Mankind Is Not the Main Cause of Global Warming

I've learned a lot from your arguments and my own research. In this round, I will consider the objections my opponent has to my arguments. The Sun My opponent is making two mistakes. One in thermodynamics, and the other in how solar activity is measured. Solar activity is the highest is about 8000 years. Here is a graph showing sunspot number over the past 10000 years: [1] While solar activity has decreased, it is still at a very high level compared to recent times in the Earth's history. This means that the temperature will still increase because solar activity is still historically high. Even on the scale of the 20th century, solar activity is high. “Clearly the sun’s activity and output experienced an upwards step-change around 1950. The average monthly sunspots in the second half of the century were, for example, 50% higher than in the first half of the century. ” Overall, because solar activity is still high in comparison, temperatures continue to increase. [2] As for the error in how solar activity is measured, “Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits, during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade. .. This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change. .. TSI [Total Solar Irradiance] interaction with the Earth's atmosphere, oceans and landmasses is the biggest factor determining our climate. ” So there's still more solar radiation reaching Earth than earlier. [3] See this graph: It shows a peak right at the time that temperature was increasing quickly, and decreases right before the temperature decrease (see below). Finally, consider the global temperature stagnation over the last 15 years. If the satellite based temperature is considered (which starts in the 1970s) there is an unmistakable pause in global warming starting around 2000: [4] Overall, thermodynamics, how solar activity should really be measured, and the pause in global warming all show how the sun is still the dominant factor determining the climate. The Hockey Stick The hockey stick is wildly inaccurate: “The dataset used to make this construction contained collation errors, unjustified truncation or extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, incorrect principal component calculations, geographical mislocations and other serious defects. These errors and defects substantially affect the temperature index. The major finding is that the values in the early 15th century exceed any values in the 20th century. The particular hockey stick shape derived in the MBH98 proxy construction a temperature index that decreases slightly between the early 15th century and early 20th century and then increases dramatically up to 1980 is primarily an artefact of poor data handling, obsolete data and incorrect calculation of principal components. ”[5][6] Temperatures have been warmer than today as recently as 1300 ACE. "During the Medieval Warming. .. . Temperatures may have been as much as 2.5 degrees C warmer [than today] due to a southward shift of the climate belts. "[7] This graph shows the hockey stick graph and the corrected version of it: Cosmic Rays My opponent's whole argument against cosmic rays is one whole quote that provides no evidence for its conclusion. I have made a sufficient case for how cosmic rays amplify the sun's effects on the climate, and my opponent has not touched it. As for the Forbes source (I contend that Popsci isn't bad, but I'll leave that alone to save space), thank you for pointing that out. That was part of a two-year old argument that I need to get rid of. Here is a better source: “Ironically, solar explosions, which produce their own deadly radiation, sweep away the even deadlier cosmic rays. As flares subside, cosmic rays intensify. ” Further, this Nature study shows how cosmic rays cause cloud formation (source 9). I feel like I've supported my cloud argument enough, and with good sources to preclude me from having to post more on that matter. [8][9] To conclude, here's a graph: [5]The bottom graph corrects for a few variables, so it shows a better correlation. Extraterrestrial Warming I've addressed the argument about solar irradiance, and the source I posted showed how all the planets were warming. Unfortunately, there's not enough evidence on this, but there's sufficient evidence that Mars, the Moon, Jupiter, Pluto, and Neptune are warming, and indirect evidence that the other planets are warming. This shows the comparison between the Sun's, the Earth's, and Neptune's activity: [5]Noitce how they all follow the same pattern, which shows they're connected. I need to develop my argument more in other places, so considering my opponent doesn't consider this argument much either, I'll leave it at this. Source 10 (one of the blogs my opponent says is invalid) contains peer-reviewed articles of that evidence, however. [10][11] The Sun, Cosmic Rays, and the Evidence for Natural Warming "In particular, a quasi-60-year