German Research Team Concludes It's the Sun. CO2 is a Lie!

[Tullioz]

Add German scientists to the list of growing doubters. Although it seems they conclude that man is partially responsible.

http://www.bild.de/p...67268.bild.html

"What if the UN organization is wrong? Can we trust these experts really blind, they are really independent?

Who checks the facts just come to a different result: Fewer than half of the current warming of 0.8 ° C is probably on the account of man. With the other half we have to do absolutely nothing!

Because the main culprit in climate variability, our dear sun!"

[The_Global_Warmer]

Add German scientists to the list of growing doubters. Although it seems they conclude that man is partially responsible.

http://www.bild.de/p...67268.bild.html

"What if the UN organization is wrong? Can we trust these experts really blind, they are really independent?

Who checks the facts just come to a different result: Fewer than half of the current warming of 0.8 ° C is probably on the account of man. With the other half we have to do absolutely nothing!

Because the main culprit in climate variability, our dear sun!"

I would change that to whomever your data is coming from. Because that is not true, and not even close to some majority of German Scientists.

It is quite the opposite.

[Vergent]

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

#2

yawn.

[turtlehurricane]

http://www.skeptical...om/argument.php

#2

yawn.

You've dredged up more incorrect science, how surprising. The sun has been more active than "average" in recent decades.

[TerryM]

You've dredged up more incorrect science, how surprising. The sun has been more active than "average" in recent decades.

Link please.

[WeatherRusty]

Link please.

http://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/tsi/historical_tsi.html

[PhillipS]

You've dredged up more incorrect science, how surprising. The sun has been more active than "average" in recent decades.

You are wrong again, how surprising. You made an assertion without offering a shred of data to support it. The solar variation over the observational period has not been nearly enough to have caused the measured global warming. My suggestion would be to check the peer-reviewed science before posting such nonsense.

NASA recently posted research results on this topic. Here is the TSI plot for the satellite era:

Notice that min to max variation in TSI (largely driven by the solar cycle) is only about 0.1%. The NASA report goes on to say:

Total solar irradiance, the amount of energy produced by the sun that reaches the top of each square meter of the Earth's atmosphere, typically declines by about a tenth of a percent during cyclical lulls in solar activity caused by shifts in the sun's magnetic field. Usually solar minimums occur about every eleven years and last a year or so, but the most recent minimum persisted more than two years longer than normal, making it the longest minimum recorded during the satellite era.

And from the abstract of the peer-reviewed paper on the underlying research on the role of sun and GHGs:

Improving observations of ocean heat content show that Earth is absorbing more energy from the sun than it is radiating to space as heat, even during the recent solar minimum. The inferred planetary energy imbalance, 0.59 ± 0.15 W m

⁻²

during the 6-year period 2005–2010, confirms the dominant role of the human-made greenhouse effect in driving global climate change. Observed surface temperature change and ocean heat gain together constrain the net climate forcing and ocean mixing rates. We conclude that most climate models mix heat too efficiently into the deep ocean and as a result underestimate the negative forcing by human-made aerosols. Aerosol climate forcing today is inferred to be −1.6 ± 0.3 W m

⁻²

, implying substantial aerosol indirect climate forcing via cloud changes. Continued failure to quantify the specific origins of this large forcing is untenable, as knowledge of changing aerosol effects is needed to understand future climate change. We conclude that recent slowdown of ocean heat uptake was caused by a delayed rebound effect from Mount Pinatubo aerosols and a deep prolonged solar minimum. Observed sea level rise during the Argo float era is readily accounted for by ice melt and ocean thermal expansion, but the ascendency of ice melt leads us to anticipate acceleration of the rate of sea level rise this decade.

Bottom line - It's not the Sun that's causing the global warming, it's our treating the atmosphere like a sewer and dumping gigatons of GHGs into it.

[Vergent]

You've dredged up more incorrect science, how surprising. The sun has been more active than "average" in recent decades.

Problems

Because the observed periodicities of climate fit so well with the orbital periods, the orbital theory has overwhelming support. Nonetheless, there are several difficulties in reconciling theory with observations.

The nature of sediments can vary in a cyclic fashion, and these cycles can be displayed in the sedimentary record. Here, cycles can be observed in the colouration and resistance of different strata

[edit]100,000-year problem

Main article: 100,000-year problem

The 100,000-year problem is that the eccentricity variations have a significantly smaller impact on solar forcing than precession or obliquity and hence might be expected to produce the weakest effects. The greatest observed response is at the 100,000-year timescale, while the theoretical forcing is smaller at this scale, in regard to the ice ages.^[10] However, observations show that during the last 1 million years, the strongest climate signal is the 100,000-year cycle. In addition, despite the relatively great 100,000-year cycle, some have argued that the length of the climate record is insufficient to establish a statistically significant relationship between climate and eccentricity variations.^[11] Various explanations for this discrepancy have been proposed, including frequency modulation^[12] or various feedbacks (fromcarbon dioxide, cosmic rays, or from ice sheet dynamics). Some models can reproduce the 100,000 year cycles as a result of non-linear interactions between small changes in the Earth's orbit and internal oscillations of the climate system.^[13][14]

