Wednesday, December 07, 2005
New thinking on climate change
There is a theory that, if true, might at least move us past the absurd implication that climate change would not be occuring if Gore had been elected in 2000.
It is that our sun is getting hotter.
Earth's North Pole and Mars's South Pole are melting at a surprisingly rapidThere is clearly a lot we do not know about climate change. Changes in the sun could conceivably account for some of the evidence of global warming that has been reported. It is unclear, however, whether or not the sun will be more sensitive on gender equity issues than the Bush Administration.
rate. Even far out Pluto seems to show some melting. Is the sun a bigger player
in all this than originally thought?
17 Comments:
By 
Catchy Pseudonym, at
Wed Dec 07, 02:44:00 PM:
That's it! It's not the millions of pounds of crap we're spewing into our atmosphere each year, it's because the sun is hotter! I'm smacking myself in the forehead as I write this.
If that's the case, then I propose sending all the polar ice in a freezer-packed spaceship to dump on the sun to cool it down. That should take care of that.
Also, I've heard that dragons and unicorns contribute more CO2 into the atomosphere per year than the United States and China combined. And no amount of magic mushroom fairy tea fixes it. So I suggest we hunt down and kill all the dragons and unicorns to save the world. Unless you hippie freaks have a problem with killing unicorns. Do you?
By Charlottesvillain, at
Wed Dec 07, 03:01:00 PM:
I don't know if there is any validity to it or not, but you certainly cannot blame warming on Mars on emissions on Earth.
By Gordon Smith, at
Wed Dec 07, 03:04:00 PM:
If human activity even might contribute to global climate change, don't you think it would be prudent to move towards environmentally friendly technologies and policies?
Be a conservative for once.
By Catchy Pseudonym, at
Wed Dec 07, 03:46:00 PM:
You're right we can't connect Earth with Mars, but how often do we take measurements of Mars' temp and the other planets to determine whether they're in a warming trend in our entire galaxy.
We're having trouble convincing people on Earth (with the millions of measurements taken every day by scientists and your average tv weather guys around the globe) that the world is warming up, I don't see how we can truly say that about other planets.
That doesn't mean what you said isn't valid, I would just like to see it confirmed by a multitude of scientists. My skepticism comes from hearing people laugh at global warming science, but then latch onto something that is so obviously faulty just to back up their anti-environmental arguments.
By Cassandra, at
Wed Dec 07, 03:58:00 PM:
We certainly wouldn't want to even examine the theory that the sun (which, after all, heats the Earth) has changed the amount of radiant heat it puts out over time, even to prove how obviously stupid such a suggestion is.
I mean that is simply preposterous, isn't it?
By Final Historian, at
Wed Dec 07, 04:10:00 PM:
The problem with all of this is of course that science is being prostituted (by whom is up to debate) for politics.
By Catchy Pseudonym, at
Wed Dec 07, 04:13:00 PM:
If the theory was proposed in a way that merely suggested that we look into, I wouldn't have mocked, but when it's preceded by:
"Climate change debate gets so tiresome"...
"Blaming global warming on Bush"...
"Gender equity in global warming, etc" ...
I read it for the lame pseudo-science that it most probably is. So go for it. Let's examine the Sun. Global warming (which I thought you guys said wasn't happening) is obviously caused by anything else but us humans.
By Charlottesvillain, at
Wed Dec 07, 05:30:00 PM:
Your points are well taken, Catchy, and I remain skeptical of the science here as well. I just thought it was an interesting and highly amusing angle on what has become a very political debate. (It seems we laugh at different things, assuming you have humor at all).
As for the intro about Bush and gender equity, I didn't make that stuff up, as you will see if you click through the links. Its all out there, being discussed and even reported on by purportedly serious people.
Finally, and speaking only for myself, I don't think I've ever maintained that global warming was not occuring (although using colder temperatures as evidence strikes me as absurd) but I think there is plenty of doubt as to 1) the cause, and 2) whether there is anything we can do about it.
And no, that does not mean that I don't think we should look for opportunities to cut emmissions and practice conservation. I think there is a lot of room for the government to create incentives for doing both, and that they have failed to grasp those opportunities (in a clearly bi-partisan manner). At the same time, taking measures that will result in economic declines that will impact millions of lives in a negative way, without more evidence that they would achieve the stated goals, would be foolhardy in the extreme.
So there it is.
By 
, at
Wed Dec 07, 06:03:00 PM:
Right on, Catchy. What is tiresome is the constant refrain that "Global warming isn't happening, but if it is we're not to blame." Mutually exclusive, alternative theories may work for trial attorneys, but they don't fly among rational people.
And by the way, people don't blame Bush for global warming, so stop saying. What they blame him for is ignoring the effects, or at least the possibility, of global warming. It really isn't that hard to grasp the difference between the two concepts.
Why do so many Republicans have no shame about this technique of playing dumb. During the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina we heard nothing but the gnashing of teeth of rightie bloggers as they condemned "blaming Bush for the hurricane."
Um, no. Nobody blamed Bush for the hurricane. They blamed him for his response to the hurricane. Nobody is blaming Bush for global warming, they are blaming him for his (lack of) response to global warming. An 8 year old can grasp the difference.
By , at
Wed Dec 07, 06:25:00 PM:
Something you don't hear too much by global warming proponents is that by in large, Antarctica is getting colder and sea ice has increased by more than 800%. Then again, it's constent with the latest research claiming global warming may cause an ice age. LOL. There's almost nothing that can't be blamed on this boogeyman.
By Cassandra, at
Wed Dec 07, 06:46:00 PM:
Actually, I'm a RINO-type Rethug who is quite sympathetic to environmental arguments. I used to be an ardent fan of [shudder] Al Bore's for that reason. Dear God, I almost voted for the man for President once.
I remain unconvinced, however, (but not hostile) on the science of global warming. And I'm not sure that a lot of the proposed remedies are effective and close all the needed loopholes.
I'm a huge tree-hugger from way back. I live in a 70's crunchy granola neighborhood where we can't even look at a squirrel sideways without incurring the wrath of Gaia and Goddess-forbid we should cut down a tree. We don't even put our lawn clipping in plastic bags...simply isn't done. My neighbor had an ojibwa crystal garden in her backyard for Pete's sake and was wafting sage smoke in my general direction (or at least I think it was sage smoke - I was inhaling for all I was worth but to no noticeable effect) every weekend before she moved to Mt. Shasta to be closer to the Great Spirit or whatever.
So I'm hardly hostile to this sort of thing. I just mock it mercilessly to fit in with my Rethug buddies when we march around in our jackboots marginalizing minorities and repressing the homeless... heh.
By Gordon Smith, at
Wed Dec 07, 07:28:00 PM:
Super. I'm glad we can agree that conservation measures aimed at reducing adverse human effects on our environment are sensible, rational, and right.
But your post is about making fun of people who misdirect their anger. I hope that enviro Republicans/conservatives will continue to put pressure on their elected officials to stop acting like nothing's wrong.
If the sun if warming and this is all just a natural trend... super. But the smog over the Smoky Mountains isn't all natural. The mercury spewing from power plants isn't natural.
This is a moral issue, and the Bush administration has displayed contempt for the health of our citizens, our neighbors, and our planet.
It's unforgivable.
By Cassandra, at
Wed Dec 07, 08:16:00 PM:
Screwy... peace. Anyone with even a passing understanding of basic econ normally wants corporations to pay the true economic cost of doing business - that is just good sense. I've been making that argument for years. Of course that means some people may have to do without things they like... and you may not be happy with that outcome. As a cold-blooded conservative, however, I can accept unfairness.
OK, that was mean :) I just couldn't resist twisting your tail a bit. I do agitate on this issue all the time. And most political issues are moral issues, Screwy. That's why we get so exercised about them. They affect our lives in dramatic ways.
I wouldn't live in the woods on an unpaved fricking road if I didn't like nature - I can afford to live where I like - trust me. If I get more money, I'll move even farther out.
A lot of the liberal/conservative divide isn't an argument about the problem - it's a dispute about the proper remedy. And therein lies the rub.
By Catchy Pseudonym, at
Thu Dec 08, 10:59:00 AM:
It's good to hear that conservatives, republicans whatever you guys call yoruselves, are concerned with the environment. I often wonder. I agree with all that you said Cassandra. And Charlottesvillian, I got the humor of your post. But the overall point of your post was to demean the global warming argument, so I've replied about that.
Also from the linked article commented above on the Antartica's cooling down...
"Dornan holds that any cooling down south comes as cold comfort in the face of climate-change predictions because Antarctica's temperature record "is already included in the global averages that show the climate is warming."
Indeed, David Vaughn, a scientist with the British Antarctic Survey, notes that if it's real, the continental cooling trend may be a relatively brief departure from a longer-term warming trend. The average temperature trend for all Antarctic stations from 1959 to 1996 point to an average warming of 1.2 degrees C."
By Elam Bend, at
Thu Dec 08, 11:37:00 AM:
Where do past warming periods fit into the trend?
I'm thinking of the time when Greenland earned its name and agriculture was possible in NE Canada, 'Vinland.'
Was this a temporary volcanic disruption?
I don't know how it can be disputed that there is a warming trend, but I remain unconvinced that there is a real human element to it as opposed to natural oscilations in earth climatology. I find the shrinking of Mars' icepacks, which doesn't require a temp. reading to be suggestive of increased solar output.
By Catchy Pseudonym, at
Thu Dec 08, 12:05:00 PM:
Links for sun getting hotter:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/18/ixnewstop.html
http://www.chronicle.duke.edu/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/10/19/43562bbfb82ca
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html
Still not sold, but I admit it's been batted around more than ever thought. Most seem to say man's activity on Earth contributes more to global warming or is in combination with any increase in the Sun's activity. My thought is, we can't control the sun but we can control ourselves. Let's take our pollution out of the equation as much as possible. I worry with reports like this that people will say, hey it's the Sun.. why bother with cleaning up the place.
By , at
Sun Dec 11, 08:48:00 PM:
All that HOT AIR is comming from the eco-freaks themselves just look at the jerks from GREENPEACE puttering around in their garbage scow and then they are running around in their usial idiotic protests
