Print 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
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 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. 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 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.

RE: Scientific Literacy
By KristopherKubicki 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
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 ftw. use it before you start calling people ignorant when in fact you are ignorant.

Actually, it's .ORG.


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
... 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 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 on 2/10/2008 10:32:52 AM , Rating: 5
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
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??

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 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:

RE: Scientific Literacy
By jbartabas on 2/13/2008 2:25:46 PM , Rating: 1
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.

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

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:

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
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

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."

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
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
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.

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 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
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
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
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 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.

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?)

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

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.

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

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
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.


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."

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 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 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.

RE: Global warming
By encryptkeeper on 2/11/2008 5:15:45 PM , Rating: 2
It's not just humans that are in danger. For example, warming oceans not only hurts oceanic creatures, but warmer waters also can create more powerful storms as a result.

Since the late 1800's, mankind has altered the planet more severely than in all the years humans have existed. It's probably safe to say what we have been doing has been affecting the planet and causing the climate changes. At the same time, there is some evidence to the contrary, but just because you don't want to believe man could be responsible for something like this, or if you just want an easy answer for a problem, don't jump to the idea that man has had nothing to do with it (for all you global warming haters). Check out this article if you don't believe me...

RE: Global warming
By CarsonM on 2/17/2008 11:40:10 PM , Rating: 3
There are three main areas that split the country on the global warming issue; none of them being scientific in nature.

First there is the Kyoto treaty issue: Bush refuses to sign a treaty requiring companies to comply with carbon reduction standards because other industrialized nations, namely China and India, won’t join the treaty. This is equivalent to the New York Yankees playing the Boston Red Sox and Steinbrenner telling his team to play without gloves. There’s nothing fair about it. Yet global warming advocates bash U.S. policy for not taking the lead in such an important issue. Why wouldn’t China, India, Mexico, and other countries be chastised for their carbon emission standards?

Second is the Carbon-Credit scam. I fly around the country in a private jet, but that’s ok because I bought carbon credits from someone who wasn’t going to fly around the country in a private jet. Or company X purchases credits from company Y that doesn’t have carbon emissions; now company X can expand and produce more carbon emissions. It doesn’t sound as though we’re trying to reduce here. To make matters worse, the countries that bought into the idea of carbon credits set their carbon caps too high for companies causing less demand for the credits. Now the market is in danger of failing all together.

And finally the third issue that split the country on the issue of global warming was the lack of leadership by example. Spokesman Al Gore traveling around the world speaking to the seriousness of global warming all the while flying on private jets and riding in limousines probably didn’t help matters. But he wasn’t alone; celebrities were also complicit with Bono describing himself as a ‘Gulfstream-flying Rock star’.

So setting aside the scientific numbers, which most laymen such as me wouldn’t want to delve into; the public relations aspect for global warming activism has been a failure.

you sure that what they really predict?
By random git on 2/10/2008 5:57:37 PM , Rating: 2
mike, why aren't you criticizing their (sic) claims of a future ice age as furiously as you shoot down fear mongering about global warming? I thought you were an honest skeptic but looks like I've been wrong all along :(

By masher2 on 2/10/2008 7:55:53 PM , Rating: 5
That's a very good question. However, I need to answer it in several parts to do so properly.

First of all, I don't believe most scientists -- even the ones who believe in AGW -- are doing much fear-mongering. There are exceptions, but most simply are identifying potential scenarios they admit may not be accurate, and calling for more study and a heightened awareness. The real fear-mongering is occurring among politicians and the media.

Secondly, there's one large difference between the two scenarios. We know for a fact that ice ages occur, and we know that, historically, we're overdue for one. Will one occur in our lifetimes? No one knows with certainly...but we do know for sure that many more ice ages will come to pass.

Third and most importantly, cold is more damaging than heat. The average temperature of the planet is roughly 54 degrees. Humans -- and the plants and animals most important to us economically -- prefer a temperature closer to 70 degrees. In short, we can adapt to a global temperature rise of 4 degrees much easier than we can a decline of the same magnitude.

In any case, if the scientists quoted above were calling multi trillion-dollar packages of government action, I'd call it fear-mongering as well. But they're not asking for anything but a little more funding to more properly study the sun. I think that's a sane, balanced approach to the data we have at hand now.

Contradicts other theories
By kmmatney on 2/9/2008 3:57:38 PM , Rating: 2
I just read an article that attributed the last little ice age to heavy volcanic activity in the tropics (backed up by some evidence in soil studies). This article says the last Ice Age was due to solar activity. I wonder which theory is right?

RE: Contradicts other theories
By borismkv on 2/11/2008 1:02:52 AM , Rating: 2
Probably both. There are so many factors at play in global climate that it is absolutely idiotic to assume that only one thing will cause a climate change.

RE: Contradicts other theories
By teldar on 2/11/2008 11:30:01 AM , Rating: 2
I believe the volcanic activity which was cited was referring to sulfur emissions as one of the causative factors in the Little Iceage. There's a good program on the History Channel about it.
This sulfur reflects the incoming sunlight and causes a decrease in temperature. There have been proposed solutions for global warming which would do the same thing as a huge volcanic eruption such as what Krakatoa did.

The articles regarding volcanic activity were NOT about CO2, they were about reflecting incoming energy from the. The above referenced History Channel show even talked about the RED colored snow which fell in the northern hemisphere. This coloring was due to the sulfuric acid in the clouds.

It just so happens that, at the same time, the sun was undergoing a Maunder Minimum. Solar activity has been tracked since the 1400's by such as Galilleo and Copernicus, and the Little IceAge WAS a Maunder Minimum as well as a period of high volcanic activity.


Interesting Data
By jhb116 on 2/9/2008 5:28:27 PM , Rating: 5
I think us moderates agree - this is one more data point to consider in the global warming debate. I also believe that most moderates believe that we should continue to take REASONABLE measures to reduce our CO2 footprint.

What really bugs me about the CO2 nazis is their zealousness as demostrated by winterman. The reason why moderates believe that we need to continue to collect more data and look at ALL of the facts is what if you are wrong about the CO2? What if you are wrong and the Earth continues to warm? Your zealousness wants to focus on just ONE solution when we should be considering many to give our populations the greatest chance of survival when (not if) the next major global climate change comes. Focusing on reducing CO2 only dooms us to a worse fate. Why - our economies will be devistated in your "scorched Earth" environmental policies - leaving our great nations much less able to take other measures.

So winterman, and others like you, please chill. Lets work together to take reasonable measures to reduce our CO2 footprint - however - you need to more open minded to the idea that CO2 may not be the only or even a dominate contributor to global warming.


Global warming is the cause!!
By scrapsma54 on 2/9/2008 7:51:33 PM , Rating: 2
at least that is what Al Gore would say.

RE: Global warming is the cause!!
By lolxman on 2/9/2008 9:40:12 PM , Rating: 2
Isn't this great ? That will cool down global warming !!!

By Shuxclams on 2/12/2008 4:46:17 PM , Rating: 2
Seems the 'lunatic fringe science community' has been on top of this for 3 years already, but of course only the 'Rational Scientist', people who believe that the sun flares cause global warming/cooling (read oil companies and related industries) know how the facts.

Again, false science posed to weak minded dimwits who think Creationism is science too...



By masher2 on 2/12/2008 9:57:01 PM , Rating: 2
You've confused a couple of different phenomena. Your links above are laymen's accounts of an event called the "Thermohaline Circulation Shutdown".

However, it is a strictly regional phenomenon with very little if any scientific basis. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the factors described in the above article.

Scientific illiteracy
By wildlifer on 2/17/2008 11:48:32 AM , Rating: 2
Folks don't jump on the bandwagon based upon a "new" single paper or study.
The "cosmic ray" theory has been debunked, over and over again. Tim Patterson is a dogmatic denialist who even rejects the fact of aerosol cooling (see Pinitubo). Abdusamatov has been shown repeatedly to be wrong about solar variation. The trend has been the opposite of what is required to explain the current warming, and it's expected to soon change and add to the warming trend.
This article is nothing more than the continuation of whack-a-mole.

RE: Scientific illiteracy
By Tim Patterson on 2/20/2008 9:45:26 AM , Rating: 2
I usually make a point of staying out of these National Enquirer-esque style discussions. However, this time I could not resist a comment with regard to the ridiculous ranting of the eminent researcher 'wildlifer', who seems to have gotten his berkinstocks in a knot. He attracted my attention with his spread of misinformation.

As a scientist I am morally obligated to go where science takes me and not where activists want me to go. In this case my research on high resolution annually deposited climate records using many proxies show a very clear correlation with solar cycles. I reported that in the literature and continue research in that area. The celestial forcing model proposed by my colleague Jan Veizer and collaborators have demonstrated a clear linkage between celestial drivers of climate at ALL scales in the geologic record and provide an excellent model to explain my results. When CO2 concentrations in the geologic record are modeled against temperature in the geologic record there is a very poor correlation. Thus how I got to where I am.

As to 'wildliers' strange comments about aerosols cooling that he attributes to me -- you must be thinking of someone else. Hopefully you did not just make that statement up as a form of Ad Hominem attack, a tactic commonly used by some unscrupulous activists. Same with regard to 'wildlifers' claims about the celestial forcing model of climate change being discredited. There is a very active scientific literature with many papers appearing every week on the subject.

Now back to business. This will be my last foray into this forum

Tim Patterson

By cscpianoman on 2/9/2008 2:23:16 PM , Rating: 1
Ha Ha Ha Ha, <Snort!>

Sorry! <Wipes eyes from laughing so hard>

For a second there I thought we were going through global warming. Looks like I was wrong! What a relief!!

RE: Wha....!
By Shawn5961 on 2/9/2008 2:33:23 PM , Rating: 2
Talk about science hard at work.

"Well, it's not getting hotter like we predicted. Therefore, I predict it will get colder!"

By squirrelrevolution on 2/10/2008 2:01:45 AM , Rating: 1
"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."

"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 "

I could be mistaken but 400 years ago was like the foundation of Jamestown there was no New York yet, no Manhattan or Staten Island...maybe he is just using that as an example I guess, otherwise It's just wrong.

400 years ago there were Native American's in the US and that's pretty much it. :p

By KristopherKubicki on 2/10/2008 1:41:35 PM , Rating: 2
Staten Island certainly existed. What it used to be called would make no sense to any of us though.

Thanks for the expected delivery.
By Cygni on 2/10/2008 5:31:36 AM , Rating: 3
I knew this thread was going to have some incredibly awful, shockingly illogical, and completely forgettable banter when i clicked on it, and im glad to see that the DT community delivered. I guess uninformed arguing is the new black...

By BladeVenom on 2/10/2008 1:21:18 PM , Rating: 3
I, for one, welcome our new penguin overlords.

Follow the money
By notafacist312 on 2/10/2008 3:02:09 PM , Rating: 1
This guy is another Exxon hack....

RE: Follow the money
By onelittleindian on 2/10/2008 4:31:09 PM , Rating: 2
What guy? There's about 10 different ones mentioned in the article. You think they've all been "paid off"?

Missing sentences?
By RIPPolaris on 2/9/2008 3:43:37 PM , Rating: 2
The paragraph before the last seems to end rather abruptly:
"A few years ago, Stanford University's Hoover Institution also reported finding a correlation between the sun and climate. Hoover "

By DeepBlue1975 on 2/9/2008 6:35:12 PM , Rating: 2
This thing about a possible new ice age has a really high coolness factor!
And I think the global warming issue will be frozen during that time, too, giving a bit of fresh air to new perspectives, which would be almost like the icing on the cake.

Only problem is, that in Saint Valentine's day many more will be frustrated because more cold hearted people will be around, and so those broken hearted will feel more ice-olated than ever in their lives.

Anyway, that would be a great time to chill out and Ice Cream prices should drop noticeably, too.

By Grabo on 2/9/2008 8:50:34 PM , Rating: 2
Your last link is blind. At any rate - is it odd that a scientist involved in the earth's climate would admit that we don't know everything? Or that he would say that it's interesting? He's such a scientist, after all.

But mr Asher: you must feel that those advocating largely man-made recent global warming are ruining for lots of people, or at least for you. Otherwise you would not be ..on such a crusade :)


In regards to Mr Svensmark:

In reference to the cosmic rays:
"In July, Mike Lockwood from the UK's Rutherford-Appleton Laboratory attempted a definitive answer to the question with what appeared to be a simple method. He simply looked at the changing cosmic ray activity over the last 30 years, and asked whether it could explain the rising temperatures.

His conclusion was that it could not. Since about 1985, he found, the cosmic ray count had been increasing, which should have led to a temperature fall if the theory is correct - instead, the Earth has been warming. "
"Last month Dr Svensmark posted a paper on the DNSC website that claimed to be a comprehensive rebuttal. :
The argument that Mike Lockwood put forward was that they didn't see any solar signal in the surface temperature data," he says"
"Dr Lockwood disagrees; he says he has re-analysed the issue using atmospheric temperatures, and his previous conclusion stands. And he thinks the Svensmark team has been guilty of poor practice by not publishing their argument in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

"Lots of people have been asking me how I respond to it; but how should I respond to something which is just posted on a research institute's website?" he asks.

"This isn't on, because the report title says it is a 'comprehensive rebuttal'; if it were that, then it would be his duty to publish it in a scientific journal and clean up the literature - that's how science filters out what is incorrect, and how it comes to a consensus view as to what is correct." "


"At Cern, the giant European physics facility, an experiment called Cloud is being constructed which will research the notion that cosmic rays can stimulate the formation of droplets and clouds. There may be some results within three or four years.

By then, observations suggest that the Sun's output may have started to wane from its "grand maximum".

If it does, and if Henrik Svensmark is right, we should then see cosmic rays increase and global temperatures start to fall; if that happens, he can expect to see a Nobel Prize and thousands of red-faced former IPCC members queuing up to hand back the one they have just received.

But if the Sun wanes and temperatures on our planet continue to rise, as the vast majority of scientists in the field believe, the solar-cosmic ray concept of global warming can be laid to eternal rest. "

Global Cooling spin...
By Fnoob on 2/9/2008 10:29:35 PM , Rating: 2
The pundits were smart enough to hedge their bets by changing the rhetoric from 'global warming!' to 'climate change'. Can they now, with some new magical spin machine, become activists against 'global cooling'? Will Al Gore suddenly be appearing in Hummer ads? All that extra CO2 might help keep us warm?

Thanks for the scary ass picture Masher. Cool, but just a bit too objective and real. I need my mommy.

By SlyNine on 2/10/2008 12:08:57 AM , Rating: 2
Quick buy H2's and help save the planet.

NOAA disagrees
By kevinkreiser on 2/10/2008 7:47:39 PM , Rating: 2
Apparently our people (U.S.) disagree, check out this link:

By Techno Pride on 2/11/2008 2:44:03 AM , Rating: 2
Since we know methane gas from farting causes global warming, all we have to do is keep farting.

Dr. Mephisto

Ha, Global warming
By SecTech767 on 2/11/2008 9:46:51 AM , Rating: 2
I still think ( along with others ) that this is all a part of the Saros cycle and that this has occured naturally through out the earths life span.

By Shadowmaster625 on 2/11/2008 10:43:30 AM , Rating: 2
... before reporting these stories. Got to shear the sheeple.

By clovell on 2/11/2008 11:44:07 AM , Rating: 2
I saw this article a few days ago on another website. It's good to see that these guys understand how correlation can imply causality - through a scientific mechanism, and not some political pipedream.

Argue what you will, but the data on solar acivity and its relationship to GW trumps that of CO2.

Here it comes already
By grenableu on 2/11/2008 1:43:09 PM , Rating: 2
Temperatures of 40 Below Breaks All Records in MN

By jadeskye on 2/11/2008 1:53:03 PM , Rating: 2
So theres a mini ice age. we all put on our coats and let the overclocking commence ^_^

By Cr0nJ0b on 2/11/2008 4:06:52 PM , Rating: 2

They seem to show a fairly regular 11 year cycle for low Sun spot activity since the 1800s. I'm just wondering what Dr. Kenneth Tapping means by the "cycle refusing to start". It sound like my wife crying that she's pregnant when she's a day late. The NASA link above has a reference a the bottom to a group of guys that make predictions about sunspot cycles. They are predicting a low point this year, but they see it heading right back up in the next 2 years.

I for one am not going to start investing in ICE off-sets until I see this trend continue well beyond the predicted pattern.

Apocalypse 2012
By initialised on 2/14/2008 9:29:56 PM , Rating: 2
One in the eye for all the 'lets justify tax hikes with climate change' governments. If only their propaganda wasn't so pervasive and persuasive.

To say that man is the dominant cause of climate change is to say that man has become bigger than god (assuming that god is nature), thus deeply heretical. However, it's an empowering idea that not using your car once or twice a week or buying FairTrade could help prevent the slow transformation of Earth into a post apocalyptic hell, but, ideologically, is this any different from the tenets and moral codes of most major religions?

In one sense it is, governments want you to believe it and become more energy efficient while they make as much as possible out of the fossil fuel reserves as possible before the economics of extraction make nuclear and renewables necessary.

Governments only started listening about anthropogenic climate change once they realised they could use it as a taxation system, now it's rammed down our throats in every commercial break.

Try this for size:
Cold snap ends, population expands in newer better conditions after evolution has taken its toll during cold snap, more intelligent populace develops steam, internal combustion, fission during warming phase. During warming, prosperous phase religion is dying so we invent a new one to fill the void.

Global cooling
By Bobski on 2/29/2008 12:05:49 PM , Rating: 2
Here in Europe one really worrying aspect of the current and in my view highly problematical "global warming" thesis, is that the politicians are using the hypothesis to support some very dangerous policies.

Brussels has ordained for example, that because they believe CO2 is causing warming, they are allowing UK coal fired power stations only 20,000 hours of operation between 2008 and 2020; after that they will have to be closed down, leaving an unbridgeable energy gap.

A further nonsense is that part of this gap is to be filled, suppposedly, at a cost of at least £1 billion per year in subsidies, by wind turbines.

Global warming appears to have become the new religion, and to gainsay it over here is regarded as a blasphemy.


Arizona Land is still cheap
By nofumble62 on 3/1/2008 12:34:16 PM , Rating: 2
I can trade 110F dry heat for sub 32F weather anyday.

By lamestlamer on 2/9/2008 5:10:02 PM , Rating: 1
If this is true, then humanity has a pathway to controlling climate on a global level. By being more reliant on hydrocarbons for energy, we can warm the earth. Also, by using particle accelerators to seed clouds and raise the earth's albedo, we can cool the earth.

Building a bunch of industrial particle accelerators also serves another purpose: ballistic missile defense. Shooting a nuclear bomb with a stream of charged particles will cause its fission trigger to to detonate subcritically, making a megaton bomb into a much less destructive high altitude dirty bomb.

Oh Noes!!
By iFX on 2/11/2008 8:55:21 AM , Rating: 1
We couldn't scare them with global warming... all the intelligent people rebutted our manufactured evidence. We'll have to try something sneakier this time... Yes, I have it.. an ICE age! We'll scare the hell out of them and be able to regulate everything!

95 percent of climatologists?
By TheHarvester on 2/11/2008 9:10:10 AM , Rating: 1
People are saying that 95 percent of climatologists are saying global warming is happening, but I think it's important to keep in mind that with the media climate and the state of public opinion, it's political and career suicide to deny global warming, or even dispute it in a lot of cases. I think the 95% may have a good deal of self-preservationists included.

Tomorrow's Headline:
By i3arracuda on 2/11/2008 9:17:53 AM , Rating: 1
Solar Activity Diminishes; Al Gore to Take Credit

so global warming then....
By otispunkmeyer on 2/10/08, Rating: 0
By smokedturkey on 2/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: brrr...
By chedrz on 2/9/2008 2:39:11 PM , Rating: 2
Get both!!! That way, either way, you can laugh at the people who aren't prepared.

Oooh, and don't forget about Spam.

RE: brrr...
By Clauzii on 2/10/08, Rating: 0
what about a 100 years later?
By CvP on 2/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: what about a 100 years later?
By StormEffect on 2/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: what about a 100 years later?
By TomZ on 2/9/2008 3:54:34 PM , Rating: 2
You guys are unbelievable. Talk about missing the forest for the trees.

The point really is that solar cycles dominate Earth's global heating and cooling, and that relatively speaking, CO2 is just a drop in the bucket. By "drop in the bucket," that means, "nothing to worry about."

RE: what about a 100 years later?
By winterspan on 2/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: what about a 100 years later?
By Anthro2 on 2/9/2008 4:20:23 PM , Rating: 3
You must really have your ego tied up in this debate since you insist on being so rude and unnecessarily insulting.

First of all, YOU are trying to spread disinformation. While it is true that the vast majority of climate scientists belive that global warming is indeed occurring, there is nowhere near a consensus on whether or not itis 'anthropogenically' caused.

Why are you lying? Is it because your sense of self worth is so tied up in this debate that you MUST be right or the foundations of your self image will crumble?

Hardcore leftists like you are far more like the sheep you accuse everyone else of being.

Show us the proof. Show us a credible scientific source that backs up your '95%' claim...and stop being such a vicious jerk. Make your argument in a civil manner instead of so boldly demonstrating your extremist motivations.

By oldman42 on 2/9/2008 4:28:04 PM , Rating: 2
You are mistaken. The only viable data available merely suggests generically that CO2 is a spark of change. Only the Lefties are spinning the human sources as the main culprit. The data pertaining to human induced change is far to small a sample to draw real conclusions from. The fact that the geologic record shows there have been numerous climate shifts up and down, big and small, fast and slow, long before humans even had fire supports the lack of conclusiveness.

RE: what about a 100 years later?
By General Disturbance on 2/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: what about a 100 years later?
By MadMaster on 2/9/08, Rating: 0
RE: what about a 100 years later?
By aeroengineer1 on 2/9/2008 8:29:37 PM , Rating: 5
Just stating so, and then citing a web link from wikipedia is about the worst thing that you could do for your argument.

I think that we could state that it is a fact that the earth is in a state of change. There are some possible sources. It could be that the earth is not really in steady state, and that world temps vary without any pattern. It is possible that the earth is in steady state and that the patterns are cyclic. It is possible that the sun causes that the natural production of volcanic activity increases. While you may laugh, people laughed at the notion that the moon could cause the tides. The thing is that the earth is a system, not a variable. We are monitoring one seeing a short term trend, which in the life of this earth, it may only be "noise" in the data.

I am an engineer, and while I admit that this does not qualify me to comment on the exact science of climatology, I am familiar with the methods used in numerical simulations. At some time all forward looking iterative solutions diverge. It is hard to determine the exact stability of the solution due to the fact that to make a model, you have to make approximations and place in constants which may not be correct. I have seen the change in a small constant drive a solution to go from rock solid stable to completely unstable. The next problem with these models is that they must take into account all the inputs of the system. It is very evident here that not all inputs are necessarily being considered. To ignore the sun in any climate study is an absolute failure. The fact that the earth's axis is displace some 20 degrees from vertical causes major climate changes in the earth.

In summary please be a little more open minded and ask more questions before you make broad statements.


RE: what about a 100 years later?
By MadMaster on 2/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: what about a 100 years later?
By porkpie on 2/9/2008 9:18:56 PM , Rating: 5
I've looked into climatologists models, they are modeling correctly.
Then have none of the models ever made even one single accurate prediction? Why do they report widely different results? And most important of all, why can none of them even explain any of the past climate changes in history?

RE: what about a 100 years later?
By MadMaster on 2/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: what about a 100 years later?
By ajdavis on 2/10/08, Rating: -1
RE: what about a 100 years later?
By teldar on 2/11/2008 7:50:46 AM , Rating: 4
Are you mentally deficient MasMaster? It certainly sounds like it. It seems that you have picked one group's decisions on something and it is now gospel.

I have some news for you.
I have read all the reports and I KNOW the world is FLAT. It's not round. All these crazy people with their new ideas..... a round world. Whatever. Anyone who is intelligent knows it's flat.


RE: what about a 100 years later?
By rsmech on 2/9/2008 10:06:24 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not as educated as yourself so please enlighten me if this is wrong. I understand that weather & climate are examples of chaotic systems. (chaos theory) As an example to chaos theory I have heard that if I drop a piece of paper you could not tell me where it was going to land. But after it landed you could use chaos to show me why it landed there. However your mathematical formula would not hold true if I dropped it a second time, it would land somewhere else. But you could again tell me through chaos why. No matter how many times I dropped it you could only show me why it landed there not predict where it was going to land. That is chaos, that is the weather. Modeling can only show us some of the outcomes. But where will the paper really land?

RE: what about a 100 years later?
By MadMaster on 2/9/08, Rating: 0
RE: what about a 100 years later?
By KernD on 2/9/2008 11:07:08 PM , Rating: 3
Wrong, what if it's outside on a windy day? in a storm, it could actually land miles away.

RE: what about a 100 years later?
By JoeBanana on 2/10/2008 2:59:34 AM , Rating: 2
I am sure that climate are aware of that. Even at statistics you have certain uncertainty. But you can say without a doubt that if an input was unbiased that you can say with 95%(or 99) that the results are correct.

So in your case it looks like, from what the scientists told us, that the windy day is very unlikely.

RE: what about a 100 years later?
By porkpie on 2/9/2008 11:07:29 PM , Rating: 3
All the models predict warming because thats the assumption built into them. They assume CO2 causes "x" amount of warming and assume its going to continue to go up. None of the models predict the reality, which is that the earth has COOLED in the past 10 years. Explain that.

For bonus points, explain why none of the models can explain the Little Ice Age or any other past climate change in history.

RE: what about a 100 years later?
By MadMaster on 2/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: what about a 100 years later?
By FITCamaro on 2/10/2008 10:45:36 AM , Rating: 2
I'm guessing a lot of those climate models which might have predicted a rise in global temperatures probably use previously recorded sun activity as a variable in its calculations.

So what happens when activity that hasn't happened before (and been recorded) occurs? Oh wait, your results change....

RE: what about a 100 years later?
By FITCamaro on 2/10/2008 10:40:13 AM , Rating: 2
So kill yourself and stop contributing to the problem since every breath you take produces CO2.

You're sitting here talking to us through a computer that took the burning of a great amount of fossil fuels to make, powered by electricity that likely takes fossil fuels to produce, probably drive a car that not only burns fossil fuels but also took them to make, etc.

When you start living in the woods "being one with nature" you can lecture us on the evilness of our ways. Oh wait, then no one would hear you b*tch. Darn.

By onefastfreak on 2/10/2008 10:48:48 AM , Rating: 2
Well said!

By aeroengineer1 on 2/10/2008 9:45:31 PM , Rating: 5
First, please state your experience. I have a feeling that if you are quoting wikipedia, you have not made it through college yet. If you are still there, here is a tip on how to get better grades on your reports, stop citing wikipedia.

Next it you are into modeling, and not the assembly of plastic types, please model a double pendulum, then use it to match a real world experiment at high thetas (greater than 50 degrees). This is a much simpler system, and I can guarantee that it might be close for the first few oscillations, but after 10-20, you will be far off from your model. This is not even using forward looking (Euler based) methods. With climatology models, all use an Euler method in some part of it combined with other methods. The more complex the model, the less the accuracy in the long term. eventually your system diverges from the solution, but because you do not know the final solution, it is hard to find where the divergence occurs. Because of this, due to the fact that the system is chaotic errors in estimation will cause the result to diverge very quickly.

Once again, please open your mind and stop playing the political tool and be a little wiser.


By PierreLegrand on 2/26/2008 8:50:56 PM , Rating: 1
You "DO" modeling? You have looked into Climatologists modeling and they are modeling correctly? WOW! They take everything into account? You are full of yourself.

I KNOW my wife does modeling and she says that anyone who believes that climate models have all the information they need to model climate is smoking the good stuff.

Climate is probably one of the most complicated mechanisms you can model and the idea that a science that cannot predict the direction of a weather system can indeed model the entire worlds climate is laughable.

I notice that all of your baloney is backed up by Wonder why they don't allow commenters who disagree with their fantasy? Why don't they debate? Are they afraid of something?

RE: what about a 100 years later?
By brenatevi on 2/9/2008 8:32:13 PM , Rating: 3
*applauds* good job debating there. Points on a graph don't make the truth. They heavily hint at the truth, but even computer models can be wrong. Theories can be wrong. Bludgeoning people with math can't change that.

Not saying it's right or wrong, just saying there is always room for debate.

RE: what about a 100 years later?
By MadMaster on 2/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: what about a 100 years later?
By murphyslabrat on 2/9/2008 9:55:09 PM , Rating: 1
You do realize that the person who 'disproves' global warming will get a Nobel prize.

Not true. People want to believe in global warming, as it gives them a cause to fight for. Al Gore didn't get a Nobel Peace prize for being right, he got it for championing a cause that people appreciated.

You don't get a slap on the back for ruining peoples identity. It sounds kinda silly, but that's how it works.

RE: what about a 100 years later?
By MadMaster on 2/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: what about a 100 years later?
By porkpie on 2/9/2008 11:04:59 PM , Rating: 5
Rofl, are you kidding? Global warming is an environmentalists wet dream. It allows them to tell us to reduce EVERYTHING. Less cars, less factories, less energy, less roads, less consumer goods, less people, etc, etc, etc.

Oh, and lets not forget all the people who've raked in $40B in global warming research over the past 20 years. Sure they don't have anything to gain either right? Of course, to get a research grant in the EU now, you have to accept global warming as true. They don't fund skeptics any more.

Finally, how about all the third-world nations, who under treaties like Kyoto get free technology transfers and massive aid packages? Global warming has been a godsend to them.

RE: what about a 100 years later?
By MadMaster on 2/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: what about a 100 years later?
By Ringold on 2/10/2008 3:00:00 AM , Rating: 3
So boring = false?

Nice. Some times you debate well, other times.. pathetic.

RE: what about a 100 years later?
By teldar on 2/11/2008 7:56:54 AM , Rating: 2
I have not seen the debating. I've seen the raging, and the denial of any kind of debate, and the absolutely closed mind to other possibilities, but I don't think I've seen the debate.


RE: what about a 100 years later?
By enlil242 on 2/10/2008 11:35:51 AM , Rating: 1
I, myself gave up oil/coal/electricity/car/etc. I now live in the forest in Ted Kazinsky's old place...

Sarcasm aside, until "Mr Fusion" comes along, I'm afraid we are still in need of these things. Especially when reports keep surfacing that these new "bio fuels" are no so "eco friendly" as they were once thought...

RE: what about a 100 years later?
By just4U on 2/11/2008 5:59:48 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think many scientists argue that global warming isn't happening .. what their concerned about is the politicizing of it all and the effects that can have. Politicians and Environmentalists use the Global Warming topic to their own ends and I don't think they give a damn about the data as long as "some" of it can enforce their current agenda.

The scientific comunity argues non stop on what's causing it and weather humans are even a factor. Then you have reports like this ... which cloud the issue. Personally, I don't know what to believe. BUT, I tell you what, If some zealot is on me like a dirty shirt over the issue I would definitely take every damn bit they had to say with a few grains of salt.

RE: what about a 100 years later?
By murphyslabrat on 2/9/2008 9:51:02 PM , Rating: 2
Theories can be wrong. Bludgeoning people with math can't change that.

Yes, but if you used a club instead of math, it would change.

RE: what about a 100 years later?
By brenatevi on 2/9/2008 11:40:56 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, but if you used a club instead of math, it would change.
When you put it like that. I mean, intimidation is a time honored tactic in getting people to change their minds. Just ask the Mob. *grin*

Actually, I prefer the Mob's method of debate over the environmentalists.

Mob Guy holding baseball bat: Now, This is what you're going to tell the cops... right Mr. Robinson?

as opposed to

Environmentalist: You are wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong!

I mean, the mob guy is much more polite, and gives very blunt and straight forward reasons to change your mind.

(was going to use the name Guido, but that's racist):

By murphyslabrat on 2/10/2008 10:52:49 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know, I think that's justified, as anyone with suckers on their fingers needs to be taken down. Go Han Solo!

RE: what about a 100 years later?
By rsmech on 2/9/2008 9:20:43 PM , Rating: 5
And what is your big concern?

Just do a web search on "trees found in glaciers" & put some logic behind it. If glaciers are melting to the point that trees are being revealed from thousands of years ago you can use common sense to realize that it had to be warmer in these areas at one time for these trees to grow, WARMER THAN IT IS NOW. Guess what life survived. The GW point of view is that we are artificially warming the planet, changing it from how it was. But with evidence like this now is not how it was, you should be for GW because this will truely bring us back to where we were.

But this brings the question - what was the optimal time & temp. in our planets history? I find arrogance in anyone who says they know this answer. Wouldn't the Sahara be better a little cooler & lush, Wouldn't Siberia be better a little warmer? It's all arbitrary.

RE: what about a 100 years later?
By MadMaster on 2/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: what about a 100 years later?
By rsmech on 2/9/2008 9:41:13 PM , Rating: 2
And your ignorance is by deducing that people are too stupid to migrate, which has been the case throughout history. Do you know why we had such high levels when there were no man made influences around? I'll leave that to you. When you find the answer you will see that our influence to GW is just a drop in the bucket of ignorance.

RE: what about a 100 years later?
By MadMaster on 2/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: what about a 100 years later?
By murphyslabrat on 2/9/2008 9:59:18 PM , Rating: 2
Oh yeah, I am open minded. BS doesn't count.

Nice to see an open-minded argument.

RE: what about a 100 years later?
By MadMaster on 2/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: what about a 100 years later?
By rsmech on 2/9/2008 10:15:35 PM , Rating: 2
Oh I know the volcano argument.

Obviously not. I don't think humans had that kind of influence that far in the past, but if you want to skew the time line like a hockey stick to associate present human activity to climate changes of the past I can better understand why you hold on to your modelings.

The volcano argument is about past volcanic activity & it's great influences, I don't think our cars had much to do with that.

RE: what about a 100 years later?
By MadMaster on 2/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: what about a 100 years later?
By masher2 on 2/9/2008 10:43:32 PM , Rating: 5
> "Seriously, where do you think the carbon dioxide out the tail pipe of your car goes? "

You do realize that natural sources account for some 97% of all carbon dioxide produced on earth? That in itself obviously doesn't mean humans aren't contributing to the rise, but it does help to put it in perspective.

Also, one should remember that at one point in the earth's past, CO2 levels were not only 2500 ppm (~8X the current level), but the planet was locked in the middle of one it's coldest ice ages of the past 450 million years?

As one researcher put it -- climate is a cocktail. CO2 obviously has some effect, but thousands of other factors do as well.

RE: what about a 100 years later?
By MadMaster on 2/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: what about a 100 years later?
By masher2 on 2/9/2008 11:12:27 PM , Rating: 3
> "Wrong...Only 130-250 million tons of CO2 are released from volcanoes each year"

Oops -- Volcanos are not the only natural source of CO2. In fact, they're one of the smaller sources.

My previous statement was correct...if anything, it understated the case:
On a worldwide basis, the anthropogenic emissions of CO2 are known to be small. In comparison with the gross fluxes of carbon from natural systems they represent only a fraction (~2%) of total global emissions

RE: what about a 100 years later?
By Josett on 2/15/2008 10:35:09 PM , Rating: 2
Oops... not volcanoes but, rather, volcanic activity bursts.
Actually, its peaks can grow from "one of the smaller sources" into one of the bigger.

Certainly though, their occurrence is sparse in time and have no known regular pattern (2006).


RE: what about a 100 years later?
By teldar on 2/11/2008 8:04:34 AM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry, I must be missing something....
So humans and volcanoes are the only two sources of CO2 in the world? And here I thought most of the earth was covered with ocean which is the largest stock pile of CO2 around..... Here I am thinking again....


RE: what about a 100 years later?
By murphyslabrat on 2/9/2008 10:05:08 PM , Rating: 1
Btw, the greenhouse earth was not a friendly place.

I don't know, I ride a bicycle as my primary means of transportation, and am "in the weather" for upwards of 2-3 hours a day. I think I could deal with warmer temps.

Joking aside, who says it isn't a friendly place? Obviously, as has been pointed out elsewhere:
A. It has been warmer before.
B. We are still here.

and the conclusion, via syllogistic reasoning, is:
C. Warm != end of humanity.

RE: what about a 100 years later?
By MadMaster on 2/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: what about a 100 years later?
By teldar on 2/11/2008 8:07:34 AM , Rating: 1
Your logic is flawed, because it doesn't account for the complexities of the situation. It's called oversimplification.

So what you're saying is that it's not oversimplifaction to disinclude data from solar activity? It's only oversimplification if you don't believe in human produced CO2 as the cause of global warming?


RE: what about a 100 years later?
By rsmech on 2/9/2008 9:53:21 PM , Rating: 1
Global warming is happening because of CO2. Period.

I have a little experiment for you to try. (Caution- gas mask required)

Instead of being stranded on an island, this time your stuck in a glass room. Which would keep you warmer, the daylight sun or 2x, 5x, or even 10x the current CO2 levels in your glass room at night?

"CO2. Period." I think not. Maybe some influence, but I think the sun would warm you a little better. This example is a little far fetched, but so is "CO2. Period."

RE: what about a 100 years later?
By MadMaster on 2/9/08, Rating: 0
RE: what about a 100 years later?
By rsmech on 2/9/2008 10:21:56 PM , Rating: 2
No you missed the concept. More heat from the sun (night vs. day) means warmer. How much CO2 is needed to make the night as warm as the day? You are assuming that the sun is a constant, wrong assumption, but a guess a constant sun makes modeling easier. Solar activity is very influential and until you input that into your models I think you will need a little more "glue" to hold them together.

RE: what about a 100 years later?
By MadMaster on 2/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: what about a 100 years later?
By porkpie on 2/9/2008 10:49:54 PM , Rating: 2
Your graph shows solar output has gone down since 2000. And the earth has cooled since the year 2000 too. So-- what was your argument again?

RE: what about a 100 years later?
By MadMaster on 2/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: what about a 100 years later?
By masher2 on 2/9/2008 11:18:34 PM , Rating: 5
Oops again. The original NOAA press report claiming 2005 as the warmest year was in error. They restated their figures, which left 1998 in the lead:

By geddarkstorm on 2/9/2008 11:31:20 PM , Rating: 2
I think you are a bit mistaken. 1998 is still the hottest on record for the world (though the media likes to sensationalize things, as if you do a search for "warmest year on record" you'll find claims that 2005, 2006, and 2007 were the hottest on record; but that is not factually true). Here's an interesting blog by a physicist on the issue with some fun data analysis.

By djkrypplephite on 2/11/2008 2:49:31 AM , Rating: 2
Sad thing is, I see this happening.

RE: what about a 100 years later?
By rsmech on 2/9/2008 9:34:08 PM , Rating: 2
Take a deep breath. Let's use "fact & say, yes GW is happening. The problem is? Really what is the problem with it? Now when you answer let's leave the F****** out of your logic this time. Like I said glaciers are melting exposing thousands of year old trees. Here's some logic for you - IT WAS WARMER BEFORE & YOU ARE STILL HERE. So like I ask if GW is happening what is the problem? Don't give me Day after Tomorrow stuff. It didn't happen when those trees were growing before the glaciers so why would it happen this time. Or are thousand year old trees frozen in glaciers less evidence than & computer model.

RE: what about a 100 years later?
By mindless1 on 2/10/2008 4:33:51 PM , Rating: 2
The "you are still here" argument fails based on both the "you" and "here" concept.

Did you consider that when there were trees growing in the glacial areas, other areas now presently, reasonably inhabitable might not have been inhabitable?

What if modern man isn't so migratory anymore, what if we can't all just pack up and move infrastructure and people to the planet's poles, little things like population and politics play a part in the modern world. Oh, then there's our dependance on resources like oil and crops, an ecosystem has a saturation point.

That a small % of people might survive a worst case scenario isn't much consolation for everyone else who wouldn't, IF this kind of climate change occurred. We can't even figure out if the world is going to get warmer or colder let alone agree on what to do if either is true, yet we'd be so much better about actually surviving?

RE: what about a 100 years later?
By rsmech on 2/10/2008 7:57:49 PM , Rating: 3
The argument only fails for those who think they can change the natural cycles of the planet & therefore don't learn from our past history of migration. You are predicting "Day after tomorrow" changes which have not been seriously considered even by those who support GW. So if anything it will be a progressive change.

What if modern man isn't so migratory anymore

I can't help or explain away laziness, I'm sorry.

what if we can't all just pack up and move infrastructure and people to the planet's poles,

Like I said you are sounding a little extreme. You are the first I have heard predicting this.

RE: what about a 100 years later?
By mindless1 on 2/11/2008 3:01:09 AM , Rating: 2
Not at all, if this is your theory, we'd have to conclude that if glacial areas warmed, so would the others we LIVE IN.
Tell use how well preparded you are to totally migrate and continue functioning as you did previously, until then I feel you are FOS.

It's an arrangant lie that you think you will make choices not effected by others also struggling to survive during a global catastrophe. On the contrary, it will be survival of the fittest.

RE: what about a 100 years later?
By rsmech on 2/11/2008 10:37:13 PM , Rating: 2
Tell use how well preparded you are to totally migrate and continue functioning as you did previously

The problem I am seeing is that you are scared of change for yourself or others. News flash, change IS life. Why would you think I would function as I did previously? I never stated such, I stated a change. Which would include how I function.

This is how I deal with change. I graduate from school, I move on and find a job. I get married and create a home. I have children & create a family. I may lose a job, I find a new one. These are all examples of dramatic changes. When they came I adapted. I don't need someone to find me a job, I don't need someone to find me a wife, & I most certainly don't need someone else to create my family. You see I took the initiative. I changed, I "migrated" with events. After accomplishing these great changes in life I think I can figure out how to live somewhere else also. If I couldn't I'd still be at my parents house.

RE: what about a 100 years later?
By mindless1 on 2/13/2008 3:40:46 AM , Rating: 2
Your nonsense about change being the normal course of having an education, job and family has nothing to do with worldwide migration and death due to climatic changes (if they occur).

I can tell already you are not one of the ones who would survive in such a scenario.

RE: what about a 100 years later?
By rsmech on 2/13/2008 5:37:31 PM , Rating: 2
If that's the case so be it, but at least I'm not frightened by it.

But if you don't understand what change is I feel sorry for your static life. But it's a personality trait, some are leaders & some are followers.

RE: what about a 100 years later?
By jbartabas on 2/11/2008 3:09:15 PM , Rating: 2
Here's some logic for you - IT WAS WARMER BEFORE & YOU ARE STILL HERE.

Major pandemics killed millions of people in the past but we are still here. Does that mean that we should not prepare to face and hinder propagation of a future major pandemic?

RE: what about a 100 years later?
By bfellow on 2/13/2008 8:54:01 AM , Rating: 2
I think we have other things to worry besides "global warming" like "global cooling" and all these freakin TV reality shows

RE: what about a 100 years later?
By B on 2/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: what about a 100 years later?
By robinthakur on 2/11/2008 6:35:02 AM , Rating: 4
While I am on the fence with climate change, I find it very hard to believe that man is having any discernable effect on the Earth. It seems quite arrogant in fact to believe this. Man's period on earth will be a blip in the planet's history. Does it not seem much more reasonable that the Sun is in fact causing changes to the Earth's temperature as it has historically done? If the worst comes to the worst, the ice caps melt, we all drown, humanity becomes extinct, problem solved in a thousand years when the earth returns to balance!

Keeping political allegiance out of the discussion (because its not at all important next to the future of humanity) I am getting so sick of how we are now being exploited by international governments under the pretext of climate change. In the UK it is merely used to extract more and more money from the population. Petrol tax hikes, home buyers eco packs, financial penalties for not recycling, disadvantaging drivers etc. That this theory has been adopted by actual governments based on what is really very shaky "evidence" and emotive reasoning, is a tad scary. Volcanoes expel infinitely more CO2 than commerical passenger flights, so why are we raising fuel duty increases on flights? Its not just because oil is running out.

Its suspicious how climate change really seems to divide people, much like religion, or any competing ideology. I can't imagine people blowing themselves up to highlight awareness for climate change, think of the CO2 emissions! Chance would be a fine thing though..."Stocking up on fur coats" is likely to enrage the animal rights nuts as well, so either way I think they want humanity wiped out either through heat or cold.

By werepossum on 2/11/2008 9:12:08 PM , Rating: 1
I haven't posted on this thread before because I was blinded by MadMasturbator’s brilliance, but I got better and now I think I'll chime in. AGW has certainly taken on all the accouterments of a religion, including the nastier aspects such as indulgences and the proposed punishment and/or banishment of heretics (non-believers.) And I'm all in favor of enraging the animal rights nuts in any case; if they had any testicles/ovaries in the first place they'd be throwing paint on bikers in leather and not little old ladies in fur.

I lost all faith in AGW early on, when they deleted the Medieval Warm Period to make the stupid hockey stick model work. Or maybe earlier; the hockey stick model itself is a joke, and beginning any graph right before the disturbance (to make a molehill look like a mountain) is to me a huge neon sign stating "BULLSHIT AHEAD!" And when I read its proponents stating things like how the sun's activity has remarkably little effect on climate, I don't get a warm and fuzzy feeling of their collective intelligence or honesty.

For the vast majority of people, history begins when they were born - understandable since that event is seminal in their own world view. This makes any cause or phenomenon easy to demagogue, and doubly so if that cause or phenomenon is expressed as a threat to their own existence or comfort. I have zero confidence in global climate models to date. I felt a bit of interest in one, which claimed to have correctly modeled the last fifty years of climate. Then I read on to discover they had to input the values for volcanic input "by hand". In engineering, a model of that caliber is known as marketing.

Still chuckling over the Kent Brockman allusion. I for another welcome our new penguin overlords, and would like to point out that some of us can remain useful by fetching fish or scratching between the wings.

By MadMaster on 2/9/08, Rating: -1
By Ringold on 2/9/2008 6:01:04 PM , Rating: 1
Okay, I'll let your scientific religious material stand. Now, asides from the Stern Report which fellow economists agree is a perfect example of how exotic mathematical tools can be used to massage any answer one wants out of any set of data, find a large number of studies (by economists, not liberal scientists pretending to be economists) that support spending vast sums of money to combat global warming. The UN and studies contracted by left-wing political action groups don't count.

What you'll likely find is that, as I posted elsewhere, most studies support only very moderate spending and measures. Most proposals out of the UN and liberal groups do more economic harm in the long run than does global warming itself, based again on their own worst-case data.

Is global warming therefore worth getting excited about when there's little that can reasonably be done about it, regardless of the cause?

By Ringold on 2/9/2008 6:22:20 PM , Rating: 2
Decided to help you get started:

"We estimate that the present value of climatic damages in the baseline is $22.6 trillion, as compared to $17.3 trillion in the optimal case." Just before that, the optimal case represents a present value of $2.2 trillion in abatement. Pg 171. Also, take a look at the cute little chart on 218. That just about sums up most studies out there; Gore and Stern proposals costing vast sums in excess of the benefit they yield.

The low-cost backstop, by the way, is what the benefit would be if environmentalists spent less time ranting and more time getting an engineering degree and figuring out a commercially viable clean energy technology. They assume it to be a tech that has zero carbon output and costs $5 per ton marginal cost to replace present tech. Current clean-energy technologies are neither entirely clean nor that cheap; roughly $1000 per ton.

By MadMaster on 2/9/08, Rating: 0
By Ringold on 2/9/2008 10:37:21 PM , Rating: 1
I'm taking a slightly different tack -- pointing out that even if you're right, it's none of this is a big deal, as the world will be fantastically more wealthy in 2100 compared to today even if we do nothing.

I think it's a fair point to make, given the types of massive economic interventions people like you ask the world to make. Thanks for not debating the point, though. This should be revealing to people; while economists have the problem figured out, all the debate seems surround "the science."

By MadMaster on 2/9/08, Rating: -1
By porkpie on 2/9/2008 11:22:42 PM , Rating: 2
Freak weather like the worst snows in China in 50 years? Baghdad seeing snow for the first time in all of recorded history? The coldest winter in South America in 75 years?

Yeah, thats global warming for ya. Strange, isn't it?

By AlexWade on 2/10/2008 10:13:02 AM , Rating: 2
Don't forget that is snowed in Jerusalem too. Except in Jerusalem, the snow actually began to accumulate.

Also don't forget that last year the Antarctic had more sea ice than has ever been recorded.

Also don't forget that Johannesburg, South Africa had over 50 straight days of below normal temperatures.

Facts are a global warming advocate's worst nightmare.

By Shuxclams on 2/12/2008 4:58:31 PM , Rating: 2
If anyone looked at what the majority, and yes Mr. Asher it is a majority, of scientist investigating gw then you would know that erratic and very bizarre weather, including more snow or rain in areas that wouldn't normally see that type of variation outside of the tropics. There will supposedly be very wide and wild swings in predictable weather patterns.