Global cooling – or lack thereof – has nothing to do with solar activity?


Reader interested in feedback

The New York Times refutes any ideas that the planet is cooling due to solar activity (or lack thereof),” says reader.

“In an article today about the Trump administration’s plans to repeal Obama’s greenhouse gas emissions policy, the New York Times included this quick summary about the current scientific assessment of climate change:”

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/climate/what-is-climate-change.html

“Obviously they refute any ideas that the planet is cooling due to solar activity (or lack thereof).

“It’s an interesting read, and I’d be interested in feedback here.”

Terry



30 thoughts on “Global cooling – or lack thereof – has nothing to do with solar activity?

  1. Not much need to go beyond the second point paragraph. Second sentence about “land ice starting to melt”.
    At the max of the last ice age the ice was down to Chicago, and up to two miles thick.
    The massive ice sheet has been shrinking since. Particularly since the extreme cold of the Little Ice Age in the late 1600s.

  2. It gets hot in California (scientists who live in California)…get over it. Our heat comes from the the sun (you idiots). Decades of screaming over rising oceans…haven’t seen the headlines yet (or any meaningful evidence). The climate always changes…get over it. The inevitable coming cool down ought to really knock your socks off (hope you have extra wool ones).

  3. Every point made in that article is the opposite of the evidence we see. This evidence comes from NASA’s and NOAA’s own data. We are already seeing record cold and snowfall across the world for over 10 years now, which is becoming worse and more widespread. How much observable evidence do people need before they stop believing the environmental hype? Global warming has happened throughout the past with no detriment to the Earth or its life-forms. Global cooling has also happened many times in the past bringing mass extintion on a global scale. What is it that environmentalists don’t understand about those proven and accepted facts?

  4. I added this to a previous blog entry, however its more appropriate here.

    JimBob
    October 7, 2017 at 12:21 am | Reply

    The number and size of Sun spots the Sun displays are not directly connected to the climate of the Earth. They are a visible indicator of the waxing and waning of the amount of energy the Sun emits at the peak and minimum of each solar cycle, and during each Solar Warm Period and its following Grand Solar Minimum and the Gleissberg series of cycles in between the two solar extremes.
    However, the white phage area around each full sized WOLF spot is connected, this is one of the primary sources of UV and EUV that the Sun emits and can vary by as much as 16% as the cycle progresses.
    It is this latter section of the Suns energy spectrum which is readily absorbed by our Nitrogen/ Oxygen/Water vapour atmosphere, and varies the shape of the World’s Jet streams varying from a solar peak lateral flow to the current meridional flow as to where that captured oceanic solar energy and water vapour is rained out and in what form, Rain or Snow.
    It also varies where warmth is pushed up into high latitudes and where cold is pushed towards tropical regions, for example from Polar Russia to the Middle East or from the Azores to the UK, which has the same latitude as Labrador and its permafrost location.
    Sun spots are an indicator of the current state of the climate in a few years’ time, they may not be the cause, but the effect is noticeable 10 year later, and as a lagging indicator they are the same as CO2 is, as an indicator of the warmth or coolness of the world’s oceans who captured the heat energy from the Sun. Otherwise, the Caribbean sea would have major Hurricanes all year round if CO2 was providing the energy which the Warmist claim.

  5. That article reeks. I had to stop at #5.
    A brief assembly of the most elementary debunked-myths about Earth’s climate.
    Re: “The warming is extremely rapid on the geologic time scale, and no other factor can explain it as well as human emissions of greenhouse gases.”

    Give me a break. The Vostok/Epica ice core charts show dozens of Epic global warmings and coolings, way more intense than anything in our lifetimes, and no possible human-related cause.

    http://cdn.antarcticglaciers.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Ice_Age_Temperature.png

    http://www.dandebat.dk/images/1570p.jpg

  6. “President Trump has claimed that scientists stopped referring to global warming and started calling it climate change because….”
    The NYT explanation is false. The UN-IPCC moved the goal-posts.

    “As of early 2017, the Earth had warmed by roughly 2 degrees Fahrenheit (more than 1 degree Celsius) since 1880, when records began at a global scale.”
    True but it should get warmer as the world is coming out of a very cold period (LIA). What do they think should happen, temperature stasis?

    “…world’s land ice is starting to melt and the oceans are rising at an accelerating pace. ”
    Not all the glacier are melting! The sea-level rise is not accelerating! Today there is more land than back in 1880.


    “…scientists say, the global warming could ultimately exceed 8 degrees Fahrenheit,…”

    The only evidence is from un-validated, unverified, computer models. Observation show this to be very probably wrong.

    “…which would undermine the planet’s capacity to support a large human population…”
    As CO2 naturally rises the plants, upon which we depend, become more productive and easier to grow on marginal land.


    “In the 19th century, scientists discovered that certain gases in the air trap and slow down heat that would otherwise escape to space. ”

    This was NOT discovered it was surmised. Nobody gives the figures for how long CO2 ‘traps’ IR radiation — I say it’s about 1/10 to 1/1000 of a millisecond.(now prove me wrong). Within this planet’s convecting atmosphere no experiment has ever proved that CO2 causes warming.

    The explanation for ‘How do we know humans are responsible for the increase in carbon dioxide?’ is complete BS.
    Latest research show that past studies were probably in error. (See http://principia-scientific.org/challenges-to-carbon-14-dating-charles-keeling-and-michael-mann/ , “more important is the estimated 40,000 giga-tonnes of CO2 dissolved in the ocean waters as well as the estimated one (1) million submarine volcanoes contributing CO2 to the deep abyssal waters.

    http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/submarine

    The very words expressed by Charles Keeling in his 1979 paper citing the “Seuss Effect” provide his own admission that sufficient information was available regarding Carbon isotopes in the ocean waters. Quoting from Keeling:

    “The oceanic data are seen to be too meager as yet to help settle the question of biospheric response to man’s activities.” )

    “Why do people deny the science of climate change?

    Mostly because of ideology.”

    Utter BS, the science of AGW climate change is just so poor. And yet the UN (via the IPCC) insists that the Western nations must change how they operate to these nation’s detriment. Allegedly this is supposed to help developing nations when in fact all it does is nothing of the kind, it just gives the UN more power and Western nation’s tax-payers dollars (and £, ¥, €, kr )to fund UN bureaucratic inefficiency.

  7. Liars will Continue to be Liars. .. With 10’s of Trillions of USD from Taxes to allegedly Cool This Planet and thus reduce us all to the state of solid broke and hungry at Stake, the Globalists would Blame SnowBall Earth on Global Warming.

  8. This article is so full of nonsense that it is difficult to read.

    There is no universal ice melt. Though the article says ice is melting world wide and the oceans are rising, it is simply not true. The oceans are not rising and in places where it was supposed to rise it has actually gotten lower. Greenland saw a faster and larger increase in ice this year than ever recorded. The Glaciers in Alaska and California are both getting larger.

    While the sun appears the same day after day it is not. There have been major increases in ultraviolet emissions during the 80’s and 90’s, those emissions are now falling, dramatically.

    As long ago as the Maunder Minimum it was known that fewer sun spots cause cooler weather. We are now in a time that is bringing us to a Maunder type of minimum or Grand Minimum.

    While it is true that temperatures have been rising (and falling) since the end of the last glaciation we are at the end or what should be the end of the inter-glacial period. We should appreciate any warming we can get.

    The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is growing. Certainly humans contribute to that growth but the percentage of increase due to human industry is minuscule. In fact the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is minuscule. It has never been proven that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. There are much more effective greenhouse gases in our atmosphere such as water vapor and Methane.

    There are other sciences discoveries that are changing the way scientist think about Global Warming. Who would have thought a couple decades ago that the stars sending their cosmic rays to us could affect our weather but they do, especially in solar minimums.

    Ignorance rules our newspapers and much of society. The truth is out there for all to see but those who don’t like the truth lie and know because of our unwillingness to spend a little time reading that we won’t know any better. I refuse to believe the lies of the Mainstream press apparatus.

  9. I think it is an “All Encompassing” cause and effect. We had a solar alignment in the last few years that could have caused gravitational effects on the earths mass; in the past decade we have had large earthquakes and volcanism world wide; we are seeing our sun entering a quiet period; we have seen the rebuilding and expansion of ice sheets; there have been crop failures from cold springs, shorter seasons, and drought; worldwide viruses and disease are intensifying.
    Put all together, we come to the understanding that humankind is insignificant in the control of natural events. Have we contributed to the effects of natural events?…perhaps in a miniscule timeline. The technological advances in the last 100 years have brought us instant gratification and it seems the brainiest people have tried to impose the same on nature. Try as we may…we are not in control… nature is.

  10. HUmans are putting co2 into the atmosphere at a faster rate then Nature ever has?

    Even a two year old knows that’s totally incorrect.

  11. The New York Times is a fully politicised journal . Its message has nothing to do with science , it is advocacy to its ultimate limits for the globalist cause . It represents the ideas of the ruling class , the deep state and its mechanisms to maintain the status quo . No news there , nothing to be seen and move on like the rest of the leftist crowd To where ? To noplace and nowhere and straight into slavery and poverty . Good luck Americans , sleep well

  12. There are two sources of heat on this planet: that of solar insolation, and that from radiant heat of radioactive decay deep in the planet’s interior. Given that the former accounts for the majority of climate conditions we experience here on the planet’s surface, that means that changes in the sun’s activity directly impacts the temperature on the planet.

    It’s why Milankovitch cycles predominate. It’s why Vostok ice cores record changes in global temperatures. To believe otherwise is pure insanity.

  13. “Are Climate change & Global warming both accurate, but mean different things?”, question the first item.
    Both terms have to do with statistic. While warming correlates with temperature and numbers, the term Climate change is not, when defined as ‘average weather”. According AMS Glossary “weather” consists of 100 conditions (more http://www.whatisclimate.com/b206_need_to_talk_July_2010.html), and the WMO has no problem to consider “…..the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years.” http://www.whatisclimate.com/

  14. I ,for one, am totally against wasting my time reading yet another affirmation of the global warming HOAX created by abject tools of the globalists dedicated to destroying America.
    It was never about climate. It is about the destruction of capitalism and population control as stated in the United Nations charter and their adopted Agenda21, totally dedicated to the “globalist’s” One World Government agenda.

    For the most complete and concise documentary of exactly the “who, what, and why” of just what is going on here you must pay attention to Myron Fagan’s recording: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=ForvEyNABs8

    He recorded this in 1967 and died in 1971. The information is accurate and covers the reasons behind even the most current events.

  15. This is sounding like the same organization’s claims that the Russians stole the election from old whatshername.

    Imagine, right this moment, there are thousands dying from the heat somewhere in the world and the media isn’t reporting it. This is a claim made in the newspaper editorial referenced above. Where? What country is the NYT talking about? People are dying by thousands and nobody is doing anything?

  16. Well we know that CO2 doesn’t change the climate so it has to be something else. There is a lot of evidence of cold increasing with more snow, earlier snow, 2 cold S American winters in a row, record cold etc. The trusted UAH temp series doesn’t indicate it but I wonder if there is a time lag between the surface and where the satellite works out the temp, and given the fiddling and lack of reliable surface stations, we might not be seeing it.

  17. As a geologist I can say this: in the last million years temperatures were driven by solar cycles. It is obvious, sun is the primary heat source of the Earth. Human activity is quite negligible. You can search internet about snowball glaciation and super greenhouse effect. Extremely low and high temps were experienced by our planet without having humans on it. In those days of old only sun was present.

  18. read the article carefully: they are claiming that climate is to be controled by science. furthermore it is the modern way viewing the world as a controlable system. there are two categories in their opinion, cons and pros. i would say keep your environment clean enough to live in. secondly: the paris agreement is about boosting worlds economy by using climate neutral tech what ever that means is rather unclear. it is also a principle that nature’s language which can doubt.

  19. Well I looked at the link and it just seems to be a mass of propaganda.
    That aside, it matters not one jot what anyone says, writes, graphs, manipulates, or whatever. The Sun consists of about 99.8 – 9% of the mass of the solar system and it runs the show. Period.
    The Mass of the humans and CO2 on this planet is minute (my newt) and has so many zeroes in front of it, it looks like the attack on pearl harbour. When it come to climate we are very close to nothing.
    The very fact that this website reports regularly on record cold events, and this after 30 years of alarmism is in itself all you need to know.
    The “science” of AGW is barely science at all.

  20. To me The amount of establishment non-sense in this article is overwhelming. If you consider that this is the only time in human history that a civilization asserted that it was only man that influenced the climate…

  21. I do not buy their article – it is full of deceit and nonsense.

    Point 1.

    Scientists DID stop using the “global warming” theme and switched to “climate change” and the politicians all fell into line !!

    There is no denying this – IT IS TRUE !!

    It came about during the discussions on the “pause” in increasing temperatures after the 1998 El-Niño. How can you talk about global warming if their isn’t any ??

    Even the most enthusiastic supporters of global warming had difficulty with the “global warming” term.

    Who can forget Kevin Trenberth – “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can’t.” ???

    Hence “climate change” was introduced.

    BUT climate change is driven by either warming OR cooling AND the 17+ years of almost no global warming is real.

    Point 2.

    This is a mish mash of scare tactics.

    The article is deceptive in using °F when ALL of the scientific literature talks about °C.

    It implies we have already reached the Paris agreement threshold and is deceptive.

    The article is deceptive in claiming there was a “global” surface temperature record in 1880 – HUGE areas of the globe had NO such records in 1880 and HUGE areas have NO such records even today !

    Earth’s capacity to support a large human population would be enhanced by unlocking the huge areas where agriculture is prohibited by ice cover or harsh winters.

    Point 3.

    “We’ve known about it for more than a century. Really”

    Svante Arrhennius was the first to propose what would become known as the “greenhouse effect”.

    “In 1895, Arrhenius presented a paper to the Stockholm Physical Society titled, “On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground.” ”

    Articles such as this NEVER mention the fact that Arrhenius said in his presentation that such warming WOULD BE BENEFICIAL by unlocking huge areas to agriculture that were too cold for such use.

    Articles such as this NEVER mention the fact that Arrhenius fervently clung to the aether hypothesis which claims the aether is a ubiquitous, weightless, colourless fluid through which “heat” is transferred.

    The aether hypothesis was discarded into the dustbin of failed hypothesis and soundly refuted long before Arrhenius made his presentation.

    The “Greenhouse Effect” has NEVER been shown by experiment !

    “Carbon dioxide is a major player; without any of it in the air, the Earth would be a frozen wasteland.”

    So when it is 100°F the 99% of the atmosphere that aren’t “greenhouse gases” play no role at all ??

    Have you ever heard anything so stupid ??

    IF, as alarmists always claim, Nitrogen and Oxygen do not emit Infra-Red radiation, then, once heated to 100°F they should NEVER cool down except in the unlikely chance they transfer their “heat” to the one in ten thousand atmospheric molecules that is CO2 or the two or three molecules per hundred that is water vapour and THEY radiate the “heat” to space !

    “the Earth has warmed by roughly the amount that scientists predicted it would.”

    The “Energy Budget” here –

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/bhogundc9uwagj3/trenberth9.jpg?dl=0

    is one used by the IPCC.

    It says that there is a “net absorbed” 0.9 W/m2.

    John Christy, a sceptical Physicist, proves this is nonsense !

    The standard “heat” transfer equation is Q(heat flow) = mass times specific heat (constant pressure) times deltaT (change in temperature).

    A 10 kilometre high column of air with a one square metre base contains about 10,000 kg of air.

    Air has a specific heat (constant pressure) of about 1000 Joule/kg Kelvin.

    A Watt is a Joule per second.

    We can solve the equation for temperature change resulting from a “net” 0.9 W/m2 over a year (31,536,000 seconds) thus –

    deltaT = Q (joules per second – ignore m2 because we chose it to be 1 and it is accounted for in the 1 square metre of our atmospheric column) x 31,536,000 (seconds)/(mass x specific heat) which gives –

    31,536,000 x 0.9 /( 10,000 x 1000) = 2.83°C in ONE YEAR !

    Now I don’t know about you but I don’t recall that ever happening !!!!

    Climate “scientists” use the Stefan-Boltzmann equation to calculate temperatures and radiative forcings.

    To claim “Carbon dioxide is a major player; without any of it in the air, the Earth would be a frozen wasteland.” is absurd in the extreme !

    For example the Solar “constant” is of the order of 1361 W/m2 according to NASA at Earth’s orbit.

    Using the figures given by NASA the maximum temperature on the surface of the Moon the Sun could induce should be the fourth root of (0.89 x 1361/sigma) which is ~382 Kelvin or ~109°C.

    Funny enough that is actually right !

    Sure, the Moon’s surfaces cool down to very cold levels but that takes from a week to a fortnight to happen in Earth days – remember a lunar hour is more than a day on Earth – 29.5 Earth hours !

    Such cooling never happens on Earth because the Sun comes up 12 hours later. Only the places where the Sun doesn’t shine for long periods get REALLY cold on Earth or at high elevations – with or without any “greenhouse gases” !

    Using the figures given by NASA the maximum temperature on the surface of the Earth the Sun could induce should be the fourth root of (0.694 x 1361/sigma) = ~359 Kelvin or ~86.1°C !

    The maximum surface temperature recorded on Earth is 70.1°C.

    The reason the Earth never reaches the potential temperature the Solar radiation could induce is clouds and the atmosphere either absorb some of the incoming radiation or reflect it back to space so it never reaches the ground and convection is continually cooling the ground.

    Alarmists ignore all of this !

    Point 4.

    “Official” figures presented years ago found humans emit ~3% of the annual CO2 fluctuations. This is claimed to accumulate year by year but no-one really knows.

    Certainly warming oceans emit more CO2 and decreasing pH causes even more emissions of CO2.

    MOST of the annual CO2 emitted to the atmosphere comes from the oceans !

    Point 5.

    Natural forces cause ALL the warming !

    Cloud cover is perhaps the biggest determining factor regarding warming.

    More clouds, LESS sunlight, lower temperatures !

    Less clouds, MORE sunlight, higher temperatures !

    Primary school children understand this – it takes a special type of fool to be “educated” to think this isn’t important !

    Point 6.

    Most of the people I know do NOT DENY climate change – that is a lie spread by these liars !

    Most of the sceptics have read enough to come to their own opinion that the “settled science” ISN’T !

    I do not buy one bit of the “back radiation greenhouse effect” as taught in Universities.

    It is impossible and has never been shown to exist !

  22. In my opinion the NYT wrote this article because Scientists
    are abandoning the Global Warming Agenda.

    Al Gore’s Inconvenient Sequel is a Flop.

    No one is reading his book.

    We have had (6) Spotless Sun Days recently.

    A total of (62) thus far this year.

    It started snowing in September.

    A Man in Alberta Canada said he has not ever seen it snow
    this hard this early.

    Al Gore – The Ice Age is already here.!!

  23. a correction: a preassumption is that math is the language of nature which can be doubted. It is the way human beings are trying to grasp nature. We even do not know which relations exist between all kind of phenomeae. That one correlate mathematically phenomenae only express a kind of relatonship expressable in math terms.

  24. Wow. That reads like “Climate Change for Dummies, by Dummies.” It is clearly not intended to “educate.” There are no sources. “Denial” is ideological by definition for instance. Hurricanes are clearly linked to AGW, but evidently every other kind of bad weather is. Sad, really. At one time the Times was one of the great papers..

  25. Never ever should you mix politics with science because then you will get articles like these as a result and they have nothing to do with the truth! Yet so many people still believe in the idea of a manmade global warming, because propaganda and lies truly are that powerful.

    Perhaps in the not too distant future people will start to realize more, but then it will already be quite cold in many places of the world.

Leave a Comment