That big burning ball in the sky affects the earth in some way? How can that be?
…geographer Robert Baker of the University of New England, Armidale, in Australia, has linked solar magnetic activity to Earth’s climate–at least regionally. Using sunspot counts and Australian meteorological data, as well as NASA satellite data for more recent years, he tracked sunspots and rainfall in Australia from 1876 to 2006. In this month’s issue of Geographical Research, Baker reports that the amount of rainfall in most regions of the country tracked the 22-year magnetic cycle almost exactly. “It was unbelievable,” Baker says. At the height of magnetic activity, rainfall across most of the country was plentiful. At the other end of the cycle, many of those same regions experienced severe droughts. The findings are particularly compelling, Baker says, because even though the lengths of the magnetic cycles are not precise and can vary by several years, the rainfall patterns followed them.
So what’s behind the connection? Baker thinks it has to do with the amount of ultraviolet (UV) radiation hitting Earth. When the reversing of polarity approaches, he explains, the sun’s magnetic field weakens, allowing more UV energy to reach our planet. More UV radiation kills off some of the oceans’ plankton, which produce dimethyl sulfide, one of the primary atmospheric chemicals involved in cloud formation, and fewer clouds mean less rainfall.
[…]
“This could be an important paper,” says climatologist John Christy of the University of Alabama, Huntsville. He explains that current climate models don’t give the solar effect much weight in general, because scientists think it is overwhelmed by the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. But if there’s a mechanism by which the sun’s variations are tied directly to weather patterns, such as the effect of UV radiation on cloud formation, he says, the sun may have a greater impact than the models are showing. As a result, the models might not be creating an accurate picture for the future.
Man, just when you think you’ve heard everything…
The sound you just heard was hundreds of climate believers’ heads exploding and thousands of skeptics screaming “duh, it’s the sun”.
True Believers know that Al Gore has solved this issue by claiming sun activity is counterbalanced by the moon’s activity – simple proof the AGW theory can be taken to the bank.
Uh huh.
But naturally, there’s still the death of a cute & cuddly “creature” attached to the story.
Last year during a CFRB debate where the Host insisted the Sun had nothing to do with earths weather , I posted the NASA links to the Solar activity and the Global temps and guess what?
The charts showed a minor lag-Time for the almost identical patterns for Solar activity and increased heat patterns.
I also found a big scam for the Child-Obesity Industry where advocates protest for higher Welfare cheques to buy healthier foods for the kids to keep them fit.
What a crock ,the very own Stats-can numbers barely had a change to the Gender/height/Age graph created by Doctors and Hospital Stats.
The scam was hidden in the new method used to collect info , seems that a footnote reference lead to the U.N. changes to the definition of a “Child”.
It was change to be anyone under 19 instead of the older idea of under 13 as we see for the Young Offenders act that doesn’t apply to under 13 kids , so when I broke down the Stats to see all the age groups it was the 15-17 year olds that were become fatter from being lazy and glued to their PC’s .
As for the starving seniors eating cat-Food , the next highest group with an obesity risk was the 74+ group.
But this sudden jump didn’t appear across a 20 year Time-shift , I concluded that canada’s family-Reunification system is a failure because were getting a massive influx of grand-parents that are already over weight .
Until Sir Gore gives up his 5 houses and Gulfstream jets , I’m enjoying the products that are legally sold and taxed.
Come on. If the sun affected temperature then Earth would be colder at night.
Oh wait…
And, it’s just a matter of time before they prove my pet theory of inter-planet rotation is linked to solar magnetic activity.
“Scientists have long known that the sun plays a key role in Earth’s weather patterns…”
Once again Kate links to yet another piece of false information from the climate change deniers.
“As a result, the models might not be creating an accurate picture for the future.”
Well, now. Oh, dear. My my.
Someone should have spoke up, telephoned the Media or something.
And told the thousands, upon thousands of computer modelers and University professors and Hollywood “documentary” producers and “science” journalists and headline writers and United Nation “workers” and alternative energy promoters and carbon credit suckers and experts and Nobel Laureates and Leading Kyotoists and and .. that they are all nuts !
Or if only the Kool-Aide drinkers had just checked sda archives first 🙂 click click
Could have saved the world a bundle if they had all been gainfully employed.
If only Liberals could find some way to tax sunlight…darn I shouldn’t have said that.
CBC had Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient (Lie) Truth” on last night. Maybe someone should send them the link to this article.
Phil, you don’t want a tax on square centimeters of window pane do you?
Phil, IIRC, that twit so-called Mayor of Toronto, David Miller was having someone go around and try to measure shade.
Me thinks it has already begun.
“As a result, the models might not be creating an accurate picture for the future.”
This is too much. I can’t stop laughing. I’m rolling on the floor. No more Kate. No more.
Interesting article, but as the paper contains no statistical tests it’s findings are meaningless. Good science involves statistical interpretation of data to ensure a direct cause and effect relationship!
True Dante, which just goes to show that this report is no better than the bulk of research done to “prove” global warming.
That article is totally bogus. Probably funded by big oil and you crazy suicidal deniars.
Everyone knows we have more effect on the climate than the sun. I mean… look up.! It’s not even that big!!!
And don’t forget, there’s only one of it but there’s billions of us.
The sun….. Puleeeeease!
Anyone notice that CBC was on the AGW bandwagon all day yesterday??
I particularly found the weasel phrase “…at least regionally.” most interesting. The author thinks that the sun only has regional affects…
Anyone notice the CBC yesterday?
If they keep this up the THE GORIST ILK will be telling THE ONE that the global warming cult needs a bailout.
Dimethyl sulfide eh,what kind of BS is that? I learned back in the good old days that it takes dust or smoke to make rain.THAT HAS’NT CHANGED!Clouds are formed by dimethyl sulfide,I dont think so,thats water vapour folks,fog only higher.It makes me wonder which online university these people got their degree from.
WHAT. You mean all those little squiggly bublbs loaded with mercury aren’t asffecting thing the eniviroment?? You mean I’ve been had??Sorry for the typos,Shovelling snoe at – 28C/WC-39C sems to havr screwed up my fingies.Just think.Cpuld be -50 withot the help of AGW.
Good science involves statistical interpretation of data to ensure a direct cause and effect relationship!
It was already mentioned upthread by Halfwise but I suppose needs simplifying …. ahem …… during day , sun make earth warm … when sun go away at night , earth not so warm …. if sun have warm and not so warm cycles … maybe earth does too .
Ommag et al: I too noticed it. Unlike papers that need to move back objectivity in order to avoid financial oblivion, the CBC is (currently) under no such threat. Currently I am reading novak’s memoir and he wrote about the media being in the bag for the left way back in ’71 and the need for them to return to objectivity or face extinction. At the time it was the afternoon dailies that became extinct – today it is the morning dailies – the media equivalents of the automotive big 3. Will they change their habits and survive? I suspect not until the murdoch’s and zuckermans take ownership.
Dante – “…the paper contains no statistical tests it’s (sic) findings are meaningless. Good science involves statistical interpretation of data”.
Have you read the actual paper? All 19 pages worth, dense with data and correlation analysis?
It would take me the better part of a day to referee such a paper, to assess its data and methodology, statistical approaches, identify deficiencies and omissions, validate the conclusion, and to decide whether it was an important contribution.
And you cavalierly misrepresent it?!
Mewling incompetent. Charlatan.
Watch for a headline like this one to appear in 2009:
Al Gore To Stop The Menacing Sun
Washington (AP) – President Barack Obama has just signed his name to a new Democrat sponsored bill that will see $10 Trillion given to Al Gore’s firm, to be used on a project codenamed “EndSolarNow”. Once completed, multiple rockets will be launched into outer space and a large black cloth-like material thousands of miles long will be spun out in space to prevent all sunlight from reaching Earth.
Dem. House Leader, Nancy Pelosi was quoted as saying, “This is the most brilliant idea Mr. Gore has come up with to date. Not only will he save the lives of my grandchildren, but it’ll prevent me from ever having to get another facelift.”
Fighter for the planet devoid of humans would be much more convincing if he were to self-destruct much like the assignment instructions on Mission Impossible! Interesting how the enviro-wackos want to eliminate one way or another (tax and regulate them to death for example) people but exclude themselves.
I send the CBC a note on there feedback link outlining that Al’s video was found wanting by the British high court when it comes to the TRUTH.
There web page related to the airing of the video looks like typical cut and past job without researching the topic or warning to the public that An inconvenient truth is a political movie.
Robert W. What makes you think that Pelosi had any humanoid offspring that lived long enough to give her grand-children
John @ 6:27,
nope, but then I don’t notice the CBC anyday except for 90 minutes on 11 November, then it gets ignored again for another year.
I just love computer models….garbage in…garbage out, until you get the results you want. I’m sure Al Gore is working on another model as we speak. After all….he invented the internet.
Interesting article…shows that the details of the climate are still being worked out. Does not, however, negate the fact that greenhouse gases are still the larger controlling factor.
Bill D. Cat….the article talked about variations in the sun’s MAGNETIC ACTIVITY…not it’s temperature. If it was as simple as you imply…I’m sure researchers would have come to those conclusions.
“””””After all….he invented the internet.”””””
and here I thought he only invented gorebull warming
Al Gore has really stepped in some deep global warming do do. He has guaranteed the world that the northern polar ice cap will be gone in five years. I couldn’t believe it either till I saw the video.
To view is comments on video, visit the following site:
http://www.hootervillegazette.com
then click on Mr. Gore’s pic.
Happy viewing. You might also want to watch “The Great Global Warming Swindle” found in the video section.
This author describes a mechanism, different from Svendsmark (sp?), but also tied to a 22 year magnetic cycle, as has a South African geologist correlated the 22 year cycle to droughts and floods in South Africa.
However, these remain contraversial.
However, however, the global warming hysterics dismiss out of hand the, perhaps too obvious, possibility that maybe, the Sun might, just might, have a larger impact on climate than they adduce to simple Solar Optical Output.
Eventually, Gore, Flannery, Hansen, Stern, Suzuki et al. will be reviled by the people and hopefully run out of town naked, stripped of all their illegitimately gotten gains from global Warming.
Deeznuts at January 2, 2009 11:29 PM says:
Does not, however, negate the fact that greenhouse gases are still the larger controlling factor.
Simply making a statement does not make it true. In fact, looking at history, your statement is patently not true. Just re-iterate holy rote and all demons will be banished eh?
Posted by: john at January 2, 2009 6:27 PM
Anyone notice the CBC yesterday?
Not since they went on strike. Did that strike ever end?
I always thought scientists were smart people. Well, if they’re uncertain about whether the sun effects temps here on Earth, why don’t they try turning it off in their computer models. I don’t know why, but I’ve got a sneaking suspicion that it would be a hell of a lot colder without that yellow ball in the sky. Call it a hunch.
Do we know what the sun is? No, not yet, but it isn’t a fusion reactor nor, a neutron star. Both the earth and the sun have similar temperature profiles, and while the earth’s is due to an external energy source, no one has realized that it could be as well as for the sun. The Electric Universe.
Apparently some of you decided not to read the entire article.
No where does it make any statements regarding TEMPERATURE…only correlations between UV and precipitation patterns.
Secondly, it clearly states that the problem with the research is that it contains “no statistical tests” and therefore the conclusions could “arise readily by chance, even for extended periods”.
RW…you’re right, it doesn’t make it right. However, piles and piles of research confirming it does. Prove me wrong then, show me research that shows greenhouse gases (our atmosphere) are (is) not the larger controlling factor of our climate.
No scientist has said that the sun has no effect on our climate. The question is do the observed changes in our climate correlate with changes in the sun. There has yet to be any research that would suggest this, let alone rule out our effect on the earth being the most powerful cause.
Bruce…what the heck are you talking about?
Tenebris: I’m giving Dante the benefit of the doubt, and assuming he was trying to be arch. But I can only agree with your conclusion; one hundred and thirty years of data, and the “scientist” at the end of the article says there aren’t enough “statistics”?
As the old joke said “Once is an accident, twice is coincidence, but three times is enemy action”. 130 times sounds fairly statistically significant to this aging and decrepit EE/MBA.
The biggest problem was that we didnt listen to our parents when we where kids”CLOSE THE GODDAM DOOR YOUR HEATING UP THE OUTSIDE”! see we should have listened!
The Greenies have the best idea ever. Bail out the logging companies so they can kill more co2 eating trees. That dizzy lizzy is so smart, I don’t know what the world would do without all these bright ideas.
Oh, and dont forget “best idea” she also wants to get all the pulp and paper mills going again after how many years of trying to shut them down!
Tenebris wrote: Have you read the actual paper? All 19 pages worth, dense with data and correlation analysis? It would take me the better part of a day to referee such a paper, to assess its data and methodology, statistical approaches, identify deficiencies and omissions, validate the conclusion, and to decide whether it was an important contribution. And you cavalierly misrepresent it?! Mewling incompetent. Charlatan.
I sincerely hope you’re joking, Tenebris, because the degree I spent four years on (not to mention the current degree I am working on) involved an ungodly amount of analysis of papers that were both good and bad. During that time, I learned quite a lot about which studies were done by idiots who should never have been published and which ones were worth my valuable time. This paper has no statistical analysis of the data, which (for those of you pretending to have a clue about this hint hint) means that the author cannot prove a direct correlation between solar activity and rainfall in Australia. Big whoop if he thinks they’re related, if he can’t prove it with statistical analysis of the data it’s not a valid conclusion. That’s called garbage science, people. That’s something a first year undergrad would know.
(And by the way, who needs a day to evaluate a paper? If it takes you more than ten minutes you’re incompetent.)
May I correct myself: my distaste is redirected towards one Mike Lockwood of the University of Southampton as was quoted in the article Kate linked to, who apparently never read the paper. In his results section, Baker actually gives several statistical analyses of his data, although the Pearson coefficients he uses are not exactly convincing.
Calling the paper “chock full” of statistical analysis is still quite laughable considering out of 19 pages only a few sentences are devoted to it; none of his charts even include confidence intervals.
I’m sorry Deeznuts, buy
… piles and piles of research confirming it does.
No, there are not piles and piles of research confirming it. There is lots of research that demonstrate warming on a century scale, but then other research demonstrating this is not at all unusual on larger time scales is ignored by the global warming hysterics.
There is also lot’s of research tied to “global warming” as it is a sure fire way to get a government grant.
There is also the geological record of CO2, which wasn’t constant up to 1850, which demonstrates that the Earth’s “temperature” did not run away when CO2 concentration was many times greater than today.
It’s all down to climate models that are created to demosntrate the desired effect.
Well, if the statistical analysis was not included in the pictures part, I can see how you missed it…
Deeznuts,
There is no primary evidence that a change of a few hundred parts per million in CO2 concentration is the “controlling” factor in our climate. In fact, the current cooling, which has been going on for a decade, even if you throw out ’98, kind of shows that CO2 is not in complete control of the climate.
All evidence that minor changes in GHG concentration are the dominant factor in climate come from computer models which are guesses in themselves.
Even according to the IPCC, what they do is start by attributing the temp differences over the past couple decades to CO2 and other GHG, then work backwards (if you want to call bullshit on this, I will happily provide you a reference.)
BTW, your side is the one demanding trillions of dollars from the world economy, so I think the burden of proof lies with you. Go ahead and spend the rest of the day trying to find such “proof”. Good luck with that.
“…piles and piles of research confirming it does” (support that greenhouse gases are the larger controlling factor of our climate)
Well, the “piles and piles” part is right, but it’s not piles of legitimate scientific research. It’s piles of something else that stinks.
It’s piles of cherry-picked and massaged data from questionable and geographically-specific and isolated collection points fed into software that can be tweaked at will by politically-motivated people who are paid by government grants and they refuse to disclose their methods and accept no criticism.
Pull the other one (or my finger, if you want my response to AGW alarmism).
Deezenuts: “Secondly, it clearly states that the problem with the research is that it contains “no statistical tests” and therefore the conclusions could “arise readily by chance, even for extended periods”.”
I couldn’t find a link to the original article – maybe you can provide one – but the chances of a random occurrence following a similar pattern for over a hundred years? Slim and zero, and Slim left town recently. Six sigma events and all that..