How many peer reviewed papers suggest the sun plays a >50% role in the recent warming trend?

Question

I've seen such papers that suggest it plays up to 30%, but never >50%. The reason I ask this is because it's one of the favorite arguments among skeptics/deniers on this forum.

Please post a link.

Answer 1

The sun's output has been measured by satellites in space since the 1970's .  Contrary ot what denialist would have you believe, solar output has been steady over the past 30 years (see box of factors that warm and cool the earth in box on page 7).

Another myth down!

http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/clim...

Answer 2

Zero.

The greatest attribution of solar effects to global warming over the past 30 years in any study  is 25-35%.  That was a Scafetta and West paper which had some significant flaws.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...

Most studies attribute just 0-10% of the recent warming to solar effects.  Over the past century it may be as high as 50%, because most of the warming in the early 20th Century was due to increasing solar irradiance.  See link below.

Answer 3

Try this:

http://www.spaceandscience.net/sitebuild...

[11] Therefore, the comprehensive nature of the findings and strongly supported conclusions of the study, when coupled with other research on this subject, are such, that in aggregate they provide a plausible explanation for the periodic reversals of climate change displayed by multi-decadal shifts from ‘global cooling’ to ‘global warming’ and back to ‘global cooling’, etc.. This yields a fundamental new basis for the general public, government leadership, educators and students, to understand the repetitive and variable nature of solar activity and the effects they have on the Earth’s climate.

[12] As a result of the theory, it can be predicted that the next solar minimum may start within the next 3-14 years, and last 2-3 solar cycles or approximately 22-33 years. Beginning with cycle 24 but no later than cycle 25, sunspot numbers may approach a Wolf number of 50 for each of two consecutive solar cycles. It is estimated that there will be a global temperature drop on average between 1.0 and 1.5 degrees C, if not lower, at least on the scale of the Dalton Minimum. Should the minimum begin with solar cycle 24 as forecast, the bottom of the temperature curve for this predicted is forecast for the year 2031 with widespread record cold for years on either side of 2031. A start at solar cycle 25 would extend the range of the next bottom of the solar minimum to the 2031- 2044 period or more.

"[13] As a result of the predictability and accuracy afforded by the RC Theory, and in the interests of the welfare of the world’s citizens, the following special note is added: This forecast next solar minimum will likely be accompanied by the coldest period globally for the past 200 years and as such, has the potential to result in world wide, agricultural, social, and economic disruption."

Answer 4

Good question.  But from the first answer, it looks like you may need to define what you mean by "peer reviewed papers".  Because obviously, evans doesn't use the same definition as someone in science would use.  His link is to a self-published article written by a non-scientist who made up a fancy sounding name (e.g. Space and Science Research Center) for a management services company that he personally owns.

Answer 5

I can't give you such a reference, but I did check out the link that evans gave us.  As far as I can tell, this paper has only been published on the web, and not even submitted anywhere where it might be subject to peer review. I also checked into the background of the author, who apparently does not have an advanced degree in science and is his own "research center."  I also did a literature search, and I can't find any journal papers that he has written (although it's possible that he's published in a completely unrelated field, like marketing). If he has published in the field before, I find it strange that he doesn't reference any of his own papers.