Global Warming and Solar Activity
I post on global warming, because of the significant policy implications the issue carries. One of the best things Government can do for citizens is to promote policies that encourage productive economic activities. Many policy discussions regarding global warming head in the other direction, and would seem to present a significant burden on the economy and, therefore, detriment to citizens.
If we need to take action, then, of course, let’s take responsible action. However, it seems we are in the process of bidding against ourselves in ratcheting up possible actions, without first determining whether actions are needed and which actions can best address the issue.
Before we take economically debilitating action, though, it seems the global warming dialogue might be maturing a bit. Take, for example, this article. If it correctly describes the underlying reasoning in the about-to-be-published Geophysical Research Letters Report, the Report would be significant. The Report apparently attributes recent cooling trends on Earth to decreased solar activity (i.e., fewer sunspots). The article states, “The analysis shows the relative stability in global temperatures in the last seven years is explained primarily by the decline in incoming sunlight associated with the downward phase of the 11-year solar cycle, together with a lack of strong El Niño events. These trends have masked the warming caused by CO2 and other greenhouse gases.” (Instead of “the decline in incoming sunlight,” I’m guessing the Report refers to a decline in incoming solar winds.).
It would be highly significant, if the Academy were to allow acknowledgement of the dynamic link between solar activity and Earth’s climate. Despite close historic correlation, the link between solar activity and Earth’s climate had been considered a debunked myth in the “settled science” of global warming. Though the authors of the Report, Judith Lean and David Rind, hypothesize that global warming will resume apace in the next few years, it will be interesting to see if they address whether the solar activity/Earth’s climate coin is one- or two-sided. The ramp up in temperatures since the 1950s correlates with a string of the most active solar cycles in recorded history. Is that correlation relevant?
My guess is that, for now, the coin is one-sided: solar activity can only be used to explain away holes in the prevailing theory, not to flesh out the theory. But, if decreased solar activity can explain cooling, it would seem that increased solar activity might soon be worthy of study as a cause for warming. If so, global warming over the last century would seem to correlate with increased solar activity over that same time period (a doubling of sunspots since 1900).
Interestingly, the dramatic ramp up in solar activity since the Maunder Minimum of 1715 seemingly has caused only slight increases in the Earth’s temperature. While the Earth is able to moderate itself on this topic, time will tell whether the same is true of Earth’s inhabitants.
If we need to take action, then, of course, let’s take responsible action. However, it seems we are in the process of bidding against ourselves in ratcheting up possible actions, without first determining whether actions are needed and which actions can best address the issue.
Before we take economically debilitating action, though, it seems the global warming dialogue might be maturing a bit. Take, for example, this article. If it correctly describes the underlying reasoning in the about-to-be-published Geophysical Research Letters Report, the Report would be significant. The Report apparently attributes recent cooling trends on Earth to decreased solar activity (i.e., fewer sunspots). The article states, “The analysis shows the relative stability in global temperatures in the last seven years is explained primarily by the decline in incoming sunlight associated with the downward phase of the 11-year solar cycle, together with a lack of strong El Niño events. These trends have masked the warming caused by CO2 and other greenhouse gases.” (Instead of “the decline in incoming sunlight,” I’m guessing the Report refers to a decline in incoming solar winds.).
It would be highly significant, if the Academy were to allow acknowledgement of the dynamic link between solar activity and Earth’s climate. Despite close historic correlation, the link between solar activity and Earth’s climate had been considered a debunked myth in the “settled science” of global warming. Though the authors of the Report, Judith Lean and David Rind, hypothesize that global warming will resume apace in the next few years, it will be interesting to see if they address whether the solar activity/Earth’s climate coin is one- or two-sided. The ramp up in temperatures since the 1950s correlates with a string of the most active solar cycles in recorded history. Is that correlation relevant?
My guess is that, for now, the coin is one-sided: solar activity can only be used to explain away holes in the prevailing theory, not to flesh out the theory. But, if decreased solar activity can explain cooling, it would seem that increased solar activity might soon be worthy of study as a cause for warming. If so, global warming over the last century would seem to correlate with increased solar activity over that same time period (a doubling of sunspots since 1900).
Interestingly, the dramatic ramp up in solar activity since the Maunder Minimum of 1715 seemingly has caused only slight increases in the Earth’s temperature. While the Earth is able to moderate itself on this topic, time will tell whether the same is true of Earth’s inhabitants.
posted by steve u. at 7/28/2009
Subscribe
9 Comments:
You miss the point. In fact solar activity was even lower during this latest solar minimum than during any solar minimum since the 1920s, yet temperatures remained above historic norms even as they cooled a bit from 2000 levels.
So yes, decreased solar activity does have an impact on climate. The fact warming basically stalled during the recent solar minimum instead of dropping to or below historic average temperatures only provides further evidence CO2 is trapping enough heat to hold temperatures more or less steady even when solar activity is declining.
Look at my last link. The trending data is decidedly upward for solar cycles and (though not reflected in that graphic) temperature. Our current calm cycle is a minor blip in that trend. A data point (a blip) isn't necessarily guiding data, especially if it is contrary to a trend. Lucky for us, the Earth moderates slowly. Temperatures heated up during a series of increasingly intense solar cycles. One cycle isn't likely to reverse the trend, though, as we might be seeing, it might abate the trend a bit. If we are returning to more normal solar cycles, which history suggests should be occurring, we'll see what happens with temperatures. Based on centuries of data, my best guess is that a series of less active cycles should bring temperatures down.
Your link only provides data through 2000. This article (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/21/science/space/21sunspot.html?pagewanted=1&ref=science) points out last year was the least active in terms of solar activity in the past half century with 266 days without a single sunspot visible from earth. Last year was also the ninth warmest on record in spite of extremely low solar activity.
And by the way, your last link isn't looking at temperature as a proxy for solar activity, but the presence of beryllium-10 as measured in ice corps samples. The link you provided says nothing about temperature as it relates to solar activity.
CAxford,
Take time to read before blasting, bro.
The part where I wrote, "The trending data is decidedly upward for solar cycles and (though not reflected in that graphic) temperature," acknowledges -- as you point out -- that the graphic doesn't say anything about temperature.
I don't get your 1:16 comment. I thought I pointed out that the sun currently is in a quiet period, contrary to advancing activity over the last many decades (the larger trend reflected in the graphic).
Representative, the reason behind my comment at 1:16 is simple. You make the argument in your original post “the ramp up in temperatures since the 1950s correlates with a string of the most active solar cycles in recorded history” and ask “is that correlation relevant?” You can’t argue it is relevant let alone a correlation using a graph that doesn’t show any temperature record and stops showing solar activity just before it reaches a 50 year low. That said, you did acknowledge you had left out the incredibly important temperature information when making your correlation claim, and I am sorry I overlooked that.
You also claim scientists have dismissed the impact of solar activity on climate. To my knowledge scientists have never made the claim there was no impact/correlation. They have made the point the rapid recent rise in temperature cannot be explained by the 0.1% increase or decrease in solar activity associated with the sun’s normal 11 year cycle alone. The temperatures have been rising too fast to be explained simply by increased solar activity.
That said, the small impact solar cycles have on temperature could have been magnified somewhat by the lower than normal solar activity seen in recent years. Solar activity has been at a 50 year low, which is somewhat outside the norm, and this could explain the slight drop in temperature that has been experienced lately, though it remains at well above normal levels. The fact temperatures have remained higher than normal in spite of unusually low solar activity seems to prove scientists point the increases in temperature could not be explained mostly or entirely by solar activity as skeptics have claimed in the past.
In truth, it is the global warming skeptics that have consistently pointed to solar cycles as a possible explanation for most/all of the growth in global temperatures. Now that temperatures haven’t dropped back to or below normal in spite of a 50 year low in solar activity, it is the skeptics that should be recognizing the flip side of the solar activity coin.
Sorry. I addressed you as "representative" and should have addressed you as Senator in my last reply. Forgot about your promotion. I apologize.
I appreciate you taking the time to discuss the issue and to flesh out your thinking.
Re the graphic, I thought it was a given in this entire conversation that temperatures had trended upward since the 50s (since 1900, to be more exact). My bad, if I was mistaken on that.
I think the point where we're talking past each other is the importance of 1 solar cycle versus a series of several cycles. My point (my hypothesis) is that a series of increasingly intense solar cycles over the last century caused a ramp up in global temperatures (4 of the last 6 cycles being very intense). I don't intend to say that one cycle alone could cause warming or cooling. It seems the Earth's ability to regulate just brushes those off. However, as I look at temperature data relating to solar minima and maxima (my term perhaps) -- cooler and hotter than average, respectively -- it seems that sustained low or high solar cycles do affect the Earth's temperature.
There is a flaw in the entire line of discussion here. Global warming has nothing to do with actual science. It is 100% about aggregation of power over the lives of people. Yes, people on both sides of the issue like to bring in whatever passes for scientific evidence to bolster their claims. But this is simply a side show to the main event.
There actually are two sides in this debate, but they are not exactly the same as the pro and con sides of global warming. One side wants to increase coercive power over the lives of individuals; the other side does not. Global warming is simply a convenient tool in this contest. It is not the contest itself.
<< Home