Wednesday, June 11, 2008

Man-Caused Global Warming On Thin Ice....

Here is an opinion worth taking seriously. Does any politician know everything about everything? This man, Mr. Wilde, makes sense....that is all that matters.
Peter


Jun 07, 2008The Death Blow to Anthropogenic Global Warming
By Stephen Wilde, Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society

The influence of the sun has been discounted in the climate models as a contributor to the warming observed between 1975 and 1998. Those who support the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), now known as anthropogenic climate change so that recent cooling can be included in their scenario, always deny that the sun has anything to do with recent global temperature movements. The reason given is that Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) varied so little over that period that it cannot explain the warming that was observed. I don�t yet accept that TSI tells the whole story because it is ill defined and speculative as regards it’s representation of all the different ways the sun could affect the Earth via the entire available range of physical processes. Despite the limitations of TSI as an indicator of solar influence I think there are conclusions we can draw from the records we do have. Oddly, I have not seen them discussed properly anywhere else, especially not by AGW enthusiasts.

This link shows a larger graph of TSI from 1611 to 2001.

Throughout the period 1961 to about 2001, there was a steady cumulative net warming effect from the sun. The fact that the TSI was, on average, level during that period is entirely irrelevant and misleading. It is hardly likely that such a high level of TSI compared to historical levels is going to have no effect at all on global temperature changes and indeed during most of that period there was an enhanced period of positive Pacific Decadal Oscillation that imparted increasing warmth to the atmosphere.

This link contains details of my view that the sun drives the various oceanic oscillations which in turn drive global temperature variations with all other influences including CO2 being minor and often cancelling themselves out leaving the solar/oceanic driver supreme.

Does anyone really think that the CO2 we produce is effective enough to reduce that risk to zero when we have plenty of astronomic evidence of an imminent reduction in solar activity? And, moreover, the real world temperature movements are currently a good fit with the solar driver theory both as regards to warming spell, the subsequent stall and the recent turn downwards. The AGW risk analysis process (if anyone ever bothered with one) is seriously flawed. Read more here.
-->

3 comments:

ALWP said...

Hi Peter,

I was just browsing through your blog and was impressed with your pragmatism in approaching global warming. I'd like to get the chance to talk to you about a similar approach in responding to rising energy prices. You didn't appear to have an e-mail address for more direct contact, but hopefully we can get in touch. My email here at the Wilderness Society is Andrew_Peters@tws.org. I'm looking forward to hearing from you.

Regards,
Andy

Joseph said...

Well, none of the usual counter-arguments seem to undermine my correlation of residuals. BTW, I'm a complete outsider to this debate.

Anonymous said...

Stephen Wilde is a Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society by courtesy. He does not meet the professional qualificatioons as a full Fellow, but grandfathered in from a status equivalent to today's non-professional or amateur members. His status is conferred as a courtesy and says nothing about his own professional standing or qualifications.

A search of Fellows as listed on the RMetS website will not show his name as a Fellow.