Global Warming?

13 Comments

• jd

  September 15, 2009
  12:38 PM

  harrison-where did you get this graph from? why does it end in 1990?

  Reply
  • Harrison

    September 15, 2009
    1:03 PM

    You can Google global warning sunspot and see for yourself. The graph indicates the greatest activity from the sun.

    Reply
• jd

  September 15, 2009
  1:18 PM

  please, if you have time read the following document. also see figure 2.4 here for another interpretation of similar data to that which is posted above:

  http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/DOC062509-004.pdf

  Reply
  • Harrison

    September 15, 2009
    6:25 PM

    There are 98 pages in that document and I could not search the PDF nor find that graph you indicated.

    Reply
• JLancaster

  September 15, 2009
  5:24 PM

  Harrison:

  Great chart, great information. I would write more but I need to go put a jacket on
  .-= JLancaster´s last blog ..Remembering 9/11 — As it Happened =-.

  Reply
• dickster1961

  September 15, 2009
  6:56 PM

  this morning I was watching my local weather forecast before heading to work. The weatherman noted a lack of sunspots on the sun and that would cause the sun to be cooler and that so far September was 3 degrees cooler than average. You think there might be a connection between the temperature of the sun and the temperature of the earth?
  .-= dickster1961´s last blog ..Patrick Swayze: 1952-2009 RIP =-.

  Reply
  • Harrison

    September 15, 2009
    7:00 PM

    Yea why would a fusion furnace influence temperatures on Earth? Sounds like an inconvenient truth to me.

    Reply
• Fran Manns

  September 16, 2009
  3:40 AM

  The graph was modified with CO2 addded for the Friends of Science web site. It ends in 1990 because Pinatubo erupted in 1991 and disrupted the correlation between warming and cooling and sunspot cycle length. The published correlation (Friis-Christensen and Lassen,Science, 1991) is r = 95%.

  Reply
• jd

  September 16, 2009
  8:02 AM

  whoops-sorry. look at page 36 for the chart i referenced.

  Reply
  • Harrison

    September 16, 2009
    11:31 AM

    I saw it. The CO2 concentrations are the same but different data is plotted into the chart (Annual Mean and 5 Year Mean) no data on sunspot activity appears in that chart!

    There is talk of the sun about page 44 but it is played down and I can see no reason why this is the case.

    Reply
• jd

  September 17, 2009
  10:11 AM

  what i was going for was the correlation of sun activity and global temperatures.

  page 32 notes that sunspots were absent during the depths of the little ice age, and a correlation can be found in solar variations.

  Reply
• Fran Manns

  September 17, 2009
  8:21 PM

  …the rest of the story. Climate is changing and always will. The climate celebrities, however, are linking climate and the economy. Yes, there has been warming to end the Pleistocene. Climate is a multiple input, multiple loop, multiple output, complex system. The facts and the hypotheses, however, do not support CO2 as a serious ‘pollutant’. In fact, it is plant fertilizer and seriously important to all life on the planet. It is the red herring used to unwind our economy. That issue makes the science relevant.
  Sulphate from volcanoes can have a catastrophic effect, but water vapour is far more important. Water vapour (0.4% overall by volume in air, but 1 – 4 % near the surface) is the most effective green house blanket followed by methane (0.0001745%). The third ranking gas is CO2 (0.0383%), and it does not correlate well with global warming or cooling either; in fact, CO2 in the atmosphere trails warming which is clear natural evidence for its well-studied inverse solubility in water: CO2 dissolves rapidly in cold water and bubbles rapidly out of warm water. The equilibrium in seawater is very high; making seawater a great ‘sink’; CO2 is 34 times more soluble in water than air is soluble in water.
  CO2 has been rising and Earth and her oceans have been warming. However, the correlation trails. Correlation, moreover, is not causation. The causation is under scientific review, however, and while the radiation from the sun varies only in the fourth decimal place, the magnetism is awesome.
  “Using a box of air in a Copenhagen lab, physicists traced the growth of clusters of molecules of the kind that build cloud condensation nuclei. These are specks of sulphuric acid on which cloud droplets form. High-energy particles driven through the laboratory ceiling by exploded stars far away in the Galaxy – the cosmic rays – liberate electrons in the air, which help the molecular clusters to form much faster than climate scientists have modeled in the atmosphere. That may explain the link between cosmic rays, cloudiness and climate change.”
  As I understand it, the hypothesis of the Danish National Space Center goes as follows:
  Quiet sun allows the geomagnetic shield to drop. Incoming galactic cosmic ray flux creates more low-level clouds, more snow, and more albedo effect as more is heat reflected resulting in a colder climate.
  Active sun has an enhanced magnetic field which induces Earth’s geomagnetic shield response. Earth has fewer low-level clouds, less rain, snow and ice, and less albedo (less heat reflected) producing a warmer climate.
  That is how the bulk of climate change works, coupled with (modulated by) sunspot peak frequency there are cycles of global warming and cooling like waves in the ocean. When the waves are closely spaced, all the planets warm; when the waves are spaced farther apart, all the planets cool.
  The change on cloud cover is only a small percentage, and the ultimate cause of the solar magnetic cycle may be cyclicity in the Sun-Jupiter centre of gravity. We await more on that.
  Although the post 60s warming period appears to be over, it has allowed the principal green house gas, water vapour, to kick in with more humidity, clouds, rain and snow depending on where you live to provide the negative feedback that scientists use to explain the existence of complex life on Earth for 550 million years. Ancient sedimentary rocks and paleontological evidence indicate the planet has had abundant liquid water over the entire span. The planet heats and cools naturally and our gasses are the thermostat. Nothing unusual going on except for the Orwellian politics.
  Check the web site of the Danish National Space Center.

  Reply
  • Harrison

    September 17, 2009
    9:57 PM

    We are 100% in agreement!!

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

Name (required)

E-Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

CAPTCHA Code *

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail