You go to guys who are studying planetary orbits versus solar phenomenon and the blogs are slowed down to a post a month.

Its just disgraceful what these science frauds have done.

Could you comment on the time axis of trhe “global mean temperature”: chart?

As published it appears to suggest that the period 1910-1925 and 1925 to 1930 are equivalent.

Good writin’.

Please direct people with a less careless manner and precision of expression.

KuhnKat, on an adjoining thread, gives a link to SORCE data, the latest satellite launched to study solar TSI. He points out that while the variance at 1AU is small, the variance here at earth is 6% per year, a rather larger number.

Now we also know that TSI does not account for all the solar energy received, e.g., solar wind and the ionized electrons, protons and atomic nuclei input teraWatts at the poles near solar minimum on each earth directed CME.

Another possible solar effect, again at solar minimum, is to increase cloudiness and decrease insolation. The earth’s albedo has been increasing throughout the new millenium and the reduction in TSI reaching the ground has already decreased more that 10W/m^2, or more than the variance in solar output.

Moreover, these are smoothed vaiues. Engineers damp readings inorder that they converge to an average value rather than flailing about, limit to limit. Just the other day, one satellite was offline (SOHO?) due to ccd saturation, being hit with a rare flare(rare for solar minimum, anyway).

Well, solar flaring has been absent since Feb. 07, whereas it continued daily, uninterrupted all thru the 1996 minimum. On this end at earth, UV, 20% of the solar spectrum in energy, can spike 100%. These spikes are not currently incorporated in the data.

There is more. 40% of the energy received is IR. A mere 1% reaches the surface. The remainder is absorbed in the atmosphere. The variation and consequences I have yet to sort out.

Uh, Toby, what Bernie meant to say was:

Measurements by satellite of solar TSI since 1979 show a mere 0.1% variance between secular Schwabe cycle max and min. .

Sami Solanki of Max Planck, famously noted that this variance was insufficient to account for climate warming during this period. Sami also said the sun’s output was at a 10,000 year high in a different paper. Sami is prolific, publishing as a co-author about every other week.
I doubt he proofs these papers, but maybe I don’t understand academia.

Google Scholar? May I ask, at what level do we teach?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

And seriously, try Google Scholar – there are yet other, recent studies that show that solar activity over the last several decades has not caused most of the observed temperature trend.

No lying involved unless, of course, we include your contribution.

The lack of correlation between solar output and temperature as been repeatedly demonstrated in the last several years.

Try Google; and especially Google Scholar.

“A former head of CSIRO’s division of space science, Dr Ken McCracken was awarded the Australia Prize the precursor of the Prime Minister’s Science Prize in 1995. Now in his 80s, officially retired and raising cattle in the ACT hinterland, he is still very active in his research field of solar physics.

McCracken is adamantly not a climate change sceptic, agreeing that rising fossil-fuel emissions will be a long-term cause of rising global temperatures.

But his analysis of the sun’s cyclical activity and global climate records has led him to the view that we are entering a period of up to two decades in which reduced solar activity may either flatten the upward trend of global temperatures or even cause a slight and temporary cooling. In a paper given in 2005 to a ‘’soiree” hosted by then president of the Academy of Science, Professor Jim Peacock, McCracken said the sun was the most active it had been over 1000 years of scientific observation. This made it inevitable that its activity would decrease over the next two decades in line with historically observed solar cycles.”

So if the sun is at its most active for 1000 years ( ie since MWP) it is surely likely that temperatures are also at highs?

The Canberra times is very careful to point out that this scientist is a believer.

It also goes onto stress how important it is to let us know that temps could go down……and they seriously expect us not to be sceptical…

Luke, mi amigo, in economics it’s called ‘Comparative Advantage’.
My first degree was in Bio, focussing on Evolution.
On my first return, for a CompSci/Math degree, a good buddy pursuing the CompSci, had a PhD. in Botany, and had recently completed a 6 month study of lichens, in Brooks Range Alaska; likely the umteenth such, for which he earned, to the immense gratitude of his young family, $6000, U.S.
The IBM PC was nascent and computers since have done alright by me.
Even though I’m a bit of a ‘tard. I feel at home here, Ok?