Read the Sunspots

[buffycat]

Thank you Dr. Patterson!

Read the Sunspots

excerpt:

n the sediment, diatom and fish-scale records, we also see longer period cycles, all correlating closely with other well-known regular solar variations. In particular, we see marine productivity cycles that match well with the sun's 75-90-year "Gleissberg Cycle," the 200-500-year "Suess Cycle" and the 1,100-1,500-year "Bond Cycle." The strength of these cycles is seen to vary over time, fading in and out over the millennia. The variation in the sun's brightness over these longer cycles may be many times greater in magnitude than that measured over the short Schwabe cycle and so are seen to impact marine productivity even more significantly.

Our finding of a direct correlation between variations in the brightness of the sun and earthly climate indicators (called "proxies") is not unique. Hundreds of other studies, using proxies from tree rings in Russia's Kola Peninsula to water levels of the Nile, show exactly the same thing: The sun appears to drive climate change.

However, there was a problem. Despite this clear and repeated correlation, the measured variations in incoming solar energy were, on their own, not sufficient to cause the climate changes we have observed in our proxies. In addition, even though the sun is brighter now than at any time in the past 8,000 years, the increase in direct solar input is not calculated to be sufficient to cause the past century's modest warming on its own. There had to be an amplifier of some sort for the sun to be a primary driver of climate change.

Indeed, that is precisely what has been discovered. In a series of groundbreaking scientific papers starting in 2002, Veizer, Shaviv, Carslaw, and most recently Svensmark et al., have collectively demonstrated that as the output of the sun varies, and with it, our star's protective solar wind, varying amounts of galactic cosmic rays from deep space are able to enter our solar system and penetrate the Earth's atmosphere. These cosmic rays enhance cloud formation which, overall, has a cooling effect on the planet. When the sun's energy output is greater, not only does the Earth warm slightly due to direct solar heating, but the stronger solar wind generated during these "high sun" periods blocks many of the cosmic rays from entering our atmosphere. Cloud cover decreases and the Earth warms still more.

The opposite occurs when the sun is less bright. More cosmic rays are able to get through to Earth's atmosphere, more clouds form, and the planet cools more than would otherwise be the case due to direct solar effects alone. This is precisely what happened from the middle of the 17th century into the early 18th century, when the solar energy input to our atmosphere, as indicated by the number of sunspots, was at a minimum and the planet was stuck in the Little Ice Age. These new findings suggest that changes in the output of the sun caused the most recent climate change. By comparison, CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet's climate on long, medium and even short time scales.

*************

This real research - not the Gorzuki political spin.

BTW Dr. Patterson is a very approachable person - give him a call he'll talk to you. He is not funded by the oil industry and pretty much tells it like it is.

[margrace]

No matter what anyone says the weather is changing. We have had horrendously hot weather and little rain, now with the 2nd day of summer and with everything planted and growing gloriously the temperature will drop to 3 above tomorrow night. In our area that means chance of frost in some areas. I don't care what you say or what you believe, we do have to eat don't we.

[buffycat]

Margrace, yes the weather changes - it always does - this is normal.

The question boils down to how much human activity is affecting these cycles - and exactly what the variables are (CO2, methane etc).

There are also variable which are not in our control, such as the output of the Sun, and indeed the whole of the influence of other cosmic activities (as mentioned in Tim's article). The point is - that even if we are affecting climate in some small way - there are other forces way beyond any of our control. So, before we jump on the bandwagon of Kyoto (or similar) which will cost a tonne of money etc. perhaps we should actually understand things a little bit better.

That said, I certainly do not advocate a do nothing approach, as there are other very good reasons to reduce our reliance on fossil feuls and seek sustainable energy alternatives. Erring on the side of caution is always a prudent stance to take.

Please note: Tim Patterson is not a Warming denier - he is a scientist and a darn good one at that. His warning is more about avoiding the 'sky is falling' chicken little approach of the Gore/Suzuki alarmists.

He also has a very good point about the cooling effects of these cyclical warmings - please note: OUR climate maxima occured 6,000 years ago. We are already climbing the steps towards the next glacial episode. These warm spells along the way, according to the geological record are normal. The real question is what happens when the northern hemisphere becomes too cold to grow food? Too cold to live in? Sure it probably won't happen in our lifetime, but as with the younger dryas sometimes these spells can come on VERY quickly.

