You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Science & Technology
Scientists Debate Sun's Role in Global Warming
2007-03-13
Earth is heating up lately, but so are Mars, Pluto and other worlds in our solar system, leading some scientists to speculate that a change in the sun's activity is the common thread linking all these baking events. Others argue that such claims are misleading and create the false impression that rapid global warming, such as Earth is experiencing, is a natural phenomenon. While evidence suggests fluctuations in solar activity can affect climate on Earth, and that it has done so in the past, the majority of climate scientists and astrophysicists agree that the sun is not to blame for the current and historically sudden uptick in global temperatures on Earth, which seems to be mostly a mess created by our own species.

Habibullo Abdussamatov, the head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, recently linked the attenuation of ice caps on Mars to fluctuations in the sun's output.
Posted by:Fred

#27  1979?????

then there was the 90+++ summer at 9 Am in Chicago w/the -50 w/wind chill in winter c. 1988.
Posted by: anonymous2u   2007-03-13 23:07  

#26  These "we're all gonna die!" warming-istas better think a minute about the alternative to beinga little warm.

In the first place, it has been this warm within my lifetime, at least in the places I've lived (mostly Eastern U.S.).

More importantly, I remember a winter in the mid-late 1970's (February?) when a cold front came through the Eastern & Northeastern U.S. that I hope I never see again. I was living in North Carolina at the time, but was in Tidewater Virginia the Sunday it came through. Within a couple of days the James River was frozen from bank to bank (ocean-going cargo ships come up the James as far as Richmond, so you can imagine the havoc that caused), and it didn't get ABOVE 32F in Durham, NC, for a month.

I'll take a little warming (assuming it's even happening) over that crap.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut   2007-03-13 18:55  

#25  theres consensus that even by the late 1990s it was warmer than at any point in the medieval warm period

Where is your evidence? Every single study I have seen says the medieval warm period was warmer than today.

And BTW the existence of the medieval warm period kills the runaway global warming theory stone dead. Which is why the warming alarmists are so anxious to explain it away.
Posted by: phil_b   2007-03-13 17:12  

#24  Silentbrick - Thanks for the excellent link to a solid, calm, fact-filled refutation. Read carefully it demolishes the underpinnings of the entire Global Whatever scam. Those still clinging to Mann's (or any of the other shills, such as Ozzie whore Tim Flannery) half-assed room temperature IQ crap should be either ashamed - or shunned for being a willful tool of the biggest money scam / hoax (since it's "global" LOL) ever attempted.

Again, thank you.
Posted by: Groluque Hupesing3980   2007-03-13 16:52  

#23  Generally we have global warming beginning about March. It lasts until around November and then we have global cooling. Seems like a cyclic thingee as best I can figure--somehow related to the sun.
Posted by: JohnQC   2007-03-13 16:44  

#22  All historical temperature conjectures (not measurements since thermometers were invented in the early 1700's) are highly speculative. Especially when comparing fraction of degrees precision of medieval warming period to today's temp. Archaeological measurements have large inherent uncertainty. For example, do tree rings measure temp, rainfall, cloud cover, soil conditions or a combination of all of them. Even in the last century there is some confusion as urban spread had incorporated readings from previously rural weather stations, skewing later measurements to a higher temp bias.

That isn't to say that temperature rise is not taking place. Intuitively, when more radiation absorbers are added to the lower atmosphere, surface temps will rise. But no one has yet produced a quantitative model that accounts for stuff we are adding to the atmosphere, solar radiation, and come up with an answer that can predict next (or even last) year's mean temperature. Until then, we have no idea whether man made effects are minuscule in the grand scheme. It's now only a speculative religion and not one we should throw trillions of dollars toward an equally minuscule reward.
Posted by: ed   2007-03-13 14:32  

#21  Um, if it's global warming how did Greenland opt out?

You can't say that it's warmer than in the MWP except for those parts that aren't.

Yes there is some minor warming going on. Cripes the last little ice age only ended ~150 years ago you should expect it to get warmer. There is no valid evidence that man has anything to do with it. Look at the graphs for the correlation of CO2 to temp. CO2 TRAILS the temp curve.

There are so many holes in AGW that it would make a nice screen door.

1) The data was fudged using proxies that may or may not have been valid

2) We know from ice cores that CO2 was MUCH higher in the past. If so, how did those positive reinforcement mechanisms, which are pure speculation, not keep the temp. going up?

3) There are about 20 major computer climate models, none of them agree and none of them can predict the past yet we're supposed to believe them as gospel.


etc. etc. etc.
Posted by: AlanC   2007-03-13 13:50  

#20  Won't matter anyway, #19 LH, the way England's going.

Sharia doesn't allow wine....
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut   2007-03-13 13:48  

#19  "Have they started replanting the vineyards in GB? Has agriculture returned to Greenland on the Viking scale? I know that some remains up there have recently emerged from under a glacier but proof that this is now warmer than then?"


1. We're talking about average global temps. The avg temp in the parts of Greenland settled by Erik the Red are still lower than the MWP peak, AFAIK.

2. I doubt anyone will be planting many vineyards in England, even if temp hits the MWP peak, given the abundance of cheap, easily shipped, Italian and Portugese and Spanish and South American wine, etc. The economics arent the same today. Though I do recall reading a few years back about an English Chardonnay. I stick to Sonoma, thank you very much.
Posted by: liberalhawk   2007-03-13 13:31  

#18  "Okay, but the temperatures are comparable between the late 1990s and the MWP, so what caused the MWP? Isn't it reasonable that there is a large cyclical component to global warming -- larger than the human contribution? "

1. the temp in the late 90s was slightly higher than the peak of the MWP, and whats more its still rising. So weve got something in between the undulating wave of the GW deniers, and the hockey stick of the simplified GW theory. But its looking more like the hockey stick, but not one anyone in the NHL would use.

2. Is there a cyclical effect? Sure, there could be. I dont think anyones denied that. But there also is a human activity component, and theres no good reason to think a cyclical decline will offset continued and increasing human caused warming, and save us.
Posted by: liberalhawk   2007-03-13 13:28  

#17  The statements that Mars and Pluto are heating up are speculative. High def images of the martian ice cap (yes they have been shrinking) have been available for only about 20 years (10 Mars years) besides that the ice caps are only at the poles and we have no direct measurements elsewhere (btw the ice caps are frozen CO2 and vapor pressure as well as temperature may be a cause of the shrinking). The situation with respect to other planets is even iffier.

If you are a earth global warming skeptic you should be an even bigger martian warming skeptic
Posted by: mhw   2007-03-13 13:08  

#16  LH you got any link for that statement?

"No, but there were tree rings, and core samples. And while theres been dispute about that data, increasingly theres consensus that even by the late 1990s it was warmer than at any point in the medieval warm period."


I haven't seen anything like that anywhere before. Have they started replanting the vineyards in GB? Has agriculture returned to Greenland on the Viking scale? I know that some remains up there have recently emerged from under a glacier but proof that this is now warmer than then?
Posted by: AlanC   2007-03-13 11:58  

#15  I blame the Crusaders and their farting war horses.
Posted by: ed   2007-03-13 11:17  

#14   "It's been going on since the earth existed. The cycle seems to average 200 to 500 years (as best we can tell because there were no weathermen and sattelites in AD 1000). "

No, but there were tree rings, and core samples. And while theres been dispute about that data, increasingly theres consensus that even by the late 1990s it was warmer than at any point in the medieval warm period.

Okay, but the temperatures are comparable between the late 1990s and the MWP, so what caused the MWP? Isn't it reasonable that there is a large cyclical component to global warming -- larger than the human contribution?
Posted by: Jonathan   2007-03-13 11:06  

#13  Ummmmmmmmm...it's warm?
This rates extensive further study. Where's that grant paperwork?
Posted by: tu3031   2007-03-13 11:03  

#12  Sea levels have risen 60 meters in the past 20,000 years. That's a bit measurable and a bit longer than we've been industrialized. It even started before the last ice age ended.

For a lovely read about "The Hockey Stick" and attempts to kill the Medieval Warming period, go read this.

http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm
Posted by: Silentbrick   2007-03-13 10:42  

#11  Does anyone here really believe that we have the technology to actually measure a 2mm change in sea level? The sea is in motion constantly and the waves are of varying heights and then there is the tide.

Until someone can prove that this level of precision is possible for a system as dynamic as the ocean I call bull!!

Not to mention the "knowledge" of a 1mm sea raise/year pre IR.
Posted by: AlanC   2007-03-13 10:00  

#10  "It's been going on since the earth existed. The cycle seems to average 200 to 500 years (as best we can tell because there were no weathermen and sattelites in AD 1000). "

No, but there were tree rings, and core samples. And while theres been dispute about that data, increasingly theres consensus that even by the late 1990s it was warmer than at any point in the medieval warm period.
Posted by: liberalhawk   2007-03-13 09:57  

#9  It will be the warm planting season at the appointed time. It will be the cool harvest season at the appointed time. We are Anabaptists. Do not mock us or invite us to enter into debate or gaze at stars.
Posted by: Besoeker   2007-03-13 09:41  

#8  Does it take a 'white coat' these days to figure out that if the earth were several million more miles closer to the sun, the earth would be hotter, that if the earth were several million more miles further from the sun, the earth would be cooler?

Given that the sun is not a constant steady generator of energy, but a variable star, that such a condition would result in variable conditions on the planet?

That these fundamentals are questioned, implies a lot about 'leading scientists'.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2007-03-13 09:34  

#7  The earth warms and cools in a cycle. This cycle is very long. It's been going on since the earth existed. The cycle seems to average 200 to 500 years (as best we can tell because there were no weathermen and sattelites in AD 1000).

The supposition by all these clowns is that MAN causes global warming. Nothing could be farther from the truth. But to admit that would also be to admit that from a geological and earth chronology perspective, man is insignificant. Perhaps then they would also have to admit that they too are insignificant. Too much truth for their pea brains to fathom. Too painful. "Hey, we're important, dammit!"
Posted by: mcsegeek1   2007-03-13 08:29  

#6  It was widely reported that January was the warmest month on record here, but less well reported that February was one of the coldest. This guy explained it best:

Whether we get a record cold or warm month depends largely on whether or not weather pattern shifts occur just right to match the calendar. We've certainly had a month of cold weather, and before that, more than a month of warm weather. But if the shifts between warm and cold occur in the middle of a calendar month rather than at the start of one, the month as a whole will be an average of the cold and warm periods and therefore end up more toward the middle.

So we've had an extreme yo-yo pattern of late. Really, it dates back to at least late spring, as we went from a cool May, to a hot summer, to a cool early fall, to a warm late fall and early winter interrupted by one week of extreme cold in early December. You often hear that normal is only an average of extremes. The last few months of weather seem to be proving the point.
Posted by: Steve   2007-03-13 07:50  

#5  Others argue that such claims are misleading and create the false impression that rapid global warming, such as Earth is experiencing, is a natural phenomenon.

Umm, how exactly do you know that the impression is false unless you know what's true? Of course, if you're actually trying to FIND the truth, then you go where the evidence leads. If you're just trying to push an agenda, then the truth, and evidence, is your enemy.
Posted by: Ptah   2007-03-13 07:48  

#4  See The Great Global Warming Swindle, posted in Sunday's 'Burg.
Posted by: Bobby   2007-03-13 06:59  

#3  "the false impression that rapid global warming, such as Earth is experiencing, is a natural phenomenon." -- I guess the rapid warming of the northern hemisphere that I've been noticing the last few weeks is another "false impression." The MSM takes us for fools.
Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418   2007-03-13 02:02  

#2  "Scientists Debate Role of Water in Rain"

"Scientists Debate Role of Lust in Adultery"

"Scientists Debate Role of Gravity in Sky-Diving"

Posted by: Verlaine   2007-03-13 01:55  

#1  data I've seen recently makes me think that most of the supposed warming is caused by urban heat islands with some effect from increased cloudiness and decreased levels of particles in the atmosphere.

In fact its something of a mystery where the small amount of warming increased CO2 levels should cause has gone to.
Posted by: phil_b   2007-03-13 00:45  

00:00