Sunspots, Solar Activity And Global Cooling?

Finally, I think this is the first time I've come across an article on ABC , part of the "mainstream media", questioning the too-widely-held assumption that man's activities are responsible for global warming and/or climate change. A change in the amount of solar energy received by the Earth has always been the logical explanation for climate change. Here is more evidence pointing toward the sun.

A real inconvenient truth is global cooling could be harder to deal with than the global warming scare that has been hammered into us for decades. Stay tuned.
Peter


A QUIET SUN DOESN'T HAPPEN OVERNIGHT

Written by Charles Osgood, The Osgood File
Tuesday, 21 April 2009
I know you've already got a lot to worry about as it is, but something rather odd is going on --- on the Sun.
The Sun normally undergoes an 11-year cycle of activity --- and last year, it was supposed to have heated up --- and, at its peak, would have a tumultuous boiling atmosphere, spitting out flares and huge chunks of super-hot gas.

Instead, it hit a 50-year low in solar wind pressure, a 55-year low in radio emissions, and a 100-year low in sunspot activity. Right now, the sun is the dimmest it's been in nearly a century.
Did you know that? It's true. Astronomers are baffled by it, but has the press covered the story? Hardly at all. Is the government doing anything about it? No, it's not even in the Obama budget or any Congressional earmarks.

But, sooner or later, I bet it will turn out to be our fault --- yours and mine. And in Washington, where everything is political, they'll note that it began before President Obama took office --- perhaps "another example of the failed policies of the Bush Administration."
At an upcoming meeting of astronomers in the United Kingdom, they'll be studying new pictures of the Sun taken from space, looking for any hint that the Sun will start heating up again and acting up again, the way it's supposed to. But there is no sign of that, so far.

In the mid-17th Century, there was a quiet spell on the Sun --- known as the Maunder Minimum --- which lasted 70 years, and led to a mini-Ice Age here on Earth.
Right now, global warming is a given to so many, it raises the question: Could another minimum activity period on the Sun counteract, in any way, the effects of global warming?

Hush, child! You're not even supposed to suggest that. The only thing that can change global warming is if we human beings --- we Americans, especially --- completely change our ways and our way of life.

I'm sure you'll be hearing more about this solar dimming business, now that the story is out. Remember, you heard it here first...

The Osgood File. Transcripts, podcasts, and Mp3's of all these programs can be found at theosgoodfile.com. I'm Charles Osgood on the CBS Radio Network.

It's The Sun That Causes Climate Change...

I've taken this from the following blog, (link highlighted below). Are variances in the energy received from the sun are responsible for climate change? It sure looks like it.
Peter


It’s the Sun, stupid

source: http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/category/politics/page/2/

The The United Nations’s IPCC Report comes out today so I thought I’d make a report too.

James Carville used to remind Clinton during the ‘92 campaign that “its the economy, stupid”.

I (and many others far smarter than I am) say that on the subject of Global Warming: “its the SUN, stupid”

Our earth is warmed by a gigantic nuclear fireball, millions of times the mass of earth and a mere 8.5 light-minutes away. One hundred and nine Earths would be required to fit across the Sun’s disk, and its interior could hold over 1.3 million Earths.

By the way, the sun has a total luminosity output of 386 YottaWatts thats 386,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 watts, but we only get a tiny portion of that.

You can’t just ignore that kind of power. Though it seems some prefer to, since it muddles the results they seek.

The total luminous energy output received by earth from the sun is 174 PETAWATTS (174,000,000,000,000,000) watts. Now lets just say the sun increases its output by 0.1% as its been measured to do. (And its gotten way more active this century.) That dumps an extra 174,000,000,000,000 watts into our atmosphere (174 trillion watts) 24/7.

Data source for graph: http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/solar_variability/lean2000_irradiance.txt

Note: In the graph above, the low flatline from 1645-1715 is the Maunder Minimum, a period of virtually no sunspots, where the historical reports from the northern hemisphere tell a story of dramatic climate change: harsh winters, cools summers, crop failures, famine and disease.

From the abstract referenced above: “Estimated increases since 1675 are 0.7%, 0.2% and 0.07% in broad ultraviolet, visible/near infrared and infrared spectral bands, with a total irradiance increase of 0.2%. “

So its not just 0.1 %, it is 0.2% which translates to a 348 TeraWatts global irradiance increase.