I do hope others read this article, it's one of Tim's best.

(Oh, and one more thing which I find is hardly ever raised by the chicken littles of the Global Warming Alarmist crowd: What about the massive amounts of CO2 released by all of these wars led predominantly by the US military? Gosh, they tell folks - walk don't drive, change your lightbulbs $$$$, but heck don't talk about the airplanes, bombs, bulldozers, tanks, hummers, ships, helicopters etc all consuming a tonne of fossil fuels to spread destruction and death on mostly innocent people! Don't forget to shut your lights off )

[jbg]

No matter what anyone says the weather is changing. We have had horrendously hot weather and little rain, now with the 2nd day of summer and with everything planted and growing gloriously the temperature will drop to 3 above tomorrow night. In our area that means chance of frost in some areas. I don't care what you say or what you believe, we do have to eat don't we.

I guess George Bush caused weather changes?

[buffycat]

I guess George Bush caused weather changes?

What kind of retarded remark is that?

Sheesh - even though you and I don't get on well I certainly expect far better from you.

Did you read the article? Do you have anything to say about Dr. Patterson's research?

Keep in mind:

Global Warming = Open your Wallets.

[jbg]

I guess George Bush caused weather changes?

What kind of retarded remark is that?

Sheesh - even though you and I don't get on well I certainly expect far better from you.

Did you read the article? Do you have anything to say about Dr. Patterson's research?

Keep in mind:

Global Warming = Open your Wallets.

Buffycat - I was passing comment on Margrace's BDR. You and I agree on global warming totally, so I don't understand why the shrill, nasty personal attack. Come to think of it there are plenty of leftists on this and other boards with whom I exchange e-mails and an occasional phone call. I don't understand your rather sick hostility.

[sharkman]

Further, Catt regularly offers shrill attacks. Yours wasn't an attack, nor shrill. She's just trolling for response again and the best thing to do is ignore her until she grows up.

[jbg]

Further, Catt regularly offers shrill attacks. Yours wasn't an attack, nor shrill. She's just trolling for response again and the best thing to do is ignore her until she grows up.

I rarely "take to the airwaves" with personal gripes. Some of this type of "debate" sticks in my craw.

[shoggoth]

No increase in sunspots in last 50 years

vs

Rising temperature over last 30 years

[buffycat]

No increase in sunspots in last 50 years

vs

Rising temperature over last 30 years

Your first link does not work.

The second link is meaningless without proper context. Keep in mind that we only left the 'Little Ice Age' in the late 1800's.

So, I ask what was your point in posting these?

Did you read the OP article?

[shoggoth]

Seems to have gone down in the last few days. Here's another graph of sunspot counts showing the lack of increase since 1950

http://newsletter.carterobservatory.org/ap...nspots_full.png

The point is how do sunspot trends explain the warming in the last 30 years when sunspots have not gone up?

[buffycat]

Seems to have gone down in the last few days. Here's another graph of sunspot counts showing the lack of increase since 1950

http://newsletter.carterobservatory.org/ap...nspots_full.png

The point is how do sunspot trends explain the warming in the last 30 years when sunspots have not gone up?

Hi shoggoth,

The thing about all this climate change stuff is that there is NOT one single variable which controls everything. Also, understanding ocean/atmospheric interactions wrt driving climate is in its infancy as a science (partly due to computing restrictions and modelling).

So, while at times sunspot activity 'may' be a more influential variable, it does not mean it is always the MOST influential. There are cycles in nature, some short term, some long term, some in the middle. Take for instance the Milankovitch cycles, while they are not all of the same lengths and at times some are more 'important' than others (ie perihelion during glacial events) they all play a role, ebbing and flowing along with other variables as well.

What bothers me is the current focus on ONE small variable - CO2 - whose role is cleary not completely understood - but it is taken as some kind of FACT - that is we reduce our Co2 output everything will be peachy!! This is utter nonsense - since there are a myriad of other variables which need to be included and which we as humans have NO influence over.

Keep in mind that during the last interglacial (maxima 125,000 ybp) the entire West Antarctic Ice sheet melted - now who can we blame that on?

So, you see - things are not as simple as the alarmists want you to believe.

GW is moneygrab, rights grab and politicised science at its worst.

One effect of increased CO2 which isn't talked about, but is certainly proven is the effect of dissolved CO2 in our oceans and how that effects the marine food chain. To me - this is far more reason to slow our output (if we can) than any kind of atmospheric warming which may or may not be occuring. You see, CO2 when dissolved in the oceans forms carbonic acid - which in turn pushes the pH down, resulting in acidic waters. These acids eat away at the tests of microfauna (basis of the food chain) and well - they die. It is not only microfauna which is effected as corals are too.

So again, you see it is NOT a simple little: stop using fossil fuels and the world will be right scenario - as those pushing this issue (for POLITICAL reasons) would have you believe.

How much were you taught in school about Earth History and paleoclimates? My guess is not much, and sadly few others have any clue as to climate change over time wrt the geologic record (not just the last 30 years - try looking at the last 3 milllion (since the onset of regular glaciations).

Are we influencing our environment? YES!! Of course we are - but IMO GW is the Least of our worries - but it is a convenient distraction from other far more pressing issues: fresh water contamination being one of them, disease being another.

One more thing, ever wonder why we are all being asked to reduce our use of fossil fuels and energy yet the military is burning it in illegal wars without a worry? Think about it - those planes, tanks, ships, hummers, bombs etc release FAR more CO2 than any SUV driving consumer here. (off topic I know, but rather odd IMO).

Anyhow, I don't advocate as some here do to continue to overuse our resources, but I do advocate being careful wrt how we can 'fix' a problem, which may or may not be due to ONE variable (political - not scientific). I don't trust politicians - never will.

[shoggoth]

What bothers me is the current focus on ONE small variable - CO2 - whose role is cleary not completely understood - but it is taken as some kind of FACT - that is we reduce our Co2 output everything will be peachy!! This is utter nonsense - since there are a myriad of other variables which need to be included and which we as humans have NO influence over.

While co2 is just one variable I think the focus is on it because levels are increasing rapidly which has given it the potential to be a large warming factor in recent and coming decades. I don't think we can reduce co2 output and will have to just wait and see what happens.

[JerrySeinfeld]

What bothers me is the current focus on ONE small variable - CO2 - whose role is cleary not completely understood - but it is taken as some kind of FACT - that is we reduce our Co2 output everything will be peachy!! This is utter nonsense - since there are a myriad of other variables which need to be included and which we as humans have NO influence over.

While co2 is just one variable I think the focus is on it because levels are increasing rapidly which has given it the potential to be a large warming factor in recent and coming decades. I don't think we can reduce co2 output and will have to just wait and see what happens.

Doesn't the research show that climate warmed FIRST, followed by increases in CO2 levels?

[jbg]

What bothers me is the current focus on ONE small variable - CO2 - whose role is cleary not completely understood - but it is taken as some kind of FACT - that is we reduce our Co2 output everything will be peachy!! This is utter nonsense - since there are a myriad of other variables which need to be included and which we as humans have NO influence over.

While co2 is just one variable I think the focus is on it because levels are increasing rapidly which has given it the potential to be a large warming factor in recent and coming decades. I don't think we can reduce co2 output and will have to just wait and see what happens.

Doesn't the research show that climate warmed FIRST, followed by increases in CO2 levels?

At last an issue where Buffycat and I are on the same page, though she still won't concede I'm not the devil incarnate (well, the Jewish variety).

[shoggoth]

Doesn't the research show that climate warmed FIRST, followed by increases in CO2 levels?

There's not enough recent warming to explain the recent temperature rise, and there's a lag of hundreds of years for co2 to start rising after temperature. The current co2 rise is due to human emissions.

[ScottSA]

Doesn't the research show that climate warmed FIRST, followed by increases in CO2 levels?

There's not enough recent warming to explain the recent temperature rise, and there's a lag of hundreds of years for co2 to start rising after temperature. The current co2 rise is due to human emissions.

Even allowing for that possibility, the only causal correlation between a rise in CO2 and GW is model based, and those are tenuous predictors at best. I mean the methane rise is due to cow's butts, and maybe methane is causing doctors to blow up airports, but shouldn't we hold off slaying all the cows until we can be sure?

Incidently, the reason the temp has risen so much in the last 100 years is because the Little Ice Age ended then.

[jbg]

You have me totally confused:

There's not enough recent warming to explain the recent temperature rise

What is the difference between "warming" and "temperature rise"?

[jbg]

Incidently, the reason the temp has risen so much in the last 100 years is because the Little Ice Age ended then.

No, changeable weather has only occurred since Reagan's election, and the creation of the Zionist Entity.

[sunsettommy]

If you are still using SURFACE weather reporting stations.You are using biased data.

The last month there has been an ONGOING AUDIT of these 1221 weather reporting stations.So far most of the first 63 have been shown that the weather reporting stations do not meet minimum standards for collecting data.

The data quality are compromised.

This means that they are probably not valid data to base specific conclusions on.

Satellite data are much better.They show NO warming since 2003.

I have been posting the many revelations of POOR QUALITY SURFACE weather reporting stations at my forum.The data has a significant warming bias built in.

If you want to see them.PM me and I will give you the URL.

[shoggoth]

Incidently, the reason the temp has risen so much in the last 100 years is because the Little Ice Age ended then.

That isn't actually a reason. The little ice age is defined as a period of cooler temperatures, so all you are effectively saying is that the reason the temp has risen so much in the last 100 years is because it's risen.

[shoggoth]

You have me totally confused:

There's not enough recent warming to explain the recent temperature rise

What is the difference between "warming" and "temperature rise"?

I mean't to say "there's not enough recent warming to explain the recent co2 rise"

[shoggoth]

If you are still using SURFACE weather reporting stations.You are using biased data.

The last month there has been an ONGOING AUDIT of these 1221 weather reporting stations.So far most of the first 63 have been shown that the weather reporting stations do not meet minimum standards for collecting data.

The data quality are compromised.

This means that they are probably not valid data to base specific conclusions on.

Satellite data are much better.They show NO warming since 2003.

I have been posting the many revelations of POOR QUALITY SURFACE weather reporting stations at my forum.The data has a significant warming bias built in.

If you want to see them.PM me and I will give you the URL.

This issue is addressed here http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...an-heat-island/

As for satellite data, there have been many periods of 4 years in which temperature hasn't risen in the satellite record. Natural variation is enough that the rise isn't year on year, and you can get multiple years in which temperature doesn't appear to increase, followed by a few years of large increase. It's not a smooth line. Besides the satellite data does show warming in the last 3 decades, so do ocean surface measurements and boreholes.

[jbg]

That isn't actually a reason. The little ice age is defined as a period of cooler temperatures, so all you are effectively saying is that the reason the temp has risen so much in the last 100 years is because it's risen.

No. It's because there's been a cycle between Ice Ages and Interglacial periods. Those cycles are not man made.

[Bonam]

Honestly who cares what the cause is. We should figure out what the Earth's optimal temperature is and then use our technology to stabilize it at that temperature (whether it's lower or higher than current temperature). If the Earth was going to go back into an extreme ice age, we'd use our technology to stop it, if we could, to prevent harm to our species. If the Earth was heating up to an extreme extent and the oceans and lakes and seas were beginning to evaporate away, we'd try to stop that too, if we could.

Perhaps global warming is actually a good thing, as it'll open up huge amounts of land in northern Canada, Russia, Greenland, and Antarctica for more comfortable habitation. If so, why should we act to stop it, even if it is man made? On the other hand, perhaps it's a bad thing, as ocean levels may rise, endangering millions of people living around the coasts, or increasing temperatures may allow tropical diseases to spread further north, affecting millions or billions more people. If so, we should act to slow, stop, or even reverse global warming, whether natural or man made.

What matters is NOT whether the effects are natural or man made, but rather whether they are harmful or beneficial.

If a large asteroid was on a collision course with Earth, and we had the capability to divert it, would we sit back and say, "that's a natural event, let's not do anything"? I don't think so.