The dominant source of energy for Earth and its climate system is the Sun. In order for the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) alarmists to mostly blame humans for rising temperatures, they must ignore or severely downplay this irrefutable fact. One characteristic of scientific credibility is recognizing such undeniable facts. When a scientist ignores or refutes them without evidence to the contrary, they become a scientist no more. There is overwhelming evidence of the Sun’s energy output and the significant role it plays on our climate. To deny this evidence in order to advocate another hypothesis is neither intellectually honest nor is it practical, let alone scientific. Perhaps the biggest problem with AGW advocates is that they defy scientific methods and the observed and recorded physical universe.

The solar constant, which is the amount of the Sun’s energy (radiation) reaching Earth’s outer atmosphere is currently measured at an average of approximately 1367 Watts per square meter. The albedo (reflectivity) of the Earth is about 30% on average, which means that approximately 957 Watts per square meter is initially retained by the Earth and becomes part of our climate system. The average insolation (incoming solar radiation) that reaches the Earth’s surface is calculated at approximately 250 Watts per square meter, averaged over the course of a year. This fluctuates as changes occur within the Earth’s climate system.

Imagine each square meter of Earth with a standard 250 Watt heat lamp hovering directly over it for one year. The Earth has well over 511 trillion square meters of surface area. So, we would need over 511 trillion of those lamps giving off a total of more than 127.75 quadrillion Watts year round. Now picture if we added just one extra Watt per square meter. We would need over 2.04 trillion additional lamps! That’s enough lamps to cover nearly all of California and Alaska combined. In order to create this amount of energy, we would need nearly 320,000 of the world’s most powerful nuclear power plants. This is not an insignificant amount of energy and over a period of a few years, decades, or centuries, it could certainly affect climate or the climate processes. If several more Watts were able to penetrate our atmosphere, one could imagine the effects on the dynamic of our climate.

Solar variations can create a scenario where the Earth is susceptible to an increase in radiation. Yet, increasing solar irradiance is only half of the equation. The other half involves how that radiation is received here on Earth. This variable – albedo – will be discussed more in-depth in a future article of this series.

We know that the fluctuations in solar radiation because of our orbital position and axial tilt contribute to our seasons and we also know that long-term variations affect glacial and interglacial periods (see: Milankovitch Cycles). So why do man-made global warming advocates discount the effect of an increase or decrease in the Sun’s energy output or Earth’s natural absorption of it during the time between these cycles?

According to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, natural variations (solar and volcanic effects) are responsible for global warming in the first half of the 20th century. This period typically ends around the 1940’s and 50’s. Since about 1945, global temperatures have only risen by about 0.4 degrees Celsius. In the United States, temperatures have not surpassed the highs of the 1930’s. Temperatures declined until the 1980’s, then rose up to today’s levels, but are relatively the same as before when most or all of the warming was attributed to natural variability. Nevertheless, the warming over the last few decades is considered extreme and the Sun is written off as a negligible influence.

An important documented fact is the effect on solar radiation from sun spots. Sun spots are actually solar magnetic storms that inhibit convection on the surface resulting in a cooler temperature of the area and a darker color. However, these spots actually increase both the overall brightness of the Sun and solar radiation, effectively increasing the solar constant. Solar radiation is the driving factor in warming our planet and has been linked to past temperature changes and the amount of cosmic rays that penetrate our atmosphere, which affects low altitude cloud coverage.

During the Little Ice Age, the period from the 1500’s to the 1800’s when temperatures were colder, solar activity was rather low. There was also an increase of volcanic activity on Earth which affects the amount of sunlight that is reflected by sulfuric compounds reaching the upper atmosphere. A combination of decreased solar radiation and increased volcanic activity coincides with the decreasing temperatures during the Little Ice Age. In addition, the Maunder minimum (a period of virtually no sun spots) happened to coincide with the peak of this fluctuation in climate, which gave us some of the coldest temperatures in the last 1,000 years.

If a decrease in solar radiation combined with an increase of volcanic activity can cause a cooling period spanning a few centuries, wouldn’t an increase in solar radiation and a decrease in volcanic activity have the opposite effect? This very circumstance has been happening over the last 200 years since the end of the Little Ice Age. So, why do many scientists ignore or reject these facts and instead blame humans for climate change?

Over the past decade, it has been discovered that other planetary bodies in our solar system have also been experiencing changes in climate. Mars, Jupiter, Neptune, Pluto, and Triton – the largest of Neptune’s moons – have all been undergoing changes. While they may be warming for different reasons, they all share one of the same variables: the Sun. Internal processes may affect how solar variations contribute to the individual warming trends, but it still raises the question of whether or not solar variability should be ruled out for the recent warming here on Earth.

In regards to Pluto, the warming trend was still observed in 2002 even though Pluto was closer to the Sun in 1989. One scientist made the point that although Pluto is not as close to the Sun now as it was then, it takes time for the planet to fully warm from the increased radiation. This could explain why temperatures have increased in the last twenty years while solar irradiance has remained relatively stable, but still higher than any point in the last several centuries and perhaps in the last 1,000 years. It stands to reason that a constant flow of increased energy into an object over a period of time will increase the amount of energy stored inside that object, even if the energy is not consistently increased after the initial rise. Since our planet has the capacity to store large amounts of energy, it is very possible and even probable that this type of scenario can occur, without human influences.

It takes time during the day to reach our highest temperatures, which usually occur later in the afternoon. The reverse happens at night, when temperatures reach their lowest at dawn. A similar effect is observed with Earth’s seasons. Our warmest days in the Northern hemisphere are not at the time when our days are the longest, on June 21st. Instead, temperatures usually peak in late July and August, after the days have already begun to shorten and summer is winding down. This happens because the effects of increased solar radiation need time to reach their maximum influence and also to wear off.

So, why do scientists assume that just because solar irradiance has not continued to increase over the last two decades, that the Sun’s effects due to greater activity over the last few centuries have lost their significance on our climate?

The fact of the matter is the AGW advocates in the scientific community do not have all of the required knowledge needed to make many of the claims they are making. We have only been observing the Sun with modern technology and satellites since 1978. Studying short-term trends over a period of less than thirty years is not the proper way to establish scientific absolutes about the next century or longer. If we consider the fact that the alarmist views have been pushed since the late 1980’s, it compounds the problem with their assessments even more. In addition to observed cycles and Sun-Earth correlations, we continue to discover new aspects of the Sun’s behavior which leads to additional questions regarding those effects on our planet.

It takes a lot of time and analysis to determine which factors are involved in our climate processes, how they interact with other variables, and how they affect the climate. After studying the Sun with satellite technology for only ten years, it appears that the impatience or the agenda of some scientists prevailed over the process and the integrity of their profession. We need to let the scientists who want to actually learn about and understand the variables take the necessary time to do it.

It would be a great first step in the right direction to give those scientists the proper time to study the Sun, the Earth, and the other planetary objects in our solar system and determine just how much influence that great ball of fire has on the climate of all the celestial bodies bound to it. Only then can we begin to conclude whether or not the Sun has played a significant role in our recent warming trends.

*Other articles in the Climate Change Stupidity series:

An Overview of the Global Warming Hypothesis

An Overview of the Global Warming Hypothesis (Part Two)

Great Ball of Fire

The Earth Also Shines

The Carbon Dioxide Scapegoat

Water in the Atmosphere

**For more articles by this author, click here.