Instead, Dr. Bruce West, with the Army Research Office, argues that "changes in the earth’s average surface temperature are directly linked to ... the short-term statistical fluctuations in the Sun’s irradiance and the longer-term solar cycles."So it's yer sunspot cycle, already. Christ. That was literally the very first denier document I ever read, way back in the 1980s - someone quoting an Australian radio DJ who reckon it was all about teh solar variance. And they're still pushing.
In an advisory to bloggers entitled "Global Warming: Fact of Fiction [sic]," an Army public affairs official promoted a conference call with West about "the causes of global warming, and how it may not be caused by the common indicates [sic] some scientists and the media are indicating."
But it's quite simply wrong. Here's a paper from the Proceedings of the Royal Society (pdf). The key bit is the following set of charts, which show several measurements of solar activity - sunspots, cosmic ray intensity, the abundance of certain radioisotopes, and total solar irradiance - and finally, the GISS and Hadley Centre temperature series. The multiple lines on the solar charts show results using a variety of different methodologies to smooth the 11-year solar cycle and noise, leaving the centennial trend.
Clear enough? Here's the conclusion:
"There are many interesting palaeoclimate studies that suggest that solar variability had an influence on pre-industrial climate. There are also some detection–attribution studies using global climate models that suggest there was a detectable influence of solar variability in the first half of the twentieth century and that the solar radiative forcing variations were amplified by some mechanism that is, as yet, unknown. However, these findings are not relevant to any debates about modern climate change. Our results show that the observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanisms is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified."
Well, what can you say? It looks a lot like someone here is another King's bad bargain like George "The Memory Haunts My Resume" Deutsch.
5 comments:
The problem is that they used Total Solar Iradiance which is a primitive measure of the suns effect on climate.
The real phenomenon is magnetic as the suns magnetic power is what deflects cosmic rays. Over the course of the twentieth century the suns magnetic field doubled.
More importantly, solar based predictions indicated cooling presently, something that NONE of the Ex Cathedra IPCC models could muster.
One more thing, make a graph comparing sun spot numbers to temperatures. You may #$%#$ your pants.
The second graph shows sunspots and the third cosmic rays.
Closer attention to content will improve your comments.
That graph does not show the current cooling and the delayed Solar Cyle 24.
Now they claim that solar variance does not control climate but currently the cycle is unusually protracted and this has coincided with a massive recent temperature drop. ∆(T) for the last 16 months has been -.77C, as large than the entire global warming and the largest temperature drop on the records.
Now this would be perfectly predicted with solar based predictions, but NONE of the IPCC carbon dioxide models predicted this.
Every single IPCC model failed to predict what solar forcing would predict. That is what drives this denier...
**And as for blaming the ocean currents we have had dozens of La Ninas in the warming trend and none of them caused this kind of cooling, which has only been seen since the eruption of Pinatubo.
"Dr. Bruce West: Rehackinator"
Post a Comment