Quote:
Originally Posted by Turtle
The rebuttal has all the catch phrases they criticize. Not surprising.
Read the sunspots |
This study was
published July of this year in the
Procedings of the Royal Society:
The Royal Society - Article
Quote:
|
There are many interesting palaeoclimate studies that suggest that solar variability had an influence on pre-industrial climate. There are also some detection-attribution studies using global climate models that suggest there was a detectable influence of solar variability in the first half of the twentieth century and that the solar radiative forcing variations were amplified by some mechanism that is, as yet, unknown. However, these findings are not relevant to any debates about modern climate change. Our results show that the observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanisms is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified.
|
Btw, I've shown this to you before, Turtle.
Also, if you look at post #19 of this very thread, you will see the following which shows the impact of solar forcing relative to other factors:
Quote:
Originally Posted by InfiniteNow
|
If you are genuinely curious about solar irradiance, then the below graphic should be of interest to you:
...and this story in Nature:
Variations in solar luminosity and their effect on the Earth's climate : Abstract : Nature
Quote:
|
Variations in the Sun's total energy output (luminosity) are caused by changing dark (sunspot) and bright structures on the solar disk during the 11-year sunspot cycle. The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978 are too small to have contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30 years. In this Review, we show that detailed analysis of these small output variations has greatly advanced our understanding of solar luminosity change, and this new understanding indicates that brightening of the Sun is unlikely to have had a significant influence on global warming since the seventeenth century.
|
Here's yet another:
RealClimate » The lure of solar forcing
Quote:
|
This is not to say that there is no solar influence on climate change, only that establishing such a link is more difficult then many assume. What is generally required is a consistent signal over a number of cycles (either the 11 year sunspot cycle or more long term variations), similar effects if the timeseries are split, and sufficient true degrees of freedom that the connection is significant and that it explains a non-negligible fraction of the variance. These are actually quite stiff hurdles and so the number of links that survive this filter are quite small. In some rough order of certainty we can consider that the 11 year solar cycle impacts on the following are well accepted: stratospheric ozone, cosmogenic isotope production, upper atmospheric geopotential heights, stratospheric temperatures and (slightly less certain and with small magnitudes ~0.1 deg C) tropospheric and ocean temperatures. More marginal are impacts on wintertime tropospheric circulation (like the NAO). It is also clear that if there really was a big signal in the data, it would have been found by now. The very fact that we are still arguing about statisitical significance implies that whatever signal there is, is small.
|
It has been extremely well documented now that solar changes since about 1950 have a very minimal forcing, and maybe even negative.
Here's some more food for thought:
Solar influence on climate during the past millennium: Results from transient simulations with the NCAR Climate System Model -- Ammann et al. 104 (10): 3713 -- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Changes in Solar Brightness Too Weak to Explain Global Warming - News Release
http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media...pa20071880.pdf
Max Planck Society - Press Release
Final Report of Synthesis and Assessment Product 1.1
ATMOSPHERE: Global Change in the Upper Atmosphere -- Laštovička et al. 314 (5803): 1253 -- Science
Finally, from here:
Global Warming -- Research Issues
... an easy to understand pretty picture for those who don't read as much.
I must say, Turtle, you never struck me as a person to make an argument using denialist tactics... someone to sew the seeds of doubt instead of supporting your position. I mean this with all due respect, but you can do better.
