<div> </div>
<div>Paul, Donovan et. al.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Paul, thanks for your sources on stellar evolution. Donovan, at least regarding natural changes in solar output causing the current warming trend, I quote a source below to address this.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The original point of my post on the article I quoted on our stars evolution was comparing the rise in temperatures predicted to be caused by human impacts to the grand scale of evolution of our sun over 100s of millions of years. I was amazed to find the quote in this article that quantified the rate of change regarding predicted human impacts on climate over one century, compared to what they predicted would take
0.8 billion years of solar evolution. Of course chaotic variations in solar output might suddenly induce significant temperature changes on Earth that only last a short time, let us say decades or centuries. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>The theory that current warming trends are due to changes in solar output keep circulating to question the scientific consensus that human impacts are the primary cause of current global warming. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>I listened to Steve Forbes, who is well known, and Texas oil man T. Boone Pickens, both giants in the world of capitalism, discuss global warming and solutions to this problem in a panel discussion on C-SPAN this past week. Forbes said he thought solar output might explain the current warming rather than CO2 from human sources. Pickens' accepted that human caused global warming was upon us and that people should get ready for the changes demanded to reduce CO2 output. He was upbeat about the Green revolution's financial impacts and opportunities. Forbes acknowledged we need new energy sources, even given his skepticism on human induced global warming. They both pushed nuclear power to address energy needs, discussing new safer reactor designs with less of a nuclear waste management problem. Forbes seemed particularly miffed that France relies so heavily on nuclear power, as if to say, how can those socialist welfare state regulators of capitalism be ahead of the US in energy independence?
<br> </div>
<div>Anyway, the role of the sun in explaining current global warming continues to be studied. The IPCC has examined the role of solar output, and their overall conclusion is that changes in the sun do not explain the current warming trend. I recently heard testimony from one of the authors of the IPCC report testify to exactly this point before the US Congress on C-SPAN.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Here is a question and answer session from the Washington Post, partly online and partly relating to testimony before the US Congress, with Kevin Trenberth, contributing lead author of the IPCC report, and head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. The skeptics are out in force in this discussion! He specifically addresses the issue of solar changes causing the current warming trend and quite explicitly states that measurements of solar output do not support this claim:
</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/02/12/DI2007021200686.html">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/02/12/DI2007021200686.html</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>
<p><strong>Richmond, Va.:</strong> Mr. Trenberth,</p>
<p>Ice core data going back hundreds of thousands of years from prior glacial periods and warming periods indicates that warming occurs first, then CO 2 levels increase. This seems to indicate that the increase in CO2 levels is an EFFECT of global warming, NOT the CAUSE of global warming. An easy physical explanation: CO2 has a lower solubility in warmer water than it does in colder water, so when the oceans warm, they release CO2.
</p>
<p>Secondly, there is ample evidence of SOLAR FORCING for global warming. During the Maunder Minimum (1600's), there were almost no sunspots. During this period of time, the Earth cooled, and glaciers ADVANCED! Since then, sunspots have reappeared, and lo and behold, the Earth has warmed, and the glaciers have been retreating ever since. This process has been going on BEFORE INDUSTRIALIZATION!!!
</p>
<p>To my point: There is evidence that the Earth is warming. There is evidence that CO2 levels are rising. But just because you can put the 2 together on a graph, DOES NOT make for a CAUSE and EFFECT relationship.</p>
<p>Sincerely,</p>
<p>Bret D Stauffer</p>
<p><strong>Kevin Trenberth:</strong> You are absolutely right. In the case of the thousands of year fluctuations, the climate changes and carbon dioxide and methane amounts in the atmosphere respond through changes on land and in oceans. For instance, as things warm up, the carbon and plant material in soils decays much faster (as it does in summer but not in winter) and if wet it does so anaerobically producing methane, but if dry it does so aerobically producing carbon dioxide. However, we have measurements of the sun from space since 1979 and we know that the recent warming is not from the sun. Instead carbon dioxide has increased about 16% since 1970, and that does have a major effect.
</p></div>
<div>-------</div>
<div>Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett</div>
<div> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 4/25/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Paul Rumelhart</b> <<a href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">Ted Moffett wrote:
<blockquote cite="http://midd03f69e0704251239x419c74d3k14fa4a014605d2fe@mail.gmail.com" type="cite"><span class="q">
<div> </div>
<div>Paul et. al.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Paul wrote:</div>
<div><br>We've been around for a mere few million years, only the last few thousand of which we've had the ability to write things down. This is a small fraction of time for the Sun. Our observations of the Sun has occurred over such a small timescale that we can basically say that we've only seen it as a static observation.
</div>
<div>------</div>
<div>Good point, a point that applies in different ways to many scientific issues...We could question whether gravity has always operated as we observe, given the over 10 billion year history of the universe, and our limited time scale of observation. Science makes certain assumptions about how the universe operates, and the continuity of the "laws of nature" is one of those assumptions, continuity over time and in different places in the universe. This principle cannot be "proved" without a doubt, as far as I know
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But science does have its "time machines" to see into the past before humans could make observations directly. The theory of biological evolution is not based on just the life forms we have observed evolving since Darwin, but on the evidence of fossils from Earth's history, offering a kind of scientific "time machine" giving information on life forms millions of years before humans walked the planet. And in astronomy, we have observations of many different kinds of stars from many different stages of evolution, providing a kind of "time machine" to allow us by inference to look into our suns past and future. The information we get from distant stars is in some ways like a fossil (I don't intend this as an exact analogy), given that this information sometimes took longer than the history of the human race to reach us...It's mind boggling, but astronomy gathers information about the universe dating from billions of years ago, even before our solar system formed.
