This discussion (PDF)
“… reviews the analysis and conclusions of Lockwood and Fröhlich and then asks other notable scientists in the field of solar/terrestrial relations to comment on the findings. In doing so, it is found that the conclusions being forwarded by Lockwood and Fröhlich—that the sun has had no impact on the earth’s surface temperature history during the past several decades—is not consistent with the thinking of many other researchers, and instead, indicates more a personal dogma rather than scientific truth.”
Comments by Joseph D’Aleo (first Director of Meteorology and co-founder of the cable TV Weather Channel), Richard C. Willson (Senior Research Scientist, Columbia University’s Center for Climate Systems Research) and Nicola Scafetta, PhD (Dept. of Physics, Free Electron Laser Laboratory, Duke University).
More links here.
…”personal dogma”…
Could this AGW cult have an agenda?
Say it isn’t so!!!
“Nicola Scafetta, PhD (Dept. of Physics, Free Electron Laser Laboratory, Duke University).”
Technically not a laser in the traditional sense but hey, a man after my own heart. Long live synchrotron radiation!
Down with CO2 lasers!
All those air conditioners next to NOAA weather stations have had their effect it seems.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070725/ap_on_sc/warmer_nevada_1
“”The scientific evidence of global warming is incontrovertible, and Nevada is feeling the heat more intensely than most of the rest of the U.S,” said Stephen M. Rowland, Professor of Geology at University of Nevada, Las Vegas.”
Yuh huh!
Joseph D’Aleo, as well as everyone else, knows that the Earth’s climate has been changing since time began.
He shows, with data, that there is a definite correlation between changes in the sun’s activity and changes in the Earth’s climate.
He also shows that there is a correlation in the sun’s activity of the last century and the earth’s warming, and cooling, during the decades of the last century.
He proves that that the sun, a mega nuclear furnace, is a major driver of our climate — by the hour, by the year, by the century and by the eons.
Why would the last few decades be any different ??
Why would man now be responsible ?? Because Gore and Suzuki made a computer model ?? A junk-in, junk-out one at that. Think Mann’s broken hockey stick.
The Kyoto Kult —- is the biggest, most dangerous one in the history of mankind. Thanks in big part to the media.
Will the Goracle and the Fruitfly defend themselves here or will they send in pawns ??
Al Gore and David Suzuki are a pair of cracked urns
to assert the sun, having converted trilions of tonnes of matter in the past 2 decades into energy, has suddenly ceased to affect climate is yet another example of how ‘shientishts’ are perfectly willing to set aside even common sense in the pursuits of foregone conclusions.
some ‘scientific’ ‘method’ that eh?
pokemon- A little refresher on the Scientific Method for you. The burden of proof doesn’t lie with skeptics it lies with people who are advancing a theory. And the theory you’re expousing (how familiar are you with it really I wonder) is a) in its infancy b) has scant evidence and c) doesn’t fit well with the past thirty years of observational data we have on both solar output and planetary astronmy.
The question isn’t why people are skeptical but why people who don’t even understand the theory are so eager to believe it whole hog.
Using future projections to influence historical data? We used to call that “fortune-telling”.
I can buy that from Al Gore, because that is what politicians are. But when the Suzukis et al are reduced to carnival seers, Science has a lot of house cleaning to do.
“the sun has had no impact on the earth’s surface temperature history during the past several decades”
I guess we’re pretty lucky that GHG’s have been heating the planet for the past several decades since the sun apparently hasn’t been contributing to keeping the planet warm.
“the conclusions being forwarded by Lockwood and Fröhlich—that the sun has had no impact on the earth’s surface temperature history”
This is like taking your car in for a check up because it’s got a problem with the heat warning light coming on and off and the mechanic tells you that the engine has no effect on the heating…that in reality, it is a single lug nut on the back left wheel causing the problem.
Take your car to a competent garage.
Get your science from a competent source.
“A personal dogma”
Yes indeed. It just occurred to me that we have entered a period of “anti-renaissance” or more precisely a period of “un knowing”…a era of losing or ignoring proven science to engage in sensational theatrical science for profit…this is an era where the arcane ossified dogma of neo-marxism meets science as a tool of mass manipulation.
As all forms of Marxian socialism are the political equivelent of a “flat earth” theory, it is not surprising this political philosophy’s adherents in the science or pseudo-science industry render modern “flat earth” scientific theories which defy the bulk of known provable science.
Global warming theories, hysteria, political movements is the product of “flat earth” science.
It is a profitable con though when we see the funding for climate science go from just under $300,000 yearly before Kyoto to over 20 billion globally in 2006.
If you are a scientist with the integrity to say the sexy theory of climate doom is corrupt and out of sync with known scientific fact and the hysteria unwarranted, you will not receive funding and you will be branded a “heretic” by the flat earthers….thus we have a feeding frenzy by unethical scientists to cash in on the hysteria and the political opportunity.
The ideological part of man-made global warming is the “man-made” part. If observed climate trends were deemed purely the consequence of natural processes, scientists, politicians and environmentalists would be far less alarmed, and far less interested.
In fact, environmentalists would probably argue that since these are natural processes, they must not be tampered with and man must simply adapt to the facts and consequences of a warming planet.
This analogy by Nir Shaviv summarizes the L & F paper quite well. (from the link at climateaudit)
“Incidentally, this is not unlike a very well-known effect from everyday life. Even though the maximum radiation from the Sun is received near noon time, the maximum daily temperatures are obtained a few hours later in the afternoon. If we were to correlate the falling radiation between say noon and 3 pm (or between June 21 and July-August), to the increasing temperature over the same period, we would conclude that solar radiation causes cooling! This is exactly what L & F are doing. They are ignoring the fact that over the 20th century, solar activity increased tremendously (see the third figure below). So, even though the 2001 maximum is weaker than the 1990 maximum, we are still paying for the extra heat absorbed over several decades, from the middle of the 20th century.”
jose – a little refresher on logic, which is the basis of the scientific method, for you. The burden of proof does not lie only with the advancers of a theory but with the sceptics who must properly question that theory.
And most certainly, we can’t ignore the effect of the sun on our planet; it’s been having an effect since both emerged – ie, billions of years ago. We’ve been observing this for more than your stated 30 years.
To reduce causality of an enormous and complex system to one variable, i.e., carbon industrialism, is the opposite of scientific logic. You can only do that type of reductionism for simple systems with few variables, such as putting gas in your car as an energy supply.
The big time Global warming enthueists are trying to selence the skeptics
1. If the car has gas then it is running.
2. If the car is running, then it has gas.
3. If the planet has a sun, then it is warming.
4. If the planet is warming, then it has a sun.
The enviromentalists have proceeded to the following condensed assertions via the MSM to the statements:
5. If the planet has humans, then it is warming.
6. If the planet is warming, then it has humans.
7. If the planet has humans, then it has a fever.
Statement 1 maybe false as the car may have a faulty alternator, in which case it won’t run.
Statement 2 is correct as fuel is a precondition to run an internal combustion engine.
Statement 3 might be false as the planet maybe cooling instead.
Statement 4 might be false as a nearby star may have gone supernova or some idiot set off a large nuclear device, which would be accelerated global warming or AGW.
Statement 5 might be false as Venus has no humans but it is reputed to be very hot, say around 461.85 Celsius. This would be sufficient to roast most humans like chickens in about 10 minutes flat. Mercury runs about 473 to 613 Celsius which would be like being inside your oven when it is in cleaning mode. And the reason for this amount of heat is clearly anthropogenic!!
Statement 6 might be false as there might be solar flaring/sun spot activity which may better account for anything as tiny as human activity.
Statement 7 is clearly false as this is a “Goracle-ism” which is false by internal contradiction. Planets don’t ever get fevers and there are no bottles of Benedryl large enough to cure the planet. Recall that “Goracle-ism” is a subset of the group of events known as cataclysms.
If you are experiencing a “Cat”aclysm then hay fever medicine would be indicated due excess mental furballs.
Cheers
Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht BGS, PDP, CFP
Commander in Chief
Frankenstein Battalion
2nd Squadron: Ulanen-(Lancers) Regiment Großherzog Friedrich von Baden (Rheinisches) Nr.7(Saarbrucken)
Knecht Rupprecht Division
Hans Corps
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”
jose: I espouse no theory here. the tweedledee and tweedledum pair cited are.
and they mimic the scientific method instead of applying it as it is supposed to be.