Search This Blog

Thursday, September 01, 2011

"Big flaming ball of fire in the sky to blame for climate change? Who knew?" - Patrick Poole of the PJ Tatler

Watching A Green Fiction Unravel

Science: Experiments performed by a European nuclear research group indicate that the sun, not man, determines Earth's temperature. Somewhere, Al Gore just shuddered as an unseasonably cool breeze blows by.

The results from an experiment to mimic Earth's atmosphere by CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, tell researchers that the sun has a significant effect on our planet's temperature. Its magnetic field acts as a gateway for cosmic rays, which play a large role in cloud formation.

Consequently, when the sun's magnetic field allows cosmic rays to seed cloud cover, temperatures are cooler. When it restricts cloud formation by deflecting cosmic rays away from Earth, temperatures go up.

Or, as the London Telegraph's James Delingpole delicately put it:

"It's the sun, stupid."

This new finding of 63 scientists from 17 European and U.S. institutes from an experiment that's been ongoing since 2009 is, if we may paraphrase Vice President Joe Biden, a big deal. Which is exactly why the mainstream media, with so much invested in global warming hysteria, is letting last week's announcement from CERN pass like a brief summer shower, ignoring it.

Even CERN's own director general, Rolf-Dieter Heuer, is trying to avoid the meaning of the findings.
He told Germany's Die Welt Online that he's "asked the colleagues to present the results clearly, but not to interpret them. That would go immediately into the highly political arena of the climate change debate."

But, as British science writer Nigel Calder points out, Heuer would have no reservations about entering "'the highly political arena of the climate change debate' provided" his results endorsed man-made warming.

How long the Al Gores, James Hansens, Rolf-Dieter Heuers and other defenders of the indefensible can hang on to their fable isn't altogether clear.

With the help of an eager media, they have spun a nearly believable tale of fright and insulated themselves well from the skeptics.

But their days are few. Truth keeps getting in the way of their indoctrination effort.

And it's not just the CERN research creating a problem for them. They also need to explain why sea levels, like presidential approval numbers and consumer confidence, have fallen. According to NASA, the oceans are down a quarter of an inch this year compared to 2010.

Under the rules of climate change, sea levels, due to melting ice and water that expands as it warms, should be increasing in a way that we're all supposed to believe is a threat. But NASA scientists say that El Nino and La Nina, weather cycles in the Pacific Ocean, have caused sea levels to fall.

Apparently these natural warming and cooling cycles are stronger than the persuasion powers of even Barack Obama. It was the Illinois senator who so humbly proclaimed during the 2008 presidential campaign that his nomination as the Democratic candidate signaled the "the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow."

Gore never promised he would drain the oceans. But during his propaganda movie "An Inconvenient Truth," he did make the claim that human carbon dioxide output is forcing warming that will push sea levels 20 feet higher "in the near future."

While United Nations estimates are much more conservative, the certainty of rising sea levels is still an article of faith among global warming believers.

credit

So the news out of NASA, coupled with the CERN experiment, has got to be discouraging for the global warming believers.

That is as it should be.

The promoters of the faith had a long run. They've been feted and joined by the media, and conned a good piece of the public into believing their claims of inevitable disaster. They've made wild amounts of money and increased their realm of influence.

But now it's time for reality to intervene. For sound thinking to overcome shallow thought and trendy pursuit. To rely on observable facts. To move beyond the oppressive reign of junk science.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Previously credited pictures and graphs:



40 comments:

Webscout said...

Ah, so this week ice core layer data count, because global warming is on the agenda. Next week it's back to YEC when the same data will be dutifully denied...

Hawkeye® said...

Webscout,
So please point me to where in this article "ice core layer data count", hmmmm?

Webscout said...

The charts.

Hawkeye® said...

Webscout,
Please elaborate. Which charts do you know for a fact have been drawn from ice core layers, and how do you know that.

"Hot Lips" Houlihan said...

I suspect at some point s/he googled where long-term temperature data come from.

Webscout said...

Yeah, pretty much. It's really not that hard.

Hawkeye® said...

"Hot Lips" Houlihan and Webscout,

That's interesting, because all of the graphs but one have dates on them that are too recent to allow ice core data to contribute any meaningful statement. If you want to see this picture in better detail, go here...

http://vademecum.brandenberger.eu/grafiken/klima/actually-lupe.jpg

Note that on graphs 1-6, the earliest date is 1900. I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that we had thermometers in 1900 and actually measured temperatures pretty regularly back then. We wouldn't need ice core data for this most recent period.

Also note that the graphs measure data that can't be determined by ice core data: 1) Land and sea temperature, 2) lower atmosphere temp, 3) sea level, 4) global sea ice coverage, 5) cyclone occurrences, and 6) rainfall amounts.

Only graph #7 could use ice core data to reconstruct temperatures back to 400AD, and I'm quite sure that Radar would agree that the world was NOT created AFTER 400AD.

Just sayin'.

"Hot Lips" Houlihan said...

Did you miss the chart above that? Climate data going back 2,000 years? Shows up on my browser, between the sunspot one and the polar bear one.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the link to the bigger image.

This is a truly bizarre set of charts. There's one that shows sea levels rising from 2000 and 2008, and the heading above it says "Seas are falling". There's one of ice shrinking from 1990 to 2008, and the heading above it says "Ice is spreading". There's one of temperatures rising from 1979 to 2008, and the heading above it says "Now there's cooling".

WTF?

Hawkeye® said...

"Hot Lips" Houlihan,
Sorry, for some reason I wasn't paying attention to the two graphs above. However, there is still no indication that this reconstruction used ice core data as its basis. It may well have come from ice core data, but the point of my original statement was that Webscout made an assertion that was unsubstantiated. Anyone can go "scouting" around the "web" and make snide remarks, but it would be nice for a change if those remarks were factual and substantiated rather than simply snide.

Hawkeye® said...

Anonymous,
I can only assume that you have missed the point of the graphs you mention. If you look closely at the graphs, you will notice that sea levels appear to have peaked in about 2006 and have been falling since; global ice coverage appeared to be falling until 2008 when it suddenly spurted to higher than it was in the early 1990s; and as for temperatures, they appeared to have peaked around 1998 and have been falling since... to the point where in 2008 the temps were about exactly the same as they were in 1979.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"However, there is still no indication that this reconstruction used ice core data as its basis."

Instead of just being recalcitrant, perhaps you could find out where climate data that go back before the advent of somewhat reliable temperature records come from. Ice core layers, tree ring records etc. Which are routinely derided as utterly unreliable by YECs.

Anonymous whatsit said...

I also had a look at the charts in your link, and I can't say I agree with your characterizations. Whoever put this together clearly has propaganda purposes in mind, so even aside from the overstated headings, I suspect some cherry-picking of data. And even with that they didn't really come up with much.

Re. the three examples, you could at best say that the rise in sea levels may have leveled off, but not that sea levels are now falling. And you could play that same game in the section preceding the chunk from 2006 onwards. And yet if you had to draw a trend line through the chart, you'd put a line rising from left to right. If you were determined to argue against a rising trend, you could put a rising line first, and then a level line from 2006 onwards.

Anonymous whatsit said...

Re. the ice spread, a clearly descending trend line seems in order here, and then there's an outlier at the end. That outlier doesn't undo the trend, as you can see by the volatility in the data before it. Same with the temperature chart - a slightly rising trend line, and then an outlier. In both cases, the outlier is supposed to justify the heading.

As you can tell from the data throughout these charts, you could at any single point make a claim that it shows that X is rising or falling simply by pointing at the very latest datum. Look back at the data, and surely you can see that this is fallacious. It's the trends that count, not the last little piece of information.

I'm open to arguments from both sides when it comes to the climate discussion, but this piece doesn't instill me with confidence about the global cooling position.

anonymous_i_am said...

"According to NASA, the oceans are down a quarter of an inch this year compared to 2010.
.../...
"But NASA scientists say that El Nino and La Nina, weather cycles in the Pacific Ocean, have caused sea levels to fall."

Yeah, but has anything NASA says any significance? After all, NASA believes the Earth is 4.5 billion years old:

http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_earth.html#ageofearth

I mean, if they can't even get that right, how credible can they be?

radar said...

Okay, boneheads. I have already posted on ice cores and the fact that layers do not equate to years. In fact we know that many layers can be laid down in one storm. So dating by layers is a primitive and unsuccessful method of trying to determine the age of the Earth.

We have records of recent years (within the last two-thousand or so) that we can calibrate using measurable events, such a remarkably powerful volcanoes, that make a mark in ice layers or tree rings and allow us to make some hypotheses.

But the temperature records of the last two-thousand years also depend a great deal on, surprise, people! People who wrote about the climate while going about their daily lives, official town records, the logs of ship captains and so on. If a Viking didn't have a handy temperature guage hanging around when the colonies on Greenland and Coastal Canada were established, the growth of crops and the breeding of cattle tell us that the temperatures were moderate at that time in those northern regions.

In fact we have so much evidence from art, from records, from musical compositions and so on of time periods that allow us to make pretty good deductions concerning the weather in England in 1400 versus 1800. Funny how there was a time when vineyards grew in England and a few hundred years later the Thames was freezing over in the winters.

Notice all those "Over the River and Through The Woods" songs written during the last cooling period in which people had snow cover during the Thanksgiving season in the Northern USA?

So evidence of great variations in the temperatures experienced on Earth in the last two thousand years are easily found. In more recent years we have been able to measure solar activity and ice mass and deep-sea temperatures and many other variables. It has become obvious that "greenhouse gas" is irrelevant to the global temperatures. In fact, CO2 is not only plant food but measuring CO2 levels of the past find that CO2 tends to increase as a result of warming rather than the reverse. What magic can CO2 have to warm the Earth by increasing AFTER rather than BEFORE warming periods?!

The global climate has been subject to great change long before mankind began using fossil fuels and the use of these fuels doesn't amount to anything compared to the complex set of variables that rule the climate. That big old Sun up there has a great deal to do with climate variation. The factory down the street? Not.

radar said...

Hawkeye, thanks for manning the comments thread while I was having surgery. Muy obligado!

radar said...

"Ah, so this week ice core layer data count, because global warming is on the agenda. Next week it's back to YEC when the same data will be dutifully denied..."

Data doesn't speak, it is interpreted. I do pay attention to the ice cores and tree rings and carbon 14 dates. The difference is in interpretation. Darwinists continually try to s-t-r-e-t-c-h out the years using data that doesn't support their positions. For instance, C-14 has a half-life of 5,700 years and yet it is detected in "Precambrian" formations. If Darwinists were honest we would not even have to have discussions about millions of years, since all the suppositions of Darwin have been disproved.

If Darwinism were true, a natural source for life and information would have been discovered.

If Darwinism were true, the fossil record would be a continuum of continually morphing organisms from one thing into something else. Instead it is doubtful even one true "transitional" form has been detected.

If Darwinism were true, then systems and processes found in organisms would be a continuum of gradually changing from one form to another.

If Darwin was right, we would see that chemical reactions do not keep the building blocks of life from forming, chirality would not be an issue in nature, and a force of some kind that would drive evolution forward despite the tendency of the material world to obey the Laws of Thermodynamics.

If...

"Hot Lips" Houlihan said...

"Okay, boneheads. I have already posted on ice cores and the fact that layers do not equate to years."

Pretty unsuccessfully, from what I recall.

"In fact we know that many layers can be laid down in one storm."

And what kind of layers would those be? Do you think they're the same layers that are analyzed in ice cores? Or are they just "layers" in general?

"Hot Lips" Houlihan said...

"So dating by layers is a primitive and unsuccessful method of trying to determine the age of the Earth.

We have records of recent years (within the last two-thousand or so) that we can calibrate using measurable events, such a remarkably powerful volcanoes, that make a mark in ice layers or tree rings and allow us to make some hypotheses."

And there we have the cognitive disconnect, plain for all (except for maybe Radar) to see: "many layers can be laid down in one storm" and layers can be calibrated going back for two thousand years...

When it comes to climate matters, it's the latter, when it's time to prevaricate for the sake of YEC, it's the former.

"Hot Lips" Houlihan said...

"But the temperature records of the last two-thousand years also depend a great deal on, surprise, people! People who wrote about the climate while going about their daily lives, official town records, the logs of ship captains and so on. If a Viking didn't have a handy temperature guage hanging around when the colonies on Greenland and Coastal Canada were established, the growth of crops and the breeding of cattle tell us that the temperatures were moderate at that time in those northern regions."

And in the chart above, do you see a big blurry area where it says "moderate, warm enough to grow grapes"? Or do you see temperature data that go up and down to varying degrees? Do you really think this is based on diary entries from Vikings who complain about it being hot or cold that day?

Radar, Hawkeye, please read up on how climate data are obtained. Radar, what you're saying here is just incoherent nonsense.

radar said...

Talk about incoherent nonsense! If Hot Lips doesn't know enough about the way science gathers information to make an argument against the evidence, Hot Lips just makes fun of the evidence. Nice. Scientific.

Yes, climatologists include town records, personal histories and art work as they compile the history of climate on this planet. How far crops could be extended in warming periods and how early a snow cover would remain during cold periods are all pieces of evidence.

Current climatology labors under the cloud of intentionally deceptive idiots like Michael Mann and Phil Jones and the entire sad lot of them who produced the Hockey Stick Graph, hid the decline and input faked numbers to try to show a recent warming trend that never happened. Why don't you try to get them to act like scientists and do some good instead of trolling around making dumb remarks?

radar said...

Not probably worth it, but Hot Lips apparently knows nothing about any methodologies at all? We can spot some very violent and historically recorded events that are represented in ice layers or tree rings. It requires a Pinatubo-type of disaster to make an obvious mark by which we can navigate. If I have a layer of ice in which the soot and chemicals associated with Krakatoa are found I can date that one layer pretty accurately and figure the layers above are newer and those below, older.

We cannot mark ages accurately very far back in history because we have very few massive disasters that leave a distinctive mark on the surface of the Earth. Except, of course, for the Noahic Flood which has left billions of cubic tonnes of records that Darwinists pretend cannot be detected at all.

radar said...

See, what Darwinists do not understand is that YEC scientists use the data, we just use it correctly. Check out the Juby videos I recently posted. Darwinists use deceptive dating methods and make ludicrous assumptions about dating methods that do not calibrate in the real world.

Tree rings, ice cores, sea bottoms, carbon 14...we use these methods to more accurately date things that Darwinists completely screw up because they begin with the wrong assumptions. Error cascade.

Anonymous said...

Radar, if someone gives you some good advice by saying you should read up on things instead of incoherent nonsense, why do you keep doing the latter?

Are you so desperate to look foolish?

"Hot Lips" Houlihan said...

"Not probably worth it, but Hot Lips apparently knows nothing about any methodologies at all?"

- says Radar, still too proud to actually learn where climate data come from.

"Yes, climatologists include town records, personal histories and art work as they compile the history of climate on this planet. How far crops could be extended in warming periods and how early a snow cover would remain during cold periods are all pieces of evidence."

And do you really think that that is where the temperature data in the chart you posted comes from? Seriously?

Please read up on the subject, dude.

"Hot Lips" Houlihan said...

"Current climatology labors under the cloud of intentionally deceptive idiots like Michael Mann and Phil Jones and the entire sad lot of them who produced the Hockey Stick Graph, hid the decline and input faked numbers to try to show a recent warming trend that never happened. Why don't you try to get them to act like scientists and do some good instead of trolling around making dumb remarks?"

Please read up on what "hide the decline" actually refers to instead of making dumb remarks and slandering scientists.

Here's a good explanation: www DOT skepticalscience DOT com/Mikes-Nature-trick-hide-the-decline-advanced.htm

"Hot Lips" Houlihan said...

"See, what Darwinists do not understand is that YEC scientists use the data, we just use it correctly. Check out the Juby videos I recently posted. Darwinists use deceptive dating methods and make ludicrous assumptions about dating methods that do not calibrate in the real world."

I challenge you to post a link to YEC interpretations of radiometric, ice core and tree ring data that matches YEC beliefs and that also matches the evidence.

You will not find it.

