1. Presidential ambition? Report: Gore has cancelled all scheduled events for next six months (From Taipei Times at bottom of page)
Excerpt: “Tien, who invited Gore to visit Taiwan to promote awareness on global warming, told reporters yesterday that she received an e-mail from the Harry Walker Agency, which has the exclusive right to arrange Gore’s speeches, saying that Gore had canceled all his scheduled events in the next six months.”
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2007/06/27/2003367023
2. Inhofe Praises Bald Eagle Delisting – But Voices Concern Over New ESA-Like Restrictions
Excerpt: “I am concerned, however, about the recent guidelines issued under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) that will go into effect when ESA protection is removed. It appears that in some cases the guidelines place the same, ESA-like limitations on the backs of landowners under the guise of different law.”
3. Top Ten Democrat Energy Bill Failures
Excerpt: “The Democrats recently passed Senate Energy Bill will increase the price of gasoline, do nothing for supply and production, and impose new mandates on energy providers which will increase the cost of electricity for all consumers.”
4. Fred Thompson Report: Thompson calls UN Chief’s linking of Darfur Genocide to Global Warming ‘Absurd’
Excerpt: “Blaming global warming, however, is basically the same thing as blaming America. America is by no means the only major source of greenhouse gases, but we’ve taken the most political heat. The reason is that congress rightfully balked at ratifying the Kyoto international climate treaties during the Clinton presidency.”
http://abcradionetworks.com/article.asp?id=431466&SPID=15663
5. Feds award $20 million to study how farm odors contribute to global warming
[Note: this one $20 million grant to study ‘farm odors’ exceeds all of the money Exxon-Mobile has ever been accused of giving to climate skeptics. (Senators Snowe and Rockefeller accused Exxon-Mobile of spending $19 million on skeptical groups since the 1990’s on October 30, 2006 see: http://snowe.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=9acba744-802a-23ad-47be-2683985c724e )
Excerpt: “The United States Department of Agriculture has released reports stating that when you smell cow manure, you’re also smelling greenhouse gas emissions.”
http://www.wetmtv.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=6bcacc50-6aa5-4443-9080-c2f58593d883
6. IPCC Review Comments Now Online – IPCC publishes dissenting opinion
(Early word is that so called “consensus” may be crumbling from IPCC reviewers)
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1790
7. Al Gore’s $100 Million Makeover
(Gore’s net worth jumped from an estimated $1-$2 million in 2000 to over $100 million today)
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/117/features-gore.html
8. EPA $100K grant to help make nail salons safer for patrons and workers in King County
9. Two Climate Scientists issue new Report: Temperatures in the United States, Greenland and the Arctic, Relationship to Ocean and Solar Cycles
Excerpt: When you combine the two effects, you can explain much of the temperature variances of the past 110 years for the United States, Greenland and the Arctic.
10. Sales Slow for Hamburg’s ‘Live Earth’; Blame Snoop
Excerpt: “According to this business report from Germany, only a third of the tickets have been sold for the Hamburg “Live Earth” concert for carbon depletion.”
http://blog.nam.org/archives/2007/06/live_earth_snoo_1.php
11. Digging up the roots of the IPCC
Excerpt: “The UN’s all-powerful climate change panel is no straightforward scientific body. It is a deeply political organization that was born out of disenchantment with progress.”
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/3540/
12. Leaning Tower of Pisa is saved from collapse
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/28/wpisa128.xml
13. Researchers find Earth’s internal heat keeps continents afloat
Without It Mile-High Denver Would Be Below Sea Level
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/13577729/detail.html?rss=den&psp=news
14. Russian scientist says danger of climate change equal to nuclear war
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20070627/67914064.html
15. Russian Scientists Say the Arctic Is Theirs
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/06/28/whats-the-russian-for-santas-workshop/
16. Glaciers Growing in France, Switzerland, and Washington
http://newsbusters.org/node/13798
17. First Snow in Johannesburg and Pretoria Since 1981 and 1968
http://newsbusters.org/node/13787
————————————-
Thanks to Marc Morano for all the above links.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Wouldn’t be surprising – Gore that is.
He’s built up a pretty substantial profile on AGW and given the high public recognition on the issue – who knows?
The difficulty for Gore ( and probably any politician in the West ) is that being effective means balancing the need for action with protecting a healthy economy – and that won’t gain clear approval from either side.
As I recall , rejection of Kyoto under Clinton in the US Senate was near total.
I wonder what the outcome would be if the vote was held today?
Also ,issues other than AGW ; Iraq, immigration , health , taxation etc will feature prominently and it isn’t clear where he stands.
I’ve always wondered how if pollies such as Bob Brown ever found themselves in government, the rhetoric would actually translate into implementation?
Al Gore may yet run, but I wouldn’t put any stock in that report — in fact, his office has already denied it.
Another timely article:
President Bush Address Climate Crisis
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/addressing_climate_crisis_bush
Folks,
Some would say the alleged “consensus” over AGW is crumbling, but it’s increasingly apparent that the consensus was never there.
The reported number of “conversions” from ‘believer’ to ‘skeptic’ are few, while broad measures of sentiment are revealing.
The number of skeptics willing to be numbered is substantial, everywhere. In spite of all their efforts and collusion with a sensationalistic press, the AGW whack-jobs haven’t got their fairy-tale about “the consensus” even close to halfway right.
Proponents of ‘green taxes’ and the neo-Marxist “planned ecology” should cower in fear of these numbers.
Here are two items for your enjoyment:
http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,2105929,00.html#article_continue
Public fears ‘greenwash’ from industry
Terry Macalister
Monday June 18, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
A wave of green initiatives to counter climate change will probably have limited impact because nine out of 10 consumers are sceptical about the information from companies and governments, according to a survey out later this week.
http://www.lse.co.uk/ShowStory.asp?story=AY2638954S&news_headline=three_quarters_believe_global_warming_a_natural_occurrence
Three Quarters Believe Global Warming A ‘Natural Occurrence’
Tuesday, 26th June 2007, 08:27
ALMOST three quarters of people believe global warming is a ‘natural occurrence’ and not a result of carbon emissions, a survey claimed today.
Evidence of increasing Hurricane intensity.
http://www.jsg.utexas.edu/news/feats/2006/emanuel06.html
Hi Schiller, re 75%, I guess one would have to go back to to circa Hiroshima to find an equivalent level of ignorance to the potential of Human causality.
I view MMGW as a Evolutionary/Extinction level event, Humanity either moves on from Medieval superstitions and catches up with Reality as described by Science or we continue on with current mind set and resultantly misuse the tools developed by Scientific endeavour, and face extinction.
4 Billion,
You are very wrong. For instance, Hiroshima was not an Evolutionary/Extinction event. Your remark highlights how MMGW is a significant factor in the multi-decadal upwelling in human ignorance we are currently experiencing.
Schiller,
LOL, I did not say Hiroshima was a extinction level event. I was merrily equating the level of ignorance the general public had/has to the mechanisms causing each event. Very few people understood E=mc squared, very few people understand the effect of CO2 in the Atmosphere due to it’s polar covalent nature.
“multi-decadal upwelling in Human ignorance”..care to elaborate? It seems you are implying knowledge of the Universe was more advanced in the fifties..a somewhat dubious suggestion, at best. For effects of Global warming have a look at my most recent post on http://spengler.atimes.net/viewtopic.php?p=104914#104914
4 billion,
Your point remains unmade. Hiroshima was a very local event with limited consequences, and the effect of anthro CO2 on the atmosphere is infinitesimally smaller.
However, global hysteria has risen exponentially during the same period, without regard to the frequency or impact of these phenomena. Therefore, the upwelling of human ignorance (which is a primary driver of hysteria) must depend on other phenomena.
Schiller..sigh..I explained that people did not understand e=mc2 just as people don’t understand how CO2 interacts with infra red radiation.
The amount of energy created by increase in CO2 is equivalent to that produced by 300000 1G Nuclear Power stations. As evidenced by the irrefutable evidence of Global temp rise, Arctic Summer melt, Glacier melt etc.
“Global hysteria has risen since 1945” this is a new one. It beggars the question, dare I ask, what are you talking about?
I think you can add Schiller to that list of people.
I really wonder what Mcityre thinks he has achieved? The scientific process involves peer review which detects errors in scientists work, which they then have to address. Did he think scientists always get things right, and are perfect? I really don’t get his point. The only thing that would be unusual would be if there were no points to address. He acts like he has achieved some breakthrough somewhere. He carries on a lot like those 9/11 conspiracy theory wackos.
SJT, 4 billion, give me a break!
Back in ’45, people thought E=MC^2 would kill Japanese. Now, people think that CO2 will bake the planet. If you can’t track a trend from the sublime to the ridiculous, you’re clueless and few will be able to help you.
Note post 16, high altitude glaciers not affected by 1C warming. This is for the very good reason that the high altitude leaves mean temperatures still well below zero C.
Funny that. Surprise, surprise, a location with mean temps well below zero C does not produce significant ice melt when temperatures increase by 1 degree C.
Why is this such a difficult concept for the climate cretins to grasp?
Why are we being told of imminent melting of Greenland Ice sheet (-23C) caused by warming scarenarios of only 2 to 4 degrees C?
Remember how Bill Clinton had a sign on his desk that said “its the economy, Stupid”. Could it be that the “stupid” he was referring to was his deputy, Al Gore? After all, he has proven himself to be the Dan Quayle of the Clinton years.
People don’t understand E=MC^2, and most don’t understand how global warming works either. That’s not their fault, it’s just the nature of science as it advances. Specialisation, which is neccessary to advance science, also means less and less people can understand it.
Can you tell me how the basic greenhouse effect works, and the enhanced?
I know I go all fuzzy in the head every time I try to understand string theory or thermodynamics. I can get the basic concepts, but then it all gets very hard to understand the advanced science.
What is happening is just a battle between science and propaganda. All the deniers have to do is create doubt, and they win.
“With peace and freedom, the economy of Darfur could have easily adapted to any climate change – no matter the cause.”
We can tell him from experience, severe drought isn’t easy to adapt to. Increasing drought much less so.
“With that in mind, it seems a metaphysical certitude American press outlets will ignore reports of glacial expansion around the globe, most hypocritically as one such growing ice mass is actually right here in the U.S. as reported by Washington’s News Tribune (h/t NB member dscott, emphasis added throughout):
Crater Glacier is like no other glacier in the world. It’s the only glacier with lava extruding through it and forming a dome. And while most glaciers are receding, Crater Glacier is advancing three feet per day and forming a collar around the growing dome.
A glacier that’s growing? How can that be? According to Al Gore and the supposed consensus of scientists claiming the global warming debate to be over, glaciers everywhere are receding.”
How about people like this guy stop telling lies about claims about glaciers receeding? That a glacier is growing is not at all inconsistent with AGW.
Ian M,
Ahh, the complicated world of Atmospheric science. The most irrefutable evidence of warming is the fact that at current rates the Arctic will be ice free, during summer, in less than fifty years.
SJT,
The Greenhouse effect works by the Earth absorbing the Sun’s Energy, and emitting some of this as Infra red energy. CO2 is effected by this energy, because it is of a wavelength that causes the bonds between Carbon and Oxygen atoms to vibrate (this is because the bonds are polar covalent etc)as these bonds vibrate, the molecule vibrates, vibrating surrounding molecules, causing temperature to rise.
More CO2 just means more rubbing, therein lies the rub.
Denialists of Global warming deny this process, essentially. Which is hilarious as the Green house effect is what makes this planet habitable for us.
Schiller,
Already with the Ad hominem, huh, and I have only posted twice, hilarious. If you doubt the ability for CO2 to cook the planet, I suggest you look into ‘runaway Green house effect’.
ps, still waiting for you to explain what you mean by “rise in Global hysteria”.
Schiller,
Polar covalent means that the electrons shared in the bond between two atoms are not evenly shared between the two. I am guessing it is this ‘offset’ nature that causes vibration as the infra red passes through the molecule, rather like a ‘out of balance’ wheel.
Who saying this “Why are we being told of imminent melting of Greenland Ice sheet” – quote please !
