How can you say that the Sun isn't the cause of the Earth's warming?

Question

Here is a couple of graphs from NOAA that show that that the Earth's warming tracks almost EXACTLY to the solar activity.

This graph shows land temperatures track solar cycle length almost point to point.
http://www.oar.noaa.gov/spotlite/archive/images/sunclimate_3a.gif

and this chart shows that the sea surface temperatures track sunspots.
http://www.oar.noaa.gov/spotlite/archive/images/sunclimate_3b.gif

While at the same time CO2 and other green house gasses are increasing exponentially and the temperatures haven't been any warmer since 1998! If man made green house gases were the cause for global warming, how come we aren't getting warmer each and every year?

Isn’t this very strong evidence that it is the sun that causes warming and not man?

chenoa - sorry, but NOAA and the IPCC recognize 1998 as the warmest year recorded.

"The IPCC report estimates that the 1990s were the warmest years since the beginning of instrumental records in 1861 and that 1998 may have been the warmest year on record."

Answer 1

Exactly. As I've been saying for some time, man is far too small to have any impact on something as large as the climate.

The Sun is the source for all of the Earth's warmth, and it looks like your links can prove that statement.

Some people will always look at man as being evil, guilty of original sin and seek his destruction just for living.

Answer 2

Excellent information there... well researched. I see you're still facing some people who are so invested in it being man made that they dispute your sources or they attack the facts. Let's look at that, shall we? JamusTrip... the 'math' behind man's effect is anything BUT solid... unless you're willing to accept that a maximum of 2% of the CO2 in the atmosphere, which is a generous estimate of what man contributes, is causing the temperature to rise. outcrop... it's funny you spout the same tired argument about the Martian atmosphere being thin. This is totally irrelevant when you consider that, in the absence of increased solar output, the surface temperatures wouldn't be rising. In fact, it lends a STRONGER argument to the notion that it's primarily solar activity, since that thinner atmosphere retains less heat so if it's rising, there must be exponentially higher levels of solar radiation reaching the surface of Mars. As for Venus, we have a harder time really gauging temperature changes there due to the volatile conditions on Venus. Temperature readings on Venus, and Mercury for that matter, are really estimates. On Mars, we have equipment capable of taking measurements. Jerbson... same thing applies, except that you're incredibly incorrect to say that we should ignore other planets because they're not Earth. Did Al Gore put you up to that? The only reason not to use the other bodies in our solar system in the equation is to keep the man-made global warming farce alive. subwlimn... I'd love to see where you got that data relating to volcanoes, since a single eruption spews far more CO2 into the atmosphere than you're painting. Man produces less than 2% of the CO2 in the atmosphere. Do you have statistics for Volcanic emissions? Gengi... lol... are you a scientist? What are your credentials? Before you start saying he's 'far from a scientist' (and I'm SURE his Doctorate is in Phys Ed and all the scientists who concur with his assessment are idiots...) are you more qualified to make a statement? Dana~ Nice compilation of Data but terrible job of dropping the ball on the conclusion. Your bottom line is not supported by your evidence. In fact, all your evidence does is dispute the solar primary theory... while relying on the really weak excuse for a theory of man's less-than-2% contribution to the CO2 levels to account for 90% of the warming??? Sorry. Personally, I've been researching this rather extensively and am developing a theory for why some of the data collected doesn't seem to fit into any of the current explanations. I think we might be seeing the results of a combination of forces, some of which we've not seen as mankind hasn't been around long enough. As it is, at perihelion, the effects of the sun's increased output are most noticeable. When coupled with the possiblity of another condition here on Earth that is known to have some very chaotic effects... the results could be impossible to predict. Periodically, the Earth's magnetic field reverses. Man has never been around to measure the effects of such a reversal or even to know what signs would be evident to forecast the event. Beyond some computer models, we have precious little information about this phenomenon except that it happens and that simulations indicate that there are some thermal implications during the reversal process pertaining to geothermal output. Translation in layman's terms? It very well may be a complex natural phenomenon we're experiencing for the first time and not a man-made event at all. I know it's scarier to think it's not man-made... because then we have no control over it... but we have to go with the facts and not the hype.

Answer 3

It is funny watching you all give yourselves pats on the back for this. The first figure is from a discredited paper by Friis-Christensen and Lassen from Science in 1991. You can find the full article from which your figures came on the NOAA OAR website by searching for the string "solar climate." Anyway, as described by Damon and Laut, Friis-Christensen and Lassen did some suspect data processing to get the correlation, which breaks down on the next solar cycle (which is why the data terminates at 1983).

Here is a link to the Damon and Laut article discussing the 1991 paper:

http://www.realclimate.org/damon&laut_2004.pdf

If you are a true skeptic and care about rational, informed, and intelligent discourse, you should read Damon and Laut, and then find the full time series through the 2000's to see why the figures you cite provide no evidence that solar forcing drove the observed warming over the last 25 years. If you just want to score points in a meaningless debate then carry on. Seriously thougj, the reliance on bogus data, sophistic tricks, and disinformation is why skeptics are getting trounced in the political arena (not to mention in real scientific debates). Nobody of any importance believes any of you anymore because you simply are not capable of providing clear factual evidence that what you say is true. Skeptics have to start bringing their best: that means reasoned objections that have been thoroughly researched and are backed with observations and coherent theories, not spurious data from 15 year ago or wack interpretations of physics that violate what is known about how the atmosphere and ocean operate.

