We've been in a Modern Maximum since about 1940
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Maxi...
Sunspot cycles have been well above average since cycle 19, except the current one cycle 24. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ss...
And TSI Shows the picture Clearly
http://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/tsi/hist...
But all of that is ending with solar activity decreasing. So what's the next Warmists excuse going to be once it starts getting really cold?
Man-Made Global Warming is such an enormous SCAM.
-----------------------
Alph as usual, has no idea what he's talking about. Solar activity and Temperature track almost perfectly and CO2 doesn't track at all. http://creation.com/images/fp_articles/2...
-----------------------
Baccheus - Here are more than a 120 studies that show the Sun is in control, not CO2. http://notrickszone.com/2013/10/11/gross...
-----------------------
When you read this please also understand the following.
Solar Physicists are not sure what is happening or why.
They do not know if this is an abberition, Dalton or perhaps Maunder Minimum type. Lets pray for Dalton if so.
They fear this could hearld a new "normal" and the past few centuries of an active sun is the "abnormal" condition. The "new normal" could be a very inactive and somewhat less energetic sun.
Basically there are a great many unknows. Several indices have dropped below theoretical minimums. Simply stated what we once thought we knew has been proven WRONG.
Climatalogically? The thermostat is literally being turned down for our solar system. The scale on time and intensity is as yet unknown and ranges from decades to perhaps milenia. Impact ranges from a repeat of the Dalton Minimum to the extreme of an onset of the next ice age. I want to stress that we do NOT know. Anyone who says they do know are lying to you OR they do not know or understand nearly as much as they want you to beleive.
Politically? Even the UNIPCC understands the short term it will be getting colder as a result. They ar ebanking on best case. i.e. minimal cooling over a minimal timeframe and for the true beleivers the cooling that is in store will b e masked by Global warming. i.e. the pause will stay longer but be relatively flat veersus a down trend. Because they are not stupid though they are pushing for a "strong" agreement within the next two years. Why? Because after that they will have to wait decades until the next warming cycle starts. Some time after 2030 is the current concensus based on what some beleive is happening to the sun. i.e. a natural cycle. Problem with this is the indices appear to be too low to support that idea.
On the hopeful side you can aruge the proxies saying the indicies are too low to support warming by 2030 are not dependable as they could be.
Have a great day.
There's too much temperature variability for it to be caused by CO2. It's been shown time and again that CO2 has very little to do with warming, yet alarmists keep bringing it up time and again.
Warming is 99.999% natural just as Global Cooling is!
Here's how NASA sees it :
(SAT = Surface Air Temperatures)
"Q. If SATs cannot be measured, how are SAT maps created ?
A. This can only be done with the help of computer models, the same models that are used to create the daily weather forecasts. We may start out the model with the few observed data that are available and fill in the rest with guesses (also called extrapolations) and then let the model run long enough so that the initial guesses no longer matter, but not too long in order to avoid that the inaccuracies of the model become relevant. This may be done starting from conditions from many years, so that the average (called a 'climatology') hopefully represents a typical map for the particular month or day of the year."
Notice that they are "hoping" for an average that represents a typical map for a particular month or day of the year. Laughable! This a direct representation of where Climate Science currently stands when it comes to understanding Global average temperatures as a whole.
NASA uses climate models to show Global Warming trends. They are still trying to predict future warming and always fall short. Current warming is 0.61C above the established normal temperature and has been falling since the highest Global average temperature of +0.94C (above the average) set in Feb 1998.
The relationship between climate and solar activity is much more definite. CO2 shows a relationship, but a less direct one...and generally follows, rather than precedes, temperature changes.
Most of this discourse is about politics...TRULY!!
I don't know it is the sun but it certain correlates better. I suspect it is both but probably mostly related to the sun. If it isn't the sun, it is for alarmists to prove that it isn't. Their theory doesn't fit the facts as well as the sun IMO. I know they have their models and they are certain that CO2 must be bad and it is physics blah blah blah but so far all we really have had is a few decades with moderate climate. I also hope it continues.
re: is it a proper question in the proper format?
Yes it is. And if I disagree with you, I would rather provide my own response than to try to censor it.
That's what I think when my questions are deleted, even though I'm thinking of a different.
Note: I do report questions and answers that are defamatory.
Now, about your link.
I didn't notice any such claim in the article. It was about Sunspot cycle 24, which was lower than expected. Although the low level of Sunspot cycle 24 could be part of the explanation for the "pause." But this link shows temperature tracking carbon dioxide and not the Sun. And I used HadCrut3, and not GISS, not because I agree that there is anything wrong with GISS, but because HadCrut3 also proves my point.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut...
We have little to no idea about the suns effect on our climate, apart from TSI, there is extra ultra violet rays (XUV) solar wind, changes in magnetic forces (AP) all those change a lot more than TSI during sunspot cycles.
If we knew, the "faint young sun" would not be a paradox.
http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/Ar...
Read the whole article again. And again. And again. You will see that the title has very little to do with the actual content of the article.
I'm not sure who hates the sun more, climate alarmists or Mr Burns.
"I can't be truly happy, not as long as my greatest enemy still provides people with free light, heat, and energy. I call this enemy-- the sun."
it tracks better short term, not long term. These are 11 yr cycles, while the long 100 year term is up, like the CO2.
EDIT Some1has.. no problem. Baccheus has a better answer and MAXX lives in a parallel universe.
http://news.yahoo.com/calm-solar-cycle-prompts-questions-impact-earth-213912384.html
According to this the Earth's temperature tracks better with the Sun's activity rather than CO2 levels.
Notice: I had to put the remark in so that our friends at Y!A could understand it is a question in the proper format. I had one deleted with such wording. Which proves they will do anything to shut us up.
The sun has not changed enough to cause global warming. You just made that up. If you had actually read the article you would have found a quote from the solar scientist featured in the article saying that.
It is so strange to me that deniers will cite a researcher and think he says something different from what he actually says, then once they understand what he actually says dismiss him.
Alph and Baccheus, I hit the wrong button when I rated your responses. ... It must be Monday? At any "rate", you both provided the correct answers and I hit the wrong button. My apology, to you both.
