NASA Study Acknowledges Solar Cycle, Not Man, Responsible for Warming of the Planet

June 6, 2009 by  
Filed under Featured Stories, Science

Report indicates solar cycle has been impacting Earth since the Industrial Revolution

Past studies have shown that sunspot numbers correspond to warming or cooling trends. The twentieth century has featured heightened activity, indicating a warming trend.  (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Past studies have shown that sunspot numbers correspond to warming or cooling trends. The twentieth century has featured heightened activity, indicating a warming trend. (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

(DAILY TECH)   Some researchers believe that the solar cycle influences global climate changes.  They attribute recent warming trends to cyclic variation.  Skeptics, though, argue that there’s little hard evidence of a solar hand in recent climate changes.

Now, a new research report from a surprising source may help to lay this skepticism to rest.  A study from NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland looking at climate data over the past century has concluded that solar variation has made a significant impact on the Earth’s climate.  The report concludes that evidence for climate changes based on solar radiation can be traced back as far as the Industrial Revolution.

Past research has shown that the sun goes through eleven year cycles.  At the cycle’s peak, solar activity occurring near sunspots is particularly intense, basking the Earth in solar heat.  According to Robert Cahalan, a climatologist at the Goddard Space Flight Center, “Right now, we are in between major ice ages, in a period that has been called the Holocene.”

Thomas Woods, solar scientist at the University of Colorado in Boulder concludes, “The fluctuations in the solar cycle impacts Earth’s global temperature by about 0.1 degree Celsius, slightly hotter during solar maximum and cooler during solar minimum.  The sun is currently at its minimum, and the next solar maximum is expected in 2012.”

Solar activity has shown a major spike in the twentieth century, corresponding to global warming. This cyclic variation was acknowledged by a recent NASA study, which reviewed a great deal of past climate data.  (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Solar activity has shown a major spike in the twentieth century, corresponding to global warming. This cyclic variation was acknowledged by a recent NASA study, which reviewed a great deal of past climate data. (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

According to the study, during periods of solar quiet, 1,361 watts per square meter of solar energy reaches Earth’s outermost atmosphere.  Periods of more intense activity brought 1.4 watts per square meter (0.1 percent) more energy.

While the NASA study acknowledged the sun’s influence on warming and cooling patterns, it then went badly off the tracks.  Ignoring its own evidence, it returned to an argument that man had replaced the sun as the cause current warming patterns.  Like many studies, this conclusion was based less on hard data and more on questionable correlations and inaccurate modeling techniques.

The inconvertible fact, here is that even NASA’s own study acknowledges that solar variation has caused climate change in the past.  And even the study’s members, mostly ardent supports of AGW theory, acknowledge that the sun may play a significant role in future climate changes.

http://www.dailytech.com/NASA+Study+Acknowledges+Solar+Cycle+Not+Man+Responsible+for+Past+Warming/article15310.htm

Comments

3 Responses to “NASA Study Acknowledges Solar Cycle, Not Man, Responsible for Warming of the Planet”
  1. White Knight says:

    I do believe in global warming. It is so obvious here… In NJ.
    Climate change is UNPRECEDENTED here. Literally, 4 days ago it was 90 degrees, and then the next day it was 30.

    The fact is, we ARE affecting our climate. Its ridicules to believe we aren’t. The amount of pollution we are throwing up is insane… the numbers are uncountable! It is naive to think that we aren’t doing anything to our planet, and quite frankly, its being arrogant. We are destroying our planet, buy most people don’t want to admit it. And for the uneducated, global warming not just WARMS our planet, but it also cools it rapidly. Which, could, and will, cause the next Ice Age.

  2. John A. Jauregui says:

    Global Warming legislation just came out of committee. World oil production is now in permanent decline. What oil is left will provide us the only bridge we will have to what comes next. I am asking myself, “Why is the Democratic Party making this a TOLL bridge with the passage of this new tax legislation?”

    The move to change legislative language from “Global Warming” to “Climate Change” confirms Congress’s acknowledgement that the planet is now cooling and that the decline in solar activity is responsible for the “Global Cooling” we are now feeling.
    Dubious? Google “IPCC Global Warming Potential (GWP)” to find the real story on CO2 as an atmospheric trace gas contributing to warming. Oh, by the way, what Prof. Mann’s infamous hockey stick diagram Bristlecone proxy data shows conclusively is that nothing has done more to “GREEN” the planet over the past few decades than moderate sun-driven warming together with elevated levels of CO2, regardless of the source. Increase atmospheric CO2, increase crop and forest production. That’s the bottom line. It’s no accident that commercial greenhouse operators invest heavily in CO2 generators to boost the productivity of their fixed growing facilities.
    Let’s review the arguments.

    Argument: Warming is bad.
    Fact: History shows warming is good. Rome rose to power during the Roman Warm Period. The Medieval Warm Period enabled the Renaissance. The Modern Warm Period gave rise to the US super power.

    Argument: CO2 causes warming.
    Fact: IPCC technical reports give CO2 a GWP of unity (1); lower than most trace gases by several orders of magnitude, particularly water vapor.

    Argument: People release CO2; therefore people are responsible for Global Warming.
    Fact: A review of the carbon cycle shows very clearly humans are responsible for only 3 percent of the CO2 entering our biosphere. How high would fuels costs have to go for you to reduce your carbon fuels usage by 1/3? 2/3? Think about it. The result is in the noise, 1 or 2 percent CO2 reduction IF everyone on the planet complies.

    Simple Fact: World oil production has been on a plateau for 4 years. That production has now rolled off into permanent decline. Why put a crushing tax on it now? …and why avoid the subject leading up to the vote on this toxic legislation?

Speak Your Mind

Tell us what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!