backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 252 comment(s) - last by elron.. on Sep 9 at 10:08 PM


The record-setting surface of the sun. A full month has gone by without a single spot  (Source: Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO))

Sunspot activity of the past decade. Over the past year, SIDC has continually revised its predictions downward  (Source: Solar Influences Data Center)

Geomagnetic solar activity for the past two decades. The recent drop corresponds to the decline in sunspots.  (Source: Anthony Watts)

A chart of sunspot activity showing two prior solar minima, along with heightened activity during the 20th century  (Source: Wikimedia Commons)
Drop in solar activity has potential effect for climate on earth.

The sun has reached a milestone not seen for nearly 100 years: an entire month has passed without a single visible sunspot being noted.

The event is significant as many climatologists now believe solar magnetic activity – which determines the number of sunspots -- is an influencing factor for climate on earth.

According to data from Mount Wilson Observatory, UCLA, more than an entire month has passed without a spot. The last time such an event occurred was June of 1913. Sunspot data has been collected since 1749.

When the sun is active, it's not uncommon to see sunspot numbers of 100 or more in a single month.  Every 11 years, activity slows, and numbers briefly drop to near-zero.   Normally sunspots return very quickly, as a new cycle begins.

But this year -- which corresponds to the start of Solar Cycle 24 -- has been extraordinarily long and quiet, with the first seven months averaging a sunspot number of only 3. August followed with none at all. The astonishing rapid drop of the past year has defied predictions, and caught nearly all astronomers by surprise.

In 2005, a pair of astronomers from the National Solar Observatory (NSO) in Tucson attempted to publish a paper in the journal Science. The pair looked at minute spectroscopic and magnetic changes in the sun. By extrapolating forward, they reached the startling result that, within 10 years, sunspots would vanish entirely. At the time, the sun was very active. Most of their peers laughed at what they considered an unsubstantiated conclusion.

The journal ultimately rejected the paper as being too controversial.

The paper's lead author, William Livingston, tells DailyTech that, while the refusal may have been justified at the time, recent data fits his theory well. He says he will be "secretly pleased" if his predictions come to pass.

But will the rest of us? In the past 1000 years, three previous such events -- the Dalton, Maunder, and Spörer Minimums, have all led to rapid cooling. One was large enough to be called a "mini ice age". For a society dependent on agriculture, cold is more damaging than heat. The growing season shortens, yields drop, and the occurrence of crop-destroying frosts increases.

Meteorologist Anthony Watts, who runs a climate data auditing site, tells DailyTech the sunspot numbers are another indication the "sun's dynamo" is idling. According to Watts, the effect of sunspots on TSI (total solar irradiance) is negligible, but the reduction in the solar magnetosphere affects cloud formation here on Earth, which in turn modulates climate.

This theory was originally proposed by physicist Henrik Svensmark, who has published a number of scientific papers on the subject. Last year Svensmark's "SKY" experiment claimed to have proven that galactic cosmic rays -- which the sun's magnetic field partially shields the Earth from -- increase the formation of molecular clusters that promote cloud growth. Svensmark, who recently published a book on the theory, says the relationship is a larger factor in climate change than greenhouse gases.

Solar physicist Ilya Usoskin of the University of Oulu, Finland, tells DailyTech the correlation between cosmic rays and terrestrial cloud cover is more complex than "more rays equals more clouds". Usoskin, who notes the sun has been more active since 1940 than at any point in the past 11 centuries, says the effects are most important at certain latitudes and altitudes which control climate. He says the relationship needs more study before we can understand it fully.

Other researchers have proposed solar effects on other terrestrial processes besides cloud formation. The sunspot cycle has strong effects on irradiance in certain wavelengths such as the far ultraviolet, which affects ozone production. Natural production of isotopes such as C-14 is also tied to solar activity. The overall effects on climate are still poorly understood.

What is incontrovertible, though, is that ice ages have occurred before. And no scientist, even the most skeptical, is prepared to say it won't happen again.

Article Update, Sep 1 2008.  After this story was published, the NOAA reversed their previous decision on a tiny speck seen Aug 21, which gives their version of the August data a half-point.  Other observation centers such as Mount Wilson Observatory are still reporting a spotless month.  So depending on which center you believe, August was a record for either a full century, or only 50 years.



Comments     Threshold


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

By phxfreddy on 9/1/2008 10:28:33 AM , Rating: 4
-1- Sell me your coastal land at 10% on the dollar... it is soon to be worthless because of rising ocean levels. 10% is a generous offer under those circumstances. http://www.amarketplaceofideas.com/hey-coastal-lib...

-2- Promise to subsidize fossil fuel usage if cooling occurs http://www.amarketplaceofideas.com/global-warming-...

-3- Eat insects. Much lower carbon footprint than beef! A large percentage of the world eats bugs. You can too if you are serious about saving the world. http://www.amarketplaceofideas.com/global-warming-...

-4- Live like the Amish do. Do not use a car. Admit it you hate technology so show us how its done. Use a horse and buggy. http://www.amarketplaceofideas.com/if-you-believe-...

-5- Show us your are serious. We are about to be inundated. Build an Ark so it will be ready for us all to live in when we need it. Show us how visionary you are. http://www.amarketplaceofideas.com/global-warming-...

Or ... you can do nothing and demonstrate its all just a cheer-lead con job by a bunch of frauds and followed by a bunch of poor saps feeling irrelevant because they have insufficient skills in a world that is increasingly technical and globalized.




By djkrypplephite on 9/1/2008 10:36:47 AM , Rating: 4
Hey has anyone noticed how the terminology has changed from "global warming" to "global climate change" because none of their theories work out over time? They can't figure anything out. One week we're warming, now we're cooling, but only until 2020, then we'll starting warming again. Something tells me this may have nothing to do with CO2, just throwing it out there.


