I think Henrik Svensmark research put that question to bed. No doubt the Sun's Magnet activities have more influence. But that's not saying much because CO2's influence on climate is negligible.
-----------------------
I think over a reasonably long time period, the effect of the switching every 22 years is nill. There are longer solar cycles that are much more influential such as those responsible for the varying sun spots in the Maunder Minimum and Recent Maximum. Of course the sun spots are magnetic storms that are more prevalent during periods when the sun is more active.
I find Cguy's side question more interesting and much less rhetorical than Sagebrush's, so I choose to answer that one.
It's true that when you answer in here you'll either be preaching to the choir or preaching to a group of liars with the intelligence of a bag of rocks. My advice would be to save yourself and get out now--you may find that if you stay for a while that the whole thing, pointless that it is, is addictive.
For my personal opinion, though, I appreciate your answers.
Really? Scientists take the sun into account when they study climate change. They aren't just a bunch of armchair retards spouting off unresearched ideas that some other armchair retard can prove wrong by mentioning something that they never thought of. They KNOW the sun effects the climate. They KNOW that water vapor is a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2. Do you know that they know this already and don't need your input?
There's many things contribute to fluctuations in the Earth's temperature.
For starters, Earth's orbit around the sun fluctuates from a circle to an ellipsis (oval); when it's a circular orbit, we have steadier temperatures, when it's elliptical, temperatures alter drastically and seasons can be lengthened, shortened or nearly skipped. Problem is, it takes thousands of years to shift from one type of orbit to the other and there's reliable way to tell which one we're currently on! During the last ice age, the Earth was in an elliptical orbit (taking us further from the sun, which steadily cooled us).
If you combine the above with the sun at either solar maximum or minimum can you imagine the affects?
Then there's the CO2. In 1992, Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines exploded and released thousands of tonnes of CO2 and SO2 into the atmosphere (indeed, more CO2 than mankind had produced in the 50 years prior to 1992). Scientists haven't yet decided whether this raised or lowered our world's temperatures during the following decades because whilst CO2 thickens the atmosphere and retains the sun's UV radiation as heat, SO2 (sulphur dioxide) reflects the sun's UV radiation back into space. Combined with the CO2, that would increase the heat retained by the Earth.
In summary, I would say, historically, the sun's magnetic field (and our orbital fluctuations) have had more of an impact. Recently, however, we're pumping so much crap into the atmosphere that it must be having some affect even if only on small scale locally.
CO2 and yes it's tracked or measured for thousands/millions of years. The sun's magnet has little effect on climate
next time tell us what evidence you will accept. I provided NASA, the same people who faked the moon landings.
EDIT "Temperature going down for over a decade" - only in denier blogs and your alternate reality.
Well I expect we will find out this decade as solar AP geomagnetic is very low, and likely to stay that way for some time.
TSI is down. CO2 is up. The global climate continues to warm. This is no brainer, for anyone capable of well reasoned thought. Anyone that would think otherwise must be suffering from self induced ignorance.
I keep wondering if it's worth responding to these questions, as both skeptics AND adherents to AGCC seem to post "questions" that only are intended to bolster their own opinion. Sigh.
On the other hand, I truly like to follow the scientific method of observe, hypothesize, test/experiment, draw conclusion, repeat as necessary - finally -> develop theory (and repeat as necessary). Understanding that theory (unlike in police procedurals) is not a guess, but is as close to a fact as science allows with respect to current understanding.
So, I assume by "Sun's magnet activities" and the article you link, you refer to the roughly 11 year cycle of polar reversal, sunspot activity, total solar irradiance, etc..., the "solar cycle."
First, if you are referring to the Sun's effect on terrestrial climate as a whole, obviously the sun has a much bigger influence than CO2. You can dump as much CO2 in the atmosphere as you want, but without the Sun we would be an ice ball with a surface temperature of about 3 K (Kelvin - roughly -270° C). So, I am going to assume that you mean the variability of the solar cycle vs CO2 (whether anthropogenic or natural).
In that case, I have to first say that I (as well as many others) have researched the connection between the solar cycle and terrestrial climate. I would LOVE to prove some link there where others have failed. It has proved quite elusive, however.
One problem with looking at this is that we have only had measurements of total solar irradiance (TSI) and a full measure of the output at various wavelengths (especially in the UV) since 1978 when the first radiometers were flown on satellites. This is a relatively short record as these things go. We have a longer record of sunspot observations (roughly 400 years), but every attempt to find a correlation between sunspot numbers and weather/climate has failed.
There also appears to be little connection between TSI and climate on the 11 year cycle. There MAY be some connection between the variability of UV irradiation and weather, since UV output is more variable over the course of the solar cycle - and it is hypothesized that this may lead to colder winters in the US and the southern parts of Europe, and warmer winters in Canada and the northern parts of Europe during solar minima. More research is required.
There is also interest in whether or not variability of TSI on scales longer than the solar cycle might affect terrestrial climate. This is an open question since the record of TSI is so short, but based on the measure of recent solar variability, it appears that the climate forcing due to greenhouse gases is much larger than any changes in solar output. This again is an hypothesis - not a theory.
I suppose it might surprise many out there that I, as well as many/most/all other climate scientists, are open minded about the Sun's role in climate change. We are driven by the data – and not opinion or personal prejudice. Despite claims of a great Climate Conspiracy, I know many people who would give their right temporal lobe to be able to prove a Sun-Climate connection. The data just does not currently suggest that.
So, bottom line, the current consensus is that Greenhouse Gases (e.g., CO2) have much more influence on terrestrial climate than does solar variability.
(edited to correct verb tenses - smacks self)
Oh Sagebrush, Me just can't imagine why you would have a problem with a fur real Climate Scientist responding on these boards. Heck almighty, Me don't know any other way to discuss my own research when it is relevant. Me sees you attacking everything but the Inconvenient Untruth you so desperately cling to like the "created" zebra mussel on the bottom of a Great Lakes freighter!
( Me avoided that bad 1 letter word just for U!)
Ok, sorry that was a bit childish - even for me...
First, Sagebrush, I think you need to worry less about Goebbel's "Big Lie" (which really should be attributed to Adolph Hitler from Mein Kampf), and instead worry about Godwin's Law - of which you followed from the first iteration!
Second, Global Surface Temperature (what you ambiguously call "Earth's temperature) is NOT going down. It IS going up at a much slower rate than in the previous 3 decades. The HADCRUT plot you used from a skeptic cite, is a wonderful example of carefully picking and choosing your start and end points. If you pick the WARMEST year as your starting point, and the COLDEST year as your ending point - you get exactly what you planned on getting. It's deception of the basest order.
If Global SURFACE temperature HAD been going down as you claim, then how do you explain that most of the annual temperature records have been set during those same last 10 years!
Furthermore, if you really want to have data that you attempt to deny, instead you should look at global average ocean heat content. The oceans store far more heat than the atmosphere (roughly 1 meter of ocean is equivalent to the entire atmosphere above it).
http://www.realclimate.org/images//heat_...
That's where all the heat is going - and it's going to have to come out at SOME time!
Since solar irradiance and global temperatures have been going in opposite directions I would say CO2.
P.S. I see you are name calling again, that means you must have lost the argument (according to your dad)
Edit 1:
For all you who say CO2, can you track that? Yes. [1,2]
"Or are you just following Goebbels plan?" Another red herring, but I am interested to see where this will leads us. Since you are the most outspoken Nazi lover on this section of yahoo answers, and like Goebbels, have advocated for genocide, why don't you start the ball rolling by explaining what particular "Goebbels plan" you are talking about?
Edit 2:
Wikipedia is a point of view neutral site and I can see why religious extremist like yourself, object to point of view neutral sites. I suggest that your objection has more to do with your ridiculous view that your god controls the thermostat then the accuracy of the information on wikipedia. But like you say "talk is cheap" so if something is factually wrong on wikipedia, you are free to make corrections.
Seems like you have chickened out and instead posted even more red herrings (which ironically are copied and pasted from blogs) So in the spirit of "talk is cheap but it takes money to buy whiskey" (pun intended) I will challenge you again, please explain what particular "Goebbels plan" you are talking about, or will you cower again?
Edit 3:
You are now changing it from "plan" to "principle", are you even capable of having a coherent thought?
Anyway regardless of the version you choose to go with, it would be obvious to any one with a mental age of 9 and above [3] that Goebbels would have been a piss poor propagandist if he publicly proclaimed that he was going to lie. Ironically just like you, Goebbels actually accused the other side of lying when he said "The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous." [4]
Edit 4: I have to keep it short as I run out of allowable space.
Nice try, however, you are the one who is accusing the other side of lying by trying to associate the answers to "Goebbels plan", changed it to "Goebbels principle" and when show that your attempt was based on a falsely attributed quote, now you are trying to wiggle out of it with yet another red herring in an attempt to "control the language"
You have no idea who's side I am on, but you can be assured I am not on the side of genocidal extremist when they publicly advocate executing over 60 million people for the "crime of voting for the wrong politician". I am an independent and make up my own mind rather then follow some dogma. For example, since I reject one more god then you do, I am labeled an atheist. Just because I agree with parts of the ten commandments ("not murdering", "not lying (about others)" and not "not stealing"), that does not make me a follower of Christ. Although if we were to use your twisted "logic" I would be a Christian (as well as a Jew, a Muslim and a Samaritan [5])
Notice that I am not calling you a Nazi, just pointing out the fact that you have far more in common with Nazi's then Jesus Christ, who just like socialist, advocated for caring for the poor and even paying taxes, justice and equality. So let me finish with a quote by Gandhi "I know of no one who has done more for humanity than Jesus. In fact, there is nothing wrong with Christianity ... The trouble is with you Christians. You do not begin to live up to your own teachings." [6]
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/video-sun-has-flipped-upside-down-as-new-magnetic-cycle-begins-9029378.html
If this happens every 22 years or so, and TSI over this period only varies by around 0.1%, wouldn't any small effect just average out?
My answer is CO2.
Your magic decoder ring, no doubt, had you not forged the box tops sent in to get it.
The force which controls all planetary movements in the solar system has far more power over conditions on Earth as opposed to a trace gas whose heating properties are already saturated.
the Sun
CO2 but you knew that
