USA Today published a supposed fact check claiming solar activity is not responsible for climate change. This is misleading at best, and foolishly wrong at worst.
Various types of changes in solar activity have long been associated with changes in the Earth’s temperature and climate, on short, mid-term, and longer time scales.
The USA Today article by Kate S. Petersen, “The sun is mighty, but modern climate change is caused by human activity | Fact check,” presents itself as a fact check on a popular Facebook post. [emphasis, links added]
Wow! Responding to somebody’s … Facebook post is taking on hard-hitting news from a reliable source! Still, when one examines the post, and compares it to the supposed fact check, the Facebook post is closer to the truth than Petersen’s and USA Today’s story.
“The implied claim is wrong,” Petersen writes. “While the Sun significantly impacts Earth’s climate, it is not responsible for modern climate change.”
“While the amount of solar energy striking the Earth fluctuates on an 11-year cycle, there hasn’t been a net increase since the 1950s, according to NASA,” Petersen continues. “However, global surface temperatures have risen dramatically.”
Petersen either is unaware of or simply ignored the fact that the 11-year solar cycles during which Sol’s magnetic fields flip are just one type of solar cycle that can drive temperature and climate changes on the Earth.
Sunspots and solar flares happen seemingly at random though with some consistency, and 1,000 and 1,500-year [solar-driven] cycles, and Milankovitch cycles also occur.
All of these activities and others impact the Earth’s temperatures.
As discussed in Climate at a Glance: The Sun’s Impact on Climate Change, historically through the present day, solar activity correlates quite well with climate change, better than changes in CO2. (see figures 1-3, below)
All the myriad ways solar activity impacts the Earth are not fully understood. Changes in solar output and their impact on solar winds are plausible explanations for temperature shifts on some time scales.
Scientific research also suggests another type of forcing from the sun, its impact on the volume of cosmic rays entering the Earth’s atmosphere, which also impacts cloud formation and rainfall.
The point is, when Petersen and the government agencies she references state that the sun can’t be a factor in current climate change, they are only looking at one type of solar activity on a single time scale. Our solar system isn’t that simple.
To buttress her claim that the sun isn’t causing or significantly contributing to present climate change, Petersen quotes Josh Willis, a NASA climate scientist, who told USA Today that “the amount of warming we see matches what we expect based on the increased CO2 we’ve added. The timing of the warming matches the timing of the CO2 increase caused by people.”
Willis’s claim doesn’t match the facts.
The Earth began to warm in the mid- to late 19th century before humans began emitting large significant amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, then after the 1940s, even as global industrialization and anthropogenic CO2 emissions were increasing at a rapid pace, the Earth began cooling, leading some scientists and media outlets by the 1970s to warn that an ice age might be coming.
Then, the Earth started warming in the 1980s, only to plateau or pause for 15 years beginning in the late 1990s, despite CO2’s steady increase.
There has, in fact, been no good correlation between CO2 concentrations and temperature changes throughout the latter 20th and early 21st centuries.
Also, as we’ve discussed dozens of times at Climate Realism, CO2-driven temperature changes projected by climate models don’t, in fact, accurately reflect recent warming trends.
Ground-level temperature measurements, weather-balloon temperature measurements, and satellite temperature measurements are far lower than model projections built on the assumption that CO2 is the prime forcing factor for global warming.
As a result, Willis is simply wrong when he says, “The amount of warming we see matches what we expect based on the increased CO2 we’ve added.”
The physics and factors that drive the Earth’s climate conditions are many, varied, and complex.
The Earth is not the simple linear system described in climate models and presented by Petersen and USA Today.
Carbon dioxide is likely one factor influencing the recent modest warming, but the sun and numerous other factors are almost certainly having an impact as well—arguably playing a role greater than the increase in greenhouse gases.
Read more at Climate Realism
With regards to Figure 1, simply adding the increases for the three spectral slices yields a total increase in total irradiance of .97% (0.70%+0.20%+0.07%=0.97%), or roughly 1%. However, these numbers must be weighted relative to their total contribution to the total solar irradiance. So, the relative amounts are as follows: UV comprises 4% of the total irradiance, visible light comprises 43%, and IR comprises 53%. Weighting accordingly, the correct total shows a total irradiance increase of 0.15%, not 1%. That increase seems trivial by any standard and must be seriously questioned. Even if such a small amount were to impact temperatures, then why are the contemporary changes so radically different for different geographical regions? Namely, it is well established (UAH satellite data, lower troposphere) that the recent trend in temperature increase for the Arctic (60-90 north latitude) is roughly 13 times higher than the trend rate in the Antarctic (.26 degrees C vs .02 degrees C), and roughly double the rate for the tropics (.26 degrees C vs .12 degrees C).
I have argued that changes in mid-ocean geothermal flux must be taken into account. The geothermal evidence is strongly supported by theoretical, empirical, and modeling evidence, yet it goes completely ignored by most. I present the argument in a recent podcast:
Trying to look at changes in solar intensity to explain changes in climate focuses on the wrong parameter. Clouds have factors that both cool and warm the earth, but their net impact is to cool. Radiation form space acts as a catalyst to increase cloud formation. When the solar output is higher, so is its magnetic field. This field defects some of the radiation away from earth, so there are fewer clouds, and a warmer planet.
No gas at any concentration in the atmosphere can warm the planet. According to the IPCC, The upper tropical troposphere is the layer that sends IR radiation beck down to the surface.
As this upper layer is -17 deg C and the surface is 15 deg C, it is impossible for it to warm the surface. A colder body cannot warm a warmer body. For the waters of the surface, any IR is absorbed by the first nanometers of water and immediately lost to surface evaporation.
It’s all fake science that there are greenhouse gases in any form.
This may be the first H. Serling Burnett article I have ever disagreed with
Sunspot counts as a proxy for top of the atmosphere solar energy have been found to be worthless based on satellite data from NASA since the 1970s
Points made in this article based on sunspot counts are meaningless and shuld be ignored.
There is no evidence changing solar energy has affected the climate since the late 1690s when a low sunspot count during the Maunder i was accompanied by unusually cold weather, at least in Europe. That may have been a coincidence.
https://honestclimatescience.blogspot.com/
The F10.7 cm (2800 MHz) solar radio emission appears to be a better proxy for solar output than sunspot number or area.
https://spawx.nwra.com/spawx/f10.html
https://sci-hub.st/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2021.08.004
http://eng.sepc.ac.cn/F107Index.php
Not too long ago, they thought F10.7 couldn’t go below a hypothetical bottom of 60… the last solar minimum dipped below that and people were freaking out thinking the sun’s fusion furnace was shutting down. LOL
Above ~100 indicates Earth is warming, below ~100 indicates Earth is cooling… it’s at about 180 right now. It can range up to ~300 during a solar maximum.
USA TODAY it like the NYT’s and the rest of the leftists propaganda rags(NYT,sWP,)the typical leftists propaganda we get from the talking heads from all the leading news networks and CNN