Scientists Have Known For Centuries That The Sun Controls The Climate

In my previous article, I documented the NCAR director’s successful 1973 drought forecast based on sunspots. But he was by no means the first. Meteorologists had been making weather forecasts based on solar cycles much earlier.

16 Sep 1937

Modern climate scientists are too corrupt or stupid to recognize this relationship, and in their recent National Climate Assessment placed solar effects at 1%, and 0.0004 mole fraction CO2 at 99%.

CSSR2017_FullReport.pdf

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to Scientists Have Known For Centuries That The Sun Controls The Climate

  1. GW Smith says:

    I still find it hard to believe that they really believe that CO2 is the driver.

    • Steve Case says:

      GW Smith … at 3:10 pm
      I still find it hard to believe that they really believe that CO2 is the driver.

      “They” repeat what they’ve heard, and don’t give it a second thought.

      • NME666 says:

        ka-ching ka-ching, the sound of government $$$$$ greasing the SCS (so called scientists) hands

      • Bill says:

        They don’t believe it. It’s all about the global re-distribution of wealth from the industrialized nations to the “less fortunate” nations of the world (to be determined by them). The tax on carbon credits is also determined by them. Accepting their assertion that carbon is the culprit gives them total power over you since carbon is the basic building block of life on earth. Socialism pure and simple. One world government. From each according to their ability (to be determined by them). To each according to their need (also to be determined by them). Control people. CONTROL. Don’t give it to them.

    • HW says:

      Well didn’t some judge tell the world it was so!!! If that judge so proclaimed how can anyone deny it???

    • netprophet says:

      They don’t really believe it is the driver. They just hate oil and gas; they are primarily socialist redistributionists and they are trying to ram their socialist economic beliefs down our throats under the false rubric of “science” castigating anyone who disagrees as “anti-science”. Only a scientific illiterate fool would believe that CO2 could be the primary driver of climate. But the liars have the media, government, Corporations, universities, public school, museums pretty much every single institution on their side and the public, two-thirds of whom cannot name the three branches of the Federal government, is too lazy to take the time to investigate the issue to determine if they are being lied to.

    • Sam Pyeatte says:

      The political left only believes CO2 is the problem because they can push government control over society by restricting energy consumption, based on a fraud. The rank-and-file will buy anything the government sells, so long as it is far-left in nature.

  2. Nicholas Schroeder, BSME, PE says:

    A recent posting about weather stations on WUWT showed a typical installation with ground instruments and that sent me off in search of USCRN data looking for data that included both air and ground/soil temperatures. After getting some links and guidance from Michael Palecki and struggling with the Excel chart insert feature, I plotted several annual graphs. Not all sites record soil temperatures. I suppose it depends on the need for agricultural reasons.

    One of the assumptions of RGHE is that at an upwelling LWIR of 396 W/m^2 (16 C, K-T) the ground will lose muchly heat so fastly that its temperature would fall bigly if not for the downwelling “back” radiation from the GHGs. That suggests that the GHG air would/must be at a higher temperature than the ground.

    What I discovered from graphing: USCRN 100 cm ground minus T Air ave temperatures is that the ground is warmer than the air during winter and not much colder than air during the summer obviously driven by the variation in solar insulation due to the tilted axis and the oblique dispersion of insolation.

    Seems to me from real actual data there is absolutely zero evidence of the RGHE assumption mentioned above.

    • Mark Fife says:

      What does the 100 cm mean? Is that the depth of the thermometer? I also think the air temperature height is something like 3 feet. So you are, I presume, looking at the difference between 100 cm in the dirt versus 3 feet in the air, whatever that is. The highest temperature point, I think would be on the surface being directly hit by the sunlight. If the air were warmer than the ground, then it would warm the ground. That is not the case.

      Directly at the point of contact between surface and air, the two temperatures are as close as they will normally be. Tough to measure, since that border is molecule thin. I would guess, since heat flows from hot to cold only, even on the surface or of the contact point of one molecule thick level the air will still be cooler than the surface. Otherwise, heat would flow in the opposite direction.