Finally, the article on the NOAA website also makes the statement than even if solar forcing is important, it makes up at most 35% of the observed warming.

Answer 4

Regarding the Aztec beliefs comments. The difference is that the scientific method has testable hypothesis and holds on to theories only as they are useful to explain phenomenon. Thus knowledge improves and gets closer to TRUTH. Thus science put a man on the moon, nuclear power, etc... unlike untestable ideas about sun gods. Regarding all the people posting against global warming are you paid shills of the oil companies, religious and thus scared of science, or just aggressively stupid ?


It's not hubris to examine evidence of our impact. Of course the planet has been colder and hotter over hundreds of millions of years but climate change was far more gradual, measured in millions of years not decades. Look at the impact we had on the ozone layer, look at what we do to air quality. Oh and by the way 2005 tied 1998 as hottest years on record. There will be ups and downs but the overall trend and averages are overwelmingly increasing. Nineteen of the hottest 20 years on record have occurred since 1980.

Since some are concerned with political agendas, Condoleeza Rice was on the board of Chevron and has a oil tanker named after her. Oil Companies were the largest contributer to Republican campaigns, but i'm sure that doesn't influence policy at all. Ah well as oil companies post record profits and oil hits 100$ a barrel I should have invested in Exxon when G. W. Bush came to power. You'd thin conservatives wouldn't want US money going to Arab States who they fear and they would push alternative fuels, I guess they get a big enough cut not to care...

Answer 5

Well, by reading the information provided in the sites below.

A couple of graphs and charts don't offer the kind of background needed to comprehend the scale of the problem.

Do investigate at least a handful of the sites. I'm going to cull it down to a "Top 10" when time permits, which will allow me an opportunity to reacquaint myself with these sites, all of which I consider to be reputable. You'll notice there's a NOAA link. The information in this site is more comprehensive than the information gleaned in zeroing in on a particular graph that illustrates a particular fact or point.

Answer 6

Global dimming, the decrease in the sun's radiance that reaches the earth, is helping to mask some of the effects of greenhouse gases.
It is caused by small particles in the atmosphere that deflect some of the suns energy back into space.
Believe it or not, some of that smog we have pumped into the atmosphere may actually help to keep the climate from warming to quickly...for a while at least.

Answer 7

Strong temperature variations happened before men even existed. That's why we find tropical fossils near the arctic.
They depend on solar activity cycles.
Which does not mean we shall not care about the pollution we produce and the wild fires we start.
What could be done about it?
I believe that a partial screening of sunlight by reflecting particles placed in orbit between the tropics could be a temporary solution until the Sun radiation will return to normal levels.

Answer 8

1998 was the highest average global temperature recorded but 2002 was the second by .01. I have attached a graph to show that. Take the average global temperatures from 2001-2004 and that number is 14.625. Take the average global temperatures from 1997-2000 and that number is 14.49; much lower. Temperatures are continuing to rise. You cannot go off of one year. The sun does play a role in this but it is mainly CO2 emissions, along with methane, NO2, and deforestation that are leading to higher and higher surface temperatures. Lastly, regardless of your opinion, don't you think we should be limiting CO2 emissions anyway? Pollution in this country is at very unsafe levels, which is leading to more and more related illnesses from it. Oil is trading at near $100 which is affecting many economic factors. Oil supplies are at near record lows and what if we run out? Do you have any idea what would happen if there was a gas shortage in this country? It's time we do something about this not just for the environment but also for our future regardless if you believe in global warming or not.

Answer 9

You can't make money off of "global cooling". Al Gore followers don't want facts. When the planet came out of the last ice age, what caused the ice to melt? Tahoe's? It's a natural occurrence that we can't do anything about. We heat up, we cool down, we heat up again. It's been going on forever, and it will continue forever.

Answer 10

global warming is a myth. from 1906 to 1938 the earth warmed slightly, about .8 degrees. the from 1940 to 1969 the earth cooled slightly about 1.3 degrees. keep in mind that during this time there was an enormous amount production of cars, military tanks plane etc, plenty of things that people attribute to global warming. from 1970 to 2004 the earth warmed about .7 degrees. thats not even one degree in 34 years. now the current trend is of cooling. from 2004 to present the earth has begun to cool again. the earth goes in patterns of warming and cooling. there is no such thing as this "devastating" global warming that everyone is trying to scare you with. global warming is a myth.

Answer 11

Because you will never convince Envirofundamentalists that their religious faith is WRONG. They have faith in their religious teachings, they have a consensus of cardinals telling them these teachings are gospel, and they have been warned by those within the Church that there will be "deniers" who will attempt to sway them from their faith.

It's no different than Inca and Aztec kings and their power over millions of people, so convinced that these kings had direct communication with the Sun God because they could "command" the moon to block out the sun "at will", and they had a consensus of priests and nobility who confirmed their great powers, and the ignorant masses willingly allow themselves to be sacrified and tortured. They manipulated science to serve their own political needs, and any among their people who denied their power would be put to the front of the line of those being sacrificed.

Al Gore is nothing more than an Aztec king who has cleverly manipulated science for his own personal political agenda. And he has carefully constructed the religion of Envirofundamentalism so that anyone challenging its "facts" will be ridiculed as a denier. And so, when a lunar eclipse occurs on schedule as he predicted, the masses bow down to their knees and acknowledge his calls for sacrifice.

It's really incredible that such an information society, which should be well beyond such psychological manipulation, nevertheless allows itself to be so easily duped and controlled once again by charletans.

All that's missing is the blue paint.