Posted on 04/15/2009 12:50:52 AM PDT by neverdem
Harvard astrophysicist says recent cooler temps are a result of fewer sunspots
Sunspot activity may be a primary factor in climate fluctuations, according to Willie Soon, a researcher affiliated with the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and the Harvard College Observatory, who offered the hypothesis in an interview with TG Daily, an online news source.
Although many climatologists have cited increases in carbon dioxide as the primary cause of the temperature increases associated with global warming, Soon maintained that solar radiation from sunspots also has a great effect.
“The sun is a great driving force to climate change,” Soon said in an interview with The Crimson yesterday, adding that most observed climate data could be explained by fluctuations in solar radiation.
Sunspots—pockets of magnetism on the sun’s surface—generate high levels of energy, which then heat the Earth’s atmosphere.
Soon told TG Daily that the lack of additional energy resulting from a decrease in sunspots is directly responsible for colder temperatures experienced in recent years.
He said that, as of last week, there had been sunspots on only 11 days this year, and there were only 99 days with visible sunspots last year—the second-lowest total since 1911.
Brian F. Farrell, a Harvard meteorology professor, acknowledged a connection between sunspot activity and temperatures on the Earth, but cited other research showing that sunspots only account for an overall temperature change of a tenth of a degree centigrade.
Farrell did acknowledge that there could have been larger temperature effects caused by sunspots in the past.
“A strong correlation between the amount of radioactive carbon and temperature from ice cores has shown that solar activity can affect temperature,” Farrell said.
He cautioned that the link was “a hypothesis...[that] does not have firm scientific grounding.”
But Soon said that there have been much greater temperature fluctuations due to sunspots in the past and that proponents of global warming need to consider the effects of sunspot activity on global temperatures.
THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE!!!!!! The science is settled!!!!! The foundation of Global Warming Theory are Computer Models and they show sun spots do not have a significant impact. This is out and out blasphemy!!!!!!!!! This guy needs to be beheaded!
lol.
water is wet! film at 11
>>
Soon told TG Daily that the lack of additional energy resulting from a decrease in sunspots is directly responsible for colder temperatures experienced in recent years.<<
I’m not sure this is good news. he seems to be saying that the reason temperatures have not been higher has been because of a temporary low in sunspots - that doesn’t mean CO2 isn’t still a big a factor.
Wow, I wish I had gone to Harvard so I could be smart enough to figure that out!
there must be billions of SUVs on the Sun.
one of these days the Sun will fart a stream of particles of fry us crispy in our electricity powered pryus.
By themselves, sunspots don't prove or disprove the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis. But there are other things that do, such as the fact that changes in levels of carbon dioxide lag temperature changes by about 800 years, the fact that temperatures and levels of carbon dioxide have both been significantly higher than now over the last 10,000 years (and have been much higher than now over the past 300 million years,) and finally the fact that the contribution of carbon dioxide to greenhouse warming asymptotically approaches zero as its level increases—and we're way past the level where any change to the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide has any meaningful effect either way (it would take a massive reduction to levels way below any that have been seen for many millions of years to change that.)
I also liked that movie. I wont say what it was so as not to spoil the ending. As it in theatres now
I'd like to see why skepticism about a trace gas at 388 parts per million, IIRC, is supposed to elicit much concern, IHMO, when it has so many natural sinks.
That's EXACTLY what it means. If CO2 driven "greenhouse" warming were of the order of magnitude claimed by its zealots, the effect of the radiative changes in the sun would be of no cosequence to the earth's temperature, and global warming zealots would not be scrabling to cover their collective "assets."
And your gloss over of the fact of global COOLING (see your comment "the reason tempratures have not been higher") is pretty revealing as to your own personal agenda.
But, you are still good for a laugh from time to time.
There has been continuous scientific observations that the sun plays an important role in our climate posted in FRs. Our magnetic poles are in the process of switching, and the earth is going through a cooling if not heading toward another ice age. Which is worse global warming or global cooling ? What ticks me off is that the powers that be are aware of these scientific arguments.
There’s too much money involved in promoting alternate sources of energy and foreign oil sources via campaign contributions. We have tons of coal, bbls of oil and natural gas, as well as intellegent use of nuclear energy.
Yet our president is bowing before a foreign oil potentate and reportedly kissed his ring. Are these policies fostered by Obama payback for the millions of untraceable campaign contributions ? http://www.theusmat.com/
>>I’m not sure this is good news. he seems to be saying that the reason temperatures have not been higher has been because of a temporary low in sunspots - that doesn’t mean CO2 isn’t still a big a factor.
Its because thats so much higher than at any time humans have been on the earth and that temperatures are also at a peak and that there is good theoretical reasoning to think that CO2 causes warming. Plus a very strong correlation for 100,000 years +
>>That’s EXACTLY what it means. If CO2 driven “greenhouse” warming were of the order of magnitude claimed by its zealots, the effect of the radiative changes in the sun would be of no cosequence to the earth’s temperature, and global warming zealots would not be scrabling to cover their collective “assets.”<<
The temperature increase is only a few degrees per century - its not surprising a local minimum in solar flares could slow that rise for a while.
But the ultimate measure is sea level. Warming will be over when the seas start going down and that had not happened.
At this moment, I would like to make a paramount announcement: I have found—yes, FOUND the reason behind what some scientists term “global warming”...and here it is....
wait for it......
ALL THE DEMOCRATS AND OBAMA-ITES SCREAMING FOR MONEY!!!
:)
What's the data, how reliable is it and what's the rate of change?
Please explain this, it's not making sense to me. By the contribution are you talking about the temp change?, or the change in the derivative deltaT/concentration with an increase in concentration?
If you'd quote a source that would be great...considering that this can almost be treated as a colligative property in the atmosphere and i have trouble believing that the derivative would approach zero at such a low concentration. Especially because there are huge differences in the absorption between 70% concentration by moles and 80% concentration by moles in CO2....which is way beyond anything in the atmosphere by a factor of millions.
I paid my taxes today and I’m pissed off. I am a major contributer to Global Warming tonight.
None of this is true unless Al Gore has said it’s true and it’s part of his Power Point (or is it Key Note since he’s a Mac guy?) slide show.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.