Can any skeptic here post a reference to a scientific paper that says global warming is mostly due to the Sun?

Question

Not a media article, we know silly things are said there. Not someone's blog. Not a paper that says the Sun is more important than the IPCC says. Not a paper that you interpret as saying it's the Sun.

There have been plenty saying unequivocally it's not (mostly) the Sun. For example:

Recent oppositely directed trends in solar
climate forcings and the global mean surface
air temperature, Lockwood, Frohlich (2007), Proc. R. Soc. A, doi:10.1098/rspa.2007.1880

"Our results show that the observed rapid rise in
global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanisms is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified."

So I'm looking for a paper that says unequivocally 51% or more of the warming in the last 20 years or so is due to the Sun. There have been a few, but they've all been conclusively refuted.

People keep saying "It's the Sun" with no proof. Show me some unequivocal proof.

Nathan - That's not a scientific paper, that's simply someone flapping their gums on the Internet. Proves absolutely nothing. Their stuff is loaded with scientific errors, let's just take one of the more silly.

"Scientific research through U.S. Government satellite and balloon measurements shows that the temperature is actually cooling - very slightly - .037 degrees Celsius."

No serious skeptics make that claim anymore. This graph is pretty much undisputed (except for some small details):

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/new_Fig.A.lrg.gif

=^_^= - The article you cite says:

"Abdussamatov's work, however, has not been well received by other climate scientists."

"His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion," said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University.

"He claims that carbon dioxide has only a small influence on Earth's climate"

Once again, no serious skeptic says that today.

"The solar irradiance began to drop in the 1990s, and a minimum will be reached by approximately 2040," Abdussamatov said"

That one is completely at odds with the measured data.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20030320/sun4m_tn.jpg

New ideas - great. Nonsense - not so much.

The Mars deal has been discussed here over and over. The reasons for warming on Mars are giant dust storms.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/research/2007/marswarming.html

Other planets are not warming, so it's definitely not the Sun that's causing it on Mars.

Marc G - I need to research your papers. I won't reflexively respond. Take me a day or two. But thanks for answering in the spirit of the question.

$ - You and I agree 100% on this. The Max Planck Institute does really good scientific work.

And this quote from one of their papers is absolutely typical of their results:

"We show that at least in the most recent past (since about 1970) the solar influence on climate cannot have been significant."

Solar variability and global warming: a statistical comparison since 1850, N. A. Krivova and S. K. Solanki, Adv. Space Res. 34, 361-364 (2004)

That's not cherry picking, it's absolutely typical of their results. Look at the graph on their home page, showing temperature taking off while the Sun is relatively constant.

Also see their paper:

Can solar variability explain global warming since 1970?

Their answer is no.

Press release from their site:

"...the Earth’s temperature has risen dramatically in the last 30 years while the solar brightness has not appreciably increased in this time."

Great answer - for my argument.

Correction to the above - The graph is not on their home page, it's on $'s link.

Marc G - I'm not going to do it any better than Trevor. Here's the rebuttal reference he alluded to, but didn't give. It seems to dispose of the paper.

http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~motl/usc-rebuttal.html

I note that some of the studies seem to be more mathematical exercises than anything else.

Clearly you win Best Answer. You did it, you enlightened me, and you (at first) reduced Trevor to a philosophical reply rather than a factual one.

My bottom line is that I find the mainstream science on this far better. Better documented, more thorough, less biased in looking at the data. I suspect you agree, but have more doubts than I that the contrarians could be right.

I find this attribution of global warming to the various factors quite persuasive:

Meehl, G.A., et al(2004). "Combinations of Natural and Anthropogenic Forcings in Twentieth-Century Climate". Journal of Cliate 17: 3721-3727

Pretty decent fit to the data.

Leaving this open for a bit, just in case.

Answer 1

1. Environ Geol (2006) 50: 899–910

"The writers show that the human-induced climatic changes are negligible."

2. Geophys Res Lett, VOL. 33, L05708,

"We estimate that the sun contributed as much as 45–50% of the 1900–2000 global warming, and 25–35% of the 1980–2000 global warming. These results, while confirming that anthropogenic-added climate forcing might have progressively played a dominant role in climate change during the last century, also suggest that the solar impact on climate change during the same period is significantly stronger than what some theoretical models have predicted."

3. Meteorol Atmos Phys 95, 115–121 (2007)

"Despite the increasing trend in atmospheric CO2 concentration, the patterns of 20-year and 60-year oscillation of global temperature are all in falling. Therefore, if CO2 concentration remains constant at present, the CO2 greenhouse effect will be deficient in counterchecking the natural cooling of global climate in the following 20 years. Even though the CO2 greenhouse effect on global climate change is unsuspicious, it could have been excessively exaggerated. It is high time to re-consider the trend of global climate changes.

