How do we know the solar effect in climate models is wrong?

Don’t let any “deniers” tell you differently-climate models do contain solar forcing. But the solar effect is known to be erroneous! Anyone who claims otherwise hasn’t read the IPCC reports. What am I talking about? Well this presentation has the answer. The IPCC has not denied the findings of multiple studies that the signal of the eleven year solar cycle in temperature data is .1 degrees Celsius (For example, Douglass and Calder). But this is not the magnitude of the effect found in models! The magnitude, in models, is just .o3 degrees Celsius-you heard that right, they underestimate the solar cycle effect by over 3 times! It obviously follows that the amount of warming due to solar effects is wrong, and too low. From which it follows that the anthropogenic contribution is too high. Nobody can disagree with this without going against the IPCC (the “consensus”). Granted, with enough aerosol forcing, this can be fit within the paradigm of a strong CO2 effect, but the more likely explanation is that amplifying mechanisms act to make solar activity more important in a climate that is relatively insensitive to greenhouse forcing.

Advertisements

3 Comments

Filed under Klimacht

3 responses to “How do we know the solar effect in climate models is wrong?

  1. Werdna, look at this sentence:
    <i?The IPCC has not denied the findings of multiple studies that the signal of the eleven year solar cycle in temperature data is .1 degrees Celsius (For example, Douglass and Calder). But this is not the magnitude of the effect found in models! The magnitude, in models, is just .o3 degrees Celsius-you heard that right, they underestimate the solar cycle effect by 33 times!
    Well, if the decimal places are correct, the the division gives 3.33… instead. I don’t know how that affects your point, but you need to retool it.

    BTW, what is indeed, happening about the Sun right now? Is it cooling because of the fewer sunspots? We might be lucky (?) if a Maunder minimum etc. compensates for recent warming tendencies.

  2. timetochooseagain

    Jeez, how embarassing, my math is terrible…:( I’ll fix it, and thanks for aleting me to it.

    Yeah, I suppose a Maunder Minimum could compensate for the warming tendency. But I think recent cooling is more of a blip (a La Nina effect) than a trend. Still, I’m not hoping for a grand minima,becuase if it were to ~totally~ override the warming tendency, and cuase cooling, that would be quite harmful. I’d perfer mild warming-which, I think, is quite probable.

  3. Pingback: Response to World Climate Report-”Highlights of the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change”-Where I Agree and Disagree « Time to Choose Again