a different opinion:
Global warming does not result from increased emission by the Sun, so those are distinct questions.
first of all, we - as scientists - should take a closer look at the real
situation at hand ref. "global warming": is there a global warming at all, and if
so, is it unusual with respect to geological "records" ( to be more precise: reconstructions form numerous proxies) etc. ect.
hence, for starters, let's take a look at recent satelite data link to graph
(for a more detailled discussion, source of the graph see: link
let's now go back like... sixty million years? (δ 18
O-racio) : link to graph
, from: link
... or, even more long-term: 600 million years temperature ./. CO2-level reconstruction
climate has always changed, and mostly more drastically than nowerdays ... and most likely will keep on doing so.
we're in a pretty cold period right now, speaking longterm, and "enjoy" a small intermediate with not-so-icy climate, but still are like 10°C colder than at the times of the dinosaurs
the sun became like 30% brighter
over the past ~ 4,5 billion years whilst the rotation period of earth increased from like 8 hours to nowadays 24 hours (to understand the meaning of this, look at temperatures on moon's surface bright side/darke side)
... with rotation slowing down in the future 'till a day becomes like a month. this
will happen, and it's pretty scary in it's own right
so, from a first glance it seems like emissions from the sun in fact don't have relevant influence on climate.
... or do they?
well, it seems like the very influence of the sun towards or climate doesn't come from total
radiation ( which doesn't change drastically, hence is called a "solar constant"), but from the composition
of named radiation: heavy particle radiation - named "solar wind" - is the name of the game, and this
is something that changes drastically every now and then ("solar cycle"
the first to put forward this hypothesis (as derived from long-term observations
[link to source
]) was Prof. Svensmark, hence it's called the "Svensmark-hypothesis"
...and it has recently been vindicated by CERNS cloud-project
: yes, there IS a relevant connection between sun's activity and earth's climate, there is solid scientific evidence for this by now.
[and I find it most disturbing that the scientists involved were forbidden to explain the meaning of their findings
with respect to climatechange, as those were felt to be "politically incorrect"
(sic!): postfactual times / science, indeed] therefor, my best scientific opinion is, that we can't neglect the influence of the sun
If the greenhouse effect remained as efficient as now (but it would worsen) (..)
what type of "greenhouse effect" are you takling about? the "real" one, where hot, humid
air is trapped under the roof of a glashouse ect. ...
... or the "so called one" [IPCC insists that every insulation caused by the athmosphere has to be called just so
, from now on, thereby confusing scientific facts to the max] ?
with respect to my first type (the real greenhouse): there is no such thing in the athmosphere, as satelte data show
(fig. ## 5 , 6 )
... and the second one should stay pretty much stable, as the composition with respect to relevant gases in earth's athmosphere isn't likely to change in the future: there will be ups and downs with respect to humidity in lower atmosphere, yes, and ups and downs with respect to cloud formation, yes, but that's about it
[if you think that the miniscule contribution of CO2 might have somthing to do with it: look at Lambert-Beer, look at band-saturation and so on... ]
in my opinion, fact is that we didn't even begin to understand "climate" with respect to identifying all
the relevant drivers, much less to quantify their influence in terms of some degrees celsius: everything else is pure guesswork, OR "computermodelling" (which could be an honourable approch, if the models were evaluated, but in reality isn't, as they aren't
... a sad fact in its own right)
(...) then 10% more Sun power would increase Earth's average temperature by roughly 2.5% as the planet radiates as T4 more or less, so the mean temperature would rise from 288K=+15°C to 295K=+22°C, a 7K increase.
in addition to my above remarks: this oversimplyfied approach contradicts like everything we know from historical records.
How hot could Earth become if the greenhouse effect goes badly wrong and no life absorbs the CO2?
geez, did you ever
take a look in history of life on earth? what climate we did have, let's say, at the times of the dinosaurs, where it was roughly speaking like 10°C hotter than today?
... and you
think + 7°C is a global killer?
an real alarmist's conclusion, in my opinion
I propose to scale it from Venus. (...)
... or to be more specific: I totaly reject this absurd idea
(you can't compare a planet with a day longer than a year and surface air pressure of ~ 100 bar - mostly carbondioxide - to any
future earth: this simply won't happen)
... and any linear scaling from this
to a possible earth's future with "352 °C" (sic!) is... beyond the pale for a scientist
, to put it mildly.
This is an unjustified computation (...)
yes , it is, it's unjustified, unscientific, u name it
however, in times of postfactual and postmodern science, this even might result in some funding ...
... as the "assumptions" of nowadays computer modelling and their "climate projections" ( they don't call it "climate predicions" any more for a reason!) show.*)
predictions from models have to be validated, no way around this.
those models can't be: they simply fail with any reasonable test, even with the input of "adjusted historical climate data" - as they call their fraud by now.
... and hence, with a slight change of wording ...
... now you can put into your model whatever floats you boat, even the most absurd rubbish, as long as new horror emerges from your data. its just projection, hence nothing serious, just playing around with parameters, isn't it?