View Article

view the latest news articles
Book: David Archibald: The world is cooling
Tuesday, November 30th 2010, 12:09 PM UTC
Co2sceptic (Site Admin)
Image AttachmentThe first thing to be aware of is that the warming effect of carbon dioxide is strongly logarithmic. Of the 3°C that carbon dioxide contributes to the greenhouse effect, the first 20 ppm has a greater effect than the following 300 ppm. By the time we get to the current level of 388 ppm, each 100 ppm increment will produce only about 0.1° of warming. With the atmospheric carbon dioxide content currently rising at about 2 ppm per annum, temperature will rise at 0.1° of warming every 50 years. ,

If that is true, you will ask, how does the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) get its icecap-melting figure of 6°C for doubling of the pre-industrial level 280 ppm to 560 ppm? It is widely accepted that, in the absence of feedbacks, doubling would produce a rise of 1°C. The IPCC climate modelling assumes that the feedback from this rise will be positive; that is, that the extra heat will result in more water vapour in the atmosphere, which in turn will cause more heat to be trapped, and the system compounds away until 1°C gets turned into 6°C. As described, the Earth’s climate would be tremendously unstable, prone to thermal runaway at the slightest disturbance.

The real world evidence says the opposite. In late 2007, Dr. Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama published a paper analysing data from the Aqua satellite. Based on the response of tropical clouds. Dr. Spencer demonstrated that the feedback is negative. He calculates a 0.5°C warming for a doubling of the pre-industrial carbon dioxide level. Global warming, as caused by carbon dioxide, is real but it is also minuscule, and will be lost in the noise of the climate system.

Article continues below this advert:

If carbon dioxide didn’t cause the warming of the 20th century, what did? Well, a good place to start is the Sun. In the 20th century, the Sun was more active than at any time in the previous 8,000 years. But what is happening now suggests that it will soon be much quieter – the start of Solar Cycle 24 has been very weak. Two Danish researchers, Friis-Christensen and Lassen, demonstrated in a 1991 paper that there is a correlation between the length of a solar cycle and the temperature during the following solar cycle. The longer a solar cycle, the cooler the following solar cycle, and vice-versa. In 1996, Butler and Johnson demonstrated the same relationship on climate data from the Armagh observatory in Northern Ireland. I have extended that to the 350 year Central England temperature record, the De Bilt data from Holland, and a number of temperature records from the northeastern US. In the latter, the relationship is that each 1-year increase in solar cycle length will cause a 0.7°C decline of atmospheric temperature during the following cycle.

Solar cycles are normally 11 years long. We are currently about eighteen months into Solar Cycle 24, which started in December 2008. Solar Cycle 23 was twelve and a half years long. The previous cycle, 22, was a short one at 9.6 years. The difference in length is three years. Applying the demonstrated relationships under Friis-Christensen and Lassen theory, this will result in a decline in average temperature at the latitude of the US-Canadian border of 2°C, and 1.4°C at Armagh.

The last time that something like this happened was a period called the Dalton Minimum from 1798 to 1822. This was caused by the very weak Solar Cycles 5 and 6. They were preceded by the very long Solar Cycle 4, which was 13.6 years long. There were quite a lot of crop failures due to cold weather during the Dalton Minimum. That is why there is so much interest in sunspot activity at the moment.

There is also a 210 year cycle in solar activity called the de Vries Cycle. In the last 2,000 years, the only period that missed a de Vries Cycle event was the Medieval Warm Period, so they are very reliable. The last de Vries cycle event was 210 years ago and it seems that the next one is right on schedule.

A little-discussed consequence of the coming doubling of the atmospheric carbon dioxide level is the effect on plant growth. Wheat yields have already risen 15% due to the 100 ppm rise from the pre-industrial level. Doubling will cause a 50% increase in yield, with similar effects for all other crops.

In summary, global warming is real but minuscule, there is a big solar-driven cooling underway, and increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is wonderful for plant growth. It therefore follows that burying or trying to limit such a wonderful substance is exactly wrong in science.

David Archibald is a Perth, Australia-based scientist operating in the fields of climate science, medical research and oil exploration. He has published several papers on the role of solar cycles in climate. His initial climate paper in 2006 popularised monitoring solar cycles as a climate prediction tool, and, from 2006 to 2009, he had a better track record at predicting solar activity than NASA.

The piece above is the prologue from David Archibald’s book The Past and Future of Climate : why the world is cooling and why carbon dioxide won’t make a detectable difference. The book is available from David Archibald’s website where you will also find links to a number of his papers.

Click source to read more

See also a second review at this site for the same bookThe Past and Future of Climate - Why scientists get it wrong by David Archibald: Updated with Four YouTube's
Source Link:
Articles by Climate Realists and Topics

» Recently used highlighted

Useful links
  • » News articles may contain quotes, these are copyright to the respective publication which will be stated, along with a link to the source article where available.
  • » If you feel your copyright has been violated please contact us and the article will be removed or amended at your request.
Site Details
  • » Launched 15 May 2009
  • » Website Design by Mr Zippy
Climate Depot Feed
  • » Feed Error