Is The Sun Causing Global Warming?

[Eyeron]

I have a friend who absolutely refuses to believe anything other than global warming is being caused by the sun and that we can't do anything about it. However, is there any evidence to support this conclusion?

[lomiller]

Not really.

The suns energy output has been on slight decline since about 1950, which makes it improbable that it has caused any recent warming. The sun is credited with 1/3 - 1/2 the warming in the early part of the 20th century (1900 - 1940)

[Myriad]

If the sun weren't there the earth wouldn't be warming, so I guess you could say the sun causes global warming.

Similarly, gravity causes suicides by hanging.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by Eyeron

I have a friend who absolutely refuses to believe anything other than global warming is being caused by the sun and that we can't do anything about it. However, is there any evidence to support this conclusion?

There are some ongoing experiments at CERN regarding this. The results are not in yet, but there could be some surprises therein.

[macdoc]

aka The "faint hope" clause they allow the lifers.

[cbish]

Originally Posted by Eyeron

I have a friend who absolutely refuses to believe anything other than global warming is being caused by the sun and that we can't do anything about it. However, is there any evidence to support this conclusion?

Is he talking about Sun Spots and Solar Flairs? These are common topics among AGW deniers.

[parky76]

The Sun does indeed cause global warming. but then, the sun goes away, and the moon causes global cooling.

its a very Zen like balance. kinda ying and yang, if ya know what I mean.

[Kestrel]

Originally Posted by Eyeron

I have a friend who absolutely refuses to believe anything other than global warming is being caused by the sun and that we can't do anything about it. However, is there any evidence to support this conclusion?

There is evidence to the contrary. See this article, published in the Sept. 14, 2006 issue of Nature.

Quote:

Variations in the Sun's total energy output (luminosity) are caused by changing dark (sunspot) and bright structures on the solar disk during the 11-year sunspot cycle. The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978 are too small to have contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30 years.

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by Kestrel

There is evidence to the contrary. See this article, published in the Sept. 14, 2006 issue of Nature.

Strawman argument based on plucked cherries.

Everything you want to know about solar is here....

www.solarcycle24.com

[DogB]

Originally Posted by mhaze

Everything you want to know about solar is here....

See this one hazy?

I'm still trying to get my head around it at the moment.

BTW, that's a preprint version. The actual ref is (Nir J. Shaviv (2008); Using the oceans as a calorimeter to quantify the solar radiative forcing, J. Geophys. Res., 113, A11101, doi:10.1029/2007JA012989) but I suspect it's behind a paywall.

[Aussie Thinker]

Up until the last 20 years or so it seemed that GW pretty much followed solar activity.

The current warming does not seem to follow solar activity and is one of the major reasons many scientists believe that the current trend is more related to CO2 levels, especially mans output.

That would be fair enough if there was an historic link to rise in CO2 related to rise in temperature or if it could be solidly linked in some other way.

It should be pretty clear if the next cycle of warming/cooling does not happen that man be somewhat to blame.

[macdoc]

[DogB]

Is it random smilie time? OK


OK, I’m outa here.

[macdoc]

What you want a Rosetta stone? I'd say the intent was rather clear...

[Aussie Thinker]

Here we go again face... Facepalm face.. Aussie Thinker (the garfield being my screwy tiger) ??

I can do Hieroglyphs ?

[DogB]

Originally Posted by macdoc

I'd say the intent was rather clear...

Let's just say I prefer my arguments cogent as well as clear.

[TShaitanaku]

Originally Posted by DogB

See this one hazy?

I'm still trying to get my head around it at the moment.

BTW, that's a preprint version. The actual ref is (Nir J. Shaviv (2008); Using the oceans as a calorimeter to quantify the solar radiative forcing, J. Geophys. Res., 113, A11101, doi:10.1029/2007JA012989) but I suspect it's behind a paywall.

Try this instead, the scientific results are a lot more clear cut and easy grasp.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by Aussie Thinker

Up until the last 20 years or so it seemed that GW pretty much followed solar activity.

The current warming does not seem to follow solar activity and is one of the major reasons many scientists believe that the current trend is more related to CO2 levels, especially mans output.

That would be fair enough if there was an historic link to rise in CO2 related to rise in temperature or if it could be solidly linked in some other way.

It should be pretty clear if the next cycle of warming/cooling does not happen that man be somewhat to blame.

IIRC, there have been a few events where CO2 did lead a warming cycle. Apart from that, the physical basis is there. It's a GHG. The level is well on the way to doubling.

I also provide a logical rebuttal to your hasty generalisation. If I have a loaded gun in my house and it has never been fired, does that mean it can't ever fire?

[Belz...]

Quote:

Is The Sun Causing Global Warming?

Ultimately, yes

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by Aussie Thinker

Here we go again face... Facepalm face.. Aussie Thinker (the garfield being my screwy tiger) ??

I can do Hieroglyphs ?

Face looking at your dodgy post, facepalm, sarcastic cat smilie. I think you got it, though. But I will translate;

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by TShaitanaku

Try this instead, the scientific results are a lot more clear cut and easy grasp.

If it seems clear cut and easy to grasp, that is only because the arthur starts by stating the bias that he has and intends to confirm. This article is 2005, and may be discarded in 2009 irregardless of bias because the Argoes float data will clear up shortly the inaccuracies in calculations of this sort which could not have been avoided in 2005.

Basically, the uncertainties are way larger than the numbers you are trying to measure or extract from noise. With the oceans this is compounded by another factor which is that only with Argos do we start to know equally precisely temperatures at various depths.

RE DogB's "Calorimeter" article, this is quite good. It explores the underpinnings of the concept of using ocean heat capacity to figure changes in global warming. In particular it discusses the required sensitivities for solar forcing to be causative of said ocean heat capacity, either in whole or part.

I'm not through comparing them and contrasting, those are just some initial comments.

[Kestrel]

Originally Posted by mhaze

Strawman argument based on plucked cherries.

Everything you want to know about solar is here....

www.solarcycle24.com

Your response doesn't contain enough logic to qualify as a logical fallacy.

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by Kestrel

Your response doesn't contain enough logic to qualify as a logical fallacy.

Oh, I think it was quite clear. You said "Evidence to the contrary..." and cited a study by Frolich. You picked one study, hence my asserting cherry picking.

But note the disclaimers by the writers:

Additional climate forcing by changes in the Sun's output of ultraviolet light, and of magnetized plasmas, cannot be ruled out. The suggested mechanisms are, however, too complex to evaluate meaningfully at present.

Even when you try hard to be a Denier of Solar influences like all good Warmers, the scientists you cite are more careful and their knowledge of the various influential factors shows.

[Kestrel]

Originally Posted by mhaze

Oh, I think it was quite clear. You said "Evidence to the contrary..." and cited a study by Frolich. You picked one study, hence my asserting cherry picking.

I was responding to a request for evidence and provided evidence in the form of a link to a peer reviewed scientific study. You responded with a link to a personal web page tracking changes in solar output, claiming that was all we needed to know.

if you don't understand the difference, it's clear you are not a skeptic.

[lomiller]

IOW mhaze thinks that study is a strawman because it confined its results to studying the amount of energy the sun is emitting, but ignored the magic pixy rays emitted by the neutron star inside the sun. Sure these don’t impart any energy into the earth’s climate, but who knows what effects they may cause!

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by Kestrel

I was responding to a request for evidence and provided evidence in the form of a link to a peer reviewed scientific study. You responded with a link to a personal web page tracking changes in solar output, claiming that was all we needed to know.

if you don't understand the difference, it's clear you are not a skeptic.

Oh, a decent point. Solarcycle24 isn't a peer reviewed study, it's a web site about the sun. Apples and oranges. No problem with that distinction.

Originally Posted by lomiller

IOW mhaze thinks that study is a strawman because it confined its results to studying the amount of energy the sun is emitting, but ignored the magic pixy rays emitted by the neutron star inside the sun. Sure these don’t impart any energy into the earth’s climate, but who knows what effects they may cause!

Unscientific Warmer Denial of solar influences on climate noted by comparison of Lomiller's attitude with actual, real scientists, who happen to be believers in man made global warming, incidentally (Frolich 2005 quoted)

Additional climate forcing by changes in the Sun's output of ultraviolet light, and of magnetized plasmas, cannot be ruled out. The suggested mechanisms are, however, too complex to evaluate meaningfully at present.

Such is the difference between real science and the pseudo science of the Warmer. Also note DogB's article, Shaviv 2008, and his comment "I'm still trying to get my head around it at the moment."

I can see where the simple ideas of Warmer Pseudo Science would definitely appeal to some people.

[lomiller]

Real scientists accept that increases in the Suns energy output should cause the earth to warm. Real scientists have shown no such increase in the suns energy output is currently occurring. mhaze would have you believe “it’s the Sun, but the heat the Sun is generating has nothing to do with it”

[Corsair 115]

Originally Posted by lomiller

Real scientists accept that increases in the Suns energy output should cause the earth to warm. Real scientists have shown no such increase in the suns energy output is currently occurring. mhaze would have you believe “it’s the Sun, but the heat the Sun is generating has nothing to do with it”

What I always wonder about is this:

If it's supposedly increased solar output causing the increasing temperatues on the Earth, then shouldn't all the planetary bodies in the solar system also be showing temperature increases? So, how's the temperature on Mercury these days? Given that it's far closer to the Sun than the Earth which consequently means the intensity of light falling on it is much greater, then shouldn't Mercury be showing a considerable increase in surface temperatures if the Sun is the culprit?

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by Corsair 115

What I always wonder about is this:

If it's supposedly increased solar output causing the increasing temperatues on the Earth, then shouldn't all the planetary bodies in the solar system also be showing temperature increases? So, how's the temperature on Mercury these days? Given that it's far closer to the Sun than the Earth which consequently means the intensity of light falling on it is much greater, then shouldn't Mercury be showing a considerable increase in surface temperatures if the Sun is the culprit?

You don’t even need to approach that question indirectly, we have been measuring the energy coming from the Sun directly with satellites for more then 3 decades and it’s showing a slight downward trend. Hence mhaze’s insistence that “it’s the Sun, just not the heat from the Sun, it’s something else that may be discovered some day.”

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by mhaze

I can see where the simple ideas of Warmer Pseudo Science would definitely appeal to some people.

Yes. The simpler you are, the more likely you are to think that global warming is Pseudo Science.

[Kestrel]

Originally Posted by lomiller

Real scientists accept that increases in the Suns energy output should cause the earth to warm. Real scientists have shown no such increase in the suns energy output is currently occurring. mhaze would have you believe “it’s the Sun, but the heat the Sun is generating has nothing to do with it”

Real scientists have good measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide, an understanding of how CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere and estimates of the extent that man's activities are responsible for the observed rise in CO2 levels that happens to track the observed rise in global temperatures.

They don't have data showing that magnetic fields, plasma or pixie dust from the sun track the observed changes in global temperature, or a model that explains for how these phenomena would cause global temperature change.

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by Kestrel

Real scientists have good measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide, an understanding of how CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere and estimates of the extent that man's activities are responsible for the observed rise in CO2 levels that happens to track the observed rise in global temperatures.

They don't have data showing that magnetic fields, plasma or pixie dust from the sun track the observed changes in global temperature, or a model that explains for how these phenomena would cause global temperature change.

Oh???

Hmm....

I'm glad that you are firm and unshaken in your Beliefs.

From DogB's article (just using what is currently being discussed, for convenience) bolding is mine:

With respect to simulating climate dynamics, the results have two very interesting ramifications. First, they imply that any attempt to explain historic temperature variations should consider that the solar forcing variations are almost an order of magnitude larger that just the TSI variations now used almost exclusively. It would imply that the climate sensitivity required to explain historic temperature variations is smaller than often concluded.

The over reaching myopic Certainty of the Warmer that I comment on. Particularly in a case such as solar influences on climate, where subject is, by those actively working on it, said to be poorly understood.

Originally Posted by Corsair 115

What I always wonder about is this:

If it's supposedly increased solar output causing the increasing temperatues on the Earth, then shouldn't all the planetary bodies in the solar system also be showing temperature increases?...

Given that they have radically different atmospheres or lack of, I can't see why this would be true. A water planet would be different than a methane or hard vaccuum planet, right?

[Captain.Sassy]

Originally Posted by mhaze

Given that they have radically different atmospheres or lack of, I can't see why this [i.e. that increasing solar output would warm other planets than earth as well] would be true. A water planet would be different than a methane or hard vaccuum planet, right?

Actually I think that [i.e. that increasing solar output would warm other planets than earth as well] is right mhaze. If the TSI of the sun goes up, you should see an impact on all planets' temperatures ceteris paribus. The feedback effects would vary from planet to planet according to the atmosphere.

Sami Solanki is a good source for solar forcing's effect on the observed temperature record, fwiw.

[mhaze]

Right, more solar should show up as increased albedo or brightness, but certainly not to a similar extent between the various planets.

[DogB]

Does anybody really think that the sun's effect on earth can be completely defined by measuring total flux? I mean the guys at CERN don't for one. Otherwise why would they be running the CLOUD experiment?

[DogB]

Originally Posted by TShaitanaku

Try this instead, the scientific results are a lot more clear cut and easy grasp.

Thanks. I have that one already. Did you have a specific problem with the paper I linked?

[DogB]

Originally Posted by Captain.Sassy

Sami Solanki is a good source for solar forcing's effect on the observed temperature record, fwiw.

Good call. I second that.

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by DogB

Does anybody really think that the sun's effect on earth can be completely defined by measuring total flux? I mean the guys at CERN don't for one. Otherwise why would they be running the CLOUD experiment?

I think if you try to pin them down on this they will go into a dodge of "well there might be an effect but it is tiny if at all".

Essentially the stand of a Denier of solar effects (over and above the TSI).

This is required for Warmers, because they can't allow anything to impact their imagined high sensitivity of climate to CO2. That's the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, CO2 is.

Unfortunately these attitudes seem to prevent a spirit of scientific inquiry.

Buy hey, prove me wrong.

[Aussie Thinker]

I think you guys completely miss the point MHaze is making and the one I make.

(DogB excluded)

Our understanding of the Suns effect on climate is actually very poor. It is constantly changing.

As new discoveries are made about the suns output it seems to always fit in with climate patterns.

Scientists ADMIT their understanding is poor yet put their hands on their heart and say.. ITS NOT THE SUN !

Does that make sense to anyone.

Scientists also KNOW CO2’s effect on climate is small.. but for lack of anything else it IS to blame !

This also doesn’t make any sense.

[bobdroege7]

I think if you try to pin them down on this they will go into a dodge of "well there might be an effect but it is tiny if at all."

Essentially the stand of a Denier of Carbon Dioxide effects (over and above the galactic cosmic ray effects).

This is required for Deniers, because they can't allow anything to impact their imagined low climate sensitivity of climate to Carbon Dioxide. That's the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, galactic cosmic rays, that is.

Unfortunately, these attitudes seem to prevent a spirit of scientific inquiry.

Buy me a beer, but hey prove me wrong.