|
|
|
|
|
| Might Solar Cycle 24 dispel man-made global warming?
Posted: 1/5/2008 12:38:44 PM | Brightside said: "...The thermal properties of millions of sq miles of tarmac, roof tops?"
---
my comment: it would seem that since an approx 33-50% in increase in CO2 in the atmosphere has resulted in an alleged (or was it predom solar induced? ) approx 1*F rise in the past 150 years, that a large increase in reflective roofs would shoot back solar radiation in the original form that is not effected by GHGs. | |
|
| Might Solar Cycle 24 dispel man-made global warming?
Posted: 1/5/2008 1:15:55 PM | Beltaine: appreciate your comments. And I really don't mind the swipes, as nothing motivates people like being perturbed / ticked.
Before responding, you might be able to assist with this:
I am wondering if
given: 100% CO2 has a thermal rating of x
then,
would .02% CO2 have a thermal rating of .02/100 x ?
I ask this because I am wondering if a molecule of CO2, being surrounded by N2 and O2, would have the thermal qualities that 100% CO2 has.
--
Also, as far as the assertions that N2 and O2 have very little little GH effect,
I am thinking that if we have a bottle of N2 (for example) heated to 150*
and we have a bottle of CO2 heated to 150*
my guess is the retention rate would be similar.
=====================================
Beltaine said: "I think we both agree that the issue is far too serious to be left to partisan propaganda, though we likely disagree on which set of claims is which."
--
my comment: agree 100%. Kyoto seemingly was suspect, to me, as an anti-western ploy, primarily only fingering the US and Europe, while letting the rest off the hook.
==================
Beltaine said: "Worst case scenario, we wean ourselves off our dwindling supply of oil and end up with more renewable energy sources, more efficient technology, and a cleaner atmosphere which leads to better general health and fewer medical expenses. There are far better things to use petroleum for rather than burning it."
---
my comment: largely agree, ref oil, but presently, the alternative renewables seem to be limited to solar, which is apparently now relatively cost-prohibitive. Arguably, nuclear energy would be the viable substitute, but THAT is either a political football, or in fact with unviable liabilities. Nonetheless, esp with the questionable OPEC recipients, the issue would seem one of partisan convergence.
However, we live in a competitive world, and if one altruistic country goes a non-polluting, but non-competitive route, it could be lights out for that society.
=================
Beltaine says: "The Earth has not always had an atmosphere beneficial to our form of life, nor does it follow that it will always be so. We have also had many mass extinctions in the planets history, and most of them involved rapid changes in atmospheric chemistry. Historically, only one extinction event was not due to climate changes. I still don't understand how having a moon will make it unlikely for us to have a temperature disaster..."
---
my comment: Well, it appears very likely that the 100,000 yr cycles, which consist about 85% of ice ages, and are highly suspect in extinctions, not to mention crude human cultures, are the result of exterior factors, and the chief suspect would have to be the sun, being a nuclear fusion plant (which I am assuming would be more likely to have timed reactions (unknown?) ). Indeed, assertions by people at the likes of people at NOAA blaming the cycles on CO2 (why would atmospheric CO2 result in such a timely manner, unless prompted by an exterior source?) was enough in itself to make it's GW claims suspect. | |
|
| Might Solar Cycle 24 dispel man-made global warming?
Posted: 1/5/2008 7:50:18 PM |
Before responding, you might be able to assist with this:
I am wondering if
given: 100% CO2 has a thermal rating of x
then,
would .02% CO2 have a thermal rating of .02/100 x ?
For conduction, yes. For radiation, you have to literally consider each material separately. The CO2 absorbs like CO2, and no other kind of molecule will behave the same. It's simply a matter of how much CO2 (or other mass) is in the way. If it's spread out over 10km, or crammed into a 1mm gap, it blocks the same amount of light that goes through it....ignoring the spreading of the absorption bands that occurs with pressure. It's also an exponential relationship such that the absorption will approach, yet never actually reach 100% (a 1 - e^-x curve). If you double the CO2 in the atmosphere, you will get x warming. Four times gets 2x warming, eight times gets 3x warming, and so on.
I ask this because I am wondering if a molecule of CO2, being surrounded by N2 and O2, would have the thermal qualities that 100% CO2 has.
For thermal conduction, it's straight ratios. For radiation, the CO2 has the same effect within specific bands whether or not the N2 or O2 are there or not...again, ignoring smearing. This is why expressing concentration changes in CO2 relative to N2 or O2 is either wrong or deceptive depending on motivation.
Also, as far as the assertions that N2 and O2 have very little little GH effect,
I am thinking that if we have a bottle of N2 (for example) heated to 150*
and we have a bottle of CO2 heated to 150*
my guess is the retention rate would be similar.
That would have to do with the "bottle" it's contained in. Given a bottle that could not emit radiation at any frequency, and no contact with any other mass, both bottles would stay at 150 indefinitely. Earth has no significant contact with any extraterrestrial mass, so it's pretty well all by radiation. Conductive effects affect local conditions and weather, but not the overall energy balance of the planet.
Beltaine said: "I think we both agree that the issue is far too serious to be left to partisan propaganda, though we likely disagree on which set of claims is which."
--
my comment: agree 100%. Kyoto seemingly was suspect, to me, as an anti-western ploy, primarily only fingering the US and Europe, while letting the rest off the hook.
Careful, tinfoil hats lie in that direction. Before you start complaining about the western world footing the bill you should remember that we caused most of the problem. The US was, until very recently, the worlds #1 emitter. China, with some five times the population, passed the US a couple years ago. The US is still #1 in per capita emissions. We come in 3rd up here, if you're interested. And I have to ask...did you simply forget about Canada, or did you lump us in with "US"?
The western world had to be singled out. When we are the major cause of the problem, it's only fitting that we foot the majority of the bill. And who are we to say that someone in China, India, or wherever is not entitled to the same lifestyle that we take for granted? We are no more entitled to use the resources available than anyone else; so telling others that they can't have the things we have while continuing to keep them for ourselves makes us class 1 hypocrites. The western world got singled out because we needed to BUY the moral high ground. But then, we've never really placed much value in that particular piece of real estate, have we.
And the Kyoto protocol was politics, not science. The scientists said that they think that CO2 emissions are becoming a problem for (x) set of reasons and the consequences will fall within (y) scenarios. The political response was a bunch of agreeing that something should be done followed by a series of broken promises.
Beltaine said: "Worst case scenario, we wean ourselves off our dwindling supply of oil and end up with more renewable energy sources, more efficient technology, and a cleaner atmosphere which leads to better general health and fewer medical expenses. There are far better things to use petroleum for rather than burning it."
---
my comment: largely agree, ref oil, but presently, the alternative renewables seem to be limited to solar, which is apparently now relatively cost-prohibitive. Arguably, nuclear energy would be the viable substitute, but THAT is either a political football, or in fact with unviable liabilities. Nonetheless, esp with the questionable OPEC recipients, the issue would seem one of partisan convergence.
However, we live in a competitive world, and if one altruistic country goes a non-polluting, but non-competitive route, it could be lights out for that society.
Solar? Recent developments in photovoltaics have pushed the cost below that of nuclear. Production is still ramping up, but the first commercial units started coming off the assembly lines last month.
Nuclear is far more complex than yes or no. The new pebble bed reactors are a very nice design from what I've seen. It runs on thermal decomposition. We've finally found a use for the massive overkill of nuclear weapons stockpiled around the world. There's also the tiny issue of known uranium supplies running out in about 40 years at current rates...another 30 if you include military and secondary sources. Of course, China is ramping up their own fission power...as is India...
Fusion is very nice, and the fuel is reasonably common. It was a mistake for us to withdraw from the competition for IETR, in my opinion anyway. And aside from the power generation, there are countless spinoff technologies to any large research project like that.
Beltaine says: "The Earth has not always had an atmosphere beneficial to our form of life, nor does it follow that it will always be so. We have also had many mass extinctions in the planets history, and most of them involved rapid changes in atmospheric chemistry. Historically, only one extinction event was not due to climate changes. I still don't understand how having a moon will make it unlikely for us to have a temperature disaster..."
---
my comment: Well, it appears very likely that the 100,000 yr cycles, which consist about 85% of ice ages, and are highly suspect in extinctions, not to mention crude human cultures, are the result of exterior factors, and the chief suspect would have to be the sun, being a nuclear fusion plant (which I am assuming would be more likely to have timed reactions (unknown?) ). Indeed, assertions by people at the likes of people at NOAA blaming the cycles on CO2 (why would atmospheric CO2 result in such a timely manner, unless prompted by an exterior source?) was enough in itself to make it's GW claims suspect.
The 100,000 year Milankovitch cycle is a result of orbital dynamics, not solar activity. It cannot account for the changes we have seen in the past century. I don't know where you got the NOAA thing, since I've never heard anyone credible claim that changes in CO2 concentration were responsible for any part of the Milankovitch cycle. In all the records that have been reconstructed for, CO2 lagged warming as it out gassed from a slowly warming ocean, with the ocean presumably warmed by changes in orbital dynamics.
This time, however, things are different. We are directly forcing the CO2 balance, and that is NOT part of a normal Milankovitch cycle. There is no historical precedent for what is being measured today. | |
|
| Might Solar Cycle 24 dispel man-made global warming?
Posted: 1/10/2008 5:49:49 PM | Hi...I'm back
One thing I meant to comment on is that in this thread we've been talking about global warming as an average, but I think what we really need to refer to are the extremes. That is, if the overall temperature didn't increase between 1999 and today (which I don't agree with BTW), it could still have risen in one place on the planet (like the Arctic where the effect is significant), but perhaps dropped somewhere else. Thus, an average tells us nothing.
Up here in Canada they're still talking about the rapid decrease in glaciers and the pace is picking up. This past week we broke 4 temperature records and are having our spring floods 2 months early. It is really obvious to us that things are changing.
The rest of you guys on this thread, are you personally seeing differences in your respective climates? | |
|
| Might Solar Cycle 24 dispel man-made global warming?
Posted: 1/10/2008 7:38:58 PM | Miss New Scotland Lass: I just came upon a recent NYTimes article, wherein a composite graph of temp analogies of RSS, UKMET, UAH, and GISS are included, as well as the IPCC estimates.
Take a peak at.......http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/10/a-spot-check-of-global-warming/?hp
The bottom line is apparently this:
there was a rapid rise from 2000 to 2002.
However, from 2002 to 2007, three of four measurements of global temps show a drop.
The one that shows an increase is our (USA) GISS.
But isn't the GISS the one with Hansen (?) that messed up the USA average temps, which was recently exposed?
Just asking.
Again, the moral is that global temp measurements since 2002 are stable, or perhaps have been falling, even with great CO2 increases.
I am not saying that the trend of upward temps are reversed.
But I am saying that the next few years are going to be interesting.
Which brings us back to the point of this thread:
IF SC24 is weak, will temps be moderated or even fall?
Or completely dispel man-made global warming?
I have to admit that considering the supposed non-insulative properties of O2 and N2, in comparison to the insulative properties of CO2, that I am not as confident as when I started this thread.
But I am still curious.
And the NYTimes article, with the disparate global temp measurements, has piqued my interest again. | |
|
| |
| Might Solar Cycle 24 dispel man-made global warming?
Posted: 1/11/2008 12:34:35 PM |
http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/10/a-spot-check-of-global-warming/?hp
Again with the unprocessed data....at least there isn't a warning label on it this time. However, I would still treat it with a small siberian salt mine, since there isn't enough data presented to determine any long term trends.
Frankly, it's amazing. Piles of evidence, thousands of scientists, thousands of peer reviewed papers...
But then one op-ed comes along.... | |
|
| Might Solar Cycle 24 dispel man-made global warming?
Posted: 1/11/2008 2:05:57 PM | Beltaine states (in ref to m 80): "Frankly, it's amazing. Piles of evidence, thousands of scientists, thousands of peer reviewed papers...
But then one op-ed comes along...."
---------------
comment: I don't think so...
a) the NYTimes article's graphs are from the apparently major measuring groups, apparently weighty
b) granted, not a trend, but PERHAPS bucking the previous trend. What is important is that 3 of the 4 indicate either level or downward in the 5 year span. One downward would indicate inaccuracy on their part, some kind of statistical variance. Two downward would warrant taking note. Three downward would indicate something is VERY possibly, even probably, going on here.
And DEFINITELY should make the next year or two very interesting in this regard.
So, I'm interested in what you think would be the explanation for this. | |
|
| Might Solar Cycle 24 dispel man-made global warming?
Posted: 1/11/2008 2:21:19 PM |
Frankly, it's amazing. Piles of evidence, thousands of scientists, thousands of peer reviewed papers...
But then one op-ed comes along....
I think the reason that editors or others draw different conclusions from the scientific masses is because of the way scientists communicate. They rarely say that anything is a "truth" because they use statistics to prove their theories. For a nonscientist, it almost looks like things are uncertain, when, in fact, they could have a 99% probability of being true.
I muddled through one of the links the OP provided and came across the document that the IPCC put together for policymakers. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf. It's filled with terms like "very likely". Actually, you don't normally see that language in peer-reviewed material. I guess they took the scientific document and made it policymaker friendly. But the result is a rather weak message.
Note, though, M. Paul (who I see understands Gaelic), they do say in this report that "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal"...I knew it
 | |
|
| Might Solar Cycle 24 dispel man-made global warming?
Posted: 1/11/2008 5:09:01 PM | | NovaScotiaLass: this apparently is nothing to do with opinion, but is apparently a composite of 4 global temperature watching outfits. GISS is an American "subsidiary" of NASA, and UKMET I have heard of. UAH and RSS...I'll have to look. | |
|
| Might Solar Cycle 24 dispel man-made global warming?
Posted: 1/12/2008 7:10:30 PM | For the record (ref message 80):
GISS (NASA) and UKMet are surface readings and analysis of global temps.
RSS and UAH are satellite readings and analysis of global temps.
My two bits: the surface readings would seem to be less reliable, with the "heat island" factor, esp when we are talking of minute temp changes.
But granted, this recent 5 or 6 years of satellite flat or lower temps globally could, for example, simply be a function of oceanic currents, in light of the heat retention of the seas. If currents force cold water up...............
Just surmising. I have no idea of the progress of true experts in this regard.
But I can certainly see how that, for example, would only be a temporary cause of global satellite air temperature stabilization, as is reputed.
But then again, the GISS and UKMet temps DO take into effect sea surface temps, and they (net surface, including land and sea) are going up, for example, on the GISS graph line. So, my surmising above might have missed the target.
So, what then would be causing the stabilization (temporary or not) of the satellite measurements?
Solar variance a possibility?
We should see, IF SC24 is weak.... | |
|
| Might Solar Cycle 24 dispel man-made global warming?
Posted: 1/13/2008 5:04:20 PM |
comment: I don't think so...
a) the NYTimes article's graphs are from the apparently major measuring groups, apparently weighty
The origional is here..
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/001315forecast_verificatio.html
and in the section "things to note"...
2) A feast for cherrypickers. One can arrive at whatever conclusion one wants with respect to the IPCC predictions. Want the temperature record to be consistent with IPCC? OK, then you like NASA. How about inconsistent? Well, then you are a fan of RSS. On the fence? Well, UAH and UKMET serve that purpose pretty well.
You and your graphs with warning labels....
b) granted, not a trend, but PERHAPS bucking the previous trend. What is important is that 3 of the 4 indicate either level or downward in the 5 year span. One downward would indicate inaccuracy on their part, some kind of statistical variance. Two downward would warrant taking note. Three downward would indicate something is VERY possibly, even probably, going on here.
Look again. How many data sets are above their 2000 mark? What's that...all of them? A two year downward trend isn't nearly long enough to invalidate the general rise over the past few decades....especially since the past few years have seen a decrease in solar emissions...a decrease which reversed and marked a new solar cycle. And while you believe that the next solar cycle is going to be weak (for reasons I don't think you really articulated...the experts disagree, anyway), it's still going to be an increase in incoming energy.
So, I'm interested in what you think would be the explanation for this.
Decreasing solar emissions and rapid increases in ice melt come to mind. Melting ice takes quite a bit of energy which doesn't show up on a thermometer. Of course, I'm not exactly a professional in the field....but I do know that two years is a very short time on a climatological scale.
GISS (NASA) and UKMet are surface readings and analysis of global temps.
RSS and UAH are satellite readings and analysis of global temps.
My two bits: the surface readings would seem to be less reliable, with the "heat island" factor, esp when we are talking of minute temp changes.
Believe it or not, direct physical measurements tend to be more accurate than the mathematical deduction that has to be done to get the surface temperature by satellite. Something as simple as orbital drift can, and has, caused errors in satellite readings. Temperature data from cities tend to be removed, or normalized if they cannot be removed, from long term climate calculations. All measuring methods have their advantages and disadvantages.
But granted, this recent 5 or 6 years of satellite flat or lower temps globally could, for example, simply be a function of oceanic currents, in light of the heat retention of the seas. If currents force cold water up...............
Look again. According to the graph you referenced, it's only the RSS data set that has significantly deviated from the IPCC estimates, and only for about a year. The rest are either increasing, or decreasing at a slowing rate (ie: looks like it's going to reverse its trend soon)
Just surmising. I have no idea of the progress of true experts in this regard.
But I can certainly see how that, for example, would only be a temporary cause of global satellite air temperature stabilization, as is reputed.
Just out of curiosity, did you make any effort to find out what progress the experts are making in that regard? | |
|
| Might Solar Cycle 24 dispel man-made global warming?
Posted: 1/14/2008 9:14:50 AM | Beltaine states: "Look again. How many data sets are above their 2000 mark? What's that...all of them? A two year downward trend isn't nearly long enough to invalidate the general rise over the past few decades....especially since the past few years have seen a decrease in solar emissions...a decrease which reversed and marked a new solar cycle. And while you believe that the next solar cycle is going to be weak (for reasons I don't think you really articulated...the experts disagree, anyway), it's still going to be an increase in incoming energy."
---
comments:
a) in the first post I made about this (m.80), I very clearly said that there was a rapid rise between 2000-02.
b) I also said (m. 80) this: "I am not saying that the trend of upward temps are reversed."
c) solar output's effects, as previously averred, have a delayed effect.
d) whenever I refer to SC24, I have put, repeatedly, in CAPITAL LETTERS, ***IF***, and there is some disagreement, plus NASA, NOAA have already reduced their predictions, which will be a continued downward trend, probably, but the amount is in question, but IF SC24 is weak, and it may or may not be (but, to repeat what I have said many times, SC25 will most assuredly be weak, but that won't be until about 2024), we will possibly have some empirical data to test the theoretical.
e) the increasing energy at solar max of course will be increased, but with delay in results (with heat retention by seas, for example), we are looking at a smoothed curve.
===================
Beltaine states: "Something as simple as orbital drift can, and has, caused errors in satellite readings. Temperature data from cities tend to be removed, or normalized if they cannot be removed, from long term climate calculations. All measuring methods have their advantages and disadvantages"
--
comment: OK, noted. But next year's measurements should be very interesting, to see whether or not "corrections" are made, or the reverse. | |
|
| temps dropping in concurrence with extended minimum?
Posted: 1/28/2008 8:16:19 AM | ...and part of a long term trend?
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/01/08/musings-on-satellite-temperatures/
Excerpt:
"...is this venture to cooler than normal conditions just a short-lived climate fluctuation? If the pattern of temperatures during the past three years is any indication (Figure 2) then perhaps the past two months are not an unusual fluctuation, but part of a longer period cooling trend. The next several months should shed more light on this question." | |
|
| Might Solar Cycle 24 dispel man-made global warming?
Posted: 1/28/2008 6:54:19 PM | | Q.i think the ozone area is a filtering system ,otherwise where has all the volcanic gasses ,smoke,and world polutions been going since the creation of the earth.if it isn't seems like we would be overcome and dead by now.i don't think since humans have been here they put out more polution etc. than the volcanic etc.creation up to the entrance of humans.what do you think...george | |
|
NOX813
|
Joined: 11/20/2006
Msg: 91 | |
| MIGHT solarcycle24 dispel manmade global warming?
Posted: 1/30/2008 12:10:31 PM | YES YES YES!
Take a graph of solar activity based on sun spot activity-you can find about 400 years of data.
Take a graph of temperature measurement you can find about 275 years of data-
Overlay them and VIOLA you have a match.
The junk scientist will not talk about this collation because it cannot be measured-because we do not have the technology to study the effects.
The northern lights are visible and they are a direct result of the energy from the sun hitting the magnetosphere-it is approx the value of a 4.5 magnitude earth quake-that is a huge amount of energy-huge I mean more that mankind have ever produced and will produce for a very very very long time.
Read the junk from the Max Plank institute they always use the term luminosity and disclose that other wave lengths are not factored. Luminosity is a very very narrow band in the waves that the sun produces-they will not even speak of the other particles or waves that the sun bombards the earth with every second and we are talking 100's of tons every second.
The max in the last 6 months has shut down and we have seen very little sun spot activity-if this trend continues and the solar maximum we have been under for the last 1000 years is indeed over-we should get cooler and rapidly. As we did in the early 1700's but more pronounced and longer.
Yield studies of nuclear weapons showed that the temperatures would drop after an exchange and you would see the cooling begin in central Asia.
In the 1970's it was the next ice age that was going to doom man.
In the 1980's it was Ronald Reagan and hit bombs (not the Communist Russian's this is another pain in my side)
In the 1990's it was ozone depletion and really good sun tans (also related to solar activity by the way and its effect on the magnetosphere)
In the 2000's it is really Al Gore and his new junk science.
It is funny how they will not acknowledge that a simple cut and past of two analog data elements show the relationship between solar activity and global temperatures, but they will launch out and claim that they "KNOW" everything needed to "KNOW" in order to make these predictions.
His computer model and its methods are not using the Scientific Method-they are "baked and plugged".
My favorite model story is this-A scientist was headed to the Antarctic he knew that he would need a pet project to take up some time due to the long hours of doing nothing in the frozen waste of Antarctica. So he found and bought an antique it was an 80 year old measuring device-it measure OZONE. He tried to fix the device but could not calibrate it against the new modern devices that he had at his disposal. He tried and tried to no avail.
He then questioned the computer and its human programmed statistical method!
When he fixed the programming the computer could then be calibrated against the antique to make sure it was computing correctly-the moral of the story well that is up to you to figure out, but the Global warming peeps are not that smart. By the way this all happened in the early 1990's and the ozone hole scare started, because all of a sudden the computers started to compute ozone holes-all because a man went back to foundational scientific methods codified by Isaac Newton.
The methods that the global warming crowd use are the same as the Inquisition. | |
|
| MIGHT solarcycle24 dispel manmade global warming?
Posted: 1/30/2008 1:35:39 PM | Nox, glad to have a skeptic onboard. Apparently more skeptical than I am.
The bottom line is that this is all very interesting, considering that solar cycle 23 is stretching out one year beyond expectations, the solar minimum is still very minimum (20 days of no sunspots as of now, but admittedly, no telling, that can change pretty quickly).
And the very bottom line is the possibility, the maybe, of a reduced solar cycle 24, ,which had previously been forecast pretty universally to be a great tiger, but the predictions have been modified (yet some time ago, around April 2007) by the "bigwigs" to be somewhere between moderate to moderate/strong. But this could very well be re-modified, I assume, in the next few months if solar cycle 24 doesn't get to popping.
And the crux is this: IF solar cycle 24 is weak (which would have been a heretical suggestion 2 years ago), we will have a potential acid test / fire test / truth serum on anthropological global warming.
If the man-made GW folks are right about:
* the relative insulating properties of CO2 versus solar variation, and the net temp effects
* the cosmic ray aspects of cloud cover formation as being negligible
* etc
then they will be apparently vindicated.
But if the temps drop.......................
And, Nox, as you are surely aware, the composite UAH, RSS, GISS, UKMet temps indicate, in sum, a drop from 2002 to 2007.
Is this a quirk? Or a resultant of slight lessenings (yet stilll high) of the high solar output in the past 60 years or so, in conjunction with the present elongated period of solar minimum?
It's all extremely interesting.
The global composite temps of 2008 are going to be IMMENSELY interesting. Granted, some quirk variables (such as El Nino(?) 1998) can have a big monkey-wrench effect, but it doen't seem like that type of thing has been a factor in the past 5, going on 6, years. | |
|
| MIGHT solarcycle24 dispel manmade global warming?
Posted: 2/29/2008 6:57:08 PM | | I used to believe in the man made global warming but I was looking at the solar cycles and I think each new cycle is adding a little more energy to the system. In the 70's there was a low cycle, but in my opinion, that cycle should have been even lower. Similar to what happened during Napolean's Russian Campaign. I was told in school that Greenland got its name as a propaganda tool. Now evidence is coming out that at one time Greenland was green. I think global warming is occuring, but I don't there is anything that we can do about it except find ways to cope with it. | |
|
| MIGHT solarcycle24 dispel manmade global warming?
Posted: 7/5/2008 11:53:13 AM | mpaul
I was thinking about you when I read this article published in the Canadian Free Press about impending global cooling:
New Jason Satellite Indicates 23-Year Global Cooling
By Dennis Avery Friday, May 2, 2008
Now it’s not just the sunspots that predict a 23-year global cooling. The new Jason oceanographic satellite shows that 2007 was a “cool” La Nina year—but Jason also says something more important is at work: The much larger and more persistent Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) has turned into its cool phase, telling us to expect moderately lower global temperatures until 2030 or so.
For the past century at least, global temperatures have tended to mirror the 20-to 30-year warmings and coolings of the north-central Pacific Ocean. We don’t know just why, but the pattern of the last century is clear: the earth warmed from about 1915 to1940, while the PDO was also warming (1925 to 46). The earth cooled from 1940 to 1975, while the PDO was cooling (1946 to 1977). The strong global warming from 1976 to 1998 was accompanied by a strong and almost-constant warming of the north-central Pacific. Ancient tree rings in Baja California and Mexico show there have been 11 such PDO shifts since 1650, averaging 23 years on length.
Researchers discovered the PDO only recently—in 1996—while searching for the reason salmon numbers had declined sharply in the Columbia River after 1977. The salmon catch record for the past 100 years gave the answer—shifting Pacific Ocean currents. The PDO favors the salmon from the Columbia for about 25 years at a time, and then the salmon from the Gulf of Alaska, but the two fisheries never thrive at the same time. Something in the PDO favors the early development of the salmon smolts from one region or the other. Other fish, such as halibut, sardines, and anchovies follow similar shifts in line with the PDO.
The PDO seems to be driven by the huge Aleutian Low in the Arctic—but we don’t know what controls the Aleutian Low. Nonetheless, 22.5-year “double sunspot cycles” have been identified in South African rainfall, Indian monsoons, Australian droughts, and rains in the United States’ far southwest as well. These cycles argue that the sun, not CO2, controls the earth’s temperatures.
Dr. Henrik Svensmark’s recent experiments at the Danish Space Research Institute seem to show that the earth’s temperatures are importantly affected by the low, wet clouds that deflect more or less solar heat back into space. The number of such clouds is affected, in turn, by more or fewer cosmic rays hitting the earth. The number of earthbound cosmic rays depends on the extent of the giant magnetic wind thrown out by the sun.
All of this defies the “consensus” that human-emitted carbon dioxide has been responsible for our global warming. But the evidence for man-made warming has never been as strong as its Green advocates maintained. The earth’s warming from 1915 to 1940 was just about as strong as the “scary” 1975 to 1998 warming in both scope and duration—and occurred too early to be blamed on human-emitted CO2. The cooling from 1940 to 1975 defied the Greenhouse Theory, occurring during the first big surge of man-made greenhouse emissions. Most recently, the climate has stubbornly refused to warm since 1998, even though human CO2 emissions have continued to rise strongly.
The Jason satellite is an updated and more-accurate version of the Poseidon satellite that has been monitoring the oceans since 1992, picking up ocean wind speeds, wave heights, and sea level changes. Jason is run by NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory and a French team.
How many years of declining world temperature would it take now—in the wake of the ten-year non-warming since 1998—to break up Al Gore’s “climate change consensus”?
DENNIS T. AVERY is a senior fellow for the Hudson Institute in Washington, DC and is the Director for the Center for Global Food Issues. (http://www.cgfi.org) He was formerly a senior analyst for the Department of State. He is co-author, with S. Fred Singer, of Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Hundred Years, Readers may write him at PO Box 202, Churchville, VA 2442 or email to cgfi@hughes.net | |
|
| MIGHT solarcycle24 dispel manmade global warming?
Posted: 7/5/2008 4:43:42 PM | | I look forward to Avery getting a peer reviewed article published about it any second now. Considering this is the guy who claimed that Organic foods were more dangerous than pesticide sprayed produce, | |
|
| MIGHT solarcycle24 dispel manmade global warming?
Posted: 7/5/2008 6:10:32 PM | Charlesdm et al.
This just hit my desk. It`s a long read but worthwhile
Editor's note: All content on troymedia.com is free to use. Please credit Troy Media Corporation.
Interview
July 2008
Interview with Lawrence Solomon - National Post columnist
Lawrence Solomon is the author of The Deniers: The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud**And those who are too fearful to do so. He is Energy Probe's executive director, a columnist with National Post and a past columnist with the Globe and Mail. He founded or helped to found several environmental organizations, including the World Rainforest Movement, Friends of the Earth Canada, and Lake Ontario Keeper. Along with Jane Jacobs and others, he helped found Energy Probe. Lawrence Solomon's first book, The Conserver Solution, was a best seller and the bible of the environmental movement in the late 1970s. A subsequent book, Breaking Up Ontario Hydro's Monopoly, led to Hydro's dismantling after the leaders of all three provincial parties endorsed it. The UK privatization of its power system followed Solomon's model for the breakup of utilities. He also invented satellite toll road technology that the EU and which the UK seem set to adopt by 2014. Solomon was an adviser to US President Jimmy Carter's Global 2000 Report. He was interviewed by the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.
Frontier Centre: Can you tell us a bit about your environmental credentials? You have been a prominent critic, for example, of the energy industry.
Lawrence Solomon: I founded Energy Probe Research Foundation in 1980. Energy Probe has been one of the main critics of the energy industry since that time. We have opposed nuclear plants. We have opposed large hydro dams. We have opposed Arctic pipe lines and tar sands and we promote conservation and renewable energy.
FC: So why did you write the book The Deniers?
LS: Energy Probe has long thought that climate change could be a serious problem. We were, in fact, one of the first organizations in Canada, perhaps the first, to warn about the potential dangers of climate change. But over the years, the evidence that has emerged hasn’t really been that strong. And scientists who have pointed out the weakness of the case for global warming, of the Al Gore view, have been vilified I became interested in knowing who these scientists were, what their views were precisely and whether they really were kooks or in the pay of the oil industry, as their critics claim. So I decided to start profiling them in my weekly column for the National Post. I thought I would find a few who were credible but it turns out that I found a great many who were credible.
FC: If you listen to the media dialogue, it seems to be quite one-sided. Why does the media not present a more balanced view of this topic?
LS: The media believes that the science is settled. They have bought into what Al Gore has said, that the science is settled, that there are 2,500 scientists associated with the United Nations’ Panel on Climate Change that all agree with the United Nations’ conclusion. But the media is simply wrong. It hasn’t done its homework. It hasn’t contacted top scientists to find out that in fact the science is not settled. And it has not contacted the Secretariat for the UN’s climate change panel, called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Had they done that, as I did, they would have discovered that the 2,500 scientists are not endorsers of the United Nations’ position. Those scientists are peer reviewers of background studies that went into the climate change documents and many of those peer reviewers don’t agree at all with the United Nations’ position.
FC: You could position your work as certainly critical of the environmental orthodoxy out there. Have you been attacked or criticized by your colleagues in the environmental movement?
LS: I haven’t. I expected that I would be attacked by them but to my surprise there has been to date not one criticism that I’m aware of from any of whom I would consider an environmental colleague. There has been criticism from a global warming blog site that is backed by someone from the public relations industry but that’s not an environmental criticism. Environmentalists, I believe, are torn on the issue. Many of them, I feel, are not convinced that the science is settled but they’re happy to see the Kyoto-type reforms being put in place because it accomplishes what environmentalists want. They want to see less use of fossil fuels. They want to see fewer tar sands. They want to see fewer arctic pipe lines. They want to see more conservation. They want to see less use of the automobile, fewer roads, fewer suburbs and sprawl. And they think they can accomplish all those things by going along with the climate change debate whether or not the science is right. Climate change is a secondary issue.
FC: So these groups are just using this as a convenient vehicle for various agendas?
LS: Some of them are, some of them I’m sure are entirely sincere. And it’s not just environmental groups. Those who find climate change convenient include groups concerned with third-world development. They’d like to see the Kyoto plan proceed because they see it as a way of transferring wealth to the third-world. (Some of these groups include) businesses. This is very big business now and many businesses are in the carbon trading field or think they can capitalize on it. There are literally hundreds of billions of dollars at stake here and businesses realize that. The research community has an interest. There are billions of dollars in research grants, $4 billion a year now in research grants. There are economists who don’t like the personal income tax system, the progressive income tax system and they would prefer to see a system based on commodity taxes. They see carbon as being a good way to accomplish that goal. So all the interest groups are trying to take advantage of the climate change reforms that seem to be on their way.
FC: Let’s get to the heart of the matter: is carbon dioxide or CO2 and global warming a problem for us as a society and the environment?
LS: Many scientists believe that CO2 is a problem. Many others, perhaps the majority of scientists, believe that CO2 is not a problem. Many scientists believe that CO2 is actually a benefit. It wasn’t actually that long ago that CO2 was universally regarded as beneficial, as plant food. CO2 is nature’s fertilizer. Only recently have we started to view CO2 with suspicion in this way.
FC: Some people seem to talk about CO2 as a form of pollution. Would you agree with that?
LS: No. I think people often confuse CO2 with other types of emissions. Coal burning produces lots of emissions, it produces NOX (nitrogen oxides) and SOX (sulphur oxides), mercury emissions. Those are known to be harmful. The carbon component of coal burning is not known to be harmful. CO2 may be benign. It may be beneficial. And yet we are putting it in the same category as known poisons. Carbon after all is the building block of life on Earth. We are a carbon-based planet. There is something dangerous about attacking the basis of life on Earth.
FC: You mentioned in your speeches to the Frontier that the Earth has never been greener, that we’ve never had more biota (the plant and animal life of a region). This is a very optimistic viewpoint. Yet we constantly hear Armageddon-type doom mongering about the environment.
LS: It’s not an optimistic viewpoint. It’s a viewpoint based on the data. Until a little while ago, we didn’t have a way of measuring how planet Earth was doing on the whole. Well now we have a measure. For the last few decades we have been measuring the growth on the planet. We’ve been measuring the amount of greenery we have, the amount of biota we have and the data shows that the Earth is greener now than since we’ve begun to take these measurements. Now it’s not as green as it has been in much earlier times. The Earth has been much hotter, much greener in earlier times but it’s the greenest it’s been in recent times. Some people see that with alarm. I don’t see why we would view heat and greenery with alarm. Normally we see that as good.
FC: If CO2 has benefits why would our policy makers construct complicated schemes around reducing CO2? People don’t understand how they work but cap and trade, carbon taxes, all these things.
LS: Politicians don’t realize that the science is not settled on climate change. They think it’s a done deal and it’s inevitable that they have to take action so the question that they face is what type of action should we take? But I think they need to step back and do the science because it’s not clear that there is a problem because of climate change. There may be no problem at all. It may be that we are about to enter into a cooling period. There’s a great deal of science that we don’t know and there’s vanishingly little that we do know about the climate.
FC: So what do you say about cap and trade and carbon tax schemes? Are they good ideas or bad ideas?
LS: Premature ideas. If we had a problem with carbon then it might be sensible to have an upheaval in our economy. Then it might be sensible to increase the costs of our fuel. Then it might be sensible to increase the costs of food as we’re doing because of bio-fuels. Then it might be sensible to increase our taxes. But in the absence of information I don’t think it’s sensible to do these things at all. I think what we need to do is get the information because these carbon schemes not only can harm the economy, they can harm the environment as well. And in fact they are harming the environment.
FC: So you are saying that we are unnecessarily raising the costs of our lifestyle, essentially, by going down this road?
LS: Yes but I wouldn’t characterize it as merely lifestyle. I would say that we are raising the costs of life. We are raising the cost of food and fuel. These are very basic to human life. They may translate to lifestyle for us in the West but for people in the third world it’s much closer to life than to lifestyle. When you are living on $1 a day and your food costs double, you are in trouble and your family is in trouble.
FC: The Feds are giving Saskatchewan $1 billion for a carbon capture project in the oil fields. Again, if CO2 is not a problem, can we say that we are essentially burying $1 billion in the ground?
LS: Well you could say that but it could be worse than that. Because not only might you be burying $1 billion in the ground but these carbon sequestration schemes, according to a recent study at Columbia University, could be inducing earthquakes. So we could actually be doing a great deal of harm to our cities because these carbon sequestration schemes are often located near cities.
FC: Could we also say, for example, that diverting that $1 billion into public housing, or whatever would be a better use of the resources?
LS: Certainly, putting money down a rat hole is not a good use of resources.
FC: In Manitoba we are closing a coal burning plant out by Brandon. Why is coal seen as a dirty fuel by the policy community?
LS: Coal used to be a very dirty fuel but coal has become cleaner and cleaner over the decades. Clean coal now is quite clean. Clean coal now has the same emissions profile as natural gas. Clean coal can become cleaner still. We can take even more of the pollutants out of coal and I believe we should. Clean coal, I think, is the immediate answer to Canada’s energy needs and the world’s energy needs. There are hundreds of years available of coal supplies. We shouldn’t be squandering that resource. We should be using it prudently.
FC: You’ve said that Kyoto has emerged as a destroyer of the environment. Can you describe this ultimate irony? You’ve already mentioned bio-fuels but you had several other examples.
LS: Kyoto, through various mechanisms, acts to destroy the global environment. One of those is through carbon offsets. When we buy a carbon offset in the West what we are often doing is buying a part of a carbon sink in the third world. That carbon sink might be a fast growing eucalyptus plantation. Eucalyptus is a fast growing tree that takes a lot of carbon out of the air. To get the land for that plantation farmers in the third world are often evicted from their land without compensation. Or an old growth forest may be converted to a eucalyptus plantation and there we lose the environmental amenities in that old-growth forest and the residents of that forest, the forest people, who make their living by collecting nuts and berries from the forest, lose their livelihood as well.
FC: What about ethanol?
LS: Ethanol is an enormous economic and environment boondoggle. It doesn’t have the environmental benefits that are touted for it. In fact, some studies (show) that air quality is worse in certain air sheds from ethanol burning. But apart from that even if you are concerned about greenhouse gases ethanol is not an answer. Ethanol increases the amount of greenhouse gases. But most damagingly, ethanol is contributing to the inflation that we’re seeing in food prices and this is leading to enormous upset especially in the third world where people are now protesting, sometimes rioting, because of the effect on them and their families from the high food prices.
FC: Why are there really no political parties who strongly oppose all this policy that’s emerging with Kyoto and the obsession with being green? Is it that politicians are afraid?
LS: I think it is fear. I think politicians have been cowed into backing what they think is an inevitable reform. They think that the public will accept nothing less than serious climate change reforms. That might be a carbon tax, it might be a cap and trade system, it might be different type of regulation. But politicians feel that they can’t lag on this issue. I think they’re wrong. I think politicians should demand a debate before they create enormous changes to Canadian society.
FC: What’s your view of the “Green Shift” plan put forward by federal Liberal leader Stephane Dion, which seems to be quite ambitious?
LS: In many ways, it’s not a principled plan at all. Stephane Dion is giving a pass to the car. People are not being hit at the gas pump. The reason he is giving people a pass at the gas pump is because he is afraid of the political consequences of going too far. But Stephane Dion’s plan ultimately is based on ignorance. He believes that there is a consensus on climate change. He is simply wrong on that. There is no consensus on climate change. I believe that if he realized that there was no consensus and if the public realized that there was no consensus that the Liberals would not be taking the Canadian society down this road.
FC: Who will the plan impact the most?
LS: The plan initially will be affecting home owners to a great extent. The average fuel bill will be going up $200 or $250. But in a way, Albertans are the real target of this. This is in some way the repeat of the National Energy Program because the lion’s share of the revenues will be coming from Alberta and then those will be mostly redistributed to the public at large. So Alberta is going to be victimized. The rest of the country is going to get some of Alberta’s spoils. I think the country as a whole will be worst off as a result of this exercise.
FC: How will Alberta, and I assume Saskatchewan, pay more through this plan? I don’t quite understand.
LS: Well under the Dion plan it’s the industries that will be providing most of the revenue. Those petroleum industries are largely concentrated in Alberta and Saskatchewan.
FC: It’s been curious, the response of Alberta and the oil industry. The energy industry’s approach has been to lie low and hope this all goes away. What do you think of that strategy?
LS: It hasn’t worked. Just the opposite. It’s playing into the hands of those who would like to see them shut down. The energy industry is afraid to fight for its rights and the public senses that. What the public gets from anyone who is afraid to fight for his rights is that he’s not proud of what he’s doing. And if the energy industry isn’t proud of what it is doing well, why should other Canadians be proud of the energy industry? The actions of the energy industry, more than anything else, are acting to undermine it. It should try to make its case. Some people would criticize it and everybody should treat arguments that come from the energy industry with some skepticism. But everybody would realize that they have a right to make a case. While the public should be skeptical of energy industry facts, the onus then comes on the skeptics to disprove the energy industry facts. If the energy industry presents its facts fairly they would not be easily refuted. They have not done that and they are suffering for it. And all Canadians will be suffering for it.
FC: So if you were asked for advice by the oil industry in Alberta, what would your advice be to them?
LS: I’d say ‘Come clean.’ Make your best case. Challenge people to knock it down. If they can’t knock it down, the Canadian people will be able to recognize that. If they can knock it down, well then you’ve made your case and you’ve lost. And you will have deserved to have lost. As it is, you’re losing and it’s not clear that you deserve to be losing.
FC: Where is this whole thing going? Do you think it’s going to fall apart?
LS: I think it will fall apart. I hope it falls apart before too much more damage is done. To date we have not had compelling evidence that climate change is either man-made or harmful. We are seeing a backlash in certain political jurisdictions. Case in point: England is one of the fiercest champions of the United Nations’ view on climate change. The London government has already fallen, some people say, because of the position on global warming. Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister of England, seeing his job in jeopardy because of some of the climate change policies, is trying to back away. Governments are starting to realize that it’s not easy to just go along with public opinion because public opinion can turn around and bite them quite quickly. That should be an object lesson to Canada’s politicians as well. | |
|
| MIGHT solarcycle24 dispel manmade global warming?
Posted: 10/25/2009 8:19:08 AM | Thought I would revive this thread, since another on global warming has limits to the number of posts we are allowed to make.
I've found a couple of interesting articles recently on global warming, from opposing camps;
First, I've become a fan of Nir Shaviv, who inadvertently entered the AGW sceptics' camp when he discovered the effect of solar winds on clouds and therefore on global temperatures. Here's a great article on his story:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1063707.html
The other is by a group of scientists who have found an arctic sediment core that they think shows that humans have had an effect on global temperature
http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1771883/arctic_lake_sediments_show
_warming_unique_ecological_changes/index.html
While environmental changes at the lake over the past millennia have been shown to be tightly linked with natural causes of climate change -- like periodic, well-understood wobbles in Earth's orbit -- changes seen in the sediment cores since about 1950 indicate expected climate cooling is being overridden by human activity like greenhouse gas emissions. The research team reconstructed past climate and environmental changes at the lake on Baffin Island using indicators that included algae, fossil insects and geochemistry preserved in sediment cores that extend back 200,000 years.
Would be fun to see the experts like these debate this issue | |
|
| MIGHT solarcycle24 dispel manmade global warming?
Posted: 10/25/2009 8:32:49 AM | Yes, no or maybe. Take your pick.
Keep in mind several things. Solar output during the Maunder minimum is "estimated." We are talking 17th to 18th Century. The MM started in 1645. The telescope was first used for astronomy in 1608.
Also, solar no one is actually sure of many of the driving factors behind solar maxima and minima, beyond the bottom line magnetic field explanations.
Finally, solar maxima and minima take place over 11 and 22-year periods overall. For those who actually accept AGW, then this is a process that has been steadily ongoing for over a century. | |
|
| MIGHT solarcycle24 dispel manmade global warming?
Posted: 10/25/2009 5:11:16 PM | Stargazer: Have you read Shaviv's work? He's not just looking at the 11 and 22-year cycles. He's looking much longer term. If you read the article on him from the link I posted, it seems that he did his work independent of the global warming movement and then fell into criticism when he found an explanation for solar activity and clouds' role in climate. He also met up with a Canadian scientist who had put together long-term data on global temps. The two sets of data fit better than the CO2/temperature data do.
Shaviv is in the minority in his views, but sometimes clarity comes from people who are sitting outside a problem. I wouldn't be surprised if someday he gets recognition for his work. I read somewhere (might have been on his blog) that he does not dispute CO2 having a role in global warming, but he feels it contributes about 30% to the warming we see. I like his point of view. He's an environmentalist and quite logical in his approach. | |
|
| MIGHT solarcycle24 dispel manmade global warming?
Posted: 10/26/2009 7:33:44 AM | | From what I have read of Shaviv, he is saying exactly what I have been saying in these global warming threads all along. I would love to discuss climate change analysis in a spectral sense as my work in this area could actually point to cause and effect relationships with something other than the coincidence and fear mongering that dominates the AGW religion. | |
|
|
| Page 4 of 7
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 |
|
Home
login 
