South African Scientists Take Issue With The IPCC (Global Warming)

http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/alexander2707.pdf ^

[chessplayer]

"This study is based on the numerical analysis of the properties of routinely observed hydrometeorological data which in South Africa alone is collected at a rate of more than half a million station days per year, with some records approaching 100 continuous years in length. The analysis of this data demonstrates an unequivocal synchronous linkage between these processes in South Africa and elsewhere, and solar activity. This confirms observations and reports by others in many countries during the past 150 years. It is also shown with a high degree of assurance that there is a synchronous linkage between the statistically significant, 21-year periodicity in these processes and the acceleration and deceleration of the sun as it moves through galactic space. Despite a diligent search, no evidence could be found of trends in the data that could be attributed to human activities."

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2001) dismisses the view that solar activity has a meaningful influence on global climate. The basis for this view is that variations in the receipt of solar activity are too small to account for variations in the climatic responses. These variations were determined from satellite and other observations. What the IPCC scientists failed to appreciate is that changes in the level of solar radiation received on earth are amenable to precise calculation."

"Probably the most important shortcoming in current climate change science is the failure to appreciate that variations in received solar energy are amenable to precise calculations, instead of attempting to derive these changes from observations from orbiting satellites and other sources that are incomplete in both space and time."

"It is extremely important that all those involved with water resource studies should appreciate that there are fundamental flaws in current global climate models used for climate change applications."

[rellimpank]

-bflr-

[tx_eggman]

Gotta get my

It's the Sun, Stupid

Bumper sticker

[ml/nj]

This weekend someone was touting the IPCC to me. We sort of talked by each other as is common in such discussions. Driving home, the coup de'grace (for this guy at least) hit me. My question for him, a Jew who lives in the "West Bank," should have been, "What other UN bodies and/or reports do you think are accurate? Why would you trust anything with a UN imprimatur?"

ML/NJ

[cake_crumb]

"The analysis of this data demonstrates an unequivocal synchronous linkage between these processes in South Africa and elsewhere, and solar activity"

<tinfoil>The sun is warming th earth?!? OOOOH S-U-R-E!!! It's a conspiracy between Bush, Cheny and Big Nuclear to invade the planet in order to profit from solar heat by making us THINK it's all a conspiracy to make us forget that Big Industry and Big Oil will kill us all unless we by carbon credits from Al Gore and donate them to the illegal Mexicans who were never here until Bush became president!!!!!<:/tinfoil>

[aruanan]

"What the IPCC scientists failed to appreciate is that changes in the level of solar radiation received on earth are amenable to precise calculation."

No, I think they totally appreciate it. That's why they don't do it. It would cut out all the murkiness that allows them to forecast global calamity with percentages of certainty while taking money from government to further study the matter and come up with a solution. Clarity, ease of measurement, and certainty are exactly what they do not want.

[cake_crumb]

My question for him, a Jew who lives in the "West Bank," should have been, "What other UN bodies and/or reports do you think are accurate? Why would you trust anything with a UN imprimatur?"

I hate it when that happens...but keep that question in mind, you'll have a chance to use it yet.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Well...this is stunning....Al Gore is gonna be so surprised..../s

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks E.

Swedish Scientist Accuses UN’s IPCC of Falsifying Data and Destroying Evidence
http://newsbusters.org/ | June 24, 2007 | Noel Sheppard
Posted on 06/24/2007 9:40:54 PM EDT by lowbridge
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1855682/posts

[SunkenCiv]

"It is extremely important that all those involved with water resource studies should appreciate that there are fundamental flaws in current global climate models used for climate change applications."

· join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic ·

[SunkenCiv]

Very well put.

[aruanan]

Thanks. It’s an ad hominem argument, but I think it’s appropriate.

[sourcery]

Lawrence Solomon's "The Deniers" (a series of articles on the view of scientists who have been labelled "Global Warming Deniers"):

• Science, not politics
• Statistics needed
• The original denier: into the cold
• End the chill
• They call this a consensus?
• The limits of predictability
• Unsettled science
• The ice-core man
• The hurricane expert who stood up to UN junk science
• Polar scientists on thin ice
• The sun moves climate change
• Bright sun, warm Earth. Coincidence?
• Look to Mars for the truth on global warming
• Read the sunspots
• Forget warming - beware the new ice age
• Little Ice Age is still with us
• Fighting climate 'fluff'

Other References:

• Father of Climatology Throws Up at the Thought of Al Gore's 'An Inconvenient Truth'
• Swedish Scientist Accuses UN's IPCC of Falsifying Data and Destroying Evidence
• Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics
• Global Warming and Nature's Thermostat
• The Real 'Inconvenient Truth'
• New findings indicate today's greenhouse gas levels not unusual
• Climate Change: Incorrect information on pre-industrial CO2
• Global Warming as a Religion
• I Was On the Global Warming Gravy Train (By David Evans)
• Still Waiting for Greenhouse
• GREENIE WATCH
• Why Global Warming Would be Good for You
• Temperature vs. Cosmic Ray Flux
• Global Warming Primer (PDF)
• Global Warming: An Official Pseudoscience
• Fiddler On The Roof
• Debating Global Warming
• Climate Resistance

[John Cook]

The South African study finds a strong correlation between water levels and sunspot numbers. But the correlation is a short term correlation - there is little to no correlation in the long term trends.

For example, there is no long term trend in Lake Victoria's levels from 1900 to 1940 when solar activity showed long term increase. Any short or long term correlation breaks down between 1930 to 1970. Next, to obtain correlation over 1968 to 2005, they filter out a 29mm per year trend. They don't explain why there's been a long term trend of falling water levels over the last 37 years while there's been no long term solar trend.

In fact, all the case studies show short term correlation with solar cycles but no long term correlation with decadal solar trends. There's so much noise due to tributary inflows, outflows, sluicing, rainfall and evaporation that while short term correlations with the solar cycle are useful, determining or finding meaning in long term trends is problematic. In short, measuring water levels is a roundabout way of determing the sun's effect on long term global warming.

A more direct method would be to observe the correlation between solar activity and global temperatures. In 2005, Sami Solanki at the Max Planck Insitute compared solar activity & temperatures over the past 1150 years and found temperatures closely correlate to solar activity. When sunspot activity was low during the Maunder Minimum in the 1600's or the Dalton Minimum in the 1800's, the earth went through 'small ice ages'. The sun has been unusually hot in the last century - solar output rose dramatically in the early 20th century accompanied by a sharp rise in global temperatures.

However, Solanki also found the correlation between solar activity and global temperatures ended around 1975. At that point, temperatures started rising while solar activity stayed level. This led him 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."