Soon and Briggs: Global-warming fanatics take note – Sunspots do impact climate

Sep 12, 2012 Full story: Free Republic 91

Chinese imperial astronomers kept detailed sunspot records. They noticed that more sunspots meant warmer weather.

Full Story
Patriot

Boulder, CO

#64 Sep 16, 2012
Possible Earth Events

Earth is going through a variety of changes at this moment that actually could facilitate a geographic pole shift in the very near future. These changes include a slowing of Earth’s core and a weakening of Earth’s electro-magnetic field. Since Earth’s electro-magnetic field is responsible for the stability of our geographic North and South poles, it makes sense that a weakening of that field creates a greater potential for an external force to act upon it...

LEARN MORE:http://www.timeline2012.n et/prepare/possible-earth-even ts/pole-shift-geographic
Patriot

Boulder, CO

#65 Sep 16, 2012
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#66 Sep 17, 2012
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
The sun spot record is just a proxy for solar activity.
The satellites give a direct measurement.
None of the combinations of the satellite data show a rise like in the Soon and Briggs graph.
If they are using proxy data into the satellite period, that's a deception.
Sunspot activity is not a proxy for solar activity, it is observed solar activity. We have recorded spot counts for about the last 400 years, longer if you use the Chinese data. The outer area of the spots has been measured for about 100 years. Turning spot data into TSI equivalents is the proxy.

Satelittes give a direct measurment of incoming solar insolation, not solar activity. We have satelitte data from 1978. We have learned alot about solar activity from the satelittes. There is no 'solar constant' something assumed before the satelittes.

We also know that incoming solar insolation varies based upon where it is measured. Greater TSI values are recorded at the equator than at higher latitudes. The strength of the magnetic field in the area that the TSI is received causes differences in the amount of solar insolation detected. A good example is the south atlantic anomaly.

Counting spots measures activity, TSI satelittes measure the impact of solar activity.

Solar activity creates incoming solar insolation, but the former is the action, the later, the result.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#67 Sep 17, 2012
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
I have repeatedly pointed out to you that the sun's output has been flat for 30 years.
Yet you persist with the same attempted deception.
An increase in the sun's output may explain some of the warming up to the middle of the last century, but not after that.
And the latest research done by people like Leif Svalgaard says that the "solar maximum" hasn't increased TSI as much as previously thought.
http://www.leif.org/research/Temp-Track-Sun-N...
Not that you will take any notice, of course.
You will continue to believe the data that support what you want to believe.
The exact opposite of what science is about.
And I have repeatedly agreed with you that the activity of the last 30 years has been flat, flat out hot.

The trouble is that satelittes have only measured solar insolation during the time period that our sun has produced the highest levels of activity throughout the entire holocene. The satelittes do not show much variation, because they are sitting at the top of the scale.

If the satelittes had been around since 1900, you would see variations as can be seen in the differences resulting from our recent minimum.

Next issue is calibration, in your own reference you demonstrate how each satelitte is measuring similar activity and different values.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Var...

We don't know what values would have been recorded by the various satelittes in 1940, or 1840. What values would the satelittes have recorded during the Maunder Minimum, we can't possibly know, but we do know, not many spots were counted.

To compare apples to apples, you need apples.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#68 Sep 17, 2012
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
And their methodology has repeatedly been shown to be bad by the people who do the real science that they claim to overturn.
The methodology is of course chosen to get the results they want.
The money they are paid by the fossil fuel industry dictates their results.
Can you cite a rebuttal.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#69 Sep 17, 2012
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
You evidently did not look at the graphs, page 13,
I look at the VALIDITY of graphs as well as what they CLAIM to say.

And if you have a REAL correlation, you should be able to see that every change in the cause' trace has a significant change int the 'effect' trace. The chart doesn't even meet that criteria.

Being too credulous of junk is the problem with denialists who choose the data they think supports what they WANT to see.

Fact is that the TSI reconstruction has no support from any serious study I know of.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#70 Sep 17, 2012
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
I look at the VALIDITY of graphs as well as what they CLAIM to say.
And if you have a REAL correlation, you should be able to see that every change in the cause' trace has a significant change int the 'effect' trace. The chart doesn't even meet that criteria.
Being too credulous of junk is the problem with denialists who choose the data they think supports what they WANT to see.
Fact is that the TSI reconstruction has no support from any serious study I know of.
Uh, no.

The Soon and Briggs graph compares solar insolation to day time temperatures in the US. What you are looking for in the graph is a positive pattern match, not an exact duplication. The sun provides the energy, the various climate systems move that energy around and it has varying impacts depending on the ocean and atmospheric activity and the landmasses impacted.

The graph from Krivova matches the same pattern as in Soon and Briggs. Not the smoothed value, the sunspot count values. It is particularly noticiable in the minimums between cycles. The Krivova graph shows an increasing level of minimum activity since the beginning of the 20th century with the highest minimums in the last three cycles before the minimum of cycle 23/24.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#71 Sep 17, 2012
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Sunspot activity is not a proxy for solar activity, it is observed solar activity.
It's a proxy for solar activity in the form of how much energy is hitting the Earth from the sun.

Relating the two is a complex activity, and I'd rather listen to how it's done from a real solar scientist, rather than an arrogant and foolish amateur scientist with not even a basic science qualification who's convinced he knows better.

http://www.leif.org/research/The%20long-term%...

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#72 Sep 17, 2012
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
And I have repeatedly agreed with you that the activity of the last 30 years has been flat, flat out hot.
The trouble is that satelittes have only measured solar insolation during the time period that our sun has produced the highest levels of activity throughout the entire holocene. The satelittes do not show much variation, because they are sitting at the top of the scale.
If the satelittes had been around since 1900, you would see variations as can be seen in the differences resulting from our recent minimum.
Next issue is calibration, in your own reference you demonstrate how each satelitte is measuring similar activity and different values.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Var...
We don't know what values would have been recorded by the various satelittes in 1940, or 1840. What values would the satelittes have recorded during the Maunder Minimum, we can't possibly know, but we do know, not many spots were counted.
To compare apples to apples, you need apples.
None of the satellite data sets show the rise in TSI that Soon and Briggs show in their graph.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Var...

The sun just doesn't explain the modern warming.

PS, you may want to look up how to spell satellite, cos repeatedly misspelling it makes you look kinda ignorant.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#73 Sep 17, 2012
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you cite a rebuttal.
You've been around here long enough to know Soon's history.

The question is not asked in good faith.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#74 Sep 18, 2012
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
None of the satellite data sets show the rise in TSI that Soon and Briggs show in their graph.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Var...
The sun just doesn't explain the modern warming.
PS, you may want to look up how to spell satellite, cos repeatedly misspelling it makes you look kinda ignorant.
Satelitte data started in 1978. Cycle 21 was already underway when the satelitte data begins.

The spike you see is between cycle 20 and 21.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#75 Sep 18, 2012
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
You've been around here long enough to know Soon's history.
The question is not asked in good faith.
The question is asked in 'good faith', do you have a cite for the rebuttal.

You have been around here long enough to know I don't shoot messengers. If there is a rebuttal, please post it.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#76 Sep 18, 2012
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
It's a proxy for solar activity in the form of how much energy is hitting the Earth from the sun.
Relating the two is a complex activity, and I'd rather listen to how it's done from a real solar scientist, rather than an arrogant and foolish amateur scientist with not even a basic science qualification who's convinced he knows better.
http://www.leif.org/research/The%20long-term%...
It's interesting, but it always bothers me when a researcher wants to adjust only one part of the data and the carefully chosen adjustments support the premise.

I like to look at data accumulated over longer periods of time using the same methodology. For example here's an update of the last three cycles and our current cycle 24. All this is apples to apples comparison.

http://www.solen.info/solar/cyclcomp.html

Again I ask you to notice the values of the minimums. They are significant.

Here's cycle 24 as compared to the lowest cycles of the 20th century.

http://www.solen.info/solar/cyclcomp2.html
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#77 Sep 18, 2012
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
It's a proxy for solar activity in the form of how much energy is hitting the Earth from the sun.
Relating the two is a complex activity, and I'd rather listen to how it's done from a real solar scientist, rather than an arrogant and foolish amateur scientist with not even a basic science qualification who's convinced he knows better.
http://www.leif.org/research/The%20long-term%...
Is Leif Svalgaard a solar physicist?

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#78 Sep 18, 2012
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
It's interesting, but it always bothers me when a researcher wants to adjust only one part of the data and the carefully chosen adjustments support the premise.
Probably because you don't know why it's done.

This *is* rocket science: the fact that you don't get it doesn't invalidate it.

The methodology for science is openly published in the scientific literature.

The Soon and Briggs piece was of course not published in the peer reviewed literature, ans they adjusted the data to fit the premise without any of you hypocritical fake sceptics even questioning where they got the data from.
PHD

Houston, TX

#79 Sep 18, 2012
For every problem solved by science twenty five more are discovered. When discovered the original problem solved becomes once again a problem unsolved.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#80 Sep 18, 2012
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#81 Sep 19, 2012
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Probably because you don't know why it's done.
This *is* rocket science: the fact that you don't get it doesn't invalidate it.
The methodology for science is openly published in the scientific literature.
The Soon and Briggs piece was of course not published in the peer reviewed literature, ans they adjusted the data to fit the premise without any of you hypocritical fake sceptics even questioning where they got the data from.
I haven't seen the paper yet. If you have a cite for it, then we can look at the methodology. The stated data is from Best and the US temps according to the press release.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#82 Sep 19, 2012
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
I haven't seen the paper yet. If you have a cite for it, then we can look at the methodology. The stated data is from Best and the US temps according to the press release.
It's not a paper, it's a newspaper article, and we'll never see the methodology. The article has done its job and been posted on every denier blog without anybody questioning where the data comes from and what has been done to it. A lie goes half way round the planet before truth can get its boots on.

Which of course makes your baseless accusations about real science even more contemptible and hypocritical.

“Geologist [I'm Climate Change]”

Since: Mar 07

formerly Nuneaton

#83 Sep 19, 2012
SpaceBlues wrote:
Like that one.

Interesting thing is the heat capacity of the oceans which is the real repository of global temperature.

As we are in the Holocene (an interglacial) it is merked by continued global warming as a result of the cold ocean resulting from the Pleistocene (last glacial, of various local names depending on where the last glacial deposits were laid down)period.

The Holocene will continue until the influx of fresh surface water from river inflow from summer floods in N.Asia builds up to a thckness where the local winter ice sheet (winter night frosts) cannot form ice out of classical ocean brine, and the resulting loss of thermohaline circulation shuts down the gulf stream.

We are now IN the latest stage of the interglacial and addition of global heat decreases the time between NOW and the time when the gulf stream shutdown takes place. The fact that this will occur is inevitable but the "when" is not yet set.

We are now in climate mode#3 {general drought; monsoons no longer fixed in a root at a given longitude, with the monsoonal roots & flows drifting E. with time, squall lines and fixed position (a few weeks) cutoff lows in the temperate rainbelt fed by monsoonal flows}. This is of course important for the generation of major floods in N. Asia (generally Russia area), and subsequent large scale freshwater input into Arctic Ocean. Of interest to S. Asia is that climate mode#3 gives rise to a pulsating monsoon with no well defined peak & no geneal OFF period!.

The fact that we are currently in climate mode#3 due to a slight warming is a feature of the fact that the equatorial and tropics layer of ocean water is now both hot & also thick. This is a product of global warming and without anthropogenic input would still have taken place. In cooler periods of the Holocene, climate mode#3 also took place as a result of major dust veil induced cooling from impact or large volcanic eruption and it takes place then because it is a more efficient way to redistribute heat with the gulf stream ON than the classical mode#2 modelled by Jason.

Would be nice if the arguers actually took note of the last 2.2 million years of similar events taking place naturally.

Once the gulf stream switches off it cannot distort and break up the cell over N.America that forms during climate mode#4 in response to an El Nino event. At that point the extremely efficient mode#4 will run until the oceanic heat is drained forming a large ice cap over the laurentide shield. The next to form will be either 24th or 26th since the Pleistocene geological period began with the pan american land bridge.

Have a nice day: Ag

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Global Warming Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Nothing Traps Heat 37 min IBdaMann 139
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 46 min Homo Erectus 49,309
Will it, won't it? Part 3 (Aug '12) 10 hr litesong 1,795
Let's have a balanced plan for producing the el... 19 hr Solarman 78
What role do you think humans play in global wa... 19 hr IBdaMann 2,731
Carbon Dioxide Levels Reach the Highest Point E... (Apr '14) 21 hr IB DaMann 16
Australia Greenhouse Gas Emissions Fall to Reco... 21 hr IB DaMann 10
More from around the web