The Maunder Minimum Is Dead - Didn't Affect Earth's Climate.

a reply to: eriktheawful

However, anyone that says the sun does not affect the Earth, or only affects it a little bit, might want to learn about solar radiation and how it warms our planet.

Strawman.
Who has said the Sun does not affect the Earth? Who has said it only affects it a little bit? Who has said we would be fine without the Sun?

a reply to: Phage

No strawman. Statement of fact.

Search the forums going back over the years. Plenty of people said those things over the years.

Just like all the threads people put on here about how hot the sun was getting, how much brighter it was, etc, etc, etc.

a reply to: eriktheawful

Search the forums going back over the years. Plenty of people said those things over the years.

You're actually telling me to "look it up?" That's just another logical fallacy.

a reply to: Phage

Ah, deflection.

Again: look it up Phage. You've been around here on ATS to know it's true.

a reply to: eriktheawful

Ah, deflection. Again: look it up Phage.

It's your claim. Provide citation.

You've been around here on ATS to know it's true.

You've been around long enough to know how it works. (Supposed to work, anyway.)

I don't recall such a claim been made, seriously.

originally posted by: eriktheawful
No. It plays a much bigger part.

What part of "No sun, no climate." do you not understand?

Switch the sun off, Earth dies. Turn the sun up too much, again, Earth dies.

Are changes in the sun now causing Earth's climate to change? I see people posting all over these boards yes and no.

I've seen it suggested that it's a combination of human, geological and solar.

I've seen it expressed in many different ways.

However, anyone that says the sun does not affect the Earth, or only affects it a little bit, might want to learn about solar radiation and how it warms our planet.

You say 'no it's much more' when that chart is literally the amount of energy from the Sun that is striking the Earth.

What inanity is this? I'm showing how minute the variance has been - plus or minus 0.0735% from the middle of the chart. Of note, CO2 now makes up 0.04% of our atmosphere, up from 0.03% decades ago. So, can such a little thing make a difference or not?

Why are you directing this post at me when you talk about some mysteriously unnamed other people that allegedly think things that I do not?

a reply to: Phage

We're drifting off topic now, but I'll play: Which is the more extraordinary claim?

Mine: some people have made the wild claims about the sun not having an effect on the Earth here on ATS.

or

Yours: No one has said that.

I think it's a safe bet my statement is more true. But that's just me.

a reply to: eriktheawful

But that's just me.

I agree.
Yours is a strawman argument. Lacking a man.

a reply to: eriktheawful

What part of "No sun, no climate." do you not understand?

Which part of "NOBODY is arguing against that statement" do you not understand?

The sun is the ultimate source of virtually all energy on this planet. Energy from the mantle (vulcanism) and from natural radiation adds a bit, but essentially it is all the sun. Trying to take the conversation down that rabbit hole is pointless, because it isn't being challenged nor is it debatable.

What is being said is: changes to solar output DO NOT EXPLAIN the global rise in temperature that has been documented over the last 200 years - I repeat for extra emphasis: the argument is not that our energy doesn't come from the Sun, but that changes in the sun do not account for the changes in the temperature. By the way, changes in the temperature are how we directly measure how much energy is in the Earth atmosphere/ocean system.

Similarly, changes to the Earths orbit do not account for the energy rise either. Nor does vulcanism (which tends to cool the atmosphere anyway). No 'natural' process accounts for the rise in the documented temperature rise. None. Zip. Nada.

Since we are not getting anymore energy from the sun, we must be KEEPING more of the energy that we do get. There are only so many factors that can cause that, and the only one whose trend line matches that of the temperature change is HUMAN CAUSED 'greenhouse' gasses (mostly CO2) injected into the atmosphere.

a reply to: eriktheawful

Are changes in the sun now causing Earth's climate to change? I see people posting all over these boards yes and no.

So the way to settle the question is to educate yourself. Ask someone who would actually know the answer. I know it is difficult to personally ask an atmospheric physicist - there are many billions of people on the planet and only a few thousand atmospheric physicists - it just can't be done.

That is why they publish their results and discuss their differences and the resolutions to those differences in public - so the public can examine the issues. And it is very important to recognize that scientists discuss the resolutions to any differences in public - if you just stop at "Dr. A says this and Dr. B says that" then you don't learn how A and B resolved their differences, what work they did to 'prove' one or the other right. That is how science works.

I've seen it suggested that it's a combination of human, geological and solar.

Of course you have, because that is a trivially correct statement. Each affects the earths climate in some way or the other.

The important question is WHICH ONE OF THOSE FACTORS IS MOST IMPORTANT in causing the documented changes? How do we know that we can do anything about it?

That is the precise question that atmospheric physicists have been working on for decades and their answers are extremely compelling: human caused pollution is the major cause of the rising energy retention in the atmosphere and the oceans.

Here's a repeat of the link I posted earlier in this thread:

What's Really Causing Global Warming

It is a series of animated graphs comparing all the usual suspects. Please study it and understand that there is only one factor that matches the temperature trend line - and it isn't solar output.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: eriktheawful

But that's just me.

I agree.
Yours is a strawman argument. Lacking a man.

(and an argument )

a reply to: Greven

And the people who want us to pay the taxes, who control the science and the media, are real big into 'saving the planet" and that is there sole motive????

Tired of Control Freaks

originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: Greven

No. It plays a much bigger part.

What part of "No sun, no climate." do you not understand?

Switch the sun off, Earth dies. Turn the sun up too much, again, Earth dies.

Are changes in the sun now causing Earth's climate to change? I see people posting all over these boards yes and no.

The answer is 'no', not to any quantitatively significant degree relevant to humans, in the timescale relevant to humans, compared to human-induced climate change.

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: Greven

And the people who want us to pay the taxes, who control the science and the media, are real big into 'saving the planet" and that is there sole motive????

Not extinguishing comfortable technological human civilization and avoiding causing tremendous suffering in future generations.