It looks like “4Billion” has had his head in the microwave for a while. Now that the inherent redundancy and diminishing heating to scale of additional CO2 has been exposed, it is now claimed that it is the “vibes” causing the warming. Sounds like something that might come out with the bywash from colonic irrigation. Best check the past records of discussion on these topics before you shoot your mouth off, fella.
Luke, it was your hero, “Dopi Wan Kanhardly” aka Hansen, who made the Greenland ice melt claim only recently. As if you wouldn’t remember.
Ian M.
Apologies for not knowing what has been said before as I have only just become acquainted with this Blog. It seems a little unfair to expect me to trawl through pages and pages before I post.
My explanation of the Greenhouse effect is hardly radical, to say I am shooting my mouth off is a little rich.
So I take it you think the Green house effect has nothing to with polar covalent nature of Greenhouse gases and the effects of infra red radiation emitted by the Planet, on said gases? Pray tell, what is the Ian M. ’cause of Greenhouse effect’, I love a good laugh.
Yours laughing, in advance.
4billion
4 Bill,
Had a trawl through some of your posts at Spengler – looks like you and Luke here will get on like a house on fire… 🙂
A couple of issues:
(1)
Your opening link re Emanuel – Is there a 2006 paper? I thought it was Emanuel 2005 that was the “Hurricane” paper. (Maybe you refer to Mann & Emanuel 2006?). In any case the issue with Emanuel is (from your link):
“Emanuel acknowledged one lingering mystery in his field: in the Atlantic ocean, over the last 35 years, hurricanes have become more frequent…”
Maybe something to do with the fact that Emanuel was counting “named” subtropical storms – which were not named in the Atlantic prior to 1970 and therefore not included in the count prior?
In any case, this by Landsea will carry my argument.
ftp://ftp.aoml.noaa.gov/pub/hrd/landsea/landsea-eos-may012007.pdf
For those that want to play with the data:
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/tracks1851to2005_atl.txt
http://www.weather.unisys.com/hurricane/atlantic/tracks.atl
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/easyhurdat_5105.html
(2)
HMMMM your quote: “..sigh..I explained that people did not understand e=mc2 just as people don’t understand how CO2 interacts with infra red radiation.” This comment is VERY authorative. Are you sure that you can do this?
First, “The amount of energy CREATED by increase in CO2 is equivalent to…BLAH BLAH BLAH” and second “… the bonds between Carbon and Oxygen atoms…vibrate, the molecule vibrates, vibrating SURROUNDING molecules, CAUSING temperature to rise…”
My understanding of thermodynamics is Uni undergrad – so I accept it’s rudimentary, however – it seems to me that you have one or two issues with the concept of conservation of energy – which ultimately is what E=mc2 is all about by the way…
To use your analogy, a (reflected) IR photon hits a CO2 molecule and it begins to vibrate more (since it already is vibrating). If that molecule then bumps into an adjacent molecule, it may cause that to vibrate more BUT (through conservation of energy) the original molecule will loose all the vibration imparted! Now consider that CO2 makes up some 0.04% of the atmosphere… what are the chances of a photon a) hitting a CO2 molecule, b) if it does what overall result will this make, and c) if the CO2 molecule is high up in the atmosphere – why will it heat up the surface?
The “skeptics” view of Global Warming questions just this.
Which brings me to (3)
It’s surprising that you have not mentioned H2O feedback! The entire we’re all doomed argument rests on this…
To counter any arguments in this direction, the role of H2O may be overstated…
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2004/0315humidity.html
I’m afraid that I’m rather busy at work at the moment, so I don’t really have time to play, but I’ll leave you with the following to ponder:
The adjustments to historical surface station temperatures are the “trend” in Global Warming:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_urb-raw_pg.gif
And the role of the sun…
We know that there is a disconnect between TSI fluctuations and global temps (the above adjustments notwithstanding), but the sun also causes a disturbance in the Earth’s magnetic field / ionosphere following solar storms http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_storm.
Amateur radio buffs know this well and track these fluctuations via the a & k indices.
Consider this paper:
http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MSAIt760405/PDF/2005MmSAI..76..969G.pdf
Given this, can you REALLY be so sure that CO2 is the LARGEST cause for the recent warming?
Oh, and welcome to the forum… I hope we can all learn from each other.
cheers
Arnost
Arnost – I’m utterly stunned. Your comments in (2) are breathtakingly flimsy – absent. And without even making a calculation you’ve done the ol’ contrarian teensy weensy line. To be arguing so strongly againts CO2 and have no idea how it works – Really !
There’s a bit more to modern climate science than grunging around looking for any old correlation.
Have you read the last 3 RC posts BTW.
Seems like the audience is dropping off at RC so Luke et al have to run some more references to get the numbers up again.
“To use your analogy, a (reflected) IR photon hits a CO2 molecule and it begins to vibrate more (since it already is vibrating). If that molecule then bumps into an adjacent molecule, it may cause that to vibrate more BUT (through conservation of energy) the original molecule will loose all the vibration imparted! Now consider that CO2 makes up some 0.04% of the atmosphere… what are the chances of a photon a) hitting a CO2 molecule, b) if it does what overall result will this make, and c) if the CO2 molecule is high up in the atmosphere – why will it heat up the surface?
The “skeptics” view of Global Warming questions just this.”
Hot things radiate energy, that’s how. The atmosphere is largely transparent to the high frequency radiation from the sun, just like a greenhouse. The radiation warms the earth, and then is re-emitted as low frequency radiation, which the atmosphere is not so transparent to, it traps that heat, then re-radiates it out in random directions. Some will go out into space, some will go back down to earth. Hence, the heat is effectively trapped, like a greenhouse. That could be a good name for the effect.
Thanks for the tip, Luke. Very informative posts, that address a lot of the current concerns. Shame Ian’s comment completely dodges the points they make.
Luke
The fact remains that without the H2O feedback, CO2 on it’s own can’t explain the observed surface temp increases – so it is “teensy weensy”. I don’t think any one disagrees.
All I was doing was suggesting that 4 Bill is a bit imprecise and ignored conservation of energy issues (which was doubly laughable since he threw the old E=MC2 bit into it in an excellent postmodernist example of argument).
Yes I have read RC – but the posts are a bit dumbed down and I think are missing or glossing over a few things. I admit that thermodynamics was a long time ago for me so I don’t want to go there as yet. Luboš has an interesting thread on this at the moment which I have not fully gone through as yet. and Steve M (though he has banned thermodynamics discussion in his forum) is promising a thread on that (and the there’s a lot less censorship at CA).
LOL… given the fudging with the dendro proxies, I think that “grunging around looking for any OLD correlation” fits rather well with some of the ! While it may be OK in CLIMATE science to ignore anything inconvenient, there’s a bit more to SCIENCE where all observable datum have to be accounted for/explained.
All the sniping aside, I do find the last three Solar Cycles interesting. Have a read through this doc… On pages 6 & 7 there is a summary of the geomagnetic storms over most of the last century and ends at about 2001 (figs 5 & 7).
http://metatech-aps.com/Forecast/2001/Cycle23Forecast11_06.pdf
Then look at what happened afterwards…
http://www.sec.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/Ap.gif
In the comparison between cycles 21, 22, and 23 (fig 6), assuming the increased activity later in the cycle 23, will make the accumulated activity match if not exceed the previous two. It is also interesting that the peak around 2004-2005 corresponds well with a similar global temp spike which occurred then or just after.
I don’t think that this can be dismissed so lightly – esp if we consider that this is the driver for the Cosmic Ray (Sevensmark) effect.
Food for thought.
cheers
Arnošt
“The fact remains that without the H2O feedback, CO2 on it’s own can’t explain the observed surface temp increases – so it is “teensy weensy”. I don’t think any one disagrees.”
“Next contestant, Mrs. Sybil Fawlty from Torquay. Specialist subject – the bleeding obvious. ”
Enoyed Ian’s intellectual contribution. Was duh posts a bit hard for you Ian.
Hi Arnost,
Thanks for your welcome.
That Spengler thread is nothing in comparison to the behemoth that existed prior the ‘Spengler thread extinction level event of ’07’. The thread was 150 pages long with 37000 views.
I have only just started looking into the Hurricane issue, my understanding is that frequency has not increased but intensity has.
