The Role of the Sun in Global Warming

[Surface Detail]

[h=2]The oceans as a calorimeter[/h][FONT=&quot]Blog topic:
general science, global warming, personal research, weather & climate



I few months ago, I had a paper accepted in the Journal of Geophysical Research. Since its repercussions are particularly interesting for the general public, I decided to write about it. It's called, using the "Oceans as a Calorimeter to quantify the solar radiative forcing".[/FONT]

This paper claims that the temperature changes due to changing solar radiation are manifested immediately as changes in sea level, while your graphs show solar activity falling since 1990. So WTF has the Earth's temperature risen so much since 1990? The only explanation is that the Earth's temperature since that has been more strongly influenced by some other effect with the sun playing very little role in recent warming.

 

[Jack Hays]

This paper claims that the temperature changes due to changing solar radiation are manifested immediately as changes in sea level, while your graphs show solar activity falling since 1990. So WTF has the Earth's temperature risen so much since 1990? The only explanation is that the Earth's temperature since that has been more strongly influenced by some other effect with the sun playing very little role in recent warming.

So, it turns out there are stupid questions. Read and learn.

Solar Debunking Arguments are Defunct

 

[Surface Detail]

So, it turns out there are stupid questions. Read and learn.

Solar Debunking Arguments are Defunct

Sorry, but that doesn't answer the question at all. Why would short term variations in solar output be clearly visible in corresponding sea level changes but not long term ones? Shaviv gives no reason for this. It simply doesn't make sense.

 

[Jack Hays]

Sorry, but that doesn't answer the question at all. Why would short term variations in solar output be clearly visible in corresponding sea level changes but not long term ones? Shaviv gives no reason for this. It simply doesn't make sense.

And yet the correlation is unmistakable. What do you consider "long term?"

[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Figure 1: Reconstructed Solar constant (dashed red line) and sea level change rate based on Tide Gauge records as a function of time (solid blue line with 1 sigma error region in gray). [/FONT]

 

[Lord of Planar]

And yet the correlation is unmistakable. What do you consider "long term?"

[FONT="][IMG]http://www.sciencebits.com/sites/default/files/pictures/climate/DefunctDebunkingArguments/Calorimeter.jpg[/IMG] [/FONT][FONT="]Figure 1: Reconstructed Solar constant (dashed red line) and sea level change rate based on Tide Gauge records as a function of time (solid blue line with 1 sigma error region in gray). [/FONT]

The agenda driven believers of the dogma deny simple science.

The TSI of the sun has likely increased by more than 0.2% since 1700. The oceans are transparent to the spectra of the sun that increases by about double the TSI.

We are simply looking at thermal expansion by heat.

 

[Jack Hays]

[h=3]NOAA Space Weather Prediction Center Plots (updated monthly):[/h][FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]

 

[Threegoofs]

New sunspot analysis shows rising global temperatures not linked to solar activity – Physics World

“A recalibration of data describing the number of sunspots and groups of sunspots on the surface of the Sun shows that there is no significant long-term upward trend in solar activity since 1700, contrary to what was previously thought. Indeed, the corrected numbers now point towards a consistent history of solar activity over the past few centuries, according to an international team of researchers. Its results suggest that rising global temperatures since the industrial revolution cannot be attributed to increased solar activity. “

 

[Manc Skipper]

The earth....
Just remember that you're standing on a planet that's evolving
and revolving at nine hundred miles an hour
It's orbiting a nineteen miles a second, so it's reckoned,

The Sun which is the source of all it's power.

M Python.

 

[Glitch]

The earth....
Just remember that you're standing on a planet that's evolving
and revolving at nine hundred miles an hour
It's orbiting a nineteen miles a second, so it's reckoned,

The Sun which is the source of all it's power.

M Python.

Here is an updated version...

 

[Jack Hays]

New sunspot analysis shows rising global temperatures not linked to solar activity – Physics World

“A recalibration of data describing the number of sunspots and groups of sunspots on the surface of the Sun shows that there is no significant long-term upward trend in solar activity since 1700, contrary to what was previously thought. Indeed, the corrected numbers now point towards a consistent history of solar activity over the past few centuries, according to an international team of researchers. Its results suggest that rising global temperatures since the industrial revolution cannot be attributed to increased solar activity. “

Old news (2015) already refuted (2015). Try to keep up.

[h=3]THE SUNSPOTS 2.0? IRRELEVANT. THE SUN, STILL IS.[/h]

 

[flogger]

The earth....
Just remember that you're standing on a planet that's evolving
and revolving at nine hundred miles an hour
It's orbiting a nineteen miles a second, so it's reckoned,

The Sun which is the source of all it's power.

M Python.

And yet we can still claim to know what it will be like 100 years from now despite knowing squat about the variables involved ..... go figure :roll:

 

[Threegoofs]

Old news (2015) already refuted (2015). Try to keep up.

[h=3]THE SUNSPOTS 2.0? IRRELEVANT. THE SUN, STILL IS.[/h]

Refuted by... olookablog

 

[Glitch]

Old news (2015) already refuted (2015). Try to keep up.

[h=3]THE SUNSPOTS 2.0? IRRELEVANT. THE SUN, STILL IS.[/h]

Not entirely irrelevant. It is interesting to note that during the Dalton Minimum (1796-1820) we were suffering from crop failures and famines world-wide as a result of unusually cold summers. That was before the 1815 Tambora super-volcano eruption that made things even worse for several years. Yet today we are seeing a similar lack of sunspot activity, but the exact opposite effect on surface temperatures. It it also important to note that since the Modern Warming Period began famines and plagues have diminished significantly.

That tells me that either there is no correlation between sunspot activity and mean surface temperatures, or if there is a correlation, then it is much more complicated than just the number of sun spots being observed.

 

[Jack Hays]

Not entirely irrelevant. It is interesting to note that during the Dalton Minimum (1796-1820) we were suffering from crop failures and famines world-wide as a result of unusually cold summers. That was before the 1815 Tambora super-volcano eruption that made things even worse for several years. Yet today we are seeing a similar lack of sunspot activity, but the exact opposite effect on surface temperatures. It it also important to note that since the Modern Warming Period began famines and plagues have diminished significantly.

That tells me that either there is no correlation between sunspot activity and mean surface temperatures, or if there is a correlation, then it is much more complicated than just the number of sun spots being observed.

You and the link are mostly in agreement.

 

[Lord of Planar]

New sunspot analysis shows rising global temperatures not linked to solar activity – Physics World

“A recalibration of data describing the number of sunspots and groups of sunspots on the surface of the Sun shows that there is no significant long-term upward trend in solar activity since 1700, contrary to what was previously thought. Indeed, the corrected numbers now point towards a consistent history of solar activity over the past few centuries, according to an international team of researchers. Its results suggest that rising global temperatures since the industrial revolution cannot be attributed to increased solar activity. “

What does is say about the changing atmospheric opacity to sunlight? If it leaves out how the insolation is modulated, then it assumes important chaotic variables to be static.

 

[Threegoofs]

What does is say about the changing atmospheric opacity to sunlight? If it leaves out how the insolation is modulated, then it assumes important chaotic variables to be static.

Weird.

When jack posts spammy blog after spammy blog on sunspots, or cosmic rays, or whatever...you never seem to bring this up.

 

[Mr Person]

In this 22 minute video, Professor Nir Shaviv explains the role of the Sun in global warming -- a role studiously ignored by AGW advocates. An interesting side comment points to the publication soon of a paper following up on the groundbreaking Svensmark et al 2017.

[h=2]22 minute talk summarizing my views on global warming[/h][FONT="][B]Blog topic: [/B]
[URL="http://www.sciencebits.com/taxonomy/term/18"]cosmic rays[/URL], global warming, personal research, politics, weather & climate


Just over a week ago I gave a 20 minute talk (which lasted almost 22 min) about the role that the sun plays in global warming in the Heartland institute's climate conference in DC. Here it is brought again for posterity. [/FONT]

My God, they've discovered energy comes from the sun? How could scientists in the field not accounted for energy coming from the son.

:doh

 

[Lord of Planar]

Weird.

When jack posts spammy blog after spammy blog on sunspots, or cosmic rays, or whatever...you never seem to bring this up.

What you guys fail to recognize, is the sun drives the level of heat the earth is capable of. Several things modulate that heat. Greenhouse gasses are only one of many factors.

 

[Jack Hays]

Weird.

When jack posts spammy blog after spammy blog on sunspots, or cosmic rays, or whatever...you never seem to bring this up.

My posts present substance you avoid.

 

[PoS]

My God, they've discovered energy comes from the sun? How could scientists in the field not accounted for energy coming from the son.

:doh

Ask the ones who keep claiming that all global warming is caused by manmade CO2.

 

[Threegoofs]

Ask the ones who keep claiming that all global warming is caused by manmade CO2.

You mean... ask the scientists who study this sort of thing?

 

[PoS]

You mean... ask the scientists who study this sort of thing?

A quack who falsely claims he won the Nobel prize and lost a libel case is not to be believed.

 

[Threegoofs]

A quack who falsely claims he won the Nobel prize and lost a libel case is not to be believed.

You mean the guy who has an endowed professorship at one of the best earth sciences Universities in the world and is very well regarded among his peers is...not understanding science as well as you do?

 

[PoS]

You mean the guy who has an endowed professorship at one of the best earth sciences Universities in the world and is very well regarded among his peers is...not understanding science as well as you do?

Yup, anyone who believes him is an idiot.

 

[Threegoofs]

Yup, anyone who believes him is an idiot.

Because.....?