It wasn't the sun unless you can prove it

[Admiral_Bobski]

Just to further complicate the issue ( ) here's a graph Ive knocked up using solar flux data taken from this site:

http://www.drao-ofr.hia-iha.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca...s/www/maver.txt

The graph runs from January 1950 to December 1999. The years marked at the top are not placed with any real accuracy but are just placeholders to show the timescale - the vertical red bars show the approximate equivalent point on each separate cycle.

What can be easily seen is an increasing trend in the strength of the solar flux between 1970 and 2000.

The solar flux strength circa 1990 was distinctly greater than the solar flux strength circa 1980, so where does this notion of decreasing solar activity around 1985 actually come from? I'm not exactly saying that the scientists who make this claim are wrong - I just want to know what they use as the basis for this statement.

Any thoughts?

CB

[Devonian]

Just to further complicate the issue ( ) here's a graph Ive knocked up using solar flux data taken from this site:

http://www.drao-ofr.hia-iha.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca...s/www/maver.txt

The graph runs from January 1950 to December 1999. The years marked at the top are not placed with any real accuracy but are just placeholders to show the timescale - the vertical red bars show the approximate equivalent point on each separate cycle.

What can be easily seen is an increasing trend in the strength of the solar flux between 1970 and 2000.

The solar flux strength circa 1990 was distinctly greater than the solar flux strength circa 1980, so where does this notion of decreasing solar activity around 1985 actually come from? I'm not exactly saying that the scientists who make this claim are wrong - I just want to know what they use as the basis for this statement.

Any thoughts?

CB

Sorry, CB, done some searching of that site but I'm not sure what the data you're using is? It looks to me to be surface derived but I just can find the right page. Got a link?

Edited July 11, 2007 by Devonian

[Admiral_Bobski]

Sorry, CB, done some searching of that site but I'm not sure what the data you're using is? It looks to me to be surface derived but I just can find the right page. Got a link?

The link I posted above should take you directly to a text file with five columns: Year, Month, Observed Flux, Adjusted Flux and Absolute Flux.

This link takes you to the Solar Radio Monitoring Programme front page:

http://www.drao-ofr.hia-iha.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca.../sol_home.shtml

For the graph (made with Excel) I have used the final column of "Absolute Flux". The precise figures are largely irrelevant to the visual determination of trends, so the selection of Absolute Flux was fairly arbitrary - the graph would appear basically the same using any of the three Flux measurements.

Hope this helps

CB

[Devonian]

The link I posted above should take you directly to a text file with five columns: Year, Month, Observed Flux, Adjusted Flux and Absolute Flux.

This link takes you to the Solar Radio Monitoring Programme front page:

http://www.drao-ofr.hia-iha.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca.../sol_home.shtml

For the graph (made with Excel) I have used the final column of "Absolute Flux". The precise figures are largely irrelevant to the visual determination of trends, so the selection of Absolute Flux was fairly arbitrary - the graph would appear basically the same using any of the three Flux measurements.

Hope this helps

CB

Yup.

It's more about that it seems these figures are read at surface not by satellite. I'm not sure how different that makes them, I just wondered if what I'd found was right - it seems it was.

Another view, from satellite - http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/c...e/SolarConstant

[Admiral_Bobski]

Further to the above, here's what the authors say:

The "observed" value is the number measured by the solar radio telescope. This is modulated by two quantities: the level of solar activity and the changing distance between the Earth and Sun. Since it is a measure of the emissions due to solar activity hitting the Earth, this is the quantity to use when terrestrial phenomena are being studied.

For comparison, here's the Observed Flux and Absolute Flux graphs shown together:

The graph is identical for all intents and purposes, but the Observed Flux values are around 20 units higher than the Absolute Flux values.

CB

[Admiral_Bobski]

It's more about that it seems these figures are read at surface not by satellite. I'm not sure how different that makes them, I just wondered if what I'd found was right - it seems it was.

Another view, from satellite - http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/c...e/SolarConstant

I wouldn't have thought that there would be a marked difference in the data depending upon where it was measured. In fact, the graph below (from the link you posted) doesn't seem to show an appreciable decrease in solar activity since 1985 either - in fact the total solar irradiance during the period 1996-2006 seems (at first glance) to be greater than during the period 1986-1996, which is in keeping with the results from the Solar Radio Monitoring Programme.

CB

[BrickFielder]

I think there are two seperate aspects to things here. First there is solar radiance which goes up and down. Then there is cosmic radiation from space which also goes up and down independantly. As I understand it solar radiance can decrease cosmic radiation by blowing it away. Measurement of cosmic radiation is a difficult and typically the most acurrate measurements are from the atmosphere space boundary of muons. Measurements of netrons from the colardo site have been highly questioned and one wonders where the graph on the BBC site comes from.

What is known from analysis of Mars is that planetary gravitational anomalies interact with the solar wind to create anomalies which cause gravity waves. Gravity waves being a source on earth for the bias of the NAO in one direction and could have a distinct affect on global temperatures. Until climate models and weather models take into account the very top layer of the atmosphere and use something a bit more sophisticated that gravity wave drag parameter then I think the affects of solar radiation are still open to argument. The paper does look to close the door somewhat to the theories of svensmark having a large impact.

Mars Climate

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Heres a thought. If they say the evidence shows that solar output has decreased over the last 20 years does this not actually support Landscheits calculations and mean that we are still on track for the approaching Gleissberg Minima which will happen irrespective of what temp is doing here on earth?

solar cycle 23 was not as strong as 'some' scietists predicted and it is anticipated that cycle 24 will be even weaker, contrary to the 'warming' scientists who stated that 24 will be most pwerful ever recorded.....we'll soon see it occurs 2011/12. Brickfielder picked up on the crux, the solar cycles determine the strength of the magnetic field from the sun which 'bats' way cosmic flux, as this weakens more enters the atmosphere and more cloud cover occurs....and cooling occurs. There never is only one factor be it cooling or warming.........look at CO2 output, it keeps rising but we cannot surpass 1998.

BFTP

[Essan]

Solar activity rises and falls in accordance with well know cycles. Over the past 60 years activity has been on average higher than at any point in the past 1,000+ years (Solanki 2004) - but that average has not increased and, per this latest study (Lockwood 2007) there has if anything been a decline in the past 20 years.

Meanwhile average observed temperatures have continued to rise throughout this period and most noticeably over the past 20 years. Within this raise there are peaks and troughs as would be expected - that the highest peak was in '98 does not change the fact the overall trend is upwards, as I'm sure everyone here well knows

Conclusion: there is no link between solar activity and recent observed temp rise.

Notwithstanding which, in the next 20 years one may see a change on trends which may result in re-evaluation of the data.

[Admiral_Bobski]

Solar activity rises and falls in accordance with well know cycles. Over the past 60 years activity has been on average higher than at any point in the past 1,000+ years (Solanki 2004) - but that average has not increased and, per this latest study (Lockwood 2007) there has if anything been a decline in the past 20 years...

Conclusion: there is no link between solar activity and recent observed temp rise.

The graphs of sunspot activity, solar flux and solar irradiance don't support the notion that activity has been declining for the past 20 years.

Regardless, I would argue that our current level of understanding with regards to how solar activity affects our planet is not sufficient to be able to make any conclusions in either direction.

Perhaps for now it would be worth filing solar activity under "H" for "Hmmmmm...."

CB

[Andy Bown]

I seldom, if ever, have posted in this Environment Change area. But....

Maybe this warming trend would still be occurring regardless if humans were on the planet or not, who knows, we don't have another planet like this to compare, which in itself says we need to take more care of it.

That is quite similar to my viewpoint....

I learnt a lot about Britain's natural history by watching the BBC programme (The British Isles : A Natural History) fronted by Alan Ticthmarsh a few years ago. I learnt that in the course of its existence Britain has been a desert, in an ice age and everything in between.

This led me to not believe in the global warming theories regarding pollution (from whatever source) and the effect of humans on the world.

My belief is that the world is in another natural, long, time of climate change as has happened throughout the course of history ; only this time we humans have the technical capabilities to measure as our forefathers couldn't.

However this change affects Britain remains to be seen, but one thing is for sure - none of us will be around to see it change fully.

Here's an idea ; why don't we all let nature get on with what it's doing and enjoy/adapt to the weather changes that result?

[HighPressure]

Solar activity rises and falls in accordance with well know cycles. Over the past 60 years activity has been on average higher than at any point in the past 1,000+ years (Solanki 2004) - but that average has not increased and, per this latest study (Lockwood 2007) there has if anything been a decline in the past 20 years.

Meanwhile average observed temperatures have continued to rise throughout this period and most noticeably over the past 20 years. Within this raise there are peaks and troughs as would be expected - that the highest peak was in '98 does not change the fact the overall trend is upwards, as I'm sure everyone here well knows :lol:

Conclusion: there is no link between solar activity and recent observed temp rise.

Notwithstanding which, in the next 20 years one may see a change on trends which may result in re-evaluation of the data.

Mars shows GW on a similar scale to that of Earth over the past 20yrs so if solar activity is not the cause there, what is?

This has to be an interesting area of research because if Mars is Warming without the aid of increased solar activity and no human activity it sggests something else is going on?

[Bobby]

Mars shows GW on a similar scale to that of Earth over the past 20yrs so if solar activity is not the cause there, what is?

This has to be an interesting area of research because if Mars is Warming without the aid of increased solar activity and no human activity it sggests something else is going on?

There isn't any global warming on Mars, there is some warming observed in some of the polar areas over the last few years. There are a lot of people who argue that we don't know the Earth is warming, let alone Mars!

What makes me believe that this isn't a natural cycle is that the rate of warming is exceptionally fast, unparalleled. As is the CO2 increases. Not only that, but the amount of CO2 we are emitting is huge. We emit 150 times more CO2 than all of the world's volcanoes combined. Now, that has to be having an effect. It's also a huge coincidence that CO2 starting to rapidly increase, as did temperatures, after the industrial revolution.

This warming ain't natural.

Edited July 11, 2007 by Magpie

[HighPressure]

There isn't any global warming on Mars, there is some warming observed in some of the polar areas over the last few years. There are a lot of people who argue that we don't know the Earth is warming, let alone Mars!

What makes me believe that this isn't a natural cycle is that the rate of warming is exceptionally fast, unparalleled. As is the CO2 increases. Not only that, but the amount of CO2 we are emitting is huge. We emit 150 times more CO2 than all of the world's volcanoes combined. Now, that has to be having an effect. It's also a huge coincidence that CO2 starting to rapidly increase, as did temperatures, after the industrial revolution.

This warming ain't natural.

I think that the vast majority of people where ever their loyalties lay do think the Earth is in a warming phase be it natural, man made or a mixture of both. However we do need more research into the Martian climate as it could give us some clues into effects we could miss on Earth as out climate is much more complicated. I don't think there is much argument that CO2 is a GHG either question being how much of a forcing does the qty man is emitting have? If we are to accept that man can change the Climate balance by relatively small (Eg numbers of parts per million of total atmosphere) emissions, we also have to look at the cooling effect caused by our Sulphur emissions from the Industrial revolution onwards. Surely we would be forced to accept that sulphur is likely to of artificially suppressed global temps and therefore some warming must be attributed to its reduction from the 20th century?

With other factors such as the Ozone hole being at its largest yet I feel that we do not understand enough to make the assessment that man is causing X percentage of Warming and therefore if we cut by that factor temps will Y?

[Filski]

Changes in surface reflectivity account for the temperature changes observed on Mars. These changes are due to dust storms that can cover half the planet.

On a smaller scale it is a similar concern that faces us if the arctic were to significantly retreat - warming would be increased as a result.

Well done for bringing up suphur emissions. You are the first I've seen to do so. Reactions with sulphur in the atmosphere are a key feature of Svensmarks work. Decrease the sulphur and you decrease the relevance of his theory. This does not account though for the similar gradients in temp trends 1900-40 and 1970-2000.

With regards to the ozone hole, I recently tried to link trends in the SAM/AAO with a recovering ozone hole but was defeated by the complexity of the task - I am no scientist. My theory was that it will prove that a rapid response by man in limiting ozone depleting chemicals will have a rapid response in climate. Of course we are seeing record holes at the moment... On a side note, the SAM/AAO has been in a mainly positive mode since the 70-80's though this year has returned negative. (I used this teleconnection in an experimental forecast for a solid ski season for Oz and have witnessed one of the strongest starts in years.)

[PersianPaladin]

Piers Corbyn was on News 24 yesterday. Let me just say that he didn't sound particularly convincing, completely dismissing AGW and claiming it is all down to the sun.

[Hiya]

Just to further complicate the issue ( ) here's a graph Ive knocked up using solar flux data taken from this site:

http://www.drao-ofr.hia-iha.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca...s/www/maver.txt

The graph runs from January 1950 to December 1999. The years marked at the top are not placed with any real accuracy but are just placeholders to show the timescale - the vertical red bars show the approximate equivalent point on each separate cycle.

What can be easily seen is an increasing trend in the strength of the solar flux between 1970 and 2000.

The solar flux strength circa 1990 was distinctly greater than the solar flux strength circa 1980, so where does this notion of decreasing solar activity around 1985 actually come from? I'm not exactly saying that the scientists who make this claim are wrong - I just want to know what they use as the basis for this statement.

Any thoughts?

CB

I think they are talking about sunspots.

The graphs of sunspot activity, solar flux and solar irradiance don't support the notion that activity has been declining for the past 20 years.

Regardless, I would argue that our current level of understanding with regards to how solar activity affects our planet is not sufficient to be able to make any conclusions in either direction.

Perhaps for now it would be worth filing solar activity under "H" for "Hmmmmm...."

CB

Yes it does, remember that small piece of research I done and posted up here? Sunspot numbers have had a downward trend in the last 20 years.

This evidance points to an inverse relationship with regards to sunspots and solar flux does it not?

PS I'm not saying you wrong.

[Guest Daniel]

A new article on the beeb based on a paper. A snipet is below.

We really need the paper to look at, but the science is in very little doubt.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6290228.stm

A new scientific study concludes that changes in the Sun's output cannot be causing modern-day climate change.

It shows that for the last 20 years, the Sun's output has declined, yet temperatures on Earth have risen.

It also shows that modern temperatures are not determined by the Sun's effect on cosmic rays, as has been claimed.

Writing in the Royal Society's journal Proceedings A, the researchers say cosmic rays may have affected climate in the past, but not the present.

"This should settle the debate," said Mike Lockwood from the UK's Rutherford-Appleton Laboratory, who carried out the new analysis together with Claus Froehlich from the World Radiation Center in Switzerland.

Dr Lockwood initiated the study partially in response to the TV documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, broadcast on Britain's Channel Four earlier this year, which featured the cosmic ray hypothesis.

"All the graphs they showed stopped in about 1980, and I knew why, because things diverged after that," he told the BBC News website.

"You can't just ignore bits of data that you don't like," he said.

The global warming lobby are getting really debrate. they have enjoyed in recent years massive power in the media and over goverments and now they see the sun theroy a real threat to there power and they will do anything to close it down. The sun is the main control on climate not huamns. There is now a real chance the sun will go into a quite phase which in turn will cause a strong colling on earth. In fact this is already occuring. reports of cold and snow are increasing around the world. As for the U.K we have in recent years warmed far more than the Global average. But I expect from now even this will change. This summer is turning out to be much cooler compared with last years record heat. If global warming was really occuring like they say then we should be seeing even hotter wather but this is not the case. Since the warm start we have been slowly cooling down. Perhaps the first signs of a change. in the Comming years the U.K will cool even further perhaps back to last little ice age conditions. Winters will on average become much colder and longer and very severe ones will hit again. It really will be as huge change. Even summers will cool as well. there will be an increase in rainfall storms flooding in some years and drought in others. some winters in the comming years will be very severe lasting more than 3 months and will be as cold or even colder than 1963 or 47 and longer as well. Also there may be a return to vloient volcanic eurptions as well. as seen in the last little ice age. We in The U.K sould be bracing for future cold and unstable climate condtions. The flooding we saw this June will be nothing compared to the huge floods that may follow snowbound winters or by very large northsea storms.

[Osbourne One-Nil]

But if that was the case, and as the sun's been quiet for 20 years (according to the experts) why is the Earth currently warming so rapidly?

Also, why is it a global warming lobby? I find language like that very emotive and laced with distrust. Shouldn't it simply be those who go along with the scientific consensus?

[Guest Viking141]

But if that was the case, and as the sun's been quiet for 20 years (according to the experts) why is the Earth currently warming so rapidly?

Also, why is it a global warming lobby? I find language like that very emotive and laced with distrust. Shouldn't it simply be those who go along with the scientific consensus?

I think the term "lobby" is a fair one OON. From Wiktionary:

LOBBY - "To attempt to influence (a public official or decision-maker) in favor of a specific opinion or cause."

Thats a fair assessment is it not? Also, as has already been pointed out this is just one report which has not been peer-reviewed properly yet. As I said early, if I proclaimed that GW/AGW was a complete load of hogwash based on one un-corroborated report which said so I would be rightly castigated on this forum for doing so. Lets get this report in perspective can we?

[Devonian]

I think the term "lobby" is a fair one OON. From Wiktionary:

LOBBY - "To attempt to influence (a public official or decision-maker) in favor of a specific opinion or cause."

Well, to be fair, then think Exxon Mobil as well?

[VillagePlank]

But if that was the case, and as the sun's been quiet for 20 years (according to the experts) why is the Earth currently warming so rapidly?

Well isn't it obvious? It's inversely proportional

[Bobby]

The global warming lobby are getting really debrate. they have enjoyed in recent years massive power in the media and over goverments and now they see the sun theroy a real threat to there power and they will do anything to close it down. The sun is the main control on climate not huamns. There is now a real chance the sun will go into a quite phase which in turn will cause a strong colling on earth. In fact this is already occuring. reports of cold and snow are increasing around the world. As for the U.K we have in recent years warmed far more than the Global average. But I expect from now even this will change. This summer is turning out to be much cooler compared with last years record heat. If global warming was really occuring like they say then we should be seeing even hotter wather but this is not the case. Since the warm start we have been slowly cooling down. Perhaps the first signs of a change. in the Comming years the U.K will cool even further perhaps back to last little ice age conditions. Winters will on average become much colder and longer and very severe ones will hit again. It really will be as huge change. Even summers will cool as well. there will be an increase in rainfall storms flooding in some years and drought in others. some winters in the comming years will be very severe lasting more than 3 months and will be as cold or even colder than 1963 or 47 and longer as well. Also there may be a return to vloient volcanic eurptions as well. as seen in the last little ice age. We in The U.K sould be bracing for future cold and unstable climate condtions. The flooding we saw this June will be nothing compared to the huge floods that may follow snowbound winters or by very large northsea storms.

I don't even know where to start there, I really don't. Don't think I'll bother.

I really hate this term "lobby". I don't want people telling me I'm part of some kind of lobby - I'm not. I just view the science and make my judgements based up on that, as do all the other AGW believers here.

[Guest Viking141]

Well, to be fair, then think Exxon Mobil as well?

Well since were being fair lets be complete fair. Who funds "exxonsecrets.org?"

Domain ID 104380692-LROR

Domain Name:EXXONSECRETS.ORG

Created On:17-May-2004 13:33:34 UTC

Expiration Date:17-May-2005 13:33:34 UTC

Sponsoring Registrar:R11-LROR

Status:TRANSFER PROHIBITED

Registrant ID:tutrj6LB04ZhqpGy

Registrant Name:Justine Earthrowl

Registrant Organization:Greenpeace Ltd

Registrant Street1:Canonbury Villas

Registrant City:London

Well quelle surprise!

[VillagePlank]

Conclusion: there is no link between solar activity and recent observed temp rise.

I didn't think that was quite what the experts were saying, though? I though they could correlate at least some of the warming to observed solar patterns, but it didn't account for all of it.