How can people blame the recent global warming on the Sun?

Question

Total solar irradiance has not increased on average over the past 30 years as global temperatures have risen 0.5°C.

http://www.acrim.com/RESULTS/Earth%20Observatory/earth_obs_fig9_web.jpg

The upper atmosphere has cooled rapidly over that period.

http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_description.html#figures

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/the-sky-is-falling/

And the planet is warming more during the night than during the day.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/gcag/GCAGdealtemX?mon1=1&monb1=1&mone1=1&bye1=1880&eye1=2006&graph=Lineplot&klu=1&dat=GHCNX&mon2=00&bye2=00&eye2=00&mon3=00&ye=00&param=Temperature&proce=80&puzo=0&ts=6&non=1&begX=0&begY=0&endX=71&endY=35&sbeX=0&sbeY=0&senX=71&senY=35

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig2-2.htm

Considering these facts, how can 'skeptics' justify blaming the Sun for the recent global warming?

Answer 1

The sun is a huge ball of flaming plasma gas.  About 850,000 miles in diameter to be precise.  The sun is also very hot, and this heat is radiated towards the Earth and other planets in the solar system.  

It is bad science to blame CO2 on global warming.  CO2 does not hold heat in like a blanket, the heat does radiate back out into space, this is not permanent.  

But, it is suggested that I pay "carbon credits."  Will this make it all go away?  

Answer 2

Well, excluding the answer you have already given to your own question I would say people mistake the source of energy as the root cause rather than recognizing the retention of excess energy as the source of our current problems.

Others just continue to deny its existence to avoid any sense of responsibility, understandably ... it is a frightening concept after all.  

Answer 3

Why is mars warming at the rate we are?

Did we ship them some of our CO2?

Answer 4

WHAT recent global warming?? Anyway, considering the sun is what keeps us warm... wouldn't it be the cause of global warming?

*Down with Big Brother*

Answer 5

I USED to believe in global warming, but when I did some research, my eyes were opened.

First of all, in the 1970s, they were telling us about global cooling.

Also, it isn't a minority of stupid people who don't think global warming is caused by man.  There are more than 18,000 scientists who think it's a scam.  These 18,000 professionals signed the Oregon Petition, a petition which states that there is no evidence that global warming is made by mankind.

In January of 2007, an article in Science magazine showed that, according to ice cores with high resolution, since the last ice age, whenever the temperatures rose, the carbon levels rose AFTERWARDS.

“The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect”-  Dr. Richard Evans

The ice really isn’t melting.  People who say that polar bears are  almost extinct obviously haven’t heard this:

“The Fish and Wildlife Service estimates that the polar bear population is currently at 20,000 to 25,000 bears, whereas in the 1950s and 1960s, estimates were as low as 5,000-10,000 bears. ... an estimated four or five times more polar bears than 50 years ago. A 2002 U.S. Geological Survey of wildlife in the Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain noted that the polar bear populations ‘may now be near historic highs.’ ” - Sen. James Inhoffe

People aren’t polluting very much at all, to be honest.

“Carbon dioxide forms approximately 0.04% of the Earth's atmosphere. It is essential to photosynthesis in plants and other photoautotrophs, and is also a prominent greenhouse gas due to its radiative forcing strength. Carbon dioxide is released to the atmosphere by a variety of natural sources, and over 95% of total CO2 emissions would occur even if humans were not present on Earth.”- Wikipedia

Also, Carbon dioxide doesn’t make up even 1% of the atmosphere.  Water Vapor is the main greenhouse gas, as it is reponsible for 95% of the greenhouse effect.  And listen to this:

“Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 contributions cause only about 0.117% of Earth's greenhouse effect, (factoring in water vapor). This is insignificant!”-www.geocraft.com

Please visit this site for more data on the greenhouse gases: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenh...

It includes, chats, graphs, and a whole ton of information showing that man is NOT causing global warming.

Thank you and have a wonderful day! (Unless you’re still worried about polar bears.)

Answer 6

You're talking about people whose idea of learning about science is listening to Rush Limbaugh.  They have no clue what it's all about because they're just parroting what they've been told.

Answer 7

Those who look at such small time scales are deluding themselves about climate trends.  It is interesting that there appears to be an admission of ignorance of the actual causes which is demonstrated by your question?  I certainly am not convinced that solar radiation is the answer to all fluctuations.  It is more complicated than that.  When you look so hard for evidence to support your cause, you generally find it.  

Answer 8

You are assuming that the Earth is warming.

How can you know that?  The surface station data that has been used for years by climatologists is trash at best.  As you are aware, the majority of surface stations are poorly located and maintained and as a result, have been and continue to report higher than actual temperatures and it's getting worse.  As more of these stations are encroached upon by cities, highways, parking lots.... etc. the data gets worse.  

Bad Data = Voodoo Science

Answer 9

Clearly, the data shows the sun has not added to the temperature delta. To say otherwise is misleading.  

Answer 10

Because they aren't skeptics (who wouldn't use something has been discredited).

Answer 11

What recent warming ???

Answer 12

"Total solar irradiance has not increased on average over the past 30 years as global temperatures have risen 0.5°C."

TSI is not the only solar variable that effects temperatures, but even if it was, it does not have to be currently rising for it to still contribute to a radiative imbalance, and I suspect you know this, but still trot out such simplistic arguments for some odd reason.

"The upper atmosphere has cooled rapidly over that period."

This actually works well with a plateau in irradiance.

"And the planet is warming more during the night than during the day."

Still works with a plateau in irradiance.

I have argued this many times on Y!A, but here goes:

The Sun has gotten hotter. The fact that it did so prior to 1950, and then just pretty much just remained so, does not alter its ability to explain warming, even to this day. GHG gasses also have difficulty explaining the shape and timing of the 20th century temperature statistics without significant aerosol contributions.

No matter how suggestive the GHG concentration curves are to the naked eye relative to the plateau in solar activity, without positive feedbacks, anthropogenic GHGs can only account for less than a third of the recent warming. Credible attribution of the rest of the less than 1W/m^2 energy imbalance requires models that can reproduce the observed solar response, and have a much better “match” to the climate than current models.

Read the climate commitment studies of Wigley, et al, and Meehl, et al, to understand how the argument that recent solar activity has not increased is simplistic and wrong. If the level of solar forcing reached prior to 1950 continues (which is unlikely per Solanki), then there will be a solar contribution to the energy imblance resulting in sea level rise for several more centuries. Presumably most of the temperature response occurs in the first few decades, although arguably, that response was delayed by the causes of the midcentury cooling (aerosols, ocean circulations, etc..). Obviously, with warming comes feedbacks. What is a feedback? More water vapor, which is a GHG, thus contributing to a cooling upper atmosphere and warmer nights.

Am I arguing that the sun accounts for all recent warming? No, but it, along with human produced GHGs and urbanization, is a player in the warming of the last 30 years.

Answer 13

Ask the Democrats, they came up with this global warming trash. Al Gore built a "green" mansion, which uses 10% more energy than his old regular mansion. Global Warming..... Give me a break.

It is all the government, they want you to believe in global warming so that you can spend more money on energy efficient products that are "green" and it gives them another reason to tax you. It is all lies, the earth goes through natural heating and cooling cycles. Politicians don't know a clue about the planet and they call themselves experts, especially Democrats.

For those who believe in it: Why worry about our pollution rates. Ours is nothing compared to China and India.

Here's a fact. The percentage of people believing in global warming has dropped this year.  

Answer 14

Where have you been?  I've been telling people for ages about the Modern Maximum and how it correlates with the recent warming trend BETTER than the Industrial Revolution.  Look it up and see.

Answer 15

Based on your data, scientifically, they can't, but do anyway.  

Answer 16

Peer reviewed literature would argue that the sun did increase it's output and can account for between 10-30% of the global warming that ocurred over the last 30 years. And that is without factoring any positive feedbacks from the solar forcing.

As far as stratospheric cooling goes it is more than likely associated with ozone depletion, and there has been no stratospheric cooling over the last decade which correlates well with the no visible trend in ozone level changes over the last decade.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:TOMS_...

EDIT Dana:

I would say that the 18 month plunge of global temperatures as well as the lack of warming over the last few years as measured by satellites, that was consequently not predicted by climate models, indicate that "NO ONE" has any idea about climate sensitivity, therfore no one is reasonably qualified to redicule their climate sensistivity parameter. The IPCC projections of global temperatures over the last few years are at odds with what is happening with Earths climate.

Answer 17

Here’s the link to a Discover  magazine interview with Henrik Svensmark on this topic:

"Sun's Shifts May Cause Global Warming"

His studies show that natural variations in the sun plays a major role in global warming. So are humans off the hook? And if so, why does he use compact fluorescent light bulbs?

By Marion Long

    "Most leading climate experts don’t agree with Henrik Svensmark, the 49-year-old director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at the Danish National Space Center in Copenhagen. In fact, he has taken a lot of blows for proposing that solar activity and cosmic rays are instrumental in determining the warming (and cooling) of Earth. His studies show that cosmic rays trigger cloud formation, suggesting that a high level of solar activity—which suppresses the flow of cosmic rays striking the atmosphere—could result in fewer clouds and a warmer planet. This, Svensmark contends, could account for most of the warming during the last century. Does this mean that carbon dioxide is less important than we’ve been led to believe? Yes, he says, but how much less is impossible to know because climate models are so limited."

http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jul/the...

Answer 18

But Dana there has been no real warming in excess of that which happened 70 years ago. The truth is in the process of being reviled to the world a little bit at a time and in three or four years those who supported global warming will be the butt of so many dirty jokes their public lives will be as miserable as those who predicted gigantic disasters for Y2k. Oh wait a minute were not you one of those who predicted that the millennium would be the disaster of all disasters!

Answer 19

because they don't want to admit to what they have done to the earth so far...

Answer 20

BEFORE ANY OF YOU GET YOUR NIPPLES IN A CLAMP......READ THESE LINKS BELOW. SO MUCH FOR THE ORIGINAL ECO QUESTION.

The issue is simple.  For every article blaming humans for global warming, there is an article that disputes it. Are we caught in the middle? Only if you want to be. Best approach, do not be swayed by extremists on either side. Science has no ax to grind or political agenda to please.  Facts are facts and until the facts are no longer debated, there is no debate.  What's left is to see how many people line up on the doom and gloom and join the we're all going to die crowd, or those who will do their part and not contribute to poluting the planet and wait and see until intelligent science wins out.

Answer 21

1.) According to ground based weather stations, temperature were recorded as rising over time because they were originally placed in fields and meadows are now surrounding by concrete and buildings being built around them over the last few decades.

Check the second link I provided about the weather stations and it will show how urban sprawl skewed temperature data and its corresponding graph and this is the data that Al Gores uses to scare people into giving him money for "carbon credits".  Yeah, give me real money and I'll give you monopoly "credits" and promised to put your carbon output somewhere else somehow.  See, I can do it too, where's my Nobel peace prize?

2.)  We spent billions of dollars sending up extremely sophisticated weather recording satellites and found that the temperature did increase and also discovered that the other planets in our solar system has increased their surface temperature by same amount and yet, the sun is not to blame?

What I want to know is, how do we get those living on the other planets to sign the Kyoto treaty?

3.)  The first link shows that the temperature had dropped by 0.5°C in the past year, let's see, that means it wiped out the last 30 years of temperature rise.

No matter what we do to "save" our planet in this country, China is doing the opposite and more.

Answer 22

The sun is responsible for 99.9% of the warmth on earth, but it is not responsible for our recent global warming. Those who say otherwise are head-in-the-sand deniers.

People deny global warming for one of a few reasons:

1. They have a direct financial interest in keeping us dependent on fossil fuels.

2. They fear the costs associated with mitigating and adapting to global warming.

3. They are anti-intellectual bible literalists whose world view is upset by numerous fields of science - biology, geology, astronomy.