at . . . The HuffPo?
Concurrent with the switchover of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation to its cool phase the Sun has entered a period of deep slumber. The number of sunspots for 2008 was the second lowest of any year since 1901. That matters less because of fluctuations in the amount of heat generated by the massive star in our near proximity (although there are some fluctuations that may have some measurable effect on global temperatures) and more because of a process best described by the Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark in his complex, but elegant, work The Chilling Stars. In the book, the modern Galileo, for he is nothing less, establishes that cosmic rays from deep space seed clouds over Earth’s oceans. Regulating the number of cosmic rays reaching Earth’s atmosphere is the solar wind; when it is strong, we get fewer cosmic rays. When it is weak, we get more. As NASA has corroborated, the number of cosmic rays passing through our atmosphere is at the maximum level since measurements have been taken, and show no signs of diminishing. The result: the seeding of what some have taken to calling “Svensmark clouds,” low dense clouds, principally over the oceans, that reflect sunlight back to space before it can have its warming effect on whatever is below.
Svensmark has proven, in the minds of most who have given his work a full hearing, that it is this very process that produced the episodes of cooling (and, inversely, warming) of our own era and past eras. The clearest instance of the process, by far, is that of the Maunder Minimum, which refers to a period from 1650 to 1700, during which the Sun had not a single spot on its face. Temperatures around the globe plummeted, with quite adverse effects: crop failures (remember the witch burnings in Europe and Massachusetts?), famine, and societal stress.
Many solar physicists anticipate that the slumbering Sun of early 2009 is likely to continue for at least two solar cycles, or about the next 25 years. Whether the Grand Solar Minimum, if it comes to pass, is as serious as the Maunder Minimum is not knowable, at present. Major solar minima (and maxima, such as the one during the second half of the 20th century) have also been shown to correlate with significant volcanic eruptions. These are likely the result of solar magnetic flux affecting geomagnetic flux, which affects the distribution of magma in Earth’s molten iron core and under its thin mantle. So, let us say, just for the sake of argument, that such an eruption takes place over the course of the next two decades. Like all major eruptions, this one will have a temporary cooling effect on global temperatures, perhaps a large one. The larger the eruption, the greater the effect. History shows that periods of cold are far more stressful to humanity than periods of warm. Would the eruption and consequent cooling be a climate-modifier that exists outside of nature, somehow? Who is the “flat-Earther” now?
Fortunately, we have access to such information because Al Gore invented the intarwebs.
Well, since Ambler brought it up, shan’t we see whether AGW proponents float?
Some of the commenters on the HuffPo thread want to burn Ambler at the stake … he threatens their march to totalitarianism and their destruction of capitalism.
I didn’t read the comments at HuffPo, but I imagine the calls to burn Ambler at the stake will be forthcoming quickly.
I mean, you can’t allow heretics like this to live, can you? Think of the children! Think of the polar bears! Think of all those damned carbon credits we bought!
Beat me to it, Darleen.
The comments at HuffPo surprised me a bit with their overall balance between true believers and heretics. AGW may be losing traction with the left. Let us hope, anyway.
Burning someone at the stake doesn’t sound very carbon-neutral.
The surprising thing to me is how many of the commenters over there are AGW skeptics.
As Ric Locke said, the wheels do indeed appear to be coming off.
Is there a connection, a pattern, of some (any?) sort in normative human psychology to be found in the frequent willingness to fall for or invest cognitive capital in doomsayers and their scenarios and on the other hand to fall for or invest actual capital in pyramid and Ponzi schemes? Beyond the mundane fact that most humans have a built-in putziness about them, that is.
I’ve heard of (but have not studied) a psychological theory which holds that doomsday gullibility is due to our own success as a species.
For most of human history, we really did have to worry about plagues, famines, and invasions by barbarians. Some deeply-buried portion of our brain is convinced that there simply must be a looming disaster for which we need to prepare.
If we don’t see one, it’s must be hidden from us, waiting in ambush (or so the brain thinks).
Since failing to prepare for a disaster is a Very Bad Thing in evolutionary terms, that situation makes this part of our brain very uncomfortable. It tends to seize on any disaster scenario that comes along, because a known threat means that you can do something about it.
Commentary at Watt’s Up cleans up Harold’s science a bit. True environmentalists are catching on that the chimera of CO2 demonization is harming other environmental causes. We can all regret the damage to science that this false paradigm of CO2
AGW is causing.
================================
Repent: The End is Near for AGW.
All those spray cans. All those old friges and air conditioners. For what? For nuthin! I want my palm trees!!!!!!
Assholes.
Kim: true environmentalists are in favor of nuclear power, the cleanest, safest, and most sustainable form of energy known to man.
I’ve heard of (but have not studied) a psychological theory which holds that doomsday gullibility is due to our own success as a species.
For most of human history, we really did have to worry about plagues, famines, and invasions by barbarians. Some deeply-buried portion of our brain is convinced that there simply must be a looming disaster for which we need to prepare.
They key difference with the AGW movement is the need to prepare bit. The way to prepare for looming climatic crisis is not by destroying your industrial base and reverting to an agrarian society. That would fly in the face of any deeply embedded survival instincts, it would seem to me.
It’s hard to keep believing in AGW when the temperature outside is -10C and it’s snowing a blizzard, but we must be wary of placing too much emphasis on the current cooling trend in case that trend reverses and the AGW crowd start jumping up and down yelling “We told you so!”
We can all enjoy the fun of pointing out the window and saying “What Global Warming?” and it does help in convincing the person in the street that the whole thing is a scam, but to finally kill this monster we must concentrate on the science.
When the AGWers start mumbling about the great warming being ‘masked’ by ‘natural cycles’, we must keep hammering them with questions like “How is this masking happening?”, “Where is the ‘hidden heat’ hiding?”, “What natural cycles?”, “Show me the ‘settled science’ that reveals the mechanisms behind these ‘natural cycles’!”, “What drives the PDO, the AMO, ENSO?”, “If the current phase of the ocean currents is responsible for ‘masking’ global warming, isn’t it just as possible that the opposite phases, like the great El Nino of 98, are responsible for producing the 90s warming, that they were ‘masking’ an overall cooling effect?”.
Above all, we must attack the models. “Why is it that the models – you know, those models that were set up to prove that an increase in man-made carbon dioxide would cause an increase in global temperatures, and mysteriously proved just that – are completly useless at predicting the effect of these natural cycles until they are tweaked after the fact?”
The science behind Svensmark’s theory, like the whole of climate science, is in it’s infancy and will be attacked by plenty of people, some in bad faith and others in the true spirit of science, and while it’s good to have some alternative theories to counter the ‘CO2 drives climate’ obsessives, our real task it to expose the ‘settled science’ as nonsense and the ‘consensus’ as a sham.
Do you think there might be a market for Pet Rocks with the Gaia worshipers?
That would fly in the face of any deeply embedded survival instincts
Understanding the consequences of destroying industrial society requires rational thought, and that takes place on a much higher cognitive level than instinct.
Instinct can generate a response of the form “X bad -> destroy X!!!”.
It’s not so good at “X bad -> perform a careful analysis to determine whether destroying X would make things even worse, and do research to determine whether there are ways to mitigate the harmful effects of X”.
Above all, we must attack the models.
Yes. I’d love to see a model which explains this.
Understanding the consequences of destroying industrial society requires rational thought, and that takes place on a much higher cognitive level than instinct.
If I tell someone they need to throw away their air conditioners because the world is getting hotter…
Where did that last chart come from, SPB?
Too, part of it is due to our disconnect from the sources of our wealth (which I think is a good thing, in general — I’d hate to go back to a society where 90% of us are subsistence farmers).
“Ban coal” doesn’t seem that bad when the typical American has never even seen coal. That would never have flown in the 19th century.
It simply doesn’t enter these people’s minds (?) that banning coal means no electricity to charge up the iPod or run the espresso machine.
It’s similar to the way that people get horrified by a picture of Sarah Palin with a dead caribou, because, as we all know, real meat is generated de novo in the back room of the supermarket, and put on those cute styrofoam trays. No hair, blood, and guts involved. That’s yucky!
B Moe: It came from this page.
CO2 data from Berner & Kothavala (2001) (c.v. for Berner here), temperature data from Scotese (c.v. for Scotese here).
B Moe, @19, just show them this.
“Do you think there might be a market for Pet Rocks with the Gaia worshipers?”
There is a robust market for rocks among the Gaia folks, but they refer to them as “crystals”, and believe them to be embued with all sorts of magical properties.
“Do you think there might be a market for Pet Rocks with the Gaia worshipers?”
Organic Gaia Stones, Whole Foods, Aisle 17, $34.99
SPB
I recall reading of a recently published ‘peer reviewed’ paper which looked at a period in the past when the world was covered in ice and the CO2 level in the atmosphere was many times higher than it is now. The paper came to the obvious conclusion that, since CO2 is the primary driver of global temperature, the high CO2 levels must have caused the ice-age.
So don’t underestimate the ability of the true believers to tweak a parameter here, adjust an equation there, and bingo! The model predicts the past correctly therefore we are doomed unless we tax energy, industry and the public until we are all – those that survive – back in tune with
The Goddessnature’s plan.That’s why I enjoy watching Dirty Jobs with Mike Rowe. Most people have no clue what it takes to create a functional society. The research facility I used to work for required state exemptions for building materials otherwise banned because there were no alternatives.
Every year we had to go through campus security training regarding animal rights activist trying to access our buildings, addressing any visiting media recording conversations, etc. Many young researchers were surprised how skeptical they had to be when approached by a seemingly innocuous encounter with a stranger on campus, like someone asking directions to the chemical storage facility. Paranoia was truly total awareness.
use not used!
I’ll tackle Milla Jovovich and Katie Fey. You guys can divide the rest amongst yourselves.
I commented on the lack of scientific literacy of some of the anti Ambler comments.It didn’t make it past the censors.
Excuse me,”Moderators”.
True, dat. If civilization doesn’t fall, I think Rowe deserves an immense amount of credit.
On the other hand, a hell of a lot of people use it as a source of “jobs I’ll never, ever do”, so maybe it won’t work out the way I’d like.
#8 Sdferr:
I am not a psychologist nor a marketer, but I do know that hype sells. However, hype wears off over time. AGW was hyped and when the impending apocalypse hasn’t appeared on schedule (like any other end-times hysteria), it garners skeptics out of former believers.
Mikey, you point out a real effect, but I don’t think it’s the main one.
Millenialists of all sorts, most especially including “climate change” doomsayers, depend on people who are (to be charitable) too busy doing other things to check up on the story. Such people mainly react to a sort of vector sum of what’s said in public by public figures.
The trouble there is that, of late, it’s gotten to be a bit much.
If it’s too hot, that’s because of global warming.
If it’s too cold, that’s because of global warming.
If there are storms, that’s because of global warming.
If there are not many storms, that’s because of global warming.
und so weiter. It’s gotten so that absolutely any weather — ordinary or extraordinary — can be blamed on the Universal Narrative of SUVs and overconsuming Americans.
Now, in many cases the claims can be, at least, justified. An increased greenhouse effect would have many results, some of them counterintuitive — there are things that could happen that would cause cooling, perhaps severe, in localized areas. But counterintuitive effects have to be reasoned, and the target audience of the warmenists doesn’t take the time and effort to reason things out, it simply reacts. The accumulated contradictions (whether or not they really are contradictory) sets up a skeptical reaction in the very people they count on as passive supporters, and that leaves cracks in the wall for skeptics to exploit.
Regards,
Ric
The comments at HuffPo surprised me a bit with their overall balance between true believers and heretics. AGW may be losing traction with the left.
For most of the “skeptics” over there, global warming was just something to mindlessly scream at Bush about. Now that their guy is going to be in charge, well, maybe it’s not such a big deal and we don’t need to destroy the economy to address it.
It’s gotten so that absolutely any weather  ordinary or extraordinary  can be blamed on the Universal Narrative of SUVs and overconsuming Americans.
Ooh, its not just the weather:
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
#34 Ric Locke:
Again, I am not a psychologist nor a marketer. But I think there is a drive in humans to be more than what they are – call it the call to glory, call it the desire for adulation – whatever.
There is a hunger for acclaim. And that drives people. But there is also the reality of most lives. Most peoples lives are rather pedestrian and dull, and achieving any acclaim on their own merits and efforts results in rather pedestrian acclaim. Fortunately, most adults can do very well being known for being a good parent, a conscientious worker, a dutiful spouse.
Some still need more than that, and join them selves to causes seeking greater acclaim than a pedestrian life gives. That, I think, is were the AGW partisans fall. Here is a cause they can give themselves to without actually risking life-and-limb to see it through. Here they can preen in their righteousness and receive the acclaim that they believe is their due. Living vicariously through the lives of others, be it a celebrity, a political leader, a church, a cause.
Hype brings attention to that thing these people can paint their desires for acclaim on – the fan of a winning team, the fan of a movie-star, the follower of a political leader, the follower of a great conqueror. But hype, like a starlet’s looks, fades over time, and most of these followers turn to the next big thing. Some don’t and become the true believers, the fanatics, the zealous followers and will go to their graves (and sometimes the graves of others) to continue to get that acclaim.
Just my opinion.
Yours,
Mikey NTH
Mikey NTH: Again, I have to direct everyone’s attention to this book.
#38 SBP:
Thanks. The ‘true believer’ reminds me so much of Willy Loman. Arthur Miller created him as a response to the American Dream, but Willy really wasn’t that. Willy wanted more than a pedestrian life, a decent life, and a better one for his children. He wanted glory and wealth – like his brother achieved, like that master salesman he met. And he had a wife who loved him and sons who adored him. And he never appreciated what he had and what he built. His brother in law complimented him and drew attention to the plaster ceiling that Willy had put in his home. Most men can take pride at doing something difficult like that (outside of his normal job and skill). Those who thirst for glory and acclaim will never be satisfied with that.
To be a good citizen, a dutiful spouse, a conscientious worker, a good parent, to leave a little part of the world and your society better that you have been in it is enough for most (and thank God for that! They keep civilization alive!). But for the true believers, nothing counts so much as receiving the praise of their fellows.
Ah, Fame!
“Yes. I’d love to see a model which explains this.”So would I, baby.
So would I.
I enjoy telling environmentalists how the aluminum in their fly reel or beer can gets there.
It’s fun to hear the ‘justification’ game.
So, where’s the link between the AGW scammers and the intentional human extinction folks? Up until algore started making his move to profit from the con, the AGW folks were mostly academics and gadflies. Will the extinction folks try to glom onto the fading express of AGW or just content themselves with continuing to advocate species suicide?
Seems like a match made in heaven though, doesn’t it?
Forty-plus years ago, I worked in a Chrysler plant. Part of the plant included machinists who repaired and re-specced various tools. They had permanent work stations, where they had, among other things, pinups. Playboy being the gold standard at the time, one would have expected to see some of Hef’s best. Nope. Cheesy stuff from magazines whose line was Bigfoot, Atlantis, UFOs, and square-jawed heroes rescuing busty damsels in inner Borneo or someplace.
Thing is, I figured, these guys’ lives were in what might as well be a tunnel. To think that something, anything, might happen to break them out would be welcome.
Then there are the people who think that knowing, so to speak, more than the rest of us means they are superior. But not everybody can know more than the rest of us, so they believe whatever is both different and believed only by a minority. Which is then, by definition, superior.
Facts do not count.
Found another one:
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/01/hot_war.php
Yoiks, B Moe, it’s not bad enough you have to put up with the trolls here but you’re now beating yourself about the head and neck by going to seek them out in their native environs? Have pity on yourself man, don’t do it!
I forgot to h/t, that was from a link at HotAir.
So has anyone noticed that none of the usual suspects has posted in this thread defending AGW theory or attacking the HuffPo piece?
There you go. The wheels ARE coming off, good and hard.
yours/
peter.
So has anyone noticed that none of the usual suspects has posted in this thread
Yes, I have.
Note that a) they’ve been here in full force all day today and b) They were all over the previous “global warming” thread.
I expect them to ignore the Richardson case for as long as they can, too.
I’m late to this thread, but just saw this from Spies, Brigands, and Pirates:
“Burning someone at the stake doesn’t sound very carbon-neutral.”
All the carbon in us came, directly or via the animals we ate, from plants. They in turn got it from the atmosphere, as did the tree that was turned into the stake and firewood.
Thus burning at the stake is indeed carbon-neutral. And, whoops, I’ve just removed the one argument that might have convinced some of the true believers in AGW that burning Deniers at the stake would be wrong.
Ah, but the carbon in those foods represents the burning of a huge amount of fossil fuel. If the corpse is embalmed and buried, the carbon will be sequestered for a long time (millenia, if Egyptian methods are used), thus reducing the net amount of carbon entering the atmosphere (not nearly enough to offset the amount used to produce and transport the food, but every little bit helps, yes?)
Burning at the stake would put all the body’s carbon back in the air right away.
Still no trolls.
What’s wrong, boys? The pravda for this situation hasn’t been issued yet?
Crickets chirping, still, from over Tim Lambert’s way.
I enjoy telling environmentalists how the aluminum in their fly reel or beer can gets there.
It’s fun to hear the ‘justification’ game.
Be careful, though. Some of them will go all zealot on you, toss the aluminum, and dedicate their lives to a shrieking campaign against aluminum.
As for why people fall for these types of doomsday scenarios, we have to consider that AGW is a perfect storm in terms of manufactured crises.
(1) The quasi-religious aspect of environmentalism (that Crichton so well articulated) tends to assume that human alterations of nature are inherently suspect and probably morally wrong. AGW gave people a way to “behave morally” by reducing their carbon footprint: sacrificing a little extra money for the swirly light bulbs, sacrificing convenience by riding the bus, and even  in the most comic aspect of this whole thing  purchase indulgences to atone for past sins and store up credit for future transgressions.
And because just about every human activity produces CO2, just about every magazine article, DIY show, manufacturer, and reporter could provide tips on how to reduce your carbon output, which leads to the second element.
2) Information cascade. Because the AGW concept was so easy to grasp and accept, our ideological circulatory system became suffused and dominated by the assumption that AGW was an established phenomenon. Al Gore’s insistence that AGW is settled science didn’t settle it, it was the information cascade. Tierny’s NYT article on the info cascade regarding low-fat diets illustrates how wrong ideas that are nonetheless appealing tend to acquire wheels and roll along on their own power.
3) Political opportunism. This one cannot be overstated  because all our economic activity produces CO2 in some degree, controlling CO2 means controlling everything. Fictional mad scientists the world over would be impressed at how simple yet all-encompassing this business of controlling carbon output is. Yes, Pinky, it’s the same thing some people do every day  try to take over the world. Because they’re megalomaniacal narcissists, that’s why, and the world never seems to exhaust its supply of those.
Exit question: What does the AGW fraud have to do with intentionalism? No, seriously. If we posit “facts” and “data” and “science” as the signifiers, what have the proponents of AGW been up to?
what have the proponents of AGW been up to?
You mean besides cranking out sanctimonious, farcical, mind-numbing fundamentalist bullshit?
#53
Honest to god. I had a guy tell me that his reels are made by a man who runs his business out of basement and they are made to order. He has nothing to do with big business smelters. Guy had a masters in fine arts.
Just goes to show ya.
You never seen any organically grown aluminum, Rusty?
I think that’s “free range” aluminum, actually.
Interesting trivia: before the invention of the electrolytic process, aluminum was mondo expensive. Napoleon III ate with aluminum tableware (gold and silver were good enough for the guests).
These people have no idea where iPods, La Marzocco espresso machines, or the NiMH batteries in their Priuses (Prii?) come from.
Even the ones who’ve gone full-blown Grizzly Adams back-to-the-land never wonder where the fuck that cast iron wood stove came from, or how it got from Vermont (or, more likely, China) to their cabin.
You ain’t going to be making your own ax heads, Treebeard, to say nothing of chainsaws.
Scurvy’s not much fun either, or so I hear. No Whole Foods for winter veggies in hunter-gatherer land.
I thought everyone knew that. Isn’t electrolysis why aluminum recycling actually is cost-effective?
I meant the part about Napoleon III.
Arctic ice returns, with a vengeance.
The global sea ice anomaly is now…zero.
Via Ace of Spades Headquarters.
Hmm… I must’ve messed up the link, or the blog ate it.
Arctic ice is back.
[…] Note the glee conservative bloggers (and their readers) took in discovering climate science denial on a popular liberal blog: Harold Ambler Debunks AGW […]
“Seminal” folks: welcome.
Kindly address this graph.
Thanks.
BTW, most of us are classic liberals, not “conservatives”.
Because, of course, unproven theories proven consistently wrong fall into the “right” category thus all who resist must be exterminated.
I’m not a scientist but doesn’t this attitude reflect a bias against the very critical thinking and constant review that should be the foundation of good science?
First Progressive Church of the Misery Pimpage and Climate Apocalypse. Come and worship!
I note that the writer of this piece is a 20-something PR flack.
Josh: you’re not qualified to have an opinion on this subject.
Sorry.
Oopsie on the sports metaphor (Fox) :
Not only has the astrophysical community missed on their estimates of the size of the Milkyway, they need to go back and check their data on the average weight of NFL linebackers, which if I don’t miss my guess, is much closer to 250 than 210.
But … but … Spies! Hundreds and hundreds of studies have been written! The science is as clear as a cloudless, overly warm morning in America’s shrinking breadbasket.
TEH EARTHNESS HAS A FEVAH! ALL WHO DENY MUST BE EXTERMINATED!
The above works well if one thinks it in the voice of a Darlek from Dr. Who.
WSJ article on human gullibility, with a particular emphasis on the Ponzi scheme but glancing mention of others”:
The entire AGW field is ripe with pseudo-science and logical fallacies. My favorite is how some believers, when confronted with the historical record, declare that “THIS TIME IT’S DIFFERENT!!!” without explaining just how it’s different. Without that explanation, they’ve abandoned the very basis of science.
#58
Yep. It’s why most alum. refineries/ smelters are located close to a source of electricity. And water.
More trivia. The alloy in aluminum soda and beer cans is unique to their purpose which is why it is cost effective to just recycle alum. drink cans.