• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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

No, no correlation at all:

Temperature-change-and-carbon-dioxide-change-measured-from-the-EPICA-Dome-C-ice-core-in-Antarctica-v2.jpg


Temperature Change and Carbon Dioxide Change | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

:roll:

Yes, in the past, CO2 levels followed SST. Now that we add to atmospheric CO2, this equilibrium is disrupted.
 
Yes, in the past, CO2 levels followed SST. Now that we add to atmospheric CO2, this equilibrium is disrupted.

As I already pointed out, no CO2 levels did not correlate to the corresponding surface temperatures. When atmospheric CO2 levels were between 5 and 20 times higher than current levels 440 million years ago the surface temperature dropped by between 8°C and 10°C. There is absolutely no correlation between mean surface temperatures and atmospheric CO2, and anyone who claims otherwise is either deliberately lying or ignorant of the meaning of "correlation."
 
As I already pointed out, no CO2 levels did not correlate to the corresponding surface temperatures. When atmospheric CO2 levels were between 5 and 20 times higher than current levels 440 million years ago the surface temperature dropped by between 8°C and 10°C. There is absolutely no correlation between mean surface temperatures and atmospheric CO2, and anyone who claims otherwise is either deliberately lying or ignorant of the meaning of "correlation."

I have just posted a graph, based on ice-core data, that shows close correlation between CO2 and temperature in Antarctica. Similar graphs based on data from the Greenland ice sheet also show this correlation. If you can't see this correlation, you need your eyes testing.

However, while there is a close correlation between CO2 and temperature, CO2 is not the only factor affecting temperature. The positions of the continents, for example, also have a major effect on climate. And 440 million years ago, the continents were positioned completely differently, and so one would expect a different climate for the same level of CO2!
 
As I already pointed out, no CO2 levels did not correlate to the corresponding surface temperatures. When atmospheric CO2 levels were between 5 and 20 times higher than current levels 440 million years ago the surface temperature dropped by between 8°C and 10°C. There is absolutely no correlation between mean surface temperatures and atmospheric CO2, and anyone who claims otherwise is either deliberately lying or ignorant of the meaning of "correlation."

When you go as far back as 440 million years ago, what do we really know about that period? Not enough to make such conclusions. However, we do know the last 400,000 years or so to be a bit more geologically stable. Ice cores we see that show both temperature and CO2 levels have a clear correlation that CO2 follows SST by around 800 years.

The science even states such things. Consider the carbon cycle balance. I'll use an older graphic because it is easier to understand,m but this one was created right after the AR4 came out:



Note the approximate 120 GtC balance between the soil and atmosphere. Note the approximate 90 GtC balance between the oceans and atmosphere. Now at this point, the SST becomes important. Sourcing takes place in the warm waters, or the equatorial areas. Mid latitude is rather neutral on CO2 exchange. The polar regions act as sinks of CO2. This is a known, proven science. Liquids hold more gas a colder temperatures and less at warmer temperatures.

174solublegas.gif


Solubility

So as the oceans circulate, through their approximate 1000 year cycle, they collect CO2 in the polar areas and emit CO2 from the equatorial areas, Someplace between the equator and poles in each hemisphere, is the neutral area. With temperature increases, this null point moves towards the poles with cooler temperatures. This causes less absorption and more emitting of CO2, causing a net reduction of gas into the oceans until it equalizes. This causes a new equalization with higher atmospheric levels of CO2. The opposite is true with cooling. Now this is only one of several variables, but the change is notable. Since between the atmosphere and ocean, the ocean hold about 98% of the equalized content of CO2, a temperature change that only changes the ocean absorption say from 98%. to 97.9%, increases atmospheric CO2 by over 5%.

It is well established that around half the extra CO2 we emit into the atmosphere, is absorbed by the biosphere. It is part of this natural equalization. If it didn't take so long for the oceans to equalize, they would have already absorbed about 98% of what we emit, rather than only around half.

Just look at the numbers on my first graph. The oceans contain 1,020 in the surface and 38,100 deeper. These are the primary numbers adding to 39,120 GtC. The atmosphere has 750 GtC. This is a total between the two of 98.12% ocean and 1.88% in the atmosphere.

A 52:1 ration. So, for every 1% of the carbon gained or lost by the ocean, the atmosphere loses or gains 52%. Between these two when other variables are held static.

Between the coldest times and warmest times of ice core records, the atmosphere changes of CO2 are about a range of 160 ppm to 300 ppm, before the influence of mankind. Almost a doubling from the coldest to warmest. This would indicate under a 2% higher ocean abortion of CO2 during the coldest times, and if you look at the second graph I linked, a 2% change doesn't require too much of an SST change.
 
Last edited:
I understand the theory. I also understand the difference between direct observation and statistical analysis. One is actual evidence the other is not.
Correct, I have no idea how good the proxies are at recording the levels of solar activity in question.
Short of being there and recording it, it is what they have, I am not sure it is any better or worse than the
proxies used to show recent warming is unusual.
 
Then the author was mistaken when he claimed there was evidence. Statistical analysis is not evidence. Direct observation is evidence.

I dispute your claim, and the author's claim of an exceptionally close supernovae in the last 500 million years. There would be evidence of such an event even today, and there is none. The long-term survival of life on this planet depends on supernovae NOT being local. Not within a least 10,000 light years.

This is where the theory breaks down. There is no way to differentiate the effects cosmic radiation has on charged particles from the effects solar radiation has on those very same charged particles. All of the cloud condensation nuclei caused by ionized solar particles could be the result of solar radiation, with cosmic radiation playing little or no role at all.

There is absolutely no climate "coincidence" that has anything do with cosmic radiation, certainly none that have even a shred of actual evidence (I don't mean statistical analysis either). If you expect anyone to buy this theory you need to demonstrate that cosmic radiation has somehow managed to overcome solar radiation. Otherwise everything can be explained by solar activity.

It also makes no sense whatsoever to blame atmospheric CO2 for any of the temperature changes in the last 500 million years. Just 250 million years ago atmospheric CO2 was between 250 and 350 ppm, below today's current levels, but the planet's surface temperature was the highest ever recorded at between 35°C and 40°C. Which resulted in 96% of the marine life and 70% of the terrestrial life dying out. Then there was the Ordovician-Silurian extinction event 440 million years ago which was twice as bad as the one that killed the dinosaurs, when atmospheric CO2 was anywhere from 2,000 to 8,000 ppm, and the surface temperature of the planet dropped by 8°C to 10°C.

There is absolutely no correlation between atmospheric CO2 and mean surface temperatures.

As you wish. We disagree.
 
When you go as far back as 440 million years ago, what do we really know about that period? Not enough to make such conclusions.
I went back that far because the statistical analysis Jack Hays posted claimed that there was "evidence" of a nearby supernovae in the last 500 million years. Yet provided no actual observed evidence, just statistical probability. With regard to what we know of that period, quite a bit actually. From the rocks in the Karoo desert in South Africa, to the rocks in England and Scotland. There are lots of places with 440 million year old rock to sample.

However, we do know the last 400,000 years or so to be a bit more geologically stable. Ice cores we see that show both temperature and CO2 levels have a clear correlation that CO2 follows SST by around 800 years.
We've been in an ice-age for the last 2.58 million years, and I've heard the myth about atmospheric CO2 levels trialing temperatures by 800 years (or 400 years, depending on which study you read). In these cases it is the increase in surface temperatures driving the increase in CO2, not the other way around. Otherwise we would be seeing the reverse, with CO2 levels rising first followed by an increase in temperature centuries later. But that is not what we see.

I'm also not interested in your infantile remedial lesson in the carbon cycle.
 
[h=2]New Study Shows Southeast Asia Climatic Variability Over Past Two Millennia, Likely Solar Driven – Deflate CO2 As Main Driver[/h]By P Gosselin on 17. August 2019
Amazing: A proxy study of Laos finds natural variability in hydrometeorology, a little Ice Age, and other substantial climate changes in the pre-greenhouse gas era.
Who would have thought! (sarcasm)
Hat-tip: NTZ reader Mary Brown.

University of California Irvine researcher Jessica Wang and her team of researchers find plenty of natural climate variability in Southeast Asia over the past 2000 years and a positive correlation with solar activity. Photo credit: Jessica K. Wang.​
In a recently published paper published by a team lead by Jessica Wang of the Department of Earth System Science, University of California Irvine titled: “Hydroclimatic variability in Southeast Asia over the past two millennia,” in the journal of Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Wang et al found good evidence of a positive correlation with solar activity since 1200 CE, “contrary to the findings in previous studies”.

