Global warming caused by sun?

  • Thread starter Andre
  • Start date
  • #26
755
0
Here's a quote and its source with regard to the thread topic!

Our Variable Star

The Sun appears to us as a steady brilliant light in the sky. Its temperature is nearly 6,000 deg.C and its radiation of light and heat across the vast distances of space weakens in proportion to the inverse square of that distance. By the time solar energy reaches the Earth, the radiation amounts to 1,368 watts per square metre (w/m2).

This figure is known by solar physicists as the "Solar Constant"

Q. - When is a constant not a constant?
A. - When it's the Solar Constant !

The solar `constant' is actually a variable. Contradictory as this may sound, it is only fairly recently that the radiation from the Sun has been proved to vary according to a highly predictable cycle. The variations so far observed from satellites are not much - a mere 0.2% change in mean radiation (or about 2 w/m2).

Extreme short-term variations have been recorded of up to 0.4%. The Sun, in effect, behaves more like a flickering candle, and has been accurately measured doing this by various satellites, including the ill-fated "Solar Max" satellite whose 9-year sample of solar radiation from 1980 to 1989 proved conclusively that the Sun was indeed a variable star.

("Solar Max" became a victim of the very thing it was meant to observe. It was placed in a low orbit just outside the Earth's atmosphere. This was its undoing, as the build-up of solar radiation in 1989, due to the approaching Solar Maximum, caused the outer atmosphere to heat up and expand, and capture the satellite. Solar Max was then slowed by friction and burned up in the atmosphere.)

Further evidence of the Sun's variability came from the Shanghai observatory of the Chinese Academy of Sciences in April 1990, when they reported that the Sun's radius had shrunk 410 kilometres from 1715 to 1987, based on solar eclipse studies. A shrinking sun since 1715 would result in a hotter solar temperature, and increased solar radiation, consistent with a warming of the Earth as claimed by the IPCC.
From: http://www.john-daly.com/solar.htm
 
  • #27
Mk
1,984
3
Hydrogen is generated by 500 different chemical processes. The energy to perform the processes can and does come from renewable sources... as in free... like solar power and bird-chopping wind power.
Free? Solar panels are quite expensive, in development and price to the consumer. Bird chopping windmills, I don't know how expensive those are, but I know they need to be away from people. People tend to think they are ugly, and they are very loud.
 
  • #29
755
0
Mk said:
Free? Solar panels are quite expensive, in development and price to the consumer. Bird chopping windmills, I don't know how expensive those are, but I know they need to be away from people. People tend to think they are ugly, and they are very loud.
Yeah, I mentioned bird chopping because it got a lot of press in another thread and there was discussion on what to do to minimize the loss of raptors and other birds to the chopping blades of the wind generators.

Basically the wind powered generators could be scented like cats or have recordings of natural predator's sounds or have motion sensitive, very bright lights attempting to scare the birds off. Or a big straw hat and and old coat stuffed with hay:surprised scary, eh?.

Yeah, they're noisy, too... but, it doesn't stop raptors hunting around them and getting chopped up.
 
  • #30
755
0
Mk said:
Nice graph. High correlation there. Everything is so ******* interconnected.:bugeye:

However, these charts and articles are only that... charts and articles... they make some sense but they also may only be the fiction bought and paid for by sunscreen, oil, gas and rubber manufacturing companies. Unchallenged belief in what you read is a disease of the mind that one can often observe in religious groups on the sunday telly.
 
Last edited:
  • #31
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,051
18
New paper published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society A:

Authors
Mike Lockwood (1, 2), Claus Fröhlich (3)

1 Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Chilton, Oxfordshire OX11 0QX, UK
2 Space Environment Physics Group, School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Southampton, Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK
3 Physikalisch–Meteorologisches Observatorium Davos, World Radiation Center, 7260 Davos Dorf, Switzerland

Abstract

There is considerable evidence for solar influence on the Earth's pre-industrial climate and the Sun may well have been a factor in post-industrial climate change in the first half of the last century. Here we show that over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the Earth's climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures.
"Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature", Mike Lockwood and Claus Fröhlich, Proc. R. Soc. A doi:10.1098/rspa.2007.1880 (2007)

http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/content/h844264320314105/[/URL]

Review of paper in Nature News: [URL]http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v448/n7149/full/448008a.html[/URL]

[quote]Nature 448, 8-9 (5 July 2007) | doi:10.1038/448008a; Published online 4 July 2007

[b]No solar hiding place for greenhouse sceptics[/b]

Quirin Schiermeier

A study has confirmed that there are no grounds to blame the Sun for recent global warming. The analysis shows that global warming since 1985 has been caused neither by an increase in solar radiation nor by a decrease in the flux of galactic cosmic rays (M. Lockwood and C. Fröhlich Proc. R. Soc. A doi:10.1098/rspa.2007.1880; 2007). Some researchers had suggested that the latter might influence global warming through an involvement in cloud formation.

...

Together with Claus Fröhlich of the World Radiation Center in Davos, Switzerland, Lockwood brought together solar data for the past 100 years. The two researchers averaged out the 11-year solar cycles and looked for correlation between solar variation and global mean temperatures. Solar activity peaked between 1985 and 1987. Since then, trends in solar irradiance, sunspot number and cosmic-ray intensity have all been in the opposite direction to that required to explain global warming.

In 1997, Henrik Svensmark, a physicist at the Danish National Space Center in Copenhagen, suggested that cosmic rays facilitate cloud formation by seeding the atmosphere with trails of ions that can help water droplets form (H. Svensmark and E. J. Friis-Christensen [i]J. Atmos. Solar-Terrest. Phys.[/i] [b]59[/b], 1225–1232; 1997). He proposed that, as a result of this, changes in the Sun's magnetic field that influence the flux of cosmic rays could affect Earth's climate. This led to claims that cosmic rays are the main influence on modern climate change.
[/quote]

Other news articles:

[PLAIN]http://environment.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn12234&feedId=online-news_rss20[/URL]

[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6290228.stm]BBC: Science/Nature [/url]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #32
ZapperZ
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
Insights Author
35,847
4,664
Global Warming Is Driven by Anthropogenic Emissions: A Time Series Analysis Approach

This paper has appeared in several news reports already, and I don't know if anyone has mentioned it in this forum. So if it hasn't, here it is.

Pablo F. Verdes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 048501 (2007).

Abstract: The solar influence on global climate is nonstationary. Processes such as the Schwabe and Gleissberg cycles of the Sun, or the many intrinsic atmospheric oscillation modes, yield a complex pattern of interaction with multiple time scales. In addition, emissions of greenhouse gases, aerosols, or volcanic dust perturb the dynamics of this coupled system to different and still uncertain extents. Here we show, using two independent driving force reconstruction techniques, that the combined effect of greenhouse gases and aerosol emissions has been the main external driver of global climate during the past decades.

Yes, it's a physics paper, written by a physicist. A press release can be viewed here.

Zz.
 
  • #33
Skyhunter
ZapperZ,

There is a lot of activity in regards to aerosols.

Here is a letter in Nature from Ramanathan. He is also a physicist with the Scripps Institute

Correspondence to: Veerabhadran Ramanathan1 Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to V.R. (Email: vramanathan@ucsd.edu).
Top of page

Atmospheric brown clouds are mostly the result of biomass burning and fossil fuel consumption1. They consist of a mixture of light-absorbing and light-scattering aerosols1 and therefore contribute to atmospheric solar heating and surface cooling. The sum of the two climate forcing terms—the net aerosol forcing effect—is thought to be negative and may have masked as much as half of the global warming attributed to the recent rapid rise in greenhouse gases2. There is, however, at least a fourfold uncertainty2 in the aerosol forcing effect. Atmospheric solar heating is a significant source of the uncertainty, because current estimates are largely derived from model studies. Here we use three lightweight unmanned aerial vehicles that were vertically stacked between 0.5 and 3 km over the polluted Indian Ocean. These unmanned aerial vehicles deployed miniaturized instruments measuring aerosol concentrations, soot amount and solar fluxes. During 18 flight missions the three unmanned aerial vehicles were flown with a horizontal separation of tens of metres or less and a temporal separation of less than ten seconds, which made it possible to measure the atmospheric solar heating rates directly. We found that atmospheric brown clouds enhanced lower atmospheric solar heating by about 50 per cent. Our general circulation model simulations, which take into account the recently observed widespread occurrence of vertically extended atmospheric brown clouds over the Indian Ocean and Asia3, suggest that atmospheric brown clouds contribute as much as the recent increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gases to regional lower atmospheric warming trends. We propose that the combined warming trend of 0.25 K per decade may be sufficient to account for the observed retreat of the Himalayan glaciers4, 5, 6.
 
  • #34
40
0
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?
Sorry but the 'habitable zone' is headed outward. Estimates are an increase of 40% in the last few billion yrs. It will continue and the oceans should boil off before we ever hit the red giant phase, where our current orbit will be inside the sun. This apparently will be in hundreds of millions of years and not billions of years when the oceans boil.
 
  • #35
100
0
I have read that Venus has unusually high surface temperatures. Does anyone know of any recent and or important discoveries, or research on Venus and the cause of its' high temperatures.
 
  • #36
40
0
I have read that Venus has unusually high surface temperatures. Does anyone know of any recent and or important discoveries, or research on Venus and the cause of its' high temperatures.
It's not exactly new but there's a number of reasons. It's much closer to the sun. It's not really rotating at any speed so the days are ridiculous. It's got an atmosphere with about 900+ PSI (versus our atmosphere's 14.7 PSI of pressure) of almost pure co2 like a giant ocean of pea soup thick gas, with virtually an earthlike atmosphere riding atop it kilometers above the surface and conditions not particularly different from earth way high above the co2 'ocean'. It's got what appears to be massive amounts of current or relatively recent volcanic activity and there are all sorts of highly reflective clouds (sulphur compounds etc). Also, there doesn't seem to be much water vapor there, at least not enough to form an ocean were it to cool off below boiling point. It's possible that the water once existed and later disassociated in the atmosphere and it's possible that it never existed there.

From what I understand, there's only a couple of photos from the surface done by a russian probe many years ago. It's pizza oven hot down there and otherwise it sort of ressembles some of the martian landscape. Exploring the surface is rather out of the question since our electronic technology isn't capable of surviving at that teemperature as it's just about hot enough to melt solder and cook transistors fairly quickly.

Whether venus ever ressembled earth as it exists now or whether earth ever ressembled venus now is a good question. Somewhere along the line, earth seems to have established chemical mechanisms to suck up all the massive amounts of co2 and stuff it into limestone etc. Later, life forms started doing similar things after they got started. If venus never had the oceans or water vapor, it may never have had the means to dispose of all the co2 that was there. Having no fairly short day like most planets, there would tend to be a significant heat build up on the daytime side so things wouldn't work very well even without the massive CO2 'ocean'
 

Related Threads on Global warming caused by sun?

  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • Last Post
8
Replies
184
Views
39K
  • Last Post
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
6K
  • Last Post
4
Replies
88
Views
15K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
8K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
66
Views
14K
Replies
2
Views
6K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
54
Views
10K
Top