Sunspots, Solar Activity And Global Cooling?

Finally, I think this is the first time I've come across an article on ABC , part of the "mainstream media", questioning the too-widely-held assumption that man's activities are responsible for global warming and/or climate change. A change in the amount of solar energy received by the Earth has always been the logical explanation for climate change. Here is more evidence pointing toward the sun.

A real inconvenient truth is global cooling could be harder to deal with than the global warming scare that has been hammered into us for decades. Stay tuned.
Peter


A QUIET SUN DOESN'T HAPPEN OVERNIGHT

Written by Charles Osgood, The Osgood File
Tuesday, 21 April 2009
I know you've already got a lot to worry about as it is, but something rather odd is going on --- on the Sun.
The Sun normally undergoes an 11-year cycle of activity --- and last year, it was supposed to have heated up --- and, at its peak, would have a tumultuous boiling atmosphere, spitting out flares and huge chunks of super-hot gas.

Instead, it hit a 50-year low in solar wind pressure, a 55-year low in radio emissions, and a 100-year low in sunspot activity. Right now, the sun is the dimmest it's been in nearly a century.
Did you know that? It's true. Astronomers are baffled by it, but has the press covered the story? Hardly at all. Is the government doing anything about it? No, it's not even in the Obama budget or any Congressional earmarks.

But, sooner or later, I bet it will turn out to be our fault --- yours and mine. And in Washington, where everything is political, they'll note that it began before President Obama took office --- perhaps "another example of the failed policies of the Bush Administration."
At an upcoming meeting of astronomers in the United Kingdom, they'll be studying new pictures of the Sun taken from space, looking for any hint that the Sun will start heating up again and acting up again, the way it's supposed to. But there is no sign of that, so far.

In the mid-17th Century, there was a quiet spell on the Sun --- known as the Maunder Minimum --- which lasted 70 years, and led to a mini-Ice Age here on Earth.
Right now, global warming is a given to so many, it raises the question: Could another minimum activity period on the Sun counteract, in any way, the effects of global warming?

Hush, child! You're not even supposed to suggest that. The only thing that can change global warming is if we human beings --- we Americans, especially --- completely change our ways and our way of life.

I'm sure you'll be hearing more about this solar dimming business, now that the story is out. Remember, you heard it here first...

The Osgood File. Transcripts, podcasts, and Mp3's of all these programs can be found at theosgoodfile.com. I'm Charles Osgood on the CBS Radio Network.

Global Climate Models Are Hypotheses And Can NOT Test, Or Prove Anthing...Says Top Scientist

Dr. Pielke makes a good point here. Global climate computer models can not test or prove the exisitence of man-caused global warming. Computer models are hypothesis, or ideas based on an extremely complex set of assumptions. The only way any model can be "tested" is by verifying its conclusions with real world, measured observations. Currently, these models that are claimed to demonstrate man-caused global warming and climate change fall far short of reality.
Peter

Short But Informative Exchange Of Viewpoints On Modeling By Tom Knudson, Bill Gray and Steve Lyons
By Roger Pielke Sr.
There is an interesting exchange of views by Bill Gray, Tom Knudson and Steve Lyons at the Bahamas Weather Conference (Thanks to Bob Ferguson for alerting us to this short video.)
Climate Science has just one comment on this video. Tom Knudson claims that the global climate models can be used to test theory (such as his claim on the dominance of CO2 as the driver of climate change).

However, Tom Knudson makes the very serious mistake of stating that models can test his claim. The models are hypotheses and cannot test anything! They can be used to improve our understanding of how a system works, but their results must be tested against real-world observational data.
See larger image here. The complexity of the atmospheric processes climate models try to deal with, many of them poorly understood or given wrong feedback signs
His failure to properly communicate what models really should be used for, unfortunately, permeates popular and media preceptions of the climate change issue, and is resulting in very poor policy decisions (e.g., see the April 15th, 2008 post on Prometheus entitled ”Biofuels and Mitigation/Adaption").
-->

Temperature, CO2, Global Warming? Think Again

Here are some good comments from "Tom". It should be shocking that more skeptical scientists are not being heard from. It should make us very suspicious about what the IPCC, United Nations, the mass media, and our politicians are telling us.
Peter


Comment from: tom [Visitor]
My goodness, the measurement of the .6C +/- .2C change in a 100yrs+ or so is taken as absolute fact. The measurement of a global mean temp by the use of surface sensors is pretty close to pure folly. Each individual sensor measures nothing more than the immediate micro climate around the sensor. Taking a sensors data and statistically extrapolating it to represent 100s if not 1000s of km2 of surface area is not a simple task and then merging this data with proxy data is even more complex. Yet we take these numbers as if they are solid...well I don't but the IPCC does. These numbers are not solid...if the .6C change has a +/- .2C margin of error, that means we have a potential margin of error of .4C absolute.

Yet, all we hear in the news is how EVERYTHING is caused by global warming. It's really disgusting to this scientist. What is NOT known is much larger than what IS known with respect to climate science. The IPCC got rid of the HOCKEY STICK graph for their 4th assessment...why? It was so prominently played in the last assessment..what changed? The NAS debunked it for all practical purposes, that's why. Because the Medieval times were warmer than today in all liklihood, without increased CO2.

Historical temperature reconstruction is an INexact science. Global Climate Models are far from predicting the future. The scientific method in all of this popular discussion seems to be missing. I am at my wits end and this "science" publication has gone so far off of the scientific roadway as to deem it a laughable publication...especially this current article I am responding to. Wow.

CO2 lags temperature change in the ice core data. Many studies (accepted in scientific journals worldwide) show this. Temperature changes first then co2 follows in the ice core data. Co2 is not a driver of temperature change in paleoclimate study. It likely has some effect due to its radiative properties, but the Sun/Cosmic rays and other climate drivers likely outweigh co2's effect by magnitudes.

Mixing politics, pop culture with a scientific subject in its infancy is dangerous...it is dangerous because of what the alarmists claim we need to do...we don't even have the methodolgy to measure the change in temps if KYOTO were to be implemented entirely. Yet the economic effects would be huge. When push comes to shove and you the general public realizes how much money this charade will cost them they will revolt. Right now it is all just mass media hyperbole and most people don't really give a hoot. Al Gore is an opprotunist and leftist hollywood along with the willing mainstream media are playing the ultimate hypocrites.