Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Earth EU

Solar Lull Could Cause Colder Winters In Europe 320

Posted by Soulskill
from the i-blame-the-schools dept.
Taco Cowboy writes "Since September of last year scientists have been wondering what's happening to the Sun. It's supposed to have reached the peak of its 11-year cycle, but sunspot and flare activity remains much quieter than expected. Experts now think the recent cold snap that hit North America and the wet weather that hit part of Europe might be linked to the eerie quietness of the Sun. According to the BBC, solar activity hasn't been this low in 100 years, and if activity keeps dropping, it may reach levels seen during the 'Maunder Minimum,' an 'era of solar inactivity in the 17th Century [which] coincided with a period of bitterly cold winters in Europe.' It wouldn't have a big effect on global temperatures, just regional ones. Why? The sun's UV output drops during these lulls, and the decreased amount of UV light hitting the stratosphere would cause the jet stream to change course. Prof. Mike Lockwood says, 'These are large meanders in the jet stream, and they're called blocking events because they block off the normal moist, mild winds we get from the Atlantic, and instead we get cold air being dragged down from the Arctic and from Russia. These are what we call a cold snap... a series of three or four cold snaps in a row adds up to a cold winter. And that's quite likely what we'll see as solar activity declines.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Solar Lull Could Cause Colder Winters In Europe

Comments Filter:
  • Not the sun (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 18, 2014 @05:52PM (#46000809)

    The Sun does not effect climate. Only carbon.

    Only carbon.

    • by rossdee (243626)

      The Sun is still working on turning Hydrogen into Helium
      But it will get round to Carbon eventuallu

      • Maunder Minimum (Score:5, Informative)

        by Taco Cowboy (5327) on Saturday January 18, 2014 @06:31PM (#46001021) Journal

        Just a link to add for the " Mauder Minimum " that was mentioned in TFA -

        http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml [nasa.gov]

        Hope this helps !

        • by fyngyrz (762201) on Saturday January 18, 2014 @07:17PM (#46001331) Homepage Journal

          The Maunder Minimum is the degree of deviation from the white line allowed before the trooper cites you for being drunk. Even without exceeding the Maunder Minimum, poor performance here combined with "blowing an .08", a (very low) standard for fellatio (the theory being that you'd have to be *really* drunk to perform that poorly*), can combine to annoy the trooper into issuing a ticket. Tomorrow, we're going to re-discover "Boyle's Laws of Gasses", which dictates performance of glassware with insufficient bong fluid. Now put away your books; time for a pop quiz: Coke, or Pepsi?

          * Scale normalized 0.0~~1.0 as per International Standards Req. 4:20, para 69, lines for two.

          • by Taco Cowboy (5327)

            The Maunder Minimum is the degree of deviation from the white line allowed before the trooper cites you for being drunk.

            I understand you are trying to make light of the subject at hand, but anyway, please refer to the below graph for the real Maunder Minimum as refer to the extraordinarily quietness of the Sun, as had happened back in the 17th century -

            http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/ssn_yearly.jpg [nasa.gov]

            • by fyngyrz (762201)

              Thanks, c/Taco. I know what it is. I was just possessed of an urge to start typing when I shouldn't have.

              I'm a big fan of solar weather, and to the extent we can suss it out, solar history. Also, ham radio operator, and the state of the sun is the first thing I check in the morning. [solarham.net]

      • by garyoa1 (2067072)

        It can only get into carbon if it doesn't make too much helium. If it makes too much... it will float away! :::gasp:::

    • Re:Not the sun (Score:4, Insightful)

      by hey! (33014) on Saturday January 18, 2014 @06:03PM (#46000875) Homepage Journal

      Seriously, you have captured the essential mindset of the denialists: there can only be one cause for anything. That assumption underlies most of the denialist arguments.

      One of the common one is, "Wasn't the Earth warmer in the past? Without industrial carbon emissions?" I've seen that trotted out by politicians against climate researchers, as if (a) that were news to them and (b) it had never occurred to them that something other than CO2 could drive climate change. The other favorite on the denialist hit parade is "carbon lagged warming in past warming periods." Again, they say this as if the climate scientists had never considered this, when the very information they're quoting *comes* from climate science.

      Or how about this one: "Mars is warming too, and there's no carbon emissions on Mars."

      These arguments are mind-boggling simple-minded, and they're all rooted in a simple, implicit proposition: CO2 either explains all warming episodes everywhere over all time, or it explains *none* of them.

      • Re:Not the sun (Score:5, Insightful)

        by sideslash (1865434) on Saturday January 18, 2014 @06:20PM (#46000959)

        Seriously, you have captured the essential mindset of the denialists: there can only be one cause for anything. That assumption underlies most of the denialist arguments.

        Maybe it makes you feel good to think that, but the AGW skeptical material I've read certainly doesn't match that characterization. Maybe the fluff posted in the comments section on YouTube or Fox News or MSNBC etc.

        Am I wrong? Why don't you link to a post in one of the major climate skeptic websites that shows this "can be only one cause for anything" attitude you describe. Or maybe you're just making stuff up in an attempt to portray your opponents in debate as fools.

        • by djmurdoch (306849)

          Why don't you link to a post in one of the major climate skeptic websites

          Pick one.

        • by hey! (33014)

          Or maybe you're just making stuff up in an attempt to portray your opponents in debate as fools.

          I won't comment on the "fools" part, but I'm definitely not making things up. If you want an example, how about a 12 term US congressman [youtube.com]?

          • That was an interesting video, thanks for posting it. The participants were obviously enjoying the exchange. I wouldn't say that anyone made a fool of themselves, though I guess I may have missed something.
            • by hey! (33014)

              Again, I don't think denialists are necessarily fools. I think there's a flaw in their reasoning, which is exemplified by the nature of the congressman's questioning. His line of questioning is irrelevant, because he's laboring under the clearly unspoken assumption that if something else caused warming in the past, CO2 cannot be causing it today.

              • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

                by sideslash (1865434)

                His line of questioning is irrelevant

                I guess you don't need to refute your opponent if you ignore what they say. Brilliant!

                because he's laboring under the clearly unspoken assumption

                Once again, brilliant! You have convicted him of the crime of saying something which he didn't actually say ("clearly unspoken").

                that if something else caused warming in the past, CO2 cannot be causing it today.

                My hat's off to you, sir, the winner of the day. That congressman's whole point was obviously this hobby horse of yours, even though he somehow neglected to ever mention it or even remotely allude to it.

                Somehow I listened to the same thing, and thought the congressman was merely raising doubt

                • Re:Not the sun (Score:4, Insightful)

                  by bunratty (545641) on Saturday January 18, 2014 @11:04PM (#46002613)
                  I clearly heard the congressman say "When you see warming, why do you automatically assume it's manmade?" and "If it was warmer during the Medieval period, how could we blame it on CO2 emissions?" He's asking questions, but they're loaded questions. They make a presumption that scientists automatically assume warming is manmade and all due to CO2 emissions. He not saying AGW is not happening, but he's implying that arguments that suggest CO2 emissions are causing warming are dumb by the way he's asking those questions. He doesn't sound like he's honestly trying to learn the science, but rather he seems to have a chip on his shoulder.
                  • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

                    by sideslash (1865434)
                    No, he's just raising questions also raised by scientists skeptical of AGW alarmism. They are good questions. Also, it is possible to believe that CO2 has a greenhouse gas warming effect on earth without subscribing to climate alarmism -- the positive feedback loop aspect of the alarmist models has been by no means validated. In fact, various models have arguably been discredited by the last few decades' measurements. Anyway.
                    • by bunratty (545641)
                      They would be good questions if they were not loaded. Asking "When you see warming, why do you think it's manmade?" or "If it was warmer during the Medieval period, what was the cause of the warming?" See the difference?
          • by amiga3D (567632)

            Fool and congressman are almost synonymous in my mind. The more terms they've served the more foolish they are. It matters not which side of the aisle they sit.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by KeensMustard (655606)

          Maybe it makes you feel good to think that, but the AGW skeptical material I've read certainly doesn't match that characterization. Maybe the fluff posted in the comments section on YouTube or Fox News or MSNBC etc.

          And of course, on Slashdot, where this argument and it's derivatives (e.g. referencing the medieval warm period or little ice age as evidence against CO2 induced warming) , is made multiple times in any discussion about climate here. Funny thing is, these remarks are never corrected by the more enlightened denialists. Why is it that you, recognising this fallacy for what it is (and more power to you for seeing that), don't step in and correct these erroneous arguments when they occur? Don't you see the dama

      • Re:Not the sun (Score:4, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 18, 2014 @06:25PM (#46000987)

        Its not the "denialists" saying that CO2 is the only cause of climate change, idiot

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Coolhand2120 (1001761)

        On the other hand the "alarmist" logic is: "we already know the cause of the warming, it is humans saturating the atmosphere with too much CO2, we just need to gather and/or create the evidence to support this theory". That's called inductive logic, and is just as unscientific as what you describe coming from the "denialists".

        "Real" science comes from gathering evidence and basing your theories on the evidence gathered. You then determine what it might take to falsify your theory and try as hard as poss

        • Re:Not the sun (Score:4, Interesting)

          by bunratty (545641) on Saturday January 18, 2014 @07:12PM (#46001277)
          How is that unscientific? Warming caused by excess CO2 in the atmosphere was predicted long before it was ever observed [wikipedia.org]. Isn't that the scientific method, coming up with a hypothesis that makes predictions, then testing the predictions against observations? If we had not observed the warming, you'd have a point, but we've seen not only warming, but also melting ice and sea level rise [nasa.gov].
          • by seifried (12921)
            Or there could be something else causing global warming, like a decline in the number of beanie babies for sale on eBay, and at the same time the real cause of global climate change occurred (less beanie babies for sale) CO2 levels also happened to rise. This is why you need controls and multiple experiments, or ways to control for other factors.
            • Re:Not the sun (Score:4, Informative)

              by TapeCutter (624760) on Saturday January 18, 2014 @10:11PM (#46002397) Journal

              Or there could be something else causing global warming

              Thanks captain obvious, here's the IPCC attribution graph [wikipedia.org]. Aside from the predicted warming, numerous other phenomena have been predicted by climate models and then observed in nature, eg: "stratospheric cooling" and "polar amplification".

              The last nail in the "something else" coffin was during the 50's when spectrometers became sensitive enough to see that the CO2 absorption spectra was interleaved with the H2O spectra rather that blocked by it. Back then AGW was detectable [youtube.com] but the only reason they were looking at all was due to their inability to explain the magnitude of the ice age climate changes from orbital wobbles alone. The original warming prediction was made ~1900, both the 1900 and 1950's predictions did not take into account the growth rate of the FF burning industry, the original predicted a doubling of pre-industrial CO2 concentrations in about 3kyrs not 300yrs.

        • Re:Not the sun (Score:5, Insightful)

          by TubeSteak (669689) on Saturday January 18, 2014 @07:19PM (#46001361) Journal

          On the other hand the "alarmist" logic is: "we already know the cause of the warming, it is humans saturating the atmosphere with too much CO2, we just need to gather and/or create the evidence to support this theory". That's called inductive logic, and is just as unscientific as what you describe coming from the "denialists".

          You seem to be creating a strawman for the express purpose of knocking it down.

          These "alarmist" scientists are the same type who told us that CFCs were creating a hole in the ozone layer.
          We went to great lengths to eliminate CFCs, then lo and behold, the ozone layer fixed itself.

          "Real" science comes from gathering evidence and basing your theories on the evidence gathered. You then determine what it might take to falsify your theory and try as hard as possible to falsify it.

          Holy shit! Just like what happened with the ozone layer!
          The Ozone Hole Alarmists were right!

          All I see from the "alarmist" camp is people trying to support their theories at all costs, calling things causation where there is barely correlation, and making very little if any effort to falsify their theories. This behavior is more akin to religion than any sort of science.

          Then you haven't looked very hard. [nasa.gov]
          The weight of "Real" science is behind the "alarmists" and not at all behind the "denialists".

          • Re:Not the sun (Score:5, Informative)

            by hey! (33014) on Saturday January 18, 2014 @07:50PM (#46001603) Homepage Journal

            Just to make it clear to folks who haven't followed this, the "ozone hole" is not a fixed feature of the Antarctic; it's like weather, it grows and shrinks in different years based on local atmospheric conditions, causing many to have declared premature victory. However the ozone levels in the Antarctic have stabilized and are expected to recover to pre-industrial levels over the coming decades.

            This is not a case of the problem "fixing itself", it's a case of people deciding to take effective action [wikipedia.org] by banning ozone depleting chemicals (thank you President Reagan [ucsb.edu]).

            • Re:Not the sun (Score:5, Interesting)

              by TapeCutter (624760) on Saturday January 18, 2014 @10:07PM (#46002381) Journal
              Reagan also pushed for and won an international "cap and trade" treaty for sulphur emissions which has dramatically reduced "acid rain" around the globe during the past couple of decades. Thatcher was his BFF at the time and I think it's no accident she had the same ideas, she was after all an Oxford trained chemist and was the first world leader to speak out about AGW. By today's standards Regan (and Thatcher) would be considered "too soft on greenies" to lead the republican party, kind of amazing what corporate FUD can do to peoples attitudes in such a short time.
        • Re:Not the sun (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Orp (6583) on Saturday January 18, 2014 @07:29PM (#46001437) Homepage

          On the other hand the "alarmist" logic is: "we already know the cause of the warming, it is humans saturating the atmosphere with too much CO2, we just need to gather and/or create the evidence to support this theory". That's called inductive logic, and is just as unscientific as what you describe coming from the "denialists".

          "Real" science comes from gathering evidence and basing your theories on the evidence gathered. You then determine what it might take to falsify your theory and try as hard as possible to falsify it.

          All I see from the "alarmist" camp is people trying to support their theories at all costs, calling things causation where there is barely correlation, and making very little if any effort to falsify their theories. This behavior is more akin to religion than any sort of science.

          False equivalency is false.

          Guess what? A lot of the "alarmist" are the same scientists doing the research. Sure, people get attached to theories, but do you realize that the best possible thing to happen to a scientist is for him/her to make a discovery that tosses the widely accepted hypotheses on their head? In other words, if a scientist did a rigorously peer reviewed study which indicated that, say, it's a reduction in neutrinos from the sun somehow, oh, say tweaking aerosol concentrations, leading to a strong causal relationship between this phenomenon and observed global warming - while also showing that the greenhouse effect of CO2 was much less of a factor than previously thought - that person would be fricking king of the scientific world.

          The tired repeated bleatings of non-scientists who have not spent their careers repeatedly getting their work shredded by reviewers [this being the norm, not the exception] on the path to eventual publication do absolutely zilch to move things forward regarding understand what's really going on. The simple-minded idea that climate science is some sort of "alarmists versus skeptics" battle is laughable; this false equivalency between two imagined camps, each claiming to know the truth, is entirely imagined by ignorant people. Unless you've actually done science and gotten your work published in decent journals, these opinions mean absolute diddlyshit; nothing more than mental masturbation splooging text on the screen, masquerading as informed debate.

        • On the other hand the "alarmist" logic is: "we already know the cause of the warming, it is humans saturating the atmosphere with too much CO2, we just need to gather and/or create the evidence to support this theory".

          "Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is an absurd one." - Voltaire

      • No the 'denialist' argument is that it isn't a cause to change policy. The temperature change, if it has any impact, is irrelevant compared to existing natural causes. That is the whole point. So before you start proposing for people to freeze in the winter or overheat in the summer from closing down coal power plants, or other dumbass ideas i've heard proposed, consider the consequences.

        • by hey! (33014)

          No the 'denialist' argument is that it isn't a cause to change policy. The temperature change, if it has any impact, is irrelevant compared to existing natural causes. That is the whole point. So before you start proposing for people to freeze in the winter or overheat in the summer from closing down coal power plants, or other dumbass ideas i've heard proposed, consider the consequences.

          First of all, I didn't propose that anyone freeze in the winter or overheat in the summer; that is typical denialist histrionics.

          As for the natural causes, which causes in your opinion account for the warming we've experienced since the 1950s?

          • I haven't been around that long. But from what I remember the weather is, once again, as cold and wet as it was when I was a kid. People who read a bit are aware that the weather fluctuates and blaming it all on human activity when you know the magnitudes of energy involved in the process is naive. We don't even exploit a significant portion of energy in this planet yet.

            As for warming, the Romans had men wearing togas and women wearing silk clothes in the street around 250 BC, so I would say the 1990s weren

            • Re:Not the sun (Score:5, Interesting)

              by hey! (33014) on Saturday January 18, 2014 @09:07PM (#46002043) Homepage Journal

              I haven't been around that long. But from what I remember the weather is, once again, as cold and wet as it was when I was a kid.

              This brings up a very important point. "Global warming" is a phenomenon where the atmosphere -- particularly the troposphere -- has more energy. That doesn't mean that that the climate in your neck of the woods is necessarily going to be warmer and drier.

              We're talking about a 0.6 degree C average temperature increase or thereabouts in the last 50 years. If the climate in your home town was 0.6 C warmer, *you wouldn't even notice*. From the point of view of whether you need to point on a sweater when you go outside it is meaningless.

              But if you consider there's something like 10^21 cubic meters of troposphere that's a lot of energy

              Consider the Coriolis force; you can't *feel* it. It makes no difference whether you walk east or north, the effect is too small to measure. But it has an enormous effect on the atmosphere, because the atmosphere is huge. The same can be said for a 1 C increase in temperature; it's not much hotter, but it's a vast amount of energy that affects the movement of huge air masses. Those changes could well make your neck of the woods colder, because air (e.g. the polar vortex) is moving more often in ways it only did rarely years ago. On the other hand other places (e.g. Greenland and Alaska) may be experiencing unusual warm patterns. Average those anomalies out over the entire globe, and you get very slight global temperature increases out of a patchwork of extremes.

              So the kind of mental test you are proposing ("is it warmer outside my house than it would have been thirty years ago?") has very little bearing on "global warming". A), it's not *global*. B) globally averaged, temperatures aren't very much warmer under "global warming".

    • by Orp (6583)
      Does the sun's decrease in activity effect climate change? Or perhaps affect spelling ability? That would be a weird effect.
      • Yes and no.
        Yes, because it slows the warming a bit.
        No, because the effect is less than 1% (in heat).
        However the issues with UV (and gamma) radiation hitting the higher atmosphere and what effect that has on cloud forming is a pretty new topic.

    • The Sun does not effect climate. Only carbon.

      Only carbon.

      The Science is settled!

  • absolutely nothing to do with the political hot air and chilling political failures this planet is suffering from.

  • by rueger (210566) on Saturday January 18, 2014 @06:01PM (#46000861) Homepage
    Aha! Weather in some places that's colder or warmer than others! With stuff happening on the Sun.

    Obviously Global Warming is a fiction created by neo-Luddite Green party members.

    And communists. Yeah. Communists.
    • by bill_mcgonigle (4333) * on Saturday January 18, 2014 @06:14PM (#46000929) Homepage Journal

      Weather in some places that's colder or warmer than others!

      Truly unprecedented in history.

      Regardless of the predictive value of our models, let's raise some taxes.

      • Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)

        by TubeSteak (669689)

        Regardless of the predictive value of our models, let's raise some taxes.

        You mean the ones that are at historical lows?
        Or the other ones which account for businesses externalities and are mostly zero?

      • by Ichijo (607641)

        Regardless of the predictive value of our models, let's raise some taxes.

        Then we would emit less carbon and reduce the public debt at the same time, all for the price of a carbon tax. Who doesn't like two-for-one deals?

    • No, it is real, but it might not be enough to save humanity from the next coming ice age. Some of us have been warming things up to try to prevent that disaster, but environmentalist wackos are fighting us.
  • by xtal (49134) on Saturday January 18, 2014 @06:04PM (#46000881) Homepage

    Good chance to make some money on rising energy costs. ...cause nobody wants to build nuclear plants, but nobody likes being cold, either.

  • till after the fact, they might just be right.....

  • by PPH (736903) on Saturday January 18, 2014 @06:18PM (#46000951)

    ... offset these cold snaps by generating additional greenhouse gasses and injecting them into the atmosphere.

    I, for one, am willing to do my part.

  • by Heraklit (29346) on Saturday January 18, 2014 @06:20PM (#46000957) Homepage Journal

    Winter *is* coming.

  • It's been bloody hot this week downunder. perhaps the sun just flew south.

    • Europe hasn't seen any real winter yet either, just lots and lots of storms ... birds think it's spring already.

      • Europe hasn't seen any real winter yet either, just lots and lots of storms ... birds think it's spring already.

        European swallows think it's Spring? What is the opinion of African swallows?

      • You don't have a clue man. There are places in Europe where frost is showing up when it usually doesn't all year. This week has been horrible.

        • by nojayuk (567177)

          Britain is half-way through a mild winter, the fourth-mildest on record. We had a series of wet and windy storms blow in from the Atlantic in December, lots of rain and flooding but temperatures have remained above freezing even in central Scotland which is at about the same latitude as Baffin Bay for comparison. No frosts here which is very unusual, we normally get periods of below-freezing temperatures starting in early November. Where are these places in Europe getting unseasonal frosts?

    • by tlambert (566799)

      It's been bloody hot this week downunder. perhaps the sun just flew south.

      Quit standing under the ozone hole.

  • ... that the Solarian civil war had finally ended and the sun was at peace once more.

  • by Orp (6583) on Saturday January 18, 2014 @06:35PM (#46001053) Homepage
    The NCAR link is probably the best for relating this to climate change:

    So could a lengthy drop in solar output be enough to counteract human-caused climate change? Recent studies at NCAR and elsewhere have estimated that the total global cooling effect to be expected from reduced TSI during a grand minimum such as Maunder might be in the range of 0.1 to 0.3 Celsius (0.18 to 0.54 Fahrenheit). A 2013 study confirms the findings. This compares to an expected warming effect of 3.0C (5.4F) or more by 2100 due to greenhouse gas emissions. In other words, even a grand solar minimum might only be enough to offset one decade of global warming. Moreover, since greenhouse gases linger in the atmosphere, the impacts of those added gases would continue after the end of any grand minimum.

    So perhaps a serious lull in solar activity could put some feeble brakes on global warming, slowing it down... temporarily, only to charge back when the sun gets over its issues.

    I'm a meteorologist, not a climate guy, but I find the hypothesis that the current solar lull is responsible for the recent cold snaps in the northern hemisphere to be extremely dubious. Much more tenuous than the hypothesis that the meandering jet stream is happening due to the reduction in the north/south temperature gradient due from a reduction of Arctic ice cover, which itself is physically feasible but still not shown very conclusively.

    The best way to get a grip on these issues would be to run many, many ensembles of weather models and coaxing out statistical links. And this is where weather/climate modeling is going, for good reasons... but as all the armchair slashdot climatologists will (perhaps rightly) point out, models have issues... but they are getting much better and ensembles help a lot to provide a handle on the probability that forcing A is causing response B.

    • by Torodung (31985)

      Thank you for the sane, intelligible reply, and I hope you get modded up.

    • His comment sounds like utter bullshit though. You can put all the CO2 in an atmosphere you want. If you don't have solar flux the heat on the surface will be minimal. One good example is Mars. There have been plenty of examples along history of temperatures decreasing by more than .1 or .3 Celsius even when there were no humans on the planet.

      • by Orp (6583)

        His comment sounds like utter bullshit though. You can put all the CO2 in an atmosphere you want. If you don't have solar flux the heat on the surface will be minimal. One good example is Mars. There have been plenty of examples along history of temperatures decreasing by more than .1 or .3 Celsius even when there were no humans on the planet.

        Ok Dr. Bagel. You win. I'll go burn my diploma, tell my colleagues at NCAR to eat a bag of dicks, and await your clearly superior intellect to publish that which is something other than 'utter bullshit'.

        Since you are clearly an expert on the subject of the sound of bullshit, please, o wise one: Exactly what does utter bullshit sound like? As opposed to just plain bullshit? Do the flies buzz louder?

        • Jesus I have better things to do than publish in that rats nest that is climatology. I have enough issues publishing in my current field. I see enough group think as it is. If you try to go one inch outside the group think you will constantly get challenged that your results are crap or invalid even if you provide a way to reproduce the experimental results. Meanwhile I see glaring errors in their own publications all the time like superlinear speedups and the ilk. Not physics related as you probably realiz

  • The original post is about changes in solar emissions, which certainly could have (and has had) an effect on climate. So why is this conversation degenerating into the "controversy" over whether burning fossil fuels could be altering the earth's climate. Look, Carbon Dioxide IS a greenhouse gas. No scientist disputes that if we just keep shoving the stuff in the atmosphere forever, eventually things will warm up. The only question is whether or not we are putting enough up there right now to have this effec
    • Don't forget Global Dimming which everybody would know about from the "skeptics" and the fossil industry except that Global Dimming was found to fit in with Global Warming and undermine their propaganda strategy. You might hear more about it from the Atmosphere Engineering people who will cite it as proof we can change the climate... but instead of unhealthy pollution we are dimming the earth with today we'd use more healthy pollution. There is no doubt we'd be much hotter today if it were not for Global D

  • Just FUD:

    Let's face it, how can anyone reasonably claim to be sceptical about man made climate change? The evidence is there for all to see and the energy companies have done their best, with their unlimited resources, to pick it apart. Looks like a pretty strong hypothesis to me. If anything, they're probably being way too conservative about their predictions.

    BTW, Prof. Mike Lockwood has explicitly stated that he things man made CO2 emissions are the main driver of climate change. In one statement, h

Hacking's just another word for nothing left to kludge.

Working...