Now lets put 348 trillion watts into perspective:

Hurricanes: the heat energy released by a hurricanes category 1-5 equals about 50 to 200 trillion watts or about the same amount of energy released by exploding a 10-megaton nuclear bomb every 20 minutes.

Katrina, released about 200 trillion watts over its life cycle.

Now imagine double that amount of extra energy being added to earth’s atmosphere every second by small increases in the suns output that have been documented to exist. Thats what the increase in solar irradiance is doing. Since 1675, after the depths of the Maunder Minimum, we’ve seen an increase in solar irradiance of about 2.5 watts per square meter.

Climate modelers say that the extra CO2 equates to a forcing of about 2 watts per square meter, which totals about 1.12 Petawatt (1,120,000,000,000,000 watts). The problem is, they can’t always recreate that reliably between all of the different models out there, with the positive and negative feedback mechanisms, and other variables involved. There’s disagreement on the total contribution. A lot of it. Nonetheless they seem all to agree that CO2 makes some contribution, and thats likely true. But compared to the sun, I beleive it’s minimal.

Now lets look at us: 13.5 TeraWatts is the average total power consumption of the human world in 2001.

Do you think we could change the planets atmospheric energy balance with that if we squeezed all the power we made that year together and shot it into our atmosphere ?

Whats very clear though, when you look at history, and the graph above, is that our earths atmosphere and resulting climate is extremely sensitive to variations in solar output. The sweet center point seems to be about 1365 watts per square meter of irradiance…what we consider as “normal” climate. Take 1.5 watts/sq. meter away, and we get significant cooling, harsh winters, cool summers, and increases in ice and glaciers. Add 1.5 watts,/sq. meter and we get hotter summers, mild winters, and melting of ice and glaciers.

Now irradiance aside, as it’s only one component, there’s also the suns dynamic magnetic field and solar wind, which modulates earths magnetic field, which modulates the number of cosmic rays that enter our atmosphere, which modulates the number of clouds that form, hence changing the net surface irradiance. Plots of changes in the suns magnetic field line up very well with climate change.

There’s growing sentiment that CO2 theory may very well be a red herring.

Yeah, its the sun, stupid.

The Sun's Effect On Earth: Scientists "Clueless"

This article comes from the online science site called LiveScience. The article discusses the subject of "albedo", or the reflectivity of the Earth. At question is what percentage of the Sun's energy is reflected from the Earth back into space. Obviously this plays a large role in global warming, since the vast majority of the heat in the Earth's atmosphere comes from the Sun. To illustrate what albedo means, on a hot sunny day, feel the temperature difference between a black object and a white one. The black absorbs, the white reflects.

When it comes to the Earth, the unfortunate conclusion of this report is that scientists really have very little idea about how much energy the Earth reflects, how this can change, and how it all relates to global warming. I'm not saying this, prominent scientists are. When you consider how this and all the other variables affecting climate must be factored into computer climate models, it should make everyone highly skeptical of the accuracy about what is being predicted for our future.
Peter

The article and related information can be found here:
http://www.livescience.com/environment/050505_earth_bright.html

Scientists Clueless over Sun's Effect on Earth
By Robert Roy Britt, LiveScience Senior Writer
posted: 05 May 2005 02:01 pm ET
While researchers argue whether Earth is getting warmer and if humans are contributing, a heated debate over the global effect of sunlight boiled to the surface today. And in this debate there is little data to go on.

A confusing array of new and recent studies reveals that scientists know very little about how much sunlight is absorbed by Earth versus how much the planet reflects, how all this alters temperatures, and why any of it changes from one decade to the next. Determining Earth's reflectance is crucial to understanding climate change, scientists agree.

Brighter outlook?
Reports in the late 1980s found the amount of sunlight reaching the planet's surface had declined by 4 to 6 percent since 1960. Suddenly, around 1990, that appears to have reversed.
"When we looked at the more recent data, lo and behold, the trend went the other way," said Charles Long, senior scientist at the Department of Energy's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.

Long participated in one of two studies that uncovered this recent trend using satellite data and ground-based monitoring. Both studies are detailed in the May 6 issue of the journal Science.
Thing is, nobody knows what caused the apparent shift. Could be changes in cloud cover, they say, or maybe reduced effects of volcanic activity, or a reduction in pollutants. This lack of understanding runs deeper.

A third study in the journal this week, tackling a related aspect of all this, finds that Earth has reflected more sunlight back into space from 2000 to 2004 than in years prior. However, a similar investigation last year found just the opposite. A lack of data suggests it's impossible to know which study is right.

The bottom line, according to a group of experts not involved in any of these studies: Scientists don't know much about how sunlight interacts with our planet, and until they understand it, they can't accurately predict any possible effects of human activity on climate change.

Reflecting on the problem
The percentage of sunlight reflected by back into space by Earth is called albedo. The planet's albedo, around 30 percent, is governed by cloud cover and the quantity of atmospheric particles called aerosols.

Amazingly, one of the best techniques for measuring Earth's albedo is to watch the Moon, which acts like a giant mirror. Sunlight that reflects of Earth in turn reflects off the Moon and can be measured from here. The phenomenon, called earthshine, was first noted by Leonardo da Vinci.
Albedo is a crucial factor in any climate change equation. But it is one of Earth's least-understood properties, says Robert Charlson, a University of Washington atmospheric scientist. "If we don't understand the albedo-related effects," Charlson said today, "then we can't understand the effects of greenhouse gases."





Charlson's co-authors in the analysis paper are Francisco Valero at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography and John Seinfeld at the California Institute of Technology. Plans and missions designed to study the effects of clouds and aerosols have been delayed or cancelled, Charlson and his colleagues write.

To properly study albedo, scientists want to put a craft about 1 million miles out in space at a point were it would orbit the Sun while constantly monitoring Earth. The satellite, called Deep Space Climate Observatory, was once scheduled for launch from a space shuttle in 2000 but has never gotten off the ground. Two other Earth-orbiting satellites that would study the albedo have been built but don't have launch dates. And recent budget shifts at NASA and other agencies have meant some data that's available is not being analyzed, Charlson and his colleagues contend.

'Spurious argument'
While some scientists contend the global climate may not be warming or that there is no clear human contribution, most leading experts agree change is underway. Grasping the situation is crucial, because if the climate warms as many expect, seas could rise enough to swamp many coastal communities by the end of this century.

Charlson says scientists understand to within 10 percent the impact of human activity on the production of greenhouse gases, things like carbon dioxide and methane that act like blanket to trap heat and, in theory, contribute to global warming. Yet their grasp of the human impact on albedo could be off by as much as 100 percent, he fears.

One theory is that if humans pump out more aerosols, the small particles will work to reflect sunlight and offset global warming. Charlson calls that "a spurious argument, a red herring."
Greenhouse gases are at work trapping heat 24 hours a day, he notes, while sunlight reflection is only at work on the day side of the planet. Further, he said, greenhouse gases can stay in the atmosphere for centuries, while aerosols last only a week or so.

"There is no simplistic balance between these two effects," Charlson said. "It isn't heating versus cooling. It's scientific understanding versus not understanding."

The Sun and Its Role in Global Warming and Climate Change

This material is from the website of The Great Global Warming Swindle. See it here: http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.co.uk/thesun.html

Peter


The Sun
One of the most curious aspects of the global warming alarm is the persistent reluctance of some climate scientists to consider the role of the sun. The idea that variations in solar activity, observable in the form of sun spots, influence the earth’s climate has a long, important history, stretching back to the astronomers Maunder, Herschel and beyond. It would be surprising, surely, if the sun did not have a major influence on the earth’s climate (why is summer warmer than winter?).

Among those scientists who are actively exploring the solar-climate connection there are different views as to how the relationship between sun and earth is mediated. Names to look out for in research papers include Willie Soon, Sallie Balliunas, Eigil Friis-Christensen, Henrik Svensmark, Nir Shaviv and Jan Veizer. An excellent introduction to the topic is ‘The Manic Sun’ by Nigel Calder, who recently also wrote, with Henrik Svensmark, ‘The Chilling Stars’. Also worth looking at is Willie Soon’s short book on Edward Maunder.

Download and read PDF on Galactic Cosmic Rays and Climate by Charles A Perry from Science Direct
Click here to download
From The Sunday Times April 29, 2007 Climate change hits Mars Read More
Letters Nature Global warming and climate forcing by recent albedo changes on MarsRead More

Long range solar frorecast - Science@NASA
Read More

More Information:
"What do we really know about the Sun-climate connection", by E. Friis-Christensen and H. Svensmark, Adv. Space Res. Vol. 20, No4/5, pp. 913-921, 1997. read more

"Celestial Climate Driver: A Perspective from Four Billion Years of the Carbon Cycle" by Ján Veizer, Geoscience Canada, Volume 32, Vol. 1, pp. 13, March 2005 read more


"Variable Solar Irradiance as a Plausible Agent for Multidecadal Variations in the Arctic-wide Surface Air Temperature Record of the Past 130 Years" by Willie W.-H. Soon. GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 32, L16712, doi:10.1029/2005GL023429, 2005 read more
CERN - CLOUD Project read more

BBC article read more

New Scientist article: "Scientists Predict Solar Downturn, Global Cooling" New Scientist magazine, 16 Sep 2006read more

Global Warming Skeptics Are Coming Out in Force

I can sense a real battle brewing here, the gauntlet has been dropped, will Al Gore and the environmentalists turn tail and run? Let them show their cards and stop huffing and bluffing.

Here are some excerpts from Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla. regarding global warming. To see the entire article, go here:http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0307/3183.html
Peter


The Real Inconvenient Truth
By: Sen. Jim Inhofe March 20, 2007 01:16 PM EST
Senator James Inhofe, R-Okla., discusses energy legislation being debated on Capitol Hill, Wednesday, July 30, 2003. (AP Photo/Dennis Cook)

The New York Times -- nearly a year late -- is finally recognizing the scientific reality regarding fears of a man-made climate catastrophe. On March 13, a landmark article stated "scientists argue that some of (former Vice President Al) Gore's central points are exaggerated and erroneous."

It appears we are all skeptics now.

A separate U.N. report last year found that emissions (methane gas) from cows do more to drive global warming than C02 from cars.

An increasing number of government leaders and scientists are finally realizing that much of the motivation behind the climate scare has nothing to do with science.

Recently, prominent French scientist Claude Allegre recanted his belief in man-made catastrophic global warming and now says promotion of the idea is motivated by money. (This coming from a French Socialist, no less.)

New research by teams of international scientists is revealing that the sun has been a major driver of climate variability. Solar specialist Henrik Svensmark of the Danish National Space Center explained, "We have the highest solar activity we have had in at least 1,000 years."

The usual suspects will still insist that there is a "consensus" of scientists who agree with Gore. And yes, many governing boards and spokesmen of science institutions must toe the politically correct line of Gore-inspired science, but the rank-and-file scientists are now openly rebelling.

Just ask James Spann, a certified meteorologist with the American Meteorological Society. Spann, who has nearly 30 years of experience as a weather expert, said in January that he does "not know of a single TV meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype." In February, a panel of meteorologists expressed unanimous climate skepticism, and one panelist estimated that 95 percent of his profession rejects global warming fears.

Let me put this bluntly: Our political leaders in Washington are going to demand the American people make significant economic sacrifices by paying 4 percent more, 10 percent more or even higher for gasoline and home energy costs in order to "do something" to address the climate "crisis."

What do Americans get in return for this economic sacrifice?

They get real economic pain for no climate gain, and they get "solutions" that are purely symbolic. The American people may opt to shut down Washington, D.C., with a flood of phone calls, e-mails and faxes before they allow any of these "solutions" to become law.

Ironically, climate skeptics may owe Gore, Hollywood, liberal environmental groups and the mainstream media a big debt of gratitude. If it were not for the shrill, "sky is falling" rhetoric emitted by the elite jet-setters hyping this issue, the silent majority of scientific experts who reject alarmism might not have been stirred to action.

The real inconvenient truth is that global warming fearmongers have overplayed their hand and are now suffering a massive scientific and media backlash. America needs a rational science debate about climate variability. Achieving that goal now appears closer to reality.

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) is the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public