Snow worldwide

[x-y-no]

Snow is 10 feet deep in Japan right now in we are talking about Global warming?


http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/060109/w010928.html

Beat me to it !

You guys must be getting smarter. That's pretty unusual but I guess miracles do happen

Sigh ...

Repeat after me, please ... "LOCAL IS NOT GLOBAL". What is it that is so difficult about that concept?

[P.K.]

The 2001 IPCC report is online here. http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm Just started a climate change module today so it is shame the new report isn't out quite yet.

[kenl01]

Snow is 10 feet deep in Japan right now in we are talking about Global warming?


http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/060109/w010928.html

Beat me to it !

You guys must be getting smarter. That's pretty unusual but I guess miracles do happen

Sigh ...

Repeat after me, please ... "LOCAL IS NOT GLOBAL". What is it that is so difficult about that concept?

That had nothing to do with it. I was referring to the time he posted that before me.

As to being local, that's just ONE snow story out of very very many. In the last few years, we had cold and snow records being set in many parts of the world, including United Arab Emirates and more. Heck, with 13 feet of snow in Japan and 62 below so far in Russia and 45 below in China and a very cold November in Alaska last year certainly is no sign of GW. It's been persistent cold in Asia since December. Or in 2004, for example, when Canada experienced its coldest summer ever recorded in 2004 and Minnesota has its coldest August ever with many freezes across the Dakotas and MN freezing crops. Those were headlines all summer !
That means allot..................

Oh well, too bad some people have bad memories..........

[P.K.]

As to being local, that's just ONE snow story out of very very many. In the last few years, we had cold and snow records being set in many parts of the world, including United Arab Emirates and more. Heck, with 13 feet of snow in Japan and 62 below so far in Russia and 45 below in China and a very cold November in Alaska last year certainly is no sign of GW. It's been persistent cold in Asia since December. Or in 2004, for example, when Canada experienced its coldest summer ever recorded in 2004 and Minnesota has its coldest August ever with many freezes across the Dakotas and MN freezing crops. Those were headlines all summer !
That means allot..................

They are still all local events you are listing. Do you have a similar list for record high temperatures in the same period? I can think of a couple at the moment.

10th Aug 2003 - Hottest temp ever recorded in the UK at over 38C
Jan 2006 - Australia has been recording record high temperatures recently. It reached 45.2C at Sydney Airport the other day which was a new record.

Again these are just local events, but I'm sure there are far more record temperatures that have been set over the last couple of years that I haven't listed.

Edit - From AussieMark:

1st Jan 2006 - 45.2C at Sydney Airport which is a new record, the previous record was 43C in Jan and 43.3C overall. Observatory Hill in Sydney reached 44.2C on the 1st Jan, the record there is 45.3C. Overall last month was the warmest December since 1991.

[AussieMark]

Equal warmest year on record for Sydney

Year 2005 (January to December)

Temperatures: In 2005 Sydney (Observatory Hill) experienced its equal warmest year since records commenced in 1859. The annual mean temperature for the year (average of the daily maximum and minimum temperatures) was 19.1°C or 1°C above the historic average*, and the same as 2004. The next warmest year on record was 1988 with an annual mean temperature of 19.0°C. Eight out of the top 10 warmest years have now occurred since 1988. Day-time maximum temperatures for the year were also the equal warmest on record with an average maximum temperature of 23.4°C or 1.3°C above the historic average and the same as 2004. Night-time temperatures were also warmer than average though not a record with an average minimum temperature of 14.8°C, or 0.6°C above the historic average. There were 48 days during the year when the temperature did not drop below 20°C overnight (the historic average is 25 days).

April was particularly out of the ordinary, with Sydney (Observatory Hill) recording its warmest April on record with an average mean temperatureof 20.9°C, or nearly 2°C above the historic average. Also, for the first time in 147 years of record, the average maximum temperature for April (25.1°C) was higher than March (24.3°C). December was also particularly warm with daytime temperatures being equal highest on record. The average maximum of 28.6°C was 3.4°C above the historic average and the same as 1990.

The highest temperature recorded during the year in Sydney (Observatory Hill) was 39.0°C on 7 December while the coldest night was 5.1°C on 13 August. Temperatures in the Greater Sydney Region ranged from 44.3°C at Penrith on 14 January to a low of -4°C at Richmond on 7 August.

Rainfall: The annual rainfall for Sydney (Observatory Hill) of 816mm was well below the historic annual average of 1219mm and ranked 15th driest in 146 years of record. It was the driest year since 1980 when 736mm was recorded. Half the total rainfall was recorded in just 3 months, February, March and November with all other months recording well below average rainfall. The August rainfall of only 1.6mm was the 3rd lowest on record. One of Sydney's longest dry spells was recorded from 17 July to 31 August with only 1.6mm recorded in the 46 days. The number of rain days, 114 days, was also well below the historic average of 138 rain days. The wettest day for 2005 was on 23 March with 73mm recorded and accompanied by gale force winds reaching 100 km/h and 11 metre waves off the coast. The wettest suburb during the year was Belrose in Sydney's north with a total of 1015mm. The lowest yearly rainfall total was 604mm at Willmot in Sydney's far west.

Other phenomena: Plentiful sunshine was recorded in Sydney during the year with an average daily total of 7.7 hours or 0.5 hours longer than the historic average and the sunniest since 1980. It was the second sunniest year for the relatively short record of 27 years at Sydney Airport. December 2005 was the sunniest month ever recorded in Sydney averaging 10.4 hours of sunshine per day (records since 1931). The previous sunniest was 10.1 hours in September 1980. There were 19 thunderstorms reported during the year compared to an average of 23 thunderstorms. The most severe was on 2 February with heavy rain, strong winds, a possible tornado and 6cm hail reported in some suburbs, causing flash flooding and considerable property damage. There was a noticeable absence of fog this year with only one recorded on 4 June in the CBD area, against an annual average of 8 fogs. Sydney Airport also recorded only one fog (historic average 10) while Prospect Dam in Sydney's west reported 5 fogs (historic average 14).

[AussieMark]

Second warmest December on record in Sydney
December 2005

Temperatures: Sydney recorded its 2nd warmest December since records commenced in 1859. The mean temperature for the month (average of daily maximum and minimum temperatures) was 23.8 °C which is 2.3°C above the historic December average*. The warmest December was in 1990 with an monthly mean temperature of 24.4°C. Days were particularly warm with an average maximum temperature of 28.6°C or 3.4°C above the historic average and the same as 1990. The number of hot days (30°C or more) equalled the record of 11 days set in 1957. Although no minimum temperature records were broken there were 9 nights when the temperature did not fall below 20°C, more than twice the historic average of 4. Temperatures at Observatory Hill ranged from 39°C on the 7th to an overnight low of 15.3°C on the 20th. Metropolitan temperatures ranged from 40.1°C at Sydney Olympic Park on the 7th and at Penrith on 31st to an overnight low of 8.5°C at Badgerys Creek on the 20th.

Sunshine and humidity: December was Sydney's sunniest month on record. The average daily sunshine was 10.4 hours compared to the historic average of 7.9 hours. The previous sunniest month was September 1980 with an average of 10.1 hours per day (records since 1931). Afternoon humidity levels in Sydney were the lowest on record for December, averaging 47% at 3pm (historic average 60%). The previous lowest was 49% in December 1976 (records since 1955).

Rainfall: Sydney's total rainfall of 25.2mm was well below the historic December average of 78.1mm. It was the driest December since 1986 (when 8.6mm was recorded). The rain fell on 5 days which is well below the average of 11 days and the lowest for December since 3 rain days in 1974. Although 4 thunderstorms were reported over the greater Sydney area during the month, only 2 thunderstorms were recorded at Observatory Hill (historic average 4 storms). Rainfall was light and patchy across the greater Sydney area, monthly totals ranging from 40mm at Glenorie in Sydney's north-west to 15mm at Bankstown. The Warragamba Dam catchment area received only light falls during December. The lower catchment recorded monthly totals of 40-60mm while the upper catchment received only 10-20mm. Recent rainfall over Sydney's catchments can be found on the Sydney Catchment Authority web site: http://www.sca.nsw.gov.au/dams/rainfall.html

[gigabite]

...I can't even begin to guess...

Yea well, I was only trying help you understand that your convictions are based on cave paintings. The watts per square meter have increased 0.02 percent a year as a result of irradiance, where as a result of greenhouse gas they have only gone up 0.003 percent. That makes Greenhouse Gasses 15 percent of the problem. In the “Halocarbons and other Atmospheric Trace Species group of gasses” carbon dioxide is the only component that is not dropping. Carbon dioxide is 63 percent of that group. That makes carbon dioxide build up 9 percent of the problem, and of the fraction some comes into the atmosphere from the solar wind some is organic and some is derived from human activity. The portion that is from human activity, let’s make it easy and say 4 percent of the total problem, if half of that, 2 percent, let’s say is derived from industrial activity and cars. Cutting that in half through a 70’s type conservation effort would still leave 99 percent of the problem 86 percent of it being irradiance.

My point here is not to say that hardball conservation would not be a good thing for the $avings rate. It is just to say that hardball conservation will not keep this problem from steam rolling over a lot of the good people, and the dialogue needs to turn towards boiler plating shelters, and emergency preparedness. This is not something that is not going to go away in the near future. Please adjust to it.

[Aslkahuna]

For the record, a temperature of -62° in Siberia is not very noteworthy considering that in the past it's gotten to -94°. When you have someone who is abnormally warm, you are going to have someone who is abnormally cold and since such anomalies often occur with blocking patterns, they tend to be persistent-it's funny how the atmosphere works that way. Another way the atmosphere works is that by increasing the heat in the system, you tend to see more amplified and blocking patterns which persist even longer thus holding the anomalies in place longer.

Steve

[x-y-no]

...I can't even begin to guess...

Yea well, I was only trying help you understand that your convictions are based on cave paintings.

LOL! Whatever floats your boat, gigabite.

I'm not a climate scientist by profession, but I've been reading the published research in that field and in physical oceanography for three decades and I've had many conversations with professionals in those fields, so I have a pretty good idea what my understanding is based on. It ain't cave paintings.

I'll ask again - have you read the IPCC TAR? It lays out a pretty comprehensive survey of the state of the science as of 2001, and much of that simply bears no relation to some assertions you made above. What do you say we discuss these discrepancies in a factual way, rather than tossing out derisive characterizations?

The watts per square meter have increased 0.02 percent a year as a result of irradiance, where as a result of greenhouse gas they have only gone up 0.003 percent. That makes Greenhouse Gasses 15 percent of the problem. In the “Halocarbons and other Atmospheric Trace Species group of gasses” carbon dioxide is the only component that is not dropping. Carbon dioxide is 63 percent of that group. That makes carbon dioxide build up 9 percent of the problem, and of the fraction some comes into the atmosphere from the solar wind some is organic and some is derived from human activity. The portion that is from human activity, let’s make it easy and say 4 percent of the total problem, if half of that, 2 percent, let’s say is derived from industrial activity and cars. Cutting that in half through a 70’s type conservation effort would still leave 99 percent of the problem 86 percent of it being irradiance.

Where are you getting these numbers from? What time period does it cover? If we're going to have a serious discussion, let's see the provenence.

I'll refer to chapter 12 of the TAR, but we can get down to the details in chapter 6 or to individual research results if you wish ...

Solar forcing vs anthropgenic forcing:

Solar forcing
The variation of solar irradiance with the 11-year sunspot cycle has been assessed with some accuracy over more than 20 years, although measurements of the magnitude of modulations of solar irradiance between solar cycles are less certain (see Chapter 6). The estimation of earlier solar irradiance fluctuations, although based on physical mechanisms, is indirect. Hence our confidence in the range of solar radiation on century time-scales is low, and confidence in the details of the time-history is even lower (Harrison and Shine, 1999; Chapter 6). Several recent reconstructions estimate that variations in solar irradiance give rise to a forcing at the Earth’s surface of about 0.6 to 0.7 Wm-2 since the Maunder Minimum and about half this over the 20th century (see Chapter 6, Figure 6.5; Hoyt and Schatten, 1993; Lean et al., 1995; Lean, 1997; Froehlich and Lean, 1998; Lockwood and Stamper, 1999). This is larger than the 0.2 Wm-2 modulation of the 11-year solar cycle measured from satellites. (Note that we discuss here the forcing at the Earth’s surface, which is smaller than that at the top of the atmosphere, due to the Earth’s geometry and albedo.) The reconstructions of Lean et al. (1995) and Hoyt and Schatten (1993), which have been used in GCM detection studies, vary in amplitude and phase. Chapter 6, Figure 6.8 shows time-series of reconstructed solar and volcanic forcing since the late 18th century. All reconstructions indicate that the direct effect of variations in solar forcing over the 20th century was about 20 to 25% of the change in forcing due to increases in the well-mixed greenhouse gases (see Chapter 6).

There has not been a large trend in insolation in the last half century. You need to explain how it is that your claims differ so dramatically from the scientific consensus on this issue.

Perhaps you were referring to a longer-term trends, in which case there are some real difficulties in terms of what proxy records are meaningful, and there been some unfortunate cases of people on both sides of the argument drawing more meaning than is reasonable from individual records.

I'd refer you to this correspondence:

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/raimund/publications/Muscheler_et_al_Nature2005.pdf

which can usefully link you back to much of the current dialogue.

The gist, as I understand the current state of knowledge, is that today’s solar activity is high but not exceptional during the last 1000 years.

My point here is not to say that hardball conservation would not be a good thing for the $avings rate. It is just to say that hardball conservation will not keep this problem from steam rolling over a lot of the good people, and the dialogue needs to turn towards boiler plating shelters, and emergency preparedness. This is not something that is not going to go away in the near future. Please adjust to it.

"Boiler plating shelters"?

You lost me again. What's that about?

[Jim Hughes]

The gist, as I understand the current state of knowledge, is that today’s solar activity is high but not exceptional during the last 1000 years.

Can you please tell me where you are getting this information from? Exceptional is also somewhat of a loose term.


Jim

[x-y-no]

The gist, as I understand the current state of knowledge, is that today’s solar activity is high but not exceptional during the last 1000 years.

Can you please tell me where you are getting this information from? Exceptional is also somewhat of a loose term.


Jim

The concluding paragraph of the article I linked above:

What do our results mean for climate
change? It is speculative to translate solar
magnetic modulation quantitatively into irradiance
because we do not have a clear mechanistic
understanding or evidence from data.
Still, records of solar magnetic modulation
proxies are often used as direct indicators of
solar irradiance in climate and carbon-cycle
model calculations (see ref. 10, for example).
The reconstruction by Solanki et al. implies
generally less solar forcing during the past
millennium than in the second part of the
twentieth century, whereas our reconstruction
indicates that solar activity around AD 1150
and 1600 and in the late eighteenth century
was probably comparable to the recent satellite-
based observations. In any case, as noted
by Solanki et al., solar activity reconstructions
tell us that only a minor fraction of the recent
global warming can be explained by the
variable Sun.

In addition, see the discussion of solar forcing in chapter 6 of the IPCC TAR.

[Jim Hughes]

The gist, as I understand the current state of knowledge, is that today’s solar activity is high but not exceptional during the last 1000 years.

Can you please tell me where you are getting this information from? Exceptional is also somewhat of a loose term.


Jim

The concluding paragraph of the article I linked above:

What do our results mean for climate
change? It is speculative to translate solar
magnetic modulation quantitatively into irradiance
because we do not have a clear mechanistic
understanding or evidence from data.
Still, records of solar magnetic modulation
proxies are often used as direct indicators of
solar irradiance in climate and carbon-cycle
model calculations (see ref. 10, for example).
The reconstruction by Solanki et al. implies
generally less solar forcing during the past
millennium than in the second part of the
twentieth century, whereas our reconstruction
indicates that solar activity around AD 1150
and 1600 and in the late eighteenth century
was probably comparable to the recent satellite-
based observations. In any case, as noted
by Solanki et al., solar activity reconstructions
tell us that only a minor fraction of the recent
global warming can be explained by the
variable Sun.

In addition, see the discussion of solar forcing in chapter 6 of the IPCC TAR.

I will read it when I get some free time. Your quote, which uses the term speculative throws a red flag up though.

I have spoken to many people within the solar /climate research field. One fairly well known researcher, Kenneth Schatten is one of them. ( He may not remember our telephone conversation back in 1995 or 1996 but I do . I was calling him to tell him that his upcoming Cycle 23 sunspot forecast was to high. Of course he did not like hearing this from me but I ended up being right. )

I know everybody only likes to talk about irradiance but the importance of solar eruptions is just as important as irradiance when you consider what this does to the earth's electrical environment by way of forbush decreases and particle enhancement.

It's pretty obvious that most climate researchers seem to rely on the space weather community for their expertise guidance but what the solar /space weather community has failed to understand over the years is that increased periods of solar eruptions is almost entirely related to polar magnetic field readings at certain thresholds. (Lower values)

Now this can coincide with sunspot total spikes in much the same manner that increased tornadic activity tends to occur during certain times of the year but we all know that the latter can occur at any time. So relying on sunpot totals is somewhat misleading just like the mis perception about how higher solar wind speed means stronger geomagnetic activity or increased forbush decreases.

Increased solar wind speed, unless it is a coronal windstream, usually loads the dice for a contorted and compressed IMF. This will then increases the wave factor in the the solar wind/IMF because of the slower wind down stream. This will usually than increase the chances for an extended strong geomagnetic storm and forbush decrease. But this is not written in stone and one must consider all of the variables.

I have seen the solar wind speed reach 1,000 km/sec this cycle, by way of a coronal windstream, (Which probably has only occurred about 10 times the past decade) and both the geomagnetic activity and forbush decrease paled in comparison to certain events where the solar wind speed was considerably lower.

The space weather aspect to our climate is not cut and dry and the past research has been flawed. This is exactly why certain connections have not been found.



Jim

[x-y-no]

I know everybody only likes to talk about irradiance but the importance of solar eruptions is just as important as irradiance when you consider what this does to the earth's electrical environment by way of forbush decreases and particle enhancement.

Surely you would agree that irradiance is what's important in terms of long-term climate trends? I understood your ideas regarding space weather effects to apply to weather events, not climate.

[gigabite]

...What do you say we discuss these discrepancies in a factual way, rather than tossing out derisive characterizations?...

http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/aggi/#table1
Go to table 2 row 3 column 8 = 1.7045 subtract that from table 2 row 27 column 8 = 2.5946 divide by 26 divide by 1368 multiply by 100 for percent. delta = 0.8892/26 = ( 0.0342/1368 ) * 100 = 0.0025 percent.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/new ... iance.html
Go to image 4 low point 1989 1363.5 high point 2002 1368.2 delta = 4.7/14 = ( .335/1368 ) * 100 = 0.02454 percent.

( 0.0025/0.02454 ) * 100 = 10.19 percent

Excuse me, Greenhouse gasses are only 10 percent of the problem.

"Boiler plating shelters"?

You lost me again. What's that about?

In SW Florida, we lost 5 hurricane shelters in 2 years.

[kenl01]

from Jim Andrews, AccuWeather:

As I write, it is late at night in western Siberia and temperatures between the lower Ob` and lower Yenisei rivers are 55 to 65 degrees below zero. In the Yamal-Nenets region, Tarko Sale has -64 degrees (-53.3 deg C). The high was -61 (-51.7) following a morning low of -62 (-52.2). Climatology shows average extremes of -7 and -19 degrees for high and low, respectively. Thus, in Fahrenheit, the high Wednesday was a staggering 55 degrees below normal. Departures of 40 to 50 degrees below zero have spread widely since Monday with Wednesday having the widest coverage of such cold.

Where is this cold going? From what I can tell, the deepest core of cold is set to glide steadily eastward in Siberia to reach the shores of the Sea of Okhotsk early next week. Upon reaching open water, a deep storm will be the likely result with the cold outbreak into northern Japan, greatly modified, triggering heavy snow in the snowbelts of western Hokkaido and northwestern Honshu.

[Jim Hughes]

I know everybody only likes to talk about irradiance but the importance of solar eruptions is just as important as irradiance when you consider what this does to the earth's electrical environment by way of forbush decreases and particle enhancement.

Surely you would agree that irradiance is what's important in terms of long-term climate trends? I understood your ideas regarding space weather effects to apply to weather events, not climate.

My first inclination would be to agree with you but than I stopped to think for a moment and I am not 100 % sure. What time frame are you talking about in long term climate trend?

The trend the past 10-15 years is the big catalyst behind the GW charge.

Small pieces, or weather events, add up to bigger pieces and they must slowly change the climate trends by interacting with the earth's environment. Butterfly effect...

