I'm beginning to believe global warming isn't caused by man?

Question

From what I can read here on Yahoo Answers, I'm beginning to think that the sun does more to change the climate than man can.

Is anyone else starting to believe that sun is causing climate change?

Answer 1

Definately!

Answer 2

The problem in making decisions based on Yahoo Answers is that almost no-one on here is qualified to give you accurate information. If you know about climate and read some of the answers on here then they're nothing short of hilarious. There are far too many people, that don't have the first clue what they're talking about, are completely incapable of answering even the most basic technical questions and yet pass ill informed opinion off as fact. Try asking them to validate their claims without relying on information and websites backed by the oil and power companies.

Virtually no-one who understands climate claims that the Sun is responsible. We can measure the output of the Sun with great accuracy using land based instruments and satellites, the total amount of energy (or total solar irradiance) has been declining slightly since the late 70's. If the Sun were to blame then the planet would be cooling right now, in fact temperatures are rising faster than has ever before been known.

If you want to know about the Sun then the best place to get your information from is NASA and the Stanford Solar Center - the world's two leading authorities. Much to the dismay of the skeptics the very first article on the very first page of the SCC website is entitled "No Sun Link to Climate Change - July 10, 2007 - A new scientific study concludes that changes in the Sun's output cannot be causing modern-day climate change." http://solar-center.stanford.edu/ NASA have also come to the same conclusion http://www.nasa.gov/home/index.html and in fact, the scientific community ruled out the Sun many decades ago, only a small number of individual skeptics still cling to the notion that the Sun is to blame.

Answer 3

Wrong.

Scientists know the Sun is not responsible for the current warming. Listen to Trevor - he's the only climate scientist on Yahoo Answers. Or just look at the data yourself. Here is a graph of Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) as measured by satellites (taken together called ACRIM and PMOD):

http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/acrim1.jpg
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/pmod1.jpg

Here are the trends of those graphs:

http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/pmodacr.jpg

And here is what the global temperature has been doing over that same time period:

http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/t1975.jpg

Does that look like the Sun is responsible? It's not.

"The ACRIM data shows a slight increase in TSI - the PMOD data shows practically no trend at all. Regardless of which dataset you use, the trend is so slight, solar variations can only have contributed a [small] fraction of the current global warming."

http://www.skepticalscience.com/acrim-pmod-sun-getting-hotter.htm

'No Sun link' to climate change

Article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6290228.stm
Scientific paper: http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf

Many people on Yahoo Answers answer questions when they have no idea what they're talking about. That's the flaw with the system here - sometimes you get good information, and sometimes you get a bunch of ignorance and lies.

If you want accurate scientific information, go straight to the scientists.

Answer 4

Do not base your opinions on yahoo answers alone. Read peer reviewed journals and books and then make an INFORMED opinion. Both sides on this forum manipulate data or downright lie so as to sway those who genuinely don't have a clue in their direction.
This is genuinely unhelpful to us all and does nothing but muddy the waters regarding the whole debate and spread confusion.
Make up your own mind. It's just as easy for a fool to write an ill informed post as it is for an expert. There is no distinction between the two on yahoo answers so it's vital that you look elsewhere for data. Try to make sure that it is as unbiased as possible.
Don't be swayed by fools.

Answer 5

Exactly right. Man is far too insignificant to have any impact on the climate.

The Sun is the source for all warmth on Earth.

Some people blame the population of man. They are just afraid of large numbers. The Earth can hold 4 times the number of people now on Earth without any problems.

Co2 has increased to 320ppm (parts per million) from 240ppm or just 80ppm. That's an increase of just 0.008%, or not significant.

The Sun has increased in output by 0.1%. This is what caused the 1 deg increase over the last 100 years.

Man cannot cause global warming....

Answer 6

Scientists don't like to use the word "proof" because everything in science is subject to revision as new data comes in. But the case for human-caused global warming is about as strong as it gets.

If the Sun is causing the current warmth, then we're getting more energy, and the whole atmosphere should be getting warmer. If it's greenhouse, then we're getting the same amount of energy, but it's being distributed differently: more heat is trapped at the surface, and less heat is escaping to the stratosphere. So if it's the Sun, the stratosphere should be warming, but if it's greenhouse, the stratosphere should be cooling.

In fact, the stratosphere has been on a long-term cooling trend ever since we've been keeping radiosonde balloon records in the 1950's. Here's the data:
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadat/images/update_images/global_upper_air.png
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadat/hadat2/hadat2_monthly_global_mean.txt
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/sterin/sterin.html

2. If it's the Sun, we're getting more energy during the day, and daytime temperatures should be rising fastest. But if it's greenhouse, we're losing less heat at night, and nighttime temperatures should be rising fastest. So if it's the sun, the difference between day and night temperatures should be increasing, but if it's greenhouse, the day-night difference should be decreasing.

In fact, the daily temperature range has been decreasing throughout the 20th century. Here's the science:
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F1520-0450(1984)023%3C1489:DDTRIT%3E2.0.CO%3B2
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F1520-0477(1993)074%3C1007%3AANPORG%3E2.0.CO%3B2
http://www.bom.gov.au/bmrc/clfor/cfstaff/jma/2004GL019998.pdf

3. Total solar irradiance has been measured by satellite since 1978, and during that time it has shown the normal 11-year cycle, but no long-term trend. Here's the data:
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/solarda3.html

4. Scientists have looked closely at the solar hypothesis and have strongly refuted it. Here's the peer-reviewed science:
http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf
http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/mpa/publications/preprints/pp2006/MPA2001.pdf

5. CO2 levels in the air were stable for 10,000 years prior to the industrial revolution, at about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv). Since 1800, CO2 levels have risen 38%, to 384 ppmv, with no end in sight. Here's the modern data...
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
... and the ice core data ...
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/law/law.html
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/domec/domec_epica_data.html
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/vostok_data.html
... and a graph showing how it fits together:
http://www.columbusnavigation.com/co2.html

6. We know that the excess CO2 in the air is caused by burning of fossil fuels, for two reasons. First, because the sharp rise in atmospheric CO2 started exactly when humans began burning coal in large quantities (see the graph linked above); and second, because when we do isotopic analysis of the CO2 we find increasing amounts of "old" carbon combined with "young" oxygen. Here are the peer-reviewed papers:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984JGR....8911731S
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mksg/teb/1999/00000051/00000002/art00005
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/256/5053/74

So what's left to prove?

Answer 7

So, you haven't really tried to figure this out for yourself? You're just going by what you read on Yahoo Answers?

Well, in that case, maybe you should take a closer look at the quality and depth of the answers from the two sides. If you still have doubts, maybe you really aren't looking for an answer, just trolling for similar opinions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDsIFspVzfI

Answer 8

CHECK THE CREDENTIALS OF THE CONTRIBUTORS !!!

Who has an MSc? a PhD? Who is a climatologist?

And who is a dishonest retired person using all his time to post answers under 10 different profiles he runs?

A lot of people here present short answers which are not innocent. They are easier to read but science has never been simple. Keep your mind open.

LOOK AT PEOPLE BRINGING FIGURES!!!!

Science requires quantification of the results, not only opinions.

Answer 9

If YOU belive that such a rapid warming over such a short period of time is due to Sun (and do not care to verify it with authentic sources) , then all we have to do is wait a little longer and will soon migrate to mars which will become habitable in short time !

Answer 10

It would be futile and foolish to believe that the billions of people that have cohabitated the planet haven't adversely impacted the envirnment; conversely, the sun is continiously becoming hotter, and scientists believe that in the distant future it will implode and become an alpha star (not to worry, this is theorized and cannot yet be proven). The sun is emitting more ultraviolet radiation, which reflects into the atmosphere, contributing to the green house effect. The continious cycle is what's depleting the ozone layer, and consequently more UV rays penetrate causing a myriad of problems.

Answer 11

Sure, and the earth isn't a globe.

Why this spamming with hundreds of new global warming questions? Read the thousands of facts added in this forum ...