Why do certain AGW supporters present the following article as proof that the SUN has been weaking?

Question

The BBC article shows a graph of neutrons / hour (cosmic ray counts). This graph indicates that the peak from 1975 to the peak at 1997 shows a decline of 100 neutrons / hour. Since Cosmic ray neutrons are inversely proportional to solar activity, it indicates that the SUN has been growing stronger since 1976 not weaker. To simplify this the SUN's magentic field grew stronger and shielded the Solar System from galactic cosmic ray's, which lead to a decline in cosmic ray neutron counts.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6290228.stm

The ACRIM composite data supports this fact as well.

http://www.acrim.com/RESULTS/Earth%20Observatory/earth_obs_fig26.pdf
.
.

--------
Cambel:

There is this little legend on the left side of the ACRIM plot which is a measure of watts per square meter of solar energy reaching the Earths atmosphere. If the SUN outputs more, over even just a decade, regardless of what you say the laws of physics require the world to warm!

-----------------
Patrick:

You right, the point I am making here is not that the sun is the main cause of the warming, if people are going to make statements that the SUN has been weakening since 1980, then do not present data that indicates otherwise.

.

There are some theories coming together that could put the solar contribution over 50%, but there is much work to do, to avoid the lynch mobs.

--------------
Dana:

A decrease in galactic cosmic rays (GCR's) correlates with a decrease in low altitude clouds, which subsequently correlates with an increase in temperatures, which subsequently was beyond the scope of the paper the BBC was refering to.

It's not just SUN and CO2, just because you wan't it to be that does not make it so.

--------------
Keith

Do you honestly think you can draw a slope on cyclical time series and get any information about it's power over time? Well you can't, you have to do spectral analysis, if you are intersted in the truth about ACRIM from an energy versus time perspective, read this, the process is called spectral decomposition.

http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/2005GL025539.pdf

.
.

-------------------------

Bob

The Nobel commitee? the one that awarded Arafat the medal? please.

.

EDIT:

Dana, 1987 to 1997 look at the ACRIM TSI it overwhelmed GCR's, the climate is way more complicated than just looking at two variables.

From 1987 to 1997 the minima increased by 0.5 watts Meter^2, that is one of the main points about ACRIM.

Answer 1

Why--because they don't understand science. First o fall--neutron emissions don't produce temperature increases. Not ones that would be detectable. Any neutron emission that intense would have wiped all life on Earth out in a matter of hours or days. That's just one of the errors the "deniers" make on this particular point.

Second, the scientific evidence--real science, I mean, not crakpots--shows that only about 15% of the global warming can be linked to causes other than CO2 emissions--including solar heating.

But, of course, one has to actually STUDY the issue and do some REAL work to produce real science. Something these kooks couldn't do even if they wern't too lazy.

Answer 2

Not sure what you're trying to argue here. "The SUN has been weakening" is extremely vague.

The TSI has decreased since 1980. This is a simple fact which both ACRIM and PMOD agree upon, partially because 1980 was near a maximum and we're now near a minimum. Averaging the plot shows little net change since 1980, but a slight decrease in TSI.

In regards to cosmic rays, the point is that comparing the two plots (cosmic ray count vs. global temperature), there is absolutely no correlation between the two. Cosmic ray count decreased and increased opposite the sunspot number and TSI, while global warming continued to rise the whole time.

The obvious conclusion is that all of these factors (TSI, sunspot number, cosmic ray count) are being overwhelmed by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.

*edit* that was not beyond the scope of the paper - that's precisely what the paper was discussing. It's even discussed in the BBC article about the paper!

Overall cosmic rays decreased slightly, but their change had no effect on the warming. Cosmic ray number increased from about 1987-1997, and the planet didn't cool.

Okay so from 1987-1997 cosmic ray forcing was in the direction of cooling, but the planet continued to warm. Apparently it wasn't due to greenhouse gas emissions, so what caused the warming?

You're trying really hard to find data to support the theory you want to be true. It's just not there.

Answer 3

Your figure is (a) out of date, and (b) wrong by a factor of 10, as Willson himself now admits, here:
http://www.acrim.com/ACRIM%20Composite%20Graphics.htm

Actual ACRIM composite for solar cycles 21-23 is +.004% per decade, not .04% per decade. PMOD results are -.006% per decade. Both numbers should be considered upper limits, as the absolute bottom of cycle 23 has not yet been reached. And both numbers are quite small in the context of climate change, significantly smaller than the typical variation between solar minimum and maximum within a single cycle.

For example, the ACRIM number, over 30 years, implies just .04 Watts per square meter of solar climate forcing. The increase in CO2 forcing during the same period (1978-2007) is about .77 Watts per square meter.

We have no way of knowing for sure whether future solar cycles will provide positive or negative forcing to the climate. But we do know that CO2 forcing will continue to be significantly positive for the foreseeable future.

Answer 4

The ACRIM data say nothing of the kind. You are getting the statistics all wrong. Ignore the bogus red dots and lines and look only at the ACTUAL DATA which is the swarm of black dots. What is obvious is that the Sun's activity goes up and down very slightly every sunspot cycle and that the data only spans two and a half cycles. There is no statistically significant long term trend, only the random up and down of the sunspot cycle. You would need at least 100 years more data covering many more cycles to draw any meaningful conclusion about a possible long term trend.

No look at my source, which is atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. There is a yearly up and down cycle and a CLEAR upward trend over dozens of cycles. Now if you had solar data like that, I would sit up and take notice. The minimum of the last cycle is above the maximum of the one only 3 cycles back. That is clearly not true of the solar data. That is why I say the solar data show no clear upward trend while the CO2 data do. Now I am not implying a connection between the two data sets. I only want to show what a clear upward trend would look like of you had one, and CO2 has one while the Sun does not.

Answer 5

Because the factors you cite (sunspots and cosmic rays) have little effect on total solar irradiance. That's been proven over and over again. Refutatons from scientists, with many references to the literature.

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11650
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11651
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/07/the-lure-of-solar-forcing/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/taking-cosmic-rays-for-a-spin/

If anyone doesn't like the BBC article they can read the actual study instead, which is yet another refutation.

"Recent oppositely directed trends in solar
climate forcings and the global mean surface
air temperature", Lockwood and Frolich (2007), Proc. R. Soc. A
doi:10.1098/rspa.2007.1880

This is simply denier nonsense. Do you think the Nobel committee was unaware of these claims? They really hate to look like fools. Or that every world leader hasn't heard of these ideas, and rejected them? They'd love to have to not do anything about global warming.

Answer 6

It doesn't seem to matter how the sun might change as far as we humans are concerned. If it does change the Earth will too but small amounts of change in the solar flux seems not to matter at all. For example the real day by day flux changes all year long and not notice of it is made.

Answer 7

Correct me if i'm wrong - but no one has been able to take even the most generous estimates of solar activity and indicate that the sun is responsible for most of the warming over this period.

Answer 8

They shouldn't say that.

Even the IPCC report indicates that as a long term trend, the sun is getting hotter.