Oh look Solar activity had been increasing since 1850 - just like the temperature .... odd that.
The spin is being produced as the meteorologist answer their political paymasters insistence on some sort of statement to support the Warmist faith, shaken in the light of actual facts from the CRU leak.
So we have some contorted statement about the last decade being the warmist since 1850 and 2009 being the fifth warmest year ( boy I must have been really unlucky with where I spent my Summer, because the rest of you were being roasted ).
Now no doubt the picture is more complicated than this, it must be or these graphs would just be game over for the warmists - but do you ever see anyone on the MSM trying to explain the Sun's effect on climate, except interns of the minute impact of reflected heat from the minor contribution to the green house effect that CO2 makes ( yes is really is very small - the Warmist religion is based on the assumption of the implicit instability of the Earth's climate which is supposed to amplify the effect of a change in CO2 concentration - but not presumably solar flux ).
None of this proves anything - it really doesn't. But it does raise a whole heap of questions that I think as citizens and taxpayers we have a right to demand an open debate and explanation of - rather than the Marxist approach of the green movement and the left.
PS More Sunspots = warmer sun . 10Be refers to cosmic radiation ( lower when sun activity high - hey the scales reversed on the graph you know ! Though there is some debate about this - the complaint being the correlation with temperature - but if that's linked to the Sun then it all fits. Anyway people appear to be arguing about this. )
Oh look - the Sun just started putting out more heat, and we feel warmer. I wonder if there's a connection ?
Update: Some of these ideas are also reported in the Daily Telegraph 9Dec09 here.
Also the lecture hear explores the relation between solar activity and climate. Worth a look
6 comments:
If you have the time read this book.The Chilling Stars,Henrik Svensmark and Nigel Calder.
I have a question. If temperature records are a load of crap, how can we put credence to skeptic graphs mapping solar activity to temps?
@Pete - they're not sceptic graphs, but graphs from those who study solar activity. But the question of how to you believe what you are being told is a very good one. I have links to the Wiki article this was taken from which presents some of the discussion involved.
Your questioning of course makes you a sceptic also - notice that sceptics stand for ensuring things are proven - not necessarily presenting rival theories.
There are temperature record devised by geologists based on various methods and they are a matter of public record. The time scale we are looking at here is far longer than you'll see in many man made global warming cases.
The issue of the temperature records in relation to global warming is really one of the adjustments made to measurable variables and changes in measurement techniques to try and estimate and compensate for changes.
WUWT has a good investigation of the case of the records for Darwin Airport in Australia - I'd suggest reading it through.
@Pete - you might also like to look at this description of the temperature record from observations to put the current situation into perspective.
I'm confused. You're agreeing that the world is getting warmer, and yet you're a sceptic? I'm guessing that you have little understanding of the true impact of warming globally on our food sources and our economic security. Even though you agree it's happening. Well, as you were then. Back to your shed.
@Anon - I have no doubt the climate is changing, because;
1) It always has - that's what the geological and historical records show.
2) Temperature records over the last century show this.
Not this doesn't mean that the largest and most significant component of the current change ( which would happen even if mankind wasn't present on the Earth )is an increase in heating due to the small contribution to the green house effect that CO2 makes.
I'm sceptical about man made climate change due to CO2 as it isn't clear that in the past CO2 hasn't mostly been a dependent variable of change, rather than a forcing mechanism.
It is however clear that base data has been manipulated to suggest this ( CRU leak, Yamal tree scandal, the Hockey stick scandal etc ).
That makes me a sceptic.
But I am impressed by the search for mechanisms to link solar activity to climate change. If I was betting ( which lets face it the world is ) I would bet on the fusion reactor in the sky -the Sun- and the fission reactor beneath our feet -the Earth- rather than the very small impact the CO2 which doesn't originate from volcanoes and natural processes makes.
I think we are likely to be making a bad mistake in how we deploy our resources and that we are making that mistake because Man made global warming suits a number of political objectives that groups could not achieve in other ways.
It should also be remembered that all scientists should be sceptics. Faith is the domain of religions.
I'm not without faith - I'm a Christian - but I do recognise it when I see it.
If I wanted to be worried about something it would be the possibility of a new mini Ice Age ( which by the way is far far worse for food production and humanity ). Indeed we may live long enough to see the day that we industrially produce high impact green house gases to "save our planet" - from global cooling.
Post a Comment