Why are some of you so sure, that global warming is not caused by the sun.?

Question

There is an absolute slam dunk correlation of temperature with reconstructed Total Solar Irradiance. There is a correlation with increased solar activity and CO2 increase. The ACRIM TSI composite shows sustained increase in solar activity since the Mid 1980's. Most reconstructed TSI datasets show a 1 watt/century sustained increase. Some datasets show a 3 watt/century gradient.

If I run the wavetran model at 280 PPM : Out = 228.812
If I run the wavetran model at 380 PPM : Out = 227.807
Difference : Out = 1.005

That is only 1 watt since we started burning oil.

Wavetran Program
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/cgimodels/radiation.html

ACRIM Composite (Sattelite Measurement 30 Years)
http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/TSI_Composite.jpg

Reconstructed TSI ( 100's of years)

N. Scafetta1 and B. J. West1,2
http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/TSI_Composite.jpg

N. Scafetta1 and B. J. West1,2
http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/2006GL027142.pdf

Yes Dana, the Sun Peaked around the turn of the century, as the ACRIM clearly shows.

Patrick,

In the mid 1990's solar minimum was higher than the solar minimum before. The Sum of the energy during the low was higher than the one before, that is a mind blowing quanity of energy.

Trevor,

Short term correlations don't work well with proxy data, why use it? If you don't have to.

http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/archives/003818.html

Answer 1

Dana,

Nice try, but your source seems to be the BBC. I think I would take the word of NASA over the BBC. "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."

The suggestion that the sun's output has decreased in the last 20 years is patently false. The NASA study of solar irradiance show a marked increase in solar irradiance using satellite measurements starting in the late 1970s. So why does the BBC story say that the sun has gotten colder in the last 20 years. If you read the BBC story you will find the answer. They compare the temperature to "cosmic rays" (in neutrons per hour) hitting the earth. "Cosmic rays" are not, however, equal to Total Solar Irradiance. The irradiance of the sun is increasing. The BBC story is a sham.

If that is not enough, take a look at the only (as far as I know) comprehensive study of the sun's irradiance over the 20th century "A Comparison of Varible Solar Total and Ultraviolet Outputs in the 20th Century" as published in the Geophysical Research Letters. This study used actual data from CaK spectroheliograms taken from 1915-1999. It found that the increase in total solar irradiance during that time frame correlated statistically to 80% of the global warming that occured over that period. The sun is responsible for MOST of global warming. Human activities may play a part in a small percentage of the warming.

Edit: Bob, you seem to be changing your tune. Your stock answer is that global warming is mostly not caused by the sun. 10% at most. Yet here you are telling us that the sun was a major factor in global warming up until 1950. You also tell us that greenhouse gases didn't play a major roll until after 1975. Why the change all of a sudden? And how do you correllate the sun being only 10% of global warming over the last century if it was a major factor until 1950, and greenhouse gases weren't a problem until after 1975? Your changing story really doesn't make sense.

Answer 2

There is a correlation but it's not a 'slam dunk' one, to imply such means there is just one sole factor that regulates the temperature on our planet - the Sun. That being the case then the atmosphere has to have no effect, there has to be no contribution played by greenhouse gases, none of the cycles the Earth go through could have any effect, there are no forcings other than the Sun. Quite clearly this is not the case.

The correlation between solar activity and CO2 levels is as good as non existent over short time spans, where the correlation is most pronounced is in time scales measured in thousands and millions of years. CO2 levels are currently increasing, energy received from the sun is currently decreasing slightly.

The TSI composite does not show increased solar activity since the mid 1980's, it shows the opposite. Perhaps you got it confused with some other graph or something.

The AGW component is approx 2.4W/m²/yr, the differnce between insolation maxima and minima is 1.3W/m²/yr

Not sure the relevance of the wavetran model, it is a best only a partial indicator and isn't a climate model. Doing what you did and running the model twice using the current figures and those of 100 years ago gives a 1907 value of Iout 450.59 W/m²/yr and 2007 of Iout 455.9283W/m²/yr, not the 1W/100yr difference you mentioned.

- - - - - - - - - -

To answer your question specifically - the sun was ruled out many years ago. We've been measuring solar output with incredible accuracy for several decades, the figures are down to 6 decimal places, we can spot variations of less than one billionth. The days of hypothesising about the role the sun may or may not play are long gone.

Answer 3

Good grief man, look at the data and read your own references. They say the OPPOSITE of what you're saying.

Take a look at the "Reconstructed TSI" from 2000 to 2005. It goes _down_ while temperature is going _up_.

And look at figure 2 in the 2006 article. See how the temperature takes off from the graph?

Here's the kicker: As the authors say: "Since 1975 global warming has occurred much faster than could be reasonably expected from the sun alone."

So even your guys are saying it's NOT the Sun.

The article below totally demolishes the last shreds of an already discredited theory.

"Recent oppositely directed trends in solar
climate forcings and the global mean surface
air temperature", Lockwood, Frohlich (2007), Proc. R. Soc. A, doi:10.1098/rspa.2007.1880

Also see:

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11650

That's why we're so sure. You might consider that, according to you thousands of climatologists are ignorant fools.

Except that's NOT what you stuff you reference says. At all.

The Sun was a very important factor until about 1950. Since then, not so much.

This tells the tale:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

The Sun used to be a major factor. Climatologists (of course) acknowledge that. But, since about 1975 greenhouse gases have taken over. The difference in importance between the two factors continues to widen.

Answer 4

Only problem is that Total Solar Irradiance has not increased. It can be measured by Earth orbiting satellites very accurately, and it is not going up! Your own ACRIM Composite (Satellite Measurement 30 Years) shows that! The output goes up and down with the sunspot cycle but there is no long term upward trend.

Answer 5

Again, I see from the other answers that when more info is available, the message changes.
My thought is that we made a hole in the ozone layer, b/c of pollution, and now the sun is acting up. While the ozone layer should help, now that there's a hole it's not doing as well. Continuing to pollute is only going to make it worse so we would be more susceptible to anything the sun does, whether it's warming up or down. I just don't see why deniers don't believe that billions of ppl do make a difference, even if it's not a good one.

Answer 6

Global Warming is directly effected by the Greenhouse Effect. (the Greenhouse Effect is when our atmosphere, along with a natural balance of CO2, traps energy from the suns rays, and the rest radiate back into space) We are adding an UNNATURAL balance of CO2 into our atmosphere which in turn is trapping more of the suns rays and is causing less of them to radiate back into space. Or as we know it Global Warming.

Answer 7

Why--simple. The science tha tshows that global warming is a) real and b) caused by humans is proven fact.

No one cares about the fantasy theories of the deniers-and their pitiful attempts to use scientific data they obviously don't understand are just laughable.

BTW--that chart has nothing to do with solar warming ofthe Earth. LMAO!

Answer 8

"A new scientific study concludes that changes in the Sun's output cannot be causing modern-day climate change.

It shows that for the last 20 years, the Sun's output has declined, yet temperatures on Earth have risen."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6290228.stm

From page 4 of your final linked paper:

"Since 1975 global warming has occurred much faster than could be reasonably expected from the sun alone."

Answer 9

That might be true but it is also caused by polluting. Some people can just be so dumb for thinking that global warming is not real it is and when it comes who ever does believe it will prove the others wrong. Thanks for your time and remember to always be fabulous!!!

p.s. love pink!!!

Answer 10

because we have A LOT more evidence here on earth