Is the Sun to blame?
An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change-News-UK-TimesOnline — Can’t we just all get along? This is by Nigel Calder the former editor of the New Scientist. Watch Al Gore win an Oscar for his movie anyway along with the Dixie Chicks.
When politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works. We were treated to another dose of it recently when the experts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued the Summary for Policymakers that puts the political spin on an unfinished scientific dossier on climate change due for publication in a few months’ time. They declared that most of the rise in temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to man-made greenhouse gases.
The small print explains “very likely” as meaning that the experts who made the judgment felt 90% sure about it…a 10% uncertainty in any theory is a wide open breach for any latterday Galileo or Einstein to storm through with a better idea. That is how science really works.
So one awkward question you can ask, when you’re forking out those extra taxes for climate change, is “Why is east Antarctica getting colder?” It makes no sense at all if carbon dioxide is driving global warming. While you’re at it, you might inquire whether Gordon Brown will give you a refund if it’s confirmed that global warming has stopped. The best measurements of global air temperatures come from American weather satellites, and they show wobbles but no overall change since 1999.
That levelling off is just what is expected by the chief rival hypothesis, which says that the sun drives climate changes more emphatically than greenhouse gases do. After becoming much more active during the 20th century, the sun now stands at a high but roughly level state of activity. Solar physicists warn of possible global cooling, should the sun revert to the lazier mood it was in during the Little Ice Age 300 years ago. Climate history and related archeology give solid support to the solar hypothesis.
thanks to Mad Dog Mike
Yeah, so we aren’t sure. Anyone with a brain knows that. And yes, the sun could revert to the state it was in during the little ice age. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t stop polluting.
Climate change and global warming are two different issues… it’s a shame the majority isn’t intelligent enough to understand this.
We should stop polluting. But let’s do it for the right reasons.
Yes, let’s stop polluting, but let’s not wreck our economy destroy our standard of living to do it.
er.. the article appears to be repeating the same claims that Michael Crichton did in his novel State of Fear – claims that have been wholly debunked by the scientific community.
It’s not so much that the science is wrong (it isn’t) it’s just that to get to those conclusions you have to ignore the rest of the science on the topic, much of which explains the effects described.
Sloppy reporting.
Oil = Finite Resource
Oil = Toxic gases emitted when burned (Benzene)
Oil = War in Middle East to gain control (See finite resource)
Oil = Destruction of Natural refuges and wildlife preserves
Oil = Costly to maintain (See Toxic gases)
Oil = Causes excessive CO2
———————-
Yeah…so because it is just a cycle in the ‘natural sun activity” we don’t need to worry about it and it will be great to just drive my Hummer all over town.
We should stop polluting. But let’s do it for the right reasons.
But…even if we do it for the wrong reasons, it’s worth doing, eh?
If this gets conservatives and Captains of Industry to take steps to reduce pollutants, I don’t really care if it’s alarmist baloney. The bottom line is, my kid will grow up in a cleaner and safer world.
It would be nice if their concern for the health of others would lead them to do the right thing, but when did it ever?
We should stop polluting. But let’s do it for the right reasons.
Eh…even if we do it for the wrong reasons, it’s worth doing.
If this gets conservatives and Captains of Industry to take steps to reduce pollutants, I don’t really care if it’s alarmist baloney. The bottom line is, my kid will grow up in a cleaner and safer world.
It would be nice if their concern for the health of others would lead them to do the right thing, but when did it ever?
I say we debate this for several decades and see what happens.
Here we can apply one of the profound quotes from another Dvorak blog post today: By doing just a little every day, I can gradually let the task completely overwhelm me.
Isn’t it just common sense that dumping so much crap into the atmosphere can’t be good? Its cause and effect. We’re all screwed anyway because humans are stupid, and that will never change.
There are benign conditions that can mimic a heart attack. The consequences may be dire if you wait for certainty.
I forgot one:
Oil = 39.5 BILLION in Profit per Quarter
eh? if it gets to cold they can just burn the cash they have made. I am sure $76000 a minute would create a HUGE fire….
“Chief rival hypothesis”? Tee hee.
You mean all
64 guys who get together after being chuckled over at a convocation 1500-strong?Yes, let’s stop polluting, but let’s not wreck our economy destroy our standard of living to do it.
-Comment by TheGlobalWarmer
Eh, more expensive gas/energy will drive environmentally friendly producers. For every big oil/power company that loses there’s going to be a lot of smaller companies that win. Sure it will be a shakeup, but in the long term we all benefit.
problem i have with the “climate change debate” is that it is not a debate. the liberal parties of western europe and america have decided to stake their political fortunes on it just as conservatives made “the war on terrorism” a basic of their movement and along with these “movements” all the fear mongering that goes with it. it’s true that patrotism is the last bastion of bastards where truth goes out the window and rational thought is to be damned. i feel no more secure standing on a street corner than i do standing under the sun with either one of these clown posses on patrol.
This article brings a completely off topic question, where is East Antarctica? I suppose it is the part of Antarctica in the Eastern Hemisphere. But if you are at the south pole, then every direction is north, and wouldn’t this make the entire coast of Antarctica “Northern Antarctica”?
For the record, I don’t think we have nearly as much impact on the gloabal temperature as some people may want you to believe. The earth’s temperature will fluctuate regardless of what we do and will continue to get warmer since the earth’s natural temperature is warmer than it currently is.
Also, Al Gore pointed out that the hurricanes of 2005 were caused by global warming and that we should expect more Katrina like hurricanes if we don’t do something. So what does it mean that no hurricanes touched the United States in 2006 and generally there was a lot less hurricane activity in the year? A quick check of the history of hurricanes will show that there was more activity in the firat half of the 20th century then ther ahs been since.
I agree that we should be doing what we can to pollute less, but trying to scare people by spreading lies about a 6 degree temperature rise by the year 2100 is wrong. Anyone with a little knowledge realizes that it would be impossible to make such a prediction based on the facts we have today.
OIL = Where do you think Plastic comes from?
OIL = The hydrogen infrastucture isnt feasible at this point, reverting to bicycles im not.
OIL = Plant growth by releasing CO2, which in increases the release of oxygen by those plants (and last i checked, we need oxygen)
OIL = Nessecary to the economy, unless you want to de-evolve to a farming society – but wait! where does fertilizer come from? OIL.
#12 – You’re probably right, but I’ve seen some very interesting and informed discussion at DU about just how to balance environmental costs of various approaches. (Wish I could find the argument awhile ago where someone made a good case that Hummers are actually more environmentally friendly and cheaper to run than a gas-electrical hybrid.)
The real problem seems to be that we’re exhausting our petri dish and the primates in charge of our major religions keep pushing for MORE CHILDREN. Maybe nigel is right and humans are just stupid, no help for it.
But I was surprised at a former New Scientist editor urging everyone to take a second look. That gives a lot more credibility to the solar radiation hypothesis than Michael Crichton’s technophobic little congressional lectures ever could.
Plastic – Because there is no substitute for that bag….
Bicycles – Cause I don’t want to be inconvenienced
and electric from renewable resources is just to ‘tree hugger”
Plants – Hey…we can use those for just providing oxygen…rather than as a fuel or food or to just plain look pretty on Feb 14th
Economy – indeed….because there is no future in ALTERNATIVE fuels….
Shouldn’t we take Stephen Hawkins’ advice and start planning our escape off of this doomed planet?
Bottom line is no matter what the US does China will quickly become the top consumer of fossil fuels. They may talk a good line to the world press but they are the worst polluter on earth and that will only grow.
You fools, the only reliable solar solution to power everything would be to setup orbital solar power stations beaming down electricity down via microwave, you build this infrastructure on the moon, sure it is expensive at first but you want a permanent solution that will work for the next 1000years, well there it is, and if you do this and have near limitless power you can turn any source of carbon into gaoline and vice versa.
Orbital Solar Power = the only solution in the long term!!!! Period.
tallwookie,
Fertilizer is not made from oil. Im not sure where you got that from, but it is unambiguously wrong. Phosphorus and potassium are mined from specific types of rocks and Nitrogen… well lets just say there is more than enough bull shit to go around.
So yeah, other than oil has nothing to do with fertilizer, you are right, fertilizer is made out of oil.
What gets me is every time someone states that a particular place is getting colder people have to jump to the conclusion that global warming isn’t happening. This scientist person who the article refers to sounds like he got $10K for disputing global warming. One example doesn’t make a rule. I can think of many reasons why East Antartica is getting colder. Maybe the sea currents have shifted, maybe the air currents. The article doesn’t mention that. Fudging data is one thing, ignoring data that contradicts your findings is even worse.
I call shananigans on this “report”!
This was a cogent response from the original article.
“2500 Independent scientists from many countries across many disciplines over six years carried out millions of readings, thousands of experiments and ran hundreds of different computer climate models into the effects of reflective aerosols (both volcanic and anthropogenic), the aerosol indirect effect, black carbon soot, albedo change due to changing snow and ice patterns, land use changes, and — yes indeed — changes in solar output, as well as many others and came to the conclusion that climate change is of our doing. This decision was based on the objective analysis of all the data and not on some preconceived ideological prejudice, which seems to be the basis of many of these postings.
But all this counts for nought because one man does one botched experiment – he used ultra violet instead of cosmic rays – is clueless about metorology – cloudy skies do not make for colder conditions. A lot of people are clutching at straws blowing in the wind rather than accepting the obvious.
James Patrick, Prestwich, “
#5 if it was wholly debunked why are there still arguments? You are making no sense. I’m reminded of this:
Huh? You cannot even discuss it??? What an asshole. Oh wait. I mean: what a fascist prick.
From Article “The best measurements of global air temperatures come from American weather satellites, and they show wobbles but no overall change since 1999.”
Even if this statement is factual (and I have my suspicions), and satellites are not showing temperature rises, ground stations are, and despite freezing temperatures across the USA, January was the hottest on record globally according to CNN this morning.
Picking and choosing evidence to prove your case is a sign of junk science.
And as many above have pointed out, even if fossil fuels is not the cause of global warming (I’m not 100% sure either), what possible negative effect can come from polluting less and using less energy?
#22 indeed, MOST COMMERCIAL Ammonium Nitrate is a byproduct of petroleum refineries and most have a plant set up nearby to produce the stuff. I was actually responsible for inspecting the “Fetilizer Plant” at Chevron Chemical at the Richmond refinery. Once I bought a 100 pound sack of the stuff. You could sprinkle it on someone’s lawn in the form of a word and it would either kill the grass to produce the word or make the fetilized area grow like crazy (mostly the latter). Very humorous. Nowadays I’d be investigated if I had a 100 pound sack of the stuff. It was quite a growing aid for the garden.
John C Dvorak, If you were up on your environmental sciences, you would see that they couldn’t get the prices for it after the 2001 natural gas spike, and almost the whole of the agricultural industry has since switched over to natural sources of nitrogen. For both the economic and regulatory reasons.
Also you don’t use that stuff anymore if you want to sell your products as ‘Organic’.
Go get some of the waste sludge from your local sewage processing plant. Throw some pumpkin seeks in it and win a prize. Makes the artificial stuff look pure amature hour.
Like I said, there is more than enough bull shit to go around 😉
Things change…but you can be sure they still ship tons of Ammonium Nitrate to other parts of the world. It’s cheap — no matter what the price of nat. gas — and it works. And it is still used to blow up hillsides.
And you are right about its popularity and it is not the best way to do things.
That said, you have to understand that my orientation is towards wind power and all this debating is academic as far as I’m concerned.
While everyone is standing around hypothesizing and pointing fingers, a massive catastrophe looms. It doesn’t matter whether climate change is caused by CO2/Climate Change, solar cycles, or a thousand angels singing a song. The fact is that it is happening, and if we don’t prepare for it by building up food and greenhouse supplies, billions of people will die in the resulting famines and wars. Come on people, focus! Who cares whether the truck that is barreling towards us is a Mack or a Volvo? Get out of the way!