Sunday, February 14, 2010

Presentation: Sun is driver of Global Warming. AGW evidence is "spurious"

This slide presentation of the paper posted below finds that the first and second order partial derivatives of temperature and CO2 only show correlation over short time periods, whereas temperature and solar irradiation first and second order partial derivatives are well correlated over long periods, concluding that the sun is the driver of global warming and evidence of anthropogenic global warming is "spurious."


  1. This appears to be based on an article by Beemstock & Reingewertz mentioned today on WUPT . I made a comment as "Cementafriend"
    The analysis assumes that the NASA GISS temperature data is correct when in fact it has been shown that the recent temperatures are increased by the UDI of the reduced number of stations and there are other data manipulations as for the station at Darwin. Further it assumes that CO2 data is correct and this has been shown to be false see the peer reviewed papers at Also, the calculations take into account CH4. The paper by Dr T Quirk "20th Century sources of Methane in the Atmosphere" which will shortly appear in Energy & Environment shows that methane changes are only due to natural variability. The conclusion of latter that CH4 can be ignored does not consider the false assumption that CH4 is a more powerful supposed "greenhouse gas" when the spectra shows it is minor compare to CO2 and completely insignificant compared to H2O (g, l &s -the latter in clouds. This and the fact that the ocean is a sink for CH4 (not a net source) adds to Quirk's conclusion.
    It is felt that such analysis (as above or in the above article) is useless if it done on incorrect data. If the input data is wrong the analysis the output of any analysis will be wrong. In the case of the IPCC models if the analysis model is also wrong as well as the input data no output can be reliable.

  2. I agree with many of your points and am familiar with Beck's papers (and have posted here on Beck's work and others casting doubt on the CO2 record and temperature record). However, I think it is useful nonetheless in this imperfect data environment to question the AGW hypothesis from both angles - i.e. both using the flawed data assuming as they do that it is correct to show it does not justify their conclusions as well as reveal the flaws in the data, which also does not justify the AGW hypothesis.