I debunked that stuff a couple years ago while debating many right wingers.
Our Sun is in it's most stable phase and will remain so for 5 billion more years. It is currently a "main sequence" star, and has been one for 4.5 billion years.
I know, it's gotta be Earth's magnetic field!
Posted by Seven of Six at April 3, 2008 09:30 PMI look forward to seeing the details of their work... of note the article seems to indicate that they focused primarily on cloud cover not an actual comparison of temparature variations and sunspot activity. As I've noted however, many theories are about to become much more compelling or somewhat shattered as we are in transition and many of the historical charts show that we could/should be entering a significant cooling phase.
Recent temperature trends seem to support this transition so if it fails to materialize then that would actually support AGW theories - of course if it does materialize then... what's interesting though is even though the 'proof' as it were will arrive soon we are seeing major ad campaigns to ensure decisions are made now instead of a year or so. Seems like those with an investment are concerned that the theories will fail (again) and the funding will freeze up :-)
Anyway I find the linked analysis more compelling than someone announcing that "it just isn't so" which is pretty much the total proof of the linked article in this post.
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/03/30/evidence-of-a-significant-solar-imprint-in-annual-globally-averaged-temperature-trends-part-2/
(feel free to read about part I) (also note the preceding is a discussion of the rate of change in relation to solar activity, not a comparison of actual temperature values - also interestingly it seems confirm the same author that the other groups are attempting to discredit) (btw, although anti-global warming sites do link to Watt's site - I think the fact that he also posts on the errors in LA that are cooling biased makes him a bit more of a skeptic then just a denier... after all accuracy is important)
At any rate when taken with current SOHO imagery regarding sunspot activity, and the delayed appearance of a strong cycle 24. (note strong is a key modifier in that sentence.) There is imho reasonable reason to remain skeptical.
Oh and the thought that someone convinced people, that the Sun the major source of energy in our solar system couldn't be involved is well... let's just leave it as sometimes its the loudest person that wins the face-off - doesn't make them right - just loudest.
btw... although I promise to not just 'go away' I won't spend too much time debating here. Its 'interesting' to have people call me names and make racist statements about me, since they pretty much don't even know the slightest detail about me, and all I did was post a link to actual data. Fact is I don't care if you want to believe in global warming or the tooth fairy - just seems like you should review all of the data - even the stuff that doesn't support what you want. I like to read all of it because you can't be skeptical and only read one set of opinions.
Posted by BillS at April 3, 2008 09:32 PMOh, this is a rich one...the earth's sole source of heat isn't the cause. What suppose to heat up the greenhouse gases? Funny how those people on the IPCC panels DO believe the sun and it's activity or lack of can change climate. I'm wondering how soon till someone suggest some geo-engineering to cool the earth's atmosphere down. Every time a volcano erupts puts enough ash in the atmosphere to cool us down a bit. Turkana, you should leave this topic alone. The good doctor warned you the other day with your attempt at being cute.
Do you really want science or is this just an attempt to switch off the conflict between Obama and Clinton.
Well maybe the Chron has some news...
Fuel or folly?
Ethanol and the law of unintended consequences
Cinnamon Stillwell
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
In the pantheon of well-intentioned governmental policies gone awry, massive ethanol biofuel production may go down as one of the biggest blunders in history. An unholy alliance of environmentalists, agribusiness, biofuel corporations and politicians has been touting ethanol as the cure to all our environmental ills, when in fact it may be doing more harm than good. An array of unintended consequences is wreaking havoc on the economy, food production and, perhaps most ironically, the environment.
***
And it's affecting unemployment too, who would have thought?
***
Even Iowa, the state that produces the most corn and therefore the supposed beneficiary of new jobs due to ethanol production, has seen its unemployment rate rise over the past year. The plant layoffs and closings already underway due to global competition and the fluctuating market have continued unabated.
Another adverse impact of ethanol production is potential water shortage. One gallon of ethanol requires four gallons of water to produce. According to a recent report from the National Research Council, an institution that focuses on science, engineering, technology and health, "increased production could greatly increase pressure on water supplies for drinking, industry, hydropower, fish habitat and recreation."
Turkana, you wrote about a drought the other day...
Accordingly, the United Nations has expressed skepticism about ethanol and other biofuels. But the European Union seems to have bought into the biofuel craze with proposed legislation to mandate its use. This proposal has set off alarm bells in the United Kingdom, particularly with the British government's chief science advisor, Professor John Beddington, who has warned that a food and deforestation crisis is likely to overtake any climate concerns. "The idea that you cut down rainforest to actually grow biofuels seems profoundly stupid," he stated. Similarly, the British government's top environmental scientist, Professor Robert Watson, called the policy "totally insane."
In an election year, there has been no shortage of environmental platitudes aimed at voters and, inevitably, ethanol has been a mainstay. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has been singing the praises of ethanol in Iowa, while her rival, Barack Obama, merely criticized her for not doing so earlier. Republican candidate John McCain, once an ardent opponent of ethanol, has suddenly become a convert.
The motto among both Democrats and Republicans on this issue seems to be "If it sounds good, push it," and a gullible public — seduced by climate change hysteria and a "Going Green!" advertising onslaught — is buying into it.
San Francisco's favorite newspaper...
Posted by peter at April 3, 2008 09:34 PMNo sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?
Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, "State of Fear" he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.
I think it may be because most people don't understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.
h/t CFP
You're not expecting global-warming-deniers to be swayed by mere facts, are you?
Posted by jwrjr at April 3, 2008 10:17 PMjwrjr,
nah- i just like to give them the chance to expose themselves.
Posted by Turkana at April 3, 2008 11:16 PMTurkana: ditto :-)
Posted by BillS at April 4, 2008 12:02 AMyes, bill- it's you against the world.
Posted by Turkana at April 4, 2008 12:59 AMA few points to address self-proclaimed "skeptics" of climate change, whether trolls or good faith critics:
1. It is common and widely accepted among Republicans, at the highest level of politics, to attack science as a religion and "academia" in principle. Failure to disassociate yourself from those who openly deny the value of science is a guarantee to being discredited. (i.e. Don't come making an ass of yourself by trying to quote Kuhn to me while ignoring the "5000-year-old Earth" crowd)
2. It is fine to argue that highly distinguished climatologists may be wrong (anyone can be). However, it is insane to suggest that they are intentionally deceiving the public and cooking up phony results merely to get funding. Not only is it not worth it to ruin one's academic reputation in the long run for short term funding (cold fusion, anyone?), but any idiot can figure out that if you are willing to pimp yourself out you should go work for an oil company not a university.
3. Accusing those who warn of climate change of pulling a "scam" will be met with derision. You will not be taken seriously.
4. Personally attacking those who warn of climate change (e.g. using terms like "algore" or obsessing about Gore's personal energy consumption) will likewise be met with derision. You will not be taken seriously.
5. Making asinine, absolute statements (e.g. "there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change.") will completely discredit you. One of the most idiotic arguments of climate change deniers is that humans are "incapable" of affecting the world we live in. "We mere mortals are too puny to cause temperatures to rise!" This is too stupid for words. It is well settled that a mass release of our nuclear arsenal would cause a global "nuclear winter" -- on par with an ice age -- for decades or more. In other words, in a single afternoon humans objectively could take actions that would alter the global climate for decades, if not centuries or more. If we desired to, over a slightly longer time frame, humans could wipe out virtually all plant life on Earth, which, similarly, would fundamentally alter the planet's atmosphere and climate.
6. Demanding that we not act until there is more research (and there can ALWAYS be more research) while ignoring that for years Republicans, backed by carbon-producing industries, have actively blocked funding and canceled programs to research the planet's climate is another surefire way to discredit yourself.
