Dr. Judy is asking the wrong question. She should be asking what has caused global temperatures to decline over the last 10 years, and why they are currently very close to the thirty year mean.
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=plphQL3kEd7UZAvio--OYHg&oid=8&output=image
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=plphQL3kEd7VTWquI0sh_Ig&oid=3&output=image

It is always a good idea for scientists to check the raw data they base their theories on - rather than making assumptions based on hearsay that might invalidate their thesis. RSS and UAH data is freely available on line, as is Google documents for anyone wanting to reproduce the UAH and RSS graphs. You don't need to be a rocket scientist these days to see how sloppy many rocket scientists are. It takes about 10 minutes of effort to see that the most accurate references of worldwide temperatures show no increase over the last decade.
http://docs.google.com/
http://www.remss.com/pub/msu/monthly_time_series/RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_1.txt
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt

I'm confused here. If the total of warming since 1880 has been around .7 degrees Celsius, then doesn't anything that accounts for around .25 degrees Celsius of that observed warming account for around 30% of the warming since 1880? Not sure I would classify this as a 'minor' contribution. I suppose that if you were comparing it to the IPCC projections of future warming of 2-5 degrees Celsius and that, in the future, the irradiance would not increase, then you could say it plays a 'minor role'. But, if her work is correct, then the increase vs observed warming cannot be classified as 'minor', can it?

I wonder what people may think of this work
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/ANURGENTSIGNALFORTHECOMINGICEAGE.pdf

While I, too, had no luck finding a recently-published report from Dr. Lean about this talk, I did run across her contribution to a similar session last February:

Dr. Judith Lean of the Naval Research Lab took a shorter-term view, focusing on what we know about solar variability based on observations made since the advent of the space age. Lean detailed how solar forcings fit into the larger climate system, along with forcings from volcanic eruptions, aerosols, the El Nino southern oscillation (ENSO), and greenhouse gases.

Given satellite data, Lean started subtracting various forcings and explored what happens in different layers of the atmosphere. For example, the ENSO had a far larger effect than the sun on the lower atmosphere, while the sun's forcings dominated the stratosphere -- except after large volcanic eruptions, in which case all bets are off. Lean concluded that, over the past 100 years, changes in the sun's output have driven the temperature up by about 0.1 K, but greenhouse gases have had a seven fold effect compared to the sun -- 0.7 K.

In looking at the AAPG Conference 2008 website, I suspect that Dr. Lean may have presented at a scheduled interactive session on Global Climate Change, and if so then she might have been presenting results that she has not yet published.

since 1885, global warming in response to changes in the sun's brightness is thought to have been less than 0.25 degrees celsius.

According to Had-Crut, global temperatures are about 0.25 degrees celsius warmer than they were in 1880.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/climon/data/themi/g17.htm

It is disconcerting that geoscientists in the West completely ignore the 205 year DeVries Cycle and only look at the 11 year Schwabe Cycle. BE10 isotopes found in artic and antartic ice cores clearly chart the ebb and flow of the DeVries Oscillation. Last December, Rasporov and Degachev published a paper that tied together solar variations and the Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles, which correspond abrupt cooling and warming to solar forcings.

The astronomers at the Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory also take very precise measurements of the size of the sun. They not only measure solar irradiance, but also small changes in the solar radius which they've correlated with changes of BE10 in ice cores. In Abudssamitov's Kinematics and Physics of Celestial Bodies (2007),he also outlined his theories on how the 11 year Schwabe Cycle is controlled by much longer solar cycles (ie DeVries/Gleissberg cycles).

It remains to be seen how accurate many of these theories are. But, the Russians in St Petersburg are some of the world's leaders in solar astronomy. Their observatory is the only one that I'm aware of that can take precise measurements of the solar radius.It also appears, at least to me, that many scientists in the West simply ignore or discount long term variations in solar output. The Sporer, Maunder, and Dalton Minimums apparently are considered are considered abberations, or at the very least, secondary to GHGs.

