Categories
Climate Change

What if the sun got stuck?

We’re heading into a new [little] ice age!”. This meme is a favourite of the denialosphere, I suppose because it is considered by them to be the ultimate counter to global warming. An inactive sun is fingered as the potential culprit in this alternative-universe prognostication hypothesis. But just how likely is such solar-driven cooling? What if the sun really did shut off its 11-year sunspot cycle for some reason, and move into a new extended (multi-decadal) period of low activity like was observed during the Maunder Minimum – would this be sufficient to offset the warming induced by an increased build-up of long-lived greenhouse gases from recent human industrial output and land use change?

The basic answer (“no, an inactive sun will not cause an ice age“) is actually remarkably easy to demonstrate. Jim Hansen did this recently in his occasional blog. This ‘trip report’ (printable PDF) covers a wide range of topics – why coal is the climate lynchpin, what industrial nations are (not) doing, what palaeoclimate tells us about climate sensitivity, and the prospects for fourth-generation nuclear power – and is worth reading for all of these gems. But given the prevalance with which the ice age meme appears in non-greenhouse theorist Op-Eds these days, I’ll reproduce his section on solar forcing here in full:

—————————

Figure 4. Seasonal-mean global and low-latitude surface temperature, based on an update of the analysis of Hansen et al. (J. Geophys. Res. 106, 23947, 2001).
Figure 4. Seasonal-mean global and low-latitude surface temperature, based on an update of the analysis of Hansen et al. (J. Geophys. Res. 106, 23947, 2001).

Temperature and Solar Data (extract from Hansen 2008: Trip Report, p11-14)

Figure 4 updates global and low latitude temperature at seasonal resolution. Red rectangles, blue semi-circles and green triangles at the bottom of the plot show the timing of El Ninos, La Ninas and large volcanic eruptions. Oscillation from El Ninos to La Ninas is the main cause of the big fluctuations of low latitude temperature. These fluctuations are also apparent, albeit muted, in the global mean temperature change.

The most recent few seasons (Figure 4) have been cool relative to the previous five years, on average ~0.25°C cooler. If one takes the recent peak (early 2007) and recent low point (early 2008), the change is about -0.5°C. This drop is the source of recent contrarian assertions that all global warming of the past century has been lost and the world is now headed into an ice age. Figure 4 reveals that it is silly to use a peak and valley as an indication of the trend. Peak to valley drops and rises of 0.3-0.5°C in seasonal mean temperature anomalies are common (Figure 4), usually associated with ENSO (El Nino Southern Oscillation) fluctuations.

The recent La Nina was strong, but tropical temperatures in mid-2008 have returned nearly to ENSO neutral conditions and global temperature is heading back to the high level of the past few years. The low temperatures in the first half of 2008 lead us to estimate that the mean 2008 global temperature will be perhaps in the range about 10th to 15th warmest year in our record.

A majority of the critical e-mails asserted emphatically that global temperature change is due mainly to solar changes, not human-made effects. They also state or imply that, because of ongoing solar changes, the Earth is entering a long-term cooling period (following the warming of the past 30 years, which they presume to be due to increases of solar energy). One e-mail virtually shouted: “THE SUN IS GOING OUT!”

Figure 5. Comparison of the sun at solar minimum (right side, July 2008) and at solar maximum (left, August 2002) as seen in extreme ultraviolet light from SOHO (Solar Heliospheric Observatory). Active regions during solar maximum are producing a number of solar storms. The sun in 2008 is quiet, with no active regions, part of the normal 11-year solar cycle.
Figure 5. Comparison of the sun at solar minimum (right side, July 2008) and at solar maximum (left, August 2002) as seen in extreme ultraviolet light from SOHO (Solar Heliospheric Observatory). Active regions during solar maximum are producing a number of solar storms. The sun in 2008 is quiet, with no active regions, part of the normal 11-year solar cycle.

Images from SOHO (Figure 5) might be the basis for that conclusion. The sun is inactive at the present, at a minimum of the normal ~11 year solar cycle. The solar cycle has a measureable effect on the amount of solar energy received by Earth (Figure 6). The amplitude of solar cycle variations is about 1 W/m2 at the Earth’s distance from the sun, a bit less than 0.1% of the ~1365 W/m2 of energy passing through an area oriented perpendicular to the Earth-sun direction.

The Earth absorbs ~235 W/m2, of solar energy, averaged over the Earth’s surface. So climate forcing due to change from solar minimum to solar maximum is about ¼ W/m2. If equilibrium climate sensitivity is 3°C for doubled CO2 (¾°C per W/m2), the expected equilibrium response to this solar forcing is ~0.2°C. However, because of the ocean’s thermal inertia less than half of the equilibrium response would be expected for a cyclic forcing with ~11 year period. Thus the expected global-mean transient response to the solar cycle is less than or approximately 0.1°C.

Is there some way that the small variations of energy coming from the sun could be amplified, so that the ‘solar exponents’ are actually correct and the sun is driving our climate changes? There are indirect effects of solar variability, e.g., solar radiation varies most at ultraviolet wavelengths that affect ozone. Indeed, empirical data on ozone change with the solar cycle and climate model studies indicate that induced ozone changes amplify the direct solar forcing (J. Geophys. Res. 102, 6831, 1997; ibid 106, 77193, 2001), but the amplification is by a factor of one-third or less.

Other mechanisms to amplify the solar forcing have been hypothesized, such as induced changes of atmospheric condensation nuclei and thus changes of cloud cover. However, if such mechanisms were effective, then an 11-year signal should appear in temperature observations (Figure 4). In fact a very weak solar signal in global temperature has been found by many investigators, but only of the magnitude (~0.1°C or less) expected due to the direct solar forcing. So the sun is only a minor contributor to the temperature fluctuations in Figure 4.

The possibility remains that the sun could be an important cause of climate change on longer time scales. (The source of nuclear energy at the sun’s core is essentially continuous, in fact increasing at a rate of about 1% in 100 million years, which is a negligible rate of change for our purposes. But the photosphere, the upper layers of the sun, can slightly impede or speed the emission of energy as the strength of magnetic fields fluctuates.) Perhaps the normal solar cycle evidenced in Figure 6 is about to be interrupted. Sunspots seemed to nearly disappear for a long period in the 17th century, which may have contributed (along with volcanic eruptions) to the “little ice age”. And the current solar minimum is already longer than the previous two (Figure 6). Perhaps the e-mailer who shouted “THE SUN IS GOING OUT!” is correct!

//www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant)
Figure 6. Solar irradiance from composite of several satellite-measured time series based on Frohlich & Lean (1998; http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant)

Fortunately, we can compare quantitatively the climate forcing due to the sun (if its irradiance does not recover from its present minimum) and the forcing due to human-made greenhouse gases. Solar irradiance seems to be slightly less at its current minimum than in earlier minima (Figure 6), but, at most, the decrease from the mean irradiance of recent decades is ~0.1% yielding a climate forcing of about -0.2 W/m2. The current rate of atmospheric CO2 increase is ~2 ppm/year, yielding an annual increase of climate forcing of about +0.03 W/m2 per year.

Thus if the sun remains “out”, i.e., stuck for a long period in the current solar minimum, it can offset only about 7 years of CO2 increase. The human-made greenhouse gas climate forcing is now relentlessly, monotonically, increasing at a rate that overwhelms variability of natural climate forcings. Unforced variability of global temperature is great, as shown in Figure 4, but the global temperature trend on decadal and longer time scales is now determined by the larger human-made climate forcing. Speculation that we may have entered a solar-driven long-term cooling trend must be dismissed as a pipe-dream.

—————————

Another good read which explains the solar cycle is this news feature from NASA, which shows that there is nothing particularly remarkable about the current solar cycle, and so there is no reasonable expectation that we are heading into a new Maunder Minimum anyway.

Add to FacebookAdd to NewsvineAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to Ma.gnoliaAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Furl

By Barry Brook

Barry Brook is an ARC Laureate Fellow and Chair of Environmental Sustainability at the University of Tasmania. He researches global change, ecology and energy.

239 replies on “What if the sun got stuck?”

Slumdank.

The only fraud is what Pachauri, Hansen, Gore and their buddies are seeking to impose on uniformed people. Carter, even if he is a fraud, pales in comparison.

1) What is your evidence for the former?

Do you understand that without solid evidence, and if you weren’t such an insignificant squib, your libel could be challenged in court?

2) How can Carter’s putative fraud possible be justified by anyone else’s (just as putative) fraud?

You really have no idea about science, do you?

Like

Slumdank

If Americans understood what is going on behind the not-so-hallowed walls of the IPCC, there would be a revolution.

What exactly is it that ‘is going on behind the not-so-hallowed walls of the IPCC’? Where is your evidence?

And why refer to ‘Americans’? The US is merely one country amongst hundreds around the world. Why do so many of its citizens, yourself included it seems, persist in the wrong-headed notion that they are special? Like it or not, you are a part of the global village and it is time that you learned not to put yourself above other countries.

And it is past time that you learned that the US doesn not equal the world.

Although having said that, I suppose that in some ways you are ‘special’… I don’t know too many other supposedly educated nations where around half the population subscribes to a creation myth that essentially says that the planet, and the life upon it, was created in seven days 6000 years ago by a guy with a long white beard.

My more enlightened US friends are perpetually chagrined by the intellectual dwarfism that seems to afflict so many of their countrymen (and women).

This thread has managed to tip 200 posts so far, without a shred of defensible evidence from you. What are you trying to achieve? Whatever it is, I doubt that it is working, because you flounder from presenting bad crap to presenting ever worse crap in your efforts to make your, um, ‘case’.

Please, if there is one person who has read this thread and has been in the least pursuaded by Slumdank’s bizarre claims, please decloak and explain to the rest of us why he is at all convincing. And sock-puppets beware – there are more than a few noses here…

Like

Chris O’Neill Says:
4 October 2008 at 21.36

The UAH, GISS, RSS and Hadley charts do not say there has been no warming at the surface since 1979. Can you do better than bring up a strawman?

Slam: I never said those charts had anything to do with 1979.

You used them in replying to me and that’s what I was talking about.

Slam: Not what I was talking about. Develope a greater attention span.

The fraud you fail to realize was perpetrated by Carter as I pointed out in #161 and #163.

Slam: The only fraud is

So Carter perpetrates a cold-blooded fraud

Slam: you mean like Mann, Wahl, Ammann, Gore, IPCC, etc. Fraud should be redefined to include them.

and all you can do is be sucked in by it and be sucked in by the likes of John Mclean.

Slam: Is this how deniers respond when truth hits close to the bone?

We know all about John Mclean. He’s a careless fraud and a nutcase.

Slam: O the sting of Truth:)

Like

Bernard J. Says:
4 October 2008 at 22.51

Slamdunk.

You are nursing a pathological desire for reality to be other than what it is…

nite, nite Bernie.

Like

Chris O’Neill Says:
4 October 2008 at 22.49

Lindzen (who is not serious when discussing global warming) was not talking about surface temperature. Looks like Slamdunk has been sucked in again.

Slam: Lindzen is one of the world’s premier scientists in his field. If you really think he’s not serious, you need to understand that it is your denial of what GW is really all about that makes you say this about him and others.

and Fred Singer:
“Satellite data show no appreciable warming of the global atmosphere since 1979.”
http://www.nationalcenter.org/KyotoSingerTestimony2000.html

For a start, the satellite derivation in 2000 upon which that testimony was based was seriously flawed. Second, as with Lindzen, Singer was not talking about surface temperature. Looks like Slamdunk has been sucked in again.

Slam: You would have to talk to them about that. Regardless where it was, what little global warming there was over the past cnetury, it is no longer, cooling has begun and no one has ever presented any proof that man made CO2 drove the temperatures up 0.74C.

I don’t know what it will take to get you guys to see that GW is perhaps the greatest fraud ever since it involves the world, or as John Coleman said, “Scam.” That’s what you need to concentrate on. Start educating yourselves. It’s all out there.

“‘Global warming’ is sub-prime science, sub-prime economics, and sub-prime politics, and it could well go down with the sub-prime mortgage.” (Phillip Stott)

and John Christy and Roy Spencer:
“In 1989, Dr. Roy Spencer and Dr. John Christy developed a global temperature data set from satellite microwave data beginning in 1979, which showed little or no warming above the surface.”
http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=415

“above” the surface meaning…where exactly? Certainly not the surface. Looks like Slamdunk has been sucked in again.

Slam: Deal with 0.74C temp rise over a hundred years with no proof that CO2 drove it up. Of course, most of us know that it was natural and cyclical. Why do you think a global carbon tax should be assessed on such a small natural rise in temperature and with no climate crisis to show for it?

Would you like to find out what else has sucked you in?

Slam: The Great Suck is about to be foisted on the world by a universal carbon tax to pay on something that doesn’t exist. Coleman is right: SCAM!!!!

Like

Bernard J. Says:
4 October 2008 at 23.29

Please, if there is one person who has read this thread and has been in the least pursuaded by Slumdank’s bizarre claims, please decloak and explain to the rest of us why he is at all convincing.

Slam: Many of us are up to your schemes:) I’m not sure where you fall in among the following, but I suspect it’s socialism/global governance. (Solinsky, Hillary and all the other global villagers). And as Charles Chirac said, Kyoto is the path to it.

CHICKEN LITTLE – History’s first environmental alarmist:
“Oh my goodness!” The sky is falling!”

JOHN HOUGHTON- First co-chair of the IPCC and lead editor of the first three Reports.
“Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen. The impacts of global warming are like a weapon of mass destruction.”

AL GORE – Former Vice President
“Nuclear war is an apocalyptic subject, and so is global environmental destruction… We must sound the alarm loudly and clearly of imminent and grave danger.”

“The leading experts predict that we have less than 10 years to make dramatic changes in our global warming pollution lest we lose our ability to ever recover from this environmental crisis.” (7-17-08)

JUDI BARI – Earth First
“I think if we don’t overthrow capitalism, we don’t have a chance of saving the world ecologically. I think it is possible to have an ecological society under socialism. I don’t think it’s possible under capitalism.”

MAURICE STRONG – One of the world’s leading environmentalists. Secretary General of both the 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, which launched the world environment movement, and the 1992 Earth Summit and first Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Strong has played a critical role is globalizing the environmental movement.

“What if a small group of these world leaders were to conclude that the principle risk to the earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment? Will they do it? Will the rich countries agree to reduce their impact on the environment? Will they agree to save the earth? The group’s conclusions is ‘no.’ The rich countries won’t do it. They won’t change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilization collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”

MARGARET WALLSTROM, EU Environment Commissioner,
Kyoto is “about leveling the playing field for big businesses worldwide.”

