TSI is the only measure Warmists will consider
A recent paper published by the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar Terrestial Physics (74) 2012 87-93 and authored by Souza Echer et al. suggests that solar cycles, to a substantial extent, drive global temperatures, and that likely through amplification mechanisms.
The paper is titled: "On the relationship between global, hemispheric and latitudinal averaged air surface temperature (GISS time series) and solar activity"
The authors decomposed average air surface temperature series obtained from GISS and sunspot number (Rz) from 1880 – 2005 to see if a correlation could be found. They performed a cross correlation analysis between band-passed filtered data around 11-year and 22 years.
Although the authors did not find a strong correlation with the 11-year solar cycle, they found a “very significant correlation” in the 22-year Hale cycle band. The abstract states:
A very significant correlation (Rz 0.57 to 0.80) is found in the 22 yr solar Hale cycle band (16–32 years ) with lags from zero to four years between latitudinal averages air surface temperature and Rz. Therefore it seems that the 22 yr magnetic field solar cycle might have a higher effect on Earth’s climate than solar variations related to the 11-yr sunspot cycle.”
Well then, can we not assume that if the 22-year cycles have an impact, also the 78-year, 210-year, and 1000-year solar activity cycles must have a “significant correlation” with the earth’s climate too? Already there are dozens of proxy records showing that this is precisely the case.
Recall that the CO2 warmists in their half-baked models stubbornly keep focusing only on total solar irradiance (TSI), which itself varies only about 0.1% over an 11-year cycle (and thus by itself is no real climate driver) and ignore all the other amplification mechanisms. Well, the results of this study, as do dozens of others studies, show you can’t do that. Like it or not – the sun is a real player. Eventually the CO2 warmists will have to admit this, as anyone with even just an inkling of intuition would do.
Obviously there are others who feel the same way when it comes to the role of the sun on the earth’s climate. Another paper just published at the same journal shows that other scientists are hot on the sun’s trail. Here Magee and Kavic in their paper titled: "Probing the climatological impact of a cosmic ray–cloud connection through low-frequency radio observations" suspect a solar mechanism and so propose a method of observation. In the abstract they write:
…in order to establish whether or not such a relationship exists, measurements of short-timescale solar events, individual cosmic ray events, and spatially correlated cloud parameters could be of great significance. Here we propose such a comparison using observations from a pair of radio telescopes arrays,the Long Wavelength Array (LWA) and the Eight-meter-wavelength Transient Array (ETA). These low-frequency radio arrays have a unique ability to simultaneously conduct solar, ionospheric and cosmic rays observations and are thus ideal for such a comparison.”
The direction of climate science and investigation is clear. The real discoveries will involve unraveling the solar mechanisms, and not baking simplistic, straight-line CO2-temperature models. With each new study, the CO2 warmists look more and more like broken records that keep repeating: CO2…CO2…CO2…CO2…
Obviously some scientists just aren’t clever enough to snap out of it.
SOURCE (See the original for links)
Shock News : Sea Level Almost As High As Eight Years Ago
Sea level has been rising over the last few months (as it does every Northern Hemisphere autumn) and is almost as high now as when Envisat started taking measurements in 2003. If sea level continues to rise at this rate, an ant may drown sometime in the next millennium. Or perhaps not.
SOURCE (See the original for links)
A tip from Michael Mann on how to handle scientific debate: Set up your email server so that it automatically rejects email from people who disagree with you
"...It appears, by the way, that [McIntyre] has been trying to break into our machine ("multiproxy"). Obviously, this character is looking for any little thing he can get ahold of...
The best that can be done is to ignore their desperate emails and, if they manage to slip something into the peer-reviewed literature, as in the case of Soon & Baliunas, deal w/ it as we did in that case--i.e., the Eos response to Soon et al---they were stung badly by that, and the bad press that followed.For those of you who haven't seen it, I'm forwarding an interesting email exchange from John Holdren of Harvard that I got the other day. He summarized the whole thing very nicely, form an independent perspective...
p.s. I'm setting up my email server so that it automatically rejects emails from the "usual suspects". You might want to do the same. As they increasingly get automatic reject messages from the scientists, they'll start to get the picture..."
A Bad Green Dream
“The Obama administration promised a green energy future. What it delivered, though, is a present filled with rancid politics, aching failure and tawdry scandal.”
Investor’s Business Daily editorializes,
… Going where few mainstream media outlets dare to tread because they don’t want to hurt the president’s re-election chances, the [Washington Post] actually took a realistic look at the White House’s $80 billion clean-technology program. It found that “as Solyndra tottered, officials discussed the political fallout from its troubles, the ‘optics’ in Washington and the impact that the company’s failure could have on” a second term for Obama…
While the Post took a hard line, it was not the first left-leaning newspaper to do so. The New York Times provided similar coverage in August, reporting that “the green economy is not proving to be the job-creation engine that many politicians envisioned.”
But all this came out in 2011. Let’s see how much these newspapers mention Solyndra and the green scandal when the 2012 campaign heats up.
Check out the WashPost’s prior assaults on Obama’s green subsidies:
WashPost: Politics powered decisions on Solyndra
WashPost: Obama $5 billion investment in EVs sputters
WashPost: Stop subsidizing clean energy
WashPost: Before Solyndra, a long history of failed government energy projects
WashPost dumps on subsidized electric cars again
SOURCE (See the original for links)
Fifty New Hampshire "scientists" called on the Republican presidential candidates to accept the “overwhelming” scientific evidence behind climate change.
A group called Carbon Solutions New England has circulated a petition that it says was signed by 50 scientists urging the Republican presidential candidates and all other candidates for public office "to acknowledge the overwhelming balance of evidence for the underlying causes of climate change, to support appropriate responses to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases, and to develop local and statewide strategies to adapt to near-term changes in climate."
The petition lists recent temperature and weather trends, such as warmer autumns and winters and more storms, and asserts such indisputably rigorous scientific assessments as: "These shifts in New Hampshire’s climate are clearly connected to changes in global climate."
To respond with equal scientific authority: No, they're not.
That is, some seem to be, others might not be, but where is the proof of a connection to human behavior? They provide none.
It is a funny little bit of propaganda made all the more humorous by its labeling as "scientists" a historian, a sociologist, two political scientists, a professor of health economics, several civil engineers, two medical doctors, and some Ph.D. candidates.
Nothing says "We are serious scientists; heed our doomsday predictions!" quite like the overstating of credentials. If they'll overstate their credentials, then why wouldn't they overstate the connection between recent weather events and human behavior?
Nonetheless, the petition got written up in The Hill, which lent it some undue legitimacy. Voters ought to ignore it.
Politics, tax money corrupts Global warming 'science'
The Libertarian News Examiner occasionally writes articles belittling the politicized Algorian version of Global Warming and occasionally takes flack for it. So let's examine some of that flackery:
Climate Change denial
"Climate change" and "global warming" are two different things. The Earth has gone through repeated Ice Ages, interglacial "tropical ages," and virtually every climatic condition in between including the well documented "Medieval Warm Period" and "Little Ice Age." That's proven climate change.
Political opinion pieces are no place to debate science.
But of course they are. Current global warming discussion has become so corrupted by politics, ideology, and government money that it's impossible to separate science from politics. It should and must be debated by political pundits.
The science is peer reviewed
In What's Going on Behind the Curtain H. Sterling Burnett discussed how the WikiLeaks memos exposed the undermining of the peer review process: "On the latter point the researchers involved threatened to boycott and get editors fired at journals publishing findings questioning the urgency of the climate crisis."
Don't wander into conspiracy theory type claims
Again quoting Burnett, the WikiLeaks memos revealed some scientists "conspiring to avoid legally required disclosure of taxpayer-funded data." What's your definition of "conspiracy?"
Still, AGW may be real and dangerous.
That's like saying "Even though there's no scientific proof that God exists we'd better believe in Him anyway just in case." Is that science too?
Every time laymen get into scientific arguments with scientists the laymen lose
But none of the Libertarian News Examiner articles argue the science per se. Articles rest on pointing out that the science is corrupted by politics, and that because many scientists just as credible and numerous as the GW and AGW scientists dispute the legitimacy of the science – some even claiming evidence for global cooling – that the science itself is profoundly immature. How many scientists argue over the existence of gravity or that the Earth orbits the Sun?
As Geophysicist David Deming says in Why I Deny Global Warming, "Global warming predictions cannot be tested with mathematical models. It is impossible to validate computer models of complex natural systems."
Climate science isn't the only science subject to corruption. Michael A. Cremo writes about similar self-serving deception and hypocrisy in what he calls Forbidden Archeology.
From Deming on global warming again: "Anyone who is an honest and competent scientist must be a denier."
For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here. Email me (John Ray) here. For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there are mirrors of this site here and here