Solar activity playing a minimal role in global warming, research suggests

Nov 07, 2013
Image of sun courtesy of NASA.

Changes in solar activity have contributed no more than 10 per cent to global warming in the twentieth century, a new study has found.

The findings, made by Professor Terry Sloan at the University of Lancaster and Professor Sir Arnold Wolfendale at the University of Durham, find that neither changes in the activity of the Sun, nor its impact in blocking , can be a significant contributor to .

The results have been published today, 8 November, in IOP Publishing's journal Environmental Research Letters.

Changes in the amount of energy from the Sun reaching the Earth have previously been proposed as a driver of increasing global temperatures, as has the Sun's ability to block cosmic rays. It has been proposed that cosmic rays may have a role in cooling the Earth by encouraging clouds to form, which subsequently reflect the Sun's rays back into space.

According to this proposal, in periods of high activity the Sun blocks some of the cosmic rays from entering the Earth's atmosphere, so that fewer clouds form and the Earth's rise.

In an attempt to quantify the effect that solar activity—whether directly or through cosmic rays—may have had on global temperatures in the twentieth century, Sloan and Wolfendale compared data on the rate of cosmic rays entering the atmosphere, which can be used as a proxy for solar activity, with the record of global temperatures going back to 1955.

They found a small correlation between cosmic rays and global temperatures occurring every 22 years; however, the changing cosmic ray rate lagged behind the change in temperatures by between one and two years, suggesting that the cause may not be down to cosmic rays and cloud formation, but may be due to the direct effects of the Sun.

By comparing the small oscillations in cosmic ray rate, which was taken from data from two neutron monitors, and temperature with the overall trends in both since 1955, Sloan and Wolfendale found that less than 14 per cent of the global warming seen during this period could be attributable to solar activity.

Furthermore, the researchers reviewed their own previous studies and surveyed the relevant literature to find other evidence of a link between solar activity and increasing existing. Their findings indicated that overall, the contribution of changing solar activity, either directly or through cosmic rays, was even less cannot have contributed more than 10 per cent to global warming in the twentieth century.

They concluded that the paleontological evidence, derived from carbon and oxygen isotopes, was "weak and confused" and that a more-up-to-date study linking cosmic rays with low-level cloud cover was flawed because the correlation only occurred in certain regions rather than the entire globe.

Sloan and Wolfendale also discussed the results from the CLOUD experiment at CERN, where researchers are looking at ways in which cosmic rays can ionize, or charge, aerosols in the atmosphere, which can then influence how clouds are formed. They also examined instances where real-world events produced large-scale ionization in the atmosphere.

Events such as the Chernobyl nuclear disaster and nuclear weapons testing would have been expected to have affected aerosol production in the atmosphere, but no such effects could be seen.

Professor Sloan said: "Our paper reviews our work to try and find a connection between cosmic rays and with changes in global temperature.

"We conclude that the level of contribution of changing is less than 10 per cent of the measured global warming observed in the twentieth century. As a result of this and other work, the IPCC state that no robust association between changes in cosmic rays and cloudiness has been identified."

Explore further: Danish experiment suggests unexpected magic by cosmic rays in cloud formation

More information: 'Cosmic rays, solar activity and the climate' T Sloan and A W Wolfendale 2013 Environ. Res. Lett. 8 045022. iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/4/045022/article

Related Stories

Characterizing the Moon's radiation environment

Apr 09, 2013

The radiation environment near the Moon could be damaging to humans and electronics on future missions. To characterize this potentially hazardous environment, the Cosmic Ray Telescope for the Effects of Radiation (CRaTER) ...

Recommended for you

Image: Towing the Costa Concordia

4 hours ago

This Sentinel-1A image was acquired on 26 July 2014 over the coast of northwestern Italy while the Costa Concordia cruise ship (enlarged) was being towed towards the city of Genoa.

User comments : 56

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

The Alchemist
1.2 / 5 (22) Nov 08, 2013
By definition, one would hope.
NikFromNYC
1.8 / 5 (32) Nov 08, 2013
This study uses the outlier global average temperature made by Jim "Coal Death Trains" Hansen:

http://iopscience...0477fig2

Yet both the less controversial standard HADCRUT4 global average and the sea surface temperature HADSST show that recent variation has perfect precedence in the former low CO₂ era:

http://www.woodfo.../to:1950
http://www.woodfo.../to:2013

The "anthropogenic" influence on Hansen's data set is mostly due to hockey stick shaped re-adjustments, here being a simple difference plot between his current and original 1999 NASA GISTEMP global average (!!!):
http://stevengodd...7-58.jpg

In only two years, GISTEMP from 2010 to 2012, suffers same:
http://stevengodd...2-16.jpg
verkle
1.4 / 5 (20) Nov 08, 2013
This is a very new area of scientific study, and it will require many years of careful research before conclusions can be drawn.

NikFromNYC
1.5 / 5 (30) Nov 08, 2013
P.S. The 1999 GISTEMP version was scrubbed from archives but survived on the blog of the late John Daly whose death was cheered in a Climategate e-mail:

"...in an odd way this is cheering news." - Phil "Petrodollars" Jones, seen here at his new Saudi Arabian university that now appears as his attribution in published papers:
http://mpc.kau.ed...nes.aspx
NikFromNYC
1.6 / 5 (29) Nov 08, 2013
Update time! Extending the comparison between temperature and over a hundred climate models *past* the mere year 2000 exactly as emissions from China boomed falsifies them, clearly:
http://s10.postim...x534.jpg

[Reference: http://www.dailym...ver.html ]

...well, almost! For the full devastation smack down effect one need only appreciate the UK MET office quiet *holiday* update of their climate prediction from that of alarming fit to climate models to another decade of lull:
http://tallbloke....orecast/

Uh, oh! SpaghettiOs.
NikFromNYC
1.4 / 5 (27) Nov 08, 2013
Finally...what happens after the MET's continued lull? A quick glance at the 60 odd year Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation shows it to be likely to reproduce the extended *cooling* phase that appeared before just as CO₂ first started swerving upwards in the postwar boom:
http://s16.postim...mage.jpg

My Reference link above explains how the head of Georgia Tech's climatology department, Judith Curry now suggests that indeed, not only are natural cycles likely to pull us into another mild few climate model positive feedback busting decades but that recent warming itself was mainly part of something climate models ignore: simple ocean heat cycles!

-=NikFromNYC=-, Ph.D. in carbon chemistry (Columbia/Harvard)
cantdrive85
1.5 / 5 (25) Nov 08, 2013
All you liberal dolts have nothing to fear, OBAMA! is on it. He'll just deem what is right with the use of executive orders.
http://canadafree...le/59068
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (23) Nov 08, 2013
What about electric joule heating?
runrig
4.4 / 5 (13) Nov 08, 2013
Finally...what happens after the MET's continued lull? A quick glance at the 60 odd year Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation shows it to be likely to reproduce the extended *cooling* phase that appeared before just as CO₂ first started swerving upwards in the postwar boom:
http://s16.postim...mage.jpg


Nik: the AMO produces a cyclic change in sea temp of ~ 0.2 to 0.4C (+/-)

Can you please explain how that could possibly induce a ~ +0.8C rise in global temps over the extended period since the early 20th since the start of pumping anthro CO2 into the atmosphere? That is a rising trend and NOT cycling back to the beginning. The cycle is quite variable.

The following shows global temps rising during a cool AMO phase.
http://commons.wi...ated.gif

No fit.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (11) Nov 08, 2013
Also:

This shows the cycling of the ENSO and the additional heat it gives the atmosphere – despite it being cyclic global temps have continued to rise through the series. BTW we have been going along the bottom 2 trends since 2005 after a period along the top one. We will return to the top one.

http://blog.chron...ines.pdf

In order for a cyclic SST variation to put additional heat into the atmosphere then the oceans as a whole need to cool. (2nd law of thermodynamics). They have not done and in fact the deep ocean is warming anomalously.

http://www.nodc.n...CONTENT/
enviro414
1.2 / 5 (19) Nov 08, 2013
The time-integral of sunspot numbers as a proxy (appropriately reduced by thermal radiation from the planet) plus net ocean oscillations calculates average global temperatures since 1895 with 90% accuracy. Demonstrated at http://danpangbur...pot.com/ with future projection in sub-link.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (22) Nov 08, 2013
What about electric joule heating?


Not even considered, not even on radar.
NikFromNYC
1.3 / 5 (25) Nov 08, 2013
runrig, that's a nice plot of AMO indeed, but a bit of noise is no argument against simple correlation, my version of this Rorschach test being:
http://s9.postimg...tion.jpg

The AMO rides on top of whatever caused the Little Ice Age, possibly a single ocean volcano that flipped a tiny current around that then flipped a big one that changed the chaotic fluid dynamic state of ocean currents into a century or two upwelling of cold water that then dominated land temperatures. I said the AMO likely caused the most recent warming spike above the natural warming trend, period, not that the AMO caused that overall upward trend.

What *you* have ignored is the damning change in Jim Hansen's temperature product from 1999 to 2012 of existing data up to 1999:
http://stevengodd...7-58.jpg

A whopping 0.6 degrees of his recent warming happened in his computer program, not outside!
NikFromNYC
1.3 / 5 (25) Nov 08, 2013
...additionally if I assume CO₂ has indeed already asserted its full force on climate during the last period, and simply assume business as usual, extending the effect of AMO on the global average T by copy/paste, I see that climate models may suffer a further fifty years of devastation:
http://s10.postim...sion.jpg

Hansen's NASA GISTEMP ground thermometer product also shows Antarctica as hot as Hell, obviously dominating his global average T plot, even though actual *space* *age* NASA satellite data for the continent shows no warming trend at all since 1979 when records began coming in from the RSS satellite:

http://data.giss....maps.gif

RSS: http://stevengodd...8-24.jpg
NikFromNYC
1.3 / 5 (25) Nov 08, 2013
I have clarified the trend map of RSS satellite trend data by stippling the continents:
http://oi45.tinyp...szgh.jpg

[Source: https://web.archi...rbig.jpg ]

So it's Jim Hansen in a little off campus computer terminal office above Tom's Diner versus *actual* satellites.

NASA's own 2004 trend plot from their *satellite* study scientists clearly violates Hansen's temperature claims:
http://eoimages.g...2004.jpg

You want to argue an ant crawling on the big green activist elephant in the room?

This very study relies on global average temperature series that have a glaring tampering history that in a field such as genetics results in academic dismissals for fraud. Are we not living in the Space Age? Where is the modern data then, in this study, let along the most recent of it? A study that casually cuts off the most relevant decade? They loudly failed the laugh test.
NikFromNYC
1.3 / 5 (24) Nov 08, 2013
A glaring situation attaches to this study in that their global average temperature data sets that rely on land thermometers and re-adjustments to them, ARE NO LONGER PEER REVIEWED. They are merely updated on web sites, with massive near degree changes in past temperatures. No articles in Nature or Science appear, to be critiqued, with the re-adjustments explained in detail. NASA even then deletes old data from their archives! The published National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) data adjustment claims are miniscule compared to the *actual* multi-degree difference curves created by subtracting old from new plots up to the year the old data set stopped at.

Temperature records are no longer science, yet as they appear in IPCC reports as references as cited in this study, they *appear* to be peer reviewed literature references which they are *not*.
VendicarE
3.7 / 5 (9) Nov 08, 2013
"This study uses the outlier global average temperature" - NikkieTard

Your link to three pointless graphs that has no description tells me that you are mentally ill Tardieboy.

"HADSST show that recent variation has perfect precedence in the former low CO₂ era:" - NikkieTard

Poor NikkieTard, his own graphic shows that the "perfect precedence" is actually 0,4'C cooler than the postcedent.

Poor NikkieTard, he sees a ladder and because each of the rungs is horizontal, insists that there is no difference in height between rung 1, and the one immediately above.

Mental Illness.......
VendicarE
3.8 / 5 (10) Nov 08, 2013
"The "anthropogenic" influence on Hansen's data set is mostly due to hockey stick shaped re-adjustments," - NikkieTard

But Hansen's calibrations aren't used by the Hadcrut teams, and no adjustments were used at all by the BEST analysis done by Richard Muller, and they produce almost exactly the same result.

Are they all in on the conspiracy against you TardieBoy?

VendicarE
3.7 / 5 (9) Nov 08, 2013
"Extending the comparison between temperature and over a hundred climate models *past* the mere year 2000 exactly as emissions from China boomed falsifies them," - NikkieTard

Pure incoherence.

You smoking drugs Boy?

Given your colorful criminal background, are you even allowed to be around drugs, or children?

Isn't it a violation of some court order?
VendicarE
3.7 / 5 (9) Nov 08, 2013
Looks pretty anomolous to me Tardieboy.

http://cdn.arstec...5-AM.png

-=NikFromNYC=-, Ph.D. in carbon chemistry (Columbia/Harvard)

Then why are you not a chemist and are relegated to making and selling home made desk and table lamps for a living?

Is it because of your criminal record?
NikFromNYC
1.4 / 5 (22) Nov 08, 2013
runrig's bulldog is Scott Nudds, known as Vendicar Decarian, old school Internet troll. Retardation runs in runrig's (retiree Tony Banton of the UK MET Office) family, so Scott's use of "Tard" nicknames makes his continual "victory" dance bittersweet indeed. But five star Tony Banton mirrors Tony Robbins, so he's all pumped up anyway!

Scott's ego structure is locked into a superiority complex revolving around the sheer "idiocy" of skepticism, much as Republican crackpots now inconveniently attach themselves to Global Warming naysayers too, their maverick nature having allowed them to spot a real fraud for once, as they sell Iron Suns and Sandbox Of The Gods gospel in self-published books.

This is another reason Jim Hansen, my recent neighbor until retiring, made me respect him: he made his millions but went down with the cause instead of selling out to petrodollars like Gore and Mr. Climategate (Phil Jones).

History will record our lives as the wired Space Age, and Piltdown Mann.
runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 08, 2013
runrig, that's a nice plot of AMO indeed, but a bit of noise is no argument against simple correlation, my version of this Rorschach test being:
http://s9.postimg...tion.jpg


Nik: There is NO correlation - you have a warming beginning in the middle of a cool AMO phase and vice versa. The mean line is there (horizontal) yet the global temps plot rises through it. Heat is NOT coming from the AMO.

I said the AMO likely caused the most recent warming spike above the natural warming trend, period, not that the AMO caused that overall upward trend.


OK then … but still there is no correlation - the "recent" spike shows that the overlying AMO was in a cool phase ~ '65-90, during which global temp rose ~0.2C. Warming has continued since during the warm AMO phase.

Yes, the AMO is a climate cycle adding/subtracting to the overall AGW signal and NOT a driver of global warming. It cannot be, It's merely a redistribution of energy in the system (sea+air).
runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 08, 2013
Mental retardation runs in runrig's (retiree Tony Banton of the UK MET Office) family


Nik: I have never called you a "tard".
So kindly don't do so of me (or my "family").
NikFromNYC
1.2 / 5 (23) Nov 08, 2013
Tony, I'm somewhat, really, on your side, in more ways than one. I want to you to both stand up for real science by encouraging you to bash your "frenemies" (= enemy friends) in mere discussion threads here and in state school Academia and parasitic "institutions" that hang like NGO lobbyist malware aside Ivy League bastions of hard science. You are on a team, after all, so far.

You *have* implied in Inquisition mode that I am a "denier!" and that I lack "touch with reality," as I post DATA PLOTS, and repeatedly post pure junk science psychologizing of simple rationality-based dissent.

You are guilty of ridiculing the likes of literal XPRIZE wining rocket scientist Burt Rutan over mere mathematician Gavin Schmidt.

Shame right back at you, enabler and apologist for slander and scam who was present at the MET office *before* they KILLED people in the UK by falsely predicting warm winters as people stocked up on less firewood in the country, and died.
NikFromNYC
1.2 / 5 (23) Nov 08, 2013
Two late four typo edits in thyme:

and repeatedly > and you repeatedly

*before* > *as*
NikFromNYC
1.2 / 5 (23) Nov 08, 2013
The recent excess rural winter death hockey stick blade of both runrig's UK MET Office loud optimism towards mild winters and especially very loud promotion of artificial energy rationing:
http://www.wmpho....ndatlas/

All the while his buddies at Climategate University of East Anglia rant on and on and on about heat waves and kids never seeing snow again.
NikFromNYC
1.2 / 5 (23) Nov 08, 2013
"A knowledgeable fool is a greater fool than an ignorant fool." - Molière (Les Femmes Savantes, 1672)
VendicarE
3.7 / 5 (9) Nov 08, 2013
"A knowledgeable fool is a greater fool than an ignorant fool." - NikkieTard

Your lack of education, TardieBoy has made you a lesser fool.