Wang is developing high-resolution and precisely dated stalagmite stable isotope records (of C and O) to evaluate past hydroclimate variability. She and her team of researchers compare the new records with regional tree-ring records and stalagmite records from the broader Asian monsoon region to better understand regional hydroclimate dynamics.
The researchers use global climate model simulations to better understand the role external forcings (i.e., solar activity) have on precipitation variability over the last two millennia.
[h=2]What follows is the paper’s abstract:[/h]
The spatiotemporal variability of the Asian Monsoon (AM) over the last two millennia has been attributed to a combination of external solar and volcanic forcing and/or internal coupled atmosphere-ocean dynamics, but the relative importance of these mechanisms remains unresolved. The present knowledge of multidecadal to centennial-scale AM variability over Mainland Southeast Asia is not well-constrained, despite substantial progress in understanding seasonal to decadal variability from tree ring records. Here we present the first high-resolution stable isotope (δ13C and δ18O) speleothem record from northern Laos spanning the Common Era (∼50 BCE to 1880 CE). The δ13C record reveals substantial centennial-scale fluctuations primarily driven by local water balance. Notably, the driest period at our site occurred from ∼1280 to 1430 CE, during the time of the Angkor droughts, supporting previous findings that this megadrought likely impacted much of Mainland Southeast Asia. In contrast, variations in stalagmite δ18O reflect changes in rainfall upstream from our study site. Interestingly, the δ18O record exhibits a positive correlation with solar activity that persists after 1200 CE, contrary to the findings in previous studies. Solar-forced climate model simulations reveal that these δ18O variations may be driven by solar-forced changes in upstream rainout over the tropical Indian Ocean, which modify the δ18O of moisture transported to our study site without necessarily affecting local rainfall amount. We conclude that future rainfall changes in Mainland Southeast Asia are likely to be superimposed on multidecadal to centennial-scale variations in background climate driven primarily by internal climate variability, whereas solar forcing may impact upstream rainout over the Indian Ocean.”
Yet another paper showing that climate variability was common over the past 2000 years without added CO2 from man.
[h=3]Confirmed by 100s of studies[/h]Alarmists may wish to dismiss these findings, but Wang’s results are in line with those of hundreds of other studies.
 
[h=3]20TH CENTURY GLOBAL WARMING - "THERE IS NOTHING NEW UNDER THE SUN" - PART I[/h][FONT=&quot]... at all whether hurricane activity should in fact increase under warmer conditions (Note that under a warmer Earth, hurricane activity ... glaciers: Recent areal extent from satellite data and newinterpretation of observed 20 th century retreat rates”, Geophys. Res. ...
[/FONT]
 
[h=3]20TH CENTURY GLOBAL WARMING - "THERE IS NOTHING NEW UNDER THE SUN" - PART II[/h][FONT=&quot]... Herschel looked for indirect proxies. He compared the price of wheat in the London wheat exchange to the solar activity as ... rings. It is a proxy of solar activity since a more active sun has a stronger solar wind which reduces the flux of cosmic rays reaching ...
[/FONT]
 
[h=3]20TH CENTURY GLOBAL WARMING - "THERE IS NOTHING NEW UNDER THE SUN" - PART III[/h][FONT="]... is that of liquid water. However, if the water vapor has nothing to condense upon, it will not do so. In fact, under very clean ... is reduced. Less ions reduce the efficiency with which new cloud condensation nuclei can grow, especially over the oceans, such that ...
[/FONT]

Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

Another excellent article! I can actually understand the point being made, and that's great, since I don't believe a one degree change in worldwide weather is something that should bother anyone! It was also interesting to read the quote at the end of the article attributed to King Solomon, --- who was basically stating "that what has been will be again, and what has been done would be done again since there is nothing new under the sun." Since he lived over 2000 years ago, should we be expected to believe what is being touted as "news" today by those with an agenda, especially since the sun is resting? :thumbdown:
 
Last edited:
Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

Another excellent article! I can actually understand the point being made, and that's great, since I don't believe a one degree change in worldwide weather is something that should bother anyone! It was also interesting to read the quote at the end of the article attributed to King Solomon, --- who was basically stating "that what has been will be again, and what has been done would be done again since there is nothing new under the sun." Since he lived over 2000 years ago, should we be expected to believe what is being touted as "news" today by those with an agenda, especially since the sun is resting? :thumbdown:

Greetings, Polgara.:2wave:

Glad you liked it. Shaviv has a knack for clear expression.
 
Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

Another excellent article! I can actually understand the point being made, and that's great, since I don't believe a one degree change in worldwide weather is something that should bother anyone! It was also interesting to read the quote at the end of the article attributed to King Solomon, --- who was basically stating "that what has been will be again, and what has been done would be done again since there is nothing new under the sun." Since he lived over 2000 years ago, should we be expected to believe what is being touted as "news" today by those with an agenda, especially since the sun is resting? :thumbdown:

I bet annuity salesman love you.
 
Always useful to see charts with no axes labels.

So helpful.

The titles say "number of active regions per month." Isn't it self explanatory?

Seems pretty easy to me.

Want me to interpret, and lie to you, like you pundits do?
 
The titles say "number of active regions per month." Isn't it self explanatory?

Seems pretty easy to me.

Want me to interpret, and lie to you, like you pundits do?

Oh. Active regions.

Wow. That’s super useful. [emoji849]
 
Back
Top Bottom