The global warming crowd is getting confused these days as scientists begin to theorize about impending global cooling. This is a throwback to the 1970s when global cooling was the frenzy-du-jour among alarmists, replaced soon after by global warming for some reason nobody quite understands today.
New York City in 2050?
Read all about the theory of Global Cooling, which summarizes an interesting scientific study by geoscience expert, Dr. R. Timothy Patterson.
The fact that science is many years away from properly understanding global climate doesn’t seem to bother our leaders at all.
Even George Bush is placating the global warming myth with feel-good statements of late.
Climate stability has never been a feature of planet Earth. The only constant about climate is change; it changes continually and, at times, quite rapidly. Many times in the past, temperatures were far higher than today, and occasionally, temperatures were colder.
This point is obvious to anyone who has read the science. Global warming and global cooling occur in cycles.
These new findings suggest that changes in the output of the sun caused the most recent climate change. By comparison, CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet’s climate on long, medium and even short time scales.
Which explains why the other planets in our solar system are experiencing the same slight warming trend as earth. .
Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest Schwabe solar cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to unusually cool conditions on Earth.
We need a new champion of global cooling to scare the masses. Losing presidential candidates seem to fit the bill, so we nominate John Kerry to make a new movie called An Inconvenient Goof.
Scientific credentials: the latest study was conducted by R. Timothy Patterson, who is a professor and director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Centre, Department of Earth Sciences, Carleton University.
[tags]global cooling, global warming, science[/tags]
June 21st, 2007 at 8:37 am
The calls for action to prevent further human-induced global warming are based on an enormous body of research by thousands of scientists over more than a century that has been subjected to intense – and sometimes ferocious – scrutiny. According to the latest IPCC report, it is more than 90% certain that the world is already warming as a result of human activity.
There is no disputing that there is an influence of solar activity on climate. The dispute is in the fact that humans continue to actively increase CO2 (an undisputed greenhouse gas) concentrations in the atmosphere, which according to the studies will negate any future decrease in solar activity. No doubt we will see the influence of decreased sunspot activity, but according to the vast majority of climate scientists it shouldn’t result in a reversal of long-term trends given the projections of future greenhouse gas emissions.
June 21st, 2007 at 8:48 am
if the ipcc found that humans did not affect climate change then they would be defunded by the united nations. that is their actual mandate … hardly an unbiased group. if global cooling starts being popular they will undoubtably say they are 90% sure humans cause it.
if they do not say that they will lose their jobs
June 21st, 2007 at 10:13 am
lisab - I am really happy to see that the public school system has hired such astute folks to teach our youngin’s. That was the subject of one of my comments months ago, and of course, if I said it, it must be smart! (and humble!)
June 21st, 2007 at 10:37 am
It has taken more than a century to reach the current scientific consensus on climate change. It has come about through a steadily growing body of evidence from many different sources, and the process has hardly been secret.
The IPCC itself has actually been conservative in its reports on climate change, toning down the potential impacts when there is a degree of uncertainty. The IPCC record, though, shows that they are unwilling to make conclusions without disclosing the uncertainty underlying them. Scientists have a tendency in general to that, but in the US their has been significant political pressure to tone down findings on climate change to keep their paymasters happy.
That in itself does not necessarily mean that the sceptics are wrong, of course. Nor does the fact that most scientists believe in climate change necessarily make it true. What counts is the evidence. And the evidence – that the world is getting warmer, that the warming is largely due to human emissions, and that the downsides of further warming will outweigh the positive effects – is very strong and getting stronger.
June 21st, 2007 at 12:14 pm
Erik, present any evidence that “warming is largely due to human emissions.” Don’t give us a correlation study. Show us the study that indicates a cause. They don’t actually exist.
June 21st, 2007 at 1:28 pm
From the IPCC technical report:
“As noted in the SAR, the unequivocal attribution of climate change to anthropogenic causes (i.e., the isolation of cause and effect) would require controlled experimentation with the climate system in which the hypothesised agents of change are systematically varied in order to determine the climate’s sensitivity to these agents. Such an approach to attribution is clearly not possible. Thus, from a practical perspective, attribution of observed climate change to a given combination of human activity and natural influences requires another approach. This involves statistical analysis and the careful assessment of multiple lines of evidence to demonstrate, within a pre-specified margin of error, that the observed changes are:
1. unlikely to be due entirely to internal variability:
2. consistent with the estimated responses to the given combination of anthropogenic and natural forcing; and
3. not consistent with alternative, physically plausible explanations of recent climate change that exclude important elements of the given combination of forcings.”
Without multiple and repeatable controlled experiments with another planet, we cannot attribute manmade CO2 to the recent rise in temperature. But the confidence in our knowledge of known non-anthropogenic (natural) radiative forcing functions and our ability to model them is documented in the latest report. The IPCC-4 report portrays this as a reasonably high confidence.
You are correct in that correlation does not imply causation. The only thing we can know for sure in science is the lack of correlation disproves causation.
June 21st, 2007 at 3:35 pm
That’s exactly right. Correlation is not causation.
You could make a study that nicely correlates the rise in mad-made electromagnetic energy with the rise in earth temperatures since 1850. You know, all those radio, television, and cellular phone waves passing thru the air “must” be causing global warming. You could then cut off the scientific debate by claiming that a correlation makes it settled science.
Further, the more the correlation between man-made CO2 and and global warming is studied, the weaker the correlation becomes. For example, most of the warming that occurred in the present warming period occurred before 1950, yet far more of the mad-made CO2 was produced after. We know that now but didn’t before.
Another thing we know now that we didn’t know before is that the temperatures on other planets in the solar system are rising too in a way that correlates with earth’s temperature increase. So the IPCC’s excuse that they can’t make a “controlled” experiment with another planet is a convenient excuse to ignore scientific facts.
There is FAR more evidence to believe that the current temperature cycle, like others before, is naturally occurring based on sun activity. Read the report linked in this post and the one before on global warming. They both paint the same picture.
June 21st, 2007 at 7:54 pm
But electromagnetic energy and radio waves don’t carry a mechanistic explanantion. CO2 being a greenhouse gas does. The scientists have taken the same course you took when the teacher told you “correlation doesn’t equal causation”. It’s not just the pattern. It’s mechanistic explanation, validation of model predictions, and historical data that show that CO2 has a certain climate “forcing” potential.
We have known that the globe has been warming for some time. In fact, we are overdue for the end of this interglacial period. We also know how much we have been adding CO2 into the atmosphere and that, yes, most of it has been in the last 50 years. Don’t see how that is relevant.
The planets claimed to be warming are Mars and Pluto. We can say with certainty that, even if Mars, Pluto or any other planets have warmed in recent years, it is not due to changes in solar activity. The Sun’s energy output has not increased since direct measurements began in 1978. Direct measurements of solar output since 1978 show a steady rise and fall over the 11-year sunspot cycle, but no upwards or downward trend. If increased solar output really was responsible, we should be seeing warming on all the planets and their moons, not just Mars and Pluto.
Link for solar output study:
http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant
McCain said: Another thing we know now that we didn’t know before is that the temperatures on other planets in the solar system are rising too in a way that correlates with earth’s temperature increase.
But as you know correlation not equal to causation. If the rest of the planets were warming we might be on to something here. Also, given that a year on Mars is nearly two Earth years long, and that a year on Pluto lasts for 248 Earth years, it is rather early to start drawing conclusions about long-term climate trends on the outer bodies of the Solar System.
The evidence points to CO2 as a significant factor in the current global warming trend.
June 21st, 2007 at 8:25 pm
I just gave a link to solar science in this post. YOu probably missed this part, which is understandable. It is dry reading. Let’s make it easy with a reprint of the relevant section:
***
“Using computers to conduct what is referred to as a “time series analysis” on the colouration and thickness of the annual layers, we have discovered repeated cycles in marine productivity in this, a region larger than Europe. Specifically, we find a very strong and consistent 11-year cycle throughout the whole record in the sediments and diatom remains. This correlates closely to the well-known 11-year “Schwabe” sunspot cycle, during which the output of the sun varies by about 0.1%. Sunspots, violent storms on the surface of the sun, have the effect of increasing solar output, so, by counting the spots visible on the surface of our star, we have an indirect measure of its varying brightness. Such records have been kept for many centuries and match very well with the changes in marine productivity we are observing.
In the sediment, diatom and fish-scale records, we also see longer period cycles, all correlating closely with other well-known regular solar variations. In particular, we see marine productivity cycles that match well with the sun’s 75-90-year “Gleissberg Cycle,” the 200-500-year “Suess Cycle” and the 1,100-1,500-year “Bond Cycle.” The strength of these cycles is seen to vary over time, fading in and out over the millennia. The variation in the sun’s brightness over these longer cycles may be many times greater in magnitude than that measured over the short Schwabe cycle and so are seen to impact marine productivity even more significantly.
Our finding of a direct correlation between variations in the brightness of the sun and earthly climate indicators (called “proxies”) is not unique. Hundreds of other studies, using proxies from tree rings in Russia’s Kola Peninsula to water levels of the Nile, show exactly the same thing: The sun appears to drive climate change.
However, there was a problem. Despite this clear and repeated correlation, the measured variations in incoming solar energy were, on their own, not sufficient to cause the climate changes we have observed in our proxies. In addition, even though the sun is brighter now than at any time in the past 8,000 years, the increase in direct solar input is not calculated to be sufficient to cause the past century’s modest warming on its own. There had to be an amplifier of some sort for the sun to be a primary driver of climate change.
Indeed, that is precisely what has been discovered. In a series of groundbreaking scientific papers starting in 2002, Veizer, Shaviv, Carslaw, and most recently Svensmark et al., have collectively demonstrated that as the output of the sun varies, and with it, our star’s protective solar wind, varying amounts of galactic cosmic rays from deep space are able to enter our solar system and penetrate the Earth’s atmosphere. These cosmic rays enhance cloud formation which, overall, has a cooling effect on the planet. When the sun’s energy output is greater, not only does the Earth warm slightly due to direct solar heating, but the stronger solar wind generated during these “high sun” periods blocks many of the cosmic rays from entering our atmosphere. Cloud cover decreases and the Earth warms still more.
The opposite occurs when the sun is less bright. More cosmic rays are able to get through to Earth’s atmosphere, more clouds form, and the planet cools more than would otherwise be the case due to direct solar effects alone. This is precisely what happened from the middle of the 17th century into the early 18th century, when the solar energy input to our atmosphere, as indicated by the number of sunspots, was at a minimum and the planet was stuck in the Little Ice Age. These new findings suggest that changes in the output of the sun caused the most recent climate change. By comparison, CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet’s climate on long, medium and even short time scales.”
***
June 21st, 2007 at 10:25 pm
ummm … erik, again i point out to you that the ipcc is not an unbiased organization …
though i understand you believe what they say wholeheartedly, consider that they only get their funding if they say climate change might be caused by humans.
also consider that the united nations is one of the most corrupt organizations in the world … (excepting the un volunteers and the people on the ground who are quite good actually) … i.e. if you meet someone who is funded by the un and they wear a suit … buy your own drinks or risk ending up in a harem some where in the middle east
remember monica lewinsky was up for a job there. the people in the un, asian dev. bank, the world bank, the ipcc and other un affiliated orgs are appointed by member countries. these jobs are sweet. huge money. international passports. free tuition for your children etc. etc.
basically they are NOT merit positions. the children of the people in power in the member countries get these positions.
i’ve worked with many many many such people and i wouldn’t let a member of the ipcc hold my purse, never mind base policy on their findings.
June 21st, 2007 at 10:45 pm
also just on the merits of what you say
“If increased solar output really was responsible, we should be seeing warming on all the planets and their moons, not just Mars and Pluto”
most planets would not be affected or if affected would not be noticed yet (for moons).
the mean temps for most of these objects is either way too hot or way to cold for global cooling/warming to have an affect. the gas giants for example wouldn’t show a polar melt off, and their moons are only rarely observed closely
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:19 am
Fred! rips on CAIR…
Posted at ABC Radio.
I am posting the text, but listen to the podcast…Fred’s drawl makes this fun.
I’ve talked before about the Council on American-Islamic Relations — most recently because it filed that lawsuit against Americans wh…
June 22nd, 2007 at 3:40 am
The Ultimate Capitalist Song…
If I had a $1000000 by Barenaked Ladies. Just a little ditty to help you get in touch with your Inner Capitalist Swine.
I have to admit the lines “If I had a million dollars We wouldn’t have to walk to the store If I had a million dollars We could t…
June 22nd, 2007 at 5:20 am
[...] Outside the Beltway, Right Pundits, The Virtuous Republic, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Perri Nelson’s Website, DeMediacratic Nation, [...]
June 22nd, 2007 at 5:23 am
It’s a good new - bad news day…
Everywhere I look these days, it’s good news - bad news. In Baquba, “for the first time since the assault began, Iraqi soldiers joined the operation in significant numbers.” That’s the good news. The bad news is “many of the…
June 22nd, 2007 at 6:54 am
A Cautionary Tale: The First Amendment, Good Tast…
This post is a cautionary tale for all bloggers.
Background
I feel compelled to tell you about a situation here in the blogosphere that saddens me, but illustrates, yet again, the need for bloggers to deal with each other in good faith and with…..
June 22nd, 2007 at 8:03 am
The U.S.’ Decline is Inevitable; So What!…
On June 20th this post, “Who Fires the First Shot?â€? w ……
June 22nd, 2007 at 8:16 am
Trent Lott…Listening to citizens of the wrong country…
We trust the people we elect to the Senate to do two things.
Represent the people of the State which elected them………
Represent the Best interests of the United States (that would be our Nation, Trent) which sorta includes millions o…
June 22nd, 2007 at 9:28 am
Tough Times for Immigration Bill?…
Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas will vote against resurrecting the immigration amnesty bill along with fellow Texan, John Cornyn. Perhaps the folks living in an area affected greatly by all the ILLEGALS sneaking in actually understand the proble…
June 22nd, 2007 at 9:33 am
[...] no mercy, Nuke’s news and views, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Church and State, Right Pundits, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, DeMediacratic Nation, 123beta, Adam’s Blog, On the Horizon, Webloggin, [...]
June 22nd, 2007 at 9:37 am
Erik says:
June 21st, 2007 at 10:37 am
It has taken more than a century to reach the current scientific consensus on climate change.
Actually, in the last 112 years, we’ve had four climate change scares - global cooling in 1895, and they’ve switched every few decades since then. Five times, if you count this new cooling cycle that is just beginning.
As the article says, the problem is less about the science than it is about the media hyping the science and scaring the bejeezus out of people like you.
June 22nd, 2007 at 10:46 am
Friday Sermon from Iran; Iran Ready to Talk…
This Friday Sermon from Iran ……
June 22nd, 2007 at 10:58 am
I dont want to address the article point for point, but I will provide links that does address Svensmark’s research — which is the amplifier that Patterson cites.
http://stevenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Laut2003.pdf
and
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/taking-cosmic-rays-for-a-spin
and a paper suggesting cosmic rays may have a tiny effect
http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/content/77543w3q4mq86417/
The bottom line is that whether or not cosmic rays have affected the climate in the more distant past, they cannot explain our planet’s recent warming. The latest joint report of climate scientists took radiative forcings and cloud cover forcings into account when attributing recent warming trends to manmade CO2.
To lisab: I am not sure anything would convince you otherwise then, if you believe the major scientific panel is corrupt and part of a conspiracy. The fact of the matter is the scientists that are invited to participate are not paid, and the process is very open and receives more scrutiny than just about any other scientific proceeding.
We can gauge the temperature on a planet by calculating the thickness of their atmosphere, and many moons can be observed at any time. There are many alternative theories as to why climate on another planet may be warming or cooling.
Laura: Indeed there were a handful of reports in the 70’s made claims of impending cooling. These were mostly based on Steven Schneider’s work which he rebuked two years later because of some analytical inconsistencies that he himself caught. At the time, NAS merely called for more research in the matter. The calls for action to prevent further human-induced global warming, by contrast, are based on an enormous body of research by thousands of scientists over more than a century that has been subjected to intense – and sometimes ferocious – scrutiny.
June 22nd, 2007 at 11:41 am
The Uncooperative Radio Show! June 22, 23 and 24,…
Live, Independent, Conservative Talk Radio! We are rocking over on Talkshoe Friday, Saturday and Sunday 8pm to 10pm Eastern Time.
I will be talking about important issues facing this country, Some things you will not find anywhere else, even on my…..
June 22nd, 2007 at 11:58 am
The State of Education Knows No Boundaries - A Pun…
Cutting through the morass and straight to the heart; shoveling aside the BS and hosing the reality clean comes this tidbit from Lord Somber of The Pungeoning; art, graphics design, cultural criticism and psy-ops.Lord Somb ……