TIMOTHY WIRTH – U.S. Undersecretary of State for Global Issues
“We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”

RICHARD BENEDICK – Deputy assistant secretary of the U.S. State Department who headed policy divisions of the Department.
“A global warming treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the [enhanced] greenhouse effect.”

STEPHEN SCHNEIDER – AGW advocate, Discover Magazine Oct. 1989
“We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”

CHRISTINE STEWART – Former Canadian Minister of the Environment
“No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits… Climate change provides the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

In Their Own Words – Policy

In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill … All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.

– Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution, consultants to the UN.

Confronted with the Apocalypse, humanity cannot self-destruct. It may be a difficult road, but we can be sure that the vast majority will not commit social and ecological suicide to enable the minority to preserve their privileges. However it is achieved, a thorough reorganisation of production, consumption and distribution will be the end result of humanity’s response to the climate emergency and the broader environmental crisis.

-Walden Bello, Bangkok Post, 29 March 2008

The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.

– Emeritus Professor Daniel Botkin

We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis…

– David Rockefeller, Club of Rome executive member

We are close to a time when all of humankind will envision a global agenda that encompasses a kind of Global Marshall Plan to address the causes of poverty and suffering and environmental destruction all over the earth.

– Al Gore, from Earth in Balance

We need a new paradigm of development in which the environment will be a priority… World civilization as we know it will soon end… We have very little time and we must act… If we can address the environmental problem, it will have to be done within a new system, a new paradigm. We have to change our mindset, the way humankind views the world.

– Mikhail Gorbachev, State of the World Forum

The concept of national sovereignty has been immutable, indeed a sacred principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation.

– UN Commission for Global Governance report (1999)

Democracy is not a panacea. It cannot organize everything and it is unaware of its own limits. These facts must be faced squarely. Sacrilegious though this may sound, democracy is no longer well suited for the tasks ahead. The complexity and the technical nature of many of today’s problems do not always allow elected representatives to make competent decisions at the right time.

Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution

The emerging ‘environmentalization’ of our civilization and the need for vigorous action in the interest of the entire global community will inevitably have multiple political consequences. Perhaps the most important of them will be a gradual change in the status of the United Nations. Inevitably, it must assume some aspects of a world government.

– Mikhail Gorbachev, Club of Rome member, State of the World Forum, 1996

A New World Order is required to deal with the Climate Change crisis.

– Gordon Brown, British Prime Minister

In my view, after fifty years of service in the United Nations system, I perceive the utmost urgency and absolute necessity for proper Earth government. There is no shadow of a doubt that the present political and economic systems are no longer appropriate and will lead to the end of life evolution on this planet. We must therefore absolutely and urgently look for new ways.

– Dr Robert Muller, UN Assistant Secretary General

Regionalism must precede globalism. We foresee a seamless system of governance from local communities, individual states, regional unions and up through to the United Nations itself.

– UN Commission for Global Governance report (1999)

Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level.

– excerpt, UN Agenda 21

The current course of development is thus clearly unsustainable. Current problems cannot be solved by piecemeal measures. More of the same is not enough. Radical change from the current trajectory is not an option, but an absolute necessity. Fundamental economic, social and cultural changes that address the root causes of poverty and environmental degradation are required and they are required now.

– from the Earth Charter website

Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about?

– Maurice Strong, former Secretary General of UNEP

I envisage the prinicles of the Earth Charter to be a new form of the ten commandments. They lay the foundation for a sustainable global earth community.

– Mikhail Gorbachev, Club of Rome member

The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many, doing too well economically and burning too much oil.

– Sir James Lovelock, BBC Interview (2002)

…current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable. A shift is necessary which will require a vast strengthening of the multilateral system, including the United Nations.

– Maurice Strong, founder of UNEP, opening speech of 1992 Rio Earth Summit

Humans on the Earth behave in some ways like a pathogenic micro-organism, or like the cells of a tumor.

– Sir James Lovelock, Healing Gaia: Practical Medicine for the Planet (1991)

If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.

– Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh, patron of the World Wildlife Fund

Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.

– David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club

…climate change is real. Not only is it real, it’s here, and its effects are giving rise to a frighteningly new global phenomenon: the man-made natural disaster.

– Barak Obama, US Presidential Candidate

The fate of mankind, as well as of religion, depends upon the emergence of a new faith in the future.’ Armed with such a faith, we might find it possible to resanctify the earth.

– Al Gore, Earth in Balance

What an incredible planet in the universe this will be when we will be one human family living in justice, peace, love and harmony with our divine Earth, with each other and with the heavens.

– Robert Muller, founder of UNESCO

The earth is literally our mother, not only because we depend on her for nurture and shelter but even more because the human species has been shaped by her in the womb of evolution…. Our salvation depends upon our ability to create a religion of nature.

– Rene Dubos, board member, Planetary Citizens

Maurice Strong, former Secretary General of UNEP, opening speech of 1992 Rio Earth Summit

The spirit of our planet is stirring! The Consciousness of Goddess Earth is now rising against all odds, in spite of millennia of suppression, repression and oppression inflicted on Her by a hubristic and misguided humanity.

The Earth is a living entity, a biological organism with psychic and spiritual dimensions. With the expansion of the patriarchal religions that focused on a male God majestically stationed in Heaven ruling over the Earth and the Universe, the memory of our planet’s innate Divinity was repressed and banished into the collective unconscious of humanity.

– Envision Earth

Little by little a planetary prayer book is thus being composed by an increasingly united humanity seeking its oneness. Once again, but this time on a universal scale, humankind is seeking no less than its reunion with ‘divine,’ its transcendence into higher forms of life. Hindus call our earth Brahma, or God, for they rightly see no difference between our earth and the divine. This ancient simple truth is slowly dawning again upon humanity, as we are about to enter our cosmic age and become what we were always meant to be: the planet of god.

– Robert Muller, former UN Assistant Secretary General, founder of UNESCO

What if Mary is another name for Gaia? Then her capacity for virgin birth is no miracle . . . it is a role of Gaia since life began . . . She is of this Universe and, conceivably, a part of God. On Earth, she is the source of life everlasting and is alive now; she gave birth to humankind and we are part of her.

– Sir James Lovelock, Ages of Gaia

Nature is my god. To me, nature is sacred; trees are my temples and forests are my cathedrals.

– Mikhail Gorbachev, Green Cross International

The spiritual sense of our place in nature… can be traced to the origins of human civilization…. The last vestige of organized goddess worship was eliminated by Christianity.

– Al Gore, Earth in the Balance, page 260

I pledge allegiance to the Earth and all its sacred parts. Its water, land and living things and all its human hearts.

– Earth Pledge, Global Education Associates

By fostering a deep sense of connection to others and to the earth in all its dimensions, holistic education encourages a sense of responsibility to self to others and to the planet.

– Global Alliance for Transforming Education

The earth is not dead matter. She is alive. Now begin to speak to the earth as you walk. You can speak out loud, or just talk to her in your mind. Send your love into her with your exhalation. Feel your heart touching upon the heart of the planet. Say to her whatever words come to you: Mother Earth, I love you. Mother Earth, I bless you. May you be healed. May all your creatures be happy. Peace to you, Mother Earth. On behalf of the human race, I ask forgiveness for having injured you. Forgive us, Mother Earth.

Unfortunately, the world will end up as a socialist global government and Environmentalism will be its religion, just as the Bible said.

– Prayer to the Earth, US Student Textbook
http://green-agenda.com/gaia.html

I am remind of the words of Henri Spaak when UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon called for “global leadership.” “

Like

Slamdunk,

It doesn’t matter that many think you are delusional.
There is help for people who clearly exhibit paranoia – seriously, may I humbly suggest you seek it.

Like

DavidK Says:
5 October 2008 at 20.34

Slamdunk,

It doesn’t matter that many think you are delusional.
There is help for people who clearly exhibit paranoia – seriously, may I humbly suggest you seek it.

SLam: I guess all the above are paranoic. Why do you condemn your own kind? You greenies and global warmers are so transparent. Go back and read what your green-eyed pied pipers are saying.

Like

The UAH, GISS, RSS and Hadley charts do not say there has been no warming at the surface since 1979. Can you do better than bring up a strawman?

Slam: I never said those charts had anything to do with 1979.

You used them in replying to me and that’s what I was talking about.

Slam: Not what I was talking about.

Yes I know that’s not what you were talking about. What you talk about has nothing to do with the things you reply to.

Develope a greater attention span.

Take your own advice before giving it to someone else.

The fraud you fail to realize was perpetrated by Carter as I pointed out in #161 and #163.

Slam: The only fraud is

So Carter perpetrates a cold-blooded fraud

Slam: you mean

I mean what I said. Deal with it.

Fraud should be redefined to include them.

Zero argument. Just a substance-free assertion.

and all you can do is be sucked in by it and be sucked in by the likes of John Mclean.

Slam: Is this how deniers respond when truth hits close to the bone?

Yes, that’s exactly how global warming deniers like Slamdunk respond when truth hits close to the bone.

Like

Lindzen (who is not serious when discussing global warming) was not talking about surface temperature. Looks like Slamdunk has been sucked in again.

Slam: Lindzen is one of the world’s premier scientists in his field.

I’m not interested in your strawman. The point was Lindzen was not talking about surface temperature. You have been sucked into believing he was.

and Fred Singer:
“Satellite data show no appreciable warming of the global atmosphere since 1979.”
http://www.nationalcenter.org/KyotoSingerTestimony2000.html

For a start, the satellite derivation in 2000 upon which that testimony was based was seriously flawed. Second, as with Lindzen, Singer was not talking about surface temperature. Looks like Slamdunk has been sucked in again.

Slam: You would have to talk to them about that.

Either Singer was talking about mid-troposphere temperature, in which case it is not relevant to the surface, or he was using UAH’s incorrect lower troposphere derivation that was available in 2000. Either way he was not referring to a correct surface temperature record and either way Sd has been sucked in.

I don’t know what it will take to get you guys to see that GW is perhaps the greatest fraud ever since it involves the world

You’ll never get us to believe any of your substance-free assertions while you fail to understand the difference between surface temperature and mid-troposphere temperature.

Start educating yourselves.

Start taking your own advice before you give it to anyone else.

and John Christy and Roy Spencer:
“In 1989, Dr. Roy Spencer and Dr. John Christy developed a global temperature data set from satellite microwave data beginning in 1979, which showed little or no warming above the surface.”
http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=415

“above” the surface meaning…where exactly? Certainly not the surface. Looks like Slamdunk has been sucked in again.

BTW, Spencer and Christy’s 1989 flawed derivation of lower troposphere temperature did show very little warming but it was, as we now know, flawed. As anyone who cares about the facts now knows, Spencer and Christy’s extant derivation of lower troposphere temperature shows average warming of 0.13 deg C/decade since 1979.

Sd’s following non-sequiturs deleted.

Would you like to find out what else has sucked you in?

Sd is obviously much more interested in making substance-free assertions than finding out what he has been sucked in by.

Like

Holus-bolus cut-and-paste, eh?

The refuge of the credulous, the misguided, and the ideologue, and hardly a structured or evidenced argument.

Slamdunk – a word of advice: go home. Your incoherent thoughts have no place outside of your own head.

Can we put this thread out of our misery? There comes a point when deconstructing conspiracy theorists’ paranoias, ideologies and religious fundamentalism is futile. Slamdunk is taking up far too much bandwidth, and is not taking the thread anywhere except into his own bizarre mind.

There is sufficient record now to demonstrate his incapacity to grapple intelligently with science.

Like

Chris O’Neill Says:
5 October 2008 at 23.12

Lindzen (who is not serious when discussing global warming) was not talking about surface temperature. Looks like Slamdunk has been sucked in again.

Slam: Lindzen is one of the world’s premier scientists in his field.

I’m not interested in your strawman. The point was Lindzen was not talking about surface temperature. You have been sucked into believing he was.

and Fred Singer:
“Satellite data show no appreciable warming of the global atmosphere since 1979.”
http://www.nationalcenter.org/KyotoSingerTestimony2000.html

For a start, the satellite derivation in 2000 upon which that testimony was based was seriously flawed. Second, as with Lindzen, Singer was not talking about surface temperature. Looks like Slamdunk has been sucked in again.

Slam: You would have to talk to them about that.

Either Singer was talking about mid-troposphere temperature, in which case it is not relevant to the surface, or he was using UAH’s incorrect lower troposphere derivation that was available in 2000. Either way he was not referring to a correct surface temperature record and either way Sd has been sucked in.

I don’t know what it will take to get you guys to see that GW is perhaps the greatest fraud ever since it involves the world

You’ll never get us to believe any of your substance-free assertions while you fail to understand the difference between surface temperature and mid-troposphere temperature.

Start educating yourselves.

Start taking your own advice before you give it to anyone else.

and John Christy and Roy Spencer:
“In 1989, Dr. Roy Spencer and Dr. John Christy developed a global temperature data set from satellite microwave data beginning in 1979, which showed little or no warming above the surface.”
http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=415

“above” the surface meaning…where exactly? Certainly not the surface. Looks like Slamdunk has been sucked in again.

BTW, Spencer and Christy’s 1989 flawed derivation of lower troposphere temperature did show very little warming but it was, as we now know, flawed. As anyone who cares about the facts now knows, Spencer and Christy’s extant derivation of lower troposphere temperature shows average warming of 0.13 deg C/decade since 1979.

Slam: Whopee doo! That is well within normal climate change, esp. coming off the little ice age. Warming stopped in 1998 and now it could well be that temps are heading back down again. Climate does what it wants, when it wants. Man has no control over it.

Surface temperatures would apply to the troposphere which is the lower part of the atmosphere. Air one inch above the earth’s surface is in the troposphere.

Where temperatures are being recorded still misses the issue warmers don’t want to face. Of the slight warming over the past century, what is the EVIDENCE that man caused it? What is the EVIDENCE that such a small increase is leading to an environ-mental Armageddon? What computer predicted temperatures would stop rising in 1998? Which ones predicted cooling since 2007?

Like

and John Christy and Roy Spencer:
“In 1989, Dr. Roy Spencer and Dr. John Christy developed a global temperature data set from satellite microwave data beginning in 1979, which showed little or no warming above the surface.”
http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=415

“above” the surface meaning…where exactly? Certainly not the surface. Looks like Slamdunk has been sucked in again.

BTW, Spencer and Christy’s 1989 flawed derivation of lower troposphere temperature did show very little warming but it was, as we now know, flawed. As anyone who cares about the facts now knows, Spencer and Christy’s extant derivation of lower troposphere temperature shows average warming of 0.13 deg C/decade since 1979.

