<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.3.3" -->
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Correlating Sunspots to Global Climate</title>
	<link>http://capnbob.us/blog/2006/08/26/correlating-sunspots-to-global-climate/</link>
	<description>Our Unique Perspectives on Life and Politics</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 16 May 2012 23:13:06 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Cap'n Bob</title>
		<link>http://capnbob.us/blog/2006/08/26/correlating-sunspots-to-global-climate/#comment-27965</link>
		<dc:creator>Cap'n Bob</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Dec 2009 20:23:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://capnbob.us/blog/2006/08/26/correlating-sunspots-to-global-climate/#comment-27965</guid>
		<description>Now that Climategate has made it's debut, Bob Smith's references to East Anglia and Climate Research Unit data look kind of silly. 

Here's some updates based on recent findings:

&lt;a href="http://capnbob.us/blog/2009/12/02/a-call-for-hearings-on-fraudulent-climate-science/" rel="nofollow"&gt;A Call for Hearings on Climategate&lt;/a&gt;

&lt;a href="http://capnbob.us/blog/2009/12/05/metrics-expose-media-suppression-of-climategate/" rel="nofollow"&gt;Media Suppression of Climategate&lt;/a&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Now that Climategate has made it&#8217;s debut, Bob Smith&#8217;s references to East Anglia and Climate Research Unit data look kind of silly. </p>
<p>Here&#8217;s some updates based on recent findings:</p>
<p><a href="http://capnbob.us/blog/2009/12/02/a-call-for-hearings-on-fraudulent-climate-science/" rel="nofollow">A Call for Hearings on Climategate</a></p>
<p><a href="http://capnbob.us/blog/2009/12/05/metrics-expose-media-suppression-of-climategate/" rel="nofollow">Media Suppression of Climategate</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Cap'n Bob</title>
		<link>http://capnbob.us/blog/2006/08/26/correlating-sunspots-to-global-climate/#comment-26234</link>
		<dc:creator>Cap'n Bob</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Jan 2008 15:37:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://capnbob.us/blog/2006/08/26/correlating-sunspots-to-global-climate/#comment-26234</guid>
		<description>Thanks, Olivia - I am glad that you enjoyed reading this article. 

I have a reference page that includes many links to resources on the topic:

http://capnbob.us/blog/features/climate-and-global-warming/.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks, Olivia - I am glad that you enjoyed reading this article. </p>
<p>I have a reference page that includes many links to resources on the topic:</p>
<p><a href="http://capnbob.us/blog/features/climate-and-global-warming/." rel="nofollow">http://capnbob.us/blog/features/climate-and-global-warming/.</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Olivia S.</title>
		<link>http://capnbob.us/blog/2006/08/26/correlating-sunspots-to-global-climate/#comment-26233</link>
		<dc:creator>Olivia S.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Jan 2008 15:30:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://capnbob.us/blog/2006/08/26/correlating-sunspots-to-global-climate/#comment-26233</guid>
		<description>I just read your article you posted called "Correlating Sunspots To Global Climate."  And I just wanted to tell you how much I loved it!  I cannot tell you how Refreshing it was to hear that side of the "global warming issue".  I completely agree with the ideas in the article. It disgusts me that people buy into whatever the media says about global warming! i completely believe that there are factors out there that impact the climate So much more than just humans.  Thank you for an article that was not full of the usual crap I hear about global warming.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I just read your article you posted called &#8220;Correlating Sunspots To Global Climate.&#8221;  And I just wanted to tell you how much I loved it!  I cannot tell you how Refreshing it was to hear that side of the &#8220;global warming issue&#8221;.  I completely agree with the ideas in the article. It disgusts me that people buy into whatever the media says about global warming! i completely believe that there are factors out there that impact the climate So much more than just humans.  Thank you for an article that was not full of the usual crap I hear about global warming.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Cap'n Bob</title>
		<link>http://capnbob.us/blog/2006/08/26/correlating-sunspots-to-global-climate/#comment-21317</link>
		<dc:creator>Cap'n Bob</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2007 03:19:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://capnbob.us/blog/2006/08/26/correlating-sunspots-to-global-climate/#comment-21317</guid>
		<description>It's interesting that Bob Carter and Bob Smith can look at the same data and come to different conclusions. I guess I have to lean toward Mr. Carter's interpretation of the data since he doesn't appear to have any political bias as is the case with climate alarmists.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s interesting that Bob Carter and Bob Smith can look at the same data and come to different conclusions. I guess I have to lean toward Mr. Carter&#8217;s interpretation of the data since he doesn&#8217;t appear to have any political bias as is the case with climate alarmists.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: bob12smith</title>
		<link>http://capnbob.us/blog/2006/08/26/correlating-sunspots-to-global-climate/#comment-20635</link>
		<dc:creator>bob12smith</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Apr 2007 19:56:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://capnbob.us/blog/2006/08/26/correlating-sunspots-to-global-climate/#comment-20635</guid>
		<description>The University of East Anglia is the same source Bob Carter referenced.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The University of East Anglia is the same source Bob Carter referenced.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Cap'n Bob</title>
		<link>http://capnbob.us/blog/2006/08/26/correlating-sunspots-to-global-climate/#comment-20613</link>
		<dc:creator>Cap'n Bob</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2007 03:28:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://capnbob.us/blog/2006/08/26/correlating-sunspots-to-global-climate/#comment-20613</guid>
		<description>I question the graphic in the last comment. It's from the University of East Anglia whose research turns up occasionally in pro-alarmist claims of man-made warming on a global scale. Their data resembles the tail-end of the now debunked "Hockey Stick" graphic touted by the IPCC and the UN.

Bringing El Ni&#241;o into the discussion, however, brings us full-circle back to the Sun. El Ni&#241;o is one phenomenon related to cyclic weather patterns dependent on insolation.

Consider that 1998 was just before the peak of solar cycle 23. This little video from SOHO EIT x-ray imagery compares the year 1996 on the left and 1999 on the right. The increase in x-ray activity can be easily seen. Note that x-ray fluctuations occur in proportion to other solar spectra.
 
&lt;div align="center"&gt;
&lt;script src="http://capnbob.us/video/2007/04/two-suns.php"&gt;&lt;/script&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
 
Solar emissions across the spectrum are the primary cause of climate phenomena on Earth including:

1. Triple-cell global atmospheric circulation (modified by Earth's rotation and Coriolis) 
2. World-wide submarine ocean current circulation ( the so-called "conveyor belt")  
3. Ionization of atmospheric molecules including ozone, which deflects ultraviolet radiation 
4. Solar particle emissions and magnetic flux which deflect cosmic radiation

As solar activity ebbs and flows, the above phenomena respond accordingly.

The net effects of anthropogenic contribution to warming in terms of energy must certainly be many, many orders of magnitude below the gigajoules of energy emitted by the Sun.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I question the graphic in the last comment. It&#8217;s from the University of East Anglia whose research turns up occasionally in pro-alarmist claims of man-made warming on a global scale. Their data resembles the tail-end of the now debunked &#8220;Hockey Stick&#8221; graphic touted by the IPCC and the UN.</p>
<p>Bringing El Ni&ntilde;o into the discussion, however, brings us full-circle back to the Sun. El Ni&ntilde;o is one phenomenon related to cyclic weather patterns dependent on insolation.</p>
<p>Consider that 1998 was just before the peak of solar cycle 23. This little video from SOHO EIT x-ray imagery compares the year 1996 on the left and 1999 on the right. The increase in x-ray activity can be easily seen. Note that x-ray fluctuations occur in proportion to other solar spectra.</p>
<div align="center">
<script src="http://capnbob.us/video/2007/04/two-suns.php"></script>
</div>
<p>Solar emissions across the spectrum are the primary cause of climate phenomena on Earth including:</p>
<p>1. Triple-cell global atmospheric circulation (modified by Earth&#8217;s rotation and Coriolis)<br />
2. World-wide submarine ocean current circulation ( the so-called &#8220;conveyor belt&#8221;)<br />
3. Ionization of atmospheric molecules including ozone, which deflects ultraviolet radiation<br />
4. Solar particle emissions and magnetic flux which deflect cosmic radiation</p>
<p>As solar activity ebbs and flows, the above phenomena respond accordingly.</p>
<p>The net effects of anthropogenic contribution to warming in terms of energy must certainly be many, many orders of magnitude below the gigajoules of energy emitted by the Sun.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: bob12smith</title>
		<link>http://capnbob.us/blog/2006/08/26/correlating-sunspots-to-global-climate/#comment-20612</link>
		<dc:creator>bob12smith</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Apr 2007 20:38:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://capnbob.us/blog/2006/08/26/correlating-sunspots-to-global-climate/#comment-20612</guid>
		<description>The CRU temperature record that Mr Carter references shows that the rising temprature trend (the black trendline) has not stopped at or since 1998. &lt;a href="http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif" rel="nofollow"&gt;http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif&lt;/a&gt;

