Solar link to global warming ruled out

The web site you point to is advocating that we study one particular arctic climatic event from the early 20th century as part of the International Polar Year. Whether such a research project merits funding is not for me to say.

But it is simply not relevant to this thread, which discusses the effect (or lack of effect) of solar changes on the last 30 years of global warming--including arctic warming and more.

The conclusion of the paper I cite is that solar changes would lead to global cooling. The fact we are seeing warming suggests that other factors are more important and human production of CO2 is certainly the prime candidate.

Fred Bortz -- Science and technology books for young readers (www.fredbortz.com) and Science book reviews (www.scienceshelf.com)

Okay. This time you weren't flippant, and you get a response in kind:

1. our models are not even good enough to model clouds, let alone the antagonistic and/or synergystic mechanisms of an entire climatic system... so... we leave out the clouds entirely. What else are we leaving out?

The study that I was talking about was based on direct measurements of the sun, one small piece of the much larger picture. Your reluctance to accept models is common. In fact, there is a long history of tussling about models. My review of a great new book, Storm World: Hurricanes, Politics, and the Battle Over Global Warming, would certainly be of interest to you.

I think models have their place as long as the scientists who use them understand their limitations. I don't know the details of the climate models that seem to have excellent predictive ability, but I presume they don't "leave out clouds entirely" but rather account for them in an approximate way. The only way to judge the viability of the approximation is to test the models with real data and refine them based on their performance.

The IPCC consensus is based on many different models, each of which has its own strengths and weaknesses, but there is a convergence of big-picture conclusions that can't simply be brushed off because none of the models is perfect.

2. There may be as many as 7 different solar cycles all going simultaneously... we measure two of them, as we didn't even have the ability to SEE these cyclec until the 1990s. Thus we have never been able to measure them... I do know that our sun is a VARIABLE G-type star, and its solar output fluctuates over time. I do know that there is a "galactic environment" that we have only just begun to examine.
I don't know the science here, but the paper addresses specifically fluctuations that skeptics have put forth as reasons to dispute anthropogenic causes. It finds that those specific objections are not valid.

It's always easy to blame unknown or unmeasurable factors, but as long as the anthropogenic hypothesis is supported by an increasing body of evidence, it seems like wishful thinking to do so.

3. Global Warming IS occurring... on Earth and Mars, and Jupiter, and Pluto... NASA has measured it... repeatedly. Are humans responsible for warming there, too? Or could certain commonalities be responsible? We DO exist in the same solar-system, in the same area of the galaxy. Might there be a connection?
I am only aware of credible measurements on Mars and Neptune. I address both of them on earlier entries of this blog. The Neptune measurements still need validation, and they may suggest that we are missing something small. The Mars measurements seem to be related to a changing albedo on the planet due to dust storms.

Again, it seems like wishful thinking that these suggest anything that would dominate the clear human signature of warming on Earth. Some people, you included, seem to be extremely resistant to accepting the consensus and so look far afield for alternatives.

4. I have two peer-reviewed papers here in front of me... one says that atmospheric CO2 increases as a result of warming, the other says that CO2 CAUSES warming. Which is correct? I've even seen data that shows global sea-levels DROPPING... right now. Again, Who is Correct? Where is the miracle consensus?
No one doubts that greenhouse gases cause warming. If both papers are correct, then you are describing a situation of positive feedback with potentially dire consequences.

As for sea level, the IPCC prediction of a slight increase over the next several decades has a huge caveat. The potential of dynamic melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps is not well understood. So we have a predicted value of a meter or so and an error bar of 20 meters.

5. The IPCC dictates results to the scientists instead of the other way 'round... so, who has an agenda? Follow the money, I always say... who stands to make the biggest profit?
This explains why you doubt the consensus. It's the old IPCC liberal conspiracy theory. I'm not taking that bait, but you can see it discussed in several of my other blog entries.

6. Gadgillions of dollars stand to be made from the Anthropogenic global warming hysteria propagated by the IPCC and international media. A new market (Carbon Cap and trade) has been invented out of thin-air to save us all, and the very best one can hope for, if you disagree or question, is that you will be marginalized and discredited, and accused of "spouting." The worst, so far, are the professional witch-hunts directed by the global-warming people against the non-global-warming people.
More of the same. Your first entry was spouting. This was not, until now, that is.

7. Recent estimates by those in the U.S. Congress say that the cost of solving global warming could be as high as "an addition 40% beyond the current tax-burden of the average citizen." Thats a lot of money to spend without concrete science to back it up.
That sounds like Senator Imhofe to me. He has called global warming a hoax. And it is far off the subject of my original posting, which was that one study discredited one part of the skeptics' scientific case.

If this is as big an emergency as everyone says, then why all the conflicting science? If there is a consensus, why is everyone disagreeing? I suspect that it is because there is no consensus, and we don't know what is going on... and everyone has a chip-on-their-shoulder because they are terrified of being wrong (its embarassing, you know). Data is manipulated and/or ignored if it doesn't match a scientist's pet theory... and this is what we want to base international policy on.
More of the same science=politics argument. I suggest you put Newt Gingrich's upcoming A Contract With the Earth on your reading list. The book comes out in November, but the description includes a link for pre-ordering it.

Gingrich and co-author Terry Maple don't like "doomsday scenarios" but they believes it is time to act and that there are plenty of opportunities to make money with minimal government interference.

There's a lot in the book I don't agree with politically, but I believe it can move the debate in a much more productive direction, which seems to be what you want as well, despite your tendency to spout off politically as displayed here.

If an individual pops in and says "I disagree with this because of X," then the name calling starts. I don't get it... aren't we all grown-ups here?

As you see, I'm not calling you names. I am perfectly willing to discuss the science (your first several points). I am judging your political persuasion and approach, which show up in your last points, because they had nothing to do with the article that motivated this thread.

There will be no solution as long as insults fly instead of answers.
I agree, but there will also be no solution as long as people act as if science operates by the same rules as politics.

Fred Bortz -- Science and technology books for young readers (www.fredbortz.com) and Science book reviews (www.scienceshelf.com)

Nick, I want to thank you for contributing your informed point of view.

That doesn't mean I agree with it, but scientific conclusions are at their best when challenged. In fact, the Lockwood paper is clearly a response to a challenge by skeptics who propose an alternate interpretation to the IPCC consensus view, namely that solar effects rather than anthropogenic ones are responsible. That means it is a necessarily narrow piece of research

Being well-read on this but not expert, I'll hazard a response to your critique. Perhaps someone who know more details will also chime in.

The research looks at solar irradiation (heat output) over a short 20 year period.
The paper addresses this. Its point is that if the changes of the last 20 years were to have any effect on the climate, it would be opposite to what has been seen. The only way to explain the opposite effect is to assume a lag time of 50 years for the effect, and that would require a proposed mechanism for the lag.

There is not a correlation.

In fact, there is a correlation, and it's negative. If solar effects were as important as the skeptics are saying, then there would be a correlation, and it would be showing up as cooling.

The conclusion is that there is no solar effect at all.
Yes, that's almost Lockwood's point. The solar effect is so small that it is overwhelmed by other factors acting in the opposite direction.

Well using that approach 1945-1975 (30 years) there is no correlation of global temperatures and CO2. Case proved - no anthropogenic effect.
The problem with that argument is well-known. As power plants were cleaned up, there was much less dust and sulfuric acid droplets in the air. Those had been producing as much or more global cooling as the CO2 was producing warming. Once the masking effects of particulates and acid droplets disappeared, the greenhouse effect asserted itself.

1. You can't ignore other factors.
This research set out to investigate one particular factor. Its results showed and concluded that solar factors pale in comparison to other factors. In other words, it recognized other factors explicitly while focusing on one to study.

2. You can't cherry pick your date ranges.
It didn't cherry pick but started from a point where both solar irradiance and the effect of cosmic rays were at a maximum in their cycle. Because the changes have been in one direction ever since, the effect would be maximized. Both should have led to measurable cooling, but the overall change was warming.

3. If you want to propose no current effect, when the historic effect has been shown (IPCC), you have to put forward the mechanism(s) that have turned the effect off.
The conclusion is that the IPCC overestimated the effect, which it said was minor in any case. This research will be factored into the next IPCC report, along with other research on solar effects. I view this as fine tuning. The major point of the consensus, which is that human activity is the dominant influence on climate change, is strengthened.

Fred Bortz -- Science and technology books for young readers (www.fredbortz.com) and Science book reviews (www.scienceshelf.com)

Adrianne,

Climate is a very complex phenomenon, which is why it is so hard to separate the effects of many pieces. The scientific consensus that has developed is the result of enormous amounts of research by specialists is many different fields and subfields.

To answer your specific question, the research addresses CHANGES in the Sun, not the Sun's total output, and compares those to observed changes in climate.

The conclusion is that climate change is opposite to what would be expected from solar changes, so there must be other factors that are causing a change in the opposite direction.

The Lockwood study addresses only the changing solar component, which the International Panel on Climate Change has concluded is responsible for no more than 10% of the observed climate change.

The IPCC's conclusion is that to a high degree of certainty, human activities are responsible for most of the change, mainly by producing CO2 at a rate faster than natural "sinks" can absorb it. Since CO2 is a very small part of the atmosphere but has a large greenhouse effect, human activity can change its fraction considerably and thereby heat the planet.

The Lockwood study is one small piece of evidence supporting the consensus view.

I hope this helps.

Fred Bortz -- Science and technology books for young readers (www.fredbortz.com) and Science book reviews (www.scienceshelf.com)