Entry: Goodbye to Anthropogenic Global Warming Friday, September 23, 2005



As predictable as the path of an apple falling from a tree, you can always count on Liberals to bring up the canard of human-caused global warming in any discussion that touches upon nature. You can reasonably expect that they will blame any natural disaster on our refusal to surrender to the self-destructive fallacy of the Kyoto agreement. Well, current natural disasters, anyway -- they don't seem to blame the 1900 Galveston hurricane on global warming the way they lay blame for Hurricane Katrina, nor do they accuse mankind of causing the 1868 Nazca earthquake as they do the earthquake that caused the 2004 South Asia tsunami.

Before the rain even stopped falling in New Orleans, Liberals like Robert Kennedy Jr. were already on the attack. "As Hurricane Katrina dismantles Mississippi’s Gulf Coast, it’s worth recalling the central role that Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour played in derailing the Kyoto Protocol and kiboshing President Bush’s iron-clad campaign promise to regulate CO2," he wrote. People like Kennedy have spent years using natural disasters to demand that the Western world dismantle its industrial base, while allowing countries like China and Indonesia free reign. It's a sort of industrio-socialism, using propaganda to enforce a homogenised economic and industrial outcome in entirely different countries.

Kyoto, beloved of Liberals, demands that signatories reduce their emissions of certain greenhouse gases to below 1990 levels. The only way for America to comply would be to force companies to reduce production and spend money on expensive environmental controls. This would result in companies relocating their operations to non-Kyoto countries to avoid going bankrupt. And Liberals complain about "sending jobs overseas" now! No wonder Congress soundly rejected it in 1997. Such a move would cause the biggest jump in unemployment in the Western world since the Great Depression. Another result would be the worst pollution imaginable, from countries that have no little or no environmental regulation at all.

Polluting the other side of the planet doesn't seem as important to some Liberals as not polluting the backyards of the rich and famous, however. Indonesia is responsible for releasing one-seventh of the total CO2 (carbon dioxide) emitted every year, but Liberals never seem to mind that. They would be more strident about peat-burning in Indonesia if the reduction of greenhouse gases was their real aim. Meanwhile, Senator John Kerry and the Kennedy clan, great proponents of wind and solar power that they pretend to be, threw up legal roadblocks to prevent a company from building a wind farm within sight of their Martha's Vinyard and Nantucket retreats. "People want to look out and see the same sight the Pilgrims saw," said Robert Kennedy Jr. -- yes, the same man who attacked President Bush for not reducing CO2 emissions. By "people," he must have meant, "the important people."

At the root of all this hysteria and hypocrisy is the absolute Liberal certainty that global warming is caused by humanity, particularly industrialised capitalist Western nations. You know... the bad guys at the heart of any Liberal fantasy. It was only a few decades ago that the media was full of calamitous warnings about the coming global freeze. Liberals are sure they're correct this time, though. This time, they tell us, the world really is going to end. Scout's honor.

Proponents of anthropogenic global warming deliberately ignore the fact that the global mean temperature, along with the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, have risen and fallen in an easily discernible pattern for at least 400,000 years -- all without interference from lowly humans -- and that it's just reaching a high point between cold snaps. If we all try really hard, we just might be able to add enough CO2 to trip the cycle into the next 50,000 year downslope a few years early.

The keystone of anthropogenic global warming is that the global mean temperature has risen sharply in the last 150 years, since scientists began to measure it. Of course, in order to make their case, Liberals have to ignore the fact that we're still emerging from the Little Ice Age -- a cold spell that gripped the Northern Hemisphere for centuries, until about 150 years ago. Of course the temperature is rising. But is it really due to human influence?

For years, Conservatives have tried in vain to explain to eco-freaks and enviro-nazis that the Earth is largely self-regulating, when they're the ones who often claim it's a living organism. There's a reason we talk about cycles and seasons. When the level of CO2 rises -- which plants certainly don't see as "pollution" -- it triggers natural modulating influences. Higher temperatures melt ice, which causes heavier cloud cover due to moisture, which reflects more of the sun's light back into space, which lowers the temperature. And so on.

When CO2 levels fall too low, natural processes cause it to be released from the soil -- as seems to be happening now. Researchers from the UK's Cranfield University found that some 13 million tons of carbon are being released from the soil every year, as Reuters recently reported. "Since the carbon appears to be released from soil regardless of how the soil is used, the researchers conclude that the main cause must be climate change itself. Though they could not say where all the missing carbon had gone, much of it may be entering the atmosphere as the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane, which many scientists say is causing global warming." Scientists from Germany's Max-Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry wrote, "These losses thus completely offset the past technological achievements in reducing CO2 emissions, putting the UK's success in reducing greenhouse gas emissions in a different light." In other words, many Kyoto signatory nations have crippled their industry, spent vast amounts of money and caused rampant unemployment for absolutely nothing.

Science -- not junk science based on hysteria and ideology, but real science based on data and reason -- suggests that global warming is driven more by the sun than anything humans have done. A recent study by Swiss and German scientists indicates that the sun is burning hotter than it has at anytime in the past thousand years. "The Sun is in a changed state," stated Dr. Sami Solanki, the director of the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research. "It is brighter than it was a few hundred years ago and this brightening started relatively recently -- in the last 100 to 150 years." Does that time frame sound vaguely familiar? It's about the same time the Little Ice Age began to end -- the same time that Liberals claim humans began to cause global warming. Isn't it clear that the sun is the real cause? Shouldn't we at least examine this before ruining our economy for nothing?

Every experiment must have a control, or a source of data uncorrupted by the experiment itself. There are no humans on Mars, and there's no way we could influence its climate. Yet Mars is also experiencing global warming, which strengthens the hypothesis that Earth's global warming is heliogenic, or sun-based, to the point of positive proof. It's simply not possible that the sun could cause environmental warming on Mars, but that similar warming on Earth is caused by SUVs and capitalism.

In the absence of any evidence to support it, the anthropogenic global warming argument is as dead as the dinosaurs whose ancient remains I put in my gas tank this afternoon. I'm going to celebrate with a cookout.

Hat tip to Mike's America for the Cranfield University story.

   46 comments

skye
September 23, 2005   09:44 PM PDT
 
mmmm..

Shrimp on the barbie!

Count me in, Cav!



JM
September 23, 2005   09:57 PM PDT
 
But... you don't LIKE shrimp. I was gonna throw a Bambi on the barbie, seeing as it's hunting season...
Paladin
September 23, 2005   10:42 PM PDT
 
Go for broke. Throw them both on. I'm sure none will go to waste
mescalero
September 23, 2005   11:49 PM PDT
 
You don't understand. Bobby K, jr. ain't made of the same stuff as his father. He's made out of the same shit as his Uncle Teddy!
Who Needs Civil Liberties?
September 24, 2005   03:03 PM PDT
 
Hey girlieman, your article has all the intelligence and insight of a Michael Bay movie. If you don't understand the science and massive agreement among the scientific community in regards to global warming, then you are only doing your children a disservice. Unless you don't give a crap about their future, I would urge you and all of your misinformed and angry readers to do a little research. We're all in this together buddy, whether you like it or not. We mess up this world and our children pay for it. Hurricane Katrina and Rita, two category 5 hurricanes just 3 weeks apart from each other, are just the tip of the melting iceberg.
JM
September 24, 2005   03:46 PM PDT
 
LOL! Now that was pure comedy gold! Typical Leftist reaction when faced with facts instead of blind acceptance. Start with an insult, then move on to scream the same disproved argument, only louder. Kid, science isn't democratic. If it was, we'd still be certain that the Sun revolves around the Earth. If you can't accept the results of scientific inquiry when it conflicts with your ideology, please go back to your cave.
inspoken
September 24, 2005   06:00 PM PDT
 
I don't understand. What part global warming do you dissagree with? Rising temperatures are documented. There's no controversy there.

Maybe you need read the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which involved hundreds of scientists from many countries.

This report basically states that:
"The earth's climate has changed over the last century and there is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed the last 50 years is attributable to human activities. Moreover, evolving computer models are predicting that temperatures should continue to rise over the 21st century."

So, if there is something we can do about it, why shouldn't we? Why are you afraid of America taking the lead on this?
MJ
September 24, 2005   06:12 PM PDT
 
Its funny. In the same study that you site regarding the increasing temperature of the sun, it clearly points to the human contribution to global warming.

"The study also showed that over the past 20 years the number of sunspots had remained roughly constant, while the Earth's temperature had continued to increase. This suggested that over the past 20 years, human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation had begun to dominate the natural factors involved in climate change"

Your own research contradicts you.

Ha ha!
JM
September 24, 2005   06:23 PM PDT
 
>I don't understand. What part
>global warming do you dissagree
>with?

The cause to which it is attributed without proof, of course. Didn't you bother to read the post before commenting?

>hundreds of scientists from many
>countries

Science is not based on concensus, but evidence, fact and logic. Would you like a link to the petition 17,000 scientists signed, begging the US government not to listen to the anthropogenic warming fanatics? Here you go:

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p37.htm
JM
September 24, 2005   06:29 PM PDT
 
>In the same study that you site
>regarding the increasing
>temperature of the sun, it clearly
>points to the human contribution
>to global warming.

Poor guy. You didn't notice that that statement was made by an entirely different person from the scientists who produced the evidence, did you? And he produced no evidence to refute the claim, or an alternate explanation, did he? And you didn't notice that even he grudgingly agreed that the sun affects global warming, did you?
JM
September 24, 2005   06:32 PM PDT
 
>So, if there is something we can
>do about it, why shouldn't we?

You didn't even NOTICE the Cranfield University research, did you? Every bit of the CO2 emission reduction was offset by natural processes. Stop interfering with nature!
MJ
September 25, 2005   12:15 AM PDT
 
>>So, if there is something we can
>>do about it, why shouldn't we?

>You didn't even NOTICE the Cranfield
>University research, did you? Every bit
>of the CO2 emission reduction was offset
>by natural processes. Stop interfering
>with nature!

Your statement does not make logical sense. Are you saying that if we reduce CO2 emissions by 1000 pounds per day, then nature will magically create 1000 pounds of extra CO2 every day, thereby offsetting our efforts exactly. This is ridiculous.

It's a fact that if we reduce our emissions, there will be less emissions. The natural generation of CO2 is completely independent of our contributions to global warming.

It seems that all you want to do is deny that there is a problem.

If 1000 people come into your house and tell you have a gas leak, would you try to fix it? Or would you ignore it.

I already know your answer.

I'll bet you work for a tobacco company.
JM
September 25, 2005   05:01 AM PDT
 
>It's a fact that if we reduce our
>emissions, there will be less
>emissions.

And it won't make any difference at all in the long run. How do you plan to shut down the SUN, eh?
MJ
September 26, 2005   01:55 AM PDT
 
Answer my question.

If 1000 people come into your house and tell you have a gas leak, would you try to fix it? Or would you deny it?
JM
September 26, 2005   06:15 AM PDT
 
They say that there are no stupid questions, but they are wrong, as it turns out.
MJ
September 26, 2005   12:00 PM PDT
 
Its a very commonly used technique by weak minded people to insult the question rather when they can't come up with an answer.

Q: Why is there so much pork in the recent energy and transportation bills?

A: That's ridiculous.

If you are unable to debate then there is not hope for either of us. Such a shame. Goodbye.
PocketChange
September 26, 2005   02:34 PM PDT
 
“If 1000 people come into your house and tell you have a gas leak, would you try to fix it? Or would you deny it?”
Personally I would deny it. All of my appliances run on electricity.


One of my old college professors used to say “That’s a good question, but I’m sorry you are stupid.”
JM
September 26, 2005   03:25 PM PDT
 
>insult the question rather when
>they can't come up with an answer

But the question makes no logical sense; it leaves out all context. A slightly more proper scenario would be if those 1000 people told me I had a gas leak, but 100 other people told me the gas leak was coming from the house next door, and compared the neighbor's unusually-high gas bill with my normal bill to prove it.
Logipundit
September 26, 2005   07:31 PM PDT
 
Again...using logic only scares liberals away. It's rather exasperating, I have to admit.
JM
September 26, 2005   07:47 PM PDT
 
An interesting development: after this post was reprinted at http://www.mensnewsdaily.com, the executive producer of G. Gordon Liddy's show on Radio America contacted me to set up a phone interview on the air tomorrow (27 Sept). Anyone who wants to hear me stammering and forgetting my own name can listen in at http://www.radioamerica.org/ sometime between 10am and 1pm EST... if they do, in fact, put me on the air.
Neal J. Lang
September 27, 2005   01:47 PM PDT
 
