Could recent global warming be explained by changes in solar variation?

From Willie Soon et al (2023). TSI compared to temperature:



A collection of TSI studies below compared to the TSI estimates from the IPCC:

The graph below is adapted from Hoyt and Schatten 1993 (updated by Scafetta and Wilson 2014) showing TSI compared to water vapour.

 

Another one compared to temperature: https://joannenova.com.au/2016/02/n...ads-earths-temperature-with-an-11-year-delay/

 

I'd say yes. It very well can have an influence. In the same way that the massive amount of water vapor that was expelled into the upper atmosphere from the Honga Tonga Volcano did.

 

There has been a thread about this for the better part of two years.
The Sun-Climate Effect

 

The correlation of temperature and solar irradiation looks pretty solid, better than the correlation with CO2 concentration. Of course it seems to be changes in solar irradiation of one way or another that mainly caused the ice ages and the inter ice ages.

What I found interesting was the correlation from 1900 to 2000 of temperature with the concentration of water vapor, by far the most potent greenhouse gas. But, I was unaware that water vapor concentration changed very much because (I thought) it was kinda self adjusting. Do you know why the increase in its concentration?

 

Probably because atmospheric water vapour concentration is related to temperature and temperature (we are led to believe) has risen over the last 50 years. Warmer air can hold more water vapour than cooler air. As temperature rises, the air's capacity to hold water vapour increases, leading to higher water vapour concentrations in warmer air. Conversely, when air cools, its capacity to hold water vapour decreases.

 

That says the higher water vapor concentration was caused by higher temperatures, not the other way around.

 

I think so yep. The IPCC even say that water vapour is "not a forcing" but a "feedback" to changes in temperature. Take that as you will.

 

Thanks.

 

Dueling graphs......

 

Unlinked, unsourced, and therefore unimportant.
And btw, also obsolete.

 

Here you go mate.
BTW did you complain about Nathan not leaving his source?

 

Yep. Obsolete. No data after 2011. Meanwhile:

If we count the number of sunspots in each solar cycle over the last 300 years and divide by the length of each cycle, we can see how much solar activity has deviated from the average. Since the Maunder Minimum, during the Little Ice Age, solar activity has been increasing and was well above average between 1933 and 1996, a period of six cycles of increased solar activity that formed the 20th century solar maximum.



Although we cannot know how much of the 20th century warming is due to this modern solar maximum, there is no denying that it is a significant part, because as we have seen, the Sun has been the cause of much of the major climate change over the past 11,000 years.

How we know that the sun changes the Climate. Part I: The past
Posted on April 18, 2024 by curryja | 369 comments
by Javier Vinós

Part I of a three part series.

Continue reading →

Marcott, S.A., et al., 2013. A reconstruction of regional and global temperature for the past 11,300 years. science, 339 (6124), pp.1198-1201.

Solomina, O.N., et al., 2015. Holocene glacier fluctuations. Quaternary Science Reviews, 111, pp.9-34.

 

As I've already explained multiple times when that same misleading graph has been posted, there are three big problems with it that render it invalid:
1. The surface temperature data in the graph are uncorrected or under-corrected for contamination by urban heating effects, land-use changes, and increased use of machinery, heated buildings, outdoor lighting, etc. in rural areas. More credible, reliable, and objective temperature records from satellites, weather balloons, etc. do not show decades of near-linear increases in temperature since the 1970s, as that dataset does.
2. TSI is the wrong index of solar variation's effect on climate, as it is known not to vary enough to account for the historical association of solar activity with temperature.
3. The graph ends a number of years ago, before the downtrend in temperature from 2016-2022 and before the dramatic and unexpected increase in solar activity beginning in early 2022.

 

skepticalscience is one of the most dishonest sites on the Internet. Much of its material on climate realists is nothing but fallacious and dishonest smears.

 

Yes, speaking of dishonest sites on the internet, the initial post has eight examples of TSI measurements, the one chosen, and the oldest, was the one that most closely fit average temp. Can you say confirmation bias.

 

I sure can, and it describes your "scientific reasoning" to a T. There is no reason to expect TSI to fit temperature: if it were a relevant index of solar activity's effect on global surface temperature (it isn't), it would fit the rate of change in temperature, not the level of temperature. You're essentially complaining that diet can't have any effect on people's weight because their weight doesn't correlate very well with what they had for breakfast this morning.

 

And all this time I have thought of climate "realists" as fallacious and dishonest. None of them will mention that the temperature change over the past century is trivial or that there has been no warming over the past decade.

 

I have mentioned a number of times that there is a lack of credible empirical evidence that temperatures are significantly higher now than they were ~80 years ago. However, the satellite record -- which begins after a three-decade cooling trend from the mid-1940s to the mid 1970s -- does show warming over the past decade, two decades, three decades and four decades:

https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/

The confluence of three warming factors -- unusually high solar activity, the Tonga undersea volcano, and the transition from La Nina to El Nino -- over the last two years rescued the CO2 climate narrative from conclusive refutation by the decline in temperatures 2016-2022. Volcanoes usually have a cooling effect because they inject reflective SO2 into the stratosphere; but because the Tonga volcano was submarine, most of the SO2 was washed out of its gaseous ejecta and replaced by water vapor, which is a more powerful "greenhouse" gas than CO2. It is believed that the Tonga volcano may have increased stratospheric water vapor by 1/3, contributing to the record high temperatures last year.

 

Willie must have gotten yet another big payout from the fossil fuel industry.

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Willie_Soon

 

The smears of Willie Soon as being in the pay of fossil fuel interests are among the more dishonest of the despicably dishonest ad hominems La Carbonostra likes to engage in, and have been conclusively debunked. According to the Greenpeace smear job on Soon, if an oil company donates to an Ivy League university, and Soon gets a research grant from that university, they claim Soon has been paid off by the oil company. It's just pure, deceitful, anti-scientific filth -- as we would inevitably expect from the side that numbers Michael "Piltdown" Mann as one of its leading lights.

 

Ok I am listening - prove me wrong

 

I already did. And so did others who demolished the disgraceful Greenpeace hatchet job on Soon.

 

Is the only response a results statement like the underlined deserve