Chris Peterson wrote:aristarchusinexile wrote:My curiousity has been stimulated though .. are there any scientific measurements of the sun increasing its heat ouput in the past decade or two?
There is no such evidence. Measuring solar irradiance is difficult, and can only be done accurately from space. There have been a half dozen satellites capable of such measurements launched since the late 1970s. All show the expected variation in output with sunspot cycle (about 0.1%), but any other trend is statistically indiscernible. That's not to say some trend isn't there, just that there's no data of high enough quality to detect one.
Over longer periods it is even more difficult to say, because there are no direct measurements at all, and all the indirect (proxy) methods have very large uncertainties- indeed, they have uncertain uncertainties. I think the broader thinking is that there is little evidence of a long term change in solar output over the last centuries or longer, but nobody thinks the evidence as such is good enough to make that assertion with any certainty at all. This consensus is probably related more to natural scientific conservatism than anything else (that is, most scientists will take the simplest position in the absence of any evidence one way or the other).
I find this analysis to be far off the mark. By your own statement the only accurate measurements are those from satellites, approximately 40 years of data. The sun is a variable star with multiple cycles that go in and out of phase with at least one over 100,000 years long. That we know of. It is estimated irradience has increased .2% since the 17th century, some pace it as high as .6%. Temperature and oceans on the earth have been rising since the end of the last ice age. Further, we all should know that satellites are limited by their instrumentation, if the sensor is looking at electromagnetic spectra it doesn't see protons. NASA has recently detected a magnetic structure that act as a conduit from the sun to the earth for the solar wind, this from a satellite that studies the aurora. From my point of view, since magnetic field and moving charges cannot be separated, physics 101, the right hand rule, ect., what this amounts to is a power transmission line from the sun to the earth. Think plasma globe with the earth as your finger on the globe. The magnetic conduit is created by the flow of solar protons. This is a power source that was unknown. No estimate of how much power yet. But at sunspot maxima it is probably at its maximum and now with the solar wind dying down and sunspot activity at significant lows it is probably low. Kristian Birkland measured the e field in the arctic (1889-90), as I recall, it was significant something like 1.3 v/m. As far as there being no evidence, there are oceans of evidence including new discoveries that show we aren't even close to having the science nailed down.
It is interesting that BMAONE23 mentioned mid-Atlantic ridge volcanism recently. There are quite a few erupting volcanos on the ridge in the arctic, some quite large. NASA scientists have said they don't contribute to arctic melting, to which I say bosh. I want a non-heat emitting volcano in my yard, it would be entertaining. My point is that this may help explain melting in the arctic and ice addition in the antarctic, and planetary cooling except in the arctic.