“HMMMM your quote: “..sigh..I explained that people did not understand e=mc2 just as people don’t understand how CO2 interacts with infra red radiation.” This comment is VERY authorative. Are you sure that you can do this?”
I was merrily responding to the Data presented by Schiller. As for the General populations understanding of E=mc2 circa 1945, come on, you would be pushing to find many people who understand it now, I have no real grasp of it.
“what are the chances of a photon a) hitting a CO2 molecule, b) if it does what overall result will this make, and c) if the CO2 molecule is high up in the atmosphere – why will it heat up the surface?”
It seems you are questioning if the Green house effect exists, which is peculiar, since without the Green house effect we would not exist.
CO2 is responsible for between 9 and 25% of radiative forcing. Water vapor is responsible for the majority of the rest.
Only 1% of the atmosphere is responsible for the Greenhouse effect.
“The adjustments to historical surface station temperatures are the “trend” in Global Warming:”
This graph, it shows plot flattening at 2000, key word: 2000. Data excludes hot years post 2000, this is a bit shoddy.
Solar Energy has not increased sufficiently to cause the observed warming. Period.
The simple fact is that there is no other sufficient sources of Energy to cause observed warming, other than the increased level of CO2.
As for Cosmic rays…well they are on the fringe. The timing is just a little to coincidental, what with increase in temp correlating with increase in CO2, to tie in rate of Cosmic ray change, at exactly the same time is a little rich.
regards
4 billion
4 Bill
Was trying to find the Spegler thread all last night! Would love to have a read. Can you tell me it’s exact name (and in which forum)?
Be very much appreciated.
As to “Solar Energy has not increased sufficiently…” Two points:
A simple 0.1% increase in TSI “AVERAGE” number does not cut it when you consider that it appears to be principally derived from the difference between solar minima,
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/8227main_sun4m.jpg
and therefore does not take into account the intercycle fluctuations (and especially the effect of strong M & X class flares which were more predominant in cycles 22 / 23 – i.e. one of the reasons why there is a high Ap Index)
Solar irradience is not the only effect – the change to the earth’s magnetic field as a consequence of solar storms leaves it open to (or closes it to as the case is here) Cosmic Rays – which leads to less clouds / lower albedo etc etc is another.
I’m not pretending that this is the answer to all – the greenghouse effect certainly exists, and anthropomorphic contribution is a factor in the global temp increase – my argument is that CO2 is not the principal driver and the role of the sun is underestimated in the forcings.
And in terms of coincidence – what about the warming of the other planets? It is this that is really making me question the LOW forcing attributed to the sun.
The Science is by no means all in – there are a lot of uncertainties still out there that need to be answered before we commit to what in my opinion would be a rather dumb course of action (i.e. the elimination of CO2 emmitting energy sources).
cheers
Arnost
4 Bill
As to the data flattening post 2000 – I would point out that post 2000 the global temps (both surface and satelite) have also flattened.
cheers
Arnost
solar activity v temp graph
http://www.mps.mpg.de/images/projekte/sun-climate/climate.gif
note: these other Solar issues you are bringing up, why do they not have effect prior 1980?
http://spengler.atimes.net/viewtopic.php?t=5200&start=0
As for temp, 2006 was the hottest year recorded, so you need to update your denialist handbook.
4 Bill
Thanks for the link. Wife’s out and kids asleep – got a bit of free time to browse.
I think you missed the point I was making – it isn’t only irradience that we should consider. Read my post and the links.
And, as I was saying, post 2000 the global temps (both surface and satelite) have also flattened:
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/g_timeseries.cgi
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/RSSglobe.htm
cheers
Arnost
Arnost,
lol..you are trying to put forward that graph as evidence Global Warming is no longer increasing..my you are desperate.
I like how you persist with a undercurrent of saying warming is not happening plus a proposal that warming is happening due to Solar activity and cosmic rays. These contradictory hypothesis are puzzling.
Why are you putting forward contradictory proposals?
Cheers,
4 billion.
4 Bill
Thanks for the reply.
Can you tell me what you think is wrong with the temperature graphs? I’m really surprised that you would use the word “desperate” WRT to me using these…
As far as I know, the RSS links to raw data via NOAA/NCDC. I’ll admit that the BoM (HadCRU) graph is only one version of current global temp estimates – but it correlates better with the satellite data than say GISS (which includes a LOT of adjustments – won’t go over old ground but see a good discussion on this here: http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002040.html esp. towards the end).
I don’t think that I have anywhere denied that there is a warming – all I’m pointing out in this argument is that the role of the sun may be underestimated. No contradictions. The links in my previous posts above IMHO provide a bit more support the Cosmic Ray / albedo change theory WRT global warming.
A bit more here:
http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jul/the-discover-interview-henrik-svensmark
Since you ask, there are four reasons as to why I put forward contradictory proposals:
First, if the role of the sun is underestimated, the “solutions” currently mooted will not be necessary, because they will have no effect, and not appropriate because the capital invested would better be spent on other high priority issues. Besides, Kyoto really sucks…
Second, to counter some of the ridiculous alarmism playing out in the headlines (such as that below), and get some sanity into the debate.
http://business.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2117233,00.html
Third, because they’re interesting. My philosophy is to trust but verify. My first impulse is to trust – but I also like to have a sanity check to see if things really stack up. So I dig a bit deeper and I share what I find – especially if something does not stack up.
And fourth – the TAR “consensus” hockey stick really piqued my ire because it changed (what I understood) history to be. And because of this I probably go out of my way to challenge the “consensus”.
If I may point out, a lot from you so far is rhetoric. So can I ask you in turn “Why you are defending the “consensus” so fanatically”?
By the way – the link you provided was not to the Spengler “big” thread but to the “worm” one. Still haven’t found it.
cheers
Arnost
Arnost,
Global warming occurs continually, the issue is if it is increasing or not. So can you confirm for me that you think Global warming is increasing, static or decreasing? As for that graph, an updated version, showing 2006, describes a positive slope, no plateau.
Cosmic Rays are reliant on Solar output, the more solar output, the less cloud, lowering albedo and raising temperature. The point is that Solar activity has not increased sufficiently for this effect to rise the temperature significantly.
MMGW has the potential to initiate runaway Global warming, which leads to our extinction, so I think serious concern is absolutely justified.
The Spengler ‘big’ thread died when the site crashed, it is replaced by the ‘worm’ thread. The ‘worm’ thread does not have the same vigor as the old thread.
4 Bill
It’s a pity about the Spengler thread, was looking forward to it…
I also have a sneaking suspicion that you are not really reading what I write…
In my post just prior, I said: “I don’t think that I have anywhere denied that there is a warming”. So, look at the BoM graph – that is what I accept is happening. Does this answer your question?
By the way, the BoM graph I linked, does include 2006. The RSS graph is to end May 2007. Can you show me your “current” version? 🙂
By the way, you are not quite correct in your Cosmic Rays paragraph.
I quote from the Svensmark article I linked previously: “And if the sun and the solar wind are very active — as they are right now — they will not allow so many cosmic rays to reach Earth”. It’s not irradiance – it’s SOLAR WIND.
And irradiance is NOT what I’m on about. Solar Irradiance – i.e. photons – is only one kind of solar emission.
Anther is solar wind – the energetic charged particles, predominantly protons and electrons, and magnetized plasma. Whenever there is an increase in coronal mass ejections and solar flares, the solar wind increases. And it is an increased solar wind (in particular the associated shock wave) that causes Geomagnetic Storms.
By the way Geomagnetic Storms certainly have direct and real effects on the earth. Check out the effects and how often they typically occur below – they are regular and not fleeting events.
http://www.sec.noaa.gov/NOAAscales/
So – I find it interesting that according to the SAIT paper, Geomagnetic Storm activity (and therefore Solar Wind) appears to have increased over the last century, and in particular was elevated over the solar cycles where there was a corresponding increase in global temperatures.
So maybe solar activity HAS increased sufficiently for this effect to rise the temperature…?
As to our extinction – please, you can’t be serious!!?
cheers
Arnost
look up runaway greenhouse effect re extinction. You want to say Solar activity and Cosmic rays are responsible for increasing Global warming you can. Seems peculiar to ignore a 25% rise in a major green house gas.