Is it irresponsible to continue to ignore the SUN?

Question

Over the last 5 years Total Solar irradiance TSI levels have dropped by 1 W/m^2 and current data suggest that it is still declining.

http://lasp.colorado.edu/cgi-bin/ion-p?ION__E1=PLOT%3Aplot_tsi_data.ion&ION__E2=PRINT%3Aprint_tsi_data.ion&ION__E3=BOTH%3Aplot_and_print_tsi_data.ion&START_DATE=&STOP_DATE=&BOTH=Output+Text+%26+Plot+Data

Solar cycle 24 should have started last December, scientists now think that it could be as late as 2009 before it begins. There is very little doubt that solar cycle 24 will be weak when it does start. Solar cycle 25 is forecast to be even weaker than 24, if this scenario actually occurs members of the Russian Academy of Sciences indicate that global temperatures could drop by 1.5 degrees C. by 2020. If global temperatures continue to diminish over the next two decades it almost certainly will cause severe hardships for humanity, so I ask is it irresponsible to ignore the warning signs.

http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article3223603.ece

EDIT Blazin2,

You can at least prepare yourself for the possibility of a Little Ice Age by 2020 instead of Florida weather, if you are a policy maker.

EDIT BOB:

If the SUN drops another 3 watts by 2020, I do not think you can call that tiny.

EDIT Bob:

You lack a clear understanding of climate forcing, if the earth warmed by 1.2 degree farenheit and the Earth is 500 degrees F. above absolute zero, the warming is tiny according to you logic, so why worry about it?

Answer 1

Totally Irresponsible.
Do you monitor the Sun's emissions including solar winds and X-Ray Solar Flairs?
http://spaceweather.com/

I happen to believe that solar cycle 24 may have been forecast centuries ago as having a major effect on earth in 2012 (cycle 24).
Also notice the increasing cloud covers likely due to warming oceans, which warming ocean waters will - melt ice 1000 times quicker than air temperature - and vastly increase CO2 in lower atmospheres (not allowing CO2 to be reabsorbed back into oceans)
Also the Sun's magnetic emissions could have a MAJOR effect on earth's plate tectonics - releasing huge amounts of the heat trapped under the crust in the mantel (at least 1600++ degrees)
This is written not as ALARMISM! Just to let people know some of the many factors parochial people and scientists don't look at.

Answer 2

It's irresponsible to ignore any scientific data about our climate. Even though the sun irradiance has dropped is there not a time lag due to the oceans ability to store vast majorities of the sun's rays. Meaning: even though the sun's irradiance has gone down it takes time for the oceans to get rid of all the extra stored. Could that be a reason why in past few years it was still warmer than average. Only time will tell and your absolutely right, if global temps do drop by 1.5 degrees C, then this will cause more damage than the amount of warming we are seeing now. That's for sure. Cooler weather kills more than warmer weather.

Answer 3

confident it has strengthen right into a faith and Al Gore is the pope of the cult.think of of ways plenty money particular communities will make off of the hype.think of of all that government money going to "learn".as properly there is in basic terms plenty you're able to do ,inspite of each little thing whoever controls the components controls the international.worry is the perfect political motivator. climate exchange is a factor of the character of the planet.ordinary experience is to have clean potential yet till there's a dollar in all of it that happens is communicate,communicate and greater communicate.government regulations,fines and outcomes(gotta get that bailout money someplace) We certainly desire clean air and water .i'm the unique recycler and that i don't waste potential only like many different persons.i exploit potential and don't decide for the "guilt" holiday of doing so. I actually have a topic with Gore the guru who flies around a gasoline guzzling jet.So does Queen Pelosi who opted for a much bigger one to fly lower back and forth to California.keep in mind her asserting she desires to maintain the planet,yeah she flies we walk.we are in a position to all initiate by potential of utilising the hot potential saving mild bulbs. Oh I forgot they are those with mercury in them.Oh,properly feels like a solid concept on the time. i assume you all heard that some genius flesh presser wanted to tax cow farmers for any that very own greater beneficial than one hundred for emitting "methane gas" yeah that is genuine.do we bottle it as a exchange?Or on 2d concept deliver some from the bull to that flesh presser as he's accustomed to the B.S. while he sees or smells it.

Answer 4

I think the sun should be banned. It is the primary cause of most bad things. It causes skin cancer. It provides energy for tobacco. It causes drought and hunger. Small children have been burned. It has caused me discomfort just this morning when trying to go to work and I had to put my visor down. It, along with that lethal gas, CO2, that will surely burst our world into a ball of fire within the next decade. It will melt the glaciers and swamp the poor islanders living on a tiny atol. Lets not wait. We cannot aford to wait. Our children's lives are at stake. We must ban the sun or we will lall suffer the consequences. We have a clear scientific consensus that the sun provides that dreaded warmth. Should we ignore the science. What fool out there would ignore the science. Please we must act fast. I beg you.

Answer 5

Considering that the planet continues to warm, and considering that the overall TSI has decreased over the past 30 years as global warming has accelerated rapidly...yes, it would be irresponsible to ignore the Sun, but obviously nobody is doing that. Quite clearly the Sun is playing little role in the current warming.

"The ACRIM data shows a slight increase in TSI - the PMOD data shows practically no trend at all. Regardless of which dataset you use, the trend is so slight, solar variations can only have contributed a fraction of the current global warming. There is much deal made of Scafetta 2006 which analyses the ACRIM data and finds 50% of warming since 1900 is due to solar variations. However, the warming from solar influence occured primarily in the early 20th century when the sun showed significant warming. As for the global warming trend that began in 1975, Scafetta concludes "since 1975 global warming has occurred much faster than could be reasonably expected from the sun alone."

http://www.skepticalscience.com/acrim-pmod-sun-getting-hotter.htm

A decreased TSI over the next couple of cycles may buy us some time to reduce our GHG emissions, but it's not going to save us in the long-term. What happens if the TSI increases again in cycle 26 and we've continued to increase our emissions in the meantime?

Answer 6

Scientists don't ignore it. The do the calculations.

The numbers say that the tiny drop in TSI will be more than overwhelmed by the increase in greenhouse gases, under ANY reasonable scenario.

We're not going to cause cooling, we're simply trying to slow the rate of warming so that we can cope with it. Overdoing it is not possible.

EDIT - That estimate of 3 is just plucked out of their ear. It's highly unlikely to say the least. Are you seriously suggesting that we continue to pump CO2 in the air in an attempt to compensate for an improbable decrease in natural solar radiation suggested by some Russian scientists? With no way to fix it if we're wrong? Not only is it a lousy bet, trying to manipulate nature like that is nuts.

"If the Earth came with an operating manual, the chapter on climate might begin with a caveat that the system has been adjusted at the factory for optimum comfort, so don't touch the dials."

Answer 7

No, as all "facts" that don't support the consensus of AGW need to be burned in an environmentally reasonable fire!

Newt Gingrich and Pat Roberson both agree that AGW is real so it must be true.

No further thought is needed, the science is finished and decided.

Answer 8

ok... like can we really do anything, other than ignore the sun?