So to your man, Archibald .. wow! .. look what is said on your, David Archibald's, paper ..
The worst climate science paper ever of all time anywhere February 01, 2007 .. one chew ..
What I do intend to cover is the ‘original work’ part of the paper.
To determine a temperature baseline for predicting response to solar cycles 24 and 25 (we’re currently in 23), Archibald takes a startling approach. Instead of using world-wide temperature data, only data from the US mainland is used. Additionally, Archibald decided that only data from rural meteorological stations should be used to avoid the urban heat island effect. Fair enough, you may say. But the catch is, he chose just 5 stations out of the hundreds and hundreds available! Not only did he only choose 5, all 5 were within several hundred miles of each other in South Eastern USA!
The possibility of these stations being representative of anything other than the small local region they covered is non-existent.
There must be something special about the chosen five. And there sure is – they show lower temperatures in the latter half of the 20th century compared to the first half. This actually forms one of the major conclusions of the paper!
The conclusion is that for the current and recent temperature record for all of North America:
The profile indicates that temperatures remain below the average over the first half of the twentieth century.
What Archibald forgets to mention is that most met. stations across the US and indeed most of the world show that it is warmer in the latter half of the 20th century than the first. This trend is evident in non-heat island affected rural stations, as well as urban stations.
Archibald has clearly showed a regional phenomena and falsely claimed it is representative, when even the NASA GISStemp database he has used shows many, many stations where this isn’t the case. All are ignored and the reason why isn't given (though I think we can hazard a guess).
I find it simply unbelievable that Archibald would make such an obviously wrong claim that is based on insufficient non-representative data. But he does, and it’s there for all to see.
Another on sunspots and GLOBAL temperatures .. a nip of it ..
Other studies on solar influence on climate
This conclusion is confirmed by many studies finding that while the sun contributed to warming in the early 20th Century, it has had little contribution (most likely negative) in the last few decades:
* Erlykin 2009: "We deduce that the maximum recent increase in the mean surface temperature of the Earth which can be ascribed to solar activity is 14% of the observed global warming"
* Benestad 2009: "Our analysis shows that the most likely contribution from solar forcinga global warming is 7 ± 1% for the 20th century and is negligible for warming since 1980."
* Lockwood 2008: "It is shown that the contribution of solar variability to the temperature trend since 1987 is small and downward; the best estimate is -1.3% and the 2s confidence level sets the uncertainty range of -0.7 to -1.9%."
* Lockwood 2008: "The conclusions of our previous paper, that solar forcing has declined over the past 20 years while surface air temperatures have continued to rise, are shown to apply for the full range of potential time constants for the climate response to the variations in the solar forcings."
* Ammann 2007: "Although solar and volcanic effects appear to dominate most of the slow climate variations within the past thousand years, the impacts of greenhouse gases have dominated since the second half of the last century." http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm
hogsgeteate, more and links for those inside .. please read some .. wow! .. isn't this beautiful, from one more on sunspots
My mind on this has always been something like this .. the science consensus is there and the science is as good as we have, it is good science, many deniers are guilty of many fraudulent works ... blah blah blah .. for arguments sake, say all the top scientists are wrong .. then we have a cleaner planet ..
Great all round then for our children's, children's, children's children and for those who follow. Winners all round.
Anti Science Syndrome must be a heavy cross to bear.
Jonathan Swift said, "May you live all the days of your life!"
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
