Sunspots cause global warming?
This video contains a lot of crazy-sounding ideas, but it got me thinking about global warming.
It shows a graph that correlates temperature to sunspots. This reminded me of the NOVA graphs that correlated temperature to CO2. Could all three things be related?
I campaigned on the issue of global warming in 2002, so this issue is important to me. I still think we need to reduce consumption to address peak oil, as I’m not convinced ethanol is the answer. I’ll be surprised if both peak oil and global warming are ever refuted, but I’ll keep an open mind.
posted by Tom Cleland @ 1/02/2009 05:46:00 PM
4 comments
4 Comments:
Water vapour is the most important green house gas followed by methane. The third most important greenhouse gas is CO2, and it does not correlate well with global warming or cooling either; in fact, CO2 in the atmosphere trails warming which is clear natural evidence for its well-studied inverse solubility in water: CO2 dissolves in cold water and bubbles out of warm water. The equilibrium in seawater is very high, making seawater a great 'sink'; CO2 is 34 times more soluble in water than air is soluble in water.
Correlation is not causation to be sure. The causation has been studied, however, and while the radiation from the sun varies only in the fourth decimal place, the magnetism is awesome. As I understand it, the hypothesis of the Danish National Space Center goes as follows:
Quiet sun → reduced magnetic and thermal flux = reduced solar wind → geomagnetic shield drops → galactic cosmic ray flux → more low-level clouds and more snow → more albedo effect (more heat reflected) → colder climate
Active sun → enhanced magnetic and thermal flux = solar wind → geomagnetic shield response → less low-level clouds → less albedo (less heat reflected) → warmer climate
That is how the bulk of climate change might work, coupled with (modulated by) sunspot peak frequency there are cycles of global warming and cooling like waves in the ocean. When the waves are closely spaced, the planets warm; when the waves are spaced farther apart, the planets cool.
Using a box of air in a Copenhagen lab, physicists traced the growth of clusters of molecules of the kind that build cloud condensation nuclei. These are specks of sulphuric acid on which cloud droplets form. High-energy particles driven through the laboratory ceiling by exploded stars far away in the Galaxy - the cosmic rays - liberate electrons in the air, which help the molecular clusters to form much faster than climate scientists have modeled in the atmosphere. That may explain the link between cosmic rays, cloudiness and climate change.
The ultimate cause of the solar magnetic cycle may be cyclicity in the Sun-Jupiter centre of gravity. We await more on that. In addition, although the post 60s warming period is over, it has allowed the principal green house gas, water vapour, to kick in with humidity, clouds, rain and snow depending on where you live to provide the negative feedback that scientists use to explain the existence of complex life on Earth for 550 million years. The planet heats and cools naturally and our gasses are the thermostat. Check the web site of the Danish National Space Center.
Keeping in mind that windmills are hazardous to birds, be wary of the unintended consequences of believing and contributing to the all-knowing environmental lobby groups.
Thanks.
Here's another perspective: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7327393.stm
The BBC has been following, as journalists have a habit of doing. They never lead and moreover, a journlist should never preach. How can CO2 be held responsible for warming now that there has been cooling for ten years? There have been no Krakatoa events; there have been no meteorite impacts of mention. How does the BBC explain the poor correlation between CO2 increase and temperature decrease? They believe, which is the common denominator with any other religion.
Post a Comment
<< Home