UN Report Shows Global Warming Natural Cycle Caused By Solar Activity

[longknife]

We all know our Greenies will poo-boo this as being old and from a right-wing source.

by Douglas V. Gibbs @ Political Pistachio blog

Uh, I told you so!

Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warming

The Earth has been getting warmer -- but how much of that heat is due to greenhouse gas emissions and how much is due to natural causes?

A leaked report by a United Nations’ group dedicated to climate studies says that heat from the sun may play a larger role than previously thought.

“[Results] do suggest the possibility of a much larger impact of solar variations on the stratosphere than previously thought, and some studies have suggested that this may lead to significant regional impacts on climate,” reads a draft copy of a major, upcoming report from the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The man who leaked the report, StopGreenSuicide blogger Alec Rawls, told FoxNews.com that the U.N.’s statements on solar activity were his main motivation for leaking the document.

'The main premises and conclusions of the IPCC story line have been undercut by the IPCC itself.' - StopGreenSuicide blogger Alec Rawls

“The public needs to know now how the main premises and conclusions of the IPCC story line have been undercut by the IPCC itself,” Rawls wrote on his website in December, when he first leaked the report.

Rawls blames the U.N. for burying its point about the effect of the sun in Chapter 11 of the report.

“Even after the IPCC acknowledges extensive evidence for ... solar forcing beyond what they included in their models, they still make no attempt to account for this omission in their predictions. ... It's insane,” he told FoxNews.com.

Read more at Fox News [Oh horror of horrors – don't go there!] @ Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warming | Fox News

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

 

[TheOldSchool]

USMB: http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/276554-un-admits-global-warming-largely-due-to-sun.html

^ That thread sucked too.

It's a symptom of the right-wing disease that there is a knee-jerk denial of all scientific research (climate, evolution, genetics, psychology, etc.). I assure you that the proponents of man made climate change, who include the vast vast majority of accomplished scientists in the world, are well aware that the sun has the impact you talk about in this thread. Because they've seen the data. I don't know how it is that an entire population of people (Republicans, conservatives, etc.) can so shamelessly and vehemently deny overwhelming evidence, hell any kind of evidence, at every turn.

I mean shit OJ must really not have killed that woman because despite the overwhelming evidence we found against him there was once piece of evidence, in the gigantic pile of evidence, that may or may not have been evidence to the contrary. Right? Is that what passes for critical thinking these days?

 

[skookerasbil]

USMB: http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/276554-un-admits-global-warming-largely-due-to-sun.html

^ That thread sucked too.

It's a symptom of the right-wing disease that there is a knee-jerk denial of all scientific research (climate, evolution, genetics, psychology, etc.). I assure you that the proponents of man made climate change, who include the vast vast majority of accomplished scientists in the world, are well aware that the sun has the impact you talk about in this thread. Because they've seen the data. I don't know how it is that an entire population of people (Republicans, conservatives, etc.) can so shamelessly and vehemently deny overwhelming evidence, hell any kind of evidence, at every turn.

I mean shit OJ must really not have killed that woman because despite the overwhelming evidence we found against him there was once piece of evidence, in the gigantic pile of evidence, that may or may not have been evidence to the contrary. Right? Is that what passes for critical thinking these days?

Perhaps it did but it doesnt change the landscape either way. The "knee-jerk denialists" are owning the public policy debate and that is all that matters. We've been watching the bomb throwing for years and years but its having no impact on anything. In other words, the consensus science doesnt mean dick.

Show us how its mattering s0n??


Dumbasses are taking bows on the "moral issue"..........typical of far left assholes..............but in the real world, it doesnt mean dick.

 

[waltky]

Sun 'Activity Peak' Expected This Year...

Slumbering Sun Should Wake Up This Year
22 March 2013 - The sun should roar back to life sometime in 2013, producing its second activity peak in the last two years, scientists say.

Our star has been surprisingly quiet since unleashing a flurry of flares and other eruptions toward the end of 2011. But this lull is likely the trough between two peaks that together constitute "solar maximum" for the sun's current 11-year activity cycle, researchers say. "If you look back in history, many of the previous solar cycles don't have one hump, one maximum, but in fact have two," solar physicist C. Alex Young, of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., said today (March 22) during a NASA webcast called "Solar MAX Storm Warning: Effects on the Solar System." "That's what we think is going to happen," Young added. "So we've reached one of those humps, and we think that eventually activity will pick back up and we'll see another hump — a double-humped solar maximum."

Before the twin peaks scenario began to gain adherents, many researchers had predicted that solar maximum for the current cycle, known as Solar Cycle 24, would come this May. But given how quiet the sun is at the moment, the second hump will likely occur later than that, and it could last into 2014, scientists have said. Saying the sun is quiet right now, however, does not mean that it's lifeless. Indeed, our star blasted out a huge cloud of superheated plasma known as a coronal mass ejection (CME) on March 15.

This CME delivered a glancing blow to Earth two days later, sparking a mild geomagnetic storm that had no serious effects. Powerful CMEs that hit Earth squarely can spawn serious such storms, temporarily knocking out power grids, GPS signals and radio communications. But CME effects aren't all negative. They can also supercharge Earth's auroras, also known as the northern and southern lights, giving skywatchers around the world a treat.

Slumbering Sun Should Wake Up This Year | Solar Maximum | Space.com

 

[edthecynic]

Sun 'Activity Peak' Expected This Year...

Slumbering Sun Should Wake Up This Year
22 March 2013 - The sun should roar back to life sometime in 2013, producing its second activity peak in the last two years, scientists say.

Our star has been surprisingly quiet since unleashing a flurry of flares and other eruptions toward the end of 2011. But this lull is likely the trough between two peaks that together constitute "solar maximum" for the sun's current 11-year activity cycle, researchers say. "If you look back in history, many of the previous solar cycles don't have one hump, one maximum, but in fact have two," solar physicist C. Alex Young, of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., said today (March 22) during a NASA webcast called "Solar MAX Storm Warning: Effects on the Solar System." "That's what we think is going to happen," Young added. "So we've reached one of those humps, and we think that eventually activity will pick back up and we'll see another hump — a double-humped solar maximum."

Before the twin peaks scenario began to gain adherents, many researchers had predicted that solar maximum for the current cycle, known as Solar Cycle 24, would come this May. But given how quiet the sun is at the moment, the second hump will likely occur later than that, and it could last into 2014, scientists have said. Saying the sun is quiet right now, however, does not mean that it's lifeless. Indeed, our star blasted out a huge cloud of superheated plasma known as a coronal mass ejection (CME) on March 15.

This CME delivered a glancing blow to Earth two days later, sparking a mild geomagnetic storm that had no serious effects. Powerful CMEs that hit Earth squarely can spawn serious such storms, temporarily knocking out power grids, GPS signals and radio communications. But CME effects aren't all negative. They can also supercharge Earth's auroras, also known as the northern and southern lights, giving skywatchers around the world a treat.

Slumbering Sun Should Wake Up This Year | Solar Maximum | Space.com

 

[IanC]

for anyone who hasnt read Rawl's article....it points out that temperature and solar activity are shown to be correlated for hundreds/thousands of years but the climate models practically ignore solar influence because they only examine TSI, and the solar mechanisms are poorly understood quantitatively. because the solar portion is basically ignored, all of the Sun's correlation is re-allocated to factors that are involved with determining model outcome, thereby exaggerating the importance of some factors at the expense of solar.

hidden variable fallacy

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How can the Sun cause Global Warming?

We already know everything about it, including why the atmosphere is so much hotter that we can explain...right?

 

[Desperado]

UN Report Shows Global Warming Natural Cycle Caused By Solar Activity

The UN finally got something right. Amazing

 

[mamooth]

Perhaps the denialists can take a break from the frantic handwaving about the mysterious factors we don't understand, and answer a few straightforward questions.

Is TSI the primary factor driving temps or not?

If it is, why have temps and TSI gone in opposite directions since 1980?

If it's not, why did temps track TSI for the previous centuries?

If you take a "well, temp tracks TSI when I want it to, and doesn't track TSI when I don't want it to" position, do you have any justification for that position beyond "because I want it to be true."?

