backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 228 comment(s) - last by nofumble62.. on Mar 1 at 12:34 PM

A typical sunspot compared to the size of the earth. Sunspots have all but vanished in recent years.

Henrik Svensmark explains the SKY experiment  (Source: Dr. Nir Shaviv)
Global Cooling comes back in a big way

Dr. Kenneth Tapping is worried about the sun. Solar activity comes in regular cycles, but the latest one is refusing to start. Sunspots have all but vanished, and activity is suspiciously quiet. The last time this happened was 400 years ago -- and it signaled a solar event known as a "Maunder Minimum,"  along with the start of what we now call the "Little Ice Age."

Tapping, a solar researcher and project director for Canada's National Research Council, says it may be happening again. Overseeing a giant radio telescope he calls a "stethoscope for the sun," Tapping says, if the pattern doesn't change quickly, the earth is in for some very chilly weather.

During the Little Ice Age, global temperatures dropped sharply. New York Harbor froze hard enough to allow people to walk from Manhattan to Staten Island, and in Britain, people reported sighting eskimos paddling canoes off the coast. Glaciers in Norway grew up to 100 meters a year, destroying farms and villages.

But will it happen again?

In 2005, Russian astronomer Khabibullo Abdusamatov predicted the sun would soon peak, triggering a rapid decline in world temperatures.  Only last month, the view was echoed by Dr. Oleg Sorokhtin, a fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences. who advised the world to "stock up on fur coats." Sorokhtin, who calls man's contribution to climate change "a drop in the bucket," predicts the solar minimum to occur by the year 2040, with icy weather lasting till 2100 or beyond.

Observational data seems to support the claims -- or doesn't contradict it, at least. According to data from Britain's Met Office, the earth has cooled very slightly since 1998. The Met Office says global warming "will pick up again shortly." Others aren't so sure.

Researcher Dr. Timothy Patterson, director of the Geoscience Center at Carleton University, shares the concern. Patterson is finding "excellent correlations" between solar fluctuations, a relationship that historically, he says doesn't exist between CO2 and past climate changes. According to Patterson. we shouldn't be surprised by a solar link. "The sun [is] the ultimate source of energy on this planet," he says.

Such research dates back to 1991, when the Danish Meteorological Institute released a study showing that world temperatures over the past several centuries correlated very closely with solar cycles. A 2004 study by the Max Planck Institute found a similar correlation, but concluded the timing was only coincidental, as the solar variance seemed too small to explain temperature changes.

However, researchers at DMI continued to work, eventually discovering what they believe to be the link. The key factor isn't changes in solar output, but rather changes in the sun's magnetosphere A stronger field shields the earth more from cosmic rays, which act as "seeds" for cloud formation. The result is less cloud cover, and a warming planet. When the field weakens, clouds increases, reflecting more light back to space, and the earth cools off.

Recently, lead researcher Henrik Svensmark was able to experimentally verify the link between cosmic rays and cloud formation, in a cloud chamber experiment called "SKY" at the Danish National Space Center. CERN plans a similar experiment this year.

Even NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies -- long the nation's most ardent champion of anthropogenic global warming -- is getting in on the act. Drew Shindell, a researcher at GISS, says there are some "interesting relationships we don't fully understand" between solar activity and climate.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Scientific Literacy
By General Disturbance on 2/9/2008 3:45:36 PM , Rating: 3
What is really disappointing about stories like this are the comment that follow. It is not too bold to say that scientific illiteracy is (one of) the first world's greatest threat.
This is simply one piece of information among many, and none of us here are qualified to make sweeping statements about the truth/fallacy of entire fields of scientific study. Even individuals within the field aren't qualified to do that.

I like John McCain's approach: whether or not global warming is real, the tenets of following a global warming sensitive lifestyle and society - i.e., clean up and reduce pollution, conserving wilderness, planting trees, etc - is still a good thing for us to start really taking seriously and putting effort into, if only to leave our descendants a healthy, clean, and rich planet. Why would anyone reasonably want to do less than that?




RE: Scientific Literacy
By AlexWade on 2/9/2008 4:28:30 PM , Rating: 5
The main problem is that hardline global warming eco-nazis aren't taking the sensible approach. They want to go green at any and all costs. The less radical ones just want to destroy our economy (i.e. the UN IPCC); the more radical ones want to kill millions of humans. The less hardline environmentalists want more money or more votes or more ratings. All of them are a money pit. It would be far better to feed the homeless.

The sensible thing to do promote conservation for our health and for our economy, not because of this sham called climate change. But most environmentalists aren't sensible. In fact, most, but not all, religions aren't sensible at all. Environmentalism is indeed a religion where God is nature.


RE: Scientific Literacy
By Ringold on 2/9/2008 5:34:54 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
The sensible thing to do promote conservation for our health and for our economy, not because of this sham called climate change.


There are all sorts of causes they could be championing; instead of giving to GreenPeace, they could be donating to kiva.org. Instead of protesting global warming, they could protesting for the Doha round of international trade talks. Instead of having hot dreams about CO2 emission taxes, they could be writing their congressmen about energy independence and writing their local city, county and state elected officials about stronger urban growth planning.

Unfortunately, microfinance seems to be all the buzz only within the business community (I've never heard anyone from a different background mention it), liberal whackos show up to every G8 meeting with massive protests**, and energy independence and city planning takes a back-seat to campaigning for increased reliance on the welfare state.

**: And then after they leave the protest, they go buy "Fair Trade" tea thinking it helps some third-world farmer, when all it really does is benefit one farmer while making all his neighbors that much more poor. Ignorance is bliss, though.


RE: Scientific Literacy
By Tsuwamono on 2/9/2008 6:28:57 PM , Rating: 3
sorry just wanted to comment on the last paragraph about fair trade tea. I am the kind of person where i pretty much sit and shut up until i respond to something i know what im talking about. Maybe you should do the same. Fair Trade tea/coffee is done through conglomerates of farmers. So his neighbor is 99% of the time part of the same group as him which means he is 99% of the time making the same amount of money providing he has the same amount of land.

Before you start calling people ignorant maybe you should do alittle research on fair trade items.

For example coffee. I believe farmers make about 1$ a kib which is a large bag probably about 30-40 pounds i would say. then Nestle turns around and sells you that coffee in a 500gram container for 7$. Now the reason for this is because of all the middle men between the farmer and the local grocery store. What fair trade does is it only puts one middle man who takes care of all the steps in between and manages to actually make the fair trade coffee CHEAPER for the end consumer and about 500% more profitable for the farmer.

www.wikipedia.com ftw. use it before you start calling people ignorant when in fact you are ignorant.

NOTE: i did not comment on the rest of your post as i am not qualified to form a proper opinion on the subject. Take a hint.


RE: Scientific Literacy
By masher2 (blog) on 2/9/2008 7:03:15 PM , Rating: 3
> "[it] manages to actually make the fair trade coffee CHEAPER for the end consumer..."

If "fair trade" products are cheaper and of better quality, why would you even need to separately label them as such? Consumers generally go for the best deal.

The only fair trade agricultural products I've ever seen were more than twice as expensive as competing brands.


RE: Scientific Literacy
By Tsuwamono on 2/9/2008 11:13:46 PM , Rating: 2
well in montreal 90% of the time its cheaper. i have found anyway.


RE: Scientific Literacy
By theflux on 2/10/2008 1:30:28 PM , Rating: 2
You berated him for talking about something he shouldn't have, and then you try to back your own claims up with anecdotal evidence.


RE: Scientific Literacy
By spluurfg on 2/18/2008 3:39:35 PM , Rating: 2
That's interesting. I would have figured large companies with lower costs for raw materials with well developed distribution networks could probably find a way to sell me coffee cheaper. Must be good to be the middleman, huh?

Are you sure you aren't comparing instant coffee to ground coffee meant for making coffee? That might explain the premium -- though I don't wish to insult your intelligence, if there really is a price difference I believe you.


By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 2/9/2008 7:04:38 PM , Rating: 2
My sister-in-law is very heavily into fair trade co-op llama wool from Ecuador. It's exactly what it sounds like. From what I hear though, its a God-send to the people in the co-op though.


RE: Scientific Literacy
By Ringold on 2/9/2008 10:25:23 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
use it before you start calling people ignorant when in fact you are ignorant.


Wikipedia is, of course, the tome of all human knowledge, right? Anyway, if you bothered to read the wiki entry, it does in fact include a "criticism" section. You should read it.

The primary complaint is exactly what I stated; price distortion that benefits, as you said and those that posted after you, those blessed enough to be in the system. However, the price support for them drives up production, lowering the market price for everyone else. A related effect, not noted in the wiki, is that "FairTrade" products are differentiated at the consumer level, thus not just lowering the market price but reducing demand for non-FairTrade coffee. Supply and demand, price floors.. thats Econ 101 stuff, not calculus.

The best counter-argument the wiki offers is related to that; it should exist because people want "socially responsible" products. If the people want it, the market provides it. However, as Milton Friedman would point out, a free market is the closest to fair as one can get.

When liberal, libertarian, and conservative think tanks all show up in the criticisms, along with The Economist, that should tip you off. Bipartisan realization that you don't get something for nothing beyond what the free market could offer itself.

The Economist article it links to also beats up on the organic and domestic-farmer crowds, both of which don't stand up at all to even simple economic analysis. It also notes, as Masher did, that there is a price premium on the products and that only 10% of that premium goes to the farmers, which is radically different then what you said.

The wiki notes a Michigan study that states the following:
"However, fair trade is not a panacea, and it does not bring the majority of participants out of poverty. (...) Demand for fair trade products must increase dramatically in order to augment the economic benefits for such small farmer families and allow the system to include many more producers of coffee and other commodities around the world." It also notes the benefits. I also like how it points out their costs are higher because they get dual certification with the "organic" sham.

If you want to take a wide view of it, it's not all bad. Obviously, when you give money away to people, it'll help those directly involved. The problems, however, can't be ignored nor can they be disproven. With the astounding agflation going on in the world (thanks to the ethanol sham) one also has to ponder its relevance compared to various forms of FDI when its the urban poor in the developing world now suffering.


RE: Scientific Literacy
By boobot on 2/10/2008 1:41:16 PM , Rating: 2
Did someone just reference a wikipedia for the "all knowing" truth? :(


RE: Scientific Literacy
By encryptkeeper on 2/11/2008 4:51:36 PM , Rating: 1
www.wikipedia.com ftw. use it before you start calling people ignorant when in fact you are ignorant.

Actually, it's .ORG.

Moron.

And anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows you have to take any info on Wikipedia with a grain of salt.


RE: Scientific Literacy
By TaddPeake on 2/13/2008 3:26:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
... all the middle men between the farmer and the local grocery store. What fair trade does is it only puts one middle man who takes care of all the steps in between ...


That's some middleman! More like a superman.

For most of the victuals on our shelves, between the grower and the checkout, large numbers of people are employed to scout, purchase raw materials, store, ship, transport, process, test, taste, package, market, deliver, stock, finance, organize, manage, and assume risk for damaged-stolen-lost-unsold product.

Then there are the middlemen who design, finance, build, run and staff stores, markets, bodegas, gourmet boutiques and quick shops, maintain stock, advertise availability, heat-cool, light, protect, maintain, pay wages, train, insure and provide retirement-health-unemployment benefits for all that activity. I'm sure I've left a few middlemen out.

It's time to include remedial business courses in high schools and colleges along with general math, science, language and history. That could help to dispel the Myth of The Expendable Middleman, Without Whom Nearly Everything Would Be Fair and Free.


RE: Scientific Literacy
By vhx on 2/9/2008 6:39:59 PM , Rating: 5
CO2 emission tax would just make the economy worse. I doubt they would spend any of it to really reduce pollution, most likely put it towards other things. Not only that, but expect gas to raise whatever % increase they put on CO2. All that will do is line pockets of the government, basically everyone but the consumer. I swear I think people are stupid to believe CO2 emission tax will really benefit anyone or anything. Just a scam to prey off the scare of Global Warming IMO.
(This wasn't directed at anyone here, just speaking my mind)


RE: Scientific Literacy
By rsmech on 2/9/2008 8:58:03 PM , Rating: 4
You contradict yourself in the next paragraph. John McCain has plenty of views & how to spend my money. So I'm not spouting scientific illiteracy, I'm protecting my wallet with my views.


RE: Scientific Literacy
By DOSGuy on 2/9/2008 9:07:47 PM , Rating: 5
I absolutely agree, on points.

Regarding the global warming point, mathematician Blaise Pascal created a religious argument called Pascal's Wager. It states that believing in God costs you nothing if there isn't a God, but not believing costs you everything if there is a God. I've tended to think the same way about man-made climate change. Reducing our "environmental footprint", for the mostpart, costs us nothing if it turns out that we're not causing global warming, but saves the world if it turns out that we are. Even if we're not causing global climate change, it makes sense to burn less fossil fuels so that the supply will last longer. Basically, we might as well assume that we're responsible, just in case we are. If we lose the wager, all of the naysayers can have a cookie, and the world gets to have oil for a few extra years.


RE: Scientific Literacy
By masher2 (blog) on 2/9/2008 9:24:28 PM , Rating: 3
> "Reducing our "environmental footprint", for the mostpart, costs us nothing "

A recent EPA analysis of the recent Lieberman-Warner "Cap-and-Trade" bill concluded the cost of enacting it would be $1.3 trillion dollars...and that's just for the US alone. Worse, even the bill's proponents agree such measures are "just a start", with much more action being required.


RE: Scientific Literacy
By DOSGuy on 2/10/2008 9:26:13 AM , Rating: 5
You're talking about a specific bill. I'm talking about being more conscientious about our use of resources. It cost me nothing to switch to compact fluorescent light bulbs. In fact, it saved me money! My low-E windows and higher efficiency furnace have paid for themselves in lower natural gas bills. Driving less has saved me more money than I've bothered to keep track of.

Whenever someone says that it costs nothing to reduce their environmental footprint, people think of sweeping regulations like the Kyoto Protocol. Even then, many European nations discovered that complying with it required them to become more efficient, which saved them a lot of money. But even then, I never mentioned Kyoto. I'm talking about practical, common sense things that we can all do that cost us almost nothing. I choose to live as though I'm having an affect on the environment, just in case I am. If it turns out that I wasn't, at least I saved some money by assuming that I was.


RE: Scientific Literacy
By masher2 (blog) on 2/10/2008 10:32:52 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Even then, many European nations discovered that complying with it required them to become more efficient, which saved them a lot of money
I'm sorry, but this is flatly untrue. In fact, nearly every European nation which signed Kyoto hasn't complied with it, in part because of the vast expense required. Germany exempted its entire coal industry from Kyoto. Britain, Ireland, France, Denmark, Austria, Spain-- all are not meeting the commitments.

Only tiny Finland seems poised to meet Kyoto...and that's due to it building the first nuclear reactor in Europe in over a decade, an act that earned them the ire of environmentalists worldwide.


RE: Scientific Literacy
By DOSGuy on 2/10/2008 8:39:51 PM , Rating: 3
You're right that most nations aren't meeting their commitments, but I have no reason to doubt the claims that appeared in a recent Ottawa Citizen article about the viability of Canada achieving Kyoto targets (it can't) that cited studies that many European businesses were finding substantial cost savings as a result of becoming more efficient.

I don't understand why you're trying to refute the possibility of companies and individuals saving money by going green by broadening the scope to show how, taken as a whole, industries or nations have had to spend a lot of money to meet unrealistic levels of conservation. I've already told you that I've personally saved money by making conservative, sensible decisions to go green, so are you saying that I couldn't be because, on average, the entire 6.5 billion people in the world aren't? Don't put words in my mouth and imply that I'm talking about expensive, aggressive changes. I didn't say that owners of every business in Europe are dipping their balls in gold with the money they saved by becoming more efficient, but I did say that businesses found ways to reduce their consumption of resources and save money at the same time when they were encouraged or compelled to reduce their environmental impact. Necessity is the mother of invention, after all. We all have the power to make small changes that reduce how much electricity and fossil fuels we consume, and how much garbage we produce, that either cost us nothing or save us money. If we can, we should, shouldn't we? Is there any reason not to choose a green alternative if it costs the same amount or saves you money?


RE: Scientific Literacy
By Keeir on 2/10/2008 9:16:30 PM , Rating: 2
He's not.

Reread his post. He makes no claims about individuals saving money directly from their power bills or lowering their individual power consumption.

You specifically used the phrase "European Nations". Not "European Businesses".


RE: Scientific Literacy
By grenableu on 2/11/2008 1:45:35 PM , Rating: 4
Businesses like saving money. If we could meet Kyoto by saving money, we wouldn't need to sign the treaty, it'd happen on its own.

Nations aren't meeting the goals because its ungodly expensive.


RE: Scientific Literacy
By jbartabas on 2/11/2008 2:58:17 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I'm sorry, but this is flatly untrue. In fact, nearly every European nation which signed Kyoto hasn't complied with it, in part because of the vast expense required.


As far as I know, the period for compliance with Kyoto is 2008-2012. So what do you mean by hasn't complied with it??

quote:
Britain, Ireland, France, Denmark, Austria, Spain-- all are not meeting the commitments.

Only tiny Finland seems poised to meet Kyoto...and that's due to it building the first nuclear reactor in Europe in over a decade, an act that earned them the ire of environmentalists worldwide.


I haven't seen recent numbers, but last ones I've seen were showing that the UK (-14% vs -12.5% objective) and France (-0.8% vs 0%) were 'on the way of compliance' (as the period covered by the treaty just started), Finland was not.

Although I remember at that time that it was doubted that such performances could be maintained in the future without deeper structural reforms. Would you know of any more recent number, I'd be curious to see them?


RE: Scientific Literacy
By masher2 (blog) on 2/12/2008 10:13:59 PM , Rating: 2
Kyoto actually went into force in 2005; the Annex I penalty phase is what spans 2008-2012. As for the UK, it appears they're actually emitting nearly twice as much methane as they claim, which throws them seriously out of whack on meeting commitments:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19025574.000...


RE: Scientific Literacy
By jbartabas on 2/13/2008 2:25:46 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Kyoto actually went into force in 2005; the Annex I penalty phase is what spans 2008-2012.


The treaty went into force in 2005 but the commitment is that emission during the 2008-2012 period have to be decreased by X% with respect to 1990 levels.

quote:
As for the UK, it appears they're actually emitting nearly twice as much methane as they claim, which throws them seriously out of whack on meeting commitments:


Actually, the news was that UK and France may be emitting XX% more than they declare, not that they actually are . Interestingly, you realize how uncertain science can be when it does not serve your point, but seem to accept without doubt or uncertainty results that fit your opinion.

As far as the commitments are concerned, they are relative to 1990 levels and it is not mentioned how biased these levels were. It seems to me that one can't conclude anything about being 'out of whack' of commitments. So the real question is to know if the official method is just 'biased' or if the error is varying therefore inducing error in the relative levels too. As far as I can tell, the article does not address the point.


RE: Scientific Literacy
By Hawkido on 2/15/2008 3:14:03 PM , Rating: 2
Drive less??

You make it sound like I get home Friday night and bellow "ROAD TRIP!!!" Bump chests with my wife and grab a 30 pack and hit the road... Honestly all we do is drive to work and the store.

I am dubious about the CFL bulbs I have been buying them for quite some time and they burn out like mad. and they cost 10x as much. I also have full flourescient bulbs in a few rooms in our house... They almost never burn out (haven't replaced them in years).

As to the better windows and added insulation or whatnot, as we get the cash we spend it on updating our house. But have you looked at the price of one good "low-e" window? How do you expect the lower middle class to afford those? how many hundred dollars for one? Then you have to pay to get them installed correctly (if you are not Jack Handy) else they will be less effecient than the older windows and look worse to boot!

If you want to reduce fuel consumption then ban kids under the age of 18 from driving, unless it is to or from school or work if they have a job. That will slash about 10 or 15 percent off the Fuel consumption in the US alone. Plus it will prevent a great deal of accidents.

As to enviromentalist ever increasing efficiency... try cutting the catalytic converter off your car and see how many more miles per gallon you get on your SUV... I bet you can get 8 more MPG out of it. Try that on an efficient little car like a Camry or a Sentra, and you will get close to 45 or 50 MPG. Plus the cost of your car will drop $400 to $600 dollars.

Never have restrictions ever increased anything... By the very definition they are to reduce one thing and in actuality they reduce everything.


RE: Scientific Literacy
By Donkeyshins on 2/11/2008 2:25:47 PM , Rating: 2
Is that a lump sum or amortized over many years? If we got out of Iraq, we'd save about $80B per year - that'd be paid off in a little over 16 years. :-)


RE: Scientific Literacy
By retrospooty on 2/10/2008 12:03:04 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed...

Lets not panic over it being too warm or too cold. Primitive man survived both without any technology or scientific information.

We need to reduce emissions, reduce our dependance on foreign oil, and be more eco responsible for Ecomoical, political, and environmental reasons, in that order.


RE: Scientific Literacy
By zinfamous on 2/11/2008 12:02:04 PM , Rating: 2
I wish I could vote you to 11 stars, Disturbance. B/c that comment is spot on. Scientific illiteracy propounded by laymen from all walks of life (politicians the chief culprits) is indeed a dangerous thing.


RE: Scientific Literacy
By Symmetriad on 2/11/2008 7:59:19 PM , Rating: 1
I fully agree. I hate the fact that most of the responses here at DT - including those from staff members - seem to think of it as an all-or-nothing game, whereas we could begin reducing negative effects on the environment without having to go batshit crazy about it. I also hate the fact that each side demonizes the other without attempting to reach any sort of middle ground whatsoever, which destroys any chance of intelligent discourse and reasonable discussion.

Not everything is as black-and-white as you seem to think it is, people! And the sooner you realize that, the quicker we can get things done.


RE: Scientific Literacy
By pvsheridan on 2/27/2008 4:14:54 PM , Rating: 2
"a global warming sensitive lifestyle and society - i.e., clean up and reduce pollution, conserving wilderness, planting trees, etc"

Nice try hotshot; your attempt at misdirection is at-best adolescent in quality. The article is not about pollution, ok con artist? Your implied notion that CO2 is a pollutant is similar to the sublties of a big stupid smelly garbage truck; you fooled no one. Unless you're advocating elimination of oxygen breathing organisms such as birdbrains like you and McCain. Misdirection and lying, there's not much difference according to basic codes of ethics; but then, you have NO IDEA what I just said, see: http://www.theithacajournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/arti...


Funny
By guy007 on 2/9/2008 5:03:34 PM , Rating: 2
Before I even opened the blog I knew you wrote this Mr. Asher. Whether we deny global warming or not doesn't matter. If it is going to happen, no matter how much we spin it, it will still happen.

</sarcasm>I got an idea, maybe since were going towards an ice age we should further lift restrictions from various production plants so that they can pump out more CO2 and counteract this effect! Maybe now all those stupid environmentalists will learn that pumping C02 into the atmosphere is good.<sarcasm>




RE: Funny
By Ringold on 2/9/2008 5:51:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If it is going to happen, no matter how much we spin it, it will still happen.


You missed the point. He isn't trying to spin global warming as good or bad, he's trying to suggest it will not happen at all. Big difference.

And you got your sarcasm tags backwards. Hand over the geek card, sir. :P

quote:
we should further lift restrictions from various production plants so that they can pump out more CO2


There is one valid argument in favor of that, at least in terms of not placing restrictions on third world countries: If they do meet climate change in their present condition, the suffering could be horrendous. The higher their level of prosperity, the closer gradual climate change gets to being a mere annoyance. Rwanda, for example, has been growing quite well, and would fare much, much better than Nigeria, for example. Plenty of economic analysis has been done based on the IPCC's most alarmist data and concludes that the optimal approach doesn't include heavy CO2 restrictions at all. The impact to growth would cause more damage itself then global warming would.

Example: Give up $20T in global GDP by 2100 to reduce GW's impact from $10T to $6T; trading $20T of prosperity for $4T less damage. Not there is isn't a small range where spending, under alarmist assumptions, doesn't make sense; like $1T in lost growth for a $2T reduction in GW damage. Numbers entirely made up to illustrate the sort of curve we face.

Of course, that assumes the goal is long-run economic prosperity; if your goal is stopping climate change for the sake of stopping climate change, then of course the methods are different.


RE: Funny
By guy007 on 2/9/2008 7:50:39 PM , Rating: 2
what i meant when i said spin i meant spinning the data. all mike does is present anti global warming information. there is no balance in what he says. if gw is going to happen, it will happen no matter how much he spins the data. almost all major scientific groups have stated their support for global warming and he quotes the several outliers and pretends like its clear cut no gw will occur. i cant tell you whether it will occur for sure but id put more of my faith in the national academy of sciences (one of the most prestigious grps in the scientific community) which also supports gw than a random guy blogging. check out the consensus

"National and international science academies and professional societies have assessed the current scientific opinion on climate change, in particular recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the IPCC position that "An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."

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

check out all the organizations in detail there that support gw.

every time i look up the research that mike quotes there are a bunch of scientific refutes to the study and holes in the research.

secondly, your arguement about third world countries can be reversed by changing the amounts in your calculations. since we cannot accurately predict the costs associated with global warming nor the exact economic growth of the countries it is not a very practical calculation although it is a good tool to justify further pollution. this shouldnt be a political issue we should all take this seriously. now if exxon mobile or other corporations lose a couple billion and dont have highest profit records each year how much will i lose? yea the economy may hurt somewhat but not as much as well e hurting if we ignore the scientists and the data.


RE: Funny
By MadMaster on 2/9/08, Rating: 0
RE: Funny
By napalmjack on 2/9/2008 11:34:33 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
However, they don't know the first thing about science.


And you are a ...?


RE: Funny
By Ringold on 2/9/08, Rating: 0
RE: Funny
By guy007 on 2/10/2008 1:01:44 AM , Rating: 1
"Yes. I like it that way." So you like one sided presentation? If CNN only presents one side then so should everyone else? So basically the logic is if I do something wrong the answer to that is to do something wrong as well? Instead of writing a fair and balanced report (funny that fox uses the slogan) Asher should compound a mistake by being one sided as well? Does one sided news bring his blog credibility? It seems that it would do the opposite.

I agree the anti gw side is not greatly presented in mainstream news. The problem is that there is not much of another side. I have heard it mentioned on most news outlets but not a great deal of time is spent on it because the majority of scientists agree on gw.

I never said its not possible to be wrong. I actually said that I dont know for sure but am strongly leaning towards gw.

Economists can predict economic markets with some accuracy the problem is when you try to incorporate economic calculations into the global warming debate. You are not even sure gw will happen so how can you, with any accuracy, predict the damages and financial costs involved? If you are not sure it will happen how can you predict the extent of the damages caused by it? There is consent that there will be damage but the predictions concerning the extent of the damages are extremely variable so I doubt Adam Smith himself could accurately predict the costs involved.

Like I said quoting several outliers does not prove that gw will not occur and that we will, in fact, have freezing. just because an outlier was correct in one field does not mean, by any stretch, that outliers are always right or tend to be right.


RE: Funny
By Ringold on 2/10/2008 3:25:08 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
So you like one sided presentation? If CNN only presents one side then so should everyone else?


You're speaking of morality issues, I'm just attempting to fix a problem I face. CNN does it, all the mainstream media does it. Therefore, to get the other side of the story, I can either listen to Fox News or Masher here at Dailytech. I'd rather eat razors than watch Fox, so here I am. I want both sides, so I'm just seeking it out. If Masher wanted to show both sides then he could, but it's not necessary for me. Your mileage may vary.

quote:
You are not even sure gw will happen so how can you, with any accuracy, predict the damages and financial costs involved?

Economists can't predict what nature will do; in their models they simply plug in the data that the climate scientists use, and then go from there. That of course means economic studies are only as good as the science that is plugged in to them, but they make do with what they've got, typically plugging in IPCC data. If we're going to be crafting economic policy, like Europe, on projections then we should have some idea of the cost. As I posted elsewhere, it could end up that while global warming causes changes in the earth it may not be in the ultimate best interests of humanity to spend a ton of cash to avoid it. On the other hand, perhaps it would be; wouldn't know without the studies. But if the science is wrong, of course the predictions of cost will be too, plus the economic models own inherent uncertainty.


RE: Funny
By masher2 (blog) on 2/10/2008 10:36:25 AM , Rating: 5
> "So you like one sided presentation?"

The difference here is that my stories reach no one who hasn't already heard "the other side of the story". CNN, on the other hand, doesn't have that excuse. Their editorial policy is an intentional act designed to hide the true situation from their readers.


RE: Funny
By guy007 on 2/10/2008 1:42:26 PM , Rating: 4
My point is not that they don't have an excuse for one sided presentation or that you do. The pt is one sided presentation is never good. It always hints to the writers argument not having any real legs to stand on. Neither you, nor anyone else, has an excuse for one sided presentation. What you have is not an excuse but a shaky justification for being one sided. My point is that to have a credible paper you must present both sides and then scientifically try to refute the side you believe is false.

Now I personally don't believe that, with the data given, anyone can logically eliminate the possibility of gw. But hey, show me the logical arguments and solid data and my mind can be changed. You see, thats the beauty of science; it's not married to any thought. The theory that best fits reality is the one that is accepted (newtons theory of universal gravitation being replaced by relativity for example) and for the time being it seems to be that gw best fits the data.


RE: Funny
By onelittleindian on 2/10/2008 2:36:32 PM , Rating: 3
Get over yourself. This is an article about what some scientists think the sun will do. Its not intended to be a research paper proving or disproving GW, and its certainly a lot more balanced than anything I read in the mainstream media.


RE: Funny
By guy007 on 2/10/08, Rating: -1
RE: Funny
By teldar on 2/11/2008 11:15:17 AM , Rating: 2
You don't know what get over yourself means but you believe it is an insult?

Hmm.... Either supposition or lying, neither of which are terribly scientific.


RE: Funny
By guy007 on 2/10/2008 2:39:58 PM , Rating: 1
Also, these sweeping generalities
quote:
my stories reach no one who hasn't already heard "the other side of the story"
are a little ridiculous.

you know better than that. this is the internet, your stories can reach just about anyone, anywhere. did you go out and ask all your readers "hey do you know the other side of gw?". doubtful. so while you may assume (im not going to use the tired old saying ass blah blah) that all your readers know both sides adequately but when i read some of the comments a few posted a number of them are very ill informed.


RE: Funny
By onelittleindian on 2/10/2008 2:46:03 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
this is the internet, your stories can reach just about anyone, anywhere. did you go out and ask all your readers "hey do you know the other side of gw?
So you believe there are people on the internet who haven't heard of global warming?

Sorry, my BS-meter just went off the scale on that one.


RE: Funny
By guy007 on 2/10/08, Rating: 0
RE: Funny
By onelittleindian on 2/10/2008 4:38:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So everyone on the internet and in the world is fully informed about gw?
You think its possible to "fully inform" someone about GW in a single news story? Lol.

Read the article. It mentions -both- sides of the story ("Met Office says GW will pick up again shortly") Thats a lot less bias than anything I've ever read in the mainstream media.

I think what you're really mad about is Asher dares to tell the other side of the story, and lets the reader judge for himself.


RE: Funny
By SirLucius on 2/10/2008 2:56:49 PM , Rating: 2
Oh please. Unless you've been living under a rock for the past few years, it's impossible to *not* know how the media has been portraying global warming. Even my eight year old cousin is under the impressions that global warming is bad and the world is going to melt unless we start making drastic changes. 99% of the people I talk to about global warming know nothing more than what news major news outlets have been saying. The other 1% actually does their own research and can cite more than Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" or some news anchors blurb on the subject as a reference.

Even on this site, Masher generally portrays one side of the argument, and Jason Mick the other. I think it would be a little redundant for them to both pander to both sides. It's not that hard to find the similarities and differences between the two ideas and make your own decision. Plus the comments for blogs/articles about global warming/the environment have some of the best debates on Dailytech. Many times you can find more information for both sides in the comments than in the actual article.


RE: Funny
By guy007 on 2/10/08, Rating: 0
RE: Funny
By borismkv on 2/10/2008 5:19:03 PM , Rating: 2
So, you know everything about journalism, then...even the difference between an article and an editorial? This blog is what's called an editorial. Editorials are where journalists get to write about their opinion on a subject, giving "proof" that supports the side of the story they support. You're basically arguing that editorials like this one shouldn't exist...my bet is because it doesn't support your side of the argument, and rather than pointing out how Masher is wrong and giving solid proof to back your claims, you choose to attack his "bias."

The problem with mass media these days is that unbiased news articles are begining to disappear entirely. I can hardly read the newspaper anymore without seeing a biased editorial comment of some kind mixed into the facts of the news story. The sad fact is that news organizations are trying to compete with blogs, which are almost entirely editorial in scope (After all, editorials are usually much more interesting to read that news articles). By trying to compete with an entirely editorial source, you end up becoming almost entirely editorial. And journalists in the modern mass media are lazy on top of their editorial slant. I can't count the number of times I've seen Wikipedia quoted in a news article. And you know, I'd really like someone to give me some real serious information about the "studies" that are always quoted in news articles. Things like, oh say...what were the questions the researchers asked in their surveys? That's an important piece of information. It's always left out.

End result, you are wrong to state that Masher is doing something wrong by not presenting information supporting the theories surrounding global warming. Masher is writing an editorial piece, though it may not be written in a completely editorial style, explaining one side of the story. Someone else (actually a whole hell of a lot of people) are writing the other side. And we get the enjoyable task of either digging deeper to find the full truth, which is probably closer to "The world has warmed up in the the three decades that we have closely and accurately monitored its temperature. It has fluctuated wildly, but there is an upward trend. From what we can tell, the cause could be due to polution." This is all that science can state. Period. Science, in its truest form, does not prove anything. Hypothesese are either supported or not supported. Not proven. It takes constant experimentation to come up with a solid answer, and that experimentation is not being done. The scientific community, with very little exception, is being lazy with global warming. Many experiments are done with an eye to proving global warming, not coming up with a definite answer. Science has entered the realm of political tampering in this case, and I'm sorry if I don't feel like trusting the scientists involved in the study of global climate change. But that's just my journalistic inability to trust anyone showing through. Maybe the world needs more journalists that don't trust people or follow along like cattle.


RE: Funny
By guy007 on 2/10/2008 5:57:10 PM , Rating: 2
Actually I have spoken about why I have more faith in gw than other theories in previous blog posts. Again let me be clear in saying I am not sure Asher is wrong, I do lean towards gw though. I understand the diff btwn editorials and articles. When I said that it is better to present unbiased info and let the reader decide, this is generally true. Now even editorials, as you must certainly know, are strongest when they address both sides of the argument.

quote:
my bet is because it doesn't support your side of the argument, and rather than pointing out how Masher is wrong and giving solid proof to back your claims, you choose to attack his "bias."


yes that is my strategy. I actually went and looked up information on gw and I couldn't find anything. It was all just made up alarmist fluff and so not having anything left to counter Asher with I had to attack his "bias" and let me put that bias in quotes because it is not actually bias it is balanced fact presentation (by your own statement you said editorials are inherently biased so why put it in quotes?)

quote:
the modern mass media are lazy on top of their editorial slant


quote:
scientific community, with very little exception, is being lazy


yes everyone is being lazy. or all scientists that do not agree with you are being lazy and have not done enough scientific work to come to your conclusion or for journalists enough journalistic research to match your thoughts.

quote:
I'd really like someone to give me some real serious information about the "studies" that are always quoted in news articles.


quote:
I don't feel like trusting the scientists involved in the study of global climate change


the problem is there are a whole bunch of ppl pretending like all these politicians and scientists have something to gain by supporting gw. Logically it seems that just the opposite should be the case. We know that industry and the economy will be hurt if we believe gw because we will put measures in place to decrease C02 production. this will add costs to industry and slow economic growth. now we all know industry has strong lobby in washington and washington provides grants to the scientific community for various research projects. If the research is not really showing anything and the various industries are all pressuring washington to stop funding this research you would think gw funding would drop. the reason it has not is because it seems to be the best fitting hypothesis for the data.


RE: Funny
By Keeir on 2/10/2008 8:45:37 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
yes everyone is being lazy.


I don't mean to be rude, but could you please increase your usage of standard English grammar conventions. This is the Internet and a comment section so I don't expect perfect grammar, spelling, diction, etc etc. However, many of your valid points are garbled and difficult to follow as you have presented them. Again, I am not wanting to suppress or ignore your ideas. I want to be able to better understand them.

Overall, you seem to be complaining that in an article about Solar Cycle and climate change that the article does not present enough information about Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change (AGW- Anthropogenic Global Warming). I would suggest that the principle or primary opposing view would be that Solar Cycle is not reaching a minimum. The secondary opposing view would be that Solar Cycle changes do not effect climate. The Third opposing view would be that Solar Cycle has a greater affect on climate change than Greenhouse emissions. Therefore, you seem to be arguing that in a "Blog"/"Editorial" type post, an author should cover at least the first, second, and third levels of opposing viewpoints. This requirement would become very unwieldy if deployed wide-scale requiring far too much research and redundant presentation of information. Given that the primary and secondary opposing viewpoints are either unavailable at this time (IE scientific study reaction on Solar Cycle) or unquantifiable (See NASA GISS reaction)... Masher2/Michael Asher has managed to cover 2 opposing viewpoints already. A reasonable goal in the presentation of any article or scientific study.

Note: I've just noticed this, but could Dailytech stop deleting double spaces from posts somehow? I find that the lack of double spaces at the end of sentences to make reading significant blocks of prose very difficult.


RE: Funny
By just4U on 2/11/2008 6:30:56 AM , Rating: 2
I don't see what's wrong with posting information like this .. we all seem to want to know what other research is being done instead of being force fed one line of thought.


Don't Worry
By edh on 2/9/2008 5:05:35 PM , Rating: 1
An eminent scientist who supports the Global warming theory has announced that all other scientists who disagree with him should be jailed. As soon as he gets the scientists in the slammer he will probably want all others who disagree with his beliefs about global warming thrown in as well. Most prisons have excellent central heating and air conditioning, so we are covered whatever happens.




RE: Don't Worry
By edh on 2/9/2008 5:22:52 PM , Rating: 2
I just checked,,he said all POlITICIANS not scientists,,sorry


RE: Don't Worry
By Ringold on 2/9/2008 5:40:43 PM , Rating: 3
Modern religion at work. How does this differ from the Spanish Inquisition, exactly?

Then: Burn him! His sins pollute us all!

Now: Burn him! His sins pollute us all!

Difference: Former refers to souls, latter refers to air. The former refers to one who offends Yahweh, the latter refers to one who offends Gaia.

Me: Burn them all!


RE: Don't Worry
By Donkeyshins on 2/11/2008 2:40:30 PM , Rating: 2
Well, because as opposed to global warning, nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition. Therefore, it is different.


RE: Don't Worry
By rcc on 2/11/2008 6:32:26 PM , Rating: 2
Or, one is a historical fact; and the other is a theory?


RE: Don't Worry
By T4RTER S4UCE on 2/16/2008 6:41:28 PM , Rating: 2
Awesome Monty Python reference.


RE: Don't Worry
By arazok on 2/10/2008 11:06:04 AM , Rating: 3
That eminent scientist was Canada's David Suzuki. He's a bit of a celebrity in Canada.

David Suzuki often likes to point out how the Indians used to live in harmony with Nature, and encourages people to try to be more like them.

What he never mentions, is that in order to be in Harmony with nature, they all lived in tents and ate Buffalo balls all day.


RE: Don't Worry
By borismkv on 2/11/2008 12:52:24 AM , Rating: 2
Let's also not forget that whole constant tribal warfare thing. Oh and the complete non-existence of scientific or social progress for a good thousand years.

I think this guy's been smoking too many peace pipes.


RE: Don't Worry
By Yellodog on 2/28/2008 2:25:39 PM , Rating: 2
As my ole Grandma use to say "A Wet Bird Never flies at Night."


RE: Don't Worry
By just4U on 2/11/2008 6:42:02 AM , Rating: 4
It should also be noted that David Suzuki left science behind loooong ago. He's a environmentalist now. He carefully selects his data and disregards the rest, even when he's handed much of it on a silver platter.

Don't believe that? Talk to people in areas he's done studies. I used to like his shows... I thought they were objective. Now I know the truth. :(


Al Gore
By RaulF on 2/9/2008 7:44:47 PM , Rating: 2
So what is it going to do now.

OH NOES GLOBAL COOLING.




RE: Al Gore
By theflux on 2/10/2008 1:34:51 PM , Rating: 5
Make "An Inconvenient Truth 2: Forget Everything I Said The First Time, But Continue To Love Me"


RE: Al Gore
By arazok on 2/10/2008 4:35:32 PM , Rating: 5
I'd suggest a better title:

"It's Still Your Fault: Don't ask questions. I need to raise your taxes or you'll die."


RE: Al Gore
By teldar on 2/11/2008 11:31:32 AM , Rating: 5
I think he should call it "I still got robbed of the Presidency whether or not there's global warming."


Finally!
By MrTeal on 2/9/08, Rating: 0
RE: Finally!
By Duwelon on 2/9/08, Rating: 0
RE: Finally!
By StevoLincolnite on 2/9/2008 3:31:47 PM , Rating: 2
Ice Age? Lets turn on the Global Warming heaters!

/end sarcasm.
(Is that better, sir?)


RE: Finally!
By masteryoda34 on 2/9/08, Rating: 0
RE: Finally!
By MrBungle on 2/9/08, Rating: 0
RE: Finally!
By porkpie on 2/9/2008 3:33:54 PM , Rating: 2
An Ice Age is a pretty good counter to global warming.


RE: Finally!
By Bremen7000 on 2/9/2008 5:02:14 PM , Rating: 1
Except one is coming from an external source, genius.


RE: Finally!
By napalmjack on 2/9/2008 11:39:07 PM , Rating: 1
So, we will see which one is stronger. Kinda like taking DayQuil and NyQuil together.


RE: Finally!
By porkpie on 2/9/2008 11:41:45 PM , Rating: 2
My vote is on the sun. Especially since water vapor is 100X as strong a greenhouse gas as CO2, and there's a lot more of that in the atmosphere.


RE: Finally!
By geddarkstorm on 2/10/2008 3:08:06 PM , Rating: 2
There's a lot of correlation between the solar output and the temperature of the earth when you add in the amplification factor (cloud cover) mentioned in this article. Check this out too http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/ar... which ties in nicely with the article here, though having been posted a year and a half ago. Although note that that web site has its own point of view on things, which they readily admit. So as with everything in science, and especially this debate, take it with a grain a salt, evaluate the sources, and analyze.


RE: Finally!
By Donkeyshins on 2/11/2008 2:37:19 PM , Rating: 2
Or better yet, Nyquil & vodka...mmm, mmm, mmm.


RE: Finally!
By MadMaster on 2/9/2008 8:21:33 PM , Rating: 2
Haha this has nothing to do with global warming. Or hey, how about reality? Nope, it's from someone's imagination! What creativity! :D


I don't even know what my subject is...rant?
By uhgotnegum on 2/9/2008 3:08:18 PM , Rating: 5
Preemptive strike on the global warming/cooling/[insert adjective here] debate!

Socrates said, "One thing only I know, and that is that I know nothing." I'm down to what Socrates knows and the illusion that I know others don't know this...

Left and Right "party" science aside, I can't be the only one that finds it ridiculous that we seemingly have to narrow down variations in climate (warming, cooling, whatever) to ONE reason. Crazier still is that scientists seem to be able to "prove" that it is one thing and not another. And, craziest of all is that we have the arrogance to presume we're smart enough to figure it all out.

Last time I checked, the weather man missed the amount of snow Indianapolis would get by about 8 inches, and "all" he had to do was track where wind would take clouds and whether clouds would drop snow. See how easy it is to simplify the weather, which is an enormously complex microcosm of the Earth's climate?

So, while I'm not trying to make the point that we shouldn't do any research and theorize on global ____ at all, because we no nothing, I just get really frustrated when I feel people think the answer is black or white, and scream so loudly they don't hear anything else. I get that impression every time a global ____ debate starts up, and I got it from the editorial links claiming "[CO2] cannot be bad for the climate." Of course CO2 could be bad...is it? Don't know, but at least I feel good because I can admit that.

my weather prediction: 50% chance of ranking adjustment, and I'm feeling a 60% chance of responses, and I'm undecided if I come of as a tree-hugger, oil-dependent-yuppie, Kum Ba Yah-pacifist, Switzerland, or whatever other impression I seem to give off.




By Rocksaurus on 2/9/2008 3:49:06 PM , Rating: 2
What you just said sums up my views perfectly. The Socrates bit, the weatherman bit. I've said ALL of that before. Perhaps we are identical twins, separated at birth...


By just4U on 2/11/2008 6:47:18 AM , Rating: 2
Well said.


By onwisconsin on 2/16/2008 11:07:55 AM , Rating: 2
That deserves a +6 :D


Boat or Fur Coat
By bisoy on 2/9/2008 2:31:40 PM , Rating: 2
So what will it be? Should I stock up on coats or should I buy a boat?




RE: Boat or Fur Coat
By Shawn5961 on 2/9/2008 2:34:54 PM , Rating: 6
Boat or fur coat? I vote, fur boat! (Excessive rhyming not intended)


Global colding?!?
By nvalhalla on 2/9/2008 3:16:19 PM , Rating: 3
Quick, start burning fossil fuels!




RE: Global colding?!?
By murphyslabrat on 2/9/2008 10:07:36 PM , Rating: 2
Get this guy some exposure, he has a good point!


RE: Global colding?!?
By arazok on 2/10/2008 4:26:48 PM , Rating: 3
No he dosen't. CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas.


Global warming
By Maethor on 2/10/2008 5:58:25 AM , Rating: 2
I am not denying global warming and I am not saying that it is not a threat but I do believe that both sides are mainly ignorant and believe the medias lies about global warming. I do not deny that it is caused by CO2 but when you look at the amount of CO2 we have dumped in the atmosphere it pales in comparison to the amount you would need to have a major climate change.

You have to remember in the Age of the dinosaurs the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was about 5 TIMES what there is in the atmosphere now and it was a time that plant life flourished. Also if there was a drastic rise in CO2 yes temperatures would rise, but then plant growth would increase by many times. The main thing is that global warming is likely to be a slow process and human will evolve to cope with the changes, such as a more efficient lungs, or they will die out like the dinosaurs.