If not humans, what is causing the planet to warm?
If you're going to argue that global warming has stopped, don't bother, just go here: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=ApKvie5J_.B1pnQlT7eTH0fsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20080311101146AAssNh5
I want to see plausible scientific explanations as to what is causing the planet to warm.
If you're going to argue it's a "natural cycle", then what cycle is it? What physical mechanism in this cycle is causing the planet to warm?
If you're going to argue it's the Sun, how do you explain the fact that total solar irradiance (TSI) and sunspot numbers have decreased slightly as the planet has experienced a 0.5°C warming over the past 30 years?
Scientific explanations only please - no conspiracy theories or political rants.
2008-03-17T13:13:06Z
Mike S - many of us link peer-reviewed literature here on YA frequently.
If you can't do better than 'the Sun is hot', then you're in no position to disagree with the scientific experts and their consensus.
2008-03-17T13:40:39Z
eric c - explanation of the many errors in the Viscount Monckton of Brenchley article (your 2nd link): http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/cuckoo-science/
Bob2008-03-17T13:05:51Z
Favorite Answer
It's been proven that's it's not the Sun.
"Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature", Lockwood and Frolich (2007), Proc. R. Soc. A doi:10.1098/rspa.2007.1880
But I haven't done research, I just read it. I don't think the people who actually do research bother to spend time talking about it on Yahoo Answers, since Trevor left.
"If you're going to argue it's the Sun, how do you explain the fact that total solar irradiance (TSI) and sunspot numbers have decreased slightly as the planet has experienced a 0.5°C warming over the past 30 years?"
This is a misleading statement because you generalize. The number of sunspots hasnt "gone down" over the last 30 years, there is a rough 8-13 year cycle in which the number increases dramatically, and decreases again dramatically. Over 30 years, that covers less than 3 cycles, which you cant determine much of a trend with due to the nature at which the sunspots occur. The .5*C increase you speak of changes constantly, as does the sunspot count. Right now, it is cold globally, and right now, there are no sunspots, and there hasnt been significant activity for around 5 months.
There are just too many possibilities.. relatively low volcanic activity causing low dust content in the atmosphere, a variation in the north atlantic current that is keeping it afloat longer than it should, a statistical error due to the positions, concentration/distribution of temperature stations( there are like 20x more stations in USA than in any other country, barely any in the area the GISS claims is seeing the most warming). Land use change, and how it is currently different from how it would be in a natural setting with no human structures/pavement.
the 1500 year Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle of warming and cooling observed by many scientists? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dansgaard-Oeschger_events
I'm thinking you... like most conformists... have an IQ of like 60... and again....
The true science says that it is the Sun that is causing most of the recent warming that we have been hearing about.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is only accountable for less than 5% of greenhouse gases and we only make about 5% of that. (About 90-95% of Greenhouse Gases is Water Vapor) The reason for increased CO2 is because as the oceans become heated, they cannot hold as much as they could if they were cooler, so the oceans release the excess into the atmosphere. From what I hear, the oceans can hold many times more energy and heat then the air. This meaning that the atmosphere should have very little effect on the oceans and that the sun or perhaps the Earth itself is heating up the surface since those are two of the only things that could heat our vast oceans.
Also, the Earth hasn’t warmed in nearly a decade but has actually fallen and it has fallen greatly within the past 2 years. Many scientists believe we are about to go through another little ice age.
Al Gore had a chart in his movie "An Inconvenient Truth" that showed the similarities of Carbon Dioxide and temperature. The thing that he doesn't tell you is that there is a gap in which the temperature rises before the CO2 which should be the exact opposite if his theory is correct. Watch “The Great Global Warming Swindle”
Polar bears are NOT being endangered but actually the exact opposite.
That is my point of view on the issue and I strongly encourage you to watch "The Great Global Warming Swindle" (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4302904746669786959&q=the+great+global+warming+swindle+site%3Avideo.google.com&total=18&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=2) all the way through even if you don't want to. It is a great source of information and if you want to know the truth, you need to see both sides of the story.
Another great resource is http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=2050
This link you provide shows a direct correlation between sun spots and the temperature anomalies (hint: Look at the raw data covered by the artificial trend lines):
If you refuse to see it, there's no point to proceed further.
Edit (Ken below): Since you're giving it the old college try, I'll give you a hand...sunspots aren't uniform in intensity, the lag isn't from Earth to Sun, other variables cause noise, and (according to this chart) the equilibrium point seems to reside somewhere between 75-85 recorded sunspots (above causes warming, below causes cooling)...with carry-over or momentum from the previous year contributing to the next.
Edit: Keep in mind, the case may be neither cause the other (though your suggestion seems the least likely, given our understanding of physics). Both observed changes may be the result of an as-of-yet undetected external force. If I observe plants wilting and my skin becomes blistered, I don't automatically draw the conclusion wilting plants cause blisters.
Edit (Dana1981): Were you aware the lack of sunspots is directly linked to "The Little Ice Age"? Research the Maunder Minimum.
There is a difference between a level and a trend. While the sun's activity has declined slightly, it is still high. The highest it has been in over 10000 years.
Suppose you are in a house, and you have the thermostat on to 20 degrees. You turn down the thermostat a little and the temperature rises. Your conclusion, since the temperature in the house rose, and you turned the thermostat down the heating in the house plays no role what so ever in heating your house and some external factor MUST be in play.
The parameters that modelers put into their computers is that 90% of 20th century warming is due to GHG. If the sun has played a role, even a minor one, future projections of temperature increases will also come down. So if the sun is responsible for 50%, then future warming to GHC will not be catastrophic. Nir J. Shaviv estimates that 2/3 of the warming is due to the sun. http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar
If you want a more scientific explanation then you can go to: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2006/11/05/warm-refs.pdf;jsessionid=Q5DJSBGH0RY13QFIQMFSFFOAVCBQ0IV0 Page 20.