Forum Post: Do Solar Flares Cause Global Warming?
Posted 13 years ago on Nov. 13, 2011, 8:05 p.m. EST by EsotericAgenda
(34)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
We've all seen the diagrams showing how a substantial increase in C02 emissions has, since the industrial era, correlated with a significant increase in Earth's temperature... therefore proving that C02 causes global warming! Alright, hold your horses Al Gore, this isn't exactly foolproof. Don't get me wrong, the greenhouse effect is a fact; and we should be very thankful for it. For if it didn't exist, then, in all likelihood, neither would we. That being said, there are a number of observations that are leading skeptics to claim that C02 is not the main driving force behind global warming. The documented warming on Mars, Jupiter, Triton and Pluto have cast the shadow of a doubt on anthropogenic global warming; and seems to indicate that the Sun is the driving force in global warming... who would have thought? For what it's worth, scientist have found independent causes as to why these celestial bodies are experiencing simultaneous global warming. And not much credibility is given to this as evidence of what I like to call ''solar warming''. But never mind that, since the only truly reliable way to obtain data of the Sun's energy emissions would be... well, to measure the Sun's energy emissions. Unfortunately, satellite measurements only cover an extremely small portion of time and simply do not provide enough data to tackle this question. Thus, we must rely on other methods which, although allow for a higher margin of error, can provide us with long-term information and thus, more informed conclusions.
One record of solar activity observation goes back four centuries, with consistent data collection: sunspot activity. Increases in sunspot activity mean an increase in solar radiance as, apart from emanating more UV radiation than normal, these are usually accompanied by solar flares and/or coronal mass ejections. The record, courtesy of enthusiastic astronomers who have dully noted sunspot activity since the invention of the telescope, clearly shows that not only have there been more and more sightings since the onset of the industrial era, but also that there were almost none to be found during the period known as the little ice age (1600-1750). Another method for analyzing solar activity involves changes in Carbon-14 concentration in the atmosphere, which serves as a long term proxy for solar activity. If anything, the results are almost the same where the time frames overlap, though these readings show more sharply marked variations. It also clearly indicates that the solar activity we experience today is similar to that of the medieval warm period at about 1000 A.D., and is not entirely out of the ordinary, were it not for the fact that it appears to have been on a much steeper rise in recent history.
A different study from NASA also inferred solar activity for the last 11,400 years using carbon-14 dating of organic material. It concluded that the Sun's activity during the last 70 years is ''exceptional'', that activity has not been this high for more than 10% of the time in 11,400 years, and never has it been as prolonged as it is now. Though the study warns against assuming that this alone could explain the temperature increases in the past three decades, saying that it is unlikely that this was the dominant cause.
. And so we have come full circle, parting from the established consensus, getting a look at the alternative view and finally returning to the middle ground. Like mentioned in the beginning, the greenhouse effect is a fact and it being the inevitable consequence of the physical properties of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases should alert the reader to the reality that, even if you can find a thousand arguments as to why anthropogenic climate change is nothing but a myth, you still can't turn carbon into gold. It is what it is, and it does what it does. That being said, the single-minded focus on carbon emissions seems to have distracted from true understanding. The Earth's meteorological system is far more complex than is currently understood, and not to include variations in solar output in our calculations is criminal as far as this author concerned; not to mention the potentially dozens of other variables that are misrepresented, exaggerated, undiscovered and/or simply ignored. As we mature, we come to understand that the world doesn't revolve around us and that not everything has to do with us. Unfortunately, we are still a very young species, and some of us still wish to cling on to that notion... Some people even got killed for suggesting otherwise and I can only hope we are a little wiser for it today.
In the last 35 years of global warming, solar output and climate have been going in opposite directions.
That's all we really need to know.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm
Also
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-other-planets-solar-system.htm
Have you looked at the nasa data they are using? it is very strange, I find it hard to swallow that in 1880 the temperatures averaged below freezing in July? To be fair it says the base period starts in 1951 so lets look at that July. Ok, it had an average temperature of -1 degree celsius? Very suspicious, it does not say where these temperatures were taken from but unless they were on top of Mt Mckinley those numbers would be nearly impossible. One more example of suspicious data is in January 2007 an average temperature of 90 degrees? Very odd
can anyone debate my observations on this data?
Have you looked at the nasa data they are using? it is very strange, I find it hard to swallow that in 1880 the temperatures averaged below freezing in July? To be fair it says the base period starts in 1951 so lets look at that July. Ok, it had an average temperature of -1 degree celsius? Very suspicious, it does not say where these temperatures were taken from but unless they were on top of Mt Mckinley those numbers would be nearly impossible. One more example of suspicious data is in January 2007 an average temperature of 90 degrees? Very odd
Did anyone look at the data this skeptical science site is using to "debunk" other scientists? This is considered credible to NASA? Really?
Its funny how 90% of scientists agree that climate change is occuring, and 82% agree that it is due to human activity.... yet people still argue against the majority of scientists.
I understand the value of skeptical scientists. I do not see any value in skeptics, luckily we have 18% of the remaining climate scientists to rely upon if the other 82% are wrong. Until then I accept the majority expert conclusion.
90% of people thought the world was flat. Think for yourself, you can't debate the facts i presented because your incapable of proving me wrong.
You obviously agree that the numbers are odd considering you didn't make and attempt to answer my question about the data. This dogmatic groupthink is what I am trying to avoid, if you have a world view you can not communicate you should keep it to your self
Besides the so-called group think of experts...
There is an article on sciencedaily.com where a scientist through the reconstruction of 20,000 years of climate data shows that the recent climate effects are a unique signal amongst normal climate processes.
like I said you can not dispute my observations on the NASA data given here http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm
To be fair it says the base period starts in 1951 so lets look at that July. Ok, it had an average temperature of -1 degree celsius? Very suspicious, it does not say where these temperatures were taken from but unless they were on top of Mt Mckinley those numbers would be nearly impossible. One more example of suspicious data is in January 2007 an average temperature of 90 degrees? Very odd
You do realize the red line is "change in temperature" right... so changes in the range of -+1 degree Celsius are reasonable.
I know this is going to bug you, but the experts say that the average global temperature rise over the last 100 years has been 0.8 deg Celsius... which pretty much exactly correlates with the graph showing "change in temperature" i.e. the red line.
That is the annual global temperature CHANGE
hey looselyhuman Debate this!!! Have you looked at the nasa data they are using? it is very strange, I find it hard to swallow that in 1880 the temperatures averaged below freezing in July? To be fair it says the base period starts in 1951 so lets look at that July. Ok, it had an average temperature of -1 degree celsius? Very suspicious, it does not say where these temperatures were taken from but unless they were on top of Mt Mckinley those numbers would be nearly impossible. One more example of suspicious data is in January 2007 an average temperature of 90 degrees? You posted this link but you can't answer a simple question about it, you should be able to defend your world view.
-1 degrees annual CHANGE
So according to that data the degree annual change for jan 1880 was -41 degrees?
what is the control of this data? where are they taking the temperature readings, a city, mountain, valley? This graph does not debunk other theories.
Have you looked at the nasa data they are using? it is very strange, I find it hard to swallow that in 1880 the temperatures averaged below freezing in July? To be fair it says the base period starts in 1951 so lets look at that July. Ok, it had an average temperature of -1 degree celsius? Very suspicious, it does not say where these temperatures were taken from but unless they were on top of Mt Mckinley those numbers would be nearly impossible. One more example of suspicious data is in January 2007 an average temperature of 90 degrees? Very odd
Look at the data sets given in these articles, they are very questionable
Look at the data sets given in these articles, they are very questionable
I don't think the argument against greenhouse emissions should be weakened. Just in case, you know? The technology to use commonly available materials to make solar energy widely available is here. See "Nocera artificial leaf".
I disagree. COs produced by respiration of all the world's aerobically respirating organisms combined is but a mere fraction of industrial CO2 production. We CAN stop an increase in the concentration, and perhaps even cause a decline, in the concentration of atmospheric CO2. There's a great, bloated, smelly cadaver of a rat in your reasoning, esoteric. Your "global conspiracy" seems to be against radical implementations of alternative energy, even though they exist, are feasible, and cost effective. The pleas to cut CO2 emissions are but a weak cry against the resounding ROAR of corporatism that fossil-fuel driven world commerce must continue.
It should be just like anything: The old, harmful, inefficient way of doing things should be phased out (as quickly as possible), and the new win-win solution should be phased in.
Would you use force or would people choose to use alternative energy? Will everyone in the world start using alternative energy? Why, is it profitable? Are you going to tell volcanos to stop emitting carbon dioxide too?
I agree, but you will never stop CO2 from being in the atmosphere. We need it, we each produce it in cellular respiration, and with out CO2 we would not have O2. You can legislate all you want but in the end the common man will suffer and the rich will benefit from any CO2 legislation. That is why this whole CO2 warming idea is so popular, the elite stand to make a fortune in taxes if people agree that this is such a problem that governments have to take action.
[Removed]
The graphs on this link show this very well
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png
[Removed]
As someone who has been extremely environmentally conscious since a child, I find the global warming theory baffling. Nobody disagrees that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but there is also no disagreement that CO2 is a very minor greenhouse gas. We have seen the prediction graphs from Al Gore et. al. showing an astronomic rise in temperature into the years we are now living in. The temperature has not followed their predictions based on their presumption that CO2 is a major driver in temp. increases. In the last decade, the global temperature trend has been downwards. I have checked my local weather stats and they show a decline from 1999/2000, after a peak in the 1990s.
Since CO2 has been going into the atmos. en mass over the last 10 years, this clearly shows that CO2 is not the main or major factor behind temperature.
people don't want to hear the truth here. Sorry
very well said, thank you.
The Jews are behind this indeed
No but urinating in parks does
that will cause localized warming for a short period of time
Yes but the rotting jeans worn for the next 5 hours of drying is the major cause of global warming.
My question is whether global warming in natural or un natural? The Ice ages ended, were those a form of global warming?
global warming and cooling are natural, weather on not human beings have had any effect on this natural cycle has yet to be proven.
that my thing