Global Warming is Man-Made

The sun drives of climate change The main driver of modern climate is solar activity. The energy output of the sun, called the irradiance. has been nearly constant in modern times, so that's not the cause. It is primarily the magnetic field of the sun which drives climate, and to a lesser extent the ultraviolet component of the irradiance. The magnet component varies dramatically. Norwegian scientists in the 1990's discovered that the single measure of solar activity that best predicts climate is the length of the previous solar cycle. “The most readily apparent cycle in solar activity is the cycle in sunspot activity. These solar cycles average eleven years in length, and they have ranged in length from nine years to beyond eighteen years.“ [1] The length of the solar predicts climate change as shown in the graph [2] below: The increase in CO2 is very close to exponential, so as Pro noted, AGW theory predicts a straight line temperature rise. The graph shows clearly that is not what has happened. Climate has been behaving according to solar activity. “A paper published [in 2012] in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physicsfinds that up to 72% of the temperature increase over the last 150 years can be explained by the length of solar cycles,” [3] The length of the solar cycle does not perfectly represent the sun effects, so it's likely that a more precise model would produce a more precise result. Cosmic rays affect cloud cover The physical theory that explains the correlation is summarized by Archibald: There are two main ways that changing solar activity affects terrestrial climate. Both have their origin in the strength of the Sun’s magnetic field. In the first route, a lower magnetic field strength results in less sunspot activity, which in turn mean less solar wind, which allows more galactic cosmic rays to get to Earth’s orbit. The neutron shower from galactic cosmic rays causes more cloud formation, which in turn reflects more sunlight back into space, making the Earth colder. … In the second route, the lower magnetic field strength results in a lower temperature of the Sun’s chromosphere, which in turn produces less ultraviolet light. That decreases the production of lower stratospheric ozone, and that decrease causes a negative North Atlantic Oscillation (a fluctuation in sea-level atmospheric pressure), making the Northern Hemisphere colder. This second route makes winters longer and colder without necessarily reducing peak summer temperatures. [4] If solar magnetic activity really changes cloud cover, the incident radiance on the earth should vary with the sun's magnetic activity. That has been observed just as the solar theory predicts. [5] Solar activity is measured historically by the formation of beryllium 10, which accumulates in sediments to provide a history of solar activity. “The Modern Warm Period from 1900 to 2008 is associated with a large decline in Be10 in ice cores, indicating a sustained higher level of solar activity in the twentieth century. There is also very close correlation between ice-rafted stone debris in the North Atlantic and Be10 levels over the last 10,000 years—another demonstration that solar activity controls climate.” [6] The correlation continues through to the present day. Solar activity predicts the 17+ year halt in global warming as the cycle has reached a flat peak and is starting downward. The pause in global warming is illustrated in this graph: [7]: The AGW computer models include irradiance, which is essentially constant, but the models take no account at all of the solar magnetic effects that correlate tightly with climate. AGW theorists now admit that the CO2 models cannot be tweaked to explain the pause. They are now proposing a variety of new theories to patch the failed old theory. [8] One theory is that for some reason all the warming is going into the deep oceans. Another theory is that atmospheric aerosols (i.e., soot) is reducing the size of rain drops causing clouds to be whiter and reflect more energy. There are other theories. The problem is that if there is any uncalculated factor that completely wipes out CO2 effects, that admits CO2 does not dominate climate. If uncalculated factors can be as large or larger than the CO2 effect, that admits that previous warming might have been the result of unknown factors as well. The premise of the AGW theory was that because all the other factors affecting climate were known, CO2 must have caused the warming from 1983 to 1996. Historically, solar activity drives climate with CO2 rising after there is warmingAl Gore famously showed two graphs, one of temperature over time and one of CO2 over time. The shapes of the curves were similar, showing a high correlation. Mr. Gore never overlaid the graphs. Had he done so, it would have been apparent that CO2 levels were following the warming rather by hundreds of years rather than leading it. As the oceans warm, they can dissolve less CO2, which is then released into the atmosphere. The CO2 rise is in response to the solar magnetic effects that changed cloud cover to cause the basic climate change.Over long periods of earth's history, there is no relationship between CO2 and climate.[8] Consensus does not determine sciencePro has the burden of proving that human activity has dominated climate. My burden is only to show that the anthropogenic theory is unproved. A scientific theory is wrong if it fails to explain or predict, and anthropogenic theory has clearly failed. I'm not obligated to prove an alternative theory, but I nonetheless shown that solar magnetic activity explains and predicts climate much better than CO2 theory. Since solar magnetic activity has dominated climate, anthropogenic causes cannot be dominant. AGW theorists admit that factors not in their computer models have been so large as to completely cancel greenhouse gas effects. for the past 17+ years.Pro stresses that it is not just that a consensus exists, but that the consensus is based on data. (Actually, the only real data is a general increase in temperature which solar theory better explains, and the rest is computer models that did not predict the hiatus.) But every scientific consensus has been supported by data that scientists at the time thought conclusive. A wrong consensus means that the data was incorrect or that it was incorrectly interpreted. The once near-unanimous consensus that the earth was the center of the universe was based upon the indisputable observation that the sky appears to rotate around the earth. The theory was found wrong only by more careful observations starting with the inconsistent behavior of the paths of planets in the sky. In the 1960s, the scientific consensus favored the Steady State Theory over the Big Bang Theory. The Big Bang Theory predicted the presence of microwave background radiation, so when the background radiation was discovered, the consensus changed rapidly. Not long ago, the learned scientific consensus was that homosexuality was a form of mental illness. Psychologists thought they had the data to prove it, but they were wrong; it is genetic. Modern scientists continue to make errors reflected in wrong consensus. A very strong scientific consensus has until the past few years supported the theory that in the human diet, saturated fat causes high serum cholesterol levels which in turn causes heart disease. It turns out the original theory was based upon falsified data. The landmark peer that "proved" the theory deliberately excluded data that falsified the theory. A couple of other bogus papers supported the theory, including one in which cholesterol was injected into vegetarian rabbits, who then quite predictably died. Studies over the past fifty years that attempted to confirm the theory instead disproved it. [9, 10] The originator of the cholesterol theory believed it, and he did a great job of selling the theory so it quickly reached consensus.. Many papers giving the “wrong” results were not allowed to be published, or the authors declined to submit them for fear of ruining their reputation. Some scientists published after they retired so that career retribution could not be inflicted. I recite the cholesterol consensus error because it's very close to the way anthropogenic global warming theory has achieved consensus. Early enthusiastic advocates sold the theory as the only possible explanation of the rapid rise of temperatures from 1983 to 1996. According to that data, not only was CO2 the cause, but climate sensitivity much have been very large, perhaps five or even ten. Now Pro's claim is that it is at least 0.7. If it is that low, then global warming is not a crisis. it's hardly worth noting. The bogus 97% consensus comes from surveying only journals that refuse to publish dissent. The Climategate scandal showed how eager AGW are to suppress dissent."In a November 15, 2005, email Mann expresses his satisfaction that Geophysical Research Letters is now firmly under the control of the climate change alarmists but laments that other publications still publish research by skeptics: “The Geophysical Research Letters leak may have been plugged up now with new editorial leadership there, but these guys always have Climate Research and Energy and Environment, and will go there if necessary.” [9]Very few papers scientific papers say anything about global warming as whole. For example, there are about 200 papers that show that the Medieval Warm Period and similar climate change existed worldwide, and that refute the bogus Hockey Stick argument for AGW. But the papers would not be counted as being in opposition to AGW. Besides, they are in the wrong journals. Virtually all the papers on solar theory -- there are hundreds -- are in specialist journals, not the surveyed climate journals. ------------------------------------------Per the terms of of the debate, I'll put the reference list in the debate comments.