Why do Skepticts STILL deny SGW?

Question

How can people still doubt the existence of Solar Global Warming? Clearly there is no relationship between co2 and temperatures, or it would have been warmer this year than last year.

Even NASA is saying that there is a clear link between the Sun and climate: "Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits, during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study.

"This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change," "

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0313irradiance.html

How can these skeptics think they know more than NASA scientist?

Clearly, it's the Sun, not man that causes the climate to change!

Do you agree?

Answer 1

Well Dr Jello. These "news" you refer to is from 2003! I prefer to read news from 2008.

But to answer your question: Of course the sun affects climate! But we cannot do much about the solar output and it's sometimes stronger and sometimes weaker. The greenhouse effect on the other hand never gets weaker since we're making it more powerful every year. So, I think I will use your phrase every day the temperature is not warmer than the last one "It's the sun" dr Jello!

Answer 2

I could really care a less about global warming be it man made or solar made. The fact is that I will be long gone before the effects hurt the planet enough to make it unbearable. I think we have at least another good 50-60 years before our western lifestyle really catches up with us. Luckily I will probably be dead by then so it has no effect on me anyways.

Answer 3

It could be because it's virtually impossible for the Sun to be responsible for global warming when it's been getting cooler.  It could be because no scientists are claiming that the Sun is responsible for the modern global warming.

Try looking up some information that's not 5 years old if you want to convince anyone you're right.  Or at least read it.

Did you catch the key words in the article?  You quoted them in your question.

"...if sustained over many decades..."

It hasn't been.

Answer 4

Let's do what the scientist do, and assume proportional relationships.  At solar minimum we saw a .05% increase from 1985 to 1995.  If there is a linear relationship between TSI and temperature, we could attribute .1435'K(C) increase in temperature over that decade.  Very close to the .2'K per decade proposed in the AGW hypothesis.

1995 5 year average anomaly .3281'

1985 5 year average anomaly .1710'

dt=.1534'C  compared to the predicted .1435'C.  A 7% marigin of error, not too bad.  Can I have a nobel prize now?

Answer 5

I agree.

It seems few have heard of the "Little Ice Age" which  was in direct correlation to the Maunder minimum and occurred just after the medieval warm period. These changes were before oil driven vehicles etc... so that leaves the sun and other natural processes as the only factors in the climate shift. So we are most likely just heading into another warm period.

"Historical records of solar activity indicate that solar radiation has been increasing since the late 19th century. If a trend, comparable to the one found in this study, persisted throughout the 20th century, it would have provided a significant component of the global warming the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports to have occurred over the past 100 years,"

Answer 6

I would think that all inhabitants on earth would have some contribution, not to the extent that some would say.  I do agree with the premise you presented at this time seems logical.

Answer 7

not all scientists are in agreement about global warming as al gore is you need carbon emissions  for trees and other vegetation's to grow and that these trees give off oxygen so we can breath

Answer 8

i so totally agree with you Dr Jello as always

Answer 9

I agree.  Another solar sunspot minimum like the maunder or dalton minimum would be devestating to agriculture in America, as well as in many third world countries in Africa.

If a lull in sunspots can cause cooling, cant an increase in the average amount of them cause warming?

And why do people bring up the destruction of the amazon rainforest in an arguement like this?  Is it our land?  No, then we cant tell them what to do with it.  We cleared millions of acres of forest in America when we moved in, who are we to say the people of south america arent allowed to?  I am against it to, but you cant tell people 4000 miles away what to do.

Answer 10

No hair raising revaluation for a realist.It took a major effort  for them to admit to water vapor.They are still confused over the oceans influence to climate-vs-weather.Things like this doesn't fit into their doomsday scenario.If you took everything that is being ignore by them.We would be living on a big ball of ice shrouded by CO2...Wouldn't that defeat their illusion of death by fire,flooding,and famine?

Answer 11

Can't you make up your mind? In 1 post you're yelling about global cooling due to reduced sunspot activity and on others, this post is a good example, you're preaching about increased solar output.

Which is it going to be? The only thing I agree with is that you can't make up your mind! Therefore, I conclude you are only here to spread disinformation.

Answer 12

The tense of the word "could" (not "did") is the key here.  Your own quote is talking about the possibility of future (over "many decades" actually the word "century" is used later in the article) affects, not those observed over the past 30 - 50 years.  These very same NASA scientists (in the same article) said:

"the inferred increase of solar irradiance in 24 years, about 0.1 percent, is not enough to cause notable climate change, the trend would be important if maintained for a century or more"

So solar increase is simply 1 more concern we need to have about future warming forcings, along with CO2.  I seriously doubt you'll find any NASA scientist who says CO2 isn't causing a positive warming on the global climate.

SGW is real (at least is has been in the past), but it's relatively insignificant when compared to AGW.

Answer 13

What I don't understand is why all the skeptics get their knickers in a total twist about a solar forcing of 0.3 W/m^2 and think that forcing is the driver for warming when it is a factor of five less than the radiative forcing from CO2 alone.  None of them have ever been able to explain it to me, except by saying they don't believe CO2 provides that level of radiative forcing (which is a ludicrous proposition to me).  

Could you explain to me why you think something a factor of five less will dominate?

Answer 14

I have been preaching this message for years but most people in this world are basically followers some scientist will stand in from of them and state the Amazon jungle is disappearing at 1 sq mile a day and they will accept that statement as fact because some academic jackass made the statement abandoning their own logic, common sense or investigating the theory themselves this is what i see when I speak to Global Warming followers.

Answer 15

From top to bottom the scare-em environmental activism. Makes Global Warming more religion than applied science

Anthropogenic Warming (A.W.) is not established to the extent many think. A consensus is not a substitute for a proven event. The probabilistic modeling used to predict climate changes are scenarios and only as good as the parameters & defined variables in the model. Case in point:

Anthony Watts is a broadcast meteorologist who is leading an all-volunteer effort to photograph and document all of the weather stations in the GHCN. He started in the US and now 1/3 of US stations have been photographed. 85% of them do not meet the minimum standards of NOAA and have a strong warm bias. This indicates that up to half of the observed warming is not real. Watts presented his findings to scientists at UCAR. You can see his presentation here:

http://gallery.surfacestations.org/UCAR-...