Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Global warming caused by sun?

  1. Oct 21, 2005 #1
    This paper has been stalled for almost a year and concequentely misses the latest climate reconstructions (Moberg etc) but finally somebody got the most brilliant and original idea:rolleyes: that the heating source itself may perhaps not be ruled out completely as a factor determining temperatures.

    Usoskin, J.G., M. Schuessler, S.K. Solanki and K. Mursula 2005, "Solar activity, cosmic rays, and Earth's temperature: a millennium-scale comparison", Journal of Geophysical Research v. 110 (10 p.).

    the draft is here

    You keep wondering why the news papers keep very quiet about this instead of shouting: "Global warming caused by sun!"
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2005
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 21, 2005 #2
    I am sure that the sun is part of the cause. Mars has been warming as well.

    There is an increase in solar output over the last 30 years.
  4. Oct 21, 2005 #3
    That makes sense, but I wouldve guessed the sun would be gradually cooling, even if the helium from the burned hydrogen undergoes nuclear fusion, it still wouldnt produce as much heat. So sooner or later, wouldnt this be the case and everything begin to cool?
  5. Oct 21, 2005 #4
    It doesn't seem to be that way. There is some understanding that the sun gets hotter:


    I take it -an observation of a lay person on this subject- that we are just about to begin exploring the reasons of the variation of the solar output and it's effect on climate.
  6. Oct 21, 2005 #5
    Either way, it's a a hilarious thread!

    Perhaps the Snowball Earth theory didn't require all the proofs they found to account for the total freeze and thaw. Perhaps the sun isn't as stable as we believe it to be.

    Sun worshippers from ancient times:
    "We gotta do something about this global warming thing...."
    "Ya think 10,000 sacrificed will do?"
    "Couldn't hurt to give it a try"
  7. Oct 21, 2005 #6

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Statements like this effectively discredit you as a source.


    And I got my ideas from scientific reports many years before that, and only recently has the concensus begun to lean heavily.
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2005
  8. Oct 21, 2005 #7


    User Avatar

    Well, if you were going to look at it at a scale of billions of years you would be correct. However this is a scale of less than a thousand years, and there would certainly be variations in heat and light production.
  9. Oct 21, 2005 #8
    Statements like this reveal that you do not recognise irony :uhh:
    as the real global warmers frantically oppose any suggestion that the sun could have more than say 0,00000000001% effect on the climate.

    And a nice ad hominem: he seems to be making a mistake so from now on he and all his references are definitely unreliable.
  10. Oct 23, 2005 #9
    Well, we have to move on and discussing this study in another area, including one of the authors I pointed toward other areas where extreme 14C spikes where registred concurrent with violent climate changes, notably the onset of the Younger Dryas 12,800 years ago.

    That same 14C spike screwed up the carbon dating, leading to massive misinterpretations about the Younger Dryas. Anyway, ironically enough although seemingly ignorant :grumpy: of the abundance of solar studies that I studied on a daily basis, I happened to know about this completely forgotten study that co-dates with that 14C spike.


    Incidentely Rick Firestone is still on this project and making nice progress.

    One of the discussion members was excited about this find indicating it's importance for many more studies and showed appreciation, asking for more. This is what I answered him:

    To bad you hate me, I.S. otherwise we could have interesting discussions about this.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  11. Oct 24, 2005 #10
    More solar news. This paper is sitting, awaiting publication.

    [URL [Broken] sensitivity of Earth to solar irradiance: update,
    DH Douglass, D Clader, RS Knox[/url]

    Quite rebellious. Since the IPCC is preaching the opposite. And of course delta warming that can be attributed to the sun, cannot be attributed to greenhouse gas forcing.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  12. Oct 24, 2005 #11
  13. Oct 25, 2005 #12
  14. Oct 25, 2005 #13
  15. Jan 3, 2006 #14
    Extraction of oil from the earth

    I wonder if the trillions of barrels of oil removed from the earth has had
    some affect on global warming.

    If you reduce the amount of oil in your car, the water temperature in
    the radiator rises.

    I realize that the oil in your car's main purpose is to reduce friction, but
    if you were to place a cup of water on top of a sealed oil filled radiator,
    and reduce the amount of oil(leaving the radiotors temperature guage
    constant), the temperature of the water would increase.

    Big earth, small amount of oil, but we are talking about only a difference
    in global temperature of a few degrees.
  16. Jan 3, 2006 #15
    Yes! I saw the results out of DUKE U.

    This study did get minimal media attention however, the Big G Countries or whatever they call themselves, seem to grab a lot more attention with the KOYOTA Agreement (whatever).

    In the end the whole "Global Warming" greenhouse myth is helping humans move away from fossil fuels... not that you'd notice... its just starting... that's all... its the idea that has the potential to free us from the sinking supertanker of oil dependence.

    The accurate name for a warming caused by the Sun's fluxuation is

    "Solar System Warming".

    Just wait till she's a red giant:surprised
  17. Jan 3, 2006 #16
    Kyoto is based on flawed science but it forces the nations to take drastic measures that have the wrong objective of reducing CO2 emission.

    Reducing the dependence on mineral/fosil fuels, to avoid something like peak oil, is a completely different objective and should be addressed seperately.

    For instance, the search for renewables in areas where there is almost nothing to renew, is more or less mandatory for Kyoto but could (will) be highly counter productive. But this can be totally different in other areas. Avoiding peak oil could also include considering oceanic/permafrost clathrate as (interim) fuel source which would be near useless for Kyoto.

    Moreover, the same fear - scaremongering positive feedback loops which are so popular these days, also tends to prevent nuclear solutions.

    Fear is a bad advisor. The point is that clear and concise objective gives the chance to head for the most optimal solution for a sustained human society in harmony with nature.

    And when it finally will be clear that global warming is specious pseudoscience, perhaps invented and entertained by some scientists with the sole objective to get into the limelight, become rich&famous, secure more research funding but at the expense of incredible amounts, spent for nothing; where would that leave science?

    Whether or not reduction of fossil fuel use is paramount, it should not be based on a lie. In the end that will do more damage than there is benifit from moving away from fossil fuels.
  18. Jan 4, 2006 #17
    Point taken Andre!

    In the mean time, what does the little petre dish of humanity do about a warming sun? More solar cells to run giant AC machines?

    Hydrogen fuel cell technology can pick up where oil left off as long as we tap free energy to generate the hydrogen (solar energy from an increasing source!). An H fueling station would cost the entreprener 250,000 dollars to set up. It could produce hydrogen on site through any of the 500 chemical processes that create hydrogen. There is a scenario where you can plug your HFC driven vehicle into the power grid and actually feed it... resulting in a monthly payment from the power administration. (Dream on QC).
  19. Jan 5, 2006 #18


    User Avatar

    Yeah what's all the fuss about? :approve: A few species that couldn't adapt quick enough (if it was too quick) would die, but c'mon species die like everyday. We don't even know how many species there are, or how many are affected by a say... three degree increase in average yearly temperature.
  20. Jan 21, 2006 #19
    Sun's increase not significant to climate change

    Reading further in the article one will find the authors do not link the solar trend to climate change.

    "The new study shows that the total solar irradiance has increased by about 0.1 percent over 24 years. That is not enough to cause notable climate change, Willson and his colleagues say"

    For comparison, a .1 percent change in solar radiation is equivalent to a
    15 ppm change in CO2, but CO2 has already increased by 95ppm and it's pace is increasing. Thus, the sun's trend is insignificant compared with greenhouse gas increase.
  21. Jan 22, 2006 #20
    So let’s try to calculate the effect of that increase of 280 to 375 ppm (and doubling too) CO2 using David Archers : http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/cgimodels/radiation.html [Broken].

    To do that we need to look up from ground surface to see the increase of radiation flux (W/m2). So we do two runs as function of pCO2 sensor looking up at 0 km in the 1976 US standard atmosphere. We also use constant Relative Humidity to imply water vapor feedback. leaving the other parameters on the default. A pre-industrial pCO2 of 280 ppmv gives us an output of 257.323 W/m2, the current 375 gives 258.673 the double value 560 ppmv yields 260,526. hence the current and doubling CO2 gives an increase of greenhouse effect / radiation flux of respectively 1.35 and 3.2 W/m2.

    Now let’s get Stefan Boltzman’s law out:
    http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~kushnir/MPA-ENVP/Climate/lectures/energy/Greenhouse_Effect.html [Broken]

    expression 5: (sorry latex seems inoperative for me somehow)

    G = σTe^4 = (1-A) S / 4

    We can rewrite that as

    Te= ( (1-A) S / 4σ)^¼

    Substituting A (albedo) = 0,3 and S (solar flux) = 1367.6 and σ=5.67E-8 we get the well known black body temperature 254.9 K or -18C.
    Since the average temperature is supposed to be 288K or 15,0C we increase the pure flux with Greenhouse flux (G), assuming albedo is zero for IR flux, and hence adjusting the relationship as

    Te= ( G/σ + (1-A) S / 4σ) ¼

    Now, to get the 288K, 15.00 C degrees we see that we have to give G the value of 150.75 W/m2. So what would the new temperature be when we add those 1,35 and 3,2 W/m2 (G=152.1 and 153.95) for the current value, 375 ppmv and doubling CO2 from 280 to 560 ppmv?

    The answers are 15.25C and 15.59C..

    Hence the temperature increase due to the increase of CO2 is 0.25C degrees so far and it would get to 0.59C whenever we would be able to double the CO2 value.

    Edit for wrong numbers
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook