A BBC News article by Richard Black (environmental correspondent for BBC News) claims in its headline, 'No Sun link' to climate change. Except that isn't what the article demonstrates.
A recent BBC News article claims "'No Sun link' to climate change" in its headline. Yet a careful read of the article strongly suggests that there is a solar link to climate change, but that some researchers looking at the theory simply don't have a good understanding of the nature and strength of that link as it relates to cloud formation.
There are many possible explanations why the research performed by Lancaster University scientists might have failed to live up to expectations. Among those possibilities are: (1) researchers do not adequately understand the theory (as suggested by its chief proponent, Dr. Henrik Svensmark of the Danish National Space Center, DNSC), (2) the relationship is not manifest as anticipated by those researchers (i.e., the effect may not be manifested in the time and space they expected), (3) they did not look at a sufficiently robust set of conditions (locations, season, etc.).
There are many more indications that the CO2 theory professed by the IPCC and Mr. Gore has serious flaws. First and foremost, it is a theory based on a simplistic representation of the greenhouse effect. It also relies upon an assumption that greenhouse warming is a significant contributor to climate change (for which there is no scientific justification). Indeed, recent research based on new satellite observations has shown that, contrary to how the IPCC has modeled the process, increased atmospheric CO2 has a negative feedback on formation of clouds. This is important because the IPCC had assumed a positive feedback, i.e., the more CO2, the more clouds and water vapor (which account for about ten times the greenhouse heat retention capability of CO2). Since this positive feedback was so strong in IPCC models, it was largely responsible for the very high estimates of warming posited by the IPCC. Given the new satellite data that refute the IPCC assumption, the model projections have been rendered completely useless and the attempts to label atmospheric CO2 as a "pollutant" are severely misguided.
Not too long ago, MIT's Dr. Richard Lindzen (a noted global warming skeptic of high professional esteem) had put forth a theory that suggested the greenhouse warming theory used by the IPCC was simplistic and failed to represent the real world. Part of the IPCC theory included the strong positive feedback on water vapor and clouds from increased atmospheric CO2. As I recall, Lindzen's theory was that in tropical zones the atmosphere responds to increased heat from CO2 buildup by a form of atmospheric lensing, i.e., the clouds would thin and open an "iris" through which excess heat would escape, thus severely limiting the heat trapping capacity of atmospheric CO2. Lindzen was scoffed at and ridiculed in the usual global warming circles. It would appear that the new satellite data suggest Lindzen was, indeed, on to something.
The significant points to follow up on with the BBC News article are: (1) a fundamental assumption of the IPCC work is flawed, (2) the assumption that greenhouse heat retention is a significant factor in climate change has not been scientifically established, and, (3) solar activity and global temperature are highly correlated whereas CO2 level and global temperature are NOT correlated. While correlation does not establish "cause and effect", lack of correlation refutes a "cause and effect" relationship.
Those who persist in believing the unproven (and, quite frankly, unsound) theory that atmospheric CO2 is a significant climate change force need to explain why the hottest decade of the past 100 years occurs in the 1930s (with 1934 being the hottest year) when atmospheric CO2 has been rising steadily throughout the period. They might also explain why Earth has been cooling for most of the past decade.
Far more is assumed about the role of greenhouse heat retention in climate than is actually known about the process and the degree to which it affects global climate. Dr. Marcel Leroux, French climatologist, investigated the major forces in climate change. Greenhouse warming was not one of them and there is no scientific evidence that it is.
Finally, the notion that the dominant source of Earth's heat (our sun) is not linked to climate and climate change is silly on its face.
Author of "Looking Out the Window", an evidence-based examination of the "climate change" issue, Bob Webster, is a 12th-generation descendent of both the Darte family (Connecticut, 1630s) and the Webster family (Massachusetts, 1630s). He is a descendant of Daniel Webster's father, Revolutionary War patriot Ebenezer Webster, who served with General Washington. Bob has always had a strong interest in early American history, our Constitution, U.S. politics, and law. Politically he is a constitutional republican with objectivist and libertarian roots. He has faith in the ultimate triumph of truth and reason over deception and emotion. He is a strong believer in our Constitution as written and views the abandonment of constitutional restraint by the regressive Progressive movement as a great danger to our Republic. His favorite novel is Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand and believes it should be required reading for all high school students so they can appreciate the cost of tolerating the growth of unconstitutional crushingly powerful central government. He strongly believes, as our Constitution enshrines, that the interests of the individual should be held superior to the interests of the state.
A lifelong interest in meteorology and climatology spurred his strong interest in science. Bob earned his degree in Mathematics at Virginia Tech, graduating in 1964.
Cover
•
Commentary
•
Books & Reviews
•
Climate Change
•
Site Links
•
Feedback
