When sun PEAKS in 2012, will people admit that global warming is caused by the sun?

Question

When the Earth starts to cool after the sun passes its maximum in solar variation, will the liberals admit they were wrong? Or will they hope nobody notices?

http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/002242.html

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/08/01/1091298577537.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3869753.stm

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-11/uoca-ssr111307.php

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V10/N25/C1.jsp

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/64394/solar_storm_brewing.html

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2006/solar_cycle.html

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1775189/posts

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006GL028764.shtml

Answer 1

I'm sorry but I really think you need to read those links a little more carefully. They're great for showing that humans are causing global warming, not so good if you're trying to refute it.

The first one is a look at historical changes in sunspot activity and it's relationship to global warming and cooling. It's a well documented fact the solare and terrestrail cycles have caused warming and cooling in the past. The only reference to anything 'modern' in that article states "The sun's brightness hasn't changed much over the last 20 years", if that's the case (which it is, although what the article doesn't say is that the change, all be it a small one, is a downward one) then why have temperatures increased faster in the last 20 years that at any time in known history.

The second article states "It means that the very rapid rise in temperatures over the past two to three decades has definitely not been caused by the sun, but rather by other causes, primarily man-made greenhouse gases"

The thrid one states "Over the past 20 years, however, the number of sunspots has remained roughly constant, yet the average temperature of the Earth has continued to increase. This is put down to a human-produced greenhouse effect caused by the combustion of fossil fuels."

I didn't look at the others but I'm sure they're the same (apart from CO2 Science which is well known for publishing what they're told to publish by a certain major oil corporation).

- - - - - - - - - - -

A recent paper by Lockwood and Frohlich published in the proceedings of the Royal Society examines the evidence that the Sun is responsible for recent global warming. Those who advocate such theories have proposed several mechanisms for this to take place. One proposal is that the Sun simply got hotter, i.e., that the total energy output of the Sun ('total solar irradiance' or TSI) increased. Another proposal is that an increase in ultraviolet (UV) radiation from the Sun has caused changes in high-altitude atmospheric chemistry, leading to changes in the lower atmosphere and hence to changes in climate. Yet another proposal suggests that changes in the Sun’s magnetic field have blocked cosmic rays from striking Earth and thus preventing the seeding of clouds by cosmic rays, and warming our planet in consequence.

All these changes are associated with changes in magnetic field strength, therefore with the cosmic rays incident on the Earth. Also, satellites have directly measured total solar irradiance (TSI) for decades. Hence if some trend in TSI, or solar UV, or cosmic rays, were the root cause of modern global warming, we’ll be able to detect a trend in measurements of TSI or cosmic rays. If TSI is going up and/or solar magnetic field strength is going up and/or cosmic rays are going down, that would make the solar-cause more plausible. If not, then solar changes simply can’t be the cause of recent global warming.

Finding the trend in these variables is complicated by the fact that in addition to getting higher or lower, they oscillate up and down with the solar cycle. The Sun has a roughly 11-year cycle, during which the sunspot count goes up and down, as do TSI and magnetic field strength. Because of the change in magnetic field strength, the count of cosmic rays striking Earth fluctuates on this same cycle. Here are the measurements of sunspot counts (figure1 - R), solar magnetic field (figure 2 - Fs), cosmic ray counts (figure 3 - C), total solar irradiance (figure 4 - TSI), and Earth’s global temperature anomaly (figure 5 - ∆) for about the last 30 years.

Figures 1 to 5 (from Lockwood and Frohlich) - http://profend.com/temporary/lw1.jpg

To determine the trend, we must remove the cyclic influence, leaving only the secular change: the trend. Lockwood & Frohlich used a novel, and (in my professional opinion) very robust and reliable method, to do so. They determined these trends:

Figures 6 to 11 (from Lockwood and Frohlich) - http://profend.com/temporary/lw2.jpg

Clearly solar activity was on the increase, as indicated by increased sunspot counts, increased solar magnetic field strength, decreased cosmic ray counts, and increase TSI, UNTIL about 1985. Since then, sunspot count is down, solar magnetic field strength is down, cosmic ray counts are up, and TSI is down.

