Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Global Warming Finally in the Deep Freeze?

Global Warming Finally in the Deep Freeze?

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

It seems like anthropogenic global warming has been a hot topic forever, boiling away on the front burner of plant-fueled stoves everywhere. Proponents have long spoken of its existence as an established fact. Several years ago during an interview on the Today Show, Al Gore roasted the media for giving any print or airtime to contrary views. He continues that harangue today and it’s getting way beyond old. Mercifully, legitimate science should turn the lights out on this man-made drama by fall, when results from the CERN CLOUD experiment are expected to hit scientific journals. 

CERN is the European Center for Nuclear Research. Founded in 1954 and located on the Swiss-French border, it is one of the world’s largest and most respected centers of physics research. Through the use of particle accelerators and detectors, CERN physicists discover the laws of nature and their interaction.

The CLOUD experiment tests the 1996 theory of Henrik Svensmark, director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at the Danish Technical University in Copenhagen. Svensmark and others, including the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Control (IPCC), agree that clouds are a primary influence on climate. However, they disagree on what causes clouds to form.

Svensmark attributes global cloud formation to the interaction of the sun with cosmic rays near the earth’s atmosphere. Cosmic rays are high energy charged particles originating in Milky Way regions outside of our solar system. They travel at nearly the speed of light and strike our earth from all directions.

According to Svensmark, fluctuations in solar magnetic activity regulate the amount of cloud cover through corresponding variations in the sun’s ability to shield cosmic rays. The result is periods of global cooling (higher incidence of cosmic rays in our atmosphere) or warming (lower incidence of cosmic rays). Svensmark’s theory discounts the significance of carbon dioxide emissions in cloud formation.

The IPCC disagrees with Svensmark on why clouds form. The anthropogenic crowd completely discounts solar activity, insisting that manmade carbon dioxide emissions are the determining factor. They ignore the Dane’s 2006 experiment showing cosmic rays and the sun’s impact on them as the main causes of our cloud cover. CERN did not show a similar disdain. It’s CLOUD experiment, which began in 2009, determines the validity of the 2006 research.

Svensmark’s theory links global climate change to the production of cosmic rays during cyclic galactic activity, thus explaining occurrences overlooked by the IPCC, such as why Mars, Jupiter, Pluto and Neptune’s largest moon are also warming. Unlike the discredited IPCC hockey stick model, it accommodates Medieval Warming, the ensuing Little Ice Age and the current cooling of Antarctic regions. Perhaps the loudest supporter of Svensmark’s theory to date is Al Gore. His Inconvenient Truth production is conveniently silent on it.

While it is a homerun for science, the CERN CLOUD experiment comes too late to be the first major mugging of anthropogenic global warming. The dismantling of Gore’s expensive altar to man-as-larger-than-nature is already under way, spurred by the sorry state of the economy. Last week’s sure-thing proposal to cut ethanol funding is just the latest hit to the climate change movement and a small one at that.

A much bigger bang is based on the fear of man-made global joblessness from the high cost of renewable energy regulations, supports and taxes. Among those singing the green blues are the British, the Australians, the Mexicans, the Americans, the Spaniards and others.  And then there’s China, the globe’s biggest polluter, a country going happily into that fossil fuel burning night.

What does it all mean? We are facing real issues of pollution and the lack of practical renewable energy technology. But, at the end of the day, those dangers are ours, not the planet’s. It will do just fine without us.

See you in the mirror.

Powered by

About Sidney and Riley

  • http://totaliberal.blogspot.com/ totaliberal

    Very interesting remark about the CERN experiments. I remember reading somewhere, some time ago that NASA said changes in sun radiation levels had the most influence on climate changes, not us humans. More about the subject here Solar Variation (Wikipedia)
    For me the development of renewable energies is key because of the ever increasing price (and scarcity) of fossil fuels, but not because we need to reduce CO2 emissions. CO2 reductions campaigns are pure marketing and branding issues

  • David K

    Interesting, you actually block comments demonstrating the misrepresentations of your article.

  • Baronius

    David, this site doesn’t do that, but sometimes its filters read things as spam. It only takes a little rephrasing to get around them. Just don’t embed too many links or mention name brands of pharmaceuticals, and you should be able to comment freely.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    I see. The planet will do just fine without us, so that gives us a green light to carry on with our strenuous efforts to make the place uninhabitable, and fuck the grandchildren. Classy.

    CERN CLOUD is just the latest candidate for that elusive brick which, if removed, is supposed to bring the whole AGW edifice crashing down. A typical denier tactic.

    While CLOUD may well demonstrate a relationship between cosmic rays and cloud formation – and it wouldn’t surprise me if it did – it won’t disprove AGW. The reason for this is very simple: the observed data show no correlation in recent decades between cosmic ray activity and global temperatures.

    Next!

  • Clavos

    Somebody should tell CERN that they won’t accomplish anything with their experiment, so they can shut down and quite wasting money, time and resources.

  • zingzing

    save money! remain stupid.

  • john

    as always the echo chamber repeats long debunked notions even if (and this is a stretch) CERN upholds GCR it will make no difference because the observed warming is greatest closest to the Earth and least at the outer reaches of the atmosphere so its the sun, its global cosmic rays or its Aliens on the dark side of the moon with a heat ray all fail the simplest of tests.
    P.S. Iris effect? debunked long ago.
    so sad so may fine minds will laydown and spew nonsense for money and so many others will take the easy out and do no scientific research for themselves. Grow up and take responsibility an Adult pays to clean up his mess.
    J2

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com/ handyguy

    The penultimate paragraph is the most telling part of this article:
    You all but admit we should be doing more to prevent pollution.

    Most of the same changes just happen to be what GW believers advocate.

    Using political distaste as a reason to keep making the world more toxic is self destructive and makes no sense at all.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    Clav,

    I take it you were being sarcastic.

    Nevertheless, the experiment is worth doing, principally so that one of the major claims of the AGW doubting crowd can be tested.

    There promises to be the added side benefit of enjoying the spectacle of the Sidneys and Rileys of this world switch, without blinking, to a different claim when the research results don’t show what they say they will.

  • http://cinemasentries.com/ El Bicho

    I’d be satisfied if they switched to a better graphic programs. The letters in this latest are quite a mess

  • Cannonshop

    #9 what if the results don’t match your hypothesis, Doc? are you going to go the same route they used when predicted oceanic warming didn’t happen-and the probes they dropped to monitor said warming confirmed it NOT happening? (for those who joined this late: the reaction among the CAGW crowd was to dun the Experiment their own scientists designed to support their predictions…when it failed to confirm those predictions.)

    #8 Isn’t limiting Pollution goal enough, cause enough, motivation enough? why do you need a synthetic apocalypse?

  • Cannonshop

    Lemme expand for a moment on my response to comment #8:

    I can think of MANY reasons that have nothing to do with the hypothetical apocalypse of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) to pursue cleaner technologies, and renewable, independent energy sources.

    I could even do it from OPPOSING viewpoints, if you like-everything from traditional-conservative, to extremist Liberal reasons, or from Isolationist to Internationalist reasons.

    The big one, of course, is the principle of “You don’t shit where you eat.” We live on this planet, barring some major technological and economic change, we’re pretty much stuck here, as are our progeny on down the line-generally speaking, a toxic place to live ain’t good for you.

    From the Strategic angle, I can give four current examples just off the top of my head: Iraq. Syria. Libya. Yemen. (or a fifth: without us, Al Quaeda would go broke, importing oil and paying the people who’re financing the people that want to end our civilization is in no way strategically smart. Alternatives to doing this strike me as a good idea…)

    Economically: Control your supply chain or you will be screwed. Example in the present: Boeing’s 787 programme, the company outsourced its entire supply chain, this caused the programme to fall behind by (at current count) about 3 years.

    Energy is a critical supply item for any economy-the more expensive your energy is, the worse your economy is going to be-letting some Cartel decide how much you pay for it (esp. one stocked by the folks that want you surrendered or dead) is an act of idiocy.

    We have boardrooms FILLED with idiots, including Congress.

    Survival: even if you don’t believe in Peak Oil, the few times oil patches have ‘regenerated’ from non-productive to productive again, required long periods of time, and the production is marginal at best in those cases where the claim has been made that it ‘came back’. The phrase is called “FInite Resource”, an alternative is required, if you want to KEEP a civilization with the relative comfort and security we currently enjoy.

    Technological Development Argument: There are only so many ways to build an internal combustion engine, most of them have already been invented, refined, produced, and many of them are fundamentally obselete. It’s the flat curve of development and a dead-end if you ever hope to get off this rock before the next Chixiclub or Tunguska-or before, say, Yellowstone goes off again-one volcanic event and humanity as you know it is done-the price of living on a single rock (eggs in one basket only. a gas engine won’t run on the moon, kids.)

    Hydraulic Empire: whoever controls the fuel/energy controls the civilization. It might be a good idea NOT to be the people down-stream of an Hydraulic Empire. One way to avoid that, is to become independent of imported or external sources.

  • Arch Conservative

    Gee this is about as entertaining and interesting at this point in time as the article entitled “genderless: equality or nuetrality.”

    File them both under who gives a f—.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    what if the results don’t match your hypothesis, Doc?

    It’s not my hypothesis, Cannon, it’s Svensmark’s. As I said, there may well be a connection between cosmic rays and cloud formation. What the data don’t show, though, is a correlation between solar activity and recent warming, which makes Svensmark’s ideas moot.

    As a matter of interest, his theory had already been (involuntarily, and admittedly not under controlled conditions) tested long before CERN got in on the act. Back in the mid 1980s, a nuclear reactor in a little Ukrainian town went kerblooey and started spewing out quite respectable quantities of cosmic rays into the atmosphere. If Svensmark is onto something, then one ought to have seen greater than usual cloud cover over that area of eastern Europe. However, the meteorological records for that period show no such thing.

    So by Sidney and Riley’s own argument, should Svensmark drop his theory?

    are you going to go the same route they used when predicted oceanic warming didn’t happen-and the probes they dropped to monitor said warming confirmed it NOT happening?

    For goodness’ sake, Cannon, quit caricaturing science. Abandoning an entire theory is not what scientists do when a predicted effect doesn’t manifest. Figuring out why they didn’t see what they expected to see is what they do.

    They noted that in spite of the data showing ocean cooling, global sea level was continuing to rise. Since liquid water, like almost everything else, expands when heated and contracts when cooled, that was a red flag right there.

    Far from “dunning” the data (whatever that means), the collection methods were examined and it was found that the measuring buoys themselves were calibrated in such a way as to introduce a cooling bias.

    Secondly, natural ocean cycles such as El Niño and La Niña themselves provide a cooling effect. Focusing only on six years of data showing cooling while ignoring the overall 40-year warming trend is cherry-picking, another favourite denier tactic.

    It’d be like me saying that because we had 100-plus temperatures here in central California last week and it’s only in the high 80s this week, that means summer’s over.

    Isn’t limiting Pollution goal enough, cause enough, motivation enough?

    Apparently not.

    why do you need a synthetic apocalypse?

    Synthetic it ain’t, very probably. And for the same reason safe driving campaigns often feature the bloody aftermath of crashes. Simply telling people to drive defensively isn’t going to persuade most of them. You need to show Consequences.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    @ #13: Forgot to grab your coffee this morning, Arch?

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    And Cannon: I’ve got no argument with most of your #12.

  • Dan

    “What the data don’t show, though, is a correlation between solar activity and recent warming…”—Dr. Dreadful

    That’s not what the link you provided in comment #4 seems to be saying. In fact it says somewhere between less than 30% to 50% of “the dramatic temperature rise since 1970 can be attributed to the sun”. Further the “cosmic ray flux” although less correlated, can still be responsible for “less than 15%” of the temperature increase between 1970 and 1985.

    It’s all very speculative (your counter citation), and no one from the CERN Cloud experiment is ruling out a anthropological contribution.

    Dismissing out of hand any success that the experiment may yield to support the thesis, while claiming validation for AGW if it fails betrays a scientific bigotry that is largely responsible for the declining influence and waning credibility of the AGW community.

  • zingzing

    “the declining influence and waning credibility of the AGW community.”

    do you have the data to support that, or is it just wishful thinking?

  • Clavos

    zing, didn’t you read about their last couple of world meetings? Or the de-emphasis of green legislation in america?

  • Cannonshop

    Funny enough, doc, temps here in W. Washington are in the low average for this period of the season-and have been so all year, in spite of the spike in CO2 output, and California’s notoriously warm, transplants from the Granola State tend to have some difficulties driving up here when the weather gets normal for this state…’cause it ain’t hot and dry like they’re used to.

    Say, do you live in that smog-bowl around L.A.? (Stupid place to put a city, really-no water, and it had smog before the Spanish got to this continent…)

  • zingzing

    clavos: “zing, didn’t you read about their last couple of world meetings? Or the de-emphasis of green legislation in america?”

    wha? politics has entered into the science? oh, surprise. i’d be just as surprised if oil and coal were funding denier scientists! (what are your feelings on that? i haven’t forgotten. while i’m on it, i still want cannonshop to explain how the right wing fought against the democratic demands for passage of the patriot act in 2002. but, you know, whatever.)

    the right wing political movement to convince its followers that they have nothing to worry about and business is business and money is money and you don’t have to worry about frying your grandchildren because the national debt will do that first isn’t surprising.

    the scientific community still hasn’t changed its mind. those who would turn it into a political agenda have been fairly successful in doing so. that the scientists may have lost a bit of steam hitting their head against the brick wall of ignorance the right wants to erect isn’t that surprising. i’d get tired as well.

    it’s not your funeral, i guess. fuck it.

  • zingzing

    cannonshop: “Funny enough, doc, temps here in W. Washington are in the low average for this period of the season-and have been so all year…”

    shocker! agw says you should be roasting! why are you not roasting?! roast! agw demands that temperatures rise by 20 degrees every year! no absolutely normal dips in temperature will be allowed! next time you’re hot, you’d better goddamn believe it’ll never end, as that’s where your logic leads.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    Say, do you live in that smog-bowl around L.A.? (Stupid place to put a city, really-no water, and it had smog before the Spanish got to this continent…)

    No, I’m further north, in the San Joaquin Valley (although I’m in the process of moving to the balmier climes of San Diego), which gets far warmer than LA. Summer temperatures above 100 are commonplace: the thermometer in my car read 111 when I left work the other day, and I believe the all-time record is somewhere in the vicinity of 115.

    You’re right about the Los Angeles basin being a natural smog magnet. Story goes that the pre-contact local Indians abandoned the place after the accumulated pollution from their campfires made life intolerable – and there were only about 50,000 of them. Had they but known…

    The San Joaquin is actually even smoggier. We’re in between the Sierra Nevada mountains to the east and the coast ranges to the west, whence come the prevailing winds. There are only a few high mountain passes through which air flows into and out of the valley, and once in, it, along with whatever particulates get mixed with it, tends to get stuck.

    For a multitude of reasons, I loathe LA and will go to great lengths to avoid it. I’ll fly to San Diego if feasible, and I have a driving route that bypasses the worst of it and only takes about 20 minutes longer.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    Dan,

    That’s not what the link you provided in comment #4 seems to be saying.

    Look at figures 6 and 7, which show a close relationship between solar activity and temperatures up to 1970, and a strong divergence after that.

    Nobody’s arguing that the sun doesn’t warm the planet, but it can’t account for the sudden recent warming. The sun hasn’t got hotter or more active since 1970: quite the opposite, in fact.

    no one from the CERN Cloud experiment is ruling out a anthropological contribution.

    Irrelevant, since that isn’t what they’re studying. They’re testing a hypothesis that warming is due to cosmic rays.

    Dismissing out of hand any success that the experiment may yield to support the thesis

    I did no such thing. Read my #4 again.

    while claiming validation for AGW if it fails

    Again, I didn’t do that, and you’re another one trying to portray the whole of AGW theory as hinging on the results of this one experiment – the single brick fallacy again.

  • Cannonshop

    #24 While the article’s authors (and a bunch of other people) are looking at the CERN experiment in terms of AGW, I’m thinking the Scientists aren’t-they’re likely looking at the experiment in terms of…

    …the Experiment and the Hypothesis, not some over-broad pre-conceived conclusion designed to appeal to scientifically ignorant politicians seeking some scientific-sounding justification for either a power-grab or to provide cover for their campaign donors.

    If nothing else, the CERN experiment, if it fails to disprove the hypothesis it is testing, the data can certainly be used to construct less inaccurate models of the mechanism of Climate change.

    Maybe even models not based on cooked books and faith.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    Maybe even models not based on cooked books and faith.

    Yes, the “skeptical” crowd does that a lot.

  • Clavos

    Yes, the “skeptical” crowd does that a lot.

    Almost as much as the “scientific” crowd.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    Examples?

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    While the article’s authors (and a bunch of other people) are looking at the CERN experiment in terms of AGW, I’m thinking the Scientists aren’t-they’re likely looking at the experiment in terms of…

    …the Experiment and the Hypothesis

    Yes, it’s funny how science works, isn’t it? It’s all purely about the experiment and the hypothesis… unless said experiment and hypothesis happen to lead to results that have inconvenient implications for a certain political philosophy, in which case it is an immutable law of the universe that, even though the method scientists follow has changed not one jot, they are automatically no longer doing science but are instead grandstanding.

  • Cannonshop

    #29 well, Doc, it’s nice that you finally acknowledge the actions of the vast majority of AGW supporters/activists.

  • Dan

    “Look at figures 6 and 7, which show a close relationship between solar activity and temperatures up to 1970, and a strong divergence after that.”—Dr. Dreadful

    You said there was “no correlation” between cosmic ray activity and “recent decades” warming trends (#4), then you said the data doesn’t show “correlation between solar activity and recent warming” (#14).

    You’re not saying that now. Clearly you comprehend the paper you linked or you wouldn’t be doing the weasel dance now.

    The authors agree that there is correlation between solar variation, cosmic rays, and climate change, and they even assign parameters in percentage value for the upper and lower bounds of causation that this activity could have been responsible for in the warming trend since 1970.

    “you’re another one trying to portray the whole of AGW theory as hinging on the results of this one experiment…”

    Ridiculous, I’ve always been agnostic toward the science component. I’m skeptical of the scientific bigotry from the left, and with good reason.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    Dan,

    I said the data showed no correlation between cosmic ray activity* AND RECENT WARMING, and that’s exactly what those graphs show.

    You’re nitpicking: desperately searching for that one brick which, if removed, will demolish this (unfortunately for all of us) most robust and well-supported of theories.

    Agnostic my [see footnote].

    * Or solar activity. Or whatever. Where do you think cosmic rays come from? My ass?

  • Clavos
  • http://cinemasentries.com/ El Bicho

    That’s written by a Senior Research Fellow for Research and Economic Development at George Mason University. Shouldn’t nails be administered by scientists?

  • Clavos

    Shouldn’t nails be administered by scientists?

    If the ideas presented and the conclusions derived therefrom are on point, not necessarily.

  • zingzing

    that whole thing has been brought up before clavos. and what scientists think will happen is there in the beginning of the article. that a economist and author of an anti-agw book thinks otherwise is hardly surprising or trustworthy.

  • Cannonshop

    #36 you impugn the source, can you also (Substantially) counter the data and claims? (i.e. can you break the hypothesis?)

    Can you link to, for example, experimental data providing support for the Sulphate claim, or has that claim even been TESTED?

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    Concerns regarding pollution and the environment in general are not necessarily related to global warming. They are 2 separate issues. However, global warming does affect the environment in its particular way.

    I find nothing in the CERN study which counters or precludes the liklihood of man’s effect on the world climate. The two conditions could be working in concert.

    There remains a large portion of the scientific community which still contend the reality of man-made global warming. There is no one who posts here – at least no one I’ve encountered – who has the training, knowledge or experience to effectively make a counter argument.

    Most of the people who claim that global warming is a hoax are those who worry that it could hurt their pocketbook. However, the stakes are much higher than someone’s bank account. If the “warmers” are right, the consequences of ignoring them could be devastating.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Nor is there anyone who posts here who has the training, knowledge or experience to effectively make the argument.

  • zingzing

    “you impugn the source, can you also (Substantially) counter the data and claims? (i.e. can you break the hypothesis?)”

    the scientists referenced counter the claims (about the data). i could look into it, but what i might have to say about it is kinda beside the point.

    i wonder if you would mind looking into all the agw sources you impugn. i wonder.

  • Cannonshop

    #40 Zing, the problem with the sulphide-cooling claim is that it’s only hypothetical-it ain’t been tested for a very good reason-you can’t test it.

    we just don’t have the equipment.

    On the broader scale, the CAGW claims are in the same boat-the simulations used to demonstrate it are at best inaccurate, and have failed the basic “can you model it historically using this simulator” test-ya can’t, not without telling the simulator what its answers OUGHT to be.

    The empirical evidence doesn’t support the CAGW model, though a lot of folks will jump from “It’s so hot it must be true” to “Yeah, but local temps aren’t counter-evidence”.

    Maybe it’s growing up with the hype of Global-apocalyptic-crisis-of-the-week, but I’m not impressed with the arguments of CAGW, because too much of it reads like Y2K or Millenialist hysteria.

    (along with the anti-nuclear power hysteria, the death of all salmon so we have to break dams hysteria, Spotted Owls, the list goes on and on and on).

    The problem for me, is that there’s good science in there, but not enough of it, with definitive enough work in it, done honestly, to say more than something anyone older than six should already know-the World Changes, and there is not a damned thing you can do to stop that.

    Mostly I see CAGW as a combination of wishful thinking (“Humans are really, really powerful and important”) and Arrogance (“Humans can control the weather.”) with a healthy dash of neopuritanism (“Man is a SINNER and the world will DIe on his SINS”)

    understand?

    It’s science-done-backward, where the scientist is trying to use the evidence to prove a point, rather than testing the hypothesis and changing it to fit the evidence.

    call it “Outcomes based education”-no matter how you do the test, you get the same grade for social reasons.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    The author of the article Clavos links to demands: Why hasn’t the Earth warmed in nearly 15 years?

    This inspires me to demand, in turn: It hasn’t hit 100 degrees here in nearly 15 days! Why will scientists not admit that summer is over?

    But actually, this old canard is based on an out-of-context (surprise, surprise) quote from Phil Jones. Here it is in context:

    Q: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?

    Jones: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

    Q: Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?

    Jones: No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant.

    [my emphasis]

    And here is the paper that addresses the canceling-out effect of industrial pollution from China and elsewhere.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    It’s science-done-backward…

    No, it’s not. Carbon dioxide has been known to be a greenhouse gas for 150 years. Given that CO2 is a significant component of industrial pollution, it was reasonable to speculate and investigate whether that effect would manifest itself in global temperature trends. This isn’t something that began with the advent of the green movement: AGW theory is built on over a century of research.

    …where the scientist is trying to use the evidence to prove a point, rather than testing the hypothesis and changing it to fit the evidence.

    To my knowledge not a single one of those charges has held up under investigation when it’s been leveled at a particular scientist or piece of research. Scientists just do the work and report the results. If the arse-about approach you complain of is being used, then it’s by certain (not all) activists and environmentalists, not scientists.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    And I note that I asked Clavos to provide examples of same in #28: he has not done so.

  • zingzing

    cannonshop: “understand?”

    i understand you. i just think you’re wrong. understand?

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    I’m not sure which direction Roger was leaning with his brief comment, but it’s certainly true that neither I nor much of anybody here can substantively argue either position. As far as I know, none of us are climatologists or expert in any other related disciplines. Nevertheless, the ovewhelming majority of those who are climatologists, etc. continue to iterate what they believe is the reality of man made global warming. If I’m guilty of drinking their kool aid, at least it has a far better chance of actually being kool aid than the murky brew the opposition has thus far offered up.

    B

  • Cannonshop

    Lemme see if this passes the common sense test…

    The (unmuffled/no scrubber) coal-fired plant in China is causing cooling/restricting warming, but the (Scrubbed and muffled)coal-fired plant in New Jersey is causing warming?

    WTF, over?

  • Cannonshop

    Both plants are dumping:

    Radioactive particles
    Sulphides, (though the hypothetical one in Jersey, which has had to comply with Clean Air standards from the moment of inception, dumps measurably less),
    both dump CO2 (a typical, standard by-product of combustion. burn anything, you get CO2 and carbon monoxide).

    There are other greenhouse gasses emitted by coal plants-including methane, a much more aggressive greenhouse gas, and one that is probably NOT being tapped by the chinese plant, or scrubbed, or limited in any fashion, because the PRC doesn’t HAVE an EPA like we do that will shut down a power-plant for exceeding pollution limits.

    This does point to some interesting counters though-the age of Coal in the West wasn’t all that long ago, and emissions controls on coal-fired powerplants are relatively new, it could well be that the climate’s STABILIZING after having negative pressure exerted by the rampant burning of Coal from the mid-1700’s to the late 20th century.

    If, of course, one believes in that sort of thing.

    It would certainly explain the cooler temps during the early and mid industrial revolutions vs. the rising temps in the age of Environmental Regulation.

    Esp. since the predicted rampant climate temperature increases predicted in the last three decades have failed to emerge.

    Nah, Still doesn’t pass the common sense test, and a well-structured hypothesis is just that-the Sulphide argument violates Occam’s Razor-the simplest explanation is still that the climate’s too complex to use extrapolations off fifty years of actual hard data to predict.

  • Cannonshop

    There was a period at the end of the 19th century when the director of the U.S. Patent Office wanted his department closed-because all that could be invented or discovered, in his expert opinion, had been.

    That is the sound of “Settled Science”.

    My proposition is that a new scientific specialty, with less than a century of hard data, studying something infinitely more complicated than anything short of the interaction of biology, technology, geology, and astronomy across a large system, doesn’t have the necessary expertise to accurately model the climate as it HAS existed, much less as it CURRENTLY exists, and further, can’t accurately predict what it will be in the future.

    EVERY SINGLE DISCIPLINE of science has some impact on Climate. Physics, chemistry, biology, geoscience (where the Climate Science game started), all of ‘em.

    The announcement of Apocalypse is premature, and more in kind with Theology than the Scientific Method. The raw data just isn’t here yet, the systems are NOT understood well enough, and there’s no ‘baseline’-the climate has ALWAYS changed, we do not live in a steady-state universe.

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    Well then I suppose – assuming Cannon is correct – that the best course of action is to say fuck it. Why waste time and energy on such nonesense. And anyhow, if global warming is in fact taking place, and if in fact it is in whole or in part, man-made, who gives a shit. Most of us who are living and breathing the tainted air today will be long dead before any significant changes take place. Let our kids, or our kids kids, or our… yada, yada, yada… deal with it. In the mean time let’s do away with all those costly regulatory agencies and all their friggin regulations so we can proceed unfettered to make bunches of money off of our descendants’ backs. Sounds like a plan.

    And in the bargain, we can take all those scientists who are wasting away their professional lives studying global warming, and put them to work developing more and better widgets for entrepreneurs to sell and make more money. Afterall, wealth is the ONLY thing that matters.

    B

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    Lemme see if this passes the common sense test…

    The (unmuffled/no scrubber) coal-fired plant in China is causing cooling/restricting warming, but the (Scrubbed and muffled)coal-fired plant in New Jersey is causing warming?

    What don’t you understand, Cannon?

    Or do you? Hmm…

    There are other greenhouse gasses emitted by coal plants-including methane, a much more aggressive greenhouse gas

    Yes, it is. So just imagine all the fun we’re going to have as the millions of tons of methane currently locked up in Arctic soil gets released into the atmosphere as the permafrost melts.

    It would certainly explain the cooler temps during the early and mid industrial revolutions vs. the rising temps in the age of Environmental Regulation.

    What could also explain it is if warming lags industrialization, which means that what we’re seeing now is actually the effect from emissions in the Victorian era and early 20th century. If that’s so, and you bear in mind that what we’re burping out now makes that lot look like a baby’s fart, then God help us.

    Esp. since the predicted rampant climate temperature increases predicted in the last three decades have failed to emerge.

    Observed temperatures are actually closely in line with predictions, taking into account the balancing effect of aerosols, solar activity, El Niño/La Niña, and other factors.

    If some hysterical newspaper reporter in the 80s (and was there ever any other kind?) takes a raw climate model that simply predicts what will happen if you add x amount of A to B, and then you turn around 30 years later and try to present that as the sum total of what was forecast, you’re deluding yourself as much as the reporter was deluding his readers.

    the Sulphide argument violates Occam’s Razor-the simplest explanation is still that the climate’s too complex to use extrapolations off fifty years of actual hard data to predict.

    Cannon, that’s no explanation at all. You need a shaving lesson.

    You also continue to push the myth that AGW theory is based entirely on models.

    The announcement of Apocalypse is premature, and more in kind with Theology than the Scientific Method. The raw data just isn’t here yet, the systems are NOT understood well enough, and there’s no ‘baseline’-the climate has ALWAYS changed, we do not live in a steady-state universe.

    Cannon, as B-tone points out with his trademark sarcasm, your attitude is a cop-out. It reminds me of the early Church, which discouraged people from inquiring too closely into the way the universe worked because man had no business questioning the way God had set things up.

    So if we just don’t know enough “yet”, when will we know? Your cop-out just allows you to keep saying that indefinitely, because nothing in science is ever known with 100% certainty.

  • Clavos

    If that’s so, and you bear in mind that what we’re burping out now makes that lot look like a baby’s fart, then God help us.

    EVEN IF the believers are right, nobody alive today will see anything for which we might need the help of a Fairy (except some unfortunates who live on tiny South Sea atolls or in Third World countries, which doesn’t apply to either thee or me).

    Sorry, Doc,I don’t see any point in expending effort to answer your question; I will never convince you — not even if I produce the Heavenly Fairy and He/She/It tells you point blank that He/etc. agrees with me (because,of course, He/etc. doesn’t exist).

    So, you continue to believe, and I’ll continue to doubt. It’s a discussion that can’t be settled anyway; neither of us will be around long enough.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    EVEN IF the believers are right, nobody alive today will see anything for which we might need the help of a Fairy

    Another cop-out, Clav. Slightly different to Cannonshop’s, yeah, but a cop-out all the same.

    Under Cannon’s rules, we will never know “enough” to be sure that human activities are causing warming.

    Under yours, we’ll never see any “noticeable” effects no matter how long we live.

    Sorry, Doc,I don’t see any point in expending effort to answer your question

    You made a claim which I don’t think it was unreasonable for me to ask you to substantiate.

  • Clavos

    You made a claim which I don’t think it was unreasonable for me to ask you to substantiate.

    I agree — it’s not at all unreasonable for you to ask.

    I would not, however, convince you, because mine is the minority position in this matter, and I am an ignorant non-scientist who knows practically nothing about climatology or the science involved opposing the all the world’s scientists, so you would be justified in not being convinced by my answers, and I accept that.

    Ergo, what’s the point?

    I’m not trying to convince you,in any case, I’m just expressing my (valueless and erroneous) opinion.

    Which, stubbornly, I continue to hold — at least until they pry my cold, dead fingers off my keyboard.

    Or until I fall off the edge of the earth.

  • zingzing

    clavos, it’ll probably be when your casket catches on fire or floats into the ocean. which may please you anyway.

  • Cannonshop

    Doc, it’s not a ‘cop out’ to state a simple fact-we don’t have enough data, research, or skill to adequately predict the climate as it IS, much less what it will or won’t be in the future.

    Certainly not enough work has been done to make the kind of apocalyptic predictions the CAGW people thrive on.

    At best, we have enough to say with some certainty that the climate changes-which we already knew.

    The idea that, with as little information as we actually HAVE to explain temperature, we can say “better figure out how to adapt to change, ’cause you’re not going to stop it.”

    When you talk about making law based on science, the science had better be damned good, with solid predictions that can be examined and tested by persons other than the one making the claim, and the claim had better be the best explanation for the observed phenomena, rather than the explanation that is least likely to be true, but fits with other goals or makes people feel powerful and important.

    AGW and CAGW hypotheses dovetail nicely with existing Environmentalist movements, and make people feel important and powerful-but they’re not the best explanations for observed phenomena, and in some cases, they are actually the LEAST LIKELY explanations (as in the Sulphides example involving the coal-burning plants.)

    In science, you cut the hypothesis to fit the evidence, not the evidence to fit the hypothesis.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    Doc, it’s not a ‘cop out’ to state a simple fact-we don’t have enough data, research, or skill to adequately predict the climate as it IS, much less what it will or won’t be in the future.

    Says you.

    There are multiple lines of and massive amounts of evidence to support the thesis that human emissions are currently driving climate change, including:

    – CO2 is, and has been for a long time, known to be a greenhouse gas;
    – there is a close correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and human CO2 emissions;
    – the atmospheric ratio of the particular isotope of CO2 characteristic of human emissions is rising;
    – combustion converts atmospheric oxygen and bonds it with fossil fuel carbon, increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 and decreasing the levels of oxygen. This is confirmed by observations;
    – satellite measurements show less infra-red radiation escaping to space, consistent with an enhanced greenhouse effect;
    – the troposphere is warming but the stratosphere is cooling. If the sun were the culprit, it would warm the entire atmosphere. Again, these observations are consistent with the greenhouse effect;
    – nights are warming faster than days: again, a greenhouse phenomenon;
    – other hypotheses as to the cause of the current warming have been tested and found wanting.

    I’m curious as to what, for you, would constitute enough data or research to confirm AGW theory? What specific lines of evidence would you need to be convinced?

    When you talk about making law based on science, the science had better be damned good, with solid predictions that can be examined and tested by persons other than the one making the claim

    They can, and have been.

    and the claim had better be the best explanation for the observed phenomena

    It is, as I showed above. And as I said before, “we just don’t know” is NOT an explanation.

    rather than the explanation that is least likely to be true, but fits with other goals or makes people feel powerful and important.

    AGW and CAGW hypotheses dovetail nicely with existing Environmentalist movements, and make people feel important and powerful

    This is typical. Rather than address the science, you instead impugn the motives of those doing the science.

    In science, you cut the hypothesis to fit the evidence, not the evidence to fit the hypothesis.

    Oddly enough, the former is exactly what the paper on sulphides is doing. That you choose not to interpret it that way is entirely your problem.

  • Dan

    “* Or solar activity. Or whatever. Where do you think cosmic rays come from? My ass?”—Dr. Dreadful

    Although the sun does produce low energy cosmic rays, there is another catagory of cosmic rays from interstellar space with higher energy sometimes called galactic cosmic rays. High solar activity, in fact, corresponds to lower galactic cosmic ray flux.

    In the document you cited in comment #4, scientists Krivova & Solanki distinguish between “solar irradiance variability” and “cosmic ray flux” by assigning different percentages of possible responsibility for “the dramatic temperature rise since 1970″ based on THEIR CORRELATION WITH THE RISE IN TEMPERATURE.

    Pigheaded denial is not conducive to persuasive reasoning. Pointing out your error is not “desperately searching for that one brick”. Unless your talking about a wall of willful ignorance.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    In the document you cited in comment #4, scientists Krivova & Solanki distinguish between “solar irradiance variability” and “cosmic ray flux” by assigning different percentages of possible responsibility for “the dramatic temperature rise since 1970″ based on THEIR CORRELATION WITH THE RISE IN TEMPERATURE.

    Yes. And they conclude that those factors are responsible for no more than 15 (in the case of the cosmic ray flux) to 30 (in the case of solar irradiation) per cent of the total temperature increase since 1970. In other words, what the EXPECTED influence would be IF THERE WERE NO OTHER CONTRIBUTING FACTORS.

    Something else, therefore, must account for the remaining 70-85%.

    So my statement stands. There is a link between cosmic rays and the natural variability of climate. But the correlation is lost beneath the drastic warming of the past 40 years.

    What you’re doing is akin to saying that it can’t be a short circuit causing your car alarm to keep going off because the panic button on your remote works just fine.

  • zingzing

    cannonshop: “Doc, it’s not a ‘cop out’ to state a simple fact-we don’t have enough data, research, or skill to adequately predict the climate as it IS, much less what it will or won’t be in the future.”

    and yet you keep a gun in your closet on the extremely minute chance that a thief might be stealing your television set at this very moment…

  • pablo

    From the Register UK:

    CERN ‘gags’ physicists in cosmic ray climate experiment
    “The chief of the world’s leading physics lab at CERN in Geneva has prohibited scientists from drawing conclusions from a major experiment. The CLOUD (“Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets”) experiment examines the role that energetic particles from deep space play in cloud formation. CLOUD uses CERN’s proton synchrotron to examine nucleation.”

    “CERN has joined a long line of lesser institutions obliged to remain politically correct about the man-made global warming hypothesis. It’s OK to enter ‘the highly political arena of the climate change debate’ provided your results endorse man-made warming, but not if they support Svensmark’s heresy that the Sun alters the climate by influencing the cosmic ray influx and cloud formation.”

    Oh how fucking typical of the warmer mongers.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    What CERN Director Rolf-Dieter Heuer actually said – not that this will interest Pablo, who prefers to leave the cherries he doesn’t like the look of on the branch:

    “I have asked the colleagues to present the results clearly, but not to interpret them [. . .] That would go immediately into the highly political arena of the climate change debate. One has to make clear that cosmic radiation is only one of many parameters.”

    Sounds like good scientific caution to me. And pragmatism: he fully anticipated the danger of the researchers and their results getting swamped in the morass of political conclusion-jumping.

    And considering Calder’s blog entry and the rash of hits that result when you Google the headline “CERN ‘gags’ physicists in cosmic ray climate experiment”, he was absolutely right to urge caution.

  • zingzing

    how much has conservatism tried to retard science throughout the years? used to be they’d just execute scientists. at least we’ve made that step.

  • Maurice

    I didn’t know there were still those that believed in the church of global warming! There is a lot of science to disprove the theory of man made global warming/cooling.

  • Cannonshop

    #63 about as often as Progressives have put forward concepts of Eugenics, experimentation on human beings (Tuskeegee experiments, look ‘em up) and the concept that human beings are scientifically perfectible.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Michael Crichton made this point, didn’t he? in State of Fear.

  • zingzing

    so the conservatives put a stop to eugenics and tuskeegee? eugenics was at best a pseudoscience, and it fell out of favor largely because it became associated with the nazis. tuskeegee was finally brought down from within, when a member of the us public health service leaked info to the press.

  • Cannonshop

    #67 they didn’t START those-those were hallmarks of “Progressive” ideas put into action, Zing, the “Progressives” only disowned them AFTER they were caught.

    One of the core principles of Conservative thought, is the existence of something called “human nature”, a denial of the concept that you can “Make” better people, or people “better” people, if you will, using external means, such as, say, social theory, eugenics, “Self Esteem” manuals and the like.
    Libertarian thought runs even more to this, with an acceptance of “Rational Self Interest” and the idea that you can’t make people be “moral” either-esp. with things like “blue laws” and/or banning talismans in a fetishistic ritual enshrined in law (Gun Control laws, for instance, or Narcotics laws.)

    Just an amusing (well, not really) side item: In Norway, very recently, a nation with very European restrictions on arms of all sorts, a disgruntled man blew away eighty kids at a summer camp, and is suspected of also blowing up a building.

    Achievements in scoreboard:
    Nutcases 1, (Able to do it in spite of the law)
    Gun Control Laws 0,[unable to stop said nutcase, a rather common thread with such laws]
    innocent bystanders -80 and falling (civilian deaths.)
    The sickest part? his costume was a police uniform.

    They think it might have been political.

    I think he was just being very, very, Progressive, and advancing the ever popular “Population control” efforts rooted in another bit of scientific speculation, the 1960’s era book “The Population Bomb”.

  • Clavos

    Ehrlich’s book is the poster child for shallow thinking and stupidity.

  • zingzing

    cannonshop: “#67 they didn’t START those-those were hallmarks of “Progressive” ideas put into action, Zing, the “Progressives” only disowned them AFTER they were caught.”

    ok… i don’t see exactly how those are “progressive” ideas, at least in a political sense, at all. also, aren’t you changing the goal posts? you intimated that conservatives seek to stop scientific advancement when science goes bad, as in eugenics or tuskeegee. that wasn’t what happened, and now you’re saying conservatives just didn’t start those ideas. eugenics was a product of its frankly racist time, and when its ideas were extended to their fullest (by a decidedly non-progressive hitler), most people backed away from it. tuskeegee was obviously reprehensible, and although it took an inside whistleblower years to come out about it, he eventually did. and they were studying a disease, not trying to “make better people.”

    as for your take on what happened in norway… it’s easy to get a gun in norway. also, given that the victims were mostly 15 or 16-year-old boys, they couldn’t have carried around weapons in public even in america. plus, it’s a youth camp. do you really want to counselors carrying around guns?

    as for him being “very, very, Progressive,” you must just be being crass. if you watched fox news the day it happened, you’d think he was muslim. if you’ve kept up, you know that he was a far right christian nutter who hated muslims and killed a bunch of kids at a youth camp set up by norway’s labor party.

    as for that old “core principle of conservatism” human nature (not that i’ve ever heard the conservative claim on the concept), can you make yourself a better person through religion? or a pistol?

  • zingzing

    here’s a report on fox news jumping the gun, as noted above.

  • Cannonshop

    #70 We had a shooting range when I was going to summer camp, and we were a bunch of 12 and 13 year-olds.

    As for guns being “easy to get” in Norway…

    proof please?

  • zingzing

    so did you carry around loaded weapons all the time at summer camp? no, you did not. those guns were safely locked up and supervised by adults, were they not? and did you not, and do you not, think this right and correct?

    go look up the laws yourself. getting a gun in norway is not as restricted as you seem to think. obviously, the right wing nutjob that did this could get one… actually three according to the reports, plus whatever other weapons he had that he didn’t license. hunting and sport shooting are very popular and legal activities in norway. of course, the hunting and sport shooting that guy did a few days ago was not legal.

    i can’t believe you brought up norway. shooting yourself in the foot, you are. (as for that “very, very progressive” shit, tell me you were kidding. you can’t be that ill-informed.)

    some guy walked into a birthday party at some roller rink and killed his wife’s family yesterday as well. is this all because non-crazy people aren’t allowed to bring loaded guns to the roller rink?

  • Jordan Richardson

    What is with this “action movie” mentality in which the victims of mass shootings would be better served had they been armed and able to duck behind corners and, perhaps, jump through the air John Woo-style to gun down the bad guy? Fucking hell, stop being so damn simplistic.

    And how crass can you be, Cannonshop? The shooter was a RIGHT-WING CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALIST. The only place this is in any doubt is in the minds of those sickos trying to turn every fucking discussion and world event into a political orgasm.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Also, you’re wrong about Norway’s gun laws, Cannonshop. You’re wrong, you’re wrong, you’re wrong. I get that saying something is “very European” is somewhat of an insult in your circles, but you’re wrong. You’re wrong. You. Are. Wrong.

  • Dan

    “So my statement stands. There is a link between cosmic rays and the natural variability of climate.”—Dr. Dreadful #59

    Yes, the “link” is called correlation. A thing that you very specifically said did not exist. So no, your statement, which I correctly pointed out was in error, does not stand at all.

    Attempting to bluster your way through such an obvious truth is unfortunately, typical behavior for you.

    “tuskeegee was obviously reprehensible”—zingzing

    not at all. It was totally legitimate, research with nothing nefarious about it. Unfortunately, when ignorance and progressive propagandists get together to demonize white people, they most often succeed.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Hey Dan – ask Texans if they think that global warming is such a myth now….

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    Yes, the “link” is called correlation.

    Dan, whether you want to call it a link or a correlation, you’re trying to attach more importance to this one than there is. In the sense, for example, that cat dander causes some small children to break out in a rash, there’s a correlation between the two. But to say that all rashes in children are caused by cat dander would be false. So it’s a correlation which is not, in the wider sense, relevant.

    [The Tuskegee syphilis study] was totally legitimate, research with nothing nefarious about it.

    Good God.

    So if I found out you had terminal cancer, and had access to a cure, but rather than tell you about the cancer and/or administer the cure I decided instead to study you to see what symptoms the cancer produced and how long it took to kill you, that would be ethical in your book, would it?

  • zingzing

    dan: “[the research at tuskegee] was totally legitimate, research with nothing nefarious about it. Unfortunately, when ignorance and progressive propagandists get together to demonize white people, they most often succeed.”

    you’re fucking sick, dan. either that or ignorant.

  • zingzing

    also, i wonder where cannonshop went on this…

  • zingzing

    and i think cannonshop still owes me a history of the conservative resistance towards that nasty liberal idea, the patriot act, and how they valiantly fought against its passage in 2002 and 2006.

  • Dan

    “Dan, whether you want to call it a link or a correlation, you’re trying to attach more importance to this one than there is…”—Dr. Dreadful

    Not at all. I haven’t given any opinion on the importance of the correlation. I only commented on your being wrong to deny that there was any, as the paper you referenced as proof rather pointedly revealed.

