<p>We know a lot about the sun. It isn't the main cause of global warming, as we can monitor exactly how much energy it is producing. The sun's output can fluctuate though, and we have yet to measure how badly this affects the climate.</p>

<p><strong>So what is the main cause of global warming?</strong></p>

<p>The main cause of global warming is emissions of C02 (carbon dioxide) into the atmosphere. C02 is odorless, colourless and non-toxic, however, it is the main cause of global warming. C02 is a greenhouse gas and  can stay in our atmosphere for about 20 years.</p>

<p>C02 causes something called the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect is the idea that long wave energy which is meant to go back to space, doesn't go back to space, and is instead captured by greenhouse gases such as C02. This causes lots of heat that should go off into space to be trapped inside the earth's atmosphere causing your temperature to rise.</p>

<p><strong>Are there any other greenhouse gases?</strong></p>

<p>Other greenhouse gases do exist, carbon dioxide is just the main one that causes the global warming. Other greenhouse gases include water vapor, methane, nitrous oxide and ozone.</p>

<p><strong>Does global warming happen only on Earth?</strong></p>

<p>Global warming happens all over the  solar system, planets like venus have many greenhouses gases in their atmosphere too, infact, on venus greenhouse gases alone make the planet 465 degrees celsius hot, which is way over the boiling point of water - 100 degrees celsius.</p>

<p><strong>Do I disagree?</strong></p>

<p>Yes, as there is too little evidence to prove that the sun fluctuates enough energy to gradually increase our climate dramatically, and we have also proven the effects of greenhouse gases in a planets atmosphere.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-02-08T17:57:25.547Z
Water vapor is kind of an interesting contributor because it acts as an amplifier for the greenhouse effects of other gases. A little more methane--> a little more heat. A little more heat --> some more water vapor --> some more heat.
Wayfaring Stranger
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-02-08T21:46:06.677Z
Thank you Daniel Cann!  I just want to know if alterations in the way we consume fossil fuels can be done to remedy our problem of global warming; I'm not a global warming denier, but I can bring into question its causes.
Michael Lee
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-02-09T10:16:35.433Z
The effect of the Sun which is seriously discussed is not the insolation, but Solar activities' effect on Earth's magnetic field and hence on the amount of cosmic radiation that reaches the atmosphere and initiate cloud formation.
LocalFluff
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-02-09T16:14:07.557Z
@MichaelLee  Fossil fuels always produce greenhouse gases if we burn them, so what we are looking for now is ways to produce renewable energy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy), I'm glad you liked my answer! I am especially interested in planets and moons.
Featherball
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-02-08T17:33:37.837Z
2016-02-08T17:33:37.837Z
Featherball
<p>The Sun is a fiery mass of colliding particles.  We still know very little about what it is.  Could it possibly be the output of the sun fluctuates, like our weather, from one extreme to another.  From hot durations to cold durations and back again. I think global warming is the result of higher amounts of solar energy being released from the Sun; that's why it's getting hotter here.  I believe the question is important to all people on planet Earth, par excellence; is humanity, namely our consumption of fossil fuels, the cause of our predicament? </p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-02-08T04:34:41.270Z
What you say sounds logical but it's not true and this has been explained many times.   Here's one from the Washington Post:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/02/23/no-the-sun-isnt-driving-global-warming/

Also, we know a LOT about what the sun is and how much heat it gives off.  There are satellites that record solar output specifically.     I could explain if you like, but this answer is easily researched.
userLTK
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-02-08T05:23:28.260Z
What is not sure (to say the least) is if the political statement that the best thing to do about it is to abolish most industry, transport, electricity and agriculture and hence kill billions of human beings, abolish all space programs and generally return to the medieval ages. Maybe adapting to a slowly increasing temperature would be very much better option? Especially since we always have done that most successfully and climate could change naturally too anyway.
LocalFluff
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-02-08T08:10:16.150Z
@LocalFluff That's laying it on a bit thick.  One thing you implied is true, that an honest benefit to cost analysis is always relevant, but with something this large, research into both alternative energy and climate forcasts is essential, even people who don't think the rate of warming is dangerous should be able to agree with that.  Two degrees c of warming globally over a century is huge and geologically speaking, Earth is warming very rapidly now and the evidence backing that up is science, not politics.  Unfortunately, it's hard to say that without responses getting political.
userLTK
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-02-08T09:10:28.397Z
We are not 100% certain of anything, however basic solar output has been recorded since pre-industrial times. Records go even further back if you include dendrochronology, for example.  I'd suggest researching into this if you're actually interested.
Andy
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-02-08T12:45:44.700Z
@userLTK Climate researchers and politicians have themselves to blame for lacking credibility. They never distance themselves from the fanatic environmentalists who openly claim that *"too many humans are alive"*! A climate researcher who does not emphatically distance him/herself from environmentalists and from their anti-scientific genocidal economic politics, is of course automatically taken as one of them. Politicians use the propaganda trick to hide behind "science" when they brutally stop all criticism against or debate about their catastrophic economic policies.
LocalFluff
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-02-08T14:02:55.970Z
The sun's output does fluctuate, but nobody knows exactly how much effect it has on the climate. In addition nobody knows exactly how human activity has affected the climate. For myself I'm unhappy that there seems to be plenty of money for windmills, but physics and astronomy funding is forever under pressure.
John Duffield
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-02-09T02:52:09.313Z
@LocalFluff credibility doesn't change the science, which is about the evidence.   You can debate this person's credibility or that study's credibility, or you can debate the science, but you shouldn't do both at the same time.   The scientific evidence is very strong that the 40% increase in CO2 over the last 100 years or so is driving the warming.   Andy is correct about 100% certain.   100% certain in science is a rare thing and were not 100% certain, but there is very very very strong scientific evidence that the increase in CO2 is warming the earth and quite quickly in geological terms.
userLTK
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-02-09T10:12:33.603Z
@userLTK Climate scientists need to protest against being used as argument for political purposes. Unfortunately, such behavior is punished by the politicians who use the tax money they've robbed as a threat and a bribe. Increased CO2 in itself is extremely good for wildlife and agriculture. How fit climate science is as foundation for economic policy, you can judge yourself by looking at how well the global temperature prognoses made 20 years ago turned out compared with reality.
LocalFluff
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-02-10T13:03:29.190Z
@LocalFluff  You're wrong to attack all climate scientists.   That's not how the scientific method works.   As I said, you can call out one person's credibility, you can find flaws in a study, you can even find flaws in a theory but you are wrong to speak so generally about all climate scientists.   Your method of attack is flawed.   Identify the specific errors.  That's how science is done, it's in the details, not the generalizations.  And you shouldn't speak ill of a body of science and all the scientists who study it.   That's an injustice to those who do honest research in the field.
userLTK
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-02-10T13:08:41.733Z
@userLTK Well, the temperature hasn't risen at all since the 1990s, has it? Just to point out one little "flaw". Cosmologists are none the wiser, but at least they refrain from proposing, or letting themselves be used as a political excuse for, proposed political reforms to abolish industry.
LocalFluff
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-02-10T14:04:55.777Z
To quote a line that always makes me laugh:   "It depends on what your definition of 'is' is."   And on a more serious note, if we can't agree on what the thermometers say, there's no point discussing what the results mean, but at the same time, we'd have to be pretty darn inept if we can't agree on what the thermometers say, cause that's just numbers.   In the end, somebody lying.   I see no way around that.  You can reach different conclusions, but there shouldn't be different inputs, so there's a lie here.   And lies usually get uncovered in time.
userLTK
<the-sun><earth><climate>
Are we so sure global warming is a result of humans burning fossil fuels?
Michael Lee
# Are we so sure global warming is a result of humans burning fossil fuels?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2016-02-08)

The Sun is a fiery mass of colliding particles. We still know very little about what it is. Could it possibly be the output of the sun fluctuates, like our weather, from one extreme to another. From hot durations to cold durations and back again. I think global warming is the result of higher amounts of solar energy being released from the Sun; that's why it's getting hotter here. I believe the question is important to all people on planet Earth, par excellence; is humanity, namely our consumption of fossil fuels, the cause of our predicament?

**Tags:** the-sun, earth, climate

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: What you say sounds logical but it's not true and this has been explained many times.   Here's one from the Washington Post:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/02/23/no-the-sun-isnt-driving-global-warming/  Also, we know a LOT about what the sun is and how much heat it gives off.  There are satellites that record solar output specifically.     I could explain if you like, but this answer is easily researched.  
> **username_2**: What is not sure (to say the least) is if the political statement that the best thing to do about it is to abolish most industry, transport, electricity and agriculture and hence kill billions of human beings, abolish all space programs and generally return to the medieval ages. Maybe adapting to a slowly increasing temperature would be very much better option? Especially since we always have done that most successfully and climate could change naturally too anyway.  
> **username_1**: @username_2 That's laying it on a bit thick.  One thing you implied is true, that an honest benefit to cost analysis is always relevant, but with something this large, research into both alternative energy and climate forcasts is essential, even people who don't think the rate of warming is dangerous should be able to agree with that.  Two degrees c of warming globally over a century is huge and geologically speaking, Earth is warming very rapidly now and the evidence backing that up is science, not politics.  Unfortunately, it's hard to say that without responses getting political.  
> **username_3**: We are not 100% certain of anything, however basic solar output has been recorded since pre-industrial times. Records go even further back if you include dendrochronology, for example.  I'd suggest researching into this if you're actually interested.  
> **username_2**: @username_1 Climate researchers and politicians have themselves to blame for lacking credibility. They never distance themselves from the fanatic environmentalists who openly claim that *"too many humans are alive"*! A climate researcher who does not emphatically distance him/herself from environmentalists and from their anti-scientific genocidal economic politics, is of course automatically taken as one of them. Politicians use the propaganda trick to hide behind "science" when they brutally stop all criticism against or debate about their catastrophic economic policies.  
> **username_4**: The sun's output does fluctuate, but nobody knows exactly how much effect it has on the climate. In addition nobody knows exactly how human activity has affected the climate. For myself I'm unhappy that there seems to be plenty of money for windmills, but physics and astronomy funding is forever under pressure.  
> **username_1**: @username_2 credibility doesn't change the science, which is about the evidence.   You can debate this person's credibility or that study's credibility, or you can debate the science, but you shouldn't do both at the same time.   The scientific evidence is very strong that the 40% increase in CO2 over the last 100 years or so is driving the warming.   username_3 is correct about 100% certain.   100% certain in science is a rare thing and were not 100% certain, but there is very very very strong scientific evidence that the increase in CO2 is warming the earth and quite quickly in geological terms.  
> **username_2**: @username_1 Climate scientists need to protest against being used as argument for political purposes. Unfortunately, such behavior is punished by the politicians who use the tax money they've robbed as a threat and a bribe. Increased CO2 in itself is extremely good for wildlife and agriculture. How fit climate science is as foundation for economic policy, you can judge yourself by looking at how well the global temperature prognoses made 20 years ago turned out compared with reality.  
> **username_1**: @username_2  You're wrong to attack all climate scientists.   That's not how the scientific method works.   As I said, you can call out one person's credibility, you can find flaws in a study, you can even find flaws in a theory but you are wrong to speak so generally about all climate scientists.   Your method of attack is flawed.   Identify the specific errors.  That's how science is done, it's in the details, not the generalizations.  And you shouldn't speak ill of a body of science and all the scientists who study it.   That's an injustice to those who do honest research in the field.  
> **username_2**: @username_1 Well, the temperature hasn't risen at all since the 1990s, has it? Just to point out one little "flaw". Cosmologists are none the wiser, but at least they refrain from proposing, or letting themselves be used as a political excuse for, proposed political reforms to abolish industry.  
> **username_1**: To quote a line that always makes me laugh:   "It depends on what your definition of 'is' is."   And on a more serious note, if we can't agree on what the thermometers say, there's no point discussing what the results mean, but at the same time, we'd have to be pretty darn inept if we can't agree on what the thermometers say, cause that's just numbers.   In the end, somebody lying.   I see no way around that.  You can reach different conclusions, but there shouldn't be different inputs, so there's a lie here.   And lies usually get uncovered in time.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_5 on 2016-02-08. Score: 4 | Accepted answer

We know a lot about the sun. It isn't the main cause of global warming, as we can monitor exactly how much energy it is producing. The sun's output can fluctuate though, and we have yet to measure how badly this affects the climate.

**So what is the main cause of global warming?**

The main cause of global warming is emissions of C02 (carbon dioxide) into the atmosphere. C02 is odorless, colourless and non-toxic, however, it is the main cause of global warming. C02 is a greenhouse gas and can stay in our atmosphere for about 20 years.

C02 causes something called the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect is the idea that long wave energy which is meant to go back to space, doesn't go back to space, and is instead captured by greenhouse gases such as C02. This causes lots of heat that should go off into space to be trapped inside the earth's atmosphere causing your temperature to rise.

**Are there any other greenhouse gases?**

Other greenhouse gases do exist, carbon dioxide is just the main one that causes the global warming. Other greenhouse gases include water vapor, methane, nitrous oxide and ozone.

**Does global warming happen only on Earth?**

Global warming happens all over the solar system, planets like venus have many greenhouses gases in their atmosphere too, infact, on venus greenhouse gases alone make the planet 465 degrees celsius hot, which is way over the boiling point of water - 100 degrees celsius.

**Do I disagree?**

Yes, as there is too little evidence to prove that the sun fluctuates enough energy to gradually increase our climate dramatically, and we have also proven the effects of greenhouse gases in a planets atmosphere.

> **Comments:**
> **username_6**: Water vapor is kind of an interesting contributor because it acts as an amplifier for the greenhouse effects of other gases. A little more methane--> a little more heat. A little more heat --> some more water vapor --> some more heat.  
> **username_0**: Thank you Daniel Cann!  I just want to know if alterations in the way we consume fossil fuels can be done to remedy our problem of global warming; I'm not a global warming denier, but I can bring into question its causes.  
> **username_2**: The effect of the Sun which is seriously discussed is not the insolation, but Solar activities' effect on Earth's magnetic field and hence on the amount of cosmic radiation that reaches the atmosphere and initiate cloud formation.  
> **username_5**: @MichaelLee  Fossil fuels always produce greenhouse gases if we burn them, so what we are looking for now is ways to produce renewable energy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy), I'm glad you liked my answer! I am especially interested in planets and moons.  

---

