PDA

View Full Version : Modern-day climate change is not caused by changes in the Sun's activity


jAZ
04-03-2008, 01:32 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7327393.stm

'No Sun link' to climate change
By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News website

Scientists have produced further compelling evidence showing that modern-day climate change is not caused by changes in the Sun's activity.

The research contradicts a favoured theory of climate "sceptics", that changes in cosmic rays coming to Earth determine cloudiness and temperature.

The idea is that variations in solar activity affect cosmic ray intensity.

But Lancaster University scientists found there has been no significant link between them in the last 20 years.

Presenting their findings in the Institute of Physics journal, Environmental Research Letters, the UK team explain that they used three different ways to search for a correlation, and found virtually none.

This is the latest piece of evidence which at the very least puts the cosmic ray theory, developed by Danish scientist Henrik Svensmark at the Danish National Space Center (DNSC), under very heavy pressure.

Dr Svensmark's idea formed a centrepiece of the controversial documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle.

Wrong path

"We started on this game because of Svensmark's work," said Terry Sloan from Lancaster University.

"If he is right, then we are going down the wrong path of taking all these expensive measures to cut carbon emissions; if he is right, we could carry on with carbon emissions as normal."

Cosmic rays are deflected away from Earth by our planet's magnetic field, and by the solar wind - streams of electrically charged particles coming from the Sun.

The Svensmark hypothesis is that when the solar wind is weak, more cosmic rays penetrate to Earth.

That creates more charged particles in the atmosphere, which in turn induces more clouds to form, cooling the climate.

The planet warms up when the Sun's output is strong.

Professor Sloan's team investigated the link by looking for periods in time and for places on the Earth which had documented weak or strong cosmic ray arrivals, and seeing if that affected the cloudiness observed in those locations or at those times.

"For example; sometimes the Sun 'burps' - it throws out a huge burst of charged particles," he explained to BBC News.

"So we looked to see whether cloud cover increased after one of these bursts of rays from the Sun; we saw nothing."

Over the course of one of the Sun's natural 11-year cycles, there was a weak correlation between cosmic ray intensity and cloud cover - but cosmic ray variability could at the very most explain only a quarter of the changes in cloudiness.

And for the following cycle, no correlation was found.

Limited effect

Dr Svensmark himself was unimpressed by the findings.

"Terry Sloan has simply failed to understand how cosmic rays work on clouds," he told BBC News.

"He predicts much bigger effects than we would do, as between the equator and the poles, and after solar eruptions; then, because he doesn't see those big effects, he says our story is wrong, when in fact we have plenty of evidence to support it."

But another researcher who has worked on the issue, Giles Harrison from Reading University, said the work was important "as it provides an upper limit on the cosmic ray-cloud effect in global satellite cloud data".





Dr Harrison's own research, looking at the UK only, has also suggested that cosmic rays make only a very weak contribution to cloud formation.

The Svensmark hypothesis has also been attacked in recent months by Mike Lockwood from the UK's Rutherford-Appleton Laboratory.

He showed that over the last 20 years, solar activity has been slowly declining, which should have led to a drop in global temperatures if the theory was correct.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in its vast assessment of climate science last year, concluded that since temperatures began rising rapidly in the 1970s, the contribution of humankind's greenhouse gas emissions has outweighed that of solar variability by a factor of about 13 to one.

According to Terry Sloan, the message coming from his research is simple.

"We tried to corroborate Svensmark's hypothesis, but we could not; as far as we can see, he has no reason to challenge the IPCC - the IPCC has got it right.

"So we had better carry on trying to cut carbon emissions."

Richard.Black-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk

Radar Chief
04-03-2008, 01:45 PM
Hmmm, weird.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

Bootlegged
04-03-2008, 01:48 PM
The earth is cooling, not warming.

StcChief
04-03-2008, 01:50 PM
I guess we missed the being doom and gloom Ice age predicted in the 1970s.

jAZ
04-03-2008, 02:14 PM
Hmmm, weird.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
Did you even read that article beyond the headline?

Radar Chief
04-03-2008, 02:15 PM
Did you even read that article beyond the headline?

Of course, did you?

jAZ
04-03-2008, 02:25 PM
Of course, did you?
Then why are you confused? Most of your article supports the one in the thread starter. Read page 2.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

"His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion," said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University.

"And they contradict the extensive evidence presented in the most recent IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report." [...]

Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, added that "the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations." [...]

"Wobbles in the orbit of Mars are the main cause of its climate change in the current era," Oxford's Wilson explained. [...]

"Mars has no [large] moon, which makes its wobbles much larger, and hence the swings in climate are greater too," Wilson said. [...]

Perhaps the biggest stumbling block in Abdussamatov's theory is his dismissal of the greenhouse effect, in which atmospheric gases such as carbon dioxide help keep heat trapped near the planet's surface.

He claims that carbon dioxide has only a small influence on Earth's climate and virtually no influence on Mars. [...]

But "without the greenhouse effect there would be very little, if any, life on Earth, since our planet would pretty much be a big ball of ice," said Evan, of the University of Wisconsin.

Bootlegged
04-03-2008, 02:28 PM
Then why are you confused? Most of your article supports the one in the thread starter. Read page 2.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

"His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion," said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University.

"And they contradict the extensive evidence presented in the most recent IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report." [...]

Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, added that "the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations." [...]

"Wobbles in the orbit of Mars are the main cause of its climate change in the current era," Oxford's Wilson explained. [...]

"Mars has no [large] moon, which makes its wobbles much larger, and hence the swings in climate are greater too," Wilson said. [...]

Perhaps the biggest stumbling block in Abdussamatov's theory is his dismissal of the greenhouse effect, in which atmospheric gases such as carbon dioxide help keep heat trapped near the planet's surface.

He claims that carbon dioxide has only a small influence on Earth's climate and virtually no influence on Mars. [...]

But "without the greenhouse effect there would be very little, if any, life on Earth, since our planet would pretty much be a big ball of ice," said Evan, of the University of Wisconsin.

Is this really how you spend your days?

Adept Havelock
04-03-2008, 02:34 PM
The earth is cooling, not warming.

:hmmm:

If that is true why aren't the Ice Caps increasing? Why would cooling lead to them melting/shrinking?

Radar Chief
04-03-2008, 02:35 PM
Then why are you confused?

Where did I post that I was “confused”? I didn’t, I just posted that it was weird.

tiptap
04-03-2008, 02:35 PM
I guess we missed the being doom and gloom Ice age predicted in the 1970s.

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2008-02-20-global-cooling_N.htm

There were 44 articles predicting warming (based mainly on rising CO 2), 20 articles that were neutral on climate and ONLY 7 articles predicting cooling in the 1970's for future temperatures. That would be 10% that suggested cooling as opposed to 60% predicting warming.

So if you want to continue to lie about the doom and gloom of the 70s ice age predictions, we will point out how wrong you are.

Radar Chief
04-03-2008, 02:37 PM
:hmmm:

If that is true why aren't the Ice Caps increasing? Why would cooling lead to them melting?

The same way "global warming" is supposed to lead to the next ice age?
What, you don’t watch movies? ;)

Bootlegged
04-03-2008, 02:37 PM
:hmmm:

If that is true why aren't the Ice Caps increasing? Why would cooling lead to them melting/shrinking?


Did you get that from a movie or book?

tiptap
04-03-2008, 02:41 PM
:hmmm:

If that is true why aren't the Ice Caps increasing? Why would cooling lead to them melting/shrinking?

The DENIERS claims about the falling temperatures is from the record high temperature average of 1993. Except that when one does a real linear regression from 1993 to now you actually see a statistically insignificant rise in temperatures. This argument has now moved to stating that CO 2 levels have risen over this period but the temperature rise hasn't kept pace. This is despite that CO 2 temperature effects always lag concentration increases. That is the meaning of the FORCE effect. It leads the temperature effect.

Bootlegged
04-03-2008, 02:42 PM
The DENIERS claims about the falling temperatures is from the record high temperature average of 1993. Except that when one does a real linear regression from 1993 to now you actually see a statistically insignificant rise in temperatures. This argument has now moved to stating that CO 2 levels have risen over this period but the temperature rise hasn't kept pace. This is despite that CO 2 temperature effects always lag concentration increases. That is the meaning of the FORCE effect. It leads the temperature effect.

Signed,
Al Gore's b!tch

tiptap
04-03-2008, 02:45 PM
Hmmm, weird.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

Neither Uranus or Jupiter or Mercury or the MOON are increasing in temperature. All would be seeing increases if the Sun was the answer. As it turns out the albedo effect on Mars is the most accepted reason for the increase in temperature there.

jAZ
04-03-2008, 02:52 PM
Where did I post that I was “confused”? I didn’t, I just posted that it was weird.
Well, now I'm confused. What's "weird" if not an expression of confusion. And further, what's weird about your article? Other than it supports my article in ways you didn't seem to notice?

Bootlegged
04-03-2008, 02:54 PM
Global Warming Update: Winter 2008 Coldest in Seven Years
By Noel Sheppard | March 13, 2008 - 18:12 ET

As Nobel Laureate Al Gore travels the world warning nations of imminent peril at the hands of global warming, a really inconvenient truth has transpired.

The winter of 2008 was the coldest in seven years.

Hey Al, I gotcha global warming right heeeere!</Brooklyn accent>

As deliciously reported by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration moments ago (emphasis added, h/t NBer tropicalreport):

Story Continues Below Ad ↓
In the contiguous United States, the average winter temperature was 33.2°F (0.6°C), which was 0.2°F (0.1°C) above the 20th century average – yet still ranks as the coolest since 2001. It was the 54th coolest winter since national records began in 1895.

Mountains and mountains of snow fell throughout most of the country easing drought conditions in many areas:

Winter precipitation was much above average from the Midwest to parts of the West, notably Kansas, Colorado and Utah. Although moderate-to-strong La Niña conditions were present in the equatorial Pacific the winter was unique for the above average rain and snowfall in the Southwest, where La Niña typically brings drier-than-average conditions.
During January alone, 170 inches of snow fell at the Alta ski area near Salt Lake City, Utah, more than twice the normal amount for the month, eclipsing the previous record of 168 inches that fell in 1967. At the end of February, seasonal precipitation for the 2008 Water Year, which began on October 1, 2007, was well above average over much of the West.
Mountain snowpack exceeded 150 percent of average in large parts of Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, and Oregon at the end of February. Spring run-off from the above average snowpack in the West is expected to be beneficial in drought plagued areas.
Record February precipitation in the Northeast helped make the winter the fifth wettest on record for the region. New York had its wettest winter, while Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Vermont, and Colorado to the West, had their second wettest.
Snowfall was above normal in northern New England, where some locations posted all-time record winter snow totals. Concord, N.H., received 100.1 inches, which was 22.1 inches above the previous record set during the winter of 1886-87. Burlington, Vt., received 103.2 inches, which was 6.3 inches above the previous record set during the winter of 1970-71.
Global temperatures were also the coldest since 2001:

The combined global land and ocean surface temperature was the 16th warmest on record for the December 2007-February 2008 period (0.58°F/0.32°C above the 20th century mean of 53.8°F/12.1°C). The presence of a moderate-to-strong La Niña contributed to an average temperature that was the coolest since the La Niña episode of 2000-2001.
While analyses of the causes of the severe winter storms in southern China continues, NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory scientists are focusing on the presence of unusually strong, persistent high pressure over Eastern Europe, combined with low pressure over Southwest Asia. This pattern directed a series of storms across the region, while northerly low level flow introduced cold air from Mongolia. Unusually high water temperatures in the China Sea may have triggered available moisture that enhanced the severity of these storms.
Record Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent in January was followed by above average snow cover for the month of February. Unusually high temperatures across much of the mid- and high-latitude areas of the Northern Hemisphere in February began reducing the snow cover, and by the end of February, snow cover extent was below average in many parts of the hemisphere.

StcChief
04-03-2008, 02:55 PM
Signed,
Al Gore's b!tchno doubt:clap:

Radar Chief
04-03-2008, 02:59 PM
Well, now I'm confused. What's "weird" if not an expression of confusion. And further, what's weird about your article? Other than it supports my article in ways you didn't seem to notice?

So much conflicting information in one article. I’ve been holding on to it for a while and this looked like a good place to drop it. I did so expecting more comments on the article than me, but I’m getting used to that by now. ;)

Radar Chief
04-03-2008, 03:03 PM
Global Warming Update: Winter 2008 Coldest in Seven Years

Winter precipitation was much above average from the Midwest to parts of the West, notably Kansas, Colorado and Utah. Although moderate-to-strong La Niña conditions were present in the equatorial Pacific the winter was unique for the above average rain and snowfall in the Southwest, where La Niña typically brings drier-than-average conditions.

That surprises me. The winter of ‘07 was worse around here than the winter of ‘08. They must've really gotten nailed out west.

Adept Havelock
04-03-2008, 03:07 PM
The same way "global warming" is supposed to lead to the next ice age?
What, you don’t watch movies? ;)

Sure I do. However, I seldom see them as showing actual scientific knowledge. ;)

:hmmm:

If that is true why aren't the Ice Caps increasing? Why would cooling lead to them melting/shrinking?

Did you get that from a movie or book?

Why are you dodging a simple question if you are so confident of your position? LMAO

If the world is cooling, why are the biggest chunks of ice melting?

Those would seem to me to be mutually exclusive.

What happens to ice in water when you heat the water? What happens when you cool it?

Bootlegged
04-03-2008, 03:08 PM
Why are you dodging a simple question, if you are so confident of your positon?

I don't accept the premise of your question. What proof do YOU have?

Adept Havelock
04-03-2008, 03:13 PM
I don't accept the premise of your question. What proof do YOU have?

LMAO

Just to be clear, you are claiming the Ice Caps aren't shrinking?

I ask as that's the only premise of my question.

Well, that and the behavior of Ice in water when that water is heated or cooled.

Let me know which you don't accept. I'll be happy to provide evidence regarding either one.

Bootlegged
04-03-2008, 03:28 PM
LMAO

Just to be clear, you are claiming the Ice Caps aren't shrinking?

I ask as that's the only premise of my question.

Well, that and the behavior of Ice in water when that water is heated or cooled.

Let me know which you don't accept. I'll be happy to provide evidence regarding either one.

K - lets see your evidence.

Adept Havelock
04-03-2008, 03:44 PM
K - lets see your evidence.

Which point are you disputing? The shrinkage of the Ice Caps or the behavior of Ice in water as it's heated or cooled?

If it's the latter, drop an ice cube in two glasses of water. Put one glass in the microwave or oven and turn it on. Put the other in a fridge, and let it cool. It's an experiment so simple even Mr. Wizard can teach it to a three year old, so you shouldn't have much trouble confirming it. ;)

If it's the shrinkage of the Ice Caps:

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/glacier_shrink_010202.html

Or if you prefer a Public source:

http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/research/climate/highlights/GFDL_V1N1_gallery.html

Yes, it also includes a projection from 2085 if current trends hold, but that doesn't refute the shrinkage shown in other periods. If you want to attack the source, I guess you could blame it on all those evil liberals at the NOAA's Fluid Dynamics Lab. LMAO

Or, for another example:

Detailed satellite photo of the northern polar ice cap showing that for the first time in recorded history, the Northwest passage (the orange line) is open to sea traffic. The passage was a subject of intense interest to the European powers from the late 1400s, who wanted to find a way to Asia by boat that didn't involve sailing around Africa.

http://esamultimedia.esa.int/images/EarthObservation/Envisat/Envisat_ASAR_GM_Sep2007_2_passages_and_mask_H1.jpg

If that Ice isn't melting, why is the passage clear for the first time in recorded history?

Are you seriously arguing the Ice Caps aren't melting? You must be, as arguing the behavior of Ice in water as it's heated or cooled would be pure ignorance.

It must be one or the other, as those are the only two premises for my question, and you said you dodged it because "don't accept the premise of my question".


So again I ask...if the world is cooling (as you allege), why would the largest chunks of Ice be melting? Logically if your allegation was the case, wouldn't the average amount each year be increasing instead of declining?

tiptap
04-03-2008, 03:55 PM
Global Warming Update: Winter 2008 Coldest in Seven Years
By Noel Sheppard | March 13, 2008 - 18:12 ET

As Nobel Laureate Al Gore travels the world warning nations of imminent peril at the hands of global warming, a really inconvenient truth has transpired.

The winter of 2008 was the coldest in seven years.

Hey Al, I gotcha global warming right heeeere!</Brooklyn accent>

As deliciously reported by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration moments ago (emphasis added, h/t NBer tropicalreport):

Story Continues Below Ad ↓
In the contiguous United States, the average winter temperature was 33.2°F (0.6°C), which was 0.2°F (0.1°C) above the 20th century average – yet still ranks as the coolest since 2001. It was the 54th coolest winter since national records began in 1895.

Mountains and mountains of snow fell throughout most of the country easing drought conditions in many areas:

Winter precipitation was much above average from the Midwest to parts of the West, notably Kansas, Colorado and Utah. Although moderate-to-strong La Niña conditions were present in the equatorial Pacific the winter was unique for the above average rain and snowfall in the Southwest, where La Niña typically brings drier-than-average conditions.
During January alone, 170 inches of snow fell at the Alta ski area near Salt Lake City, Utah, more than twice the normal amount for the month, eclipsing the previous record of 168 inches that fell in 1967. At the end of February, seasonal precipitation for the 2008 Water Year, which began on October 1, 2007, was well above average over much of the West.
Mountain snowpack exceeded 150 percent of average in large parts of Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, and Oregon at the end of February. Spring run-off from the above average snowpack in the West is expected to be beneficial in drought plagued areas.
Record February precipitation in the Northeast helped make the winter the fifth wettest on record for the region. New York had its wettest winter, while Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Vermont, and Colorado to the West, had their second wettest.
Snowfall was above normal in northern New England, where some locations posted all-time record winter snow totals. Concord, N.H., received 100.1 inches, which was 22.1 inches above the previous record set during the winter of 1886-87. Burlington, Vt., received 103.2 inches, which was 6.3 inches above the previous record set during the winter of 1970-71.
Global temperatures were also the coldest since 2001:

The combined global land and ocean surface temperature was the 16th warmest on record for the December 2007-February 2008 period (0.58°F/0.32°C above the 20th century mean of 53.8°F/12.1°C). The presence of a moderate-to-strong La Niña contributed to an average temperature that was the coolest since the La Niña episode of 2000-2001.
While analyses of the causes of the severe winter storms in southern China continues, NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory scientists are focusing on the presence of unusually strong, persistent high pressure over Eastern Europe, combined with low pressure over Southwest Asia. This pattern directed a series of storms across the region, while northerly low level flow introduced cold air from Mongolia. Unusually high water temperatures in the China Sea may have triggered available moisture that enhanced the severity of these storms.
Record Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent in January was followed by above average snow cover for the month of February. Unusually high temperatures across much of the mid- and high-latitude areas of the Northern Hemisphere in February began reducing the snow cover, and by the end of February, snow cover extent was below average in many parts of the hemisphere.


It is true that this winter was pretty average of the last 113 years. "54th coolest" which makes it an average WINTER in the UNITED STATES. I thank you for quoting all of the statement because it goes on to say that "was the 16th warmest on record for the December 2007-February 2008 period" for the world temperature average. The La Nina effect tends to depress temperatures in the US.

tiptap
04-03-2008, 04:05 PM
Last summer began the POLAR INVESTIGATION YEAR. Last one was in the 50's. Well those studies got to see OLD ICE melt in the polar region. An area the size of California of OLD ICE melted. This is telling because old ice is more pure than new Polar Ice. Pure water/ice melts at a HIGHER temperature than would new oceanic salty ice. The NEW ICE will melt away at lower temperatures, those below zero C. And as such will melt quicker than the OLD ICE. It takes decades to wring out the salt and make the ice more resistant to melting in the summer. We are well ahead of the IPCC estimate of an ice free Arctic for the summers.

I use to think that this would not be so bad. The Arctic Ocean would be the 21st Century Mediterranean with easy ocean access and new lands and ocean resources. But this scenario means that a large part of the Greenland Glacial Ice would melt and that would raise ocean levels and displace 100's of millions of people along the coasts. We can't move that many people and infrastructure fast enough.

