Who’s Smarter? Astrophysicists or Climatologists? 2 of 3 on global warming

Friday, June 26, 2009




Even as I write this, congress is voting on the Waxman-Markey tax and unemployment bill. In true leftist style, the bill is being crammed through congress without debate or consideration of opposing view-points. Also true to form, Henry Waxman inserted a 300 page amendment to his already 1,000 page bill last night so that no one really has a clue about what they are voting on.

My friends on the left, what does this say about the integrity of your politicians?

Today, there will be no discussion about the validity of man-made global warming on the congressional floor, lucky for you dear reader, I have no such fear of holding a debate here.

You will notice that this is my second of three posts regarding global warming. In my last post, I discussed how mathematical modeling works and the limitations of using modeling to establish scientific relationships and make predictions. My first point was that mathematical modeling cannot, in and of itself, prove a cause and effect relationship. I illustrated this point by showing a real model I’d created "proving" that voting for Barak Obama causes unemployment. My second point was that mathematical models are only useful for making predictions in the short-term. Global warming models going out 100 years are wrong.

Today I’m going to discuss how solar activity and not carbon dioxide is destined to win the debate regarding what causes fluctuations in global temperatures. I regret that there is no way to write this post without being somewhat tongue in cheek. I am sorry to those who don’t see the humor in some of this. It is merely the symptom of the willing suspension of common sense.

As I’ve often mentioned, it is difficult to parse through a “science” that is so highly politicized. However, there is a growing body of evidence that suggests that solar activity is the main cause of global temperatures. As I understand it, the sun generally goes through 11 year cycles of increasing to decreasing solar activity, which effect global temperatures. I have seen a few models online and most of the models have an R-square of 60% or higher (about the same as the carbon dioxide folks). Here is an article from a Harvard scientist here.

So what C Gen? Our man made global warming models show just as strong of a relationship! However, solar activity models will prevail because it only takes a little common sense to prove a strong cause-effect relationship. If the sun were to extinguish tomorrow, what would the temperature of the earth be? How much heat will carbon dioxide and man generate once the sun is out of the equation?

The very term man-made global warming is a joke since man does not create any heat in the model. The cause and effect chain for man-made global warming goes like this: man makes carbon dioxide, that carbon dioxide traps heat causing a .2 degree Celsius increase in temperatures over the last 50 years, which is causing water to evaporate more than usual adding another .4 degree Celsius increase over the last 50 years. The model cannot account for the fact that carbon dioxide is always increasing, but temperatures are not always increasing. However, the bigger hole is that the sun is nowhere in their equation and yet it is essential for global warming to exist. Doesn’t it sound a little presumptuous to hold solar activity constant when that is the only source for heat in your model?

It is even more concerning when it is well known that the sun has been responsible for dramatic changes in the earth’s temperature in the past. Many astrophysicists point to the little ice age, a long period where global temperatures were unusually cold and sun spot activity was nonexistent. So far, this June is likely to be one of the coldest June’s since the beginning of temperature records. Could it be a coincidence that there was no sun spot activity at the beginning of 2009?

If you need more proof of the sun’s ability to heat a planet, here is an article from that ultra conservative (laying on the sarcasm thick) Nation Geographic about how Mars has also seen global increases in temperature.

If facts weren’t bad enough, top global warming climatologists have made seriously poor defenses of their climate models as it relates to solar activity. Global warming scientist Mike Lockwood had this to say in a National Geographic article about the sun’s ability to affect global temperatures:

"I think you have to bear in mind that the CO2 is a good 50 to 60 percent higher than normal, whereas the decline in solar output is a few hundredths of one percent down," Lockwood said. "I think that helps keep it in perspective."

No Mike, it doesn’t help keep things in perspective since you are comparing apples to oranges. It’s like saying this, “the new F-somenumber is not faster than the new GM Greenster because the new jet has increased its top speed over the F-22 by only 1% and the Greenster beat out the top speed of a Prius by 40%." The sun is thousands of times bigger than the earth and a small change is significant. On the other hand, CO2 is .001% of the earth’s atmosphere. It requires very, very large changes to affect anything, if at all.

Hanson’s NASA finally admitted that the sun is having an effect on global temperatures. This would be a small sign of sanity in the organization had they not gone on to say that solar activity was responsible for 25% of global temperatures. Once again, I ask NASA to explain what the temperature of the earth would be if the sun were extinguished? We know that the sun is responsible for ice ages and temperatures far hotter than we are seeing now in the past? Even if NASA’s estimate is correct, it poses a big problem for carbon dioxide. If carbon dioxide is responsible for causing water vapor to be 66% of temperature increase, why can’t solar and not carbon dioxide be responsible for water vapor’s role?

If global warming scientists were to stay true to the scientific method, they would take their models and science back to square one. Sun-caused global warming has no such cause and effect problems. We know for certain that man has no effect on the sun. The earth also has minimal effect on the sun. The sun is necessary for any global warming to occur. In short, we are sure that the sun heats the planet.

Some light global warming reading:


Here is a post on global warming modeling

Here is a post on the insanity of the left’s tax and unemployment policy

Here is a great article about how tax and unemployment policies are killing Spain

10 comments

The Law said...

Even is global warming is a joke (which btw, I find it hard to beleive that people refuse to accept the fact that man-made toxins being poured into the atmosphere and water do not have adverse long term and short term effect on the planet) dirty air is unhealthy! It is toxic! That much is absolutely indispubtable.

Why Grenn cars may not be such an awful idea...

http://wcco.com/health/Smog.Pollution.Los.2.1058633.html

Look at the cities here... They either have unbelievable amounts of traffic or it is a big manufacturing sector.

This is not a unique story.

The other argument which is pretty awful is "what about the rest of the world? If they don't follow through it's useless!" Why is it we only take the leadership position when it is convenient for us (like with miltary endeavors?) The rest of the world looks to the US and says, what are they gonna do? If we tightened our envirnomental standards, the rest of the indusrialized world will soon follow suit. Whether or not you believe the earth will not heat up like an easy bake oven, then you can't deny carbon emmissions are bad for our health, and for that reason alone, we should do something about it.

June 27, 2009 at 11:07 PM
The Law said...

Green cars** btw =)

June 27, 2009 at 11:08 PM

tL,

Here is a perfect example of the problem. What is more toxic? Mercury or Carbon Dioxide? All florescent light bulbs, which I believe are being mandated in the near future, has mercury in them. As it stands, carbon dioxide is not a health concern for humans as far as breathing is concerned. I know this because we are not suffocating at the moment. On the other hand mercury will kill. Since we are told that carbon dioxide is frying the planet (which I do not believe is the case at the moment. Might be possible one day) we are filling our homes with mercury. Also, it is now likely our waterways will also be once again filled with mercury (it has been cleaned up since we did away with mercury thermometers).

The point here is that we need to assess pollution and health risks in a reasonable and realistic way. Otherwise we start doing horrible ideas like reintroducing mercury into households because we now think carbon dioxide is somehow worse.

I can name other instances outside of global warming where this occurs. I do believe that pollution in general is an issue to be addressed. However, with your Los Angeles example, isn't it for the citizen's of Los Angeles to take action in their city?

The difference between you and I is over carbon dioxide. I don't believe that is an issue for humans...yet...we have quite a ways to go on that one. Carbon dioxide is plant food not a pollutant. As far as all other pollutants go, we are in fact one of the most eco-friendly nations on the planet. You also fail to realize that we have been becoming increasingly eco-friendly over time. I once sent you and article from NY Times showing that this is true. Keep in mind we are the third largest nation in the world and we are way ahead of India and China on the pollution front.

Furthermore, I find it funny if you think that conservatives are anti green when it is those on the left opposing wind turbines off of US coasts, wind turbines because they kill birds, and solar panels in the desert because it displaces lizards.

Finally, I do not find taking military action convenient. I thought imposing our ideas on others was arrogant? You say we shouldn't say anything about an Iranian crack down on people freely protesting, but you want us to come down on them because of the environment? I'm sorry, that line of reasoning is bankrupt.

June 28, 2009 at 7:39 AM
Andrew33 said...
This comment has been removed by the author. June 28, 2009 at 9:01 AM
Andrew33 said...

By the way, thank you for joining me in my crusade to educate the masses on how and why Global WArming is totally unprovable. I have a MOUNTAIN of sources of info that I would love to share with anyone who wants to study this further. GOTTA RUN,BBL!!!!

June 28, 2009 at 9:05 AM
Andrew33 said...

This is one of my older posts from KOOK's blog. It explains in the most layman's terms how to administer an intellectual beatdown to anyone trying make an argument supporting "Global Warming:

"Green"
While on the subject of "green", "green jobs", geenhouse gasses etc. I look at it like this: "Green" is the new "Red" as in communism. The color for communism was red mainly from the Russians but it has been repackaged in a nice friendly "green" wrapper to sell to Americans. The "star and sickle" don't sell well here in the States so to sell Government jobs they get called "Green" jobs now. Green sounds much nicer and less controlling than either "Government" or "red." Here's a little more "Green 101." The fact is any Carbon Dioxide emitted by a smokestack or a tailpipe sinks to and into the ground like a rock in the water because Carbon Dioxide is far heavier than air. Air is a nearly constant solution of CO2, O2 and other trace elements similar to salt water. CO2 doesn't pile up in the atmosphere because of the oxygen and other trace gasses that are far lighter than CO2. That is Global Warming hoax #1 plain and simple. Water is in the air just like CO2. Yet when there is too much water in the air, it forms clouds. When the clouds get thick enough, and the water becomes heavy enough it falls as rain, but they don't teach that in science class anymore. That is the reality behind "Green." Funny thing is when I ask those who support Global Warming about this they responded with silence."

You can prove this effect by filling a beaker with pure CO2 and corking it. Then light several candles on a table. Uncork, then turn upside down the CO2 beaker 2-3 ft directly above the candles. You will see the candles go out as the excess CO2 falls to the floor.

This is a most rudimentary way to prove what happens to excess CO2. When I have done this in front of or asked so-called experts about this, they were dumbfounded.

So remember folks, when you drive, breathe or do anything else, your CO2 goes into the ground just like rain after a rainstorm where the roots of plants absorb it as food. Also rem,ember that our bodies as well as our planet is mostly carbon. Lastly, despite what Al Gore says, it is the Sun that heats the Earth, not CO2. If "runaway greenhouse effect" was happening, Earth would be a mirror image of Venus.

Atmospheric Density is another question. With CO2 being much heavier and more dense than air, how come the measure of atmospheric density A.K.A. barometric pressure has not risen? That is because CO2 levels are not rising. The average barometric pressure at sea level has not changed one bit since readings began being recorded.

One more little thing, this year, Arctic Sea Ice is higher than average and much higher than ALGORE predicted for this year so the Polar Bears will be okay for a while.

June 28, 2009 at 1:07 PM
Andrew33 said...

Also the minimum solar cycle we are in a.k.a the Maunder Minimum has lasted far longer than expected leading to global cooling.

June 28, 2009 at 1:11 PM
Andrew33 said...

Could you do me a favor and condense the info you deem most important into a smaller single post and I would love to post it on the "manifesto" for the readers there.

June 28, 2009 at 1:14 PM
Andrew33 said...

Here's some more insights, water acts like a battery. It is slow to store energy and slow to release energy. Land is the opposite, as it warms quickly and cools quickly. Like the Sun, the oceans go through warm and cold cycles which greatly affect the land around them. Warm Oceans nearby generally lead to warm moist weather patterns, while cold oceans nearby lead to cold dry weather patterns. The point I am getting to here is that the 0.2-0.4C increase over the last 50 years was caused by shifts in oceanic temperature. These are cyclical in nature and occur in both the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. They are known as the AMO and PDO respectively. The AMO (Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation) was warm from the '30s through the '50's, then cold from the '60s through early '90s. By the late '90s it was back to warm again. That is why if you do any study of hurricane history, there were many in the '30s trough '50s, then there was a general lull until 95. After 95, hurricane activity ramped up in the Atlantic. On the Pacific side, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation is a similar pattern although less is known about historically. The Pacific was in a warm cycle in the '80s-'90s, but seems to recently have shifted to a cold cycle. The PDO is often associated with the phenomenon known as EL NINO. It is a personal belief of mine that the warm PDO cycle and the EL NINO events it triggered led to the common belief currently held that the globe is warming. I emphasize that people reading this do not just take my word for this but look it up for themselves. This is a very rudimentary explanation of the events that I believe have led to the misinformation known as "man made global warming." I encourage everyone who reads this to look this up for themselves and educate themselves here so that those spreading lies about global warming can be countered everywhere and at all times. A simple google search to NWS AMO will lead you to all this info.

June 28, 2009 at 5:14 PM
Andrew33 said...

By the way, harmful toxins like CarbonMONOxide emmissions have been reduced by 95% in America. It is China and India that are the problem and they aren't capping and taxing anything.

June 29, 2009 at 5:58 PM

Post a Comment