<br> </div></span></blockquote><br>That's all true. I was thinking more along the lines of leaving a kettle of water on the stove. You've been watching it for a few minutes, and nothing bad has happened, but you notice it is a chaotic environment and you can't really predict how exactly it's going to boil. Maybe it will get more violent soon, maybe it won't. Of course, a kettle of water boiling isn't going to easily harm us, but I suspect that a small change from the Sun's perspective can really ruin our day. Somewhere I found a clip of the Sun's surface as it moves. It was pretty chaotic.
<br><br>It is amazing what scientists can do with our limited observations here on Earth and in it's immediate vicinity. <br><br>
<blockquote cite="http://midd03f69e0704251239x419c74d3k14fa4a014605d2fe@mail.gmail.com" type="cite"><span class="q">
<div></div>
<div>------</div>
<div>Paul wrote:<br><br>I think the 0.8 billion year number you quoted is the time it will take for the slow process of hydrogen fusion at the core to raise the Earth's temperature 5%. <br>------</div>
<div>The article I quoted on stellar evolution said that due to our suns evolution the Earth would warm 5 degrees in 0.8 billion years, not 5%.</div></span></blockquote><br>Five degrees, my bad.<br><br>
<blockquote cite="http://midd03f69e0704251239x419c74d3k14fa4a014605d2fe@mail.gmail.com" type="cite"><span class="q">
<div> </div>
<div>As to how reliable this figure is, I cannot say for sure, given I have not surveyed the scientific consensus on this issue in this field, and there may not be a consensus.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I was wondering, can you offer some sources, articles, books, or websites, for the information you were providing on stellar evolution?</div></span></blockquote><br>Sure. I kind of made a mish-mash of a few sites. I'm searching for them again, my apologies if I miss a few. Also, it's very likely that I misunderstood much of what I read. I'm just getting started in this area.
<br><br><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~js/ast122/lectures/lec14.html" target="_blank">http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~js/ast122/lectures/lec14.html</a><br><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://www.astronomynotes.com/evolutn/s5.htm" target="_blank">
http://www.astronomynotes.com/evolutn/s5.htm</a><br><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~dhw/Intro/lec11_giants.ps" target="_blank">http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~dhw/Intro/lec11_giants.ps
</a><br><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://homepage.mac.com/dtrapp/eChem.f/labC3.html" target="_blank">http://homepage.mac.com/dtrapp/eChem.f/labC3.html</a><br><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://www.maa.mhn.de/Scholar/star_evol.html" target="_blank">
http://www.maa.mhn.de/Scholar/star_evol.html</a><br><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/Videos/general/sun.avi" target="_blank">http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/Videos/general/sun.avi
</a><br><span class="sg"><br>Paul</span><span class="q"><br>
<blockquote cite="http://midd03f69e0704251239x419c74d3k14fa4a014605d2fe@mail.gmail.com" type="cite">
<div> </div>
<div>Ted Moffett</div>
<div><br>Ted Moffett wrote: </div>
<div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<blockquote cite="http://midd03f69e0704231323w6c982dffh331e1366bbf68cff@mail.gmail.com" type="cite">
<div><span>
<div> </div>
<div>All-</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Our sun will eventually cause fatal increases in Earth temperature in its inevitable evolution into a red giant star. When will these temperature impacts become significant? The article below estimates that in 800 million years the sun's impact will raise Earth temperatures by 5 degrees, the same amount predicted by some global warming models for the human impact on global temperatures in the next century:
</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://www.sussex.ac.uk/press_office/media/media191.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.sussex.ac.uk/press_office/media/media191.pdf</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:hAqjwfgBKT4J:www.sussex.ac.uk/press_office/media/media191.pdf+time+remaining+Earth+biosphere+sun+expansion&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=us" target="_blank">
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:hAqjwfgBKT4J:www.sussex.ac.uk/press_office/media/media191.pdf+time+remaining+Earth+biosphere+sun+expansion&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=us </a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>"As a first application, let us ask how long it will take for the temperature of the Earth to rise by 5 degrees (the rise anticipated in the next century or so if the current human-induced greenhouse effect continues unchecked). The equation predicts it will take the evolving sun about about
0.8 billion years to produce this rise- so human activity may be accelerating astronomical effects by a factor of about 10 million."</div>
<div>------</div>
<div>This puts the highly doubtful claim that the current warming trend on Earth is mostly due to increases in solar activity into perspective, it seems.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Ted Moffett</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div></span></div><pre><hr width="90%" size="4">
=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://www.fsr.net/" target="_blank">http://www.fsr.net</a>
<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</a>
=======================================================</pre></blockquote><br> </div><br>=======================================================<br> List services made available by First Step Internet,<br> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<br> <a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://www.fsr.net/" target="_blank">http://www.fsr.net</a><br> mailto:<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank">
Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>=======================================================<br></blockquote></div><br></blockquote><br></span></div></blockquote></div><br>