From The Hindu:
Plummeting mercury, coupled with thick fog cover, threw normal life out of gear in the entire North India on Monday, with 24 more people succumbing to the cold wave in various parts of the region.
While 20 more persons died in Uttar Pradesh, four persons lost their lives in Uttarakhand, officials said.
Delhi continued to shiver as mercury was below normal in the city by five notches to settle at 2.4 degrees, even as it rose from yesterday’s 1.9 degrees Celsius.
The maximum temperature too dipped to seven degrees below normal to settle at 13.4 degrees Celsius…
To translate from the bizarre celsius scale those weirdo foreigners use, 1.9 degrees celsius is approximately 35 degrees fahrenheit. That is pretty darn cold for a subtropical area of the world. Oh, I know – our liberals will jump in and say, “that’s just weather!”. Don’t you know the difference? Sure do: “weather” is anything which undercuts global warming. Anything which supports global warming is “settled science”. I do know the drill.
But if it is just “weather” then it seems to be happening all over the world all at the time time. This report is from India…but waaaaay the heck away from India up in Alaska, latest reports indicate that Alaska is heading in to an ice age. Meanwhile, there seems to be no evidence of a warming globe for the past 15 years...
UPDATE: It gets worse for you liberals. The only nation which has cut its carbon emissions 12% from its 2007 peak? The United States. How did we do it? By fracking our way in to massively increased natural gas supplies. Yes, liberals: Big Oil has cut US greenhouse emissions…
And Al Gorezeera has sold his cable TV company to one owned by a nation with a massive carbon footprint….
Alaska is in a deep freeze, coldest winter there in a couple of decades. Meanwhile China is experiencing the coldest winter in 60 years. I think the Japanese scientists nailed it about five years ago when they said the earth was entering a cooling period.
Just another inconvenient truth.
The Japanese scientists based their prediction on the increasing distance between the earth and the sun, just as they based their evaluation of temporarily rising temperatures on proximity to the sun.
AGW promoters ignored the effect of proximity to, or distance from, a huge ball of fire, regarding temperatures on earth.
I seen on the news recently where Russia has had the worst winter there in several decades, or maybe a century or more, I don’t know. I just remember them saying that it had been -40 below zero for weeks, there is Russia. It showed them throwing boiling water from their apartments, and it turning into fine ice particles, or snow.
If the pattern shifts, it’s liable to push some of that cold down into the United States, where many of the global warming theorists reside.
Up to 16 1/2 feet of snow…wow.
And as usual, liberals ignore current realities and push their agenda forward:
Environmental groups are urging President Obama to use his executive authority to curb carbon emissions and address the issue of climate change. “Use your executive authority,” reads a letter sent on Monday from nearly 70 environmental groups. “You have the authority under existing law to achieve urgently needed reductions in the carbon pollution that is disrupting our climate and damaging our health.”
Watson has been one of our more vocal proponents of global warming here at B4V. I would be interested in reading his take on this.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/08/environmental-groups-urge-obama-to-use-executive-authority-to-fight-climate-change/#ixzz2HO0DK7M9
One of the interesting off shoots of the climate change debate is the lock-step way the alarmist side circles the wagons whenever a chink in their armor appears. The Left OWNS the PR machine when it comes to covering its ass. Last month a draft of the upcoming AR5 report from the IPCC was leaked. At first glance it was not big deal — nothing new — except for this stunning statement buried deep in the report:
Now if you do a Google search on “IPCC draft report leaked”, you’d expect to get a variety of results reflecting both sides of the debate, and you’d expect wrong. The first page of results from such a search includes the following left-wing sites:
Skeptical Science, Canadian Awareness, Think Progress, Wott’s up with That (a Lefty spoof of Watts up with That), KLIMAZWIEBEL, Desmogblog, newswatch.nationalgeographic, carbon relief.org, UK Guardian, and Radio Australia. Page 2 reveals more of the same.
This is the way the Left operates. Alarmist groups, think tanks, etc. spend hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars to counter a loose array of skeptical blogs and tiny groups like Heartland Institute. It is truly a Goliath vs. David fight, AND GOLIATH IS LOSING THE BATTLE! And they’re losing because they’re nasty, dishonest and the facts are not on their side. And the fact that the leaders of the alarmist side got caught, not once, but twice, admitting in leaked private emails to manipulating, hiding and destroying data that refuted their own stance didn’t help their cause either.
It is odd how the searches work these days – I am in charge of pro-life activities for my Knights of Columbus council and as January is a month for life (what with the anniversary of the hideous, anti-human Roe decision) I decided to search for pro-life activities I could bring to the notice of my fellow Knights. When I searched for “”las vegas pro life activities january 2013”, what do you think was the first link returned? “Las Vegas Abortion Center”. Second link? “Abortions Private and Safe”. Seems to me that Google clearly ensures a leftwing bias…I mean, this is ridiculous! I search “pro life” and Google allegedly figures it means I’m searching for abortion services?
Odd – when I first clicked on your link, it brought up precisely what I said…now, it doesn’t. But, if you wish to call me a liar, that is your business.
you’re not being honest here.
James, the first 2 links in your search string are EXACTLY the same as what Mark described. It’s you that’s not being honest — or else you just can’t read. Of course one is not necessarily exclusive of the other.
You might want to notice that Google results are not the same for everyone. They customize the links according to things you’ve previously clicked on etc. There’s also a funny little thing in their database, where each database is slightly different to each other while they’re syncing with each other.
from the KING of fake names on this site (after being booted)
“you’re not being honest here”.
ROTFLMAO……LOLX10,000 🙂 🙂 :)….
SEVEN links, NOT until the 4th was there Pro life and only TWO listed………FIRST THREE = ABORTION!!!
seems the LIAR TROLLs here still LIE!!
Haigh Anxiety: a psycho-comedy of errors
Posted on December 21, 2012 by Alec Rawls
Guest post by Alec Rawls
“In an interview with NewScientist magazine, Imperial College professor of atmospheric physics Joanna Haigh scoffs at the idea that late 20th century warming could have been caused by the sun:
Haigh points out that the sun actually began dimming slightly in the mid-1980s, if we take an average over its 11-year cycle, so fewer GCRs should have been deflected from Earth and more Earth-cooling clouds should have formed. “If there were some way cosmic rays could be causing global climate change, it should have started getting colder after 1985.”
What she means is that the 20th century’s persistent high level of solar activity peaked in 1985. That is the estimate developed by Mike Lockwood and Claus Fröhlich. The actual peak was later (solar cycle 22, which ended in 1996, was stronger than cycle 21 by almost every measure) but set that aside. Who could possibly think that cooling should commence when forcings are at their peak, just because the very highest peak has been passed?
Haigh’s argument against solar warming was in response to my suggestion that one new sentence in the leaked Second Order Draft of AR5 is a “game changer.” That is the sentence where the authors admit strong evidence that some substantial mechanism of solar amplification must be at work. The only solar forcing in the IPCC’s computer models is Total Solar Irradiance so if some solar forcing beyond TSI is also at work then all their model results are wrong.
No, no, no, Haigh told the NewScientist, it is “the bloggers” who have it all wrong:
They’re misunderstanding, either deliberately or otherwise, what that sentence is meant to say.
Look who’s accusing people of misunderstanding. This woman thinks that warming is driven, not by the level of the temperature forcing, but by the rate of change in the level of the forcing. When a forcing goes barely past its peak (solar cycle 22 nearly identical in magnitude to cycle 21), does that really create cooling? Haigh should try it at home: put a pot of water on a full burner for a minute then turn the burner down to medium high. Does she really think the pot will stop warming, or that it will actually start to cool?”
Haigh should try it at home: put a pot of water on a full burner for a minute then turn the burner down to medium high. Does she really think the pot will stop warming, or that it will actually start to cool?”
We see proof of this time lag principle on almost a daily basis, especially in the summer. The sun reaches it’s peak at noon, but the daily high temperature, more often than not, occurs in mid to late afternoon.
US mid west
Climate HAPPENS………. AGW = H-O-A-X !!!!!!!!! PERIOD!!
The sun reaches it’s peak at noon, but the daily high temperature, more often than not, occurs in mid to late afternoon.
Yes, about 3 or 4:00 PM.
Spook: We see proof of this time lag principle on almost a daily basis, especially in the summer. The sun reaches it’s peak at noon, but the daily high temperature, more often than not, occurs in mid to late afternoon.
Likewise, the winter solstice in the Northern Hemisphere occurs on Dec 21, but the coldest months, more often than not, occur in Jan – Mar. On a longer time scale, given the fact that 75% or so of the earth is covered by water, and given the fact that the oceans have been accumulating heat for at least the last 4 decades or so, that time lag principle of yours becomes very problematic.
By the way, Amazona, measures of “solar radiance” and “solar activity” are not the same thing. Just sayin’.
“By the way, Amazona, measures of “solar radiance” and “solar activity” are not the same thing.”
Oh, rico, you old scold, you. But kudos for pointing out the obvious, though why you felt the need to focus on me is unclear.
Or do you think that I am now writing under the pen name of Joanna Haigh? Or Alec Rawls?
Hint: Punctuation DOES mean something—in this case, the quotation marks at the beginning and end of, well, a quote. Of an article by one person which includes quotes of someone else.
But I am sure you feel better for emoting. Now go get yourself a nice saucer of milk.
Cluster said, “Watson has been one of our more vocal proponents of global warming here at B4V. I would be interested in reading his take on this.”
Um, no. I think I addressed this exactly once, some months back, when Mark or one of claimed there was no evidence that temperatures are higher now than they were 100 years ago, so something equally stupid. I pointed out that there absolutely is evidence. It’s not hard to find, but because you are so partisan, you only present the so-called “evidence” that supports your pre-determined thesis. If you want to make a convincing argument, then you would address the breadth of evidence and theories instead of cherry-picking.
Meanwhile, because it’s snowing in Alaska, you conclude that global warming must be a hoax. You’re just showing your ignorance again.
You’re just showing your ignorance again.
THAT is your “rebuttal”?? talk about ignorance!
If Michael Crichton had lived to write a follow-up to State of Fear, the plotline might well have gone like this:
at a top secret, state of the art laboratory in Switzerland, scientists finally discover the true cause of “global warming”. It’s the sun, stupid. More specifically – as the Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark has long postulated – it’s the result of cosmic rays which act as a seed for cloud formation.
The scientists working on the project are naturally euphoric: this is a major breakthrough which will not only overturn decades of misguided conjecture on so-called Man Made Global Warming but will spare the global economy trillions of dollars which might otherwise have been squandered on utterly pointless efforts to reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
However, these scientists have failed to realise just how many people – alarmist scientists, huckster politicians, rent-seeking landowners like (the late Michael Crichton’s brilliant and, of course, entirely fictional creation) the absurd, pompous Sir Reginald Leeds Bt, green activists, eco-fund managers, EU technocrats, MSM environmental correspondents – stand to gain from the Man Made “Climate Change” industry.
Their discovery must be suppressed at all costs. So, one by one, the scientists on the cosmic ray project find themselves being bumped off, until only one man remains and must race against time to prove, etc, etc…</i?"
No need to be so hostile. I simply remember you being an advocate of the global warming cause and was curious as to your take on the current realities. I have absolutely admitted that by some measurements the earth has warmed, but I attribute that to our proximity to the sun more so than carbon output. I am also suspect on how those results are derived.
Consensus is not scientific fact, and skeptics of warming are simply challenging the theories as all rational people should do. Warmists, such as yourself, seek to suppress those challenges, which is the antithesis is science.
If I’m a warmest, then by your own admission, you’re a warmist, too. Better put on some sunscreen, Cluster.
again NO rebuttal….just BS
neocon01 January 8, 2013 at 3:43 pm #
Cluster: I have absolutely admitted that by some measurements the earth has warmed, but I attribute that to our proximity to the sun more so than carbon output.
