Brit Hume Misrepresents Solar Study

24 August 2007

Charles Camp and Ka Kit Tung have a new paper (pdf) published in Geophysical Research Letters, in which they explore the amount and extent of warming caused by solar cycles. Tung concluded that the paper "adds to the evidence that mainstream climate models are right about the likely extent of future human-generated warming." In fact, according to New Scientist:

"[Tung] and Camp say this shows that a doubling of carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere would cause a warming of between 2.3 and 4.1 °C within about a year. They say this makes the lower estimates of some models of climate change 'unlikely.'

This immediate warming, Tung stresses, is almost certain to be an underestimate of the overall effect of greenhouse gases, because extra warming is delayed due to the deep ocean heating up only slowly. 'But our findings give a lower bound to the atmosphere's climate sensitivity that we have not had before.'

Climate modeller Peter Cox from the University of Exeter, UK, says Tung has shown, without recourse to climate models, that a doubling of carbon dioxide would cause at least 2 °C of warming, 'which is considered by many to be the threshold of dangerous climate change.' "

Brit Hume, not to be deterred, characterized the paper thus:
"The study is just one of several peer-reviewed scientific studies challenging global-warming alarmism... new research by University of Washington mathematicians shows a correlation between high solar activity and periods of global warming."

Very interesting, Brit. You've managed to turn that around completely.

Oh, and for further reading, here is a paper from the Royal Society titled "Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface temperatures" (pdf).

No comments: