Global Warming Fanatics, why not blame the sun?

Question

Since you GW fanatics already have all the answers, can you tell me why the sun is not a major cause in Global Warming?

The sun's cycles are observable and predictable. It's cycles match with tempurature changes, (ie, Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age) The sun is the Earth's furnace, if it's output goes up, the room warms, output goes down, room cools.

I read the article on www.livescience.com about how the cosmic ray, cloud formation theory is flawed. But what about the increase, decrease of x-ray, visiable and UV radiation output of the sun? Doesn't that effect our climate dramatically?

I would like to see any data that this does not effect our climate. Since there is and unquestionable consensus amoung scientist, there shouldn't be much trouble explaining this.

Answer 1

This article from the American Instute of Physics might help.

Solar radiation without atmospheric interference (measured in space) is done since the 50´s/60´s. This gives already enough measurement to draw conclusions.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/solar...

Answer 2

The sun goes through 11 year cycles; we've witnessed a 30 year warming period.

And no, its cycles do not match temperature changes. I'd post the link but my computer or Y!A doesn't let me do that anymore.

Increase/decrease in radiation would be easily observed. If it were responsible for the recent warming there would surely be no debate about it.

Like I said, I can't show you any data because Y!A doesn't let me post links.

Answer 3

Because scientists have PROVEN it's not the Sun.  You're right that it's pretty easy, because we measure it.

"Recent oppositely directed trends in solar

climate forcings and the global mean surface

air temperature", Lockwood and Frolich (2007), Proc. R. Soc. A

doi:10.1098/rspa.2007.1880

http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/pro...

News article at:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6290228.st...

The bottom line, from Fox, no less:

"While evidence suggests fluctuations in solar activity can affect climate on Earth, and that it has done so in the past, the majority of climate scientists and astrophysicists agree that the sun is not to blame for the current and historically sudden uptick in global temperatures on Earth, which seems to be mostly a mess created by our own species."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,2583...

As one scientist has said, "The problem with putting another nail in the coffin of solar warming is finding a place to put it."

Answer 4

Of course the sun heats the earth. Without the sun, no life on earth. Nobody questions that fact. However, climate is dependent on many factors. That's why not all planets in our solar system has temperatures only relative to how close to the sun they are.

Why not read some information about global warming from people who really do know a lot about our sun and its effect on current climate?

This site provides a lot of interesting information about climate change and the greenhouse effect: http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-... . They even bring up the Little Ice Age and the sun's role on that.

Hope this helps.

Answer 5

it is not as simple as that

http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/glo...

Global warming is but a component, in a group of destructive forces at work such as ;deforestation,desertification,soil and water contamination ,irresponsible or wasteful utilization of bio resources , air pollution,Non sustainable Agriculture,over pumping carbon aquifers

all concepts which are definitely not part of the Natural Processes of the Natural world

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...

WHICH WE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR,

The most prolific growth on this planet is part of the day in the mist and most of the time under clouds ,and the least growth is always directly in the sun .

To exchange the one for the other means changing local climates

We are exchanging Nature with Tar , concrete and open spaced mono cultures.

In 300 years half of the planets forests have gone ,and in the last 50 years half of the wet lands ,and rain forests

These Areas absorb heat during the day and release heat at night ,

Cause cloud formation(shade).humidifying the air on the surface as well as releasing excess water at the roots that keep rivers flowing ,which in turn brings more water into the Environment .

As well as contributing to absorbing carbon emissions as do the leaves of the trees together with the oceans .

All in all many factors which directly affect the local Environment .

The loss of the above resulting in rivers drying up ,less rain ,desertification,loss of habitat for many species and so on.

dryer and hotter surface environments which can manifest in different weather patterns such as tornadoes or bush fires

I may be stupid or Naive but somehow i believe that lots of these local environmental changes, can add up to affect global weather, If there are enough of them (and there are)

And then on top of that comes the story of the effects of pollutants released into Nature and especially the Air ,by MAN http://earthissues.multiply.com/photos/a...

A cocktail of events and a lot of the ingredients have MAN written all over them

So it is safe to assume that we should look at ourselves ,just a teeny bit ,for possible improvements ,and rectifying Eco errors that are with in our powers.

What is a safer bet

to be or not to be

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...

Answer 6

I am 77 and the environment is better now than it was 50 years ago. There was the dust bowl, when it rained mud. Look for deviations either high or low that frequently breaks records of a hundred years. This is where to find the clue.

Answer 7

Variations in solar activity does cause some variations in temperature on earth. There are many factors. However, past climate changes are correlated with changes in greenhouse gases. Many factors contribute to climate change including albedo, cloud cover, plant life, etc.. Most scientists now believe that the warming of the last 100 yrs. has been caused by increasing greenhouse gas content in the atmosphere. Read some peer reviewed journal articles in paleoclimate to understand the material better :)

Answer 8

Kinda hard to tax the sun out of existance, unlike the middle class. Plus you don't get to feel guilty for the sun's cycles like you do with the Earth's.

Answer 9

I never thought along those lines, I will do my research on that subject but it will take time since all research is geared  to certain direction because:

Every thing is to do with money  how much money can be taken out of your pocket and  create mass confusion. Truth is most difficult or almost impossible to discover now a days . If you really want to find the truth check what is being attacked, suppressed, secret or hidden

Answer 10

You're right, that's a very obvious thing to consider, one of the first and easiest factors for scientists to check.  They did determine that the sun most likely had some role in past warmings (along with carbon dioxide):

http://www.terradaily.com/reports/New_Co...

He says his carbon dioxide feedback hypothesis explains why the strongest cycles of ice response are not in correspondence with those in the orbital cycles.

Ruddiman concludes (as Milankovitch proposed) that ice sheets are initially driven by the Sun, but then the ice takes control of carbon dioxide changes, producing its own positive feedback (the amplifying effect) at the 41,000-year cycle.

Ice build-up continued until unusually large solar radiation peaks triggered rapid melting at intervals of 85,000 to 115,000 years. Although solar radiation peaks were the initial trigger for these melting episodes, most of the ice was removed by feedbacks in the climate system, and CO2 feedback was the largest of these.

"The origin of the ice-age cycles has been a major mystery in studies of past climates, and some scientists felt the answer must be very complex," Ruddiman said. "Yet this hypothesis is quite simple, requiring only the Sun, the carbon dioxide feedback, and a gradual cooling. The prominent role proposed for carbon dioxide is consistent with its likely effect on future climate."

However, this time we're measuring the sun and we know its output is not increasing, but we are causing the rise in atmospheric CO2 (easily confirmed via carbon isotope ratios):

http://journals.royalsociety.org/content...

Mike Lockwood of the UK's Rutherford Appleton Laboratory and Claus Froehlich of the World Radiation Center in Switzerland published a paper in October that concludes:

"There is considerable evidence for solar influence on the Earth's pre-industrial climate and the Sun may well have been a factor in post-industrial climate change in the first half of the last century. Here we show that over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the Earth's climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures."

So how does the "it's the sun" myth continue to get so much airtime?  It sounds plausible, and like many lies there's a grain of truth in that the sun may have been partially involved in some of the past warmings (not all), so it works as a tool for the oil and coal industries to delay our action.  It's very easy to see that many so-called skeptical "scientists" are actually simply paid industry advocates, part of a PR scam on the part of oil and coal companies, who have hired former tobacco industry lobbyists to run a disinformation campaign:

Slamming the Climate Skeptic Scam

http://www.desmogblog.com/slamming-the-c...

"Few PR offences have been so obvious, so successful and so despicable as the attack on the scientific certainty of climate change.

One major funding source:

Exxposing ExxonMobil's Agenda: Manipulating Politics and the Public

http://www.exxposeexxon.com/facts/dailyf...

Television and cable networks gladly run fake science to increase controversy and keep their ratings and revenues high:

At Fox News, a Pundit for Hire

http://www.freepress.net/news/print.php?...

"Objective viewers long ago realized that Fox News has a political agenda. But, when a pundit promotes this agenda while on the take from corporations that benefit from it, then Fox News has gone one disturbing step further"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Mill...

The Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University, documents how the media supports the false appearance of controversy on the topic of global warming:

http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/reports/05...

Creating controversy where science finds consensus

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1978

"A new study has found that when it comes to U.S. media coverage of global warming , superficial balance—telling "both" sides of the story—can actually be a form of informational bias."

Media False Balancing Allowed Extreme Views to be Treated Same as Scientific Consensus

http://www.globalissues.org/EnvIssues/Gl...

Here's how scientific papers pro and con stack up:

http://norvig.com/oreskes.html

The consensus was quantified in a Science study by Prof. Naomi Oreskes (Dec. 2004) in which she surveyed 928 scientific journal articles... 75% agreed with the consensus view (either implicitly or explicitly), 25% took no stand one way or the other, and none rejected the consensus.

The evidence suggests that the "fanatics" are the ones believing the propaganda without question, and ignoring the vast majority of scientists.

Answer 11

Without global warming, what would these fanatics cry about?  Don't worry, global warming will pass just like every fanatical nutbag idea that has gone by the wayside over the years.  Global cooling, the ozone layer and many more...  They will start screaming about the mosquitos dying out shortly and protesting terminex and orkin soon.  

That's simply another cycle that you can depend on.

Answer 12

I think the sun is mostly to blame.If you look back to the medieval warm period, it was warmer then and there was much less C02 in the earths atmosphere.manmade global warming has been blown out of proportion... It's almost become a religion with some people.

Answer 13

Because the sun was there before/the same time as the earth was. Which means when the earth's 'delicate balance' was created, it included the heat from the sun.

Answer 14

PAY your Global Warming TAX $4500 a year & no Private property rights

The debate, however, is not about the merits of socialism over capitalism and free markets; the debate is about water. The bill will give to the federal government control over all water in the United States, and control over all "… activities affecting these waters."

Water is essential in the production of virtually everything. If the government controls water, and all "activities affecting these waters," then the government controls the sources of production.

There is absolutely no need for the government to take this draconian step. Water is already regulated far beyond necessity. The control and regulation of water has stripped property rights from people in every state – often for no definable public benefit. This bill will destroy the last vestige of the idea of private property rights.

Answer 15

Yeah, the earth warmed and cooled as it liked millions of years ago.

Well, let me tell you this:

WE DIDN'T HAVE CARS AND POWER-PLANTS A MILLION YEARS AGO!

so yes, the sun is contributing, but we can' change the sun. we CAN change how much c**p we put in the air.

Answer 16

the sun has been there for trillions of years and the GW only exist for no more than 50 years so the sunshine is an stable element and we should find changing element.

Answer 17

I summarized the scientific evidence showing why the Sun (and galactic cosmic rays) are not responsible for the current global warming in the wiki article linked below.