    “So if I found out you had terminal cancer, and had access to a cure, but rather than tell you about the cancer and/or administer the cure I decided instead to study you to see what symptoms the cancer produced and how long it took to kill you, that would be ethical in your book, would it?”—Dr. Dreadful

    In your misguided analogy, you don’t say you first infected me with the cancer. Whassa matter? Is that variant of the yarn a little too extreme for plausibility? It seems to play well at the Obamas’ Chicago hate church.

    Tuskegee propaganda is emblematic of the perversity that pervades historic white wickedness mythology. It is shit piled very high.


    “you’re fucking sick, dan. either that or ignorant.”—zingzing

    Why not both? I’ve noticed you often house your silly, ineffectual insults in either/or terms. What gives? Surely you realize you don’t need to cloak your personal attacks on me. The censor shares your inability for rational honest discourse. He’s on your side!

    “Hey Dan – ask Texans if they think that global warming is such a myth now.”—Glenn Contrarian

    OK… Hey Texans do you think global warming is a myth now?

    Texans: “Na, we’re used to Mexico. This is nice here.”

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    In your misguided analogy, you don’t say you first infected me with the cancer. Whassa matter? Is that variant of the yarn a little too extreme for plausibility?

    That variant of the yarn happened in Guatemala, not Tuskegee, and it is your little set of strawmen who are misguided, not my analogy.

    Way to avoid answering the question, though.

    It seems to play well at the Obamas’ Chicago hate church.

    Who cares what they think? Possibly nobody other than you.

    Tuskegee propaganda is emblematic of the perversity that pervades historic white wickedness mythology. It is shit piled very high.

    Is there a Frommer’s guide book to your strange world in which no white person ever did anything bad to any black person, and in which even in the unlikely event that they had wanted to, they were all too busy polishing their haloes?

    Because the one I live in doesn’t look like that.

  • http://gay-headlines.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    re: 77, hell with that Glenn ask the people in St. Louis or even Minneapolis!

  • http://gay-headlines.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    • Average temperatures have climbed 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 degree Celsius) around the world since 1880, much of this in recent decades, according to NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

    • The rate of warming is increasing. The 20th century’s last two decades were the hottest in 400 years and possibly the warmest for several millennia, according to a number of climate studies. And the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that 11 of the past 12 years are among the dozen warmest since 1850.

    • The Arctic is feeling the effects the most. Average temperatures in Alaska, western Canada, and eastern Russia have risen at twice the global average, according to the multinational Arctic Climate Impact Assessment report compiled between 2000 and 2004.

    • Arctic ice is rapidly disappearing, and the region may have its first completely ice-free summer by 2040 or earlier. Polar bears and indigenous cultures are already suffering from the sea-ice loss.

    • Glaciers and mountain snows are rapidly melting—for example, Montana’s Glacier National Park now has only 27 glaciers, versus 150 in 1910. In the Northern Hemisphere, thaws also come a week earlier in spring and freezes begin a week later.

    • Coral reefs, which are highly sensitive to small changes in water temperature, suffered the worst bleaching—or die-off in response to stress—ever recorded in 1998, with some areas seeing bleach rates of 70 percent. Experts expect these sorts of events to increase in frequency and intensity in the next 50 years as sea temperatures rise.

    • An upsurge in the amount of extreme weather events, such as wildfires, heat waves, and strong tropical storms, is also attributed in part to climate change by some experts.

    The report, based on the work of some 2,500 scientists in more than 130 countries, concluded that humans have caused all or most of the current planetary warming. Human-caused global warming is often called anthropogenic climate change.

  • http://gay-headlines.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    From the U.S. National Climatic Data Center:

    2,712 high-temperature records were either tied or broken in July, compared with 1,444 last year, according to the NCDC.

    At least one weather station in all 50 states set or tied a daily high temperature record at some point during July.

    …The city of Morehead, Minnesota., had the dubious distinction as the hottest place on Earth for a day, said meteorologist Heidi Cullen of Climate Central.

    On July 19, the heat index there — a measure of humidity and temperature that indicates how hot the weather feels — was 134 F (56.7 C).

  • http://gay-headlines.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    Dan’s problem is easy to spot; Fox News and Rush Limbaugh aren’t included on the following list that says essentially the same thing

    • InterAcademy Council
    • European Academy of Sciences and Arts
    • International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
    • Network of African Science Academies
    • Royal Society of New Zealand
    • Royal Society of the United Kingdom
    • Polish Academy of Sciences
    • National Research Council (US)
    • American Association for the Advancement of Science
    • American Chemical Society
    • The American Chemical Society stated:
    • American Institute of Physics
    • American Physical Society
    • Australian Institute of Physics
    • European Physical Society
    • European Science Foundation
    • Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
    • American Geophysical Union
    • European Federation of Geologists
    • European Geosciences Union
    • Geological Society of America
    • Geological Society of Australia
    • Geological Society of London
    • International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
    • National Association of Geoscience Teachers
    • American Meteorological Society
    • Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
    • Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
    • Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
    • Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
    • American Quaternary Association
    • International Union for Quaternary Research
    • American Institute of Biological Sciences
    • American Society for Microbiology
    • Australian Coral Reef Society
    • Institute of Biology (UK)
    • Society of American Foresters• American Astronomical Society
    • American Statistical Association
    • Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)
    • International Association for Great Lakes Research
    • Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand

    • Essentially they all say the same thing. Cimate research conducted in the past two decades definitively shows that rapid worldwide climate change occurred in the 20th century, and will likely continue to occur for decades to come. Although climates have varied dramatically since the earth was formed, few scientists question the role of humans in exacerbating recent climate change through the emission of greenhouse gases. The critical issue is no longer “if” climate change is occurring, but rather how to address its effects on wildlife and wildlife habitats.

    The statement goes on to assert that “evidence is accumulating that wildlife and wildlife habitats have been and will continue to be significantly affected by ongoing large-scale rapid climate change.”

    The statement concludes with a call for “reduction in anthropogenic (human-caused) sources of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions contributing to global climate change and the conservation of CO2- consuming photosynthesizers (i.e., plants).”

  • http://gay-headlines.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    …well… I’m glad that’s settled

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    Early results of the Cloud experiment… not exactly what Sidney and Riley predicted with such confidence.

    Incoming rationalization and cherry-picking expected imminently…

  • Jordan Richardson

    Here’s an interesting article that links climate cycles with a lot of the recent civil unrest.

    In part: “El Nino, a phenomenon that leads to droughts and hot weather some years, doubles the risk of civil war in 90 tropical countries.”