Sunspots Reach 1000-Year Peak

rlp writes "Researchers at the Institute for Astronomy in Zurich are reporting that solar sunspot activity is at a 1000-year peak. Records of sunspots have been kept since 1610. The period between 1645 and 1715 (known as the Maunder Minimum) was a period of very few sunspots. Researchers extended the record by measuring isotopes of beryllium (created by cosmic rays) in Greenland ice cores. Based on both observations and ice core records, we are now at a sunspot peak exceeding solar activity for any time in the past thousand years."

Comments

What do you know

[TodMinuit]

So are temperatures. *ducks from thrown chair*

Re:What do you know

[biocute]

*ducks from thrown chair*

No need, this is Sun, not Microsoft.

Re:What do you know

[lord_mike]

Well, when Comedy Central is more reliable than your favorite "news" channel (**cough** FOX), what other choice do you have?

Thanks,

Mike

Re:What do you know

[FooAtWFU]

Okay. Thrown chairs aside, since this part of the discussion is oooobviously going to turn into a Global Warming flamefest, I'll just ask you to consider the following. There is a little political party out there called the Libertarians. In some ways - particularly with regards to economic policy - they're a lot like the Republicans, or at least the Republicans-before-Bush, only extra-more-so: free trade! free trade! small government! sometimes even no-government! privatize everything! fewer laws! fewer lawsuits! free speech! down with affirmative action! et cetera et cetera. In other ways, they're a lot like the Democrats - mostly with respect to some parts of social policy. Gay rights! Free love! Pro-choice! I won't enumerate all of this here, but I hope you get the idea. In some ways, they're sort of like the polar opposite of the Socialists. They usually lean a bit Ayn Rand.

I mention them because of all the possible groups out there, they're about the last that would think to jump on the global warming bandwagon. And yet, Reason Magazine (Free Minds and Free Markets!), the definitive Libertarian magazine, has at this point pretty much accepted: global warming exists, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere contributes to it, and a variety of things will Need To Be Done about it, one way or another, sooner or later. And I think this sort of thinking, coming from this group, should serve as sort of a bell-weather in politics. And I think that their approach to the topic is one that the Republican Party should strongly consider mimicking: stop squabbling about what is and isn't happening, and why. Worry instead about What Should Be Done.

Now, granted, their ideas of what Should Be Done and the state of things are not very much in line with what the Democratic Party would probably favor. They had a recent article entitled The Convenient Truth on the topic (and they lambast current global-warming politicans for "mistaking panic for virtue").

... This argues not for passivity, and not for delay, but for gradualism: setting up policies that will tighten the screws on greenhouse-gas emissions over the next few decades. The convenient truth about global warming, then, is that radicalism is as pointless as it is impractical. Slow-but-steady is not only the easiest approach; it is also the most effective.

Just as conveniently, the most efficient way to get started is also the simplest, albeit not the easiest politically: tax carbon emissions ... Fortuitously, a carbon tax could also reduce the U.S. budget deficit and the geopolitical leverage of sinister "petrocracies" such as Iran, Russia, and Venezuela. Policy prescriptions don't come any more convenient than that.

I would advise any right-leaning free-trade-ish pro-capitalist or Republican types to take a good long look at Reason's articles on the topic of global warming and, with all due consideration, study, and time, try to develop a healthy attitude about the reality of global warming. (As a matter of fact, I would advise any left-leaning types who are actually care about these issues for their own sake, and not merely for some sort of anti-capitalist or anti-Western-decadence agenda, to take a look at them as well, perhaps an even longer one.)

Re:What do you know

[TodMinuit]

My rebuttal: When we stop questioning science, stop questioning what we know about the world, science ceases to exist.

(By the way, I'm a proud Libertarian.)

Re:What do you know

[JobyKSU]

Oooh... mod down -5 for calling Fox a "news" channel, even in jest! I've hear less slanted coverage from the White House!

Re:What do you know

[interiot]

There's a very big difference between "May I review that study to make sure your empirical evidence has been collected properly, and that the evidence supports the conclusions drawn?" and "*puts fingers in ears* Lalalala. What empirical evidence? I don't see any empirical evidence."

Re:What do you know

[nmb3000]

Well what do you think caused the sun spots to peak?

Increased greenhouse gasses caused by human use of fossil fuels. Duh!

Why don't you neo-cons get with it and watch Al Gore's movie already. He proved this very thing.

Re:What do you know

[syphax]

On the other hand, that show is full of shit.

Re:What do you know

[Jonny do good]

So you are telling me that I should base science on a political group? That sounds like listening to the Pope in the middle ages telling people that the earth is the center of the universe and the debate is over.

Re:What do you know

[apostrophesemicolon]

Here's an explanation from NASA. In shorter version, how fast the sunspots cycle in and out of the Sun's surface determines how big they get.

So the article says that the sunspots have reached 1000-year peak, but the NASA article says that sunspots are at the minimum right now (Solar Minimum). Which one is correct?

Re:What do you know

[FooAtWFU]

So you are telling me that I should base science on a political group? That sounds like listening to the Pope in the middle ages telling people that the earth is the center of the universe and the debate is over.

No, I said that "I would advise [people] to look at Reason's articles ... and, with all due consideration, study, and time, try to develop a healthy attitude about the reality of global warming." It is apparently obvious to you that basing your ideas about Science on political groups is Not Healthy. So, umm...

no, you shouldn't do that.

And I think a Healthy attitude is not particularly well served by breaking out the "omg Pope Middle Ages" comparisons on your opponents. There was a Slashdot article some time back about a study finding how political thought is essentially emotional, and not rational:

"None of the circuits involved in conscious reasoning were particularly engaged... Essentially, it appears as if partisans twirl the cognitive kaleidoscope until they get the conclusions they want... Everyone... may reason to emotionally biased judgments when they have a vested interest in how to interpret 'the facts.'"

I worry that this is the case here. You appear to appeal to the Scientific. If you do, indeed, value reason and logic, then I hope that you can quash the emotional reaction and see the reason in Reason's articles, and elsewhere, evaluating it on its own merits rather than how well it serves your biases.

...

On a related note, I wasn't able to tell: are you coming from more of a "pro-global-warming" angle or a "global-warming-is-fake" angle?

Re:What do you know

[ArcherB]

Oooh... mod down -5 for calling Fox a "news" channel, even in jest! I've hear less slanted coverage from the White House!

Yes! We must mod down, silence and ridicule all those that disagree with us! Brownshirts of the world, UNITE!!!

Re:What do you know

[Coryoth]

Do you really think that going against the group-think would win Libertarians any votes? Probably not, but then, looking at the LP platform and past performance, that never seems to have been an issue for them with regard to deciding policy in the past...

Re:What do you know

[sumdumass]

I think maybe you forgot a quote. One that really tells us what this is about.

French President Jacques Chirac and saluting Kyoto as a "genuine instrument of global governance,"

I orginialy saw it here

Re:What do you know

[LarsWestergren]

This is a UN body. Can you name for me three UN successes in the past 25 years? Just three. I can name three failures in about two seconds... Rwanda, Darfur, Oil for Food program, 17 Iraqi resolutions, Lebanon, Iran, North Korea... Oh, I was only supposed to stop at three?

That is classic ad-hominem, you are attacking the messanger rather than discussing the issue. This is especially irrelevant since we are discussing a scientific issue, you are talking about war and conflict areas.

Can anyone list a single doomsday environmental prediction that has come true? Just one. That's all I ask.

If by doomsday, you mean end of the earth, then.... *looks around* nope. Seems not. On the other hand, if you mean heavy human impact on the environment, then yes, there are plenty of examples. The Newfoundland cod stock collapse for instance. Plenty of environmentalists were warning for years that a collapse was happening. Warnings were ignored, then it happened.

Or take the deforestation of Easter Island, or this list of disasters. It happened on a local scale, yes, but with the population and technology we have today, we MIGHT affect ecology on a larger, perhaps even global scale.

And now for some environmentalist quotes

More ad-hominmens. Random quotes by fringe nutters does not a coherent argument make.

Re:What do you know

[ArcherB]

I belive the GP was looking for a scientific rebuttal, a poltical rant is not a substitute for science. Sticking your fingers in your ears whilst cutting and pasting anti-science drivel will only result in your fingertips meeting in the middle.

Why would I place a scientific rebuttal to a political document? I mean, the friggin title of the damn thing is "Summary for Policy Makers". It is "Cliff note for the Corrupt". OK, here is a scientific rebuttal (from a scientist, not me)

Judging from the media in recent months, the debate over global warming is now over. There has been a net warming of the earth over the last century and a half, and our greenhouse gas emissions are contributing at some level. Both of these statements are almost certainly true. What of it? Recently many people have said that the earth is facing a crisis requiring urgent action. This statement has nothing to do with science. There is no compelling evidence that the warming trend we've seen will amount to anything close to catastrophe. What most commentators--and many scientists--seem to miss is that the only thing we can say with certainly about climate is that it changes. The earth is always warming or cooling by as much as a few tenths of a degree a year; periods of constant average temperatures are rare. Looking back on the earth's climate history, it's apparent that there's no such thing as an optimal temperature--a climate at which everything is just right. The current alarm rests on the false assumption not only that we live in a perfect world, temperaturewise, but also that our warming forecasts for the year 2040 are somehow more reliable than the weatherman's forecast for next week.
--snip--
Moreover, actions taken thus far to reduce emissions have already had negative consequences without improving our ability to adapt to climate change. An emphasis on ethanol, for instance, has led to angry protests against corn-price increases in Mexico, and forest clearing and habitat destruction in Southeast Asia. Carbon caps are likely to lead to increased prices, as well as corruption associated with permit trading. (Enron was a leading lobbyist for Kyoto because it had hoped to capitalize on emissions trading.) The alleged solutions have more potential for catastrophe than the putative problem. The conclusion of the late climate scientist Roger Revelle--Al Gore's supposed mentor--is worth pondering: the evidence for global warming thus far doesn't warrant any action unless it is justifiable on grounds that have nothing to do with climate.

Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government. He receives no funding from any energy companies.

Yes, I know more cutting and pasting, this time, though, real science from a real scientists, not the anti-science drivel I posted before from honest to goodness environmentalists

By the way, rather than insulting me, have you been able to come up with a single environmental doomsday prediction that has come true? The way I see it, alarmist climatologists are batting at exactly 0%. Why should I believe them now?

Re:What do you know

[LarsWestergren]

Ok, this show has been promoted like wildfire on the net by conservatives and global warming deniers. Like with Michael Crichton, no matter how many times it is debunked, I see we will see this show quoted as truth for years to come and links to it get modded up....

Anyway, rebuttals: Carl Wunsch, one of the people on the show has since come out with a public letter where he explains that he was systematically misquoted and misrepresented, and has come out with a public letter:

"As I made clear, both in the
preliminary discussions, and in the interview itself, I believe that
global warming is a very serious threat that needs equally serious
discussion and no one seeing this film could possibly deduce that.

What we now have is an out-and-out propaganda piece, in which
there is not even a gesture toward balance or explanation of why
many of the extended inferences drawn in the film are not widely
accepted by the scientific community. There are so many examples,
it's hard to know where to begin, so I will cite only one:
a speaker asserts, as is true, that carbon dioxide is only
a small fraction of the atmospheric mass. The viewer is left to
infer that means it couldn't really matter. But even a beginning
meteorology student could tell you that the relative masses of gases
are irrelevant to their effects on radiative balance. A director
not intending to produce pure propaganda would have tried to eliminate that
piece of disinformation.

An example where my own discussion was grossly distorted by context:
I am shown explaining that a warming ocean could expel more
carbon dioxide than it absorbs -- thus exacerbating the greenhouse
gas buildup in the atmosphere and hence worrisome. It
was used in the film, through its context, to imply
that CO2 is all natural, coming from the ocean, and that
therefore the human element is irrelevant. This use of my remarks, which
are literally what I said, comes close to fraud."

When a couple of noted British scientists tried to engage him in debate about some issues in the show, he answered "You are a big daft cock." and "Go and fuck yourself" (respectively). Channel 4 themselves now say the show is basically polemic. Of course, as a modern TV channel they don't care for a second about science or truth, they care about generating controversy so they get more viewers.

And then we have some people who go into the claims of the show a little bit more in depth here, and here, and here and finally here.

Re:What do you know

[jcr]

That is classic ad-hominem, you are attacking the messanger rather than discussing the issue

So, can we count on the Al Gore faction to quit pouring out vitriol on Lindzen and the other climatologists who disagree with him, and just argue the science instead?

Didn't think so.

-jcr

Re:What do you know

[LarsWestergren]

Attacking the messenger is valid when no one can think of three successes in 25 years.

I could quote areas where UN has suceeded (as I said, the UN works with more than peacekeeping issues), but it would just divert the issue and attract anti-UN trolls. Let me come up with a counter example: the UN is not the only player who has failed in the countries you mentioned. So has NATO, the US, the African Union, the EU... Should we discredit everything these agencies say? No, because they work with many other things too. The people working on the peacekeeping missions are NOT the same people working with The Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change. So again, what you are doing is ad-hominem.

Still, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that if I keep chopping down trees that deforestation would occur.

Or that if we burn things that emit greenhouse gasses, the planet gets warmer...

Still, good examples, but nothing compared to the Global Warming scare tactics of today or the Ozone depletion

Oh, the Ozone "hole" is still there, it is just not mentioned often in the media these days. Ozone depletion didn't turn out quite as bad as some people warmed, BECAUSE WE DID SOMETHING ABOUT IT. Even some politicans, like Margaret Thatcher (who has a Chemistry degree from Oxford University), realised the dangers and helped drive through the Montrol agreement which caused a gradual reduction of manmade ozone destroying gases. The thinning is still there, but it is finally stabilizing and may slowly heal over decades. If you think the ozone whole was a myth, ask people in Australia about increased rates of skin cancer the last decades.

, global cooling

Myth, it was the popular press talking about it for a while, you did not have anything near the scientific conscencus we have on global warming today.

Fact is that the climate changes all the time. We have global cooling and enter ice ages and then we have global warming to get us out. Sometimes we cool form within an ice age and warm we are not in one. It's 100% natural.

No, it is not.

Besides, RTFA is about the possibility that the main source of heat in our solar system may be responsible for all this heat. Why is that such a far fetched idea?

Why is it such a far fetched idea that gases that trap heat locally (a process known to science since the 19th centruy), if released in sufficient quantities globally might have the same effect globally?

Those are examples from former leading environmentalists to show how wrong they've been in the past

Irrelevant. Totally irrelevant. They are not the people presenting the data, it is scientists.

and to show their true agenda (the end of capitalism)

Also irrelevant. If someone has a political agenda, we might suspect that they slant or distort the data, then we check the data through a peer-review process.

Re:What do you know

[LarsWestergren]

So, can we count on the Al Gore faction to quit pouring out vitriol on Lindzen and the other climatologists who disagree with him, and just argue the science instead?

Make up your mind, is it Gore or his "faction"? Do you have an example of such vitriol performed by Al Gore himself? I Googled for a while after it, and gave up after paging through hundreds of hits of Lindzen talking about Gore....

Re:What do you know

[andersa]

Both are correct.

Were are at the low point of the 11-year sunspot cycle.

The 1000-year peak is measured over the average of the last 11 years, so the fast cycle is evened out.

Re:What do you know

[Jump]

Both articles talk about different time scales. The sun spot rate is going from minimum to maximum in only 11 years (not sure about the correct time scale but should be approximately right). Just last year, the Sun hit the minimum and for the first time a gigantic explosion with a shockwave running all around the Sun was observed. While the Sun Spot number goes through this cycle, the solar magnetic field is reversed. This is critical for the solar wind which helps to protect earth from the cosmic radiation. Same is true for the magnetic field of the earth. And Earth's magnetic field is also reversing now! Why? The interplay between the solar magnetic field and the Earth's magnetic field is not known.

The NASA article talks about this minimum, and the science article talks about the average Sun spot number increasing over the last 1000 years. This is surely interesting, as it explains quite a lot of the global warming. The astronomical influence on the weather system should be studied in more detail. For example, it is believed by some scientists, that the Sun's orbit around the Galaxy is causing Ice Ages as well. At the moment, this is all far fetched, but if we do not understand it better, we will never know for sure what is causing how much of the observed global warming.

Re:What do you know

[bheer]

> we MIGHT affect ecology on a larger, perhaps even global scale.

Actually, we affect ecology simply by existing. Fishing changes fish population patterns, man's spread to every corner of the Earth has caused a decline in certain species and a (relative) increase in others (check out the pigeon population of NYC, for instance). In that sense, environmentalists who say the only way to 'reverse the damage' is to 'remove man' are right, and in fact intellectually honest -- although their PR skills are questionable.

However, most environmentalists grandly over-estimate our ability to cause global-scale disasters. Re your local disasters, disaster size does not scale linearly with technological growth, and ecosystems have a way of correcting themselves -- deforestation in England was a 'hot topic' in 16th and 17th centuries, with people complaining as England's forests were denuded for wood for stoves and ships. In time, the ecosystem bounced back (helped by the shift to steel for ships and gas for stoves) -- there are fewer trees in England now than c.10th century, but more than the 16th and 17th!

One of the best known debunked examples was Sagan's rapid-cooling scenarios ("nuclear winter"). The other problem is environmentalists refusal to see Earth's ecosystem as a evolving system, instead harking back to the past as a ideal that the future should aspire to. Ecosystems don't work that way! Millenia ago, most of Europe was an icy wasteland and the Sahara was an oasis. An observer then might decry the loss of the Sahara, but would they have predicted the advantages a temperate Europe would have brought?

Bottom line: there's nothing more arrogant than the assumption that a given region has the right to enjoy a static, unchanging climate for all of time.

I should probably add that this does not mean that polluters are let off the hook. On health grounds alone, we already regulate most pollutants. As for CO2 emissions (which is what most global warming campaigners campaign for), I would suggest that the "the end is nigh" scenarios many campaigners paint is both scientifically inaccurate as well as damaging to their cause. Rather, they should encourage (through various methods like research grants and tax breaks) use of a basket of energy sources, including solar, wind and nuclear. Nuclear is crucial -- solar and wind are nice but large markets need reliable electricity sources.

Re:What do you know

[Alioth]

but also that our warming forecasts for the year 2040 are somehow more reliable than the weatherman's forecast for next week.

I can't take any text seriously that uses this old chestnut - totally ignoring that meterology and climatology are _not_ the same thing.

An analogy: take a pan of water, and put it on a gas stove. The meterologist's job is to predict where convections will occur at some time (a few seconds) in the future. In this chaotic system, it becomes harder and harder to predict the exact position and strength of individual convections on a period greater than a few seconds. The climatologists job, on the other hand, is to say if you turn up the heat by 50%, the water will boil in X minutes, and if you also cover the pan with a lid, the water will boil in Y minutes (were Y X). The climatologist can predict this with a fairly good degree of accuracy, given that he knows how much extra energy turning up the heat puts into the water (analagous to the sun warming up), and how much energy the lid traps (analagous to greenhouse gases).

