• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Indirect Effects of the Sun on Earth's Climate[W:376]

[h=3]MWP & LIA caused by changes in solar activity[/h]Solar activity proxies show the MWP & the LIA in Japan and China as follows:

Chart above: Kitagawa, H. & Matsumoto, E., Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 22, 2155-2158, 1995


Graphic above: Quansheng GE. et al., Advances in atmospheric sciences, Vol. 34, 941-951, 2017.
There are hundreds of other proxies worldwide that support solar activity as the main climate driver.
 
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]Evidence for a new fundamental constant of the sun[/h][FONT=&quot]From NORTHUMBRIA UNIVERSITY and the “solar constant” department New research undertaken at Northumbria University, Newcastle shows that the Sun’s magnetic waves behave differently than currently believed. Their findings have been reported in the latest edition of the prominent journal, Nature Astronomy. After examining data gathered over a 10-year period, the team from Northumbria’s Department of Mathematics, Physics…
Continue reading →
[/FONT]
 
[h=2]New Findings From German Scientists Show Changes in Precipitation Over Europe Linked To Solar Activity[/h]By P Gosselin on 15. February 2019
A significant number of scientists say that the Earth’s climate is in large part impacted by solar activity, and less so by trace gas CO2 concentration. German scientists present new findings showing a link between solar activity and precipitation in Europe.
=================================================
[h=2]How Changes on the Sun Influences Rain[/h]A balanced level of precipitation provides the basis for a wide range of economic and social activities in Europe. Particularly agriculture, drinking water supply and inland waterway transport are directly affected. However, the amount of rain fluctuates strongly from year to year. While it may pour torrentially in one year, rain may remain absent for weeks in other year. The population is used to this variability and usually knows how to deal with it.
But what is behind the strong changes? A system, or pure atmospheric noise?
The chance discovery by an agricultural scientist from Münster, Germany, now suggests that in certain months that rain over Germany and other parts of Europe follows a pattern that up to now has remained undetected. As part of agricultural consultation, Ludger Laurenz analyzed decades of rainfall records of the weather station in Münster and noticed a constant up and down that followed an 11-year rhythm – especially in February.

Fig. 1. February precipitation in Germany compared to changes in sunspots. Shown is the optimum positive correlation (r = 0.54) with a solar lag of +17 months. Solar cycles are numbered 14–24. The probability that the correlation r = 0.54 is by chance is less than 0.1% (p < 0.001). Source: Science Direct.com.
After detailed examination it was clear that this rhythm correlated closely with the activity of the sun: the well-documented 11-year sunspot cycle. . . .
 
Land Of The Warming Sun: Japan Has Seen Solar Radiation Rise 10% Over Past 60 Years!

By P Gosselin on 17. February 2019
By Pierre Gosselin
and Kirye

Today any warming found anywhere almost always gets blamed on heat supposedly getting trapped by rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Moreover, activist scientists insist we ignore all other powerful factors such as solar and oceanic cycles.
In fact these activists have become so extreme that they insist that record cold today is caused by warming.
But as people learned already in the first grade, the earth’s surface warms when the sun shines on it, and tends to cool when clouds obstruct the sun.
Solar radiation at the surface has risen over the past decades
In Japan, the Japanese Meteorology Agency (JMA) has 8 stations that measure solar radiation reaching the surface, and many other for recording temperature.
Data from the 8 stations recording solar radiation are plotted since 1999 (i.e. 20 years) as follows:

Data source: JMA
The black curve with the dashed linear trend line in the middle of the pack is the mean of all 8 stations. As we can see, these 8 stations have seen a clear upward trend since 1999.
Next follows the annual mean temperature chart for the same 8 stations:

Data Source: JMA.
As the chart above shows, the annual mean temperature for the 8 stations has risen modestly over the past 20 years – in line with solar radiation. . . .
 
Land Of The Warming Sun: Japan Has Seen Solar Radiation Rise 10% Over Past 60 Years!

By P Gosselin on 17. February 2019
By Pierre Gosselin
and Kirye

Today any warming found anywhere almost always gets blamed on heat supposedly getting trapped by rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Moreover, activist scientists insist we ignore all other powerful factors such as solar and oceanic cycles.
In fact these activists have become so extreme that they insist that record cold today is caused by warming.
But as people learned already in the first grade, the earth’s surface warms when the sun shines on it, and tends to cool when clouds obstruct the sun.
Solar radiation at the surface has risen over the past decades
In Japan, the Japanese Meteorology Agency (JMA) has 8 stations that measure solar radiation reaching the surface, and many other for recording temperature.
Data from the 8 stations recording solar radiation are plotted since 1999 (i.e. 20 years) as follows:

Data source: JMA
The black curve with the dashed linear trend line in the middle of the pack is the mean of all 8 stations. As we can see, these 8 stations have seen a clear upward trend since 1999.
Next follows the annual mean temperature chart for the same 8 stations:

Data Source: JMA.
As the chart above shows, the annual mean temperature for the 8 stations has risen modestly over the past 20 years – in line with solar radiation. . . .

That's my point about us clearing the skies. Reduce the opacity of the skies from pollution, and the sun warms the surface more.
 
NASA hides page saying the Sun was the primary climate driver, and clouds and particles are more important than greenhouse gases


ZeroHedge asks: What the hell are NASA Hiding?

The NASA site used to have a page titled “What are the primary forcings of the Earth system?“. In 2010 this page said that the Sun is the major driver of Earth’s climate, that it controls all the major aspects, and we may be on the cusp of an ice age. Furthermore NASA Science said things like clouds, albedo and aerosol behaviour can have more powerful cooling effects that outdo the warming effect of CO2.
Today that page says Share the science and stay connected, and “Access Denied”.

Whatever you do, don’t tell the world that NASA says the Sun is more important than CO2.

The Wayback Machine captured the same NASA “Primary Climate Forcings” link in 2010.
Click to enlarge.
. . . . .
 
NASA hides page saying the Sun was the primary climate driver, and clouds and particles are more important than greenhouse gases


ZeroHedge asks: What the hell are NASA Hiding?

The NASA site used to have a page titled “What are the primary forcings of the Earth system?“. In 2010 this page said that the Sun is the major driver of Earth’s climate, that it controls all the major aspects, and we may be on the cusp of an ice age. Furthermore NASA Science said things like clouds, albedo and aerosol behaviour can have more powerful cooling effects that outdo the warming effect of CO2.
Today that page says Share the science and stay connected, and “Access Denied”.

Whatever you do, don’t tell the world that NASA says the Sun is more important than CO2.

The Wayback Machine captured the same NASA “Primary Climate Forcings” link in 2010.
Click to enlarge.
. . . . .

As long as the likes of Gavin Schmidt are in charge, we can expect such censorship.
 
The Sun? Nah...that is from mostly old studies, and has debunked by multiple newer studies. I won't even get deep into the fact that you keep linking from a discredited conspiracy/psuedo-science blog. Watts Up with That - Media Bias/Fact Check

Sun & climate: moving in opposite directions
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...warming/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.3ecd9a677ed3
Explainer: Why the sun is not responsible for recent climate change | Carbon Brief

Also why the the most comprehensive and recent reports mention very little about the Sun being a direct driver,

Our Changing Climate - Fourth National Climate Assessment
 
The Sun? Nah...that is from mostly old studies, and has debunked by multiple newer studies. I won't even get deep into the fact that you keep linking from a discredited conspiracy/psuedo-science blog. Watts Up with That - Media Bias/Fact Check

Sun & climate: moving in opposite directions
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...warming/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.3ecd9a677ed3
Explainer: Why the sun is not responsible for recent climate change | Carbon Brief

Also why the the most comprehensive and recent reports mention very little about the Sun being a direct driver,

Our Changing Climate - Fourth National Climate Assessment

Nope. You are uninformed.

My experience at the German Bundestag's Environment Committee in a pre-COP24 discussion

". . . Any attempt to explain the 20th century warming should therefore include this large [solar] forcing. When doing so, one finds that the sun contributed more than half of the warming, and climate has to be relatively insensitive. How much? Only 1 to 1.5°C per CO2 doubling, as opposed to the IPCC range of 1.5 to 4.5. This implies that without doing anything special, future warming will be around another 1 degree over the 21st century, meeting the Copenhagen and Paris goals. . . .

[FONT=&quot]Rising temperatures with falling solar activity from the 1990's. The argument here is of course that the negative correlation over this period tells us that the sun cannot be the major climate driver. This too is wrong.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]First, even if the sun was the only climate driver (which I never said is the case), this anti-correlation would not have contradicted it. Following this simple logic, we could have ruled out that the sun is warming us during the day because between noon and say 2pm, when it is typically warmest, the amount of solar radiation decreases while the temperature increases. Similarly, one could rule out the sun as our source of warmth because maximum radiation is obtained in June while July and August are typically warmer. Over the period of a month or more, solar radiation decreases but the temperature increases! The reason behind this behavior is of course the finite heat capacity of the climate system. If you heat the system for a given duration, it takes time for the system to reach equilibrium. If the heating starts to decrease while the temperature is still below equilibrium, then the temperature will continue rising as the forcing starts to decrease. Interestingly, since the late 1990’s (specifically the 1997 el Niño) the temperature has been increasing at a rate much lower than predicted by the models appearing in the IPCC reports (the so called “global warming hiatus”).[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Having said that, it is possible to actually model the climate system while including the heat capacity, namely diffusion of heat into and out of the oceans, and include the solar and anthropogenic forcings and find out that by introducing the the solar forcing, one can get a much better fit to the 20th century warming, in which the climate sensitivity is much smaller. (Typically 1°C per CO2 doubling compared with the IPCC's canonical range of 1.5 to 4.5°C per CO2 doubling). [/FONT][FONT=&quot]You can read about it here: Ziskin, S. & Shaviv, N. J., Quantifying the role of solar radiative forcing over the 20th century, Advances in Space Research 50 (2012) 762–776 . . . . " [/FONT]
 
Nope. You are uninformed.

My experience at the German Bundestag's Environment Committee in a pre-COP24 discussion

". . . Any attempt to explain the 20th century warming should therefore include this large [solar] forcing. When doing so, one finds that the sun contributed more than half of the warming, and climate has to be relatively insensitive. How much? Only 1 to 1.5°C per CO2 doubling, as opposed to the IPCC range of 1.5 to 4.5. This implies that without doing anything special, future warming will be around another 1 degree over the 21st century, meeting the Copenhagen and Paris goals. . . .



No. You're uninformed - and I've got hell of a lot more than a blog to confirm this:


Our Changing Climate - Fourth National Climate Assessment


AGW is real. The evidence is overwhelming. Which is why you keep linking blogs. If you disagree with this debunk that massive report, quote specific portions that are incorrect and refute them with recent peer reviewed and published papers.

Many lines of evidence demonstrate that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases from fossil fuel combustion, deforestation, and land-use change, are primarily responsible for the climate changes observed in the industrial era, especially over the last six decades. Observed warming over the period 1951–2010 was 1.2°F (0.65°C), and formal detection and attribution studies conclude that the likely range of the human contribution to the global average temperature increase over the period 1951–2010 is 1.1°F to 1.4°F (0.6°C to 0.8°C;15 see Knutson et al. 201716 for more on detection and attribution).

Human activities affect Earth’s climate by altering factors that control the amount of energy from the sun that enters and leaves the atmosphere. These factors, known as radiative forcings, include changes in greenhouse gases, small airborne soot and dust particles known as aerosols, and the reflectivity (or albedo) of Earth’s surface through land-use and land-cover changes (see Ch. 5: Land Changes).17,18 Increasing greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere due to emissions from human activities are the largest of these radiative forcings. By absorbing the heat emitted by Earth and reradiating it equally in all directions, greenhouse gases increase the amount of heat retained inside the climate system, warming the planet. Aerosols produced by burning fossil fuels and by other human activities affect climate both directly, by scattering and absorbing sunlight, as well as indirectly, through their impact on cloud formation and cloud properties. Over the industrial era, the net effect of the combined direct and indirect effects of aerosols has been to cool the planet, partially offsetting greenhouse gas warming at the global scale.17,18

Over the last century, changes in solar output, volcanic emissions, and natural variability have only contributed marginally to the observed changes in climate (Figure 2.1).15,17 No natural cycles are found in the observational record that can explain the observed increases in the heat content of the atmosphere, the ocean, or the cryosphere since the industrial era.11,19,20,21 Greenhouse gas emissions from human activities are the only factors that can account for the observed warming over the last century; there are no credible alternative human or natural explanations supported by the observational evidence.10,22
 
Last edited:
No. You're uninformed.


Our Changing Climate - Fourth National Climate Assessment


AGW is real. The evidence is overwhelming. Which is why you keep linking blogs. If you disagree with this debunk that massive report, quote specific portions that are incorrect and refute them with recent peer reviewed and published papers.

The evidence is not overwhelming, and the blog you complained about is that of the Chairman of the Raccah Center for Physics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and IBM Einstein Fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study, Professor Nir Shaviv. You might also note he linked a peer-reviewed paper.

Blogs have been critical in exposing climate science falsehoods and errors.

Reassessing the RCPs

Posted on January 28, 2019 by curryja | 178 comments
by Kevin Murphy
A response to: “Is RCP8.5 an impossible scenario?”. This post demonstrates that RCP8.5 is so highly improbable that it should be dismissed from consideration, and thereby draws into question the validity of RCP8.5-based assertions such as those made in the Fourth National Climate Assessment from the U.S. Global Change Research Program.

Continue reading

Early 20th century global warming

Posted on January 23, 2019 by curryja | 377 comments
by Judith Curry
A careful look at the early 20th century global warming, which is almost as large as the warming since 1950. Until we can explain the early 20th century warming, I have little confidence IPCC and NCA4 attribution statements regarding the cause of the recent warming.



Continue reading


 
The evidence is not overwhelming

This is objectively false. You're lying. There is no way around this fact.

Our Changing Climate - Fourth National Climate Assessment
https://science2017.globalchange.gov/downloads/CSSR2017_FullReport.pdf

Nearly 2,000 pages. 100's of peer reviewed and published studies (There's 1000's of more but they wanted to use the best).

On the flip side, there are very very few counter studies directly stating AGW is not real. Only a bunch of bloggers taking them out of context and the Authors having to say "WTF!?"

FACT CHECK: Did 58 Scientific Papers Published in 2017 Say Global Warming is a Myth?
FACT CHECK: Do Hundreds of Papers Published in 2017 'Prove' That Global Warming is a Myth?
 
This is objectively false. You're lying. There is no way around this fact.

Our Changing Climate - Fourth National Climate Assessment
https://science2017.globalchange.gov/downloads/CSSR2017_FullReport.pdf

Nearly 2,000 pages. 100's of peer reviewed and published studies (There's 1000's of more but they wanted to use the best).

On the flip side, there are very very few counter studies directly stating AGW is not real. Only a bunch of bloggers taking them out of context and the Authors having to say "WTF!?"

FACT CHECK: Did 58 Scientific Papers Published in 2017 Say Global Warming is a Myth?
FACT CHECK: Do Hundreds of Papers Published in 2017 'Prove' That Global Warming is a Myth?

Have you ever read any of those studies? Notice how many come to conclusions while stating variables as "if we assume..." and use ambiguous language?
 
Have you ever read any of those studies? Notice how many come to conclusions while stating variables as "if we assume..." and use ambiguous language?

Yes. I've read plenty of them. Not all of them use ambiguous language. Most of them draw similar conclusions though, using data and facts.
 
This is objectively false. You're lying. There is no way around this fact.

Our Changing Climate - Fourth National Climate Assessment
https://science2017.globalchange.gov/downloads/CSSR2017_FullReport.pdf

Nearly 2,000 pages. 100's of peer reviewed and published studies (There's 1000's of more but they wanted to use the best).

On the flip side, there are very very few counter studies directly stating AGW is not real. Only a bunch of bloggers taking them out of context and the Authors having to say "WTF!?"

FACT CHECK: Did 58 Scientific Papers Published in 2017 Say Global Warming is a Myth?
FACT CHECK: Do Hundreds of Papers Published in 2017 'Prove' That Global Warming is a Myth?

I am not sure what you think constitutes "evidence" of AGW?
The data is that we know the on average temperatures have warmed ~.9 C since the mid 1800's.
We also know that CO2 levels have increased from roughly 280 ppm to 410 ppm in that same time window.
Of that .9 C roughly .25 C is from before 1945, and considered natural.
CO2 Forcing itself picks up another .61 C, (5.35 X ln(410/280)X.3)= .612 C.
So .9 -.25 -.61=.04 C of warming from other sources.
But wait the American chemical Society says that CH4 also plays a roll.
Climate Sensitivity - American Chemical Society
For the increase of CH4 from about 375 to about 675 ppb, ΔFCH4 ≈ 0.3 W·m–2.
This would be about .1 C, so the evidence is that there is nothing left in the observed data for the amplified feedbacks.
Now I know people will say that there is a long latency between the input and the resulting ECS,
Hansen said 37.5 years for 60% of ECS to be realized, but wait we had .25 C of warming before 1945,
and have had almost 2 cycles of amplified feedbacks that would have acted on that .25 C of input.
If the feedback were enough to make the forcing warming input of 1.1C equal to the 3C ECS,
then the amplification factor would need to be 2.72, but that cannot be, because,
.25 C X 2.72 X.6 (For 1945 to 1983) would be .408 C, and the second cycle (1983 to 2019) would be
.408 C X 2.72 X .6 (plus the .408 from cycle 1)=1.07 C.
The data simply does not support a amplification factor high enough for an ECS of 3C, perhaps 1.6 or 1.7 C but not 3 C.
 
I am not sure what you think constitutes "evidence" of AGW?

100's of peer reviewed studies and a 2,000 page report by 13 federal agencies? If that isn't citable evidence.......

I can copy and paste stuff from that too, only I can't fit it here. So you can just click on my links. It kind of dwarfs these neutral passages you're posting which don't even touch on AGW directly.
 
100's of peer reviewed studies and a 2,000 page report by 13 federal agencies? If that isn't citable evidence.......

I can copy and paste stuff from that too, only I can't fit it here. So you can just click on my links. It kind of dwarfs these neutral passages you're posting which don't even touch on AGW directly.
AGW as a concept is fairly straight forward, Here is what Baede 2001 which was cited in IPCC AR5 as the more comprehensive source said.
If the amount of carbon dioxide were doubled instantaneously,
with everything else remaining the same, the outgoing infrared
radiation would be reduced by about 4 Wm-2. In other words, the
radiative forcing corresponding to a doubling of the CO2 concentration
would be 4 Wm-2. To counteract this imbalance, the
temperature of the surface-troposphere system would have to
increase by 1.2°C (with an accuracy of ±10%), in the absence of
other changes. In reality, due to feedbacks, the response of the
climate system is much more complex. It is believed that the
overall effect of the feedbacks amplifies the temperature increase to 1.5 to 4.5°C.
A significant part of this uncertainty range arises from our limited knowledge
of clouds and their interactions with radiation.
They have since reduced the forcing number for 2XCO2 from 4 Wm-2 to 3.71 Wm-2, but the basic concept remains the same.
The doubling of CO2 Forces the surface-troposphere system to increase in temperature by roughly 1.1 C.
They believe that feedbacks will amplify the CO2 warming to create anywhere from minor to extraordinary warming,
with the uncertainties caused mostly from clouds.
The problems come in with making catastrophic predictions based on the limited science, is that there is almost no evidence
of even the forcing warming, and even that is lower than expected.
 
This is objectively false. You're lying. There is no way around this fact.

Our Changing Climate - Fourth National Climate Assessment
https://science2017.globalchange.gov/downloads/CSSR2017_FullReport.pdf

Nearly 2,000 pages. 100's of peer reviewed and published studies (There's 1000's of more but they wanted to use the best).

On the flip side, there are very very few counter studies directly stating AGW is not real. Only a bunch of bloggers taking them out of context and the Authors having to say "WTF!?"

FACT CHECK: Did 58 Scientific Papers Published in 2017 Say Global Warming is a Myth?
FACT CHECK: Do Hundreds of Papers Published in 2017 'Prove' That Global Warming is a Myth?

Sorry, but the liars are on your side, and the NCA4 has been shown to be quite inaccurate.
 
Sorry, but the liars are on your side, and the NCA4 has been shown to be quite inaccurate.

As I asked you before, please quote passages of that 2,000 page report that are inaccurate and prove they are inaccurate with peer reviewed studies specifically stating said numbers are inaccurate.

Until this is done, I will state AGW is a fact because I have an overwhelming evidence for it being a fact which has yet to be refuted.

Over 90% of Climate scientist aren't wrong because you made a post about it on the internet. Fortunately you're not doing a very good job, the public consensus is higher each year as well - Most Americans now believe in AGW. Education and facts are winning out. Thank goodness.
 
Last edited:
As I asked you before, please quote passages of that 2,000 page report that are inaccurate and prove they are inaccurate with peer reviewed studies specifically stating said numbers are inaccurate.

Until this is done, I will state AGW is a fact because I have an overwhelming evidence for it being a fact which has yet to be refuted.

Over 90% of Climate scientist aren't wrong because you made a post about it on the internet. Fortunately you're not doing a very good job, the public consensus is higher each year as well - Most Americans now believe in AGW. Education and facts are winning out. Thank goodness.

Please see my #662.
 
Please see my #662.

Post 662 does not refute the 2,000 page 2017 and 2018 Federal Reports, as no passages are even quoted.

Post 662 erroneously states there is no overwhelming evidence, when this is objectively false as I directly sourced overwhelming evidence.

You're on the wrong side of the entire scientific field studying this (90%+). That much is a fact. Conspiracy blogs are fun, I'm sure you tricked some people, but fortunately this sub-section gets jack squat views and public perception is growing yearly, currently at over 60% for AGW being true - 12% no-AGW, 12% don't even think Climate Change is occurring. Thank goodness.
 
Last edited:
Post 662 does not refute the 2,000 page 2017 and 2018 Federal Reports, as no passages are even quoted.

Post 662 erroneously states there is no overwhelming evidence, when this is objectively false as I directly sourced overwhelming evidence.

You're on the wrong side of the entire scientific field studying this (90%+). That much is a fact.

Either read the links or don't. I don't waste time debating against ignorance.
 
I don't waste time debating against ignorance.

You're the person who thinks AGW is fake because of a blog while I'm literally linking a recent 2,000 page report that sources 100's of published peer reviewed studies and nearly entire field of science saying that you're dead wrong. Incapable of quoting a decent number of passages from said report and directly refuting it with another peer reviewed study. That's ignorance.


You really shouldn't waste your time. Your propaganda is losing, bigly, as recent polls show.
 
Back
Top Bottom