1998 was an anomolously warm year because of a strong el nino. Two consequetive years can differ a lot like this, so the multi-year average has to be used to work out any trend. It's that average trend which is relevant to whether the climate is warming or cooling.  The CRU record shows the last few years have been creeping as high as 1998 without such a strong el nino for example.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The CRU temperature record that Mr Carter references shows that the rising temprature trend (the black trendline) has not stopped at or since 1998. <a href="http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif" rel="nofollow">http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif</a></p>
<p>1998 was an anomolously warm year because of a strong el nino. Two consequetive years can differ a lot like this, so the multi-year average has to be used to work out any trend. It&#8217;s that average trend which is relevant to whether the climate is warming or cooling.  The CRU record shows the last few years have been creeping as high as 1998 without such a strong el nino for example.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Cap'n Bob</title>
		<link>http://capnbob.us/blog/2006/08/26/correlating-sunspots-to-global-climate/#comment-20610</link>
		<dc:creator>Cap'n Bob</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Apr 2007 15:14:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://capnbob.us/blog/2006/08/26/correlating-sunspots-to-global-climate/#comment-20610</guid>
		<description>Regarding the temperature increases from 1970 onward being the "anthropogenic signal," let me quote from a September, 2006 article by &lt;b&gt;Bob Carter&lt;/b&gt; in the &lt;a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml&#038;sSheet=/news/2006/04/09/ixworld.html" rel="nofollow"&gt;London Telegraph&lt;/a&gt; (emphasis mine):

"For many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large and urgent problem. In truth, however, the biggest part of the problem is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political fiasco. Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that &lt;b&gt;for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase&lt;/b&gt; (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).

Yes, you did read that right. And also, yes, this eight-year period of temperature stasis did coincide with society's continued power station and SUV-inspired pumping of yet more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

In response to these facts, a global warming devotee will chuckle and say "how silly to judge climate change over such a short period". Yet in the next breath, the same person will assure you that the &lt;b&gt;28-year-long period of warming which occurred between 1970 and 1998 constitutes a dangerous (and man-made) warming&lt;/b&gt;. Tosh. Our devotee will also pass by the curious additional facts that &lt;b&gt;a period of similar warming occurred between 1918 and 1940, well prior to the greatest phase of world industrialisation, and that cooling occurred between 1940 and 1965, at precisely the time that human emissions were increasing at their greatest rate.&lt;/b&gt;"

Visit the site above for references that back up Mr. Carter's comments and to view the entire editorial.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Regarding the temperature increases from 1970 onward being the &#8220;anthropogenic signal,&#8221; let me quote from a September, 2006 article by <b>Bob Carter</b> in the <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml&#038;sSheet=/news/2006/04/09/ixworld.html" rel="nofollow">London Telegraph</a> (emphasis mine):</p>
<p>&#8220;For many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large and urgent problem. In truth, however, the biggest part of the problem is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political fiasco. Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that <b>for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase</b> (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).</p>
<p>Yes, you did read that right. And also, yes, this eight-year period of temperature stasis did coincide with society&#8217;s continued power station and SUV-inspired pumping of yet more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.</p>
<p>In response to these facts, a global warming devotee will chuckle and say &#8220;how silly to judge climate change over such a short period&#8221;. Yet in the next breath, the same person will assure you that the <b>28-year-long period of warming which occurred between 1970 and 1998 constitutes a dangerous (and man-made) warming</b>. Tosh. Our devotee will also pass by the curious additional facts that <b>a period of similar warming occurred between 1918 and 1940, well prior to the greatest phase of world industrialisation, and that cooling occurred between 1940 and 1965, at precisely the time that human emissions were increasing at their greatest rate.</b>&#8221;</p>
<p>Visit the site above for references that back up Mr. Carter&#8217;s comments and to view the entire editorial.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: bob12smith</title>
		<link>http://capnbob.us/blog/2006/08/26/correlating-sunspots-to-global-climate/#comment-20602</link>
		<dc:creator>bob12smith</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 15 Apr 2007 17:31:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://capnbob.us/blog/2006/08/26/correlating-sunspots-to-global-climate/#comment-20602</guid>
		<description>I agree that the original sunspot graph correlates with global temperature trends, but only up to about 1970. After that the temperature starts rising again while sunspot trends show no accompanying upward trend as they did during the 1900-1950 warming period.

According to anthropogenic global warming theory the anthropogenic signal has only broken through the natural variation in the last few decades. Prior temperature trends across geological time and in the early 20th century would therefore be expected to be explained mainly by natural phenomenon like solar variation and not any anthropogenic causes. So the sticking point for whether anthropogenic global warming is correct or not are the main causes of the warming in the last few decades which may differ from the main causes of temperature changes over geological time.

There is a NASA movie for the entire globe, not just the western hemisphere:
[url]http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a002300/a002319/a002319.mpg[/url]

This also doesn't contain the warming trend in the last 3 decades because neither video is showing the actual temperature of earth over time. They are the output of a climate model fed solar trends. That the video doesn't show the warming recorded in the last 3 decades is because the solar trend fed into the model didn't produce one, despite the good correlation before this point.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree that the original sunspot graph correlates with global temperature trends, but only up to about 1970. After that the temperature starts rising again while sunspot trends show no accompanying upward trend as they did during the 1900-1950 warming period.</p>
<p>According to anthropogenic global warming theory the anthropogenic signal has only broken through the natural variation in the last few decades. Prior temperature trends across geological time and in the early 20th century would therefore be expected to be explained mainly by natural phenomenon like solar variation and not any anthropogenic causes. So the sticking point for whether anthropogenic global warming is correct or not are the main causes of the warming in the last few decades which may differ from the main causes of temperature changes over geological time.</p>
<p>There is a NASA movie for the entire globe, not just the western hemisphere:<br />
[url]http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a002300/a002319/a002319.mpg[/url]</p>
<p>This also doesn&#8217;t contain the warming trend in the last 3 decades because neither video is showing the actual temperature of earth over time. They are the output of a climate model fed solar trends. That the video doesn&#8217;t show the warming recorded in the last 3 decades is because the solar trend fed into the model didn&#8217;t produce one, despite the good correlation before this point.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Cap'n Bob</title>
		<link>http://capnbob.us/blog/2006/08/26/correlating-sunspots-to-global-climate/#comment-20601</link>
		<dc:creator>Cap'n Bob</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 15 Apr 2007 16:33:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://capnbob.us/blog/2006/08/26/correlating-sunspots-to-global-climate/#comment-20601</guid>
		<description>Regarding "solar trends do not correlate with recent global warming in the past few decades." Keep in mind that the view in the NASA video is trained on the Western Hemisphere only. The temperature reference that bob12smith invokes is shown below:

&lt;img src="http://capnbob.us/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/125-yr-temps2.gif" alt="" class="centered" /&gt;

I clearly see a strong correlation between the original sunspot chart and this graph. The run up in the first half of the 20th century is clearly evident while the cooling trend that sparked global cooling angst in the 70's is also clearly seen. In addition, the recently discovered relationship between solar flux and the intensity of cosmic radiation supports the 1500 year theory of global warming and cooling cycles (&lt;a href="http://capnbob.us/blog/2007/02/22/cosmic-rays-solar-flux-and-global-warming/" rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow"&gt;Svensmark, et al&lt;/a&gt;). 

Rather than focusing on a narrow segment of history (decades), one should focus on the long-term relationship between solar activity and climate. There is &lt;a href="http://capnbob.us/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/skeptics-guide.pdf" rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow"&gt;far more evidence&lt;/a&gt; that the Earth's climate is &lt;a href="http://capnbob.us/blog/features/climate-and-global-warming/" rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow"&gt;influenced by natural phenomena&lt;/a&gt; globally than there is to support anthropogenic causes.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Regarding &#8220;solar trends do not correlate with recent global warming in the past few decades.&#8221; Keep in mind that the view in the NASA video is trained on the Western Hemisphere only. The temperature reference that bob12smith invokes is shown below:</p>
<p><img src="http://capnbob.us/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/125-yr-temps2.gif" alt="" class="centered" /></p>
<p>I clearly see a strong correlation between the original sunspot chart and this graph. The run up in the first half of the 20th century is clearly evident while the cooling trend that sparked global cooling angst in the 70&#8217;s is also clearly seen. In addition, the recently discovered relationship between solar flux and the intensity of cosmic radiation supports the 1500 year theory of global warming and cooling cycles (<a href="http://capnbob.us/blog/2007/02/22/cosmic-rays-solar-flux-and-global-warming/" rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow">Svensmark, et al</a>). </p>
<p>Rather than focusing on a narrow segment of history (decades), one should focus on the long-term relationship between solar activity and climate. There is <a href="http://capnbob.us/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/skeptics-guide.pdf" rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow">far more evidence</a> that the Earth&#8217;s climate is <a href="http://capnbob.us/blog/features/climate-and-global-warming/" rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow">influenced by natural phenomena</a> globally than there is to support anthropogenic causes.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
 
 


