WSJ - Op-Ed on Global Warming Skepticism
10 views
Skip to first unread message
Dan Whaley
Jun 28, 2009, 4:01:33 AM6/28/09
to geoengineering
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html#printMode
The Climate Change Climate Change
The number of skeptics is swelling everywhere.
By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL
Steve Fielding recently asked the Obama administration to reassure him
on the science of man-made global warming. When the administration
proved unhelpful, Mr. Fielding decided to vote against climate-change
legislation.
If you haven't heard of this politician, it's because he's a member of
the Australian Senate. As the U.S. House of Representatives prepares
to pass a climate-change bill, the Australian Parliament is preparing
to kill its own country's carbon-emissions scheme. Why? A growing
number of Australian politicians, scientists and citizens once again
doubt the science of human-caused global warming.
[POTOMAC WATCH] Associated Press
Steve Fielding
Among the many reasons President Barack Obama and the Democratic
majority are so intent on quickly jamming a cap-and-trade system
through Congress is because the global warming tide is again shifting.
It turns out Al Gore and the United Nations (with an assist from the
media), did a little too vociferous a job smearing anyone who
disagreed with them as "deniers." The backlash has brought the
scientific debate roaring back to life in Australia, Europe, Japan and
even, if less reported, the U.S.
In April, the Polish Academy of Sciences published a document
challenging man-made global warming. In the Czech Republic, where
President Vaclav Klaus remains a leading skeptic, today only 11% of
the population believes humans play a role. In France, President
Nicolas Sarkozy wants to tap Claude Allegre to lead the country's new
ministry of industry and innovation. Twenty years ago Mr. Allegre was
among the first to trill about man-made global warming, but the
geochemist has since recanted. New Zealand last year elected a new
government, which immediately suspended the country's weeks-old cap-
and-trade program.
The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen.
Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the
U.N. -- 13 times the number who authored the U.N.'s 2007 climate
summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world's first woman to
receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement
last year that she was finally free to speak "frankly" of her
nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical
chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made
warming "the worst scientific scandal in history." Norway's Ivar
Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the "new
religion." A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton's Will
Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position
that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have
refused to run the physicists' open letter.)
The collapse of the "consensus" has been driven by reality. The
inconvenient truth is that the earth's temperatures have flat-lined
since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02. Peer-reviewed
research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps,
hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans. A global financial
crisis has politicians taking a harder look at the science that would
require them to hamstring their economies to rein in carbon.
Credit for Australia's own era of renewed enlightenment goes to Dr.
Ian Plimer, a well-known Australian geologist. Earlier this year he
published "Heaven and Earth," a damning critique of the "evidence"
underpinning man-made global warming. The book is already in its fifth
printing. So compelling is it that Paul Sheehan, a noted Australian
columnist -- and ardent global warming believer -- in April humbly
pronounced it "an evidence-based attack on conformity and orthodoxy,
including my own, and a reminder to respect informed dissent and
beware of ideology subverting evidence." Australian polls have shown a
sharp uptick in public skepticism; the press is back to questioning
scientific dogma; blogs are having a field day.
The rise in skepticism also came as Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, elected
like Mr. Obama on promises to combat global warming, was attempting
his own emissions-reduction scheme. His administration was forced to
delay the implementation of the program until at least 2011, just to
get the legislation through Australia's House. The Senate was not so
easily swayed.
Mr. Fielding, a crucial vote on the bill, was so alarmed by the
renewed science debate that he made a fact-finding trip to the U.S.,
attending the Heartland Institute's annual conference for climate
skeptics. He also visited with Joseph Aldy, Mr. Obama's special
assistant on energy and the environment, where he challenged the Obama
team to address his doubts. They apparently didn't.
This week Mr. Fielding issued a statement: He would not be voting for
the bill. He would not risk job losses on "unconvincing green
science." The bill is set to founder as the Australian parliament
breaks for the winter.
Republicans in the U.S. have, in recent years, turned ever more to the
cost arguments against climate legislation. That's made sense in light
of the economic crisis. If Speaker Nancy Pelosi fails to push through
her bill, it will be because rural and Blue Dog Democrats fret about
the economic ramifications. Yet if the rest of the world is any
indication, now might be the time for U.S. politicians to re-engage on
the science. One thing for sure: They won't be alone.
Write to k...@wsj.com
-----
Much of the detail quoted in the article comes from a 250 page report
posted by the senate minority...
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9
The Climate Change Climate Change
The number of skeptics is swelling everywhere.
By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL
Steve Fielding recently asked the Obama administration to reassure him
on the science of man-made global warming. When the administration
proved unhelpful, Mr. Fielding decided to vote against climate-change
legislation.
If you haven't heard of this politician, it's because he's a member of
the Australian Senate. As the U.S. House of Representatives prepares
to pass a climate-change bill, the Australian Parliament is preparing
to kill its own country's carbon-emissions scheme. Why? A growing
number of Australian politicians, scientists and citizens once again
doubt the science of human-caused global warming.
[POTOMAC WATCH] Associated Press
Steve Fielding
Among the many reasons President Barack Obama and the Democratic
majority are so intent on quickly jamming a cap-and-trade system
through Congress is because the global warming tide is again shifting.
It turns out Al Gore and the United Nations (with an assist from the
media), did a little too vociferous a job smearing anyone who
disagreed with them as "deniers." The backlash has brought the
scientific debate roaring back to life in Australia, Europe, Japan and
even, if less reported, the U.S.
In April, the Polish Academy of Sciences published a document
challenging man-made global warming. In the Czech Republic, where
President Vaclav Klaus remains a leading skeptic, today only 11% of
the population believes humans play a role. In France, President
Nicolas Sarkozy wants to tap Claude Allegre to lead the country's new
ministry of industry and innovation. Twenty years ago Mr. Allegre was
among the first to trill about man-made global warming, but the
geochemist has since recanted. New Zealand last year elected a new
government, which immediately suspended the country's weeks-old cap-
and-trade program.
The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen.
Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the
U.N. -- 13 times the number who authored the U.N.'s 2007 climate
summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world's first woman to
receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement
last year that she was finally free to speak "frankly" of her
nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical
chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made
warming "the worst scientific scandal in history." Norway's Ivar
Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the "new
religion." A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton's Will
Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position
that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have
refused to run the physicists' open letter.)
The collapse of the "consensus" has been driven by reality. The
inconvenient truth is that the earth's temperatures have flat-lined
since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02. Peer-reviewed
research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps,
hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans. A global financial
crisis has politicians taking a harder look at the science that would
require them to hamstring their economies to rein in carbon.
Credit for Australia's own era of renewed enlightenment goes to Dr.
Ian Plimer, a well-known Australian geologist. Earlier this year he
published "Heaven and Earth," a damning critique of the "evidence"
underpinning man-made global warming. The book is already in its fifth
printing. So compelling is it that Paul Sheehan, a noted Australian
columnist -- and ardent global warming believer -- in April humbly
pronounced it "an evidence-based attack on conformity and orthodoxy,
including my own, and a reminder to respect informed dissent and
beware of ideology subverting evidence." Australian polls have shown a
sharp uptick in public skepticism; the press is back to questioning
scientific dogma; blogs are having a field day.
The rise in skepticism also came as Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, elected
like Mr. Obama on promises to combat global warming, was attempting
his own emissions-reduction scheme. His administration was forced to
delay the implementation of the program until at least 2011, just to
get the legislation through Australia's House. The Senate was not so
easily swayed.
Mr. Fielding, a crucial vote on the bill, was so alarmed by the
renewed science debate that he made a fact-finding trip to the U.S.,
attending the Heartland Institute's annual conference for climate
skeptics. He also visited with Joseph Aldy, Mr. Obama's special
assistant on energy and the environment, where he challenged the Obama
team to address his doubts. They apparently didn't.
This week Mr. Fielding issued a statement: He would not be voting for
the bill. He would not risk job losses on "unconvincing green
science." The bill is set to founder as the Australian parliament
breaks for the winter.
Republicans in the U.S. have, in recent years, turned ever more to the
cost arguments against climate legislation. That's made sense in light
of the economic crisis. If Speaker Nancy Pelosi fails to push through
her bill, it will be because rural and Blue Dog Democrats fret about
the economic ramifications. Yet if the rest of the world is any
indication, now might be the time for U.S. politicians to re-engage on
the science. One thing for sure: They won't be alone.
Write to k...@wsj.com
-----
Much of the detail quoted in the article comes from a 250 page report
posted by the senate minority...
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9
Ken Caldeira
Jun 28, 2009, 4:35:44 AM6/28/09
to dan.w...@gmail.com, geoengineering
That something like this would be published in The Wall Street Journal indicates the deterioration of a world that believes that it is what you believe that counts, not empirical confrontation with experience.
Empiricism may have risen its little head for a few centuries, but is now drowning in a sea of medievalism.
Reality has become just another special interest group.
Empiricism may have risen its little head for a few centuries, but is now drowning in a sea of medievalism.
Reality has become just another special interest group.
Mike MacCracken
Jun 28, 2009, 9:17:26 AM6/28/09
to Ken Caldeira, Dan Whaley, Geoengineering
Ken, et al.---It takes a bit of patience, but we simply have to address these types of claims. I have offered comments on a couple of these. See:
http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/maccracken_critique_of_robinson_etal/
http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/maccracken_on_lindzen/
MacCracken, M. C., E. Barron, D. Easterling, B. Felzer, and T. Karl, 2003: Climate change scenarios for the U. S. National Assessment, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 84, 1711-1723.
MacCracken, M. C., 2003: Uncertainties: How little do we really understand, pp. 63-70 in Bridging the Gap Between Science and Society: The Relationship Between Policy and Research in National Laboratories, Universities, Government, and Industry, November 1-2, 2003, Rice University, Houston TX, 287 pp.
And realclimate.org does a lot of clearing up of things. Plus then there is the Santer et al. article on Douglass et al. and lost of others as well. It takes time (and time away from real research) and is frustrating at times, but simply has to be done. I am very surprised that there was now a response trying to address the concerns (especially with Tom Wigley and Barrie Pittock being in Australia and being real slayers of myths, etc.).
But old criticisms keep popping up (and I mean really old ones, like that there can be no CO2 effect because the bands are saturated—a myth explained by Arrenihius and clearly demonstrated in Manabe’s modeling of over 40 years ago—but up comes the myth again, and again, and again.
We just have to keep explaining in clearer and clearer ways, not reverting to the authority or numbers doing the IPCC reports types of arguments. Explain, teach, explain.
Mike
http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/maccracken_critique_of_robinson_etal/
http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/maccracken_on_lindzen/
MacCracken, M. C., E. Barron, D. Easterling, B. Felzer, and T. Karl, 2003: Climate change scenarios for the U. S. National Assessment, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 84, 1711-1723.
MacCracken, M. C., 2003: Uncertainties: How little do we really understand, pp. 63-70 in Bridging the Gap Between Science and Society: The Relationship Between Policy and Research in National Laboratories, Universities, Government, and Industry, November 1-2, 2003, Rice University, Houston TX, 287 pp.
And realclimate.org does a lot of clearing up of things. Plus then there is the Santer et al. article on Douglass et al. and lost of others as well. It takes time (and time away from real research) and is frustrating at times, but simply has to be done. I am very surprised that there was now a response trying to address the concerns (especially with Tom Wigley and Barrie Pittock being in Australia and being real slayers of myths, etc.).
But old criticisms keep popping up (and I mean really old ones, like that there can be no CO2 effect because the bands are saturated—a myth explained by Arrenihius and clearly demonstrated in Manabe’s modeling of over 40 years ago—but up comes the myth again, and again, and again.
We just have to keep explaining in clearer and clearer ways, not reverting to the authority or numbers doing the IPCC reports types of arguments. Explain, teach, explain.
Mike
Eugene I. Gordon
Jun 28, 2009, 10:06:34 AM6/28/09
to mmac...@comcast.net, Ken Caldeira, Dan Whaley, Geoengineering
Mike, what do you plan to explain and teach? What is known
for sure? Certainly CO2 is a greenhouse gas and it is causing some global
warming based on reasonable hypothesis, BUT HOW MUCH? And if you produce a big
number or high percentage then you are as bad as the deniers. The honest
position is that everything we think we know about climate science, none of
which has been subject to rigorous test, suggests that CO2 plays a role and is
causing some of the warming but not all because the strong influence of sunspots
has been clearly shown over the last 4 warming/cooling cycles, and there are
thousands of similar cycles shown in the proxy record but no sunspot data to go
with it. So the best data and perfect correlation for 4 events we have is
sunspots. The best qualitative science we have is greenhouse effects, There are
other cloud, ocean current effects, etc. etc.
If you simply take the opposing position you are as bad as
the deniers. Take the position that the science is not well established, it is
qualitative, and we simply do not know enough to be quantitative. However
the proxy record of 540 million years says it will get warmer and in the not too
distant future we will need to control the temperature EVEN IF WE STOP INPUTTING
ANTHROPOGENIC CO2 TOMORROW.
Knee jerk reactions are not useful.
-gene
From: geoengi...@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengi...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Mike MacCracken
Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2009 9:17 AM
To: Ken Caldeira; Dan Whaley
Cc: Geoengineering
Subject: [geo] Re: WSJ - Op-Ed on Global Warming Skepticism
David Schnare
Jun 28, 2009, 10:33:18 AM6/28/09
to Geoengi...@googlegroups.com
I'm not aware of a single person who thinks geoengineering is anything but an insurance policy. As such, the only useful question is when to deploy it, if ever. (OK, when to deploy each of the various geoengineering approaches.)
The only reason a geoengineer would have in the causality of warming is to ensure the geoengineering response will work in light of the causal elements. Hence, if CO2 increases are not the major source of warming, then OIF is not going to be much of a solution. Same for other capture or sequester approaches. But such concern is quite small for solar radiation management.
So, let others argue about the need. Just think about when to deploy, especially in light of the political infeasibility of getting a global agreement (think China and India).
d.
David W. Schnare
Center for Environmental Stewardship
William Fulkerson
Jun 28, 2009, 10:54:28 AM6/28/09
to mmac...@comcast.net, Ken Caldeira, Dan Whaley, Geoengineering
Dear Mike:
You are exactly right. The truth takes work.
The best,
Bill
Bill Fulkerson, Senior Fellow
Institute for a Secure and Sustainable Environment
University of Tennessee
311 Conference Center Bldg.
Knoxville, TN 37996-4138
865-974-9221, -1838 FAX
Home
865-988-8084; 865-680-0937 CELL
2781 Wheat Road, Lenoir City, TN 37771
Mike MacCracken
Jun 28, 2009, 11:06:45 AM6/28/09
to Geoengineering
Dear Gene—What I would propose to explain in clear terms is just what is in the IPCC reports—and in other major, well-reviewed assessments. I would not be intending to put forth new views and alternative insights, , except in very rare cases like sea level rise where there was a lot of authoritative discussion about the IPCC’s presentation of the summary results. In my view, we scientists have our opportunity through the IPCC process to offer their personal comments, and in explaining to the public, we should be sticking to the views agreed to in the authoritative assessments—and very carefully identify and explain any departures.
Mike
Mike
On 6/28/09 10:06 AM, "eSubsc...@montgomerycountymd.gov" <eugg...@comcast.net> wrote:
Mike, what do you plan to explain and teach? What is known for sure? Certainly CO2 is a greenhouse gas and it is causing some global warming based on reasonable hypothesis, BUT HOW MUCH? And if you produce a big number or high percentage then you are as bad as the deniers. The honest position is that everything we think we know about climate science, none of which has been subject to rigorous test, suggests that CO2 plays a role and is causing some of the warming but not all because the strong influence of sunspots has been clearly shown over the last 4 warming/cooling cycles, and there are thousands of similar cycles shown in the proxy record but no sunspot data to go with it. So the best data and perfect correlation for 4 events we have is sunspots. The best qualitative science we have is greenhouse effects, There are other cloud, ocean current effects, etc. etc.
If you simply take the opposing position you are as bad as the deniers. Take the position that the science is not well established, it is qualitative, and we simply do not know enough to be quantitative. However the proxy record of 540 million years says it will get warmer and in the not too distant future we will need to control the temperature EVEN IF WE STOP INPUTTING ANTHROPOGENIC CO2 TOMORROW.
Knee jerk reactions are not useful.
-gene
From: geoengi...@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengi...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Mike MacCracken
Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2009 9:17 AM
To: Ken Caldeira; Dan Whaley
Cc: Geoengineering
Subject: [geo] Re: WSJ - Op-Ed on Global Warming Skepticism
Eugene I. Gordon
Jun 28, 2009, 1:27:50 PM6/28/09
to wf...@utk.edu, mmac...@comcast.net, Ken Caldeira, Dan Whaley, Geoengineering
Not right! Truth takes more than work; and it doesn't
always prevail. However, the truth is that the temperature of the Earth is
headed up, way up to 25 C, and it will get there even if the CO2 were brought
down to 280 ppm tomorrow to stay there until the current Malenkovitch cycle
ends. The current temperature rise is partly accelerated by anthropogenic CO2
but it will rise in any case and ultimately will doom most human life on this
planet, perhaps sustaining a much smaller number in polar areas or in domed
cities. If we want to have some semblance of current climate and current
lifestyle; climate control via geoengineering will be essential. Nothing to do
with CO2 or cutting out fossil fuels!
From: geoengi...@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengi...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of William Fulkerson
Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2009 10:54 AM
To: mmac...@comcast.net
Cc: Ken Caldeira; Dan Whaley; Geoengineering
Subject: [geo] Re: WSJ - Op-Ed on Global Warming Skepticism
DW
Jun 28, 2009, 1:38:47 PM6/28/09
to geoengineering
I would say this is a fitting moment for an op-ed rebuttal from
someone with the altitude to properly counter-- important not to let
these missives go unanswered. The speedier the better.
One of the centerpieces of this article is a recent book "Heaven and
Earth", by a prominent Australian geologist. The book has drawn a
pointed critique from a fellow countryman, Barry Brook, also at the
University of Adelaide.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25372986-30417,00.html
Ian Entling from the Univ. of Melbourne has a 35pg pdf of point by
point analysis
http://bravenewclimate.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/plimer1a8.pdf
Another point by point critique
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/04/the_science_is_missing_from_ia.php
Another response
http://novakeo.com/?p=3931
On Jun 28, 10:27 am, "Eugene I. Gordon" <euggor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Not right! Truth takes more than work; and it doesn't always prevail.
> However, the truth is that the temperature of the Earth is headed up, way up
> to 25 C, and it will get there even if the CO2 were brought down to 280 ppm
> tomorrow to stay there until the current Malenkovitch cycle ends. The
> current temperature rise is partly accelerated by anthropogenic CO2 but it
> will rise in any case and ultimately will doom most human life on this
> planet, perhaps sustaining a much smaller number in polar areas or in domed
> cities. If we want to have some semblance of current climate and current
> lifestyle; climate control via geoengineering will be essential. Nothing to
> do with CO2 or cutting out fossil fuels!
>
> _____
>
> _of_robinson_etal/
>
> http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/maccracken_o...
> en/
> <http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStor...
> 3947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9>
> &FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9
someone with the altitude to properly counter-- important not to let
these missives go unanswered. The speedier the better.
One of the centerpieces of this article is a recent book "Heaven and
Earth", by a prominent Australian geologist. The book has drawn a
pointed critique from a fellow countryman, Barry Brook, also at the
University of Adelaide.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25372986-30417,00.html
Ian Entling from the Univ. of Melbourne has a 35pg pdf of point by
point analysis
http://bravenewclimate.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/plimer1a8.pdf
Another point by point critique
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/04/the_science_is_missing_from_ia.php
Another response
http://novakeo.com/?p=3931
On Jun 28, 10:27 am, "Eugene I. Gordon" <euggor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Not right! Truth takes more than work; and it doesn't always prevail.
> However, the truth is that the temperature of the Earth is headed up, way up
> to 25 C, and it will get there even if the CO2 were brought down to 280 ppm
> tomorrow to stay there until the current Malenkovitch cycle ends. The
> current temperature rise is partly accelerated by anthropogenic CO2 but it
> will rise in any case and ultimately will doom most human life on this
> planet, perhaps sustaining a much smaller number in polar areas or in domed
> cities. If we want to have some semblance of current climate and current
> lifestyle; climate control via geoengineering will be essential. Nothing to
> do with CO2 or cutting out fossil fuels!
>
> _____
>
> From: geoengi...@googlegroups.com
> [mailto:geoengi...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of William Fulkerson
> Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2009 10:54 AM
> To: mmacc...@comcast.net
> Cc: Ken Caldeira; Dan Whaley; Geoengineering
> Subject: [geo] Re: WSJ - Op-Ed on Global Warming Skepticism
>
> Dear Mike:
> You are exactly right. The truth takes work.
> The best,
> Bill
>
> On Jun 28, 2009, at 9:17 AM, Mike MacCracken wrote:
>
> Ken, et al.---It takes a bit of patience, but we simply have to address
> these types of claims. I have offered comments on a couple of these. See:
>
> http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/maccracken_c...
> [mailto:geoengi...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of William Fulkerson
> Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2009 10:54 AM
> To: mmacc...@comcast.net
> Cc: Ken Caldeira; Dan Whaley; Geoengineering
> Subject: [geo] Re: WSJ - Op-Ed on Global Warming Skepticism
>
> Dear Mike:
> You are exactly right. The truth takes work.
> The best,
> Bill
>
> On Jun 28, 2009, at 9:17 AM, Mike MacCracken wrote:
>
> Ken, et al.---It takes a bit of patience, but we simply have to address
> these types of claims. I have offered comments on a couple of these. See:
>
> _of_robinson_etal/
>
> http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/maccracken_o...
> en/
>
> MacCracken, M. C., E. Barron, D. Easterling, B. Felzer, and T. Karl, 2003:
> Climate change scenarios for the U. S. National Assessment, Bulletin of the
> American Meteorological Society, 84, 1711-1723.
>
> MacCracken, M. C., 2003: Uncertainties: How little do we really understand,
> pp. 63-70 in Bridging the Gap Between Science and Society: The Relationship
> Between Policy and Research in National Laboratories, Universities,
> Government, and Industry, November 1-2, 2003, Rice University, Houston TX,
> 287 pp.
>
> And realclimate.org does a lot of clearing up of things. Plus then there is
> the Santer et al. article on Douglass et al. and lost of others as well. It
> takes time (and time away from real research) and is frustrating at times,
> but simply has to be done. I am very surprised that there was now a response
> trying to address the concerns (especially with Tom Wigley and Barrie
> Pittock being in Australia and being real slayers of myths, etc.).
>
> But old criticisms keep popping up (and I mean really old ones, like that
> there can be no CO2 effect because the bands are saturated-a myth explained
> MacCracken, M. C., E. Barron, D. Easterling, B. Felzer, and T. Karl, 2003:
> Climate change scenarios for the U. S. National Assessment, Bulletin of the
> American Meteorological Society, 84, 1711-1723.
>
> MacCracken, M. C., 2003: Uncertainties: How little do we really understand,
> pp. 63-70 in Bridging the Gap Between Science and Society: The Relationship
> Between Policy and Research in National Laboratories, Universities,
> Government, and Industry, November 1-2, 2003, Rice University, Houston TX,
> 287 pp.
>
> And realclimate.org does a lot of clearing up of things. Plus then there is
> the Santer et al. article on Douglass et al. and lost of others as well. It
> takes time (and time away from real research) and is frustrating at times,
> but simply has to be done. I am very surprised that there was now a response
> trying to address the concerns (especially with Tom Wigley and Barrie
> Pittock being in Australia and being real slayers of myths, etc.).
>
> But old criticisms keep popping up (and I mean really old ones, like that
> by Arrenihius and clearly demonstrated in Manabe's modeling of over 40 years
> ago-but up comes the myth again, and again, and again.
>
> We just have to keep explaining in clearer and clearer ways, not reverting
> to the authority or numbers doing the IPCC reports types of arguments.
> Explain, teach, explain.
>
> Mike
>
> On 6/28/09 4:35 AM, "Ken Caldeira" <kcalde...@globalecology.stanford.edu>
> We just have to keep explaining in clearer and clearer ways, not reverting
> to the authority or numbers doing the IPCC reports types of arguments.
> Explain, teach, explain.
>
> Mike
>
> wrote:
>
> That something like this would be published in The Wall Street Journal
> indicates the deterioration of a world that believes that it is what you
> believe that counts, not empirical confrontation with experience.
>
> Empiricism may have risen its little head for a few centuries, but is now
> drowning in a sea of medievalism.
>
> Reality has become just another special interest group.
>
>
> That something like this would be published in The Wall Street Journal
> indicates the deterioration of a world that believes that it is what you
> believe that counts, not empirical confrontation with experience.
>
> Empiricism may have risen its little head for a few centuries, but is now
> drowning in a sea of medievalism.
>
> Reality has become just another special interest group.
>
> 3947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9>
> &FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9
>
> Bill Fulkerson, Senior Fellow
> Institute for a Secure and Sustainable Environment
> University of Tennessee
> 311 Conference Center Bldg.
> Knoxville, TN 37996-4138
> <mailto:wf...@utk.edu> wf...@utk.edu
> Bill Fulkerson, Senior Fellow
> Institute for a Secure and Sustainable Environment
> University of Tennessee
> 311 Conference Center Bldg.
> Knoxville, TN 37996-4138
Alan Robock
Jun 28, 2009, 2:16:46 PM6/28/09
to DW, geoengineering
Dear Dan,
In the past, the Wall Street Journal has refused to publish op-eds that
do not agree with their editorial policy, so I think it would be a waste
of time. On the other hand, the news portion of the Wall Street Journal
has published an article which is more or less reasonable about
geoengineering, and they even posted an interview with myself and Dale
Jamieson, although not very long. You can see these at:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204771304574181522575503150.html#articleTabs=article
There are really two different parts of the WSJ. When I asked the
reporter, Bob Hotz, why the WSJ would publish these articles that
propose a solution to a problem that they claims does not exist, he told
me that the news part of the wSJ believes in using evidence to support
what they write. The editorial part just believes.
Alan
Alan Robock, Professor II
Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program
Associate Director, Center for Environmental Prediction
Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-732-932-9800 x6222
Rutgers University Fax: +1-732-932-8644
14 College Farm Road E-mail: rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock
Dan Whaley
Jun 28, 2009, 4:26:15 PM6/28/09
to Alan Robock, geoengineering
I see no reason why a rebuttal needs to show up in the same paper...
either the NYT or WaPo would be perfectly acceptable alternates for
instance. Perhaps with the WaPo as a slight preference in that there
was an "inside the beltway" framing to the original piece.
I agree that it is probably unlikely that you would get equivalent positioning if it were in the WSJ. Though it is pure supposition on my part, I imagine that the hand of our dear friend Mr. Murdoch may be showing here... there have been some interesting pieces recently on the numerous small and not so small changes that have occurred since the transition. I have definitely gained a new appreciation for the strength of the investigative reporting and other facets of the old WSJ organization under the Bancrofts, slanted though it was.
D
I agree that it is probably unlikely that you would get equivalent positioning if it were in the WSJ. Though it is pure supposition on my part, I imagine that the hand of our dear friend Mr. Murdoch may be showing here... there have been some interesting pieces recently on the numerous small and not so small changes that have occurred since the transition. I have definitely gained a new appreciation for the strength of the investigative reporting and other facets of the old WSJ organization under the Bancrofts, slanted though it was.
D
Margaret Leinen
Jun 28, 2009, 11:56:33 PM6/28/09
to eugg...@comcast.net, Mike MacCracken, Ken Caldeira, Dan Whaley, Geoengineering
Eugene, Can you provide reference(s) for the sunspot work: "the strong
correlation. You may have done this in earlier posts as I know that you
have mentioned it before, but I have not been able to find a reference in
your earlier contributions. Margaret
--
Margaret Leinen, PhD.
Climate Response Fund
119 S. Columbus Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
202-415-6545
> From: "Eugene I. Gordon" <eugg...@comcast.net>
> Reply-To: <eugg...@comcast.net>
> Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 10:06:34 -0400
> To: <mmac...@comcast.net>, 'Ken Caldeira'
> <kcal...@globalecology.stanford.edu>, 'Dan Whaley' <dan.w...@gmail.com>
> Cc: 'Geoengineering' <Geoengi...@googlegroups.com>
> Subject: [geo] Re: WSJ - Op-Ed on Global Warming Skepticism
>
> there can be no CO2 effect because the bands are saturated-a myth explained
> <http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=8
> 3947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9>
> &FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
influence of sunspots has been clearly shown over the last 4 warming/cooling
cycles, and there are thousands of similar cycles shown in the proxy record
but no sunspot data to go with it. So the best data and perfect correlation
for 4 events we have is sunspots." -- especially for the perfect
cycles, and there are thousands of similar cycles shown in the proxy record
but no sunspot data to go with it. So the best data and perfect correlation
correlation. You may have done this in earlier posts as I know that you
have mentioned it before, but I have not been able to find a reference in
your earlier contributions. Margaret
--
Margaret Leinen, PhD.
Climate Response Fund
119 S. Columbus Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
202-415-6545
> From: "Eugene I. Gordon" <eugg...@comcast.net>
> Reply-To: <eugg...@comcast.net>
> Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 10:06:34 -0400
> To: <mmac...@comcast.net>, 'Ken Caldeira'
> <kcal...@globalecology.stanford.edu>, 'Dan Whaley' <dan.w...@gmail.com>
> Cc: 'Geoengineering' <Geoengi...@googlegroups.com>
> Subject: [geo] Re: WSJ - Op-Ed on Global Warming Skepticism
>
> Mike, what do you plan to explain and teach? What is known for sure?
> Certainly CO2 is a greenhouse gas and it is causing some global warming
> based on reasonable hypothesis, BUT HOW MUCH? And if you produce a big
> number or high percentage then you are as bad as the deniers. The honest
> position is that everything we think we know about climate science, none of
> which has been subject to rigorous test, suggests that CO2 plays a role and
> is causing some of the warming but not all because the strong influence of
> sunspots has been clearly shown over the last 4 warming/cooling cycles, and
> there are thousands of similar cycles shown in the proxy record but no
> sunspot data to go with it. So the best data and perfect correlation for 4
> events we have is sunspots. The best qualitative science we have is
> greenhouse effects, There are other cloud, ocean current effects, etc. etc.
>
> If you simply take the opposing position you are as bad as the deniers. Take
> the position that the science is not well established, it is qualitative,
> and we simply do not know enough to be quantitative. However the proxy
> record of 540 million years says it will get warmer and in the not too
> distant future we will need to control the temperature EVEN IF WE STOP
> INPUTTING ANTHROPOGENIC CO2 TOMORROW.
>
> Knee jerk reactions are not useful.
>
> -gene
>
> _____
>
> Certainly CO2 is a greenhouse gas and it is causing some global warming
> based on reasonable hypothesis, BUT HOW MUCH? And if you produce a big
> number or high percentage then you are as bad as the deniers. The honest
> position is that everything we think we know about climate science, none of
> which has been subject to rigorous test, suggests that CO2 plays a role and
> is causing some of the warming but not all because the strong influence of
> sunspots has been clearly shown over the last 4 warming/cooling cycles, and
> there are thousands of similar cycles shown in the proxy record but no
> sunspot data to go with it. So the best data and perfect correlation for 4
> events we have is sunspots. The best qualitative science we have is
> greenhouse effects, There are other cloud, ocean current effects, etc. etc.
>
> If you simply take the opposing position you are as bad as the deniers. Take
> the position that the science is not well established, it is qualitative,
> and we simply do not know enough to be quantitative. However the proxy
> record of 540 million years says it will get warmer and in the not too
> distant future we will need to control the temperature EVEN IF WE STOP
> INPUTTING ANTHROPOGENIC CO2 TOMORROW.
>
> Knee jerk reactions are not useful.
>
> -gene
>
> _____
>
> by Arrenihius and clearly demonstrated in Manabe's modeling of over 40 years
> ago-but up comes the myth again, and again, and again.
> 3947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9>
> &FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
Ken Caldeira
Jun 29, 2009, 3:11:38 AM6/29/09
to Margaret Leinen, <euggordon@comcast.net>, Mike MacCracken, Ken Caldeira, Dan Whaley, Geoengineering
One out of every 20 time series show spurious correlation at the 95%
significance level ( and even more if you let me choose how to adjust,
smooth, truncate, or detrend the data).
Causal mechanisms leading to successful prediction are the hallmark of
science.
Correlations are good motivators to look for causal explanation but
correlation should not be confused for causality.
Who would like to wager that the correlation that Eugene comes up with
will not depend on detrending, smoothing, truncation of data, or some
other manipulation to acheive it's purported statistical significance?
Sent from a limited typing keyboard
On Jun 29, 2009, at 4:56, Margaret Leinen <mle...@climateresponsefund.org
significance level ( and even more if you let me choose how to adjust,
smooth, truncate, or detrend the data).
Causal mechanisms leading to successful prediction are the hallmark of
science.
Correlations are good motivators to look for causal explanation but
correlation should not be confused for causality.
Who would like to wager that the correlation that Eugene comes up with
will not depend on detrending, smoothing, truncation of data, or some
other manipulation to acheive it's purported statistical significance?
Sent from a limited typing keyboard
On Jun 29, 2009, at 4:56, Margaret Leinen <mle...@climateresponsefund.org
David Schnare
Jun 29, 2009, 8:30:50 AM6/29/09
to kcal...@gmail.com, Margaret Leinen, <euggordon@comcast.net>, Mike MacCracken, Ken Caldeira, Dan Whaley, Geoengineering
Oh for crying out loud. Go look at the most recent Scafetta papers which use a 30 year time scale for the correlations, and then look at the backcasted estimates. Then make your wager.
David.
Tip
Jun 29, 2009, 7:19:30 PM6/29/09
to geoengineering
On Jun 28, 1:35 am, Ken Caldeira
<kcalde...@globalecology.stanford.edu> wrote:
> That something like this would be published in The Wall Street Journal
> indicates the deterioration of a world that believes that it is what you
> believe that counts, not empirical confrontation with experience.
> Empiricism may have risen its little head for a few centuries, but is now
> drowning in a sea of medievalism.
> Reality has become just another special interest group.
So after years of science by consensus and UN authority the rules
> That something like this would be published in The Wall Street Journal
> indicates the deterioration of a world that believes that it is what you
> believe that counts, not empirical confrontation with experience.
> Empiricism may have risen its little head for a few centuries, but is now
> drowning in a sea of medievalism.
> Reality has become just another special interest group.
change?
The 'deniers' can produce as much 'science' as the 'warmers'. Isn't it
about time that science returned to a basis of comparison and exchange
of research and thought? It seems that as the rice bowel appears to be
coming into jeopardy the AGW rhetoric becomes even more sustained and
frantic.
How can AGW science be considered legitimate when the believers are
unwilling to put their beliefs to the harsh tests of research
comparison and debate?
Respectfully,
Tip Rouse
Eugene I. Gordon
Jun 30, 2009, 7:49:45 AM6/30/09
to sono...@gmail.com, geoengineering
I am not going to take exception to what Ken or Tip Rouse says with respect to climate science. My two cents plain (when I was growing up that was CO2 in water, called seltzer) is that they are over generalizing. I believe that science is practiced as it has been in the last 350 years since the Royal Society of London was organized. However, climate science has emerged into the public arena and the public is the consumer. It is now climopolitical science, corrupted by lawyers, politicians and VCs etc. who see fortunes to be made by manipulating and distorting the science. In that arena it is surely what the public believes that counts. The Republicans were in; now the Democrats; the proclaimers, now the deniers. Give it 4 or 8 more years and it will change again. And what better medium than the WSJ?
-gene
-----Original Message-----
From: geoengi...@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengi...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Tip
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 7:20 PM
To: geoengineering
Subject: [geo] Re: WSJ - Op-Ed on Global Warming Skepticism
Peter Read
Jul 2, 2009, 4:45:50 AM7/2/09
to Ken Caldeira, Margaret Leinen, Eugene I. Gordon, Mike MacCracken, Ken Caldeira, Dan Whaley, Geoengineering
Sometime back there was quite a literature about sunspot correlations with
economic activity
So far as I recollect, its intent was to warn about infering causality from
correlation
I used to ask my students whether the clouds were hurrying by because the
trees were tickling their tummies ? or was it just that the trees were
waving goodbye to the passing clouds ?
Sometimes they got the point
Peter
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.374 / Virus Database: 270.12.93/2205 - Release Date: 06/27/09
05:53:00
economic activity
So far as I recollect, its intent was to warn about infering causality from
correlation
I used to ask my students whether the clouds were hurrying by because the
trees were tickling their tummies ? or was it just that the trees were
waving goodbye to the passing clouds ?
Sometimes they got the point
Peter
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.374 / Virus Database: 270.12.93/2205 - Release Date: 06/27/09
05:53:00
Eugene I. Gordon
Jul 2, 2009, 8:20:12 AM7/2/09
to Peter Read, Ken Caldeira, Margaret Leinen, Mike MacCracken, Ken Caldeira, Dan Whaley, Geoengineering
This is all very interesting but we all know that correlation doesn't infer
but does suggest causality. It should be sensible. However, do we forget
global warming and anthropogenic CO2 as simply an interesting correlation?
If there is some technical sense to the correlation it takes on a higher
significance. It is also true that the Maunder Minimum was a prolonged
period of no sunspots and apparently led to what turned out to be a
disastrous prolonged cooling. That was a particularly significant
correlation. There were also shorter correlations in about 1850 and 1960 and
current. I think the correlation has been perfect for a very limited number
of events for which there is data.
It is also true that global warmings and coolings have been recorded for
hundreds of thousands of years in ice core data and also in pacific mud
deposits. The core record is similar to the temperature change record of the
last 1000 years. Since the related CO2 data trails the temperature;
something else has got to be going on and sunspots are as good a possibility
as anything I know.
What I find so strange is that I would expect that such a strong correlation
would lead to a strong research activity to see if the causal aspects could
be established. I am not aware of such research except maybe some in Denmark
on clouds. That tells me that truth, understanding and science are not the
issue. It can tell you whatever you like. To each his own.
For my taste sunspots are important.
-gene
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Read [mailto:pe...@read.org.nz] On Behalf Of Peter Read
Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 4:46 AM
To: Ken Caldeira; Margaret Leinen
Cc: Eugene I. Gordon; Mike MacCracken; Ken Caldeira; Dan Whaley;
Geoengineering
but does suggest causality. It should be sensible. However, do we forget
global warming and anthropogenic CO2 as simply an interesting correlation?
If there is some technical sense to the correlation it takes on a higher
significance. It is also true that the Maunder Minimum was a prolonged
period of no sunspots and apparently led to what turned out to be a
disastrous prolonged cooling. That was a particularly significant
correlation. There were also shorter correlations in about 1850 and 1960 and
current. I think the correlation has been perfect for a very limited number
of events for which there is data.
It is also true that global warmings and coolings have been recorded for
hundreds of thousands of years in ice core data and also in pacific mud
deposits. The core record is similar to the temperature change record of the
last 1000 years. Since the related CO2 data trails the temperature;
something else has got to be going on and sunspots are as good a possibility
as anything I know.
What I find so strange is that I would expect that such a strong correlation
would lead to a strong research activity to see if the causal aspects could
be established. I am not aware of such research except maybe some in Denmark
on clouds. That tells me that truth, understanding and science are not the
issue. It can tell you whatever you like. To each his own.
For my taste sunspots are important.
-gene
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Read [mailto:pe...@read.org.nz] On Behalf Of Peter Read
Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 4:46 AM
To: Ken Caldeira; Margaret Leinen
Cc: Eugene I. Gordon; Mike MacCracken; Ken Caldeira; Dan Whaley;
Geoengineering
David Schnare
Jul 2, 2009, 8:28:27 AM7/2/09
to Geoengi...@googlegroups.com
Although I am not Ken (the group owner), I ask: And what does any of this sturm und drang have to do with geoengineering?
Stephen Salter
Jul 2, 2009, 10:11:39 AM7/2/09
to eugg...@comcast.net, Peter Read, Ken Caldeira, Margaret Leinen, Mike MacCracken, Ken Caldeira, Dan Whaley, Geoengineering
Hi All
Sunspots can affect weather thermally and perhaps via some form of
radiation affect cloud condensation.
Weather changes would certainly affect food production.
World food production is likely to influence levels of optimism, market
sentiment, financial confidence etc. and so the incidence of recessions.
It is a bit harder to see how crooked bankers can change solar physics.
Stephen
Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design
School of Engineering and Electronics
University of Edinburgh
Mayfield Road
Edinburgh EH9 3JL
Scotland
tel +44 131 650 5704
fax +44 131 650 5702
Mobile 07795 203 195
S.Sa...@ed.ac.uk
http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs
--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
Sunspots can affect weather thermally and perhaps via some form of
radiation affect cloud condensation.
Weather changes would certainly affect food production.
World food production is likely to influence levels of optimism, market
sentiment, financial confidence etc. and so the incidence of recessions.
It is a bit harder to see how crooked bankers can change solar physics.
Stephen
Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design
School of Engineering and Electronics
University of Edinburgh
Mayfield Road
Edinburgh EH9 3JL
Scotland
tel +44 131 650 5704
fax +44 131 650 5702
Mobile 07795 203 195
S.Sa...@ed.ac.uk
http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
Tom Wigley
Jul 2, 2009, 8:26:55 PM7/2/09
to eugg...@comcast.net, Peter Read, Ken Caldeira, Margaret Leinen, Mike MacCracken, Ken Caldeira, Dan Whaley, Geoengineering
Gene,
You never responded to Margaret's question (or perhaps
I missed it).
Tom.
+++++++++++++++++++
You never responded to Margaret's question (or perhaps
I missed it).
Tom.
+++++++++++++++++++
John Nissen
Jul 3, 2009, 4:40:33 AM7/3/09
to wig...@ucar.edu, eugg...@comcast.net, Peter Read, Ken Caldeira, Margaret Leinen, Mike MacCracken, Ken Caldeira, Dan Whaley, Geoengineering
Concerning sunspots, we can expect much increased activity over next few
years:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e1/Sunspot-bfly.gif
And here is some news about El Niño:
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1908533,00.html?xid=rss-topstories
So we can expect global temperatures to rise, and possibly the Arctic
sea ice to retreat even faster!
Are we prepared?
Cheers,
John
Eugene I. Gordon
Jul 3, 2009, 7:32:38 AM7/3/09
to John Nissen, wig...@ucar.edu, Peter Read, Ken Caldeira, Margaret Leinen, Mike MacCracken, Ken Caldeira, Dan Whaley, Geoengineering
It is news that someone can actually predict sunsot activity . Assuming that
is the case we can expect increased warming and more urgent need for
geoengineering. We cannot predict reliably tomorrows' weather but we can
predict next years climate???
is the case we can expect increased warming and more urgent need for
geoengineering. We cannot predict reliably tomorrows' weather but we can
predict next years climate???
-----Original Message-----
From: John Nissen [mailto:j...@cloudworld.co.uk]
Sent: Friday, July 03, 2009 4:41 AM
To: wig...@ucar.edu
Cc: eugg...@comcast.net; 'Peter Read'; 'Ken Caldeira'; 'Margaret Leinen';
'Mike MacCracken'; 'Ken Caldeira'; 'Dan Whaley'; 'Geoengineering'
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: WSJ - Op-Ed on Global Warming Skepticism
John Nissen
Jul 3, 2009, 1:20:49 PM7/3/09
to Eugene I. Gordon, wig...@ucar.edu, Peter Read, Ken Caldeira, Margaret Leinen, Mike MacCracken, Ken Caldeira, Dan Whaley, Geoengineering
Hi Gene,
Sunspot activity is pretty predictable, as you can see from the picture. The 11 year cycle is apparent in tree rings.
However the El Niño is totally unpredictable. We have just had a strong La Niña:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7329799.stm
The combination of low sunspot activity and La Niña has led to cooler global temperatures since 1998. However, despite this, the Arctic sea ice has been retreating and breaking records (see Albert's email yesterday on the "Geoengineering seminar" topic).
Thus there is now a significant possibility* of a seasonally ice-free Arctic ocean within two or three years. Suppose SRM with stratospheric aerosol proves problematic. If we are to get the Salter/Latham cloud brightening technique working and scaled up, sufficient to cool the water entering the Arctic, we need to press ahead. It is a matter of will. This is not like putting a man on the moon!
Cheers,
John
*P.S. Any probability over 1% would be extremely significant, given the risks from methane out-gassing, etc., if the ice disappears.
Sam Carana
Jul 3, 2009, 8:47:04 PM7/3/09
to Geoengineering
It's not just sunspots. Have a look at this:
NASA report Deep Solar Minimum.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum.htm
We are currently at the low point of number of solar cycles that combine to mask the full impact of global warming. The sun hasn't been more quiet in terms of sunspots since 1913; we're now at the low point of a sunspot cycle that returns every 11 year,
Additionally, we are at a 50-year low in solar wind pressure and at a low in solar radio emissions; radio telescopes are now recording the dimmest "radio sun" since 1955.
Finally, we are also at a 12-year low in solar irradiance or brightness.
This PARTLY explains why temperatures haven't risen as much as projected. The conclusion is that the full impact of global warming is going to be a lot worse from now on.
Cheers!
Sam Carana
NASA report Deep Solar Minimum.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum.htm
We are currently at the low point of number of solar cycles that combine to mask the full impact of global warming. The sun hasn't been more quiet in terms of sunspots since 1913; we're now at the low point of a sunspot cycle that returns every 11 year,
Additionally, we are at a 50-year low in solar wind pressure and at a low in solar radio emissions; radio telescopes are now recording the dimmest "radio sun" since 1955.
Finally, we are also at a 12-year low in solar irradiance or brightness.
This PARTLY explains why temperatures haven't risen as much as projected. The conclusion is that the full impact of global warming is going to be a lot worse from now on.
Cheers!
Sam Carana
Eugene I. Gordon
Jul 4, 2009, 12:41:38 PM7/4/09
to sam.c...@gmail.com, Geoengineering
Yes. And that is why we absolutely will need
geoengineering, not as insurance but as a means to keep the temperature in
line.
From: geoengi...@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengi...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Sam Carana
Sent: Friday, July 03, 2009 8:47 PM
To: Geoengineering
Subject: [geo] Re: WSJ - Op-Ed on Global Warming Skepticism
Andrew Lockley
Jul 5, 2009, 7:34:33 AM7/5/09
to eugg...@comcast.net, sam.c...@gmail.com, Geoengineering
Does anyone have any decent studies of what will happen when the sun gets back to normal? As far as I'm aware, the IPCC don't consider solar cycle factors when projecting temp. changes.
We'd all look a bit silly if a totally-predictable .5C rise came and slapped up about the face like a wet fish in 5 or 10yrs time.
David Schnare
Jul 5, 2009, 12:44:14 PM7/5/09
to Geoengi...@googlegroups.com
The sun is "normal". It is at the nadir of its normal cycle. The length of the cycle is still at issue, but cycle 24 has clearly begun, just not very quickly.
d.
Eugene I. Gordon
Jul 5, 2009, 2:56:17 PM7/5/09
to dwsc...@gmail.com, Geoengi...@googlegroups.com
Here is the data as of end of May. Right now there are
zero sunspots. The prediction is probably not very meaningful but it is possibly
a low or no sunspot cycle. Who is to say what #24 will really bring?
If it follows the red line it will be cool.
 |
From: geoengi...@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengi...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of David Schnare
Sent: Sunday, July 05, 2009 12:44 PM
To: Geoengi...@googlegroups.com
David Schnare
Jul 5, 2009, 8:26:08 PM7/5/09
to Geoengi...@googlegroups.com
Actually, there is an active sunspot at this moment. See: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/04/th-sun-puts-on-some-fireworks-for-the-4th-of-july/
On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Eugene I. Gordon <eugg...@comcast.net> wrote:
Here is the data as of end of May. Right now there are zero sunspots. The prediction is probably not very meaningful but it is possibly a low or no sunspot cycle. Who is to say what #24 will really bring? If it follows the red line it will be cool.
From: geoengi...@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengi...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of David Schnare
Sent: Sunday, July 05, 2009 12:44 PM
To: Geoengi...@googlegroups.com
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages