To Predict Global Climate Change Look To The Sun
Wednesday, August 27, 2008 at 07:47PM 
A trip to the beach during the summer requires the use of proper suntan lotion to prevent a very bad sunburn. In fact, a hot summer day makes us often retreat from the sun into the cover of nearby shade. However, a cold winter day will often make us long for the warmth of the sun's direct rays.
When we plan each day, it is around the sun. The sun determines our scheduled activities in the daylight and during the dark of each night. The changing seasons are a function of the number of hours of sunlight. So, if the sun is such a factor in our lives each day, why do we not even consider the sun as a catalyst for future global climate change?
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been looking in the wrong place for the cause of global climate change. It's global climate change projections do not include the influence of the sun. As a result, it's computer-generated model, which predicts a one-degree Fahrenheit increase in global temperature in each decade of this century due to human-emitted carbon dioxide gas, is in need of drastic repair.
The truth is that it is becoming clearer with each passing day that global climate change is a function of the sun and not a function of an increase in man-made CO2 emissions. The fact is that global temperatures have not increased in the last ten years, since 1998, even with a significant global increase in CO2. Also, consider that the first half of this year (2008) was actually the coolest of the last five years, according to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).
So, the current trend of global temperature is becoming colder, not warmer, despite the continued increase in CO2. Of course, the reality for the United Nations is that, in all probability, the extent of their error is about to soon get much worse. Since they are looking at the wrong catalyst of global climate change, they really have no idea what is about to happen next. To more adequately predict global temperature in the next few decades, the IPCC should be looking at the activity of the sun.
Indeed, studying the sun is exactly what astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon, a researcher at the Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Massachusetts, has been doing for years. Dr. Soon has identified a clear link between the sun’s activity as indicated by it's magnetic activity and temperature variations in the Arctic and Greenland over a period of time of about 130 years.
Dr. Soon chose this area for study since it has good temperature records and is an area sensitive to climate change, so that the signal from any one climatic influence should be easier to spot. He also says he can point to a physical mechanism in the circulation of the ocean linking the sun’s influence on temperature in the region.
Dr. Soon discussed the conclusions of his research work recently as follows: "Global temperature change can be attributed to slight variations in the sun's energy output, not man-made carbon dioxide emissions."
He continues, "When the sun is slightly brighter, meaning giving more light to Earth's system, the temperature warms in the Arctic. With the cooling that we observed in the Arctic from the 1940s to the 1970s, guess what the sun is doing? It's actually dimming slightly, ever so slightly. And then, guess what happened after the late 1970s? The sun brightens again."
Meanwhile, a new research paper from the Astronomical Society of Australia also identifies the sun as the catalyst for global climate change. The paper contends that the level of activity on the Sun will significantly diminish sometime in the next decade and remain low for about 20 to 30 years. On each occasion that the Sun has done this in the past the World’s mean temperature has dropped by 1 - 2 degrees C.
Of course, all this recent research just confirms earlier findings about the sun's role in global climate change. Consider that the sun's influence in the long term cooling and warming of the planet was discovered by the Danish Meteorological Institute in 1991. The Institute released a study using data that went back centuries which showed that global temperatures closely tracked solar cycles.
Then, several years later, a Hoover Institution Study examined the same historical data and came to a similar conclusion. "The effects of solar activity and volcanoes are impossible to miss. Temperatures fluctuated exactly as expected, and the pattern was so clear that, statistically, the odds of the correlation existing by chance were one in 100," according to Hoover fellow Bruce Berkowitz.
As world politicians and the United Nations continue a misguided global warming focus on man-made CO2 emissions, evidence of the sun 's role in global climate change continues to grow.
So, it should not be surprising that to predict global climate change in the decades ahead we should look to the sun, just like we do in preparation for each calendar day.
http://www.eworldvu.com
Jim Smith
Here is another new skeptic on CO2 gas and Global warming.
No smoking hot spot
David Evans | July 18, 2008
I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.
FullCAM models carbon flows in plants, mulch, debris, soils and agricultural products, using inputs such as climate data, plant physiology and satellite data. I've been following the global warming debate closely for years.
When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects.
The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.
But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming and most of the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most basic salient facts:
1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.
Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever.
If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. If we had found the greenhouse signature then I would be an alarmist again.
When the signature was found to be missing in 2007 (after the latest IPCC report), alarmists objected that maybe the readings of the radiosonde thermometers might not be accurate and maybe the hot spot was there but had gone undetected. Yet hundreds of radiosondes have given the same answer, so statistically it is not possible that they missed the hot spot.
Recently the alarmists have suggested we ignore the radiosonde thermometers, but instead take the radiosonde wind measurements, apply a theory about wind shear, and run the results through their computers to estimate the temperatures. They then say that the results show that we cannot rule out the presence of a hot spot. If you believe that you'd believe anything.
2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. There is plenty of evidence that global warming has occurred, and theory suggests that carbon emissions should raise temperatures (though by how much is hotly disputed) but there are no observations by anyone that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of the recent global warming.
3. The satellites that measure the world's temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980). Land-based temperature readings are corrupted by the "urban heat island" effect: urban areas encroaching on thermometer stations warm the micro-climate around the thermometer, due to vegetation changes, concrete, cars, houses. Satellite data is the only temperature data we can trust, but it only goes back to 1979. NASA reports only land-based data, and reports a modest warming trend and recent cooling. The other three global temperature records use a mix of satellite and land measurements, or satellite only, and they all show no warming since 2001 and a recent cooling.
4. The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect.
None of these points are controversial. The alarmist scientists agree with them, though they would dispute their relevance.
The last point was known and past dispute by 2003, yet Al Gore made his movie in 2005 and presented the ice cores as the sole reason for believing that carbon emissions cause global warming. In any other political context our cynical and experienced press corps would surely have called this dishonest and widely questioned the politician's assertion.
Until now the global warming debate has merely been an academic matter of little interest. Now that it matters, we should debate the causes of global warming.
So far that debate has just consisted of a simple sleight of hand: show evidence of global warming, and while the audience is stunned at the implications, simply assert that it is due to carbon emissions.
In the minds of the audience, the evidence that global warming has occurred becomes conflated with the alleged cause, and the audience hasn't noticed that the cause was merely asserted, not proved.
If there really was any evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming, don't you think we would have heard all about it ad nauseam by now?
The world has spent $50 billion on global warming since 1990, and we have not found any actual evidence that carbon emissions cause global warming. Evidence consists of observations made by someone at some time that supports the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming. Computer models and theoretical calculations are not evidence, they are just theory.
What is going to happen over the next decade as global temperatures continue not to rise? The Labor Government is about to deliberately wreck the economy in order to reduce carbon emissions. If the reasons later turn out to be bogus, the electorate is not going to re-elect a Labor government for a long time. When it comes to light that the carbon scare was known to be bogus in 2008, the ALP is going to be regarded as criminally negligent or ideologically stupid for not having seen through it. And if the Liberals support the general thrust of their actions, they will be seen likewise.
The onus should be on those who want to change things to provide evidence for why the changes are necessary. The Australian public is eventually going to have to be told the evidence anyway, so it might as well be told before wrecking the economy.
Dr David Evans was a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005.
Reader Comments (2)
"Computer models and theoretical calculations are not evidence, they are just theory."
There are a whole lot of "Theories" that explain a vast amount of useful things in this world and the Universe in which we exist. We can quite confidently send exploratory vessels off into deep space planetary rendesvous with impressive accuacy based on mere "Theory!"
Without the "Theory" of Evolution - the entire modern understanding of biology and mediceine would collapse!
Its just the "Theory" of gravity that he;ps us predict what will happen when we drop something massive in the proximity of something else significantly more massive - and the amazing thing is that predictions based on such mere "Theoriws" are remarkably accurate, precise and nonetheless repeatable and predictable.
To make the comment that Climate models are wrong because they are based on "Theory" is not only wrong - it is worse - it is wronger than wrong regardless of the apparent credentials of the propagator of such rhetorical nonsense! Dr Evans - shame on you!
As for the first articles reference to the sun being the main driver of global temperatures - talk about the most banal stating of the absolutely obvious! While it is true that much remains to be understood about "Solar Climates" it is the height of misrepresentation to attempt to imply that what is known about Solar weather and Solar climate is not somehow incorporated into the climate models and "Theory" both working backward in time from the present to see how the models represent past (known) climates - as well as played forward to attempt to model future ones that are as yet unknown..
Again both articles of shameless and ideologically driven "propaganda" and misinformatiopn that is vastly more dangerous to the Human experiment than any pro-active approach might be.
Sure we see the future through a glass darkly - but in the land of the Blind even the one eyed man is better than someone who buries his head in the sand and refuses to even take a clear look!
JMHO
Justin Snelling
Thanks very much for your post. However, I need to factually correct part of your post . The climate computer models used by the IPCC do ignore any influence of the sun. The models are designed only with data input based on a continued increase in man made fossil fuels. A lack of data input from the activity of the sun in the models is not my opinion , it is a fact.
I agree that everything concerning global climate change is based on models and theory. Unfortunately man made global warming is a theory that is being promoted as fact and as a basis for spending billions of dollars worldwide. If it was acknowledged as only theory, it would not be a problem.
I have found that the problem with the proponents of man made global warming is that they are very well intentioned but they argue without any real understanding of the facts, so they're open to the propaganda spread by the environmental alarmists and a compliant media.
Thanks Jim Smith