause of all or even a large portion of the warming, only that we cannot exclude it as a possible cause, as the IPCC appears to have done.[/FONT]
 
[FONT="][FONT=inherit][IMG]https://andymaypetrophysicist.files.wordpress.com/2018/09/091918_1133_howconstant7.png?w=1200&h=880[/IMG][/FONT]
[COLOR=#999999][FONT=inherit]Figure 7. Various recent published TSI reconstructions. The NRLTSI2 reconstruction will be used for the upcoming IPCC report and CMIP6. There is a great deal of spread during the Maunder Minimum, over 2 W/m[FONT=inherit]2[/FONT] and the long-term trends are very different. The figure is modified after one in (Kopp 2016).[/FONT][/COLOR]
[/FONT][/COLOR][/CENTER]
[COLOR=#555555][FONT="]In answer to the question posed at the beginning of the post, no we have not measured the solar output accurately enough, over a long enough period, to definitively say solar variability could not have caused all or a significant portion of the warming observed over the past 261 years. The most extreme reconstruction in Figure 7 (Lean, 2000), suggests the Sun could have caused 25% of the warming and this is without considering the considerable uncertainty in the TSI estimate. There are even larger published TSI differences from the modern day, up to 5 W/m2 (Shapiro, et al. 2011), (Soon, Connolly and Connolly 2015) and (Schmidt, et al. 2012). We certainly have not proven that solar variability is the cause of all or even a large portion of the warming, only that we cannot exclude it as a possible cause, as the IPCC appears to have done.[/FONT]


Sorry, quoting more of May's contribution to Watts' fake science site doesn't make it any more credible. Why can't he publish it in a proper peer-reviewed journal?​
 
"Andy May, now retired, was a petrophysicist for 42 years. He has worked on oil, gas and CO2 fields in the USA, Argentina, Brazil, Indonesia, Thailand, China, UK North Sea, Canada, Mexico, Venezuela and Russia."

So, a petrophysicist, not a solar physicist or climate scientist, writing on Watts' fake science site. Any reason we should take this seriously?

The study of interest referenced had the lead author as Professor Joanna D Haigh. She is a very esteemed scientist, and has
lots of work on the topic.
 
The study of interest referenced had the lead author as Professor Joanna D Haigh. She is a very esteemed scientist, and has
lots of work on the topic.

Indeed she is. But referencing good work doesn't automatically validate your non-peer-reviewed article, especially if you don't actually understand said article. We see this time and time again on sites like WUWT - people using good work to draw incorrect conclusions. I therefore suggest we look at Joanna Haigh's actual paper rather than Andy May's bungled interpretation of it. A couple of points from the executive summary of her paper stand out:

Has the Sun contributed to global warming?

It is not possible to explain the warming of the past sixty years on the basis of changes in solar activity alone. Over the past 150 years an overall increase in solar activity has probably contributed to global warming, mainly during the first half of the twentieth century. The effect is, however, estimated to be much smaller than the total net human forcing of the climate system through the emission of greenhouse gases and other factors.

How will the Sun change in the future?

Over the next several decades there may be an overall (temporary) decline in solar activity but at this stage, this is speculative. Even if solar activity were to reach the record low levels seen in the 17th century Maunder Minimum (implying a reduction in the solar radiation absorbed, averaged over the globe, of 0.2-0.6 Wm-2), it would only partially offset the increased climate warming projected through the uncontrolled anthropogenic emission of greenhouse gases (equivalent to a trapping of heat energy of around 4 Wm-2 over the next century).
 
Indeed she is. But referencing good work doesn't automatically validate your non-peer-reviewed article, especially if you don't actually understand said article. We see this time and time again on sites like WUWT - people using good work to draw incorrect conclusions. I therefore suggest we look at Joanna Haigh's actual paper rather than Andy May's bungled interpretation of it. A couple of points from the executive summary of her paper stand out:

Has the Sun contributed to global warming?

It is not possible to explain the warming of the past sixty years on the basis of changes in solar activity alone. Over the past 150 years an overall increase in solar activity has probably contributed to global warming, mainly during the first half of the twentieth century. The effect is, however, estimated to be much smaller than the total net human forcing of the climate system through the emission of greenhouse gases and other factors.

How will the Sun change in the future?

Over the next several decades there may be an overall (temporary) decline in solar activity but at this stage, this is speculative. Even if solar activity were to reach the record low levels seen in the 17th century Maunder Minimum (implying a reduction in the solar radiation absorbed, averaged over the globe, of 0.2-0.6 Wm-2), it would only partially offset the increased climate warming projected through the uncontrolled anthropogenic emission of greenhouse gases (equivalent to a trapping of heat energy of around 4 Wm-2 over the next century).

So?

Her material also claims it is not possible to claim the levels of antropogenic cause because we don'y fully understand the natural causes to take their sums out of the final result for greenhouse gasses.
 
You should read her papers. She also shows how the statistics are used wrong.
 
Back
Top Bottom