http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Solar...
When the warming trend has lasted for thirty years:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instr...
Basic logic says that%26#039;s not possible. If the sun was behind the anomaly wouldn%26#039;t the temperature be dramatically fluctuating every six years or so?
By the way, for your own benefit, don%26#039;t pretend it hasn%26#039;t warmed since %26#039;98. You%26#039;ll look really stupid. No climatologist bases warming trends off comparisons to one year. It%26#039;s analogous to basing a warming/cooling trend off one extremely cold/hot day millions of years ago, and concluding we%26#039;ve been in a warming/cooling trend since then.
Additional Details
2 months ago
evans: einstein, thanks for strengthening my point. clearly you didn%26#039;t look at those graphs too closely... just the usual copy %26#039;n paste job2 months ago
tomcat: while I don%26#039;t necessarily agree with some of your views, I applaud your well thought out answer. You didn%26#039;t just copy and paste a few links like most skeptics. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/article...http://www.mps.mpg.de/homes/natalie/PAPE...
and this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Solar...
and one of my favorites:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sunsp...
Edit: That%26#039;s sad, kid. I%26#039;d try and help you if I didn%26#039;t think the cause was hopeless. The answer to your question is in the links I%26#039;ve provided if you can find someone else to show it to you. I%26#039;d suggest you stop using graphs in your arguments if you can%26#039;t read them.
http://www.iceagenow.com/Concern_about_l...
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/07/27/p...
But even granting the %26#039;skeptics%26#039; the ACRIM data, even then solar output has not changed by any meaningful amount:
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2007/0...
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2007/0...
The ACRIM trend is a mere 0.008% per decade. If that trend were sustained throughout the 28-year duration of the data, it would lead to a net secular increase in TSI of 0.31 W/m^2, which would cause an increase in climate forcing of 0.076 W/m^2. That’s only marginally bigger than the climate forcing due to anthropogenic power generation. At a climate sensitivity of 0.75 deg.C/(W/m^2), it would lead to a net global temperature rise of 0.06°C, far smaller than what is observed. Even using the ACRIM composite, satellite estimates of TSI will not support the idea that TSI changes are responsible for modern global warming.
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/07/24/p...
To answer your question, %26#039;skeptics%26#039; blame the Sun because they need a patsy. They *need* humans not to be responsible, and the only other candidate they can think to blame for global warming is the Sun. It ignores all the data disproving this theory, but %26#039;skeptics%26#039; never cared much for scientific data anyway.
Solar radiation has been going down while temperatures have been going up:
%26quot;Recent oppositely directed trends in solar
climate forcings and the global mean surface
air temperature%26quot;, Lockwood and Frolich (2007), Proc. R. Soc. A
doi:10.1098/rspa.2007.1880
http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/pro...
News article at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6290228.st...
And temperatures have been going up. Saying the 1930s were as warm is ridiculous:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/
As one scientist has said %26quot;The problem with putting another nail in the coffin of %26quot;solar warming%26quot; is finding a place to put it.%26quot;
When the warming trend has lasted for thirty years:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instr...
Basic logic says that%26#039;s not possible. If the sun was behind the anomaly wouldn%26#039;t the temperature be dramatically fluctuating every six years or so?%26quot;
This is a non sequitur. You obviously don%26#039;t understand this so I will give you the benefit of the doubt. Just because the sun goes through 11 year cycles does not mean that it cannot warm for 30--that wouldn%26#039;t even make sense.
The Sun has gotten hotter. The fact that it did so prior to 1950, and then just pretty much just remained so, does not alter its ability to explain warming, even to this day. GHG gasses also have difficulty explaining the shape and timing of the 20th century temperature statistics without significant aerosol contributions.
No matter how suggestive the GHG concentration curves are to the naked eye relative to the plateau in solar activity, without positive feedbacks, anthropogenic GHGs can only account for less than a third of the recent warming. Credible attribution of the rest of the less than 1W/m^2 energy imbalance requires models that can reproduce the observed solar response, and have a much better “match” to the climate than current models.
Read the climate commitment studies of Wigley, et al, and Meehl, et al, to understand how the argument that recent solar activity has not increased is simplistic and wrong. If the level of solar forcing reached prior to 1940 continues (which is unlikely per Solanki), then there will be a solar contribution to the energy imblance resulting in sea level rise for several more centuries. Presumably most of the temperature response occurs in the first few decades, although arguably, that response was delayed by the causes of the midcentury cooling (aerosols, ocean circulations, etc..).