Kulu,

I agree that scientists’ understanding of the effects of sunspots on Earth’s climate is limited at this juncture. But bear in mind that the connection between anthropogenic GHGs and climate is just as limited – in fact, there are no empirical data (that is why the debate continues unabated!). As I’ve said before, the IPCC projections on temperature rise versus CO2 increase are based solely on hypotheses.

I haven’t involved myself much with sunspots, but usually read whatever I come across on the subject. From what I have gleaned, the sunspot-climate hypothesis revolves around changes in cosmic ray intensity. It seems that absence of sunspots allows more cosmic rays to penetrate into Earth’s atmosphere and they, in turn, increase microscopic moisture droplet formation (rather like in a cloud chamber). In turn, the moisture develops increased cloud cover which shields Earth from the sun’s heat, thus cooling its surface. Seems reasonable – but proof is needed. As I said, the correlation between sunspot intensity and average global temperature is better (around 80%) than between CO2 and AGT (around 25%). The sun is exceptionally quiet at present – Cycle 23 is complete but Cycle 24 hasn’t started yet.

One of the few web sites I read is that by Anthony Watts, an American meteorologist. Just today he had a comment on sunspots, You might like to view it at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/21/now-well-over-30-days-without-a-cycle-24-sunspot/#more-5774 . His comment is followed by one that states that the January sunspot was from Cycle 23, btw.)

I would argue that water vapour is a major driver of climate. Our planet derives its heat from the sun; therefore the sun is the main driver (when the sun disappears over the horizon or behind an overcast sky, then planet Earth cools).

I agree with your final paragraph. However, IPCC assessment reports have stated that temperature will rise with rising CO2. What has happened, though, is that CO2 is still rising, albeit slowly, but average global temperature has declined since about 2000 – it should have risen. If you haven’t seen the graphs lately, look at these: http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20081216.html

Kulu

Last year I met up with an Ozzie colleague that has spent a lot of time in Antarctica. His speciality is ‘cosmic rays’. He confirms cosmic rays have relatively insignificant effect on global warming compared to GHG’s ... in his so humble opinion.

Water vapour is a significant GHG but what a lot of’ wanabe climate scientists’ fail to understand is that it is very ‘short lived’ (days compared to decades for CO2). Of course, these same people also fail to appreciate that ‘cloud production’ is primarily a function of temperature – you add energy to a system, it heats ups, water evaporates and then falls out somewhere as rain or snow. Try doing an advanced Google Scholar search on Andy Dessler for specifics.

I look in now and then at Mr Watts’ blog site, but was really put off when he “published” Roy Spencer’s paper before it was reviewed by his peers. I have yet to see Roy’s retraction on his ‘ocean cooling’ gambit when it was shown conclusively that there were errors in the Argo floats data set used to make these claims. What’s worse, Spencer’s claims were made after the errors became known. Don’t get me wrong, I hope Roy is on to something, but I am not going to hold my breath.

If you get a chance, look at the threads, comments and links contained within, at these sites.

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/04/07/how-not-to-analyze-data-part-4-lies-damned-lies-and-anthony-watts/

http://tamino.wordpress.com/?s=anthony+watts

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/07/aerosols-chemistry-and-climate/#comment-93013

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/climate-science/instrumental-record/langswitch_lang/sw

Our wanabe says:

“... bear in mind that the connection between anthropogenic GHGs and climate is just as limited – in fact, there are no empirical data” - Wrong, he has no understanding of atmospheric physics/chemistry.

“that is why the debate continues unabated!” – Wrong, the “debate” (in the scientific community) continues (as it should) in climate sensitivity and attribution research.

“As I’ve said before, the IPCC projections on temperature rise versus CO2 increase are based solely on hypotheses.” It has been hypothesised that the Sun will shine tomorrow.

The guff continues, then:

“I would argue that water vapour is a major driver of climate.” – Who is arguing with him?

Cont’d

Cont’d

JohnH goes on:

“Our planet derives its heat from the sun; therefore the sun is the main driver (when the sun disappears over the horizon or behind an overcast sky, then planet Earth cools).”
And take away CO2 and the planet will be a big ice ball. Btw, ever wondered why night time maximums are increasing or the diurnal temperature range is shrinking?

