I’ve Never Bought the Hype

Just recently, as in a couple of days ago, a science article came out that puts the blame for global warming more squarely in the sun’s lap.

I’ve never bought into the idea that global warming was caused by, or even heavily influenced by, humans. Part of that has to do with the fact that I consider the messenger a lying sack of shit who is using this issue for his own socialist agenda, but it also has to do with an interview I read ALMOST TEN YEARS ago in Reason magazine with Sallie Baliunas, an astronomer who has been studying the sun for quite a long time at that point.

Basically, the sun goes through 11 year cycles of sunspot activity, with corresponding changed in the sun’s magnetic field. The core thing to note here is that the earth is inside the sun’s magnetic field and that the ozone layer and other parts of our atmosphere protect us from that magnetic field to a great degree. If we didn’t have the ozone layer, there would be no life on earth as we know it because we’d all die from one hell of a bad sunburn. Further, it’s reasonable to assume that any change in the sun’s activity would have a measurable effect on the earth’s climate.

Remember, this interview is nearly a decade old. The Great Prophet AlGore was still the VP at the time. He had written his first book on the environment by then, I think, but he hadn’t morphed into the unrefuted genius of climate change yet. Here’s a money quote:

Reason: If the magnetic activity on the sun is changing, what mechanisms are there that might affect the earth’s climate?

Baliunas: It depends what time scale one is talking about. The sun brightens and fades over the sunspot cycle, the 11-year cycle. But also the intensity of the 11-year cycles has been building over the centuries.

Reason: What do you mean by “intensity”?

Baliunas: Looking back several hundred years, the sun’s magnetism is at an all-time high. The last four peaks have been quite high.

Reason: Do these fluctuations produce a big effect?

Baliunas: It’s relatively small from cycle to cycle, but we estimate that from the 17th century to now it could have been four or five tenths of a percent of the sun’s energy output. Run that through a climate model, and that’s enough to explain the temperature change.

So, given the climate models they had at the time, the sun’s activity can fully explain any rise in temperature on the earth. Interesting. But what about man-made green house gas emmissions:

Reason: Would this solar variability research say anything about what would happen if we were really to increase greenhouse gases in the atmosphere a lot?

Baliunas: That experiment has been done. We’ve increased the amount of greenhouse gases by an equivalent of going halfway to a doubling of carbon dioxide–and doubling is the benchmark that everyone talks about. And then you look at how the earth’s temperature has responded, and it has not warmed more than a tenth or two-tenths of a degree. So a simple back-of-the-envelope calculation says a doubling is a few tenths of a degree. That’s not significant, because it’s not noticeable above the natural background changes.

The real test of this is the last 20 years, with very precise satellite measures of the earth’s temperature made globally. The global average temperature of the atmosphere, just above the surface of the earth, has not warmed at all. There’s been no warming trend in the past 20 years, and the models all say that there should have been a warming of several tenths of a degree centigrade in that time.

She then goes on to skewer the objections to the fact that there has been no warming of the earth’s surface.

This interview was done almost ten years ago, people. Ten years. In that time, we’ve been subjected to hysteria and misinformation regarding climate change and what’s causing it. It’s good to see current articles come out the sun’s huge effect on the earth’s climate now. But if this interview had gotten a bit more exposure back in 1998, the current bullshit hysteria over climate change may not be so strident. With a guy like AlGore, one never knows. But think of what reasonable ideas and discussions we could have had in the last ten years, rather than all of this doom and gloom hatred of humanity we have instead.

This entry was posted in daily. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to I’ve Never Bought the Hype

  1. Paul says:

    Even if you completely discount the affect of increased CO2 emissions gathering in the upper atmosphere as a direct cause/effect relationship to global warming we still have a big ass hole in our ozone layer that needs to be dealt with.

    Your sources conveniently ignore this problem in relation to the topic of the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

  2. Paul says:

    I know what you’re thinking “but dude, it’s CFC’s that caused the depletion of the Ozone”. It’s not as simple as that though unfortunately. One school of thought is that greenhouse gasses cause the stratosphere to cool which in turn prolongs the seasonal conditions that allow CFC’s to degrade the ozone. Furthermore, it’s theorized that constant pressure on cooling trends in the upper atmosphere could allow other ozone depletion pockets to form in other areas of the planet. One zone that’s being watched now is over the Arctic.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion#_note-39

    “Global warming from CO2 is expected to cool the stratosphere. This, in turn, would lead to a relative increase in ozone depletion and the frequency of ozone holes. The effect may not be linear; ozone holes form because of polar stratospheric clouds; the formation of polar stratospheric clouds has a temperature threshold above which they will not form; cooling of the Arctic stratosphere might lead to Antarctic-ozone-hole-like conditions.”

  3. Roger says:

    That’s interesting. Of course, the article didn’t talk about the ozone because that wasn’t the subject. I wonder if what you present is relatively new information in the last ten years. I would suspect that they didn’t know then what they know now regarding the ozone layer.

    Could be wrong though.

  4. Paul says:

    You’re right that the article was not about the ozone layer. Weren’t you trying to make the point that we don’t need to worry about reducing greenhouse gas emissions by quoting it though? Furthermore, I would surmise that Reason magazine has a distinct agenda on this topic. So did manufacturers of CFC’s like Dupont years ago.

  5. Paul says:

    What the 11 year sun intensity cycle doesn’t explain for me is the melting of the polar ice caps and the Greenland glacier. If in fact no measurable warming trend has happened in the last 20 years by sattelite measurements than what is causing the ice to melt?

  6. Roger says:

    Ah, good question. I just ran into that yesterday. Reduced rain fall in the specific areas where the glaciers are. Go here: http://home.earthlink.net/~ponderthemaunderg/index.html

    Go down the page about half way.

  7. Jim says:

    I do not know how much, if any, human activity is contributing to global warming. What I do know is that I will never be able to bring myself to agree with Al Gore even if God himself appears to me, smacks me upside the head and says “Of course global warming is primarily the result of human activity you stupid m**********r!”

  8. Paul says:

    So if reduced rainfall is related to the recession of large glaciers around the world why is there less rainfall? As for the polar ice caps the article you referenced links two articles.

    The first article:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itool=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstractplus&list_uids=16782603

    states that snowfall in the eastern half of Antartica surpasses the reduction of ice in the west. It also says “he result exacerbates the difficulty of explaining twentieth century sea-level rise.”

    The second article:
    http://www.parks.tas.gov.au/fahan_mi_shipwrecks/infohut/acc.htm

    is linked presumably to state that this same snowfall
    completely mitigates the loss of ice but the linked article does notthing of the kind.

    Instead, it raises another interesting point in that Earth’s oceans are a huge carbon sink and that oxygen and carbon are exchanged where it meets the atmosphere. Does it occur to anyone reading this that maybe melting ice and increased snowfall in Antartica is nature’s process of balancing out what’s happening in the upper atmosphere with the mixture of greenhouse gasses?