How do skeptics explain the lack of correlation of sunspot activity and temperatures?

Question

This graph, from the dailytech link, does NOT correspond to temperature graphs.

Dailytech link...

http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/9110_large_geomagnetic.JPG

Temperature data...

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2008/jul/lo-hem-jul-pg.gif

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

1. Dailytech links show 1998, 2005 and 2007 solar activity was unremarkable to low, yet annual means are .57, .62 and .57 (C), respectively. No correlation!

2. 1991 and 1993 show spikes in solar activity, but their respective annual means are .35 and .14 (C), respectively. Annual temp means lower than 1998, 2005 and 2007, yet higher solar activity.No correlation!

Climatologists have always understood the sun has a role in climate change. Skeptics never got the memo, or conveniently decided to ignore it so as to perpetuate your myth.

Answer 1

That's easy - they don't!

First off, sunspots have no impact on global temperatures or climate.  They do correlate fairly well with total solar irradiance (TSI), which does directly impact global temperatures.  Thus sunspots are a proxy for TSI.

Ironically, one main denier argument is that we don't know enough about past temperatures because proxies aren't reliable.  Oh, but solar proxies are.

The solar warming argument is a purely historical one.  The argument shows sunspot proxies vs. global temperature proxies (boy, that's a lot of proxies), and that there's a good correlation between the two.  Sure, because solar irradiance is one of the main climate forcings.  Carbon dioxide is another.

Once you get beyond the historical argument to the modern data, the correlation falls apart.  There's been no increase on average in TSI (or sunspots) in 30 years, yet global temperatures have increased 0.5°C over that period.  Oops.  So then they try to argue 'well, 2008 has been relatively cool, and there's been low sunspot activity this year, so there's your connection again!'.  Of course this argument ignores that

a) as you note, there have been years with low sunspot activity (and solar irradiance) and high temperature recently as well

b) this year has also been a strong La Nina cycle year

The problem with the deniers is that they grossly oversimplify things.  They think that AGW requires there to be a 1-to-1 relationship between CO2 and global temperature.  We see this all the time when they say 'CO2 has increased since 1998 but global temps haven't [false] therefore AGW is wrong'.  AGW doesn't require this 1-to-1 correspondance, because AGW recognizes there are many climate forcings.

Deniers do the same thing with solar effects.  They're trying to prove a 1-to-1 correlation, but none exists.  Sure the sun is a major climate forcing, but that's not the issue.  The issue is which forcing(s) is/are responsible for the recent global warming.  We know it's not the sun, because TSI (and sunspots) haven't increased in 30 years!  And yes Tomcat, that includes ACRIM, which has shown a tiny fraction of a percent increase over that period (from your own link 0.004% per decade).

Deniers don't explain the lack of recent correlation between sunspots (and TSI) and global temperatures.  They deny it.

Answer 2

I think Jim answered your question perfectly.  He showed you exactly how skeptics would "explain" the lack of correlation.  

1) He calls others names (while you politely used the term "skeptics" vs. "deniers") and accuses them of political bias.

2) He falsely accuses you of claiming sunspot activity doesn't relate at all to climate (when you are clearly referring only to a lack of recent temperature to sunspot correlations and you specifically acknowledged the suns role).

3) He links to a chart that doesn't support his own position (it shows 1950 as the sunspot peak, which clearly doesn't correlate to a temperature peak in 1998 or 2005).

This study sums it up well:

http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/mpa/publi...

"this new understanding indicates that brightening of the Sun is unlikely to have had a significant influence on global warming since the seventeenth century"

Answer 3

Sure blame it on a beneficial gas. Do some research, you will find a lot that's not mention. I would suggest cycle 23 for starters. But here's a prediction for 24. Tie that in with the last PDO, and NA has seen one of the mildest years yet. Climate isn't isolated to one particular region why do alarmist have such a hard time with that?

http://www.nab.org/xert/scitech/pdfs/rd0...

Here's a link to 23 if you have a hard time using the Internet.

http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headline...

Answer 4

It is really basic climatology to understand the relationship between temperature and sunspot activity.  Are you a sunspot denier.  Here is a link to help you out since some alarmists seem to have a hard time separating their politics from the actual science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sunsp...

In case you need a little help, the Mauder minimum relates to the Little Ice Age.

Here is a little longer term graph:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbo...

I think you might want to rethink your suggestion that sunspot activity doesn't relate to climate.

Answer 5

It's easy for a skeptic to explain, all we have to do is say that the sun isn't the cause of the recent increase in temperature (it's the extra CO2 we humans have put into the atmosphere that is to blame).

Of course that's just what those who deserve the title of skeptic will say, those who typically use it in this 'debate' tend not to actually be skeptics.

Answer 6

It is fairly easy to explain, according to the ACRIM composite 1996 solar activity was still on the increase and only in 2005 did it fall below pre 1986 levels. There is generally a 2+ year period between changes in solar activity and climate response, which explains why 2007 saw one of the largest decreases in globally averaged temperatures.

Climate research is still in it's infancy, it would be naive to assume that climatologists have the knowledge and the data required to make predictions decades into the future, when they can't even explain the past.

EDIT: DANA

Stop cherry picking the data my link shows a .038% increase between minimums (1987 - 1996), and considering that temperatures have been on the decline since 1998 the climate does not appear to be responding to CO2 anymore than it does changes in solar activity.

Answer 7

Yeah ???  Well here is one 'skeptic' who knows how to explain it very well . You guys are the cherry pickers , the deniers and the closed minded . You seem to only WANT to believe in one unproven theory and ignore the rest of science . There are good correlations with Solar forcing   . You choose ... to ignore them or , you are very poor at doing research .

http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/prod...

http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/20...

http://www.springerlink.com/content/q174...

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998GeoRL....

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005......

Answer 8

The data doesn't show they can, if they're honest.

As I posted in another skeptics post...

NOAA:

"Also, the seven months from January to July 2008 ranked as the ninth warmest seven-month period for combined average global land and ocean surface temperature."

and

"The combined global land and ocean surface temperature tied with 2001 and 2003 as the fifth warmest July on record"

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/rese...

Just how could that be, since the sunspot count has been so low, as shown in your link???

http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/9110_...

They are in serious denial if this data is dismissed!