      • Nicholas Schroeder, BSME, PE says:

        The USCRN data base reports soil temperatures at 5, 10, 20, 50 and 100 cm depths. (and a ton of other stuff, too.) I suppose that’s so farmers know when to plant.
        Daily Documentation: https://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/products/daily01/README.txt
        Daily station-year files: https://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/products/daily01/
        USCRN data tables: select all, copy/paste into Excel, in data tab select “text to column,” delimited, by spaces and POOF Excel rows and columns ready for analysis. Change date column to 01/01/xx date format otherwise the insert graph feature goes nuts.
        Air warmer then ground does happen, but only in summer when a higher sun is cooking everything.
        If there is evidence of “back” radiation from the air heating a rapidly cooling ground I couldn’t spot it.
        The attached graph shows temperature gradients between 100 cm and air: from 100 cm in winter to and heating the air and air to 100 cm in summer to and heating the ground.
        No RGHE just basic thermo and heat transfer.

        • MrZ says:

          Mark what Nicholas states here is very similar to the wine discussion we had. They measure and report on anomalies and forget what heat is. Water vapor and CO2 can not make things hotter they can only make them cool down slower. This is also why you need high pressure and clear skies for both really hot and really cool.

          If we look on the temperature data we have it also shows just that. The extrems are on the fall while the average has increased since the mid 70’s.

          • MrZ says:

            This is also why you need high pressure ,clear skies and low humidity for both really hot and really cool.

          • MrZ says:

            And , sorry…
            The radiation theory (in my silly language) is that temperature only happens where there is materia so theoretically the backradiation and the sun should be summed together. But this effect is as large as lighting an extra match infront of a fire.

          • Mark Fife says:

            I can certainly dig the idea temperature has no meaning in the context of no matter. Space is neither hot nor cold. Matter in space is a different matter. All together!

      • larry says:

        So sorry, we live at two meters, not one meter and the temperature probes are also at two meters.

  3. gator69 says:

    Human Activities Are the Primary Driver of Recent Global Temperature Rise

  4. Nicholas Schroeder, BSME, PE says:

    Here are some plots from our favorite place.

  5. Ulric Lyons says:

    There have been several El Nino driven Australian drought events at sunspot cycle maxima, probably because some solar cycles have a major slow solar wind period at sunspot maximum.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drought_in_Australia

  6. Belief in AGW caused by CO2 = denying the science of thermalization, Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of molecule energy & quantum mechanics. The IR energy absorbed by CO2 is immediately (0.0002 microseconds) shared with surrounding molecules (thermalization) so, at low altitude, there is little chance for a CO2 molecule to emit a photon as a direct result of having absorbed one (relaxation time about 6 microseconds). Water vapor has many (>190) significant absorb/emit lines at substantially lower energy levels than the 15 micron absorb/emit band for CO2 and on average there are about 35 times as many WV molecules as CO2 molecules. At low altitude, energy absorbed by CO2 is effectively rerouted up via water vapor radiation and some convection. End result is CO2 has no significant effect on climate. http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com

  7. stpaulchuck says:

    has anyone taken apart the recent CCSR on climate for 2017?? I suppose I can wade through it but you have to wonder where their data came from and who abused it before using it?

    With all the recent papers on thermodynamics of climate, and planetary perturbations and the Earth’s own wobble and precession, and the sun’s cycles, I don’t seem to see any of that taken into consideration in these reports or models. It’s as if the orbit is forever the same and so is the sun. Then there’s the wonderful paper by Nikolov and Zeller kicking sand on their nonsense.

    Add to that the IPCC’s own admission concerning the fact our climate is a chaotic non linear system ( “The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” – IPCC TAR WG1, Working Group I: The Scientific Basis) and I have to wonder how they have the brass to present such a flawed and deceitful report.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *