The previous 'old' and 'new' charts do not disprove the effect of solar activity on the earth's climate.
The 'new' chart does not include a plot of solar activity, just actual and predicted temperatures.
The red line in the 'old' chart is solar activity, the red line in the 'new' chart is a measure of actual temperature on a different model.
If you look at the original solar/temperature chart, you'll see plenty of divergence over the decades. But the two plots catch up sooner or later.
Even if you were to present a chart showing increased temperatures accompanied by lessening solar activity, which is absolutely not what the 'new' charts shows, you'd be wrong to assume that the hypothesis was flawed, simply because the cause and effect is not instantaneous.
Similarly in this discussion, the 800 year lagging effect in the ice core 'records', between temperature rise/falls and Co2 rise/falls, has been curiously ignored.
When you've made your mind up, you've made your mind up.
Buddy wrote:
'Regarding global temperatures the program presented a totally incorrect image. It showed a rise from 1975 to what looks like 2006 of only 0.34C (measured off the snap below), whereas the graph included in the post above clearly shows about 0.6C rise which is getting on for double. Having stated the cooling period was 40 years, there are obviously only 35 years from 1940 to 1975... If they will fabricate like that what else is falsified?'
The program referred to four decades of cooling, not 40 years, which entirely corresponds with 35 years. They fabricated nothing there, you however have misunderstood the meaning of a decade or have yourself interpreted information for your own cause.
Anyone want to comment on how CO2 has such a dramatic effect when it is only constitutes 0.03% of the Earth's atmosphere?
And if mankind is responsible for less than 5% of CO2 produced annually, the rest thanks to Mother Nature, via volcanoes, oceans, animals and insects, rotting vegetation etc, just how pivotal can our contribution be?
|