Got a counter to" The Suns heating up causing Global Waming?

[FogerRox]

In what could be the simplest explanation for one component of global warming, a new study shows the Sun's radiation has increased by .05 percent per decade since the late 1970s.

The increase would only be significant to Earth's climate if it has been going on for a century or more, said study leader Richard Willson, a Columbia University researcher also affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

The Sun's increasing output has only been monitored with precision since satellite technology allowed necessary observations. Willson is not sure if the trend extends further back in time, but other studies suggest it does.

"This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change," Willson said.

In a NASA-funded study recently published in Geophysical Research Letters, Willson and his colleagues speculate on the possible history of the trend based on data collected in the pre-satellite era.

"Solar activity has apparently been going upward for a century or more," Willson told SPACE.com today.



http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html

[Atman]

1. "Then we should send Bush's science team to the sun to investigate."

Works for me.

[Webster Green]

2. Yeah, as long as he puts on his codpiece and flies the thing...

"Mission Accomplished!"

[Crunchy Frog]

5. The team will be landing at night

so they don't get burned. :D

[soothsayer]

3. I thought the whole solar system was heating up

Or was it the whole galaxy?

[benburch]

4. The effect is too small to explain the changes we are seeing.

That is the counter argument.

[tabasco]

6. More reason to avoid exacerbating the situation.

If the global average temp goes up 2 degress or so - we are all dead.

Just because there are other possible causes doesn't mean we should just say fuckinay.

Simple concept but probably over the head of anybody identifying themselves as republicans.

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

13. exactly..

an economy driven by fossil fuels isn't viable for the long term anyway

[FogerRox]

7. tell me something I dont know

I was really hoping for something with more substance, this is the Science forum..............


"In what could be the simplest explanation for one component of global warming, a new study shows the Sun's radiation has increased by .05 percent per decade since the late 1970s."

by .05 percent is the key to me, how much of that is hitting the Earth, very little.

[Odin2005]

8. You need changes of at least a few % to cause climate changes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovich_cycles

.05% doesn't change squat.

[Bill McBlueState]

9. but

If the Sun's total energy output goes up by 0.05%, the amount reaching Earth also goes up by 0.05%.

[Bill McBlueState]

10. global warming is linked to human CO2 production

Studies show that global temperatures are linked to atmospheric CO2 (the greenhouse effect). Atmospheric CO2 has gone way up since the industrial revolution, which means temperatures are increasing as well. That's the logic that shows human activity is at least partly responsible for global warming.

If the sun's output is increasing as well, it only makes a bad situation worse.

[Bill McBlueState]

11. I'm not sure how this is an argument against policy change

Various knuckledraggers will say, "Oh, the sun's warming up. It's not our fault, then! Let's burn more fossil fuels!"

I think progressives are more likely to say, "With the solar output increasing, we need to be even more vigilant about keeping manmade greenhouse gasses out of the atmosphere."

So I think this finding is actually a reason to be even more concerned about our impact on the planet.

[rman]

12. Moreover, it doesn't change anything about the effects of global warming

Forget stopping it, whether it's in whole or in part man-made or not.

If it continues - and there isn't much reason to expect that it won't - coastal areas will flood, so it's either mass evacuations or drown for many of the current population centers. Current agricultural areas will become unusable, and other areas will become fertile (hopefully).

In all likelihood there are going to be changes to our living environment on a scale unprecedented in modern history, and ignoring it isn't going to help.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

14. carbon dioxide absorbs infrared light.

Period.

[qazplm]

15. I'd say the response is that it kills the argument

that "man couldnt do this alone" because, if true, he isnt doing it alone, and if the sun is getting warmer ANYTHING that we do to warm the planet could have a magnified effect.

[electron_blue]

16. Sure. It doesn't matter why it's going up. It's going up. We should do

everything we can to NOT MAKE IT WORSE.

[seasat]

17. Here's a few links to data that disproves that hypothesis.

A lot of the contrarians use the argument that an increase in either directly measured Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) or solar activity is the cause for the current warming trend. Their tactic is to pull out one research article that supports this case and ignore the bulk of research that refutes it. The problem with their position is that TSI may have actually decreased, if it increased the best estimates are that it only accounts for 30% of the current warming trend, solar cycles don't correlate with the global temperature anomaly, and an increase in TSI doesn't explain the warming of the troposphere while the stratosphere is cooling.

Here is a link to the NASA temperature anomaly (LINK). Last year was the highest global mean temperature on record. 1998 was an unusual year because of the strong El Nino but 4 of the 5 top years have been since 2001 (LINK). This is important graphic when compared to TSI or solar activity.

TSI is difficult to measure to the accuracy needed to determine if there has been a significant increase. There were a number of satellites used to measure it above the atmosphere and each produced a different value even during overlapping periods (LINK). A number of researchers have tried to intercalibrate the satellite data to produce a time series. The results have been that TSI has slightly declined, stayed the same, or increased. A recent study showing an increase estimated that it accounted for 30% of the warming, but some researchers have disputed the method of this study (LINK). The ACRIM satellite data according to this compilation show a peak in TSI during 1980 so that TSI is similar to present (LINK go to ACRIM3composite_nnaa3 ). If you compare that to the GISS temperature anomaly data, you don't see a clear correlation. There are local maximum corresponding to the 80s peak but by their reasoning, we should now be at the same temperature as in 1980.

Sunspots are often correlated with all sorts of natural events because of their regular cycles. However, correlation does not equal causality. Solar activity does correlate with increases in TSI. Here is a graphic of solar activity http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml">(LINK First graph). If you compare it to the GISS temperature anomaly time series, it is hard to find a definite correlation except for local minimums and maximums in concert with increases in TSI. The article in the original post is from 2003 and was near the peak in solar activity. Their hypothesis doesn't explain the record set in 2005 when we are near the bottom of solar activity. This year is at the bottom of the 11 year solar cycle. By their reasoning we should be significantly cooler.

If there were a significant increase in TSI, we would expect the stratosphere to warm along with the surface and lower troposphere. Logically, if you have more solar radiation passing through the atmosphere, you'd have increases in temperature even in the upper portion. However, observations from both satellites and balloon measurements show that the lower troposphere is warming and the temperature decreases with atmospheric height. The upper stratosphere has either cooled or remained the same temperature.

Christy and Spencer, two scientists who processed Microwave Sounding Unit Data, had published a data set showing that the lower troposphere was not heating up. However it was found that their calculations had errors due to a failure to properly account for orbit height of the satellite (I mention them because their research is often quoted by the skeptics). They also published calculations showing that radiosonde data agreed with their MSU data. It was found that they had a sign error in their processing of the radiosonde data that resulted in their lower troposphere cooling during the day and heating during the night. They finally corrected their data and it shows that the lower troposphere is indeed warming and the stratosphere is cooling in agreement with all the other studies (LINK). This is in line with model predictions of greenhouse gases increasing insulation of the earth. It is not what you would expect all the warming was due to increased TSI. Some of the skeptics will claim that the statospheric cooling is completely due to ozone depletion. However, the ozone is recovering and ozone depletion only results in cooling of the lower stratosphere so that argument is false.

The hypothesis in the 2003 article in the original post was disproven. TSI increases may account for up to 30% of the warming trend but some recent studies have theorized that we may actually be undergoing a period of global dimming (at least prior to the 90s). This would mean that even if TSI did increase due to some unknown change in the sun or increased solar activity, the amount of radiation reaching the surface might actually be less. If we are receiving increased energy from the sun, it should mean that we need to do something more about greenhouse gas emissions now, instead of later. It will only increase the warming trend.

Edited because the bb code wanted to put the graphics on the page instead of links and these sites don't allow direct links to their graphics.