If not humans, what is causing the planet to warm?

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

http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a...

News article at:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6290228.stm

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_ev...

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.

http://www.dailytech.com/Solar+Activity+Diminishes...

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20060825/53143686.html

Many scientists are skeptical about Anthropogenic Global Warming.

These are some resources:

http://sepp.org/policy%20declarations/heidelberg_a...

http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/Article.cfm?...

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.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2007/01/02/po...

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=4302904746... 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/inde...

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):

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/600p...

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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/2006/11/0...

Page 20.

Solar variatons/cycles

I have been led to believe it is caused by solar variations or cycles, that are caused by the change in axis/orbit of the planet earth in relation to the sun. There are cycles of the suns magnetic fields and sunspot activity..

Stating the obvious

When earth is closer to the sun it gets warmer, and colder when it is further away. Since the Sun is the only source of 'heating/cooling' it is a good bet, that it is the main cause of climate change.

Political rants

Burning all the fossil fuels and destroying most of the forests does not help the situation.

ps. I think the sun is hot, is a very good answer. If the sun was not hot, none of us would be here.

"An abundance of new peer-reviewed studies, analyses, and data error discoveries in the last several months has prompted scientists to declare that fear of catastrophic man-made global warming “bites the dust” and the scientific underpinnings for alarm may be “falling apart.” The latest study to cast doubt on climate fears finds that even a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide would not have the previously predicted dire impacts on global temperatures. This new study is not unique, as a host of recent peer-reviewed studies have cast a chill on global warming fears."

It is interesting that you focus on 30 years. Why not 70 years. The answer is that you chose 30 because that was when it began warming from the last minor cool period in the 1970s. Why not ask why it cooled in the 20 years previous to those 30. It would be rediculous to speculate why it has warmed. It pretends a knowledge of a system that is currently too complex to predict with any accuracy with current technology and understanding.

Apparently the Earth will fix itself...As the ice caps melt, freezing water and ice will flow south towards the equator. Countries like UK and canada etc will recieve long winters and lots of snow due to the freezing temperature transmitting from the ice water to the land. This will cause an ice age across the nothern hemisphere. The ice will then deflect vast amounts of sunrays reaching Earth causing the Eaqrth to cool down again. After a 1000 yers or so the Co2 levels will decrease due to absorbtion of it by the sea and ice. After the Earth repairs itself through this phase the ice will melt and Earth will return to normal.

this is just what ive heard not Pure fact. I'm sure there are faults with this theory.

Okay, plausible scientific explainations. And why are you asking the question here.

Yahoo answers is based on people's opinions, not peer reviewed scientific material.

Do you really think you're going to get 'the' answer to something so controversial as AGW or GW here with your prequalications to an answer?

But, for what it's worth.

The Sun is the source of about 99.999% of the earth's heat. Even grade schoolers know that. Shut down the sun, and after it would get dark it would get cold.

Scientists really don't know whether or not the Earth is warming. The data-set for the Earth's temperature...... the same data utilized to study past, present and future climate trends....... is seriously flawed. The monitoring stations are substandard in terms of placement and overall functionality.

Until climate scientists can get clean data...... all they can do is guess. (Actually, that's about all that they can do with clean data)