Sun's Direct Role in Global Warming May Be Underestimated, Duke Physicists Report

[Richelieu]

The end is near!!!
Yet another sign of the apocalypse!!!

[BlackCat]

Thanks Some people has a nasty habit to throw in graphs without source to prove their beliefs. @ Odin.

Though, difficult to compare due to different scales.

[Dauphin]

They cover different measurement methods too. Anything before the 1800s is certainly not going to be direct or accurate measurements of global average temperatures. Hence the massive error bars (the light grey shading). I'm not sure how accurate indirect measurements of temperature are. I doubt they go down to 1/10ths of degrees.

That said, the trend in the last century is clear.

[Odin]

Originally posted by BlackCat
Nice pics - are they homebrew or do you have a source ?

The graph is the well know "hockey stick" graph. The image itself I got from another forum, but the same data can be found here on the image showing the temperatures of the last 2000 years, the darkest blue line.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Odin


The graph is the well know "hockey stick" graph. The image itself I got from another forum, but the same data can be found here on the image showing the temperatures of the last 2000 years, the darkest blue line.

Ohohh - that disappoints me - the hockey stick theory are under heavy fire. One thing is that it ignores known climatic changes in the last 1000 years, worse, there has been severe problems to reproduce the data - or rather, it has been a problem to get the data that was used to promote this theory.

[Ramo]

Nevertheless, several research groups used the combined satellite data to conclude that that there was no increased heating from the Sun to contribute to the global surface warming observed between 1980 and 2002, the authors wrote in their paper.

Lacking a standardized, uninterrupted data stream measuring any rising solar influence, those groups thus surmised that all global temperature increases measured during those years had to be caused by solar heat-trapping "greenhouse" gases such as carbon dioxide, introduced into Earth's atmosphere by human activities, their paper added.

But a 2003 study by a group headed by Columbia's Richard Willson, principal investigator of the ACRIM experiments, challenged the previous satellite interpretations of solar output. Willson and his colleagues concluded, rather that their analysis revealed a significant upward trend in average solar luminosity during the period.

What a horrible piece of "journalism." It doesn't explain what might have been wrong with the original several measurements for solar luminosity through sunspot data, and why this 2003 paper has to be accurate.

I wonder whether or not this trend is coorelated with other measurements for solar lumonisity. 'Cuz I seem to recall that solar neutrino collection has been rock stable for the past few decades. One of these dorks or the "journalist" should looked up SNOW's data.

Pah, I say.

[TCO]

1. So go read the GRL paper. You're at a uni. Bet you can get it for free.

2. WRT Odin's hockey stick:
a. the graphic is misleading in that the instrumental increase is added onto the proxy reconstruction and because of the scale of the graph and the noise, it is very hard to see that this was done.
b. the proxy reconstruction and the instrument diverge from each other after about 1980 (thus calling into question the validity of the proxies as proxies and thus the pre-instrumental values.
c. Various other criticisms have been made of the proxy method in the hockey stick on climateaudit.com
(1) Burger and Cubasch show that by varying methods in the statistics (they have a full factorial of 64 methods) wildly varying reconstructions are created...and Mann does not justify mathematically why his choice of methods is the best one...he tends to handwave a lot actually.
(2) Red noise fed into the MBH algorithm gives hockey sticks. The method mines.
(3) buncha other stuff...look on the site

[Ramo]

Pointless. SNO's data should clarify things, and should be a much more solid basis for this measurment than this sunspot horse feces anyhow.

[KrazyHorse]

SNOW, or SNO?

SNO is the sudbury neutrino observatory

SNOW is some swedish symposium on neutrinos, I think

edit: ah. you already fixed it

[Ramo]

Yep. I was wondering why googling snow and solar luminosity only gets you stuff about the climate...

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


No, they've looked at life from all sides now and still somehow clouds just get in the way.

[Mr. Harley]

Stranglove

I posted on this a year or two ago - they have been having some record solar activity recently. Remember, the solar storm that took out part of the North American Power grid? Plus most of the man-made global warming focus is on greenhouse gases and not incremental changes to the earth's albedo - replacing forests with crops and urban centers, desertification, etc. Plus it may turn out that domestic ruminants are causing a bigger problem than the CO2 emissions - but the world is not about to give up cattle, sheep, and goats. Also PH changes in the ocean due to human activity could be reducing it's ability to hold CO2 - there is a mix of ALOT of factors, and most of the models have been vary biased.

Note - I originally put "Earth's libido" when I wrote this. I really have to get more sleep.