Slashdot Mirror

No, the correlation is much tighter than you're claiming.

http://www.sciencebits.com/IceCoreTruth

Oh, you mean like the "careful analysis" done by Mann et. al that erased the medieval climate optimum and little ice age because they were an "inconvenient truth" in the way of worldwide panic over carbon?

Even RealClimate acknowledges the lag. They just explain it differently. But you can see the data from one of the several studies that all arrive at this conclusion here: http://www.sciencebits.com/IceCoreTruth. Of course this article has a little bit more to say about the ice core data and CO_2 itself, partly because Al Gore in his bullcrap movie put a picture of ice core data and temperature data up on the screen and then claimed that it showed that CO_2 drove the temperature increases at the end of the ice ages. Only in a Universe where time and entropy run backwards do effects precede causes, but then, Al isn't much of a scientist is he? Any more than Mann is a competent statistician.

rgb

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/SeaIce.HTM

Why Doesn't Anyone Mention the Record Growth of Sea Ice Around Antarctica?

Typical of the commentaries on sea ice is this by Harold Ambler, published, of all places, in the Huffington Post, on January 3, 2009:

        P.S. One of the last, desperate canards proposed by climate alarmists is that of the polar ice caps. Look at the "terrible," "unprecedented" melting in the Arctic in the summer of 2007...

So, to answer Ambler's final question:

        Why, I ask, has Mr. Gore not chosen to mention the record growth of sea ice around Antarctica? If the record melting in the Arctic is significant, then the record sea ice growth around Antarctica is, too, I say. If one is insignificant, then the other one is, too.

The answer is simple. The Arctic decrease is statistically significant, and the Antarctic increase is not. This is Stats 101. Ambler is flat out wrong. Not all trends are equally statistically significant.

What the last two (2) maps don't indicate is if warmer ocean temperatures increase precipitation inland.

http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar

I suggest if anyone wants to dig into this check Sciencebits. More specifically look here:

http://www.sciencebits.com/CosmicRaysClimate
http://www.sciencebits.com/CosmicRaysClimate#ShavivVeizer

Since we are still waiting for a very anemic solar cycle#24 to build up sunspots, I think perhaps we should wait till past 2015 because it seems the great solar science experiment in the sky is already underway.

  http://solarcycle24.com/sunspots.htm
http://sc25.com/

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/SeaIce.HTM

Why Doesn't Anyone Mention the Record Growth of Sea Ice Around Antarctica?

Typical of the commentaries on sea ice is this by Harold Ambler, published, of all places, in the Huffington Post, on January 3, 2009:

        P.S. One of the last, desperate canards proposed by climate alarmists is that of the polar ice caps. Look at the "terrible," "unprecedented" melting in the Arctic in the summer of 2007...

So, to answer Ambler's final question:

        Why, I ask, has Mr. Gore not chosen to mention the record growth of sea ice around Antarctica? If the record melting in the Arctic is significant, then the record sea ice growth around Antarctica is, too, I say. If one is insignificant, then the other one is, too.

The answer is simple. The Arctic decrease is statistically significant, and the Antarctic increase is not. This is Stats 101. Ambler is flat out wrong. Not all trends are equally statistically significant.

What the last two (2) maps don't indicate is if warmer ocean temperatures increase precipitation inland.

http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar

I suggest if anyone wants to dig into this check Sciencebits. More specifically look here:

http://www.sciencebits.com/CosmicRaysClimate
http://www.sciencebits.com/CosmicRaysClimate#ShavivVeizer

Since we are still waiting for a very anemic solar cycle#24 to build up sunspots, I think perhaps we should wait till past 2015 because it seems the great solar science experiment in the sky is already underway.

  http://solarcycle24.com/sunspots.htm
http://sc25.com/

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/SeaIce.HTM

Why Doesn't Anyone Mention the Record Growth of Sea Ice Around Antarctica?

Typical of the commentaries on sea ice is this by Harold Ambler, published, of all places, in the Huffington Post, on January 3, 2009:

        P.S. One of the last, desperate canards proposed by climate alarmists is that of the polar ice caps. Look at the "terrible," "unprecedented" melting in the Arctic in the summer of 2007...

So, to answer Ambler's final question:

        Why, I ask, has Mr. Gore not chosen to mention the record growth of sea ice around Antarctica? If the record melting in the Arctic is significant, then the record sea ice growth around Antarctica is, too, I say. If one is insignificant, then the other one is, too.

The answer is simple. The Arctic decrease is statistically significant, and the Antarctic increase is not. This is Stats 101. Ambler is flat out wrong. Not all trends are equally statistically significant.

What the last two (2) maps don't indicate is if warmer ocean temperatures increase precipitation inland.

http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar

I suggest if anyone wants to dig into this check Sciencebits. More specifically look here:

http://www.sciencebits.com/CosmicRaysClimate
http://www.sciencebits.com/CosmicRaysClimate#ShavivVeizer

Since we are still waiting for a very anemic solar cycle#24 to build up sunspots, I think perhaps we should wait till past 2015 because it seems the great solar science experiment in the sky is already underway.

  http://solarcycle24.com/sunspots.htm
http://sc25.com/

http://www.sciencebits.com/IceCoreTruth

Feel free to verify at your leisure.

Now, can you think of any other observations of either the historical record or future records that would refute your hypothesis. Be specific, like "10 years of increasing CO2 with flat or decreasing temperatures".

Look here, I'm not saying the planet is not somewhat warmer today than it was a century ago. I'm just saying that I doubt that CO2 is the cause of that because even in these last 100 years there is not a good correlation between CO2 and temperature.
If you're interested in some of the deeper thinkers that think the sun is the more important player in climate, have a look at Nir Shaviv and especially On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget

If your site name itself claims that you own the TRUTH about climate, than you obviously are not part of science.

Try http://sciencebits.com/ for instance for some interesting insights.

So a blog article by some random guy is proof? Well Dr. Svensmarks SKY experiment would tell you otherwise http://www.sciencebits.com/SkyResults - as would the fact that since 2002 roughly the Earth temperature has been stable, with a possible cooling trend (that is not yet statistically significant, on the order of -0.04C). Incidentally this coincides with a starting low activity period for the sun afaik.

http://www.aip.org/pnu/2002/split/599-2.html

http://www.sciencebits.com/ice-ages

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/19866

Its takes energy to make lime (CaO). You need to start with limestone (CaCO3) and drive off the CO2. Eventually the CaO added to the water will become limestone and precipitate out. There is no magic here.

So where will this energy come from? Ans: Presumably the great new oil finds that Shell has been announcing on a regular basis for the last 30 years. Folks - oil prices might be down a little bit now but they won't stay down. And if you actually check the numbers you'll find that Shell has NOT been making much progress in replacing the oil we burn. So how about Natural Gas? More insanity.

Methane is a chemical source of hydrogen. Alkanes are C(n)H(2n+2) and for octane n=8. For methane n=1. The issue is that our liquid fuels have n>=7 so they are much closer to a 2:1 ratio of hydrogen to carbon. Now consider that coal is C(0.6n)H(n) so coal is hydrogen poor. Bitumin is about C(n)H(n). Its actually a little hydrogen rich but the issue is that if we want to produce liquid fuels via coal->liquids or via bitumin->liquids or for that matter from oil shales then we are desperately short of hydrogen and without it we leave about 1/2 the carbon we mine sitting around in piles which we call COKE. And the only other option is if we try to get energy from it and create copious amounts of CO2.

This would have to be the most INSANE use of our non-renewable natural resources that I can possibly imagine. It will result in more carbon in the atmosphere and not less.

Its a very good thing that CO2 is not responsible for global warming. It hasn't been responsible in the geological record other than back in the precambrian when CO2 concentrations reached 130,000 PPM. The levels are now about 370-380 PPM which is a rise of about 100 PPM over the last 100 years or so. Meanwhile water vapour is anywhere from under 1% (10,000 PPM) to over 10% (100,000 PPM). The issue is that water vapour acts closer to the surface of the planet and that its a stronger green house gas than CO2 and we have no idea if there has been a net positive change or a net negative change in average water vapour levels over the planet in the last say 100 years. We don't know the sign and we certainly don't know the magnitude but a 100 PPM change gets swallowed up very quickly when one considers the uncertainties involved here.

Read this: http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar

There is a high correlation between climate and sun spot activities. CERN is undertaking experiments soon to confirm this linkage. We are fortunate that solar cycle #24 is looking to be about 2 years late and if so will probably be very weak and this will provide us with the opportunity to actually do some measurement.

Rather than go berzerk with crazy ideas it will probably make more sense to see what influence solar cycle #24 has.

Here's some:

http://impact.arc.nasa.gov/news_detail.cfm?ID=44
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/03/07 0308-asteroids_2.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg13117854.700 -will-we-catch-a-falling-star-there-are-many-aster oids-outthere-in-space-and-the-chances-are-that-so oner-or-later-one-will-head-forearth-but-no-one-kn ows-what-to-do-if-we-find-ourselves-on-collision-c ourse.html
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/fl_side2_020 901.html
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/s2.cfm?id=79899200 2
http://www.newsobserver.com/105/story/415367.html
http://www.sciencebits.com/PlanesAndMeteorites

Not sure how your lottery analogy applies. The nasa article sums up your logical fallacy: "The perception of risk from impacts is smaller than for being killed in a plane crash because planes crash at a steady rate with (relatively) few deaths per event, whereas lethal impacts are rare but kill a lot of people. At the very least, the potential consequences of impact are large enough to cause concern."

Yeh i'd agree with Bombula. Henrik Svensmark is the guy who is at the forefront of cosmic ray effects on our climate - but the whole theory gets flamed by the mainstream greenhouse gas theory as it threatens it's 100% claim on the explanation of climate change. The correlation between cosmic rays and past climate is almost perfect (see fig. 5)... http://www.sciencebits.com/ice-ages

The science behind global warming doesn't support the doomsday scenarios put forth by Al Gore, the media, or even the IPCC. The claims they have made are unsupported by science, and they refuse to admit the weakness of their arguments. Why? Because they have an agenda they would like to see go forward regardless of whether global warming is a serious problem or not.

The key to understanding temperature trends on earth is the sun, and more particularly the solar wind. Solar wind mediates the global flux of Cosmic Rays. Cosmic rays mediate cloud formation, and clouds mediate incident solar radiation reaching the earth. Go to wikipedia and look up sun spots. Take a look at the nice graph showing solar activity as reflected in sun spot data over the last few hundred years. Note the period of low activity.
Now go to the page on the Little Ice Age. Look at the graph showing temperature trends. Note the that period of the little ice age is identical to the period of low solar activity from the previous page. _THIS IS NOT COINCIDENTAL_ There is a proven link.

If you want to learn about the relationship between solar activity, cosmic rays, cloud formation, and global temperature, visit http://www.sciencebits.com/ice-ages

The sun is now ending its most active period since records started, which means we are in for some cooling for the next couple of decades. I guess we will see who is right, who is really interested in science, who is really interested in politics, and who the sheep really are.

According to http://www.sciencebits.com/ice-ages Iron meteorites can be analyzed to obtain a history of Cosmic Ray Flux. The linked web site shows a correlation between the solar systems spiral arm passages and increased cosmic rays reaching the earth. The periods of increased cosmic rays are also correlated with the ice ages. Every time the Earth makes a passage through one of the Galaxys spiral arms, we have an ice age. The theory appears to have some merit, because of the coinciding periodicity.

Here's a nice "Cosmic Rays and Climate Change for Dummies" article that has pretty pictures and graphs. At least give it a read before dismissing this. I found it compelling.

http://www.sciencebits.com/ice-ages

more on the climate debate: http://www.sciencebits.com/ClimateDebate/

Shaviv's personal site: http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/

Here's a nice "Cosmic Rays and Climate Change for Dummies" article that has pretty pictures and graphs. At least give it a read before dismissing this. I found it compelling.

http://www.sciencebits.com/ice-ages

more on the climate debate: http://www.sciencebits.com/ClimateDebate/

Shaviv's personal site: http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/

It seems to me that humans have influenced earth's weather (a belief, I'll admit, not proven by any of the data I've seen so far), but I also believe that their influence may be a lot smaller than the doom and gloom crowd would have us believe.

Please see the following excellent write up. Even if you don't agree with the conclusions, it serves as an important reminder as to the limits of our understanding of the climate, using the IPCC's findings no less.