[TheEnemy]

Solar cycle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Until recently it was thought that there were 28 cycles in the 309 years between 1699 and 2008, giving an average length of 11.04 years, but recent research has showed that the longest of these (1784–1799) seems actually to have been two cycles,[1][2] so that the average length is only around 10.66 years. Cycles as short as 9 years and as long as 14 years have been observed, and in the double cycle of 1784-1799 one of the two component cycles had to be less than 8 years in length. Significant variations in amplitude also occur. Solar maximum and solar minimum refer respectively to epochs of maximum and minimum sunspot counts. Individual sunspot cycles are partitioned from one minimum to the next.

Pay attention to the scale on the left side of the graph. The max dT over the whole reconstruction period is (by eyeball) 1.7 W/m^2. Since solar output averages 1361 W/m^2, that's a change of 0.125%. Now for simplicity assume the temperature change is linear, then that change in output would change the Earth's temperature by 0.00125 * 288K = 0.36K in the last 3 centuries.

So I should just ignore any changes that the sun has gone through? Did you even look at the calculations I did in the previous post?

No? I expect you didn't pay much attention in e.g. math class. If you get an unexpected result, you go back and check your work to see if you've made a mistake. As for example the recent fuss about the neutrinos that apparently travelled faster than light, eventually traced to a false reading caused by a bad cable IIRC .

I do regularly check to see if the results make sense, its called a sanity check.

Crap. First you have to find an actual climate scientist who doesn't agree with the main conclusion. You might find a couple, but they are still getting grants. You might also find a few self-proclaimed ones who've had their work discredited (the ones who were trying to blame the warming on cosmic rays, perhaps), but that's because their work was either honestly bad, or faked.

It depends on what the "main" conclusion is, as I said many pages before there are actually many levels of conclusion.

For instance if your conclusion is that the earth is warming, all climate scientists would agree, even most of us on this board including me would agree.

If your conclusion is that CO2 is responsible for a moderate to large part of it you would still have the vast majority of climate scientists, and the majority of the people involved in this discussion, including me.

If your conclusion was that CO2 is responsible for all of the warming, then you would actually loose most of the climate scientists, and many of the people in this discussion. Its a matter of how the thing is worded.

edit to add: The TSI reconstruction actually re-inforces your views, so wouldn't it be good for me to use it?