• 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!

Manufacturing the Climate "Consensus"

At no point in the paper does Shaviv claim that variations in solar heating account for the recent rise in the Earth's temperature, so he is not questioning the consensus in his scientific work. He only does that in the propaganda he posts on the internet.

Really?

Abstract.
Over the 11-year solar cycle, small changes in the total solar irradiance (TSI) give rise to small variations in the global energy budget. It was suggested, however, that different mechanisms could amplify solar activity variations to give large climatic effects, a possibility which is still a subject of debate. With this in mind, we use the oceans asa calorimeter to measure the radiative forcing variations associated with the solar cycle.This is achieved through the study of three independent records, the net heat flux into the oceans over 5 decades, the sea level change rate based on tide gauge records over the 20th century, and the sea surface temperature variations. Each of the records can be used to consistently derive the same oceanic heat flux. We find that the total radiative forcing associated with solar cycles variations is about 5 to 7 times larger than just those associated with the TSI variations, thus implying the necessary existence of an amplification mechanism, though without pointing to which one.
 
Nir Shaviv:

[FONT="]"A few months ago, I had a paper accepted in the Journal of Geophysical Research. Since its repercussions are particularly interesting for the general public, I decided to write about it. I would have written earlier, but as [/FONT][URL="http://www.sciencebits.com/delinquent"]I wrote before[/URL][FONT="], I have been quite busy. I now have time, sitting in my hotel in Lijiang (Yunnan, China). . . .

[/FONT][FONT="]References: [/FONT]
[FONT="]1) Nir J. Shaviv (2008); Using the oceans as a calorimeter to quantify the solar radiative forcing, J. Geophys. Res., 113, A11101, doi:10.1029/2007JA012989. [/FONT][URL="http://www.sciencebits.com/files/articles/CalorimeterFinal.pdf"]Local Copy[/URL][FONT="]."[/FONT][FONT="] [/FONT]

Greetings, Jack :2wave:

First, thanks for posting another Shaviv article! :thumbs:

The prospect of a significantly colder Northern Hemisphere in the near future affirms the gardening records I have been keeping for several decades! I don't understand why the IPCC insists that we will be experiencing probable excess warming - when observed versus modeled trends are showing too many inconsistencies that are proving them wrong!

As a poster pointed out in another article I read recently, if solar activity should take another long slumber like it did during the last Maunder Minimum, we could have one small class of elites with untold riches living very well indeed while the rest of humanity might be living in caves, using fossil fuels to survive! :thumbdown:

I would also appreciate someone explaining, if possible, how and why going through the Sagittarius spiral arm of the Milky Way, as Earth is apparently doing, could change our climate so drastically that it would adversely affect everything on earth. :confused: Perhaps there are no known explanations...?
 
Last edited:
Greetings, Jack :2wave:

First, thanks for posting another Shaviv article! :thumbs:

The prospect of a significantly colder Northern Hemisphere in the near future affirms the gardening records I have been keeping for several decades! I don't understand why the IPCC insists that we will be experiencing probable excess warming - when observed versus modeled trends are showing too many inconsistencies that are proving them wrong!

As a poster pointed out in another article I read recently, if solar activity should take another long slumber like it did during the last Maunder Minimum, we could have one small class of elites with untold riches living very well indeed while the rest of humanity might be living in caves, using fossil fuels to survive! :thumbdown:

I would also appreciate someone explaining, if possible, how and why going through the Sagittarius spiral arm of the Milky Way, as Earth is apparently doing, could change our climate so drastically that it would adversely affect everything on earth. :confused: Perhaps there are no known explanations...?

Greetings, Polgara.:2wave:

Try this.

Celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate? - Geological Society of America
PDF
https://www.geosociety.org › archive › pdf



by NJ Shaviv · 2003 · Cited by 328 · Related articles
Jul 4, 2003 · Phanerozoic climate? Nir J. Shaviv, Racah Institute of Physics, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, .... dynamics of the spiral arms, and considers that cosmic rays are generated ...
 
97% consensus
‘The 97% climate consensus’ starts to crumble with 485 new papers in 2017 that question it

by THOMAS D. WILLIAMS, PH.D.10 Jan 20183,113 From Breitbart and No Tricks Zone: A broad survey of climate change literature for 2017 reveals that the alleged “consensus” behind the dangers of anthropogenic global warming is not nearly as settled among climate scientists as people imagine. Author Kenneth Richard found that during the course of the year 2017, at…

Below are the two links to the list of 485 papers as well as the guideline for the lists’ categorization.
Skeptic Papers 2017 (1)
Skeptic Papers 2017 (2)
[h=3]Part 1. Natural Mechanisms Of Weather, Climate Change [/h]
  • Solar Influence On Climate (121)
  • ENSO, NAO, AMO, PDO Climate Influence (44)
  • Modern Climate In Phase With Natural Variability (13)
  • Cloud/Aerosol Climate Influence (9)
  • Volcanic/Tectonic Climate Influence (6)
  • The CO2 Greenhouse Effect – Climate Driver? (14)
[h=3]Part 2. Unsettled Science, Failed Climate Modeling[/h]
  • Climate Model Unreliability/Biases/Errors and the Pause (28)
  • Failing Renewable Energy, Climate Policies (12)
  • Wind Power Harming The Environment, Biosphere (8)
  • Elevated CO2 Greens Planet, Produces Higher Crop Yields (13)
  • Warming Beneficial, Does Not Harm Humans, Wildlife (5)
  • Warming, Acidification Not Harming Oceanic Biosphere (17)
  • Decreases In Extreme, Unstable Weather With Warming (3)
  • Urban Heat Island: Raising Surface Temperatures Artificially (5)
  • No Increasing Trends In Intense Hurricanes (4)
  • No Increasing Trends In Drought/Flood Frequency, Severity (3)
  • Natural CO2, Methane Sources Out-Emit Human Source (4)
  • Increasing Snow Cover Since The 1950s (2)
  • Miscellaneous (7)
[h=3]Part 3. Natural Climate Change Observation, Reconstruction[/h]
  • Lack Of Anthropogenic/CO2 Signal In Sea Level Rise (38)
  • No Net Warming During 20th (21st) Century (12)
  • A Warmer Past: Non-Hockey Stick Reconstructions (60)
  • Abrupt, Degrees-Per-Decade Natural Global Warming (7)
  • A Model-Defying Cryosphere, Polar Ice (32)
  • Antarctic Ice Melting In High Geothermal Heat Flux Areas (4)
  • Recent Cooling In The North Atlantic, Southern Ocean (10)


http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2018/01/when-97-becomes-996-climate-change-in.html?m=1
 
97% consensus
‘The 97% climate consensus’ starts to crumble with 485 new papers in 2017 that question it

by THOMAS D. WILLIAMS, PH.D.10 Jan 20183,113 From Breitbart and No Tricks Zone: A broad survey of climate change literature for 2017 reveals that the alleged “consensus” behind the dangers of anthropogenic global warming is not nearly as settled among climate scientists as people imagine. Author Kenneth Richard found that during the course of the year 2017, at…

Below are the two links to the list of 485 papers as well as the guideline for the lists’ categorization.
Skeptic Papers 2017 (1)
Skeptic Papers 2017 (2)
[h=3]Part 1. Natural Mechanisms Of Weather, Climate Change [/h]
  • Solar Influence On Climate (121)
  • ENSO, NAO, AMO, PDO Climate Influence (44)
  • Modern Climate In Phase With Natural Variability (13)
  • Cloud/Aerosol Climate Influence (9)
  • Volcanic/Tectonic Climate Influence (6)
  • The CO2 Greenhouse Effect – Climate Driver? (14)
[h=3]Part 2. Unsettled Science, Failed Climate Modeling[/h]
  • Climate Model Unreliability/Biases/Errors and the Pause (28)
  • Failing Renewable Energy, Climate Policies (12)
  • Wind Power Harming The Environment, Biosphere (8)
  • Elevated CO2 Greens Planet, Produces Higher Crop Yields (13)
  • Warming Beneficial, Does Not Harm Humans, Wildlife (5)
  • Warming, Acidification Not Harming Oceanic Biosphere (17)
  • Decreases In Extreme, Unstable Weather With Warming (3)
  • Urban Heat Island: Raising Surface Temperatures Artificially (5)
  • No Increasing Trends In Intense Hurricanes (4)
  • No Increasing Trends In Drought/Flood Frequency, Severity (3)
  • Natural CO2, Methane Sources Out-Emit Human Source (4)
  • Increasing Snow Cover Since The 1950s (2)
  • Miscellaneous (7)
[h=3]Part 3. Natural Climate Change Observation, Reconstruction[/h]
  • Lack Of Anthropogenic/CO2 Signal In Sea Level Rise (38)
  • No Net Warming During 20th (21st) Century (12)
  • A Warmer Past: Non-Hockey Stick Reconstructions (60)
  • Abrupt, Degrees-Per-Decade Natural Global Warming (7)
  • A Model-Defying Cryosphere, Polar Ice (32)
  • Antarctic Ice Melting In High Geothermal Heat Flux Areas (4)
  • Recent Cooling In The North Atlantic, Southern Ocean (10)


Thanx...

Lots of great summaries in there.
 
Really?

Abstract.
Over the 11-year solar cycle, small changes in the total solar irradiance (TSI) give rise to small variations in the global energy budget. It was suggested, however, that different mechanisms could amplify solar activity variations to give large climatic effects, a possibility which is still a subject of debate. With this in mind, we use the oceans asa calorimeter to measure the radiative forcing variations associated with the solar cycle.This is achieved through the study of three independent records, the net heat flux into the oceans over 5 decades, the sea level change rate based on tide gauge records over the 20th century, and the sea surface temperature variations. Each of the records can be used to consistently derive the same oceanic heat flux. We find that the total radiative forcing associated with solar cycles variations is about 5 to 7 times larger than just those associated with the TSI variations, thus implying the necessary existence of an amplification mechanism, though without pointing to which one.

You really need to read a bit more carefully. The sentence that you highlighted is referring to cyclical variations, not to an ongoing trend. His paper is evidence that changes in TSI cause cyclical wiggles in the ocean temperature, not that they are responsible for the underlying upward trend.

Interestingly, Shaviv finds that the response of indicators of sea temperature to changes in solar output is very rapid, which rather scuppers claims of delayed responses to changes in solar output. Give that solar output has been, on average, falling for the last 50 years or so, it is therefore impossible for changes in solar output to account for the recent warming trend.
 
You really need to read a bit more carefully. The sentence that you highlighted is referring to cyclical variations, not to an ongoing trend. His paper is evidence that changes in TSI cause cyclical wiggles in the ocean temperature, not that they are responsible for the underlying upward trend.

Interestingly, Shaviv finds that the response of indicators of sea temperature to changes in solar output is very rapid, which rather scuppers claims of delayed responses to changes in solar output. Give that solar output has been, on average, falling for the last 50 years or so, it is therefore impossible for changes in solar output to account for the recent warming trend.

Shaviv's point here is that true solar influence is much larger than has been acknowledged, and btw has not been falling.
 
Shaviv's point here is that true solar influence is much larger than has been acknowledged, and btw has not been falling.

Yes, it is falling. You can see a clear downward trend underlying the 11-year cycle. The most recent maximum was very weak:

Changes_in_total_solar_irradiance_and_monthly_sunspot_numbers%2C_1975-2013.png
 
You really need to read a bit more carefully. The sentence that you highlighted is referring to cyclical variations, not to an ongoing trend. His paper is evidence that changes in TSI cause cyclical wiggles in the ocean temperature, not that they are responsible for the underlying upward trend.

Interestingly, Shaviv finds that the response of indicators of sea temperature to changes in solar output is very rapid, which rather scuppers claims of delayed responses to changes in solar output. Give that solar output has been, on average, falling for the last 50 years or so, it is therefore impossible for changes in solar output to account for the recent warming trend.

CARBON DIOXIDE OR SOLAR FORCING?

". . . .[FONT=&quot]The activity of the sun manifests its self in many ways. [/FONT] One of them is through a variable solar wind. This flux of energetic particles and entangled magnetic field flows outwards from the sun, and impedes on a flux of more energetic particles, the cosmic rays, which come from outside the solar system. Namely, a more active sun with a stronger solar wind will attenuate the flux of cosmic rays reaching Earth. The key point in this picture is that the cosmic rays are the main physical mechanism controlling the amount of ionization in the troposphere (the bottom 10 kms or so). Thus, a more active sun will reduce the flux of cosmic rays, and with it, the amount of tropospheric ionization. As it turns out, this amount of ionization affects the formation of condensation nuclei required for the formation of clouds in clean marine environment. A more active sun will therefore inhibit the formation of cloud condensation nuclei, and the resulting low altitude marine clouds will have larger drops, which are less white and live shorter, thereby warming Earth.

Today, there is ample evidence to support this picture (a succinct introduction can be found here). For example, it was found that independent galactic induced variations in the cosmic ray flux, which have nothing to do with solar activity do too affect climate as one should expect from such a link. There are many more examples. [Added Note (4 Oct. 2006): These recently published experimental resultsstroingly point towards the validity of this link, as expected]

So why is this link important for global warming? As previously mentioned, solar activity has been increasing over the 20th century. This can be seen in fig. 5. Thus, we expect warming from the reduced flux of cosmic rays. Moreover, since the cosmic ray flux actually had a small increase between the 1940's and 1970's (as can be seen in the ion chamber data in fig. 6), this mechanism also naturally explains the global temperature decrease which took place during the same period.

Using historic variations in climate and the cosmic ray flux, one can actually quantify empirically the relation between cosmic ray flux variations and global temperature change, and estimate the solar contribution to the 20th century warming. This contribution comes out to be 0.5±0.2°C out of the observed 0.6±0.2°C global warming (Shaviv, 2005). . . . "
 
Yes, it is falling. You can see a clear downward trend underlying the 11-year cycle. The most recent maximum was very weak:

Nah.

SolarActivityProxies.png
[FONT=&quot]Fig. 5: Solar activity over the past several centuries can be reconstructed using different proxies. These reconstructions demonstrate that 20th century activity is unparalleled over the past 600 years (previously high solar activity took place around 1000 years ago, and 8000 yrs ago). Specifically, we see sunspots and 10Be. The latter is formed in the atmosphere by ~1GeV cosmic rays, which are modulated by the solar wind (stronger solar wind → less galactic cosmic rays → less 10Be production). Note that both proxies do not capture the decrease in the high energy cosmic rays that took place since the 1970's, but which the ion chamber data does (see fig. 6). (image source: Wikipedia)[/FONT]
 
Nah.

SolarActivityProxies.png
[FONT="][I]Fig. 5: Solar activity over the past several centuries can be reconstructed using different proxies. These reconstructions demonstrate that 20th century activity is unparalleled over the past 600 years (previously high solar activity took place around 1000 years ago, and 8000 yrs ago). Specifically, we see sunspots and 10Be. The latter is formed in the atmosphere by ~1GeV cosmic rays, which are modulated by the solar wind (stronger solar wind → less galactic cosmic rays → less 10Be production). Note that both proxies do not capture the decrease in the high energy cosmic rays that took place since the 1970's, but which the ion chamber data does (see fig. 6). (image source: [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Solar_Activity_Proxies.png"]Wikipedia[/URL])[/I][/FONT]

That graph is so old that it doesn't even include the last solar maximum! It's long been superseded.
 
Yes, it is falling. You can see a clear downward trend underlying the 11-year cycle. The most recent maximum was very weak:

Changes_in_total_solar_irradiance_and_monthly_sunspot_numbers%2C_1975-2013.png

Your 0.25 W/m^2 solar forcing is for the short 11 year cycle and has no bearing on long term changes, like from 1700. On top of that, it is only the direct impact to the surface. The indirect impact is multiples of that.
 
Last edited:
This is BS, the only people politicizing the science are conservatives who are being shills for the oil industry who just want to keep raking in the dough. Science doesn't care about politics, they care about facts, studies, and sound scientific rationale and methods. Spokespeople for the issue (like Gore) and others may politicize the science, but the science is not political.

Climate change is real and we need to stop ****ting on our planet. We have all seen in our lifetimes (those old enough) how the climate has drastically changed, its undeniable.
 
This is BS, the only people politicizing the science are conservatives who are being shills for the oil industry who just want to keep raking in the dough. Science doesn't care about politics, they care about facts, studies, and sound scientific rationale and methods. Spokespeople for the issue (like Gore) and others may politicize the science, but the science is not political.

Climate change is real and we need to stop ****ting on our planet. We have all seen in our lifetimes (those old enough) how the climate has drastically changed, its undeniable.

Can you say Al Gore?

Can you say Margaret Thatcher?
 
Your claim was that solar output had been falling for the last 50 years. That was refuted. Don't change the subject.

The past SORCE data did show diminishing peaks after 1958, but it's been updated and 1958 is no longer the peak.

TIM_TSI_Reconstruction-1.png


I wonder what happened to make them correct the prior data?
 
Your claim was that solar output had been falling for the last 50 years. That was refuted. Don't change the subject.

No, it was not refuted. The graph you posted is not only ancient, it is also based on proxies rather than direct measurements of TSI.

Anyway, that's rather beside the point. We know that the underlying trend of TSI has been downwards for the past few decades, and we know from Dr. Shaviv's work that ocean temperatures respond quickly to changes in TSI, following the 11-year cycle. But we also know that the trend in ocean temperature is upwards. It is therefore obvious that changes in TSI cannot be the main driver of the current warming trend.
 
No, it was not refuted. The graph you posted is not only ancient, it is also based on proxies rather than direct measurements of TSI.

Anyway, that's rather beside the point. We know that the underlying trend of TSI has been downwards for the past few decades, and we know from Dr. Shaviv's work that ocean temperatures respond quickly to changes in TSI, following the 11-year cycle. But we also know that the trend in ocean temperature is upwards. It is therefore obvious that changes in TSI cannot be the main driver of the current warming trend.

It is one of Shaviv's central, repeated contentions that TSI by itself is not the important factor.

The Sunspots 2.0? Irrelevant. The Sun, still is.

[FONT=&quot]". . . The two important objective proxies for solar activity are cosmogenic isotopes ([/FONT][FONT=&quot]14[/FONT][FONT=&quot]C and [/FONT][FONT=&quot]10[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Be), and the geomagnetic AA index. The AA index (measured since the middle of the 19[/FONT][FONT=&quot]th[/FONT][FONT=&quot] century) clearly shows that the latter part of the 20[/FONT][FONT=&quot]th[/FONT][FONT=&quot] century was more active than the latter half of the 19th century. The longer [/FONT][FONT=&quot]10[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Be data set reveals that the latter half of the 20[/FONT][FONT=&quot]th[/FONT][FONT=&quot] century was more active than any preceding time since the Maunder minimum. (The [/FONT][FONT=&quot]14[/FONT][FONT=&quot]C is a bit problematic because human nuclear bombs from the 1940's onwards generated a lot of atmospheric [/FONT][FONT=&quot]14[/FONT][FONT=&quot]C so it cannot be used to reconstruct solar activity in the latter part of the 20[/FONT][FONT=&quot]th[/FONT][FONT=&quot] century). [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
ssn2Fig2.gif
Figure 2: The AA geomagnetic index showing a clear increase in solar activity over the 20th century (From here).

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]. . . What does it tell us? Given that long term variations in Earth's climate do correlate with long term solar activity (e.g., see the first part of [/FONT]this[FONT=&quot]) and given that some solar activity indicators (presumably?) don't show an increase from the Maunder minimum, but some do, it means that climate is sensitive to those aspects of the solar activity that increased (e.g., solar wind), but not those more directly associated with the number of sunspots (e.g., UV or total solar irradiance). Thus, this result on the sunspots maxima (again, if true), only strengthens the idea that the solar climate link is through something related to the open magnetic field lines, such as the strength of the solar wind or the cosmic ray flux which it modulates. . . . [/FONT]
 
It is one of Shaviv's central, repeated contentions that TSI by itself is not the important factor.

The Sunspots 2.0? Irrelevant. The Sun, still is.

[FONT=&quot]". . . The two important objective proxies for solar activity are cosmogenic isotopes ([/FONT][FONT=&quot]14[/FONT][FONT=&quot]C and [/FONT][FONT=&quot]10[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Be), and the geomagnetic AA index. The AA index (measured since the middle of the 19[/FONT][FONT=&quot]th[/FONT][FONT=&quot] century) clearly shows that the latter part of the 20[/FONT][FONT=&quot]th[/FONT][FONT=&quot] century was more active than the latter half of the 19th century. The longer [/FONT][FONT=&quot]10[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Be data set reveals that the latter half of the 20[/FONT][FONT=&quot]th[/FONT][FONT=&quot] century was more active than any preceding time since the Maunder minimum. (The [/FONT][FONT=&quot]14[/FONT][FONT=&quot]C is a bit problematic because human nuclear bombs from the 1940's onwards generated a lot of atmospheric [/FONT][FONT=&quot]14[/FONT][FONT=&quot]C so it cannot be used to reconstruct solar activity in the latter part of the 20[/FONT][FONT=&quot]th[/FONT][FONT=&quot] century). [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
ssn2Fig2.gif
Figure 2: The AA geomagnetic index showing a clear increase in solar activity over the 20th century (From here).

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]. . . What does it tell us? Given that long term variations in Earth's climate do correlate with long term solar activity (e.g., see the first part of [/FONT]this[FONT=&quot]) and given that some solar activity indicators (presumably?) don't show an increase from the Maunder minimum, but some do, it means that climate is sensitive to those aspects of the solar activity that increased (e.g., solar wind), but not those more directly associated with the number of sunspots (e.g., UV or total solar irradiance). Thus, this result on the sunspots maxima (again, if true), only strengthens the idea that the solar climate link is through something related to the open magnetic field lines, such as the strength of the solar wind or the cosmic ray flux which it modulates. . . . [/FONT]

Why do you keep referring to ancient graphs that don't show the reduction in solar activity over the last couple of decades? Anyone would think you were trying to hide something.
 
Why do you keep referring to ancient graphs that don't show the reduction in solar activity over the last couple of decades? Anyone would think you were trying to hide something.

You're the one who claimed declining solar activity over the past 50 years. That has (again) been refuted. The past "couple of decades?" The Pause.
 
You're the one who claimed declining solar activity over the past 50 years. That has (again) been refuted. The past "couple of decades?" The Pause.

The last couple of decades are part of the last 50 years :roll: The simple fact is that the last peak in solar activity in 2015 was the lowest in over 100 years, yet the temperature of the earth keeps rising. The only way you can show any correlation at all between temperature and solar activity is by ignoring the last few decades of data.
 
The last couple of decades are part of the last 50 years :roll: The simple fact is that the last peak in solar activity in 2015 was the lowest in over 100 years, yet the temperature of the earth keeps rising. The only way you can show any correlation at all between temperature and solar activity is by ignoring the last few decades of data.

As demonstrated by the graphs in #36 and #44, solar activity increased throughout the 20th century. Shaviv estimates solar activity accounted for about half of 20th century warming. Here's a paper that suggests Shaviv's estimate of solar influence may be on the low side.

Radiation Transfer Calculations and Assessment of Global Warming ...

https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijas/2017/9251034/


by H Harde - ‎2017 - ‎Cited by 2 - ‎Related articles
Nov 1, 2016 - To deduce the lw absorptivity at cloudiness from the radiation transfer calculations, the absorbed intensity listed in column 6 of Table 3, which now reflects the total absorption caused by the GH gases and the clouds, has to be reduced by the cloud fraction.

[h=4]Abstract[/h]
We present detailed line-by-line radiation transfer calculations, which were performed under different atmospheric conditions for the most important greenhouse gases water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and ozone. Particularly cloud effects, surface temperature variations, and humidity changes as well as molecular lineshape effects are investigated to examine their specific influence on some basic climatologic parameters like the radiative forcing, the long wave absorptivity, and back-radiation as a function of an increasing CO2concentration in the atmosphere. These calculations are used to assess the CO2 global warming by means of an advanced two-layer climate model and to disclose some larger discrepancies in calculating the climate sensitivity. Including solar and cloud effects as well as all relevant feedback processes our simulations give an equilibrium climate sensitivity of

= 0.7°C (temperature increase at doubled CO2) and a solar sensitivity of

= 0.17°C (at 0.1% increase of the total solar irradiance). Then CO2 contributes 40% and the Sun 60% to global warming over the last century.
 
As demonstrated by the graphs in #36 and #44, solar activity increased throughout the 20th century. Shaviv estimates solar activity accounted for about half of 20th century warming. Here's a paper that suggests Shaviv's estimate of solar influence may be on the low side.

Radiation Transfer Calculations and Assessment of Global Warming ...

https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijas/2017/9251034/


by H Harde - ‎2017 - ‎Cited by 2 - ‎Related articles
Nov 1, 2016 - To deduce the lw absorptivity at cloudiness from the radiation transfer calculations, the absorbed intensity listed in column 6 of Table 3, which now reflects the total absorption caused by the GH gases and the clouds, has to be reduced by the cloud fraction.

[h=4]Abstract[/h]
We present detailed line-by-line radiation transfer calculations, which were performed under different atmospheric conditions for the most important greenhouse gases water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and ozone. Particularly cloud effects, surface temperature variations, and humidity changes as well as molecular lineshape effects are investigated to examine their specific influence on some basic climatologic parameters like the radiative forcing, the long wave absorptivity, and back-radiation as a function of an increasing CO2concentration in the atmosphere. These calculations are used to assess the CO2 global warming by means of an advanced two-layer climate model and to disclose some larger discrepancies in calculating the climate sensitivity. Including solar and cloud effects as well as all relevant feedback processes our simulations give an equilibrium climate sensitivity of

= 0.7°C (temperature increase at doubled CO2) and a solar sensitivity of

= 0.17°C (at 0.1% increase of the total solar irradiance). Then CO2 contributes 40% and the Sun 60% to global warming over the last century.

We are now 18 years into the 21st century. Why do the articles you cite refuse to look at recent data showing global temperature continuing to rise while solar activity falls? Because it would disprove their hypothesis, perhaps?
 
We are now 18 years into the 21st century. Why do the articles you cite refuse to look at recent data showing global temperature continuing to rise while solar activity falls? Because it would disprove their hypothesis, perhaps?

The paper assesses aspects of IPCC AR5, published in 2014.
Solar activity increased through the 20th century.
Global temperature has begun falling.
 
Back
Top Bottom