Let's try again – if the Sun is causing global warming, why didn't the planet warm 2°C from 1900-1940?
Most deniers seem not to have understood this question the first time around so this time I’ll make it as simple as possible.
1) The planet has warmed 0.5+°C over the past 30 years.
2) Some deniers have argued that 65% of this warming (0.35°C) is due to solar effects.
3) Over this period, according to ACRIM, TSI has increased 0.016%.
4) From 1900-1940, according to the Lean et al. 2000 reconstruction, TSI increased 0.1%. This is roughly 6 times more than it increased over the past 30 years.
5) TSI, sunspot number, solar magnetic field, etc. are all very highly correlated. In fact, sunspot number roughly tripled from 1900 to its peak in 1960.
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/600px-Temp-sunspot-co2.svg.png
6) If solar irradiance increased 6 times more in the early 20th Century than it has in the past 30 years, why *didn’t* the planet warm 6 times more (2°C) from 1900-1940 than it did from 1975-Present?
If you believe the Sun is causing global warming, how can you explain the fact that solar activity increased so much and global temperature increased so little in the early 20th Century?
Jayd1975 – the fact that you’re not aware of the evidence doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Do a little research. For starters, look up global temperature data and your 1934 vs. 1998 question will be answered in about 30 seconds.
eric we’re not talking about temperatures, we’re talking about temperature increases, which are caused by radiative forcing increases.
13 Responses to “Let's try again – if the Sun is causing global warming, why didn't the planet warm 2°C from 1900-1940?”
Leave a Reply
Lots of zealous answers here not based on science.
Jayd1975 claims 1934 was the warmest year on record then cites a reference that refutes that claim. Odd.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/1934-hottest-year-on-record.htm
Basic logic escapes deniers. They want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to claim that a significant portion of recent warming is due to solar activity. Even if one relies on the flawed ACRIM data,
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/05/acrim-vs-pmod/
the amount of recent warming that is attributable to solar activity is very small, since much larger jumps in TSI did not result in the warming expected if global mean temperature is that sensitive to a unit of TSI change as deniers would like to claim. More robust measures of TSI indicate that it’s been on a decline in recent decades in the face of rapid warming.
Could be because all that solar energy wasn’t reaching the Earth’s surface.
http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf
As the concentration of particulates that blocked the rising solar irradiance from reaching the surface diminished, the surface temperature finally went up.
I reprise the answer because you apparently are incapable of comprehending simple science that does not agree with your pre conceived political views.
You really need to get away from hypothetical calculated physics and get some experience with real world practical observed physics. The earth has a gigantic heat sink that acts like a balancing effect leveling off peaks and valleys in the suns activity/ It eases the warming effect of an extended period of high activity and eases the cooling effect of an extended period of low activity. The Maunder minimum basically ended in 1750 and the Dalton was fairly minor even though it did bring on 1816s year without a summer.
I know you do not have the education to completely understand this but I will try anyway. The Medieval warm period ended about 1300 with the Wolf solar minimum that was similar in nature to the Dalton one from the early 1800s. This began the little ice age that continued with the Sporer minimum about 1500 that caused Columbus to take the southern route to America instead of the preferred northern route others had used. Then there was a short lived warming about 1600 that only lasted from the bottom ot the Sporer minimum to the bottom of the Maunder minimum about 200 years and was the coldest period of the 400 year little ice age.
During this 400 year period the worlds oceans lost a large part of the heat they had stored up during the 400 years of the MWP. It has only been 150 years since the Dalton minimum, ended until today and the worlds oceans are still recovering from that extended cold spell. So only now are we seeing the oceans provide the hot period effects and then reduced because of the extended minimum we are currently experiencing. You have studied one small limited area of an obscure form of science that does not deal with scientific realities. but instead concerns itself with obscure mathematical models of what based on altering a few unknown variables.
So you concern yourself daily with esoteric probabilities based on a derived subset of known and unknown variables. I concern myself with observing what is actually occurring in real time and questioning those who specialize those who specialize in researching the things I observe to be of concern. This is how I learned of the geological source for the shift from desert to sub tropical the pacific southwest is undergoing currently. By getting some friends who are working geologists together with other friends who are meteorologists and oceanographers in a cross discipline question and answer session we all achieved a broader and more comprehensive understanding of what is really happening and why the AGW assumptions could never occur and specifically what natural systems ocean and atmospheric prevent the AGW assumptions from ever happening.
Source(s):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_varia…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspo…
A lot of people even today still confuse the disappearance of the ozone layer as being the same as climate change. Which of course it’s not, but the two are related. The chemicals we’ve been throwing around which were eating up our atmosphere didn’t show up nearly as much in the 1900-40s, so we were still had all our protection in place. Climate change isn’t being caused by the sun itself, but because of the greenhouse gases. Our planet’s atmosphere, see, is like the walls of a greenhouse. Some safe sunlight enters in, and bounces around keeping us warm. Because of the deteriorated state of the ozone layer, more of the sun’s rays are allowed through the atmosphere, and more heat is spread around than ever before. That’s why we have global warming–the problem really isn’t with the sun. Make sense?
Hope that helps some!
While simpletons look for simple answers to complex questions, it isn’t always that easy. The sun emits radiation in different wavelengths at different intensities over time and has a magnetic field that switches polarity periodically. The sun is only one factor that determines climate variability. Why would anyone in their right mind think the sun would cause the temperature to rise 2 degrees in the first half of the 20th Century. Is this your argument that humans have caused warming since then. It is complete nonsense and non science.
A combination of increased industrial activity (2 World Wars), the dirty thirties (huge dust storms in the 1930s), and volcanic activity Mont Pelée (1902), Navarupta (1912) was monstrous and produced 21 cubic kilometers of volcanic material, which is equivalent to 230 years of eruption at Kilauea , caused pollution levels to rise which kept the temperatures down.
I think what James E is refering to is thermal inertia. You know what happens when you put a pot of water on the stove – it doesn’t get hot in an instant right? It takes a little time. You multiply that pot by a number that’s got more digits than you’ve got fingers and you get the oceans.
An extra couple of watts per square metre could warm the Earth slightly, but it would take hundreds of years to reach equilibrium. This is something that even the IPCC goes along with as they have multi century models that look at equilibrium conditions about a thousand years after a change in forcing.
I will say right now that calling us deniers as you well know is insulting and makes allusion to the holocaust deniers.
Funny thing is that 1934 is the hottest year on record (which would BTW more than adequately explain this) or is it 1998. Oh that is up for debate. They cannot even agree on the hottest year. Everything that you are bringing up is based on the predication that your estimates are accurate, but you are claiming more accuracy than you have. Beyond the fact that the urban heating effect is known and there is no way to account for this and a temperature increase as these are too highly correlated. But somehow, magically, the scientists have done the impossible by ignoring statistics. They also ignore the fact that their models have failed to predict future temperature thereby ignoring the scientific method.
But this is not even the problem. The problem is that CO2 is a trace element. H2O is major player in the greenhouse effect. CO2 has very short ranges of wavelengths in which it can trap energy. H2O has very large ranges in which it can trap energy. So the more abundant, more capable greenhouse gas of H2O isn’t causing the problem. The trace gas with little ability to trap energy AKA CO2 is?
The point is that if you cannot predict future weather, that means that you do not know what is causing it. If you don’t know that CO2 is even causing it, then you can’t say it needs to be reduced. Further your would have to show that what mankind places into the atmosphere is sufficient to see a measurable change. Given we are at 3% of the CO2 that goes into the atmosphere, showing an increased level of CO2 may not be mankind.
Given that an increase in temperature means that the large oceans are less able to hold CO2 the relationship between the CO2 and the temperature may be that temperature causes CO2 and not the other way around. If you beleive that the temp has increased, it would be of note that the increase in temp may be far outweighing any small amount of CO2 we are placing into the atmosphere.
In conclusion:
1.) Your models are not reliable
2.) Your temperature data sources do not have the accuracy that is being report
3.) You don’t know if warmer temps cause CO2 or if CO2 causes warmer temp
4.) You don’t know that the effect is not solely caused by H2O, which we have no ability to affect
5.) You don’t know that Human’s are even contributing enough CO2 to be a factor.
6.) You don’t know what causes temperature changes in the first place OTW your models would work.
7.) They can’t even agree on the best way to measure the global temperature.
I’m not saying it is not occurring or that we are not the cause. I am simply saying that you have not convinced me. You must have evidence before asking everyone for drastic changes in their lives. Being skeptical is part of science. Your insults and ridicule of those who are rightfully skeptical should not be a part of science.
Sir, you are wrong I can find 5 sources that say 6 different things. In reference to the 30s, you are aware of the dust bowl. I’ve done the research and found that the answer is not consistent nor agreed upon, it all depends on who you believe. Note that I have never gone out and found that gravity is not true, nor have I found that the sun revolves around the earth. Before accusing people of not being as informed as you think you are, you might want to take a step back and look at the other side of the issue. Once again, your insulting degrading attitude has no place in science.
And bucket boy, the site I referenced showed disagreement, and that the idea of 1934 being the hottest year was published by reputable journals, why don’t you read before you put your foot in your mouth.
And Paul, could you prove my point more? You think insults referencing the holocaust have a place in science? Seriously, why don’t you all admit that you don’t know a thing about science. YOUR MODELS DON’T WORK. YOU HAVE FAILED THE TEST OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. Instead of answering with a model that works, you answer with insults.
James E, the only thing I understand is that your so called "education" is just a creation of the conundrum that is your inferior gray matter. The sun’s effect on climate change is about as miscomprehended as you get in science. Trying to explain sun’s effect on climate change is like trying to explain why Jack Black is the way he is. It’s futile. Even the real scientists that actually study the sun’s activity will admit this. It is so much more theoretical than the greenhouse effect and what happens here on earth. The little ice age was actually believed to be mainly caused by volcanic activity… You speak of sun cycles like it is a proven science. Even if all AGW advocates were completely wrong, you are worse than they are because what you believe requires so much more "faith". Mmmm the hypocrisy.
Instead of concentrating on trends why don’t you focus on levels. If sun levels were higher during the late 20th century (the highest in one thousand years), shoudn’t it be logical that temperatures should also be higher. Think of a thermostat in your house. If having it on lets say three, cause a room temperature of 20 degrees, when you turn it up to five, shoudn’t the room temperature go higher?
I answered this before, positive feedbacks. I do not believe you have a positive feedback but if the do exist, the should magnify the magnitude by 2-3X.
Why did half the rise take place prior to 1940?
The sun made the temperature rise by .4 deg C prior to 1940, now the feedbacks by a factor of 2 (in line with IPCC), give us to .8 deg. Which is perfectly normal behavior
NOTE do believers not say if ended all CO2 the earth would still warm .5 deg C or so more. The same must be true of natural rise.
seriosly, this is a question (or is this mostly tongue in cheek)? I am going to assume you are joking, but if you are not, here goes.
IT’S NOT THE SAME! You are trying to compare 2 different SHORT periods of time against one another? Really? Who knows? Maybe some day we will find out. Why would you assume the relation is linear anyways? Sort of like if I double CO2. With each doubling, the greenhouse effect gets less and less till it theoretically would be zero.
It’s not that people did not understand the question, it’s that we would rather not waste our time answering a non-question.
My god, the FACTS are, you, nor Lean nor anyone else has a freaking clue what TSI was before 1977. Reconstructed TSI is foolishness, so your question is based on nothing, but speculation.