We still do not know about the possible GCR effect upon cloud coverage. Especially maritime clouds. That could play a large role if connected. We also must consider the possible effect that space weather might have upon ozone levels. The also could have just as much influence upon the climate.




Jim

[x-y-no]

...What do you say we discuss these discrepancies in a factual way, rather than tossing out derisive characterizations?...

http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/aggi/#table1
Go to table 2 row 3 column 8 = 1.7045 subtract that from table 2 row 27 column 8 = 2.5946 divide by 26 divide by 1368 multiply by 100 for percent. delta = 0.8892/26 = ( 0.0342/1368 ) * 100 = 0.0025 percent.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/new ... iance.html
Go to image 4 low point 1989 1363.5 high point 2002 1368.2 delta = 4.7/14 = ( .335/1368 ) * 100 = 0.02454 percent.

( 0.0025/0.02454 ) * 100 = 10.19 percent

Excuse me, Greenhouse gasses are only 10 percent of the problem.

Well there's your problem right there. For solar forcing, you're selecting timepoints at a valley and peak of the 11 year solar cycle and claiming that's the overall trend. That's not legitimate at all.

Actually, it's rather stunning that the direct forcing (ignoring water vapor feedback) is that large a fraction of the short-term solar variance.

[x-y-no]

My first inclination would be to agree with you but than I stopped to think for a moment and I am not 100 % sure. What time frame are you talking about in long term climate trend?

Decades to centuries.

The trend the past 10-15 years is the big catalyst behind the GW charge.

Not really. Maybe from a public perception view, but not a scientific one.

Small pieces, or weather events, add up to bigger pieces and they must slowly change the climate trends by interacting with the earth's environment. Butterfly effect...

But to get a long-term trend in forcing, you need a continued bias, not merely variation. Is there some known long-term trend in the kind of space weather you track?

We still do not know about the possible GCR effect upon cloud coverage. Especially maritime clouds. That could play a large role if connected. We also must consider the possible effect that space weather might have upon ozone levels. The also could have just as much influence upon the climate.

Jim

Well, we've had continual sattelite coverage through a couple of solar cycles now. That ought to give us a pretty good baseline for detecting a correlation of cloud cover with space weather.

[gigabite]

...you're selecting timepoints at a valley and peak of the 11 year solar cycle and claiming that's the overall trend. That's not legitimate at all...

I realize that the long term minimum to minimum Greenhouse to Irradiance relationship is 20 percent, but the current trend is minimum to maximum, because Jupiter just past aphelion, and we are near the solar minimum and irradiance is higher at the solar minimum, because sun spots are cooler then the rest of the sun, so when there is more sun spots there is less irradiance. There is never a case when the Greenhouse/Irradiance relationship exceeds 25 percent regardless of term of the computation.

The problem is that after the DEP whooped up on DDT, and over development they were in jeopardy of loosing funding and invented this problem in a highly publicized fashion. Dressed it up like the great bag of hot air that it is, and created a bureaucratic empire that feeds multitudes of starving environmentalist.

In reality the sun is heading toward supernova, not now, but eventually. That is why the U.S. is headed toward Mars, and not to Kyoto. It’s not that the Green Tea is bad in Kyoto, it is just that Mars is half way to Europa, and the water is there.

Well, we've had continual sattelite coverage through a couple of solar cycles now. That ought to give us a pretty good baseline for detecting a correlation of cloud cover with space weather.

Please pull any series of satellite data before 1994 (the beginning of cycle 23 =/-) and post the link.

[Aslkahuna]

One, Solar Luminosity is GREATER during sunspot MAXIMUM NOT MINIMUM because the larger area of the Plages associated with the active regions (Plages are areas of enhanced brightness caused by the magnetic fields associated with the regions). If you doubt this I suggest that you do a search on the Sky and Telescope site for articles on Solar Astrophysics or get a relatively recent College Textbook on the subject. Secondly, the Sun will NEVER go Supernova as the minumum mass for a start to go Super is 8 Solar Masses and because of mass loss during the late stages of the Stellar Evoluntionary process of such stars many Astrophysicists believe that a 10-12 Solar Mass progenitor is more like it. Again a search for articles on Supernovae in S&T would help you understand the state of the research on this subject. That the Sun will become much more luminous as it evolves is a consequence of the Red Giant phase it will go through before the Planetary Nebula and White Dwarf stages.

Steve