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.
As you can see by the posts of the AGW crowd, they are simply making my point and that is what the media is picking up on, the methods are raising eyebrows and leading to the blow back by MSM. The will always print dissent, before it was the AGW that were the dissent against the Bush Administration, the script has been flipped and the left cannot stand it.
When they are dismissive and belligerent their cause is damaged, note they have always done this but now with the rubber hitting the road (its about money) people are listening again.
eric proves my point “Dissent is the Right of the Left” everyone else is marginalized and attacked. A good Social example of liberal Intolerance was the Miss Ca / Perez Hilton Dust up, while not science this event was illustrative of the MO of the left, if you disagree or have a contradictory political position you are not “fit” to represent America or succeed, even at being a Beauty Queen. Then attacked even after the incident.
More and more the message will get out and more and more it will be attacked until the truth lays beaten and bleeding, but alone on the field.
Sorry, RW, but you’re just not credible unless you can back up your assertions:
Then by all means, give us a link to those publicly available sources, and show us the graphs you plotted.
When you say “That graph shows a short period, over which noise dominates. R-squared is not given”, you make me wonder about your comprehension: R^2 is provided directly under the graph. How could you possibly miss it? Maybe you just don’t want to acknowledge it because the value is so small that it demolishes your CO2=AGW conjecture.
Also, a graph covering a decade is not a ‘short period,’ as you say. But if you want a graph covering a longer time: click.
And if you want a chart covering a really long time: click. As you can see, there is almost no correlation between CO2 and global temperature.
Face it, the claim that CO2 will cause runaway global warming has been repeatedly falsified. You’re beating a dead horse.
Mr Osgood has been too heretical for the settled science and official ideology so there is a great possibility for him to be fired.
Any of you, be the first to ascertain which is the missing link between Sun and earth climate….before the Climate Pontiff speaks out while projecting their new horrendous slides
Ohioholic (19:39:38) :
Allan M R MacRae (04:48:31) Loved your post. The question is very politely posed. Yours is the ultimate question. Dr. Svalgaard is very well versed on the sun and it’s activity, but not WRT it’s impact on the earth. There is a huge gap in our knowledge right there. How does it interact? Are we considering all aspects? Do we know all aspects?
The thrill of the chase. Does anyone else find it energizing?
Don B (07:38:07) :
A Wod (2:54:35)
Some carbon dioxide alarmists try to dismiss the Little Ice Age-Solar connection by blaming the cooling on volcanic aerosols. Note figure 2, page 3, of Jasper Kirkby’s paper on Cosmic Rays and Climate, which shows the rough correlation between solar proxies and temperature proxies. For our complicated climate, this rough correlation is good enough for me.
http://aps.arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0804/0804.1938v1.pdf
Even Kirby doesn’t believe it is good enough. His conclusion is more work is needed to establish a mechanism:
Although recent observations support the presence of ioninduced
nucleation of new aerosols in the atmosphere, the possible contribution of such new particles to changes in the number of cloud condensation nuclei remains an open question. Furthermore, the parts of the globe and atmosphere that would be expected to be the most climatically sensitive to such processes are unknown, although they are likely to involve regions of low existing CCN concentrations.
Despite these uncertainties, the question of whether, and to what extent, the climate is influenced by solar and cosmic ray variability remains central to our understanding of the anthropogenic contribution to present climate change. Real progress on the cosmic ray-climate question will require a physical mechanism to be established, or else ruled out. With new experiments planned or underway, such as the CLOUD facility at CERN, there are good prospects that we will have some firm answers to this question
within the next few years.
.
Here is the Daily Mail’s take on the ‘Sun strike’ (zero sunspots)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1172399/Has-sun-gone-Earths-closest-star-dimmest-century.html
If you’d like to put them straight on the science, please write to:
letters@dailymail.co.uk
.
[Reply: Unfortunately, the blog host, WordPress, doesn’t provide a preview function. ~dbstealey, mod.]
David Ball (08:46:48) :
Dr. Svalgaard is very well versed on the sun and it’s activity, but not WRT it’s impact on the earth.
Actually, my real expertise is about the Earth (Geophysics), physics of the magnetosphere and upper atmosphere. My interest in the Sun only derives from my quest to understand the interactions between the two.
Are we considering all aspects? Do we know all aspects?
We can only go with what we know [which is a lot]. Basing decisions on what we don’t know does not seem to be fruitful.
I don’t think astronomers are ‘baffled’ by the current inactivity.
Leif,
” My Grow-n-Crash model does almost as well as..”
Have you been modeling for the Banks lately??
eric 08:24:14
The means by which the sun drives the climate, or even if it does, are unknown. What is known is that temperatures are falling while CO2 is rising, disconfirming the strong link between CO2 and temperature. And your figure of 3 degrees Centigrade temperature rise per doubling of CO2 is the figure put out by the IPCC without a scientific basis except an assumed, and mistakenly so, large positive feedback by water vapor. You’ve come to believe, and accept on faith, something that has no scientific basis.
=============================================
Since the federal government will now regulate the wages of those in private enterprise, it seems only fair that they first take a look at Al Gore’s pay for frightening children…
eric:-)
A couple of points:- Firstly, you have got it a little bit the wrong way round, this blog does the leading, the rest of us do the cheering, clear? Good!
Secondly, yes the Sun does fluctuate & always has done & hopefully always will up to a point, I am pleased to here you know so, but we will see quite soon if this lack of Sunspots & low magnetic field, & generally quiet Sun has any significant effect, won’t we? It is also very dodgy ground to state things like “it is believed” without citing by whom & based upon what evidence, try something along the lines of “as I understand it….. or….it is understood that….” etc, that lends an air of authority rather than saying the former as you suggest it is a belief system not scientific fact. The IPCC has been shown to be wrong in many of its judgements many times over simply because it is activist lead, not scientist lead! What the IPCC has failed to do is a Risk Assessment on whether we are heading into a new Ice-Age or even a second Little-Ice-Age, instead of continual warming through to the next century, this also smacks of arrogance & ignorance with no interest in the science, just how the science can be manipulated for political ends!
AND finally, as a 51 year old engineer, as I frequently remind my 23 year old son, I may be getting old, but it doesn’t mean I am turning stupid with it! To equate age with the suggestion that one is finished, that attitude smacks of youthful arrogance, & not of a well thought through balanced argument! You have clearly taken a leaf out of that stupid old has been Albert Gore, & “shouldn’t listen to the old people!”.
kuhnkat (09:07:56) :
” My Grow-n-Crash model does almost as well as..”
Have you been modeling for the Banks lately??
My model has wide applicability 🙂
To the Moderator, I apologise if the last post seemd a little bit of a rant, please feel free to snip as requried. AtB
Since I signed up at RePower America to send my thoughts to the newspapers, I just got an email from them that in part said this:
”
“Dear Mike,
In order to solve the climate crisis, we can’t just change light bulbs — we need to change laws.
We’re closer today than ever before. Right now, Congress is debating clean energy legislation that will jumpstart our economy and help solve the climate crisis.
On this Earth Day, can I depend on you to support this crucial legislation?
Yes. I’ll get 10 people to sign the petition in support of clean energy legislation within the next week.”
I decided to unsubscribe and told them why…
[sorry – a valid email address is required to post here]
“eric (08:24:14) :
The sun has always fluctuated. ”
CO2 and earth average temperature, on the other hand…
Leif, decisions are being based on the Co2 driver theory! Is this what we know? Is this correct? A trace gas has more to do with our atmosphere than the sun? You have stated that solar driver theory and Co2 driver theory have about the same correlation to the earth’s temperature. You are ignoring a great deal of evidence that shows a much greater correlation with solar activity (or inactivity as the case may be) than the C02 correlation. Solar activity is not the lone driver either, as we deal with change in obliquity, mean distances, etc. Correlation isn’t causation, but sometimes it is. I do not pretend to have the credentials that you have in regards to your field of study, but do not dismiss outright. A certain clerk in a patent office filed a very important paper, yet had no credentials in that field at the time.
RW (06:52:38) please respond to Ric Werme (05:21:05). Ric, in production of ICs my boss didn’t want to act on anything with an R^2 less than .9. I might get an “interesting” for something in the .8s, and an imperative to look deeper, but that was it. He thought anything less than .9 was just too vague to act on. Also RW, Pamela Gray (07:09:35) pointed you in the same direction as Ric. Salient and relevant comments by Smokey and others too.
Mike Bryant (09:50:45) :
“eric (08:24:14) :
The sun has always fluctuated. ”
CO2 and earth average temperature, on the other hand..
In the past 400,000 years CO2 has fluctuated between about 180 and 280 ppM, driven by temperatures. It is now at an unprecented level over 380ppM, driven by human industrial activity.
Alan the Brit (09:20:18) :
I am 71 years old. I still think Chas Osgood has exceeded his sell by date as a journalist.
REPLY: As has yours as a blog commenter