4 ms·

I find it amusing that you're linking to a 24-year-old web page. Using 1975 as a starting point for temperature data (as the author of your article does in the

I find it amusing that you're linking to a 24-year-old web page. Using 1975 as a starting point for temperature data (as the author of your article does in the page he links to [1]), this page from 1997 is missing 24/(22+24) = 52% of observations and modeling progress available from more modern sources. Also, the author of that page directly contradicts your implication that sunspot activity is a relevant factor in the observed global heating of recent decades [1]: > The global mean temperature trend between 1975-1997, and even regional variations in this trend, can be explained very well by observed changes in greenhouse-gas concentrations (3), in other words greenhouse gas emissions are by far the leading cause of climate change during the last quarter of the 20th century. [1] http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap06/clim_expl.html http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap06/clim_expl.h...

jmann99999 5y ago
You bring up a good point (the length of data). What the author says is: "Recent research (3) indicates that the combined effects of sunspot-induced changes in solar irradiance and increases in atmospheric greenhouse gases offer the best explanation yet for the observed rise in average global temperature over the last century." In answering the original commenter, I wanted to do research and see if the poster had a valid concern. I found nothing newer that ruled out sunspots as a contributor to warming. Maybe I missed something. However, I don't treat old research as less informative unless it has been disproven. I don't think that is the case here.
- EForEndeavour 5y ago
  It's true that more recent research further supports the above 1997 source's conclusion that sunspot cycles are a minor driver of global heating, and that human activity is the main cause of recent decades' rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration and the resulting rise in greenhouse warming and global mean temperature anomaly. One accessible summary of this that I posted elsewhere: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/couldnt-sun-be-cause-global-warming https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/couldnt-sun... > there has been no significant net change in the Sun’s energy output from the late 1970s to the present, which is when we have observed the most rapid global warming > if the Sun’s energy output had intensified, we would expect all layers of Earth’s atmosphere to have warmed. But we don’t see that. Rather, satellites and observations from weather balloons show warming in the lower atmosphere (troposphere) and cooling in the upper stratosphere (stratosphere)—which is exactly what we would expect to see as a result of increasing greenhouse gases trapping heat in the lower atmosphere. Scientists regard this piece of evidence as one of several “smoking guns” linking today’s global warming to human-emitted, heat-trapping gases.

jmann99999 5y ago

You bring up a good point (the length of data). What the author says is: "Recent research (3) indicates that the combined effects of sunspot-induced changes in solar irradiance and increases in atmospheric greenhouse gases offer the best explanation yet for the observed rise in average global temperature over the last century." In answering the original commenter, I wanted to do research and see if the poster had a valid concern. I found nothing newer that ruled out sunspots as a contributor to warming. Maybe I missed something. However, I don't treat old research as less informative unless it has been disproven. I don't think that is the case here.

EForEndeavour 5y ago
It's true that more recent research further supports the above 1997 source's conclusion that sunspot cycles are a minor driver of global heating, and that human activity is the main cause of recent decades' rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration and the resulting rise in greenhouse warming and global mean temperature anomaly. One accessible summary of this that I posted elsewhere: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/couldnt-sun-be-cause-global-warming https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/couldnt-sun... > there has been no significant net change in the Sun’s energy output from the late 1970s to the present, which is when we have observed the most rapid global warming > if the Sun’s energy output had intensified, we would expect all layers of Earth’s atmosphere to have warmed. But we don’t see that. Rather, satellites and observations from weather balloons show warming in the lower atmosphere (troposphere) and cooling in the upper stratosphere (stratosphere)—which is exactly what we would expect to see as a result of increasing greenhouse gases trapping heat in the lower atmosphere. Scientists regard this piece of evidence as one of several “smoking guns” linking today’s global warming to human-emitted, heat-trapping gases.