Another interesting climate link:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23583376-7583,00.html

Kate, you've been one of the best people in reporting the anthropogenic global warming theory. Unfortunately, there may be a real climate problem affecting mankind, and a far more serious one.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23583376-7583,00.html

Incidentally, this is far more likely, backed by actual science, as opposed to politics, and fully in keeping with the climatological record. Global warming has always helped mankind expand our food production and population throughout our brief history anyway.

Sadly, the opposite is occuring now. The question is, does it accelerate or stop?

If it accelerates, hundreds of millions, minimum, will die.

The man-made global warming theory is and always was nonsense. Carbon levels rise after temperatures rise, and not before. Vice versa too, when falling. The biggest driver of Earth's climate, by far, is the Sun.

Indeed, BigFoot, indeed. I'd hope that ever commenter here of any current opinion, and our lovely Kate, reads that story and throws it into their thinking cap.

What do we expect with Larry, Curly and Moe running the show? Don't worry, be happy, as long as these guys know what they're doing.

thats the final straw, Im devoting my aeroplan credits into a sunspot credit program, instead of buying carbon offsets , Im going to demand that George Bush and his little sidekick Stephen Harper restart the goddang sun.

FACTS! You bring FACTS!

How dare you! You will rue the day you denied the sacred wisdom of the Goracle!

When Saint Al of the Goracle reigns triumphant, his trusty sidekick Dr. Fruit of the Flying Knat will ensure global warming will be accelerated by the flames of a thousand burning heretics!!!

Deniers will burn! BURN I SAY!!!

Judging from all the posts I've seen here on SDA like this one, I'm now detecting a pattern.

I now suspect that there's deliberate placement of temperature sensors near heat sources for the purpose of affecting data gathered so as to tend to overstate true ambient air temperature.

I'm serious. This is indubitably such a common occurence that surely the reasonable person will inevitably be led to hypothesize such deliberation.

The more we observe, the more we doubt the message coming from the IPCC, Al Gore and his propaganda pawns.

I really do believe we're being lied to. Big time.

The Canadian Sentinel :

How right you are!

Just a question Kate. Blazing cat fur has had 4 visits from the RCMP on her site. I was wondering if you are being scanned as well by the same orginization?

The Canadian Sentinel

Are you kidding or not? Honestly can't tell.

I wouldn't be surprised C.S.

Canadian Sentinel -- don't attribute to malice or evil what can very easily be explained by bone-crushing stupidity!

I've always had visits from RCMP computers.

* Before submitting, review the post to ensure your comment is on topic .. *

Please cut the drivel.

Prediction from reading the comments thus far -- most people will NOT read the important climate story recommended independently by two commenters at the beginning of this thread. However, they will leave predictable comments themselves expressing their current beliefs without seriously expanding their knowledge.

Prove me wrong people.

"I really do believe we're being lied to. Big time." C.S.

Uh Huh. Which is how to create a brand new industry for the elitists. You know, one that appears to be a bit more palatable to the average Joe right after the oil and gas rape and plunder subsides a bit.

I have to agree with Canadian Sentinel. Whether or not there has been a deliberate conspiracy to mislead the uninformed remains to be conclusively proven. However, the thing that IS obvious is the increasing preponderance of evidence that is mounting daily pointing in the direction of deception by Gore et al.

That weather data has been skewed to the warm side, is not in doubt.

That the reporting of climate information has been biased to the warm side, is not in doubt.

That the media has fear mongered about global warming, is not in doubt.

That the above has caused untold $Billions of taxpayer money to be wasted, is not in doubt.

That the Earth has cooled lately is not in doubt.

Could there be a more clear cut case for fraud charges against the perpetraitors ??

Christoph: The item in The Australian is just another log to be added to the multitude already stacked on Mr. Gore's funeral pyre.

Ron in K: I hear ya brother.

This one's for the "thought police"!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGxI2oyM6Wg&feature=related

Hope you all enjoy the laugh!
;)

I love these posts. The group doing the audit of these stations in the US is doing wonderful work.

Whether or not you believe in AGW as a theory you wont get anywhere proving it with bad data.

bad data + theory = Bad Science

You need proper data accumulation and then analysis to prove your theory.....science 101

You cant just get away with theory, Aristotle did that and his theories held back human progress for centuries, particularly his theory of knowledge...it all went on rhetoric as opposed to letting observation drive the answer rather than the other way around.

Sigh, seems we are headed backward to rhetoric being the way we do things....leads to silly theories, like earth as centre of the universe and all sorts of other superstitions.

Christoph~ I've been following the situation with the sun for the last 6 months. I've even posted links to several stories on it here, including from The Australian.

Climate on Earth is cyclical. It is dependant on the energy it receives from the Sun.

The Solar System completes an orbit of the centre of the Milky Way Galaxy every 226 million (Earth) years. Once every orbit the Solar System passes through some inter-stellar conditions that reduce the energy the Earth receives from the Sun. It is probably more complicated in detail, but perhaps we could think of those conditions as dust clouds. The ‘cloudy weather’ seems to last for about 1 million years. Glacial periods are divided into cold stretches separated by warm ‘inter-glacials’ that last from about 10,000 years to as much as 100,000 years. Periods of cold begin abruptly and end abruptly: In a matter of 10s of years rather than hundreds. We do not know if we exited the last of these ‘dust clouds’ or are about to plunge into another. If we were to enter another one – which is possible – there would be cause for concern.

Meanwhile the energy out-put of the Sun varies in short cycles of ~10 years (the solar magnetic pole reversals) to ~14 years. We are currently in Solar Cycle 23 and waiting for SC 24 to begin. [There is no particular significance attached to the number of the cycle – it relates to when observations were first recorded in Europe] There have been several ‘false starts’ and although the new cycle has been proclaimed to have begun several times in the past two years, the northern hemisphere sun-spots that signal this transition have been small, weak, and short-lived. Every year a solar cycle continues beyond the ~10-year average there is ~0.6°C drop in global temperature. A series of solar cycles longer than the average results in a cooling trend. Consecutive short cycles result in warming here on Earth. The frequency of sun-spots during any cycle correlates with energy out-put. The short cycles are superimposed on longer cycles such as the 1000 to 1500-year cycle between climate optimums – yes, warm is good!

Add the fact that the major planets exert gravitational force on the Sun to the extent that the Sun can be ‘pulled’ as much as 3-4 solar diameters from the gravimetric centre of the Solar System so that, depending on the position of the planets, the Sun actually orbits the barycentre in a curious repeating patterns of loops. These patterns are about 179 years long (check the orbits of Saturn and Jupiter and their repeating alignments). This waltz of the planets with the Sun influences tidal patterns in the Sun and appears to result in variation in energy out-put. We are currently about to exit a pattern that seems to correlate with warming trends and enter a solar orbital pattern (relative to the gravimetric centre of the Solar System) that is accompanied by cooling on Earth.

We are currently experiencing the (extended!) transition between solar cycles and there are few sun-spots, as is not uncommon. However, Mr Chapman’s concern that the lack of sunspots this year signals a return to glaciation does not rest on firm ground. He may be correct – eventually – if we have not completed the “troubled’ passage of this Solar System orbit, but it is too soon to say. The most likely experience will be slight cooling during the ‘new solar orbit pattern’ with some evidence we may have a repeat of the Dalton Minimum and the golf season will be two weeks later in the spring and end about two weeks earlier in the fall. Ski-hill operators however, may see more seasons like the last.

The Goreacle is on Oprah today. How does reason have a chance against this emotional clap trap?

I've been in sales most of my life. It is one of the first things we learned in sales. All sales are based on emotion, generally fear. Either fear of loss (greed) or fear of harm. Logic never makes the sale, but in reasonable people, can justify the decision already made. We are not dealing with reasonable people here.

AlGore preaches another sermon from his AGW bandwagon: It's OK for the rich and privileged to burn up all the fossil fuels they can get their hands on, but the average person must "tow the line".

"He wouldn’t dream of suggesting that their lavish jet-setting and gas-guzzling lifestyles could be reined in for the good of the environment.

When we point out that David Beckham has recently been given the dubious title of having the worst carbon footprint in history – clocking up enough air miles to fly to the moon and owning 15 gas-guzzling cars, Mr Gore shifts uncomfortably in his seat.

He knows what is coming next.

When asked what he would say to the football icon – a hero to millions – about his impact on the environment, Mr Gore refuses to be drawn.

He gives a huge belly-laugh at the notion that Posh and Becks could invest in an environmentally-friendly hybrid car such as a Toyota Prius.

He carefully considers his answer before saying: “I don’t think that’s my place. I don’t want to get into personally criticising anyone.”

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/04/20/gore-wont-ask-wealthy-hollywoodans-alter-lifestyle-save-planet
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/special_events/green_week/article1065876.ece

Jet,

While I agree that intuitively the Sun is a likely culprit....to date the mechanism has not been found. Some of the latest evidence suggests that Total solar Irradiance doesnt vary much, the lows now are the same as the lows during the Maunder and the highs, as in 1998 etc are the same.

That being said there is so much unknown. We were talking about TSI but are there greater variations at different wavelengths. What causes cloud formation (which have huge effects). they documented a 1 degree difference after September 11th due to the lack of contrails (warmer days and cooler nights.

The point is solar is another theory but the mechanism hasnt been found and proven yet. At best we have correlations, and imperfect ones at that. Remeber even at 3 variables you have pretty complex systems and climate is likely a result of more than 3 variables that include feedback.

I am highly suspicious of Gore because what he reccomends or implies are major changes based on unproven theories, essentially based on the 1% doctrine. The same doctrine used to justify Iraq. If there is a 1% of this being true we have to take drastic action. Generally doesnt work. Pascal also used it to argue that you should believe in God just in case....you have nothing to lose if you believe and you are wrong. Not the right reason to believe in God and not the right reason to radically centralize and regulate human affairs.

I am not into analysis paralysis but I can say rigth now that the evidence doesnt support the current conception of AGW nor is a solar theory proven either. I dont know and no one will ever know while we continue to either use bad data or eschew proper scientific analysis and process.

I think the RCMP's time would be better spent watching the various religious zealots around - the socialists, watermellons, enviro-mentalists, ropers and fellow misanthropists.

Nice to know we have a bureaucracy charged with monitoring thought. They should drop over to the rabid loonies on rabble.ca

There has been no deliberately doctoring of sites. There has been willfull incompetance in quality control. Not to even mention tweaking the data to get your expected result.

Nothing evil here, just gross negligence and pursuit of funding.

It's not just Total Solar Irradiance which dumps energy into the Earth's atmosphere. There is also the Sun's magentosphere and solar wind. As to other mechanisms, do you not remember your high school physics experiment with the cloud chamber? The same process is suggested for cosmic rays to produce clouds.

Stephen, always be very suspicious of anyone who wants to "change human behaviour" as it usually ends in massacres.

And here I thought the wacky conspiracy theories were the domain of the liberal crowd.

I, for one, doubt that Al Gore and his henchmen at the NOAA have undergone a widespread sidewalk and parking lot instillation scheme in order to advance their AGW prophesies.

Doesn't this raise a good enough point about studies only being as good as the data they're based on without breaking out the tinfoil hats?

Stephen, I've always thought that Pascal's theory only makes sense if there's one possible god out there to believe in, not dozens of them whose doctrines tend to be spiteful towards those who worship the other ones... perhaps a similar flaw in this argument.

Stephen,

Perhaps we are looking at the wrong energy indicator. We receive energy from the Sun that includes not only IR radiation but also electrical and magnetic energy that produces warming of the atmosphere.

Just as the AGW advocates consider CO2 as the “Principal” cause of GW and ignore both the fact that the CO2 “contribution” is for all practical considerations “maxed-out” and has been throughout the history of the planet, and conveniently ignore water vapour, clouds, cosmic radiation, et cetera, it seems to me that “climate scientists” of whatever persuasion have overlooked other energy transfers.

For example: “The solar wind ram pressure seems to correlate with the solar wind electrical energy that feeds joule heating of our planet and global land temperature anomalies.”

And: “Here we report that the measurements of the near-Earth interplanetary magnetic field reveal that the total magnetic field leaving the sun has risen by a factor 1.4 since 1964. Using surrogate interplanetary measurements, we find that the rise since 1901 is by a factor of 2.3. This change may be related to chaotic changes in the dynamo that generates the solar magnetic field. We do not yet know quantitatively how such changes will influence the global environment.” http://www.ukssdc.ac.uk/wdcc1/papers/nature.html

The debate is not over: The science is not finalized: That’s what makes it so interesting.

Google Piers Corbyn: He has probably the best record of predicting storms in the UK and northern Europe. Dr. Corbyn is an astrophysicist by training and his forecasting methods are proprietary. Check his take on CO2.

stephen

"""" and climate is likely a result of more than 3 variables that include feedback."""""

you should be a standup comic!!!!

As always, very interesting, JET. I wish you would comment more often !

In and out of dust clouds - spiral arms ??

What is the speed of the soloar system's orbit ? We must traveling at a horrendous speed ! And travel a horrendous distance in the 226 million years !

No wonder different interstellar conditions are encountered.
No wonder ice a kilometer thick can periodically cover Canada.
No wonder the onset of cooling or warming can happen rather quickly - 10 years or less.

Decadal differences in climate is exactally what Tim Ball found in The Hudson Bay Company's weather data.

No wonder we are all up in arms because Hansen et al tried to pull one over on us with hot concrete.

Good to see you back, JET. I think you and Stephen both make the point that we simply don't know what's going to happen, and that is my principal point too. Anyone who claims that I know this is going to happen (with respect to the future of the total energy content of the Earth's atmosphere), is a fool, and anyone who then goes on to enrich themselves obscenely from that by declaring that, based on their omniscience, terrible, horrible, unimaginable disasters are going to happen, preying on the honest but gullible citizenry, is a shyster of the lowest form.

The Schizophrenic’s Guide to “Global” Warming (1894-2008)

by Ben-Peter Terpstra

[...]

[...] The Media’s “Climate Change” Narrative 1894-2008

1894: September 6, “The Ice Age In North America . . . But now a change has come upon the forces . . . and the long winter is drawing to a close” (Cambridge City Tribune & Harper’s Magazine)

1912: October 7, “Fifth Ice Age Is On the Way” (Los Angeles Times)

1913: March 23, “How and Why Earth Will End: Scientists Believe Our Universe Will Some Day Plunge Into Sun” (Washington Post, Chicago Tribune)

1920: September 21, “Mac Millian Kills New Ice Age Theory: Earth May Be Entering Its Golden Years (Syracuse Herald)

1923: “Scientists Says Arctic Ice Will Wipe Out Canada” (Chicago Tribune)

1924: September 18, “Mac Millian Reports Signs of New Ice Age” (New York Times)

1926: August 15, “THE sun is sick [say international scientists], and the world is about to enter . . . a new glacier period” (The Zanesville Times Signal – Ohio)

1933: 27 March, “America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-Year Rise” (New York Times)

1934: 27 September, “Predicts New Ice Age For America: Savant Says It Will Come in 10,000 Years (International News Service, Herald-Times, PA)

1939: “[The] weather men have no doubt the world at least for the time being is growing warmer” (TIME)

1952: August 10, “Our Changing Climate . . . the world has been getting warmer in the last half century” (New York Times)

1954: “Climate – the Heat May be Off . . . Despite all you may have read, heard or imagined, it’s been growing cooler – not warmer since the Thirties” (Fortune)

1957: April 9, “Control of Temperature Said Vital” (Associated Press, Union-Bulletin)

1958: August 8, “Ice Age Return Is Seen In U.S.” (Portland Oregonian Editor, The Salisbury Times)

1958: September, “The Coming Ice Age” (Harper’s)

1959: February 15, “A Warmer Earth Evident At Poles” (New York Times)

1961: March 9, “Don’t Say We Didn’t Give You Fair Warning: The Ice Age Cometh” (The Ada Weekly News)*

1962: April 13, “Arctic Deals Blow to Ice Age Theories” (New York Times news service)

1969: February 20, “Expert Says Arctic Ocean Will Soon Be Open Sea” (New York Times)

1970: April 22, “Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age” (Washington Post)

1971: July 9, “U.S. Scientists See New Ice Age Coming” (Washington Post)

1973: April 14, “The Earth Is Cooling, Return of Ice Age Is Feared” (Iowa City Press Citizen)

1974: “It [the New Ice Age] is the root cause of a lot of that unpleasant weather around the world and they warn that it carries the potential for human disasters of unprecedented magnitude” (Fortune)

1974: June 24, “Another Ice Age?” (TIME)

1975: “The Ice Age Cometh” (Science News)

1975: “[T]he world’s climatologists agreed . . . Once the freeze starts, it will be too late” (Douglas Colligan, Science Digest)

1975: April 28, “The Cooling World . . . The drop in food output could begin . . . soon” (Newsweek)

1975: May 21, “Scientists Ponder Why World’s Climate is Changing: A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable” (New York Times)

1975: June, “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of death . . .” (Nigel Calder, International Wildlife Journal)

1981: March 31, “Long-range forecast: snow, ice for 114,000 years . . . Earth’s current warm period ending . . . new ice age could last 114,000 years say scientists” (AP)

1981: August 24, “Scientists predict melting icecaps next century . . . With a slow growth of fossil fuel use temperatures would go up about 4.5 degrees F . . . with a rapid increase . . . 5 to 8 degrees” (U.P.)

1981: November 25, “Warming of World can involve many gases” (UPI)

1982: “‘Volcano dust may cool Earth 2 years’ . . . Dust from Mexican volcano will produce a cooling effect around the Earth for the next two years, the National Oceanic Administration estimates” (AP)

1983: October 22, “The good news is Canadian winters may moderate . . . A predicted warming . . . will moderate Canada’s bitter waters. Prince Edward Island will likely be cut in half” (CP)

1990: April 16, “Global Warming: Pollutants turn Earth into ecological hothouse” (Syracuse Herald-Journal)

1994: January 31, “The Ice Age Cometh?” (TIME)

2000: April-May, “How to Prevent a Meltdown: Answers to global warming are in the wind” (TIME)

2004: December 26, “Undeniable Global Warming” (Washington Post)

2005: December 27, “Past Hot Times Hold Few Reasons to Relax About New Warming” (New York Times)

2006: January 29, “Debate on Climate Shifts to Issue of Irreparable Change: Some Experts on Global Warming Foresee ‘Tipping Point’ When It Is Too Late To Act” (Washington Post)

2006: July 24, “Global Warming Signed, Sealed, and Delivered Scientists Agree: The Earth . . . warming, and human activities are the principal cause” (Los Angeles Times)

2006, July, “Mostly cooler and wetter than normal this July in Alaska” (Alaska Monthly Summary)

2006: December, “Global Cooling Plan: It’s now clear that climate change threatens to warm the planet but to ice the world economy” (Newsweek: Special Edition)

2007: February 10, “From Bad to Worse: Earth’s Warming to Accelerate” (Science News)

2007: April 9, “Global Warming: What Now? Our feverish planet badly needs a cure” (TIME)

2007: May 28, “The Brooding Omnipresence of Global Warming” (Harper’s)

2007: August 6, “A warmer world creates new iceberg ecology . . . But now marine biologists have a more positive take on the . . . icebergs that have broken free” (TIME)

2008: January 14, “Snow Storm Hits New England: First Major Snow Drops Heavy Snow; Emergencies Declared, Hundreds of Schools Closed” (CBS/AP)

2008: February 11, “China On Ice . . . Blizzards have cost the economy at least 3 billion . . . Snow Crash. Storms have caused widespread damage and disruption throughout the country” (TIME)

... ... ...

I have no comment, draw your own conclusions...

And so are their enablers, Vitruvius.

The earth has never been warmer than it is now!!
That is why the dinosaurs lived in the ice age.

Sooo many wonderful reads, so little time...

Uncle Al caught in another major fib in his "documentary"; wonder if Hollywood will ever ask for the return its Oscar?

A great read on global warming. The money quote:

"The 'science' of global warming is nothing more than a cover for their irrational emotional needs. It's religion for people who are too cool to go to church."

A great summary of unintended global (warming) consequences from NR online.

Folks at work gave me strange looks when I laughed at the current pthalates "crisis"; I told 'em to remember these are the same lamebrains with the blood of millions of Africans (many of them children) on their hands with the unnecessary banning of DDT. Think I'll direct them here for further instruction..

All in all, some great reads to help celebrate Lenin's birthday... err, "Earth Day".

mhb23re
at gmail d0t calm

Heh, the national geographic channel must be featuring that great GW scam this week, blah.

While channel flipping caught 'the lord of the fruit flies' yapping away, I literally laughed out loud and switched off the tv, better to read more reasoned information found at sites like this. Thanks Kate, and thanks to all who contribute, many sites booked to review and reference.

"...
NASA solar physicist David Hathaway at Marshall Space Flight Center explains, "We have two solar cycles in progress at the same time. Solar Cycle 24 has begun (the first new-cycle spot appeared in January 2008), but solar cycle 23 has not ended."

Strange as it sounds, this is perfectly normal. Around the time of solar minimum - which is now - old-cycle spots and new-cycle spots frequently intermingle. Eventually Cycle 23 will fade to zero, giving way in full to Solar Cycle 24, but not yet.
..." [Mar 31, 2008]

http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEMJSD5QGEF_index_0.html

A neat video, from 2003, time-lapse in the ultraviolet showing a massive solar flare:

http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEM4SB4XQEF_index_1.html

I wish I could directly point to the ABC source, but here it is via newsBusters

http://newsbusters.org/node/20680?q=blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/04/22/abc-s-20-20-gore-used-fictional-film-clip-inconvenient-truth

"1981: March 31, “Long-range forecast: snow, ice for 114,000 years . . . Earth’s current warm period ending . . . new ice age could last 114,000 years say scientists” (AP)

1981: August 24, “Scientists predict melting icecaps next century . . . With a slow growth of fossil fuel use temperatures would go up about 4.5 degrees F . . . with a rapid increase . . . 5 to 8 degrees” (U.P.)"

So what happened in '81? Gore didn't get elected V-P until '93 ...

Ron in Kelowna

If our galaxy is about 100,000 light years in diameter, then we are about 40 light years from the centre. Therefore our trajectory around the galaxy has a length of 2 * pi * 40,000 light or about 250,000 light years. If we travel 250 thousand light years in about 250 million years, then we are travelling at a speed of 1/1000th of the speed of light, or 3 x 10 ^^5 meters/second or 300 km per second, roughly 200 miles per second. HArd to conteplate really.

Greg? John Cross? care to elaborate on this issue?

For those interested:

Solar System Orbital velocity: ~250km/sec
Earth orbital velocity around Sun: ~30km/sec
Solar Rotation (at Sun’s equator) 25.83 days (27.27 days as seen from Earth – the viewing point is orbiting) It is a bit more complicated since at least the visible portion of the Sun is ‘gaseous’ and the rotational speed of the ‘gas’ varies depending on solar latitude (~36.6 days at poles).

The orbit of the SS through the Milky Way Galaxy is a bit off the plane of the Galaxy so there are many possibilities of passing through variable conditions – dust – cosmic radiation, et cetera, as we fly through those rotating ‘arms’.

The potential for external influences on the Solar System and the climate of its planets seems ignored by those who would promote human activity as the cause of warming. [During the 1950s warming was generally referred to as “climate improvement”. How the switch to “climate catastrophe” came about is an interesting study in crowd control.]

I do not understand the harm in Timmins or Kirkland Lake, Ontario having more than one frost-free month per year, or the people of Ottawa panicking at the thought of suffering the climate of Windsor. Given similar altitude, moving south from your present location ~140km puts you in a climate zone 1°C warmer.

[/quote] perhaps using nuclear weapons to destabilise the deposits.[/quote]

WOW! That is drastic.. I don't think I like global cooling.

I have heard that some Geologists believe evidence exists that the earth was, at one time, completely covered with glacial ice. I wonder what CO2 equation would bring the sucker out of that state.

(THTE) Tax Hydrocarbons to Extinction. The focus on the production side of Co2 (Counting Coal cars, Emissions, production etc) taxation model does not provide for a "good" business or scientific role in global warming research. I firmly believe that the GHG “in the atmosphere” must be paramount in public policy. The THTE Model, once implemented without linkage, will have a negative affect on science The Market forces will demand more CO2 & stifle innovation and we will pay & pay.

JET et al, you may find interesting the classic work known as Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, by Charles Mackay, published in 1841:

www.econlib.org/library/mackay/macExContents.html

Marcus

As you note: Published in 1841. So many more to add from the 167 years since he set down his observations. Unfortunately, the rate of development of Popular Delusions increases with expanded communications capability, and data overload - particularly data that are not easily understood. "Men are most apt to believe what they least understand." Pliny the Elder. That coupled with the Dunning-Kruger Effect results in - to quote Pliny again "Science has no enemies but the ignorant".

Aye, JET. Say, you've just given me an idea for tonight's SDA LNR.

It should be over that the latest Reader Tips thread soon.

Vitruvius,

Yup, we don't know. That doesnt mean you need 100% of the answers, the marines use an 80% of info threshold, but we arent anywhere near the 80% yet.

I think the sun is an excellent candidate to be the cause of variability in climate over the long term. It will just take more study and more time to gather more evidence and see what the data says.

There seems to be a real desire among some to get drill cores from the moon. Many solar scientists believe this would allow for an excellent test for earth solar proxies and firm up the record. Once you had those settled you could look for stronger correlations between climate and the sun.

Maybe Al could back something useful like that.

LOCK PHASERS ON TARGET LOCK PHOTON TORPEDOS ON TARGET SQUAWK SQUAWK CRUSH,KILL DESTROY EXTERMINATE,EXTERMINATE,EXETERMATE, TAKE NO PRISONERS SQUAWK SQUAWK SQUAWK

While I have a skeptical view of certain issues, I consider myself “green” in many ways, and I promote the idea of energy savings and alternate energy generation. Unlike many who just talk about it, I’ve put a 10KW solar array on my home, plus a 125 KW solar array on one of our local schools when I was a school trustee. I’ve retrofitted my home with CFL’s and better insulation, as well as installed timer switches on many of our most commonly used lights. I encourage others to do the same.

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/about/

While trying to determine where the weatherman whose work this post is based on, works, I discovered the above in his personal info area.

I really liked this part, "and I promote the idea of energy savings and alternate energy generation."

Hugger

I wouldn't worry too much about RCMP sourced visits. I've had them, too.

And the SCOC, DOD, DRE, CSIS, NORAD, the list goes on and on ad infinitum... and I'm pretty sure the Chinese Communist Party has spied on my site recently...

Guess I'm popular, too! :)

Oops, off-topic. Sorry; forgot!

Unfortunately, when we swing from global warming to global cooling it will still be our fault, at least as far as Gore and the Greens see it. Wait for CO2 to become "a cooling gas at higher concentrations."

I'm always amazed at how these things swing from calamity to calamity. According the Australian artical, global warming (the greatest threat ever) might be over. Isn't that reason to celebrate? No! We have to swing directly to global cooling (the greatest threat ever.)

All the plans to release methane into the atmosphere are a little far fetched. First, it doesn't persist, you'd have to continually release more and more. Second, where is it going to come from? There are lots of methane hydrate deposits off the west coast of North America. If we do release the methane in these hydrates, we'll probably cause a very great number of tsunamis as the sea floor slumps.

The question of what happened in 1981 that would cause an abrupt swing from catastrophic cooling to catastrophic warming might be answered by James Hansen, it was about that time that he invented AGW.

Climate Expert Says NASA Tried to Silence Him

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/science/earth/29climate.html?_r=1&hp&ex=1138510800&en=0a858f5230677507&ei=5094&partner=homepage&oref=slogin

The top climate scientist at NASA says the Bush administration has tried to stop him from speaking out since he gave a lecture last month calling for prompt reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases linked to global warming.

In one call, George Deutsch, a recently appointed public affairs officer at NASA headquarters, rejected a request from a producer at National Public Radio to interview Dr. Hansen, said Leslie McCarthy, a public affairs officer responsible for the Goddard Institute.

Citing handwritten notes taken during the conversation, Ms. McCarthy said Mr. Deutsch called N.P.R. "the most liberal" media outlet in the country. She said that in that call and others, Mr. Deutsch said his job was "to make the president look good" and that as a White House appointee that might be Mr. Deutsch's priority.

But she added: "I'm a career civil servant and Jim Hansen is a scientist. That's not our job. That's not our mission. The inference was that Hansen was disloyal."

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/jhansen.html

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/temptracker/

The notion that humans could override nature and force the globe to warm intrigued Hansen. "It had been known for more than a century that increasing carbon dioxide could have an effect on global temperature," Hansen said (referring to the pioneering work of John Tyndall and Svante Arrhenius in the 1800s). But global warming in the near future? That was another matter.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/temptracker/

At the outset Hansen knew that weather fluctuations would introduce short-term temperature anomalies into the weather station dataset that are not the same thing as climate change. But he reasoned that by taking averages over several years, and appropriately "weighting" the weather stations' data, it should be possible to determine meaningful temperature changes over longer time periods. In the mid-1970s, he hired Jeremy Barberra, a New York University undergraduate student at the time, to automate the processing of Jenne's dataset.

They decided to process the data to produce average temperature changes, and not absolute temperature. "If you focus your analysis on temperature change, and not on determining absolute temperature values, then the station coverage is adequate," Hansen explained. "What matters is the long-term mean over large scales, not single measurements from individual stations."

Hugger

This is my first visit to SDA,

Two things have been mentioned here, one the poor placement of some of the temperature sensors, and the potential for bad information from those sites to affect the global measurements. The other thing mentioned, indirectly, was the trend of global temperatures downwards from 1998, which is the warmest year on record.

For a single or even a number of poorly sited sensors to affect the global temperatures, which is what we are talking about here, not just the US temps, it(they) would have to read considerably higher than even that produced by poor placement. In fact you would have to stick a candle just inches from the sensor and leave it there for a very long time.

Even so, the scientists, who are anything but stupid, are aware of the US placement problems and carefully take them into consideration when adjusting the values and determining the error bars. The argument that bad placement in the US, which constitutes just 1.2% of the surface area of the Earth and therefore is just a drop in the bucket, is nothing more than a red herring.

Taking 1998 as an endpoint for a trend line is ingenious at least. 1998 was an unusual departure from the long term trend line established previously so using it as an endpoint will artificially inflate the variance from that line. To see the affect 1998 has on trend lines all you have to do is look at a couple of years previous to 1998. All of the years from 1999 to the present have been above the years preceding 1998.

Include even 10 years before 1998 in the trend line and there has been no downward trend. At all.

hugger, if you enjoy the "silencing" of scientists, you must just love the orwellian muzzling of university profs & others who attempt to discredit AGW; lack of grants, blackballing, character assassination... As for "credentials", wasn't Hansen the one many years ago crowing about a new "Ice Age"?

Gary Bohn, doubtless the scientists who "are aware of the US placement problems" find it much easier to "take them into consideration", rather than dispose of the data and demand proper field data collection. After all, that's probably a snippet or two of code in the wondrous climate model, and should produce the correct result, namely, that increases in man-made CO2 are the cause for "global warming".

And the hockey stick fraud was just an "anomaly" or "analytical aberration", and that the otherwise accurate analysis of temperature shows 1998 to be the hottest year on record, even though it's 1934.

Insignificant trifles, really. The method isn't important; shifting the analysis subtly to support the premise is the main thing, for the "scientists" who rely on AGW for their daily bread.

Must. Support. AGW. CONSENSUS.

Because after all, science is really based on "consensus", and not merciless research and testing and replacing of hypotheses with alternate models when more facts and research are available. "Scientific fact through politicized agreement"; now THAT's a principle that should make scientists proud!

Why the Right is made out to be the mouth-breathers on this issue, I'll never understand. We're not the ones falsifying research, misrepresenting studies, buiding computer models to produce results based on the premise they are supposed to prove or disprove, trashing opponents and even invoking the Holocaust to silence the unbelievers; it's the Left and their lackies doing that.

The AGW jihadists are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.

mhb23re
at gmail d0t calm

Posted by: mhb at April 23, 2008 9:51 PM

I want you to look at a couple of things from your post.

"As for "credentials", wasn't Hansen the one many years ago crowing about a new "Ice Age"?"

"Because after all, science is really based on "consensus", and not merciless research and testing and replacing of hypotheses with alternate models when more facts and research are available."

Isn't that what Hansen did? Replacing of hypotheses with alternate models when more facts and research were available?

Hugger

mhb: "Why the Right is made out to be the mouth-breathers on this issue, I'll never understand."

I have just had a conversation with a couple of people on this very site who maintain that an object that emits IR radiation will not emit it to another body that is warmer than the first. Do you agree with this statement?

Regards,
John