Shaviv Among the Germans

[Jack Hays]

Professor Nir Shaviv was invited, among others, to address the Bundestag Environment Committee. Here are some highlights.

My experience at the German Bundestag's Environment Committee in a pre-COP24 discussion

Blog topic:
general science, global warming, politics, weather & climate


Last week I had the opportunity to talk in front of the Environment committee of the German Bundestag. It was quite an interesting experience, and frankly, something I would have considered unlikely before receiving the invitation. It was in fact the first time a climate "skeptic" like myself appeared behind those doors in many years.

. . . Any attempt to explain the 20th century warming should therefore include this large forcing. When doing so, one finds that the sun contributed more than half of the warming, and climate has to be relatively insensitive. How much? Only 1 to 1.5°C per CO2 doubling, as opposed to the IPCC range of 1.5 to 4.5. This implies that without doing anything special, future warming will be around another 1 degree over the 21st century, meeting the Copenhagen and Paris goals.The fact that the temperature over the past 20 years has risen significantly less than IPCC models, should raise a red flag that something is wrong with the standard picture.I should also add that science is not a democracy. The majority is not necessarily right! You should also be careful and make the distinction between evidence for warming and evidence for warming by humans. There is in fact no evidence for the latter. Last, people may frighten you with secondary climate effects associated with global warming, on the sea level, cryosphere, droughts floods or economic effects. However, if the underlying climate model is fundamentally wrong, all the ensuing predictions are irrelevant. The fear of global warming, and with it the denouncement of any other voice, is now part of our Zeitgeist. However instead of blindly flowing with the flow, we should stop for a minute and think before we waste so much of our precious public resources. Maybe we will find out the that the emperor has new clothes. . . .

 

[EnigmaO01]

 

[Jack Hays]

The visit was only last week.

 

[EnigmaO01]

The visit was only last week.

I was referring to the thread and the theme of your posts that try to disprove GW even though it's indisputable that the average global temps are going up and that humans are at last most of the blame.

 

[bubbabgone]

Professor Nir Shaviv was invited, among others, to address the Bundestag Environment Committee. Here are some highlights.

My experience at the German Bundestag's Environment Committee in a pre-COP24 discussion

[FONT=&]Blog topic:
general science, global warming, politics, weather & climate


Last week I had the opportunity to talk in front of the Environment committee of the German Bundestag. It was quite an interesting experience, and frankly, something I would have considered unlikely before receiving the invitation. It was in fact the first time a climate "skeptic" like myself appeared behind those doors in many years.

[/FONT][FONT=&][FONT=&]. . . Any attempt to explain the 20th century warming should therefore include this large forcing. When doing so, one finds that the sun contributed more than half of the warming, and climate has to be relatively insensitive. How much? Only 1 to 1.5°C per CO2 doubling, as opposed to the IPCC range of 1.5 to 4.5. This implies that without doing anything special, future warming will be around another 1 degree over the 21st century, meeting the Copenhagen and Paris goals.[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&][FONT=&]The fact that the temperature over the past 20 years has risen significantly less than IPCC models, should raise a red flag that something is wrong with the standard picture.[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&][FONT=&]I should also add that science is not a democracy. The majority is not necessarily right! You should also be careful and make the distinction between evidence for warming and evidence for warming by humans. There is in fact no evidence for the latter. Last, people may frighten you with secondary climate effects associated with global warming, on the sea level, cryosphere, droughts floods or economic effects. However, if the underlying climate model is fundamentally wrong, all the ensuing predictions are irrelevant. [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&][FONT=&]The fear of global warming, and with it the denouncement of any other voice, is now part of our Zeitgeist. However instead of blindly flowing with the flow, we should stop for a minute and think before we waste so much of our precious public resources. Maybe we will find out the that the emperor has new clothes. . . .[/FONT][/FONT]

I forget. Has anyone found anything to denounce Shaviv as a non-credible source yet?

 

[bubbabgone]

I was referring to the thread and the theme of your posts that try to disprove GW even though it's indisputable that the average global temps are going up and that humans are at last most of the blame.

Becaaaaaauuuusse ... you heard they said so?

 

[DaveFagan]

Professor Nir Shaviv was invited, among others, to address the Bundestag Environment Committee. Here are some highlights.

My experience at the German Bundestag's Environment Committee in a pre-COP24 discussion

[FONT=&]Blog topic:
general science, global warming, politics, weather & climate


Last week I had the opportunity to talk in front of the Environment committee of the German Bundestag. It was quite an interesting experience, and frankly, something I would have considered unlikely before receiving the invitation. It was in fact the first time a climate "skeptic" like myself appeared behind those doors in many years.

[/FONT][FONT=&][FONT=&]. . . Any attempt to explain the 20th century warming should therefore include this large forcing. When doing so, one finds that the sun contributed more than half of the warming, and climate has to be relatively insensitive. How much? Only 1 to 1.5°C per CO2 doubling, as opposed to the IPCC range of 1.5 to 4.5. This implies that without doing anything special, future warming will be around another 1 degree over the 21st century, meeting the Copenhagen and Paris goals.[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&][FONT=&]The fact that the temperature over the past 20 years has risen significantly less than IPCC models, should raise a red flag that something is wrong with the standard picture.[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&][FONT=&]I should also add that science is not a democracy. The majority is not necessarily right! You should also be careful and make the distinction between evidence for warming and evidence for warming by humans. There is in fact no evidence for the latter. Last, people may frighten you with secondary climate effects associated with global warming, on the sea level, cryosphere, droughts floods or economic effects. However, if the underlying climate model is fundamentally wrong, all the ensuing predictions are irrelevant. [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&][FONT=&]The fear of global warming, and with it the denouncement of any other voice, is now part of our Zeitgeist. However instead of blindly flowing with the flow, we should stop for a minute and think before we waste so much of our precious public resources. Maybe we will find out the that the emperor has new clothes. . . .[/FONT][/FONT]

I see! Your post acknowledges the reality of AGW but simply disputes the temperature change amount.
/

 

[Jack Hays]

I was referring to the thread and the theme of your posts that try to disprove GW even though it's indisputable that the average global temps are going up and that humans are at last most of the blame.

From the OP link:

[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]. . . There is no evidence that CO2 has a large effect on climate. The two arguments used by the IPCC to so called “prove” that humans are the main cause of global warming, and which implies that climate sensitivity is high, are that: a) 20th century warming is unprecedented, and b) there is nothing else to explain the warming.[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]These arguments are faulty. Why you ask?. . . [/FONT][/FONT]

 

[Jack Hays]

I forget. Has anyone found anything to denounce Shaviv as a non-credible source yet?

They have tried, but failed.

 

[Jack Hays]

I see! Your post acknowledges the reality of AGW but simply disputes the temperature change amount.
/

No one has ever said AGW is zero, only that it's not much of a problem.

 

[bubbabgone]

They have tried, but failed.

Do you remember any details about what they tried?

 

[Jack Hays]

Do you remember any details about what they tried?

Took some shots at his research, and fact that he gave a speech at the Heartland Institute. Those bullets bounce off because he's the Chairman of a Physics Institute and an IBM Einstein Fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study.

 

[bubbabgone]

Took some shots at his research, and fact that he gave a speech at the Heartland Institute. Those bullets bounce off because he's the Chairman of a Physics Institute and an IBM Einstein Fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study.

Ohhhhhh. They fell back on the Heartland thing. Heartland and WUWT are always the go-to excuse when they got nothing for the numbers. I was thinking maybe this time there'd be something more. Alas, no.

 

[Jack Hays]

Ohhhhhh. They fell back on the Heartland thing. Heartland and WUWT are always the go-to excuse when they got nothing for the numbers. I was thinking maybe this time there'd be something more. Alas, no.

To quote one of Shaviv's most extensive (three-part) posts: There is nothing new under the sun.

 

[Mithrae]

I forget. Has anyone found anything to denounce Shaviv as a non-credible source yet?

I'm sure that Lord of Planar will come along at some point to remind us that "words have meaning," a fact of which Shaviv is obviously very much aware. When he talks about solar contributions "since Maunder Minimum" and during the 20th century, we need to remember that it's basically all from before 1960. In fact (as I've commented in discussion with Jack several times) it's quite telling that in a 2013 blog post Shaviv selected a graphic display in which the data terminated in 1994 even though much more recent data was certainly available and, just as misleadingly, used an 11-year mean to create the impression of a sustained forcing increase rather than the fluctuations which solar cycles actually represent.

Similarly in this 2018 presentation, he chose to show data ending in 2000; but in this case at least, going back much longer and without the 11-year mean:

It's pretty clear to see that the solar constant remained more or less the same in 2000 as it had been in 1980 or 1960, and that therefore solar contribution to the warming which has occurred since the 1970s must be minimal... if not negative: If he'd extended the graph beyond 2000, we'd actually see declining solar activity over the past two cycles, while the warming has continued at the same rate.

 

[Quaestio]

Shouldn't this be on Jack's Cosmic Rays thread where he's doing a 'slow reveal' 'bump and grind' of Shaviv and Svensmark's CV's one title per post so he can keep bumping up the thread?

Are we going to get the same slow reveal of Shaviv's CV here too?

https://www.debatepolitics.com/envi...rs-clouds-and-climate-166.html#post1069389772

 

[Lord of Planar]

I'm sure that Lord of Planar will come along at some point to remind us that "words have meaning," a fact of which Shaviv is obviously very much aware. When he talks about solar contributions "since Maunder Minimum" and during the 20th century, we need to remember that it's basically all from before 1960.

I only skimmed over the material in this post today. Haven't taken any time to look at much. I will remind you however, that since we had our first discussions of the SORCE site TSI reconstructions, 1958 was the solar peak, and their newer data has it revised for a later yer, though I don't remember when.

In fact (as I've commented in discussion with Jack several times) it's quite telling that in a 2013 blog post Shaviv selected a graphic display in which the data terminated in 1994 even though much more recent data was certainly available and, just as misleadingly, used an 11-year mean to create the impression of a sustained forcing increase rather than the fluctuations which solar cycles actually represent.

I'm not going to do anything but suggest possible reasons for an older set of data and graphs. One thing for example, is it takes around a 60 year lag for things like C13 and Be10 to be seen. Today, the levels of these isotopes we see came from solar changes around 60 years ago, as they were formed in the ionosphere. It is also possible that no newer studies have been done that fulfilled the data needed.

Similarly in this 2018 presentation, he chose to show data ending in 2000; but in this case at least, going back much longer and without the 11-year mean:

It's pretty clear to see that the solar constant remained more or less the same in 2000 as it had been in 1980 or 1960, and that therefore solar contribution to the warming which has occurred since the 1970s must be minimal... if not negative: If he'd extended the graph beyond 2000, we'd actually see declining solar activity over the past two cycles, while the warming has continued at the same rate.

There is actually a small increase in both. Remember there is a very slow equalization process.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I went back and skimmed the link in the OP. There is this quote:

This is the contribution to the radiative forcing from different components, as summarized in the IPCC AR5. As you can see, it is claimed that the solar contribution is minute (tiny gray bar). In reality, we can use the oceans to quantify the solar forcing, and see that it was probably larger than the CO2 contribution (large light brown bar).
​

comes with adding to the AR5 graphic of forcing:

https://imgur.com/a/ZPx6ItC

This agrees with what I have been saying for a rather long time now about how the oceans absorb shortwave energy of which the IPCC et. al. completely ignore. I came to this conclusion, completely on my own, without blogs as my sources. Only peer reviewed papers and raw data as my sources, using my own deductive abilities.

Call it confirmation bias if you like, but I at least do not deny the aspects of the sciences that I don't like. I actually follow up and look to source material and not base my beliefs on what someone else tells me like most of you.

You might remember a graph I made years before I joined these forums here. I made it shortly after the AR4 came out:

https://imgur.com/zpdYZPQ

This image shows the forcing alone that is ignored as the sun feeds the other warming factors. This and the added ocean changes to solar can absolutely, be more forcing than CO2. No question in my mind.

 

[EnigmaO01]

duplicate

 

[EnigmaO01]

Becaaaaaauuuusse ... you heard they said so?

No, I have a science degree and can tell peer reviewed data and credible science sources from hogwash. Obviously you can't.

 

[EnigmaO01]

I forget. Has anyone found anything to denounce Shaviv as a non-credible source yet?

Dialogues On Global Warming: Nir Shaviv Debunked

 

[Lord of Planar]

Dialogues On Global Warming: Nir Shaviv Debunked

A blog to debunk a credible scientist?

LOL...

 

[Jack Hays]

Dialogues On Global Warming: Nir Shaviv Debunked

Just the usual ad hominem BS.
The critique in your link makes the common mistake of misunderstanding the nature and characteristics of solar climate influence. Shaviv handles that neatly in this thread's OP link, and offers a further link to the paper in which he explains in more detail.
Ziskin, S. & Shaviv, N. J., Quantifying the role of solar radiative forcing over the 20th century, Advances in Space Research 50 (2012) 762–776

As for the silly charge about fossil fuel money, it doesn't stand up to any common sense review. The few thousand dollars in honoraria he may have collected for speeches are neither out of line nor likely to turn the head of a scientist of Shaviv's stature and income. And keep in mind he was selected as an IBM Einstein Fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study, the place where Einstein worked after emigrating to the US. The seem to have treated the fossil fuel slander with the disdain it deserves.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Just the usual ad hominem BS.
The critique in your link makes the common mistake of misunderstanding the nature and characteristics of solar climate influence. Shaviv handles that neatly in this thread's OP link, and offers a further link to the paper in which he explains in more detail.
Ziskin, S. & Shaviv, N. J., Quantifying the role of solar radiative forcing over the 20th century, Advances in Space Research 50 (2012) 762–776[FONT=&]

[/FONT]As for the silly charge about fossil fuel money, it doesn't stand up to any common sense review. The few thousand dollars in honoraria he may have collected for speeches are neither out of line nor likely to turn the head of a scientist of Shaviv's stature and income. And keep in mind he was selected as an IBM Einstein Fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study, the place where Einstein worked after emigrating to the US. The seem to have treated the fossil fuel slander with the disdain it deserves.

They don't consider the decades it takes for the solar-ocean-atmospheric coupling. A common mistake for the novice.

 

[Jack Hays]

I'm sure that Lord of Planar will come along at some point to remind us that "words have meaning," a fact of which Shaviv is obviously very much aware. When he talks about solar contributions "since Maunder Minimum" and during the 20th century, we need to remember that it's basically all from before 1960. In fact (as I've commented in discussion with Jack several times) it's quite telling that in a 2013 blog post Shaviv selected a graphic display in which the data terminated in 1994 even though much more recent data was certainly available and, just as misleadingly, used an 11-year mean to create the impression of a sustained forcing increase rather than the fluctuations which solar cycles actually represent.

Similarly in this 2018 presentation, he chose to show data ending in 2000; but in this case at least, going back much longer and without the 11-year mean:

It's pretty clear to see that the solar constant remained more or less the same in 2000 as it had been in 1980 or 1960, and that therefore solar contribution to the warming which has occurred since the 1970s must be minimal... if not negative: If he'd extended the graph beyond 2000, we'd actually see declining solar activity over the past two cycles, while the warming has continued at the same rate.

Not your best work. The reason the graph ends at 2000 is because the discussion is explicitly and specifically about 20th century warming. It's right there in the text.

As for "solar contribution to the warming," Shaviv is clear:

". . . 2) Rising temperatures with falling solar activity from the 1990's. The argument here is of course that the negative correlation over this period tells us that the sun cannot be the major climate driver. This too is wrong.First, even if the sun was the only climate driver (which I never said is the case), this anti-correlation would not have contradicted it. Following this simple logic, we could have ruled out that the sun is warming us during the day because between noon and say 2pm, when it is typically warmest, the amount of solar radiation decreases while the temperature increases. Similarly, one could rule out the sun as our source of warmth because maximum radiation is obtained in June while July and August are typically warmer. Over the period of a month or more, solar radiation decreases but the temperature increases! The reason behind this behavior is of course the finite heat capacity of the climate system. If you heat the system for a given duration, it takes time for the system to reach equilibrium. If the heating starts to decrease while the temperature is still below equilibrium, then the temperature will continue rising as the forcing starts to decrease. Interestingly, since the late 1990’s (specifically the 1997 el Niño) the temperature has been increasing at a rate much lower than predicted by the models appearing in the IPCC reports (the so called “global warming hiatus”).Having said that, it is possible to actually model the climate system while including the heat capacity, namely diffusion of heat into and out of the oceans, and include the solar and anthropogenic forcings and find out that by introducing the the solar forcing, one can get a much better fit to the 20th century warming, in which the climate sensitivity is much smaller. (Typically 1°C per CO2 doubling compared with the IPCC's canonical range of 1.5 to 4.5°C per CO2 doubling). You can read about it here: Ziskin, S. & Shaviv, N. J., Quantifying the role of solar radiative forcing over the 20th century, Advances in Space Research 50 (2012) 762–776 . . . . "

From that link:
6. SummaryTo summarize, the following are the main conclusions of our work. The sun has a much more significant role on Earth’s climate than is commonly thought. Its estimated 20th century forcing on the climate is 0.8 ± 0.4 W m2. Earth’s climate sensitivity is very close to that of a“black body”. Thus, the various feedbacks cancel each other out.
Nominally, we can account for 40% of the 20th century global warming by the sun alone while 60% should be attributed to anthropogenic activity.Furthermore, we show in the present work that a simple energy balance model can shed significant light on the understanding and quantification of the climate system, and in particular, that such models can improve our understanding of the solar–climate link.