• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Role of the Sun in Global Warming

Jack Hays

Traveler
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
93,907
Reaction score
28,094
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
[h=2]Finally! The missing link between exploding stars, clouds and climate on Earth[/h][FONT=&quot]Blog topic:
astronomy, cosmic rays, global warming, personal research, weather & climate


Our new results published today in nature communications provide the last piece of a long studied puzzle. We finally found the actual physical mechanism linking between atmospheric ionization and the formation of cloud condensation nuclei. Thus, we now understand the complete physical picture linking solar activity and our galactic environment (which govern the flux of cosmic rays ionizing the atmosphere) to climate here on Earth though changes in the cloud characteristics.
[/FONT]
 

Jack Hays

Traveler
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
93,907
Reaction score
28,094
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent

[FONT=&quot]. . . Using historic variations in climate and the cosmic ray flux, one can actually [/FONT]quantify empirically[FONT=&quot] the relation between cosmic ray flux variations and global temperature change, and estimate the solar contribution to the 20[/FONT][FONT=&quot]th[/FONT][FONT=&quot] century warming. This contribution comes out to be 0.5±0.2°C out of the observed 0.6±0.2°C global warming (Shaviv, 2005).[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
Fig. 5: Solar activity over the past several centuries can be reconstructed using different proxies. These reconstructions demonstrate that 20th century activity is unparalleled over the past 600 years (previously high solar activity took place around 1000 years ago, and 8000 yrs ago). Specifically, we see sunspots and 10Be. The latter is formed in the atmosphere by ~1GeV cosmic rays, which are modulated by the solar wind (stronger solar wind → less galactic cosmic rays → less 10Be production). Note that both proxies do not capture the decrease in the high energy cosmic rays that took place since the 1970's, but which the ion chamber data does (see fig. 6). (image source: Wikipedia)
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
Fig. 6: The flux of cosmic rays reaching Earth, as measured by ion chambers. Red line - annual averages, Blue line - 11 yr moving average. Note that ion chambers are sensitive to particles at relatively high energy (several 10's of GeV, which is higher than the energies responsible for the atmospheric ionization [~10 GeV], and much higher than the energies responsible for the 10Be production [~1 GeV]). Plot redrawn using data from Ahluwalia (1997). Moreover, the decrease in high energy cosmic rays since the 1970's is less pronounced in low energy proxies of solar activity, implying that cosmogenic isotopes (such as 10Be) or direct solar activity proxies (e.g., sun spots, aa index, etc) are less accurate in quantifying the solar → cosmic ray → climate link and its contribution to 20thcentury global warming.
[/FONT]


[h=3]SUMMARY[/h][FONT=&quot]As explained above, there is no real direct evidence which can be used to incriminate anthropogenic greenhouse gases as the being the main factor responsible for the observed global warming. The reason these gases were blamed are primarily because (1) we expect them to warm and indeed the global temperature increased, and (2) there is no other mechanism which can explain the warming. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Although this reasoning seems logical, it turns out that (1) We don't even know the sign of the anthropogenic climate driving (because of the unknown indirect aerosol effects), and (2) There is an alternative mechanism which can explain a large part of the warming. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20[/FONT][FONT=&quot]th[/FONT][FONT=&quot] century global warming, on condition that there is a strong solar/climate link through modulation of the cosmic ray flux and the atmospheric ionization. Evidence for such a link has been accumulating over the past decade, and by now, it is unlikely that it does not exist. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]This link also implies that Earth's global temperature sensitivity is [/FONT]also on the low side[FONT=&quot]. Thus, if we double the amount of CO[/FONT][FONT=&quot]2[/FONT][FONT=&quot] by 2100, we will only increase the temperature by about 1°C or so. This is still more than the change over the past century. This is good news, because it implies that future increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases will not dramatically increase the global temperature, though GHGs will probably be the dominate climate driver. . . . [/FONT]
 

Quaestio

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 23, 2015
Messages
3,926
Reaction score
1,259
Location
Oz
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCR) hypothesis is not a "new paradigm", it's a failed old hypothesis with no real evidence to support it and plenty of evidence to refute it. A couple of fringe dwellers like Svensmark and Shaviv keep struggling to keep it alive for ideological reasons, not science.

The IPCC reports are an assessment of all the latest published research at the time of the report. See what was said about the GCR hypothesis:

From the IPCC 5th Assessment report. WGI – The Physical Science Basis. Chapter 7 pg 573

https://archive.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter07_FINAL.pdf

“the effect on the concentration of cloud condensation nuclei is too weak to have any detectable climatic influence during a solar cycle or over the last century (medium evidence, high agreement). No robust association between changes in cosmic rays and cloudiness has been identified. In the event that such an association existed, a mechanism other than cosmic ray-induced nucleation of new aerosol particles would be needed to explain it. {7.4.6}”​




Since that report in 2013 there have been more research papers putting the nail in the coffin for the failed GCR hypothesis:


Note the one from the CERN CLOUD team because it also pre-addresses the issues with Svensmark's latest paper which is based on CERN CLOUD data.

Dunne, E. M., Gordon, H., Kürten, A., Almeida, J., Duplissy, J., Williamson, C., ... & Barmet, P. (2016). Global atmospheric particle formation from CERN CLOUD measurements. Science, 354(6316), 1119-1124.


"New particle formation in the atmosphere produces around half of the cloud condensation nuclei that seed cloud droplets. Such particles have a pivotal role in determining the properties of clouds and the global radiation balance. Dunne et al. used the CLOUD (Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets) chamber at CERN to construct a model of aerosol formation based on laboratory-measured nucleation rates. They found that nearly all nucleation involves either ammonia or biogenic organic compounds. Furthermore, in the present-day atmosphere, cosmic ray intensity cannot meaningfully affect climate via nucleation."​


Erlykin, A. D., Sloan, T., & Wolfendale, A. W. (2013). A review of the relevance of the ‘CLOUD’ results and other recent observations to the possible effect of cosmic rays on the terrestrial climate. Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, 121(3-4), 137-142.

The problem of the contribution of cosmic rays to climate change is a continuing one and one of importance. In principle, at least, the recent results from the CLOUD project at CERN provide information about the role of ionizing particles in ’sensitizing’ atmospheric aerosols which might, later, give rise to cloud droplets. Our analysis shows that, although important in cloud physics the results do not lead to the conclusion that cosmic rays affect atmospheric clouds significantly, at least if H2SO4 is the dominant source of aerosols in the atmosphere. An analysis of the very recent studies of stratospheric aerosol changes following a giant solar energetic particles event shows a similar negligible effect. Recent measurements of the cosmic ray intensity show that a former decrease with time has been reversed. Thus, even if cosmic rays enhanced cloud production, there would be a small global cooling, not warming
 
Last edited:

Quaestio

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 23, 2015
Messages
3,926
Reaction score
1,259
Location
Oz
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Benestad, R. E. (2013). Are there persistent physical atmospheric responses to galactic cosmic rays?. Environmental Research Letters, 8(3), 035049.


"Variations in the annual mean of the galactic cosmic ray flux (GCR) are compared with annual variations in the most common meteorological variables: temperature, mean sea-level barometric pressure, and precipitation statistics. A multiple regression analysis was used to explore the potential for a GCR response on timescales longer than a year and to identify 'fingerprint' patterns in time and space associated with GCR as well as greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations and the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO). The response pattern associated with GCR consisted of a negative temperature anomaly that was limited to parts of eastern Europe, and a weak anomaly in the sea-level pressure (SLP), but coincided with higher pressure over the Norwegian Sea. It had a similarity to the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) in the northern hemisphere and a wave train in the southern hemisphere. A set of Monte Carlo simulations nevertheless indicated that the weak amplitude of the global mean temperature response associated with GCR could easily be due to chance (p-value = 0.6), and there has been no trend in the GCR. Hence, there is little empirical evidence that links GCR to the recent global warming."


Sloan, T., & Wolfendale, A. W. (2013). Cosmic rays and climate change over the past 1000 million years. New Astronomy, 25, 45-49.


The Galactic cosmic ray (GCR) intensity has been postulated by others to vary cyclically with a peak to valley ratio of ∼3:1, as the Solar System moves from the Spiral Arm to the Inter-Arm regions of the Galaxy. These intensities have been correlated with global temperatures and used to support the hypothesis of GCR induced climate change. In this paper we show that the model used to deduce such a large ratio of Arm to Interarm GCR intensity requires unlikely values of some of the GCR parameters, particularly the diffusion length in the interstellar medium, if as seems likely to be the case, the diffusion is homogeneous. Comparison is made with the existing gamma ray astronomy data and this also indicates that the ratio is not large. The variation in the intensity is probably of order 10–20% and should be no more than 30% as the Solar System moves between these two regions, unless the conventional parameters of the GCR are incorrect. In addition we show that the variation of the GCR intensity, as the trajectory of the Solar System oscillates about the Galactic Plane, is too small to account for the extinctions of species as has been postulated unless, again, conventional assumptions about the GCR parameters are not correct.​



Krissansen‐Totton, J., & Davies, R. (2013). Investigation of cosmic ray–cloud connections using MISR. Geophysical Research Letters, 40(19), 5240-5245.

Numerous empirical studies have analyzed International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project data and reached contradictory conclusions regarding the influence of solar‐modulated galactic cosmic rays on cloud fraction and cloud properties. The Multiangle Imaging Spectroradiometer (MISR) instrument on the Terra satellite has been in continuous operation for 13 years and thus provides an independent (and previously unutilized) cloud data set to investigate purported solar‐cloud links. Furthermore, unlike many previous solar‐climate studies that report cloud fraction MISR measures albedo, which has clearer climatological relevance. Our long‐term analysis of MISR data finds no statistically significant correlations between cosmic rays and global albedo or globally averaged cloud height, and no evidence for any regional or lagged correlations. Moreover, epoch superposition analysis of Forbush decreases reveals no detectable albedo response to cosmic ray decreases, thereby placing an upper limit on the possible influence of cosmic ray variations on global albedo of 0.0029 per 5% decrease. The implications for recent global warming are discussed.​
 
Last edited:

Quaestio

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 23, 2015
Messages
3,926
Reaction score
1,259
Location
Oz
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Sloan, T., & Wolfendale, A. W. (2013). Cosmic rays, solar activity and the climate. Environmental Research Letters, 8(4), 045022.

“Evidence is presented from which the contributions of either cosmic rays or solar activity to this warming is deduced. The contribution is shown to be less than 10% of the warming seen in the twentieth century.

Laken, B. A., Pallé, E., Čalogović, J., & Dunne, E. M. (2012). A cosmic ray-climate link and cloud observations. Journal of Space Weather and Space Climate, 2, A18.


"At present, two long-term independent global satellite cloud datasets are available (ISCCP and MODIS). Although the differences between them are considerable, neither shows evidence of a solar-cloud link at either long or short timescales. Furthermore, reports of observed correlations between solar activity and cloud over the 1983–1995 period are attributed to the chance agreement between solar changes and artificially induced cloud trends"

"it is clear that there is no robust evidence of a widespread link between the cosmic ray flux and clouds."


There are plenty more. Banging on about the failed GCR hypothesis is beating a dead horse. Let the poor thing die in peace.

flogging-dead-horse.jpg
 
Last edited:

flogger

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 8, 2012
Messages
16,488
Reaction score
3,967
Location
Wokingham, England
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed

  • SUMMARY

    [FONT="]As explained above, there is no real direct evidence which can be used to incriminate anthropogenic greenhouse gases as the being the main factor responsible for the observed global warming. The reason these gases were blamed are primarily because (1) we expect them to warm and indeed the global temperature increased, and (2) there is no other mechanism which can explain the warming. [/FONT]

    [FONT="]Although this reasoning seems logical, it turns out that (1) We don't even know the sign of the anthropogenic climate driving (because of the unknown indirect aerosol effects), and (2) There is an alternative mechanism which can explain a large part of the warming. [/FONT]

    [FONT="]Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20[/FONT][FONT="]th[/FONT][FONT="] century global warming, on condition that there is a strong solar/climate link through modulation of the cosmic ray flux and the atmospheric ionization. Evidence for such a link has been accumulating over the past decade, and by now, it is unlikely that it does not exist. [/FONT]

    [FONT="]This link also implies that Earth's global temperature sensitivity is [/FONT]also on the low side[FONT="]. Thus, if we double the amount of CO[/FONT][FONT="]2[/FONT][FONT=&quot] by 2100, we will only increase the temperature by about 1°C or so. This is still more than the change over the past century. This is good news, because it implies that future increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases will not dramatically increase the global temperature, though GHGs will probably be the dominate climate driver. . . . [/FONT]


  • Stands to reason that fluctuations in the big fiery ball in the sky will vastly outweigh our puny impacts, but how do you manipulate people using that ? :wink:
 

Surface Detail

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 20, 2016
Messages
3,244
Reaction score
1,227
Location
English Midlands
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Stands to reason that fluctuations in the big fiery ball in the sky will vastly outweigh our puny impacts, but how do you manipulate people using that ? :wink:
Just like it stands to reason that the Earth is flat. Otherwise we'd fall off, wouldn't we?

Life is so simple when you ignore scientific evidence.
 

Sunsettommy

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 28, 2018
Messages
1,709
Reaction score
875
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The warning against use of stripbark proxies came not from any skeptic but from the National Academy of Sciences.

We haven't even begun discussion of the additional problem of widespread ex post sample selection.
Bristlecone Pine trees come from a tiny region of the western America, a harsh place to grow and stay alive in, a very small proxy sample to make up a temperature database, indeed the little things struggles to survive in the first place, which mean a drop in the already low precipitation base will quickly adverse the growth pattern.

From National Park Service

Bristlecone Pine Tree

Great Basin Bristlecone pines (Pinus longaeva) are remarkable for their great age and their ability to survive adverse growing conditions. In fact, it seems one secret to their longevity is the harsh environment in which most bristlecone pines grow.

Bristlecone pines in Great Basin National Park grow in isolated groves just below treeline. Conditions are harsh, with cold temperatures, a short growing season, and high winds. Bristlecone pines in these high-elevation environments grow very slowly, and in some years don't even add a ring of growth. This slow growth makes their wood very dense and resistant to insects, fungi, rot, and erosion. Vegetation is very sparse, limiting the role of fire. Bristlecone pine seeds are occassionally cached by birds at lower elevations. Bristlecone pines grow more rapidly in more "favorable" environments at lower elevations. They do not achieve their legendary age or fascinating twisted shapes.
bolding mine

LINK

Yet people drooled over Dr. Mann's garbage paper using a tree ring proxy data (taken from Dr. Isdo's paper) that grows in a tiny area of the western U.S.

:lol:
 

Sunsettommy

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 28, 2018
Messages
1,709
Reaction score
875
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I'll go ahead and trust NASA.
NASA are the ones who doesn't tell the full story about Solar radiation.

Being ignorant hurts people who make silly replies like you do.

TOTAL Solar Irradiation is the full term, now what about the changes in the frequency band output from the sun?

Get the clue, yet?
 

Threegoofs

COVID survivor
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Messages
50,012
Reaction score
17,499
Location
The birthplace of Italian Beef
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Bristlecone Pine trees come from a tiny region of the western America, a harsh place to grow and stay alive in, a very small proxy sample to make up a temperature database, indeed the little things struggles to survive in the first place, which mean a drop in the already low precipitation base will quickly adverse the growth pattern.

From National Park Service

Bristlecone Pine Tree



bolding mine

LINK

Yet people drooled over Dr. Mann's garbage paper using a tree ring proxy data (taken from Dr. Isdo's paper) that grows in a tiny area of the western U.S.

