Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Settings


All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Donate

Twitter Facebook YouTube Pinterest

RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe


Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...



Username
Password
Keep me logged in
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

Sun & climate: moving in opposite directions

What the science says...

Select a level... Basic Intermediate Advanced

In the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been going in opposite directions.

Climate Myth...

It's the sun
"Over the past few hundred years, there has been a steady increase in the numbers of sunspots, at the time when the Earth has been getting warmer. The data suggests solar activity is influencing the global climate causing the world to get warmer." (BBC)

Over the last 35 years the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. However global temperatures have been increasing. Since the sun and climate are going in opposite directions scientists conclude the sun cannot be the cause of recent global warming.

The only way to blame the sun for the current rise in temperatures is by cherry picking the data. This is done by showing only past periods when sun and climate move together and ignoring the last few decades when the two are moving in opposite directions. 


Figure 1: Annual global temperature change (thin light red) with 11 year moving average of temperature (thick dark red). Temperature from NASA GISS. Annual Total Solar Irradiance (thin light blue) with 11 year moving average of TSI (thick dark blue). TSI from 1880 to 1978 from Krivova et al 2007 (data). TSI from 1979 to 2009 from PMOD (see the PMOD index page for data updates).

Last updated on 22 February 2014 by LarryM. View Archives

Printable Version  |  Offline PDF Version  |  Link to this page

Related Arguments

Further viewing

Comments

Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Comments 51 to 100 out of 1040:

  1. Quietman
    Flawed logic! IF what you say were true and it's a BIG IF, then it becomes even MORE important to reduce CO2 emissions to even LOWER levels than if CO2 was the primary cause of warming, because it's fairly impossible to do anything about the sun. I'm surprised that you weren't smart enough to spot that!

    Of course in the topsy-turvy world of AGW denial things that make sense don’t and things that don’t make sense, do. The next time you meet Alice in Wonderland, say hi!

    The tipping points remain waiting and at some stage they will be triggered. It matters not one jot to the clathrates or the permafrost where the heat is derived from. The ocean too is warming and that will mean outgassing.

    BTW Your link was corrupted and did not work. [hhttp protocol] I looked at the site you recommended and it's not science, it's not even peer reviewed but it's garbage and of no relevance. Not a single peer reviewed reference. But I noticed the Exxon funded Hoover Institute! Don't you just love the smell of that oil money!

    You will have to try harder, much harder. Try some real objective peer-reviewed science - you know the stuff that doesn't smell of oil or coal.

    Your argument gets even more unbelievable with every post.
  2. ScaredAmoeba
    It would be silly to try to do something about the sun now would it not? Perhaps since we actually have no control over climate change we should put our effort into ways that we can live with it?
  3. ScaredAmoeba
    And I do not intend to make an argument, my intent is to learn more about climate change by questioning the points that I do not understand. The articles and papers that I have read all seem to be conflicting and I want to know why. The most logical statements I have seen all agree that we need to plan for a changing climate. Cleaner resources are a given, that is common sense. But putting the effort into controlling CO2 does not seem sensible given that we can have so little effect by following that route.
  4. Quietman
    Definition of Argument

    1'A connected series of statements intended to establish a position; a process of reasoning or disputation..,'
    NSOED 1993
    Response: I'm having a deja vu of a Monty Python sketch :-)
  5. John
    Me too.
  6. ScaredAmoeba
    Definition of Argument
    UN food chief urges crisis action
    Still don't think greens kill out of ignorance?
  7. ScaredAmoeba
    Call for delay to biofuels policy
    This is why I said that drastic measures without thinking things through could kill us all.
  8. "Environmentalist Groups Say Tech Firms Get Great Publicity from Their Green PR Efforts, But They Wonder How Deep the Commitment Really Is" But eho are the real Hypocrites?
    I am now seeing things that I have been afraid of for 40 years.
  9. I believe in taking care of the environment, buying only efficient products and recycling. But these alarmists and violent greens that burn other peoples Hummers really get me. Greenpeace is the worst of all, even one of its founders will have nothing more to do with them. They make me ashamed to say I am an environmentalist because it makes me part of the problem rather than part of the solution. Can't anyone see where rash actions lead? The blame for this is squarely on the UN itself for pushing Algorism and punishing skepticism and the green alarmists pointing fingers at oil companies instead of thinking things out rationally. Come on people, wake up, get off the bandwagon and start using constructive criticism.
  10. John
    No offense, but this is an issue that true environmentalists need to take a strong stand on.
  11. I have, so far, only determined that CO2 does not cause Global Warming and that there is no such thing as ‘water vapor feedback’. To my knowledge the combination of factors that contribute to climate has still not been sorted out.

    The reason why increased greenhouse gas level has no influence on average global temperature is proven at http://www.ruralsoft.com.au/ClimateChange.doc . See more at response 16 to Climate’s changed before.
  12. "The blame for this is squarely on the UN itself for pushing Algorism and punishing skepticism and the green alarmists pointing fingers at oil companies instead of thinking things out rationally."

    How many times have I seen this argument? Thousands of scientists follow wacky environmentalists, worship at the Church of Gore and push "Algorism". This is a general attempt to marginalize the overwhelming consensus view among scientists into a right vs left thing, in order to rally strong opposition through the political sphere. I don't think Gore has done much to affect views. Those who could use convincing are those who would, if anything, want to believe the opposite of what Al Gore says.

    There's a genuine difference between skeptics and contrarians. All scientists consider themselves skeptics. Contrarians seek to argue a particular point of view, the way a lawyer might.
  13. NewYorkJ
    As you are replying to a statement I made I would like to reply. I agree with you, scientists need to be skeptical. My point was that by turning this issue into politics by a movie aimed at inciting the more volatile environmental groups Mr. Gore has created a schism, isolating one group into alarmists and another into deniers.
    Any skepticism is now viewed as a denial and natural occurrences are blamed on global warming. The alarmisim has done more to hurt the science than help it, pushing govenments into rash actions that are backfiring.
    In science it is a scientists duty to challenge a new hypothesis and the current CO2 hypothesis is no different. That is how it works. The hypothesis must answer all challengers. The general public does not understand this and calls for action in fear.
  14. SA

    When you talk about "tipping points" you are taking yourself very far beyond the idea of science. Carbon Dioxide levels have been many times what they are today without ever finding this supposed point so I'm not too concerned with it.

    I think it is nearly certain that the overall feedback effect is not a positive number, that is kept very quiet because it blows an enormous hole in the panic.

    I have no trouble with "oil money" if you have no trouble with the IPCC. Which owes it's entire existence to the pre-formed conclusion that CO2 causes warming. Or to the more than 100 times greater money, usually tax money, spent on the other side of the issue. This is a log in your own eye issue if ever there was one.

    I also don't quite follow how evidence that CO2 does not cause the problem you fear is reason to control it even more tightly.

    Ignored in all of this of course are all the questions that should probably come first like is warming good or bad or would greater CO2 benefit the biosphere?
  15. Good article, but I'd suggest augmenting it with two other points showing that the recent warming is not due to the sun:

    1) If the surface warming was due to the sun, you'd expect the entire depth of the atmosphere to be warming. However if the surface warming is due to the release of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, you'd expect the stratosphere to cool, partly due to decreasing stratospheric ozone (which heats the stratosphere by absorbing incoming solar UV radiation) but more because increasing GHGs in the stratosphere more efficiently radiate that ozone-absorbed heat, leading to a net cooling above the tropopause. Observations from satellites show that the stratosphere is cooling, which directly contradicts the hypothesis that the warming is coming from the sun, but agrees with the hypothesis that the warming is coming from greenhouse gases.

    2) If the warming were due to the sun, you'd expect the increased shortwave input to the Earth to result in more warming during the day than at night. If the warming were due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases, you'd expect nighttime temperatures to increase more than daytime, since nighttime temperatures are more directly influenced by downward longwave radiation emitted by the atmosphere (as greenhouse gas concentrations increase, they warm and emit more downward longwave radiation, warming the surface). Observations in fact show more nighttime warming than daytime warming.

    Keep up the good work.
    Response: DWP, find me some peer reviewed studies highlighting point 2 and I'll be more than happy to do a post on the topic. As for point 1 on the cooling stratosphere, that's another topic on the to-do list :-)
  16. Well it's a complicated topic, as usual in climate, and I was skipping over most of that complexity above (especially the important role of clouds!). It's fascinating though, espeically as it is a way of probing how the models are simulating climate versus reality.

    The canonical reference is Easterling et al., Science, 1997 (p. 364-367). However, anyone who looks into this should also look at the updated work. For example, I'd suggest Stone and Weaver, Geophys. Res. Lett. 2002, v. 29, p. 1356; Braganza et al., Geophys. Res. Lett. 2004, v. 31, L13217; and the summary in the 2007 IPCC report of Working Group 1, in particular, Figures 3.2 and 3.11 and the discussion of those.
  17. John
    You might find this NASA clip interesting: A shock wave following a flare
    Response: That's an awesome animation - just imagine the size of that shockwave, the magnitude many times the size of the Earth!
  18. And the latest ideas on Solar Inluence in climate change.
    Response: The idea of global dimming is covered somewhat here. The most disturbing element of global dimming is expressed well on the PBS page: "Is global dimming masking the full impact of global warming? Some climate experts worry that it is, with the possible consequence that as we reduce pollution, the climate will heat up to unprecedented levels."
  19. 2007 global cooling continues into 2008:

    http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/05/31/globally-2008-significantly-cooler-than-last-year/

    And the sun is still blank:

    www.solarcycle24.com

    I'm looking forward to this coming winter (but then I don't live in Canada). By next spring, the debate (which is far from over), will "heat" up.
  20. http://www.spaceandscience.net/siteb...eport12008.doc

    John L. Casey “The existence of ‘relational cycles’ of solar activity on a multi-decadal to centennial scale, as significant models of climate change on Earth.”
    Research Report 1-2008

    http://www.spacecenter.dk/publications/scientific-report-series/Scient_No._3.pdf/view

    Svensmark, H. and Friis-Christensen, E. Danish National Reply to Lockwood and Fröhlich –“The persistent role of the Sun in climate Forcing” Danish National Space CenterScientific Report 3/2007

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070801174450.htm


    Charles D. Camp and Ka Kit Tung Geophysical Research Letters (GRL) paper 10.1029/2007GL030207, 2007


    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070801175711.htm

    Anastasios A. Tsonis, Kyle Swanson, and Sergey Kravtsov: Synchronized Chaos: Mechanisms For Major Climate Shifts Geophysical Research Letters (GRL) paper 10.1029/2007GL030288, 2007

    http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/2007JD008437.pdf

    N. Scafetta e B.West : Phenomenological reconstructions of the solar signature in the Northern Hemisphere surface temperature records since 1600 JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICALRESEARCH, VOL.112D24S03,doi:10.1029/2007JD008437, 200
  21. clayco
    Very interesting links but I cant get the top one to work, seems to be something missing.
  22. John
    I am not sure of the relevance but How Plasma From Superstorms Affects Near-Earth Space from ScienceDaily (May 31, 2008) represents another unfactored aspect of the irregularity of output from the sun.
  23. Hi Quietman, John,

    New studies show it's not just about TSI:

    See: “Is Climate Sensitive to Solar Variability?”, March 2008 “Physics Today”, provided the graph of Phenomenological Solar Signal (PSS) from 1950 to 2007
    http://i27.tinypic.com/1zbavyo.jpg

    CERN's CR & cloud machine:
    http://aps.arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0804/0804.1938v1.pdf

    FWIW the Aurorae rain hot particles emitting IR & NIR, there's a So. Atlantic Anomaly weakness in the magnetosphere where the radiation belt descends into the ionosphere, and cosmic rays over the Antarctic may cause regional warming via NO2 formation.
  24. John,

    The question of global dimming is a tricky mess and b/c of the heretofore lack of solid field data, a big "known unknown," largely misunderstood & relegated to a "masking" function.

    V. Ramanathan (Scripps, INDOEX) has consistently found that in the case of aerosols there's a net heating effect, despite the surface dimming. Instead of easing or masking CO2's effect, mid-tropospheric brown clouds ladened with soot & sulfates are driving temperatures up, creating bigger temperature anomalies. The effect is as high as 40% over the vast Pacific region.

    He's claiming that the window of opportunity can be stretched to 20 years via simple soot mitigation.

    C. Zender is saying similar things re: soot deposition in the Arctic & Subarctic.

    There's also a documented cloud-seeding effect of winter storms in the N. Pacific that in turn loft soot into the stratosphere to be borne into the Arctic, eventually causing black icebergs (yes, black icebergs).

    The odds that we can curtail CO2 fast enough against even the mid-case scenarios are low, so subsuming the evidence against soot under the rubric of "carbon emissions" for fear of diluting the message about CO2 seems to me a mistaken approach.

    see: http://www.scientificblogging.com/blog/258
  25. John,

    The question of global dimming is a tricky mess and b/c of the heretofore lack of solid field data, a big "known unknown," largely misunderstood & relegated to a "masking" function.

    V. Ramanathan (Scripps, INDOEX) has consistently found that in the case of aerosols there's a net heating effect, despite the surface dimming. Instead of easing or masking CO2's effect, mid-tropospheric brown clouds ladened with soot & sulfates are driving temperatures up, creating bigger temperature anomalies. The effect is as high as 40% over the vast Pacific region.

    He's claiming that the window of opportunity can be stretched to 20 years via simple soot mitigation.

    C. Zender is saying similar things re: soot deposition in the Arctic & Subarctic.

    There's also a documented cloud-seeding effect of winter storms in the N. Pacific that in turn loft soot into the stratosphere to be borne into the Arctic, eventually causing black icebergs (yes, black icebergs).

    The odds that we can curtail CO2 fast enough against even the mid-case scenarios are low, so subsuming the evidence against soot under the rubric of "carbon emissions" for fear of diluting the message about CO2 seems to me a mistaken approach.

    see: http://www.scientificblogging.com/blog/258
  26. leebert
    Taking northern polar wind direction that would go far to explain the March 2008 anomaly over asia.

    BTW Nice links, especially the jpeg.
  27. Two more studies to add to your impressive list of twelve:
    Sloan et al. 2008, http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1748-9326/3/2/024001

    Kristjansson 2008, http://folk.uio.no/jegill/publications.html (first link)
  28. Second order skeptic
    John has a whole page devoted to Sloan 2008 titled Do Cosmic Rays Cause Clouds that you might want to look at.

    The lower link to "Global dimming and global brightening - an analysis of surface radiation
    and cloud cover data in northern Europe" I found very interesting.
  29. The following comments are challenges to the theory of global warming that I haven’t heard any successful retort:
    • Post by Barry on Jan 30th – “I question the physics behind the response: a crucial finding was the correlation between solar activity and temperature ended around 1975......The assumption is that there is always an energy balance between heat radiated from earth and input from the sun. Lets say that solar activity remained above this energy balance, one would have to assume that temperature would still increase, until some new energy balance is achieved. This means that temperature can still increase as long as the input is greater that the output.
    • Post by tbandrow on March 7th – “Well, solar flux doesn't need to be argued. It can be proved. The current solar theory is due to an interaction that has something to do with sunspots. So, if that is the case, then we can see if the global temperature will go down, assuming the present dearth of sunspot continues.” Yes I saw the comment regarding La Nina, but his point was as we have more time years with low sun spots and cooling temperatures we can rule out irregularities like La Nina, can’t we?
    • Post By Dan Pangburn on April 14th – “From the Vostok ice core data, during glacial periods, often a rising temperature trend with a rising carbon dioxide level suddenly changed direction and became a falling temperature trend in spite of the carbon dioxide level being higher than when the temperature was increasing. This could not be if carbon dioxide causes a positive feedback. The Andean-Saharan Ice Age occurred when the carbon dioxide level was over ten times its current level. What is different now that could lead to run away temperature increase?” I find this argument to have particular merit, since by the accounts and data that I have seen, we haven’t seen any statistical temperature increase in the last 10 years (per NOAA data), yet we continue to increase CO2 concentration.

    If someone would point me to the arguments that have been made (or make new ones) that offer explanations or counterpoints, I would greatly appreciate that.
  30. Tom in Texas

    I know that this may sound a bit strange but parts of the U.S. actually get colder than central Canada (about as far north as civilization extends except for the coasts). For example in January 1996 northern Minnesota hit about -54 F during the Plains Blizzard, for that week it did not go higher than about -48 F (rounded to whole numbers). The same week, the urban town of North Bay and the mining town of Timmins (both Canada) never went below -45 F. and averaged about -40 F. It's because of the Jet Stream which as you know can dip as far south as Texas on occasion. It's one of the reasons that much of the cold tests conducted by car manufacturers are done in various towns in northern Minnesota. They also get more January snow than those canadian towns.
  31. Wow, my post has been up for 12 days, with no responses refuting the challenges to the theory of global warming that I posted?

    Does this mean that there is no credible scientific evidence to support the theory of global warming when it is confronted with these challenges?
  32. Wow, my post has been up for 12 days, with no responses refuting the challenges to the theory of global warming that I posted?

    Does this mean that there is no credible scientific evidence to support the theory of global warming when it is confronted with these challenges?
  33. TruthSeeker
    Recent attention has been on "Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?" if you feel up to beating your head against a wall.
  34. Remeber what Einstein said, "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."
  35. Why does this site keep referencing the 70's? The planet if over 4 billion years old and has been chaning ever since. You are sitting here talking about the last few hundred years like they have been of any kind of significance in the last 4 billion. It's just a spec, not even that really. More drastic changes have happened (climate wise) in Earths history then the industrial revolution. Does anybody else think that this is a form of "Vanity?" Short of nuclear fallout, I don't think that we could put a dent in this planets way of working. I do think however that pollution is bad for us humans, and we should look at that more then global destruction.
  36. Stop listening to the media and paid celebrities. They have no sort of degree in science and are just reading from a script. This has all stemed from "Yellow Science." It used to be that we listened to the scientists from both sides of the argument. Now we don't even listen to them at all, we listen to the media, politicians and paid celebrities, none which have any clue of what they are talking about. It's a shame that the scientists on the other side of the fence don't get the same main stream media attention that Al Gore does. But the reason for this is very simple and clear....MONEY. Over 50 Billion dollars has been spent world wide for Global Warming research. These scientists don't even have to come up with anything significant to get paid, they just have to sign there name with a little PhD right next to it. Big corporations have also made a killing selling "Green" products. Governments world wide will never let these scientists get world wide attention either because they can't admit they have been DUPPED into believeing that the sky was falling and that they just spent billions of your tax dollars on it. Keep an open mind, look at """"ALL"""" of the science and then draw your conclusions.
  37. Bri-Man
    To bring you up to speed (at least on this site) the 70's are referenced because in the mid to late 70's the solar forcing stopped following the temperature line. Their argument, which is that of the IPCC, is that CO2 induced AGW explains the increases from 1975 on. Those of us skeptical of this argument have several positions, mine is vulcanism and plate tectonics which have been more active since the full alignment in 1976.
    The most recently active thread is "Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?" and the discussion is somewhat heated.
  38. Quietman, BriMan,TruthSeeker, et al

    As just a curious layman, it is good to see that the banter and debate on this site is broad and deep. This kind of debate in the press and Congress would do our nation some good.

    GW, I assume, will be like much of science through history. It is seldom complete, even when we think it is. Whether it was the Catholic Church's belief that the earth was the center of the Universe, or a long held believe that there were only four elements, or even that for some time most believed that there were 24 chromosomes.

    Good scientists hold to the facts in front of them. Great scientists keep looking when the science does not match the facts.

    Reading your inciteful remarks, I can conclude we are still very short of good data and great science.

    There is still so much to debate.
  39. tlewellen
    Many of us posting comments are just laymen as well. But because John allows us to put links to reference material it is a great place to learn a lot more about climate change. But like any blog, don't believe everything you read. Like John says at the top of the home page - skepticism is healthy.
  40. Interesting posts.
    Tlewellen has a very good point about science being seldom complete. Currently we do not fully understand ( or in fact know)all the factors that drive the earth's climate, so any modelling we do has to be held VERY lightly. Including AGW.

    To ascribe GW to a single source is simplistic: it ignores synergistic interactions which I suspect have a far greater effect than our current models can handle.
    Solar irradiation recieved by us is not constant and fluctuates around 6% due to orbital irregularities. Only recently has anyone started to think about the effects of other planetary masses on our orbit and the consequencies.
    It also seems from my (admittedly limited) research that too little attention and weight is given to the actions of water vapour and cloud formation/cover. I have even found one study that chose to ignore cloud effect because it was to chaotic and difficult to obtain hard data!

    I also worry about the actual relevence of data which has been 'altered' to account for anomalies....and then used as 'hard' information to produce a trend.

    Like Quietman says, scepticism is healthy!
  41. No-one has yet commented on the massive disparity in temperatures between the two graphs shown at the top of this page during the post-war boom (roughly the first three decades after the Second World War).

    In a debate I've been involved in on various newsgroups (http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.global-warming/browse_thread/thread/912fb81971711597), a supporter of global warming called Fran mentioned "global dimming" reducing temperatures from 1943-74.

    However, I have discovered that there are two completely different graphs of average northern hemisphere temperatures on the internet! The graph shown in "The Great Global Warming Swindle", displayed at the top of this page, looks to be based on the same data as a March 2003 SPACE.COM article entitled "Sun's Output Increasing in Possible Trend Fueling Global Warming" (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html). This page came top when I googled "total energy output from the sun TSI" (without quotes). The graph on it uses data from an article by Baliunas and Soon in the Astrophysical Journal. This seems to tally with Fran's dates.

    However, two Wikipedia pages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_temperature_record) look to have similar data to the "Land-Ocean Temperature Anomaly" line in the second graph on this page (except the Wikipedia pages show 5-year rather than 11-year averages). These show falling temperatures in the 1940s but not in the subsequent decades

    It seems utterly ridiculous for predictions to have been made about a new ice age in the 1970s (rather than earlier decades) if temperature had not been falling as the latter graphs suggest. One set of graphs must be based on fake data, and my current opinion that the latter ones are fake appears to be supported by the NASA GISS data from individual measuring statements linked to by Whata Fool on http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.global-warming/browse_thread/thread/912fb81971711597.

    I have heard (I can't remember where) that the southern hemisphere has not been warming in recent decades unlike the north. Does anybody have any data about southern hemisphere temperatures? If not, why not?

    My particular take on the climate/weather, irrespective of whether CO2 is really the main contributor to global warming, is that it is being controlled by conspirators on the side of big business in the big political struggles in the world (to some degree or other, and maybe less so now than in the past). A BBC documentary "The Science of Superstorms" largely about the USSR regime's measures to affect where radioactive rainfall from Chernobyl came down and Chinese measures to stop rainfall at the time of the Olympics opening ceremony indicate that some level of control is possible. As weather forecasting has improved, so has the ability to control it - and having high levels of warming in some parts of the world and low levels in others suits the divide-and-rule agenda of unethical forces in positions of power.
  42. I forgot to mention in the above comment that the whole argument that the sun is not to blame is based on data/graphs that may be fabricated.

    There are massive vested interests, on both sides of the global warming debate, so fabrication of data is to be expected.

    Bearing in mind that one set of data for cooling during the post-war boom (despite higher production of carbon dioxide than earlier in the 20th century when temperatures were rising) is incorrect and clearly fabricated, the same may be true of recent solar radiance data.
  43. I find this all so fascinating. I have always been under the impression that we have been experiencing "Global Warming". Recently I have found we are now only talking about "Northern Hemispherical Warming". I am sure by this time next year we will be speaking of "North American Warming". Here I thought I was skeptical, no more. Everything is becoming so clear to me now. This BLOG is great! Definitely the best discussions I have found thus far. So many intensely intelligent individuals. Seems to me though, one should concentrate on adaptation rather than manipulation. You really think you can change the climate? I rather think that the climate will change you! ... this stuff is great ...
  44. Steve, you could also say "I forgot to mention in the above comment that the whole argument that the sun is to blame is based on data/graphs that may be fabricated".

    It's interesting that on one thread we have people arguing about which is to blame for the warming, the sun or CO2 while on another thread that global warming isn't happening at all.

    I wonder if some of the same posters are arguing both cases at once.
  45. sandy winder
    John has asked us to keep the threads relevant to the subject matter. So we argue for or against CO2 on all but for the sun only here. The problem, of course, is that there is no single simple explanation and thats why the models don't work right. Most of the argument here concerns TSI and Camp & Tung show that is a strong forcing comparable for that of CO2 (using IPCC sensitivity). However if the IPCC/NASA figures are too high (which another NASA scientist says they are) then the suns forcing is stronger. But that is still not the whole picture. The earth itself is very active right now. It's hard to go to a science news site without seeing a new discovery about current vulcanism/tectonics. Dr. Fairbridge's hypothesis explains this indirectly. It's all about the entire solar system and the interactions between sun and planets due to something we still do not understand fully: gravity.
  46. What I can't understand (if the sun is so important) is that for many millions of years when the dinosaurs were alive (and even before them) the planet was warmer than it is now, yet we are also told that the sun's output is gradually increasing over the eons.

    So how come the earth is not much warmer today, if the sun is the doiminant factor?

    The only answer seems to be that in the distant past the level of CO2 in our atmosphere was much higher.
  47. sandy winder
    Suns output increasing? Where did you hear that?

    The Sun is the major component in climate. Even if the IPCC figures for CO2 acting as a GHG are correct it could not work without the sun (GHGs are modifiers of solar radiation, not a heat source).

    In the distant past CO2 levels were in the thousands of ppm rather than low hundreds as they are today. But first it was hot, and then CO2 increased, then we had lush growth, a planetary jungle, and lots of animals to take advantage of it. That was 90% of the earths' history. The other 10% (roughly) consists of 4 ice ages. We are currently in the 4th ice age. It has slowly been warming (positive slope with wide oscillations) for 5 million years. The current period is considered to be an interglacial period. This, however can only be confirmed by another glacation (interglacial means between glacations). We could just as easily be in the post glacial period at the end of an ice age and that would mean it will continue to warm.

    The as yet unanswered question is: what causes these ice ages to start and stop? Until we can answer this question with high accuracy we know nothing about what climate is or how it works.
  48. Look here:
    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/03/0307_030307_impactcrater.html

    "The existence of the impact crater, Chicxulub, was first proposed in 1980. In the 1990s, satellite data and ground studies allowed it to gain prominence among most scientists as the long sought-after "smoking gun" responsible for the demise of the dinosaurs and more than 70 percent of Earth's living species 65 million years ago."

    Whilst the impact would have released a colossal amount of heat energy, this would have only affected a fairly local area, so originally it was thought the dust produced caused sufficient dimming of sunlight to provoke a mass extinction event.
    Currently however, it is thought that insufficient dust would have been created by this impact to mask the sun long enough and attention has shifted to the possibility of massive SO2 release from local calcium sulphate deposits. SO2 effect would have lasted much longer than so there would have been considerable diminution in plant and animal activity.
    Bearing in mind the climate was a lot hotter then, the combined effect of dust(immediate) and SO2(longer lasting) would have initiated a rapid cooling which in turn could have been to start a climate 'wobble' which resulted in the cycle of ice ages and intermediate warmer periods. As far as I can tell, no definitive research has been carried out on this possibility.
  49. http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2002-12/1039267568.As.r.html

    In fact, the Sun is actually getting hotter. As 4 hydrogen atoms turns into 1 helium atom, the total number of particles in the Sun's core decreases. In order for the pressure within the Sun to stay constant, and continue to support itself against gravity, the temperature of the Sun must increase. This increase in temperature results in the Sun becoming brighter as well. In turn, this makes the Earth warmer because the intensity of sunlight is increasing. It is expected that within 1 billion years or so (well before the Sun runs out of hydrogen fuel) the temperature on Earth will increase to the point that a runaway greenhouse will take place. The result is that the Earth will end up looking much like Venus today.
  50. ///The as yet unanswered question is: what causes these ice ages to start and stop? Until we can answer this question with high accuracy we know nothing about what climate is or how it works.///

    I think it is bit unfair to say that scientists know nothign about climate.

    They know quite a lot about it. The fact they do not everything does not mean they know nothing.

    Scientists don't know everything about the human body yet but doctors still perform operations.

Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Post a Comment

Political, off-topic or ad hominem comments will be deleted. Comments Policy...

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.

Link to this page



The Consensus Project Website

TEXTBOOK

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)

THE DEBUNKING HANDBOOK

BOOK NOW AVAILABLE

The Scientific Guide to
Global Warming Skepticism

Smartphone Apps

iPhone
Android
Nokia

© Copyright 2014 John Cook
Home | Links | Translations | About Us | Contact Us