[edit]400,000-year problem

The 400,000-year problem is that the eccentricity variations have a strong 400,000-year cycle. That cycle is only clearly present in climate records older than the last million years. If the 100ka variations are having such a strong effect, the 400ka variations might also be expected to be apparent. This is also known as the stage 11 problem, after the interglacial in marine isotopic stage 11 which would be unexpected if the 400,000-year cycle has an impact on climate. The relative absence of this periodicity in the marine isotopic record may be due, at least in part, to the response times of the climate system components involved—in particular, the carbon cycle.

[edit]Stage 5 problem

The stage 5 problem refers to the timing of the penultimate interglacial (in marine isotopic stage 5) which appears to have begun ten thousand years in advance of the solar forcing hypothesized to have caused it (the causality problem).

[edit]Effect exceeds cause

See also: Climate change feedback

420,000 years of ice core data from Vostok, Antarctica research station.

The effects of these variations are primarily believed to be due to variations in the intensity of solar radiation upon various parts of the globe. Observations show climate behavior is much more intense than the calculated variations. Various internal characteristics of climate systems are believed to be sensitive to the insolation changes, causing amplification (positive feedback) and damping responses (negative feedback).

[edit]The unsplit peak problem

The unsplit peak problem refers to the fact that eccentricity has cleanly resolved variations at both the 95 and 125ka periods. A sufficiently long, well-dated record of climate change should be able to resolve both frequencies,^[15] but some researchers interpret climate records of the last million years as showing only a single spectral peak at 100ka periodicity. It is debatable whether the quality of existing data ought to be sufficient to resolve both frequencies over the last million years.

[edit]The transition problem

Variations of Cycle Times, curves determined from ocean sediments

The transition problem refers to the switch in the frequency of climate variations 1 million years ago. From 1–3 million years, climate had a dominant mode matching the 41ka cycle in obliquity. After 1 million years ago, this switched to a 100ka variation matching eccentricity, for which no reason has been established.

[edit]Identifying dominant factor

Milankovitch believed that decreased summer insolation in northern high latitudes was the dominant factor leading to glaciation, which led him to (incorrectly) deduce an approximate 41ka period for ice ages.^[16]Subsequent research has shown that the 100ka eccentricity cycle is more important, resulting in 100,000-yearice age cycles of the Quaternary glaciation over the last few million years.

[edit]

[turtlehurricane]

Solar irradiance is not a good measure of how active the sun is, it barely changes as the graph shows. Please don't try and refute that we've had a more active sun since the 70s, I will lose my faith in humanity.

[PhillipS]

http://lasp.colorado...orical_tsi.html

Good link from you and Wxtrix - but the min to max TSI variation still is less than 0.2%. Someone would have to be grasping at straws to try to attribute the observed global warming to the Sun and to ignore the solid physics of GHGs..

[PhillipS]

Solar irradiance is not a good measure of how active the sun is, it barely changes as the graph shows. Please don't try and refute that we've had a more active sun since the 70s, I will lose my faith in humanity.

If you claim that there are better, more relevant, solar metrics than TSI then provide links to the peer-reviewed research on them.

Otherwise all you're doing is handwaving and trying to dismiss the actual science.

[turtlehurricane]

If you claim that there are better, more relevant, solar metrics than TSI then provide links to the peer-reviewed research on them.

Otherwise all you're doing is handwaving and trying to dismiss the actual science.

Trixie posted sunspot #, that is the most widely used and accepted measure of how active the sun is.

[WeatherRusty]

http://lasp.colorado...orical_tsi.html

Ok, now what is the relevance?

We can see about a 1.2W increase in TSI over the period between the Maunder Minimum and today.

In terms of solar forcing of climate this amounts to 0.12W of solar forcing which will produce ~0.08C of warming.

If we look at the average TSI over time it averages about one third down from current average level or about 0.4W.

This increased solar forcing from average would give us ~0.027C of warming based on the Stefan-Boltzmann equation for a gray body with an albedo of .30

[PhillipS]

Trixie posted sunspot #, that is the most widely used and accepted measure of how active the sun is.

Sunspot numbers are not a measure of solar activity, they are a proxy, i.e. an indirect measurement, of solar activity. It is important to remember the dstinction. TSI, at least for the satellite era, is a direct measurement of solar activity and of the energy reaching Earth.

From the NASA column Wxtrix linked to:

Regardless, even when scientists assume that solar activity is increasing based on proxy data and the satellite record, they can’t account for all of the warming observed at the end of the twentieth century. Climate models can only reproduce the warming observed since 1950 when a rise in greenhouse gases is built into the system.

As I said in an earlier post - It's not the Sun, it's the GHGs.

[turtlehurricane]

The sun is a magnetic dynamo, and the sunspot # shows how many magnetic disturbances are erupting from the sfc of the sun at any given time. This makes it a pretty good measure of how active the sun is, in addition to the fact it is one of the longest running and most reliable datasets we have.

As wxrusty points out, the TSI increase from the Maunder Minimum to today is only ~ 1 W/M^2. However, the Earth did cool quite a bit, and it is thought that a quiet sun did lead to the cold spell. So, there must be some interaction between the solar cycle and the Earth's climate that can't be explained with TSI. This is a hot area of research.

[turtlehurricane]

TH is trolling you. the fact the Sun is more active is irrelevant in this case as it's not the cause of the warming. this entire thread is an excuse to troll with fictions.

I'm not trying to troll anyone, only reason I came into this thread was because I was taken aback by vergent's claim that solar activity has been going in the opposite direction of global temperatures.

[skierinvermont]

The sun is a magnetic dynamo, and the sunspot # shows how many magnetic disturbances are erupting from the sfc of the sun at any given time. This makes it a pretty good measure of how active the sun is, in addition to the fact it is one of the longest running and most reliable datasets we have.

As wxrusty points out, the TSI increase from the Maunder Minimum to today is only ~ 1 W/M^2. However, the Earth did cool quite a bit, and it is thought that a quiet sun did lead to the cold spell. So, there must be some interaction between the solar cycle and the Earth's climate that can't be explained with TSI. This is a hot area of research.

No much of previous cool periods in the earth's climate is attributed to volcanic activity not the Dalton or Maunder minimums. There is no plausible mechanism whereby magnetism has a large impact on global temperatures. What most skeptics and deniers do not understand is that the earth's surface temperature is regulated by the massive energy fluxes of incoming short wave solar radiation and outgoing long wave radiation. These massive energy fluxes must be altered in order to alter surface temperature.

[Vergent]

I'm not trying to troll anyone, only reason I came into this thread was because I was taken aback by vergent's claim that solar activity has been going in the opposite direction of global temperatures.

First of all, in the northern hemisphere it has been for some ky now. Second, I did not say that! But thanks for the suggestion.

[TerryM]

The sun is a magnetic dynamo, and the sunspot # shows how many magnetic disturbances are erupting from the sfc of the sun at any given time. This makes it a pretty good measure of how active the sun is, in addition to the fact it is one of the longest running and most reliable datasets we have.

As wxrusty points out, the TSI increase from the Maunder Minimum to today is only ~ 1 W/M^2. However, the Earth did cool quite a bit, and it is thought that a quiet sun did lead to the cold spell. So, there must be some interaction between the solar cycle and the Earth's climate that can't be explained with TSI. This is a hot area of research.

I assume that was meant as humor.

This whole line of reasoning has been debunked many times. Anyone promoting it is attempting to deceive.

We actually discussed why persons would promulgate disinformation, knowing that the lie would be uncovered almost immediately, on another thread. It's a subject that I for one am quite interested in. Perhaps turtle would like to explain what advantage he hopes to gain from asserting something known to be wrong.

[turtlehurricane]

I assume that was meant as humor.

This whole line of reasoning has been debunked many times. Anyone promoting it is attempting to deceive.

We actually discussed why persons would promulgate disinformation, knowing that the lie would be uncovered almost immediately, on another thread. It's a subject that I for one am quite interested in. Perhaps turtle would like to explain what advantage he hopes to gain from asserting something known to be wrong.

It really is a hot area of research in the climate field.

I'm getting the feeling you think anything involving the climate that isn't AGW is bunk. You're never going to learn anything.

[cmichweather]

If people want to argue sun activity then either posting the sunspot #'s over the past ten years or the solar radiance should be able to fact check really quick the temperature correlation. Even with a lag, the record min in solar activity should be really starting to rear it's head right now or am I way off?

[The_Global_Warmer]

If people want to argue sun activity then either posting the sunspot #'s over the past ten years or the solar radiance should be able to fact check really quick the temperature correlation. Even with a lag, the record min in solar activity should be really starting to rear it's head right now or am I way off?

It would show up in colder oceans.

Lower ohc.

The rate of increase globally slowed to a crawl from 0-700m. But kept increasing 0-1000 & 0-2000.

we likely saw the affects of a global cooling period. Its just that the lsat 30 year cycle took place when much less heat was already available.

GHGs also dramatically increased since then. They are also most abundant in the arctic. Which is also the place with the most added incoming solar radiation as well as the sub arctic.

these natural cycles showed them selves on AMSU.

[WeatherRusty]

If people want to argue sun activity then either posting the sunspot #'s over the past ten years or the solar radiance should be able to fact check really quick the temperature correlation. Even with a lag, the record min in solar activity should be really starting to rear it's head right now or am I way off?

Over the course of the satellite period, during which the change in TSI has been measured to vary by 0.1% between solar max and minimum (11 year sunspot cycle), scientists have have detected a ~0.1C surface temperature variance peak to trough.