Search This Blog

Thursday, June 21, 2007

More on Global Dumbing

The ridiculous, absurd, laughable junk science of "global warming" continues to dominate the news. Here are some ripostes right into the sides of such nonsense! I will begin with three portions of a well-done series that was begun as an exposure of Global Warming Deniers and became a warning against the Global Warming propagandists instead.

Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post

Published: Saturday, June 02, 2007

"Only an insignificant fraction of scientists deny the global warming crisis. The time for debate is over. The science is settled."

S o said Al Gore ... in 1992. Amazingly, he made his claims despite much evidence of their falsity. A Gallup poll at the time reported that 53% of scientists actively involved in global climate research did not believe global warming had occurred; 30% weren't sure; and only 17% believed global warming had begun. Even a Greenpeace poll showed 47% of climatologists didn't think a runaway greenhouse effect was imminent; only 36% thought it possible and a mere 13% thought it probable.

Today, Al Gore is making the same claims of a scientific consensus, as do the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and hundreds of government agencies and environmental groups around the world. But the claims of a scientific consensus remain unsubstantiated. They have only become louder and more frequent.

The loudest guy in an argument isn't always right, he's just trying to overwhelm reason with volume!

Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post

Published: Friday, June 15, 2007

In the 1970s, leading scientists claimed that the world was threatened by an era of global cooling.

Based on what we've learned this decade, says George Kukla, those scientists - and he was among them -- had it right. The world is about to enter another Ice Age.

Dr. Kukla, in 1972 a member of the Czechoslovakian Academy of Sciences and a pioneer in the field of astronomical forcing, became a central figure in convincing the United States government to take the dangers of climate change seriously. In January of that year, he and another geologist, Robert Matthews of Brown University, convened what would become a historic conference of top European and American investigators in Providence, R.I. The working conference's theme: "The Present Interglacial: How and When will it End?"

Later that year, Drs. Kukla and Matthews highlighted the dangers of global cooling in Science magazine and, because of the urgency of the matter, in December they also alerted President Richard Nixon in a joint letter. The conference had reached a consensus, their letter stated, that "a global deterioration of climate, by order of magnitude larger than any hitherto experienced by civilized mankind, is a very real possibility and indeed may be due very soon. The cooling has natural cause and falls within the rank of processes which produced the last ice age."

The White House reacted swiftly to the letter, which described "substantially lowered food production" and "extreme weather anomalies," such as killer frosts and floods, as well as a warning that the Soviet Union might already be in the lead in preparing for the climate disturbances to come. By February 1973, the State Department had established a Panel on the Present Interglacial, which advised Drs. Kukla and Matthews that it "was seized of the matter."

Soon, numerous other government agencies were drawn in -- the issue was seen to be of paramount importance -- and by 1974, a federal government report, A United States Climate Program, cited evidence of the gathering storm, including:

"A killing winter freeze, followed by a severe summer heat wave in the United States.

"Drought in the Soviet Union producing a 12% shortfall in their grain production in 1972, forcing the country to purchase grain abroad, which in turn reduced world grain reserves and helped drive up food prices.

"Collapse of the Peruvian anchovy harvest in late 1972 and early 1973, related to fluctuations in the Pacific Ocean currents and atmospheric circulation, impacted world supplies of fertilizer, the soybean market and prices of other protein feed stocks.

"The anomalously low precipitation in the U.S. Pacific Northwest during the winter of 1972-73 depleted water-reservoir storage by an amount equivalent to an amount of water required to generate more than 7% of the electric energy for the region."

By 1975, the first of numerous bills, such as the "National Climate Program Act of 1975," was introduced to establish a co-ordinated national program of climate research, monitoring, prediction and contingency-planning analysis. Much congressional testimony spoke of the inadequacy of climate research and the need for preparedness. Meanwhile, the failure of the Soviet Union's wheat crop (and a subsequent high-profile U.S. wheat deal), the severe winter of 1976-77 and El Nino's influence on climate became dinner-table talk, heightening the government's desire to predict the climate. In September, 1979, President Jimmy Carter signed the National Climate Program Act into law, in aid of predicting future climate and combating global cooling. That act has now been enlisted in the effort to counter global warming.

Ironic, isn't it? The earth cycles warm and hot and so do the propagandists....and the only emissions that are actually dangerous to us are the tons of hot air emitting from the GW propagandists who wish to dampen the world's economy and hinder the development of Third World countries with their chicken little demands.

Read the sunspots

The mud at the bottom of B.C. fjords reveals that solar output drives climate change - and that we should prepare now for dangerous global cooling


Published: Wednesday, June 20, 2007

Politicians and environmentalists these days convey the impression that climate-change research is an exceptionally dull field with little left to discover. We are assured by everyone from David Suzuki to Al Gore to Prime Minister Stephen Harper that "the science is settled." At the recent G8 summit, German Chancellor Angela Merkel even attempted to convince world leaders to play God by restricting carbon-dioxide emissions to a level that would magically limit the rise in world temperatures to 2C.

Read the Post's series on Climate Change: The Deniers

Forget warming, beware the new ice age

(See hardcopy for Chart/Graph)View Larger Image View Larger Image

(See hardcopy for Chart/Graph)

Andrew Barr, National Post
Email to a friend

They call this a consensus?

Dire forecasts aren't new

The fact that science is many years away from properly understanding global climate doesn't seem to bother our leaders at all. Inviting testimony only from those who don't question political orthodoxy on the issue, parliamentarians are charging ahead with the impossible and expensive goal of "stopping global climate change." Liberal MP Ralph Goodale's June 11 House of Commons assertion that Parliament should have "a real good discussion about the potential for carbon capture and sequestration in dealing with carbon dioxide, which has tremendous potential for improving the climate, not only here in Canada but around the world," would be humorous were he, and even the current government, not deadly serious about devoting vast resources to this hopeless crusade.

Climate stability has never been a feature of planet Earth. The only constant about climate is change; it changes continually and, at times, quite rapidly. Many times in the past, temperatures were far higher than today, and occasionally, temperatures were colder. As recently as 6,000 years ago, it was about 3C warmer than now. Ten thousand years ago, while the world was coming out of the thou-sand-year-long "Younger Dryas" cold episode, temperatures rose as much as 6C in a decade -- 100 times faster than the past century's 0.6C warming that has so upset environmentalists.

Climate-change research is now literally exploding with new findings. Since the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the field has had more research than in all previous years combined and the discoveries are completely shattering the myths. For example, I and the first-class scientists I work with are consistently finding excellent correlations between the regular fluctuations in the brightness of the sun and earthly climate. This is not surprising. The sun and the stars are the ultimate source of all energy on the planet.

My interest in the current climate-change debate was triggered in 1998, when I was funded by a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council strategic project grant to determine if there were regular cycles in West Coast fish productivity. As a result of wide swings in the populations of anchovies, herring and other commercially important West Coast fish stock, fisheries managers were having a very difficult time establishing appropriate fishing quotas. One season there would be abundant stock and broad harvesting would be acceptable; the very next year the fisheries would collapse. No one really knew why or how to predict the future health of this crucially important resource.

Although climate was suspected to play a significant role in marine productivity, only since the beginning of the 20th century have accurate fishing and temperature records been kept in this region of the northeast Pacific. We needed indicators of fish productivity over thousands of years to see whether there were recurring cycles in populations and what phenomena may be driving the changes.

My research team began to collect and analyze core samples from the bottom of deep Western Canadian fjords. The regions in which we chose to conduct our research, Effingham Inlet on the West Coast of Vancouver Island, and in 2001, sounds in the Belize-Seymour Inlet complex on the mainland coast of British Columbia, were perfect for this sort of work. The topography of these fjords is such that they contain deep basins that are subject to little water transfer from the open ocean and so water near the bottom is relatively stagnant and very low in oxygen content. As a consequence, the floors of these basins are mostly lifeless and sediment layers build up year after year, undisturbed over millennia.