"The most likely cause of this rapid global warming over such a short period is the release of methane into the atmosphere. Methane is 60 times more powerful than CO2 as a greenhouse gas but only remains in the atmosphere for about ten years and so looses it's greenhouse effect quickly compared to CO2 which remains in the atmosphere for 100 years. CO2 would not be available in sufficient quantities to achieve the rapid warming and if CO2 was the cause then the raised temperatures would last a lot longer." From: "Runaway Methane Global Warming" at: http://www.hydrogen.co.uk/h2_now/journal/articles/3_Methane.htm

Since it can be scientifically proven the most of the Earth's methane is produced within the DC Beltway and a confined area of New York City known as Turtle Bay, the best cure for Global Warming would be to shutdown Congress for 6 months a year (as it was originally designed) and to do away with the UN.
Neal J. Lang
September 27, 2005   01:50 PM PDT
 
"One of my old college professors used to say 'That’s a good question, but I’m sorry you are stupid'."

As a great general once said: "Don't get stuck on stupid!"
Neal J. Lang
September 27, 2005   01:55 PM PDT
 
"Its a very commonly used technique by weak minded people to insult the question rather when they can't come up with an answer."

Hmmm! Such as?

"I'll bet you work for a tobacco company."

I see!
Neal J. Lang
September 27, 2005   02:21 PM PDT
 
"From the analysis of the bubbles of air trapped in ice cores taken from the Greenland icecap that are up to 500,000 years old it has been shown that the temperature of the Earth's atmosphere and the CO2 content has followed a regular 100,000 year cycle of change with the CO2 content and temperature closely linked and following the same graph line. Within this regular cycle there are some recently discovered very short periods of approximately only a few hundred years duration when temperatures rise dramatically by 8 degrees centigrade above the slower rises of up to 7 degrees centigrade. This gives a total range of 15 degrees centigrade from peak to trough. These records show natural processes at work before the impact of man's activities. We are currently in the lower temperature part of the cycle." From: "Accelerated Global Warming and Atmospheric CO2 Emissions" at: http://www.hydrogen.co.uk/h2_now/journal/articles/1_global_warming.htm

Hmmm! Perhaps the real discussion should be how can we produce enough energy (in all forms) to compensate with enough air conditioning to handle the projected natural 15 degree cent. rise in temperature and the resultant need for pumping caused by the melting of the polar caps to de-water the World's coastal planes.

Instead of obstructing the search for more fossil fuels, it would appear that accelerating oil and gas exploration should be the main topic on the agenda.

BTW, was the shrinking of the Mars polar caps attributed to man's Mars landers? Was any methane ever found on Mars?
DL
September 27, 2005   04:51 PM PDT
 
The purpose of the left is to use environmental non-science (rhymes with nonsense) because the environment transcends our borders giving them the ability to claim that our sovereignity must not count when we are ruining the planet for other countries, hence we need a UN or ONe World Government to control the USA.

Just the ONE World communist movement in disguise!

Why did the avowed (he never dis-avowed communism) Soviet leader, Michael Gorbachov become head of green cross of the world? This after the country he led was one of the worst polluters of the planet ever.
Michael Seward
September 27, 2005   05:43 PM PDT
 
Cavalier Joe,

I see that you have deleted my comments from your blog. It's looks like you are afraid for your readers to see a point of view that contradicts your politically motivated ideology. Your censorship of my opinion is pathetic.

You state “Science -- not junk science based on hysteria and ideology, but real science based on data and reason -- suggests that global warming is driven more by the sun than anything humans have done.” This statement is wrong on the facts, and faulty in logic.

Your facts are wrong that the sun is driving global warming. If the sun is causing global warming, don’t you think NASA would know about it? But NASA says that the sun’s contribution is tiny compared to greenhouse gases: NASA reports, “With only 20 years of reliable measurements however, it is difficult to deduce a trend. But, from the short record we have so far, the trend in solar irradiance is estimated at ~0.09 W/m2 compared to 0.4 W/m2 from well-mixed greenhouse gases.”

Your reasoning ignores the physics involved in the relationship between greenhouse gases and solar energy. If the Sun is actually intensifying, that will increase the radiative effect of greenhouse gases.

The effect of greenhouse gases on the Earth's atmosphere has increased 20 percent since 1990, according to the Annual Greenhouse Gas Index by the NOAA Climate Monitoring and Diagnostics Laboratory in Boulder, Colo. Since 1990, the sun has not increased in irradiance, as the article you link to verifies. The sun is approaching a low in its cyclical sunspot cycle, yet the warmest years in recorded history have all occurred since 1990.

A solid scientific understanding confirms that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide accumulate in the atmosphere as a result human activities. They trap solar heat from the sun resulting in a gradual warming of the Earth's atmosphere. This is physics, not politics.

Michael Seward
JM
September 27, 2005   07:23 PM PDT
 
>I see that you have deleted my
>comments from your blog. It's
>looks like you are afraid for your
>readers to see a point of view that
>contradicts your politically
>motivated ideology.

Actually, it was because you're a talking-point-spewing partisan hack without an original thought to keep you warm at night, but you go ahead and think whatever makes you happy.

>Your censorship of my opinion

This blog is private property. I didn't like your earlier insults, especially after you emailed them to me and I destroyed your talking points privately. You should have spared yourself the embarassment.

>Your facts are wrong that the sun
>is driving global warming.

I might change my mind to think that Liberal bloviating drives global warming.

>The effect of greenhouse gases
>on the Earth's atmosphere has
>increased 20 percent since
>1990,
...
>Since 1990, the sun has not
>increased in irradiance

Because, of course, Liberal physics tell us that things happen instantly. The second you take the frying pan off the fire, it's room temperature, right? Has it DECREASED? No. If the sun has stopped brightening, we'll probably see a smaller increase in global mean temperature in the next decade or two. Anyone who ever cracked a science book would know that it's not the direct effect of the sun, but the effect of the carbon released from the soil that warms the atmosphere.

>A solid scientific understanding
>confirms that greenhouse gases
>such as carbon dioxide
>accumulate in the atmosphere as
>a result human activities.

Right, so the sun causes global warming on Mars, but its radiation magically bypasses the Earth. Hey, I'm still waiting to hear what kind of SUVs the Neanderthals were driving that began the thaw after the last ice age. Oh, well.
Jamie
September 27, 2005   09:03 PM PDT
 
Liberal hysteria:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=19630

Like the man says, Liberal hysteria is, well.... hysterical!

BTW, you are right, radiation does NOT magically bypass the Earth....

==A one-way New York to London flight exposes passengers to about the same amount of radiation as a chest X-ray!

In-flight radiation originates from the sun and "deep space." It penetrates the aircraft fuselage and the human body where it is known to disrupt the healthy function of cells.==

http://www.flyana.com/radiat.html

Don't tell them about this or they will try to blame it on the Bush Administration!
Jamie
September 27, 2005   09:51 PM PDT
 
Talk about some liberal hysteria, you should read this:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/9/26/220333.shtml

==The war has brought soaring profits to the military industries and the firms with reconstruction contracts at the expense of 20,000 U.S. military casualties and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian casualties. ==

I wonder where he gets HIS statistics?

==Compared to U.S. budget and trade deficits, terrorists are a minor concern. The greatest danger that the United States faces is the dollar's loss of reserve currency role. This would be an impoverishing event, one from which the United States would not recover.==

To this guy TERRORISTS are a "minor concern"!

==Global labor arbitrage is rapidly dismantling the ladders of upward mobility and thereby endangering American political stability. This threat is far greater than any Osama bin Laden can mount. ==

mescalero
September 27, 2005   11:11 PM PDT
 
Jamie--

If you take Newsmax at it's face value, you should have your head permanently removed and replaced with something that works like a real brain.
JM
September 28, 2005   03:00 AM PDT
 
You mean the New York Times, I think.
Michael Seward
September 28, 2005   12:47 PM PDT
 
“Actually, it's because you're a talking-point-spewing partisan hack without an original thought to keep you warm at night, but call it whatever you wish if it makes you feel better. Good day”



Your right about one thing, the idea that global warming is real is not my original idea. It comes from climate scientists across the globe.



The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union (AGU), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society (SCGS), and the National Academy of Sciences all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human caused global warming is real and mounting.



The National Academy of Sciences says: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise".



The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), the National Climate Data Center, the Scripps Institute, and every other scientific organization whose work bears on the question of climate are in agreement that global warming is a consequence of increasing levels of greenhouse gases acting on natural climate processes.



NASA’s GISS reports that “global temperature change of the past half-century is mainly a response to climate forcing agents, or imposed perturbations of the Earth's energy balance. This is especially true of human-made forcings, such as carbon dioxide and methane, which trap the Earth's heat radiation as a blanket traps body heat; thus they cause warming. …This research was a collaborative effort of 19 institutions, including 7 universities, federal agencies, private industry and other NASA centers”, not the work of radical environmentalists.



I challenge you to name one credible scientific organization (not right wing think tank or fossil fuel funded lobbying organization) that believes with you that global warming is caused by the sun, rather than greenhouse gases.
JM
September 28, 2005   01:01 PM PDT
 
>the idea that global warming is
>real is not my original idea

Nobody said it isn't happening. Try reading the articles you comment on.

As for the rest of your post, all you've told us is that groups of scientists who get grants to study anthropogenic global warming keep telling us that they need more grants to study anthropogenic global warming. Until you -- well, they -- address heliogenic global warming on Mars as well as the fact that the Sun increased its output at about the same time they blame humans for the start of global warming, you -- and they -- are just spewing junk science in hopes that we won't notice. You also need to explain why you think the increased CO2 won't trigger a cooling cycle, as it has thousands of times in the past -- why you think that the Earth is so delicate that even the slightest increment in CO2 will wreck the cycle. It's all hysteria. It's all lies. And people like you repeat it like obedient little parrots.
Michael Seward
September 28, 2005   07:10 PM PDT
 
Apparently you are unable to name one credible scientific organization that believes this stuff about mars and CO2 causing cooling. I guess it's your own original thinking at work.

Meanwhile, actual scientists are learning more about the global warming every day. For the fourth consecutive year, NSIDC and NASA scientists using satellite data have tracked a stunning reduction in arctic sea ice at the end of this summer. The persistence of near-record low extents leads the group to conclude that Arctic sea ice is likely on an accelerating, long-term decline due ti increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

The questions you say the scienctists must answer have been answered.
JM
September 28, 2005   08:06 PM PDT
 
>this stuff about mars and CO2
>causing cooling

You really ought to read articles before you comment on them. Maybe, you know, follow the links embedded in the text or something. It would save you some embarassment, at least. And as for the Earth's heating/cooling cycle, perhaps you should have paid attention in high school.

>a stunning reduction in arctic sea
>ice at the end of this summer

And an increase in antarctic ice. So? Are you still laboring under the odd delusion that I think global warming is not taking place?

>The questions you say the
>scienctists must answer have
>been answered.

True. The sun's energy warms the soil, which releases carbon into the atmosphere. As CO2 increases, cloud cover thickens, which reflects more sunlight, which cools the planet. A similar cycle apparently happens on Mars. My five-year-old nephew would have no trouble understanding this. Is he more intelligent than you?
Michael Seward
September 29, 2005   06:10 AM PDT
 
You still can't name one credible scientific organization that believes this stuff about mars and CO2 causing cooling. Who else with actual scientific expertise believes this stuff? No one but right wing think tanks and oil and coal industry sponsored lobbyists.

Name one legitimate scientific organization that endorses your bizarre theories.
JM
September 29, 2005   06:51 AM PDT
 
By "credible" and "legitimate," you mean "supported by Liberal groups" and "dependent on grant money." You're actually saying, "I won't believe the facts until someone who has a vested interest in convincing me that humans are responible for global warming tells me they were wrong about that." Is that really what your argument has come down to -- forget the data, you want some Authority to tell you what to think? It's sad to see people behaving like sheep.

By "this stuff about Mars," are you trying to say that you don't believe NASA's data? But you were so quick to throw NASA data around earlier, when you thought it suited your argument to do so.

To disbelieve that warmer temperatures eventually lead to cooling is to ignore the most basic facts of climatology. More moisture in the atmosphere means more clouds. Clouds, overall, reflect solar radiation more than the Earth's surface does. Look up "cloud albedo forcing" sometime.
Michael Seward
September 29, 2005   07:12 AM PDT
 
Joe,

Your link to the statement that Mars is experiencing global warming, which proves that the sun is causing global warming on earth, goes to an article about soil carbon. Looking for this on my own I found that the only sources for this theory are right wing ideologues with an extreme conservative political agenda. No scientists confirm your theory, as far as I can tell.

According to Arizona State University’s Professor of Geology Philip Christensen, the principle scientist for NASA’s Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft, Mars is indeed going through a period of climate change. But the cause isn’t the sun itself, but dust storms on Mars, which are magnifying the Sun’s constant energy. The global atmospheric temperature of Mars has increased by approximately 50 degrees Fahrenheit. Professor Christensen says “The cause of this sudden shift is a giant dust storm that has snowballed and now has enveloped almost the entire planet, absorbing a lot of the Sun’s energy in the upper atmosphere.”

So now we see that honest science, not junk science based on conservative hysteria and ideology, but real science based on data and reason, have blown your theory to pieces. While I am “parroting” the science of from actual scientists, we see that you are swallowing the most extreme conservative conspiracy theories without a shred of evidence based on actual facts.

I recommend that you re-read the links that you have attached to your article, and correct the blatant errors that riddle your essay.
JM
September 29, 2005   09:03 AM PDT
 
>goes to an article about soil carbon

Corrected.

>I found that the only sources for
>this theory are right wing
>ideologues with an extreme
>conservative political agenda

So only Conservatives believe that the sun puts out light and heat?

>dust storms on Mars, which are
>magnifying the Sun’s constant
>energy

So you prefer to ignore the recent proof of the Sun's increased output over the last 150 years because it conflicts with your predetermiend viewpoint. Not much point in having a discussion with someone who does that, to be honest. I think you'd be more comfortable in left-wing echo chambers like KOS or DU.
Michael Seward
September 29, 2005   01:35 PM PDT
 
“So only Conservatives believe that the sun puts out light and heat?”

No. Follow what I’m saying. Only conservatives believe that global warming on Mars proves that the sun is responsible for the recent anomalous warming on earth, warming that scientists attribute to greenhouse gases in addition to natural causes. Your link still points to an article on soil warming. Who, besides right wing fanatics, believes that global warming on Mars discredits the global warming theory explaining recent changes in the earth’s climate?

“So you prefer to ignore the recent proof of the Sun's increased output over the last 150 years because it conflicts with your predetermiend viewpoint.”

No, I’m not ignoring the report, I’m reading it. Dr. Solanski himself, in the article you cite as evidence that the Sun is responsible for global warming, says that over the past 20 years, human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation have begun to dominate the natural factors involved in climate change, undermining your mischaracterization of his study. Apparently you only want to believe the part of the research that supports your ideologically motivated opinion, and ignore the part that contradicts it.

I don’t ignore the sun’s output. I said that the sun’s contribution is tiny compared to greenhouse gases: NASA has studied the contribution of solar changes to the energy balance of the climate, and found that “the trend in solar irradiance is estimated at ~0.09 W/m2 compared to 0.4 W/m2 from well-mixed greenhouse gases.” Do you want to claim that this is merely left wing ideology, and not actual measurements of the material facts? Where is the science that proves that “global warming is driven more by the sun than anything humans have done” ?

You say “The sun's energy warms the soil, which releases carbon into the atmosphere. As CO2 increases, cloud cover thickens, which reflects more sunlight, which cools the planet. A similar cycle apparently happens on Mars.”
You still can't name one scientific organization that believes this stuff. As far as I can tell, this is just your own personal fantasy, unsupported by any scientific research.
JM
September 29, 2005   04:31 PM PDT
 
>recent anomalous warming on
>earth

Do you mean the anomalous warming that took place 25,000, 125,000, 225,000 or 325,000 years ago? Or more recently, did you mean the anomalous warming that took place just before and after 700 AD? Or the "Medieval Warm Period?"

>Your link still points to an article
>on soil warming.

You must be looking somewhere else. It points here: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_ice-age_031208.html

>No, I’m not ignoring the report,
>I’m reading it.

You're obviously not looking at the data, but letting someone interpret it for you in a way that fits your preconcieved result. See, when you look at data that the sun has warmed, and that the earth has warmed in the same time period, and you say, "must be a coincidence," then there's no point in speaking with you further.

>I said that the sun’s contribution is
>tiny compared to greenhouse
>gases

Maybe you just don't understand that greenhouse gases are released from the soil itself by the effects of the sun. I refer you to the Cranfield University study.

>As far as I can tell, this is just
>your own personal fantasy

Right. And anthropogenic global warming is yours. Go sit in the corner with the flat-earthers.
Michael Seward
September 30, 2005   06:35 AM PDT
 
Scientists have been looking for a correlation between climate and solar activity for over a century. Researchers have taken any climate records they can find and searched for correlations to the sunspots, the solar-cycle length, geomagnetic indices, and cosmogenic isotopes. No connection has ever been found between solar activity and the recent warming attributed to greenhouse gases.

The sun provides 99.998% of the energy to the Earth's climate, so it only stands to reason that changes in the suns output would have an effect on climate. And it does. But the nature of that effect is mediated by the chemistry of the earth’s atmosphere, naturally occurring climate cycles, and feedbacks in the system. (e.g., volcanic eruptions, ENSO cycles, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) etc.) Also, estimates of solar output in the past are extremely uncertain, and so there is a great deal of uncertainty in connecting any particular climate effect to changes in solar radiation.

Climate skeptics hail any new solar-related research and imply that the existence of solar forcing in the past negates any possible recent anthropogenic impact on climate. Unfortunately for the skeptics, solar levels do not have any relationship to the radiative impact of CO2. In fact, increasing solar radiation would only amplify the greenhouse effect, not negate it. There has been no effective change in any solar energy since about 1950, and no evidence that past changes in solar output are driving any current warming. The warming over recent decades is almost all related to anthropogenic greenhouse gases.

You claim that the recent warming is a time lag from previous decades of high solar energy. This is not what is happening. We know this is not happening because the rate of temperature increase is rising, and that is only compatible with a continuing increase in the forcing, which is what we see from increasing levels of greenhouse gases, not solar energy.

The question of attributing the recent warming to a solar influence can be answered by looking at the fingerprint of that warming. For instance, the nighttime temperature minimums have increased at about twice the rate of daytime maximums. This is a clear indication of greenhouse gas warming. If the sun had been the main cause of global warming, this trend should have been reversed, i.e., daytime maximums increasing faster. From this fact alone, the sun can't be the cause of recent global warming.

Your insistence that global warming is a liberal lie is denies the science. Global warming is neither liberal nor conservative. It is science because it explains the natural material world around us. It’s right or wrong according to the observed evidence. For some reason you have mistaken science for politics, and placed your faith in some rather bizarre theories because they are consistent with your political bias.

As far as I can tell, only right wing fanatics share your opinions about global warming.
JM
September 30, 2005   06:55 AM PDT
 
>Your insistence that global
>warming is a liberal lie

When it becomes necessary for you to lie about what I've said in order to make a point, you've already lost.

>There has been no effective
>change in any solar energy since
>about 1950

And when you have to ignore any data that conflicts with your talking points, you become laughable.

>As far as I can tell, only right wing
>fanatics share your opinions about
>global warming.

Only left wing fanatics like you place ideology ahead of evidence. That may work for you at Democratic Underground, but it doesn't wash in the real world.
Name
October 1, 2005   02:26 PM PDT
 
Looks like some scientists are beginning to admit that the Sun plays at least a part:
http://www.livescience.com/environment/050930_sun_effect.html
Nysh
December 3, 2005   01:42 PM PST
 
As Chris Folland of the UK Met Office said, "No model has ever been run of an atmosphere wi th increased greenhouse gas concentrations that hasn't produced a warming".

Perhaps you don't care that models predict that by 2050, the world temperature will have risen by 2 degrees, and that countries like Bangladesh will be drowning, and thousands will be dying, but some of us do.

As for your geological argument, that argument sn't sufficient anymore- th rate at which CO2 for example, has risen over the past 200 years has out done those changes dramatically. As for the other temperature varying argument- that geological argument doesn't work, as this is the first human-impacted time, and it greatly differs from the variants in previous millions of years.

Do actually do some research before you make conclusions on what you are talking about. Even George Bush these days admits that Global Warming is occuring. And that definitely means that there is something going on. Maybe Kyoto isn't the way to go, but remember, if the CO2 emissions don't slow down, in 50 years, there will be much more to worry about than terrorism or the economy. All it's going to do is make the poorer countries pay for the greed of the richer.
JM
December 3, 2005   02:57 PM PST
 
Poor Nysh, didn't bother to read the article before commenting on it. Of course warming is occurring. It's perfectly natural. The Earth warms, the Earth cools, the Earth warms again... in a process driven more by the Sun than SUVs. No amount of "caring" will stop it, nor will anything we poor humans do halt the inevitable geological processes that have been going on for millions of years. Of course... the punch line to all this is the recent Liberal screeching that we now face a new Ice Age. Oh, when will you Chicken Littles get your fearmongering straight?

Leave a Comment:

Name


Homepage (optional)


Comments