How Much Does the Sun Contribute to Global Warming?

By T.L. Winslow (TLW), the Historyscoper™

© Copyright by T.L. Winslow. All Rights Reserved.

Original Pub. Date: Jan. 30, 2020. Last Update: Aug. 30, 2021.

A Lesson in TLW's New Real Climate Science Course

The simple answer to this is that the Sun provides all global warming, and the Earth’s atmosphere cools it back down because it’s a giant chimney not a greenhouse, venting the Sun’s heat harmlessly to space, but only at a certain rate, moderating surface temperature swings to keep temperatures within a livable range.

This cooling starts with the atmosphere absorbing solar heat at the surface via conduction then taking it toward space via convection, with radiation having almost no role. As each parcel of warm air rises, it responds to the decreasing pressure by expanding, which requires heat to be converted to work, shedding the heat and dropping 28F per mile to form and maintain the molecular-level lapse rate. Just like when you plunge the end of a cold iron rod into a fire, it takes a long time for the heat to travel down to your hand, the atmosphere can only cool Earth’s surface at a certain rate, making the need for atmospheric CO2 to do anything disappear.

Lapse rate - Wikipedia

Atmospheric circulation - Wikipedia

TL Winslow's answer to What is the scientific reason behind 'normal lapse rate' that is the decrease in temperature with increase in altitude?

How sick to claim that mere air at any temperature heats Earth’s surface instead of the mighty Sun with a temperature of 5800K (9900F) caused by exploding a trillion megaton H-bombs per second.

How much energy does the sun produce?

Sun - Wikipedia

Solar irradiance - Wikipedia

Some claim that geothermal energy keeps Earth's surface from freezing, not the Sun or CO2. D uh, back in the day the Earth started out molten, and slowly cooled, causing the molten portion to shrink and an insulating layer of solid rock to cap it. It would probably be all cold now if not for fission going on, but even that is declining as radioactive materials age.

“The Earth's internal thermal energy flows to the surface by conduction at a rate of 44.2 terawatt (TW), and is replenished by radioactive decay of minerals at a rate of 30 TW. These power rates are more than double humanity's current energy consumption from all primary sources, but most of this energy flow is not recoverable. In addition to the internal heat flows, the top layer of the surface to a depth of 10 meters (33 ft) is heated by solar energy during the summer, and releases that energy and cools during the winter. Outside of the seasonal variations, the geothermal gradient of temperatures through the crust is 25–30 °C (77–86 °F) per kilometer of depth in most of the world.”

Geothermal energy - Wikipedia

"Heat flows constantly from its sources within the Earth to the surface. Total heat loss from the Earth is estimated at 44.2 TW (4.42 × 1013 Watts).. Mean heat flow is 65 mW/m2 over continental crust and 101 mW/m2 over oceanic crust] This is 0.087 watt/square meter on average (0.03 percent of solar power absorbed by the Earth), but is much more concentrated in areas where the lithosphere is thin, such as along mid-ocean ridges (where new oceanic lithosphere is created) and near mantle plumes. The Earth's crust effectively acts as a thick insulating blanket which must be pierced by fluid conduits (of magma, water or other) in order to release the heat underneath. More of the heat in the Earth is lost through plate tectonics, by mantle upwelling associated with mid-ocean ridges. The final major mode of heat loss is by conduction through the lithosphere, the majority of which occurs in the oceans due to the crust there being much thinner and younger than under the continents."

Geothermal gradient - Wikipedia

So to develop a real climate model you can fuggedabout geothermal energy as insignificant and make it all about the Sun.

History of Sun Power

History backs me up. Ever heard of the Ordovician Period, from 485.4 million years ago to 443.8 million years ago (41.6 million year span)? The atmospheric concentration went from 7,000 ppm (parts per million or thousand thousand), when the climate was hot, down to 4,400 ppm, when there was a million-year ice age. Why? Because the Sun was 4% weaker. Atmospheric CO2 did diddly even though its concentration was 11 times what it is today.

Ordovician Period - Wikipedia

In contrast to the basic scientific facts, the insidious globalist Marxists at the U.N. and their politician-driven IPCC octopus of kept scientists, academics, journalists, and politicians have been pushing a fake science narrative that the Sun can’t even keep the Earth from freezing, providing a global avg. temp of only -18C (-0.4F), and that atmospheric CO2 supplies some 30C of warming via mythical back radiation to save us with a global avg. temp of +15C (59F) (not +12C?), else we would all freeze. They then want you to consider the issue closed, but not really, as they go on to claim that the current atmospheric CO2 level of about 400 ppm (parts per million or per thousand thousand) is at a tipping point and will soon bring climate Armageddon unless they’re given power to destroy the fossil fuel industry, capitalism, the U.S., and everything the globalist Marxists hate.

Here it is, in NASA’s own words:

[[The warming by heat-trapping gases in the air is now known as the “greenhouse effect”, but this is a misnomer. The air inside a garden greenhouse is heated because it is enclosed, preventing the circulation of air currents that would carry away heat and cool the interior. Nevertheless, the term is now so common that we will also sometimes designate the heat-trapping gases as greenhouse gases, and let greenhouse effect designate the process by which an atmosphere traps heat near a planet’s surface.]] [[Right now, the warming influence is literally a matter of life and death. It keeps the average surface temperature of the planet at 288 degrees kelvin (15 degrees Celsius or 59 degrees Fahrenheit). Without this greenhouse effect, the average surface temperature would be 255 degrees kelvin (-18 degrees Celsius or 0 degrees Fahrenheit); a temperature so low that all water on Earth would freeze, the oceans would turn into ice and life, as we know it, would not exist.]] - NASA's Cosmos

The official position of the IPCC puppet org. Am. Meteorological Society is that the Sun doesn’t create Earth’s weather or climate:


Here's a detailed analysis showing a univ. prof. literally doubling watts per square meter on the surface to make the greenhouse hoax work:

How does the Earth’s Greenhouse Effect work? (Hint: It doesn’t)

Watch video

Here’s a recent article from a so-called climate expert pushing this hoax:

Why solar activity and cosmic rays can't explain global warming

Here’s a typical video pushing the same hoax:

How exactly does the Weak Sun Hoax work? Since the surface area of a sphere of radius r is 4*pi*r^2, while the area of a disc of radius r by coincidence is pi*r^2 (actually pi*r*h, where h=r) they pretend that the Sun illuminates the entire area continually and then take 1/4 of that area, which is the area of a disc of radius r, making the Earth FLAT. They then quarter the Sun’s power to pretend to derive the Earth’s avg. surface temperature without CO2. They don’t tell you that the Earth is really a rotating sphere that bastes the Earth like a turkey on a spit, and that by quartering the Sun’s power they are also reducing its temperature by 30% (from 5800K to 4100K) by switching the radiation to a lower temperature Planck radiation curve that can’t give us hot July days in the desert any more than a man’s hand warmth can cook a turkey.

Here is a typical explanation of the IPCC flat Earth lie, from supporters: "The surface area of the Earth is 4piR^2, where R is the radius of the Earth, while the cross section of the Earth to solar radiation is piR^2. Thus the Earth as a whole receives 1/4 of that solar constant." - How to calculate the temperature of Earth's surface

Zonk! The cross section of the Earth to solar radiation is 2piR^2, a hemisphere not a flat disk. If you cut a sphere in half, you get a disc, but the area you cut off was twice the disk's. Thus, they start their calculations off by a factor of two. If you smell fake physics, you're right on. They were working backwards from the desired solution as dictated by their IPCC masters. This isn't real physics, it's a parody of physics. See: Want to have some fun with the flat earth climate change? Why are climate change deniers often associated with flat Earthers

The real Sun is so hot it can fry an egg.

This utterly sick hoax of weakening the Sun by a sleight of hand paper trick in order to prove it can’t keep us from freezing and thus frame cooling gas CO2 as responsible for all warming is actually accepted and taught blindly by the herd of so-called climate scientists, making their whole profession unworthy of respect. If quartering the Sun’s power is legitimate, why not take one-millionth of its power and apply it to one-millionth of the Earth’s surface? That would reduce the Sun’s temperature to 3% of 5800K = 174K = -146F = -99C, way colder than the coldest natural temperature ever recorded on Earth, 184K = -128.6F = -89.2C. Try calling them on it and watch the cluck-clucks act as if they’re too superior to explain it to you, because you actually pulled their pants down and exposed them as charlatans.

Lowest temperature recorded on Earth - Wikipedia

And that’s not all. Their 33C hoax treats the Earth as if it were the Moon, a vast desert with no water, oceans, or atmosphere that cools its surface via pure radiation to space. As if the Earth’s atmosphere doesn’t waste a large portion of the solar energy doing work against pressure and gravity to cool the surface via convection not radiation, and water doesn’t evaporate, wasting more energy to break chemical bonds before joining the convection train to the sky. They then fail to consider that water vapor absorbs 70% of surface IR, vs. 8% for CO2, blocking sunlight and IR both ways, then dumping precipitation from the frigid belt in the sky caused by the lapse rate, cooling the surface many more times than the Sun heated it. All to claim that CO2 is needed to keep the Earth’s surface from freezing, when the truth is that it does zilcho to heat it and only helps the rest of the atmosphere cool it.

This is such sick moose hockey it makes me want to vomit. Where do you think clouds and winds come from, radiation tricks?

Atmospheric motions in the vertical direction

A smart aleck might bring up the cosine effect. A hemisphere has twice the area of a disk of the same radius. however, when heated from one direction, most of the disk will receive less power per unit area than a flat disk would due to the cosine effect. This explains why solar cells are not effective at dawn and dusk. The total instantaneous power received cannot be more than would be absorbed by a disk. True, but the solar radiation is still being distributed over a greater area, like a turkey on a spit, which builds up the temperatures while the surface responds in a number of ways to cool, changing the total average temperature over that of a flat disk. We all know that the speed of the spit motor has a dramatic effect on the turkey, but guess what, the IPCC flat Earth model also treats the Earth as stationary and forever bathed in weakened sunlight, making weather (temperature gradients) impossible. Their sick lies are a work of desperation because they won't even try to prove directly that CO2 can warm anything, and have to resort to framing the Sun as needing its help. Funny but their model doesn't require any atmosphere, CO2 or not. Their minds are twisted like a bowl of spaghetti, and you want to trust them with trillions? Excuse me while I find my barf bag.

Speaking of ways to cool, these hoaxers actually seem to fail to understand the basic principle that heat can be converted to work, leaving no heat energy and no radiation to make it to space, a concept AKA the Carnot heat engine. I guess they also don't know that Carnot himself considered the Earth's atmosphere to be a heat engine, see the cool article:

Paper explains Earth's climate by principle of maximum entropy production (& without incorporating greenhouse gases

Carnot heat engine - Wikipedia

Or maybe the CO2 hoaxers know about this and don’t want you to. Every time there's wind, hail, rain, snow, cyclones, hurricanes, you're seeing the Sun's energy being wasted doing work and not returning to space, making their radiation-based energy balance diagrams into moose hockey. Just try and find a mention of convection in CO2 hoaxer lit., it’s like their dirty underwear. Way outside their sphere of influence in China they see it different, namely, that CO2 has nothing to do with the Earth’s surface temperature, and that’s it all about the Sun and its many cycles interacting with the atmosphere, ocean, etc.

China scientists warn of global cooling trick up nature’s sleeve

Here’s a video of a lab experiment proving that CO2 back radiation doesn’t exist. CO2 just helps cool the Earth’s surface along with the rest of the atmosphere. It doesn’t have super powers like in some comic book.

Another Experiment Proving CO2 is Innocent of Climate Change | PSI Intl

Too bad, more and more scientists are even destroying their basic cover story that back radiation of so many watts per square meter from rising atmospheric CO2 levels is the only explanation for recent slight alleged global warming. In 2013 one team of scientists from the U. of Md. reported that it is due to reduced cloud cover and aerosol depth instead.

1979-2017 Warming Can Be Explained By Natural Forcing

Paul Noel's answer to How are decadal oscillations linked to global warming?

No surprise that in 2010 NASA double-clutched by seemingly abandoning the CO2 surface warming theory to claim that its real function is to act as a “thermostat” for the clouds, preventing an ice age. Anything but admit that Hansen’s original CO2 greenhouse warming theory was crap and there is no coming climate Armageddon. Maybe they want to keep the back radiation hoax on the table while downplaying it, but thermostat and heater are mutually exclusive terms, and while everybody knows that CO2 in the sky can absorb a little surface IR and maybe heat some clouds up, keeping them from dumping a little while longer, they have been claiming that it also sends 100% of surface IR as back radiation clear to the surface, becoming a fictitious second Sun in the sky that they use as their cash register in the sky for their climate alarmist agitprop slash protection racket, and also forgot about the super-hot 1930s when CO2 levels were low. Was that actually a mini ice-age? :) Anything to keep getting their salaries and not have to work for McDonald's flipping burgers. Let me remind you of the NASA Web site big lie, which they never take down:

Carbon dioxide controls Earth's temperature

So if CO2 isn’t needed to give us 33C of warming, because the Sun does it by itself, how much does CO2 really give us? Duh, a big fat ZERO. This sick con game underpins the entire CO2 AGW hoax, and once you see what the scientific double-shuffle is you will be on your way to waking up and freezing, er, freeing yourself from this delusion.

Here’s a complete exposure of the IPCC 33C flat Earth scam by astrophysicist Joseph Postma, laid out step by step so you will completely understand it.

Joseph Postma

Back to the 33C thang. Where does it really come from? Not CO2. It comes from the atmosphere's great weight caused by gravity, with the pressure creating heat that provides a permanent 33C profile. Each day the Sun's radiation heats the Earth's surface, which then cools via radiation, convection, and evaporation, adding no net heat to the atmosphere. Only its pressure keeps the atmosphere from freezing. Don't believe me. Believe top physicist Richard Feynman:

Physicist Richard Feynman proved the Maxwell gravito-thermal greenhouse theory is correct & does not depend upon greenhouse gas concentrations

As yet more proof that the CO2-driven AGW theory is a deliberate hoax, note that they claim that atmospheric CO2 heats the "atmosphere", but actually only provide murky unfalsifiable claims of "global climate change", meaning changes in surface temperature not atmospheric temperature. One thing they NEVER do is claim that rising atmospheric CO2 concentration is really heating the atmosphere and wiping out the lapse rate of 28F temperature drop per mile, so that instead of it being -12F at 20,000 ft., it's say, +82F. Why? Because CO2 is just another gas in the atmosphere, whose heat capacity averages in to create the lapse rate, while CO2's radiation abilities do zilcho. If CO2 can’t warm the atmosphere to be hotter than the surface, Mother Nature's Second Law of Thermodynamics won't let it reheat the surface, period, end of story. Ditto with any other proposed “greenhouse gas”. But not with these miserable hoaxers, who try to play both sides against the middle and claim that a cooler atmosphere can warm a hotter surface.

How was the moose hockey misdirection play born? Because although NASA admitted that human-generated atmospheric CO2 has only warmed the Earth by a measly 0.8C since 1880, now that they’ve had several decades to manufacture fake temperature data, everybody can see that atmospheric CO2 is increasing yearly, “obviously” increasing global temperatures with it in lock-step, and so why not believe them that we can only go to 1.5C or 2.0C before climate Armageddon triggers in so many years? Of course, these climate Communists want us to believe that we must shut down the fossil fuel industry now and spend trillions of our hard-earned wealth converting to unreliable unworkable solar and wind power while yielding our lifestyles and sovereignty to the U.N., even though when they’re proved wrong they won’t give the power back or refund the money or undo the damage they caused.

World of Change: Global Temperatures

Global Warming of 1.5 ºC - IPCC SR 15

Funny coincidence, but the Sun glows about 0.1% brighter now than a century ago, and the Sun has been sunspot-free for 9 straight months, coinciding with record cold waves:

Deep solar minimum on the verge of an historic milestone

The Role of Sunspots and Solar Winds in Climate Change

Is there something fundamentally wrong with mixing science and politics? The IPCC is mixing them the same way Islamists mix religion and politics, because they want to dominate the world.

Read these links to wise-up on this CO2 hoaxer scam:

NASA admits climate change is due to Earth's variable solar orbit | PSI Intl

Proof that the sun, not CO2, drives climate & sea-level change | PSI Intl

The Atmosphere does not "Pile Heat" | PSI Intl

Flat Earth in Modern Physics

Book Release Live! “In the Cold Light of Day” with foreword by Dr. Tim Ball

CO2 Data Manipulation | PSI Intl

Climatic Effects of Manmade Carbon Dioxide | PSI Intl

John Walker's answer to How can we be sure that the sun doesn't cause the current climate change?

27 bullet points prove global warming by the Sun not CO2, by a Geologist for a change

Earth Is About To Enter A 30-Year "Mini Ice Age" As The Sun Hibernates, Scientist Warns

Watch video

Watch video

Watch video

One favorite ruse of the CO2 hoaxers to hook you into their rabbit hole is to compare the Earth, which has an atmospheric concentration of 0.04% to Venus, which has one of 95%. After pointing out the way higher surface temperatures, they lead you to the false conclusion that atmospheric CO2 is every planet’s thermostat. They never mention Mars, which also has a 95% atmospheric CO2 concentration but has a lower surface temperature than Earth, about the same as the Earth would have if it were that far from the Sun. The truth is that the lapse rate on Venus causes the high surface temperatures, not CO2. If CO2 were only 0.04% on Venus it wouldn’t change the surface temperatures.

Why is there no greenhouse effect on Mars with 95% carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?

Why keep desperately pushing a hoax and trying to fool everybody? Power. What they really wanted all along is an end to the happy wealthy comfortable convenient era of the fossil fuel industry and capitalism itself, which is bringing prosperity to ever-increasing numbers of peoples around the world, and its forced replacement by the horrors of everybody-is-poor global Marxism along with the end of individual freedoms as an elite manages people like worker ants to keep them down, no doubt with sinister plans for future population reduction. Not that getting big doesn’t compromise a corporation’s ethics, but that’s a different problem than whether their basic product or service is good for society and people want it. Marxists want to take over all corporations and distribute their products and services based on their own priorities regardless of market forces, insuring nobody ever gets enough except the elitist bureaucrats at the top.

DR TIM BALL MUST READ : Environmentalism – Evidence Suggests It Was Always And Only About Achieving World Government

To Take Down Fossil Fuels, We Must Abandon Capitalism

Destroy Capitalism to Save the Climate, Argues New York Times Op-Ed

The First Global Revolution

TL Winslow's answer to Climatology: Why is climate change politicized?

Watch video

Funny how the IPCC puppets claim that atmospheric CO2 is needed to keep us from freezing, but want to remove it from the atmosphere when it is pure good, used by plants for photosynthesis, anchoring the chain of all life. NASA recently admitted that the modest increase in atmospheric CO2 in the industrial age of 280 ppm to 415 ppm (3 ppm/year) has been greening the Earth and feeding the teeming billions. Still don’t think that one of their big secret goals is Malthusian population reduction? Let’s not find out. Resist the U.N. and its IPCC and its global octopus and be safe from the real Armageddon. They're not pushing climate science they're pushing a sales pitch for Marxist world govt.

Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds

Video Presentation: 'Do NOT Be Afraid of Carbon Dioxide!' | PSI Intl

TL Winslow's answer to Where is the evidence that seems to persuade people that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not causing global heating?

TL Winslow's answer to What is the scientific reason behind 'normal lapse rate' that is the decrease in temperature with increase in altitude?

Study with me and learn how the entire CO2 AGW theory is a scientific hoax with ulterior motives. It just takes some background in college-level physics. Start with my shortest-ever disproof of the CO2 AGW hoax, showing that the emperor has no clothes:

The Big Lie About CO2, by T.L. Winslow

Here’s my full-length essay dismantling the IPCC’s world. Can you allow facts and reason to change your mind?

TLW's Two Cents Worth on Climate Change

TLW's New Real Climate Science Course

Historyscoper Home Page

© Copyright by T.L. Winslow. All Rights Reserved.