By phxfreddy on 9/1/2008 10:48:22 AM , Rating: 2
So of course they need to get the taxes going now so when 2020 arrives we are already up and running with a solution.

I have a solution... put all liberal NJF MSG's on an island together. Make a reality series called Gorigans Island.

NJF / MSG ( Neurotic Joyless fkcu / Militant Stalinist Green ... because the people worrying about global warming appear to be very neurotic germanic white people who worship nature. If you have been to germany you KNOW what I mean!


By JohnnyCNote on 9/1/2008 11:02:13 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
NJF / MSG ( Neurotic Joyless fkcu / Militant Stalinist Green ... because the people worrying about global warming appear to be very neurotic germanic white people who worship nature. If you have been to germany you KNOW what I mean!


How do you connect "Stalinist Green" with "neurotic germanic white people"?


By phxfreddy on 9/3/2008 5:22:57 PM , Rating: 3
I spend alot of time out of the country and Brazil is my favorite. What are the Brazilians reactions to germanic or germanic derived cultures? - ( biggest ethnic group in the USA is german. ) After having spent alot of time there its evident ( really from day one ) that Americans are a cold non-talkative lot in comparison with Brazilians and in fact all the Euro-Latins I have run into there. ( Extensive numbers of students ) They know we Americans are a coldish / closed off lot in general. ( NOT IN PARTICULAR )

What is clear with these environmental and other movements of the left is lacking "society" or "community" they have subsituted "cause". Its a lonely world and its not surprising something is substituted in a society where community is only manifested in an aids or breast cancer walk with ribbons. A bit staid. In comparison Brazilians are social to the point where I now laugh if someone in the USA says they are having a party. They know not what of they speak.

I have significant german ancestry and thus I speak with experience that these folks have their fair share of fetishes or as I call them neurosis. This nature worship is only the latest manifestation.

You will not find this anal retentive nature worship in Brazil. You will not find it in Portugal, Spain or Italy.

You will find it in England, Germany, Australia and the USA. I never see alot of brown people with warmer personalities caught up. I only see neurotic white germanic people caught up. Full disclosure I am white.

We do do business in the USA like no other place. In seeking to be more social we should never seek to be socialist. Unfortunately that is exactly what global warming is all about.


By Bucky Beaver on 9/1/2008 1:26:26 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
They can't figure anything out. One week we're warming, now we're cooling, but only until 2020, then we'll starting warming again.


Actually, it's much worse! On any given day, half the planet faces global warming whereas the other half faces global cooling!

Coincidentally, the warming half is the one facing the Sun, and the cooling half is the opposite side! Go figure...


By phxfreddy on 9/1/2008 1:45:56 PM , Rating: 5
I am very concerned. This could day / night thing has reached the crisis stage. We should follow the cautionary principle and try to stop the world spinning on its axis.

The terrestrials against rotational delay (T.A.R.D) are severely misguided on this issue. http://www.amarketplaceofideas.com/terrestrials-ag...

This manic depressive global warming trend is very concerning to me.


By Samus on 9/1/2008 3:12:37 PM , Rating: 2
The sun is a smart God, it knows what's going on here. It's just hooking us up because the Earth is tired of hooking us up.


By Zoomer on 9/1/2008 3:21:36 PM , Rating: 1
Rally! Every Terrestrial Against Rotational Delay.

R. E. T. A. R. D.


By Regs on 9/4/2008 8:55:54 AM , Rating: 3
This planet survived ice ages, volcano's, mass floods, earth quakes, fault lines breaking, and asteroids.

For some reason, these very smart people, think this planet won't survive,..., us?

This planet will be here long after we're gone, don't worry. When new intelligent life forms arise from the ash, and open up our buried time capsules to find how diligently we tried to "save the planet", I'm sure mother earth will actually die from laughing.


By thepalinator on 9/4/2008 4:04:50 PM , Rating: 2
I'm already laughing now


By rudolphna on 9/1/2008 1:35:27 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, but for this we have documented records of this happening before. The best example is the Maunder minimum, known as the little ice age. It was horrific for Great Britain, and wont be any better today.


By retrospooty on 9/1/2008 10:46:30 AM , Rating: 5
I reject all this crap... I mean your post is funny, I will give you that. But "liberal" and these "paraniod climate change freaks" are not the same thing. I am liberal and I believe the planet is and will be fine. It has survived far FAR worse than mankind can throw at it.

Get this striaght...
liberal is to paraniod climate change freaks
as
Conservative is to book burning abortion clinic bombing nutjobs

Because a very small group of freaks bombs abortion clinics does not make all conservative idiots. The same goes in reverse.


By phxfreddy on 9/1/2008 10:52:18 AM , Rating: 3
There is a definite correlation between being liberal and being a climate believer.

There is a definite correlation between being conservative and being a climate denier.

Both liberals and conservatives do not jump off of the empire state building because gravity is a scientific physical phenomena.

Conservatives by and large do not believe in MMGW because why? Because its not a scientific issue. Its a political one. And a gin'd up one at that!

So reject all you want. You are a denier of the obvious!


By retrospooty on 9/1/2008 11:08:01 AM , Rating: 5
What exactly am I denying?

Fact - I am a liberal and not a climate change beliver
Fact - McCain is a conservative and is talking about making policy changes due to climate change.

They are not the same - some liberals and some conservatives believe in the climate change thing and some of each dont. I will give you the point that it is very likely more weighted toward liberals, but its not an exlcusive club.


By retrospooty on 9/1/2008 11:47:31 AM , Rating: 2
Like I said - I'll give you that point.

