sunspot theory of global warming

[iNow]

We cannot deny the correlation. It is there and clear cut.

I don't understand this comment. At one point in time, the correlation is negative. At another point in time, the correlation is positive. How is it that you are interpreting this as "clear cut?"

 

 

I just do not know right now why sunspots should cause warming at one stage, and cooling at another.

I'm just going to go ahead and put on my "Captain Obvious" hat for a moment...

 

It would appear that sunspots don't cause warming.

 

 

[/Captain Obvious Hat Removed]

 

 

Correlation [math]\ne[/math] Causation

[SkepticLance]

iNow

 

Take another look at the graph. It is intriguing.

There is a 4500 year period where the temperature and sunspot activity graphs are very close to exact mirror images. This is a clear cut negative correlation.

 

Then it switches to a clear cut positive correlation for another 5000 years.

 

These are not tiny insignificant effects. These are millennia long trends. And a negative correlation, if it is strong like this one, is every bit as powerful as evidence as a positive correlation.

 

I cannot explain why the correlation goes from negative to positive, but it does. Denying it happens does not make it not happen. And they do not cancel each other out. To suggest they do is sloppy thinking. There are two clear cut effects.

 

Now, I have admitted many times that I do not know how sunspot activity affects global temperature, and I have said that there are several theories. In spite of some people who clearly do not understand science, a lack of a known mechanism does not put a phenomenon outside of science. A lack of known mechanism simply shows that we lack understanding. The phenomenon still exists.

 

If you want to make a genuine contribution, why not come up with a reason for the negative correlation period, rather than simply trying to deny the data?

 

I just took another look myself. If you check the changes in direction of the slopes of the two graphs, in most (almost all) cases, the sunspot graph precedes the temperature graph. That is; the sunspot activity variations precede the temperature variations. This is strong evidence that sunspot activity is the cause and temperature variation is the effect.

 

I think this graph is quite exciting. Assuming it is correct (anything from Wiki must be treated as suspect) then it demonstrates a new phenomenon I was not aware of. A new puzzle to decipher.

[swansont]

I cannot explain why the correlation goes from negative to positive, but it does. Denying it happens does not make it not happen. And they do not cancel each other out. To suggest they do is sloppy thinking. There are two clear cut effects.

 

Why is it sloppy thinking to consider that if a correlation changes sign that perhaps it isn't causal?

[SkepticLance]

To swansont

 

Think about probability. What are the chances, that if a correlation changes sign due to some random event, that both the negative and positive correlations should follow the event so closely? And over a period of thousands of years.

 

Now, to be honest, I regard the easiest explanation of the graph as being that the Wiki contributor either made a whopping mistake, or was an outright hoaxer. However, I do not know that. If the same data can be shown from a different, and more reliable source, to confirm the graph, then we have an interesting puzzle.

[iNow]

A lack of known mechanism simply shows that we lack understanding. The phenomenon still exists.

Prove it. Maybe using something like evidence, instead of just logic.

 

 

If you want to make a genuine contribution, why not come up with a reason for the negative correlation period, rather than simply trying to deny the data?

What about my contributions has not been genuine?

[SkepticLance]

To bascule

 

I will try to answer your question.

Increased sunspot activity also results in a greatly strengthened magnetic field eminating from said sunspot areas.

It results in much greater solar flare activity, and an enhanced solar wind.

 

These cause the auroras, electronic disturbances, a reduction in cosmic ray flux, a reduction in cloud cover and probably other effects also.

 

Sunspots also lead to a change in the frequency output of EMR from the sun, with a substantial increase in the UV component, which may result in increased ozone thickness and subsequent increase in greenhouse effect.

 

The increase in radiation directly causing warming is minimal. The other effects, though, are clearly substantial.

[iNow]

Sunspots also lead to a change in the frequency output of EMR from the sun, with a substantial increase in the UV component, which may result in increased ozone thickness and subsequent increase in greenhouse effect.

 

The increase in radiation directly causing warming is minimal. The other effects, though, are clearly substantial.

 

How about a source? I'd like to put a number... a magnitude... on this "substantial" effect.

[SkepticLance]

As a matter of interest, I did a correlation coefficient calculation for the graph. This will not be perfect, since I do not have the raw data, and had to take data directly off the graph, thus introducing error, but it still gives a good indication.

 

For the period of 10,000BP to 6,500 BP, there was a correlation coefficient of +0.912

 

For the period of 4,000 BP to 500 BP, there was a correlation coefficient of -0.875

 

Both are impressive coefficients and not to be laughed out of court. Interesting that the first correlation coefficient is higher. This is strong evidence of a genuine relationship. The fact that the peaks and troughs in the sunspot graph come earlier than that of the temperature proxy is strong evidence that the sunspot activity is the cause, and temperature change the effect.

[iNow]

This is strong evidence of a genuine relationship.

 

No, it's not. You said yourself that you didn't have access to the source data, and acknowledged that you introduced additional error with your methods.

[bascule]

To bascule

 

I will try to answer your question.

 

Sorry, you failed. My question was:

 

Can you name some non-electromagnetic force emitted by sunspot activity that's a radiative forcing or impacts one?

 

First, you listed several electromagnetic forces. Second, you listed several other random things without qualifying why they're radiative forcings or affect other radiative forcings.

 

You didn't address my question at all.

 

How about a source? I'd like to put a number... a magnitude... on this "substantial" effect.

 

Seconded. SkepticLance, this line:

 

The increase in radiation directly causing warming is minimal. The other effects, though, are clearly substantial.

 

...is complete and utter bullshit. You've been peddling this pet theory forever and repeatedly ignored any requests for any kind of scientific substantiation of it.

 

Put up or shut up. Seriously. Otherwise this stuff belongs in pseudoscience.

[SkepticLance]

To bascule

 

It would appear that you have a major blind spot in your understanding of science, in that you always demand a mechanism. Sometimes scientists do not know how something works, but observe the phenomenon anyway. Even without the understanding of mechanism, the study of that phenomenon and the recognition of its existence is still science.

 

Sunspots and climate are the case in point. No-one knows the mechanism, though there are various theories. Yet the observations of correlation between sunspot activity and changes in global temperature are solid.

 

No reference I post will satisfy you. However, I must try. Here is one :

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3869753.stm

 

"Scientists based at the Institute for Astronomy in Zurich used ice cores from Greenland to construct a picture of our star's activity in the past.

 

They say that over the last century the number of sunspots rose at the same time that the Earth's climate became steadily warmer.

 

The warming is being amplified by gases from fossil fuel burning, they argue."

 

Of course, sunspot activity did not increase past about 1950, except for the regular cycle. After 1976, the warming was greenhouse gases. But that does not alter the impact sunspots had earlier.

 

I also have a printed copy of a paper from SCIENCE :vol. 294, 7 Dec. 2001

Title : Persistent solar influence on North Atlantic climate during the Holocene.

The abstract begins :

"Surface winds and surface ocean hydrography in the subpolar North Atlantic appear to have been influenced by variations in solar output throughout the entire Holocene. The evidence comes from a close correlation between inferred changes in production rates of the cosmogenic nuclides carbon-14 and beryllium-10.....

 

In case you do not know, these radioisotopes are created by cosmic rays, and there are fewer of these isotopes in times of high sunspot activity due to their ability to deflect cosmic rays from the Earth.

 

I could dig out more papers, but you will deny them all, so it is a waste of time. You can lead a horse to water , but you cannot make him drink. You can lead someone to truth, but .....

[SkepticLance]

To iNow

 

What is the point of me debating with you? You simply deny all evidence. Not very scientific.

 

Sure, my data had an additional error factor, but it was minor. The calculated coefficient will vary a bit according to which parts of the graph you sample, but not by much. The final conclusion is valid, even if you find it inconvenient.

 

When you use a denial of data as the basis for your argument you are leaving science and entering pseudoscience.

[swansont]

To swansont

 

Think about probability. What are the chances, that if a correlation changes sign due to some random event, that both the negative and positive correlations should follow the event so closely? And over a period of thousands of years.

 

Now, to be honest, I regard the easiest explanation of the graph as being that the Wiki contributor either made a whopping mistake, or was an outright hoaxer. However, I do not know that. If the same data can be shown from a different, and more reliable source, to confirm the graph, then we have an interesting puzzle.

 

The sunspot data is from Solanki, and the temperature data is from NOAA.

 

Feel free to find some other data, of which I will note that you have directly presented none. Appeal to conspiracy is not a scientific objection.

 

I also have a printed copy of a paper from SCIENCE :vol. 294, 7 Dec. 2001

Title : Persistent solar influence on North Atlantic climate during the Holocene.

The abstract begins :

"Surface winds and surface ocean hydrography in the subpolar North Atlantic appear to have been influenced by variations in solar output throughout the entire Holocene. The evidence comes from a close correlation between inferred changes in production rates of the cosmogenic nuclides carbon-14 and beryllium-10.....

 

In case you do not know, these radioisotopes are created by cosmic rays, and there are fewer of these isotopes in times of high sunspot activity due to their ability to deflect cosmic rays from the Earth.

 

 

And that's why you can use the radioisotope variations as a proxy for sunspot activity, which is a proxy for solar irradiance. What you have to establish is that it's the cosmic ray effects instead of the irradiance that is being discussed.

 

Given that the authors say "Here we test the solar-climate connection by comparing high-resolution measurements of drift ice in three North Atlantic deep-sea cores with proxies of changes in solar irradiance through the entire length of the Holocene." I'd say you have an uphill climb ahead of you.

[iNow]

To iNow

 

What is the point of me debating with you? You simply deny all evidence. Not very scientific.

 

Sure, my data had an additional error factor, but it was minor. The calculated coefficient will vary a bit according to which parts of the graph you sample, but not by much. The final conclusion is valid, even if you find it inconvenient.

 

When you use a denial of data as the basis for your argument you are leaving science and entering pseudoscience.

 

You've responded to some very basic requests for evidence made by both me and Bascule with personal attacks.

 

You need to share some data. Stop telling me that I am denying evidence, because you've provided none.

 

If you don't like my challenges to your work or your posts, start supporting them more appropriately and I won't need to make such basic challenges at every turn.

[SkepticLance]

To swansont

 

I made no appeal to conspiracy - merely said that such a strange set of results would be easiest explained if they were not true. However, I proceeded to debate as if they were true. Interesting you quote Solanki as an authority on this. In other posts, you argue that his work is not to be taken as accurate.

 

Swansont also said :

"What you have to establish is that it's the cosmic ray effects instead of the irradiance that is being discussed."

 

Not true. What I have pointed out is that bascule's solar forcings calculations do not correlate with sunspot activity, which is simple truth. I have also pointed out that sunpot activity correlates with global temperature change, which is also true. I do NOT need to explain the mechanism, and I will not try, except to point out some of the theories. The phenomenon exists, whether people understand the mechanism or not.

 

 

To iNow. Do you believe that calculated correlation is not evidence?

[iNow]

To iNow. Do you not believe that calculated correlation is evidence?

Not when the calculation is performed without source data and not when the methods knowingly introduce additional error.

 

Further, a correlation is just that... a correlation. Evidence is the data itself.

[swansont]

To swansont

 

I made no appeal to conspiracy - merely said that such a strange set of results would be easiest explained if they were not true. However, I proceeded to debate as if they were true. Interesting you quote Solanki as an authority on this. In other posts, you argue that his work is not to be taken as accurate.

 

You claimed that it could be a hoax, which an entirely different type of speculation.

 

And yes, I must admit found the irony that you would refer to data from Solanki by saying "If the same data can be shown from a different, and more reliable source" (emphasis added) to be quite delicious.

 

Swansont also said :

"What you have to establish is that it's the cosmic ray effects instead of the irradiance that is being discussed."

 

Not true. What I have pointed out is that bascule's solar forcings calculations do not correlate with sunspot activity, which is simple truth. I have also pointed out that sunpot activity correlates with global temperature change, which is also true. I do NOT need to explain the mechanism, and I will not try, except to point out some of the theories. The phenomenon exists, whether people understand the mechanism or not.

 

But we've established that fully half of the sunspot data does NOT correlate well with temperature. If you want to claim that it does, please provide supporting evidence.

[SkepticLance]

iNow

 

Why do I bother? I must be nuts. When I supply evidence you deny it is evidence, like King Canute telling the tide to reverse itself. At least Canute was wise enough to know he would fail.

 

To swansont

 

It is false to say half the data does not correlate, if you are referring to the wiki graph. Both halves correlate, and to a high level. The sign changes, but any good scientist knows that a negative correlation is just as significant as a positive correlation.

