backtop


Print 150 comment(s) - last by Justin Case.. on Oct 20 at 12:25 AM

Evidence that solar variations impact both temperature and rainfall.

The exact causes of climate change remain a mystery to science.  Many researchers link recent global warming to changes in the sun. Others remain skeptical, claiming that the sun varies only very slowly, over periods of millions of years. They say that no hard evidence exists for a solar effect on recent climate changes.

Now, new research may have provided just that evidence, with data demonstrating that solar variations have had major effects on the earth's climate as recent as 2,000 years ago. The research, conducted by a team of scientists from the Universities of Ohio, Minnesota, and Texas at Arlington, confirms that, during periods when the earth received less solar radiation, the Atlantic Ocean cooled, rainfall levels dropped, and North America experienced periods of intense drought. Some droughts lasted as long as a century.

Seven such events were detected, occurring once every 1,500 years, a period that matches the so-called "Bond Events" cycle of solar variation.

According to the study's lead author, Greg Springer, the correspondence provides "convincing evidence" of a solar effect on North American climate. "This really nails down the idea of solar influence on continental drought," said Springer.

The critical data was obtained from an 8-inch long stalagmite from a cave in West Virginia. As the stalagmite grew over a period of several thousand years, its composition precisely recorded fluctuations in the Earth's climate.

Data more recent than 2,000 years ago wasn't examined, as the authors feared the impact of Native Americans on nearby watersheds may have influenced the results. However, Springer tells DailyTech that analysis of river discharges around the area confirm that the region is still being impacted by such changes today.

The stalagmite was sampled at various points along its length, each point radiologically dated to precisely determine its age. Samples were analyzed to determine the ratio of strontium to calcium, along with levels of the isotopes carbon-13 and oxygen-18. Each of these acts as a proxy (indicator) for various climate parameters such as rainfall levels and land or sea-surface temperatures. The stalagmite therefore acts as a highly accurate record of climate variations over a period as little as a few years.

Spectral analysis of the data revealed cycles with periods corresponding to harmonics of the 1500-year Bond Events, a cycle triggered by weak solar activity which results in dramatic cooling and the occurrence of "IRD" events -- ice raft debris forming in the Atlantic.

Springer tells DailyTech that the results "certainly lends support" to global warming skeptics. However, he himself is not sure that the recent level of variance is enough to explain all the warming the Earth has undergone in the past 100 years.

Last year, scientist S. Fred Singer published the book, Unstoppable Global Warming (Every 1500 years), which tied current warming to an ongoing Bond Event.  Singer tells Daily Tech that this new study provides further evidence for a 1500-year Climate cycle, the evidence for which was first discovered in ice core data.

The research is appearing in an upcoming edition of Geophysical Research Letters

Article Update 8/29:  Email Response from Dr. Springer:

"I've gotten a number of emails asking if I was quoted correctly - people seemed put off because I said the solar-drought connection is consistent with the idea of solar variability being responsible for GW.  They don't seem to understand that saying it supports an IDEA is not the same as saying that it PROVES the idea...

I certainly feel like I was quoted correctly. Some people just need to pay closer attention to the verbiage.

Thanks for the opportunity to spread news of our research."


 



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Really?
By Soccerman06 on 8/28/2008 12:20:30 PM , Rating: 5
I had no idea that the Sun's output effects our climate at all...




RE: Really?
By michal1980 on 8/28/2008 12:30:43 PM , Rating: 5
I was going to make that point.,

in fact that point is so simple and brilliant, it needs a six rating.


RE: Really?
By michael2k on 8/28/08, Rating: 0
RE: Really?
By BAFrayd on 8/29/2008 3:22:47 PM , Rating: 1
Proving a negative?


RE: Really?
By michael2k on 8/29/2008 7:59:06 PM , Rating: 2
No, actually, proving that all the "changes" we have seen correlate with the changes in the sun (in other words, showing that the sun has powered 90% of the GCC, where the rest being split up among natural causes and men).

Even showing that 60% is the sun and 10% is volcanoes means 30% is man, which means our actions can have a measurable impact (if the sun, at 60%, is also measurable)


RE: Really?
By kbehrens on 8/30/2008 10:08:29 PM , Rating: 2
You just don't get it, do you? When you make a claim, the burden of proof is on YOU to prove it. Not on others to disprove it.

If I say Neil Diamond is a sleeper agent for the KGB, does that means its gospel truth, unless you show proof that he isn't? I don't think so.


RE: Really?
By hadifa on 8/28/2008 7:22:51 PM , Rating: 5
Read the title again.

You are getting it all wrong. We are affecting the climate and it's affecting the Sun. It's not global warming, it's UNIVERSAL warming.

We've doomed the universe !


RE: Really?
By daftrok on 8/29/2008 1:45:29 AM , Rating: 2
RE: Really?
By ThisSpaceForRent on 8/28/2008 12:31:44 PM , Rating: 5
Wait, wait, wait...so the source of all heating on Earth can affect the temperature via it's output?


RE: Really?
By michael2k on 8/28/2008 6:02:09 PM , Rating: 5
Does this disprove that man has an effect as well?

I mean, if solar radiation from the sun has an effect, then surely it is just as obvious that increases in greenhouse gases and particulates in the air also have an effect, right? The only question is what effect, how much of an effect, and if that effect is good or bad.

That is why science is hard.


RE: Really?
By cochy on 8/28/2008 6:49:38 PM , Rating: 2
That is not accurate. Geothermal heat created by radioactive decay is not caused by the Sun.


RE: Really?
By Ticholo on 8/28/2008 12:31:53 PM , Rating: 2
Indeed! How can the one indispensable condition for there being life on our planet dare to intrude on our climate?
I say we sue the Sun for all it's got!


RE: Really?
By nvalhalla on 8/28/2008 12:32:50 PM , Rating: 5
Yeah, I'm skeptical. I don't think the sun has any meaningful effect on the temperature of earth. Mad made CO2 emissions are way more powerful.

</sarcasm>


RE: Really?
By knowyourenemy on 8/28/2008 12:38:06 PM , Rating: 5
Crap. I cannot post a sarcastic comment now. :(


RE: Really?
By SiN on 8/28/08, Rating: 0
RE: Really?
By MAIA on 8/28/2008 12:52:05 PM , Rating: 5
Dealing with extremes huh ?

Anyway, both are (or might be) powerful. And that's the problematic part: we just don't know how they (both aspects) affect us. All there is are theories ...

Nevertheless, it's easier to control CO2 emitions than to control the sun. I might be wrong though (/sarcasm)


RE: Really?
By exploderator on 8/28/2008 3:25:42 PM , Rating: 2
No no, the sun is easy. Pink Floyd did a song about it, "Set the controls for the heart of the sun". It was a long time back, but maybe one of them remembers how.


RE: Really?
By FoundationII on 8/28/2008 4:52:58 PM , Rating: 5
Or this?
"There is no such thing as global warming. Chuck Norris was cold, so he turned the sun up."


RE: Really?
By Sulphademus on 8/28/2008 4:38:36 PM , Rating: 2
So I am to understand that every 1500 years, man makes a profound change in lifestyle and method of transportation that alters the climate enough so that even the Sun is affected?

BTW: what were the dinosaurs driving?


RE: Really?
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 8/28/2008 4:49:11 PM , Rating: 2
BTW: what were the dinosaurs driving?

When your poop was as large as theirs, you do not have to drive anything to be an environmental hazard. :) Besides on the Flinstones it's shows they were environmental friendly – foot powered cars.

I would also ask in the year 500 what was man driving that caused the issues?


RE: Really?
By lennylim on 8/28/2008 5:57:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
would also ask in the year 500 what was man driving that caused the issues?


Must be flatulence from all those huge draft horses.


RE: Really?
By kbehrens on 8/28/2008 12:34:20 PM , Rating: 2
Obviously the sun affects us. But I think the key point here is proof the sun varies. It changes. And that those changes affect us here on Earth.


RE: Really?
By Ticholo on 8/28/2008 12:39:53 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think the key point is that the Sun changes, has that is well known and the research even links its results to a known periodic change in the Sun.
It is rather that small changes in the Sun, thus far thought to be irrelevant, if I understood correctly, do in fact have a sizeable impact on Earth's atmosphere.


RE: Really?
By kbehrens on 8/28/2008 12:41:51 PM , Rating: 2
That's what I said. Small changes in the sun affect us here on Earth. And those changes are occurring all the time.


RE: Really?
By Serlant on 8/28/2008 2:45:12 PM , Rating: 4
Funny, because you're comment is right there, and I don't see the word small pop up once.


RE: Really?
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 8/28/2008 12:50:13 PM , Rating: 1
You mean like how I get a sunburn in the summer time from too much sun and freeze my butt off from not enough sun in the winter time? :)
sarcasm of course.

I agree with you, it is obvious the sun affects us. I just want to know why the pro-Global warming fanatics do not understand the big yellow ball of fire in the sky has some effect on earth too....


RE: Really?
By badmoodguy on 8/28/2008 1:33:06 PM , Rating: 5
When in doubt about actions of groups, a good first step is to follow the money. The big yellow ball of fire doesn't have any.


RE: Really?
By Justin Case on 8/28/2008 2:48:37 PM , Rating: 3
Yes, and, as everyone knows, climate scientists are a very powerful lobby compared to the poor defenceless polluting industry...


RE: Really?
By onelittleindian on 8/28/2008 3:06:08 PM , Rating: 2
GW is a $40B industry now. It means big bucks not only for environmental groups and large grants for scientists research it, but fat profits for all the companies making money off ethanol, carbon credits, and alternative energy.

Exxon used to give a couple million a year to groups fighting GW alarmism, but the environmentalists caused such a public outcry they had to stop.


RE: Really?
By Denigrate on 8/28/2008 4:48:25 PM , Rating: 4
Yes, that grant money is no incentive for the scientists, or the administrators who make big $'s for doing next to nothing supervising said scientists.


RE: Really?
By Justin Case on 10/20/2008 12:25:09 AM , Rating: 2
Then why didn't you follow an easy and lucrative career in science?

It's depressing that not only is the country getting stupider every day, but also that the few people who still try to expand knowledge get criticized by lazy morons who have never done anything productive in their entire lives.


RE: Really?
By Justin Case on 8/28/2008 3:02:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I just want to know why the pro-Global warming fanatics do not understand the big yellow ball of fire in the sky has some effect on earth too


I suspect what you call "pro-global warming fanatics" is what normal people call "informed citizens, living in the real world, incuding 98% of scientists".

And I suspect they're well aware of the fact that the yellow ball in the sky has a very large effect on Earth.

They're just also aware of the fact that what goes on here on Earth also has an effect, and that climate change is dangerous in the long term and expensive in the medium term. If the sun gets hotter, and unless you intend to roast (or see coastal cities submerged, destroyed by stronger and stronger storms, etc.), you need to find a way to get rid of that excess heat in the atmosphere.

Just as, if an ice age was about to start, you should start looking into ways of preserving more heat. The fact that something is "natural" or "man-made" (aren't humans "natural" anyway?) is irrelevant. What's relevant is that changes in climate cost money and lives.

If you see a 16 ton weight falling towards you, do you just sit there on the grounds that "gravity is natural", and therefore should not be interfered with?

Try talking to some meteorologists. The real kind, with actual science degrees, that work in colleges and public institutes. Not the "self-taught" (self-deluded) ones who post on internet blogs, or the ones working for companies whose profits would decrease if they weren't allowed to pollute as much as they do.


RE: Really?
By onelittleindian on 8/28/08, Rating: -1
RE: Really?
By SilthDraeth on 8/28/2008 3:14:00 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
They're just also aware of the fact that what goes on here on Earth also has an effect, and that climate change is dangerous in the long term and expensive in the medium term.


You do realize don't you that the climate is always changing and will change irregardless of what humans do? Though to an extent we can affect change, there is no way to stop it.


RE: Really?
By michael2k on 8/29/2008 2:41:06 AM , Rating: 2
We can certainly act to make the world a more tolerable place for humanity, can't we?

Or is that too much to ask?


RE: Really?
By kbehrens on 8/30/2008 10:09:36 PM , Rating: 1
Blowing trillions of dollars, restricting economic output, and making energy more expensive doesn't make the world a more tolerable place. It makes it much worse.


RE: Really?
By lifeblood on 8/28/2008 3:40:34 PM , Rating: 5
Most of us who are familiar with this field accept the earth is warming. I really don't think the subject is seriously in dispute. The question is humanities influence on it. If the global warming we are experiencing is totally or mostly natural (non-anthropogenic) then money spent to stop it is futile. Nor is it desirable in my opinion. What makes are current climate the optimal climate?

If it is mostly anthropogenic, that changes things a bit. The danger from global warming is not the change, but the speed of change. Change itself is nether good or bad, it simply is. Those forests found in the mountains of Canada use to be here in Virginia. By looking at the fossil record you can see how they migrated north as temperatures rose. The world is in constant flux. However, rapid change is always bad. Nature takes time to adjust. Forests don't move quickly. If the climate changes too fast then it will result in major problems, both natural and man made.

If the current climate change is totally natural than I question whether we should or even can stop it. If, as the IPCC says, we are accelerating it, then we should do something to reduce our influence on it.

And yes, for the record, I do believe we are having a substantial effect and should take action to reduce our influence.


RE: Really?
By wvh on 8/28/2008 8:10:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
[...] And yes, for the record, I do believe we are having a substantial effect and should take action to reduce our influence.


I agree. Even if not for man-caused global warming, then for the other negative effects of pollution and oil dependency, which are major concerns even without dragging global warming into the equation.


RE: Really?
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 8/28/2008 4:03:12 PM , Rating: 1
I suspect what you call "pro-global warming fanatics" is what normal people call "informed citizens, living in the real world, incuding 98% of scientists".

Al Gore is not an informed citizen. He is a politician that loves to make big dollars (so far $800,000,000 off of global warming and more everyday). I have talked to real Scientist, and not ones paid by Al Gore's friends. All have said, yes, Earth is changing, no we can not figure the exact cause, and man has little to no effect over-all. Don't buy into the dog and pony show. The sun has the greatest impact on the temperature of this planet...always has always will. Everything else effects temperature just a little bit (unless you want to start dropping Nukes all over the place). Al and his people do not even talk about the effects of the Sun...which shows how little they considered all possible factors.


RE: Really?
By FITCamaro on 8/28/2008 4:21:02 PM , Rating: 1
So I guess the 22,000 scientists who all agreed that man is not the cause of any global warming that may be happening are just idiots right?

http://inpursuitofhappiness.wordpress.com/2008/02/...

And the man who founded the Weather Channel is crazy right?

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/06/13/we...


RE: Really?
By FITCamaro on 8/28/08, Rating: 0
RE: Really?
By foolsgambit11 on 8/28/2008 7:03:45 PM , Rating: 3
Actually, not to put too fine a point on it, what this study did was demonstrate that, in a single cave in West Virginia, proxies for rainfall and temperature were coincident and congruent with an already roughly observed regular fluctuation in North American climate. It was hypothesized (by Dr. Bond) that this fluctuation was due to regular variation in solar radiation. Neither this article nor the linked article seemed to explain why evidence of the phenomenon was evidence of the hypothesized cause.

Can anybody here explain how this helps prove the sun was the cause of these fluctuations? I'd tend to agree that the sun seems to be the first place to look, since increases in heat input would lead to increases in total heat, and vice versa. But wouldn't increases in heat retention achieve the same effect, and vice versa, as well? For instance, the Bond events are supposed to be coincident with ice cover of the North Atlantic - which direction does the causality go, since increased ice cover would seem to reflect solar radiation, having the same effect as reduced solar output. But reduced solar radiation would be a cause of increased ice cover. Maybe there's an experiment that could actually determine the causality, but it seems like a chicken and egg problem to me.

I'm not an expert in this field, obviously. But what I'd be looking for is something that directly or indirectly shows a decrease in solar radiation during the Bond events, as well as something that directly or indirectly shows that that reduction in solar radiation was not due to other climatological factors. A good way of at least suggesting that the sun was the primary culprit would be to have data points from multiple point around the globe.

This is certainly useful data, but I wish the scientists had explained their conclusions a little better. I guess I'd have to buy the peer-reviewed journal they're publishing in to get a better explanation than the teaser-trailer Assistant Professor Springer gave the media.


RE: Really?
By michael2k on 8/29/2008 12:47:54 PM , Rating: 2
Simply put:Sun regularly cycles in 1500 year periods. Variations in the measured proxies for rainfall and temperature ALSO cycled in the same 1500 year periods.

Therefore the solar cycle drives the measured variations in rainfall and temperature. It doesn't explain HOW the sun's variance caused rainfall and temperature to change, only that it was measured.


RE: Really?
By boogle on 8/28/2008 12:36:19 PM , Rating: 5
The sun has been emitting too much CO2 for too long, we must employ economic and diplomatic sanctions against it. If it continues for much longer, we must consider the use of lethal force!


RE: Really?
By Ticholo on 8/28/2008 12:41:46 PM , Rating: 4
I say nuke the damn bugger!!!


RE: Really?
By Oregonian2 on 8/28/2008 3:04:51 PM , Rating: 4
Too late, it's doing that to itself repeatedly with no ill effect thus far.


RE: Really?
By 325hhee on 8/28/2008 12:43:35 PM , Rating: 2
OMG, who'd thunk it...

Lets see, sun flares affects electronics, sun gives off heat and radiation, during a solar eclipse people gain super power... oh wait.

I wonder if people also know, gravity affects weight. Seriously, who puts out these obvious articles?


RE: Really?
By MozeeToby on 8/28/2008 2:24:43 PM , Rating: 2
The point isn't that the sun effects the Earth, my 2 year old nephew knows that I think. The point is that very small changes in the sun (<1%) can cause much larger changes here on earth (>1%).


RE: Really?
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 8/28/2008 12:55:56 PM , Rating: 2
Sooooo, when we attack do we all pull out our super-soaker 9000 with extra large water tank and start blasting away at the sun?

I just want to make sure I have the correct equipment. Can we use water Cannons and water balloons too?


RE: Really?
By Ratinator on 8/28/2008 1:20:02 PM , Rating: 5
The US government has just announced it will not comply with any protocol until the Sun is willing to do the same. The government now considers the Sun to be more of a threat than China.


RE: Really?
By Bidou on 9/7/2008 8:13:28 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, the sun covertly works for China.


RE: Really?
By OoklaTheMok on 8/28/08, Rating: 0
RE: Really?
By onelittleindian on 8/28/2008 12:44:03 PM , Rating: 2
Considering that every environmentalist group denies that the sun can cause climate change, I don't think the article is dumb. Maybe they'll learn something from it.

Then again, maybe not.


RE: Really?
By daenku32 on 8/28/08, Rating: 0
RE: Really?
By onelittleindian on 8/28/2008 1:05:32 PM , Rating: 3
If you don't think those groups deny that the sun causes climate change, you need to pull your head out of your sphincter and read some of their propaganda sometime.

Why not start here? This article by the RealClimate bozos laughs at even the possibility that the sun affects climate:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007...


RE: Really?
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 8/28/2008 1:14:25 PM , Rating: 4
Great, I went to the website and read a bit.... I think I lost 25 I.Q. points from that short read.


RE: Really?
By FITCamaro on 8/28/2008 2:13:59 PM , Rating: 1
O

This is a circle.

|

This is a line.

We will continue the reeducation later.


RE: Really?
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 8/28/2008 4:08:44 PM , Rating: 2
X
Circle got it...
U
Line got it....

Right??? Duhh.


RE: Really?
By Ringold on 8/28/2008 2:40:06 PM , Rating: 2
Well, for whatever its worth, the supposedly PhD-educated idiots over at ArsTechnica love to link to that place.

Not that I'm attacking education, but just to quote a song I heard today, all the college in the world would be wasted on a fool.


RE: Really?
By jbartabas on 8/28/2008 5:01:55 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Why not start here? This article by the RealClimate bozos laughs at even the possibility that the sun affects climate:


As even Masher as pointed out, the IPCC (to which some members of RC contributes) states that the Sun influenced recent climate. Those you call "bozos", in fact renown scientists, do not laugh at the idea that the Sun affects climate at all, they laugh at those who swallow without criticism a simple correlation graph in order to self support their predetermined opinion on the subject.

If you were not a bozo yourself, you could have noticed that in addition to the casual article you've linked at, RC has also some detailed and serious posts about possible influence of the Sun on the recent climate, whether it is through irradiance or cosmic rays. You may not like their conclusions about it, but they don't laugh at the "possibility" at all.

See for eg
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006...

that states by:
There are some reasons to think that solar activity may have played some role in the past (at least before 1940), but I must admit, I'm far from convinced by this paper because of the method adopted.
That does not look like laughing at the possibility to me ...


RE: Really?
By foolsgambit11 on 8/28/2008 7:32:35 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah, that's fun, a satirical article whose point is to poke fun at the statistical methodology of anti-climate change advocates. Fun, but certainly not evidence that climate change 'bozos' deny the sun affects climate.

We could read the International Panel on Climate Change's Frequently Asked Question 1.1 (The first question in the book) - What Factors Determine Earth's Climate? In the first paragraph it says (bold emphasis added):
quote:
External forcings include natural phenomena such as volcanic eruptions and solar variations , as well as human-induced changes in atmospheric composition. Solar radiation powers the climate system. There are three fundamental ways to change the radiation balance of the Earth: 1) by changing the incoming solar radiation (e.g., by changes in Earth’s orbit or in the Sun itself); 2) by changing the fraction of solar radiation that is reflected (called ‘albedo’; e.g., by changes in cloud cover, atmospheric particles or vegetation); and 3) by altering the longwave radiation from Earth back towards space (e.g., by changing greenhouse gas concentra­tions). Climate, in turn, responds directly to such changes, as well as indirectly, through a variety of feedback mechanisms.

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/FAQ/wg1_faq-1.1.html

Oh, I found the link to that from your realclimate link, then clicking on "Start Here", and clicking through to the IPCC AR4 FAQ. It turns out you can find that those climate change 'bozos' actually did a little research before coming to their conclusions. Here's some of what the full IPCC report (also available from the realclimate site you cite) has to say about solar variability:
quote:
empirical results ... have strengthened the evidence for solar forcing of climate change by identifying detectable tropospheric changes associated with solar variability, including during the solar cycle. The most likely mechanism is considered to be some combination of direct forcing by changes in total solar irradiance, and indirect effects of ultraviolet (UV) radiation on the stratosphere. Least certain, and under ongoing debate as discussed in the TAR, are indirect effects induced by galactic cosmic rays.

