Funny how you folks say that you are looking at both sides of the climate change issue. All I ever seem to find on this website is the evironmental, political left point of view, with maybe the exception of Sen. Inhofe's video a couple of weeks ago. You guys as "scientists" should be the extremely skeptical ones when it comes to this issue. Not accepting it as fact as the mainstream media has.

J

Honestly!!!! As he stands there with one hand out for more money for his "research funding" he spouts off about something he knows nothing about. I mean, he says that before solar activity affected GW but not this time?

Oh brother!!!!!!

I want some of what Nigel is smoking, apparently it is good stuff. So the sun only has a small effect on the weather. Boy this is news. How in the world can people just sit and listen to this garbage? Is it because people are afraid to say anything because he is a professor? This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard of. The press needs to stop printing such bogus material and quit accepting GW as fact which it most certainly is not.

LOL....uhm, J, in case you didn't notice, the post right before this one was an interview with Chris Horner, who is an Exxon-funded skeptic.

There's plenty of "balance" here. If anything, the contrarian view gets too much play here, considering that it's not the view of a large majority of scientists.

It's amazing that NASA was just recently able to get a 3 dimensional image of the sun using 2 special satellites, yet Professor Weiss is able to conclude with absolute certainity that the sun will play a very small role in climate change. With this new and growing data collected from the sun, we will learn more than we presently know about solar activity. Maybe his backyard experiments are more technologically advanced than NASA?

Interesting article. So, it's now admitted that the Sun plays an important role in climate change but humans have basically taken the Sun out the climate equation. A biology instructor in college made a similar assertion about evolution. After a long "discussion" on the proof of macro evolution and the importance it has on shaping life on this planet (of course those who didn't agree with her were skeptics and deniers) she then made the comment that humans have been taken out of the evolutionary loop because of technology. Looks like the same reasoning is being applied here and just like then I'm shaking my head and marvelling at how much science has become like court room theatrics.

Couldn't agree more with the first comment on the list. Why don't we get both sides of this story? Why is everything that confirms the global warming greenhouse theory considered gospel but dissenting opinion is considered whacko??? The infamous Weather Channel has also fallen into this catagory of one-sided presentations.

I've been kicking around the idea of constructing a Global Warming Monument. A monolith that will have the names of those who side with AGW and those who side with NGW. Al Gore's name will of course be at the top with ALL US politicians, organizations, Foreign leaders, and any "scientist" that draws a line in the sand. I wonder how many complaints I'll get once the names start being etched. I myself would not want my grandchildren to know I profited off of nonsense. Others may not mind. We will see. My name will appear at the top of the NGW side since I came up with it :)

I find it incredible that a mathematics professor could say that Solar Radiation once played an important role in GW but today Humans have superseded the most powerful source of energy within at least 4 light years. The last four Ice Ages have occurred like clockwork, we are in the warmest period of that cycle and folks are in hysteria about a 1 degree increase following a cool period called the Little Ice Age. We can also see that the Milankovitch Cycle explains Ice Ages given that the amount of solar radiation varies with distance to the Sun and the amount of radiation that reaches the poles varies with the tilt of the Earth's axis.

Funny how solar activity affects the climate so little when the Maunder Minimum (Prolonged period of less solar activity) was followed by the Little Ice Age. When the Sun's activity increased so did the temperature. The Medieval Warm period had greater solar activity, the Little Ice Age had less, now we have more, however today CO2 levels are the issue. Nice how physics changes it's mind as it gets older.

Nigel, your name will appear very close to Mr. Gore's.

There's plenty of "balance" here. If anything, the contrarian view gets too much play here, considering that it's not the view of a large majority of scientists.

REPLY: While I agree with you that there appears to be plenty of balance on this blog, Marky, I vehemently disagree that the majority of scientists coinside with each other in agreement that Goblal Warming is going to kill us all if we don't follow in goose step with Al Gore, Sheryl Crow, John Travolta and the rest of the hypocrites preaching this scam. If anything the nubmer of scientists that refute Global Warming are equal in number. You just don't hear about them because you watch the Comedy Broadcast System, and the Corruption News Network, where objective unbiased journalism (cough cough hack horf cough) is commonplace.

Here's a link to a recent study done by the Russians that contradicts Dr Wiess's assertions:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005KFNT...21..471A

Too bad its only an abstract.

With all due respect, the Professor is wrong. His basic assumptions are incorrect, such as "During the past millennium, there were several such maxima and minima, with associated fluctuations of around 0.3 degrees Celsius in global temperature.". On average, temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period were 1.0 degrees Celsius higher than they are today. Combine that temperature difference with the 1.0 degree Celsius lower temperature difference during the Little Ice Age and you have 2.0 degrees Celsius drop there alone. I don't think Ford was making the Expedition back then.

Additionally, temperatures during the Dark Ages (200 to 700 AD) were as much as 2.5 degrees cooler than present. That adds up to a 3.5 degree Celsius temperature difference between the Dark Ages and the Medieval Warm Period. Carbon dioxide concentrations during this interval were relatively constant thus pretty much eliminating carbon dioxide as a cause for this dramatic warming and suggests that the good Professor should hit the books before issuing such proclamations.

He also dismisses cosmic rays without explaining why, which is always a good technique. I also notice that he fails to mention the effects of the earth's and sun's magnetic fields on climate. (Maybe he really isn't up to date in this field.)

Anyway, methinks the good Professor doesn't know what he is talking about.

Once again, the blog IS balanced!!!

About the sun stuff. Does any of you have scientific evidence that Mars is warming as well and that the Sun in the reason?.

Laura said,

"We are currently in a period of high solar activity, which would correspond to some warming. At some point that activity will diminish, though scientists have no way to predict exactly when that will happen or how intense the upcoming minima will be."

Laura, how often does the activity change in the Sun? I mean, is it a 10-year cycle or something of the sort?

Emiliano

The majority of scientists? Oh wow. That's why TWC had old Heidi calling for meteorologists to have their certification pulled if they don't fall in line with the AGW agenda. Then she has the guy who calls for all "deniers" of AGW to be put on trial and executed for the "holocaust" they are bringing on by not having the true faith in AGW. Of course, she doesn't dare have Richard Lindzen on her little show, since his scientific credentials (start with Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology) would blow her and her guests totally out of the water.

Heh, he blows virtually any AGW supporter out of the water. But ok, you just go ahead and use your one sheet of TP and 2-3 for the pesky moments. Have fun.

I am neither left nor right winged (as an adult, I can make my own informed decisions...) and I say only this: to all the naysayers, what if this data is right? What if this IS happening? Will you deny it to the bitter end? I'm sorry, but I have little doubt that these scientists are getting rich on FUNDING. You all remind me of the doomed Kryptonians from the movie Superman, denying any problem until BOOM, it's too late. Isn't it worth at least humoring the idea of climate change for your children and grand-children? These companies that fight this can make all the money they want, but if there is no where left to spend it, then what is it worth? I live in Michigan and I'll tell you this, in all my years, I have NEVER seen winters without snow. Up until this last year, we had TWO. Most days here I see 100% humidity outside, at least at one point during the day (usually at night) Isn't that level of humidity reserved for tropical areas? I don't need the "media" or "scientists" to tell me what's what, I only have to look outside. No snow here until the end of January? I'm no scientist and I seek no funding. What is your response to that? Stop hiding behind politics (right or left) AND THINK FOR YOURSELVES. Because if any of this is true and we keep on denying it, and it get's worse, then the human race deserves whatever it gets.

We are currently in a period of high solar activity, which would correspond to some warming. At some point that activity will diminish, though scientists have no way to predict exactly when that will happen or how intense the upcoming minima will be."

Laura, how often does the activity change in the Sun? I mean, is it a 10-year cycle or something of the sort.

REPLY: I am not so sure what is meant by high solar activity. If Laura is referring to the sunspots, it's not true. We are currently at the bottom of the 11 year sunspot cycle, where if you look at the data from various observatories, you will see that the sunspots are currently non-existent. By the years 2010-2011, this current sunspot cycle will peak. Lord knows what kind of affect this will have on the climate or the weather, but I know for a fact that it's affect on radio communications will be pretty significant, which is what I look forward to being a radio amateur. And from what I have been hearing, this next sunspot cycle is going to be a pretty big one. That remains to be seen. Like I said, E, the solar cycles occur every 11 years or so, and they vary greatly. Laura, if you could clarify as to what you mean by "high solar activity," it would be appreciated.

Ozinop,

Thanks for the answer. But, hey, some skeptics say the Sun is causing the Warming (and they say this is happening in Mars too)...and now you're telling me we are not in a period of "high solar activity"... then, if the solar activity is "low"... where has this warming come from? Because we've been experiencing above-average temps world-wide over the last years...

Did you happen to think this Warming is man-caused, Ozi?

Emiliano

Mark,

Please get your head out of the clouds. This is about politics and money. More specifically, using scare tactics to attain a political agenda in order to make money. The fact that there would be nothing to spend the money gained by the ruse of carbon credit trading is also lost on Goldman Sachs, Al Gores carbon credit trading company Generation Investments Management http://www.generationim.com/, even the Democrats have a plan to tax home funding through an agency called Connie Mae. There are many other companies that are set to initiate this enviro ponzy scheme.
They plan to make money and spend it consuming carbon while those of lesser means fret and worry
You really need take a deep breath and realize that climate change has been a part of our world for millennium, your observations concerning snow, temp and humidity are weather observations. The argument has been made by AGW proponents that this is weatherer and there is a difference between climate and weather. I don't know how old you are or how long you have lived but I think some research will tell you that there were like weather conditions sometime in the past in your area.
Fact is those of us that are going against the AGW theories are thinking for ourselves otherwise we would be assimilated by the AGW consensus which is turning out to instill mindless panic and fear

I'm asking the skeptics to take their heads out of the sand for a second to answer this:

If we're on the low end of the 11 year sunspot cycle, then why was the winter of 06-07 the warmest winter globally? I thought the sun was the cause of our warming and since we're at the bottom of a cycle we should be cooling?

