Sun Spot Cycle Prompts Fears of Global Cooling

Posted on 13th February 2008 by Ryan Somma in Enlightenment Warrior - Tags: , ,

Yet again my religious faith in Anthropogenic Global Warming has been shaken to its core by the power of Conservative Science. Witness the headline appearing on the Drudge Report last week:

Sun’s ‘disturbingly quiet’ cycle prompts fear of global COOLING…

The article in question points out that there is nothing to show CO2 variations have any effect on climate:

R. Timothy Patterson, professor of geology and director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Center of Canada’s Carleton University, says that “CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet’s climate on long, medium and even short time scales.”

I simply cannot dispute this statement. In fact, the following graph based on the New Antarctic Ice Core Data starkly illustrates this complete and utter lack of correlation:

400,000 year CO2-Temperature Correlation

400,000 year CO2-Temperature Correlation

As anyone can plainly see, the line representing the Atmosphere’s CO2 is bright red, while the line representing the Earth’s Temperature is a vivid blue. The difference is plain as black and white… or red and blue, obvious to anyone. Well… obvious to anyone who isn’t colorblind or otherwise blind, like maybe ideologically blind like all those silly tree-hugging hippies who can’t even read a graph they’re so busy hugging trees and stuff. I bet they even wanna marry a tree, they love them so much (That’s why they support gay marriage, it’s a gateway to vegisexuality).

All of this irrational focus on demonizing CO2 has blinded the world to the real threat, sun spots:

Solar activity fluctuates in an 11-year cycle. But so far in this cycle, the sun has been disturbingly quiet. The lack of increased activity could signal the beginning of what is known as a Maunder Minimum, an event which occurs every couple of centuries and can last as long as a century.

Such an event occurred in the 17th century. The observation of sunspots showed extraordinarily low levels of magnetism on the sun, with little or no 11-year cycle.

This solar hibernation corresponded with a period of bitter cold that began around 1650 and lasted, with intermittent spikes of warming, until 1715. Frigid winters and cold summers during that period led to massive crop failures, famine and death in Northern Europe.

Unlike the imaginary correlation between CO2 levels and the global mean temperature, there is a real-life actual honest-Abe indisputable correlation between sun-spot proclivities and temperature:

Temperature, CO2, and Sunspots

Temperature, CO2, and Sunspots

Sure the sunspot line is gold and temperature red, but notice how cool those two lines look. The sunspot and temperature lines have squiggly lines over them that make them dynamic, exciting, attention-grabbing. These are two lines that have a lot in common with each other, and bear no resemblance to that drab blue CO2 line. Hmph. Nobody but silly, uneducated liberals could find meaning in a boringly gradated line like that.

And if that doesn’t convince you then check out these peer-reviewed journal articles (or just their summaries) on sunspots and temperature correlations here, here, and here. Makes all those tree-sex-having people seem pretty silly huh? I mean, even sillier than the vegetable sex makes them seem.

PS – Exxon, can I get my check now?


  1. You don’t seem to want to understand what the natural theorists are saying about the climate, but I am going to try to explain to you what is happening whether you want to hear it or not. Its telling that you use a chart over the last 120 years to illustrate the sun spot relationship, but choose a chart spanning 100s of thousands of years to illustrate the CO2 relationship. Never mind that its a well known and established fact that CO2 levels increase after a warming event, and since the future cannot effect the past its logical to assume that the natural warming and cooling cycles of the Earth can increase and decrease the concentration of CO2, but it is unclear whether further concentration of CO2 has any effect on Warming.

    None the less, you should have gleemed enough information from the Drudge report to understand that natural theorists are saying that the Global Temperature is going down, and indeed Global Temperatures have dropped considerably by anyone’s measure. James Hansen’s GISS reports that Globally temperatures have fallen 0.75 degrees over the last year, which coincides with both the solar minimum and the La Nina event in the Pacific.

    Between 1998 and 2000, we had another La Nina event, and temperatures around the World fell, but that La Nina lasted longer than the present event and occured at the solar maximum; however temperatures did not fall as much during that event as they have at present, despite the increase in CO2.

    Historically, temperature lags behind a La Nina event by about 2 months, so the anomilies recorded through the Spring might be even cooler. Right now it might be easy to write off the current cooling trend as part of the La Nina, but the present La Nina is part of a larger long term climatic event known as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). In 1978 the PDO entered into a warm phase, where LA Nina events became more common and more intense, now the PDO has shifted into a cold phase where La Nina’s will become more common. All of the warming observed since 1978 can be attributed to this cycle in the PDO.

    Given the historic relationship between the solar cycles, the PDO and the known relationship between Global Temperatures and the El Nino Southern Oscillation, I can predict with a high degree of certainty that Globally Temperatures will decrease over a period of the next couple of years, and will not rebound to what we have seen over the last decade.

    No longer is this something that you have to accept on faith, because it is happening right now, and through your own objective observations you can witness the evolution of this cooling trend. No longer is there a need to make snarky sarcastic blog entries about how foolish conservatives are, or wrap yourself in a cloak of Science. Science is all about making a hypothesis, then testing it through observations.

    Global Warming stopped back in 1998, currently we are cooler than the long term average. Natural Climate change theories say that the Earth is going to get cooler, CO2 theorists say that the Earth is going to get warmer. One side is going to be proven correct very soon, and right now with the World cooling rapidly, I think that the evidence is on the side of the Natural Theorists, not the Al Gore Sheeple.

    If you are interested please follow this link and upgrade your copy of Google Earth so that you can monitor the Climate in realtime.

    Comment by Johnnyb — February 14, 2008 @ 11:31 am

  2. The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) doesn’t grok with your assertions. The decade of 1998-2007 is the warmest on record, Top 11 Warmest Years On Record Have All Been In Last 13 Years. 2007 has now tied for Earth’s second warmest.

    I’m not sure how Drudge has convinced you that the hottest decade on record being the most recent is evidence that warming stopped in 1998… or where you’re getting any of your assertions since you don’t reference any of them. I’m sorry, but I don’t take people on their word when it comes to science, I need to see graphs and references to published peer-reviewed journal articles to convince me.

    That’s science.

    Comment by ideonexus — February 14, 2008 @ 10:55 pm

  3. Ryan,

    the 1998 issue arises because 1998 was very warm and since then the years have been cooler. Note I am saying that they are cooler, not that there is cooling. Basically this is an angle being pushed by people who either don’t understand how trends work (including outliers like 1998) or do understand it but lie. For whatever reason.

    I have been looking at the sunspot angle for a looong time and it just carries no water. And this is from someone who could save his whole area of science in the UK if he turned around tomorrow with proof that it is all the sun. But it isn’t. The sun is the ultimate driver of climate, but it is not responsible for the bulk of climate change that is happening now.

    Too many people fixate on the first point. The thing is that the folks who claim that the AGW proponents are ignoring the sun demonstrate their ignorance. The sun is factored into everything, the thing is that it cannot explain what is happening on its own.

    When folk go on about past warmings (‘where were all the coal and oil burning plants back when the Earth was warmer?’) they are not showing how clever they are, they are demonstrating their wilful ignorance in a most public fashion – I often feel embarrassed for them.

    In the past the sun has been responsible for significant warmings, but that was in the past (and will happen again in the future). Acknowledging that one thing can have a major effect at one time does not refute the mountain of evidence that a different thing is having an effect now! but people seem to be completely blind to this. It is very sad.

    To be clear, the sun IS having an effect now and this will appear in the variations of the trend. BUT the sun is not having the BIGGEST effect now. That is being caused by an over-revved greenhouse effect, caused by us. Now if the sun does enter an unusually quiet period (and I don’t think we are entering a Maunder minimum-type period, this is just solar minimum) then that is good, it gives us a tiny (miniscule) amount of breathing space to deal with the problem as the combined CO2 and solar effect will reduce. The problem is with the ever increasing CO2 effect – which is dominant!

    Rant over

    Comment by Kav — February 15, 2008 @ 6:41 am

  4. Thank you Kav! I really appreciate you posting your expert opinion to this thread. What you’ve said about the Maunder Minimum matches what I’ve read.

    You guys may not be able to get funding for Global Warming research, but you can certainly hype the damage this solar cycle does to our world’s satellites and communications systems! Work that angle! (Seriously though, I’m really sorry about what you scientists in the UK are dealing with right now with your funding crisis. I’ve been following it on your blog and it’s unacceptable.)

    Comment by ideonexus — February 16, 2008 @ 12:47 pm

  5. There is all this talk about the rise in carbon dioxide level causing global warming. To conclude this, one must ignore that the planet plunged in to the Andean-Saharan ice age 440 million years ago when the atmospheric carbon dioxide level was over ten times what it is now.

    Comment by Dan Pangburn — February 16, 2008 @ 7:10 pm

  6. Thanks Ryan. It’s an uphill fight. Have you seen the latest stuff on space technology and MoonLITE. Looks as if the government is trying to form a technology base at the expense of our science base. Crazy. Funny thing, look and see who is both the head of STFC and the chair of the ruling council of BNSC who have published the joint NASA report…

    Dan, sorry but that is poppycock. Have you perhaps considered all the other variables that may be different between then and now? The climate scientists do. Too many folk assume that all they think about in their measurements and modelling is CO2 whereas in fact they consider all the forcings that we understand – greenhouse gases, solar forcing, orbital forcing, etc.

    I am not personally familiar with the event you mention but I bet that if you spoke to a climate scientist about said event they could break down the differences between then and now to you.

    Comment by Kav — February 16, 2008 @ 7:32 pm

  7. Ryan,

    You know what always annoys me in cases like this. Just for one moment let us assume that the climate is cooling, and has been since 1998. Let us also assume that we are entering a Maunder minimum-type period. All those making those claims now will claim vindication and it will be a triumph for sloppy analysis and ignorance. Because even if they turn out to be correct, basing that conclusion on 10 years of data (i.e. from 1998) in estimating a long-term trend is completely wrong. But we can never get them to see that because so many just don’t get the maths involved and have no interest in learning.

    Comment by Kav — February 16, 2008 @ 7:37 pm

  8. Dan,

    There aren’t any links to credible sources to support your statements. I’ve been kind enough to show you where I’m getting my data. Show me where you are getting your information. I don’t argue with people who don’t provide links to credible sources.


    I feel your pain. : )

    Comment by ideonexus — February 20, 2008 @ 11:21 pm

  9. […] It’s Another Global Cooling Report! March 5, 2008 I’m sure this one, unlike the last one and the one before that is for really real this time. Really. This one even made Digg, Drudge, Faux […]

    Pingback by Hey Everybody! It’s Another Global Cooling Report! « ideonexus — March 5, 2008 @ 6:05 am

  10. […] due to changes in this cycle are miniscule, about 0.07% according to these guys. At least this guy has a sense of humour… and sums things up pretty […]

    Pingback by Global warming caused by sunspot cycles: what? at who cares about pluto… — April 23, 2008 @ 5:56 am

  11. I am an agnostic on the solar activity/global climate deal, but doesn’t it look, on your Antarctic Ice Core graph, like the warming temperatures precede the CO2 increases? Doesn’t this go against the Goreacle’s preachings?

    Comment by Mike Kelley — April 30, 2008 @ 12:07 am

  12. I didn’t see Al Gore’s name anywhere in the article I linked to. I’m not sure where you got that.

    There is a correlation between CO2 levels and global mean temperature. Scientists have theorized a causation through observing the greenhouse effect. The moment dittoheads publish a peer-reviewed paper explaining why it’s actually higher temperatures increasing CO2 levels, we’ll be happy to debate the merits of their hypothesis.

