It did, when you compare your 2 graphs side by side on the proper scale. Note the slight decrease in the SS MA around 1945-1980, and the temp decrease - that you also deny is there - at the same time. Also, good to know that you admit that you're a liar, since you didn't even try to defend the statement the sunspot activity was a flat line. Just keep posting Dave. The more you lie, the easier it is for lurkers to see how bad your lies really are.
Okay, please explain again how this occurred in your mind given that the MWP was regional, not global.
It WAS global. You've tried to deny the data from the SH and tropics from the same time periods. That kind of cognitive dissonance doesn't work when you try to convince the rational. They see right through the lies.
Ummm... except that solar minimums occur every 11 years. Well I consider it basically flat, but sure there's an increase if you take the Mauder minimum to the modern maximum then your 40% increase statement sounds realistic (unfortunately for you the temperature didn't go up 40%, either, nor did the latest reduction correspond with a reduction in temperature, nor did the temperature drop during solar minimums. Ooops!) You could check the paper above which shows the radiative forcing effect of CO2, H20 and solar -- check it out and let us know how many W/sq. meter solar is responsible for. Ummm... okay.
haroki, how about doing a correlation between the sunspot stuff and global temps, tell us what you get? I have a feeling it'll be very very low. Moving averages are a classic way of covering up the lack of any correlation.
I have posted this before, I will post it again. "Carbon dioxide adds 12 percent to radiation trapping, which is less than the contribution from either water vapor or clouds. By itself, however, carbon dioxide is capable of trapping three times as much radiation as it actually does in the Earth's atmosphere. Freidenreich and colleagues [106] have reported the overlap of carbon dioxide and water absorption bands in the infrared region. Given the present composition of the atmosphere, the contribution to the total heating rate in the troposphere is around 5 percent from carbon dioxide and around 95 percent from water vapor." --Energy Information Administration; Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/altern...ent/appd_d.html "Over 95 percent of the earth's natural greenhouse effect is from water vapor, and about 3 percent of it is from carbon dioxide." --Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, Virginia State Climatologist and Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/R...haels_Jun98.pdf "The number one greenhouse gas is actually water vapor. It's something like 98 percent, by volume, of all greenhouse gases. I like the way that my colleague, Jan Veizer at the University of Ottawa, a world-renowned expert on the carbon cycle, lists the relative importance of greenhouse gases when he speaks on the topic. He points out that the number one greenhouse gas is water vapor, the number two greenhouse gas is water vapor, the number three greenhouse gas is water vapor, the number four greenhouse gas is water vapor and CO2 is a distant fifth. Of course, this list is somewhat facetious as there is only one type of water vapor. However, he lists the relative importance of greenhouse gases this was to indicate just how insignificant the tiny carbon dioxide cycle is to the water vapor cycle that it piggybacks on." --Dr. Tim Patterson, Professor of Geology-- Carleton University http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=010405M "The Environmental Protection Agency is seeking to classify water vapor as a pollutant, due to its central role in global warming. Because water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, accounting for at least 90% of the Earth's natural greenhouse effect, its emission during many human activities, such as the burning of fuels, is coming under increasing scrutiny by federal regulators." http://www.ecoenquirer.com/EPA-water-vapor.htm "The most important among these 'greenhouse gases' is water vapor, which is responsible for about 96 to 99 percent of the greenhouse effect. Among the other greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4, CFCs, N2O, and O3), the most important is CO2, which contributes only 3 percent to the total greenhouse effect. The manmade CO2 contribution to this effect may be about 0.05 to 0.25 percent." http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/R...nsion_03-04.pdf Do you not read these links before you post them or do you just not understand them? Those numbers are "the contributions to radiative forcing from some of the factors influenced by human activities" not the total greenhouse effect like I am referring.
It was not, and 14 studies have shown this. (Please consult old posts in this thread rather than making me repost this.) http://www.windows.ucar.edu/earth/climate/images/MWP_LIA_small.gif I've ignored solely regional data, rather than global data given that the topic is global warming. You need to learn what cognitive dissonance means, it doesn't mean someone posts something you don't like, or a "lie."
"total heating rate?" What does this even mean? And it correlates linearly with the composition of the atmosphere? He's not the Virginia State Climatologist and hasn't been since 2007 -- and that was an honorary position! Secondly, he kind of received $100,000 from the energy industry to say this. Thirdly, I've shown you the radiative effects in W/sq. meter. Okay, okay, he received more than $100,000: http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/pat-michaels/ Now you've gone down to quoting geologists about climatology without sourcing where he got his data. Probably from "honorary state climatologist" Michaels. This never happened, the EPA never sought this. This is a joke. By "joke" I meant that it was supposed to be obvious to the reader that it was satire -- heck it quotes "Lew Moninsky." I can't click on the next link because it doesn't even work, but again, it contradicts radiative forcing already posted. You actually quoted a satirical article, a guy in an honorary position who received $100,000 to give out disinformation, and you're worrying that I might not understand what I'm posting? Well this entire conversation is about radiative forcing, and if we're having an impact.
Exactly right. Dave is trying to use sun spot activity in attempt to deceive. Personally I like something else. Go to pg 8/40 of the pdf. http://media.kusi.com/documents/Comments+on+Global+Warming02.pdf Temp is in perfect accordance with solar output. No unity whatsoever with carbon use.