Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » AGW and climate change » Looks like the sun to me.

Looks like the sun to me.

All of the wild claims about AGW are predicated upon the large percentage of increases in man made CO2 from our rapid industrialisation over the last 200 years. The trouble for the Warministas is that the worlds climate is just not playing the game right at all.and instead of a roughly liner rise in global temperatures(in line with the undoubted rise in CO2 concentration) we have been seeing either no rise or cooling for the last decade.

Don Easterbrook, a geologist at Western Washington University, says, “It’s practically a slam dunk that we are in for about 30 years of global cooling,” as the sun enters a particularly inactive phase. His examination of warming and cooling trends over the past four centuries shows an “almost exact correlation” between climate fluctuations and solar energy received on Earth, while showing almost “no correlation at all with CO2.”

An analytical chemist who works in spectroscopy and atmospheric sensing, Michael J. Myers of Hilton Head, S. C., declared, “Man-made global warming is junk science,” explaining that worldwide manmade CO2 emission each year “equals about 0.0168% of the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration … This results in a 0.00064% increase in the absorption of the sun’s radiation. This is an insignificantly small number.”

Other international scientists have called the manmade warming theory a “hoax,” a “fraud” and simply “not credible.”

While not stooping to such name-calling, weather-satellite scientists David Douglass of the University of Rochester and John Christy of the University of Alabama at Huntsville nonetheless dealt the True Believers a devastating blow last month.

For nearly 30 years, Professor Christy has been in charge of NASA’s eight weather satellites that take more than 300,000 temperature readings daily around the globe. In a paper co-written with Dr. Douglass, he concludes that while manmade emissions may be having a slight impact, “variations in global temperatures since 1978 … cannot be attributed to carbon dioxide.”

Moreover, while the chart below was not produced by Douglass and Christy, it was produced using their data and it clearly shows that in the past four years — the period corresponding to reduced solar activity — all of the rise in global temperatures since 1979 has disappeared.

It may be that more global warming doubters are surfacing because there just isn’t any global warming.(click to enlarge)

Anthony Watts

When you look at the amount of extra Co2 that humanity has added to the atmosphere as a percentage of its total volume( 0.0168% )  and the amount of warming that that increase can cause (0.00064%) It is very easy to see how such a small effect can be swamped by the natural variability, of say the sun.

Something to think about Comrades


My Bold added


  1. PKD says:

    Iain, As I pointed out in Halfs blog when he threw this graph up a while ago, the trend line dropping back to zero on the right hand side simply doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Theres no way it should drop off to zero based on the yearly data ine.

    This has been pointed out and accepted in the Watts blog comments as well.

    Which invalidates Watts main claim which your evidently supporting that the global warming has reversed.

    In reality the trend line should be at about +0.3, NOT zero.


  2. Shawn Whelan says:

    Scientists are such eggheads. They think climate will follow a smooth line they discern from a couple decades of readings. It hasn’t in the past and it won’t this time. With the cooling PDO, cooling La Nina and lack of Sunspots we are going to have a cold Canadian Winter. The trees are dropping their leaves here a month early the crops were harvested weeks early and my dog has already shed and has her new Winter coat. Nature is smarter than the average egghead.

  3. JM says:

    “is very easy to see how such a small effect can be swamped by the natural variability, of say the sun.”

    Well, it’s not so easy for me Iain, and I have qualifications in this area. The natural variability of the sun is cyclic +/1 0.1% TSI over 11 years – I notice Watt’s* graph has no such cycle.

    Perhaps you could explain why? (just for for this bear of little brain). How does a cyclic phenonomen induce what looks kinda linear** to me from 1900 to circa now?

    * I will refrain (no I won’t) from expressing my opinion that Watts is an idiot – I’ve interacted with him before and he’s gone down in flames

    ** ignoring the effect at the end which PKD has so effectively disposed of

  4. Shawn Whelan says:

    A huge increase in man made CO2 and the temperature of the Earth is dropping. Even a leftoid should be able to figure it out.

  5. JM says:


    The temperature of the earth is not dropping – have a look at the graph itself, not the so-called “fitted” black line (which is manufactured, aka “lying with statistics” or in this case BS)

    The data points prior to 1997 distribute evenly above and below the zero line. Nearly every one after 1997 is above the line.

    That’s called “warming” I believe.

  6. PKD says:

    Yes, dont worry Shawn, all the previous warming you now think has disappeared was just God hugging us a little bit tighter! 🙂

    On a more serious note JM, interesting to see Iain isn’t keen to debate the bad science in his graph at all. I wonder why.

    To repeat the point, the trend line should be at around +0.3 Iain, not zero.

    The graph is bad science.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the Sandpit

I love a good argument so please leave a comment

Please support the Sandpit

Please support the Sandpit

Do you feel lucky?

Do you feel lucky?

%d bloggers like this: