More beryllium-10 (created in the upper atmosphere by cosmic rays) indicates more cosmic rays reaching the earth hence either weaker magnetic fields or more active (and possibly hotter) sun.
http://groupsites.ius.edu/physics/E/GlobalWarming.html
Researchers from Germany, Switzerland and the United States found that the sun's brightness varied by only 0.07 percent over 11-year sunspot cycles, far too little to account for the rise in temperatures since the Industrial Revolution.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/09/15/global.warming.sun.reut/index.html
The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978 are too small to have contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30 years.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7108/abs/nature05072.html
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/notyet/2005_submitted_Hansen_etal_1.pdf
Figure 4 is solar forcing, not temperature. You must mean Figure 6 if you're talking about temperature response. In Fig. 6, what you see is the short term cooling (about two tenths of a degree) due to volcanic eruptions. The solar signal is hardly visible. The trend upward is due to anthropogenic forcings. Except for a different way of doing the averaging and a few additional anthropogenic forcings put in, Hansen's calculation does the same thing as IPCC and the results are completely compatible. The upward trend since 1970 or so is due to human influences. We can control that by controlling greenhouse gas emissions. This is not a case of nature having a mind of its own. This is us. It's just common sense. --raypierre
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/climate-science/sun-earth-connections/
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/007.htm
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/submitted/Hansen_etal_1.html
CNN: Study acquits sun of climate change
or be part of this effort on a more permanent basis, please email:
Unique IP visits:
