Surprise- the SUN is responsible for Earth's temperature!

[John Galt]

This comes from my favorite newspaper, Investor's Business Journal- a close second is the Wall Street Journal.

I think we all should read carefully and consider this radical, crazy theory that the Sun causes, directly our temperature here on Earth!!!!!!!!! Yet we will listen to all these newly minted "Climatologists" (what ever that is- I don't remember this profession 20 years ago)

The biggest sign that the totally unproven theory of "Global Warming" is false- is to have the wisdom to see that Global Warming is a a Tree Huggers fantasy made "real"- have an apocalyptic vision, not much different from the cavemen, and successfully exert guilt on people to follow a pied piper and stop all development (which is a cruel hoax o the poor nations of the world).

The fact is that the green movement is happiest when they're attempting to persuade us all to feel miserable.

Shocked I tell you- the Sun causes temperature in our Solar System- Shocked I tell you.

Your happy pal,
John Galt

http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.asp ... 9412587175

The Sun Also Sets
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, February 07, 2008

Climate Change: Not every scientist is part of Al Gore's mythical "consensus." Scientists worried about a new ice age seek funding to better observe something bigger than your SUV — the sun.
Related Topics: Global Warming
Back in 1991, before Al Gore first shouted that the Earth was in the balance, the Danish Meteorological Institute released a study using data that went back centuries that showed that global temperatures closely tracked solar cycles.
To many, those data were convincing. Now, Canadian scientists are seeking additional funding for more and better "eyes" with which to observe our sun, which has a bigger impact on Earth's climate than all the tailpipes and smokestacks on our planet combined.
And they're worried about global cooling, not warming.
Kenneth Tapping, a solar researcher and project director for Canada's National Research Council, is among those looking at the sun for evidence of an increase in sunspot activity.
Solar activity fluctuates in an 11-year cycle. But so far in this cycle, the sun has been disturbingly quiet. The lack of increased activity could signal the beginning of what is known as a Maunder Minimum, an event which occurs every couple of centuries and can last as long as a century.
Such an event occurred in the 17th century. The observation of sunspots showed extraordinarily low levels of magnetism on the sun, with little or no 11-year cycle.
This solar hibernation corresponded with a period of bitter cold that began around 1650 and lasted, with intermittent spikes of warming, until 1715. Frigid winters and cold summers during that period led to massive crop failures, famine and death in Northern Europe.
Tapping reports no change in the sun's magnetic field so far this cycle and warns that if the sun remains quiet for another year or two, it may indicate a repeat of that period of drastic cooling of the Earth, bringing massive snowfall and severe weather to the Northern Hemisphere.
Tapping oversees the operation of a 60-year-old radio telescope that he calls a "stethoscope for the sun." But he and his colleagues need better equipment.
In Canada, where radio-telescopic monitoring of the sun has been conducted since the end of World War II, a new instrument, the next-generation solar flux monitor, could measure the sun's emissions more rapidly and accurately.
As we have noted many times, perhaps the biggest impact on the Earth's climate over time has been the sun.
For instance, researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Solar Research in Germany report the sun has been burning more brightly over the last 60 years, accounting for the 1 degree Celsius increase in Earth's temperature over the last 100 years.
R. Timothy Patterson, professor of geology and director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Center of Canada's Carleton University, says that "CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet's climate on long, medium and even short time scales."
Rather, he says, "I and the first-class scientists I work with are consistently finding excellent correlations between the regular fluctuations of the sun and earthly climate. This is not surprising. The sun and the stars are the ultimate source of energy on this planet."
Patterson, sharing Tapping's concern, says: "Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest Schwabe cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to unusually cool conditions on Earth."
"Solar activity has overpowered any effect that CO2 has had before, and it most likely will again," Patterson says. "If we were to have even a medium-sized solar minimum, we could be looking at a lot more bad effects than 'global warming' would have had."
In 2005, Russian astronomer Khabibullo Abdusamatov made some waves — and not a few enemies in the global warming "community" — by predicting that the sun would reach a peak of activity about three years from now, to be accompanied by "dramatic changes" in temperatures.
A Hoover Institution Study a few years back examined historical data and came to a similar conclusion.
"The effects of solar activity and volcanoes are impossible to miss. Temperatures fluctuated exactly as expected, and the pattern was so clear that, statistically, the odds of the correlation existing by chance were one in 100," according to Hoover fellow Bruce Berkowitz.
The study says that "try as we might, we simply could not find any relationship between industrial activity, energy consumption and changes in global temperatures."
The study concludes that if you shut down all the world's power plants and factories, "there would not be much effect on temperatures."
But if the sun shuts down, we've got a problem. It is the sun, not the Earth, that's hanging in the balance.

[Dardedar]

DAR
I have repeatedly asked if Galt has the courage to defend any single aspect of his claim that global warming is a hoax. He has consistently declined and instead posts the same old junk that has been roasted to a crisp dozens of times before on this forum. Like a child, he doesn't understand the arguments he posts and he probably won't understand their refutation. Rather than do a little research (he doesn't even have to go far, just put "solar" in our search engine like I did), learn something new and attempt to have an interesting adult discussion on a fascinating subject, he just posts junk from right-wing business journals (!) and then he tucks his tail and runs. Repeat.

Will Galt stand and defend this solar forcing claim? Of course not. He's too stupid to even know to put this in the science section of our forum.

On February 10, 2007, Don (not so)Bright had a letter printed in the paper. It was filled with all the standard anti-Global Warming canards including of course this solar forcing claim. I took some time and gave it a good roasting. See:

Ridiculous Letter on Global Warming in the paper

I think I did a really thorough job on that one. A line by line response. I encourage Galt to get off his lazy ass and actually read something substantive that disagrees with his position rather than stroke himself to business articles that make him feel good. If he reads my response to (not so)Bright he will see that we set the bar a little higher around here on this topic. Maybe he is better off running.

Speaking of cowardice, I sent Don (not so)Bright a copy of my detailed response, and welcomed him to come to our forum and try to defend the claims in his letter. He sent a comment in an email, didn't defend anything, and ran. Just like Galt.

When will we ever find a conservative with some balls?

Let me tell you that if someone took the time to write a detailed rebuttal to a letter of mine I would check it out carefully and either defend my claims or concede them. It's called learning.

Now the roast, from my response to (not so) Bright's letter:

***

The Claim:
• Variations in sun activity are responsible for both variations in atmospheric CO2 and atmospheric temperature.

DAR
This claim is palpable nonsense. In fact, according to Gavin Schmidt, a climate modeller at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York: "there has been no effective change in any solar indices since about 1950..."

source

The scientific consensus on this point is more like this:

"solar contributions [are about] 10% or less for 1950-2000 and near 0% and about 10% in 1980-2000 using the PMOD and ACRIM data, respectively.

source

Two other sources:

"According to PMOD at the World Radiation Center there has been no increase in solar irradiance since at least 1978 when satellite observations began. This means that for the last thirty years, while the temperature has been rising fastest, the sun has shown no trend.

There has been work on reconstructing past trends in solar irradiance over the last century before satellite records were available. Acording to the Max Plank Institute there has been no increase in solar irradiance since around 1940."

source

***
From the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research:



DAR
That's just a taste. I have lots more on this. If Galt would like to learn a little about this topic he might start with these links:

It's the Sun, Stupid
.
The lure of solar forcing
.
Did the Sun hit record highs over the last few decades?

D.

[Doug]

I encourage Galt to get off his lazy ass and actually read something substantive that disagrees with his position rather than stroke himself to business articles that make him feel good.

DOUG
Good luck with that. If he could do that, he might become intelligent. Then his conservative friends would ostracize him.

[Dardedar]

DAR
I wonder if Galt ever gets tired of having his ass handed to him?