That big burning ball in the sky affects the earth in some way? How can that be?
…geographer Robert Baker of the University of New England, Armidale, in Australia, has linked solar magnetic activity to Earth’s climate–at least regionally. Using sunspot counts and Australian meteorological data, as well as NASA satellite data for more recent years, he tracked sunspots and rainfall in Australia from 1876 to 2006. In this month’s issue of Geographical Research, Baker reports that the amount of rainfall in most regions of the country tracked the 22-year magnetic cycle almost exactly. “It was unbelievable,” Baker says. At the height of magnetic activity, rainfall across most of the country was plentiful. At the other end of the cycle, many of those same regions experienced severe droughts. The findings are particularly compelling, Baker says, because even though the lengths of the magnetic cycles are not precise and can vary by several years, the rainfall patterns followed them.
So what’s behind the connection? Baker thinks it has to do with the amount of ultraviolet (UV) radiation hitting Earth. When the reversing of polarity approaches, he explains, the sun’s magnetic field weakens, allowing more UV energy to reach our planet. More UV radiation kills off some of the oceans’ plankton, which produce dimethyl sulfide, one of the primary atmospheric chemicals involved in cloud formation, and fewer clouds mean less rainfall.
[…]
“This could be an important paper,” says climatologist John Christy of the University of Alabama, Huntsville. He explains that current climate models don’t give the solar effect much weight in general, because scientists think it is overwhelmed by the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. But if there’s a mechanism by which the sun’s variations are tied directly to weather patterns, such as the effect of UV radiation on cloud formation, he says, the sun may have a greater impact than the models are showing. As a result, the models might not be creating an accurate picture for the future.
Man, just when you think you’ve heard everything…
i read that they have added one second to the international clock because the earths rotation is slowing. we are all going to fry. my god, panic quickly. increase the rotation speed. ha.
Nothing conclusive just the normal process of science.
1) The correlation is interesting but doesnt prove anything, so to speak. If it yields a prediction that can be tested then this is the power of it. Hence the focus on precipitation. It is objectively measured, unlike surface temperature and is a good simple test. Unlike the AGW models where I cannot think of one single prediction that has held up…and not just missing by 10% but by multiple quantum. Anyway, they have a model so we will see if it holds up
2) The other interesting piece is that there is a mechanism proposed that can be examined, poked and prodded, and appears to be supported by theory. Once again this is something that AGW models have been missing. AGW models engage in lots of hand waving once you get past the 1st step of saying CO2 is a GHG…a true statement, along with any other gas or vapour in the atmosphere, including water vapour. Talking about how much it affects things is missing, henc the lack of predictive power.
The solar theory/hypothesis is interesting, but like CO2 I just dont know the answer, since neither has accumulated enough evidence and proper predictions to become uncontroversially accepted.
Interesting paper, because the implication is if there is a link between solar cycles and precipitation, it may be a secondary effect by the way, which is why the mecahnism needs to be understood, then you have now made a solid pitch that “weather” and “climate” are strongly affected by the sun. this doesnt invalidate CO2 as a contributor but it probably invalidates any prior AGW model since the sun is never considered part of the model, it is always held as a constant.
It also shows that whatever effect manmade or man induced CO2 has it can easily be washed out by “natural” cycles. So at best man made CO2 is an additive not a catalyst.
The policy implications flow from there, as they should. Get the science largely correct and then you can make proper policy choices.
Right answer+ wrong method = bad science, and bad science is like multiplying by zero…you always get zero as an answer…
This paper will be reviewed and jusged along with others based on its predictive qualities. 2 years from now it might be considered a breakthrough or a joke, or more likely some elements of it will hold up and it will move the gears of science frward another inch or two.
No, Dante, I am not joking. You’ve blown off a paper which (a) you have not (properly) read, or (b) wish to deliberately misrepresent. I did you the courtesy of assuming (a). Read the paper carefully. I am not saying that it is holy writ, merely worth taking seriously. The paper does contain statistical analysis. Whether it is sufficient to the fact is a secondary concern. Your categorical statement is false. I’ll presume field bias on your part, and undue infatuation with statistical rigor – I assume you work in a field where experiments can be replicated for statistical precision. While the work may have undoubted deficiencies, it is not garbage science.
“And by the way, who needs a day to evaluate a paper? If it takes you more than ten minutes you’re incompetent.”
Sigh. Do you publish? Have you read your referee reports? Do you think such feedback takes only 10 minutes? Yes, one can (usually) determine obvious trash in 10 minutes, in ones own field. Stop being so impressed with your own insight and learning.
(Oh, and BTW, one does not “prove [something] with statistical analysis…”)
My brother has sent me a link to the “Green Agenda” here is a taste.
“The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”
– Club of Rome,
premier environmental think-tank
consultants to the United Nations
Here’s one from one of favorite power brokers.
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the
industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about?”
– Maurice Strong,
founder of the UN Environment Programme
Deeznuts, what the heck am I talking about?
The AGW crowd wants to tax the use of carbon fuels, retard their use and have us bow to the IPPC pseudo science. CO2 is not the driving force of climate change. To single it out as such and to shape a world economy around this fallacy is ludicrous. People who think CO2 is evil are small minded and have absolutely no clue about proper science nor the vastness of the universe and its’ mechanics.
CO2 does not drive climate, the universe drives climate. Our knowledge about climate is in direct correlation to our knowledge about the universe, which is infantile.
To ask the world to swallow the science is settled hype p*sses me off. To shape the future to this philosophy is insane.
The statistaical analysis argument is bogus. Statistical analysis doesn’t validate anything — look at the nonense of using tree rings to derive global temperatures. The true test of validity is: prediction based on theory produced via accurate observation. Typically, the AGW religionists try to discredit a valid contribution to understanding aspects of climate. Rememeber the three kinds of lies: “lies, damned lies, and statistics”.
Stephen: “If it yields a prediction that can be tested then this is the power of it.”
Um, come here often? What we are so exercised about is precisely that the AGW crowd makes so many predictions that don’t pan out. 100% rise in CO2 should result in 3 metre rise in sea levels? (Jeremy Siegel)
From a global warming site: “The overall rise is from just below 280 ppm (the “pre-industrial” value) to the present values above 360 ppm, an increase of a factor of 1.3. The logarithm of 1.3 is 0.11, that of 2 is 0.30. Thus, we are a little more than one third of the way to a doubling of carbon dioxide, on a log scale. If doubling of carbon dioxide produces a temperature rise of between 1.5 and 5 degrees Celsius (as found in numerical experiments using climate models), we should see a warming of between 0.5 and 1.7 degrees Celsius.”
Er.. why are we using a log scale? Why not a square law (which occurs naturally in gravity and electromagnetism) instead? Oh, right.. the square law can be measured and authenticated, but the log scale for CO2? Not so much.
As I’ve noted above, I have considerable experience with numbers and statistics. This is why the AGW crowd drives me wild; they have no time for any rigorous statistical analysis; they love to use the fallacious “post hoc, ergo propter hoc” form; and when the absolute stats turn against them (posted at SDA over and over again), they either turn to “ad hominem” attacks or ignore them. Any wonder that people with scientific educations (e.g. “me”) tend to ignore or denigrate the AGW crowd?
Marice Strong represents the evil one downstairs, lurking in the cellar of every human mind. When that wacko moves upstairs, to the main floor, he starts running the show. Unca Mo and his ilk have a satanic hatred for all mankind – the devil hates man but loves God; he thinks that we people are unfit to worship God and he wants to alienate God from us. Unca Mo and his ilk allow themselves to do the Devil’s work by hating people. Evil himself, laughs at the like of the puny, ugly, Unca Mo but he gives him and his ilk power over good people to turn good people against God.
Evil is way more powerful than us humans but God (good) is way more powerful than evil. People should just ignore the likes of Unca Mo – he just wants to collect money for ‘hot air’; he is not and never was concerned about the health of people, he is concerned about ridding the planet of people because he considers people filthy. Money from the sweat of others is never any good. Stealing money from others is the root of all evil, IMO. Money should never be allowed to be powerful in itself but right now it is the key to power.
Lorrie Goldstein and Kate have had a handle on the Climate thingie from Day One – and so did Ezra and his journalists at Western Standard. It is a hoax folks – we cannot control the weather. End of story. We can control the pollution, however, with reasonable practises that most people are most willing to help with…big pharma has problems with focusing on pollution…hence the fanatical msm yappers babbling about controlling the weather (impossible) instead of cleaning up the air, water and land.
The idea of jambing all the world’s people into cities is to isolate people from the beauty of nature – keep them out of tune with God. In Canada, we have miles and miles of emptiness – people are not able to make a living outside cities so they move to town. The gument and special interest groups have ‘claimed’ all the productive and beautiful land for themselves…the land should be for sale to all citizens and the citizens, themselves could and would buy Parks (eg. Stanly Park, Butchart Gardens). The Native Indian people who collectively own reserves should be forced to dismantle the reserves to private property, pay taxes and live as citizens of Canada. Same goes for the Hutterites and all other ‘collective property’ no deals for group ownership – including churches and ‘charity’ organizations.
People who own and care for their land are good citizens and good people. Free and independent people require freedom from their fellow man to think – in cities, full of people, mankind forgets his/her individuality.
RW: You’re confused my friend. I stated that there are piles and piles of research confirming the greenhouse effect in our atmosphere. There is piles and piles of research demonstrating the role the atmosphere plays in the earth’s climate. That you cannot deny…it’s fact.
Tim: You’re also confused…re-read my post. Nowhere did I state that a change in CO2 is the controlling factor in earth’s climate. I said that the atmosphere is. Please show me evidence of this 10 year cooling. I have yet to find a SCIENTIFIC PAPER showing so.
I don’t have a side dude…and who’s demanding trillions…what are you talking about? Last I heard it was the automakers demanding money.
PiperPaul: You have no idea what you’re talking about.
Kevin: Read the article dude…last line. The link to the original paper is in the article. You last comment is retarded…if you don’t need to prove it then why do you insist that AGW needs to be proved?
Bruce Wayne: Great generalization…just what is “the AGW crowd”…I believe it’s government who makes tax decisions. What I want to see is new technology rather than relying on the old. You seem to be ok with claiming unsupported statements as long as they don’t fall on the AGW side. The universe controls the climate? Huh? Anything to back that up? Who’s shaping the world economy around it? No one is trying to shape the economy around it whatsoever…the way the world’s economy works has everything to do with central banks.
Whether or not CO2 is the factor, and whether or not the earth is actually going through human induced climatic changes doesn’t matter. What matters is that oil and the wars fought over it, wasteful consumption supported by destroying living systems through non-sustainable resource extraction, and social inequality are what plague our planet and our species. They are all connected. Demanding that new technology be invested in, fighting back corporate globalization, and consuming responsibly are ways in which we can stop this madness.
Deeznuts 8:41 pm — your last paragraph is a pile of regurgitated socialist crap — firstly, this whole sustainability concept is just an artificial marketing construct — the laws of conservation of mass, energy, angular momemtum, and charge all still apply as far as I know. The real resources in any society are men’s minds and hands – both of which socialists want to control and restrict.
Secondly, please can’t you come up with some better meaningless dribble than the old socialist cliches — “social inequality” — who actually decides what “social inequality” is? — you? —
“Wasteful consumption” Who decides what wasteful consumption is? — you? —
“destroying living systems” — what is a “living system” anyway? Who decides what constitutes these so-called “living systems”? you?
Thirdly,If you want to ‘save the world’ and you don’t like some corporation, ie oil and gas producer — just don’t buy their product, moron –no one is forcing you to buy anything produced by any corporation.
If you believe in using solar power or wind power then buy your own or build your own — but quit bellyaching about “investing in new technology” which really means you want everyone else to pay for your pet (idiotic) ideas.
What plagues our planet are idiots like you, who think they know what is right for everyone else.
Old Chemist: Please explain this seemingly complex connection between sustainability and “an artificial marketing construct”. How is replacing forests after you cut them down “an artificial marketing construct”….or mine reclamation, or sustainable agriculture for that matter. And what do the laws of physics have to do with your argument?
People are much more than resources…it is a very poor society which looks upon its citizens as mere tools.
For your information I don’t label myself with these foolish political ideologies and generalizations.
As far as definitions go…we could just use common sense…that’s always a good choice.
Hmmm..social inequality might look like this…..
“A study by the World Institute for Development Economics Research at United Nations University reports that the richest 1% of adults alone owned 40% of global assets in the year 2000, and that the richest 10% of adults accounted for 85% of the world total. The bottom half of the world adult population owned barely 1% of global wealth.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth#21st_century
Wasteful consumption? Well I guess that’s up to you….but in a society where self-worth is judged by how many WANTS one can fulfill I’m sure you won’t have trouble spotting it.
What is a living system? You’re kidding with this one right? The entire planet is a living system. Look at the moon…now look at earth…can you see them yet?
Actually, yes, I am forced to buy from corporations…or remove myself from the system all together…which isn’t a realistic choice.
Pet idiotic ideas? What are you talking about…I don’t invent anything, I don’t work where technology is pursued, I have no stakes in it. Technology is the one and only thing that has allowed man to progress. It was the invention of stone tools that helped out ancestors survive, it was the invention of the light bulb that freed us from the dark and it’s technology that frees us from monotonous, manual labour, improves our health, and enriches our lives.
A piece of advice, the insults hurt your argument, they make it appear weak and in need of artificial support from name calling.
I pretty sure this thread is dead, however, Deeznuts, give The Chilling Stars by the Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark a boo. It’s the stars baby.