[opendtv] Re: What does it take to convince

  • From: "Mark A. Aitken" <maitken@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 15:55:54 -0500


Discover Interview Sun's Shifts May Cause Global Warming

His studies show that natural variations in the sun plays a major role in global warming. So are humans off the hook? And if so, why does he use compact fluorescent lightbulbs?

by Marion Long

published online June 25, 2007

Most leading climate experts don’t agree with Henrik Svensmark, the 49-year-old director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at the Danish National Space Center in Copenhagen. In fact, he has taken a lot of blows for proposing that solar activity and cosmic rays are instrumental in determining the warming (and cooling) of Earth. His studies show that cosmic rays trigger cloud formation, suggesting that a high level of solar activity—which suppresses the flow of cosmic rays striking the atmosphere—could result in fewer clouds and a warmer planet. This, Svensmark contends, could account for most of the warming during the last century. Does this mean that carbon dioxide is less important than we’ve been led to believe? Yes, he says, but how much less is impossible to know because climate models are so limited.

There is probably no greater scientific heresy today than questioning the warming role of CO2, especially in the wake of the report issued by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). That report warned that nations must cut back on greenhouse gas emissions, and insisted that “unless drastic action is taken . . . millions of poor people will suffer from hunger, thirst, floods, and disease.” As astrophysicist ?Eugene Parker, the discoverer of solar wind, writes in the foreword to Svensmark’s new book, The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change, “Global warming has become a political issue both in government and in the scientific community. The scientific lines have been drawn by ‘eminent’ scientists, and an important new idea is an unwelcome intruder. It upsets the established orthodoxy.”

We talked with the unexpectedly modest and soft-spoken Henrik Svensmark about his work, the criticism it has received, and truth versus hype in climate science.

On 11/17/2008 9:18 AM, Mark A. Aitken wrote:
Am I chicken little for saying "The ice is growing, the ice is growing!"...


Rapid Rebound Brings Ice Back to Levels from the 1980s.

An abnormally cool Arctic is seeing dramatic changes to ice levels.  In sharp contrast to the rapid melting seen last year, the amount of global sea ice has rebounded sharply and is now growing rapidly. The total amount of ice, which set a record low value last year, grew in October at the fastest pace since record-keeping began in 1979.

The actual amount of ice area varies seasonally from about 16 to 23 million square kilometers. However, the mean anomaly-- defined as the difference between the current area and the seasonally-adjusted average-- changes much slower, and generally varies by only 2-3 million square kilometers.

That anomaly had been negative, indicating ice loss, for most of the current decade and reached a historic low in 2007. The current value is again zero, indicating an amount of ice exactly equal to the global average from 1979-2000.

Bill Chapman, a researcher with the Arctic Climate Center at the University of Illinois, says the rapid increase is "no big deal". He says that, while the Arctic has certainly been colder in recent months, the long-term decrease is still ongoing. Chapman, who predicts that sea ice will soon stop growing, sees nothing in the recent data to contradict predictions of global warming.

Others aren't quite so sure. Dr. Patrick Michaels, Professor of Environmental Science at the University of Virginia, says he sees some "very odd" things occurring in recent years. Michaels, who is also a Senior Fellow with the Cato Institute, tells DailyTech that, while the behavior of the Arctic seems to agree with climate models predictions, the Southern Hemisphere can't be explained by current theory. "The models predict a warming ocean around Antarctica, so why would we see more sea ice?" Michaels adds that large areas of the Southern Pacific are showing cooling trends, an occurrence not anticipated by any current climate model.

On average, ice covers roughly 7% of the ocean surface of the planet. Sea ice is floating and therefore doesn't affect sea level like the ice anchored on bedrock in Antarctica or Greenland. However, research has indicated that the Antarctic continent -- which is on a long-term cooling trend -- has also been gaining ice in recent years.

The primary instrument for measuring sea ice today is the AMSR-E microwave radiometer, an instrument package aboard NASA's AQUA satellite. AQUA was launched in 2002, as part of NASA's Earth Observing System (EOS).

On 11/13/2008 9:14 AM, Craig Birkmaier wrote:
At 1:55 PM -0800 11/12/08, Dale Kelly wrote:
Yes, I read your postings with great interest. The Blogs have little or no
veracity: their conclusions are not even substantiated by their posted data.

We disagree, but we al;ready knew that.

You simply can not make a valid case regarding climate change or most other
natural phenomena, by cherry picking short term data*, which they do.

Thanks you! Seems that this is exactly what the new religion of environmentalism has been doing for several decades. Have you ever looked at some of the analyses of the claims in Gore's movie? Talk about cherry picking!

the arctic ice has thickened slightly in 2008, relative to 2007 (the lowest
year in recent history), but it remains at a very low level compared to the
charts base line level. How about inspecting your own data before attempting
to build a case.

I was simply using these reports to corroborate the FACT that we are now entering a period of cooling...

By the way, did you see any of the Fox News Palin interview at her home in Alaska - in particular the part where they were riding a snow mobile at about 70 MPH on the bay behind here  home?

*see Cliff's recent postings.

Professor Easterbrook's study very graphically documents that warming and
cooling cycle do occur naturally at an almost sinusoidal rate but then his
study is incorrectly used in attempts to invalidate global warming concerns.

In your opinion. I believe his work fully demonstrates the absurdity of the claims made by Gore, the IPCC and NASA.

The irrefutable facts are: in concert with the natural warming and cooling
cycles, the global mean temperature is steadily rising: Each high is warmer
that the previous high and each low is warmer than the previous low and the
past fifty years has seen rapid changes in the mean temperature baseline.

Obviously you have not looked closely at this data. Please look at "chart b" on the second page of the Easterbrook pdf that I posted yesterday. i do agree that the trend line has been up, but even this should be placed in the context of a 1000 year moving window, not a single century or just a few decades.

We have been through a significant cooling period in the last 50 years. In fact the short term data was so "compelling" that the same folks warning us about global warming were warning us about global cooling just a few decades ago.

This rapid temperature increase could at least partially be fueled by human
activities and dozens of scientific agencies/universities and thousands of
scientist's worldwide, believe this to be the case and Mr. Hansen of NASA
cannot have corrupted them all.

When i was a kid i had this wonderful naivety about science and engineering. These were admirable professions since they are driven by the scientific method and the need to apply physics, chemistry, et al to real world problems.

When i participated in the US DTV process, that childhood vision was shattered. I learned that you can buy scientists and engineers quite easily and that you can spin the facts, and the physics to your purpose.

I shall never forget the NHK white papers in support of interlace...


Yes, global climate change "could" be related to human activity. It would be absurd to think otherwise. In my lifetime I have seen the benefits of being a good caretaker of our environment. We have cleaned up the air and rivers, mitigated ground water contamination from those evil refineries, oil depots and gas stations, and enriched the legal profession via the Superfund.

Clearly, climate change is also related to MANY other things that are far easier to substantiate. Funny what happens when politicians with an agenda start throwing money at "scientists" to provide research to support their agendas.


You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:

- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word unsubscribe in the subject line.

Mark A. Aitken
Director, Advanced Technology
“What you see and hear depends a
good deal on where you are standing;
it also depends on what kind of a
person you are”
><>   ~ C. S. Lewis ~   <><

Things are only impossible until
they're not.
><>   ~ J. L. Picard ~   <><

Mark A. Aitken
Director, Advanced Technology
“What you see and hear depends a
good deal on where you are standing;
it also depends on what kind of a
person you are”
><>   ~ C. S. Lewis ~   <><

Things are only impossible until
they're not.
><>   ~ J. L. Picard ~   <><
fn:Mark A. Aitken
n:Aitken;Mark A.
org:Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc.;Engineering & Operations
adr:;;10706 Beaver Dam Road;Cockeysville;MD;21030;USA
title:Director of Advanced Technology
tel;work:(410) 568-1535
tel;fax:(410) 568-1580
tel;home:(410) 357-9511
tel;cell:(443) 677-4425

Other related posts: