Study Says Cosmic Rays Do Not Explain Global Warming

flock2000 writes "A new study conducted by Norweigan researchers finds (again) that changes in cosmic rays most likely do not contribute to climate change. Previously, other researchers have claimed to have found a link between cosmic rays and surface temperatures."

Comments

Common Sense

[COMON$]

Everyone knows global warming is caused by His Noodliness hugging the earth even closer.

Re:Common Sense

[jellomizer]

But there has recently been a rise in piracy.

Re:Common Sense

[LandDolphin]

And it's felt pretty cold this week

Re:Common Sense

[wclacy]

I wish Global warming was more than just a fairy tale. I am sick and tired of shoveling snow. Last winter was the coldest winter in a long time. This winter is looking about the same. We have had about 2 feet of snow in the last 3 days.

Re:Common Sense

[C0vardeAn0nim0]

and this year was the coldest on over a decade, or so i heard.

coincidence ?

Re:Common Sense

[bunratty]

There will still be cold winters and warm summers no matter whether the mean global temperature is rising or falling. The variation from year to year swamps the slow, gradual rise in temperatures.

Think of the stock market. After one or two days of going up, we don't suddenly say the bear market is over. Once again, it's long-term change we're looking for, and you're noticing short-term change.

Re:Common Sense

[wclacy]

It has been said that the Global temperature rising by 1-2 degrees? Average temperatures vary by more than that every year. Also 50 years ago without Digital thermometers the measurements could have been off by 1-2 degrees.

It is also a proven fact that temperatures are warmer within cities than outside of cities. They may try to take that into account when figuring out Global temperatures, but a Corn field from 50 years ago will be warmer now that it is paved and full of buildings. Remove the data from larger cities and your global warming becomes more of a regional warming. While other regions are getting cooler.

And how exactly is it that the ice caps are going to completely melt with a 1-2 degree change in temperature? If the temperature moves from -89 to -87 nothing is going to melt.

If all the glaciers are melting where is the rise in sea levels?

When the winters and summers are extra warm everyone blames Global warming. Why when it is extra cold can we not discount global warming?

Weather patterns are cyclical it will get warmer and it will get cooler. I would prefer warmer vs cooler.

Re:Common Sense

[bunratty]

Most of your post sounds like a nonsensical rant. You do have one question that I can answer. You're asking why the sea levels are not rising, even though the glaciers are melting. Sea levels are rising, around 1.7 mm per year for the past century. This rise is due to both melting glaciers and the expansion of oceans as they warm. Sea levels may rise about another meter during this century. One meter may not sound like much, but that amount of rise could flood many urban coastal areas.

Re:Common Sense

[bunratty]

So, therefore, a rise in carbon dioxide cannot cause a temperature rise? Sounds like a non sequitur to me.

It seems to me that whatever happened in the past, if we dramatically increase the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, it will cause temperatures in increase, because carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. That's simple enough to follow, isn't it?

Re:Common Sense

[Tony Hoyle]

Melting glaciers won't cause a sea level rise unless they're sitting on land.. think archimedes.

Re:Common Sense

[bunratty]

Yes, of course. But do you know of any glaciers in the ocean? I can't think of any.

Re:Common Sense

[wclacy]

So if the sea has been rising by 1.7 mm for the last 100 years, How does that coincide with global warming theory. Could this be explained by anything else? Underwater volcanic activity? Deposits from Rivers? etc.

Re:Common Sense

[sheepofblue]

Yes they MAY rise if you extrapolate the data and nothing else. But if you think extrapolation is accurate then the drop in average temperature in '08 means the ice age is just around the corner.

Global warming or climate change (the new term to GYA) is based on models that lack MAJOR features like cloud cover. Use no new data from 1950 on an predict 2008.... the model won't. Read Reverend Al's book and find all the predictions past their time that have already failed. Yet keep believing because the facts will burst your little paranoid world.

Re:Common Sense

[crmarvin42]

it indicates that the connection between CO2 and Global average temperature may be correlational and not causational. Effect does not, under normal circumstances, preceed cause.

I don't pretend to know the Truth about global warming, but I am damn sure that most of the people claiming they do, are talking out of their collective asses.

We have not been directly recording global temperatures for long enough to draw any conclusions about global cycles that extend into the centuries and millennia. Hence the use of indirect measurements such as polar ice cores and other approaches. The problem is that indicrect measures are not as accurrate as direct measures, and are all dependent upon the validity of the models they are based on.

All models are wrong, but some are useful. That's the first think I learned in my statistics courses when we discussed modeling. All the evidence I've seen shows that the models that have been developed to explain our direct measurements of the environment have very poor predictive value when trying to predict wheather paterns we've already seen, and yet the acolytes of the Holy Church of Human Caused Global Warming (now climate change because global temperatures haven't changed in the last couple of years) seem to simply ignore this.

Is global climate change a concern? YES!
Has it been shown that it is definitely happening? Not in my opinion!
Is it the fault of humanity? Quite frankly, we can't know becuase the models are so bad!

Re:Common Sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Sort the average global temperatures for any decade and there'll be a hottest and a coldest. But being the coldest year in the hottest decade doesn't mean it's getting colder.

Re:Common Sense

[immcintosh]

The problem is you seem to be avoiding the simple point that global temperatures HAVE been rising. I'm sorry, but it's a recorded fact. The problem is you're setting up the classic straw man this argument alaways suffers from, namely, confusing the fact of a global rise in temperature with the theory of what is causing it or whether it is outside the realm of natural cycle.

All models are wrong, but some are useful.

That quote leaves out the fact that they're also necessary. The models may be bad, but until we get better ones we have to work with the ones we have now.

it indicates that the connection between CO2 and Global average temperature may be correlational and not causational. Effect does not, under normal circumstances, preceed cause.

Actually, the currently scientific thinking is more complex than either side really wants to talk about. Historically, there is very strong evidence to suggest that large changes in Earth's temperature are actually caused by slight changes in its orbit. But, that being said, those changes can't account for the increase in CO2 by themselves. Generally, the thinking goes that the changes in orbit trigger a small initial change, which triggers CO2 buildup and temperature change in a feedback loop. In other words, current understanding of the evidence doesn't provide strong support for either side of this debate. (search around if you want to find evidence supporting this explanation--it's easy to find)

So, I would say you got right, one sorta right, and one dangerously wrong.

Is global climate change a concern? YES!
Has it been shown that it is definitely happening? Indisputably. If you don't like the temperature fact, try the size of the ice cover over the north pole.
Is it the fault of humanity? Conclusively, we can't really say until it's all over of course. Currently accepted science, however, suggests it is.

And a fourth that nobody ever seems to ask:

If it's not the fault of humanity, is it a historically precedented change, or is there some other causal factor we aren't aware of?

Re:Common Sense

[jellomizer]

Think of global warming as moving your Normal Distribution Curve of all weather up 2 or 3 degrees (A shift to the right on the X axes).
Think of the current weather as a point along that curve. You can still get record colds in a period of global warming they are just slightly less probable then they were before. I don't think global warming has moved the chart a full standard deviation yet. So for the most case you can expect cold weather but more often then not the weather will be above the historical average.

Re:Common Sense

[MrHanky]

The link between CO2 and temperature is causational, and this is experimentally proven: it absorbs more infrared light than the dominant gasses in the atmosphere, directly heating it. The earth's climate is of course dependent on many other factors, and the CO2 level in the atmosphere likewise depends on other factors than humans burning fossil fuel, and your sorry attempt at criticism just isn't valid.

Re:Common Sense

[daver00]

That quote leaves out the fact that they're also necessary. The models may be bad, but until we get better ones we have to work with the ones we have now.

But thats a bit of a cop out isn't it? So let me get this straight,we don't have the technology to accurately predict things so we will go with something we know to be horridly inaccurate because we have nothing better. I'm sorry if I'm sounding a bit harsh here but thats just not good enough.

The problem I have now with climate change (I'm a skeptic of the models, as all scientific minded people should be, but I believe in the fluctuations) is there is an elephant in the room that nobody dares discuss. And here it is: The collective world is in no way ever going to come together and cut CO2 emissions to the levels that scientists claim is necessary. I'm not being hopelessly pessimistic here I honestly believe that this is simply a pragmatic and obvious view. The problems governments across the world have is that this is a giant mexican standoff. Nobody is going to give an inch lest they lose competitive advantage over other countries.

Its not good I know and I agree, but given that this is the dismal situation we are in there is a fifth thing that NOBODY wants to talk about: What do we do when it happens. Every imaginable half measure to mitigate CO2 output is being attempted, and yet no plans are being put in place to deal with rising sea levels. No discussion takes place on the necessity to build for stronger storms, to capture more rainfall when it comes. Nobody seems to want to admit that if the scientists are right, we aren't stopping this thing. Not no way so long as the geopolitical situation is as it is. That is a reality that I believe we need to learn to live with. And I'm sorry, but please, prove me wrong.

Re:Common Sense

[UnknowingFool]

It has been said that the Global temperature rising by 1-2 degrees? Average temperatures vary by more than that every year. Also 50 years ago without Digital thermometers the measurements could have been off by 1-2 degrees.

Don't confuse evidence with effect because then you misconstrue science. As a measure of global warming scientists have used qualitative measurements like average temperature as a gauge or baseline. In science you need qualitative arguments. You can't say "the earth is getting warmer" without basing it on something qualitative. The raise in temperature is also not absolute but relative. For example, the average temperature from year to year are being compared to another not to the absolute temperature. What the data shows isn't just that the earth is getting warmer (that has happened before), but that the rate of climate change is much faster than in any previous period in the last several million years.

It is also a proven fact that temperatures are warmer within cities than outside of cities. They may try to take that into account when figuring out Global temperatures, but a Corn field from 50 years ago will be warmer now that it is paved and full of buildings. Remove the data from larger cities and your global warming becomes more of a regional warming. While other regions are getting cooler.

This has nothing to do with the temperature of the earth in general. No one is using a thermometer in cities and averaging them out. What they using are polar snowfall thickness, air pocket analysis, vegetation studies, etc.

And how exactly is it that the ice caps are going to completely melt with a 1-2 degree change in temperature? If the temperature moves from -89 to -87 nothing is going to melt.

Again, temperature is relative and being used for comparison. Temperatures are not absolute. In this vein, a change of few degrees by comparison changed the Sahara a few hundred thousand years ago from a tropical forest into the desert.

If all the glaciers are melting where is the rise in sea levels?

You haven't been paying close attention to NOAA. Or the warnings issued by the EPA. That's just within this government. Italy is concerned about Venice sinking into the sea that they are building sea barriers. They realize however Venice faces both rising sea levels and Venice was built on soft clay.

Weather patterns are cyclical it will get warmer and it will get cooler. I would prefer warmer vs cooler.

As a human you can change the temperature of your indoor surroundings or clothing. Many things in nature are triggered by temperature. Deciduous trees shed leaves and grow them back based on temperature. Some animals mate based on temperature (crocodile gender is determined by the egg nest's temperature). The world is bigger than your personal comfort level.

Re:Common Sense

[TapeCutter]

"and this year was the coldest on over a decade, or so i heard."

Yes coldest since 2000. Spinning the data point in the opposite direction - it was the 10th hottest year on record.

Re:Common Sense

[UnknowingFool]

Precisely. One thing that the climate change deniers keep misconstruing is that the earth has always gone in climate cycles so therefore humans are not responsible. Climate change advocates have always said that the rate of change we have seen is faster than any period in the history of the earth and it started right around the Industrial Revolution. A coincidence too large to ignore.

Re:Common Sense

[alexibu]

Correlational models have long been dismissed as useless.

To get models to work climatatologists have had to use models based on physics.

This is because we have been having other effects on the earth besides pumping out CO2. We have also been emitting fine particles of polution, and sulphate aerosols and ozone effecting chemicals, and chemicals that cause photo chemical smog.

The bad news is that a lot of those other polutions are masking the CO2 -> temperature signal to a large degree. So pure correlational models do not work well.

This is also bad news because arm chair climatologists like yourself will be unable to observe significant changes in their local climate before the net forcing from greenhouse gasses is already a lot worse. The time constants of most of the masking effects are much shorter than the CO2 time constant. So unfortunately when the 'skeptics' react to some really adverse conditions and we stop burning fossil fuels, we will find we have to ride out even worse problems. This is on top of the decade or so lag between CO2 concentration and surface temperature changes.

As vagulely alluded to, pre historical climate change CO2 increases lagged temperature increases. This is not a cause for celebration. In those cases climate change was caused by increased temperature (changes in distance to sun etc). In our case it is caused by increases in CO2. The two are both forcings that cause each other to rise.
This means more CO2 begets more temperature which begets more CO2. This is not a good thing, and certainly not a reason for skeptics to use to say global warming is not dangerous.
There are lots of mechanisms by which temperature makes more CO2e, trees suffering, marshes melting, rotting, methane clathrates.

Re:Common Sense

[dbrutus]

Funny enough, in Alaska glaciers are actually growing right now (http://www.pjstar.com/oped/x420257915/Op-Ed-Look-to-patterns-to-grasp-glacier-growth). That neither proves nor disproves AGW, but the growth of glaciers makes it a bit more important to set out parameters on how much of a pause in global warming do you need before going back to the drawing board. We've currently got a decade's worth of pause with a bit of cooling the last year to two.

Re:Common Sense

[dbrutus]

So how much cooling before you go back to the drawing board? How much of an unexplained pause in global warming before you figure out your current crop of models are useless?

Somehow I don't get very many takers on that question from AGW enthusiasts. I never have.

Re:Common Sense

[dbrutus]

Nice graph in your article. Did you notice that its data stopped at 2004? We're in a local period of warming pause from about 1998 through 2006 and outright cooling for 2007-2008. That's what most of the data's showing. Pointing to articles with old data does not help in discussing more recent data. In 2004, people were saying that a few years pause meant nothing. It's now a decade.

Re:Common Sense

[TapeCutter]

Rather than demanding simplistic answers that fit their politcs, scientists put error bars on things that are uncertain such as clouds. Clouds are not ignored they are simply not well understood, the affect of cosmic rays on clouds is even LESS well understood and like the Hadley center, I fail to see how a lack of an observable trend in cosmic rays results in an observable trend in clouds. Also kind of strange how the climate does not cycle over 11yrs in tune with the cosmic rays from sunspots.

Mis-informative would be a better tag for your post, if the evidence was based soley on extrapolation of tempratures then you might have cause to dissmiss it as speculation. As it stands your post is just another lame political troll using the same tired old arguments that have been debunked to death.

BTW: The phrase "climate change" was coined by SKEPTICS in the early 90's, they pointed out that the term "global warming" implied a certain conclusion - both terms are literally correct.

Re:Common Sense

[CorSci81]

It's because most of the world's population lives very near to the coast, and a great deal of developed coastal land is less than 2m above sea level. Moving that much infrastructure "three feet uphill" would cost a lot compared to the cost of addressing the problem in the first place. It also means places like Manhattan become much more prone to flooding and the effects of storm surges. One meter could be the difference between a strong winter storm being a nuisance versus flooding the subways. Sea level rise is most talked about because it's one of the most tangible effects and one whose economic costs are easiest to calculate. If you can frame global warming as an economic argument many more people who might otherwise say "so what?" start to listen. Convincing them to pony up now to avoid a catastrophic economic cost later is a different matter, given how short sighted some people seem to be. Unfortunately short term greed frequently wins over long term prudence, especially if you don't expect to be around to suffer the consequences of your actions.

Re:Common Sense

[ElectricRook]

The seas have been rising 1.7mm/yr for the last several hundred years. They are up over 3 1/2 meters since the 17th century. Holland still has not flooded, even though they built dykes to dry-out and farm the Zuderzee over 400 years ago. If we can't match 17th century public works with 21 century science and equipment, then we deserve our fate...
Those who follow the rantings of a politically motivated activists seeking social justice need to wise up about what social justice really means.

Re:Common Sense

[wish bot]

We'll give you the benifit of doubt that you are asking serious questions here.

1. People have actually though to measure the effect of solar radiation on the average global temperature. Fluxuations don't make enough difference to account for current trends. Sorry.

2. Yes, in the past our fuel souces have been 'ineffient' (although some of this 'old' technology is actaully pretty damn good). Just because we now have 'efficient' power sources doesn't mean we haven't been using more...much more...of them. You should also have a look at global population growth over the past 1000 years to understand the magnitude of the problem.

3. City air quality has nothing at all to do with CO2 emissions, sorry. Also I think you'd be surprised to find out what you're breathing in. Sure, it might not be sooty and black, but just because you can't see it doesn't mean that it's not there, and not bad for you.

Re:Common Sense

[crmarvin42]

Just because CO2 can increase the temperature inside of a very simplified model under fixed conditions, does not PROVE that the link between CO2 and global temperature is causational. As I said before, All models are wrong but some models are useful. There exists a lot of work to be done between proving that a theorized mechanism is possible and that the mechanism is valid enough to be called a fact.

The burden of proof is on the researchers creating the model and IMO they've only done a small portion of the work necessary and decided to claim victory without finishing.

Re:Common Sense

[alexibu]

I've been hearing since elementary school telling me that by 2000 most of florida's coast would be under water. That lack of predictive accuracy made me a skeptic.

I am not sure about this but the highest informed sea level rise I have seen is about 0.5 m by 2050.

Note that all of the modelled sea level rises do not include 'non linear' effects, simply because we don't know enough to predict them. So there are real possibilities that sea level rise will be much greater if effects like water lubricating glaciers underneath turn out to be significant.

However, that doesn't make them ready for prime time (ie making global policy decisions, shooting our energy infrastructure in the foot, etc.)

I disagree.

There are two possibilities for whether climate change is real or not. Real and Not Real. The largest scientific effort undertaken by humanity to date says that Real inequivical, and is 90% certain to be caused by our carbon emissions.

Note that the IPCC only accepts as fact things that have unanimous support amoung thousands of member scientists.

There are two possibilities for how we might conduct ourselves in the coming years. We fix it or don't fix it.

The cost of fixing it is important but most studies show that it will be some small fraction of economic growth

So that gives us four possible outcomes

Fix it and its not real - not a disaster slowed economic growth, recoverable, skeptics say I told you so

Fix it and its real - not a disaster slowed economic growth, recoverable

Don't fix it and its not real Skeptics proven correct, unaffected economic growth, we fight over the remaining fossil fuels in an increasingly polluted world (by things other than CO2 because it has been proven not to effect climate), before moving to renewables anyway.

Don't fix it and its real Disaster mass extinction , political unrest, starvation.

The choice is easy, unless you are involved in coal or oil, or just have ideological hatred of the thought of rich people having to do anything that might benefit more than just themselves.

Re:Common Sense

[MakotoKamui]

I'll bite, though I doubt this will be read by you, or honestly anyone.

How long until we go back to the drawing board? Who's to say we ever left it? That's the thing of scientific models and the whole thing about a hypothesis - you keep observing, making adjustments to your ideas, testing them some more, wash, rinse, repeat.

The major problem with proving/disproving climate change/global warming is that a) we're inside the running event of the planet, so it's hard to make outside observations, and b) we can't experiment. So yes, we today say "here's what we've been seeing. Here's why we think it's happening, and this is what that would mean for the future". Tomorrow, we'll say "gee, and this is what we actually saw. Let's adjust our thinking, and see what predicitons we can make from that".

Please keep in mind that current scientific theories are not what you hear spouted on TV, and even those are more advanced than what most people have in mind when they talk about climate change and global warming.

Re:Common Sense

[Hellsbells]

There is a real life, complex example of CO2 causing increased temperatures. It is the planet Venus. It has an atmosphere of 97% CO2 and has an average surface temperature considerably hotter than Mercury despite orbiting further from the Sun.

So there is clearly a causational link between CO2 and temperature.

Re:Common Sense

[p!ngu]

Well, what I mean to say is that the "Average Temperature(tm)" or whatever they use is normally distributed (or at the least, we have (almost surely) enough samples that the Central Limit Theorem kicks in, and the difference is arbitrary). Anyway, you calculate the probability, assuming the normal distribution, of this string of cold years. If that probability is in a certain confidence interval (5% or less), you say something is up and the Earth is getting colder. I'm sure everything to do with global warming is really complicated, but this particular calculation is not. All I know of the subject is that the Earth is apparently getting hotter on average, and we need to investigate the cause of that. Really it comes down to: Is it caused (predominately) by humans, or not? If it is, we have to change whatever we're doing that's causing it. If it isn't, we have to investigate ways to deal with it. Either way it'll cost money, but I guess it's like growing up and realizing you'll have to work to live.

Re:Common Sense

[Actually, I do RTFA]

I wish Global warming was more than just a fairy tale. I am sick and tired of shoveling snow. Last winter was the coldest winter in a long time. This winter is looking about the same. We have had about 2 feet of snow in the last 3 days.

Global warming -> Melting polar ice -> New source of fresh water in the ocean -> Golf stream cuts east earlier -> Colder coasts in US North East / Warmer Coasts in Greenland -> People in Northern US suffering colder winters -> People misunderstanding that global warming may cause some areas to get colder -> Your post.

Note, you may not live in the NE US, but I'm sure many places in the world suffer similarly.

More propaganda

[genner]

Nothing but lies from the people making money off cosmic rays.

Oh yeah?

[dk90406]

What about the Human Torch from Fantastic Four. He is causing it all, you know...

Mooo

[Anonymous Coward]

I blame the cows. Farting around the country side doing nuttin' but to make us sweaty and fat.

So?

[Glock27]

It's fine that cosmic rays aren't correlated with cloud formation, however it's clear that cooling is strongly correlated with low sunspot activity.

So, even if this is not the mechanism, it changes very little. We're still in solar minimum, instead of a peak that was originally predicted for 2006. Not surprisingly, the global climate is also in a cooling trend.

Talk about inconvenient...

Re:So?

[Glock27]

"Everybody knows that there is solar variability."

. Everyone, apparently, but the authors of the various global climate models, none of which currently include it.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right, there is no causal link between the giant ball of fire and the temperature on earth.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

What's inconvenient is that despite a global cooling it's still one of the hottest years on record. It's only cool relative to 2000.

Re:So?

[BlackSabbath]

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelii/

To quote from the linked article:
"The model accounts for both the seasonal and diurnal solar cycles in its temperature calculations."

But hey, why let facts get in the way of a complete fabrication?

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you could read, you would notice the words they use are "seasonal and diurnal," which have nothing to do with longer term variations in sunspot activity, like what the parent is referring to.

Re:So?

[mhall119]

Or, to use a car analogy, it's like saying that GM doesn't have a financial problem because their stock was up yesterday.

Re:So?

[ArsonSmith]

We had a WARMING TREND.

Fixed that for you, it's been getting cooler the last 10 years.

Re:So?

[RobRyland]

Sorry Sabbath, but that AC is right. 'Solar Variability' refers to changes in the actual output from the sun and is not related to seasonal and diurnal cycles. consider it a term of art. -Rob

Re:So?

[asynchronous13]

Not surprisingly, the global climate is also in a cooling trend.

Needs citation.
Global Temperature Land Ocean Index? -- Increasing
Global Temperature (meteorological stations)? -- Increasing.
Annual Mean Temperature Change for Three Latitude Bands? -- Slight dip for low latitudes, but mostly increasing
Annual Mean Temperature Change for Hemispheres? -- You guessed, it, increasing.
Global Monthly Mean Surface Temperature Change? -- All positive (thus, increasing)
Annual Mean Temperature Change in the United States? -- Shocking! - also increasing!
Seasonal Mean Temperature Change? -- Don't let the dip fool you, just means it is warming less rapidly

Perhaps you heard that 2008 is the coolest year since 2000? Well that's true. 2008 has the coolest temperatures of the past 8 years. But guess what? It's the 9th warmest year on record (since 1880). I'd wait for a few more data points before claiming a global cooling trend.

Talk about inconvenient...

Indeed.

Re:So?

[bunratty]

You may be referring to the abnormally warm year of 1998, which was caused by a strong El Nino. The fact is that the mean global temperature is continuing to rise, at an increasingly faster pace. This is why the Arctic ice is melting.

Re:So?

[Jerry]

Science isn't making shit up...

Don't think so? GW "data" is laced with examples of manipulation. The most recent is the July 2008 CO2 readings from Mauna Loa. It seems that the folks "maintaining" the Mauna Loa CO2 data has been caught "Hansenizing" it all the way back to 1974 to ELIMINATE a CO2 reversal. The GW folks are all about using "adjusted" data to support their agenda, Thankfully, the military doesn't buy into their schemes and use REAL temperature data in their guidance equations, otherwise their accuracy might falter from being able to hit a 1 sq meter target to missing by a mile. Here is the data showing the CO2 manipulation, from the posting by Dee Norris.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/08/04/mauna-loa-co2-january-to-july-trend-goes-negative-first-time-in-history/

Dee Norris (19:08:01) :

it would seem, contrary to earlier claims that NOAA only adjusted the recent year, that the dataset back to mid-1974 has been adjusted. I will resist using the term Hansenized until I hear back from Dr Tans.

Here is a comparison of the new and old mean values:

Mauna Loa CO2 Adjustments on Aug 4th 2008
# decimal new old
Year Month date mean mean Change
1958 3 1958.208 315.71 315.71 0
1958 4 1958.292 317.45 317.45 0 .... snipped for brevity ... .... check URL for total listing ...
2008 6 2008.458 387.87 387.99 0.12
2008 7 2008.542 385.6 384.93 -0.67

Dee Norris (20:05:35) :

I did a quick plot of the differences between the old and new means.

          http://tinyurl.com/6qb3sg

Other than July 2008, the change seems to radiate out from 1994, each oscillation growing larger as time progresses in either direction.

I look forward to NOAA explaining the justification for this sort of adjustment.

This is just one of many examples of data cooking by GW believers. With their GW as a hammer they see everything else as a nail. Earth warming? Proof of GW! Earth cooling? Proof of GW! Drought? Proof of GW. Unusual rain and floods? Proof of GW.

To the GW Faithful EVERY change "proves" GW. This attitude moves them from the area of science to that of Faith. When you can't falsify your hypothesis then your hypothesis is a Faith.

Re:So?

[crmarvin42]

I keep seeing the year 2000 trotted out as some artificial dividing line. Please don't tell me that all of the global warming data is based on a data set with only 9 data points!

Re:So?

[Samah]

Here is the data showing the CO2 manipulation, from the posting by Dee Norris.

And of course Dee Norris knows this first-hand because his brother Chuck is the real cause for global warming/climate change. Sea levels are actually rising because of all the people Chuck has triple-kicked in.

Re:So?

[dwguenther]

If you read the NOAA data description and papers, you will find that the adjustments are due to carefully documented re-calibrations of the standard gases used as references by the measurement instruments. More importantly, if you look at the difference graph linked in your comment, you will note that the typical correction is 0.2ppm and the largest correct is about 0.7ppm. This is insignificant compared to the 50ppm increase over the last 30 years at Mauna Loa. It begs the question; why are you (and others in this thread) ranting so violently against a simple measurement? What possible benefit could NOAA scientists gain over your lives? The politicization of science here is making no sense...

Re:So?

[Lars T.]

Let me get this straight: you are claiming that because recently the CO2 levels may have gone down, they never were up, so Global Warming is a hoax?

Re:So?

[Wildclaw]

"Places like Manhattan becoming flood prone, grain growing "bread baskets" shifting north, small islands becoming flooded out"

You mean business like usual. Climate changing is nothing new. Some places become less habitable with time, other becomes more habitable.

The people who don't move get stuck in worse conditions while those who move to better places can live better. Of course, there are people who refuse to move because of sentimental reasons but they die eventually. And there are always people who move to bad (often floodable) areas because they simply lack common sense.

But in general it works out nicely over time. Things don't go from livable to unlivable in a day. It takes a long time. And it doesn't matter if some cities gets flooded, because cities have been rebuilt and rebuilt time and time again during our short history. And the changes happens in a timespan that make it manageable.

If you want to live in the same place for your whole life as a general rule don't settle in a place that could be prone to flooding, earthquakes or hurricanes. If you are willing to take the risk, sure go ahead and live in those areas but be prepared to pay the extra premium for it. Coastal properties have always been worth a lot because people like living near water, but they should also be aware that the extra price of the property isn't all they are paying for it. They are also paying with the extra risk that comes from living near water.

As for the "bread basket" comment. Again, some areas become better to grow food in while others get worse. Climate change is far less likely to cause problems here than human stupidity in other areas such as cutting down too many trees and leaving soil exposed. Such changes can cause problems that are difficult to fix.

Re:So?

[dangitman]

To the GW Faithful EVERY change "proves" GW. This attitude moves them from the area of science to that of Faith. When you can't falsify your hypothesis then your hypothesis is a Faith.

Well, I don't know about the "GW Faithful", but for you, every post seems to be a lunatic rant against those who consider heathens for not believing the same as you. You sound very religious about it.

Global Warming Heretics

[bizitch]

Snowing today in Malibu, New Orleans and Vegas

Then of course there are these heretics

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6

"I am a skeptic Global warming has become a new religion." - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

"Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly..As a scientist I remain skeptical." - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called "among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years."

Warming fears are the "worst scientific scandal in the history.When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists." - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

"The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn't listen to others. It doesn't have open minds. I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists," - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

"The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity." - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico

"It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don't buy into anthropogenic global warming." - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

"Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.". Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.

"After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet." - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.

"For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

"Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp.Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact." - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

"Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined." - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.

"Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense.The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning." - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of P

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[FauxPasIII]

Perhaps you can help me with something I genuinely don't understand. Why is it that there is such a passionate movement for wanting more pollution, more shitty water, more shitty air, more shitty soil? Even if you don't agree with the science that shows global warming is manmade, why not work to clean up the environment anyway? I don't understand what motivates you.

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[fracai]

Some real nice attempts at "Argument from Authority" there.

So far it seems that the scientific consensus is that warming is real and likely to be contributed towards by human activity.

My favorite of your quotes is, "Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined."
No real scientist needs to figure out how to do that. They would just say, "Ya know? I looked at the data again, existing and new, and I've changed my evaluation because of the following points: ...". And that's that. Anyone who's afraid to say "I was wrong" isn't a good scientist, or a scientist at all.

All I see in those quotes are buzzwords and alarmist phrasing targeted at grabbing headlines. There may be just as much of that on the other side as well, but you'll need to do better than a list of quotes to convince anyone, or me anyway.

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[Beelzebud]

What are you rambling about? Religion?

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[arizwebfoot]

Okay, if you have 1000 scientists and the bottom 80 percent think global warming is the warm and fuzzy trend and the top 20 percent thinks it's a hoax, you could say there was a scientific consensus of sorts, but it would still be wrong.

Any idiot can follow, but it takes real guts to lead. My favorite quote was:

"It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don't buy into anthropogenic global warming." - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

And in the scientific community, you cannot one day be for something and then the next day be against it without being labeled either wishy-washy or someone who doesn't fact check first (which leads to a serious credibility problem).

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[Strep]

Name this passionate movement. No one said that making "things more shitty" is good. All that's being said is that increased CO2 is not necessarily a bad thing and that CO2 is not a pollutant.

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[Neon Aardvark]

Plants (and therefore most life by weight) don't seem to view C02 as a "shitty pollution". Actual, precisely the opposite.

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[BlackSabbath]

So what?

Half these quotes are nonsense themselves that merely display the non-science related biases of the person speaking (e.g. Delgado Domingos).

What I don't get is what skeptics hope to prove by making quotes like that. Where are the peer-reviewed papers by all these guys? Oh, you mean they are just blowing hot air instead of doing the science? Perhaps they're too lazy, or maybe they are so brilliant that they can see through it all. However this brilliant minority seems to produce very little in the way of concrete science related to THIS subject (climatology) as opposed to the overwhelming, prodigious amount of science produced by the vast majority of climatologists of which a very large proportion has similar conclusions.

Forget the soundbites, show me the science!

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[leereyno]

I really don't understand what motivates you to lie and construct straw man arguments. Is intellectual honesty and integrity so difficult?

A disbelief in anthropogenic planetary warming is not an implied argument for the destruction of the environment.

"Exactly when did you stop beating your wife?"

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[FooGoo]

It's not a passionate movement for more pollution... It's a passionate movement against government social experimentation/intervention under the guise of science. You'll find that most people who support the manmade global warming assumption use it to justify a whole host of government intrusion into our lives from punitive taxation to telling you what kind of car you should drive (hybrid), to what kind of coffee you should drink (organic, fair trade). These are personal social issues and not areas for government mandates.

If I where a scientist I would be very upset that the credibility of my profession was being undermined by people with political agendas. Pretty soon scientists will have the same level of credibility as the 4 out of 5 dentists or recommend Crest.

I believe that there are 3 great professionals that can truly benefit humanity. The statesman, the religious leader, and the scientist. We've already witnessed the decline of the first two so I guess it the scientists turn.

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[FauxPasIII]

> It's not a passionate movement for more pollution... It's a passionate movement against
> government social experimentation/intervention under the guise of science.

I realize that you and the broader movement for denying human-caused global are not pro-pollution, but those are the bedfellows you're lying down with. The net result of your movement is more pollution and more environmental degradation. I just keep hoping that well-intentioned people would be willing to table the academic questions about what's causing global warming until we've achieved the goals I think we mostly agree on; to stop crapping up our planet.

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[danbeck]

Perhaps you can help me with something I genuinely don't understand. Why is it that there is such a passionate movement for wanting more pollution, more shitty water, more shitty air, more shitty soil? Even if you don't agree with the science that shows global warming is manmade, why not work to clean up the environment anyway? I don't understand what motivates you.

Global Warming is nothing more than religious fascism wrapped up in a pretty package of guilt and stranded polar bears. Your idiotic question illustrates this perfectly. In your mind, people who disagree with the shit being passed off as science want dirty water, more pollution and some section of the US to fall off into the ocean.

No one, NO ONE wants "more pollution, more shitty water, more shitty air, more shitty soil". Just because you think the sky is falling and are willing to believe any bullshit story you hear, it doesn't mean we all are going to open our pocketbooks so that people like you can push for more taxes to combat this "problem".

The earth has been cooling for years now and the very idea that any climate change means doom and destruction is a FUCKING joke. For decades now scientists with axes to grind and funding to aquire have been crying that we only have 10 more years to go, or 20 more years to go. In the 60's it was global cooling, in the 90's it was global warning and now that we are in a massive cooling cycle, they've wised up and are now saying *ANY* climate change is bad.

I don't believe it and I don't trust the "scientists" who subscribe to this shit theory. Follow the money and you'll find the real reason people are pushing this. Pollution credits, green companies and carbon offsets are a huge business.

The only warming that is happening are the gasbags who are constantly crying about climate change.

You retards have been promising us an apocalypse for YEARS now. Where is it? Where is the show?

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[Bryansix]

Your post does not correlate with reality. The reality is that is is not career suicide to denounce man made global warming.

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[Terwin]

Perhaps we are just in favor of the climate recovering from the current ice age so that we can move away from a period where for a substantial portion of the planet, plant life largely shuts down for a significant part of the year.

Ask any geologist, we are in an ice age, and you can see this easily because we have ice-caps that do not completely melt every summer.

Perhaps we just want the planet to recover to what it has been for most of it's history: a warmer climate where the amount of energy harvested by the vegetative biomass is sufficient to support a far more abundant animal biomass than could ever get by in this energy-poor environment.

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[ljw1004]

Bjorn Lomberg (author, "the skeptical environmentalist") made this argument:

We have $1 today. We can spend it now to clean up the environment. Or we can invest it now, watch it turn into $50 in a century, and of that use $5 to clean up the environment at that time. It'll be more expensive, naturally, but he thinks that economies grow faster than do environmental burdens.

My instinct is that he's flat out wrong.

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[FooGoo]

Both sides have their crackpots and their extremes lead to undesirable results. But we shouldn't just accept the claims of global warming promoters just because we might like the end result. Flawed science is still flawed even if the result may be something that makes us feel good.

The truth is other than a few isolated cases and in some third world countries the planet is pretty nice. The third world just lacks the will and infrastructure to keep it clean. I've experienced the pollution in India, the smog, in China, and flooding in the Philippines because trash clogs the drainage. These are not global warming problems.

I've seen television campaigns in the Philippines saying that the flooding is cause more powerful storms do to global warming so it's something they can't do anything about. While the truth is if they stopped littering in the streets the drainage wouldn't get clogged and the streets wouldn't be flooded.

These are social/cultural problems. Fixing them will not affect global warming one way or the other but they will improve peoples lives.

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[BlackSabbath]

OK Dr.Itoh, what is the "truth"? Where is YOUR peer-reviewed paper showing some actual research?
Well, maybe you can be forgiven, since you are actually a bio-med engineer (Google it yourself you lazy sods).

By the way, Itoh was a "reviewer" not a "contributor". And just so that you know, the scientists on the IPCC were chosen by their respective governments, so of course, there's no change of bias there...

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[Teresita]

Why is climate change so bad anyway? When has the climate not changed? Do we know what would happen to the genetic diversity of animals if the climate stopped changing? Why is promoting a static climate called a "progressive" (experimentalist) issue and not the ultimate conservative (traditionalist) issue?

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[MaWeiTao]

That's because the Higgs Boson and dark matter has no immediate impact on our lives. But the man-made global warming hysteria campaign can have a real impact on our daily lives.

Hell, it's already bad enough that I can't watch an educational show about nature or the environment without it turning into a propaganda piece about how awful humans are.

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[Neon Aardvark]

Yeah, I did took chemistry courses for the first 2 years of my physics degree, so I know what carbon dioxide is. I also typo-ed "actually" as "actual".

Broadly speaking, I'm skeptical about fragile natural balances, given the continuously changing climate of Earth, stretching as far back as we can measure it.

I'm skeptical that this particular climate is somehow miraculously the best of all, given that it's by mere chance we are alive at this point.

And humanity is the most adaptable of all creatures, living in the frozen tundra, and in the Sahara, and everywhere in between. So I'm not particularly worried.

We need more objective science, and less scare-mongering.

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[crmarvin42]

All kinds of stuff gets dumped in the environment that we could do without.

Questioning the validity of the models used to support the "Humans are the primary cause of global warmig", or even the "global warming is happening" movements, doesn't in any way mean that someone is in favor of environmental pollution. Separate the two in you mind and you'll be able to follow the discussion a lot better

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[crmarvin42]

I can't speak for leereyno, but my skepticism means I'm not sure that there is anything we can do to effect climate change.

If climate change is real, but it isn't driven by human activity, then human activity probably can't be used to counter it. If CO2 emissions are not the cause of global warming, then reducing CO2 emissions will not stop it. Don't you see how important a distinction that is?

It would mean that we are wasting time, money, and resources chasing a red herring, instead of figuring out what we need to do adapt to the environmental conditions that are coming. I don't know that my skepticism is well placed, but the shrill screaming of those on the other side when I ask questions, makes me think I might be right. It also makes me continue to ask questions since the screaming is almost never a helpful answer.

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[superdave80]

I realize that you and the broader movement for denying human-caused global are not pro-pollution, but those are the bedfellows you're lying down with.

So what if there are polluters that want to pollute more? We already have lots of environmental regulations in place to reduce pollution, and those won't go away just because we don't believe in global warming. CO2 is not pollution. What the hell do you think all those plants and trees are surviving on?

The net result of your movement is more pollution and more environmental degradation.

And I could just as easily say that the net result of your movement will be the tanking of the world economy.

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[daver00]

The idea of a scientific consensus concerns me to no end. Science is about proving theories wrong, you can't prove a theory correct you can only demonstrate that a given theory is better than another theory. If everybody agrees then nobody is out trying to prove the current theory wrong, and that is simply not science, its belief.

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[dasunt]

I realize that you and the broader movement for denying human-caused global are not pro-pollution, but those are the bedfellows you're lying down with. The net result of your movement is more pollution and more environmental degradation. I just keep hoping that well-intentioned people would be willing to table the academic questions about what's causing global warming until we've achieved the goals I think we mostly agree on; to stop crapping up our planet.

That's why I'm against people who criticize the war on terror. By pushing for close overview of the government's actions, they are aligning themselves with those who wish to terrorize and hurt others.

Respecting human rights isn't a bad idea, but we need to make everyone safe first and catch the bad guys.

:P

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[buback]

CO2 causes oceanic acidification. If you've ever owned a fish tank, you know how important pH is to keeping fish alive. Shellfish and Coral reefs will dissolve if it get's to acidic. So CO2 IS pollution.

Also, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. At some level, it will have an effect on the climate, either through self-regulating mechanisms like critics claim, or through feedback mechanisms. Either one is unpredictable and scary were they to happen in the short term. So, again, CO2 IS DEFIANTLY pollution.

If you say that C02 at it's current level isn't pollution, you've got an argument we might be able to work with. But at some level, CO2 is a very bad thing.

Re:Say it with me...

[philspear]

Correlation is not causa... wait... huh?

Anyway I think the fortune cookie logic here is, as usual, misapplied.

FTA

This result is in line with most other research in the field. As far as Kristjansson knows, no studies have proved a correlation between reduced cosmic rays and reduced cloud formation.

They're not saying "A happens with B, therefore A causes B." They're saying "A does not happen with B."

I guess the converse is possibly true, that lack of correlation does not indicate lack of causation per se. Didn't read if there was a possibility of a non-correlating causation, or maybe if I did, I don't have enough of a background in atmospheric science to realize it.

Give that duche Al Gore another prize!

[Phizzle]

Solar flares DO effect temperatures, and that has been consistently downplayed by the humanity-loathing environazis in their ongoing duchbaggery crusade for world luddism. But hey, lets not start any religious debates on /.

Every time it snows in Vegas

[Beelzebud]

People who are saying the global climate is changing are given more ammo for their argument, not less.... The fact that you use now yearly snow in Nevada as a jab against Al Gore shows your ignorance, and your bias. The fact that Vegas now sees snow every year actually strengthens the argument about global climate change, not weaken it...

Re:Every time it snows in Vegas

[Beelzebud]

Do you always debate by inserting words into people's mouth first? Not once did I say the entire planet was warming. The term Global Climate Change means just that. Hot areas will cool down (Vegas), and cold areas will warm up (Antarctica). We aren't in a cooling trend, otherwise ice shelves that are tens of thousands of years old wouldn't be melting and dropping into the ocean.

Re:Every time it snows in Vegas

[Captain Splendid]

crypto-marxist pseudo-environmentalists

Unable to defeat freedom and capitalism

ROFLMAO. You're either one hell of a dingbat or just a really shitty troll. Thanks for the laugh!

The ostrich brigade is out in full force today.

[Beelzebud]

Hey if we ignore the problem, maybe it will go away! After all, humans can never be blamed for ANYTHING, right!

Re:The ostrich brigade is out in full force today.

[buback]

OK, The graph you link to has it's last data point at 1950. On the graph, CO2 never gets above 300 ppm going back 400,000 years. Your graph also shows a strong correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature.

This graph has come current data: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
It shows current CO2 levels at 385 ppm and rising.

The implication is that global temperature will see an equivalent rise above the norm of the past 400,000 years.

Your turn; ball's in your court.

What about a big ball of fire in the sky?

[leereyno]

Now maybe it is just me, but doesn't it seem plausible that a huge ball of nuclear fire situated somewhere nearby might be causing changes to the earth's climate?

I don't know what you would call this object, and I don't think there is any evidence that it exists, but if it did exist then slight changes in its energy output would probably result in changes to earth's climate as well.

I know this sounds completely insane. I mean there aren't any such object out there right?

Excuse me why I go put on some sunscreen...

Re:What about a big ball of fire in the sky?

[Chris Burke]

You're a fucking genius. In the entire history of climatology, no scientist has ever considered the possibility that the sun impacts climate. I wonder why that is, but no matter, clearly you are their intellectual superior.

Oh, wait, they've considered that, and solar variation explains at most 30% of the observed temperature change. Guess you aren't a genius after all. Sorry about that!

Re:What about a big ball of fire in the sky?

[bunratty]

Given that the change in global mean temperature is 0.7 degrees Celsius, 30% of that is about 0.2 degrees Celsius. That leaves about 70% or about 0.5 degrees Celsius due to anthropogenic global warming.

Science never proves anything. Science can either refute or support a hypothesis. No one has been able to successfully refute the hypothesis of manmade global warming. On the contrary, there's lots of evidence to support it.

Re:Great question.

[santiagoanders]

Al Gore, is that you?

Realization

[AstrumPreliator]

You know I think if Global Warming is any indication, science is going to get even more politicized in the near future. People will use science, or rather manipulated and partial data and false pretenses which they will call science, to push agendas and line their pockets. Before anyone calls me a shill for whatever organization they hate most and mods me down let me make clear that I'm not pointing at the vast majority of scientists who are doing honest work using the scientific method. I am pointing at both parties who have politicized this issue for their own gain.

The thing that bugs me is that the public at large doesn't the read journals and papers on the latest scientific findings, instead they listen the political figure heads and corporations and news reporters, all of which have an agenda to push. I think what I'm beginning to realize is that science is ultimately going to suffer from this nonsense. I don't think it will matter if the results are peer-reviewed anymore, I think the public won't trust them anyway.

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

Re:Realization

[east coast]

You don't even need to look as far as politics. Just look at some of the moderations around here and you'll see a clear agenda behind some of them. If that can drive us at this level there's no telling where things will go when there is money and real power behind the same kind of thinking that gets totally valid posts modded down as over rated.

Seeing some facts being shot down around here because they're not in line with someone elses way of thinking has made me a cynic about geekdom in general. All of the mouths yammering on about truth via scientific reasoning are completely drowned out by those who feel the need to push their ideas on other regardless of the truth being 6 inches from their faces.

And that is why hell froze over

[alfrin]

Las Vegas gets record snow fall

Re:Say it with me...

[enharmonix]

I guess the converse is possibly true, that lack of correlation does not indicate lack of causation per se.

Actually lack of correlation is logically stronger than actual correlation. I'm going to simplify this a little bit, but it should stand. Let H = "Fewer cosmic rays causes fewer clouds." That's our hypothesis. Let O = "In periods where fewer cosmic rays are present, we would expect to observe fewer clouds." That's our expected observation. The statement H->O (H implies O) is TRUE: it literally states if fewer cosmic rays causes fewer clouds, then when we have a decline in cosmic rays we expect to see fewer clouds. Obviously true.

Now, H->O can be translated to ~H OR O (using ~ for not). They tested and found ~O (there was no reduction in cloud cover), so we get ~H OR FALSE. It should be trivial to see that the only way this statement is TRUE is if H is also FALSE.

(As an aside, notice that when O is true, the value of H doesn't matter. This is why correlation does not equal causation. H might cause O, or something else might cause O. )

Point being H is FALSE: fewer cosmic rays does not result in less cloud cover. The study didn't actually address the global warming aspect of it; they merely disproved the notion that fewer cosmic rays result in fewer clouds.

Re:Cry me a frozen river

[wclacy]

Wow, that story about where snow comes from is almost as far fetched as global warming.

Re:Great question.

[enharmonix]

I strongly recommend Michael Crighton's State of Fear. Well researched, cites sources, and a plain good read on top of everything. It may not change your mind, but it might at least shed some light on why some of us ostriches are not so Chicken Little about temperature fluctuations.

Re:Total Solar Output

[bunratty]

If we've had a cooling trend since 1998, isn't about time someone told the Arctic ice so it can stop melting?

Re:An observation

[bunratty]

Its not the marketing, its the reality that the the Global Warming crowd has painted but that has not come to pass

Given that it will take decades for most of the predictions of global warming to become obvious, I think the conclusion that they haven't come to pass is a bit premature. The most obvious short-term predictions are that global termperatures will rise and the Arctic ice will melt, and they have been. So exactly what predictions do you think were made that have not come to pass?

Bigger problems

[cdrguru]

The bigger problem is that no matter what, "climate change" is a fact of life that we have yet to deal with. It is upon us for whatever reason.

Personally, I do not believe it is all human-caused and therefore cannot be stopped or deterred by any human action. I might be wrong, but it seems an awful lot like someone observing that each morning when they awaken the sun rises and therefore believes that it is their awakening that causes the sun to rise. Somewhat arrogant, perhaps?

The problem is that we have not built things in the last 100 years or so to account for even the possibility that the climate might be variable. Reluctantly we have begun to acknowledge that it might not be a good idea to build fragile structires in the path of hurricanes. We have yet to begin to acknowledge there might be a risk to building certain types of structures in areas frequented by tornados. The thought that sea levels might change is even further from anyone's mind.

The reality is that the climate has been remarkably calm and forgiving for the last 400 years or so. Much further back than we have detailed history of. What was the climate like in 1200 AD? How about 150 AD? 2500 BC? Sorry, but all we can do is guess from some very indistinct records. We have some evidence in ice cores, some historical documents and some biological evidence. As to where the sea levels were 4500 years ago we have no idea. Clearly, there have been changes because we know, for example, that the British Isles were connected to mainland Europe some time in the past.

Humans have been around for perhaps 4.5 million years, in one form or another. The Earth's climate has a history of hundreds of millions of years before that and again, we have only the faintest idea of what it was like.

Assuming the climate is going to be the same tomorrow as it was today is a reasonable expectation. Things do not change on that scale very quickly. However, assuming the climate will be the same in 100 years as it was 100 years ago is provably false over periods of time where we have pretty decent records. George Washington dragged heavy sledges across the frozen Delaware River which is impossible today because the river doesn't freeze.

Trying to terraform the Earth to keep the climate the same way it was before is a pointless and futile exercise. Beliving that humans can control the climate is an arrogant statement that is provably false. The climate is going to change and there is nothing we can do to change that fact. If you build your house at the beachfront, do not be surprised when the water level rises.

Re:Total Solar Output

[bunratty]

Yes, even with global warming some winters will be unusually cold. But if the overall trend is warming, the overall trend will be for Arctic ice and glaciers to melt. And that is exactly what they have been doing.

Re:I thought Slashdot was Atheist?

[ThePeices]

Youre missing one major thing AC...unlike 'God', we have this thing called empirical evidence. The 'Faith' he was talking about is faith that the scientists know what they are talking about...something that *can* be tested and proved/disproved. With religious faith, its simply beleiving something that cannot be proven, simply based upon human wishes, hopes, dreams, tradition, magic and superstition.

*Please* use your brain AC.

Re:Funny That

[TapeCutter]

Funny how climate scientists don't dispute that cosmic rays may have SOME affect on clouds.

Funny how the proponents of the so called "Iris theory" fail to answer the obvious question. ie: There is no observable trend in cosmic rays since we started measuring them, so by what mechanisim does a LACK of trend in cosmic rays cause any trend in cloud cover?

Funny how some people ignore the fact that the role of CO2 in warming the Earth has been demonstrated experimentally time and time again for about a century now.

Actually the last two are sad, not funny.

But carbon emissions have gone up every year

[unassimilatible]

We have more carbon and methane than ever in the atmosphere, yet temps are down? This means there must be another variable in global temperatures than carbon emissions.

So more carbon, yet lower temps. Hmm.

Re:But carbon emissions have gone up every year

[bunratty]

Yes, the other variable is the ever-changing weather. Global warming is a long-term trend in addition to the continuing short-term warming and cooling trends. Winters are cold. Summers are warm. El Nino and La Nina cause temperature variations also. The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not the only cause of changing temperatures, and no one ever said it was.

Global Warming a Hoax

[reidiq]

Global warming is nothing but fabricated lies with a purpose to destroy capitalism. It's pretty freaking cold this year, I blame global warming!