Proof that the sun is the major cause of global warming
The world is heating up. One thing is for sure, is that there is scientific consensus on this issue! Analysis of maximum and minimum temperature have proven it. Both have gone up significantly world wide, and also too in Australia.
The maximum is used as a measure of how hot we are getting during the day, whilst the minimum is a measure of how cold we get during the night. But are they good variables to use as a measure of average temperature?
Maximum and minimum temperatures occur at different times of the day, often by large amounts when in different seasons. Surely a better measure would be to keep the time constant and see if the temperature has increased at that (and other) specific times?
But unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of good data lying around for this type of analysis. A large exception to this is Australian data. Whilst there is not as many time based data as maximum and minimum data, I feel that statistical analysis on the raw data is by far more advantageous than doing statistical analysis on a statistic (which is derived from the raw data).
So why has there been no scientific analysis on time based temperatures? For me it seems very strange that we can spend billions of dollars on global warming, yet still have not done the proper statistical analysis on temperatures?
The answer is simple. There is no reason to do further analysis on temperatures. We have already proven and clearly show that maximum and minimum temperatures are increasing - quite dramatically in fact. As we said earlier, there is scientific consensus on this. The world is heating up and this is beyond doubt.
So why do more analysis on something that is crystal clear and proven beyond recognition? So, naturally, noone has.
Hence we are stuck in a scientific world where we are spending billions of dollars on what will happen when the world heats up, and what we can do about it, yet have not done a full statistical investigation about how the world is heating up.
We know why the world is heating up (Co2 emissions, right?). We know who (humans of course). We know where (the entire world, especially where there is ice). We know what (our pagan earth). We even know when (now, and the devastating effects it will have on our children's children).
But we do not know how. We only know that maximum and minimum temperatures are increasing.
But as most scientists will argue, this is plenty of evidence to prove that we are warming up during the day and at night. In fact, evidence suggests that minimum's are increasing at an even greater rate than maximum temperatures (which lead some scientists to believe in the urban heat island effect etc.).
Whilst most will say that the maximum temperature is a reasonable statistic to relate to average temperature during the day (time based temperatures is obviously better), how good does the minimum temperature relate to the average temperature at night?
Maximum temperatures occur generally when the sun is at it's hottest. Well at least when we feel it the most. Generally this is around 3pm, but changes dramatically in the different seasons and weather conditions. 3pm is almost the middle of the day. It's a little later than the middle, and maximums occur a little later than the middle due to the atmosphere warming up (by the sun). Still, we as civilians, are always interested in the maximum predicted temperature by the weather forecasters as a reference to how hot tomorrow will be.
But when looking at minimum temperatures, the issue is different. As a general rule, as soon as the sun sets we start losing heat in the atmosphere and the temperature will slowly subside. It will keep going down and down until, you guessed it, the sun warms up the atmosphere and then rises.
So the minimum temperature will occur right at the end of night time - the period shortly before light. Is the minimum temperature therefore a good representation of night temperatures? Would you think that taking the temperature at sunset would be a good representation of how hot the day is?
The answer is quite clearly no. Whilst we can suggest that maximum temperatures is a reasonable (although not fantastic) statistic when it comes to it's relation with average daytime temperatures, the minimum temperature is a terrible representation of how cold a certain night is.
This being for a couple of reasons. One; in that it is not generally the minimum temperature around the middle of the night, and two; in that it is actually influenced by the sun.
The what? the sun? How on earth can the minimum temperature be influenced by the sun?
Well it does. A warmer sun would heat up the atmosphere at a greater rate, just at the time where we would normally achieve a minimum temperature. Warmer days (thanks to a hot sun!) would result in hotter nights. Maximum and minimum temperatures are related and both are quite dependent on the strength of the sun.
So what has any of this got to do with global warming? Well, tomorrow, we will show you exactly why minimum temperatures are a poor statistic in measuring overnight temperatures and will prove the suns influence and changing behaviour over time.
In short, we will prove to you that global warming - the increase in maximum and minimum temperatures - is primarily due to increases in solar radiation.