And again, our primary conclusion, i.e., that atmospheric CO2 concentration is not a key determinant of periodic variation of the global temperature. The global climate warming is not solely affected by the CO2 greenhouse effect."

4. Geophys Res Lett, VOL. 32, L16712

"The reconstructed Arctic SAT time series based on the inverse wavelet transform, which includes decadal (5–15 years) and multidecadal (40–80 years) variations and a longer-term trend, contains nonstationary but persistent features that are highly correlated with the Sun’s intrinsic magnetic variability especially on multidecadal time scales.

Figure 1 shows the two plausible co-factors of Arctic SAT’s recurring variability and persistent change examined in this paper — the correlation of the annual-mean Arcticwide SAT with TSI and with atmospheric CO2. Figure 1 suggests that the hypothesis of a CO2-dominated warming of the Arctic is not likely consistent with the large decadaland- multidecadal warming and cooling signals contained in the Arctic-wide SAT record. (1) Solar forcing explains well over 75% of the variance for the decadally-smoothed Arctic annual-mean or spring SATs, and (2) Time-frequency characteristics for the annual mean or seasonally-averaged Arctic SATs are consistent with similar wavelet structures derived for the TSI forcing. In contrast, a CO2-dominated forcing of Arctic SATs is inconsistent with both the large multidecadal warming and cooling signals and the similar amplitude of warming trends between cold (winter) and relatively warmer (spring
and autumn) seasons found in the Arctic-wide SAT records."

5. Pure appl. geophys. 162 (2005) 1557–1586

"The warming of about 0.3 _C in recent years has prompted suggestions about anthropogenic influence on the earth’s climate due to increasing human activity worldwide. However, a close examination of the earth’s temperature change suggests that the recent warming may be primarily due to urbanization and land-use change impact and not due to increased levels of CO2 and other greenhouse gases."

I know, I know, this one isn't about the sun. I just thought I'd toss it in for fun.

6. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 235 (2005) 741–751

"The precisely dated isotopic composition of a stalagmite from Spannagel Cave in the Central Alps is translated into a highly resolved record of temperature at high elevation during the past 2000 yr. Temperature maxima during the Medieval Warm Period between 800 and 1300 AD are in average about 1.7 8C higher than the minima in the Little Ice Age and similar to present-day values. The high correlation of this record to D14C suggests that solar variability was a major driver of climate in Central Europe during the past 2 millennia."

I have the Lockwood paper, and I have some trouble with Figure 4. It shows T increasing for the last 100 years. It also shows 10Be decreasing for the last 100 years. This tells me that temperatures should have been increasing over the last 100 years. As for the increase of 10Be beginning in about 1985 or so, concurrent with continued temperature increases (opposite of what we would think) tells me that maybe land-use could be a factor in this continued upward temperature trend(considering ref 5 above).

It appears that some want to attribute all climate change to CO2, others to only the sun, others to other factors. FWIW, I do not believe that these mechanisms are mutually exclusive of each other and that their interplay is very complex and difficult to model.


EDIT 1;

Sorry, my efforts have not pleased you Trevor.

1. "The writers identified and described the global forces driving the Earth's climate: solar irradiation as the dominant energy supplier to the atmosphere (and hydrosphere); outgassing as a dominant gaseous matter supplier to the atmosphere (and hydrosphere); and microbial activities at the interface of the lithosphere and atmosphere. The scope and extent of those processes are 4 - 5 orders of magnitude greater than the corresponding anthropogenic impacts on Earth's climate" and "The current global warming is most likely a combined effect of increased solar and tectonic activities and cannot be attributed to the increased anthropogenic impact on the atmosphere. Humans may be responsible for less than 0.01 degrees c (of approxaimately 0.56 degrees C) total average atmospheric heating during the last century."

That sounds like someone stepping it up and calling the Sun out as the source of warming. But that probably does not make it the golden answer that Bob requested in this question.

2. Nope, doesn't hit 51%, but it is certainly higher than many of the papers I have seen regarding solar forcing.

3. "the contribution of CO2 concentration
to global temperature variation is no more
than 40.19%, or in other words, 59.81% of the
weight of global temperature variation is caused
by non-greenhouse effect."

You are right, they do not explicity state the Sun. Only non-greenhouse effect. My bad.

4. It says right in the quote 75%. Read it again. That meets the standard as laid forth in this question.

5. I quote myself:

"I know, I know, this one isn't about the sun. I just thought I'd toss it in for fun."

6. Read it again, solar variability is the MAJOR driver...... Major implies majority (ie greater than 50.0000000001%) so it is a safe bet that it can be taken to mean greater than 51%.

I tried to give you answers bound by the parameters of the question. It looks like I was pretty successful at meeting the request, though you think not. Bob likely will agree that I have come up so far short as to be thoroughly discredited as well.

EDIT 2:

How about sharing that database of articles? I'd like to see it so that I can add to my own very small collection of articles. I'd also like to read the refutations. I do change my opinions based on what I read, if it is convincing I'll change my views. I'd also like to know the criteria for listing something as a gray article.

EDIT 3:

Trevor-->

Thank you for providing me with some of the rebuttals that are out there. I haven't the time to search and search again for rebuttals and rebuttals of rebuttals.

Your comments regarding Chilingar are taken and understood, that paper shall be retired from my list of sources.

As far as the Scafetta and Soon papers, I am not so quick to dismiss the source due to background or funding. Is there something more concrete regarding a refutation of these papers available?

That is what I like to see. I present something, you say it is refuted, I say why, and you give me actual places to go take a look at the refutation.

Now I can learn a little more, since my background is nothing remotely close to climate science, I have a lot of catching up to do.

Thanks for a great response.

EDIT 4:

BOB:

Anything on my question about the Lockwood paper? I'll post it as a new question.

Answer 2

Habibullo I. Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory, is one scientist who had done some extensive reasearch into this particular theory. As with most journals of any credit, you must be viewing them from a computer in a library that has purchased the article, so I'm not going to bother linking to any. One of his articles is called "About the long-term coordinated variations of the activity, radius, total irradiance of the Sun and the Earth's climate" if you want to search it at a library that has access.

There is an article about this man's work in National Geographic and you can read that here: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

I'm sure there are more people researching this too, that was just the one that came to mind.

I wish people wouldn't be so stand-offish. There is always room for new ideas.

Edit: No need for the arguments. I'm not trying to prove anything...you asked for articles, I supplied one. Like I stated, it's just a theory. It looks to me like you aren't really seeking new information but rather trying to prove your own point. If you don't like an answer, there are thumbs down for that and you don't have to choose it for best answer. To sit and refute every answer as they appear is a bit like a certain collagen-based desert, don't you think?

Answer 3

Micky Mouse can come here and claim Goofy made the Sun mad, and caused global warming.

I not very good with papers but all the desertification i have seen has been caused by people,the sun finished the job,and that made those places a lot hotter

There is no quality control for answers
we got Trevor and Bob for that.

Only sarcasm ,wit or criticisms are not allowed.
And we get banished .But not by them by the evil forces that want to pull us back into the dark ages.
The search for the real TRUTHS has many enemies

Answer 4

Here's a fabulous concept: when you click on this site, Care2 makes a donation that will remove one pound of carbon dioxide emissions from the atmosphere. It doesn't cost you a thing and every click really counts. Check it out:
SIMPLE SOLUTION: Race to Stop Global Warming.
Thought I would leave this just in case anyone wants to help with the problem.
Peace
GG

Answer 5

Few will argue that the sun does not go through cycles that increase amount of energy it gives off. The big question is how much of that energy is simple radiated back into space or trapped in Earth's Atmosphere warming plant and slowly eliminating the factors that lead to the first snow flake on Earth.

Answer 6

Here is the start to an article

"There is No Global Warming
There is no global warming. Period.

You can't find a real scientist anywhere in the world who can look you in the eye and, without hesitation, without clarification, without saying, kinda, mighta, sorta, if, and or but...say "yes, global warming is with us."

There is no evidence whatsoever to support such claims. Anyone who tells you that scientific research shows warming trends - be they teachers, news casters, Congressmen, Senators, Vice Presidents or Presidents - is wrong. There is no global warming.

Scientific research through U.S. Government satellite and balloon measurements shows that the temperature is actually cooling - very slightly - .037 degrees Celsius.

A little research into modern-day temperature trends bears this out. For example, in 1936 the Midwest of the United States experienced 49 consecutive days of temperatures over 90 degrees. There were another 49 consecutive days in 1955. But in 1992 there was only one day over 90 degrees and in 1997 only 5 days.

Because of modern science and improved equipment, this "cooling" trend has been most accurately documented over the past 18 years. Ironically, that's the same period of time the hysteria has grown over dire warnings of "warming."

"

The rest canbe found here

http://www.americanpolicy.org/un/thereisnoglobal.htm

Answer 7

Of course the sun is responsible for global warming. It is the only thing that keeps the globe warm.

We get like 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999 (with like gazilion more 9's)% of our heat from the sun. Other star is almost zip.

Sun goes bye-bye this planet is one big ball of ice.

Answer 8

Here is a scientific institute with research data that backs this argument. You can read the reports and charts for yourself if you actually care.

http://www.mps.mpg.de/en/projekte/sun-climate/

Answer 9

It looks like the answer is no. The question's been open for three hours and so far nothing.

Full credit to Marc G (above) for quoting from a variety of papers and reports and for his detailed answer but at the end of the day none of those papers say that GW is mainly due to the sun.

If truth be known, there are a small number of 'scientific' papers that claim GW is primarily due to the sun but upon investigation they're not remotely credible, one even goes so far as to say that greenhouse gases are unable to retain heat within Earth's atmosphere (natural GHGs or otherwise) and ends up completely contradicting itself. I've come across perhaps 10 of them, at least three of them stem from the misinformation campaign orchestrated by certain oil companies a few years ago; I wouldn't be surprised if they all did as they mostly date from around the same time.

We have them on our database and as far as I'm aware they're all 'grey tagged' which is a way of highlighting reports that are not to be relied upon because they've been discredited, are unreliable, not scientific etc.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

EDIT: TO MARC G (ABOVE)

Marc, I thought yours was an excellent answer, which is why I gave it a thumbs up, and credited you in my initial response. It's refreshing to see an intelligent approach to questioning the global warming theory, so many of the questions and answers on here are so bad that they're laughable.


1) You quote from Khilyuk and Chilingar "On Global Forces of Nature Driving the Earth's Climate. Are Humans Involved?"

There are many errors, perhaps the most fundamental of which is that they base their findings on their "Adiabatic Model of Heat Transfer in the Atmosphere", this assumes global warming is caused by the direct heating of the atmosphere (i.e. it's not caused by greenhouse gases but by radiant heat such as fires, heaters and other heat sources).

Their calculations of an anthropogenic temp increase of less then 0.01°C would be correct if direct heating caused global warming.

Aeschbach-Hertig from Harvard carried out a full rebuttal of the Khilyuk and Chilingar article, which I dare say, can be found online.


2) This is from Scafetta and West's "Phenomenological Solar Contribution to the 1900-2000 Global Surface Warming". Whilst an interesting article they are perhaps not the most reliable sources of information concerning matters relating to climate. Dr Scafetta and Prof West both have medical and mathematical qualifications and most of their work has been in these areas. Their mathematical skills are useful tools but to apply them correctly it is imperative to actually understand what they're being applied to. The maths is probably correct but the starting point is wrong, consequently everything that follows is wrong.

The full letter can be found on the ACRIM site - http://www.acrim.com/Reference%20Files/Phenomenological%20solar%20contribution%20to%20the%201900-2000%20global%20surface%20warming.pdf


3) This comes from Xian and Zhen-Shan's "Multi-scale Analysis of Global Temperature Changes and Trend of a Drop in Temperature in the Next 20 Years". It's essentially a repackaged version of "global cooling in the 1970's" written in scientific terms. The data used is very selective and for some reason seems to overlook the fact that CO2 isn't the only greenhouse gas. You're intelligent and I don't need to explain any further about the global cooling notion.


4) This came up on Answers not so long back. It's taken from Soon's "Variable Solar Irradiance as a Plausible Agent for Multi-decadal Variations in the Arctic-wide Surface Air Temperature Record of the Past130 years".

I won't go into details about the article as it should be self-explanatory - Willie Soon is an associate of the George C Marshall Institute and Fraser Institute, largely funded by the American Petroleum Institute.

The paper itself was funded by Charles G Koch (oil billionaire), Exxon Mobil and the American Petroleum Institute. See the acknowledgements in the paper - http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/20060406/20060406_11.pdf


5) As you say - tossed in for fun.


6) The gist of this article focuses on data extracted from speleotherms and concludes that the primary driver of climate change in Europe during the last 2000 years was solar irradiance variation. We already know this; historically climate has always been driven by changes in solar irradiance, solar cycles and terrestrial cycles.

The full article is available here http://www.ifir.edu.ar/~redes/ps/EPSL2005.pdf and the Spannagel Cave Stalagmite Oxygen Isotope Data and Temperature Reconstruction dataset is available here ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/speleothem/europe/austria/spannagel2005.txt


RE YOUR SECOND EDIT

The database is what we use at work and consists of (I think) 140,000 papers and upwards of a million other articles relating to climatology. It's on an intranet and isn't publicly accessible. A lot of the articles are available on the internet.

Articles are tagged in many ways, 'grey tagging' means that the article in question has been shown to be unreliable and as such we don't refer to it ourselves. Our work has to be 100% accurate as it's often subject to intense scrutiny; as such we only cite sources and refer to sources that are known to be reliable. It isn't a selective process, articles both supporting and refuting anthropogenic global warming are 'grey tagged'.