What is the single most important factor contributing to climate change – quora electricity names superheroes

#

When there are more sunspots, the associated “solar wind” (yes its a thing) literally blows the cosmic radiation away. As a consequence, less cosmic radiation makes it to the atmosphere, less clouds form and more sunlight hits the surface causing a general warming. It only has to change the average annual cloud cover by a few % to noticeably change the climate over a short period of time.

It has nothing to do with the sun being brighter or warmer (solar radiation) since the suns output is very stable over long time frames. Sunspot activity is independent of those variables. This process was reversed during a time of less sunspots, producing less solar wind, allowing more cosmic rays to hit the lower atmosphere and forming more clouds. More clouds, less sunlight hitting the earth. The “Maunder minimum” is an example of this.

People who support the notion of Co2 driven AGW actually promote this idea (increasing cloud cover) to help cool the planet. Think of its as diet nuclear winter. When there are more sunspots, less clouds form on earth and more sunlight gets to the surface. If you try to correlate what temp and co2 have done for the last 400 years, there is hardly any correlation at all. But if you track temp and sunspot activity for the last 400 years, the correlations are perfect.

Co2 is released historically as the planet warms, not the other way around. Let me be specific, all throughout the last 600,000 years we have ice core data for, the planet does not warm up because co2 is released, co2 is released because the planet heats up. Co2 therefore, has never driven temperature. There is no reason to think it does now.

If you look at the entire time span at once, it looks like Co2 and temperature rise and fall together, a fact Al Gore exploited for his movie. But if you look at the data on a tighter time scale, Say 10K years at a time, you see that Co2 rise lagged behind temp rise by an average of 800 years. This is true for the last 600K yrs.

CO2 has never driven climate in the past, and if not, then why do you think it would drive climate now? What scientific evidence is there really? Yes, Co2 went up dramatically last century, and temp went up a little, but does that really mean there is correlation? or causation? Literacy rates worldwide went up last century as well. Does reading books cause global warming too?

There just isint the temperature and co2 correlation that people think there is. The earth was warming from the late 1800′s till 1940, even though there were very few industrialized countries and worldwide production of co2 was insignificant. If Co2 levels were virtually unchanged, why the warming?

After 1940, when worldwide production of co2 exploded after ww2 and worldwide industrialization kicked into high gear, temps went down for 35 years, prompting fears of an ice age. If Co2 was increasing, why the cooling? In the 1970′s, even though co2 production was increasing at a steady rate, the cooling trend reversed itself and started to climb. With no significant change in Co2 production, why the switch from a cooling trend to a warming trend?

My point is, what temperature has done over the last 200 yrs and the slow steady increase in co2 levels for the last 200 yrs do not correlate at all. Not on a yearly or even a decadal basis. However, Those temperature swings and sunspot activity correlate almost perfectly. And they correlate perfectly for the last 400 yrs of sunspot data we have.

It (Co2) is part of the feedback, yes, but by definition the feedback mechanism cannot be the prime driver. As the planets warm, the ocean heats up, and releases dissolved Co2, obviously as it is so large, that takes a long time, hence the 800 year lag. Additionally, forestation increases, and as the biomass increases it also decays as part of the carbon cycle and atmospheric levels of co2 increase. This is all part of the feedback that is well understood by scientists.

I only mention this to underscore the point that most people appear to be misinterpreting the historical data. Co2 levels were increasing because something else was already warming the planet. Not the other way around. Feedback mechanisms don’t initiate the change. What I meant by a slow steady increase was not to imply that it was a linear function, just that the slope has been very smooth, very consistent and very predictable in its exponential increase. The exact opposite of what temperature has done for the last 200 yrs. As to correlations between temperature and sunspot activity over the last 400 yrs, that info is not hard to google. There are articles in Nature and Scientific American about it. I mention those specifically, because some people are sensitive about sources, and they can hardly be accused of being in the pocket of right wing oil barons.