renewable guy wrote:
The evidence and correlations I am showing for the solar theory are better than the correlation for CO2 and temperature.It seems that IPCC has a position on how the sun is relevant to climate change. Do you think they are well backed up in this regard.
There are significant uncertainties that still reside with GCRs-clouds and climate, I agree. If the impact of GCRs was strong enough to create a 10% decrease in Low Cloud Cover over the 20th Century (which we do not know) then it would equate to a forcing of 8 w/m^2. For comparison, the net anthropogenic radiative forcing estimated by the IPCC is 1.6 w/m^2.
That is why it is necessary to be skeptical of the IPCC position that most of the warming is anthropogenic.
And while it has been observed that there is a forcing that enhances the solar forcing from TSI during the solar cycle by up to a factor of 7, the IPCC has totally ignored all of the other ways in which the sun can impact oscillations, the stratosphere, the clouds etc.
What forcing is that? A correlation is not a forcing, it is not a mechanism, it is nothing but a correlation that MAY indicate an unknown forcing that will have to be evidenced before it can be called anything real.
documented a correlation
between ENSO and geomagnetic activity, suggesting that the sun may play a role in ENSO events.
Correlation is NOTHING without evidence of a viable mechanism.
Or Palamara and Bryant 2004
which find that geomagnetic activity has an important role to play in the Northern Annual Mode.
With what mechanism is the role established?
Raspopov et. al 2007
which find that long term trends in solar variations can have a "pronounced" effect on the climate.
With what evidenced mechanism?
There are simply many papers that document many other ways that the sun can impact the atmospheric parameters, and climate.
They do not document the impact, but only the correlation which is entirely different.
If low cloud cover decreases would be found to have created a forcing of 8 w/m^2 during the 20th Century, then the IPCC graphic you posted is pretty much worthless.
If frogs had wings they would not bump their butts on the ground, but they do not have wings and they do bump their butts on the ground. Both arguments have the same weight unless and until there is evidence to support them.