|
⇤ ← Revision 1 as of 2016-01-10 08:03:32
Size: 1894
Comment:
|
Size: 2285
Comment:
|
| Deletions are marked like this. | Additions are marked like this. |
| Line 6: | Line 6: |
| What the authors do not explain is how a gigantic object like the sun cool so rapidly. The observed solar cycle is 1366±0.5 watts, mostly associated with changes in UV emission. That is significant, and measurable, and its main effect on climate is changes in ozone and changes in the location of the jet stream. As I write this in January 2016, my 4th cousin in Sweden reports there has not been any snow, and spring flowers are budding in New York. Last year at this time, both places were fiendishly cold. And Oregon, where I live, did the opposite. Where the cold polar air went in the 1600s is probably as variable as it is today, while the Sun just keeps ticking along like the giant thermal mass that it is. | What the authors do not explain is how a massive object like the sun can cool so rapidly. The observed solar cycle is 1366 ± 0.5 watts, mostly associated with changes in UV emission. That is significant, and measurable, and its main effect on climate is changes in ozone and changes in the location of the jet stream. As I write this in January 2016, my 4th cousin in Sweden reports there has not been any snow, and spring flowers are budding in New York. Last year at this time, both places were fiendishly cold. And Oregon, where I live, did the opposite. Where the cold polar air went in the 1600s is probably as variable as it is today, while the Sun just keeps ticking along like the giant thermal mass that it is. |
| Line 8: | Line 8: |
| Soon ignores a measurement problem - we were not measuring solar output, or temperatures outside of Europe, during the Little Ice Age - so we really don't know how widespread it was. | Soon ignores a measurement problem - we were not measuring solar output, or temperatures outside of Europe, during the Little Ice Age - so we really don't know how widespread it was. There is evidence of changes in some places - but was it global? Unlike most critics of this book, I think there was a global effect, but it was partly anthropogenic as well. William Ruddiman explains the lower temperatures of the 1600s as a drop in CO₂ caused by the end of slash-and-burn agriculture by American Indians, after they were ended by smallpox. Others point at a lot of volcanic activity at that time. Invoking large emission swings from the Sun with no direct photometric evidence, or an explanation of this contradiction of known stellar physics and decades of astronomical observation of thousands of G2 stars, makes this book's hypothesis very unlikely. We do not have to guess about past solar variation when we can look at contemporary stellar variation. |
| Line 11: | Line 13: |
William Ruddiman explains the lower temperatures of the 1600s as a drop in CO₂ caused by the end of slash-and-burn agriculture by American Indians, after they were ended by smallpox. Others point at a lot of volcanic activity. Invoking large emission swings from the Sun with no direct evidence, or an explanation of this contradiction of known stellar physics, fails to justify this book. |
Maunder Minimum
Willie Wei-Hock Soon, Steven H. Yaskell, MultCo 523.7 S711m 2003
A strange book. The claim is that temperature variations are the result of solar output variations, and that the Maunder sunspot minimum was responsible for the "Little Ice Age" in the 1600s, and at other times.
What the authors do not explain is how a massive object like the sun can cool so rapidly. The observed solar cycle is 1366 ± 0.5 watts, mostly associated with changes in UV emission. That is significant, and measurable, and its main effect on climate is changes in ozone and changes in the location of the jet stream. As I write this in January 2016, my 4th cousin in Sweden reports there has not been any snow, and spring flowers are budding in New York. Last year at this time, both places were fiendishly cold. And Oregon, where I live, did the opposite. Where the cold polar air went in the 1600s is probably as variable as it is today, while the Sun just keeps ticking along like the giant thermal mass that it is.
Soon ignores a measurement problem - we were not measuring solar output, or temperatures outside of Europe, during the Little Ice Age - so we really don't know how widespread it was. There is evidence of changes in some places - but was it global? Unlike most critics of this book, I think there was a global effect, but it was partly anthropogenic as well.
William Ruddiman explains the lower temperatures of the 1600s as a drop in CO₂ caused by the end of slash-and-burn agriculture by American Indians, after they were ended by smallpox. Others point at a lot of volcanic activity at that time. Invoking large emission swings from the Sun with no direct photometric evidence, or an explanation of this contradiction of known stellar physics and decades of astronomical observation of thousands of G2 stars, makes this book's hypothesis very unlikely. We do not have to guess about past solar variation when we can look at contemporary stellar variation.
Soon is alleged to take money from oil companies - well, I give money to oil companies every time I fill up at the gas station (about 10 times a year, I don't drive much). My revealed economic preference is to support Soon, even though I disagree with his claim.