Global Warming and Solar Radiation

American Thinker ^ | July 11, 2007 | D. Bruce Merrifield

[sionnsar]

Another science fiction story of the 1950? had the survivors scooping buckets of frozen oxygen from the bitter outside and leaving them to melt by the fireside.The science often gets swept aside by artistic license.

A Pail of Air

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks ND. But lookie, someone’s repeating the mantra:

“This should settle the debate,” said Mike Lockwood, from the UK’s Rutherford-Appleton Laboratory, who carried out the new analysis together with Claus Froehlich from the World Radiation Center in Switzerland.

‘No Sun link’ to climate change
by Richard Black
BBC Environment Correspondent
Tuesday, 10 July 2007
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6290228.stm

[SunkenCiv]

· join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic ·

[Old Professer]

Unfortunately, we only have one T, D or H without an advanced scientific degree to speak condescendingly to us at every turn, all the while promising to shut up.

Most dogs end up eating their own vomit at days end.

[Old Professer]

The more I look at those charts from that volcano, the more it reminds me of the static readings one gets measuring an air filter’s effectiveness and air passed right up until the point where it has to be cleaned.

[Old Professer]

How Holmesian of you.

[sionnsar]

LOL. I probably still have that story in my SF collection.

[El Gato]

Curiously, NASA and the Russian Observatory both report that total solar radiation now has peaked, and all these cycles may be simultaneously in decline

That could pretty much be inferred from the ice core data, as well as other indirect measurements of the historical temperature record.

We are due for the Big Cool Down. The actual temperatures are going to lag the solar input somewhat, because the earth has considerable thermal inertia.

Note on graph presentation: The heavier temperature lines 160,000 BP to present reflect more data points for this time period, not necessarily greater temperature variability.

[neverdem]

We are due for the Big Cool Down.

It will be worse for my "winter" eczema, but it will shut these fools up. Thanks for the graph.

[aruanan]

Visiting Committee for Physical Sciences at the University of Chicago.

University of Chicago PING! I ought to print this thing out and get the guy to autograph it for me.

[neverdem]

"So methane may still be in a plateau -- CO2 is not."

Scientist says global warming promotion 'smacks of McCarthyism complete with witch hunts'

The most reliable global, regional and local temperature records from around the world display no distinguishable trend up or down over the past century.

The last peak temperatures were around 1940 and 1998, with troughs of low temperature around 1910 and 1970.

I don't doubt NOAA's CO2 data, but I've seen a number of stories that recorded temperatures haven't increased since 1998.

They use computer models that don't account for water in its various forms. Why is new religion of global warming/climate change proselytized by various elements of the left? This is just another scam for social engineering and control of the masses, IMHO.

[roaddog727]

Good Science bump.

[ChessExpert]

“If we conservatives”

So you say.

[cogitator]

Unfortunately, we only have one T, D or H without an advanced scientific degree to speak condescendingly to us at every turn, all the while promising to shut up.

I can't please everybody. But I don't claim to be arguing from MY authority, I try to understand, and occasionally demonstrate, what the experts are saying. Truth is truth, no matter if you've got a Ph.D. when you say it or not. I kinda wish I had gotten that Ph.D. in geochemistry, if more people would believe me. But seeing as how on one hand the strong statements of numerous Ph.D. climate scientists can easily be dismissed, but on the other hand one organic chem Ph.D. can get stuff like this article happily accepted by those who need support for their worldview, what good is a Ph.D., really?

[cogitator]

“If we conservatives” So you say.

Are you doubting that I'm politically conservative because I agree with most climate scientists regarding the likeliest causes and potential magnitude of current global warming?

If that's the case, then it's a shame that scientific accuracy is a political litmus test. I guess you have to believe what Rush Limbaugh said about volcanoes to be a conservative, too.

"Limbaugh insisted that "environmentalists still cannot prove that this [global warming] is man-made." To support this assertion, he claimed, "There have been too many global heating and cooling cycles long before man came along and industrialized the planet, and there have been way too many volcanoes spewing pollution that doubles the amount of the total of all the automobiles ever invented and manufactured in the world."

If I point out that this is demonstrably wrong (as I've done many times), that means I can't be a conservative?

Too bad. From my experience (and in general) conservatives are a lot smarter than liberals. But they sure seem to hit an intellectual wall on global warming. (And that doesn't mean an advocacy of informed, scientifically-grounded skepticism. It means that a lot of otherwise extremely briliant conservatives seem to accept blindly any scientific sounding argument against global warming, no matter what its quality. And that means the bias filter is working quite well on this issue.)

[ArmyTeach]

He’s a Kennedy. Anyone who dares disagree with him is a traitor. Histrionic, hyperbolic, incoherent, wacked out druggie. Pay no attention ...

[cogitator]

The most reliable global, regional and local temperature records from around the world display no distinguishable trend up or down over the past century.

I don't know where he gets this. Even Lindzen admits that the world warmed up 0.6 C over the 20th century. And there's pretty good agreement on +0.4 C since the mid-1980s.

I don't doubt NOAA's CO2 data, but I've seen a number of stories that recorded temperatures haven't increased since 1998.

See point #4 in my profile. And:

From this:

"Record warmth in 2005 is notable, because global temperature has not received any boost from a tropical El Niño this year. The prior record year, 1998, on the contrary, was lifted 0.2°C above the trend line by the strongest El Niño of the past century." (NASA)

OK, it's warmed about 0.4 C since 1975. Call it +0.13 C per century (which actually agrees with Spencer and Christy's MSU satellite data analysis, other groups put it higher). So if 1975 is the "0" point, then 1998 should have been 0.3 C warmer than 1985. Instead, it was 0.2 C above the trend line, i.e. 0.5 C. According to the current decadal trend (barring accelerations), it should take 38.5 years for the global temperature to rise 0.5 C. That would be -- 2013. So it's basically unsurprising (and expected) that there hasn't been a year warmer than 1998 yet, even though 2005 was a virtual tie. So we either have to wait until 2013 (or a year with the next large El Nino) to expect a new global temperature "record".

As for social engineering and control of the masses, soma works much better than global warming.

[neverdem]

Then what do you make from the increase in CO2, that it is a negligible effect because it is too small?

Most folks seem to agree that the global average increase in temperature is in the range of 0.6 C - 1.0 C over the last century.

How do you account for various observations of planetary warming?

[ChessExpert]

“If we conservatives” So you say.

‘Are you doubting that I’m politically conservative’

Are you saying that you are politically conservative?

[cogitator]

Are you saying that you are politically conservative?

Always have been, always will be. I'm a member of the Concord Coalition.