:lol:
Mann’s paper used many tree ring proxies all over the Northern hemisphere.

His ‘garbage paper’ was also reconfirmed by much larger studies repeatedly over the last two decades, making Mann’s original work truly a seminal and historic paper.

But you deniers hate facts, so you stil whine about it decades later.
 

Jack Hays

Traveler
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
93,907
Reaction score
28,094
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Mann’s paper used many tree ring proxies all over the Northern hemisphere.

His ‘garbage paper’ was also reconfirmed by much larger studies repeatedly over the last two decades, making Mann’s original work truly a seminal and historic paper.

But you deniers hate facts, so you stil whine about it decades later.
Repeat malpractice = repeat results
 

flogger

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 8, 2012
Messages
16,488
Reaction score
3,967
Location
Wokingham, England
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Repeat malpractice = repeat results
Interesting to note how the IPCC temperature plot dramatically changes with the invention of the Hockey Stick isn't it ?

IPCC_MWP.jpg

Climategate Part Three: What Does the Data Really Show? | Passion for Liberty

As you can see, with the release of Michael Mann’s hockey stick, the MWP was expunged from the IPCC temperature record. The effect is obvious. With the MWP included current temperatures do not appear abnormal or unprecedented. But, with the MWP removed, current temperatures appear much more concerning.
 
Last edited:

Glitch

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 3, 2019
Messages
7,721
Reaction score
2,767
Location
Alaska (61.5°N, -149°W)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
[h=2]Finally! The missing link between exploding stars, clouds and climate on Earth[/h][FONT="][B]Blog topic: [/B]
[URL="http://www.sciencebits.com/taxonomy/term/10"]astronomy[/URL], cosmic rays, global warming, personal research, weather & climate


Our new results published today in nature communications provide the last piece of a long studied puzzle. We finally found the actual physical mechanism linking between atmospheric ionization and the formation of cloud condensation nuclei. Thus, we now understand the complete physical picture linking solar activity and our galactic environment (which govern the flux of cosmic rays ionizing the atmosphere) to climate here on Earth though changes in the cloud characteristics.
[/FONT]
That is an interesting connection, but only in the lab. How actual short, long, and ultra-long gamma-ray bursts effect our climate has not been studied in any detail because we only recently discovered gamma-ray bursts (1967) and it took us 30 years to figure out their origins. Approximately 30% of the GRBs are short (< 2 second) and that made it difficult to locate the source, but they are now believed to be caused by kilonovae. The long (> 2 seconds, averaging ~30 seconds) are 70% of the GRBs and caused by core-collapse supernovae. And the very rare ultra-long (10,000+ second) GRBs are caused by the core-collapse of blue supergiants.

A sufficiently large GRB would be able to destroy the ozone layer, which many claim would kill all life on the planet, but they erroneously assume that ozone will not replenish itself. As long as there is UV radiation and molecular oxygen in the atmosphere, there will always be ozone. So while the GRB is in effect the ozone would be depleted, but as soon as the GRB ended the ozone layer would begin to repair itself almost immediately. Which means that the UV radiation hitting the ground wouldn't last for very long before the ozone layer was replenished and blocking UV radiation once again.

Even though they can be detected from billions of light-years away (GRBs have the equivalent energy of 5.51 x 10[SUP]44[/SUP] Joules), they would have to be within about 10,000 light years to have an adverse effect on Earth - like wiping out the ozone layer. However, that doesn't mean GRBs that are even further away cannot have a more subtle effect, as in the ionization of solar particles to create cloud condensation nuclei. Another feature of GRBs is that they are incredibly narrowly focused. Meaning that if Earth is not in the direct path of a GRB, we would never be able to detect it. They are very tight beams originating at the poles of the collapsing stars (or the collision of two neutron stars in the case of the short GRBs).

I would like to see them take their lab study into the field and actually test the ionization of particles after a GRB to see if their lab results match actual field test results by testing for these cloud condensation nuclei.
 
Last edited:

Threegoofs

COVID survivor
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Messages
50,012
Reaction score
17,499
Location
The birthplace of Italian Beef
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Interesting to note how the IPCC temperature plot dramatically changes with the invention of the Hockey Stick isn't it ?

View attachment 67261692

Climategate Part Three: What Does the Data Really Show? | Passion for Liberty

As you can see, with the release of Michael Mann’s hockey stick, the MWP was expunged from the IPCC temperature record. The effect is obvious. With the MWP included current temperatures do not appear abnormal or unprecedented. But, with the MWP removed, current temperatures appear much more concerning.
Not sure why you think it’s odd that better data would change what we know, but then again, you were deeply confused on how graphs work in scientific literature, so I’m not sure why anyone would ever take you seriously.
 

Slavister

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 8, 2018
Messages
6,250
Reaction score
3,502
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
NASA are the ones who doesn't tell the full story about Solar radiation.

Being ignorant hurts people who make silly replies like you do.

TOTAL Solar Irradiation is the full term, now what about the changes in the frequency band output from the sun?

Get the clue, yet?
I know you want to play a scientist online and pretend like you know what you are talking about, but I will still trust NASA as well as scientists all over the world over you, SunsetTommy. And yes, they have considered this question plenty of times already.
 

Sunsettommy

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 28, 2018
Messages
1,709
Reaction score
875
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I know you want to play a scientist online and pretend like you know what you are talking about, but I will still trust NASA as well as scientists all over the world over you, SunsetTommy. And yes, they have considered this question plenty of times already.
You have no idea apparently. I gave a hint and you didn't even notice.

Here it is again:

TOTAL Solar Irradiation is the full term, now what about the changes in the frequency band output from the sun?
Think about it.
 

Slavister

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 8, 2018
Messages
6,250
Reaction score
3,502
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I gave a hint and you didn't even notice.
Don't worry. I noticed but I am not here to follow your hints. If you have a reference to peer-reviewed article proving Sun has a lot to do with global warming in recent decades, link it.
 

Sunsettommy

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 28, 2018
Messages
1,709
Reaction score
875
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Don't worry. I noticed but I am not here to follow your hints. If you have a reference to peer-reviewed article proving Sun has a lot to do with global warming in recent decades, link it.
It doesn't require a science paper to figure it out. The hints should have helped you, but you don't understand it... apparently. Here is a link that might help you:

1SORCE Solar Cycle Results - February 2008 Solar Irradiance Variability Observed During Solar Cycle 23

Lets see if page 4 isn't too hard for you to understand the hints I have brought up.

LINK

or maybe this instead:

Researchers study fluctuations in solar radiation

Selected excerpt:

Interestingly, during the solar cycle, radiative flux doesn't fluctuate with the same amplitude across the entire solar spectrum. More than 50 percent of the variation in the radiative flux comes from the ultraviolet range. And for a long time, this wasn't taken into account in solar and climate models. In the atmosphere, the ultraviolet radiation reacts with ozone molecules, thus governing the ozone balance. In addition, it reacts with nitrogen and many other molecules. "We don't know exactly how these reactions change over the course of the solar cycle," says Natalie Krivova. "But there are indications that reactions take place in the atmosphere that further increase the effect of the solar irradiance," says Krivova.

LINK

==========================

It is clear that Solar variability over time has varied more than you realize.
 
Last edited:

Slavister

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 8, 2018
Messages
6,250
Reaction score
3,502
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Researchers study fluctuations in solar radiation

Selected excerpt:

Interestingly, during the solar cycle, radiative flux doesn't fluctuate with the same amplitude across the entire solar spectrum. More than 50 percent of the variation in the radiative flux comes from the ultraviolet range. And for a long time, this wasn't taken into account in solar and climate models. In the atmosphere, the ultraviolet radiation reacts with ozone molecules, thus governing the ozone balance. In addition, it reacts with nitrogen and many other molecules. "We don't know exactly how these reactions change over the course of the solar cycle," says Natalie Krivova. "But there are indications that reactions take place in the atmosphere that further increase the effect of the solar irradiance," says Krivova.

LINK
Wonderful. Thanks for the link to the bleeding-edge researcher that actually studies this.

Now let's see what she thinks about this thread...

Compared with the models of other research groups, Krivova's simulation tool proved to be very reliable. Climate modelers therefore use it also for those simulations that are included in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) climate report.
...
Climate change skeptics now claim that this cooling could counterbalance the global warming caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases. But Krivova dismisses this: "Current scientific work and the reports of the IPCC clearly show that greenhouse gases have contributed many times more than the Sun to the change in the Earth's heat balance in the past decades."
 

Jack Hays

Traveler
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
93,907
Reaction score
28,094
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Wonderful. Thanks for the link to the bleeding-edge researcher that actually studies this.

Now let's see what she thinks about this thread...
She make's the same error as the IPCC, underestimating the solar contribution by a full order of magnitude.
 

Sunsettommy

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 28, 2018
Messages
1,709
Reaction score
875
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Wonderful. Thanks for the link to the bleeding-edge researcher that actually studies this.

Now let's see what she thinks about this thread...
Ha ha, You fell for the MODELING SIMULATIONS as evidence, they are not real data, but guesses. Over and over she admits they know little about the sun in many ways, don't you use glasses?

Then you now concede that there is good evidence of solar variability. She also stated this which you overlook and actually contradicts herself:

Krivova and also other researchers believe that this network contributes to the gradual long-term changes in solar irradiance characterized by extended periods during which there are especially many or few sunspots, such as the Little Ice Age. "Secular change" is the term experts use for this longterm trend – "slow, systematic change."
She does allow for solar variability after all.

By the way CO2 warm forcing doesn't warm anything more because the increased outflow of energy from the planet greatly exceeds the postulated increased warm forcing of CO2, but warmists ignore this inconvenience all the time.

Cheers.
 
Last edited:

Lord of Planar

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
41,397
Reaction score
12,078
Location
Portlandia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
It doesn't require a science paper to figure it out. The hints should have helped you, but you don't understand it... apparently. Here is a link that might help you:

1SORCE Solar Cycle Results - February 2008 Solar Irradiance Variability Observed During Solar Cycle 23

Lets see if page 4 isn't too hard for you to understand the hints I have brought up.

LINK

or maybe this instead:

Researchers study fluctuations in solar radiation

Selected excerpt:

Interestingly, during the solar cycle, radiative flux doesn't fluctuate with the same amplitude across the entire solar spectrum. More than 50 percent of the variation in the radiative flux comes from the ultraviolet range. And for a long time, this wasn't taken into account in solar and climate models. In the atmosphere, the ultraviolet radiation reacts with ozone molecules, thus governing the ozone balance. In addition, it reacts with nitrogen and many other molecules. "We don't know exactly how these reactions change over the course of the solar cycle," says Natalie Krivova. "But there are indications that reactions take place in the atmosphere that further increase the effect of the solar irradiance," says Krivova.

LINK

==========================

It is clear that Solar variability over time has varied more than you realize.
The indoctrinated are deniers of science. Their religious priests telling them what to believe never tell the inconvenient facts. Since this isn't part of their holy dogma, they will deny what you say here.
 

Threegoofs

COVID survivor
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Messages
50,012
Reaction score
17,499
Location
The birthplace of Italian Beef
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Ha ha, You fell for the MODELING SIMULATIONS as evidence, they are not real data, but guesses. Over and over she admits they know little about the sun in many ways, don't you use glasses?

Then you now concede that there is good evidence of solar variability. She also stated this which you overlook and actually contradicts herself:



She does allow for solar variability after all.

By the way CO2 warm forcing doesn't warm anything more because the increased outflow of energy from the planet greatly exceeds the postulated increased warm forcing of CO2, but warmists ignore this inconvenience all the time.

Cheers.
I’m always impressed at how you understand complicated scientific research better than the actual researchers.

You deniers are really a special kind of smart.
 

flogger

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 8, 2012
Messages
16,488
Reaction score
3,967
Location
Wokingham, England
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Top Bottom