You are just too caught up in the lib vs. con. thing... Its not all black and white, there are thousands of shades of gray.


By feraltoad on 9/1/2008 3:51:58 PM , Rating: 5
Shade of grey? In nature yes. In the society of man things tend to go to black and white in discussions. Its simpler that way.

Yeah, F*CK understanding anything! Let's just argue non-stop instead of finding solutions! Let's argue futilely forever!!!!!


By omnicronx on 9/1/2008 4:08:36 PM , Rating: 3
You really have your head up your ass, regardless of your beliefs.

In today's society I would say that far more people believe in global warming than those who don't. Whether or not this is because of the force fed BS that people have been tought is a totally different issue.

Sure its true that most fanatical environmentalists happen to be liberal, but I think you are far off on the subject of how many people currently believe in global warming, its far more people than you would think, which is one of the reasons it will be part of both parties platforms come this fall. Otherwise why would Mcain even mention such a thing if all of his potential voters do not believe in it.

Global warming has been pushed into our heads for the past 20 years, its no wonder that many people consider it fact, without even considering the fact that there has been absolutely no hard evidence supporting such a thing. I would not find it hard to believe that a good 70% of Americans believe global warming.


By bpurkapi on 9/6/2008 5:29:49 AM , Rating: 2
Careful calling liberals Stalinist, else they call conservatives Mussolinists. Once again another person with no knowledge of history or policy passes judgment, and all of us suffer from their ignorance.


By ggordonliddy on 9/1/2008 12:07:04 PM , Rating: 4
> low and behold

It's "lo and behold"!! Doesn't anyone actually read anymore?


By phazers on 9/2/2008 1:37:59 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
It's "lo and behold"


I thought it's JLo and BHold :)

But then maybe I've read one too many tabloid headline at the supermarket checkout stand.


By Fronzbot on 9/1/2008 7:07:33 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Far more liberals are members of the Church of Later Day Warming than conservatives.

Your logic is flawed.

You're saying Liberals all believe in climate change because more believe in it than conservatives?

That's like saying more Americans are considered "obese" than in the UK therefore all Americans are "obese".


By phxfreddy on 9/3/2008 5:28:57 PM , Rating: 1
By and large was the key phase. Vast majority conservatives do not believe.

Vast majority of liberals do believe. Why not it allows for a tax EVERYTHING possibility. Such is the nature of the Stalinist.


By FITCamaro on 9/1/2008 1:36:38 PM , Rating: 2
McCain is not a conservative.


By gmw1082 on 9/2/2008 8:02:01 AM , Rating: 2
At least someone understands Republican does not mean conservative.


By Oregonian2 on 9/8/2008 5:51:56 PM , Rating: 2
It's even more complicated than that. There's also "economic conservative", "social conservative", and "religious conservative" (and the same set with "liberal" in place of "conservative"). As well as middle-of-the-road versions. An individual person may be in zero to three of those conservative groups in any combination and be liberal in others. There also is a difference of having the Republican party "be" something and having a Republican person be something (the press will spin to use them interchangeably to make their own point appear stronger). Even within a single broad category above, individuals may be in different camps. Categorizing broad concepts has a lot of weaknesses, just like categorizing people. Often wrong. Further, the press will show conflicts between a "liberal" stance and a "conservative" stance when it really is a 'liberal" vs "religious" conflict ("religious" aspects seem to pop up on both the liberal and religious sides of things -- still haven't quite figured that out clearly). In my experience, for instance, it's common to be very conservative economically but very liberal socially (although not directly mapping to "democrat" or "republican" very well, it is closer to "republican" most years (it varies depending upon who is "running" each party)). So it's usually better to concentrate on the individuals and less on their party to see things clearer, particularly this year where both McCain and Palin are people who have attacked their own party (McCain obviously a lot more times and over a much longer period) so they're not so much "party animals" as previous candidates (it was funny having the RNC convention hall go dead silent momentarily when McCain attacked his party in his acceptance speech at one point -- but not something new for him).


By cocoviper on 9/1/2008 2:25:04 PM , Rating: 2
Saying that liberal is to climate change believer as conservative is to book burning / abortion clinic bombing is definitely a misnomer though.

What principles do virtually all conservative leaders, especially the mainstream ones promote in those areas? I.e. where do the leaders and majority of conservatives stand on book burning on clinic bombing?

I then ask the converse; what principles do virtually all liberal leaders, especially the mainstream ones promote in the areas of climate change?

Maybe you're able to convince yourself that the wacky liberals are just on the fringe of your philosophy's leadership, but reality demonstrates otherwise. Liberal philosophy and the democratic party was hijacked post-Kennedy.

If you really believe in the past tenets of liberalism (chiefly social liberalism in relation to government and society), but you reject the craziness that increasingly is in control at the top of your party, I would you would be more vocal about it and not simply vote along party lines.


By Pavelyoung on 9/3/2008 5:04:42 AM , Rating: 2
Just wait, this will turn into a mini ice age and when we start to come out of it the liberals will start screaming global warming. Which will of course be confirmed by their scientific results :)


By omnicronx on 9/1/2008 3:54:32 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
There is a definite correlation
So where are the stats then? if there is a correlation, then there has to be some hard proof, where are the statistics to back your theory up? I guess I must have missed that question on the latest census...

quote:
So reject all you want. You are a denier of the obvious!
He just said he was a liberal and he didnt not believe in global warming.. what is he denying?


By Ringold on 9/1/2008 6:13:10 PM , Rating: 5
You people really sound like tools. Would you guys also argue out your ass about a statement like "most black people are Democrats," despite its obvious truth?

In case you really need everything handed to you on a golden platter, here, the results of literally 3-5 seconds at google.

http://people-press.org/report/417/a-deeper-partis...

