Research Confirming Solar Climate Influence

Research within the past year confirms an earlier result by Nir Shaviv that CO2 is responsible for only about half of 20th century warming. The public policy point is that the Paris 2100 temperature target is within reach without any changes.

New Research: “CO2 Influence On Global Temperature Development Since1860 Only Half As Large As IPCC Estimate!
By P Gosselin on 14. December 2021

Share this...
A remarkable publication on solar influence on climate goes unnoticed
By Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt (Die kalte Sonne)
(Text translated/edited by P. Gosselin)

On November 3, 2021, the renowned scientific journal Climate published a paper on solar influence on climate. The paper by the renowned solar researcher Dr. Frank Stefani from the Helmholtz Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf is entitled: “Solar and Anthropogenic Influences on Climate: A Regression Analysis and Tentative Predictions” and concludes that the influence of CO2 on the development of global temperatures from 1860 until today was only about half as large as the last report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assumed.

As a reminder, the IPCC concludes that 98% of the warming ( 1.07 degrees out of 1.09 degrees) is human-induced. According to Stefani’s analysis, the solar influence accounts for 30-70%.

Stefani examined the course of the geomagnetic aa – index, which reflects the strength of the earth’s magnetic field. This index has been measured in Cambridge and Melbourne since 1844 and reflects the influence of solar activity. In earlier publications, Stefani had already been able to prove that the 11-year solar cycle is triggered by the gravitational forces of Venus, Earth and Jupiter, which are in orbital resonance every 11.07 years (here, here and here).

Since the Sun – influenced by all the planets (especially Jupiter and Saturn) – also moves around the center of gravity of the solar system, solar cycles arise that have become known in temperature history as the 193-year Suess-de Vries cycle and the 90-year Gleissberg cycle.

Only 1°C warming by 2100

In a coupled regression analysis of the aa index, CO2 and temperature, Stefani was able to determine a CO2 climate sensitivity TCR (Transient Climate Response at a doubling of the CO2 concentration) of 1.1 +/- 0.5 °C. Because of the cyclical nature of solar activity, Stefani was able to venture a forecast of the aa – index for the next 150 years. According to this, even with a further increase in CO2 concentration of 2.5 ppm per year, there would only be a temperature increase of 1° C by the end of this century.

Stefani : “The 2°C target could probably be achieved without drastic decarbonization.”. . .

 

Shaviv's original speculation:

• Carbon Dioxide or Solar Forcing?

". . . Using historic variations in climate and the cosmic ray flux, one can actually quantify empirically the relation between cosmic ray flux variations and global temperature change, and estimate the solar contribution to the 20th century warming. This contribution comes out to be 0.5±0.2°C out of the observed 0.6±0.2°C global warming (Shaviv, 2005).

Fig. 5: Solar activity over the past several centuries can be reconstructed using different proxies. These reconstructions demonstrate that 20th century activity is unparalleled over the past 600 years (previously high solar activity took place around 1000 years ago, and 8000 yrs ago). Specifically, we see sunspots and 10Be. The latter is formed in the atmosphere by ~1GeV cosmic rays, which are modulated by the solar wind (stronger solar wind → less galactic cosmic rays → less 10Be production). Note that both proxies do not capture the decrease in the high energy cosmic rays that took place since the 1970's, but which the ion chamber data does (see fig. 6). (image source: Wikipedia)

Fig. 6: The flux of cosmic rays reaching Earth, as measured by ion chambers. Red line - annual averages, Blue line - 11 yr moving average. Note that ion chambers are sensitive to particles at relatively high energy (several 10's of GeV, which is higher than the energies responsible for the atmospheric ionization [~10 GeV], and much higher than the energies responsible for the 10Be production [~1 GeV]). Plot redrawn using data from Ahluwalia (1997). Moreover, the decrease in high energy cosmic rays since the 1970's is less pronounced in low energy proxies of solar activity, implying that cosmogenic isotopes (such as 10Be) or direct solar activity proxies (e.g., sun spots, aa index, etc) are less accurate in quantifying the solar → cosmic ray → climate link and its contribution to 20th century global warming. . . . "

 

Shaviv's published follow-up:
My experience at the German Bundestag's Environment Committee in a pre-COP24 discussion

". . . Having said that, it is possible to actually model the climate system while including the heat capacity, namely diffusion of heat into and out of the oceans, and include the solar and anthropogenic forcings and find out that by introducing the the solar forcing, one can get a much better fit to the 20th century warming, in which the climate sensitivity is much smaller. (Typically 1°C per CO2 doubling compared with the IPCC's canonical range of 1.5 to 4.5°C per CO2 doubling).

