Study: Solar changes not responsible for recent warming

[x-y-no]

New paper published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society on solar contribution to global warming. They consider all the proposed mechanisms for a solar component to warming and show that the trends in all of them since the mid- 80's is opposite to what they would need to be to contribute warming. So if anything, it appears that solar forcing alone would have caused cooling over the past two decades at least.

The paper is available here (pdf document) and a press account is available here.

[HURAKAN]

But that something we already knew. The Sun may have high periods and low periods, but overall the amount of heat released is the same in the long run.

[Ed Mahmoud]

I assume you are a strong believer in human induced global warming? I'm not a met or climatologist, although I did have some exposure to climate cycles, in of all places, my sed geology class back at UT. Climate change produces sea level changes, which tends to produce repeating cycles in the fossil record. I recall discussions of things like the Malankovich (sp?)cycle, or some such, things to do with changes in solar intensity, eccentricities in the Earth's orbit, volcanic activity, etc. There was also some discussion on planetary temperature estimates made by oxygen isotope analysis, as I recall. I got an "A" in that class, but it was almost 15 years ago.

I know there are plenty of PhDs who believe in human induced climate change, but I know Dr. Gray and Dr. D'Aleo, while believeing we are in a warming phase now, believe the evidence for human induced warming is inconclusive.

I get the impression that Joe Bastardi's name is a dirty word here, but he linked to a graph once, that if accurate, does offer some reason to doubt that mankind alone is too blame.

[x-y-no]

But that something we already knew. The Sun may have high periods and low periods, but overall the amount of heat released is the same in the long run.

Well, yeah sort of. But there's been a spate of recently proposed ideas - see, for example, Svensmark, H. 2007 Cosmoclimatology: a new theory emerges. Astron. Geophys. 48, 118–124. (doi:10.1111/j.1468-4004.2007.48118.x) - which AGW skeptics have been touting. This research directly addresses those claims.

[HURAKAN]

Ice ages could also be attributed to Earth's rotation around the Sun. Earth's rotation is not always the same and in millions of years it has its variations which could induce an ice age or warmer period. Nonetheless, the warming the Earth has been experiencing since the Industrial Revolution cannot be attributed only to the fact that the Earth came out of an Ice Age around 20,000 years ago and has been warming ever since with some interruptions. Most of the warming is human induced, and scientific reports conclude on that.

We have a population of more than 6.5 billion people. Everyone fighting for resources. We have completely transformed the landscape of the Earth. We are putting back into the atmosphere CO2 that took millions of years to store underground, where it wouldn't interfere with the outside environment. We are completely changing the planet. Overfarming, overfishing, overhunting. The Earth can only take so much. The bubble has to bursh in some part.

[x-y-no]

I know there are plenty of PhDs who believe in human induced climate change, but I know Dr. Gray and Dr. D'Aleo, while believeing we are in a warming phase now, believe the evidence for human induced warming is inconclusive.

I've discussed Dr. Gray's objections here before. I'd be happy to do so again if you're interested.

I get the impression that Joe Bastardi's name is a dirty word here, but he linked to a graph once, that if accurate, does offer some reason to doubt that mankind alone is too blame.

Not sure what you mean by "mankind alone is to blame." Nobody denies the large variability in climate due to natural forcings - indeed the absence of such variability would be a much stronger argument that there's nothing to be concerned about since it would imply that climate is stable despite variations in forcings. The study of past climate responses to natural forcings is a very big part of the field and is crucial to the predictions of future response to anthropogenic forcing.

[Ed Mahmoud]

I have no idea who is right, and reasonable changes to reduce carbon emissions, as a precaution, seems like a prudent act. (I think, as anation, we will have to revisit the issue of nuclear power generation and safety)

But when I hear things like Dr. Cullen at TWC would silence all those who aren't certain that human activity is the primary cause of global warming by stripping them of their AMS certification, it makes me wonder why she doesn't want a debate.


Now, she may be sincere, and she may have good research on her side, so I don't want to say for certain that her motivations are questionable, but the greater the alarm about human induced global warming she can help generate, the better her job security at TWC.

[Ed Mahmoud]

Being a newbie to this site, a link or reposting of your discussion about Dr. Gray would be most welcome.

I know there are plenty of PhDs who believe in human induced climate change, but I know Dr. Gray and Dr. D'Aleo, while believeing we are in a warming phase now, believe the evidence for human induced warming is inconclusive.

I've discussed Dr. Gray's objections here before. I'd be happy to do so again if you're interested.

I get the impression that Joe Bastardi's name is a dirty word here, but he linked to a graph once, that if accurate, does offer some reason to doubt that mankind alone is too blame.

Not sure what you mean by "mankind alone is to blame." Nobody denies the large variability in climate due to natural forcings - indeed the absence of such variability would be a much stronger argument that there's nothing to be concerned about since it would imply that climate is stable despite variations in forcings. The study of past climate responses to natural forcings is a very big part of the field and is crucial to the predictions of future response to anthropogenic forcing.

[caneman]

But that something we already knew. The Sun may have high periods and low periods, but overall the amount of heat released is the same in the long run.

Well, yeah sort of. But there's been a spate of recently proposed ideas - see, for example, Svensmark, H. 2007 Cosmoclimatology: a new theory emerges. Astron. Geophys. 48, 118–124. (doi:10.1111/j.1468-4004.2007.48118.x) - which AGW skeptics have been touting. This research directly addresses those claims.

Thanks for providing both sides of the issue here. I had made a post about this previously and now can't seem to find it, however, I do recall that someone had posted this particular orginzation had an Anti GW stance and a reason for coming to this finding. Isn't it also possible that the findings from this orginization you;ve cited here could be with a pro GW skew? Really like to know that. I've attmepted to read this article, however, I don't have the techinical knowledge to fully grasp it but the immediate question comes to mind is that do they have a pro GW stance coming in? Ed made a good point when you have one one of the top people at TWC calling for license termination of anti human forcing GW meteorologist, it makes it veryyyyyyyyyyyy hard to listen to anything pro human forcing. Really wish there we more neutrality in studying this issue. I think it is coming to that but I think we will need patience perhaps another 10 or 20 or more years before we truly know for sure. IMHO.

[x-y-no]

Thanks for providing both sides of the issue here. I had made a post about this previously and now can't seem to find it, however, I do recall that someone had posted this particular orginzation had an Anti GW stance and a reason for coming to this finding. Isn't it also possible that the findings from this orginization you;ve cited here could be with a pro GW skew? Really like to know that.

Lockwood is a solar physicist. As far as I'm aware, he's never done any research in climate change. I seem to recall seeing Frölich's name on some paper regarding atmospheric radiation balance, but I'm not sure. At any rate, neither of them is particularly deep into the climate change field.

As for the Royal Society, it's just an umbrella organization like our National Academy of Sciences.

I've attmepted to read this article, however, I don't have the techinical knowledge to fully grasp it but the immediate question comes to mind is that do they have a pro GW stance coming in? Ed made a good point when you have one one of the top people at TWC calling for license termination of anti human forcing GW meteorologist, it makes it veryyyyyyyyyyyy hard to listen to anything pro human forcing. Really wish there we more neutrality in studying this issue. I think it is coming to that but I think we will need patience perhaps another 10 or 20 or more years before we truly know for sure. IMHO.

I don't see where you think bias would come into the equation. There are a set of three hypotheses out there regarding how solar flux could cause global warming and they tested those hypotheses and found that the actually measured changes over the last two decades in all three cases are of opposite sign to what the hypotheses would require. It's a very straightforward application of experiment to test hypotheses.

And as far as I'm aware, nobody at the Weather Channel has anything to do with real research, certainly not the fool who made that comment.

[caneman]

Thanks for providing both sides of the issue here. I had made a post about this previously and now can't seem to find it, however, I do recall that someone had posted this particular orginzation had an Anti GW stance and a reason for coming to this finding. Isn't it also possible that the findings from this orginization you;ve cited here could be with a pro GW skew? Really like to know that.

Lockwood is a solar physicist. As far as I'm aware, he's never done any research in climate change. I seem to recall seeing Frölich's name on some paper regarding atmospheric radiation balance, but I'm not sure. At any rate, neither of them is particularly deep into the climate change field.

As for the Royal Society, it's just an umbrella organization like our National Academy of Sciences.

I've attmepted to read this article, however, I don't have the techinical knowledge to fully grasp it but the immediate question comes to mind is that do they have a pro GW stance coming in? Ed made a good point when you have one one of the top people at TWC calling for license termination of anti human forcing GW meteorologist, it makes it veryyyyyyyyyyyy hard to listen to anything pro human forcing. Really wish there we more neutrality in studying this issue. I think it is coming to that but I think we will need patience perhaps another 10 or 20 or more years before we truly know for sure. IMHO.

I don't see where you think bias would come into the equation. There are a set of three hypotheses out there regarding how solar flux could cause global warming and they tested those hypotheses and found that the actually measured changes over the last two decades in all three cases are of opposite sign to what the hypotheses would require. It's a very straightforward application of experiment to test hypotheses.

And as far as I'm aware, nobody at the Weather Channel has anything to do with real research, certainly not the fool who made that comment.

The commenct from the head at TWC was only to showcase a point about the subject of GW. Tactics like that will totally close of peoples minds . The bias` part was refering to this subject as a whole in that much how much GW is just cyclical versus human forced. I do believe that both camps have to some extent come to conclusions without all the facts just yet. This of course isn't what science is suppose to do. There has to be middle ground to work from. Thanks for answering other questions.

[x-y-no]

Why does there have to be a middle ground? Science isn't a negotiation, nor is it a popularity contest. And the scientific evidence presents a very strong case regarding anthropogenic warming. What purpose is there in pretending that isn't so?

So some people like that weather channel employee say stupid things. That doesn't in any way affect the science, which is why I'm so adamant about sticking to discussing science rather than flying off on tangents about personalities and motivations. That just a recipe for fruitless argument and animosity. Examine factual claims (no matter who makes them.) If they don't make sense to you, dig further. Ask those who are presenting the claim to defend it.

That's how I've approached this issue for decades. As you can see, for instance, in the current thread about Mediterranean storm frequency, I don't don't jump on the bandwagon of some idea just because it fits in the "global warming is a serious problem" world-view. I also have big problems with claims that the thermohaline circulation may be shut down by any reasonably likely scenario of the next couple of centuries, or of claims that hurricanes will become significantly more frequent (the case for intensity is better.) If you're inclined to skepticism, you still ought to take the same attitude towards claims made by skeptics. Some of them are just incredibly wrong. Others, like Dick Lindzen's iris hypothesis or the cosmic ray flux idea have been reasonable enough that they deserved serious consideration and testing (both these examples have been falsified.)

[x-y-no]

Being a newbie to this site, a link or reposting of your discussion about Dr. Gray would be most welcome.

I looked back but didn't see the old discussion. I'll try to write up something, maybe this weekend.

[caneman]

Why does there have to be a middle ground? Science isn't a negotiation, nor is it a popularity contest. And the scientific evidence presents a very strong case regarding anthropogenic warming. What purpose is there in pretending that isn't so?

So some people like that weather channel employee say stupid things. That doesn't in any way affect the science, which is why I'm so adamant about sticking to discussing science rather than flying off on tangents about personalities and motivations. That just a recipe for fruitless argument and animosity. Examine factual claims (no matter who makes them.) If they don't make sense to you, dig further. Ask those who are presenting the claim to defend it.

That's how I've approached this issue for decades. As you can see, for instance, in the current thread about Mediterranean storm frequency, I don't don't jump on the bandwagon of some idea just because it fits in the "global warming is a serious problem" world-view. I also have big problems with claims that the thermohaline circulation may be shut down by any reasonably likely scenario of the next couple of centuries, or of claims that hurricanes will become significantly more frequent (the case for intensity is better.) If you're inclined to skepticism, you still ought to take the same attitude towards claims made by skeptics. Some of them are just incredibly wrong. Others, like Dick Lindzen's iris hypothesis or the cosmic ray flux idea have been reasonable enough that they deserved serious consideration and testing (both these examples have been falsified.)

I think it is fairly well known that this is a politcal hot potato. IT just is. It would be good if it wasn't and honestly to get an honest answer we will need a middle ground. The evidence is hardly conclusive. PErhaps you recall a recent article that states in the next 5 - 10 (sorry don't remember where I saw it) the Earth is forecast to go in a cool down mode. Certainly looking at some of the threads in this section there is some evidence that it could be occurring already or most certainly minimizes the GW debate of 'we gotta do something now or else'. GW is harldy conclusive. I agree about leaving poliltics and attacks out of it. That will get us nowhere. LAstly, you say things have been falsified. However, as a skeptic. I would want to know who did the falsifying. I have to assume it is someone or a group of people with a pro GW stance/or better yet, came up with the conclusion before enoughl time and science has its chance.. You know putting the cart before the horse. In oder to be disproved we will need enough time for those who believe in the cyclical nature of Earth to see what happens weather wise in the next 20,40 or 100 years. I think we may be seeing some evidence to that now. Unless there is solid evidnece that the Earth will blow up and suffer irrepreable harm in this time frame. Why not give it time and adequate scientific work?

[x-y-no]

Well, if your position is that you are going to automatically assume that anything said by skeptics is true and any research which supports the case for AGW is fraudulent, then there's really no point discussing anything.

In that case, consider anything I write as aimed not to you but at those who are interested in discussing science.

[caneman]

Well, if your position is that you are going to automatically assume that anything said by skeptics is true and any research which supports the case for AGW is fraudulent, then there's really no point discussing anything.

In that case, consider anything I write as aimed not to you but at those who are interested in discussing science.

There are plenty of skeptics in this debate about GW. I think you know that. Speaking of which I see that you've repeatedly been avoiding the meat of what I've been saying and chosing to focus on the skeptical aspect. So here it is again and I've posted this in many threads.

I have to assume it is someone or a group of people with a pro GW stance/or better yet, came up with the conclusion before enoughl time and science has its chance.. You know putting the cart before the horse. In oder to be disproved we will need enough time for those who believe in the cyclical nature of Earth to see what happens weather wise in the next 20,40 or 100 years. I think we may be seeing some evidence to that now. Unless there is solid evidnece that the Earth will blow up and suffer irrepreable harm in this time frame. Why not give it time and adequate scientific work? What is the rush?

[x-y-no]

There are plenty of skeptics in this debate about GW. I think you know that. Speaking of which I see that you've repeatedly been avoiding the meat of what I've been saying and chosing to focus on the skeptical aspect. So here it is again and I've posted this in many threads.

I have to assume it is someone or a group of people with a pro GW stance/or better yet, came up with the conclusion before enoughl time and science has its chance.. You know putting the cart before the horse.

Well there's the problem right there ... You "have to assume" - you don't examing the merit of claims, you just have to assume.

There's no reasoning with that, just as I said before.

In oder to be disproved we will need enough time for those who believe in the cyclical nature of Earth to see what happens weather wise in the next 20,40 or 100 years. I think we may be seeing some evidence to that now. Unless there is solid evidnece that the Earth will blow up and suffer irrepreable harm in this time frame. Why not give it time and adequate scientific work? What is the rush?

So, your philosophy is that, no matter how much evidence one has that something is likely to happen, one should do absolutely nothing about it until it has already happened. Have I got that right?

I presume then that you don't carry any kind of insurance (since you don't know with absolute certainty exactly what health problems you or your family may have in the future. And of course you don't ever lock your home, car or business - since you don't know with precision that someone will rob you and when that will happen. Right? After all, it's completely unreasonable to prepare for anything one only knows is very probable, but haven't actually seen happen yet.

[Jim Hughes]

Why does there have to be a middle ground? Science isn't a negotiation, nor is it a popularity contest. And the scientific evidence presents a very strong case regarding anthropogenic warming. What purpose is there in pretending that isn't so?

I am sorry Jan but I do not think that a blanket statement like this is very rational. There are many parts to the GW deabte besides heat and to suggest that this recent article proves there is no solar-climate connection is just plain wrong. This only partially proves the things that they looked at.