Are the sun's solar flare cycles considered when arguing GW?

Question

I haven't heard!

Answer 1

Yes.   These people are educated- probably much more than most people.   They look at every aspect of the problem that can be thought of and base their findings on that (with a constant updating as more information becomes available).    These armchair warriors for the oil/coal companies on here aren't thinking of anything the scientists haven't already looked at long ago.

Answer 2

Skeptic argument:   It's the sun.

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12...

No it's not.  This has been studied extensively by the IPCC scienitists.  They even over compensated for it in their calculations and still came up with the conclusioin that the sun is responsible for no more than 30% of warming, with the actual data giving it from 0%-10%.

"There has been work done reconstructing the solar irradiance record over the last century, before satellites were available. According to the Max Planck Institute, where this work is being done, there has been no increase in solar irradiance since around 1940. This reconstruction does show an increase in the first part of the 20th century, which coincides with the warming from around 1900 until the 1940s. It's not enough to explain all the warming from those years, but it is responsible for a large portion. See this chart of observed temperature, modeled temperature, and variations in the major forcings that contributed to 20th century climate."

LNSu says:   "in the 70s we were going to freeze"  She's referring to the oft repeated skeptic argument, that scientists predicted cooling in 1972, so why should we believe them now?  Here's why.  Because that was about 7 scientists.  The lead scientist recanted three years later, admitting that he had under-estimated the amount ot CO2.   The IPCC on the other hand, involves many scientists who have been studying global warming for over 30 years and includes over 10,000 scientists with decades of research.

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11...

sloeginfizz repeats the nonsense about weather channel founder John Coleman who has no credentials as a climate scientist and who has already been debunked.  See the question by Dana Master of Science about John Coleman.

And George S,  I'm sure 10,000 scientists working for decades on global warming would forget to look at the wobble in earths orbit.  They probably should have checked in with you first.

Answer 3

I doubt it.  Why ruin a good emotional rant with reason.  Actually I don't think the flares are enough but earth's wobbles may be.  See http://www.exploratorium.edu/climate/cry...

Greenland ice core data of 100,000 year cooling cycles.

Answer 4

No this energy is not considered.

In the 70's we were gonna FFFRRREEEEZZZEEEE to death, so well you get it!

Answer 5

It is not considered by the AGW alarmist because the sun does not fit into their preconceived notions of man made global warming. If one looks at the sun as well as the sun spots, the reasons for a warming globe become rather apparent.

Unlike what some AGW fanatics say in yahoo answers, the sun has been much more powerful in recent years. Just by looking at this graph, we can see the sun has been particularly active.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:...

In addition, scientific experiments have been conducted showing that active sunspots reduce the cosmic rays hitting the earth (yea there really are such things as cosmic rays). Cosmic rays hitting the earth form more clouds. More clouds (low) equals reduced temps. Thus, a reduction in cosmic rays due to increased sunspot activity theoretically means less clouds and warmer temps. In an experiment, scientist recreated our atmosphere in a room and subjects the room to cosmic rays. Clouds actually formed in the room. And yes, in recent years, we have had extensive sun spot activity. Only around 2007 has the sun spots calmed down. And not surprisingly, sunspot activity has been VERY quite in 2008 (anyone heard anything about extremely cold weather recently?) This is because the sun is between cycles. the cycle 23 is ending and we are waiting for 24 to start. The longer the 24 cycle takes to develop, the colder weather we will continue to have.

http://personals.galaxyinternet.net/tung...

Check out the movie toward the middle of the page (first link to movie without an associated snapshot of it). This shows the sun over a period of years. I do not use this as scientific evidence as I do not know how the flick was edited. But it does show just how different an active sun looks compared to an inactive sun.

http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/hotshots/...

Answer 6

The alarmists will try to dismiss it, but with the warming of the other planets in our solar system also, there is one common denominator.  The Sun.

Before this question is closed, the alarmists are going to say something like we measure the energy output of the Sun and it hasn't changed one bit.  Rubbish.  The energy output of the Sun fluctuates continually.  Is it so hard to believe that the Sun could be responsible for the slight increase in temperature over the last 100 years?

Answer 7

Go to this link:

http://www.youtorrent.com/tag/?q=The+Gre...

And download the documentary called "The Great Global Warming Swindle"

Then get the propaganda follow up called PROOF THAT 'THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING SWINDLE' WAS A SCAM.

Do some research into these topics:

The year without a summer

The Little Ice Age

Global Dimming

Super Volcanoes

When you look at the FACTS... FACTS AND ONLY FACTS... you will see that Global Warming is nothing but a cult being used to manipulate the small minded and perpetuate the adgendas of anti-advancement and anti-globalism political groups.

Nothing more.

Answer 8

Yes, of course it is. The National Academy of Sciences specifically notes this.

http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/clim...

"Rising temperatures and greenhouse gas

concentrations observed since 1978 are particularly

noteworthy because the rates of

increase are so high and because, during the

same period, the energy reaching the Earth

from the Sun has been measured precisely by

satellites. These measurements indicate that

the Sun’s output has not increased since 1978,

so the warming during the past 30 years cannot

be attributed to an increase in solar energy

reaching the Earth. The frequency of volcanic

eruptions, which tend to cool the Earth by

reflecting sunlight back to space, also has not

increased or decreased significantly. Thus,

there are no known natural factors that could

explain the warming during this time period."

Answer 9

Solar energy? Why would the sun have anything to do with warming. that would make way too much sense. It is just a big ball of burning gas. I am sure we wouldn't even notice if it were gone.

Answer 10

Of course.

Global warming deniers don't like to admit it, but believe it or not, climate scientists aren't idiots.  They don't hand out PhDs like candy.

Solar flares are related to sunspots.  Here is a plot from the Stanford Solar Center of sunspot number, global temperature, and atmospheric CO2 concentration.

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-...

As you can see, sunspot number (and solar flares, and solar irradiance) have all decreased slightly over the past 30 years as both global temperature and CO2 levels have increased rapidly.  Clearly the Sun is not causing the current warming.

Some people like to pretend that anyone who believes humans are causing global warming must be idiots, but the scientific data supports our arguments, not theirs.  Notice who in this question provided scientific data to support their arguments.

Answer 11

Those with consciences can not be bothered with such things.  They are to busy agreeing with each other.

Answer 12

The founder of the Weather Channel wants to sue Al Gore for fraud, hoping a legal debate will settle the global-warming debate once and for all.

John Coleman, who founded the cable network in 1982, suggests suing for fraud proponents of global warming, including Al Gore, and companies that sell carbon credits.

"Is he committing financial fraud? That is the question," Coleman said.

"Since we can't get a debate, I thought perhaps if we had a legal challenge and went into a court of law, where it was our scientists and their scientists, and all the legal proceedings with the discovery and all their documents from both sides and scientific testimony from both sides, we could finally get a good solid debate on the issue," Coleman said. "I'm confident that the advocates of 'no significant effect from carbon dioxide' would win the case.