large cycle is quite evident since 1650 in all climate and astronomical records herein studied . .. The existence of a natural 60-year cyclical modulation of the global surface temperature induced by astronomical mechanisms, by alone, would imply that at least 60 to 70% of the warming observed since 1970 has been naturally induced. "[12][13] "For example, the authors of a paper by NASA's JPL remark '. .. has compared the minimum aa [index of geomagnetic activity] values with the Earth's surface temperature record and found a correlation of 0.95 between the two data sets starting in 1885. The solar irradiance [solar activity] proxy developed from the aa minima continues to track the Earth's surface temperature until the present. '"[14][15] As for Scafetta and West, the paper my opponent cites acknowledges that there might be a non-CO2 reason why this is true. See the whole paragraph after my opponent's quote in my source 16 (his source 3 from round 3). Further, they argue in a different article that “. .. the current anthropogenic contribution to global warming is significantly overestimated. We estimate that the Sun could account for as much as 69% [from a different starting year] the increase in Earth's average temperature, depending on the TSI reconstruction used. ” Overall, my opponent's argument against this study does not hold water. [16][17] A solar explanation for the recent global warming is the only one that agrees with its predictions and the observations made. The actual scientific data does not agree with him. Attack on Opponent's Sources My source 3 also says this: “[Fred] Singer counters the standard scientific stance that changes in solar activity are not significant enough to have an effect, stating that solar variability is much greater in ultraviolet regions, thus having a significant effect on ozone levels and consequently a major impact on atmospheric circulation. ” It takes an objective standpoint (it doesn't take sides), and I was only citing it to show the solar cycle length/temperature correlation. Singer has a PhD in physics (he's reliable). I've already conceded my sources 5 and 6 and have exchanged them for better ones. Again, thank you for calling me out on it. Watts Up With That is a bit complicated. For one, while it's run by Anthony Watts, most of the articles are by guest authors, often with degrees explaining their papers, or use reputable sources if written by Watts. You can take a look at each individual article for yourself and see that they have substantiation. Further, “Patrick J. Michaels, climatologist and contributor to the IPCC first assessment report, described WUWT as part of a new "parallel universe" of emerging online publications, manned by serious scientists critical of world governments approach to climate change: 'A parallel universe is assembling itself parallel to the IPCC. This universe has become very technical – very proficient at taking apart the U. N. 's findings. '” Michaels has a PhD in environmental climatology. [18][19] The book Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years is very reliable. It contains 499 studies for substantiation, including a large number substantiating the quotes I made. While past climactic conditions don't negate AGW, if there were periods in recent history that were much hotter and warmed much quicker than the recent global warming, that throws suspicion and the supposed remark-ability of the recent global warming. It also provides evidence for a solar explanation and against an anthropogenic explanation. Sources 9 and 11 do provide reliable sources, and source 9 itself looks pretty good. I'll concede source 12, but I feel the quote I quoted from it makes general sense. Source 20 provides a better source for that quote (regarding the distribution of solar radiation). [20] Finally, now my own attack on one of my opponent's sources – Skeptical Science. Just to take one example, “The fact that there has been no statistically-significant global warming for 16 years is described as a “myth”. Yet the least-squares linear-regression trend on the Hadley Centre/CRU dataset favoured by the IPCC indeed shows no statistically-significant warming for 16 years. ” I've shown this above. There's a list of 11 more points in source 21. [21] Also from that source, “Yet half of the 129 signatories are Professors; two-thirds are PhDs, and several are Expert Reviewers for the IPCC’s forthcoming Fifth Assessment Report. ” Another confirmation on WUWT. [21] Conclusion I have shown how a solar cause to the recent global warming is the only reasonable explanation, much better than a human-caused greenhouse gas cause. The latter theory simply has too many problems with it to hold any water, while the former's case is practically airtight, save an exact description of how the sun affects the climate. It is known that it does, however, even recently. Overall, mankind is not the main cause of global warming. Sources Sources in comments.