4 ms·

Correlation of Global Temperature, Sunspots, Solar Irradiance, Cosmic Rays

39 points by ycombonator 7y ago

Skunkleton 7y ago
Probably not: https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/189/graphic-temperature-vs-solar-activity/ https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/189/graphic-tempe...
- Merrill 7y ago
  The scale on the right for temperature is a change of about 2 parts per 255 degrees Kelvin. The scale on the left is about 3 parts in 1361. It's not clear whether the much smaller variation in irradiance would be expected to cause the much larger change in temperature. Seems unlikely, since the power radiated by a black body varies as the 4th power of the temperature (Stefan-Boltzman law). Relies on - "Reconstruction of spectral solar irradiance since 1700 from simulated magnetograms" https://arxiv.org/abs/1605.02039 https://arxiv.org/abs/1605.02039
- DougWebb 7y ago
  The chart on that page shows the solar radiation as a (somewhat) instantaneous measure, against the global temperature which is a cummulative amount. The annual solar radiation jumps from a lower value to a higher value right about where the temperature starts increasing. It seems a reasonable theory to think that more radiation started coming in each year, and without an outlet it caused the temperature to start rising. This doesn't mean that we haven't been making things worse, or that there's nothing we can do. But it's crucial for us to understand everything that's impacting the climate, so we can make good decisions.
  - itcrowd 7y ago
    The major drivers of climate change are known. Pretending the "science isn't settled" is sticking your head in the sand. Solar irradiance, CO2 and water vapor are important, but some are more important than others. Educate yourself. Here's a link: https://climate.nasa.gov/nasa_science/science/ https://climate.nasa.gov/nasa_science/science/ edit: I meant the "science isn't settled" above edit2: Changed "All the drivers" to "The major drivers" because "all" is too presumptuous
    - darawk 7y ago
      > All the drivers of climate change are known. That's a fairly presumptuous, unscientific statement. Global climate is an extremely complex phenomenon. We certainly do not know all the drivers of it.
      - yokaze 7y ago
        Knowing everything is religion. There amount of details you know gives you accuracy. We didn't know everything with the Newtonian laws, but no one is claiming that apples don't fall from the tree. Contrary to climatology, where for some reason, people still come out and favour a non catastrophic outcome. And that despite the models lived up to make predictions within their accuracy, and even rather systemically too low for the last decade. Do we know everything? No, but that's hardly an argument to suggest the apple will fall up the tree.
        darawk 7y ago
        I'm not arguing that climate science is incorrect, just that the commenter I was responding to was making a bad argument.
    - YarickR2 7y ago
      My God, literally the link you provided states "Solar radiation is a primary driver of climate", and "Solar radiation is the source of heat for planet Earth".
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
ghthor 7y ago
This community isn't prepared to even begin looking at any evidence that the main driver of climate change is the sun. That raises too many questions
- neffy 7y ago
  It's well known that the main driver of climate change up until this point in time is the sun... the questions this specifically raises, is why as the earth moves slightly away from the Sun which normally would bring about the end of the current interglacial, the temperature is instead increasing. See: http://www.profrichmuller.com/uploads/8/3/3/9/83399742/history_of_climate.pdf http://www.profrichmuller.com/uploads/8/3/3/9/83399742/histo...
- tomrod 7y ago
  I mean, not really, but that is because it's unsatisfying in the extreme. The sun is responsible because it's gravity well gave a system where the planet could accrete. The sun is responsible because it give energy to the earth, thus energizing chemicals and likely causing life to emerge, panspermia excepted. The sun is responsible because it heats up carbon dioxide which keeps heat like a greenhouse. One of these things have value in action-ability as it relates to climate change.
itcrowd 7y ago
There has been a correlation over the past ~10k years between solar activity and global temperatures. This non peer-reviewed book seems to spread the (false) message that this correlation still holds. However, it thereby neglects the role of CO2 as a primary mechanism of global temperature. For the past ~10k years before the industrial revolution, CO2 levels have been almost constant at ~290 ppm. Therefore, the other drivers of climate change dominated. Now that CO2 is rising at unprecedented levels (see e.g. [1]), the other influencers of climatic change are no longer the driving forces. CO2 is the world's thermostat knob [2]. It is undeniable. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#/media/File:CO2_40k.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_at... [2] https://science.sciencemag.org/content/330/6002/356.abstract https://science.sciencemag.org/content/330/6002/356.abstract
- lliamander 7y ago
  > However, it thereby neglects the role of CO2 as a primary mechanism of global temperature. From the book desription[1]: > For example, there is an absence of any physical evidence that CO2 causes global warming, so the only argument for CO2 as the cause of warming rests entirely in computer modeling. Thus, the question becomes, how accurate are the computer models in predicting climate? What other variables could be missing from the models? It does not neglect, but disputes. Whether that disputation is successful is above my pay-grade. [1]https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780128045886/evidence-based-climate-science https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780128045886/evidence-ba...
  - itcrowd 7y ago
    That book can claim what it wants. I am waiting for the science to back up those claims. Physical evidence of CO2 causing global warming has been presented for over 120 years. Arrhenius was the first to propose that such a mechanism can cause global warming [1]. Please wake up to the 20th century. Snooze, and wake up to the 21st. Global warming due to CO2 increases in the atmosphere is real. If you have any peer-reviewed science contradicting my claims, please present them. [1] http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf
anon_lead_dev 7y ago
https://suspicious0bservers.org/ https://suspicious0bservers.org/ anyone? ;)

39 points by ycombonator 7y ago

Probably not: https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/189/graphic-temperature-vs-solar-activity/ https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/189/graphic-tempe...

Merrill 7y ago
The scale on the right for temperature is a change of about 2 parts per 255 degrees Kelvin. The scale on the left is about 3 parts in 1361. It's not clear whether the much smaller variation in irradiance would be expected to cause the much larger change in temperature. Seems unlikely, since the power radiated by a black body varies as the 4th power of the temperature (Stefan-Boltzman law). Relies on - "Reconstruction of spectral solar irradiance since 1700 from simulated magnetograms" https://arxiv.org/abs/1605.02039 https://arxiv.org/abs/1605.02039
DougWebb 7y ago
The chart on that page shows the solar radiation as a (somewhat) instantaneous measure, against the global temperature which is a cummulative amount. The annual solar radiation jumps from a lower value to a higher value right about where the temperature starts increasing. It seems a reasonable theory to think that more radiation started coming in each year, and without an outlet it caused the temperature to start rising. This doesn't mean that we haven't been making things worse, or that there's nothing we can do. But it's crucial for us to understand everything that's impacting the climate, so we can make good decisions.
- itcrowd 7y ago
  The major drivers of climate change are known. Pretending the "science isn't settled" is sticking your head in the sand. Solar irradiance, CO2 and water vapor are important, but some are more important than others. Educate yourself. Here's a link: https://climate.nasa.gov/nasa_science/science/ https://climate.nasa.gov/nasa_science/science/ edit: I meant the "science isn't settled" above edit2: Changed "All the drivers" to "The major drivers" because "all" is too presumptuous
  - darawk 7y ago
    > All the drivers of climate change are known. That's a fairly presumptuous, unscientific statement. Global climate is an extremely complex phenomenon. We certainly do not know all the drivers of it.
    - yokaze 7y ago
      Knowing everything is religion. There amount of details you know gives you accuracy. We didn't know everything with the Newtonian laws, but no one is claiming that apples don't fall from the tree. Contrary to climatology, where for some reason, people still come out and favour a non catastrophic outcome. And that despite the models lived up to make predictions within their accuracy, and even rather systemically too low for the last decade. Do we know everything? No, but that's hardly an argument to suggest the apple will fall up the tree.
      - darawk 7y ago
        I'm not arguing that climate science is incorrect, just that the commenter I was responding to was making a bad argument.
  - YarickR2 7y ago
    My God, literally the link you provided states "Solar radiation is a primary driver of climate", and "Solar radiation is the source of heat for planet Earth".
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]

ghthor 7y ago

This community isn't prepared to even begin looking at any evidence that the main driver of climate change is the sun. That raises too many questions

neffy 7y ago
It's well known that the main driver of climate change up until this point in time is the sun... the questions this specifically raises, is why as the earth moves slightly away from the Sun which normally would bring about the end of the current interglacial, the temperature is instead increasing. See: http://www.profrichmuller.com/uploads/8/3/3/9/83399742/history_of_climate.pdf http://www.profrichmuller.com/uploads/8/3/3/9/83399742/histo...
tomrod 7y ago
I mean, not really, but that is because it's unsatisfying in the extreme. The sun is responsible because it's gravity well gave a system where the planet could accrete. The sun is responsible because it give energy to the earth, thus energizing chemicals and likely causing life to emerge, panspermia excepted. The sun is responsible because it heats up carbon dioxide which keeps heat like a greenhouse. One of these things have value in action-ability as it relates to climate change.

itcrowd 7y ago

There has been a correlation over the past ~10k years between solar activity and global temperatures. This non peer-reviewed book seems to spread the (false) message that this correlation still holds. However, it thereby neglects the role of CO2 as a primary mechanism of global temperature. For the past ~10k years before the industrial revolution, CO2 levels have been almost constant at ~290 ppm. Therefore, the other drivers of climate change dominated. Now that CO2 is rising at unprecedented levels (see e.g. [1]), the other influencers of climatic change are no longer the driving forces. CO2 is the world's thermostat knob [2]. It is undeniable. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#/media/File:CO2_40k.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_at... [2] https://science.sciencemag.org/content/330/6002/356.abstract https://science.sciencemag.org/content/330/6002/356.abstract

lliamander 7y ago
> However, it thereby neglects the role of CO2 as a primary mechanism of global temperature. From the book desription[1]: > For example, there is an absence of any physical evidence that CO2 causes global warming, so the only argument for CO2 as the cause of warming rests entirely in computer modeling. Thus, the question becomes, how accurate are the computer models in predicting climate? What other variables could be missing from the models? It does not neglect, but disputes. Whether that disputation is successful is above my pay-grade. [1]https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780128045886/evidence-based-climate-science https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780128045886/evidence-ba...
- itcrowd 7y ago
  That book can claim what it wants. I am waiting for the science to back up those claims. Physical evidence of CO2 causing global warming has been presented for over 120 years. Arrhenius was the first to propose that such a mechanism can cause global warming [1]. Please wake up to the 20th century. Snooze, and wake up to the 21st. Global warming due to CO2 increases in the atmosphere is real. If you have any peer-reviewed science contradicting my claims, please present them. [1] http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf

anon_lead_dev 7y ago

https://suspicious0bservers.org/ https://suspicious0bservers.org/ anyone? ;)