“What has happened, though, is that CO2 is still rising, albeit slowly”.
and it appears we are going gang-busters to increase its rate exponentially.

“average global temperature has declined since about 2000 – it should have risen.”
He clearly does not know anything about trend analysis, let alone signal, noise and natural variability.

Yes indeed, look at the graphs, and if you can’t understand them, read the text:

“As a result of climate change, what would once have been an exceptionally unusual year has now become quite normal. Without human influence on climate change we would be more than 50 times less likely of seeing a year as warm as 2008 ...

... The rise in global surface temperature has averaged more than 0.15 °C per decade since the mid-1970s. Warming has been unprecedented in at least the last 50 years, and the 17 warmest years have all occurred in the last 20 years. This does not mean that next year will necessarily be warmer than last year, but the long-term trend is for rising temperatures.”

Next month we will see Watts, Marohasy, Carter, Evans and wife, and the usual cabal attend the annual Heartland Institute’s gabfest in New York – can’t wait to see the spin.

Meanwhile, all the world’s major decision makers are preparing for the COP 15 in Copenhagen in December – not so march to argue the science with the ‘deny-n-delay’ brigade, but to nut-out how they are going to adapt to a warmer and wetter world and to rethink energy use and land management practices.

This is where JohnH could have valuable input, he prefers not to.

Thanks Q&A,

You have saved me the job of responding to JohnH.

I will take a look at those web sites you noted.

I have a pretty good handle on the climate change science (from a layman's point of view) but learn more all the time from reading books and following blogs such as this one.

Climate change is a problem that desparately needs addressing. But if we were lucky and the scientists hypotheses were wrong then there are plenty of other environmental problems facing us that if not addressed could lead to the same outcome for civilized society.

If, and it's a big if, the world were able to address the climate change issue the measures needed to do so would go a long way towards addressing many of the other "threats" such as potable water shortages, degradation and loss of arable land, loss of biodiversity and wild fish stock collapses. Population and per capita growth cannot continue ad infinitum (or even over the next few decades) if the climate change and other issues are to be meaningfully addressed.

Kulu,

Sorry to say, but your reading of “climate change science”, especially blogs, has misled you. As I said previously, I rarely read blogs, because most of the contributors, even when they have real scientific knowledge, simply rant. And much of their rhetoric is pure “cherry picking” anyway. There is never any decisive outcome – that is why the debate has continued ad nauseum for decades. Many of the warmers have an agenda (e.g. “saving the planet”), while others simply have blind faith, rather like those who are religious nutters.

You say: “Climate change is a problem that desperately needs addressing”. I imagine you mean anthropogenic climate change, because climate has changed naturally for millions of years. But no one, not even IPCC experts, has yet proved anything but a minor connection between human activity and global warming. Every claim made that anthropogenic GHGs have melted polar ice caps or glaciers, or have increased hurricane frequency or severity, etc, have been shown to be invalid – in fact, data involved in several studies have been shown to have been corrupted (the recent melting of NW Antarctica, for example). Really, I don’t need to pursue this line of explanation – all I need to mention is Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth”, where he is into hyperbole like none other, but to the warmers he is a deity.

What must always be kept in mind is that the Little Ice Age chilled Earth from about 1400AD to about 1850 (some say even later), and then the planet commenced to warm up, as it did during earlier periods in our history (the MWP, for instance). So why shouldn’t the current warmth be part of Earth’s natural hot/cold cycle? The climate-change fraternity is hell-bent on blaming human activities – but, despite decades of trying, they have got nowhere, although they have managed to fool governments.

Perhaps you might like to visit http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harold-ambler/mr-gore-apology-accepted_b_154982.html .

I make no attempt to further debate with Q&A. I put his attitude and ill-mannered personal attacks down to a sad lack of discipline during his formative years.

Last post. Bye.

Yes, here here to your debating strategy John. There is indeed no point trying to have a rational scientific argument with someone who prefers to rely on stereotyping of opponents, conspiracy theories, deceptive and selective quoting of evidence, and an inability to understand even the most basic principles of science such as the meaning of "proof" or how percentages work.

I look forward to kulu's and Q&A's future contributions on other threads: I've found their posts to be well-informed, informative and open-minded.