sun causing global warming?

Question

nothing is wrong with earth a new study shows. Its the sun that is getting increasing hot.

Answer 1

Totally agree



It is the sun and the sunspot cycle

Answer 2

it rather is a properly-enjoyed delusion it rather is doing the rounds and is losely according to NASA comments yet has been grossly distorted and exaggerated by applying some worldwide warming skeptics. it could be a competent thought to verify the unique NASA comments so which you would be able to placed issues into context. in short - there is info to indicate that the south polar ice cap is melting, there is likewise info to indicate the north polar ice cap is increasing. for this reason despite warming is taking place on Mars is barely affecting aspects of it. The probable clarification for any warming on Mars are the worldwide duststorms that sweep around the planet for days on end, such an adventure in the worldwide (have been it obtainable) might additionally convey approximately substantial variations in our climate. further, Mars is very, very different to our very own planet as a consequence making any comparisons very unreliable. It has no breathable atmosphere, isn't usually vegetated, isn't predominantly water, reports severe temperature variations, is so chilly that the ice caps are not frozen water yet frozen gas (carbon dioxide) and it rather is not inhabited by applying human beings. it could be an quite conveneint answer to assert that the sunlight is responsible for warming on Mars and in the worldwide, if that have been the case then the different planets and moons in our photograph voltaic equipment might additionally be warming - they do no longer look to be. there is 172 of all of them instructed and on one hundred sixty five of them no warming has been observed. we've incredibly precise contraptions for measuring variations in the output from the sunlight and all of us comprehend that the difrerence between the optimum and lowest outputs (insolation maxima and insolation minima) is very small - sufficient to reason worldwide warming or cooling over hundreds and thousands and thousands of years yet nowhere close to sufficient to herald regards to the variations we've witnessed in the previous few many years. the actual difference between optimum and minimum output is a version of incredibly under 1000th (a version of a million.3 Watts according to sq. metre according to year against an average of 1366 W/m2/year). lower back, please communicate over with the unique NASA comments, the skeptics attempt to fool you by applying concealing info and distorting others.

Answer 3

If you follow the link provided by Herbert Lom, you will find links to 16 studies showing that the sun is not causing the current round of global warming. You will also see a graph showing the Earth's temperature tracking solar activity up until 30 years ago, after which, the Earth's temperature goes up and solar activity goes down. You will also see a link to a video which provides a plain explanation as to how the sun is not causing the warming over the last 30 years.

Answer 4

Maybe el Santiago is referring to (???):



http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3711



“I do not believe we can determine — with any objective level of confidence — whether any of the current model projections of future warming can be believed. Any scientist who claims otherwise either has political or other non-scientific motivations, or they are simply being sloppy.”

– Dr. Roy Spencer



OR



http://www.physorg.com/news177059550.html



“New data show that the balance between the airborne and the absorbed fraction of carbon dioxide has stayed approximately constant since 1850, despite emissions of carbon dioxide having risen from about 2 billion tons a year in 1850 to 35 billion tons a year now.

This suggests that terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans have a much greater capacity to absorb CO2 than had been previously expected.

The results run contrary to a significant body of recent research which expects that the capacity of terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans to absorb CO2 should start to diminish as CO2 emissions increase, letting greenhouse gas levels skyrocket. Dr Wolfgang Knorr at the University of Bristol found that in fact the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has only been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, which is essentially zero.”

- Dr Wolfgang Knorr

Answer 5

While the Sun is the main source of energy on Earth, what happens after that energy is released from the Sun is dependent on other variables. Several different natural cycles, such as an increase in solar irradiance and what are known as Milankovitch cycles, or cyclical changes in the Earth's axial tilt or orbit, are known to have effects on Earth's global climate system. Additionally different types of feedbacks associated with a warming planet are known to either enhance or decrease the temperature change. For instance, glaciation will decrease as the planet warms and increase as it cools. A decrease in glaciation decreases the reflectivity, or albedo, of the surface of the Earth thereby allowing more sunlight to be absorbed by the surface and heat it while an increase in glaciation would have the opposite effect. This would specifically be known as a positive feedback as it enhances the effects of the system output whereas a negative feedback would decrease the effects of that output. Yet another feedback associated with a warming atmosphere would be increasing water vapour concentration. As the temperature of an air parcel increases so does its capacity to hold water vapour. Water vapour is just one of what are known as greenhouse gases, or gases that have the ability to absorb and re-emit radiation dependent on their resonant frequencies. This is another positive feedback as it leads to further warming. Human innovation has upset the energy balance of the planet through emissions of greenhouse gases, namely carbon dioxide and methane, that were taken out of their natural cycle eons ago resulting in unnatural atmospheric warming. It is not the Sun. The Sun's output has been declining while tropospheric temperatures rise. Some state that it is due to the thermohaline circulation and I have not looked much into this myself. But again it is not the Sun, and that last argument is coming from the skeptic camp.

Answer 6

Have you ever been in an air conditioned room that is really cool? Then 50 people come in,in less than a hour it will be very warm without putting the thermostat lower. Everyone's body temperature is 98.6,there's billions of people in this world so the average temp will go up. Now,this is just my opinion,but a group of us were talking about this last week and most agreed it could be true.

Answer 7

Solar activity has been closely monitored since the 70's and by some ground base instruments since the 50s over that period it has shown a small decrease in activity, not an increase.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar-cycle-data.png



In the distant past (several billion years ago) the Sun emitted far less energy 20-30% less and has slowly increased over time the current short term dip is tiny compared to that historic change.

Luckily CO2 in the distant past was far higher and this helped keep the planet warm enough for liquid water (most of the time).

Answer 8

Environmental concerns should be a priority whether they affect warming or not.

Answer 9

The Sun, the stars and the oceans.

Answer 10

I know this isn’t your fault as you aren’t a regular contributor to this section, but just for once, it would be nice to see statements like these being backed up with a credible link or two. Without anything to back up your statement, it’s meaningless.



If you have links to reliable sources, please be kind enough to post them so that those who know about climatology can comment on them.



The reality is that the amount of energy being received from the Sun has declined ever so slightly. Here’s the satellite observations http://www.acrim.com/TSI%20Monitoring.htm



- - - - - - - -



COMMENT: TO MATTHEW



Thanks for the link. There are too many errors to mention them all. Up until about 1970 there was a fairly good correlation between incidence of cosmic rays and average global temperatures. Unfortunately the hypothesis falls apart at this point, not least because after 1970 cosmic ray activity fell behind temperatures and therefore couldn’t possibly be a driver of climate change.



The most telling thing however, is that the graph used by Svensmark conveniently stops at 1980. Had the graph continued beyond this point then it would be obvious that his hypothesis was fatally flawed. From 1980 onwards there is a massive divergence between galactic cosmic ray activity, cloud cover and global temperatures.



In short, recent trends are in complete opposition to Svensmark’s hypothesis.



The notion that “the climate is a result of changes in the clouds” (2 mins 45 secs) assumes that water vapour (clouds) are exclusively a feedback and totally ignores the forcing mechanism.



If you take one single piece from a jigsaw then it’s possible to incorporate it into any picture you want. Svensmark has done just this, he’s taken one piece of a phenomenally complex puzzle, ignored all the others, and created his own interpretation.



Svensmark may indeed have a valid point, his cosmoclimatological hypothesis has passed the preliminary empirical proof of concept stage of investigation and is being further examined by CERN’s CLOUD project. Whatever the final outcome, at best his hypothesis is but one single piece in a very complex puzzle and in no way provides an explanation for the current warming trend.



More info:

http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1257940/files/SPSC-SR-061.pdf

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Laut2003.pdf

Answer 11

<>



An even newer study shows that the Sun doesn't exist.



Of course as long as Al Gore keeps making money by fooling people into thinking the Sun exists the liberal nedia will perpetuate the liberal lie so that the U.N. can raise our taxes.

Answer 12

Trevor. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1qGOUIRac0

Answer 13

Incorrect. In fact we're in the midst of the longest solar cycle minimum in a century, and solar activity hasn't increased on average in over 50 years. It ain't the sun.

Answer 14

Yes it does. Imagine if it were night all the time... it would get cold.



Correlates nicely with temperatures. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/Sunspot_Numbers.png

Answer 15

You definitely don't believe in Al Gore. To him and the government subsidy, cap & trade, private plane taxing liberals, the Sun is not part of the equation in earth temperature. Remember, to them, the sun can't be that important because it is millions and millions of miles away.

To them the important things are cow farts.

Answer 16

sorry to burst your bubble, but the government tells scientist to tell the public everything is okay. that's the government. the earth has been here for millis of years with the sun. nothing is wrong except pollution.

Answer 17

Um, No



http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm



Now provide a link to your false statement, to counter my truth. Can't do it can you?

Answer 18

haha.....global warming