Is the Pew Research Center some uber-partisan group? Not that I've heard. 89% of Democrats believe it, versus 49% of Republicans. Only 27% of Republican's believe man is causing global warming, compared to 58% of Democrats.

Now, do I need to link to evidence that on a clear day the sky appears to be blue to most humans, or can we now agree that Democrats, in the aggregate, do believe in global warming far more than Republicans and that, yes, the sky is blue?


By omnicronx on 9/2/2008 12:37:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Republicans are increasingly skeptical that there is solid evidence that the earth has been warming over the past few decades: just 49% of Republicans say there is evidence that the earth's average temperature has been rising, down 13 points since January 2007.
But unlike something which can be proved (i.e black voting) these articles are merely based on a small pool of data. In fact just last year Fox news posted an article saying that 70% of repulicans in one way or another believed in at least partial man made global warming. It also states that 90% of Democrats and 84% independents believe it in, which does not seem to match the findings by the people press. I would also like to point out that fox news is usually favor conservatives.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,250571,00.html

As such my original point stands, he and you are making statements based on something with no definitive data. Black voting is probably part of the census data collected each election, where as belief in global warming is not. My point was that he said there was a correlation, where by definition there needs to be numbers to prove it, where in reality there is not any definitive proof at all.

And even by the numbers the peoples press have provided (which do not seem to match the findings by other sources) for ever 2 democrat believers, there is one republican believer, that's a far cry from 'only democrats believe in global warming' as by the stats, 50% of democrats do not, which frankly i do not believe either.

p.s here is another source claiming otherwise
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/27/washington/27pol...
(which claims 84% of Americans believe in some sort of global warming)

This all goes to prove that there are many reasons to believe in global warming. For example it is far more likely for a republican from Florida or Louisiana to believe in global warming because of the increased hurricane trend, where as a republican from Washington state would have not have the same view as they have had the same experiences.


By omnicronx on 9/2/2008 12:39:06 PM , Rating: 2
correction:where as a republican from Washington state would not have the same view as they have not had the same experiences.


By phxfreddy on 9/3/2008 5:32:35 PM , Rating: 2
You are stabbing with a rubber knife. That tool will not cut.

I would be surprised if more than 10% of republicans really believed. There is no sense in talking to you if you deny the obvious. And if you look up "obvious" in the dictionary you will find this next to it.


By TheCreeper on 9/1/2008 11:10:28 AM , Rating: 2
Fair enough, but wouldn't you say that the number of right wing conservatives advocating bombing abortion clinics is relatively small? and the number of liberals who share your views on global warming is also small?

Unfortunately, too many high profile people support this warming theory. I agree with otherposters. Global cooling is far more scary.

But the news about sun spots means we will know within a couple of years that Gore is a big windbag.


By retrospooty on 9/1/2008 11:45:22 AM , Rating: 3
I'll do you one better. I am a liberal, and a democrat and I will honestly say right now today - Al Gore is a windbag. No need to wait! =)


By AlexWade on 9/1/2008 4:45:13 PM , Rating: 2
Speaking of Al Gore and hot air, watch this clip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VeU6WOjMS0

(Wait until near the end)


By Politicus on 9/1/2008 1:08:09 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know of any Conservative Politicians advocating bombing abortion clinics. Yet, Al Gore, the King of GW, former VP of the USA, 1/2 Nobel winner, Oscar winning film lecturer - is a Liberal - and promoting all styles of GW taxes and fees. He even invests in GW govt-subsidized stocks through his Generation Invesment LLP http://www.generationim.com/

Liberals are Paranoid Climate Change Freaks - led about the nose by grifters such as Liberal Al Gore.


By onwisconsin on 9/1/2008 5:36:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I reject all this crap... I mean your post is funny, I will give you that. But "liberal" and these "paraniod climate change freaks" are not the same thing. I am liberal and I believe the planet is and will be fine. It has survived far FAR worse than mankind can throw at it.


I'm in the same boat. I lean to the left but I constantly disagree with the Democratic Party (and Al Gore in particular).


By truthbeknown on 9/2/2008 6:14:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Get this striaght...
liberal is to paraniod climate change freaks
as
Conservative is to book burning abortion clinic bombing nutjobs

Because a very small group of freaks bombs abortion clinics does not make all conservative idiots. The same goes in reverse.


This post bothered me enough that I decided to register to respond. I am shocked and appalled that you believe those two examples are equivalent. Liberals are being accused of being paranoid about global warming. I could take that statement far further and it still wouldn't compare to the second "equivalent" statement. I could say that liberals waste taxpayer dollars enacting legislation designed to counteract global warming. As an example, the liberals from my state (CA) have enacted a new law so that starting in January 2009, all new vehicles are required to have a "global warming score" based on testing of greenhouse gas emissions for each and every vehicle type.

Let's compare this to your second statement, and see if the accusations have equivalent weight. The second statement alleges that conservatives are mass murderers of abortion doctors. No matter how far left or right a person is, I would think most people would agree that accusing someone of mass murder is many times more serious than accusing someone of being paranoid or even of wasting taxpayer dollars.

The statements are dissimilar in another way as well. Do you really believe that the percentage of conservatives who are mass murderers of abortion doctors is anywhere close to the percentage of liberals who believe in global warming? A number of people have posted statistics here on what percentage of liberals believe in global warming. These statistics vary greatly, with the lower end being 50% and the higher end being 90%. Even if only the lower end of those statistics is true (50% of liberals believing in global warming), do you really believe that 50% of conservatives are mass murderers? If you really do believe that, then I'd encourage you to expend your energy stopping the conservatives from slaughtering abortion doctors, rather than trying to prove that not all liberals are worried about global warming.


By Donkeyshins on 9/1/2008 1:54:09 PM , Rating: 2
What if you want to reduce fossil fuel usage since it is a finite resource, and, in the case of coal, contributes to acid rain - does that make you a whackjob?

BTW: interesting challenge - too bad the site has such a right-wing bias.


By phxfreddy on 9/1/2008 2:12:58 PM , Rating: 3
It only makes you a wack job if you try to force another person to believe these same things. Coercion is wrong in the company of polite people trying to live together.

I personally hate driving and ride a bike when I can.

Economically we are being destroyed by not drilling on the OCS and in ANWR. Drilling with conservation is a great strategy. Just guessing you won't comprimise. Only conservation would be your tagline. That's not a solution by itself. I'm an engineer. I would love to see more of nuclear and other advanced sources. We won't make it to Alpha Centauri with a chemically powered rocket. But one must be practical. Our society currently runs on oil / gas / coal. It will do so until technology allows otherwise and will not run on platitudes of the left.

As for being conservative....The vast majority of engineers are thrifty with a buck ( cheap ) and thus conservative. If you want left wing bias you should go to a site that talks about Brittney. Men / technology lovers tend to be logical thinkers who do not let emotion rule them.


By Donkeyshins on 9/1/2008 11:01:52 PM , Rating: 3
OK. Even if the theory of abiogenic petroleum is valid (and the jury is still very much out on this), you're still trading one finite resource (petroleum) for other finite resources (calcium carbonate and iron oxide). Neither petroleum in its raw form nor calcium carbonate / iron oxide are produced as a byproduct of burning hydrocarbons - therefore they are finite resources.

There is nothing inherently 'right wing' about the theory of abiogenic petroleum - however, http://amarketplaceofideas.com has a definite right-wing / conservative bias.


By Ringold on 9/1/2008 4:58:05 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
What if you want to reduce fossil fuel usage since it is a finite resource, and, in the case of coal, contributes to acid rain - does that make you a whackjob?


Everything is a finite resource. I get a lot of amusement watching people in the environmental movements talk about "sustainability" as if its a useful economic term. The steel, aluminum, concrete or whatever else that is used in "renewable" technologies is no different. That their output is also variable means that much more finite resources have to be deployed in order to get the same output that, say, a smaller nuclear facility can output almost non-stop. This excludes, of course, some legitimate renewable technologies, like hydro and geothermal (which DT recently talked about).

Cost bares a direct relationship with resource utilization and scarcity. That wind and solar are, for most parts of the country, uncompetitive with traditional fuel sources, particularly without subsidies, should immediately tell you something about the underlying scarcity issues at work. Markets work until we screw with them as we have done with ethanol.

So no, wanting to reduce fossil fuel use because its a "finite resource," doesn't make you a whackjob. Just dishonest or misinformed; dishonest because people attempt to couch what is really a moral view in economic arguments that hold no water, or misinformed because people simply don't know what they're going on about. Take your pick. :P


By theendofallsongs on 9/2/2008 2:36:08 PM , Rating: 2
If wind power ever got dirt cheap (which it won't, of course) you'd see environmentalists protesting it just as much as coal or nuclear. Cheap energy is what makes civilizations grow and prosper, and they don't want that.


By Reclaimer77 on 9/2/2008 4:58:19 PM , Rating: 2
We have a winner. And you know why ?

Liberals know that in a thriving prospering nation there is NO WAY their opinions and positions on things stand a snowballs chance in hell. Thats why they ONLY focus on the negative, marginalize the positives, and blow everything out of proportion to the extreme.

Spend five minutes listening to Obama and he paints the picture that this country is a third world disaster thats going straight to hell unless we " change ". Same from pretty much every liberal. They are the KINGS of handwringing.

You nailed it. The LAST thing they want to see is abundant energy in this country and cheap power/gas prices. Because then everyone would be happy and see no reason to change things by voting for them.


By Spuke on 9/3/2008 6:41:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Liberals know that in a thriving prospering nation there is NO WAY their opinions and positions on things stand a snowballs chance in hell.
People are more apt to give and share when they are happy and financially secure. You would think this would be promoted. When people don't have anything to share, they don't give. Initiatives like public healthcare won't fly now because people won't want to give their money away.

When people have money to burn, they would be likely to agree to public healthcare or other things. This is just logical. I wonder what the statistics are on American donations. Have they gone down with the economy?


By wvh on 9/1/2008 7:31:09 PM , Rating: 4
Somehow, this interesting article about sunspots turned into a good ol' American soapbox politics drama again. Quiet indulgent, don't you think...


By NVBOB on 9/4/2008 5:46:10 PM , Rating: 2
I am a republican. I am concerned about the environment. I have seen first hand the devastation that was caused by drilling "offshore" in Galveston, TX. There are no living natural reefs within 220 miles of Galveston. When you play in the surf on Kayaks, you get out of the water with tar on you. Thirty years before I was there the reefs were alive with fish and corals and when the drilling commenced, the city of Galveston had to scrape off the dead fish every morning to keep the rotting fish smell at least bearable (I talked to several lifelong residents).

In 1995, I went to Alaska for the first time. I hiked up to see Exit Glacier near Seward Alaska. I saw the many signs that marked where the glacier had been in the early 1900's as you drive and then hike up to the glacier. This showed me that the glacier had been melting long before I bought an SUV. I returned to Exit Glacier in 2003. I was truly stunned at the distance that it had receeded. I have photos from 1995 with me standing in a crack in the glacier just on the other side of the rope at a bench. The glacier is a quarter of a mile from that now. I don't know what I expected, but that was certainly not it. I know that man is not having the impact that Al Gore says that we are. However, in cases of drilling off the shores of our country, we can see the damage done to the underwater habitat. I am an avid scuba diver and have been diving for 29 years. I don't have all the answers but I know that drilling in the oceans is not what I want my party to stand for!! I don't want to be taxed out of the country by the other party either. There needs to be some balance. There needs to be people talking to people who get the word out about problems affecting the environment without regard for party bias. I don't have children, but I still want the wild areas of the planet to be accessible for generations to come. That means we have to protect the planet and also we need to be sure that people have their rights in order to go see it.


By lkjh on 9/6/2008 12:06:58 PM , Rating: 2
This is the silliest, least thoughtful comment I've seen in a long time. No one serious about global warming makes the kind of straw dog arguments phxfreddy here is making & then trying to knock down. He simply doesn't understand the issues. Too bad he is so misinformed.


By ConcernedHuman on 9/8/2008 9:36:07 PM , Rating: 2
Islam (the belief and living accordingly inline with THE One and Only Creator, "muslim" literally means “someone who tries to do Islam”) has already messaged many scientific facts, including the bing bang, the expanding universe, the atomic structure, creation and evolution of both the universe and human kind and the creation of other creatures besides humans and animals.

Try to overcome your misconceptions due to misinformation based on international politics and the wrong doings of some muslims and open up your mind and heart to Islam, learn Islam from Islam, not from biased mass media or luciferians pretending to be muslims or misguided muslims:

QuranMiracles(.)com

WhatsIslam(.)com

ShareIslam(.)com

BibleIslam(.)com

IslamCode(.)com

TurnToIslam(.)com

AllahsQuran(.)com

Peace to all.


global warming?
By Bluejacket on 9/1/2008 10:49:57 AM , Rating: 2
Drop in solar activity has potential effect for climate on earth.


This is just one more example of how the left seeks to control things. First, with the Marxists with the flow of history, the productions of goods, the re-making of the new man and now; the control of climate.

They will never get it. The reason: The fun, for them, is in the control!




RE: global warming?
By phxfreddy on 9/1/2008 11:11:19 AM , Rating: 2
I reject the idea of the left being fun. They are singularly joyless and unfunny.

In both their so called "humor" and everyday life they appear to be very fearful. Chronic ongoing fear does not yield a good humored person.

What it results in is a "Gus Hall" style dire dour sourpuss who as it turns out seems to be power hungry Stalinist types.


RE: global warming?
By Eckstein on 9/1/2008 11:32:16 AM , Rating: 3
So the worldwide consensus by climatologists on the human impact on the current global warming is nonsense because Marxism didn't work and because a "drop in solar activity has potential effect for climate on earth".

Makes sense!


RE: global warming?
By phxfreddy on 9/1/2008 11:53:57 AM , Rating: 1
Eckstein... can you please quote a peer reviewed paper to support your point?

Global Warming is nonsense because the same "thought center" latched on to it as a vehicle. Yes point well taken.

Of course its more direct just to say Marxists love MMGW because in it they see a vehicle to power. Before the left embraced it MMGW was a good plot for a disaster movie.

The problem is some people have been watching to much TV!


RE: global warming?
By Eckstein on 9/1/2008 12:31:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Eckstein... can you please quote a peer reviewed paper to support your point?
This is a good point to start: http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/

quote:
Of course its more direct just to say Marxists love MMGW because in it they see a vehicle to power. Before the left embraced it MMGW was a good plot for a disaster movie.
So you are saying that the worldwide scientific consensus on climate models is wrong because you think that "Marxists love MMGW"?

quote:
The problem is some people have been watching to much TV!
I don't even own a TV and think that the IPCC reports are by far the best assessments in existence on the human impact on the global climate.

They are based on the global consensus on the current state of climatological science, which qualifies them to be the base for political decisions in this regard.


RE: global warming?
By phxfreddy on 9/1/08, Rating: -1
RE: global warming?
By Eckstein on 9/1/2008 12:50:53 PM , Rating: 1
A well meant tip: Absolutism is your worst enemy!


RE: global warming?
By judahbenhuer on 9/1/2008 1:11:33 PM , Rating: 3
Are you 'absolutely' sure?


RE: global warming?
By phxfreddy on 9/1/2008 2:02:42 PM , Rating: 1
I am unsure but I am pretty sure I can find a peer reviewed paper to support my position. Whatever that position is. Let's call it position X.

I do love learning. Problem is those who believe in MMGW are unrealistic and thus I am not swayed by their thinking. To those that do believe in MMGW let me posit there are real problems we could be devoting this misguided energy to. There are alot of people in the world that would love to be your friend. Find a country and become familiar. My own personal favorite is Brazil. I help spread capitalism there and in return they teach me how to be much happier than I have learned to be in the USA. This too is a science. Get out of the house more Eckstein. You do not even need a note from your mother. On all levels being the best possible person you can be is the best help for the world. Including devoting your energies and concerns to real problems instead of confected ones.

Yes I just said it. MMGW is the powdered donut of problems.


RE: global warming?
By Yossarian22 on 9/1/2008 3:04:54 PM , Rating: 2
There is a definitive divide between a priori an posteriori knowledge. Only an idiot attempts to equate the two.


RE: global warming?
By porkpie on 9/1/2008 12:43:01 PM , Rating: 2
The "worldwide scientific consensus" is a myth. This site alone has posted papers from dozens of climatologists that refute CAGW. Last year, 400 scientists signed a paper asking the UN to reconsider the IPCC conclusions, and over 9,000 Ph.D'd scientists have signed a petition refuting AGW alarmism.

Compared to the 40-odd scientists who actually write up the IPCC reports, that a huge figure.


RE: global warming?
By Eckstein on 9/1/2008 1:26:10 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The "worldwide scientific consensus" is a myth. This site alone has posted papers from dozens of climatologists that refute CAGW.
Citizens Against Government Waste?
So what?

quote:
Last year, 400 scientists signed a paper asking the UN to reconsider the IPCC conclusions, and over 9,000 Ph.D'd scientists have signed a petition refuting AGW alarmism.
There are several million people who have an Ph. D. and the vast majority of them will tell you that it is ridicules to critisize scientific research that is not in your field.

If you had been on a University, you would know that people owning an Ph. D. are often wrong in their opinions as well.

There are petitions with tenthousands of signers (under them many scientists), who want to proclaim Elvis Presley as a brother of Jesus.

quote:
Compared to the 40-odd scientists who actually write up the IPCC reports, that a huge figure.
That you simply make up a number here shows how well educated your opinion is.


RE: global warming?
By masher2 (blog) on 9/1/2008 1:36:25 PM , Rating: 4
His figures are roughly correct. Chap 9 of IPCC AR4 -- the important part that concludes anthropogenic GHGs are contributing to global warming -- has 53 lead authors. Rather than representing science as a whole, most of them have coauthored papers together and/or are citing their own papers in the conclusion. A full 20% of those authors come from a single institution -- the Hadley Center for Climate Change, an institution predicated on alarmism.

Still worse, the AR4 Summary isn't written by scientists at all, but by politicians, with representatives from member nations approving every word, line by line. The summary is written first, then the report is reviewed to ensure its conclusions are in line with the summary. Simple fact.

As for conclusions "outside your field", I've personally interviewed or spoken with over three dozen solar physicists, atmospheric physicists, and climatologists who believe anthropogenic global warming is anywhere from a nonentity to no more than a mild annoyance. Several of them are IPCC expert reviewers themselves.


RE: global warming?
By Eckstein on 9/1/2008 2:13:21 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
His figures are roughly correct. Chap 9 of IPCC AR4 -- the important part that concludes anthropogenic GHGs are contributing to global warming -- has 53 lead authors.
And they base their conclusions on the research of hundreds of other scientists as you can see in the reference lists between the reports.

You could have said as well that only one person actually wrote down the report.

quote:
Rather than representing science as a whole, most of them have coauthored papers together and/or are citing their own papers in the conclusion.
This is simply totally wrong!
The reference index on this report alone is 11 pages long.

quote:
A full 20% of those authors come from a single institution -- the Hadley Center for Climate Change, an institution predicated on alarmism.
So only 20% of the authors of one of the many reports are "predicated on alarmism" now and not the whole evil colluding entity behind the IPCC?

quote:
Still worse, the AR4 Summary isn't written by scientists at all, but by politicians, with representatives from member nations approving every word, line by line. The summary is written first, then the report is reviewed to ensure its conclusions are in line with the summary. Simple fact.
That the summaries are not based on science, but on politicans might be your opinion, but is certainly no fact.

All I know about is that a single author complained about (Chapter 8) being altered, which was of course denied by others.
What do you expect from a report that includes HUNDREDS of authors?!

quote:
As for conclusions "outside your field", I've personally interviewed or spoken with over three dozen solar physicists, atmospheric physicists, and climatologists who believe anthropogenic global warming is anywhere from a nonentity to no more than a mild annoyance. Several of them are IPCC expert reviewers themselves.
And I spoke with Elvis himself and he said that you are wrong!


RE: global warming?
By phxfreddy on 9/1/2008 2:32:46 PM , Rating: 1
We have a high priest of the brotherhood of later day global warmers among us!

High Priest Eckstein ... do you have any of the global warming monk robes available is XXL ?

Face it. MMGW is the merchandised model of global crisis' but we do not all want to go humeda humeda oooooooohmmm with you.

Its only going to take a few more years and MMGW is going to be Y2-K-O'd. That is to say year 2000 will pass uneventfully and people say "What was all the hub bub about?"

Just remember how hard over you have been High Priest Eckstein. Remember to be duly embarrassed for your misguided belief in this farsical religion.


RE: global warming?
By Yossarian22 on 9/1/2008 3:07:43 PM , Rating: 3
There is something inherently ironic about an idiotic zealot declaring that the other side's idiotic zealots are blowing hot air.


RE: global warming?
By Jim28 on 9/1/2008 10:08:03 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps, but one set of zealots wants to control our lives via taxes, restrictions, and environmental BS, the other set of zealots does not and wants to be left alone. I am going with the latter. Those AGW folks can hit the road, and don't let the door hit em' in the ass! (one of my fathers best lines!)


RE: global warming?
By phxfreddy on 9/3/2008 5:39:59 PM , Rating: 2
No zealot here. I am completely atheist. I believe in no religion. Not even global warming.

What is truly ironic if you want to talk about irony is:

-- liberals kill off religion ... then immediately ressurect it in the form of MMGW.

You see the real problem for liberals is not religion. It is that we are not worshipping at their alter.

It may be true that I am a zealot if you talk about how strongly I reject their Church of Later Day Warming.

I do not like whooey Crap B.S. Fudge lies Misrepresentation fraud .........any word you want to put on it.

The irony then truly is on your side when you go humeda humeda humeda ooooooooohm to your MMGW god.


RE: global warming?
By Yossarian22 on 9/4/2008 10:41:45 PM , Rating: 2
Zealotry and atheism are not mutually exclusive in common English. Maybe in ancient Hebrew or whatever we derived zealot from.

"Liberals killed off religion": If religion is dead (a spurious claim at best), it wasn't 'Them dern librels' who killed it. Religion, quite frankly, did it to itself.

I call you a zealot for a couple reasons. Your posts resemble the ramblings a paranoid twit who believes so strongly in his correctness that it has an air of satire around it. If you are fakeposting, you are doing a damn good job of it.
Your little rant about religion (besides merely lacking internal consistency) is irrelevant to anything really.


RE: global warming?
By chichikov on 9/1/2008 10:10:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There are several million people who have an Ph. D. and the vast majority of them will tell you that it is ridicules to critisize scientific research that is not in your field.


If it is ridiculous to critize scientific research that is not in your field wouldn't it also be ridiculous to advocate for scientific research not in your field? Seems to me that there are many ridiculous politicians, failed politicians, political messiahs and self-proclaimed environmentalsts out there who are very ridiculous indeed. Perhaps even yourself?


RE: global warming?
By ipay on 9/1/2008 7:11:46 PM , Rating: 1
RE: global warming?
By Politicus on 9/1/2008 1:27:09 PM , Rating: 2
You don't own a TV. But you apparently own an Internet connection. Here's your Global Consensus on Climate Change:
MONEY!

Gore Investment Vehicle Closes $683m Fund
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/05/gore-inves...

Al Gore's fund to close after attracting $5 billion http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/03/11/business/go...

AL Gore, the Green Giant, is after your money. Hey, why not Al Gore traveling the world, making movies, promoting fear of the sky falling and the seas rising to convince Govts worldwide to tax/fee & spend their citizen's money to subsidize Green Tech so Al Gore can get a Fat Cat return on his investment funds.

You GW Believers have been had. You've been taken for a ride. You're Al Gore's fools. You've bought into and played his crooked Carnival game. HA!


RE: global warming?
By Eckstein on 9/1/2008 2:20:34 PM , Rating: 2
What has the person "Al Gore" to do with the scientific base behind the human impact on the global warming?!

Is he a TV star in the U.S. of A. and talks about this topic?
Well I couldn't care less!


RE: global warming?
By phxfreddy on 9/1/2008 2:36:16 PM , Rating: 2
Mr AlGore-ithm the robotic candidate is representative of the MMGW crew. Short on ethics. Short on scientific ethics and worse yet he has no scientific aptitude. Yet he goes round scooping up and diverting resources from real issues to the imaginary problem MMGW.

That is what it has to do with it.

Signed Ecksteins Mother.


RE: global warming?
By Yossarian22 on 9/1/08, Rating: 0
RE: global warming?
By Politicus on 9/1/2008 4:27:57 PM , Rating: 2
I seem to recall Al Gore referred to the IPCC Hockey Stick Temperature Sick Curve in his Movies and Lectures!

The only ad hominem going around is Al Gore and you GW believers placing blame on Carbon users. Sorry! I cool or warm my house or drive my car, and I have ad hominem attacks thrown my way by a dope head like Al Gore and the likes of you. You bunch of hate-filled ogres.

I provided facts about what Al Gore is doing - attacting money and you're so unitelligent that you claim it's an ad hominem attack!

Al Gore is using a red herring - if you want to start naming logical fallacies - and he's making fools out of you - making you believe the future of the planet is short, while he's investing long-term!


RE: global warming?
By Yossarian22 on 9/1/2008 11:14:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
"The only [personal attack] going around is Al Gore and you GW believers [I like how I am considered a GW believer for considering your argument a useless piece of bilge] placing the blame on Carbon users"


Placing blame is not an ad hominem attack. Saying "those global warming skeptics are nothing but parasitic Neanderthals (somebody posted a rough equivalent to this in another thread) and therefore we do not care what they say" is an ad hominem attack. Stop throwing around words whose meanings you clearly do not understand.

A red herring is a meaningless argument designed to change the subject. Kind of like what you are doing (tu quoque).
Your argument has little to do with the actual science and more to do with a conflict of interest. That is all well and good, but if the science is flawed, you should be able to show that it is flawed. Masher, for all that I have seen, is the only one who actually bothers to do this. The rest of you just serve to drag his cause through the mud by acting just as bad as those you lampoon.


RE: global warming?
By Ringold on 9/1/2008 6:36:38 PM , Rating: 5
Researchers that put food on the table with energy industry money, they can't be believed. At least, thats the common attack against such people.

But researchers who attach themselves to the government bosom for their money, and politicians all too happy to fund them because of the subjects popularity, they are credible?

I believe that may be the point. "Follow the money" applies to many things, and it hasn't been lost on me at least that armies of academics are feeding families solely because their studies have "Global Warming" in their title or summaries.

At least that is the tactic I'd take to question credibility, slightly more high-road than the other guy.


RE: global warming?
By Yossarian22 on 9/1/2008 11:22:47 PM , Rating: 2
I haven't seen Eckstein make such a claim, but perhaps I missed it because I skimmed through the bit above. Responding to a strawman with another strawman, while slightly amusing, gets both sides nowhere and only convinces bystanders (such as me) that both groups are a bunch of idiots with nothing meaningful to say. The question of credibility is, again, a red herring. If his work is flawed, show the flaw. If you can't, why the hell are you debating the point in the first place.


RE: global warming?
By gmw1082 on 9/2/2008 8:09:26 AM , Rating: 2
It's not uncommon for people to point the finger and make accusations against those they disagree with. It's a good way to divert attention away from yourself.


RE: global warming?
By Spuke on 9/3/2008 7:08:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's a good way to divert attention away from yourself.
Spending an inordinate amount of time placing blame and pointing fingers does nothing to fix whatever problem needs to be fixed. We haven't even decided collectively that there is a problem. We're too busy placing blame and pointing fingers.

You have people that believe and people that disbelieve. We get together and argue and when the argument is done, we leave believing the same thing as before. We have only succeeded in wasting what short life we have left. Which could be better spent building a Pergola in the backyard.

I'm sure my comment will somehow become twisted.