Another Assumption underpinning AGW falls

Warmists hardest hit

The latest entrant to the AGW skeptics is NASA.

Goddard Space Flight Center has been studying actual observed values of Solar Radiance (assumed to be a constant by warmists), and now have data on two successive solar cycles.  As constants go, it has significant variability.


NASA admits all previous warming trends caused by sun

By Terrence Aym | Helium

Now, however, new study released from NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland measuring the global temperature variance during the past 100 years has found the sun’s heat and variable cycles have indeed made a significant, measurable impact and greatly influenced Earth’s climate.

In fact, the influence extends as far back as the Industrial Revolution.

Goddard’s research shows that the solar cycle’s ups and downs directly affect the temperatures and long term climate. During solar minimum they discovered about 1.36 watts per square meter of solar energy hits Earth’s mesosphere; solar maximum escalates to 1.40 watts per square meter.

It’s well-known that the sun passes through cycles of 11-year and 22-year intensities. Currently, the sun is on the upswing towards solar maximum when sunspot activity and solar flares will peak. The height of the maximum is expected during 2012-2013. Earth now cooling

After the current peak, NASA and other space agencies believe the sun will go unusually quiet for the next 30 years or more.


The correlation between documented warm periods, documented cold periods, and solar cycles has been well documented for years. Now we have the data proving that the solar radiation constant isn’t.

The narrative seems to be having issues with reality.


Hat Tip: Alan Lovejoy on Google+

Wizbang Weekend Caption Contest™
Healthcare Death Panels Are Inevitable
  • jim_m

    Honest scientists have been saying this for years already.

    The news here is that the warmists at NASA are finally admitting the truth.

    •  That’s more the rest of NASA distancing themselves from the warmists.

  • EricSteel

    You have it backwards, the solar cycles are caused by global warming.

  • ackwired

    Good news for the world as well as the businesses that would have to revise their operations to accomodate global warming.

  • 914

    Doh!  Apparently they got there deductive reasoning out of a cracker jack box..  No offense cracker jacks.

  • Ken in Camarillo

    1.36 to 1.40 is a 2.94% increase. If the atmosphere remains a constant in greenhouse effect, then the temp differential between earth and space would have to increase by the same proportion so heat loss to space would increase to equal the increased solar radiant heat input. The nominal temp differential is about 300K, so the earth’s temperature would increase by 8.8K (an increase of 8.8C). That isn’t happening, so there must be really significant negative feedback (or a huge heat reservoir like the oceans) in the system.

    • Ken in Camarillo

      I suspect my rough calculations are off, because I neglected heat loss due to radiation.

  • If climate change weren’t happening, I’d be typing this from under a mile-thick sheet of ice. I don’t think the Laurentide ice sheet melted away 30,000 years ago because of the presence of coal-burning power plants, SUVs, and plastic grocery bags. But, then again, what do I know? I’m not a Hopenchange-approved climate scientist.

  • The linked blog entry is from April of 2011… last year.  He quotes from.. but does not name the study and I searched around and couldn’t find what this guy is supposedly writing about.  I saw something with a similar title from 09.. but what gives here? 

  • Brian_R_Allen

    #teaparty #auspol @FoxNews:disqus  

    N.ever in the history of feral gummint waste has so much of

    A.merica’s confiscated wealth been

    S.quandered on the

    A.chievement of so little!

  • OMG, that big yellow ball in the sky has something to do with heating the earth?  Who knew?  Not NASA, or the brilliant Al Gore, but then, there’s no profit in admitting that.  

  • Gmacr1

    Here’s a very free hint:
    The Earth is ~75% covered in water.

    How much energy is required to heat/cool water versus the atmosphere?

    Ya, now tell me that in the last 100 years man has contributed enough of ANYTHING to affect the global heat engine… Take your best shot.

  • GarandFan

    Ain’t reality a bitch?

  • Hank_M


    Now what am I gonna do with all these here carbon credits I bought?

  • sarahconnor2

    Deniers! You’re all evil, mean, stinky DENIERS!!!
    And  your father smelt of elderberries. Believe in AGW or we will insult you again!

  • NikolaMilovic

    Transfer it to NASA,Thank God that someone began to think normally. Who else could affect everything in our solar system other than the Sun.But there’s one big problem in all this.NASA does not want to hear anything from others that offer proven and cooperation.NASA has not yet been discovered or known in the chain of causes that cause all these phenomena.So please do this, mandatory transfer to NASA.From my site to see what NASA may be useful for science and for NASAHere is my site: http :/ / deciphermentsunsphenomena.simdif.comThey  will see what is useful and that my evidence confirms their assertions, but I have a solid mathematical proof for anything in my site.

  • Pingback: Another Nail in AGW’s Coffin | Daily Pundit()

  • serenitynow418

    Not to throw water on this, but I don’t see a link to the study.  Also, the interview from Kukka is from 2007.  Nothing necessarily wrong with quoting it, but the piece makes it appear as if he’s commenting on the study (for which there is no link).

    • Guest

      I’d like to see the link too. where is it?

    • As mentioned above, you might want to query the author of the post I linked…