Free Markets, Free People

Climate Change: About that big yellow thing that hangs in the sky each day …

If the findings of a new study are correct, it appears the sun is indeed the primary reason for global temps being higher for a few years.  I know, you’re shocked aren’t you?  Who would have thought the big heater in the sky could have a role in temperature increases?  Well not the alarmists.

As illustrated in the figure below, the authors report there is “remarkable agreement” among the overlapping years of their reconstruction (solid black line) and the number of sunspots recorded from direct observations since 1610 (red line). Their reconstruction of solar activity also displays several “distinct features,” including several “well-defined Grand minima of solar activity, ca. 770 BC, 350 BC, 680 AD, 1050 AD, 1310 AD, 1470 AD, and 1680 AD,” as well as “the modern Grand maximum (which occurred during solar cycles 19-23, i.e., 1950-2009),” which they describe as “a rare or even unique event, in both magnitude and duration, in the past three millennia.”


Figure 1. Reconstructed decadal average of sunspot numbers for the period 1150 BC-1950 AD (black line). The 95% confidence interval is shown by the gray shading and directly measured sunspot numbers are shown in red. The horizontal dashed lines demark the bounds of the three suggested modes (Grand Minimum, Regular, and Grand Maximum) as defined by Usoskin et al.

A “rare or even unique event” which had zip to do with man or CO2, but certainly coincided with the panic about man-made global warming, huh?  And the alarmists gave what sort of influence to the sun in their models?

Usoskin et al. (2014) write their results “provide important constraints for both dynamo models of Sun-like stars and investigations of possible solar influence on Earth’s climate.” They also illustrate the importance of improving the quality of such reconstructions, in light of the fact that previous reconstructions of this nature “did not reveal any clear signature of distinct modes” in solar activity.

Unfortunately, it was beyond the scope of this paper to address the potential impact of solar activity on climate. Yet the reconstruction leaves a very big question unanswered — What effect did the Grand maximum of solar activity that occurred between 1950 and 2009 have on Earth’s climate? As a “unique” and “rare” event in terms of both magnitude and duration, one would think a lot more time and effort would be spent by the IPCC and others in answering that question. Instead, IPCC scientists have conducted relatively few studies of the Sun’s influence on modern warming, assuming that the temperature influence of this rare and unique Grand maximum of solar activity, which has occurred only once in the past 3,000 years, is far inferior to the radiative power provided by the rising CO2 concentration of the Earth’s atmosphere.

Not that any of these facts will at all derail the Alarmist’s rush to provide an expensive solution to a non-existent problem.  Doug Hoffman summarizes what we who are totally skeptical of the “science” of man-made global warming face:

One of the sad side effects of the global warming climate scam is the way otherwise fairly intelligent people have been snookered into believing the dumbest things. There is no shortage of “experts” who gleefully back up claims of climate induced catastrophe—some with scholarly gravitas, others with fanatical shrillness. And the list of false and debunked claims goes on and on. Part of the blame for all these faux catastrophes rests squarely on the news media. Operating under the old adage, “if it bleeds it leads,” the mindless vultures of the world’s news agencies flock to report any calamity, more than happy to attributed the event to climate change. Instead of registering guns, governments should register cameras and microphones—they are truly dangerous weapons in the hands of the breathtakingly ignorant members of the fourth estate.

Indeed.  One of the things we’ve discussed here before is how the rise of advocacy “journalism” harms us all.  This “scam”, as Hoffman characterizes it, points out in spades how poorly we’re served by our media today.

Don’t expect this study to get much attention.  It is counter to the conventional wisdom, counter to the desire to further empower government and certainly counter to the desire by those in power to cash in on this faux crisis.

~McQ

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

22 Responses to Climate Change: About that big yellow thing that hangs in the sky each day …

  • One of the sad side effects of the global warming climate scam is the way otherwise fairly intelligent people have been snookered into believing the dumbest things.
     
    And then there is the cohort that Erp belongs to…

  • “…instead of registering guns, governments should register cameras and microphones—they are truly dangerous weapons in the hands of the breathtakingly ignorant members of the fourth estate…” – Quote of the decade.

  • Regarding your theory that the solar object has an effect on temperatures.
    I’ve been doing extensive research for the last 10 minutes.   Here’s what I’ve uncovered.
     
    Consider Texas – for example – Dallas to be specific.
    The average temperature difference between the high and low, pretty much year round, is roughly 20 degrees.
    I’ve noticed the difference between night and day and I’ve noticed that yellow ball appears somewhere around dawn each morning.  And disappear after sunset.
    And the temperatures go up about 20 degrees year round every day, all 4 seasons, every time that ball appears in the sky and they start going down again after it disappears.
     
