Daily Kos whips up an email campaign against meteorologist who spoke candidly about climate change

Lest readers think I’m the only TV meteorologist to speak my mind on climate issues, there are others, such as Jym Ganahl in Columbus Ohio.

The Daily Kos posted an article here calling for this:

Columbus Weatherman is a Kooky Global Warming Denier

Contact NBC4 and urge them to send weatherman Jym Ganahl to some climate change conferences with peer-reviewed climatologists. Let NBC4 know that they have a responsibility to have expert climatologists on-air to debunk Ganahl’s misinformation and the climate change deniers don’t deserve an opportunity to spread their propaganda:

NBC 4 phone # 614-263-4444

NBC 4 VP/GM Rick Rogala email: rrogala(ATSIGN)wcmh.com

And it was all over this story in a minor weekly newspaper in Columbus, OH., reprinted below. Jym could probably use a little support right now. His email:  jganahl [at] wcmh dot com

From “The Other Paper” MEDIA MORSELS: Ganahl debunks the global warming

Be afraid of the sun, not carbon: Ganahl, seen here with what appears to be some sort of glacier, doesn’t buy the hype
Published: Thursday, February 5, 2009 1:11 PM EST

Just when you thought it was safe to assume that everyone had pretty much accepted climate change and moved on, here comes rogue NBC 4 chief meteorologist Jym Ganahl to blow your freaking mind.

“Just wait 5 or 10 years, and it will be very obvious. They’ll have egg on their faces,” Ganahl said this week of global warming advocates.

The “global warming hoax” is an obvious fallacy, Ganahl said in a YouTube video posted Jan. 23.

In the video, taped at a meet-up of the Ohio Freedom Alliance, Ganahl chats with Dave, the self-proclaimed No. 1 biker talk show host on radio, and—still odder—Robert Wagner, a former candidate for the 15th congressional district.

Although global warming is clearly “a fallacy,” Ganahl told the dudes, “It is remarkable how many people are being led like sheep in the wrong direction.”

Evoking Orwellian mind-control power of the media, Ganahl said it’s remarkable how easy it is to panic the unwashed masses.

Ganahl continued to evangelize offline this week.

Sunspots—and not carbon emissions—are to blame for the slow warming of the globe, Ganahl said. “It has nothing to do with us.”

“When there are sunspots, like freckles on the sun—dark spots—these are like turning on a furnace and the earth warms. When there are no sunspots, it is like the furnace is in standby and the earth cools.

“I have always thought we should celebrate and be thankful we live in a time when it is warmer, not curse it,” Ganahl said. “It allows us to grow food and feed the population—and the warming is slow and we can adapt to it.”

Cold, on the other hand, is to blame for a whole host of worldly disasters, including death of the Aztecs, the Vikings, and who knew?— the bubonic plague.

“Instead of screaming global warming, we should be preaching global cooling,” he said.

But with a new president who apparently buys into the whole carbon emission demonizing scam, Ganahl said, “It’s very scary,” and admittedly “very difficult,” to fight the mob mentality.

“Carbon dioxide is what we, as people, exhale. Enough said. Unless you eliminate people, you have it. It’s food for the plants and trees,” he said.

Our local Al Gore antithesis risked his career on his wild weather heresy—sort of.

Back in 2007, the take-no-prisoners field of meteorology was split over the issue of climate change. Prominent Weather Channel meteorologist Heidi Cullen called for those who deny the so-called truth about global warming to be stripped of their American Meteorological Society credentials.

Ganahl, who just celebrated 30 years at NBC, became the youngest person to be granted the AMS Seal of Approval, by the way, back in 1970.

Cullen’s call has thus far gone unheeded, but it stirred up a mini-schism among TV weather types.

“Meteorologists are among the few people trained in the sciences who are permitted regular access to our living rooms,” Cullen said in a column written for the Weather Channel.

“And in that sense, they owe it to their audience to distinguish between solid, peer-reviewed science and junk political controversy.”

Ganahl says he has kept his anti-global warming propaganda out of your living room, but he is prepared to sell on sunspots, and their relation to warming cycles, if you ever ask.

Asked if he’s worried that he’ll take a hit among the sheep for his climate thinking, he said he’s not concerned.

“Just tell them to wait five or 10 years, and I’ll have history to back me up.”

About these ads

249 thoughts on “Daily Kos whips up an email campaign against meteorologist who spoke candidly about climate change

  1. Whilst fully supporting Jym Ganahl’s general position, I feel his absolute certainty in stating: “Sunspots—and not carbon emissions—are to blame for the slow warming of the globe, Ganahl said. “It has nothing to do with us.”
    “When there are sunspots, like freckles on the sun—dark spots—these are like turning on a furnace and the earth warms.”
    tends to weaken the overall message he is giving.

    I doubt there is such certainty of cause, and am sure I have read Leif Svalgaard here that there is no heat reaching earth from sunspots. In fact my memory is that Leif said sunspots are actually cooler than their surrounds.

    It is your own caution in not making absolute statements ~ unless you have documentation ~ here on Watts Up, Anthony, which gives you your authority, and feel we could all gain by Jym and those like him adopting that caution, too.

    REPLY: I was uncomfortable with that statement also, but it’s not like he went on-air and delivered this. It is an interview, and having been the subject of more than a few myself, I can also say that reporters often jot down notes, and the output doesn’t always match the input. Just look at the caption the reporter used for the photo: “some kind of glacier”, yeah sure. The Kos Kids want to hassle his boss and demand that another view be broadcast, what they miss is that the General Manager can tell them all to go take a hike, because FCC equal time rules don’t apply in this situation at all. – Anthony

  2. I’m on to this guy. I think that this is a carefully prepared plan by Mr. Ganahl to get sent to Hawaii. After all, he’s already in a cold spot where he can spin his sordid stories to good effect and it will do no good to send him further north as that helps him too. “You go, Ganahl.” 8^)

  3. We need more people like Jym Ganahl who are prepared to speak out and get the general public thinking for themselves. Does “general public thinking” count as an oxymoron?

    I have emailed R. Rogola at NBC 4, offering my support for Jym’s views and suggesting a presidential style debate; plus, of course, suggesting they come to your website and see the evedence themselves.

    Keep up the good work.

  4. Hmmm “the climate change deniers don’t deserve an opportunity to spread their propaganda”. But it’s OK for AGW alarmists to spread their propaganda. Orwell rules.

  5. I agree with Ganahl. You don’t have to be a sunspot scientist to use your brain to integrate the vast amount of science that disproves AGW. It will be clear as day soon. Personally I would be happy to bet my house against AGW.

  6. BTW, I sent emails to both men, and I believe the legion of WUWT readers should do the same. It will be good for them to see our numbers.

  7. …with peer-reviewed climatologists…

    Peer-review, contrary to popular belief, is not a quality control system by modern standards. At best it’s a sanity check of the top level document, without any review of the lower level data or any of the standard top level review items.

  8. Again the overall view of the public following like lemmings the main stream media global warming mantra is why are politicians are so supportive of AGW theory afterall they want to be re-elected. This will only change when the MSM starts running a different line on the process. The AGW religion is now out of control, an example of this is the premier of the state of Victoria in Australia stating that we can expect more frequent bushfires due to global warming. At the same time the northern hemisphere is freezing. We need a brave politician to lead the charge against these nutters.

  9. Roger Carr (22:39:21) :

    I think Leif has been saying that the difference of energy output between the solar maxima and minima in sunspots is too small to account for the heating observed in the twentieth century, not that it does not exist.

    I think the spots are cooler than the average sun surface , but the accompanying aura is warmer enough to make the difference be positive.

    There is also the cosmic ray theory which, as far as I am concerned still has to be proven, but it also connects sun magnetic activity ( which is what sunspots are) with albedo and therefore cooling/heating.

  10. He’s wrong about sunspots. Most of the answer lies in local and regional human induced changes and the rest in climate cycles – PDO etc, with probably a contribution from GCRs as well as GHGs.

    Anthony’s surface station project will give some interesting results and doubtless generate considerable blowback (as in hot air) from the AGW crowd.

    And BTW, Orwell was right and the whole AGW machine is very Orwellian.

  11. Heidi Cullen and the like are the very people that vehemently defend freedom of speech. But like most (bad) leftwingers how espouse tolerance, they are only tolerant if you share their views.

  12. Anybody who thinks science is settled is no scientist and should be kicked out of any organization claiming to represent scientists.

  13. Sunspots—and not carbon emissions—are to blame for the slow warming of the globe, Ganahl said. “It has nothing to do with us.”
    “When there are sunspots, like freckles on the sun—dark spots—these are like turning on a furnace and the earth warms. When there are no sunspots, it is like the furnace is in standby and the earth cools.

    And he expects to be taken seriously with drivel like this?!!

  14. I suppose Ganahl is talking about Svensmark’s theory. This period of low solar activity should be a good test of his hypothesis. Does anyone know if the earth is being hit by more muons now that the solar wind is weakening? If so, is low cloud cover increasing? These would be two leading indicators of cooling to come – but I haven’t seen much reporting on them.

    All the Best,

    Hugh

  15. Heidi Cullen’s views are most alarming, and far too prevalent when it comes to the AGW debate. It’s fine for you to express your viewpoint, Heidi, but when Jym and others express an opposing viewpoint, they must be silenced? I don’t like where that is headed at all. We may not have suspected the Spanish Inquisition, but we do see you coming, Heidi.

  16. Hugh (01:46:40) :

    I suppose Ganahl is talking about Svensmark’s theory. This period of low solar activity should be a good test of his hypothesis. Does anyone know if the earth is being hit by more muons now that the solar wind is weakening? If so, is low cloud cover increasing? These would be two leading indicators of cooling to come – but I haven’t seen much reporting on them.

    The Pale articles that measure albedo, shows that albedo follows the temperature trends http://bbso.njit.edu/Research/EarthShine/literature/Palle_etal_2008_JGR.pdf , and http://bbso.njit.edu/Research/EarthShine/literature/Palle_etal_2006_EOS.pdf .

  17. We’ve had one or two AGW advocates pounce on the horrendous bush fires that have hit Victoria in Australia, as evidence of ‘more extreme weather events’ due to global warming. We can still see smoke coming from the hills to the north of where we live. Only two weeks ago we visited a couple of the small towns that are no longer there. Poor people. At least some of the media here is being more objective and remiding us that extreme events are part of nature, and not to forget the human suffering involved.

    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25038325-11949,00.html

  18. Mary Hinge (01:23:31) :
    Sunspots—and not carbon emissions—are to blame for the slow warming of the globe, Ganahl said. “It has nothing to do with us.”
    “When there are sunspots, like freckles on the sun—dark spots—these are like turning on a furnace and the earth warms. When there are no sunspots, it is like the furnace is in standby and the earth cools.

    And he expects to be taken seriously with drivel like this?!!”

    Mary
    And your side of the fence somehow is taken seriously with claims like the arctic ice will melt in five years etc etc.? What’s drivel for the goose is drivel for the gander.

  19. Re the ferocious forest fires in OZ… I believe that these fires are not caused by AGW, but actually by sick and insane people with matches or cigarette lighters deliberately setting fire to the kind of tinderbox dry bush that forms in every Oz heatwave. Yup, Humans are to blame for these fires, but because of insanity with matches, rather than the mass use of SUVs.

  20. I have been a viewer of Jym for 27 years, and a casual acquaintance for almost 20 years. I fully support him and commend his courage for speaking his mind – the dominoes continue to fall……….

  21. I sent the following email to the station (CC to Jym Ganahl): Dear Sir(s),
    With regard to Jym Ganahl’s recent YouTube video posted Jan. 23. in which he talks about the global warming hoax, he needs to be commended for his bravery in standing up to the AGW/CC behemoth in stating the plain truth. I urge you to send him to the upcoming International Conference on Climate Change in New York City March 8-10, 2009 so that he can learn even more about our climate, further enabling him to impart that knowledge to his viewers and to others. Thank you.
    Bruce Cobb
    Climate Realist

    Oh, wait, that’s the “wrong” type of climate change conference. Oops.

  22. Support email sent.
    I find it most alarming that it’s OK for some one like Al Quixote to produce a scare tactics film aimed at children but then to try to silence all other views and opinions on the subject.

  23. Seems there are a lot of people persuaded by one man…I have no doubt the Sun is the driver of our climate. Its not rocket science.

    The Sun has driven our climate on a constant basis as can be seen in the 11000 year 14C graph. There has been a lot of credible work in this area, some science is making a lot of headway.

  24. Roger Carr (22:39:21) :

    [Anthony writing] Just look at the caption the reporter used for the photo: “some kind of glacier”, yeah sure.

    Oh, I thought you wrote that caption. That’s a relief.

    Just a garden-variety cornice. They also form on cliff tops and surprise (fatally) skiers who venture out too far looking to see if it’s a trail.

  25. Just when did the normal practice of scientific debate, theorizing and quantification descend to the semi-religious concept of “deniers” and “believers”. These are sad and dark times for science.

    Jym Ganahl – I will disagree with your arguement on the role of sunspots, but thank you for stepping out and clearly stating your objective view and concerns about where this AGW scam is taking us. Thank you for not feeding at the sheep trough.

  26. I’m not so sure sunspots are the only factor, with so many other items known and unquantifiable that play a roll. Still, I disagree with the idea of muzzling someone because you do not agree with how he preserves climate change.

    This is typical of religion and not science.

    If they spent 1/10th the money and resources of the Global Warming religion on real science, we would likely be controlling the weather world wide by now, and have quantified 99% of the factors that effect weather.

  27. I don’t have time to follow all this in detail but I seem to remember that if you look at correlation alone there is a good one between sunspot activity and temperature change up and down. Much better than CO2 concentration. Am I right? Sorry for being so lazy and not providing a proper argument. If this is true then we should be looking at the sun for answers. There are some cosmic ray theories, aren’t there but not proven.

  28. The Interamerican Development Bank has sent an envoy to latin america to coordinate efforts to study the consequences of “global warming” in the different countries…I´ve just suffered him in a local TV show last night.

  29. “And he expects to be taken seriously with drivel like this?!!”

    Mary- Try looking in a mirror, whilst saying that carbon dioxide is going to cause catastrophic warming.

    It sounds and looks much the same- drivel

  30. This is not about him being right or wrong about sun-spots, but since we all have an opinion we will give it voice just as Jym has.

    The real story here is the effort to remove him from his job ( do not kid yourselves that is the goal here ), not because his beliefs are affecting his performance, but because he has an opinion oppossed to the AGW crowd. ( send him to a climate change conference? Ok, there is a good one in NY in March)

    Take a look at the cover of Newsweek and see where we are heading not only in policy but also in public attitude, there is no room in this new society for free thinnking people speaking out for what they believe is right if it goes against what the Government is saying, and the Government is saying Climate is Real and we are the cause.

    I have never called for anyone’s job, not even Hansen’s, because of his polar opposite views and outspoken ways. It would not be right, even though I feel it does effect his job performance.

    I emailed the GM Rick Rogala and simply told him 2 points
    1) His opinions do not effect his performance.
    2) People in America for the time being have the right to have these opinions and lend voice to them. The same rights the people calling to have him removed are exercising.

  31. Somewhat OT, but in a similar vein, the Alaska Wilderness League is looking for the youth of America (20′s and under) to submit their videos highlighting their concerns for Polar Bears and climate change in general in their “2020 Vision for the Future of America’s Arctic to commemorate the 20th Anniversary of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill”. They exhort young videographers to “Let your creative juices run wild for the wild”.

    Yes indeed. Never mind science, just keep the hype, propaganda, and alarmism alive. While they are at it, they really should be doing something about all this very dangerous dihydrogen monoxide that is everywhere, and which kills thousands every year.

  32. Sunspots are colder than the surroundings, but they are surrounded by bright areas visible in the chromosphere (plages) with bright small features corresponding in the visible (faculae) which overcompensate for that. That’s one of the big problems in solar irradiance reconstructions, there are no measures of plage area for the early solar cycles, and one needs to assume that total sunspot area and plage area and temperature follow the same ration. People assume he is talking about light. Not necessarily, he may be talking about forms of solar activity, and that is indeed linked to the presence of sunspots. The furnace analogy is a poor one, but Al Gore uses worse than that.

  33. I thought this line underneath the picture of the guy standing probably next to some frozen up fountain near an UHI of all rather hilarious:
    Be afraid of the sun, not carbon: Ganahl, seen here with what appears to be some sort of glacier, doesn’t buy the hype

    Now the analytical skill of TV meteorologists has reached a new height.

    Thank you for this chuckle Anthony… a Glacier :D

  34. Sunspots are only a proxy for the sun’s magnetic activity, and Carbon-14 is a proxy for galactic cosmic rays hitting our atmosphere after being moderated by the sun’s magnetic field and solar wind.

    Geochemist Jan Veizer had made a determination of the ocean’s temperatures over the 550 million year Phanerozoic, but it didn’t correlate with CO2 or anything else he knew of and was close to abandoning his line of research when astrophysicist Nir Shaviv noticed that Veizer’s temperatures pretty much matched his research into our solar system’s orbit around the galaxy. Galactic cosmic ray flux correlates well with the great temperature swings, from hot house to snowball Earth. The galactic cosmic ray connection with clouds is a far more plausible explanation for 20th century warming than CO2.

    It was Svensmark’s citation of Shaviv & Veizer (2003) in his Cosmoclimatology article that was my epiphany: when two completely separate physical sciences arrive at the same point, one should take note.

  35. Mary Hinge (01:23:31) :

    And he expects to be taken seriously with drivel like this?!!

    Do you expect to be taken seriously when you offer zero specific counter points? Just name calling, are we Mary? Seriously.

    I’ll certainly be calling and e-mailing my support for Ganahl in hopes that the bully tatics of the AGW crowd are diminished just a tad.

  36. Lower sunspot activity is directly related to lower solar enegry output. According to NASA the solar wind is at a 50 year low that is 13% cooler and 20% less dense. The sun’s underlying magnetic field has weakened by more than 30% since the mid-1990s. How is it possibe that the source of the earth’s heat cannot affect earth’s temperature?

    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/23sep_solarwind.htm

  37. Mary Hinge (01:23:31) :
    “Sunspots—and not carbon emissions—are to blame for the slow warming of the globe, Ganahl said.” [...]
    And he expects to be taken seriously with drivel like this?!!

    The “It’s the Sun, stupid” attitude is just as dogmatic and dangerous as the AGW propagit. While there may be [but not generally accepted - after 400 years of claims] a slight [0.1 degree] solar component in the Earth’s temperature, it is clear that the Sun is not a major climate driver. Proponents have been driven to more and more ‘special pleading’ as hard data have accumulated to cast doubt on the Sun as a major player. First TSI was blamed [e.g. Eddy], then when it turned out that TSI didn’t vary enough, then UV was the cause. Now that UV records [Ca II K-line] back to 1907 have shown no match with the temperature record [Foukal er al, 2009], solar magnetic fields are to blame ['doubling the last 100 years']. When that was shot down [the interplanetary magnetic field is now back to was it was 107 years ago], it is cosmic rays, except that the cosmic ray flux at minima has been rock steady since the 1950s [when our first good data starts]. Also, the cosmic rays were supposed to influence the albedo, except that albedo the last 20 years has not varied with the cosmic rays [or solar activity]. The solar wind is said to have weakened [it has not] and its pressure on the atmosphere is less [amounts to a Big Mac w/Fries hitting us every second]. And so on and on. The ultimate argument is that there may be unknown solar causes not yet discovered that drives the climate. This is not science anymore than AGW is. But as for AGW and astrology, it is hopeless to argue as the limitless, self-deceptive ignorance cannot be penetrated by reason, and the whole thing is politics anyway. This is sad.

  38. Lower sunspot activity is directly related to lower solar energy output. According to NASA the solar wind is at a 50 year low that is 13% cooler and 20% less dense. The sun’s underlying magnetic field has weakened by more than 30% since the mid-1990s. How is it possible that the source of the earth’s heat cannot affect earth’s temperature?

    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/23sep_solarwind.htm

    (sorry about the spelling)

  39. Ken Hall (03:09:40) :

    Re the ferocious forest fires in OZ… I believe that these fires are not caused by AGW, but actually by sick and insane people with matches or cigarette lighters deliberately setting fire to the kind of tinderbox dry bush that forms in every Oz heatwave. Yup, Humans are to blame for these fires, but because of insanity with matches, rather than the mass use of SUVs.

    Don’t forget the ‘environmentalists’ who oppose cutting away the dead wood. Those people are causing mismanagement of forests.

    Nature’s way of cleaning up is through wildfires. So which is better – controlled burning, controlled cutting and thinning or out of control fires?

    BTW: I realize these fires may have been deliberately set, but they certainly weren’t done in order to better manage the forests!

  40. “How is it possible that the source of the earth’s heat cannot affect earth’s temperature?”

    It is not. Legacies built too close to the lapping surf demand homage before melting away.

  41. As someone with a simple engineer’s brain, I was told to look upon the sunspots on the sun as an indicator of activity level, rather like a pot of boiling water, the bubbles furiously appearing suggest frantic activity within the body of water caused by heat. Remove the heat & the bubbles die away, although whilst cooling the occasional small bubble still appears! This was explained to me by scientist I worked with at Rutherford Laboratory many years ago, although I hasten to add there was no discussion about Global Warming as it didn’t really exist back then in 1982 as it hadn’t been invented. Surely the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence? I thus expect to see reports in the not too distant future that the Martian icecap is growing, & that other planets/moons previously identified as warming, are cooling. It will be interesting to see what happens.

    In light of recent weather events I believe the Met Office should be taken to task over its failure to “predict”, “project”, or even “forecast” the extreme weather we have endured of late & may well still do. They consume vast amounts of taxpayers’ money & the whole idea of greater investment super computers was to improve the long-term weather forecasting. It appears that the long-term forecast is A, & in the short term lots of B keeps happening!

    On the propaganda issue, the sober thinking environmentalists, i.e. those who probably won’t resort to violence & direct action of any kind, need to be offered a way out of their predicament without the huge loss of face that would ensue if not, that would simply make them more resistant to common sense thought processes & drag the whole thing out for longer. Some people will not be able to stand the humiliation.

  42. Leif: Off topic. Hopefully you’ll come back and take a look at this thread.

    I’ve been trying to identify how the Pacific Warm Pool “recharges” so quickly after an El Nino event. Pavlakis et al in “ENSO Surface Shortwave Radiation Forcing over the Tropical Pacific” identified a correlation between NINO3.4 SST anomalies and Downward Shortwave Radiation over the Pacific Warm Pool due to the significant decrease in cloud amount. Their paper is here:

    http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/8/6697/2008/acpd-8-6697-2008-print.pdf

    Their comparative graph of the NINO3.4 SST anomalies and the west Pacific region they studied (fundamentally a portion of the Pacific Warm Pool) is here:

    During the 97/98 El Nino the downward shortwave anomaly peaked around 20 watts/meter^2.

    My post on it is here:

    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/02/recharging-pacific-warm-pool-part-2.html

    Solar climate sensitivity presently stands at 1 watt/meter^2 change equals a global temperature response of 0.1 deg C.

    My question, is there a similar simple ratio that could be applied to downward shortwave radiation anomaly and SST anomaly, so that I can approximate the SST increase in the Pacific Warm Pool during that period of the 97/98 El Nino?

  43. anna v (02:34:37) :
    The Palle articles that measure albedo, shows that albedo follows the temperature trends
    which, however, does not follow the cosmic ray [or sunspot] variation.

    Filipe (07:51:27) :
    That’s one of the big problems in solar irradiance reconstructions, there are no measures of plage area for the early solar cycles, and one needs to assume that total sunspot area and plage area and temperature follow the same ratio.
    There are reliable plage area determinations back to 1907 and they follow the sunspot areas very closely.

  44. nobwainer (Geoff Sharp) (05:34:15) :
    I have no doubt the Sun is the driver of our climate. [...] some science is making a lot of headway.
    realitycheck (06:05:38) :
    These are sad and dark times for science.

    Indeed.

  45. Filipe (07:51:27) :
    i>That’s one of the big problems in solar irradiance reconstructions, there are no measures of plage area for the early solar cycles

    A Century of Solar Ca K Measurements and Their Implications for Solar UV Driving of Climate
    P.Foukal, L.Bertello, W.Livingston, A.Pevtsov, J.Singh, A.Tlatov, R.Ulrich

    Abstract
    Spectroheliograms and disc – integrated flux monitoring in the strong resonance line of Ca II ( K- line) provide the longest record of chromospheric magnetic plages. We compare recent reductions of the Ca K spectroheliograms obtained since 1907 at the Kodaikanal, Mt Wilson, and U.S. National Solar Observatories. Certain differences between the individual plage indices require further investigation. Our main finding, however, is that the indices show remarkably consistent behavior on the multi- decadal time scales of greatest interest to global warming studies. The reconstruction of solar ultraviolet flux variation from these indices differs significantly from the 20th century global temperature record. This difference is consistent with other findings that, while solar UV irradiance variation may affect climate through influence on precipitation and storm tracks, its signature in global temperature remains elusive.

  46. At Leif Svalgaard

    Yesterday saw the, to me, most outlandish paper abstract to date. Solar winds setting off ENSO events. What would you think of that? Earth knowing them 5 months and more in advance? Mind you the authors themselves put a big if in there, posting a plot to go with it showing some very vague alignment.

  47. Bob Tisdale (08:52:37) :
    My question, is there a similar simple ratio that could be applied to downward shortwave radiation anomaly and SST anomaly, so that I can approximate the SST increase in the Pacific Warm Pool during that period of the 97/98 El Nino?
    If I read the Pavlakis paper you cite correctly, they find that 7 months before El Nino, the clouds have cleared and more sunlight reaches the applicable equatorial region, leading to several degrees heating. I’m not sure [don't know - but wouldn't think so] that the global ratio applies locally to that region.

  48. Sekerob (09:27:59) :
    Earth knowing them 5 months and more in advance? Mind you the authors themselves put a big if in there, posting a plot to go with it showing some very vague alignment.
    If the faith is strong, some people will believe anything. I think my little calculation that shows that the solar wind throws a mass equal to a BigMac w/Fries every second at the Earth might be appropriate here for a sense of perspective.

  49. It never ceases to amaze me that the AGW Alarmists believe they have a Divine Right to the truth on this subject and label everyone else as ‘Deniers’.

    Yet their arguments are based upon flaky science which claims to support their projections. However, projections and their allies, predictions, simply support theories and they remain theories until science proves them as factual (OR NOT).

    At the same time, they point derisive fingers at those who argue against them and try to rubbish the scientific facts which have proved the cyclical nature of natural climate change over millions of years!

    If the two arguments were tested in a court of law, where ONLY facts are permitted in evidence, the AGW arguments would be thrown out.

    So, who are the true ‘Deniers’?

  50. While I know that the Energy from the sun is not the only factor in the earth’s climate it is still a factor and probably the major factor. Without the sun there would be no climate change as the earth would be a frozen rock in space. To say that it is not or that it is negligible seems incredible.

    From what I have read I also believe that the earth’s orbit, earth’s tilt and wobble, water vapor, methane, ocean currents, plate tectonics, elevation of land masses, chemical weathering, meteorites, volcanoes, vegetation, albedo, and cosmic rays – all are climate drivers, with varying degrees of impact at different times in earth’s history.

    I read recently that the percentage of carbon 14 in the earth’s atmosphere changes with solar activity levels. Is there any way to use this information to get a history of solar activity, or am I mistaken?

  51. “I doubt there is such certainty of cause, and am sure I have read Leif Svalgaard here that there is no heat reaching earth from sunspots. In fact my memory is that Leif said sunspots are actually cooler than their surrounds”

    At the risk of being overly pendantic, the Solar OUTPUT is NOT the question.

    It is the complex connection between Solar wind, shielding of cosmic rays hitting the stratosphere and the formation of Cirrus clouds, finally the cascade all the way down to stratus clouds. This cause cycling change in the overall albedo because of reflection from the clouds, which has the Sun controlling the overall ENERGY INPUT and OUTPUT from the Earth. (Temperature is SUCH a canard, drives me nuts.)

    If we can clear this up, and point out that those who have this “confusion” about the mechanism, and think the “Sun Controls” people are saying the SOLAR OUTPUT controls, we have gotten somewhere.

    Alas, it seems there is some great confusion on this matter.

    I may add, that on both sides of the issue, using the O18/016 ratio in stalagtites/mites or ice cores as a proxy for “Global Temperature” has me CLIMBING THE WALLS! It is NOT, repeat NOT a proxy for Global Temperature.

    It is ONLY a record of the number of thunderstorms in costal areas. (Geologists and Oceanographers have been using these ratios to trace certain ocean currents for some numbers of years.) It is perhaps a proxy for input/output numbers on atmospheric energy (as a total, integrated). Darn, there I go again, overly technical.

    M.H.

  52. Thanks M.H. for saving me the time and cycberspace. btw, stratosphereic warming, loosening Artic cold fronts on the lower latitudes (-50 new all time record low confirmed in Maine… ?) are also a consequence of the higher cosmic ray incidence caused by the lower solar flux/wind and lack of Sunspots)

    The funny thing about Jym Ganahl’s myopic view is that (it would appear) that for the next 3 solar cycles, Jym will ‘prove’ to be prescient, shessh ;)) Then, of course, the higher CO2 levels will themselves prove to be forcing and delay the next ice age some, while enhancing harvests ;))

  53. I suspect he is wrong on the sunspots, but unlike AGW followers he isn’t trying to get anyone who disagrees fired or worse.

  54. Mark Hugoson (10:05:38) :
    It is the complex connection between Solar wind, shielding of cosmic rays hitting the stratosphere and the formation of Cirrus clouds, finally the cascade all the way down to stratus clouds. This cause cycling change in the overall albedo because of reflection from the clouds, which has the Sun controlling the overall ENERGY INPUT and OUTPUT from the Earth. (Temperature is SUCH a canard, drives me nuts.)

    If this was happening, the albedo should vary with the cosmic ray flux. The problem is that it does not.

  55. Re the Oz fire comments

    Same conditions as caused the big fires here in So. Calif. The logging companies were kicked out long ago, forest/brush is allowed to grow unrestricted, a period of drought ensues (periodic and normal for the area), Santa Ana winds occur, and an arsonist or careless person lights a match. Poof, soot.

    Then we spend a 150 million of taxpayer’s money clearing brush and paying the lumber companies to haul off the dead trees to Utah (no lumber company in their right mind would set up a mill in CA). However, the brush grows back in a year or two max, and we’re right back where we started from. Sheer idiocy in the name of environmentalism.

    Oh, I forgot. We blame the fires on Global Warming!

  56. Leif Svalgaard,

    The problem with the deniers of solar influence is they keep looking for solar scimitars when it’s solar scalpels that are influencing the balance of the climate.

    No, there hadn’t been much increase in the sun’s magnetic field since the 50′s, but Dr. Solanki’s work showed that the sun’s high energy started before the 50′s, bringing it to a level that was unequalled for the the past 8000 years, and not exceeded since about 11,000 years ago. Solanki is (or at least was and I assume still is) an AGW proponent, so he wasn’t trying to prove the GCR point at all. World temperatures are cumulative and slow moving and it takes time to reach a new equilibrium.

    And, over the past 50 years, one British study (again, cited in the Svensmark Cosmoclimatology paper) reviewing weather and neutron flux records found about a 17% higher chance of overcast clouds on high cosmic ray days than on low. High energy neutron flux, being without charge, is not a proxy for solar magnetism but would seem to be a weak proxy for solar wind and the existence of GCR.

    Only time will tell if the recent relative crash of solar magnetic energy will have the effect of making winters colder. Or has already made this one colder.

  57. Seems the sun deniers are lost in CO2 gas or something.
    There’s nothing political about the sun behaving in cycles. There’s nothing political about the Maunder Minimum nor the Dalton Minimum. And I doubt there’s anything political about multiturdes of scientists, risking backlash from the establishment, believing the sun is a major climate driver. How can anyone be so clueless as to deny the sun’s role in climate? The solar correlation is there.

    Surely Ganahl may have poorly formulated the sun’s role, giving the impression that sunspots directly drive climate change. I think he meant to say that the sun’s behaviour drives climate change (sunspots are only evidence of solar change). It’s eventually going to play out, and all the namecalling in the world is not going to change the facts.

  58. The politics is on the AGW warmists side. They’re the ones who call out the lynch mobs and resort to the name-calling.

  59. “forest/brush is allowed to grow unrestricted, a period of drought ensues (periodic and normal for the area), …winds occur, and an arsonist or careless person lights a match. Poof, soot. ”

    Speaking of unintended consequence: Where’s Flanagan? Hope nothing improvident has befallen the layabout.

  60. Dishman (00:13:30) :

    …with peer-reviewed climatologists…

    Peer-review, contrary to popular belief, is not a quality control system by modern standards. At best it’s a sanity check of the top level document, without any review of the lower level data or any of the standard top level review items.

    Not only as you point out, but some anonymous peer reviewers are anything but impartial in their reviews. I have read reviews which include ad hominem attacks as well as (apparently) politically inspired comments.

    I suspect that if the reviewer were not anonymous and had to put his/her name to the review, he/she might tend to be a bit more careful and impartial.

  61. So the Daily Kos is now the arbiter of the 1st Amendment?

    Ganahl’s misinformation and the climate change deniers don’t deserve an opportunity to spread their propaganda:

    Really disgusting, regardless of whether Ganahl’s message is “right” or not.

    Regardless of what Cullen says, I have NEVER heard a TV meteorologist say anything against AGW on-air. What they say on their own time is their own business. You can disagree with it, and make your own public statement about it, but denying them their right to say it is unconstitutional.

  62. Not entirely sold on the ‘it’s all sunspot driven’ postulation either, that’s as bad as the CO2 AGW Alarmists. From what I can make out, 1934, the ‘hottest year on record’ was the year after a solar minimum for sunspots with a monthly mean for 1934 of 8.7.
    Source: http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/greenwch/spot_num.txt

    Yesterday was sleet and snow showers on our part of Vancouver Island, today, bright sunshine; spaceweather.com and SOHO show the sun as spotless as ever. Methinks weather and climate is a bit more complex than TV meteorologists make out. Nice to see alternative views getting media coverage though. Just goes to show that the debate is never over.

  63. Greg Goodknight (11:20:27) :
    No, there hadn’t been much increase in the sun’s magnetic field since the 50’s, but Dr. Solanki’s work showed that the sun’s high energy started before the 50’s, bringing it to a level that was unequalled for the past 8000 years, and not exceeded since about 11,000 years ago.

    There is good evidence that solar activity [magnetic field] was no higher in the 20th century than in the 19th, and that solar activity at the end of the 18th was even higher than at the ‘all-time] high in 1958. This evidence has been discussed numerous times in this blog. See for example page 7 of http://www.leif.org/research/Napa%20Solar%20Cycle%2024.pdf

  64. Leif Svalgaard

    Please forgive me but you will no doubt have addressed this before:

    Do you accept that there is a correlation between the length of the short term (Schwabe) cycle and temperatures on earth?

  65. Alan the Brit (08:48:44) :
    On the propaganda issue, the sober thinking environmentalists, i.e. those who probably won’t resort to violence & direct action of any kind, need to be offered a way out of their predicament without the huge loss of face that would ensue if not, that would simply make them more resistant to common sense thought processes & drag the whole thing out for longer. Some people will not be able to stand the humiliation.

    First, they need to admit they were wrong, and apologize.
    Then we’ll talk.

    Lawsuits and/or jail time for the rest.

  66. Leif Svalgaard

    Leif, what part of the Earth’s climate works independent of the radiant energy from the Sun beside the Earth’s rotational energy and the internal heat energy?

  67. “Jym could probably use a little support right now.”

    Remember, if you’re emailing, to send a copy to NBC4 (or email them and send a copy to Jym. It will help him far more to have his boss see how he is supported….

  68. Greg Goodknight (11:20:27) :
    the sun’s high energy started before the 50’s, bringing it to a level that was unequalled for the past 8000 years, and not exceeded since about 11,000 years ago.

    Nature 436, E3-E4 (28 July 2005) | doi:10.1038/nature04045;
    Climate: How unusual is today’s solar activity?
    Raimund Muescheler, Fortunat Joos, Simon A. Mueller & Ian Snowball.
    or
    Muescheler et all [Quaternary Science Reviews vol 26, p.82, 2007]:
    “The tree-ring 14C record and 10Be from Antarctica indicate that recent solar activity is high but not exceptional with respect to the last 1000 yr”

    The middle panel of http://www.leif.org/research/Radionuclides.png is from their paper.

  69. Funny how Kos was a hero to many for praising the murders of Americans in Iraq, but a weatherman gets called for censorship and loss of job for merely disagreeing strongly with AGW.

  70. Leif Svalgaard (08:12:55) :
    “…it is clear that the Sun is not a major climate driver.”

    In the absense of the Sun, what is the major climate driver?

  71. Greg Goodknight (08:01:51) :

    Excellent point. The CRF factor and correlation to ice age oscillation is impressive. Perhaps this should be pointed out to Jym and if his employer has the wisdom to send him to the climate conference in New York next month – he could be brought fully up to speed on the theory.

    The response in support of this rather hapless weatherman has been great. Not because he speaks with science authority – but against nonsense authority. Orwell be damned!

  72. Leif Svalgaard

    Again apologies for troubling you with basic questions that you have no doubt answered before but could yoy answer the following please:

    Do you accept that, prima facie, there could be a correlation between geomagnetic activity and earth climate over the last ~150years as per the attached graph below?

  73. Leif Svalgaard

    Please forgive me for peppering you with questions but could I please be forgiven for asking one more –

    Nagovitsyn (2006) reconstructed the aa index back over the last ~900 years:

    Do you agree that solar grand minima – Wolf, Spoerer, Maunder and Dalton are correlated with historic lows in the aa index?

  74. Al Gore is scheduled to speak this coming weekend at the meeting of the AAAS and AAPT. Why exactly he would be there except as a bad example I don’t know. I do know I decided to cancel my plans to go as a result.

    The popularizing of pseudo science is not what AAAS should be doing. Am I the only one who decided to vote with my feet on this issue? If not let your organizations know.

  75. Glaciers, Old Masters, and Galileo: The Puzzle of the Chilly 17th Century
    By Drew Shindell — December 2002

    http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/shindell_06/

    Based on climate modeling, we have proposed a solution to the apparent paradox of extreme cold with only a marginally dimmer Sun. In our simulations, we find that the reduced brightness of the Sun during the Maunder Minimum causes global average surface temperature changes of only a few tenths of a degree, in line with the small change in solar output. However, regional cooling over Europe and North America is 5-10 times larger due to a shift in atmospheric winds.

    Shindell cites research he conducted along with Schmidt, Mann, Waple and published in Science, in 2002.

    It’s reassuring to know that even these gentlemen agree that diminishied solar effects include sometimes profound changes on local climates. I’m assuming their models will also show the opposite.

  76. Nick Yates (02:52:05) :

    We’ve had one or two AGW advocates pounce on the horrendous bush fires that have hit Victoria in Australia, as evidence of ‘more extreme weather events’ due to global warming. We can still see smoke coming from the hills to the north of where we live. Only two weeks ago we visited a couple of the small towns that are no longer there. Poor people. At least some of the media here is being more objective and remiding us that extreme events are part of nature, and not to forget the human suffering involved.

    Right, Nick – and we’ve had one or two articles on this blog talking about how cold it is in Maine or wherever.

  77. PaulHClark (12:19:22) :
    Do you accept that there is a correlation between the length of the short term (Schwabe) cycle and temperatures on earth?

    Here is the basic data:

    as solar cycle length is a slippery subject [the cycles overlap and there are multiple peaks and valleys even for one cycle] I plot both the length from max to max [blue] and from min to min [pink]. The temperature is in green. I don’t see any correlation.

    PaulHClark (12:59:12) :
    Do you accept that, prima facie, there could be a correlation between geomagnetic activity and earth climate over the last ~150years as per the attached graph below?

    the graph is construction from the flawed aa-index. A better graph of the number of geomagnetic activity [using the Dst-index which is designed specifically to measure storms] is here http://www.leif.org/research/Storms150.png

    here you can see what is wrong with the aa-index:

    http://www.leif.org/research/Analysis%20of%20K=0%20and%201%20for%20aa%20and%20NGK.pdf

    on page 7 I show the best estimate of geomagnetic activity that is available today. Note that activity from 1845 to 1875 is comparable to 1975-2005, while global temperature certainly is not as per http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%20Lengths%20and%20Temperatures.png

  78. PaulHClark (13:07:00) :
    Nagovitsyn (2006) reconstructed the aa index back over the last ~900 years:
    Do you agree that solar grand minima – Wolf, Spoerer, Maunder and Dalton are correlated with historic lows in the aa index?

    He reconstructed the aa-index from solar activity [or proxies therefore] so solar minima correspond to aa-minima by definition, but since neither sunspots nor aa have anything to do with the climate, your interest in these exotic issues seems a bit misplaced…

  79. Jon H (06:31:49) :

    I’m not so sure sunspots are the only factor, with so many other items known and unquantifiable that play a roll. Still, I disagree with the idea of muzzling someone because you do not agree with how he preserves climate change.

    This is typical of religion and not science.

    I agree with you. People should not be muzzled or punished because they give an honest statement of what they believe to be true. Even if we don’t agree with them we should accept their right to their views and the rights they have as any citizen. Any call to destroy their career because of their conviction is deeply reprehensible.

    Tell me, Jon, did you also object to the following post which called for Hansen’s resignation, because he gave his opinion at a trial where the defendants were found not guilty by a British jury? -

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/09/10/note-to-nasa-fire-dr-james-hansen-now/

  80. Alan the Brit (08:48:44) :
    Remove the heat & the bubbles die away, although whilst cooling the occasional small bubble still appears! This was explained to me by scientist I worked with at Rutherford Laboratory many years ago.

    I like your analogy. Sometime ago, elsewhere I remarked ‘even pot of boiling water has a conveyor belt’ referring to NASA’s ‘Sunspots are magnetic knots that bubble up from the base of the conveyor belt’.
    What I would add to the boiling pot analogy, it is more like a pressure cooker. Open pressure valve it will boil, close it boiling will stop. In the Sun’s case the pressure valve (the solar polar magnetic field) is opened and closed by a feedback from the planet’s magnetospheres interaction.

  81. Simon, I’m sure you can see the difference between a private citizen advocating a position on his own time vs a federal salaried employee using his position for advocacy.

    Do you really think Hansen used vacation time to travel to the UK and testify?

    If Hansen was a private citizen, he can say or do whatever he wants on his own time and deal with his own relationship to his employer. However, he is a federal salaried employee and his advocating vandalism while on the taxpayers’ clock would, in a sane world, be punishable by firing.

  82. bill p (13:16:20) :
    Shindell cites research he conducted along with Schmidt, Mann, Waple and published in Science, in 2002.

    It’s reassuring to know that even these gentlemen agree that diminished solar effects include sometimes profound changes on local climates. I’m assuming their models will also show the opposite.

    Shindell’s old paper used the obsolete Hoyt and Schatten TSI that had an order of magnitude too large variation back to the Maunder Minimum. His conclusions are therefore not valid [because of the GIGO effect].

  83. Leif Svalgaard (13:49:58) :

    Ed Scott (12:30:25) :

    Leif Svalgaard

    Leif, what part of the Earth’s climate works independent of the radiant energy from the Sun beside the Earth’s rotational energy and the internal heat energy?
    ———————-
    Ed Scott (12:47:27) :
    In the absense of the Sun, what is the major climate driver?

    The Earth and all that is upon it and in it and tugging at it.
    ———————————
    Leif, the Sun is somewhat responsible for everything upon the Earth, not necessarily responsible for what is in it, but is responsible for the major tug on the Earth. Does the Moon tug on the Earth or does the Earth tug on the Moon with the advantage to the larger tugger? (:-)

  84. jeez (13:56:30) :

    The post I linked to was put up after a jury had found the defendants not guilty. Therefore, your statement that Hansen was “advocating vandalism” is in conflict with the findings of the jury. Besides which, Hansen made no statement one way or the other at the trial as to whether he advocated the defendants actions or not – he testified as a witness to the effects of climate change as he understood them.

    Regarding testifying as to ones views ‘on the taxpayers’ clock’, you are surely aware that there are many others paid by the public who have testified to the opposite intent? And are you really arguing that a defendant may not call upon an expert witness because that witness happens to be employed by the state rather than prtivately? I would guess that it’s highly likely that a high proportion or even the majority of expert witnesses who testify at trials are employed by the state. Would you have such testimony prohibited?

    I don’t like witch-hunting on either side. I don’t like the Kos’s reaction to this, but I also don’t like what appears to me to be easy double standards. Hansen testified, and if in any way he behaved improperly then that is a matter for his employers and not a matter for those who didn’t like the jury’s verdict to call for his job. By the same token, if Ganahl ever acts improperly (which I don’t for an instant suggest he has) then that is also a matter for his employers. I trust that both sets of employers will respect a person’s right to express their honest views when called upon to do so.

  85. Climate sensitivity of Earth to solar irradiance: update

    http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0411/0411002.pdf

    We find the climate sensitivity to the 11-year variation in solar irradiance to be about twice that expected from a no-feedback Stefan-Boltzmann radiation balance model. This gain of a factor of two implies positive feedback. The analysis of the sensitivity includes a consistent determination of the dynamic factor and a newly recognized non-radiative flux factor. The volcano forcing sensitivity is also determined and negative feedback is indicated. Response times of the order of 3 months are found for both solar and volcano forcing. A linear trend in the data having a slope of 76±10 mK/decade is found.

  86. vukcevic (13:52:57) :
    In the Sun’s case the pressure valve (the solar polar magnetic field) is opened and closed by a feedback from the planet’s magnetospheres interaction.
    Typo or not, such magnetic or electric feedback cannot travel upstream in a medium that is 11 times MHD supersonic. If the planets generate very energetic particles [which they do] these CAN travel upstream [like cosmic rays can]. but only [as for cosmic rays] with difficulty. The energy and amount of such planetary energetic particles are much, much smaller than those of GCRs and we have the usual mismatch between the energy needed for external control of the solar cycle and the energy available. Of course, in your and all the other cases, that never seems to deter such speculation. but the public is really not well served with this, unless marked with ‘for entertainment only’.

  87. jeez,

    I want to follow up my previous post with an illustration. Imagine, if you will, a state employed hospital doctor who testifies for the defence at a trial of a woman accused of murdering her husband. She has killed her husband, but her defence is one of diminished responsibilty owing to a history of physical abuse.

    Whatever the outcome of the trial, there will be those who disagree with the verdict. Should the doctor’s job be on the line because he was ‘on the taxpayers’ clock’ when he testified?

  88. Ed Scott (14:17:13) :
    Climate sensitivity of Earth to solar irradiance: update
    They find the 0.1 degree solar cycle signal that most other people also find and which I do not object to as it is compatible with reasonable physics.

    Ed Scott (14:15:39) :
    Ed Scott (12:30:25) :
    what part of the Earth’s climate works independent of the radiant energy from the Sun beside the Earth’s rotational energy and the internal heat energy? —
    the Sun is somewhat responsible for everything upon the Earth, not necessarily responsible for what is in it, but is responsible for the major tug on the Earth.

    You are somewhat silly here as you know well [or should after visiting this blog] that there are many factors involved [e.g. ocean circulation]. As for the major climate tugger, it is not the Sun, but the planets that tug on the Earth’s orbit creating glaciations. Additionally, how about a good size impact for effect? Even if all these other effects only shuffle around energy originally coming from the Sun, we would still call that shuffle [i.e. the variations on top of the baseline] ‘climate’ if slow enough.

  89. Gripegut (10:04:46) :

    I read recently that the percentage of carbon 14 in the earth’s atmosphere changes with solar activity levels. Is there any way to use this information to get a history of solar activity, or am I mistaken?

    Usoskin et al has recently developed the 14C graph going back 11000 years. There are many sources of data along with many corrections to allow for the carbon cycle, changes in earths geomagnetic field etc. Usoskin relies on solid work performed by Yang et al , Korte & Constable and others to perform his reconstruction. My research coming from a completely different area is also backing up Usoskin’s work. I find his graph more compelling than a few TSI records taken over the last 40 years and some re jigged proxy records.

    My adaption of Usoskin’s graph here:

    Usoskin’s paper here:

    http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/7704.pdf

    The 10Be graph also lines up very nicely with Usoskin’s graph (needs mirroring):

  90. Leif Svalgaard,

    While I only have license to B.S. in Physics, I find the letter to Nature by Solanki to be fairly definitive:

    http://cc.oulu.fi/%7Eusoskin/personal/nature02995.pdf

    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=25538

    I don’t know if the difference in solar activity is “exceptional” compared to the period formerly known as the Medieval Climate Optimum, but it does seem to be higher.

    While your unpublished research is interesting, the reasons Solanki has to be given more credence include the elimination of such things as definitions of sunspot numbers, especially since many of the sunspots of the past year probably would not even have been observable in some past centuries.

    BTW, I found and read your paper on sorting algorithms and also found your very impressive work resume. The industry has changed greatly in the past 40 years, and it is virtually impossible for kids starting out to learn software on the job without any academic credentials, a shame to have that path now blocked. When I started out in the 70′s it was not unusual to run into folks without applicable degrees, and even with a degree in Physics it wasn’t a slam dunk to get past HR folks who could pattern match degree titles but little else.

  91. Simon,
    We are still free to criticisize Hansen and the other lords of AGW- so far.
    Implying that it is OK for a scientist to not only call for the jailing of those who disagree with him, but who defends the criminal acts of others, is bad enough.
    Asserting that we should not be free to comment on Hansen’s all too public behavior as he pursues and other aspects of his agenda is even worse.
    Unless you agree with Hansen that disagreement on AGW is in fact a criminal offense.

  92. U.S. Senate Report Debunks Polar Bear Extinction Fears

    http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=D6C6D346-802A-23AD-436F-40EB31233026

    The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service estimates that the polar bear population is currently at 20,000 to 25,000 bears, up from as low as 5,000-10,000 bears in the 1950s and 1960s. A 2002 U.S. Geological Survey of wildlife in the Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain noted that the polar bear populations “may now be near historic highs.” The alarm about the future of polar bear decline is based on speculative computer model predictions many decades in the future. And the methodology of these computer models is being challenged by many scientists and forecasting experts.

  93. hunter (15:03:15) :

    Simon,
    We are still free to criticisize Hansen and the other lords of AGW- so far.

    Indeed so. I am interested in criticisms of his science and, frankly, disgusted by unproven defamations of his character.

    Implying that it is OK for a scientist to not only call for the jailing of those who disagree with him

    That is a misrepresentation. Roy Spencer disagrees with him, Richard Lindzen disagrees with him, and so on. He has called for no such thing. He has accused some of cynical misrepresentation in pursuit of self-interest, which does not translate as a matter of disagreeing with his views. Either he is right or he is wrong – if wrong, then he should face the consequences of defamation, just as all those here who engage in defamation should face such consequences if they are wrong. Do we agree?

    but who defends the criminal acts of others, is bad enough.

    The jury found the defendants not guilty. Therefore their acts were not criminal. You may have no respect for my country’s legal process, but I do. Your assertion that their acts were criminal in the face of the findings of a trial which, I presume, you did not attend, is highly contemptuous. But regardless, let us imagine that the defendants had been found to be guilty of criminal acts. This makes no difference. Hansen testified as to the effects of climate change, which he was called upon to do, he made no testimony as to a judgment on the acts of the defendants. The jury decided that, not him.

    Asserting that we should not be free to comment on Hansen’s all too public behavior as he pursues and other aspects of his agenda is even worse.

    I have made no such assertion – I have simply pointed out the hypocrisy of complaining about one witch-hunt whilst enthusiastically pursuing another.

    Unless you agree with Hansen that disagreement on AGW is in fact a criminal offense.

    I could hardly agree with something that Hansen has not said, and I certainly don’t agree with your distortion of what he has said.

  94. Greg Goodknight (14:55:24) :
    While your unpublished research is interesting, the reasons Solanki has to be given more credence include the elimination of such things as definitions of sunspot numbers, especially since many of the sunspots of the past year probably would not even have been observable in some past centuries.

    If you look at Figure 2 of the Nature letter, you will see that the green curve [reconstruction] falls way below the red curve [Group sunspot number] and that therefore the statement that solar activity now [the past 100 years] is the highest ever relies on the Group Sunspot Number [GSN]. It is a common misconception that the GSN is a simple measure: you just count the big easy to see groups, but that is not correct. Each observer turns out to have his own personal factor that his count has to be adjusted by to ‘harmonize’ it with other observers. It is in this way that the GSN is spliced together over the centuries and every error is carried over into the next slice. I work closely with Ken Schatten [one the developers of the GSN] and he agrees with me that this problem exists.

    BTW, I found and read your paper on sorting algorithms and also found your very impressive work resume. The industry has changed greatly in the past 40 years
    40 years ago we invented many of the concepts that forms the basis for todays systems, see for example the RC4000 system on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RC_4000_Multiprogramming_System

    nobwainer (Geoff Sharp) (15:01:40) :
    More SC23 spots in January than SC24 spots
    No, one day with SC23 spots and five days with SC24 spots. SC24 rules.

  95. nobwainer (Geoff Sharp) (15:01:40) :
    “More SC23 spots in January than SC24 spots and according to solarcycle24.com perhaps a new SC23 spot forming now….I am not so sure we can say SC24 has taken over yet.”

    Now they are claiming it has been numbered. I don’t have a strong enough magnifying glass to see it. Kevin might be right on when he said “you guessed it”.

    “Sunspot 1012
    02/11/2009 by Kevin VE3EN at 23:30
    Comment on Message Board
    Sunspot 1012 was numbered today and is located towards the eastern limb. It is low in latitude and its magnetic signature indicates it is a Cycle 23 sunspot. Yesterday it produced a small B1 flare. How many days was it since the previous sunspot? You guessed it… 23.”

    http://www.solarcycle24.com/

  96. “Ken Hall (03:09:40) :

    Re the ferocious forest fires in OZ… I believe that these fires are not caused by AGW, but actually by sick and insane people with matches or cigarette lighters deliberately setting fire to the kind of tinderbox dry bush that forms in every Oz heatwave. Yup, Humans are to blame for these fires, but because of insanity with matches, rather than the mass use of SUVs.”

    Police suspect the bushfires in the Gippsland region of Victoria, Australia were deliberately lit, they are getting close to the suspects. I also undersdtand Police suspect that upto 50% of the other bush fires are “suspect” too. In fact, last Friday afternoon, there was no “fire storm”, then all-of-a-sudden, there was.

    There is also the issue that local councils permit people to live in these rural, fire prone, areas however, do not allow them to clear down trees, bush and potential fuel. Native trees, Eucalyptus, generate a huge amount of fuel and it builds up year on year.

    We’ve also had a rash of “scientists” on TV recently claiming that they “warned” us this would happen due to AGW. I don’t think starting a fire has anything to do with AWG, but is a nice earner for these alarmists.

    It was a cool start to summer here in NSW, Australia, it got hot recently, for about two weeks on and off, now it’s cool again, 21c max today.

  97. Leif Svalgaard (14:46:39) :
    You are somewhat silly here as you know well [or should after visiting this blog] that there are many factors involved [e.g. ocean circulation]. As for the major climate tugger, it is not the Sun, but the planets that tug on the Earth’s orbit creating glaciations. Additionally, how about a good size impact for effect? Even if all these other effects only shuffle around energy originally coming from the Sun, we would still call that shuffle [i.e. the variations on top of the baseline] ‘climate’ if slow enough.

    ————————————————————

    I am unfamiliar with meaning of climate tugger, so I can not comment.

    Silly me for believing that the Sun’s gravitational “tug” on the Earth maintains the Earth in its orbit around the Sun.

    Silly me for believing that the Sun does provide the energy that sustains life on Earth.

    Silly me for believing that the Sun is the predominate driver of climate on Earth, apparently a view with which you agree judging by your saying “Even if all these other effects only shuffle around energy originally coming from the Sun.”

    I dare say an impact would heat things up, but that is not a cyclical event as far as astronomical cycles are known. It is far more likely that the Yellowstone Caldera would burp and cover the neighborhood with ash.

    I visit this blog several times daily and am well aware of the many factors discussed. Besides those phenomena driven by the Earth’s rotation the remainder seem to be related to the Sun or Cosmic Rays. My concern is, and always will be, that the global warming/climate change is not by man-made CO2 emissions. That is the only climate issue that will have a long term detrimental economic and political effect on the futures of my great grandchildren.

    I generally avoid the Ad Hominem.

  98. So what are the official sunspot numbers for January 2009?, I have read in forums that SC23 spots out numbered SC24?

    BTW… its official we have another SC23 spot, further backing up David Archibald’s statements.

  99. Michael D. Smith,

    I guess those videos were a little too direct for an MSM broadcast. They’ve already been removed.

  100. Black Saturday: The Sequel by Steve Pyne http://tinyurl.com/byw5s7

    … But even heat waves do not kindle fires of themselves, and cyclonic winds do not drive fire in the same way they do storm surges. Fire is not a physical substance: it is a reaction. It feeds on the vegetation, and whatever climatic forces exist must be integrated into that combustible biomass. Fire, that is, synthesizes its surroundings. Understand its setting, and you understand fire. Control that setting, and you control fire.

    Green ideas must take blame for deathsby Miranda Devine, Sydney Morning Herald, February 12, 2009 http://tinyurl.com/db8q8z

    It wasn’t climate change which killed as many as 300 people in Victoria last weekend. It wasn’t arsonists. It was the unstoppable intensity of a bushfire, turbo-charged by huge quantities of ground fuel which had been allowed to accumulate over years of drought. It was the power of green ideology over government to oppose attempts to reduce fuel hazards before a megafire erupts, and which prevents landholders from clearing vegetation to protect themselves.

    Environmental Policies Kill – Again! by Iain Murray, Competitive Enterprise Institute, February 11, 2009 http://tinyurl.com/c6tzzy

    … It’s called bushfire season for a reason: the bush catches fire. If you want to reduce the effects, you cut back the bush. Policies that stop this are criminally dangerous.

    Fuelish in the Land of Oz by Mike Dubrasich, W.I.S.E. http://tinyurl.com/a9paff

    For the last 40,000 years (at least, some say 60,000) the residents of Australia have been “burning off the bush.” Anthropogenic fire was perfected in Australia, if not invented there. … Tackling climate change, however, will not do diddly to prevent bushfires. The climate has changed, dramatically, over the the last 40,000 to 60,000 years, yet Aussie bush fires have persisted throughout all those hoary millennia.

    Phil Cheney. 2008. Can forestry manage bushfires in the future? Australian Forestry 2008 Vol. 71 No. 1 pp. 1–2 http://tinyurl.com/a9paff

    If the trend in Victoria extends elsewhere and fire management is placed it in the hands of the politicians and their emergency services organisations that focus on suppression by back-burning from strategic firebreaks, we can expect that large areas will be burnt severely in summer, perpetuating the myth of megafires.

    Rather than set up the organisation and training for an effective prescribed burning program, it is far easier, I guess, to attribute the bushfires to God and climate change.

  101. Greg Goodknight (08:01:51) :

    It was Svensmark’s citation of Shaviv & Veizer (2003) in his Cosmoclimatology article that was my epiphany: when two completely separate physical sciences arrive at the same point, one should take note.

    Well put, Greg. That is indeed parsimony in science. I highly recommend Svensmark’s new book, The Chilling Star, which includes summary of Shaviv’s work on the role that the earth’s migration through the arms of the milky way galaxy has had on long range climate shifts. The case seems very convincing, and is consistent with the mechanism Svensmark proposed for the correlation between climate and the shorter 11 — and now say Lanscheidt, Nobwainer et al — 172 year solar cycles. Watch out for the coming freeze.

  102. Question – if the Sun is less 0.1% responsible for climate, then if we changed our star from a yellow one to say a white dwarf would our climate remain the same? What about a Red Giant (assuming our distance was maintained)?

  103. Hey, I am in Columbus, Ohio. Jym is one of the local weathermen. Okay, I don’t watch much TV these days (I get the weather online).

    I just sent an email to the VP General Manager in defense of Mr. Ganahl.

  104. Ed Scott (15:04:00) :

    U.S. Senate Report Debunks Polar Bear Extinction Fears

    http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=D6C6D346-802A-23AD-436F-40EB31233026

    The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service estimates that the polar bear population is currently at 20,000 to 25,000 bears, up from as low as 5,000-10,000 bears in the 1950s and 1960s. A 2002 U.S. Geological Survey of wildlife in the Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain noted that the polar bear populations “may now be near historic highs.” The alarm about the future of polar bear decline is based on speculative computer model predictions many decades in the future. And the methodology of these computer models is being challenged by many scientists and forecasting experts.

    You mean Noah Wylie and the WWF are, *gasp*, lying when they tell me on TV that polar bears are facing extinction?? How can that be? It’s on TV, it must be true!!

    /sarcasm

  105. Greg Goodknight (08:01:51) :

    Geochemist Jan Veizer had made a determination of the ocean’s temperatures over the 550 million year Phanerozoic, but it didn’t correlate with CO2 or anything else he knew of and was close to abandoning his line of research when astrophysicist Nir Shaviv noticed that Veizer’s temperatures pretty much matched his research into our solar system’s orbit around the galaxy. Galactic cosmic ray flux correlates well with the great temperature swings, from hot house to snowball Earth. The galactic cosmic ray connection with clouds is a far more plausible explanation for 20th century warming than CO2.

    It was Svensmark’s citation of Shaviv & Veizer (2003) in his Cosmoclimatology article that was my epiphany: when two completely separate physical sciences arrive at the same point, one should take note.

    IT SHOULD BE!!!!! but the truth is often over looked. another co2 dr pepper please.

  106. I am left to wonder how some people can focus on small changes in TSI and anything else the Sun sends our way while ignoring the overwhelming powerful temperature changes that the jet stream and ocean temperatures and currents bring to land. People die, not by the Sun’s small changes, but by jet stream loops allowing Arctic air to gouge out huge areas of the northern hemisphere and bury it in icy, wintry blasts, that can seasonally last for as long as the jet stream and oceanic cycle allows. So here is a suggestion. Let’s get a handle on Earth’s cycles (heck, knowledge of oceanic temperature and current cycles is still on mother’s milk), and then we can better understand whether or not the Sun does anything but smile at us.

  107. Leif Svalgaard – As a non-scientist with some scientific education in my two degrees I find some of this to very confusing.

    So, if the Sun was to suddenly go dark, are you saying the effect on our climate would be minimal? I know most life would perish because the Sun drives photosynthesis which supplies most of the energy to most living things. Does this mean the planet’s overall temperature would remain at liveable levels without the Sun? If so, ingenious humans would be able to use technology to maintain plant life thru artificial illumination. We could reside in contained habitats, growing food, while venturing outdoors when need be (with flashlights, of course) without concern for declining temperatures or skin cancer.

    Despite all you say about the planet’s interior, tides, etc. , when I’m outdoors on a sunny day in July visiting South Florida, I get the unscientific perception that somehow the Sun is heating things up. I guess I must be wrong.

  108. By the way, my above comment is equally applied to the CO2 AGW side of the debate. The ponds to your left and right, and the jet stream highway should be studied, debated, and understood before the CO2 minutia is dissected.

  109. Thanx, Mr. T in T. Got it.

    Also, this is the email & response that I sent, and received, after reading this article:

    —–Original Message—–

    From: “Smokey”
    Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 7:05 PM
    To: Rogala, Richard E.
    cc: Ganahl, Jym R.
    Subject: Daily Kos smear

    Dear Mr. Rogala,

    The weather and climate related website WattsUpWithThat.com won this year’s Weblog Awards for Best Science site. I can assure you that WattsUpWithThat [WUWT] has a preponderance of highly educated commenters with advanced degrees in the hard sciences, including several with international reputations
    who post regularly.

    It is with dismay that I read of the political site Daily Kos demanding the head of your long time employee Jym Ganahl, for simply giving his informed opinion. I trust you will do the right thing, and disregard those who try to silence anyone whose political opinion is not the same as theirs.

    If you happen to visit WUWT, you will see that others who state that the repeatedly falsified anthropogenic global warming [AGW] hypothesis is not true have also come under attack by Daily Kos and similar blogs. None of these attacks were successful, and I’m sure you do not want to be the first to show that you would cave under this kind of pressure.

    Demanding that someone must lose their job for having an opinion is absolutely contrary to American principles of justice. I would ask that you go beyond simply waiting for this minor tempest to blow over [which it soon will], and take a stand in favor of publicly discussing why global temperatures continue to decline at the same time that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels continue to rise.

    The sad fact is that the proponents of the falsifed AGW hypothesis refuse to debate it, and by their silence they encourage the Daily Kos and others to rabble-rouse. This is not science; this is mob advocacy. Again, I ask you to take a public stand against this attempted lynching of your fine meteorologist.

    Sincerely yours,

    Smokey [I signed my real name. "Smokey" is my wife's big gray tomcat.]

    [Response]:

    From: JGanahl@wcmh.com
    Subject: RE: Daily Kos smear
    Date: February 11, 2009 6:32:11 PM PST
    To: [Ahem… “Smokey”]

    I am honored and humbled that you would go to bat for me. Actually all I was doing was trying to educate a reporter simply and measured without any thought it would be published and no idea it would cause a firestorm. I have heard from people in 12 countries which stuns me actually. I can’t thank you enough for being out there.

    Jym Ganahl

    [IMHO, a lot of the responses from the "12 countries" is due to WUWT, which has a large international following. Thank you Anthony for helping out a fellow meteorologist.]

  110. When that was shot down [the interplanetary magnetic field is now back to was it was 107 years ago], it is cosmic rays, except that the cosmic ray flux at minima has been rock steady since the 1950s [when our first good data starts]. Also, the cosmic rays were supposed to influence the albedo, except that albedo the last 20 years has not varied with the cosmic rays [or solar activity]. – Leif Svalgaard

    I went back to the Oulu Cosmic Ray Station to have a look at the cosmic ray count since 1968. It appears (to me) to be cycling +/- 10-15% around its baseline value. And the peaks appear to roughly correspond with sunspot minima, and the troughs with sunspot maxima. Which is, as I understand it, part of Svensmark’s argument. What do you mean by “the cosmic ray flux at minima”? On the graph I’m looking at, the minima don’t seem to be “rock steady” at all. Two of the four minima in my 3-monthly graph are at 5% below zero, another 10% below, and the other 15% below. And cosmic ray flux right now, during a sunspot minimum, is the highest in the past 40 years.

    I’ve not seen a website that provides a graphic display of the Earth’s albedo (is there one?), so I can’t comment. But Svensmark’s theory seems to be that the cosmic rays form condensation nuclei on hitting the Earth’s atmosphere, so that there would be more clouds than there might be otherwise. It isn’t necessarily that cosmic rays entirely account for cloud cover. Other processes are no doubt influential as well. But then this is, as I understand it, the bit of Svensmark’s theory about which there is some doubts, and an experiment is under way at CERN to find out whether cosmic rays actually do create condensation nuclei. Do you know when the results are likely to be published?

    ….

    On the topic of notable climate sceptics, please don’t forget the current EU president, Vaclav Klaus! He is a constant irritant to alarmists.

    Czech President Questions Global Warming Yet Again As He Attacks Al Gore’s Climate Campaign

    World leaders, and skeptics especially, must understand that it’s not just about the rising temperatures or melting ice caps or record weather fluctuations around the globe. Investing in green technologies would not only create jobs and kick start the tanking economies but would also help countries to improve their air, water and land qualities – a recent study found that even the European countries do not meet the set air quality standards.

    So there you are, then. It’s about kickstarting tanking economies as much as anything else.

  111. “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism”

    So they tell me. It’s easy to pick out the true patriots. They’re the ones carrying the “%$^& AMERIKKKA THE BABYKILLER” signs.

    Meanwhile, all the climate skeptics need to be silenced before they multiply.

    (“Free-dom? It is a Yang worship-word. You will not speak it.”)

    Reply: I’m not sure if Star Trek references are a violation of blog policy, but perhaps they should be. Anthony? ~ charles the moderator
    REPLY: I draw the line at Tribbles. – Anthony

  112. Leif Svalgaard (08:12:55) wrote: “… But as for AGW and astrology, it is hopeless to argue as the limitless, self-deceptive ignorance cannot be penetrated by reason, and the whole thing is politics anyway. This is sad.”

    Sadder still, Leif, that your words express a truth that applies far beyond just “AGW and Astrology”.

  113. Ken Hall (03:09:40) wrote: “Re the ferocious forest fires in OZ… I believe that these fires are not caused by AGW, but actually by sick and insane people with matches…”

    You must qualify that statement with some Ken. There is hysteria abroad regarding these fires. It appears arson may be the cause in some, but not in others, and there were many, many fires in this three-day period.

    Note, also, that going back as far as 1851, Victoria has recorded major bushfires, aka wildfires, of massive destruction.

  114. re svalgaard: I tend to disagree with his views but I would have to concede that he would know much more about this than I would after all he has published in this area and he is not a fanatic about anything he simply describes what he has seen and learned. However.. this little snippet from him (above)
    “If I read the Pavlakis paper you cite correctly, they find that 7 months before El Nino, the clouds have cleared and more sunlight reaches the applicable equatorial region, leading to several degrees heating. I’m not sure [don't know - but wouldn't think so] that the global ratio applies locally to that region.”

    In any way this is a concession that yes the sun does influence climate “indirectly” (my quotes) (by heating that region a few degrees ect” ), a bit of nitpicking. Anyway I admire his tenacity to all the attacks he gets from us fellows and gals. It is as many bloggers have said, a combination of solar activity that neither can be shown or proved or dissproved at this time (which is his point I do believe) LOL

  115. The sun(and maybe Jupiter) tugs at the earth, it holds it in orbit and every other planet in our solar system. It even pulls in other passerby, including our own moon that faces the sun and pulls away 1cm a year.
    No sun= no life,no earth. Just a frozen dirty blob busted up from collisions in it’s own solar system like our poor demoted planets/debree at the edge of our heliosphere. Maybe busting off as a projectile to seed another hospitable young solar system coming up behind us in the big galactic pinwheel we’ve been released from. We are entering the outskirts of our milky way. A cold energy(sun) draining area away from our birth in this galaxy. No matter how you slice it we will be cast out, getting colder, as our mother sun burns out.

  116. actuator (19:04:26) :

    Despite all you say about the planet’s interior, tides, etc. , when I’m outdoors on a sunny day in July visiting South Florida, I get the unscientific perception that somehow the Sun is heating things up. I guess I must be wrong.

    I can understand the confusion for people who just enter the debate. Of course the sun is the main source of energy of the planet. This is not what is being discussed. It is climate that is being discussed. Let us make the analogy of an open pot of water on the fire. The sun is the heating pad and after a while the only “climate” in the pot is “boiling”. Suppose the thermostat is kept just below the boiling point. There will be currents in the pot, water circulating , ready to bubble but not enough. Put a cover on. The water starts boiling. What changed the pot climate? The heating pad? The heating pad heats steadily, but we get a drastic change in the “climate” of the pot because of the cover and the changes in pressure/temperature it induces.

    The statement ” the sun plays a small role in the observed warming” is similar. Studies have shown that the small variations of the sun intensity reaching the stratosphere are not enough to generate the changes in climate we see. Other physical factors have to be considered, and this is what is being discussed.

  117. p.s to my above anna v (20:48:37) :

    After a year of reading up on the global warming/not issue I have concluded for myself that it is the PDO, ENSO etc ocean and air currents together with the induced from them changes in albedo that are responsible for earth’s climate and any changes we see.

    Of course these currents, like the currents in the boiling pot above, are the result of the steady heating of the sun and the periodic annual variations of where this heating applies and how the heat is stored. CO2 is a bit player in this.

  118. Ed Scott (17:06:55) :
    I am unfamiliar with meaning of climate tugger, so I can not comment.
    You only pretend to be unfamiliar. You have undoubtedly heard about Milankovich Cycles of glaciations. These are caused by the planets tugging gently at the Earth and altering its orbital parameters.

    Silly me for believing that the Sun’s gravitational “tug” on the Earth maintains the Earth in its orbit around the Sun.
    Silly me for believing that the Sun does provide the energy that sustains life on Earth.
    Silly me for believing that the Sun is the predominate driver of climate on Earth, apparently a view with which you agree judging by your saying “Even if all these other effects only shuffle around energy originally coming from the Sun.”

    Yes, indeed, silly, if you believe that these things have anything to do with the climate.

    My concern is, and always will be, that the global warming/climate change is not by man-made CO2 emissions. That is the only climate issue that will have a long term detrimental economic and political effect on the futures of my great grandchildren.
    So, you are saying that the solar effects will have a long term detrimental economic and political effect on the futures of my great grandchildren and AGW will not. Well, if solar cooling is really coming, we better do something about it, like try to increase AGW if we possibly can.

    nobwainer (Geoff Sharp) (17:43:39) :
    So what are the official sunspot numbers for January 2009?, I have read in forums that SC23 spots out numbered SC24?
    Don’t believe all you read in forums. In January, there was a SC23 region on a single day, the 19th, and a SC24 region on 9 through 13 January, thus a 5-to-1 favor of SC24.

    BTW… its official we have another SC23 spot, further backing up David Archibald’s statements.
    It is normal to have old cycle spots continuing well into the new cycle, so this is backing up nobody’s statements in particular.

    R John (18:13:02) :
    Question – if the Sun is less 0.1% responsible for climate, then if we changed our star from a yellow one to say a white dwarf would our climate remain the same? What about a Red Giant (assuming our distance was maintained)?
    I assume that you mean all with the same luminosity, otherwise your question answers itself. But even with exactly the same total luminosity [emitted energy], the effects on climate would be different because the spectra would be different: the white dwarf giving out much more UV, for instance.

    actuator (19:04:26) :
    So, if the Sun was to suddenly go dark, are you saying the effect on our climate would be minimal?
    Perhaps not worth an answer…

    Despite all you say about the planet’s interior, tides, etc. , when I’m outdoors on a sunny day in July visiting South Florida, I get the unscientific perception that somehow the Sun is heating things up. I guess I must be wrong.
    Perhaps NASA should just hire you to go outside now and then rather than sending up expensive spacecraft to measure the Sun’s heat…

    idlex (19:23:13) :
    I went back to the Oulu Cosmic Ray Station to have a look at the cosmic ray count since 1968.
    Different stations have slightly different cosmic ray counts because of 1) different changes of the Earth’s magnetic field and 2) the difficulty of keeping the monitor stable. There are about 100 stations in the world and most show a variation similar to Moscow: http://cr0.izmiran.rssi.ru/mosc/main.htm select year 1958 and resolution one day. You will generate a plot similar to the plot here: http://www.leif.org/research/CosmicRayFlux.png
    The Thule station [almost at the geomagnetic pole with least influence of the geomagnetic field] gives you this: http://www.leif.org/research/thule-cosmic-rays.png

    What to note in all these plots is that [especially in http://www.leif.org/research/CosmicRayFlux.png ] A) the cosmic ray flux is maximal when sunspot are minimal [lower green 'mountains'], B) the dips in cosmic rays are at sunspot maxima following the solar cycle strength [stronger cycles have deeper dips], C) the cosmic ray maxima [at sunspot minima] have the same level with the exception of an alternation between cycles, every other maxima is a bit higher than the surrounding maxima. This effect has to do with ‘drift’ of the cosmic rays with changing polarity of the Sun’s magnetic field [well-understood]. But apart from that, the cosmic ray intensity at solar mimima is indeed ‘rock steady’, with no long-term trend [Oulu notwithstanding].

    I’ve not seen a website that provides a graphic display of the Earth’s albedo (is there one?), so I can’t comment.
    On my website I have Figures from Enric Palle’s papers on albedo measured by looking at the Moon ['Earthshine']: http://www.leif.org/research/albedo.png
    You may ask why Svensmark and Co. have not shown albedo plots since they are so central to their thesis.

    On the topic of notable climate sceptics, please don’t forget the current EU president, Vaclav Klaus! He is a constant irritant to alarmists.
    There are other alarmists and doomsayers that need to receive their share of irritation, namely those whoe are trying to get you to believe we’ll all freeze to death because of too few sunspots.

  119. Lance (20:42:31) :
    No matter how you slice it we will be cast out, getting colder, as our mother sun burns out.
    Before the Sun burns out, the Earth will have been burned to a crisp as the Sun late in life swells up and increases it luminosity thousands of times.

  120. Leif Svalgaard (21:28:20) :

    I am unfamiliar with meaning of climate tugger, so I can not comment.
    You only pretend to be unfamiliar. You have undoubtedly heard about Milankovich Cycles of glaciations. These are caused by the planets tugging gently at the Earth and altering its orbital parameters.

    There is a good study on this

    SUCCESSIVE REFINEMENTS IN LONG-TERM
    INTEGRATIONS OF PLANETARY ORBITS

    F. Varadi et al

    ABSTRACT
    We report on accurate, long-term numerical simulations of the orbits of the
    major planets in our solar system. The equations of motion are directly integrated
    by a Stormer multi-step scheme, which is optimized to reduce round-o
    errors. The physical models are successively re ned to include corrections due to
    general relativity and the nite size of the lunar orbit. In one case, the Earth{
    Moon system is resolved as two separate bodies and the results are compared
    to those based on analytically averaging the lunar orbit. Through this comparison,
    a better analytical model is obtained. The computed orbits are in good
    agreement with those of previous studies for the past ve million years but not
    for earlier times. The inner planets exhibit chaotic behavior with a Lyapunov
    time of exponential separation of nearby orbits equal to about 4 million years.

    Modeling uncertainties and chaos in the inner solar system restrict the accuracy
    of the computations beyond the past 50 million years. We do not observe marked
    chaos in the motion of the Jovian planets in our 90-million year integration, and
    infer that the Lyapunov time for those planets is at least 30 million years.”

    Interesting last sentence.Brings up thoughts on Nemesis.

  121. Re Kos:

    I used to post on Kos occasionally. One day, a couple of years ago, I showed up after a long absence, and noticed something about global warming and – since I’d just started to become sceptical about it (I’m immediately sceptical the moment anyone declares that “The debate is over.”) – I posted something mildly sceptical of it.

    I returned an hour or two later to find that my sceptical post had been impounded, and that I was under investigation by several ‘investigators’, who had been digging through all my prior posts over the previous 3 or 4 years to find out more about me. Eventually, after they found out that I’d been posting for years, and had pondered over some remarks I’d made about Dick Cheney (who’d just shot a friend of his in the face) worrying they may have been excessively sympathetic towards him, it was eventually determined by this ‘people’s court’ that my post could be published after all. I was then subjected to attack by another bunch of goons for expressing such unwarranted scepticism.

    The whole experience was a bit like being stopped by police and put up against a wall, and questioned closely with my hands behind my back. “So what are you doing here, punk? Eh? Eh?!” It was a shocking experience. I realised that if you stepped out of line on Kos, expressed the wrong opinions, this is what you could expect.

    I haven’t been back. I don’t see a future for any blog which attempts to force people to adhere to a ‘party line’. People are going to drift away when that happens. Two or three years ago, Kos was the biggest blog in America. I bet it isn’t any more.

  122. ????????
    Despite all you say about the planet’s interior, tides, etc. , when I’m outdoors on a sunny day in July visiting South Florida, I get the unscientific perception that somehow the Sun is heating things up. I guess I must be wrong.

    Leif Svalgaard
    Perhaps NASA should just hire you to go outside now and then rather than sending up expensive spacecraft to measure the Sun’s heat…

    Leif, So why waist Billions of dollars on stereo, soho,etc. when the sun changes less than 0.00000000001% …. WHY? DR. WHY?

    Perhaps NASA should just go outside now and then rather than sending up expensive spacecraft!!!!!!!!!!!!

  123. Leif Svalgaard (21:28:20) :

    Don’t believe all you read in forums. In January, there was a SC23 region on a single day, the 19th, and a SC24 region on 9 through 13 January, thus a 5-to-1 favor of SC24.

    You have to be careful what you read in here too. I am not interested in days….more the amount of spots. From what I have found sunspot 1010 was the first spot for the year and was SC24 on the 9th, followed by 1011 which was SC23 on the 19th, then today with 1012 which is SC23.

    REPLY: Please repost your comments on the new thread for spot 1012 – Anthony

  124. On the topic of notable climate sceptics, please don’t forget the current EU president, Vaclav Klaus! He is a constant irritant to alarmists. – idlex

    re are other alarmists and doomsayers that need to receive their share of irritation, namely those whoe are trying to get you to believe we’ll all freeze to death because of too few sunspots. – Leif Svalgaard

    Klaus is a global warming sceptic, and asks that alternative theories be considered. That seems quite reasonable to me. But I’ve yet to read anything in which Klaus has pinned his colours to the Svensmark or Fairbridge or Landscheidt theories.

    I hope that I’m as sceptical of Svensmark and Landscheidt as I am of AGW. The missing piece of Svensmark is the cosmic-rays-form-clouds idea, as far as I can see (not the Earth’s albedo). And Landscheidt was indeed an astrologer, which sorta queers things a bit…

    Thanks for your other advice. I’ll take a look.

  125. Apparently, some subjects are now so important that we have to give up our Freedom of Thought and Freedom of Speech. All I’m asking for is a list of these subjects and an explanation of how an idea gets on this list and gets off it. Do we vote or is it a vote of all the former vice-presidents of the US? Or what?

  126. Ah yes, the Gatekeepers that are the peer-reviewed scientists. Rest assured they will look out for their own while at the same time keep any modicum of sense out of room. I had an hour long conversation with my ecology professor, vehemently defending my position that global warming is nothing more than a global power grab facilitated by those who would let themselves be led so willingly. I showed him satellite pictures of the frozen polar sea ice and temperature data that supported my positions. Here is the quote he emailed me the next morning. “Thanks for this, but as I said I’m skeptical of any such claims–verbal or visual–that aren’t tied to some type of published measurement or record.” Meaning, peer reviewed. Then he called me a global warming denier. That’s when I reached nirvana. But I’m sure my grade is hosed now.

  127. Tim L (22:46:38) :
    Leif, So why spend Billions of dollars on stereo, soho,etc. when the sun changes less than 0.1% …. WHY? DR. WHY?

    I corrected a few things as you can see. The reason is that much of our infrastructure: GPS, communications, etc, and damage to power stations, to the lives of astronauts, etc, and our military intelligence depends on monitoring SPACE WEATHER. Why spend money on monitoring hurricanes and thunderstorms and winter blizzards?

  128. “Before the Sun burns out, the Earth will have been burned to a crisp as the Sun late in life swells up and increases it luminosity thousands of times.”

    We are but molten slag or more important, gas-liquid-solid chromatography, like distilling alcohol. Different elements/gases are released at different temperatures and pressures from the sun to create our earth.
    abstract- I believe earth and Venus were once swirling side be side vortexes at the beginning .
    Both spinning a reverse to each other like out at the mouth of a river and then spinning for a billion years, like sleeping YOYO’s giving birth to our moon.

    Questions,

    How will the sun gain energy at it’s last dying million years?

    How could we get crisped spinning into a dead sun, does the sun get a more magnetic pull as it gets older?

    Lets go ask poor Pluto.

    Dying stars gaining energy or even being able to attract orbiting objects after losing it’s magnetic control doesn’t make sense to me, it can’t even keep Pluto in it’s orbit. lol ! ; )
    Collapsing stars, blackholes, dark matter,etc. are but mental masturbation for smart folks, like other hypotheses of a big bang or string theory. It’s but science fiction.

  129. Simon Evans (15:29:41) :
    hunter (15:03:15) :


    Unless you agree with Hansen that disagreement on AGW is in fact a criminal offense.

    I could hardly agree with something that Hansen has not said, and I certainly don’t agree with your distortion of what he has said.

    Hansen quote
    In written remarks from his appearances at a congressional briefing as well as at the National Press Club, Hansen said, “CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of long-term consequences of continued business as usual. In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.”

    <a href=”http://deathby1000papercuts.com/2008/11/james-hansen-cooking-the-nasa-books-for-climate-change/”another cite
    He is the detached scientists that went to Congress and testified that oil executives should be tried for crimes against humanity.

    and another

    And so on …the Hansen quotes speak for themselves so we should perhaps watch our criticism of him lest we be accused of crimes against humanity.

    Re: the vandals being found “not guilty” … doesn’t mean they were innocent. OJ was found not guilty also. Juries sometimes, and for a variety of reasons, make mistakes.

    Of course different countries, different customs and maybe different shades of meanings.

  130. Don’t feel too bad; getting speared in the other paper is like being the father of Anna Nicole Smiths baby. Everybody’s heard it, nobody really cares.

    It is a shame though, that a video of three guys talking candidly about issues was posted (for one), and then used to create sensationalist news. Those are his beliefs on global warming, he’s not out evangelizing the sunspot theory of global warming. Nor would I say he’s preaching global cooling.

    And to answer the astronomy questions posted above by Lance:
    The sun won’t be gaining energy, it will in fact be losing energy. However as a star progresses through it’s life cycle, it burns different elements for fuel. Each element causes changes in the stars size, heat, and density. At the end of its life, a star is desperately searching for fuel and will attempt to use iron in the fusion process. This causes the star to swell in size. Why iron causes that swelling, I do not know.

    But given the size of other red giants in the galaxy, it’s a safe bet that the earth will be in the sun when that happens. It isn’t an issue of the suns gravity getting stronger.

    And with all things that are billions of years old (stars, galaxies, evolution) it’s just a best guess theory. In fifty years we’ll probably find a new one

  131. Leif,
    Just come out and say it- Is CO2 in your opinion a greater climate driver than solar activity?

    The answer is going to unfold in the years ahead. But I’d to know your answer now.

  132. nobwainer (Geoff Sharp) (00:42:44) :

    Wow Geoff, that’s an impressive chart at http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/files/2008/11/995-2985ssb.jpg .

    Guest article material if you ask me. I know I’ve seen it before – did you have a guest article about this here or did I find it myself based on previous links? Looks like far more than coincidence to me! Great stuff! I’ll repeat the page link: http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/

    I have no problem seeing how angular momentum could cause shear / spin effects in the sun’s circulation, much like any other tidal effect. Reading up…

  133. Michael D Smith (04:06:32) :

    Thanks Michael, I am not sure Anthony would use my material in a guest article, although I would be happy to have my theory cross examined by the more than capable intellects (mostly) on this blog. This area of science is seen on the fringe at present, but I am happy to wait, the Grand Minimum is not far away.

  134. Ross (00:16:31) :

    Here is a fuller quotation:

    Special interests have blocked transition to our renewable energy future. Instead of moving heavily into renewable energies, fossil companies choose to spread doubt about global warming, as tobacco companies discredited the smoking-cancer link. Methods are sophisticated, including funding to help shape school textbook discussions of global warming. CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of long-term consequences of continued business as usual. In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.
    Conviction of ExxonMobil and Peabody Coal CEOs will be no consolation, if we pass on a runaway climate to our children.

    It is evident that what Hansen considers to be criminal is not disagreement with him but the methodical spreading of doubts in the interest of protecting special interests. As I’ve said, he’s either right or wrong, and if wrong then he has specifically defamed the CEOs of ExxonMobil and Peabody. If it is true, however, that such figures have been deliberately spreading what they know to be disinformation in order to protect their interests, then it seems to me they are culpable, just as agents who spread disinformation about a stock to the markets would be culpable.

    Regarding the protestors, I’ve already said that it actually makes no difference whether or not they’d been found guilty. Their guilt or innocence was irrelevant to the status of Hansen’s testimony, which was about global warming and not about an interpretation of the law.

  135. Had a return email from Jym in response to my email of support. He has heard from people in 12 countries and says “that has amazed and stunned me.
    I am grateful for the support – so much. Thanks”

    Nice job WUWTers!

  136. Leif Svalgaard (08:12:55) :

    The “It’s the Sun, stupid” attitude is just as dogmatic and dangerous as the AGW propagit. While there may be [but not generally accepted - after 400 years of claims] a slight [0.1 degree] solar component in the Earth’s temperature, it is clear that the Sun is not a major climate driver.

    anna v (20:48:37) :

    Let us make the analogy of an open pot of water on the fire. The sun is the heating pad and after a while the only “climate” in the pot is “boiling”. Suppose the thermostat is kept just below the boiling point. There will be currents in the pot, water circulating , ready to bubble but not enough. Put a cover on. The water starts boiling. What changed the pot climate? The heating pad? The heating pad heats steadily, but we get a drastic change in the “climate” of the pot because of the cover and the changes in pressure/temperature it induces.

    Anna V,
    I appreciate the explanation. It clears things up a great deal. But when Leif said the heating pad (Sun) is not a major climate driver, it appears to mean that the Sun is not a factor.

  137. And Landscheidt was indeed an astrologer, which sorta queers things a bit… – idlex

    Perhaps you should inform yourself before passing judgment. May I suggest you start here….. allow yourself a couple of days. – nobwainer

    I haven’t passed judgment. I just said it “sorta queers things a bit”. I was responding to Leif’s implied comparison of AGW and ‘astrology’. I think I understood what he meant by ‘astrology’ – Landscheidt.

    But Kepler was an astrologer too. Should I ignore all that stuff of his about elliptical orbits because of that? And Newton was an alchemist. And, for good measure, he spent a lot of time analysing the Bible, and worked out that the world would end in around, oh, 1850. Should I dismiss his laws of motion and gravity because of that? I guess I think that any idea stands on in its own merits, rather than because of who thought of it.

    And Landscheidt’s ideas about the angular momentum of the sun seem intuitively (to me) to be quite promising. I’m currently slowly piecing together a simulation model of the solar system, partly so as to look at Landscheidt’s notions a bit more closely, partly to look at a few other things. I’ve already succeeded in replicating his motion of the sun around the barycentre, and I may have replicated his figures for the sun’s changing angular momentum. That’s as far as I’ve got. I haven’t come to any conclusion about it one way or the other. The jury’s still out as far as I’m concerned. My main interest at the moment is to get a little spinning earth into my simulation, and I’ve been having trouble finding out which way to point it because astronomers seem to use different reference frames for more or less everything, and it’s a bit tricky to translate one reference frame into another. But that’s just where I’m at right now…

  138. Ed Scott (17:06:55) :
    I am unfamiliar with meaning of climate tugger, so I can not comment.
    You only pretend to be unfamiliar. You have undoubtedly heard about Milankovich Cycles of glaciations. These are caused by the planets tugging gently at the Earth and altering its orbital parameters.

    Leif, silly you. I thought that you knew that the dynamic interaction between bodies in the Universe is commonly referred to as gravitation. I guess not.

    I posted an article on this forum concerning the Malinkovich Cycles and suggested the possible extension of analogous cycles of the Solar System with regard to the Milky Way Galaxy.

    Silly me for believing that the Sun’s gravitational “tug” on the Earth maintains the Earth in its orbit around the Sun.
    Silly me for believing that the Sun does provide the energy that sustains life on Earth.
    Silly me for believing that the Sun is the predominate driver of climate on Earth, apparently a view with which you agree judging by your saying “Even if all these other effects only shuffle around energy originally coming from the Sun.”
    Yes, indeed, silly, if you believe that these things have anything to do with the climate.

    I have heard that the definition of climate is the weather averaged over a long period of time. Climate is also dependent on latitude, elevation, ocean influence, continental atmospheric effect and terrain (mountains; hills). So, the Sun’s orbit around the Sun has nothing to do with climate? The Sun’s radiant energy has no effect on the Earth’s climate? The logical assumption is, therefore, the Sun has nothing to with weather.

    My concern is, and always will be, that the global warming/climate change is not by man-made CO2 emissions. That is the only climate issue that will have a long term detrimental economic and political effect on the futures of my great grandchildren.

    So, you are saying that the solar effects will have a long term detrimental economic and political effect on the futures of my great grandchildren and AGW will not. Well, if solar cooling is really coming, we better do something about it, like try to increase AGW if we possibly can.

    A clever attempt at a straw-man and a deliberate misinterpretation of what I wrote (the global warming/climate change is NOT by man-made CO2 emissions). I said nothing about long-term solar effects and nothing about solar cooling. When I write or speak I do not need assistance, yet. (:-)

  139. Each observer turns out to have his own personal factor that his count has to be adjusted by to ‘harmonize’ it with other observers. It is in this way that the GSN is spliced together over the centuries and every error is carried over into the next slice. I work closely with Ken Schatten [one the developers of the GSN] and he agrees with me that this problem exists.

    Is Dr. Solanki’s formula for group-counting somehow different from anyone else’s? I would imagine that he or the Max Plank Institute for Solar System Research publish their method in some sort of supplementary reference to their paper for the purposes of transparency.

  140. Ed Scott (08:18:18) :
    Silly me
    It is hard to tell who is the silliest :-)
    But I’ll let you win that contest.

    So, the Earth’s orbit around the Sun has nothing to do with climate? The Sun’s radiant energy has no effect on the Earth’s climate? The logical assumption is, therefore, the Sun has nothing to with weather.
    I think your statement is an accurate assessment of the facts.

    My concern is, and always will be, that the global warming/climate change is not by man-made CO2 emissions. That is the only climate issue that will have a long term detrimental economic and political effect on the futures of my great grandchildren.

    “My concern is that X is NOT Y. Q is the only X that will have Z.”
    So trying to understand what Q is, I have these options:
    A: Q = NOT Y
    B: Q = Y
    My interpretation was A [Q = NOT Y], namely ‘the climate change that is NOT the result of man-made emissions’. Since you seem to be a solar enthusiast, I assumed that you consider the Sun to be the cause of climate change, hence my statement. Now you are telling me that I was wrong, so I’ll try option B [Q = Y], namely that you are concerned about the climate change that IS the result of man-made emissions. In that case, perhaps the Sun is less important.

    bill p (09:00:30) :
    Is Dr. Solanki’s formula for group-counting somehow different from anyone else’s?
    No, it is the same as he just uses the group sunspot number already given by Hoyt and Schatten, and thus takes over their error.

  141. Likewise Tom. A very nice note from Jym. What I mentioned was any system that denies fair and open discussion of science because it challenges “their” theory – is not science. And it is not democratic.

    Not mentioned to Jym but appropriate for this forum is the recent Raspopov et al, 2008 study of the 210 year solar de Vries cycle. These researchers from China, Russia, Finland and Switzerland found the existence of the solar cycle in paleoclimatic data in Europe, North and South America, Asia, Tasmania, Antarctica and the Arctic, and ocean sediment. These data caused them to conclude:

    There is “a pronounced influence of solar activity on global climatic processes” related to “temperature, precipitation and atmospheric and oceanic circulation.” And the paper indicates the climate response to the de Vries cycle has been found to occur not only during the last millennia but also in earlier epochs, up to hundreds of millions years ago.

    http://tinyurl.com/cuumpt

    While Jym may be off on his “sunspot” theory – according to this research he’s on the money with solar influence.

  142. It is my understanding that the reason for different climates on Earth is mainly due to Earth’s obliquity and to a lesser extent Earth’s wobble and the slight changes in eccentricity of the orbit. These factors affect the solar isolation at different points of the Earth’s surface which gives us our seasons and climate. Then you must add or subtract the effects of albedo changes due to various reasons. Through all this the Sun itself doesn’t change very much so I think I understand where Leif is coming from. But then again, maybe I don’t.

  143. Sorry. The URL compressor failed. Here’s a link to the Raspopov, et al abstract:\

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V6R-4PXM6KD-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=873f608584c30aafdba6ac1a2e921713

    “The influence of the de Vries (not, vert, similar 200-year) solar cycle on climate variations: Results from the Central Asian Mountains and their global link”

    Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology
    Volume 259, Issue 1, 17 March 2008, Pages 6-16

  144. Leif Svalgaard (10:06:01)

    So, the Earth’s orbit around the Sun has nothing to do with climate? The Sun’s radiant energy has no effect on the Earth’s climate? The logical assumption is, therefore, the Sun has nothing to with weather.
    I think your statement is an accurate assessment of the facts.

    You have added absurdity to your silliness.

    Since you seem to be a solar enthusiast, I assumed that you consider the Sun to be the cause of climate change, hence my statement.

    You assume incorrectly, as you are prone to do, about my enthusiasm and I have duly noted that you are again putting words in my mouth, so to speak, by saying that I consider the Sun to be the cause of climate change. There is a difference between effect and change.

    “…the climate change that IS the result of man-made emissions.” No. Circle the block again.

    Your arguments are circular, in addition to your proclivity for inventing straw-men. (:-)

  145. Leif Svalgaard (23:16:03) :
    ” damage to power stations ”

    So if the solar storm’s have no way to change climate, by not adding power.
    how can we blow up million watt power stations?
    I await your answer, BTW I have a degree in power systems.

  146. Ed Scott (12:51:24) :
    I’m simply trying to understand what you are saying:
    “My concern is that X is NOT Y. Q is the only X that will have Z.”
    So trying to understand what Q is, I have these options:
    A: Q = NOT Y
    B: Q = Y
    My interpretation was A [Q = NOT Y], namely ‘the climate change that is NOT the result of man-made emissions’. Since you seem to be a solar enthusiast, I assumed that you consider the Sun to be the cause of climate change, hence my statement. Now you are telling me that I was wrong, so I’ll try option B [Q = Y], namely that you are concerned about the climate change that IS the result of man-made emissions. In that case, perhaps the Sun is less important.
    —-
    If I get this wrong then please parse your statement for me. Is it case A or case B?

    So, the Earth’s orbit around the Sun has nothing to do with climate?
    Then explain how the Earth’s orbit around the Sun [and it isunderstood that we are talking Milankovich here, just the regular yearly cycling] changes climate.

    The Sun’s radiant energy has no effect on the Earth’s climate?
    Then explain how the constant [to 0.1%] solar radiant energy changes climate.

  147. Tim L (13:18:40) :
    So if the solar storm’s have no way to change climate, by not adding power. how can we blow up million watt power stations?
    I await your answer, BTW I have a degree in power systems.

    In that case you tell me then.

    Here is my version. The solar storms can create large dB/dt [induction] in very localized regions. In the presence of suitable conductors [e.g. East-West power lines] very large currents results which melts transformers etc. It is not an energy question.

  148. I’m glad I found out the Sun has no effect on the Earths climate reading this thread. This means that the chemical bonds which hold together the carbon we burn which cause global warming are manmade too. It’s the extraterestrial carbon atom that’s to blame. Ban the carbon atom.

  149. I sent an email of support to Jym and got the following reply:
    ********************************************************************

    You would be amazed at the number of e-mails from Texas….my sister lives in Keller, I was in the Army at Fort Hood.
    Thanks for the laugh – I actually thought with the kooks trying to get me fired, I should load a few weapons in the home for the first time ever.
    Sad that it has come to that because all I was saying is we should celebrate warming and not curse it because the alternative is worse.
    When we can grow food to feed people governments do better than when they are starving and for that I got attacked. So thank you much!
    Shoot a target for me.

    Jym Ganahl

    From: Jon Jewett
    Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 6:05 PM
    To: Ganahl, Jym R.
    Subject: Thank you

    …..for standing up and speaking truth to power.

    I read about you here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/10/daily-kos-whips-up-an-email-campaign-agains-meteorologist-who-spoke-candidly-about-climate-change/

    They suggest that you could use some moral support.

    If you ever get to Austin TX, give me a call. We can eat BBQ, shoot guns, and go to a rousing bible thumping church.
    (And all of those other red neck things the liberal elite think we do-like drink beer!)

    Regards,

    Jon

  150. Leif Svalgaard (13:46:40) :
    Here is my version. The solar storms can create large dB/dt [induction] in very localized regions. In the presence of suitable conductors [e.g. East-West power lines] very large currents results which melts transformers etc. It is not an energy question.

    large dB/dt [induction] very large currents results which melts transformers etc.
    I think we have solved the energy crisis! It dose not take power to make induction in wire to make electric (power) for homes and industry.
    This is exactingly the circular logic that will kill our society.

    BTW it takes large amounts of power to induce current into wire.

  151. A 0.1% change in solar seems like a much more plausible driver than a 0.01% change in composition of the atmosphere by a trace gas with absorption bands mostly overlapping H20 (like CO2).

    Leif, when I look at the sun’s various outputs, (magnetic, irradiance at different bands, solar wind, etc), I see some of them vary quite a lot over a solar cycle. Isn’t it plausible that some of the other factors that do vary a lot have an interaction with other physical systems that do have an impact on climate? It seems completely counterintuitive to dismiss such effects when they seem to be strongly correlated with climate, just because we might not understand the underlying physical processes. So from what I understand of your many posts, other people have made such hypotheses about (insert solar variation influence on climate here) in the past, with some explanation and physical process, and in a nutshell, every single one has been shot down… Right? So, when is it time to give up on solar variation of any kind as a climate driver? (short term to million year scale, not red giant stuff)…

    Just out of curiosity, what has been the approximate change in irradiance since, say, 1 million years ago? Thanks.

  152. Simon Evans (05:48:29) :

    Ross (00:16:31) :

    Well Mr. Evans you have the right to parse Hansen’s statements anyway you wish and, while I agree with some of your posted points, it seems clear to me that Hansen thinks that he “knows” [in an absolute sense] that he is right and, therefore the “special interests” must be wrong for not following his “advice.”
    Therefore “…these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.”

    Why should those [CEOs] who do not believe as Mr. Hansen believes [knows] be prosecuted for anything with regard to AGW? ( I am not asserting that you think they should be prosecuted)

    As I said, his quotes speak for themselves.

  153. I am so glad I returned to this thread; I was hungry for more discussion re the sun’s influence on earth and the sun’s part in the chaos that is earth’s weather and climate. What have I learned? Well, Leif, you are a real spoil-sport to our (my) desire to make the sun the “driver” (whatever that means). You hold our feet to the fire regarding thinking clearly with ALL the evidence. Thanks. I am working at the task, but you do not make it easy. And I hope some of your analysis is wrong because it is so counter-intuitive. After all, we appear to live on a still, flat earth.

  154. Paul (14:07:52) :
    I’m glad I found out the Sun has no effect on the Earths climate reading this thread.
    That’s why we have been voted ‘Best Science Blog’. You get stuff here that you can’t get anywhere else.

    Michael D Smith (16:58:08) :
    when I look at the sun’s various outputs, (magnetic, irradiance at different bands, solar wind, etc), I see some of them vary quite a lot over a solar cycle. Isn’t it plausible that some of the other factors that do vary a lot have an interaction with other physical systems that do have an impact on climate?
    They all have an impact, it is just that the impact is too small to worry about.

    dismiss such effects when they seem to be strongly correlated with climate
    That is just the point, there is no strong correlation. People say there is, or have heard there is, or believe there is, or want there to be one, or need desperately such a correlation, or invent one, but that does not make one. If there be such a strong correlation, we should all be able to accept it without further discussion and to quantify it, and demonstrate it in a straightforward way. I look forward to such a demonstration as it would make the funding situation for my science a whole lot better. Bring it on!

    every single one has been shot down… Right?
    not quite, because believe weirds things regardless.

    when is it time to give up on solar variation of any kind as a climate driver? (short term to million year scale, not red giant stuff)…
    The time is now, because otherwise we might make decisions based on faulty science. Note that a strong solar driver is necessary for the AGW argument, since they need an explanation for the LIA, the MWP, and other natural climate excursions.

    Just out of curiosity, what has been the approximate change in irradiance since, say, 1 million years ago?
    +0.07 W/m2.

  155. Ross (17:45:41) :

    Simon Evans (05:48:29) :

    Ross (00:16:31) :

    Well Mr. Evans you have the right to parse Hansen’s statements anyway you wish and, while I agree with some of your posted points, it seems clear to me that Hansen thinks that he “knows” [in an absolute sense] that he is right and, therefore the “special interests” must be wrong for not following his “advice.”
    Therefore “…these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.”

    Why should those [CEOs] who do not believe as Mr. Hansen believes [knows] be prosecuted for anything with regard to AGW? ( I am not asserting that you think they should be prosecuted)

    As I said, his quotes speak for themselves.

    Ross, I think we can see that we are not going to agree very much, but we have both put our points, so let’s agree to differ. I will say that if anyone – Hansen or anyone else – has been guilty of deliberately misleading the public then they are seriously at fault.

    Going back to the original post, I think the Daily Kos item was really stupid. Mind you, it was calling for ‘education’ and not actually calling for the guy’s job. I am discomfited by calls here for Hansen’s head (and an encouragement to an email campaign to that effect) because he testified as an expert witness in a court case. Regardless of whether or not people agree with him, I think it is a perilous risk to liberty to promote such a reaction. I also happen to think that Hansen was rash (and certainly not politically adroit) in saying what he did. If his statements were without foundation then they were entirely wrong. I don’t know how to make a judgment on that question, but I certainly don’t accept the unsubstantiated insinuations that are regularly promulgated on this site that he is himself engaged in deliberate distortion. I think I should leave the matter there for now.

  156. Leif

    I accept that you think that cyclic changes in the sun do not affect the climate significantly. Do you think that human CO2 emissions do or will affect the climate?

  157. I’m sorry but as this thread discusses solar activity and influence on climate – can anyone rebut the finding of Raspopov, et al ?? This team’s paper draws a fairly conclusive opinion that the de Vries solar cycle has had significant impact on climate – and for many millions of years. We’re talking climate on Earth, of course.

  158. “but I certainly don’t accept the unsubstantiated insinuations that are regularly promulgated on this site that he is himself engaged in deliberate distortion. I think I should leave the matter there for now.”

    The fossil record tells us that for a few hundred million years the Earth had 3-5 times more CO2 and 5-10C more temperature during which time the biosphere was extremely healthy.
    Any idea that rising CO2 or temperature is bad for the Earth is obviously and blatantly wrong in the light of this fact.
    That Hansen testified in court as to the disasters of man-made CO2 show the man, and any of his supporters to be deliberate liars or morons, take your pick.

  159. Weatherman Jym Ganahl was interviewed and gave his honest opinion on the subject. Unless proven otherwise, he is still entitled to his opinion and to share it. The interview was hardly the perfect stage to debate science and that goes without saying or it should. What however is disturbing is the campaign to have him removed from his job. What’s next? Should he wear a “green” star on his jacket? This is pure and simple totalitarian behaviour from some activists, condoned by a larger group that included people such as Marie Hinge. These methods that we know all to well led to terrible events in Europe mid XX century. Wake up people!

  160. Jeff Id (18:01:15) :
    “BTW it takes large amounts of power to induce current into wire.
    No. A few TeraWatt are enough.”
    Science humor is great…….

    Not an attempt at humor. Storms this strong occur perhaps once per decade. The power of an average hurricane is 100 times larger and there are about 500 of these per decade.

  161. Jack (18:30:41) :
    I accept that you think that cyclic changes in the sun do not affect the climate significantly. Do you think that human CO2 emissions do or will affect the climate?
    Absolutely, the only question is how much. Perhaps a degree at the end of the century, but this is really not known with any degree of confidence as there are many factors in play [yes, even a small solar contribution]. In the far past, the Earth was 5-10 degrees warmer with 30-50 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere. So, perhaps 5 to 6 doublings can give us 5-10 degrees. I guess we [some of us, possibly] shall see how much a doubling yields. BTW, I think GW is good for us. Warm is better than cold.

  162. BTW it takes large amounts of power to induce current into wire.
    No. A few TeraWatt are enough.

    Interestingly enough,a few terrwatt is the mechanical energy required for meridional overturning cell (MOC) in the oceans.

    Ocean mixing (turbidity) is thought to control the climatically important oceanic overturning circulation.

    “Munk, W. and C. Wunsch. 1998.Argue winds and tides provide about 1 TW each to mixing, resulting in a total power that is a substantial fraction, and perhaps all, of the energy apparently needed to mix the deep ocean.Although this number is likely uncertain to a factor of two, St. Laurent and Simmons (2006) use an independent technique and find a comparable, if higher, bulk dissipation (_2.4 TW). To obtain the total energy flux through the system, these numbers must be augmented by an additional 20% “

  163. Simon Evans:

    I think most people calling for Hansen’s head would like to see him gone because he straddles a very thin line between merely being a concerned public servant and an ideologue using his public position in order to advocate political persecution against environmental heresy. The fact that he even involved himself in a trial thousands of miles away in support for a cause in which environmentalist “advocates” got clean away with an illegal act makes Hansen more than just a guy issuing public opinions about wrong doings. Especially since neither Hansen nor anyone else has even proven a crisis exists for which somebody has to be criminal liable anyway!

    Should Hansen be fired? I think he should be muzzled since it is clear that he speaks out turn as it regards to who should be on trial for what. If he continues to issue unfounded accusations after receiving such a warning, then he needs to be shown the door.

  164. @Leif:

    I rather think it is up to you to demonstrate that this peer reviewed paper is “wrong.” Or is the access issue a way to avoid reconciling the data?

    We have in this study empirical data demonstrating a major influence of solar activity on Earth’s climate. Prove them wrong.

  165. Pragmatic (22:31:14) :

    There is not much point giving a citation that no one has access to. The fact that the paper refers to the “de Vries solar cycle” is not a good start. Post a free link and you might get some response.

  166. Reply: I’m not sure if Star Trek references are a violation of blog policy, but perhaps they should be. Anthony? ~ charles the moderator

    But who will moderate the moderators?

    Reply: beep ~ captain pike the moderator

  167. Chris H (00:57:37) :
    I assume that you think the following (rough) solar-sunspot correlation,
    What correlation? some people would take your graph to be strong support for AGW.

  168. Hi Leif,
    What do you think about the good correlation between South African flood cycles and the sun or between the Nile level reconstruction and solar proxies over several thousand years ? (I can find the papers ref. if asked).

  169. Leif Svalgaard (17:52:51) :
    That is just the point, there is no strong correlation. People say there is, or have heard there is, or believe there is, or want there to be one

    Here’s the short term one:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1965/to:2009/mean:43/detrend:0.6/offset:0.35/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1965/to:2009/mean:12/scale:0.001

    Smoothe the temp data at 1/3 solar cycle length and all is revealed. You need to allow a bit of a detrend on the temp data to allow for the longer term process of heat release from the oceans, but apart from that, the data isn’t heavily messed with.

    And here’s the long term one:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:80/detrend:0.5/offset:0.8/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1850/mean:132/offset:-10/scale:0.01

    Allow some hidden subsurface ocean heat storing here, and some botched SST measurements there, and it’s pretty good really.

    What say you Leif?
    :-)

  170. Just to add, Leif, since I see Chris H has posted a similar long term graph, it seems the apparent disconnect after 1940 may have something to do with the fog of war on land, while the oceans busily absorbed heat under clearer skies unbeknownst to the record. This, coupled with the ‘bucket adjustment and inlet port sensor phase in issues could account for most of the mismatch. It also seems to me that there is increasing ‘lag’ in the system whereby the 1980-2000 temp increase is probably explained by heat release from the oceans a la Bob Tisdale, and the falloff in solar from 1980-2000 is actually a fairly good indicator of what is in store for us over the next 15-20 years temperature-wise.

    Not that I enjoy being the bearer of bad tidings….

  171. Anna V. (08:51:34), last night when my husband was reading to me about Hamiltonian mechanics, we went off on a tangent and started talking about chaos and fractals and wondered if, since you mentioned chaos in a comment some weeks ago, you might recommend some texts for us to study? Please?

  172. @Leif
    “What correlation? some people would take your graph to be strong support for AGW.”

    Since you are so determined to see no rough correlation (even though I find it blindingly obvious), there is obviously nothing else I can say… I had hoped you’d have something more interesting to say :-(

  173. tallbloke (08:53:49) :
    Here’s the short term one:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1965/to:2009/mean:43/detrend:0.6/offset:0.35/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1965/to:2009/mean:12/scale:0.001

    What say you Leif?

    I say that if temperature leads the solar input, the correlation is spurious. Also, a 0.1 degree correlation with solar activity is within what I always have said is to be expected, That does not make the Sun a major climate driver.

  174. Chris H (09:50:37) :
    (even though I find it blindingly obvious),
    The Earth is leading the Sun half of the time, the trends are opposite after 1980. Plot the data as a scatter plot [no smoothing] and compute the correlation coefficient. If you smooth, remember to decrease the statistical significance accordingly. Also remember to decrease the significance because of the high autocorrelation. All of these things are standard techniques and you can put hard numbers on everything. Do that, and ask me again.

  175. Chris H (09:50:37) :

    @Leif
    “What correlation? some people would take your graph to be strong support for AGW.”

    Since you are so determined to see no rough correlation (even though I find it blindingly obvious), there is obviously nothing else I can say… I had hoped you’d have something more interesting to say :-(

    Ok, Chris, let’s say that your graph demonstrates excellent correlation between sunspots and temperature for most of its period. Here it is again:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1850/mean:132/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1850/mean:132/scale:0.010/offset:-0.8

    It’s pretty good up to about 1940, yes? Then there is a decoupling until about 1970, with temperature lagging – no problem, we can explain that by aerosols or whatever you fancy. The ‘correlation’ picks up again and runs through to about 1985, then – woops. If temperature was to be related to sunspots only it should have fallen to about -0.2 by now, but instead it’s up at +0.4. What can explain that extraordinary decoupling of the ‘correlation’? Clearly not sunspots! Hmm, now let’s think what that might be…..

    Do you not see the point of how powerful an argument this is for the influence of anthropogenic forcing? Not only do you strengthen the case that recent warming cannot be accounted for by natural forcings, you also have to presume a very high climate sensitivity in order to make any sense of your supposed correlation, and that hugely strengthens the case for future AGW being to the extreme end of projections!

    So – nice job! ;-)

  176. Sylvia (09:42:57) :

    Anna V. (08:51:34), last night when my husband was reading to me about Hamiltonian mechanics, we went off on a tangent and started talking about chaos and fractals and wondered if, since you mentioned chaos in a comment some weeks ago, you might recommend some texts for us to study? Please?

    I am sorry not to have a handy text to recommend. My “knowledge” of chaos and complexity comes from academic level lectures and I never bothered to really study it. If you have patience, I might ask a colleague for a book recommendation next time I am at the center from which I retired a while ago, if you tell me at what level you would want it.

    Alternatively you could start with the wiki article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

    TomVonk who participates sometimes on this blog ( the venus thread recently) might be a better person to ask, if you catch him.

    My mention of chaos was with respect to the paper by Tsonis et al http://www.uwm.edu/~aatsonis/2007GL030288.pdf where they model climate consistently with chaos theory.

  177. we are killing our planet. we are breeding like rats, destroying our environment, and poisoning our oceans. we’re running out of food and soon out of oil. THE DETAILS ARE INSIGNIFICANT. WE MUST REDUCE POPULATION AND INDUSTRY IF WE WANT TO SURVIVE. WAKE UP YOU ~snip~.

  178. I agree. Global warming or not, we can’t justify any excuse to keep destroying our planet for the sake of “growth”. It’s just impossible, because there’s a limit somewhere.

    Science was supposed to grow more crops more quickly with genetic engineering, and it did just that, but the human population grew just as quickly, and brought with it more pollution, more mouths to feed, and more land to develop!!

    Earth’s already on its last leg as far as resources go, and we can’t keep growing and profiting without killing ourselves.

    We need to not shoot ourselves in the foot and stop this before it’s too late. It probably already is, but we need to take hold of the brakes right now.

  179. I’ve always felt that the global warming campaign has been a massive distraction in consumption, because now, like some have said, some have taken economical advantage of the situation: green this, green that etc. Climate-friendly is the buzzword. However, if the paradigm was that the Earth’s going to radically cool down, I’m sure there are enough clever people to turn that into a marketing success. That taken into account, it doesn’t say very much about the truthfulness of the “truth”.

    That said, for every movement there will be an anti-movement, which seem to be favored by the more “enlightened” ones, the kind of people who aren’t led around as easily as the ordinary “sheep” who just cling to the dogma they are fed. The way to be “hip” is to differentiate yourself from others, and to appear somehow unique. While people bicker over this other issues are left totally ignored: it’s that they are more difficult to accept than fighting against global warming/cooling/whatever that the modern technological society can do without sacrificing anything essential to itself.

    What about overpopulation, what about our resource consumption, material and energy spent on simply keeping the economy pipelines pressurized?

  180. Unfortunately anton – “the details” are very important. It is with details that we are able to identify and then address the most pressing problems. When you refer to the “breeding” situation – you should know how misanthropic you sound. Perhaps you see yourself in that light – but kindly leave the rest of us out of your misbegotten world.

  181. Sunspots are in fact colder than the rest of the solar surface. In any case, they have little to no relevance here.

    We are stupidly killing our planet with major overpopulation and (over)industrialization. Time to wake up.

    [snip- Verm that was a despicable comment, suggesting that a person should be "put down" for his views has earned you a permanent ban here, I don't tolerate hate speech. -Anthony Watts]

  182. http://www.springerlink.com/content/j7l094tn80hvv178/fulltext.pdf

    A 2nd Raspopov link. I have no idea if this is the paper the original poster was referencing.

    I do wonder, as the earth seems to be on a multi-year cooling trend that Hanson characterizes as a blip in the every upward unstoppable CO2 driven catastrophe, what the human race will do to avert the actual catastrophe that even the most ardent GWists seem to admit will occur – ie – the next Ice Age.

    We are well along into this interglacial. If we look back to the beginning of written history we do not as much foward to go before the earth is plunged again into it’s more normal icy state.

    Where will the UK go? How will the national concept survive? Will governments and nations move to reclaim the new exposed seabeds?

    This whole GW thing is so very short sighted. It’s not that unlikely that someones Great Great Great Great Great grandperson will be the generation that has to deal with the real deal to fear – ie the next ice age. Or maybe this drop in magnetic difference between the dark area of the sunspot and the rest of the sun that the National Solar observatory predicts will end sunsposts if the current trend continues in a few years along with the other cyclical cyles that preceed each ice age mean we are on the verge of one now.

    Won’t that wonk the change of the new GW religion.

    On an interesting side note. I just went on a ski trip with some scientists from a Big Ten university. One of them is involved in testing the level of carbon absorbtion in water by one celled beings and using light and a water slueth technology to detect these changes. The other counds polar bears each year. Neither buys into GW other than both wrote their grants on a GW basis in order to have their fun. It’s a pretty big game out there. As long as you can write your hypothesis and get your grant you can study whatever you want if it’s in GW terms. Their concern is how couch their negative GW results (ie Polar bear poplation is growing and the oceans don’t have a tipping point where they won’t absorb CO2) so that they can continue to get the next grant.

    There are a lot of skeptics out there in university land, but they have to be a careful majority.

  183. anna v (12:32:30)

    Thank you for your kind offer. I will keep an eye out for TomVonk. If you do see your colleague, a recommendation for a text at the level of Goldstein’s Classical Mechanics would be lovely.

  184. Sorry if this has already been posted, but it seemed appropriate here:

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090213114321.htm

    “Mass Media Often Failing In Its Coverage Of Global Warming, Says Climate Researcher”

    “Schneider, a coordinating lead author of chapter 19 in the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change published in 2007, is calling for the news media to employ trained reporters in covering global warming.”

    Woof-woof.

  185. Calling for a persons extermination or reprogramming because of non compliance to a political ideology sounds like Orwell 1984 or the beginning signs of a new religion.
    Science/truth really doesn’t matter when you have been assimilate into the collective.

  186. IPCC’s Schneider, also says:

    “We’ve been using the atmosphere as a free sewer to dump our tailpipe and smokestack waste since the Victorian industrial revolution and now we tell the developing world, sorry, guys, the sewer’s full.”

    Is it any wonder there are skeptics? This person has a clear political agenda to sell and he is a “lead author” for IPCC’s 2007 Report. Bias?

    Since the so called “sewer” is Earth’s atmosphere and man made CO2 is about 3% of .0385 – apparently the rest of the GHGs (water vapor, trace methane) have filled it up.

    Mr. Schneider is also miffed that TV News departments don’t thump AGW hard enough in their broadcasts. Rather than allow open debate – he expects science “reporters” to choose stories based on relative “credibility” of the source. Another clear bias toward institutional science on the grant dole. Following this criterion he would have dismissed Galileo, Newton, Copernicus and Einstein in favor of the “credible” majority at the time.

  187. Most climate scientists agree that it is essential that man-made global warming is tackled now as it may already be too late to save the planet. Over population is a major threat too, especially since the west has developed and bred the Third World to the point where all Chinese and Indians expect to own cars, fridge-freezers, televisons, etc. We have to stop international aid and cut back severely on industrialisation. Even the British government’s “environment tsar” is proposing that domestic flights be taxed to oblivion and families be limited in how many holiday flights they may take. None of this has any benefit to the politicians. It is a sign of how desperate things are that they must propose vote losing gestures like this. And politicians will never do enough.

  188. @ Simon Evans (10:53:17)
    “If temperature was to be related to sunspots only it should have fallen to about -0.2 by now, but instead it’s up at +0.4. What can explain that extraordinary decoupling of the ‘correlation’? Clearly not sunspots!”

    Your problem (and perhaps Leif’s) is that you think I am claiming solar is the ONLY major climate driver. Where-as I actually think it may be a *significant* driver (say over 50%), but certainly not the only one. Also the sun-spot measurements are clearly a proxy for some other kinds of solar activity (which actually effect climate – sunspots obviously do not do so), so again we would not necessarily expect perfect agreement between sunspots & climate.

    There are lots of things involved in climate, and I make no claims about what may or may not explain climate deviations from predictions based on sunspots. I leave that to those with more time & expertise than me. I simply wished to hear what Leif had to say about the rough correlation – sadly it seems nothing interesting (since his stringent method would disprove CO2 & just about everything else).

    Graph linked again for clarity:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1850/mean:132/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1850/mean:132/scale:0.010/offset:-0.8

    But I will say I find it unbelievable that CO2 would have no effect before 1985, and then suddenly have a massive effect after that.

  189. The biggest problem with the internet is it allows anyone capable of setting up a blog to declare themselves an expert on just about any subject they feel like – regardless of qualifications and irrespective of any evidence they may or may not have to back up what they assert.

    ps. love how “5 to 10 years” is now considered “history”.

  190. Jane (03:46:58) :

    The only response needed is to Alex, your author’s concluding statement:

    “I suggest we export them [Climate Skeptics] all to Africa, where it’s both hot and overpopulated. If you really want that future, you gotta live it baby!”

    Indicative of the overt hatred your site reflects.

  191. I don’t think we’re really keen in discussing all possible causes here…it could be the sun activity, although this:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1850/mean:132/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1850/mean:132/scale:0.010/offset:-0.8

    and this

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12234

    kind of disprove it already. It’s cool that this discussion is taking place (myself I’ve learned a ton from it!) but I don’t know why people here is so keen in disproving the CO2 emission theory while hanging at straws. Is it because it hurts the economy and the western way of life? I think it couldn’t hurt if we back down on excessive industrialization and let the planet catch a breath.

    Well, Africa is both hot and overpopulated. I fail to see what’s so utterly hateful about that quote.

  192. Jane Greenwood (02:02:04) :

    Most climate scientists agree that it is essential that man-made global warming is tackled now as it may already be too late to save the planet. Over population is a major threat too, especially since the west has developed and bred the Third World to the point where all Chinese and Indians expect to own cars, fridge-freezers, televisons, etc. We have to stop international aid and cut back severely on industrialisation. Even the British government’s “environment tsar” is proposing that domestic flights be taxed to oblivion and families be limited in how many holiday flights they may take. None of this has any benefit to the politicians. It is a sign of how desperate things are that they must propose vote losing gestures like this. And politicians will never do enough.

    Why, then, are you still using a computer? Why haven’t you sold your home and all your material possessions and gone to live in the forest?

    Governments finding new ways to tax their populations is evidence only of political dishonesty, not AGW.

  193. Leif Svalgaard (20:50:10) :

    Jeff Id (18:01:15) :
    “BTW it takes large amounts of power to induce current into wire.
    No. A few TeraWatt are enough.”
    Science humor is great…….

    Not an attempt at humor. Storms this strong occur perhaps once per decade. The power of an average hurricane is 100 times larger and there are about 500 of these per decade.

    Of course, the power levels of natural events are big. Everyone knows that. The way you throw out a few terawatts is what makes it funny. Not everyone does solar calculations that often.

    Inadvertent science humor is even better.

    BTW, On a more serious note, thanks again for taking the time to explain your perspective.

  194. - the sun doesn’t account for global warming

    - we cannot feed the entire planet

    - we need to cut back on industry and people

  195. To Jeff:

    You have to separate between goal and method. There is no contradiction in for instance using industrial power to end industrial power. Possibly an ethical one, but only if you reject industrumental ethics.

    The problem with the internet is that it’s full of people who pretend to be philosophers, but don’t acknowledge logical argumentation.

    I’m still waiting for evidence to disprove the fact that solar power does not count for today’s climate changes.

  196. Jane (03:46:58) :

    This site presents two arguments against the climate skeptic in this blog post:

    - Solar activity does not account for global warming today

    - We cannot feed the entire planet just because it’s getting hotter

    http://www.corrupt.org/news/how_climate_skeptics_play_heroes

    Can anyone respond to this?

    Global Warming doesn’t account for Global Warming.

    Actually with more CO2 and longer growing seasons we can easily feed billions more. We’d have no trouble feeding anyone if it weren’t for corrupt governments, regional warlords, etc. We throw away probably as much food as we eat in some western countries.

  197. You can tell when the Kos kids are in town. The tone of the discourse immediately takes a nose dive into angry simple-minded hystericism.

  198. Actually Jeff, you’re incorrect there, too:

    Resource use would plummet in developed countries while rising in many of the poorest. (Surely we could not deprive the latter of the chance to raise their standards of living?) But it wouldn’t get us to 1.8gha. At 2.6gha, Mexico’s footprint is 32% too high. A drop to the level of Botswana or Uzbekistan would put us in the right range.

    But that’s not low enough. We’d next have to compensate for UN projections of 40% more humans by the middle of the century. That would mean shrinking the global footprint to under 1.3gha, roughly the level of Guatemala or Nigeria.

    There’s more. The GFN authors point out their data is conservative, underestimating problems such as aquifer depletion and our impacts on other species. In response, the Redefining Progress group publishes an alternative footprint measure which has humanity not at 25%, but at 39% overshoot. But that too, the authors concede, is an underestimate.

    http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/john_feeney/2008/05/return_of_the_population_timebomb.html

    Let’s see some evidence please, not empty talk.

  199. I would love for Mr. Ganahl to come into the Gulf Coast states and take a walk with me along the 50 miles or so of devastated land that was caused by Hurricane Katrina and the flooding afterwards. Hurricanes are a huge consideration of life in this region of the United States, and a constant reminder that we are at the mercy of nature. I would especially enjoy Mr. Ganahl’s explanation of how the rising sea levels and the heightening of global temperatures would be a GOOD thing for residents of cities such as New Orleans, Baton Rouge, Gulfport/Bilouxi, Mobile, and Point Clear, who would be several feet under water by the year 2100 (http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/12/17/113915/50) if predictions are accurate.

    For those of you who believe that economic growth is the answer to everything, I should mention that the American Southeast has been one of the fastest growing portions of the country economically for the last 5 years. Most of the new automotive plants have been built here because we have a historical dislike of labor unions and still maintain a mechanically inclined workforce. I should also mention that the farmland in the Southeast is some of the richest in world, being fed, as it been for several million years, by a confluence of rich silt from various river systems. To flood this area, as an unchecked and unrestrained rise in global temperature would do, would choke out the resources necessary to feed the CURRENT population of Americans.

    However, economic growth cannot continue as it has. The resources are not there to sustain it for America and Canada, and certainly not for China and India. In order to maintain any semblance of dignity and order in our lives, we must commit to REDUCING our level of industry if nothing else. If industrialization continues at its current pace, the Gulf of Mexico will become a silent graveyard, a dead zone caused by runoff from mega-agrobusinesses (http://www.brighthub.com/environment/science-environmental/articles/12044.aspx) and industrial waste.

    The use of harmful fertilizers would not be necessary if the human population to feed was smaller but that is a whole other can of worms.

  200. Jeff Alberts (13:40:10) :
    “Actually with more CO2 and longer growing seasons we can easily feed billions more. We’d have no trouble feeding anyone if it weren’t for corrupt governments, regional warlords, etc. We throw away probably as much food as we eat in some western countries.”

    Consider the imminent wars caused by water shortages, the extreme weather events caused by the disruption to the climate, the use of genetically modified crops with unknown health risks and lower nutrition; the acidification of and overfishing of the oceans; the wild species going extinct as humanity encroaches upon them and the pollution caused by human waste and industry. Not only that but the birth rate of the better part of humanity is less than half that necessary to perpetuate their kind, partly because they are so anxious not to add to the population burden. The population continues to grow however because the absence of responsible people creates opportunities for the least responsible to expand – spreading from populous nations to those with negative birth rates. And charity multiplies misery.

  201. Another sign that the Kos kids are in town is that you are treated to a collection of the worst possible scenarios to everything. Not only is the sky falling, but its doing so at a higher rate than ever before due to rational people going about their normal business.

  202. Jeff Alberts (13:34:34) :

    [snip - none of that suggestion - Anthony]

    Sorry, I will try to resist in the future. It’s just too easy.

  203. Jane Greenwood (15:24:20) :

    Consider the imminent wars caused by water shortages, the extreme weather events caused by the disruption to the climate, the use of genetically modified crops with unknown health risks and lower nutrition; the acidification of and overfishing of the oceans; the wild species going extinct as humanity encroaches upon them and the pollution caused by human waste and industry. Not only that but the birth rate of the better part of humanity is less than half that necessary to perpetuate their kind, partly because they are so anxious not to add to the population burden. The population continues to grow however because the absence of responsible people creates opportunities for the least responsible to expand – spreading from populous nations to those with negative birth rates. And charity multiplies misery.

    Firstly, there is no evidence that any of the things you mention can even happen. But you’re covering several different subjects which are fairly unrelated. But I won’t bother refuting each one, since gratuitous assertions can simply be countered by gratuitous assertions. So, unless you have evidence that there will be water shortages due to “Global Warming”, or any of the other things, your gratuitous assertions have no merit.

  204. The debate over climate issues wears us down, but there IS a way to find the truth.

    This world can be confusing and often leaves us feeling lost. We are bombarded nearly every day by the media with “doom and gloom” stories ranging from government corruption to climate instability. After awhile, we grow tired of the endless debating and figure it’s all best left to the experts. In a sense, this is justified because we have other things to worry about (family, etc.), but in another sense, we know deep inside we’re giving up. We’d like to know the truth, but we’re lost as to how.

    The good news is that you (as well as everybody else) already know how to find the truth. This isn’t egalitarian dogma — it’s something people like Socrates passionately died for. However, most adults ignore the truth and don’t bother finding it (for fear of becoming an outcast, lack of time, lack of immediate benefits). Granted, most of us aren’t brilliant minds and even if we did decide that these climate issues are real, we wouldn’t know the first thing to do, would be without a clue, without a solution. This further discourages us and we give up again.

    Another thing that prevents us from becoming closer to reality is our consumer culture, which essentially says, “Society stinks and work sucks, but at least sitcoms and junk food provide pleasure.” This conditions us to pursue immediate pleasures, all the while completely unaware that we live out our lives like addicts. And who actually wants to find truth anyway? Who actually wants to be wrong? Who actually wants to make their beliefs vulnerable and take time to critique them?

    Finding the truth isn’t easy, but it’s definitely worth it, and knowing that you tried your best brings you an inner peace. Finding the truth isn’t easy, but it’s not nearly as complex or intellectual as it’s puffed up to be. You can do it. The first step is to change your thinking, not to a new way, but back to an old way. Remember when you were a child, always running around, playing, exploring, learning, and asking questions? That’s exactly the sort of thinking you need again. Forget all that mumbo jumbo about self-discipline or any sort of morality. That’s not what’s needed for finding the truth. What’s needed is a playful, creative, brave, and honest mindset.

    Finding the truth can be rather horrifying, depressing, or even boring, but it can also be incredibly comforting, inspiring, and fun. To learn more about how you can think creatively and clearly, as well as how to make a decision on who to believe in this messy climate debate, please spend some time watching the videos on this high school science teacher’s YouTube channel:

    http://www.youtube.com/user/wonderingmind42

    I really hope his videos help you see things more clearly. His videos are pretty easy to understand and he doesn’t obfuscate his viewers. You don’t have to be initiated into philosophy or science or anything, as he intended to reach as many viewers as he could, because he feels the issue is that important.

    And in the end, that’s what questioning is all about: Finding what’s important in our lives, what’s real, so that we may have meaning.

  205. Timothius (23:32:27) :

    A good propaganda effort for the consensus view of AGW. I stopped watching the video when it started butterin up the scientific organizations.

    The fallacy lies in that even if there is global warming, there is no proven anthropic contribution to it.

    We might as well sacrifice a virgin to get propitious winds for our trip.

  206. Talk about missing the point.

    Sure, we can debate climate change all day, but it doesn’t change the fact that our reckless growth is damaging the environment.

    Everyone here seems to have dodged that self-evident truth, maybe because it’s offensive?

  207. Maybe because it isnt evident jane. Take off the gloom goggles and check it out. You’ll be a brighter, happier person for it.

  208. @gary gulrud (15:54:43) :

    ““WE MUST REDUCE POPULATION AND INDUSTRY IF WE WANT TO SURVIVE.”

    A volunteer?”

    Nahhh… It’s always everyone ELSE that needs to get off the planet.

    BTW, who’s “WE” and who are the rest that get the short straw?

  209. Jane Greenwood (15:24:20) :
    Consider the imminent wars caused by water shortages, the extreme weather events caused by the disruption to the climate, the use of genetically modified crops with unknown health risks and lower nutrition; the acidification of and overfishing of the oceans; the wild species going extinct as humanity encroaches upon them and the pollution caused by human waste and industry.

    Wow. That’s a lot of stuff to worry about all at once. Try to enjoy life now, there’s plenty of time for worrying when you’re older. I still live by this rule, and I’m already older.

    Not only that but the birth rate of the better part of humanity is less than half that necessary to perpetuate their kind, partly because they are so anxious not to add to the population burden. The population continues to grow however because the absence of responsible people creates opportunities for the least responsible to expand – spreading from populous nations to those with negative birth rates. And charity multiplies misery.

    I really don’t like the racist undertone in this part of your post.

  210. @ anna v

    I think it’s important to remember that most of us here aren’t spreading “propaganda” but that we’re all simply saying what we honestly believe. Just because I believe there IS an instability in the climate at least somewhat caused by mankind and link to a video supporting my belief, doesn’t mean I’m spreading “propaganda”. Most of us have no reason to log on to the internet and lie. I also think it’s odd that you stopped watching the videos as soon as he mentions the top scientific organizations.

    I think it’s best if we actually took the time to fully explore each side’s arguments rather than fleeing back to our beliefs, all the while name calling and making odd accusations. That’s the true propaganda. So I am willing to fully listen to your side without acting immature, so please link some stuff to look into. Remember, this isn’t about taking sides, this isn’t a sport or a contest or a fight. It’s about finding the truth.

    And of course, even IF “global warming” isn’t a real threat, there STILL REMAINS the threats of desertification, coral bleaching, deforestation, topsoil erosion, habitat destruction, loss of biodiversity, toxic and radioactive materials, PCBs in every living cell, dysfunctional rivers, lakes, and seas, gigantic slag heaps and quarry pits…

    And even then, there STILL REMAINS far off threats of GM crops, depletion of fisheries, acidification of the top ocean layers, etc.

    So it’s most important that we see the big picture as well.

  211. @ tallbloke

    I think it’s an odd accusation you make toward Jane Greenwood when you tell her to “enjoy life”. Do you know her? Do you know if she enjoys life or not? And just because she mentions those issues doesn’t mean she isn’t enjoying life. In fact, it could mean that she enjoys life so much, she wants to do what she can to have it continue and flourish for all life! Besides, how do you know she doesn’t enjoy raising awareness to issues and solving them?

    I also think it’s odd that you accuse her of having a racist undertone simply because she is pointing out a real symptom of globalization and real population trends, rates, and migrations. This isn’t about racism or any form of blaming the Other. Even if it were, it would be the first world exploiters to blame anyway, not the third world victims.

    Remember, we’re scared and so our tendency is to create an Other to blame and fight. Let us instead seek truth in a cooperative spirit.

    Cheers.

  212. Timothius:

    And of course, even IF “global warming” isn’t a real threat, there STILL REMAINS the threats of desertification, coral bleaching, deforestation, topsoil erosion, habitat destruction, loss of biodiversity, toxic and radioactive materials, PCBs in every living cell, dysfunctional rivers, lakes, and seas, gigantic slag heaps and quarry pits… So it’s most important that we see the big picture as well.

    Timothius, you’ve got it all… click

    The problems you cite are either non-problems, or temporary problems.

    It is the anti-progress folks who fail to see the big picture. Despite your hand-wringing, people are living longer, people are healthier, people have more to eat, and people are wealthier than ever before in history.

    No progress happens without temporary problems. But dwelling on the down side will only make you more miserable. Progress is good. A small amount of global warming is good. More atmospheric CO2 is good. Cheap energy from coal and hydrocarbons is good.

    And all the Daily Kos sniveling and whining in the world won’t change the fact that people are better off under the current economic model, than under the really bad big government model the new globaloney purveyors want to replace it with.

  213. @ Timothius:

    Thank you for making that clarification, I couldn’t have said it better myself.

    @ Harry:

    Please see earlier posts–I’ve provided lots of evidence to support my view. Have you?

  214. For the record, Leif seems to have slight double-standards, since on a different topic he says:
    “The proxy is 10 year averages and includes a fair amount of noise so you would not expect detailed correspondence.”
    (here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/05/ipcc-20th-century-simulations-get-a-boost-from-outdated-solar-forcings/ )

    However, as soon as one points out correspondence between sunspots & global temperature, then *poof* he suddenly wants detailed correspondence….

Comments are closed.