Turns out the sun was unusually active in the 20th

M

mop

2,500+ Posts
Turns out (and by "turns out" i should be clear that i mean a paper has been published that suggests as much, but obviously could be wrong) the sun was "unusually" active in the 20th Century and seems to have peaked around 1986....with an accepted lag time of approximately 10 years by some solar physicist in heating effects we have the 1998 super el-nino that led the warmest year on record. since that time the sun has been active until the last 5 or 6 years when we had a fairly significant minimum that has led many solar scientists to consider the possibility of a Maunder or Dalton type minimum on the immediate horizon. this would explain why the temperatures stepped up after 1998 but have not continued to warm since then....in fact, they have been basically level at the new "high" of the 2000's.......

as i have said many times on these boards, the next decade or two should be quite interesting indeed for climate science. many theories on both sides of the debate are being tested right now as it pertains to the sun, clouds, sea level rise, global temperature etc.

here is the hockey schtick reporting on Svaalgard's study:


hockey schtick

while the hockey schtick is clearly a skeptic site, they do a good job of delineating the issues being covered in the paper.
 
that damn sun...it just does whatever it wants to
smile.gif
 
i always have believed that the sun has a more direct affect on climate than any other factor, even man. it explains the extremely divers climate changes over the earths 5 billion(?) year history. if the climate change advocates would accept the sun influence on the earths climate, I would have probably been more acceptable to their studies and and findings. the fact that they would totally dismiss those factors and well as other common sense indicators made me realize they were completely full of it.
 
well, the longer i study this issue, the more convinced I am that the sun indeed is the main driver. i mean in the plainest sense that is obvious and everyone agrees that the sun is the source of all of our warmth, but i think the more general notion is that the sun is incredibly consistent and that any variation in global temperatures must be due to other drivers over and above. my growing conviction from looking at the evidence is that the sun is the source of the Multi-decadal oscillations, cloud formation and even an the possible interplay between ozone and the sun. I think Piers may even be on to something regarding the interplay of the sun with earthquakes.
 
Mop it is great to post links to scientific studies and opinions from scientists. Then we can discuss. What is funny is when you decide to make your own predictions and conclusions. Here are a few quotes from this thread:

"the longer i study this issue, the more convinced I am that the sun indeed is the main driver"

"my growing conviction from looking at the evidence is that the sun is the source of the Multi-decadal oscillations, cloud formation and even an the possible interplay between ozone and the sun."
 
yes hornpharmd....i am a thinking individual who has opinions that are developed based upon what i read. why is that strange in any way? this is a bulletin board.....sort of the point right?
 
Your making scientific conclusions and predictions that you just aren't qualified to make. They are laughable at times. Stick to finding articles or papers, linking them, and making comments on the statements and conclusions of the scientists involved in those articles/papers.
 
hornpharmd, my lack of scientific prerequisites are no secret and this is a political internet board. i don't think anyone is going to make policy based upon my scientific opinions. you are concerned about nothing......not to mention, this whole board is based largely on people making conclusions on issues that they are not qualified to make conclusions about. I constantly have conversations with people about the Bible who are complete ignoramuses when it comes to Scriptures, but that's ok, they have the right to share their thoughts.

besides, you and i both know that whether or not you like me or not, i have kept the discussion going and many of us have learned far more about this subject than we knew 3 years ago when we first started posting on this subject. look at the bright side, you started a thread that is easily in the top 5% of threads (in terms of length) in hornfans history.
 
I'm amused at the carping at mop. This is why people think AGW advocacy is a form of religion- it has the dogmatic belief, the high priests that interpret the truth, and the belief in a coming doomsday brought upon us by our actions, unless we repent. It confirms my belief that many, many more people are religious than consider themselves so.

It's clear that the earth warmed in the latter half of the 20th century, and significantly. It's clear that carbon content is a significant factor in heat retention. data from the last 15 years disspell the models of doom suggesting carbon content was the chief reason.

It's clear that the greatest driver of temperature, dwarfing all others, is solar heat exposure. The most accurate temperature models support that claim.
 
Mona, get ready for GT to squirm....he never answers that question, nor does anyone else on these boards or just about anywhere. CO2 is a very nebulous boogeyman when it comes to specifics.
 
mcbrett, how about just posting a link to an article which explains. I have looked for one at times but apparently I am not good enough at google. i am not asking for anyone to bring their own research but providing some kind of qualified data would help us all understand the subject much better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top