When looking at the graphs at 3am,6am and the minimum for south east southern Australia, something puzzled me. Whenever 3am or 6am had a negative anomaly (eg a lower than expected temperature for that year), the minimum temperature for that year was average. Whenever 3am or 6am had an average temperature for the year, the minimum temperature was significantly higher than normal.
This pattern was even more extreme in more recent years. It was because of this that I decided to look into the rate of change of temperature anomalies between neighboring times. We actually said a few things about this in the last post on the area:
We even found that temperature anomalies at 3pm were significantly higher than at Noon (p<0.01) and that temperature anomalies at 9pm were significantly lower than at 6pm (p<0.01). This indicates, that the temperature around south east southern Australia is heating up during the day, but more importantly is heating up at a greater rate when the sun is at its hottest. Does this not clearly indicate an increase in solar heating?
But actually looking at graphs of this made the pattern that more obvious than simple significant figures. But first lets hypothesise what would happen to the rate of change, if we believe that the sun has been the major cause of most recent warming.
We have said shown in a very early post on this blog, that in the last 5 years of more recent warming, almost all of this has occurred during the day when the sun it up. The pattern is clearly identifiable in the graph below. The rate of change of temperature anomalies have increased rapidly up to 3pm and then decreased. Even at midnight, the temperature is still a little hotter than normal, largely to due the extra hot sun heating up the atmosphere. By 3am and 6am, the atmosphere it would seem is not influenced by the sun.
Similarly from 1947 to 1976 when we saw a slight decrease in overall global (and Australian) temperature, most of the decrease occurred during the heat of the day around 3pm. This indicates again, then when the overall temperature is cold, it is because it is a lot colder during the heat of the day and not equally hot overall.
If Co2 were the major cause of global, and Australian warming, then we would expect an equal increase in temperature at all times of the day and night. Maximum and minimum temperatures agree with this, however, the analysis shown here strongly disagree. In fact it disagrees so much, that it is clearly obvious that Co2 could not be the major cause. What else heats the world up with increasing rates up to around 3pm and then decreasing? The sun of course.
So our hypothesis on rate of temperature anomaly change between neighbouring times in south eastern south Australia, given that the sun is the major cause would be very similar. We should find little difference in the overnight temperatures of 3am and 6am, but should find significant increases in the rate of change of temperature anomalyís leading up to 3pm and then significant decreases in the rate of change of temperature anomaly's. This of course is looked at over time (in this case years). The rate of change should actually grow stronger as the years go on (as we have seen stronger increases in maximum and minimum temperatures).
So does the data suggest this? Letís find out.
Whilst temperature data at midnight is limited, we do find that the rate of change of temperatures at 3am is on average 0.1 degrees Celsius less than that at midnight. In other words, the temperature at 3am is cooling down a rate of 0.1 degrees quicker than it is at midnight. Perhaps this is because the influence of the sun is now very limited? If Co2 was the major cause of warming, we should not see any pattern at all in this graph of limited years.
As a surprise, the rate of change of temperature anomalies at 6am have decreased significantly from 3am. In fact this rate of decrease has been at 0.5 degrees per 100 years. Why is 6am getting a lot colder with relation to 3am?
When looking at changes between 9am and 6am, we find no major change with the exception of the latest 10 years all being warmer. So the last 10 years, we have seen temperatures at 9am increase significantly more than at 6am. This isnít surprising as this is when the sun increases, although I have to admit I would have thought the increase would have been more substantial (if the sun was the major cause of global warming).
But now the pattern, as predicted, is starting to hit in. Temperatures at Noon were significantly increasing as compared to 9am at a rate of 0.4 degrees per 100 years and the significant increase in temperatures at 3pm as compared to Noon was even greater (1.2 degrees per 100 years).
No major changes were found in the relationship between 6pm and 3pm, although it must be noted that a large negative trend was found in the last 6-7 years (eg. 6pm has been cooling quicker than at 3pm). And when the sun is starting to lose itís influence of the temperature (between 9pm and 6pm) in south east southern Australia, we see that the rate of change more recently has been negative at a rate of 0.5 degrees per 100 years. This pattern, though a small sample size, is still obvious when looking at changes in temperature anomalies over time between Midnight and 9pm.