You can read about it here: Ziskin, S. & Shaviv, N. J., Quantifying the role of solar radiative forcing over the 20th century, Advances in Space Research 50 (2012) 762–776 . . . ."

 

Loeb and colleagues (2021) determined the (uncertain) positive trend in Earth’s Energy Imbalance (EEI) from 2005 to 2019, 0.5 W/m² ±0.47 W/m² per decade−1, is “primarily due to an increase in absorbed solar radiation associated with decreased reflection by clouds.”

CERES satellite data indicate clouds and surface albedo account for 89% of the absorbed solar radiation trend in the 21st century, whereas anthropogenic greenhouse gases account for but a tiny fraction of the trends in combined absorbed solar radiation and greenhouse effect forcing (reductions in emitted thermal radiation) during this period.

This very small human emissions/greenhouse gas impact is represented by the red “Other” (“trace gases”) bars in the graph below. In emitted thermal radiation, graph (e) shows the greenhouse gas impact is effectively offset by the cloud influence; both factors are cancelled out by temperature changes. This leaves the increase in absorbed solar radiation shown in graph (d) due to natural variations in clouds and surface albedo (SFC) as the primary driver(s) of top-of-atmosphere (TOA) flux forcing during the last two decades.



Image Source: Loeb et al., 2021

 

The Sun affects our climate, who knew?

 

Climate change doesn't come close to boiling water heck it doesn't even warm the water at all, it is a STUPID cartoon!

 

Looks like he hit a nerve..

 

Peer review threw Shaviv into a Bass-O-Matic and hit puree.

This is simply another in a long line of bad research that won't stand up to scrutiny.

 

That's a false claim.
You may recall he was invited to join the Institute for Advanced Study as an IBM Einstein Fellow.

 

That's for his work in physics.

His work in climatology is goofy.

 

His work at IAS was in climatology.
How Might Climate be Influenced by Cosmic Rays? - Ideas
https://www.ias.edu › ideas › shaviv-milky-way

Nir Shaviv, IBM Einstein Fellow and Member in the School of Natural Sciences, is focusing on cosmic ray diffusion in the dynamic galaxy, the solar cosmic ray– ...

 

And again, climatologists threw him in a Bass-O-Matic and hit puree.

You are trying ingenuously, to conflate his work outside climatology with his attempts to do climate science.

Not the same..

 

Your claim is false.

 

Your entire schtick is false, and you ought be ashamed.

 

“Once asked how we could be friends, given our disagreement on lots of things, Justice Scalia answered: 'I attack ideas. I don't attack people.”
― Ruth Bader Ginsburg, My Own Words

 

But you can't tell us WHY you think it is bad...... and what scrutiny is that?

 

You really think Climate change can boil water.......?

The cartoon is stupid, which YOU know it since you didn't even try to defend it.

It has been COOLING for 7 years now.....,



LINK

 

He runs on insults and prejudice of people whom he never read their research it is a poor way to debate anything.

 

Of course, on Venus it's hot enough to get rid of it.

However, what I think is not relevant, climate science belongs to climate scientists.

 

Your deflection to Venus is silly since no one is talking about climate change there and certainly not in this thread and not by the cartoon.

Really even when they are wrong many times.

Surely you can't be that gullible?

By the way it is still COOLING since 2015 a reality you can't ignore.....

 

It's an accurate answer to your question.

If you were trying to tell us you don't know, and can't know, you succeeded.

 

LOL, this is why you have no credibility when you can't understand that stupid cartoon which has NOTHING to do with Venus no one here is talking about Venus but YOU because you can't address the Solar impact on the planet.

 

I have, many times.

It's the favorite refuge of propagandists and their suckers.

 

Not here which is why no one is taking you seriously because you are not being truthful in the thread.

Cheers.....

 

I would not expected propagandists, and their camp followers, to care about the reality..