VendicarE
3.8 / 5 (10) Nov 08, 2013
"The recent excess rural winter death hockey stick blade of both runrig's UK MET Office loud optimism..." - NikkieTard

Random meaningless words strung together by a mentally diseased mind.

Poor Tardieboy.

Even worse....

His link.....

http://www.wmpho....las.html

Shows that winter deaths are declining in the UK, contrary to his own assertion.

His own link - offered to support his position, doesn't even support his position.

Poor, mentally diseased NikkieTard.
NikFromNYC
1.2 / 5 (23) Nov 08, 2013
Now runrig's BBC joins his own UK MET office in deflating the Climatology cult:

"The BBC Trust speaks the language of diversity but in its edicts it promotes conformity, whether its about an agreed approach to the science of climate change, 'correct' terminology in the Middle East or the way a documentary about benefits should be constructed." - Roger Mosey, former head of BBC news.

[Source: http://www.thegua...-licence ]
NikFromNYC
1.3 / 5 (24) Nov 08, 2013
"In the UK, there are on average 300 excess deaths every day during winter. In 2010, 5% of pensioners will skip meals in order to pay for heating. Single parent households can also suffer from a lack of warmth at home. In rural areas, where choices of fuel supply are limited, fuel poverty may be hidden but is very real for those affected by it. In Torridge in north Devon, figures suggest that 26% of the population suffer from fuel poverty. More generally, 31% of older people in rural areas of the South West struggle with low income and deprivation issues, and last winter excess winter deaths jumped by 49% to 36,700 in England and Wales."

http://www.exeter...-poverty

"Climate justice" to starve old rural people to death based on green energy boondoggles and willfull MET Office denial of natural climate change into a cooling phase that results in mild winter forecasts that people rely on to try to survive the energy rationed Greencession.
VendicarE
3.7 / 5 (9) Nov 08, 2013
"In the UK, there are on average 300 excess deaths every day during winter" - NikkieTard

And your link shows that number decreasing compared to the mid 90's.

Poor NikkieTard. No even your own reference agrees with you?

You need to see a psychiatrist.

NikFromNYC
1.3 / 5 (24) Nov 08, 2013
Wow, dummy account Al_Gore offers five big ass stars to Vendicar(E) in a mere four minutes, and Gore loves runrig too. The Activity tab of commenter profiles reveals about a dozen such Gorebots, programmed by those who program a lot...like climate modelers. Deception defines them, at every turn. Now the heat is in the deep ocean blue! It dovza downza der sumhowza, throoza nowza coolin' zurface. Dr. Kevin "Missing Heat Travestry" Trenberth says so, as runrig parrots, devoid of any long term *data* whatsoever.

Climategate e-mail of Kevin Trenberth: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."
VendicarE
3.7 / 5 (9) Nov 08, 2013
"Al_Gore offers five big ass stars" - NikkieTard

Al Gore is a brilliant, accomplished, moral man. But he isn't a scientist. So when I see someone whining about Al Gore regarding climate science, it is clear that they aren't interested in science.

They are interested only in interjecting their own sick politics into the climate debate.

VendicarE
3.7 / 5 (9) Nov 08, 2013
Kevin Trenberth: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."

Trenberth is very correct on this point. There are insufficient observational resources in space and on land to properly allow the flow of energy through the climate system to be tracked.

It is a travesty that there are insufficient resources being made available to properly monitor and quantify such a large and all pervasive threat to mankind.

I'm sure you agree, don't you TardieBoy?
VendicarE
3.7 / 5 (9) Nov 08, 2013
"It dovza downza der sumhowza, throoza nowza coolin' zurface." - NikkieTard

There goes Tardieboy, forthing at the mouth, and speaking in tongues again.

It is pure mental illness I'm sorry to say.

JCPenny for your thoughts, Tardieboy?

runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Nov 09, 2013
You are guilty of ridiculing the likes of literal XPRIZE wining rocket scientist Burt Rutan over mere mathematician Gavin Schmidt.
Shame right back at you, enabler and apologist for slander and scam who was present at the MET office *before* they KILLED people in the UK by falsely predicting warm winters as people stocked up on less firewood in the country, and died.


Nik: I did not ridicule anyone. I have said that there are sincere people who don't believe in AGW. I merely pointed out that listing luminaries who have your opinion doesn't strengthen your argument. There are many "luminaries" who have the opposite opinion, but we don't trot out their names in support.

The UKMO is charged with FORECASTING as a raison d'etre. Ergo they'll be wrong sometimes – there has been significant skill – this most apparent at monthly rather than seasonal scales. BTW people have gas/electric heating here and can flick a switch. So they killed people? Really? Seriously?
runrig
4.2 / 5 (10) Nov 09, 2013
Cont
Even if you take that jaundiced view, what of the people who are warned away from activity that weather may have killed? I myself gave briefings of weather for low-level flying for the RAF – that killed pilots or made them safer?
It is this sort of lack of critical thinking that I highlight. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater. A negative does not negate all the positives. Any entity that forecasts a complex system 24/7/365 is going to get it wrong sometimes. YOU need to apply common sense to not expect it to be always right. There is no warming bias to their forecasts - any forecast is a result of computation or probabilities. UK weather is dominated by the mild Atlantic and I can number the cold winters on the fingers of one hand (I'm 59). Recent cold snaps are very unusual here, especially Dec '10. Look at the below to figure out why.

http://www.metoff...aife.pdf
NikFromNYC
1.3 / 5 (24) Nov 09, 2013
It's not personal, Tony, even if I play it up.

You are not Vendicar(E).

Foook...more footnotes?

NO, no, no....

I want the Dust Bowl.

I want something real.

That you do *not* offer.

It's not hot out.

It's not at all hot out.

It's just not even a bit hot out.

Not hot.

Out.

Scream at the weather, all you want.

"FUCKING MILD WEATHER!!!"

It's too mild.

Instead of wild.

VendicarE
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 09, 2013
Poor, mentally diseased, NikkieTard.

He just can't figure out the difference between weather and climate.

He is much too busy using his PHD to make desk lamps to be able to figure it out.

NikFromNYC
1.2 / 5 (24) Nov 09, 2013
There is moral dilemma for skeptics: try too hard, be too quickly effective, and you merely hand the reigns of policy to anti-science Republicans whose support of skepticism in some ways embarrassing.
VendicarE
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 10, 2013
"you merely hand the reigns of policy to anti-science Republicans" - NikkieTard

Ah... You are no longer inebriated.

It looks like the fog that has damaged your thinking abilities comes and goes like the tide.... The tides, which according to Faux news, no one can explain.

Don't you have some boot lamps to be assembling TardieBoy?
Agomemnon
1.6 / 5 (21) Nov 10, 2013
really. So some study shows that the sun (otherwise known as the giant thermonuclear ball in the sky and the source of all energy on earth) is NOT a factor in warming?

If I assume this study presents a valid hypothesis what can I conclude?
Conclusion: CO2 is not a large factor in global warming.
now remember trolls CO2 increase is still going on and yet for 15 years that has been no warming. The 'not-warming' period is now almost as long as the warming period.

VendicarE
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 10, 2013
So some study shows that the sun (otherwise known as the giant thermonuclear ball in the sky and the source of all energy on earth) is NOT a factor in warming?

Correct. It of course is the principle means by which the planet is warm, but is not the principle means by which the temperature is increasing.

It isn't that difficult to understand. I know children who can comprehend the concept.

What is your excuse, failure-boy?
VendicarE
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 10, 2013
"The 'not-warming' period is now almost as long as the warming period. " - Rotard

Well... No....

The warming has been going on for more than a century.

Why do you feel a need to lie about it? Are you a coward?

Agomemnon
1.5 / 5 (17) Nov 11, 2013
So some study shows that the sun (otherwise known as the giant thermonuclear ball in the sky and the source of all energy on earth) is NOT a factor in warming?

Correct. It of course is the principle means by which the planet is warm, but is not the principle means by which the temperature is increasing.

It isn't that difficult to understand. I know children who can comprehend the concept.

What is your excuse, failure-boy?

Your correct it isn't difficult to understand. The problem is that you lack that aptitude.
You rely on 'the others' to tell you what to 'believe'. It's a an act of faith on your part because you lack the capability and aptitude of logic and determination.
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 11, 2013
really. So some study shows that the sun (otherwise known as the giant thermonuclear ball in the sky and the source of all energy on earth) is NOT a factor in warming?

What part of constant factor vs. first derivative don't you understand?

This is a study that puts an upper limit on the impact of solar VARIABILITY on Earth climate VARIABILITY. Via pretty standard statistical analysis methods.

This isn't rocket science - even you should be able to understand this with a minimal amount of reading up on statistics and statistical methods.
Agomemnon
1.4 / 5 (18) Nov 11, 2013
really. So some study shows that the sun (otherwise known as the giant thermonuclear ball in the sky and the source of all energy on earth) is NOT a factor in warming?

What part of constant factor vs. first derivative don't you understand?

This is a study that puts an upper limit on the impact of solar VARIABILITY on Earth climate VARIABILITY. Via pretty standard statistical analysis methods.

This isn't rocket science - even you should be able to understand this with a minimal amount of reading up on statistics and statistical methods.


I know statistics far better than you, hence why I cannot subcribe to the 'global warming crisis model'.
FrankTrades
1 / 5 (15) Nov 11, 2013
See the chart here:
http://tidesandcu...oaa.g...

Do you see any influence of man in this trend of sea level increase? If you do, you are a better scientist than I am. With the increase in population from the mid-1800s to now and with the increase in burning of hydrocarbons during that time period, if there were man-made influence, it would surely show up here. I believe US population alone has increased 10 times since the initial date on that chart. If there were anthropomorphic influence on earth temperatures, it would show up here and it DOES NOT.

All the hockey sticks in NY are at Madison Sq. Garden. And speaking of ice, the location of MSG was covered by 5000 feet of glacial ice. Of course climate is warming -- it has been warming for thousands of years. And this has happened 4 times in the last 3.5 to 4 million years. And you know what? That sort of climate change has revered itself all three times to result in another ICE AGE. Who is to say it won't happen again?
goracle
1 / 5 (10) Nov 11, 2013
Poor, mentally diseased, NikkieTard.

He just can't figure out the difference between weather and climate.

He is much too busy using his PHD to make desk lamps to be able to figure it out.


If there's one the the world needs now, in the midst of wars, killer typhoons, human trafficking, overpopulation and pollution, it's funky 'PhD' desk lamps. /sarcasm
goracle
1.4 / 5 (9) Nov 11, 2013
Poor, mentally diseased, NikkieTard.

He just can't figure out the difference between weather and climate.

He is much too busy using his PHD to make desk lamps to be able to figure it out.


If there's one the the world needs now, in the midst of wars, killer typhoons, human trafficking, overpopulation and pollution, it's funky 'PhD' desk lamps. /sarcasm


I meant to type '... one thing the world needs now...' Scrolling in a small text box after an all-night deadline push leads to unnoticed typos.
antialias_physorg
2.5 / 5 (2) Nov 11, 2013
I know statistics far better than you,

Doubt it.
With statements the statements you make I'm pretty sure you 'd fail at basic math.
Agomemnon
1.3 / 5 (15) Nov 11, 2013
I know statistics far better than you,

Doubt it.
With statements the statements you make I'm pretty sure you 'd fail at basic math.


I'm better at statistics, calculus, basic math and english than you.
goracle
1.4 / 5 (9) Nov 11, 2013
I know statistics far better than you,

Doubt it.
With statements the statements you make I'm pretty sure you 'd fail at basic math.


I'm better at statistics, calculus, basic math and english than you.

A codpiece may say one thing, yet the reality behind it may be very different.
goracle
1 / 5 (9) Nov 11, 2013
I know statistics far better than you,

Doubt it.
With statements the statements you make I'm pretty sure you 'd fail at basic math.


I'm better at statistics, calculus, basic math and english than you.

In standard English, language names, including English, are typically spelled with an initial capital.

In another thread, you used the pejorative term "eco-tard". Even if your skills in the claimed areas are superior to another user's (of which no evidence has been presented) that indicates that you have some distance to go in your perfection of objectivity and mastery of civilized discourse.
goracle
1 / 5 (9) Nov 11, 2013
really. So some study shows that the sun (otherwise known as the giant thermonuclear ball in the sky and the source of all energy on earth) is NOT a factor in warming?

What part of constant factor vs. first derivative don't you understand?

This is a study that puts an upper limit on the impact of solar VARIABILITY on Earth climate VARIABILITY. Via pretty standard statistical analysis methods.

This isn't rocket science - even you should be able to understand this with a minimal amount of reading up on statistics and statistical methods.


I know statistics far better than you, hence why I cannot subcribe to the 'global warming crisis model'.

And the ballistic urination competition begins...