backtop


Print 148 comment(s) - last by pvandyke.. on Jun 16 at 5:52 PM


Past studies have shown that sunspot numbers correspond to warming or cooling trends. The twentieth century has featured heightened activity, indicating a warming trend.  (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Solar activity has shown a major spike in the twentieth century, corresponding to global warming. This cyclic variation was acknowledged by a recent NASA study, which reviewed a great deal of past climate data.  (Source: Wikimedia Commons)
Report indicates solar cycle has been impacting Earth since the Industrial Revolution

Some researchers believe that the solar cycle influences global climate changes.  They attribute recent warming trends to cyclic variation.  Skeptics, though, argue that there's little hard evidence of a solar hand in recent climate changes.

Now, a new research report from a surprising source may help to lay this skepticism to rest.  A study from
NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland looking at climate data over the past century has concluded that solar variation has made a significant impact on the Earth's climate.  The report concludes that evidence for climate changes based on solar radiation can be traced back as far as the Industrial Revolution.

Past research has shown that the sun goes through eleven year cycles.  At the cycle's peak, solar activity occurring near sunspots is particularly intense, basking the Earth in solar heat.  According to Robert Cahalan, a climatologist at the Goddard Space Flight Center, "Right now, we are in between major ice ages, in a period that has been called the Holocene."

Thomas Woods, solar scientist at the University of Colorado in Boulder concludes, "The fluctuations in the solar cycle impacts Earth's global temperature by about 0.1 degree Celsius, slightly hotter during solar maximum and cooler during solar minimum.  The sun is currently at its minimum, and the next solar maximum is expected in 2012."

According to the study, during periods of solar quiet, 1,361 watts per square meter of solar energy reaches Earth's outermost atmosphere.  Periods of more intense activity brought 1.4 watts per square meter (0.1 percent) more energy.

While the NASA study acknowledged the sun's influence on warming and cooling patterns, it then went badly off the tracks.  Ignoring its own evidence, it returned to an argument that man had replaced the sun as the cause current warming patterns.  Like many studies, this conclusion was based less on hard data and more on questionable correlations and inaccurate modeling techniques.

The inconvertible fact, here is that even NASA's own study acknowledges that solar variation has caused climate change in the past.  And even the study's members, mostly ardent supports of AGW theory, acknowledge that the sun may play a significant role in future climate changes.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Math???
By JasonMick (blog) on 6/4/2009 11:59:02 AM , Rating: 1
One year doesn't prove anything. The general trend is that the earth is warming, like it or not, Mike.

Just because solar activity increased in the twentieth century doesn't mean that it increased enough to transform 0.1 degrees into 0.5 degrees.

Also, regardless of this ongoing study you use, there's been numerous studies by NASA in the last year taking the opposite stance:
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/asian_fi...
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/ozone_re...
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/warming_...
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/arctic_t...

To name just a few...


RE: Math???
By mandrews on 6/4/2009 12:06:51 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
One year doesn't prove anything. The general trend is that the earth is warming, like it or not, Mike.


But it does showcase a major flaw in AGW logic.

quote:

Also, regardless of this ongoing study you use, there's been numerous studies by NASA in the last year taking the opposite stance:


Come now, Jason, you and I both know that Goddard is notorious for publishing erroneous data and alarmist reports about disastrous affects of warming. Those reports you reference are largely bunk and tenuous conclusions.

Perhaps you should review the GISS's track record:
http://www.dailytech.com/Deja+Vu+All+Over+Again+Bl...
http://www.dailytech.com/Update+NASA+James+Hansen+...
http://www.dailytech.com/Blogger+Finds+Y2K+Bug+in+...


RE: Math???
By rs1 on 6/4/2009 3:17:38 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
But it does showcase a major flaw in AGW logic.


What are you talking about? Unless you're saying that "AGW logic" asserts that "humans are the only factor contributing to global warming", then the fact that solar activity accounts for minor fluctuations from one year to the next doesn't showcase a flaw in anything.

But yes, if there are really people out there who think that the warming trend is caused *only* by people, then they are being no more intelligent than the ones who would assert that global warming is caused *only* by changes in the solar cycle, or *only* by the will of god, or whatever. There are many factors all in play at the same time, and the fact that one thing influences global warming doesn't mean that other things don't, as well.


RE: Math???
By croc on 6/4/2009 9:15:03 PM , Rating: 2
"Come now, Jason, you and I both know that Goddard is notorious for publishing erroneous data and alarmist reports about disastrous affects of warming. Those reports you reference are largely bunk and tenuous conclusions."

Jason cites reports from Goddard. You pooh-pooh those reports, yet publish ANOTHER report from Goddard? What makes this report less 'bunk and tenous' than the previous? Is it the fact that YOU blogged on it?

Michael, you can call a leopard an elephant if you want, but you can't change it's spots.


RE: Math???
By tallcool1 on 6/4/2009 12:20:13 PM , Rating: 2
This would be a good topic for Michael Asher, I have not seen a post from him in a long time, what is his status?


RE: Math???
By deanx0r on 6/4/2009 12:43:28 PM , Rating: 3
I think that's him right here. He has the same writing style in blogs, articles or posts as Asher.


RE: Math???
By randomly on 6/4/2009 12:59:31 PM , Rating: 2
I miss Asher. He was always good for a reality check against bandwagon reporting and sensationalism. DailyTech has gotten too bland and one sided without him.


RE: Math???
By reader1 on 6/4/09, Rating: 0
RE: Math???
By slunkius on 6/5/2009 5:40:55 AM , Rating: 2
yeah, and how about his promise to "eat crow":
quote:
Better than that-- if a year goes by, and my predictions have turned out false, I'll eat crow and post a lengthy reversal

anybody seed him do that? or is his disappearance somehow connected to this?


RE: Math???
By BBeltrami on 6/4/2009 2:33:01 PM , Rating: 2
After the George Will fiasco in January? Federal witness and relocation program.


RE: Math???
By karkas on 6/5/09, Rating: 0
RE: Math???
By tastyratz on 6/4/2009 12:33:51 PM , Rating: 5
And chicken little is the mascott.

Just as there are articles for warming there are ones for cooling.
http://www.dailytech.com/Sea+Ice+Growing+at+Fastes...
http://www.dailytech.com/Arctic+Sees+Massive+Gain+...
even here.

Humans need to stop being so self important and think we matter enough to cause it. Every time I fart I don't release enough methane to kill a square foot of crops in Ethiopia, so I don't have to hold it.

The earth has done this for millions of years before us and will continue to do so for millions of years after were gone. We aren't a drop in the toilet for global warming and we cant do a damn thing about it.

Ground level pollutants will kill us long before we ever die from man induced "global warming"


RE: Math???
By knutjb on 6/5/09, Rating: 0
"We’re Apple. We don’t wear suits. We don’t even own suits." -- Apple CEO Steve Jobs

Related Articles
















botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki