Tim Worstall

Tim Hames on Global Warming

Tim Hames puts forward the idea that solar variability has a much greater influence on climate change than anything else. I’m open to the argument that it is and await, as he does, the results from the ongoing experimentation. Solar variability is indeed included in the IPCC IV report, that one we got the glimpse of the draft of a few months back and which will be fully launched in the spring. It’s not, in that, thought to be as great an influence as Hames puts forward.

Anyway, there’s one rather larger problem that needs to be addressed. If it does turn out to be the Sun responsible for more of it than we thought, not our own activities, that doesn’t mean we can all roll over and go back to sleep. For we do know that our own activities are having some effect, even if it is proved to be less than currently thought.

So we end up with two possible scenarios: it’s the Sun, it’s happened before and there’s nothing to worry about. Or, it’s the Sun and it is something to worry about. In the second situation we would actually have to curtail our carbon emissions even more than currently suggested, as we both need to stop our own additions to the solar effects plus compensate for those solar effects.

Which leads to the rather uncomfortable conclusion that if it is actually solar variability which is the problem and (a very important part of the conclusion, this,) that the temperature rises will be sufficiently significant to cause major problems, we’re actually in even more of a hole than we thought.

In

10 responses

  1. DocBud Avatar
    DocBud

    If it is the sun what’s doing it and our carbon emissions are not having a significant effect, then cutting them won’t have much of an effect either (now taking the water vapour out of the atmosphere would be a different matter). If it is the sun and it’s a problem, then the solution is adaptation, using all our non-harmful carbon generated energy to continue the development of humankind.

    Reply
  2. forester Avatar
    forester

    No matter what happens, handing over global environmental regulation to the UN or EU isn’t a solution.

    Reply
  3. Tim Newman Avatar
    Tim Newman

    Can we all stop arguing and burn some more Russian LNG, please?

    Reply
  4. fFreddy Avatar
    fFreddy

    Don’t worry, Tim. All the funky metal alternative energy storage systems will still take over the world, just as soon as they actually work. You don’t need the climate change lies to do this – just get an alternative that works even half as well as a tank of petrol.

    Reply
  5. Michael Taylor Avatar
    Michael Taylor

    Your claim that if the sun is responsible for some part of global warming then greater cuts in CO2 emissions are needed isn’t valid. More information is needed before it’s reasonable to make such claims.
    For example, it’s estimated here… http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/cause.htm … that 75% of the apparent increase in temperature since the 17th century is due to the sun. If that has been and continues to be the case, then huge efforts and attendant huge costs to reduce CO2 emissions will be largely wasted. Much better to learn to cope with the consequences of warming which, if the sun is the dominant cause, would be beyond human control.

    Reply
  6. embutler Avatar
    embutler

    vail(ski resort) has shown the way to green living…
    the money they used to pay to generate coal fired electricty is now paid to a green organization
    which plants trees and then pays to have vail’s electricity made with coal fired generators…
    but vail feels so much better

    Reply
  7. MikeinAppalachia Avatar
    MikeinAppalachia

    A related story:
    Russian scientist predicts global cooling
    A Russian scientist predicts a period of global cooling in coming decades, followed by a warmer interval. Khabibullo Abdusamatov expects a repeat of the period known as the Little Ice Age. During the 16th century, the Baltic Sea froze so hard that hotels were built on the ice for people crossing the sea in coaches. The Little Ice Age is believed to have contributed to the end of the Norse colony in Greenland, which was founded during an interval of much warmer weather.
    Abdusamatov and his colleagues at the Russian Academy of Sciences astronomical observatory said the prediction is based on measurement of solar emissions, Novosti reported. They expect the cooling to begin within a few years and to reach its peak between 2055 and 2060. “The Kyoto initiatives to save the planet from the greenhouse effect should be put off until better times,” he said. “The global temperature maximum has been reached on Earth, and Earth’s global temperature will decline to a climatic minimum even without the Kyoto protocol.”

    Reply
  8. Anoneumouse Avatar
    Anoneumouse

    Oh yes, the 11 year sunspot cycle. but hey don’t forget the cycle, that Milankovitch got his leg over.
    ‘magma tides’ and plate movement, create more CO2 emissions than 100,000 industrial revolutions

    Reply
  9. K Avatar
    K

    Don’t miss the implications.
    If the sun is causing warming then attempts to offset it should try to reduce radiation capture.
    If the sun is not the driver then reducing radiation capture would still have a desired effect.
    Of course we might have the unlikely situation that reducing greenhouse emissions will stop or even reverse change.
    Scientists don’t seem to believe this. The accepted position is that adding gas will make things worse but there is little or no prospect of cutting what is already present.
    To lessen solar capture there are three proposals: create some sort of parasol in space to decrease sunlight reaching earth; or, introduce agents into the atmosphere to reflect radiation; or make the earth itself more reflective.
    The second seems possible to me but it is very dangerous. The first is the safest, it changes nothing on earth and can be adjusted. The first is also the hardest – it always comes out that way.

    Reply
  10. DeWitt Avatar
    DeWitt

    Here’s a thought: stop scrubbing sulfur from coal-fired electric plants. The increased sulfate aerosols will reflect more sunlight (or so the models claim) and the increased power plant efficiency will generate significantly less CO2. Or is acid rain a worse problem than global warming?
    It’s fairly unlikely that changes in direct solar irradiance is responsible for much of the warming this century. It’s more likely, IMO, a less direct effect like low energy cosmic ray intensity modulation by varying solar wind causing changes in cloud cover.
    Bill Gray, the hurricane guy, is also of the opinion that we are due for a cooling cycle soon.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Tim Worstall

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading