Cold sun - AgoraVox the citizen media

Listen

The global average temperature (GMT) has not increased for about 15 years. By reading the 2014 IPCC report, the one intended for decision-makers, I realized that the processing of data to obtain a curve of "ten-year averages" results in a manipulation of the data.

A real debate is needed and this article seeks to reconcile the positions of the different chapels.

The title of this text comes from that of a book published in Germany under the title: “Die kalte Sonne” whose first authors are: Fritz Vahrenholt and Sebastian Lüning. It is the documentation linked to this publication that led me on the track of the “theme” that I am developing. For fifteen years the temperature has not increased (but CO2 is still increasing) and I will take up the arguments of the IPCC and the courageous scientists who have dared to contradict. I will therefore quote Henrik Svensmark, Nicola Scafetta, Nir Shaviv and Jan Veizer.

Before losing all my readers, I specify that this argument does not deny that there has been a rise in temperature, does not deny the increase in CO2 but questions the link that IPCC and IPCC think they have established between CO2 called "anthropogenic" (linked to human activity) and temperature.

Let's start at the beginning and return to what formed the basis from which many prominent figures were convinced that the role of CO2 was established as to its role in increasing the temperature: the carrots of Vostok. There is little snowfall in Vostok and a deep coring made it possible to trace ice (snow) which was dated thanks to gas bubbles trapped in the ice (a titanic job – not to mention those who went to do the cores in Vostok). And here's the result :

Figure 1.

I comment: over a period of time of 400,000 years we see that the curves in red (CO2 - scale on the right) and in blue (temperature - scale on the left) have a parallel evolution (or almost). From there, it seems bent: it is very tempting to conclude that CO2 is responsible (by greenhouse effect) for the rises and falls in temperature.

Only here, there were scientists to analyze finely, with a work on the statistical validity of high level, and here is the result of the precise superposition of the two curves:

Figure 2.

I recognize that it is more a matter for specialists to decide but, in fact, they have decided and there is no longer any real discussion on this point: the red curve (the CO2) follows the blue curve and the offset (calculated ) is 800 years old. In other words, it is the temperature of the oceans that determines the CO2 in the atmosphere; there is a great thermal inertia and this leads to an 800-year lag between a rise in temperature (respectively a fall) and a rise in atmospheric CO2.

Now let's continue with the results; those concerning the temperature:

Figure 3. Temperature variations measured each year on June ¹ (Germany)

We see (small graph) the continuous increase of CO2 over the same period. There are strong fluctuations but the temperature, overall for a good fifteen years, has not varied. What is going on ?

Figure 4.

Comment on the top curve: we start, in the 1980s, from a situation where temperatures have not increased overall given the fluctuations and uncertainties and a period of increase follows which goes from the mid-1980s (approximately) at the end of the 1990s. For 15 years there has been no increase in temperature; we went from a kind of level to another level.

The analysis by decade made by the IPCC (“ten-year average”) is a possible treatment, but I dispute the last point (2000 – 2010) of this staircase curve. The last point plotted contradicts what the above point-to-point curve shows for the same data. The IPCC seeks to minimize the fact (it is a FACT) that the temperature has been decoupled for fifteen years from the increase in CO2, in total contradiction with the prior predictions (of the IPCC and IPCC).

Before returning to these data, we must present the main alternative for the explanation of temperature variations. This explanation involves cosmic radiation and its fluctuation due to solar activity (magnetism): solar magnetism blocks cosmic rays, so if the sun is in a phase of intense activity, cosmic radiation on the earth will be weak. This cosmic radiation is related to the cloud cover responsible for the temperature variation. I will not go into more detail: the clouds are therefore the regulators, instead of CO2, whose (non-zero) role is considered to be weaker, at least as far as "pre-industrial" data is concerned.

Figure 5: The correlation between cloud cover and cosmic radiation.

This is a real discovery and a recent progress concerning a major actor of the climate (the cloud cover).

In the conclusion of its October 2010 report on climate change, the French Academy of Sciences states that:

"Significant uncertainties remain on the modeling of clouds, the evolution of sea ice and polar caps, the ocean-atmosphere coupling, the evolution of the biosphere and the dynamics of the carbon cycle".

We are very far from being certain about the place of CO2 in the greenhouse effect. This greenhouse effect is NOT disputed and the temperature variation due to the greenhouse effect would be around 30°C. It remains to know the respective roles of clouds (especially low altitude) and CO2, and here we are very far from having established certainties.

Figure 6: Solar cycles have a clear effect on temperature:

The correlation was excellent until the 1980s, but the scientific teams that followed this phenomenon recognized that there was now an unexplained decoupling. What intrigues me is that these "decouplings" are recent and one can think more of the role of aerosols (which could interfere with the formation of clouds) than of CO2, which has no reason to become significant in the 1980s. The fact remains that the oceans may be responsible for a "delay effect" concerning CO2 actually at high altitude, while these values ​​are poorly known.

In other words: the sun and, consequently, the cloud cover, were for a long time the only really important factors for the temperature and the CO2 levels followed the balances between the oceans and the upper atmosphere determined by the said temperature. The share of CO2 in the greenhouse effect is low given the CO2 levels.

No one seems able to properly model what is happening right now. It is delusional that an organization has the power to pass laws against CO2 emissions (rather than aerosols, for example) when temperatures have not risen for 15 years.