Greenhouse sceptics disproved by solar study

[DesertFox]

The Sun's changing energy levels are not to blame for recent global warming, according to a study co-authored by a Swiss scientist.

Experts say the findings add to a growing body of evidence that human activity and not natural causes, lies behind rising average world temperatures, which are expected to reach their second-highest level this year since records began in the 1860s.

If anything, solar variations over the past 20 years should have had a cooling effect, according to a paper published by British and Swiss researchers this week.

There is little doubt that solar variability has influenced the Earth's climate in the past and may well have been a factor in the first half of the last century, but the scientists said it could not explain recent warming.

http://www.swissinfo.org/xobix_media/images/sri/2007/sriimg20070711_8013426_2.jpg

This pic has nothing to do with this story,
but what the hell

"Over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the Earth's climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures," they wrote in the Proceedings of the Royal Society.

Most scientists say emissions of greenhouse gases, mainly from burning fossil fuels in power plants, factories and cars, are the prime cause of the current warming trend.

A dwindling group pins the blame on natural variations in the climate system, or a gradual rise in the Sun's energy output.

More (http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/front/detail/Greenhouse_sceptics_disproved_by_solar_study.html? siteSect=105&sid=8013719&cKey=1184173580000)

[DesertFox]

Notice how the article at every turn heads off any possibility of discussion. "Experts say," as if all experts (including Algore) agree and are on the same side of the issue. There are no experts on the other side of this issue, so all those who disagree aren't experts.

"Most scientists," as if only flakes disagree.

The article is NOT written by an expert, but a reporter.

[DoctorDoom]

"Most scientists say..." Consensus science. How typical of the ecowackos. * Y A W N *

If it's so well established, why did we need those Live Earth travesties to buttress the AGW "arguments"?

[sunsettommy]

This one is much better:

From the link below.


This curve is not sharp enough to yield a conclusive lead/lag relationship, perhaps again because of temperature processing. Physically, global temperature should not lead the Solar Wind Index. The data suggest that the Temperature lags the Solar Wind Index by about two to five years.
my emphasis

SOLAR WIND HAS TWICE
THE GLOBAL WARMING EFFECT
OF EL NIÑO

CONSENSUS ON CLIMATE
MISTAKENLY ATTRIBUTES SOLAR WIND WARMING
TO MANMADE CARBON DIOXIDE

Solar Wind, El Niño/Southern Oscillation,
& Global Temperature:
Events & Correlations

by Jeffrey A. Glassman, PhD

EXCERPT:

Introduction.

Global surface temperature is the essence of global climate, and by definition the only sensible measure of Global Warming. Global temperature is influenced in part by the solar wind, according to a chain of connections admitted by the IPCC in its Third Assessment Report (TAR). The Consensus on Climate, which finds its voice in the IPCC reports, recognizes (1) a dependence of global temperature on clouds, (2) a positive correlation between clouds and galactic cosmic rays, and (3) the physics of cosmic ray flux modulation by the solar wind. Nonetheless, the Consensus refuses to adopt this three part model into its climate models for lack of evidence. Climate Change 2001, ¶6.11.2.2, pp. 384-385. More importantly, the TAR never uses the record of solar wind measurements, a record longer than the record of temperature from thermometers.

According to the Consensus, Earth’s surface temperature is strongly affected by the El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO), so named because of the strong indication of El Niño events in the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI), a continuous variable. The Consensus is convinced that ENSO causes human suffering, and that on some time scales it is the cause of the strongest natural fluctuations in the climate. Climate Change 2001, Box 4, p. 52. However, the Global Circulation Models, formerly known as Global Climate Models but more aptly named Global Catastrophe Models, (GCMs), have yet to demonstrate sufficient accuracy in replicating ENSO to even answer the pointed question posed by the Consensus: whether anthropogenic greenhouse gases cause a positive feedback by precipitating warming El Niño events. Climate Change 2001, p. 151; ¶7.6.5, pp. 453-455. The SOI sample record is substantial, but the TAR uses it merely to remark on its variability and to label the El Niño events for qualitative discussion.

These issues are well-suited to ordinary signal analysis of the three time series because the method can recognize signals at the threshold of detectability. It can, among other things, locate events in the record, and measure the correlation and lead or lag between temperature and the other paraameters, all key to model building. That analysis, not reported in the IPCC and apparently never addressed by the Consensus, is initiated here for what it reveals, and as background for upcoming climate studies.

http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2007/07/solar_wind.html

[sunsettommy]

Experts say the findings add to a growing body of evidence that human activity and not natural causes, lies behind rising average world temperatures, which are expected to reach their second-highest level this year since records began in the 1860s.

The reporter has swallowed the belief that mankinds scrawny CO2 contibution is the main driver of warming.

It is stupid because we actually add around 2.5% yearly and nature does the rest.Meaning that nature does almost all of the emissions of CO2.

They are using SURFACE temperature data that is now being AUDITED by Anthony Watts at http://www.surfacestations.org/

So far the audit is indication that the data has a warming bias.How much is not known at this time.

The current status is:

Site launched on 06/04/07
Progress as of <!--webbot bot="Timestamp" S-Type="EDITED" S-Format="%m/%d/%Y" startspan -->07/11/2007<!--webbot bot="Timestamp" endspan i-checksum="12528" -->
USHCN Sites surveyed so far:
142
USHCN Sites remaining:
1079

The alarmist game is a losing one.