Interesting New Predictions for Global Cooling at WUWT.

I've ranted on this blog and elsewhere for years that the current CO2-driven global climate models were wrong. I've always maintained that we are at the mercy of our closest star, that ball of burning gas at the heart of our solar system, the Sun.

I'll tell you for why; its because I know the awesome power of the Sun. I'm a lapsed Ham Radio operator and one of the crucial things in obtaining reliable global contacts using short wave radio (in the days before satellites) was to be up to date with Solar Activity and where on the solar cycle we were. The sun you see is so powerful, even 93 million miles away, that it energises our upper atmosphere in such a way that you can bounce radio waves off it, just as you can bounce radio waves off a solid satellite dish. Imagine: a layer of gas and particles so energetic they have a similar property to a sheet of metal... that's pretty energetic! Mind you, that's just the invisible effects. All you really have to do is sit out in the sun on a sunny day, or get into a car left out in the sun to understand there's a fair bit of energy being pumped into that small space from its origin, so many million miles away.

So its a no-brainer for this Johnny average to assume that there is so much energy hitting the Earth from the Sun, that changes in the Sun's energy output would far and away swamp any man-made effects, such as the increase in CO2.

This report by David Archibald at Watts Up With That on the Norwegian paper is an interesting one, especially for it's predictive and apparently quantative nature. If global temperatures do change as predicted by 0.21C per year of solar cycle, it would (a) be immediately provable and (b) historically provable by previous solar observations. It will be interesting to see how this theory fares in it's predictions.

The sceptic in me says that temperatures are hardly likely to fall in such a steep way, due to the heatpump effects of the oceans, but along with this report by Dr Nicola Scaffetta, the Solar-activity-based models seem to be making a better job of reporting global temperatures than the CO2-driven models.

As an aside, and sort of linked to this thread, are the ongoing studies to see if particles from the Sun have an effect on cloud formation. CERN's cloud experiment is one such example. Water vapour is the most prolific "greenhouse gas" we have and even moderate effects on its production will overwhelm the CO2 models.

Only time will tell of course, but all the while we are pumping billions into what may be one of the largest global white elephants in history.

Here's a parting though: Instead of pumping billions into the reduction of CO2 at source, why can't we pump billions into the reduction in the need for energy at the point of use? If for instance we put those billions to use insulating existing and future houses to Arctic standards, we would reduce the need for energy which satisfies the CO2 proponents and also guard against the global cooling predicted by the solar observers. Hedging your bets and picking options that cover both scenarios would be the sensible and logical option, but naaa, governments don't do sense.