Did anyone realise that global warming is coz there is something wrong with the sun?

Question

Did anyone realise that global warming is coz there is something wrong with the sun?

Answer 1

There's nothing wrong with the sun. The sun goes through several phases of various duration. The shortest phase is called sunspot cycles that last about 11 years. Right now, we are just coming out of a minimum where the average number of sunspots was near zero. So in about 6 and a half years, we'll be at a maximum again. In the past, there was an extended period of time (1645-1715) when sunspots were not visible called the Maunder Minimum. This period of time coincided with a remarkably cold period that is now called the Little Ice Age. If solar activity by itself were what was driving the Earth's temperature, we would be at a minimum of temperature, not a maximum. The other phases have periods of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years and don't have any effect on such short timescales as we're seeing global warming happening.



If we look at other indicators of the activity of the sun such as the radioactive isotope Beryllium-10, we see that in the last ~600 years, the sun has become more active. So this has contributed a little to global warming. However, given what we currently know about how the Earth's temperature changes in response to solar output, this does not explain hardly any of the measure warming. Presently it's thought that the sun contributes about 10% to global temperatures rise.

Answer 2

Those of a mindset like Jimz will throw insults (and then turn around and say alarmist's are always insulting deniers, it's pathetic really) but the fact remains that the Sun has been monitored closely since the 1970s and there has been a small but marked decline in solar activity over that time (as the world has warmed), several groups around the world study the Sun and their data agrees on this.

Answer 3

Solar input has been measured and is being measured for decades now. The solar constant, or the rate at which the Earth receives energy from the Sun, has been reliably measured via satellite since 1978 when a self-calibrating cavity radiometer on Nimbus 7, named Hickey-Frieden (HF), was launched replacing the old flat plate thermopile radiometer on Nimbus 6, which was not self-calibrating and not stable. Since then various radiometers have measured TSI (Total Solar Irradiance) including the ACRIM series, VIRGO on the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) and TIM on the Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE).



I find it hillarious that JimZ is ridiculing others on their level of intelligence when it comes to climate change yet he has continuously not understood the simplest effect associated with an increased concentration of atmospheric CO2. He ridicules others for not being 'scientists' yet not every 'scientist' has the right credentials to speak about climate science. Would you go to a biologist for information about solar output? Similarily, would you ask a geologist about climate science? JimZ, a geologist, seems to think people should. Amazingly he also thinks people should go to a geologist instead of even going to a climatologist, some of whom post in Y!A.

Answer 4

The sun's output has been measured by NASA satellites for a quarter century. It varies over the solar cycle ~ about 11 years, but the length of the cycle varies by 2 years -- by 1 part in a 1000. Not a big change at solar maximum. After 11 years, the sun returns to the original value. No long-term gain, no overall solar change.



Scientists of course realize this.



jimz what is your problem? If you want to look this up google on Acrim satellite or total solar insolation.

Answer 5

Indeed sometimes we should blame the bread. I have my toaster set to a level which does a nice job on sourdough bread, but sometimes without changing the setting I'll put some cinnamon swirl raisin or pumpernickel bread in the toaster. You know what happens? It burns. The toaster level (like our current solar output) has not changed, but the darker bread absorbs more of the toaster's radiant heat, gets hotter, and burns.



Your argument would work if the sun (or my toaster) was getting hotter, but it isn't.

Answer 6

Except we have satellites pointed at the sun. It's not doing anything different.

Answer 7

no i never realized, why what happened to the Sun? if something wrong with the Sun then sayonara, the game is over.

Answer 8

No



Wrong

Answer 9

Yes it's the sun causing global warming but there is nothing wrong with it. There are natural warming and cooling cycles. That's why we have had ice ages in the past.

Answer 10

The sun is studied in depth, and the affect of it's cycles on climate has been greatly researched and debated. The hypothesis that the sun is causing global warming has been considered and proved false.



Several researchers have noted a correlation between solar activity, ie the number of sunspots, and climate. There still seems to be some debate as to how close that correlation is and how much difference the sun has made in past climates -- but it seems likely that cycles of the sun have had great impacts on earth's climate. BUT, the correlation clearly ended in the 1970s. The earth's temperatures have accelerated while solar activity has declined. If solar activity does have a significant impact on earth's temperatures, then something is overwhelming that effect and causing warming when we would naturally be having cooling. If that is true, and something else is overwhelming the solar minimum, then we can expect warming to further accelerate as the sun cycles back up to a more active status. There is nothing about the sun that would be causing warming right now, but it may be that more warming is coming if the sun cycles back up to an average state.



Secondly, the stratosphere is cooling rather than warming. If the warming was due to increased energy from outside of our atmosphere, then we would have warming at the highest altitudes as well as at the surface. But if the warming is coming from and enhanced greenhouse effect, then more radiation would be reflected back to the surface rather than reaching the top altitudes and we would see warming at the surface and cooling at the top. Well, that's been tested and the cooling in the stratosphere again disproves the solar hypothesis and supports the enhanced greenhouse effect.



Your analogy is over-simple, but yes if the toast burns the first suspician is that the toaster has been turned up. But once you test the toaster and you learn that it is not heating more -- in fact is heating a bit less -- and still the toast is burning, you can eliminate the toaster as the cause and look for other causes. If you know that you started buying different bread (comparable to changing the chemical composition of our atmosphere), you then start suspecting the bread and start looking for other ways to test that. If all your other tests (toasting in other toasters, etc) keep supporting that it's the bread you become very sure that it is indeed the bread.

Answer 11

It is mankinds fault.

Answer 12

no but you blame the man who put it in the toaster for along time ......same thing aboutthe earth you blame the man because he didn't took care of the earth

Answer 13

no its not all cause of sun...hey we destroyed the ozone layers.

Answer 14

True, global warming is not man made. like our liberal morons would like you to believe. They just want to tax us to death with carbon credits. Thats why they fake all of this scientific research to "prove" their point.