Could the sun be the cause of global warming?

[watsup]

"While the sun’s energy output can influence our climate, there has not been a significant change in the amount of solar radiation reaching Earth since satellites have been measuring it in 1978. In that same time frame, we’ve seen global temperatures skyrocket.

There’s another piece of data that goes against this hypothesis.

If the sun was responsible for global warming, all levels of our atmosphere would be warmer as the sun’s rays pass through them. But that is not the case as our troposphere is getting warmer, while the layer above us, the stratosphere, is cooling- indicative of the buildup of greenhouse gases trapping heat at the surface.

Atmospheric CO2 concentrations measured in parts per million.
Credit: NOAA

This usually leads to more questions, often asking “what about blank?”​

The bottom line is that no other known climate influences have changed enough to account for the observed warming trend this century. Unfortunately, the evidence points to us and our activities. Global CO2 levels today are higher than any point in at least the past 800,000 years, now measuring 420 parts per million in a sample of air."

Could the sun be the cause of global warming?

As a meteorologist, I’m often asked about climate change. And while I’ve explained a lot of the basic concepts in previous Moments of Science, from how greenhouse gases heat our planet to the…

www.counton2.com

 

[VySky]

There have been what, 6 ice ages? It’s hot until it’s not.

 

[CaughtInThe]

There have been what, 6 ice ages? It’s hot until it’s not.

post #2

 

[calamity]

"While the sun’s energy output can influence our climate, there has not been a significant change in the amount of solar radiation reaching Earth since satellites have been measuring it in 1978. In that same time frame, we’ve seen global temperatures skyrocket.

There’s another piece of data that goes against this hypothesis.

If the sun was responsible for global warming, all levels of our atmosphere would be warmer as the sun’s rays pass through them. But that is not the case as our troposphere is getting warmer, while the layer above us, the stratosphere, is cooling- indicative of the buildup of greenhouse gases trapping heat at the surface.

Atmospheric CO2 concentrations measured in parts per million.
Credit: NOAA

This usually leads to more questions, often asking “what about blank?”​

The bottom line is that no other known climate influences have changed enough to account for the observed warming trend this century. Unfortunately, the evidence points to us and our activities. Global CO2 levels today are higher than any point in at least the past 800,000 years, now measuring 420 parts per million in a sample of air."

Could the sun be the cause of global warming?

As a meteorologist, I’m often asked about climate change. And while I’ve explained a lot of the basic concepts in previous Moments of Science, from how greenhouse gases heat our planet to the…

www.counton2.com

Well, that sun is kinda bright and all.

 

[calamity]

post #2

The ignorance displayed is always the same too.

 

[bluesmoke]

But for human emission of CO2, the earth would have been in a cooling phase. Temps would be slightly cooler than yrs before.

 

[longview]

"While the sun’s energy output can influence our climate, there has not been a significant change in the amount of solar radiation reaching Earth since satellites have been measuring it in 1978. In that same time frame, we’ve seen global temperatures skyrocket.

There’s another piece of data that goes against this hypothesis.

If the sun was responsible for global warming, all levels of our atmosphere would be warmer as the sun’s rays pass through them. But that is not the case as our troposphere is getting warmer, while the layer above us, the stratosphere, is cooling- indicative of the buildup of greenhouse gases trapping heat at the surface.

Atmospheric CO2 concentrations measured in parts per million.
Credit: NOAA

This usually leads to more questions, often asking “what about blank?”​

The bottom line is that no other known climate influences have changed enough to account for the observed warming trend this century. Unfortunately, the evidence points to us and our activities. Global CO2 levels today are higher than any point in at least the past 800,000 years, now measuring 420 parts per million in a sample of air."

Could the sun be the cause of global warming?

As a meteorologist, I’m often asked about climate change. And while I’ve explained a lot of the basic concepts in previous Moments of Science, from how greenhouse gases heat our planet to the…

www.counton2.com

I know you think you have stumbled on some nugget of truth, but the climate is not only determined by how much sunlight reaches the
top of the atmosphere, but also by how much of that sunlight actually reaches the ground.
While the TSI has only changed a little, the amount of sunlight reaching the ground have changed by quite a bit in the last 70 years.
Evidence for Clear-Sky Dimming and Brightening in Central Europe
Globally the energy reaching the ground, declined by ~-11 w m-2 from 1950 to 1985, and then increased by ~+11 w m-2,
between 1985 and 2015. The changes from increases in greenhouse gasses are on the order of +2.4 w m-2 since 1750.

 

[longview]

But for human emission of CO2, the earth would have been in a cooling phase. Temps would be slightly cooler than yrs before.

The timing of Earth starting to cool down is by no means certain, but predictions run anywhere from 1000 to 10,000 years

 

[calamity]

The timing of Earth starting to cool down is by no means certain, but predictions run anywhere from 1000 to 10,000 years

Well, it surely should not have begun heating up. Duh.

 

[longview]

Well, it surely should not have begun heating up. Duh.

Who says? we are in an inter glacial period, and the temperatures do move around some during the inter glacial periods.

 

[Quag]

Pretty sure if we got rid of the sun things would cool off a lot

 

[watsup]

There have been what, 6 ice ages? It’s hot until it’s not.

Simplistic denier talking point.

 

[Lord of Planar]

"While the sun’s energy output can influence our climate, there has not been a significant change in the amount of solar radiation reaching Earth since satellites have been measuring it in 1978. In that same time frame, we’ve seen global temperatures skyrocket.

There’s another piece of data that goes against this hypothesis.

If the sun was responsible for global warming, all levels of our atmosphere would be warmer as the sun’s rays pass through them. But that is not the case as our troposphere is getting warmer, while the layer above us, the stratosphere, is cooling- indicative of the buildup of greenhouse gases trapping heat at the surface.

Atmospheric CO2 concentrations measured in parts per million.
Credit: NOAA

This usually leads to more questions, often asking “what about blank?”​

The bottom line is that no other known climate influences have changed enough to account for the observed warming trend this century. Unfortunately, the evidence points to us and our activities. Global CO2 levels today are higher than any point in at least the past 800,000 years, now measuring 420 parts per million in a sample of air."

Could the sun be the cause of global warming?

As a meteorologist, I’m often asked about climate change. And while I’ve explained a lot of the basic concepts in previous Moments of Science, from how greenhouse gases heat our planet to the…

www.counton2.com

An article by a meteorologist who toes the line.

Are we suppose to be impressed?

 

[longview]

Simplistic denier talking point.

What's the matter, afraid to address the real solar alternatives to the greenhouse gas concept
from post #7? Since the mid 1980's the amount of sunlight reaching the ground has increased by
~10 w m-2, much more than the claimed contribution from greenhouse gasses.
Evidence for Clear-Sky Dimming and Brightening in Central Europe

The multidecadal variations in atmospheric transmission shown in Figure 2 are on the order of 4% of the
TOA insolation, corresponding in absolute terms to a magnitude on the order of 10 Wm−2
(annual TOA insolation at Potsdam 274 Wm−2), in line with Figure 1.

Remember that IPCC AR5 said that the total forcing from since 1750 was 2.29 Wm-2!

 

[Lord of Planar]

Simplistic denier talking point.

All you have is talking points, and you accuse others of that?

Do you understand how funny you have become?

 

[SenorXm/Sirius]

The Sun absolutely could be causing the warming. This Earth of ours has warmed and cooled many times all by itself. But to think us pumping millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere isn't causing problems is stupid and naive.

 

[Lord of Planar]

What's the matter, afraid to address the real solar alternatives to the greenhouse gas concept
from post #7? Since the mid 1980's the amount of sunlight reaching the ground has increased by
~10 w m-2, much more than the claimed contribution from greenhouse gasses.
Evidence for Clear-Sky Dimming and Brightening in Central Europe

Remember that IPCC AR5 said that the total forcing from since 1750 was 2.29 Wm-2!

Why are you doing this too these poor true believers?

You know they can't handle the truth. Right?

 

[longview]

Why are you doing this too these poor true believers?

You know they can't handle the truth. Right?

Both the forcing from greenhouse gasses, and the dimming and subsequent brightening,
can be traced to Human activity, so Nasa's consensus statement would still hold true!
Scientific Consensus: Earth's Climate Is Warming

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*:
Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.

