Some more 'no evidence'. It's not the sun, guys 

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."

Lockwood 2007 concludes "the observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanism is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified."

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

Scafetta 2006 says "since 1975 global warming has occurred much faster than could be reasonably expected from the sun alone."

Usoskin 2005 conclude "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 reconstructs 11,400 years of sunspot numbers using radiocarbon concentrations, finding "solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades".

Haigh 2003 says "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 increased climate model sensitivity to solar forcing and still found "most warming over the last 50 yr is likely to have been caused by increases in greenhouse gases."

Solanki 2003 concludes "the Sun has contributed less than 30% of the global warming since 1970".

Lean 1999 concludes "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."

Frolich 1998 concludes "solar radiative output trends contributed little of the 0.2°C increase in the global mean surface temperature in the past decade"

Grendel, no single gas is being 'picked on'. The scientists merely go where the evidence leads - hence the term greenhouse gasses. This includes a variety of gasses. Methane is also a major contributor.

Actually Grendel, "man made" CO2 has been identified as the one we can most readily address.

Remember Rightsaidfred, from cracker?
Remember when he said that of course we would eventually stuff up this planet, but by that time, scientists will have invented rockets so we can colonise other planets?

Your attitude to global warming reminds me of that.
You deride, and doubt, the leading scientists, but say that if they are right, they will figure a way for us to adapt anyway.

You don't believe they can identify a problem they have studied for decades, but you think they can create magic solutions when their advice is ignored.

It seems your faith in their abilities is topsy turvy.

Grendel wrote on Jun 30^th, 2009 at 6:18pm:


Speaking simplistically, the sun is what makes it hot, but I don't think anyone on this forum would be so stupid as to just leave it there.

Read the citations from the peer reviewed papers on that list, especially the one from Sami Solanki.

The main message is that changes in global temperature in the last 30 years cannot be attributed to changes in solar output as measured from Low Earth Orbit - the most logical place to measure it from.

Variations in solar irradiance can not be the cause of the observed increase in temperatures over the last 30 years. That's not propaganda, that's the conclusion of about 20 studies that I quoted for you.

muso wrote on Jul 1^st, 2009 at 7:08am:


Didn't Sami Solanki say the Sun could be responsible for up to 30% of the warming since 1970?

pjb05 wrote on Jul 1^st, 2009 at 7:41am:


That quote is inaccurate. I already linked to his personal web page. As a reminder, this is what he said:

A misleading account of my views was published in the Toronto National Post in March, 2007 (and is to be found at different places on the web). In contrast to what is written there I am not a denier of global warming produced by an increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases. Already at present the overwhelming source of global warming is due to manmade greenhouse gases and their influence will continue to grow in the future as their concentration increases....

http://www.mps.mpg.de/homes/solanki/

Again, it was a question of semantics and a remark taken out of context.

He actually clarified his initial remark by issuing this statement:

Quote:


If you want me to clarify the context of the '30%' figure further, I shall do. It was an over-cautious public statement that backfired when some professional confusionalists got hold of it. When issuing press statements, scientists tend to be over cautious.

He could have said 'at least 90% of the warming effect is not due to solar variation'. Instead he said that no more than 30% was due to the sun. He was being deliberately conservative about the results of his research.

Grendel wrote on Jul 1^st, 2009 at 9:36am:


It's good to get back to basics sometimes. Grendel, if the Earth had no atmosphere, then the activity of the sun would be about the only thing that would determine the surface temperature at any location on Earth.

However the Earth does have an atmosphere! You can't see it, but it's there, and all those nice fluffy clouds that you see in the sky are neutrally buoyant floating around in our atmosphere air that we breath.

So you can see that there are at least things that affect how or how it is.




Next week we'll talk about how the Atmosphere has changed.

Disclaimer: Atmosphere is a big word. I'm sorry if I scared you using big words.

Grendel wrote on Jul 1^st, 2009 at 10:05am:


Correct me if I am wrong but I am pretty sure that Muso has agreed with that statement, that "the Sun is the Primary Driver of the climate."

He has added qualifiers that I admit you did not ask for, but essentially he has answered your question many times over Grendel.

Now, what exactly are you trying to confirm or deny by this point?

This is just a starting point and of itself shows nothing that the sun is an energy source.