Increasing evidence modern warming trends are naturally driven
Per CERES observations the surface incident shortwave (SW) radiation anomaly increased by +1.61 W/m² from 2001 to 2019, and +1.75 W/m² from 2001 to 2021 (Ollila, 2023)
This SW increase is likely due to natural variations in cloud cover albedo, or reflectiveness; it can explain global warming (0.46°C) over this period.
The IPCC and climate activists have been downplaying or dismissing the increase in downwelling SW radiation as a driver of warming, as this “challenges the basis of the [climate models]” that attribute warming almost exclusively to human activities.
Image Source: Ollila, 2023
Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) trends have also been linked to long-term climate warming since 1750.
Most TSI reconstruction studies depict TSI rising by ~3 W/m² from 1900 to the 1930s (from -2 W/m² below to +1 W/m² above the reference level), and then TSI is “about 1.5 W/m² higher than the reference level” from around 1990 onward.
In all, TSI has increased by 1.1 W/m² since 1750, which is a non-negligible contribution to global warming.
“[T]he temperature impact of the TSI change of 1.1 W/m² from 1750 to 2020 would be 0.32°C.”
Image Source: Ollila, 2023
Finally, there is nothing remarkable about the modern warming trend when viewed in the context of proxy temperature reconstructions of last few millennia.
Image Source: Ollila, 2023
See more here notrickszone.com
Header image: John Christy, UAH
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Richard Greene
| #
Author Kenneth Richard buys into any study other than those that blame warming on manmade causes. He is far too biased to be a reliable author. He uses inaccurate sunspot counts here for TSI when there are only accurate top of the atmosphere TSI measurements from satellites since the 1970s. The satellites show no increase of TOA TSI in 50 years. He blames natural warming on changes of cloud albedo with no accurate global average cloud coverage data to prove that claim. He ignores the reduction of SO2 emissions since 1980 which IS a cause of global warming. He neglects to mention most of the warming post-1975 has been at night — TMIN — best explained by an increasing greenhouse effect and UHI albedo changes. The increase of solar energy reaching the ground in daytime (TMAX) is from declining SO2 emissions and possibly from more cloud coverage in the day. Global warming has mainly been at night, and night warming can be caused by increasing greenhouse gases, increasing nighttime cloud coverage and increasing UHI albedo changes. Anyone who claims to know the percentage of post-1975 warming that is natural is a liar, whether they are reluctant to blame humans (Kenneth Richard) or reluctant to blame nature (government bureaucrat scientists). The RIGHT ANSWER IS WE DO NOT KNOW HOW MUCH WARMING WAS NATURAL AFTER 1975. Real science has a lot of questions where the correct answer is “we don’t know that”: Real science also requires skepticism and debate. This post could not be placed at Richard’s home website, NoTricksZone, where I am barred from commenting for posting similar criticisms of his anti-CO2 bias. Richard Greene Bingham Farms, Michigan
s”.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Richard,
The GHGT is based on the premise that the sun heats the Earth, the Earth heats the atmosphere, and certain gasses in the atmosphere inhibit heat from escaping into space making the Earth warmer. Correct? This premise is based on average temperatures recorded by a thermometer (totally inaccurate) which means it has no connection reality. Would you explain how the Earth, when covered with snow, can heat the atmosphere above the freezing point of water, or how the air over the ocean can become hotter than the surface of the water.
Herb
Reply
Richard Greene
| #
Snow reflects a lot of sunshine. That’s why it can be very cold in the winter. You seem to forget that most of our planet is not covered by snow in the winter, starting with the 71% that are oceans. The tropics are not covered by snow.
Seasonal snow cover can cover up to 33 percent of the Earth’s land mass (land is 29% of the planet), but this is not a permanent feature, and mainly occurs during winter in the Northern Hemisphere. Only 12 percent of the Earth’s surface is permanently covered in ice and snow, the majority of which is found in the polar regions.
Here in SE Michigan, we had less snow than I have seen since the late 1970s, so even we were rarely covered with snow last winter (2022/2023)– our warmest winter with the least snow since the 1970s. Followed by the coolest summer (2023) with the most rain since the 1970s. We LOVE global warming here in Michigan USA and will be very unhappy if global warming stops.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Richard,
You’re grasping at straws. The atmosphere doesn’t absorb the light when it’s coming from the sun but does when it’s reflected? Again, How does the air over the ocean get warmer than the surface of the ocean?
The GHGT maintains that the O2 and N2 in the atmosphere is not absorbing radiated energy from the sun but when the subject switches to ozone. an oxygen molecule is able to absorb the 392,000 joules/mole need to split and create oxygen atoms.
Herb
Reply
Richard Greene
| #
I am citing reality of the troposphere, not grasping for anything. In general, the sun heats Earth’s surface and Earth’s surface heats the atmosphere, which gets cooler with altitude. There is some additional warming from back radiation reflected by the greenhouse gases and clouds. Of course the net energy flow at night is upwelling, but there are always two way energy flows. … When there is a lot of ice and snow on the ground reflecting sunlight — high albedo –there is not as much surface heating, so the atmosphere is colder, as a result.
Your problem appears to be a complete rejection of all consensus climate science, similar to author Kenneth Richard. That is where you go wrong. You lack the sophistication to distinguish between correct consensus science and baloney consensus science. The consensus is not always 100% wrong, or 100% right. There is evidence of natural global warming and even more evidence of manmade global warming — but the percentage split is anyone’s guess.
PS: The internet was invented by Al Gore for the purpose pf having strangers argue with each other, and then insult each other.
One of man’s greatest inventions since indoor plumbing.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Richard,
“Climate Science”is a misnomer. There is no science involved
The thermometer is almost completely useless in the atmosphere. When measuring the temperature of water you are measuring the flow of energy from one medium to another. A liquid absorbs energy from one medium and radiates to the other medium. In the atmosphere the entire instrument is in one medium so it just measures the expansion of the liquid. Energy is transferred to the liquid by the momentum of the gas molecules striking it. When the density of the atmosphere decreases there are fewer molecules transferring energy. Why does the density of the atmosphere decrease with increasing altitude even as the temperature decreases? Look at a graph of the temperature in the atmosphere. The flow of energy goes from greater to lower. It does not pause or zig zag. What is the source of energy at the top of the stratosphere that is heating the gasses? If you bother to divide the temperature at an altitude by the density at that altitude you will get a graph depicting the energy of a constant number of molecules at altitudes. The energy heating the atmosphere comes from the sun.
You deny basic physics to maintain your beliefs. The law of thermodynamics says that all matter absorbs radiated energy but you claim the N2 and O2 do not. You are willing to accept that the 70 F water in the ocean can heat the air above it to 90 F even though it never happens.
Water absorbs 600 calories/gram to evaporate. It carries this energy to the top of the troposphere where it condenses losing that heat but you claim that water is a greenhouse gas that adds heat to the surface.
Consensus is almost always wrong. At one time 100% of the people believed the believed that the Earth was the center of the universe and everything else orbited it. That didn’t make it true. The 99% consensus is a lie, manipulated by people paid to pretend they are scientists using bad data.
The only person who believes that Al Gore are Al Gore and idiots who believe lying politicians. The internet and most of the features on todays computers were created by workers at Xerox and stolen by Bill Gates and Steve Job. Al Gore sponseryedva law that made it legal.
I suggest you study some physics and look up why Savanti retracted the GHGT back in the beginning of the 20th century.
Herb
MattH
| #
All warming is 100% natural. CO2 is not synthetic. Volcanos are not brewed up in a test-tube.
Go figure the difference if perihelion is on the Southern Summer Solstice or if, hypothetically, we had the same Earth Sun distances but perihelion is on the day of the equinox.
I have never seen this fundamental climate driver explained.
Reply
MattH
| #
The above is a reply to Richard Green.
I note that Cap Alon is currently having to put up with a loud mouth, abusive, Australian.
Reply
MattH
| #
Here is a hint to answer a fundamental question I have never seen addressed (above)
The actual direct solar irradiance at the top of the atmosphere fluctuates by about 6.9% during a year (from 1.412 kW/m in early January to 1.321 kW/m in early July) due to the Earth’s varying distance from the Sun. Source. wiki
Reply
Richard Greene
| #
Cap Alon also has an anti-CO2 bias but he reports on unusually cold weather, which no one else does. Now that weather has become “climate”, we need to read about the cold weather events too.
Reply
Richard Greene
| #
I read the nasty comments at Electroverse and gave the nasty Australian guy a piece of my mind. He criticized “denialists” picking on two failed predictions of climate doom. I mentioned that all predictions of climate doom have been wrong. And that “climate change” was nothing more than a data free prediction of global warming doom that has been wrong since the 1979 Charney Report. That’s 44 years of wrong in a row.
Reply
Richard Greene
| #
There are very few active volcanoes on our planet,
They are a tiny source of CO2.
More important is that humans add a lot of CO2 to the atmosphere and nature is a net CO2 absorber INCLUDING volcanoes.
