New solar cycle discovered; suggests we're coming out of a global warming cycle and moving into a global cooling cycle.

If solar activity were causing the warming trends observed then the top of the atmosphere would be heating faster than the lower atmosphere. Because the energy would be coming from the outside in it would be absorbed high in the atmosphere first.

What's observed is the reverse. The lower atmosphere is heating, but high up is actually cooling. This pretty much rules out differences in solar activity.

There are credible scientists with theories about solar cycles causing climate change, but John L. Casey is not one of them.

LetsRunners would be better served to read the articles and research of Leif Svalgaard on solar cycles and climate change. Here's the Cliff's Notes version of what these solar scientists have found.

There is an obvious 11-year solar cycle that has no apparent correlation to climate change. This lack of correlation in the 11-year cycle is used by AGW activists to discredit any possible correlation between the sun and climate change.

However, there is also a 60 year cycle, a 200-year cycle, and other cycles, including a 10,000 year cyle. The 60-year cycle is visible if you look at global temps going back the last 200 years or so.

These cycles affect not just the visible spectrum of light, but the invisible spectrum as well. We know that these invisible spectrum variations are many times greater than the variation in visible light, which is too small to affect climate significantly.

These magnetism cycles also affect solar wind, which deflects cosmic rays away from the earth.

We are entering an extremely low level of solar magnetism, not seen since the Maunder Minimum.

It's interesting reading for those with an open mind as to why the climate began warming 150 years BEFORE CO2 levels began to rise so rapidly.

Casey is a kook. Even other climate skeptics think that he's an idiot and they try to distance themselves from him.

hogwash wrote:

If solar activity were causing the warming trends observed then the top of the atmosphere would be heating faster than the lower atmosphere. Because the energy would be coming from the outside in it would be absorbed high in the atmosphere first.

What's observed is the reverse. The lower atmosphere is heating, but high up is actually cooling. This pretty much rules out differences in solar activity.

Are you familiar with the laws of heat transfer? like convection, conduction, and (the kicker) radiation? The majority of the heat on the surface of the earth comes from the sun. See, that's why it gets colder when the sun goes down.

stands to reason that if you inject more heat via radiation, it's likely to get hotter on the surface. Or, if you inject less heat via radiation, it's likely to get colder on the surface.

hope the climate scientologists are smarter than this.

I have no dog in this race but I believe he was saying that it is less likely that increased radiation is the cause of global warming than it is the increased amount of greenhouse gasses.

all the atmosphere would be hotter if the sun were pumping out more radiation, but the outer atmosphere should be heating up more quickly than it is since it absorbs the radiation before the surface.

once again I don't know anything about this stuff, but I do know heat transfer and I think you don't understand what he was saying and were kind of a douche about it

No race dog either, but I think the theory behind man-made global warming is that increased carbon emissions trap heat at the surface, thereby keeping the outer fringes of the atmosphere cooler as less heat can escape from the surface. If your theory were correct, the increased gases in the atmosphere would absorb more solar radiation before it gets to the surface, thereby reducing the amount of heat at the surface and resulting in surface cooling.