Articles Tagged "A Chart to Debunk AGW"
Sorted by:
Date Posted |
Views
Wednesday, April 10th 2013, 4:07 PM EDT
In Stephen Wilde’s sixth and exclusive article for ClimateRealists.com (originally co2sceptics.com) he considers that the IPCC have failed to carry out any risk analysis for the potential for global cooling instead of global warming and that a repeat of the Little Ice Age a mere 400 years ago would cause mass starvation worldwide.
The Death Blow to AGW by Stephen Wilde
The influence of the sun has been discounted in the climate models as a contributor to the warming observed between 1975 and 1998. Those who support the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), now known as anthropogenic climate change so that recent cooling can be included in their scenario, always deny that the sun has anything to do with recent global temperature movements.
The reason given is that Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) varied so little over that period that it cannot explain the warming that was observed. I don’t yet accept that TSI tells the whole story because it is ill defined and speculative as regards it’s representation of all the different ways the sun could affect the Earth via the entire available range of physical processes.
Despite the limitations of TSI as an indicator of solar influence I think there are conclusions we can draw from the records we do have. Oddly, I have not seen them discussed properly anywhere else, especially not by AGW enthusiasts.
This above image shows the pattern of TSI from 1611 to 2001.
It is true that, as the alarmists say, since 1961 the average level of TSI has been approximately level if one averages out the peaks and troughs from solar cycles 19 through to 23.
However, those solar cycles show substantially higher levels of TSI than have ever previously occurred in the historical record.
Because of the height of the TSI level one cannot simply ignore it as the IPCC and the modellers have done.
The critical issue is that having achieved such high levels of TSI by 1961 the sun was already producing more heat than was required to maintain a stable Earth temperature. On that basis alone the theory of AGW cannot be sustained and should now die.
Throughout the period 1961 to about 2001, there was a steady cumulative net warming effect from the sun. The fact that the TSI was, on average, level during that period is entirely irrelevant and misleading.
It is hardly likely that such a high level of TSI compared to historical levels is going to have no effect at all on global temperature changes and indeed during most of that period there was an enhanced period of positive Pacific Decadal Oscillation that imparted increasing warmth to the atmosphere. My link below to article 1041 contains details of my view that the sun drives the various oceanic oscillations which in turn drive global temperature variations with all other influences including CO2 being minor and often cancelling themselves out leaving the solar/oceanic driver supreme.
views 177,023
Sunday, December 9th 2012, 1:48 PM EST
With so much data around on how the world is heating up/down I thought I would have a go at using Historical TSI Reconstruction to produce "evidence" of "Man Made" Climate Change that also chages the output of the Sun!
We all know "Man Made" Climate Change is true, but how many of you know that the more there is of it the more it shows up in the Historical records of Total Solar Irradiance!
As you can see in the above chart, It MUST BE TRUE as the TSI lines follow the direction of "Man Made" CO2! All we need to do is spend Trillions more in research to prove "Man Made" CO2 changes the output of the Sun. If we can get grants or loans from Governments we may be able to do something about the output of the Sun next year at COP19, why did I not think about this before COP18:)
Click source for latest TSI Chart, and no, its not the same as my overlay!
views 11,050
Monday, September 3rd 2012, 7:00 AM EDT
For some additional perspective, I show a table above, constructed by a geologist several years ago, which shows the relative contributions to the greenhouse effect. That estimate concludes that total human contribution is just 0.28%. If that estimate is anywhere near reality, it helps explain why the researchers in the first paper cited above found “changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.”
Click source to read FULL report from Jonathan DuHamel
views 5,579
3 articles found
showing page 1 of 1
« previous 1 next »
1%
13%
86%
Tweet Article
Post to Facebook
Print Article