Climate Change Debate Ends In Global Accord


I would so love to see that headline for real; wouldn't you?


I can just imagine some of the big names on both sides of the debate coming together for a meeting in a Berlin beer cellar, perhaps the famous Kuhfurz Klimakeller.  After a few beers, a heated debate and a modicum of fisticuffs they conclude their cordial get-together with a joint news release.  The news release spells out the scientific points on which both sides are agreed.  It is issued at 03:00 am local time.  It is picked up rapidly by the British hapless haploid tabloids and misreported at 05:00 gmt to an eagerly awaiting world:


Sun Causes Weather, Say Scientists!


Right!  That's enough satire!  Here comes the real article.


Solar Variation

Let us examine, not what all the shouting is about, but what is generally agreed between colleagues sharing a friendly drink after amusing the general public with a pretense of mutual dislike.

There is a general and very real agreement on both sides of the current global warming / climate change debate:

the various cycles of Earth-Sun distance, axial tilt  and Solar output
must, beyond doubt, affect our global weather.


The Earth doesn't orbit the Sun in a simple and invariable manner, nor does the Sun maintain a constant output.  These two facts combine to explain much of the global warming / cooling that has happened over hundreds of millenia.

If we disregard any possible greenhouse effect, but simply focus on the variation of solar energy reaching the ground which can be discovered in the human and geological records, we can arrive at some figures for solar input and variability.  Rather than go deeply into these figures, I propose to use a round figure of 1 Kilowatt per square meter.  That figure is a useful first estimate rule of thumb used for estimating energy input into solar panels.

We take that as a current figure of average ground-level insolation and ask what happens if we double it.  I stress that this is a figure presented for the sake of argument.  It is by no means intended to be an accurate measure of real current variation of insolation.


Discussion:

Is it plausible, i.e. both possible and likely, that a variation of  +0.1 Kw/m2 in solar energy  input reaching the Earth's surface will measurably or substantially affect the Earth's climate?

Is it plausible, i.e. both possible and likely, that a variation of  +1.0 Kw/m2 in solar energy  input reaching the Earth's surface will measurably or substantially affect the Earth's climate?

What about other figures?  Would 0.001 Kw/m2 be insignificant? 
What figure would you suggest as a minimal significant increase?

I would like my readers, whichever side of the debate they support, to ponder these questions and submit their thoughts here.  It would be great if you would state which side of the debate you currently stand with.  Comments are welcome, long diatribes are frowned on, spam will be deleted.

I think that, if we completely put aside the whole anthropogenic / CO2 issue, we can reach some sort of agreement here.  Once we have some feedback / numbers I will pursue this topic further and post a link here to the next article.


Thank you for having the patience to read this far.

---------------------------------------------------------------


What? Still here?  My!  You really are patient!