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?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Oh no! If Big Oil can get to Gerald Meehl, they can get to anybody!

  • Your Congressthing||

    Science is hard. Can't we just pass a bill or something?

  • ||

    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||

    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||

    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.

  • Naga Sadow||

    Boosh! And/or Kakow!

  • ||

    "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||

    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||

    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||

    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||

    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||

  • Ladies & Gentleman: The ever u||

    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||

    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.

  • ||

    My, my what stunnning and insightful sarcasm! The same ole, same ole refuge of the challenged is to do ad hominem attacks, even if cleverly. Now go back to your cellar please.

  • rainy day||

    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.

  • ||

    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||

    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||

    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||

    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||

    Is that Lefiti? The tone sounds like his, but long rambling insults aren't really his style.

  • jtuf||

    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.

  • ||

    We have always been at war with the Sun.

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    The second article TallDave linked to is most informative.

  • ||

    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.

  • +||

    "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 ||

    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.

  • ||

    Ron Bailey is an Obama supporter...

  • ||

    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||

    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.

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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||

    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?

  • ||

    It's Trough Sunspots I tell ya, Trough Sunspots!

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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"

  • ||

    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||

    You guys are missing the big question: what did George W. Bush do with all the sunspots?

    We need a solar crimes tribunal.

  • Tony||

    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.

  • ||

    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?

  • ||

    The elderly own the market on sunspots. Who said Medicare is an abject failure?

  • TallDave||

    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.

  • ||

    "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||

    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||

    Aaaaaand cue typical liberal hand-wringer Tony, here to blame global warming on mankind and mankind alone.

  • ||

    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||

    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.

  • Solanum||

    "Because you open your piehole too often Tony."

    Close...

  • ||

    What a disingenuous, slimy comment. Since data shows the Earth to be cooling, why is tony lying about it warming?

  • Tony||

    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?

  • ||

    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?

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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||

    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.

  • ||

    "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?

  • Tony||

  • ||

    "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||

    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.

  • ||

    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?

  • ||

    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||

    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.

  • ||

    Can I use this quote?

  • TallDave||

    Eric,

    Well, I agree with your overall thesis there.

  • ||

    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||

    "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.

  • ||

    @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.

  • ||

    closing italics tag NOW!

  • ||

    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||

    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.

  • ||

    Well, I agree with your overall thesis there.



    OK, now you're scaring me.

  • Tony||

    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.

  • ||

    Who are you trying to fool? Al Gore got a Nobel PEACE prize. Somehow that doesn't make him have a Nobel SCIENCE prize. Lame.

  • ||

    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||

    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.

  • ||

    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||

    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||

    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.

  • Al Gore||

    Well, it did get me this shiny Nobel Prize.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    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?

  • ||

    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||

    Don't forget your giant speaking fees! And your hundreds of millions in "green" investments!

  • aybabtu||

    ALL YOUR SUNSPOT ARE BELONG TO US!

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    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||

    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...

  • ||

    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||

    Ha, next these capitalist running dogs will claim Communism is just an excuse to exercise power and amass billions in personal wealth.

  • Yasir Arafat||

    Did someone say Nobel Prize and billions in personal wealth?

  • Tony||

    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.

  • ||

    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||

    Personal wealth sucks Cossack cock.

    Other than that, Al Gore and the Unabomber are right.

  • ||

    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||

    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||

    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.

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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||

    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.

  • ||

    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||

    I should say contrarian hypothesis shouldn't get affirmative action--at Reason that's usually just what they get.

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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?

  • squarooticus||

    Since the dawn of time, man has yearned to put out the sun...

  • Tony||

    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.

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    "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.

  • ||

    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||

    "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||

    Tonio,

    I've not made a single comment referring to the Nobel Prize. Someone's trolling in my name.

  • ||

    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||

    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".

  • ||

    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||

    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||

    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.

  • ||

    Well, I think retards cause glowball wormening.

    CO2 is a trailing indicator, an effect, not a cause.

  • ||

    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||

    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.

  • ||

    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||

    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.||

    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||

    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||

    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...

  • ||

    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||

    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.||

    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||

    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||

    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||

    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||

    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.

  • Jar Jar Binks||

    Oh, noes! We'sa gonna die because'a bad mans drive'n SUV's!

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    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||

    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||

    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.

  • ||

    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||

    It makes as much sense to me as AGW/C (anthropogenic global warming/cooling) does.

  • ||

    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||

    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||

    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||

    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?

  • ||

    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||

    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||

    "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||

    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||

    "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.

  • ||

    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||

    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.

  • ||

    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||

    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||

    "Admit it, you work in overalls."

    And liberals never admit to being elitists...

  • ||

    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||

    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.

  • ||

    "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.

  • ||

    Tony,

    I only wear overalls while working on my GTO restoration project.

  • ||

    You're restoring the Global Trade Organization???!!!

  • ||

    Bowman,

    The Goat. The best Pontiac ever.

  • ||

    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?

  • Piers Corbyn||

    It's pretty absurd that this study by NCAR is described as 'new' when two key facts have been known for years:

    1. CO2 changes have ZERO effect on weather and climate in our real atmosphere

    2. Solar activity changes drive changes in the jet stream, weather and climate and are the basis of the most successful long range weather forecasting. See ongoing discussion in COMMENTS in
    http://climaterealists.com/ind.....position=5

    Could it be that this NCAR report represents a move to attack the CO2-Climate-Change Religion? If so that is very significant!

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement