Today has been a bad today for supporters of the anthropogenic global warming theory - not that they'd ever admit to that.
First there is this. It's in Belgian German (I think) and I've uses an Alta Vista translation - my comments in (brackets).
CO2 the large boosdoener (wrongdoer?) at the climate change and the reheating of the ground are not. That is the conclusion of a large scientific research of the KMI which is still published this summer.
Not CO2 but water mist is the most important greenhouse gas. That is responsible for wide 75 percents of the greenhouse impact. That is purely scientific facts, but is by the film of already (Al) gore (LOL!) the influence of CO2 this way gehypet (hyped?) that nobody who takes facts still in account, thus Debontridder (the scientist). Everything are attributed unilaterally to CO2. Whereas the complete range warm winters which we have had the last years, is simply a consequence of the ' North Atlantic schommeling '(oscillation). That has now real once do nothing with CO2.
Yeah, I know that we've known for ages that the North Atlantic Oscillation plays a part in European climate and that water vapour is the largest greenhouse gas, is much more significant than CO2 and that man's contributions to greenhouse gases contributes a massive 0.03% of the total atmosphere, but for some reason this is never mentioned by the Canutists. So it's worth it to have something from a Royal Meteorological Institute - even if it is a Belgian Met Office.
If that wasn't bad enough for the AGW religion, next we have this.
Charles Camp and Ka Kit Tung of the University of Washington's department of applied mathematics said that to accurately assess effects from human sources on the planet's climate, scientists must first be able to quantify the contribution of natural variation in solar irradiance to temperature changes.
Camp and Tung said that while the existence of a long-term trend in solar output is controversial, its periodic change within an 11-year cycle has been measured by satellites.
In their conclusion, Camp and Tung note that ....
The pattern shows a global warming of the Earth’s surface of about 0.2 °K, with larger warming over the polar regions than over the tropics, and larger over continents than over the oceans. It is also established that the global warming of the surface is related to the 11-year solar cycle, in particular to its TSI, at over 95% confidence level.
95% certain that global surface warming is related to the 11 year solar cycle. Who'd have thought it. If that wasn't enough to have the climate change wackos reaching for their tranquilisers, along comes another study to send them apoplectic.
Understanding the mechanisms driving such climate variability is difficult because unraveling causal connections that lead to chaotic climate behavior is complicated.
To simplify this, Tsonis et al. investigate the collective behavior of known climate cycles such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the North Atlantic Oscillation, the El Nino/Southern Oscillation, and the North Pacific Oscillation.
The authors show that this mechanism explains ALL global temperature tendency changes and El Nino variability in the 20th century. (My emphasis).
Finally, as an example of the cycle of climate change, we have this nice little representation.
As I've mentioned before, there is NO evidence of an anthropogenic cause to climate change - it is all speculation based on models that are not initialised properly and which can not even be made to replicate current climate let alone future climate.
And yet none of these reports appear on the BBC which treats anthropogenic global warming as proven. Yet another BBC scandal. One which is yet to be exposed by the MSM but which will come back to haunt the BBC - and many other groups - considerably in the not too distant future.
5 comments:
Just to help every one get the right idea, it is variation in Solar wind, which is charged particle and magnetic storms from the Sun, that is the sole driver for all oscillation weather phenomena and storm events, and all short and long term variations in Global mean temperature. It has nothing to do with changes in Solar irradiance (EMR) which will be naturally less when the Sun has more solar wind producing sunspots.
It is a some what impossible equation to relate less EMR emitted
from the Sun, to a rise in global temperature. There is nothing at all chaotic about the driving factors of Solar wind variation,
or the pattern of weather events
produced by them here on Earth, it is that there several cycles modulating, and phase canceling each other, this makes it well tricky to see what is actually occurring. This is all I am at liberty to divulge at this point in time, thanks.
Ulric Alexander Lyons, consultant to; www.weatheraction.com
Well, you've certainly got me intrigued Ulric - not becuase of what you say, but because you seem so certain - just make sure you come back and tell us more when you feel you can divulge a little more, eh?
Do please have a look at the claims and summary of my work, as soon as I have generated enough funds for doing this work, it will be released to the public domain for anyone to plan for temperature change, and extreme weather events.
http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=ddttcv4k_2f235hv&hl=en_GB&pli=1
Cheers, Ulric Lyons.
Did you actually not read Camp & Tung's article, or did you omit the rest of it on purpose? They state very clearly that their results apply to _a sunspot cycle_. To spell it out, that means that every year on the top of the cycle will be a little warmer and every year at the bottom of the cycle will be a little cooler. Over the whole cycle the effect is – zero. They also very clearly state that this does in no way have any bearing on the magnitude of man-made climate change. They even point out that their result make the scenarios that predict a small temperature rise untenable. Do you lie on purpose or did you just not read the entire article but only saw what you wanted to see? Which is it? Sheesh, where do you people come from ...
Has themotie fallen prey to the same bewilderment that has so many others in its grasp, in thinking that the prime variable of the Sun is EMR, rather than solar wind, did my first comment not suggest this?
I think everyone needs to take a good long hard look at the extremely low sunspot count during the Wolf, Sporer, Maunder and Daulton sunspot minimums to hopefully understand that the Sun could really be influencing world temperatures more than some people
have been believing, largely due to
following the blind.
Post a Comment