Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report
272
Meteorologist John Coleman, Founder of The Weather Channel and former meteorologist for ABC's Good Morning America, slammed the "recent political hype and media frenzy" about man-made global warming fears. "The recent political hype and media frenzy about ‘Global Warming' is, in my studied opinion, an unprecedented episode of mass extremism and silliness," Coleman wrote in a May 19, 2007 email to EPW. "I believe that fifty years from now, serious scientists, political leaders and news editors will look back with astonished embarrassment at the irresponsibility of their predecessors. Its not that the Earth's atmosphere isn't somewhat warmer in 2007 than it was in 1907. It is. It is not that mankind's civilization isn't contributing to warming. It is. But the recent warming trend is not extreme or wildly accelerating or irreversible or destined to destroy our way of life. As I see it, the predictions of future catastrophic consequences of warming are totally without foundation," Coleman explained. "Much of what minor warming has been underway in recent years is the result of natural fluctuations in the heat output of the Sun and from other natural cycles. Much of the man made warming is from Urban Heat Islands and is well documented. Many other human activities from agriculture to aviation are having some impact on climate. These changes are worthy of study, reasonable concern and corrective action. All of that is taking place. But as for the dire predictions that dominate the political and media coverage today, there are serious doubts in my mind about their validity," he continued. "The historic data on which many of the ‘studies' are based seems to have been selected and massaged to produce the investigators biased predetermined conclusions. And, the notion that the historic measurements are accurate within less than a degree of two is questionable. The old instruments were crude by any modern standards. And inference of past temperatures from other environmental traces seem to me to be subject to significant error. All computer forecast models require a basic set of assumptions. In many cases the bias of the investigators seem to have produced assumptions that have little reasonable basis," he concluded. (LINK)

New Solar Cycle Prediction
05.29.2009

May 29, 2009: An international panel of experts led by NOAA and sponsored by NASA has released a new prediction for the next solar cycle. Solar Cycle 24 will peak, they say, in May 2013 with a below-average number of sunspots.

"If our prediction is correct, Solar Cycle 24 will have a peak sunspot number of 90, the lowest of any cycle since 1928 when Solar Cycle 16 peaked at 78," says panel chairman Doug Biesecker of the NOAA Space Weather Prediction Center. . . .





Above: Yearly-averaged sunspot numbers from 1610 to 2008. Researchers believe upcoming Solar Cycle 24 will be similar to the cycle that peaked in 1928, marked by a red arrow. Credit: NASA/MSFC

Right now, the solar cycle is in a valley--the deepest of the past century. In 2008 and 2009, the sun set Space Age records for low sunspot counts, weak solar wind, and low solar irradiance. The sun has gone more than two years without a significant solar flare.

"In our professional careers, we've never seen anything quite like it," says Pesnell. "Solar minimum has lasted far beyond the date we predicted in 2007."

In recent months, however, the sun has begun to show timorous signs of life. Small sunspots and "proto-sunspots" are popping up with increasing frequency. Enormous currents of plasma on the sun’s surface ("zonal flows") are gaining strength and slowly drifting toward the sun’s equator. Radio astronomers have detected a tiny but significant uptick in solar radio emissions. All these things are precursors of an awakening Solar Cycle 24 and form the basis for the panel's new, almost unanimous forecast.

According to the forecast, the sun should remain generally calm for at least another year. From a research point of view, that's good news because solar minimum has proven to be more interesting than anyone imagined. Low solar activity has a profound effect on Earth’s atmosphere, allowing it to cool and contract. . . . .

. . . .Meanwhile, the sun pays little heed to human committees. There could be more surprises, panelists acknowledge, and more revisions to the forecast.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/29may_noaaprediction.htm

Atmospheric circulation, the cause of weather, is driven by the sun’s energy. Climate is the integral of weather over periods of more than a year. This integral also depends on the flux of solar energy. -- Dr. Theodore Landscheidt
http://www.john-daly.com/solar/solar.htm

“We wrote this paper, which was carefully reviewed by other researchers and is scientifically defensible, to clearly show that even though our climate is getting warmer, we can’t expect it to do so in a monotonic way " or that each year will be warmer than the preceding year,” said Wehner. “Even with the climate changes caused by human activity, we will continue to see natural variability including periods of cooler temperatures despite the fact that globally averaged temperatures show long-term global warming.”

“It is easy to ‘cherry pick’ a period to reinforce a point of view, but this notion begs the question, what would happen to the current concerns about climate change if we do have a sustained period where the climate appears to be cooling even when, in the end, the longer term trend is warming?” write Easterling and Wehner.

The scientists must follow the consensus and the line dictated by the leader at the top.

China wants rich countries to donate o.5 to 1.0 of ANNUAL DOMESTIC PRODUCT to help poorer countries cope with climate change and Greenhouse Gas emissions???

When the US has a 10% Unemployment Rate?

When the Obama Administration is adding TRILLIONS to our national debt?

When large corporations are already (see GM) outsourcing jobs so that they do not have to spend the Billions necessary to attempt to reduce the alleged global warming?

Herr Hinteler is correct. The scientists must follow the consensus and the line dictated by the leader at the top. Even in Nazi Germany the professors toed the line. As Professor Roepke wrote--"It was a scene of prostitution that has stained the honorable history of German learning"

genoves wrote:

The scientists must follow the consensus and the line dictated by the leader at the top.

Otherwise, funding dries up, genoves.

Who said the quotation had anything to do with Nazi Germany? Are you able to read and comprehend English?

The simple fact that you can't organize to conduct science to dispute what you say is false shows how well thought out your argument really is.

okie wrote:

genoves wrote:

The scientists must follow the consensus and the line dictated by the leader at the top.

Otherwise, funding dries up, genoves.

What I find amazing is with all you people convinced that the only reason global warming exists is because of funding, that you can't all contribute to some scientist to do some REAL science and show how the rest of the science is bunk.

Instead, all you guys do is try to tear down science by cherry picking what you want to talk about.
No one in science nor myself have ever said the sun has no place in our climate. Yet Fox and okie and I can only assume genoves have made that claim. The problem okie isn't that funding drives the science but that the science exists and you can only whine since you have no facts to defend your argument and you certainly can't get together with 1 million other RW fools to fund science.

The simple fact that you can't organize to conduct science to dispute what you say is false shows how well thought out your argument really is.

Sun Not a Global Warming Culprit, Study SaysBrian Handwerk
for National Geographic News
July 12, 2007

Cyclical changes in the sun's energy output are not responsible for Earth's recent global warming, a new study asserts.

Instead the findings put the blame for climate change squarely on human-created carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases"reinforcing the beliefs of most climate scientists.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/07/070712-sun-climate.html