PDA

View Full Version : Solar Study Cool on Global Warming Claim


bejohnson
11-18-2005, 09:00 AM
Solar Study Cool on Global Warming Claim (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/17/124801.shtml)


Thursday, Nov. 17, 2005 12:43 a.m. EST

Another study has cast doubt on the global warming theory.

Recognizing that the Earth’s climate has been changing since the pre-industrial era, physicist A. Kilcik and his colleagues set out to determine if there is a link between variations in solar activity and changes in the earth’s temperatures, John McCaslin reports in the Washington Times’ Inside the Beltway column.

They compared surface air temperature variations in the U.S. and Japan from 1900 to 1995.

"Our results indicate marked influence of solar-activity variations on the earth’s climate,” the researchers reported in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics.

Writes McCaslin: "Which might help explain other historic climate changes, from the ‘Medieval Warm Period’ from the 12th century through the 14th century, to the ‘Little Ice Age’ from the latter half of the 17th century into the early 18th century.

"President Bush may have been correct not to rush his signature onto the Kyoto Protocol treaty on climate change.”

From the research paper:

18 November, 2005

SOLAR INFLUENCE OF CLIMATE CHANGE MORE SIGNIFICANT THAN THOUGHT

(From Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics: "Regional sun-climate interaction" (http://users.bigpond.net.au/jonjayray/green.html) by A. Kilcik. In press, 2005.)

Abstract:

It is a clear fact that the Earth's climate has been changing since the pre-industrial era, especially during the last three decades. This change is generally attributed to three main factors: greenhouse gases (GHGs), aerosols, and solar activity changes. However, these factors are not all-independent. Furthermore, contributions of the above-mentioned factors are still disputed. We sought whether a parallelism between the solar activity variations and the changes in the Earth's climate can be established. For this, we compared the solar irradiance model data reconstructed by J. Lean to surface air temperature variations of two countries: USA and Japan. Comparison was carried out in two categories: correlations and periodicities. We utilized data from a total of 60 stations, 18 in USA and 42 in Japan. USA data range from 1900 to 1995, while Japan data range from 1900 to 1990. Our analyses yielded a 42 per cent correlation for USA and a 79 per cent for Japan between the temperature and solar irradiance. Moreover, both data sets showed similar periodicities. Hence, our results indicate marked influence of solar activity variations on the Earth's climate.

1. Introduction:

It is known that the solar radiation output changes periodically and also that it affects the Earth and near-space environment in various ways, such as the formation of aurora, adverse effects on satellites and communications, etc. Considering the historical evolution of climate changes on Earth, the cold period lasting from the second half of the 17th century to the beginning of the 18th century (1645-1715) is called Little Ice Age, and the corresponding period of practically no activity on the solar surface, Maunder Minimum. Contrary to this, the positive "Medieval Warm Period" (12th-14th centuries) appears to be less distinct; evidence, mostly from Western Europe, did not suggest that this was a global phenomenon (Mann et al., 1999). During this period, temperatures had been about 0.2 øC warmer than compared to 15th-19th centuries, but rather below those of mid-20th century (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2001). This might have arisen from higher solar activity, as claimed by Eddy (1976).

The Earth climate system has shown irregular changes during the second half of the 20th century, especially for the last three decades. Interest to this subject is therefore continuously increasing. Since the climate system depends on many parameters, such as evaporation, wind, pressure, rainfall, temperature, etc., climate change phenomenon is a very complex problem and the contribution of each parameter to this change is not clear. This change is generally attributed by many scientists including Hegerl et al. (1997) and Lean and Rind (1996) to the increasing concentration of greenhouse gases (GSGs) and aerosols in the atmosphere due to human activity. Among others, Santer et al. (1996), and Wigley et al. (1997) claim that solar forcing and anthropogenic forcing together are enough to explain overall warming trend. Another point due to Crowley (2000) is that the Earth climate system would have been controlled by the Sun before the pre-industrial era, but later anthropogenic effects began to dominate.

To show the Sun-climate connection, many indicators have been used in the literature. For the Sun, these are sunspot numbers (Chambers, 1878), sunspot areas (Nordo, 1955; Dixey, 1924), sunspot decay rates (Hoyt, 1979), solar rotation rates (Sakurai, 1977), solar cycle lengths (Friis-Christensen and Lassen, 1991), geomagnetic aa indices (Cliver and Boriakoff, 1998), solar irradiance changes (Pap, 2002; Floyd et al., 2002; Douglass et al., 2004), solar radius through solar irradiance (Rozelot, 2001), long-term solar activity data obtained from 14C, and 10Be isotope concentrations (Beer et al., 1988). These data sets are compared with climatic parameters such as surface temperature, rainfall, lake level, and air pressure. Amongst these, "temperature is the most commonly, and presumably the most accurately, measured parameter" (Hoyt and Schatten, 1997). Some of these solar activity data sets have shown good agreement with climate parameters, such as the length of the solar cycle and geomagnetic aa index.

2. Data and reduction:

We considered the solar irradiance as a reliable indicator of solar activity. However, observational solar irradiance data exist only since 1978. Hence, solar irradiance data acquired from the World Data Center (WDC) were compared to the data of Ca plage areas and sunspot areas (acquired from National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC)) which are indications of solar chromosphere and photosphere, respectively. Besides, we used surface temperature data acquired from the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) for analyses. We selected the temperature data according to the following criteria: presence of a minimum of 10 stations on selected regions and availability of uninterrupted monthly temperature data from these stations. Since USA and Japan have better long-term instrumental temperature data than most of the other countries, we used only these two countries' temperature data sets, the temperature being a climate indicator. In this study, temperature data sets covering the period 1900-1990 for Japan and 1900-1995 for USA were selected. These time interval selections are based on the coverage of both pre-industrial and fast-industrial growth era witnessed in these periods (Wiscombe, 1995; Tett et al., 1999). Monthly temperature data were used to obtain the annual mean values for each station. Station averages were then used to obtain the country-wide temperature data for each country. To satisfy equality of station heights and surface areas for both countries, data from only 18 stations of USA and 42 stations of Japan have been used in this study (see Fig. 1). Station heights vary between 3 and 497 m for USA and between 2 and 611 m for Japan.

[...]

5. Conclusion:

We know that a great deal of effort has been put to determine the effects of solar variability on the Earth's climate, and that, to explain the effects of all relevant factors in climate change, one needs to consider a model on a scale of decades to centuries. For the time being, proposed models are not yet of sufficient accuracy to permit any verification (Rozelot, 2001). This study is more a "heuristic" guide to the determination of the principal factors controlling our climate system. We obtained different correlation coefficients between temperatures and solar irradiance depending on the region considered, although we obtained almost identical periodicities for all data sets. Despite the fact that we only used the three-step running average smoothing technique, we obtained a fairly high correlation. On the other hand, our results suggest that atmospheric aerosols have more dominant effect on the Earth's climate than GHGs. Moreover, the existence of similar periodicities for all data sets point out that periodicities in the solar activity manifest themselves in periodic variations on the Earth's surface temperature with almost identical periods. However, prominence of this influence is suppressed by increasing concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere.

maud'ib
11-18-2005, 09:16 AM
So the point of these is what exactly? Since we all know that you will never post any third party article unless it contains some message you want to convey to us, how about clarifying your position.

Are you trying to say by posting this that it is perfectly OK for us to continue polluting and abusing the planet in which we live? Maybe we may not have to pay the ultimate price for it, but our kids and our grandkids will. But since it is their problem its OK for us to go right on abusing our habitat.

Denial won't make it go away.

bejohnson
11-18-2005, 09:38 AM
So the point of these is what exactly? Since we all know that you will never post any third party article unless it contains some message you want to convey to us, how about clarifying your position.

Are you trying to say by posting this that it is perfectly OK for us to continue polluting and abusing the planet in which we live? Maybe we may not have to pay the ultimate price for it, but our kids and our grandkids will. But since it is their problem its OK for us to go right on abusing our habitat.

Denial won't make it go away.

As I stated in the Mars thread, my opinion is that we are panicking when we need to be taking logical and well thought out steps in moving to more environmentally friendly methods of energy production and usage. Actions done in haste are invariably flawed. To correct the problem we need to understand it and the mechanics of the cause and effect of the global climate change. It's very possible that we may not be able to change the trend of global warming to the degree that many people want. Global warming may just be inevitable.

Does that mean we ignore the effect that we have on the environment? No it does not but we need to make the decisions for changing our environmental impact in such a way that economic and physical hardships on the population are avoided.

Maro
11-18-2005, 04:31 PM
The thing is, we never know your opinion at first as you never post any comments until someone bites.

It's called Fishing in other forums. :Thumb

Bobenis
11-18-2005, 04:58 PM
Yup...you know it has become so old. It is as boring and tiring as watching Matlock.

bejohnson
11-18-2005, 05:34 PM
I posted that same opinion in the Mars thread several days ago (14 Nov. and 15 Nov.) It's not my fault that not one of you three can remember what I posted in the other thread. To restate the same opinion here is redundant.

This thread was posted to make more information available to anyone that is interested in the subject. I do not have to have an opinion on everything when I post. I just might still be evaluating the data.

Everyone of y'all seem not to be able to discuss the points that are presented in a thread. All y'all can do is take jabs at me. Such action just shows a lack of maturity and indicates to me that none of y'all feel comfortable discussing the topic with anyone that might have a valid opinion that is at odds with your own. I've seen this behaviour way too many times to hope that any of you can actually discuss a complex topic with any semblance of intelligence.

Bobenis
11-18-2005, 06:18 PM
So why not post this similar discussion to further your opinion in the other thread within that same thread? Just put it in the same relevant thread if we are all supposed to tie this in with your opinion in that other thread. Makes sense right? :Wink

It has nothing to do with you being smarter than us. It is the practical thing to do, keep posting in the other relevant thread, continue it. If we are to constantly assume each others opinion due to some sort of trend, then why bother posting at all anymore here or anywhere for that matter.

Maro
11-18-2005, 07:35 PM
Indeed, why post another thread?

We're not trying to be difficult but posting huge tracts of text with no comments preceding or following it is annoying.

In fora it's usual to post a paragraph of quotes, the link and then comment.

that's all :Thumb

maud'ib
11-18-2005, 07:44 PM
The thing is, we never know your opinion at first as you never post any comments until someone bites.

It's called Fishing in other forums. :Thumb

Exactly! Excellent analogy Maro :thumb I was looking for a term that fit this practice and here is just the thing.

http://embroideryjustforyou.com//media/wl0290.jpg

Good one!

It is a common practice where a minority of member feels it necessary to be the local Internet news reporting service without putting their comments along with the article (i.e. why they feel it is important). That in itself is not such a bad thing, but sadly just like any news service (which btw these same people claim to hate with a passion), you only see the news in the context of that person's viewpoint.

The fishing aspect comes when some those same fisher folk don't post their own views along with that so-called news but immediately defend their view of that article when anyone has the audacity to post something negative about it. Unlike the Internet Troll that posts a thread calculated for the express purpose of inciting inflammatory reactions or outright a flame wars, the person doing the fishing truly wants to be involved with with discussion and will defend their views virgorously after feeling the waters first. Kind of akin to not putting your family jewels on the chopping block until you see who is holding the cleaver. Does that sound a little um ... timid ... to you? It sure does to me.

Note that Rodney also usually posts news without personal comments. But to his credit however he very seldom posts an opinion one way or the other on the threads such as this that he raises. He does not immediately pounce on people who have any negative comments about that article which gets him off fishing 'hook' (sorry 'bout that - just couldn't resist).

Maro
11-18-2005, 07:50 PM
Also it's Rodney's Forum so he is "Off the Hook" as it were (terrible pun I know!). :rofl2

I have 19" monitor and it's irritating to have to sroll through 2-3 screens of Text to find there is no comment.

I'm not Bashing here but pointing out differences I encounter on the many Fora I post in.

:Thumb

wazman
11-18-2005, 10:11 PM
I've seen this behaviour way too many times to hope that any of you can actually discuss a complex topic with any semblance of intelligence.

Then why try?

Other than to insinuate that we're stupid, of course, which is what I believe you did in that sentence.

T-shirt
11-19-2005, 02:37 AM
As I stated in the Mars thread, my opinion is that we are panicking when we need to be taking logical and well thought out steps in moving to more environmentally friendly methods of energy production and usage. Actions done in haste are invariably flawed. To correct the problem we need to understand it and the mechanics of the cause and effect of the global climate change. It's very possible that we may not be able to change the trend of global warming to the degree that many people want. Global warming may just be inevitable.

Does that mean we ignore the effect that we have on the environment? No it does not but we need to make the decisions for changing our environmental impact in such a way that economic and physical hardships on the population are avoided.

Their is no doubt, that both natural cycles and human activity are causing global warming.
the fact that both are in sync at this time IS acelerating climate change at a rate far too fast for flora and fauna to adapt to, so mass extiction of many species is likely.
The truth is the planet will surive, and some forms of life will thrive under the new conditions, mankind may just not be one of them in the long run.

egarrard
11-19-2005, 03:03 PM
Their is no doubt, that both natural cycles and human activity are causing global warming.
the fact that both are in sync at this time IS acelerating climate change at a rate far too fast for flora and fauna to adapt to, so mass extiction of many species is likely.
The truth is the planet will surive, and some forms of life will thrive under the new conditions, mankind may just not be one of them in the long run.We all die eventually anyway. Just look at "global warming" as Unintelligent Design if you wish. Religion is religion. :smokin

maud'ib
11-19-2005, 05:31 PM
We all die eventually anyway. Just look at "global warming" as Unintelligent Design if you wish. Religion is religion. :smokin

:What the ???? :What the ???? :What the

egarrard
11-19-2005, 08:18 PM
:What the ???? :What the ???? :What theThe Religion of Global Warming.

wazman
11-19-2005, 08:24 PM
The Religion of Global Warming.

I wanna get in on that. I wanna be tax exempt.