Jump to content
Thunder?
Local
Radar
Hot?
IGNORED

The Sun Is The Cause Of Climate Change


Guest Daniel

Recommended Posts

Guest Daniel

Yet another artical from iceage now is on about a study from Nassa showing that since the end of the last little ice age the sun has become far more active and as a result they thjink that this is the cause of the warming trends since the end of the little ice age and this makes perfect sence. for the sun is the sourse of all heat the arrives on earth. A 1000 years ago we went through what is known as the medival wearm period. Summers were hot enough for vines to grow over England and for crops to be grown high up in the hills. It was warm enough for people to settle on Iceland and Greenland and travel acroos the Atlantic in small boats. Then in the 14th Century this world came to an end. the climate of the Atlantic region became ice cold. in Europe and the Arctic plus north America ice sheets and mountain ice started to expand. Both Iceland and Greenland became cut of by sea ice and winters became on average bitterly cold. Also the climate became more voilent with great storms and with cold and hot summers this was the little ice age. In England some winters were so cold snow lay on the ground for 100 days or more and even the seas iced over. Some say the gulf stream slowed which it did. but most inmportant the sun went very quite in the 17th century and proberly caused the Atlantic to go quite which caused severe winters and some hot summers. Yet this cold spell ended in the 19th century and we warmed up. Now if the little ice did not end and it went on and on. that could have lead to a major ice age. everything was in the right place to start this ice ages. All ice caps were growing and winters were cold with higher rainfall. Had the climate not warmed when it did we would have pased a tipping point and conditions would be well on there way to an full ice age. so we had a lucky escape. Now some say we are at the end of our warm period and a full ice age is around the courner. So any future cold spells may lead us into this ice age. What is worring is that the sun is expected to go quite again around the 2030s. this could cause another mini ice age to begin and if the conditions are right that could lead into another major ice age further into the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 39
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Posted
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
  • Location: Sunny Southsea

Would it be rude of me to politely suggest that you might be interested in doing some research into Palaeoclimatology? It would help you to make your case more effectively. Alternatively, there have been some excellent discussions on this forum recently about Global Climate change; you could read those and follow the links to some relevant and stimulating material. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Lincoln, Lincolnshire
  • Weather Preferences: Sunshine, convective precipitation, snow, thunderstorms, "episodic" months.
  • Location: Lincoln, Lincolnshire

The sun may well be a significant contributory factor to climate change- but unlikely to be enough to explain all of the warming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Derby - 46m (151ft) ASL
  • Location: Derby - 46m (151ft) ASL

A plausable explanation, however....

It is not a fair comparison, as our climate differs from 1000 years ago, so the factors that need to be considered are not the same.

As I said though. I wouldnt rule it out, what ever the severity of the influence, but its a hard one to compare for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
  • Location: Sunny Southsea

There is some excellent material on the Sun's influence on GW on Realclimate.org. The site is operated by climate scientists with excellent credential, and discusses recent scientific papers critically, but in a balanced way. A good article might be 'The lure of Solar forcing', or 'Another study of Solar influence'. The main conclusion that Realclimate seem to come to are: a) There is no discrenible trend in Solar activity since the 1950's, and :( At the moment, there is not much evidence for the Sun being responsible for Global Warming. But read the articles; they are very educational. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Redhill, Surrey
  • Weather Preferences: Southerly tracking LPs, heavy snow. Also 25c and calm
  • Location: Redhill, Surrey
There is some excellent material on the Sun's influence on GW on Realclimate.org. The site is operated by climate scientists with excellent credential, and discusses recent scientific papers critically, but in a balanced way. A good article might be 'The lure of Solar forcing', or 'Another study of Solar influence'. The main conclusion that Realclimate seem to come to are: a) There is no discrenible trend in Solar activity since the 1950's, and :( At the moment, there is not much evidence for the Sun being responsible for Global Warming. But read the articles; they are very educational. :(

Parmenides3

What I find ironic is NASA who have been big part in thrusting the CO2 influence now seem to be turning their attention to the sun's influence advocating that DOUBLING CO2 has same effect as 0.1% irradiance...which allegedly has little if any global influence!? Funding, giving what feeds the hand what they want to hear? One day we'll hopefully have an unbiased and accurate answer. Apparently NASA say differently re trend in solar activity, don't they?

BFTP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
  • Weather Preferences: Thunder, snow, heat, sunshine...
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.

Interesting idea, Daniel...You might like to know that the Sun's flux is markedly higher today than it was 4000 million years' ago...But the Earth is cooler! :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
Parmenides3

What I find ironic is NASA who have been big part in thrusting the CO2 influence now seem to be turning their attention to the sun's influence advocating that DOUBLING CO2 has same effect as 0.1% irradiance...which allegedly has little if any global influence!? Funding, giving what feeds the hand what they want to hear? One day we'll hopefully have an unbiased and accurate answer. Apparently NASA say differently re trend in solar activity, don't they?

BFTP

I imagine NASA need to justify sending up spacecraft to keep their funding up. As there are a few weather sats. already, it appears that several are going up, which include measurement of irradiance & irradiance impacts as part or all of their remit.

I don't know why NASA would have promoted the CO2 issue, unless they needed to justify...

The 0.1% irradiance variation appears to be accepted as within long-term norms. I do not believe that a doubling of the CO2 in the atmosphere would have the same effect as the solar variation; surely it would have a much greater impact! I'd be interested to know who has advocated this POV at NASA. I'd also like to see where NASA contradicts the onservation made in RealClimate.org about trends in solar activity. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Guess!
  • Location: Guess!
Yet another artical from iceage now is on about a study from Nassa showing that since the end of the last little ice age the sun has become far more active and as a result they thjink that this is the cause of the warming trends since the end of the little ice age and this makes perfect sence. for the sun is the sourse of all heat the arrives on earth. A 1000 years ago we went through what is known as the medival wearm period. Summers were hot enough for vines to grow over England and for crops to be grown high up in the hills. It was warm enough for people to settle on Iceland and Greenland and travel acroos the Atlantic in small boats. Then in the 14th Century this world came to an end. the climate of the Atlantic region became ice cold. in Europe and the Arctic plus north America ice sheets and mountain ice started to expand. Both Iceland and Greenland became cut of by sea ice and winters became on average bitterly cold. Also the climate became more voilent with great storms and with cold and hot summers this was the little ice age. In England some winters were so cold snow lay on the ground for 100 days or more and even the seas iced over. Some say the gulf stream slowed which it did. but most inmportant the sun went very quite in the 17th century and proberly caused the Atlantic to go quite which caused severe winters and some hot summers. Yet this cold spell ended in the 19th century and we warmed up. Now if the little ice did not end and it went on and on. that could have lead to a major ice age. everything was in the right place to start this ice ages. All ice caps were growing and winters were cold with higher rainfall. Had the climate not warmed when it did we would have pased a tipping point and conditions would be well on there way to an full ice age. so we had a lucky escape. Now some say we are at the end of our warm period and a full ice age is around the courner. So any future cold spells may lead us into this ice age. What is worring is that the sun is expected to go quite again around the 2030s. this could cause another mini ice age to begin and if the conditions are right that could lead into another major ice age further into the future.

Daniel; Iceage now has an agenda which selects the research which it wishes the world to know. It is not in any way a site to be trusted. If you are going to quote from it, you really should bear this in mind and stop presenting it as fact. I am not prepared to accept Ice age now's stuff in any way shape, or form and I won't be contributing to this particular thread again.

Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Tyne & Wear
  • Location: Tyne & Wear

The sun is the only thing that can cause GW or climate change (in the form of temperature rise) as the heat excerted from the sun depends on the temperature of the earth so mabey it is excerting alot of heat presently and will explain heat in the past and major droughts from the past currently being experienced across the northern hemisphere.

SNOW-MAN2006

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
  • Weather Preferences: Thunder, snow, heat, sunshine...
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
The sun is the only thing that can cause GW or climate change (in the form of temperature rise) as the heat excerted from the sun depends on the temperature of the earth...

SNOW-MAN2006

Not only is your first statement (assumption) patently incorrect, but your 'causality' relation is back-to-front... :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
  • Weather Preferences: Hot & Sunny, Cold & Snowy
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
Not only is your first statement (assumption) patently incorrect, but your 'causality' relation is back-to-front... :blink:

Indeed Pete, the effect of the gravity of some of the gas giants on their moons in our own solar system being a fine example of non-sol heating!

With a weeks respite before more forcasted heat/humidity in prospect for us all we have to look far closer to home for the reasons behind our current 'warming' (IMO). In my 43 yrs 1976 stood out as an extreme summer that was until 2003 came along and now, yet another extreme summer! Surely no amount of filibustering by the fossil fuel lobby can detract the majority from recognising that we have altered our climate and the effects are truely starting to manifest. :p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
  • Weather Preferences: Thunder, snow, heat, sunshine...
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
Indeed Pete, the effect of the gravity of some of the gas giants on their moons in our own solar system being a fine example of non-sol heating!

With a weeks respite before more forcasted heat/humidity in prospect for us all we have to look far closer to home for the reasons behind our current 'warming' (IMO). In my 43 yrs 1976 stood out as an extreme summer that was until 2003 came along and now, yet another extreme summer! Surely no amount of filibustering by the fossil fuel lobby can detract the majority from recognising that we have altered our climate and the effects are truely starting to manifest. :(

Couldn't agree more, G-W! But, aren't you forgetting July 1983? :blink:

As you say, gravity; not to mention the quantum-nature of gases and their various propensities for absorption, scattering, re-emission etc. of EM radiation?? :p:p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: just south of Doncaster, Sth Yorks
  • Location: just south of Doncaster, Sth Yorks

I find the title of this thread quite thought provoking. The sun being the cause, now that is really something.

Nothing to do with humans, extra terrestrial life, planets, the moon etc.

Come on now how do we believe something that simple?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
  • Location: Rochester, Kent

I am, of course, working under the presumption that when you say 'climate change' you mean recent and geologically local (in the temporal sense) If I am incorrect in this assumption, then I apologise in advance.

The sun is, indeed, the cause of the vast quantity of warmth the Earth receives.

It is however, as other readers have already observed, only the very start of the question of why it is that the Earth is warm. Heat from the sun arrives in form of solar radiation, this in turn heats the surface of the planet. The surface, by conduction, heats the air closest to the ground, and that air by convection heats air further up in the atmosphere.

To mitigate your claim that the sun is the cause of climate change (based on my assumption of your belief above) then you will need to show that the basic physically properties of heat transference are wrong.

You are going to need to show that the sun has caused the upper atmopshere to be modified in such a way as to trap more heat in the atmosphere. Otherwise, surely, convection would go mad. I've conveniently ignored the repeatably observed fact that as you pass upwards pass the Mesopause, and into the Thermosphere the atmosphere significantly warms to way beyond the boiling point of water so convection from surface parcels could not occur anyway (adiabatic expansion ends around the Stratopause) That, of course, is a matter of science. It is not a matter for childish conjecture, of which, I think, this debate is based.

You are going to need to show that the sun's total global solar radiation budget exceeds 175,000 x 10^12W, and is continuously climbing. I can only presume that your lack in belief of the greenhouse effect negates you measuring anything that has passed through the atmosphere, whether in one direction or another, so you would, I suspect, need to measure this budget from orbit. Of this budget you will need to quantify whatever evidence you have that direct reflection of 53,000 x 10^12 W is reducing.

We can then say that the opportunity to heat the surface at the atmosphere's edge is larger than what it was ten years ago. We haven't even entered the atmosphere yet, so once you can show the above, I think you'll grab our attention.

More than anything else I'd like you to show that the empirical method for modelling solar radiation is not the linear relationship X=a+bY. Even though you'd claim that the constant a, and b vary both spacially, and temporally, I'd need to see you argue that the good emprical basis for this extrapolation is wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
  • Weather Preferences: Hot & Sunny, Cold & Snowy
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
I am, of course, working under the presumption that when you say 'climate change' you mean recent and geologically local (in the temporal sense) If I am incorrect in this assumption, then I apologise in advance.

The sun is, indeed, the cause of the vast quantity of warmth the Earth receives.

It is however, as other readers have already observed, only the very start of the question of why it is that the Earth is warm. Heat from the sun arrives in form of solar radiation, this in turn heats the surface of the planet. The surface, by conduction, heats the air closest to the ground, and that air by convection heats air further up in the atmosphere.

To mitigate your claim that the sun is the cause of climate change (based on my assumption of your belief above) then you will need to show that the basic physically properties of heat transference are wrong.

You are going to need to show that the sun has caused the upper atmopshere to be modified in such a way as to trap more heat in the atmosphere. Otherwise, surely, convection would go mad. I've conveniently ignored the repeatably observed fact that as you pass upwards pass the Mesopause, and into the Thermosphere the atmosphere significantly warms to way beyond the boiling point of water so convection from surface parcels could not occur anyway (adiabatic expansion ends around the Stratopause) That, of course, is a matter of science. It is not a matter for childish conjecture, of which, I think, this debate is based.

You are going to need to show that the sun's total global solar radiation budget exceeds 175,000 x 10^12W, and is continuously climbing. I can only presume that your lack in belief of the greenhouse effect negates you measuring anything that has passed through the atmosphere, whether in one direction or another, so you would, I suspect, need to measure this budget from orbit. Of this budget you will need to quantify whatever evidence you have that direct reflection of 53,000 x 10^12 W is reducing.

We can then say that the opportunity to heat the surface at the atmosphere's edge is larger than what it was ten years ago. We haven't even entered the atmosphere yet, so once you can show the above, I think you'll grab our attention.

More than anything else I'd like you to show that the empirical method for modelling solar radiation is not the linear relationship X=a+bY. Even though you'd claim that the constant a, and b vary both spacially, and temporally, I'd need to see you argue that the good emprical basis for this extrapolation is wrong.

I take it you've had as nicer day as myself Wilson :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Thame, Oxfordshire
  • Location: Thame, Oxfordshire
I suppose I could have just said the solar constant is called that for a reason? <_<

What do you think is causing the warming Wilson ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Thame, Oxfordshire
  • Location: Thame, Oxfordshire
Heat not venting into space

Brilliant. Have you told the Government ? :rolleyes:

Any ideas about the (alleged) anomalous warming ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
  • Location: Rochester, Kent

An interesting response.

Why should I politicise an incomplete scientific consensus by informing the government? Can you name anything that any government actually does for the benefit of mankind in general? Why should we be made to presuppose that the government is concerned with the future nearly 100 years away when the EU cannot even agree to drop trade barriers and allow the poorest countries in the world to feed their citizens, today?

I do not, by necessity, subscribe to global warming; I do not profess to understand each and every facet that is required to make that deduction and argue it effectively. If the world has been measured as warming I think it is enough to make the assumption that this is because heat is not being removed from the system, rather than unusual extra-terrestial activity which appears to be subject to bias and has (apparently) had all of the rigour of sound scientific method removed.

Before we talk about the (alleged) warming we first need to ascertain that in fact, in the mean, the world is warming.

I do wish to offer a warning here, though: is this actually the right question?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Guess!
  • Location: Guess!

Hi Wilson,

An interesting response.

Can you name anything that any government actually does for the benefit of mankind in general?

......errrr no. Goverments are inherently selfish organisations whose every output is designed to convince the electorate that they are somehow better than the opposition parties and therefore should be elected, next time, in preference to them. They have no other function. I have only voted Official Monster Raving Loony Party for many years now since that revelation came to me in a blinding flash one sunny afternoon. The OMRLP have no official policies and therefore cannot be actually blamed for anything. I am an OMRLP shadow cabinet minister and I am entirely blameless; honest guv. Governments have policies and either should be blamed for not sticking to them every single time they stray and fudge, in order to get re-elected (see above), or ignored completely. I choose to do the latter and the sad thing is, if I choose to ignore them, or not, it will not make a ha'p'orth of difference, to anything, in the whole of my lifetime. If anyone thinks their vote actually counts, think again.

"Before we talk about the (alleged) warming we first need to ascertain that in fact, in the mean, the world is warming.

I do wish to offer a warning here, though: is this actually the right question?"

The world is warming and in this context, it is the right question, even though you haven't actually asked one, here, though I know what you mean! There are many other questions that could be asked.

The world has warmed over (about) the last 50 years, although the warming has not been uniform and it never will be. The upper stratosphere certainly hasn't warmed, though it is a moot point whether it is part of the world. Parts of Antarctica haven't (probably) warmed, though data is not easy to come by and data recordings are separated by vast areas of ice. NE Greenland didn't warm before 1995 and this may be true of other parts of the Arctic. Britain didn't begin to warm until about 1985. Other countries/areas will exhibit the same kind of non-linear warming trend, I'm sure.

I am not convinced by anthropomorphic GW, though I may become convinced, with more evidence in the near future.

Whaddayou reckon anyway, coz 'm waffling.

Regards, Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
  • Location: Rochester, Kent

The problem is that we're wrong, we know we're wrong, and we're likely to carry on being wrong.

start:

We were wrong to suggest that the population will boom irretrievably causes suffering and hunger. We were wrong to suggest that just about now should be an ice-age. We're wrong to suspect that oil and gas will run out just about now (I was taught that at school over 15 years ago)

It is wrong to suggest that we're carbonising the world's economy; the inverse is true. To produce the same amount of energy progressively less carban is being used. 40,000 years ago we were burning wood which has more carbon atoms than coal. We're starting to stop burning coal, and have started relying on gas. Gas, has less carbon atoms than coal. There is a whole chain of reducing (apologies to the chemists for the pun) carbon usage.

But, I hear you cry, if more of the world is using more energy the net output of carbon will increase.

We were wrong to suggest that the population will boom . . . (goto start)

:rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Norfolk
  • Location: Norfolk
If anyone thinks their vote actually counts, think again.

The world is warming and in this context, it is the right question, even though you haven't actually asked one, here, though I know what you mean! There are many other questions that could be asked.

I did think again Paul but I am afraid I think you are wrong there and its a very dangerous thing for a democracy to devalue its political currency so. There are plenty waiting in the wings for an outbreak of such cynicism whose machinations would make Blair look like a saint, but thats perhaps not for a weather board.

The right question, once one has avoided the fallacy of many questions by deducing the warming in the affirmative is a many sub-sectioned one

a) why?

B to what extent?

c) with what effect?

c2) did we do this?

d) should we do something about it?

e) what?

f) how?

g) when?

h) did I leave the iron on?

By the time the various factions agree on even one of the above it will be a long way down the line and if B and c) are bleak in their outlook then maybe i) will be 'why are we so damn useless?'

Personally I think its going to come down to individual responsiblity sparking a political sea change, at least I hope so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...