enter image description here

Just wondered if this was accurate. Sorry for poor grammar. Typing on pgomw.

  • $\begingroup$ Please add a link to where this came from. Isn't it explained over there? What makes you wonder if this is accurate? $\endgroup$ – Jan Doggen Jun 16 '18 at 19:11

This can't possibly be right without some type of filtering applied to the total solar irradiance, at the very least. There's a graph here:
showing the total solar irradiance measured primarily from satellites (i.e. from space) over the last several decades. There is no such trend in total solar irradiance from 1970 to now as the one shown.

The attribution is to the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project, now Berkeley Earth. You can see a very different-looking temperature graph under their summary of findings:
Reverse image searching the image led me to this thread (https://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-cycles-global-warming.htm) and a couple others, which point to this article (https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/sep/6/global-warming-fanatics-take-note/) as an original source for the graph. That webpage no longer has any graph, from what I can see, but the thread seemed to imply that the graph may have been hand-drawn and with no real sources.

| improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ This agrees with my preliminary review of the graph. A search of the Berkeley Earth website for "irradiance" only showed two results, both in PDFs that mentioned how little total solar irradiance had varied since the 1800s. The variations along the Y axis also appear to have been manipulated; charting the change in irradiance as a percentage of total irradiance would be more appropriate; a similar chart of atmospheric CO2 would show a roughly 47% increase from pre-industrial levels. $\endgroup$ – jeffronicus Jun 18 '18 at 0:39

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.