If that’s the case I guess the sun has no influence what so ever.
✅ Answers
? Best Answer
Its is not affecting climate change. Sun is same as it was 10 years ago or may be more.
Sun is just doing its usual job. You cant blame sun.
Sun is heating up the earth. Without sun no life can be retained.
But due to human activities harmful gases are being released in atmosphere which traps the heat of the sun. Ozone layer is being depleted due to Greenhouse gases,
Its not the sun actually its human that is responsible for climate change.
Since i am a environment student i can go on and on but you better do an internet search on climate change.
Because the suns total solar irradiation TSI varies only slightly (0.1%) which is not enough to cause sufficient changes in earth’s temperature.
However there are strong correlations between solar activity and earth’s temperature, enough to cause doubt, it just that the mechanics that cause changes have not yet been discovered, but there is a lot of research on this subject and some theories.
One theory is that during low solar activity a higher proportion of cosmic rays strike earth, these rays through ionization cause more clouds which alter earths albedo.
Anyway there are some major changes happening with our sun, small sunspots numbers are reducing, the geomagnetic fields are very weak, and TSI no longer follows sunspot numbers,
So we will soon know in the next decade or so, how much effect the sun has on our climate.
Big Gryph and Axle
When I saw the link to this question, I was going to answer that no one makes such a claim. Thanks for proving me wrong.
But no scientist says that the Sun isn’t affecting climate change. Of course it is. Climate change is all about energy transfer. And if the Sun were not effecting climate change, Earth would be warming more rapidly than it has been for the last 44 years.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp…
What scientists are saying is tht the Sun is no longer the dominant influence of climate.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-a…
Because the idea that warming might be due to any cause other than anthropogenic CO2 violates the basic tenet of their ‘sacred science’.
“The totalist milieu maintains an aura of sacredness around its basic dogma, holding it out as an ultimate moral vision for the ordering of human existence. This sacredness is evident in the prohibition (whether or not explicit) against the questioning of basic assumptions, and in the reverence which is demanded for the originators of the Word, the present bearers of the Word, and the Word itself. While thus transcending ordinary concerns of logic, however, the milieu at the same time makes an exaggerated claim of airtight logic, of absolute “scientific” precision. Thus the ultimate moral vision becomes an ultimate science; and the man who dares to criticize it, or to harbor even unspoken alternative ideas, becomes not only immoral and irreverent, but also “unscientific.” In this way, the philosopher kings of modern ideological totalism reinforce their authority by claiming to share in the rich and respected heritage of natural science. “
–Robert Lifton, in Thought reform and the psychology of totalism
Global warming is such a problem that it is necessary to deal with all its aspects, which includes the politics. When politicians formulate their policy they need inputs from many disciplines and from science as well. But unfortunately global warming has become an absolutely political issue and politicians do their best to influence even science.
In 1992 at the Earth Summit the decision to prevent such dangerous climate change was taken. The first step was the 1997 Kyoto protocol, which is supposed to come into force in 25.
Ads by Google
One of the reports of the U.N. Panel on Climate Changes warns that the U.S. and other wealthy countries should immediately cut their oil and gas consumption and agree to get at least a quarter of their electrical energy from renewable resources – solar and wind power; and that they should double their research spending on low-carbon energy by 2010.In 1997 the U.S. Senate voted 95-0 to make Clinton Administration not to send the Kyoto treaty to Capitol Hill for ratification. In his first term president Bush rejected Kyoto. Russia ratified it, but most believe that Putting was made to do that as British Prime Minister and other European Union officials threatened not to let him become a member of World Trade Organization, which could cost Russia billions of dollars each year. But the chief economic adviser of Putting – Andrei Illation shows his doubts as for the upholding commit to Kyoto, he says: “There is no evidence confirming a positive linking between the level of carbon dioxide and temperature change. The U.N. Panel’s so called scientific data are considerably distorted and in many cases falsified” (Can We Defuse the Global Warming Time Bomb? by James Hansen, 23, pp.2-15). One of the main ideas of Clarion and others is to break the advanced economies of the U.S., Europe and Japan, by persuading the multi-national companies to move plants and jobs to developing countries in order not to comply with emissions restrictions. But the president of the American Policy Center in Washington – Tom Decease doesn’t agree that it makes sense, he states as the main concern and the prime target is the wealth of the United States it would not be wise to place factories in Third World countries, as the same amount of emissions would come out from jungles of South America instead of Chicago and in this case we are not talking about the protection of the environment any more. He is right in a way.
The main goal of the meeting in Kyoto was signing the amendment to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (the Rio Treaty) in order to require the signatory nations to take the necessary steps to reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, as these gases cause an alarm situation with global temperatures. The costs of signing it for the U.S. could be really high, as the county could be made to reduce between 10 and 20 % of greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2020 that would cause reduction of gross domestic products by $260 billion annually; it is equal to $2.7 per household. Certainly it was hard to prove that such costs are justified. Besides as millions of American people could be put at risk, several important questions appeared. The first one was about the possible merits or drawbacks of global warming. The World Bank researches prove that about one-third of the whole population suffers from water shortages. By 2025 they say – around 40 % of the whole population could be living in countries without sufficient water supplies. The crops will also suffer from lack of water. Global warming leads to more condensation and more evaporation, thus producing more rains. So it could be in a way an answer to the problem about lack of water. The second positive point about global warming is possibility of agriculture in North America and Europe, the southern regions of Greenland were not covered with ice when between 10th and 12th centuries the temperature was 0.5 degrees warmer than today, and could be also cultivated. The evidence of this was found when: “scientists from the National Science Foundation sponsored Greenland Ice Sheet Project 2 extracted in an ice core from Greenland’s ice sheet that spanned more than 1.0 years of climate history. Samplings from the core suggest that a Little Ice Age began between 14 and 1420, blanketing the Vikings’ farms in ice and forcing them to abandon their farms in search of more hospitable climates”.( Michael Crichton’s State of Fear: Climate Change in the Cineplex, by Amy Ridenour pp.1-5). Thus global warming could mean more agricultural productivity and more water resources.
We can be pretty certain the sun affects the climate. We don’t know that CO2 plays any significant role. When people link to leftist blogs like skepticalscience, which is neither skeptical nor about science, you know they are desperate to push their cause. Clearly they aren’t interested in the science.
Because the Government will turn off “research” funding/welfare if it was admitted that the Sun is responsible for Earth’s climatic cycles.
No funding/welfare would mean that most of those sucking up the Taxpayer’s hard-earned money would have to get REAL jobs in the private sector…..where credible results are expected.
We say that the sun isn’t affecting climate change because the observed variation in the sun’s output isn’t anywhere near as large as the observed variation in the earth’s heat retention.
Your guess that the sun has no influence whatever is false.
Because people obviously don’t have any control over the Sun and everybody knows that. So you can’t blame and tax people for what the Sun is doing.
But it obviously is the Sun that caused the warming: http://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/tsi/hist…
———————–
@climate realist
I was reading your answer and agreeing with it completely. Then you had to go to skeptical science again. Oh well, it was close for a while.
It’s because they probably meant that humans caused is by burning fossil fuels.
of course, the sun is affecting the climate change. The main causes are global warming and green house effect.
Because you can’t tax the Sun.
Because that doesn’t help their political agenda.
No one says that other than Deniers when they are lying about science – which is all of the time.