The Sun Also Sets

Human-caused or not, the responsible thing to do is to lessen our impact on the planet, irregardless. Whatever's going on, we don't have to add to it.

reply to post by kattraxx


Didn't you read this?

The study says that "try as we might, we simply could not find any relationship between industrial activity, energy consumption and changes in global temperatures."

The study concludes that if you shut down all the world's power plants and factories, "there would not be much effect on temperatures."

ibdeditorial.com...

A lot has been done in the past 5 decades or so to minimize the effects of pollution on the environment and such efforts should continue.

The word from these scientists, which has much data to support it, is that regardless of what we do, ultimately the sun and it's cycles will determine climate, aside from a volcano or two.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

The study says that "try as we might, we simply could not find any relationship between industrial activity, energy consumption and changes in global temperatures."

The word from these scientists, which has much data to support it, is that regardless of what we do, ultimately the sun and it's cycles will determine climate, aside from a volcano or two.

Bruce Berkowitz is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution.

Berkowitz has written several books, including The New Face of War (Free Press, 2003), Calculated Risks (Simon and Schuster, 1987), and American Security (Yale, 1986) and coauthored Best Truth: Intelligence in the Information Age (Yale, 2000), Strategic Intelligence (Princeton, 1989), and The Need to Know: Covert Action and American Democracy, (Twentieth Century, 1992). He is the author of many articles that have appeared in such journals as Foreign Affairs, National Interest, Foreign Policy, and Issues in Science and Technology. He also has published frequently in the pages of the New York Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal/

www.hoover.org...

So, between all this Hoover Institute political stuff (funded by Exxon, along with his fellow Fellow, Fred Singer), he bothered to do science?

Where did he publish it? Science? Nature? Journal of Geophysical Research? Foreign Affairs? Washington Post? The Hoover website? In his mind?

He's as much a scientist as kermit the frog.


[edit on 12-2-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by traderonwallst
Go back through time and tell me what the temperatures were on a daily measure 1 or 2 hundred years before each ice age. Then compare that to the daily temperatures over the next 1 or 2 hundred years after those ice ages receded then you can start telling me how weather and climate is changing. Oh wait, you can't give me daily temperature rate changes over those periods because we do not know it.

Yeah, errm, probably. We didn't have many climate stations then...

We have to depend on temperature proxies, which don't really give daily data.

Its what the earth does. OK, so some of the mini heating and cooling periods correspond with sun spot activity, so some of the other heating and cooling event corresponds with high levels of volcanic activity throughout history, and some of those heating and cooling periods have corresponded with excessive period of el nino and la nina. Yeah I guess your right...... there is no cyclicality going on here.

I don't think I actually said that. What I said is what cycles.

OK, so we know solar activity has been going nowhere for 50 years or so. Volcanoes will cool, ENSO is short term stuff. None of that means anything. It doesn't negate human activity.

We're back to the human/natural issue again. Yes, people naturally die of heart attacks. That doesn't mean pumping you full of potassium chloride won't mess your heart up.

Yes, I know the earth has heated in the past and therefor it will again ( or is now), but I also predict that we cool down. I am willing to be you right here, right now that temperatures do not rise forever. Will you take that bet??????

If you do not take that bet then I would say it is because you know (yet won't admit) that cycles exists. And just as things go up, things must come down.

I think only an idiot would. Rise forever? Heh.

Even the most comparable event to now, the PETM - which saw thousands of gigatonnes of GHGs released into the atmosphere over a few thousands years increasing temps by several 'C - only stayed warm for around 80,000 years.

Indeed, we could bring on such an event in a few hundred years.

[edit on 12-2-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin

He's [Berkowitz] as much a scientist as kermit the frog.

You posted the credentials of Mr. Berkowitz and he was well qualified to evaluate historical data.

It just so happens that the historical data matches that of Russian astronomers who studied the sun and its cycles.

Yours is a pretty bold statement of another man's career, reputation, and his credentials, especially when you didn't even bother to read the article close enough to understand the facts.

Hmmm, another 'it's all the sun so we should ignore everything else' argument - just as bad as the 'it's all humans so we should ignore everything else' argument.

Put it like this, the house is warmer than it was a few weeks ago. It's spring. The winter snows have melted. The sun is shining after several dull cloudy days. A warm breeze is blowing up from the south. New double glazing has just been fitted. There's a big party in progress and lots of people are dancing. The lights are all on. And someone turned the central heating up. So why is the house warming?

Is it a) because the sun is shining or b) because the central heating has been turned up?

Or could it possibly, just possibly, be both a) b) and several other things as well? Nah, that's a daft idea, innit ........

[edit on 12-2-2008 by Essan]

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
You posted the credentials of Mr. Berkowitz and he was well qualified to evaluate historical data.

...

Yours is a pretty bold statement of another man's career, reputation, and his credentials, especially when you didn't even bother to read the article close enough to understand the facts.

You said he was a scientist, I beg to differ. He appears to be more a political dude than a scientist. Which is cool, I have no issues with his expertise on 'National security affairs, defense and intelligence policy, technology issues'. Furthermore, he has nothing to his name on the Web of Science (unless he's BA Berkowitz who is a biomedical dude), suggesting he has published nothing of note in the scientific literature in the last 37 years.

But if I wanted to know about counterintelligence and the CIA, I might go to him, with him being on the editorial board of the International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence, along with spending some of his career in the CIA and on the senate committee for intelligence.

So, again, he is as much a scientist as kermit the frog, but he certainly appears to have political motivation, and works in a academic institute funded to the tune of $295,000 by Exxon.

It just so happens that the historical data matches that of Russian astronomers who studied the sun and its cycles.

But that doesn't really matter...

Breaking news from the department of the bleedin' obvious....climate in the past was significantly related to solar activity, volcanoes, and orbital variations...

Means not a thing about what can influence climate now - it does not negate human activity.

[edit on 12-2-2008 by melatonin]

I didn't say that HE was a scientist, I was speaking of all those who contributed to the body of knowledge cited in the article.

However, there is more than one kind of scientist.

They don't all wear lab coats and horned-rimmed glasses.

Here is a list of Berkeley's published works, including several in professional journals.

Berkowitz has written several books, including The New Face of War (Free Press, 2003), Calculated Risks (Simon and Schuster, 1987), and American Security (Yale, 1986) and coauthored Best Truth: Intelligence in the Information Age (Yale, 2000), Strategic Intelligence (Princeton, 1989), and The Need to Know: Covert Action and American Democracy, (Twentieth Century, 1992). He is the author of many articles that have appeared in such journals as Foreign Affairs, National Interest, Foreign Policy, and Issues in Science and Technology. He also has published frequently in the pages of the New York Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal.

www.hoover.org...

Here are his academic credentials.

A summa cum laude graduate of Stetson University (1974–76), he completed his graduate studies at the University of Rochester, earning an M.A. and a Ph.D. He began his career at the Central Intelligence Agency and served as a professional staff member for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. He lives in Arlington, Virginia, near Washington, D.C.

www.hoover.org...

Besides the fact that I did not specifically call him a scientist, I think it would be safe to call him an accomplished scholar.

It appears that you read only what comports with your preconceived notions and dismiss everything else.

If that's fine with you, it's fine with me, but that approach make intelligent dialog impossible.



[edit on 2008/2/12 by GradyPhilpott]

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I didn't say that HE was a scientist, I was speaking of all those who contributed to the body of knowledge cited in the article.

...

Besides the fact that I did not specifically call him a scientist, I think it would be safe to call him an accomplished scholar.

I won't argue on the scholar issue in the least, he appears to have a lot of expertise in his own area. But you quoted his words, with the comment about words from scientists. So, forgive me if I do connect the dots.

It appears that you read only what comports with your preconceived notions and dismiss everything else.

Well, that's quite an extrapolation. But, if you say so. I've just said that in the historical past we would expect solar activity, volcanoes, orbital variations, and other non-human impacts to be significant (including GHGs). But that still doesn't mean that human activity can be ignored.

For example, if by some stretch of the imagination I could make the moon-like pseudo-sun which released many Wm-2 onto the earth, it wouldn't exactly be a surprise to see temps go up. Solar activity would still be relevant, but now we'd also have a human influence. Similarly, if humans start pumping out billions of tonnes of SO2, it wouldn't be a surprise to see temps cool.

And to add the cherry on the cake, if we release billions of tonnes of GHGs, along with other human impacts (black carbon etc), it wouldn't be a surprise to see temps rising...