<p>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:<br>
<a href="https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/glory_irradiance.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/glory_irradiance.html</a><br>
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.</p>

<p>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:<br>
<a href="http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings/</a><br>
Reverse image searching the image led me to this thread (<a href="https://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-cycles-global-warming.htm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-cycles-global-warming.htm</a>) and a couple others, which point to this article (<a href="https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/sep/6/global-warming-fanatics-take-note/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/sep/6/global-warming-fanatics-take-note/</a>) 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.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-06-18T00:39:36.380Z
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.
jeffronicus
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-06-17T11:17:01.430Z
2018-06-17T11:17:01.430Z
Jareth Holt
<p><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/Is7eN.jpg" alt="enter image description here"></p>

<p>Just wondered if this was accurate. Sorry for poor grammar. Typing on pgomw.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-06-16T19:11:29.240Z
Please add a link to where this came from. Isn't it explained over there? What makes you wonder *if this is accurate*?
Jan Doggen
<geography>
Temperature graph for solar
user13177
# Temperature graph for solar

(Asked by: username_0 on 2018-06-16)

![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/Is7eN.jpg)

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

**Tags:** geography

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Please add a link to where this came from. Isn't it explained over there? What makes you wonder *if this is accurate*?  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2018-06-17. Score: 1

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:  
<https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/glory_irradiance.html>  
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:  
<http://berkeleyearth.org/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.

> **Comments:**
> **username_3**: 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.  

---

