Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Sunspots Do Really Affect Weather Patterns, Say Scientists
A new
study in the journal Science by a team of
international of researchers led by the National Center for
Atmospheric Research have found that the sunspot cycle has a big
effect on the earth's weather. The puzzle has been how fluctuations
in the sun's energy of about 0.1 percent over the course of the
11-year sunspot cycle could affect the weather? The press release
describing the new study explains:
The team first confirmed a theory that the slight increase in solar energy during the peak production of sunspots is absorbed by stratospheric ozone. The energy warms the air in the stratosphere over the tropics, where sunlight is most intense, while also stimulating the production of additional ozone there that absorbs even more solar energy. Since the stratosphere warms unevenly, with the most pronounced warming occurring at lower latitudes, stratospheric winds are altered and, through a chain of interconnected processes, end up strengthening tropical precipitation.
At the same time, the increased sunlight at solar maximum causes a slight warming of ocean surface waters across the subtropical Pacific, where Sun-blocking clouds are normally scarce. That small amount of extra heat leads to more evaporation, producing additional water vapor. In turn, the moisture is carried by trade winds to the normally rainy areas of the western tropical Pacific, fueling heavier rains and reinforcing the effects of the stratospheric mechanism.
The top-down influence of the stratosphere and the bottom-up influence of the ocean work together to intensify this loop and strengthen the trade winds. As more sunshine hits drier areas, these changes reinforce each other, leading to less clouds in the subtropics, allowing even more sunlight to reach the surface, and producing a positive feedback loop that further magnifies the climate response.
These stratospheric and ocean responses during solar maximum keep the equatorial eastern Pacific even cooler and drier than usual, producing conditions similar to a La Nina event. However, the cooling of about 1-2 degrees Fahrenheit is focused farther east than in a typical La Nina, is only about half as strong, and is associated with different wind patterns in the stratosphere.
Are these new findings relevant to scientific analyses of man-made global warming? The Christian Science Monitor reports:
For those wondering how the study bears on global warming, Gerald Meehl, lead author on the study, says that it doesn’t – at least not directly....
Global warming is a long-term trend, Dr. Meehl says in a phone conversation. By contrast, this study attempts to explain the processes behind a periodic occurrence. But, he says, a model finally able to reproduce a complex phenomenon observed in the real world does suggest that our climate models – the same ones we use to predict what will happen to global climate as we ratchet up co2 concentrations – are improving. And that will, inevitably, have an affect on the climate discussion.
A recent paper in Eos considers the evidence that we could be in for an extended period with few sunspots:
Why is a lack of sunspot activity interesting? During the period from 1645 to 1715, the Sun entered a period of low activity now known as the Maunder Minimum, when through several 11- year periods the Sun displayed few if any sunspots. Models of the Sun’s irradiance suggest that the solar energy input to the Earth decreased during that time and that this change in solar activity could explain the low temperatures recorded in Europe during the Little Ice Age.
Doesn't the Eos paper suggest that sunspot activity may not just affect weather but climate too?
Fist of Etiquette|8.27.09 @ 7:55PM|#
Oh no! If Big Oil can get to Gerald Meehl, they can get to anybody!
|8.27.09 @ 8:21PM|#
Remember all the medieval scientists who had to minimize the
significance of any findings that threatened Christian beliefs, for
fear of being denounced by the Church?
Not apropos of anything, just making conversation.
Joe M|8.27.09 @ 8:33PM|#
Nice one, Tulpa.
Yes, there is a periodic variation. But, there are clearly
long-term variations as well, that can easily last for generations.
There is plenty of evidence that the increase in global temperature
averages are related to increased energy output from the sun.
I guess we'll have to revise the solar panel estimate back up to 22
years after this news.
The Libertarian Guy|8.27.09 @ 8:49PM|#
The worshippers of Pope Albert won't give a flying fuck about this. It's still "all mankind's fault", according to His wise teachings.
|8.27.09 @ 9:57PM|#
"The worshippers of Pope Albert won't give a flying fuck about
this. It's still "all mankind's fault", according to His wise
teachings."
Er, doesn't the post suggest that the Sun has been *cooling*
recently, and so alleviating the (hypothetical) results of
(hypothetical) anthropogenic global warming, rather than the
reverse? 'The sun may be entering a phase of lower activity/lower
temperature' does not seem to exactly correlate with 'Global
warming is all about the sun'.
Shannon Love|8.27.09 @ 10:23PM|#
The real significance of this is that the major global warming
models all attribute most of the warming of the last 30 years and
especially the last 10 years to CO2. However, the sun has during
this time been in a period of intense solar activity that peaked
around 2000 and has been decreasing dramatically since along with
planetary temperatures. This strongly suggest that the climate
models that people want us to use to reengineer the entire
planetary economy may have significantly exaggerated the
proportional effect of CO2.
The major flaw in the climate models is that they attribute any
unknown source of warming to CO2. The pattern of the development of
the models has been that the proportional effects CO2 have been
progressively dialed down as more and more sources of heat in the
atmosphere are discovered. This is just one more nail in the
hysteria coffin.
robc|8.27.09 @ 10:57PM|#
It is mankind's fault. Or specifically mine. I stole the
sunspots and am storing them in my basement.
If you want one, check on ebay soon.
The Libertarian Guy|8.27.09 @ 11:18PM|#
robc, I'll trade you a couple for Halley's Comet. I keep that in the garage, though it's a lot less impressive in a deep freezer than it is when I toss the sucker back out into space...
TallDave|8.27.09 @ 11:29PM|#
Ron, did you catch the two recent studies?
1)
CO2 does not appear to drive temperature historically, but rather
approaches an equilibrium after temperatures change.
2)
Ice Age fluctuations appear very strongly correlated to wobbles in
Earth's orbit.
Also, the faint sun paradox appears to be resolved by
carbonyl sulfide.
AGW isn't down for the count yet, but it's staggering and looking
disoriented...
Paul|8.28.09 @ 12:41AM|#
Wow, this is gonna bring back some oldies but some
goodies:
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v91/i21/e211101
http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/science_technology/detail/Sunspot_activity_hits_1_000_year_high.html?siteSect=511&sid=5080155&cKey=1089633542000
Ladies & Gentleman: The ever u|8.28.09 @ 12:43AM|#
Is this where Ronald changes his mind again?
Libertarians are closer to the religious right than they
imagine.
The DSM already has a section prepared for them.
Ladies & Gentleman: The ever u|8.28.09 @ 1:01AM|#
Also, it's quite clear that many of your didn't even read the
article.
Cherry picking data that isn't even arguing against man made
influence is a very primitive form of bullshitting. It fits in well
with just about every other style of bullshitting that Libertarians
are known for.
What does seem to be "down for the count" is the Libertarian well
of excuses. You guys have spread the CRA killed the economy myth,
and that AGW isn't true. Both have been thoroughly debunked, but
many of you wouldn't know it because you rarely venture outside of
the echo chamber. It's scary out there.
If Ronald was any other reporter, many of you would be picking him
apart over his weak flip-flopping. However, when he offers a fairly
inconsequential article that you can construe as an anti Global
Warming piece, then he's just one of the guys.
The reasons that many of you have fallen for this Libertarian snake
oil are likely due to two things:
1. Most of you are probably socially retarded IT guys or office
Lawyers who are poor at deciphering nuance.
2. You don't have a life.
You're an ideology pusher's wet dream.
rainy day|8.28.09 @ 1:42AM|#
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CLOUD
In the citations is link to an hour or so long presentation about
the experiment at CERN with many charts and graphs of the interplay
of solar and cosmic ray activity in relation to climate over short
and long, billion year, periods.
Interesting watch for those with the time and interest.
|8.28.09 @ 1:48AM|#
Cripes, keep an open mind. The Eos paper was written by a couple
guys from the National Solar Observatory who could not care less
about global warming -- they were just pointing out that the vigor
of sunspots, in both area and magnetic strength, has been declining
continuously since 1995, and if this trend continues sunspots will
vanish completely in a few years. Read it yourself at
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009EO300001.pdf
The Science article cited by Bailey
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/325/5944/1114 seems
to resolve the long-standing mystery of why small variations in
solar irradiance cause large climatic changes.
Viewing these facts, it seems reasonable to conclude that an
extended period of global cooling may be likely. I say MAY because
our understanding of both solar activity and climate is so poor
that anyone who makes firm predictions (like Al Gore, for example)
will almost certainly end up looking like a fool.
Ladies & Gentleman: The ever u|8.28.09 @ 1:50AM|#
We're All Global Warmers Now
Reconciling temperature trends that are all over the place
Ronald Bailey | August 11, 2005
Anyone still holding onto the idea that there is no global warming
ought to hang it up. All data sets-satellite, surface, and
balloon-have been pointing to rising global temperatures. In fact,
they all have had upward pointing arrows for nearly a decade, but
now all of the data sets are in closer agreement due to some
adjustments being published in three new articles in Science
today.
JB|8.28.09 @ 2:26AM|#
Good to see more solar science. We still understand very little
about the sun.
Which is one GIANT reason that global warmists come across as crazy
when they call for drastic actions. That large ball in the sky is
by far the biggest variable in Earth's climate.
Tricky Prickears|8.28.09 @ 6:36AM|#
Question:
Doesn't the Eos paper suggest that sunspot activity may not
just affect weather but climate too?
From Eos paper:
A draft of that early work was posted
on the Internet and led to some misunderstanding
when a few authors from other
fields cited that post and erroneously
concluded that a lack of sunspots could
explain global warming.
Answer:
No.
Warty|8.28.09 @ 7:06AM|#
Is that Lefiti? The tone sounds like his, but long rambling insults aren't really his style.
jtuf|8.28.09 @ 7:21AM|#
mad the swine, it's a matter of scale. The 11 year sunspot cycle has a different effect from the 70 year sunspot lull. Google "Fourier analysis" and then get back to be with any questions you still have.
|8.28.09 @ 8:52AM|#
I have often wondered how much wieght has been given to orbital decay of both the earth and the moon in regards in APW and how it aslo affects weather trends in general. I have seen very few studies address this as a mitigating factor in either.
|8.28.09 @ 9:04AM|#
We still understand very little about the sun.
I propose we send everyone who has ever been a United States Vice
President to the Sun for further investigation.
+|8.28.09 @ 9:10AM|#
"If only there were some… natural mechanism by which to explain variations in global temperature. It would have to be massive, though. On the scale of our own Sun."
Obama Supporter Jokes are the |8.28.09 @ 9:23AM|#
I propose we send everyone who has ever been a United States
Vice President to the Sun for further investigation.
Good idea! Just make sure to send them at night.
Except for Cheney. Send him at noon cause he's mean.
|8.28.09 @ 9:28AM|#
It's sad that the study will be used to strengthen the positive feedback loop arguments. In terms of reasons to take drastic measures against GW, the loops are really the only scary threat.
EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy|8.28.09 @ 9:41AM|#
My immediate take-away from this blurb was that another subtle
bug in the standard treatment of simulated solar irradiation has
been understood and at least partially resolved. This highlights
the difficulty of doing large scale models and the sometimes
non-linear nature of whether and climate--both subjects I have
alluded to in the past.
This is good for the people who try to do long term climate
modeling, but it should leave us with doubts that previous
runs of the models were fully representative. How big a deal is
this? 'Don't know.
So it goes when you're trying to do cutting edge science. If you
listen closely you can here the murmur of grant proposals being
revised, and new papers being planned.
|8.28.09 @ 9:52AM|#
It's sad that the study will be used to strengthen the
positive feedback loop arguments.
Inappropriately, I think, as the feedback loops here are driven by
solar radiation and not by temperature increases per se.
In terms of reasons to take drastic measures against GW, the
loops are really the only scary threat.
Very true. My understanding is that current thinking is that CO2
has a saturation effect, after which more CO2 doesn't drive
temperature increases, and that CO2 by itself could probably
increase temperature by no more than 1 degree C.
|8.28.09 @ 10:13AM|#
Ladies & Gentleman: The ever unreliable Ronald Bailey |
August 28, 2009, 12:43am | #
Is this where Ronald changes his mind again?
Libertarians are closer to the religious right than they
imagine.
Mindless adherence to dogma is indeed a feature of the religious
mindset. Changing one's mind in the face of evidence is a feature
of an anti-dogmatic mindset. You've accused Bailey of both "X" and
"Not X". Which one is it?
That was easy. And fun. Thanks for the Lolz.
And FWIW I'm not a particularly big fan of Bailey.
richard mcenroe|8.28.09 @ 10:17AM|#
Sun affects Earth's temperature.
In related news, water is wet, and rocks fall when dropped.
What I want to know is, what is the Obama administration doing to
address the sunspotn shortage? Why are the rich getting all the
warmth and aspirin, and leaving the poor to starve in the cold
without healthcare?
|8.28.09 @ 10:23AM|#
L&G
I'm really curious as to how you have become so certain of your
conclusion under the strain of such broad and varied data and
opinions.
I'm not certain that my conclusions are accurate. However, I am
certain that I don't want government to force us to act. I am
certain that I don't approve of spending huge amounts of money, and
artificially inflating the cost of money on something that may or
may not be happening, that we may or may not be able to influence,
that may or may not be a bad thing for the planet. Last I checked,
the only testable, and repeatable result of increased atmospheric
CO2 is increased plant growth rates, and resistance to drought.
Most everything else is still pretty much just guessing.
|8.28.09 @ 10:25AM|#
Argh, I need to go back to fully proof-reading my posts...above the statement "the cost of money" was meant to be "the cost of energy"
|8.28.09 @ 10:30AM|#
Tulpa said:
Remember all the medieval scientists who had to minimize the
significance of any findings that threatened Christian beliefs, for
fear of being denounced by the Church?
Can you provide any examples of scientists being denounced by the
church during the medieval period?
Lefiti|8.28.09 @ 10:32AM|#
You guys are missing the big question: what did George W. Bush
do with all the sunspots?
We need a solar crimes tribunal.
Tony|8.28.09 @ 10:32AM|#
What a disingenuous, slimy article. It labors to attribute global warming to sunspot activity by noting that (a lack of) sunspot activity may have led to the 'little ice age'. Yet since sunspot activity is down now, why is the planet warming? Not just warming, but according to climate science, warming at a rate that is unprecedented and unsustainable. The 'little ice age' is simply not comparable, and the article undermines itself with the comparison without bothering to drop the strained attempt to validate an anti-AGW canard.
|10.12.09 @ 11:45AM|#
The planet has been cooling for 10 years. It coincides well with sunspots and not at all with co2. Have you even looked at the satellite data?
|8.28.09 @ 10:33AM|#
The elderly own the market on sunspots. Who said Medicare is an abject failure?
TallDave|8.28.09 @ 10:34AM|#
Remember all the medieval scientists who had to minimize the
significance of any findings that threatened Christian beliefs, for
fear of being denounced by the Church?
There are quite a few. Galileo, etc.
What many don't seem to realize, though, is that this was very
typical of nearly every religion right up until the Enlightenment.
People should realize the Renaissance was driven by a new spirit of
tolerance virtually unique in the history of mankind.
|8.28.09 @ 10:35AM|#
"Yet since sunspot activity is down now, why is the planet
warming? Not just warming, but according to climate science,
warming at a rate that is unprecedented and unsustainable."
Because you open your piehole too often Tony.
Fist of Etiquette|8.28.09 @ 10:35AM|#
Reports like this are easily discredited. All we have to do is nudge our weather station temperature sensors a little closer to our air conditioner exhaust vents.
The Libertarian Guy|8.28.09 @ 10:35AM|#
Aaaaaand cue typical liberal hand-wringer Tony, here to blame global warming on mankind and mankind alone.
|8.28.09 @ 10:36AM|#
Global warming is a long-term trend, Dr. Meehl
says
True enough. The problem is, there is no long term warming trend.
There is a short-term trend that has been extrapolated into a
long-term trend through the use of computer models.
So if the short-term trend was caused by solar activity (not
addressed in this article), and the recent cooling is caused by
solar activity (supported by this article), then AGW goes up in a
puff of smoke. Maybe still true, but completely without evidentiary
support.
Reasonable|8.28.09 @ 10:38AM|#
Yet since sunspot activity is down now, why is the planet
warming?
It isn't. This is an 11-year cycle, and over the last 11 years
temperatures have fallen.
warming at a rate that is unprecedented and
unsustainable.
Oh, good, it's unsustainable. That means it won't be sustained, so
there's nothing to worry about. Glad we cleared that up.
|8.28.09 @ 10:39AM|#
What a disingenuous, slimy comment. Since data shows the Earth to be cooling, why is tony lying about it warming?
Tony|8.28.09 @ 10:40AM|#
TLG,
When did I do that?
I believe I simply noted that this ridiculous article undermines
its own premise, a premise so haphazardly put together one can only
assume bad faith on the part of Mr. Bailey.
I've said it before, this site should stop trying to report on
science. It makes itself look absolutely ridiculous. Why should
anyone take your guys' ideas about anything seriously when you
strain so hard, with a willful selection bias (meaning an absolute
refusal to address mainstream data on the topic), to take a
long-discredited position on a matter of science?
|10.12.09 @ 12:04PM|#
Reason magazine's printing of this article has nothing to do with its factual correctness. The left's use of "science" to further their politics by inventing a global warming apocalypse is plenty reason enough for it to be printed here. Come on, your best evidence for global warming is a polar bear floating on an iceberg.
So mr science, can you back up your claim that this article is ridiculous, or do we just take it for granted since you have called it so.
I love this one. "Willful selection bias." YOU IGNORE THE SUN FOR GOD SAKE!
You also ignore satellite data, history, and the fact that your models are shown to be wrong each year. I would love to see some mainstream data that actually backs up global warming. Don't bs me. Every time I check into something, I notice cherry picking of data, failure to note the warming trend has been going on for 150 years, inflection points caused by merging different data sets being called significant, etc.
The sun is long discredited as having an affect on the climate, while the imaginary positive feedback factor in the global warming equation has not been?
|8.28.09 @ 10:40AM|#
If you take satellite data of Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) and
get a linear relation between it and sunspot number and extrapolate
backward to the late 1800s when sunspot numbers were very low, you
can easily explain over 30% of observed global warming. Several
independent researchers have shown this and it is not
controversial.
This new study easily suggests that the same variation in sunspot
number in the late 1800s to about 2000 can be use to explain ALL
observed warming via the feedback mechanisms discussed. I always
thought the right mechanism was water vapor and had not thought of
ozone.
|10.12.09 @ 12:09PM|#
Hey, don't say "all"! Us sun guys have to stay honest or people like tony will eat us for lunch! No one is arguing that you can't explain a very slight warming from the co2.
Tony|8.28.09 @ 10:42AM|#
Al Gore won a Nobel Prize.
How many Nobel Prizes does Ron Bailey have? Zero.
That means Al Gore is right and Reason has no business reporting on
science when science disagrees with Al Gore, who has a Nobel
Prize.
|8.28.09 @ 10:46AM|#
"Why should anyone take [my ideas] ideas about anything
seriously when [I] strain so hard, with a willful selection bias
(meaning an absolute refusal to address [creditable] data on the
topic)"
FTFY
I might also suggest either a laxitive or an increase in dietary
fibre to relieve that strain, but the increase in gasseous
discharge may increase global warming. Conundrum?
|8.28.09 @ 10:51AM|#
"Al Gore won a Nobel Prize."
And Paul Krugman is also a Nobel recipient.
So when his theories regarding economic policies are shown to be
non-sequiturs, he should have no business influencing economic
policy.
The Nobel group of recipeints is not hack free.
Will Collier|8.28.09 @ 10:51AM|#
This is the fundamental problem with current-day alarmist "global warming" theory: it is based on computer models. That's not science, it's software. It's like predicting the outcome Super Bowl, in August, based on a couple of really good gamers playing Madden 2009. While Madden is a really nifty simulation that a lot of people worked hard on, it is not reality; it simply can't take into account all the variables involved. Multiply those variables by several orders of magnitude and you'll start to get a grasp on just how ridiculous it is to assert that a computer model can accurately predict and/or reflect global climate.
|10.12.09 @ 12:10PM|#
ASt least madden tries to simulate football. What does the mysterious positive feedback factor from planet 9 and leaving out the sun simulate in a climate model?
|8.28.09 @ 10:54AM|#
There are quite a few. Galileo, etc.
You say there were quite a few but only mention Galileo. Read David
Benton Hart's Atheist Delusions. The only science that was done
during the middle ages was at religous universities. The church was
very supportive of religion. And Galileo ran afould off the church
more for reasons of ego and power than for reason's of science.
TallDave|8.28.09 @ 10:54AM|#
The EPA graph does an excellent job of measuring the growth of
heat-generating applicances near monitoring stations, as well as
the increasing influence of envirohacks on the GISS dataset.
While these are certainly interesting phenomenae and worthy of continued study,
the actual
temperatures are better represented here.
|8.28.09 @ 10:55AM|#
Global warming has actually
stalled over the last ten years or so, and you don't need to do
any disingenuous El-Nino-year cherry-picking to show it. It's not
enough of a window to say that warming has stopped forever, and
certainly not enough from which to suppose that global cooling will
begin. But it seems consistent with the view that now-lowered
sunspot activity could precipitate a period of cooling.
My point is that the commenters who ask "since sunspot activity is
down now, why is the planet warming?" are asking a meaningless
question if you consider the last decade or so, which is about the
period of time under consideration in the EOS paper.
edit: ninja'd by "Reasonable"
The Libertarian Guy|8.28.09 @ 10:56AM|#
"That means Al Gore is right"
See, there's that famous liberal arrogant elitism shining through
again. Like sunlight from the sun that has a much larger impact on
the climate than whether or not your neighbor drives a Chevy
Suburban.
But, Gore is right, and we're supposed to just shut the hell up and
believe him. Just like we're supposed to shut the hell up and
believe whatever else is said by any liberal. It's For Your Own
Good, Children. Don't argue, there's nothing TO argue - we are
correct, you are not.
Bullshit.
|8.28.09 @ 10:57AM|#
@Eric.
The church was very supportive of religion.
Tautology?
I think I know what you meant, and I probably agree, but just
wanted to clarify.
|8.28.09 @ 10:59AM|#
L&G: All I that I did was point out that one article
(Science) suggests a mechanism by which sunspots can affect the
climate and other a couple of weeks before (Eos) suggests that
colder temperatures of the Little Ice Age correlate nicely with an
extended period in which few sunspots occurred.
Tony: I don't know where you get your scientific information, but
the warming trend is not speeding up. It's been pretty steady at
0.13 degrees C per decade for a while. See latest data from
satellites below:
Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.13 C per decade
July temperatures (preliminary)
Global composite temp.: +0.41 C (about 0.74 degrees Fahrenheit)
above 20-year average for July.
Northern Hemisphere: +0.21 C (about 0.38 degrees Fahrenheit) above
20-year average for July.
Southern Hemisphere: +0.61 C (about 1.10 degrees Fahrenheit) above
20-year average for July.
The global average temperature jumped 0.41 C from June to July, the
largest one-month jump in the 31-year global temperature record,
according to Dr. John Christy, director of UAHuntsville's Earth
System Science Center. The global average went from normal in June
to the second hottest July on record.
"Part of that is an artificial artifact of where we put the
calendar boundaries," Christy said. "Warmth from the new El Nino
was not felt at all in June but really got going almost from the
first day of July."
At 0.41 C warmer than seasonal norms, July 2009 was second only to
July 1998 (+0.51 C). July 1998 was on the back end of the most
powerful El Nino Pacific Ocean warming event of the 20th century.
That El Nino also caused the warmest monthly average temperature in
the climate record: +0.77 in April 1998.
At 0.61 C warmer than seasonal norms, temperatures in the Southern
Hemisphere in July tied May 1998 (during that big El Nino) as the
second warmest month south of the equator. It was also the second
warmest month on record in the Antarctic, where the average
temperature was 3.11 C (about 5.60 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than
seasonal norms for the Antarctic winter. The warmest (compared to
seasonal norms) was May 2002, when the continent's average
temperature was 3.30 C warmer than normal.
The Libertarian Guy|8.28.09 @ 10:59AM|#
Tony, I shouldn't have just picked on you - there's also that "Ladies and Gentleman" poster who also pours the elixir of It's All Mankind's Fault, Shut the Hell Up, Heretics.
Tony|8.28.09 @ 11:02AM|#
TLG,
Do YOU have a Nobel Prize?
I'm waiting...
No. No you don't. So you're wrong, and Al Gore is right.
This is how science works. It's called "consensus," dumbass.
|8.28.09 @ 11:03AM|#
Tony: You might want to take a closer look at the tail end of the NOAA surface temperature graph to which you linked.
Eric Baum|8.28.09 @ 11:04AM|#
Bailey's article, and presumably the Science paper (which I
haven't read), ignore the alternate theory, supported by a good
amount of evidence, that sunspots affect the climate through the
magnetic wind's deflection of cosmic rays, and the nucleation by
cosmic rays of clouds.
There are direct and striking measurements showing cosmic rays
affect cloud cover, laboratory experiments showing the mechanism,
and extensive proxy evidence over hundreds of millions of years
indicating that cosmic rays are a major if not the main determinant
of climate changes.
|10.12.09 @ 12:15PM|#
Is it the sunspots? Aren't the sunspots indicators of increased solar activity? Is it the solar activity that is having the effect or the sunspots?
The Libertarian Guy|8.28.09 @ 11:04AM|#
Tony, being a smug, arrogant prick who says "do YOU have a Nobel
prize?" isn't going to prove that mankind - and only mankind - is
going to wreck an entire planet.
Elitist horseshit.
Tony|8.28.09 @ 11:05AM|#
btw the Al Gore comments are not mine.
Al Gore is obviously the mastermind behind a giant global
conspiracy of the world's scientists and national academies of
science to undermine libertarians and conservatives by inventing a
problem governments are necessary to solve, thus to put the fascist
foot in the door, and to enrich Al Gore.
The Libertarian Guy|8.28.09 @ 11:07AM|#
Say, whatever happened to those temperature sensors that were placed near jet exhausts, on hot rooftops, next to industrial-strength A/C units, and so forth? Was that data ever corrected, for that matter?
|8.28.09 @ 11:07AM|#
When are you people going to assume that you are better than
scientists at science?
"Gee, maybe our chief source of heat and its fluctuations could be
of importance!"
"Naw dude, we're not going to be skeptical - we're going to take
our grant money and use our global network of corrupt alarmists to
force bad science on those defenseless corporations! Haw
haw!"
Do you think that's how these scientists work?
Seriously, it's as if every new finding regarding the subject
causes two things:
a) whining about Al Gore
b) immediate assumption that the scientists either forgot about
this or that they refuse to factor in such possibilities because
they hate humans and want us all to eat hemp and deny us our
randian transfats.
Libertarians: eternal martyrs.
James Hansen|8.28.09 @ 11:08AM|#
Don't forget your giant speaking fees! And your hundreds of millions in "green" investments!
The Libertarian Guy|8.28.09 @ 11:09AM|#
Close, Tony... but it's deeper than that. It's a scam to finally put a shiv in the chest of capitalism, bleed it dry, and put the carcass in the desert (where we can't build solar collectors because environmentalists whined about it) to rot in the hot, baking sun (which has absolutely nothing to do with global warming).
Al Gore|8.28.09 @ 11:10AM|#
TLG,
Look at the shiny Nobel Prize. Watch its mesmerizing swaying, back
and forth, back and forth...
You are getting very sleepy...
You are forgetting about the massive measurement error problems in
GISS...
|8.28.09 @ 11:11AM|#
Tony spews: "Al Gore won a Nobel Prize.
How many Nobel Prizes does Ron Bailey have? Zero.
That means Al Gore is right and Reason has no business reporting on
science when science disagrees with Al Gore, who has a Nobel
Prize."
Wow, just.....wow.
Cult of personality worship is strong within this one.
A shame we won't be able to read about all the advances in science
since the few Nobel Prize winners in existance couldn't possibly
keep up and report on all that non-nobel prize winning scientists
have been doing. Or is their work to be ignored until they earn (or
as in the case of Gore, are given) the Nobel?
Fidel Castro|8.28.09 @ 11:11AM|#
Ha, next these capitalist running dogs will claim Communism is just an excuse to exercise power and amass billions in personal wealth.
Tony|8.28.09 @ 11:13AM|#
The eight warmest years on record (since 1880) have all occurred since 2001, with the warmest year being 2005.
Mr. Bailey is good enough to quote the authors of the first article
who say that sunspot activity is only marginally relevant to the
broader question of global warming, which is about long-term trends
rather than yearly occurrences. The only conclusion that should
have been reached is that low sunspot activity may be having a
marginal temperature lowering effect in the immediate term, not
that it may be responsible for long-term climate changes on the
scale seen over the last 100 years and predicted for the next.
|10.12.09 @ 12:20PM|#
I don't even listen to the x warmest years since y statement anymore, because you have no idea what dataset they are using.
http://www.norcalblogs.com/wat.....t_yea.html
Karl Marx|8.28.09 @ 11:14AM|#
Personal wealth sucks Cossack cock.
Other than that, Al Gore and the Unabomber are right.
|8.28.09 @ 11:14AM|#
Tony, you said "why is the planet warming? Not just warming, but
according to climate science, warming at a rate that is
unprecedented and unsustainable."
Actually, the global mean temperature is down 3.321% over the last
20 years, while CO2 is up a a fraction of a percentage point over
the same period. The slight rise in CO2 is attributable to recent
large volcanic eruptions in the Southern Hemisphere, the
increasingly common policy of locating CO2 sensors in large
urban/industrial areas, and the rise in the global population. CO2
levels would probably have been higher if not for the rapid
regrowth of rainforests in South America. The rise in water
temperatures in the Pacific Ocean are fairly localized and, oops,
located near areas of wide-spread underwater volcanic activity,
especially in the Kuril Trench, the Aleutian Trench and the East
and West Caroline Basins. The fourteen NOAA buoys located in the
waters above the Tufts Plain Basin just north of the Mendocino
Fracture Zone clearly show a marked and sustained cooling of the
water temperature, as do many other buoys located in other areas.
Could this be why the USCG has been finding small solar and battery
powered heaters, placed by persons unknown, on a number of the
buoys, located in non-volcanic areas, that were suddenly
registering higher temps? 'Magine that!
Reasonable|8.28.09 @ 11:16AM|#
Al Gore is obviously the mastermind behind a giant global
conspiracy of the world's scientists and national academies of
science
A bunch of people being stupid together isn't a conspiracy, just a
bunch of people being stupid.
The Libertarian Guy|8.28.09 @ 11:17AM|#
This global warming = it's all mankind's fault, sure does draw
out the freakjobs, doesn't it...
Maybe one of them can write a manifesto in a shack in, say,
Montana.
Oh, wait... it's been done.
|8.28.09 @ 11:20AM|#
Tony again : "This is how science works. It's called
"consensus," dumbass."
It was once 'consensus' that the sun revolved around the earth,
that space was full of ether, that atoms ,and later, that protons,
neutrons and electrons were the smallest division of matter, that
the universe was static. Do I need to go on?
Dumbass indeed.
|8.28.09 @ 11:25AM|#
Tony, Tony, Tony,
Classic argument from authority: Al Gore was awarded a Nobel Prize.
The Nobel prize is only awarded to people who are correct.
Therefore, Al Gore is infallible in everything he says.
So what do you think about Henry Kissinger - he also was awarded a
Nobel prize?
Oh, and Axel, victim politics are the purview of the left.
Libertarians eschew whining. Fail.
Tony|8.28.09 @ 11:26AM|#
doubled,
Someone is posting under my name, so you're responding to someone
else.
But to your point: it's is a fallacy to assert that because the
scientific consensus has been wrong in the past that it must always
be wrong. We wouldn't know what protons and neutrons were without
modern science, which at any rate is something that post-dates the
era when people thought the earth was flat. You don't get
affirmative action for contrarian hypotheses in science--they have
to be weighed in the context of the consensus.
|8.28.09 @ 11:28AM|#
The church was very supportive of religion.
Tautology?
I think I know what you meant, and I probably agree, but just
wanted to clarify.
You're right. My bad. Should be: The church was very supportive of
science.
Tony|8.28.09 @ 11:28AM|#
I should say contrarian hypothesis shouldn't get affirmative action--at Reason that's usually just what they get.
|8.28.09 @ 11:29AM|#
There is no consensus. That was made up. There are plenty of
appropriately specialized, and qualified scientists that think AGW
is nonsense. I'd be willing to bet that if they were to be
completely honest, even most scientists that support AGW theories,
think Gore is an idiot.
The bottom line with AGW is that we simply don't have the ability
to account accurately for all of the variables that impact climate.
The computer models that have been presented have either been shown
to have erroneous variables exaggerating warming, or simply don't
match actual past climate performance in any meaningful way. There
are a variety of opinions on the impact of CO2 on our atmosphere.
Until you AGW supporters admit that, there will be no meaningful
conversations between you and skeptics.
|8.28.09 @ 11:31AM|#
Tony, you said "they have to be weighed in the context of the
consensus."
What if that isn't happening? And what if the "consensus" is only,
ah, consensing, for monetary, ideological, or political
consideration reasons?
Tony|8.28.09 @ 11:33AM|#
aelhues,
You've got to get your information from somewhere other than world
net daily. Since the 1970s it's been established that global
temperatures are rising due mostly to the activity of humans
(including but not limited to increased CO2 output). This is not
controversial in the scientific community.
|10.12.09 @ 12:26PM|#
I suppose if you ignore satellite data, solar data, historical co2 concentration data, ocean temp data, and you use the made up ground station data you could come to this conclusion.
How come you don't see that your position might, maybe, possibly be controversial.
|8.28.09 @ 11:39AM|#
Worldnet daily? I don't think I've heard of that.
I gather information from a wide range of sources. If you did also,
you wouldn't be so clearly set in your one sided opinion.
|8.28.09 @ 11:48AM|#
"That means Al Gore is right and Reason has no business
reporting on science when science disagrees with Al Gore, who has a
Nobel Prize."
You apparently have no familiarity with the Nobel Peace Prize,
which is not a science prize, and is decided by a different
committee than the science prizes. Those are awarded in Stockholm,
while the Peace Prize is awarded in Oslo.
|8.28.09 @ 12:10PM|#
So, Tony, still waiting to hear your opinion of that other Nobel
Prize winner, Henry Kissinger...
Or is the fact that Kissinger is a Nobel Laureate an inconvenient
truth you'd rather ignore?
dicentra|8.28.09 @ 12:15PM|#
"Since the 1970s it's been established..."
In the 1970s James Hanson was testifying before Congress about the
effect of auto emissions on global cooling.
Hanson is a political hack who should be questioned at every turn,
but His Holiness "doesn't joust with jesters."
Which, IIRC, is how Real Science proceeds: by not answering one's
critics.
Tony|8.28.09 @ 12:29PM|#
Tonio,
I've not made a single comment referring to the Nobel Prize.
Someone's trolling in my name.
|8.28.09 @ 12:40PM|#
That is the one thing that really irritates me about this forum. The fact that someone can impersonate others. The only way we can tell is if it is out of character, or if the original person says so. Even then.... Sure would be nice if there was some mechanism in place to prevent that.
Joe Blow from Idaho|8.28.09 @ 12:53PM|#
Interesting. This long disscussion and no one has mentioned ice
cores, the hole in the ozone, or the hole in the Earth's magnetic
field over the South Atlantic.
Libertarians need not argue scientific theories. It should be
enough to say "the US government should not spend any money to
combat climate change, regardless of its cause".
The true right wing, conservative, Republican nature of many of the
commentors is clearly evident.
Press 1 for response to question A
Press 2 for response to question B
So much for "free minds".
|10.12.09 @ 12:50PM|#
Yeah, once the ice cores showed that co2 concentration increased after temperature increases, no one wants to talk about them anymore.
"true right wing..." What is so horrible about not wasting money on a non-issue? We get to keep our money instead of giving it to politicians and PACs. With all the unwasted money you can have a real effect on the environment by choosing what you buy, or working together on real problems like fishery depletion or whatnot.
We non lefties are so horrible.
Publius|8.28.09 @ 12:55PM|#
That is the one thing that really irritates me about this
forum. The fact that someone can impersonate others. The only way
we can tell is if it is out of character, or if the original person
says so. Even then.... Sure would be nice if there was some
mechanism in place to prevent that.
No thanks. I like it the way it is and with anonymity. It was
obvious which of those were the retarded troll (Tony) and which
were making fun of him.
JB|8.28.09 @ 1:00PM|#
Joe Blow,
It's: the US government should not spend large amounts of money
until climate change is better understood.
What if man has an impact and it is 2% whereas nature is accounting
for 98% of the warming? Then we better spend resources on dealing
with that 98% than on the 2%.
I still have yet to hear from one climatologist on what % impact
does man have plus/minus 5%. Is it 1%, 10%, 55%, 95%, etc.?
So many retards claim the science is settled (or settled enough
according to a few climatologists), but not one of them will give
me that figure. NOT ONE.
|8.28.09 @ 1:13PM|#
Well, I think retards cause glowball wormening.
CO2 is a trailing indicator, an effect, not a cause.
|8.28.09 @ 1:14PM|#
I suppose the next step will be to introduce "Locard's
Exchange", from forensic science, and argue that it's STILL all our
fault because we must be doing something that is affecting the
sunspot cycle.
I truly wish I was kidding; sometimes think "Christ, Paul!
Don't give them any ideas.", but have faith that they will
probably manage to come up with that notion themselves.
-
Tony|8.28.09 @ 1:15PM|#
JB,
There's not a lot of reason to assume climate would have changed
significantly since the beginning of the industrial revolution
without human activity. Those retards who actually do climate
science believe:
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scientists believe that it is very likely (greater than 90 percent chance) that most of the warming we have experienced since the 1950s is due to the increase in greenhouse gas emissions from human activities.
From the EPA.
|8.28.09 @ 1:19PM|#
I want to see a chart showing the change in temperature of
"fluctuations in the sun's energy of about 0.1 percent over the
course of the 11-year sunspot cycle" versus the change in
temperature from all man-made activities over that same 11-year
sunspot cycle.
Yes, that's a tiny percentage of the sun's energy that fluxes...but
the sun supplies virtually all the energy which runs the
weather.
On the other hand, the ENTIRE atmosphere only blocks a small
fraction of the sun's energy.
The so-called greenhouse gasses block only a small fraction of that
small fraction.
A very large portion of the so-called greenhouse gasses are
SUPPOSED to be in the atmosphere. Only a small fraction of the
so-called greenhouse gasses are a result of man's activities. So at
this point, we're talking about a small fraction of that small
fraction of the previous small fraction.
Then consider we are talking about only the so-called greenhouse
gasses are a result of man's activities which are produced during
that 11 years...which is only a small fraction of the time since
the beginning of the Industrial Revolution (the point which climate
scientists want to use as the baseline, approx 159 years).
So make that a fraction of small fraction of that small fraction of
the previous small fraction.
I'm not a climate scientist but I do have a good gut-feel for
numbers. After following both sides of the debate, I strongly
suspect that a the bar on the "man-made" side of the chart would be
tiny while the bar on the sunspot side would be HUGE.
Take a tiny fraction of a big number once?
Or start with a tiny number then make it into ever-smaller
fractions three more times?
But like I said at the start, I'd like to see an authoritative
chart.
Unless I'm completely wrong on my gut feel for this and the size of
the sunspot effect is VASTLY overshadowed by the size of the effect
of man-made activities, most of the temperature data that is
currently being used for climate science needs to be adjusted for
the date on the sunspot cycle BEFORE it can be used to draw any
conclusions.
Reasonable|8.28.09 @ 2:00PM|#
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scientists
believe...is due to the increase in greenhouse gas emissions from
human activities.
This is like saying "Scientology officials believe... is due to
Xenu."
Enjoy your quasi-religious quackery. The actual science says these
claims are full of shit.
Mike M.|8.28.09 @ 2:23PM|#
Yet since sunspot activity is down now, why is the planet
warming?
It isn't. This is an 11-year cycle, and over the last 11 years
temperatures have fallen.
warming at a rate that is unprecedented and unsustainable.
Oh, good, it's unsustainable. That means it won't be sustained, so
there's nothing to worry about. Glad we cleared that up.
Furthermore, the relatively small amount of warming that took place
during the 20th century isn't "unprecedented" by a long shot
either.
Tony is the most ignorant troll on the site by a mile.
Tony|8.28.09 @ 2:48PM|#
This is like saying "Scientology officials believe... is due to Xenu."
Enjoy your quasi-religious quackery. The actual science says these claims are full of shit.
What actual science? Cherry-picked quacks? Reason magazine's
reportage?
What is it about you guys that makes it so difficult for you to
trust mainstream science on this particular subject?
Furthermore, the relatively small amount of warming that took place during the 20th century isn't "unprecedented" by a long shot either.
Maybe if you're talking about all of geologic history. I'm not.
MR|8.28.09 @ 3:01PM|#
It's the sun, stupid.
This will be the new Carvillesque battle-cry once the world wakes
up and realizes (a) coincidence does not equal correlation and (b)
tiny fractional adjustments of solar energy easily dwarfs
adjustments in a few trace gases.
Keep an eye on spaceweather.com for sunspot updates. We're
currently in the longest solar minimum in over 100 years...and
still counting...
|8.28.09 @ 3:22PM|#
Actually Tulpa, those reports of scientists kowtowing to religion, that most people uncritically accept, are greatly exaggerated, if they are even true to begin with. Throughout the l;ast several hundred years, the Christian church has actually been a big backer of science.
JB|8.28.09 @ 3:32PM|#
There's not a lot of reason to assume climate would have
changed significantly since the beginning of the industrial
revolution without human activity.
Bullshit. The climate is not a stable system. It is constantly
changing according to a large number of variables (many of which we
don't even know about and many of which we don't fully
understand).
most of the warming we have experienced since the 1950s is due
to the increase in greenhouse gas emissions from human
activities
That still isn't a percentage. 50.1%+? I don't see the science to
date justifying the drastic actions that many global warmists want
to take. However, I do think there is enough to warrant concern and
more research.
Maybe if you're talking about all of geologic history. I'm
not.
Thus admitting you are cherry-picking. The geologic record shows
that climate change is a constant.
Tony is the most ignorant troll on the site by a
mile.
I generally agree. I won't feed the other trolls like MNG, but Tony
comes across as a retarded troll whose ignorance is most of the
problem.
Mike M.|8.28.09 @ 3:41PM|#
Furthermore, the relatively small amount of warming that
took place during the 20th century isn't "unprecedented" by a long
shot either.
Maybe if you're talking about all of geologic history. I'm
not.
Well, what the heck are you talking about then? The current
interglacial period covering the Holocene Epoch? Not unprecedented
over that time period. The last 1,000 years? Sorry, not there
either: the Medieval Warm Period was as warm as it is now.
EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy|8.28.09 @ 3:54PM|#
Putting Galileo in the "middle ages" as such isn't
totally unreasonable, but it does stretch the usual
definition a little (at least as my non-historian ass understands
the phrase). Not that it necessarily matters for the point being
made.
On the other hand the "egotistical" behavior that got him on the
wrong side of the Church's attention was roughly demanding that
actual data should supersede dogma. While that was politically
stupid, it was eminently scientific.
Note, also, that there is no conflict between
"the Church was the driving force behind most organized efforts to
advance knowledge"
and
"the Church wanted to be in control of what knowledge gained
acceptance, and would use force if needed to insure their
monopoly".
They can be simultaneously true, with the former being laudable,
and the later deplorable. The world can be complicated that
way.
Tony|8.28.09 @ 4:25PM|#
JB,
So when will the science be settled enough to satisfy you? When the
ice caps are completely gone? It seems to me, like an evolution
denier, you expect 100% certainty or something like it before
you're willing to accept what science already agrees is factual
reality, not realizing that if you're looking for 100% certainty
science is not the place to go.
Reasonable|8.28.09 @ 4:31PM|#
Tony, when the anti-AGW science be settled enough for you?
There's links above that show temperatures are no driven by CO2,
that solar influences play a huge part, etc.
It looks like you've developed a religious devotion to your
beliefs.
Reasonable|8.28.09 @ 4:37PM|#
Also, the portion of warming that can't be explained by solar
can be explained by ENSO varations.
C02, the trailing indicator, is not needed to explain any warming.
This is probably because CO2 has very little to do with
warming.
The IPCC is a nice place for environmentalists to get together and
share wacky theories that are sort of sciencey. It's not
"mainstream science" it's mainstream environmentalism posing as
science.
Real scientific theories are falsifiable.
The Libertarian Guy|8.28.09 @ 4:46PM|#
This is all about dismantling commerce, personal transportation,
and destruction of personal freedoms and autonomy, let alone the
ability to get from Point A to B or C or even Q without having to
depend on government-run transportation sources.
Cloaked, of course, in weepy chil'ren-gonna-die rhetoric. Poor baby
seals, too.
Tony|8.28.09 @ 4:49PM|#
Reasonable,
I'm sure you'd be glad to provide the source you're using that's
allegedly more legitimate than the IPCC. Thanks in advance.
MR|8.28.09 @ 5:11PM|#
Tony, here's a recent study announcement for you. It's something
more recent than that 2007 IPCC report to which you are still
clinging:
http://www.domain-b.com/environment/20090716_solar_cycle_oneView.html
These are all baby-steps in the awakening of the realization of the
sun's dominant role in our planet's climate. We've been here
before...this isn't the first time mankind thought he was at the
center of the universe.
|8.28.09 @ 5:35PM|#
you just can't put it better than the way this guy did
so...
-------------------------------------------------------
As just one of the 31,072+ legitimate and viable Scientists who
signed the Petition Project declaring the Global Warming Hypothesis
bogus, of whom 9,021 were Ph.D.s, let me assure you that we're not
in good humor, nor take it kindly to be slurred and ridiculed by
taking the other side in this debate. And our numbers are still
growing. Here's the Petition Statement we support:
"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming
agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and
any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse
gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and
technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of
carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or
will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the
Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover,
there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in
atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the
natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."
According to the process of including signatories, as revealed at
http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/GWPP/Qualifications_Of_Signers.html,
"Signatories are approved for inclusion in the Petition Project
list if they have obtained formal educational degrees at the level
of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields.
The petition has been circulated ONLY in the United States. The
current list of 31,072 petition signers includes 9,021 PhD; 6,961
MS; 2,240 MD and DVM; and 12,850 BS or equivalent academic degrees.
Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in
basic science. All of the listed signers have formal educations in
fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the
research data related to the petition statement. Many of the
signers currently work in climatological, meteorological,
atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and
biological fields directly involved in the climate change
controversy."
Regarding the incessant drum-beating to rally support for Global
Warming, we're stand amazed because it makes reason stare. Indeed,
we're angry that the vast majority of American Scientists will not
be heard by the media. We're dismayed over the fact that Global
Warming fiasco has become politcally popular and expedient to those
left-wing politicians and power-brokers whose aim is to literally
tax everything with a carbon footprint. For those who may not
understand, all life is made from carbon... Thus, their liberal
"idea" is to blantantly control and tax all life, which is to
globally include "breathing;" for in doing so we expell CO2 gas,
which they have wrongly redefined as a Global Warming Gas, a
pollutant which must be regulated and stamped out. Poppycock!
Instead of a true and open discourse, we see the daily dribble from
the MSM and various liberally usurped Science Journels, falsely
alleging a "consenus" when there is not! Arrayed against this
petition statement of 31,000+ is the United Nations IPCC with its
core group of 600 scientists, Al Gore, and a relatively small
number of mediocre "scientists" here and there across the American
landscape, who have suddenly found notoriety or grant money in the
global warming cause. And please note, of the 600 UN scientists,
none are ever permitted to approve the Unitied Nations Global
Warming edicts issued in their name. In fact, some are now suing
the UN over this disparity itself.
Again, to make it clear, these 600 authors are not - as is
ordinarily the custom in science - permitted the power of approval
regarding the published UN review of which they are putative
authors. They are permitted to comment on the draft text only, but
the final text has been found to neither conforms to nor includes
many of their own critical comments. Instead, the final text
conforms wholly to the United Nations objective of building support
for world taxation and rationing of industrially-useful energy.
Anything that would offend the UN doctrine is trashed, pure and
simple.
Dr. Gregory Young
Neuroscientist and Physicist
AST|8.28.09 @ 5:58PM|#
It makes as much sense to me as AGW/C (anthropogenic global warming/cooling) does.
|8.28.09 @ 6:07PM|#
First post in sequence
[i]Furthermore, the relatively small amount of warming that took
place during the 20th century isn't "unprecedented" by a long shot
either.[/i]
Second post in sequence
[i]Maybe if you're talking about all of geologic history. I'm
not.[/i]
Third post in sequence
[i]Well, what the heck are you talking about then? The current
interglacial period covering the Holocene Epoch? Not unprecedented
over that time period. The last 1,000 years? Sorry, not there
either: the Medieval Warm Period was as warm as it is now.
[/i]
Me:
For that matter, the supposed warming trend of the late 1990's
wasn't even unprecedented during the 20th century.
A couple of years back when "everyone" was up in arms about the
warming in Greenland, the global warming proponents when using that
for propaganda failed to point out that the temperatures and
melting ice had not raised as high as the temps were there in the
1920's.
In just the 20th century, respected and renowned scientists went
from worrying about warming to worrying about a "coming ice age"
during the 60's and 70's then back to warming again in the
90's.
Global warming proponents are free to pretend otherwise if they
wish to but history, data, and memory contradicts them. The
elderly, respected scientists of their field today know what was
happening in their field when they were going to college and what
was being taught as they were receiving their degrees.
JB|8.28.09 @ 7:36PM|#
Tony, what 'factual reality' are you talking about?
Are you that ignorant that you think the science is settled?
If you answer it is, then I want to know the global mean
temperature 20 years from now. Tell it to me. If things are so
'settled' as you claim, then it should be easy.
Reasonable|8.28.09 @ 8:54PM|#
I'm sure you'd be glad to provide the source you're using
that's allegedly more legitimate than the IPCC. Thanks in
advance.
The IPCC is not a legitimate source. Their work is not submitted to
scientific journals and reviewed by scientists, it is submitted to
politicians who create press releases.
Geophysical Research Letters, otoh, is an actual scientific
publication. That's where the CO2 study was published.
Reasonable|8.28.09 @ 8:59PM|#
Let's see some proof your AGW belief isn't religious
faith.
How many more years of flat and/or declining temperatures would
falsify CO2-driven AGW for you?
How much more evidence that CO2 is a trailing indicator of
temperature bhistorically would convince you CO2 levels are not
driving warming?
|8.28.09 @ 9:00PM|#
These studies are showing the obvious:
A 0.1% change in the sun's output can cause massive changes in the
earth's climate,
AND
No scientist has yet reliably ascertained what percentage of the
change in the average temperatures of the earth is due to solar
influence versus human influence. If the solar influence is 99.9%,
or 99%, or 90%, then any attempt to use government force to change
the climate will not work.
Until scientists reliably settle that question, any legislation to
allegedly affect the climate is just a power grab not backed up by
science.
Here We Go Again|8.28.09 @ 10:07PM|#
Watching Libertarians discuss science is like watching a man
without fingers trying to masturbate. It's comical, yet
tragic.
Libertarians shouldn't talk about AGW faith, or religion, or any
such nonsense, when they openly support an ideology, and garner
most of their information from ideological think tanks. As we know,
ideologies are for the intellectually lazy, and well, a spade is a
spade.
Let's get something straight: Global Warming supporters are crazy
to most Libertarians, and most Republicans. To everyone else,
they're normal. Of course, it's important to remember that Ronald
Bailey has retracted his former dogmatic anti-global warming view,
which makes these comments all the more humorous.
Your own science reporter admittedly struggled with the truth, yet
the rest of us are suppossed to listen to this bastardization of
data from couch Libertarians? They don't have validity.
You guys are racking up a great track record for espousing, and
defending bullshit. Keep up the good work.
Of course, the average Internet Libertarian has much more
information on this complex issue than researchers. Anyone who has
been around these forums long enough knows that it's very difficult
to convince Libertarians of anything that falls outside of their
faith.
They're the modern day Flat Earth Society, or Also, the cherry
picking and willful delusion is almost identical to Creationist
promoters.
You're in good company.
I have found that the best way to respond to Libertarians is with
ridicule. They're beyond education.
I'm done. Now get back to your IT jobs where you spend most of your
time working hard at surfing the Internet.
Being an uber mench takes real work.
Here We Go Again|8.28.09 @ 10:25PM|#
"No scientist has yet reliably ascertained what percentage of
the change in the average temperatures of the earth is due to solar
influence versus human influence."
That's because scientists aren't Libertarians trying to
dogmatically prove that Global Warming isn't happening. There is no
percentage to be ascertained. It's not accepted as a primary cause,
and it is hardly a new idea to be considered or debunked.
In fact, the sun theory is considered one of the most egregious GW
arguments currently being used.
Conservatives are the only people struggling with this issue
because it debunks yet another bullshit claim made by them, just
like the CRA claim that has been thoroughly debunked. I'm sure
they're still spreading that rumor as well.
Of course, these are important claims for
Conservatives/Libertarians to defend because without them their
attitudes, and insights will have, once again, been proven wrong.
It's not as if the movement has any legitimacy thus far. Their
members must cling to every argument that they make, like good
Church followers. Personally, being a Libertarian sounds like a
fairly maddening, and lonely existence. Your worlds are so narrow
that you're at war against almost everyone on a daily basis.
How many failures of insight into markets, and science do you guys
need to make, before you start to enact some kind of intellectual
quality control? It's becoming cartoonish. Sometimes reality
doesn't fit your ideology. Intellectually honest individuals adjust
accordingly. Ideologists just continue to make excuses.
Ronald Bailey has accepted that AGW is real, and now it's time for
the worshippers of Libertarianism to do the same.
I mean, I can understand Bailey denying it, since he was
essentially paid to deny it, but the rest of you aren't even
getting paid to deny it. You're just playing dumb.
Half of my heart goes out to a portion of you.
The Libertarian Guy|8.28.09 @ 11:35PM|#
Jesus tapdancing Christ. The previous two posts are pathetic.
"Libertarians are stupid/paid to be AGW heretics/starry-eyed
utopians/want to sell heroin to third-graders/they're beyond
education/because I'm a stupid cocksucking liberal who believes
everything I hear or read that would hasten the end of free markets
and the right to dissent against Democrats" blah de fuckin'
blah.
Get a new set of talking points, Here We Go. And take your goddamn
half a heart and ram it up your ass, while you're at it.
The Libertarian Guy|8.28.09 @ 11:36PM|#
"Until scientists reliably settle that question, any legislation
to allegedly affect the climate is just a power grab not backed up
by science."
Succinct and to the point, prolefeed. Kudoage.
Oh, and... shut the fuck up, Tony.
|8.28.09 @ 11:41PM|#
My biggest problem with global warming is the absolute certitude
of some of its' proponents (Example: Al Gore stating that "The
science has been settled!").
Let's try for some perspective, time-wise.
For those comfortable with the metric (S.I.) system, imagine a line
about 4.6 kilometers long (a bit under 3 miles). That would
represent the 4.6 billion year age of the Earth at 1,000,000
years/meter; 1 mm (about the thickness of a paper clip) would
represent a THOUSAND years.
That line would span the downtown area of quite a few large cities,
with some to spare. Here in Houston, the downtown streets are 16 to
the mile, making their spacing about 100 meters. Thus, that line
would be about 46 blocks.
The reign of the dinosaurs ended around 65 million years ago (65
meters, about 2/3 of a city block down that line from today).
The first of our ancestors verging on intelligence may have emerged
from 2 to 4 million years ago (2 to 4 meters, say 6.5 to 13 feet;
your living room could be around 4 meters in one of its'
dimensions).
What we call "modern" man may go back 40,000 years or so (40 mm,
TWO FINGER-WIDTHS on that line).
Written history goes back 6000 years (six millimeters, 1/4 inch on
that line).
Fahrenheit's thermometer is around 300 years old ( 0.3 mm, you're
approaching the thickness of a business card now, or the diameter
of a grain of salt).
The portion of that time-line during which precise temperature
measurements were recorded would be literally microscopic.
And from that portion, we dare to make really long range climate
predictions, and mandate actions based on them?
And decide to totally destroy our economy because of them?
I live about three miles west of some of Houston's major downtown
buildings, so I can easily visualize that line.
Looking at that time-line of Earth's history (the universe's may be
four times that), and the flyspeck of our own existence upon it,
the notion of asserting that ANY science has been "settled" strikes
me as arrogance beyond comprehension (as in "only a politician
could possibly believe that").
-
EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy|8.28.09 @ 11:47PM|#
Here We Go Again,
The first linked study---published in Science, a premier
peer-reviewed journal---purports to be the first successful
description of the measured effect that the solar sun spot
cycle has on low latitude precipitation patterns.
Now, pay careful attention.
If this is the first description of how that works, the process is
not in the models that are being used to predict world wide climate
trends.
That is the models don't get this effect right.
In other words, the models are wrong.
Got that?
Now, this is not necessarily a death knell for various global
warming claims. Climate is a non-linear system and the effects
might be vanishing. Or they might be huge.
The climate modeling guys will be busy for a while fixing up their
programs, confirming or denying that the proposed mechanism seems
to work, and then re-running the long term predictions. And maybe
we'll learn something.
But claiming that AGW is a settled matter suggests that you haven't
a clue how science works.
|8.29.09 @ 12:05AM|#
We live in a republic that has walls. And those walls have to be
guarded by men with thermometers. Who's gonna do it? You? You,
Tony? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom.
You weep for those Polar Bears and you curse the temperature
takers. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing
what I know. My existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to
you, saves useless expenditure of national treasure and retards the
genocidal effects of the policies you wish to implement.
You don't want the truth. Deep down, in places you don't talk about
when your are sleeping alone late at night after those Georgetown
cocktail parties after chowing down on limp quiche and swilling a
third rate California Chardonnay devoid of pretension, you want me
on that wall you need me on that wall. We use words like Little Ice
Age, Medieval Warming Period, and Toga Parties ...we use these
words as the backbone to a life devoted to taking temperature. You
use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the
inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under
the electric blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions
the manner in which I provide it. I'd prefer you just said thank
you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a
thermometer and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what
you think you're entitled to.
Tony|8.29.09 @ 3:47AM|#
Alpha,
Admit it, you work in overalls. The quiche I eat is never limp, and
I would never drink or fuck anything 3rd rate.
The Libertarian Guy|8.29.09 @ 10:36AM|#
"Admit it, you work in overalls."
And liberals never admit to being elitists...
|8.29.09 @ 4:06PM|#
I don't understand why people are looking at this as if
indicates AGW might not be occurring. Clearly solar cycles affect
climate changes on many different scales, everybody knows
that.
But here's the reason that the sun isn't what's caused the 100-year
warming that people are concerned about: the warming isn't
happening where the sun is shining. Warming is greatest
1) in polar regions
2) in the winter
3) at night
If you read the articles, it is clear that this leads to warming in
the tropics. It certainly doesn't lead to more warming at night
than the day!
The observed warming happens exactly like you'd expect if it were
being caused by gasses trapping heat: it's greatest effect is when
the sun is not shining.
YES, the sun is hugely important for climate and has driven large
changes in the past.
YES, the sun is important today.
YES, the models are missing major interactions and, though they are
getting better, they are not yet predictive. Heck, they really do a
bad job when it comes to biological/atmospheric feedbacks and
interactions.
But NO, this doesn't mean that we are not causing the long-term
change, it just may mean that we have a better explanation for why
we saw things like the cooling in the 40s-70s and such. The trend,
because of when and where it occurs, is clearly attributable to
increases in GHGs.
I worry about the models too--they could be predicting future
changes that are too small, as well as too large. Uncertainty, in
my mind, demands caution, not dismissal.
EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy|8.29.09 @ 5:04PM|#
D Courard-Hauri,
You'll find very few folks here who claim that the measured effect
is not real, but rather more who subscribe to one of:
* It's just a fluctuation
* It's not driven by human activity
A few of these may be physically ignorant, most are just very
skeptical. You'll find rather more who question cost/benefit claims
of those who demand that "something MUST be done, RIGHT NOW". I'm
be one of those.
But global warming threads on Hit & Run are always blessed with
the presence of a number of eager little trolls who want to tell
the world that if you don't subscribe to a sufficiently
catastrophic AGW scenario, you are obviously a unscientific,
ignorant bumpkin. Or in the pay of Big Oil. Or something.
Slapping them down is like wack-a-mole: alternately fun and
tiresome.
In the last few threads, some of the better read regulars have
asked these folks to discuss the implications of
* recent papers suggesting that the warming effect of CO2 in
particular saturates
* the prediction by simulation of a mid-troposphere warming effect
due to CO2 driven warming, and the lack of observation of such an
effect
* and (my contribution) the implication of using incomplete models
to try to predict non-linear effects (as above)
The trolls never bother to respond, because they haven't a clue
about nit-picky little technical details. If you do, perhaps you
would like to weigh in.
|8.29.09 @ 7:40PM|#
"Slapping them down is like wack-a-mole: alternately fun and
tiresome."
Much more tiresome than fun. I've had actual intelligent
discussions (occassionally) with global warming proponents on some
sites. You know, people who would read posts and be capable of
responding to points which are made.
Insult-and-run trolls are much less fun than the True Believers in
Global Warming who desperately try to twist science in order to
support their position.
|8.31.09 @ 11:32PM|#
Al Gore won a Nobel PEACE prize, just like Arafat, Kissinger and
Mama Terasa.
Green prophets have been predicting the apocalypse continuously
since 1930. Remember when all the farms blew away and billions
died, or we ran out of oil and had to ride horses, or that ice age
in the 70s?
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245