"Tree rings, ice cores, sea bottoms, carbon 14...we use these methods to more accurately date things that Darwinists completely screw up because they begin with the wrong assumptions. Error cascade."

That is a blatant lie. Put your money where your mouth is and show us where "you" (YECs) use tree rings, ice cores, C-14 etc. to invariably date everything to within 6,000 years. Pointing out some outdated outlier data will not get you there.

Only your pride and distractions allow you to keep tapdancing your way through this.

"Hot Lips" Houlihan said...

"We can spot some very violent and historically recorded events that are represented in ice layers or tree rings. It requires a Pinatubo-type of disaster to make an obvious mark by which we can navigate. If I have a layer of ice in which the soot and chemicals associated with Krakatoa are found I can date that one layer pretty accurately and figure the layers above are newer and those below, older."

Very good, you've taken an important step by at least acknowledging this much. Now, please explain how this ties in with your claim that multiple "layers" are deposited in a storm. Do you really want to claim that these are the same kind of layers as, say, the layer we can calibrate with Krakatoa?

Ice core layers number in the hundreds of thousands at this point. How many layers would have to be deposited every year to squeeze all that into 6,000 (or 4,000) years? Over a hundred a year?

"Hot Lips" Houlihan said...

"We cannot mark ages accurately very far back in history because we have very few massive disasters that leave a distinctive mark on the surface of the Earth."

No, but once a method has been established as reliable within a certain percentage range, we can certainly extrapolate from there. In this case, ice core layers are established as being pretty reliable.

What YECs would have us believe is that ice core layers are reliable indicators for just as long as they are calibrated (because they have no plausible argument against this), but then - because they are left with hundreds of thousands of ice core layers that have to somehow be squeezed into the remaining 2,000 years or so - the layers somehow switch to hundreds of layers being deposited over the course of one year for the remaining period. For which they have no explanation other than wishful thinking.

"Except, of course, for the Noahic Flood which has left billions of cubic tonnes of records that Darwinists pretend cannot be detected at all."

1. How do you think they can be detected?

2. Why did the Noahic Flood leave no trace in ice core or tree ring records?

"Hot Lips" Houlihan said...

I'm quite amused that you're running away from these questions. They are indeed unanswerable by YECs.

Haven't seen Lista for a while, but the next time she insists there is evidence for creationism, I'll have her pondering these questions.

radar said...

Since I have done entire posts on ice cores already I cannot be said to run away from anything. In fact I went to great lengths to present evidence that layers are completely unreliable methods of detecting dates beyond calibration points. Notice how many decades the WWII airplanes were buried "below" the age they actually represented. Once you have no calibration point you are just guessing. Also, failure to take the Flood into account is the other major failure. Secular science has the Bible, the most reliable history book in existence and with more evidence for its veracity than any evidence for Darwinism, and ignores it.

The Noahic Flood could not leave traces in tree rings or ice cores because the entire face of the planet was overcome with water and this was a violent event. The upper crust of the Earth was rapidly subducted and very warm waters with strong flows would have done away with any ice caps. All ice caps existing now formed after the Flood. In fact, we find fossils under the ice of the Antarctic, which makes my point.

Tree rings are interesting in one way. Studying tree rings in old forests have shown us that no trees are older than around 4,300 years, the approximate date of the Flood, with the exception (possibly) of a few very old specimens found usually at relatively high elevations that possibly could have been amongst the floating mats of vegetation and had enough root system to be transplanted by the Flood and remained alive. Bristlecones are spectacularly hardy and a few of them may well have survived the Flood.

Fossil trees invariably are found stripped of branches, leaves and most or all roots and while left usually "standing" the same phenomenon was observed after Mt St Helens. Stripped trees catastrophically ripped from their places would float and eventually one end would point down and they would sink into mire. In a Flood scenario more layers of sediment would be laid down and preserve these "forests" of trees, many poking through several layers and some upside down!

Anonymous said...

Nice try Radar, but all your old posts on ice cores have been refuted. Anyone willing to do the effort can look it up in the blog archives...

radar said...

Refuted? Hardly. In fact the dating methods used by Darwinists have all been proven beyond doubt to be wrong. I stand by my posts on ice cores and I really went into depth (pun intended) on one of them.

Michael Mann and Phil Jones and Al Gore and the whole rotten mess of lying ideologues who hid data, fudged data, changed data are now finding that the general public is wising up. The great work of Watt and his team showed that weather stations in North America were moved or changed to give artificially high temperatures and the other weather stations not giving higher temperatures were thrown out of the data set. Meanwhile studies of air and water temperatures showed no big gain in temperatures from 1979 to 2008. It was all fraud.

Why? Carbon offsets! The Chicago Carbon Exchange was (quietly) shut down but the game was this - charge factories for emissions and use the money to supposedly "offset" the emissions by planting trees in some third world country. This was silly, as trees would do the natives of the countries no good. They need crops, not trees! The great irony is that in some cases these offset companies were going to clear forestation and then plant new young trees in place of a mature forest environment!!! The only thing GREEN about Gore and his AGW alarmism was the color of the money.

Anonymous said...

Try harder, Radar. And by the way: if you REALLY want to win an argument, try discussing it while it's active, instead of sneaking in a comment when it's already buried by other articles, just so you can get the last word in.

radar said...

"Try harder, Radar. And by the way: if you REALLY want to win an argument, try discussing it while it's active, instead of sneaking in a comment when it's already buried by other articles, just so you can get the last word in."

1) I cannot "sneak in" to my own blog.

2) I was responding to a comment made today

3) Since I give lots of evidence and commenters generally give me the equivalent of "Sez You" I often do not respond at all. All of you climate alarmists, why weren't you made at the CRU and the IPCC when you found out you had been made fools of? Why weren't you outraged when you found out the Michael Mann formulation would give you a "hockey stick" graph automatically? Shouldn't you be trying to get scientists to do actual science instead of propaganda?

"Hot Lips" Houlihan said...

"Try harder, Radar. And by the way: if you REALLY want to win an argument, try discussing it while it's active, instead of sneaking in a comment when it's already buried by other articles, just so you can get the last word in."

No need to be unfair. Radar has had some serious health issues lately. Not that it's kept him from spewing various rants during that time, but I don't think this is one of his tactics. Completely ignoring it (a.k.a. whistling past the graveyard) is more like it.

"Hot Lips" Houlihan said...

"Since I give lots of evidence and commenters generally give me the equivalent of "Sez You" I often do not respond at all. All of you climate alarmists, why weren't you made at the CRU and the IPCC when you found out you had been made fools of? Why weren't you outraged when you found out the Michael Mann formulation would give you a "hockey stick" graph automatically? Shouldn't you be trying to get scientists to do actual science instead of propaganda?"

The propaganda is on the part of people who pretend that "hide the decline" refers to a decline in temperatures, something that you've apparently swallowed hook line and sinker.

I'm not a "climate alarmist" myself, but the arguments that the "global cooling" crowd have presented so far are pretty limp.

"Hot Lips" Houlihan said...

"the dating methods used by Darwinists have all been proven beyond doubt to be wrong."

Er... no. They have not. This is simply false. Please provide evidence for this. Or better yet, be an honest man for once and take it back.

"Hot Lips" Houlihan said...

If there were any scientific basis that supported your beliefs, you would have been able to answer these questions. I repeat the challenges, and you can keep running away from them:

1. I challenge you to post a link to YEC interpretations of radiometric, ice core and tree ring data that matches YEC beliefs and that also matches the evidence. Seriously, show us where YECs use tree rings, ice cores, C-14 etc. to invariably date everything to within 6,000 years.

It ain't there. YECs have undeniably lost this round.

2. What kind of layers are laid down in a snow storm, and are they the same layers that are analyzed in ice cores? Or are they just "layers" in general?

3. How can you detect the billions of cubic tonnes of records that Noah's Flood has left behind? Show us the scientific study, the testable predictions. How can you detect it. Even your beloved Ian Juby doesn't have the answers, check for yourself.

4. Why did the Noahic Flood leave no trace in ice core or tree ring records?

I already know you've got nothing to shoot back with, and so you'll just come back with insults and evasions and so on. I see you've already started that on subsequent comment threads.

Another concession accepted. Young Earth refuted, why cling to it?