Every one of these factors would tend to cool Earth’s climate. But Earth’s temperature (according to both GISS and HadCRU) has kept going up. None of the proposed solar influences, which would warm the Earth, is going in the right direction to do so. In fact, over the last 30 years none of them has gone in a single direction; they’ve all gone up then down, or down then up. But Earth’s temperature has marched inexorably higher. It’s called global warming.

The result is crystal-clear: it’s not the Sun.

Answer 2

The Sun's radiation has been decreasing a little for years, while we've been warming.

"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

Even if all the "liberals" went away, what would you do about these guys?

"Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich challenged fellow conservatives to stop resisting scientific evidence of global warming"

"National Review published a cover story this past week calling on conservatives to shake off denial and get into the climate policy debate"

"Pat Robertson (very conservative Christian leader) 'It is getting hotter and the ice caps are melting and there is a build up of carbon dioxide in the air. We really need to do something on fossil fuels.”

Answer 3

It'll take about 25 years of steadily declining temperatures, in addition to the 10 we've already had of NO warming, to put this whole "AGW will lead to catastrophic warming" into it's grave.

Right now, we're being told that "natural variations will mask Global Warming until 2009, and it will really take off after that."

I expect that, when 2009 comes and goes, and the temperature still doesn't respond the way the AGW alarmists want it to, we'll hear that we've only got "ten more years (the mantra of the apocalyptic prophet)" before it REALLY, REALLY takes off.

Expect the politicians and alarmists to be lining their pockets all that time with "Carbon Taxes" and "Government Grants."

DATA - the preferred kool-aid of skeptics everywhere!

Answer 4

this can be a fave fantasy it extremely is doing the rounds and is losely in accordance to NASA comments yet has been grossly distorted and exaggerated by ability of a few international warming skeptics. it could be a good suggestion to study the unique NASA comments so that you'll positioned issues into context. briefly - there is evidence to recommend that the south polar ice cap is melting, there is also evidence to recommend the north polar ice cap is increasing. for this reason notwithstanding warming is occurring on Mars is in difficulty-free words affecting factors of it. The probable reason behind any warming on Mars are the international duststorms that sweep throughout the planet for days on end, such an experience in the international (were it achieveable) might want to also bring about important ameliorations in our climate. further, Mars is amazingly, very different to our own planet hence making any comparisons very unreliable. It has no breathable environment, isn't usually vegetated, isn't predominantly water, studies severe temperature ameliorations, is so chilly that the ice caps are not frozen water yet frozen gasoline (carbon dioxide) and it really is no longer inhabited by ability of people. it could be an extremely conveneint answer to say that the sunlight is responsible for warming on Mars and in the international, if that were the case then the different planets and moons in our image voltaic gadget might want to also be warming - they are no longer. there is 172 of all of them instructed and on one hundred sixty 5 of them no warming has been observed. we've extremely precise gadgets for measuring ameliorations interior the output from the sunlight and all of us keep in mind that the difrerence between the optimal and lowest outputs (insolation maxima and insolation minima) is amazingly small - sufficient to reason international warming or cooling over 1000's and tens of millions of years yet nowhere close to sufficient to deliver forth the ameliorations we've witnessed interior the perfect few a lengthy time period. the actual massive difference between optimal and minimum output is a version of really lower than a thousandth (a version of one million.3 Watts in accordance to sq. metre in accordance to twelve months antagonistic to a recommend of 1366 W/m2/twelve months). back, please communicate with the unique NASA comments, the skeptics try to fool you by ability of concealing info and distorting others.

Answer 5

I thought it was that the poles were going to be shifting because the planets were aligning, and all the planets would be in their native sign for the first time since the ice age or something. Silly me.

Answer 6

I don't know.

Will you admit that the Sun is not the cause if the warming continues after the peak?

Answer 7

Only simplistic (or uninformed) minds relate sun activity to GW

GW is happening, and is likely caused by human activity