Here are Shaviv's numbers for you. What you are persistently referring to is solar luminosity that has been thoroughly investigated and its effect on temp change is weak which is referred to in the literature as solar radiative forcing. If you read below you will see that according to Shaviv one has to include cosmic ray flux (CRF) in the overall picture. When that is done, according to Shaviv, the result is quite different! .
See Below
2169-9402/asset/cover.gif?v=1&s=c95aab738f9359df0f217c15befc7ccc95c58657)
View issue TOC
Volume 110, Issue A8
August 2005
Solar and Heliospheric Physics
On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget
Authors
-
Blogged by 1
Tweeted by 1
Referenced in 2 Wikipedia pages
45 readers on Mendeley
2 readers on CiteULike
See more details | Close this
× " style="display:inline-block;" data-badge-popover="bottom">
Abstract
[1] We examine the results linking cosmic ray flux (CRF) variations to global climate change. We then proceed to study various periods over which there are estimates for the radiative forcing, temperature change and CRF variations relative to today. These include the Phanerozoic as a whole, the Cretaceous, the Eocene, the Last Glacial Maximum, the 20th century, as well as the 11-yr solar cycle. This enables us to place quantitative limits on climate sensitivity to both changes in the CRF, and the radiative budget, F, under equilibrium. Under the assumption that the CRF is indeed a climate driver, the sensitivity to variations in the globally averaged relative change in the tropospheric ionization ℐ is consistently fitted with μ ≡ − (dTglobal/dℐ) ≈ 7.5 ± 2°K. Additionally, the sensitivity to radiative forcing changes is λ ≡ dTglobal/dF = 0.35 ± 0.09°KW−1m2, at the current temperature, while its temperature derivative is undetectable with (dλ/dT)0 = −0.01 ± 0.04 m2W−1. If the observed CRF/climate link is ignored, the best sensitivity obtained is λ = 0.54 ± 0.12°KW−1m2 and (dλ/dT)0 = −0.02 ± 0.05 m2W−1. Note that this analysis assumes that different climate conditions can be described with at most a linear function of T; however, the exact sensitivity probably depends on various additional factors. Moreover, λ was mostly obtained through comparison of climate states notably different from each other, and thus only describes an average sensitivity. Subject to the above caveats and those described in the text, the CRF/climate link therefore implies that the increased solar luminosity and reduced CRF over the previous century should have contributed a warming of 0.47 ± 0.19°K, while the rest should be mainly attributed to anthropogenic causes. Without any effect of cosmic rays, the increase in solar luminosity would correspond to an increased temperature of 0.16 ± 0.04°K.
Even if shaviv is correct it could easily take twenty years or more for his work to be fully vetted criticized and accepted or rejected. Under the current political climate it could take twice that long!.
This guy is no quack, however, and neither is Salby, and you'd be well advised to sit up and take notice.
Please note the links in red are active. You can read an earlier criticisms (2004) of Shaviv's earlier publication. And by clicking on "Check for Updates" you can read shaviv's response to the earlier criticisms 2005, the above abstract) . Pay careful attention to dates. To make sure you are reading the most recent work.
2169-9402/asset/olalertbanner.png?v=1&s=a14477276d4b8d973943927b027b3e95942682c1)
