Wow! The IPCC says it so it has to be a fact. Yes, in 20-30 years I'll be sitting on some ocean front property here in the Appalachians, off in the distance I will see the sea. They see this theory affected cloudiness but they don't think that factors into warmth. Go outside on a cool partly cloudy day, cloud goes over its cool, sun comes out its warm. I did that experiment and I am not even a scientist. One time these people say global warming will cause more precip, then they will say drought, put it plain and simple these people have no clue what they are talking about. I bet they have the explanations of past ice ages and climate changes.

Another wonderful case of AGW theoreticians ignoring the empirical historical record, in favor of their own lack of understanding.

In 1801, the eminent British astronomer (William Herschel) reported that when sunspots dotted the sun's surface, grain prices fell. When sunspots waned, prices rose.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0927/p13s03-sten.html

Europe's so-called "Little Ice Age" (1645-1715) coincided with the Maunder Minimum
http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf051/sf051a05.htm

Something interesting I've noticed from COLA over the past few months is that most of the world's tall mountain ranges are running much below normal temperatures. This is particularly apparent in the Himalayas which were surrounded by anomalous warmth last month, yet the mountains themselves were 10 degrees below normal.
http://wxmaps.org/pix/clim.html

Here in Colorado it has been amazing how few days we have been able to see the mountains. This is an area noted for exceptional sunshine, yet clouds have shrouded the mountains almost continuously since November. Something unusual is going on in the atmosphere above 10,000 feet

Is this current events?

This is very curious as this same Terry Sloan had a paper published, nearly identical, on the link below back in June 2007:

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/07/no-link-between.html

The correlation between solar activity and global temp is too strong to ignore whereas the correlation between CO2 and temp is almost non existent. In fact there have been times when the CO2 has been more than 10x current levels with no effect on temp! Ergo there is some as yet unexplained more powerful factor in global temps.

But the problem is really with the computer models: plug 3000ppm (not the 300ppm of present) into the Schmidt/Hansen/NASA GCM models and the earth goes into meltdown. But the salient point is IT DIDN'T happen so the models are wrong!

For a somewhat different take on the case for global warming as a function of cosmic ray interference, search the archive at Discover Magazine for 'Sun's Shifts May Cause Global Warming'.

The people doing research on this have found something interesting and are pursuing it - it's a work in progress. The only aspect of this I find depressing is the general willingness, even within the scientific community, to debunk or ridicule or attempt to disprove research which is ongoing and incomplete. Or the tendency to politicize what is in fact a legitimate scientific inquiry.

I think a better question to ask is then WHY has the planet been COOLING since 1998? This is another of my typical "according to AGW theory this should not be happening" points.

also another interesting article:
http://discovermagazine.com/2003/aug/breakhot/

This is a no brainer. If they reported a link funding would dry up immediately. The whole premise is of a belief that it is something we can control. I don't believe anyone has come out with a way we can control the sun as of yet. If someone does then it will be open season on the sun after all as the reason for GW. It is all about the money.

Also, it is curious, on the 'Wired' link I noted, there is exactly 409 top stories on global warming and exactly 3 on skepticism, and none of the 3 actually address skepticism per se.

One of the favorites of the Hysterics is that the Global Cooling scenario back in the 60-s and 70's were the perpetuation of just a few climatologists while the majority disagreed and 'proved' it wrong. If is was so few, then why did Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warn of "extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation." Science Digest (February 1973) reported that "the world's climatologists are agreed" that we must "prepare for the next ice age."

These same magazines are now pipping a different tune.

Can't we get around to the REAL problems in the world like, the end of cheap oil, collapsing ocean
ecosystems, the coming water crisis, deforestation, and nuclear weapons those 'buried' and those in development by rouge nations.

Trying to discredit solar radiation is NOTHING new, it's been going on for years, but we have to see a 'study' every year or so to remind people of how erroneous this perception is and has been 'discredited'.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

The bottom line is still with the problems with data manipulation, model creation and programmings.

Cosmic rays can be gamma rays, i.e., all photons more energetic than x-rays or atomic nuclei, from protons up.
In any case the class, cosmic ray, is open-ended and Sloan is apparently looking at higher energies than Svensmark. Watts has comments in this in a couple threads.

"leading to global global warming."

Brett's not getting enough sleep now that the baby is home. :-)

Reply: You are right about that! 3 hours last night, but she is so cute with her eyes open, even at 3:30 in the morning!

Can't folllow the links here at work, but this seems to be limited. He only checked its influence on clouds? What about amount of heat/radiation it sends out during more solar activity?

Kind of overlooking a bit to prove the carbon crap isn't it?

Uh, Steve, would you please find and paste the original quote from the December 1976 piece that paraphrase?

I'll do it for you if you prefer, but you'll preserve more of your own credibility if you take the step yourself. I'll wait until we've all seen it to pursue the question of whether or not your paraphrase accurately reflects the original quote.

