Why do "skeptics" keep talking about "solar activity" which has nothing to do with warming?

Question

Solar activity is storms ON THE SUN. It doesn't cause warming.

Solar radiation is radiation from the Sun received ON EARTH. That's what causes the Earth to warm.

Statements about solar activity are meaningless with regard to global warming.

Solar radiation (also called solar forcing by scientists), which is what causes warming, has been decreasing slightly for many years.

Proof 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/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf

News article at:

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

So why is the Earth warming? Greenhouse gases hold more of heat caused by solar radiation to be kept on Earth.

Answer 1

Bob, thanks for highlighting the article from tamino.  Everyone should read it, especially the comments.  Have you watched the video of Koonin?  

When the chief scientist of BP just flat out explains it all in no uncertain terms and says - Well folks, it's happening, we can do something about it or not,  just depends on how bad we want to let things get.  Let's get down to work.  BP is going to make money one way or the other.  It actually gave me a good feeling.

Like I've said here before - (other implications aside) it gives me great satisfaction to know that it won't be scientists,  intellectuals or progressives who did this.

It will be on the heads of the politicians and their dogmatic nincompoop followers.

Guess you'll have to report me for not answering the question.

Answer 2

It's because you can find papers in minor journals that link sunspots to ENSO, for instance.  However, most of these analyses are spurious short-term correlations, sort of like beating between two non-identical frequencies (this subject comes up all the time and is discussed on realclimate.org), and don't reflect a causal link.  Studies that look over longer timescales find no evidence for a causal relation between sunspots and these decadal oscillations and quasi-periodic phenomena.  

The second factor is that most skeptics lose sight of the difference between a trend over 25 years or so and a quasi-periodic phenomenon with an effective period that is half that.  That there is no known physical way you generate the observed warming over the last 25 years using any known decadal cycle or solar cycle is lost on them.  They seem to think that if something is varying along with the steadily increasing radiative forcing from the trace gases, then it must be these short-term oscillations that are responsible, not the radiative forcing.  

The alternative is too awful for them to intellectually cope with.  You hear it again and again, they are defending their lifestyle.  As though their lifestyle of ease and overconsumption is something that is an inalienable right, like freedom from slavery or clean air or clean water.

Answer 3

Well it's basically a question of semantics.  Increased solar activity is a good indicator of increased solar radiation.  When someone says "solar activity" with regards to global warming, they're probably referring to solar irradiance.

Either way, it has been thoroughly disproven that the Sun could possibly be responsible for the recent global warming.  Solar irradiance has remained steady or decreased slightly (depending on which solar survey you believe) over that period as global warming has accelerated, and no scientific study has attributed more than one-third of the recent warming to the Sun (and most have attributed just 0-10% to solar forcings).

*edit* I don't really mind if they're talking about sunspots, because while sunspots don't directly impact the Earth's climate, they do tend to correlate well with TSI.  Both have remained essentially unchanged on average over the past 30 years.

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-...

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/F...

Plus sunspot activity is related to the solar magnetic field

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

so a reference to sunspots can be attributed to a reference to Svensmark's galactic cosmic ray theory.  One of the reasons this theory is not plausible is the same reason solar global warming is not plausible - no increase in TSI and no increase in solar magnetic field (or sunspots) over the past 30 years.

So regardless of whether they say 'solar activity' or 'solar radiation' or 'sunspots' or even 'solar magnetic field' or 'galactic cosmic rays', the argument is flawed for the same fundamental reason.

JR and Badger - you should really try reading the whole question.

Answer 4

It seems legit to me that that huge fire ball in the sky could have something to do with the temperature on our little planet. Sounds more reasonable than a 100ppm increase of one common gaseous compound could cause so much up and down.  At least we are not blaming it on the hole in the ozone layer.

Answer 5

Humans and their degradation of nature have everything to do with Global warming today & NOT Solar Activity. I can't understand why some people still believe that what is going on today is a natural occurrence?????

It isn't a natural occurrence that our water reserves are shrinking, our glaciers melting, our biodiversity decreasing, our ozone layer depleting, our natural disasters increasing in danger and recurrences, & so on and so on. Being kind to to our vessel is the only key the the survival of the human race

Answer 6

Until they replace the temperature monitoring stations, any discussion of alleged global warming....... anthropogenic or not.... is a waste of time.

The temperature data used by our 'experts' for analyzing past, present and future climate conditions......is flawed.....and it's getting worse as time goes by.

A person can cite all of the 'studies' in the world but if those studies are based on flawed data, then they don't mean a thing.

It kills me to see such an utter disregard for clean science.  Gore and his ilk have done a masterful job of selling their 'ManBearPig' industry, and too many so-called scientists and other GW opportunists are only too willing to continue duping the masses.

Answer 7

When the sun goes red giant in about 5 billion years, will people still argue that it has nothing to do with climate change. If they do, they will likely have to do it from another solar system. We should start investing our scientific resources in to space travel now.

Answer 8

Well, I believe that man kind is terribly accelerating the global warming process, but Bob, you've totally lost me on this one.                   A "professional environmental scientist?"  I don't think so...  With your saying, "Statements about solar activity are meaningless with regard to global warming.", I'm starting to doubt if you're even sane.  It is people such as yourself who are making a bad name for those who really are trying to snap the "skeptics" out of denial.  Why don't you just shove your head in the oven and see if what temp you set it at makes a difference, then, add some flammable gas to the mix.

I did agree with everything else.

Answer 9

Bob - to believe your view, you would have to completely discount the data from NASA that concluded that the output increases 0.05% per decade and that they (NASA) also link this increased output to "significant climate change".

If co2 alone was responsible for global temperatures, this year would be warmer than last year, since co2 levels have increased steadly.  But this isn't the case.  January was the 70th warmest (60th coldest) on record globaly.

Co2 cannot be the source for warming unless you choose to be selective in the data you believe.

Our knowlege on the workings of the climate are too scant to make any conclusions, or make any predictions beyond 5 days.  It's foolish to believe we can know the future outcome.