Gee, do you think the world's climate scientists might--just might---have looked into solar radiation variance as a potential cause of global warming and determined that it's not the reason for the substantial increase in global mean temperture before releasing unanimous IPCC reports declaring man-made CO2 production to be the main culprit?
Again, this is what I mean by Conservative White Male Syndrome as exhibited by the BillS and his ilk. He actually "thinks" that the scientists are "coming up" with global warming as a scam theory in order to get "funding". This is the lowest level of anti-scientific rube-ism (as space makes clear) and a hallmark of conservative white male syndrome.
According to NASA's Goddard Institute (GISS), 2007 was the second warmest year on record, tied with 1998. 2005 was the warmest year on record. Temperatures are not decreasing, that's nonsense. just Google "global temperature trends 2007 summation GISS" to get NASA's most recent report. There's no talk there--at all--of decreasing temperatures. To think that is simple conservative wingnutism, and that's what our latest "sceptic" (i.e. close-minded denier) BillS is. He'a a deadender.
This 2007 GISS report also has a large section on solar irradiance, and (as always) concludes it is NOT the cause of the present warming, duh. In fact, 2007 was a solar radiance MINIMUM year, yet still came in as the second warmest year in history. And it was a lower minimum than the past two cycles! So this is quite ominous.
In short, the climate scientists looked at the solar "expanation" over a decade ago, duh. Only those suffering from the massive egomania associated with Conservative White Male Syndrome could possibly believe that their inexpert "digging around" for more "data" on the internet will result in "disproving" the existing scientific consensus on global warming.
Or think that the world's climate scientists are now going to change their minds about the cause---or that these scientists are "really" looking for more "funding" and that is what's really driving their scientific conclusions---that's anti-intellectual, anti-science cretinism, and a sign of severe egomania and simple willful ignorance.
Posted by euzoius at April 4, 2008 07:29 AMSpace, it seems that most of the global warming crowd belittle the 'science' people as well. The term 'consensus' is thrown about a lot, when there's no 'consensus'. People are being told to follow this or that when all they're doing is more harm to the earth. The Chron article linked has also been played in Germany. they've noted the very same thing. We're mandating this new light bulbs, yet virtually nobody knows or are deposing these bulbs properly. Seems there isn't a worry about the mercury in them getting into the ground water. "If it sounds good, push it," is the motto today.
Mr. Gore and the IPCC wins all those awards, yet when the IPCC's report is used by 'skeptics', their opinions are tossed away as uninformed. "That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement." The IPCC report was authored by mixture of political and scientific groups. The science crowd brought their results to the political crowd and the political crowd put the report out. They were to make the sale, they jazzed up what they could sell and struck anything that would get in the way. This report should not be looked at as the gold standard. The IPCC report is like a Friday evening document dump from any administration. Nobody wants to read it only use it as a club.
And the scientist just want to say its so, just like Mr. Gore. They don't want to discuss anything. They don't want to prove anything. They have their mind made up and won't follow the science anywhere it leads anymore. Or they won't admit it when they find their previous positions were wrong. They're afraid to with your crowd. They'd be thrown out like Steve's doing above on the front page with Olbermann. The 'models' are created by none scientist to deliver results for a scientific event. The models aren't right, they just get the desired result and are tinkered with till they do.
I can bring you science, I don't think y'all want science here.
Let me throw this one out there. We used freon for coolant for a long time. While we used freon, the earth seemed to be cooler. Then the ozone layer reports began to come forward. The cfc's eating away at the ozone layer. We got rid of freon for fruon or whatever. Seems the fruon was worse than the freon so now were on to a third coolant. Two points here. First, were we sold the wrong bill of goods when we went away from freon? Climate change seems to have been born from the move away from freon. As the BBC reported last October/November, 11 out of the top 15 hottest years happened after 1990(problem with this report was it used the years 1961 to 1990 as a base line, and this time period was cooler). Anyway, we stopped using freon around the time when the earth seems to have begun warming. Second, we harmed the environment more with the initial substitute for freon. How can we be sure we're not doing that now with these light bulbs and biofuels and the like?
The Carter administration signed law to combat global cooling enacted by a Democratic Congress. These people reacted to the science of the 70's. The consensus of the 70's if you will. I'm sure the GW crowd now sees that as folly. Point being, to y'all, they were wrong then, yet you're 'correct' now? You "know" so much better now. Really? Have the models included results of the three billion dollar Project Argo measuring the oceans temps and currents? Have the models been altered to include results from satellite Aqua launched in 2002? "That" science doesn't seem to matter and it should if progress means better results.
Posted by peter at April 4, 2008 08:25 AMIn fact, the BBC even admitted today that global temperatures have not risen since 1998:
Global temperatures will drop slightly this year as a result of the cooling effect of the La Nina current in the Pacific, UN meteorologists have said.
The World Meteorological Organization's secretary-general, Michel Jarraud, told the BBC it was likely that La Nina would continue into the summer.
This would mean global temperatures have not risen since 1998, prompting some to question climate change theory.
But experts say we are still clearly in a long-term warming trend - and they forecast a new record high temperature within five years.
Posted by peter at April 4, 2008 08:46 AMLook, peter, here is how this works. If you link to an article and then cut and paste all the favorable stuff and ignore all the unfavorable stuff, without the slightest attempt to explain it away, well then I won't take you seriously, which I don't.
As the article makes clear, the prevailing view of SCIENTISTS -- you know, the people who have SCIENTIFIC degrees and study the SCIENCE of climatology and perform SCIENTIFIC experiements according to the SCIENTIFIC method -- is that cooling from La Nina is a mere variability in the overall warming trend.
You see, Peter, I don't belittle the scientists. I note that there is a prevailing view, if not consensus. I acknowledge that they might be wrong. But I realize that the ramifications of the middle-to-worst case scenarios are so bad that we should not delay in preparing for them.
I do not concoct crackpot theories that have absolutely NO SCIENTIFIC SUPPORT that FRUON is causing global warming. Nor do I crank out contradictory theories -- First humans CAN'T affect global climate. Now we are changing the climate because of FRUON! -- in a desperate attempt to deny your PRECONCEPTION that climate change theories are wrong.
You are right that I don't want your "science" here. That is because I am only willing to discuss science with people who are prepared to discuss these issues with an open mind and without an agenda. That is obviously not you.
Posted by space at April 4, 2008 10:51 AMSorry I don't have time to chat...
Euzious - how about instead of saying "Conservative White Males" you eliminate gender since there are consiervative females with the same opinion.
Then get rid of "White" no reason to think that those of Asian, Hispanic, Indian, and African who are conservative don't share these opinions.
That leaves Conservative - if your claim is that only Conservatives think critically - well that's your call - frankly I'd replace that word with 'skeptic' and I think I identified myself as such.
A little more research:
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/Conf2007/Archibald2007.pdf
btw, would it be more palatable if I posted research from someone on RealClimate.org stating that Global Warming is directly influenced by the sun and for example acknowlodging the Maunder Minimum was a real Sun driven cooling event?
Posted by BillS at April 4, 2008 01:49 PMI mentioned food issues the other day on the other thread thought I should back up that claim with a bit more analysis on the current food crisis, which coincidentally is expected to increase pollution in the Gulf which is already getting poisoned by US farm runoff even more...
http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=8243
I can bring you science, I don't think y'all want science here.
Funny thing is that I really think that Peter doesn't understand that this simple statement invalidates his entire argument.
Peter, somewhere along the line, colored by your own bias, you skipped the fundamentals and spew erroneous studies and data points. You seem to think to understand it, but with out the fundamentals you just sound kinda silly.
The leftist at BBC report " Temperatures have not risen since 1998 " liberalism is a mental disorder.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7329799.stm