Using various coring technologies, we have been able to collect more than 5,000 years' worth of mud in these basins, with the oldest layers coming from a depth of about 11 metres below the fjord floor. Clearly visible in our mud cores are annual changes that record the different seasons: corresponding to the cool, rainy winter seasons, we see dark layers composed mostly of dirt washed into the fjord from the land; in the warm summer months we see abundant fossilized fish scales and diatoms (the most common form of phytoplankton, or single-celled ocean plants) that have fallen to the fjord floor from nutrient-rich surface waters. In years when warm summers dominated climate in the region, we clearly see far thicker layers of diatoms and fish scales than we do in cooler years. Ours is one of the highest-quality climate records available anywhere today and in it we see obvious confirmation that natural climate change can be dramatic. For example, in the middle of a 62-year slice of the record at about 4,400 years ago, there was a shift in climate in only a couple of seasons from warm, dry and sunny conditions to one that was mostly cold and rainy for several decades.

Using computers to conduct what is referred to as a "time series analysis" on the colouration and thickness of the annual layers, we have discovered repeated cycles in marine productivity in this, a region larger than Europe. Specifically, we find a very strong and consistent 11-year cycle throughout the whole record in the sediments and diatom remains. This correlates closely to the well-known 11-year "Schwabe" sunspot cycle, during which the output of the sun varies by about 0.1%. Sunspots, violent storms on the surface of the sun, have the effect of increasing solar output, so, by counting the spots visible on the surface of our star, we have an indirect measure of its varying brightness. Such records have been kept for many centuries and match very well with the changes in marine productivity we are observing.

In the sediment, diatom and fish-scale records, we also see longer period cycles, all correlating closely with other well-known regular solar variations. In particular, we see marine productivity cycles that match well with the sun's 75-90-year "Gleissberg Cycle," the 200-500-year "Suess Cycle" and the 1,100-1,500-year "Bond Cycle." The strength of these cycles is seen to vary over time, fading in and out over the millennia. The variation in the sun's brightness over these longer cycles may be many times greater in magnitude than that measured over the short Schwabe cycle and so are seen to impact marine productivity even more significantly.

Our finding of a direct correlation between variations in the brightness of the sun and earthly climate indicators (called "proxies") is not unique. Hundreds of other studies, using proxies from tree rings in Russia's Kola Peninsula to water levels of the Nile, show exactly the same thing: The sun appears to drive climate change.

However, there was a problem. Despite this clear and repeated correlation, the measured variations in incoming solar energy were, on their own, not sufficient to cause the climate changes we have observed in our proxies. In addition, even though the sun is brighter now than at any time in the past 8,000 years, the increase in direct solar input is not calculated to be sufficient to cause the past century's modest warming on its own. There had to be an amplifier of some sort for the sun to be a primary driver of climate change.

Indeed, that is precisely what has been discovered. In a series of groundbreaking scientific papers starting in 2002, Veizer, Shaviv, Carslaw, and most recently Svensmark et al., have collectively demonstrated that as the output of the sun varies, and with it, our star's protective solar wind, varying amounts of galactic cosmic rays from deep space are able to enter our solar system and penetrate the Earth's atmosphere. These cosmic rays enhance cloud formation which, overall, has a cooling effect on the planet. When the sun's energy output is greater, not only does the Earth warm slightly due to direct solar heating, but the stronger solar wind generated during these "high sun" periods blocks many of the cosmic rays from entering our atmosphere. Cloud cover decreases and the Earth warms still more.

The opposite occurs when the sun is less bright. More cosmic rays are able to get through to Earth's atmosphere, more clouds form, and the planet cools more than would otherwise be the case due to direct solar effects alone. This is precisely what happened from the middle of the 17th century into the early 18th century, when the solar energy input to our atmosphere, as indicated by the number of sunspots, was at a minimum and the planet was stuck in the Little Ice Age. These new findings suggest that changes in the output of the sun caused the most recent climate change. By comparison, CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet's climate on long, medium and even short time scales.

In some fields the science is indeed "settled." For example, plate tectonics, once highly controversial, is now so well-established that we rarely see papers on the subject at all. But the science of global climate change is still in its infancy, with many thousands of papers published every year. In a 2003 poll conducted by German environmental researchers Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, two-thirds of more than 530 climate scientists from 27 countries surveyed did not believe that "the current state of scientific knowledge is developed well enough to allow for a reasonable assessment of the effects of greenhouse gases." About half of those polled stated that the science of climate change was not sufficiently settled to pass the issue over to policymakers at all.

Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest Schwabe solar cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to unusually cool conditions on Earth. Beginning to plan for adaptation to such a cool period, one which may continue well beyond one 11-year cycle, as did the Little Ice Age, should be a priority for governments. It is global cooling, not warming, that is the major climate threat to the world, especially Canada. As a country at the northern limit to agriculture in the world, it would take very little cooling to destroy much of our food crops, while a warming would only require that we adopt farming techniques practiced to the south of us.

Meantime, we need to continue research into this, the most complex field of science ever tackled, and immediately halt wasted expenditures on the King Canute-like task of "stopping climate change."

R. Timothy Patterson is professor and director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Centre, Department of Earth Sciences, Carleton University.

A YEC creationist such as myself would say that secular scientists are thrown off when reading ice cores and mud cores by the effects of the Noahic world-wide flood and once they go back past 4,000 years they begin missing the mark. No matter, both YEC and secular scientists can look at the last 4,000 years and see climactic changes driven by the sun, apart from any "carbon footprints" made by man or beast.

This is a hilarious version of the "Emperor's New Clothes" in which every politician is forced to put on his naked warming suit or be accused of being a "denier" and unscientific. I agree with Dennis Miller. Not only is it foolish to spend millions of dollars to avoid "Manhattan going underwater", we could form a commission and spend millions of dollars to try to make the oceans rise and put Manhattan under water and we'd fail miserably.

The planet warms up and then it cools down. There are delicate checks and balances in place concerning sun spots and cloud cover and the salinity of the oceans and the amount of fresh water caught in glaciers and land-locked lakes. If we are in for a warming phase, lets enjoy it, plant more crops, experience milder winters and batten down for a few more hurricanes. Because it will all change and we'll eventually see the Thames frozen over in winter again and snow cover for Thanksgiving and so on.

I'll close with this segment of a discussion on MSNBC last year that sums it up for me nicely:

Scarborough and Stossel Slam Al Gore and Global Warming

Posted by Noel Sheppard on June 29, 2006 - 10:08.

ABC’s John Stossel was a guest on MSNBC’s “Scarborough Country” Wednesday, and it is quite safe to say that he’s not buying into any of the recent alarmism concerning global warming. As a result, he and host Joe Scarborough had a lot of fun at Al Gore’s expense (video link to follow).

Scarborough began: “…for Al Gore and Bill Clinton to say it`s causing flooding and causing hurricanes and it may have caused Hurricane Katrina, that`s just ridiculous, isn`t it. There is no proof of that, is there?”

Stossel responded:

“No. And the serious scientists scoff at that. The warmer water can encourage hurricanes, but they run in cycles. But the alarmists always want you to think it`s man`s fault so you will turn your life over to them and they can tell you what to do.”

Scarborough responded: “I remember being warned in Florida five years ago about the next cycle, that from 1900 to 1945, we didn`t have a lot of hurricanes. We had a lot of hurricanes and it slowed down for the next 60 years and they said there is a time where the water will heat up again and yet the A.P, other news agencies seem to give Al Gore a free pass.”

Scarborough then hit the nail right on the head:

“A lot of my friends will be angry with me and say Scarborough, you are denying that global warming exists. I am not denying that at all, but why is it that we live in a country where somebody like Al Gore and a political elite in Washington, DC and New York and L.A. can go out and say this is the fact. If we don`t turn things around in 10 years, we are going to boil the icecaps are going to flood, Manhattan is going to be under water and Florida is going to be under water. You cannot find scientists who believe that.”

Stossel accurately and comically responded:

“They are much more skeptical, but the alarmists always get the news. I`ve covered this over the years. Killer bees were going to get us, SARS, anthrax, mad cow disease, saccharin, Nutrasweet, scares one after the other. Cell phones are going to give you brain cancer. Everyone was convinced about that. We just like to be scared. It`s why we go to horror movies and now we believe Al Gore and global warming.”

At the end of the discussion, which eventually included Tyson Slocum of “Public Citizen,” Stossel got the last word:

“Let me just say that this, at bottom is a hatred of capitalism and a hatred of industrial production. Yes, it`s true, we produce more carbon dioxide, but we are also the cleanest country in the world. As we get wealthier, the air gets cleaner and we can afford to do things that maybe some day if the globe is warming we have to make adjustments, it`s our wealth that will allow us to save the world. If we let these socialists control our lives, we will be worse off.”


JC said...

Hi, phew, a lengthy post. The general theme that seems to be coming through is the sun and lack of cosmic rays are causing the last 30 years of global warming. I just thought I'd clear up a few misconceptions about the sun's role in global warming.

Earth's climate is very sensitive to solar activity. Sami Solanki at the Max Planck Insitute compared solar activity & temperatures over the past 1150 years and found temperatures closely correlate to solar activity. When sunspot activity was low during the Maunder Minimum in the 1600's or the Dalton Minimum in the 1800's, the earth went through 'small ice ages'. The sun has been unusually hot in the last century - solar output rose dramatically in the early 20th century accompanied by a sharp rise in global temperatures.

However, Solanki also found the correlation between solar activity and global temperatures ended around 1975. At that point, temperatures started rising while solar activity stayed level. This led him to conclude "during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source."

This is confirmed by direct satellite measurements that find no rising trend since 1978, sunspot numbers which have leveled out since 1950, the Max Planck Institute reconstruction that shows irradience has been steady since 1950 and solar radio flux or flare activity which shows no rising trend over the past 30 years.

As for cosmic rays, the whole problem with the theory that cosmic rays (or lack thereof) are driving global warming is that cosmic radiation has shown no trend over the last 50 years. This has led the Max Planck Institute to conclude that cosmic ray flux and temperature followed each other up to 1970 but there has been no correlation between temperature and cosmic ray flux since 1970. So even if cosmic rays are linked to cloud formation, all they'll find is the cloud formation 50 years ago is similar to now and has little to no impact on the last 30 years of long term global warming.

The sun has been the primary driver of Earth's climate in the past but solar variations are conspicuous in their absence over the last 30 years of long term global warming.

Anonymous said...

Excellent comments, jc. No doubt Radar will ignore them completely, or throw any number of fallacies at you.

-- creeper

radar said...

JC, I suppose you missed within the body of my posts that the measured levels of CO2 do not correlate with this warming you mention, so suggesting that the warming is man-made is disingenuous. I am going to read your links and post them with comments as seems appropriate. But scientists understand that solar activity and temperature change correlate, but not always in a linear fashion because of the other factors involved, such as cloud cover variations, the salinity of the ocean and so on.

radar said...

JC, as I thought....there are variances between the curve representing solar activity and the curve representing global temperatures. Over the years you see that the activity and temperature range generally agree but at times one is going up with the other going down, while at other times they are very closely associated. In other words, I could take that information and make it look more or less significant merely by the values I give to the gradients on my graph or the period of time I give to the graph.

Readers, it is easy for a JC to find global warming proponents with charts and numbers that promote global warming, since currently this is the view that gets grant monies from governments and peer reviewed papers.

It is also easy for me to find sources that directly refute JC's sources and argue that the evidence clearly indicates that we are heading for a period of global cooling...even though scientists who go against the flow find themselves being denied funding and getting fired (See my post coming on ice cores!) because they dare disagree with the pronouncements of the UN and Al Gore.

I even saw where now the General Secretary of the UN was blaming the atrocities being committed in Darfur on global warming(!) - giving a pass to all those Islamofascists and their genocidal murderous ways....Gee, I guess if you get a muslim too hot, he can't help but murder innocents, huh?

As I demonstrated and as is generally known, global cooling was the buzzword of the 70's and 80's and now global warming is the "Hot" phrase. How could scientists be so wrong then and so right now? Or, let me rephrase that....why should I believe that the guys who brought us global cooling when they now go all chicken little over global warming?

Yesterday I played four sets of tennis. Why is that significant (other than the idea that I can still walk today)? Because the NOAA predicted that we would have thunderstorms from morning and continuing through the evening and then on through the next day. But not one drop of rain fell here yesterday and so far not one drop today.

Weather experts cannot get it right 24/48/72 hours in advance sometimes and when they go beyond a week, hey, you might as well buy a Farmer's Almanac! I have my doubts about them being able to tell me what is going to happen 50 years from now and you should, too!

What secularists miss (of course) is that the Earth was created and part of that creation involved a very complex system of checks and balances. The Noahic Flood was incredibly catastrophic and weather was certainly "out-of-whack" for several years as some kind of equilibrium was reached. Since that time the temperatures of the earth have varied up and down, never getting so hot as to endanger life, never getting so cold as to endanger life, but simply cycling up and down.

There is evidence and then there is what people do with the evidence to push their own points of view. I do not believe that Solanki has proved or come close to proving that there is no longer a correlation between temperature and solar activity. He has only been able to point to a larger lag between those two than is normal within the boundaries of the information that he has available to him. However, the farther back his data goes, the less reliable it is and, in fact, such a lag may be quite within the norm. He cannot know for sure, but he can assert that his data supports global warming and get funding and the acclaim of his peers. I will give him that....

Anonymous said...

"Yesterday I played four sets of tennis. Why is that significant [...]?"

Other than being a perfect demonstration of a fallacy of composition, it's not significant in this discussion. Arguing that climate change cannot be studied and/or predicted because meteorologists don't nail the weather every day is like saying that it can't be true that the stock market goes up in the long run because one of your stocks went down today.

The fallacy of composition is also, as it happens, the same fallacy that makes you conclude that if one part of the Bible is literally true, then all parts of the Bible must be literally true.

-- creeper

Mazement said...

Wow, that just goes on and on. I don't understand the science at all, so I can't comment on it. I did find a link that has rebuttals to most of those arguments at: "".

(See "Global Warming stopped in 1998" or "Current global warming is just part of a natural cycle" or "They predicted global cooling in the 1970s".)

By the way, I'm still wondering what convinced you that global warming was a hoax. The consensus among climate scientists is that it's happening, and it seems kind of arrogant to say that you understand the issues better than people who actually study them for a living.

Is it a religious thing? Since the Bible says that scientists are lying about evolution, do you assume that they're lying about everything else as well?

If that's true, where do you stand on medical controversies? The scientific consensus is that HIV causes AIDS, that vaccines don't cause autism, and that many diseases are caused by germs. But those are all "controversial", in the sense that there are a lot of people who believe the opposite and claim that there's a big conspiracy to hide the truth.

Who do you agree with? (The Bible says a lot about sickness caused by demons, but it never mentions germs.)

Anonymous said...

"I do not believe that Solanki has proved or come close to proving that there is no longer a correlation between temperature and solar activity. He has only been able to point to a larger lag between those two than is normal within the boundaries of the information that he has available to him."

A lag is a delayed response between cause and effect. JC's point was that the cause was altogether missing, so what you're looking at is an effect without a cause. Unless you want to suggest that the effect in this case is preceding the cause, I'm not sure where you're going with this.

-- creeper

scohen said...

"it seems kind of arrogant to say that you understand the issues better than people who actually study them for a living"

That seems to be the main thrust of Radar's entire blog, no?

JC said...

"I suppose you missed within the body of my posts that the measured levels of CO2 do not correlate with this warming you mention, so suggesting that the warming is man-made is disingenuous"

I did miss that bit - where do you say that? For the record, I didn't actually say that warming is man-made - I was making the point that there is no correlation between solar variations and temperature over the last 30 years. Eg - the sun's levels have been steady for 50 years while temperature has shown a steady 30 year warming trend.

"Over the years you see that the activity and temperature range generally agree but at times one is going up with the other going down, while at other times they are very closely associated."

As is expected. The study wasn't saying the sun was the *only* driver of climate. If that was the case, the correlation between solar activity and temperature would be 100%. Instead, it was the correlation was something like 92%. Incidents like volcanic activity, orbit wobbles, El Nino, etc also affect climate but the sun is the main driver.

Re the argument that Solanki says what he says to get more grant money, he's actually saying the sun ISN'T causing global warming - the opposite of what you'd expect a solar researcher to say. In fact, I've read through all his work over the years and his early work was leaning towards the sun having a greater influence in global warming. But as he did more research and gathered more data, he came to a firmer conclusion that the sun's impact on the last 30 years of warming was minimal. If the guy wanted lots of money, he'd be saying "it's the sun, it's the sun, send me money to do more research!"

Re the upcoming period of global cooling, you're refering to the predictions of solar behaviour 20 years from now. While interesting, it has nothing to do with what has caused global warming over the past 30 years.

One last thing about global cooling in the 70's. It was actually cooling from the 50's to the 70's. And it was caused by aerosol pollution. So when the clean air act was introduced, the atmosphere cleaned up and the cooling effect reversed. For some reason, that whole period has become a reason to ignore global warming now.
What the 70's cooling should be is a reminder of how humans can impact the environment but if the people and government take action, it can be fixed.

Anonymous said...

"I even saw where now the General Secretary of the UN was blaming the atrocities being committed in Darfur on global warming(!)"

Sounds like something you made up... you wouldn't have a link to that transcript, would you?

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

Thanks very much for promoting our NRSP Science Advisory Committee member Professor Patterson's article. I have followed his research for years, having visited his lab and even done some coring with him. I can assure you it is first class research that turned me from a Kyoto supporter into someone who now believes we should continue to work on controlling pollution better (CO2 is not pollution of course) and conserve energy but the idea that we can have a significant effect on global climate by fiddling with our CO2 emissions now seems very far fetched indeed.

I invite you to hear more from the scientists we work with at the Natural Resources Stewardship Project by visiting, especially the news page.


Tom Harris, Executive Director
Natural Resources Stewardship Project
P.O. Box 23013
Ottawa, Ontario K2A 4E2


radar said...

two things....some of you commenters might want to review the content and language of your comments before you accuse me of being arrogant! Wow.

I do primarily post articles composed by others and comment upon them, or I go over a few points of an issue or controversy and express my opinion. It isn't arrogant to have an opinion, it is fortunately a right that I have by virtue of being a human being residing in the United States of America. If I lived in a country like Iran, I probably would have been bundled off to jail already.


U.N. leader: Darfur slaughter triggered by global warming
More violent conflict on horizon due to climate change, he says
Posted: June 18, 2007
10:41 a.m. Eastern

© 2007

U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon

U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon blames the ethnic and religious violence in Darfur on global warming and insists more conflicts of this kind are coming because of climate change.

"The Darfur conflict began as an ecological crisis, arising at least in part from climate change," Ban said in a Washington Post opinion column.

As WND reported in 2004, the U.S. declared the rape, pillaging and slaughter of blacks in western Sudan by the Islamist Khartoum regime and its Arab militia allies genocide. The U.N. has described it as the world's worst current humanitarian crisis, with estimates of over 200,000 dead and more than 2.1 million displaced in four years..."
or a host of other sites have the story. I was all over the news on, I believe, the 18th of June and posted on Drudge, etc, as well.

radar said...

Oh, and thanks Tom Harris for your gracious comment. It is a wonderful thing when scientists do their best to follow the evidence rather than march in lockstep with politicos!

Anonymous said...


"Oh, and thanks Tom Harris for your gracious comment. It is a wonderful thing when scientists do their best to follow the evidence rather than march in lockstep with politicos!"

I don't know... have you been to their website? It's pretty light on substance - actually, there's none. All they have are media strategies, press releases and the like. So far, not much in the way of "scientists following evidence" to be seen.

About the Darfur thing, when you look at the original Washington Post column, it makes his points a lot clearer:

"Amid the diverse social and political causes, the Darfur conflict began as an ecological crisis, arising at least in part from climate change.

Two decades ago, the rains in southern Sudan began to fail. According to U.N. statistics, average precipitation has declined some 40 percent since the early 1980s. Scientists at first considered this to be an unfortunate quirk of nature. But subsequent investigation found that it coincided with a rise in temperatures of the Indian Ocean, disrupting seasonal monsoons. This suggests that the drying of sub-Saharan Africa derives, to some degree, from man-made global warming.

It is no accident that the violence in Darfur erupted during the drought. Until then, Arab nomadic herders had lived amicably with settled farmers. A recent Atlantic Monthly article by Stephan Faris describes how black farmers would welcome herders as they crisscrossed the land, grazing their camels and sharing wells. But once the rains stopped, farmers fenced their land for fear it would be ruined by the passing herds. For the first time in memory, there was no longer enough food and water for all. Fighting broke out. By 2003, it evolved into the full-fledged tragedy we witness today."

That's a pretty clear and plausible causal chain of events. Which part of it do you disagree with, and on what grounds?

radar said...

"One last thing about global cooling in the 70's. It was actually cooling from the 50's to the 70's. And it was caused by aerosol pollution. So when the clean air act was introduced, the atmosphere cleaned up and the cooling effect reversed. For some reason, that whole period has become a reason to ignore global warming now.
What the 70's cooling should be is a reminder of how humans can impact the environment but if the people and government take action, it can be fixed."

You gotta be kidding! No one really believes this, do they? Commenters???

JC said...

Aerosols (tiny particles suspended in the air) have a cooling effect by reflecting sunlight (this is called global dimming). The more aerosols in the atmosphere, the less sunlight reaches the Earth's surface.

Surface measurements of solar radiation found a global trend of dimming from 1960 which reversed around 1985. From that point, there has been a general trend of brightening. As solar output has been steady over this period, this is consistent with measurements of aerosol levels that have fallen since the early 80's. Look forward to any comments on this...

Mazement said...

It isn't arrogant to have an opinion it is fortunately a right that I have by virtue of being a human being residing in the United States of America.

Yikes! I hope I didn't sound like I wanted to take away your basic human rights!

When I said you seemed arrogant, I just meant that I thought you were giving your opinion more weight than it deserves.

I mean, right now there's an overwhelming consensus among scientists in the field that global warming is happening. Certainly they might all be wrong.

But you can't overturn the consensus just by parroting half-understood articles from web pages and taking potshots at poor Al Gore. (What did he ever do to you, anyway???) If you want people to respect your opinion, you need to pay your dues: You need to read the literature and understand the current state of the research before you can push past it and lead us to a new consensus.

Also, claiming that scientists are deliberatly lying about global warming as part of a socialist conspiracy is beyond arrogance. Unless you've got evidence, that probably borders on False Witness.

If I lived in a country like Iran, I probably would have been bundled off to jail already.

Iranians are allowed to be arrogant, too, except when it comes to handful of specific topics that their government is touchy about. I don't think you'd get in trouble for denying global warming.

radar said...

I have linked to various articles and scientists and people who, like myself, Mazement, do not believe in man-made global warming. Hey, my opinion is my opinion, if I didn't think it was right I would change it!

Al Gore is helping a cause that will throw billions of dollars away in a useless effort to change a global warming and cooling cycle that will simply continue on anyway. I therefore see him as an enemy to the poorer elements of society and Third World countries in particular, who are not able to easily adopt anti-pollution methods of the more sophisticated variety and therefore dampen their economic growth.