Reply to: It's the sun

[RichardCranium]

Help! We're all going to be killed by giant mutant killer petunias!

I thought Petunia Dursley was a muggle?

http://www.lemonwade.com/wp-content/...od-475x332.jpg

[DimPrawn]

More CO2 means bigger plants and trees.



Help! We're all going to be killed by giant mutant killer petunias!


Can't the government DO SOMETHING for once to save us!

Like increase taxes!

[BlasterBates]

[GreenLabel]

The CO2 problem in 6 easy steps

nb Natural vs anthropogenic influence on climate

Source: Meehl 2004 http://cawcr.gov.au/bmrc/clfor/cfsta...additivity.pdf

Do you just lurk silently around here until a gerbil worming thread appears?

[Dearnla]

That's a graph. Simple words please.

We're in the Tulip.

[vetran]

Simple cause for Global warming.

Insufficient green taxes. At least that's what the world Government's seem to think. They don't do anything except raise taxes using Global warming as an excuse.

[BlasterBates]

Indirectly, basically evidence supporting the fact that the electromagnetic field of the sun varies the amount of cosmic rdaiation, which in turn changes the amount of cloud, which then affects the amount of solar radiation reaching the surface.

[NickFitz]

The final paragraph of the cited paper:

Changes in extraterrestrial irradiance over the solar cycle surely contribute a portion of the variability deduced at the polar surface for the 320–400 nm region, although the magnitude of this contribution is uncertain. However, the inferred solar cycle dependence in the 400–600 nm visible band is too large to be of extraterrestrial origin unless one adopts values at the lowest end of the error range. Uncorrected instrument drifts and discontinuities can always introduce artifacts into a dataset. However, for this to explain the observed behavior, any such unknown problems must have a spurious correlation with the solar cycle. Given the small magnitude of the inferred changes, the uncertainties in the measurements and the limited duration of the dataset, a confirmation of the solar cycle effect based on independent data would be of value.


(My emphasis.)

It seems to me that the portion of the conclusion I have emboldened suggests that it isn't the Sun.

[Cliphead]

The CO2 problem in 6 easy steps

nb Natural vs anthropogenic influence on climate



Source: Meehl 2004 http://cawcr.gov.au/bmrc/clfor/cfsta...additivity.pdf

That's a graph. Simple words please.

[pjclarke]

Can you explain what's causing the apparent global warming? In simple words please.

The CO2 problem in 6 easy steps

nb Natural vs anthropogenic influence on climate



Source: Meehl 2004 http://cawcr.gov.au/bmrc/clfor/cfsta...additivity.pdf

[TykeMerc]

Can you explain what's causing the apparent global warming? In simple words please.

Anything that can be used as an excuse to raise massive amounts in tax and justify large budgets for research to prop up the claim that climate change is man made.

I'm still far from convinced that climate variations are down to anything other than natural planetary and solar effects.

[Cliphead]

4x4's 'innit.

Ahh, I knew I'd get it some day.

[DimPrawn]

Can you explain what's causing the apparent global warming? In simple words please.

4x4's 'innit.

[Cliphead]

Ah. I see how this works

1. A new paper is published (rather a good one actually, thanks). It shows a slightly greater than expected influence of the solar cycle on temperatures. At the South Pole. Over the last 17 years.

2. The less than credible and apparently anonymous website Solar Cycle 25 (not to be confused with the admirable solar cycle 24 ), punts it out as evidence that the climate models are wrong (which they are, by definition, all models are 'wrong, some are useful).

3. Therefore 'Its the sun'


How an 11 year cycle, almost by definition zero-sum, can produce several decades of warming, is not explained. I am sure someone will elucidate that one for us.

Can you explain what's causing the apparent global warming? In simple words please.

[pjclarke]

Ah. I see how this works

1. A new paper is published (rather a good one actually, thanks). It shows a slightly greater than expected influence of the solar cycle on temperatures. At the South Pole. Over the last 17 years.

2. The less than credible and apparently anonymous website Solar Cycle 25 (not to be confused with the admirable solar cycle 24 ), punts it out as evidence that the climate models are wrong (which they are, by definition, all models are 'wrong, some are useful).

3. Therefore 'Its the sun'


How an 11 year cycle, almost by definition zero-sum, can produce several decades of warming, is not explained. I am sure someone will elucidate that one for us.