How can you say solar activity causes global warming when it has been decreasing since 1985, while temperature

Question

s continue to rise?

The split is not a gradual split either, it is a sudden reverse with almost no showing in the temperatures indicating that previous correlation meant nothing because if it had any strength, then temperatures would have fallen at least a bit: correlations can never even be considered to imply causation if at some point there is a complete split with no correlation WHATSOEVER.

The solar effect doesn't just switch on and off, it applies with any great significance either always or never, not just when there is a correlation.

So, sceptics, how can you say solar is causing global warming especially in the late 20th-cent, but also, for reasons I have explained, at all in the 20th cent?

Answer 1

Solar activity is a natural system that ebbs and flows like all natural systems each has it own effect good or bad but I simply stay put and ponder at some of the so called experts  bleating on about the rest of us causing these effects.

This global warming is I believe is just another cycle with which we have as much effect as KANUTE ordering the tide to retreat.

How do you plug a volcano? answer... ask an expert they will probably say fill it with concrete... with some DEGREE of certainty.

Answer 2

beanthedoctor - I'm glad to see that you esteem the journal Nature. Maybe this peer reviewed article in Nature will help you realize the sun cannot explained the recent warming:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v44...

"The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978 are too small to have contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30 years."

This Journal of Climate peer-reviewed article agrees:

http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?requ...

"the results confirm previous analyses showing that greenhouse gas increases explain most of the global warming observed in the second half of the twentieth century."

And this paper from the Proceedings from the  National Academy of Sciences agrees:

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/104...

"Anthropogenic forcing must account for the difference between a small natural temperature signal and the observed warming in the late 20th century."

Answer 3

i was hoping it would be a component but recent results have convinced me otherwise;

http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1748-9326...

http://environment.newscientist.com/chan...

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

Answer 4

There have been some papers that have made that claim, but they have made some false assumptions.

To read a response to Lochwood and Frohlich you can go to this link and then click on reply from Svensmark:

http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=153

To see a reply to Sloan and Wolfendale go to this link:

http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar

There are certain facts that we know.  Historically there has been an excellent correlation between sun and climate.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Refere...

We also know that sun activity is at an 800 year high.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/su...

The is a difference between levels and trends.  If your house is heated by a furnace and you turn your thermostat down a little but temperature still rise, does that mean your furnace does not play a role in heating your house?  Of course it does.  

This also lead to the question if The IPCC says that the sun has played no role in the current warming,  then what caused the early 20th century warming? In an effort to say that future warming will be catastrophic the IPCC has to totally ignore the sun's influence. It changes the parameters that they feed into the climate models. They also state  that early 20th century warming is due to unknown reasons.  So why can it not be that the unknown reason is also responsible for the latter 20th century warming?

Answer 5

You can't, which is why scientists don't.   No scientific study has ever attributed more than one-third of the warming over the past 30 years to the Sun, and most attribute just 0-10% to solar effects.

Answer 6

Answering the following questions may shed some light:

1) Do you have the data referring to a decrease in solar activity? (Answer: your data is different (because it is unpublished) than mine, which is published in Nature (considered by many to be THE TOP scientific journal:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16049...

2) Do you know how global temperature is calculated? (Answer: weather stations within cities; Atmospheric data from satellites actually indicate the atmosphere is cooling).

3) How do glaciers melt at temperatures below the freezing point of water? (Answer: solar radiance)

Answer 7

It doesn't matter what we say. Here is some expert opinion though. Read the first one carefully.

http://www.spacecenter.dk/research/sun-c...

http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/su...

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/200...

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/sppi_r...

http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/20...

http://www.warwickhughes.com/geol/img_LG...

http://www.coyoteblog.com/photos/uncateg...

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Refere...