Of course the sun is the primary factor affecting temperature. As soon as the sun sets, the temperature drops by more than even the IPCC's most inflated claims for AGW.

It is remarkable how the IPCC has diligently ignored or downplayed their own data showing that solar radiation has been increasing for the last 100 years.
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/IPCC/FORCING/solar.constant.png

Interesting article, but first, we must learn of any bias of this source. This will allow for a better intrepretation of the information.

Second, I put no more faith in mud cores than I do in ice cores in interpreting historical climate conditions. Lots of supposition and plausible theories, but that also describes the religion of AGW.

I'm guessing the AGWers will rip this idea a ton.

there should be an inordinate amount of wailing, gnashing of teeth and foaming from the mouth from that giant beast of propaganda on this one...you know, the AGW cult...good to see at least some canadians recognize sunny, warm days are a good thing and what causes it...to quote a famous and learned scholar friend of mine...DUH!, lol........A.G.W....Another Great Waste...shame, shame on ya'll!!!

If the science proves to be solid, the theory regarding the relative contributions of CO2 and solar irradiance will be adjusted accordingly. It's how science works, guys.

Darren,

"Interesting article, but first, we must learn of any bias of this source"

You should probably ask the same question when referring to all articles, not just the ones which question AGW. Normally, it is the prerogative of those calling for radical action to have to prove themselves, not the other way round.

This article is obviously wrong. It is an outlier. This data does not fit on the pre-drawn AGW line; therefore it is an outlier and must be dismissed and discarded. Remember, first draw your line; and then, and only then, plot your data.

Darren,

I see no reason to have no faith in the mud cores. The reasoning behind the methodology seems reasonable enough. In other words, it makes sense. Is there some specific reason for not using the mud cores as a proxy?

The debunking will be of the cosmic ray theory, which the AGW crowd has supposedly discredited. The lack of correlation of carbon dioxide concentration with temperature is only a minor problem in the AGW theory. Nothing to see there, move along, the science is settled. The Goracle has spoken.

http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2007/06/global_warming_might_help_some_1.html
Its a good thing I posted this almost a week ago. I am still waiting for Mark to answer any posts that contain facts against global warming. He loves to lob political bombs and run and hide when facts are presented. I have to agree with Patrick Henry. If only all the articles were judged on the same basis. This GW hysteria would be trivial at best, but I realize that there are many cushy and highly esteemed jobs that depend on global warming hysteria, so the truth may never come out until we miss half of a growing season due to the start of the next "ice age".... :)

Global cooling would be a true disaster for most of the population, unlike this slight warming that's occured since the LIA. Nothing we can do will affect it in any way whatsoever. When it comes, it comes. The prudent thing to do would be to study ways to adapt, like we should be doing with GW right now. To spend money on anything other than adaptation is folly.

Recommend that people actually read the IPCC report and conclusions on solar forcing before commenting.
Here's a link:

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Pub_Ch02.pdf

Check out section 2.9.3 and figure 2.21: The IPCC has quantified the solar forcing to be about 0.1 Watts/m2 increase since 1750. By contrast, carbon dioxide is 1.6 Watts/m2, CH4 0.9 Watts/m2, Halocarbons 0.3 Watts/m2, NOx 0.2 Watts/m2.

In other words, every greenhouse gas contributes more to global warming as individuals than the increase in solar radiance.

So, typical for those in denial to exaggerate.

This is clearly not an article from a scientific journal. The author starts out with a conclusion then tries to twist and expand limited findings to make one believe he has discovered something that hundreds of other scientists have miraculous "missed". Yes the suns output varies. Is the entire world scientific community aware of this? yes. Is this variation accounted for in all the climate models? yes. It has been controled for in the climate models and these have been tested backwards against the past. Result-the suns output is less than 5% of the temperature variation. Greenhouse gases and aerosols(dirty exhaust) control 90% of the variation in temperature we have seen in the past three decades. It is a shame anyone would post as link to such nonsense, take a critical thinking class. There is one highly valuable use for this "discovery" that more sunlight makes plants (i.e. Plankton in the ocean) grow more: maybe if the author would add another grow light or higher intensity bulb he could increase the yield of his indoor garden. After the methane hydrate permafrost melts ( releasing gigatons of methane into the atmospere raising levels to those 55 million years ago)in the Ob and Yenisey basins due to this and last and next years brutal summers in siberia we will have in 8-12 years 7-8 degrees celsius climate shock and everyone left alive from brazils 135 degree fahrenheit desert to the americas 105 degree hell will be invading Canadas 90 degree coolness to survive. Then the author will benefit from his increased indoor garden production and can be even more stoned than he is now and won't notice the hundred climate refugees who storm his house and murder him for his last can of beans, or maybe he'll be so stoned they'll ignore him as we should now do with anyone who can't see the planetary disaster unfolding around us.

Patrick:

Your talking to the choir. Check back on my other posts. I was being rhetorical as I doubt the stance of the source will be revealed after the faupas (sp) of the "ultra-conservative" comment some time ago.

Wonder why he shows only the old solar data from a Dr. Solanki publication? Why not graph something new of his own, if his data is the world's best as he claims. Where is the link to climate?

"It's how science works"

BT - In the case of AGW, science seems to work by having a few normally invisible and irrelevant scientists taking their case directly to the press and becoming rock stars by feeding liberal guilt - while simultaneously securing funding for themselves.

Okay, the man has mud cores that actually DO correspond to temperatures in the past and known temperature fluctuations. They also have cyclical correlations to solar activity.

To bring up the IPCC report which contains modelling ASSUMPTIONS is not the way to debunk this. The proper way to demonstrate solar radiation in NOT in anyway responsible to the extent claimed by this professor (R. Timothy Patterson is professor and director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Centre, Department of Earth Sciences, Carleton University,) one must create a theory as to why the cores show correlations, then test that theory, and then post the results to this blog.

Yes this isn't a scientific paper. The Professsor provided a sumary for the newspaper. If we want to disprove the man's theories, then disprove the correlation he found-pure and simple.

Andrew,

No one is disputing that the IPCC made some statements about solar forcing. What I am disputing is the accuracy of their statements.

Strangely enough, some of us don't take UN political documents as gospel. Does that make us heretics? Should the Spanish Inquisition be brought back for those who dare to dispute the church of the IPCC?

oh andy, there you go again,

read ipcc (International Panel on Climate Conspiracy)...bunch of english goobleygook assumptions, might be's, and could be's base on guesses, suppositions, and crystal ball computer projections...did you read how often they (IPCC) qualify their guesses by saying "low level of confidence" in the section you linked to dispel the above article...have a nice, sunny warm day...its a good thing...

BT,

Thank you for the science lesson. I'm glad to see you talking about science proving out. I'm curious as to why a simple CO2 to Temp correlation was proof to you for explaining AGW? By AGW standards, simply saying the Sun is responsible for GW and getting a bunch of people to agree is proof.

Your saying that once proof is found that the Sun's output is contributing to GW that we need to adjust how much CO2 is contributing is a bit late. That should have been in the first place before you and countless others started whining about Skeptics and Deniers, not to mention the billions spent on BS.

The one thing that this study does is show a correlation that higher output equals higher temps and visa-versa. One cannot make a correlation between temps and CO2 past 200 years ago because they do not exist except that CO2 levels rise when temps rise (Henry's Law). CO2 is not the cause, it is the effect of rising temps.

No data supporting the increase in temps are a result of CO2 have ever been produced. Someone simply stated that it was a high probability and models were made to "predict" the past and then made to fit today in order to "predict" tomorrow. That was the "science" you were so vehemently defending the past few months.

I am happy to see that you are making the transition.

Regards,

Steve

Andrew,

I'm so glad you pointed to the IPCC for clarity! Finally someone else who has read the IPCC's report and understands it. Please follow the link to the IPCC's reasoning behind having no need for proof that CO2 is causing GW.

I'm starting to get my head around the changes in spatio-temporal patterns, but I'm having problems understanding how anthropogenic GHG gases are likely to have made substantial and significant contributions to GW just over the last 50 years, here's the kicker, possibly larger than the observed warming. I'm not sure in what universe actuals can be greater than what is observed since they are equal, but we needn't worry about that since we don't live in that universe.

So typical for those BELIEVERS in AGW to regurgitate false or unintelligible statements to prove a point. I'd like to point to the first couple sentences in the "report" you so graciously directed us to.

"Radiative forcing (RF) is a concept used for quantitative comparisons of the strength of different human and natural agents in causing climate change. Climate model working studies since the Workshop Group I Third Assessment Report give medium confidence that the equilibrium global mean temperature response to a given RF is approximately the same ( to within 25%) for most drivers of climate change."

Firstly, they are very careful not to say anything. Anything could happen and the above statement is correct since they label it a concept and give it a medium likelihood. Climate models are built with no data supporting CO2's contributions to GW, they simply assume that CO2 is the cause and give it a percentage of RF. In science, approximately the same is not usually greater than a percent or two :) a 25% difference when giving a medium likelihood to a climate model's prediction that simply assumes a RF's contribution is a lottery :)

Thanks, I have medium confidence that there is a probability that there is a likelihood (within 50%) that either you did not read that report or you have little understanding of science.

Regards,

Steve

Thank you for the science lesson...I am happy to see that you are making the transition.

You're quite welcome.

I'd like to remind you that the science in the thread-starter hasn't been proven solid yet. As "barry K" and "Bekkis" have observed, this material has not been presented in a form that meets peer-review standards, nor have any others validated or cross-checked his theory and/or data.

Oh, and plish, the burden of proof lies with Dr. Patterson.

If we want to disprove the man's theories, then disprove the correlation he found-pure and simple.

Balderdash.

It is not our job to "disprove the man's theories", nor is it our task to "disprove the correlation he found." Instead, it is Dr. Patterson's job to prove his own theories, and to prove that they do a better job of explaining observed data and phenomena than current alternatives.

When Dr. Patterson has something solid enough to offer to peer-reviewed journals, he will surely do so. When and if after that, his theory is validated, then I'm confident that the world's climatologists -- including the IPCC -- will celebrate his discovery and acknowledge his personal contribution.

None of that has happened yet. At the moment, all we have is a "summary for the newspaper." No more and no less.

Steve:

Well written, I got the same confidence level that the authors of the IPCC report said nothing yet assumed that everything is the result of CO2. Specifically, man-made CO2. It truly is one of the most ambiguous pieces of technical writing I have seen. I only wish I had thought to make up a theory, not provide any facts, and demand that the everyone else pay me to confound them in explaining my theory.

All this is probably something that the USA gov. and Bush made up so the public trusts them to protect and take care of them. Most of the stuff about global warming and the gov. getting closer to a soloution is stuff the gov. makes up so we think they're doing a good job!!!I am not fooled. r u??

I would have to agree with BT on this one. While intuitiveley one would first look to long term variances in solar irradiance, there just isn't enough hard evidence either in the form of well known proxies. The problem with Climate Science is reliable data collection. Unlike chemistry, physics, or biology, Climate Science has only a few tools available, and these are of questionable value. Attempting to gain knowledge of surface temperature conditions beyond 100 years is full of problems. Temp proxies of all kinds (ice, trees, ground) suffer from divergence problems when calibrated to recent temperature conditions. This calls into question not only the quality of the proxies, but also the current raw temp data. Attempting to formulate a global theory of climate based on this data is problematic to say the least.

Since 1995, both the North Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) have been in positive phases. The Pacific shows signs of a gradual shift from positive to negative, while the AMO shows no signs of going negative. These next couple years could prove invaluable in studying exactly how these teleconnections contribute to climate variability. Astronomers can also attempt to coorelate solar events to these oscillations. With the AMO and PDO in postitive modes, the tropics have been able to transport huge amounts of warm air poleward - record ENSO events reflect this. A cooling of the PDO may help to aleviate this warming, but the last time the PDO went negative, and the Atlantic remained warm was 1925-1935. I think everyone heard of the Dust bowl years. Eventually the AMO did cool, and the PDO remained negative until 1975. The earth cooled drastically during much of that period.

BT,

True, it has not been tested out, but it does show that when Solar output is high, temps rise and visa-versa. We do know that the Little Ice Age was a period of low sunspots/activity for the Sun. We are also very confident that small changes in distance from the Sun and the obliquity of the Earth's axis alter the amount of radiation that hits the Earth and how much hits a certain hemisphere, northern and southern, that cause Ice Ages and Warm Periods. These observations support each other.

The only time in the last few million years that temp increases have followed CO2 increases is since the end of the Little Ice Age which also happened to be the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. This is correlation not causation. Before then CO2 levels went up and down as temps did explained by Henry's Law. Only models that already assume CO2's role in GW are used to back up the assumption. I still fail to see how you can call this science let alone proof. THE DEBATE IS OVER!!!!!! How many times have I heard that??????

The debate hasn't even started with regard to CO2's role in GW, no tests, no evidence, no debate.

I could create a model that shows that miracles and destruction are caused by God. There is a high probability that anything good or bad is caused by God. Here's my data. Good things happened. Bad things happened. Since lots of bad things have been happening we can predict that lots more bad things are going to happen because of God.

See good and bad things are caused by God. Now tithe my Church or worse things are going to happen. There is lots of consensus that God is doing this, now will you listen to me? These nasty heretics/deniers are going to cause the world to end! They simply refuse to believe when it is so obvious. Let's get our Gov't to force them to tithe whether they like it or not!

Regards,

Steve

I agree with you BT that it's Dr. Patterson's game to prove. My point was that people were trying to disprove Dr. Patterson's theory by recourse to IPCC or other theories. I was merely saying that that's not how theories are disproven.

He (the good Dr.) uses strong language and claims there is a correlation between his cores, the solar cycles and warming cycles independent of CO2. As a point of argument I was hopnig others would try and come up with theories that explain this correlation but also disprove the SOLAR connection. No one stepped up to the plate.

You are also correct that when the peer review process is complete, there will be more opportunities for discussion. Unfortunately, sometimes, as I have experienced and seen first and second hand, Peer review, originally meant to assure the scientific method is followed, is instead sometimes used to assure the results are believable to the majority. Results should always be allowed to stand on their own when the method to get there is sound. Theories on what explains the results are what sets the stage for future discussions and experiments. Not saying that's the case all the time, but sometime, just for kicks, I recommend you read the rejection notices from peer reviewed journal submissions and you'll see how unscientific peer review can be sometimes....

As for us... let's rise above..

Global Cooling eh?? Well, I would love to have some cold air here. It's winter in the Southern Hemisphere and nothing has happened yet... may be we are fitting into the global trend, which is clearly towards Global Warming.

Anyways, I doubt this cooling will take place... we are always talking about possibilities that never turn out to be true. And yes, while reading this you may think i'm a skeptic and thus, should not believe in GW because it's being predicted by models. The reason why I believe in GW is not because of models or an IPCC report; it's because I AM EXPERIENCING the warming.

Yes, ozi, the GW believers strike back =D

Hi Guys,

JP makes a good point. PDO and AMO are contributers mixed in with solar variability and land use. CO2 has only a slight effect on the total heat content of the planet. JP wrote;"The problem with Climate Science is reliable data collection. Unlike chemistry, physics, or biology, Climate Science has only a few tools available, and these are of questionable value." I think this says it all and the IPCC and the rest of the world would love it if the USA dumped $100's of billions down the AGW money pit. The money should be spent on land use issues and not some GW crystal ball. But thats just my opinion.