 

[Saigon]

StopGreenSuicide blogger Alec Rawls, told FoxNews.com

Those are absolutely first class scientific resources.

It's funny - we have threads on which Frank and Skooks and a dozen others swear that researchers fake the results of their research because they are only interested in the grant money.

But then as soon as the results sound interesting - they stop saying that.

Now either pieces of research such as those commissioned the by UN are generally reliable or they generally are not reliable - so which is it?

 

[IanC]

Perhaps the denialists can take a break from the frantic handwaving about the mysterious factors we don't understand, and answer a few straightforward questions.

Is TSI the primary factor driving temps or not?

If it is, why have temps and TSI gone in opposite directions since 1980?

If it's not, why did temps track TSI for the previous centuries?

If you take a "well, temp tracks TSI when I want it to, and doesn't track TSI when I don't want it to" position, do you have any justification for that position beyond "because I want it to be true."?

you have a serious misconception about solar influences.

TSI is the total solar output which stays very constant but masks the variability of different bands of wavelength. we are now able to directly measure the Sun's output but this is only a very recent thing. historic solar output is estimated by proxies, most notably sunspots since the telescope was invented. Herschel, an english astronomer, noticed the correlation between grain crops and sunspots. counting sunspots is more of an art than a science, and depends on the equipment used and the observers' methods. there are other proxies as well but none can match our present day accuracy and precision.

we can pretty safely infer that solar variation has affected temperatures in the past because of correlation to proxies, but we cannot be certain of which wavelengths or mechanisms were responsible.

fast forward to today's climate models. they use the combination of all solar wavelengths mashed together, which shows a variation of only a W/m2 typically. because we still do not know the important wavelengths or mechanisms responsible, climate scientists claim that solar variation is incapable of producing temperature change in the last few decades. not only that, but all the solar correlation that was present before has been stripped away from current calculations and divided up and attributed to the factors (like CO2) that they think is important.

 

[Saigon]

Here is a link to a fairly long, and extremely technical discussion of the role of TSI, UV and other potential solar influences. I don't pretend to have understood all of it, but it shows that a lot of research has been done in this area - strange given researchers are apparently only in the field to get grant money.

The Sun's largest influence on the Earth's surface temperature is through incoming solar radiation, also known as total solar irradiance (TSI). Changes in TSI can be converted into a radiative forcing, which tells us the energy imbalance it causes on Earth. This energy imbalance is what causes a global temperature change.

The solar radiative forcing is TSI in Watts per square meter (W-m-2) divided by 4 to account for spherical geometry, and multiplied by 0.7 to account for planetary albedo (Meehl 2002). The albedo factor is due to the fact that the planet reflects approximately 30% of the incoming solar radiation.

Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming?

 

[Old Rocks]

Now this is from that article. Now the TSI has been low for the last 9 years. But we have had only a pause in the upward trend of temperatures, not a downturn as one would expect.

Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warming | Fox News

NASA has said that there is evidence that the most recent “Little Ice Age” was caused by a dip in solar activity.

“Almost no sunspots were observed on the sun's surface during the period from 1650 to 1715. This extended absence of solar activity may have been partly responsible for the Little Ice Age in Europe,” during which temperatures were colder by about 1.8 degrees F than they are today, NASA has reported.


Read more: Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warming | Fox News

And there are other articles that state a rather differant and more detailed picture;

Like Foster and Rahmstorf, Lean and Rind (2008) performed a multiple linear regression on the temperature data, and found that while solar activity can account for about 11% of the global warming from 1889 to 2006, it can only account for 1.6% of the warming from 1955 to 2005, and had a slight cooling effect (-0.004°C per decade) from 1979 to 2005.

Note that this multiple linear regression technique it makes no assumptions about various solar effects. Any solar effect (either direct or indirect) which is correlated to solar activity (i.e. solar irradiance, solar magnetic field [and thus galactic cosmic rays], ultraviolet [UV] radiation, etc.) is accounted for in the linear regression. Both Lean and Rind and Foster and Rahmstorf found that solar activity has played a very small role in the recent observed global warming.

Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming?