Why are you specifically looking at the period 1980-present in connection with the claim that “there might be some connection between the winter mean and the solar activity?”
Because if you look at the graph in your link plotted over longer periods, the “connection” appears random at best:
1950-present: “CRUTEM3 variance-adj. land NH mean” is sometimes correlated with “SIDC monthly sunspot number”, sometimes anti-correlated with it, and sometimes in between
1920-present: Same lack of consistency in correlation, only more so
So why are you arguing for “some connection between the winter mean and the solar activity” based only on the 1980-present data, which doesn’t appear at all representative of the longer-term relationship between these two phenomena?
Once again, rhetoric rather than reality. I stated clearly that the statement on solar was false.
That is false, completely false. That is what I said was false, your efforts to spin it will not advance your cause.
Note they provide no source of their claim, which is absurd. There are lifetimes of work on the matter, and they hand wave it away with a statement, with no evidence at all.
Putting the OP another way, does global warming mean that every must be new record high for global temperatures? If not than by definition there will be some years that are cooler than the previous years indicating a downward trend. When 2018 becomes the hottest year on record, I’m sure that FxM and his ilk will restart the clock and say that there has been no warming between 2018 and 2023 therefore global climate change is bunk.
Regarding Ecco’s comments about the bad winter we’ve had in the Eastern US, I would point out that “Eastern US” is not equal to globe. Just ask the people in Sochi how their winter is going.
FXMastermind, your links don’t appear to be talking about the same category of “solar cycle” that wolfpup was referring to. Even if Perry and Hsu’s proposed 1000±year cycle might produce significant climate forcing, that doesn’t rebut the statement that no solar cycle up to a few centuries long has been found to have significant impact on climate.
The key word here is “significant”. We’ve only been measuring solar output directly since the 1960s. we’ll have to wait until the 2960s to say what the thousand year average is. The sun plays a roll in climate change, how much or how little is a question that has not been definitively answered yet. Just look at the numbers from this latest 11-year solar peak, much less than was expected, and there’s no explanation forthwithcoming from solar physicists. Our sun has proved to be not as stable as we would hope.
You seem to be trying to rebut a comparison of two quantities by appealing to a different comparison of two different quantities.
That is, the skepticalscience.com graph you referred to compares trends in total solar irradiance and global land-ocean temperature index from the NASA GISS dataset between about 1885 and about 2005.
You are claiming that that graph is “deceptive” on the basis of your previously linked graph comparing trends in SIDC monthly sunspot number and CRUTEM3 variance-adj. land NH mean between 1980 and the present.
I don’t see why you think that the latter graph somehow refutes the former, or exposes it as “deceptive”. They’re talking about different things.
Oh, I think I see at least part of the problem here, at any rate. FXMastermind, you appear to have misread the time axis of that skepticalscience.com graph as beginning around 1980, whereas it actually begins around 1880.
Speaking about FXMastermind getting things wrong, by linking only to the image FXMastermind does not let others see that skeptical science does link to the science where that graph comes from. (Something FX claims that they don’t).
Specifically they link to the data and the groups that handle not only the past centuries, but also the period from 1978 to the present:
And yes, they are referring to the total irradiance, not the number of sun spots, depending on how big the spots are, they could actually be a sign of **less ** activity in total.
So, there are even more degrees of how wrong FX is here.
Oh, and now I think I see the other part of the problem:
FXMastermind, you apparently didn’t finish reading the part of your linked AIP article on history of climate science (a quote from which I mistakenly attributed to wolfpup in a previous post, sorry about that) where it went on to discuss more recent research on solar-cycle/climate connections:
So wolfpup was talking about the current state of climate science when he said that nobody’s claiming solar variations don’t exist or don’t affect climate.
You offered as a counterexample a statement from a historical description of mid-20th century climate science, when it was not yet convincingly established whether or how solar variations affect climate.
Once again, your cite doesn’t actually refute what wolfpup was saying, because it turns out to be talking about a different issue.
But one of your “examples”, as I noted a few posts ago, is actually your misreading of a historical description of climate science from a half-century ago or so, which is not the same thing as current climate science.
And your other “example” doesn’t say what you claim it does:
To say that recent trends in solar activity and climate change are not correlated is not the same thing as to say “solar variations have no effect of any kind on climate”.
Nobody needs to be told what he wrote, it’s still right there. Just like the following is still there.
And yes, the claim that the TSI variation is so small it doesn’t effect climate was made, is still being made. The TSI has only been measured with accuracy for less than a decade, so there is no way the claims can be validated presently. TYhe difference between measurements was over 5%, and with the latest sat data we know the high energy UV varies by a huge amount. the effects and chemistry of the upper atmosphere is far from known, and changes in the thermosphere and mesosphere are hypothesized to have much greater effects on lower atmospheric wind patterns than anyone thought before.
Same for ozone levels and destruction, like the situation in Antarctica. Heating from ozone loss is thought to have increased the circumpolar winds, causing drastic changes in overturning there, as well as changes in sea ice and precipitation, a theoretical explanation for the cooling there, not explained by any models so far.
But these are vastly complicated issues. If we can’t agree on one simple thing, the temperature trend for an 11 year period, then how will any of this go forward?
Good. Do you now understand that you were attempting to offer a counterexample to what he wrote by quoting a historical description of earlier climate science?