Disdain for the sun goes with a failure by the self-appointed greenhouse experts to keep up with inconvenient discoveries about how the solar variations control the climate. The sun's brightness may change too little to account for the big swings in the climate. But more than 10 years have passed since Henrik Svensmark in Copenhagen first pointed out a much more powerful mechanism.

He saw from compilations of weather satellite data that cloudiness varies according to how many atomic particles are coming in from exploded stars. More cosmic rays, more clouds. The sun's magnetic field bats away many of the cosmic rays, and its intensification during the 20th century meant fewer cosmic rays, fewer clouds, and a warmer world. On the other hand the Little Ice Age was chilly because the lazy sun let in more cosmic rays, leaving the world cloudier and gloomier.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece

right off the bat you screw it up.
like this "there can be little coubt that human beings influence the worlds climate."
why did the link for showing where the locations for measuring the temp around the world disappear? why do locations that used to be in open fields that have temp meters are now measuring form inside of paved parking lots and tennis courts.
why did it just come out that the last 10 years have actually been colder?
if its so warm then why was greenland actually green when it was discovered and now it is so frozen that you need heavy equipment to dig up graves from 1000 years ago.
why was it so warm in britian when the romans were there that the growing season for grapes exceeded that of europe but now the growing season is shorter.
why does the map you use only go back to 1951?
didn't the little ice age end around 1890 so it would get a little warmer as a matter of course.
why dont the loones who claim we are all going to burn up forget that all that new fresh water, if there actually is global warming that is caused by man, will create more farm land.
and if consensus was the standard for measuring scientific truth then the would would still be flat.
and as for this one scientits - how about this for a change. give us the basic facts and let us reach the conclusions.

Right. So what other excuse is used for the ice ages and warmups that have occured regularly throughout history? Magic? Voodoo?
The radiation from the sun doesn't have to be in the visible spectrum to have a great effect now does it?

"Her findings showed that the sun is a factor of 10 less than the Anthropogenic?? Speak plain English, please!

Reply: meaning 10X less influence on global warming compared to man-made actions.

Well after all the sun is supposed to be getting larger and hotter.

Once again, we see another climate expert who assumes CO2 and other greenhouse gases are the primary factors in climate change.

I would like to see Dr. Lean list all the factors she believes are responsible for climate change and her weighting of each of those factors.

To end on a positive note: It's encouraging to see some influence of the sun is acknowledged as a factor in climate change. The sun probably has far more influence than Dr. Lean admits, but I think it's progress that she admits it has any influence.

Here's an alternate, 180-degree opposite view:
=================

Global temperature change can be attributed to slight variations in the sun's energy output, not man-made carbon dioxide emissions. That's according to astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon, who was in Salt Lake City today to present his research to a crowd at The Sutherland Institute.

"When the sun is slightly brighter, meaning giving more light to Earth's system, the temperature warms in the Arctic," said Soon. "With the cooling that we observed in the Arctic from the 1940s to the 1970s, guess what the sun is doing? It's actually dimming slightly, ever so slightly. And then, guess what happened after the late 1970s? The sun brightens again."

Dr. Soon works for the Harvard-Smithsonian center for Astrophysics. He says while carbon dioxide emissions have risen during the warming period of the past three decades, the fact that global temperatures decreased during the middle of the 20th century suggest there is no connection.

The astrophysicist says it's important not to confuse local pollution with global temperature change.

"I find that on the aspect of carbon dioxide, it is highly misleading to try to suggest that CO2 is that kind of a satanic gas," said Soon. "It's been said by some of my colleagues that people imagine CO2 is that kind of bad gas, that will melt the poles and kill the polar bears and make the coral die."

Soon's presentation this morning was part of The Sutherland Institute's Earth Week, a series of events to counter the view that humans are responsible for global warming and suggest that "green" policies hurt Americans. Listen to a conversation with Dr. Soon below.

Hi Patrick Henry,

I think you need to look at the CRU curve you referenced a little closer. The difference between 1880's to early 1900's (-0.4C to -0.5C) and current temperatures (0.4C to 0.45C) is 0.8C to 0.95C.

to Bill's point:
I question the 0.25C that Brett talked about with no specific reference to verify his account. So to put the maximum of 0.1C increase due to the sun (based on the more accurate reference provided by Brookline Tom) into perspective, that represents a 12% contribution to the overall temperature increase since the 1880's.

While not insiginificant, there is clearly an 88% increase in temperature that cannot be accounted for when looking at the sun's effects alone.

I think this falls into the 'of course' category of a study.

If Dr Lean's definition of AGW includes all human warming including CO2, Methane, UHI, land use changes from forest clearing, irrigation, etc, I would fully expect that to have a greater effect on the climate than changes in the Sun's irradiance.

It leaves alone the question of what amount of current warming (if indeed there is any) since 1880 has been due to other effects of the Sun (changes in albedo via cloud coverage), etc, not just irradiance alone and how that compares to AGW.

While I would admit that a number of second-tier heliophysicists, e.g., Lockwood, Froelich, Svalgaard, and Lean among them, consistently focus on TSI, measurements of solar output in the visible spectrum, as insuffcient to explain GW, look at the big picture. Well, no kidding Sherlock.

This measure is no more that 40% of solar radiation and would be lower given an attempt to account for solar flaring where the UV component can double briefly.

Moreover, the energy delivered to the earth includes the solar wind and IMF, which is not and can not be included in TSI.

AGW believers are just whistlin' past the graveyard quoting these studies on older data. Solar outputs are lower today than the 1970's and will remain historically low for a couple years before climbing meaningfully.

"since 1885, global warming in response to changes in the sun's brightness is thought to have been less than 0.25 degrees celsius."

"meaning 10X less influence on global warming compared to man-made actions."

.25 x 10 = 2.5 degrees.

"If the total of warming since 1880 has been around .7 degrees Celsius..."

How can she say that the sun is responsible for .25 degrees, 10 times less than AGW, yet the average temperature has only risen risen by .7 degrees, not 2.5?

Something doesn't add up?

why did the link for showing where the locations for measuring the temp around the world disappear?

Anonymous,

How dare you question Authority!? Are you not aware that since most people cannot or will not think for themselves that you nor any other American for that matter is allowed to think or ask questions either!?

Who cares if you can support yourself and make good decisions, since the masses cannot, you cannot either!

The Two Parties, the Democrats and the Republicans are the only source of thought now. Have you not seen the commercials where Pelosi and Gingrich agree on AGW? Never mind neither know a GD thing about science. Consensus has given them the power to ignore reality. Like all religions.

Since Americans only have Dems or Reps to support, "Consensus" says you must believe what either tells you to. However, they must support each other through conflict and sometimes agree to make it look as though they "care" for the people who cannot support themselves, most people. Those of us who can support ourselves they do not consider at all. There are seemingly too few of us.

However, without one the other falls. Think about it.

Dr. Lean is wrong. .25 Celsius is not a factor of TEN less than .07 Celsius. This is about FUNDING and FADS. Since FAD drives Congress, and Congress drives FUNDING, if you work for the Gub-ment, your job most certainly depends upon FUNDING and sadly by proxy FAD. Dr. Lean is a LIAR in order to secure FUNDING.

If any of you have not seen "Charlie Wilson's War", it has a view into how funding is secured. Propaganda is the best method.
**************
One of her earlier reports noted a secular total irradiance increase of 0.08% during the past three centuries.

Brett,

Can you direct me to where you found this gem? If the portion of .08% increase in TSI caused the Earth to warm .25 Celsius since 1885, then it should be interesting to see how much of the .08% was added prior to 1885. While CO2's influence on Warmth is thought to be logarithmic, TSI would be linear.

Reply: End of the sixth paragraph right here....

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=11182

***
************
Science has truly been defeated by ideology and money. Wonder when it will return.

Who is John Galt?

Regards,

Steve

Hi Dennis Hlinka,

In the year 1880, the anomaly was slightly below 0.00. In 2008 the anomaly is approximately 0.25. Using my highly powerful state of the art computer, I did some subtraction and came up with a difference of about 0.25.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/climon/data/themi/g17.htm

If you want to argue about something different than what I stated, that is your business - but don't attribute it to me and don't try to drag me into it.

BTW - you can see a fairly obvious problem with their 5 year running average. They show the black curve turning slightly upwards (positive second derivate) in 2008, even though it clearly should be turning down. Looks better for maintaining funding, I suppose.

Something doesn't add up?

I think RICH is mixing up numbers offered by Brett with numbers provided by Lean herself. I don't know where Brett got the "0.25 degrees celsius" data point,
Right here BT......http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=11182

At the end of the sixth paragraph.

just as we don't know the basis on which Lean quoted "10x" at the recent AAPG gathering.

In the article that I quoted, and from which RICH got the 0.7 degree Kelvin figure, the exact quote is:

Lean concluded that, over the past 100 years, changes in the sun's output have driven the temperature up by about 0.1 K, but greenhouse gases have had a seven fold effect compared to the sun -- 0.7 K.

Those figures do, in fact, "add up" -- a 0.1 degree K amount attributable to the sun, a 0.7 degree K amount attributable to greenhouse gases, resulting in a 7x (as opposed to 10x) factor.

Presumably she reported newer data at the AAPG, supporting the 10x (as opposed to 7x) factor reported in the thread-starter.

So to put the maximum of 0.1C increase due to the sun (based on the more accurate reference provided by Brookline Tom) into perspective, that represents a 12% contribution to the overall temperature increase since the 1880's.

Dennis,

What exactly makes .1 C more accurate than .25 C other than just stating it?

BTW - The Sun's Brightness has a linear effect on warming not logarithmic as is thought with CO2 so the ratio of warming to Sun's brightness can be determined. This is hard to do since CO2's contribution to GW is a guess.

It would be prudent to ignore CO2 altogether and focus solely on the SUN and aerosols that prevent light from reaching the surface to see how this linear relationship works since we can measure these two variables. If there is not a linear relationship, then one should look for other influences such as CO2, land use changes, God, etc. If there is, then we can actually make predictions based on measurements rather than conjecture.

But funding is harder to keep coming in if one actually comes to a conclusion :) This is why the Gub-ment likes Programs rather than Projects, the former do not end.

Who does Dr. Lean work for again?

Who is John Galt?

Regards,

Steve

Brett, you never did do a post on the SORCE solar science conference February, apparently because you were in the middle of a series of posts on another conference you thought was more important. Anyway, had you followed the link I provided at the time, this new information would not have come a surprise. I suspect BT is right that Lean has a new paper in the works, apparently showing even less irradiance variation that her prior one. That's no surprise given the trend of other work in the field.

Pasted below is the abstract of Lean's talk at the SORCE conference. The upshot is that the recent and first really accurate irradiance measurements via SORCE have enabled a much better calibration of irradiance trends. The climatic implications of this newly apparent much-reduced irradiance trend were discussed at length in other presentations at the conference.

"Comparison of Solar Irradiance Variability Models with SORCE Observations"

"Monitor (SIM) measure simultaneous changes in both the total and spectral solar irradiance, at ultraviolet, visible and near IR wavelengths, for the first time. Models that combine the calculated bolometric sunspot and facular modulation have been used for many years to reproduce total solar irradiance variations, and account for over 80% of the changes observed by TIM from 2002 to 2006. Models of spectral irradiance changes, which rely on information about the wavelength dependence of the sunspot and facular contrasts, have also been developed, motivated by the need for simulations of climate and atmospheric responses to properly account for a multitude of wavelength-dependent processes that facilitate the Earth�s utilization of the Sun�s energy. Current spectral irradiance variability models rely on information about the wavelength dependence of sunspot contrasts made by ground-based observations and facular contrasts estimated by solar atmosphere models. SIM�s unique new direct measurements permit the first quantitative assessment of the spectral structure of irradiance variability attributable to sunspot and facular sources, constrained by their integral effects as measured independently by TIM. The observed and modeled total and spectral irradiance varia