From the The Washington Times – By Willie Soon and William M. Briggs
Scientists have been studying solar influences on the climate for more than 5,000 years.
Chinese imperial astronomers kept detailed sunspot records. They noticed that more sunspots meant warmer weather. In 1801, the celebrated astronomer William Herschel (discoverer of the planet Uranus) observed that when there were fewer spots, the price of wheat soared. He surmised that less light and heat from the sun resulted in reduced harvests.
Earlier last month, professor Richard Muller of the University of California-Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project announced that in the project’s newly constructed global land temperature record, “no component that matches solar activity” was related to temperature. Instead, Mr. Muller said carbon dioxide controlled temperature.
Could it really be true that solar radiation — which supplies Earth with the energy that drives our climate and which, when it has varied, has caused the climate to shift over the ages — is no longer the principal influence on climate change?
Consider the accompanying chart. It shows some rather surprising relationships between solar radiation and daytime high temperatures taken directly from Berkeley’s BEST project. The remarkable nature of these series is that these tight relationships can be shown to hold from areas as large as the United States.
This new sun-climate relationship picture may be telling us that the way our sun cools and warms the Earth is largely through the penetration of incoming solar radiation in regions with cloudless skies. Recent work by National Center for Atmospheric Research senior scientists Harry van Loon and Gerald Meehl place strong emphasis on this physical point and argue that the use of daytime high temperatures is the most appropriate test of the solar-radiation-surface-temperature connection hypothesis. All previous sun-climate studies have included the complicated nighttime temperature records while the sun is not shining.
Read more: SOON AND BRIGGS: Global-warming fanatics take note – Washington Times
I have found two points now, one in the NH and one in the SH where a turrning point was reached in 1996 for ozone recovery. This corresponds with my time of the start of the cooling cycle looking at the energy in. My results also show that from 1950-1995 maxima rose much sharper in the SH than the NH whereas means rose much sharper in the NH and almost nothing in the SH.
Ozone loss in the period 1950-1995 was much larger in the SH than the NH.
We know that the Ozone Layer stops UV radiation from entering our atmosphere. Less ozone means more radiation of high energy <0.5 um into the oceans – the heat in the oceans largely determines the temps. on earth, as any climate scientist knows.
These observations generally all support my argument that there is a strong relationship with (natural) warming and cooling periods periods with (natural) declining and increasing ozone levels, respectively.
It looks to me that the influence of the CFC's was also a red herring, just like the CO2, mostly because of the co-incidences with my date : change from 1995. There are of course, still people who believe that cooling did not start yet. We will have to leave those behind. They will find out soon enough. (I am having a terrible holiday here, with my weather records showing every day at least 10 degrees C cooler than last year)
HenryP says:
September 15, 2012 at 1:16 am
“henry@larsp
….skeptics primarily published in non-peer-reviewed newspapers, magazines, books, and think tank publications. Publications that do not undergo peer-review are frequently filled with factual errors, distortions, and opinionated statements that greatly confuse the public on issues where there is no scientific uncertainty. ”
Henry, first I asked a question referring to the article and what about it honestly to become feedback.
Your skeptics bashing from the start of your post proves only your bias and instead of convincing me forces me to read very carefully your other arguments, my bs-ometer showing “high”.
Second, since redefinition of peer-review by some climate-zealots to pal-review peer-review has lost much of its trust. Look at all the garbage that comes from pal-review.
I trust much of the blog review more to the peer-review one when it is open to feedback.
Of course one can post “anything” on a blog review, but it does not require big skills to see who is using the scientific method and who not, where the discussion is open and frank and where it is guided to achieve one wished results, this is why some blogs gain traction and some remain empty of readers covering only a small zealot community even pumped up with high PR costs.
You say there was no ozone hole before in Antarctica – but misinterpretation of quotation and errors of measurement. Have there been good measurements to contradict the “errors”? Or is it a wishfull interpretation? As cold is one of the pre-requisites of creation of ozone hole – and we know there is plenty of it above Antarctica – could it be that there is a natural mechanism that depletes ozone up there? Yes. Question is how much.
Do we yet know well the natural clorine cycles to be able to make a good approximation? No.
Where was it proven that 1958 measurement were instrument errors? I don’t know.
Is the natural ozone circle well understood? No.
In winter there is lack of UV above Antarctica, so it is clear there is a depletion and no production -> it is natural to result an ozone-hole.
How much does UV suns radiation vary from decades to decades and thus ozone production? We don’t know.
I haven’t researched in the ozone question to have a qualified understanding, but from what I see in the climate discussion I fear it might have been another environmentalist blunder as we see it now happening.
Environmentalists have taken over the asylum doing pal-review, politics, energy-companies, transforming science to “pal-approved-science” all in the name of Gaia which is one of the western societies problems, weakening the society as a result.
Where is the pioneer spirit of the past, the wish to discover, to research, to learn more, to explore? All gone to the environmentalists black hole?
Environmentalist should take care of environment and leave the other areas to the specialists, else they achieve much more harm than good. This is in my view the problematic.
Now to our ozone loss. Maybe yes, maybe not. With all the pal-review, all the post modern science, politicisation of the science the trust to the peer-review is at its lowest since many decades.
The longer the hole stays the same, the longer we study, the less convincing is the anthropogenic cause theory.
For science to regain the trust it lost, politics should disappear from it. For environmentalists to regain public support they should retire back to their roots.
For Gaia-zealots to try to capitalise on the ozone hole question and resolution – what we see right now happening – might be a double-edged sword as dirty laundry from the past might come up to view.
Henry@LarsP
I merely quoted a piece from a site somewhere that discussed your problem of Dobson measurements in 1956.
After that I published my own opinion just before you posted yours.
I said
Ozone loss in the period 1950-1995 was much larger in the SH than the NH
Over at Sceptical Science (who are not sceptical) they show an ozone graph from the SH.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ozone-layer-global-warming.htm
it shows that ozone fell by more than 100% from 1980 to 1995.
Now there is your reason as to why it kept on warming until 1995.