What can certainly be drawn from all of this debate is that reasonable, educated people can disagree on the relative weight of empirical evidence, allowing the data to either support anthropogenic climate change, or discount it. For instance, the IPCC changed its mind about the extent to which the sun has warmed since a previous review, based on a 'reassessment of the ... data'. Whether you see that as improvement in the scientific method or political manipulation of science is your choice.


RE: Really?
By OoklaTheMok on 8/28/08, Rating: 0
RE: Really?
By clovell on 8/28/2008 2:13:37 PM , Rating: 2
Why don't you try reading the other comments in the thread and making informed comments before you run to your mommy crying about logical fallacies as you trip over your own words and commit them yourself.

FFS, people.


RE: Really?
By clovell on 8/28/2008 4:44:01 PM , Rating: 1
Seriously folks - down-rated? look at the post times in this thread - it did not take more than five minutes to make that post.


RE: Really?
By i3arracuda on 8/28/2008 12:44:08 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I had no idea that the Sun's output effects our climate at all...


Which means the Sun must be a man-made object. Clearly.

I haven't seen a reveal this big since the ending to The Planet of the Apes.


RE: Really?
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 8/28/2008 12:59:18 PM , Rating: 2
Which one? Nuke ending, Statue ending, Lincoln ending.... :)


RE: Really?
By kattanna on 8/28/2008 12:57:20 PM , Rating: 2
while you joke..

i have actually come across people who honestly think that the sun does not affect the temp, instead they claim its all those micro meteorites hitting the atmosphere.

they also insist that the sun is electrically lit up like qa light bulb and not a nuclear furnace.


RE: Really?
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 8/28/2008 1:04:33 PM , Rating: 2
These people, do they believe we (the earth) ride on the back of a great big Tortoise too? :)


RE: Really?
By foxtrot9 on 8/28/2008 2:45:20 PM , Rating: 2
What kind of people have you been hanging out with?


RE: Really?
By Bender 123 on 8/29/2008 9:57:17 AM , Rating: 2
Only the cool people...Like Al Gore and ManBearPig...and people that smoke. The ads say they are cool...and people that eat at McDonalds.


RE: Really?
By Cygni on 8/28/2008 2:01:44 PM , Rating: 4
Saying that variations in our planets primary energy source change our planets energy level is stupidly basic. 'If someone gives me more food, ill have more food!'

What remains to be proven is how it relates to out climate situation right NOW. There are litterally thousands of factors in climate change, and any one of them can tip the balance. Just look at the mini-ice age for proof of that.

I will stop believing the IPCC when the connection between solar output and our current climate change is made. For now, ill stick with the preponderance of evidence.

The FACT of the matter is that life on this planet has had MASSIVE effects on its climate for billions of years, and its hardly a stretch to believe that we could have the same effect. Ask yourself where all the pure oxygen in our atmosphere came from, for example... hint: it wasnt from a jesus asteroid.... it was from life itself.


RE: Really?
By clovell on 8/28/2008 2:27:16 PM , Rating: 2
> There are litterally thousands of factors in climate change, and any one of them can tip the balance.

I'd agree that there are thousands of factors, but I'd disagree that all of them are significant. It does, however, seem very plausible that the primary energy source of our planet is a significant factor. Therefore, I think it would be a good idea to include oscillations in the primary energy source of the planet in the models we use before drawing any conclusions with regards to AGW.

Which is why I stopped believing the IPCC. Different strokes.


RE: Really?
By jbartabas on 8/28/2008 3:32:20 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Therefore, I think it would be a good idea to include oscillations in the primary energy source of the planet in the models we use before drawing any conclusions with regards to AGW. Which is why I stopped believing the IPCC. Different strokes.


You mean like that:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/solar.irradia...


RE: Really?
By kbehrens on 8/28/2008 3:38:04 PM , Rating: 2
No, nothing like those. Everyone knows irradiance changes from the 11-year cycle can't explain warming. They certainly don't explain past ice ages, but we know those happened anyway, don't we?

What GISS doesn't include are the really important variations cycles like the Devries Cycle or a Dalton/Maunder Minimum, along with the same sorts of feedbacks GISS is happy to believe in for CO2.


RE: Really?
By jbartabas on 8/28/2008 5:42:50 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
No, nothing like those. Everyone knows irradiance changes from the 11-year cycle can't explain warming.


Look again, there's more than the 11-year cycle.

quote:
They certainly don't explain past ice ages, but we know those happened anyway, don't we?


Yep. Do you know of any major orbital change that GISS or the IPCC may have overlooked in their study of the 20th century climate?

quote:
What GISS doesn't include are the really important variations cycles like the Devries Cycle or a Dalton/Maunder Minimum, along with the same sorts of feedbacks GISS is happy to believe in for CO2.


You mean like in this paper:
Solar Forcing of Regional Climate Change During the Maunder Minimum
published in science in 2001 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/sci;294... were the GISS model was used by 3 GISS scientists (among others) to assess the impact of the decrease in solar irradance during the Maunder minimum?

Their conclusion being:
These results provide evidence that relatively small solar forcing may play a significant role in century-scale NH winter climate change. This suggests that colder winter temperatures over the NH continents during portions of the 15th through the 17th centuries (sometimes called the Little Ice Age) and warmer temperatures during the 12th through 14th centuries (the putative Medieval Warm Period) may have been influenced by long-term solar variations.


RE: Really?
By Bidou on 9/7/2008 8:24:21 AM , Rating: 2
I agree. And by the way, the average global temperature has stopped climbing 10 years ago, in 1998 and the current Summer season in Canada tends to prove that.


Climate Change just is
By lifeblood on 8/28/2008 12:52:09 PM , Rating: 5
Anyone who thinks climate change is a human caused effect needs to take a freshman Geology class. Ice ages come and go, sea level rises and falls. The earth has been warming up since the end of the last ice age. What makes this interesting is we've never been sure what causes them. Theory's ranging from solar radiation levels to the wobbling of the earth on it's axis have been offered as causes. While this doesn't explain full ice ages, it does help understand mini ice ages and such.

As I've said before, anyone who thinks the current trend in global warming is entirely the fault of man needs to go back to school and stay awake in class this time. We may or may not be exacerbating it, but it occurs whether were here or not. We need to understand it, and adjust to it. If we don't want to adjust, well, theirs plenty of room in the museums next to the dinosaurs.




RE: Climate Change just is
By daenku32 on 8/28/2008 1:10:48 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
As I've said before, anyone who thinks the current trend in global warming is entirely the fault of man... We may or may not be exacerbating it, but it occurs whether were here or not

How about the perfectly good middle point here, like the one put forwards by the IPCC, in which man is simply the primary and not the sole contributor to recent climate variation.

Or do you have trouble with that as well?


RE: Climate Change just is
By lifeblood on 8/28/2008 1:38:47 PM , Rating: 2
My personal belief based on what I've read is that man is accelerating climate change by a measurable, if not significant amount. However, since that's not the point of the article I decided to simply give mans influence a noncommittal nod and not invite the inevitable caustic responses. The article was, after all, on the link between solar variation and short term climate change.


RE: Climate Change just is
By foxtrot9 on 8/28/2008 2:44:16 PM , Rating: 2
Does it really matter? Why do we have to wait until something is a total disaster before we do anything about it? Would it be so horrible if we lowered our pollution output and had clean energy that's more sustainable in the future? I for one live in NYC and can tell a huge difference in air quality from in the city and out in a suburban area. I think it's good that people believe in global warming - it's finally bringing some innovation to our energy industry.


RE: Climate Change just is
By FITCamaro on 8/28/2008 2:59:20 PM , Rating: 3
I don't reject or accept global warming. I reject that mankind is doing anything either way right now.

I've no problem with lower pollution. I do have a problem with setting economic policy based off a lie.

And environmentalists themselves who are responsible for us not having more clean energy. We'd probably be a largely nuclear nation if not for the left wing environmentalists stopping nuclear power at every turn. Even if you assumed that solar and wind were largely viable options today (which they aren't) that still doesn't change the fact that we still could've had lots of nuclear power back in the 60s and 70s when they absolutely were not viable options.

And you can cry "what about the waste!?!?!" all you want. Reprocessing existed back then as well and wasn't banned until '78.

quote:
I think it's good that people believe in global warming - it's finally bringing some innovation to our energy industry.


This is about as communist as it gets. Believing you know whats best for everyone else. And what has global warming done for the energy industry? Other than cost you the tax payer billions? Through ethanol subsidies, wind subsidies, and solar subsidies. All for things that provide very little gain for the massive amount spent. Ethanol has done nothing. And solar and wind have just covered hundreds of thousands of acres in power generation equipment that outputs a fraction of our energy needs while costing more than the alternatives.


RE: Climate Change just is
By mvpx02 on 8/28/2008 3:50:08 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
This is about as communist as it gets. Believing you know whats best for everyone else.


But don't forget, the left wing wants you to remember that the government has no business involving itself in planned parenthood, homosexual marriage, drugs, attempting to stop terrorists who've killed Americans (& the countries that aid them), etc.


RE: Climate Change just is
By andrinoaa on 8/28/2008 5:37:37 PM , Rating: 1
What if the "LIE" is that us humans have NO effect on the environment! I guess you have to see the other side's point of view before you can tell who is lying!!


RE: Climate Change just is
By mvpx02 on 8/28/2008 3:22:27 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Why do we have to wait until something is a total disaster before we do anything about it?


The end result of the anthropogenic global warming theory is a "total disaster". THAT is the problem. I don't have a problem with people who are interested in green practices & such, I have a problem when people couldn't convince others to join in, so they started using scare-tactics. It is the assumption that humans are entirely the cause of the problem & that the end result will be all of us dying on a furnace of a planet.

Its a lot like the way people claim religions using hell to scare people into behaving morally. I live a fairly good life because I believe it's the right thing to do, not because I'm afraid of ever-lasting torture in the flames of hell. I also do not believe it's my place to force anyone to live the same way I live.

I'm all for people that try to live responsibly and for technology that helps us waste less energy, but this AGW trend has gone way beyond that. I'm dumbfounded when I hear things like how congress wants to ban an entire country from using a certain type of lightbulb because somebody convinced them it'll save the world.

I simply think the first order of business should be to (without a doubt) make sure that we're actually the ones causing the change. Then we need to determine if the change is truly a bad thing, and if it will result in any type of "total disaster". Only after we've done both of those things should we determine how to best stop the "total disaster" from occuring.


RE: Climate Change just is
By HaZaRd2K6 on 8/28/2008 2:51:35 PM , Rating: 2
I'm of the same opinion as you. We're coming out of an ice age and have been for the last, oh, 5,000 years or so. On a geological timescale that's no time at all.

However, I don't think it's at all a bad idea to be cutting carbon emissions. I mean, just look at places like Beijing on a hot summer day. That ain't fog, that's pollution caused mainly by automobiles burning gasoline and coal-fired power plants burning coal. What harm can it do to move to "cleaner" forms of power? Yes there may be some short-term economic pain, but it's not like we aren't there already.

Is climate change for real? Absolutely. Are humans causing it? Probably not, but nobody can say for sure. But it would probably be best for everyone to move to cleaner sources of energy anyway.


RE: Climate Change just is
By JediJeb on 8/28/2008 5:34:49 PM , Rating: 2
I agree. The temperatures of the earth are going to change no matter what we do.

I was watching one of those shows on Discover or History channel a few months back, and the guy there was talking about how CO2 levels rising caused the warming. He had nice graphs up behind him of CO2 levels and temperature for several cycles of warming and cooling. What he never explained was what his graphs clearly showed, right there for everyone to see. Temperature and CO2 both went up really fast, nearly together, then over time temp came down much faster than CO2 levels did. Now clearly if CO2 is the cause of rising temperature, then the temperature should not drop before the CO2 levels do.

From basic chemistry we know the oceans contain large amounts of CO2. Now if you warm water, the CO2 vapor pressure will rise and it will go into the air above the water, if you cool the water the CO2 will tend to reaccumulate in the water. Seems to be logical that if the water warms first then the CO2 levels will rise, then once the water cools the CO2 levels will drop slightly laging behind the temperature drop.

A large percent of the evicence that pro AGW people use is a correlation of rising CO2 and global temperatures. I can not argue against these trends, but what I still have not seen clearly is if the CO2 rise is ahead of the temperature rise of vice versa, or if it is in tandem. If one causes the other then on the scale of our global climate, one should lag behind the other by at least a few years. The only chart I have seen on this( it's not something I study religiously) was the one on that show, and it showed CO2 rise laging behind temperature rise. If someone has data to prove this in not currently true please let me know where to view it. Until then I will tend to sway my opinion to the sun warming and the CO2 following. But hey I'm a scientist so I believe the hard facts not just opinions.


Horse's mouth
By ipay on 8/29/08, Rating: 0
RE: Horse's mouth
By kbehrens on 8/29/2008 9:38:20 AM , Rating: 2
Funny, because I emailed Dr. Springer a link to the entire article and he said it was an accurate reflexion of his paper.

Stop making things up to try to prove your point.


RE: Horse's mouth
By jbartabas on 8/29/2008 1:35:00 PM , Rating: 2
Well the fact that he said that he was not misquoted by Michael, and the fact that his personal opinion is that GW is here to stay and that our species is to blame are not mutually exclusive. Either you have missed the part of the email ipay was quoting (which I believe was just a unique mass email that he has sent to everybody contacting him), or you've received a different one than others here.


RE: Horse's mouth
By kbehrens on 8/29/2008 3:44:08 PM , Rating: 2
My email from him said he was quoted accurately and that the actual causes of GW were still being investigated. IPay fabricated a response to try to discredit the author. You both should be ashamed.


RE: Horse's mouth
By ipay on 8/29/2008 6:23:46 PM , Rating: 2
Wrong. I quoted Springer verbatim. I'll repeat it:

"...my personal opinion is that GW is here to stay and that our species is to blame."

He can corroborate that if he chooses.

Again your reading comprehension is lacking. He can say "the causes are still being investigated" along with what I quoted above. There is no conflict or contradiction.


RE: Horse's mouth
By kbehrens on 8/30/2008 10:13:16 PM , Rating: 2
The only thing I'm lacking is enough gullibility to fall for your fictional account. I KNOW what Springer's email to me said. I seriously doubt he changed his mind and told you something totally different.


RE: Horse's mouth
By ipay on 8/31/2008 8:22:18 AM , Rating: 2
I'm confident that anyone with average intelligence and reading comprehension will be able to see your lack of both.

And ultimately that's all that matters in these 'debates': demonstrating the stupidity and ignorance of the denial crowd so that lurkers can decide between the science and the lies.

The science is decided. That's why the only people questioning it are dishonest and deluded 'journalists', like Asher, a handful of discredited scientists - usually on the payroll of 'independent' (aka oil-funded) think tanks, and the ranting armchair scientists of comment threads, such as this.

Every national science academy of every major industrialised country on the planet confirms recent climate change is due to human activity. Unlike Asher and the rest of the denial gang, I'm not insane enough to believe there is some coordinated global conspiracy, involving tens (hundreds?) of thousands of scientists, all lying in order to gain funding for further research.


RE: Horse's mouth
By sigilscience on 8/29/2008 1:12:00 PM , Rating: 2
From the article update its pretty apparent you just made that up. Is there nothing you people won't stoop to? Do you really think such childish tricks helps the environmental movement, or makes people believe in global warming?


RE: Horse's mouth
By jbartabas on 8/29/2008 1:30:52 PM , Rating: 2
Actually both statements by Michael and ipay are accurate.

Greg Springer did state that
1/ he wasn't being misquoted by Michael,
2/ he didn't state an opinion one way or the other on the question facing GW skeptics, i.e. to know whether solar variability of the last century is enough to explain the observed warming,
3/ his personal opinion is that GW is here to stay and that our species is to blame.


RE: Horse's mouth
By ipay on 8/29/2008 2:42:26 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. At least one person here has some reading comprehension.

Springer told me that he did not feel his comments were misrepresented. That does not mean that he agrees with the framing of this article or the opinions of Asher.

I've noticed from reading Asher that he's very careful in the wording he uses. It's easy for the denial gang to take exactly what they need - especially given their poor reading comprehension, while being ambiguous enough that Asher can wriggle out if challenged by someone scientifically literate.

Bottom line and absolute fact: the scientist that Asher is quoting believes that global warming is man made. The fact that Asher has selectively quoted him to make it appear (to the gullible) that his research provides ammunition for the denial gang is more evidence of the shameless and dishonest agenda that Asher is pursuing.


RE: Horse's mouth
By kbehrens on 8/29/2008 3:46:11 PM , Rating: 2
He said no such thing. Why make things up? You're not fooling anyone, not even Jbartabas. He just likes to disagree with anyone Asher posts.


Lies, distortion
By ipay on 8/28/08, Rating: 0
RE: Lies, distortion
By 325hhee on 8/28/2008 1:32:02 PM , Rating: 1
Reading this all I can think of is this vid.

http://www.stupidvideos.com/video/Woman_Doesnt_Und...

I thought this was a joke, but sadly, it's not, and you'll find more dumb stuff from conspiracy theories sites.


RE: Lies, distortion
By clovell on 8/28/2008 2:36:48 PM , Rating: 2
Have fun with that. I'd sooner believe the evidence than the experts.


RE: Lies, distortion
By snownpaint on 8/28/2008 3:13:34 PM , Rating: 2
"Experts are people that have made all the mistakes in a very narrow field.." Bohr

Seems like they are still making their mistakes..


RE: Lies, distortion
By clovell on 8/28/2008 4:51:44 PM , Rating: 2
Downrated, eh? Is there something wrong with thinking for myself, instead of blindly trusting others to do it for me?

I can't do it all the time, but when I can, I will.


RE: Lies, distortion
By FITCamaro on 8/28/2008 3:06:35 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Every national science academy of every major industrialized country on the planet confirms recent climate change is due to human activity.


Does it hurt your brain to think up these lies as much as it hurts mine to read them?


RE: Lies, distortion
By Ringold on 8/28/2008 3:12:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Every national science academy of every major industrialized country on the planet confirms


Do you think these people would be getting nearly the funding they do if not for man-made climate change? No.

Follow the money.

If you throw out corrupted government or UN-backed (and if you don't think the UN is corrupt you have an extremely selective memory) "research," that leaves a lot of studies that appear in the aggregate to suggest there is no strong consensus.

None of this would matter immediately if people weren't attempting to create massive government regulation of the economy. But, they are, and the costs are huge. And why does the government fund all these groups? Because government always wants to expand its power and influence. Which leads back to the above; follow the money. Nobody involved is fully honest, and this worship of academies of science and the UN amounts to a modern form religion. Wow, academics spin things to ensure their paychecks continue to flow? Blasphemy!


RE: Lies, distortion
By ipay on 8/29/08, Rating: -1
Comedic gold
By fishbits on 8/28/2008 2:02:37 PM , Rating: 4
Funny how trying to get the "We're destroying the planet... which we live on!" cultists to think the slightest bit scientifically results in headlines that read like they're straight from The Onion.

Now wait til these mental giants latch onto "global darkening." Because it is a sciency fact that there has been less and less daylight in the northern hemisphere every day since summer solstice! So statistimetrics tells us that we have to simply project this darkening trend to see that in a short matter of time, it will be dark forever!!!1

Now, yes, in the past we have gone through cycles where there has been more and less daily light, but this time it is different! This time the cycle will go straight off the charts. Do NOT listen to global darkening deniers who wave around their "facts" and "logic." We must use as little light as possible, so that it will be saved up for when we need it most in the very near future. Other than that, we have to band together and demand a larger, more controlling government, lessened individual freedom, and increased funding for leftist politicians. Global darkening is real people, we need to do this for the children!




RE: Comedic gold
By BB33 on 8/28/2008 2:37:36 PM , Rating: 2
Oh and lets not forget that Global Cooling/Ice Age comes shortly after all has gone dark.


experiment
By teldar on 8/28/2008 12:45:19 PM , Rating: 2
This isn't really an experiment at all. It's more of a retrospective study than anything else....
Now... to say it's not science it wrong, but if it were a study, where's the control? You would have to have an earth without a sun to call this an experiment. And an earth with a sun which never changed.
Also not to say there isn't something useful here.

It's just NOT an experiment.
In any sense of the word.
It's a study.
Period.
T




RE: experiment
By masher2 (blog) on 8/28/2008 12:48:59 PM , Rating: 2
No. More precisely, it's what is known as a "natural experiment", something less controlled than a lab or field experiment, but more than simple observation. A hypothesis is tested, and causal inferences drawn:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_experiment


NEWS Flash!
By Proxes on 8/28/2008 3:42:41 PM , Rating: 2
Scientists discover the Moon may be the cause of tides; more at 11.




RE: NEWS Flash!
By FITCamaro on 8/28/2008 4:26:10 PM , Rating: 2
Space is cold. May be warming though due to man-made satellites starting to pollute it.

Mar's temperature rises. Mars Landers. Scientific probes or CO2 factories?

Pluto's temperature rises...uh....we looked at it wrong. Yeah. That's it.


By jbartabas on 8/28/2008 1:03:07 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Experimental Link Found Between Sun and Climate


Well someone should tell the IPCC, the AGU, the AMS, etc ... because they clearly had no clue of that link. That's true after all, all these AGW believers totally ignore the Sun ...




By voronwae on 8/29/2008 12:34:29 AM , Rating: 1
Here's a quote from the article MAsher links to with comments by Greg Springer, author of the article and chief scientist in this study:

"The climate record suggests that North America could face a major drought event again in 500 to 1,000 years, though Springer said that manmade global warming could offset the cycle.

'Global warming will leave things like this in the dust. The natural oscillations here are nothing like what we would expect to see with global warming,' he said."

Every time I look at MAsher's columns I see some of the worst and most deliberate misunderstanding of science I've ever witnessed. Don't read this column if you want anything other than to find out what the nuts are thinking. I can't think for the life of me why anybody would so vociferously want to believe that global warming doesn't exist, or that mankind should continue to live in a pit of its own filth. But even if you don't believe in global warming, consider what the stakes are if you're wrong.




By ipay on 9/17/2008 11:20:45 AM , Rating: 2
Fortunately, with each passing day and the accumulation of more evidence, deluded and dishonest people like MAsher become more irrelevant and ludicrous.

As for the semi-literate acolytes who inhabit his comment threads - Jesus! They're a scary study in anthropology and how some people can convince themselves of anything, despite total detachment from reality.


By CatfishKhan on 8/29/2008 9:59:39 PM , Rating: 3
The sun affects the climate, but we don't know how much.
CO2 affects the climate, but we don't know how much.
SO2 affects the climate, but we don't know how much.
Planting trees affects the climate but we don't know how much (probably cooling off the planet when planted in the tropics, but warming the planet when in snowier regions due to reduced albedo)
Cows farting affects the climate, but we don't know how much.
Shoveling your snowy driveway affects the climate (you just reduced the earth's albedo and increased your carbon footprint due to the calories you're burned and will have to replace with food)
Having children affects the climate, but we don't know how much.
Volcanoes affect the climate, but we don't know how much.
Pretty much everything affects the climate, even if only a very little bit.

We don't know the magnitude of the climate effects for anything.
We don't know the direction of the climate effects for most things.

A warming planet will make life worse in some ways.
A warming planet will make life better in some ways.

A cooling planet will make life worse in some ways.
A cooling planet will make life better in some ways.

We don't know for certain if the earth will be warmer or cooler in ten years. (It has been fairly level to slightly cooling the last 10)

Despite all this, there are a bunch of morons out there that want to legislate what type of light bulb members of a free society can buy, tell you how many pieces of toilet paper you can use in one sitting, and call everyone who disagrees with them a flat earther, shill for big oil, or scientific illiterate. These people all need to STFU.




Bunch of idiots
By daenku32 on 8/28/2008 12:47:59 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe its the reporting, maybe it's tagging along Singer to ensure the article maintains the edge of 'hot' climate controversy.

In any case, the idiots roam because they cannot appreciate scientific findings that give us accuracy, because who wants accuracy anyways? Title in itself provides plenty of ammo for sarcastic laughter.




RE: Bunch of idiots
By ipay on 8/29/08, Rating: 0
The sun
By Meinolf on 8/28/2008 1:27:00 PM , Rating: 2
The Sun is out therefore it affects climate.




I read that title
By Suntan on 8/28/2008 1:50:35 PM , Rating: 2
I read that title and thought of Olly Williams, the weather reporter on Family Guy.

"THE SON MAKES IT HOT!"

-Suntan




Just so you know...
By Quicken on 8/28/2008 2:00:41 PM , Rating: 2
You can read the actual article here:

http://www.agu.org/contents/journals/ViewPapersInP...

Springer, G. S., H. D. Rowe, B. Hardt, R. L. Edwards, and H. Cheng (2008), Solar forcing of Holocene droughts in a stalagmite record from West Virginia in east-central North America, Geophys. Res. Lett., doi:10.1029/2008GL034971, in press.




In short.....
By Aloonatic on 8/28/2008 4:36:54 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, I really couldn't be bothered to read all the comments, there are so many of them.

I can only assume that there is the usual mix of insults, data manipulation and wild accusations being thrown around, with people being wholly unwilling to change their opinions.

All I want to know (as a UK "citizen") is how much I am now going to have to pay in "sun taxes" when chairman Brown sees this report?




I looked into the face of the sun
By phxfreddy on 8/28/2008 6:35:52 PM , Rating: 2
....yah I saw her face
now Iyma denier
I couldn't believe it
If I tried

( sung to the Monkey's "I'm a believer" )




The Sun is hot
By Wily on 9/1/2008 1:22:40 AM , Rating: 2
Jeebus - Whose tax dollars were wasted on this genius?

This just in: The chance of rainfall shown to increase dramatically when there's cloud cover...




*ducks
By Jenga on 8/28/08, Rating: -1
RE: *ducks
By masher2 (blog) on 8/28/2008 1:38:02 PM , Rating: 4
> The natural oscillations here are nothing like what we would expect to see with global warming,” he said"

I clarified that quote when I spoke with Dr. Springer. The oscillations seen here are totally at odds with those one would expect to see from anthropogenic global warming. But if you've somehow interpreted that to mean solar variations can't influence climate, you are sadly mistaken.

Springer himself explicitly stated this report gives ammunition to those who believe this current warming is due to solar effects. The only open question is -- how much is solar, and how much anthropogenic? The IPCC says its only 20% solar. Other researchers say much, much more.

> "The effect of solar variation is well understood by the climate community"

Coming from someone who has interviewed and spoken with hundreds of climate scientists -- nothing is "well understand" in the field. This is why so many hundreds of new papers appear each year...because the field is evolving and changing so rapidly.


RE: *ducks
By Jenga on 8/28/08, Rating: 0
RE: *ducks
By ipay on 8/28/08, Rating: 0
RE: *ducks
By onelittleindian on 8/28/2008 2:04:43 PM , Rating: 2
You global warming fanatics are frightening. Too bad you guys can't read.


RE: *ducks
By Jenga on 8/28/2008 2:18:02 PM , Rating: 2
Your complete lack of an identifiable thought process is frightening. Go on, keep voting my comments down ;)

I actually have fairly conservative views on the subject, and believe above all else that we shouldn't **** with the climate anymore by deliberately trying to reverse global warming, unless those changes are reversible.

Asher has done his job (as he sees it), and stuck his neck out with his questionable interpretation of Springer's research. It is not my job, but my personal desire for truth, that compels me to thrash him. What Asher needs to do is drop the agenda, and report the news. If not, he'll just be preaching to the choir (you), because people who know what they are talking about will only occasionally drop by to tear him apart.


RE: *ducks
By onelittleindian on 8/28/2008 2:28:46 PM , Rating: 1
Your "tearing him apart" is actually just you embarrassing yourself by proving you can't read simple English. But keep making those Greenpeace donations. They need the money to fly their jet to the next Global Warming conference.


RE: *ducks
By Jenga on 8/28/2008 2:32:15 PM , Rating: 1
I hate Greenpeace.

And why don't you tell me what it is that I can't read? Didn't think so.

*yawn

I have better things to do. Hope you got the message. Read something other than drudge, fox, or this blog, and maybe you'll start to understand how at odds Asher's opinion is with evidence.


RE: *ducks
By onelittleindian on 8/28/2008 2:42:05 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
And why don't you tell me what it is that I can't read?
I don't think I have time for the whole list, but you totally misinterpreted the quote from the other article to mean that the sun isn't affecting climate now. Had you bothered to read the paper itself (which someone kindly linked -- shame on you Masher for not providing it) you would have seen the scientists included graphs of data all the way up to the year 2000, just to prove these influences were still taking place.


RE: *ducks
By Jenga on 8/28/2008 2:48:28 PM , Rating: 4
I first read the article on August 9th, shortly after it was accepted. It's a good article, but like most paleo articles it must be studded with asterisks.

Of course they're still taking place! You don't seem to understand the analysis here: the spectral power components in question are O(500yr). The components due to post-industrial warming are of much much higher frequency because they are (so far) pretty monotonic and haven't even been happening for 500 years! Try to record a 15kHz sine wave on your computer microphone with the sampling rate set to 3 Hz. Just see what you get out of it :)


RE: *ducks
By OoklaTheMok on 8/28/08, Rating: 0
RE: *ducks
By masher2 (blog) on 8/28/2008 2:15:06 PM , Rating: 2
> "What other researchers? Exxon Mobile?"

Svensmark, Usoskin, Sorokhtin, Singer, Shaviv, Baliunas, Soon, Abdusamatov, and many others, to name a few.

> "you are eating up the parts you like, and hurriedly burying the rest."

What's buried? Springer says solar variations caused extreme clmate change in the past, and those effects are continuing to present day. Springer also says those effects don't seem to be large enough to explain present-day warming. Both true; neither buried. I understand you have a strong emotional stake in this argument, but there's no reason to react irrationally.

> " Insolation is a biggie in geological time, and appears to be largely responsible for past ice ages"

Insolation "appears" to be largely responsible only because nothing else leaps to mind as a likely candidate. We have o direct evidence...and no GCM (global climate model) yet made comes close to explaining past climate shifts.

The fact remains that insolation -- by itself -- is obviously not large enough to account for current warming. Neither are CO2 increases. You have to posulate positive feedback mechanisms for either to get the data to agree with observed temperature records.


RE: *ducks
By jbartabas on 8/28/2008 4:44:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Svensmark, Usoskin, Sorokhtin, Singer, Shaviv, Baliunas, Soon, Abdusamatov, and many others, to name a few.


Out of curiosity: Are we talking about casual statements here, or did these researcher published peer reviewed papers explicitly stating that much much more than 20% of current warming is due to solar effects?


RE: *ducks
By ipay on 8/28/08, Rating: -1
RE: *ducks
By FITCamaro on 8/28/2008 2:19:24 PM , Rating: 2
My brain works quite well and it thinks you're a moron.


RE: *ducks
By blaster5k on 8/28/2008 2:58:49 PM , Rating: 4
You've provided no evidence that anything stated here was a lie. All you've done is character assassinate. Your argument is basically a logical fallacy.

quote:
Fallacies are used frequently by pundits in the media and politics. When one politician says to another, "You don't have the moral authority to say X", this could be an example of the argumentum ad hominem or personal attack fallacy; that is, attempting to disprove X, not by addressing validity of X but by attacking the person who asserted X. Arguably, the politician is not even attempting to make an argument against X, but is instead offering a moral rebuke against the interlocutor.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy


RE: *ducks
By jbartabas on 8/28/08, Rating: 0
RE: *ducks
By masher2 (blog) on 8/28/2008 2:19:00 PM , Rating: 3
Nice try, but there is no dichotomy between the two statements. There are people that maintain that no evidence exists for such a link. The IPCC, however, is not among them.


RE: *ducks
By jbartabas on 8/28/2008 2:45:45 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Many researchers link recent global warming to changes in the sun. Others remain skeptical , claiming that the sun varies only very slowly, over periods of millions of years. They say that no hard evidence exists for a solar effect on recent climate changes.


The opinion of your maid or the cashier at your local supermarket are irrelevant here. We all know what you meant and even if your are careful enough to word your statement to make them vague enough not to be discussed, it is clear what you suggested. However I understand why you want to keep it; without it your article looses much of its interest.

It is again one of your traditional straw man: Somehow most or some AGW scientists proponents do not believe that the Sun has any influence on climate, or climate change, so every study that shows a link between climate and the Sun goes against AGW.

The bottom line is: nobody in the scientific community ever denied the influence of the Sun on climate, the large majority of the scientific community thinks that the Sun can have partially influenced the recent climate change to the point that many scientists actually study it in depth; the present study is not the ground breaking news that your title or article pompously (misre)present and this study makes zero, nada, ... connection with the recent warming.


RE: *ducks
By masher2 (blog) on 8/28/2008 3:12:58 PM , Rating: 2
You're doing just what you accuse others of. Yes of course, no one denies the sun impacts climate somehow. But the fact that 1500-year Bond events are solar driven and impact world climate is indeed a controversial topic. There's even debate over whether or not they've continued into the Late Holocene. Read IPCC AR4 and see what you can find about Bond Events.


RE: *ducks
By lifeblood on 8/28/2008 3:05:32 PM , Rating: 2
I do admit their appears to be a problem. The original article you link to states
quote:
“Global warming will leave things like this in the dust. The natural oscillations here are nothing like what we would expect to see with global warming,” he said.

Yet, in your article you wrote
quote:
Springer tells DailyTech that the results "certainly lends support" to global warming skeptics. However, he himself is not sure that the recent level of variance is enough to explain all the warming the Earth has undergone in the past 100 years.

While the two statements are not directly contradictory, they do seem confusing. Can you expand a bit on your conversation with Dr. Springer? The actual article to be published by AGU make no references to global warming either way.


RE: *ducks
By masher2 (blog) on 8/28/2008 3:19:48 PM , Rating: 2
> "Can you expand a bit on your conversation with Dr. Springer? "

Certainly. It went something like this:

Q: "How do you think your research fits into the global warming debate?"
A: "Well, there are those who question global warming. This certainly lends support to those skeptics".
Q: "What is your own opinion?"
<long pause>
Q: "I realize this is a contentious issue. . ."
A: "Let me think for a few minutes. . .Well, I'd have to say I'm not sure that these effects are large enough to explain all the warming".

I then tried to elicit an opinion on a few other related topics, such as whether or not he believed in the positive feedback effects postulated by some solar physicists; he stated such an opinion would be outside his "comfort zone" on expertise.


RE: *ducks
By lifeblood on 8/28/2008 4:15:12 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not surprised at that long pause after you asked him your question. It has gotten to the point that moderate researchers are afraid to venture an opinion one way or the other for fear of being labeled or attacked. Thanks to the likes of Al Gore and others this subject has certainly become highly polarized.


RE: *ducks
By clovell on 8/28/2008 2:22:59 PM , Rating: 2
> very reliable data and models

I like how you quantified that one. Models that don't include solar variation? Models that haven't made accurate predictions since their inception? Models that ignore confounding factors such as Urban Heat Island effects or something as important as ENSO? Data that has been 'adjusted'?

> The effect of solar variation is well understood by the climate community. It also has nothing to do with anthropogenic climate change

It's called a confounding factor. It's quite important in modeling and causal analyses.

Good info on O-18, I wondered how accurate of a surrogate endpoint the composition was.


RE: *ducks
By snownpaint on 8/28/2008 3:05:20 PM , Rating: 4
in truth.. I have as much to worry about the planet getting so hot that my grand kids are going to have to wear AC units and live in a water world, as I am about a T-Rex eating my toes..

One thing I have learned from the endless Geology, Geophysics, and Environmental science classes, the earth is consistently changing. It also has an amazing resiliency and a very nice check and balance system.. At one time, Antarctica was a tropical place, Sahara Desert was a paradise, Central N. America was a swamp, and we weren't here to cause that.

Don't worry about trying to effect climate, its like worrying about your effect on the moon.. Just worry about the mess you leave behind, or use up.. Your coffee cups, soda cans, Oil spills, lack of oil, recycle your plastics, reduce your trash, reduce our packaging waste. Those trash cans that you roll out to the curb every week have more effect then all the cars on the road.

Fear tactics made the American people give up their rights.
Fear tactics made you believe the earth is going to melt.
Fear tactics can also be used to drive us away from the grips of our economic woes and trade deficit. please use fear responsibly.

some great comments.

"Global Warming, its all a plan by the martians to make the Earth inhabitable for them, so they can come down here and take over.."

"the more oil we suck out, the more room for our liquid trash we can inject into the void."

"Quite smoking, your using up all the air"


RE: *ducks
By FITCamaro on 8/28/2008 5:11:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Don't worry about trying to effect climate, its like worrying about your effect on the moon.. Just worry about the mess you leave behind, or use up.. Your coffee cups, soda cans, Oil spills, lack of oil, recycle your plastics, reduce your trash, reduce our packaging waste. Those trash cans that you roll out to the curb every week have more effect then all the cars on the road.


Well said.


RE: *ducks
By wookie1 on 8/28/2008 3:34:30 PM , Rating: 2
Reliable models? They have very little predictive skill. They've been shown to be statistically false between the time they were made and now (see www.rankexploits.com/musings). If they're wrong already, they can only be right in the future by random chance.

Also, I keep hearing about "pollution" and "polluting industries", I thought that we were talking about global warming? Most pollution actually seems to cause some cooling effect. Or does pollution = CO2, which is an essential trace gas that all life is dependent on? I don't think that anyone should call CO2 pollution.


"And boy have we patented it!" -- Steve Jobs, Macworld 2007














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki