A Hard Blow for Global Warming
When some people suggested that sun influences earth’s climate, the wack0 pseudo-scientists scoffed. "How could man possibly influence the sun?" they asked.
Now, two prominent climate scientists, Robert Toggweiler of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory at Princeton University and Joellen Russell, assistant professor of biogeochemical dynamics at the University of Arizona, conclude that wind has a larger influence on Arctic ice than man. (h/t Gateway Pundit).
It’s not ice melt but rather wind circulation that drives ocean currents northward from the tropics. Climate models until now have not properly accounted for the wind’s effects on ocean circulation, so researchers have compensated by over-emphasizing the role of manmade warming on polar ice melt. [source]
Coincidentally, North American snow and ice cover this winter is greater than any year since 1966, a full 0.3 degrees F below the 20th century average. More coincidentally, Arctic ice is as thick as ever (in recent times, anyway). (Watts Up With That is one of the best climate blogs on the warming cooling planet.)
So what about the sun, Hennessy? You must be wrong.
Slow down. Solar activity is at a modern low, and that just happened over the past year.
Kenneth Tapping of our own National Research Council, who oversees a giant radio telescope focused on the sun, is convinced we are in for a long period of severely cold weather if sunspot activity does not pick up soon.
The last time the sun was this inactive, Earth suffered the Little Ice Age that lasted about five centuries and ended in 1850. Crops failed through killer frosts and drought. Famine, plague and war were widespread. Harbours froze, so did rivers, and trade ceased. [source]
I blogged about this reality over a month ago, and received a snotty , "you’re not scientist" lecture from a global warming nut . . . who’s not a scientist, either. (At least I’m a software designer–much closer to science than this wack.)
So bundle up and enjoy the miseries of non-nuclear winter. Here in St. Louis, we’re waiting for today’s rain to turn into our 3rd snow and ice event in a week. (The school year’s already been extended.)
UPDATE: Reading this entry from Accuweather and the associated comments will make you want to strike a global warming nut.
Popularity: 1% [?]
Sphere: Related ContentNo related posts.
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
Loading ...
I’m a *senior* software designer so may maybe I am closer to a scientist than you. Anyway, if you use the kind of logic in software design that you use in accepting that graph from wattsupwiththat, I’d never hire ya. That is a single year graph showing the dip in the summer melt followed be a rise to be comparable with what was almost a record minimum in the extent of ice cover last winter (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070404162259.htm) back to that level. If anything the graph reinforces the MMGW side of the case. Actually though it is worthless since it only shows a sample of 1. Hope you are better at software than you are at science.
Ed,
I hope you’re better at reading UML than you are at reading English–or writing it, for that matter.
First, I’m sure you are closer to a scientist than I am. I have no idea where the nearest scientist might be in relationship to my current location. Whether or not you’re more like a scientist is debatable.
Second, you likely would never hire because of career position–I hire senior programmers, designers, architects, quality engineers, and the like. I haven’t worked as a programmer in several years.
Third, the graph you disparage does precisely what it purports to do; it shows that, despite the hysteria over the summer 2007 melt, the ice is back to pre-melt levels. Since the author referred to February 2007, what chart would use? A 100-year chart? Then the period of interest would be indiscernible. If you refer to my “thick as ever” quote, please note that thickness is not the same as extent. The chart you refer to shows extent, or surface area. The images show thickness and density. The darker the color, the thicker the ice.
Fourth, be careful with “record minimum” talk. The records are only 29 years old. As I wrote in some post recently, the Arctic is a bit older than that. If one year is insignificant to this winter, as you seem to believe, then 29 years is insignificant compared to the history of the Arctic ice cap.
The point of Anthony Watts’s story seems to have been lost on you, so I repeat the money line:
Cheers.
2TcfrrNwDU6mv