Barium

PAGE CONTENTS

BARIUM – BIGGER FOLLOW-UP

Don’t forget my other pages, links and comments are one click away at the top right of the page…

(from Wikipedia)

Name, Symbol, Number: barium, Ba, 56
Chemical series: alkaline earth metals
Group, Period, Block: 2, 6, s
Appearance: silvery white

Standard atomic weight 137.327(7) ug·mol-1
Electron configuration [Xe] 6s2
Electrons per shell 2, 8, 18, 18, 8, 2

Physical properties

Phase: solid
Density 3.51 g/cm3
Liquid density at m.p.: 3.338 g/cm3
Melting point: 1000K (727°C, 1341°F)
Boiling point: 2170K (1897°C, 3447°F)
Heat of fusion: 7.12 kJ/mol-1
Heat of vaporization: 140.3 kJ/mol
Heat capacity: (25°C) 28.07 J/mol/K
Oxidation states: 2 (strongly basic oxide)
Magnetic ordering: paramagnetic
Electrical resistivity: (20°C) 332 nO/m
Thermal conductivity: (300K) 18.4 W/m/K
Thermal expansion (25°C) 20.6 µm/m/K
Mohs hardness: 1.25
CAS registry number: 7440-39-3

References

Barium is a chemical element, it has the symbol Ba, and atomic number 56. Barium is a soft silvery metallic alkaline earth metal and is never found in nature in its pure form due to its reactivity with air. Its oxide is historically known as baryta but it reacts with water and carbon dioxide and is not found as a mineral. The most common naturally occurring minerals are the very insoluble barium sulfate, BaSO4 (barite), and barium carbonate, BaCO3 (witherite). Benitoite is a rare gem containing barium.
It is a metallic element that is chemically similar to calcium but more reactive. This metal oxidizes very easily when exposed to air and is highly reactive with water or alcohol, producing hydrogen gas. Burning in air or oxygen produces not just barium oxide (BaO) but also the peroxide. Simple compounds of this heavy element are notable for their high specific gravity. This is true of the most common barium-bearing mineral, its sulfate barite BaSO4, also called ‘heavy spar’ due to the high density (4.5 g/cm³).
It has some medical and many industrial uses:
* Barium compounds, and especially barite (BaSO4), are extremely important to the petroleum industry. Barite is used in drilling mud, a weighting agent in drilling new oil wells.
* Barium sulfate is used as a radiocontrast agent for X-ray imaging of the digestive system (“barium meals” and “barium enemas”).
* Barium carbonate is a useful rat poison and can also be used in making bricks. Unlike the sulfate, the carbonate dissolves in stomach acid, allowing it to be poisonous.
* An alloy with nickel is used in spark plug wire.
* Barium oxide is used in a coating for the electrodes of fluorescent lamps, which facilitates the release of electrons.
* The metal is a “getter” in vacuum tubes, to remove the last traces of oxygen.
* Barium carbonate is used in glassmaking. Being a heavy element, barium increases the refractive index and luster of the glass.
* Barite is used extensively in rubber production.
* Barium nitrate and chlorate give green colors in fireworks.
* Impure barium sulfide phosphoresces after exposure to the light.
* Lithopone, a pigment that contains barium sulfate and zinc sulfide, is a permanent white that has good covering power, and does not darken in when exposed to sulfides.
* Barium peroxide can be used as a catalyst to start an aluminothermic reaction when welding rail tracks together. It can also be used in green tracer ammunition.
* Barium titanate was proposed in 2007[1] to be used in next generation battery technology for electric cars.
* Barium Fluoride is used in infrared applications.
* Barium is a key element in YBCO superconductors.

History

Barium (Greek barys, meaning “heavy”) was first identified in 1774 by Carl Scheele and extracted in 1808 by Sir Humphry Davy in England. The oxide was at first called barote, by Guyton de Morveau, which was changed by Antoine Lavoisier to baryta, from which “barium” was derived to describe the metal.

Occurrence

Because barium quickly becomes oxidized in air, it is difficult to obtain this metal in its pure form. It is primarily found in and extracted from the mineral barite which is crystallized barium sulfate. Barium is commercially produced through the electrolysis of molten barium chloride (BaCl2)

Compounds
The most important compounds are barium peroxide, barium chloride, sulfate, carbonate, nitrate, and chlorate.

Isotopes
Naturally occurring barium is a mix of seven stable isotopes. There are twenty-two isotopes known, but most of these are highly radioactive and have half-lives in the several millisecond to several minute range. The only notable exceptions are 133Ba which has a half-life of 10.51 years, and 137Ba (2.55 minutes).

Precautions
All water or acid soluble barium compounds are extremely poisonous. At low doses, barium acts as a muscle stimulant, while higher doses affect the nervous system, causing cardiac irregularities, tremors, weakness, anxiety, dyspnea and paralysis. This may be due to its ability to block potassium ion channels which are critical to the proper function of the nervous system.
Barium sulfate can be taken orally because it is highly insoluble in water, and is eliminated completely from the digestive tract. Unlike other heavy metals, barium does not bioaccumulate. However, inhaled dust containing barium compounds can accumulate in the lungs, causing a benign condition called baritosis.
Oxidation occurs very easily and, to remain pure, barium should be kept under a petroleum-based fluid (such as kerosene) or other suitable oxygen-free liquids that exclude air.
Barium acetate could lead to death in high doses. Marie Robards poisoned her father with the substance in Texas in 1993. She was tried and convicted in 1996.

 

 

BIGGER FOLLOW-UP (TO “SODA POP” LEADER)

ADDRESSED TO YOUTUBE “CHEMTRAIL” VIDEO SITES

Jet engines MAKE soda pop. Decane is the chemical name for aviation kerosine, or JP-8*. The combustion formula goes:
2*C10H22 + 31*O2 -> 20*CO2 + 11*H2O, or
DECANE + OXYGEN -> CARBON DIOXIDE + WATER

And as MOST OF US know:

CARBON DIOXIDE + WATER = FIZZYPOP

*JP-8 is modern aviation kerosine. It is safer, with a higher flashpoint that the JP-4 it has superseded. It has anti-corrosion and anti-gelling additives, but does NOT contain Ethylene Dibromide (which was once used to dissolve the lead oxide produced by tetra-ethyl lead anti-knock gasoline).

There could be THREE OR MORE transparent layers of air of DIFFERENT HUMIDITIES, only ONE of which condenses (at -40 deg) an ICE CRYSTAL TRAIL, within the short-haul civil aircraft band between 30 and 35 thousand feet. Layer thicknesses of differing humidity are frequently only hundreds of feet thick, and aircraft are spaced ten miles apart on the same level for a particular route, and conflicting routes are typically 2000ft above or below each other.

So you’ll see SOME planes laying ice crystal trails while others don’t – it depends which transparent stratospheric layer the plane is flying through. These layers themselves aren’t perfectly flat – they roughly conform to the ground profile AND any rising CUMULUS clouds. So even if the plane flies straight and level, it may be the layer it is in slopes gently down or up, and an ice crystal trail either appears or disappears. You have to remember these layers, though different, are ALWAYS themselves transparent.

So you can’t SEE them. You can only see which layer is really humid by a plane throwing a “vapor trail” in it. Typically stratospheric layers begin ABOVE the TROPOPAUSE, which is where our ground level weather STOPS. The layers vary in thickness, more densely packed close to the TROPOPAUSE, thinning out to nothing much above twelve miles up. It’s very smooth and calm up there (although it may have a high speed with respect to the ground).

Unlike what it is DOWN HERE. This rising panic ensues from an under-educated public. Had you all been properly taught about the weather as schoolchildren, this would be a NON-TOPIC.

Respiratory ailments may well be on the increase, but so is the planting of unusual crops which emit unusual pollens, auto fumes are still on the increase, and urban photochemical smogs are also on the increase. It is known (by some) that the COMBINATION of pollens, auto fumes, and urban smog can cause severe auto-immune failure, asthma, and death in the young, weak, or elderly.

If there are MORE “vapor trails” in the sky than there used to be, then the answer is that there is MORE AVIATION TRAFFIC and MORE WATER IN THE ATMOSPHERE. It isn’t very wise to look upwards and blame “soda pop” for combinatory effects which are happening down here, solely because you can’t understand how the atmosphere works. It certainly doesn’t help you to find a REAL solution to the REAL problem.

Video posts like this are WRONG, and risk scenarios as HARMFUL as a TSUNAMI.

Would YOU call a tsunami EVIL? No you wouldn’t, because a tsunami lacks INTENT.

Would I call this video post EVIL?

Conspiracy Theories

PAGE CONTENTS

CONSPIRACY THEORIES – CONTRAIL FORECAST CHARTS – CONTRAIL FORMATION – CONTRAILS CON-TRICK

Don’t forget my other pages, links and comments are one click away at the top right of the page… 

Conspiracy theories find menace in contrails

A new conspiracy theory sweeping the Internet and radio talk shows has set parts of the federal government on edge.

The theory: The white lines of condensed water vapor that jets leave in the sky, called contrails, are actually a toxic substance the government deliberately sprays on an unsuspecting populace.

Federal bureaucracies have gotten thousands of phone calls, e-mails and letters in recent years from people demanding to know what is being sprayed and why. Some of the missives are threatening.

It’s impossible to tell how many supporters these ideas have attracted, but the people who believe them say they’re tired of getting the brush-off from officials. And they’re tired of health problems they blame on “spraying.”

“This is blatant. This is in your face,” says Philip Marie Sr., a retired nuclear quality engineer from Bartlett, N.H., who says the sky above his quiet town is often crisscrossed with “spray” trails.

“No one will address it,” he says. “Everyone stonewalls this thing.”

The situation Marie and others describe is straight out of The X-Files. He and others report one day looking up at the sky and realizing that they were seeing abnormal contrails: contrails that lingered and spread into wispy clouds, multiple contrails arranged in tick-tack-toe-like grids or parallel lines, contrails being laid down by white planes without registration numbers.

Believers call these tracks “chemtrails.” They say they don’t know why the chemicals are being dropped, but that doesn’t stop them from speculating. Many guess that the federal government is trying to slow global warming with compounds that reflect sunlight into the sky. Some propose more ominous theories, such as a government campaign to weed out the old and sick.

Exasperated by persistent questions, the Environmental Protection Agency, NASA, the Federal Aviation Administration and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration joined forces last fall to publish a fact sheet explaining the science of contrail formation. A few months earlier, the Air Force had put out its own fact sheet, which tries to refute its opponents’ arguments point by point.

“If you try to pin these people down and refute things, it’s, ‘Well, you’re just part of the conspiracy,’ ” says atmospheric scientist Patrick Minnis of NASA’s Langley Research Center in Hampton, Va. “Logic is not exactly a real selling point for most of them.”

Nothing is “out there” except water vapor and ice crystals, say irritated scientists who study contrails. Some, such as Minnis, are outraged enough by the claims of chemtrail believers that they have trolled Internet chat rooms to correct misinformation or have gotten into arguments with callers.

“Conspiracy nonsense,” snorts Kenneth Sassen, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Utah. “These things are at 30,000 to 40,000 feet in the atmosphere. They’re tiny particles of ice. They’re not going to affect anyone.”

The cloud-forming contrails that conspiracy theorists find so ominous are “perfectly natural,” Minnis says. The odd grid and parallel-line patterns are easily explained as contrails blown together by the wind, scientists say.

 CONTRAIL FORECAST CHARTS

http://asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/GLOBE/resources/activities/appleman_student.html

 CONTRAIL FORMATION

Normal contrails DO form in fairly high humidity. When formed in 100% humidity they will NEVER disappear. If the humidity of that particular stratospheric layer is REDUCED, then in exact proportion the life of that trail will be reduced. This CAN happen; the layer can be lifted from beneath by a rising CUMULUS cloud in the troposphere. But the typical way they disappear is that LOCAL to the trail, the humidity has already been increased by the processes forming the trail: over time the increased humidity “leaks” away from the locality by gaseous diffusion, allowing the trail (of ice crystals) to sublime back into water vapor. Otherwise generally over time, layers FALL, COOL, humidity rises, trails get bigger. 

CONTRAILS CON TRICK

There is a new and ominous controversy concerning aircraft contrails and their supposed ill-effects. People with little or no scientific understanding are whipping up a furore over – nothing. This tends to leave all the real ills of the world unattended, and let’s face it, those we know of already are too great and too many to be sufferable. But how much worse it is when the (already!) deluded dream up new imaginary ills! With too much on our plates already, we are forced to concern ourselves with additional spurious delusions which, if they were to be taken seriously, would diminish our capacity to adapt to change, and ultimately to survive the upcoming onslaught.

A typical passenger transport plane (medium haul) burns 30 tons of fuel and thus unloads 30 tons of ice and 20 tons of gaseous oxides (mostly carbon dioxide) into the stratosphere every trip it makes.

The troposphere contains about 80% of the atmosphere and is the part of the atmosphere in which we live, and make weather observations. In this layer, average temperatures decrease with height. This is known as adiabatic cooling, i.e. a change in temperature caused by a decrease in pressure. Even so, it is still more prone to vertical mixing by convective and turbulent transfer, than other parts of the atmosphere. These vertical motions and the abundance of water vapour make it the home of all important weather phenomena. It is turbulent and unstable because it is at its warmest at its base. The troposphere’s thermal profile is largely the result of the heating of the Earth’s surface by incoming solar radiation. Heat is then transferred up through the troposphere by a combination of convective and turbulent transfer.

This is in direct contrast with the stratosphere, where warming is the result of the direct absorption of solar radiation. It is at its coldest at its base, and is stable and non-turbulent. If you have ever observed (or been in) a house fire, and looked up at the ceiling of a room with a fire in it, there you can see that the behaviour of the air is similar: the hottest part of the fire is against the ceiling, and the layers of air beneath (at decreasing temperatures) are stratified and somewhat mysteriously stable.

The troposphere is around 16 km high at the equator, with the temperature at the tropopause around –80 °C. At the poles, the troposphere reaches a height of around 8 km, with the temperature of the tropopause around –40 °C in summer and –60 °C in winter.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/education/secondary/teachers/atmosphere.html

Annual passenger jet aircraft fuel consumption is estimated to be 300 million tons. That may seem a lot, but it’s a CUBE with sides a hundred yards long. in actual fact.

http://www.after-oil.co.uk/runways.htm

The weight of the atmosphere is 5.25 petatonnes.

http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/astron-2.htm#MA

One can see (using a quick calculation) that, as a proportion of the weight of the atmosphere, the burnt fuel comprises FIVE MILLIONTHS OF A PER CENT. It would take 200,000 years to half-fill the atmosphere with aircraft exhaust emissions at their present rate!

Now, the water, the gaseous oxides and sulphates may have a hardly appreciable effect on Global Warming (they are only 3.5% of anthropogenic combustion), but are as NOTHING when compared with the Earth’s volcanoes.

There are 1,500 active volcanoes on land and maybe TEN THOUSAND active volcanoes under the sea. Beneath are a few links:

http://content.scholastic.com/browse/article.jsp?id=4886
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/interior/volcanism.html
http://green.nationalgeographic.com/environment/natural-disasters/volcano-profile.html?source=G2308

The term “active” means “constantly emitting steam, gases, magma, and ash”. It is hard to quantify the total emitted by the land volcanoes, but let us assume they average a million tons of each per year. That will give us fifteen hundred million tons of steam, fifteen hundred million tons of gases, fifteen hundred million tons of magma, fifteen hundred million tons of ash.

“Hey”, you might say, “aren’t you making free with all those hundred millions of tons?” – and I would answer you thus: “A million tons of rock makes a cone 243 feet high. So I’m suggesting that the annual volcanic production of rock is equivalent to fifteen hundred of these rock cones. See what I mean?”

To put that estimate into perspective, the largest known eruption, Tambora, put 200 million tons of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere in a single event!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A781715

Getting back to the point, it can be reasonably argued that contrails are at least FIFTEEN TIMES LESS IMPORTANT THAN VOLCANOES when it comes to having an effect on our atmosphere, whether warming it or cooling it…

So forget ALL of this bullfish about contrails/chemtrails. Yadda barium, yadda aluminum, yadda cooling, yadda dimming, yadda morgellons, yadda toxins……..You can bet your boots that anyone who advocates this idea is an ignorant dupe, with NO IDEA of the magnitude of the Earth and the events that truly moderate its climate.

Disinfo

PAGE CONTENTS

DISINFO – DISINFO AND HOW TO PROPAGATE IT – DOCO – DOUBLEMEAT’S LIST – DRY DAYS – DYING

Don’t forget my other pages, links and comments are one click away at the top right of the page…

 

“disinfo” – once again well-known, well-reported ESTABLISHED ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCE is DESCRIBED AS DISINFO.

“contrails do not remain” – BUT THEY CAN. The air has only to be SATURATED or SUPERSATURATED for them to REMAIN.

“if they do they’re a chemtrail” – IF THEY DO, THE AIR IS SATURATED. Unfortunately for ALL OF US, you take THAT as PROOF of a “chemtrail”. It’s the ONLY “PROOF” you have – so sad.

“Chemtrails remain because there is particulate matter in them” – DUSTS PUT JET ENGINES OUT –

“since not enough moisture to keep contrail present at high altitudes, disappears within a minute” – Ah, some detail in your ignorance. The fine ice crystal “smoke” of the contrail will SUBLIME into the -40 deg air if the air is NOT SATURATED. But the air may SATURATED or even SUPERSATURATED. There’s NO WAY YOU CAN TELL FROM THE GROUND, for ALL DEGREES OF SATURATION ARE TRANSPARENT.

“Your science is crap” – It isn’t MY science. It’s ESTABLISHED ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCE. 

 

DISINFO AND HOW TO PROPAGATE IT

The first thing you do is start with a common occurrence – an allergic reaction to cedar pollen. Then you “build in” the precursors (some direct lie) to throw the listener off-track. Then you can supply lots of misinformation (“yellow dusts sprayed from aircraft”) and propagate chemtrail disinformation. Here is a case in point:

This is a comment by WATCHER on the post “How long do contrails last?” by Uncinus in Contrailscience.com:

“In 2006 a plane dumped something in our area (Cedar Glen). It was a large yellow cloud that exploded leaving behind a sticky yellow reside on my car and property. Although it looked like cedar pollen, it was in Dec. so no chance of it being that.

Following that…there was a high rate of illness reported by doctors in the area. Paul Moyer on NBC 4 did a report on it as well, with no explanation other than “oh well….we’ll keep you posted”. I watched four days ago as the planes criss crossed in the sky, coloring the sky white. It rained the next day and I got the headaches that felt like an ice pick stabbing me in the inner ear. I have been around for a long time and do not remember anything like these planes trails or headaches of this severity when I was growing up until the late 90’s. I would never have paid attention until I noticed the illnesses in conjunction with the planes.”

From Ezine Articles – http://ezinearticles.com/?Cedar-Fever-What-Is-It—How-Do-You-Get-It—Home-Remedies-For-Cedar-Fever&id=380719

“The disease cedar fever is not actually a fever. This disease is a kind of allergy. The allergic reaction is accompanied by watery and itchy eyes, runny nose, and sneezing. Most of the time, this also causes itchiness inside the ears. Cedar fever is caused by the pollen from the commonly known mountain cedar tree, although this tree is actually juniper (juniperus ashei). This disease is a seasonal disease. This means that many individuals get this disease on only certain seasons of the year.

The usual season for cedar fever would be December to January, when the cyclic pollination of trees occur. The pollens are released by the trees and scattered by the winds. Once the pollen from the tree is inhaled, it may cause an undesirable effect on cedar allergic persons.

Many persons are are prone to allergies. The allergic reactions to certain things are caused by an oversensitive immune system. The oversensitive immune system leads to an increased (but unnecessary) immune response. The body’s immune system usually protects itself against harmful chemicals, bacteria and viruses. The allergic reaction occurs when the immune system reacts to a stimulant (an allergen) that usually does not do harm most people.

As noted above, cedar fever involves an allergic reaction to pollen. A virtually identical reaction occurs with allergy to mold, dust, and other allergens that can be inhaled. Other small particles on the air, especially in polluted air, can greatly aggravate the disease of cedar fever.”

 

DOCO

“make your own doco” – WATCH THIS SPACE.

“admitted chemtrails” – I’LL NEVER ADMIT TO A FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER.

“global dimming” – REQUIRES 3.6 MILLION TONS ALUMINA/BARIUM PER DAY. ALIENS REQUIRED. NO, NOT YOU.

“substances reflect sunlight” – THE ICE IN A CONTRAIL DOES THIS.

“So what if you’re sick” – YOUR DIET, CITY SMOGS, POLLENS DO THIS.

“depressed” – YOUR PARANOIA DOES THIS.

“fluoride” – HARDENS YOUR TEETH IN SMALL DOSES.

“prozac is a better name for it” – NOT AT ALL.

“Have a nice day” – I LIVE IN SUNSHINE AND CLEAR BLUE SKIES.

“your ignorance is disgusting and vile” – GET AWAY FROM THE MIRROR. 

DOUBLEMEAT’S LIST (fantastic!)

 

DRY DAYS

“For days when it’s dry.” – Then you haven’t appreciated the fundamental difference between the troposphere and the stratosphere. The troposphere is frictionally-bound to the earth’s surface, and also locked by thermals which become cumulus clouds. The air in the troposphere is always turbulently mixing. It is the BOUNDARY LAYER of the surface of the Earth.

The stratosphere slides over it at greatly differing speeds and directions. Its overall ground speed is typically higher. Being layered, it gets its pressure potentials (its reason to move) from greater distances away, sometimes hundreds and sometimes thousands of miles away. That’s why particular layers are sometimes given the name JET STREAMS by pilots; when they stand out as having a particularly high speed and unusual direction.

From my description you can easily infer that what you experience in the troposphere has nothing whatsoever to do with what you see in the stratosphere. At their boundary the gases do not mix except at rates of normal gaseous diffusion.

And this condition remains even after “days when it’s dry”.

The absolute reverse can also be true: the conditions in the troposphere  are violent, stormy and wet, while up above in the stratosphere  the conditions are BONE DRY, AND THERE’S NO SIGN OF CONTRAILS ANYWHERE. 

DYING

“People are dying” – And being born.

“Respiration problems, CANCERS/blah/DEATHS RISING” – The population’s rising

“persists” – People persist

“obvious cover up government/media” – Not so. Thinking people know that CONNECTING events isn’t THAT easy

“If you really had a clue when it came to Science, then you wouldn’t be posting this crap” – Take a look in the mirror before you write

“So the proof is what comes out of your mouth. You are an evil person for promoting what the government is doing to its citizens and you should be tried just like the Nazis were in the Nuremberg Trials for the atrocities you and others like you are trying to cover up”

And those LIES you write here in a continuous stream are the reason for my responses. Your INDUSTRIES are POISONING your groundwater, your FOOD is DENATURED and POLLUTED, your air is thick with POLLEN, AUTO FUMES, and PHOTOCHEMICAL SMOGS, RADIOACTIVE A-BOMB PRODUCTS, elevated levels of UV RADIATION, you live in IGNORANCE, LIES, FEAR, and STRESS, and instead of ADDRESSING THESE PRESSING PROBLEMS, your LOOSE THINKING connects with persistent vapor trails and CONCOCTS a massive genocidal goverment campaign, and an actionable libel to boot, all without a SHRED of EVIDENCE.

You really DO have the government you deserve…

Established

FALLACIES – ESTABLISHED – EURODELE – EVER – EVERYTHING – EVIL – EXHAUST – EXPONENTIAL TIMES – EXTREME – FIRST CONTRAIL PHOTO – FORTRESSES – FRACTALS IN NATURE – FROZEMAN – FUN IN THE SUN

Don’t forget my other pages, links and comments are one click away at the top right of the page…

FALLACIES

Making an argument

Although often we make arguments to try to learn about and understand the world around us, sometimes we hope to persuade others of our ideas and convince them to try or believe them, just as they might want to do likewise with us.  To achieve this we might use a good measure of rhetoric, knowingly or otherwise.  The term itself dates back to Plato, who used it to differentiate philosophy from the kind of speech and writing that politicians and others used to persuade or influence opinion.  Probably the most famous study of rhetoric was by Aristotle, Plato’s pupil, and over the years philosophers have investigated it to try to discover the answer to questions like: What is the best (or most effective) way to persuade people of something?  Is the most convincing argument also the best choice to make?  Is there any link between the two?  What are the ethical implications of rhetoric?  Although we might take a dim view of some of the attempts by contemporary politicians to talk their way out of difficult situations with verbal manouevrings that stretch the meaning of words beyond recognition, hoping we’ll forget what the original question was, nevertheless there are times when we need to make a decision and get others to agree with it.  Since we don’t always have the luxury of sitting down to discuss matters, we might have to be less than philosophical in our arguments to get what we want.  This use of rhetoric comes with the instructional manual for any relationship and is par for the course in discussions of the relative merits of sporting teams.
In a philosophical context, then, we need to bear in mind that arguments may be flawed and that rhetorical excesses can be used to make us overlook that fact.  When trying to understand, strengthen or critique an idea, we can use a knowledge of common errors – deliberate or not – found in reasoning.  We call these fallacies: arguments that come up frequently that go wrong in specific ways and are typically used to mislead someone into accepting a false conclusion (although sometimes they are just honest mistakes).  Although fallacies were studied in the past and since, as was said previously, there has been something of a revival in recent times and today people speak of critical thinking, whereby we approach arguments and thinking in general in a critical fashion (hence the name), looking to evaluate steps in reasoning and test conclusions for ourselves.

Logical Fallacies

Logical fallacies are common errors of reasoning.  If an argument commits a logical fallacy, then the reasons that it offers don’t prove the argument’s conclusion.  (Of course, that doesn’t necessarily mean that the conclusion is false, just that these particular reasons don’t show that it’s true.) There are literally dozens of logical fallacies (and dozens of fallacy web-sites out there that explain them).

Fallacies of Distraction

False Dilemma: two choices are given when in fact there are three or more options.

From Ignorance: because something is not known to be true, it is assumed to be false.

Slippery Slope: a series of increasingly unacceptable consequences is drawn.

Complex Question: two unrelated points are conjoined as a single proposition.

Appeals to Motives in Place of Support

Appeal to Force: the reader is persuaded to agree by force.

Appeal to Pity: the reader is persuaded to agree by sympathy.

Consequences: the reader is warned of unacceptable consequences.

Prejudicial Language: value or moral goodness is attached to believing the author.
Popularity: a proposition is argued to be true because it is widely held to be true.

Changing the Subject

Attacking the Person:
(1) the person’s character is attacked.
(2) the person’s circumstances are noted.
(3) the person does not practise what is preached.

Appeal to Authority:
(1) the authority is not an expert in the field.
(2) experts in the field disagree.
(3) the authority was joking, drunk, or in some other way not being serious.

Anonymous Authority: the authority in question is not named.

Style Over Substance: the manner in which an argument (or arguer) is presented is felt to affect the truth of the conclusion.

Inductive Fallacies

Hasty Generalization:  the sample is too small to support an inductive generalization about a population.

Unrepresentative Sample:  the sample is unrepresentative of the sample as a whole.

False Analogy:  the two objects or events being compared are relevantly dissimilar.

Slothful Induction:  the conclusion of a strong inductive argument is denied despite the evidence to the contrary.

Fallacy of Exclusion:  evidence which would change the outcome of an inductive argument is excluded from consideration.

Fallacies Involving Statistical Syllogisms

Accident:  a generalization is applied when circumstances suggest that there should be an exception.

Converse Accident :  an exception is applied in circumstances where a generalization should apply.

Causal Fallacies

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc:  because one thing follows another, it is held to cause the other.

Joint effect:  one thing is held to cause another when in fact they are both the joint effects of an underlying cause.

Insignificant:  one thing is held to cause another, and it does, but it is insignificant compared to other causes of the effect.

Wrong Direction:  the direction between cause and effect is reversed.

Complex Cause:  the cause identified is only a part of the entire cause of the effect.

Missing the Point

Begging the Question:  the truth of the conclusion is assumed by the premises.

Irrelevant Conclusion:  an argument in defense of one conclusion instead proves a different conclusion.

Straw Man:  the author attacks an argument different from (and weaker than) the opposition’s best argument.

Fallacies of Ambiguity

Amphiboly:  the structure of a sentence allows two different interpretations.

Accent:  the emphasis on a word or phrase suggests a meaning contrary to what the sentence actually says.

Category Errors

Composition:  because the attributes of the parts of a whole have a certain property, it is argued that the whole has that property.

Division:  because the whole has a certain property, it is argued that the parts have that property.

Non Sequitur

Affirming the Consequent:  any argument of the form: If A then B, B, therefore A.

Denying the Antecedent:  any argument of the form: If A then B, Not A, thus Not B.

Inconsistency:  asserting that contrary or contradictory statements are both true.

Stolen Concept:  using a concept while attacking a concept on which it logically depends.

•Ad Hominem
•Appeal to Authority
•Appeal to History
•Appeal to Popularity
•Circularity
•Confusing Necessary and Sufficient Conditions
•Correlation not Causation
•Inconsistency
•Generalisation
•Restricting the Options
•Slippery Slope
•Straw Man
•Tu Quoque
•Weak Analogy

You need to be able to recognise each of these fallacies, and also to explain what is wrong with arguments that commit them.  Once you’ve learned what the fallacies are, pay attention and see if you can spot any of them being committed on TV, the radio, or in the press.  it’s fascinating to see how the conspiracy-theorist’s minds work.  They seem to be especially fond of (all of them, really):

Biased Sample
Perhaps the most basic error in the use of empirical data is simply “misrepresenting” it.  This can occur in a number of ways.  One possibility is simply deliberate distortion, claiming that a data set proves something when it doesn’t.  If people have an agenda, and set out to prove it, they may reach for the first bit of evidence they can find that even seems to fit their position.  Closer examination may show that the evidence isn’t quite as supportive as was first claimed.  Alternatively, someone confronted with potentially problematic evidence for their position may misrepresent it to make the problem go away.  A similar error can be committed accidentally.  Sometimes when people look at a data-set they see what they want or expect to see, rather than what is actually there.  The effect of our presuppositions on our interpretation of evidence should not be underestimated.  It can lead to conclusions being drawn which simply aren’t supported by the evidence.  A further way in which data may be misrepresented is if it is presented selectively.  A varied data set can be described focusing in on certain sections of it.  The data set as a whole is thus misrepresented; it is effectively replaced by a new set comprising of unrepresentative data.

Insufficient Data
A common problem with evidence sampling is drawing conclusions from “insufficient data”.  This is related to the generalisation fallacy.  To prove a theory, it is not enough to observe a couple of instances that seem to support it.  If we want to know what percentage of the population take holidays abroad, we can’t find out by asking five people, calculating the percentage, and applying the result to the population as a whole.  We need more data.  This raises the question: how much data is enough?  At what point does a data-set become sufficiently large to draw conclusions from it?  Of course, having enough data is not a black-or-white affair; there is no magic number of observations which, when reached, means that any conclusion drawn is adequately supported.  Rather, sufficiency of data is a matter of degree; the more evidence the better.  The amount of confidence that we can have in an inference grows gradually as more evidence is brought in to support it.

Unrepresentative Data
Simply having enough data is not enough to guarantee that a conclusion drawn is warranted; it is also important that the data is drawn from a variety of sources and obtained under a variety of different conditions.  A survey of voting intentions conducted outside the local Conservative Club is not going to provide an accurate guide to who is going to win the next general election.  A disproportionate number of people in the vicinity will be Conservative voters, and so the results of the survey will be skewed in favour of the Tory party.  The sample is not representative.  A survey to find out what proportion of the population own mobile phones would be similarly (though less obviously) flawed if it were conducted near a Sixth-Form College.  The sample of the population would be skewed towards teenagers, who are more likely than average to own mobile phones, distorting the figures.  Collecting data from a variety of sources is one thing; collecting it under a variety of conditions is another.  A survey of what type of vehicles use local roads conducted at a variety of locations, but always at the same time of day, would not yield representative data.  Conducting it during rush-hour would mean that commuter-traffic would be over-represented in the results; conducting it in the evenings might mean that public transport would under-represented in the results.  Differences in what types of drivers drive at what times would need to be factored in when designing the experiment.  The quality of a data-set is thus not just a matter of how much data it contains, but also of how representative that data is likely to be.  To minimise the problem of “unrepresentative data”, evidence must be collected from as wide a range of sources as possible, and under as varied conditions as possible.

Appeal to Force
(Argumentum Ad Baculum or the “Might-Makes-Right” Fallacy): This argument uses force, the threat of force, or some other unpleasant backlash to make the audience accept a conclusion.  It commonly appears as a last resort when evidence or rational arguments fail to convince a reader.  If the debate is about whether or not 2+2=4, an opponent’s argument that he will smash your nose in if you don’t agree with his claim doesn’t change the truth of an issue.  Logically, this consideration has nothing to do with the points under consideration.  The fallacy is not limited to threats of violence, however.  The fallacy includes threats of any unpleasant backlash–financial, professional, and so on.  Example: “Superintendent, you should cut the school budget by $16,000.  I need not remind you that past school boards have fired superintendents who cannot keep down costs.”  While intimidation may force the superintendent to conform, it does not convince him that the choice to cut the budget was the most beneficial for the school or community.  Lobbyists use this method when they remind legislators that they represent so many thousand votes in the legislators’ constituencies and threaten to throw the politician out of office if he doesn’t vote the way they want.  Teachers use this method if they state that students should hold the same political or philosophical position as the teachers, or risk failing the class.  Note that it is isn’t a logical fallacy, however, to assert that students must fulfill certain requirements in the course or risk failing the class!

Appeal to Popularity
The “appeal to popularity fallacy” is the fallacy of arguing that because lots of people believe something it must be true.  Popular opinion is not always a good guide to truth; even ideas that are widely accepted can be false.  An example is: “Pretty much everyone believes in some kind of higher power, be it God or something else.  Therefore atheism is false.”

Two million people watching does not mean a video is true.  Just because a lot of people believe something, does not make it true; consequently, just because a lot of people do not believe or understand something, does not make it false.
“Faced with waning public support for the military escalation in Afghanistan, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday that the war is worth fighting and signaled for the first time he may be willing to send more troops after months of publicly resisting a significant increase.  Gates urged patience amid polls showing rising disenchantment among the public with the war effort, saying the American military presence in Afghanistan was necessary to derail terrorists.” – Associated Press, Sept 3rd, 2009.
The appeal to popularity is almost automatically controversial at times, as sometimes the right move is unclear or sophisticated.  Robert Gates is choosing to go against the grain because he feels he is justified by a greater cause than appeasing popular opinion.
Be also careful of an Appeal to Unpopularity.  A lot of pseudoscience claims they are being persecuted by the mainstream, and there is thus a conspiracy to keep their knowledge hidden.  The number one way to avoid both of these appeals is to stick to the data and ignore the marketing.  I’ll give you a hint: real science does not depend on flashy graphics or bold typeface every other word, just to get your attention because the truth can speak for itself.  Go against the flow…
Science is all about defeating the Appeal to Popularity.  The idea is that people are inherently flawed and easily fooled.  The best way to know something is to try your damnedest to prove it wrong.  If you actually prove something right, make sure you send it to numerous other scientists and see if they can prove you wrong.  It’s humbling and time consuming, but it is the reason your monitor is beaming photons into your optical lobe right now.  Science struggles with acceptance because the populace usually despises its cruel, sometimes boring conclusions.  No gods on Olympus?  Fooey!  No psychic healing?  Frogswallop!  Besides, I don’t want to be a loner with obscure views, so I’m going to go with the flow… and if I’m wrong, then everyone’s wrong, so who cares?
Think of Mob Rule.  Imagine you are a black man in the 1700’s and some racist white folk are about to lynch you for the crime of being born.  Almost everywhere you turn, you find nothing but racism.  You know it’s absurd, all the claims they make about you, since you know yourself better than their superficial judgments.  You have facts, and evidence; they have hate, and ignorance.  Now do you care?  Sometimes it’s dangerous to go against the flow, there are bullies at every stage in life.  The cruelty of others is endless, and thus the will to fit in is powerful.  It is hard to resist the “Appeal to Popularity”.  The key is to always question the facts, to buy based on reality not perception.  Are you sick and your friend is suggesting some sort of weird “new age” treat­ment?  Ask an expert, read some journals, examine some tests.
The Appeal to Popularity is usually a self-fulfilling prophecy.  It usually starts off as a perception with a low sample size, and grows larger not because it is efficient at what it claims, but is effective at marketing itself, since it is essentially a feed­back loop of ever increasing loudness.  Your turn… Can you think of a moment where you, or someone you know of, fell for the “Appeal to Popularity”?

Circularity
“Circular” arguments are arguments that assume what they’re trying to prove.  If the conclusion of an argument is also one of its reasons, then the argument is circular.  The problem with arguments of this kind is that they don’t get you anywhere.  If you already believe the reasons offered to persuade you that the conclusion is true, then you already believe that the conclusion is true, so there’s no need to try to convince you.  If, on the other hand, you don’t already believe that the conclusion is true, then you won’t believe the reasons given in support of it, so won’t be convinced by the argument.  In either case, you’re left believing exactly what you believed before.  The argument has accomplished nothing.  An example is: “You can trust me; I wouldn’t lie to you.”

Confusing Necessary and Sufficient Conditions
“Necessary conditions” are conditions which must be fulfilled in order for an event to come about.  It is impossible for an event to occur unless the necessary conditions for it are fulfilled.  For example, a necessary condition of you passing your A-level Critical Thinking is that you enrol on the course.  Without doing so, there’s no way that you can get the qualification.  “Sufficient conditions” are conditions which, if fulfilled, guarantee that an event will come to pass.  It is impossible for an event not to occur if the sufficient conditions for it are fulfilled.  For example, a sufficient condition of you passing an exam is that you get enough marks.  If you do that, there’s no way that you can fail.  Some arguments confuse necessary and sufficient conditions.  Such arguments fail to prove their conclusions.  An example is: “People who don’t practise regularly always fail music exams.  I’ve practised regularly though, so I’ll be all right.”  Not having practised regularly may be a sufficient condition for failing a music exam, but it isn’t necessary.  People who have practised regularly may fail anyway, due to nerves, perhaps, or simply a lack of talent.

Correlation not Causation
The “correlation not causation” fallacy is committed when one reasons that just because two things are found together (i.e. are correlated), there must be a direct causal connection between them.  Often arguments of this kind seem compelling, but it’s important to consider other possible explanations before concluding that one thing must have caused the other.  An example is: “Since you started seeing that girl your grades have gone down.  She’s obviously been distracting you from your work, so you mustn’t see her anymore.”

Inconsistency
An argument is “inconsistent” if makes two or more contradictory claims.  If an argument is inconsistent, then we don’t have to accept its conclusion.  This is because if claims are contradictory, then at least one of them must be false.  An argument that rests on contradictory claims must therefore rest on at least one false claim, and arguments that rest on false claims prove nothing.  In an argument that makes contradictory claims, whichever of those claims turns out to be false the arguer won’t have proved their conclusion.  This means that it is reasonable to dismiss an inconsistent argument even without finding out which of its contradictory claims is false.  Examples are: “Murder is the worst crime that there is.  Life is precious; no human being should take it away.  That’s why it’s important that we go to any length necessary to deter would-be killers, including arming the police to the teeth and retaining the death penalty.”  This argument both affirms that no human being should take the life of another, and that we should retain the death penalty.  Until this inconsistency is ironed out of the argument, it won’t be compelling. Also: “We don’t tell the government what to do, so they shouldn’t tell us what to do!” These were the words of an angry smoker interviewed on the BBC News following the introduction of a ban on smoking in enclosed public places in England.  Her claim that she doesn’t tell the government what to do is instantly refuted as she proceeds to do just that.

Generalisation
Arguments often use specific cases to support general conclusions.  For example, we might do a quick survey of Premiership footballers, note that each of the examples we’ve considered is vain and ego-centric, and conclude that they all are.  (Or we might offer one example of an argument that moves from the specific to the general as evidence that others do the same.)  We need to be careful with such arguments.  In order for a set of evidence to support a general conclusion, the evidence must meet certain conditions.  For example, it must be drawn from a sufficient number of cases, and the specific cases must be representative.  The more limited or unrepresentative the evidence sample, the less convincing the argument will be.  Arguments that base conclusions on insufficient evidence commit the “generalisation fallacy”.  Examples are: “Smoking isn’t bad for you; my grandad smoked thirty a day for his whole life and lived to be 92.” and “Estate agents are well dodgy. When we moved house… [insert horror story about an estate agent inventing fake offers to push up the sale price].”

Restricting the Options
We are sometimes faced with a number of possible views or courses of action.  By a process of elimination, we may be able to eliminate these options one-by-one until only one is left.  We are then forced to accept the only remaining option.  Arguments that do this, but fail to consider all of the possible options, excluding some at the outset, commit the “restricting the options” fallacy.  An example is: “Many gifted children from working class backgrounds are let down by the education system in this country.  Parents have a choice between paying sky-high fees to send their children to private schools, and the more affordable option of sending their children to inferior state schools.  Parents who can’t afford to pay private school fees are left with state schools as the only option.  This means that children with great potential are left languishing in comprehensives“.  Quite apart from any problems with the blanket dismissal of all comprehensives as inferior, this argument fails to take into account all of the options available to parents.  For the brightest students, scholarships are available to make private school more affordable, so there is a third option not considered above: applying for scholarships to private schools.  Unless this option can be eliminated, e.g. by arguing that there are too few scholarships for all gifted children to benefit from them, along with other options such as homeschooling, the conclusion that children with great potential have no alternative but to go to comprehensives is unproven.

Ad Hominem
“Ad hominem” is Latin for “against the man”. The ad hominem fallacy is the fallacy of attacking the person offering an argument rather than the argument itself.  Ad hominems can simply take the form of abuse: e.g. “Don’t listen to him, he’s a jerk”.  Any attack on irrelevant biographical details of the arguer rather than on his argument counts as an ad hominem, however: e.g. “that article must be rubbish as it wasn’t published in a peer-reveiwed journal”; “his claim must be false as he has no relevant expertise”; “he says that we should get more exercise but he could stand to lose a few pounds himself”.

Tu Quoque
“Tu quoque” is Latin for “you too”.  The tu quoque fallacy involves using other people’s faults as an excuse for one’s own, reasoning that because someone or everyone else does something, it’s okay for us to do it.  This, of course, doesn’t follow.  Sometimes other people have shortcomings, and we ought to do better than them.  We can be blamed for emulating other people’s faults.

Straw Man
“Straw man” arguments are arguments that misrepresent a position in order to refute it. Unfortunately, adopting this strategy means that only the misrepresentation of the position is refuted; the real position is left untouched by the argument.  An example is: “Christianity teaches that as long as you say ‘Sorry’ afterwards, it doesn’t matter what you do.  Even the worst moral crimes can be quickly and easily erased by simply uttering a word.  This is absurd.  Even if a sinner does apologise for what they’ve done, the effects of their sin are often here to stay.  For example, if someone repents of infanticide, that doesn’t bring the infant back to life.  Christians are clearly out of touch with reality.”  This argument distorts Christianity in a couple of ways.  First, it caricatures repentance as simply saying the word ‘Sorry’.  Second, it implies that Christianity teaches that all of the negative effects of sin are erased when one confesses, which it doesn’t.  Having distorted Christianity, the argument then correctly points out that the distortion is ludicrous, and quite reasonably rejects it as “out of touch with reality”.   The argument, however, completely fails to engage with what the Church actually teaches, and so its conclusion has nothing to do with real Christianity.

Appeal to Authority
An “appeal to an authority” is an argument that attempts to establish its conclusion by citing a perceived authority who claims that the conclusion is true.  In all cases, appeals to authority are fallacious; no matter how well-respected someone is, it is possible for them to make a mistake.  The mere fact that someone says that something is true therefore doesn’t prove that it is true.  The worst kinds of appeal to authority, however, are those where the alleged authority isn’t an authority on the subject matter in question.  People speaking outside of their area of expertise certainly aren’t to be trusted on matters of any importance without further investigation.

Appeal to History
There are two types of “appeal to history”.  The first is committed by arguments that use past cases as a guide to the future.  This is the predictive appeal to history fallacy.  Just because something has been the case to date, doesn’t mean that it will continue to be the case.  This is not to say that we can’t use the past as a guide to the future, merely that predictions of the future based on the past need to be treated with caution.  The second type of appeal to history is committed when it is argued that because something has been done a particular way in the past, it ought to be done that way in the future.  This is the normative appeal to history fallacy, the appeal to tradition.  The way that things have always been done is not necessarily the best way to do them.  It may be that circumstances have changed, and that what used to be best practice is no longer.  Alternatively, it may be that people have been consistently getting it wrong in the past.  In either case, using history as a model for future would be a mistake.  An example is: at the start of the 2006 Premiership season, some might have argued, “Under Jose Mourinho, Chelsea have been unstoppable in the Premiership; the other teams might as well give up on the league now and concentrate on the Cup competitions.”

Weak Analogy
Arguments by analogy rest on a comparison between two cases.  They examine a known case, and extend their findings there to an unknown case.  Thus we might reason that because we find it difficult to forgive a girlfriend or boyfriend who cheated on us (a known case), it must be extremely difficult for someone to forgive a spouse who has had an affair (an unknown case).  This kind of argument relies on the cases compared being similar.   The argument is only as strong as that comparison.  If the two cases are dissimilar in important respects, then the argument commits the “weak analogy” fallacy.

Slippery Slope
Sometimes one event can set of a chain of consequences; one thing leads to another, as the saying goes.  The “slippery slope” fallacy is committed by arguments that reason that because the last link in the chain is undesirable, the first link is equally undesirable.  This type of argument is not always fallacious.  If the first event will necessarily lead to the undesirable chain of consequences, then there is nothing wrong with inferring that we ought to steer clear of it.  However, if it is possible to have the first event without the rest, then the slippery slope fallacy is committed.  An example is: “If one uses sound judgement, then it can occasionally be safe to exceed the speed limit.  However, we must clamp down on speeding, because when people break the law it becomes a habit, and escalates out of control.  The more one breaks the law, the less respect one has for it.  If one day you break the speed limit, then the next you’ll go a little faster again, and pretty soon you’ll be driving recklessly, endangering the lives of other road-users.  For this reason, we should take a zero-tolerance approach to speeding, and stop people before they reach dangerous levels.”

Appeal to Ridicule
The “appeal to ridicule” is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an “argument.”  This line of “reasoning” has the following form:  X, which is some form of ridicule is presented (typically directed at the claim).  Therefore claim C is false.  This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because mocking a claim does not show that it is false.  This is especially clear in the following example: “1+1=2! That’s the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard!”  It should be noted that showing that a claim is ridiculous through the use of legitimate methods (such as a non-fallacious argument) can make it reasonable to reject the claim.  One form of this line of reasoning is known as a “reductio ad absurdum” (“reducing to absurdity”).  In this sort of argument, the idea is to show that a contradiction (a statement that must be false) or an absurd result follows from a claim.  For example: “Bill claims that a member of a minority group cannot be a racist.  However, this is absurd.  Think about this: white males are a minority in the world.  Given Bill’s claim, it would follow that no white males could be racists.  Hence, the Klan, Nazis, and white supremists are not racist organizations.”  Since the claim that the Klan, Nazis, and white supremists are not racist organizations is clearly absurd, it can be concluded that the claim that a member of a minority cannot be a racist is false.  Some examples of “appeal to ridicule” are: “Sure my worthy opponent claims that we should lower tuition fees, but that is just laughable.” and “Support the ERA?  Sure, when the women start paying for the drinks!  Hah! Hah!” and “Those wacky conservatives!  They think a strong military is the key to peace!”

Post hoc ergo propter hoc
“Post hoc ergo propter hoc”, Latin for “after this, therefore because (on account) of this”, is a logical fallacy (of the questionable cause variety) which states, “Since that event followed this one, that event must have been caused by this one.”  It is often shortened to simply post hoc and is also sometimes referred to as false cause, coincidental correlation or correlation not causation.  It is subtly different from the fallacy cum hoc ergo propter hoc, in which the chronological ordering of a correlation is insignificant.  “Post hoc” is a particularly tempting error because temporal sequence appears to be integral to causality.  The fallacy lies in coming to a conclusion based solely on the order of events, rather than taking into account other factors that might rule out the connection.  Most familiarly, many cases of superstitious religious beliefs and magical thinking arise from this fallacy.

Alias: Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc.  Translation: “After this, therefore because of this”, Latin.  Type: Non Causa Pro Causa Forms.  Event C happened immediately prior to event E.  Therefore, C caused E.  Events of type C happen immediately prior to events of type E.  Therefore, events of type C cause events of type E.
Example:  “The only policy that effectively reduces public shootings is right-to-carry laws. Allowing citizens to carry concealed handguns reduces violent crime.  In the 31 states that have passed right-to-carry laws since the mid-1980s, the number of multiple-victim public shootings and other violent crimes has dropped dramatically.  Murders fell by 7.65%, rapes by 5.2%, aggravated assaults by 7%, and robberies by 3%. … Evidence shows that even state and local handgun control laws work.  For example, in 1974 Massachusetts passed the Bartley-Fox Law, which requires a special license to carry a handgun outside the home or business.  The law is supported by a mandatory prison sentence. Studies by Glenn Pierce and William Bowers of Northeastern University documented that after the law was passed handgun homicides in Massachusetts fell 50% and the number of armed robberies dropped 35%”.
Source: “The Media Campaign Against Gun Ownership”, The Phyllis Schlafly Report, Vol. 33, No. 11, June 2000. Source: “Fact Card”, Handgun Control, Inc.

Analysis of the Examples

Counter-Example:  Roosters crow just before the sun rises.  Therefore, roosters crowing cause the sun to rise.

Exposition:  The Post Hoc Fallacy is committed whenever one reasons to a causal conclusion based solely on the supposed cause preceding its “effect”.  Of course, it is a necessary condition of causation that the cause precede the effect, but it is not a sufficient condition.  Thus, post hoc evidence may suggest the hypothesis of a causal relationship, which then requires further testing, but it is never sufficient evidence on its own.

Exposure:  Post Hoc also manifests itself as a bias towards jumping to conclusions based upon coincidences.  Superstition and magical thinking include Post Hoc thinking; for instance, when a sick person is treated by a witch doctor, or a faith healer, and becomes better afterward, superstitious people conclude that the spell or prayer was effective.  Since most illnesses will go away on their own eventually, any treatment will seem effective by Post Hoc thinking.  This is why it is so important to test proposed remedies carefully, rather than jumping to conclusions based upon anecdotal evidence.

Analysis of Examples:
These two examples show how the same fallacy is often exploited by opposite sides in a debate, in this case, the gun control debate.  There are clear claims of causal relationships in these arguments.  In the anti-gun control example, it is claimed that so-called “right-to-carry” laws “effectively reduce” public shootings and violent crime.  This claim is supported by statistics on falling crime rates since the mid-1980s in states that have passed such laws.  In the pro-gun control example, it is claimed that state and local gun control laws “work”, presumably meaning that the laws play a causal role in lowering handgun crime.  Again, the claim is supported by statistics on falling crime rates in one state. However, the evidence in neither case is sufficient to support the causal conclusion.
For instance, violent crime in general fell in the United States in the period from the mid-1980s to the present, and – for all that we can tell from the anti-gun control argument – it may have fallen at the same or higher rates in states that did not pass “right-to-carry” laws.  Since the argument does not supply us with figures for the states without such laws, we cannot do the comparison.
Similarly, the pro-gun control argument does not make it clear when Massachusett’s drop in crime occurred, except that it was “after” – “post hoc” – the handgun control law was passed.  Also, comparative evidence of crime rates over the same period in states that did not pass such a law is missing.  The very fact that comparative information is not supplied in each argument is suspicious, since it suggests that it would have weakened the case.
Another point raised by these examples is the use of misleadingly precise numbers, specifically, “7.65%” and “5.2%” in the anti-gun control example.  Especially in social science studies, percentage precision to the second decimal place is meaningless, since it is well within the margin of error on such measurements.  It is a typical tactic of pseudo-scientific argumentation to use overly-precise numbers in an attempt to impress and intimidate the audience.  A real scientist would not use such bogus numbers, which casts doubt upon the status of the source in the example.  The pro-gun control argument, to its credit, does not commit this fallacy.  This suggests, though it doesn’t nail down, an appeal to misleading authority in the anti-gun control one.

Sibling Fallacy:  Cum Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc
Source:  T. Edward Damer, Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments (Third Edition) (Wadsworth, 1995), pp. 131-132.

Resources:
Julian Baggini, “Post Hoc Fallacies”, Bad Moves.
Robert Todd Carroll, “Post Hoc Fallacy”, Skeptic’s Dictionary.

Moving the goalpost
“Moving the goalpost”, also known as “raising the bar”, is an informal logically fallacious argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded.  In other words, after an attempt has been made to score a goal, the goalposts are moved to exclude the attempt.  This attempts to leave the impression that an argument had a fair hearing while actually reaching a preordained conclusion.  Moving the goalpost can also take the form of reverse feature creep, in which features are eliminated from a product, and the goal of the project is redefined in such a way as to exclude the eliminated features.  An example is: Bella Donna claims that Sybil Antwhisper, her room-mate, is not sharing the housework equitably.  Sybil tells Bella to go away and itemize and record who does what household tasks.  If Bella can show that she does more housework than Sybil, then Sybil will mend her ways.  A week passes and Bella shows Sybil clear evidence that Sybil does not “pull her weight” around the house.  Sybil (the advocate) responds: “That’s all very well, but I have more work and study commitments than you do – you should do more housework than me… it’s the total work of all kinds that matters, not just housework.”  In this example the implied agreement between Bella and Sybil at the outset was that the amount of housework done by both parties should be about the same.  When Sybil was confronted by the evidence however, she quickly and unilaterally “changed the terms of the debate”.  She did this because the evidence was against her version of events and she was about to lose the argument on the issue as originally defined.  By “moving the goalposts”, Sybil is seeking to change the terms of the dispute to avoid a defeat on the original issue in contention.  The term is often used in business to imply bad faith on the part of those setting goals for others to meet, by arbitrarily making additional demands just as the initial ones are about to be met.  Accusations of this form of abuse tend to occur when there are unstated assumptions that are obvious to one party but not to another.  For example, killing all the fleas on a cat is very easy without the usually unstated condition that the cat remain alive and in good health.

Non sequitur in normal speech
The term “non sequitur” is often used in everyday speech and reasoning to describe a statement in which premise and conclusion are totally unrelated but which is used as if they were.  An example might be: “If I buy this cell phone, all people will love me.”  However, there is no actual relation between buying a cell phone and the love of all people.  This kind of reasoning is often used in advertising to trigger an emotional purchase.  Other examples include: “If you buy this car, your family will be safer.”  (While some cars are safer than others, it is possible to decrease instead of increase your family’s overall safety.) and “If you do not buy this type of pet food, you are neglecting your dog.” (Premise and conclusion are once again unrelated; this is also an example of an appeal to emotion.) and “I hear the rain falling outside my window; therefore, the sun is not shining.”  (The conclusion is a non-sequitur because the sun can shine while it is raining.)

Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle
The “fallacy of the undistributed middle” is a logical fallacy that is committed when the middle term in a categorical syllogism is not distributed.  It is thus a syllogistic fallacy.  More specifically it is also a form of non sequitur.  It takes the following form: All Zs are Bs.  Y is a B.  Therefore, Y is a Z.  It may or may not be the case that “all Zs are Bs,” but in either case it is irrelevant to the conclusion.  What is relevant to the conclusion is whether it is true that “all Bs are Zs,” which is ignored in the argument.  Note that if the terms were swapped around in either the conclusion or the first co-premise or if the first premise was rewritten to “All Zs can only be Bs” then it would no longer be a fallacy, although it could still be unsound.  This also holds for the following two logical fallacies which are similar in nature to the fallacy of the undistributed middle and also non sequiturs.  An example can be given as follows:  Men are human.  Mary is human.  Therefore, Mary is a man.

Affirming the Consequent
Any argument that takes the following form is a non sequitur: If A is true, then B is true.  B is true.  Therefore, A is true.  Even if the premises and conclusion are all true, the conclusion is not a necessary consequence of the premises.  This sort of non sequitur is also called “affirming the consequent”.  An example of affirming the consequent would be: If I am a human (A) then I am a mammal. (B)  I am a mammal. (B)  Therefore, I am a human. (A)  While the conclusion may be true, it does not follow from the premises: I could be another type of mammal without also being a human.  The truth of the conclusion is independent of the truth of its premises – it is a ‘non sequitur’.  Affirming the consequent is essentially the same as the fallacy of the undistributed middle, but using propositions rather than set membership.

Denying the Antecedent
Denying the antecedent, another common non sequitur. is this: If A is true, then B is true.  A is false.  Therefore B is false.  While the conclusion can indeed be false, this cannot be linked to the premise since the statement is a non sequitur.  This is called denying the antecedent.  An example of denying the antecedent would be:  If I am in Tokyo, I am in Japan.  I am not in Tokyo.  Therefore, I am not in Japan.  Whether or not the speaker is in Japan cannot be derived from the premise.  He could either be outside Japan or anywhere in Japan except Tokyo.

Affirming a Disjunct
Affirming a disjunct is a fallacy when in the following form: A is true or B is true.  B is true.  Therefore, A is not true.  The conclusion does not follow from the premises as it could be the case that A and B are both true.  This fallacy stems from the stated definition of or in propositional logic to be inclusive.  An example of affirming a disjunct would be: I am at home or I am in the city.  I am at home.  Therefore, I am not in the city.  While the conclusion may be true, it does not follow from the premises.  For all the reader knows, the declarant of the statement very well could have her home in the city, in which case the premises would be true but the conclusion false.  This argument is still a fallacy even if the conclusion is true.

Denying a conjunct
Denying a conjunct is a fallacy when in the following form: It is not the case that both A is true and B is true.  B is not true.  Therefore, A is true.  The conclusion does not follow from the premises as it could be the case that A and B are both false.  An example of denying a conjunct would be:  It is not the case that both I am at home and I am in the city.  I am not at home.  Therefore, I am in the city.  While the conclusion may be true, it does not follow from the premises.  For all the reader knows, the declarant of the statement very well could neither be at home nor in the city, in which case the premises would be true but the conclusion false.  This argument is still a fallacy even if the conclusion is true.

Logically Fallacious Fallacies

by James W. Benham and Thomas J. Marlowe

Ad hominem arguments are the tools of scoundrels and blackguards.  Therefore, they are invalid.
If you had any consideration for my feelings, you wouldn’t argue from an appeal to pity.
What would your mother say if you argued from an appeal to sentiment?
I don’t understand how anyone could argue from an appeal to incredulity.
If you argue from an appeal to force, I’ll have to beat you up.
You are far too intelligent to accept an argument based on an appeal to vanity.
Everyone knows that an argument from appeal to popular opinion is invalid.
Circular reasoning means assuming what you’re trying to prove.  This form of argument is invalid becuase it’s circular.
As Aristotle said, arguments from an appeal to authority are invalid.
Post hoc ergo proptor hoc arguments often precede false conclusions.  Hence, this type of argument is invalid.
Using the Argumentum ad Consequentiam makes for unpleasant discussions.  Hence, it must be a logical fallacy.
The argumentum ad nauseum is invalid. The argumentum ad nauseum is invalid. The argumentum ad nauseum is invalid. If three repetitions of this principle haven’t convinced you, I’ll just have to say it again: the argumentun ad nauseum is invalid.
Ancient wisdom teaches that the argumentum ad antiquitatem is invalid.
An argument is emotional and no substitute for reasoned discussion.  But proof by equivocation is a kind of argument.  Thus, a proof by equivocation is no substitute for a valid proof.
If we accept slippery slope arguments, we may have to accept other forms of weak arguments.  Eventually, we won’t be able to reason at all.  Hence, we must reject slippery slope arguments as invalid.
A real logician would never make an argument based on the “No true Scotsman” fallacy.  If anyone who claims to be logical and makes arguments based on this fallacy, you may rest assured that s/he is not a real logician.
An argument based on a logical fallacy often leads to a false conclusion.  Affirming the consequent often leads to a false conclusion.  Therefore, affirming the consequent is a fallacy.
The fallacy of the undistributed middle is often used by politicians, and they often try to mislead people, so undistributed middles are obviously misleading.
Reasoning by analogy is like giving a starving man a cookbook.
Non sequitur is a Latin term, so that’s a fallacy too.
And I bet the gambler’s fallacy is also invalid – I seem to be on a roll!

In a way, it makes me sad — because some of these folks are clearly intelligent and well-spoken… but haven’t been armed with even a basic grounding in scientific method or the traps of various logical fallacies.  It says quite a lot about our educational system.

References
Barker, Stephen F.  The Elements of Logic. Fifth Edition.  McGraw-Hill, 1989.
Cedarblom, Jerry, and Paulsen, David W.  Critical Reasoning.  Third Edition.  Wadsworth, 1991.
Copi, Irving M., and Cohen, Carl.  Introduction to Logic.  Eighth Edition.  Macmillan, 1990.
Rand, Ayn Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.  Second Edition. Penguin, 1990.

Links
•Brian Yoder’s Fallacy Zoo
•Charles Ess, Informal Fallacies
•Fallacies: The Dark Side of Debate
•The Galilean Library Guide to Fallacies
•The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Fallacy entry
•Logical Fallacies .Info
•Michael LaBossiere’s Fallacies Introduction
•Philosophy.Lander.Edu, Introduction to Logic, Informal Fallacies
•Stephen’s Guide to the Logical Fallacies
•Wheeler’s Logical Fallacies Handlist

ESTABLISHED

I can’t reply on drewswebsite because he has BLOCKED me.  He’s the seventieth site to do this so far.

There could be THREE OR MORE transparent layers of air of DIFFERENT HUMIDITIES, only ONE of which condenses a “VAPOR TRAIL”, within the short-haul civil aircraft band between 30 and 35 thousand feet. Layer thicknesses of differing humidities are frequently only hundreds of feet thick and ARE CONSTANTLY VARIABLE in speed, direction, temperature and humidity. Aircraft are spaced ten miles apart on the same level for a particular route, and conflicting routes are nowadays 1000ft above or below each other.

So you’ll see SOME planes laying vapor trails while others don’t – it depends WHICH transparent stratospheric layer a particular plane is flying through.

Jet exhausts are NITROGEN, STEAM, and CARBON DIOXIDE at 2000 deg C (with traces of NOX and SOX). This cools RAPIDLY in an ambient stratospheric air temp of between -40 and -80 deg C to a FINE “WHITE SMOKE” OF ICE CRYSTALS in N2 and CO2.

If the stratospheric layer it is in is SUPERSATURATED (more than 100% humid), the ice crystals accrete more ice, get heavier, and fall faster.

If the stratospheric layer it is in is SATURATED (exactly 100% humid), the ice crystals REMAIN, but SLOWLY DIFFUSE TO FILL the stratolayer. The powerful WAVE VORTEX generated by the aircraft wing continues for tens of minutes after the aircraft has passed by, slowing to a stop very slowly.

If the stratospheric layer it is in is BELOW SATURATED (less than 100% humid), the ice crystals will slowly SUBLIME back into vapor AND THE TRAIL WILL DISAPPEAR.

The layers themselves aren’t perfectly flat – they roughly conform to the ground profile AND any rising CUMULUS clouds. So even if the plane flies straight and level, it may be the layer it is in slopes gently down or up, and THE CONTRAIL EITHER APPEARS OR DISAPPEARS as it enters a NEW stratospheric layer with a DIFFERENT HUMIDITY. You have to remember these layers, though different, are ALWAYS themselves transparent.

So you can’t SEE them. You can only see which layer is really humid by a plane throwing a vapour trail in it. Typically stratospheric layers begin ABOVE the TROPOPAUSE, which is where our ground level weather STOPS. It is NOT POSSIBLE TO PREDICT FROM TABLES STRATOSPHERIC LAYER TEMPERATURES FROM GROUND LEVEL TEMPERATURES.

The stratospheric layers vary in thickness, more densely packed close to the TROPOPAUSE, thinning out to nothing much above twelve miles up. It’s very smooth and calm up there – the layers slide over each other WITHOUT MIXING. Layers with HIGH GROUND SPEEDS are called JET STREAMS.

If there are MORE vapor trails in the sky than there used to be, then the answer is that there is MORE AVIATION TRAFFIC and MORE WATER IN THE ATMOSPHERE.

At this point someone will interject “Your Theory…” and I want to plainly cut this short.

THIS IS ESTABLISHED ATMOSPHERIC PHYSICS and NOT MY THEORY.

If you wanted to PASS ANY EXAMINATION IN THIS FIELD then you HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THIS TO BE THE TRUTH.

EURODELE

Eurodele, at least you are TRYING to ask questions, but:

“why many jets, laying persistent contrails, would converge in time and space 100 miles from any large airport” – Easy. The speed of stratospheric layers over your head can reach 100mph. If contrails are persistent, then they could have been laid just an hour previously “over” an airport. Next time you see this phenomenon, time the movement of trails from horizon to horizon, and estimate the speed of the stratosphere

“strangely concentrated and patterned jet trails through or over which other jets can pass with normal contrail dissipation” – From FIVE miles beneath, you CANNOT TELL between “through” and “over”. This makes ALL THE DIFFERENCE if one (invisible!) layer is HUMID, and the layer above or below it (also invisible!) is DRY. Contrailscience cannot be held responsible for your failure to INTERPOLATE information…

EVER

Look, Ever, I am a normal guy looking at PURE BUNK: this last statement of yours. The proof that this last statement of yours is HORSE FEATHERS can be found by any sensible person merely by going to their LIBRARY, and READING any book they like which covers ATMOSPHERIC PHYSICS. Now you wouldn’t object to that, would you?

“I’m one of the many victims” – of an industrial economy.

“They are spraying” – IT IS MAKING AUTO FUMES, PHOTOCHEMICAL SMOG, AND INDUSTRIAL POLLUTANTS.

“I will not go out to see them because my asthma is terrible” – ASTHMA IS CAUSED BY THE ABOVE AND ALSO BY POLLEN.

“Whatever these things are” – I thought you KNEW

“they are indeed making people sick” – People have been made ill by industry for 150 years in your country.

“The quality of the air is so poor in the Bronx and lately it is worst than ever” – Your country is producing effluents at an ever-increasing rate

“I wonder why” – NO YOU DON’T. You have already come to a WRONG CONCLUSION.

“Debunkers/ experts/ authorities on/ chemtrails/80-90%/ real info/hidden propaganda” – Why did you write this and why the quotes? What hidden propaganda? There’s NOTHING hidden here – check my channel – I’m a MUSICIAN here.

“If you are a Musician, why do you get so defensive about this topic? I see that you spent a lot of time proving your point, great.” – I am defending (quite literally) – nothing. I am ATTACKING false and dangerous beliefs.
The Bard of Ely (with whom I have worked) enjoined me to support his “chemtrail” blog. When I read it I was astonished – I’d never met such rubbish in my life. I knew FROM EXPERIENCE (I’m an ex-aeronautical engineer) that the whole idea was wrong for a HOST of reasons. I thought that a small campaign of scientific advice would clear it up – more fool me! There have been 60 Google pages listing my attempts.

My main concern is with HEALING. If one suffers from the delusion that aircraft are deliberately spraying you with substances to make you ill, and you ARE living in polluted air, then any illness you get merely serves to CONFIRM your delusion. If, however, I manage to convince a person such as YOU, suffering from such a delusion, that after all, aircraft are NOT spraying you, you may PERMIT yourself recovery from what was a temporary state of illness. You also have a choice: to MOVE to cleaner air, or to AGITATE to remove the sources of pollution.

There is a third and most important point, that almost NO-ONE has any confidence in our system. This is because PAST APATHY has allowed the wrong people in. The ONLY WAY to get the government you want is to BE the government you want. Frank Zappa was right: you MUST stand for office.

The very best outcome of this “chemtrail” movement would be a NEW PARTY – neither Republican nor Democrat – which would seek to redress ALL the terrible imbalances to Nature that we have created, whilst preventing both a cultural CRASH, and a Global Warming CRISIS.

But you’ll never do it without a full understanding of SCIENCE…

EVERYTHING

New Developments of the Theory of Everything

(Nothing whatsoever to do with “chemtrails”, but I don’t care!)

Startling progress has been made towards a final physical theory of Everything (sometimes called TOE) which unifies and brings into comparison the disparate Theories of Relativity and Quantum Fields.

If true, the gaps in our knowledge will be displayed. That which we don’t know that we don’t know – we will know!

And here are more references for you to follow up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything

http://www.mkbergman.com/?p=409

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/sciencetopics/largehadroncollider/3314456/Surfer-dude-stuns-physicists-with-theory-of-everything.html

http://www.firstscience.com/SITE/articles/kaku.asp

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3077361/

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/everything.html

http://www.amazon.com/Theory-Everything-Origin-Fate-Universe/dp/1893224546

EVIL

“serve to cause confusion to the issue” – That seems to be YOUR role here as it is QUITE OBVIOUS that what comes out of a gas turbine IS what makes SODA-POP.

“attempt to make rational people who are making observations and discussing their experiences appear to be conspiracy nuts and/or uneducated” – ANY “rational” person would know to read up on technical aspects BEFORE “making observations and discussing their experiences” especially if they felt they were uninformed.

“You are using faulty logic and classic emotion based redirection (example “This rising panic ensues from an under-educated public”) as the basis of your argument” – the public IS under-educated. YOU are under-educated. YOU are KNOWINGLY using faulty logic and classic emotion based redirection when confronted with my challenge that you ARE under-educated (see the subject of EVIL below).

“These are exactly the tactics that are used to manipulate rather than uncover the truth” – for you this statement ISN’T a discovery!

“You should know that your posts are smacking of someone with an agenda” – and yours positively REEKS of one.

“government plant” – AHA! We’re sophisticated these days at http://www.myspace.com/jazzroc – hope you like the blog, piccies and music.

“No one mentioned anything about what the trails were” – DISINGENUOUS hypocrite! I quote – “Obvious trails, definitely converging” – “latest plane curving at same angle” – “they just keep coming” – “it’s pretty obvious” – “that’s the one” – “somebodies doing something” – “really strange spiralling effect” – “they’re just non-stop”. My, my, how “INNOCENT” you really are….

“YOU were the one to put forward a theory for what they are” – It is THE EXPLANATION made from an understanding of atmospheric physics. It isn’t a “theory”. It is established atmospheric science. Your “chemtrails” are a theory.

“YOU said the video post is “wrong” which makes no sense – my video was only making an observation that something is going on” – OF COURSE it is wrong. If I hadn’t typed in “CHEMTRAILS” I wouldn’t have pulled you up. That very WORD is a LIE with no basis.

“In additional YOU brought up the subject of evil, no one else here did” – IT IS EVIL TO KNOWINGLY MISDIRECT AND TERRORIZE OTHERS.

EXHAUST

The stratosphere temperature at the tropopause NEVER RISES ABOVE -40 deg C.

In A FRACTION OF A SECOND the exhaust, a mixture of NITROGEN, STEAM, AND CARBON DIOXIDE cools down from 2000 deg C to -40 deg to form a WHITE SMOKE OF FINE ICE CRYSTALS in a column of N2 and CO2 gases.

In HIGH HUMIDITIES that trail will PERSIST and even GROW. In LOW HUMIDITIES the ICE will SUBLIME to invisible WATER VAPOR.

EXPONENTIAL TIMES

There is no-one alive that can possibly be sufficiently clued-up on this. Whether you’re a specialist or a generalist makes no difference – from now on some aspect of our developing world is going to take you completely by surprise.

There is no doubt that one day soon an off-the-shelf computer will possess a greater processing power than the Human Brain.

But in the interim we will all have created (and endured) a startingly-exponential rate of change which could easily be totally out of our control. In the generation after the next we might well have produced a computer powerful enough to help us regain control of our civilization, but in the meantime – we’ll just have to rough it.

EXTREME?

Extreme? I find myself arguing with people who know the extremes of NOTHING. They’re hardly capable of anything. They know the extents of their boundaries, and kinda suppose that the rest of the world goes on just a bit longer…

Chemtrailers are like people who are hammering their hands with hammers and complaining about the pain. They know no extremes other than their own extremities.

Extreme?

THIS IS EXTREME!

“S-I-C-K ! !”  “D-U-D-E ! !” 🙂

FIRST CONTRAIL (PHOTO)

http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m18/JazzRoc/Contrails/stpauls.jpg

FORTRESSES

“other planes left Con trails that vanished” – then the trails were left in a DRY layer.

“other planes did not have trail” – they ALWAYS leave a trail in the stratosphere, but it may be VERY SHORT.

“at various heights” – ABOVE FIVE MILES?

“other trails lingered, spread” – then the trails were left in a SATURATED layer.

“are these trails Chem or Con trails” – CONTRAILS.

“I don’t know, I’m not a bird or a scientist” – I DO know. I AM a scientist.

“length/linger/sheet/layer/haze/slide/spray pattern/within 5-10 minutes/suspicious” – just coincident with a WET layer of the stratosphere.

“not natural/condensation trails” – you’re not a bird or a scientist, remember?

“know that planes dump fuel/not sure they dump it this low” – a plane that dumps fuel is doing it in order to survive an immediate landing. Being mobile it normally goes out to sea to do it, and will be LOW DOWN. Your chances of seeing THAT are RARE indeed.

“don’t know if it is fuel or something else/fuel = chemical” – EVERYTHING is a chemical, unless it is an ELEMENT. You’re not a bird or a scientist, remember?

“This is not the first time” – that aircraft have left persistent contrails in saturated air? Flying Fortresses in 1943 certainly did!

FRACTALS IN NATURE

Fractal calculations have an ever-expanding relevance to the task of understanding Nature with the tools of Science.

FROZEMAN

first of all, the theme by thomas tallis is very good and the pictures too, i am from germany, so my english is a little bit poor.

it seems to me that you have a good knowledge about atmospheric procedures, so i want to ask you a question.

i have watched “chemtrails” for over 2 years now, and i am still not clear, if it’s chemical spraying or normal contrails.

i understand the “layers of differing humidities” principle, that can explain some “chemtrails”. so that i see here a “chemtrail” and there a normal contrail. ok but i have filmed airplanes that have no contrail at all, and beginning to spray, and make an longstanding contrail and then stop it, to make no contrail again.

the confusing thing here is for me is that this airplane made a wingwidth stripe almost direct behind the plane. so you dont’ see two or four stripes, or how much engines it had, you see only a thick stripe all over the wingspan and it stays for hours and diffuses to thick cloud, and before it had no contrail and after that, and it sprayed at the end some little short trails, as if it stop the spraying, and there nor come a little bit of it. you can literaly see how it sprays. and in the spray direct behind the plane there were colours in the trail, because of the angle to the sun.

what do you think of that, how is it possible, if an airplane had two or four engines that it can make such a trail, and then the trail stays for “ever”? thanks for your time, and sorry for my english. i am waiting for your answer.

Hi FROZEMAN – I appreciate your English, and how hard it is to write in a different language… I’m glad you liked my music video. It makes the hard work (and a lot of musical pleasure) even more worthwhile.

The plane was NOT “spraying”. “Chemtrails” don’t exist. It is ONLY contrails that exist. The phenomenon you describe is the trail of ice crystals left by an ordinary passenger jet flying through a supersaturated stratosphere. *The separate engine trails become “bound up” in the wave vortex of each wing – these may be more than fifty metres across.

Read my blog at https://jazzroc.wordpress.com, especially SCIENCE ON TRAILS. It is towards the end of the alphabetically-sorted compendium.

There, a scientist describes carefully how and why the whole body of an airplane generates a trail in a supersaturated stratosphere.

“Saturation” is a term used to describe how the air is “full” to its limit with water vapor. Ice cannot sublime into the air, and so cannot “disappear”. Trails laid in such conditions persist indefinitely.

“Supersaturation” occurs in calm clean “laminar” conditions, where the air becomes “over its limit” with water vapor, and just needs the slightest disturbance to precipitate out its overload of ice. Trails laid in such conditions get LARGER and HEAVIER and FALL….

The ICE crystals in the trail generated by the wings and body are microscopic in size and can REFRACT and DISPERSE light by INTERFERENCE, which accounts for the colors one can sometimes see.

Ordinary cirrus clouds also produce (on occasion) such coloured effects. They are called PEARLESCENT CIRRUS. There is another name for them – NACREOUS CLOUDS.

There used to be stories of a pot of gold to be found at the foot of every rainbow. Now science shows that everyone sees a different rainbow, and there is NO WAY you can approach its foot – ever.

“Chemtrails” are like this; a myth which, like a rainbow, disappears as soon as science looks at it. Let it go…

FUN IN THE SUN

It is only very rarely that I return to Blighty. I do it when I feel strong enough within myself to withstand a WEEK (well, three weeks max) of its brute power and brazen importunity.

I had a truly wonderful time whizzing through London on an Oystercard to yak with old buggers my age about software, businesses, engineering, aircraft, steam trains, (nothing about cars – hardly), beer, booze, and women. (All the women we know, by the way, talk about us, so it’s only fair to even up the ante. If they let us.)

Anyway, that aside I was aghast that once again British weather was making with the knee-freezing combination of 18 deg C and 85% humidity as I departed, mercifully freeing myself from being charged 30 pee to pee.

Back to a balmy 32 degrees, I discovered THIS idiocy had, as they say, GONE VIRAL. So – possible fun!

NOTE: Comments text arrives higgledy-piggledy according to the vagaries of YouTube, so sometimes you have to fish around to find the connections. This amuses me considerably…

beachcomber2008
Missymoo, have you just removed a concealed compliment to me, because your PROGRAMMING just kicked in?
Tch. Tch. Naughty, naughty…
“wise pensioner who knows name calling is unbecoming” just made me blush from head to foot, and now we’re BOTH blushing
Too embarassing… LOL )

MissyM005
I am looking forward to seeing this documentary and informing other people about it as well. I think it’s fantastic! Well done to the makers. 🙂

beachcomber2008
Another irritating thing…
Chemtards are woolly-headed, I know, and cannot describe anything because even if their eyes are good, their brain doesn’t work
So let me tell you EXACTLY what CHAFF really is
It is ANY electrical conductor of an exactly specified LENGTH
In large amounts they REFLECT electromagnetic radiation (RADAR) with a wavelength of EXACTLY the same length
This was called WINDOW and used by the Allies in WW2 to confuse German radar air defences and prevent huge bomber losses
Then it was aluminum-coated paper, now it is zinc-plated glass fibres – which I think isn’t so nice and biodegradable
But in neither case is it harmful or poisonous – the fibre length is in the range 15-45 millimetres depending on the radar frequencies used by the enemy, and cannot be ingested by living beings
The amounts involved in a chaff release are in pounds – small beer
ANYONE using CHAFF as a scare tactic is a “terrorist”
Just as ANYONE using CHEMTRAILS as a scare tactic is a “terrorist”

The common (and mistaken) agricultural practice of PLOWING
GUARANTEES windborne dust, therefore windborne aluminum and barium
Windborne dust will SEED the condensation of water vapor
Once the water vapor becomes RAIN, then that rain will fall into a rain gauge so that some poor ignorant girl can become the victim of another slimy and vicious “chemtrail” video
Contrails are the IQ test that “chemtrailers” FAIL

MissyM005
beachcomber seems like a bit of a shill but not for the big pharma as expected I think for a much different organisation perhaps one they would tell u doesn’t exist. Iluminating ppl with the BS. Don’t let his desperate negative explanations get 2 you. You know the truth when it is presented, don’t let him second guess your well versed inner knowing of Truth. The trick of giving you the truth shrouded amongst lies esp regarding aluminium and barium – truth but lies moulded to deceive you.

beachcomber2008
@MissyM005 If you KNEW scientific method, missymoo, then all you have to do is
SHOW THE EVIDENCE
There’s absolutely NO POINT in telling others not to believe what I say
It is THE EVIDENCE that counts
and those white lines in the sky ARE evidence – evidence of CONTRAILS
It IS the TRUTH that aluminum and barium are in SOIL
and TRUE that soil dust puts aluminum & barium in RAINWATER
And also TRUE that that I’m a PENSIONER
You can call me the PAT CONDELL of chemtards
Who are YOU, MISSYMOO?

MissyM005
Comment removed

beachcomber2008
Quoting myself: “Windborne dust will SEED the condensation of water vapor”
And as a consequence you will find in your rain gauge ALUMINUM and BARIUM – courtesy of your local farmer
Then, if you are ignorant, you may appear on a “chemtrail” video
In the old days we had Jacques Tati, Benny Hill, Monty Python, Bill Hicks
Now “chemtrails” – a whole world of a comedy of errors

Aluminum is the MOST PLENTIFUL metal in the Earth’s crust
Not far down the list is BARIUM
You find BOTH in SOIL – CLAY is aluminum silicate
Exposed soil becomes dried and makes DUST which becomes easily WINDBORNE
The common (and mistaken) agricultural practice of PLOWING
GUARANTEES windborne dust, therefore windborne aluminum and barium
Windborne dust will SEED the condensation of water vapor
ALL plants are “aluminum resistant” because they EVOLVED in aluminum-rich conditions
Your ignorance…

EnergySupply2008
@beachcomber2008
Despite ALL the crap you wrote in this post, THE EPA CERTIFIED LAB SAID 0.5 MICROGRAM PER LITER IN RAIN WATER IS NORMAL. 3450 IS 6900 TIMES NORMAL YOU CEREBRAL MIDGET.

beachcomber2008
Energydrain, I WAS impressed by your little search, and must confess I KNOW the way it could be done
Forming large amounts of tungsten is very nearly impossible
Forming NIMONIC (nickel/molybdenum steel alloy) is a little easier
EVERY PART of the exhaust turbine section of a gas turbine is air-cooled from the rear face of the alloy sheet material they’re made of
Your “tube” would have to be streamlined concentric pipes of nimonic alloy
They would HAVE to be BROKEN for EVERY refit
whistle, whistle

EnergySupply2008
@beachcomber2008
The liar bastard in you said that jet fuel burns at 2400 degrees Celsius. The maximum temperature for (JET A-1) fuel is 980 Celsius.
The following have melting points higher than that: Copper, Iron, Manganese, Nickel, Cobalt, Titanium, Chromium, Iridium, Molybdenum, Tungsten, Carbon

beachcomber2008
@EnergySupply2008 Hey, kiddo, I’ve just been back to the FAST exhibition at Farnborough where they have a cutaway Rolls-Royce Conway engine with the combustion temperature labelled at 2,400 degrees Centigrade
Why don’t you go there and tell them (the designers and manufacturers) that they are wrong?
And I know for a fact that the delivery requirements for the Welsbach materials in Teller’s paper were 80,000 feet. It kinda stood out, you know
Melting point isn’t a good indicator. Softening point IS

And while you’re watching the documentary, you will see that the WHOLE of the work force, and the technical staff, live and work right round the plane
The wings are glued together, so there is NO WAY of picking them apart to RETROFIT “stuff”
This means EVERY ONE OF THEM, including the lady with the glue gun, would have to know the “chemtrail” equipment installed
EVERY FITTER in EVERY WORK BAY ALL OVER THE WORLD would have to know about Energydrain’s “tungsten pipes”
Yet no whistleblowers
STRANGE

EnergySupply2008
@beachcomber2008
There are whistle blowers, you just have to look for them. Two aircraft mechanics found that tubing was leading to the lighting protection rods on the wings and they had been hollowed out. When his supervisor spotted him looking too closely, he was suspended for two weeks. They threaten whistle blowers with losing their jobs and blacklisting them.

beachcomber2008
@EnergySupply2008 There’s nothing you find that I haven’t already found
Ignorant people everywhere like conspiratorial conversations and activities because it makes them feel important
Intelligent people everywhere are NOT impressed by threats or blackmail or blacklists
If there WAS any truth in any part of this it would have been gone already
So HOW DO YOU get the Welsbach materials up to 80,000 feet?
In WHAT FORM is the barium/aluminum distributed?
Stop changing the subject & answer my questions

EnergySupply2008
@beachcomber2008
You wrote: “There’s nothing you find that I haven’t already found”
YOU are delusional. I found rain water tests, patents, geo engineers talking about spraying 44 BILLION 92 MILLION pounds of aluminum per year and so much more that cannot be covered adequately with this 500 character limit shitty interface. I already told you, the patent calls for 32800 feet and they could spray lower if they wanted to really blast us with aluminum particles in our lungs.

beachcomber2008
It has always puzzled me…
Why do chemtards believe “chemtrails” are used to fight Global Warming, when they are known to be Global Warming DENIERS?
Why do they believe EVERYONE but them corrupt?
In my experience, clever people who study hard and pass exams in engineering do so because THEY LOVE THE SUBJECT
All my classmates did. They also loved cars, beer, music and the opposite sex
Entering some corrupt organization is the LAST thing they would do
You should watch “The Making of the 777”

EnergySupply2008
@beachcomber2008
This will solve your puzzlement. 2900 flights per day needed to deliver 44 BILLION 92 MILLION pounds of aluminum PER YEAR to the atmosphere. RAIN RAIN RAIN water tests showing up to 6900 times more aluminum than normal. Class is over.

beachcomber2008
Energydrain: “chemtrail patent 5,003,186 issued to HUGHES AIRCRAFT, which talks about adding the aluminum to the fuel”
was formulated by someone who WASN’T a gas turbine engineer
There are patents for a hotel on the Moon – so it must exist
Why don’t you go there?
Scotty can beam you up
You will find thousands of morons already there

Energydrain: “Tungsten melts at 3400 degrees Celsius. Care to try again you shit for brains?”
I’m terribly sorry. You ARE correct about its melting point
To confirm, could you check the price and availability of tungsten tubing?
When that’s done, we could consider you to have won the argument
Where can you get it, and how much it costs, price and availability
Shouldn’t take a moment
Just get back to me

EnergySupply2008
@beachcomber2008
The current price for tungsten is $297 per metric ton (2204.6 US pounds) Only 13.5 cents per pound. It is used in incandescent light bulbs, cathode-ray tubes such as TV and computer monitors, vacuum tube filaments, heating elements, and rocket engine nozzles. 2009 production was 53 tons.

beachcomber2008
@EnergySupply2008 Hey, that’s good.
Did you find any tubing?

EnergySupply2008
@beachcomber2008
I am not in the market for tungsten tubing right now. When I need some I will look up suppliers.

beachcomber2008
Aerosols are always present in the atmosphere, otherwise there wouldn’t be any clouds at all
Aerosols are generated by the oceans, forests, tundra, and volcanoes (85%) – and the industrial and farming activities of Man (15%)
Aerosols have existed in Earth’s air for FOUR POINT FIVE BILLION YEARS
That’s a little ahead of Edward Teller and chemtards
Why aren’t we BURIED in them?
WATER transports them down to land and sea
Even when extinction-event asteroids fell, the aerosol effects were GONE in 10 years

stephenbowman311
Shit. I had to rewrite it so many times because youtube blocks me every time I write something because I talk shit to all you shills. BTW. They don’t use commercial airliners. But seriously… all spelling aside, Shit will leave your mouth. Nasty.

beachcomber2008
@stephenbowman311 Yes, YT has a shit filter
It’s a pity it doesn’t apply it to shitty vids like this one
The thing is that it doesn’t know shit about science, just as you don’t, so it is unable to discriminate diahorrhea from honey, just as you can’t
I extend my sympathies to both of you and other chemtards everywhere
It must make shopping difficult
How do they deliver Welsbach materials to 80,000 feet? Mmmmm……

stephenbowman311
@beachcomber2008 Its funny you consider this to be a shitty vid, but you look through the comments and you’ve been here for a long time. I know plenty about science. Mostly because of my BA in Biology. I just came to F with you shills for a while and talk shit. Your not here for facts anyway. You are here on your shift spewing disinfo. I don’t go shopping. Thats for the women.

Chemtard.. I like that. Its new… Its fresh.

beachcomber2008
@stephenbowman311 “I know plenty about science. Mostly because of my BA in Biology”
What’s a B.A. in Biology? Since when was Biology an ART?
I got my degree in the sixties before DUMBING DOWN took place
I have been, and my wife presently is, a physics teacher, and I know for a fact that Advanced level today is what Ordinary level physics was for me
So don’t bullshit me, bro’
Tell me, how do YOU think they get the Welsbach materials up to 80,000 feet?
Divine intervention?

erniepond
@stephenbowman311
Well, I am terribly sorry, but you have not posted anything at all scientific!
Like explaining where all the barium and aluminum comes from and why?
Where does the 100 to 200 millions tons of aluminum come from considering the total world yearly production is only 33 million tones?
In other words, the uneducated authors of this video just do not know enough to make out a viable case!
Why should any sensible person take this cause at all seriously?

EnergySupply2008
@erniepond1
The video corrects it to 10-20 megatons with an annotation and you know it. David Keith, when asked 10 megatons will gave no human health impacts, does not offer a different number.
I have already posted twice, if you go to Worldal.com you will see that world production of alumina (aluminum oxide) is 67 megatons per year, yet you insist on lies and being a scumbag that it is 33 megatons per year.

erniepond
@EnergySupply2008
Your knowledge of chemistry is pitifully small. Aluminum metal and alumina are two entirely different compounds. Aluminum has a formula weight 27 while alumina, aluminum trioxide, has a formula weight of 102. Thus 102 grams of alumina contains 54 grams of aluminum.
Thus the world output of 67 million tones of alumina would represent some 35 million tones of aluminum, EXACTLY what I said.
That is enough of this paranoidal Chemnut rubbish for tonight! Thanks for the laugh!

EnergySupply2008
@erniepond1
YOU are a total idiot. According to you 35 million tons of aluminum is turned onto 67 million tons of aluminum oxide and there is no aluminum left over to have aluminum for other purposes.

beachcomber2008
I like the way this has “gone viral”
With little effort thousands of chemtards line up to get drubbed
So energydrain thinks there are tungsten nozzles at the back of turbofan engines
Well, the NEXT time I go flying I shall take a camera and snap away at them
I WON’T ask the captain if he can fly at 80,000 feet because I know the answer (he cannot) and I wouldn’t want him to think I’m a moron – or a CHEMTARD

EnergySupply2008
@beachcomber2008
“Tungsten nozzles at the back of turbofan engines”
Obviously they would install nozzles that can withstand the temperature.

beachcomber2008
Edward Teller’s idea requires aircraft to LIFT the Welsbach materials to EIGHTY THOUSAND FEET, otherwise they won’t stay up for long
Unfortunately for Edward (and chemtards) only the U2 and the X15, and maybe the B1 can get up there
That’s certainly the reason why “chemtrails” don’t exist
Chemtards point at passenger plane contrails
and that’s why sensible people KNOW chemtards are just plain stupid
Contrails are an intelligence test which chemtards fail

stephenbowman311
@beachcomber2008 If you talk out of your ass too much, you make start to shit out of your mouth!

beachcomber2008
@stephenbowman311 Hey, I like your thought process (tourrettish, like mine)
Is it like your spelling?

EnergySupply2008
@beachcomber2008
HUGHES AIRCRAFT chemtrail patent 5,003,186 calls for spraying at 32,800 feet and says 10-100 micron sized particles will stay aloft for up to one year. Geoengineer David Keith wants to use NANO sized particles. A nano is 1000 times smaller than a micron and estimates particles will stay aloft for 2.5 to 4 years.

beachcomber2008
mikemb123: “condensation does not require aerosols”
NO. It ALWAYS REQUIRES AN AEROSOL
AEROSOLS ARE ALMOST ALWAYS PRESENT
When they are NOT present to allow condensation, the saturated vapor becomes SUPERSATURATED
Why are the dunces in the classroom shouting from the teacher’s desk?

visry
Excellent trailer…subbed!

erniepond
@visry
I guess the Chemnuts satisfy their paranoia just just posting some nonsense they took from some other dud Chemtrail nonsense video.
OK so be it !

Global Dimming

PAGE CONTENTS

GLOBAL DIMMING – “GLOBAL WARMING IS A MYTH” FALSE! – DISPROVING AGW – GONE NUTS (PLANET) – GRIDS – GUARDIAN (UK GOVT ADMITS “SPRAYING”) – (and Sequel) – GW Room 101 – GW Room 102 – GW Room 103 – Big Gun Fires – AGW DENIALIST FRAUD!

Don’t forget my other pages, links and comments are one click away at the top right of the page… 

The 300 million tons of aviation kerosene burnt annually make up just 3% of the world total anthropogenic combustion, and hence makes up only a thirtieth part of global warming and dimming.

In general, it is CARBON DIOXIDE that contributes to global warming and PARTICULATES and WATER that contribute to global dimming.

So there is a risk that as we clean up our combustion activities we will INTENSIFY global warming.

But aviation plays only a THREE PER CENT part in all of this.

And maybe this is a solution to global warming:

 

  

“GLOBAL WARMING IS A MYTH” – FALSE!

No doubt you’ve seen “An Inconvenient Truth” and some of the MYTH counterclaim videos that have been out and about.

Well, perhaps it’s time you studied what the UK Meteorological Office has to say about it. You can spend your time at leisure over the graphs and charts and not be rushed onwards by a commentator inside a video. It’s a good idea to EXPAND EVERY IMAGE.

Or you could consider what wonderingmind42 has to say, here:

It is well worth reading the notes that accompany this, and following up many of his other videos.

Perhaps then you’ll agree that Global Warming is NOT myth. Or read on…

If you don’t, then maybe you have a religion with pseudo-scientific postulates – or dyslexia – or maybe you need to read on…

On the left is a photograph of Muir Glacier taken on August 13, 1941, by glaciologist William O. Field; on the right, a photograph taken from the same vantage on August 31, 2004, by geologist Bruce F. Molnia of the United States Geological Survey (USGS).

 

 Now you could say these glaciers are selected because they are receding. So here is a table of glacier lengths for sixteen more glaciers, showing in every case a dramatic shrinkage since the industrial revolution. “Sometimes they have increased” I hear you say. But what is the trend?

As they shrink, they are cooling the Earth, but once they have disappeared, they won’t be doing that, will they?

Not only that, but they had a high albedo, reflecting incoming solar radiation back into space. The low-albedo rock they reveal, on the other hand, will not reflect this radiation, which will add to Earth’s solar heating. It may be one of our many “tipping points”, NONE of which we should desire to test, for we are in this test tube.

 

Human-Induced Climate Change – a Load of Hot Air

Ian Plimer is currently Professor of Mining Geology at the University of Adelaide. He was previously a Professor in the School of Earth Sciences at the University of Melbourne. He is also a prominent member of the Australian Skeptics. He was awarded the Clarke Medal by the Royal Society of New South Wales in 2004. 

 

Yes. Yes, I go with this antipodean gentleman. And with the gent who finishes this chapter. GW is bullshat upon….

Charlton Heston died not long ago. Here is what he has to say about Man and the Earth.

And here is another viewpoint, “Life After People”:

http://moviealien.com/play.php?v=4939078184096254535&s=goo

DISPROVING AGW

The following is an article I’ve discovered which addresses ALL the main the main points of the AGW argument and demolishes them one-by-one. From:

 “Watts Up With That?”: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/24/disproving-the-anthropogenic-global-warming-agw-problem/#more-7993

Disproving The Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) Problem – Leonard Weinstein, ScD – April 25, 2009

(Leonard Weinstein received a B.Sc. in Physics in 1962 from Florida State University. He started work at NASA Langley Research Center in June 1962. While at Langley, Leonard obtained his Master and Doctor of Science degrees in Engineering from the George Washington University. He continued to work at NASA Langley until June 2007, ending as a Senior Research Scientist. Dr. Weinstein has had a career that is recognized for innovation. He has over 90 publications, including 11 patents. He has received numerous awards, commendations, and recognitions for innovative experimental research, including an Exceptional Engineering Achievement Medal, an IR-100 award, the 1999 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) Engineer of the year, the James Crowder Award, and over 40 other awards and recognitions for innovative experimental research. Dr. Weinstein is presently a Senior Research Fellow at the National Institute of Aerospace.)

A theory has been proposed that human activity over about the last 150 years has caused a significant rise in Earth’s average temperature. The mechanism claimed is based on an increased greenhouse effect caused by anthropogenic increases in CO2 from burning of fossil fuels, deforestation, cement manufacture, and also from increases in CH4 from farm animals and other causes. The present versions of the theory also include a positive feedback effect due to the increased temperature causing an increase in water vapor, which amplifies the effect. The combined result are used to claim that unless the anthropogenic increases of CO2 are slowed down or even made to decrease, there will be a continuing rapid increase in global temperature, massive melting of ice caps, flooding, pestilence, etc.

In order to support a theory, specific predictions need to be made that are based on the claims of the theory, and the predictions then need to happen. While the occurrence of the predicted events is not proof positive of a theory, they increase the believability of the claims. However, if the predictions are not observed, this tends to indicate the theory is flawed or even wrong. Some predictions are absolute in nature. Einstein’s prediction of the bending of light by the Sun is such a case. It either would or would not bend, and this was considered a critical test of the validity of his theory of general relativity. It did bend the predicted amount, and supported his theory.

Many predictions however are less easily supported. For example weather forecasting often does a good job in the very short term but over increasing time does a poor job. This is due to the complexity of the numerous nonlinear components. This complexity has been described in chaos theory by what is called the butterfly effect. Any effect that depends on numerous factors, some of which are nonlinear in effect, is nearly impossible to use to make long-range predictions. However, for some reason, the present predictions of “Climate Change” are considered by the AGW supporters to be more reliable than even short-term weather forecasting. While some overall trends can be reasonably made based on looking at past historical trends, and some computational models can suggest some suggested trends due to specific forcing factors, nevertheless, the long-term predicted result has not been shown to be valid. Like any respectable theory, specific predictions need to be made, and then shown to happen, before the AGW models can have any claim to reasonable validity.

The AGW computational models do make several specific predictions. Since the time scale for checking the result of the predictions is small, and since local weather can vary enough on the short time scale to confuse the longer time scale prediction, allowances for these shorter lasting events have to be made when examining predictions. Nevertheless, if the actual data results do not significantly support the theory, it must be reconsidered or even rejected as it stands.

The main predictions from the AGW models are:

1. The average Earth’s temperature will increase at a rate of 0.20C to 0.60C per decade at least to 2100, and will continue to climb after that if the CO2 continues to be produced by human activity at current predicted rates.

2. The increasing temperature will cause increased water evaporation, which is the cause for the positive feedback needed to reach the high temperatures.

3. The temperature at lower latitudes (especially tropical regions) will increase more in the lower Troposphere at moderate altitudes than near the surface.

4. The greatest near surface temperature increases will occur at the higher latitudes.

5. The increasing temperature at higher latitudes will cause significant Antarctic and Greenland ice melt. These combined with ocean expansion due to warming will cause significant ocean rise and flooding.

6. A temperature drop in the lower Stratosphere will accompany the temperature increase near the surface. The shape of the trend down in the stratosphere should be close to a mirror reflection of the near surface trend up.

The present CO2 level is high and increasing (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/). It should be fairly easy to show the consequences of AGW predictions if they are valid.

  

Figure 1. Global average temperature from 1850 through 2008. Annual series smoothed with a 21-point binomial filter by the Met Office.

(http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/)

It should be noted that the largest part of the last 150 year increase in CO2, which is blamed on human activity, did not occur until after 1940, so the largest temperature rise effects should have occurred in that time. The proponents of AGW have generally used the time period from 1970 to 2000 as the base line for an indicator of the rapid warming. In that base line period, the average temperature rose about 0.50C, which averages to 0.160C per decade. The claim was then made that this would accelerate due to continuing increases in CO2 level. However if we look at the temperature change from 1940 through 2008, the net increase is only 0.30C. This is due to a drop from 1940 to 1970 and a slight drop from 2000 through 2008. Now the average rise for that period is only 0.040C per decade. If the time period from 1850 through 2008 is used as a base, the net increase is just under 0.70C and the average rise is also 0.040C per decade! It is clear that choosing a short selected period of rising temperature gives a misleading result. It is also true that the present trend is down and expected to continue downward for several more years before reversing again. This certainly makes claim 1 questionable.

The drop in temperature from 1940 to 1970 was claimed to have been caused by “global dimming” caused by aerosols made by human activity. This was stated as dominating the AGW effects at that time. This was supposed to have been overcome by activity initiated by the clean air act. In fact, the “global dimming” continued into the mid 1990’s and then only reduced slightly before increasing more (probably due to China and other countries increased activity). If the global dimming was not significantly reduced, why did the temperature increase from 1970 to just past 2000?
A consequence of global dimming is reduced pan-evaporation level. This also implies that ocean evaporation is decreased, since the main cause ofocean evaporation is solar insolation, not air temperature. The decreased evaporation contradicts claim 2.

Claim 3 has been contradicted by a combination of satellite and air born sensor measurements. While the average lower Troposphere average temperature has risen along with near ground air temperature, and in some cases is slightly warmer, nevertheless the models predicted that the lower troposphere would be significantly warmer than near ground at the lower latitudes, especially in the tropics. This has not occurred!

The following is a statement from: Synthesis and Assessment Product 1.1
Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research – April 2006 – “While these data are consistent with the results from climate models at the global scale, discrepancies in the tropics remain to be resolved”.

Claim 4 implies that the higher latitudes should heat up more than lower latitudes. This is supposed to be especially important for melting of glaciers and permafrost. In fact, the higher latitudes have warmed, but at a rate close to the rest of the world. In fact, Antarctica has overall cooled in the last 50 years except for the small tail that sticks out. See:
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/20061013/20061013_02.html
Greenland and the arctic region are presently no warmer than they were in the late 1930’s, and are presently cooling! See:
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2006/11/17/cooling-the-debate-a-longer-record-of-greenland-air-temperature/
The overall effect of Antarctic and Greenland are now resulting in net gain (or at least near zero change) of ice, not loss. While some small areas have recently lost and are some are still losing some ice, this is mostly sea ice and thus do not contribute to sea level rise. Glaciers in other locations such as Alaska have lost a significant amount of ice in the last 150 years, but much of the loss is from glaciers that formed or increased during the Little Ice Age, or from local variations, not global. Most of this little ice age ice is gone and some glaciers are actually starting to increase as the temperature is presently dropping. For more discussions on the sea level issue look at the following two sites:
http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=dnc49xz_19cm8×67fj&hl=en
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5067351/Rise-of-sea-levels-is-the-greatest-lie-ever-told.html

This indicates that claim 5 is clearly wrong. While sea level will rise a small amount, and has so since the start of the Holocene period, the rise is now only 10 to 15 cm per century, and is not significantly related to the recent recovery from the little ice age, including the present period of warming.
The claims in 6 are particularly interesting. Figure 2 below shows the Global Brightness Temperature Anomaly (0C) in the lower Troposphere and lower stratosphere made from space.
a) Channel TLT is the lower Troposphere from ground to about 5 km
b) Channel TLS is the lower Stratosphere from about 12 to 25 km

Figure 2. Global satellite data from RSS/MSU and AMSU data. Monthly time series of brightness temperature anomaly for channels TLT, and TLS. Data from: http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_description.html

The anomaly time series is dominated by ENSO events and slow troposphere warming for Channel TLT (Lower Troposphere). The three primary El Niños during the past 20 years are clearly evident as peaks in the time series occurring during 1982-83, 1987-88, and 1997-98, with the 1997-98 being the largest. It also appears there is an aditional one at 2007. Channel TLS (Lower Stratosphere) is dominated by stratospheric cooling, punctuated by dramatic warming events caused by the eruptions of El Chichon (1982) and Mt Pinatubo (1991). In these, and other volcanic eruption cases, the increased absorption and reflectivity of the dust and aerosols at high altitudes lowered the surface Solar insolation, but since they absorbed more energy, they increased the high altitude temperature. After the large spikes dropped back down, the new levels were lower and nearly flat between large volcanic eruptions. It is also likely that the reflection or absorption due to particulates also dropped, so the surface solar insolation went back up. It appears that a secondary effect of the volcanic eruptions is present that is unknown in nature (but not CO2)!

One possible explanation is a modest but long-term drop in Ozone. It is also clear that the linear fit to the data shown is meaningless. In fact the level drop events seem additive if they overlap soon enough for at least the two cases shown. That is, after El Chicon dropped the level, then Pinatubo occurred and dropped the level even more. Two months after Pinatubo, another strong volcano, Cerro Hudson, also erupted, possibly amplifying the effect. It appears that the recovery time from whatever causes the very slow changing level shift has a recovery time constant of at least several decades.
The computational models that show that the increasing CO2 and CH4 cause most of the present global warming all require that the temperature of the stratosphere drops while the lower atmosphere and ground heat up. It appears from the above figures that the volcanic activity clearly caused the temperature to spike up in the Stratosphere, and that these spikes were immediately followed by a drop to a new nearly constant level in the temperature.

It is clear from the Mauna Loa CO2 data http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/) that the input of CO2 (or CH4) from the volcanoes did not significantly increase the background level of this gas, and thus this cannot be the cause of the drop in the stratospheric temperature.

The ramp up of atmospheric CO2 also cannot explain the step down then level changes in high altitude temperature. Since the surface temperature rise is supposed to be related to the Stratosphere temperature drop, and since a significant surface rise above the 1940 temperature level did not occur until the early 1980’s, it may be that the combination of the two (or more) volcanoes, along with Solar variability and variations in ocean currents (i.e., PDO) may explain the major causes of recent surface temperature rises to about 2002.

In fact, the average Earth temperature stopped rising after 2002, and has been dropping for the last few years!

The final question that arises is what prediction has the AGW made that has been demonstrated, and that strongly supports the theory. It appears that there is NO real supporting evidence and much disagreeing evidence for the AGW theory as proposed. That is not to say there is no effect from human activity. Clearly human pollution (not greenhouse gases) is a problem.

There is also almost surely some contribution to the present temperature from the increase in CO2 and CH4, but it seems to be small and not a driver of future climate.
Any reasonable scientific analysis must conclude the basic theory wrong!

GONE NUTS (PLANET)

“for the real answers” – I’m talking about your poor science and you’re off about the NWO!

“THEIR plan/agenda is simply for nuts” – I’m with you.

“JAZZROC IS A PLANT BY THE US” – http://www.myspace.com/jazzroc

“GREAT SPIRIT—-CHARGE” – you left the planet here…

“you BELIEVE the OFFICIAL 911 COMMISSION report” – er, NO.

“unsuspecting masses” – I used to think that a bad thing, until I met the SUSPECTING MASSES.

“we been conditioned” – NO, UNEDUCATED and left in charge of a directionless mind…

“unravel this mess” – you couldn’t unravel a woolly jumper.

“Rise of the 4th Reich” – this would be a putsch by bankers (optional w).

“head these assholes off at the pass” – I had a sudden vision – never mind…

“Increased solar output” – NOT TRUE.

“The NWO” – probably YOUR b——-e.

“and don’t hand me that bullshite” – it’s all coming the other way.

“of course this is a perspective issue” – ain’t that the truth.

“they are formed right behind these craft” – I’ve never seen any AHEAD. (except for “black laser light” ones. 😀

“SNEAKY activity going on above” – make your mind, above, below, to one side, where? 

GRIDS

The STRATOSPHERE is a still and stable part of our atmosphere compared with the TROPOSPHERE, which is the part in which we live, and experience CUMULUS clouds, and rain and thunderstorms.

However there is such a thing as THE PREVAILING WIND which we experience at ground level. It is actually THE PREVAILING MOVEMENT OF THE COMPLETE ATMOSPHERE.

There are in the stratosphere layers of air with varying humidities which slither over each other with small relative motions and in so doing sometimes cause HIGH CIRRUS clouds, enabling you to see the relative motion. Otherwise YOU CANNOT SEE ANY MOTION OF THAT AIR BECAUSE ALL THESE LAYERS ARE TRANSPARENT. The motion relative to each other is technically LAMINAR motion – it is smooth and pretty frictionless, without turbulence, and quite unlike the troposphere beneath.

Anyway, imagine a SEQUENCE of aircraft flying (and throwing contrails) from A to B along the same overland line, which is NOT NECESSARILY in line with the prevailing atmospheric motion. Although they are flying THE SAME OVERLAND COURSE, what you’ll see is a SERIES OF LINES PARALLEL TO EACH OTHER as the atmosphere passes by.

Now imagine another contemporaneous SEQUENCE of aircraft flying (and throwing contrails) from C to D along another overland line at roughly RIGHT ANGLES to the first (they’d be assigned a different altitude) and you’ll get a RECTANGULAR GRID OF CONTRAILS IN THE SKY, as the prevailing movement of the atmosphere continues to bear them away. It’s easier to sketch this idea with a pencil than it is to describe it in words. You could imagine printing a letter X in the same spot, but the paper is being smoothly moved in one particular direction. You’ll always produce a grid.

There’s NO SPRAYING going on – just your regular passenger shuttle traffic, but on a day with a PARTICULARLY HUMID ATMOSPHERE.

Even on a clear blue sky day the air contains water. I looked out recently and it was such a sky, checked the Relative Humidity (65%) and in a minute or two had calculated that this CLEAR BLUE SKY contained within a radius of SIX miles and a height of FIVE miles THREE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED TONS OF WATER. APPROXIMATELY!

 GUARDIAN

(UK GOVT ADMITS “SPRAYING”)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4398507,00.html

This was research into the best means of defense against germ and toxic gas attack conducted in various parts of the south-west of England, in the light of a direct threat by the Soviet Union, immediately following the Second World War. The trials were conducted sporadically and secretly for twenty years (as far as released information tells us), involving up to ten small-scale experiments each year, under the auspices of Porton Down.

Atomized materials were dispersed from barges ten miles off-shore, vans travelling along country lanes, and a specially-converted Canberra twin-jet bomber flying at 2000ft.

The materials were water, killed and identifiable bacteria, and zinc cadmium sulfide powder.

Research has been carried out to determine whether there were  any identifiable cases of infection or poisoning occurring as a consequence of these trials, which may yet still be continuing. It found none.

It seems to me that there was (and is) a legitimate responsibility of any government to determine the best possible defense against attacks such as these, the risk of which has abated only little, since the breakup of the USSR.

Furthermore, the targeting of the Tube System in bomb attacks, and the Tokyo Subway System in a nerve gas attack, might well have increased such secret defensive activities of the British Government. A bloody good thing too…

Of course, a BETTER still defense approach might be to have BETTER relationships with the world’s peoples than that enjoyed at present.

We have failed to ensure this – it’s OUR responsibility.

SEQUEL

A conversation with ICEWHALE re the Guardian story Oct 1 2008

promote the falsehood that the bacteria were somehow ‘marked’.

Falsehood?

when faced with the possibility that you might be wrong

No chance.

you claim that such matters are irrelevant

I claimed your whole post was irrelevant, as this is.

you are in danger

Of dying of tedium only.

you are plain wrong

We’ll see… (yawns)

method of identification / radioactively-labelled antibody

Ah, the MARKER! A little titter runs across the room…

I must admit I have difficulty understanding this statement (inconsequential post hoc sophist) /  1949 – 1975

That’s because you ARE one. Inconsequential and mostly post hoc. 1975 being 33 years ago.

one scientist

That makes me wrong, then.

And your evidence for this claim is

The disappearance of the USSR, the Cold War, the Berlin Wall, er, HISTORICAL.

during a ‘crash programme’ corners are cut  / ‘old boys network’ / ethical concerns

Preparations for defence, war, deterrence? Best take a long time, eh? And lose like gentlemen coughing softly into our cravats…

It also occurred more recently / retrospectively

Tut, tut, such a rush…

the UK Government would

It would indeed. It has responsibilities.

puerile claims of ‘sophistry’ / harm to your case

You’re a lawyer? That could explain your sophistry. Not guilty m’lud.

exposed to appreciable doses

I’m sure the MARKER appreciated them.

their properties had been changed

Not sufficiently for the MARKER not to work, therefore not sufficiently for the body’s defences not to work, either.

capable of growth and causing disease

A property of many bacteria on your nose right now. Even as it lengthens…  (But not a property of the KILLED bacteria in question!)

pneumonias and sepsis in vulnerable people / capable of causing disease in immunocompromised people / human pathogen

Life’s a risky business, especially when it includes threatening enemies who make statements like “we will bury you”. That risk necessarily extends to the population when it enters the hideous equations of war. A finger hovered over the button on more than one occasion in the sixties.

But IN THIS CASE the KILLED BACTERIA would be NUTRITIOUS. Eat a piece of cheese, why don’t you?

massive bacterial aerosols in populated areas / significantly contaminated by an uncharacterised bacteria / refuse to rule out conducting future large-scale experiments / unable to confirm whether the public will receive prior warning

Yes. Tough aren’t they? WAR isn’t a tea-party, icewhale. If and when such a thing might begin, it might be considered practical to eliminate timewasting wiseacres like yourself, with a view to shortening the war.

But IN THIS CASE the KILLED BACTERIA would be NUTRITIOUS. Eat a piece of cheese, why don’t you?

The holding of such attitudes, icewhale, is a practical form of defence. It suggests to a putative enemy that it wouldn’t be nice to tangle with such a bunch of bastards. Nice guys get into wars which they then don’t win. I’m a pacifist myself, and I reckon Sun Tzu had it off pat when he suggested the same.

who can say that they weren’t involved in secretly spraying populated areas of the UK?

Who, indeed?

I hope you don’t waste any more of my time with paralogisms, casuistry, quibble, speciousness, and the meshes and cobwebs of sophistry…

 Global Warming Room 101

These are taken from the comments in the Daily Telegraph March 15th 2009, and reflects contention without facts, until the last…

Comments

How many other mainstream newspapers would print this. Good on you. All you have to do is listen to the remarks of the GW believers to expose it for what is really is – a Religion. Dissenters are silenced for example and any critisism is savaged as heresy. That’s not science, it’s religion.

The dream of an old man, who will die before he awakes.

 

In reality the scaremongers are wrong and we didn’t suffer a Katrina hurricane more often or every year as the scaremongers predicted. Algore predicted eleven years ago that “in ten years the levels of the ocean will rise enough to cover up small islands” but in reality no islands have been swallowed up and in fact because of volcanic activity there are more islands now than then.
I am all for doing what we can to stop pollution, real pollution. I believe in conservation and recycling. I don’t believe that global warming is a problem and I don’t believe that making CO2 a pollutant and trading it on the world market as a commodity will result in anything more than making a few rich people richer, like the oil speculators did last year. The oil speculators had to face reality when the price dropped off dramatically and many of them lost money which will stop them from doing it again, but there’s no reality check for this commodity called CO2 pollution.

“the most costly and economically-damaging package of measures ever imposed on mankind” – Whoa, just who is scaremongering here?

The really annoying thing about the whole debate is the Ecomentalists will always be right. Even if the Chris Bookers of the world are correct, and the world shows a net cooling trend, the Al Gore acolytes will claim that this is a result of their intervention.

The past two winters in Chicago have been among the coldest in the last 100 years. Where is Al Gore’s hot air when we need it?

We just enjoyed 8 feet of snow this winter. Last year we had the second highest snowfall since records have been kept. In the last two years it has snowed in Baghdad, Alabama, Georgia and other unlikely venues. All the while, the nattering nabobs continue to prattle on about “global warming” as if they don’t have access to the real world where the rest of us live. We can all agree that Al Gore is a true believer, as are most of Hollywood. Why then, have they not altered their behavior at all? Mr. Gore uses an astonishing amount of power. Hollywood has just finished its fourth or fifth major awards ceremony beamed to every household on the planet. Movies, sports, entertainment and the various other frivolities that make life enjoyable continue unabated, but we’re to believe there’s a crisis so immediate that if we don’t start sucking the CO2 from the atmosphere this instant we’re all going to stew in our own juices?

Simple reason. The Green Agenda is overwhelmingly dominated by Lefties. Since when has the Loony left ever embraced true scientific evidence, as opposed to populism and mass hysteria?

Why is the UK subject to social fads to the point of economic chaos. Is there a reason why global scaremongering has to be the politics of the 21st century?

I’m impressed with Steve’s withering sarcasm. After all, science gave us the atom bomb so if it’s ‘scientific’ it must be good, right? In my opinion there isn’t a shred of evidence to support the global warming theory. And are you people seriously proposing that we should all stop heating our homes in winter? Why not get worked up about real things like deforestation and dwindling fish stocks instead? If you really want to do something about the environment then campaign to change the insane ec regulations that currently cause thousands of tons of fish to be dumped at sea.

The irony of a climate change sceptic complaining about not being listened to, or an absence of serious debate is almost too funny for words. Perhaps Mr Booker might reflect on the thought that had there been less resistance and more serious debate 20 years ago we might not have reached the state of hysteria and scare-mongering we seem to be in now. People scream loudest just before the plane crashes!

Fascinating article, and worth reading in close detail.

Firstly the Heartland Institute is a lobbying group that fights any kind of regulation of big business, and plays pretty fast and loose with the truth. They are still claiming that evidence of harm from smoking is a conspiracy of doctors, campaigning that is well funded by tobacco companies, and that evidence for global warming doesn’t exist, again well funded by oil companies – all the time while claiming the scientific consensus is a conspiracy.
I’d like to know if they started the proceedings with an apology for last years “550 scientists who deny global warming”, which so completely misrepresented the real views of most of the scientists listed. A little masterpiece of dishonesty and misrepresentation – still being quoted by Charlie Booker.

Christopher, the reason that nobody in the media covered the Heartland Institutes conference, is that the “la la la, it’s not really happening” argument has been thoroughly discredited, and the institute is a rightwing thinktank wholly tainted by its vested interest in returning to the status quo and funding from interest groups like Exxon Mobile. Whereas Copenhagen was newsworthy as you have legitimate, qualified, impartial scientists at the top of their profession giving the latest updates and ideas. Hope this provides some (rather obvious) clarification.

Mr. Booker does a good job describing and distinguishing between the two conferences. Too bad that the discussion about the Heartland Institute meeting is on page 2 … at least a number of commenters read that far! I spent yesterday viewing the videos and reviewing the presentation material. Good food for thought. The reason the politicians have cranked up ‘Global warming’ is to stop the wealth transfer to Middle Eastern states. Pure & simple. The rise in Islamic banking and political influence has the west spooked, so we are now moving towards alternative energy. Expect BP and Shell to diversify in the coming years, probably buying banks or Energy utilities.

Christopher Booker: living in fantasy land. Luckily the shrill ravings of him and his ilk are being given less and less notice, as the rational majority favour evidence over conspiracy theories. He’s left telling us to ignore well-respected science academies from around the world while championing his pet free-market thinktank, the Heartland Institute.

Christopher, got one, even one, respected scientific institution that agrees with you? Of course not. Back to your shrill bleating and paranoia.

Whether Global warming is or isn’t true is pretty irrelevant. Surely the fundamental problem is the West’s reliance on oil. Scare mongering tactics are being used to reduce consumption/ encourage research into alternatives. Plus ca change.

Humans took all of history to reach a population level of around 2.5 billion just after WW2. Then in a mere 60 years or so since then that figure has almost tripled. There is the underlying reason for ALL our ecological and climatic problems. Anything we do will be a waste of effort against that stark fact.

It is so refreshing to be given a more balanced view on climate change after so much media and political hysteria.

Grateful American: “Americans are clearly no longer the worst-educated Westerners” – Overpaid, Oversexed, Over here! and now Over-educated, if you please!

Wow, a whole half-million dollars? That kinda pales into insignificance against the cost of the Copenhagen conference, doesn’t it? and didn’t Al Gore spend $4 million dollars on his waterside home in San Francisco [note the waterside bit]? That from his earnings from the “ludicrous and entirely inaccurate” [according to the High Court, not me] film and his carbon trading company, and just how much is made from carbon trading, and how much is “invested” in the various academics making a nice living thanks to this arrant nonsense. Do any of the supporters know how much [or rather how little] CO2 there actually is in the atmosphere ? No I thought not – they never do. Though I suspect Professor Lindzen does. Its about 0.035%.

This the same Heartland Institute who have received over half a million dollars funding from ExxonMobil? Not that I’d suggest that that has anything to do with their stance. Just like the money they receive from the tobacco industry has nothing to do with their stance against legislation on smoking.

In his book “Red Hot Lies” the author Christopher Horner describes how global warming alarmists use threats, fraud and deception to keep you misinformed. In this book the following is a quote made by Mr George Monbiot, that Environmental Guru: “Every time someone dies as a result of floods in Bangladesh, an airline executive should be dragged out of his office and drowned” (page 69). Mr Monbiot calls this irony.
The alarmists wish to stifle dissent. The question should be asked just what is it that they have got to hide. Keep on writing, Mr Booker.

I used to respect your views but since your highly questionable doubts regarding Darwin and evolution were publicised, I suspect that you are a wishful thinker rather than using verifiable facts based on strong evidence to support your case. You scoff, but remember the Millennium Bug! Planetary catastrophe was narrowly averted only by the co-ordinated efforts of thousands of IT experts, painstakingly and meticulously lining their pockets at taxpayers’ expense. The biggest problem the world faces today is over-population – that creates all the other problems of dwindling resources, etc.

I note that the Prince of Wales has again added to the scaremongering, this time giving us a time-frame of fewer than 100 months. Has anyone noticed that the Earth is actually cooling and has been doing so for the last 11 years or more? The models and calculations have repeatedly been proved to be incorrect and those that are on the GW bandwagon spout their nonsense littered with “could”, “might”, “estimated” with nothing remotely accurate. It’s time these people took real jobs and left science fiction to those who entertain by doing so.

Thank you so much for publishing this article. Man-made CO2 as an engine for global warming is a great steaming pile of buffalo droppings, a hoax, bad science, Flat-Earth nonsense. I contributed to a thread on the Guardian website about global warming and was the object of furious invective from an outraged “global warmer”. I had suggested that the engine for warming and cooling of the planet was the state of activity of the sun. I further pointed out that the Sun is now in a quiescent phase, and the process of global cooling had now begun (the last winter was the coolest in a decade). I predicted that next winter would be even colder, and the winter beyond, colder yet. I also mentioned the interesting detail that the polar ice-caps on our sister planet, Mars, had been shrinking, along with those on earth. (This had been noted by an orbiting satellite and reported in the magazine “Nature”). All of this infuriated the “global warmer”, and our exchange ended when he uttered the classic big whopper of the CO2 brigade, that what I was trying to suggest ran against the collected wisdom of the “entire scientific community”.

The world of “science” has brought us many myths: “bacteria cause disease, “smoking is harmful to your health, “natural selection shaped the species of the earth, “the earth is round,” and so forth. And now science offers the myth of climate change. What rubbish! Bless Christopher Booker for exposing modern science for what it is: a wicked and evil obstacle to mindless superstition.

 

Yes, the climate change extremists can shut up. Global warming is a lie, and climate change is a big joke.

How is it that the Telegraph can print and deliver millions of printed papers to all corners of the country in less time than it takes them to post comments on blogs?

Did you notice the ice on Kilimanjaro in the comic relief film of the celebrity climb? Wonder if Gore did?

I feel so saddened to have read this article. I hope that he is right and that nobody does listen to the so-called ‘real’ climate change experts. I also hope that Christopher Booker will look back in shame and take responsibility for his damaging comments.

James Lovelock has said recently in Vanishing Face of Gaia that that the range of evidence from IPCC climate models is so wide and varied as to be not useful for politicos to base their policies on reliably, so it seems that Mr Booker isn’t so far wide of the mark. Me? I’m gonna buy me some shares in Vestas Wind Systems or Clipper Windpower or Suzlon Energy and ride the bubble and get a free holiday out of feeling pious. But, seriously folks, this recording of all your trips and holidays and journeys out of the UK that is being billed as a security measure will doubtless lead to more sanctimony and moralising about carbon footprints and subsequent taxation on your income/capital/ bin contents/ lifestyle/ etc., for the good of all… of course… Escape whilst you can ?

So Nick Griffin supports your arguments Mr Booker. Says it all. I only visited this website to see what the other side is up to, and my god it’s frightening.

Once again, Christopher Booker sheds light on the inside of this internationally-organised corrupt can of worms. Just like the ‘Natural England’ organisation – there is nothing natural or even honest in the ‘climate change’ itinerary. The whole concept is to control and to tax whilst simultaneously ensuring open debate or dissent is rigorously denied any opening. It must be fought – quite simple really – even in the face of the Grauniads who would make climate-change denial a similar crime to holocaust-denial (and even I grant that one of them did indeed occur – and it wasn’t the one warming the Earth!) We desperately need more honest journalists (and a few honest Editors) to publish the real “FACTS” behind the climate SCAM – before the world’s governments give all our money away to corrupt bankers who are providing the present wonderfully convenient smoke-screen for them.

Even if your complacency regarding the greenhouse gases and climate, was justified, which I don’t believe it is, we would still have to adopt identical policies to prevent ocean acidification. No doubt you believe this is all alarmist nonsense as well.

I am so glad that finally there are scientists out there who are finding the courage to question this so-called climate change. Al Gore has been making a very tidy packet from all this. Creating fear in young people is criminal, and he should be sued by parents everywhere.

I was delighted to run across this article and the accompanying comments. Americans are clearly no longer the worst-educated Westerners. A challenge for you who deny the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Produce one recent college textbook that supports your position.

Discovery channel had a good idea recently, in order to reforest areas you parachute in saplings. To perform the experiment they used 8 helicopters and 2 medium-sized planes. The result, I have no idea… they never said what happened with the saplings. I suspect that the whole experiment cost half a million with a 20% success rate. Their other experiment wasn’t much better and used even more fuel than the choppers. A man with a horse and cart would have achieved a much better success rate (+90%) at a lot less cost, a lot less cost! But that doesn’t fit with the Enviro-Nazis’ or the bleeding-heart liberals’ agenda.

You’re seriously going to accept the findings of the Heartland Institute? Its really great to see tobacco and oil lobbiests calling themselves a scientific think tank. I seriously find it hard to take an organisation that defends the taxes charged on smokers seriously. Meanwhile 1 year of global cooling vs the more than 50 year upward trend that we are seeing doesn’t really match up, does it? But thats ok, your science teaches you that the Earth is flat and God will make everything OK as long as we kill terrorists and go to church on Sundays…

Follow the money – whose opinions are bought and paid for by the fossil fuel and other extractive industries? I look at pedigree: the pedigrees of those arguing calmly with science on their side, and those arguing ferociously from a political position that everything is hunky-dory and we have no need to worry about global climate change. I know which lot I would rather trust with my life and possessions.

Ricky. Some of the people posting here are paid by the oil companies. And others by the Sierra Club, Theresa Kerry and George Soros.

 

The global warming fraud is a deliberate ploy to wind back civilisation. It’s Nazism all over again – mass death. If you wipe out industrial civilisation, you wipe at least 5 billion people from the planet. We need more technology not less. Nuclear is clean, safe and necessary on a large scale – around 6000 power stations are needed worldwide to bring the world up to a decent standard of living, and to arrest the ongoing decline in living standards.

The modern environmental movement arose out of the wreckage of the New Left. They call themselves Green because they’re too yellow to admit they’re really Reds. Why do you think Lenin’s birthday was chosen to be the date of Earth Day? The only underlying theme that makes sense of all Greenie policies is hatred of people. Hatred of other people has been a Greenie theme from way back. In a report titled “The First Global Revolution” (1991, p. 104) published by the “Club of Rome”, a Greenie panic outfit, we find the following statement: “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… The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”

Professor Lindzen is reported in www.logicalscience.com to have claimed that no one seems to be able to explain the growing Greenland ice sheet. Anyone living in northern climes – even Forrest Gump-like non-scientists – can tell you the heaviest snows take place in the ten degrees centigrade just below freezing. The colder it gets after that, the less snow falls because of the inability of very cold air to hold moisture. Living as I do in Anchorage, Alaska, I know that a clear sunny winter day usually means biting cold temperatures. It is warmer temperatures that explain the heavier snowfall in Greenland, leading to a buildup of the ice sheets. With even warmer temperatures those heavier snowfalls will be offset by melting in areas above freezing. This is just one example pointing out Lindzen’s cluelessness. Please check out the logicalscience website for more of the same.

The US, UK, and Israeli militaries needlessly produce huge amounts of CO2 and they are the greatest threat to human and planetary survival — a greater threat than Al Qaeda, Iran, China, and Russia combined. We must stop the Iraq and Afghanistan wars immediately if we want to save the planet. Why are we producing huge amounts of CO2 to get control of the Middle East oil when we shouldn’t even be using oil anyway?

Do politicians take any notice of these expressions of public opinion? How long do we wait for D. Cameron to make apologies about Tory climate fatuities? Or do we have to find other parties to vote for?

I thought that the earth was still coming out of the last ice age – how are we going to stop this happening.

I agree with you 100%, Mark Denny. Liberals want to scare, intimidate, and/or imprison anyone who doesn’t agree with their agenda. They are nothing more than modern-day Nazis.

This is nothing more than vile propaganda. I really believe climate change denial should be an imprisonable offense. Hundreds of millions of people will die if something isn’t done… I know this because my children are brainwashed/taught these very things in school. If they argue against the ‘facts’, they’ll come home with low grades. And schools (and indeed universities) are hardly the places to make political points now, are they?

Rush was right! I remember when radio-talk-conservative ripped Gore years ago. He said that the left would create a crisis and offer solutions to save us through government-controlled bureaucracy and (but of course) new taxes. In America Obama has already penciled in 700+ BILLION carbon taxes in the coming years. This has become a sad money game with insiders controlling the message and developing the self-benefitting solutions.

If you keep catching the prophets in lies, on facts which are easily verifiable, it becomes foolish to believe the unverifiable, like whether a computer model was programmed correctly. Al Gore lied or obfuscated repeatedly in his movie. He implied global warming caused the Aral Sea to dry up, when in fact the major sources of water, the Syr Darya and Amu Darya were dammed and diverted by the Soviets for irrigation. The Soviets dug a 1375 km canal diverting the water of the Amu Darya all the way across the Kara Kum desert to Ashgabat! The dam on the Syr Darya at Kairakkum holds back a freshwater reservoir the Tajiks tongue-in-cheek call the “Tajik Sea”. Al Gore showed pictures of glaciers melting since the 1940’s.

Well, I live near Chicago, and where I live used to be under a glacier a mile thick; glaciers have been melting continuously since the end of the last ice age 10,000 years ago! Al Gore showed us the Vostok ice core graphs. What he didn’t bother to mention is that if you download the data and study it closely, you see that temperature LEADS CO2 by 400 years on average. Governments have responded to this revelation. Two years ago it was easy to find this data and examine it closely.

Now you go to government web sites and they have scrunched up time scales and plotted with wider pen widths so that the pen width is wider than the 400 year antithesis. I saw one dot UK website that even had the chutzpah to compress the CO2 scale with respect to the temperature scale, shift the CO2 plot up, and then proclaim that yes, CO2 is almost always behind temperature, but look at the bottom of the chart, it is in front (it is actually above) temperature, so CO2 must start the heating! If countries are going to brazenly manipulate data to promote a fraud, they need to get their act together!

You must also keep in mind these are the same people who have made and continue to make perfectly safe and energy-efficient refrigerants illegal to manufacture, because of an ozone hole which mysteriously stays in one spot exactly coinciding with the flow of charged particles from the auroras. If refrigerant were causing ozone depletion, how would the refrigerant know what exact spot on earth to be over to cause a chemical reaction in cold thin freezing air moving hundreds of miles an hour, especially over a darkened pole, when sunlight is supposed to trigger the reaction? Compare in your mind how much energy is in an aurora, whose energy comes from solar flares and once caused so much DC charge to flow it caused a major blackout in Canada, versus a minuscule trace of completely inert molecules with fluorine-carbon-chlorine bonds. We have gone back to the unenlightened ages when religions dictated science.

Note: the “inert molecules” are actually CATALYTIC in function, and thus immediately “crack” another ozone molecule, and so on, until they are finally “cracked” themselves by high-energy atmospheric photons. It is the rate of fluorocarbon catalysis versus the rate of fluorocarbon breakdown which is the issue here. There are other issues with anthropogenic oxides of nitrogen and sulfur. AND there are 10,000 ACTIVE VOLCANOES.

.

What makes Professor Lindzen the most distinguished climatologist in the world? I do not see any reason other than the fact the he agrees with the author’s viewpoint. I hear that this Professor also believes that the relationship between smoking and lung cancer is highly exaggerated. Is he the most distinguished medical expert as well? The point is that Professor Lindzen discredits himself by commenting on areas where he does not have any expertise, thereby coming across as a naysayer, a contrarian. And by the way, he is also associated with organizations receiving money from ExxonMobil and the likes. That can amount to a conflict of interest too.

Perhaps this issue would be taken more seriously if less airtime was given to clowns like Prince Charles and more to real experts on the subject.

Well said once again CB. Why is no one willing to listen? Has anyone in Government the guts to open their ears & minds & query the copious self-serving drivel served up by Mr Gore etc.. ?

To Ricky and all the others who believe in man-made global warming known as AGW, I’m going to make this simple so even your group can understand it. Al Gore said the Earth was having a fever. To this I ask one simple question.
Can anyone, scientist or not, tell me what temperature the Earth SHOULD be? The answer is NO. Before you believe in this junk have someone answer this question. Because without knowing this answer you don’t know if the so called warming (man-made or not) is warming us to where we should be. After this it does get a little harder to follow so the greenies that just drink kool-aid might not be able to follow. Remember the ultimate assertion is AGW. If there is global warming, or as they now like to call it climate change, then it depends on if it is natural or caused by man. If it is natural then your own arguments say we need to do NOTHING as this interferes with the natural cycles.
The first problem is to determine if we are warming or cooling. This all depends on your time reference. For example, is the stock market going up or down? For a year and a half the answer is down. If we pick 1990 as a starting point then up. The reason most chicken littles pick 1850 is because that was a very cool point in history. If we pick 1998 or the 1930’s we have had cooling. What all this means is that we really aren’t warming or cooling, but the climate does change over time.
So the real bottom line question is: “Is this change is caused by man?” This is the AGW hypothesis. I’m going to use two words that many greenies will have trouble understanding. Correlation and causation.

Correlation is where observations show that one event is linked to another observation. For example there is a correlation on who wins the Super Bowl and how the stock market does for the rest of the year. But no one except a fool would think that the winner of the Super Bowl CAUSES the stock market to go up or down. Now all the so called AGW scientists claim that CO2 causes climate change.
First, let’s see if there is a correlation. In looking at the data and ice cores there is a correlation. The only problem is that CO2 trails (meaning “is after”) temperature increases by 800 years. Oops! Since they can’t show a leading correlation scientifically, they can’t show causation.
But let’s go one step further and claim that CO2 does impact climate change. How much of this is man made? We need to know how big CO2 is in relation to all greenhouse gases, what percentage of all CO2 is man-made and finally the proposed reductions. CO2 is less than 5% of all greenhouse gases and man contributes less than 20% of that. Finally they want to reduce (not eliminate) this amount by 20% at the most. Many are just reducing 5% or less. So 20% of 20% of 5% results in a total reduction of .2%. If the expected temperature increase is 3 degrees then we can expect all the money spent on CO2 reductions to result in .006 degrees of temperature reduction. WOW!
So now that I have explained all this for the greenies I don’t want to hear from them unless they answer these points. And stay off the 9 billion people thing. Unless you want to commit mass murder it has zero bearing on the AGW argument.

 

Global Warming Room 102

This I discovered at WIRED:

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/04/humans-halfway-to-causing-dangerous-climate-change/comment-page-1/#comments

I frequently find the comments to be FAR more interesting than the articles!  🙂

 

2briang 04/30/09
@Synesius : “CO2 abundance was twice the current value during the Miocene epoch (7-23 million years ago) and the climate was temperate but cooling. It was ten times the current value at the beginning of the Eocene (56-37 million years ago)and the climate was tropical and cooling. Facts are stubborn things. The “Warmies” count on people not knowing any.”
Gee….how do you think the quality of life was for reality-based, fact-driven people such as yourself during those epochs ? I wonder if you think that it is a fact that humans and dinosaurs co-existed on earth ?
The “fact” is that the Earth will survive us all, and will prevail through all kinds of climatological events. The issue is, my children and grandchildren (and yours) will not.

SteveNordquist 04/30/09
2briang that’s awesome, just as long as we mate with actual well-adapted to 23m year old conditions dinosaurs the kids will be all right.
I’m gonna need some new parenting…theme park equipment.

RichardHead | 04/30/09
Lots of sharp people here. FYI Al Gore is subsidized by Exxon Mobil. When the CO2 is captured under his plan, Exxon Mobil will be the benefactor in 2 ways. They will be paid to dispose of the CO2, by injecting it into unused oil wells. When the CO2 enters the oil field, it will allow capture of oil by forcing it to flow to low production wells, increasing the ability to pump it to the surface, so more oil is available to burn.
Follow the money. Global warming is great for oil. Do you really believe Exxon Mobil is a stupid company?

Curly | 04/30/09
Why are we not told of the concentration of CO2 in the air now versus what it was each decade from 1970 to present? If the concentration is not increasing then CO2 is not the problem.
There is another problem. Many or even most in the environmental movement have brought lawsuits to prevent the building of nuclear power plants. How many thousands of tons of CO2 could have been prevented from being released into the atmosphere if the nuclear power plants had been built? It is very disingenuous of the ‘environmentalist’ today to now say we have to reduce the CO2 emissions.
If I remember global history correctly the northern hemisphere (at least) had large ice flows down to somewhere around Arizona area. My question is where are the ice flows now? They existed long before humanity had made an impact on the earth. Was there global warming before man? HUM, Maybe man is not making the impact that he is being accused of.

thisthinghere | 04/30/09
science ignorance – 1: the state of lacking knowledge or comprehension of what science is, how science is undertaken using the scientific method, and the actions and responsibilities of scientists 2: a state characterized by the mistaken belief that the scientific method is a “thing”, a device, an object or a law that only one side in a scientific debate is allowed to use, while the other side in that debate can only whine.
clinical examples of condition:
1: “when people disagree with something that science has said is proven, all they have to do is whine a lot. there’s no reason for them to do their homework, to use the scientific method to come up with a BETTER theory. No, they can just whine, and that will magically disprove decades of work by thousands of scientists”
2: Galileo, Copernicus, all those guys did was whine. They didn’t use science to show the church’s theories about the motion of the heavens and the Earth’s place in the solar system were ignorant and wrong. all they did was whine, and somehow people just felt like believing them.”
3: “All scientists do all day is sit around and come up with things they want to believe in. and then they force everyone to believe in it too. science is just about belief”
4: “A scientific law in science is a law because that’s just what a majority of people want to think. there’s no experimental basis or calculations to back it up”
5: “What’s so unfair about science is that once a scientist has proven a hypothesis, no one else can use the scientific method to come up with a better experiment to prove a better hypothesis. this is the tyranny of science. that the scientific method can only be used by special people, and is not a gift for all of humanity that anyone can use.”
6: “The reason why there are so many hypotheses and theories about dark matter, and strings, and god particles, etc., is just because all those scientists haven’t come up with something they all believe in, not because the experiments so far are coming up with different, contradictory results. it’s about all the scientists coming up with something to believe in, not about coming up with such a smart hypothesis and smart experiment that no matter how scientists test it, they always end up with the same result”
7: “When 90% of scientists agree on something, it’s not because they’ve reviewed the experiments and calculations and that 9 out 10 of them have independently arrived at the same conclusion, it’s because they’re all drinking and golfing buddies”
8: And the 10% of scientists who have reviewed the experiments and calculations and independently arrived at a different conclusion don’t have to use the scientific method to come up with a better experiment to prove a better hypothesis. all they have to do is whine and that makes all the experiments and calculations of the 90% automatically wrong”
9: “The burden is on scientists to prove other scientists wrong, to prove a negative. it is NOT to prove a BETTER, more accurate, or more elegant hypothesis, theory or law.”

samagon | 04/30/09
Sorry everyone, I’ve been really gassy lately, which is causing more global warming, and localized seat warming. I would also like to add that this man-bear-pig-flu thing that is going around may be a blessing, if it ever gets to india and china, assuming it kills off half of their populations. that would cut down on the CO2 production from that part of the world by a large margin.

joenz | 04/30/09
Astro posted: “None of you are likely scientists, so just shut the hell up. Most of you people are just some average schmoe who have no clue about anything.” Follow the money idiot. I am an electrical engineer and I currently have a job designing solar panels. I am employed partly because of global warming theories. Other “scientists” are getting paid to do global warming research. The people paying them EXPECT them to find results supporting global warming theories! Climatologists that publicly report data that does not agree with mainstream global warming theories are swiftly fired and called nutcases. Most people around the world that speak against global warming claims are not nut cases, but instead they are not comfortable being HEAVILY TAXED because the government says “Don’t worry, we have scientists saying we need your money.”

papajon0s1 | 04/30/09
No, I don’t buy this for one second. And no, I don’t have the time, talent, or treasure to do my own extensive Global Warming research. I don’t have time to go get my own ice core samples or determine levels of sea ice or measure how much CO2 is whereever. I also don’t buy into any computer modeling because computer models many times can’t predict the next days weather let alone conditions years ago or years into the future.
All I know is what I read and clearly there is plenty of “disputable evidence” because there are plenty of arguments on both sides. What angers me is being forced into environmental policy based on what may or may not be true. Once you start claiming that the data is not arguable I know it’s crap and in no way should you make policy based on that.
Don’t you ‘green’ folk realize when you get into your “we ALL have to do x or y or x” or “We all should get behind green technology this or greeen technology that” that you instantly turn off a huge portion of your audience? Once you sound like an elitist lefty uber-enviro-nazi you might as well be talking to a brick wall.
You need a new way of presenting your data without all the pretentious alarmist crap. That said, I’m all for things like alt-fuel vehicles where I can pay pennies per mile over dollars. I’m happy when there isn’t crap and litter all over the streets. No one likes a smog-filled city or a lake so polluted even the rats won’t go there. But seriously, there seems to be a reasonable environmentalism that is no longer here and it has been replaced with complete idiotic bunk.

phira360 | 04/30/09
If we are going to try to help climate change, then why are you spending so much time on the computer reading and typing this? This is a bit ironic.

zerocontrol | 04/30/09
If you have 9 minutes of your life to watch a video THIS IS ONE TO WATCH. No it’s not one of those annoying, stupid videos. It’s very down to earth straight forward and most important real.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF_anaVcCXg

BrianScience | 04/30/09
32,000 scientists, including 72 Nobel Prize winners, say that Global Warming/Climate Change is NOT caused by humans. See: http://bit.ly/qOmhr
Where is the science to prove humans are the cause of GW/CG?? Fact: CO2 levels rose AFTER Global Warming started, NOT before. FACT: The most prevalent “greenhouse gas” is WATER VAPOR, not CO2! This article did nothing to refute these facts.

AJ | 04/29/09
Oh noes! 1!! 11!! With all those tons of CO2 up in the air, it’s only a matter of time before great big chunks of the sky start falling on us! Good thing we have those stones in Georgia to tell us all what to do after the Ecopocalypse.
Do these climate change models also take into account the global disruptions that will be caused by the massive solar flares that previous modeling experts (i.e. Mayans) have predicted occurring in December, 2012?
I hate to quote Sarah Connor, but it is important to remember that future has not been written. While information like this is good to be aware of, its veracity can only be proven over time. It is important to note that these models are only theories (as in string theory where there’s a lot of doubt, as opposed to the theory of evolution where there is none [at least among intelligent & rational persons]).
Basing global economic policies on sketchy science that relies far too much on single variable, hockey stick-type graphs is not a good long term plan. What happens when the next crisis du jour crops up and all our efforts to reduce CO2 have created some other ecological nightmare? The only thing that can truly be relied upon is the Law of Unintended Consequences. No matter what we do to fix our present circumstances, it will have negative ramifications that will need to be dealt with in the future.
My recommendation is to plan and prepare for the worst, but avoid disrupting the entire world economy in attempt to fix something that isn’t necessarily broken.

 

mhungry | 04/29/09
There’s a real problem with these numbers and the concern over CO2. We seem to forget that some things on this planet breathe CO2. What about the CO2 removed from the atmosphere by these plants? I haven’t seen that taken into account very often in these studies.
This leads to my “best way to be green” tip: Plant more plants and cut down less trees. There you go. Simple and effective.

photoprinter | 04/29/09
I have never seen an article about CO2 that EVER mentions the atmospheres self-cleaning function. It’s called RAIN. And @mhungry, don’t worry about the cutting of trees. At least in this country, logging companies plant more trees than they cut down. If they did not, soon they would not have any product to sell.

Crashz | 04/29/09
ok so… AJ, let me ask you this, if you saw cracks slowly forming in a fish tank, would you fix it before or after the tank breaks and spill all of the fish on the floor, if we don’t start slowly fixing it now, later on it will probably be worse for us if we try a radical change (another analogy comes to mind of jumping into freezing water, but one analogy is my limit per rant)
mhungry, the plants you speak of cannot keep up with what we are putting out, in fact, we are eliminating the very plants that you speak of in our rain forests which produce most of our breathable air. So therefore the values that are removed by the plants are probably in there, it just doesn’t contribute to the reduction of the CO2 fast enough.
I’m not some green freak, I’m just a critical thinker.

lukelea | 04/29/09
I’m with Freeman Dyson on this one. Global warming, on balance, may be good for the human race and there is not much we can do about it anyway.

Angema | 04/29/09
“Don’t worry about cutting down trees.” Thats the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. “At least in this country . . .” Yeah. Its too bad this country doesn’t span the globe. “. . . logging companies plant more trees than they cut down.” Yeah. Its too bad all forested land isn’t owned by logging companies. Forested land even in the U.S. is decreasing. Most of this isn’t due to logging companies, true. Its due in large part to land fragmentation and conversion to feed our suburban lifestyle. That does not mean it isn’t a problem.

LandShark | 04/29/09
Huh… just halfway?

cspearow | 04/29/09
Climate change happens. We are going to deal with it, not prevent it.
Climate change is kind of like starving African children or the killing of baby Harp seals: nobody likes it, but just try to get anybody to spend their own money to stop it.

MentorMatt | 04/29/09
MHUNGRY, you are absolutely right, as is Freeman Dyson. The plants absorb humongous amounts of CO2.
Problem is, mhungry, you only wrote a small comment, while the article that cites bogus computer simulations actually has a big blue planet picture all over it…
Expose climate fearmongers for what they are… and they include Wired.

cirby | 04/29/09
That’s odd… Up until recently, five (or six, or seven) degrees Centigrade by 2100 was the “point of no return” for Global Warming. That was the amount we were going to see by the end of this century, according to Al Gore and the IPCC. Even now, the Weather Channel is pushing the “Six Degrees” meme.
All of a sudden, it’s TWO degrees by 2060 or so (well below the previous predicted curve – this would make 2100 about four degrees hotter than the 1980s, when Global Warming was first predicted).
Sounds like someone noticed that we’re not going to make the six (or five, or whatever the current worst-case scenario is) degrees, so they have to revamp their predictions. Again. So, instead of “parts per million” (which has been the measuring standard for the whole extent of the debate), they decided to move the goalposts to “total tons of carbon dioxide”.
Beware the “round number prediction.” When you see a scientific prediction that uses something like “one trillion tons,” it almost always means someone chose that amazing number for political reasons, not from any scientific one. It sounds scary, so they use it, and make the equations fit. They pick dates 10 or 20 or 50 or 100 years down the road, not because science actually predicts anything, but because people automatically accept long-term predictions divisible by ten.
If this were real science, it would be something like “in about 63 years, plus or minus five, the temperature will be X degrees, plus or minus Y.”
Remember the “several meters of sea level rise by 2100?” Which became, after some actual math, less than half a meter (or, possibly, a couple of inches)? Or the melting of all of the ice in 10 (or 100, or whatever) years? Which, as it turns out, is either not really happening (Greenland), is cyclical and reversing (the North Pole), or trending in the opposite direction (Antarctica).
Why is it that every time the GW catastrophists have to make revisions to their work, it’s always in the downward direction?

steelerfanhw | 04/29/09
I think that global warming was created in one of Al Gore’s bad dreams. Look throughout history and you will find that there have been significant climate changes that have shaped the earth we call home. Like the stock market, I say that we should let the climate run its course and not try to manually change it.

VinsonDaly | 04/29/09
Well then after the pandemic we should expect some improvement.

steelerfanhw | 04/29/09
How is that?

derekris | 04/29/09
Whatever — the swine flu will kill all of us and then it won’t matter. The irony of scientific sensationalism is that no one will be around to celebrate when it finally predicts something with perfect accuracy.

damasterwc | 04/29/09
The ‘evidence’ is computer models. Very inaccurate computer models that scale 1 pixel to 200 square miles or so. WTF!@!!! they said financial derivatives would never blow out cuz their computer models told them so. take a lesson from the blood-sucking speculators: computer models are fine for modeling conditions within a computer, they do not, however, model reality.
fyi: world ocean temperatures have decreased in the last 5 years, and Antarctic ice cover is at the largest it’s been in 20 years. Why do you think there is the sudden push to pass these draconian bills? They know the warming of the 20th century is over and they’re trying to get their shit passed before enough of us realize it’s bullshit. wake the f*&# up!

Scriptable | 04/29/09
I’m with the vast majority of scientists and the evidence on this one — rapid and irreversable global climate change is caused by human activity. Pray to Jesus as much as you like, it aint gonna change the facts.

steelerfanhw | 04/29/09
The climate is volatile, and I believe that if we try and help, it will only make problems worse. It will cause problems that actually are irreversible.

johnsbrn | 04/29/09
mhungry: Do you really think climatologists are not aware of the existence of plants? Their effects are well known and have been studied extensively. The fact is, plants aren’t a carbon sink, they are just a temporary store. Throughout the year plants take in and release carbon dioxide. Most of the carbon is also released when they die or are burned.
photoprinter: exactly what is the mechanism by which rain scrubs CO2 from the atmosphere? Rain will mix with some carbon in the atmosphere (very minimal), which is they released back when the water evaporates.
Global warming is real, there is indisputable data to back that up, the only thing in question is how much of it (if any) is caused by us. At the end of the day, no one wants to suck on a cars tailpipe or live next to a coal power plant, so whether you think we are the cause or not let’s focus on cleaning up the air to improve our quality of life and create sustainable energy sources. If a by-product of that happens to be less global warming, then that’s great too.

tonygotskilz | 04/29/09
@ Crash – “ok so……. in fact, we are eliminating the very plants that you speak of in our rain forests which produce most of our breathable air. ….
You may be a critical thinker but not a critical reader obviously. The majority of our breathable air does not come from tree, or rainforests. It comes from algae.
And thats the problem with people who comment on the environment. They hear something thats in vogue, it sounds good so they repeat it, then the next idiot believes it cause he read it on the interwebs…
I challenge anyone who believes in global warming being affected by man to do some research into climate change written pre-1990’s. We have not been recording statistics on temperature and C02 emissions for long enough to have any clue what we are dealing and therefore I personally believe we should not go making changes to anything until we have at least enough facts to make an informed decision instead of just snap judgements… But I’ve beaten this horse many times and although it looks dead it’s still walking around.

nickbrooks | 04/29/09
I’m going to cancel my subscription to Nature (where this research is published). Why bother to read the science first hand in one of the world’s most respected peer-reviewed scientific journals when I can read such intelligent analysis by non-specialists who know better than the scientists on the comments pages of Wired? What was I thinking?

kflanagan | 04/29/09
What about sunspots and the extended solar minimum we are now in? 2008 and 2009 have proven to be the lowest sunspot activity in 100 years and the earth has been cooling since the last solar max in 2000.
To quote Harvard astrophysicist Dr Soon: “If this deep solar minimum continues and our planet cools while CO2 levels continue to rise, thinking needs to change. This will be a very telling time and it’s very, very useful in terms of science and society in my opinion.”

designguybrown | 04/29/09
An interesting phrase that underlines the whole article: “… Reducing emissions steadily over 50 years is much cheaper and easier and less traumatic than allowing them to rise for 15 years and then reducing them violently for 35 years….” This may not necessarily be true with future full implementation of dramatic technological innovations, comprehensive change-over of energy sources, and firmly accepted take-hold of policy initiatives.
Which further brings up the idea of conservation -vs- technology when it comes to guiding consumers and companies with policy – it may not be possible to fully focus on both. It may be more successful to wait for technologies, thus staying wealthy in the meantime, (with easy adaptation and minimal sacrifice) that will allow a continual increase in living-standard so that we can afford consumables in the future that hide all the emission-increase and energy-usage in a great technology. Think of how far developed and widespread renewable energy sources will be by then. The costs of sacrificing now may not allow us to afford more potent technologies later on (i.e. 15 years from now). Just a thought.

steelerfanhw | 04/29/09
Well it doesn’t help that alternative energies are not very cost effective. Taking oil away from Americans is like taking away McDonald’s from an obese person.

rimshot515 | 04/29/09
Sure, global warming is occurring. Sure, the temperature of the planet may rise two degrees. Sure, carbon dioxide levels are rising.
But where is the research depicting specific, measurable, catastrophic events resulting from this? And don’t you dare say hurricanes, or I will have the British government slap you in the face with their bill to include the evidence that it is not the result of global warming.
Side point: CO2 levels follow temperature rises, not the other way around. Looking back at the Medieval periods, when there was a sh!tload of coal powered plants, global warming occurred, and CO2 subsequently rose. It’s a cycle.
Additionally, plants function best at higher concentrations of CO2. In fact, farmers use this technique to produce higher yields of crops. That, along with the opening of new shipping lanes in the North and revealing of mineral deposits and mammoth fossils, depict global warming as a good thing, not bad.
Finally, there have been several periods where global warming has stopped and even decreased, while we kept truckin’ along in our SUV’s. For example, global temperature has not risen for the past decade. Between 1940-1970, temperature actually decreased as we spat tons of CO2 into the air with the massive production of military equipment and inefficient cars.
So no cause for alarm. Enjoy the weather!

LouSkannen | 04/29/09
How can computer “projections,” basically hypotheses expressed in computer code, be taken as credible evidence of that which they posit? Only observed evidence, measurement, can scientifically support hypotheses. And the evidence supporting climate models so far is at best mixed, at worst, non-supportive in the short term and who knows for the long term. They predict the past well (often); the future…?
I’ve been reading on this issue for years and have yet to find credible evidence that recent climate change of whatever metric is significantly different globally because of our presence than is natural.
How utterly predictable that the UN body charged with determining how significantly man is changing climate has found that man IS changing climate – and the situation demands immediate government, nay, international, action! Duh…
At least the Nature article simplified things, kinda like a notorious algorithm recently described on this site simplified determining investment risk. That certainly turned out well.

plaasjaapie | 04/29/09
Repeat after me “Trofim Lysenko”.

Synesius | 04/29/09
“Climate Science” is to the Left what “Creation Science” is to the right: nonsense used to promote an agenda.
CO2 abundance was twice the current value during the Miocene epoch (7-23 million years ago) and the climate was temperate but cooling. It was ten times the current value at the beginning of the Eocene (56-37 million years ago)and the climate was tropical and cooling.
Facts are stubborn things. The “Warmies” count on people not knowing any.

mikesd | 04/29/09
Wow. I thought Wired was a magazine for smart people. Where did all the jr. scientist commenters come from. Planetary science has known CO2, methane, etc. are the gases that hold an atmosphere to a planet (and trap the sun’s energy) for over a hundred years.
Now, suddenly, all the Fox News viewers are pretending they can rewrite basic third grade science to suit their selfish brand of politics. Good luck.

nerevolution5 | 04/29/09
Like one of the brightest scientists on the planet, Michio Kaku said (on the topic of Global Climate Change) it seems it will take a catastrophe before humans react.
It’s natural for any species to change their habits only when something isn’t working *currently*. The economy broke again, everybody tries fix it. Swine flu suddenly starts killing people, so airports around the world cancel flights to/from Mexico. So far, climate change has had no immediate impact on human life. As I expected, the majority of the people commenting on this article don’t care about it.
Until coastal cities become flooded by melting polar caps, and farms can’t grow the crops they used to because of a lack of rain, or too much rain, chances are nothing will change.
It’s rather interesting that people say “why modify our climate, let it run its course!” when we’re *already* modifying it.
I think the important thing that humans will need to come to is that they need to learn how to prevent catastrophes before they happen. It seems a lot of people think everything will just work out on its own. The ones who say climate change isn’t “going to happen” probably also don’t believe the Earth will one day be sucked into a black hole. Just because we don’t see it happening doesn’t mean it won’t ever happen.
It’s unfortunate, but like I said, people will continue to deny Climate Change or shrug it off until something apocalyptic happens. Just like the sudden tight security at all airports since 9/11. Just like the sudden attention to bridges when the Minnesota bridge collapsed.
Humans will only reach a new level of intelligence when we take action *before* these things happen.

Scriptable | 04/29/09
The arguments presented here against climate change are reminiscent of the banna proof that God created use 6000 years ago, or the peanut butter jar proof against evolution. Simplistic and wrong, but appealing to those of below-average intellect.

Crystal_girl | 04/30/09
Excuse me Al Gore, I have a question. What about all of the CO2 emitted by the rapidly expanding number of mobile sources called human beings? Even if we discontinued use of all fossil fuels, our expanding human population is emitting ever increasing amounts of CO2. Not to mention all other forms of animal life. So should we have a cap and trade system for babies too?? Why don’t we just start planting a lot more trees?
I for one am not ready to give up my car or my electricity, and it is the height of arrogance for us in the West to tell China and India that they may not industrialize in order to raise the standard of living of their peoples.

Synesius | 04/30/09
FYI Crystal_Girl, of the 30 billion tons of CO2 produced annually by humans, about 2 billion come from exhaling, as you rightly point out. You are also correct in assuming that the Warmies WILL use this issue to control who can have babies. Scratch a Leftist and you will almost always find a totalitarian.
BTW, termites produce around 55 billion tons of CO2, almost twice our output. People who advocate planting trees should think twice; trees are termite food. Do we really want to encourage those little CO2 emitters to multiply?

martinp | 04/30/09
@Crystal_girl – first of all, I don’t see any mention of Al Gore in the article, so why do you bring him up? Somehow I don’t think you actually even bothered reading the article before posting.
And to address your argument, humans breathing out CO2 do not contribute to climate change since that CO2 came from plants that absorbed it from the atmosphere a few months or years earlier. CO2 stays in the atmosphere for decades, so this kind of emission makes no net contribution. The problem is CO2 that has been locked away for a long time, ie fossil fuels.
Honestly the strongest argument in favor of AGW is the weakness of the alternative explanations. This comments thread is a perfect example.

dobermanmacleod | 04/30/09
I would like to correct the author of this article-one trillion tons (a teraton) is an overestimation: we now have evidence from the Earth’s history that a similar event happened fifty-five million years ago when a geological accident released into the air more than a teraton of gaseous carbon compounds.
As a consequence the temperature in the Arctic and temperate regions rose eight degree Celsius and in tropical regions about five degrees, and it took over one hundred thousand years before normality was restored.
We have already put more than half this quantity of carbon gas into the air and now the Earth is weakened by the loss of land we took to feed and house ourselves. In addition, the sun is now warmer, and as a consequence the Earth is now returning to the hot state it was in before, millions of years ago, and as it warms, most living things will die.” (The Revenge of Gaia.)
By the way, here is what Climate Code Red says:
–Human emissions have so far produced a global average temperature increase of 0.8 degree C.
–There is another 0.6 degree C. to come due to “thermal inertia”, or lags in the system, taking the total long-term global warming induced by human emissions so far to 1.4 degree C.
–If human total emissions continue as they are to 2030 (and don’t increase 60% as projected) this would likely add more than 0.4 degrees C. to the system in the next two decades, taking the long-term effect by 2030 to at least 1.7 degrees C. (A 0.3 degree C. increase is predicted for the period 2004-2014 alone by Smith, Cusack et al, 2007).
–Then add the 0.3 degree C. albedo flip effect from the now imminent loss of the Arctic sea ice, and the rise in the system by 2030 is at least 2 degree. C, assum ing very optimistically that emissions don’t increase at all above their present annual rate! When we consider the potential permafrost releases and the effect of carbon sinks losing capacity, we are on the road to a hellish future, not for what we will do, but WHAT WE HAVE ALREADY DONE.
Frankly, I don’t know where the author arrives at the conclusion that a teraton (one trillion tons) is what gets us to 2C. We are already in a “fool’s climate” where our sun-dimming pollution is cooling the Earth at least 1 degree C.

Astro | 04/30/09
None of you are likely scientists, so just shut the hell up. Most of you people are just some average schmoe who have no clue about anything. This is the real deal science, so all of you idiots just stay out and refrain from leaving idiotic comments. This is what happens when a bunch of ignorant and idiotic masses think that they could have a say on something they know nothing about.

dobermanmacleod | 04/30/09
By the way, it is too simplistic to judge global warming based upon the weight of carbon in the air, because all carbon is not created equal. For instance, compare CO2 and CH4. Each molecule has the same amount of carbon, but the methane is 100 times more powerful the first ten years as carbon dioxide (70 times more powerful the first twenty years, and 23 times more powerful overall).
In other words, the same amount of carbon can be vary in global warming strength by a factor of 100! I need to add that there is more carbon in CH4 contained in ice than all the oil, coal, and natural gas combined. Worse, the ice needs only to melt to release the carbon, whereas the oil, coal, and natural gas release the carbon into the air when burned.

memphisrambler | 04/30/09
If for some reason man’s pollution was causing global cooling, what would be the cry? Glaciers and antarctic sea ice is increasing, and the ocean levels are falling. Colder winters are causing humans to use too much energy for heating. Growing seasons are becoming shorter and crops are diminishing. Humans are freezing to death. People are migrating to warmer climates. Civil unrest everywhere. Frankly I would prefer global warming.

Kane | 04/30/09
Hey, I may be an ‘average schmoe’ but even I know all the evidence indicates global warming is total B.S. (according to the best Exxon Mobil PR research money can buy). Burn it, burn it all! bwaaahahahaha

iamconcerned | 04/30/09
Ok… however informative this article is… I’m sorry but I have to ask… what exactly should I as an individual do? After reading one of the previous comments, I just want to ask, what do you mean attempt to fix something that isn’t necessarily broken? Correct me if I’m wrong, but there are GIGANTIC HOLES in our ozone layer! How much more broken do you want us to get… before we start fixing?
Also… I don’t personally care much for organic chemistry and carbon molecules… but hiding the fact… which is… WE ARE A FEW DECADES AWAY FROM TOTAL MELTDOWN! – by talking about how heavy or light or what kind of chain a molecule forms is NOT helping anything.

Atlas_Rocket | 04/30/09
Astro, your articulate response clearly demonstrates the superior intellect of a true rocket scientist in our midst. Thank you for your words of enlightenment.

dkraft | 04/30/09
Not even an animal would debase itself thus. Wired just lost all credibility publishing this crap. Or maybe it’s April 1st…  No.  All credibility.

roncee | 04/30/09
Ok, you’re on to us. It’s a right wing conspiracy to flood S.F. off the map.

Scriptable | 04/29/09
I’m with the vast majority of scientists and the evidence on this one — rapid and irreversible global climate change is caused by human activity. Pray to Jesus as much as you like, it ain’t gonna change the facts………
The problem with your stance is that the majority of scientists do not support the global warming theories being put forth by Al Gore and his minions. In fact, it’s the other way around; more than twelve times the number of scientists dispute Al Gore and the UN panel’s junk science. Here’s a site that will help you understand that Al and company are full of it!……..
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6

BigEarlXXX | 04/30/09
What about the thousands of tons of CO2 that are emitted by plants everyday while they undergo photosynthesis? I say we kill all the plant life on the earth. It is the ONLY way we can reduce the carbon footprint.

Highlowsel | 04/30/09
OMG the Earth is WARMING! OMG the Earth is COOLING! OMG We’re impacting the PLANET! OMG We’re NOT! Back and forth and all around the argument goes; meanwhile all the evidence piles up. Don’t’cha just feel this must have been what it was like in the early moments on the Titantic?
Anyway; for me it comes to this. I’m a simple man. I tend to think simply. There are over 6 Billion of us on this planet. It’s really a very small, enclosed, room. And we’re ALL smoking big fat cigars. Chain-smoking them in fact. I don’t know about you but the last time I was in such a setting the air got real stale, real quick. This analogy works be it an enclosed room, or (in effect) an enclosed planet. At least it works for me.
Or think of it this way. Why is it people can accept the logic of our current atmosphere, the one we all so blithely live in and breathe, ultimately stemming from planetary BIOLOGICAL forces and functions and yet go on to argue that the human species in all its manifestations as a biological entity is not be having an impact? Is that logical? To paraphrase Ripley (Aliens II), have IQ’s just dropped 20 points in the last generation or two around here?
Anyway…to go along with this simple thinking I’ve a simple conclusion. The impact stems from too many humans in too small a space. We will have to learn to control our numbers as well as our actions or, ultimately, Mother Nature (the final arbitrature so long as this is our sole home) will do it for us.

Morisato | 04/30/09
Thing is the economy is already broken and the way we’re dealing with CO2 emissions and such isn’t really getting us any cleaner by far. In the end, we’ll only actually do something once it happens. Human nature teaches us to act when it is a high state of alert. Only then will people actually come together and do something as a species. Other than that, we could be careless about the environment and others since that is what most of the majority of who we are. Remember, most, not all… but still a majority.
So yes, let us prepare for the worst or enjoy its end and go out with a BANG!

SteveNordquist | 04/30/09
Someone whack AJ with the revised Keynes and point out that that’s an economics science, and that the CO2 graphs are not the same as the original hockey-stick graphs. Thanks.
Then tell them plot coupons for actual burning things are not available at mere hollywood film rates. And reduce AJ’s credit rating to 200 and take away AJ’s FRB TAF access, because of failure to understand consequences or even RTFA.
Oh yeah…is this like, a bad time to disrupt the entire world economy? Because you know, it’s on.
That one is the major one; the idiot who thinks rain cleans atmospheric hydrocarbons, please step up.
Atmospheric cleansing is a temperature-sensitive hydroxy mechanism which is not rain. Rain does nothing special to CO2 gas and only happens below a mile in altitude (a bit higher in Eugene, OR); the atmosphere runs on appreciably to 14km up.
Look up the details and check out the TiO2 self-cleaning megatrend going on. Know that NorthAmerican forestry is bupkiss in actual CO2 management except in its own locale; it’s a net carbon source, especially with the west drying out and sometimes flaring a bit.
See the nice free book boingboing cited, _Sustainable Energy without the hot air.
Cirby, get out on your planet and tell me the ice is all there. Get me some nice thick core samples from this decade that aren’t fishery exhaust. Take at least 2 of your senses with you.
Everyone else, learn to critically read scientific articles. They called the easy journals _Science_ and _Nature_ so it’s easy to spot ‘em and practise. If you do not want to practise, we will not be taking your analysis on any computer models or who manages them. It’s OK, you just won’t be paid.
So I’m coming to Alexis here. You picked the understated quote in isolation and didn’t say 2 degrees warmer from -when-; that made it hard to follow. That ‘the numbers presented in their research are probabilistic’ could not have helped less (and you can find longer terms around, even.) If you rummage in a hydrogen atom, you will hardly ever find that electron or some nucleus, much less a Fermi Surface, but you should still rely on them. What these studies do is pull the trigger on diverse action managing seed stock (in case we get tired of Soylent products) and industrial processes so investments can actually last long enough to make profit. It’s been done! Yeah, I know, DRAM is made out of love and rainbows in oversupply, but try it sometime.

AntonioSosa | 04/30/09
An increasing number of scientists and thinking people all over the world are realizing that man-made global warming is a hoax. More than 700 international scientists dissent over man-made global warming claims. They are now more than 13 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.
Additionally, 32,000 American scientists have signed onto a petition that states: ”There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate…” http://www.petitionproject.org/index.html
Progressive (communist) politicians like Obama seem determined to force us to swallow the man-made global warming scam. We need to defend ourselves from the United Nations and these politicians, who threaten our future and the future of our children. Based on a lie, they have already wasted billions and plan to increase taxes and increase the cost of energy, which will limit development, destroy our economy and enslave us.

ElizabethM | 04/30/09
Great article, frightening though it is.

iamconcerned | 05/1/09
Mr. Samagon…….who the hell do you think you are? I have to agree India and China are countries with large populations….but that does NOT mean we emit the most amount of greenhouse gases in the air…
In fact the more the developed countries the more their fuel usage…. I would think that this fact is pretty DUH! Besides this, global powers (I do not wish to mention names, unlike some people here) have indicated the most emissions of carbon levels….so please check your facts.
I would think this is a forum to discuss solutions to problems like these or at least if not productive advice then sensitive consultations. So bickering like this and pointing fingers will not in anyway help. I am also sorry to have done the above myself….but really some people can just get on your nerves!

WHODUNNIT | 05/1/09
Current global warming started about twelve thousand years ago, at the end of the Pleistocene ice age. In Utah, the Great Salt Lake, Utah Lake and the Bonneville Salt Flat were a single Bonneville Lake, twenty-six thousand square miles.
If you look at the edges of this basin, you see “bathtub rings” called wave terraces. As global warming continued, the glaciers melted, leaving dry desert across the North American Southwest.
The Deep Sea Drilling Project found that the Mediterranean Basin has been like the Great Salt Lake four times, as ice ages have lowered Earth’s oceans below the Gibraltar to Morocco “valley”, and villeges lie under considerable sediment due to Man’s burning and harvesting of former jungle and forest from Europe to Iran, leaving rock and subsoil.
The melting of the vast glaciers had absolutely nothing to do with Man, and future ice ages will move over the continents again, as they have many times before.
If Al Gore really cared about global warming, he would scrap his Gulfstream Jet (carbon credits do not suck carbon out of the air, they just make Al millions in unearned profit from those stupid enough to try to manufacture something under “cap and trade”).

snowmaneasy | 05/3/09
RE:Zerocontrol suggests we view http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF_anaVcCXg
This is the most pathetic attempt to justify the spending to date in the name of Global Warming of approx $50 billion….
It is almost as bad as putting the polar bear on the endangered list because a computer model predicts that the ice in the arctic will be gone by 2100….
My take on all of this is that we have lost the plot…

GW Room 103

“Even doubling or tripling the amount of CO2′ will have ‘little impact’ on temps” – from New Zealand Climate Science

Professor Geoffrey G Duffy
DEng, PhD, BSc, ASTC Dip., FRS NZ, FIChemE, CEng

Dr. Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University  of Auckland, NZ. Duffy received the New Zealand Science and Technology Silver Medal, in 2003 from The Royal Society of New Zealand.  And has published 218 journal, peer-reviewed papers and conference papers including 10 patents and 62 technical reports.

Duffy’s full bio is here: http://www.ecm.auckland.ac.nz/staff/ggd

Climate is always changing, and always will.  There are seasons.  There are day-night (diurnal) cycles.  At any one location, heat energy from the sun varies during the day.   Energy from the sun is affected by local conditions and clouds.   Heat absorption depends on whether it impacts water or land … and even then, the type of land (desert, forest, snow covered land), or the layout of the land (continental masses, or islands surrounded by seas).  In some parts of the world temperatures are climbing on average, and in some areas they are dropping.  Warming is not occurring everywhere at once and hence ‘global warming’ is a misnomer.

So what are the key players in ‘Climate Change’?  The major driver is the sun. 

 

Warming depends on the sun.  Cooling is due to the lack of sun’s energy.  Radiant energy enters the earth’s atmosphere.  Air (on a dry basis) consists mainly of nitrogen 78.08% and oxygen 20.94%.  Of the 0.98% remaining, 95% of that (ie 0.934%, or almost all) is the inert gas argon.  Carbon dioxide CO2 is a trace.  It is less than 400ppm (parts per million) or 0.04% of all the atmosphere (on a dry basis).  Surprisingly, less than a fifth of that is man-made CO2 (0.008% of the total), and that is only since the beginning of the industrial era and the rapid increase in world population.

The atmosphere however is not dry!  The next major constituent of air apart from oxygen and nitrogen is water, as a vapour and a condensed liquid. The atmosphere is comprised of about 1-3% water vapour [At 20°C and 100% humidity there is 0.015kg water/kg air or 1.5%: at 50% Humidity, 0.008kg water/kg air or 0.8%: and in warmer climate at say 30°C, 100% humidity, 0.028kg water/kg air or 2.8%].  Water vapour condenses to form clouds and it is by far the most abundant and significant of the greenhouse gases.  Water accounts for about 95% of the greenhouse effect.  The main atmospheric ‘intermediary’ between the sun and earth is water, and thus it dictates the behaviour of the earth’s climate. Without water vapour in particular and other greenhouse gases in the air in general, the surface air temperatures worldwide would be well below freezing.  The sun clearly must be a much bigger influence on global temperatures than any of the greenhouse gases, even water and CO2.  Carbon dioxide is about 1/60 of water in air!!   It clearly is not the major player even though it is wise to minimise man-made emissions like particulate emissions, and CO2 and other gases where practically possible.

Variable and unstable weather conditions are caused by local as well as large-scale differences in conditions (wind, rain, evaporation, topography etc).  They naturally induce either warming or cooling locally, regionally, or worldwide.  We all have experienced how on a cloudy/sunny day that clouds strongly affect our sensations of both heat and light (infrared energy and visible light).  Clouds do several things!   The atmosphere may be heated by clouds by emitting latent heat of condensation as water vapour condenses.  But clouds can both heat the atmosphere by reducing the amount of radiation transmitted, or cool the atmosphere by reflecting radiation.  So of all the affects that can influence heating and cooling in the atmosphere and on earth, clearly water is the main greenhouse ‘gas’.  Other greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide CO2, methane CH4, oxides of nitrogen etc) are 1/60 to 1/30 smaller in both quantity and effect.  So with all ‘greenhouse gases’ including water, human activity accounts for only minute amounts, just 0.28% of the total greenhouse gases.  If we exclude the key one, water, then human activity would only account for about 5.53% of the total greenhouse effect.  This is minute in the total picture whatever way we look at it.

Unfortunately a lot of estimates and predictions are strongly based on theoretical computer models. Many now even trust models and their ‘theoretical results’ more than actual measurements and facts from reality. Computer analysis requires that the earth be ‘cut’ into small, separate areas (actually volumes), each being analysed for heat input/outputs and other gas/vapour fluxes.  Even so the computational analysis domain size (basic computer grid elements) is huge, 150km x 150km by 1km high, with the current computer power.  It is so large that the effects of even the very large clouds are not individually included; and that includes clouds in our visual horizon.  The spatial resolution is therefore very poor.  Supercomputers cannot give us the accuracy we need.   Modellers therefore use parameters: ‘one factor fits’ all, for each of the domains (a kind of a ‘fudge factor’).  This is sad, as water as vapour in clouds is 30 to 60 times more significant than other minute amounts of other greenhouse gases.  Clearly climate simulations and thus predictions can be in serious error unless the actual cloud effects are well defined in the models.  It is not only the number and spacing of the clouds in that 150 square kilometre area, but also cloud height effects, and cloud structure.  These factors are not accounted for at all.  Typhoons are still not represented in most models.  Many tropical storms and local intense rain downfalls say in a 50km radius cannot be ‘seen’ by the models. Volcanic eruptions and large forest fires are extremely difficult to model. These emit enormous tonnages of small particulate matter that have immense shielding effects and interactions in the atmosphere. The slow diffusion of the smoke on windless days, and the more rapid turbulent dissipation on windy days are both very difficult to model or predict.   We are simply ‘not there yet’ in the simplest events.

The inter-zonal effects of such larger-scale movements like the Gulf stream, or the El Nino–El Nina patterns, are not really greatly understood, and virtually impossible to model.  The ‘noise’ (random fluctuations) in the results from the computer models is often greater than the magnitude of the computer readout results themselves!  It is really surprising why model computer-forecasts are trusted for periods of say 30 – 50 or so years, yet weather forecasts are often very inaccurate even over a 2 or 3 week period.  A good model should be able to ‘predict even the recent past’.  The fact that these models cannot, clearly shows that we should shift our thinking and trust away from computer models to longer-term analysis of actual data, and to understanding the real physical mechanisms and processes (the ‘cause’ and ‘effect’ factors).  Someone has said; “if tomorrow’s weather is inaccurately modelled and predicted, how can we pretend to predict long-term climate changes?”

Linearising short-term, random fluctuations in weather changes and temperature changes is scientifically untenable (weather and climate changes should be studied over very long periods if reliable trends are to be discerned).  Much credence is given to the ‘hockey-stick effect’ of temperature data (upward swing in mean temperature over just the last decade or so) proposed and adopted by the IPPC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change).  Nations have grabbed this and are using this to base their policies for actions on global warming effects, and the implementation of controls on carbon-based emissions by carbon taxing.  The very computer programme that gave IPPC those results was recently rigorously tested by inputing random numbers, and the computer-generated readout gave the same upward data trend with this meaningless input.  This makes a mockery out the IPPC report and subsequent actions.  Of course IPPC cannot admit to that now, as their report has been regarded as ‘gospel’ by many nations.  In stunning direct contrast, actual data (not idealistic models) from remote sensors in satellites have continuously measured the world’s temperature and have shown that the trend in the warming period ended in 2001.  Actual satellite measurements show that the temperature has dropped about 0.60°C in the past year, when compared to the mean recorded 1980 temperature.  Observations from the Hadley Centre show that global temperature has changed by less than 0.050°C over the past decade!  Also 1998 was distinctly warmer than 2006 because of the El Nino event.  Why can’t we believe actual accurate data?

A man-made ‘greenhouse’ does not create new heat.   A man-made ‘greenhouse’ can only increase the residence time or hold-up time of heat just like a blanket.  Likewise in the atmosphere, the ‘greenhouse effect’ acts as a mechanism to smooth out fluctuations or rises and falls in temperature (that is advantageous).  It is a dampener!  It cannot be a dominant factor for global temperature change.  It is the sun that gives the heat energy and drives temperature change.  Simply, if the sun’s energy decreases, then the ‘global’ temperature will fall; with or without any greenhouse effect (and vice-versa).

But we must also consider the location of the effects.  The surface of Earth is 70 % water.  Water has a far greater heat carrying capacity than land; or even the atmosphere itself.  Most of the incoming heat from the sun is absorbed by the seas and lakes (simply because they occupy 70% of the world’s surface area).  When we compare that with land masses, a lower proportion of heat is reflected from watery zones to participate in the greenhouse effect.  The greenhouse effect is mainly a phenomenon of the land surface and the atmosphere because land masses lose most of the heat they receive during the day by the action of overnight radiation.  To multiply that effect, the atmosphere loses heat rapidly out into space by rainfall, convection and radiation, despite the greenhouse effect.  So the large surface area of water over the world and the heat storage of water, are far more significant than any atmospheric greenhouse effect.   The oceans really control the transport of water vapour and latent heat changes into the atmosphere (latent heat is heat needed to convert water-to-vapour, or conversely is given up when vapour goes to water), and this is far more significant than sensible heat changes alone (non changes in the state of water).

The seas take a long time to warm up or cool down when compared to land.  This means the storage of total heat by the oceans is immense.   As mentioned, heat energy reaching the land by day is soon radiated back out into space at night.  But there are also zonal differences!  The sun’s energy at the equator is consistent all year round, and in this region the larger proportion of surface area happens to be the ocean water.  The dominant heat loss is primarily at the poles with each pole alternating as the main loser of heat.  As a result there are severe cyclical variations in temperature with the seas and ice caps having the dominant effects in energy changes and hence temperature effects. If the erroneously-called, ‘global warming’ was occurring now we should see it now.  Oceans would be expanding and rising; in fact over the past two years, the global sea level has decreased not increased.  Satellites orbiting the planet every 10 days have measured the global sea level to an accuracy of 3-4 millimeters (2/10 inch inches) [see sealevel.colorado.edu].  Many glaciers are receding but some are increasing.  Glacial shelves at the poles melt and reform every year because there are periodic seasonal changes; these alone show dramatically just what changes can occur from summer-to-winter-to-summer again and again.  Dramatic changes?  Yes; but they are perfectly normal and to be expected.

It is also important to highlight that CO2 is not a pollutant.  It is vital for plant, tree, and food-crop growth.  The basic principle of equilibria shows that when A and B make C and D, then C and D will react to form more A and B.  Hence, as CO2 is produced, it will ‘react’ to produce more oxygen and cellulosic carbon through the well-known chlorophyllic process. Tree, plant, and food-crop production goes up markedly.  With low amounts of CO2 in the air we would have severe food crop deficiencies.  This process occurs with plankton too.  But over and above this chemical-biochemical reaction is the simple physical equilibrium process of solubility.  As the seas cool, more CO2 dissolves in the water, and CO2 in the air reduces (and vice-versa).

Other extremely important insights can be gleaned from the ice-core record.  If CO2 was the main contributor to climate change, then history would reveal that the levels of CO2 would precede the mean temperature rise around the globe.  In fact it is the opposite!  Increases in CO2 have always lagged behind temperature rises and the lag involved is estimated to be 400 to 800 years. The core samples show that there has never been a period when CO2 increases have come before a global temperature increase.  Any recent apparent temperature upward trend cannot be linked to CO2 increases.  There is no physical evidence to support that.  In fact there is the high probability that the more likely explanation of an overall warming trend is that we follow the ‘recent’ Little Ice Age, 400-600 years ago. There was also a Mediaeval Warm Period (MWP) that preceded that too!

The heat from the sun varies over a number of solar cycles which can last from about 9.5 years to about 13.6 years (the main one is the cycle of 11 years).  The earth also has an irregular orbit around the sun. These and other effects like the gravitational effects of the planets of the solar system, combine to affect the sun’s magnetic field. Solar fares and sunspots affect the amount of heat generated from the sun.  In fact, there is an excellent correspondence in general warming on earth with increased sun spot activity.  The graphical correlation of sun-spot activity and the earth’s mean temperature changes is quite amazing.   It appears that the activity of the dominant ‘heat supplier’ (the sun) has a far greater affect on weather (and therefore climate change) than any traces of atmospheric gases.

It is also interesting to note that NASA’s Aqua satellite system has shown that the earth has been cooling since 1998.   This corresponds with measurements from the Argos sub-ocean probes that the ocean is cooling.  This is in stark contrast with the proposals from many ‘climate alarmists’.  The solar effect is huge and overwhelming and there must be time delays in absorbance and build up in energy received by earth and ocean masses.  But the warmer the Earth gets, the faster it radiates heat out into space. This is a self-correcting, self-healing process.

The sun directly drives the El Nino–El Nina current motions that drive temperature changes world-wide.   The sun sets up evaporative cycles, drives larger air and water currents or cycles, and changes weather patterns and therefore climate change.  The varying degrees of lag and out-of-phase changes cause periodic oceanic oscillations.  The El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO cycle) turns from warming to cooling depending on the net warming or cooling effect of the sun. This occurs quite rapidly.  From about 1975 to 2000 there was a strong El Nino warming period (a positive Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO).  Now there is a La Nina period, and this has a cooling or decrease in warming (negative PDO).  In essence the ENSO and PDO switching is caused directly by the sun. Also there are similar periodic oscillations in other oceans (Atlantic and the Arctic oceans).

The panic to do something about climate change has led to some unrealistic and unsustainable actions.  For example, Bio-fuels from grain will greatly increase food prices and roughly 30 million people are expected to be severely deprived.  The USA will use up to 30% of the annual corn crop for alcohol production for vehicles alone.  Ethanol production requires too much energy to be economical.  The actual cost/liter is much the same as other liquid fuels, but the liters/kilometer consumed by vehicles is much higher than petrol, and well-meaning motorists will have to use far more ethanol.  Just one tankful of ethanol for a SUV is obtained from enough corn to feed one African for a year. Worldwide the ethanol plant subsidies in 2008 will total $15 billion.  A 2008 study on bio-fuels has shown that the CO2 emissions will actually double if carbon-rich forests are cut down.

Well, what about all the latest pictures, videos and TV programmes on climate change?   Yes, there is a lot happening!  Weather patterns are changing in many parts of the world and some catastrophic events seem to point to the earth warming.  Even over our lifetime we have observed many weather pattern changes where we live.  But what we observe (the ‘effect’) in a relatively small time-span cannot honestly be connected directly to any supposed ‘cause’ without investigating all the mechanisms that cause change.  It is so easy to grab onto the notion that the increase in fossil-fuel burning and subsequent growth in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is directly the major cause.  Even from season to season we see snow and ice-covered mountains thaw, and massive areas of the Antarctic ice shelf melt, but in just 6 or so months they are restored.  We are not alarmed at these annual changes!  So why can’t we see that climate changes occurring all over the world now (not as big as these dramatic annual changes) are simply similar but on a larger time-scale.  We have the ice-core and sea-bed core evidence at least to show us that this has happened in recent centuries.  These are in harmony as to changes in CO2 with time and variations in temperature over time.  There is no indication that one causes the other!   History also tells us that there have been significant cooling periods over the last 1,000 years.

Climate and local weather are forever changing.  Sure, we must minimise pollution of our air and water systems with obnoxious chemical and particulates, and not treat them as ‘sewers’.  But even doubling or trebling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.

CARBON DIOXIDE CO2
BEST ESTIMATES OF THE LOCATION of CO2  as carbon (C)

Giga tonnes Gt (BILLION tonnes)
Atmosphere                                                   750 Gt
Oceans – surface                                       1,000 Gt
Oceans –  intermediate / deep                  38,000 Gt
Vegetation (soil, detritus)                             2,200 Gt
41,950 Gt

Annual EXCHANGE of CO2

Ocean surface – Atmosphere                              90 Gt
Vegetation – atmosphere                                     60 Gt
Between Marine biota and Ocean Surface          50 Gt
Oceans( surface-to-deep)                                  100 Gt
Human emissions* (coal, oil, nat. gas)        6 Gt  <2% 306 Gt

bucko36:
“Carbon dioxide CO2 is a trace. It is less than 400ppm (parts per million) or 0.04% of all the atmosphere (on a dry basis). Surprisingly, less than a fifth of that is man-made CO2 (0.008% of the total), and that is only since the beginning of the industrial era and the rapid increase in world population.”
Imagine that!!!

Richard deSousa:
Were Dr. Duffy and George Bush separated at birth? 😉 Seriously, Dr. Duffy’s post is quite impressive. There has been studies by other scientists relating to the saturation of CO2 in the atmosphere but the AGWers seem to rely on their computers to predict that CO2 drives the ever increasing temperatures up. I can’t quite believe their virtual reality scenario.

Andy Schlei:
This is a great article. I’m sending it to many, many friends.

Richard deSousa:
Actually, I wasn’t commenting about ears but the striking facial resemblance.

Steven Hill:
Well, that about covers what I have read and think about Man Made Climate Change….
There is no climate change that man has caused.
It’s that big large orange ball in the sky.

David Segesta:
Must be some typos here; “At 200C and 100% humidity there is 0.015kg water/kg air … and in warmer climate at say 300C”
Where is it 200C or 300C ?
BTW OT But here’s an article from Patrick Michaels on the “United States’ Climate Change Science Program (CCSP).”
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9619

Bern Bray:
“less than a fifth of that is man-made CO2 (0.008% of the total)”
Go into your favorite text editor and type a period, then print the page. That’s about .008% percent of the total (depending on font size).
Please explain to me how that little dot is going to cause the rest of the page to burst into flames.

deadwood:
I admire the courage of Dr. Duffy. I hope he has tenure. I expect that the usual crowd of AGW promoters will be writing off his article as another Exxon-financed denier/delayer piece written by a non-climate scientist.
Since I do not expect the major media to carry this article, I thank you Anthony for doing your part in making the truth available through your blog.

David L:
I think it should read 200 or 300 degrees K. Actually, degrees K doesn’t make sense either, I think it’s simply a missing decimal point.
REPLY: degree symbols ° got transmogrified somehow, fixed now – Anthony

Leif Svalgaard:
(Duffy) – The heat from the sun varies over a number of solar cycles which can last from about 9.5 years to about 13.6 years (the main one is the cycle of 11 years). The earth also has an irregular orbit around the sun. These and other effects like the gravitational effects of the planets of the solar system, combine to affect the sun’s magnetic field. Solar fares and sunspots affect the amount of heat generated from the sun. In fact, there is an excellent correspondence in general warming on earth with increased sun spot activity.
We have been over this before, but the barycenter and planetary tides mechanisms do not operate on the Sun. This is bad science [not even that, actually, pseudo-science, rather], and detracts from whatever merit the article may otherwise have.

Steve:
Off topic – first upturn in Arctic sea ice extent http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/plot.csv Site here http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

Alan S. Blue:
With 218 publications under his belt, he’s well past any concerns about getting tenure.

John F. Pittman:
I think it is 20 degrees (symbol) C. That is standard atmosphere, standard temperature pressure. With his education, one the first things you have to learn is 20 C dry and wet, which is which, and what it means when you solve engineering problems.

Austin:
How much heat loss do the Ice Age Glaciers at their hight represent?
If the Oceans dropped 200 feet and all that water was water vapor before it was precipitated out into SNOW ( not just water – you have to add both the heat of vaporization and the heat of fusion ) – then what is that heat loss?
Has anyone noticed that on a cold winter day you are cold indoors, despite the room being the same temp as in the summer? What is the effect of cooling off the upper atmosphere to its ability to transmit heat into space more efficiently?
I like his point about typhoons – they move enormous amounts of heat into space – and they are not modelled.

Mark Nodine:
David Segesta (13:41:55) : Must be some typos here; “At 200C and 100% humidity there is 0.015kg water/kg air … and in warmer climate at say 300C”
I think the “0? before the “C” was supposed to be a degree symbol.
REPLY: Fixed thanks, pasting somehow killed the ° symbols. -Anthony

Craig D. Lattig:
As Leif points out, there is a “Hmmmm” moment in this article… but short of sending out multiple copies of Roy Spencers book, this is the best primer on climate I’ve seen to send out to my liberal arts friends who walk around clutching Al Gore’s book to their chests while hinting that I am an uninformed fossil… or worse. I’m passing it around with an evil grin attached….. cdl

Ric Werme:
David Segesta: Must be some typos here; “At 200C and 100% humidity there is 0.015kg water/kg air … and in warmer climate at say 300C”
Where is it 200C or 300C ?
It should read 20°C or 30°C, assuming I got the degree symbol right, &deg;, assuming I got the ampersand symbol right.
Oh, there’s one I can cut & paste, 20°C or 30°C
Then there is the text where they use lower-case o , e.g. 20oC. Argh. I generally just say 20C or 293K or 68F and that seems to work okay.

Chris H:
I guess it’s just me, but this article just sounds like a regurgitation of everything us AGW skeptics have been saying – he’s not adding anything new, not even a new perspective (at least from my super skimming of it).

Alex Llewelyn:
Off topic, but interesting BBC article about Carbon capture & storage: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7584151.stm
You won’t be able to read most of the article if you haven’t got a subscription, but here’s a New Scientist article saying Stone Age man held off an ice age by releasing greenhouse gases from farming and land use change.
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/mg19926721.600-the-ice-age-that-never-was.html?feedId=climate-change_rss20
Absolute nonsense of course.

DennisA:
Another typo: IPPC instead of IPCC, but a good summary, useful for forwarding to politicians.

Stephen Wilde:
Hmmm. Some of the phrases are remarkably similar to phrases in my series of articles at http://co2sceptics.com/
I’m gratified that he seems to agree with me on those points.

Neil Fisher:
Hi Leif, you said: “We have been over this before, but the barycenter and planetary tides mechanisms do not operate on the Sun.”
I wouldn’t doubt you on anything solar related, but this seems disingenuous to me in face of SIM correlations and (correct) predictions WRT sunspot numbers, ENSO events etc. I watched these unfold and they are spookily accurate to date. I guess that it could be a coincidence, but it sure seems to me that such analyses have predictive power. We shall no doubt have to wait and see, but I am curious to know what it would take for you (and others) to accept that there may be something to this after all. To date, I see 10 years of climate predictions and 4 ENSO events correctly predicted, which is pretty impressive (especially the ENSO events – years in advance is significantly better than any other system). Of course, they can be said to be somewhat vague, but what climate/weather prediction is not?

Dennis:
Hmmmm, Stephen Wilde, I visit your Site constantly and I think you are right!
But this is what it’s all about….getting the PROPER, ACCURATE, stories out there to inform and explain how much of a Hoax AWG is….A number of People here stated that they were going to tell their Friends…Yes, and tell the One’s especially on the Fence. You will not convince the True Lieberals…They are TOTALLY on Emotions, no common sense!! Al Gore and Consensis need to be knocked down..

Michael Hauber:
Funny thing, the sun represents only about 0.001% of the entire sky when we look up. How could anything so small have any influence on our climate..

jeez:
Good counterpunch Michael H, even if I don’t agree with your point of view.

Leif Svalgaard:
Neil Fisher: “To date, I see 10 years of climate predictions and 4 ENSO events correctly predicted, which is pretty impressive (especially the ENSO events – years in advance is significantly better than any other system). Of course, they can be said to be somewhat vague, but what climate/weather prediction is not?”
The problem is that the Barycenter/Tides/SIMS, etc [I will call them BTSs from now on] are not unique in their predictions. There are many other ’solar’ mechanisms that their adherents claim have predictive power and many have predicted that with a less active sun, we should get some cooling. Since BTSs are unphysical [the energy is not there, there are no forces, the tides are 1 millimeter high, etc] one would prudently go with one of the physically plausible models if one were to entertain the solar influence idea.
It reminds me of this anecdote: In deepest Africa there is a tribe that claims that beating of tam-tam drums during a solar eclipse will restore the Sun. They are spookily accurate: in fact, their method has never failed.

H:
Having lived in Auckland, NZ for a couple of years I am absolutely amazed that a Kiwi has come out and relied on science and observation in this debate. Generally Kiwis are all about feelgood symbols and looney left wing politics. It all about the “vibe”, even more so than Canadians. (Gross generalisation but fun!)
Leif Svalgaard has identified a weakness in the article and there were other typos (eg. “IPPC”). They do detract, but having said that it was a good summation of many issues in terms lay people, like me, can understand.

Robert Wood:
In all the Anglosphere countries, except India, global warming is becoming a hot political issue – amongst the political class, not the people. New Zealand is most advanced, with the labour government trying to push through parliament an ugly climate control bill, or whatever it is called.
But, as in Britain and Australia, the people are saying: “Hang on, you want energy to be even more expensive?”.
We have a federal election coming up in Canada where the opposition “Liberal” party is running on a $14 billion tax grab under the excuse of saving the planet. They call it the Greenshift, whereby good honest hard-earned green money is shifted from your pocket to the state coffers.

Glenn:
Leif said: “We have been over this before, but the barycenter and planetary tides mechanisms do not operate on the Sun. This is bad science [not even that, actually, pseudo-science, rather], and detracts from whatever merit the article may otherwise have.”
If by before you mean the “Astronomical Society of Australia” post, then you haven’t shown this is pseudo-science, only that you disagree. Others, including Ian Wilson, held positions that this is science. Maybe not a well established theory, but it seems there is either a correlation of multiple events, or the AU journal and peer-review process isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. That seems to be effectively what you are saying.
“We present evidence to show that changes in the Sun’s equatorial rotation rate are synchronized with changes in its orbital motion about the barycentre of the Solar System. We propose that this synchronization is indicative of a spin–orbit coupling mechanism operating between the Jovian planets and the Sun.” http://www.publish.csiro.au/nid/138/paper/AS06018.htm
Professor Duffy pointed out some bad science, and it is curious you didn’t comment on that, on a blog that is concerned with AGW. You don’t even say whether there is any merit at all in this post’s article at all. Could you explain the science behind your comment below concerning the cause or mechanism for why big cycles start out with a bang, or is your comment based on a “well it always seemed to happen that way in the past” observation?
“The big [cycles], they start out with a bang. One month, there may be none, the next month they may be all over the place,” Svalgaard told New Scientist.” http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn14652-suns-face-virtually-spotfree-for-months.html
Leif: “It reminds me of this anecdote: In deepest Africa there is a tribe that claims that beating of tam-tam drums during a solar eclipse will restore the Sun. They are spookily accurate: in fact, their method has never failed.”
If that really is a good anecdote, then replace the beating of the tam-tams with an unintelligent source or force, and explain the correlation.

Kip:
Michael Hauber: “Funny thing, the sun represents only about 0.001% of the entire sky when we look up. How could anything so small have any influence on our climate..”
I suppose if one were to throw out the distinction of radiative heat produced by .001% of empty sky versus .001% of thermonuclear sky (the sun) that would be a relevant point. I don’t think anyone would disagree that it gets colder when the sun is down or covered.
Also, what is the capacity for CO2 to store heat versus water vapor versus the other common elements and compounds in the atmosphere?

Leif Svalgaard:
Glenn: “the AU journal and peer-review process isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. That seems to be effectively what you are saying.
Peer-review seems to have failed for many AGW-papers too, wouldn’t you say? Or maybe the peers also have an agenda… Could you explain the science behind your comment below concerning the cause or mechanism for why big cycles start out with a bang, or is you comment based on a “well it always seemed to happen that way in the past” observation?”
The straw man you trot out is easy to deal with [you could have done it yourself]. Here is the argument:
Assume that all cycles have the same length, say 11 years. Assume that maximum comes about halfway through the cycle, after 5 years. A large cycle with 200 ’spots’ at maximum will then have an average growth rate of 200/5 = 40 spots/year [coming out with a bang]. A small cycle with 50 spots at maximum will have a growth rate of 50/5 = 10 spots/year [coming out with a whimper].
Detailed dynamo models can do better, they predict that stronger cycles are shorter, and that their maximum comes earlier than halfway. This just makes the growth rate even faster [more BANG].
In addition to this argument, observations also show that big cycles start with a BANG, so we may have some confidence that there is something to it.

Leon Brozyna:
A fine Executive Summary for “the science is not settled” position. Now if someone would just present a copy to Senator McCain…

Leif Svalgaard:
Glenn: “If that really is a good anecdote, then replace the beating of the tam-tams with an unintelligent source or force, and explain the correlation.”
[sigh] Correlations don’t need to be explained as they are not necessarily causations.

Ric Werme:
Craig D. Lattig: “As Leif points out, there is a “Hmmmm” moment in this article….but short of sending out multiple copies of Roy Spencers book, this is the best primer on climate I’ve seen to send out to my liberal arts friends who walk around clutching Al Gore’s book to their chests while hinting that I am an uninformed fossil… or worse. I’m passing it around with an evil grin attached…”
I think Lucy’s http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Curious.htm is a much better thing to give to environmentalists. It covers more terrain, has good links, and is written by an environmentalist.

Leif Svalgaard:
Glenn: “Professor Duffy pointed out some bad science, and it is curious you didn’t comment on that, on a blog that is concerned with AGW. You don’t even say whether there is any merit at all in this post’s article at all.”
That is because the question whether on physical grounds the BTSs make sense have nothing at all to do with AGW. I speak of what I [think I] know and leave the rest to whomever has an interest in that.

DAV:
Leif Svalgaard: “It reminds me of this anecdote: In deepest Africa there is a tribe that claims that beating of tam-tam drums during a solar eclipse will restore the Sun. They are spookily accurate: in fact, their method has never failed.”
Yet science also proceeds using similar logic. Don’t want to get all meta here but I doubt there are many models that haven’t been “proven” by statistical correlation to experiment. Until a better explanation is provided the tribe is behaving and believing reasonably.
I tend to agree that small effects (like BTSs, as you call them) are unlikely causes but any correlation to surface features still tickles curiosity and until it can be shown to be purely coincidence, they can’t be ruled out.
By “better” explanation, I of course mean something that can be demonstrated to work as well as the drum beating method vs. a purely logical argument.

Glenn:
Leif: “the AU journal and peer-review process isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. That seems to be effectively what you are saying. Peer-review seems to have failed for many AGW-papers too, wouldn’t you say? Or maybe the peers also have an agenda…”
I haven’t seen any AGW papers from the AU journal, so I couldn’t comment on whether peer-review has failed or they are following an agenda. However, I see no correlation in the IPCC models and reality, other than their drawing a target around the arrow in the side of the barn and calling it prediction.
Could you explain the science behind your comment below concerning the cause or mechanism for why big cycles start out with a bang, or is you comment based on a “well it always seemed to happen that way in the past” observation?
“The straw man you trot out is easy to deal with [you could have done it yourself]. Here is the argument:”
I don’t see where I provided a strawman. I simply asked you about what you were quoted as saying. A strawman is an attack on a false position of your opponent. You either said what NewScientist claimed or you didn’t. If you didn’t, it’s not my fault. Seems you have no problem with it, though. So did you answer my question about mechanism below?
“Assume that all cycles have the same length, say 11 years. Assume that maximum comes about halfway through the cycle, after 5 years. A large cycle with 200 ’spots’ at maximum will then have an average growth rate of 200/5 = 40 spots/year [coming out with a bang]. A small cycle with 50 spots at maximum will have a growth rate of 50/5 = 10 spots/year [coming out with a whimper]. ”
I’m not going to assume anything, especially that cycles all have the same length. And an average certainly can not be used to determine whether a cycle “comes out with a bang”. Perhaps you have a different perception of what that phrase means, though. Rate can change during an ascending cycle and still be a big or mediocre cycle. This depends on cycle length, which I’m sure you are aware. I asked you for the cause of your claim, and this ain’t it.
Detailed dynamo models can do better, they predict that stronger cycles are shorter, and that their maximum comes earlier than halfway. This just makes the growth rate even faster [more BANG].
So are these models based on a known and understood mechanism?
In addition to this argument, observations also show that big cycles start with a BANG, so we may have some confidence that there is something to it.
I didn’t see the argument. I saw a theoretical cycle of a certain length and a certain amount of spots, an unsupported claim of models, and a “it’s always happened that way in the past” correlation.
The next cycle could start out with a bang (say your 40 spots a year), you would (it appears) predict a “big” cycle, then max out after a year, and your prediction would be wrong. Is that not possible? If not, why not? What is the mechanism?
Looking at these cycles, I don’t see where one could predict the peak (big one) based on the upslope.
http://blog.ltc.arizona.edu/azmasternaturalist/Sunspot%20cycle.JPG

Glenn:
Leif: “[sigh] Correlations don’t need to be explained as they are not necessarily causations,”
Double sigh. Science progresses by observing correlations. You’ve done it yourself: “In addition to this argument, observations also show that big cycles start with a BANG, so we may have some confidence that there is something to it.”

Leif Svalgaard:
Ric Werme: “I think Lucy’s http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Curious.htm is a much better thing to give to environmentalists. It covers more terrain, has good links, and is written by an environmentalist.”
As long as she doesn’t pollute it with BTS [as she was considering].

DAV:
Yet science also proceeds using similar logic. Don’t want to get all meta here but I doubt there are many models that haven’t been “proven” by statistical correlation to experiment. Until a better explanation is provided the tribe is behaving and believing reasonably.
Granted that much science is done in order to explain some new phenomenon that has been observed, but some of the grandest theories were not. Einstein’s General Relativity [and even Special Relativity, as he claims that he did not know about the Michelson-Morley experiment] and Dirac’s relativistic quantum mechanics were not, but on the other hand predicted brand-new stuff, never dreamed off before.
I tend to agree that small effects (like BTSs, as you call them) are unlikely causes but any correlation to surface features still tickles curiosity and until it can be shown to be purely coincidence, they can’t be ruled out.
‘Scientific Relativism’ – that every theory is good as any other – is false. And in science, nothing can be ruled out, but to be ‘ruled in’, theories have to mesh with the existing corpus of existing theories or uniquely explain something observed that has no explanation within existing paradigms. [I don’t want to go too Meta, either; so, perhaps, enough about the philosophy…]

kum dollison:
Until I see some Proof that this is anything more than opinion, I’ll have to assume that everything, else, he said was just opinion, also.
What makes is worse is, after several years of studying this I’m 99.9% convinced that the above statement is NOT true.
Yikes, the part that I need to see the proof on is this: For example, Bio-fuels from grain will greatly increase food prices and roughly 30 million people are expected to be severely deprived.

Traciatim:
Robert Wood, I believe you have misread the Canadian Liberal ‘The Green Shift’ (not to be confused with Green Shift Inc, who is suing the Liberal Party over use of the name) plan.
The Green Shift is a plan to tax fuel use in combination with wide reaching income tax cuts that should help lessen the impact to citizens.
Their plan seems pretty sound, you increase taxes on fuel use, you send rebates to income earners and seniors, you destroy the manufacturing and energy sectors and they move all their jobs off shore, price of good increase causing the central bank to increase rates widening the unemployment fall out as people lose their businesses and homes, and when nobody can afford anything . . . voila . . . no more CO2 problem.
As you can tell, I won’t be voting Liberal thanks to ‘The Green Shift’.

Leif Svalgaard:
Glenn: “Maybe it is just because English is not my mother tongue, but since you wrote: “the AU journal and peer-review process isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.” I interpreted that to mean peer-review in general, otherwise I would have expected: “the AU journal and its peer-review process…” On the other hand the “isn’t” is maybe a sign that could be interpreted to mean that its wasn’t intended.
I don’t see where I provided a straw man. Since the question did not start a new paragraph, I interpreted it as being a continuation of the general criticism of me within the first half of the paragraph. A straw man is an attack on a false position of your opponent.
I interpreted your question [and the use of “Well, ..” as an attempt to cast doubt on my statement of our understanding of the growth of the cycle, relegating it to the same status of the correlations that I don’t support. So did you answer my question about mechanism below? I’m not going to assume anything.”
This sounds very nice, but seems to be intended to cast doubt on somebody that does make simplifying assumptions to illustrate the point [the physicist who starts out “assume a spherical cow of uniform density” when trying to explain something to farmer Jones…]
Rate can change during an ascending cycle and it may still be a big or mediocre cycle. This depends on cycle length, which I’m sure you are aware. I asked you for the cause of your claim, and this ain’t it.
Just after the calculation of the average rate, I, of course, relaxed the assumptions and pointed out that a more sophisticated treatment is possible.
So are these models based on a known and understood mechanism? A ‘model’ in my use of the word is an encoding of our understanding of a physical process [‘known’ is too big a word] so my answer here is a qualified yes.
I didn’t see the argument. I saw a theoretical cycle of a certain length and a certain amount of spots, an unsupported claim of models, and a “it’s always happened that way in the past” correlation.
See, it is as I suspected, an attempt to show that I too just rely on past correlations.
The next cycle could start out with a bang (say your 40 spots a year), you would (it appears) predict a “big” cycle, then max out after a year, and your prediction would be wrong. Is that not possible? If not, why not? What is the mechanism?
[sigh] almost anything is “possible” [is it possible that the lottery ticket I just bought will bring me untold riches? – certainly, but I’ll not bank on it, or rather: my creditors won’t]. The question is: “it is plausible?”.
The following paper may give you a feeling for the answer to that question: Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Volume 381, Issue 4, pp. 1527-1542, 2007 [also at http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.2258]  Solar activity forecast with a dynamo model  Jie Jiang, Piyali Chatterjee and Arnab Rai Choudhuri1  ABSTRACT  Although systematic measurements of the Sun’s polar magnetic field exist only from mid-1970s, other proxies can be used to infer the polar field at earlier times. The observational data indicate a strong correlation between the polar field at a sunspot minimum and the strength of the next cycle, although the strength of the cycle is not correlated well with the polar field produced at its end. This suggests that the Babcock-Leighton mechanism of poloidal field generation from decaying sunspots involves randomness, whereas the other aspects of the dynamo process must be reasonably ordered and deterministic. Only if the magnetic diffusivity within the convection zone is assumed to be high (of order 10^12 cm2/s), can we can explain the correlation between the polar field at a minimum and the next cycle. We give several independent arguments that the diffusivity must be of this order. In a dynamo model with diffusivity like this, the poloidal field generated at the mid-latitudes is advected toward the poles by the meridional circulation and simultaneously diffuses towards the tachocline, where the toroidal field for the next cycle is produced. To model actual solar cycles with a dynamo model having such high diffusivity, we have to feed the observational data of the poloidal field at the minimum into the theoretical model. We develop a method of doing this in a systematic way. Our model predicts that cycle 24 will be a very weak cycle…
The important sentence is this one:“the Babcock-Leighton mechanism of poloidal field generation from decaying sunspots involves randomness, whereas the other aspects of the dynamo process must be reasonably ordered and deterministic”. Namely that the start of a cycle must be reasonably ordered and deterministic. This bears on your “you would (it appears) predict a “big” cycle, then max out after a year, and your prediction would be wrong”, in the sense that the orderly and deterministic start of the cycle would make that unlikely [and that is all we can say].
Looking at these cycles, I don’t see where one could predict the peak (big one) based on the upslope.
If you look at the red curve, maybe you can see it better. The first two cycles are, perhaps, easier.
Or compare a really small cycle http://www.dxlc.com/solar/cycl12.html with a large cycle http://www.dxlc.com/solar/cycl19.html
Some of the ‘jitter’ you see that looks like ‘false starts’ that fizzle are just left-over stuff from the previous cycle. We can tell from the magnetic polarities if a ’spurt’ is really new-cycle spots or old-cycle remnants.
The main point is that we think we know why there is such a difference in slope [e.g. see the paper that I cited] and why we think that we can use the slope in predicting the next cycle. Do I have to say that this is a difficult business and that prediction is hard? On the other hand, we are not stumbling in the dark either, and there are good physical reasons for why we think as we do, and that it is not based on just coincidences and not-understood correlations.

Leif Svalgaard:
Glenn: “Double sigh. Science progresses by observing correlations. You’ve done it yourself: “In addition to this argument, observations also show that big cycles start with a BANG, so we may have some confidence that there is something to it.”
No, you misunderstand how science works. What I cited was the observation of a prediction coming from our understanding of the process.

Ravalli County News » Blog Archive » “Even doubling or tripling the amount of CO2′ will have ‘little impact’ on temps”
[…] Interesting, but fairly long article by Professor Geoffrey G Duffy. […]

Mark Nodine:
From the original article: It is really surprising why model computer-forecasts are trusted for periods of say 30 – 50 or so years, yet weather forecasts are often very inaccurate even over a 2 or 3 week period. This is something that was one of my primary beefs about the global circulation models when I first started studying up on AGW in January.
It seemed completely unreasonable to me to expect that solving the Navier-Stokes equation from unknown boundary conditions on a fixed-size grid that’s obviously too large to deal with turbulence could produce any kind of non-garbage answer.
However, in thinking further about the problem, it seems to me that the situation may well be analogous to making statements about an ensemble average using thermodynamics without having to solve the wave equations for every particle that makes up the system. In other words, it may be possible/reasonable to predict macroscopic trends without being able to model all the microscopic details.
Mind you, I’m still not sold on the validity of the GCMs, especially given our limited knowledge of how to model water vapor, but the possibility of developing a reasonable long-term model does not seem as far-fetched as it once did.

Graeme Rodaughan:
Hi Kum, Re Bio-Fuels impact on food prices. Check out:
http://www.ces.purdue.edu/extmedia/ID/ID-346-W.pdf
http://www.fao.org/righttofood/publi08/Right_to_Food_and_Biofuels.pdf
http://www.bioenergy-business.com/index.cfm?section=lead&action=view&id=11236
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5h0RVoVwPFlD8MXLYyQbxHamr9NYw
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7331921.stm
Obviously if Governments direct TAX subsidies to create an industry that inefficiently turns food into fuel – there will be those who suffer.
IMO, without tax subsidies the scale of bio-fuels would be very much reduced.

Neil Fisher:
Leif: “Since BTSs are unphysical [the energy is not there, there are no forces, the tides are 1 millimeter high, etc] one would prudently go with one of the physically plausible models if one were to entertain the solar influence idea.”
OK, thanks for replying – I wish there were more such as yourself willing to edu-macate us plebs. 😉 I shall continue to keep an eye on this, as I have for the last decade or so – it’s nothing if not interesting (to me, anyway)!

Leif Svalgaard:
Mark Nodine: “However, in thinking further about the problem, it seems to me that the situation may well be analogous to making statements about an ensemble average using thermodynamics without having to solve the wave equations for every particle that makes up the system. In other words, it may be possible/reasonable to predict macroscopic trends without being able to model all the microscopic details.”
I would strongly agree with Mark. We have the same problem in Astro- and Solar physics. A good example is the evolutionary track in the Hertzprung-Russell diagram of a star. We can calculate the variations over millions, even billions of years of the size, temperature, and luminosity of stars from their mass and chemical composition. Or at the other end of the time-scale, simulate the explosion and implosion of supernovae.
For all this to work, we need to know the physics and the boundary conditions. It should, of course, be granted that an evolving star or an exploding supernova is actually a much simpler system than the Earth’s climate. But the task does not seem impossible.

Graeme Rodaughan:
OT: “Also a quote: “Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) Director General Jacques Diouf agrees. He says it is incomprehensible that “$11bn-$12bn (£5.6bn-£6.1bn) a year in subsidies and protective tariff policies have the effect of diverting 100 million tonnes of cereals from human consumption, mostly to satisfy a thirst for vehicles”. link is http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7435439.stm.”
I wonder if James Henson will call for the “CEOs of Bio-Fuel Companies” to be tried for “crimes against Humanity” refer to http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/23/fossilfuels.climatechange
The un-intended consequences of poorly thought out AGW based policies are coming home to roost.
Is this the Precautionary Principle at work? Act without evidence in case something bad happens.
Doctors have a principle “First do no harm” that I wish that our politicians would adopt.

Glenn:
Leif: “No, you misunderstand how science works. What I cited was the observation of a prediction coming from our understanding of the process.”
I believe I understand how science works well enough. You cited nothing, Leif. Nor was prediction in what you claimed: “In addition to this argument, observations also show that big cycles start with a BANG, so we may have some confidence that there is something to it.” That is not a reference to a prediction come true.
Cite some predictions, and let’s see them come true. If they don’t, according to scientific methodology, your theory is falsified, or at least on very shaky ground. The NASA guy has made two or three, and they haven’t come to pass yet. In the meantime, why haven’t you simply provided the cause for your claim of “big cycles start with a bang”?

David VK2IDM:
GISS Surface Temperature Analysis  Global Temperature Trends: 2007 Summation  http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/
Having read the above summation, a maunder minimum would seem to be the best thing that could happen right now. Not because it might cool the earth but simply for the timely testing of the GISS model and the settling of many arguments.
FTR, I find the above summary a bit contradicting WRT the stated almost nil forcing of SI compared to GHG and yet they still include SI as an input to their short term climate forecast.

Pamela Gray:
Leif, would you speak to coronal holes? The k-index indicated stuff from a recurring coronal hole put a ding in Earth’s magnetosphere Wednesday night enough to open up some radio frequencies and create some northern lights. In fact, its been dinging us everytime the hole rotates into view. This time the ding was greater. It takes about 36 hours for a coronal hole event to reach us. With solar wind up, would we be getting some cosmic ray hits that would result in higher counts here on Earth? Also, where is this coronal hole? Aren’t they supposed to be near the poles during minimums? Does the stuff that comes out of them bend around to give us a direct hit? And finally, how are holes different from CME’s?

Glenn:
Leif: “On the other hand, we are not stumbling in the dark either, and there are good physical reasons for why we think as we do, and that it is not based on just coincidences and not-understood correlations.”
Fine, but that doesn’t mean that correlations alone are pseudo-scientific.
Your good physical reasons do not seem to be ironclad, either. A model or a theory explains and predicts the actions of what you call good physical reasons. There is no “I think” in science, there is either support or falsification. So until you are able to understand and predict with accuracy the behavior of the Sun, I suggest you not come down so hard on those that observe correlations and admit to not knowing the underlying mechanism, as does Ian Wilson’s AU paper. He didn’t identify a mechanism for example as “planetary tides”, you did. At least the abstract reads “However, we are unable to suggest a plausible underlying physical cause for the coupling.”
But I see nothing pseudo-scientific in “We present evidence to show that changes in the Sun’s equatorial rotation rate are synchronized with changes in its orbital motion about the barycentre of the Solar System”, assuming that this evidence is observable. What I would call pseudo-science is to make claims about cause or mechanism and predictions or models from that knowledge which are wrong.

Leif Svalgaard:
Glenn: “Why haven’t you simply provided the cause for your claim of “big cycles start with a bang”?”
I think I did that.

J. Hansford:
Michael Hauber: “Funny thing, the sun represents only about 0.001% of the entire sky when we look up. How could anything so small have any influence on our climate..” Which is a perfect example of perception as opposed to reality…. The sun is percieved to be small… But it is actually huge… Thus its effects are substantial.
Now what he is trying to parallel, is the small amount of CO2 in the atmosphere versus its effect…. However, CO2 is a small portion of the atmosphere… Not an apparent smallness of effect because of distance. But a real difference…. CO2 is at small percentages and is insignificant.
The next argument he would introduce would be that cyanide is poisonous at minute quantities… Wrong again as per the explanation above… This goes to toxicity. Cyanide in reality has certain physiological properties that are real, known and has a huge actual metabolic effect… So it isn’t a small effect but instead a large effect.
CO2 has no large and measurable effect….. Otherwise the empirical evidence would support it without a doubt with overwhelming observations of effect. CO2’s effect on climate must be modeled in order for the Flawed Hypothesis of AGW to continue its shambling existence…. Cyanide needs no modeling to prove its toxicity. You gasp, turn blue and fall down.
Just thought I’d reiterate, the actual from the apparent, the real from the fantasy.

Leif Svalgaard:
Pamela Gray: “It takes about 36 hours for a coronal hole event to reach us. With solar wind up, would we be getting some cosmic ray hits that would result in higher counts here on Earth?” – Because the solar wind speed is higher in the hole than next to it, as the sun rotates, wind of different speeds are emitted in the same direction, where the fast wind then runs into the slow wind and compresses the material [and tangles up its magnetic field]. It are those compression regions that turn away cosmic rays, so a strong recurrent hole will result in a [small, a few percent] recurrent variation of the cosmic ray flux. You see that here: http://helios.izmiran.rssi.ru/COSRAY/days.htm
“Also, where is this coronal hole? Aren’t they supposed to be near the poles during minimums? Does the stuff that comes out of them bend around to give us a direct hit?” – Here you can see both the polar coronal hole [the North pole is tipped towards up, so we see that one better]: http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/eit_195/512/
“The high-speed stream does not come out the polar hole [although there is some ‘bending down’].” – It comes from the dark area near the equator [a little bit south] and a bit to the right of the center.
“And finally, how are holes different from CME’s?” – Yes, very much so. A CME is kind of the opposite of a coronal hole. coronal holes are areas in the corona where the density is very low [hence their darkness] basically because the stuff that was in the middle of the coronal holes has left the Sun.
A CME cmoes from a region of high-density coronal matter tied up and trapped in a sort of magnetic ‘hang-mat’. If the magnetic field that holds up the matter becomes perturbed it may ’snap’ and expel the matter. This can be directly seen: the trapped stuff [called a ‘filament’] begins to vibrate and shake for minutes or even hours before ‘blowing’. The stuff is connected magnetically to the sun and as a long ‘tongue’ intrudes into the ambient solar wind and further compresses it. The end effect of this hitting the Earth is almost the same as that from a normal solar wind compression region I talked about first: magnetic storms, aurorae, cosmic rays variations, energetic particles, etc.

Leif Svalgaard:
Glenn: “but that doesn’t mean that correlations alone are pseudo-scientific.” – Yes if the correlations have an unphysical component. The sun feels no forces in its orbital motion about the barycentre of the Solar System [except for the insignificant tidal forces] and can thus not be coupled to anything, so correlating with what it cannot be coupled with is pseudo-science.
“Your good physical reasons do not seem to be ironclad, either.” – ‘Seem” ? I would like you to give a detailed critique of Jiang et al.’s paper before making such a statement. And, again, there is nothing ‘ironclad’ in science.
“There is no “I think” in science, there is either support or falsification.” – Complete bunk! I have been a scientist for 40 years and know hundreds of scientists personally. Science is a lot less objective than you think [no pun]. Each scientist forms his/hers own view of the evidence and forms a personal opinion which governs what he/she believes or thinks [or whatever equivalent word you want to use – cogitate, perhaps] about the subject. Things are not black and white. Even after, what some would consider falsification, others still cling to their beliefs.
So until you are able to understand and predict with accuracy the behavior of the climate, I suggest you not come down so hard on those that observe correlations and admit to not knowing the underlying mechanism.
“We present evidence to show that changes in the Sun’s equatorial rotation rate are synchronized with changes in its orbital motion about the barycentre of the Solar System” – to my knowledge, no such evidence exists. I have been studying solar rotation for decades and no such variations have been observed. I also recognize that no arguments of any kind can rock the faith of a true believer [in scientific relativism], but it is my nature to try anyway.

kum dollison:
Graham, let’s fact check him. 100 million tonnes would be 3 Billion, 928 Million bushels. That’s bushels of cattle feed. People, poor or otherwise, don’t eat Field Corn. Cattle eat field corn. They are, in turn, eaten by rich Americans, Europeans, and Asians. In fact, we don’t really export corn to Africa. We didn’t when corn was $.04/lb; and, we don’t now that corn is $0.10/lb. That’s the main reasons I can’t see poor Africans harmed.
If, however, we wanted to we could always plant the 34 million acres that we’re currently paying farmers not to plant. Anyhow, when we reach our goal of fifteen billion gallons of ethanol from corn we will be using about 5 billion bushels (out of a crop of about 13 billion bushels. However, we will get back the feeding ability of about 2 Billion bushels in the form of distillers grains, a cattle feed that is superior to corn.
So, here’s the deal. We’ll use about 23% of a crop that we don’t export to Africa, anyway; and, we’ll retain the ability to produce much more than that if the market desires, just by planting the land that we’re currently paying farmers NOT to plant. I could say a lot more, but it’s getting late and I’ll spare you, other than to say I have a hard time trusting someone’s opinion on a subject I know little about when they pontificate authoritatively (and incorrectly) on something I do know a little about.

Leif Svalgaard:
So until you are able to understand and predict with accuracy the behavior of the Sun, I suggest you not come down so hard on those that observe correlations and admit to not knowing the underlying mechanism.
So until you are able to understand and predict with accuracy the behavior of the Climate, I suggest you not come down so hard on those that observe correlations and admit to not knowing the underlying mechanism was what was intended. That one cannot do something perfectly does not in itself validate any old other idea. If I postulate that CO2 ’seems’ to be the course of all evils, you would not come down hard on me if I admitted to not knowing the underlying mechanism unless you were able to understand and predict with accuracy the behavior of Climate, right? That is at least how I read your statement.

Glenn: “Cite some predictions, and let’s see them come true. If they don’t, according to scientific methodology, your theory is falsified, or at least on very shaky ground. The NASA guy has made two or three, and they haven’t come to pass yet.”
Here is a citation of my prediction:
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 32, L01104, doi:10.1029/2004GL021664, 2005. Sunspot cycle 24: Smallest cycle in 100 years? Abstract: Predicting the peak amplitude of the sunspot cycle is a key goal of solar-terrestrial physics. The precursor method currently favored for such predictions is based on the dynamo model in which large-scale polar fields on the decline of the 11-year solar cycle are converted to toroidal (sunspot) fields during the subsequent cycle. The strength of the polar fields during the decay of one cycle is assumed to be an indicator of peak sunspot activity for the following cycle. Polar fields reach their peak amplitude several years after sunspot maximum; the time of peak strength is signaled by the onset of a strong annual modulation of polar fields due to the 7.25 degree
tilt of the solar equator to the ecliptic plane. Using direct polar field measurements, now available for four solar cycles, we predict that the approaching solar cycle 24 (
2011 maximum – we are probably off by a year here) will have a peak smoothed monthly sunspot number of 75 ± 8, making it potentially the smallest cycle in the last 100 years.
So far, that prediction looks pretty good, in contrast to that of the NASA ‘guys’ you mentioned. We shall see shortly, if I know what I’m talking about.

Richard Patton:
Mark Nodine: “However, in thinking further about the problem, it seems to me that the situation may well be analogous to making statements about an ensemble average using thermodynamics without having to solve the wave equations for every particle that makes up the system. In other words, it may be possible/reasonable to predict macroscopic trends without being able to model all the microscopic details.”
I think this depends on whether climate is chaotic just like weather. Mandelbrot seems to have shown this: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=396
I think the fact that many aspects of climate tend to display LTP / scale-free behavior is also indicative of it being fundamentally chaotic and thus not predictable.

Leif Svalgaard:
You can read the prediction paper at: http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Smallest%20100%20years.pdf

Julian:
Leif, I know you are at odds with Tilmari at http://solarcycle24.com/ global warming exchanges, but is it quite out of the question that magnetic/electrical influences from the giant planets rather than gravitational are the cause of coincidences with Jovian cycles and climate variations/cycles that he records over millenniums?

Tim Lindt:
Leif Svalgaard: “Assume that all cycles have the same length, say 11 years. Assume that maximum comes about halfway through the cycle, after 5 years. A large cycle with 200 ’spots’ at maximum will then have an average growth rate of 200/5 = 40 spots/year [coming out with a bang]. A small cycle with 50 spots at maximum will have a growth rate of 50/5 = 10 spots/year [coming out with a whimper]. Detailed dynamo models can do better, they predict that stronger cycles are shorter, and that their maximum comes earlier than halfway. This just makes the growth rate even faster [more BANG].”
In addition to this argument, observations also show that big cycles start with a BANG, so we may have some confidence that there is something to it. Well if we have but 10 years to a cycle and 5 are turned “on” – assuming 100 to 200 spots…  this is a bang… if we have 5 spots for the 5 years “on” this is a whimper… you don’t have to graft it or be a PHD to get that.
Hey the sun is a burning device built to power up this earth and works like one that goes into low off times by flickering out like a candle at the end of the wick/wax, then starts back up like a cold engine detuned.
It’s there in the sun spot numbers from 1749 till now. I couldn’t believe my eyes as I looked at the minima (Dalton). One predictor that is not talked about here is the holy bible. It says ”They will flee the cold north”. Well maybe it is here and now, that this will come to pass. Jetzt und hier!!!!!
Leif keep up the good work and keep an open mind too. passing the word … warn thy people!

Mike Borgelt:
Mark Nodine: “However, in thinking further about the problem, it seems to me that the situation may well be analogous to making statements about an ensemble average using thermodynamics without having to solve the wave equations for every particle that makes up the system. In other words, it may be possible/reasonable to predict macroscopic trends without being able to model all the microscopic details.”
The kicker is “may”. I’d like some mathematical proof that even though the GCMs produce things that look like real weather patterns, that the averages of these are in fact representative of future climate and will correspond with the real climate.
At first glance this seems reasonable but is it really? I suspect this should be amenable to a mathematical proof but I’ve not seen any discussion on this. Is this assumption just lightly made because it sounds so reasonable?
This also raises the possibility that it may be possible to model the macroscopic trends without going in to the microscopic details(GCMs) which perhaps may be more fruitful, along the lines of the thermodynamics example.
One other point: AFAIK the GCMs do model hurricanes, typhoons and tropical cyclones. I once heard Manabe give a seminar on GCMs in 1971during my meteorology course and he said his model was giving trouble in that it generated too many hurricanes and not enough typhoons. When asked about this (we all were puzzled by this as they are the same weather phenomena) he clarified by saying that they were occurring at the wrong frequencies in different places.

Dr. M.A. Rose:
Anthony, an excellent paper/presentation on the whole concept of greenhouse gas effects, strong on logic, common sense. Why not send it to the major media outlets and see if any of them pick it up. Test how much control the climate warming lobby exerts.

RobJM:
Can someone tell me why a small force (like CO2) can have a large effect in climate science, while the rest of the universe has to obey the laws of thermodynamic, ie 1st law: energy cannot be created or destroyed, aka every action has an equal and opposite reaction. therefor a small force like CO2 cannot create a large effect.
2nd law: entropy must always increase, ie law of diminishing returns. for instance climate scientists think that the system is dominated by positive feedbacks. This is the same as saying I made a perpetual motion device, it cannot exist.
Le Chatelier’s principle: a system at equilibrium will resist any forcing, aka any system at equilibrium must produce negative feedback.
Positive feedback can only occur when something snaps back to equilibrium after the system resisted a force. for instance the energy that produces a nuclear explosion (the classic positive feedback) was stored as a form of negative feedback during a supernova.

Ranting Stan:
I’m always a little reticent to post on here as I am not a scientist and a little slow on the uptake generally, but one of the things I often see quoted is that correlation does not imply causation. Can anyone tell me if it works the other way around – i.e. does non-correlation prove non-causation?
I’m sure the answer will be “not necessarily” but I thought I’d ask anyway.
Also, given that man’s contribution to CO2 levels is relatively small compared to the natural and has varied considerably over time – from none at all to around 3% now (possibly more during the period 1940-1970?) could someone explain why it is that whenever I see a plot of temperature against CO2 it is always the temperature anomaly against total CO2? Should it not be temperature anomaly against CO2 anomaly? Would it not make sense to strip out the naturally occuring element before we plot temperature rise against CO2 rise? I’d be interested to see how such a graph pans out given that man’s CO2 emissions rose fastest during a period when temperature fell (1940-1970), but temperature appears to rise fastest at a time when the increase in mans emissions slowed.
Or maybe we should strip out mans contribution to CO2 and see how temperature increase pans out against naturally occuring CO2 levels?

Simon Turnbull:
I never could believe that a mouse’s f*rt in the middle of a ten acre field would ruin the crop. (A first class article in an excellent website!)

Steve:
That bloke who reckons he’s going to kayak to the North Pole (hee, hee). His blog is removing ALL comments that are not supportive. Steven Goddard, yours has gone, and so have all three of mine. Just posted one now asking this question – invite others to do the same.
http://polardefenseproject.org/blog/

Leif Svalgaard:
Julian: “but is it quite out of the question that magnetic/electrical influences from the giant planets rather than gravitational are the cause of coincidences with Jovian cycles and climate variations/cycles that he records over millenniums?”
In a conducting plasma magnetic/electrical changes propagate with the Alfven speed, somewhat analogous to the sound speed in air. The solar wind is ’supersonic’ in the sense that it moves away from the sun 11 times faster than the Alfven speed, i.e. 11 times faster than magnetic/electrical changes can propagate towards to sun. It is like swimming upstream at 1 mph in a river flowing downstream at 11 mph: you’ll never get upstream.

Tim Lindt:
If we have but 10 years to a cycle and 5 are turned “on”, assuming 100 to 200 spots… this is a bang… if we have 5 spots for the 5 years “on” this is a whimper… you don’t have to graph it or be a PHD to get that.
Apparently Glenn doesn’t get it, as he claims I have not made my case and explained this so he can understand it. One predictor that is not talked about here is the holy bible. Matthew 7:7 says it well.

TonyB:
Maybe the BBC is softening its attitude too! http://www.bbc.co.uk/climate/evidence/sceptics.shtml

Stephen Wilde:
The basic mechanism described by Mr Duffy was previously set out in my article: http://co2sceptics.com/news.php?id=1041 which has appeared worldwide and has had over 10,000 readings on the Co2sceptics site alone. Various sentences are virtually identical save for a few cosmetic changes and his title: “Climate Change – The Real Causes” appears to be just a rewording of my title: “Global Warming and Cooling – The Reality”.
Whilst I am happy that anyone might wish to use my material I do think there should be proper attribution.

jmrSudbury:
I just heard on the radio news that they are now trying to say that smog contributes to global warming and has been largely overlooked as a forcing.
Oi! — John M Reynolds

Dee Norris:
What kum dollison is not saying is that as the price for corn goes up, farmers are switching crops to the more profitable corn feed stocks for the biofuels. Then the supply of these other grains and cereals goes down, so the price goes up.
Furthermore I disagree with his calculation as he does not account for the fuel needed to harvest the feed stock for biofuel, further increasing the total amount of feed stock needed be grown to break even nor is he allowing for crop rotation and other good farming practices.
I did an analysis of several of the alternative fuels as part of a local effort to stop the construction of industrial wind-turbines here in the Catskills and will try to dig up the article I wrote for the local paper. Note: I apologize if I got your gender incorrect.

MarkW:
I guess it’s just me, but this article just sounds like a regurgitation of everything us AGW skeptics have been saying – he’s not adding anything new, not even a new perspective (at least from my super skimming of it).
The important thing is that he’s saying it. Nobody pays attention to us. Him, they might. Just because correlation does not prove causation is not evidence that correlation is never indicative of something deeper.

Ric Werme:
Neil Fisher: “Hi Leif, you said: “We have been over this before, but the barycenter and planetary tides mechanisms do not operate on the Sun.”
I wouldn’t doubt you on anything solar related, but this seems disingeneous to me in face of SIM correlations and (correct) predictions WRT sunspot numbers, ENSO events etc. I watched these unfold and they are spookily accurate to date. I guess that it could be a coincidence, but it sure seems to me that such analyses have predictive power. We shall no doubt have to wait and see, but I am curious to know what it would take for you (and others) to accept that there may be something to this after all. To date, I see 10 years of climate predictions and 4 ENSO events correctly predicted, which is pretty impressive (especially the ENSO events – years in advance is significantly better than any other system). Of course, they can be said to be somewhat vague, but what climate/weather prediction is not?”
My problem with BTSs include:
1) We’ve beaten this to death once before. It’s a mass of fetid flesh.
2) Objects orbit others based on gravitational attraction (and various relativistic complications). That’s dependent on mass and distance.
3) Well layered spherical masses can be modeled as points.
4) Objects distorted by tides cannot be modeled as points. This is used to good effect in near polar Earth orbits.
5) Barycenters do not have mass.
6) I’m rather fond of the statistical links between sunspot cycles and Jupiter, even though articles like http://personal.inet.fi/tiede/tilmari/sunspots.html have to abuse the data to come up with the links.
Barycenters are just a mathematical convenience and are probably quite useful if you are dealing with point-like objects and keep in mind that a barycenter is not a physical object. They are not necessary for any orbital calculations and I’m sure they fall apart when used with anything that looks like a tide.
Still, if barycentric hypotheses can be used successfully for predictions, they’re useful. Instead of arguing here with WordPress’s abysmal search technology, your time would be better spent coming up with a prediction for the next 20-100 years and putting it on a web page for all to see. I’d be glad to add it to http://wermenh.com/climate/ . While orbital dynamics are chaotic in all but a few trivial systems, the Solar System can be predicted with great accuracy for the several thousands or millions of years, so 20-100 is easy. Then we could get back to sitting back and enjoying watching the show.

Stephen Wilde:
Some evidence to support my earlier posts, then I’ll give it a rest:
Global Warming and Cooling- The Reality (Wilde)
Climate Change-The Real Causes (Duffy)
The presence of the sun must be a much bigger influence on global temperatures than the greenhouse characteristics of CO2 on its own. (Wilde)
The sun clearly must be a much bigger influence on global temperatures than any of the greenhouse gases. (Duffy)
The greenhouse effect, as a whole, may smooth out rises and falls in temperature from other causes. (Wilde)
The ‘greenhouse effect’ acts as a mechanism to smooth out fluctuations or rises and falls in temperature. (Duffy)
The greenhouse effect is mainly a phenomenon of the land surface and the atmosphere. (Duffy)
The greenhouse effect is mainly a phenomenon of the land surface and the atmosphere. (Wilde)
The strongest sunlight reaching the Earth is around the Equator that is primarily oceanic. The equatorial sun puts heat into the system year in year out whereas loss of heat is primarily via the poles with each alternating as the main heat loser depending on time of year. (Wilde)
The sun’s energy at the equator is consistent all year round, and in this region the larger proportion of surface area happens to be the ocean water. The dominant heat loss is primarily at the poles with each pole alternating as the main loser of heat. (Duffy)
I believe that ENSO switches from warming to cooling mode depending on whether the sun is having a net warming or net cooling effect on the Earth. Thus the sun directly drives the ENSO cycle and the ENSO cycle directly drives global temperature changes. Indeed, the effect appears to be much more rapid than anyone has previously believed. (Wilde)
The sun directly drives the El Nino–El Nina current motions that drive temperature changes world-wide. (Duffy)
The El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO cycle) turns from warming to cooling depending on the net warming or cooling effect of the sun. This occurs quite rapidly. (Duffy)
there are similar periodic oscillations in other oceans such as the Atlantic and the Arctic (Wilde)
Also there are similar periodic oscillations in other oceans (Atlantic and the Arctic oceans). (Duffy)
When we compare that with land masses, a lower proportion of heat is reflected from watery zones to participate in the greenhouse effect. (Duffy)
more of the incoming heat is absorbed by water as compared to land and a lower proportion is reflected to participate in the greenhouse effect. (Wilde)
The heat from the sun varies over a number of solar cycles which can last from about 9.5 years to about 13.6 years (the main one is the cycle of 11 years). The earth also has an irregular orbit around the sun. These and other effects like the gravitational effects of the planets of the solar system, combine to affect the sun’s magnetic field. Solar fares and sunspots affect the amount of heat generated from the sun. (Duffy)
The heat from the sun varies over a number of interlinked and overlapping cycles but the main one is the cycle of 11 years or so. That solar cycle can last from about 9.5 years to about 13.6 years and appears to be linked to the gravitational effects of the planets of the solar system combining to affect the sun’s magnetic field which seems then to influence the amount of heat generated and incidentally affects the number of sunspots. (Wilde)

Erl Happ:
Professor Duffy has logically and methodically covered the big picture. The notion that CO2 content of the atmosphere might be responsible for the pattern of temperature decrease and then equally strong increase that has been seen at high latitudes in both hemispheres, in winter, since 1948, does not add up. There has been little change in temperature at mid latitudes and a slight increase in the tropics in summer. He points to the importance of warming and cooling events and the tropical ocean in these words:
Let us recognize common sense when we see it. Lets look at the data for the different latitudes and hemispheres and be a little analytical. ‘Global temperature’ is a big distraction. Polewards of 40° latitude radiation exceeds insolation. Between 40°N and 40°S energy gain from the sun exceeds that radiated. Energy is picked up by the tropical ocean and moved to high latitudes. If there is a gain in th energy absorbed in the tropical ocean it shows up as an increase in temperature at high latitudes.
Here is the model that explains the variation. Imagine yourself standing out in a blizzard with an electric blanket wrapped around your middle and you will get the general idea. What we have to do is to explain the fluctuation in energy supply to the part of the body inside the blanket. A moments reflection will reveal that the answer must have something to do with changing cloud cover, i.e. albedo.
The link between the sun and changing albedo in the tropics must be explained if we are to rid ourselves of this monkey on the back. Outgoing long wave radiation varies directly with the Southern Oscillation index. El Nino events involve a fall in OLR as the tropical oceans absorb energy while La Nina events involve a loss of stored energy and a fall in sea surface temperature. These warming and cooling events are experienced right across the tropics. The Pacific happens to be the most dramatic manifestation because it is a very large ocean and the effect of the near conjunction of Tierra Del Fuego and the Antarctic Peninsula.
Let’s focus on the big picture and not get distracted in argument about peripheral details, The barycentre notion is one of these.
La Nina’s commonly occur at sunspot maximum. This overwhelms any effect from changing irradiance. Irradiance changes very little over long periods of time. the two aspects of solar activity that change strongly over time are ultraviolet radiation and the solar wind.
The answer lies not in knowing more about the sun. It lies in knowing a lot more about how the atmosphere reacts to variations in solar output.

Here’s the Duffy quote that did not appear on cue: “The El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO cycle) turns from warming to cooling depending on the net warming or cooling effect of the sun.The dominant heat loss is primarily at the poles with each pole alternating as the main loser of heat. As a result there are severe cyclical variations in temperature with the seas and ice caps having the dominant effects in energy changes and hence temperature effects.”

kum dollison:
Dee, any corn farmer will tell you that total fuel used for planting, cultivation, harvesting, etc. is less than 8 gal/acre. In as much as, an acre, after accounting for distillers grains, yields about 700 gallons of ethanol the ” energy needed to grow” argument loses a lot of steam.
And, again, we only row-crop 250 million acres (out of 1.2 billion arable acres. – We used to rowcrop 400 million acres in the U.S.) That means we have 150 million acres formerly row-cropped land lying fallow, or used for light grazing.
Dee, 70% of the most poverty-stricken in the world are subsistence farmers. These are the people that have suffered the most from the subsidized crops grown in the U.S. and Europe. Five Dollar Corn, if their governments will allow them to sell it, and export it, might cure more malnourishment in the 3rd world than all the “poverty programs, combined.
Bottom line: Field Corn has gone up a nickel/lb. and there is, according to a recent stufy from Stanford University, between 1.0, and 1.2 Billion Acres of Abandoned Farmland in the World.
Dee, there are Tremendous amounts of money involved in outcome of this. It is really not all that hard to get articles published, even in the “prestigious” journals if the money is right. One needs to be Very careful in choosing the “heroes” in this particular case.

Leif Svalgaard:
At http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.2833 Schüssler explains why the correlation between growth rate and solar cycle size works: A robust correlation between growth rate and amplitude of solar cycles: consequences for prediction methods  Authors: Schüssler, R. Cameron M.  Publication Date: 06/2008, ApJ accepted Abstract
We consider the statistical relationship between the growth rate of activity in the early phase of a solar cycle with its subsequent amplitude on the basis of four datasets of global activity indices (Wolf sunspot number, group sunspot number, sunspot area, and 10.7-cm radio flux). In all cases, a significant correlation is found: stronger cycles tend to rise faster. Owing to the overlapping of sunspot cycles, this correlation leads to an amplitude-dependent shift of the solar minimum epoch. We show that this effect explains the correlations underlying various so-called precursor methods for the prediction of solar cycle amplitudes and also affects the prediction tool of Dikpati et al. (2006) based upon a dynamo model. Inferences as to the nature of the solar dynamo mechanism resulting from predictive schemes which (directly or indirectly) use the timing of solar minima should therefore be treated with caution.

Dee Norris:
@Kum – I didn’t disagree with your conclusions regarding Africa. I don’t disagree with your statements on abandoned farm land.
The fuel usage per acre which you quote is for pure petro-diesel, not bio-diesel blend. Forget trying to harvest corn using ethanol. I hear the farmers at the local Mom’s Diner grumble about fuel per acre all the time and I buy a great deal of hay for my own horse.
Crop derived bio-fuels would not be cost competitive without the massive government subsidies. There may be better solutions in the pipe, but it always comes down to energy out < energy in. In a cooling world, the energy needed to grow the feeder stocks will get higher (or more likely the return will get lower and lower).
The technology exists to feed the world, provide clean water, what is missing is the funding. Another reason NOT to support AGW is the money spent on trying to prevent it is basically thrown away when it can be used to for better, nobler purposes.

Hessischer:
Ranting Stan: “Non-correlation does not prove non-causation.”
You are unlikely to observe linear correlation between weight and radius of ballbearings but you’ll see it if you test with radius cubed. But radius and weight are certainly related. More subtle relationships will be less easily revealed.
If naturally occurring CO2 can be assumed constant its presence or absence will not affect an estimate of correlation. The appearances of plots are just that, presentational matters.

Gary Gulrud:
“The answer lies not in knowing more about the sun. It lies in knowing a lot more about how the atmosphere reacts to variations in solar output.” Money quote.

Leif Svalgaard:
Gary Gulrud: “The answer lies not in knowing more about the sun. It lies in knowing a lot more about how the atmosphere reacts to variations in solar output.” Money quote.
Except that two factors play a role:
1) the reaction [if any] is at or below the noise-level and is therefore not of practical significance
2) the Sun varies less than thought only a few years ago
So, the answer lies not in knowing more about the sun or of how little the atmosphere reacts to variations in solar output, but in understanding the internal oscillations of the system and the interplay between atmosphere, ocean, lithosphere, and biosphere [including man]. Using ’solar influence’ as a dumping ground for what we can’t ascribe yet to something else [as has been done ever since Giovanni Battista Riccioli first did this is 1651] has not proven very fruitful.

Here is some information about the ‘global cooling crisis’ in the mid 1600s: http://www.history.ox.ac.uk/currentunder/honours/history/general/9resources/parker_2.pdf
and the search for causes: In search of causes: Opinions of Hermann of Hesse (stars), Increase Mather (comets), Raymundo Magisa (volcanoes), Giovanni Battista Riccioli (sunspots)  Observations of Christopher Scheiner (1626) and Johannes Hevelius (1642-4) and the ‘Sunspot Minimum’ (1643-1715). The fatal cycle: volcanoes plus sunspot minimum -> solar cooling -> more ‘El Niño’ events (1640, 1641, 1647, 1650) -> more volcanic eruptions.
We have not progressed a lot in the intervening 350 years…

Gary Gulrud:
“Five Dollar Corn, if their governments will allow them to sell it, and export it, might cure more malnourishment in the 3rd world than all the “poverty programs, combined.” Last year’s $5 dollar corn is a significant cost for a family living on $1 per day. They have to have something to sell in return at comparative advantage. This year corn planted was down 6% because more acreage went into wheat and soy (acreage available for more rice is limited) as their prices have skyrocketed with worldwide shortages (rice as well). These, along with rice are superior foodstuffs in terms of calories, nutrients and variety of preparations. This year corn is already over $7 and should soon turn higher as cool weather lowers yields on the remaining fields not destroyed by flooding.
Meanwhile, here in the cornbelt, gas extended with ethanol remains 10% more expensive per mile than petrol at the pump. Just this year two ethanol plants preparing to go online suspended operation in ND. They would have lost money and their investors saw no end to that prospect. Ethanol is crashing due to market forces and government can only exacerbate the trend.

Bob Tisdale:
Ranting Stan: “I always enjoyed looking at the long-term graph of the monthly change in CO2. It clearly resembles the NINO3.4 anomaly curve (and most other variables impacted by ENSO) in its rises and falls.”
There are lots of studies that discuss the link between ENSO and CO2. Just so happens I’m finishing up a post on it. I’ll throw up a link when I’m done. Might not be till this evening.

kum dollison:
Dee, the difference between petro-diesel, and bio-diesel is somewhere between 0%, and 10% fuel efficiency, depending on the engine, and circumstances. In other words, as regards EROEI of biofuels, it’s insignificant. And, yes, ethanol-powered farm equipment would work just fine. An ethanol-optimized tractor will give comparable (if not better) performance to a diesel tractor.
As for profitability, even at today’s corn prices the ethanol refineries are making a profit selling ethanol at $2.20/gal. The price of Wholesale Unleaded, today, is $2.70. BTW, it looks like Bluefire, and the other “Municipal Waste to Ethanol” technologies will come in at less than $1.50/gal.
Also, you might ask yourself this question. “What would the price of gasoline be if we weren’t using over 600,000 Barrels/Day of Ethanol. At least one major Wall Street Firm thinks you would be looking at an Extra $.50/gal. What would that add to the cost of a box of cornflakes?

Bill Marsh:
Leif, I agree with your comments about the planetary gravitic effects. Don’t those gravitic tides affect earths orbit though, adding some more eccentricity to the orbit and thus affecting solar irradiance?

Stephen Wilde:
Professor Duffy has expressed regret at his inadvertent failure to attribute so I’ve agreed that his article is unobjectionable on the basis that he acknowledges my input.

kum dollison:
Gary, I’m not going to use up any more of Anthony’s bandwidth arguing biofuels. I did want to point out that the part of the author’s article that dealt with something I was familiar with was very suspect.
As for your comment; you’re entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. Corn, today, is about $5.25 bu at the elevator: http://ncga.ncgapremium.com/index.aspx?mid=28566
As for “mileage,” it’s very complex. Most cars will get Better mileage on a twenty, or thirty percent blend of Ethanol than on a ten percent blend. Having said that, the “average” car will give up about 1.5% mileage on e10 vs gasoline, but straight gasoline will cost about 3% more. Ethano isn’t “crashing.” We’re using more every day, despite the fact that Big Oil, and the Meat Industry is trying hard to kill it every day.

Mark Nodine:
Ranting Stan: “could someone explain why it is that whenever I see a plot of temperature against CO2 it is always the temperature anomaly against total CO2? Should it not be temperature anomaly against CO2 anomaly?”
An anomaly is simply the value of a series after subtracting out a constant representing some reference period. From a graphical standpoint, it results in shifting the graph up and down, or alternatively, in changing the labels on the y-axis while leaving the shape of the curve the same. So graphing an anomaly against a total is pretty much the same thing from the standpoint of eyeballing the data as using two anomalies or two totals.
In practice, people use the temperature anomaly because it’s readily available and gives some sense of how unusual the current temperatures. The four different temperature series use different reference periods, so their anomalies have different magnitudes even if the actual temperatures are identical.

Mike Bryant:
Bob Tisdale, just wondering if the satellite temperature data could be graphed showing the earth in three separate regions, north, south and central? I have a feeling that such a graph might show something unexpected. Thanks, Mike Bryant

Leif Svalgaard:
Bill Marsh: “I agree with your comments about the planetary gravitic effects. Don’t those gravitic tides affect earths orbit though, adding some more eccentricity to the orbit and thus affecting solar irradiance?”
No, they do not, as it is the barycenter that moves around. Here is a plot [from Alexander’s paper] showing what the distance [and also the TSI] between the sun and the Earth should be according to BTS: http://www.leif.org/research/DavidA10.png and here is what is actually observed [in terms of TSI: the black curve]: http://www.leif.org/research/DavidA11.png with the data points from the previous figure added in [the red dots]. As you can see, the observed TSI does not match the BTS prediction. BTW, you might be able to discern some VERY small wiggles in the black curve [e.g. one near the top in 1993]. Those are the variations caused by solar activity. Note how utterly insignificant [like 50-100 times smaller] they are compared to the regular march of the sine-wave due to the smoothly varying sun-earth distance.

Jack Linard:
I for one have had enough of the the smug, arrogant, condescending and boorish Lief Svalgaard. Lief is always right. Nobody may question his right to be right. Lief knows the sun and the sun knows Lief. Lief adds nothing to any discussion, except to ensure that Lief’s right to be right is respected. Proof, justification, implications, explanations, etc, are nowhere to be found. As an engineer, I find it difficult to tolerate this degree of sanctimonious science.

claire:
Can’t we just admit that, as humans, we don’t really know everything about our impact on the environment? Maybe we can just play it safe and drive a little less, in case all the paid-off scientists are wrong (cough.. cough… bogus science reports saying that cigarettes are “healthy” half a century ago)

jmrSudbury:
NOAA released their Sept sunspot graph. They truncated the left side of the red curves slightly, but those prediction high and low lines are unchanged otherwise that I can see. http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpdir/weekly/sunspot.gif – John M Reynolds

Gary Gulrud:
Leif, please, how does the author’s point morph into your own? Because he didn’t provide the itemized list? “So, the answer lies not in knowing more about the sun or of how little the atmosphere reacts to variations in solar output, but in understanding the internal oscillations of the system and the interplay between atmosphere, ocean, lithosphere, and biosphere [including man].” BTW, I am on a Palin binge and can’t get back.

Leif Svalgaard:
jmrSudbury: “NOAA released their Sept sunspot graph. They truncated the left side of the red curves slightly, but those prediction high and low lines are unchanged otherwise that I can see.”
They, of course, need to move the red curves to the right, but since it is an official product, they cannot do that without excessive bureaucratic hassle. so expect the curves to be more and more silly in the future until the Panel makes another prediction [if ever].

Gary Gulrud: “Please, how does the author’s point morph into your own? Because he didn’t provide the itemized list?”
I don’t know what you mean and why it matters. I used his phraseology and added what I consider important. Namely that the Sun is not a player, no matter how badly we want him to be [for many disparate reasons].

Bruce Cobb:
Namely that the Sun is not a player, no matter how badly we want him to be [for many disparate reasons].There you go again, Leif, with your anti-sun ideology. Sorry, not buying it. You sure talk a good game, though.

Jack Simmons:
Here are some correlations I’ve noticed: In the fall, bears go into hibernation. Winter follows. When bears come out of hibernation, winter ends. Therefore, bears hibernating causes winter. First cell phones went into use in 1977. Each cell phone generates heat. Cell phone usage has gone up with global temperatures. Therefore, cell phone usage is the cause of global warming. Isn’t science wonderful? With such a small investment in facts, one can reap a rich reward. And on small things having a big impact: I don’t have to worry about that little train down the track. It is really, really tiny so I can just take my time moving my car off the track…

Leif Svalgaard:
Bruce Cobb: “There you go again, Leif, with your anti-sun ideology. Sorry, not buying it. You sure talk a good game, though.”
It is not fair to call it ideology. It is the result of 40+ years of study of this and of familiarity with hundreds of scientific papers purporting this or that [or no] claim. Now, tell me why you don’t buy it.

Leif Svalgaard:
Jack Simmons: “I don’t have to worry about that little train down the track. It is really, really tiny so I can just take my time moving my car off the track…”
Naaw, just stay put and let the train pass under your car…

Tamara:
Kum, just one little thought about those poor subsistence farmers in Africa who would benefit from $5/bu corn: what do you think subsistence farming means?
These are not people with the infrastructure, technology, water resources or capability of producing exportable crops. As it is, their farming/land-clearing methods are resulting in desertification of the environment. If $5/bu corn would save them, they’d already be selling it to us (though I’m sure their governments would reap the rewards, rather than the actual farmers).
It isn’t global warming or fat Westerners that are causing the poverty that afflicts these people, it is a complex mix of regional conflicts, corrupt governments, and the chaos left over from Imperialism.
If the Africans want to sell me some nice thick, juicy wildebeest steaks, I’ll be happy to lift them out of poverty.

mcauleysworld:
What a wonderful site! There is intelligent life out there after all. Thank you.

kum dollison:
Tamara, I will agree that those African farmers have many problems, starting with terrible governance in many cases. I was just trying to make the point that whether we feed corn to cattle and sell the beef to rich Koreans, or whether we extract some of the starch for ethanol before we feed the protein to the cattle, and then sell the beef is not one of them.

Jack Linard:
Oh dear. I had the bad taste to question the beLiefs of those who believe that the sun has no influence on climate. Sorry, Anthony – I was a fan. I’m an AGW skeptic (with qualifications to justify my position).

Tamara:
True, that isn’t the problem. And, it may be that $5/bu corn isn’t really a problem, at least not in the U.S. Corn already has industrial uses other than ethanol, so it’s really just a matter of expanding corn’s utility. But, people (a.k.a. the marketplace) should have the ability to choose, to some extent, how they spend their hard earned money. My choice is to be able to purchase meat and chicken to put on my family’s table. If the two choices are: 1) Eat meat, or 2) the salvation of the planet, I will take the salvation of the planet. Most rational people would. The ethanol debate isn’t about just finding another use for corn. It is about government (and world government) mandated and subsidized use of food stuffs to produce biofuels in a misguided bid to save us from ourselves. I am paying my government to increase the price of the meat on my table in order to save me from a trace gas that may or may not be warming the planet by a degree or so (which is consistent with the post-ice age warming rate). Frankly, that chaps my hide.
Also, you have mentioned that the people in developing countries are not affected by our use of corn for ethanol, because we don’t export corn to them. But what about the foodstuffs that they are using in their own countries to produce biofuels (soybeans, beets, sugarcane, etc.)? Do you also argue that this does not affect food prices in developing countries (serious question. If there is a reason, I’d like to know it.)? Was it just ignorance that has led to rioting? Is it a concern that there are regimes who would deem it much more satisfying to sell ethanol to Western nations rather than feed their own people?

Stephen Wilde:
Leif, I share your view that gravitational influences would have no direct effect on the Earth’s climate systems. However I have seen it suggested that the combined gravitational effects of the planets in the solar system will move the barycentre of the solar system around and that the position of the barycentre in relation to the position of the sun will have an effect on the sun’s inner workings and result in changes in output possibly linked to the observed solar cycles. Would you go along with that ?

Leif Svalgaard:
Stephen Wilde: “the position of the barycentre in relation to the position of the sun will have an effect on the sun’s inner workings and result in changes in output possibly linked to the observed solar cycles. Would you go along with that?”
No, I would not, for reasons that I have stated here several times [the main one being that the sun is following a geodesic in a curved space and feeling no forces]. IMHO, hitching your writings [and Duffy’s by extension] to BTS effects diminishes the paper.

Stephen Wilde:
“Outgoing long wave radiation varies directly with the Southern Oscillation index. El Nino events involve a fall in OLR as the tropical oceans absorb energy while La Nina events involve a loss of stored energy and a fall in sea surface temperature”
Erl, I was puzzled by the above and wonder whether it is the right way round. El Nino releases energy stored in the ocean to the atmosphere so there should be a rise in OLR and a decrease in stored energy (unless the sun is in an active phase and still adding energy faster than it is being released). Vice versa for La Nina which holds energy back from the atmosphere with a fall in OLR and an increase in stored energy (unless the sun is in a quiet phase and unable to add energy faster than it is still being released.
It is quite correct that it is a matter of overall system balance as Leif has said rather than any necessary substantial solar variation but in a highly sensitive ocean regulated system very small solar changes could indeed have a significant effect over enough time. Each phase of the PDO is 30 years so 60 years or nearly six solar cycles for a full PDO cycle which could throw up sizeable variability from small slow solar changes.
Remember too that there are a lot of square metres on Earth’s surface so even a change in irradiance of one unit or less per square metre will multiply up to a sizeable amount of energy.

“The position of the barycentre in relation to the position of the sun will have an effect on the sun’s inner workings and result in changes in output possibly linked to the observed solar cycles.”

Would you go along with that ?

Leif Svalgaard:
No, I would not, for reasons that I have stated here several times [the main one being that the sun is following a geodesic in a curved space and feeling no forces]. IMHO, hitching your writings [and Duffy’s by extension] to BTS effects diminishes the paper.”
My wording differs from Duffy’s to the extent that my article does not rely on any particular cause for the solar cycles. All my article requires is that there are solar cycles and historically there have been observed real world correlations over several centuries.
My curiosity on the point arises from this item which seems able to make reasonable predictions on the basis of planetary influences on solar behaviour. I dont pretend to know the definitive position myself. http://personal.inet.fi/tiede/tilmari/sunspots.html#intro

RobJM:
If two patterns are in harmony then there is a very high likelihood of a physical connection, since without a connection the two waves will move out of phase. So if A and B are in harmony then either A causes B or B cause A or C cause A & B. If a pattern on the sun is in harmony with a pattern on the earth then there must be a physical connection.
By the way, is there any comments on why a small CO2 forcing can have a large effect in clear violation of the first and second laws of thermodynamics? Or why a system driven by positive feedbacks (as climate is often described) is actually a description of a perpetual motion device, clearly impossible. Cheers

Bob Tisdale:
Mike Bryant, sorry, but I don’t have time today to create graphs that I won’t be using at my blog. But here’s a link to the RSS MSU data broken down by latitude: http://www.remss.com/pub/msu/monthly_time_series/RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_1.txt
And here’s a link to the UAH MSU data that’s also broken down by latitude: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt
I’m surprised you haven’t been able to find the comparison graphs by doing a google image search. They should be out there. I know I’ve seen them.

Leif Svalgaard:
Stephen Wilde: “My curiosity on the point arises from this item which seems able to make reasonable predictions on the basis of planetary influences on solar behaviour. I dont pretend to know the definitive position myself. http://personal.inet.fi/tiede/tilmari/sunspots.html#intro”
I do not see a table with “post-dictions’ of past cycles and their errors or skill score [maybe I just missed it in the mass of numbers] and the only real prediction I can find is for cycle 24 to be 30-60 with maximum in 2014. As I have said before, there are other theories [e.g Cliverd et al. based on different ‘cyclomania’:
Predicting Solar Cycle 24 and beyond  Authors: Clilverd, Mark A.; Clarke, Ellen; Ulich, Thomas; Rishbeth, Henry; Jarvis, Martin J.  (British Antarctic Survey, Natural Environment Research Council, Cambridge, UK); Publication: Space Weather, Volume 4, Issue 9, CiteID S09005  Publication Date: 09/2006  Origin: DOI: 10.1029/2005SW000207 Abstract
We use a model for sunspot number using low-frequency solar oscillations, with periods 22, 53, 88, 106, 213, and 420 years modulating the 11-year Schwabe cycle, to predict the peak sunspot number of cycle 24 and for future cycles, including the period around 2100 A.D. We extend the earlier work of Damon and Jirikowic (1992) by adding a further long-period component of 420 years.
Typically, the standard deviation between the model and the peak sunspot number in each solar cycle from 1750 to 1970 is +/-34. The peak sunspot prediction for cycles 21, 22, and 23 agree with the observed sunspot activity levels within the error estimate. Our peak sunspot prediction for cycle 24 is significantly smaller than cycle 23, with peak sunspot numbers predicted to be 42 +/- 34. […] or a maximum in the [wide] range 8-76.] that predict similar numbers, therefore a ‘hit’ cannot be taken as unique support for any of these.
At any rate, I missed the skill score statistics that shows that this method works. All ‘prediction’ methods claim a high success rate, otherwise they would not have been brought forward, but clearly they cannot all be correct, so a mere claim that it works cannot be taken as evidence that ‘this is it!’.

Leif Svalgaard:
RobJM: “If two patterns are in harmony then there is a very high likely hood of a physical connection, since without a connection the two waves will move out of phase. So if A and B are in harmony then either A causes B or B cause A or C cause A & B. If a pattern on the sun is in harmony with a pattern on the earth then there must be a physical connection.”
Absolutely. This was the [correct] argument a hundred years ago for a connection between sunspots and geomagnetic storms. But show me the pattern in the climate that is in harmony with a pattern in the Sun.
Now, there is a little twist. There are LOTS of such patterns and LOTS of people that claim them. The problem is that these people do not agree as to what and when. If they all did [as they now agree on the harmony patterns of sunspots and magnetic storms – there is no debate any more] then we would not have this discussion.
So, you will have to show why your patterns are superior to anybody else’s patterns.

John F. Pittman:
Leif, I am sure that you have explained this before. Although in general, I agree with your statement >> BTW, you might be able to discern some VERY small wiggles in the black curve [e.g. one near the top in 1993]. Those are the variations caused by solar activity. Note how utterly insignificant [like 50-100 times smaller] they are compared to the regular march of the sine-wave due to the smoothly varying sun-earth distance.<< However, the other problem is that I thought that TSI was greater in the time when the southern hemisphere is tilted towards the sun, as indiacted by your graph where December is greater than June.
In that CO2 is well mixed, then shouldn’t global warming in the southern hemisphere be greater than northern hemisphere? The IPCC indicate such a small portion of the W/m^2 proves manmade global warming. That difference, in your graph, is so small, and yet, it is the actual and proven cause of recent global warming per IPCC. After all, the GCM’s which also prove global warming, in description, have a thermal barrier at the tropics. However, CO2, being nearly an ideal gas, is dispersed through atmosphere relatively evenly; except; it is noted, and accepted, that it is somewhat less concentrated in the polar regions, due to the known temperature relationship for water and gas phases.
Could you provide the same insights to this difference of TSI in the cycle you graphed, and the IPCC claims for southern versus northern hemispheres? I mean, after all if the sine wave is smoothly varying and the southerm hemisphere receives such an appreciable amount more than the northern, what explanation will explain the difference that the southern is cooler than the northern? I would say that it is the difference between the amount of land versus ocean in the respective hemispheres. However, with evaporation, the thermal capacity of water is much greater than soils, due to the fact that the triple point of water is 0C at standard temperature and pressure. I wonder how one can use W/m^2 as a standard in a system where the main GHG is water which has a 1:273 ratio for comparing actual heat of water (ocean) versus water vapor (GHG). Yet one of the admitted weaknesses, therefore one of the weaknesses of the proof, is that GCM’s either do not do water cycles ( a single lumped parameter) or cannot model water cycles if they try.
Further, these same models are promoted as being able to do regions, less that their grid size, and determine whether it will be drought or flodd up to 100 years in the future. With what you have posted on TSI, what would it take to accept/prove the claims stated above? If the claim is that the southern hemisphere has more water, and yet shows less temperature increase than the northern hemisphere, is this not proof, at least indirect proof, that water is actually a negative feedback, rather than a positive one?
Further, one the principle reactions is that mass that heats, expands; and for air systems, this means that the tendency on the atomic and molecular level is to rise, taking heat and mass upwards where it can release the energy in our system. This is a conservative approach. Also, in that air under conditions of boundary, the most energetic atoms/molecules, on a empirical basis, are the ones that tend to rise upward (outward in a compressed cylinder), which means that the atoms/molecules that exit are in a state of higher energy than those remaining in that state. That temperature, all things being equal as the IPCC have claimed, is a good measurement of heat/energy in the earth system means this approach is an even more conservative approach..this is based on how the IPCC justify their computation and recognition of climate sensitivity.
Yet, this claim by the IPCC appears to fail a most cursory examination. Could you provide some insight with respect to TSI?

kum dollison:
Tamara, the other Major Ethanol-producing country is Brazil. They make ethanol from sugar cane grown in the southern/central parts of the country. The Cerrano where they grow soybeans has, according to their government, 150 Million Acres of fertile land lying fallow. Their government has stated that they could replace every drop of gasoline in the U.S. and never cut down a tree, or fail to feed a single Brazilian.
Stanford Univ. states that their are 1.2 Billion Acres of Abandoned Farmland in the World.
With all the noise of Gas Prices going up, and Down, and Speculation, etc. etc. keep one thing in mind. Many really smart oil analysts think that around 2011 the world is going to start running very short on Oil. Even now, Exports from Mexico, Venezuela, Canada, Norway, Saudi Arabia, Russia, and Nigeria, among others, are Declining. Add to that the fact that production from our own North Slope, and Gulf of Mexico is Declining, and that the U.K., China, and Indonesia are now Importers rather than exporters, and you might get a glimpse of the problem developing.
In short, Tamara, the main argument for forcing the Energy companies to develop biofuels is not grounded in Climate. If it was, believe me, I’d feel the same as you.

Leif Svalgaard:
John F. Pittman: “Could you provide some insight with respect to TSI?”
Most of your long comment on the difference between the Northern/southern Hemisphere I do not know any good answers to. My hunch [like yours] is that the different distributions of Land/Sea is crucial. When we try to evaluate the impact of TSI, we must remember that what actually matters is not TSI, but what is left after the albedo has taken its cut. And the albedo over Sea and Land [and the cloud cover] is different. This all is taken into account, or so the modelers tell us, so I guess there should be no mysteries. Perhaps somebody more qualified that I on this, could take it from here…

Bob Tisdale:
Ranting Stan: “Here’s the link to the graph of the month-to-month changes in CO2 that bears a striking resemblance to the NINO3.4 anomaly curve.
http://i34.tinypic.com/2sb0k6g.jpg”
And here’s the link to the post that compares it to NINO3.4 and other SST data sets: http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/09/atmospheric-co2-concentration-versus.html

John F. Pittman:
Though you do not know a good answer, perhaps as I do when looking at phenomena, you could comment on the orders of magnitude as you did for TSI. After all, with a 1:273 lever against and using temperature for climate sensitivity and the very physical reaction of gas to excitement by an energy source (sun or CO2 enhancement), how can one take these account and say there is a positive feedback?
When I showed using a twice conservative approach even ignoring this 1:273 ratio, that the feedback is negative you would reply >> we must remember that what actually matters is not TSI, but what is left after the albedo has taken its cut. And the albedo over Sea and Land [and the cloud cover] is different. This all is taken into account, or so the modelers tell us, so I guess there should be no mysteries<< So I show that it is about 1000 times (273 x 4, if not 273 x 2 x 4 = 2000 times more), 3 orders of magnitude unlikely, very much like your TSI.
You reply with a albedo that has been measured IIRC varying about +/-10% for +/- 3 SD for all changes from frigid to much warmer than present. However, using your graph where it is 110 units of 1365 (average) which is a 8% and we compare 10% x .3 (land/ocean ratio) we get 3% with a relative linear trend since the IPCC used delta Temperature to compute sensitivity, and an 8% that has land and water. But since I like conservative approaches, soil has a typical water content of 30%. Now our value goes to 1% with this linear IPCC delta. But it does not stop there. Soil, and especially soil with water has a good insulating affect of about 2.6. My favorite example of this, is that where I live, dogs dig under bushes into the dirt to cool themselves; you could look up insulating properites od common elements.
Anyway, 1%/2.6 = 0.4%. So now we are about an order of magnitude less for the albedo effect. Note that this effect also is coupled with the 1:273, and transpiration is noted by the IPCC. So the effect of water, regardless of the IPCC assumptions decrease this 0.4% versus 8%. So that it approaches two orders of magnitude, if the change in water vapor is significant. It is, as can be determined from physcometric charts when you compare say desert versus the USA south east. As this approaches 2 orders of magnitude less, does it not approach the difference in TSI that you corrected (or took them to task, as they may believe)??

Leif Svalgaard:
John F. Pittman: “does it not approach the difference in TSI that you corrected (or took them to task, as they may believe)?”
John, I cannot follow you. What is your point? Instead of guessing, I’ll try to describe my point of view [which is what I know].
Currently, there is a large difference [~100 W/m2] between TSI in January [when we are closest to the sun] and July [farthest away]. The climate system adjusts to this recurring disparity in ways that depend on the distribution of Sea and Land. Complex systems don’t adjust instantaneously and perfectly everywhere, although on the average things will balance out quite well. If you add very small perturbations [solar activity] to the signal, the effect of these will be hard to distinguish from the imperfections of the adjustment. That is why we don’t see a big solar cycle effect. Over long periods of time, the Earth’s orbit changes and the annual wave in TSI changes accordingly [the Sea/Land distribution also changes, perhaps on even longer time scales] giving rise to glaciations or other major climate changes because the changes in TSI are much larger than those associated with the solar cycles (~1 W/m2).
The players in the adjustment process are the Land/Sea distribution, oceans currents, salinity changes, volcanoes, and the biosphere [I may have left a few out].
This process has gone on for eons, and will continue for eons. Sometimes these adjustments takes just decades and at all times the system is in continuous flux around its equilibrium.
I mentioned that TSI changes are built in to the climate models, but as far as I know, just as fixed boundary conditions [using a ‘typical’ average TSI]. I don’t know if this makes sense, but I do also don’t know that it does not. One thing I have asked the modelers [e.g. Gavin Smith] to do is to ‘crank up’ the TSI and/or its annual variation and/or the superposed solar variation and in this way run some ’sensitivity’ test runs, but to no avail.
I have in general a low opinion of IPCC because of its political control and [perhaps] goals, but I don’t really have an opinion on the AGW issue, except perhaps that [coming from a cold country] I think warm is better than cold.

Hans:
Excellent story, thank you.

Erl Happ:
Stephen Wilde: “I was puzzled by the above and wonder whether it is the right way round.”
Thanks for the question. Can I ask you to look at my admittedly unorthodox explanation of the phenomena in post of today on the Svalgaard 8 thread on Climate Audit.
Alternatively look at: http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/bulletin_tmp/figt1.shtml
There is nothing internal about the ENSO oscillation. Tropical warming events are generalized and not confined to the Pacific and they involve a fall in outgoing long wave radiation. The energy is absorbed by the ocean where it raises temperatures. It can not be both absorbed and emitted. A warming event is the result of a fall in albedo. Density and spread of cirrus cloud in the tropics varies inversely with 200hPa temperature. Temperature at 10-11km altitude is driven directly by the sun with an amplitude of variation much greater than at the surface. There is appreciable ozone at 200hPa and enough water vapour to form multi branching microscopic ice crystals that have a high reflectivity value. Both ozone and ice will heat with an increase in incoming solar radiation. There is a much greater variation in ultraviolet light than total solar irradiance.
So, cirrus cloud comes and goes with the change in relative humidity at 200hPa. Tropical albedo is about 24% with about a 6% decrease over south east Asia during an El Nino event. Of course, ‘an El Nino event’ is a parcel of variable proportion and so too will be the change in albedo.

John F. Pittman:
I have the essentially same POV, as far as I can tell. However, I do not assume that GCM’s are correct. Rather the opposite. My point above that you did not follow was that the average +50 W/m^2 occurred in the southern hemisphere, with the northern hemisphere at an average of -50 W/m^2 with respect to each other for the 100 W/m^2 difference. A quick estimate from the IPCC is 7.5 W/m^2/degree K for the current temperature difference of the average temperature versus the black body earth which translates to 2.3 K difference between the Northern and Southern hemisphere. I agree with that there are sea land distributions. My point is that: in that models are said by the modellers do a poor job of the water cycle; and from the known physics +50 W/m^2 and a delta T of about .3K (NH average – SH average), when it should be opposite sign and larger; these indicate that assuming the GCM’s are correct is shown to be a bad assumption, based on the TSI data you provided, the known differences of the SH versus the NH, and what the modellers themselves say.

Leif Svalgaard:
John F. Pittman: “I have the essentially same POV, as far as I can tell. However, I do not assume that GCM’s are correct.”
I must be singularly inept in explaining my view. I have made no assumption about GCMs being correct. What I was suggesting was a stringent test of their ability to model the impact of TSI correctly. And I suspect they will fail.
The average +50 W/m^2 occurred in the southern hemisphere, with the northern hemisphere at an average of -50 W/m^2 with respect to each other for the 100 W/m^2 difference. But six months later, it is the other way around, so whatever difference it made would be reversed six months later and symmetry would be restored, no?

John F. Pittman:
No, you were not inept. I misunderstood.
Yes, it will. But that is the time when albedo changes should be greatest. I agree about the restoration by the cycle. Thanks for helping clarify my thinking.

Stephen Wilde:
Erl, Thanks for your reply. There seems to be an important issue here regarding the ENSO mechanism which may impact on my ideas. Would you agree to an exchange of private emails so that I can decide whether what you say should affect my pronouncements?
I can be contacted on wilde.co@btconnect.com – Stephen

statePoet1775:
Leif, I will avoid the B word but wouldn’t the sun’s motion on its geodesic distort the magnetic field far from the sun versus the field near the geodesic? TIA  P.S. I learned geodesic from an another poster but can’t spell his name yet.

Leif Svalgaard:
statePoet1775: “wouldn’t the sun’s motion on its geodesic distort the magnetic field far from the sun versus the field near the geodesic?”
The geodesic has to do with gravity not magnetic fields, so the answer is “no”, and distorting a magnetic field far from the sun does not seem to be an efficient way of making spots on the sun…

statePoet1775:
Leif, Thanks. I guess I should ask a neutron star expert about how a magnetic field behaves in differently warped space.

Glenn:
More on Ian WIlson’s article from ABC, for those who haven’t read the full article: “For many years scientists have recognised an apparent connection between the strength of sunspot activity and the movement of the sun in relation to solar system’s barycentre, which is driven by the combined gravitational forces of Jupiter and Saturn. But no one has been able to explain the connection.
“There are really only two possible interactions, and neither of them is feasible,” Wilson says.
Read more at http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2008/07/02/2292281.htm?site=science&topic=energy

Leif Svalgaard:
statePoet1775: I guess I should ask a neutron star expert about how a magnetic field behaves in differently warped space.
Whatever her answer, it would hardly have application to the weak gravitational fields found in the solar system which is the case I was referring to.

Glenn: from the blurb: “They say that when the sun’s orbital motion changes, so too does its equatorial rotation rate, which provides strong circumstantial evidence that there is a spin-orbit coupling mechanism operating between Jupiter and Saturn and the sun.”
Except that no variation of the Sun’s equatorial rotation rate has ever been clearly demonstrated. I would be glad to comment on any claim to the contrary if provided with a link.

Ric Werme: Leif Svalgaard: Glenn: from the blurb: “They say that when the sun’s orbital motion changes, so too does its equatorial rotation rate, which provides strong circumstantial evidence that there is a spin-orbit coupling mechanism operating between Jupiter and Saturn and the sun.”
How can the equatorial rotation rate change? For that to happen, you need a torque, and in a gravitational system, the best way to do that is with a difference in the gravitational attraction between the “left” and “right” sides. As far as I know, stars aren’t lumpy enough for that.

statePoet1775:
Leif Svalgaard: … whatever her answer, it would hardly have application to the weak gravitational fields found in the solar system which is the case I was referring to.  Well, I guess my half baked thought was that the magnetic lines of force might get wrapped around the sun or twisted because of the different geodesics they propagate through. I was not thinking of sunspots. Reminds me of my adolescence too much. Thanks for your patience, Leif.

Glenn:
Leif: “Except that no variation of the Sun’s equatorial rotation rate has ever been clearly demonstrated. I would be glad to comment on any claim to the contrary if provided with a link.”
Don’t know what weight “clearly” demonstrated has here, I’m just going on Ian WIlson’s AU article that assumes the equatorial rate is not constant.
“The Role of the Sun in Climate Change By Douglas V. Hoyt, Kenneth H. Schatten” on page 193 graphs “faster” and “slower” rates.
Another, “We have found the existence of a statistically significant 17-yr periodicity in the solar equatorial rotation rate.”
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=17116387
I’m sure you are aware of more than this, but my opinion is that not much of anything about the Sun has been “clearly demonstrated”.

Leif Svalgaard:
A paper [by usually reputable people whom I know personally] that may come closest to ‘demonstrating’ a long-term variation is: Long-term variations in solar differential rotation and sunspot activity  J Javaraiah  L Bertello  R K. Ulrich
ABSTRACT: The solar equatorial rotation rate, determined from sunspot group data during the period 1879-2004, decreased over the last century, whereas the level of activity has increased considerably. The latitude gradient term of the solar rotation shows a significant modulation of about 79 year, which is consistent with what is expected for the existence of the Gleissberg cycle. Our analysis indicates that the level of activity will remain almost the same as the present cycle during the next few solar cycles (i.e., during the current double Hale cycle), while the length of the next double Hale cycle in Sunspot activity is predicted to be longer than the Current one. We find evidence for the existence of a weak linear relationship between the equatorial rotation rate and the length of sunspot cycle. Finally, we find that the length of the current cycle will be as short as that of cycle 22, indicating that the present Hale cycle may be a combination of two shorter cycles.
SUGGESTED CITATION: J Javaraiah, L Bertello, and R K. Ulrich, “Long-term variations in solar differential rotation and sunspot activity” (2005). Solar Physics. 232 (1-2), pp. 25-40.
You can see it at: http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4114&context=postprints
You can also link to their figure that shows how the equatorial rotation supposedly has varied: http://www.leif.org/research/SolarRotRate.png
You will, I’m sure, agree that this is pretty flimsy. Not the ’strong evidence’ that I at least would require in order to overthrow Einstein’s Equivalence Principle.
Just like with sun/weather-climate relations there are scores of such papers all showing flimsy ‘evidence’ with all kind of periods from day-to-day, 154 days, 1.3 years, 7 years, 11 and 22 years, etc. None of them convincing. I’ll certainly agree with you when you say that “my opinion is that not much of anything about the Sun has been “clearly demonstrated”” and therefore I cannot accept the ‘evidence’ of Wilson et al.

I forgot to draw attention to the final statement of their abstract: “Finally, we find that the length of the current cycle will be as short as that of cycle 22, indicating that the present Hale cycle may be a combination of two shorter cycles, sort of indicative of the uncertainty of the whole thing.”

Glenn:
Leif, Wouldn’t this be a clear demonstration of rotation rate variation?
“The equatorial rotation rate shows a systematic variation within each cycle. The rate is higher at the beginning of the cycle and decreases subsequently. Although quite small, the variation of solar differential rotation with respect to Zürich sunspot type was found. ”
http://www.springerlink.com/content/u0q85tv07532q253/

Leif Svalgaard:
another flimsy paper on solar rotation and activity is one where I am a co-author: http://www.leif.org/research/ast10867.pdf
one of its conclusions is: the more magnetic the Sun is, the more rigid is its rotation.

Glenn:Wouldn’t this be a clear demonstration of rotation rate variation?
“The equatorial rotation rate shows a systematic variation within each cycle. The rate is higher at the beginning of the cycle and decreases subsequently. Although quite small, the variation of solar differential rotation with respect to Zürich sunspot type was found. ”
No, not IMHO. First, only three cycles were studied [=low statistical significance]. Second, the small changes they find are not of the kind that Wilson needs, namely a 179-year cycle, if I understand him correctly. Over the 11.86 year period of Jupiter, Saturn can be all over the place. He can not take any old variation as evidence. It has to be a specific and unique kind. I have to admit that I have only seen his abstract: I’m not going to pay $35 to read a paper that is in conflict with General Relativity. When Wilson came out with the paper, he was saying “I have irrefutable evidence that blah blah blah, but because of Intellectual Property Issues I cannot show it to you”. That kind of put me off, right there. If you have his paper, maybe send it to me.
The ‘finding’ also conflicts with our flimsy finding in http://www.leif.org/research/ast10867.pdf [Figure 1 does not show any such jump at the start of each cycle]. Typical of relationships that are on unsure ground and not generally accepted. If you continue your search you can find scores of such papers. I have read most of them over time as they came out. We have measured the solar rotation rate very carefully at Wilcox Solar Observatory (WSO) at Stanford since 1976 and see no systematic variation. I was one the builders of WSO and a preliminary paper describing the instrument, the data, and the results can be found at http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1980ApJ…241..811S
Subsequent data up to the present fully corroborate the early results. It just so happens that I am kind of an expert on this 🙂

Glenn:
Leif, you said that “no variation of the Sun’s equatorial rotation rate has ever been clearly demonstrated.”
I believe that my refs and yours show that rotation rate has been observed to vary. Here’s a couple more: “The degree of the equatorial acceleration of the surface differential rotation is also found to have undergone the same 100 year periodic modulation during the same interval, reaching a minimum at cycle 14, a maximum at cycle 17, and a minimum at cycle 21 in antiphase with the modulation of M.”
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/112447180/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
“The equatorial rotation rate, increases with time or decreasing magnetic activity during the declining phase of solar cycle 23.”
http://www.noao.edu/staff/rhowe/disk2k8b/data/2008/agu08/rk.pdf

Leif Svalgaard:
Glenn: Leif, you said that “no variation of the Sun’s equatorial rotation rate has ever been clearly demonstrated.”
I thought if was evident that the meaning was the no variation of the kind needed to explain the effect has been clearly observed. I elaborated on that like this: ”Second, the small changes they find are not of the kind that Wilson needs, namely a 179-year cycle, if I understand him correctly. Over the 11.86 year period of Jupiter, Saturn can be all over the place. He can not take any old variation as evidence. It has to be a specific and unique kind.”
A offered a link to the claimed variation at http://www.leif.org/research/SolarRotRate.png to show how poor the correlation was.
One of your examples claimed: “The equatorial rotation rate shows a systematic variation within each cycle. The rate is higher at the beginning of the cycle and decreases subsequently. ”
The new one from Howe says: “The equatorial rotation rate, increases with time or decreasing magnetic activity during the declining phase of solar cycle 23.”
Can’t you see that these are contradictory? and that therefore no “clear demonstration” has been made?
I’m sure you can find many more such contradictory claims and, perhaps, with judicious selection further your case…Which specific variation does Wilson advocate as evidence for his claim?

Thomas J. Arnold:
European politicians running round like headless chickens claiming that the end of the world is nigh!! – should be forcibly sat down and made to read this article.
Man-made global warming the new ‘orthodoxy’ replacing conventional belief. So many more immediate and pressing problems to address, but therein is the reason. Like Putin’s adventures in Georgia to deflect the populace away from economic and social inertia at home. So we Europeans are led down the garden path, towards global warming hysteria, leading our thoughts away from the real issues.
The End of the World barring a super volcano or a massive meteorite, or total Armageddon is not nigh! (maybe)

Stephen Wilde:
As I see it:
1) There is a clear correlation between climate and solar cycle activity and length over centuries
2) Statistically a relationship appears to exist between the planets and the sun which enables solar cycle lengths to be estimated some time in advance.
3) Leif has kindly indicated which mechanisms cannot cause the observed link
4) It would be wrong to ignore the connection just because we have not yet nailed the cause.
5) We can make rough and ready climate predictions from observing solar behaviour even if the cause of the link is not known especially if we combine solar behaviour wiuth multidecadal oceanic oscillations as per my various articles at CO2sceptics.com

Stephen Wilde:
1) There is a clear correlation between climate and solar cycle activity and length over centuries
If this first point does not hold, then the other ones don’t matter. So, let’s start with this one. About 150 years before the Maunder minimum, there was another solar Grand Minimum, the Spoerer minimum [named after Gustav Spoerer, who is the real discoverer of the Maunder minimum]. The Spoerer minimum was even ‘deeper’ than the Maunder minimum, yet there was no Little Ice Age then. If anything, the temperature had a local maximum during the Spoerer minimum. So, I’m not so hot on the ‘clear correlation’.
There are different ways you can try to ‘rescue’ the correlation:
like time delays, bad data, Government cover-up, etc, but then it ceases to be ‘clear’.
2) Statistically a relationship appears to exist between the planets and the sun which enables solar cycle lengths to be estimated some time in advance.
If this weren’t true then the rest of the points don’t matter. So, once again, show me the relationship. The weasel word ‘appears’ may be indicative. Either there exists a statistically significant relationship based on solid data or it is just smokes and mirrors that give the appearance of a relationship. In science we often use a different weasel word when we are not sure. We would say: “the data suggest a relationship”, or “we suggest that blah, blah, blah”. This leaves the door open for a graceful exit, should it be needed, but also means that the jury is still out.

Leif Svalgaard:
Stephen Wilde : “Dropping points 1) and 2) is AGW neutral.” The ‘correlations’ and their statistical ’significance’ are independent [or should be(!) if we want to be scientifically honest] of whether one adheres to AGW or not [if not, then one is not honest about it as ideology becomes the driver]. Now, it is perfectly OK to state “I believe that the Sun is doing it”. The problem comes when one tries to use one’s belief to determine policy and thereby impact on others. Or, rather, that changes the issue from a scientific one to a political one. There is nothing wrong in letting political ideology drive policy, as long as one realizes that that is what it is and not is not trying to hide behind science.

Stephen Wilde:
Leif, Pointing to the Spoerer minimum to discredit all subsequent correlations is merely a debating point. As you say there is the issue of lag, inadequate records then and length of that minimum and overall I am inclined to ‘believe’ the correlations from LIA onwards. However the current global temperature response to the quietening sun since the peak of cycle 23 seems pretty persuasive unless it goes into reverse pretty soon without a reactivated sun or a strong El Nino. That will be a real test. As regards the planets and the sun the jury is indeed out from my viewpoint since I don’t really need it for my ideas. I was curious about your view on the link that I provided. It seems that the chap concerned has been predicting a 13 year cycle 23 for some time on the basis of statistics from solar and planetary movements. Even he accepts that his ideas are tentative and that he is not sure why there seems to be a connection. I note your views and your knowledge base but even you cannot know more science than has yet been discovered or ascertained. If the statistical correlation continues to be useful then it should be taken seriously. Observations always trump models and theories, even mine.

Glenn:
Leif: “One of your examples claimed: “The equatorial rotation rate shows a systematic variation within each cycle. The rate is higher at the beginning of the cycle and decreases subsequently.” The new one from Howe says: “The equatorial rotation rate, increases with time or decreasing magnetic activity during the declining phase of solar cycle 23.” Can’t you see that these are contradictory? and that therefore no “clear demonstration” has been made?” No, each article relates to behavior associated with specific solar cycles. The variations in rotation rate observed to occur *in relation to* cycles may seem contradictory, but it isn’t at all clear that is the case. Regardless, we are not talking about a simple association between rotation rate and solar cycle, but only whether solar equatorial rotation rate varies. Whether or not you don’t think observed variations are “of the kind necessary” or that the planetary orbits are “all over the place”, doesn’t mean that there is no association. Many things are all over the place, and often there is no simple correlation of associated events, especially when multiple variable factors are involved. Take the weather for instance. Leif, that the physical reasons have not been found doesn’t mean that the association found is wrong or violates relativity or standard models. If there is a reason, the effect on Earth as well as the Sun from dynamic spin-orbit coupling mechanisms are likely to be complex and subtle to observation.

Leif Svalgaard:
Stephen Wilde: “Pointing to the Spoerer minimum to discredit all subsequent correlations is merely a debating point.” I don’t do ‘debating points’. There are not ’subsequent correlations’, there should be only one correlation which should include whatever data we have. There was a Spoerer minimum, temperature was higher then, there was a Maunder minimum, temperature was lower then, there was a Modern maximum (1940s), temperatures were higher then, there is a Modern decline [the last 30 years], temperatures has been higher [and the last couple of years can’t be called ‘climate’ yet]. On top of all that there is volcanic activity [e.g. Tambora]. I am inclined to ‘believe’ the correlations from LIA onwards. I call that cherry picking. So, you would believe that the higher temperatures since the 1980s are due to the [unquestionable] decline in solar activity that we have had? solar activity didn’t start declining yesterday. However the current global temperature response to the quietening sun since the peak of cycle 23 seems pretty persuasive unless it goes into reverse pretty soon without a reactivated sun or a strong El Nino. That will be a real test. Not at all. If the PDO etc are due to internal oscillations that are now going towards a cooler regime, the fact that the Sun is also quiet is just a coincidence. There is no test here. Even if it goes the other way and temperatures jump up, you could still say “Oh that is just AGW overwhelming the Sun”, again no test. It is all belief. Correlations are not causation, so without mechanisms there can be no test. If a correlation persists long enough and its statistical significance thereby is strengthened enough one might at some point be forced to accept the correlation as a sign of an underlying mechanism [that we just don’t understand yet], but the correlations are poor and have only a few degrees of freedom [like 5 or 6 data points]. This is due to something that used to be called ‘positive conservation’ and now more often is referred to as ‘autocorrelation’. A classic example is the sunspot cycle. If you observe the Sun every day, then in the course of a cycle you accumulate 4000 data points. How many of these are independent? Or equivalently, what is the ‘number of degrees of freedom’? The answer is 20, and the reason is that if the sunspot number today is high it was also high yesterday and will be high tomorrow, too. As regards the planets and the sun the jury is indeed out from my viewpoint since I don’t really need it for my ideas. That was my original point. To hitch your ideas to the planetary influences weakens your paper [or was it Duffy’s 🙂 ] and ideas. All I said was that it “detracts from whatever merit the article may otherwise have”, without commenting negatively on those other merits. If you want to combat AGW, the Sun is a poor co-combatant. There are much better arguments against [or for, as your belief goes] AGW, rooted in physics [some even mentioned in your/Duffy’s article].

Leif Svalgaard:
Glenn, we are not talking about a simple association between rotation rate and solar cycle, but only whether solar equatorial rotation rate varies.
No, it has to vary the right way. Suppose it varied from day to day would you call that strong empirical support for spin-orbit coupling? Actually, solar physicists once thought [Howard and Harvey, 1970] that there were such very large day-to-day variations. Our research at Stanford [that I referred to earlier] showed that those variations were spurious [cause by scattered light and other instrumental defects] BTW, the ’solar equatorial rotation rate’ is a misnomer. What is measured is not solar rotation, but winds in the solar atmosphere. One of your references [by Howe] uses the correct term: ‘zonal flows’. There are flows in the solar atmosphere just like there are the ‘trade winds’ in the Earth’s. These flows have little to do with the rotation of the Sun, and at any rate are found far from the places where solar activity is generated. If there is a reason, the effect on Earth as well as the Sun from dynamic spin-orbit coupling mechanisms are likely to be complex and subtle to observation. And yet Wilson calls it “strong circumstantial evidence”, and that is my problem with the whole thing. I will grant all kinds of subtle, negligible, hard-to-observe effects, but I object to foist those upon the public as ’strong evidence’. The public deserves better.

I wish our moderator could be persuaded to correct on the spot trivial typos when urged to do so by the poster. Howard and Harvey 1070 should be Howard and Harvey 1970, of course. This would conserve bandwidth.
[Reply by John Goetz: Your comment above seems mildly irritated, as if the several moderators on this site just aren’t moving fast enough for you. However, I would like to point out that your post with the typo had not yet been seen by a moderator (probably because it is Sunday afternoon and most of us are busy doing other things) and had yet to even be approved. That said and speaking for myself, I don’t as a matter of practice correct any typos unless specifically asked in a comment awaiting moderation. Then, when I do correct the typo, I delete the comment asking for the correction, thus saving a minuscule amount of bandwidth.]

Stephen Wilde:
Leif, Solar activity hit a peak at the top of cycle 19. Since then there has been a slow decline which is now accelerating. Throughout the 30 years you refer to the sun was historically very active. Throughout that period there was warming. In my view it was adding heat throughout and cannot be ignored. Since we take different views on that 30 year period there is nothing more either of us can say to persuade the other. Only time and research will resolve the issue.

Leif Svalgaard:
[Reply by John Goetz: Your comment above seems mildly irritated, as if the several moderators on this site just aren’t moving fast enough for you….]
Not irritated at all [and thanks for correcting the typo]. It is just that in the past, i had been told that it was the policy of the blog not to correct anything even if asked for immediately by the author, and I just went by that assumption [the first three letters of that word are appropriate for that]. Good to know that the policy has changed. Keep it up. Thanks.
[Reply by John Goetz: It may still be Anthony’s policy, and this is where the moderators may exhibit some inconsistency. When a correction is requested, it does take some time – not a huge amount – to locate the comment needing modification. Then the change must be made in the editor and the comment updated. When Anthony was moderating this site on his own, I can understand why he did not want to spend any more time than necessary on that type of activity. Now that there are other moderators helping him out, you are sure to see some inconsistency in how each of us deal with comments. We do our best, but it is going to happen.]

jeez:
It is usually a judgment call on the part of the moderator. Not all procedures are so granually quantified. ~ charles the moderator.

Leif Svalgaard:
Stephen Wilde, Solar activity hit a peak at the top of cycle 19. Since then there has been a slow decline which is now accelerating. Throughout the 30 years you refer to the sun was historically very active. Throughout that period there was warming. In my view it was adding heat throughout and cannot be ignored. Did I ignore that? What is problematic is that the Sun was not extraordinarily active the last 30 years. Cycles 11 and 10 were as active as the most recent cycles 22 and 23, and even cycle 19 was probably less active than cycle 4 [in the 1780s]. See, e.g. Nature 436, E3-E4 (28 July 2005) | doi:10.1038/nature04045; Climate: How unusual is today’s solar activity? Raimund Muescheler Fortunat Joos2, Simon A. Mueller & Ian Snowball
So the activity-declining sun can hardly be blamed for the 30 years of heat as that kind of heat should have been present during cycle 10-11 and 4-5 as well [which it was not]. This is what I meant by saying that the correlations are lousy. But surely, the Sun is not the only source of climate variability, as more research and data will eventually show.

Stephen Wilde:
Leif, If you read my articles you will see that I postulate that increased or decreased solar activity will normally only have a global temperature effect if it is sufficiently in phase with the average global state of all the oceanic oscillations whether negative or positive globally. I tend to the view that such a combination would swamp all the multitude of other potential variables because most of those other variables operate to counteract one another. It would be useful to know what the state of those oscillations was during those other cycles you mention but since that is not realistic we can only observe what happens from now and see whether my description of the solar/oceanic combination continues to fit developments as they occur. My articles also take the view that solar cycle length is the main factor as regards solar variation and this link suggests a reason for the Spoerer and Maunder minima having different outcomes: http://www.lund.irf.se/workshop/abstracts/abstract_poster_miyahara.pdf  Additionally a positive set of oceanic oscillations could well counteract a period of solar minimum.

Leif Svalgaard:
Stephen Wilde, If you read my articles you will see that I postulate that increased or decreased solar activity will normally only have a global temperature effect if it is sufficiently in phase with the average global state of all the oceanic oscillations whether negative or positive globally. My articles also take the view that solar cycle length is the main factor as regards solar variation […] Additionally a positive set of oceanic oscillations could well counteract a period of solar minimum. In view of the uncertainties and poor data involved, it is quite reasonable to speculate on different causes and interactions. We do it all the time, that is how fresh ideas get injected into the mix, but what is quite wrong to do is to play down [or simply omit] that these are just speculations or postulations [or ‘views’]. Neither Duffy’s nor your [I take it – as Duffy’s apparently is just a slight rewording of yours 🙂 ] articles are honest about the speculative aspects. Instead it is claimed in no uncertain terms that The major driver is the sun and The solar effect is huge and overwhelming, and THAT is my problem with them. And it ought to be clear that we are not talking about the effect of turning off the Sun and all the silly comments related to that, but about minute variations of solar output convolved with natural oscillations of the system, etc. I wish I had a dollar for every time I have heard people say “so, you don’t think it is the sun! try to turn it off and see what you get! you d*** f***!”.

Glenn:
Leif: If there is a reason, the effect on Earth as well as the Sun from dynamic spin-orbit coupling mechanisms are likely to be complex and subtle to observation. “And yet Wilson calls it “strong circumstantial evidence”, and that is my problem with the whole thing.” You seem intent on creating the appearance that Wilson has proposed a mechanism, a physical reason(s) for the observed associations. He didn’t in the abstract of his AU paper, “However, we are unable to suggest a plausible underlying physical cause for the coupling”, nor did he in the ABC news article, “”It is one thing to show an association and quite another to show cause and effect. We have to be very careful, but we will know in a few years,” he says.” Again, observing, testing and making predictions based on associations is not pseudo-scientific. The association can be falsified, just as a theory that includes physical mechanisms can be falsified. Your problem with this has been with the physics (violates relativity), with the science (pseudo-science without mechanism) and with the lack of “clear demonstration” of the observations and the association itself. Sounds like you just don’t like it. But can this paper have been this bad and ever passed peer-review? Or as I suspect, what Wilson says is true, that researchers have seen connections before and that he did show evidence of a correlation and is looking for the reason, and that in my book is science being practiced. You seem to want more “clear” evidence, but again I have no idea how to quantify that. Is there clear evidence that CO2 increases in the atmosphere leads to a warming planet?

Leif Svalgaard:
Stephen Wilde, Additionally a positive set of oceanic oscillations could well counteract a period of solar minimum. Adding in more variables just further decreases the number of degrees of freedom. This is irrespective of if the new conditions are correct or not, but as long as all we have to go by are correlations without mechanisms, the thing that matters is the ‘number of degrees of freedom’. If that number drops too low [say below 10] the whole thing could well be spurious. Anyway, you don’t see these considerations in the media, so perhaps a blog like this might be useful as a counterweight against the ’science is settled’ mentally [which is equally prevalent in declaring “the sun is the driver of climate”].

Glenn, Sounds like you just don’t like it. But can this paper have been this bad and ever passed peer-review? In my book there is no such thing as ‘not liking it’. What the data demonstrates and theory explains is what you go with. One without the other is just speculation [which may or may not be true]. And, yes, bad papers often pass peer review. Weren’t Mann’s hockey stick papers peer reviewed? Is there clear evidence that CO2 increases in the atmosphere leads to a warming planet? Many peer reviewed papers say so. Nobel prize winners say so. But none of those make it therefore true. What is true, IMHO, is that CO2 does heat the planet. The only question is how much? A temperature increase of +0.000001 degrees is also a heating of the planet, so your question is ill-posed. A better question would be if there is evidence that increasing CO2 will put the Earth in peril? I don’t think so, but you are welcome to disagree, because at this point it is politics and not science.

He [Wilson] did show evidence of a correlation…  Have you seen his evidence? As I have confessed before, I haven’t, because he wouldn’t send it to me unless I paid $35. If you have seen his evidence and have his paper, would you please send it to me at leif@leif.org . If you haven’t seen the paper and his evidence, how can you say that he did show such evidence … that is just hearsay, then.

Stephen Wilde:
Lief, My articles are clear that I am expressing an opinion even if one can extract emphatic sentences and quote them out of context. Not much point putting forward an opinion so cautiouly that no one considers it seriously. Wasn’t it Hansen himself who justified his approach by pointing out that no one would have taken him seriously unless he had got down from the fence? Sauce for the Goose etc. At least I also provide suggestions as to how my ideas could be shown to be wrong by future real world changes. I am content to agree with you that the science is certainly not settled and given time I am sure the competing assertions will be whittled down by real world data. It’s a shame that new thought on the subject is more often appearing in blogs such as this rather than amongst the members of the scientific establishment but I think that is now changing.

Leif Svalgaard:
Stephen Wilde, My articles are clear that I am expressing an opinion even if one can extract emphatic sentences and quote them out of context. Not much point putting forward an opinion so cautiously that no one considers it seriously. So said Chicken Little 🙂 Then Duffy did add something to his plagiarism of your articles: there is not a single ounce of caution about what is the driver of climate in ‘his’ article, and that is really what I was commenting on. Not really on yours. Shame on me, I took your word for Duffy’s just being essentially yours (so didn’t go to the trouble of checking you on this)

Ric Werme:
Stephen Wilde, Pointing to the Spoerer minimum to discredit all subsequent correlations is merely a debating point. As you say there is the issue of lag, inadequate records then and length of that minimum and overall I am inclined to ‘believe’ the correlations from LIA onwards. However the current global temperature response to the quietening sun since the peak of cycle 23 seems pretty persuasive unless it goes into reverse pretty soon without a reactivated sun or a strong El Nino. That will be a real test. Perhaps. Don’t forget the correlation with the PDO, especially in the last year or so. I’m pretty content with a link between solar activity and climate, but when Leif points out how weak the potential links are I remember how little I know. As for the upcoming test, be sure to include the PDO, all other known and plausible links, and most of all include the unknown links, especially the real ones. 🙂

Bruce Sanson:
Dear Dr Watts – I have recently sent out letters outlining my ideas on climatology. This might even be considered a theory. Have you a postal address so I could send you a copy, if you are interested? Dr B.A.Sanson dental surgeon Whangarei New Zealand
REPLY: If it is review you seek, why not outline it here first. The group of people that frequent this forum can tell you right away if the ideas have merit. – Anthony

Bruce Sanson:
Basically, climate is controlled by the solar wind which varies over the surface of the sun. Strong solar winds impact the earth’s atmosphere, closing over the polar atmosphere, limiting heat escape in the winter, and to a less extent limiting solar irradiance in summer, hence creating a smaller ice melt. Total yearly ice melt drives sst either warmer or cooler depending on its size. Sst drives the global climate. Hemispheric bias occurs because of the earths orbital inclination to the solar systems invariant plane. The earth tends summer in the suns northern hemispheres solar wind and winter in the in the suns southern hemispheres solar wind. Since about 1975 the solar southern hemisphere has dominated, the a positive phase of pdo. this is a brief outline without the supporting graphs etc. sincerely bruce.

Leif Svalgaard:
Bruce Sanson, The earth tends to summer in the sun’s northern hemisphere’s solar wind and to winter in the sun’s southern hemisphere’s solar wind. Apart from summer/winter reversed in NZ from Calif., there is a factual error in your statement. The Earth is South of the solar equator from December 7 to June 7 and North of the solar equator from June 7 to December 7. In fact, just today, the Earth is as far North as it can go (all of 7 degrees). You may ponder if that does something to your idea.

Stephen Wilde:
Leif, Thanks for that. However, since I’m not expecting disaster from human causation I don’t think the Chicken Little comment is valid in relation to me. Could well have problems from natural causation though.
Ric, Point taken but if you read what I say you will see that I say that PDO and ALL the oceanic oscillations globally at any point in time need to be averaged out and combined with any variation in the solar signal to ascertain what the global temperature trend is likely to be. The diagnostic indicator of warming or cooling at any particular time is the position of the jet streams and the relative dominance of the high pressure systems either side of the jet streams. My view is that the scale of the combined solar/oceanic driver swamps all other influences over time but that there are many other global and local processes that work to stabilise the changes in either direction caused by the solar/oceanic driver. Furthermore I believe that it is the oceanic oscillations that amplify and suppress over multidecadal time periods the relatively small but often cumulative solar variations. Time will tell.

Stephen Wilde:
Bruce, I’m not sure that ice melt could be a cause rather than a consequence of SST variations. After all it is warm sourthern water flowing into the Arctic Circle that keeps open water at or around the North Pole in varying amounts. The Antarctic melt is much less variable because the south pole is on a continental land mass. To my mind the elephant in the room is the past solar insolation stored in the oceans and being released only intermittently via the positive and negative phases of the multidecadal oceanic oscillations. You have correctly noted the power of SST in changing the temperature of the atmosphere up or down but personally I think you have placed the cart before the horse.

Bruce Sanson:
Leif, I appreciate that the the hemispheric variation is only a couple of weeks but I don’t need palm trees in Greenland. The hemispheric temperature difference over 33 yrs is only approx. 0.25 degrees C. I did talk from the northern hemisphere perspective on an American site-sorry. As for ice melt being an affect, I charted melt from the cryosphere today site and it looks far more like a driver than a recipient of temperature.

Leif Svalgaard:
Bruce Sanson, I appreciate that the hemispheric variation is only a couple of weeks. I do not understand what you mean by that, but if you are happy with it …

Rob:
Just one question for the brilliant minds on this blog, The Little Ice Age ended abruptly about 1850, what started the warming?

Leif Svalgaard:
Rob : The Little Ice Age ended abruptly about 1850, what started the warming. I’m not so sure that it ended ‘abruptly’, see e.g. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/obsdata/cet.html
 
Stephen Wilde:
Rob, It might have been something to do with this but Leif disagrees: http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/irradiance.gif  I do agree with Leif to the extent that TSI may well not be an adequate explanation on it’s own but it looks pretty suspicious even if the historical variance has been overstated.

Leif Svalgaard:
Stephen Wilde – It might have been something to do with this but Leif disagrees: http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/irradiance.gif
I do agree with Leif to the extent that TSI may well not be an adequate explanation on it’s own but it looks pretty suspicious even if the historical variance has been overstated. This is indeed ‘junk science’. Keep showing old, outdated plots. Not even Judith Lean believes that old plot anymore. She even agrees that no long-term variation has been detected. See her slide on page of her presentation at SORCE in 2008: http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2008ScienceMeeting/doc/Session1/S1_02_Lean.pdf
Her conclusion about the contributions of the different sources of TSI: 5-min oscillation ~ 0.003% – 27-day solar rotation ~ 0.2% – 11-year solar cycle ~ 0.1% – longer-term variations not yet detectable – ……do they occur? Thus, bottom line: The variations that we thought [10-20 years ago] were present are no longer thought to be so. Lean [with Wang] updated the old useless 2000 reconstruction in 2005, and now she even acknowledges that THAT one is not correct. You can see the evolution of the thinking about TSI over the last 20 years here: http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-LEIF.pdf and here: http://www.leif.org/research/Seminar-LMSAL.pdf [page 20].

Stephen Wilde:
According to page 20 all the reconstructions bear a similar shape and all appear to show greatest activity during the recent warming. The only difference is in the amount of variation. Who is to say that the current estimates are any more accurate than those of 20 years ago? All are based on a collection of assumptions. It’s simply a matter of climate sensitivity not a complete absence of a solar signal. As I’ve already said the oceans could achieve the necessary amplification or suppression of even a small solar signal over periods of 60 years covering a full positive and negative PDO cycle spread across nearly six solar cycles. Additionally there are also a lot of square metres on the planet surface let alone around the outside of the atmosphere. An apparently small solar signal can be partly a result of choosing such a small area subdivision. Multiply it up to planet size and there’s a sizeable amount of heat energy involved however much one tries to minimise any solar signal. I think one has to start from observations and subject to lags due to say oceanic reactions to solar changes there is enough correlation between solar cycle behaviour and changes in global temperatures to persuade me that the issue must be recognised and given due weight. Of course others may disagree.

Bruce Sanson:
I am sorry for not making myself clear. The southern hemisphere ice form period is approx. march 22 – september 22 making it inside the solar S.H. march 22 -june 7, then the solar N.H. june 7 – september 22. This makes it 2 weeks longer in the solar N.H. But the period of maximum variability of ice form is at the end of the ice form cycle – firmly within the solar N.H. time frame. Please check the “spaceweather.com” site to check the coronal hole induced high velocity solar winds which occurred august 10 and 18 2008 then compare dates to their effects on ice formation (S.H.) at this time at the “cryosphere today” site. Interestingly shortly afterwards the induced early ice melt appeared to effect a change in the daily SOI viewed at the Australian site ENSO WRAP UP.

Leif Svalgaard:
Stephen Wilde, according to page 20 all the reconstructions bear a similar shape and all appear to show greatest activity during the recent warming. First of all, the old reconstruction should be discarded. It does not matter what they show. The recent reconstruction shows about equal activity during intervals around 1780s, 1850s, and 1990s. The only difference is in the amount of variation. But isn’t that the all-important difference? Does it not matter if the amount is 0.0000000000000000001% versus 10%? Who is to say that the current estimates are any more accurate than those of 20 years ago? All are based on a collection of assumptions. The people making the estimates say so. They [we] carefully update the ‘assumptions’ all the time in view of what we learn. The recent ones are really better than the old ones. This is not just assumptions. Turning this around, if all are based on a collection of assumptions, then they cannot be taken as strong evidence that the sun has changed its output, so your observational support falls away. Multiply it up to planet size and there’s a sizeable amount of heat energy involved however much one tries to minimise any solar signal. One is not trying to ‘minimise any solar signal’. One is trying to assess how big it is, without the built-in bias that lies in the phrase ‘trying to minimise’. Trust me, solar physicists would be motivated to maximise [if anything] the solar signal, as it will make their field all that more important, with funding, prestige, etc. And, multiplying up does not change the relative proportions of the change wrt the total, it is still only 0.1%, here is enough correlation between solar cycle behaviour and changes in global temperatures. This is precisely the point. What correlation? and with what significance? Oh, I’m well aware of the hundreds of correlations that are claimed, but select from all those, the ONE that you think is compelling enough for you to make the above statement. and we can discuss that one in detail.

Stephen Wilde:
Leif, You ignore my point about the amplifying/suppressing role of the oceans over nearly six solar cycles. Even longer time scales could be involved due to the time it takes for an initial change in trend to work through all the oceans. If climate sensitivity is high as a result of oceanic amplification or suppression then a small solar variation is not a problem. There is no other source of energy other than the sun unless one includes geothermal flux or undersea volcanic activity (which I don’t). I have mentioned elsewhere that going back to 1960 all the changes in global temperature change correlate with a combination of long or short solar cycles as modulated by the prevailing positive or negative oceanic oscillations at the time. I have seen data that takes the correlation back to 1900 but cannot recall where. I do not seek to try and persuade at this point. I am content to wait for more changes in trend to see whether the correlation continues to hold.

Leif Svalgaard:
Stephen Wilde – “You ignore my point about the amplifying/suppressing role of the oceans over nearly six solar cycles. Even longer time scales could be involved due to the time it takes for an initial change in trend to work through all the oceans.”
No, I’m not ignoring that point. It means that the swings in climate are really controlled by the oceans [which I have no problem]. The article at the very top of this post, does not mention that driving role of the oceans at all, but treats the oceans just as a passive recipient of solar heat, moving it around a bit. All this is a far cry from “The solar effect is huge and overwhelming “. I’m confident that several hundred of years from now when we have amassed enough data, that we can finally beat down the noise and prove that the tiny solar variations do have a minuscule effect after all.

Stephen Wilde:
Thanks Leif, we are not far apart. It’s a shame that Duffy confused the issue. The reason I insist on including the sun as well as the oceans is that the sun is the initial source of the energy so solar variations over time should have a significant role in dictating the power or weakness of the oceanic component. I think it may turn out that solar variations alone are of greater influence than you currently believe but that is only intuition on my part and we will have to wait and see.

Leif Svalgaard:
Stephen Wilde – “I think it may turn out that solar variations alone are of greater influence than you currently believe but that is only intuition on my part and we will have to wait and see.”
We cannot base policy and the teaching of children on ‘intuition’; this is where we part ways.

Stephen Wilde:
All scientific propositions start from observations interpreted by intuition which directs the initial investigations. Open mindedness as to the outcome is, however, essential. There is no implication for public policy or the teaching of children as far as I am concerned since I am neither a politician or a teacher. If your mind is closed then indeed we must part ways.

Leif Svalgaard:
Stephen Wilde – “All scientific propositions start from observations interpreted by intuition which directs the initial investigations. Open mindedness as to the outcome is, however, essential.”
This is not how science works. The outcome must fit into the current mainstream paradigm to be generally accepted. Open mindedness has nothing to do with it. Now and then [but very rarely] does the outcome trump the paradigm and a scientific revolution takes place and the paradigm is replaced by a new paradigm, which serves as dogma until the next revolution. 99.9% of what scientists do is within the current dogma [paradigm] as is proper. There is no implication for public policy or the teaching of children as far as I am concerned since I am neither a politician or a teacher. See the discussion about solar influence on this thread: http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/09/08/an-inconvenient-youth/

moderators – I’m misusing your generosity but I did it again: There is no implication for public policy or the teaching of children as far as I am concerned since I am neither a politician or a teacher.

Flanagan:
Leif: unfortunately for you, the bulk of climate models developed in the 50s and the 60s where I do not think there was such a large ecological lobby, as you call it. They didn’t change physics since then, and the predictions are still of the same type: warming. stephen: there have been numerous studies about the effect of the sun. Thay all conclude that solar activity can explain fluctuation around the increase of temps observed today, but not the increase itself!

Stephen Wilde:
Flanagan, I’m not aware of any convincing assessment of the quantitative difference between fluctuation around the increase in temperature observed (until recently) and the increase itself. Over time, fluctuations up or down combine to become any underlying trend whether it be warming or cooling. It is the scale of the contributing factors that is important and I take the view that human CO2 is an insignificant player for reasons set out extensively in my articles at CO2sceptics.com. In comparison ocean and sun are hugely powerful with all other variables being minor though numerous and having the overall effect of approximately cancelling each other out.

Bruce Sanson:
Anthony, you never said what you thought of my ideas?

Tony:
Interesting points. Can you provide references to the above statements so I can investigate further? Thanks in advance.

Big Gun FIRES

AGW Denialists FRAUD

What was I thinking? Thanks, Greenman, for putting me straight…

It has become quite obvious to me that the AGW denialist case has been gravely damaged by their palpable fraud and misrepresentation.

I’m all in favor of scientific argument and debate about such a massive topic as the Earth’s climate. Controversy and even invective have their place. But there’s no place for fraud whatsoever.

One the bad things that fraud does is weaken its surrounding arguments – even when they might be correct. As a consequence the whole debate loses an important degree of intensity.

The Global Warming deniers, exactly like Creationists and Chemtrailers, use downright fraud, cherry-picking, quote-mining, straw men arguments in their desperate need to sway opinion in their direction. It’s hard to tell between them. Spits.

The Earth warms, and warms by processes pretty well accounted for by science.

Anthropogenic warming IS occurring and it is definitely time right now to do something about it.

I don’t think that CARBON taxes will do anything useful at this stage. The sensible thing to do is to prepare the world for the inevitable MIGRATIONS of both Man, animals and plants which will become necessary to avoid chaos and disaster. I see no sign of this. This “preparation of the world” is the unique property of Mankind, and we should exercise it NOW.

Meanwhile, I’m going to be amending my comments about volcanoes throughout my blog (which I admit are grossly incorrect) and commend to you these videos:

  

 

 

James Randi - debunker par excellence...