Solar Energy Output Global Warming
Click Here to register and get your Free “Squidoo Lens Creation for Newbies”
Is The Sun Responsible For The Modern Warming Period?
It seems the most popular argument of folks who don’t accept anthropogenic global warming theory that the sun is the real cause. And, admittedly, since the sun supplies Earth with almost all of its energy, the idea seems almost intuitive.
Of course, we all know that the changes in solar output =can= cause changes in the climate, and have done so many times in the past.
But what about now? Have there been any changes in solar activity of sufficient magnitude to cause the bulk of 20th century warming? And, if so, how does solar global warming theory explain the recent rise in greenhouse gases from human activities?
The Sun could very well have much more to do with the modern warming period than many scientists realize. At the very root of this argument lies two distinct versions of the total solar irradiance record derived by satellites over the last thirty years. One is called PMOD and one is the ACRIM composite. The ACRIM composite indicates that in the solar minimum between solar cycle 22 and 23 the sun did not decrease it’s output level as much as it did before, if ACRIM is the correct version of TSI that means that the Earth received more energy over the last 15 years than it did the previous 15 year period.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/images/content/93617main_sun4m.jpg
A peer reviewed paper by Scafetta and West, analyzed the ACRIM dataset and found that it could have contributed up to 35% of the warming from 1980 – 2000 and up to 50% of the warming from 1900 – 2000. A key point here is that this research focuses only on the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth.
http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/2005GL025539.pdf
The sun however does not just vary it’s brightness over the 11 year cycle, it also undergoes flucuations in it’s magnetic field. Just as the SUN’s brightness does not always drop to the same level during solar minimum it’s magnetic field also flucuates over the 11 year cycle. Even as we speak there are no sunspots, but the sun’s magnetic field and brightness are still diminishing. The Sun’s magnetic field helps shield the Earth from Cosmic rays enetering the atmosphere, it has been proven that these cosmic rays cause the Earth’s lower atmosphere to develop more clouds. An increase in low level clouds causes a net cooling effect.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/sppi_reprint_series/a_critique_on_the_lockwood_frochlich_paper_in_the_royal_society_proceedings.html
So, the stronger the sun’s magnetic field grows, there are fewer low level clouds to block sunlight. This amplification system is very powerfull, a mere 2% reduction in low level clouds more than overpowers all of the greenhouse gases that humanity has contributed to the atmosphere.
The Moonshine project has detected a very powerfull decrease in Earth’s albedo, which if it is true, more than explains the recent warming, regardless of which TSI record you choose to believe.
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2007/10/17/earths-albedo-tells-a-interesting-story/
The physics associated with the radiative properties of the human contribution of greenhouse gases can easily be demonstrated in the lab, but clouds, convection and evaporation are beyond the capabilities of even the most advanced climate models when it comes to modeling earths energy budget. While humanity is certainly responsible for some percentage of the warming over the last few decades, our greenhouse gases would make little difference if the Sun entered into a multi cycle cooling phase. And the effects of such an event would be far more devastating for the human race than an continuation of the current warming trend.
EDIT:
Dana and Bob as usual chime in with there predicatable rhetoric about how we know everything based on the opinions of a blog. There is not a single human being on this planet that could tell you with any certainty, why the sun has an 11 year cycle. But they have Earth’s climate all figured out.
EDIT:
Bob, consensus or lack of consensus has nothing to do with proof, what kind of scientists are you? Spectral decomposition of a time series to evaluate it’s energy level over time is beyond the comprehension of most so called scientists that believe in the AGW theory. I have read your blog, and it’s pretty pathetic when it comes to their opinions about solar physics.
.
.
Bright Future “Solar Power and Puget Sound Energy”