StcChief
04-03-2008, 04:40 PM
Last summer began the POLAR INVESTIGATION YEAR. Last one was in the 50's. Well those studies got to see OLD ICE melt in the polar region. An area the size of California of OLD ICE melted. This is telling because old ice is more pure than new Polar Ice. Pure water/ice melts at a HIGHER temperature than would new oceanic salty ice. The NEW ICE will melt away at lower temperatures, those below zero C. And as such will melt quicker than the OLD ICE. It takes decades to wring out the salt and make the ice more resistant to melting in the summer. We are well ahead of the IPCC estimate of an ice free Arctic for the summers.

I use to think that this would not be so bad. The Arctic Ocean would be the 21st Century Mediterranean with easy ocean access and new lands and ocean resources. But this scenario means that a large part of the Greenland Glacial Ice would melt and that would raise ocean levels and displace 100's of millions of people along the coasts. We can't move that many people and infrastructure fast enough.
they were stupid enough to live their to begin with, deal with it. I guess the time to buy land inland is now. Something to stimulate the real estate market. Let's throw this panic up. Real Estate agents need to eat.:shake:

tiptap
04-03-2008, 04:43 PM
Sort of the New Orleans Katrina migration on the world scale huh.

T-post Tom
04-03-2008, 04:55 PM
[QUOTE=Bootlegged;4664938]Global Warming Update: Winter 2008 Coldest in Seven Years
By Noel Sheppard | March 13, 2008 - 18:12 ET QUOTE]

Partisan Hack
Profile
Noel Sheppard is an economist, business owner, and a featured writer at the prestigious American Thinker. He is also a contributing writer to the Business and Media Institute and a contributing editor for NewsBusters.

My Other Sites
Besides the American Thinker and the Business and Media Institute, Noel's work can often be seen at Chronwatch.com, The Rant.us, OpEds.com, and other right-thinking webjournals.

mikey23545
04-03-2008, 06:45 PM
http://img240.imageshack.us/img240/5167/suncycletemps010802yt8.th.gif (http://img240.imageshack.us/my.php?image=suncycletemps010802yt8.gif)

irishjayhawk
04-03-2008, 07:11 PM
K - lets see your evidence.


ROFL

banyon
04-03-2008, 09:55 PM
http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2007/02/26/tomo/story.jpg

Logical
04-03-2008, 10:22 PM
The perfect cartoon Banyon, well done.

jAZ
04-03-2008, 10:55 PM
"I'll believe anything that annoys a liberal".

ROFL

That's about right, around here some times.

tiptap
04-03-2008, 11:20 PM
http://img240.imageshack.us/img240/5167/suncycletemps010802yt8.th.gif (http://img240.imageshack.us/my.php?image=suncycletemps010802yt8.gif)

These are well educated astrophysicists. They have studied distant stars that are similar in some respect to our sol. But those stars are MUCH more variable in their solar activity than our sun. They have argued that our sun may have been more variable in the past. It would suit their overall notion if the sun was more variable (in response to sunspots) and as such it should be active in accounting for the climate numbers. Note here that these scientists know that one has to account for the temperature change that is taking place. They don't deny the temperature is rising. Just that it is the sun getting more energetic.

The particular graph posted has come under strong objections for the following reasons.
1 They used data string more reflective of moisture content than temperature as part of their input.
2 The proxy temperature measures were gross (large) compared to more refined measurements of time scale. There graph purports shorter time scale movement than their data would allow
3 Their data doesn't cover very large areas geographically. This particular graph states explicitly it is reflective of only N. Hemisphere temperatures and the objection goes to the fact a lot it only reflects European temperatures.
4 The graph really doesn't work if you carry the data beyond 1960 and so the convenient cut off of the years.

These scientists objected to the notion that CFC were involved in Ozone depletion even up to a couple of weeks before the Noble prize was handed out for the CFC findings. But they are quite willing to write now that Ozone depletion is why we are having global warming for the Heartland Institute.

Let me clearly state that the SUN is the biggest player in planet temperatures. If the sun was found to be more energetic it would increase temperatures. But for the last 20 years the satellite data/astronaut readings have not shown that increase.

In addition direct readings of radiation at the earth surface and water replacement studies the world round show that the sun's energy reaching the ground has dropped over the last 50 years. (Global Dimming) and yet temperatures have risen.