Perhaps you do, but that’s a particularly difficult argument to make, given the evidence. There are many other variables involved, but the one that most specifically obviates your statement is the fact that, much like the moon is receding from earth, the earth is receding from the sun — by about 15 cm/yr on average. In other words, the earth is not getting closer to the sun. Of course, given that the earth is (again on average) about 93 million miles away from the sun, that difference of 15 cm has a very, very minor effect. The real problem is that essentially all of the basic physics variables that should have a measurable effect on climate (the earth’s precession, its rotational eccentricity — i.e., where we are in the Malinkovich cycle), the intensity of the sun’s average output, the currently less intense solar cycle, even the effect of cosmic radiation) predict that the earth should be getting ever so slightly, though progressively, cooler. But it isn’t. There are lots of other variables to consider, of course, but as better and better evidence continues to pour in it becomes increasingly difficult to argue that “carbon output” isn’t a major culprit.
But let’s forget about science and talk about technology. I find it funny that Mark points out, “The only nation which has cut its carbon emissions 12% from its 2007 peak? The United States.” Gosh, why do you suppose that’s the case? I can think of several reasons. Certainly the remarkably rapid transition from coal to natural gas as the most-used fuel for generating electricity is one of them. The fact that wind power accounted for more new generating capacity than even natural gas in that time period is another. But there are plenty of others. And it’d be awfully nice if we could get real (i.e., practical) while discussing this stuff, as opposed to merely ideological.
” The fact that wind power accounted for more new generating capacity than even natural gas in that time period is another.”
Can you support this claim? And just what, exactly, does it mean? Are you saying that only NEW generating capacity is considered, meaning that in an arbitrary time period more electricity has been generated by NEW wind power installations than by NEW natural gas installations? Overall,what is the ratio of wind-generated electricity to gas-powered electricity? Which is growing faster? Which is more cost-effective in terms of new installations, or retrofitting coal powered plants to natural gas? Which is more cost-effective in terms of actual electricity generated?
Amazona: Are you saying that only NEW generating capacity is considered, meaning that in an arbitrary time period more electricity has been generated by NEW wind power installations than by NEW natural gas installations? Overall,what is the ratio of wind-generated electricity to gas-powered electricity? Which is growing faster? Which is more cost-effective in terms of new installations, or retrofitting coal powered plants to natural gas? Which is more cost-effective in terms of actual electricity generated?
Gosh, that’s a lot of questions! But I’ll do my best. Let’s take them one-by-one…
Are you saying that only NEW generating capacity is considered, meaning that in an arbitrary time period more electricity has been generated by NEW wind power installations than by NEW natural gas installations?
Overall,what is the ratio of wind-generated electricity to gas-powered electricity?
I don’t know what the exact number is offhand, and I’m not inclined to look it up. But one thing’s for sure, gas wins on that measure hands down. I mean heck, gas power is a legacy technology that has been used for generations.
However, one thing that has changed in recent years is that gas (along with wind) has been replacing coal as a base load fuel source. That’s really all coal is good for because it takes so long to fire up and down (nuclear is worse in that regard, but that’s another conversation entirely). One especially nice thing about gas is it can be brought on line (and taken off line) quickly, which makes it a great compliment for more variable sources like wind and solar. Another nice thing about gas is that it burns cleaner and has less of a carbon footprint than any other fossil fuel per BTU of energy extracted. More on that later.
Which is growing faster?
If you mean in terms of the change in the contribution of wind vs gas to the overall stationary energy mix, then wind wins hands down. Next up (at least potentially) is solar PV, but its potential is dependent upon regulatory changes which may be hard to achieve.
This may be a little off the question but let me also add that gas is a viable transportation fuel. Wind is not (not for land transportation anyway). Considering that, and considering there is no other transportation fuel immediately available to replace oil (renewable petroleum products are making significant headway of late, but bringing them up to scale will take a while, even under the best of circumstances), a good question is: do we really want to allocate our natural gas resources predominantly for our stationary fuel needs? I think that’s a really good question.
Which is more cost-effective in terms of new installations, or retrofitting coal powered plants to natural gas?
I honestly have no idea. But I’m pretty sure it would depend on the plant.
Which is more cost-effective in terms of actual electricity generated?
That’s a very good question, one whose answer depends on how one defines “cost-effective”. Should one calculate that number based solely upon the capital investment required for a single installation and the here-and-now spot prices for the fuel involved? Or should one levelize one’s calculation based upon things like future economy of scale considerations, future fuel prices, and various “externalities” which can — and almost certainly will — affect the entire economy? I suspect the answer to that question (as complicated as it is) may reflect how the two of us think about things. More specifically, I suspect you tend to emphasize the former while I tend to emphasize the latter. I would love for you, Amazona (and any others, if they feel so inclined) to seriously think about the response I am about to offer, and offer something of substance in return. Anyway, here goes…
In terms of “externalities” that wind and solar PV (but not solar thermal, or any other “thermal” source for that matter) have going for them is the fact that they use no water. That’s important because potable water is becoming an increasingly valuable commodity. But until very recently, the cost of the water required to cool thermal energy facilities hasn’t been considered. But that concern will continue to grow. And unless that concern is mitigated in a “cost-effective” manner, it is an externality with significant effects on the overall economy that need to be considered.
Similarly, wind and solar PV power installations release no chemicals into the atmosphere, nor do they concentrate potentially harmful chemicals at the site of generation. The manufacturing process does, but that’s also true of all power generation options. For example, coal is notorious for polluting the environment around the sites of extraction, as is oil when things go horribly wrong. That said, over their entire life cycle, the effect on health and environment (and the economic costs associated with those effects) of wind and solar PV is much less than any fossil fuel, up to and including natural gas. So that is another externality with significant effects on the overall economy that needs to be considered.
Unfortunately, those very obvious externalities are never included in any simple “free market capitalism” scenario. But yet the model Adam Smith concocted around 250 years ago is still put forth by some as the ideal model, as if nothing has changed since his day. It’s as if the facts that the human population expanded many-fold while the connections between us all have both multiplied and the virtual space between us have contracted many-fold since his day have no bearing at all. Frankly, I find those assumptions ridiculous. I’m not against capitalism — absolutely not. All I’m saying is that any conception of the free market which accounts only for the internal cost of individual transactions without regard for their externalities is not only short-sighted, but potentially severely damaging to the economy at large.
“….essentially all of the basic physics variables that should have a measurable effect on climate ………..predict that the earth should be getting ever so slightly, though progressively, cooler. But it isn’t.”
It isn’t? What are your critera? How much cooler does it have to be to qualify, in your mind, as “cooling” and over what expanse of time?
For example, do you factor in the recent discoveries showing that the climate 2000 years ago was warmer than it is now to be an indication of global cooling? How would you describe it? Warmer then/cooler now sounds like global cooling to me.
And “cooling” relative to what? What is the “normal” temperature of the earth?
“Rings in fossilised pine trees have proven that the world was much warmer than previously thought – with measurements dating back to 138BC
Rings in fossilised pine trees have proven that the world was much warmer than previously thought – and the earth has been slowly COOLING for 2,000 years.
Measurements stretching back to 138BC prove that the Earth is slowly cooling due to changes in the distance between the Earth and the sun.
The finding may force scientists to rethink current theories of the impact of global warming.
It is the first time that researchers have been able to accurately measure trends in global temperature over the last two millennia.
Over that time, the world has been getting cooler – and previous estimates, used as the basis for current climate science, are wrong.
Their findings demonstrate that this trend involves a cooling of -0.3°C per millennium due to gradual changes to the position of the sun and an increase in the distance between the Earth and the sun.
‘This figure we calculated may not seem particularly significant,’ says Esper, ‘however, it is also not negligible when compared to global warming, which up to now has been less than 1°C.
‘Our results suggest that the large-scale climate reconstruction shown by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) likely underestimate this long-term cooling trend over the past few millennia.’
The finding was based on semi-fossilised tree rings found in Finnish lapland.
