Jeff Engr asked in EnvironmentGlobal Warming · 7 years ago

The sun really has no impact on climate?

A new study show possible links between lightning and solar winds.

So if solar winds have this level of direct effect on weather patterns to directly impact the frequency and presumably the intensity of lighting, then how can you say that changes in solar output, not TSI, do not impact climatic shifts on earth?


EDIT: Darwinist - The 11 year Haline cycle if it was entirely uniform and cinsistant would mean that over time this has little net impact. However there are other cycles involved. We are just coming out a a grand solar Maxima (longer cycle meaning strong 11 year cycles stronger solar winds etc) We are believed to be entering into a Grand Solar Minema.

There is a great deal we still do not know. i.e. length of solar cycle actually seems to matter more than sunspot counts.

Update 2:

Update 2: Dook, actually I found the article here.

Yes I can read and understand this report. Why do you have to try so hard to be offensive?

16 Answers

  • Anonymous
    7 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    Additionally to your well-received information:

    " ... The IPCC attributes 20th century global warming primarily to CO2 on the basis of climate modeling, claiming that the increase in solar activity during the 20th century was insufficient to cause the observed warming. Thus, it is claimed, CO2 is by default the only other possible cause of the warming [they don't know how to model ocean oscillations, so those are automatically & conveniently excluded as a cause].

    However, climate models are programmed with solar forcing that is 5-13 times less than found by state-of-the-art solar activity reconstructions. ... "

    " ... For example, the NASA-GISS climate model uses a solar forcing assumption which shows solar activity increased during the 20th century by only about 0.3 Watts per meter squared [W/m2]. Contemporary solar activity reconstructions, however, show that solar activity increased during the 20th century by 1.5 - 4 W/m2 or 5 - 13 times more than assumed by the NASA-GISS model. Reconstructed Total Solar Irradiance [TSI] shows an increase of ~ 4 W/m2 over the 20th century. Solar forcing based on these modern reconstructions is 1 - 2.6 times higher than the alleged forcing from increased greenhouse gases during the 20th century. In addition, climate models do not consider any of the multiple solar amplification mechanisms which have been described in the literature. Thus, the IPCC and others dismiss the role of the Sun in climate by conveniently assuming solar activity changed 5 - 13 times less than the research indicates.

    In addition, since solar forcing was much higher than assumed by the models, this implies that CO2 forcing was significantly less than assumed by the models. ... "

    This answer was funded by BIG OIL and the Koch Bros. - (I made money to buy a BIG OIL funded computer by using BIG OIL manufactured fossil fuels to get me to places where others desired my expertise where I used BIG OIL manufactured products to build something that benefitted the person. Thanks to BIG OIL and the Koch Bros. for the ability to answer this question with honesty and integrity and deliver some clarity on how Climate Science keeps "sun activity" from being such a menace to their cause!) :-) Have a great day!!!

    Source(s): Source is not needed or necessary. These are the facts with the endorsement of real scientists and with no help from IP CC Climate Hacks or Academics.
  • JimZ
    Lv 7
    7 years ago

    Ignorance is not a theory but it seems to be the main theory that alarmists present as their holy grail. That impact of the sun alone cannot account for the observed warming over the past century yada yada yada. It can't account for the warming and neither can CO2 IMO.

    It is interesting about the correlation with lightning though. I watched something just recently, Modern Marvels actually, that stated lightning was caused by ice and water droplets interacting but then again I believed the thing about red wine, and saturated fats, but I digress.

  • 7 years ago

    Scientists have already looked at the impact of solar activity on climate. Since you're willing to accept their lightning research, perhaps you'd be willing to take a look at and accept the work that Professors Lockwood & Harrison have done on the link between solar activity and climate.

    The other authors, Chris Scott, Matt Owens and Luke Barnard don't really do climate attribution stuff, they're almost entirely space weather research (at least they were a year or so ago). But there are lots of other scientists who have looked at this, and you can see their work cited in previous IPCC reports.

  • 7 years ago

    If there were a study showing a change in the number of cumulonimbus clouds with the solar wind, that would be more significant. Lightning is an electrical breakdown and the exact thing that initiates the breakdown is not well understood. It's not too surprising that changes in the solar particle flux can change the lightning rate, since high energy particles can initiate the ionization that results in a lightning stroke. Cosmic rays can too. If you flew around a radioactive source I'm sure you could also do it that way. There are people that believe that lightning is ALWAYS initiated by something seemingly external, like a cosmic ray shower.

    The question is, OTHER than a change in the lightning rate, does the solar wind affect more significant climatological variables, and I don't think you can draw that conclusion from this study.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 7 years ago

    I'm sure that solar variation does have some effect, but wouldn't it be cyclical; in harmony with the 11yr solar cycle? I'm sure that, in time, we will be able to say that some weather phenomena are related to the sun but that increasing global average temperatures will not be one of them.

    Now I'll take a look at your link and see if there is anything else to add.

    Edit; Yeah, interesting link, but more to do with weather than global warming.

    Edit 2; Didn't the "Grand Solar Maxima" peak about 60 years ago? The Little Ice Age didn't lag the Maunder Minimum; if the sun was the only or main driver, wouldn't temps have peaked 60 years ago?

    As for solar cycle length being significant, honestly, there is zero correlation with global average temperatures.

  • Tomcat
    Lv 5
    7 years ago

    I see what you are getting at, there is obviously a transfer of energy to earths atmosphere from the sun that is not associated with visible light. The solar magnetic field as well as the particle flux from the SUN could potentially modulate the transparency of the atmospheric and perhaps other mechanisms that are not quite understood. Most pea brained climatalogist have not investigated this or have attempted to model it because it is too complicated. People like Hey Dook are forced to just believe in things because they are incapable of understanding the physics associated with any of these topics.

  • gcnp58
    Lv 7
    7 years ago

    Straw man and not even a well constructed straw man.

    No credible climate scientist ever claimed the sun has no impact. What has been demonstrated is that impact of the sun alone cannot account for the observed warming over the past century.

    I'm sorry to point out your arguments are stupid. But I guess this is the best you've got at this point.


  • 7 years ago

    There is no change in solar output or activity that explains 150 years of warming. Sun has lots of effect. But as you say solar activity has been declining as the earth's environment has warmed. They have been going in opposite directions.

    I have no clue how you think this link between solar winds and lightening explains warming. I think you are making no sense.

  • 7 years ago

    Why is this very likely irrelevant to climate science?

    1. Because hundreds of scientists have studied the bejesus out of solar links for decades and found consistently that they pale in comparison with AGW and

    2) You are pretending to read an advanced scientific journal that you most probably have little ability to understand, and are avoiding mentioning the almost certain fact that you copied and pasted this from the most notorious of anti-science deception blogs which featured that exact same url link TODAY:

    EDIT: So Jeff, based on your update 2, it is revealed that you took time off from your studies of solar impacts on climate today to read spaceweather, on a day when they just happened to have the same lead article as Wattsup's first post.

    And back a month ago here

    you asked about methane (which does not come from the sun or space) and by odd chance posted a link to Wattsup

    And back in October/November

    again, by strange coincidence, you just happened to discover an article entitled "Terrestrial ground temperature variations in relation to solar magnetic variability, including the present Schwabe cycle" to which here on YA you "asked" whether the article will "resolve the issue of what forces are more powerful. Man caused CO2 or Nature?" apparently having by chance failed to read p. 1115 of that article stating the temperature "increase that started around the beginning of the 20th century is apparently non-solar and has another, most probably anthropogenic origin." And all this at just the time when that author of that same article, a 92 year old scientist, was featured as a guest blogger on.....Wattsup

    So many coincidences, Jeff. Strange, but no reason to feel offended. Exposed maybe, but not offended.

  • 7 years ago

    On the contrary, the sun is the main driver of climate.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.