As I have said before, basic science and liberals, apparently the twain shall never meet. Global warming has sadly been the subject of so much hot air (sorry, I can’t resist) and become so politicized that the subject is now close to religious doctrine. My own personal theory was that since it is the sun’s radiation that powers our climate, it would make sense to study the sun and look at other planets to see if there have been any fluctuations with their weather cycle which would provide evidence on why our own is changing. And not surprisingly, there is some useful data out there that the MSM is conveniently ignoring.
Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says
Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet’s recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced—cause, according to one scientist’s controversial theory.
Earth is currently experiencing rapid warming, which the vast majority of climate scientists says is due to humans pumping huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. (Get an overview: “Global Warming Fast Facts”.)Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures.
In 2005 data from NASA’s Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide “ice caps” near Mars’s south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.
Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg’s Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.
“The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars,” he said.Solar Cycles
Abdussamatov believes that changes in the sun’s heat output can account for almost all the climate changes we see on both planets. Mars and Earth, for instance, have experienced periodic ice ages throughout their histories.
“Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance,” Abdussamatov said. By studying fluctuations in the warmth of the sun, Abdussamatov believes he can see a pattern that fits with the ups and downs in climate we see on Earth and Mars.
the source is here.
And if you think that is a fringe scientist, there is some independent confirmation on his findings.
Mars Ski Report: Snow is Hard, Dense and Disappearing
Mars would make a lousy host for the Winter Olympics. Yes, there’s the lack of air to consider. But more important, Martian snow turns out to be rock hard. Worse, it is melting away at an alarming rate.
In fact, Mars may be in the midst of a period of profound climate change, according to a new study that shows dramatic year-to-year losses of snow at the south pole.
It is not yet clear, though, if the evidence of a single year’s change represents a trend. But the study provides a surprising new view of the nature of the southern ice cap, said Michael Caplinger of Malin Space Science Systems.
the source is here.
And this is from NASA itself.
Mars is Melting
The south polar ice cap of Mars is receding, revealing frosty mountains, rifts and curious dark spots. It’s not every day you get to watch a planetary ice cap vanish, but this month you can. All you need are clear skies, a backyard telescope, and a sky map leading to Mars.
the source is here.
Now since Al Gore did not fund this study, liberals will question it. But if there is some proof of changes in the Sun’s output and changes in other planetary climates that match our own, then the facts strongly suggest global warming is a natural phenomenon. It might be best to take a detour and review some basic science first.
Global Warming and Basic Science.
Curt at Flopping Aces has covered the story regarding bad temperature data from Hansen’s Y2K error and the change in the U.S. leader-board. However, there is a more basic error with the global warming cult that I would like to address. Remember the dire predictions for Europe following Chernobyl and the Iraqi oil fires causing a nuclear winter? All were in error. The fallout area in Chernobyl was much, much less then predicted and the suggestion by Carl Sagan that the Iraqi oil fires would generate a small scale nuclear winter was an embarrassing blunder. Why did intelligent men commit such major errors? One, they drifted outside of their error of expertise. For instance, a man who designed nuclear bombs may not be the best scientist to predict fallout. The second area is that they allowed science to become politicized. Thus, it was no longer science.
This politicization has allowed the liberals to miss some basic points about the climate. First of all, what drives the climate?
What causes the Earth’s climate to change?
Climate change is complex—there are many dynamics involved. A major factor may be the relationship between the Earth and the Sun.
Astronomer Milutin Milankovitch (1879 – 1958) studied the variations in the shape of the Earth’s orbit around the Sun and the tilt of the Earth’s axis. He theorized that these cyclical changes and the interactions among them were responsible for long-term climate changes.
Milankovitch studied three factors:
1. Changes in the tilt of the Earth’s axis;
2. Variations in the shape of the Earth’s orbit around the Sun; and
3. Precession: changes in how the tilt of the axis is oriented in relation to the orbit.
the source is here.
The episodic nature of the Earth’s glacial and interglacial periods within the present Ice Age (the last couple of million years) have been caused primarily by cyclical changes in the Earth’s circumnavigation of the Sun. Variations in the Earth’s eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession comprise the three dominant cycles, collectively known as the Milankovitch Cycles for Milutin Milankovitch, the Serbian astronomer who is generally credited with calculating their magnitude. Taken in unison, variations in these three cycles creates alterations in the seasonality of solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface. These times of increased or decreased solar radiation directly influence the Earth’s climate system, thus impacting the advance and retreat of Earth’s
the source is here.
Finally how these facts never make Al Gore’s talking points. But of course there may be a simpler explanation for climate change. It is not the rotation or aix or orbit around the Sun, it may be the Sun itself.
Sun’s Output Increasing in Possible Trend Fueling Global Warming
In what could be the simplest explanation for one component of global warming, a new study shows the Sun’s radiation has increased by .05 percent per decade since the late 1970s.
The increase would only be significant to Earth’s climate if it has been going on for a century or more, said study leader Richard Willson, a Columbia University researcher also affiliated with NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
The Sun’s increasing output has only been monitored with precision since satellite technology allowed necessary observations. Willson is not sure if the trend extends further back in time, but other studies suggest it does.
“This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change,” Willson said.In a NASA-funded study recently published in Geophysical Research Letters, Willson and his colleagues speculate on the possible history of the trend based on data collected in the pre-satellite era.
“Solar activity has apparently been going upward for a century or more,” Willson told SPACE.com today.
The source is here.
So, in another words, climatology is a subject better left for astronomers then biologists and environmentalists. Thus environmentalists may not be the best scientist to predict climate change. But it actually gets more confusing then this, as plate tectonics may also play a hand in climate change.
So the Changes in the tilt of the Earth’s axis, Variations in the shape of the Earth’s orbit, Precession, plate tectonics, a change in the Sun’s output, (words liberals never use in any of their articles) and co2 emissions all may play a part in the earth’s climate. But according to the liberals, it is all man made CO2 emissions and it is all proven.
Stick with one factor, ignore all the others, and beat the hell out of anyone who disagrees.
That is Al Gore. That is liberal science. And this is the biggest scientific hoax in a very long time. And that is what you get when you allow science to be politicized.
If the Sun’s output is increasing and at the same time Mars and Earth’s polar icecaps are both shrinking, then the most likely conclusion is Global Warming is a NATURAL phenomenon., unless you think there are Martains with SUV’s and Humvees. What does the climate do? It changes. That is what it is suppose to do. What is our Sun? It is a variable star. What does that mean? That its luminosity and thus it’s output varies, as most stars do. I find it amusing many of global warming’ s biggest defenders question the intelligence of it’s detractors when it is readily apparent to me that it’s defenders are the ones that need to brush up on their basic science (or not have allowed their science to become politicized.) For when you pick the data to support your conclusion, as opposed to the other way around, you have left the path of science. Perhaps human activity plays a small past. (Thought I think not, and I hope it might be possible to measure the rate of shrinkage between the two planetary icecaps and looking for correlations and thus test this theory.) However, to say global warming is an entirely man made phenomenon is entirely disingenuous. One thing is for certain though, it is utterly impossible to stop climate change, as the one thing the climate does do is change. To think otherwise is just scientific ignorance.
In short, in my opinion, global warming is real and an entirely natural phenomenon due to changes in the Sun’s output that we have little to no control over. And I am not willing to destroy our economy over a natural phenomenon. But others have other ideas.
Bill Clinton: “We Just Have to Slow Down Our Economy” to Fight Global Warming
Readers will recall that we’ve warned time and again that global warming alarmist’s first target is the U.S. economy.
Here’s more proof in a report from ABC’s Jake Tapper:
January 31, 2008 9:26 AM
Former President Bill Clinton was in Denver, Colorado, stumping for his wife yesterday.
In a long, and interesting speech, he characterized what the U.S. and other industrialized nations need to do to combat global warming this way: “We just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions ’cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren.”
At a time that the nation is worried about a recession is that really the characterization his wife would want him making? “Slow down our economy”?
I don’t really think there’s much debate that, at least initially, a full commitment to reduce greenhouse gases would slow down the economy….So was this a moment of candor?
Save the planet so our grandchildren can live in poverty? Is that the deal? Clinton went on to talk about how other countries would have to join us in this effort, but do we really believe that nation’s like China, Brazil and Mexico will all of a sudden begin start living up to the international agreements they sign?
And of course we know that GOP candidate McCain is also an adherent to the global baloney frenzy.
From Flopping Aces.
What I am annoyed with is that the scientific community has allowed itself to become politicized and thus may be missing some important data on our climate. are not mutually exclusive concepts.But the blame America first crowd once again shows they lack any ability to think outside of current liberal thought.
The danger here is not just that by focusing on just CO2 emissions and burning at the stake anyone who disagrees we may be missing other important signs concerning our climate, but that real danger is that the scientific community will continue to be politicized and will give us more global warming, nuclear winters, and other ideas that are based more on politics then science.
What we need is real, un-politicized science, not this.
And hell, not even all the scientists agree.
The “Consensus” On Global Warming Inside the IPCC Report
With MSM reports coming out daily like “Walruses Die; Global Warming Blamed“, “Global Warming “Tipping Points” Reached, Scientist Says” or my favorite “Small group of US experts insist global warming not man-made” it’s little wonder many believe in the hoax known as man-made global warming. Especially in light of the new IPCC research.Of course if you look hard enough at the IPCC you will find a particular fact thats been overlooked. There is no consensus on the man-made baloney:
An example of rampant misrepresentation of IPCC reports is the frequent assertion that ‘hundreds of IPCC scientists’ are known to support the following statement, arguably the most important of the WG I report, namely “Greenhouse gas forcing has very likely caused most of the observed global warming over the last 50 years.”
In total, only 62 scientists reviewed the chapter in which this statement appears, the critical chapter 9, “Understanding and Attributing Climate Change”. Of the comments received from the 62 reviewers of this critical chapter, almost 60% of them were rejected by IPCC editors. And of the 62 expert reviewers of this chapter, 55 had serious vested interest, leaving only seven expert reviewers who appear impartial.
Two of these seven were contacted by NRSP for the purposes of this article – Dr. Vincent Gray of New Zealand and Dr. Ross McKitrick of the University of Guelph, Canada. Concerning the “Greenhouse gas forcing statement above, Professor McKitrick explained “A categorical summary statement like this is not supported by the evidence in the IPCC WG I report. Evidence shown in the report suggests that other factors play a major role in climate change, and the specific effects expected from greenhouse gases have not been observed.”
Dr. Gray labeled the WG I statement as “Typical IPCC doubletalk” asserting “The text of the IPCC report shows that this is decided by a guess from persons with a conflict of interest, not from a tested model.”
Determining the level of support expressed by reviewers’ comments is subjective but a slightly generous evaluation indicates that just five reviewers endorsed the crucial ninth chapter. Four had vested interests and the other made only a single comment for the entire 11-chapter report. The claim that 2,500 independent scientist reviewers agreed with this, the most important statement of the UN climate reports released this year, or any other statement in the UN climate reports, is nonsense.
So it appears that this “consensus” is really seven impartial scientists, and even one of those called the assertion by the IPCC that greenhouse gases have caused most of the global warming “doubletalk”. Now that is something the environazi’s should hang their hat on.
Sigh….
And then no one noticed the letter sent to Ban Ki-Moon signed by 100 scientists which said the following:
It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation.
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC’s conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.
Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity’s real and pressing problems.
No, the MSM missed that one in their zeal to help their compatriots on the left push through agendas that ultimately lead to Socialism::
“The media obsession has been on the efforts of delegates at the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change conference to craft an agreement for a climate treaty that would take effect after the Kyoto Treaty expires in 2011.
Though it appeared the meeting would end with no deal, the delegates looked to be near a compromise late Friday. That treaty is likely to be as effective as the useless, symbolic Kyoto protocol with which no nation has yet complied.
A day earlier, however, a panel at the IPCC conference titled “A Global CO2 Tax” took a step that will have a more lasting impact than an empty agreement. It urged the U.N. to adopt taxes on carbon dioxide emissions that would be “legally binding to all nations.” And guess who would be hit the hardest? That’s right, the tax, if levied, would put an especially high burden on the U.S.
“Finally, someone will pay for these costs” related to global warming, Othmar Schwank, a global warming busybody from Switzerland, told Sen. James Inhofe’s office. We imagine Schwank, a panel participant, took great glee in saying the U.S. and other developed nations should “contribute significantly more to this global fund.”
And now you see the real agenda by our environazi’s……Socialism:
The driving force of the environmental movement is not a cleaner planet — or a world that doesn’t get too hot, in the case of the global warming issue — but a leftist, egalitarian urge to redistribute wealth. A CO2 tax does this and more, choking economic growth in the U.S. and punishing Americans for being the voracious consumers that we are.
Eco-activists have been so successful in distracting the public from their real intentions that they’re becoming less guarded in discussing their ultimate goal.
“A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources,” Emma Brindal, a “climate justice campaign coordinator” for Friends of the Earth Australia, wrote Wednesday on the Climate Action Network’s blog.”
My favorite:
“When the chips are down I think democracy is a less important goal than is the protection of the planet from the death of life, the end of life on it,” he says. “This has got to be imposed on people whether they like it or not.”
Long live freedom! As long as your doing and paying what we tell you.
The source is here.
If the liberals would simple read and research things on their own as opposed as letting someone else think for them then some of these facts might be better known to the general public. But alas, the essence of liberalism is groupthink. But I for one am not willing to destroy our economy and put hundreds of thousands or even worse, millions out of work because of bad politics and poor science. It is a natural phenomenon. It is that simple.
UPDATE
Update: Looks like I got sloppy on one thing. Jake Tapper took the Clinton Quote out of context. The full quote is this:
“And maybe America, and Europe, and Japan, and Canada — the rich counties [sic] — would say, “OK, we just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions ’cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren.” We could do that. But if we did that, you know as well as I do, China and India and Indonesia and Vietnam and Mexico and Brazil and the Ukraine, and all the other countries will never agree to stay poor to save the planet for our grandchildren. The only way we can do this is if we get back in the world’s fight against global warming and prove it is good economics that we will create more jobs to build a sustainable economy that saves the planet for our children and grandchildren. It is the only way it will work.”
Sorry about the error.
Blogs at Orbys.net
Fantasyland? Not a scientific source? The source was NASA. And again, you either did not get what I said or are choosing to ignore what I said, as you are for the most part ignoring most of the points that I just made. Reread what I just said, and when you make an intelligent rebuttal to what I said as opposed your your one tired argument you have already used, I will reply.
You are just making yourself look stupid, Steve.
You are combining multiple measurements and variations in solar energy reaching the Earth’s surface. And cherry picking preliminary data and declaring it to be absolute fact to pretend that Global Warming is either not taking place, is not influenced by human activity, or will be inconsequential.
Two of the factors are listed below: The “TSI” measurements point to a slight increase in solar energy that would have to continue for another century to have any significant effect. The Milankovitch cycle is actually trending the other way, toward a cooler earth (over the next 20,000 years).
And we have the 11-year sunspot cycle that can increase or decreased the amount of energy reaching the Earth’s surface.
However other factors include:
The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (the more there is, the less energy the earth re-radiates out into space, meaning that even with reduced energy fro the sun, the earth will grow warmer)
The amount of ice/snow cover in the Arctic/Antarctica. Because the “white” ice reflects more solar radiation into space, less solar radiation is absorbed. For example the speed of Arctic ice melting is going even faster than models predicted because, instead of “white” ice floating in the ocean to reflect sunlight back into space, we now have darker water, which is absorbing more solar radiation and warming the ocean (and melting the ice) even faster.
Even if you do succeed in stalling any action, the Earth will continue to warm up. And the consequences (as I posted many posts ago) will be expensive, both in terms of money to ameliorate the damage and deal with the worldwide dislocations.
Playing “let’s pretend nothing is happening” and “anyone who wants to do something must be bad” may make for great fun in Conservative circles. However it is not serving the long term interests of our country, or humanity in general.
I’ll continue to review scientific papers and information. You can continue to get your science from Rush Limbaugh and James Inhofe.
http://www.cotf.edu/ete/modules/carbon/efculprits3.html
All three of these effects cause little change in the annual amount of solar energy reaching Earth. Their effect is to change the contrast between the seasons. Milutin Milankovitch, a Yugoslavian astronomer, plotted out these three changes to Earth’s orbital geometry. He found that these changes were closely associated with changes in climate. In other words, over periods of tens of thousands of years Earth’s climate is controlled by these variations in orbital geometry. Based on the Milankovitch cycle, the trend for the next 20,000 years is for a cooler climate with extensive glaciation in the Northern Hemisphere.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html
Large-scale ocean and climate variations on Earth can also mask long-term trends and can make it difficult to sort out what is normal, what is unusual, and which effects might or might not result from shifts in solar radiation.
To get above all this, scientists rely on measurements of total solar energy, at all wavelengths, outside Earth’s atmosphere. The figure they derive is called Total Solar Irradiance (TSI).
Heating up
The new study shows that the TSI has increased by about 0.1 percent over 24 years. That is not enough to cause notable climate change, Willson and his colleagues say, unless the rate of change were maintained for a century or more.
On time scales as short as several days, the TSI can vary by 0.2 percent due to the number and size of sunspots crossing the face of the Sun. That shift, said to be insignificant to weather, is however equal to the total amount of energy used by humans, globally, for a year, the researchers estimate.
The study analyzed data from six satellites orbiting Earth at different times over the 24 years. Willson ferreted out errors in one of the datasets that had prevented previous studies from discovering the trend.
A separate recent study of Sun-induced magnetic activity near Earth, going back to 1868, provides compelling evidence that the Sun’s current increase in output goes back more than a century, Willson said.
He said firm conclusions about whether the present changes involve a long-term trend or a relatively brief aberration should come with continued monitoring into the next solar minimum, expected around 2006.
never said that, don’t lie….
I got it from NASA, ass, stop lying and misrepresenting me, and I will stop name calling…..
Nope: Wrong again Steve……
In what could be the simplest explanation for one component of global warming, a new study shows the Sun’s radiation has increased by .05 percent per decade since the late 1970s.The increase would only be significant to Earth’s climate if it has been going on for a century or more, said study leader Richard Willson, a Columbia University researcher also affiliated with NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
I already said most of this…do you not read what you comment on???….and considering you once again ignore most of my arguments in the work, I will continue to make fun of you and not treat you seriously.
That is funny. Lets see what you have ignored….Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called “consensus” on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore…..
and you have ignored a good portion of the points I made,,,,
..oh, and you just about ignored most of the rest of the arguments too.
notice you have not really debunked this:
as I said, you are a joke. If you want to be treated seriously, stop ignoring certain facts, stop lying, and debate me point by point..
Re: “That is funny. Lets see what you have ignored….Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called “consensus” on man-made global warming.”
“Voicing objections”, especially in a political document is not science, it is political propoganda. Where are their physical experiments and data?
The average global temperatore is increasing.
The polar ice caps are melting.
If (when) the ice sheets in Greenland and South Pole melt, ocean levels will rise significantly.
Increased carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, resulting from combustion, will retain heat and accelerate global warming.
Try pasting those “testimonials” all over the place. Perhaps they will convince the earth’s atmosphere not to warm up: That appears to be the Conservative mind set: Declaring something to be true from FoxNews autmatically makes it so.
Steve,
The Earth has been warmer than it is today. Vikings had colonies on Greenland. Cities were not swamped in Europe when this happened.
You are slipping into that “Conservative mind set: Declaring something to be true from FoxNews autmatically makes it so” mindset again. I have to wonder if you lost an arguement with a family member again and are taking it out on us as Robert has cited physical experiments and accurate data (which replaced the corrupted data found on many monitoring stations).
Remember I could just as easily state “Voicing opions not backed up by sound data”, especially in a political document is not science, it is political propoganda. Where are their replicatable physical experiments and verifiable, non-corrupted data?
And then I could say That appears to be the Leftist mind set: Declaring something to be true from Al Gore autmatically makes it so.
More and more scentists are breaking from the multi-billion dollar industry/religion of “man-made” global warming and the trend will most likely continue (unless the threat of jail for the us dissenters is followed through). Like the “new Ice Age”, continued, replicatable experiments may make “man made” global warming go the way of the Flat Earth theory (though that is still followed in some Islamic areas). The Earth may be slowly warming, as it has every few thousand years, but humans have little impact on it. CO2 is a poor heat retention gas. Water Vapor is much more effective.
Conservatives do not go out destroying the environment, despite the insane charges the environmentalists seem to take from watching Captain Planet. However, this chicken little doom and gloom from the left is getting tiring, especially since, like most every other doomsday prediction, it falls flat and then is changed to fit new occurances (was global cooling, but is now global warming). The only doomsday prediction which holds water is that in a far disant future, the sun will expand to engulf the Earth in fire.
So if 100 scientists do not agree with you, it is politicial progaganda….??? what a stupid statement……Using that thought process, ANY disagreement from the norm can thus be considered political propaganda. So I guess your MBA makes you more qualified then those 100 scientists and thus able to dismiss their objections?
definitely Manbearpig CentFla i cant think of anything else it could possibly be
Whew, isn’t this a trip back in time. I will take this opportunity to hope all is going well for CentFla, miss him.
Don’t give up hope for CentFL yet, Missy. Not gone… just relocated. Perhaps he’ll return with a new “handle”.
BTW… not sure the above comment by “al gore” isn’t stealth “spam”… but letting it go.