AGW Today: Sun Spots And Settled Science

Resisting yet another Obama post (this time, the NY Times gently calls him a liar). It’s difficult. Guy gives a constant stream of copy. So, let’s jump into the realm of global warming hysteria, shall we? First up, the Sun, that big ball of nuclear fire that, according to most Climahysterics, can’t possibly have anything to do with the climate

The sun has been very quiet, with a decreasing number of sunspots and flarings since January 2002, and predictions of a return to the higher cycle seen at the end of the 20th century have not verified. But there have been some recent signs of increased sunspots as of early to mid June, but it’s too soon to tell if it will prove meaningful.

The calm on the surface of the sun ultimately will have some say in the course of weather across the Earth. For one, if the sunspot pattern does not revitalize soon, and continues for the next few months or years, it is conceivable that a more volatile pattern of trough formation and cold intrusions could occur, with the polar ice caps undergoing some growth and global sea surface temperatures less prone to rise in critical areas.

For instance, with an emerging El Nino the lack of solar energy influx may provide a critical boost of equatorial SSTs from going into the “strong” +ENSO designation. A weak to moderate El Nino episode, against what appears to be a neutral PDO configuration, may mean better capacity for -EPO and +PNA ridge development against an invigorated storm track running close to 30 N Latitude.

That, in combination with better-organized snow and ice fields in northern Canada, may well mean that the character of the upcoming autumn and winter could be far different (yes, longer-lasting and more frequent cold advection cases) than the past three NDJFM periods. The sun has been very quiet, with a decreasing number of sunspots and flarings since January 2002.

But, what the Sun does can’t possibly have an effect on the climate, right? It is only Man’s use of SUVs and failure to properly maintain tire pressure.

But the science is not settled. If it were, we would have great confidence in all these statements: 1) the world is getting warmer, 2) that’s more bad than good, 3) humans are causing the warming, and 4) we know how to fix the problem.

If either of the first two statements is wrong, then warming is not a crisis. If either of the last two is not correct, we can’t fix it. What are the chances that all four are true ?

To find out, we must multiply the four individual probabilities by each other. For example, if each statement has a 70 percent chance of being correct, the overall probability is just 24 percent that all are true.

As the saying goes, read it all. Both articles.

Remember, though, the AGW movement may have started as a true environmental concern, but, it quickly became a way to impose controls on countries, economies, and people. I’d be more likely to still believe in AGW and at least give it more credence if the Believers actually practiced what they preached.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove

Share this!

Enjoy reading? Share it with your friends!

Send this to a friend