Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

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

Settings

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

Settings


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 Donate

Twitter Facebook YouTube Pinterest

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...



Username
Password
Keep me logged in
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

Climate Hustle

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

 

Last updated on 2 April 2017 by Sarah. View Archives

Printable Version  |  Offline PDF Version  |  Link to this page

Related Arguments

Further viewing

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

Comments

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

Comments 1051 to 1100 out of 1265:

  1. Jason B @1048, the most commented thread would have to be the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics thread, with (currently) 1424 comments.  I suspect this one comes second, although I have not done a survey.

  2. Pretty sure this is No. 2. 


    I'm also pretty sure Sabre's a drive-by.  As I recall, he/she/it drove by over the summer with another bag full of wonders.

  3. Sabretruthtiger wrote: "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)."


    As others have noted, the period since ~1960 is another time scale where solar activity is clearly not the primary driver of temperature change. However, it is interesting that you were apparently aware that your argument did not hold true for the Milankovitch cycles... yet apparently couldn't make the connection between CO2 being the primary driver of temperature changes there and the 'recent time scale' link between increasing CO2 and temperature.


    So yes, if we ignore every time scale at which solar activity was not the primary driver of temperature changes then we would conclude that solar activity is always the primary driver of temperature changes. We would just be wrong. As your argument clearly is.

  4. I thought that both the IPCC and NASA have admitted that the Sun plays a much more major role then previously thought.

     

    Is this true?

  5. Kevin, while the regular commenters on this site will be more than happy to address your concerns, they do expect you to read the main articles (basic, intermediate, and advanced).  The people at NASA are among those who have contributed to the studies upon which the main articles are based.  Further, if you have a specific piece of information--a quote, for example--that is driving your questioning, please link to it so that we don't have to rely on a vague reference in a single sentence.  

  6. Kevin,

    "Admitted"?  What, as if they've been caught trying to Global Swindle people?

    I have an idea... actually read and learn, instead of throwing lame denier slogans around.

  7. Kevin:

    It seems to me that it would be hard for NASA or anyone else to admit that the Sun plays a much larger role in influencing Earth's climate than has already been known since... well probably since we had a concept of Earth-system climate.

    Close to 100% of the incoming energy flux that affects the Earth climate comes from the Sun. However, this energy flux is close to constant at decade-to-century timescales, with limited variation (the solar cycle) at annual-to-decade timescales and slow but consistent increase over millions of years. Do you have references to anyone at NASA or any IPCC documentation seriously contesting this?

    The concern with climate change has to do with greenhouse gases involves their effect on the Earth's outgoing energy flux. Which, to my knowledge, the Sun has very little to do with.

    The important thing to remember is that both the incoming and outgoing energy fluxes affect Earth climate.

  8. composer99

    I posted this link to a serious study of solar activity from evidence found in ice cores. It is relevant as it is documented data taken from the last millenia of solar activity.

    The authors concluded "In conclusion, we have presented here a new reconstruction of solar activity on the millennium time scale based upon a description of the related physical processes. It implies that the present high level of sunspot activity is unprecedented on the millennium time scale. The results will be the subject of further analysis."

    Response: [DB] Note that Tom Curtis has already responded to you on this back in December, here. Any further discussion of it should be done at the linked page.
  9. Sapa[ronia?]:

    The paper you cite does not change or rebut the most important statement in my comment:

    The concern with climate change has to do with greenhouse gases involves their effect on the Earth's outgoing energy flux. Which, to my knowledge, the Sun has very little to do with.

    As the moderator indicates, any discussion pertinent to the paper you describe is best left to the other thread.

  10. Whenever you see a chart that has unlike elements, i.e. W/m2 and temp C, on the Y axis superimposed ( -snip-)  and they are not expressed in terms of percentage of change then you are witnessing propaganda.

    Response: [DB] All-caps converted to bold, per the Comments Policy (which you need to read and internalize before commenting further). Inflammatory tone snipped.
  11. fmbatchelor @1060, really?  So when I carefully scale change in ppmv of CO2  concentration and change in temperature in degrees C such that a the predicted transient climate responce in temperature for a given change in concentration matches the temperature scale, that would constitute propoganda in your book?  Where as if I scaled them so that a change of 1 ppmv in CO2 concentration (0.25%) matches a change in temperature of 0.72 K (0.25%) that would not constitute propoganda, even though the later change in temperature is only predicted for an approx 90 ppmv change in concentration for the transient response?  Frankly, I consider your suggestion absurd, and it is not one applied (to my knowledge) in any science.  Indeed it could not be.

    As it happens, the graph I take it you are criticizing has the scale it does because that is the scale chosen by advocates of the sun being the cause of the current warming to make their case.  They now face a dilemma.  If that scale is correct, than the lack of correlation after 1980 refutes their claim.  If, on the ohter hand, the scale is incorrect, then they have established no relation between solar activity and temperature to begin with.

  12. fmbatchelor @1060:

    OK. If what you say is true, then can you tell what the percentage change in temperature is when the absolute change is:

    a) 0C to -10 C

    b) -10C to 0C?

    c) +5C to -5C?

    d) -5C to +5C?

    Or perhaps you'd like to reword your claim?

  13. ...and following up on what I asked in #1062:

    If you provide the request % changes, then can you also tell me what the % change is for the following?

    a) 32F to 14F?

    b) 14F to 32F?

    c) 41F to 23F?

    d) 23F to 41 F?


    ...and if they are not the same as the % for the examples in degrees C, can you explain why?

  14. I love that when such a graph clarifies a scientific point, it's propaganda, but when it appears to prove that all of the world's climate sceintists are engaged in a gigantic hoax-conspiracy, it's laudable citizen science.

    And these people don't recognize their irrational, internal bias.

  15. I think it is inappropiate to name this forum topic as 'It's the Sun'.  This forum shows confusion amoung a lot of smart people.  For people who have no scientific background it is hard to establish what this phrase means.  If anything it would confuse an average person.  Planet Earth's life has a timer as the sun progresses to become a red giant(the luminousity becomes greater with time).  This does not mean that we should not take into consideration that the unregulated pumping of greenhouse gases can destroy the current equilbrium we have.  Essentially scienitists are worried about the equilbrium (positive and negative feedbacks) of our system.  Our fossil fuel emissions lead to an imbalance of this equilbrium.  This imbalance can potentially lead to a positive feedback that quickly changes the state of the system.  This is where the danger is.  Climate change is a confusing topic for most and the anger towards 'deniers' is unwarrented.  The solution to climate change is easy in my eyes.  Transfer all that energy that you put into proving climate change into creating a new energy source that is more efficient than fossil fuels.  Peak oil tells us that fossil fuels are finite.  Energy gradients are not (solar, wind and many others yet to be discovered).  Stop using fear mongering on both sides, it is unnessary.  A fearful public is a public more likely to make bad decisions.  There is nothing to worry about.  Technology and science will solve this little problem called climate change.  That is my life's pursuit as a scientist.   

    Response: [DB] Note: Your comment more properly belongs on the "It's not bad" thread.
  16. kcron24 @1065, not only does the sun have a timer as it proceeds towards the red giant stage, in just over five billion years, or ten times longer than there has been vertebrate life on Earth, but it is also gradually warming over time.  Four billion years ago, it only gave of 70% of its current light, whereas in a mere 3.5 billion years it will drive the Earth into a runaway greenhouse effect.

    So how long will this warming sun take to reach an increase in luminosity equivalent to the doubling of CO2?  Approximately 300 million years!  Three hundred million years ago the first vertebrates land animals were just evolving.  That is a period more than a thousand times longer than Homo sapiens have existed.  Yet that is the time period before the increase in solar luminosity will match the threat we expect from increased CO2 in just this century.

    Given the time scales evovled, perhaps we can wait before tacking increases in solar lumnosity, and concentrate, in the mean time, on more pressing problems. 

  17. Please reread my comment.  I feel climate sciencitists have great work but a terrible way of handling climate change.  Using fear to intimidate people only makes matters worse...  Eduation is key not brainwashing.  There is where the debate is.  That is all I'm saying.  

  18. kcron24 - I would encourage you to read the IPCC WG1 scientific basis reports, you will find that the scientists presentations are generally rather moderate.  I would start with the 1990 report as this is written in rather less technical language than subsequent editions (which have become increasingly terse due to the increase in the amount of research that has been performed).  In particular they explicitly discuss the uncertainties.

    Of course many climate blogs do not present the science that way, but as a clear statement of the mainstream position is freely available on the WWW (i.e. the IPCC reports), you can always verify the truth for yourself.


    All this article is doing is explaining how it is we can be pretty sure that the warming we have seen in recent decades is not caused by solar activity.  I personally don't see how this can be described as "fear mongering".  SkS is a site for discussing the science, so if you don't want to talk about the science relating to the effect of solar activity on climate, then please find a more appropriate article for your comments.  Posting comments that are off-topic is disruptive behaviour, and is likely to result in attention from the moderators.

  19. kron24...  It would be, likewise, completely irresponsible for scientists to not warn people of an imminent crisis when evidence shows that one is present.

    The overwhelming evidence of a crisis is there.  That you refer to it as a "little problem" reveals your inadequate understanding of the full body of research.

  20. (-snip-)

     I understand that its best to prepare for the worst but its also important to hope for the best.  By the way I've read all the IPCC reports and I thought they were very good but they might want to update some of their eariler estimates of warming.   (-snip-)

    Response: [DB] Off-topic and abusive usage of html snipped.
  21. kcron, did you read the intermediate and advanced tabs of this article?  

    Further, the studies you mention are getting rather dated.  You should visit this page and its comment stream (and this one).

    Also, "deniers" are not people who present a well-reasoned, evidence-based argument for low sensitivity.  "Deniers" are people who misrepresent science and then refuse to acknowledge evidence-based correction of their misrepresentations.  They engage in baseless denial.

    What's your argument for low sensitivity (i.e. "little problem")? (respond on the appropriate thread -- not this one)

     

  22. kcron24 @1070:

    1)  Given that we have had debated in comments on this forum suggestions that the current warming is due to radar, that the Earth is warmed by geothermal heat, not the sun, and innumerable people arguing that the second law of thermodynamics refutes the greenhouse effect, your suggestion that people "always follow the truth" is naive at best.  More importantly, I know of no better term than denier for people so set against accepting the science for whatever reason that they can promote such absurdities.

    More importantly, I have repeatedly seen leaders among the deniers such as Christopher Monckton make false assertions, they truth of which they clearly have not checked (on a generous interpretation) simply to vilify scientists and those warn the public about AGW.  They also accuse scientists of fraud either as part of a machiavalian conspiracy, or simply for monetary gain; and accuse scientists of lying simply for telling the truth.  You yourself, in the very post where you complain about abuse of "deniers", hint that scientists are committing fraud to stay on the gravy train.  And against that torrent of abuse and calumny, we apparently "abuse" those who deny the science by calling them "deniers".  We turn the verb of their actions into a noun.

    Clearly you do not know what abuse is.  Indeed, given your own little sally, you are hypocritical in your protestations about abuse.

    2) I find it amusing that you should copy and past a bibliography to back up your scientific credentials without having even noticed that the last item on the bibliography refers to a satellite mission that failed at launch.   Perhaps a bit more thought about the contents of that bibilography, and a bit less pontificating is in order.

    3)  Apart from one an oblique reference in the first paragraph of your first post, your entire commentary has been off topic for this thread.  There is a reason for the rule that you should stay on topic, and even if you disagree with that reason, as a guest here you are obliged to accept the rules of your host.  Please make the attempt to do so.

  23. kchron24 @1072:

    "Sorry I don't read articles that are not peer reveiwed by the AMS."

    What?  Articles in Nature and Science aren't good enough for you.

    More importantly, this appears to be an admission that you are commenting on the contents of this page without having read the contents of this page.  So, which is it.  Is your claim false; or should you be banned from further commentary here as your refusal to read the articles you are commenting on means you are inevitably off topic, and vacuously pontificating.

  24. (-snip-)

    Response: [DB] Multiple off-topic snipped.
  25. Sun is the dominant energy source for life on planet Earth.  According to Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the Sun’s radiation provides around 10,000 times more energy to Earth’s climate system than any other energy source (IPCC 2007).  Due to the magnitude of the Sun’s energy, small fluctuations of Since solar radiation is not constant, due to sunspots and other solar phenomena, changes in incoming solar radiation can occur.  Collecting such data is imperative for climate research and radiative budget modeling. 


                Measurements of total solar irradiance began with the ERB satellite in 1979 and continued with ACRIM series of measurements.  Ten years ago NASA launched the Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment or SORCE into orbit.  This satellite provides measurements of solar radiation from 1nm to 2000nm, encompassing 95% of the electromagnetic spectrum.  Instruments on SORCE such as the Total Irradiance Monitor (TIM) allow the measurement of spectrally integrated solar radiation incident at the top of the Earth's atmosphere. 


    Background


    Keeping human consumption in equilibrium with Earth’s climate system to prevent extreme positive feedbacks remains as one of today’s paramount challenges.  Anthropogenic gases such as CO2 contribute to the climate change through the greenhouse effect.  There has been an increase of about 0.8 K since preindustrial times.  However, the current climate sensitivity in climate models indicates that the forcing by greenhouse gases would have contributed to a rise of 2.1 K (range 1.5–3.2 K) (Schwartz et al. 2010).  In the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR), the IPCC recognizes that there is more work to be done to understand solar variation and its effect on climate change (Forster et al. 2007).  However the IPCC mentions that the effect of greenhouse gases plays a bigger role in recent warming than solar variation. 


    Gaining more knowledge on climate sensitivities will provide added momentum of restructuring the current dependence on fossil fuels.  Some estimate this knowledge to be in the tens of trillions of dollars (Edmonds and Smith 2006).  According to Hansen et al., uncertainties with the current knowledge of aerosol radiative forcing and solar irradiance limit the ability of current climate models to accurately predict with high confidence (Hansen et al. 2007).  Suspect data collected by SORCE and other total solar irradiance monitors show that uncorrected instrumental drifts could contribute to errors in TSI trends (Kopp and Lean 2011).  The small data set of 33 years and the imprecise measurements further contribute to unreliable trends and analysis (Kopp and Lean 2011). 


    In order to alleviate this problem more data needs to be collected with better equipment.  Unfortunately, an improved version of SORCE with an upgraded TIM called Glory, never had an opportunity to make a measurement. Glory crashed shortly after launching costing NASA 435 million dollars.  SORCE continues to be the main TSI collector.  The future TIM measurement goals of 0.01% uncertainties with stabilities

    Response:

    [Sph] Corrupted comment corrected.

  26. Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions, or looking for a simple correlation?

    The nexus may not be a direct link nor logarithmic progression.  It may be that a number of factors must align, or a threshhold be reached, before the effect of sunspot activity, volcanic activity or other factors have more than a negligable effect on the weather - this would perhaps be best demonstrated by research into unusual tornado events in winter, in the US.  It was suspected the link related to El Nino/La Nina events.  This, and swings in the jet stream related to it, were eventually established once the right question was found.  This is not a simple correlation but rather that a cluster of severe torandoes must be identified, rather than simply that a tornado occured, before the effect is identified (movement of the jetstream, spinning up the severe tornados, related to the El Nino/La Nina winds changes), and a correlation established.

    This information was there for all to see but not found until the right question was asked.

    Those who cite unusual weather events as proof are puting the cart before the horse, and ignoring the fact that weather prediction is an evolving science without absolutes. 

    Those who cite CO2 as the only culprit in weather change are again ignoring the fact that our models to date have failed to predict temperature and weather movements with a reasonable degree of accuracy.

  27. Chris wrote: "Those who cite CO2 as the only culprit in weather change..."

    No such people exist. As should be clear from the original article, the Sun does have a major impact on weather and climate. It just demonstrably is not responsible for the current unprecedented warming. Volcanoes, ENSO fluctuations, greenhouse gases other than CO2, aerosols, clouds, and many other factors which influence climate are discussed in detail in various posts on this site.

    However, the factor currently undergoing the biggest change is clearly the atmospheric CO2 level. We can look at every other factor and see that it has changed by a few percent at most... atmospheric CO2 is up by more than 40% in the past ~150 years. That's a profound change at a rate vastly greater than anything we have ever seen in nature. Ditto the corresponding increase in temperature. We've got two shockingly fast global increases occuring in tandem and basic physics tells us that increasing CO2 must cause increasing temperatures... yet somehow people keep insisting that we ignore the obvious primary issue and concentrate on anything and everything else.

    Why is that?

  28. Chris, your idea of "reasonable degree of accuracy" obviously expects models to predict science says they cannot. They are designed to predict climate not weather and have shown considerable skill. Please see "Models are unreliable" and feel free to comment if you still dispute this after reading the article.

    Please note to that strawmen arguments are easy  - disputing a claim that the science has never made - but doing that here will win you no points. 

  29. Chris:

    There is a fundamental problem with your argument, as indeed with any argument which tries to exonerate the enormous - and extraordinarily rapid - rise in atmospheric CO2 as the principal cause of the recent, also extraordinarily rapid, changes in the Earth climate system. This fundamental problem is that it flies in the face of extremely well-validated radiative physics.

  30. Chris: "Those who cite CO2 as the only culprit in weather change are again ignoring the fact that our models to date have failed to predict temperature and weather movements with a reasonable degree of accuracy."

    Ironically, it's fake skeptics who pull this sort of maneuver by claiming "natural cycles" or solar or GCRs and refusing to account for the rather well-established greenhouse effect and its recent enhancement.

  31. I have recently had a conversation with a 'sceptic' friend who believes 'it's the sun' . Showed him figure 1 to which he appeared slightly aggitated and suggested that whoever produced the chart was being misleading as it is based on the 11 year average, and this is not as reliable as the 'smooth' average. Apparantly the smooth average shows much less of a divegency between solar avtivity in temps from 1980 onwards. Can anyone enlighten me as to what he is on about? Thanks.

  32. Ho hum. Call me wrong. I really thought the ocean cycles would have to flip to get the cooling thing going, but it seems the solar backing down is doing it all on it's own. I said it once and I'll say it again. When the solar output drops below 1365.7, and it has, the warming stops. If it drops into area below 1365 get ready for major cooling. It looks to be going there.

  33. cruzn246...  Yes, you are clearly wrong on this one.  My suggestion would be for you to read all three levels of the scientific response to the myth you're presenting.  The relative forcing you're presenting is small compared to GHG forcing.

    Response:

    [DB] Please note that cruzn246 has an extensive history of sloganeering and trolling in this venue.

  34. Cruzn, that's a really wierd argument.  You're implying that solar is responsible for the fifty year trend, yet the 11-year cycle is not well-represented in the GMST trend.  For a forcing to be that dominant, one would expect the trend of that forcing to be writ large in the long-term trend.  It's not.  The long-term trend is rather steady in its advance.  Surely you're not arguing from the long-term solar trend--clearly flat or falling since 1960.  We just had the deepest 11-year cycle minimum in the instrumental period (trough bottomed out through 2009-2010).  That trough spent a year below the minima of previous cycles.  The 12-month period between mid 2009 and mid 2010 was the warmest 12-month period in the instrumental record. 

    If you were truly basing your theory on solid evidence, you'd have absolutely no need or motivation for the bitter tone and reluctance to share your math.  Your past history smells like troll.  Is that the extent of your contribution?

  35. The whole point is about the solar forcing value ,versus the CO2 forcing

    Unless a big volcanic event come to mess things up 

    we should observe the consequences ( or not ) of the very weak solar cycle 24 ,

    it has now just passed its maximum with a very curious double peak .

    solar cycle 25 has everyone guessing,the consensus is a long inter cycle minimum with a record low maximum .

    Should this be the case we will be able to observe and compute the solar forcing

  36. I think we are starting to see the effect of a weak cycle 24 with the unusually cold winter in the eastern U.S., and the strong rebound in the Arctic sea ice extent, escpecially the 3-4+ year ice.

  37. Perhaps you can explain why a weak sun doesnt make everywhere colder? The immediate reason for the cold eastern US winter (and the very warm winter weather elsewhere) is the pertubations on the jet stream. How does the sun slipping just below peak cause this?

    Science works like this: you put forward your hypothesis. Assuming the hypothesis is true what observations would I expect to see. Check observations against predictions. Your hypothesis would seem to fail against such tests while the alternative hypothesis (reduction in pole/equator temperature difference affecting jet stream) seems to be holding well.

  38. Over here Klapper postulated a link to climate from AA index.

    Klapper, lets see if I have understood this:

    You are postulating a climate effect from geomagnetic activity (or other) for which the AA index is a proxy. Furthermore, you are implying that variation in this phenomena is more effective climatically than variations in radiative energy from the sun (ie TSI, measured directly from satellites since 1979). As a corollary, you are also postulating an undiscovered negative feedback or process that stops the extra longwave irradiation due to enhanced greenhouse effect from warming the earth.

    Your lag proposal postulates a process where the response can increase after the driving force has decreased.

    Frankly, call me skeptical. What is missing from your arguments is evidence for plausable physical processes. Rather it seems further evidence that you have uninformed a priori position on AGW and looking for supporting arguments while ignoring the overwhelming support for a better model.

  39. WUWT web site (purportedly "The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change",  ahem) claims the following paper suggests it really IS the Sun and solar cycles and so forth.  Has anyone read it?  I think it's in Chinese.  Yet it does amuse me that much of the solar science purporting to refute AGW is from this part of the world, or Russia.

    ZHAO X H, FENG X S. Periodicities of solar activity and the surface temperature variation of the Earth and their correlations (in Chinese). Chin Sci Bull (Chin Ver), 2014, 59: 1284, doi: 10.1360/972013-1089

  40. knaugle - As was pointed out (repeatedly) on that 2-month old WUWT thread by Leif Svalgaard, a solar expert who is a frequent visitor there, there has been no recent 'Modern Grand Maximum'. Their paper fails on that alone. 

    Add to that issues such as equating postulated 64.3-year (oddly specific) temperature cycles to 50-year solar cycles (bzzzt), making claims based on low correlations, requiring a climate response far beyond the changes in solar forcings (implying a very high climate sensitivity), and the general avoidance of other forcings such as GHGs, aerosols, land use, etc., and the paper appears to be an exercise in bad curve-fitting. 

    Non-linear changes in various climate forcings (see here for data and links to published work on those) cause non-linear temperature changes - and if you ignore those factors you might think that there were significant long-term cyclical oscillations. But you have to ignore a great deal of the physics to do so. 

  41. knaugle:

    I only read the abstract and list of references. The references include Friis-Christensen and Lassen, Singer, and Svensmark. Not exactly awe-inspiring.

  42. Zhao and Feng have now published their paper in Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics: Correlation between solar activity and the local temperature of Antarctica during the past 11,000 years

    Would be great to get som updated comments since this is making the denier blog round

  43.  The scaling of the graphs is disguising the true facts. ‘Oh really’ I hear you say! Yes really I say to you.
    The key to the truth is a characteristic of the temperature graph, which can be seen in any temperature record from around the world, and that is the falling temperature from the late 40’s to the early 80’s, which, according to the IPCC, was due to post WW” industrial pollution pumping tons of aerosols into the atmosphere, probably augmented by the hundreds of atmospheric tests of nuclear devices carried out during the same period. This pollution was reduced by changes in global legislation in the early 1980’s.
    Now, according to the reconstructions of Total Solar Irradiance (TSI), solar irradiance began to increase in the late 1980’s and using Central England Annual Mean Temperature (CEAMT) data available from the Met Office, it can be seen that temperature began increasing at the same time. Both parameters continued to the late 1940’s when TSI continued to increase but CEAMT began to fall.
    TSI stabilised in the mid to late 50’s and began oscillating in the 11 year Schwabe cycles, so when the atmospheric pollution was reduced during the 80’s, CEAMT began to rapidly rise playing ‘catch up’ with TSI, a rapid rise which caused so much concern and was the birth of Global Warming. However, had the ‘man made’ period of falling temperatures not occurred CEAMT would most likely to have continued rising until the 60’s when it would of levelled out and stabilised with TSI.
    Further connection with the sun can be achieved by not only comparing the CEAMT data with TSI but from 1929, with England Annual Hours of Sunshine (Sunshine being when a minimum of 120W/m2 can be measured on the surface.) where you will find a very unexpected level of correlation.
    All this data is freely available from the Net and the Met office and can easily be graphed in Excel – give it a try.
    Good luck. TonyMo

  44. TonyMo

    What part of "the CEAMT is not a global record" is not understood by you?

  45. TonyMo. Your description of TSI reconstruction doesnt match the graph above nor more recent reconstructions (more). "began oscillating"?? Solar physics and sunspot observation would suggest the 11 yr oscillation has persisted much much longer than that. Perhaps you should provide a link to the graph that you are looking at?

  46. TonyMo, at the top of this page, click the "Intermediate" tab.  After you read that tabbed pane, click the "Advanced" tab and read that tabbed pane. 

    Several researchers have tried different durations of lag between solar input to Earth and Earth's temperature, and they all have found nothing like what you claim.

    In addition, there are other aspects of warming that are incompatible with your assertion.  For example, in the Advanced tabbed pane, read the sections "Inability to Explain Empirical Observations" and "Conservation of Energy."

  47. TonyMo @1093 says:

    "The key to the truth is a characteristic of the temperature graph, which can be seen in any temperature record from around the world, and that is the falling temperature from the late 40’s to the early 80’s, which, according to the IPCC, was due to post WW” industrial pollution pumping tons of aerosols into the atmosphere, probably augmented by the hundreds of atmospheric tests of nuclear devices carried out during the same period."

    (My emphasis)

    Really?  Any temperature record at all?

    The Australian temperature seems to have risen more or less continuously since the 1930s.  Perhaps we use a different sun donw under?

    Indeed, speaking of "down under" more generally, ie, the Southern Hemisphere, it is interesting to compare the running thirty year trends of temperature with the running 30 year trends of TSI (normalized to show the same overal variance):

    The year shown is the start year of each thirty year trend.  From that we can see that while the trend was just negative in the years 1937 to 1939, from 1940 it goes positive and rises sharply to a peak prior to 1970.  It does not show the pattern TonyMo claims at all.

    It is even more informative to compare the temperature trends with the TSI trends.  They in fact show almost no correlations (R squared = 0.027), both because of the timing of change in overall trends differ and because of the residual solar cycle (due to using a 30 year rather than a 33 year mean).  That of course raises the question as to why is the temperature response to much larger variation in the solar cycle so small when the variations in mean TSI is supposed to have driven the large temperature increase over the twentieth century.

    Of course, one of the interesting things about using the SH is that aerosol pollution has a regionaly effect, and is primarilly produced in the NH.  That is, SH temperature variation has a relatively reduced impact from sulfates compared to the NH.

    In summary, the data cleary refutes TonyMo's claims, both in detail and as to his general conclusions.  It only remains to see if he has the integrity to admit that, and to admit that the Sun is not a major driver of twentieth century temperature changes.

  48. Sorry to be so stupid, but can anyone tell me how to insert graphs or pictures int a comment?   Many thanks T

    Response:

    [RH] Look at the comments text box. On top there are three tabs. One says "insert." You click the image icon and paste in a link to the image. Note that your image has to be hosted somewhere. You can't paste in images from your computer. That's just a limitation to our current systems.

  49. Ah, I see, nothing easy in this life! So next stupid question - where and how do I host my images to do this? Thanks' very much for you reply.  T

    Response:

    [RH] Try tinypic.com

  50. Postimage is quite usable, also free. Imgur is another option for image hosting.

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

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


© Copyright 2019 John Cook
Home | Links | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us