Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_activity

Solar activity
Sunspots
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Solar_Activity_Proxies.png Solar Activity Proxies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Temp-sunspot-co2.svg Image:Temp-sunspot-co2

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Solar_Activity_Proxies.png Graph showing proxies of solar activity, including changes in sunspot number and cosmogenic isotope production.

Sunspots are relatively dark areas on the surface of the Sun where intense magnetic activity inhibits convection and so cools the surface. The number of sunspots correlates with the intensity of solar radiation. The variation is small (of the order of 1 W/m² or 0.1% of the total) and was only established once satellite measurements of solar variation became available in the 1980s. Based on work by Abbot, Foukal et al. (1977) realised that higher values of radiation are associated with more sunspots. Nimbus 7 (launched October 25, 1978) and the Solar Maximum Mission (launched February 14, 1980) detected that because the areas surrounding sunspots are brighter, the overall effect is that more sunspots means a brighter sun.
There had been some suggestion that variations in the solar diameter might cause variations in output. But recent work, mostly from the Michelson Doppler Imager instrument on SOHO, shows these changes to be small, about 0.001% (Dziembowski et al., 2001).

Various studies have been made using sunspot number (for which records extend over hundreds of years) as a proxy for solar output (for which good records only extend for a few decades). Also, ground instruments have been calibrated by comparison with high-altitude and orbital instruments. Researchers have combined present readings and factors to adjust historical data. Other proxy data - such as the abundance of cosmogenic isotopes - have been used to infer solar magnetic activity and thus likely brightness.

Sunspot activity has been measured using the Wolf number for about 300 years. This index (also known as the Zürich number) uses both the number of sunspots and the number of groups of sunspots to compensate for variations in measurement. A 2003 study by Ilya Usoskin of the University of Oulu, Finland found that sunspots had been more frequent since the 1940s than in the previous 1150 years.[10]

ican, take a look at the black line yourself. You will see that it goes up, goes down, levels off, and rises again. That part of it is WEATHER which varies from year to year, sometimes a bit warmer, sometimes a bit cooler. The trend of the curve, which is inexorably rising, describes CLIMATE CHANGE. It's going to keep rising. That's simple physics. That's what greenhouse gas increase does. It's gone down a bit in 2007 because the last several months of the year saw the start of a pretty strong la Nina (I suggest you read the link back there from I think Diest, which has a nice, brief discussion of the effect el Nino/la Nina has on global temperature, tho I realize your attention span for actually learning something about what you pontificate about is extremely short). But again, if you attempt to draw conclusions from short-range effects, rather than taking long-term effects into consideration, which seems to be your modus operandi, you're inevitably going to be mistaken.

And your point is? Solar output shows essentially no change in the last thirty years since we've had actual measurement available from satellite sensors, rather than having to use proxies to try to infer what's going on. Yet global temperature has risen most steeply over that period (particularly in the last fifteen years).

And the solar magnetic field, which sunspot proxies suggest may be increasing, and it is hypothesized would affect cosmic ray flux, which MAY affect cloud cover, runs into the problem that cosmic ray flux doesn't seem to have changed as it should have if the hypothesis were true. This has all been dealt with ad nauseam before in this topic.

These are the 5 year averages used in the chart ican to plot the black line.

1996...0.1498
1997...0.2078
1998...0.296
1999...0.321
2000...0.32
2001...0.3744
2002...0.397
2003...0.3824
2004...0.4126
2005...0.455
2006...0.4576
2007...0.4454

According to the data used in the chart it does NOT level off in 2002. It's highest point is in 2006.

There is no decrease from 1998 - 2007.

ican, so what? If your calculations and your "model", based on six data points as opposed to the millions on which actual climate models are based is so valid, do you care to tell me why the global temperature is higher now than it was in 1888, and is still rising? Do you think it might possibly have to do with the verified human-caused increase in greenhouse gases? Talk about trying to magic away the obvious.

parados wrote:

Yes, please do look at the black curve on the graph. You will notice that 1998 is LOWER than where the black presently is on the graph in 2007.
...

False!

The black curve is leveling off from a peak in 2002 and is heading downward thereafter as of 2007.

1998 0.546 0.323
1999 0.296 0.348
2000 0.270 0.371
2001 0.409 0.390
2002 0.464 0.405
2003 0.473 0.416
2004 0.447 0.423
2005 0.482 0.426
2006 0.422 0.426
2007 0.403 0.423

ican711nm wrote:

parados wrote:

Yes, please do look at the black curve on the graph. You will notice that 1998 is LOWER than where the black presently is on the graph in 2007.
...

False!

The black curve is leveling off from a peak in 2002 and is heading downward thereafter as of 2007.

ican711nm wrote:

1998 0.546 0.323
1999 0.296 0.348
2000 0.270 0.371
2001 0.409 0.390
2002 0.464 0.405
2003 0.473 0.416
2004 0.447 0.423
2005 0.482 0.426
2006 0.422 0.426
2007 0.403 0.423

Seems to me you contradict yourself quite a bit here.

You have to wonder about the sanity of someone that claims that .405 is a "peak" compared to .426

username wrote:

ican, ... do you care to tell me why the global temperature is higher now than it was in 1888...

I do not know for certain. I don't think anyone else knows for certain.

Scientists allege that a large amount of CO2 is mixed with ocean water. When ocean water warms it increases the rate it releases its CO2 mixed with H2O into the atmosphere. When ocean water cools it reduces that rate. Scientists also allege that the rate humans release CO2 into the atmosphere is trivial compared to the rate ocean water does the same thing. I bet the CO2 content of the atmosphere is primarily controlled by: the temperature of ocean water mixed with CO2, the absorbtion of CO2 by plants; and, CO2 precipitation back to the ground and ocean surfaces of the earth.

I bet the primary control of the temperature of ocean water is the amount of the sun's radiation that reaches the earth. I'll have more to say about that later.

Global average temperatures:
...... Anomally Smoothed
1998 0.546 0.323
1999 0.296 0.348
2000 0.270 0.371
2001 0.409 0.390
2002 0.464 0.405
2003 0.473 0.416
2004 0.447 0.423
2005 0.482 0.426
2006 0.422 0.426
2007 0.403 0.423
...

Direct question: What would the effect on climate be if all terrestrial and aquatic plant life were to die? I'm asking for a direct answer.

The first comment above was about whether a particular graph curve showed a decrease in average global temperature after 1998. I said it did. Parados said it didn't. I claimed that particular graph's curve showed a decrease after 2002, because I thought that clear from examining the graph.