Sunspots look dark because they are cooler, not because they put out less light.
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 11:48 PM, Chuck Sites <cbsit...@gmail.com> wrote: > Sunspots do reduce the solar input and during peak sunspot activity it can > be as high as 15% more or less. Think about it. Sunspots are dark; Dark > spots emit less light. So more sunspots, less light. Less light, less > Solar input. Less solar input should mean less average global temperature > rise from sun cycles.. What does effect the solar input is seasonal. The > Earth-Sun orbit is elliptical so at certain times of the year we are closer > to the sun than the other half. So yes Craig, I will agree that on the > solar input side of the global warming equation you have many variables > that can influence the input, but let me point out that has been happening > for millions of years with little variation from what is happening now. > > Craig; the only conclusion you can deductively come to is that the average > global temperature increase over the past 68 years is caused by human > activity and based on the scale, it's human industrial scale activity > creating CO2 as a byproduct. > > Craig, what convinced be about global warming wasn't all the numbers facts > and figures, It was looking up in the sky and seeing all of these very high > altitude clouds. Water vapor lofted up to the stratosphere by additional > thermal energy dumped in the oceans from global warming. I encourage > everyone to look for the really high vapor clouds. > > -- > Chuck > > > On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Craig <cchayniepub...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 02/06/2013 12:27 AM, Chuck Sites wrote: >> > Haha. Yeah I saw that story, It's just bait for the deniers >> > (or contrarians), or just weird science to normal folks. For that >> > matter, mushrooms exhale CO2. Trust me, worms are not the cause of >> > global warming. >> > >> > I want to reply to Craig's comments and to argue scientifically >> > against his denial of Man-made causes of global warming. First lets >> > start with this graphic >> > http://www.climate4you.com/images/CO2%20MaunaLoa%20MonthlySince1958.gif >> > >> > With every seasonal cycle you can see the earth breath. The cycle is >> > cause by vegetation in northern hemisphere dying out each year, >> > releasing stored CO2 back into the air in winter and pulling CO2 back >> > into it's stems and roots during growing season. It's a cyclic >> > effect, and it show very well how easy it is to measure CO2 levels. >> > The trend line in background of that graph is all fossil fuel CO2 >> > from human activity. >> >> I am not arguing against the idea that man made the causes of global >> warming. I am arguing against the certainty that a correlation demands a >> certain causation. >> >> I'll stand corrected on the cyclical nature of CO2. I understand now, >> that you are correct, in that during the summer, the CO2 levels fall, so >> this would be the opposite to what I had assumed, which was the during >> the summer the CO2 levels rose. Good point. >> >> > >> > Craig, I appreciate your wanting to find alternative explanations to >> > global warming that isn't man made. All polluters wish they didn't >> > pollute I guess. But solar input isn't the cause of global warming >> > either. For example; there are sunspots which somehow in denier's >> > rose colored glasses cause the atmosphere to heat up. Exactly how is >> > that to happen when the solar input to earth is REDUCED by sun spots. >> > It's part of the solar forcing equation that balances with how much >> > heat is trapped by CO2 and how much escapes into space. >> >> Solar input is not reduced by sunspots. This is documented, but I can't >> look for the studies tonight. But higher sunspot activity yields a more >> active sun, and a higher total radiation to Earth. Those who consider >> the issue, but deny it, believe that the increased activity cannot >> possibly yield warmer temperatures. But those same people, who believe >> so strongly in correlations without causation, deny that the >> correlations between the sunspot activity and the Earth's temperatures >> are greater. What if I could show you a greater correlation between >> sunspot activity and the Earth's temperature, over the correlation that >> increases in CO2 can show? >> >> > So Craig, I want to point you to THE OBVIOUS, The solar input is as >> > it has been for the past 1million years. >> >> No, the Sun's output has been higher, since 1920 or so, than in the >> previous several hundred. Can you show me otherwise? >> >> Craig >> >> >
