Wednesday, May 02, 2007

Here Comes the Sun

Never could figure how global warming causes cold winters. Nor can I square the panic over CO2 emissions with recent reports that warming's a threat to other globes--specifically, planets and moons within our solar system:
Mars is being hit by rapid climate change and it is happening so fast that the red planet could lose its southern ice cap. . .

Scientists from Nasa say that Mars has warmed by about 0.5C since the 1970s. This is similar to the warming experienced on Earth over approximately the same period.

Since there is no known life on Mars it suggests rapid changes in planetary climates could be natural phenomena.
But Mars is not enough, so the post-modern plague is rocketing to other worlds:
Global warming was detected on Jupiter last year, and the warming is apparently behind the formation of a second red spot. Global warming on Neptune's moon Triton has also been noted, with severe atmospheric changes as a result. And even tiny Pluto has experienced moderate warming in recent years, with temperatures rising a full 3.5 degrees.

The common denominator in all these cases, the Earth included, is of course the Sun, which is in the middle of an extremely active period at present. The last time it was so active was during the Medieval Warm Period of 700 years ago, a period where the Earth was warmer than it is today. Interestingly enough, the period in which it was least active (the Maunder Minimum) corresponds with the Little Ice Age the earth experienced in the 17th century.
Even though Hummers and H2O oceans rarely drive or tide beyond earth's orbit, global warming skeptic naysayers squawk about the supposedly suspect motives of anyone not crowing the chicken-little line:
With all of these facts lined up, it’s clear that the one thing we need to do is be very, very careful when someone comes in and makes a broad, sweeping statement about global warming’s cause, especially when they have ulterior motives for saying what they do.
Meanwhile, they insist the science is too complex for pat answers:
This may just be a local effect, and not global. Jupiter’s atmosphere is fiendishly complex, and not well understood.
Unlike, say, the still-sequestered IPCC Report. I hope Bush sticks to his guns and keeps America out of the Kyoto accord until the Martians sign.

[Edits May 18th] Climate change is a natural, dynamic process where weather and heat ebb and flow over centuries--there is no single, static, global temperature. But it's no coincidence Marxists flocked to environmentalism hawking a non-falsible fear whose remedy reincarnates the income redistribution that expired with red Russia and Rawls. And there's no doubt who "progressives" hold responsible:
George Bush's own Pentagon, (yes, under Rummy), published a report indicating that global warming could result in a greater threat to the United States than terrorism. It was ignored---certainly by Bush, but also, shamefully, by the US press.
I'm too lazy to research the alleged second coming of the Pentagon Papers--that proof's left for the comments.


Add Neptune to the list of warming worlds.

(via Combs Spouts Off)


MaxedOutMama said...

It does boggle the mind and confuse the mentality.

Worse yet, the more recent research also seems to confirm changes in solar activity as very strong drivers of climate. Ice Age after Ice Age, the newer data shows that there is a correlation between CO2 and temperature, but that CO2 changes lag the changes in temperature.

Here's what I'm wondering: Given that we now know that a warming climate causes CO2 in the atmosphere to rise, if CO2 were a relatively strong climate driver, how is it that a self-reinforcing warming cycle doesn't set in after solar activity picks up and causes warming, then causing a rise in CO2. Why then doesn't the rise in CO2 cause more warming, thus causing CO2 to rise again, and push the temperature higher and higher?

It's hard to construct a system that acts like this in reality. One would have to postulate an extremely strong climactic counter-effect. However, if there were one, why wouldn't it kick in in our current climate? Something is severely wrong with the IPCC theories. The only good models use use solar/volcanic activity to explain temperature fluctuations.

For the record, I do believe that CO2 has a mild climactic effect. I would rather see power generation shift to nuclear and wind/tide for that reason. I'm just a cautious soul. But I no longer can argue for that based on the science.

Anonymous said...

What a breath of fresh air. I'm glad you are blogging again.

@nooil4pacifists said...

M_O_M, I agree the IPCC crowd may be reversing cause and effect.

Patriot, thanks!