Monday, 6 July 2015

It's the Sun! SS "myth" turns out to be fact.

Another in our series of exposing the flawed science of cartoonist Cook's flawed UNSkeptical UNScience (SS) and the so-called 

Global Warming & Climate Change Myths Facts

In second place on the lists, SS claims that the Sun and Climate (presumably they mean temperature) have been going in opposite directions:
It's the sun"

Professor Bob Carter writes (LINK)
The sun’s output varies in several ways on many time scales (including the 11-, 22 and 80-year solar cycles), with concomitant effects on Earth’s climate. While changes in visible radiation are small, changes in particle flux and magnetic field are known to exercise a strong climatic effect. More than 50% of the 0.8ºC rise in AGT observed during the 20th century can be attributed to solar change. 
Anthony Cox refers us to Dr David Stockwell's paper "On the dynamics of Global Temperature"and his graph of solar and temperature

From Quadrant

Cumulative solar irradiance (blue) and volcanic forcing (red) is
highly correlated with HadCRU global temperature and explains
the trend in temperature since 1950.
The direct solar irradiance (orange) is uncorrelated with temperature.

See also: It's the Sun, stupid!

See also: Notrickszone review of "The Neglected Sun."

According to authors Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt, the book is up-to-date, cites hundreds of peer-reviewed literature and explains in easy terms why the CO2 climate sensitivity has been totally overblown and how the sun and oceans are the primary climate drivers.  

1 comment:

  1. Your rules of moderation are not practical in the current, grossly incompetent intellectual climate: I cannot respect any view that doesn't admit that there is NO greenhouse effect, of increasing global mean surface temperature with increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide; that is simply an incompetent view, given my Venus/Earth temperature vs. pressure comparison (see my "Venus: No Greenhouse Effect"), that shows the Venus/Earth temperature ratio is a constant, over the full range of Earth tropospheric pressures--a constant that is fully and precisely (precisely!) explained by the differences in the two planets' distances from the Sun, despite Venus's atmosphere having 2400 times the concentration of CO2 as Earth's atmosphere (96.5% vs. 0.04%). This should have become front-page news worldwide soon after I did the simple analysis, but both the consensus alarmists and the "lukewarmer skeptics" (both of which BELIEVE--unquestioningly--in the greenhouse effect, only differing in the size of the "effect") are incompetent. Period.

    And climate science is just the current tip of the problem of incompetence in the earth and life sciences. But everyone still trusts academics; even skeptics have their favorite academics, and keep trotting them out (as in the above article). What you never get from all of this favoritism (for one's preferred, scientifically unsupported, dogma) is the horrible truth: There is no valid (global) climate science, and no competent (global) climate scientists. I hope you all are forced to face that fact, sooner rather than later.

    (By the way, my Venus/Earth comparison clearly and unambiguously shows that the Earth and Venus atmospheres are both warmed by direct absorption of incident solar radiation--but not the TOTAL solar irradiance. Earth reflects some 30% of the TSI, while Venus's cloud cover reflects over 70%, so when yet another academic puts out a graph showing TSI doesn't correlate with temperature, that is irrelevant, immaterial and incompetent. I see no sign of ANYONE in academia showing ANY competence on this or any other point that they obviously have already made up their minds about, despite the simplest, and overwhelming, contrary evidence. Shame on today's scientists and shame on today's politicians.


All serious comments published after moderation.
Comments should be polite, and respect all views.
No bad language. Spam never makes it!