ttystikk
Well-Known Member
A highly respected climate scientist, Dr William Gray of Colorado State University, held a similar view. He challenged the climate change theorists to show that their models would accurately depict coming events.
The climate theorist's models have indeed been inaccurate; they've been consistently too conservative, as the Earth is actually warming more and faster than they predicted.
It seems that the drastic and unprecedented increase in atmospheric CO2 is the critical factor in charting the future of climate change.
How drastic? Before the Industrial Revolution, Earth's atmospheric CO2 was around 275ppm. When I was born in the mid 1960s, it had risen to around 325ppm. Today it's over 410ppm on an increasingly steep growth curve.
Sea levels are rising everywhere. Global temperature averages set new records every year, by record margins.
Here's a great graphic of recent sunspot cycles;
The fewer sunspots, the less heat is generated.
Yet, the most recent cycle has the lowest number of sunspots in the past several decades while the Earth is still experiencing ever warmer temperatures.
To me, this is ample proof that CO2 concentration is a more accurate predictor of global average temperatures than the Maunder cycle.
What has a much bigger cooling effect on global temperatures then sunspots? Big volcanoes; the eruptions of Pinatubo, Mt St Helens and Krakatoa have all shown that massive injections of dust and sulfides into the upper stratosphere will cool the entire planet, if only temporarily.
