Friday, August 28, 2009

Solaric

Dr. Soon on the Sun (and against the Church of Gore):


"""""We have known for nearly 80 years that small changes in solar activity can cause large climatic changes. Where sunlight falls, for how long, and with what effect, determine how climate will respond.

The most recent scientific evidence shows that even small changes in solar radiation have a strong effect on Earth’s temperature and climate.

In 2005, I demonstrated a surprisingly strong correlation between solar radiation and temperatures in the Arctic over the past 130 years. Since then, I have demonstrated similar correlations in all the regions surrounding the Arctic, including the US mainland and China.

The close relationships between the abrupt ups and downs of solar activity and of temperature that I have identified occur locally in coastal Greenland; regionally in the Arctic Pacific and north Atlantic; and hemispherically for the whole circum-Arctic, suggesting that changes in solar activity drive Arctic and perhaps even global climate.

There is no such match between the steady rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration and the often dramatic ups and downs of surface temperatures in and around the Arctic.

I recently discovered direct evidence that changes in solar activity have influenced what has been called the “conveyor-belt” circulation of the great Atlantic Ocean currents over the past 240 years. For instance, solar-driven changes in temperature, and in the volume of freshwater output from the Arctic, cause variations in sea surface temperature in the tropical Atlantic 5-20 years later.

These previously undocumented results have been published in the journal Physical Geography. They make it difficult to maintain that changes in solar activity play an insignificant role in climate change, especially over the Arctic.


Ego Dominus Tuus

The hallmark of good science is the testing of a plausible hypothesis that is then either supported or rejected by the evidence. The evidence in my paper is consistent with the hypothesis that the Sun causes climatic change in the Arctic.

It invalidates the hypothesis that CO2 is a major cause of observed climate change – and raises serious questions about the wisdom of imposing cap-and-trade or other policies that would cripple energy production and economic activity, in the name of “preventing catastrophic climate change.”

Bill Clinton used to sum up politics by saying, “It’s the economy, stupid!” Now we can fairly sum up climate change by saying, “It’s the Sun, stupid!” """"


This type of objective, fact-based research (rather than ideology-based) might ruin an eco-bot's day. Given Dr. Soon's research, the eco-bot can't really pin global warming on anyone, even Cheney and GOP! Soon, a Harvard astrophysicist and sun researcher (a bit beyond Al Gore, Harvard alcoholic), has over the last few years produced a number of articles criticizing the IPCC/Mann models. He still claims solar activity, not CO2, accounts for most global warming (–that is, assuming the temp data is correct–still an issue).

Unfortunately, some petroleum people did contribute a bit of cash to Soon’s research, so the KOS lemmings automatically assumed he was in the pocket of Big Oil, which is not a valid argument: simply because Dr. X receives some money from a corporation–-or even has support from those villainous repubs–-does not prove bias. It’s relevant, but not proof. AGW researchers take money from oil companies as well (BO's eco-guy, Chu worked for BP)). Dr. Soon has become public enemy #1 for the Mann/Hansen/IPCC groupies, though he certainly knows more about the atmospheric hard-science than the climate “modellers,” or a Gorean at the KOS party-house, even those KOS grafix experts.

12 comments:

Joel said...

You can always find at least one wacky scientist to back a viewpoint, particularly if he's on the take from big oil. I'll give a little more credence to the vast majority of scientists who think we're doomed if we don't wise up.

BTW- I don't think we're necessarily doomed, but I do think AGW is real and will cause us mega-problems down the road. The only solution is likely to be some form of macro-engineering, which will ignite a huge controversy before it eventually wins out as being well worth the risk. I hope I'm around to see it. Should be cool.

J said...

One?

Google Freeman Dyson--another Big Gun of physics (not climate modelling) who has raised questions about AGW--specifically the man-made CO2-as-culprit claims.

Dyson and Soon are scientists (and there are others). Mann is just a simulation guy. You also failed to note my point that the AGW people are themselves taking petrol-bucks (Gore himself has ties to Occi, and Chevron. Chu worked for BP).

Or perhaps peruse the late Michael Crichton's sober critique of Gore/IPCC models--well-documented, with plenty of scientific support (and questions about reliability of the data--), even if the datas' tucked away in his novel (the State of Fear). Saying, well Dr Crichton's a conservative (actually I read he was fairly moderate) does not at all suffice as a refutation (in fact a fallacy).

Also check the scientists Alex Cockburn linked to, when he was debating Monbiot (and winning, usually). Like Rancourt.

You are also assuming that anyone who questions Gore/IPCC's take on AGW is with the "right" when that is not the case. Rancourt's nearly an anarchist or something. Cockburn's a marxist. Indeed, when you have researchers on both sides of the political spectrum who question Gore/IPCC that's a good sign there are reasons for doubts of AGW, especially of the CO2 claims.

That said, I agree some evidence does suggest rising temps (though was record cool in 2008). That does not suffice as proof.

Joel said...

"You are also assuming that anyone who questions Gore/IPCC's take on AGW is with the "right" when that is not the case."

I'm not assuming anything. I'm just stating my belief that we're in for a world of shit. What do you honestly believe?

J said...

In regards to peak oil, globalism, Walmartization, religious hysteria, war, economic collapse, yes, most likely.

But I don't think global warming poses quite that much danger. My own take is that temps went up in some nice Nordic coastal areas----the harbors went up a bit, ice caps appear to be melting faster, and some rich environmentalist types, like Gore's pals, probably panicked a bit. But it's not like record heat--.

The AGW people, even IPCC have not really proven that man-made CO2 results in higher temps: simulation is not like atmospheric physics. Even a few of your old pals at NCAR have expressed doubts. There are all sorts of stipulations (like a time lag, the water vapor, wind, etc.). Temps might be going up, but it could be due to other factors--sun cycles for one. Or other GHGs (as some climate people have said).

In some areas AGW may be cause for concern in some areas,Seattle, Copenhagen, maybe New England. but it's not like a problem in Buenos Aires, or Rome, or even LA. Drought IS a problem (now, if they can prove a connection between AGW and drought--but no one has attempted that as far as I know).

It's like a slight problem for Gore's pals who own coastside property maybe, but I don't think the sky is falling.

J said...

Really, Joel, I don't appreciate links too much on your site, now.

Your pal the Subluxanator will start frothing at any moment, making insinuations, if not lying--"freeper" will just encourage him (the Glennster on Duck's site is a bit rightist, yes--and I don't agree with him, usually-- but a libertarian, not really a "freeper"--itself a loaded and unhelpful term).

Remember that one post on your site from a year or so ago, like avoiding the "Us vs Them" mentality? That was a decent post--but you were allowing B-ron the Subluxanator to spew his pseudo-leftism a few days later. Even Marx objected to low-level liberal moralism.

Bloggers should work towards eliminating the endless trivial partisan battle--we battle against systems, bureaucracies, corporations. When you're discussing real extremists--dixie klansmen, etc, or saudi Imams--OK. But the ad nauseum blame game has become tiresome and useless--unless you have real good facts (even say a case against Cheney for war crimes, etc. But done coolly, without assumptions.)

Joel said...

Yes, that was a good post, and I should refrain from the disease myself. I should, but I'm human, so I yield to temptation from time to time. It's really not a big deal. I'm more reacting against the extreme us vs themism of Glenn. The guy is just virulently, insanely anti-anything associated with Obama and the left. He also has that common disease of fanatics of taking over comment threads with a torrent of brief reactionary posts that have little to do with the original post. I guess it could be said that Byronius is somewhat similar from a lefty view. OTOH, I'm an admitted lefty extremist myself- so Byron seems normal to me.

J said...

I don't think you are that leftist, in comparison to, say, french communists (I have trolled their sites at times). Read like Zizek for the extreme left.

KOS itself seems sort of moderate Demo, with a few leftists,.

To reiterate, I generally disagree with the Glennster. He does just go and on (and quotes the Foxsters--a mistake). At times, however, I actually respect the anti-statist aspects of some libertarians, even if they love the NRA, eat beef, gamble, go to vegas, etc. Libertarians aren't necessarily the right-wing hawks (some are). They will take on the pigs, and also argue for de-crim of pot say (without all the med-pot BS bureaucracy--buy a card for $400!)

Big govt liberals are not necessarily progressives or the "good guys." The unions control them, for one. Let's not forget Obama and Hillary both had like double the amount of campaign money even McCaint did.

Your pal B-ron on the other hand sounds like a psychotic--and not so leftist (he blessed Mitt Romney a few times if I recall correctly). Endless, emotional, Sally Fields-like whines don't help the progressive cause either. Pathos is not reason. Note Dr Soon's writing above for some nice cool prose free of Pathos. (and sorry to say, even some DUs think B-ron's a loon)

Joel said...

"Your pal B-ron on the other hand sounds like a psychotic--and not so leftist (he blessed Mitt Romney a few times if I recall correctly)."

I don't think you recall correctly. In fact, I don't even though this nefarious evil person you keep referring to. I believe he is entirely a product of your imagination. Somehow it serves you to concoct this foe and you seem incapable or unwilling to rid yourself of the delusion.

Delusions suck. I know- I've had a few and probably live with a few still. Good luck.

J said...

(edit)


I was going to pen another lengthy rant contra-BonBonius, but Zappa summed up that sort of wannabe-WASP-popstar years ago: "Brown shoes don't make it." And your pal B-ron has worn brown shoes his entire life, and will until Muerto. Pat BooneRon sucks, even when he's on crack 'n roids.


:-]

J said...

Another thing, Mc:

You have no problem being friends with people who are far to my right (Im not in GOP, never have been). Like Barnes. Not merely a conservative and biblethumper, but white supremacist (as is Bozonius, he just lies about it). If some of Barnes rants (or Bozonius's secret minuteman and mormon BS) appeared on KOS you would be banned.

I respect TB's intelligence (though he's no Einstein....), and I am not into character bashing (as is B-ron that loud POS), but TB was pro-war, voted for Bush twice, and is also a creationist and sunday schooler (as is...B-ron!).

All rather amusing, given that you accuse me of conservativism. Nyet. I'll quote a Hitchens on occasion (with reservations). Never a Ben Stein, or Bush/Cheney.

So mo' of your usual hypocrisy, not to say lack of transparency, inconsistency, etc.

Joel said...

"All rather amusing, given that you accuse me of conservativism."

Funny as hell. I have no problem with your politics, whatever they may be. You were banned for being an abusive a... no, won't go there. I'm a good boy now. No us, no them.

Peace.

J said...

Peace, but with dignity. War might be preferable to an injust "peace" (whether one reads that at individual or political level).


You might engage in a bit of compare and contrast. Read a few essays from the big bloggers on health care issues. Miss Digby, for instance. I don't generally agree with her, but she writes fairly well. She entertains, yet manages to be informative. There are others- on KOS.

Then read like the latest brain fart of B-ron. I doubt he's ever written a research paper in his life (ie college level, with sources, cites, argumentation, etc). B-ron's not writing about h-c. He's writing about B-ron! and his high health-care premiums: the same gripe of every small businessman across 'Merica--a Key "tea bagger" point. That has no bearing on the issue; indeed, even Leahy recommends that corporations and companies pay for better health care (and I actually agree. Better to tax business than to have taxpayers fund a super-medicare).

Your own essay on h-c as a right was not horrible but barely scratched the surface (and too anecdotal, first person, etc). For one public option is already available for most workers. Many humans will prefer private over Medicare . etc.

Custom Search

Blog Archive