Solar Cycle Length and Global Temperatures

In 'The Great Climate Change Swindle' the following graph was presented (the blue line is temperature, the red line is the solar cycle length - just watch those colours, but all graphs show a temperature peak at about 1900):
http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w207/Smithy2007_phot...eVersusSolarActi.jpg

Why does the red line (solar cycle length) stop in about 1975/1980? Obviously someone doesn't want to reveal a problem... It took me a while (because this is such an old theory) but I eventually uncovered the reason. That piece of science was updated in about 3 May, 2000! It has now been shown that there is no correlation past about 1975/1980! In other words the solar cycle length can no longer explain the warming that is being observed since about 1975/1980. The new prediction veers off wildly (after about 1975/1980) from the original prediction (which did follow the temperature up).

As described by 'Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut', the image presented on TV is compatible with the old version (up to about 1975/1980). Scientists then discovered that more recent data was actually more evidence against the sun being the cause of recent warming: http://web.dmi.dk/fsweb/solarterrestrial/s...e/welcome.shtml
As understood before 2000 (the black line is now temperature, the red line is the solar cycle length - note this is old science (pre-3 May 2000)): [http://web.dmi.dk/fsweb/solarterrestrial/sunclimate/soltmp_s.jpg]
Comparison of the New version (both lines now represent the temperature, the red line is the actual temperature (with a peak in about 1900), the blue is the temperature now predicted by the solar cycle length data (no longer matches!) ): [http://web.dmi.dk/fsweb/soljord/solklima/TKL99fig1.jpg]

quote:

While the curves do not match perfectly at any time, they start to diverge noticeably by the 1980's. We interpret this widening gap as evidence for an additional influence on the temperature - over and above what the Sun is causing. We think this is likely to be due to the anthropogenic greenhouse effect. We base this interpretation on such modelling work as that by Mitchell, et al. (Nature, 1995, vol. 376, p. 501) in which the combined effects of greenhouse gasses and aerosols have the property seen above - an accelerating temperature increase from about the 1970's.

This handy site put me on the trail: 'The Role of the Sun in 20th Century Climate Change' is discussed here: http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/solar/solar.htm

And a mention in ordinary news from 3 May, 2000 (no wonder the presented graph is so hard to explain, it's totally historic!): http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/734983.stm

quote:

They found that, while the solar cycle still accounts for about half the temperature rise since 1900, it fails to explain a rise of 0.4 degrees Celsius since 1980.

The sun does have an effect, however since about 1975/1980 it's effect isn't enough to explain the warming. That's why they didn't show both lines past 1975/1980 ... sneaky ... but you all spotted that right?

The early divergence (before 1975/1980) is seen to be minor natural variation by most scientists. The major deviation after about 1975/1980 is apparently seen as 'secret' by the presenters, and to main-stream science it shows how the sun cannot be the cause of the later warming.

So another piece of dodgy 'evidence' bites the dust ...

The link should be http://web.dmi.dk/fsweb/solarterrestrial/sunclimate/soltmp_s.jpg

Please forgive me:
http://web.dmi.dk/fsweb/solarterrestrial/sunclimate/welcome.shtml

Thanks WordSmithy, that seems to explain things a lot. I'm debating whether to see the Swindle again tonight on More4, just to see if I can spot the misleads that I was so taken in by last time!

That is unless Carl Wunsch manages to get it taken off air before then (www.realclimate.org).

quote:

Originally posted by Lucibee:
Thanks WordSmithy, that seems to explain things a lot. I'm debating whether to see the Swindle again tonight on More4, just to see if I can spot the misleads that I was so taken in by last time!

That is unless Carl Wunsch manages to get it taken off air before then (www.realclimate.org).

A more permanent link is http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/s...arl-wunsch-responds/

quote:

In the part of the "Swindle" film where I am describing the fact that the ocean tends to expel carbon dioxide where it is warm, and to absorb it where it is cold, my intent was to explain that warming the ocean could be dangerous---because it is such a gigantic reservoir of carbon. By its placement in the film, it appears that I am saying that since carbon dioxide exists in the ocean in such large quantities, human influence must not be very important --- diametrically opposite to the point I was making --- which is that global warming is both real and threatening in many different ways, some unexpected.

quote:

that suggested they were making a film that was one-sided, anti-educational, and misleading. I took them at face value---clearly a great error. I knew I had no control over the actual content, but it never occurred to me that I was dealing with people who already had a reputation for distortion and exaggeration.

There is even a letter he wrote to them once he knew what the film was really about...

WordSmithy, did you see the comment posted on www.realclimate.org, suggesting that someone needed to make a more balanced film, and that Michael Moore would probably do a good job. I nearly laughed so hard that I cried!!

I think they were right though - Carl Wunsch clearly thought that the film was going to debunk the extremes of the climate change debate (pro AND anti) - and that maybe such a documentary still needs to be made...

quote:

Originally posted by Lucibee:
Carl Wunsch clearly thought that the film was going to debunk the extremes of the climate change debate (pro AND anti) - and that maybe such a documentary still needs to be made...

I'll second that.

Thanks for that stuff WordSmithy,

Simply not mentioning the period after 1970 is a very common trick as well.