Okay, you can go back to sticking your heads in the sand now.

To Oiznop :

Articles I have read indicate that the current sunspot activity is elevated relative to past solar minimums, and predict the upcoming maximum will be anywhere from average to extreme. Why only a few weeks ago a huge flare erupted from the sun's South Pole, and the article said that was highly unusual during/near the minimum. Also, a recent Science Channel special entitled "The Sun" discussed sunspots along with their relationship to the Maunder Minimum and the coldest part of the LIA, 1645 - 1715, and went on to suggest that sunspot activity has some, as yet undiscovered, influence on the Earth's climate.

Mark that is a great point. It is because I've made my own informed decisions that I question the science of AGW and its forecasts for disaster. I am not a slave to political ideology. I look at the science on both sides but I also look at the manipulation of people's emotions and how those who question the validity of AGW are treated. It is scary how the treatment of those in the scientific community who dissent so closely resembles the heretical treatment that the early church inflicted on the likes of Galileo when his scientific viewpoints conflicted with the views the early church held.

As far as scientists not getting rich off from funding, consider that scientists do have egos and ego alone is more precious than money. I'm betting that the likes of Dr. Mann would never consider that he is wrong after he has promoted his hockey stick so long and with such zeal. To do so would be to admit that he was wrong, and who likes to admit when they are wrong?

The AGW debate is as much about human nature as it is about science. Tell me that I am wrong.

Mark:

I live in Central Ohio. Now that I know you are from Michigan, your concerns and thoughts about GW all make sense to me. HA LOL, Just teasing.

Really, though, I'm just glad that we have been able to make up for the 90's with a couple of good games. I think ya'll we have the upper hand this year though.

As far as the weather over the last 30 years here, I can recall many years with little to no snow. I can recall years where it snowed a bunch and was cold to beat the band. It changes every year. The big difference now though is that when there is an extended warm period, the GW reason is trumpeted to new levels. In the past, a warm season was seen as a blessing in a way. I vividly remember Chirstmas eve's of the past where the temp was 67 one year and 12 the next year. Changes are the essence of existence on this planet. As far as humidity, 100% is not uncommon and somewhat par for the course. It is not indicative of the tropics per se.

No one wants to see the planet destroyed on either side of the issue, but the fact is that AGW as an issue is being created and researched solely as a tool by which to institute socio-ecnonmic change on a planetary scale. There is nothing wrong with reducing your "footprint" as a means by which to conserve our resources. I would guess that even many of us "deniers" practice many of things that we are scolded about by the AGW activists. I know that I recycle plastic, turn off lights, and maintain my SUVs so that they get the best mileage they can. I even have a few of the swirly lights merely just to see how they work.

Nothing is going to go boom, it simply does not happen that way. I think for myself, and as a educated individual, trained in physical sciences, I question the fear mongering put forth by the AGW proponents. I also question the theories put forth. Remember, every single dire report or analysis is nothing more than a postulate, that by the very nature, are as yet unproven. Also, most of the studies are undertaken for the sole purpose of proving the postulate. Therefore, I believe, an unwritten part of each study is a "self-fulfilling prophecy" in which the data is massaged to fit the theory. While you may not seek funding, I can guarantee you if scientists were to make the comment that either a: nothing is happening or b: something is happening and it just is what it is, no one would pay for their services. Therefore, while they may not get rich being a scientist, making a living is better than being unemployed.

Uh Mark, how old is Michigan? Less than 200 years is hard to say that there has NEVER been snowless winters, huh??

Oh, and I thought that Backyard Weather was not a good argument against AGW, but is is a good argument FOR IT? Kind of cool, or shall I say warm?

I agree there is no way of proving that CO2 causes warming and the world will boil in 20 years unless we buy Gore's carbon credits or drive electric cars or buy moonshine for our gas tanks. I agree that we need to control pollution and such, I have severe allergies and appreciate all the clean air I can get, but let's get real people!!!!

Professor Weiss does go so far as to admit the possibility of coupling with other climate processes that could amplify solar variability. He specifically mentions that cloud seeding by cosmic rays (at low solar activity) could decrease the amount of radiation reaching the surface. However, I'm surprised to see him characterize this as a "very shaky" hypothesis, given the use of cloud chambers by physicists. Though I'm not aware of the details of the mechanism, I gather that ionizing radiation passing through a zone of supersaturated water vapor creates a trail of charged species which then prompt water vapor condensation along that path, i.e, a cloud on a small scale.

"Laura, if you could clarify as to what you mean by "high solar activity," it would be appreciated."

What she means is that with earlier daylight savings time (or whatever we have now) we are more much more active outside for a longer time while the solar shines.