 

[watsup]

An article by a meteorologist who toes the line.

Are we suppose to be impressed?

Can you provide me with a recent paper, an article, anything at all to show that it's not correct?

 

[watsup]

All you have is talking points, and you accuse others of that?

Do you understand how funny you have become?

Psychological projection.

 

[watsup]

Why are you doing this too these poor true believers?

You know they can't handle the truth. Right?

Psychological projection.

 

[watsup]

The Sun absolutely could be causing the warming. This Earth of ours has warmed and cooled many times all by itself. But to think us pumping millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere isn't causing problems is stupid and naive.

First and second sentences: the topic is what is PRIMARILY causing the global warming THIS time.
Third sentence: agree.

 

[longview]

Can you provide me with a recent paper, an article, anything at all to show that it's not correct?

I already have, and it is not that the meteorologist is incorrect as he is incomplete.
The are many factors that affect our surface temperature, the top of the atmosphere solar energy could be one,
but as has been documented the percentage of the top of the atmosphere energy that actually reaches the ground,
has more variation than the supposed forcing from increases in greenhouse gasses.
The increase in energy hitting the ground, of ~10 wm-2, between 1985 and 2015,
would disrupt the attribution of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses, almost entirely.
I only say almost, because there is a chance that the energy detection was broad enough to see
increased down welling infrared from greenhouse gasses as well.

 

[Lord of Planar]

The Sun absolutely could be causing the warming. This Earth of ours has warmed and cooled many times all by itself. But to think us pumping millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere isn't causing problems is stupid and naive.

Nobody here is naive about the effect of CO2. Myself and others just disagree with the stated warming it is suppose to have.

From what I have learned of the solar influence, if all other factors don't change, the solar-ocean-atmopheric coupling has a lag of several decades. I have estimated at one point the the solar 1958 peak would cause a peak in the atmosphere at 2004. That of course is my best estimate, and again. With all other variables holding steady.

What so many people completely fail to understand is the coincidence (or not) of the observed temperature rising with the growth of towns and cities. They also deny the facts of the surface insolation as demonstrated by paper Longview linked. The faithful to the dogma completely refuse to acknowledge the skew in the temperature readings due to the urban heat island effect. Over the same period of we aggressively capped on the land with asphalt, concrete, and building. The temperature rose higher and higher, except for the period of dimming from aerosols.

The urban heat island effect, isn't only the decreased albedo of the land a city sits on. It is is also the decrease of evaporation cooling as the rainwater is now channeled into storm sewers, instead of being absorbed by the land. When there is land absorbing water, most of that turns around to slowly evaporate, and cool the surrounding. When the land no longer performs this cooling, the observed temperature reading increases.

Then there is the loss of photosynthesis in so many places. Most people don't understand that this chemical reaction also cools the earth. When the Calvin Cycle changes water and CO2 into oxygen and sugars, it removes heat to do so. It is estimated the average absorption of heat is around 1 W/m^2 globally. When vegetation is removed for building, roads, etc. This heat is no longer sequestered, and this cooling is lost.

The system is broken. There are exceptional, few, if any, meteorological station that are not contaminated by this growing urban heat.

Bottom line. There is no way to trust the instrument record after about 1950, when we accelerated our capping off of the natural landscape.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Can you provide me with a recent paper, an article, anything at all to show that it's not correct?

I can explain what parts he left out. I have covered this topic too many times.

One thing he completely is ignorant of, or choose to not say, is that the cloud cover increases with the SST. This increased evaporation causes more could cover, changing more than just the balance of temperature above and below the clouds.

Him claiming the sun would warm or cool both, is absolutely stupid. He is dead wrong, and anyone foolish enough to believe him... They probably still believe HS gossip too.

I don't need anything but my understanding of these sciences to tell me he is incompetent in what he wrote.

As for a recent paper? I'm sure there is one out there, but I also would not look for a paper to show you that 2+2=4 is you asked. The known facts of science need not be supported by such writings, except to the ignorant. By why should I waste my time, when I already know it will be denied?

Riddle me this.

Why would CO2 cause a warming below the clouds but a cooling above them, and the sun would do differently?

Can you show me a paper to support his absolutely stupid statement?