"The tardiness of solar cycle 24 indicates that we might be entering a period of low solar activity that may counteract man-made greenhouse temperature increases. Some members of the Russian Academy of Sciences say we may be at the start of a period like that seen between 1790 and 1820, a minor decline in solar activity called the Dalton Minimum. They estimate that the Sun's reduced activity may cause a global temperature drop of 1.5°C by 2020. This is larger than most sensible predictions of man-made global warming over this period."
http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article3223603.ece
By itself the Sun might cause a 1.5°C cooling, but combined with human greenhouse gas emissions and other factors, the cooling would be much less.
The question is, by entering a period of low activity will the Sun buy us some time to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions?
Cycles 24 and 25 would last until approximately 2030.
Do the IPCC projections take this into account?
2007-12-06 09:41:24 · 11 answers · asked by Dana1981 7 in Environment ➔ Global Warming
Anyone who's read my answers with the reading comprehension of at least a 5-year-old knows I have always said that the Sun plays a role in global warming. However, it has played an insignificant role in the recent warming.
2007-12-06 09:52:13 · update #1
You can't take solar activity into account when long-term solar activity is essentially unpredictable. The current TSI level is about 1365.2 w m^-2, just 0.3 W m^-2 below the minima for cycles 21 and 22 (which bottomed out at 1365.5). [Remember also that for climatological purposes, you divide by four to spread that over the Earth's entire surface.] Five years from now, it'll be higher than that, and eleven years from now it'll be back down again.
CO2 forcing continues to increase at about .03 W m^2 per year. Every year. With no signs of slowing down. Ever.
2007-12-06 10:01:31 · answer #1 · answered by Keith P 7 · 5⤊ 5⤋
The sun is the major cause of global warming. Solar activity has been higher in the last 7 decades, than it has in 8000 years. What the AGW crowd fails to accept is that cloud formation varies inversely with solar activity. So, if solar activity decreases to a Dalton Minimum level, we can expect more clouds and less solar energy reaching the surface of the planet, because low level clouds reflect the energy back towards space. CO2 has no effect on infrared (heat) if it doesn't exist.
2007-12-07 01:11:02 · answer #2 · answered by Larry 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The Sun certainly plays a role in global climate. It played a role in the recent warming and the less active Sun will result in cooler temps in the future. Perhaps more important is the fact the PDO just entered a 30 year long cool phase. Taken together, it seems apparent we will be seeing cooler temps for the next 30 years or so. You can expect to hear scientists warning us about the coming Ice Age soon.
2007-12-06 17:24:28 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
The IPCC does indeed take solar variability into account chapter 2, page 188.
David Whitehouse was the BBC’s News Online science editor, but if you take a look at this article http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/07/15/do1508.xml
he is now writing for the quasi-tabloidal British right wing paper the Telegraph. A paper that seems to thrive on climate change denial no matter how questionable the source and have brought us articles like "Global warming 'is good and is not our fault" http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/14/nclimate114.xml as late as Sept 2007. In that article when referring to another article about the sun's influence on climate change by the BBC, he refers to his former employer "the evangelical BBC". It seems by his language he is now playing to the denial machine and has abandoned his objectivity. I did a search of science journals and have yet to find any peer reviewed articles published by Whitehouse on this subject. It must be remembered he is not a climatologist but an astronomer.
2007-12-06 16:06:42 · answer #4 · answered by Author Unknown 6 · 1⤊ 4⤋
We don't need saving from global warming because it is not a dangerous thing. If you look at the IPCC projections without the political hype, it does not paint a scary picture at all.
2007-12-06 10:00:06 · answer #5 · answered by campbelp2002 7 · 4⤊ 2⤋
I am sure the sun will help also the earth's natural cooling by itself should be of help, Maybe some one has the figures, I don't because I am not a climatologist.
2007-12-06 20:24:30 · answer #6 · answered by CAPTAIN BEAR 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
No. It's bad enough we fund their operation here. I don't want to pay more taxes for their programs.
2016-05-21 21:53:09 · answer #7 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You have it all wrong, can global warming save us from the sun is the question.
2007-12-06 13:32:35 · answer #8 · answered by Tomcat 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Wow! So you finally agree that the Sun has an effect on "global warming"!
Glad to see you come around to science. No longer are you a denier of SGW.
2007-12-06 09:47:20 · answer #9 · answered by Dr Jello 7 · 5⤊ 4⤋
according to Al Gore the thing that is prologing the "Global waming" is the ocean because it is absorbing the carbon dioxide
2007-12-06 10:14:56 · answer #10 · answered by dustinknip 2 · 0⤊ 3⤋