Shock News : The Sun Affects Temperatures On Earth

6 Responses to Shock News : The Sun Affects Temperatures On Earth

1. Tony Duncan says:

   January 16, 2011 at 5:44 am

   Steve,

   Surely this revolutionary idea is going to force those fraudulent climate scientists to abandon ACC. Their theories must have assumed a base black body radiation value from intergalactic cosmic rays, and just have always ignored the sun. They were probably wearing sunglasses and didn’t notice that it was warmer when the sun was out than when it was hidden or on the other side of the planet

   Reply
   • stevengoddard says:

     January 16, 2011 at 5:52 am

     Please quantify how much effect changes in solar activity have on cloud formation .

     Reply
   • Paul H says:

     January 16, 2011 at 12:34 pm

     “Surely this revolutionary idea is going to force those fraudulent climate scientists to abandon ACC. ”

     Swap the words “ACC” for “Funding” and I think we all know what the answer will be.

     Reply
2. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

   January 16, 2011 at 5:45 am

   CO2 and temperature? Global warmers may want to look away from what I am now typing—-to avoid feeling of discomfort leave now.

   It’s peer reviewed:

   ABSTRACT
   The dramatic and threatening environmental changes announced for the next decades are the result of models whose main drive factor of climatic changes is the increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Although taken as a premise, the hypothesis does not have verifiable consistence. The comparison of temperature changes and CO2 changes in the atmosphere is made for a large diversity of conditions, with the same data used to model climate changes. Correlation of historical series of data is the main approach. CO2 changes are closely related to temperature. Warmer seasons or triennial phases are followed by an atmosphere that is rich in CO2, reflecting the gas solving or exsolving from water, and not photosynthesis activity. Interannual correlations between the variables are good. A weak dominance of temperature changes precedence, relative to CO2 changes, indicate that the main effect is the CO2 increase in the atmosphere due to temperature rising. Decreasing temperature is not followed by CO2 decrease, which indicates a different route for the CO2 capture by the oceans, not by gas re-absorption. Monthly changes have no correspondence as would be expected if the warming was an important absorption-radiation effect of the CO2 increase. The anthropogenic wasting of fossil fuel CO2 to the atmosphere shows no relation with the temperature changes even in an annual basis. The absence of immediate relation between CO2 and temperature is evidence that rising its mix ratio in the atmosphere will not imply more absorption and time residence of energy over the Earth surface. This is explained because band absorption is nearly all done with historic CO2 values. Unlike CO2, water vapor in the atmosphere is rising in tune with temperature changes, even in a monthly scale. The rising energy absorption of vapor is reducing the outcoming long wave radiation window and amplifying warming regionally and in a different way around the globe.

   http://www.scirp.org/Journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=3447&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=ijg13&utm_campaign=01

   Reply
3. BioBob says:

   January 16, 2011 at 6:51 am

   I call bullcrap on ANY claim for accuracy for numbers of watts/M2 from incident solar radiation.

   Yes, they can get pretty accurate numbers for solar radiation hitting earth’s upper atmosphere. After that, any number suffer from the same lack of accuracy and precision of the earth surface temperature. There are NOWHERE near enough instruments to accurately measure actual watts/M2 hitting the land and water surface of the earth versus energy reflected before imparting energy to land or sea, eg climate.

   Period.

   Reply
   • Mike Davis says:

     January 16, 2011 at 1:20 pm

     With a lot of other punctuation marks for that!!!!!!!
     They should now just STFU and ride the gravy train to retirement!

     Reply