GW: Solar Activity Correlate Better Than CO2

**Lovejoy** · December 12, 2008, 03:18 PM

(Don't know if this has been talked about)

Old (kind of), but interesting study about what the topic says.

Temperature vs CO2

Correlation: 0.44

Solar activity vs Temperature

Correlation 0.57

Temperature vs "Pacfic Decadal Oscillation" + "Atlantic cycle"

Correlation 0.83

source http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/01/2...tter-than-co2/

Many of you have prob seen this study before, maybe its been talked about here before (couldn't find anything).

But still! It is very intressting.

And more:

"The UN global warming conference currently underway in Poland is about to face a serious challenge from over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe who are criticizing the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore. Set for release this week, a newly updated U.S. Senate Minority Report features the dissenting voices of over 650 international scientists, many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN"

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6#

Thoughts?

**Sphere** · December 12, 2008, 03:37 PM

Greenhouse gases trap the heat produced due to solar radiation. A tight correlation between solar radiation and temperature is nothing unexpected. In fact a loose correlation would mean accumulation of greenhouse gases is harmless.

The trouble is that overtime, with an increased greenhouse effect, a higher percent of that solar energy will be trapped as heat, even if the total amount of radiation changes year to year. In effect the "zero" on the solar vs. temp graph will go from 24C to 26C or somthing like that.

This is the more concerning graph. Solar activity might swing temperatures one or two degrees year to year. CO2 seems to swing it 10's of degrees.

**Playfishpaste** · December 12, 2008, 03:37 PM

I can't contain how hilarious this is.

"Can't you see? It's not the plate tectonics that cause the earthquakes, it's the sudden acceleration of the earth due to erratic moon movements!"

**Lovejoy** · December 12, 2008, 04:14 PM

Sphere: when the earth get warmer the oceans release CO2. Thus the CO2 will follow the temperature. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...-in-ice-cores/

Playfishpaste: did you have something useful to add?

**Sebdeas** · December 12, 2008, 04:18 PM

Originally Posted by Lovejoy

Sphere: when the earth get warmer the oceans release CO2. Thus the CO2 will follow the temperature.

Playfishpaste: did you have something useful to add?

And how does the earth get warmer?

**Lovejoy** · December 12, 2008, 04:25 PM

Maybe you should read the first post again?

**Mythos** · December 17, 2008, 09:01 AM

Originally Posted by Lovejoy

Sphere: when the earth get warmer the oceans release CO2. Thus the CO2 will follow the temperature. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...-in-ice-cores/

Flash news. We are emitting billions of tons of CO2.

**Lovejoy** · December 17, 2008, 06:06 PM

"Flash news. We are emitting billions of tons of CO2."

Uhm... so? I am aware - but why did you quote that when you write that?

There's now proof our CO2 is the cause of this "warming" we have seen recently. (except some computer "simulation") On the opposite - this recent warming seem very natural - and fit what we would except from what we have learned about the sun and the Pacfic Decadal Oscillation + the Atlantic Cycle. :hmmm:

**Sphere** · December 12, 2008, 04:31 PM

Sphere: when the earth get warmer the oceans release CO2. Thus the CO2 will follow the temperature.

I will need more than your word on the matter. This is not my first day on the interweb.

**Playfishpaste** · December 12, 2008, 04:51 PM

You honestly think the sun getting more active is causing the increased climate levels on earth?

I don't need to be a meteorologist to call this completely hilarious. Read a basic physics textbook.

**Lovejoy** · December 12, 2008, 05:36 PM

Originally Posted by Playfishpaste

You honestly think the sun getting more active is causing the increased climate levels on earth?

I don't need to be a meteorologist to call this completely hilarious. Read a basic physics textbook.

Yes. And I posted a well researched paper to prove it. Much more than you ever did. If are going to continue to post your own fantasies - please leave the thread.

Sphere: Don't worry - I'll back up my claims. The link is coming tomorrow or maybe tonight!

kind of busy at the moment.

**Lovejoy** · December 12, 2008, 06:43 PM

Originally Posted by Sphere

I will need more than your word on the matter. This is not my first day on the interweb.

Not the source I was looking for...

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...-in-ice-cores/

but good enough.

**~~Ummon~~** · December 12, 2008, 04:56 PM

Sphere is absolutely right: no greenhouse without sun.

**Lucifer Sam** · December 12, 2008, 06:37 PM

i thought that the cause of global warming had been univerally accepted

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

**Playfishpaste** · December 12, 2008, 06:57 PM

The "paper" you reference is a blog, first off. Second, it makes use of the term "Co2 theory" which immediately tells me the writer hasn't studied climatology or fluid/thermodynamics in the least. Total Solar Irradiance is a measure of the amount of radiation the sun bombards the top of the thermosphere with, since this is really high, the thermosphere is called the thermosphere. At the same time, most of the radiation the sun gives off is in the visible light spectrum, which we are not interested in. We are interested in of course, infared radiation, of which very little actually makes it to earth to warm it and the amount that does is mostly absorbed by the world's oceans. The land surface that is heated in and of itself cannot produce the climates we have on earth, for this reason we require reradiation and reflection off of the other layers of the atmosphere. The amount of heat added by this reradiation is directly proportional to the reflective gases in the atmosphere. Water Vapor is the most popular one, and does the job quite well. The second most is Co2. These are the coefficients which produce the temparature variations in different areas of the world, along with ocean currents and salination. The sun itself has little to do with climate variation.

**Lovejoy** · December 12, 2008, 07:46 PM

Playfishpaste: No, you got it wrong. The blog is not the source - the link the blog provides is the source. (http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publicati...lonTermIII.pdf) the blog makes the source understandable to people who dont have the time to read a long paper..

"The sun itself has little to do with climate variation."
Yet I have been able to provided with scientific papers that says the opposite. You have not.

"Total Solar Irradiance is a measure of the amount of radiation the sun bombards the top of the thermosphere with, since this is really high, the thermosphere is called the thermosphere. At the same time, most of the radiation the sun gives off is in the visible light spectrum, which we are not interested in. We are interested in of course, infared radiation, of which very little actually makes it to earth to warm it and the amount that does is mostly absorbed by the world's oceans. The land surface that is heated in and of itself cannot produce the climates we have on earth, for this reason we require reradiation and reflection off of the other layers of the atmosphere. The amount of heat added by this reradiation is directly proportional to the reflective gases in the atmosphere. Water Vapor is the most popular one, and does the job quite well. The second most is Co2. These are the coefficients which produce the temparature variations in different areas of the world, along with ocean currents and salination."

And you wrote all this because....??? Do this in anyway disprove the theory that the sun is a major player on climate changes on earth? NO!

When are you gonna start to post sources for your claims?

**Playfishpaste** · December 12, 2008, 09:11 PM

Originally Posted by Lovejoy

Playfishpaste: No, you got it wrong. The blog is not the source - the link the blog provides is the source. (http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publicati...lonTermIII.pdf) the blog makes the source understandable to people who dont have the time to read a long paper..

"The sun itself has little to do with climate variation."
Yet I have been able to provided with scientific papers that says the opposite. You have not.

"Total Solar Irradiance is a measure of the amount of radiation the sun bombards the top of the thermosphere with, since this is really high, the thermosphere is called the thermosphere. At the same time, most of the radiation the sun gives off is in the visible light spectrum, which we are not interested in. We are interested in of course, infared radiation, of which very little actually makes it to earth to warm it and the amount that does is mostly absorbed by the world's oceans. The land surface that is heated in and of itself cannot produce the climates we have on earth, for this reason we require reradiation and reflection off of the other layers of the atmosphere. The amount of heat added by this reradiation is directly proportional to the reflective gases in the atmosphere. Water Vapor is the most popular one, and does the job quite well. The second most is Co2. These are the coefficients which produce the temparature variations in different areas of the world, along with ocean currents and salination."

And you wrote all this because....??? Do this in anyway disprove the theory that the sun is a major player on climate changes on earth? NO!

When are you gonna start to post sources for your claims?

That paper is about CO2 content within ice cores in antartica and has absolutely nothing to do with solar activity, the blog does nothing to make this source understandable, unless you gave me the completely wrong one.

I wrote all this to show you why you're wrong. My source is an entry level atmospheric science textbook (any of them, actually, but try Atmospheric science: an introductory survey, by Hobbs and Wallace, just for the extra goodies). Actually, I think even I high school textbook on Geology would talk about how the heating of the earth works, but probably only advanced ones describe irradiance to this extent.

**Lovejoy** · December 13, 2008, 07:32 AM

Originally Posted by Playfishpaste

That paper is about CO2 content within ice cores in antartica and has absolutely nothing to do with solar activity, the blog does nothing to make this source understandable, unless you gave me the completely wrong one.

God damn.a I was backing up this:

"Sphere: when the earth get warmer the oceans release CO2. Thus the CO2 will follow the temperature."

statement with that source. Not solar activity

"I wrote all this to show you why you're wrong. My source is an entry level atmospheric science textbook (any of them, actually, but try Atmospheric science: an introductory survey, by Hobbs and Wallace, just for the extra goodies). Actually, I think even I high school textbook on Geology would talk about how the heating of the earth works, but probably only advanced ones describe irradiance to this extent."

That did not show me how I am wrong. And I have a hard time believing a book about the atmospher has anything to do with sun... could you PLEASE point out where the book says the activity of the sun DO NOT affect the temperature of the earth?

Do you know the sun goes into different phases - if some are "cooler" and some "hooter" is it totaly unrealistic to think it would affect the temperature of the earth?

"The second is pure politics from Inhofe -- this is not very good as a reference and we would agree in that assessment. This type of stuff is more window dressing to show political support for an idea rather than supporting the idea itself."

Excuse me what? Its a paper publiced in Science magazine in 2003. Where did you get that information?

**Viking Prince** · December 12, 2008, 08:18 PM

Also, blogs are not an immediate disqualifier as a source to cite on the internet. Like all sources, the credibility of the author is important. If I were to cite Krugman's Blog on Krugman's ideas involved in the current housing bubble -- I think you would accept them. This is also true with the reference here. Also, not everone has access to academic journals on line from their homes. Not is it appropriate to cut and paste with wild abandon from such sources.

**Playfishpaste** · December 12, 2008, 09:16 PM

Krugman's blog would obviously be a good source for krugman's own ideas. This blog is just a random guy's (anthony watts...cool name) commentary on a paper a meteorologist put out. The "source" appeared to be a fragment of the paper collected in some kind of anthology, which actually said nothing on the subject matter discussed on the blog...so yeah.