Patterico's Pontifications

3/14/2007

Global Cooling Hysteria In The Media

Filed under: Accepted Wisdom,Environment,General — Justin Levine @ 3:33 pm



[posted by Justin Levine]

Time Magazine:  June 24, 1974      [hat-tip: The John And Ken Show]

Proving the continued resiliency of apocalyptic belief.

Are you really sure that you want to stand by these statements Megan? Do you really think that man-made global warming is “largely settled” and “not worth debating”?? Is that because you can provide links showing as much? Or can you only cite other scientists who simply proclaim that it is “settled”?

69 Responses to “Global Cooling Hysteria In The Media”

  1. That comment by Megan threw me for a big loop today too; especially when I first read it and thought it was Glenn’s comment! I’d never heard of Ron Bailey before so I followed her link to read some of his stuff on Reason’s website. He acknowledges that studies now show CO2 increases lagging temp increases in the atmosphere by several hundred years yet still believes humans are having some impact on global warming. That fact alone seems pretty difficult for the scare-mongers to square properly.

    Cain (70abde)

  2. Actually, global cooling was first reported by the New York Times over a century ago, in 1895. This is the fourth climate change scare, not the second.

    That fact alone should make it difficult for the scare-mongers to square properly.

    Laura (087c0d)

  3. Link? What link?

    This may be the only post in the history of Instapundit.com without a link!

    Stephen Macklin (68591a)

  4. The single most worrying fact in all this debate is that CO2 levels have not been anywhere near this high since before there were dinosaurs. This should give pause to those that want to ignore it all.

    The next most worrying fact is that science is about experiment and debate, and were seeing more dogma than debate from some quarters. There are even folks who want to ostracize any doubters. That’s not science, that’s religious persecution.

    Kevin Murphy (805c5b)

  5. …not worth debating…

    I agree. Since it is a settled issue, let us stop funding all these scientists, researchers and their foundations billions and billions of dollars per year so they can move on to the next imaginary crisis.

    Perfect Sense (b6ec8c)

  6. oops my mistake, misread something (“since before there were dinosaurs”). One too many zeroes.

    CO2 levels are higher than they have been for the last 20 million years (not 200). Still, though, this should give pause as the levels are still increasing.

    The debate is not over what CO2 levels are, but if these levels cause anything.

    Kevin Murphy (805c5b)

  7. March 27, 1991, Wednesday
    By MATTHEW L. WALD
    New York Times:

    “…catalytic converters operate simply in burning the pollutant material, thus “converting” it into benign carbon dioxide…”

    J Curtis (d21251)

  8. The debate is not over what CO2 levels are, but if these levels cause anything.

    If those levels cause anything bad. Higher plant fertility doesn’t strike me as particularly bad.

    Robert Crawford (46b1a4)

  9. She writes for the Economist, apparently, which pretty much explains everything. (Despite the name of the magazine, they have a very “European” outlook on things)

    JeremyR (c9cf9f)

  10. Maybe I’m coming into this late, but what does she mean by “my level of science education”? I have a BSEE. What does she have? (Now, maybe she’s some kind of science whiz, I honestly do not know.) And I dare say that my engineering education would not allow me to be as definitive as she is in her statements. My training precludes me from being so damned definitive. (And it pisses my wife off to no end!) What trained scientist of any discipline would shut off debate on any topic?

    Curious,
    V

    viktor (2ed627)

  11. In this age of several mass media outlets, it is unacceptable that we can’t have a knock-down-drag-out debate on this issue.

    We have 7 televised mass media outlets now ( ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, PBS, CNN and MSNBC ), maybe more, where this whole debate could be fought out to its bloody conclusion.

    Roger Ailes could create an hour program called “The Great Debate” where the GW advocates have an hour to make their case and the skeptics get an hour the following week and you keep taking turns until one side doesn’t show up to make their argument and that’s a forfeit and the other side wins.

    If the televised media won’t do it, have this debate on public access television and the video can be distributed on youtube, blogs, etc.

    If it can’t be done on public access tv, have this debate on a blog.

    How could the GW hoaxters refuse to show up?

    J Curtis (d21251)

  12. It’s just a coincidence that human power use has raised the ave. temp of the planet by .6 of a degree, concurrently with the subduction of CO2 ice shelves on Mars, the creation of the second biggest know storm in the solar system situated in the same telescopic field next to the biggest storm located on the planet Jupiter, the biggest hurricane ever observed in history currently hovering over the south pole on Saturn, the expansion and thickening of the methane atmospheres of Neptune’s moon,Triton and the newly annointed non planet, Pluto, sundrey and assorted unexpected heating effects on whichever moons, comets, asteroids, happen to lie within our ability for easy inspection (Enceladus,Titan, ect.)
    Of all the places in the solar system it seems Earth is the lone object which can’t possibly be affected by an increase in solar activity.
    And the reason our scientific community believes this? Because they are sure that NASA instruments are of such a fine caliber that they couldn’t possibly miss a Solar perterbation that would result in a .6 degree increase over the course of 70 years.
    I don’t share that confidence, neither should anyone with a brain.

    papertiger (252738)

  13. I’ve ceased to be shocked at the lengths the GW crowd will go to prove their conclusions using poor logic.

    And a good engineer won’t give a definate yes or no on almost anything, ever…

    Most days they won’t answer definitively what color socks they are wearing without looking first.

    Science isn’t run by concensus. If it was, the Earth would be the center of the universe, the sun would revolve around us, and the Earth would be flat…

    We’d not be able to fly at the speed of sound, fly at all, or pretty much everything we take for granted. How is it that NOW it’s science by committee?

    Scott Jacobs (90eabe)

  14. Now I know you all are not debating the religion of Global Warming because as I understand it from Megan and the reverend Al Gore the science is settled, have you no shame:-)

    Rigthmom (c8d596)

  15. I stumbled on this site from memeorandum.com so forgive me if I seem out of place.

    The “global cooling” scare of the 70s was a case of mass media misunderstanding or misstating the actual science.

    Aerosols have a cooling effect on the environment, and greenhouse gases have a warming effect. (There are other radiative forcing effects, but these are the strongest opposing forces.) At the time (the 70s), it was not clear which was stronger. It’s clearer now, though aerosols are still the least understood forcing effect.

    Doug (5d0532)

  16. So what’s the point here? That because once some scientists thought global cooling was a problem, and now global warming is the problem, we now have an excuse to ignore all science all the time? Oh look, they corrected themselves once, therefore everything they say is bullshit.

    That’s how science works–constant self correction with the evaluation of new data. I am not too far from a BS in chemistry and I have seen the case for global warming. It’s not a hard case to make. Every scientist that I know agrees that a) global warming is happening and b) humans are to behind it to a large degree. We know what kind of chemicals cause warming, to what degree, and why, and how their respective concentrations have changed over the past 200 years.

    It seems reasonable to me that if there is even a small chance of cataclysm, it might be in our best interests to be conservative and not take unnecessary chances.

    Russell (a32796)

  17. So what’s the point here? That because once some scientists thought global cooling was a problem, and now global warming is the problem, we now have an excuse to ignore all science all the time? Oh look, they corrected themselves once, therefore everything they say is bullshit.

    The point, your ineffectual sarcasm to the contrary, is that scientists are employing poorly-constructed science in order to “prove” a conclusion post hoc–that man-made global warming (and more specifically, man-made global warming emanating from the United States) is barreling us down a path to utter human destruction. It’s not the argument, it’s the apocalyptic language on par with 1700s-era religious revivalism that is being objected to.

    We know what kind of chemicals cause warming, to what degree, and why, and how their respective concentrations have changed over the past 200 years.

    This wouldn’t be a problem if humanity’s presence on earth only went back 200 years as well. the problem with your assertion is that humanity has gone through similar warming trends hundreds of years prior with little to no deleterious effect on their civilizations. If scientists could show how global warming has negatively impacted human civilization in the past, they might be able to make a case. Unfortunately, evidence to the contrary shows, particularly in Europe, that global warming trends tend to have a postive impact by extending growing seasons in particular.

    Furthermore, the designation of CO2 as the new “toxic chemical” by the GW crowd is beyond ludicrous. Back in the 70s, the concern was over the creation of a legitimate toxic chemical, CO, by automobiles. The installation of catalytic convertors in cars was meant to drmatically reduce the amount of CO in the air, leaving nothing but, you guessed it, CO2, which was thought to be harmless. Despite the fact that all plant life on earth requires this “toxic chemical” to survive, the GW alarmists are predicting civilizational disaster.

    It seems reasonable to me that if there is even a small chance of cataclysm, it might be in our best interests to be conservative and not take unnecessary chances.

    Sorry, russell, but what you are proposing is quite simply the retardation of human civilzation. A society that exists in a state of fear over what “could” be will not take upon itself the responsibility to take chances, to grow beyond the self-imposed limits that it has paralyzed itself, simply because they will have the ax of “this ‘might’ happen!” hanging over their head.

    The problem with the current GW “crisis” is that too many of its proponents are acting as if we are the first human civilization to experience it. the message of environmental conservation is a good one and should theoretically be able to stand on its own merits–don’t drive cars that cost you more money by getting 15 miles to the gallon and tear up roads, costing you more at the pump and in taxes; invest in the development of alternative sources of energy that will allow our economy to not be a perpetual bed-servant of tyrannical regimes; that the development of domestic energy sources can be balanced with the protection of natural resources for future generations to enjoy and appreciate as well. These are all good things, but because scientists and liberal environmentalists don’t seem to trust the American people to accept these goals and work reasonably towards them, they have crafted this a message of apocalypse in a twisted attempt to make them live in a perpetual state of fear. To add insult, many of these same fear-mongerers refuse to undergo the same sacrifices in standard of living that they demand the rest of society practice.

    As long as GW alarmists and their enablers in the scientific community continue to employ these intellectually stunted, Inquisition-style tactics in the public debate, it will be very difficult to take their arguments seriously.

    Chris (02118b)

  18. A story for Russell-
    (This will probably sound patronizing, but it is not meant to be).

    Back in the last Millenium, when I was a senior biochem/chem double major, a sophomore in the dorm returned from afternoon classes and informed me that in his philosophy class they had read an article “proving” that there could be no God that was omnipotent and all good overseeing a universe with evil and suffering. This student was very bright (4.0 at Univ. of Wisconsin in biochem or molec. biology).

    I asked him what was the paper and who wrote it. He replied, “It was ‘The Problem of Evil- Revisited’, by joe shmoe”. I replied, “Yes, I read that. Did you read Doe’s response, shmoe’s response to Doe, and Plantinga’s response to shmoe?”**

    He admitted he hadn’t, that his Prof. had only assigned the one article. [It was, after all, an introductory course in Philosophy, and could not be expected to be as thorough as the 500 level philosophy of religion course I had taken.]

    Until a person has had enough experience to judge “the experts” a little, and to have some appreciation for what one doesn’t know as well as does know, it’s quite possible to be misled. This is getting both worse and better. The amount of info on the internet, etc., is astounding and much of it unreliable. There is also a lot of info available to independently evaluate many claims, if one is interested and able to take the time to do it. Even among medical colleagues, it is interesting to see how very bright people, who read professional refereed journals with a critical eye, believe what they hear and read in the general press with no critical thought at all, where the standards of publishing are sometimes minimal in regards to truth.

    There are many climatologists and experts in related fields with PhD’s at places such as MIT who do not agree with the “Global Warming from man made CO2” at all. The most public spokesperson for GW is Al Gore, who is not a scientist, and who has refused to discuss/debate the issue in a public forum with any critical scientist.

    Also, if you look at post #12, it appears papertiger has plenty of known observational data
    that is critical of GW dogma, along with our more anecdotal and less rigorous discussion. (Unless papertiger has a degree in “BS” of another type…)

    **(Titles and names fictional due to loss of memory, except for Plantiga, who is highly regarded as a philospoher of religion).

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  19. @Chris:

    The designation of CO2 as the new “toxic chemical” by the GW crowd is beyond ludicrous.

    CO is considered a toxic chemical because of its harmful effects on the body’s organs and tissues. CO2 is not considered a toxic chemical. But CO2 is considered a greenhouse gas because of its positive radiative forcing properties (a fancy way of saying it helps heat the atmosphere). I would rather breathe CO2 than CO so let’s all thank EPA for requiring catalytic converters. But how does that invalidate global warming?

    All materials can have both beneficial and deleterious properties depending on context. Ozone is a harmful component of smog in our cities (bad) but a useful blocker of UV radiation in the stratosphere (good). Similarly, I like water, but wouldn’t want to be submerged in it for too long.

    the problem with your assertion is that humanity has gone through similar warming trends hundreds of years prior with little to no deleterious effect on their civilizations.

    The current warming trend has brought us into temperatures higher than we’ve seen in at least 6,000 years and probably over 100,000 years. More importantly, temperature is changing much more rapidly than humans have ever experienced.

