Brett, you can bet your boopy this has been done before and if not by the IPCC toadies then by someone else and they sure as hell knew about it too. But it certainly didn't fit their pre-ordained outcome so it was shoved aside as being irrelevant.
Just one more nail in the scammers coffin. I hope they bury it soon.

Statistics shouldn't be used in a lot of cases. This is one of them. By calculating dt/dSI, I cut through all the confusion. Here is a reality check calculation:

Summer SI - Winter SI = ~200 W/m2
Summer Temp - Winter Temp = 33 - 7 = 26
dT per dSI = 26 / 200 = .13 T/W/m2
@ dSI = 4 W/m2, dT = .52

There is no doubt that the change in TSI is responsible for the change in summer/winter temperature.

Therefore, a 4 W/m2 change in TSI from solar min to max results in a delta T of .52 deg C.

>> I personally find it hard to believe that this type of statistical study has not already been done. It does not seem to complicated. Brett.

It is strange. However, the AGW crowd is completely obsessed with C02, so they are not motivated to do this kind of calculation. In fact, Froe & Lockwood are too busy claiming that since the sun eventually returns to the minimum value, it's like the solar cycle never happened. By the same logic, the daily high temperature should never happen, since the solar input is averaged between day and night. It's like the day never happened.

OK, correct me if wrong but did the article merely say that they took the earth surface temps from minimal sun periods and compared them to max sun periods? If that is it well, that certainly is a great advance in mathematics. Averaging temps and making comparisons, wow, that's like rocket science ain't it?

Based upon just a snippet of info regarding how screwed up temp measurements are this study kinda means essentially zip. And what is .2 celsius? Per year, per decade, per day?

Well, I suppose it does show something pretty common sense in that if the sun is hot and bothered, so's the surface of the earth. But I really don't think this means much in the scheme of things. They are right though that we need to know the natural variation of energy. Very important to this topic.

I wonder how much grant money they got for this?

Considering all the other half baked rushes to
panic...errrmmm judgment; why does this surprise
you?

Consider that the most active solar cycle in modern times was around 1960. Guess what? The world cooled slightly during the 1960s and 70s.

The correlation between solar cycles and the number of Republicans in the Senate is much stronger. Check out the diagram:

http://www.realclimate.org/images/ssn5.jpg

Come to think of it, the reason Republicans lost the Senate (and House) last year must be because we're in the minimum of the solar cycle.

Wow, I tell ya, this is the 'scientific method' used by deniers.

Glonal Warming???

Recent research by Henrik Svensmark and his group at the Danish National
Space Center points to the real cause of the recent warming trend. In a
series of experiments on the formation of clouds, these scientists have
shown that fluctuations in the Sun's output cause the observed changes in the
Earth's temperature.

In the past, scientists believed the fluctuations in the Sun's output were
too small to cause the observed amount of temperature change, hence the need
to look for other causes like carbon dioxide. However, these new
experiments show that fluctuations in the Sun's output are in fact large
enough, so there is no longer a need to resort to carbon dioxide as the
cause of the recent warming trend.

The discovery of the real cause of the recent increase in the Earth's
temperature is indeed a convenient truth. It means humans are not to blame
for the increase. It also means there is absolutely nothing we can, much
less do, to correct the situation.

Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ph. 807 3457258
Canada


Your readers might be interested in these websites.

Please paste these links in your browser.

http://environment.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn11462

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,288195,00.html

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12&Region_id=&Issue_id=&IsTextOnly=True

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/06/opinion/06fri1.html?hp

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070705191403.gahmdtoi&show_article=1

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070705/greenland_dna_070705/20070705?hub=SciTech

http://www.abc.net.au/westqld/stories/s1971899.htm?backyard

The other point is that the weather is driven largely by ocean temperatures, which respond slowly to a long term increase in solar radiation, such as we are currently experiencing.

After nearly 100 years of continuously above average solar activity, we see an ongoing increase in arctic temperatures - largely due to the huge thermal mass of the oceans moving towards steady state.

Lockwood's belief that the weather should have immediately cooled down due to the fact that solar activity isn't quite as high as it was in 1987, shows that he isn't competent or objective enough to be discussing this issue.

Solar cycles == no human influence == no long term funding == no panic == no story. No wonder many climatologists, politicians and journalists find it unappealing.

"Wow, I tell ya, this is the 'scientific method' used by deniers."

And your 'scientific method is different because...?

The IPCC has taken into account an increase in the solar forcing. However, the magnitude is not sufficient to account for the observed global warming.

Also, keep in mind the warming is primarily at night and during the winter, when solar activity does not matter. What has been happening is that the atmosphere does not cool off as quickly as it has in the past. It is not that the sun is heating things up and there are a lot of hot days. It is the nights and winters are a lot warmer.

The observed changes are the greatest in the arctic because the seasonal snow and ice in the NH has melted which is a positive feedback. The antarctic is so cold that the warming has not been enough to melt the ice and there are no seasonal snow cover since there are no adjoining continents. So, the SH does not have the same magnitude of feedback as the NH.

Just goes to show you the sad state of "climate science".

They ignore all other potential forcings on climate, ascribing everything to CO2 from anthropogenic sources.

I have also seen the maths done for CO2 warming and it is even simpler. Just remember that you need to use the mass of the atmospheric gases and a second grade physics student can calculate the effect to be no more than 0.06 deg C with a doubling of CO2 and we are a long way from that. The AGW mob are heading for the labour exchange, unemployment. Global temperatures have fallen for the last 5 years and the drips at the Hadley centre in England have already blown it this year. "hottest year ever !!". I can't wait for 2010.

Hi Brett

I think you are doing a great job, dare I say better than Laura and she was good. I have been moaning at Joe for some time about the lack of scientific rigor applied to the field of climate change and as a retired physicist I find it really annoying. I have said for many a long time that the greenhouse effct of c02 was an impossibilty and now another physicist, unlike me, has found the time to say why using classical physics. I tried using quatum mechanics but found it impossible.

his paper is here http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Falsification_of_CO2.pdf

I have seen a more readable explanation using basic grad level physics but this one does it all.


Kind regards

You've gotta love these technically illiterate journalists "...has used mathematics..."

Dr. Tung has some good material on his website. I'm going to be reading these for awhile.

Mark - you're confusing the solar cycle with the overall trend for the past century or so. Smooth out the cycle and you are left with the trend. The work of these legitimate scientists has established a statistically significant correlation between the solar cycle and 'global mean' temperature. If you can understand it, read it:

http://www.amath.washington.edu/research/articles/Tung/journals/GRL-solar-07.pdf

GRL is a pretty decent journal...

"scientists must first be able to quantify the contribution of natural variation in solar irradiance to temperature changes, "
No s@$t sherlock.
And it takes a phd to tell us this??? I will say it again, all the hypsters are trying cover their buts because they see the hand writing on the wall. Stories like this are only a prelude to the veil being lifted off of this GW scam. It is a crime that any politician wastes time on GW instead of taking care of real business. I am all for energy conservation so we can rid ourselves of mid east involvement, but do not insult my intelligence by trying to scare me into believing a lie. Nice find Brett, keep up the good work.

MJ - Mark's method is different because it is specious; by his logic, no correlation can ever exist between two variables unless it is stronger than all possible spurious correlations. Since the supremum of all possible spurious correlations is = 1, there can be no correlation...which means that CO2 cannot affect temperature!

This is not science, but it is typical of what you will see on real.climate

"Wow, I tell ya, this is the 'scientific method' used by deniers."

Al Gore and his spin doctors are elated that they have folks out there who are easy to train, will faithfully follow and who will stick by them, no matter how silly the information that the spinners are putting out, will become, in the near future.

In a few years, they'll be back-paddling when the real studies, by the thousands of scientists that remain unheard, due to their resolve to not fall for the money and political connections, come out with other reasons for the changes in climate.

Where will the faithful disciples hang their hats, then? Oh, yeah! I know! Gore will need chauffers for his fleet of luxury limo's, or maybe they'll just change their names and start blogging doom and gloom about the approaching ice age.

Now, write this 100 times on the blackboard: "THE SUN HEATS THE PLANET EARTH SO IT WON'T BECOME AN ICE BALL"

No way, it couldn't be this easy to figure out now could it. It has to be much more complicated that only a certain panel could come up with the answers for us. I guess if the IPCC told some people that if everyone wore diapers that would prevent the carbon from being absorbed in the atmosphere they would be all for it. Obviously there is no money in saying the sun is responsible for an increase or decrease in temperatures. Let's see say sun and make no money or say man is responsible and make mega amounts. Hmmm....

The very title of this post is a bit offputting; suggesting as it does that the use of mathematics in science is somehow a novelty. It makes it a liitle hard to take the content seriously.

People have looked very hard in recent years at how changes in solar insolation might affect earth's climate: one principle conclusion is that there is no evidence that changes in solar output are responsible for the current observed increase in temperature. See for example

http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf

This is not however what Camp and Tung are suggesting, despite the way certain posters seem to have leaped to that conclusion. What they appear to be claiming is that the 11-year solar cycle has a discernable influence on the global temperature record. This is not a new idea (indeed it seems an obvious thing to look for) and a lot of attempts have been made to establish such a relationship but without success. Camp and Tung claim to have found a correlation where others have failed. Their work's been published in a respectable journal and doubtless experts in the field will be taking a closer look to see how the discrepancy between it and previous work can be resolved. Till then, I'd suggest being cautious about discarding previous work in this area.

This issue is actually quite independent of AGW. An 11-year cycle superimposed on a gradual temperature increase due to AGW might temporarily cancel out the effects of AGW over a period of a few years prior to the minumum in the cycle but its the increase due to AGW that will dominate on longer time-scales and that's the cause for concern.

Come to think of it, the reason Republicans lost the Senate (and House) last year must be because we're in the minimum of the solar cycle.

Wow, I tell ya, this is the 'scientific method' used by deniers.

REPLY: Yeah, and the newly elected Congressional Demo(gogs)crats have a 36% approval rating! Fancy that, Governor!......:-DDDDDDDD....

THE DENIER IS BACK FROM THE DELAWARE SHORE, WHERE THE GLOBAL WARMING WAS AWESOME!!!!!!