Sentences with phrase «not changes in solar activity»

It is not the change in solar activity that counts, Vaughan (as it is with CO2); it is the absolute level.

Not exact matches

Changes in the number of cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere due to changes in solar activity can not explain global warming, as average cosmic ray intensities have been increasing since 1985 even as the world has warmed — the opposite of what should happen if cosmic rays produce climate - cooling Changes in the number of cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere due to changes in solar activity can not explain global warming, as average cosmic ray intensities have been increasing since 1985 even as the world has warmed — the opposite of what should happen if cosmic rays produce climate - cooling changes in solar activity can not explain global warming, as average cosmic ray intensities have been increasing since 1985 even as the world has warmed — the opposite of what should happen if cosmic rays produce climate - cooling clouds.

Their findings indicated that, overall, the contribution of changing solar activity, either directly or through cosmic rays, was even less and can not have contributed more than 10 percent to global warming in the 20th century.

This conclusion is, in retrospect, not too surprising; we've learned from satellite measurements that solar activity changes the brightness of the sun very little.

After all, the implied changes in GCR flux are huge compared to what is expected from the gentle modulation of the Earth's magnetic field arising from recent solar activity changes (not that there's any trend in those that would explain recent warming).

And Perdue's not the only leading recipient of Southern's political support to help spread the questionable scientific talking points the utility has paid for: Rep. Gary Palmer, an Alabama Republican who received $ 18,000 from the company's PAC and employees in the 2014 cycle, last year told WATE that science «says global climate change is more a function of nature and solar activity than it is anything man does.»

Dr. Sami Solanki — director and scientific member at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany, who argues that changes in the Sun's state, not human activity, may be the principal cause of global warming: «The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures.»

Thanks for publishing this, there are folks who denigrated the work of scientists that claimed a solar - climate (temperature) link because the variability in solar energy output just wasn't enough to explain the temperature swings, and perhaps they now realize that there could be another mechanism - similar to a transistor where small changes in gate voltage can affect large changes in power transmission - whereby solar activity can create significant effects on temperature.

# 66 nigelj: «We then ask sceptics to test their «logical assumption» and show in detail which natural forces are causing current climate change, and they can not, because solar activity is flat etc..»

Veizer's alternative hypothesis for 20th century global warming does appear to be: the warming was caused by a «celestial driver» (i.e., a change in solar activity — despite the lack of observed trend), and it is this warming which has increased the CO2 concentration, not the other way round.

We then ask sceptics to test their «logical assumption» and show in detail which natural forces are causing current climate change, and they can not, because solar activity is flat etc..

a) atmospheric CO2 from human activity is a major bause of observed warming in the 1980's and 1990's, c) that warming is overstated due to a number of factors including solar effects and measurement skew d) the data going back 150 years is of little reliability because it is clustered so heavily in northeast america and western europe rather than being global e) the global climate has been significantly shifting over the last thousand years, over the last ten thousand years, and over the last hundred thousand years; atmospheric CO2 levels did not drive those changes, and some of them were rapid.

These changes are not «tiny» compared to changes in solar activity [which are tiny indeed].

Why not include all changes in solar activity?

When we do, no matter how good the climate model is it will not be able to overcome deficiencies in our ability to predict the things that affect climate — solar activity, ocean cycles, etc — and it will not be able to overcome deficiencies in our understanding of how things that affect climate actually work — solar activity, Earth orbital changes, etc..

Past climate swings (some much larger than the current warming) correlate well with changes in solar activity, but these can not be accounted for just with TSI.

Solar activity, and not carbon dioxide, was found to be the main reason for changes in the historical sea ice variations.

Oleg Sorokhtin of the Russian Academy of Sciences Institute of Ocean Studies, and many other Russian scientists maintain that global climate depends predominantly on natural factors, such as solar activity, precession (wobbling) of the Earth's axis, changes in ocean currents, fluctuations in saltiness of ocean surface water, and some other factors, whereas industrial emissions do not play any significant role.

He added, «By observation of a number of natural internal processes we can find further support for the coming change and I have referred before to the confirmed slowdown of the Gulf Stream, the effect of major endothermic polar ice melt and forecast reduction in solar activity after 70 years of extreme activity not seen for 8000 years before.

You have not cited a third possibility (out of the infinite range of possibilities), no climate change associated with CO2 (due to, for example, cloud cover providing negative feedback), with current increase due to natural variability; or how about possibility four, that increase in CO2 concentrations are caused by the temperature rise, which is in turn caused by (for example) increased solar activity resulting in increased biomass activity etc. etc..

This conclusion is, in retrospect, not too surprising; we've learned from satellite measurements that solar activity changes the brightness of the sun very little.

«Due to the changed framework conditions, lower growth and strong price pressure in the solar markets,» Siemens said in a statement, «the company's expectations for its solar energy activities have not been met.»

Also does NASA truly believe that Solar activity is not a key player in Climate Change on the Earth?

The research appears to indicate that the short - term fluctuations in solar activity, though they discernibly cause the short - term cycles global temperatures in a manner that the monotonic increase in CO2 manifestly does not, are absolutely predictive of global temperature change on all timescales provided that the time - integral of the solar - activity change is taken.

It will be hard to identify because, as I have mentioned in my other articles, the filtering of the solar signal through the various oceanic cycles is neither rapid nor straightforward and it appears that the effects are caused not by solar irradiance in itself but rather by changes in the mix of wavelengths and particles from the sun as solar activity varies.

Since such models can not account for the climate system's apparent sensitivity to small perturbations in solar energy apparently brought about by the very long term changes in the Earth's orbit about the Sun, they may also underestimate climate sensitivity to energy output fluctuations caused by solar activity, even during the eleven - year Schwabe cycle.

Direct solar irradiance is very likely not the only mechanism by which the changes in solar activity influence our climate.

That doesn't mean he's correct that atmospheric expansion caused by changes in solar activity is the primary positive feedback that drives climate change.

Changes in solar activity are simply not at all the same thing as orbital - induced changes in solar insoChanges in solar activity are simply not at all the same thing as orbital - induced changes in solar insochanges in solar insolation.

Ice ages do not end due to changes in solar activity, they end due to changes in Earth's orbit and axial tilt that result in increases in solar insolation.

Can't this recent warming be natural from changes in solar activity?

Where I have a hard time with this is in accounting for the MWP and the LIA where Be10, as a proxy for solar activity, clearly shows high and low solar activity respectively during those time periods and green house gases concentration changes are not associated and mostly unchanged.

As a researcher in the field for more than 30 years, I am not aware of a single peer - reviewed paper or review, in a quality atmospheric science journal, that relates the temperature changes over this period to only natural causes such as changes in solar activity.

aa — Of course any such effect on temperatures due to this unforseen change in solar activity would not mean that AGW is not a threat, although it would delay the onset of that threat and give us more time to prepare so it would certainly be welcome.

While changes in the suns output can affect the Earth's climate, the recent warming can not be explained by changes in solar activity.

After all, the implied changes in GCR flux are huge compared to what is expected from the gentle modulation of the Earth's magnetic field arising from recent solar activity changes (not that there's any trend in those that would explain recent warming).