Is "Global Warming" Really Happening Because Of Sun Activity?

Question

Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and "hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.

How can you disagree?

If you disagree, please explain how the science this man explained is incorrect, don't just repeat what you heard elsewhere.

Answer 1

Global warming is at the fore front because politicians found how to use a new platform to get re-elected. The world leaders use it because they found ways to make money at it. This is a made up problem just like Global Cooling in the 1970's. Wake up people. I agree we need to be more efficient with our resources, and we should fine and jail companies who are dumping into our rivers maliciously. I want to stop the raiforest destruction, but to say that global warming is a serious man made issue and we need to destroy the American economy and bow down to the rest of the world certainly does not float my boat. Follow the money on this one and you will see that it is all for political gain and grant money for those scientists who profit off of the government if global warming stays at the front of the issues. Look deep into the Keoto (sp?) Treaty, first of all they took jets to a non-central resort location. Not very environmentally concious. THen in the parameters of the treaty they have a clause that makes it so you can buy or sell polution credits. This is all about shifting wealth and breaking down the United States. This is painfully obvious, just look at peoples agenda. The earth's mean temperature has risen .6 degrees C in the past 125 years. Greenland's icecaps have gotten colder in the past 10 years. The Scientists who do not gain anything on their posisition will tell you that the earth has a natural progression and this is what we are seeing. The UN report is made up of POLITICIANS not a good spread of scientists. THere are as many or more scientists who believe that man in NOT the reason and it is over hyped, but their voice is not heard in the LIberal Mainstream Media. This issue is 99% political, and an attempt to make the USA a socialist nation, and eventually communisim. WAKE UP AMERICA, IT IS TIME TO BE AMERICANS. FOR THE PEOPLE BY THE PEOPLE. STOP THE LIES

Answer 2

It is easy to say that past climate changes have correlated with the sun -- in the past there were no humans to interfere with the cycles. And in the past, the sun cycles (Milankovitch cycles) took many thousands of years to change the climate. The current change is happening before our eyes.

There is excellent data now (see the IPCC report) that makes it totally clear that variations in solar input are not nearly great enough to account for the observed temperature changes on earth. Human effects (esp CO2 production) are at a much higher scale.

Answer 3

Not because of sun activity global warming is happening because of HUMAN ACTIVITY!!! Such as driving gas guzzlers which pollute the air with CO2. Do people realize that CO2 is trapped in the atmosphere because it has no where to go? So the CO2 is causing the earth to heat!!

Answer 4

Because i base my decisions on more than one source. Patterson may disagree with global warming, and that's his choice. But because one man says something, even if he has a long title, it doesn't mean i have to agree with him.

Answer 5

Its very easy to disagree--especially when you quote one of the oil industries front men instead of a reputable scientist. And if you bothered to check--you'd find out his statements are flat wrong.