    @MD from Philly:

    It is interesting to see how very bright people believe what they hear and read in the general press with no critical thought at all

    Good point, as demonstrated by the so-called “global cooling” scare Justin posted about. Stick with the science.

    One question for everyone: Is it possible to present evidence that anthropogenic (man-made) greenhouse gas emissions are responsible for global climate change without becoming or being labeled a “fear-mongerer”?

    Doug (3b32e8)

  20. The current warming trend has brought us into temperatures higher than we’ve seen in at least 6,000 years and probably over 100,000 years. More importantly, temperature is changing much more rapidly than humans have ever experienced.

    Yet somehow through these warming trends humanity has managed to survive. I still see nowhere in human history where these warming trends have been shown to have had negative affects on human society, regardless of the supposed speed of the trend. Unfortunately, that hasn’t stopped supposedly sober-minded scientists from crafting their doomsday scenarios.

    Is it possible to present evidence that anthropogenic (man-made) greenhouse gas emissions are responsible for global climate change without becoming or being labeled a “fear-mongerer”?

    I stated as such above to Russell, but perhaps you missed it–to quote:

    The point, your ineffectual sarcasm to the contrary, is that scientists are employing poorly-constructed science in order to “prove” a conclusion post hoc–that man-made global warming (and more specifically, man-made global warming emanating from the United States) is barreling us down a path to utter human destruction. It’s not the argument, it’s the apocalyptic language on par with 1700s-era religious revivalism that is being objected to.

    to further complicate this, scientists are employing these apocalyptic conclusions (conclusions stemming from methodology that in many cases is questionable at best) not in the context of what is ocurring RIGHT NOW, but what COULD BE–that the oceans will rise to such a meteoric level that entire coastal areas will be under water, resulting in fire, floods, and famine. Sports Illustrated has even gotten in on the act, releasing a superficially shallow article that includes, among other things, the “horrible” prospect that GW will lead to a beetle infestation which will consume most of the wood used in major league bats. of course, what SI neglects to mention is that if things are really that serious, a lack of bat lumber and no snow for rich jerkoffs to ski on will probably be the least of their worries.

    The current hysteria and resulting skepticism over global warming is not due to the lack of data or evidence, but to the atrociously poor methodology and blatant speculation many scientists are promoting to raise awareness of the issue. The recent frost-bitten adventures by the Scandanavian scientists expecting a warm Arctic circle shows just how deeply ingrained this dogma has become–scientists are not practicing science, they are practicing a form of religion in the guise of science, so it is little surprise that there are many who are skeptical of the current doomsday picture being painted.

    Chris (02118b)

  21. Let me dust off the global warming stack.
    in order of assertions;
    1)Subduction of Mars Ice Shelf
    2)Second biggest storm in the solar system
    3) Hurricane over pole on Saturn
    4) global warming on Neptune’s largest moon
    5) and Pluto
    6) Enceladus’ geyser, lakes on Titan, Sun powered Asteroid

    papertiger (b56000)

  22. 6) comet unexpectedly dissentigrates

    No BS here.

    papertiger (b56000)

  23. Papertiger,

    I hope you did not think I seriously thought you were bluffing us, because I didn’t think that at all. I was trying to humourously anticipate the claim that you were pulling stuff “out of the air”.

    But thank you for the links. They include references on James Elliot, who is the MIT Prof I was thinking of.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  24. Russell…

    The issue I have with what you say is the following:

    In the 70’s it was believed that Global Cooling was solid, propper science. Now it’s Global Warming. To assume that just because it’s a different conclusion that it’s 100% right, end of discussion, is foolish at best.

    Science consistantly gets it’s ecological predictions totally wrong… The east coast was supposed to be underwater by now, rainforests totally gone, blah blah blah.

    The fact that the ocean’s levels haven’t really risen all that much should start to hint that perhaps eco-folks aren’t the most accurate of predictive bodies. I consistantly end up in the top two in the office March Madness pool. Should you then assume that I’m so kind of handi-capping god? No, just consistantly lucky with the brackets. I watch a total of about 4 minutes of college bball, and then guess.

    What I’m trying to get at is there is zero reason to assume that what a significant percentage (not all, not most, just a large group) of scientists think something, that it is the rock-solid truth.

    Even if they all thought it, it wouldn’t make it true. Science isn’t run via committee. It’s an evolving process. Just because the old doesn’t fit any more, and may no longer be true, doesn’t mean the new stuff is more correct.

    After all, if they were so smart, why did they get it wrong earlier?

    Scott Jacobs (90eabe)

  25. Newsweek on climate change, April 28, 1975.

    There are ominous signs that the world’s weather patterns have begun to change drastically, and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth…

    Don’t miss the average temperature change graph from the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

    Pablo (2e72f2)

  26. My question about global warming (ha!) is more philosophical than scientific:

    Why exactly is the loony left so hyper-emotional about it? Why the over the top defensiveness when obvious questions are raised? Why has it become – and this is no exaggeration – something of a religion for them?

    I really am fascinated. The emotional response is endlessly interesting – especially when they refuse to acknowledge rational responses to actual existing threats, like terrorism.

    Hey, I’m all for finding new sources of energy, lowering emissions, etc. But the zealotry, the cultish aspect of it all, is just plain disturbing.

    Jeebus (c65bfa)

  27. @Chris

    I still see nowhere in human history where these warming trends have been shown to have had negative affects on human society, regardless of the supposed speed of the trend.

    You talk about human history, but humans have never experienced climate change like the current warming trend. And it is already adversely affecting many societies, especially those in higher latitudes.

    Less drastic climate change affected human society in the past. And many other species have been affected by rapid climate change in earth’s history.

    The current hysteria and resulting skepticism over global warming is not due to the lack of data or evidence, but to the atrociously poor methodology and blatant speculation many scientists are promoting to raise awareness of the issue.

    I’m not qualified to speak to the methodology, but the preponderance of evidence from so many different researchers in hundreds of countries all pointing to the same conclusions (notwithstanding a few critics who IMO don’t make very good arguments to the contrary) has convinced me. The presence or absence of zealots on either side does not change the facts, so what would convince you?

    But aside from the controversy over the conclusions, is it not okay for scientists to engage in public activism? This isn’t a leading question. The threat of global warming has been known for over 20 years, and what is being done about it? Is it better for scientists to keep their research to themselves or to speak up and risk being labeled scare-mongerers?

    Doug (5d0532)

  28. @Scott Jacobs

    In the 70’s it was believed that Global Cooling was solid, propper science

    By the popular press; not so much by the scientific community.

    And no one has mentioned that the cooling in the 40s-60s is accurately predicted by current climate models; the same models that now predict temperature increases of 2-5 degrees by the end of the century.

    Doug (5d0532)

  29. @Scott Jacobs

    In the 70’s it was believed that Global Cooling was solid, propper science

    By the popular press; not so much by the scientific community.

    No one has mentioned that the cooling in the 40s-60s is accurately predicted by current climate models; the same models that now predict temperature increases of 2-5 degrees by the end of the century.

    Increases in sulfate aerosols had a cooling effect that temporarily exceeded the warming effect of greenhouse gases. Thanks to better pollution controls and cleaner fuels, sulfate emissions are decreasing, while greenhouse gas emissions are increasing.

    Doug (5d0532)

  30. I didn’t really think you were challenging me MD in Philly. I just take the opportunity when ever it presents itself to distribute the information.
    I’m doing the job that the National Geographic used to do before they became a punk for junk science.

    papertiger (d9c865)

  31. dad blamed green nut cases they got me so confused im going to have to molt so i can surved their the HOT AIR from AL GORE and the eco-wackos or the cool air from the screw balls

    krazy kagu (aef0eb)

  32. Hey a Doug.

    The presence or absence of zealots on either side does not change the facts, so what would convince you?

    Perhaps it would help if you didn’t link to zealots to find your “facts”.

    papertiger (d9c865)

  33. (Quotes taken directly from the articles you linked.)

    1)Subduction of Mars Ice Shelf

    “His views… contradict the extensive evidence”
    “the idea just isn’t supported by the theory or by the observations.”

    2)Second biggest storm in the solar system

    Not relevant; Jupiter generates more heat internally than it receives from the sun.

    3) Hurricane over pole on Saturn

    Cause unknown, why do you assume it’s caused by increased solar radiation?

    4) global warming on Neptune’s largest moon

    “The moon is approaching an extreme southern summer, a season that occurs every few hundred years. During this special time, the moon’s southern hemisphere receives more direct sunlight.”

    5) and Pluto

    “The solar constant–the amount of sunlight received each second–is carefully monitored by spacecraft, and we know the sun’s output is much too steady to be changing the temperature of Pluto.””

    6) Enceladus’ geyser,

    “heat from radioactive decay”

    lakes on Titan,

    Nothing’s changed on Titan, we just have better pictures now.

    Sun powered Asteroid

    “Although this is an almost immeasurably weak force, its effect over millions of years is far from negligible.” (IOW, nothing attributable to recent changes in solar radiation.)

    6) comet unexpectedly dissentigrates

    You didn’t even mention that the camera used to take pictures of the comet is called “SCAM”!

    None of these articles contradicts terrestrial global warming research. But at least they show some of the extreme effects of climate change, right?

    Perhaps it would help if you didn’t link to zealots to find your “facts”.

    Thanks for the tip! I don’t know anything about that group other than that they were the second result in a Google search for “inuit climate change.” Should I keep looking?

    Doug (5d0532)

  34. You talk about human history, but humans have never experienced climate change like the current warming trend. And it is already adversely affecting many societies, especially those in higher latitudes.

    so, because humans have NEVER experienced this, they will be unable to adapt? Do you really have that much lack of understanding in the ability of the human race to be flexible in the face of change? It would certianly explain your blithe dismissal of what humans have undergone in the past as irrelevant.

    Furthermore, Doug, the article you cite presents an inconsistent argument that belies its message, including a contradictory implication that although the Inuit are among the hardiest civilzations in the world, they will be unable to adapt to whatever changes global warming brings about. Why should I take this seriously when they can’t even keep their messages consistent, except, “We are doomed!”

    The presence or absence of zealots on either side does not change the facts, so what would convince you?

    Why should I be “convinced” when the scientists themselves are hedging? In an article in the Rocky Mountain News today, Mark Sereze of the national Snow and ice Data Center predicts that continued ice loss will lead to drought in the American West, but then goes on to say, “Now whether this is exactly what will occur, we’re not sure.” given such wishy-washy conclusions, why should ANYONE with a lick of logic or common sense take the doomsday predictions seriously? Because it COULD happen? I COULD get killed in a car accident, but I’m not going to let that possibility keep me from driving to work or the grocery store. Your responses thus far, while a noble effort to undergird the GW argument with specific arguments, are ultimately undermined by your refusal to consider history, which scientists and yourself ignore to the detriment of your position.

    Chris (02118b)

  35. Hmm… Speaking of contradictions…

    Some of us in these comments warn against relying on the popular press at the expense of real science, while others rely on the popular press to prove current science is unreliable, and still others think mass media could be science’s last salvation.

    While some commentators bemoan the certitude of many global warming pundits, others deride their wishy-washy hedging.

    Some say global warming isn’t happening, others that it is, but the effects are good, and others that the effects might be bad but we can adapt.

    And what about scientific consensus? It doesn’t exist, or it exists but is meaningless, or its existence actually proves them wrong.

    Meanwhile none of us are zealots, but we all have a zealot or two on our side, am I right?

    I think maybe our right hand doesn’t know which leg the left is pulling.

    BTW, did you read that article I linked to that described how some ancient civilizations collapsed thanks to climate change?

    Doug (3b32e8)

  36. Hmm… speaking of contradictions…

    Some of us in these comments warn against relying on the popular press at the expense of real science, while others rely on the popular press to prove current science is unreliable, and still others think mass media could be science’s last salvation.

    While some commentators bemoan the certitude of many global warming pundits, others deride their wishy-washy hedging.

    Some say global warming isn’t happening, others that it is, but the effects are good, and others that the effects might be bad but we can adapt.

    And what about scientific consensus? It doesn’t exist, or it exists but is meaningless, or its existence actually proves them wrong.

    Meanwhile none of us are zealots, but we all have a zealot or two on our side, am I right?

    I think maybe our right hand doesn’t know which leg the left is pulling.

    BTW, did you read that article I linked to that described how some ancient civilizations collapsed thanks to climate change?

    Doug (3b32e8)

  37. Yes I am well aware that Nat.Geo. invented a Martian wobble to help square Mars warming with their pet theory of Earth warming. How convenient for them. Lucky that this wobble happened to manifest itself in the short six year time frame that we had Mars Surveyor circling the planet.
    However Sediment cycles on Mars are in resonance with Earth

    After computation of the astronomical Milankovitch cycles on deep sea cores for the last 2.4 Ma the same cycles revealed to exist in land sediment series: Long Term (last 2.4 Ma, Pleistocene) and Middle Term (last 127Ka, Last Interglacial – Last Glacial Time-span) Time Series after cycle computation with the newly developed ExSpect method. Moreover, the same calculation method proved useful for Short Term Time Series as well on sediments of the last 10.000 years (10Ka). The latter cycles as those obtained for ice and glacial lake deposits on Mars could also clearly be traced back in the planetary correlations computed by the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. This points to an extra terrestrial astronomical forcing of the origin of all these cycles on both planets Earth and Mars.

    Which means Solar fluxuations caused the ice ages on both Mars and the Earth.

    papertiger (fb6ec3)

  38. my response to jupiter generates heat is in the rough draft stage so I’ll jump forward to Saturn and Enceladus.
    Radioactive cores? Wobbles? Takes a lot of work to keep up with the excuses for global warming.
    Here is my theory. It is a humble little work, but it has the advantage over NASA’s because I don’t resort to invented radioactive cores.

    Saturn is deep in its south pole’s summer. The planets magnetic field is 14 times the power of Earth’s, and due to Saturn’s core being liquid hydrogen, there is a speed differential between the magnetic pole lines in the interior of the planet, and the external lines which form the donut surrounding the planet. This differential causes the magnetic force lines to wind around the planetary core (see fig 1). The difference in temperature between the Saturnian arctic region, eight years into the 16 year long night of winter, and the antarctic’s corresponding bask in the Saturnian summer, causes the magnetic field to become polarised, with a strong bias toward flowing south to north. This results in pronounced aurora activity in the north, and a vortex in the southern poles atmosphere propelled by ionized gas towed along by the winding planetary magnetic field. (observed here and here).
    Enceladus, residing within the Saturnian magnetopause, has it’s own magnetic field forced into a flow sympathetic to the planet’s. A portion of Solar ions swept up in Saturn’s field are intercepted and directed by Enceladus’ field, and focused onto and through the ice mantle until they strike a point source on Enceladus’ metalic core, causing localized heating in the same fashion as the CERN accelerator. (see fig. 2) This will result in a geyser over the southern pole and a depression in the ice surface of the northern pole (the latter due to the reversal of the magnetic flow that results as the north pole comes into summer at the changing of the seasons). The localized temperature is sensitive to the intensity of the Solar wind.

    papertiger (445b04)

  39. … thus proving that carbon dioxide and methane no longer absorb infrared radiation!

    Hmm…

    A couple problems I have with that paper (or perhaps your use of it): * The basic math errors in Table 1 are unnerving. * The paper treats the Milankovitch cycles as the sole cause of the glacial periodicity, but the predicted solar forcing is not strong enough to cause or end ice ages without invoking terrestrial feedback mechanisms (which would be different on Mars). * The Martian sedimentation rates were calculated based on an analysis of a single photograph, and the assumptions made to make those calculations were many (see section 4). * Milankovitch-like cycles on Mars would depend on Martian precession and variations in obliquity and eccentricity, and how could those be synchronized with Earth’s? * As expected (see previous bullet point), the Martian sedimentation cycles calculated do not match terrestrial cycles (see sections 5 and 6.2, though the lists in those two sections inexplicably don’t match), so how do the researchers reach the conclusion stated in section 6.3?

    But of course the last problem I want to mention is that the language in the paper is not very clear, so maybe I just missed something.

    Again, though, none of this contradicts current global warming research which simply states that greenhouse gas effects on earth are rapidly exceeding all other climate forcing mechanisms. And besides, since solar forcing is currently positive (heating), it could only make matters worse.

    I won’t be responding in such detail to your following comments (which I look forward to reading). It’s way past my bedtime, and I have no special knowledge on any of the topics.

    So let me finish by saying I think it’s really cool that you drew pictures to illustrate your last comment. Seriously. And that image of the aurora on Saturn is awesome.

    Doug (3b32e8)

  40. I don’t see what you mean by basic math errors in Table 1. There isn’t any math. It’s just correlation of dates.
    The paper doesn’t treat Milankovitch cycles as the cause of anything. It most emphaticly refutes Milankovitch cycles as the driver for glacial periodicity. This proves that glaciation, or lack there of, is totally dependant on extra terrestrial astronomical forcing. It’s just the Sun. No wobbles, twitches, hiccups, shakes, shimmys, or twists in Earth’s orbit drive ice ages, just the Sun.
    There isn’t a single scarp on Earth that is as pristine as the one in this photo. It hasn’t had people or precipitation pick through or molest it in anyway. And I can guarantee that 100%.
    Now do you get why I used this paper?

    papertiger (3a3033)

  41. Another really cool thing about Eceladus’ spouting water vapor and ice cubes is that they are rocketed out at escape velocity. Then they end up coating the neighborhood rocks, Mimas, Tethys, Dione, and Rhea.
    Researchers measuring the reflectivity, or “albedo” of several Saturnian moons found that four of them—Mimas, Tethys, Dione and Rhea—were much brighter than estimates based on past measurements.

    Scientist will be able to back track through the brightness measurements of the past and determine with a fair degree of accuracy when Enceladus began spouting. Bet it was when the Earth started warming up.

    papertiger (3a3033)

  42. Hmm… speaking of contradictions…

    Hmm..maybe you should start offering actual refutation rather than lame tu quoque nonsense.

    BTW, did you read that article I linked to that described how some ancient civilizations collapsed thanks to climate change?

    Yes, and as most wikipedia articles tend to do, their suggestion of “climate change” resulting in the collapse of these civilizations provides no citations, merely a superficial analysis based on the occurrence of localized droughts. You do realize that drought has occurred throughout the centuries, correct?

    Chris (49f7cf)

  43. @papertiger

    I don’t see what you mean by basic math errors in Table 1.

    The dates in the right-hand column are calculated by repeatedly adding 298 years to 7436 BC. Two of the dates are wrong. It’s probably just typos, but still.

    The paper doesn’t treat Milankovitch cycles as the cause of anything. It most emphaticly refutes Milankovitch cycles as the driver for glacial periodicity.

    Are we reading the same paper? It says: “Computation of cycles started in 1941 with the famous astronomical Milankovitch cycles dealing with eccentricity… obliquity… and precession… of the Earth. Thus recurrent changes of cold Glacial Stages and warm Interglacial Stages became mathematically bound to energy variations in the Solar System.” The paper then goes on to argue the same cycles apply to Martian sedimentation cycles.

    And from a later paper by the same authors, “Liu [proved] that Milankovitch cycles control the loess sedimentation time series… Therefore, the global climatic-environmental character of Earth’s cycles was definitely proved.” Also, “As it became clear that Earth’s cycles are controlled by solar and planetary parameters….” (emphasis mine)

    @Chris

    lame tu quoque nonsense.

    Yes, it was nonsense, but was it really so lame?

    You do realize that drought has occurred throughout the centuries, correct?

    Yes, and it’s generally considered a bad thing. I guess a 300-year drought is not climate change, just a change in climate. References to the original research are easily found by Google.

    Doug (3b32e8)

  44. @papertiger

    I don’t see what you mean by basic math errors in Table 1.

    The dates in the right-hand column are calculated by repeatedly adding 298 years to 7436 BC. Two of the dates are wrong. It’s probably just typos, but still.

    The paper doesn’t treat Milankovitch cycles as the cause of anything. It most emphaticly refutes Milankovitch cycles as the driver for glacial periodicity.

    Are we reading the same paper? It says: “Computation of cycles started in 1941 with the famous astronomical Milankovitch cycles dealing with eccentricity… obliquity… and precession… of the Earth. Thus recurrent changes of cold Glacial Stages and warm Interglacial Stages became mathematically bound to energy variations in the Solar System.” The paper then goes on to argue the same cycles apply to Martian sedimentation cycles.

    And from a later paper by the same authors, “Liu [proved] that Milankovitch cycles control the loess sedimentation time series… Therefore, the global climatic-environmental character of Earth’s cycles was definitely proved.” Also, “As it became clear that Earth’s cycles are controlled by solar and planetary parameters….” (emphasis mine)

    @Chris

    lame tu quoque nonsense.

    Yes, it was nonsense, but was it really so lame?

    You do realize that drought has occurred throughout the centuries, correct?

    Yes, and it’s generally considered a bad thing. I guess a 300-year drought is not climate change, just a change in climate. References to the original research are easily found by Google.

    Doug (3b32e8)

  45. @papertiger

    I don’t see what you mean by basic math errors in Table 1.

    The dates in the right-hand column are calculated by repeatedly adding 298 years to 7436 BC. Two of the dates are wrong. It’s probably just typos, but still.

    The paper doesn’t treat Milankovitch cycles as the cause of anything. It most emphaticly refutes Milankovitch cycles as the driver for glacial periodicity.

    Are we reading the same paper? It says: “Computation of cycles started in 1941 with the famous astronomical Milankovitch cycles dealing with eccentricity… obliquity… and precession… of the Earth. Thus recurrent changes of cold Glacial Stages and warm Interglacial Stages became mathematically bound to energy variations in the Solar System.” The paper then goes on to argue the same cycles apply to Martian sedimentation cycles.

    And from a later paper by the same authors, “Liu [proved] that Milankovitch cycles control the loess sedimentation time series… Therefore, the global climatic-environmental character of Earth’s cycles was definitely proved.” Also, “As it became clear that Earth’s cycles are controlled by solar and planetary parameters….” (emphasis mine)

    @Chris

    lame tu quoque nonsense.

    Yes, it was nonsense, but was it really so lame?

    You do realize that drought has occurred throughout the centuries, correct?

    Yes, and it’s generally considered a bad thing. I guess a 300-year drought is not climate change, just a change in climate. References to the original research are easily found by Google.

    Doug (3b32e8)

  46. @papertiger

    I don’t see what you mean by basic math errors in Table 1.

    The dates in the right-hand column are calculated by repeatedly adding 298 years to 7436 BC. Two of the dates are wrong. It’s probably just typos, but still.

    The paper doesn’t treat Milankovitch cycles as the cause of anything. It most emphaticly refutes Milankovitch cycles as the driver for glacial periodicity.

    Are we reading the same paper? It says: “Computation of cycles started in 1941 with the famous astronomical Milankovitch cycles dealing with eccentricity… obliquity… and precession… of the Earth. Thus recurrent changes of cold Glacial Stages and warm Interglacial Stages became mathematically bound to energy variations in the Solar System.” The paper then goes on to argue the same cycles apply to Martian sedimentation cycles.

    And from a later paper by the same authors, “Liu [proved] that Milankovitch cycles control the loess sedimentation time series… Therefore, the global climatic-environmental character of Earth’s cycles was definitely proved.” Also, “As it became clear that Earth’s cycles are controlled by solar and planetary parameters….” (emphasis mine)

    Doug (3b32e8)

  47. @Chris

    lame tu quoque nonsense.

    Yes, it was nonsense, but was it really so lame?

    You do realize that drought has occurred throughout the centuries, correct?

    Yes, and it’s generally considered a bad thing. I guess a 300-year drought is not climate change, just a change in climate. References to the original research are easily found by Google.

    Doug (3b32e8)

  48. @Chris

    You do realize that drought has occurred throughout the centuries, correct?

    Yes, and it’s generally considered a bad thing. I guess a 300-year drought is not climate change, just a change in climate. References to the original research are easily found by Google.

    Doug (3b32e8)

  49. @Chris

    lame tu quoque nonsense.

    Yes, it was nonsense, and no offense intended. But was it really so lame?

    Doug (3b32e8)

  50. Cool book Doug. Thanks for pointing it out to me.
    This thread is getting pretty deep down the memory hole. What say we suspend our grappling until the next AGW post? (and you know there will be one 😉
    I’ll be polishing my Jupiter theory. I am working on the methane blanket getting holes eaten in it by added solar energy. So this will give you an idea on what to look for to shoot holes of your own.

    papertiger (a8e044)

  51. One small addition that may or may not be helpful in those who know more about this than I; there have been Congressional hearings on various aspects of GW where the presentations are available for review. Some are brief and anecdotal, some are reasoned argument with substantial referencing. Here is just one such link that gives access to the presentations for one such hearing:
    http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Hearing&Hearing_ID=ddd36903-0b2d-4b67-aa21-8f23509256ae

    This may well be something already known, but I offer it in case it is helpful. (I learned of this by hearing an interview of Dr. Carter on the radio once.)

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  52. Maybe Megan McArdle was educated in Vermont.

    DRJ (53e939)

  53. Yes, it was nonsense, and no offense intended.

    hey, none taken–it’s just the internet, after all.

    But yeah, it was pretty lame–you’re obviously capable of better than that.

    Chris (02118b)

  54. MD that link feels like the weight of the Sun has been lifted from my shoulders.

    Doug, I was thinking on the Milankovitch cycles and how they show up on Earth and Mars. Both Mars and Earth have the same wobbles and twitchs, but how could this be?
    Then it dawned on me. In The Matrix Neo discovers that he is in control of the data streams after being shot by the agent. Then he dives into the agent and takes over his body from the inside out, exploding through the shell with such force that the walls bow out as if suddenly pressurized, then flex back into shape as Neo exhales.
    The Sun does the same thing to the planets. Perhaps it is due to the solar wind blowing planetary mag fields around. We have this asteroid being spun up by solar wind and it doesn’t have a big old Mag fielders mit taking a great big scoop of Sol, like Mars and Earth do. How could solar wind not affect weather patterns on Earth?
    SO “This proves that glaciation, or lack there of, is totally dependant on extra terrestrial astronomical forcing. It’s just the Sun.“, this is still true. But this “ No wobbles, twitches, hiccups, shakes, shimmys, or twists in Earth’s orbit drive ice ages“, is incorrect.
    It is the state of things that the Sun causes the wobbles, twitches, hiccups, shakes, shimmys, and twists, in the Earths orbit which drive ice ages, and everytime we Earthlings juke or dodge as a planet, Mars jukes and dodges also.

    Thanks Doug. I wouldn’t have thought of that without your prodding.

    papertiger (d6dc09)

  55. Uh, well, I guess I’m glad you found it helpful.

    But, to be honest, while I think I follow your line of reasoning (emphasis on “think”), throwing Neo and “The Matrix” into it leaves me a bit befuddled.

    Part of what I thought was interesting about the link was that the experts giving testimony approached the subject from different points of view, but I thought those “pro-GW” gave brief and somewhat superficial arguments, while the “anti-GW” folks gavesignificantly more specific data and observations, on the whole.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  56. Lets see if I can explain it so that I understand it. There is this asteroid see. And this asteroid spins faster every time the Sun shines on it, which is pretty much all the time. Then we find out that Mars and the Earth have been going into and out of ice ages together for thousands of years. Some dude named Milankovitch discovered that Earth’s pole tilts when we have an ice age. It seems reasonable to assume, that since Mars has the same ice ages that we do, then it’s pole tilts to match Earth’s.
    Since the Sun can speed up little asteroids just by shining it can probably do something simular to big planets, especially since both Earth and Mars have the extra target space of fully extended magnetic fields (think sails) to catch solar windstreams.
    In the analogy NEO IS THE SUN, pushing out in all directions at once, the only true parameter is how hard.
    Damn. Let me try again.
    You remember when the CNN reporter was standing out in the hurricane wind, how the faster the wind blew the further he leaned into it? I think the planets do the same thing. Since they’re all in the same sunstorm, they lean into the Sun together (at least Mars and Earth do).

    papertiger (f08c5d)

  57. Doug –

    You state: I’m not qualified to speak to the methodology, but the preponderance of evidence from so many different researchers in hundreds of countries all pointing to the same conclusions (notwithstanding a few critics who IMO don’t make very good arguments to the contrary) has convinced me.

    What exactly are these conclusions that you refer to? Simply saying that human activity “contributes” to global warming is meaningless, since it doesn’t describe the extent of the contribution.

    In other words, if 95% of the warming increase is due to natural variations, and 5% is due to human activity, then it would be technically accuarte to say that humans “contribute” to global warming – but so what? Why would that be anything to worry about (even if that extra 5% causes a record tempurature by a miniscule margin based on the very short amount of time that we have recorded such temperatures)?

    Are you claiming that scientists have concluded that humans are primarily responsible for most of the warming that has occured in the last 30 years? Are you (and the scientists to which you refer) implying that if it wasn’t for human activity, then the Earth’s temperature would either be static or be cooling right now? Are you saying that if changes in human behavior are not made, then the Earth will not likely see another cooling trend again?

    Give me specifics as to what the “consensus” is as to the EXTENT of human causes on global warming in terms of raw temperature change (not including the changes caused by natural variations).

    Justin Levine (20f2b5)

  58. Oh, NOW I get it. I thought before you were talking about “Nemo”, the little fish that was lost.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  59. Give me specifics as to what the “consensus” is

    Look no further than the IPCC 4th Assessment Report Summary for Policy Makers (PDF format).

    As of 2005, the net anthropogenic radiative forcing is 1.6 W/m^2 [90% uncertainty interval: 0.6 to 2.4].

    Natural radiative forcing is 0.12 W/m^2 [0.06 to 0.30].

    Doug (3b32e8)

  60. Doug that is an interesting number. The IPCC when faced with uncertainty chose a number between .06 and 2.4 to describe solar forcing.
    Or to put it another way, they chose a number between 1 and 40. On that scale a .12 is represented by the number 2. So with an uncertainty somewhere in the range of 1 to 40 the IPCC picked 2.
    Why?
    Why so small?
    Could it be that they needed a small number for Solar forcing to keep their BS numbers for human contribution big?

    papertiger (fbc22c)

  61. The Bush administration ran a systematic campaign to play down the dangers of climate change, demanding hundreds of politically motivated changes to scientific reports and muzzling a pre-eminent expert on global warming, Congress was told yesterday.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2038120,00.html

    The testimony to the house committee on oversight and government reform painted the administration as determined to maintain its line on climate change even when it clashed with the findings of scientific experts. James Hansen, who heads the Goddard Institute for Space Science in New York, said in prepared testimony: “The effect of the filtering of climate change science during the current administration has been to make the reality of climate change less certain than the facts indicate, and to reduce concern about the relation of climate change to human-made greenhouse gas emissions.”

    Qfwfq (f0c94f)

  62. Well that’s certainly the party line, qfwfq.

    Documents released yesterday show that in 2003 Mr Cooney and other senior appointed officials imposed at least 181 changes to a strategic plan on climate change to play down the scientific consensus on global warming. They made another 113 alterations to minimise the human role in climate change, and inserted possible benefits of climate change. “These changes must be made,” said a note in Mr Cooney’s handwriting. “The language is mandatory.”

    Zoiks. The head of the Enviromental department refined his departments plans for dealing with climate change. Who would find that shocking? pretty much the Guardian and a few who read it.

    papertiger (4d1249)

  63. with an uncertainty somewhere in the range of 1 to 40 the IPCC picked 2.

    Actually, the 90-percent uncertainty range for solar radiative forcing in the report is 0.06 to 0.30, so picking 0.12 is like picking the number 2 on a scale of 1 to 5.

    Could it be that they needed a small number for Solar forcing to keep their BS numbers for human contribution big?

    If it’s all BS, they could have just as easily made the human contribution bigger.

    While looking for references for solar forcing, I stumbled upon a paper, Stott et al. 2003, I think you will really like. (Found in a citation in Wikipedia — ha!) It argues that solar contributions have been underestimated in climate models by a factor of 2 and should account for about half of the warming from 1900-1950. The conclusion remains, though, that human activity accounts for most of the warming since then and is rapidly increasing.

    I guess the lesson here is that a period of increased solar activity is the worst time to be creating an artificial spike in CO2 concentrations.

    Doug (5d0532)

  64. From that paper it seems from 1900 to 1950 the science guys were the victim of a number 33 sun off of the 1 to 40 scale.
    And to make matters worse they toyed with the idea that a .35W m squared increase in solar activity between 1950 and 1974, meant we were all headed for another ice age.
    So now a .12 estimate of probable solar forcing means we are headed for a world wide heat wave.

    Could be they are wrong again. At any rate CO2 only absorbes infrared over a narrow band and that narrow band is about 76% absorbed already. So if we continue on our BAU and the CO2 reaches a 100% absorbtion rate, we will just have to live with the 1 degree Celsius addition.
    Like today at this minute on March 21st I am suffering under the stultifying heat of 70.3 degrees F. , instead of basking in the IPCC recommended 69.7 degrees F.
    Don’t cry for me Doug. I’ll soldier on.
    Drink lots of fluids. Rest in the shade if I get tired.

    papertiger (f08c5d)

  65. So if we continue on our BAU and the CO2 reaches a 100% absorbtion rate, we will just have to live with the 1 degree Celsius addition.

    100% re-absorption of the earth’s radiated energy would be impossible, thanks to the law of conservation of energy.

    The problem isn’t the ratio of re-absorbed to emitted energy, it’s the total amount of stored energy. Warm bodies (here ‘warm’ means anything above absolute zero) emit thermal (black-body) radiation in proportion to the fourth power of the absolute temperature.

    The earth absorbs solar radiation, which it re-emits as (mostly) infrared radiation, some of which escapes into space and some of which is re-absorbed by the atmosphere, mostly by greenhouse gases. The atmosphere in turn radiates energy both into space and back to the earth.

    Increasing the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere increases the amount of energy it can re-absorb. The atmosphere then has more energy to radiate back to the earth, increasing its temperature until a new equilibrium temperature is reached. The earth, now at a higher temperature can radiate more energy into space regaining the balance with the solar radiation!

    Whew!

    You must consider that greenhouse gases are what allow Venus to have a surface temperature of 460°C, while Mercury‘s temperature averages 178.9°C with a maximum of 430°C.

    Pass the lemonade!

    Doug (5d0532)

  66. Hilarious, disgusting etc.

    WASHINGTON — House Republican Leader John Boehner would have appointed Rep. Wayne Gilchrest to the bipartisan Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming — but only if the Maryland Republican would say humans are not causing climate change, Gilchrest said.

    “I said, ‘John, I can’t do that,’ ” Gilchrest, R-1st-Md., said in an interview. “He said, ‘Come on. Do me a favor. I want to help you here.’ ”

    Gilchrest didn’t make the committee. Neither did other Republican moderates or science-minded members, whose guidance centrist GOP members usually seek on the issue. Republican moderates, called the Tuesday Group, invited Boehner to this week’s meeting to push for different representation.

    The select committee’s purpose is to investigate and recommend ways to reduce dependence on foreign energy sources and reduce “emissions and other activities that contribute to climate change,” according to legislation that passed March 8 creating the committee. Some Republicans worry that restricting greenhouse gas emissions would have a negative effect on businesses.

    Boehner’s spokesman Brian Kennedy said he doesn’t comment on the private conversations Boehner has with members of his conference, but “the only criteria set for potential members of the panel was that they must undertake a thorough review of the facts, the empirical data and the science to determine how Congress can craft the best possible legislation going forward.”

    Gilchrest, who co-chairs the House Climate Change Caucus, has long been an environmental-protection advocate and has co-sponsored the Climate Stewardship Act designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 to 70 percent below 1990 levels.

    He expressed his interest in the committee several times to Boehner and Minority Whip Roy Blunt of Missouri, telling them the best thing they could do for Republican credibility was to appoint members familiar with the scientific data.

    Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, a research scientist from Maryland, and Michigan’s Rep. Vern Ehlers, the first research physicist to serve in Congress, also made cases for a seat, but weren’t appointed, he said.

    “Roy Blunt said he didn’t think there was enough evidence to suggest that humans are causing global warming,” Gilchrest said. “Right there, holy cow, there’s like 9,000 scientists to three on that one.”

    AF (f0c94f)

  67. Doug – Regarding comment # 51, translate that into concrete degrees Fahrenheit for me. Go ahead and use the year 1750 as a baseline if you want (as they apparently do in the U.N. Report).

    In terms of degrees Fahrenheit, how much warmer is the Earth today on average? Of that figure, what percentage is caused by man, and what percentage is caused by nature?

    It is all fine and dandy to proclaim that humans cause “1.6 watts of energy per meter squared” compared with .12 from the Sun. But where is the connection that links such energy outputs with specific temperature levels? Those figures don’t mean anything unless you connect them with specific temperature changes expressed in degrees Fahrenheit (or Celsius, if you insist). Is the U.N. report suggesting that in whatever temperature raises that we have experienced since 1750, humans account for 92.5% of the warming and nature only 7.5% (.12/1.6 = 0.075)? I just want to make sure I am understanding what you are really trying to say here before I comment further.

    Justin Levine (99c7d4)

  68. where is the connection that links such energy outputs with specific temperature levels?

    The earth continuously exchanges energy with space: It receives energy in the form of solar radiation and emits energy in the forms of reflected solar radiation (called albedo) and long-wave radiation (think heat). This energy balance fluctuates all the time, from day to day, season to season, and over longer time scales.

    When the earth absorbs more energy than it radiates (positive forcing), the temperature increases, thus increasing the long-wave radiation and regaining equilibrium. Negative forcing decreases temperature.

    The different radiative forcing components are easier to model and measure than the temperature changes they would produce. This is because there are many feedback mechanisms, both positive and negative, that amplify or dampen the climate’s response to a change in temperature.

    Simple application of the Stefan-Boltzmann law predicts a change of about 1/4°C (about 1/2°F) for a change of 1 W/m^2.

    Climate models and historical data, however, predict a higher sensitivity, anywhere from 0.3 to 1.4°C. The IPCC report seems to predict about 0.5 to 1.1 with a best estimate of 0.75°C.

    Doubling the CO2 in the atmosphere is expected to have a radiative forcing of +4 W/m^2.

    Doug (5d0532)

  69. TIME magazine is guilty of lying i mean their last issue is a insult to our iwo jima vets its time to cancil our subcriptions to SLIME magazine

    krazy kagu (841818)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1158 secs.