Holy Cow! Charles Osgood, a skeptic?
A QUIET SUN DOESN’T HAPPEN OVERNIGHT.
excerpts:
I know you’ve already got a lot to worry about as it is, but something rather odd is going on — on the Sun.
The Sun normally undergoes an 11-year cycle of activity — and last year, it was supposed to have heated up — and, at its peak, would have a tumultuous boiling atmosphere, spitting out flares and huge chunks of super-hot gas.
Instead, it hit a 50-year low in solar wind pressure, a 55-year low in radio emissions, and a 100-year low in sunspot activity. Right now, the sun is the dimmest it’s been in nearly a century.
Did you know that? It’s true. Astronomers are baffled by it, but has the press covered the story? Hardly at all. Is the government doing anything about it? No, it’s not even in the Obama budget or any Congressional earmarks.
Right now, global warming is a given to so many, it raises the question: Could another minimum activity period on the Sun counteract, in any way, the effects of global warming?
read the entire article at the link below:
Transcripts, podcasts, and Mp3’s of all this program can be found at theosgoodfile.com.
Smokey – learn the basics, and grow up a bit, and maybe one day you’ll be up to having a sensible conversation about the climate. In the meantime, have a ponder about why you think all climate graphs should start in 2002, and not, for example, March 2008.
Fran Manns:
“The third ranking gas is CO2 (0.0383%)”
Incorrect. CO2 is second only to water vapour in its effectiveness as a greenhouse gas. See Ramanathan and Coakley 1978 or any number of papers since then.
“and it does not correlate well with global warming or cooling either;”
Incorrect. It correlates very well.
I presume you believe your qualifications are relevant. However, despite searching I cannot find any evidence that you have published anything in any discipline related to climate science. Is that correct?
RW:
This, from someone whose qualifications are Cut ‘n’ Paste 101.
Give us your qualifications, RW. That specific request has been made often enough. Make ’em falsifiable.
200 million years of fossil record show that a) CO2 is good for the biosphere b) CO2 cannot ‘run away’ to B movie scenarios.
In order to squawk about climate change either you don’t know this in which case you are simply too stupid to realize your own ignorance, or as a published qualified professional who does know this one would need to be a deliberately lying grant-hunting charlatan.
So RW what precisely have ‘scientific’ publications got to do with anything when so many scientists prostitute Truth for politically inspired grants.
‘Scientists’ no longer can be presumed to be honourable, by their fruits shall you know them.
“Give us your qualificationsFran Manns: I presume you believe your qualifications are relevant. However, despite searching I cannot find any evidence that you have published anything in any discipline related to climate science. Is that correct?”
RW –
I am a registered geoscientist. I earned my degrees by studying the sciences – mathematics, chemistry, physics, biology, statistics and geostatistics, and created my own original work in carbonate stratigraphy, largely around paleogeography and paleoclimatology.
I have read many scientific papers on ‘climate change’ since the late 1980s and have read them objectively. I do not need to reply to ‘ad hominem’ remarks but on the other hand, thought I should point out that since ‘ad hominem’ is taught in first year philosophy courses as one of the most common logical errors, I should make a comment. This we see all the time from Hansen, Suzuki, Gore and the like because they have no response to current data or relevant hypothises. Why do they refuse debate? I suggest they refuse debate because they are not competant to do so. I have had Suzuki’s daughter pull out of a debate I participated because of…who knows what – orders from the Orwellian leader.
RW I’ll debate you. Name the stage…
Because of the miracle of inverse solubility of gasses, CO2 has nothing but a trailing correlation with both warming and cooling. There is however solid 95% corelation with sunspot peak frequency with warming and cooling for the 20th century – chopped off abruptly by the eruption of Pinatubo in 1991. Pinatubo nearly compensated for the natural solar warming of the 20th century with one eruption.
Moreover, the fluid inclusion data used to support AGW is worthless because ice is an open system. A geoscientist would never be permitted to use such corrupt data for a term paper, much less publish it in a journal. The light isotopes leave and heavies stay behind during the lengthy and reversible transition from snow to firn to ice. Then the glaciologist celebrities calibrates the top layer to modern temperature. Voila, yet another hockey stick sans Medieval warm period and the Little Ice Age. Who are the referees of this half baked sort of work? They wiould not survive a Masters degree at a decent Geological institute.
Smokey: have you worked out why 2002 is a silly place to start ‘climate’ graphs yet?
Sandy:
“200 million years of fossil record show that a) CO2 is good for the biosphere b) CO2 cannot ‘run away’ to B movie scenarios.”
Neither of these are shown by the fossil records. Five minutes in a room filled with pure CO2 will show you that CO2 is not always good. And your point b simply doesn’t make sense. Are you saying that CO2 concentrations can’t rise beyond a certain level?
Fran Manns: so, your qualifications are not really relevant. By ostentatiously
listing them every time you post, you are attempting to argue from authority.
You’re 200 years out of date with your CO2 claims. CO2 rose and fell in a way strongly related to temperatures, for 650,000 years. CO2 went up and down by ~100ppm. Temperatures went up and down by ~12°C. So, for each degree rise in temperature, CO2 went up by ~8ppm. Now then, suddenly in the last 200 years reached a level 110ppm higher than it had at any point in the last 650,000 years. So, given the 8ppm/°C figure, it must therefore be 14°C hotter now than it was at any point over the last 650,000 years. That is transparently absurd. Rising temperatures have not caused the post-industrial rise in CO2
I explained this already, a couple of times. Are you another one who simply cannot bring themselves to understand the basics?
As for solar – you’re wrong. There is very little correlation between sunspot numbers and temperatures. Since 1980 or before, all indexes of solar activity have been on a downward trend, and yet temperatures have carried on rising.
And Pinatubo? I have no idea what data you’re looking at. After Pinatubo erupted, global temperatures were still 0.4°C higher than they had been at the beginning of the century. And now, 18 years later, temperatures are 0.4°C higher than they were then.
I’m sure if you’re right about fluid inclusion data, then you could publish your results to great acclaim. Have you done so? If not, why not?
I guess I cannot confuse you with facts. Your mind is made up.
RW (04:28:56) “But I still don’t understand […]”
I will briefly address your concern:
The relevant passage from the discussion:
RW (14:22:25)
“[…] The longer period giving the slightly better correlation shows that the PDO has nothing to do with the correlation.”
Clarification:
If you would have substituted “suggests to me” for “shows”, I probably would have kept skiing (skimming & skipping) since my participation in this thread was related to solar science (as you will see from the posts I made).
–
RW (04:28:56) “I appreciate you saying so.”
Thank you.
Well I’m really not sure I see the need for cautious wording here. If two factors correlate strongly, regardless of what a third is doing, then that rules out the third as the cause of the correlation. If I was writing a scientific paper I would be quite happy to use ‘shows’ rather than ‘suggests’ in this case.
I also still don’t see what prompted your claim that “There are layers of misunderstanding (or worse: intentional distortion) ” in what I said, if all you objected to was what you considered too strong a statement of the case.