No Sun Link To Climate Change?

[AEGeneral]

Two things I hate about the global warming science debate:

1) how painfully slow it can be at times

2) every time a study is released that backs the IPCC viewpoint, the associated arrogance that ultimately follows can be overwhelmingly annoying

Take this example:

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | 'No Sun link' to climate change

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in its vast assessment of climate science last year

Ah, yes. "Vast assessment." As if the IPCC is the be-all, end-all body of intelligence in the universe when it comes to climate science. So who are the rest of us to question the omnipotent, omniscient IPCC in its holy vastness?

Well, vastness can present a problem. It's called "inefficiency."

Take the IPCC 4th Assessment Report. Steve McIntyre over at Climate Audit (noting thanks to David Holland) has posted a link to the IPCC Review Editor comments, and raises an important point:

When you examine these review comments, as I urge you to do, please remember that this is supposed to be the most carefully reviewed document in human history, where entire stadiums of scientists have carefully weighed each word. Compare that impression to the actual review editor comments, which as you will see do not rise above a form letter for 64 of 69 Review Editor comments discussed here.

Do form letters qualify as "vastness" or "inefficiency"?

For crying out loud. The company I work for worked on a new employee handbook for the better part of 6 months before a final release was agreed upon. I assure you I didn't see any "form letter" responses from managers company-wide on the first circulation. Looked like a few of our managers went through a few refills for their red pens.

I would have expected a document like the IPCC 4th Assessment to be marked up on the most seemingly insignificant words. And who wouldn't?

Now, back to the arrogance:

The research contradicts a favoured theory of climate "sceptics", that changes in cosmic rays coming to Earth determine cloudiness and temperature.

Favoured theory? How about "an alternative theory"? The folks at the BBC are trying to trump this up to be more than it is.

And poor Dr Svensmark. His point of view is outnumbered 3 to 1 in quotes for this article, and I'm sure he has plenty of other scientists backing him up. I'm sure they were all tied up.

Consensus implied. That's the way this works in the press.

"as far as we can see, he has no reason to challenge the IPCC - the IPCC has got it right.

"So we had better carry on trying to cut carbon emissions."

Translation: "The IPCC is infallible. Once again their reputation has been exonerated from these baseless assaults perpetrated by skeptical frauds.

"This discussion is over, never to be debated again. The matter is closed and I don't want to hear another peep out of any of you. We've got carbon to deal with, do you hear me? CARBON! CARBON!"









Got news for you, Terry: We aren't going away.

[mcclane]

I feel these reports are just slanted towards the enviro-freaks arguments. They are trying their best to produce one sided information and limit the facts on global climate change.

Hell, even watching the news recently about the weather, they even said that it was hard to predict the weather with any certainty, so if meterologists can't even predict the weather tomorrow how can these scientists predict with certainty the state of the earth in 50 years ??

[AEGeneral]

Yeah, just look at that hit piece ABC did on Fred Singer that I posted. That was disgusting.

Here's an accurate take on the climate models they use to predict catastrophic events in the future:

Friends of Science

MYTH 5: Computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming.

FACT: The computer models assume that CO2 is the primary climate driver, and that the Sun has an insignificant effect on climate. You cannot use the output of a model to verify or prove its initial assumption - that is circular reasoning and is illogical. Computer models can be made to roughly match the 20th century temperature rise by adjusting many input parameters and using strong positive feedbacks. They do not "prove" anything. Also, computer models predicting global warming are incapable of properly including the effects of the sun, cosmic rays and the clouds. The sun is a major cause of temperature variation on the earth surface as its received radiation changes all the time, This happens largely in cyclical fashion. The number and the lengths in time of sunspots can be correlated very closely with average temperatures on earth, e.g. the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. Varying intensity of solar heat radiation affects the surface temperature of the oceans and the currents. Warmer ocean water expels gases, some of which are CO2. Solar radiation interferes with the cosmic ray flux, thus influencing the amount ionized nuclei which control cloud cover.

So no matter the false assumptions made, if the models foretell of impending doom, the media will throw it on the front page.


While the methods of prediction have certainly improved over the last few decades with advancements in technology, there is much that is still yet to be discovered. Which is why I admire the scientists who continue to do research with professional skepticism regarding anthropogenic global warming, despite the fact that they are highly discredited (and in some cases personally attacked) by the media & other scientists who believe co2 will lead to irreversible damage to the planet.


This is my outsider's take on the current state of meteorology and climatology: There are scientists who continue to carry on in the name of scientific discovery and knowledge, and then there are the groundhogs who endlessly engage in the art of baseless prognostication.

[mcclane]

I use the comparison of predicting the outcome of global climate change to financial analysts predicting the economy. There is sooo many factors that can affect the economy the best a financial analyst can do is give their best prediction based on past history.

And that is what these scientists in global warming are doing. Based on trends they are predicting what will happen in 5 or 50 years time. Is it accurate ? no, like predicting the economy, anything can and will happen. It is just unfortunately that the media jumps all over this so they can report a sensational news story.

[AEGeneral]

Is the causal link between cosmic rays and cloud cover really dead?? | ScienceBits

Sloan and Wolfendale raise three points in their analysis. Although I certainly respect the authors (Arnold Wolfendale is very well known for his contributions to the subjects of cosmic rays and high energy astrophysics, he was even the astronomer royal, and for good reasons), their present critique rests on several faulty assumptions. Here I explain why each of the three arguments raised cannot be used to discredit the cosmic-ray/climate link.

Hat tip: ICECAP


It took a week, but now all of the major media outlets are jumping all over this story, portraying it as "yet another nail in the coffin for global warming skeptics."

Of course, the responses made by skeptics will conveniently be ignored -- which is one of many reasons I started this forum to begin with. Nice to see a response to this already. It seems many skeptics have now taken to the net to get their message out, so I will always do my best to keep people informed.

[AEGeneral]

Al Fin: Climate Science in Disarray: Fraying at the Seems

Imagine their relief, when Lancaster scientists Sloan and Wolfendale announced that they had proven that there is no sun-climate link! The celebration in orthodox circles was jubilant, and much publicized. But then, scientists began pointing out that what Sloan and Wolfendale claim to have proved, was not proven at all.

Sloan and Wolfendale (PDF) claimed to have refuted Svensmark's hypothesis, and the news media believed them. Unfortunately, the Lancaster scientists looked at the wrong type of cosmic ray, so they seem to have missed the mark.

Now will the BBC dare to pick this up? Of course not.

And that's why I do what I do.

Hat tip: Tom Nelson

[AEGeneral]

....and here's a response. Paging the BBC....paging the BBC....

By the way...for a subject in which the debate was over a long time ago, you notice how much debate is going on, just in the last few months alone?

Jennifer Marohasy: Another New Cosmic Rays and Climate Paper

Numerous palaeoclimatic observations, covering a wide range of time scales, suggest that galactic cosmic ray variability is associated with climate change. The quality and diversity of the observations make it difficult to dismiss them merely as chance associations. But is the GCR flux directly affecting the climate or merely acting as a proxy for variations of the solar irradiance or a spectral component such as UV? Here, there is some palaeoclimatic evidence for associations of the climate with geomagnetic and galactic modulations of the GCR flux, which, if confirmed, point to a direct GCR-climate forcing. Moreover, numerous studies have reported meteorological responses to short-term changes of cosmic rays or the global electrical current, which are unambiguously associated with ionising particle radiation...(read more at above link)