What do you think the climate change devotees will think of this?

Question

I tried to post it earlier, but I mention Al Gore's name , and the Global Warming Police deleted it, to protect their diety.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1952624/posts

Answer 1

And, in the newspaper today:  some parts of the Northeast just had the snowiest December on record.  But I am sure that doen't count.

Answer 2

Never mind all that.  Minnesota's heading for double-digit below zero readings this weekend.

Al Gore and his cronies are breaking yet another political promise.  Global warming, HAH!  :(

Answer 3

To be blunt, I think the article is garbage.

The reason I think this, is because it attributes conclusions to NASA which nobody at NASA ever made.

If you read the actual NASA statement (thoughtfully provided by Dr. T), they say solar cycle 25 will probably be a very weak cycle.  They don't make any conclusion as to what effects this will have on the Earth's climate.

Then you get some random guy with a "virtual office" saying it will cause significant climate change, and the article claims it "confirms" what NASA said, when NASA said no such thing.

Absolutely terrible journalism.  Pretty much what I expect from the Free Republic.

Answer 4

With all due respect to Skeptic, the author of this article is only confirming the findings of Nasa's Dr. Tony Phillips. The core of the work can be found in the reference below.

------

Addendum:

The relationship between sunspot activity and Earth's climate is usually predicated on the correlation between the Maunder Minimum and the reduced sunspot activity during that period (see additional references).

-----

Further addendum:

Skeptic: I didn't actually inject an opinion or a position. I was just offering some data.

Answer 5

real environmental issues like genetically modified garbage poisoning our very food supply, the disappearance of huge swathes of the bee populations across the world, deforestation and toxic waste dumping, all get buried while global warming monopolizes the attention of the phony environmental movement.

Peter Sutherland, the chairman of British Petroleum, who rallied his fellow elitists at the Trilateral Commission meeting last month , to exploit the hysteria of global warming in order to impose a standardized carbon tax, a measure that will create artificial scarcity and, just like peak oil, raise prices, reaping billions in profits for oil industry moguls at the very top of the ladder.

But let's not concern ourselves about that - as long as we can feel good about ourselves while wagging our finger in judgment at anyone who uses those dirty old plastic bags that's all that matters.

These kind of simpletons are also behind the move to completely criminalize the ownership of incandescent light bulbs, despite the fact that their precious "energy saving light bulbs" are loaded with toxic waste that's already banned under EU regulations. They also contain deadly Mercury which will end up in our land fills and our water supply once use of the new CFL bulbs becomes mandatory.

Answer 6

I think they will notice that there are misspelled words, such as substituting "then" for "than", and conclude that it is probably not a reliable resource.

Answer 7

They will pull there hair out ,run around and a round  screaming  not NOT TRUE,NOT TRUE till they fall out.And they will call you a lot of not nice things. Because this info is a slap in the face of their god .

Answer 8

I think they will step up the issue of global warming after they have learned of this news.

Answer 9

If a period of reduced solar activity does not result in a much cooler climate, it will be the first time in thousands of years.

Answer 10

I love this.  This guy sounds extremely qualified to have an expert opinion on climate.  Not.  

http://www.spaceandscience.net/id1.html

They have this great image of a big fancy building and then say they are transitioning from a "virtual office" to a real one.  Ooooooooooooooh, cool!

This is typical tripe from people who don't understand the physics.  If you pressed Casey, he would happily burble that the present warming is due to solar effects.  Fine.  But then if the solar effects are 1/2, at most, of the radiative forcing from CO2, why isn't CO2 important?  What is wrong with the physics?  Is radiative transfer wrong?  Is IR spectroscopy wrong?  What makes CO2 unimportant if it is by far the thing that has caused the largest change in radiative forcing over the last 100 years?  

None of the skeptics here, or anywhere, can point to what is wrong with the physics because nothing is.  The radiative forcing of CO2 is 1.6 W/m^2 and that isn't going away.  If you believe the CO2 forcing is trivial compared to something like the change in solar output that is half as large, you need to explain why.  Casey can't, you can't, and nobody here can.  All they can do is point to second order effects as an obfuscating tactic.  It is arguments like this which are why the skeptics are losing ground politically.  Even the most basic understanding of the physics shows they have no intellectual merit.  

In 20 years, you will be sitting around saying "How could we have known climate change would be this bad?"  The answer is that you didn't understand the physics.

Answer 11

My answer is, I don't know.

It seems that the SSRC was specifically set up to find support for this claim. I'm not an expert here, but the Director/writer of the article only has a bachelors degree relevant to the field.

He may have other people doing the work that are more qualified (I didn't see evidence of that on the website) though.

I guess, I would rather see what happens when his work is peer reviewed (that wonderful check and balance system of science).

EDIT:

Dr T. - Thanks for your comment. I read the article you posted, and to be honest I still don't know since that article specifically did not tie these phenomena to how it may effect us hear on earth. I suppose there is still uncertainty as to how this will balance out with the physics of increased CO2 in the atmosphere. That is, which effect is a stronger influence.

EDIT 2:

Dr T. - I think Dana summarized better than I did what I was trying to say. I don't have the knowledge to say your position is wrong. I am just saying that right now it does not seem very cogent.

Answer 12

This is great news, people can now stop feeling "guilty" for consuming too much

Answer 13

NASA has always made the link that the sun is responsible for global warming.

The believers filter this data out as it doesn't fit with their theory.

Global warming is the most selective science I've ever seen.  If a finding doesn't fit in with what you believe, then the data needs to be tossed, or the researchers reputation needs to be destroyed.

Here is other information from NASA that supports your find:

"Variability in the amount of energy from the sun has caused climate changes in the past. It is now accepted that the global cooling during Ice Ages is the result of changes in the distribution and amount of sunlight that reaches Earth. During the last Ice Age, the globally averaged temperature of Earth was about 6°C colder than it is today.

Even the climate changes of the 20th century may have a significant solar component. Figure 3 shows comparisons of globally averaged temperature and solar activity. Many scientists find that these correlations are convincing evidence that the sun has contributed to the global warming of the 20th century."

http://www.research.noaa.gov/spotlite/ar...

And here's figure 3 that the article refers to:

http://www.research.noaa.gov/spotlite/ar...

Notice how well global temperature tracks with the number of sunspots?

And still there are people out there that will tell you there's no connection......

Answer 14

I will endorse their findings if someone pays me enough. I have a sureproof theory, I count the pimples on my butt and when it grows two more, the climate change is 2 deg. more.

I could swear they are easier to count than sunspots.

Answer 15

They hate the truth about Global Warming because it's Al's  political hoax.

Environmentalists generally only care about the environment for political gain and money. An Inconvenient Truth documentary is only proof of political influence with no proven scientific evidence.

Anyone who really cares about the environment and nature are generally known as conservationists.

Great to see someone actually researching objectively.

I have found that Climate Change is a more appropriate name.

We are only in Global Warming during the Warming cycle, then we enter the Global Cooling scare during the Cooling cycle etc...etc....

There is an article that supports your thoughts on the solar effects. There is also a very good story on volcanos on the ocean floor.

The climate change is earths natural warming and cooling cycles. We came out of a cooling cycle a couple hundred years ago. We will be starting a cooling cycle sometime in the future. THESE CHANGES ARE NOT DRASTIC by the way.

These are some new headlines currently in the news:

Russian Scientist says A Cold Spell is coming. R.A.N.S. shows that a fairly cold spell will set in quite soon, by 2012, but real cold will come when solar activity reaches its minimum, by 2041, and will last for 50-60 years or longer.

Researchers from the Oregon State University (OSU) Hatfield Marine Science Center are hoping to learn more about how the sea floor volcanoes and earthquakes contribute to the breakup of ice in the Antarctic region.

Global Warming Impact on Hurricanes might be Less than Earlier Thought a new study suggests says NOAA.

If scientists can't even agree on what has happened in the past, imagine how much more difficult it is to figure out the future.

It amazes me that so many people still believe that we are the cause of the Earth's climate changing (How arrogant of them).

Economically we are wasting our resources trying to convince the world that a natural warming cycle is caused by man.

Just relax and accept that we need to conserve energy and protect the environment. Leave the rest to God.