4 ms·

Wrong thread, or am I missing the connection?

olivermarks 5y ago
The connection is that sun spots equal more heat on earth. No sunspots meaning cooling. Watching macro space weather is a good predictor of events here.
- EForEndeavour 5y ago
  That's easily verified to be false. For example, [1]: If sunspot activity is a meaningful driver of global mean temperature, why is global mean temperature increasing steadily [2], while sunspot activity has maintained its 11-year cycle [1]? [1] https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/couldnt-sun-be-cause-global-warming https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/couldnt-sun... [2] https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/...
  - olivermarks 5y ago
    Those are links to articles about recent'global warming' theories and data manipulation, a different topic. The Maunder Minimum and thousands of years of data are worth considering in the context of earth's relation to the sun.
    - EForEndeavour 5y ago
      Sorry, where was "data manipulation" mentioned or implied before you mentioned it? Grand Solar Minimums like the Maunder Minimum are a different beast from the shorter-term 11-year solar cycle, so I'm not sure why you brought up the former. Also, the Maunder Minimum is not the only (or the biggest) contributor to the Little Ice Age, if that's what you're implying. If another Grand Solar Minimum were to arrive, it'd only offset the equivalent of 3 years of current CO2 concentration growth: https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2953/there-is-no-impending-mini-ice-age/ https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2953/there-is-no-impending-min...
      - olivermarks 5y ago
        Climate alarmists have a poor reputation around data manipulation as this short video discussing the recent US climate assessment unpacks. https://www.globalchange.gov https://www.globalchange.gov https://youtu.be/8455KEDitpU https://youtu.be/8455KEDitpU 11 year solar cycles are a split second moment in time in comparison to the longer term data which is so often cherry picked and truncated to illustrate various agendas, whether dishonest globalist energy corporate entities or climate alarmists. I'm all for responsible stewardship of the planet, but there i s no shortage of climate grifters, charlatans and hustlers out there, many of whom are actually influencing government policy and data. Unhelpful.
        EForEndeavour 5y ago
        Linking to Tony Heller in 2021 is just embarrassing. https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/08/08/usa-temperature-can-i-sucker-you/#comments https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/08/08/usa-temperature-can-... https://www.reddit.com/r/ClimateOffensive/comments/cm9l2q/tony_heller_and_data_adjustments/ https://www.reddit.com/r/ClimateOffensive/comments/cm9l2q/to... You and I agree on one thing: there certainly is no shortage of climate grifters, charlatans, and hustlers out there. Some days I feel social media was a mistake.
        olivermarks 5y ago
        I'm only interested in data, not personalities, whether Tony Heller or Greta Thunberg/Severn Suzuki.
        EForEndeavour 5y ago
        Well, good! Heller cherry-picks inappropriately processed data and thrives on fanning the flames of anti-science contrarianism. His output intentionally misrepresents data to maximize emotional response. Since you value data, I can only assume you'll review his methods more closely and conclude he's full of shit.
        5y ago
jmann99999 5y ago
This helps explain the connection[1]: "Do sunspots increase temperature? This means that more sunspots deliver more energy to the atmosphere, so that global temperatures should rise. " [1] http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap02/sunspots.html http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap02/sunspots.ht...
- EForEndeavour 5y ago
  I find it amusing that you're linking to a 24-year-old web page. Using 1975 as a starting point for temperature data (as the author of your article does in the page he links to [1]), this page from 1997 is missing 24/(22+24) = 52% of observations and modeling progress available from more modern sources. Also, the author of that page directly contradicts your implication that sunspot activity is a relevant factor in the observed global heating of recent decades [1]: > The global mean temperature trend between 1975-1997, and even regional variations in this trend, can be explained very well by observed changes in greenhouse-gas concentrations (3), in other words greenhouse gas emissions are by far the leading cause of climate change during the last quarter of the 20th century. [1] http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap06/clim_expl.html http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap06/clim_expl.h...
  - jmann99999 5y ago
    You bring up a good point (the length of data). What the author says is: "Recent research (3) indicates that the combined effects of sunspot-induced changes in solar irradiance and increases in atmospheric greenhouse gases offer the best explanation yet for the observed rise in average global temperature over the last century." In answering the original commenter, I wanted to do research and see if the poster had a valid concern. I found nothing newer that ruled out sunspots as a contributor to warming. Maybe I missed something. However, I don't treat old research as less informative unless it has been disproven. I don't think that is the case here.
    - EForEndeavour 5y ago
      It's true that more recent research further supports the above 1997 source's conclusion that sunspot cycles are a minor driver of global heating, and that human activity is the main cause of recent decades' rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration and the resulting rise in greenhouse warming and global mean temperature anomaly. One accessible summary of this that I posted elsewhere: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/couldnt-sun-be-cause-global-warming https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/couldnt-sun... > there has been no significant net change in the Sun’s energy output from the late 1970s to the present, which is when we have observed the most rapid global warming > if the Sun’s energy output had intensified, we would expect all layers of Earth’s atmosphere to have warmed. But we don’t see that. Rather, satellites and observations from weather balloons show warming in the lower atmosphere (troposphere) and cooling in the upper stratosphere (stratosphere)—which is exactly what we would expect to see as a result of increasing greenhouse gases trapping heat in the lower atmosphere. Scientists regard this piece of evidence as one of several “smoking guns” linking today’s global warming to human-emitted, heat-trapping gases.

The connection is that sun spots equal more heat on earth. No sunspots meaning cooling. Watching macro space weather is a good predictor of events here.

EForEndeavour 5y ago
That's easily verified to be false. For example, [1]: If sunspot activity is a meaningful driver of global mean temperature, why is global mean temperature increasing steadily [2], while sunspot activity has maintained its 11-year cycle [1]? [1] https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/couldnt-sun-be-cause-global-warming https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/couldnt-sun... [2] https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/...
- olivermarks 5y ago
  Those are links to articles about recent'global warming' theories and data manipulation, a different topic. The Maunder Minimum and thousands of years of data are worth considering in the context of earth's relation to the sun.
  - EForEndeavour 5y ago
    Sorry, where was "data manipulation" mentioned or implied before you mentioned it? Grand Solar Minimums like the Maunder Minimum are a different beast from the shorter-term 11-year solar cycle, so I'm not sure why you brought up the former. Also, the Maunder Minimum is not the only (or the biggest) contributor to the Little Ice Age, if that's what you're implying. If another Grand Solar Minimum were to arrive, it'd only offset the equivalent of 3 years of current CO2 concentration growth: https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2953/there-is-no-impending-mini-ice-age/ https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2953/there-is-no-impending-min...
    - olivermarks 5y ago
      Climate alarmists have a poor reputation around data manipulation as this short video discussing the recent US climate assessment unpacks. https://www.globalchange.gov https://www.globalchange.gov https://youtu.be/8455KEDitpU https://youtu.be/8455KEDitpU 11 year solar cycles are a split second moment in time in comparison to the longer term data which is so often cherry picked and truncated to illustrate various agendas, whether dishonest globalist energy corporate entities or climate alarmists. I'm all for responsible stewardship of the planet, but there i s no shortage of climate grifters, charlatans and hustlers out there, many of whom are actually influencing government policy and data. Unhelpful.
      - EForEndeavour 5y ago
        Linking to Tony Heller in 2021 is just embarrassing. https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/08/08/usa-temperature-can-i-sucker-you/#comments https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/08/08/usa-temperature-can-... https://www.reddit.com/r/ClimateOffensive/comments/cm9l2q/tony_heller_and_data_adjustments/ https://www.reddit.com/r/ClimateOffensive/comments/cm9l2q/to... You and I agree on one thing: there certainly is no shortage of climate grifters, charlatans, and hustlers out there. Some days I feel social media was a mistake.
        olivermarks 5y ago
        I'm only interested in data, not personalities, whether Tony Heller or Greta Thunberg/Severn Suzuki.
        EForEndeavour 5y ago
        Well, good! Heller cherry-picks inappropriately processed data and thrives on fanning the flames of anti-science contrarianism. His output intentionally misrepresents data to maximize emotional response. Since you value data, I can only assume you'll review his methods more closely and conclude he's full of shit.
        5y ago

jmann99999 5y ago

This helps explain the connection[1]: "Do sunspots increase temperature? This means that more sunspots deliver more energy to the atmosphere, so that global temperatures should rise. " [1] http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap02/sunspots.html http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap02/sunspots.ht...

EForEndeavour 5y ago
I find it amusing that you're linking to a 24-year-old web page. Using 1975 as a starting point for temperature data (as the author of your article does in the page he links to [1]), this page from 1997 is missing 24/(22+24) = 52% of observations and modeling progress available from more modern sources. Also, the author of that page directly contradicts your implication that sunspot activity is a relevant factor in the observed global heating of recent decades [1]: > The global mean temperature trend between 1975-1997, and even regional variations in this trend, can be explained very well by observed changes in greenhouse-gas concentrations (3), in other words greenhouse gas emissions are by far the leading cause of climate change during the last quarter of the 20th century. [1] http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap06/clim_expl.html http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap06/clim_expl.h...
- jmann99999 5y ago
  You bring up a good point (the length of data). What the author says is: "Recent research (3) indicates that the combined effects of sunspot-induced changes in solar irradiance and increases in atmospheric greenhouse gases offer the best explanation yet for the observed rise in average global temperature over the last century." In answering the original commenter, I wanted to do research and see if the poster had a valid concern. I found nothing newer that ruled out sunspots as a contributor to warming. Maybe I missed something. However, I don't treat old research as less informative unless it has been disproven. I don't think that is the case here.
  - EForEndeavour 5y ago
    It's true that more recent research further supports the above 1997 source's conclusion that sunspot cycles are a minor driver of global heating, and that human activity is the main cause of recent decades' rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration and the resulting rise in greenhouse warming and global mean temperature anomaly. One accessible summary of this that I posted elsewhere: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/couldnt-sun-be-cause-global-warming https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/couldnt-sun... > there has been no significant net change in the Sun’s energy output from the late 1970s to the present, which is when we have observed the most rapid global warming > if the Sun’s energy output had intensified, we would expect all layers of Earth’s atmosphere to have warmed. But we don’t see that. Rather, satellites and observations from weather balloons show warming in the lower atmosphere (troposphere) and cooling in the upper stratosphere (stratosphere)—which is exactly what we would expect to see as a result of increasing greenhouse gases trapping heat in the lower atmosphere. Scientists regard this piece of evidence as one of several “smoking guns” linking today’s global warming to human-emitted, heat-trapping gases.