Dr. Ricky Rood's Climate Change Blog

Quoting Birthmark:

You may play with numbers and discredited papers to your heart's content, none of them can explain the winter warming in the Arctic. The Sun is excluded on that basis alone.

And you did all that work for nuttin', too!

See the above post.

Quoting Birthmark:

Prove it. In point of fact, all temperature datasets show warming. In the case of GISS, it is statistically significant warming. But even RSS shows warming, just not at a statistically significant level.


"Can" constitute a new trend, not "does."

OTOH, see Foster and Rahmstorf 2011.

I posted a chart in the same post that you quoted.



And Foster and Rahmstorf? Let's try and stick to what's actually going on with the temperature datasets instead of hypothetical graphs of "data."

Quoting Birthmark:
As for your list, snowlover, I simply don't believe that it has any validity. Such lists routinely include anyone who has ever said anything at all negative about the general topic.

Thanks for sharing your opinion.

Quoting Birthmark:
The AMS, btw, is comprised of meteorologists, not climate scientists.

The consensus among climate scientists is around 97%. This shows up in the peer-literature as well as polling data.

Xandra brought the AMS up as one of the examples of the "consensus" on climate change, when I showed that this is complete nonsense because 52% of the people polled (26% of the AMS) believe that climate change is caused by human activity.

I have debunked "consensus" papers on this board time and time again. They are nothing but junk.

Quoting Neapolitan:
A quick glance at your list shows me a real rogue's gallery. Among the names that stand out: Fred Singer and Nicola Scafetta. Expected, to be sure; these are two of the biggest names in the pro-business side of science, having fought for decades--and earned a healthy living doing so--against the EPA and on the side of the tobacco industry, the coal industry, the oil industry, and so on. But as someone else noted, the list looks outdated. For instance, I see Berkeley's Richard A. Muller, he of the BEST project which last year was forced to announce that, yes, the planet is indeed heating up.)

In short: what else do you have? Or is that about it?

Great, you picked out three names. Muller never said that his BEST project showed that humans were to blame. In otherwords, he was establishing a well known fact about climate science that the world has heated up.

Not very impressive.

And a 2 and a half year old paper is old and outdated? What the heck?

Quoting Birthmark:
And clouds? Seriously? LOL

That's what the scientists are probably arguing in their paper I showed. The sun, natural variability and GHGs can all be to blame for the increase in OHC.

In other words, it tells us nothing about attribution.

Quoting Snowlover123:


Well let's start with this image.

We can go from here.



Above is the percentage of warming over the last 100 years caused by the solar forcing as documented by nine studies. From left to right: Palle Bago and Butler 2001, Georgieva et. al 2005, Cliver et. al 1998, Solheim et. al 2012 , Link et. al 2011, Scafetta and West 2008, Scafetta and West 2007, Ogurtsov 2007, and Blanter et. al 2008.

Bumpity Bump, Bump.

Humans farm an area the size of South America and graze animals on lands the size of Africa.
Factor that scale of human effects on global climate. I don't think saying we are geologic in our scale of effects is over stating things. Have you seen the rice terraces covering the Himalayan mountains?
That doesn't even touch our use of the 1% of water that is fresh.

Quoting Snowlover123:


I posted a chart in the same post that you quoted.



And Foster and Rahmstorf? Let's try and stick to what's actually going on with the temperature datasets instead of hypothetical graphs of "data."

That's ironic since you want to use data whose trend is statistically insignificant to support a "no trend" hypothesis. Of course, statistically insignificant trends aren't indicative of "no trend" or any trend at all. That is because they are statistically insignificant. Did I mention that?

Your graph demonstrates precisely nothing of use to you or anyone else.

Meanwhile, you dismiss F&R(2011)...for no good reason at all. That paper is downloadable in its entirety. If you have a problem with it then you need to specify the exact nature of that problem. So...care to specify?

Quoting biff4ugo:
Humans farm an area the size of South America and graze animals on lands the size of Africa.
Factor that scale of human effects on global climate. I don't think saying we are geologic in our scale of effects is over stating things. Have you seen the rice terraces covering the Himalayan mountains?
That doesn't even touch our use of the 1% of water that is fresh.

If you're using size as an indicator of the human influence on Global Climate, look how large the sun is compared to a land area the size of South America.

'Nuff said.

Quoting Birthmark:

That's ironic since you want to use data whose trend is statistically insignificant to support a "no trend" hypothesis. Of course, statistically insignificant trends aren't indicative of "no trend" or any trend at all. That is because they are statistically insignificant. Did I mention that?

Your graph demonstrates precisely nothing of use to you or anyone else.

Meanwhile, you dismiss F&R(2011)...for no good reason at all. That paper is downloadable in its entirety. If you have a problem with it then you need to specify the exact nature of that problem. So...care to specify?

No, there is no trend in that graph. Period.

Like I said, I'd rather not talk about data that doesn't exist that is in the Foster and Rahmstorf paper.

Essentially they indirectly prove that the sun is large enough to totally cancel the GHG Forcing out, or else we would be warming like they show, with their hypothetical warming trend, instead of being in a hiatus.

Quoting Snowlover123:


Thanks for sharing your opinion.

It is more than just an opinion; it is a fact.

Quoting Snowlover123:
Xandra brought the AMS up as one of the examples of the "consensus" on climate change, when I showed that this is complete nonsense because 52% of the people polled (26% of the AMS) believe that climate change is caused by human activity.

Ah, I see. So again you make a meaningless point.

Quoting Snowlover123:
I have debunked "consensus" papers on this board time and time again. They are nothing but junk.

Now, you know that that just ain't true, don't you, hoss? You outlined some minor problems with the paper. But even you agreed that an overwhelming majority of climatologists agreed with the consensus. Of course, you have no coherent answer for the fact that a percentage similar to the claimed consensus is reflected in the peer-reviewed research literature.

I will say, however, that you are a better than average obfuscator.

Also factor in that the demand for food will double in the next 20 years, and the good parts for farming were on the first two continents we are using now.

Nuff...
While the size of the sun is impressive, and without it we would all freeze in a dark ice lump drifting in space, you are missing the point.

This is about the climate of the earth and our ability to moderate or reverse changes to it.

Quoting Birthmark:
But even you agreed that an overwhelming majority of climatologists agreed with the consensus. Of course, you have no coherent answer for the fact that a percentage similar to the claimed consensus is reflected in the peer-reviewed research literature.

I will say, however, that you are a better than average obfuscator.

I said that the amount of scientists probbaly more like 60:40 supporting your side.

That's not a consensus. They are two totally different things.

And the claim that "the claimed consensus is reflected in the peer-reviewed research literature"
is deeply mistaken. There's Oreskes and Andregg which look at the peer reviewed literature, and each cherry pick in their own little way.

Quoting Snowlover123:


That's what the scientists are probably arguing in their paper I showed. The sun, natural variability and GHGs can all be to blame for the increase in OHC.

In other words, it tells us nothing about attribution.

And the more recent paper that I cited says that your paper is full of Stove-Top Stuffing™. What's more the more recent paper is in agreement with physics. Ta-daaa!

Quoting biff4ugo:
you are missing the point.

No, you're missing the point.

The sun is the driver of global climate change.

Quoting Birthmark:

And the more recent paper that I cited says that your paper is full of Stove-Top Stuffing%u2122. What's more the more recent paper is in agreement with physics. Ta-daaa!

Both are about as recent. The paper I quoted has just been published in the 2012 Journal of Climate.

Also you might want to read this paper:



Quoting Paper:

By focusing on time sequences of basin-average and global-average upper ocean temperature (i.e., from 40�S to 60�N) we find temperatures responding to changing solar irradiance in three separate frequency bands with periods of >100 years, 18%u201325 years, and 9%u201313 years. Moreover, we find them in two different data sets, that is, surface marine weather observations from 1990 to 1991 and bathythermograph (BT) upper ocean temperature profiles from 1955 to 1994. Band-passing basin-average temperature records find each frequency component in phase across the Indian, Pacific, and Atlantic Oceans, yielding global-average records with maximum amplitudes of 0.04� � 0.01�K and 0.07� � 0.01�K on decadal and interdecadal scales, respectively. These achieve maximum correlation with solar irradiance records (i.e., with maximum amplitude 0.5 W m%u22122 at the top of the atmosphere) at phase lags ranging from 30� to 50�. From the BT data set, solar signals in global-average temperature penetrate to 80%u2013160 m, confined to the upper layer above the main pycnocline. Operating a global-average heat budget for the upper ocean yields sea surface temperature responses of 0.01�%u20130.03�K and 0.02� %u20130.05�K on decadal and interdecadal scales, respectively, from the 0.1 W m%u22122 penetration of solar irradiance to the sea surface. Since this is of the same order as that observed (i.e., 0.04�%u20130.07�K), we can infer that anomalous heat from changing solar irradiance is stored in the upper layer of the ocean.

This heat can then be transfered to the deeper levels of the ocean through vertical mixing. So the sun is just as likely of a possible factor, as well as natural variability for the observed rise in Ocean heat Content.

Quoting Snowlover123:


No, you're missing the point.

The sun is the driver of global climate change.

No YOU are missing the point........ So are GHGs.... Nuff said..

Quoting cyclonebuster:


No YOU are missing the point........ So are GHGs.... Nuff said..

You haven't provided any evidence for this claim in the time that you have been here. Please provide evidence that GHGs are the main driver of climate change.

Thanks.



Above is the percentage of warming over the last 100 years caused by the solar forcing as documented by nine studies. From left to right: Palle Bago and Butler 2001, Georgieva et. al 2005, Cliver et. al 1998, Solheim et. al 2012 , Link et. al 2011, Scafetta and West 2008, Scafetta and West 2007, Ogurtsov 2007, and Blanter et. al 2008.

Quoting Snowlover123:


You haven't provided any evidence for this claim in the time that you have been here. Please provide evidence that GHGs are the main driver of climate change.

Thanks.



Above is the percentage of warming over the last 100 years caused by the solar forcing as documented by nine studies. From left to right: Palle Bago and Butler 2001, Georgieva et. al 2005, Cliver et. al 1998, Solheim et. al 2012 , Link et. al 2011, Scafetta and West 2008, Scafetta and West 2007, Ogurtsov 2007, and Blanter et. al 2008.

Who said main?

The sun is the driver of global climate, that is not the same as climate change.

Point out that it is bigger than South America or that you can cover it up with your thumb is not proof that the sun is sending more radiation to the earth in the last 50 years than in the last 1000.

On Geology, you may want to note strip mining, coal and copper, The Panama Canal..and other Geologic Changes we make daily,or by decade to Earth.



Not many Beetle Bugs nor Bears Opening Sea Routes between Ocean Basins last I checked.


We, unlike anything before, are changing the Geology and Atmosphere of a Planet.

FRESCA ?

Quoting Snowlover123:

How about being that the solar activity has been at record high levels that hasn't been observed for at least 1100 years?

Were in the paper by Usoskin (2003), it says that the sun have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades?

Quoting Snowlover123:


No, there is no trend in that graph. Period.

And why should there be? I went through this garbage argument with someone else who was using the UAH dataset to "prove" that there was no warming for the last sixteen years. What I found was that in the UAH, less than 87% of the time was there was no statistically significant trend after sixteen years. I have no reason to believe that the situation is any different for the RSS.

You simply have no valid argument here except that the time period you chose is too short to display a trend. Duh. We knew that. LOL

For fun: Show me any statistically significant trend for any period over the last 25 years from any dataset that shows a cooling trend or no trend.

I can save you time and effort by telling you that neither such trend exists in any dataset. Every statistically significant trend demonstrates warming. Every. Single. One.

Quoting Snowlover123:
Like I said, I'd rather not talk about data that doesn't exist that is in the Foster and Rahmstorf paper.

The data 100% exists. You don't want to talk about it because it puts paid to your entire silly POV. You obviously cannot refute it, so you attempt to ignore it citing specious reasons.

Quoting Snowlover123:
Essentially they indirectly prove that the sun is large enough to totally cancel the GHG Forcing out, or else we would be warming like they show, with their hypothetical warming trend, instead of being in a hiatus.

No, what they demonstrate is that when known natural factors are neutralized, the warming signal is clearly visible. Your only hope is unknown natural factors or magic. Magic has an abysmal track record versus science. Non-trivial unknown natural factors are probably non-existent.

Quoting Xandra:
Were in the paper by Usoskin (2003), it says that the sun have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades?

I don't see that in the paper, though I do know that at least two of the authors of that paper do support that hypothesis.

Quoting biff4ugo:
The sun is the driver of global climate, that is not the same as climate change.

Point out that it is bigger than South America or that you can cover it up with your thumb is not proof that the sun is sending more radiation to the earth in the last 50 years than in the last 1000.

There exists a controversy about what the sun has been doing over the last few decades.

Snowlover123 who said MAIN?

Quoting Birthmark:
You simply have no valid argument here except that the time period you chose is too short to display a trend. Duh. We knew that. LOL

Completely wrong. Santer has said that 17 years is long enough to determine the human influence on climate.

Quoting Paper:

Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature.

We are close to 16 and a half years and no warming on the RSS dataset.

Quoting Birthmark:

No, what they demonstrate is that when known natural factors are neutralized, the warming signal is clearly visible.

That's exactly what I said, except you worded it differently. Natural forcings are currently strong enough to cancel GHG warming, or the Global Temperatures would have increased.

I can make hypothetical data showing we wouldn't have warmed as much if we 'removed' GHGs from the global temperature dataset, and people on my side of the debate would worship those graphs that show less warming as people have been doing for the Rahmstorf paper.

It's about as bad of science as Rahmstorf 'removing' natural factors to calculate the imaginary trend upward over the last decade.

Quoting cyclonebuster:
Snowlover123 who said MAIN?

You have said such in previous posts of your's.

Quoting Snowlover123:


The Arctic != The entire globe.

It does for your argument. If the Arctic is warming in winter -and it is- then your proposed mechanism, the Sun, cannot be the driver. Game, set, match.

But to pile onto your already lost position, if it was the Sun then the warming in the Arctic would be greatest during summer. It is not. Game, set, match, and after match cocktails.

Quoting Snowlover123:
Various natural variability factors drive changes in the Arctic, that are not necessarily solar related. One of which being the AMO.

Quoting Paper:

The largest changes in temperature
occurred during winter or autumn and smallest during the
summer, suggesting the importance of seasonally-varying
climate dynamics in addition to the ice/albedo feedback.

So cherry picking a location of the Earth and claiming that this shows that the sun can't be driving GLOBAL temperatures is not very good science.

Yeah? Maybe not. But it demonstrates beyond all doubt that the Sun cannot the cause. Incidentally, you are arguing against yourself since you previously (and correctly) claimed that the greatest warming occurred in the Arctic in early Spring, very closely followed by Winter. Now, you cite a paper that claims most of the warming is in Autumn. Interestingly, you haven't presented any evidence that there is a large amount of warming in the Summer --you know, the time when the Sun might actually have an effect. LOL

One more thing. In Chylek's conclusion they state, "The commonly held assumption of a factor of 2–3 for the Arctic amplification has been valid only for the current warming period 1970–2008."

Fancy that. 8^D

Quoting Snowlover123:


You have said such in previous posts of your's.

Get a grip.

Quoting Snowlover123:


There exists a controversy about what the sun has been doing over the last few decades.

It is only a major controversy for denialists, who are grasping at non-existent straws. Real climatologists have a reasonably fair handle on the situation. They are backed up by independent evidence.

Quoting Snowlover123:
From left to right: Palle Bago and Butler 2001, Georgieva et. al 2005, Cliver et. al 1998, Solheim et. al 2012 , Link et. al 2011, Scafetta and West 2008, Scafetta and West 2007, Ogurtsov 2007, and Blanter et. al 2008.

I wonder why you keep citing papers that have been refuted? That's just one example.

Frankly, your position makes no scientific sense. It is negated by observation and logic (Arctic warming in winter), it is inconsistent and incoherent, it is based on partial or refuted data and science, and it violates parsimony. It is a house of soggy cards that falls over every time it comes in contact with reality.

Quoting Snowlover123:

I don't see that in the paper, though I do know that at least two of the authors of that paper do support that hypothesis.

Lead authors Usoskin and Solanki do not support that hypothesis. From the conclusions of their paper Usoskin 2005:

"..during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source."

Quoting cyclonebuster:


Get a grip.

Have you not claimed that in your previous posts? Correct me if I am wrong.

Quoting Birthmark:

It does for your argument. If the Arctic is warming in winter -and it is- then your proposed mechanism, the Sun, cannot be the driver. Game, set, match.

But to pile onto your already lost position, if it was the Sun then the warming in the Arctic would be greatest during summer. It is not. Game, set, match, and after match cocktails.

It might not be the driver in the Arctic, natural variability and seasonal variability drive arctic temperature changes, but that doesn't mean that it hasn't been the driver of the Global Temperature.

Quoting Birthmark:


Yeah? Maybe not. But it demonstrates beyond all doubt that the Sun cannot the cause. Incidentally, you are arguing against yourself since you previously (and correctly) claimed that the greatest warming occurred in the Arctic in early Spring, very closely followed by Winter.

That's because both of these items involve different periods of time.

Quoting Birthmark:


One more thing. In Chylek's conclusion they state, "The commonly held assumption of a factor of 2–3 for the Arctic amplification has been valid only for the current warming period 1970–2008."

Funny that you mention that, they mention that the warming progressed at a much higher rate than it does currently, during the 1920s-1940s.

Quoting Snowlover123:


Have you not claimed that in your previous posts? Correct me if I am wrong.



It might not be the driver in the Arctic, natural variability and seasonal variability drive arctic temperature changes, but that doesn't mean that it hasn't been the driver of the Global Temperature.



That's because both of these items involve different periods of time.




Funny that you mention that, they mention that the warming progressed at a much higher rate than it does currently, during the 1920s-1940s.

If I said that I was wrong. Show me where I said that GHGs are the MAIN driver........

Quoting Snowlover123:


How about being that the solar activity has been at record high levels that hasn't been observed for at least 1100 years?

Yes indeed. This is Science and it is an interesting study. Do you have any updated information on this study? The study you have provided was released in November of 2003 and was noted that more research had to be done:

"The current high level of solar activity may also have an impact on the terrestrial climate. We note a general similarity between our long-term SN reconstruction and different reconstructions of temperature [28,29]: (1) both SN and temperature show a slow decreasing trend just prior to 1900, followed by a steep rise that is unprecedented during the last millenium; (2) great minima in the SN data are accompanied by cool periods while the generally higher levels of solar activity between about 1100 and 1300 correspond to a relatively higher temperature (the medieval warm period) [30]. To clarify whether this similarity reflects a real physical connection requires a more detailed study of the various proposed mechanisms for a solar influence on climate.

You may also note that there is no mention in the study that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, that anthropogenic CO2 levels have not been rising over the past 150 years and that anthropogenic CO2 levels have not made a marked increase over the past 50 years.

Now I have two questions that I will direct towards you. Let us say, for the sake of the debate, that solar activity has indeed increased to the point that it would start warming the Earth.

1. Using your deductive reasoning skills, how much cooler will Earth have been without the introduction of an ever increasing and significant amount of anthropogenic CO2 into the atmosphere in coincidence with an increased solar activity?

2. Should there be no greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, even with an increased solar activity, would the night time temperatures still be much more significantly cooler than the day time temperatures? - Hint: Look at our moon and look at Mars. How quickly do their temperatures drop when the Sun goes below the horizon?

In other words, the study did not, at any point, disprove the AGWT! At best, the study only shows that a warming may have been possible without any anthropogenic CO2 being introduced into the atmosphere. No where, in the study, does it even imply that the current warming being observed is due solely to solar activity.

You like to use the science available to us. Use IT! Quit beating about the bush and throwing out all of the, "what if", if the, "what if" does not disprove the AGWT. Or, at the very least, show that there is scientific evidence that the anthropogenic greenhouse gases can be negated by other active processes! Anything else is truly less than a scientific approach to the debate! .... But, you already knew that, did you not?

Quoting Birthmark:

It is only a major controversy for denialists, who are grasping at non-existent straws. Real climatologists have a reasonably fair handle on the situation. They are backed up by independent evidence.

Why are you using the SSN to quantify the solar impact on climate change? Using the SSN leads to an estimation of the solar impact on climate change because the sunspot number only accounts for part of the solar magnetic activity changes.

Georgieva et. al 2005.

Quoting Paper:

We show that the index commonly used for quantifying long-term changes
in solar activity, the sunspot number, accounts for only one part of solar activity and using
this index leads to the underestimation of the role of solar activity in the global warming
in the recent decades. A more suitable index is the geomagnetic activity which reflects all
solar activity, and it is highly correlated to global temperature variations in the whole period
for which we have data.



The correlation coefficient between the aa index and global temperatures is 0.85, meaning that the AA Index can explain 85% of the variability in temperatures over the last 150 years.

Quoting Snowlover123:


Completely wrong. Santer has said that 17 years is long enough to determine the human influence on climate.

Quoting Paper:

Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature.

You seem to not know the difference between "17 years is long enough", which is what you said and "at least 17 years in length are required", which is what Santer said. "At least 17" does not mean "17" period. It means equal to or greater than 17. In any event, since 1995 there is statistically significant warming in both GISS and HADCRUT4. The satellites, which don't exactly measure the same thing, are lagging a bit behind.



We are close to 16 and a half years and no warming on the RSS dataset.
Oh, no! Unfortunately for you, RSS is only one measure --and not the best at that.

Quoting Snowlover123:
That's exactly what I said, except you worded it differently. Natural forcings are currently strong enough to cancel GHG warming, or the Global Temperatures would have increased.

Again, I say, "Duh." That's why it takes at least 17 years currently to detect the trend.

Quoting Snowlover123:
I can make hypothetical data showing we wouldn't have warmed as much if we 'removed' GHGs from the global temperature dataset, and people on my side of the debate would worship those graphs that show less warming as people have been doing for the Rahmstorf paper.

If you can do it, do it. But you can't --at least not honestly. The problem you would have is that your adjustments would have to comport with reality. Now, if you think that F&R(2011) is mistaken, man up and do the work. Show what they over corrected for or under corrected for or whatever. Simply waving your hands and saying "DO NOT LIKE!" is pointless.

Quoting Snowlover123:
It's about as bad of science as Rahmstorf 'removing' natural factors to calculate the imaginary trend upward over the last decade.

Demonstrate that the trend is imaginary.

Quoting Snowlover123:


If you're using size as an indicator of the human influence on Global Climate, look how large the sun is compared to a land area the size of South America.

'Nuff said.

Since man's introduction to this planet, the Sun has changed little in size in relationship to this planet. Man's influences over the planet have changed considerably in size since our introduction.

'Nuff said.

Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Since man's introduction to this planet, the Sun has changed little in size in relationship to this planet. Man's influences over the planet have changed considerably in size since our introduction.

'Nuff said.

Which is still smaller than the solar influence on climate.

Quoting Snowlover123:


No, you're missing the point.

The sun is the driver of global climate change.

The Moon is the driver for the absence of the Sun in night sky. .... See how easy it is to make unsubstantiated claims?

Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:
You may also note that there is no mention in the study that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, that anthropogenic CO2 levels have not been rising over the past 150 years and that anthropogenic CO2 levels have not made a marked increase over the past 50 years.

Right, that's because these are well accepted facts, and are not questioned by any scientifically literate person.

Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


1. Using your deductive reasoning skills, how much cooler will Earth have been without the introduction of an ever increasing and significant amount of anthropogenic CO2 into the atmosphere in coincidence with an increased solar activity?

That's a tough question, since it is uncertain how much CO2 has contributed to climate change.

Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:

2. Should there be no greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, even with an increased solar activity, would the night time temperatures still be much more significantly cooler than the day time temperatures? - Hint: Look at our moon and look at Mars. How quickly do their temperatures drop when the Sun goes below the horizon?

Mars and Moon do not have as thick of atmospheres as Earth's does, hence why the temperature at the surface fluctuates wildly.

I would say that they would not be warming as fast as they are now.

Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:

In other words, the study did not, at any point, disprove the AGWT! At best, the study only shows that a warming may have been possible without any anthropogenic CO2 being introduced into the atmosphere. No where, in the study, does it even imply that the current warming being observed is due solely to solar activity.

No one says it's been solely due to solar activity, simply solar activity has been the main driver of climate change. That does not mean it has been the "sole cause."

solar activity increasing sharply, and being at record levels is fairly compelling that the sun has at least part to do with the 20th Century warming.

Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


The Moon is the driver for the absence of the Sun in night sky. .... See how easy it is to make unsubstantiated claims?

The moon has not increased its irradiance creating large reductions in Cosmic Rays, leading to a decrease in Low Clouds, creating further warming.

Global Climate Change Indicators
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Climatic Data Center


The amount of solar energy received at the top of our atmosphere has followed its natural 11-year cycle of small ups and downs, but with no net increase. Over the same period, global temperature has risen markedly. This indicates that it is extremely unlikely that solar influence has been a significant driver of global temperature change over several decades.


Global surface temperature (top, blue) and the Sun's energy received at the top of Earth's atmosphere (red, bottom). Solar energy has been measured by satellites since 1978.
The amount of solar energy received at the top of our atmosphere has followed its natural 11-year cycle of small ups and downs, but with no net increase. Over the same period, global temperature has risen markedly. This indicates that it is extremely unlikely that solar influence has been a significant driver of global temperature change over several decades.

Quoting Snowlover123:

The papers by Scafetta & West (2008) and Scafetta & Willson (2009), have been debunked by Benestad & Schmidt (2009) and Krivova et al. (2009).

Other studies on solar influence on climate:

Huber and Knutti 2011: ”Even for a reconstruction with high variability in total irradiance, solar forcing contributed only about 0.07°C (0.03-0.13°C) to the warming since 1950."

Erlykin 2009: "We deduce that the maximum recent increase in the mean surface temperature of the Earth which can be ascribed to solar activity is 14% of the observed global warming."

Benestad 2009: "Our analysis shows that the most likely contribution from solar forcing a global warming is 7 ± 1% for the 20th century and is negligible for warming since 1980."

Lockwood 2008: "It is shown that the contribution of solar variability to the temperature trend since 1987 is small and downward; the best estimate is -1.3% and the 2σ confidence level sets the uncertainty range of -0.7 to -1.9%."

Lean 2008: "According to this analysis, solar forcing contributed negligible long-term warming in the past 25 years and 10% of the warming in the past 100 years..."

Lockwood 2008: "The conclusions of our previous paper, that solar forcing has declined over the past 20 years while surface air temperatures have continued to rise, are shown to apply for the full range of potential time constants for the climate response to the variations in the solar forcings."

Ammann 2007: "Although solar and volcanic effects appear to dominate most of the slow climate variations within the past thousand years, the impacts of greenhouse gases have dominated since the second half of the last century."

Foukal 2006: "The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978 are too small to have contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30 years."

Usoskin 2005: "during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source."

Solanki 2004: "solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades".

Haigh 2003: "Observational data suggest that the Sun has influenced temperatures on decadal, centennial and millennial time-scales, but radiative forcing considerations and the results of energy-balance models and general circulation models suggest that the warming during the latter part of the 20th century cannot be ascribed entirely to solar effects."

Stott 2003: "most warming over the last 50 yr is likely to have been caused by increases in greenhouse gases."

Lean 1999: "it is unlikely that Sun–climate relationships can account for much of the warming since 1970."

Waple 1999 finds "little evidence to suggest that changes in irradiance are having a large impact on the current warming trend."

Quoting Patrap:
Global Climate Change Indicators
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Climatic Data Center


The amount of solar energy received at the top of our atmosphere has followed its natural 11-year cycle of small ups and downs, but with no net increase. Over the same period, global temperature has risen markedly. This indicates that it is extremely unlikely that solar influence has been a significant driver of global temperature change over several decades.


Global surface temperature (top, blue) and the Sun's energy received at the top of Earth's atmosphere (red, bottom). Solar energy has been measured by satellites since 1978.
The amount of solar energy received at the top of our atmosphere has followed its natural 11-year cycle of small ups and downs, but with no net increase. Over the same period, global temperature has risen markedly. This indicates that it is extremely unlikely that solar influence has been a significant driver of global temperature change over several decades.

The PMOD dataset used by Frolich et. al is questionable as there is another TSI dataset with increasing TSI from 1970-2000. The hiatus in Global temperatures as of recent can also be very clearly identified in that graph.

Quoting Snowlover123:
It might not be the driver in the Arctic, natural variability and seasonal variability drive arctic temperature changes, but that doesn't mean that it hasn't been the driver of the Global Temperature.

Starting up the calliope music again, are you? So, the Sun is warming the Earth...except for the Arctic where something even more powerful is causing the observed warming...and except for the stratosphere where something else is causing the cooling...and except for...anything else that you can find in refuted, rejected, and ignored papers or blogs. LOL

Do you imagine that physics was designed by Rube Goldberg?

OTOH, the reputable science says that human activity, mostly in the form of CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels is primarily responsible for the current warming.

Quoting Snowlover123:
Funny that you mention that, they mention that the warming progressed at a much higher rate than it does currently, during the 1920s-1940s.

Yep. They say that. Interesting if true. But the point is that they validate the larger warming in the Arctic --the one place that the Sun has no influence for half the year.

Buh-bye Sun hypothesis...again!

.

Quoting Birthmark:

Starting up the calliope music again, are you? So, the Sun is warming the Earth...except for the Arctic where something even more powerful is causing the observed warming...and except for the stratosphere where something else is causing the cooling...and except for...anything else that you can find in refuted, rejected, and ignored papers or blogs. LOL

I'm guessing you didn't read the quote that I posted from the paper about winter arctic temperature changes but yet you will still continue to use the Arctic warming fastest during the winter as the fingerprint that most of the warming is due to Greenhouse Gases?

That in itself is quite telling.

You still ignore the fact that the climate system is chaotic and can have multiple factors causing different observable changes in the climate system.

You automatically assume that all of these changes MUST be caused by one thing. LOL

.