    Until then, sorry, you got bumpkis.

    Comment by ideonexus — May 1, 2008 @ 10:55 pm

  13. I am saying that increasing temperatures due to natural fluctuation might have increased the amount of atmospheric CO2 by decreasing the oceans’ ability to hold CO2 in solution, causing outgassing. Thus the rise of CO2 levels before the modern age might have been an effect of rather than a cause of the warming. I have read that some of the ice core work suggests that the CO2 rise followed temperature increases.

    Comment by Mike Kelley — May 3, 2008 @ 1:34 am

  14. When you come up with a mechanism to support your hypothesis and publish it in a peer-reviewed journal, I’ll entertain it. Until then, it’s just unproductive speculation.

    Comment by ideonexus — May 3, 2008 @ 1:04 pm

  15. [img][/img]

    did you bother to look at the distinct correlation between co2 and temps for the past 2 decades??? and the distinct miss-correlation to sunspots and temps.

    Comment by Paul — May 6, 2008 @ 10:40 am

  16. [img][/img]

    Comment by Paul — May 6, 2008 @ 10:41 am

  17. Dear ideonexus,
    I believe Princeton have done some work on the ability of water to hold CO2.
    Alternately you could take two(unshaken) cans of Coke and put one in a warm place and the other in the fridge. When they have assumed the temperature of their environments open them both and see whch one fizzes the most!!

    Comment by William — June 19, 2008 @ 10:42 am

  18. there is no such thing as conservative science so i stopped reading at that point….but skimmed to the bottom and saw the word vegisexual and tree hugging and gay in the same sentence and realized you need help figuring out where the sun goes at night

    Comment by tim briggs — September 2, 2008 @ 2:07 pm

  19. I don’t know how some people actually think that we have even a small impact on the earth with our “carbon footprint”. Our current carbon level is around 300 parts per million and we are being told by Al Gore that it is too high. Canadian farmers that use greenhouses pump-up the CO2 levels to around 1000 parts per million. You know what they find? They find that the plants grow greener, faster and tastier than using average CO2 levels. Plants seem to be healthier!

    I believe that the sun has a much greater affect on the earth than what we have with regards to the temperatures (rising and falling). In 1998, Canada experienced amazing Northern Light shows that were so bright that even city-dwellers as far south as Calgary commented on them. These same Northern Light displays caused havok with communications equipment and other electrical systems.

    Here in Canada we have experienced one of the coldest summers on record – and – according to the writings of the Farmer’s Almanac (2009) we are probably going to continue to experience a much colder summer for 2009 and possibly colder again for 2010. They are predicting that the next 50 years will continue to get progressively colder.

    How many people remember the “earth is freezing” statements of the 1970’s? “Entering another ICE AGE” comments in the news-papers? Then the 1990’s was the complete opposite. Do you actually think that in 20 years we (as humans) could have changed the earth’s temperature that much?

    Comment by NaeKid — September 11, 2008 @ 11:22 am

  20. […] go? Global Cooling? [1998-2005 data shows cooling trend] Global cooling: the new kid on the block Sun Spot Cycle Prompts Fears of Global Cooling Is There Global Cooling? National Post: Thirty years of warmer temperatures go […]

    Pingback by Must… fight… global… warming… (even if it doesn’t exist) « End of Men — October 30, 2008 @ 2:09 pm

  21. Its horrific!Isn’t it? Is there any global cooling happened in other part of the world?I am terrified on the global climate deal nowadays.

    Comment by Recirculating Chillers — November 18, 2008 @ 4:07 am

  22. I have heard that krill and plankton are flourishing in the coldest Pacific Ocean waters in 20 years, with a mean temperature of 52 degrees, correlating with the lowest level of solar activity in that same period of time. The interaction of the organic response to solar activity within a naturally defined band is unmistakable except to the most defiant minds. We have gone through similar cycles during my lifetime. The problem with the “CO2 global warming” theory is that it is highly likely that scientists are looking at an organic response to sunspots, not the actual cause and effect. With plankton and krill flourishing, there will no doubt be a decrease in available CO2 as the plants and micro-animals absorb billions of tons of the gas, and then as they die off during the next solar activity cycle, there will be huge amounts of methane and CO2 returned to the atmosphere. It seems that “knee jerk” reactions to some new discovery is the trend of the era. Too bad for Al Gore that the salmon runs will be flourishing before he could do anything significant. Maybe he will have “green eyes”!!!

    Comment by Jon Lucas — December 17, 2008 @ 2:00 pm

  23. With the disclaimer that I want CO2 to be the culprit for financial reasons I shall argue from the aspect of “I cannot deny what I see”. Global Warming is not the issue. I cannot deny it has happend. It is the cause that is important.
    If man is the cause then it will continue.
    If the sun is the cause then it will osillate with the suns activity.
    Coincidentally the sun appears to be unusually long in starting its next sunspot cycle. It may “dare I say it” have entered one of its quiet phases.
    These have occurred 25 times over the last 10 000 years.
    At an average of once every 400 years. Although not normally evenly cyclic events, the last was 400 years ago at the Maunder Minimum. It shut down its sunspots for 70 years. (for us spiritually minded persons it got angry at us and turned off) The period was noteable with it’s incessant rain.
    (What has the UK had this last summer, and now this winter?)
    Freezing temperatures and crop failures resulted. The Thames froze regularly.
    The arguements are stacking up that the sun caused the warming we have experienced over the last century.
    The momentum of that warming may be continuing. But IF no sunspots continues, then the chances are we may be able to prove that a very large body of scientific thinking will have to admit it was wrong. Perhaps increasing the amount of CO2 from 3 molecules per 10 000 to 4 molecules per 10 000 is as insignificant as it seems.
    The case is not that the Sun directly warms the Earth. The warming with sunspots has been noted as equivalent to a torch heat added to a bar heater.
    The case is that the solar wind, that causes the tail off comets, also ‘bats away’ Galactic Cosmic Rays. That without sunspots more of these GCR can enter the earths lower atmosphere (when the solar wind decreases) where they cause seeds to be created that gaseous water can acrete to, grow on, and cause droplets and thus clouds.
    Conversely an active sun causes fewer of these particles to arrive and so
    less cloud to form. As the result of less cloud, less solar heat reflection and more direct heating of the Earth. Clouds are the important issue not the cosmic particles or the suns heat or CO2.
    Perhaps the cooling effect (albedo) of water vapour, our most abundant
    greenhouse gas, when in cloud form at 17 -35 watts per square meter, off the tops of clouds, can out perform the warming effect of 1.7 watts per sq metre, claimed for the last century heating from CO2 in the atmosphere.
    I too was a believer in CO2 being the culprit. However it was the statement that historically CO2 increases “followed” heating of the Earth
    that raised my eyebrows. Subsequent research showed cooling and heating
    events match much more exactly changes in the amounts of isotopes of
    Oxygen and Berillium that are precipitated by changing amounts of Cosmic Rays. They are used to show sunspot history.
    Now all I see seems to fit so well into the Sun (Ra) being the Ruler of our Weather and the Earths climate.
    Sort of spiritual isn’t it? Maybe ancient man was right after all.
    Arguement #1: How does CO2 explain the record flooding world-wide over the last year?
    Arguement #2: Solar influenced Galactic Cosmic Ray theory explains these
    unusual events to perfection.
    CO2 arguements can be matched to events. But so can sunspot number changes. It is important we don’t ignore arguements that may contradict conventional thinking. The Carbon Industry is huge and cleaning up our environment a laudable goal. But lets not let Science be clouded by one belief alone.
    > Two quotes by Niels Bohr:
    “If I hadn’t believed it I wouldn’t have seen it.”
    “Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future.”
    Non-the-less my prediction: Unless the sun ‘wakes up’ and gets active
    again, that we are headed for a colder and noteably wetter autumn and winter(Here in NZ). Perhaps the same amount of weather fronts going through as usual
    but rain events should be heavy thats the point. We in Marlborough have
    had an unpresedented run of days over 30°C. One at 39.1°!
    So a wetter autumn is not the current thinking here now with such high
    temperatures pervading.
    It is like walking into a glasshouse when we go outside. (For me a water vapour glasshouse) But we have had rain off southerlies in the middle of summer! That is highly unusual here.

    So there if I am right the glaciers will start growing again and crops will fail in winter. Looks like they may already be set to do so in Europe with all that snow. Lets see what we get.

    Comment by Kiwi Viewer — February 2, 2009 @ 12:32 am

  24. Even the very very tiny chart you post showing correlation between CO2 and global temp shows that CO2 is a LAGGING INDICATOR. Go get a real chart, a detailed chart, not one of this fact-hiding UN charts, and you will see that AFTER the temp rises, the CO2 increases. NOT before. LAGGING indicators.

    Comment by Joe Sparks — February 16, 2009 @ 3:22 pm

  25. And the debate rages…….sorry Al.

    Comment by Wayne — March 1, 2009 @ 9:13 pm

  26. Interesting how “concensus” freaks are stuck on anthropagenic CO2 caused global warming. They all seem to be willing to use CO2 spikes and proof but fail to care that natural CO2 spikes 100000 years apart are the examples used to support the “Gore” model. I don’t think we had many cars and factories 130000 years ago when the CO2 spike exceeded today’s peak. How can anyone use cyclical natural CO2 spikes of the past as an example but not accept the possibility that today’s spike (which follows past cyclical patterns) is likewise natural. Oh I remember, James Hansen has a model that says so. I also remember back in the 70’s when his model was the basis for the Global Cooling craze.

    Comment by badki79 — April 10, 2009 @ 1:50 pm

  27. Badki79 — I’m only going to address one point. There was no global cooling “Craze”: Read for yourself:

    Comment by ClintJCL — April 10, 2009 @ 4:31 pm

  28. check out this recent post from WUWT:

    We could be in for a long cold multi-year period. Time to move from winnipeg.

    Comment by capt bob — April 15, 2009 @ 4:21 pm

  29. Yes CO2 is not correlated if you are talking about what causes what ….

    CO2 LAGS temperature by 800 years. But then an idiot like you would not understand.

    BTW: Saw your picture. You are a hipster duFace who is only cool in his own mind. The rest of us laugh at you behind your back.

    I thought about doing software when I was deciding what to do but then decided to become and electrical engineer and do something that was really difficult and leave software for people who could not do anything else.

    Comment by FreemonSandlewould — May 5, 2009 @ 8:26 am

  30. @FreemonSandlewould: I studied electrical engineering. However, using that fact to be an ass to random people on the Internet would be pretty damn pathetic of me, right?

    Comment by gaugeyagee — May 5, 2009 @ 9:39 am

  31. Thanks gaugeyagee; although, I must admit, I find the frothing, incoherent crankery of dittoheads ranting against my posts the most wonderful form of flattery. : )

    Comment by ideonexus — May 6, 2009 @ 8:07 pm

  32. Global Warming.

    Global Cooling.

    After reading all of the above debating on the two subjects, how about a little global shutting the fuck up?

    Comment by PesimisticFaggot — June 3, 2009 @ 8:47 pm

  33. Okay.. that last comment did make me laugh a lot.

    Comment by ClintJCL — June 4, 2009 @ 12:39 pm

  34. Me too. : )

    Comment by ideonexus — June 4, 2009 @ 8:39 pm

  35. Global Warming legislation just came out of committee. World oil production is now in permanent decline. What oil is left will provide us the only bridge we will have to what comes next. I am asking myself, “Why is the Democratic Party making this a TOLL BRIDGE with the passage of this new tax legislation?”

    The move to change legislative language from “Global Warming” to “Climate Change” confirms Congress’s acknowledgement that the planet is now cooling and that the decline in solar activity is responsible for the “Global Cooling” we are now feeling.

    Dubious? Google “IPCC Global Warming Potential (GWP)” to find the real story on CO2 as an atmospheric trace gas contributing to warming. Oh, by the way, what Prof. Mann’s infamous hockey stick diagram Bristlecone proxy data shows conclusively is that nothing has done more to “GREEN” the planet over the past few decades than moderate sun-driven warming together with elevated levels of CO2, regardless of the source. Increase atmospheric CO2, increase crop and forest production. That’s the bottom line. It’s no accident that commercial greenhouse operators invest heavily in CO2 generators to boost the productivity of their fixed growing facilities.

    Let’s review the arguments.

    Argument: Warming is bad.
    Fact: History shows warming is good. Rome rose to power during the Roman Warm Period. The Medieval Warm Period enabled the Renaissance. The Modern Warm Period gave rise to the US super power.

    Argument: CO2 causes warming.
    Fact: IPCC technical reports give CO2 a GWP of unity (1); lower than most trace gases by several orders of magnitude, particularly water vapor.

    Argument: People release CO2; therefore people are responsible for Global Warming.
    Fact: A review of the carbon cycle shows very clearly humans are responsible for only 3 percent of the CO2 entering our biosphere. How high would fuel Cap&Trade Taxes have to go for you to reduce your carbon fuels usage by 1/3? 2/3? Think about it. The result is in the noise, that is 1 or 2 percent reduction in CO2 production IF everyone on the planet complies.

    Simple Fact: World oil production has been on a plateau for 4 years. That production has now rolled off into permanent decline. Why put a crushing tax on it now? …and why avoid the subject leading up to the vote on this toxic legislation?

    Comment by John A. Jauregui — June 9, 2009 @ 12:18 am

  36. THE GREAT MINDS who gave ALGORE a prize and money on GLOBAL warming… EVEN OUR HOME TOWN NEWS weather man stated I DONT know why NONE of the BIG news media is not reporting this GLOBAL COOLING becasue there is sun spots, all the while the BIG MEDIA NEWS like CNN and others are telling people its global warming…


    Comment by ALGOREwasWRONG — June 15, 2009 @ 7:17 pm

  37. Gentlemen,

    I was trained as a statistician (MS Virginia Tech) and practiced the profession with two companies for over 30 years.

    I can only eyeball the data and don’t claim to be a statistician of the caliber of Deming or Youden, but I tend to see correlations with both Co2 and sunspots. As everyone should know, correlation does not mean cause and effect. Only scientific theory can explain that.

    I personally believe that the earth’s average temperature has risen over the last decade, but I am not as certain as some politicians that man has caused it.

    Has any reputable statistician actual analyzed the data for correlation coefficients and tested for their significance. If I had the actual data( in numerical form), I would like to see.

    Comment by Harper Shull — July 19, 2009 @ 9:24 pm

  38. Here we are in October 2009, the sun remains particularly void of sunspots and the weather distinctly cooler across the entire planet. Science has been wrong before, politicians wrong more often. I think I’ll go with Farmers Almanac – we could be in for a long cold period.

    Comment by Mike — October 7, 2009 @ 5:14 pm

  39. Estaba buscando informacion relacionada sobre habitaci??abitacional y halle esta pagina.

    Esta bastante buena.

    Comment by ustedes — September 24, 2012 @ 10:03 am

  40. Hello! I’m at work surfing around your blog from my new iphone! Just wanted to say I love reading through your blog and look forward to all your posts! Keep up the great work!

    Comment by lols — December 12, 2012 @ 2:36 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.