I went looking for it and found this which may or may not have been previously posted here:
http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/ccc/cc061202.html
Didn't find anything on global warming in the 9/18/06 Boston Globe however. Do you have a link for that User?
Reid and Murdoch eh? Unholy Scots alliance... I'm thinking of joi8ning the Movement Against Scottish MPs
Reid has no chance is my view.
Clary wrote:Reid and Murdoch eh? Unholy Scots alliance... I'm thinking of joi8ning the Movement Against Scottish MPs
hmm know what you mean Clary
Its scary
Brooon is scottish
Blair is was scottish sort of
Reid is scottish
Alex Ferguson is scottish
Robin Cook. excellent fellow sadly missed died on a scottish mountain
John Smith was scottish, he died in his bath of highland spring water
everywhere you look...the Ayes have it the Ayes have it
ps
thinking of coming to Schumaker college for a 2 week course on oil
can we have a cup of tea?
Course you can; a meal even.
Cameron is Scottish and Ming Campbell is Scottish so you haven't even resort to other parties.
yeah frightening
ps what you doing up this late at night?
Way passed bed time for respectable older younger personage of your immaturity
anyway I'm off nighty night
S
username wrote:And this just in, okie (actually it came in a couple weeks ago, but I just saw it today) Boston Globe, Sep. 18:
"Scientists studying the sun's energy output argue that solar fluctuations are unlikely to have played a significant part in climate change, at least since the 17th century and probably for several millenia. In the current issue of the journal Nature, the researchers, who include Peter Foukal of Heliophysics in Nahant, say the amount of energy emitted by the sun rises and falls by a little under 0.1 percent in step with the sunspot cycle. Thne variation is unlikely, even in the long term, to have caused recent trends in global temperature."
Haven't had a chance to track down the article itself yet.
If you find it, please provide the link. My knee jerk reaction is that 0.1% strikes me as statistically very significant, given the system. I would be interested in their reasoning, math, or whatever they use.
Quote:Robin Cook. excellent fellow sadly missed died on a scottish mountain
Robin Cook? Isn't he the guy who resigned from Blair's Administration over Iraq?
He died?
okie wrote:If you find it, please provide the link.
I don't have the link to that article, but here is a
Reuter's article, as published by CNN.com, on the same issue. Hope this helps.
kelticwizard wrote:
Robin Cook? Isn't he the guy who resigned from Blair's Administration over Iraq?
He died?
On August 6, last year. (He resigned as Leader of the House of Commons and Lord President of the Council in 2003 in protest against the invasion.)
I live in Cambridge, so I read the actual paper Globe, and the thing I cited was in their sort of science briefs column, and all they wrote. It looks like Kelticwizard found a more extensive summary of the same paper from Reuters. So I'd saygo with the wiz until we get the full thing.
Thing is, okie, there have been a large amount of research on quantifying the effect of solar variability on global warming, going back at least as far as the IPCC's SAR in 1996-7, which put the sun's effect at about 195 of the total (sun .4 W/m*2, where m*2 is "meter squared", versus 1.7 W/m*2 for other causes, mostly greenhouse gasses, for a total effect of @.1 W/m*2). There have been several other papers in the last year in Science, one of which made certain simplifying assumptions which they said overstated the effect of solar warming, and they found a max value of 30%. Scafetta and West, which Bernard kept cutting-and-pasting, before he apparently violated the TOS and got banned again, which was not unexpected, found a value of 25-35% for solar effect for the last thirty years, which given the usual two sigma confidence levels, probably means their mean value was 30%. Strange Bernard kept posting it, since it undercuts his thesis that solar variability is the major cause of climate change. But then he never did read stuff very carefully. Someone else came up with an effect from 10-30%, love these tight studies, which would yield a mean value of 20%. So solar effect seems to be only around 20-30%, nowhere near the potency of geenhouse gasses and human effect. It's a minor cause. We're the major cause.
And any data on the sun from before about the middle of the 20th century is based on proxy data. From the scanty info we have on the Nature article, and from a google search on other stuff by Foukal, they seem to be arguing that better proxy data, as well as recent direct observation, some of which he's been instrumental in, show that solar variability has been overstated. And in fact it's not causing the observed change.
kelticwizard wrote:okie wrote:If you find it, please provide the link.
I don't have the link to that article, but here is a
Reuter's article, as published by CNN.com, on the same issue. Hope this helps.
I read the article hurriedly but I don't believe it cited a single scientist's name nor a single source other than the name of a writer citing an unnamed source? That doesn't mean the information isn't correct, but how would anybody know?
Foxfyre wrote:I read the article hurriedly but I don't believe it cited a single scientist's name nor a single source other than the name of a writer citing an unnamed source?
One paragraph quotes Tom Wigley of the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research.
Another paragraph Henk Spruit from the Max Planck Institute in Germany.
(Obviously we use a different technic of reading crosswise.)
You're right. I did read it too fast. My bad.
P.V. Foukal, C. Föhlich, H.C. Spruit, T. Wigley: Variations in solar luminosity and its effect on the Earth's climate, Nature (14. September 2006)
Summary with movie links at the Max Planck website
This from the site you linked, Walter:
"With such simulations of the climate the researchers could show that the effects of spots and faculae is about 4 times to low to explain the observed climate variations. The results imply that, over the past century, climate change due to human influences must far outweigh the effects of changes in the Sun's brightness. "
Can someone translate this statement, as it seems very poorly worded. I am not disagreeing with the statement necessarily, but don't really know what they are saying. Also, the "results imply" conclusion is based on what? They appear to state what they found, and then come to a conclusion, but I do not know what the conclusion is based on, math, or what? Part of their findings include a 0.7% increase in solar energy, but then it is explained away apparently? Maybe I am missing something here.
And this in Parados link:
"The authors and other experts are quick to point out that more complicated solar mechanisms could possibly be driving climate change in ways we don't yet understand.
Climate change carries such high stakes that even more unlikely possibilities may capture scientific attention.
"There are numerous studies that find a correlation [between solar variation and Earth climate]," said Sami Solanki of the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Lindau, Germany."
Also this:
"But, Foukal said, "this paper says that that particular mechanism [sunspots], which is most intuitive, is probably not having an impact."
Does this mean their study is mainly intuition, not science? I don't know, as here again, their sentence is poorly composed.
My conclusion, they think the sun is not a major factor, but admit they simply do not know. Most importantly, they confirm a 0.7% increase in recent years in solar energy as measured by satellites, and that numerous studies have shown a correlation between solar variation and earth climate.
okie wrote:Can someone translate this statement, as it seems very poorly worded. I am not disagreeing with the statement necessarily, but don't really know what they are saying. Also, the "results imply" conclusion is based on what? They appear to state what they found, and then come to a conclusion, but I do not know what the conclusion is based on, math, or what? Part of their findings include a 0.7% increase in solar energy, but then it is explained away apparently? Maybe I am missing something here.
It's a summary. [I've seen others consisting only of keywords.]
The source of the complete published report is given in that link as well as by me.
uh, okie, it's 0.07%, not 0.7% as you apparently think--that is 1/10th the amount you've mentioned several times. It's teeny--the difference between 1365.5 and 1366.5 W/m*2, the mean maxima and minima on their graph from eyeballing it.
