And what praytell, idiot, is that top graph supposed to mean? And where is it from? Your ass? Google search turns up nothing. The bottom chart may as well a recipe for bullshit soup. Here's a hint. If you have no idea what you are posting, don't post it. Just makes you look even stupider.
The conclusion is confirmed by many studies finding that while the sun contributed to warming in the early 20th Century, it has had little contribution (most likely negative) in the last few decades: Huber and Knutti (2011): "Even for a reconstruction with high variability in total irradiance, solar forcing contributed only about 0.07°C (0.03-0.13°C) to the warming since 1950." Erlykin 2009: "We deduce that the maximum recent increase in the mean surface temperature of the Earth which can be ascribed to solar activity is 14% of the observed global warming." Benestad 2009: "Our analysis shows that the most likely contribution from solar forcing a global warming is 7 ± 1% for the 20th century and is negligible for warming since 1980." Lockwood 2008: "It is shown that the contribution of solar variability to the temperature trend since 1987 is small and downward; the best estimate is -1.3% and the 2? confidence level sets the uncertainty range of -0.7 to -1.9%." Lean 2008: "According to this analysis, solar forcing contributed negligible long-term warming in the past 25 years and 10% of the warming in the past 100 years..." Lockwood 2008: "The conclusions of our previous paper, that solar forcing has declined over the past 20 years while surface air temperatures have continued to rise, are shown to apply for the full range of potential time constants for the climate response to the variations in the solar forcings." Ammann 2007: "Although solar and volcanic effects appear to dominate most of the slow climate variations within the past thousand years, the impacts of greenhouse gases have dominated since the second half of the last century." Lockwood 2007: "The observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanism is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified." Foukal 2006 concludes "The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978 are too small to have contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30 years." Scafetta 2006 says "since 1975 global warming has occurred much faster than could be reasonably expected from the sun alone." Usoskin 2005 conclude "during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source. Solanki 2004 reconstructs 11,400 years of sunspot numbers using radiocarbon concentrations, finding "solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades". Haigh 2003 says "Observational data suggest that the Sun has influenced temperatures on decadal, centennial and millennial time-scales, but radiative forcingconsiderations and the results of energy-balance models and general circulation models suggest that the warming during the latter part of the 20th century cannot be ascribed entirely to solar effects." Stott 2003 increased climate model sensitivity to solar forcing and still found "most warming over the last 50 yr is likely to have been caused by increases in greenhouse gases." Solanki 2003 concludes "the Sun has contributed less than 30% of the global warming since 1970." Lean 1999 concludes "it is unlikely that Sun–climate relationships can account for much of the warming since 1970." Waple 1999 finds "little evidence to suggest that changes in irradiance are having a large impact on the current warming trend." Frolich 1998 concludes "solar radiative output trends contributed little of the 0.2°C increase in the global mean surface temperature in the past decade." Schurer 2013 finds that the sun is unlikely to have caused more than 0.15°C of the observed approximately 1°C warming over the past 300 years.
I read the first paper. its the energy budget and climate model speculation. its biased guess work. as we just showed you the models can't properly account for clouds. "Here we present an alternative attribution method that relies on the principle of conservation of energy, without assumptions about spatial warming patterns. Based on a massive ensemble of simulations with an intermediate-complexity climate model we demonstrate that known changes in the global energy balance and in radiative forcing tightly constrain the magnitude of anthropogenic warming." In other words we set up our model so that it finds limited natural warming. 2. the second paper makes an interesting assumption... it just assumes away cosmic rays as a cause for warming... However we just showed a page or 2 ago a study which showed that cosmic rays cause clouds and may be responsible for a large part of the warming. Using the approach these authors used you would just assume away co2 as the cause of warming because co2 levels trail change in ocean temps and change in temperature. here is the quote from your paper... "The cyclic variation in the cosmic ray rate is observed to be delayed by 2-4 years relative to the temperature, the solar irradiance and daily sunspot variations suggesting that the origin of the correlation is more likely to be direct solar activity than cosmic rays. Assuming that the correlation is caused by such solar activity, we deduce that the maximum recent increase in the mean surface temperature of the Earth which can be ascribed to this activity is .14% of the observed global warming.?
And since when are you are a scientist? Are you one of those merchants of doubt that you refuse to talk about for some reason? What do you think of those "scientists" that worked for the tobacco companies? I also notice that piehole has avoided this thread since I brought it up. Also, as usual, he has totally avoided ignored my debunking of his absurd bullshit.
1. you don't have to a scientist to know that computer models are not the same as real science. If they don't know how to model clouds and we know they don't because we have seen nasa and other scientists admit it... we know the models are just speculations not real science. 2. For your analogy to symmetrical ... cancer would have to lead smoking. smoking would be CO2 - lung cancer would be temps. correct. With Tobacco - smoking leads cancer With Climate change - your "Cancer" (warming temps) leads smoking (co2) therefore your analogy is ass backwards as is your agw argument. its no wonder you sell greenhouse gases for a living.
Yes computer modeling certainly is real science you idiot. Try telling aeronautical engineers that computer modeling doesn't work. And you still have not addressed the merchant of doubt thing.
When you program the computers to give the result you want no matter what the input data is then it is not science. Welcome to the world of climate computer modeling .