It does not say that all. You would need to be impressively stupid to draw such a conclusion. It is like say that because when I take of my jumper my body gets cooloer, then jumpers must be the driver for climate change.
Of course solar activity causes short term variations in climate as does the variations in the earth's orbit, but none of this changes the fact the the greenhouse effect of CO2, methane and other gasses is real and highly significant. The correlation between increased greenhouse gas emissions and increased global temperatures has been proven for over a century. This has been further worsened by rapid deforestation and the feedback effects. These feedback effects include the reduction in ice coverage, which reflects solar radiation, the melting of the Siberian permafrost releasing trapped methane, desertification caused by higher temperature and lower rainfall, etc.
What is also certain about increased CO2 is that has acidified the World's oceans, destroying coral and a wide range of other important marine life.
It is old and has proved wrong.
"Our forecast indicates an annual average temperature drop of 0.9 °C in the Northern Hemisphere during solar cycle 24."
Solar cycle 24 began in 2008. Since then, rather than the predicted 5 degrees cooling, temperatures have increased.
Solar Cycle 24 has not supported their hypotheses. If their model was correct there would have been a huge temperature reduction.
I don't know whether this is another example of denier dishonesty or denier stupidity. But clearly one can see that they claim a "new" study and show a study from 2012. Climate change deniers are always wrong. Anybody who claims this is a new study, and did not make extreme predictions that are now testable is simply fact-deficient.
The paper predicts lower temperatures during the next solar cycle and we are in fact already seeing that.
It's been cooling for at least 12 years.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut...
So it's saying the Sun drives climate and not anything else and of course that is correct and has been known for a very long time.
Top climate scientists say there is no man-made Global Warming.
The Great Global Warming Swindle
From the link
"Solar activity may have contributed 40% or more to the last century temperature increase."
40% and not 100%?
The article does not claim that the Sun is the sole driver of climate and does not claim that carbon dioxide has no effect on temperature.
Studying the effect of the Sun on climate can improve climate models, but does not imply that the Sun is the only driver of climate.
Yes I believe that a paper says that. I don't think the use of belief is useful in a scientific context. You don't say 'I believe in gravity.' What is needed is to ask whether you find the paper convincing for the argument it is making. Should be weighed against other evidence.
Sunspot cycles have been studied - - after a fashion - - for decades. They are variable enough to be used to "prove" almost anything if you are not too fussy about how tight the correlation is. Prior to this, they were implicated in population cycles of animals. You could just as easily "prove" that it is the population cycles of lemmings that cause global warming. Correlation is not causation.
It is not only the CO2 ommission which causes global warming. Many other factors too add to this problem.
Once again it's proven that deniers can't consider more than one factor at a time.
Yes, simply put, but yes. There is no proof that it is.
Several of us have been saying exactly that for some time now.
Here http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682612000417
Abstract
Relations between the length of a sunspot cycle and the average temperature in the same and the next cycle are calculated for a number of meteorological stations in Norway and in the North Atlantic region. No significant trend is found between the length of a cycle and the average temperature in the same cycle, but a significant negative trend is found between the length of a cycle and the temperature in the next cycle. This provides a tool to predict an average temperature decrease of at least View the MathML source from solar cycle 23 to solar cycle 24 for the stations and areas analyzed. We find for the Norwegian local stations investigated that 25–56% of the temperature increase the last 150 years may be attributed to the Sun. For 3 North Atlantic stations we get 63–72% solar contribution. This points to the Atlantic currents as reinforcing a solar signal.
Highlights
? A longer solar cycle predicts lower temperatures during the next cycle. ? A 1 °C or more temperature drop is predicted 2009–2020 for certain locations. ? Solar activity may have contributed 40% or more to the last century temperature increase. ? A lag of 11 years gives maximum correlation between solar cycle length and temperature.
How stupid does someone have to be to lie about something and then to provide a link to the thing they are lying about?
It's like playing hide-and-seek with my daughter when she was very young. She would hide - and then if you did not find her in 10 seconds, she would shout, "Here, I am!"
It doesn't appear to say that. Nice try though.
yes i do....you can Google search
it says nothing about CO2, you are making this up