Professor Dr. Jan Esper’s group at the Institute of Geography at JGU used tree-ring density measurements from sub-fossil pine trees originating from Finnish Lapland to produce a reconstruction reaching back to 138 BC.
In so doing, the researchers have been able for the first time to precisely demonstrate that the long-term trend over the past two millennia has been towards climatic cooling.
‘We found that previous estimates of historical temperatures during the Roman era and the Middle Ages were too low,’ says Esper. ‘Such findings are also significant with regard to climate policy, as they will influence the way today’s climate changes are seen in context of historical warm periods.’
The annual growth rings in trees are the most important witnesses over the past 1,000 to 2,000 years as they indicate how warm and cool past climate conditions were.
Researchers from Germany, Finland, Scotland, and Switzerland examined tree-ring density profiles in trees from Finnish Lapland. In this cold environment, trees often collapse into one of the numerous lakes, where they remain well preserved for thousands of years.
Global cooling: It is the first time that researchers have been able to accurately measure trends in global temperature over the last two millennia
The annual growth rings in trees are the most important witnesses over the past 1,000 to 2,000 years as they indicate how warm and cool past climate conditions were.
The density measurements correlate closely with the summer temperatures in this area on the edge of the Nordic taiga; the researchers were thus able to create a temperature reconstruction of unprecedented quality.
The reconstruction provides a high-resolution representation of temperature patterns in the Roman and Medieval Warm periods, but also shows the cold phases that occurred during the Migration Period and the later Little Ice Age.
In addition to the cold and warm phases, the new climate curve also exhibits a phenomenon that was not expected in this form.
For the first time, researchers have now been able to use the data derived from tree-rings to precisely calculate a much longer-term cooling trend that has been playing out over the past 2,000 years. “
A cooling of .03 degrees Celsius per millennia, over two millennia, is .06 degrees Celsius, regarding cooling, while the very very short-term rise in temperature has been less than 1 degree Celsius. Looks like we need to wait a while to see if the cooling trend resumes after this brief interlude, though it appears to be, but it is way too early to claim, as you do, that no cooling, even “ever so slight” cooling, has taken place, and even then you appear to be saying no cooling has taken place over a very short span of years, not the longer term associated with climate change.
“There are lots of other variables to consider, of course, but as better and better evidence continues to pour in it becomes increasingly difficult to argue that “carbon output” isn’t a major culprit.”
Oh, it can be argued, all right. It just can’t be proved
Someone brought this Esper, et. al. study up on this blog some months back. I believe it was Cluster, although I may be wrong about that. At any rate, as you Amazona point out, the data in this paper suggest a long term cooling trend over much of the last two millenia. Other studies, using various other proxies obtained over much larger geographic areas, have indicated the same trend. And the trend is consistent with what is expected by virtue of the Earth’s orbital variance over that period of time, as Esper, et. al., as well as previous authors, point out. Studies of orbital variance indicate that the change to a more elliptical orbit is on-going, and will continue for many thousands of years. For that reason it is exceedingly hard to argue that the warming we have experienced over the last several decades is due to “our proximity to the sun”. Some other variable must be invoked to explain the warming.
The major difference between the finding of the Esper paper and the others is the magnitude (not the direction) of the trend: Esper’s is larger. Perhaps it’s because the proxy they used (maximum late tree ring density data, or MDX) is a more accurate proxy than tree ring width (TRW). But the fact that the data Esper used were all obtained from a circumscribed area in and around present-day Finland, whereas the proxies employed in other studies were obtained over much wider areas, may also play a role in the discrepancy. Further study is needed. At any rate, the Esper paper agrees with virtually all of the others in terms of the (1) general downward trend in surface temperature over the millenial time-scale, and; (2) the recent upward trend in the decadal time scale. Perhaps most importantly, the authors point out that their results suggest that global temperature may be more sensitive to small forcing variations rather than less. And that’s not good news to those who believe global warming is no big deal. Be careful what you wish for, I guess.
“global temperature may be more sensitive to small forcing variations rather than less. ”
Rather than less what? Rather than less sensitive?
The “small forcing variations” which have been conclusively linked to decadal and temporary rises in temperature, small though they are, have been solar activity. Interestingly, solar activity has also been linked to significant changes in the temperature of the earth, such as the “‘Maunder Minimum’ from 1645 to 1715, when Europe and America suffered a succession of bitterly cold winters called the Little Ice Age, at the same time the sun became quiet, or lacking sunspot activity.
From the Daily Mail: “Dr Richard Altrock, of Sacramento Peak Observatory – who has been studying the sun’s ‘atmosphere’, the corona, for 40 years – found that a tell-tale march of magnetic activity towards the poles that heralds the start of the solar maximum has failed to materialise.
And Matthew Penn, also of the National Solar Observatory, has shown that the strength of the magnetic field inside sunspots has been much weaker than expected and is in steady decline.
If this continues, the sun will have lost its spots completely by 2022.”
There was a small rise in temperature in the 90s, , which leveled off and then dropped a little, which some have tried with great passion to link to human activity. But much of this effort has been of a “branches waving around make the wind blow” nature.
You agree that “… the Esper paper agrees with virtually all of the others in terms of the (1) general downward trend in surface temperature over the millenial time-scale,” but you also stated that “….essentially all of the basic physics variables that should have a measurable effect on climate ………..predict that the earth should be getting ever so slightly, though progressively, cooler. But it isn’t.
So you say it is cooling—-“But it isn’t.”
Amazona: Rather than less what? Rather than less sensitive?
Sometimes I wonder whether we are talking the same language. But yes, that’s what I mean: “rather than less sensitive.” Yes.
And that should trouble you, because it’s yet another indication that the IPCC has thus far been erring on the conservative (i.e., don’t worry) side about global warming — specifically about climate sensitivity.
Amazona further quotes: “If this continues, the sun will have lost its spots completely by 2022.”
You might want to check the vintage of that quote. As I recall, Spook was inclined to the same opinion a couple of years or so ago when the sun’s activity/sun spot cycle was in its doldrums, between cycle 23 and 24. But alas, cycle 24 did appear. And while it may not be as strong as many previous cycles, the probability that “the sun will have lost its spots completely by 2022” now appears to be extremely remote.
But even if it does happen, so what? More and more evidence suggests that the sun’s radiance and its activity cycles are not tightly coupled. The sun’s activity cycles do, however, strongly affect the earth’s magnetic field, which affects the ozone layer, which affects the susceptibility of the troposphere to cosmic radiation, which may affect cloud layers. Whether the last has a net positive or net negative albedo effect is uncertain. The most that could be said with reasonable certainty at present is that the effect is relatively minor either way. So again, the number of variables that could potentially explain why things have heated up over the last several decades have become increasingly constrained. Obviously, it’s not orbital or inclination variations, it’s not solar radiance or activity variations, it’s not likely to be cloud cover either. What could it possibly be?
Whatever one’s suggestion might be, hopefully there is another lesson to be learned in this enterprise: don’t trust any single person (no matter how much of an authority they present themselves to be), nor any single report (no matter how consistent their conclusions appear to be with your beliefs — and especially if you don’t look beyond the face value of media reports on the report). If you truly want to understand you have to pay attention, and to think critically, and to start trying to put all of the evidence you have accumulated — both for and against what you currently think — into some sort of cohesive whole. Just taking pot shots is not constructive on any level.
Amazona: So you say it is cooling—-”But it isn’t.”
No, I said that essentially all of the basic physics variables that should have a measurable effect on climate predict that the earth should be getting ever so slightly, though progressively, cooler. But the earth is heating up. Consequently, “basic physics variables” cannot explain why the earth is heating up.
Perhaps I should explain what I mean by “basic physics variables”: by that I mean all the variables associated with the sun’s radiance and activity, as well as cosmic rays, as well as any parameter specifically related to the earth’s rotation around, or inclination to the sun. Hopefully that’s clear — at least to anyone who speaks English.
If by “heating up” you mean not getting hotter, then you are correct.
It got a little warmer for a while, though “a little warmer” is relative to a Little Ice Age so no one knows what it means. For all we know, it was a movement toward whatever the normal temp of the earth is supposed to be, and since we don’t know what that is, all we can do is make a lot of noise.
Well, some of us make a lot of noise. Some of us just point and laugh and tell Chicken Little jokes.
I quoted you accurately. I left out a lot of words in the middle but did not change what you said, which was “…“….essentially all of the basic physics variables that should have a measurable effect on climate ………..predict that the earth should be getting ever so slightly, though progressively, cooler. But it isn’t.”
But it is. Getting progressively cooler, that is.
And that is not the same as “heating up”.
My mistake in not proofreading my post.
You say cooling should be taking place—but it isn’t.
I pointed out that it is.
And then I mangled a sentence.
Amazona: And then I mangled a sentence.
With all due respect, you mangled more than a sentence. You mangled logic itself. But it’s not the first time, and to be perfectly fair, you’re not the only one. Just on this one post there have been examples of logical mangling by at least two others.
Be that as it may, I find it particularly hard to understand why conversations such as this — conversations which largely have to do with science and logic, and little else — should somehow become a partisan battleground. That in itself defies logic.
My fervent hope is that the GOP will eventually get more “Reaganesque”, and abandon the scientifically absurd elements of their current platform for more practical considerations. Just a thought.
“With all due respect, you mangled more than a sentence. You mangled logic itself. ”
Well, let’s track that back to its origins, shall we? I was quoting you, or would have have been if I had not failed to straighten out my sentence structure after an edit.
You are the one who said that according to the “…variables that should have a measurable effect on climate …” the planet should be cooling, and then you incorrectly said “But it is not.”
I pointed out that yes, it is, and has been for a couple of thousand years or so. The only failure in logic was yours. Mine was a failure in syntax.
Do try to not injure yourself, patting yourself on the back for being smarter than everyone else. That’s a fantasy limited to your unique reality.
Amazona: You are the one who said that according to the “…variables that should have a measurable effect on climate …” the planet should be cooling, and then you incorrectly said “But it is not.”
In this most recent iteration of yours it sounds like you’re trying to make me say that I included ALL of the “variables that should have a measurable effect on climate”, when my point was most certainly the opposite. I thought I already made that point, and the reasons why, really, really clear in an earlier post. I don’t know how I could have been more clear. So again I’m wondering whether we’re speaking the same language.
Likewise, I will say again that I am in agreement with Cluster that the earth really is warming, or “heating up”. That was not a misstatement, not a misinterpretation, I meant to say exactly what I said: the earth is heating up. But let me say it in another way (just in case the first way is still not sufficiently clear): the earth has NOT been “getting progressively cooler” for the last several decades even though virtually all of the “basic physics variables” (which I very specifically defined in a previous post) indicate that it should have been doing so more or less unabated up to the present time — and should continue to do so more or less unabated for many more thousands of years. Obviously, something else is going on, which is to say that one or more other variables have come into play. And if you deny that anthopogenic GHG loading of the atmosphere is a significant contributing factor, then how do you explain what’s been happening? Moreover, why is asking such a question considered such a partisan endeavor? I really don’t get it.
Oh, give it a rest, rico.
I QUOTED YOU.
You were wrong.
What is it about you that you can’t just accept this, but have to whinge on and on and on and ON trying to prove that you were not?
Amazona: You were wrong.
About what? About global warming being real? About the fact that earth is heating up? That’s an objective fact. It may not be evident from one day to another, or even one year to another, but it’s happening. All I’m saying is that you cannot use “basic physics principles”, as I have already defined them, to explain it.
What is it that you find so hard to understand? Have you even LOOKED at Esper, et. al.’s data? Or are you just going on the Daily Mail’s poor reporting of it? Maybe that would explain your difficulties. But come on, I can’t to your homework for you.
About the fact that earth is heating up? That’s an objective fact. – Rico
So let’s assume you’re right, even though I believe that there is a lot of credible evidence to suggest that the warming has leveled off over the last decade, if not declined.
The question would be Rico, what is warming up from? What is the normal temperature of the planet? Were we in a particular cool period and now reaching normal, or not?