FReepmail me to get on or off
Climate Research News
Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown
Ping me if you find one I've missed.
Posted on 03/05/2009 6:02:22 PM PST by Robert A Cook PE
It’s the Sun, Stupid!
By Dr. Willie Soon
The theory that climate change is chiefly caused by solar influences “is no longer tenable,” says US National Academy of Sciences president Ralph Cicerone. Carbon dioxide, he argues, is the key driver of recent climate change. I beg to differ. The amount and distribution of solar energy that we receive varies as the Earth revolves around the Sun and also in response to changes in the Sun’s activity. Scientists have now been studying solar influences on climate for 5000 years.
Chinese imperial astronomers kept detailed sunspot records. They noticed that more sunspots meant warmer weather on Earth. In 1801, the celebrated astronomer William Herschel noticed that when there were few spots, the price of wheat soared - because, he surmised, less “light and heat” from the Sun resulted in reduced harvests.
Is it true then that solar radiation, which supplies Earth with the energy that drives our climate, and caused so many climate shifts over the ages, is no longer the principal influence on climate change? The UN�s climate panel claims there is scientific “consensus” that man-made CO2 emissions are causing “dangerous” climate change. However, its 2007 Climate Assessment is fraught with serious scientific shortcomings in its discussion of the Sun’s influence on Earth’s climate.
The most recent scientific evidence shows that even small changes in solar radiation have a strong effect on Earth’s temperature and climate. In 2005, I demonstrated a surprisingly strong correlation between solar radiation and temperatures in the Arctic over the past 130 years. Since then, I have demonstrated similar correlations in all the regions surrounding the Arctic, including the US mainland and China. The close relationships between the abrupt ups and downs of solar activity and of temperature that I have identified occur locally in coastal Greenland; regionally in the Arctic Pacific and north Atlantic; and hemispherically for the whole circum-Arctic, suggesting that changes in solar activity drive Arctic and perhaps even global climate.
There is no such match between the steady rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration and the often dramatic ups and downs of surface temperatures in and around the Arctic. I recently discovered direct evidence that changes in solar activity have influenced what has been called the “conveyor-belt” circulation of the great Atlantic Ocean currents over the past 240 years. For instance, solar-driven changes in temperature, and in the volume of freshwater output from the Arctic, cause variations in sea surface temperature in the tropical Atlantic 5-20 years later.
These previously undocumented results have been published in the journal Physical Geography. They make it difficult to maintain that changes in solar activity play an insignificant role in climate change, especially over the Arctic. The hallmark of good science is the testing of a plausible hypothesis that is then either supported or rejected by the evidence. The evidence in my paper is consistent with the hypothesis that the Sun causes climatic change in the Arctic. It invalidates the hypothesis that CO2 is a major cause of observed climate change - and raises serious questions about the wisdom of imposing cap-and-trade or other policies that would cripple energy production and economic activity, in the name of “preventing catastrophic climate change.”
Bill Clinton used to sum up politics by saying, “It’s the economy, stupid!” Now we can fairly sum up climate change by saying, “It’s the Sun, stupid!”
And that case (of a single person being more correct than the mindless herd trumpeting BS and corrupt blather) is the USUAL way that science makes new discoveries and progress.
Climate Research NewsClick on POGW graphic for full GW rundown
Ping me if you find one I've missed.
I say it is daylight savings time that causes climate change. 8 months of the extra hour/day of sunlight has to have an effect. /s
**snicker**
The global warming people sound like the bad guys in a science fiction story. It’s like they’re possessed or aliens or ???. Very disturbing.
Anthrax (for example) has not been a matter of discussion for 7 years. I've never seen a response to a “Philosophy” thread or question - though I don’t doubt that somebody, sometime might make one.
“Global Warming and Energy” - The two are entwined and fundamental to the economy! -use up 6 to 12 stories per DAY. Please add that as a topic.
LOL!
But you’re wrong. Arizona doesn’t observe DST and it’s hot as Hades there anyway.
Cool!!!
Though it maybe a good suggestion, entering the keyword “globalwarming” serves the same purpose. I have “Keyword: globalwarming” on my sidebar under topics such as “Breaking News”, “Front Page News”, etc. Works just fine to alert me to new articles.
http://www.climateaudit.org/
Global warming is a myth. I have not seen one legitimate scientific study based on factual provable evidence that backs it up. Weather cycles are for the most part cyclical and seasonal. Minor changes in weather patterns can occur but that does not mean that a global catastrophe is at hand. The people who so claim are enviro nut alarmists.
But asteroids are real. I read this today....We recently learned that an asteroid was hurtling towards earth threatening to devastate 800 square miles of our planet and George W. Bush did nothing. Fortunately President Obama was inaugurated in the nick of time, and the dangerous space rock narrowly missed Mother Earth and disaster was averted.
Willie Rocks!
Dr. Soon has been kicking Algore’s and Jim Hansen’s asses for years. He never gets the recognition or the funding he deserves. Keep up the good work Dr. Soon!
?
The second strongest greenhouse gas is CO2, the third is ozone, the rest are also-rans. The warming and cooling of climate is controlled by weather because weather controls the amount and distribution of water vapor, the most powerful greenhouse gas. The warming and cooling is also influenced by solar brightness (slowly but steadily increasing) and weather itself is influenced by solar magnetic fluctuations (net result: higher solar magnetic activty caused more warming low clouds last half of 1900's, lower solar magnetic activity making it generally cooler now).
As I said though, CO2 is the second strongest greenhouse gas. Without it there would be little water vapor because the atmosphere would not warm enough to evaporate the oceans. In that case the oceans would be frozen worldwide. Increasing the CO2 increases global average temperature, no doubt about that. The actual scientific debate is how much water vapor will increase due to the (relatively small) increase in temperature from CO2. Another worthy debate is how big the solar influences are, especially when compared to the CO2 effects.
Another debate of sorts is whether the warming is good or bad. I believe it is good, in fact, very good. The alarmists believe that Greenland's ice will rapidly melt and raise sea levels. I do not believe that have scientific evidence for that and if it happens at all it will take many centuries.
bflr = bump for later reading
'Bush Lied (or something else evil), & The Rock Passed By!'
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