    Now, oddly enough if you look at a graph for, picked at random because it’s not in Texas, Benghazi Libya,  miracle of miracles, the same thing happens!   http://www.worldweatheronline.com/football/Al-Nasr-Benghazi-weather-averages/LY.aspx
    Someplace between 14 to 20 degrees every day all year round.
    And….OMG!  In BOSTON, an average of 14 to 17 degrees each day, all year round!
     
    I’m going to go out on a limb here, I think you’re right!  That sun thing, you know, it MIGHT be having an effect on temperatures!
     
    To paraphrase Stalin –  A daily temperature change in Texas is weather, the yearly temperature changes are climate.
     
    The sun?  No, that’s too damn obvious.   It HAS to be cow farts, or coal plants, or SUV.   No one is going to fund us if we say the sun is making things warm!
     

  • The one thing anyone with a grasp on reality can say at this point: the models created in the 1990s that inspired climate change hysteria are wrong. (second graph is the key one for that statement)
     
    This isn’t an opinion. The models made predictions, and those predictions were wrong. As in, variation between model and reality is outside the range where statistical fluctuation might explain it. Therefore the models are wrong.
     
    This doesn’t prove that humans have no effect on climate. But the models don’t prove that we do, either. Because they’re wrong.

    • The models don’t run backwards AT ALL.
      And, yes, humans cause warming; perhaps 0.05%. They also cause cooling; perhaps 0.05%.

      • “The models don’t run backwards AT ALL.”
        Wait – are you suggesting we be able to take known data inputs, plug them in to the models and match the predictions of the models against known outcomes?
        Preposterous!
        You know nothing non-scientific denier radicals!  Why can’t you accept the consensus of scientists instead of clinging to your heretic Helios-centric insanities!    Thousands of learned-experts agree!   Accept!  Accept!  The earth does NOT revolve around the sun!
        errrrrr.
        I mean, Carbon Dioxide produced primarily by western first world countries causes global warming!

  • The final nails in the AGW coffin for me were two different scientific studies (yes, we’re taking science).
    The first was a suds that showed that 23% of recent warming could be attributed to the reduction in aerosols in the atmosphere.  This reduction in aerosols could be directly attributed to efforts to clean the air (I.e. Clear Air Act).
    The other were numbers by the federal government that showed that 3.5% of new CO2 comes from man, while the remainder came from natural sources.

    • Too hard to tax the forest and fields.  Esspecially since so much of it out west is owned by government.
      Easier to tax Suburbans and measurable power plant output.

    • Possibly, but the use of aerosols only dropped (IIUC) in the US and parts of Europe; worldwide, it’s net usage is up! ??

  • Of course, Anthropogenic CO2 emissions on Earth caused the Sun to burn hotter in the late 20th Century.

  • I submit that a good number of the people responsible for these climate studies have never spent a significant amount of time interacting with ‘climate’ without retreating to a solid structure in a 12-16 hour period.
    and more than likely if they have, they did so when their interaction with climate and weather was not being ‘observed’ by them beyond, getting cold, getting wet or being hot.
     
     

  • http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/cb080814dAPC20140807114758.jpg
     
    Sometimes, you just can’t beat a good cartoon to tell the truth.

  • “The big yellow one is the sun”
     
    Do we really need to do any debunking of this “science”?
    We have all the examples we need, from the non-exploded “population bomb” (remember all those mass famine deaths in India that were supposed to happen) to the non-fatal “hole in the ozone layer” to the not quite so cold “global cooling” (remember the first Earth day??) to Global Warming now suddenly morphed to a catch all “climate change”.  Plus the polar bears aren’t extinct yet as I was told would have happened by now.
    MY scientific method is to look at this list and just utterly reject any doomsday hysteria the usual suspects push, no matter what “science” they use to justify.
     
     

    • Shark you just hate children from Central America and you’re not worried about the world’s future!
      Ding Ding!
      I got a two fer.

    • MY scientific method is to look at this list and just utterly reject any doomsday hysteria the usual suspects push, no matter what “science” they use to justify.

      They DON’T use bourgeois science, or Jewish science.

  • “the modern Grand maximum (which occurred during solar cycles 19-23, i.e., 1950-2009),” which they describe as “a rare or even unique event, in both magnitude and duration, in the past three millennia.”
    This  rare and even unique event opens the door for a rare and even unique response.  This certainly explains why “alarmists” are so shrill to “deniers”