2011-01-26 06:58:00New study affirms natural climate change
John Hartz
John Hartz

For the past couple of days, I've been engaged in a marathon blogging session on the comment thread to Dlingpole's "Oh no, not another unbiased BBC documentary about 'Climate Change'…" posted on The Telegraph.


One of the Anti-AGW bloggers posted the following. We knew it was coming.

New study affirms natural climate change

CHURCHVILLE, VA—It’s nice when people validate your work. Fred Singer and I—co-authors of Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years—are currently basking in the glow of a new paper that affirms the earth’s long, moderate, natural climate cycle. The study is by Dr. U.R. Rao, former chair of India’s Space Research Organization. He says solar variations and cosmic rays account for 40 percent of the world’s recent global warming.

Dr. Rao says the data between 1960 and 2005 show lots fewer cosmic rays hitting the earth, due to a periodic expansion of the sun’s magnetic field. The bigger solar magnetic field blocked many of the cosmic rays that would otherwise have hit earth. Fewer cosmic rays hitting the earth meant fewer water droplets shattering in our atmosphere, and thus fewer of the low, wet clouds that deflect solar heat back into space. So the earth warmed.

Fred and I tried to tell the world in 2007 that the moderate 1500-year Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle was the cause of the warming since 1850, based on historic and paleoclimatic evidence. The cosmic ray linkage was put forth in 2008 by Henrik Svensmark of Denmark. The UN’s panel on climate change dismissed that whole approach, claiming the variations in the sun’s irradiance were far too small to account for the rapid warming from 1976–98.

The flaw in the UN reasoning is clear, however. The alarmists claim the global warming since 1976 has been too rapid to be caused by natural forces, and therefore must be man-made. However, the earth’s Industrial Revolution went global after 1945—releasing the first big flush of CO2 emissions. That burst of greenhouse gases should have sharply boosted the earth’s temperatures. Instead, the earth’s temperature declined from 1940–75.



2011-01-26 07:45:53
Julian Brimelow

Oh no, not CFP again...they just had to retract an artcile by Tim Ball amd apologize for the slanderous statements made against Dr. Andrew Weaver therein.

they are misrepresenting the findings of Kalnay-- Kalnay estimated that land use change accounted for about 17% (0.035 K/decade) of the warming the last 30 years or so.  I have no idea where they get 40% from...Oh now I see +0.35 K per century warming divided by +0.85 K per century warming between 1948 (start of NCEP reanalysis) and 2001.Kalnay's results were twisted and it forced them to pubkish this clarification:


"We do not deny the obvious importance of global warming and decrease in diurnal temperature range (DTR) due to greenhouse effects, which are present in both surface-station observations and the NCEP/NCAR 50-year reanalysis (NNR). Moreover, the NNR shows the largest warming trend over the past two decades, as reported in the surface-station data, suggesting that the NNR captures the dominant greenhouse-warming effect."

Just to confuse matters the 2002 paper was followed by this paper in Nature:


"Controversy has persisted1, 2 over the influence of urban warming on reported large-scale surface-air temperature trends. Urban heat islands occur mainly at night and are reduced in windy conditions3. Here we show that, globally, temperatures over land have risen as much on windy nights as on calm nights, indicating that the observed overall warming is not a consequence of urban development."


And the GCR paper is crap.


2011-01-26 12:23:06
James Wight

So... does this cosmic ray paper have anything whatsoever to do with Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles?