« Stern - tax us to make us happier | Main | Balls Fingered »

I see no cooling

BBC NEWS | Science & Environment | 'Quiet Sun' baffling astronomers
There are no sunspots, very few solar flares - and our nearest star is the quietest it has been for a very long time.
In the mid-17th Century, a quiet spell - known as the Maunder Minimum - lasted 70 years, and led to a "mini ice-age".
This has resulted in some people suggesting that a similar cooling might offset the impact of climate change.
According to Prof Mike Lockwood of Southampton University, this view is too simplistic.
"I wish the Sun was coming to our aid but, unfortunately, the data shows that is not the case," he said.
"If the Sun's dimming were to have a cooling effect, we'd have seen it by now."

Note how the "neutral" term "Climate Change" is taken as read to mean "warming" - and I'm not sure I want the sun to "come to our rescue" and for us to re-enter a mini ice age. But pick any set of data you like, or even any set of data you don't like, and you will see the world has been cooling for the last few years. So what cooling is it that he can't see?

Comments

In his old blog, Global Warming Politics, Philip Stott called in psychiatry to explain.

He referred to the condition "cognitive dissonance": the ability to totally disregard reality when it conflicts with preconceptions.

I reckon Stottie is right, and there is a lot of cognitive dissonance about.

When Prof Lockwood says "If the Sun's dimming were to have a cooling effect, we'd have seen it by now." he's conveniently ignoring the fact that we're coming down from extremely high levels of solar activity. We're just now approaching *normal*.


Prof Lockwood says "If the Sun's dimming were to have a cooling effect, we'd have seen it by now."

Has he not seen it?

Everyone else has seen it, what's his problem then?

Oh, or course, he is speaking for the bbc. Silly of me.


I am somewhere in the middle on this, I do think that our human activities do have an additive effect on the World around us and so on. We are after all a part of Nature too. The problem is when our (sociable!) brains race ahead of our actual physical limits, as well as our usually not liking our neighbors or what they are up to very much. THAT'S when the political crap starts to pile up! The fact is that I think that we generally like our "weather" warm and do what we can to make it warm, snug houses, big fireplaces and so on. In other words, the task is to live with, or around, the changes happening in Nature as men have always done, and adjust individually to these. Anything else is just me trying to tell you what to do, I do not have any "right" to do this in the first place, it is really just not very likely to get any respect anyway even as if I was Jesus Christ and the Twelve Apostles, and so it is as we say here in southern Minnesota "just a crock of you-know-what!"

Emmet, the question is not whether human activity affects climate -- it does -- but exactly how much it affects climate.

The answer to the latter question is: infinitesimally, compared to natural forces (volcanoes, the Sun, etc).

More to the point is, given that the anthropomorphic effect on climate is tiny, would any scaling back of human activity do anything to reverse (or even alter) the course of climate change?

The answer to that is, of course, no.

Here's the scale of the thing, in mechanical terms. Assume that you're driving a car at some reasonable speed -- say, 50mph -- and that you have a very loose wheel nut on one wheel. Will that loose nut, if it falls out, cause the wheel to fly off the car, and cause a crash? Of course not.

Now for the scale: imagine that the wheel nut is "loose" by only 1 millimetre (three-hundredths of a single turn).

That's the percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Human activity is less than one tenth of that 3%.

Nothing we do, no matter how much we think it is, affects climate change. Nothing.

Kim, If you have a wheel nut with 300mm pitch, that's some bloody wheel! To scale it would be a M400 about the size of a Austin mini wheel.

Same guy, after noting that he has a suspicion we may be in another Maunder Miniumu cycle:
"We would expect it to be more than a hundred years before we get down to the levels of the Maunder Minimum."
Uh, the same century All Gory says we'll all die of the heat? The same century that even the IPCC says their models have already been 180 off about some thirty years (though they warn that when those thirty years are done, in twenty years, warming will start again)? THAT century?

Do these people even listen to what they are saying, never mind expecting us to listen?

Kim du Toit, I expect that I am in Lady Thatcher's terms a bit 'wet' on this one. That is mainly because mathematically infinitesimals are sometinmes surprising quantifiers. In the main I do agree though, we as a critter probably are at most only part of an arguable additive trend. Needless to say, I think as an amateur historian of some salience and power that the real thing to be ready for is the unexpected...everytime. And, moreover, that human solutions to human problems arise in unforseen quarters, and are individual in the first place always. So, loading ourselves down with more bureaucracy now is just the same as any other clever planning "ahead" -- for the LAST war.

Kim du Toit, I expect that I am in Lady Thatcher's terms a bit 'wet' on this one. That is mainly because mathematically infinitesimals are sometinmes surprising quantifiers. In the main I do agree though, we as a critter probably are at most only part of an arguable additive trend. Needless to say, I think as an amateur historian of some salience and power that the real thing to be ready for is the unexpected...everytime. And, moreover, that human solutions to human problems arise in unforseen quarters, and are individual in the first place always. So, loading ourselves down with more bureaucracy now is just the same as any other clever planning "ahead" -- for the LAST war.

Kim du Toit, I expect that I am in Lady Thatcher's terms a bit 'wet' on this one. That is mainly because mathematically of course infinitesimals are sometimes surprising quantifiers. Therefore I am not terribly "orthodox" in my opposition to the global warming orthodoxy. This is because a person can get stuck awfully easy in the perils of really blinkered two-valued "thinking," especially in the universal fight with idiots. The thing is not to get dragged down by it all, especially if you happen to love and care for some of these damned halfwits. Having a crisis all the time and a bunch of excitement of course is real average or normal stuff, and it is really low-IQ too -- like the Tee Vee "terror war' BS. Heinlein said, "stupidity isn't a 'sin,' but it is the one crime nature always exacts the supreme penalty for." So I really go in for keeping an eye out for the weird angle in every situation, anything else is just too boring for words anyway! I agree with you I mean, we as a critter probably are at most only part of an arguable additive trend. Small or large, or actually changing on a sliding scale, who really "knows ?" Needless to say, I think as an amateur historian of some salience and power that the real thing to be ready for is the unexpected...everytime. And also that human solutions to human problems arise in unforeseen quarters, and are individual in the first place always. So, loading ourselves down with more bureaucracy now is just the same as any other clever planning "ahead" -- for the LAST war. And, you know just as well as I do that these dim expensive "government personalities" will be the last ones to stop flying around, telling everybody else what to do.

Emmett,

I should also point out that the predictive models used to project temperature changes are, as we statisticians say, bullshit.

Simple explanation: to test a predictive model, we take history minus yesterday to predict yesterday. If a model can't come close to that (with a reasonable degree of certitude), you toss it out.

Most of the climate models are even worse than that, to whit: never mind predicting yesterday (they can't), no matter WHAT data is entered, the outcome is always the same -- we're all gonna DIIEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!

The Englishman has already looked at the junk data they use, innumerable times, so I won't go into that wearisome topic.

And to make the thing even more interesting, most climate modelers refuse to let other statisticians look at their algorithms or disclose their methodology.

Hence: bullshit.

Yet we are supposed to treat all these pronouncements as gospel, just because the guys have strings of letters after their names. There's a word to describe people of this ilk: charlatans.

This, in the immortal words of Margaret Thatcher to George H.W. Bush, is no time to be "wet" -- by granting these ticks the slightest credence, you allow them to continue to spout their bullshit (that word again).

(Sorry Mr Castle, for all of the repeat posts...I AM a jitterbug!)

Kim du Toit, that said, then the Sufi question is how do we provide a harmless mass outlet for all these folks' emotions? In the same way as mass sports year-round were brought in as a safety valve after WW II to drain off the excess energy of urban crowds. The "global warming" outcry sure as Hell can be looked at as a demand for some NEW kind of entertainment...what should that be? Short of mass shootings...I do care personally about some of these characters!

(I don't mean WE should lift a damn finger, that's just a way of speaking, but it is interesting to watch this unfolding -- sooner or later the Chinamen will lower the boom on all this guilty squirming around, I guess....)

This is for Kim or anyone else interested in the problem of "forecasting:"

http://radioamerikanow.com/?p=126

If the sun is 3-7 million years old, how can 'scientists' say anything about the history of its activity, given that the sun has only been 'observed' for a few hundred years.

Has no-one yet realised that that the Sun has been changed from incandescent to fluorescent, to meet EU targets.

Dennis, thanks for that. I knew something had changed, but not quite what. It is hard to read now, even in daylight.

Ta, muchly.

"Short of mass shootings..."

Now why would you rule that out, as an outlet for massed energy? Nothing like shooting, or the threat of being shot, to cool down the hysterics.

I think I can speak for The Englishman as well when I say that if we conservative gun owners could indulge in a little occasional mass shooting of liberal/Green bastards, it would do us (and the world) no end of good.

Too bad for the liberals/Greens, of course, but they should have thought of the consequences before trying to ram their odious nihilist agenda down everyone else's throat.

And should the liberals/Greens care to arm themselves as well, that would only make the matter more sporting.

"If the Sun's dimming were to have a cooling effect, we'd have seen it by now."

Is there not a lag effect from the heat of the Sun? The Sun's impact is highest in June but the warmest month, including for for swimming, is August. During the day it's warmest between 2 and 3pm. This was an argument put forward by some up and coming Israeli scientist - can't seem to find his name anywhere but it seems a reasonable point, no? (I'm more exercised by the economics of the debate rather than the science).

Post a comment