These scientists say so. and they have peer reviewed papers.
There have been a number of peer-reviewed studies over the last several years that show the Sun is the overwhelming climate driver. But forget about them -- we don't need any peer-reviewed studies to know that if the Sun's output increases the Earth will become warmer. Only a climate SCAM alarmist could think otherwise.
-----------------------
I've seen quite a few recent studies like this. This study basically shows a correlation between various cycles of the Sun and the earth's surface temperatures.
It's not really proof of anything but it is reported that one peer reviewer commented: "this work provides a possible explanation for the global warming". I also noted in the Eureka Alert this nugget: "Research shows that the current warming does not exceed the natural fluctuations of climate."
For those of you who break out in a rash when you go near a skeptic blog, you can read about it from a neutral source here: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2...
As with all previous such studies, these researchers found a long-term correlation that held until about 1980. See the chart here which is from the study.
There is no question that solar activity affects earth's temperatures. However there is also no question that the effect is dwarfed by the effect of the enhanced greenhouse effect. These studies on solar activity have been very consistent it this.
There are a couple of other well-established tests of the source of cause of the warming over the past three decades. 1) The stratosphere cooled as the troposphere warmed; 2) nights warmed more than days. Both of these happen because of greenhouse warming and neither would happen with solar warming.
This is an odd question. The sun is the primary "driver" of temperature elevation, yet there has been no recent evidence of temperature elevation...after about 1999. There is no trend, thus no legitimate portent of the cataclysmic predictions that have flooded the media...which I decry. I.e., this issue is a "straw man" question. It's like asking,"If your mom is dead, is it likely that Uncle Jim killed her?" Well, yes, as they've been life-long rivals--and Jim is a scoundrel--maybe so...but Mom is still alive!!!..rendering this a meaningless issue.
Please give it a rest!!!
Well during the 1980 to 2000's warming, there were several factors that could have contributed, modern solar maximum, PDO positive, AMO positive, global brightening due to the clean air acts,CO2 escalating, now why should I pick one of those, why can't I say maybe all of them contributed.
What is interesting to note however is that Solar is heading to a minimum, PDO is now negative, global brightening is now stabilized, but CO2 is still escalating, while global temps are not.
My understanding is that "it's the sun" was one of a number of possible explanations for the warming we're seeing but discarded as the main cause some time ago. It's since become one of the regular alternatives to current mainstream science from deniers and keeps getting brought up as though it's a new idea and hasn't already been rejected.
If real scientists are now saying otherwise and a good number accept their work, please link to some peer-reviewed papers, a reputable science institution or journal.
(I didn't bother with your link. Who's Max?)
At any given moment in time there are competing scientific theories, contradictory data, and evidence pointing to polar opposite conclusions. This is how science works. It's how science has worked since Galileo. So, I could take any current topic in science and find you a paper that contradicts another.
What will happen is that this paper will be added into the mix of 'knowledge' currently available. It will be debated at conferences. It will be examined by other researchers. It will prompt additional studies. And over time, the scientific community will move forward.
What you appear to be doing is trying to circumvent due scientific process. You want to take a paper as 'evidence' for your stance completely out of context of that process. This is a common flaw. We've seen this done time after time after time by 'the general public'. We saw it with measles vaccinations. We see it in relation to evolution. We see it in the Watch Tower magazines published by Jehovah's Witnesses, in which they take papers (and even single sentences) out of context to use as 'evidence' to support their opinion.
Let science do its job. Let the community examine and evaluate. That's the difference between real scientists and the armchair climatologists on the internet - the latter jump to conclusions based on single papers that conformed to their pre-decided opinion rather than letting guided experiment and informed critique determine the validity of the conclusions. In other words, picking this paper in isolation and declaring it to be 'the truth' is a) intellectually and scientifically lazy b) entirely at odds with the scientific method c) cherry-picking literature to suit your own personal belief and d) shows one to be inept at evaluating and interpreting specific datasets in the wider context of available data.
Now, I know you'll dislike my answer and probably give some snide comment about us 'greenies' but the fact is I'd love for global warming and climate change not to be true. If it is 'the sun' (tm) responsible, then that's great! But I doubt that's true because the overwhelming body of evidence suggests otherwise. It's up to the scientific community to evaluate the claim. The problem is that if they do evaluate that claim and find it wanting, then you've convinced yourself it'll be yet another whitewash by the climatologists. In which case there is never any conclusions any scientist can reach other than 'humans aren't responsible' that you'll agree with.
That, my friend, is what we call 'being close-minded'.
Thanks to Ottawa Mike for providing the link.
Global mean temperature certainly DOES depend on the sun--no climate scientist would dispute that. The question is whether the recent warming has the sun as the cause. The abstract for the paper does not claim that it does, and one of the figures from the paper clearly provides evidence against, showing a clear divergence between temperature and total solar irradiance in recent decades.
"Is Maxx right?" No.
"Is it really the Sun?" No.
breitbart isn't a reliable source.
Nobody, other than AGW deniers strawman delusions, is arguing that the sun "couldn't" cause global warming.
However, we've been measuring solar output for decades now, and it hasn't changed significantly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_varia...
It's not the sun that's causing global warming.
HOWEVER, we surely do appreciate you admitting that it's warming.
Remember that in your future posts.
A number of scientists, many of them Russian, support the solar hypothesis.
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/07/29/Solar-Activity-Could-Cause-Global-Warming-New-Paper-Says
These scientists say so. and they have peer reviewed papers.
Here is data, with the recent years based on satellite data.
It is more likely the interpretation of the denier blog than what the actual research paper says. Get the original paper
You notice that alarmists are all talking about the warming we have seen recently yet I believe the warmest years were 1936 (give or take a couple) and 1998 so what warming are they referring to? Oh yeah, the warming that they said was going to happen but didn't. Talk about deniers.
it is 99% the Sun
not sure. but they are pherhaps lie
Sure they do. Liar
