When has any AGW proponent claimed the Sun plays no role in climate change?

Question

In a recent question, a global warming denier asked "Are Believers Now Coming Around to See that the Sun Plays a Part in "Global Warming"?". However, I'm not aware of any "believer" who has claimed otherwise. I had to sign out in order to see the details of the question because the asker now has me blocked, but I discovered he quoted me as an example:

"Regardless, we know the Sun isn't responsible, because we've measured solar output directly with satellites over the past 30 years..."

However, you might notice that this quote specifically states "over the past 30 years", not that the Sun plays no role in climate change in general. I have long said that while the Sun plays little to no role in the current warming, it's one of the stronger natural forcings. In fact, it's the second section in my climate change causes wiki

http://greenhome.huddler.com/wiki/global-warming-and-climate-change-causes

So when has any AGW proponent claimed the Sun plays no role in climate change?

Answer 1

Its a strawman argument. They are good at them. Some of them even think they're clever.

Answer 2

Your question exemplifies why it is difficult to adequately address this issue  scientifically.  Everyone is quoting this 'expert' or another, reciting raw data from this or that source, ignoring or elevating the information depending upon which side of the 'discussion' (I know, goreboy says the discussion is over, or something to that effect) one is on.  Your statement that ' the sun is playing little or no role in the current warming' is an example of an emotional rather than a scientific response to this raw data.  You are as aware as I am that there are no studies that support your position that 'global warming is caused primarily by humans, and their production of CO2'(sorry I am quoting from memory, this may not be exactly what you said, but the idea is as I understood your statement), there is however record of climate changes in semi-recorded history that would mimic what we are experiencing now, with the absence of human produced CO2.  Since you stance on this is well known, and since it is obviously a 'belief system', not a scientifically demonstrated cause and effect relationship, then I say to you , do all of the carbon foot print 'erasing' you wish to in your own life, ride your bicycle, ride the bus, take cold showers, eat raw food, what ever you wish, but leave me to live my life as i wish.  The 'Global Warming caused by humans Church' has plenty of members, and I do not wish to become one.  Good luck in your evangelical efforts to convert people to your faith based belief system.

Answer 3

Never as far as I know, it's just Jelly doing his normal quote-out-of-context, sneaky implications and outright falsehoods (he especially loves this one, the putting-words-in-others-mouths!)

Sorry to hear that he couldn't handle your truths but we'll see what we can do in your absence!

Starting with alm0...

Where did you get 3%?

Atmospheric CO2 stands at 387ppm up from approx. 200ppm in 1750. This is almost 100%. None of the known sources of natural CO2 have doubled in output. The only known source of additional CO2 is human activity.

No, I am not claiming that we are responsible for 100% of the increase (predictions are rarely infallible) but we can say, with a 90%+ degree of certainty, that humans are responsible for 80%+ of this increase above natural norms.

And Mikey... you've done it again! You make an absolute & categoric statement that is patently and easily proven as false. As soon as you do this, any other statements you make are rendered suspect.

To wit, you say "there are no studies that support your position that 'global warming is caused primarily by humans'". In numerous previous questions, we have given you links to reports that do, in fact, support that position (see link below).

Ken has already given you a link to a report that states that the sun isn't responsible and I have also repeatedly given the link below that states "the issue of whether the sun's activity is causing global warming had been dispensed with by most scientists long ago." and that "the study was "another nail" in the coffin of the notion that solar activity is responsible for global warming".

The only reason why this notion persists is that "there is a small minority which is seeking to deliberately confuse... They often misrepresent the science...a failure to take action... would be irresponsible and dangerous"

It is not faith based, it is science based.

We are not trying to convert, but we are trying to dispel myth and falsehoods.

We ask that those being "irresponsible and dangerous" to cease and desist!

Mikey, your mind is obviously closed to this evidence. I find that sad but respect your right to your own opinions. However, I will not stand idly by while you try and promulgate these falsehoods especially when they are people who come to this forum looking for answers, not YOUR faith!

(And in your case it is more likely faith as you never present evidence unlike the AGW proponents - only faith doesn't require evidence).

Answer 4

I think that geologists typically don't buy into global warming scare mongering because they see things more in geological time scales.  Your assumption  that we can eliminate solar effects by satellite measurements is more about wishful thinking than science in my opinion.  Your time scale is so miniscule that it is hardly a blip in geologic time.  What is happening, has happened.

Answer 5

Hmmm...AGW proponents claim everything plays a role in climate change don't they?  

Carbon this, carbon that, eating meat, cars, planes, boats, cows, manufacturing, breathing, running, electricity production, campfires, logging, you-name-it they'll use anything as a catalyst to global warming.  

Except common sense.

Answer 6

Never that I know of.

The distinction to be made is the role historically played, and the one it's played in the last 30 years.  We're pretty sure about the historic role, and we KNOW what the present role is, because we measure solar radiation extensively.

Historically the Sun was likely the major player, the force that started and stopped Ice Ages.  Google "milankovic cycles" for details.

But, in the last 30 years, solar radiation received by Earth has actually declined slightly.   By itself, that would cause slight cooling.  But, because of CO2 and the greenhouse effect, we've actually been warming.  Details here:

"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...

EDIT - "what proportion(%) of today's greenhouse effect is due to AGW (humans)? We are 3% of the CO2...   give me a number my friend. 0-100%"

Glad to.  You're right that we're a small part of the TOTAL greenhouse effect.  But we're responsible for 75-95% of the recent INCREASE in the greenhouse effect.  The proof is too extensive for a short answer, but it's well explained, even for a non-scientist, here:

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

and

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

Answer 7

I like how they block, delete their own questions (and apparently alms own answer in this case); basically doing a duck and run for cover when the argument doesn't go their way.

Sorry didn't answer your question, the answer is self evident.  Don't report me ;)

Mr. Jello unblocked me as part of a bargain as he apparently couldn't resist answering one of my questions - so I occasionally answer his questions factually and without responding to the rhetoric, just so that people can see there is a rational alternative to the nonsense.

This is not about science or truth or logic or what is right and correct.  You and I know that science is fundamentally impartial and agnostic.  Facts and reproducible experiments don't lie.

I'm thinking stay with the facts and don't take the bait, some of my posts notwithstanding.

To me, they are unbalanced reactionary psycho-political zealots impervious to logic.  To them, I'm an unbalanced radical environmental nutcase.

Organize and vote for progressive leaders.  The vast middle will follow.  The zealots on both ends will get left behind.

Answer 8

Using my knowledge of geology and common sense I MUST approach this problem with the logic of a "denier" in order for you nasty "believers" to understand the complex ideas your little scientific minds are unable to grasp:

If there was no atmosphere the temperature would be a constant 800 deg during the day and a constant -275 deg at night, therefore it is the atmosphere that is responsible for Global Warming, not the Sun.

So if we just burn off the atmosphere Global Warming will go away.

Answer 9

Would you like the abridged or unabridged version? Here's something I know your vacant in.

http://www.crystalinks.com/sun3.html

Answer 10

Who would be so ignorant as to claim that?  Of course those of us who accept the theory of AGW know the sun plays a role in climate change.  The warming in the early part of the 20th century was probably caused, in part, by solar changes.  But no one would then make the false inference that therefore ALL climate change is caused by solar changes. That would be ludicrous.

Numerous studies have concluded that while solar changes were probably a factor in previous climate changes, it is not a significant factor in the warming that occurred the latter part of the 20th century.

From the UK Royal Society of Science:

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

"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."

From the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research

http://www.mps.mpg.de/dokumente/publikat...

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

From Climate and Environmental Physics, Physics Institute, University of Bern and the National Center for Atmospheric Research:

http://www.aimes.ucar.edu/MEETINGS/2005_...

"Although solar and volcanic effects appear to dominate most of the slow climate variations within the past thousand years, greenhouse gas effects have dominated the last century."

Edit:

mickey - You can "emit" all the CO2 you want, just don't let it come into the public atmosphere where the effects are detrimental to the lives of others.  As for your assertion about no scientific studies, you have go to be kidding.  Go to any legitimate scientific journal that covers climate (e.g. Science, Nature, Journal of Climate, PNAS, etc.) and do a search for the words Anthropogenic and Warming.