Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

If your numbers revealing a decreasing output from the sun since 20,000 years ago are valid, your speculation may be valid. If your speculation were valid and if the sun's output were to continue to decrease, humanity might be very thankful for the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere helping all of us avoid freezing to death. On the otherhand, if the sun's output were to start climbing again while the CO2 continues to increase, then those alive then might die from heat stroke.

But on the average solar irradiance has been increasing since about 1660 over solar 11 year cycles, or since about 1880 (depending on how you look at it), while the average annual global temperature trend shas been fluctuating during that same period over much greater than 11 year solar cycles.
http://www.biocab.org/Solar_Irradiance_English.jpg

Solar Irradiance 1611 t0 2001

http://www.biocab.org/Comparison_Solar_Irradiance_Espa_ol.jpg

Yes, it has been increasing but it is calculated in a silly thing called "watts." The increase in global temperature does not equal the increase in solar output which means the sun is NOT the only source of warming.

I recall it to be about 0.3C, Parados, in the same order of magnitude that we are seeing. Seems rather coincidental, and it is readily apparent that we hear virtually nothing about this in the media, do we?

Parados, you wrote: "The increase in global temperature does not equal the increase in solar output which means the sun is NOT the only source of warming."

How much of a solar output increase from 1901 to 2000, do you think is required to cause a global temperature increase of one degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit)?

You recall your made up facts? That's nice okie.

Perhaps you have something to dispute this....
http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/mpa/publications/preprints/pp2006/MPA2001.pdf

about 4 w/m2

So, ican..
What kind of a global temperature drop do you expect if the solar radiation decreases by 1 w/m2?

I asked you, parados: How much of a solar output increase from 1901 to 2000, do you think is required to cause a global temperature increase of one degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit)?

You answered: "about 4 w/m2"

Then you asked me: "So, ican.. What kind of a global temperature drop do you expect if the solar radiation decreases by 1 w/m2?

I can neither support or refute your estimate that a 4 w/m^2 increase in solar output would be required to cause a global temperature increase of one degree Celsius from the year 1901 to 2000. But for now, I'll assume you are correct and answer your question two ways.

First Way
If a 4 w/m^2 solar increase is required to produce a 1.0 °C increase, then a 1.0 w/m^2 solar decrease would appear to produce a 0.25 °C drop.

Second Way
I'll analyze what magnitude solar output increase would be required to produce the actual 0.572 °C temperature increase 1901 to 2000.


That temperature increase was 14.170 °C - 13.598 °C = 0.572 °C

If you are correct, then solar output had to increase 4 w/m^2 x 0.572 °C/1.000 °C = 2.2880 w/m^2 to produce that temperature increase by itself.


That is an increase in solar output of 1.1326 w/m^2 from 1901 t0 2000. But that is only 100% x 1.1326 / 2.2880 = 0.4950% of the required solar output increase required by itself, if the 4.0 w/m^2 solar output increase you think is required to produce a 1.000 °C increase in average annual global temperature, were to be correct.

Suppose what you think is required to produce a 1.000 °C 1901 to 2000 increase in average annual global temperature, is twice as large as is actually required. Then the sun's output increase during that period would appear to be the actual cause of global warming.

What procedure do you suggest we follow to determine the actual solar output required by itself to produce the actual 1901 to 2000 average annual global temperature increase?

GIGO Garbage in, garbage out, ican. From your data, let's take a time span of equal length to yours, and from almost the same starting and end points, and we'll see the sun has absolutely no effect on global warming. Same database, exactly opposite effect:


1896 1365.8431 W/mE2
1996 1365.6086W/mE2

Sun's ouptut decreased, yet global temperature increased.

Hey, let's look at a 200 year interval:

1796 1365.6909
1996 1365.6086

Sun's output decreased, yet global temperature increased.

So the sun's ouput has decreased over the last two hundred years, so it can't be contributing to global warming.

What this shows, of course, is that your whole approach to the data is flawed. Picking an arbitrary interval (100 years) and picking arbitrary start and end points (the sun doesn't give a **** whether it's a century end year--that's totally arbitrary and has no relation to what the sun is actually doing), and looking at only one year's output, which among other things means you're not comparing average ouput at that time frame, nor are you looking at comparable points on the 11-year solar cycle (which we KNOW BEYOND ANY QUESTION affects the sun's output relatively regularly), is just going to produce mathematical and scientific gibberish. And that is precisely what you have, once again, produced.

OK.. so.. solar irradiation from 1998 to 2008 has dropped 1 w/m^2, what should have happened to the temperature? What really happened to the temperature. Why did we not see the .25 drop you claimed should have happened?


And since the solar output didn't increase by that amount that means that other factors than the solar output contributed to the increase in temperature. It basically works the same way insulating your house works. Less heat loss means more heat retained so fewer watts are needed to maintain a temperature. Calculations for heat input vs retained temperature are not something new or outlandish.

I suggest using a formula that calculates energy input and heat loss compared to temperature increase.

If the energy input doesn't change enough to account for the temperature increase then the only other possible reason is a change in amount of heat lost for some reason.

Monterey Jack,

Of course you are correct. Taking changes in solar radiation between any one year y1 and any one other year y2 is GIGO to determine the sun's effect on global temperature. It is an invalid way to determine whether or not the sun's radiation changes have affected average annual global temperature. It is just as much GIGO to use this approach to determine that the sun has had zero effect on global temperature. And it is surely GIGO when one uses a steady y1 to y2 increase in annual CO2 density in the atmosphere to justify the claim that a decreasing and increasing and ... decreasing and increasing global temperature between the years y1 and y2 is caused by that CO2 density increase.

Thank you! You have made my day!

We used to say in the olden days: "what's good for the goose is good for the gander." I'll now adjust that to fit the current debate over the cause or causes of global temperature changes: "what's not good for the goose is not good for the gander."

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide.png

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

Parados wrote: "If the energy input doesn't change enough to account for the temperature increase then the only other possible reason is a change in amount of heat lost for some reason. "

This seems right as far as it goes.

The energy input varies over the years with earth's proximity to the sun and sunspot densities and erupting volcanos and (oh yes) seasons, etc.. The heat loss varies over those same years with the weather and dust and reflectivity and atmospheric gases, etc.

I think we humans do not yet know enough about how to measure all that stuff over time reliably enough to conclude that any one thing, CO2 emissions or anything else, is the greatest cause of global temperature changes.

Great, ican, and since you have been the primary exponent of those comparison-of-two-arbitrarily-chosen-years-with-an-arbitrary-interval, as supposedly proving something, may I assume, since you've now agreed they[re garbage, that you will stop? I reference your post 3509882, but I also remember your repeatedly doing it several hundred pages ago with reference, again, to solar output over the 11 year (nominal) solar cycle.

And that is of course, far from the only time you go off the rails mathematically. You just did it again. I pointed it out to you, again, a hundred pages or so ago. You ignored it then. And you have been doing it again. GIGO. You have apparently forgotten your basic high school math and science lessons on curve combining. In general you get a linear correlation in a function if you are only dealing with one variable. One would get a linear increase in global temperature with linear (more or less) increase in CO2 IF AND ONLY IF CO2 were the only variable determining global tempearture. Simple math. NO ONE, EVER, has maintained that--certainly not the overwhelming number of climate scientists who are very aware of the large number of variables that affect global temperature, such as (and this is only a small number of the variables--all of which the IPCC does in fact take into account) CO@ increase, methane increase, ozone variation, aerosol variation, solar output, albedo changes, droughts, el Nino and la Nina (the largest WEATHER events, which have very preceptible but tranient effect on global temperature, and more broadly ENSO and PDO effects.

Now if you will go back and look at your own graphs, you will note that the early periods before anthropogenic CO2 started increasing, are lumpy and bumpy, they rise and they fall, and may rise or fall or plateau over 3,4,5, years or more, tho they pretty much flat-line overall. That is WEATHER. There are hot years and cold years, wet years and dry years, and even hot or cold or drought half-decades or decades. Global temperature, then, over any time period you find, is not a constant from year to year, tho over time the lumps and bumps have tended to even out around a flat mean. That is the sum effect of all the variables acting on the temperature. Now add a new component with a relatively steady rise (e.g. CO2 increase) to that old pattern, and what do you get? A lumpy bumpy graph with peaks and valleys and occasional periods of dip and occasional spikes, but with a rising average temperature. WHICH IS PRECISELY WHAT YOUR GRAPHS SHOW. The graphs you cite therefore show exactly what the people who produced and compiled the data say they do--evidence of global warming. You should have learned how to interpret them before you ever got out of high school, ican.

MontereyJack posted: "The graphs you cite therefore show exactly what the people who produced and compiled the data say they do--evidence of global warming."

Many say only that about their graphs: that is, their graphs are evidence of global warming. Yes the globe has been warming. I have also said that there has been a global warming trend from about 1910 to 1998. I agree now and have always agreed the globe has been warming in that time period. I've also said that there is some evidence that the globe has been cooling since 1998.

However, too many alleged scientist have alleged that the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is the major cause of that warming. I repeatedly disagreed with that assertion, and I continue to disagree with that assertion. And yes, I have repeatedly said that increases in solar irradiance are a major cause of that warming. I'll say it again. Increases in solar irradiance are a major cause of global warming. I have not yet encountered any evidence that increases in solar irradiance are NOT a major cause of global warming.

That's an interesting argument coming from you ican since you have repeatedly posted that it is the sun that is causing the warming.

So, are you ready to admit that the sun does NOT account for all the observed warming?

Yes, you have repeatedly said that while ignoring the fact that the sun's output has reduced during that time. You have also ignored the fact that the sun's output should have resulted in more cooling than you say has happened.

And what pray tell is the greatest cause of the cooling since 1998? And why has it NOT cooled as much as it should have based on the change in the solar irradiance? The current output by the sun is about what it was in 1901. Why is it so much warmer today than it was then? What has changed? Are there more volcanoes? What are the possible reasons other than the change in the atmospheric makeup?
These are all questions that you ignore ican because you find them inconvenient.