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.
Mike Bryant (09:27:16) I have considered unsubscribing as well, but enjoy sending them my comments and using their links to my congress rep, Salazar. Then I let them know what I sent to Salazar. I can at least hope it is annoying to use Repower’s services against their aims.
Re: The recent sunspeck:
Sunspot 1015 is fading away. It emerged late yesterday, April 21st, with a magnetic imprint that identifies it as a member of new Solar Cycle 24. At the rate it is decaying, the lifetime of the spot could total fewer than 24 hours.
Someone needs to set up a project where they use the same techniques/instruments that were used in the mid 19th century to count sunspots. I pretty sure that #1015 and most of the other ‘sunspots’ the last year and half would never have been spotted and counted back then.
kim (09:10:08) :
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.
It is incorrect to say that a strong link is disconfirmed.
The expected rate of global temperature change is expected to by about 0.2 K/decade. The internal variation and other factors can be expected to overwhelm this rate of change for short periods of time as much as a decade or morel. The change in temperature we have experienced are to be expected even while the radiational forcing due to the CO2 increase is still operating.
If co2 worked as advertised (by the Warmers), I would expect that under clear sky/dry conditions temperatures would drop slower after sundown than they did say 50 years ago. Has this ever been studied ?
Perhaps the USAF could help with such a study. They seem to have several bases located near deserts.
(Love your site, btw)
Joint Press Release Issued by Al Gore & Dr. James Hansen:
We wish the best for Charles Osgood and his loved ones as they deal with his sudden onset of Alzheimer’s Disease.
Gaia bless you, Charles.
Al & Jim
You know, the comments about the French et. al. got me thinking:
Perhaps now that the U.S.A. is firmly on the AGW bandwagon, and given the Rest Of World tendency to want to bash us, it will now become fashionable to be anti-AGW so that the America Bashing can continue?
No, really! I can hear it now “Those Americans are SO last Millennium; they still worry about AGW. They don’t have a clue about the solar minimum…”
Well, I can hope can’t I? 8-}
Tarnsman (10:25:36) :
Someone needs to set up a project where they use the same techniques/instruments that were used in the mid 19th century to count sunspots.
Friedli in Bern is doing exactly that: http://www.leif.org/research/Friedli2005.pdf page 3
using the very same telescope as Rudolf Wolf used in the 1850s…
David Ball (10:13:26) :
Leif, decisions are being based on the Co2 driver theory!
Just because somebody is being stupid does not mean that we should be too.
1015: Blank, gone, vanished…
The sun rests on…
David Ball (10:13:26) :
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.
His papers were good and were not dismissed at all. Now, the stuff peddled about our topic is hardly of that caliber and most do not pass the smell test.
Steve… maybe I’ll sign back up…
eric: “The internal variation and other factors can be expected to overwhelm this rate of change for short periods of time…”
Eric, could you expand on “the internal variation and other factors”?
eric;-)
Point taken. I respectfully withdraw my remarks regarding youthfull arrogance in your case. Age notwithstanding however, I maintain that the tone of the comments you made should in the circumstances have reflected your seniority, IMHO! All other comments stand!
Pray tell, when do senior citizens exceed their “sell by date” to legitimately comment on current affairs, & dare I suggest, offer an opinion on them? For me it would be when they no longer refuse having the lid screwed down! Fight to the bitter end I say.
I recommend this site, Climate Realist, ICECAP, etc. for further study on a regular basis.
AtB
eric (08:24:14) : ” This is a small fraction of the 3C expected to result from a doubling of CO2 by human industry.”
Who is “expecting” the 3C temperature rise?
What flavor do you drink, grape or cherry?
Comment on Climate Heretic (08:25:57)
Sober science auditors have political roots of more than one stripe. There may be some untenable assumptions built into your equations.
– – – –
Leif Svalgaard (01:38:20)
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~obs/torsional.html
I see that the graph has been extended by a number of years – but what about papers that take the line of analysis further? (If they exist, they are not easy to locate – so far…) I was pleased to see some of the methods pursued in Ulrich (2001), but there was a lot of refinement left to do – & several years have passed — was the 2001 paper really the end of that fruitful line of analysis? Perhaps a publication is forthcoming? – perhaps when the timing might be better for new ideas to be accepted? Now I am beginning to suspect politics….
Alex (10:53:15) :
1015: Blank, gone, vanished…
The sun rests on… Yes, only the lost pixel we all know.
Then…RIP (Requiescat in pace)
“Could another minimum activity period on the Sun counteract, in any way, the effects of global warming?”
To my mind this statement suggests that AGW is a real problem and the sun can save us. As yet, no one has proved AGW to my satisfaction.
Leif, does Willie Soon’s work pass your smell test?
eric 10:30:24
Ah, hopeful words. Why is it that none, or almost none, of the climate models predict natural variability to overwhelm the effect of CO2 for ‘as much as a decade or more’? And please see lucia’s Blackboard at rankexploits.com/musings/ for disconfirmation, at the 95% confidence level, of the AR4 projection of 0.2C rise per decade, in eight short years.
The models are wrong; they’ve overestimated the sensitivity of climate to CO2. This is the simplest explanation for today’s dropping temperatures while CO2 continues to rise. You may hope that temperature starts to rise again, but the oceanic oscillations in their cooling phase and possibly the effect of the quiescent sun makes your hopes vain. We shouldn’t base expensive and dangerous policy on your vain hopes.
=============================================
He hasn’t been a politician for a few years. He’s just a neurotic activist now.
Paul Vaughan (11:11:46) :
Comment on Climate Heretic (08:25:57)
Sober science auditors have political roots of more than one stripe. There may be some untenable assumptions built into your equations.
– – – –
If this was a science debate I would agree but this is not, it is political, look at the Polls where they break it out on party lines, of course there are cross-over individuals but the political nature of opinion on this issue is clear and driven from the top down on both sides.
I myself believe in Social Liberty but am a Fiscal Conservative, what I do not support is intolerance from any side. I firmly respect people for their opinions even though I do not understand their lack of conviction. I am firmly entrenched in this battle and have been for a decade.
The truth will be the science left after the political battle which has no politics.
I was thinking more along the lines of Ipecac 😉
eric 10:20:00
It is a lie to say that the temperatures of the last 400,000 years have been driven by CO2. The ice cores show a correlation between temperatures and CO2 over that time period, but the temperature rises approximately 800 years before the CO2 rises, suggesting that the temperature rise causes the CO2 rise rather than the other way around. Recruitment of CO2 from ocean outgassing or other CO2 stores is even a plausible mechanism for the lag.
380 ppm is also not an unprecedented level of CO2. Where did you get that idea?
You hurt your credibility when you lie like that. Lots of the people reading this blog are not as naive as you seem to think they are.
Furthermore, over the last hundreds of millions of years there is no correlation between temperature and CO2 level, so far as we can tell.
========================================
eric (05:45:08) :Follow my advice (above). It will surely relieve you from all the AGWrs. symthomps in a few days. Believe me, we have cured many suffering of the same disease.
E.M.Smith (10:44:20) :
You know, the comments about the French et. al. got me thinking:
Perhaps now that the U.S.A. is firmly on the AGW bandwagon, and given the Rest Of World tendency to want to bash us, it will now become fashionable to be anti-AGW so that the America Bashing can continue?
No, really! I can hear it now “Those Americans are SO last Millennium; they still worry about AGW. They don’t have a clue about the solar minimum…”
Well, I can hope can’t I? 8-}
You have been taken in by an April fools joke. The person who posted the news about Claude Allegre being considered for environment minister by Sarkozy was joking.
http://www.scienceblogs.de/primaklima/2009/04/ein-aprilscherz-wird-zum-welterfolg.php
The blogger who did this says when he read Marc Morano and Benny Peiser’s
comments about his story, he laughed until tears came to his eyes.
You will have to translate this story.