Recently I began a new inquiry into anthropogenic global warming/climate change unlike my previous ones. This time I had both experience debates provided, and a new perspective to explore that my earlier research queries blessed me with. My original stance was that of some confusion. As I wasn't entirely sure of the whole picture. Debating this on various forums helped substantially, and also aided in the gathering of information required for me to delve deeper into the anthropogenic climate change theory. - My first links will deal with the history and development of various climate change ideas. The first of which is Global Cooling. During the 1970's, recent increasing awareness about Earths Ice Age's caused a media frenzy. In very short order, people began to hypothesize that the earth was in a cooling trend (based on temperature history from the 1940's to the 1970's). The hypothesis was never accepted by the majority of scientists, but due to intense media popularity it drew a lot of support from the people and a few supporting scientists. Today, scientists believe that the high amount of aerosols did cause the planet to make a short climate shift to slightly cooler weather. - The Dust Bowl was a more localized event, but still warrants mention due to how it came to pass. If you care to read up on the history, you'll discover that it was originally called the "great American desert". Yet slowly but surely, settlers began to colonize the grassy plain. An important think to point out is that through the 1800's and 1900's there existed a scientifically backed saying. "Rain follows the plow". One of the most politically motivated scientific errors. In an ironic twist of fate, because so many people adhered to this saying and began to mass-colonize/farm the plains with destructive agricultural habits, it caused the dust bowl by removing moisture from the ground. As you should have noticed if you read about the "Great American desert". - There are two major differences in these events. One was caused by humans (anthropogenic), while the other was caused by variations in sunspots. I've prepared a few graphs and numbers from them. This was to gauge the temperatures and the years so I could properly measure sunspot activity and its effects. I also have a reliable list of sunspot number averages by year. Which I then added and calculated averages from to produce three nine-year averages for various years. The three samples I did were from 1937-46 (beginning of the cold period from 40-70), 1965-74 (end of it), and 1975-84 (start of the warming). The sunspot averages (which you can calculate yourself. I advise using google for adding all the numbers quickly in one string) in order are: 67.82, 75.5, and 91.87. The global mean temperatures (in C) are (two numbers for the start and end year, separated by a comma on the next year): 0.03 -0.1, -0.2 -0.1, -0.1 0.05. I list only two because global temperature appears to lag behind sunspot averages by a few years or so (I know not the exact time. I wish I did). Using the graphs, you can see the temperature fluctuation averages more clearly, and get a better understanding of what the sunspots did during each nine year period. - The temperature and sunspots which are most noteworthy, however, are 1975-84 (91.87, -0.1 0.05). Global warming theory says that we should be causing global warming, not sunspots. Yet sunspot number averages are far higher in that nine year period than even 40+ years prior. Make your own conclusions. Further averages of sunspots (keeping with the nine year count, so averaging remains the same) of 1985-94, and 1995-04: 87.28, 71.5 Temperature averages for those years (by graphs): 0.05 0.1, 0.1 0.4 One can also use Nasa http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/. My above calculations do not attempt to disprove anthropogenic global warming. Merely to prove that, up until around 1985-94, temperature averages followed sunspot spikes. Also, these calculations DO NOT prove anthropogenic global warming. What they do prove, is that something other than the sun is causing us to warm up. Possibly. For all I know temperatures could really lag longer than I thought, and we're on a short temperature spike. We'll find out in the next four to eight years.
Since there were no responders, I should make it clear that this was an initial phase that I posted on another forum. Which made clear a few errors I made (I posted it because I wanted a fresh set of eyes). Ones which I overlooked in my "rush". So some of the above (specifically the nine-year averages) aren't statistically accurate.
Temperature changes follow changes in solar output with a delay because most of the earth is covered by water which responds slowly to the sun. On a daily basis the water heats and cools slower than the land.
