/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8546546
>>>8546524 (You)
>The papers that found high solar variability have specific flawed assumptions. For example, the most recent paper in your image makes an assumption about minimum solar activity and irradiance. This assumption was tested and Shapiro's TSI was found to not be able to reproduce temperature reconstructions due to this assumption:

Huh, what was that?
"Nevertheless, in a recent paper, Feulner used the TSI reconstruction of Shapiro et al. to drive a climate model. He compared the simulated temperature with temperature reconstructions, where the a number of climate model simulations were carried out, fed with different TSI estimates. His conclusion was that the climate model

… yields climatic conditions during past solar minima that are too cool and excessive fluctuations on timescales of several decades for Shapiro et al.’s [2011] TSI reconstruction"

I found this at:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/08/how-large-were-the-past-changes-in-the-sun/#more-8468

Sheesh, for a moment I thought your were actually talking science. That maybe you were actually trying to get to the truth. Nope, quoting Chapter and Verse from the Gospel of Climate Change.

But seriously, the temperature reference was another variant of the oft-debunked "hockeystick." Pic related, straight from Feulner (2011). Seriously, this is classic garbage in, garbage out. If you assume that there's a huge hockey stick because "meh CO2" then solar activity can't explain recent warming therefore form climate change is true.

Translation: if CO2 drives climate, then CO2 drives climate.


>nb4 I didn't use that RealClimate source.
Don't waste your time.