What's going on with the Sun?

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
...
What's going on with the Sun?
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/46387

"Earlier this month a lot of column inches were devoted to the news that
the Sun continues to behave in a peculiar manner – and that solar activity
could be about to enter a period of extended calm. The story emerged after
three groups of researchers presented independent studies at the annual
meeting of the Solar Physics Division of the American Astronomical
Society, which appear to support this theory. But are the new findings
really that clear-cut and what implications do they have for the climate
here on Earth?

"Finally, even if the Sun were to head into a quiet period, others argue
that the reduction in solar irradiance on Earth would still be small
compared with the heating caused by man-made global warming. Mike
Lockwood, a researcher at the University of Reading, estimates that the
change in climate radiative forcing since the Maunder minimum is about one
tenth of the change caused by man-made trace greenhouse gases".

They are only looking at the current solar cycle. There could be other
cycles unknown because their periods might be thousands of years, and one of
those cycles could be causing heating here on this planet. I don't see how
anyone can say for certain that global warming exists because of man since
truly accurate records have only been kept for the last couple of hundred
years. It's like trying to sample a very small diced sized piece of
something that was originally the size of the sun and saying that the dice's
composition resembles the larger object. Now if you had 100 small samples,
then you might get closer to the larger object's actual composition. The
same as if you had 100 reliable record kept climatology periods of earth's
history, from different time periods of over say several million years, you
then might be able to make predictions about future climate, but basing
findings on one period only (the last 100- 200 years), makes for
inconclusive findings and therefore a weak example of the scientific method.


See: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/46387

The_Doubter:
They are only looking at the current solar cycle. There could be other
cycles unknown because their periods might be thousands of years

Such cycles would leave a record in ancient vegetation, ancient ice,
and other markers. Those studying climate change have hundreds of
thousands of years of data to support their conclusions.

and one of
those cycles could be causing heating here on this planet. I don't see how
anyone can say for certain that global warming exists because of man since
truly accurate records have only been kept for the last couple of hundred
years.

Wrong. See above. And see exhibits at http://tinyurl.com/temp-history
for a 600,000 year record of temperature and atmospheric gases. Could
it be a coincidence that unprecedented changes took place
coincidentally with the unprecedented increase in the burning of fossil
fuels that began immediately after World War II and that continues to
this day? Yes. Is it a coincidence? No, because we're not ignorant, and
if there were another cause for global warming we would know it by now.

...over say several million years, you
then might be able to make predictions about future climate, but basing
findings on one period only (the last 100- 200 years), makes for
inconclusive findings and therefore a weak example of the scientific method.

600,000 years of data is sufficient to give a reliable picture of what
is happening.

Science deniers have opposed fluoridation of drinking water,
vaccination against disease, and every other scientific advance that
does not fit your ideology.

No matter. We have answered the question "Is the earth getting warmer?"
and have moved on to "can we do anything about it, should we do
anything about it," that sort of question. History always leaves
bewildered and dejected ideologues in its dust.

Davoud

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

"Davoud" wrote in message
...
The_Doubter:
They are only looking at the current solar cycle. There could be other
cycles unknown because their periods might be thousands of years

Such cycles would leave a record in ancient vegetation, ancient ice,
and other markers. Those studying climate change have hundreds of
thousands of years of data to support their conclusions.

I knew someone would say that, but what if you don't believe the methods
they use to study climate changes in such mediums? It is quite possible
that the methods being used are inaccurate and I don't see any evidence to
convince me otherwise.


and one of
those cycles could be causing heating here on this planet. I don't see
how
anyone can say for certain that global warming exists because of man
since
truly accurate records have only been kept for the last couple of hundred
years.

Wrong. See above. And see exhibits at http://tinyurl.com/temp-history
for a 600,000 year record of temperature and atmospheric gases. Could
it be a coincidence that unprecedented changes took place
coincidentally with the unprecedented increase in the burning of fossil
fuels that began immediately after World War II and that continues to
this day? Yes. Is it a coincidence? No, because we're not ignorant, and
if there were another cause for global warming we would know it by now.

Well, that's what "they" keep saying about the age and size of the universe,
that we would know it by now, but we still don't.

...over say several million years, you
then might be able to make predictions about future climate, but basing
findings on one period only (the last 100- 200 years), makes for
inconclusive findings and therefore a weak example of the scientific
method.

600,000 years of data is sufficient to give a reliable picture of what
is happening.

Not in my book. The jury is still out. Show me that this data has better
than 95% accuracy and then I'll start believing.

Science deniers have opposed fluoridation of drinking water,
vaccination against disease, and every other scientific advance that
does not fit your ideology.

Funny you label me in the "your" category when I never mentioned these other
things as they are not the topic of discussion here. In fact, come to think
of it, neither is global warming.

No matter. We have answered the question "Is the earth getting warmer?"
and have moved on to "can we do anything about it, should we do
anything about it," that sort of question. History always leaves
bewildered and dejected ideologues in its dust.

Well, if caused by man, the sun, or both, what can "we" do? Even if one
country stopped burning fossil fuels, there's a zillion others out there
that won't, so that won't stop the problem. Even if all emissions were
stopped today, how long would it take to have any effect on climate?
Hundreds, thousands, millions of years? And then only to find out that it
wouldn't have made a difference anyway.

Davoud

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything
that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

In article ,
The_Doubter wrote:

"Davoud" wrote in message
...
The_Doubter:
They are only looking at the current solar cycle. There could be other
cycles unknown because their periods might be thousands of years

Such cycles would leave a record in ancient vegetation, ancient ice,
and other markers. Those studying climate change have hundreds of
thousands of years of data to support their conclusions.

I knew someone would say that, but what if you don't believe the methods
they use to study climate changes in such mediums? It is quite possible
that the methods being used are inaccurate and I don't see any evidence to
convince me otherwise.

What such evidence would you accept?

The ice-core data is a difficult experiment, but not a complicated one
.... it snows more in some seasons than others, so you get annual rings
in the ice which you can count to see how far down you can get.
H2{18}O evaporates slower at a given temperature than H2{16}O does, so
the ratio of oxygen isotopes tells you the sea-surface temperature.

Tom

In article ,
Thomas Womack wrote:

The ice-core data is a difficult experiment, but not a complicated one
... it snows more in some seasons than others, so you get annual rings
in the ice which you can count to see how far down you can get.
H2{18}O evaporates slower at a given temperature than H2{16}O does, so
the ratio of oxygen isotopes tells you the sea-surface temperature.


I've always wondered, if there were long stretches of unusually warm
weather, warm enough to melt a number of layers of ice, then the record
of the warm years would not exist, right? Only the years cold enough
that the previous years' snowfall did not melt would be preserved. That
would seem to bias the record towards a cooler than actual past.

On Fri, 1 Jul 2011 07:48:42 -0400, "The_Doubter"
wrote:

They are only looking at the current solar cycle. There could be other
cycles unknown because their periods might be thousands of years, and one of
those cycles could be causing heating here on this planet.

There very likely are longer cycles of solar output. But they are not
responsible for the current warming trend.

I don't see how
anyone can say for certain that global warming exists because of man since
truly accurate records have only been kept for the last couple of hundred
years.

We have accurate temperatures through proxies for much longer. But the
real point is that we don't see evidence of any significant change in
solar output over the last 150 years where we've experienced warming.
What we do see, however, is a large and accurately measured increase
in anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere over that time, and an
associated temperature rise as predicted by theory.

What reason is there to believe that a short term, rapid rise in
global temperature is caused by changes in the Sun, which is not
supported by any evidence, as opposed to that temperature rise being
caused by changes in the atmosphere, which is supported by multiple
lines of evidence?

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 1 Jul 2011 07:48:42 -0400, "The_Doubter"
wrote:

They are only looking at the current solar cycle. There could be other
cycles unknown because their periods might be thousands of years, and one
of
those cycles could be causing heating here on this planet.

There very likely are longer cycles of solar output. But they are not
responsible for the current warming trend.

In your opinion of course, but I don't see any evidence supporting this
statement.

I don't see how
anyone can say for certain that global warming exists because of man since
truly accurate records have only been kept for the last couple of hundred
years.

We have accurate temperatures through proxies for much longer. But the
real point is that we don't see evidence of any significant change in
solar output over the last 150 years where we've experienced warming.
What we do see, however, is a large and accurately measured increase
in anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere over that time, and an
associated temperature rise as predicted by theory.

How do you know for certain that there aren't changes in solar output? Do
we detect and measure every parameter of the sun? Maybe there's a good
chance "we" could be missing something.

What reason is there to believe that a short term, rapid rise in
global temperature is caused by changes in the Sun, which is not
supported by any evidence, as opposed to that temperature rise being
caused by changes in the atmosphere, which is supported by multiple
lines of evidence?

Because in the latter case, it's as I said before. We are looking at a
very, very small slice of time and it's impossible to make such predictions
based on such a small window of date. In the former case, the recent
irregularity of the sunspot cycle should tell us, at least in one aspect,
that the sun doesn't behave as predicted. Neither does/ will climate.

On Fri, 1 Jul 2011 12:52:24 -0400, "The_Doubter"
wrote:

In your opinion of course, but I don't see any evidence supporting this
statement.

It is my opinion because there is no evidence supporting the notion
that changes in solar output are responsible for global warming in the
last 150 years, but there is lots of evidence that other things have
produced that warming. There is also good evidence that the solar
output has not varied significantly in that period, outside of the
22-year cycle we are already familiar with.

How do you know for certain that there aren't changes in solar output? Do
we detect and measure every parameter of the sun? Maybe there's a good
chance "we" could be missing something.

I assume by "output" you are referring to some sort of energy in a
measurable range. If you means some sort of unknown rays or the like,
all bets are off in a scientific discussion.

We've been measuring output over a wide range of the spectrum with
satellites, balloons, and ground based instruments since the 1970s,
and no long term increase in energy output has been detected- despite
the fact that this period has seen the greatest increase in global
temperature. There are less precise ground based measurements going
back a few decades earlier, which also show no sign of any increase in
energy output. Finally, there are proxies (such as isotope records)
that go back thousands or even millions of years, and would probably
show any increase or decrease in solar output, even if determining
absolute levels would be difficult.


Because in the latter case, it's as I said before. We are looking at a
very, very small slice of time and it's impossible to make such predictions
based on such a small window of date.

Wrong. It is precisely because we are looking at climate over only
about a century that our models are so good, and we have high
confidence in what is driving climate on this scale. We have good
instrumental data for many climate variables over this period.

What is much more difficult is understanding climate over thousands or
millions of years, when there are many more factors (such as
volcanism, or the oceanic biota) which come into play- generally
resulting in large, but slow shifts in global climate.

On Jul 1, 1:51*pm, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 1 Jul 2011 12:52:24 -0400, "The_Doubter"

wrote:
In your opinion of course, but I don't see any evidence supporting this
statement.

It is my opinion because there is no evidence supporting the notion
that changes in solar output are responsible for global warming in the
last 150 years, but there is lots of evidence that other things have
produced that warming. There is also good evidence that the solar
output has not varied significantly in that period, outside of the
22-year cycle we are already familiar with.

How do you know for certain that there aren't changes in solar output? *Do
we detect and measure every parameter of the sun? *Maybe there's a good
chance "we" could be missing something.

I assume by "output" you are referring to some sort of energy in a
measurable range. If you means some sort of unknown rays or the like,
all bets are off in a scientific discussion.

We've been measuring output over a wide range of the spectrum with
satellites, balloons, and ground based instruments since the 1970s,
and no long term increase in energy output has been detected- despite
the fact that this period has seen the greatest increase in global
temperature. There are less precise ground based measurements going
back a few decades earlier, which also show no sign of any increase in
energy output. Finally, there are proxies (such as isotope records)
that go back thousands or even millions of years, and would probably
show any increase or decrease in solar output, even if determining
absolute levels would be difficult.

Because in the latter case, it's as I said before. *We are looking at a
very, very small slice of time and it's impossible to make such predictions
based on such a small window of date.

Wrong. It is precisely because we are looking at climate over only
about a century that our models are so good, and we have high
confidence in what is driving climate on this scale. We have good
instrumental data for many climate variables over this period.

What is much more difficult is understanding climate over thousands or
millions of years, when there are many more factors (such as
volcanism, or the oceanic biota) which come into play- generally
resulting in large, but slow shifts in global climate.

From 100+ million years BP, we're down to roughly 0.1% of global
diatom biota, if that counts for anything.

http://groups.google.com/group/googl...t/topics?hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/guth-usenet/topics?hl=en
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On 01/07/2011 17:52, The_Doubter wrote:

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 1 Jul 2011 07:48:42 -0400, "The_Doubter"
wrote:

They are only looking at the current solar cycle. There could be other
cycles unknown because their periods might be thousands of years, and
one of
those cycles could be causing heating here on this planet.

There very likely are longer cycles of solar output. But they are not
responsible for the current warming trend.

In your opinion of course, but I don't see any evidence supporting this
statement.


So you keep on saying.

You are 'The_Doubter', that's what you are. If you were
"The_Evidence_Examiner" you might be just a little bit more informed
about the evidence.

And then you might have an informed opinion.