So, it would seem to be sensible to factor in the variable nature of our sun in our long term weather analyses.
Since many people believe that global warming is at least in part cyclical in nature, we must also expect that global warming will procede somewhat erratically,
especially if it is influenced by mankind.
Since many people believe that global warming is at least in part cyclical in nature
It is not a belief CS, there have been many warm and cold spells following each other and each warming spell has been abrupt, rather than gradual.
it would seem to be sensible to factor in the variable nature of our sun in our long term weather analyses.
The CRU says the affects are negligable.
There is much to this that you on your side of the pond may be unaware of.
This matter was first brought to prominence under Mrs Thatcher, despite being a qualified chemist she was renowned for her distrust of science. She was introduced to the matter by a Brit and she set up the Climate Research Unit (CRU)with this chap at its head. She famously stated on one occasion that no paid committee ever voted itself out of business. The CRU was founded to investigate
possible GW, being paid, they found it!
The CRU is/was one of the main 'feeds' to the IPCC, over here there have been numerous complaints about the CRU.
It came to a head, as you may know, with the 'Climategate' E-Mails, the most famous of which was one by Prof Jones, the CRU head, that, 'Climate warming ended 15 yrs ago, and it is a tragedy that we can not explain it!'
He has subsequently admitted to it but claims that the phrase was 'out of context'. Fair enough, unfortunately, in the intervening period he has never explained what this context was!
Subsequently a governmental enquiry, by scientists, was ordered to look into the affair. They were horrified!
They found Jones' office littered with unread files, missing paperwork, no sort of order or control.
Prof Jones claimed that he was simply untidy.
The main complaint by the scientific community was the refusal by the CRU to publish the raw data behind their claims, 'too complex for the public to understand,' was their excuse.
One of their research stations had been built in the midland countryside many years ago, it now stood in the middle of a commercial airport! Other 'anomalies' began to appear. One for example was in the Antartic where they were short of weather stations, so they guessed what it would be if GW was a fact!
Eventually the data was handed the Royal Geological Society, IIRC correctly, for analysis. Late last year the CRU, without their usual fanfare released their data.
The graph I posted is by the RGS. The CRU are saying nothing!
The acid test of any theory is that it must explain known facts, better still it will suggest solutions to other problems etc.
An example is the orbital mechanics that were worked out by Newton et al. Using these Edmund Halley predicted the return of the comet that now bears his name. Einstein's general theory predicted that a stellar gravity well would bend light.
Not one climate prediction based on atmospheric CO2 has been fulfilled.
Roy.