Dear old Peggy: She should stick to teaching her Kindergarten class and leave the real science to the true scientists. Also the history of instrumentation would be in order. Counting has been here longer than the thermometer.
CR: It sure tracks closer than CO2 levels. Or do you still believe Al Gore?
Yes I believe the sun is responsible for our recent warming, but I am not sure it is linked to TSI, there are a lot of other changes that happen during sunspots cycles UV rays alter by about 6% and solar and earth magnetic fields alter too.
I accept what pegminer says about TSI proxy readings as it has been recorded that TSI is acting strangely in the last year or two.
I still think 0.1% TSI has a greater effect than 0.04 CO2
Based on the graph you linked to, TSI in the last 30 to 40 years has been above normal.
Presumably your argument is that TSI has been above normal and so have temperatures, therefore TSI is to blame for global warming.
When we look closer at the last 30 to 40 years we see that TSI has been declining, right at the time when temperatures have been rising. Suddenly your hypothesis isn’t looking so good.
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/imagen...
We can go further and look at a comparison between TSI, temperatures and CO2. Up to about 1960 there was a correlation between TSI and temperature, thereafter it falls apart and it’s temperature and CO2 that are correlated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Temp-s...
This leaves a problem for the “it’s the Sun” hypothesis, namely that the evidence shows that it’s not the Sun. Do you have an explanation as to why TSI and temps have diverged?
I'd put very little stock in TSI in the pre-satellite era.
EDIT for your additional details: Yes, I had looked up that reference also, and I stand by what I said. From that paper "The estimated standard error of Sest and the measured value from satellite is 0.5744 W/m^2." That seems awfully big to me, and it's also presuming a lot given a relatively small data set.
However, if you believe in the number and you think it's enough to account for the warming that we've seen, by all means demonstrate it to us. You could start with an equilibrium radiative balance equation written in terms of TSI, the albedo of Earth and a presumed mean emissivity. Take the differential to get an equation of the form:
dT = f(TSI, T, emissivity, albedo) d(TSI) and show us how the numbers work out for you.
EDIT for Sagebrush: Sure, counting has been around for a long time--even you can presumably count up to at least 16-24, depending on how many fingers and toes you and your closely related kinfolk have. My question is whether counting something to at most 3 digits (sunspot number) is going to give you 5 digits of accuracy on your TSI. It's amazing you guys will accept this work and reject Mann's.
Another EDIT for Maxx: No calculation is necessary--the standard error is more than one-third of the whole variation across the 400 year time period! (Ok, I did that calculation in my head). As a percentage error in the TSI it's small, but who cares? It's the variation in the TSI that's important.
Still Another EDIT: Like I already said, no, I don't trust it. The reconstruction is interesting and suggestive, like the hockey stick reconstructions of Michael Mann and others, but I'm not going to bet the farm on either one. So no, I'm not going to trust it enough to play your game of above normal, below normal, or Goldilocks special. Like I said, go ahead and claim it's above normal and see what you get, I think I told you how to do it.
Here's what I think you want to say--the TSI is above "normal" so we expect to have above "normal" temperatures. That's pretty much meaningless unless you can estimate just how much above "normal" you would expect from that TSI. Do the calculation and figure it out, it will be a nice exercise for you and I don't think the math is too hard for a quick estimate. I'm betting what you'll find is that the variation in TSI is simply NOT going to give you the variation in temperature that you want.
Final EDIT: Clearly you're either unable to do the calculation or uninterested in it. Either way you'd find that your whole question is pointless--and I'm pretty sure you don't want to find that out.
I'll put it this way. Solar activity does explain why 1980 was warmer than 1680, but not why 2010 was warmer than 1980.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/pmod/fr...
Maxx
You are the one who is ignoring the laws of physics. The Sun stopped warming over 50 years ago. Don't blame me for what's in the graph.Although, perhaps a graph with the HadCRUT3 dataset rather than the GISS dataset might be more to your liking.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/pmod/fr...
Stopped warming =/= was extinguished. We'd all be dead if the Sun just kept getting hotter and hotter.
Sagebrush
When did I ever use non-scientist Al Gore as a source?
-
So, what this graph shows is that total solar irradiance has increased by less than 1 W/m^2.
Is this the cause of global warming? Not according to climatologists. If you disagree, please calculate the additional warming this would have and show it is greater than the warming implied by the accumulation of human-produced greenhouse gases.
-----------------------
The graph linked below provides TSI data from the year 1611 to 2012. Please view the graph and tell me if you think TSI has been Normal, Above Normal or Below Normal for approximately the last 30 to 40 years of the data-set.
Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) since 1611:
http://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/tsi/historical_tsi.html
-----------------------