It does not follow that climatologists are wrong, just because a meterologist can not tell you with much confidence whether it will be raining at 11:30 two weeks on Tuesday. Climatology and meterology are two different disciplines, and anyone who's argument includes the old saw about "climatologists can hardly be right if they can't tell me the weather at 11:30am two weeks on Tuesday" is almost certainly making an extremely dubious argument to begin with.

Re:What do you know

[FatMullet]

Here's one of Linzden's recent peer review papers

Lindzen, R.S. (2003) The Interaction of Waves and Convection in the Tropics. J. Atmos. Sci., 60, 3009-3020

There are quite a few others in the past twenty years. I'm no great fan of Linzden myself but there's no denying that he has contributed quite a lot to the literature on climate science.

Re:What do you know

[Brickwall]

Simarly climate models may be "incorrect" but they have demonstrated they can predict the climate.

How so? The models presented by some AGW groups wildly overstate both the rise in sea level and the rise in temperature due to increased CO2. For example, the IPCC model for temperature predicted that from 1979 to 1998, temps would go up by 0.8 degree C; in fact, they FELL by 0.2 degrees. Here's a link:

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm#Message53

Please note that this link is to a group that SUPPORTS the AGW hypothesis, even though they present evidence showing that the models fail to predict temperature DIRECTION, let alone the magnitude of change. Sorry, if your model predicts a rise of 8, when the actual experience is a fall of 2, I'd say your model is pretty much worthless. But then, I'm only an engineer; we're more concerned with what we see than what we want to prove.

Re:What do you know

[slashdotmsiriv]

Lindsen has published peer-reviewed papers the last 20 years. Even if he did not, just the fact that he is an enviromental science
professor at MIT is enough to give his positions scientific credibility.
And he is not alone:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6IPHmJWmDk...relat ed&search=

Re:What do you know

[Elkboy]

"2) This is a UN body. Can you name for me three UN successes in the past 25 years? Just three. I can name three failures in about two seconds... Rwanda, Darfur, Oil for Food program, 17 Iraqi resolutions, Lebanon, Iran, North Korea... Oh, I was only supposed to stop at three?"

It has already been pointed out that this is a fallacious argument, but I'll bite.

Things the UN does well:

Food aid (World Food Programme)

Aid to Refugees (UNHCR)

Protecting Children (UNICEF)

Peacekeeping (Congo, Eritrea, Liberia, Côte d'Ivoire, Haiti, etc, etc — 61 operations in total since 1948)

Intervenor of Last Resort (Congo, Liberia)

Running Elections (Iraq)

Reproductive Health and Population Management (UN Population Fund, UNFPA)

War Crimes Prosecution (Yugoslavia, Rwanda)

Fighting AIDS (WHO, UNAIDS)

Bringing up invisible issues (landmine victims, diseases, child soldiers, slavery, etc)

Wait, was I supposed to stop at three things? Sorry, my bad. Also, the Oil For Food Programme was actually successful in bringing food to the Iraqi people, despite the failure of the US and UK to police smuggling. As for the other failures, well, the UN does what the Security Council tells them to. You can't hold that against the UN itself. Go complain to Russia, China or why not the US?

Re:What do you know

[Dausha]

"Also irrelevant. If someone has a political agenda, we might suspect that they slant or distort the data, then we check the data through a peer-review process."

But there's the rub. The peer-review process is inherently political---any process involving more than one person is political. The hope is enough dispassionate people will put politics aside and look at the facts. However, global warming has become a hotly political issue which serves to reduce the population of dispassionate people; therefore peer review is another form of politics.

I have heard (I'm a rank layman) that hard-core environmentalists have achieved majority status on the boards of several peer-reviewed journals. The fact that it is even possible reduces the credibility of peer review. I conclude "peer review" is just another way of making another argumentum ad verecundiam argument. You don't need peer review to assert gravity, heliocentricity, or tooth decay.

Please remember that peer review would have discounted Galileo. You can put a dress on a pig, lipstick on its lips and call it Hillary; but in the end, its still a peer review---er, pig.

Re:What do you know

[ajs]

I'm an anthropogenic global warming skeptic... and even I'm begging: for pete's sake, can we please keep it out of any j-random article that just happens to mention the Sun, any aspect of the atmosphere or dog breathing rates?! I mean, come on, this is as bad as the old, "we have to have a PostgreSQL vs MySQL fight every time an article about Web site mentions MySQL in the fine print."

Just take a deep breath and try to have a conversation ABOUT THE SUN for once.

PS: The Daily Show is on my must-watch list. I don't watch it because it's news (I have Google News for that), I watch it for the same reason I watch Slashdot: to know what my peers find interesting these days, and get the occasional laugh.

Re:What do you know

[Nulukkhizdin]

Actually, we affect ecology simply by existing. Fishing changes fish population patterns, man's spread to every corner of the Earth has caused a decline in certain species and a (relative) increase in others (check out the pigeon population of NYC, for instance). In that sense, environmentalists who say the only way to 'reverse the damage' is to 'remove man' are right, and in fact intellectually honest -- although their PR skills are questionable.

Indeed, the most ecological action would be to stop breathing. Major problem in the relative decrease/increase issue is the vanishing biodiversity. Organisms that are usually increasing are typically invading alien species, and the decreasing ones are local ones which can't compete. So the "increase" is not necessarily a good thing.

One of the best known debunked examples was Sagan's rapid-cooling scenarios ("nuclear winter"). The other problem is environmentalists refusal to see Earth's ecosystem as a evolving system, instead harking back to the past as a ideal that the future should aspire to. Ecosystems don't work that way! Millenia ago, most of Europe was an icy wasteland and the Sahara was an oasis. An observer then might decry the loss of the Sahara, but would they have predicted the advantages a temperate Europe would have brought?

Very much so. Earth's climate is extremely dynamic system. However, climate changes are normally slow and organisms have enough time to adapt. The situation is now different, however. Several ecosystems are already been pushed in a critical state due to human activity. Global warming may push them over the edge. In addition, there are over six billion people on the Earth. Hundreds of millions of people are in risks if the land where they live can no longer support them. In many parts of the world there is already an acute shortage of drinking water, and melting mountain glaciers will (not "may") make the situation much worse.

I should probably add that this does not mean that polluters are let off the hook. On health grounds alone, we already regulate most pollutants. As for CO2 emissions (which is what most global warming campaigners campaign for), I would suggest that the "the end is nigh" scenarios many campaigners paint is both scientifically inaccurate as well as damaging to their cause. Rather, they should encourage (through various methods like research grants and tax breaks) use of a basket of energy sources, including solar, wind and nuclear. Nuclear is crucial -- solar and wind are nice but large markets need reliable electricity sources.

Nuclear energy has its own problems, most notably the potential risks of radioactivity (which fortunately are often exaggerated) and the shortage of fuel. In my opinion, combining several renewable sources and developing more energy efficient tenchology is the answer. Nuclear may help in the short term.

Re:What do you know

[hey!]

2) This is a UN body. Can you name for me three UN successes in the past 25 years? Just three. I can name three failures in about two seconds... Rwanda, Darfur, Oil for Food program, 17 Iraqi resolutions, Lebanon, Iran, North Korea... Oh, I was only supposed to stop at three?

Well, according to a study from the University of BC:

        * A 40% drop in violent conflict.
        * An 80% drop in the most deadly conflicts.
        * An 80% drop in genocide and politicide.

The problem with your line of reasoning is that it's based on faulty assumption: that bad things didn't happen before the UN existed.

If you want to be cynical about the UN, the cynical position is not that it is a form of world government; the cynical position is that it is a mechanism for powerful nations to impose their will on less powerful nations by somewhat less expensive and barbarous means. Why else would a world government need a "security council", which is just a nice way of saying "the countries that are too powerful to be restrained."

In any case, what you are doing here is called "poisoning the well": arguing points that are irrelevant to the question at hand to convince people to use emotion to reject an argument because it is believed by somebody they don't like.

With respect to the "doomsday" scenarios, the problem with many of these scenarios is that they ignore the power of wealth to evade negative consequences. The human capacity to adapt is also important, but it's easier to dismiss warnings about overpopulation living in a first world country, than living in a third world country which many of the people are food insecure.

Another serious negative scenario that is repeated over and over is the disruptive effects of exotic organisms. A special case of this also touches on the population issue: the problem of emergent diseases. There are several root causes to this problem, including people driven by overpopulation to move to areas previously considered uninhabitable, and people engaging in ecologically unhygienic practices. The problem is amplified by dense human populations, which provide a rich growth medium for the infectious agent and evolutionarily favors virulent agents like the 1918 flu. Recent examples include Ebola, West Nil Virus, SARS, and bird flu.

Lyme disease is an interesting example. It is prevalent in the northeast US because the decline of agriculture has resulted in a gradual reforesting of the region. In general, this is a good thing. However when animals like small rodents and deer returned, there was no wolf to predate upon them, and their populations exploded. Instead they are predated upon by ticks, in turn ticks are predated upon by Lyme disease. A friend of mine married into a family that owns an island which is large enough to support a population of deer as well as small rodents. They've all had Lyme disease. Now the western coyote has moved into New England, and has reached the island, destroying the deer population and cutting down the rodent population. You can visit now for week and never see a single tick. As coyotes move in, and fisher cats return to their old ranges, predation is returning the system to a healthy balance. I'll bet if this is allowed to continue, Lyme disease may become much more rare.

