So basically the article was poorly researched and cherrypicked the most convenient data in order to support his wrong opinion. If you look at the long-term data instead of cherrypicking the most convenient months, it%26#039;s obvious that the planet continues to warm.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs...
Then he starts talking about sunspots, but sunspot number hasn%26#039;t impacted global temperature significantly for over 30 years. It%26#039;s swamped by warming from CO2.
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-...
I don%26#039;t know what sort of geophysicist Chapman fancies himself (usually geophysicists don%26#039;t become astronauts!), but he really need to work on his data analysis skills. 60% 3 Votes
Has categorized the spot he was talking about as - quote:
%26quot;The magnetic field of this sunspot is now well characterized; the N-S pattern identifies it as an old-cycle rather than a new-cycle sunspot. Solar Cycle 23 remains active.%26quot;
We are now well past the 11 year cycle = 12.4 and counting.
I disagree with his quote: %26quot;Millions will starve if we do nothing to prepare for it (such as planning changes in agriculture to compensate), and millions more will die from cold-related diseases.%26quot; = It will be more like Billions.
This is matching research that looks at all aspects of sun spots:
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/Conf2... IPCC CHALLENGED TO RENOUNCE GLOBAL WARMING CLAIMS:
http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/... 20% 1 Vote
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7327...
and other studies. The bottom line, from one scientist:
%26quot;The problem with putting another nail in the coffin of solar forcing is finding a place to put it.%26quot; 20% 1 Vote
This cooling phase we%26#039;re in has got the global warmiacs in a tizz. Just look at your first two answers from a couple of desperate, (and ignorant) posters. 0% 0 Votes