Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[batvette]

What about it? Correlation doesn't mean causation.

Sunspot activity drops to near zero every 11 years without measureable effect on global temperatures so why would a drop in sunspot activity 300 years ago when people could barely measure it accurately mean anything?

This is an inaccurate position.


the Sun was in fact well observed during this time and this lack of sunspots is well documented.

http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml

 

[batvette]

batvette, you need to do some simple research before making invalid, unsupported assertions.

It is not contradictory for the simple reason that the Little Ice Age is accepted to have several possible causes. The Maunder minimum happened in the middle of the Little Ice Age which suggests that it did not cause the Little Ice Age but did contribute to its severity.

Climate scientists have looked at the effects of a new Maunder minimum.
Are we heading into a new Ice Age?

Further explained at How would a Solar Grand Minimum affect global warming? (a drop of "no more than 0.3°C" with CO2 cuasing a rise of over 3.7°C)

"How much if the earth's warming is provided by man?"
A lot!
Humans have basically driven the CO2 levels up by emitting many gigatonnes of CO2 every year for decades. To suggest that this increase in CO2 levels caused by humans had no effect on temperatures is ignorant. The greenhouse effect is well understood. Increasing CO2 = increasing temperatures.
Are humans too insignificant to affect global climate?

"How much by the sun?"
Let see - the output from the Sun has been constant (or even decreased a bit) since the 1970's. Global temperature has increased since the 1970's.
Can you see the contradiction, batvette?
Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming?


"Why so quick to dismiss variations when they are unprecedented?"
Why so quick to state the fantasy that variations are dismissed, batvette?
Climate scientists know about natural variations and do not dismiss them. They know that in general they cancel out on the time scales of climate change and so can be neglected. Then they check that they are right !
Foster and Rahmstorf Measure the Global Warming Signal

Let see - the output from the Sun has been constant (or even decreased a bit) since the 1970's. Global temperature has increased since the 1970's.
Can you see the contradiction, batvette?

I can smell the bad science a mile away. You are applying only the observed solar output since the 70's. Is Climate Change science only observing temperatures in that narrow recent era?

Since it's doubtful anyone above a certain intelligence level could rationalize such an argument I have a hard time believing this is not an intentional attempt to pervert the scientific debate on the matter when I spelled the issue out several times.

How has solar output in the last 50-60 years compared to the 400 year observable recorded average? It had increased to an unprecedented peak and the increased intensity against what was considered normal for 350 years persisted until just the last few years. It should be expected that warming should continue throughout the period since the 70's and cooling only expected if solar output was less than the 400 year average, not simply less than its unprecedented peak.

What don't you understand about increased solar activity against historical averages causes forced warming, and this forced warming condition has NEVER subsided since around 1950?

 

[Mikemcc]

That is not an accurate assessment of the issue. Sunspot activity is scientifically accepted as a general indication of solar output, thus the maunder minimum accepted to cause a little ice age.

You're backpedaling from the position earlier stated that there is no influence.

The Tom Cruisesque "read the science/do the research, Matt!" argument is a dodgy attempt at discrediting the opponent's argument that doesn't address the argument- and you may think it's been "covered" in this thread but that doesn't mean anyone was right about what they wanted to suppress.

It's obvious there is a persistent desire to blame only man here, we're being assured this position has been arrived at via pure science and fact, if that were the case we wouldn't be seeing such dodgy presentation of underlying factors such as solar variance.

The question to discuss here is that it's possible that forced warming by solar variance can cause conditions which mimic GGE on the part of man. Are the poles melting solely because of human activity or did solar variance begin a snowballing effect which man is just a part of? Is it a mistake to merely look at C02 as if it's been all created by man when a lot of it may be just an indication of global warming through other factors?

It's reasonable to assume some damage by human activity but frustrating to see that's all some people want to pretend is going on.

The PAGES 2k study would disagree with you:

(1) The most coherent feature in nearly all of the regional temperature reconstructions is a long-term cooling trend, which ended late in the 19th century.

(2) Temperatures did not fluctuate uniformly among all regions at multi-decadal to centennial scales. For example, there were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age.

http://www.pages-igbp.org/workinggroups/2k-network/faq#

If the intensity of solar cycles were a primary driver, how would the MWP and LIA not be global phenomenon?

 

[DC]

I can smell the bad science a mile away. You are applying only the observed solar output since the 70's. Is Climate Change science only observing temperatures in that narrow recent era?

Since it's doubtful anyone above a certain intelligence level could rationalize such an argument I have a hard time believing this is not an intentional attempt to pervert the scientific debate on the matter when I spelled the issue out several times.

How has solar output in the last 50-60 years compared to the 400 year observable recorded average? It had increased to an unprecedented peak and the increased intensity against what was considered normal for 350 years persisted until just the last few years. It should be expected that warming should continue throughout the period since the 70's and cooling only expected if solar output was less than the 400 year average, not simply less than its unprecedented peak.

What don't you understand about increased solar activity against historical averages causes forced warming, and this forced warming condition has NEVER subsided since around 1950?

what scientific debate? the scientific debate about if AGW is happening or not is over for over a decade. the science has moved on and is looking into the details of AGW, because its clear by now that AGW is happening. and the A is the main reason.

you are not taking part in a scientific debate, you are debating science, and not very well at that.

every few months yet another guy turns up and thinks he has discovered something the scientist must have not seen or do not know. and they make YT videos or take part in a debate on the forum. and its mostly guess work unsupported by any scientific research. and mostly its the same old stuff others have been debunking for years.

the vast majority of experts agrees that the sun cannot account for the late 20th century warming.
when you think you have figured out something that the scientists forgot or overlooked, contact scientists or publish your research in a scientific journal.
when you provide evidence showing the consensus position on AGW to be wrong, there might be a Nobel price for you.

 

[lomiller]

the Sun was in fact well observed during this time and this lack of sunspots is well documented.

Not as well observed as today, or even as well observed as 100 years ago.
I also note you ignored the point of the post to concentrate on a throw in. Sunspot activity drops to near zero every 11 years and the change in solar output this correlates too is only ~0.2%

 

[lomiller]

I can smell the bad science a mile away.

When people take a stance that the entire scientific community is wrong, as you are doing, it smells like bad science.

You are applying only the observed solar output since the 70's

Solar output could not be observed before the 1970’s. Before that we only have proxies but these proxies don’t actually suggest much of a change in the Suns energy output.

Is Climate Change science only observing temperatures in that narrow recent era?

Wrong. Climate science often looks very deep into the past. More is known about the last 150 years when we have direct observation but there are very good proxy records going back thousands of year and reasonably good proxy records going back much farther.

How has solar output in the last 50-60 years compared to the 400 year observable recorded average? It had increased to an unprecedented peak and the increased intensity against what was considered normal for 350 years persisted until just the last few years. It should be expected that warming should continue throughout the period since the 70's and cooling only expected if solar output was less than the 400 year average, not simply less than its unprecedented peak.

No, this is absolutely incorrect and shows you have a fundamental misunderstanding of very basic physics. Essentially what you are saying is that even a small increase in solar activity would cause the Earth to warm indefinitely which is of course absurd.

The Earth warms/cools based on CHANGES in forcing not their absolute value (technically no longer a forcing once equilibrium is reached). There is a small lag, perhaps as much as a decade or two, but any changes in Solar activity from the first half of the 20th century have long since had their impact as the paper I linked to on the previous page clearly showed.

What don't you understand about increased solar activity against historical averages causes forced warming, and this forced warming condition has NEVER subsided since around 1950?

Understanding things that are false is not good practice. Any solar forcing from 1900-1950 have been gone for at least 4 decades. (Again, a forcing is any change that pushes a system away from equilibrium. Once the system finds that new equilibrium it’s no longer a forcing but is now a normal input.)

As has already been pointed out by others, even if we didn’t know already, the fact is that we can measure the signatures of both Solar induced warming and Greenhouse warming and what we find is current warming is caused by greenhouse gasses not solar activity.

A third point, not mentioned yet, but also relevant is that global dimming from aerosol emissions mean the earth’s surface actually receives less sunlight now than any recent period. That would almost certainly include the Maunder Minimum 300 years ago.

 

[aleCcowaN]

I can smell the bad science a mile away.

You may like to think that is true, but here sound argumentation is of the essence and those snippets used for speech adornment won't make you to be closer to any state of knowledge.

You are applying only the observed solar output since the 70's. Is Climate Change science only observing temperatures in that narrow recent era?

No. First of all, there's no "climate change" science, there's climate science. You can't ignore there are many proxies valid to infer previous states of climate. There are no reliable data about solar activity for specific years until present times, although there are solar activity proxies telling a story different than yours.

Since it's doubtful anyone above a certain intelligence level could rationalize such an argument I have a hard time believing this is not an intentional attempt to pervert the scientific debate on the matter when I spelled the issue out several times.

I suggest you to avoid innuendos. Not only they don't add anything in support of your points, but they make you look already defeated instead.

How has solar output in the last 50-60 years compared to the 400 year observable recorded average? It had increased to an unprecedented peak and the increased intensity against what was considered normal for 350 years persisted until just the last few years. It should be expected that warming should continue throughout the period since the 70's and cooling only expected if solar output was less than the 400 year average, not simply less than its unprecedented peak.

No, it hadn't! The "unprecedented peak" is as peak and as unprecedented as you needed it for your argumentation. It's a fatamorgana.

What don't you understand about increased solar activity against historical averages causes forced warming, and this forced warming condition has NEVER subsided since around 1950?

I've already replied the simple flaws of you whole line of argumentation in previous post #8878. I even used crayons to point the adequate level of intellectuality needed to really understand it.

Look, you have to learn that rhetoric won't aid you here, and that «this forced warming condition has NEVER subsided since around 1950», "this forced warming condition has never subsided since around 1950" and "THIS FORCED WARMING CONDITION HAS NEVER SUBSIDED SINCE AROUND 1950" have the same value of truth.

It's tragic that Maunder minimum is used as the base of an anti-scientific branch of global warming denialism. The solar spots were a discovery in an era when the immutability of skies gave way to more down to earth science. Previously, nobody would have seen it -anybody could watch the sun trough a slice of turtle shell or a piece of tourmaline-; they were able to but they wouldn't take any change as any more than a defect in the stones or in their sight. Solar spots were discovered and studied because they were the most obvious feature in that moment. But it's evident that the same way the right planet orbits were used to do better astrology, solar spots were used also with the same purposes.

What amazes me is that some people who is skilled enough to tell astrology is a fake may think that the first observation about the sun that mankind came across was the right observation to tell a story of climate. Behind that there's just animism in a modern shape: the changin' Sun is the harbinger of mankind's fate -the Sun is telling his children something-. Well, no. Some people just have problems to accept that something as powerful as the Sun is kinda passive and dependable regarding to its "behaviour".

 

[Dancing David]

I can smell the bad science a mile away. You are applying only the observed solar output since the 70's. Is Climate Change science only observing temperatures in that narrow recent era?

Since it's doubtful anyone above a certain intelligence level could rationalize such an argument I have a hard time believing this is not an intentional attempt to pervert the scientific debate on the matter when I spelled the issue out several times.

How has solar output in the last 50-60 years compared to the 400 year observable recorded average? It had increased to an unprecedented peak and the increased intensity against what was considered normal for 350 years persisted until just the last few years. It should be expected that warming should continue throughout the period since the 70's and cooling only expected if solar output was less than the 400 year average, not simply less than its unprecedented peak.

What don't you understand about increased solar activity against historical averages causes forced warming, and this forced warming condition has NEVER subsided since around 1950?

Rather than talking about imaginary smells, how about you actually show us the proxy correlations to total solar out out and the solar cycle. Be sure to show the correlation of historical data proxies and solar output proxies, then show the correlation to the sunspot cycle.

 

[Reality Check]

I can smell the bad science a mile away.

batvette, your nose needs looking at.
I am not applying anything.
Climate scientists are applying science to solar output and global temperature over periods of thousands or millions of years. But the current global warming has only been happening for less than 200 years.
You also need to read the science such as Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming?

In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate have been going in opposite directions. In the past century, the Sun can explain some of the increase in global temperatures, but a relatively small amount.

(my emphasis added)

batvette, what don't you understand about increased solar activity causes forced warming, and this forced warming condition has ACTUALLY subsided since around 1975?

I will also repeat the points you ignored:

• The Maunder minimum happened in the middle of the Little Ice Age which suggests that it did not cause the Little Ice Age but did contribute to its severity.
• Climate scientists have looked at the effects of a new Maunder minimum.
  Are we heading into a new Ice Age? - also see How would a Solar Grand Minimum affect global warming? (a drop of "no more than 0.3°C" with CO2 causing a rise of over 3.7°C).
• Humans produce enough CO2 to influence global temperatures.
  Are humans too insignificant to affect global climate?
• And you still ignore the fact that climate scientists know about natural variations.
  Foster and Rahmstorf Measure the Global Warming Signal

 

[Reality Check]

Missed out this bit:

How has solar output in the last 50-60 years compared to the 400 year observable recorded average?
..snipped fantasies about the solar output....

Solar output in the last 50-60 years compared to the 400 year observable recorded average has been constant or even decreasing a little .
batvette, if you had bothered to read Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming? rather then relying on a stance of ignorance then you would know this. See the "Total Solar Irradiance from 1713 to 1996" diagram from Wang 2005.

There is no "unprecedented peak" in solar output. Everyone (except apparently you, batvette ) expects solar output to increase because that is what stars do. What is surprising (but not unprecedented) is that solar output has been constant for 35 years.

 

[batvette]

The PAGES 2k study would disagree with you:


http://www.pages-igbp.org/workinggroups/2k-network/faq#

If the intensity of solar cycles were a primary driver, how would the MWP and LIA not be global phenomenon?

That's a useless argument since it's also the position that climate change would see some areas warm and some cool.
What seems to be going on with your reply is you've found someone who has decided that little ice ages and what not should be forgotten about if they choose to redefine the parameters and definitions of these well documented events, none of which require identical patterns of change everywhere globally to have happened.
Science works through consensus, it's strange you're attempting to support consensus on climate change by offering fringe theory on little ice ages and medieval warming.
(and this is not a self refuting argument about consensus, I'm not presenting fringe theory on solar variation)

 

[batvette]

Not as well observed as today, or even as well observed as 100 years ago.

You could say the same about the temperature data but we're not throwing that out are we?

I provided a authoritative source refuting your argument. Please note I recognize that unanimous agreement with my talking points is not necessary for them to be valid.

I also note you ignored the point of the post to concentrate on a throw in. Sunspot activity drops to near zero every 11 years and the change in solar output this correlates too is only ~0.2%

I didn't ignore it. One of us thinks a .2% change in solar output is insignificant, the other does not.

Strange though as it's been argued by someone else here that science recognizes solar variation as causing some warming. What is your point?

 

[batvette]

When people take a stance that the entire scientific community is wrong, as you are doing, it smells like bad science.

Edited by Gaspode: 

Edited for moderated thread.

Solar output could not be observed before the 1970’s. Before that we only have proxies but these proxies don’t actually suggest much of a change in the Suns energy output.

Wrong. Climate science often looks very deep into the past. More is known about the last 150 years when we have direct observation but there are very good proxy records going back thousands of year and reasonably good proxy records going back much farther.

LOL, proxies are dismissed for solar variation but accepted for temperature. We're in the Twilight Zone.

No, this is absolutely incorrect and shows you have a fundamental misunderstanding of very basic physics. Essentially what you are saying is that even a small increase in solar activity would cause the Earth to warm indefinitely which is of course absurd.

Of course it is which is why I never said it.

The Earth warms/cools based on CHANGES in forcing not their absolute value (technically no longer a forcing once equilibrium is reached).

Look at the image I posted from MY photobucket page that I, the taxpayer, rightfully downloaded from NASA:

Why do you not understand that over this 400 year period of time we can calculate an average level of solar activity and the activity in the last part of the 20th century greatly exceeds this average DURING EVERY CYCLE, EVEN THE LOWEST OF THE SIX WITHIN THAT PERIOD?


"Equilibrium" is the 400 year average. It is not the end of the highest cycle.

As has already been pointed out by others, even if we didn’t know already, the fact is that we can measure the signatures of both Solar induced warming and Greenhouse warming and what we find is current warming is caused by greenhouse gasses not solar activity.

Is Methane Gas a greenhouse gas? How much was produced by solar variation induced melting of polar ice in the 20th century?

 

[CapelDodger]

The latest meta analysis. I couldn't find this posted earlier:

http://www.theage.com.au/environmen...change-doubt-science-says-20130515-2jmup.html



Where's the doubt?

Where's the conspiracy? Check out WattsUpMyButt to find out all about it .

 

[CapelDodger]

How has solar output in the last 50-60 years compared to the 400 year observable recorded average? It had increased to an unprecedented peak and the increased intensity against what was considered normal for 350 years persisted until just the last few years. It should be expected that warming should continue throughout the period since the 70's and cooling only expected if solar output was less than the 400 year average, not simply less than its unprecedented peak.

It would not be expected that warming would continue since the 70's if the solar output stabilised in the 70's.

What don't you understand about increased solar activity against historical averages causes forced warming, and this forced warming condition has NEVER subsided since around 1950?

You are indeed suggesting that, if solar output remains at its current level, warming will continue indefinitely. I wasn't quite sure about that before but that makes it quite clear.

What I think you're not grasping is that as the world warms it loses heat more rapidly, to the point where the extra loss in a day is equal to the extra input (or extra retention, in the case of AGW). This is called equilibrium, and in the case of a small forcing takes no time at all. In the case of solar output increase, it would certainly have been reached by now.

There is no secret saviour to be found in the Sun. We know lots about it, and it's not causing global warming. The grim truth is that the predicted AGW you've never wanted to be true really is, and it's happening quite visibly to all. All who care to see, anyway. Post hoc inventions of faery forces that happened along at the same time are no contest for that obvious fact.

 

[batvette]

You may like to think that is true, but here sound argumentation is of the essence and those snippets used for speech adornment won't make you to be closer to any state of knowledge.



No. First of all, there's no "climate change" science, there's climate science. You can't ignore there are many proxies valid to infer previous states of climate. There are no reliable data about solar activity for specific years until present times, although there are solar activity proxies telling a story different than yours.



I suggest you to avoid innuendos. Not only they don't add anything in support of your points, but they make you look already defeated instead.



No, it hadn't! The "unprecedented peak" is as peak and as unprecedented as you needed it for your argumentation. It's a fatamorgana.



I've already replied the simple flaws of you whole line of argumentation in previous post #8878. I even used crayons to point the adequate level of intellectuality needed to really understand it.

Look, you have to learn that rhetoric won't aid you here, and that «this forced warming condition has NEVER subsided since around 1950», "this forced warming condition has never subsided since around 1950" and "THIS FORCED WARMING CONDITION HAS NEVER SUBSIDED SINCE AROUND 1950" have the same value of truth.

It's tragic that Maunder minimum is used as the base of an anti-scientific branch of global warming denialism. The solar spots were a discovery in an era when the immutability of skies gave way to more down to earth science. Previously, nobody would have seen it -anybody could watch the sun trough a slice of turtle shell or a piece of tourmaline-; they were able to but they wouldn't take any change as any more than a defect in the stones or in their sight. Solar spots were discovered and studied because they were the most obvious feature in that moment. But it's evident that the same way the right planet orbits were used to do better astrology, solar spots were used also with the same purposes.

What amazes me is that some people who is skilled enough to tell astrology is a fake may think that the first observation about the sun that mankind came across was the right observation to tell a story of climate. Behind that there's just animism in a modern shape: the changin' Sun is the harbinger of mankind's fate -the Sun is telling his children something-. Well, no. Some people just have problems to accept that something as powerful as the Sun is kinda passive and dependable regarding to its "behaviour".

Get on over to wiki and start editing:

Solar output also varies on shorter time scales, including the 11-year solar cycle[29] and longer-term modulations.[30] Solar intensity variations are considered to have been influential in triggering the Little Ice Age,[31] and some of the warming observed from 1900 to 1950. The cyclical nature of the sun's energy output is not yet fully understood; it differs from the very slow change that is happening within the sun as it ages and evolves. Research indicates that solar variability has had effects including the Maunder minimum from 1645 to 1715 A.D., part of the Little Ice Age from 1550 to 1850 A.D. that was marked by relative cooling and greater glacier extent than the centuries before and afterward.[32][33] Some studies point toward solar radiation increases from cyclical sunspot activity affecting global warming, and climate may be influenced by the sum of all effects (solar variation, anthropogenic radiative forcings, etc.).[34][35]

It's substantiated by reliable sources, the denialism here is not on my part.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#Solar_output

 

[lomiller]

That's a useless argument since it's also the position that climate change would see some areas warm and some cool.

Climate change does not say this. It doesn’t rule out some short term cooling trends in some areas or perhaps even longer cooling trends in very limited areas but it does no generically suggest “some place will get warmer and others will get cooler” as you suggest.

What seems to be going on with your reply is you've found someone who has decided that little ice ages and what not should be forgotten about if they choose to redefine the parameters and definitions of these well documented events, none of which require identical patterns of change everywhere globally to have happened.

You seem to be ignoring what the published science says about the little ice age in favor of what you which to believe about it. The published science simply doesn’t support you the link you were responding to is just one example of such science.

Science works through consensus, it's strange you're attempting to support consensus on climate change by offering fringe theory on little ice ages and medieval warming.

As I said you are the one clinging to beliefs that have no basis in the published science. The fact that you were given a published study and dismissed it without evidence shows this.

You could say the same about the temperature data but we're not throwing that out are we?

We have temperature data going back 300+ in some locations but we only use the last ~130 when observations became more systematic in the late 1800’s. Likewise the observations of sunspots that started taking place in the late 1800’s became more organized, and are more reliable.

None of this addresses the real point which is when sunspot numbers are compared to actual measurements we see only a few tenths of a percent change in solar activity.

I didn't ignore it. One of us thinks a .2% change in solar output is insignificant, the other does not.

Strange though as it's been argued by someone else here that science recognizes solar variation as causing some warming. What is your point?

LOL. We had better hope 0.2% is not as significant as you claim because if it is the 1.5% from greenhouse gasses we’ve caused so far is going to have much bigger impact than even the worst case estimates.

Strange though as it's been argued by someone else here that science recognizes solar variation as causing some warming. What is your point?

By someone else, do you mean me linking to a paper peer reviewed paper show just how much warming can be attributed to solar activity?
Here is the refresher ~0.3 deg C warming pre 1950 ~0 deg C post 1950.

 

[lomiller]

LOL, proxies are dismissed for solar variation but accepted for temperature. We're in the Twilight Zone. Of course it is which is why I never said it.

Proxies for temperature are a lot better than proxies for solar activity. Not only are they more precise but they have a much more comprehensive set of observed data to calibrate against. There is also a lot more independent temperature proxies, all of which say the same thing.
You still continue to dodge the point I was making, which is that even if accurate sunspot numbers do not suggest a large change in insolation.

Of course it is which is why I never said it.

You clearly said that the earth should continue warming as long as solar activity was above historic levels. This is wrong for the reasons I gave. Denying you said it just makes you look foolish as anyone can go back and read your posts.

Why do you not understand that over this 400 year period of time we can calculate an average level of solar activity and the activity in the last part of the 20th century greatly exceeds this average DURING EVERY CYCLE, EVEN THE LOWEST OF THE SIX WITHIN THAT PERIOD?

You are confusing Sunspot activity with insolation. To be useful a proxy must be calibrated to actual measurements. Sunspot activity drops to near zero every 11 years and this only correlates to a tiny drop in global temperatures that is too small to generate a statistically significance change in temperature.

"Equilibrium" is the 400 year average. It is not the end of the highest cycle.

You can’t just pick the equilibrium point of a system to be whatever fits the result you want. Solar forcing are fully felt within a decade or two.

Is Methane Gas a greenhouse gas? How much was produced by solar variation induced melting of polar ice in the 20th century?

Current CH4 forcing is about 1W per m^2 across the top of the atmosphere. This equals 4W per m^2 change in insolation. (do the math if you don’t believe me) This is about double what you see between peak and minimum sunspot activity.
It’s unlikely any of this can be attributed to CH4 released in response to solar variation. First it’s not clear how much, if any, of this CH4 comes from a warming arctic, more importantly CH4 is relatively short lived in the atmosphere so any pre 1950 caused by solar activity would be long gone.

 

[Dancing David]

Get on over to wiki and start editing:



It's substantiated by reliable sources, the denialism here is not on my part.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#Solar_output

It shows you can't read very well. there is no citation for solar output and the Maunder minimum. Which is why I asked for what I did about the solar radiance proxies and the Maunder minimum.



So I see you don't know how to read sources and just pretend that something says something it doesn't.

Why don't you read teha ctual source material then bring us teh meaningful bits?

 

[CapelDodger]

It's substantiated by reliable sources, the denialism here is not on my part.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#Solar_output

What on Earth do you think that says?

Lets recall what you're defending http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9222447#post9

- "... the fact the Maunder minimum is accepted to have caused a little ice age". Your quote says that the Maunder Minimum was between 1645 and 1714CE, within the Little Ice Age (1550-1850CE). The former, then, was not the cause of the latter.

The normal position, which we mostly share, is that solar variation makes a contribution to climate variation. Similarly the normal position is that if solar doesn't vary it won't cause the climate to vary. Your positions are different but not even vaguely defensible.