More evidence that the big, glowing ball in the sky may affect Earth's climate;
A study published in the journal of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) shows an association between the freezing of the Rhine River in Central Europe and variation in sunspots. The study examined records of the Rhine going back to 1780 and noted that it froze in places 14 times from that period to 1963. It has not frozen since. Ten of the 14 times it froze were periods of a quiet sun (few sunspots). The suggested link is that a dormant sun emits less ultraviolet energy, which heats the upper atmosphere, thus changing the atmospheric circulation patterns and weather patterns for various regions of Europe. The study suggests that the unusually cold winters in Central Europe in 2010 and 2011 were the result of low solar activity, contradicting those who are claiming these are the result of declining Arctic sea ice. Of course, the study is not definitive, but suggests further investigation is needed.
The weekly roundup of climate and energy news by wattsupwiththat is interesting in that no matter what evidence blows the AGW crowd's claims out of the water they will not give up trying to regulate us back into the Stone Age.
Scenes of the worker class in "The Hunger Games" come to mind.
From Richard Feynman's 1974 CalTech commencement address (the famous "Cargo Cult Science" speech):
Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can--if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong--to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.
In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or
another.
It seems to me just about a perfect statement of what has been missing from climate "science" over the past two decades or so.
big ball in sky hot
Feynman was a scientist, not a propagandist like Mann et al.
So let me get this straight: the sun, effectively the source of all energy on the surface of our planet, is not ratiating at a constant rate, and declines in the radiated energy correspond with historical cold periods on earth?
How weird is that? And here I was blaming cow farts.
Hah, I had to log onto my old /. account to make comments on this one. Blasted into oblivion good thing I had excellent karma. But, the groupthink among people there is so bloody strong they're even attacking sound science now, especially when it doesn't fit the narrative.
Its the Sun, Son.
Just say no to solar warming denial.
Say it with me kids - Coronal Mass Ejection.
But, but, but, but, the warmists and cultists say science is on THEIR side.
Because they say so.
DanBC at August 27, 2012 9:47 PM
"But, but, but, but, the warmists and cultists say science is on THEIR side.
Because they say so."
LOUDLY!
Come on! You can't seriously be suggesting that something 93 MILLION miles away could possibly be affecting our climate.
I blame George W. Bush...and Ronald Reagan...and the Military Industrial Complex...and income inequality...and lack of access to safe and legal abortions...and the Koch Brothers...and plastic shopping bags...and lack of education funding...and unnecessary wars...and George W. Bush.