SUV's on Jupiter: Is Global Warming being caused by increased solar activity rather than human activity?

NO scientists dont miss the facts of the various solar variations or the increased output of the sun or the fact that many planets are experiencing global warming. the Earth would warm without man right now, but not as fast. Science is far more skeptical than even a court of law.
Carbon dioxide is well understood. SO is sulfur dioxide(which was one reason scientists said global cooling was on the way, which helped us decide to reduce pollution and hence some acid rain)
It really isnt a theory and you can ask bill grey or any skeptic you want, these questions.
Does Carbon dioxide reflect infrared?
What is the difference in the carbon level today vs 100 years ago?
What percentage was put in their by man?
It their an extremely strong collation between carbon dioxide and world wide average temp?

No even the great naysayers agree.. that carbon does reflect infrared and left to no other variables will cause global warming. That is important because nether litdzen of grey deny this fact.. or really any other scienctits (who believes in global warming or not) it is just both grey and lidzen think that the earth has built in counteracting agents. for litdzen it is wind.
Grey of course recently said "even if gloabl warming is real it isnt like we could do anything about it" so i really refuse to listen to any more of this mans garbage because even as a naysayer he doesnt have much conviction. And honestly not one of the scientists will disagree on any of those questions.
They will simply disagree on the conclusions and really unless this crap is posted to a peer reviewed journal it is crap. The easiest thing to ever do in sciecne is disprove something. It is very hard to prove something. Theories come and go like the wind and often are easily disproven. Most sciemcetists gain their names by disproving than coming up with something new. Go to phyorg.com and you will see most of the forum is people trying to disprove settled theories. All it takes is for one irrefutable truth and this global warming thing will go away. But not only hasnt it happened..
Most of the global warming believers started out as scientists desperate to disprove global warming.
This is just more luntz memo crapola. ANd even though he isnt a scientist and it shouldnt matter, even luntz is on the global warming side.
If you dont know what the luntz memo is.. i really think you should look it up. People with truth on their side shouldnt have to go so far to game the system. They shouldnt have to hire scienctists to tout the party lie.
Really it is indisputable, you could try but intelligence and educated people will laugh.
Global warming is real
Global warming is mostly caused by man but some has a natural effect because we are in a natural and predicted and understood warming trend
It is better to start to fix this now than latter, every day we wait the hard it becomes to fix.

It really isnt a theory

Yes, it is, Goddamnit. Don't denigrate the word "theory" just because Creationists like to use it against evolution. General relativity is a theory, too. "Theory" doesn't mean "guess."

Global Warming is mostly caused by man? Prove it.

Doubt he could have done it without the sun.

Doubt he could have done it without the sun.

True, since without the sun there'd be no life, and hence no man.

I agree. If you've ever watched the weather on the news, you know that we've got nothing like a perfect grasp on all of the factors influencing weather.

It would be foolish to stop doing anything about CO₂, but it would also be foolish not to look into other things that can be done. I suspect, though, that the main place this singular focus is happening is the media, and that many scientists are looking into other avenues and doing other research.

I have no problem at all with rational efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Conserving finite resources also makes a lot of sense. It is the 'The sky is falling! We must do anything possible to stop it NOW!' mentality for which I see no valid reason.

Reasonable efforts include using our technology wisely, not blindly thrashing about changing things with little or no thought to the consequences.

Well then we probably have little argue about :) I don't believe that the current attempts to decrease carbon emissions are blindly thrashing about, but I do believe action is needed pretty quickly.

Well, other than the fact that "energy output" is so vague as to be completely meaningless, so what about it? The kinds of volcanoes that may have brought the planet out of ice-ages were super-volcanoes (which did so by releasing greenhouse gases, by the way, according the super-volcano theory). These events are extremely rare, though, and there's not much evidence to suggest that this is indeed what ended various ice-ages in the history of the planet. Lastly, if such a volcano was releasing energy (or carbon, take your pick), we would likely be aware of it's existence (as one of Bozzor's links above point out).

Bozzor's last link indicates that global warming could cause more volcanic activity, which would likely produce more carbon, therefore compounding the problem. However, it should be noted that the amount of annual carbon from volcanic activity an order of magnitude less than that created by human activity, so at least this negative feedback loop wouldn't significantly change the problem (source).

Lastly, even if we found that a significant part of global warming was caused by solar forcing (which greenhouse gases only make worse) and volcanic activity (ditto that), wouldn't it be wise to still reduce the portion humans add to that, rather than simply double it as we do now (at least, by most research estimates)?

These events are extremely rare, though, and there's not much evidence to suggest that this is indeed what ended various ice-ages in the history of the planet.

How do we know? The ocean makes up two-thirds of the earth's surface, but are relatively unexplored. I've heard some comments that perhaps undersea volcanoes are responsible for El Nino. Part of the problem in modeling things (such as the earth's climate) is not including all of the effects.

Other than being generally incorrect, what about scientists who are published in non mainstream media such as Science or Nature, or eve those who are in popular science periodicals like New Scientist, Scientific American, or Seed? Can you find me any articles in those (or really any peer-reviewed publication) that support what you are claiming? You'll find plenty of information here on Newsvine or in any reputable science publication that will indicate you are mistaken in your claim.

I don't get my science from right-wing blogs or the mainstream media, and in my reading there's little doubt that the most significant cause of the current increase in average global temperature is a result of man-made carbon emissions.

That is what this is about.

Yes, but so far there is only speculation about other sources. All of the evidence points to human causes as the single largest factor by far. Do you have any quantified evidence that supports these other theories as being anywhere near as important.

It appears that some people assume that because there are many causes its impossible to conclude which ones are the most significant.

I agree, and all evidence (of actual research, I completely discount articles such as this one) suggest that man-made greenhouse gases are the most significant causes of the current warming trend. I'm all for more accurately determine what contribution solar forcing, volcano activity, etc. has on global warming, if any. However, the current evidence suggest that these only compound the effect of anthropological emissions.

But what if it is not enough? What if we have to do something else?

Exactly. So let's not pretend that doing nothing is a good place to start. Let's start by reducing what we know understand to be the main cause and continue to investigate. This is not at all what this article seems to suggest by language like this:

The orthodox organized religion of global warming and its disastrous consequences for our freedom of speech, freedom of mobility and our right to remain outside of the system, needs to be questioned on the foundational basis that the phenomenon is solar-system wide and it is mainly caused by the natural evolution of the sun and not human activity.

Jason Coleman wrote:

Associated Press: Study says sun getting hotter (1997) — Ah, now we finally get to something that might have to do with what the author claims. However (from the article):

Willson said that most researchers expect greenhouse gases to warm the planet by 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit in the next 100 years. Solar irradiance could add another 0.72 degrees F and ''that is not an insignificant number. It is smaller than the greenhouse effect, but it is not trivial,'' he said.

How do they know that solar irradiance will only add another 0.72 deg F? We only have accurate data since the late 1970's.

A big step will be for scientists to predict a certain rise in say 5 or 10 years and then see if the evidence agrees with that prediction.

Jason, I liked(and agreed with) what you had to say until you pulled out the hockey stick graph.

If you don't believe it great :) But I have to say your comments brought to mind another sentence from the linked article

The assertion that global warming is man made is so oppressively enforced upon popular opinion, especially in Europe, that expressing a scintilla of doubt is akin to holocaust denial in some cases.

Don't stress much about it though I try not to post on pseudo-economic articles like the minimum wage ones but they entrap me anyway despite knowing better.

Jason, thank you for going through those links - I didn't have the patience, or quite frankly the scientific background. However, the whole article set off my B.S. detectors right from the first anti-grammatical paragraph. Hint: If someone can't find their way around where to place the quotation marks, they probably don't have the education to be writing about the science of climate change.

I found your explanations very clear and helpful.

I agree. I think we should try to reduce waste and emissions. My objection is to spend a lot of money on something that may or may not affect the environment significantly, but may be more likely to cause a recession or bankrupt the economy. Also, it may make more sense to adapt to the changes than to try and prevent them.

I agree that we should not be spending money on things that we really don't know whether it will affect the outcome or not. I do think that on personal levels we should become better stewards of our planet. Recycle, bike, walk, shop local, reduce heating and electrical and water usage. All the little things that individuals can do to not be wasteful.