Slam: Whopee doo! That is well within normal climate change

I am not interested in your new set of goal posts. You are now ignoring the fact that you were willing to go along with a fraud for as long as possible. I have no interest in discussing anything with someone so easily and wilfully sucked in by a fraud.

Like

I am not interested in your new set of goal posts. You are now ignoring the fact that you were willing to go along with a fraud for as long as possible. I have no interest in discussing anything with someone so easily and wilfully sucked in by a fraud.

Carter, Lindzen, Singer, Spencer, Christy are not frauds. The real fraud is the IPCC which, with the backing of Hansen, Houghton, Gore et al, has manipulated science to arrive at their predetermined bias against any science that challenged the myth of man made global warming. Someone should bring suit against them so their fraud can be exposed. John Coleman contemplated suing Al Gore for that same reason.

Like

I am not interested in your new set of goal posts. You are now ignoring the fact that you were willing to go along with a fraud for as long as possible. I have no interest in discussing anything with someone so easily and wilfully sucked in by a fraud.

Carter, Lindzen, Singer, Spencer, Christy are not frauds.

Carter is a proven fraud as I have explained over and over again. Why don’t you take the opportunity to show that you understand by explaining the difference between lower troposphere and mid troposphere temperature? You could then show that you have more than substance-free assertions.

Lindzen was not talking about surface temperature.

Singer was not talking about a valid surface temperature record in your quote as I have already explained.

Spencer and Christy’s 1989 derivation of lower troposphere temperature was flawed as I have already explained, even though it wasn’t fraudulent.

Like

Chris,
It is obvious the person going by the tag of “Slamdunk” does not understand the science. In fact, if you read carefully his comments, his arguments are very often predicated by association to political ideology – this is not science.

Fortunately, the vast majority of political leaders around the world (from whatever persuasion) know climate change is real and that humanity is complicit in its affect. They also believe we should be focusing on adaptation and mitigation (not arguing the nuances or fine details of the science that is better left to real scientists). Of course this won’t be easy and it won’t happen over night, but it is.

While your (and others) responses to this ‘slamdunk’ are illuminating, I don’t see any benefit in humiliating a person who clearly can not think rationally or with any scientific logic. I have a great deal of respect for Dick Lindzen and Roy Spencer (one can hope they are on to something) but they have not been able to provide robust or rigorous research to counter the prevalence of CO2-e as a major driver to this current episode of GW.

Carter et al is another story. He is not a sceptic (in the scientific sense), he is a ‘denier’ – he intentionally distorts and misrepresents the science for his own agenda. His action (and inaction) represent the antithesis of science – no wonder he does not publish his ‘smoke screens’.

Like

Chris O’Neill Says:
6 October 2008 at 14.48

Carter is a proven fraud as I have explained over and over again.

Why don’t you take the opportunity to show that you understand by explaining the difference between lower troposphere and mid troposphere temperature? You could then show that you have more than substance-free assertions.

Lindzen was not talking about surface temperature.

Singer was not talking about a valid surface temperature record in your quote as I have already explained.

You still don’t get it. What difference does it make what temperatures were or are in any part of the atmosphere?

1. No one has shown where man made CO2 drove global temperatures up less than a degree over the last century in any part of the atmosphere, over any part of the world.

2. Fraudulent scientists got rid of the WMP and LIA so they could blame humanity for the sharp rise in temperature at the end of the 19th century.

3. No computer prohesied a halt in warming between 1998-2007, or a drop in temperatures after 2007.

4. Many scientists believe the world could be headed for a cooling or cold period. There is no man made global warming any more than man made cooling. It’s all natural and cyclical through solar activity, ocean oscillation, urban island heat, precipitation and cloud distribution.

5. Global warming is a hoax to bring about global government, a new religion (Gaia), demise of western capitalism and the greatest tax of all time- a global emission tax. If you haven’t noticed, the recent Wall Street bailout bill contains 120 pages on energy and carbon emission issues.

What more substance do you want?

Before you say it’s all baloney, go back and read those statements I posted.

Like

DavidK Says:
6 October 2008 at 18.50

Chris,
It is obvious the person going by the tag of “Slamdunk” does not understand the science.

Slam: You’re right about that, David. What I do understand is that man made global warming is a massive hoax, or as John Coleman calls it, “scam.”

In fact, if you read carefully his comments, his arguments are very often predicated by association to political ideology – this is not science.

Slam: It isn’t ment to be. Men with agendas are just using bad or manipulated science to promote them.
Classic example is the hockey stick. I urge you to visit http://mclean.ch/climate/IPCC.htm

Fortunately, the vast majority of political leaders around the world (from whatever persuasion) know climate change is real and that humanity is complicit in its affect.

Slam: You don’t have to be a head of state not to be deceived. If not deceived, then part of the problem because they know the GW issue is being used to promote interests that will is some way benefit them, or so they think.

They also believe we should be focusing on adaptation and mitigation (not arguing the nuances or fine details

Slam: No, let’s not argue why the IPCC overstated the effects of CO2 on climate sensitivity, or why the MWP and LIA were omitted from the hockey stick.

of the science that is better left to real scientists). Of course this won’t be easy and it won’t happen over night, but it is.

Slam: At least you have part of this right: Adaption. Man’s influence on nature is negligible at best.

While your (and others) responses to this ’slamdunk’ are illuminating, I don’t see any benefit in humiliating a person who clearly can not think rationally or with any scientific logic.

Here’s what I think you should think about.

1. No science has proven that man made CO2 drives up temperatures to the point of environmental harm or climate crisis.

2. Temperatures stopped rising in 1998 and began to cool after 2007. How can this be if CO2 drives temperature up?

3. Oceans are cooling.

4. Arctic ice rate of loss slowed from last year.

5. Antarctica ice is increasing.

6. Polar bears are doing fine.

7. The IPCC, Gore, GISS, Houghton et al are political and religious entities to help bring about social, economic and political change. The last thing on their mind is their phony concern about a small rise in global temperatures.

I have a great deal of respect for Dick Lindzen and Roy Spencer (one can hope they are on to something) but they have not been able to provide robust or rigorous research to counter the prevalence of CO2-e as a major driver to this current episode of GW.

Slam: That simply is not true. Spencer works with NASA researchers and has produced evidence that indicates there is no positive feedback. If they is right, man made global warming is a dead issue.

Carter et al is another story. He is not a sceptic (in the scientific sense), he is a ‘denier’ – he intentionally distorts and misrepresents the science for his own agenda. His action (and inaction) represent the antithesis of science – no wonder he does not publish his ’smoke screens’.

Slam: The real deniers are those who think the small contribution of human CO2 has a greater effect on climate than the sun, oceans, precipitation, clouds and urban island heat.

Like

Slamdunk.

1. Please learn to use quotation conventions – your posts are nigh on indecipherable.

2. What is the credible evidence for each of your points in #223? All of the sources you have referenced to date are dubious at best; if you have suddenly better sources please provide them. In fact, whatever your sources are you should provide them, otherwise you are just another troll promulgating Chinese whispers and unsusbtantiated hearsay on the web.

Like

Bernard
My guess is he got confused with his own way of indecipherable posting he doesn’t know if he is the ‘commentor’ or ‘commentee’ – I can just picture him being curled up in a little corner somewhere blabbering to himself “Sam: my brain made me do it.”

Like

The amount of climatic change that can occur over short periods of time is certainly nothing any climatologist or otherwise can accurately predict. Please remember folks, we aren’t quite as warm as the earth was during the warm middle ages period. Nor are we anywhere near as cold as it was during the peak of the little ice age only a couple hundred years ago(that little ice age only ended 150 years ago btw). Even during the little ice age temperatures fluctuated drastically, going from arctic cold to blazing heat over the span of decades during the general cooling trend.

For those unaware, the middle age warm period was on the order of 1°C warmer than we were at our recent warmest.

Perhaps looking at a graph that goes back more than 100 years is in order? In all sincerity, 100 years is barely a pixel on a movie screen when you’re trying to look at overall climatology of the Earth. For instance, what do we know temperatures to be like during the years before the little ice age? What do we know of the temperatures during the little ice age? The Younger Dryas? The general trend of the earth over the past 1 million years? It gets warmer and warmer, then hits a tipping point and cools back off fairly quickly, then slowly warms back up, with little hiccups in between. Rinse, repeat.

I myself am no expert, having done only moderate research and drawing my own conclusions from data presented by various sites, however, I would assume based on what little I’ve seen myself that the average person would understand the earth simply does not hover at a moderate temperature for a very long time, even on the scale of the human life. Honestly, to me, the idea that humans believe they’re affecting the climate directly just seems flat out arrogant.

tl;dr: Earth will do whatever it damn well pleases, and humans don’t understand how intricate climate change is well enough to predict it, let alone blame themselves for it. Any theory, warming or cooling, is all bollocks if you ask me. You’re all sheep for believing one way or the other. Just look at hard facts from the past and draw your own conclusions.

Like

If the sun does get ‘stuck’ in minimum for a long time it demonstrate that the assumption that the previous 30 years of 0.1% flucuations were not normal and that solar forcing had a greater effect on global temperatures than previously thought.

You must also then assume that CO2 had a smaller effect, something that you seem to have left out. Comparing an assumed solar induced cooling rate to an unadjusted GW rate is invalid.

Like

What a great site. We should frame it as a fantastic example of junk science. The brown nosing and lack of critical thinking are wonderful. YouHelpFixIt is a notable exception.

Apart from that anybody who questions the science is either a denier or just doesn’t get it.

Well… it’s December 2009 and Climategate has hit and all your citations and appeals to peer reviewed science have been blown away.

Like

Leave a Reply (Markdown is enabled)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s