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 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...



Username
Password
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

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:

Myth Deconstruction

Related resource: Myth Deconstruction as animated GIF

MD Sun

Please check the related blog post for background information about this graphics resource.

Comments

Prev  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  Next

Comments 801 to 825 out of 898:

  1. Ok, I am caught up with the discussion. I disagree that this is a sun discussion because my point is the temperature of the Earth changes separate from the energy from the sun for the exact reasons that Tom states in #798. The SH varies less because there is more ocean and less land. The NH drives the global temperature because it has more land. As he also pointed out it is simply inaccurate to apply the insolation of London as a global change in energy. Rob and Muon continue to miss my point (but deride me anyway). My point is that the Earth's geography plays a very important factor in the Earth's temperature. If the Earth's orbit was a perfect circle, but with the same tilt. The Earth as a whole would receive the exact same energy every day of the year. The temperature would vary based on the geography of the land that was receiving the direct and indirect energy. Winters would be colder than they are now and summers would be hotter than they are now. I am baffled at the deriding discussion between Rob and Muon when they are ignoring the point of discussion.
  2. John (TIS) @ 801... The problem with your analysis here is that what you're saying doesn't allow a mechanism for current warming. Look at the overall temperature trend of the Holocene (even per your Penny ice cap chart). Compare it with the Holocene shown in the Vostok record and the Byrd ice core. All these put together you can see that over the Holocene we are in a slow cooling trend that is orbitally forced (Miller 2010). But we are now seeing nearly all indicators of temperature pointing one direction. Up. The planet is warming. The entire planet. That is clearly not being cause by the difference in land mass between NH and SH. John, the whole reason all the temperature data sets use an anomaly is because you have to look at the overall trend, not the annual signal. The annual signal tells you very little, if anything, about any kind of forcing.
    Response: [DB] Fixed date. Rob, we've been hearing a lot of conflation by commenters between temperatures and anomalies lately. It's probably time to put together a post on the subject. I can do one later this week unless someone has more time before then.
  3. TIS: "I am baffled ..." I'm baffled at this whole question. To that extent, I guess I am missing your point. You stated "In January the Earth gets ~7% more energy than it does in July, but July is also ~4C warmer. Explain the warmer July to me without using geography." If I am not mistaken, the 7% in question is the % difference between the Jan and July average solar radiation at TOA, as described in my comment and in this graphic. I checked the values, averaging all latitudes over each day; it is indeed 7% more in January and I agreed with that. Forgive the ghastly colors, it was the first one I found. By your 'July is 4C warmer,' I naturally took that to be in reference to the NH. The graph for London bears out the point that temperature follows net radiation. I'm baffled at how you missed that I mentioned the cited source had several other examples. Here's one from the SH, specifically Bulawayo, Zimbabwe, 20S 29E: -- physicalgeography.net Once again, temperature follows net radiation, even in the SH. I don't deny that geography has a moderating influence, but it is certainly not a driving factor. Differential heating of land vs. ocean is in response to solar input, is it not? But your original question said 'explain the warmer July without geography'. Your question made no mention of the difference between incoming and net radiation and that was the focal point of my response.
  4. Rob (802), I understand the reason why anomaly is used. Ignoring the actual temperature is not useful though. For instance. During the NH summer the Earth radiates away more energy than it does during the NH winter. That is because RHT is dependent on actual temperature. Snow, ice, humidity are all determined by the actual temperature. During the NH summer the average temperature of the Earth is at it's warmest. Enormous amounts of energy go into increasing the total water vapor in the atmosphere. Latent energy transfers to the atmosphere increase as does RHT and convective heat transfer. The behavior of the Earth is different at the two ends of the temperature extremes. Geography is the reason why those differences are real. These annual cycles are likely drivers of events like the ENSO that does show up in the anomaly charts that you are so concerned about. I pay attention to the trend in the anomaly, but I don't give it the overwhelming weighted importance that you do. The global anomaly for February is basically zero for both the UAH and RSS sets, but I don't think that is very important. That temperature of the Earth for February was right at 12.1 °C tell more about how the Earth is behaving than saying the anomaly is zero. I do think it is worth considering that over the next three months that will increase to ~16°C while the energy the Earth gets from the sun will decrease by several percent. Saying that this effect is not important is... rather incoherent.
  5. Muon (803), If the two hemisphere's had equal geography then January would be warmer than July with the current orbital parameters. The NET energy you refer to is local. Picking London explains why that location is cooler in winter, but does nothing for why the entire hemisphere reacts more strongly than the SH. That is where geography enters into the equation. Please see #802 for why I say the actual temperature matters. None of what I am saying actually goes against global warming, but for some reason when I say something people tend to disagree anyway. I of course understand that, but it is nonetheless an interesting effect by my choice of name.
  6. PS... I meant #804. This discussion is kinda long.
  7. John @ 804... It's not incoherent at all! It's expected. It's understood. It has absolutely no net forcing effect over the natural annual cycle. This is just not a mechanism that is driving any warming or cooling trend. When you start focusing on the temperature cycle rather than the trend you are completely missing the point of global climate. If you ignore the trend you are just closing your eyes to any potential forcing mechanisms. So, that would be my question to you. How would a natural annual cycle drive the trend one way or the other? How would this annual cycle drive ENSO?
  8. TIS @805, people tend to disagree with what you are saying because they try to interpret it as being relevant to the debate. Because it is irrelevant to the debated, they end up misinterpreting you. Perhaps you can point out why you think this fact is relevant, bearing in mind that geography has not changed over the last century, but temperatures (and temperature distributions) have. For those trying to understand where Inconvenient Sceptic is coming from, this appears to be a lead in to George White's much refuted nonsense.
  9. TIS: "why the entire hemisphere reacts more strongly than the SH." This is, of course, an entirely different question, one that leads to Arctic amplification. Yes, the geography of the hemispheres produces different thermal responses. One might suspect that it also has something to do with the fact that there is a very large ice cube down there in the basement. I looked again at TOA insolation figures: on an annual basis, the southern hemisphere actually 'receives' ~2% more than the northern. Hardly a significant difference. "over the next three months that will increase to ~16°C while the energy the Earth gets from the sun will decrease" Yes, that's been going on for a very long time. To what point?
  10. Rob(807) I am not ignoring the trend, I am trying to get to the relevance, but you are still stuck on anomaly. Tom(808), It isn't irrelevant and it has nothing to do with that guy who I have not heard of before, but I will take a look since you linked. Muon(809), Thank you for discussing. If there was no CO2 in the atmosphere, how would an identical Earth be different without CO2 in the atmosphere (plants breathe O2 so even plant coverage is identical). The geography of the Earth would force the same type of temperature cycle that the Earth currently experiences. NH winter would cause the Earth average to be colder and the NH summer would cause it to be warmer. The greater effect would be in the winter when there was less water vapor in the atmosphere. So the Earth would be colder by some value. The summer would have a lesser effect because there would be more water vapor that would compensate for the lack of CO2. The Earth would still not behave like a blackbody (i.e. there would still be a GHE) because there would still be convection and latent heat transfer to the atmosphere that would keep the atmosphere warmer than 254K. So the anomaly difference from normal earth would be greater cooling in the winter, but less of a difference in the summers, but still cooler. I am sure we won't agree on the magnitude, but even if the winter difference was 5 °C, then the summer difference would be less than 5 °C. If the summers were 2.5 °C cooler, then on average the Earth would be 3.5-4°C cooler than now. One helping factor would be a cooler Earth would need less energy because it would radiate away less energy. In this case boundaries of response can be established by looked at the seasonal temperature and atmospheric behavior. Would you agree that the summer effect would be lesser than the winter effect?
  11. TIS, How is an unchanging cycle relevant to the trend? Plants require atmospheric CO2 for production of food, i.e. photosynthesis.
  12. TIS... You are still failing to explain how this could possibly explain the warming trend. My next question is, why do you think even Spencer and Christy present their data as anomaly?
  13. TIS... As to me being stuck on the anomaly, well, everyone is stuck on the anomaly because that is how you see the trend. The trend and related mechanisms driving the trend are what it's all about (Alfie).
  14. Going back to the original premisen that because solar radiation has reduced since 1960, the sun has nothing to do with global temperature rise - this agument is flawed. The reason being that according to Wein's Distribution Law for black body radiation, if the sun has cooled such that its total radiation has reduced, then the radiation peak will have also shifted towards the infra red. These means that the Earth is likely to receive more insolation because we know the Earth absorbs radiation in the infra red region than at higher frequencies ( shorter wavelengths )due to the greenhouse ( and other effects ). Hence the rise in global temperatures. Global warming occurs for complex reasons ( and not that well understood by the so-called experts)and attributing it to man made pollution (alone) is nonsense. It has occurred in the past and will occur again in the future. Our contribution to CO2 etc is nothing compared to that produced by vulcanism.

    Response:

    [DB] Welcome to Skeptical Science!  There is an immense amount of reference material discussed here and it can be a bit difficult at first to find an answer to your questions. 

    That's why we recommend that Newcomers, Start Here and then learn The Big Picture.

    I also recommend watching this video on why CO2 is the biggest climate control knob in Earth's history.

    Further general questions can usually be be answered by first using the Search function in the upper left of every Skeptical Science page to see if there is already a post on it (odds are, there is).  If you still have questions, use the Search function located in the upper left of every page here at Skeptical Science and post your question on the most pertinent thread.

    Remember to frame your questions in compliance with the Comments Policy and lastly, to use the Preview function below the comment box to ensure that any html tags you're using work properly.

    With that out of the way, there is much indeed wrong with your comment, more than can be summed up by just one thread post.  Please break up your many objections into their individual parts and post them on the appropriate thread (that's where the Search function will help you).  Thanks!

  15. John. Nope. Spectral signature in IR range is insignificant. We measure spectra at TOA and earth-bound and what we see is consistent with GHE, not your idea. "Our contribution to CO2 etc is nothing compared to that produced by vulcanism." This is false. See Volcanoes and global warming Global warming occurs for complex reasons ( and not that well understood by the so-called experts)and attributing it to man made pollution (alone) is nonsense. Care to support that assertion with some science? You might also like to look at Climate has changed before
  16. Whew! I have just finished reading this entire thread. The reason the stratosphere is stratified as opposed to the convective trophosphere below is that the lapse rate is "inverted" and begins warming, forming a stable lid just like the adiabatic inversion that traps smog in the LA basin. The stratospheric inversion is probably not adiabadic, but is thought to result from the absorbtion of UV photons by oxygen, forming ozone. The top of the stratosphere where the oxygen becomes "saturated" with photons approaches the temperature of the earth's surface during solar maxima. Above the top of the stratosphere the lapse rate becomes normal again but there is another or two poorly understood (at least by me) inversions before the TOA. Question: what does a satellite measuring the temperature of the earth from space (255K?) really see? Can it distinguish between the spectrum of CO2 absorbtion at the top of the troposphere and the spectrum of ozone absorbtion (approximately half of which should be radiated back to space), or does it see just the triple net of all the refracted, reradiated, conducted, convected energy from the earth atmosphere system?
  17. Hi. First Post, please be nice :) Can someone (anyone?) explain why in this graph we are comparing TSI Actuals against Temperature Anomalies? I've done a (very little) bit of stats and one thing I remember is that if you want to compare things you have to get those things onto the same playing field. On the whole, SkS does a great job helping me to understand what's going on. Sometimes (like this for example) I'm left wondering why the author didn't do the proper job... Thanks.
    Response: Using the anomaly instead of the raw temperature merely is a good way of reducing noise. An example of another way of reducing noise is to smooth a curve with a moving average. The anomaly still addresses our question: Does temperature change across time correlate with TSI? Temperature anomaly change mirrors raw temperature change. Think about what the raw temperature curve would look like next to the anomaly curve. A very rough analogy: It doesn't matter whether you plot the temperature in degrees Farenheit or degrees Celsius, if what you are interested in is the shape of the curve across time.
  18. For me, it's just a simple way of showing that TSI and Temp have come completely unhinged in the last 35 years.
  19. Also, what the various temperature system do is determine a global temperature anomaly, (that is, a spatial average of anomalies because these are strongly correlated). It is extremely difficult to determine a global average absolute temperature that has any meaning. See Hansen 2008 for detail. However TSI is just a number. You can determine an anomaly if you like by subtracting from an arbitary baseline. It cannot change the shape of the curve however.
  20. Thanks, that's helpful. :) AMF
  21. This paper shows the Models underestimate solar forcing by up to six times. http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=com_article&access=standard&Itemid=129&url=/articles/aa/abs/2011/05/aa16173-10/aa16173-10.html It makes perfect sense for us to take time to cool the oceans are vast and deep so 30 years of lag time are more than exeptable.
  22. Cole -
    "This paper shows the Models underestimate solar forcing by up to six times."
    It does no such thing. The paper suggests that other TSI reconstructions underestimate the amplitude of TSI changes in the past. It has very little to do with climate models, and in fact specifically notes that their TSI estimates over recent decades, during which we have good measurements, are no different than previous TSI reconstructions.
  23. Cole, Dana's right. I'm not sure you read that paper. In fig 4 there no net change in solar forcing since 1950. And why is the 30 year lag relevant? And what justification for 30 year lag other than " the oceans are vast and deep" do you have?
  24. I'll probably do a post on this paper. To be fair, if the reconstruction is correct (which I don't think is plausible), it does suggest a very low climate sensitivity, so you could argue that climate models are wrong in that sense. Sensitivity would have to be in Spencer/Lindzen territory, below 1°C for 2xCO2 if this reconstruction is right. I don't think it's plausible, but should make for an interesting post.
  25. Cole, your linked paper starts : The variable Sun is the most likely candidate for natural forcing of past climate change on time scales of 50 to 1000 years. And ends : We note that our conclusions can not be tested on the basis of the last 30 years of solar observations because, according to the proxy data, the Sun was in a maximum plato state in its longterm evolution. All recently published reconstructions agree well during the satellite observational period and diverge only in the past. This implies that observational data do not allow to select and favor one of the proposed reconstructions. Therefore, until new evidence become available we are in a situation that different approaches and hypothesis yield different solar forcing values. Our result allows the climate community to evaluate the full range of present uncertainty in solar forcing. Can you explain in your own words (i.e. not from WUWT) what you get from that paper ?

Prev  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  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 2022 John Cook
Home | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us