"Solar Cycle 24" -Are the Sun's Cycles a Factor in Global Warming?

Over the span of 11 years images from the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) spacecraft have shown the Sun’s activity varying in intensity as magnetic field lines that are wound and tangled inside the Sun periodically break through to the surface. 

Solar Cycle 24 began in early 2008 (image left), but has shown minimal activity through early 2009 (image right). The small changes in solar irradiance that occur during the solar cycle exert a small influence on Earth’s climate, with periods of intense magnetic activity producing slightly higher temperatures, and solar minimum periods such as that seen in 2008 and early 2009 likely to have the opposite effect.

Skeptics have been saying that global temperature rises might be due to changes in the sun, pretty much the ultimate "it wasn't us, a big boy did it," with a giant fusion reactor as the elusive culprit.   Researchers have shown that this isn't the case and unlike the original claim, their work involves advanced computer models, a distinct lack of the word "might", and has been published in Science.

Carnegie Mellon University's Peter Adams along with Jeff Pierce from Dalhousie University in Halifax, Canada, have developed a model to test the controversial hypothesis that says changes solar activity are causing global warming.

The hypothesis they tested was that increased solar activity reduces cloudiness by variations in cosmic rays. So, when clouds decrease, more sunlight is let in, causing the earth to warm. Some climate change skeptics have tried to use this hypothesis to suggest that greenhouse gases may not be the global warming culprits that most scientists agree they are. They found that changes in the concentration of particles that affect clouds are 100 times too small to affect the climate.

Professors Peter Adams and Jeff Pierce did a bunch of things that those throwing around the solar excuse didn't:

a)  They did detailed work analyzing the actual effects of such activity
b)  They actually understood what such effects would really even be
c)  They rigorously applied scientific procedures to this research, constructed computer models, and would have reported the results either away
d)  They spent many, many years earning PhDs in scientific research and the title of "Professor."

We have to say, d) is our favorite.

The simulations show that the effects of cosmic rays from the sun are barely 1% of what they'd have to be to explain what we've seen.  The scientists are even one step ahead of the "maybe-sorta" game, admitting their simulations can't account for everything that exists, because nothing could ever do that (including their opponents' arguments), but pointing out that nothing omitted or missed could skew the results enough to appreciably alter the results.

Posted by Luke McKinney with Casey Kazan.

Changes in the Sun are not causing Global Warming, Study Says http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090511122425.htm

Comments

[Simon]

I don't recall the sun having several sunspots at once in 2009, as your pic shows.

And this is a (albeit without the rant) repeat from May 15th..

[8-P]

so, it is not the sun what heats up our planet, it is CO2! a miracle!

[pikestaff]

Is that right that the other planets in this system are also heating up? how is that?
As for CO2, which is less than %1 of the total atmosphere, can it really have that effect?
Methane gas holds 20 times more heat than CO2, yet sheeple keep bleating about CO2!

[Mike]

signing a petition will not stop global warming. Nothing will ever stop the earth's climate from changing, it has been doing so for billions of years. All we can do is reduce CO2 emissions, stop deforestation, start REforestation, and then hope that is enough to keep humans off the endangered species list. But then again we still have to worry about our overall destruction of the ecosystem in which we live, doesn't look too promising for us.

[Jack]

8-P, without the greenhouse effect average temperatures on Earth would be around 30 degrees Celsius lower than they currently are. The heating effect of the sun is not insignificant but recent trends have shown clearly that the possibility that this warming is solar-induced ended about 30 years ago: the data returned simply do not support this hypothesis.

Although carbon dioxide has a relatively small effect as a greenhouse gas, the reason it is so important is that it makes up a far greater proportion of the atmosphere than other controllable gases and thus has a greater cumulative effect. Although water vapour makes up both a larger percentage of the atmosphere and a larger part of the greenhouse effect, the facts that a) we cannot stop evaporation and b) a certain amount of greenhouse effect is necessary to keep life on this planet mean that carbon dioxide is what is focused on. "Sheeple" may well keep bleating about carbon dioxide but this is because it is the most controllable greenhouse gas and the one which will have the greatest impact on overall warming. Studies of ice cores consistently show variations in CO2 levels consistent with what we know of past weather systems if CO2 was a major greenhouse gas. What makes this warming different is the rapid increase in CO2 concentration which is only consistent with the anthropogenic theory of current climate change.

[Mifkin]

Well duh, however the Sun is the biggest driver of climate on this planet.

Tectonics, Gulf Stream, Greenhouse gasses all mean squat if the sun changes temperature.
I have no doubt that the sun isn't the cause of the current climate instability however I dont think that discounting it entirely as a cause of climate change. Its the driver of our climate, the Alpha, and like our climate, although it hasn't been studied intensly, it seems scientifically niave to assume that it stays at a constant output.
I'm going out on a limb here and saying that it has its own cycle much like our own planet has a cycle, just like pretty much everything else. And that cycle has peaks and troughs that would affect the temperature on Earth.

[Merrick]

And you apparently missed that the amazingly accurate computer models that their colleague "d) They spent many, many years earning PhDs in scientific research and the title of "Professor."'s developed missed the solar minimum YET AGAIN and now claim it didn't occur in early 2008, as you stated here on 2 June - but actually released a statement on 2 June that the solar minimum had now been moved to December 2008.
And did you even hear yourself or them (it's not clear exactly what the professors actually said from the attribution):
"...but pointing out that nothing omitted or missed could skew the results enough to appreciably alter the results."
REALLY? Nothing? Absolutely nothing? Can I get a 2 sigma on that statement?

It's only two weeks since the latest, "whoops, we got solar minimum wrong yet again," announcement from NOAA/NASA (I've lost count, it's at least 6 times - starting with "look out, it's going to be a REALLY early solar minimum and a REALLY strong cycle 24). They are now predicting a cycle lower than any since 1928. I'm going to try to remember to check back in a couple of months when, as I suspect, the new "prediction" will have moved the solar minimum back to January or February 2009 and they'll be predicting the weakest cycle since 1906. But, unlike you and your "We have to say, d) is our favorite" folks, I CAN'T say that there is nothing I omitted or missed that could skew the results of my predicition. Because I live in reality.

And, oh, by the way, I spent years earning a PhD in a relavent scientific field as well.

[Merrick]

...two months later, and we've just completed yet ANOTHER 30 day period without sunspots (see here, for instance: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/09/sunspotless-30-day-stretch-possible-in-the-next-day/#more-9817)

NOAA/NASA haven't OFFICIALLY moved the goal post yet one more time, but it's bound to come soon.

Do you have a follow-up comment, or is admitting that you got hoodwinked by a scientist "guaranteeing" a future event, YET AGAIN, because he has letters after his name not within your skill set?

Keep whistling past the graveyard!

[Merrick]

...and a year later, from those "d) They spent many, many years earning PhDs in scientific research and the title of "Professor" folks comes the gee-schucks-I-guess-we-were-wrong hammer drop:

http://www.space.com/11960-fading-sunspots-slower-solar-activity-solar-cycle.html

And even though these *literally* earth shaking events are occuring, since the last time one of these "Professor" folks that get the Daily Galaxy's staff's panties all in a twist heralded the coming of the next major solar maximum comes this quote from the article:

"If we are right, this could be the last solar maximum we'll see for a few decades," Hill said. "That would affect everything from space exploration to Earth's climate."

That's Frank Hill, associate director of the National Solar Observatory's Solar Synoptic Network.

And what did the Daily Galaxy have to say in this latest update:

"They found that changes in the concentration of particles that affect clouds are 100 times too small to affect the climate."

And:

"The scientists are even one step ahead of the "maybe-sorta" game, admitting their simulations can't account for everything that exists, because nothing could ever do that (including their opponents' arguments), but pointing out that nothing omitted or missed could skew the results enough to appreciably alter the results."

Is the Daily Galaxy ever gonna post another Solar Cycle 24 article so I can get a comment up on a recent blog entry?

So sad when your faith is contradicted by facts, no?