[iNow]

iNow

 

Why do I bother? I must be nuts. When I supply evidence you deny it is evidence, like King Canute telling the tide to reverse itself. At least Canute was wise enough to know he would fail.

 

I'll take your response to mean that you cannot support your comments with evidence or direct citations, and that your contributions thus far have been nothing more than an unsubstantiated personal opinion.

 

 

You can hunt in the field and woods of your possession all you want. If you make a claim in a science forum, you should support it. When your assertions are challenged, you should support them. When your postulates are proven false, you should abandon them. You cannot forego my hunting, because I shoot down bullshit where and whenever it happens to pass through the cross hairs of my scope.

[vampares]

I've seen graphs that correlate sunspots to temperature. Sunspots do seem to increase the energy that the sun irradiates. That increase is seen as a temperature rise.

 

There are a few issues.

 

1. Global Warming is a trend that effects lower temperature climates more than cold ones. Conversely, because lower latitudes recieve a greater portion of the suns energy, they would be the most affected by sun spots.
   
2. At night there is no sunlight. High altitudes, for instance, loose heat very rapidly at night because there is less atmosphere to retain the energy. These differences between night and day create the expected weather patterns should not be affected by sun spots.
   
3. Sunspot contribute to Global Warming and to Global Cooling.
   

[SkepticLance]

I am going to have to take a break for the next week. Business trip, in which I have to leave my trusty old computer behind.

 

You guys may talk to each other in my absense.

[iNow]

I've seen graphs that correlate sunspots to temperature. Sunspots do seem to increase the energy that the sun irradiates. That increase is seen as a temperature rise.

 

There are a few issues.

 

1. Global Warming is a trend that effects lower temperature climates more than cold ones. Conversely, because lower latitudes recieve a greater portion of the suns energy, they would be the most affected by sun spots.
   
2. At night there is no sunlight. High altitudes, for instance, loose heat very rapidly at night because there is less atmosphere to retain the energy. These differences between night and day create the expected weather patterns should not be affected by sun spots.
   
3. Sunspot contribute to Global Warming and to Global Cooling.
   

 

Can you please supply sources/citations for the above? Perhaps (at the very least) link to the graphs you reference?

[swansont]

Something that will be waiting for you when you get back...

 

To swansont

 

It is false to say half the data does not correlate, if you are referring to the wiki graph. Both halves correlate, and to a high level. The sign changes, but any good scientist knows that a negative correlation is just as significant as a positive correlation.

 

Hmmm. Post #47, just two days ago,

 

According to your Wiki graph, there is a lack of correlation over the period 5000 to 10000 BP.

 

So either you are contradicting yourself, or it's that we had already established that we meant positive correlation was correlation, and negative correlation was something different (I had used the term "anti-correlation"), which means this is just equivocation and is sidestepping the point.

[SkepticLance]

To swansont

 

Yes, I was contradicting myself, and I am very aware of the fact. Looked at positively, it is called mental flexibility. It means I am capable of looking at the facts a second time and realising that my first conclusion was wrong.

 

I suggest you do the same. The 10000BP to 6000BP part of the graph is not an 'anti-correlation'. It is a negative correlation, with a coefficient over 9. It is, indeed, a surprising result, but nevertheless, it is there.

 

Feel free to do your own correlation coefficient calculations. If done correctly, you will come up with a figure close to mine. Not exactly the same, since you will have to sample the graph, and your sampling points will be different to mine. But the correlation will be close.

 

If you want to comment further, be quick, since I will be gone tomorrow.

[iNow]

It is false to say half the data does not correlate, if you are referring to the wiki graph. Both halves correlate, and to a high level. The sign changes, but any good scientist knows that a negative correlation is just as significant as a positive correlation.

 

Correct. However, you have been arguing that an increase of sunspot activity is positively correlated with an increase of global temperature. The data shows that there is a very significant period where this is not the case... and, in fact, the exact opposite is observed (the negative correlation).

 

Considering this data speaks against your position, the onus would be on you to offer a viable mechanism by which... during one particular epoch sunspots increase and global temperatures decrease... and during another epoch sunspots increase and global temperature increases.

 

However, you'd probably save yourself some time by first defining whether or not sunspots cause temperature change, or if they just happen to be correlated with it.

 

I hope the trip goes well. Enjoy.