Yup, I know. There’s plenty to talk about here, though.
Sure seems to. From GIGO’s link:
If you click on the links where those datasets are named, you get the data sources.
That is why I linked to the Skeptical Science cite, under the graph you have the link to the source (the Max Plank Institute) and the link to the data is under the image in the article from Skeptical Science that FX omitted.
You seem to be mixing up the claim that solar irradiance variation doesn’t affect climate at all (which AFAIK is not what any climate scientist thinks nowadays) with the claim that solar irradiance variation is too small to account for global warming in recent decades (which AFAIK is what pretty much every climate scientist thinks nowadays).
The Solanki link only gives the actual data, not the source of the data. How was the 1364.542 W/m[sup]2[/sup] data point measured on June 1st, 1611?
The website at the URL you linked to, one level up, discusses the data and the research describing it:
http://www2.mps.mpg.de/projects/sun-climate/data.html
Tip for folks looking at data sets in general: If you follow a link that leads you to a text file of data values and you want to know more about the sources of the data, the same URL often contains relevant webpages higher up the pathname, as in this case.
I’m serious about the basic facts. If an eternal argument can go on over one simple thing, the complicated contentious issues will be impossible.
Not necessarily. General consensus agreement on the basic scientific facts doesn’t necessarily require complete agreement on all the details.
Well … followed the Krivova et al. (2007) link and that referred me to Solanki (2002) who concludes a correlation coefficient of ≥ 0.83. That’s a very high value of correlation to be disregarded.
This might be a very very long thread
… and now I have a headache.
Hmm. What link do you have for the Solanki et al. 2002 paper?
ETA: Nemmine, found it.
Hmm again. Where do Solanki et al. (2002) refer to a correlation coefficient of ≥ 0.83?
Have you written a paper or submitted a review comment to enlighten them?
This is what I think many find so frustrating about the proclamations you tend to make. They are either easily shown to be wrong, or are forays into complete irrelevance where your personal [mis]interpretation is supposed to refute the clearly stated and cited conclusions in reputable publications.
Latest example #1: You said the American Institute of Physics description of relative solar constancy was “completely false”. You were wrong, completely aside from the rhetorical curiosity of why you think you have greater credibility than the AIP. I provided a quote from the IPCC AR5 TS.3.5 which supports the statement and refutes your nonsense – you can find more at Sections TS.3.5 and at 5.2.1.2 Solar Forcing and 8.4.1 Solar Irradiance, with full citations at the end of each relevant chapter.
Latest example #2: You said the Skeptical Science claim of falling solar output in recent years when temperature was increasing was “a display of willful ignorance, perhaps even deception, [that] is appalling to me”. The only thing that was appalling was that you were wrong again. I cited three papers supporting SkepticalScience in my previous post, and provided quotes from them: Lean and Rind (2008), Lockwood (2008), and Foster and Rahmstorf (2011). There are many more.
Latest example #3: You post something about 9,000 year variations in solar output as if it had the slightest relevance to what anybody here is talking about. Wrong again, or rather, as someone else already pointed out, completely irrelevant.
And of course your OP, with cherry-picked time series, and some unstated and unclear point that I presume we are asked to take away from this regarding the earth’s alleged non-warming.
If you think climate science is bullshit, why not just say so and be done with it? Trying to “prove” it hasn’t been working well for you.
This is from IPCC AR5 WG1 Section 5.2.1. The mean RF of solar variability over the post-industrial era is about 0.05 W/m**2. This is negligible compared to anthropogenic forcings.
Since the topic is about one major thing, remember that in the real world, mankind added roughly 130 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2013. That is about a third of all the CO2 put there by humanity since 1750.
A third of the CO2 increase from mankind has been in the period where all the data sets show cooling, not warming.
The two “warm” years were produced by the Pacific ocean, not the greenhouse effect. There is no evidence either volcanoes or air pollution from increased coal burning has dimmed the atmosphere. Winter warming in high latitudes, a key prediction of the enhanced greenhouse theory has in fact gone the other way, with clear cooling trends, that can no longer be handwaved away as natural variation.
And yet the summer arctic amplification is still in effect. There is NH summer warming, while the global mean is trending slightly down.
The stratosphere trend is not matching the predictions either, but that is still not known to be a problem with sensors or with theory.
Water vapor has not increased, which is of course logical, as there has been no warming, there should be no increase in water vapor. In fact the cold Pacific may be causing drier air patterns for the US southwest.
And the winter of 2013/14, far from over, is looking to be one of the longest and coldest on record. Great lakes ice levels are near record, something as unexpected as the record cold.
There is a great deal to consider, but the basic facts have to be basic facts. Insisting the earth is still warming, when it is obviously not, is something worthy of debate.
No, what I am saying, and I thought it was clear, is that looking at the data, there is a strong connection between the sun and climate. If you accept the increase in CO2 ,and other factors from mankind’s activities, are heating up the planet, the temperature data makes sense. If you accept that solar influences climate, and can do so in ways we still don’t know about, (which is true), it’s possible to explain that the solar changes are still influencing the climate, especially since the oceanographers directly track the sun and the oceans.
I don’t just pull facts out of my ass, everything is based on evidence, on research and data, everything.
If you can show anything I post is wrong, then do it. I welcome learning something new.
But show me, don’t tell me.
Like this
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sunearth/news/sorce-10yrs.html
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/solarcycle-sorce.html
If somebody had predicted what is happening, years before, I would cosnider what they are saying, as being possibly important. From 2010
Other researchers have proposed the effect of the sun on the upper atmosphere is changing the circulation patterns, and the changes in wind will have a drastic effect on the climate, possibly far more than temperatures do.
There are vast unknowns, just vast. Anyone who tries to tell you they have it all figured out, is a liar. Or a genius.
:dubious: That sounds as though you believe that (1) there’s essentially no time lag between CO2 increase and temperature rise, and (2) there can’t be a short-term cooling trend in the midst of a long-term warming trend. Neither of those is true, AFAIK.
[QUOTE=FXMastermind]
Winter warming in high latitudes, a key prediction of the enhanced greenhouse theory has in fact gone the other way, with clear cooling trends, that can no longer be handwaved away as natural variation.
[/quote]
Cite for the claim that recent cold winters can’t be explained by natural short-term climate variation? Because AFAIK, current climate science says they can. As some prominent climate scientists recently remarked in a letter to Science,
Just because there’s some short-term cooling doesn’t mean that the earth is “obviously not” warming in the long term.
Most importantly: If you’re going to claim that anthropogenic global warming doesn’t exist, you have to come up with a quantitative model that explains why it doesn’t exist, since basic physics implies that it should exist.
I.e., we put lots of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, we enhance the atmosphere’s greenhouse effect. That ought to make the planet warmer.
If you assert it’s not making the planet warmer, well then, why isn’t it?
No, I was right, and I still am. Read the following carefully.
Of course I read it all. years ago. I was pointing out that the statement in the first paragraph was false, and as you found out, that is indeed the case.
No, I directly pointed out that the AIP claim was false, because it is.
The issue of what effect the sun has, and how much, is large and very complicated. Read the NASA links and get back to me on it. It’s not just a matter of the energy, it’s chemistry, it’s an unknown, but in the last decade we know at last that the changes in the high energy UV are important, much larger than anyone suspected, and they are directly connected to the climate.
Just because somebody says something, that does not make it true.
That statement is not fact, it is conjecture, and it is false IMNSHO, as well as many others who actually study these things. You can try and overturn all previous and current science about the sun with a paper, but good luck with that. It doesn’t work like that in the real world.
That statement is too vague to mean much scientifically, as it stands. Yes, all climate scientists nowadays agree that there’s a “strong connection” between the sun and climate, for some value of “strong”.
The important question is, exactly how much and what kind of effects does solar variation exert on climate, and exactly what quantitative mechanisms account for them?
Again, you still seem to be mixing up the concepts of “solar irradiation cycles affect global weather patterns to a significant extent” and “solar irradiation cycles are a plausible cause of recent decades’ global warming”.
Those two statements are not the same thing. When scientists say, as in your linked article, “Hey! We’ve figured out some new details about how solar cycles affect weather patterns!”, they are not necessarily saying “OMG this changes everything we know about climate science and solar variability! This might be the real cause of global warming!” Assuming that the one implies the other is just wishful thinking on your part.