Good evening ladies and gentleman tonight here on the Late Show in my right hand I have a copy of tonights top ten list, tonights top ten. Top ten signs the sun no longer affects the earth:

Number 10-Al Gore says so
Number 9 -Dr Koverkian, wait thats Dr Svensmark says the sun is out of heat
Number 8 -More people growing their money crops indoors {thats been happening here in the city for awhile Paul}
Number 7 -All the carbon dioxide blocks it out
Number 6 -All the white snow cover reflects it back to space
Number 5 -Its colder now than it has been for years
Number 4 -The flat earth people started making potato chips and stopped worrying about the weather
Number 3 -Something for us to argue over
Number 2 -It decided to melt the ice caps on Mars and is leaving us alone
The Number one sign that the sun no longer affects the earth is: Al Gore put solar panels on his house
Coming up next we got stupid human tricks..Would everybody please welcome the group IPCC......

Filibustering.. Maybe some climate change skeptics did say there was a Sun/Climate Change Link and maybe they were right or wrong, but the big issue is the Bureaucrat/Climate Change Link.. and all those nice subsidies they can use to control us with............

Hi Guys,

We should really get all sides to the story.

Here�s the reply from Svensmark.
http://www.spacecenter.dk/publications/scientific-report-series/Scient_No._3.pdf
Here�s another from Ken Gregory
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/03/30/evidence-of-a-significant-solar-imprint-in-annual-globally-
and here�s another from Anthony Watts.
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/03/30/evidence-of-a-significant-solar-imprint-in-annual-globally-averaged-temperature-trends-part-2/

Reply: Thanks Jim.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2961#comment-232584
This could another of those very important pointers that AGW aint happening. It seems CO2 is now falling
(with a large grain of salt, just preliminary data but it appears to be trendy)

BT,

This is off topic, but I thought you might find this article interesting. I came across it on the London Times.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article673663.ece

This all reminds me of the medical school professor who told his students, "In ten years half of what I teach you will be obsolete and I don't know which half." Dr. Semmelweis who told doctors they were spreading infection and ought to wash their hands before examining patients died impovrished and ignored. The first doctor to use anesthetic for an operation was a dentist not a surgeon. The person who had the bright idea of using "laughing gas" to prevent pain couldn't get a surgeon to try the ridiculous idea. They laughed at the man who said scurvy could be prevented by eating citrus fruit. Much more recently, they laughed at the idea that ulcers are caused by bacteria. Everyone "knew" that bacteria can't live in stomach acids. And malaria was long thought to be caused by "bad night air". Sorry all my examples are medical. I know more about that subject.
Point is, anyone who says "the science is settled" is ignorant of history.

BS. Pure bs. Go ahead and coddle Mr. Gore. He'll squeeze you dry and never stop smiling through the process. Go ahead. What do you care?

Does anyone else notice the tone of the article?
It reads like a propaganda statement.
�the IPCC has got it right. "So we had better carry on trying to cut carbon emissions," says Sloan.�
This study was never intended to find the truth, it was intended to deflect attention away from anything that might cause doubt in established doctrine.
The Church has mastered this tact over centuries of �protecting the faith�.

These two links offer good insights:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/sppi_reprint_series/a_critique_on_the_lockwood_frochlich_paper_in_the_royal_society_proceedings.html
and
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/03/30/evidence-of-a-significant-solar-imprint-in-annual-globally-averaged-temperature-trends-part-2/

The bottom line is that the correlation between temperatures and solar activity is very strong and the correlation to CO2 is weak at best.
But you can�t tax people because of the sun.

Steve Rowland:
On global cooling, The AGW industry has been trying desperately to bury that story for 20 years. It�s a major embarrassment to them. They have several pseudo studies to show it was only a few rouges that bought into it.
Anyone old enough to have lived through it however knows different.

How Low can the BBC go?

BBC censors Harrabin

Roger Harrabin is one of the less ideological reporters for the BBC and he sometimes mentions things that call global warming into question. But that does not suit the British Bias Corporation of course. In this article, Harrabin mentioned recent global cooling. But when someone senior to him saw it, they were obviously not happy. The article was changed after it initially appeared.

I have a PDF of the article produced shortly after it was posted. I also have a PDF of what was up last time I checked. Let us compare the 3rd/4th sentences in each. In V1, they say:

'This would mean global temperatures have not risen since 1998, prompting some to question climate change theory. But experts say we are still clearly in a long-term warming trend - and they forecast a new record high temperature within five years.'

In V2 they say:

'But this year's temperature would still be way above the average - and we would soon exceed the record year of 1998 because of global warming induced by greenhouse gases.'

How low the BBC has sunk from the grand old days of Lord Reith when it could be relied on as a source of objective and unbiased information! The Left corrupt anything they get their hands on. As Orwell pointed out, they think that truth is what they declare it to be.

I did my own research based on observed solar radiation and temperature data collected in Germany during the period from 1964-1990.

The first attachment shows the solar radiation data for eight stations in Germany (1964-1990):

http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=display-figures&name=i1520-0442-10-9-2391-f02

The second attachment shows the solar radiation data for Humburg, Germany (1964-1990) under overcast conditions (which occur 26% of the time):

http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=display-figures&name=i1520-0442-10-9-2391-f03

The third attachment shows the GISS Temperature data for Hamburg (1951-2008):

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=617101470001&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

I couldn't find temperature data for the other five stations). While the reported solar radiation data for overcast conditions (which occurs 90% of the time at this station) appears to have decreased about 19 W/m2 over the 1964-1990 period, the corresponding temperatures appears to have increased by about 1C.

The main report that the solar radiation data comes from is attached below if you wish to review it:

http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1175%2F1520-0442(1997)010%3C2391%3ADIGSRW%3E2.0.CO%3B2&ct=1#I1520-0442-10-9-2391-LIEPERT1

This simple comparison record (admitedly for only one station) shows that there does not appear to be any correlation with solar radiation and temperatures. Whether or not this is true everywhere needs to be evaluated.

My whole point in doing this is show that you can't just assume that increased solar irradiance automatically results increased temperatures. Obviously there are other factors coming into play here and any effort to try to correlate anything with just one variable will lead you into problems with your conclusions.

Sometimes the time frames being used for the comparison may not be giving the true picture. There are other potential complex factors that appear to be affecting the temperature oscillation curve in the shorter-time frames. Those that say there is no correlation of temperatures and CO2 are basing it on one-to-one correspondence on a yearly basis (temperatures going up and down) while CO2 is simply going straight up, fail to look at the bigger picture. Is there something going on in the longer-term, decade-to-decade time frame that can be reviewed to provide a more direct correlation of the data variables? Just throwing that out there for your consideration.

Hi Dennis Hlinka,

The interactions between the sun and earth are much more complex than TSI. There is also the solar wind and the effects of the sun's and earth's magnetic field.

You are making the same mistake as the authors of the paper. There is also the thermal buffering effects of the ocean which cause a temperature lag.

Gary,

That is scary about the BBC. I saw that article when it first appeared, and even congratulated Richard Black at the BBC about their rare moment of objectivity.

When a government sponsored news service decides to back a line of propaganda, nothing good can come of it.

VG,

I noticed that too. The link to the Mauna Loa observations is:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

Every winter since observations began, the CO2 levels reached during winter has broken the record set the previous winter. Then the CO2 levels drop, as the vegetation over the large NH land mass gets busy and consumes a lot of CO2. Or that's the reason I've heard.

In most texts the reason given for the CO2 rise during the winter is that humans in the NH are burning tons of oil and coal to stay warm. I expected quite a rise this winter, as it was colder than normal, and a billion shivering people in China have been burning more coal to stay warm. There are 2 months to go, but the fact the rise appears to be leveling off, and may fail to reach the levels of last year's, astonishes me. After all, I was expecting a major spike.

This would be the first time since records began being kept in 1959 that CO2 levels failed to break the prior year's record. In effect, it would hint CO2 levels are actually dropping.

Can you imagine the sensation the headline, "Global CO2 Dropping," would generate?

(Of course, this is only preliminary data, and NOAA has been know to "adjust" data. Keep an eye on Realclimate for future news of the need of this sort of adjustment.)

This is likely going to be a fairly decent summer for vegetation in the NH, despite the lack of sunspots perhaps indicating less solar irradecence. Vegetation will thrive because the atmosphere is very clean and free of volcanic ash. Already RSS data shows NH temps rebounding nicely. If this vegetation gobbles up CO2 to a degree where CO2 levels dip below last summer's lowest point, expect an uproar. (And right before the election, too.)

And this doesn't even include Svenmark's ideas about cosmic rays causing low cloud cover to cool us more during low points in the sun-spot cycle, and the fact the next sun-spot cycle is refusing to obey NASA, and to begin when they say it should. (NASA has hurt the sun's feelings by saying a SUV matters, and a SUN doesn't, so it will be darned if it will make any spots for them.)

(I stuck that paragraph in to try to get back to the subject of this thread.)

Brett, I think the Mauna Loa data would make a good subject for a future post.

Dr. Hansen warns that we need to cut CO2 levels by 30 ppm, or global warming will destroy humanity.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/apr/07/climatechange.carbonemissions

Unlike most of Hansen's unverifiable long term claims, in this case we already have data to examine. The last ten years have been above 350ppm and temperatures have been declining.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/climon/data/themi/g17.htm
http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/ipcc_ar4_and_trend.jpg

Even worse than the a