For some reason, people want to blame the Sun for global warming.
This, despite there being no evidence for it, and plenty of evidence against it.
The latest round was brought to my attention from DarkSyde, a science blogger at DailyKos. In an article he put up last night, he notes that an online mag called Daily Tech has a blogger who is claiming that last year was cooler than average… which contradicts a study by NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies that shows that last year was among the hottest on record.
Which one is right? Duh. NASA. The Daily Tech columnist evidently confused a below-average January temperature for an entire year’s worth.
Oops.
He also quotes anecdotal data about places having cooler than normal weather. While he acknowledges this is only anecdotal data (though it’s his biggest paragraph in the story), he forgets that scientists have been saying for years now that global warming does not mean every place on Earth gets hotter. Some places get colder, much colder. The weather patterns changes, and arctic air can be brought down to areas on the planet that don’t usually get them.
Ironically, a few years ago global-warming deniers tried to frame the debate by changing the phrase "global warming" to "climate change", because it sounds less threatening. It’s ironic because it probably is a better term: the climate is changing. It’s getting hotter in some places, colder in others. Wetter in some places, drier in others. In some ways I wish it were as a simple as things warming up. It’s not.
We depend critically on huge areas of this planet being stable and capable of supporting crops. Ask a Kansas farmer what happens when it doesn’t snow all winter, or a citrus grower in California what happens when it gets unusually cold.
The Daily Tech article is very misleading — even plain old wrong — and that hurts the rational discourse on this topic… especially when garbage hounds like Matt Drudge pick up on it, as he did on his website today.
The comments on the Daily Tech article are full of errors, too: several people are saying it’s the Sun causing this climate change. That is utter baloney.
Let me make that clearer: BALONEY. I wrote about this extensively in my upcoming book, so I talked to quite a few solar astronomers about this very topic. In general the solar output varies very little over the course of a year, less than 1%. Over the whole sunspot cycle, though, it’s a little more complicated. The sunspots darken the Sun by about 1%, but they are surrounded by regions called faculae, which are actually brighter in the visible and ultraviolet. So when the Sun is its spottiest, it’s actually brighter than average by about 0.1%.
At most, this would raise the temperature of the Earth on average by 0.2 degrees Celsius (and it’s generally less), and we are measuring increases much larger than that (not to mention the trending just keeps going up, and doesn’t rise and fall with the sunspot cycle). People have also tried to tie global warming to sunspots by invoking cosmic rays; when sunspots are at a minimum the Sun’s magnetic field is weakest, and it lets subatomic particles from outer space into the solar system. This can seed clouds (so it’s claimed) and cool the Earth. Maybe, kinda, sorta. The evidence for this is incredibly weak, and it’s not taken very seriously yet.
People who try to tie global warming to the Sun are in for a losing fight, it seems, though in many cases this just makes them scream all the louder. But they have very very spotty (har har) evidence, and what they do have does not come close to explaining the rise in temperature we see on Earth.
February 27th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
It is so sad to imagine the world we are leaving our children and their children - because of a number of clowns that can’t draw a significant conclusion from reasonably adequate data.
The Solar Warming thing is sooooo easy to dismiss too.
The very first thing I say to people who say this kind of mis-informed drivel is “Of course, it IS easy to see, being as the Earth is so much closer to the Sun in the Summer than in the winter…” and wait for them to acknowledge that “fact”
Then, I strike with the REAL facts.
And no - it hasn’t worked yet.
JC
February 27th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Gee, maybe we ought to send a probe to land on the sun and investigate the solar cycle. Some might say that the probe will burn up, but we’ve got that problem licked: we land at night.
Okay, that’s an old joke, but sad to say it seems to be about the intellectual level of some folks who are deficient in the scientific knowledge department but are fully loaded in the opinion department.
February 27th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
Aside:
I wonder if these solar climate change believers would be the same people who also believe that nuclear power plants somehow convert radioactivity directly into electricity rather than heat water to drive turbines that then generate electricity. I actually overheard someone once ask: why don’t they just draw more electrical power from the radiation so they won’t have any “new-que-lar” waist?
February 27th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
That picture had me in stitches.
February 27th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
While I do not believe the Sun is causing the current spate of global warming, one question I have persists: how constant is the Sun’s output over centuries? Over longer time scales like that, is its luminosity changing? As far as I know the models say stars should remain more-or-less constant in temperature and therefore luminosity until they evolve off the Main Sequence, but just how constant IS “more-or-less constant”? And do we have any way to measure this information - we’ve only been directly measuring the solar output for less than a century, what indirect markers are there?
February 27th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
Oh, my. Another global warming thread. I’d better jump in early or run the risk of being 87 posts down.
I think most of the solar warming advocates misunderstand that the solar output is increasing over time spans of tens or hundreds of millennia, not years. The atmosphere used to be much richer in CO2 a million years ago when the sun was cooler. Over that period, most of it has been removed and sequestered, allowing the temperature to remain more-or-less constant. The problem is, we’re running out of CO2 (taking the really long view).
- Jack
February 27th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Phil, I think you got your climate hackles up a little prematurely. January *was* the coldest month in a number of years.
My impression wasn’t that this “disproved” global warming but more concern that solar activity is down and we might be approaching a Maunder Minimum which would make global warming irrelevant. Are you saying that the Maunder Minimum had nothing to do with the Little Ice Age?
February 27th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
Well, in a certain sense the sun is responsible for global warming — certainly, without it, the earth would get pretty cold pretty quick. However, trying to blame changes in solar activity for global warming is not so credible.
February 27th, 2008 at 7:48 pm
here’s some figures:
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/27/a-look-at-temperature-anomalies-for-all-4-global-metrics/
you decide.
February 27th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
dear mr plait:
have you read the article?? have you read the link of the article??? daylykos is a respectable political blog (i read it sometimes) but is a political blog, not a science one!!!
daily tech said that from january 2007 till january 2008 the temperatures went down. january 2008 was the coldest month in 15 years. the link cites 4 sources for his words (that i think you know) HadCrut, UAH (Alabama U.), RSS (santa rosa CA.) and GISS (Dr.Hansen). GISS (Dr.Hansen) said 2007 was the SECOND warmest year after 2005 (and of course 1998 -the warmest of the last years) but even him says that no only january was the coldest in years, but that from january to january the temperatures went down…
of course a month, a year are not a trend (may be just “noise”), not even that from 1998 to 2007 the temperatures are in a “plateau”. i understand perfectly well. and i think daily tech says something similar..
he raises also the possibility that the sun could be responsible of the warming.
i have just finish the book “The Long summer” wrote by Brian Fagan. in it, he told the changes of climate along the human history. medieval europe for example had a warm period who contributed to his expansion. at the same time there were a so severe drought in the land of the mayas that caused the ruin of its principla cities. then europe got a “little ice” and so on. and before they have suvs!!!
so, what is the problem??? do you want 100% unanimity of opinion as in cuba??? if you think he is wrong (may be) please write him and post your mail in your blog. i thing your post if very disproportionate angry.
if the polical blogs from the right do use it… well you are in a democracy!! germany and france have government from the right and accept the a.g.w. india and china have the left governning… and well you know how they are doing!!! the global warming is a scientific problem NOT A POLITICAL ONE, and if someone use it politiclly shame on him!!
of course is your blog, but i appreciate you and i don’t like that the venom who is destilled in junkscience. tamino, eli rabbet or icecap (i read them all!!) has a place in this blog.
sorry again for my awfull english
February 27th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
For the curious, here’s a graph of the sunspot cycles for the past 400 years.
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Sunspot_Numbers_png
The Maunder Minimum, was an era with virtually no sunspots, is thought to be connected with the Little Ice Age. Right now, we’re in the “Modern Maximum.” We’re also near the minimum of the 11-year solar cycle. So, folks, check your facts before making claims like “we might be approaching a Maunder Minimum.” Space Weather is a serious area of research; it is not “any claim goes”.
I’d also like to point out that using a single month, or even a single year’s data to say anything about climate trends shows a profound ignorance of statistics.
February 27th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
>My impression wasn’t that this “disproved” global warming but more >concern that solar activity is down and we might be approaching a >Maunder Minimum which would make global warming irrelevant. Are you >saying that the Maunder Minimum had nothing to do with the Little Ice >Age?
Except that we’ve likely already passed solar minimum so the fact that January was cold (it certainly wasn’t here in NJ!) doesn’t correlate.
There not single shred of evidence that the bottom is dropping out of solar activity. The only chance we’ll see an Ice Age is if you go out and rent the DVD. (rim shot please!)
February 27th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Why do they do it? Because, if it’s the Sun, then it’s not us; if it’s not us, then we don’t have to do anything… we don’t bear the responsibility, and it’s beyond our power to fix it. Of course this is rubbish on so many levels — even if it weren’t anthropogenic, that wouldn’t mean that we couldn’t do anything about it.
But I find it encouraging that even the deniers have mostly given up on “global warming’s not happenning”, and have had to fall back on “global warming’s not anthropogenic”.
February 27th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
I can’t find the link, but I do remember reading (on a science blog) that we are emerging very slowly from the latest solar minimum.
Yes, one cold month does not disprove global warming. But people need to keep that in mind when they claim one drought, one hot summer or one bad hurricane season is a result of global warming - a claim we hear constantly. The reality of global warming is revealed by very long term trends spanning decades. The year-to-year variation is normal.
February 27th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
“Ironically, a few years ago global-warming deniers tried to frame the debate by changing the phrase “global warming” to “climate change”, because it sounds less threatening. It’s ironic because it probably is a better term: the climate is changing. It’s getting hotter in some places, colder in others. Wetter in some places, drier in others. In some ways I wish it were as a simple as things warming up. It’s not.”
Do you have any evidence that this was in fact a move by global warming deniers? I’ve heard the claim made by deniers that the term was invented by global warming theorists in order to reframe the debate to cover up the fact that there was little evidence for actual warming.
A more likely third theory is that the expression is, as you said, the most accurate description of what is happening with the climate, that it was invented by an impartial party and its use has been misinterpreted by both sides.
Sure, it sounds ironic that the denialists came up with an accurate expression, but if you don’t have evidence that the expression was invented by denialists, then your statement was a gratuitous slur, unbecoming of a scientist.
February 27th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
My astronomy teacher spouts this kind of garbage to my entire class quite often.
He’s a total global warming denier and it hurts my brain when he brings it up.
“Pretty cold out! Makes you doubt global warming huh?” Yeah… we also live at 7000 feet…
February 27th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
Folks, please read what I wrote, and read the DailyKos article as well before you comment here.
I am not denying that January 2007 was colder than average. What happened was that the DailyTech article author said that the whole year was cooler than average, not just January. Then the commenters in that article started blaming the Sun for GW.
As for the Maunder Minimum, there is no conclusive evidence the Little Ice Age was entirely due to that; there was cooling before the Maunder Minimum as well. However, there are theories tying them together such that the MM amplified a pre-existing condition, making those years that much colder (though only in Western Europe and the US; the rest of the world had relatively normal weather). The connection is subtle and would take too long to explain here, but I have it out in detail in the book… if you can wait until October.
February 27th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
In your new book did you address Rhodes Fairbridge’s work?
February 27th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
Steve: Please read this article from Minnesota Public radio. It says: "In fact, a 2002 memo encouraged Republicans to go with climate change because it ’sounds a more controllable and less emotional challenge,’ whereas global warming sounds like it has ‘catastrophic connotations.’"
In fact, the issue is a bit more confused than that these days, as the article goes on to note, which basically mirrors what I said.
February 27th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
Well so far the leading post hurled “denialists”, or it’s shorter root “denier” five times. Come on folks we can do better! Lest anyone not want to subtly link anybody not 100% on board with current global warming thought with people who deny the Holocaust well just lump the in with creationists, an old favorite. If you don’t want to go that low just accuse or imply that they are in the pocket of that nefarious entity “big business”. After all, all climatologists and related scientists agree 100%, yes?
It’s sad that people are so afraid of any contradictory evidence that they must resort to attacking those who questions the evidence, even a little. This debate has become less about science and more about shrill suppression of any dissenting thought, however mild.
February 27th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
I am the author of the referenced column. To correct a few misconceptions, the data used to generate the source graphs was *not* a single month for the HadCRUT, UAH, or RSS datasets, which were generated.
Only the GISS data was graphed Jan only for 2007 to 2008. The reason this was done as GISS doesn’t provide monthly data in vertical format, and the plotting program used would not otherwise accept it.
Furthermore, the story was not intended as any “disproof” of GW. As stated in the article text, it merely illustrates that GHG-based forcing is at present being overshadowed by another, more powerful factor…a factor which *may* be related to an amplification of solar insolation, an ENSO phase change, or something else entirely.
Finally, to those who said the sun is emerging from its present state of low activity– that statement appears to be premature. Solar Cycle 24 has not yet begun; a C-23 sunspot was spotted by SIDC just yesterday.
February 27th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
Hmm. I distinctly recall reading something, somewhere, which asserted that “global warming” sounded too comfortable (especially during the winter) and the “climate change” was more accurate. Most recent commentary agrees that “climate change” is preferred by the deniers.
I recently advised my neighbor, a staunch environmental activist, that “junk science” is a term typically used by interested parties to dismiss scientific opinions that conflict with their goals. (A local toll road agency used it to describe a report by staff scientists of the California Coastal Commission that running a highway through a state park might be harmful.) Unfortunately, real scientists sometimes use “junk science” with respect to, um, junk science, so its use isn’t an entirely reliable indicator.
(By the way, the commission stopped the toll road. Yay!)
February 27th, 2008 at 10:01 pm
Your notation on the graph *is* comparing one month, January between two years. Jan 07 Happens to be particularly hot, and Jan 08 is particularly cold.
The average for that period doesn’t look nearly as exciting, compared to the averages for the preceding years. The variation one of the largest year-year variations shown, but not vastly so. To claim that data shows anything more than “climate is variable on month to year timescales” seems like a big stretch.
February 27th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
I was wondering if someone was going to talk about the use of the word “denier” and relate it to the Holocaust.
Look– if someone denies that GW exists, they are a denier. It’s fine term, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the Holocaust. In my mind, saying it’s done on purpose to equate GW deniers with anti-Semites is a ridiculous assertion, and serves only as a distraction to the item at hand.
February 27th, 2008 at 11:17 pm
Until the sun moves on to its next stage of life over the next few billion years does it get dimmer, brighter or stay pretty much constant? The question only occurred to me as I was reading BA’s post and is slightly off-topic.
February 27th, 2008 at 11:55 pm
Some times you lash out needlessly, Phil. Drudge was an internet revolutionary, and you bloggers all owe him a debt.
February 28th, 2008 at 12:06 am
Look– if someone denies that GW exists, they are a denier. It’s fine term, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the Holocaust. In my mind, saying it’s done on purpose to equate GW deniers with anti-Semites is a ridiculous assertion, and serves only as a distraction to the item at hand.
Absolute crap! Then use the word “skeptic” instead of one that carries so much baggage. Certain words have certain effects, and to ignore this is complete ideological blindness.
Politics DESTROYS your skepticism, Phil, as it does with many other skeptics. It’s really pathetic to see. You’re so good on science topics but the moment anything politically charged comes along, you’re as shallow as any local newscast.
But I know my words will never get through. It’s as impossible to puncture an ideology as it is a religion. Anyone who dares oppose the gospel is just an idiot or a fool or whatever the insult du jour is this week for the ideologically impure.
BTW, I am *NOT* a GW skeptic. I have heard fellow GW supporters talk about using the word “denier” in a deliberate manner. I find this BS with words to be more harmful to our side than anything else.
February 28th, 2008 at 12:45 am
Of course the Sun is making Earth warm! Without it, we’d all be quite chilly…
February 28th, 2008 at 1:31 am
All
The discussion that if it was called GW or CC is easily answered. It was ALWAYS called CC, just go to the UN site, you will see that since 1992 the IPCC have been producing reports on climate change.
Global warming is one aspect and the one that the media found to be an excellent sound bite (nice and scary). The IPCC (guess what the “CC” bit stands for) has always been about the bigger picture.
Ben
February 28th, 2008 at 1:51 am
> Then use the word “skeptic” instead of one that carries so much baggage.
Der, it is not appropriate to use the word ’skeptic’ rather than ‘denier’ for a very simple reason; AGW deniers are not skeptics, they are deniers. A skeptic is someone who demands credible evidence to accept a hypothesis, not someone who will simply denies a proposition irrespective of the amount of evidence presented to them; a denier.
I object to people calling AGW deniers, skeptics, because it is flat out wrong to do so, and adds baggage to the term ’skepticism’ that it does not deserve. It’s almost as bad as ‘just a theory’.
February 28th, 2008 at 2:04 am
I prefer the term “climate change” and do not use the term “global warming”. The latter is a misnomer, is undescriptive, and seems to cause doubt to those that think “warming” is tested by sticking your hand out the window. Every summer, I hear people say “damn, global warming” and then those same people react with skepticism come January. “Global climate shift” is even better. It’s all in the terms for the little reality bites/word bites public conciousness.
Nothing wrong with the word “denier”. It’s a word; it can be used for what it defines. It carries no connotations other than its definition. (This is the same reason people hear “immaculate conception” and jump to the conclusion it has something to do with virgin birth.)
February 28th, 2008 at 2:06 am
Great post, Phil!
That picture, of course, also shows the real reason for climate change:
There is a large dark asteroid at the L2 Sun-Earth Lagrange point,
gravitationally lensing the Sun-light onto us. We just need another US
missile-shield test to knock it out of the “sky”…
On another note: The idea about cloud-seeding by ionizing particles
from the Sun, I believe is quite established, although not quantitatively
yet. What has also been established is that it is a quasi-periodic signal
with and amplitude of about 6% of the background exponential rise of
the global warming. It is actually included in the last IPCC report.
What deniers of anthropogenic climate change argues, is that all the
change can be explained by that Solar effect - which is rubbish. I am
sad to say that I am a citizen of the country (Denmark) that has
spawned the most fervent researchers in that camp :-/ Many other
researchers (Danes among them) have shown just how flawed and
wrong that research is, e.g.:
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/DamonLaut2004.pdf
and
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v448/n7149/full/448008a.html
Cheers, Regner
February 28th, 2008 at 2:11 am
I was just pointed at this page:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWarmTest/A3b.html
This claims that solar activity IS responsible for global warming. As a failed scientist, when confronted with plausible sounding arguments on both sides, how does one know which side to believe?
February 28th, 2008 at 2:51 am
Can someone explain to me what it is they’re getting so worked up about over here: http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/27/a-look-at-temperature-anomalies-for-all-4-global-metrics/
They seem to think they’ve uncovered a conspiracy to defraud the public by biasing satellite data, but all I see is a four graphs with a positive mean slope (which would not support their claims.)
Bad Astronomer? They’re deep into some kind of data delving here, but I definitely don’t see how they see anything but a January that looks a whole lot like many of those previous Januaries. Heck, its not even the lowest January on the chart, so I fail to see how it wipes out a century of anything.
February 28th, 2008 at 2:58 am
Ironically, a few years ago global-warming deniers tried to frame the debate by changing the phrase “global warming” to “climate change”, because it sounds less threatening. It’s ironic because it probably is a better term: the climate is changing. It’s getting hotter in some places, colder in others. Wetter in some places, drier in others. In some ways I wish it were as a simple as things warming up. It’s not.
————
Actually its the alarmists who changed to “climate change”. Then any bit of climate or weather can be tagged with ‘bad humans’.
Nick
February 28th, 2008 at 3:23 am
Given that the topic has come up a few times in the comments, I thought I’d add to the terminology discussion. Climate change and global warming are both entirely valid, and non-contradictory terms within climate science. ‘Climate change’ is used to describe the changes that can be expected around the globe for a given level of ‘global warming’ (which is a statement describing the increasing trend in mean global temperature, no more, no less).
February 28th, 2008 at 3:51 am
LIBERAL RUBBISH!!! No sun, no weather, no climate.
February 28th, 2008 at 3:53 am
ACtually, I’m very surprised that no global-warming denier has blamed Earth’s core heat yet. But I guess it pays of not to show all the cards at once. Well, volcanoes had their share of guilt, so I guess we’re getting there.
For me, not being an expert on the solar activity, it’s nice hear the truth about it. I had my doubts about that, since increasing activity in decades, doesn’t really sound like our sun.
But even I knew that cloud stuff was made up. Aren’t clouds exactly what greenhouse effect is all about. It’s water vapor that reflects sunlight back to Earth. It just happend, that it’s the only visible form of it.
Global-warming deniers make even creationists sound scientific
February 28th, 2008 at 3:59 am
As a environmental scientist specializing in soils the only fact in the man made global warming theory(as a force factor) is that we do not have enough research and non-contradictory research facts and observations to come anywhere near a conclusion.
As a scientist who has studied soil as a sink from everything from gases to radiation our knowledge to the many thousands of factors that lead to climate is very elementary. We always want to sound like we know what we are talking about but there is much more we don’t understand than what we do to such a degree there is no true scientifically tested theory about climate change either way. There is one proven fact of climate change. The climate changes over time and will change over time it is our job just like every other living creature on this planet to adapt to the best of our ability.
February 28th, 2008 at 4:30 am
And to the alarmist the CC or GW is going to kill us all and we have to do something about it. If we, humans, are the force factor towards CC then there is realistically absolutely nothing we can do about it. I don’t want to sound like a hopeless person because whatever happens humans will be OK. Not all humans but overall we will survive. But those who want to force others to be “environmental” don’t really see reality. If it is us forcing the climate changes oh you just wait. Unless you want to KILL the BILLIONS of people in the 3rd world who are good people for the most part like you and I that only want the best for their family. The billions of fellow humans are going to come aboard the industrial train in the next generation or two and us in the more developed nations are going to say no no you have to impliment expensive and inefficient ways to produce energy. Not going to happen. So if you do believe in human induced CC and the only negative effects it will have on the environment enjoy life now because there is nothing short of genocide or some super advancements in creating energy that will stop it. Those are the facts, not the theories.
February 28th, 2008 at 5:37 am
Here comes the rain again, falling on my head like a memory…
February 28th, 2008 at 6:00 am
Aside from temperature fluctuations, the other problem with “climate change” is that we get more extreme weather. That means more severe droughts, more intense rainstorms. There is some debate with hurricanes, however. While the 2005 season was record setting, the last two years have been relatively quiet. One recent study suggested that global warming may increase wind shear, which tends to keep hurricanes from forming.
That said, it should be noted that while we may have gotten easy here, China was hammered last summer by a series of severe tropical cyclones (aka, hurricanes).
February 28th, 2008 at 6:04 am
>…the only fact in the man made global warming theory… is
> that we do not have enough research and non-contradictory
> research facts and observations to come anywhere near a
> conclusion.
> There is one proven fact of climate change. The climate changes over
> time and will change over time
Chad, whilst acknowledging up front that I am not involved in climate research, I am still bemused by the above statements. It is my understanding that it is a fact that increases in atmospheric CO2 can be attributed almost entirely to humans through measurement of carbon isotope ratios in biomass, the oceans, and the atmosphere. It is also my understanding that increases in atmospheric CO2 content contribute to the greenhouse effect is a fact, and that therefore human CO2 contributions increase global temperatures follows from these two facts alone.
February 28th, 2008 at 6:11 am
I know this is just anecdotal, but, as a letter carrier in Canada I have noticed the temperature extremes in winter and in summer the last eight years have been…well…extreme. Our coldest days have been colder and our hottest days warmer. I think if more people really had to interact more with the weather instead of spending most of their time in climate controlled buildings and cars they would be less likely to question the science on climate change.
The argument of the blogger mentioned also seemed to be the old “there is no global warming but if there is it’s the sun’s fault.” So which is it? If you accept that there is a warming regardless of the cause wouldn’t it make more sense to devise a way to deal with it?
February 28th, 2008 at 6:20 am
lonely
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/sunspots/
February 28th, 2008 at 7:26 am
I am the author of the article on Daily Kos which criticized the Daily Tech post. Coupe of things:
1) Daily Tech is a superbly run site literally brimming with outstanding articles and comments.
2) I’ve been in touch with the author Michael Asher, and while the details of his emails to me are confidential, it’s my belief that he’s open to constructive criticism and, furthermore, has a thought provoking point to make about the January temperature data.
In my personal view he might have chosen a better way to present that point. Perhaps in the near future he will find time and opportunity to clarify it or add to it. And if I can contribute meaningfully to that end I will.
Thanks for the link Phil!
February 28th, 2008 at 7:27 am
Chad, could you please point out one “fact” in your post? Opinions are NOT facts; even if you are a conservative.
February 28th, 2008 at 7:57 am
@Chad,
Now who is the alarmist?
Saying that conversion will lead to global depression is just so much junk economics.
We can pay for it with just a fraction of our economic growth.
It only requires political will to do it and we will rise to the challenge.
We are a resourceful lot after all.
(And some people will get rich in the process, for them the challenge will be an opportunity.)
Cleaning up our act will also drastically improve public health, a big money saver.
Sure climate change has happened before.
But we are not wild animals. In the past whole civilisations have fallen because of climate changes. Lots and lots of our infrastructure is dependent on a stable, and predictable, climate.
Luckily our civilisation is flexible, imaginative, and has lots of recourses.
We will be able to overcome this thing. We will adapt.
If we act.
February 28th, 2008 at 8:12 am
I’m genuinely surprised to hear that the move from “global warming” to “climate change” was instigated by deniers. I always assumed that it was simply a more accurate term, and it’s the term I prefer to use because it avoids confusing people. Phil, not that I don’t trust you, but I am curious to know how you got to that conclusion.
February 28th, 2008 at 8:19 am
I haven’t read through every comment, but, um, the Sun kinda IS responsible for global warming. I mean, it warms the globe. Otherwise, we’d be a cold, lifeless lump of rock hurtling through space…kinda like Pluto, but bigger…and a planet.
February 28th, 2008 at 8:23 am
zandperl writes:
[[While I do not believe the Sun is causing the current spate of global warming, one question I have persists: how constant is the Sun’s output over centuries? Over longer time scales like that, is its luminosity changing? ]]
We have proxies like the sunspot number that have been observed for 400 years or so, and paleoclimatologists are at work trying to find other proxies to extend it back further.
Here are estimates of the solar constant for the past 400 years from NASA’s Judith Lean:
http://members.aol.com/bpl1960/LeanTSI.html
February 28th, 2008 at 8:33 am
Im a denier.
but i have reasons.
I deny that humanity has had a drastic effect.
I accept Global Warming is occuring and will occur weather *pun intended* we want it to or not.
I Deny That global warming / climate change can be Combatted
As a Anti-Alarmist and Anti-moron I feel that its a bunch of hype over a natural cycle. Earth has been through Ice Ages, Hot cycles, Mediocre cycles, asteroid impacts and god knows what else. Sheesh get over it.
Im no scientist i wont pretent to be one but everything ive read says Global Warming AKA Climate change has happened many times. Its being used as a political tool to scare people.
Humanities Impact while noticable is not the main cause. with or without us Global Warming will occur. Dont sacrafic Progress and submit to fear.
Thank you from a Denier of Humanity being the main cause.
To Humanity and Progress. Reach for the stars. And lets get off this planet before it kills us all.
February 28th, 2008 at 8:36 am
Shane writes:
[[Until the sun moves on to its next stage of life over the next few billion years does it get dimmer, brighter or stay pretty much constant? The question only occurred to me as I was reading BA’s post and is slightly off-topic.]]
The Sun is slowly (very slowly!) getting brighter. An approximation for the value of the solar constant with time is:
S = S0 / (1 - 0.38 t / 4.55)
where S is the solar constant, S0 the constant now, and t is time past in billions of years. From Judith Lean’s TSI data, I get a mean value for S0 of 1366.1 watts per square meter for 1951-2000.
Note that the Sun starts out 62% as bright as now 4.55 billion years ago. This brings up the “Faint Young Sun paradox” — the Sun was a lot cooler, and if you use Earth’s present albedo and orbital distance and greenhouse effect, the Earth should have been frozen over back then. But we have geological evidence of running water very early. The usual conclusion is that the atmospheric composition and pressure was different then, with a much stronger greenhouse effect.
February 28th, 2008 at 8:43 am
Oops. I should have said t was “time, measured from the present.” Then for t = -4.55 Ga you get S = S0 / (1.38) or 72% of the present value, not 62%. Sorry for the carelessness.
February 28th, 2008 at 8:50 am
Todd posts:
[[I haven’t read through every comment, but, um, the Sun kinda IS responsible for global warming. I mean, it warms the globe. Otherwise, we’d be a cold, lifeless lump of rock hurtling through space…kinda like Pluto, but bigger…and a planet.]]
I think there are two different meanings of “warming” in place here. Yes, the Sun warms the Earth. Without it the mean global annual surface temperature would be closer to 30 K than the present 288 K. But “global warming” usually refers to the increase in mean temperature of the last 150 years, which only started really going fast in the past 30 years or so. In that sense, it isn’t variations in sunlight that are driving the global warming; it’s (primarily) the steady increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere caused by burning fossil fuels.
February 28th, 2008 at 8:56 am
Mike writes:
[[As a Anti-Alarmist and Anti-moron I feel that its a bunch of hype over a natural cycle. Earth has been through Ice Ages, Hot cycles, Mediocre cycles, asteroid impacts and god knows what else. Sheesh get over it. ]]
The present global warming is not a natural cycle of any kind. It doesn’t match solar cycles or Earth orbital cycles or any other known kind of climate cycle. And please don’t say it matches some cycle no one has discovered yet. Scientists have been looking for such cycles for over a century now and we seem to have all the major ones.
If you go by the Milankovic cycles (in Earth’s orbital eccentricity, axial tilt, and axial precession) that govern ice ages, and do the matrix math which governs them, the Earth should now be COOLING, not warming. We passed the peak of the interglacial 6,000 years ago and should be on course for another ice age in 20-50,000 years. The current warming is not natural.
February 28th, 2008 at 8:58 am
Oh noes! I missed a politically charged thread!
That diagram looks like something Dr. Evil would dream up. All it needs is some sharks. With lasers.
February 28th, 2008 at 9:11 am
@Barton Paul Levenson
Quite aware of the two meanings. I was attempting to be humorous/satiric.
February 28th, 2008 at 9:13 am
CO2’s been going up quite a while now. It’ll be a catastrophe economically no matter what we do, so the choice would be between mitigating risk and ignoring risk. Big organisms are more vulnerable in times of change. The United States is a big organism. We’ve seen a small catastrophe in New Orleans, and what resulted. Now imagine that with no fall back. It’s not that everybody is going to die or anything - more like small, inland, self-sufficient or subsistence agrarian societies will fare best, while large, interdependant and coastal societies will fare worst.
No panicky “Water World” or “Day After Tomorrow.” Just eventual societal collapse as successive hardships outstrip our reserves and capability, compounded by instability putting pressure on our security. It comes down to survival of the family or individual, and at that point Americans throw the country to the wind. We are all looters waiting for a sign. If we mitigate risk, we still have some economic upheaval; but its upheaval that we can survive relatively intact.
February 28th, 2008 at 9:43 am
Here’s a fun site; http://climatedebatedaily.com/
February 28th, 2008 at 9:52 am
I used to read Daily Tech quite regularly, but Michael Asher’s pitiful parroting of known hacks and plagiarisms of others made it impossible for me to continue reading the site. He has a habit of paraphrasing others without giving any credit, and he has often times written posts to make it seem as though he was the original author when in reality he just rehashes the work done by others. Asher’s MO is to take one small nugget of data that does not fit into his naive understanding of GW and magnify its importance greatly. I.e. he’s a hack, and not worthy of further discussion and attention from real scientists.
February 28th, 2008 at 9:57 am
Phil, for a ’skeptic’ you have a pretty closed mind on this. The uncertainties about feedbacks, the relative magnitude/influence of most of the variables affecting temperature, and the accuracy/consistency of the measurements over sufficiently long-enough time periods make attribution of the ’cause’ of global warming premature. Yeah, there are some detailed attempts at explanation, but the conclusions are far from certain. Even with the huge volume of science done in the last 30 years, there’s much that still is poorly understood - including subtle influences of the sun that are perhaps (probably?) amplified by the feedbacks. My skeptical antennae start to quiver when I hear dismissive tones such as in this post. They may rouse the rabble (on either side of the argument), but why such strident language? Makes me think of the kid on the ball field who believes he can win the debate by yelling louder.
As for ‘global warming’, you’re right that it’s a nearly meaningless term. However, ‘climate change’ should be a neutral one and not a pejorative appropriated by the politically-motived. Regional changes are by far more important than a single global number.
February 28th, 2008 at 10:37 am
I just want to point out that it’s normal for sunspots from the
old and new spot cycles to overlap. The overlap period
lasts about a year. See the “butterfly diagram” here:
http://sidc.oma.be/html/papi22c.html. When a new cycle
starts, its spots appear at high latitude It’s also normal
for sunspot numbers to be very low for months at a time
at sunspot minimum, which is where we are now..
There’s nothing to indicate that the new sunspot cycle will
be at all unusual.
February 28th, 2008 at 10:58 am
I think it’s wrong to call them ‘global warming deniers’. I’d call them ‘climate contrarians’. It’s a more neutral term, sorta. Sadly, I must confess I used to be one of them, a ‘climate contrarian’. I have now looked at the evidence and accept that the climate overall is warming and that humans are responsible for this era of climate change. I have a tendency to extend my skepticism to the point of contrariness, just for the sake of it. It’s a bad habit and has kept me from realizing how much we’ve Bad word deleted this planet up. Until now.
I try to keep a scientific outlook. If I’m wrong, I eventually admit it and move on. The problem I had was with the term ’scientific consensus’ was that it seemed to smack of argument from authority. I used to argue with Creationists and they love ‘argument from authority’ (’Respect my authoratay’). If 1000 preachers agreed that God exists, doesn’t mean they are right, but being more learned (theoretically, or is it theocratically?) their consensus holds a little more weight than if a 1000 children agreed that God exists. Now If 1000 scientists who specialize in studying the Earth’s climate and geology agree that global warming is real, they may not be right, but they hold more weight than a 1000 conservative talk show hosts would.
Now if Rush Limbaugh decides to go drill some Greenland ice cores and measure the gas ratios or or Glenn Beck decides to study ancient tree rings to build up a picture of past climates, let me know.
February 28th, 2008 at 11:15 am
I think a little clarification might be necessary: If GW is occuring, is it possible to stop it, mitigate it, or what harm will it actually cause. And is it part of a natural cycle or (doubtful) “human” caused. Remember, Greenland was actually green at one time! The next question is whether or not it’s a good idea to destroy the world economy and plunge 6 billion people into poverty over a “theory” from a computer model based on flawed data…
Just over 35 years ago, scientists were “convinced” we were heading into an Ice Age. So which is it?
Robert
February 28th, 2008 at 11:36 am
Robert:
Two billion or more of those are already in poverty.
Where do you get, by the way, the claim of everyone in poverty due to reformation of greenhouse gas emissions? You have made a claim; I have an obligation as a skeptic to question it and request your data. And your computer model, presuming you have one.
February 28th, 2008 at 11:42 am
@Robert -
I think that your extremist point of view over your pre-supposed “consequesnces” of “doing something about GW” is pretty alarming.
First of all, in response to your question of whether or not we can stop or in any way mitigate GW… well DUH… yeah… there’s lots we can and in fact already do. And whatever the mitigating effect, how could you think it’s not the right thing to do?
And to your next point… what facts do you have that back up, in any way, your statement that any proposed solution would “destroy the world’s economy and plunge 6 billion people into poverty”. That’s a pretty strong statement… can you back that up? I’m not sure you can.
Next… which computer model with flawed data are you referring to in which we would make such a drastic change as to destroy the worlds economy?… I’m not aware of that particular computer model…
And lastly, well… perhaps it might occur to you that what we know NOW about Climate Change has somewhat improved over what we knew 35 years ago…
February 28th, 2008 at 11:48 am
Celtic_Evolution said:
“what we know NOW about Climate Change has somewhat improved over what we knew 35 years ago”
Wait, wait, wait, wait…science and knowledge progress and change based on new information and improved technology instead of remaining stagnant?
February 28th, 2008 at 11:50 am
@Todd
sarcasm again… right? Can’t see if your “satire switch” is in the “on” position.
February 28th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
@Celtic_Evolution
Yep. Perhaps I should start using and in my posts, eh?
February 28th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
This myth is so annoying. The “Ice Age” thing was some very tentative data from a small number of scientists that were predicting an ice age would occur sometime in the next few tens of thousands of years or so. It was overhyped by the press, as is common. The current global warming threat is the overwhelming, worldwide scientific consensus backed by nearly every scientist in the world whose research is even remotely related to the climate, not the mention the vast and (by all empirical counts so far) nearly unanimous conclusion of the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Trying to say the two situations are equivalent is frankly absurd.
February 28th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Robert writes:
[[I think a little clarification might be necessary: If GW is occuring, is it possible to stop it, mitigate it, or what harm will it actually cause.]]
We can’t stop it at this point, but we can make it less severe and lessen the damage. The harm will come from the fact that our agriculture and economy are all based on the unusually stable climate we’ve enjoyed for the past 10,000 years or so. Global warming will mean more droughts in continental interiors, more violent weather along coastlines, and rising sea levels. If we do nothing, millions of deaths and trillions of dollars worth of property damage are inevitable.
[[ And is it part of a natural cycle or (doubtful) “human” caused.]]
The latter.
[[Remember, Greenland was actually green at one time!]]
True. 120,000 years ago it had no ice cap.
[[ The next question is whether or not it’s a good idea to destroy the world economy and plunge 6 billion people into poverty over a “theory” from a computer model based on flawed data…]]
It’s not a good idea to destroy the world economy, surely, but what makes you think mitigating global warming would destroy the world economy? Basically all we have to do is switch to sources of energy other than fossil fuels, and try to preserve the remaining forests.
[[Just over 35 years ago, scientists were “convinced” we were heading into an Ice Age. So which is it?]]
Some scientists c. 1975 thought we might be heading into an ice age, but there was never a consensus behind “global cooling” the way there is now behind global warming. To that extent, “they said we were headed for global cooling!” is a myth, an urban legend. Here’s more on the subject:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94
February 28th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
To take this a step further, even if global warming isn’t happening (which it almost certainly is), it is inevitable that it will happen if we keep pumping greenhouses gasses into the atmosphere. We are pumping huge amounts of a greenhouse gas into the atmosphere. A large part of this gas is not being taken up by the various sinks that are present and many of those sinks that are taking part of it up can only store a finite amount and will eventually be saturated. There are no known feedbacks that are large enough and fast enough to counter its effects, and people have been looking hard for them. We have a problem now, a problem that will only increase. But even if we didn’t the problem is still inevitable, is not possible to fully reverse even if we totally stopped producing greenhouse gasses right now, and reducing our production of greenhouse gases will mitigate the impact.
Just reducing our fossil fuel dependence by requiring increased fuel economy in vehicles, decreased energy use in our appliances and lights, and switching as much of our energy production as possible to alternative energy sources will make a big impact. The first two will actually save consumers money, but have been vigorously resisted by fossil fuel and automotive companies. The third might as well but I don’t know for sure.
February 28th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
“The next question is whether or not it’s a good idea to destroy the world economy and plunge 6 billion people into poverty over a “theory” from a computer model based on flawed data…”
You are right. I have seen literally hundreds of climate computer models and not once have I seen an accurate one. Now that is not fair to those who make them, they are usually very good scientists but it is inherent in climate computer models. The models are only as good as the data put in and the amount of real world factors that can affect the model.
To those non-scientists understand Models are research tools to better understand models not the real world factors (data) placed into the models.
And when it comes to climate scientists like myself we are in our infancy.
February 28th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
confused a below-average January temperature for an entire year’s worth.
Temperatures are a continuous measure: the next month inherits its starting temperature from the preceding month.
So it wasn’t that January suddenly got colder. The anomaly gradually decreased over the latter half of 2007. If you look at the monthly graph, this is pretty obvious.
which contradicts a study by NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies that shows that last year was among the hottest on record.
There is no contradiction; those are two totally different comparisons. One is comparing a year to other years, one is comparing the temperature now to the temperature a year ago.
February 28th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
I take it you are not a modeler? That is the sort of cynical thing I hear from experimenters who do not do much, if any, modeling themselves and look down on it because of that. On the other hand it is something I never hear from people who actually do modeling (because it isn’t true, and anyone who does modeling knows that).
February 28th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Here is a link that shows what might be the start of the new solar cycle.
http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMT1J3MDAF_index_0.html
I’ve been trying to hunt down a piece that I recently read, that states this upcoming cycle “24″ might rival the solar maximum that caused auroras to be seem as far south as Mexico in 1958.
February 28th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
@Chad -
I’m not sure how your explanation that perhaps we don’t have the perfect all-encompasing climate model validates Robert’s statement.
The problem with his statement is that he makes a claim that by doing something to possibly stem or reverse role we are playing in GW we will plunge the world into poverty and destroy the world’s economy. It’s an absurd statement based on no facts.
And I’m frankly I’m a little surprised that a climate scientist such as yourself would find the abundance of data available on the subject of climate change inconclusive or “flawed”. I think that goes against the current thinking amongst the large percentage of the climate science community… or am I wrong in that statement?
February 28th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
BlackCat- sorry I was dumbing it down.
I was referring to GCM’s. Yes, in the modeling world that covers many scientific disciplines, there are good and some very good models out there. But when it comes GCM’s you cannot make a reliable model when we do not know the factors going into the system that we are trying to model. At that point models are used more for making better more accurate models.
I don’t mean disrespect to those researching models but we can’t look to them as predicting the future entirely.
Please refer me to a GCM that you think predicts the future of man-kind and takes into account all the factors and we can use to base our future decisions on. I would like to see it. thanks
February 28th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Man, people get so pissed off about this stuff. I don’t see why we cant just behave as if man made climate change is real, it makes sense for a number of non-climate change reasons anyway. And it will NOT plunge us into a catastrophic recession, at least any more of one than Oil prices quadrupling, which they have since 1998. It makes so much sense that even with ZERO evidence for man made climate change, I would still be all for being as proactive as possible to eliminate or severely reduce our use of fossil fuels.
February 28th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
“Phil, for a ’skeptic’ you have a pretty closed mind on this.”
I think he does exactly what a sceptic should. Decides his opinions, based on scientific observations (there’s gotta be something wrong in the grammar, that just can’t be right
Being a sceptic doesn’t mean one have to deny everything. Then again, just about every conspiracy theorist call them selves sceptics, so perhaps I am wrong
February 28th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
[snark]
January here (Phila, PA) seems to have been more or less “average” (except that we had almost no snow, which is fine by me). Therefore, global warming didn’t exist here in January…………..
@Der: OK, Drudge was in internet pioneer, but that doesn’t make anything he says true. He’s still a crank.
[/snark]
February 28th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Oops, I meant an internet pioneer. BA, can we please have a preview feature?
February 28th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
“Climate change” as opposed to “global warming.” “Climate contrarians” as opposed to “climate deniers.” These “fancy euphanisms” to sex up unpopular and incorrect dispositions has a better word for them as well; it’s called “double speak.” And this thread is full of them as “climate contrarians,” scrambling in their alarmist fashion, grasping at straws (and splitting hairs) over what to most of is pretty obvious: 6 billion plus people are warming our planet, and have been for quite some time. And most of science community have accepted this. And incase your wondering; yes, I am “climate contrarian skeptic.”
February 28th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
>Please refer me to a GCM that you think predicts the future of man-kind
Chad, without wishing to make a statement as sweeping as “this model predicts the future of mankind”, I do think it would be inappropriate to overlook the success of, for example, Jim Hansen’s 1988 GCM (the ‘most likely’ scenario B in particular), which has predicted forcings to within about 5% of observations.
To suggest that this model takes all factors into account would obviously be inappropriate, but the fact that it has been so successful in predicting the observations over the last couple of decades surely gives it some credibility.
I’m curious to hear your views on that.
February 28th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
@Celtic_Evolution
The problem I have is prospective. The general public has a prospective that the “scientific consensus” is based on a founded theory and not just scientific opinion which is not always based on science and usually is not based on science at all. Rather their scientific opinion is more influenced by things that influence all of us, personal benefit. The great thing about theorys is that to be viable they have to predict the future. It is too soon to see if it can but most climate theory so far have been proven wrong. This is because we do not have a strong enough understanding of the climate to make viable theories yet, but we are on the right path.
If the current GW theory is correct then there is nothing realistically that we can do. We are at just the beginning of the global industrial era. Wye are only going to pump out more greenhouse gases in the next century. The first world nations can clean up there act but not the third world nations which is 2/3 of the worlds population. We don’t spend our money on being environmentally friendly rather we spend our billions on ringtones. We don’t know the meaning of the world “sacrifice”
If the GW theory is proven correct then results of increase greenhouse gases will come true and we will have to adapt as we always have thoughtout history of mankind. Some local climates will be more favorable to mankind and some will be more unfavorable.
My scientific opinion is that we will be fine.
February 28th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
i know that i’m not the blog owner, but after the post (7:26 a.m) from DarkSyde of Daylykos defending and clarifying what Dayly Tech wrote, the rest of commments here are superfluous…
i also saw a post from Michael Asher (27/2/08 p.32 p.m.) of Dayly Tech explanning his views.
both posts were left without a comment from mr plait… which i think is very very strange (and uncorteous!!!)
and after reading what DarkSyde wrote i have the feeling that mr. plait “es más papista que el papa” (is more popist than the pope).
February 28th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Dear Mr Plait, I will confess up front that I sit firmly in the camp of the skeptics when it comes to the claims made about global warming. As a geophysicist I am well aware that climate is in a constant state of flux, and that alarmist positions such as that Sydney will be uninhabitable by 2050 need to be countered with common sense.
Where I take issue to your otherwise excellent post, is that you blame “Deniers” for shifting the vocabulary from “Global Warming” To “Climate Change”. In Australia, it is the believers that have made this shift, and it scares me for the following reason. “Global Warming” is a testable hypothesis, If the globe warms -pass, if not, fail. With “Climate Change” on the other hand, any variation in climate can be blamed on the theory. It would truly be bizarre if the climate did not change at all, as this is not how it has ever behaved historically. So we have a situation in which if the globe warms or cools, or gets wetter, or dryer as a whole or in parts, all of this can be claimed to be as a result of “Climate Change” Suddenly the hypothesis becomes unfalsifiable. If it is unfalsifiable, it is simply not science anymore.
I shall remain a skeptic, my position is testable, and may yet prove to be right or wrong. But science must remain science, and I fear that global warming as understood by the media and the common man is slipping further and further away from the realm of testable science.
February 28th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
crtl+f: “stratospheric cooling” not found
An increase in the sun’s output would cause stratospheric warming. An increase in the greenhouse effect would cause stratospheric cooling. Observations show significant stratospheric cooling over the past several decades. It is one of the strongest observed evidences that the sun is not causing global warming. Why is this not *ever* discussed in these topics? Why do the AGW contrarians and deniers repeatedly ignore this very fundamental fact? Why do they always resort to muddy ambiguous topics like GCM output details and warming trends on other planets?
It seems to me the contrarians don’t have a leg to stand on, so they revert to using ignorance and ambiguity as a shield. It’s kind of a corruption of the “God of the gaps” fallacy.
February 28th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
I just linked this to my roommate after she mentioned four weather stations around the world registering a decrease in the world’s temperature. I don’t think she’s bothering to read it. Face, meet wall.
(It’s not like she, or anyone, even has to accept that the present global warming is human-caused. Even if what we’ve been doing to the atmosphere for the past hundred-odd years isn’t causing global warming, it’s sure as hell not doing anything beneficial, and we’d be well advised to stop doing it.)
February 28th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
Whew…what a read to get to this point! I have one question, since the models are less than perfect because not all factors are known, is it concievable that even small changes in solar output could have significant effects on earths climate? And are there any oceanographers in the group who would comment on the absorption of C02 by warming oceans?
One thought…since we are clearly contributing to C02 levels by burning fossil fuels how about restoring and bolstering the use of nuclear power. What say the “enviormentalist” in the thread.
February 28th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
Brant,
Stratospheric temperatures are dominated by ozone; this is the primary molecule absorbing heat at that level. As you know, stratospheric ozone is decreasing. This effect is thought to account for much of the stratospheric cooling, particularly at the poles.
It doesn’t, however, seem to account for all the tropical cooling, for which anthropogenic GHGs indeed seem the best fit for the data. Adiabatic cooling due to upwelling is another possible explanation.
Also, remember not to not fall into the ‘false dilemma’ trap. None of these scenarios are mutually exclusive. If anything is incontrovertible, it is that all the above play some part. We just don’t yet know the actual magnitudes.
February 28th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
Phil - thanks for the link about history of the term … it’s good to be clear that while the term “climate change” has been around for a long time, it was only recently that climate change skeptics began to use it to spin the debate.
February 28th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
The cause of the Maunder Minimum is obvious. Back in those days, hundreds of years ago, people were much more dependent on sunlight for day to day operations. So when there was less sun, there was a correlated drop in getting out and around. People drove their SUVs all that much less, and the CO2 levels dropped to historic lows, leaving the atmosphere no choice but to chilly the dilly.
People who say CO2 is responsible for everything remind me of creationists.
February 28th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
@ Chad
“The problem I have is prospective. The general public has a prospective that the “scientific consensus” is based on a founded theory and not just scientific opinion which is not always based on science and usually is not based on science at all.”
Did you mean “perspective”? I’m not really trying to be snarky… just want to be clear I understand your point, as a climate scientist. That having been said, I really don’t think the analysis of the wealth of available data that leads most climatologists to support Global Warming is a matter of “perspective”… it’s a matter of actually analyzing the data to come up with what is a fairly commonly accepted analysis.
“The great thing about theorys is that to be viable they have to predict the future. It is too soon to see if it can but most climate theory so far have been proven wrong.”
Wow. I mean wow… I think that statement is just plain wrong. I think you’ll have to provide some examples of these “most climate theories so far that have been proven wrong”. If your own argument is true that “we do not have a strong enough understanding of the climate to make viable theories yet”, then how can any of these theories have been already *proven* wrong?? Examples, please. In fact, there are any number of studies and models that have been done, including Jim Hansen’s GCM, which Andy C referenced above… and so far that has shown a pretty reliable predictor, albeit in a short amount of time, meteorologically speaking.
“If the current GW theory is correct then there is nothing realistically that we can do.”
I respectfully, but whole-heartedly, disagree with that sentiment, and I think it’s lazy and irresponsible. We are contributing to the increase of CO2 in our atmosphere… we know we are doing it and we know that it is a practice that will cause an increase in global temperature and we know why this will happen. To continue to do so by shrugging our shoulders and just saying “eh… the problem is too big for THIS to be the sole reason, and I doubt stopping will make much difference anyhow, so let somebody else deal with it, I have money to make” is both irresponsible and frankly insidious.
“The first world nations can clean up there act but not the third world nations which is 2/3 of the worlds population. ”
Really? Why not? I’d be willing to bet they would if the aid they depended on from the “first world nations” depended on it. Again, that’s a lazy response.
“We don’t spend our money on being environmentally friendly rather we spend our billions on ringtones. We don’t know the meaning of the world “sacrifice””
Well, maybe that has a ring of truth, but it’s hardly relevent to this conversation, and CERTAINLY not a reason to just throw our hands up and give up.
“If the GW theory is proven correct then results of increase greenhouse gases will come true and we will have to adapt as we always have thoughtout history of mankind. Some local climates will be more favorable to mankind and some will be more unfavorable.
My scientific opinion is that we will be fine.”
Now *that* is just plain arrogant. And I know I’m repeating myself… but awfully lazy to boot.
February 29th, 2008 at 12:05 am
So I suppose you believe that global warming is caused by man made CO2 despite there being no evidence for it, and plenty of evidence against it. Not much of a skeptic are you?
February 29th, 2008 at 2:43 am
> People who say CO2 is responsible for everything remind me of creationists.
JC, at what point did Creationists come up with a coherent theory, backed by evidence?
CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the recent rise in CO2 can be attributed almost entirely to human activities (Carbon 13 / Carbon 12 ratios as noted in a previous post), therefore, increasing atmospheric CO2 caused by the burning of fossil fuels will result in a rise in temperature.
So, these accepted, observable facts provide clear evidence that at least part of the warming is due to humans. Could there be other (significant) contributing factors? There could be, but the failure of alternative explanations to model anything close to the observed level of warming to date would seem to indicate that there aren’t. The models that do reflect reality are those that incorporate anthropogenic forcing factors (eg the Hansen GCM previously noted).
Talking about past, natural warming events is completely pointless when the natural explanations (e.g. solar output, orbital parameter variations) for those past warming events are not present today. If you want to propose a natural explanation, then present the evidence that fits current observations, don’t just point to past events and say “Look! It happened then, so it can’t possibly be happening for a different reason now!”
February 29th, 2008 at 3:21 am
NASA have reported global warming on mars in 2007 and 2006.
Given Exxon and GM have no franchise on mars, something common to earth and mars seems the cause of global warming.
February 29th, 2008 at 7:38 am
Chad writes:
[[And when it comes to climate scientists like myself we are in our infancy.]]
Wow! And I was impressed with Michael Grost entering college at age ten!
February 29th, 2008 at 7:42 am
Chad writes:
[[But when it comes GCM’s you cannot make a reliable model when we do not know the factors going into the system that we are trying to model. ]]
Huh??? Who says we don’t know the factors we are trying to model? How can you even write a model without knowing the factors going into it? What are you talking about?
The factors controlling the climate are sunlight, gravity (for pressure and lapse rates), and the composition and motion of Earth’s atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere, and land. Any GCM now being used takes into account several dozen such factors at the very least, if not hundreds. We can’t model the climate exactly, but we can certainly model it well enough to predict that it will get warmer if you add more greenhouse gases.
February 29th, 2008 at 7:45 am
Chad writes:
[[If the current GW theory is correct then there is nothing realistically that we can do.]]
Chad, you claim to be a “climate scientist.” I can’t imagine any real climate scientist in 2008 writing a sentence like the one above. If the current GW theory is correct???
What university or private entity do you work for? What papers have you published in peer-reviewed journals?
February 29th, 2008 at 7:49 am
JC writes:
[[The cause of the Maunder Minimum is obvious. Back in those days, hundreds of years ago, people were much more dependent on sunlight for day to day operations. So when there was less sun, there was a correlated drop in getting out and around. People drove their SUVs all that much less, and the CO2 levels dropped to historic lows, leaving the atmosphere no choice but to chilly the dilly.
People who say CO2 is responsible for everything remind me of creationists.]]
Straw man argument. Nobody says “CO2 is responsible for everything.” CO2 is largely responsible for the present global warming. Two different statements.
February 29th, 2008 at 7:53 am
[…] you’ll all be shocked to hear that this is false, that the source of the information made a huge error, and that Fox and friends nonetheless continue to trot the story out, with evident […]
February 29th, 2008 at 7:56 am
Blind Avocado writes:
[[So I suppose you believe that global warming is caused by man made CO2 despite there being no evidence for it, and plenty of evidence against it. Not much of a skeptic are you?]]
There is very good evidence
A) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas
B) that CO2 has increased substantially since the industrial revolution began
C) that most of the increase is from burning fossil fuels
D) that the Earth’s mean global annual surface temperature is rising
Which of these points do you dispute, and why?
Jameson writes:
[[NASA have reported global warming on mars in 2007 and 2006.
Given Exxon and GM have no franchise on mars, something common to earth and mars seems the cause of global warming.]]
Don’t jump to conclusions. There are many things that affect a planet’s temperature, and they are often different for each planet. Mars is warming because it has planet-wide dust storms, and the planet has a slightly different albedo after the dust settles. Earth is warming because we’re pumping greenhouse gases into the air, and to a lesser extent, because we’re cutting down forests.
If increased sunlight were warming the planets, you would expect all the planets to warm, and all by the same relative fraction. But while Mars, Triton and Pluto are warming, Uranus is cooling, Venus may be cooling, and the temperatures of the other planets seemed to be unchanged. It’s not physically possible to do that by increasing sunlight.
February 29th, 2008 at 7:56 am
@ Blind Avocado
“So I suppose you believe that global warming is caused by man made CO2 despite there being no evidence for it, and plenty of evidence against it. Not much of a skeptic are you?”
Where did I say that GW was caused by CO2? CO2 is one contributor, as are other pollutants we are pumping into the air, and it’s something we can do something about. I am using CO2 as an example because it was brought up earlier in this thread. Many scientisit, including the aforementioned Jim Hansen, believe that although CO2 is a contributor, OTHER pollutants we pump into the air are actually the larger culprits. So whether it’s CO2 or some other pollutant(s), it is OUR actions that are increasing, to whatever degree, the greenhouse effect. And if we can do something about it, why would we not? The only argument I’ve heard is that doing so would “plunge the world into poverty”. Feh. Prove it.
@ James
Classic example of taking a small piece of information on a much larger topic and twisting it to make a totally unrelated point. The BA already discussed this topic pretty well here… http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/04/29/is-global-warming-solar-induced/
I suggest you read it before making any more comments about Mars warming and Earth warming being linked.
February 29th, 2008 at 8:51 am
(*sigh*) This post is probably in vain.
As for the use of “denier,” all you need to do is look at the posts above to see that it is a politically charged word. I find it hard to believe that you don’t know that, Phil. I’m sorry, but you are beginning to sound more and more shrill.
As for “climate change” I find it ironic that the “denier” blogs which you have called them in the past were all chortling over its use by AGW enthusiasts years ago. The term conveniently makes the whole issue completely untestable. Temperature goes up - See? We Were Right! Temperature goes down — See? We Were Right! No change — See? Our Efforts and Warnings to Combat Climate Change Worked! No matter what happens — We Were Right! It’s the best position for the religion and astrology devotees. Now I ask you, Phil: Why would the GW “deniers” want to make it easier for the non-”deniers” by giving them a heads-I-win-tails-you-lose out?
Notice that there is still a lot of confusion between GW and AGW. Just because there is GW doesn’t mean that the actions of Man are any significant cause. There is no denying that there are problems with recent (last 100 year) temperature records and some of the questionable “adjustments” made to it. All the same, though, there is plenty of other evidence for GW. But I really want to know: What is the evidence for AGW? The supposed best evidence has been the Hockey Stick (used by the IPCC) and, lately, the “Thompson” graph presented by Al Gore. Do you really need to have the problems with those two things explained again?
Now the question becomes: If the evidence for AGW is so compelling, why don’t the AGW people present it instead of trotting out the flawed pieces?
Here’s my challenge, Phil: list your compelling reasons for believing that GW=AGW. If you can’t, are you man enough to admit that your belief is baseless and differs from a fundamentalists’ only in topic? If I’m wrong in stating that you believe GW=AGW please correct me.
February 29th, 2008 at 10:46 am
In my previous post I mentioned that there were problems with the Hockey Stick and Gore’s presentation of the Thompson’s graph. The problems with the Hockey Stick are well known so I don’t think I have to document them further. According to this (http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2598), Thompson claims that Gore’s graph is in error yet he was on the Science Advisory committee for AIT. Yes, it’s anecdotal. The link is just convenient for now. I can provide links to Thompson’s paper and show how the AIT presentation of Thompson’s paper was manufactured.
One can’t help wonder that the current press blitz isn’t just conforming to Stephen Schneider’s statements on scientific responsibility in “Discover” magazine, Oct 1989:
In case you don’t know, Schneider was perhaps the most media-exposed Greenhouse expert in the late 80’s and early 90s.
So I really want to know: What is the evidence that’s so compelling that the epithet “denier” can be applied to any and all who say “What?!” To paraphrase an old hamburger joint advert: “Where’s the science?”
February 29th, 2008 at 11:00 am
@DAV:
I have a better idea: why don’t you tell us what evidence would convince you that we are right? What sort of evidence would convince you that global warming is real? What sort of evidence would you consider sufficient to label them “deniers”?
People have already given lots of reasons why the term “denier” is appropriate and lots of evidence that has convinced them that global warming is real. You have not addressed any of those comments, so I can only assume you do not find that convincing (I’ll also assume you aren’t using sock puppets). Rather then have us waste a few hundreds more posts listing more evidence we find convincing, you should tell us what we need to do to convince you. I think that is a much more efficient way of proceeding, since we really have not clue whatsoever what sort of arguments we have to make or evidence we have to prevent to convince you. All we know is that the arguments and evidence so far has not done it, but that is really not very helpful because there is a lot more evidence and many more arguments that could be presented.
February 29th, 2008 at 11:24 am
Your rebuttal distorts what the Daily Tech said. It cited four sources. One source did show the temperature average for January only. But the Hadley Center data also used for the article showed it for the entire year. Pretending this article was about one set of data when it clearly mentions four sets, and then ignoring the sets that repudiate your position, is not entirely honest.
February 29th, 2008 at 11:33 am
DAV writes:
[[What is the evidence for AGW? The supposed best evidence has been the Hockey Stick (used by the IPCC) and, lately, the “Thompson” graph presented by Al Gore. Do you really need to have the problems with those two things explained again?]]
That you think those are the “best evidence” for AGW strongly suggests you’re getting all your information from denier web sites and right-wing publications and talk radio.
I’d recommend learning a bit about atmospheric radiation, so you understand the physical principles involved. A good place to start is with John T. Houghton’s “The Physics of Atmospheres” (3rd ed. 2002). Grant W. Petty’s “A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation” (2006) is also very useful. If the math is a problem, try Spencer Weart’s “The Discovery of Global Warming” (2003), or S. George Philander’s “Is the Temperature Rising?” (1998).
And try reading the IPCC AR4 report. The whole thing. They not only go over the extensive evidence for AGW, they give references in the peer-reviewed literature.
February 29th, 2008 at 11:45 am
If the term ‘GW denier’ is acceptable, then ‘God denier’ and ‘psychic denier’ should also be acceptable.
February 29th, 2008 at 11:45 am
TBC: “People have already given lots of reasons why the term “denier” is appropriate and lots of evidence that has convinced them that global warming is real. … you should tell us what we need to do to convince you. ”
Yet, for whatever reason, they really can’t seem to just simply list it. Why is that? Claiming that it exists but not being able to state it is, well, strange. Now, if for some reason, I’ve missed the post(s) that list(s) the reasons for believing AGW, please point it/them out.
Try it in a slightly different context. Someone says: “There is a God” and the skeptic asks: “How do you know?” and the Believer says: “There’s plenty of evidence all around. Preacher John just mentioned some of it last Sunday. What would it take to convince you?” Sound familiar? You hold the belief and are being asked why and yet you evade the question by asking what it would take to convince me? How very strange.
In any case, your post isn’t very responsive. I would think it obvious what’s needed: evidence of AGW that can’t be explained away as non-AGW and doesn’t have inherent flaws. To help out, what’s unacceptable : the results of bad math (par