New study pounds another coffin nail into solar warming theory

[Crick]

If you don't know where the original work is, how do you know what it says?

This took about 30 seconds: http://www.leif.org/research/CEAB-Cliver-et-al-2013.pdf

But it's a bit old. Here's more:

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1407/1407.3231.pdf

 

[flacaltenn]

Solar Warming theory?

It's not a fact that the sun warms the earth?

God these fucking bed wetters are stupid.

LMAO...........dude.........welcome to the ENVIRONMENT forum. Stop in often.........skeptics have hoot in here. And check out the thread MORE PROOF THE SKEPTICS ARE WINNING thread. Thread has pwned the forum for well over 2 years now!!! Billions of links that make the jackasses look like jackasses.

These bozo's cant connect the dots that since they disown anything related to the sun having an effect on the climate, their cause has gone directly south in recent years. We celebrate their level of ePiC fAiL in here daily!!

sk00ks I watched some program Sunday morning on History channel 2, the Universe, in this program they state that the sun is responsible for only 20% of the earth's warming. I fell right out of my chair.

I swear. On a cable channel there are folks making documentaries saying this. 20%.

I thought the sun warmed the planet all these years. Now I'm really confused by these lefty warmers. Where is the heat engine then?

It is the History channel.. Only thing they are accurate on are Nazis and aliens..

 

[flacaltenn]

If you don't know where the original work is, how do you know what it says?

I don't. But I don't trust biased editorial content from some "cub reporter" just because they work for a Physics mag. What I've HEARD -- is that the paper simply lays out all of the new rules for sun spot counting and does some historical corrections.

NOTE CRICK --- When anyone ELSE makes corrections to a historical record in science -- they publish the data and their methods OPENLY and PUBLICLY. That's what's supposed to happen isn't it? Go show NASA and Hadley how this "science thingy" is supposed to work when you find this paper..

 

[Crick]

Where do you get this editorial content crap?

From the conclusion of Clette, Cliver and Svalgaard:

"Regarding the impact of the new SN recalibration, the most prominent implication is the significant reduction of the upward trend in the average amplitude of solar cycles that was present in the original GN series between the 18th and the late 20th century. The recalibrated series indicates that 11-yr peak SNs during the 18th and 19th century were comparable to those observed during the recent interval of strong activity during the second half of the 20th century. The scenario of the initial post-Minimum recovery is still uncertain, as the exact amplitude of the first cycles of the 18th century remains difficult to establish given the scarcity of observations over that period. Still, the vanishing upward trend over the last 250 years questions the existence of a modern “Grand Maximum” in the 20th century (Solanki et al. 2004, Abreu et al. 2008, Usoskin et al. 2012, 2014), which resulted primarily from the erroneous transition between Wolf and Wolfer in the Hoyt and Schatten GN time series. As this “Grand Maximum” concept rests on the occurrence of out-of-range amplitudes of the solar cycle, it is definitely contradicted by the re-calibrated and reconciled SN and GN series."

 

[mamooth]

If this new info is right, it will require a lot of models get ... "redone" is a little strong. Maybe "recalibrated". That should be interesting, as I can see how it could push them either way.