If global warming is caused by the Sun, why are all solar trends in the wrong direction?

Question

According to Lockwood and Frolich, "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."

http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf

They even discuss Tomcat's pet theory:

"Figure 1d shows that recent values of TSI have fallen below the minima of approximately 1365.5 W/m^2 seen during both of the previous two solar minima. Values for 2007 have fallen below 1365.3 W/m^2...and although they are provisional at the time of writing, the recent solar minimum is showing lower TSI values than the two previous minima."

They conclude:

"Our results show that the observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanisms is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified."

SGW theorists have a rebuttal?

Tomcat - your claim is rebutted here:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/07/24/pmod-vs-acrim/

Answer 1

"If global warming is caused by the Sun"

It isn't. It's caused by the greenhouse effect which is that greenhouse gases (CO2, CO, NO3,H20, etc) are causing the sun's energy to reflect back to earth and not escape into space - hence the need to reduce carbon emmissions.

thhe fact that solar actiivty is less intense only reienforces the human contrinution as the critical causal factor.

Answer 2

Your missing the point and trying to make an erroneous argument relative. Most Global Warming theorists are working on the assumption the problem is Green House Gasses. Even with Solar trends cooling, a more insulated planet can still become exceptionally hot.

Answer 3

image voltaic cycles have approximately an 11 12 months solar spot cycle however the quantity of boost varies from one cycle to a various. in accordance to IPCC, the quantity of variance isn't great. some scientists have postulated a organic "image voltaic amplification," lively exceedingly on the polar areas it particularly is different from greenhouse gases yet will boost the effect of entire image voltaic Irradiance. it particularly is an enticing hypothesis, yet devoid of plenty help merely yet. i think of Earth's climate is affected especially by utilising inner climate version from oceanic oscillations. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation is the main serious. each and each section lasts approximately 30 years. The PDO grew to become into in a heat section from 1905 to 1945 and international temps went up. The PDO grew to become into in a funky section from 1945 to 1975 and international temps went down. The PDO began a heat section in 1975 and temps began up lower back. The El Nino Southern Oscillation gets the main press because of the fact of annual version is so great. while the two the PDO and ENSO are in a heat section, the Earth can get particularly heat - because it did in 1998 and 2006. because of the fact that PDO merely ended its heat section, i'm watching for cooler temps for the subsequent 30 years or so.

Answer 4

They obviously believe that PMOD is the correct TSI dataset for their theory, it would not hold up utilizing the ACRIM composite trend.

Lockwood and Frolich appear to be smart enough not to predict the future:

"The minima appear to be examples of grand maxima in solar activity of the type seen in recent decades. Extrapolations of solar activity trends into the future are notoriously unreliable. (For example, one might have expected the fall in solar activity seen around 1960 to continue; however, figure 4 shows that in reality it rose again to a peak near 1985.) Nevertheless, it is possible that the decline seen since 1985 marks the beginning of the end of the recent grand maximum in solar activity and the cosmogenic isotope record suggests that even if the present decline is interrupted in the near future, mean values will decline over the next century. This would reduce the solar forcing of climate, but to what extent this might counteract the effect of anthropogenic warming, if at all, is certainly not yet known. For this reason, studies of putative amplification of solar forcing over the past 150 years (Stott et al. 2003) are likely to be important for understanding future changes.?"

Answer 5

All your quotes say that the sun is not the cause of global warming. Exactly - no argument there.

Increased emissions caused by increased human use of fossil fuels is the cause of global warming. So your point is, well, pointless.

Answer 6

Even though the last cycle did decline, it was still peaking at well over 150 sunspots per year. As Trevor pointed out to me yesterday, it takes years for the ocean and the atmosphere to dissipate the residual heat. Time will tell.

Answer 7

What are these "solar trends"? If I understand your argument, it would seem to imply that the Sun is cooling significantly.

I'm pretty sure that this is a mistake.

Answer 8

well, to be fair: we were still driving cars and expelling CO2 in the 40's-70's, but what happened to the temperature then? it went down, not up. yes, you can count that off as a fluctuation due to some natural cause, but why not count off what you said as a natural fluctuation?

Answer 9

I missed your "evidence" concerning the effect of carbon emissions on global warming.

Answer 10

For every statement, there will be an argument. That is human nature.

Will we ever leanr to change?