Your claim that all warming is natural is NOT supported by data and your claim that all CO2 is natural is completely ignoring manmade CO2 emissions.
If you wanted to say burning hydrocarbon fuels recycles natural CO2 back into the atmosphere, that had been sequestered underground as oil, gas and coal, then I would agree with that. The atmospheric CO2 level increased +50% since 1850 –from 280 to 420ppm — entirely from manmade CO2 emissions of well over 200ppm. There is no other source of the +140ppm CO2 increase.
Reply
Allan Shelton
| #
So…. please tell me what caused the change in CO2 levels before 1850.
Reply
Richard Greene
| #
GThe +/- 100ppm variations of atmospheric CO2 in the 800,000 ice core era were caused by 5 to 6 degree changes of ocean temperatures typically over a 100,000 cycle, caused by changes in planetary geometry. The CO2 rise from 280ppm in 1850 (estimated) to 420ppm in 2023 (measured) was entirely from manmade CO2 emissions. No one was harmed. Winter nights are not as cold. C3 photosynthesis plants grow faster and bigger. More CO2 in the atmosphere has been good news and will continue to be good news, as CO2 doubles to 840ppm, which would take 168 years at +2.5pm more CO2 per year.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Humans put very little CO2 into the atmosphere. Of the .0042% CO2 in the atmosphere only 4 % or .0002 % comes from human activity. It is not human activity that causes the change but the temperature of the oceans.
Herb
Reply
Richard Greene
| #
Herb, you may be an expert on one or more subjects, but you are a clueless science denier embarrassing yourself and fellow conservatives, by contradicting at least 99.9% of scientists living on this planet with science claptrap. You are not describing the climate on planet Earth.
Humans added from +200 to +250ppm of CO2 to the atmosphere since 1850
Atmospheric CO2 increased +140ppm, from 280ppm to 420ppm, up +50%.
That means the entire increase of +140ppm was from human sources, so 140ppm of the current 420ppm CO2 is 33%, not 4%.
A 12 year old child could figure out these simple numbers. Go find a 12 year old child to explain them to you.
Two simple questions for a mental challenge, that you will fail (most science deniers don’t even try to answer them):
(1) Where did the +200 to +250ppm of manmade CO2 emissions go after they entered the troposphere?
(2) What caused the +140ppm rise of atmospheric CO2 if NOT the manmade CO2 emissions?
I will not hold my breath waiting for a logical answer because you will never provide one.
Reply
Tom Anderson
| #
Richard: Where does your 99.9% come from? The last supposed “survey” supposedly polled 97% of scientists, and it was phony. Better back up your figures.
Richard Greene
| #
It took a +5 to +6 degree C. change of ocean temperature to increase atmospheric CO2 by about +100ppm in the ice core era.
That would be +17 to +20ppm per one degree C. of ocean temperature warming.
The ocean temperature has increased about one degree C. since 1850. But atmospheric CO2 increased +140ppm, not 17 to 20ppm, since 1850.
As a result of the +1 degree C. ocean warming, the oceans were able to absorb 17 to 20ppm less CO2 from the atmosphere than they would have absorbed with no warming.
Nature (oceans, land and plants) have been net CO2 absorbers as the CO2 level rose from 180ppm about 20,000 years ago. The CO2 rise from 180ppm to 28-ppm was natural. The CO2 rise from 280ppm to 420ppm was manmade.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Richard,
Do your figures include the amount of CO2 being removed to form the calcium carbonate shells of mollusks and coral?
All the marble, lime, and cement on land is 50% CO2 that was removed from the ocean. There was once a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere. The 180 ppm you cite for 20,000 years ago is a very bad guess. The level of CO2 is determined by the temperature of the ocean (Henry’s law). Try opening a cold can of soda and a hot can of soda and see what happens.
Herb
Richard Greene
| #
To Tom Anderson:
In my 25 years of climate science reading. almost exclusively by authors and scientists who try to refute predictions of climate doom (aka I read “the skeptics”) I HAVE ONLY FOUND TWO “SCIENTISTS” who claim manmade CO2 accounts for only 3% to 5% of the current 420ppm CO2. They are Ed Berry and Murray Salby. Salby is dead. That leaves Ed Berry as the only climate science denier I know of who is an actual scientist. None of the large majority of “consensus” climate scientists have the false 3% to 5% manmade CO2 belief. The result is that I estimate 99.9% of all scientists alive today believe there is a greenhouse effect and CO2 is part of it. The other 0.1% of scientists are the mental cases. ,,,
Herb Rose posted a long, tedious reply to one of my comments where he details “Herb Rose Climate NonScience”, which appears to be his unique vision of Earth’s climate. In my opinion, he must be describing some other planet. Perhaps Uranus?
is from Uramus.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Richard,
Did your reading include the e-mails between Michael Mann and other “climate scientists” on how to manipulate the data?
Perhaps the 99.9% is the result of, that if you want a government grant or to be published (so you could read it) your work must support man made climate change.
Herb
Richard Greene
| #
I read the Climategate emails in 2009 and 2011
Leftists are deceivers and liars no matter what subject they discuss. They want to show human CO2 emissions are THE cause of global warming. The truth is that human CO2 emissions are ONE cause of global warming. More CO2 in the troposphere always means cooling is impeded. Not much above 400ppm CO2, but that does not stop the predictions of global warming doom.
Every consensus scientist and almost every “skeptic” climate scientist says there is a greenhouse effect and CO2 is part of it. The honest skeptic scientists use lab spectroscopy data in the HITRAN and MODTRAN databases to predict a doubling of CO2 will cause the global average temperature to rise 0.75 to 1.0 degrees C. The IPCC starts with the same data, but manages to claim +2.5 to +4.0 degrees C. global warming. Used to be +1.5 to +4.5 degrees C. global warming, but the +1.5 was not scary enough, so it was raised. The obvious answer is no one knows the effect of a doubling of CO2, but everyone guesses.
The truth is the climate in 100 years will be warmer unless it is colder. I predicted that in 1997. There are too many natural and manmade climate variables to know the effect of every one of them. The climate computer games do not help — they merely predict whatever the governments financing them want then to predict. they do not produce data.
There is no climate emergency.
I believe the current climate is the best climate since the Holocene Climate Optimum 5000 to 9000 years ago, so we should be CELEBRATING the current climate.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Richard,
We have entered a Grand Solar Minimum where solar flare activity will diminish for anywhere from 50 to 300 years. The last time it occurred was the little ice age. The cold will not be a result of less visible light coming to the Earth. It only varies by less than 1 % because it and IR are emitted by the sun’s surface. Solar flares produce UV radiation which heat the O2 and N2 in the atmosphere, which in turn adds heat to the surface. Without that heat, crops will fail and there will be a greater need for more reliable energy not windmills and solar panels which will fail
Herb
Reply
Richard Greene
| #
The last known evidence of solar energy affecting the climate was in the 1690s during the coldest decade of the Maunder Minimum. In the era of satellite global average temperature compilations there is no evidence of an 11 year solar cycle in the temperature data.
The first thing I learned about climate science, and apparently the last thing you will learn, is to completely ignore long term climate predictions, because they are never right.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Richard,
Actually it’s a 22 year cycle, 11 years of increasing activity followed by 11 years of decreasing activity.
Perhaps the reason the satellites do not record the cycle is because they are looking at the top of the thermosphere where the energy from the sun first encounters the matter in the atmosphere. Since the energy from the sun is coming from 93 million miles away, a change of distance of even hundreds of miles will not make a difference. Its like looking at the temperature of the bottom of a pan of water being boiled.
The climate of the Earth is determined by the position of the Earth in its orbit and the energy output of the sun. Both of these occur in regular patterns that are predictable with the exception of when influences outside the solar system cause changes in the sun’s output.
Herb
Reply
Kevin Doyle
| #
I am a bit confused by the comments of the argumentative Richard Greene? I can’t follow his logic, if there is any?
A few questions for Mr. Greene:
1) Several million years ago, there was five times the CO2 content in the atmosphere. What resulted was very large plants, very large trees, very large animals, very large seashells, very large fish, and giant coral reefs. Did the Earth become a boiling cauldron (because of atmospheric CO2) during these millenia, as we are told it must have been by Al Gore, John Kerry, and Greta Thunberg? (A simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ will suffice.)
2) Last time I checked my ‘Flintstones Sundial Watch’, the last Ice Age was 18,000 years ago. The Milankovich Cycles accurately predict Ice Ages every 40,000 years. In your understanding of math, does this mean we still have 2,000 years of natural solar warming to go before we get to a downward cooling trend, due to planetary orbits?
3) In your professional opinion, what exactly is the ideal temperature of Toronto, Canada; or London, England; or Calcutta, India? Please, explain?
4) In your esteemed opinion, what is the proper length of farming/growing season in Denmark? Or Alberta, Canada?
I eagerly await your learned responses…
Reply