This is just one of dozens of responses to common climate change denial arguments, which can all be found at How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic.
Objection:
The sun is the source of all the warmth on earth. Any increase in temperature is most likely due to changes in solar radiation.
Answer:
It's very true that the earth is warmed, for all practical purposes, entirely by solar radiation. So if the temperature is going up or down a reasonable place to find the cause would be the sun. Well, it turns out that it is more complicated than one might think to detect and measure changes in the amount or type of sunshine reaching the earth. Detectors on the ground are too susceptible to all kinds of interference from the atmosphere. After all, one good cloud passing overhead can cause an instant shiver on an otherwise beautiful, warm day, but not because the sun itself changed. The best way to detect changes in the actual output of the sun versus changes in the radiation reaching the earth's surface because of clouds, smoke, dust or pollution is by taking readings from space.
This is a job for satellites. According to PMOD at the World Radiation Center there has been no increase in solar irradiance since at least 1978 when satellite observations began. This means that for the last thirty years, while the temperature has been rising fastest, the sun has shown no trend.
There has been work done on reconstructing the solar irradiance record over the last century before satellites were available. According to the Max Plank Institute where this work is being done, there has been no increase in solar irradiance since around 1940. This reconstruction does show an increase in the first part of the 20th century that coincides with the warming from around 1900 til the 1940's. This trend in irradiance is not enough to explain it all, but it is responsible for a large portion of that trend in temperature. See this chart of the observed temperature, the modelled temperature and the variations in the major forcings that contributed to 20th century climate.
Real Climate has also done a couple of detailed discussions both about what the conclusions about solar forcing are, as well as exactly how they were arrived at. Read them here and here.
This is just one of dozens of responses to common climate change denial arguments, which can all be found at How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic.
"It's the Sun, Stupid" was first published here, where you can still find the original comment thread. This updated version is also posted on the Grist website, where additional comments can be found, though the author, Coby Beck, does not monitor or respond there.
Environment
Politics
Comments
I now can see why GM is the mess that it is, with arrogant uneducated baffoons like this running it....and he even said he wants to run the planet...god help us..he cant even run a car company
Posted by: eddie | September 22, 2008 7:28 PM
Please address two points, which there seems to be little solid info (as contrasted w/ conjecture & claim) about:
1] not whether Solar (or any other 'natural' causes) are THE cause of warming - but the overall EXTENT or importance of such cause(s).
2] climate (temperature) impacts not of (quantitative) changes in AMPLITUDE of Solar radiation (total or 'average') (which seem at times to be conflated w/ 'Solar Activity'), but of (qualitative) changes in the CHARACTER of Solar output (including magnetic, 'solar wind', and spectral variation (such as UV change) aspects).
thanks,
will wohler
Posted by: will wohler | November 29, 2008 7:00 PM
It’s easy to put up straw men and knock them over. The irradiance from the sun is invariable. Presumably therefore, climate change can not be due to the sun. This is too simplistic. Consider the argument here and at: http://climatechange1.wordpress.com/2008/11/21/the-enso-driver/
In brief, we have a very good idea of the thermal structure of the atmosphere via measurement of temperature at different pressure levels using helium balloons called radiosondes and rockets, dating from 1948. A study of the thermal characteristics of the upper troposphere reveals two very important things.
Firstly, climate change has nothing to do with greenhouse gases. The down-welling radiation from greenhouse gases is overwhelmed by a superior force. That force is convection. What happens near the tropopause in mid year proves the point. The atmosphere loses cloud as it is warmed by the northern land masses. Ozone at the tropopause (10km) intercepts enhanced outgoing long wave radiation producing a strong temperature peak in mid year. South of the Equator where the mid year cloud loss from atmospheric warming is greatest, outgoing radiation inverts the temperature curve from a March (surface) to an August (tropopause) maximum. But, the downward transfer of energy from the warmed layer is overwhelmed by convection. There is no shift in the temperature curve below the tropopause. The March maximum persists.
The second thing to be learned is this: Climate change is due to the interception of short wave solar radiation (UVB) by ozone in the upper troposphere driving change in temperature, relative humidity, cloud cover, pressure gradients, surface wind and sea surface temperature. The Southern Oscillation depends upon the distribution of ozone in the upper troposphere (high in concentration in the downdraft areas because it is carried down from the stratosphere). The location of these downdraft areas is determined by surface temperature driven by ocean currents in return responding to the wind. But the wind direction in the tropics is in part determined by the sun because it changes the pressure gradients in the ozone rich high pressure cells. As these cells lose intensity the location of the main areas of convection, the distribution and density of cirrus cloud and the level of radiation received at the surface all change.
A regime of increased UV radiation involves a loss of cloud cover in the tropics.
The intensity of UV radiation at the tropopause and below depends upon solar activity.
Posted by: Erl Happ | December 16, 2008 12:22 AM
Changing your story again,Erl?
Posted by: Brian D | December 17, 2008 4:13 PM
There is a strong historical correlation between the suns activity and the temps here on Earth, whilst the correlation between C02 and temps is less than impressive.
Now we all know that correlation does not prove causation but it is a requirement.
There is a growing group of scientists or consensus that now believes the sun is heading into a at best Dalton type minimum and at worst a Maunder minimum. This of course means the planet is heading into a cold to very cold period.
I know all you "believers" out there will scoff at any suggestions the sun plays anymore than a minor role and C02 has the power to overide the sun, but keep in mind one consensus uses emperical data to arrive at this conclusion whilst the other uses computer models.
Posted by: Crakar14 | February 15, 2009 8:52 PM
As I pointed out in a couple of other locations on these pages I really appreciate watching the two sides go at it. I definitely subscribe to the "precautionary principle" that we need to act on climate change decisively if not spastically, but I give you credit, Crakar14: at least you are putting your money where your mouth is. If the thing goes cold in the next two decades your drinks are free.
Skip
Posted by: skip | March 2, 2009 1:11 AM
Hi Skip,
There was a guy by the name of Dr Theodore Landscheidt who was a leading expert on the suns effect on the Earth and climate. Unfortunately he died in a car accident a few years ago but his work lives on.
Here is a link to one of his papers in regards to GW versus GC:
http://bourabai.narod.ru/landscheidt/new-e.htm
and this http://bourabai.narod.ru/landscheidt/ click on the links and or publications to see his other work in this field.
Now this guy was not a kook or a "flat earther" he predicted El Ninos and La Ninas years in advance by studying the sun, this is something the latest GCM still cannot do. His predictions are not based on a small increase in C02.
So please have a read (it does get a bit heavy at times for me anyway)
Cheers
PS I have been silent for a couple of weeks (i know you all missed me) but my wife just had a little girl mum and baby are doing fine.
Posted by: Crakar14 | March 9, 2009 7:27 PM
Congratulations, Crakar! My wife is due in less than four weeks : )
Posted by: coby | March 10, 2009 11:09 AM
Here are a couple more links for your perusal;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/13/scafetta-paper-increasing-tsi-between-1980-and-2000-could-have-contributed-significantly-to-global-warming-during-the-last-three-decades/#more-6194
This link talks about the underestimation of TSI on Earths climate.
Here is another more detailed paper on the subject;
http://biocab.org/Solar_Irradiance_Climate_Change.html
Nahle, Nasif. 2007. Total Solar Irradiance and Climate Change. ©07 May 2008 by Biology Cabinet Organization®. Obtained from: http://www.biocab.org/SI_Anom_T_Anom.html. Last reading: (Day) (Month) (Year).
And this;
http://www.amath.washington.edu/%7Ecdcamp/Pub/Camp_Tung_GRL_2007b.pdf
These papers show a direct link between the sun and Earths climate, whilst the IPCC acknowledge this link it would appear they have under estimated the strength of this link and therefore overstated CO2's effect on climate.
Happy reading
Posted by: Crakar14 | March 16, 2009 7:30 PM
Here is another bit of research that puts another nail in the AGW coffin.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/17/beryllium-10-and-climate/#more-6286
Posted by: Crakar14 | March 18, 2009 6:28 PM
I am surprised at the lack of response to these very informative articles, does no one have an opinion?
The fact that the sun may play a much larger role in climate/temps than the IPCC considered would be worth discussing. If this research is proved correct then it is obvious the role of CO2 has been over stated.
I can understand why some of you would rather ignore it.
Posted by: Crakar14 | March 19, 2009 8:24 PM
I can't speak for others but I have to choose what I respond to because I can not respond to everything. I will not usually follow a link unless it is provided with a quote so I know what it is suppose to show.
For example, if you had given some numbers and a quotation from the solar irradiance paper above, I might have had a look. It is very easy to dump work on people in these dialogues, I think the onus is on you to make your own specific point and then provide a citation to support it.
Posted by: coby | March 20, 2009 10:04 AM
Fair enough Coby,
Let me try a different approach.
The links i referenced above all show a strong relationship between the sun and the Earths climate/weather, this is nothing new of course as the IPCC has always attributed some warming and or cooling of the Earth to the sun.
The scientific opinion differs as to how much effect the sun has. The above references would have you believe the sun plays a major role whereas the IPCC consider the sun to play a minor role. On face value i would have to agree with the IPCC on this as the energy from the sun (expressed in W/m2) has varied slightly from the maunder minimum to now whilst the Earths temp has varied significantly.
However what if the sun effected the Earth in other ways apart from W/m2 and IR? Below is a link that references a study which shows earthquake and Volcanic activity increases when the sun is in an extended or grand minima (the sun maybe entering an extended minima as we speak).
As they point out the combination of solar minimum and volcanic activity cannot explain the length of maunder/dalton minimums but remember this study was done before Svenmarks CR cloud formation study, and in light of recent findings related to the sun such as expanding and contracting atmoshpere, portals connecting sun to earth and holes in the earths magnetic field shows we have a lot to learn about the climate and the sun.
Could it be that we look at the suns relationship to earth in a too simplistic way, any thoughts?
Link: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19900066907_1990066907.pdf (File is 685Kb)
Cheers
Crakar
Posted by: Crakar14 | March 22, 2009 5:57 PM
Could it be that we look at the suns relationship to earth in a too simplistic way, any thoughts?
If you're saying that we don't fully understand the relationship between the sun and Earth, well, I'd probably agree with you.
If you're saying that we don't fully understand the relationship between the sun and Earth, and therefore we can attribute the recent global warming trends to solar activity, well, that's where you'd lose me. Yeah, this paper makes some reference to sun and climate, but the paper is about how temperature trends affect seismic activity, and the references to temperatures that they do make are really nothing new to anyone. Definitely an interesting paper, but it doesn't make the point you want it to make (to be fair, it doesn't refute it either; it just doesn't address it).
Posted by: Adam | March 23, 2009 5:19 PM
The purpose of the post(s) was to show we don't fully understand the relationship between the sun and Earth. Not to goad you into a dart throwing competition at 20 paces. However i feel the great global warming debate will come to an end soon.
If we leave GHG aside for a moment the Earth has warmed and cooled about every 30 years for example (rough dates so no need to contradict);
1880 to 1910 Large cooling with -pdo,La Ninas and quiet sun
1910 to 1940 warming +pdo El ninos and very active sun
1940 to 1970 mild cooling -pdo, La ninas and active sun
1970 to 2000 large warming +pdo , multiple strong El Ninos
2000 to 20?? Who knows
Of course GHG and vulcanism play thier part how much is what all the debate is about.
So from 70 to 00 the AGW theory finally gained some traction and a political movement was created and then came mother nature with all the timing of a Monty Python joke and the sun went quiet.
07 (seventh) and 08 (second)are in the top ten spotless years (if measured by standards a century ago they would be 1 & 2) so far 09 is shaping up as another spotless year. Cycle 23 is almost 13 years long and "all the models predict" cycles 24 and 25 will be complete duds. So of the two competing theories, one says we are headed for 20 to 30 years of cooling (AGW proved wrong) whilst the other says "As Co2 increases so will the temps".
The Earth is in a state that modern science has not seen before, so many of the rules of thumb developed over the last century are becoming invalid. Some of these 'rules' are the base assumptions in the way people understand weather and its behavior. For that reason, it is foolish to think that we can forecast what is going to happen over the next 20 years let alone a hundred.
I liken this to a night at the casino, last bets has been called and the roulette wheel has been spun and there can only be one winner.
We live in interesting times Adam.
Cheers
Crakar
Posted by: Crakar14 | March 24, 2009 10:39 PM
It looks like we have found something else the sun causes, The holes in the ozone layer above poles is not caused by CFC's after all. I wonder what we will discover next about the sun.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/26/galactic-cosmic-rays-may-be-responsible-for-the-antarctic-ozone-hole/#more-6560
Crakar
Posted by: Crakar14 | March 26, 2009 6:06 PM
Crakar, that is why I don't want to let you call yourself a skeptic, you are a denialist. A skeptic does not simply disbelieve everything that undermines their position and believe anything that supports it. You, and Anthony Watts, want mainstream atmospheric science to be wrong, therefore anything that contradicts it you believe without question.
Anyway, this study does not eliminate the role of CFC's in the process, it seems to be claiming an enhancement of the reactions over the poles due to cosmic rays.
What about their methods did you find so convincing?
Posted by: coby | March 26, 2009 11:02 PM
The convincing bit was, as you say is an increase in cosmic rays plays a part in the ozone holes. Which is exactly the same thing that you found. Of course the reason why CR increase or decrease is dependent on the amount of solar winds coming from the sun.
Therefore a more active sun the higher the SW and the lower the CR and a less active sun will cause lower SW and higher CR.
So therefore the sun plays a major role in the size of the Ozone holes and not CFC's as first thought.
Now what is it about this post that has prompted you to call me a "denier" as opposed to a "skeptic" or perhaps a "non-believer"?
Or perhaps it is from a previous post? The only thing my previous posts have in common is that they all support an altenative to the AGW theory so maybe that is it. If so then i owe you an appology, i was under the assumption that "its the sun stupid" was there to allow the dissemination of information regardless of its findings. Obviously i was wrong in this assumption and it is only there to promote the "believer" line of thought.
In regards to Watts, i have never met the man so i cannot be sure of his motives as much as you. In regards to what i believe or not believe, that is up to me you do not have the right sit there in judgment.
If you were bothered to read up on Theodore Landscheidt's work you would have noted that by looking at the sun's cycles he made some accurate predictions, more accurate than the models.
The truth is, there is evidence that the planet has warmed but none of this evidence shows that CO2 is the primary cause, hence the term "believer".
In regards to keeping an open mind i think i have one, or as Lord Keynes once said "When the facts change i change my mind, what do you sir"
Posted by: Crakar14 | March 29, 2009 7:02 PM
Crackar,
That's the funniest thing I've read all day. You like to THINK you have an open mind but in fact, like most deniers, you aren't even equipped to tell junk science or wishful thinking from real rational enquiry. It's the 'Galileo fallacy'.
“Alas, to wear the mantle of Galileo it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment; you must also be right.” (Robert Park)
The global warming consensus is a consensus exactly because it is the best conclusion on the available evidence - by a mile!
Posted by: Matt Bennett | March 29, 2009 8:07 PM
OK Mat, put your money where your mouth is and show me real world scientific evidence that Co2 causes global warming.
Real world evidence (not theory or computer models) that show the CO2 molecules reacting in the atmosphere in such a way to cause global warming.
I have asked this question before and it is repeatedly ignored, so why dont you give it a go.
Now when you come up with nothing will you be willing to look at alternatives? I dont think so. So put up or shut up.
Posted by: Crakar14 | March 29, 2009 8:57 PM
..and thus my case is proved.
If you are so arrogant as to think that your OPINION carries more weight than reams of published peer-reviewed scientific literature showing in detail the mechanisms for warming due to increased CO2, you're worse than I thought Crackar. eluded.
Have you read David Archer's book that I recommended yet? (Probably not) It answers, over the first two or three chapters, all you could want to know about the physics behind it. It's not sound bite stuff - go read it - get informed - stop looking like a jerk.
Posted by: MattInOz | March 29, 2009 9:07 PM
That should, of course, read 'deluded'.
By the way, Crackar, are YOU willing to put your money where you mouth is? Want to lay an official internet bet in the thousands of dollars that the warming continues? I'm up for it.....
Posted by: Matt Bennett | March 29, 2009 9:45 PM
Not my opinion but many intelligent scientific points of view. Does this reams of published peer-reviewed scientific literature showing in detail the mechanisms for warming due to increased CO2 rely of theoretical results or from real world experiments...........I thought so.
Here is another real world experiment (you know the one were they actually measure things rather than peer into computer screens) that reduces the CO2 warming factor even more.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090326141553.htm
Of course you will come back with "this site is a denial site" or "this is a crock of shit because the IPCC never approved it" etc etc.
By the way do you realise that what you say (read Archers book etc) makes you just as arrogant as i am? Ergo you look like a jerk.
Posted by: Crakar14 | March 29, 2009 9:48 PM
Sure you want to bet, what would you like to bet on?
Posted by: Crakar14 | March 29, 2009 9:54 PM
That the long term trend continues to be up, of course, just as it is right now. What is so arrogant about suggesting you read the answer to the question you ask? This is decades worth of people's detailed research you're denigrating here, which is fine if you're right but the peer-reviewed support for your position (ie CO2 does not cause warming) is nil.
Posted by: Matt Bennett | March 29, 2009 10:25 PM
Ok i will bet the long term trend will not be up but down.
two questions what shall we deem to be a long term trend and what change in temp constitutes up and down.
Oh and of course how much do you want to wager?
Show me peer reviewed support for your position that CO2 will cause catastrophic climate change, note explanation about how the climate works "in theory" will not be sufficient.
Posted by: Crakar14 | April 1, 2009 11:19 PM
I read all this stuff because I'm just an interested dolt, but be nice to Crakar. He has shown more politeness and open-mindedness than any denier/skeptic I have ever encountered. That might not be saying much, but its true.
I guess my nonscientific question for Crakar is, what's wrong with acting on the precautionary principle? I have a suspicion about what answers I will receive, but if there is already a thread exploring this go ahead and point me to it.
Skip
Posted by: skip | April 15, 2009 11:34 AM
One other thing:
Asking for peer reviewed support for proof that CO2 will cause cats-ass-trophy is a bit of a red herring, because of course we cannot predict the future. But the precautionary principle? Even so-called skeptics like Richard Lindzen don't dispute *some* anthropogenic forcing. (Read his latest article if you doubt me.) I guess the thing I never receive a straight answer to is, How do we *know* we're safe? What's wrong with hedging against risk and cutting back on carbon?
Again, I'm weak on the science but stronger when it gets in this realm of economic/political tradeoffs involved with action versus inaction.
Congrats on being a dad, Crak. Again if there is already a thread somewhere that hits these issues just point me to it.
Skip in Reno, NV
Posted by: skip | April 16, 2009 12:49 AM
Great!
Posted by: Solar Energy | April 28, 2009 4:33 AM
Hi there Skip,
Sorry for the delay in reply but i have been away from a computer for awhile and yes all is well with the baby thanks.
In regards to your questions, firstly "in theory" if you increase any greenhouse gas you will increase temps as Lindzen says, the reason why i consistantly ask for real world evidence of AGW is because i want to know how much does CO2 increase temps. The IPCC use models to predict things which are based on theory not real world evidence.
Which leads us to your next question on the precautionary principle.
Here are some claims made by believers on a regular basis as so called evidence that AGW is real
1, Sea Ice is melting..........WRONG
2, Sea levels are rising........WRONG
3, Sea are warming..............WRONG
4, Coral reefs are dying..........WRONG
5, Temps are rising...............WRONG
6, THere are more cyclones etc......WRONG
Etc, etc, etc Now any warmaholic worth his salt will come back with "a recent study says this or that" but this is all just semantics. The facts are facts and nothing else matters, right?
The IPCC has spent the last 20 years and 50 BILLION US DOLLARS trying to frame CO2 for all the warming (what warming) and have spent not one cent on anything else and all they have to show for thier efforts are unvalidated computer models and an unproven theory and of course a TAX plan that puts all others to shame.
So in regards to the precautionary principle what are we being precautionary about?
Cheers
Crakar
Posted by: Crakar14 | April 29, 2009 11:25 PM
Here is an article about the current state of the Sun, just to keep you all up to date.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/21/solar-isn-mean-dips-below-100/#more-7243
As a side note we have not seem a sun spot for a very long time but yesterday a tiny speck appeared but unfortunately it was a cycle 23 spot. Which means the solar minimum cannot happen until at least Jan 09. This means cycle 23 will/is be the longest cycle ever recorded.
Cheers
Posted by: Crakar14 | April 30, 2009 11:17 PM
Here is another article which shows the suns effects on climate maybe greater than we think.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/01/australian-antarctic-division-can-solar-variability-influence-climate/#more-7485
Posted by: Crakar14 | May 3, 2009 9:38 PM
Just another update in regards to the ongoing solar minimum, we are starting to approach significant milestones. The sun is starting to look like it did at the beginning of the Dalton minimum, if the minimum continues it will not be long before we are at the maunder minimum stage.
For all the fence sitters out there it maybe time to place your bets.
wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/27/the-baby-grand-has-arrived/#more-8054
Posted by: crakar14 | May 28, 2009 12:38 AM
Just another update in regards to the ongoing solar minimum, we are starting to approach significant milestones. The sun is starting to look like it did at the beginning of the Dalton minimum, if the minimum continues it will not be long before we are at the maunder minimum stage.
For all the fence sitters out there it maybe time to place your bets.
wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/27/the-baby-grand-has-arrived/#more-8054
Posted by: crakar14 | May 28, 2009 7:26 PM
Uh oh, (but hey it's not the sun and it's just "weather").
May 29, 2009: An international panel of experts led by NOAA and sponsored by NASA has released a new prediction for the next solar cycle. Solar Cycle 24 will peak, they say, in May 2013 with a below-average number of sunspots.
"If our prediction is correct, Solar Cycle 24 will have a peak sunspot number of 90, the lowest of any cycle since 1928 when Solar Cycle 16 peaked at 78," says panel chairman Doug Biesecker of the NOAA Space Weather Prediction Center.
"It turns out that none of our models were totally correct," says Dean Pesnell of the Goddard Space Flight Center, NASA's lead representative on the panel. "The sun is behaving in an unexpected and very interesting way."
Right now, the solar cycle is in a valley--the deepest of the past century. In 2008 and 2009, the sun set Space Age records for low sunspot counts, weak solar wind, and low solar irradiance. The sun has gone more than two years without a significant solar flare.
"In our professional careers, we've never seen anything quite like it," says Pesnell. "Solar minimum has lasted far beyond the date we predicted in 2007."
Low solar activity has a profound effect on Earth’s atmosphere, allowing it to cool and contract.
====================================================
The National Weather Service has issued a freeze watch for many parts of New York from Sunday through Monday morning, including Oneida County.
Widespread frost and freeze conditions are possible tonight and into early Monday morning.
The region’s low temperature for today is expected to be about 36 degrees, which also is the record low temperature for May 31, according to WKTV meteorologists and weather archives.
Posted by: Paul in MI | May 31, 2009 11:46 AM
Skip,
In regards to the cautionary principle:
What would you have the US and/or the world do?
At what cost?
What would be the result?
Posted by: Paul in MI | May 31, 2009 11:56 AM
It is inevitable that the Earth will be hit by a massive asteroid/comet and that it will be an Extinction Level Event.Therefore we must immediately start constructing hundreds of thousands of huge bunkers worldwide to preserve humankind from destruction.The huge cost of taking these precautions is irrelevant considering the potential destructiveness of this event which WILL happen.
This is the "Precautionary Principle".
Posted by: timwells | June 1, 2009 1:10 AM
Just another update;
It would appear the sun has shattered a new record, this one being the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) it has sunk to a new low, experts believed it would never go below 4 nano teslas however it has dropped to just 1.8.
wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/03/the-interplanetary-magnetic-field-is-at-the-lowest-point-since-1913/#more-8136
Posted by: crakar14 | June 3, 2009 4:56 PM
This article goes a bit depeer in regards to the solar minimum and how it might effect the climate.
icecap.us/images/uploads/SUNSPOT_MINIMUM.pdf
Posted by: crakar14 | June 3, 2009 5:48 PM
Here is a good article
w.w.w.schulphysik.de/klima/landscheidt/iceage.htm
I would like to draw your attention to section 6, in this section Landscheidt correctly predicted a number of weather events one such being El Ninos. I do not beleive a computer model can predict El Ninos whereas Landscheidt did.
How did Landscheidt predict El Ninos? I here you ask. Well he did so by studying the cycles of the sun.
So if the sun causes El Ninos......
Posted by: crakar14 | June 3, 2009 7:05 PM
Crakar and all other elders of Krypton (aka Exxon employees),
The logical fallacy that is common to all denier speak is you take a tiny slice of evidence (high atmosphere temp readings, solar activity, etc.) and you blow it up to say "HA! Your theory is wrong!!" It is not my theory. It is the _conservative_ outcome of 166 nations via the IPCC. These folks are experts, and have spent their life as professional skeptics (this, at the core, is what it means to be a scientist).
No one is denying or doubting or ignoring that the sun is a driver of global temperatures. What the preponderance of evidence shows is that the marginal increase of CO2, caused by humans, is pushing the temperature higher.
If we get a break for the next 24 months or even 5 years because of a strong El Nino or sunspots or the current GLOBAL recession then let us do the prudent and wise thing and reduce our global warming gasses now, while we can have an even bigger impact.
Even if the scientists of the world (experts who have spent their lives doubting global warming and have come to these conclusions anyways) are wrong: Consider health caused problems from pollution, consider that we are funding both sides of the global war on terror by funding our enemies so you can have "cheap" oil.
Consider that peak oil is happening coincident with your solar minimum (causality!?) and that the economic chaos of peak oil, followed quickly (within the natual life of all these babies discussed in this thread) by peak nuke, peak gas and even peak coal.
And tell us, why, why in the world would we not act now, act decisively and act quickly?
As for your bet
1) I've taken the bet - I paid, with no incentives or tax credits, for solar heating of my house and I laugh at the propane truck as it drives by my house and - of course if I lose I still save $100,000s of thousands in fuel costs over my lifetime. That is my kind of bet!
2) How bizarre to want to make this a personal wager - the whole point is we need worldwide action now. It is not some parlor game where the smarter fellow takes home the winnings. It is the future of our race in a world that we recognize (note that the world will do just fine, it is the particular set of species, of which I am a humble member of one and would like to remain here and comfortable...)
Fervently hoping you are right, sadly acknowledging you are not,
Tom
PS - lest you come back and say (essentially) "all your logic is boring! _I_ have presented facts, what about you" - one of your bogus claims is
4, Coral reefs are dying..........WRONG
http://www.globalcoral.org/why_are_coral_reefs_dying.htm
http://www.globalissues.org/article/173/coral-reefs
Both independent sites make the point that coral reefs are dying and that greenhouse gasses are to blaim.
Obviously I could go through and refute each one of your claims, but as Coby stated - you are the denier of the facts and the science, so it is incumbent upon you to state a claim and then a qualified (not a denier site, please!) source for that claim. If you can't - well you can't and that says all that needs to be said.
Posted by: Tom | June 9, 2009 1:10 PM
Hi Tom thanks for the reply, although i did find it hard to follow your post.
I will try to respond to all your points if i omit any please let me know OK.
First of all i do not work for EXXON (wish i did as it would probably pay more than what i get now)
In regards to the sun, the question is have we underestimated its influence? Maybe we have maybe we haven't not enough of the IPCC money has been given to research it.
Is CO2 increases pushing the temps higher? In 30 years the temps have risen slightly which is well within the realms of natural variation. The oceans are cooling so where is all the heat? This question needs to be answered not through irrational responses but through scientific debate.
I think peak oil is a little ways off same as peak gas and peak coal. Peak Nuke is way off in the future, just up the road from me we have massive amounts of uranium so dont worry about that. In regards to pollution i do agree all the above to produce pollution (note CO2 is not a pollutant in this context) with nuke being the worst of all. So yes lets look for other cleaner ways to replace our base load power needs. Unfortunately the current crop of alternatives cannot do this (solar, wind, wave).
Not sure why you referenced Americas global war of terror unless you mean that if the Americans stopped roaming the world killing brown people then they would use less oil, is this what you meant?
You have misunderstood my line about taking bets, the Earth gets its heat from two sources, one from the sun and the other from GHG's (which is kind of the same i know) but if we reduce our GHG's then in theory the Earth will cool, if the sun reduces its intensity (UV,xray,solar wind etc etc) then in theory the Earth will cool.
The sun is reducing its intensity so will the Earth cool? As i said time to place your bets, sorry for the confusion there Tom.
In regards to coral reefs this is a good example as to why there is such a huge debate with AGW, for every link you provide i can provide one that states the opposite.
For example the first link you provide lists many problems caused by man and all very good ones, except the GW one as the oceans are cooling so how could this cause the bleaching?The second site offers more of the same.
By the way Coby has been calling me a denier for sometime now, at the time i was a little upset by the remark but i am over it now. I suggest you come up with a new one, i would much prefer........no i wont say it.
Cheers Tom
Crakar
Posted by: crakar14 | June 9, 2009 7:50 PM
Elder Craker,
(BTW - check out the beginning of the Superman series - the scientists are warning the elders of Krypton of impending doom, they laugh and question the science - and die. Fiction of course, but illuminating of the current "debate").
As I understand the science (I am a plumber by trade, and an economist by education, so I do not profess any special insight into the science, but I know a snowjob when I see it - thus I call you "denier") the sun IS the primary driver of climate. Taken to the extreme, we would be very, very cold should the sun stop shining on our planet.
But the claim is simply that the excess warming of the last century is traceable to excess (human industrial-activity caused) CO2. At various times, for a few years, it is has been obscured by short term dips (and the current period (since 2002??) may be one of those short term temperature dips or flats in a trend of rising temperature).
It is kind of like talking to the smoker who is 102 years old. The preponderance of evidence is that smoking kills you young. Here is a very old person with a life-long smoking habit. Your logic would have you start smoking right away. The science says don't smoke and it also says deal with excess CO2 - NOW.
And it is easy. Just as the hand wringing over reducing acid rain was corporate whining (and not substantiated by the results), now we have the haters and deniers screaming that this will "destroy the economy". Yet the most pessimistic legitimate claims are a 1% reduction in growth in GDP. Recent government financial action (or inaction) caused a what 3%? LOSS in GDP?
We would be smarter to get the government right on financial regulation and let the climatologists run wild with their policy. We could laugh all the way to the (functional) bank.
Now in fact, we will quickly adjust to higher fossil fuel costs and the business and residences will heat and cool their homes from renewable energy and save money and spend their savings and GROW the economy.
Contrary to your claims, solar thermal and wind and PV and the whole class of renewable energy does work, and the more we put into that field, the more we get out (contrast that to fossil fuel - the more you put in, the less you get out). So to suggest they are "not ready", "can't scale" or whatever your poison is on that issue is simply disingenuous.
The area of CO2 reduction that isn't clear is transportation. I think it is clear that Obama's 35MPG will not get anywhere close to what we need. So will we solve that issue with current cycle carbon (algae, biofuels, etc.) Electric cars with longer range? Hydrogen vehicles? Massive change in the suburb system? I don't know. I hope to live long enough to find out.
You claim ocean temperatures are rising. Do the data show this over multiple decades, or multiple years only? I am glad to cede the point that, within the context of global warming, there will be periods of cooling. If that lasts for decades, then you have actual, observational evidence that might be counter to the AGW theory (or maybe it is because all that ice sliding off of Greenland is cooling the oceans?) As I have said I am a plumber, not a climatologist, so please use peer reviewed sources so we don't have to deal with people of questionable integrity.
Peak oil - My sense is that $4/gallon gas actually marked peak oil. Maybe, instead, it will happen in the year 201X - We will know soon enough.
Peak nuke depends on the fuel you use. If it is uranium or thorium - 30 years max. Also, look at the REALITY of the political situation - the vast majority of nukes where built from 1965-85. They are decommissioned at 25 years (shorter life than expected?) to 40 years (MAXIMUM life time). So we would have to have started building nukes about 5 years ago to avoid even a drop in supply from nuke. But we are not building nukes and don't appear to be changing that. So peak nuke is mostly irrelevant.
Once we hit peak oil the other peaks will accelerate as everyone will try to trade into the next cheapest fuel (thus natural gas goes next). All within the lifetime of your children. Even coal, if we are putting the marginal growth of the economy on it, gets used up. Note that peak just means your production is dropping and the economics of it will go crazy. You could still have large amounts of it.
The basic argument underlying my peak XX arguments is that we have drained the large, easy finds first and as we hit diminishing returns on one large field, it takes 2 of the next smaller fields to equal what we were getting from the largest fields, then 4 or 5 of the next level down to match the 2, and so on. We are clearly at diminishing returns on the largest, easiest fields. Are we on the level 2 or level 3? And does it matter? Not much, I claim.
I note that my post is short on sources. You dismissed my last sources without even posting a counter source, lame as it might have been, so I see little incentive for me to go out and trace down all the sources of my information. Also, as a denier of science on a science blog, I am comfortable asking you to supply peer reviewed science to back your claims.
Based on your purported confusion over terrorism I can only assume you enjoy paying the terrorists and the army for the wars for oil and against extremism. Your choice, but a strange one.
Tom
PS - Exxon does not give you any money yet you carry out their work of sowing the seeds of doubt on established science and fact. Just like the tobacco execs in the 60s & 70s - but what is the payoff for you? Your bets? Strikes me as an exercise in trading deck chairs on the titanic. I fear Exxon et al is taking you for a ride.
PPS - I do appreciate your civility, it puts you in a very, very rare class of denier (which is why I am violating my rule of not debating deniers (I don't beat my head against the wall, nor believe in "clean coal" either)). But don't waste your electronic ink if you don't have peer reviewed counters for the climate science (I think a lower bar is reasonable on the peak discussion, as I don't have peer reviewed sources and my claims are far from the accepted view that fossil fuel is virtually unlimited).
Posted by: thoughtful Tom | June 10, 2009 12:50 AM