[palmer]

Changes in Solar Brightness Too Weak to Explain Global Warming

[moneyrunner]

You may want to read that article a little more critically. Most of the data used is based on computer simulations. You can get any result you want in a computer simulation by modifying your inputs.

And how do the authors explain Mars warming?

[Enduring Freedom]

a red herring, and a disgusting attempt to cover tracks

it is not the sun's apparent 'brightness' that has changed, it is the sun's increased output of cosmic rays that has warmed our solar system

how such morons ignore that the earth moved from frozen glacial cover to warm balmy hothouse repeatedly over the millennia, all without man's help or the invention of the suv, is pure comedy

call these clowns out at every opportunity, and shut them down now

[johniegrad]

The new study looked at observations of solar brightness since 1978 and at indirect measures before then, in order to assess how sunspots and faculae affect the Sun’s brightness.

Thanks for your post. I stopped here however.

[cake_crumb]

Intellectually dishonest. Changing brightness ain't the only thing the sun is doing. Solar activity has been high since the last solar max in 2001. The sun has entered a period of increased solar activity including more sunsports and more powerful solar storms. It's a fusion engine, not a candle.

[mc5cents]

Too weak? It's all explained here: The Great Global Warming Swindle

[Prodigal Son]

The last paragraph of your article is most interesting:

Apart from solar brightness, more subtle influences on climate from cosmic rays or the Sun's ultraviolet radiation cannot be excluded, say the authors. However, these influences cannot be confirmed, they add, because physical models for such effects are still too poorly developed.

I doubt they will ever create a model that is complex enough to model the climate accurately. Simply too many factors. The climate itself is the only model that is currently running that shows the correct output data. We need only discover the question.

[randog]

“Our results imply that, over the past century, climate change due to human influences must far outweigh the effects of changes in the Sun's brightness,” says Wigley.

Which explains the drop in temperatures between 1945 and 1975, right? No human industrial activity then. Oh, wait--there were no SUV's back then...yeah, that's it...

[rickylc]

You, of course, realize that UCAR's existence depends on GW being a human caused event. That wouldn't color their conclusions, would it?

Yeah, right!

ha, wouldn't trust a thing these guys put out.

[Thickman]

According to the theories tested by skeptics regarding sunspot activity, these researchers were examining a different phenomena. In The Great Global Warming Swindle the British solar physicist was measuring effects other than brightness due to increased activity of the sun. Thus, the researchers in this article are comparing apples to oranges. The data used by the solar physicist tracked other affects that accurately predicted weather. The documentary took it a step further and showed how the effects he measured DID match historical temperatures on earth.

[pepperdog]

"The authors used a blend of seven recent reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere temperature over the past millennium to test the effects of long-term changes in brightness."

Excuse me? I may not be the brightest bulb on the tree, but I know a "wag" when I see one.

[Wuli]

You can tell the report "Changes in Solar Brightness Too Weak to Explain Global Warming" was not written by true scientists, because true solar scientists know that "brightness", the visible spectrum of energy, does not tell the whole energy story of the sun.

Nor does that conveniently left out fact reveal that every other spectrum of solar energy is received, and affects earth's atmosphere in some way.

One report in this forum today noted a recent NASA study indicating, based on Nile river system data, changes in the sun's ultraviolet output affecting warming/cooling cycles.

An earlier study has also demonstrated, in laboratory proofs, that increased ultraviolet radiation increases the formation of clouds. Water vapor held in clouds is a far greater contributor to warming than CO2. Studies of the past 30 years, worldwide, indicate fewer "sunny" days. More clouds, more cloud-held water vapor, more warming.

[jonrick46]

There is one effect of increased solar activity that is being ignored: As solar activity increases, cosmic radiation is blown away from the solar system. Such cosmic radiation is responsible for the production of clouds. The more cosmic radiation, the more cloud formation and cooler temperatures. The less cosmic radiation, the less cloud formation and warmer temperatures that also add to the increase in solar temperatures (as is being experienced by other planets in the solar system). When temperatures increase, there is more water vapor which increases the greenhouse phenomenon and ice melt off, which releases trapped methane gas (another green house gas with greater effects than CO2). Man's contribution is small compared to the other effects.

A study in the cloud rain cycle would reveal that less water is distilling out of the atmosphere in the form of precipitation. It is because of this phenomenon that the true culprit in green house warming has occurred.

[AFPhys]

A couple weeks ago, the whole problem with that "too weak" grew more a huge problem, in this exciting article: GLOBAL 'SUNSCREEN' HAS LIKELY THINNED, REPORT NASA SCIENTISTS

IF it is finally conceded by the global warming alarmists that aerosols have been blocking the sun in recent decades, and that masking of solar power is now not as important, that leaves a VERY HIGH correlation with the Sun (imagine that) as the major contributor to warming, with "greenhouse gasses" as minor factors. I strongly believe this to be the case, and believe that CO2, etc, contributes less than 20% of the 20th century warming. The sun vs. temp graphs had almost matched up before that, except for the last few decades, and it had been proposed that aerosols were the reason. Now, that is shown true. See, from this site http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/cause.html this graph:

Your article is out of date.

Now, the concept that the 0.2% increase in the solar irradiance having CAUSED the 0.2% of temperature increase on the earth over the last 150 years is gaining more and more recognition.

[MilleniumBug]

" Changes in Solar Brightness Too Weak to Explain Global Warming"

"Brightness
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Brightness is an attribute of visual perception in which a source appears to emit a given amount of light. In other words, brightness is the perception elicited by the luminance of a visual target. This is a subjective attribute/property of an object being observed.

"Brightness" was formerly" used as a synonym for the photometric term luminance and (incorrectly) for the radiometric term radiance. According to Federal Standard 1037C, "brightness" should now be used only for nonquantitative references to physiological sensations and perceptions of light."

The solar brightness is measured by the Gore Brightness Meter invented by Al Gore in his childhood one million years ago (or does he just seem that old?).

It's the solar non-brightness that'll kill you.