Guardian : Sun Is Not The Cause Of The “strong recent warming trend”

What planet does these reporters come from?

Over the very long term, variations in Earth’s orbit that shape where and when sunlight reaches the planet are the main cause of ice ages, but this doesn’t apply to our current situation. It’s true that the Sun has produced more sunspots in recent decades than it did in the early 1800s. However, this mainly reflects an increase in the ultraviolet range of sunlight, which is only a tiny part of the solar spectrum.

In fact, the total solar energy reaching Earth changes very little over time. Across the 11-year solar cycle, it varies by less than 0.1%, and even across the period since the little ice age chill of 1750, solar output climbed no more than about 0.12%, according to the 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Subsequent estimates by Judith Lean of the Naval Research Laboratory and others have pegged the solar contribution to 20th-century warming at 10% or less. And a recent analysis of solar trends suggests that – over the last few decades – the sun has actually contributed a slight cooling effect, rather than accounting for any of the observed warming.

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

30 Responses to Guardian : Sun Is Not The Cause Of The “strong recent warming trend”

  1. NikFromNYC says:

    “What planet does these reporters come from?”

    It’s called Pandora. Some crazy conspiracy theorists believe it was created on a movie set:

  2. suyts says:

    That’s a hilarious article………….. so are they saying that if something changes in a miniscule percentage that it would be impossible for it to effect the 1/2 degree change in temperature?……… it sure sounds like that’s what they’re saying.

    Let’s see…….0.1%…..figuring…….goeintas…… times…… damn running out of fingers and toes!!!! figuring……ciphering……. 1 part of a thousand!!! ……10 parts per 10,000 …….100 pp 100,000…….1000ppm
    So, that percentage of change can’t possibly cause 1/2 degree warming…….k, got it.

    These people are really dumber than a box of rocks.

  3. DeLatchico says:

    Suyts: Good point.

    0.1% change in the Sun has no effect, but a 0.004% (being 10% of 0.04%) in atmospheric concentration of CO2 does. Magic, sheer magic.

    • Jimbo says:

      The problem now for the Guardian is that IF we enter a prolonged cooling trend they can’t blame the lack of sunspots. Something I expect would be the Warmists’ defence. 😉

      • Jimbo says:

        However, if they do blame the lack of sunspots for any prolonged cooling then they are admitting that man-made co2 is not the main driver of global mean temperature. Or………………………:( You can’t win with religion.

    • slp says:

      …only a tiny part of the solar spectrum.

      Funny how they are not concerned about that tiny part of the solar spectrum, yet the tiny IR absorption spectrum of CO2 is considered mighty powerful.

  4. Ill wind blowing says:

    Gee whiz lLook at what I get when I substitute UAH for Hadcrut3

    Oh, but wait a minute. what about the beginning of the first century?

    woodfortrees org/plot/uah/from:2001/plot/uah/from:2001/trend

    Excuse me for a while; I have to rush to the store. All of a sudden, I’ve developed this strong craving for cherries.

    • suyts says:

      lol, sis, you see change UAH is reporting? That’s not even a rounding error.

      slope = 0.00155968 per year……… if that’s what you wanna hang your hat on…… or even your second link
      slope = 0.00461294 per year……….. Without even commenting on the direction the slope is starting to go, I think we can all live either, seeing that they are both basically flat lining.

    • Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

      You still have a craving for cherries Ill wind? With all your cherry picking you must not take time to eat any.

  5. Ill wind blowing says:

    I’m back (As he spits out the pits).

    Ok, I guess I’ll stick to Hadcrut3 (I vaguely remember someone disliking this dataset).

    By the way, the solar radiance started dropping in 2002. Which means that if solar radiance had remained level those spiky things would be even spikier in the upward direction

    • Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

      Ill wind

      you don’t know what you are doing. The more your ilk talks the more we see you don’t know what you are doing. Please. Talk ALL you want. Please.

    • suyts says:

      lol, because all things are at a steady semi-static state……hahhahahaha……

      Pay no attention to the lower radiance earlier in the decade…….. prolly has nothing to do with the lack of warming this decade, just like we know it didn’t have anything to do with the warming in the two prior……..’cause the sun’s output is constant…..oh wait……..well the change is so minute…..see…. 0.01% is too small to make a difference!!! Its the 0.01% change in CO2!!!! hahahahahaahaha

    • Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

      Ill wind blowing

      Your ilk is always wrong. Once in a while one of you show up and act like you are right in everything you say. But you all disappear after a while.

      But I think I have encountered you before. You talk just like another ill prepared global warming believer I exchanged some comments with at WattsUpWithThat. Are you Vilabolo/Megago?

  6. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

    The IPCC used flawed data to say the sun’s activity does not account for warming. and of course, those who are ill prepared and want only to scare people about global warming follow what the IPCC says. The IPCC has been wrong over and over. That has been pointed out over and over. Yet some fools still promote the IPCC as if it was solid.

    Part 1 of why the IPCC is wrong about the sun

  7. Ill wind blowing says:

    A no frills, Steven Goddard approved Hadcrut3:

    Fall baby fall!

    • suyts says:

      Did you see that change in pattern towards the end of the graph?……it saddens me a bit…….we could use a bit more warmth…….

      • Paul H says:

        30 years of thermal lag?

        In that case we are still seeing the effects of the high solar activity that finished 20 or so years ago. The cooling from the latest cycle won’t kick in until 2030.

        Actually Ill, I think you have overestimated the lag by 20 years. Still it shows you are beginning to learn.

    • Independent says:

      Interesting how the temperature decreased from 1940 until the late 1970s. Was that when we had a cap-and-trade system in place before the evil Jimmy Carter caused a minute warming to resume? It must have been the solar panels he installed on the White House roof that caused the energy imbalance…

  8. suyts says:

    Its been fun, but all too brief, but manana comes early……

  9. Andy WeissDC says:

    Not only did weather prior to 1979 not happen, it ceased to exist again after 1998. The only time that weather really existed was during IWB’s cherry picked years of 1979 thru 1998, when there was actual warming. Of course, a major percentage of that warming was just recovery from the abnormally cold 60’s and 70’s, as well as the very strong El Nino during 1998.

    • Ill wind blowing says:

      Repeat after me:

      1979 = First year of UAH data. 1979 = First year of UAH data.
      1979-2011 = 3 times the time period of 2002-2011. More years good. Less years bad.

      1979 = First year of UAH data. 1979 = First year of UAH data.
      1979-2011 = 3 times the time period of 2002-2011. More years good. Less years bad.

      1979 = First year of UAH data. 1979 = First year of UAH data.
      1979-2011 = 3 times the time period of 2002-2011. More years good. Less years bad.

      • Jimbo says:

        I’m waiting for the Mount Pinatubo angle over the coming years. Oh, and aerosols. Oh, and………………………….;)

      • Mike Davis says:

        Thirty years is weather and does not even represent a tiny portion of a long term weather pattern.
        If you use the proper Al-Gore-Rhythm you can find anything you want to find.
        PS: We should expect to see the delayed reaction from Mt. Pinatubo in 2031 according to your lag time equation.

      • Paul H says:

        Do you mean 1979 when the cooler period was just ending? No surely you would not cherry pick like that.

  10. Paul H says:

    This would not be Judith Lean of Judithgate fame, would it?

    Judith of course was the lead author of the 2007 IPCC chapter on Solar Activity. The chapter found that the influence of the sun on recent warming was minimal. It was discovered afterwards that Judith had selected only 3 papers on which to base this finding and surprise, surprise she had coauthored all 3!

    She had totally ignored other papers which had come come to opposite conclusions such as those by Hans Svensmark. The Norwegian govt made an official complaint about “the creation of a faked consensus among scientists on this issue”.

    Unsurprisingly the Railway Engineer ignored such complaints.

    Judith has also been accused of “manipulating” data on solar activity between 1986 and 1996. The original data provided by Doug Hoyt and Richard Wilson showed a sharp rise in solar activity. After our Judith had rewritten the graphs this increase miraculously disappeared.

    But surely the Greedian would not quote somebody who is so utterly discredited?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s