So believe it or not, we have proven exactly what our hypothesis predicted. That the rate of change in neighboring times would increase more significantly over time when the sun is getting hotter (around 3pm) and then decrease with time later in the day. I strongly recommend you view the linked graphs above to see it for yourself.
This is a clear indication, that the major driving force behind temperature change is the sun. Should Co2 levels been the main force, then would have seen no patterns at all in these graphs, but the patterns are clearly obvious and only point to one possible conclusion.
Of course you are asking, this is only a small sample of Australian weather stations yet alone the world, and yes we will get to them. I canít let all the eggs out the basket at once!
But this analysis still doesnít look at why minimum temperatures have increased despite early morning temperatures having not done so. We have hypothesized in the past how the sun is influencing minimum temperatures as well, but can we prove that statistically?
Youíre just going to have to wait till the next article for Part II on Statistical Proof of sun caused global warming in South Australia.
We discussed how for south eastern South Australia, the rate of change in temperature at neighbouring times increased as we reached the maximum temperature of the day and decreased as the sun lost its warming power. If Co2 levels were the main cause of global warming, then this pattern would not occur and the rate of change amongst all times would be relatively constant. This of course did not happen. However, this is a clear indication that the sun is the main driving force behind recent global warming.
But this still doesn't answer why minimum temperatures have been increasing. We hypothesised that it also had to do with the sun and a warmer sun would influence the early morning temperatures. As an example, today at mount gambier (south eastern south Australia), first light was recorded at 6.22am and the sunrise at 6.50am. Hence we had a whole 30 minutes of the atmosphere heating up due to the sun before mount gambians actually saw it. The minimum temperature on this day, the 4th of May occurred at 7am with the temperature of 11.1 degrees. What this means is that it occurred shortly after the sun rose. As soon as the sun was high enough in the sky to make a significant difference, the temperatures increased.
If the sun was stronger than normal, then we would have still acquired similar temperatures at 6am as in the past, but the minimum temperature would be increased. The extra power of the sun would increase the atmosphere from first light. We had 30 minutes from first light to the rise of the sun and an extra 10 minutes until we reached out minimum.
Our hypothesis is therefore we should see an increasing trend when we minus the temperatures at 3 and 6am from the minimum temperature. In other words, over time, the minimum temperature should be increasing at a greater rate than at 3am and 6am. If the sun is effecting temperatures at the minimum and maximum, then we would also expect to see no significant trend of time with the difference between minimum and maximum temperature anomalies. I also hypothesise that we might find differences in summer and winter where mount gambier obviously has greater amount of sunlight in the summer than the winter. What differences these are we'll have to see.
So lets to the analysis:
Shown above the the output from minimum minus the 3am and 6am temperature anomalies over time. What is quite clear is the increasing trend, in that minimum temperatures are increasing at a greater rate than the temperature at 3am and 6am. It is obvious that minimum temperatures is not a good indication of overnight temperatures. The trend is so strong that it shows that minimum temperatures have been increasing by as much as 0.8 degrees per 100 years in comparison with 3am temperatures, and by 1.4 degrees per 100 years when compared to 6am temperatures. This 1.4 degree increase is actually very comparable to the 1.6 degree increase per 100 years that we saw minimum temperatures increasing by.
More evidence that minimum temperatures are increasing at a significantly greater rate over the last 50 years than temperatures at 3am and 6am. If co2 was the driving force behind temperature change, then this pattern would not occur, and it occurs so strikingly, that it cannot be ignored.
The difference between maximum and minimum temperatures anomalies in south east South Australia showed a slight increase, in that maximum temperatures were increasing at a greater rate than minimum temperatures, however the increase was not statistically significant.
Also the difference between 3am and minimum temperatures in summer was 27% greater than in winter. Even more than this was the difference between 6am and minimum temperatures anomalies in summer than in winter, which was 67% stronger.
This no doubt is because of the sun and perhaps less cloud cover in the summer.
In conclusion, we can say that our hypothesis have been answered. We have proven that over time, minimum temperatures have increased at a significant rate more than overnight temperatures. This indicates that minimum temperature is a poor indication of overnight temperatures, that is largely correlated with maximum temperature. It is therefore most likely the sun that is driving up minimum temperatures and not effecting the temperature before first light.
Hence we have more evidence that co2 could not possibly be the driving force behind global warming and that the sun is the main cause.
So where did you steal this from then?
No, actually if you google the 4th sentence, you find it's his own blog. (Atleast the names agree anyway.) So we have here someone posting their own blog posts, but they are so lazy they havn't removed the bits that make it clear they are blog posts, thus leading people like myself to wonder if it's all stolen, and they are attempting a lame trolling expedition.
ascetic, sage, diogenes, bum?
I'm too tired to read all of that, what's it say?
Sun = global warming. Gore = Idiot.
I can't be bothered to read any of the threads on SF today; what do they say?
US = Awesome, Liberals = scum, Conservatives = psychopaths. Sandy = 50 year old fat dude.
A more complex explanation is that he thinks CO2 has nothing to do wtih warming because it is getting warmer at night in a small area of Australia, so this proves the sun did it.
Never mind the scientific results showing that there has not been an increase in solar activity in the past few decades.
The gist I'm getting is:
Sun= getting warmer.
"Evidence"= something about 6am and 3am with about 3000 words of incoherent rambling.
Conspicuously absent potential lines of evidence= Solar output measurements, milankovich cycles.
Authors apparent understanding of global warming and solar heating= Poor.
Probably not worthwhile, but the arguament can be refuted: when the minimum temp at night rises, but the max during the day doesn't, the difference between them shrinks.
The difference between day and night surface temps is mostly a consequence of heat being radiated into upper air or outer space (some soaks into the ground, as well) The less radiative cooling, the smaller the overnight temp drop. Greenhouse gasses predict most of the change in temps occurring during times of interference with radiative cooling - at night, in the winter, at high latitudes, times and places of smaller direct solar radiance.
The stronger sun should heat the equater during the summer day, the heat trap gas should insulate the poles during the winter night. The latter is observed.
Fine point: there is radiative cooling during the day,of course. But at higher temps this rate of cooling is proportionately faster (Newton's Law of Cooling) so the heat trap makes less of an observable difference.
I'm not going to waste my time reading all of the original post, but it has recently been shown that we are in a solar cycle decline, not in an increase. There was a short movie putting Gore down about a month ago using some Danish astrophysicists study that the solar cycle was now increasing, with increased sun spot activity. This 1990's study has since been debunked. The guy read the data wrong and has since published a corrected version of his original studies that show sunspot activity and the solar cycle is now in decline while temps increase. All reputable scientists today agree that increases in Green House Gases, including CO2, are increasing temperatures; although there are other factors. But these are the main causes and the ones that we can and need to prevent, stop and reverse. Each one degree Celsius rise in temperature corresponds to a 10% extinction rate. The predicted 3.6 degree rise by 2050 means that 36% of species on Earth will go extinct. Stop Global Warming Now!
Valich, wouldn't global warming warm the ocean surfaces creating more evaporation for more clouds for a cooling effect?
I think your brain is frozen Ice Age. You should turn up the heat in your house to evaporate some of the waste out of it, then maybe - maybe? - something intelligent might come out. Like the original garbage post, I'm not even going to address such a stupid comment, with an equally trivial reply that isn't worth anyone's time. Now I doubt you've ever had any science courses at all. Even in junior high or high school. Just waste your time trolling the internet posting garbage. Get a life.
Last edited by valich; 05-12-07 at 08:55 PM.
As a mother, I am telling you
Finally the truth....
Originally Posted by Nickelodeon
Who here DISAGREES that the sun is the major cause of global warming?! Like, I mean, where do u think the warming comes from? Lava?
The sun is the major cause of it being as warm as it is just now. It supplies the energy. However the past few decades of warming caused by emissions by us humans is the major cause of what is colloqially known as global warming.
The sun will still be a major cause of global warming when we are pumping a lot more emissions into the atmosphere. If we pumped say 1000 times more CO2 than we do now, we would freeze fairly quickly if we removed the sun for a few weeks!
Originally Posted by guthrie
And you are perhaps Dr Evil planning on doing just that?
Or are you just playing stupid?