Sunspots May Cause Climate Fluctuations (Duh!)

The Harvard Crimson ^ | 4/14/2009 | ERIC W. BAUM

[Piquaboy]

No Chit! Who wodda thunk it.

[slowhandluke]

I’m not sure this is good news. he seems to be saying that the reason temperatures have not been higher has been because of a temporary low in sunspots - that doesn’t mean CO2 isn’t still a big a factor.

But other scientists have shown that C02 isn't a big factor. It's much less a factor than water vapor, for example. And it's at a saturation point, so more won't matter.

Here's lecture by a geologist touching on a number of the problems with the warming hypothesis, including the trouble with the idea that C02 is an important warming factor going forward:
Part1
Part2
Part3
Part4

[sourcery]

Reference: The Skeptics' Handbook (author is Joanne Nova)

[gondramB]

>>CO2 is a lagging indicator when global temperatures increase.
The lag is about 700 - 800 years. As temperatures increase, the oceans release CO2; as they decrease the oceans absorb CO2.<<

As I understand there is a feedback loop where each causes more of the other until something intervenes.

[gondramB]

>>The trend has turned flat/downward since 2005/2006, so if sea level is the “ultimate measure” then this proves global warming has stopped<<

Agreed we have a a few years that look better. A sustained downturn in seas level would really be good news. But three years of being flat mainly points out that there are other factors at work - that’s useful in combating Gore’s absolutism -but it doesn’t mean there is not a real, long term problem.

[BILL_C]

for later

[gondramB]

>> But other scientists have shown that C02 isn’t a big factor. It’s much less a factor than water vapor, for example. And it’s at a saturation point, so more won’t matter.

Here’s lecture by a geologist touching on a number of the problems with the warming hypothesis, including the trouble with the idea that C02 is an important warming factor going forward:<<

Bob Carter is famous - I don’t think his strategy is useful - claiming that there isn’t global warming.

I think its much more useful to try to shift emphasis away from the assumption that because we know CO2 can cause warming, we can stop trying to assess how much of global warming is being caused by CO2.

Even the IPCC report is being over stated . I started a thread about an article that mentioned two key things from the report.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2227294/posts

>>>>The IPCC said in 2007 that it was at least 90 percent certain that human activities, led by burning fossil fuels, were the main cause of warming in the past 50 years. Nine reckoned that evidence was stronger, two said it was unchanged.<<

This is the first time I have ever heard that the IPCC admitted that it wasn’t certain that humans were the main cause of global warming. And that makes it all that much more important to address the other causes. <<

>>>>Removal of manmade sun-blocking smoke under clean air laws may add a 1 Celsius rise while oceans will warm further under a lag effect, underscoring how near the 2 degrees limit is already.<<

I thought this was significant too - they are saying removal of particulates are contribute half as much as CO2 - this is the first time I’ve seen the second largest cause mentioned and its one we could do something about - more particulates is easy.<<

[neverdem]

CO2 a threat under Clean Water Act? - EPA agrees to study acidic seas; move adds to regulation momentum

Shallow Science Criticized by Global Warming Experts

China and Russia Get Cozy - But neither is ready to act like a responsible power.

The Good and Bad of Gates's Agenda

Some noteworthy articles about politics, foreign or military affairs, IMHO, FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.

[ModelBreaker]

“I’m not sure this is good news. he seems to be saying that the reason temperatures have not been higher has been because of a temporary low in sunspots - that doesn’t mean CO2 isn’t still a big a factor.”

What is not said here is that sunspot activity was unusually high before 1999 (the period of substantial warming). If climate modelers honestly included the strong correlation between sunspots and temperature into the pre-1999 models, there wouldn’t be much warming left unexplained for them to blame on CO2. That’s why it won’t happen.

You notice the whole anti-carbon crowd is slowly shifting their emphasis to “well, even if it doesn’t cause global warming, it makes the oceans acidic.” They want to lose carbon as an energy source, no matter what. An endless stream of rationales will be invented until they get their way.

[gondramB]

>>What is not said here is that sunspot activity was unusually high before 1999 (the period of substantial warming). If climate modelers honestly included the strong correlation between sunspots and temperature into the pre-1999 models, there wouldn’t be much warming left unexplained for them to blame on CO2. That’s why it won’t happen.<<

That’s interesting and I had not seen that - don’t suppose you have link handy.

>>You notice the whole anti-carbon crowd is slowly shifting their emphasis to “well, even if it doesn’t cause global warming, it makes the oceans acidic.” They want to lose carbon as an energy source, no matter what. An endless stream of rationales will be invented until they get their way.<<

Agreed that this is a means to an end to those want to de-industrialize. They got upset yesterday when government testing show that tiny cars get hurt worse when they hit something bigger - they said it was unfair to test outside identical lab conditions. Sheesh.

[slowhandluke]

Bob Carter is famous - I don’t think his strategy is useful - claiming that there isn’t global warming.

Ok, you assume the other guys lie as truth ... I don't see where that's going to get you.

I prefer to stand on the provable facts (no global warming compared to the historical record, C02 increase follows temp, etc.), than to try and remember which lie I've agreed to accept and which ones are left to fight about.

[SunkenCiv]

thanks neverdem.

Shallow Science Criticized by Global Warming Experts
Environment & Climate News | 05/01/2009 | Dan Miller
Posted on 04/14/2009 9:14:48 PM PDT by neverdem
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2229373/posts

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks neverdem.

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

[gondramB]

>>Bob Carter is famous - I don’t think his strategy is useful - claiming that there isn’t global warming.

---

Ok, you assume the other guys lie as truth ... I don’t see where that’s going to get you. <<

The “other guys” as you put it are 99% of the scientists who have looked at the evidence.

We could perhaps get a debate going about how much is human caused but this effort to deny the whole problem is worse than useless.

[HangnJudge]

[HangnJudge]

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[slowhandluke]

Sorry, it doesn't matter how many Social Science Phds have looked at the problem. And the IPCC scientist list tended to be short on folks whose speciality was climate.

It does matter when one knowledgeable scientist like Prof Lindzen the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT does look at it, and decide it's baloney.

We've just had 8 or 9 years of declining temps that were totally unexpected by any of the computer models. It is baloney.

The effort to keep things to facts, which show no warming, seems to be a more reasonable thing than arguing how much of an imaginary effect is caused by humans or other factors.

If it isn't happening, then we don't need to worry about C02 or N02 or NO or SO* or particulates or whatever new boogeyman the greenies come up with. If you admit to global warming, the greenies will use the precautionary principle to justify more regulation even if you prove it wasn't man caused. Man caused or not, the greenies will insist it be stopped.

[Rocky]

http://sciencespeak.com/MissingSignature.pdf

http://home.comcast.net/~pdrallos131681/CO2/co2.html

[gondramB]

Its hard to take Drallos when he says things like this

>>So, is global warming taking place? Over the last ten years, there has been global cooling. <<

and uses a graph like this



That graph clearly shows an upward trend with an anomaly. That is a lying with statistics kind of thing that really more like Al Gore's methods.

To put that another way , suppose there was a .6 degree increase in one year - would you then consider global proved? Then why would we take a one year drop as disproving it?