The focus on doomsday issues is misplaced. Humans are adaptable to practically any conditions from the African veldt to arctic tundra. The real issue is that if human populations are allowed to grow to the point where it is in equilibrium with the environment's ability to support them, then the people who are near the margins where that equilibrium deducts from the population are going to live miserable lives. This is not speculative, it's already happening, only in places far from us. We, who live far from the hard edge of ecological reality, won't ever experience these problems as doomsday problems, but as disorders, either of the body (emergent diseases), or of society (war and terror).

Re:What do you know

[popejeremy]

I see that all your quotes are from Earth First! and their kin. Comparing all environmentalists to Earth First! is like comparing all Christians to Jerry Falwell or comparing all Muslims to Osama Bin Laden. Your argument is highly misleading.

Re:What do you know

[slashdotmsiriv]

Here is a list of his publications: http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/Publicatio nsRSL.html

Re:What do you know

[RexRhino]

Right wing and Left wing are esthetic and rhetorical positions, that have nothing to do with real policy. The extreme left or extreme right are virtually identitcal in how they intend to run government (they are both authoritarian), they just differ in the political justification for their power. Should we ban explicit rap music because it is an affront to God, or because it exploits women? Should be eliminate free speech, to make sure things don't offend our religion, or should we eliminate it to protect minority groups from being offended? Should we nationalize the economy to protect us from foriegn powers and terrorists, or to promote "equality".

The real battle is between Authoritarians (left and right), versus Minarchists (Libertarians, Anarchists, etc.). Chirac's ideology is consistant with the totalitarian ideology of the "Leftist" European political elite, even if he is "Right Wing".

Re:What do you know

[mikerich]

The fact that I never claimed I could is probably as meaningless to you as any other fact that does not fit your dogma. I'm not saying that logic has anything to do with your rant, but it would seem a tad nonsensical to ask someone to point to a doomsday prediction that has already come to pass.

High latitude, ozone depletion was a near catastrophe. Predicted on thermodynamic grounds by Rowland and Molina in 1974, first measured by the British Antarctic Survey in 1978-79. Left unchecked it would have had disastrous effects on the productivity of the Antarctic Ocean and human activities at high latitudes.

Re:What do you know

[LordPhantom]

The news, however, isn't about "viewpoint", or shouldn't be.

If you're a political commentary show, that's one thing. I wouldn't watch "The O'Reily Factor" or "Countdown with Keith Oberman" to get an unbiased reporting of the news, but really, your 9pm news broadcast shouldn't pander to a political agenda, even if the producers have mores based in that agenda.

It seems that nearly every news organization on the planet does so. Even the BBC is only telling you want they want you to hear.

So, is intelligent satire that lampoons BOTH sides, yet somehow manages to cover the news more clearly than most news outlets Kool-Aid? If it is, I'd rather be drinking that than the ditch-water folks like you seem to hold so highly. Face it, the news media has sold out to government and industry across the planet - and subscriptions are starting to feel it. Look at the viewer numbers for most national "news" programs! It's insanity, but with respect to news, the world culture has turned into the Jerry Springer show circa 1994.

Re:What do you know

[InsaneProcessor]

You just can't handle the truth!

You wouldn't know fair and balanced if it bit you in the arse.

Re:What do you know

[wealthychef]

Do partisan politics grant psychic abilities?

I knew you were going to ask that, you Communist!

Re:What do you know

[denissmith]

That's the thing about predictions, they happen in the future. Since most of the predictions of the 'environmentalists' were not being made before the 1960's, and since the timeframes are usually 50 - 100 years out, it is not surprising that they have yet to be proven true or false. If you discount falling sperm counts in some men in industrial agriculture areas, rising rates of autism in American children and rising rates of leukemia, by ignoring the possible- but by no means proven- environmental component behind them. To claim any of these is proof of prior claims is inaccurate, to dismiss them as possible proof of prior claims is disingenuous. We are in the middle of things, and can't definitively say what they mean, or if they mean anything at all. As if to dismiss everything, you say there is no 'doomsday prediction' that's come true-but you don't admit any of the evidence unless it is positively uncontrovertable (which is not the way of law or science-which argue the meaning of evidence all the time), so what good is the conversation? Extremist wackos like the ones you quote are not representative of most environmentalists, anymore than a parade of right wing cranks who say equally demented stuff are representative of your views. (Unless I miss my guess and you are a devotee of Pat Robertson). So, you are left with rising rates of species extinction as the only proven, predicted environmental disaster that we know of. Still, it's pretty compelling if you think about it at all. Oh, yeah, and there's that ozone hole thing.

Re:What do you know

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

>but also that our warming forecasts for the year 2040 are somehow more reliable than the weatherman's forecast for next week.

It will be a cold day in July before I take that argument seriously.

The average temperature in July is much more reliably known than the small-scale noise of tomorrow's weather.

The climate in Saudi Arabia is a lot easier to predict than the weather.

The people who keep bringing weather forecasts into the discussion have known all their lives to plan for cold and snow in winter, rain in the spring, and sunlight in the summer. They're not actually confused about the difference between climate and weather.

>alarmist climatologists are batting at exactly 0%. Why should I believe them now?

Are you referring to the fact that the previous IPCC report was wrong about sea level increases? They *underestimated* them. Or are you pulling out the old line about a cooling scare in the 70s? Here's a bibliography of scientific literature on climate from the 1970s.

A reasoned discussion has to be based on facts, and it has to use reason.

Quick question to ask yourself: what new information, if it were to be discovered, would change your mind? If you can't think of any, you're not engaging in reason. A climatologist would say "well, if someone found a previously unknown negative feedback mechanism with a time constant such that it hasn't taken effect yet, then we'd all have to lower our temperature forecasts".

Other quick question: what do you think is the baseline temperature increase from a doubling of CO2? If you think it's less than 2 Celsius, on what facts do you base that assessment?

If you don't like proposed policy measures, the response of reason is to propose different ones (build fission plants? Roll with the punches?) instead of pretending the scientific data is a conspiracy by people you hate.

Quick question: have you ever known a working scientist? Political party members get promoted for going along. Scientists only get PhDs, promotions, and tenure from publishing _new_ information.

Re:What do you know

[ebvwfbw]

If you're going to be a global warming denier, it behooves you to choose some more convincing arguments than a 1974 media scare story which was not generally accepted by climatologists, and it also behooves you to not put forward the argument that climatology and meterology are the same thing, because they are not.

You seem to have missed my point on several levels. Maybe I can explain it better. I'm not a GW denier (make sure you are addressing the right issue first of all, for some reason if you say anything negative about GW, the GW people assume you reject everything entirely.), I'm a gloom and doom skeptic. We also know that it used to be warmer in as recently as in the past 1000 years until the little ice age that the article talks about (if you RTFA... understand that a lot of people on /. don't RTFA, however I'm sure you did... didn't you?). I'm also skeptical that it is all caused by man and even more skeptical that man can somehow "fix" it. That is, is something broken in the first place? When man tries to "fix" things to do with nature in the past, he often screws it up good. If you look at the UN reports that start in 1992, it had no mention of man being the cause anywhere. The next year suddenly somehow man was responsible without any scientific evidence. Purely a political move by the environmentalists as the other guy was saying. It can also waste money on a global scale never seen before.

What happened 1000 years ago?

[biocute]

So what happened around 1000 A.D.? How did people then manage a similar peak?

Re:What happened 1000 years ago?

[Gbo2k7]

They all went out and bought electric cars.

Re:What happened 1000 years ago?

[techno-vampire]

This was at about the middle of the Early Medieval Warm Period, when the Vikings had a colony on the west coast of Greenland, supporting itself as dairy farmers. I specify the west coast because, although the Gulf Stream reaches Greenland, it goes up the east coast, and wasn't a factor. I might add, that with all the foofrah about how hot it's getting, we still don't have dairy farms there.

Re:What happened 1000 years ago?

[LarsWestergren]

There is now overwhelming evidence that the Medieval Warm Period was Global, and much wider temperature anomolies were normal. This evidence discredits the global warming panickers who lied in attempts to bolster up their failing science.

The paper you link to is from 2003, a lot more data has come since then. A little careful Googling turns up that 13 of the authors of the papers Baliunas and Soon cited refuted her interpretation of their work, and that furthermore

Half of the editorial board of Climate Research, the journal that published the paper, resigned in protest against what they felt was a failure of the peer review process on the part of the journal. Otto Kinne, managing director of the journal's parent company, stated that "CR [Climate Research] should have been more careful and insisted on solid evidence and cautious formulations before publication" and that "CR should have requested appropriate revisions of the manuscript prior to publication."

Re:What happened 1000 years ago?

[Vintermann]

Read up on your Jared Diamond. Yes, they had dairy farms there. That was an incredibly stupid idea, even then. They died out.

Re:What happened 1000 years ago?

[techno-vampire]

If it was an "incredibly stupid idea," why did the farmers stay there for several hundred years? It was a fine idea when the colony started, and it stayed a good idea right up until the climate changed and the weather got too cold for them to keep going. Then, the sensible ones left and the stubborn ones died.

That doesn't debunk global warming

[LordKazan]

before the trolls come in - know that this doesn't debunk global warming. What most of the 'global warming' controversy is centers on "are humans contributing?"

the answer is absolutely undeniably: Yes

it's never been stated that we're the only cause.

Re:That doesn't debunk global warming

[Gbo2k7]

The answer is absolutely undeniably: Maybe

Re:That doesn't debunk global warming

[Ohtsam]

While I agree that humans are contributing to the climate change I don't believe it is nearly to the magnitude that some of the scientists and politicians claim. And it should not be pumped up to such high levels of sensationalism especially since no matter how much our nation cuts back on emissions we can't force others to follow suit.

Re:That doesn't debunk global warming

[DoofusOfDeath]

before the trolls come in - know that this doesn't debunk global warming. What most of the 'global warming' controversy is centers on "are humans contributing?"

the answer is absolutely undeniably: Yes

Oh please... you expect us to believe that humans cause sunspots???

Re:That doesn't debunk global warming

[Anonymous Coward]

What most of the 'global warming' controversy is centers on "are humans contributing?"

No, the controversy centers on political posturing and other random social BS.

The issue centers on "are humans contributing at a level that makes any difference at all", and I'm still unconvinced. A single volcano can have higher carbon dioxide (among other pollutants) output than all of human society on a yearly basis. Do you know how many active volcanoes there are in the world? Thousands. Humans are simply overestimating their own importance. Yet again. Shock. Amazement. Meh.

Re:That doesn't debunk global warming

[LordKazan]

You need to learn two things
1) Reading Comprehension
2) Manners

Re:That doesn't debunk global warming

[syphax]

... and here is the punchline of the article:

Over the past 20 years, however, the number of sunspots has remained roughly constant, yet the average temperature of the Earth has continued to increase.
This is put down to a human-produced greenhouse effect caused by the combustion of fossil fuels.
This latest analysis shows that the Sun has had a considerable indirect influence on the global climate in the past, causing the Earth to warm or chill, and that mankind is amplifying the Sun's latest attempt to warm the Earth.

Re:That doesn't debunk global warming

[Old Wolf]

In fact, it continues to be stated, again and again, that if we were all just to reduce our individual green house gas emissions (typically by being big fuckin' hippies) then there would not be any global warming.

I haven't seen anyone state that, let alone any scientist. Can you post some links?

Re:That doesn't debunk global warming

[flyingfsck]

Uhh, you are all correct. Volcanoes tend to either cool or warm the earth. For example Mount Pinatuba cooled the earth by 3 degrees over a multi year period.

See this: http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/cli mate_effects.html
"The amount of sulfur-rich gases appears to be more important. Sulfur combines with water vapor in the stratosphere to form dense clouds of tiny sulfuric acid droplets. These droplets take several years to settle out and they are capable to decreasing the troposphere temperatures because they absorb solar radiation and scatter it back to space."

Re:That doesn't debunk global warming

[terjeber]

What most of the 'global warming' controversy is centers on "are humans contributing?"

Actually, no, that isn't really what the controversy centers on. The controversy centers on to what degree humans are contributing, and of that contribution (due to the fervor of the global warming enthusiasts) what part of that contribution is caused by CO2. If only a part of global warming is caused by human activity, and only part of that is caused by CO2 emissions, then a reduction in these emissions will have a negligible, or even no effect on global warming.

the answer is absolutely undeniably: Yes

The answer is absolutely undeniably "Maybe, depends on what you are talking about".

The problem with the global warming enthusiasts is their monomanic focus on western "life-style" issues is that they are concentrating on areas that, even if implemented, will have little or no effect on the issue at hand, namely warming. This focus seems to come from the standard left-leaning political camp where all problems are caused by western consumers, and all solutions are centered around decreasing our standards of living.

The problem with the discussion is the bizarre focus that the global warming enthusiasts have for who they target for emissions reduction. Let me use illustration with made up numbers on natural vs human-caused warming, but just the same...:
Let's assume that 70% of the global warming is human caused. We know that CO2 contributes somewhere between 10 and 25% of the warming, so let's assume high and say 20%. This means that of the total global warming, somewhere around 15%, is caused by human emitted CO2 (please, I am no mathematician, if my numbers are way off, correct me politely, but the exact numbers are not that relevant). Now, interestingly, 1/3 or more of the total CO2 emissions are caused by China and other countries that are not part of the Kyoto agreement. So, for the Kyoto countries (and the US), the only ones that matter in this discussion, CO2 emissions account for about 10% of the total problem, that is all CO2 emissions put together. Just for fun, I'll ignore this fact. This means I am giving the global warming lobby more rope than they deserve.

Now, this is an interesting starting point. CO2, in the countries that are urged by the IPCC to change their behavior, is only 15% of the total warming picture. Round numbers of course. Of that 15%, less than half, but let's be generous, is caused by the burning of Petroleum. So, we are down to 7.5%. Cool. 7.5% is still a significant number. So, what is one of the pet topics of the global warming lobby? The airline industry. We have to fly less. Al Gore was booed at a meeting for flying. The airline industry, if we are generous, uses somewhere around 10% of the petroleum products in the world. So, one of the pet targets of the global warming lobby causes 0.8% or so of the global warming. Even if we ground all flights, the impact on global warming will be very close to 0. Please note that this doesn't change materially even if 100% of the global warming is caused by human activity.

I am aware that airplanes also contribute a good amount of water vapor, but that isn't my point. My point is that the targets of the global warming lobby are silly and childish. They are not asking us to make meaningful changes to our lifestyle, they are asking us to make token changes that will have little or no effect on global warming, but they'll make us all feel a lot better.

The problem with this approach is two-fold. The first one is blatantly obvious, we are not solving any problems, just making us feel better. Then second is far more problematic, and the reason I focused a little on the airline industry.

The internationalization of the world economy has had an enormous impact on the lives of the worlds population. With minor, and rather insignificant, exceptions these changes have been positive. Th

Re:That doesn't debunk global warming

[Burnhard]

Yes and likewise,

A is true,
B is true,

Therefore B causes A

where A = "global warming" and B = "carbon emissions".

Can you spot the flaw in this logic?

Re:That doesn't debunk global warming

[nwbvt]

"What most of the 'global warming' controversy is centers on "are humans contributing?""

Depends on who you are talking to. Climatologists will certainly agree with that statement, as that is exactly what they have been researching. But that is not the discussion that is taking place in politics and in the media (and on a typical day, here on /.). There, a statement from climatologists that they are 90% certain that humans have a role in climate change suddenly becomes "Climatologists are certain man is the cause of global warming", and that anyone who disputes that are (as one former vice president put it) the same as Holocaust deniers.

Yes, scientists (including respected global warming researchers) have recently been disputing some of the more wild claims of scientist-wannabe politicians. Unfortunately for too long they have let the debate go on like this in Washington and in Hollywood, and now most of the public considers the debate whether or not humans are the sole source of climate change.

Treatment for Sun damage

[techmuse]

Sounds like the sun needs a good dermatologist!

Scary?

[GFree]

I've heard that missiles can be guided to a target through GPS. Could the noise generated from massive sunspot activity cause the missile to drift enough to hit a completely different target even though it THINKS it's on target?

In other words, could the noise corrupt the GPS signal and offset the readings (but still be understood by the missile), or would it mess-up the system up completely to become totally incomprehensible?

Re:Scary?

[fatboy]

No, for a couple of reasons. GPS operates in the GHz region. When you hear of "radio blackouts" due to solar activity, it is reference to HF radio in the less than 30MHz region that uses skywave propagation. Currently we are at solar minimum and it is very unlikely we would have a solar event that would cause radio interference in the GHz region. The satellites may be affected by such an event, but I suspect the military has hardened them in such a way to be immune.

1000 peak?

[JobyKSU]

Point of order, sirs...

How can we know we're at the peak if we're also at the highest level we've been? Won't we have to wait until we dip for a while?

Re:1000 peak?

[ksheff]

Just read the article and try to forget what the /. editors have posted as the description. That usually works for me.

Climate

[Sean0michael]

No doubt this story will stir up our global warming debate again. Rather than continue the same litany of posts, can we focus on informative or interesting posts about how sunspots could affect various parts of our climate (polar temperature, magnetism, radiation, ozone holes, etc.)? Do they have an effect? How large? Is it significant? Is this accurate? That would be something new and helpful.

I think the last thing most /.ers want to read is another string of the same people posting the same links to previous posts and pasting the same arguments, counterarguments, sources, and denouncements of those sources as in the multiple threads we've had.

Just a thought.

Re:Climate

[TuballoyThunder]

I'm sorry, the cause of global warming has been decided and further research is not needed. Please turn off the lights when leaving the hall of scientific inquiry.

In all seriousness, when I was working on my M.S. in Astronomy (circa 1993), we had a seminar given by solar physicist on sunspots. She showed two slides that were quite interesting: The first slide showed a plot of "global average" CO2 concentration and "global average" temperature and the second slide showed sunspot activity and "global average" temperature. From her brief look into the topic (by her own admission), sunspot activity appeared to correlate better than CO2. She submitted a NSF proposal to study it further and was rejected on the grounds "the cause of global warming is well understood and further research is not warranted.'

Re:Climate

[TheSHAD0W]

There's a great video called The Great Global Warming Swindle; in it they mention a close correlation for sunspots to global temperatures. (And an even closer correlation for cosmic radiation.)

Re:Climate

[CaffeineJedi]

From her brief look into the topic (by her own admission), sunspot activity appeared to correlate better than CO2. She submitted a NSF proposal to study it further and was rejected on the grounds "the cause of global warming is well understood and further research is not warranted.'

This is an excellent comment. I received my B.S. degree in physics and have seen a great deal of legitimate data against humans as the predominant cause for global climate change. Much of the data is refuted by department chairs or the most zealous members of the physics department. Why? You ask. Because those people are the best at delivering funding. Physics, like many other scientific (read: non-engineering) fields, requires a great deal of government funding for research. Those that often receive funding are good at politics, both within the department and outside. Very much like CEOs are often the best at delivering sales or profits, without being the most expert on a subject.

To dispense with my ad-hominem argument, I would suggest any interested party to look into Milankovitch cycles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles.

These cycles show how small oscillations in some of the Earth's angular parameters impact radiation and hence temperature.
The chain of events is very clear: 1) astronomical variations -> 2) temperature change. Furthermore, the data from the insolation parameter correlates very well with the ice core data used as a CO2 proxy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vostok_420ky_4c urves_insolation.jpg.

The scientific community generally regards Milankovitch cycles as being in large part responsible for non-industrial era warming. Yet, when it comes to industrial era warming, proponents of human-caused global climate change say that CO2 emissions are driving temperature. This is a logical departure from the previous theory because it readjusts causality.

If from that above graph you believe that in ancient eras radiation drove temperature which drives CO2, then why the switch? Am I to believe that somehow in the modern era CO2 drives temperature which drives solar radiation levels incident at the Earth?

The sun is a massive fusion reactor 330,000 times the mass of earth. Even small fluctuations matter.

Re:Climate

[LarsWestergren]

The scientific community generally regards Milankovitch cycles as being in large part responsible for non-industrial era warming. Yet, when it comes to industrial era warming, proponents of human-caused global climate change say that CO2 emissions are driving temperature. This is a logical departure from the previous theory because it readjusts causality.

Actually, a lot of climate scientists do tackle the questions of solar and orbital cycles effecting, and temperature causing CO2 emissions at the start of historical warming cycles rather than the other way around.

With regards to the lady in question from the original poster, I agree with the AC. Could we have a name to verify the claim? Does she still claim this more than 10 years later? If so, resubmit. There is an enormous amount of scientific research being done in this area, and there are organizations willing to fund research debunking global warming (mainly in the petrolium industry)... I don't mean this as a smear, honestly, I am serious. No matter where the funding is coming from, if the research is sound and stands up to scrutiny it would make her world famous. It would also be a big relief for me actually, it would remove a great cause of worry for me.

Before the smarmy comments start

[lawpoop]

Folks this says SUN SPOTS. Again, SUN SPOTS. Not solar radiation, not heat coming from the sun, but sun spots.

Sun spots are COOLER than the surrounding sun material.

From wikipedia: Although they are blindingly bright at temperatures of roughly 4000-4500 K, the contrast with the surrounding material at about 5800 K leaves them clearly visible as dark spots.

So no, this does not account for Global warming, or more accurately, global climate change.

Re:Before the smarmy comments start

[Oswald]

Well, it's a bit late to stop the smarmy comments, especially since TFA indicates that past periods of low sun spot activity have coincided with lower terrestrial temperatures. I don't pretend to know anything about this, but you do, and you seem to be out of step with more than just the Slashdot trolls.

Re:Before the smarmy comments start

[baseinfinity]

And if you read your own link, you'd also see: "Since sunspots are dark it might be expected that more sunspots lead to less solar radiation. However, the surrounding areas are brighter and the overall effect is that more sunspots means a brighter sun. The variation is very small (of the order of 0.1%)."

Re:Before the smarmy comments start

[baseinfinity]

I made no statement as to whether or not this 1,000 year peak of sunspots explains climate change. I merely pointed out that your original big bold point was disingenous: Sunspot activity correlates to higher solar output, as the wikipedia article you linked to states. I'll leave it to you if you want to make a different statement supporting your position, your first one is wrong.

Author Mistates & Fails to Explain Well

[BoRegardless]

The Sun has a DIRECT influence on global climate, yet the author says "indirect influence", and this is not disputed by ANY scientist.

The relationships between where Beryllium comes from, the solar wind strength, number of sunspots and cosmic rays is not explained in a coherent manner with simple statements that could be made.

The number of sunspots has been near constant (on average) over the past 20 years, yet they are at the highest level in over 1000 years for the last 60 years "yet the average temperature of the earth has continued to increase". This shows the author doesn't understand lag times between applying extra energy input to the atmospheric system versus the time required for the large mass of the Earth's ecosystem to respond by warming land, sea and air to the point where average temperature changes can be measured.

These sort of incomplete descriptions give the average reader a bad view of what is really going on. It gives journalism a bad name.

Keep in mind

[otomo_1001]

This is only saying that of the 1000 years of data, this is the highest we have seen it.

Right now we can't say much more than that. Correlating this data with global warming is very spurious. We know much more about earth's climate than the sun and would be making a large leap given the limited amount of data.

We can't really make much of this until we get more data. That will be a long time in coming. Assuming we don't kill each other before then.

Re:Is this possible?

[OdinOdin_]

No most of the 'global warming' controversy is centered on "are humans the major contributor?"

If word ever got out that we are not a major contributor then I think public perception will re-appropiate funds to issues they consider are more worthy.

It is possible to read into some evidance that even if all consumption and contributions were halted to zero from human activity then the phenomena that is 'global warming' would still continue.

Maybe this is more about politics and the peak fossil fuel problem, all governments need to bring in legilation and taxation to control the masses over their fossil fuel usage ahead of any fossil fuel global crisis, now seems like an ideal time to get started.

Personally I am more concern about non-organic toxins being distributed around the plant for which there is no organic cleaning system than of trying to label a problem with a natually occuring organic gas.

Redundant and old

[caffiend666]

This is a redundant and old story. Last updated date from the article: 6 July, 2004 , almost three years old. Everyone should be aware of this science, but I would hope others have spent time trying to reproduce the data and find other ways to measure solar activity. Solar activity in general is undermeasured in the global warming/climate change debate, if only because of the difficulty of measuring the sun as a whole.

Re:Global warming on Mars, also?

[syphax]

And that informs us about our planet's sensitivity to GHG forcing how?

It's funny that climate change skeptics used to try to pick apart the global surface temperature record, which involves data collected from hundreds of locations for over 100 years, but are so quick to grab onto a 6 year regional trend on Mars as proof of something.

Can you show me the climatic feedback that minimizes the impact of the well-understood thermal forcing of CO2 (and methane, etc.) and the well-understood increase in atmospheric CO2 (and methane, etc.)?

Then we can talk.

Re:What do you know - spotty...

[flyingfsck]

The Sun God is in puberty and eat too many chocolate bunnies and eggs at Easter?

Re:Sssshh!

[ranton]

Sun spots are *cool* parts of the sun. If the sun is at a 1,000 year peak of sunspot activity, that means that it is at a 1,000 year *low* for temperature, as far as sunspots are concerned.
So if there is global warming, then this argues *against* the sun as an explanation.

That is a common misconception. Direct satellite measurements of irradiance have shown that solar irradiance increases as the number of sunspots increase.

According to current theory, sunspots occur in pairs as magnetic disturbances in the convective plasma come close to the surface of the Sun. Magnetic field lines emerge from one sunspot and re enter at the other spot. Also, there are more sunspots during periods of increased magnetic activity. At that time more highly charged particles are emitted from the solar surface, and the Sun emits more UV and visible radiation.

It is most likely that the sunspots do not cause more radiation, but they instead are caused by the same events that cause the Sun to emit more radiation.

Regardless of what happens, it is clear that increased sun spot activity increases the radiation and therefore the heat that is transferred to the Earth from the Sun.

--

1000 years ago

[arcite]

We had the middle ages. Europe was warmer, you could grow wine in regions you can't now. The middle East was a trading empire, Vikings were on the march, some Christians were planning the crusades. All things considered, you would probably be a poor peasant, half starving, and about to drop dead from plague or some other ailment at the ripe age of 30.

Re:1000 years ago

[the-amazing-blob]

But your favorite phrases would still be "I'm not dead yet!" and "I don't want to go on the cart!"

Re:1000 years ago

[orangepeel]

Europe was warmer, you could grow wine in regions you can't now. The middle East was a trading empire, Vikings were on the march, some Christians were planning the crusades. All things considered, you would probably be a poor peasant, half starving, and about to drop dead from plague or some other ailment at the ripe age of 30.

Wait ... so ... what exactly is the difference between 1000 years ago and today? Oh right ... we've got Slashdot! Go us! ;-)

Re:1000 years ago

[Eisenstein]

The low life span was mostly because so many children died young (some women had 10-15 children and were lucky if five of them survived childhood), distorting the statistics. If you survived the first 10 years you usually had - getting killed in war aside - another 50 years before you. Even people with 70-80 years of age was not unknown.

Aurora?

[Mr. Flibble]

I subscribe to the keteu.org Aurora mail notification. Which is handy for knowing when Aurora will appear where I live.. When I grew up I saw them all the time, where I live now, I have seen 1 set in the last 5 years.

That said, could someone enlighten me on the correlation between sunspots and solar flares? Yes, I know it is flares that cause the Aurora, not sunspots, but do increases in sunspots correlate to an increase in flares? It has been a few years since I was up on my solar topography as it were, so I am hoping for more Aurora in the next little bit - even if I need to travel up to the Youkon this year to see them again.

Re:Keep in mind Indep Search:

[BoRegardless]

Beryllium in ice cores: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1997/97JC01265.sh tml

"The most dramatic is a 10Be peak ?40,000 years ago, similar to that found in the Vostok ice core, thus permitting a very precise correlation between climate records from Arctic and Antarctic ice cores."

There is a lot of scientific data and the summary article (as poor as it was) did not even start to touch on the breadth of what is currently known from the analyses.

Re:Miniscule % Changes

[Coryoth]

Or you could just take a moving average over a suitable time-frame (like say, an 11 year window) like in the graphs linked.

Re:To all you people

[Zader]

Sunspots DO NOT cause global warming. At all. ...So they're NOT the excuse you need to justify continuance of your retarded, selfish, polluting lifestyle. Dear US Citizens: Please GET WITH THE PROGRAM. You don't need a gas-guzzling quasi-military vehicle just to go shopping. Such a brilliant, well thought out post that points out all the relevant facts leading to the obvious conclusion! Oh, it's so clear to me now!
I realize that US bashing is currently in fashion, but whoever modded the parent insightful should be ashamed...

With all due respect, Mr. Smarty Pants...

[ChePibe]

This is Slashdot.

People don't read links or articles here.

You must be too good for this here place. Why don't you run down to some fancy website where you'd feel more welcome.

Damn kids. Come here and start reading links and articles. No respect for tradition. No honor. All he had to do was post a pithy comment and get his +5 insightful, but noooo... he had to read the article.

Why can't you just be like the rest of us, and argue past each other without doing any research while stubbornly holding your own ground, peppering your posts with links you know the other side won't read? Geez...

Trust the scientists...

[quokkapox]

Just how are they dating these samples? Is there an assumption that each layer is a year? Are they assuming there has been no meltbacks removing several years records?

I am not a paleo-climatologist, but I think we can safely assume that the scientists who are analyzing ice cores are taking these sorts of things into account. Much like a sysadmin reading a log file or processing tcpdump output looking for evidence of hacking, you can safely assume that yeah, the experts did think of that.

When you have expertise in a particular field you tend to become better at perceiving patterns in the data sets you have. The open source 'many eyes' rule of thumb comes into play here, too.

Thus I think we can assume the PhDs in this field would notice an anomaly indicating that their data set may be corrupted, just like I could analyze a suspicious HTTP traffic log file, profile the activity from a specific IP address, correlate it with other sources of information, and make reasonable hypotheses as to what actually was going on, whether the activity was a bot or a human, etc. Or even whether the activity was a human trying to disguise itself as a bot (or vice-versa). And I don't even have a PhD, I just have a decade or so of experience.

Right now is a minimum

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

I regularly observe sunspots. I've hardly seen a sunspot for months. We're actually at solar minimum right now. Of course tha article is about a long term average, but the timing of the article is a bit peculiar!

The article says:

> Over the past 20 years, however, the number of sunspots has remained roughly constant

This is a weird statement. In last 20 years we've had two solar cycles and the number of sunspots has varied dramatically over the period as it usually does. You could interpret this statement as saying that relative to the cyclic average the number has remained constant - but that's certainly not how it reads, and 20 years is a bit of a short time over which to make such a judgement.

Re:Global warming on Mars, also?

[Kenrod]

Well, this for starters:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/Iris/

Whether you agree with Lindzen or his skeptics, one thing you must conclude from the article is that global climate is still not understood well enough for anyone to make accurate predictions of what will happen in 1 year, 10 years, 100 years. It is clear from the article that the role of clouds (which is only one component of many in climate change) is still being seriously debated, for instance.

And those predictions are always based on models which includes assumptions about how different components of climate change interact.

It's much easier to believe information about Mars because the readings are extremely accurate and only come from modern instruments, and we know there is no human influence on temperature. There are no politics in looking at 6 years of temperature data and saying "Yep, it's warmer!". Most people agree the Earth is warmer now as well. The Earth temperature record has problems because when and where and with what instrument you take the measurement are all important and have changed over the years. This is a legitimate debate.

More sunspots == hotter sun

[AJWM]

Why don't you quote the rest of that wikipedia article?

Particularly the part that says: Since sunspots are dark it might be expected that more sunspots lead to less solar radiation. However, the surrounding areas are brighter and the overall effect is that more sunspots means a brighter sun. (Emphasis added).

Sunspots are relatively cooler, but the surrounding areas are hotter.

This may not perfectly account for global warming (and we don't have the data or models to do that anyway), but it sure points in that direction.

Re:To all you people

[CustomDesigned]

I ride my bicycle 6.85 miles to work every day (or telecommute for snow and ice). I keep the thermostat at 65 in the winter. I make my kids walk to school, even in the rain. We eat vegetarian with occasional chicken/turkey. I use fluorescent lights when they are on much of the day (and incandescent when on for a few minutes at a time).

Nevertheless, IMO the global warming alarmism being used to push a neo-communist agenda stinks. I've looked at the evidence, and humans as *the major* contributor just doesn't add up. I'm not convinced by "all the real scientists say so" either. There is too much censoring of dissenters for that to be convincing.

In many cases, the cures exacerbate real problems. For instance, demand for ethanol is causing more rain forest clear cutting to grow sugar cane. Paving large areas causes local warming (urban heat island effect) far in excess of the worst case estimates of global warming, and loses even more ability to recycle CO2 in the air. Eating beef/pork for breakfast, lunch, and dinner has causes a 10 fold increase in methane, much more that the increase in CO2. All the driving causes stress, and the fatty, sugary fast food combined with the lack of exercise has made most of us fat, driving up health care costs.

My point is that I would like to see a positive agenda. Keep and expand greenspaces and forests. I'm not a stickler for "everything wild" like Gore - parks are fine. Walk, ride bikes, use mass transit. Rent a car for vacations. Use a ZipCar for trips to the store to pick up heavy items. Eat meat only on feast days (e.g. Sunday - modify for your religion), like we used to, and observe a Sabbath (on a day appropriate for your religion). Getting rid of my car saves $300 to $800 dollars a month (depending on how nice a used car I would have gotten to replace it). I have a ready excuse why I can't jump up and drive all over the county on a moments notice. Stop the rushing around. Relax, enjoy your food instead of wolfing it down in a hurry. Eat slowly. Eat less. Fast on a regular basis - if only so you know what it feels like to be hungry. Eat only when you are hungry, not when you are bored, or pressured by friends.

Use our own oil (offshore drilling, Alaska, and/or plant it instead of corn for the cows you aren't eating as much of) instead of buying it from our enemies and carting it over the ocean. Save the oil for the truckers so your fresh veggies won't cost an arm and a leg. The trees will slowly take care of the CO2 if we don't cut them down and pave them over. Whatever you do, don't give control to the government to "fix" things. They will only make it worse. Sufficiently large corporations are indistinguishable from government in their capacity to foul things up.

Take these suggestions slowly so the affected industries have time to adjust.

Hypocrisy

[Seoulstriker]

On the other hand, that show is full of shit.

Using a biased source to purport another source to be biased is pretty hypocritical.

Re:Hypocrisy

[LarsWestergren]

Using a biased source to purport another source to be biased is pretty hypocritical.

Ok, so lets skip the bias question then since we are all biased one way or another, and lets focus on the facts instead. Did you have any specific complaints about Real Climates rebuttal to the GGWS program?

Re:Hypocrisy

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

Even the worst case scenarios aren't exactly that catastrophic, at least not for us in the 1st world, and will be, if anything, just a minor inconvience.

Are you fucking stupid? Have you heard of the Stern report? 20% shrinkage of the world economy a 'minor inconvenience?

That's not even a worst case scenario.

Labeling

[SuperKendall]

Good for you, personally I don't like to label myself, refer to my sig for more info.

"And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd."

But you like to label other people by defining anything you dislike as a "cage", and then throwing others into it arbitrarily based on a catchy song lyric.

Being libertarian is not a label, it is a general approach to analyisis and a certain core set of priorities, one deeper than most song lyrics or bumper stickers. I don't think you can ever apply the word "label" to a system of beliefs wide enough for members within that space to disagree on things (as Libertarians do).

I, too, am a Libertarian - as is most of slashdot really.

Re:Labeling

[Xiph1980]

Please.... Speak for yourself.

I'm far from a libertarian, and I'll probably will never be, and to be honest I seriously doubt your statement that most on slashdot are libertarians.

The problem is

[Sycraft-fu]

That I find that many GW skeptics do the former. That is to say they raise legitimate questions of the empirical data. They question the methods used, such as using computer models to "prove" things (a model doesn't prove anything), the data gathered, the understanding of the system and so on. They bring up extremely valid points. However the response always seems to be the same: They are shouted down. They are called stupid, or industry shills. Their arguments are dismissed out of hand. The existing data/models are presented as being right with little in the way of justification, and so on.

That's the problem. Many people act like they are all about science, and are open to questioning, but then when it happens, the reaction is vicious. Sorry, but you don't get to say "Any questioning of our position proves you are an idiot and thus we don't have to respond." I don't care if you don't like the questions posed, if they are legit then they deserve a legit answer.

From what I've seen, the skeptics do their best to present very well reasoned criticisms and questions of the accepted knowledge. The defenders are the ones that act unscientific and just shout the other side down.

The Intelligent Design thing is often brought up, as an attempt to shut down skeptics. They say "This is just like Intelligent Design and thus shouldn't be listened to!" Only it isn't. Intelligent Design makes a positive claim (that god created creatures as they are now) but the real problem is it makes an untestable one. Might be they are right, but you'll never prove it. Since according to them god is outside of nature that makes god untestable. Well if it's not testable, it's not science, pure and simple. However GW skeptics are just questioning a theory. Also, they aren't saying "No, your theory is wrong because god says so," they say "Your theory is wrong because of these reasons." That's science right there. Doesn't mean that the skeptics are right, but it does mean they are doing science as it is meant to be done.

Real science isn't about making a claim and then trying to shout down anyone who says you are wrong. Real science is about trying to prove yourself wrong. It is about trying to think up every way you can that your theory might be wrong and then testing those. Any alternative you can think of. Only when all those tests fail to prove it wrong, do you believe it is true. It's not a matter of trying to run one test and saying "There, I've proven it true!" and getting mad when people don't agree, it is trying to run as many tests as you can and then saying "There, I've tried every way I can to prove it false, and I just can't." Then if someone has a way you didn't think of, you try that too. You just keep on trying too, you keep working on the theory. No theory should ever be considered proven beyond the need for reinvestigation. All the time new areas of science open up that reveal that a long accepted theory was, in fact, an oversimplification. Doesn't mean it was a bad theory or didn't do a good job describing the facts, just that not everything was understood and now we have a better one.

So to me, it seems like it is the GW proponents putting their fingers in their ears. They don't want to hear any arguments and so any time someone makes one, they pretend like that person didn't and just shout them down.

Re:The problem is

[rlthomps-1]

Sorry your friends are getting shouted down, maybe if they had some data to prove their criticisms, they'd be more likely to be heard?

They question the methods used, such as using computer models to "prove" things (a model doesn't prove anything), the data gathered, the understanding of the system and so on.

We use data models for all sorts of shit, for example, 'proving' that the design of the aircraft you're flying in won't crash and burn on takeoff, or like better understanding the conditions that form tornados and any number of things. Apparently you'll trust your life with data models, but when it comes to global warming, they're suddenly useless. Granted, it's completely valid to examine a particular model and critcise the flaws that is has, but that's not what you're doing, you're implying that categorically, they're not useful in understanding climate data, and that's plain wrong

All the time new areas of science open up that reveal that a long accepted theory was, in fact, an oversimplification. Doesn't mean it was a bad theory or didn't do a good job describing the facts, just that not everything was understood and now we have a better one.

So how close to 100% of all possible knowledge and accuracy of the chemical mechanism of black powder and projectile physics do you need the scientific community to have before you'll duck when someone fires a gun at you?

Re:The problem is

[WhiplashII]

We use data models for all sorts of shit, for example, 'proving' that the design of the aircraft you're flying in won't crash

Interesting that you would say this. Models are indeed used when designing aircraft. But any prediction made by the model is not trusted if the model predicts deviation from normal behaviour - for that, we have to use wind tunnels and models.

That is the problem here. You cannot create a model which predicts a deviation in behaviour and then use that as proof. You use the model to make a prediction, and then you compare the prediction to reality. Then you have proof.

Many aspects of Global Warming have followed this procedure. The "doomsday" projections have not. That is why most people don't argue the existence of Global Warming, they argue the necessity of doing anything about a 1 degree change over a decade...

Re:The problem is

[rlthomps-1]

You can't just say your model is right and everyone who disagrees is wrong.

This is important to point out, because its the sort of thing that gets uptaken and repeated by people trying to paint themselves as intellectual victims: Nowhere did I say or imply that anyone who disagrees with a model is wrong. In fact, I said it's perfectly valid to criticize a model. I probably picked a bad example, but the fact is, we use models in all sorts of applications to predict behavior, and that to say that "models are only useful in fields not named climate prediction" as the great-grand parent implies is wrong.

Food for thought: We continue to test models when they show everything is all right (such as in aircraft design), when things go wrong in the model, we modify the design of the air craft. Climate change models are predicting a crash, and our reaction is the fiddle with the model. Difference? Our presumtion in air craft design is that things will probably go wrong. Our presumption in climate change is that everything will probably be all right. Is that an assuption that we really want to keep?

Re:The problem is

[Shotgun]

We use data models for all sorts of shit, for example, 'proving' that the design of the aircraft you're flying in won't crash and burn on takeoff

Nice try, but no. You are utterly and completely wrong.

The data model is used to 'prove' that a model is worth creating. The model test data is used to 'prove' that the plane won't crash and burn. I may use a computer code to simulate a new design that I'm thinking about building, but anything I could ever consider building in my garage will be very close to models that are already flying. NASA would do several scale models in extensive wind tunnel testing if they were pushing the edge of the envelope. I'm building a very unusual configuration, and it was 'proved' by a half scale model mounted on top of a station wagon with a gimbal and remote controlled with a cable.

http://ernest.isa-geek.org/

There is not wind tunnel or small scale model for global warming. All the data models are just guesses and always will be until we have a planet that we can manipulate at will. That's not to say that the guesses from the data modelers aren't better than the ones I would come up with. It's just to say that their models aren't 'proof' of any kind.

monitored on the Sun since 1610

[bl8n8r]

"Sunspots have been monitored on the Sun since 1610, shortly after the invention of the telescope."

Which were soon follwed by cries of "GAAAHHH!!! I'm blind!!!"

Environmental doomsday predictions..

[Savage-Rabbit]

"By the way, rather than insulting me, have you been able to come up with a single environmental doomsday prediction that has come true?" The fact that I never claimed I could is probably as meaningless to you as any other fact that does not fit your dogma. I'm not saying that logic has anything to do with your rant, but it would seem a tad nonsensical to ask someone to point to a doomsday prediction that has already come to pass. Some doomsday highlights of the last 500 million years, courtesy of Wikipedia:

1. The Cambrian-Ordovician extinction events.
   
2. The Ordovician-Silurian extinction events.
   
3. The Late Devonian extinctions.
   
4. The Permian-Triassic extinction event.
   
5. The Triassic-Jurassic extinction event.
   
6. The Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event.
   

None of these environmental doomsday events were predicted for obvious reasons but at least they go to show that environmental doomsday events are survivable if you are fit enough. As for future prospects for prediction, so far we haven't done well have we? We were already in the several thousand years into the ongoing Holocene extinction event before we even figured out it was happening but at least we have managed to figure out since then that this time around we are a major contributing factor to the extinctions.

Fitness

[mdsolar]

Some aspects of being fit to survive extinction events seem to be being low on the food chain and being either aquatic of land-based depending on the circumstances. To me, fitness arguments are really about the competition between species. Those that are better adapted to their niche tend to do better, over time than those in a similar niche that are less well adapted. Erasing many niches over a timescale shorter than the adaptation timescale is not really about fitness.
--
Adapt to 11 billion people before they are here: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

Reason magazine

[misanthrope101]

"Skepticism" over global warming has more to do with dispensationalism and postmillenarianism than it does with a dedication to libertarian principles of the free market. Partly, of course, the Republicans are repudiating environmentalism because the liberals got there first, but the hold the Raputure-waiters have over the party is more to blame. The book Kingdom Coming discusses this link quite nicely. If the Rapture is coming any second, why worry about the future of the Earth? Plus, Christian Dominionism holds that Christians (or at least Dominionists) rightfully hold dominion over the Earth (and the rest of us), so they have every right to exploit it however much they want.

This is also the subset of evangelicals who repudiate evolution, the age of the earth, and pretty much empirical, factual reality itself. They dismiss the findings of science as "materialism" and they hold that the conclusions they derive from their interpretation of the Bible (which they don't think is interpretation, even though it changes over the decades) have more value and authenticity than the findings of conventional science.

Reason magazine speaks to a different part of the Republican party. The libertarian-leaning Ron Paul faction has little in common with the Christian Dominionist faction, other than that they are both trying to steer the party towards their own political philosophy.

I know I've already linked to it, but please read Kingdom Coming. It may not be a perfect book, but it clarifies a lot of nagging issues that you see in the news. It's fascinating, and of course a bit frightening, to read that a sizeable number of people in the USA live by not just different beliefs, but by a different epistemology altogether. There is no common ground between them, and, well, Reason.

And before the "You hate all Christians! How sad." posters jump on me, don't. Just don't. I didn't say that, you know I didn't say that, and you can read my post to see that I didn't say that. Christian Dominionism exists, they (like Rushdoony) have written books, given speeches, and so on, and we can easily find out about them and their beliefs. They reject pluralistic society, reject science, and reject rationality. All while enjoying the fruits of pluralistic society and the scientific method. They don't represent all Christians, and I never said they did. Even the book I've linked repeatedly points out that they don't typify all Christians, or even all evangelicals. But they are quite prominent, and in fact finance the Creationist movement, the abstinence-only movement, and so on. So a lot of people who wouldn't agree with Rushdoony's more draconian ideas are still on board with them, meaning they have influence beyond their ostensible numbers.

Your Single Environmental... Prediction

[EgoWumpus]

Mercury poisoning.

I am constantly surprised at people who claim others are insane for worrying about environmental damage until something actually happens. How many ever doomsayers and shrieking drama queens the environmental movement attracts, you have to concede that human damage to the environment can have severe - and as in the example above, lethal - consequences to humans. It is not unreasonable to look at the possible sources for catastrophic events and eliminate them before those events occur.

For that matter, we see it as perfectly reasonable to do this in regards to terrorism; we curtail rights, increase security, reduce freedom of movement and increase privacy-invading scrutiny of citizens. We do this because "otherwise people might die". Why should the environmental issue be *any* different?

So do I

[SuperKendall]

I am a Libertarian, but a realist, and I'll vote for whoever I like - in the past that has included Republicans, Democrats, Greens and Libertarians. Being a Libertarian does not mean you vote for a party line; you cannot, it should instead help you examine candidates from all parties.

It's self-evident.

[Socguy]

Why does spreading democracy require a global democratic body? Because there are some problems that which require global attention, hence a global body to make decisions. What would the point of making each nation democratic if we allow a large multinational body to be autocratic?