Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.


Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup


All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Support

Twitter Facebook YouTube Pinterest MeWe

RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe

Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...

New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts


Sun & climate: moving in opposite directions

What the science says...

Select a level... Basic Intermediate Advanced

The sun's energy has decreased since the 1980s but the Earth keeps warming faster than before.

Climate Myth...

It's the sun

"Over the past few hundred years, there has been a steady increase in the numbers of sunspots, at the time when the Earth has been getting warmer. The data suggests solar activity is influencing the global climate causing the world to get warmer." (BBC)

Over the last 35 years the sun has shown a cooling trend. However global temperatures continue to increase. If the sun's energy is decreasing while the Earth is warming, then the sun can't be the main control of the temperature.

Figure 1 shows the trend in global temperature compared to changes in the amount of solar energy that hits the Earth. The sun's energy fluctuates on a cycle that's about 11 years long. The energy changes by about 0.1% on each cycle. If the Earth's temperature was controlled mainly by the sun, then it should have cooled between 2000 and 2008. 

TSI vs. T
Figure 1: Annual global temperature change (thin light red) with 11 year moving average of temperature (thick dark red). Temperature from NASA GISS. Annual Total Solar Irradiance (thin light blue) with 11 year moving average of TSI (thick dark blue). TSI from 1880 to 1978 from Krivova et al 2007. TSI from 1979 to 2015 from the World Radiation Center (see their PMOD index page for data updates). Plots of the most recent solar irradiance can be found at the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics LISIRD site.


The solar fluctuations since 1870 have contributed a maximum of 0.1 °C to temperature changes. In recent times the biggest solar fluctuation happened around 1960. But the fastest global warming started in 1980.

Figure 2 shows how much different factors have contributed recent warming. It compares the contributions from the sun, volcanoes, El Niño and greenhouse gases. The sun adds 0.02 to 0.1 °C. Volcanoes cool the Earth by 0.1-0.2 °C. Natural variability (like El Niño) heats or cools by about 0.1-0.2 °C. Greenhouse gases have heated the climate by over 0.8 °C.

Contribution to T, AR5 FigFAQ5.1

Figure 2 Global surface temperature anomalies from 1870 to 2010, and the natural (solar, volcanic, and internal) and anthropogenic factors that influence them. (a) Global surface temperature record (1870–2010) relative to the average global surface temperature for 1961–1990 (black line). A model of global surface temperature change (a: red line) produced using the sum of the impacts on temperature of natural (b, c, d) and anthropogenic factors (e). (b) Estimated temperature response to solar forcing. (c) Estimated temperature response to volcanic eruptions. (d) Estimated temperature variability due to internal variability, here related to the El Niño-Southern Oscillation. (e) Estimated temperature response to anthropogenic forcing, consisting of a warming component from greenhouse gases, and a cooling component from most aerosols. (IPCC AR5, Chap 5)

Some people try to blame the sun for the current rise in temperatures by cherry picking the data. They only show data from periods when sun and climate data track together. They draw a false conclusion by ignoring the last few decades when the data shows the opposite result.


Basic rebuttal written by Larry M, updated by Sarah

Update July 2015:

Here is a related lecture-video from Denial101x - Making Sense of Climate Science Denial


This rebuttal was updated by Kyle Pressler in 2021 to replace broken links. The updates are a result of our call for help published in May 2021.

Last updated on 2 April 2017 by Sarah. View Archives

Printable Version  |  Offline PDF Version  |  Link to this page

Argument Feedback

Please use this form to let us know about suggested updates to this rebuttal.

Related Arguments

Further viewing

Related video from Peter Sinclair's "Climate Denial Crock of the Week" series:

Further viewing

This video created by Andy Redwood in May 2020 is an interesting and creative interpretation of this rebuttal:


Prev  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  Next

Comments 1001 to 1050 out of 1288:

  1. Can you argue simply that if the temperature increase since 1980 were due to increased solar radiation reaching earth then the temperature of the stratosphere would not have been decreasing during that time frame? But the temperature of the stratosphere has been decreasing which shows increased absorption of outgoing IR?
  2. Is the following simple argument valid against increased solar flux causing the temperature increases since 1980? (This argument may be elsewhere here, but I have not seen it.) 1. If it were only increased solar flux causing the temperature increase, then the stratospheric temperature deviation would not show stratospheric cooling since 1980. 2. But systematic stratospheric cooling has occurred since 1980. Therefore the temperaature increase at the earth's surface must be due to decreased IR power radiated into the atmosphere.
  3. curiousd - A more simple argument against increased solar flux is that solar flux has decreased since 1980, as seen here, going in the opposite direction from the temperature trend. But yes, stratospheric cooling is one of the fingerprints of GHG warming - less energy going from the troposphere to the stratosphere due to GHG entrapment, while higher concentrations of GHG's in the stratosphere cause some radiative cooling to space. There are complications in terms of stratospheric water vapor trends, but that's the basic mechanism.
  4. I have a question for the Atmospheric Scientists. Geophycisists and astrophycists both say the current climate models do not take into account significant natural sources of heating in the atmosphere and oceans. The astrophysicists point to increased solar energy from the sun, which contributes to heating of the atmosphere. The geophysicists point to heating of the oceans from volcanic activity. Between them the astronomy and geology community can point to natural sources of energy input to the climate system that account for around 0.4 deg F in the past century. This is over half of the observed change. Just what level of energy input is required to be considered significant? (-Snip-) (-Snip-) (-Snip-) (-Snip-)
    Response: [DB] Multiple sections restating earlier comments without relevance on this thread snipped. Please see the comment Tom Curtis linked to below to pursue this further, if you wish. It is only on-topic there.
  5. smoidel @1004, I recently adressed your misinformation about Kilauea's heat output in detail here. I now see that instead of responding, or attempting to show where I was wrong, you have simply restated your same argument in a slightly different form on a another blog post where readers would not be aware that you had been previously, comprehensively rebutted. So comprehensively, in fact, that you were not able to muster a word in your defense. That sort of behaviour is called "trolling", and is not acceptable on this forum. If you think your argument has any merit, defend it where you first raised it, and where it was on topic. As to the small section of your post that is on topic, contrary to your assertions, climate models included the forcing due to changing energy emission from the Sun TSI. Asserting falsehoods (that they do not include it) in no way helps your case. More importantly, TSI has been declining since 1980, and hence cannot be the cause of the sharp rise in global temperatures since about 1975.
  6. For some years now at this topic I still see the same argument stated as refutation of the claim that the sun might play a significant role. Now, I have serious problems accepting the argument. I will try to explain with a simple experiment. I take an electric stove and a pot of water and thermometers to measure the temperature of the heating plate and the water. Now I place the pot of water on the heating plate and turn the stove to full power. Measurements show the temperature at the heating plate rising fast and water temperature rising slowly. After 5 minutes I turn the stove down to half power and in response I can measure the temperature of the heating plate first stalling and the dropping significantly. But the temperature of the water keeps rising and even more rising faster. If I follow the argument given here then the rising water temperature in my experiment can not be explained by the fact that the thermal energy transmitted from the heating plate, though dropping, still exceeds the capacity of the pot with water of emitting energy. Somehow I have severe doubts about that.
  7. h-j-m. You're appealing to what is often colloquially referred to as the thermal flywheel effect. However, with a little cerebral activity you should be able to grasp why the sort of disparity between solar output and climatic response is not as temporally shifted as you seem to think. There are several quite separate avenues that demonstrate this but sticking with just one for now, you might like to think what happens to the two hemispheres of the planet in its annual orbit around the sun. Is that sufficient nudging?
  8. Bernard J. @1007, I believe h-j-m is actually suggesting that the Outgoing Lonwwave Radiation (OLR) was much less than the incoming shortwave radiation from the Sun (TSI) circa 1950 such that a small reduction in TSI still leaves TSI > OLR and the Earth with a lack of balance between incoming and outgoing energy that would warm the Earth. This notion is refuted by the very small changes in TSI over the course of the century which are insufficient to generate the large initial energy imbalance on which his implicit argument depends. Despite my disagreement on interpretation of his argument, I think he would still do well to examine the different warming rate between the two hemispheres.
  9. Sorry, but both of you seemed to miss the point of my remarks. I was not appealing at some thermal flywheel effect nor to the energy balance of earth. I was simply appealing to the logic of the argument heading this thread. What was the described experiment for? Just compare it with sun-earth interaction. There is an energy source constant or declining in energy intensity ( sun - heating plate) and an energy receiver ( earth - pot of water) constantly heating up. The difference is that in my experiment I can make sure to exclude any other possible influence. So that in the experiment I can be reasonably sure that the heating water has to be caused by the heating plate (energy source). Now simple applied logic demands that you need to allow for that as well if you talk about the sun and the earth. In short I doubt that logic of the given argument is sound.
  10. "So that in the experiment I can be reasonably sure that the heating water has to be caused by the heating plate (energy source). Now simple applied logic demands that you need to allow for that as well if you talk about the sun and the earth."
    What makes you think that this hasn't already been allowed for? Seriously? We see a decline in TSI. There exists an energy imbalance at the TOA, causing the system to warm. We know that the documented rise in CO2 is responsible for that TOA energy imbalance. The energy budget accounting for the various air/water/land components of the system closely sums to what we see at the TOA. Where's the problem?
  11. Isn't this stove/pot thing [WUWT] pure and debunked Spencerism [SkS]?
  12. I think h-j-m is saying that the argument that, 'the Sun has not caused the observed warming because solar energy has been decreasing' is contradicted by his example of the pot continuing to warm after the hot plate is turned down. The most immediate problem with that chain of logic is that it is only true if we didn't run the hot plate at full power long enough for the pot of water to pass the equilibrium temperature for half power... if we did then the pot does not continue warming when we turn the power down... it is already warmer than can be maintained by the new half power setting and thus would begin cooling. Applying that issue to changes in solar output and earth temperature equilibrium we have to consider what the temperature response time to changes in solar output is... and there is this thing called 'night' which I'm going to suggest makes a very strong case for the response time being pretty darn fast. Ergo, no... we aren't still experiencing residual warming from an increase in solar activity fifty years ago.
  13. h-j-m, Forgive my confusion, but what are the analogues for the stove, heating plate, pot and water in your analogy? If the stove is the sun, and the water is the atmosphere (or ocean + atmosphere, or earth climate in general), what the heck are the heating plate and the pot itself? What makes you think that somewhere in the system is this interval component or components that stores up solar energy in particular and then releases it more slowly? Your analogy makes no sense to me. [Mind you, the oceans themselves can take the role of the heating plate + pot, if the water in the pot is the atmosphere, and we are in fact seeing this. A lot of the energy is going into the oceans as the earth warms, so that warming of the atmosphere is not as apparent as one might expect. But the source of the warming is all of the components of the climate system -- sun, GHGs, aerosols, albedo -- not just the sun. So in that aspect, your analogy shows nothing with respect to the issue under discussion. And as Dan Bailey already pointed out, the oceans are continuing to warm as the output of the sun has decreased, so in that aspect your analogy again fails. Both the water and the heating plate continue to rise in temperature after the stove has been turned off. Don't you think that then implies that perhaps there's another, dangerous fire you should look for?]
  14. h-j-m @1009, the approximate increase in solar forcing, globally averaged and adjusted for albedo, from the minimum to maximum TSI on the chart above is 0.15 W/m^2. Assuming the central estimate of climate sensitivity of 3 degrees C per doubling of CO2,ie, per 3.7 W/m^2, that means we would expect a 0.12 degree C increase in temperature from that increased insolation. Therefore, quite clearly, and contrary to your analogy, the Earth's atmosphere has reached and exceeded the equilibrium change in temperature expected from the peak TSI and would be expected to decrease with decreasing TSI where it not for other factors. Indeed, even if the Sun where to remain constant at 1950 levels, or even continue increasing, there would be a substantial disequilibrium which would lead us to expect the Earth to be cooling. You claim to be able to make a significant point despite these facts because you are, you claim, making a purely formal point about the argument supposedly used in the basic rebutal (but not the intermediate or advanced rebutals) above. However the formal argument you claim to be disproving was not made above. What was claimed was that:
    "Over the last 30 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate are going in opposite directions. This has led a number of scientists independently concluding that the sun cannot be the cause of recent global warming."
    (My emphasis) That claim is true. Further, as scientists they examined a range of evidence, one key fact of which is the oppositely trending series of TSI and temperature. The validity of those scientists reasoning cannot be assessed by simply ignoring all other empirical facts, including those additional facts presented above. Claiming a purely formal refutation of scientific reasoning while ignoring the great body of evidence presented is rather silly, IMO.
  15. How does the atmosphere generate electricity ?
  16. A Granger analysis (, an analysis method in economics, has been done on different climate predictors. Result starting from the 1960s, the solar radiation cannot be used as a primary predictor of global temperature:
  17. Sphaerica, contrary to what is implied in fig 1 above, warming from TSI should lag TSI. There's an overlooked post about that lag here The current downturn in solar activity started in the mid 2000's and I do not expect to see the full effect in GAT until the mid 2010's or later. The earlier TSI peaks 1950's and early 80's had a lagged effect on temperature. Essentially solar is automatically stored in the ocean unlike CO2-warmed air which may or may not be stored depending on circulation patterns that lead to air/ocean temperature contrasts, the most prominent being ENSO. We saw stronger warming in the 80's and 90's from the lagged solar warming added to the CO2 warming and weaker warming since then. In short, I don't think 0.2/decade is an underestimate at all and it will probably be lower in the next decade or two.
  18. Eric: I think here you are mixing up short-term and long-term responses. If there is a change in solar or IR radiation that causes an imbalance, there will be an immediate response, but it will take years to approach an equilibrium temperature. The atmosphere only takes a few months to reach equilibrium if left to is own. The heat capacity of oceans slows things down (decades for the mixed-layer depth, centuries for the deep ocean). Although the full effect takes a while, you should start to see some changes early on. To a first approximation (due to the relatively rapid response of the atmosphere) a bottom-driven solar heating at the surface won't be a lot different from a top-driven IR reduction - they both cause an imbalance, and the ocean and atmosphere both respond. I suggest reading Hansen et al (1981) "Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" Science 213, p957. Figure 4 provides a useful diagram showing the short-term and long-term response to a (modeled) instantaneous doubling of CO2.
  19. Bob, my understanding is that the skin of the ocean is generally a bit cooler due to evaporation (depending on various factors like wind). The IR from increasing CO2 will only heat that cool layer and result in more evaporation and increased latent heat flux, all short term. In contrast solar radiation will penetrate deeper and have a longer term effect. Hansen's paper seems to assume a single mixed layer with no distinction between the two types of forcing.
  20. The skin of the ocean separates the ocean proper from the atmosphere, and has its own energy balance. It emits IR upward, receives IR from the atmosphere, receives solar from above (some of which penetrates deeper), reflects solar (some of which is scattered back upwards from deeper), loses energy to the atmosphere through evaporation (or gains it through condensation), as well as exchanging thermal energy with both the overlying atmosphere and the underlying ocean. All of these energy transfers are happening all the time, and the resulting ocean surface temperature will be the result of the particular balance at that time. Any increased downward IR will affect all fluxes, just as any change in solar will affect all fluxes. It's not an "either/or" situation. Energy is energy. You need to consider all the fluxes, all the time. You mislead yourself by only thinking in terms of a couple in isolation. The time scale of energy transfer from the water 10s of metres below the surface, to the surface, is likely measured in hours (or at most, days if conditions are calm and water is not mixing much). The figure in Hansen's paper that I referred to show how quickly the atmosphere reacts to the change in CO2 (thus primarily affecting IR-radiation), with the ocean temperatures and surface fluxes following over a much longer time scale. The difference in where IR is absorbed (at the ocean surface) vs. the penetration of solar radiation into the ocean becomes irrelevant over those time scales.
  21. Eric (skeptic) - the manner in which the oceans are heated by the increased Greenhouse Effect is little-known in the blogosphere. You seem to be repeating a common misconception. See this SkS post: How Increasing Carbon Dioxide Heats The Ocean. Greenhouse gases essentially trap more heat in the ocean - that's why they are warming now, despite a decline in solar output over the last 4 decades. Interestingly a recent paper: On the Observed Trends and Changes in Global Sea Surface Temperature and Air-Sea Heat Fluxes (1984-2006)- Yeager & Large (2012) shows that the oceans warmed over that interval due to a reduction in energy flux out of the ocean - exactly what we would expect from the greenhouse gas forcing of the cool-skin layer of the ocean. Somewhat bizarrely they attributed this to natural variability, but is not borne out by their analysis.
  22. Rob, I don't quite understand the post that you wrote, but if I can't figure it out, I will ask about it there. As for Bob's explanation, the equilibrium times of the different layers makes much more sense than talking about a lag. Thanks for the explanations.
  23. I am not here to debate a point. I have read the report, but I am not knowledgeable enough in the topic to try to defend it. I just want to learn the alarmist side of the point. The following graph is part of a report that is found at I see the graph as supporting evidence for the idea that the sun has been a major player in the recent warming from 1970-2000. I would like to know why I should not view the graph in this way. I thank you in advance. Image and video hosting by TinyPic
    Response: [Dikran Marsupial] If you are genuinely interested in the science, then beginning by labelling the mainstream view as "alarmist" is probably not a good way to start the discussion. Please read the comments policy before continuing.
  24. Marsupial, The point that I am looking at is that the amount of sunshine has increased from 1970 to 2000, just like global temps. I agree that this is just for Japan, (as I said, just "supporting evidence") but wouldn't this regional data indicate that global data should be investigated with an open mind?
    Response: [Dikran Marsupial] (a) the amount of sunshine is measured in hours, thus it is nothing to do with the sun, but cloud cover over Japan. (b) The temperature data is for China. Thus neither is necessarily representative of global conditions. Secondly cloud cover over Japan is unlikely to have a close causal reationship with temperatures over much of China (apart from perhaps the Eastern coastal region).

    What makes you think that such links are not invstigated with an open mind? The EU for instance has spent about 12 million Euro investigating possible links between cosmic rays (which are modulated by solar activity) and climate. I think you need to reconsider some of your preconceptions about mainstream science.

    This is the last I am going to comment on this as I don't want to actively participate in a discussion that I am moderating (hence self-moderation of my previous moderation comment).
  25. SirNubwub - Japanese daylight hours versus Chinese temperatures? And you think this is serious? You don't recognize the cherry-picking involved here? Or the disassociation between the two regions? The use of two different (and not directly related - as a tiny example, Japan is an island affected by oceans, China a fair chunk of a continent) subsets of data to argue against global information? Cherry picking - "...the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias." The NIPCC "report" has been discussed elsewhere - it is a Heartland Institute funded effort that is quite frankly an effort in disinformation. I would strongly suggest you look into better resources than what are essentially industrial and ideological lobbying groups. Your post appears (IMO) to be a clear example of confirmation bias. Which is not a product, I'll note, of an "open mind".
  26. KR and marsupial Thank you for your input. I understand your points. From the information provided to me, I did not have the information on the Heartland funding. I will look for data on global cloud cover. Does anyone have any links to such data? Thank you both for your time.
  27. I have been able to find some data on global cloud cover. I also see that it is a bit complicated with low clouds cooling Earth and high clouds warming Earth. Will take some figuring out. Again, thanks for your time.
  28. SirNubwub - I would suggest looking at Ari Jokimäki's list of Papers on global cloud cover trends, in particular Eastman et al 2011.
  29. SirNubWub: You really need to get more specific in just what it is you're looking for. Although not totally useless, "sunshine hours" is awfully simplistic. It used to be commonly measured by devices such as the Campbell-Stokes Sunshine Recorder, and is defined formally as the amount of time where direct solar radiation exceeds 120 W/m^2. It depends on cloud, other atmospheric conditions, sun angles, etc., and is only very loosely related to solar energy received at the earth's surface. Likewise "cloud cover". Cloud is not something that is easily summarized in one number. What type? What altitude? What time of day? all this changes the effect that "one tenth cloud cover" will have on solar radiation. If you are interested in energy received at the surface, it is better to look directly at the measurements, such as those archived at The Baseline Surface Radiation Network. Note that the "fake skeptics" that are trying to mislead people (or are misleading themselves) will often ignore real, direct readings of importance (e.g. radiation) and focus on indirect, approximate readings of loosely-related factors (e.g., sunshine, cloud cover). This is another form of cherry-picking. Regardless of whether it is intentional or the result of confirmation bias or motivated reasoning, it is not good science.
  30. Bob, Thanks for the info. I see that the graph I posted is fairly useless. I will have to dive deeper into the subject of radiation. I appreciate the link.
  31. @ Bob Loblaw #1029: SirNubWub's posts on this thread and others suggest to me that his primary purpose is not to learn, but rather, it is to provoke SkS authors into saying something intemperate. Therefore, be careful not to take the bait.
  32. John, You have me wrong and I am a bit ticked by you accusation. All of my discussions have been based on data from referrenced links. I have admitted that I have been wrong on two occassions now in the past few days. If that and my reply in line 1030 is not what you want to see from all skeptics, then please tell me how you hope I would reply.
    Response: [DB] Point taken. Dialogue and discussion in good faith should be accorded respect from all parties. The point of this site is to disseminate and foster civil discussion of the primary literature of climate change and to overcome misperceptions and misinformation about it.
  33. @ SirNubwub #1032 I'd be very pleased if you were to proove me wrong. If you do, I will apologize.
    Response: [DB] SirNubwub should be accorded the benefit of the doubt, as per his/her recent comment above. Comments made in good faith on these threads are what matter.
  34. SirNubwub - While I feel it inappropriate to speculate on others motives, I would like to point out some issues with your previous postings. Your first posting on SkS, as far as I have found, asked "Can I now present to my classes that the hockey stick argument has been discarded by the AGW proponents? ". I recall another one (can't find it at the moment) asking why there was no significant warming in 15 years. You've also recently put forth the proposition that climate science is driven by the money, rather than the data. And in this thread you open up by stating "I am not here to debate a point. I have read the report, but I am not knowledgeable enough in the topic to try to defend it. I just want to learn the alarmist side of the point", then showing a graph of cherry-picked data, from a bad source, arguing directly against the point of the opening post. So, in context, you have presented a series of 'skeptic'/denial talking points, asking about the "alarmist side", usually with an air of "Doesn't this prove all of the science wrong?". The support for these points (IIRC) has been from newspaper articles, blog postings, and sources like the NIPCC. Bad sources, bad phrasing in your questions, all of which unfortunately can lead to a perception that you are more interested in propping up denial memes than investigating the data. It also appears clear to me that you have not read the opening post(s) on the threads you have joined, or looked over the list of 'skeptic' arguments, all of which quite frankly answer the questions you have raised. If you wish to be taken as someone actually interested in answers, I would suggest several things: (1) read the opening post(s), (2) critically evaluate your sources, and (3) ask questions, rather than dropping these "Aren't all of you wrong?" statements. Because, quite frankly, anyone involved enough in climate science and the public discussion to be present on a website like this has already heard enough"Silver Bullet" arguments from 'skeptics' to find them quite antagonizing.
    Response: [DB] The thread in question leads up to this comment by SirNubwub here. Fixed link & text per request.
  35. DB, thank you.
  36. (Continued from here) Dikran Marsupial, Falkenherz - Foster and Rahmstorf 2011 (discussed here) examined atmospheric responses to various forcings, namely aerosols, MEI/ENSO, and insolation, using multiple linear regression to examine their contributions. The steady increase in CO2 forcing was not associated with a time lag: as a near-linear trend, it doesn't have the necessary variations to be time-matched to temperature changes (no 'teeth' to match). For that component F&R 2011 just used a linear rising trend. [Source] The atmosphere, in particular the upper troposphere (RSS/UAH) responds quite quickly to changes in TSI. Overall effects (larger temperature swings) will occur over longer periods due to the thermal buffering of the oceans, but there is a fairly immediate and detectable atmosphere response.
  37. The atmosphere, in particular the upper troposphere (RSS/UAH) responds quite quickly to changes in TSI. Overall effects (larger temperature swings) will occur over longer periods due to the thermal buffering of the oceans, but there is a fairly immediate and detectable atmosphere response.
    Indeed - as the seasonal changes in response to annual hemispherical insolation changes suggest.
  38. As Bob explained to me up thread there are various time constants for warming of lower layers of the ocean. There should thus be a roughly exponential rise in GAT (atmosphere) based on those time constants after the immediate GAT rise. The annual cycle of solar means it can only perturb the mixed layer before cycling back. A secular rise in solar would affect the deeper layers for which we would have to derive time constants.
  39. Interesting article on this topic: Steinhilber et al 2012, "9,400 years of cosmic radiation and solar activity from ice cores and tree rings". They use Be10 and C14 isotopes from ice cores and tree rings to reconstruct total solar irradiance over that period, taking advantage of some more recent ice cores for cross-checking. They then compare that to the Asian climate record, and find good coherence - albeit with periods of very low coherence, which they state are "...pointing to other forcings like volcanoes and greenhouse gases and their corresponding feedbacks. Their forcing data will apparently be made available at the NOAA server for paleo datasets, although only his 2009 revision is currently up.
  40. New Research for the topic: Evidence of recent causal decoupling between solar radiation and global temperature "We have shown that there is an evident causal decoupling between total solar irradiance and global temperature in recent periods. Our work permits us to fix the 1960s as the time of the loss of importance of solar influence on temperature. At the same time greenhouse gases total radiative forcing has shown a strong Granger causal link with temperature since the 1940s up to the present day. ..." Well, eyeballing MarkIII the TSI/Temperature Graph gives a similar impression, but scientific proof of it gives a way better argument.
  41. That chart shows temperatures continuously and sharpely increasing since 1980, that is pure nonsense.  The most accurate measurements, satellite measurements, the ones the Clinate Scientists seem to choose to ignore shows flat temperatures from 1980 to 2000, with a few spikes. Then the reletively volcano free 2000 through today shows an increase of 0.2 degrees. As recent as 2008 we were at or below the level of 1980. If the best the (-snip-)highlighted by the original article starting this thread.

    Response: (Rob P) Inflammatory snipped.
  42. "The most accurate measurements, satellite measurements, the ones the Clinate Scientists seem to choose to ignore shows flat temperatures from 1980 to 2000, with a few spikes"

    Nonsense.  UAH, a satellite measurement from climate "skeptics" Roy Spencer and John Christy, shows about .22*C of warming from 1980 to 2000.  From 1980 to the present it shows about .42*C.  You are completely wrong. 

    "As recent as 2008 we were at or below the level of 1980."

    Nonsense again.  2008 was no where near as cool as 1980. 

    " If the best the (-snip-) can do is rely on highly innacurate ground measurements they don't have much of a case."

    The ground measurements agree very well with the satellite data, which you are obviously are unfamiliar with.  Nothing you said above is true.  Talk about a . (-snip-) 

    Response: (Rob P) Inflammatory snipped.
  43. Robert Wagner @ 1042, those same satellite measurements you claim to be accurate show a TOA energy imbalance: more energy entering the Earth system than leaving it. What do you think is happening to all that extra energy Earth is absorbing, if it is not warming the biosphere?

  44. Robert Wagner @1041, below are 11 year running averages of Gistemp (as used in figure 1 above) post 1950, along with 11 year running averages of RSS and UAH data, all offset to have a common baseline of 1981-2010.  As can clearly be seen, the trends of the three are virtualy indistinguishable.  Your primary claim is, therefore, patently false.

    I will also note that your supposition that the satellite records, by virtue of being satelite records, are more accurate records is unfounded.  It is well known that the surface temperature record needs adjustment for the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect, Time of Observation (TOBS), along with changes of instruments over time.  The satellite record, however, invovles adjustments for changes of instruments (as one Satellite is replaced by another), for the fact that the raw data includes a large measure of the cooling stratosphere in its observations, for the fact that the time of observation at any location changes as the satellite orbits , for bias arising from the properties of different surfaces, and their altitudes; and so on.  Far more, and far more mathematically challenging mathematical adjustments are required to take raw satellite records and turn them into a temperature record than are required for the surface record.

    Below are a list of the main corrections of the main, known errors in the UAH record that have been needed over time (and acknowledged by Roy Spenser).  There has been a scientific paper published pointing out yet another apparently needed correction that Dr Spencer does not yet agree with.  Only time will tell if he has finally got it about right, or whether yet more corrections will be needed before UAH can finally be considered as accurate as the surface record:

  45. Why are people even debating this The empirical evidence in favor of the solar explanation is overwhelming.

    Dozens of peer-reviewed studies have found a very high degree of correlation (.5 to .8) between solar-magnetic activity and global temperature going back many thousands of years (Bond 2001, Neff 2001, Shaviv 2003, Usoskin 2005, and many others listed below). In other words, solar activity “explains,” in the statistical sense, 50 to 80% of past temperature change.

    Such a high degree of correlation over such long time periods implies causality, which can only go one way. Global temperature cannot be driving solar activity, so there must be some mechanism by which solar activity is driving or modulating global temperature change. The high degree of correlation also suggests that solar activity is the primary driver of global temperature on every time scale studied (which is pretty much every time scale but the Milankovitch cycle).

    In contrast, records of CO2 and temperature reveal no discernable warming effect of CO2. There is a correlation between atmospheric CO2 and temperature, but with CO2 changes following temperature changes by an average of about 800 years (Caillon 2003), indicating that it is temperature change that is driving atmospheric CO2 change (as it should, since warming oceans are able to hold less CO2). This does not rule out the possibility that CO2 also drives temperature, and in theory a doubling of CO2 should cause about a 1 degree increase in temperature before any feedback effects are accounted, but feedbacks could be negative (dampening rather than amplifying temperature forcings), so there no reason, just from what we know about the greenhouse mechanism, that CO2 has to be a significant player. The one thing we can say is that whatever the warming effect of CO2, it is not detectable in the raw CO2 vs. temperature data.

    This is in glaring contrast to solar activity, which lights up like a neon sign in the raw data. Literally dozens of studies finding .5 to .8 degrees of correlation with temperature. (-snip-). RF for CO2 is entered as ___ W/m^2 while RF for total solar effects is entered as ___ W/m^2. [I'm not going to quote the actual numbers, but yeah, the ratio is an astounding 40 to 1, up from 14 to 1 in AR4, which listed total solar forcing as 0.12 W/m^2, vs. 1.66 for CO2.]

    So the 50% driver of global temperature according to mountains of temperature correlation data is assumed to have 1/40th the warming effect of something whose warming effect is not even discernable in the temperature record. (-snip-).



    Response: [DB] Off-topic and inflammatory rhetoric snipped.
  46. Sabre, you did read the intermediate and advanced articles tabbed above, yes?  Yes, global temp track solar variation quite well until about 1960. Where is it argued that it doesn't?  What happens after 1960, as TSI drops from the modern max, and temp just keeps on rising.  You're familiar with Pasini et al. (2012), yes?  And the same Usoskin (2005) points out "during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source." 

  47. DSL,

    Apparently some people don't feel uncomfortable commenting on posts they haven't read. It gets a bit ridiculous when the post you'd provide them with a link to in order to dispel their misconception is the one they've commented on!

  48. Just out of curiosity, what's the most-commented post here at SkS? This would have to be a contender, which strikes me as amazing because it's one of the most obviously wrong myths yet apparently one of the most fervently argued.

  49. Sabre @1045...  Do you honestly believe that the broad scientific community hasn't already considered everything you've stated here before coming to the overwhelming conclusion that human are primarily responsibe for the rise of global temperature of the past 40 years?

    Just curious.

  50. JasonB...  I was thinking exactly the same thing.  Literally, this is probably THE most clearly debunked myths there is in the climate debate.  It's stunning that anyone is still clinging to it.

Prev  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  Next

Post a Comment

Political, off-topic or ad hominem comments will be deleted. Comments Policy...

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.

Link to this page

The Consensus Project Website


(free to republish)

© Copyright 2022 John Cook
Home | Links | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us