Cold Hard Facts and the ‘Big-Boned Climate’ Theory
The temperature of Earth might have something to do with the giant star it orbits — go figure!
According to NASA’s Goddard Institute (GISS) — James Hansen’s gang that couldn’t shoot straight, or at least screwed up and reposted September data in October — in a 2002 report:
Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits, during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade, according to a NASA-funded study.
“This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change,” said Richard Willson, a researcher affiliated with NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University’s Earth Institute, New York. He is the lead author of the study recently published in Geophysical Research Letters.
“Historical records of solar activity indicate that solar radiation has been increasing since the late 19th century. If a trend, comparable to the one found in this study, persisted throughout the 20th century, it would have provided a significant component of the global warming the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports to have occurred over the past 100 years,” he said.
“But, this doesn’t account for all the warming, meaning that what we are doing to the Earth’s atmosphere is even more dangerous!” we are told. We still cannot account for that extra heat!
Well, how much do we understand about the way the Earth absorbs energy?
A recent paper by Nir Shaviv in the Journal of Geophysical Research has this to say:
Over the 11-year solar cycle, small changes in the total solar irradiance (TSI) give rise to small variations in the global energy budget. It was suggested, however, that different mechanisms could amplify solar activity variations to give large climatic effects, a possibility which is still a subject of debate. With this in mind, we use the oceans as a calorimeter to measure the radiative forcing variations associated with the solar cycle. This is achieved through the study of three independent records, the net heat flux into the oceans over 5 decades, the sea-level change rate based on tide gauge records over the 20th century, and the sea-surface temperature variations. Each of the records can be used to consistently derive the same oceanic heat flux. We find that the total radiative forcing associated with solar cycle variations is about 5 to 7 times larger than just those associated with the TSI variations, thus implying the necessary existence of an amplification mechanism, although without pointing to which one.
And here’s the conclusion:
In summary, we find clear evidence indicating that the total flux entering the oceans in response to the solar cycle is about an order of magnitude larger than the globally averaged irradiance variations of 0.17 W/m2. The sheer size of the heat flux, and the lack of any phase lag between the flux and the driving force, further implies that it cannot be part of an atmospheric feedback and very unlikely to be part of a coupled atmosphere-ocean oscillation mode. It must therefore be the manifestation of real variations in the global radiative forcing.
So, a modest increase in the total solar irradiance can amplify in the oceans into a larger temperature variation.
Couple this with other solar-related effects, such as Heinrick Svensmark’s theory on cosmic rays — he argues that cosmic rays generate clouds, which reflect energy back into space; heavy sunspot activity sweeps those rays away from the Earth much like a broom — and the question of TSI begins to fall into line.
I’m curious to see how the alarmists try to spin this. They are beginning to sound like little children caught with their hands in the cookie jar, desperate to find a better explanation than that they were stealing cookies.
Gobbling cookies can make you “big-boned.” Someone should tell that to James Hansen and Al Gore.
<- Prev Page 2 of 2
Timothy Birdnow is a writer and real estate man in St. Louis. He blogs at www.timothybirdnow.com.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
84 Comments
1. Anonymous:You mean, (gasp) that the sun’s magnetic field creates sunspots and they deflect extra-solar particles from reaching earth where they are the base nuclei for low elevation cloud formation, and the absence of sun-spots increases cloud cover and reduces the amount of solar radiation that reaches the Earth?
wow, who’da thunk it was *the sun* that influence global temperature?
‘course, the sun has been sitting at idle for the last 2 1/2 years.,
Mar 10, 2009 - 1:08 am 2. Craig:“…meanwhile the Gang Green…”
Excellent! I’m bogarting that one.
Mar 10, 2009 - 4:36 am 3. Boris:“So, a modest increase in the total solar irradiance can amplify in the oceans into a larger temperature variation.”
The problem with you latching on to Shaviv’s results is that any feedbacks from solar irradiance will also apply to CO2 forcing. If you accept Shaviv, then we are in far more trouble wrt CO2 than even the IPCC says.
But the solar theory of global warming is contradicted on many levels, most notably the fact that the upper stratosphere has cooled and nighttime temperatures have warmed faster than daytime temperatures.
Mar 10, 2009 - 4:59 am 4. Roy Lofquist:Dear Mr. Birdnow,
In all the discussions I have seen about climate change (certainly hundreds) I have seen only one mention of the “solar wind”. It was to the effect that estimates of the “direct coupling”, that is the interactions occurring in the upper atmosphere, was insignificant. I think that a significant factor has been overlooked.
The wind is a stream of protons and electrons that are mechanically (thermally) ejected from the sun. The electrons move 39 times as fast as the protons (square root of 1840, the mass ratio). This constitutes an electrical current which also has a magnetic field. The core of the earth is a sphere of iron about 2,000 miles in diameter. It is rotating. This is a generator. The generated electrical currents in the core heat it, just like an electric stove.
It’s been 40 years since I last worked through Maxwell’s equations so I’ve not attempted the calculations. I think the numbers might be interesting.
Regards,
Roy Lofquist
Mar 10, 2009 - 5:13 am 5. Tom H.:Titusville, Florida
Funny that the press seems to have failed to notice that the global sea ice extent is at ‘normal’ levels (and expected to increase past ‘normal’ levels). My biggest concern is when all is said and done….when it is finally admitted that the sun is the biggest influence of planetary temperatures and not the 0.038% CO2 in our atmosphere…that people will have lost faith in the scientific body to give accurate and unbiased information. Thus when there really is some looming disaster, noone will believe science. Agendas, disguised as science, is the most heinous of lies and deception to the people it is supposed to serve.
Mar 10, 2009 - 5:51 am 6. Nomad:Yep Th SUN’S Gittin hotter …THE SUN”S GONNA DO WHAT IT DAMN WANT TO DO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Mar 10, 2009 - 5:52 am 7. Ernest:Still, most will only buy into what the mainstream media feeds them, and information like this is not server up. Lining up behind the climate alarmist is the liberal place to be. The grant money cometh.
Mar 10, 2009 - 5:59 am 8. Maurice:Yet more punctures into the theory of “rapid global warming” that is being used to shape disastrous policies, such as the current administration’s outright war on the domestic energy industry during the worst economic crisis since the Depression. The late Michael Crichton warned of the pernicious use of “science” by policy makers to affect often radical agendas. http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.html
And these scientists and liberals are supposed to be “intellectuals?” Back! Back to the Ivory tower. Both you and us will be safer with you there. Science must be dispassionate and always, always condescending to politicians.
Mar 10, 2009 - 6:56 am 9. Fairbanks99:http://www.spaceweather.com. What effect on our economy of a quiet sun? Do some research on the Maunder and Dalton minimum and you will see that it got very cold here on earth, with significant crop failure. This is not a very good time to increase the percentage of food in our gasoline supply.
Mar 10, 2009 - 7:12 am 10. jerryofva:Boris like all the Ganggreen, still goes with models over actual temperatute data and when there is a discrepency between data and model promptly goes and adjusts the data.
Mar 10, 2009 - 7:57 am 11. savage24:For over a week we have been having nice warm weather. Yesterday it turned cold. I wonder if Goofy Gore came through the state. Cold weather follows him like the tail on a dog. And now we have an administration full of these green nuts. God help us.
Mar 10, 2009 - 8:03 am 12. Paul from Hamburg:#9 Good link. Based on the lack of sunspots all last year, I was expecting the very cold winter that we have had.
Whenever anyone tells me that the earth is getting warmer, I ask them if they would be happy if it were getting colder. One of the main reasons I don’t take seriously a lot of the global warming talk is that no one ever describes the benefits. Global warming is always described as if it is a deviation from some ideal temperature. There is no “right” temperature for the earth. There are only climates to which life has adapted. If the earth does warm, we will adapt. If the earth cools, we will adapt. In either case, I have much more faith on mankind’s ability to adapt than I have in mankind’s ability to change the weather.
Mar 10, 2009 - 8:30 am 13. Anonymous:4. Roy Lofquist:
Dear Mr. Birdnow,
I have seen only one mention of the “solar wind”.
~~~~~
Something that CHANGES depending upon the solar magnetic field activity levels.
Mar 10, 2009 - 8:46 am 14. fear Obama:THE SUN DOES NOT AFFECT EARTH TEMPERATURES!
I watched AL GORES Oscar winning movie-
Well part of it-
Uhhh,
2 minutes of it,
and any scientist that uses the Sun for a prop is stupid.
Gore for President,
/after we get rid of Cabbage Head.
Mar 10, 2009 - 8:47 am 15. Anonymous:11. savage24:
For over a week we have been having nice warm weather. Yesterday it turned cold. I wonder if Goofy Gore came through the state. Cold weather follows him like the tail on a dog. And now we have an administration full of these green nuts. God help us.
~~~~~~~~~~
Did that in Victoria, Austrailia – where they were having brush fires. They got snow in their alpine areas – in the SUMMER.
Mar 10, 2009 - 8:48 am 16. typos_R_us:The Ultimate green make-work project. Putting a cover around the sun to control it’s output. I’m making a joke, of course but I’ll bet the left takes it seriously. I wonder if I could bet a 100 million US$ grant to do a feasibility study? That would get me a new laptop, I think.
Mar 10, 2009 - 8:53 am 17. Paul Gross:The reason the hue and cry and from the global warming crowd has become so intense of late is the growing realization that their argument is being debunked. Their true purpose is to get control of the legislative agenda. Thus “we must act now!” Which worked so well in getting the “Stimulus” bill passed. Had we been able to slow it down, it would have been debunked as well.
Mar 10, 2009 - 8:58 am 18. H. Coburn:“The Gang Green.” Gotta love that one. I’ve found a great way to get the “deer in the headlights” look when discussing global warming with enviro-whackows.
Mar 10, 2009 - 9:07 am 19. Anonymous:10,000 years ago or so, the great lakes basin did not exist as it was under a mile or so thick sheet of ice. What happened to that ice sheet? My guess would be that something warmed up.
Maybe it was all the heat from Thag and the boys roasting their mammoth steaks.
12. Paul
we’ve been having fewer sunspots than just last year. (2008 was the second highest number of spotless days in a year, since 1900) 2007 was number nine for spotless days. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/31/2008-ends-spotless-and-with-266-spotless-days-the-2-least-active-year-since-1900-portends-cooling/ for those who want to read about it.
We should have been well into SC24 by now. This minimum is currently bucking for third highest total(if we aren’t there yet, we will be within a month if things don’t change drastically) out of the previous *ten cycles* for *most* days with NO sunspots. (and most of what we’ve been getting would be ignored as paltry if the sun was producing like it did in the 80’s and 90’s.)
I’m wondering if Landscheidt is going to be proven overly optimistic. In the 90’s he theorized SS’s would practically disappear (there is precedent) *after* SC24, not to come back to normal until around 2030.
Hopefully we won’t get a repeat of this graphic comparing/contrasting SC22-SC24 with SC3-SC6 http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/DeepSolarMin.htm It might also be noted, our last spot was SC23, NOT SC24 as we should expect by now.
Mar 10, 2009 - 9:21 am 20. Fantom:Global warming is manmade and I can prove it.
Everyday, just after sunrise everyone gets in their cars and drive to work, as people drive the day gets hotter. Then after all day driving around the air is as hot as it gets as they drive home. After they park their cars it cools off reaching it’s coolest temperature right before dawn and people starting to drive again.
There you have it, proof positive of anthropogenic global warming.
Yes this is satire, and presents just as valid a theory as any AL Gore presents us with.
Mar 10, 2009 - 9:27 am 21. AThinkingPerson:Great….Now Obama will add “saving the planet” to his to do list. C’mon people…his poor teleprompter is going to burn out! Isn’t wrecking the economy, unionizing the entire US business sector, selling out our foreign interests and coddling tax cheats enough for one President? How is he supposed to keep campaigning and having all of his cocktail parties if we keep adding to his laundry list?
Mar 10, 2009 - 9:30 am 22. Ms. Attitude:20. Fantom, I wonder if I can use that reason with my boss to work from home….I could get a t-shirt that says I’ve helped save the planet from getting warm…
Seriously, future generations will find this to be a joke!
Mar 10, 2009 - 9:42 am 23. Bill Perron:My God !!! We’ve went and done it now!!! Our pollution of Earth has now spread all the way to the Sun !! Evil humans, you are ruining the whole damn solar system with your filth.
Mar 10, 2009 - 10:07 am 24. MRE:Even the words don’t make sense.
When they were saying “global warming due to man-made excess carbon emissions”, they tried to scare us into being afraid it would get Warmer, Hotter, HotHotHot.
But, when the Warmer/Hotter/HotHotHot became laughable, they shifted to “climate change”. What does that even mean? The climate changes all the time. So, what are they saying…that the warms will be warmer and the cools will be cooler…then Hotter…then Cooler…then???
If that’s the case, then their big “climate change is due to man-made carbon emissions” doesn’t make sense.
Excess carbon can’t make things both hotter and cooler at the same time. It’s a gullible-governance grab.
“Global Warming” can’t be “Climate Change” and “Climate Change” can’t be “Global Warming”.
Mar 10, 2009 - 10:22 am 25. MRE:oops…sorry…I meant “Global-Governance Grab”, not “Gullible-Governance Grab”
Mar 10, 2009 - 10:25 am 26. David S:Mr. Birdnow,
You must simply fail to comprehend the science you attempt to discredit.
There is nothing in your column or the studies you cite that would contradict this position. You yourself note that “The ace in the hole for global warming alarmists of every shape and size is that the Earth has warmed (by under one degree Fahrenheit) during the 20th century and solar irradiance does not seem to adequately account for the temperature increase.” This is climate change, and it is happening at a very rapid pace.
Then you cite the usual suspects:
On the other hand, empirical data shows that the warming is continuing, sea levels are rising, and the trends are clear.
The “cold hard facts” show that climate change is indeed a problem, despite your attempts to deflect attention to other issues.
Peace.
DS
Mar 10, 2009 - 10:40 am 27. jerryofva:Dave:
Actually, the emprical data from the last ten years shows the earth to be steady or cooling (satellite temperatures have returned to their 1980 levels; sea levels have stopped rising and ocean temperatures have cooled since 2003 and the Artic Icecap has returned to the levels seen 30 years ago.
Here is a list of cooling facts:
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/search?q=great+lakes+freezes
You can shove your peace
Mar 10, 2009 - 10:52 am 28. Paul of Alexandria:Boris (3):
Water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas, by a factor of about 100 to 1. The sun is a high-temperature radiation and puts out most of its radiation in the near IR – wavelenth less than 2 um (micron). This radiation passes through the atmosphere without significant absorption by water vapor in the atmosphere and is absorbed by the ground. The ground, being at a much lower temperature, radiates in turn primarily in the long-wave IR, wavelengths > 2 microns. This radiation is largely absorbed by water vapor in the atmosphere and heats the low lying air. It is also reflected by clouds in the atmosphere. This is why clear nights are usually far colder than cloudy nights.
There are multiple feedback mechanisms involved between air temperature, water vapor concentrations, cloud cover, ocean temperature, and solar output. The main problem with most current climate models is that they totally ignore cloud cover.
Some sources:
Mar 10, 2009 - 10:52 am 29. Paul of Alexandria:Geocraft
National Center for Public Policy Research
Schlumberger
CO2 Science
Climate Audit
Boris (3):
The upper stratosphere is above the cloud cover and is primarily heated by solar ultraviolet radiation, not IR. Solar UV output is proportional to sunspot activity, so fewer sunspots = less UV = lower stratospheric temperatures.
Mar 10, 2009 - 10:56 am 30. Paul of Alexandria:#27: “The sun is a high-temperature radiation” should be radiator. Specifically, it is a close approximation to a blackbody radiator at 6000K
Mar 10, 2009 - 10:59 am 31. AThinkingPerson:David S….Thought you’d enjoy reading a Senate report about 650 scientists dissenting against the global warming “consensus” as provided by the ever illustrious Al Gore….
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb
I’d also suggest doing a little tracking to see where your “empirical data” is coming from and who is paying for it. Being gullible is an easy liberal trait to succumb to if not careful David.
Peace and TRUTH!
Mar 10, 2009 - 11:31 am 32. AThinkingPerson:David S….Yet more on those darned oceans cooling off from the same source you used for your “empirical data”…
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/reference/bibliography/forthcoming/idl0901_man.html
Mar 10, 2009 - 11:43 am 33. donttreadonme:Boris,
Mar 10, 2009 - 11:45 am 34. MachiasPrivateer:When I have beans for dinner, the temperature under my covers at night is warmer than the air near my ceiling – even during cloud-covered summer evenings. FYI.
Roy Lofquist
You could be on to something. Note that the most often cited cause of climate cahnges on our West coast are the El Nino/La Nina oscillations.
The core of the Earth is very hot and thermal energy flows from higher temperature to lower ones. One source of this heat is radioactive decay, evidenced by the flow of Radon gas to the surface. You may have identified another source. There is a relentless flow of energy from the core to the surface.
Has anyone seen a climate model that accurately predicted the El Nino/La Nina cycle? Has anyone seen a model that uses those non-existent predictions to set surface boundary conditions for the atnospheric model?
Has anyone explored the thermocline in the oceans which could overturn under heating from below, the way lakes overturn in the transition from ice at the surface and liquid water below to warmer water above as the temperature rises above 39 degrees F?
And considered the ramifications of what happens between periodic overturns as the conducted heat from the ocean floor has to re-heat the cold water that flows in to replace the warm that lifted?
Mar 10, 2009 - 12:05 pm 35. David S:@27. jerryofva::
Satellite data shows a consistent warming trend.
Sea levels have been rising rapidly.
Global temperatures are at record highs.
Open wide. All your data on record cold temperatures only reinforces the climate change argument – unusual and unpredictable weather changes are expected to coincide with the global rise in average temperature.
Peace.
DS
Mar 10, 2009 - 12:09 pm 36. fred:CO2 is not a pollutant. Polar region ice core samples show that levels of CO2 increased following periods of warming (likely caused by solar sunspot episodes). The core sampling has also revealed that there were periods of very high CO2 levels during cold climate trends. There have been periods of warming trends longer than and warmer than the recent period ending in 1998. Again, sunspot activity is the likely cause of that period. During that period CO2 levels were far below prior episodes of both cooling and warming.
Al Gore is nothing but a huckster trying to sell a tax scheme that was cooked up by his patron, Maurice Strong.
It is apparent that despite formidable refutation of the AGW hypothesis the carbon tax regime (set up as a carbon cap and trade system)is going to be slapped on us, beginning in the year 2012. This monstrosity hangs over our economy like the Sword of Damocles, and will hamper our economy. Fortunately for us, the people who stick us with it will be out of power in 2013 and we can get rid of it. We’ll have one year before the election when voters will get a real feel for the bite it is.
AGW is a prima face example of just how utterly stupid the bulk of our population has become on account of the kidnapped education system.
I don’t understand why David S and Boris have to frantically post on our blog here their pathetic defense of a discredited hypothesis. They are part of the winners of the last election and they are going to get the Kyoto Protocols and the financial wealth transfer that it requires. What we “deniers” have to say here is of no consequence. We lost the election. The sheeple are going to get dramatically increased utility bills and doubled gasoline prices. It’s what they want, so let’s let the people eat their shit sandwich and get a good look at what this is all about. Once it has sunk in, they will scream bloody murder and demand change. Not the kind of change The One wants. He’ll be out of office in January of 2013 and the people will look at the mess of the preceding four years and demand real change.
Mar 10, 2009 - 12:31 pm 37. Squirmn:@ David S.
It is not the non-believers job to disprove Global Warming. It is the believers job/duty to present such a compelling argument that disbelief is not possible. Link it if you have it, but it had better be really good.
Pete
Mar 10, 2009 - 12:35 pm 38. Boris:
Mar 10, 2009 - 12:43 pm 39. scruzman:DS
Please expand your horizons of knowledge to something other than Wikipedia.
Peace, Love, Groovy, Granola
Mar 10, 2009 - 12:44 pm 40. Paul from Hamburg:#35
“unpredictable weather changes are expected to coincide with the global rise in average temperature”
Right. I think I have it now. Weather that we can’t predict proves that our predictions are correct.
This actually illustrates one of the most obvious signs that global warming doesn’t involve actual science. Actual science involves accurate, verifiable predictions. In order to make large scale, long term predictions, you have to be able to make small scale, short term predictions. For example, we can predict the long term trajectory of a space probe because the formulae used can be verified using smaller scale experiments. In meteorology, weather and climate are the short term and long term. “Climate” is simply a term to describe the long term aggregation of short term weather. If you want to be able to accurately predict an average temperature for April 2019, then you have to be able to predict the average temperature for April 2009.
Mar 10, 2009 - 12:47 pm 41. AThinkingPerson:David S is quoting from Wikipedia which we all know is a “reliable” source….
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28799154/
Mar 10, 2009 - 12:56 pm 42. Cousin Dave:And no, DS, Wikipedia is not an authoritative source. For one thing, the ocean level data you link to has since been discredited as being the result of a software error.
War,
CD
Mar 10, 2009 - 1:23 pm 43. Paul of Alexandria:AThinkingPerson (31):
See especially
Mar 10, 2009 - 1:44 pm 44. Paul of Alexandria:* Anthony Watt’s column on the Heat Island Effect, where he points out that some of the supposedly standardized USHCN weather stations are questionable, being sited where their readings can be influenced by man-made structures and equipment.
* Willis Eschenbach’s article on Steve McIntyre’s Climate Audit, where he demonstrates that the entire “hockey stick” portion of the historical temperature curve used to promote AGW is due to data from a single area and it highly suspect. (The temperature data is derived from “proxies”, primarily tree-ring thicknesses and ice-core data, which may also be effected by other things such as rainfall.
Boris (38):
Huh? All that my information shows is that the stratospheric temperature is not directly coupled to the lower tropospheric temperature. Don’t infer more than the data shows!
In actuality, if increased cloud cover is also due to lower sunspot activity via increased cosmic ray penetration, as others have said, then you can very well expect to see both lower stratospheric and higher surface temperatures.
Mar 10, 2009 - 1:50 pm 45. David S:@40. Paul from Hamburg:
Weather ≠ Climate
Wrong. I predict that you will die. But I can’t tell you the date. I predict the summer will be warmer than the winter, but I can’t tell you if it will be warmer or colder tomorrow. Your logic is flawed.
Climate change does not predict the average weather for a given month. We are talking about trends measured in decades and centuries, not a ten year scale.
Weather ≠ Climate
Peace.
DS
Mar 10, 2009 - 2:10 pm 46. Bill Perron:Just had a deep conversation with the Swami From El Monte himself, and I quote: “For some the world will seem warmer, for others it will seem cooler, for most it will depend on how much money they can make by touting warming, for others how much they will make touting cooling. In the end it will make no difference because it is all part of the Dance of Shiva.” Ommmm
Mar 10, 2009 - 4:37 pm 47. AThinkingPerson:David S….You’ve made your own argument moot. You yourself point out that climate change is measured in “decades and centuries”. Precisely why the science you tout is wrong. Geologists make up the main body of scientists discounting “global warming”. Why? Because they are using Earth’s geological records (ie, ice, rocks, water levels, fossils etc) from THOUSANDS of years. It’s cyclical.
I can only imagine they hysteria that would have ensued had you been alive in the 1500’s when the Thame’s used to freeze over every year. Hmmm…Isn’t it odd that the UK suffered one of their most severe winters this past year? Odd………….and cyclical.
Save a tree, make some hemp bracelets, grow your dreadlocks, become an ACORN volunteer. Whatever. Just quit with the hysteria and falsehoods.
Mar 10, 2009 - 4:43 pm 48. Scott:boring boris can always be counted on to champion the left side of life.
Mar 10, 2009 - 4:46 pm 49. Moogie:Wait, wait…. all of this “scientific” jargon confuses me!
So, basically, what all of this means is this:
Mar 10, 2009 - 5:08 pm 50. jerryofva:When the sun “breaks solar wind” the earth suffers the consequences?
Dave:
You seem to be confusing modeled results with actual temperature data. It is true that for the last ten years the models have been predicting increasing global temperatures. Climate models said that 2007, 2008 and 2009 were successively record warm years. However, the real temperature dropped precipitously in 2007 and 2008. It is too early to tell what real temperatures will do in 2009 but it will take an really warm winter in the Southern Hemisphere and very hot summer here to make a record. Not going to happen.
You and Boris live in the delusional world of the matrix where simulation has become your reality.
Mar 10, 2009 - 5:12 pm 51. Roy Lofquist:Dear MachiasPrivateer,
Thanks. Good points.
Yes, radon gas does indicate continuing radioactive decay in the interior. Supposedly just under my basement when I went to sell a house during the radon craze a while back.
The explanation that the temperature of the core is sustained by radioactive elements has, to me, always seemed absurd. Half-Life! And I don’t mean the video game. The currently accepted age of the earth is 5 billion years. The half life of U238 is 4.5 billion. There should be about half the heat now. All evidence supports the proposition that the core temperature has not deviated nearly that much.
My point is that this factor has been totally overlooked. I sense (intuit) that it may be significant. The solar wind was first detected by the Russian Luna 1 satellite in 1959. The focus of subsequent research has been on the very practical matters of its impact on space vehicles and its effects on communications and electrical transmission. Given the intense specialization of science in these modern times no one has sat back and contemplated the implications.
I now have time to contemplate but neither the energy nor the time to dig out the old textbooks. At my age golf, fishing and a good bowel movement are my focus. I was hoping that someone more facile with physics would be intrigued with this idea and run with it. Old man’s dreams.
Regards,
Mar 10, 2009 - 6:09 pm 52. David S:Roy
@47. AThinkingPerson:
Yes. And understanding where we are in the cycle is an important part of understanding why greenhouse emissions are dangerous.
Yes, the river Thames used to freeze more regularly. The climate has warmed since then overall. It is not odd at all that severe weather events would occur – but look at the ongoing trend. A snowstorm is not a reversal of climate change, and a single cold season in the UK does not indicate a deviation from the global nature of climate change via global warming.
Trees are a big part of the solution, this is true. And hemp would be a valuable addition to our economy. But hairstyles have little to do with it, and ACORN is, as always, a red herring. You are ‘hysterical’ and denying the evidence of your own citations. A tax on emissions to help offset and prevent future pollution would be a wise and forward-looking tool to craft a future economy based on renewable and sustainable technologies that could be manufactured domestically, saving hundreds of billions of dollars from going to OPEC nations.
Corporations are currently outsourcing the cost of their pollution to the public at large – the value of our air, land and water has been disrespected for too long, with each of us bearing the cost of damage done to the planet. Nobody has a right to drown their neighbors in filth.
Peace.
DS
Mar 10, 2009 - 6:10 pm 53. fred:Anyone who believes in computer modeling of climate should be exposed for quackery. Once you get five days out in weather forecasting, the level of accuracy goes down a lot. If you cannot accurately computer model the weather five days or more out, you are not going to be able to do this for climate years out. Not going to happen.
We’re not dealing with science here. Rather, we are dealing with a religious faith.
Mar 10, 2009 - 6:21 pm 54. AThinkingPerson:David S…I am not “hysterical”. In fact I’d like to believe I’m the calm one in this conversation. You are combining two entirely different issues in order to make your point. Pollution is a different problem than global warming (or lack thereof). Recycling is an honorable pursuit to be sure but claiming that mankind is changing the overall temperature /weather of the planet is, indeed, alarmist and unsubstantiated (unless of course one holds to the belief that An Inconvenient Truth is gospel). Should we also try and stop up volcanoes as they contribute to atmospheric gases? Should we plug cow sphinters or outlaw burping to curb noxious fumes?
The way I see it, it’s a win/win for your side as demonstrated by your last post. If it gets warmer….you’re right….it’s global warming! If it gets colder…..you’re right….wide swings in climate temps are a sure sign of upset! If there are lots of hurricanes….just as you predicted…global warming causes more storms! If there are fewer hurricanes…yep…climate change at work causing wide swings from year to year.
God it must be awesome to be able to just follow something so blindly and never veer off the beaten path to ever question anything. Do you ever perchance read any other viewpoints on the subject? Do you ever wonder why scientists are coming out in ever larger numbers to question the validity of the global warming hysteria? Do you ever wonder why big business and big government are pushing the global warming agenda forward so quickly with no room or tolerance for dissenting opinion?
Gore’s inability to have a rational discussion without talking points and a viewing of his movie is all I needed to search further into the whole issue. As you can tell, I’m not easily brainwashed.
Mar 10, 2009 - 6:58 pm 55. Jerry:Hello, Global Alarmist,
Mar 10, 2009 - 7:00 pm 56. jerryofva:Let’s say the earth does warm up. That’s better then cooling down. More people die each year from the cold then the heat. Look back to the Middle Ages when they could actually grow grapes in England and the north countries. It was a real time of prosperity. That’s when they built all the Castles. What it means in a day of growing starvation is more land mass to grow crops on. Just keep our food out of our fuel.
Dave:
It’s not just one winter. It is the last three. I believe that the last three winters in the Southern Hemisphere constitutes the cold three year span since data has been recorded. The observed cooling is not isolated but worldwide.
Mar 10, 2009 - 7:13 pm 57. Agamemnon:Boris and David S will fail to “get it,” but everyone else can see that the planet is still emerging from the last Ice Age, when Chicago was buried under a mile of ice.
The normal and natural trend line of the planet’s routine warming can be seen here:
http://s5.tinypic.com/28r1a8p.jpg
Sometimes the planet is above the trend line; sometimes it’s below the trend line. But it always returns to the trend line.
Check out the site voted this year’s “Best Science” site by the Weblog Awards:
http://wattsupwiththat.com
The truth will set you free.
Mar 10, 2009 - 7:24 pm 58. ked5:#14 Fear Obama
I recently saw a cartoon out of Belgium. They love Gore too. It was of a man freezing his tootsies off, and buring his copy of “An Incovienent Truth” in a barrel in an attempt to stay warm. Hmmm, the Belgians really love Gore.
Mar 10, 2009 - 7:24 pm 59. ked5:hey david
why is Vinland still COLDER than when Leif Erikson was there before the Little Ice Age?
Mar 10, 2009 - 7:30 pm 60. ked5:40. Paul from Hamburg:
#35
“unpredictable weather changes are expected to coincide with the global rise in average temperature”
Right. I think I have it now. Weather that we can’t predict proves that our predictions are correct.
This actually illustrates one of the most obvious signs that global warming doesn’t involve actual science. Actual science involves accurate, verifiable predictions. In order to make large scale, long term predictions, you have to be able to make small scale, short term predictions. For example, we can predict the long term trajectory of a space probe because the formulae used can be verified using smaller scale experiments. In meteorology, weather and climate are the short term and long term. “Climate” is simply a term to describe the long term aggregation of short term weather. If you want to be able to accurately predict an average temperature for April 2019, then you have to be able to predict the average temperature for April 2009.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
One other thing you have to be able to do with your model – go back 50 years, take your model and predict what will happen with a reasonable amont of accuracy – that can demonstrate a ‘proveable’ model. AGW’ers CANNOT do it. They are so far off, it ain’t funny. Could be why Hansen has been caught fudging (re: LYING about) data to support his position.
Mar 10, 2009 - 7:35 pm 61. Fedupyet?:I am impressed with David S. He is an authority on a wondrous variety of topics. He arrives here at a demonstrably conservative site and dispenses his prescient contrary wisdom on every topic that is addressed by PJM. Not only does he have all the answers about society, economics and the rectitude of Obama’s socialist political agenda and how flawed the previous, right wing nutcase administration has been; he insists on correcting the benighted and misbegotten inhabitants of this venue. Now he is an expert on climate science as well. He is truly a marvel and I am completely awed by his intellect. And remarkably, I sense, he is still at university, either as an undergraduate, or as a junior member of the faculty (hard to separate the two groups). So I salute you David S! Damn you are good! And in return I parrot your salutation.
Piss (on you), you sorry speciman!
You have become tired beyond belief, but damn I enjoy pointing out my disdain and lack of respect for you and all you stand for.
Mar 10, 2009 - 7:36 pm 62. eor:If these nuts were just green it wouldn’t be as bad as the fact they think 95% of the Taliban are reasonable! I guess Gore will after all get some of my money thruough this idiot administration. I won’t give him any myself.
Mar 10, 2009 - 8:02 pm 63. Jim Baker:“the Gang Green” That is one of the funniest things I have read in a long time. A perfect description of the Environist religion. Did you hear that term somewhere else?
David S is a card carrying, collection plate member of Gang Green. Peace to DS.
your friend
JB
Mar 10, 2009 - 8:07 pm 64. G Alston:#10 — Boris like all the Ganggreen, still goes with models over actual temperatute data and when there is a discrepency between data and model promptly goes and adjusts the data.
Dr. Leif Svalgaard (sun specialist) posts regularly on the Watts site and thinks the paper is also wrong.
#53 — If you cannot accurately computer model the weather five days or more out, you are not going to be able to do this for climate years out.
Really? Do you think you can’t possibly predict that August will probably not have blizzards and -20 daytime temps? Do you even know what you’re talking about? (Answer: no.)
#26 — On the other hand, empirical data shows that the warming is continuing, sea levels are rising, and the trends are clear.
Sea levels are indeed rising, but at the basic 2-4mm/yr rate they have been far ages. And lest you attempt to cite alarming stats that show a recent uptick, there have been many more fast rises in the past that meet or exceed the uptick. Upticks in and of themselves aren’t necessarily evidence of anything. Let’s look at 20 years of ARGO data before we make that claim.
Similarly temps are rising but not necessarily at a rate that is conclusively attributed. It’s been warming since the LIA and it’s quite the statistical trick to differentiate the human signal from the expected natural LIA rebound. That’s why they try to corroborate data with CO2 isotopic analysis and have dishonest types like Mann abusing statistical technique (PCA.) The world is getting warmer but this is expected. How much it’s warming that’s “extra” is solely what’s disputed. Most of you green believer types lump these things together which makes your arguments weak; essentially you’re arguing that temp rise from 1850 to now is strictly human. That’s simply absurd.
Then of course there are widespread failures to understand some of the temperature records, e.g. land use (not mere UHI) which affects local microclimates… temp station A is seeing to get hotter since 1890. On the other hand A used to be ranchland 50 miles from the road, and over the years farms and irrigation and humidity encroached. Temp change for this station is a better proxy for land use than climate change, yet the greens point to the rising temps and say “See? This proves it!” That’s patently absurd, of course. Attempts to “fix” this via gridded systems in order to improve the S/N ratio are dubious. Have you personally gone through GISS model E? I have.
It’s a certainty that humans affect the climate. Humans affect their entire environment. Certainly humans contribute GHG’s and in some measure affet climate. Humans also change the land and emit albedo-changing soot that lands in polar regions.
The problem is that nobody (and I mean *nobody*) can conclusively say to what degree humans are causing warming because we simply lack the tools to read the signal.
Of course the expected (and usual) response to this is the idiotic derivative of Pascal’s Wager euphemistically called the ‘precationary principle’ — “isn’t it better to be safe and assume…”
…so go ahead, make my day. Invoke Pascal and hit the full monty imbecile jackpot. You’ll be equal and opposite #53.
Mar 11, 2009 - 12:12 am 65. Boris:IPCC projections are ensemble means, so they do not include interannual variability. Since we can explain the recent weather (la nina) I wonder who is really suffering from delusions.
Mar 11, 2009 - 3:59 am 66. AThinkingPerson:#61 Fedupyet?…I concur with your evaluation of David S. Might I add union expert to his growing list of accomplishments? I think you’re right that he is encased in academia right now. Wide eyed with knowledge spoon-fed from his liberal professors (who have never actually functioned in the “real world” I’d bet). I remember those days well and now feel sorry that I’ve taken on his lengthy diatribes with gusto. With time he’ll get around to reading and learning from other sources besides those deemed worthy by his advisers. Unfortunately the real world has a way of creeping into all of that Utopian thought pretty quickly.
Mar 11, 2009 - 5:17 am 67. jerryofva:Boris:
La Nina disappeared by the end of last December and Hansen’s friends realclimate.org site predicted a warmer then normal winter. Their prediction was way off. La Nina had little to do with the last three cold winters.
The IPCC consensus is based on modeling not real temperatures. GCM models are inherently unstable. You should read James Gleiks’ book “Chaos, The Makings of a New Science.” He talks a lot about the development of GCMs during the 1960s and 70s. The models invariable went to what was called the “white earth” solution, i.e., ice age. James Hansen was heavily involved in the development of these models and was in the forefront of predicting a new imminent man-made ice age during the 1970s. What happened? Temperatures started to rise in 1980 and he then switched to man-made global warming.
The problem is that forcing functions added to the model drove the current extreme global warming predictions that we see today. Instead of having a “white earth” we now have a “red earth” scenario. GCMs are much better then they were 20 years ago and the computing techniques used to solve them are more powerful but GCMs aren’t even a weak approximation of the real atmosphere. Making a dynamically unstable model more elaborate doesn’t make it more stable. It probably makes it less stable. CO2 levels in the Cretaceous were much higher then they are today and will be in 100 years. Why was there no run away global warming back then? Atmospheric physics should be the same regardless of the source of CO2. One can only conclude that the real atmosphere does not behave in the same way that the models do.
There are three types of people who support the catastrophic global warming scenario. Scientists who make the mistake of actually believing their models represent reality; Scientists who are whoring for research funding; and acolytes like you and Dave S. who need something to believe in.
Mar 11, 2009 - 5:47 am 68. G Alston:#65 — IPCC projections are ensemble means, so they do not include interannual variability. Since we can explain the recent weather (la nina) I wonder who is really suffering from delusions.
Probably you and many of the rest of Revkin’s posters. Interested amateurs (e.g. Lucia @ rankexploits) who agree humans affect the climate and also get the math are showing that IPCC projections are precipitously close to being falsified. That they aren’t yet is due to 1 sigma (’error bars’) ranges that are (surprise) generously large. The “we were right but the La Nina masked it” excuses are sounding hollow. Solar cycles and the PDO seem to have not been accounted for correctly. As Lucia puts it and Gavin S. agrees, a few more years (as few as 5?) of temps like they have been will falsify the projections outright.
There’s a wide gulf between flat earther type deniers you see here and honest skepticism. However a great deal of skepticism exists solely because Hansen et al backadjust temps from (e.g.) the 1920’s every month. Backadjusting ONCE can be understood if explained correctly. But every month? No wonder people are skeptics: it’s a rational position.
Skeptics are also created in a political sense. People who may not be skeptical on the science itself become pretty agitated when true believers decide that the only way to fix the claimed “problem” sounds suspiciously nanny state-like and, lo and behold — the true believers all seem to be closet communists. “No, there’s no connection.” Hah. Of course there is. A child can see it.
Talking about delusions is great fun.
Mar 11, 2009 - 8:11 am 69. Paul -Indiana:#40. From one Paul to another…note that the Greens can’t make their models predict the weather we had in the 1990s from observations in the 1950s. Can we all say S.N.O.W J.O.B
Mar 11, 2009 - 8:53 am 70. donttreadonme:You are going to have to cease arguing with David S. He will never be convinced. Faith-based belief systems are impossible to change at the point of a gun, much less with empirical data. Liberals that “come around” do so at their own pace.
Mar 11, 2009 - 10:20 am 71. G Alston:Acid Rain; Y2K; New Ice Age; DDT/Silent Spring; Keynesian Economics; Marxism; and on and on…
Those who do not believe in God will believe in just about anything.
#70 — Those who do not believe in God will believe in just about anything.
So you can fix science debate issues by making them attend church?
What an astonishingly vacuous thing to say. Sorry, pal — this isn’t the Spanish Inquisition, and attempting to invoke it doesn’t advance science discussions. The only thing you can possibly attain is a perpetuation of the image of the woefully ignorant army of god fighting science. Idiocy like that is how the skeptical community is (successfully) compared to evolution deniers.
Mar 11, 2009 - 10:45 am 72. Jim Baker:Alston,
Mar 11, 2009 - 11:31 am 73. David S:The entirely vacuous statement is that believers in God are entirely vacuous. That sentence was very succinct. My personal experience has been that people will usually believe anything they are told, rather than research the facts of the argument. It has also been my experience that most people feel the need to believe in something on a religious level. Being devoid of a belief in the supernatural usually makes a person more susceptible to a belief in other theories. This is not a bad thing, but it does help to explain the blind religious faith of the true believers of Environmentalism. Skepticism cannot be limited to discussions of God.
@54. AThinkingPerson:
Emissions = Pollution = Greenhouse Gases = Global Warming
Mankind can change the concentration of gases in the atmosphere. It’s not a big mystery what comes out of your tailpipe.
If it gets progressively colder for 100 years, you could argue against the trend. Otherwise, stop digressing about the weather.
weather ≠ climate
Yes, indeed, and there is not much scholarship of note. Unless you count the “industry sponsored” science.
It usually involves their funding source having a vested interest in a fossil fuel economy.
Business and government are on board because they can see the writing on the wall. For decades we have continued to emit massive amounts of pollution, and it has become clear that this is not sustainable, and will have long term consequences for the climate. It is in everyone’s best interest to move forward together with deliberate speed before the problem worsens.
Peace.
DS
Mar 11, 2009 - 1:47 pm 74. G Alston:#72 — The entirely vacuous statement is that believers in God are entirely vacuous.
That wasn’t asserted. Are you responding to what was actually written or what you felt might have been the intent?
Being devoid of a belief in the supernatural usually makes a person more susceptible to a belief in other theories.
This is taken as axiomatic by idealogues. Amusingly, it doesn’t seem occur to idealogues that non-ideological thinking can even *exist* (which of course is why it’s axiomatic for them.)
You’re a funny guy, Jim. Can I quote you elsewhere?
Mar 11, 2009 - 2:28 pm 75. G Alston:#73 — Yes, indeed, and there is not much scholarship of note. Unless you count the “industry sponsored” science.
Let’s take your contention at face value. Here we have energy companies who employ the brightest of the bright, as in ivy league people with near-genius IQ. Supposedly, the best these guys can come up with is a plan to use up all the resources, have the common man hate you enough to bomb corporate offices, have the government leaning on them to the point of nationalizing them for the good of the country, AND in the process of this, use up every possible resource as fast as possible.
Yeah, that’s certainly a plan that the brightest of the bright would come up with. As if. But that’s what you’re accusing them of. You’re going for the full monty imbecile prize by the circuitous route.
Mar 11, 2009 - 2:35 pm 76. AThinkingPerson:David S…. You are truly wet behind the ears and dewy eyed aren’t you? I’m starting to feel guilty every time I point out the flaws in your arguments. Business is on board not because they “see the writing on the wall.” Again, you have this vision of everyone being so altruistic. Business is in business to make money. Not hard to grasp I’d think. The current government is beholden to big business (again, see how the union argument is bleeding into this one????) against the interests of the common good. This can easily be seen in the current administration. President Obama flew on AirForce 1 to give a 5 minute speech on sustainable new forms of energy in front of solar panels in Colorado. Remember that trip? Now, how much fossil fuel did he burn to fly to Colorado to give a 5 minute speech in front of 5 solar panels and then immediately fly back to Washington? Why did he do it? Hmmm……. Sounds fishy to me, does it to you? How about the unions? Why would Obama and Biden be beholden to the unions and promise passage of the card check act? Could it possibly be because the unions were one of the Democrats biggest contributors? Hmm…. starting to see a trend here. Throwing the coal industry under the bus to pay homage to 5 solar panels (and therefore pacifying the liberal left that elected him) and throwing the American worker under the bus to add to the union coffers (and therefore guaranteeing big political contributions in the future). Politics can sure be an ugly business David. You’d be wise to look at who’s paying for all of the global warming hysterics. I’m guessing you’d be quite surprised.
Mar 11, 2009 - 3:00 pm 77. ked5:Here’s NASA’s latest egg on their face.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/11/solar-cycle-24-has-ended-according-to-nasa/
Have a good laugh. How can they declare SC24 OVER, when we had a (pathetic as it was) SC23 spot, LAST WEEK?
Mar 11, 2009 - 4:47 pm 78. Mike Blackadder:David S, from the point of view of scientific inquiry it’s a pretty ridiculous argument to claim that recent cold temperatures support the AGW hypothesis. I know that some climatologists make this argument, but whether or not you realize or care this is the type of attribute that renders AGW theory non-scientific. Science that does not ask questions is by definition not science. More specifically, any assertion whose credibility can not be influenced by actual observation is not scientific. The types of assertions that can not be influenced by observation, no matter how important, have no more credibility than religious belief. And normally us civilized folk are not so bold as to condemn others as fools based on their religious convictions.
That aside, I’m just as skeptical of this solar stuff but think it is instructive to compare the credibility of one theory against the other.
BTW, does anyone have a link that summarizes the IPCC accepted calculation of solar effect on 20th century warming? Perhaps Boris has the answer? I’m curious about how they factor feedbacks into natural vs man-made contributions to warming.
Mar 11, 2009 - 6:39 pm 79. Mike Blackadder:“The ace in the hole for global warming alarmists of every shape and size is that the Earth has warmed (by under one degree Fahrenheit) during the 20th century and solar irradiance does not seem to adequately account for the temperature increase.”
Not quite. Also essential to the argument is the proof that this warming is unprecedented on similar time scales. Remember, that’s why Jesus told me that it was the hockey stick shaft, not the blade that was important. Ooh, wise Jesus.
Mar 11, 2009 - 6:48 pm 80. Mike Blackadder:Boris #65: “Since we can explain the recent weather (la nina) I wonder who is really suffering from delusions.”
You really can’t have it both ways though. You guys insist on factoring El Nino, la Nina activity as part of the man-made contribution to warming (through the argument that man made global warming is causing more El Ninos). Either, this is a source of natural global temperature variation or it is not, and the AGW crowd should have acknowledged the correct answer to this question long before now.
Mar 11, 2009 - 6:56 pm 81. Sandy Cash:I wrote an article about Nir Shaviv’s theory in the Israeli news magazine, The Jerusalem Report back in 2003… still available in the archives.
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-10030209.html
The fact is, this stuff will stay “news” because it’s too complicated to fit into the average Reuters headline, and most people don’t have the energy to read things that challenge the way they already think!
Mar 11, 2009 - 10:08 pm 82. Boris:jerryofva
There are some dead giveaways here. First, RC did not make such a prediction to my knowledge (link or it’s BS). Second, why are you talking about “winters” in a discussion of global warming? Do you mean NH winters? Your comments make no sense in a global context.
Again, link to Hansen’s predictions of a new imminent man made ice age. Do you think you can just make shit up and no one will call you on it?
No one is predicting runaway global warming. By the way, average sea surface temperatures were about 17 deg C higher in the Cretaceous than today.
Mar 12, 2009 - 5:07 am 83. Boris:First, it isn’t proved that AGW will cause more El Ninos. All ENSO does is move energy from the oceans to the atmosphere and vice versa. When you account for ENSO, you get about the same amount of warming since the 1970s (El Nino accounts for about 0.06 deg, but it’s a difficult analysis and I don’t put much stock in that number). But if the earth warms, it makes sense that the warming would manifest itself, in part, through ENSO.
Mar 12, 2009 - 5:16 am 84. Jim Baker:So, Alston. Why the rant against the religious guy? He had a point. Many atheists profess to be non-idealogue, but turn out to be believers in something just as idealogical as religion, such as Environmentalism. I apologize to you for saying most when it is only most in my experience.
Mar 13, 2009 - 8:05 pmBy the way, this funny guy thanks you for the defense of the “oil industry scientists”, because I am one of those guys. In past posts, I have told peaceful David this, and I think he has been waiting to launch that diatribe in my direction for some time now. I can take it. While I am not funded by the “industry” to espouse my dis-belief in an unproven global warming theory, that is what I have usually done on my own time. Since I am almost to retirement age, I could not care less what the “industry” would want me to say.