Science and Society

The reason that they did not correlate was because they chose to disprove the solar wind acting on clouds (only) and claim proudly that its not the sun. Solar wind isn't like a blowing wind that can affect clouds. Solar winds leave the sun as super hot perticle streams, the faster, the hotter. The solar wind/cosmic ray hypothesis was lame to start with. The correllation for TSI and warming has a better correlation than CO2 alone without any solar wind effect factored in. So don't rule out the sun as a major factor just yet. To date there has been a lot of disproving but so far no definitive answer has been found.

What, you mean that these scientists who work on grants, are going to come out with evidence AGAINST the false religion of global warming! Do you know what has happened to researchers and scientist who don't tow the line? They get fired! A flawed anaylsis and half assed research does not a conclusion make. Until you look at the temperatures rising on other planets and their moons, you can't determined anything reasonably. The facts are that those temperatures have been increasing on those planets according to NASA's own research... look it up. I would just like to know from all of the folks who will call me and others the equvalent of holocaust deniers one, simple question: What is causing the global warming on these planets, because it sure ISN'T humans!!! Do we now declare war on aliens, because they are a threat to their own planets fragile ecosystem? Get real! Facts are stubborn things.

So, in with all this scientific analysis, where is the accounting for the steady rise in the numbers of sunspots over the time since we've been counting them? -- Why is the study only surveying a couple of 11 year cycles? -- Anyway, anything that gets human beings to behave in a more responsible way regarding their planet can't be all bad. -- Our husbandry has been rather shabby, to say the least.

Marie
Two 11 year cycles is one full 22 year cycle or in other words 11 years is 1/2 of a full sunspot cycle. And they only measured one because they knew the result before they began.

I wish I had invented the internet and global warming...what an easy way to get rich quick!

So why are the polar ice caps on Mars receding? Is my SUV to blame for that as well?

First of all, the "polar ice caps" on MArs are not obviously "receding." A few pictures on Mars showed a reduced dry-ice field and suddenly the denial industry comes up with: “ALL of the other solar bodies are experiencing global warming!!” (Oh yes, there’s some evidence of global warming on Pluto too, but it was just at its closest point to the sun so that’s not too surprising.) The dry-ice field on Mars could be “melting” due to global warming or orbital tilt or any number of other things. Since Mars’ atmosphere is almost pure CO2, some global warming might be expected. And even if it has something to do with the sun, nobody said the sun was NOT changing. Scientists just can't find any evidence that it is changing enough to account for most of the current global warming on Earth.

I do commend the scientists for looking into this. The good thing about true skeptics (which all scientists are), is that they are willing to test just about any reasonable hypothesis someone can come up with. There was another paper a year or two ago where scientists looked into another aspect of solar energy (I would have to look up the details), and found that it also could not explain current events.

Skepticism is good until it becomes a refusal to believe anything regardless of evidence.

I've honestly never heard of this before. Kind of odd. I remember a while back, in 1998-99 I ran a small observatory and had the great honor of seeing the tail end of the last solar maximum. It sure was grand. After seeing what I saw, I can somewhat understand the thinking behind this, but can't believe it if there is no evidence supporting it.

It's a fact that all of us will be dead in about 150 years so why do we care?

I love how everytime a global warming paper is written by scientists every "Joe Nobody" suddenly becomes an expert technical analyst and critic. People will believe what they want to believe on the subject of Global Warming.

How desperate do climate change deniers have to be? The cyclilic shrinking of the CO2 polar caps on Mars as "proof" that climate shifts are solar driven? Face the facts: we're pumping billions of addition tons of CO2 into a closed ecological/geological system each year, for at least the last 300 years... the system needs to readjust to maintain equilibrium...

Rush is a delusional pill head, sell your SUV and gain an understanding of some basic science...

Oh Ned Ned Ned. You're such a pot-stirrer. ;-) It's too bad you can't somehow combine global warming with evolution - this blog would be on fire.

Nothing like a good hoax to keep the peasants occupied. Anyone looking for a good deal on ammo and canned goods? I'm converting my Y2K bunker into a chicken house. Oh yeah,if anyone needs to buy some carbon credits, I've got a trunk full of them. Jeez Louise folks, we control the weather? I don't think even a genius like Al Gore can save us.

plato - No, we can't control the weather, although we indirectly affect it through climate change. The "weather" refers to day-to-day and even month-to-month LOCAL patterns of temperature and precipitation. The CLIMATE refers to long-term trends and regional/global averages. As our GHG emissions change the global average climate, local weather patterns will probably change as well, but not in a predictable or controllable way.

No Plato - we don't control the weather. We can however control how much CO2 we put into the atmosphere, which effects the climate. Al Gore isn't a genius - but Al Gore didn't write any of my textbooks, deliver any of the lectures I've attended, or teach any of my classes. And they all delivered the same message. The current global warming/climate change is largely anthropogenic. It ain't the sun, it's 6+ billion human beings, our livestock, and our technology. This study just reiterates what we already knew. And if you've got some MRE's for cheap, I'll take them off your hands.

{Oh Ned Ned Ned. You're such a pot-stirrer. ;-) It's too bad you can't somehow combine global warming with evolution - this blog would be on fire.}

He can cturple. Anyone can. Watch this:

Global Warming Caused Evolution. Therefore, if the planet warms more, we will devolve back into apes!

Lawrence, you have done smote the nail right on the flat spot. If globel warming continues, we will devolve socially if not physically, because the whole social system will come down around our ears. Then, it's back to the jungle, folks.

Cturple,

As usual, erudite. With tongue firmly in cheek - What is the carbon footprint of an MRE?

I suspect that "Digging for Victory" may make more sense. I wonder how much carbon sequestration we could achieve if everyone planted a garden for a few years.

Two physists making any claims about climate, weather or especially the sun is like going to a cardiologist for advice about a crown or an implant on a tooth.

Then to only look at the clouds here on earth and conclude that nope the sun has nothing to do with it. Yeah right. Oh, and send more funding though. Keep the money comming in so we can study some more.

What is even more comical is the sheeple. How can some be so ignorant and just assume that man is the problem and then be even more ignorant that man can "fix" the problem. You can't. I read above that man has been pumping billions of tons of co2 for the last 300 years. You can't be serious, if you are then you can't be taken serious. Have you even thought about what you just wrote, or do you just go with your emotions and the prepared talking points.

And for the record. Weather and Climate are RELATED. Climate IS weather conditions for a region.

cturple - Has any of your classroom experience exposed you to the opinion of the many credentialed researchers who feel that the anthropogenic contribution to climate change is being wildly exaggerated? If so, were these researchers dismissed as being on the payroll of Halliburton or some other equally nefarious outfit? Is it even remotely possible that the consensus that you mention may result from something other than pure, objective science? Been a long time since I was in school, about the only I retain from those days is scepticism.

well, lawrence, actually, it's the other way around. We evolved into human beings, who are now largely responsible for the current climate change/global warming. the chimps didn't do it. And we're not in danger of de-evolving back into the jungle (not even the savannah) - just something akin to the dark ages.

I'm glad someone mentioned Mars. If co2 raises temperature, then why isn't Mars an oven given the amount of co2 present in it's atmosphere. It's around 94% or so. Yet the temperature is very cold.

Dust on Mars may attract some heat, but it isn't that dusty. We have several rovers that are still operating on their only power supply, sunlight. Dust would collect on the panels and they would be dead a long time ago. But as others point out, logic and alarmists don't mix.

The best thing that "scientists" should do is admit that there is more that they don't know than what they do know.

Whatever happened to to ozone hole?
The one we didn't cause.
The one we didn't fix.
I miss it.

Mark - Good question. The reason Mars is not an oven is because it is too far from the sun. Fortunately, that is true of Earth as well, but Venus was not so lucky. The atmosphere of Venus is also mostly CO2, and with the much greater solar input, that led to a runaway greenhous effect that boiled off all the water. The "greenhouse effect" on Venus is around 400-500 degress as opposed to the 33 degrees here on Earth. Scientists do not think it can get that bad on Earth because there is not enough solar input to prevent the water vapor in the atmosphere from raining out again into the oceans.

Three things that the AGW discussion never mentions is the earth's tilt, wobble and eccentricity cycles. Combine those cycles with the sun and the sun's cycles, and climate change is solved. (We'll save the depleating magnetic field and how that effects us as well combined with all the forementioned for a later time.)

Notice how it is okay to mention all that when stating why another planet has global warming. But do not, infact never mention it when discussing earth. It is all man and big oil's fault. I'm sure there are prepared talking points on this.

It has been joked about, but it is actually true. They really do need to learn a heck of a lot more than they do before someone forces an incredible amount of economy crippling tax or fees on people based on false information. It should be taken much more serious than it is by the people that believe man is the problem (I use "people" where others have a more fitting name).

plato - You are right that science is never purely objective, but there is a long-standing process for research and debate in science that does tend to make scientific consensus fairly clear when it exists. There are always dissenters, and that is a good thing until people start listening only to the dissenters without going through the whole scientific process.

Perhaps the worst thing that conservatives did over the last 30 years was to attack science itself. It started with the tobacco industry. When science was making it obvious that they were killing people, they decided to attack not only the science but the very process of science. The long-standing anti-intellectualism in America helped them to portray scientists as just another "interest group" with an opinion. No one seems to be aware of the strength of the scientific method anymore. It apparently doesn't matter that the connection between carbon dioxide and global warming is a scientific fact we have known for over 100 years. If you can get people to distrust scientists, all those inconvenient truths go away!

Tim B - The AGW discussion most definitely considers the earth's tilt, wobble and eccentricity cycles, at least in the scientific literature. These can be measured and predicted very precisely, and along with known solar cycles they are always considered in all models. People always seem so surprised to learn that most scientists are in fact not stupid and actually do know what they are doing.

plato - The ozone hole is actually still there, even though you haven't heard about it much in the media. It had begun to shrink after we outlawed chlorflourocarbons and other ozone-destrying chemicals (yes, we DID fix it), but these stay in the atmosphere for decades so the shrinking is slow and variable. In fact, the ozone hole bounced up to record size a couple of years ago.

Tim B
The axial tilt and orbital plane are taken into account for long term climate study. The current case for AGW does not need to look at long term since they claim that AGW only diverged from TSI* in 1976. This is what convinced most of the backers of the CO2 hypothesis that it simply had to be CO2, there isn't anything else with a strong enough effect that they know of.

*TSI is Total Solar Irradiance, but does not account for variability of solar flares or the solar wind, which are still not fully understood but recent papers indicate that they need to take another look at solar wind.

Jock
An interesting point I have seen raised in some climate articles is that the current cooling is from weather, caused by La Nina, overpowering AGW. The excuse for cooling after 1998 is blamed on El Nino overpowering AGW. Think about that for a few minutes.

Andy Clark: lol. I have no idea, but it's probably high.

Victory gardens are a great idea - but I don't think today's society would for the most part want to spend the time it takes to grow one. the do-it-yourself attitude seems to have dissipated in the last few decades.

Lawrence
It was a hypothesis that cosmic rays affected cloud formation and they in turn were affected by solar wind. It basically is not a provable theory but obviously was disprovable. That sunspot cycles affect climate is known. But the calculated effect of TSI on temperature is not large enough to account for the increased warming since 1976. Of the greenhouse gases CO2, H4C and N2O, only CO2 exists in large enough quantity to account for the increase. This is, at least the consensus.

plato: I have never run across a credentialed researcher who denies the reality of anthropogenic climate change/gw - either in school or anywhere else - but I have been hearing the skeptics say they exist. The only pseudo-scientists I've actually read about are individuals like Singer who haven't published for 20 years, and prostituted himself to the tobacco industry. I've studied the science, and while I'm no climatologist - it's fairly obvious to me when taken into context, we're causing at least a good portion of it. When a "scientist" says "the more co2, the better," I have to wonder if he missed his medication, or believes that humans are walking triffids.

plato
Your mention of the ozone hole is very pertinent to Climate Change. As Jock mentioned it has stopped growing and appears to be recovering. It has also been brought up as a potential indirect cause for AGW.

Quietman - I'm not sure there really needs to be an "excuse" for the alleged cooling since 1998. 1998 was a record high temperature anomaly far above the trend line, so it's not surprising if the temperatures relaxed back to the trend line. Of course it COULD also mean that global warming really is "over," so that is where we have to fall back on predictive models. From everything I have seen, CO2 is still a better predictor than solar energy, but hey, I'm just a biologist....

Jock
In reading your reply to plato I came to realize that for the most part people seem to believe that there are only two camps on AGW. From the articles I have read they stress the pro AGW and con AGW camps specifically. But on the pro AGW side there are both skeptics and natural cycle denialists, and the same on the con AGW side. The fifth camp appears neutral, and apparently not very newsworthy.

jock
You missed my point.

The El Nino / La Nina cycle has been known to occur for many years but only started being news in the 1970s. The very fact that it is capable of overpowering AGW and that the most extreme El Nino cycles have occurred since the 1970s may indicate the missing components of the current climate change. I searched all over looking for an explanation of what causes El Nino and found out that they do not actually know but there is one hypothesis and it makes perfect sense.

You will remember that I mentioned Rhodes Fairbridge and Mackey's work on solar cycles. While the hypothesis is based on the effect of the sun on the earth, it does not deal solely with TSI but includes gravimetric tides and the effect of sunspots on solar wind. The prime mover in the hypothesis is the effect of other planets, especially jupiter, pulling on the sun.

In 1975-1976 we experienced stronger tital influences that we could see in the earths oceans dur to a major alignment. While there was not immediate catastrophic event that some expected (the big one), there was an increase in overall vulcanism, and dormant volcanos became active within the following 5 or 6 years.

If the Fairbridge hypothesis is true, the combined tidal effect on the sun with the earth caught in the middle meant that we were subjected to a greater than normal solar wind.

The temperature curve begins it's deviation from the sunspot cycles in 1976. Coincidence?

I forgot to mention what the El Nino hypothesis is. The part known is that warm upwelling water warms the air and causes it to change directions (towards the mountains or away from the mountains). The cause of the warm upwelling water is hypothesized to be caused by vulcanism in the subduction zone off the Peruvian coast. The cyclic nature is believed to reflect the tidal currents within the magma. If true, this would explain the change at the alignment.

Lawrence
Do a web search for Richard Mackey and Rhodes Fairbridge. I think that you would see the merit in the hypothesis.

Quietman - As with atmospheric changes, I'm sure volcanoes play a role in Antarctica. But as that article itself says, the effect is probably localized: "But while the Pine Island Glacier may be thinning because of the volcano, it’s highly unlikely the thinning of Antarctica’s ice sheet as a whole can be blamed on hidden volcanoes. For one thing, Antarctica has very few active volcanoes. Most glacial scientists, including Dr. Vaughan himself, blame warmer ocean waters for glacial thinning in West Antarctica."

Here is another interesting link about the Wilkins ice sheet breakup and some graphics on temperature trends throughout Antarctica. While there is still alot of uncertainty, it is looking like the warming areas may be overwhelming the cooling areas. (The recently discovered volcano is just to the left of the words "West Antarctica" on the map.)

Jock

Re: "Most glacial scientists, including Dr. Vaughan himself, blame warmer ocean waters for glacial thinning in West Antarctica."

Jock
They deleted the comment along with the link so I won't post the link again but it goes to: Skeptical Science: Examining Global Warming Skepticism by John Cook. They just did a piece on Ocean warming that states both the skeptic argument and the AGW answer to it.

2 scientists? Until the the testing is replicated with the same results by a reputable number of researchers can the claim be disaproved / confirmed.

If global cooling is occurring then some areas will benefit and some will not. Greenland will be free of ice for example. Growing seasons in the Northern latitudes will last longer. New York might be submerged but its hard to say if that is a benefit or a detriment.

I am a skeptic precisely because so many people are jumping on this bandwagon. With so much pressure to conform to a given point of view, objective investigation appears to have disappeared. Man made CO2 is a small fraction of the so called "greenhouse" gases. Water vapor makes up 95%, natural CO2 production 3.5%, man-made CO2 .2% Methane(.3%), Natural Nitrous Oxide(.9%) Manmade Nitrous Oxide(.05%), Misc Natural(.03%), Misc Man Made(.05%). So the total man-made contribution is about .3%. Is the earth's climate so fragile that this tiny man-made gas amount is causing the earth to warm. It is possible but I would have to see extraordinary proof and not just someone's opinion. I am a software engineer and I know that computer models can be created which will provide any result desired. So, I have no interest in computer modeling on such a hyped up subject.

In any case there is no doomsday scenario for global warming. There will be no runaway greenhouse effect and any change will be very slow and likely very manageable. We have far greater problems to deal with than this over-hyped issue.

Sceptic
I tend to agree with you on many points. I changed from simply believing in AGW to skepticism when the alarmists starting pushing to fire public officials who did not bow to the god CO2. But it does not mean that CO2 is not important, it only means that they are being too alarmist.

How did we go from apocayptic global cooling (remember the 60's paranoia), to apocalyptic global WARMING in 30 years? If that is to be the case wouldn't have any of this occurred in 1938, 30 years after the model T? Uh, I think NOT! This is a bad joke that needs to be put to rest. And if you REALLY believe that "human activity" is the definitive cause of so-called "global warming", isn't the only real solution, if you are truly serious... for everybody to die with the exception of say oh, maybe 10% of the population (i.e. current multinational elite) So if that really is what you believe, let me ask you: Who gets to decide who is permitted to live and who gets die to save the planet??? Well, WHO??? I'm waiting....

ha! - The so-called "global cooling scare" in the 1970's was not in the scientific literature, but rather was some speculation by a couple scientists in the popular press. People have recently gone back to review the scientific literature from the 1970s and discovered that even then the majority of papers making climate predictions were predicting warming, not cooling. Science has been quite consistent on this, although it is true that they really didn't have enough information to make good predictions until later in the 1980s and 1990s.

Just to be clear, scientists are not saying that global warming will "destroy the planet" or anything silly like that. It will disrupt ecosystems, cause some extinctions, make some tropical areas nearly unlivable for humans, result in tremendous damage from raised sea levels, and various other foreseen and unforeseen damages. The world will eventually adjust, but a lot of people will suffer in the mean time, and some of us think that is a bad thing.

jock59801
Some of us agree with you but are skeptical about the extent as well as the primary cause.

ha!
Those 1970's scientists were not wrong, the press simply did not understand the difference between soon in human terms and soon in geologic terms, and neither does the general public.

ha!: ha ha.

If CO2 is so bad, then how come vegetation and plant life has grown and yelded more robust food harvests when CO2 is added in elevated levels inside the greenhouses. Come on, let's hear the scientific arguement debunking this. I can't wait... Plants NEED CO2 to prosper. Again it's carbon MONOXIDE that is pollution and is harmful. Carbon DIOXIDE is what we provide and plants need. Starving CO2 does nothing to help the enviroment, if anything it depresses vegetaion and plant growth. It won't "save the planet", but that along with biofuels will cause a massive food shortage which we are already seeing around the world and make it harder to sustain crops and agriculture. 1+1 does not equal 3, no matter how many times you repeat it ad nauseam!!!

ahem!

Carbon Monoxide has been converted into CO2 using a catalyst since 1975 nationwide on cars and in industrial smoke stacks. So the industrial and transportation caused CO is extremely small but due to the conversion process CO2 output has increased.

The logic for this is simple: CARB deceided back in the late 60s that CO2 was a harmless gas and convinced the Feds to go along.

CO2 is infact a greenhouse gas but not a very potent one compared to H4C but we reduced the hydrocarbons in the emissions systems as well, further increasing CO2.

So if you want to point a finger, point it at California.

The simple fact is that a properly tuned engine designed for efficiency can emit carbon levels as low as one that has all these devices.

I know because I have done it and ran the full EPA tests to confirm it, but the trade off is increased NOx, which causes the visible smog.