Sunspots do reduce the solar input and during peak sunspot activity it can be as high as 15% more or less. Think about it. Sunspots are dark; Dark spots emit less light. So more sunspots, less light. Less light, less Solar input. Less solar input should mean less average global temperature rise from sun cycles.. What does effect the solar input is seasonal. The Earth-Sun orbit is elliptical so at certain times of the year we are closer to the sun than the other half. So yes Craig, I will agree that on the solar input side of the global warming equation you have many variables that can influence the input, but let me point out that has been happening for millions of years with little variation from what is happening now.
Craig; the only conclusion you can deductively come to is that the average global temperature increase over the past 68 years is caused by human activity and based on the scale, it's human industrial scale activity creating CO2 as a byproduct. Craig, what convinced be about global warming wasn't all the numbers facts and figures, It was looking up in the sky and seeing all of these very high altitude clouds. Water vapor lofted up to the stratosphere by additional thermal energy dumped in the oceans from global warming. I encourage everyone to look for the really high vapor clouds. -- Chuck On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Craig <cchayniepub...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 02/06/2013 12:27 AM, Chuck Sites wrote: > > Haha. Yeah I saw that story, It's just bait for the deniers > > (or contrarians), or just weird science to normal folks. For that > > matter, mushrooms exhale CO2. Trust me, worms are not the cause of > > global warming. > > > > I want to reply to Craig's comments and to argue scientifically > > against his denial of Man-made causes of global warming. First lets > > start with this graphic > > http://www.climate4you.com/images/CO2%20MaunaLoa%20MonthlySince1958.gif > > > > With every seasonal cycle you can see the earth breath. The cycle is > > cause by vegetation in northern hemisphere dying out each year, > > releasing stored CO2 back into the air in winter and pulling CO2 back > > into it's stems and roots during growing season. It's a cyclic > > effect, and it show very well how easy it is to measure CO2 levels. > > The trend line in background of that graph is all fossil fuel CO2 > > from human activity. > > I am not arguing against the idea that man made the causes of global > warming. I am arguing against the certainty that a correlation demands a > certain causation. > > I'll stand corrected on the cyclical nature of CO2. I understand now, > that you are correct, in that during the summer, the CO2 levels fall, so > this would be the opposite to what I had assumed, which was the during > the summer the CO2 levels rose. Good point. > > > > > Craig, I appreciate your wanting to find alternative explanations to > > global warming that isn't man made. All polluters wish they didn't > > pollute I guess. But solar input isn't the cause of global warming > > either. For example; there are sunspots which somehow in denier's > > rose colored glasses cause the atmosphere to heat up. Exactly how is > > that to happen when the solar input to earth is REDUCED by sun spots. > > It's part of the solar forcing equation that balances with how much > > heat is trapped by CO2 and how much escapes into space. > > Solar input is not reduced by sunspots. This is documented, but I can't > look for the studies tonight. But higher sunspot activity yields a more > active sun, and a higher total radiation to Earth. Those who consider > the issue, but deny it, believe that the increased activity cannot > possibly yield warmer temperatures. But those same people, who believe > so strongly in correlations without causation, deny that the > correlations between the sunspot activity and the Earth's temperatures > are greater. What if I could show you a greater correlation between > sunspot activity and the Earth's temperature, over the correlation that > increases in CO2 can show? > > > So Craig, I want to point you to THE OBVIOUS, The solar input is as > > it has been for the past 1million years. > > No, the Sun's output has been higher, since 1920 or so, than in the > previous several hundred. Can you show me otherwise? > > Craig > >
