Climate deniers can you find me any graphs which show an increase in solar activity over the past 50 years?
Preferrably one from a reputable scientific organization, as opposed to, say, The Heartland Institute.
- Dana1981Lv 71 decade agoFavorite Answer
They can't because none exists because solar activity hasn't increased in 50 years.
- DaveHLv 51 decade ago
“Climate deniers can you find me any graphs which show an increase in solar activity over the past 50 years?
I think I can do that for you.
Here’s an extract from “Lean, Judith 2000. "Evolution of the Sun's Spectral Irradiance Since the Maunder Minimum." Geophysical Research Letters, 27, 2425-2428”
"For the period 1610-2000 (N = 391), the mean value for TSI is 1364.665 W m-2, with a sample standard deviation of 0.840. For 1951-2000 (N = 50), the respective figures are 1366.064 W m-2 and 0.373."
http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960/LeanTSI.html ... scroll down towards the bottom. Clear solar warming up to 1950 to about 2000... the end of the data series.
That data stops at 2000, but we have another authoritative dataset (from SOURCE) starting just after that...
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/total_solar_irradia... Solar cooling from 2003/2004 onwards.
- TinaLv 45 years ago
The first I heard of this was some unknown (to me) Russian scientists (don't remember the name) claiming that we were entering a "Maunder Minimum" like condition quite a few years ago. I was skeptical then but perhaps slightly less skeptical now since we have had a period recently with very few sun spots. I know that the earth doesn't really rotate around the sun. It rotates around a point that is center of mass between the earth and sun but because the sun is so much more massive, that center is probably still within the sun but offset slightly toward the earth. The same can be said of the orbits of other planets. If I understood the point correctly, I don't see how that could change the mechanism of fusion and its convection currents and magnetic storms etc but it would be interesting to me if it did. I wouldn't have thought that as a mechanism for variability. Certainly as the sun wobbles around it changes its distance and therefore we would recieve different amounds of energy. I don't know much about the sun. I assume it is convection currents "metallic" hydrogen that accounts for its magnetic field that switches every 11 years or so but it is hard to fathom how a giant nuclear fusion plasma ball changes its behavior over time with regularity but apparently it does. I guess I should research it some more but I am pretty sure our knowledge is somewhat limited anyway. But I digress I just can't see comments like Gavin Schmidt being anything except knee-jerk rejection of anything that might threaten his personal theories and bias. I am skeptical that they know the forcings of variious things as well as they think they do. They seem to go out of their way to discount the total solar irradience, and it is something that we hear alarmists frequently mentioning, yet seldom mentioning other factors of the sun or its possible effects on other forcings. I too thought the lag was established but it seems when you are knee-jerk in your response, it is easy to overlook inconvenient factors. Note. Thanks for the links, I will read them. Second Note: Yes that was the bell I heard.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
They all show... decreasing solar activity from the mid 30s to the late 1970's increasing from the late 1970's to the late 1990s, decreasing since then, with an almost complete lack of solar activity for the last year.
It is not only the total number of sunspots that correlates with climate, but the "peak to peak distance" in cycles. The closer the cycles are together, the warmer things tend to be, the further apart the cooler.
I happened to be around in the 60's and 70's and can tell you that people were very concerned about cooling temperatures.
(Less hyper about cooling than warming however. The appitite people have these days for doom is interesting. Then there was more confidence in our ability to adapt, and we were really concerned about things we could actually do something about, like the Cold War and Nuclear Weapons policies like Mutually Assured Destruction.)
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Start here and then also study the links at the bottom of the page. There is also one that illustrates sun spot activity since the 1600s along with a climate chart that shows the climate ups and downs closely follow the sunspot cycle. AGW is religion, not science. The sunspot cycle is science not religion!
- campbelp2002Lv 71 decade ago
The Sky and Telescope web site has articles that say, "Solar Variations Not to Blame for Global Warming" and "Sun Guilty in Global Warming". Interestingly, the article that says the Sun is not to blame is free, but you have to pay for the one that says it is to blame. This tells me that people really want to blame the Sun and so are willing to pay for arguments in their favor.
I subscribe to the magazine and have a hard copy of a third article in the March 2009 issue. You can read it free at your local library. There is a graph on page 34 showing about a 0.1% increase in Solar Irradiance in 100 years.
- TomcatLv 51 decade ago
Sure, NASA is a good source, I hope that helps.
- bucket22Lv 51 decade ago
Peter's answer is "no".
Tomcat's graph also shows a decline.