On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 00:02:36 +0100, Cwatters wrote:

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
Harvard astrophysicist: Sunspot activity correlates to global climate
change

Well only until about 1975..

http://www.skepticalscience.com/sola...nspots-global-
warming.htm

The most commonly cited study by skeptics is a study by scientists from
Finland and Germany that finds the sun has been more active in the last
60 years than anytime in the past 1150 years (Usoskin 2005). They also
found temperatures closely correlate to solar activity.

However, a crucial finding of the study was the correlation between
solar activity and temperature ended around 1975. At that point,
temperatures rose while solar activity stayed level. This led them to
conclude "during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar
UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular
trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have
another source."

You read that right. The study most quoted by skeptics actually
concluded the sun can't be causing global warming. Ironically, the
evidence that establishes the sun's close correlation with the Earth's
temperature in the past also establishes it's blamelessness for global
warming today.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/tsi_vs_temp.gif


Two problems: Solar activity wasn't steady(1). It reached a peak in the
1990s and is now at a minimum, which is why it was so damned cold last
winter. So that is simply a lie.

Second problem is the solar spectral irradiance argument is a blatant red
herring fallacy and anyone who falls for it should be stripped of their
degrees and their colleges put on trial for being a diploma mill.

What was said is that there is STRONG correlation between solar activity
and climate change; a much stronger correlation than between CO2 and
climate change. Svensmark showed how it works.

The solar wind acts to protect the solar system from cosmic rays. Cosmic
rays that reach the lower atmosphere act to nucleate cloud formations.
Clouds reflect sunlight, and the reflected sunlight causes cooling.

Unlike the CO2 theory and the red herring irradiance argument, Svensmark
theory SHOULD work, and it shows good agreement with 4.5 billion years of
climate data. The Anthropogenic Global warming people don't even have a
hypothesis anymo all their much vaunted "computer models" that were
fabricated by simple curve fitting failed to predict the last decade of
non-warming. When REAL scientist see that a hypothesis fails to predict,
they ditch the theory. Not these IPCC funded guys! They keep using red
herring fallacies and scare tactics.

(1) http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/
ALeqM5guAhyObk2E4CfjHAda1Fi4wRraRQD97AIOB00

--
http://OnToMars.org For discussions about Mars and Mars colonization