Hi All Sunspots can affect weather thermally and perhaps via some form of radiation affect cloud condensation.
Weather changes would certainly affect food production. World food production is likely to influence levels of optimism, market sentiment, financial confidence etc. and so the incidence of recessions. It is a bit harder to see how crooked bankers can change solar physics. Stephen Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design School of Engineering and Electronics University of Edinburgh Mayfield Road Edinburgh EH9 3JL Scotland tel +44 131 650 5704 fax +44 131 650 5702 Mobile 07795 203 195 [email protected] http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs Eugene I. Gordon wrote: > This is all very interesting but we all know that correlation doesn't infer > but does suggest causality. It should be sensible. However, do we forget > global warming and anthropogenic CO2 as simply an interesting correlation? > If there is some technical sense to the correlation it takes on a higher > significance. It is also true that the Maunder Minimum was a prolonged > period of no sunspots and apparently led to what turned out to be a > disastrous prolonged cooling. That was a particularly significant > correlation. There were also shorter correlations in about 1850 and 1960 and > current. I think the correlation has been perfect for a very limited number > of events for which there is data. > > It is also true that global warmings and coolings have been recorded for > hundreds of thousands of years in ice core data and also in pacific mud > deposits. The core record is similar to the temperature change record of the > last 1000 years. Since the related CO2 data trails the temperature; > something else has got to be going on and sunspots are as good a possibility > as anything I know. > > What I find so strange is that I would expect that such a strong correlation > would lead to a strong research activity to see if the causal aspects could > be established. I am not aware of such research except maybe some in Denmark > on clouds. That tells me that truth, understanding and science are not the > issue. It can tell you whatever you like. To each his own. > > For my taste sunspots are important. > > -gene > > -----Original Message----- > From: Peter Read [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Peter Read > Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 4:46 AM > To: Ken Caldeira; Margaret Leinen > Cc: Eugene I. Gordon; Mike MacCracken; Ken Caldeira; Dan Whaley; > Geoengineering > Subject: Re: [geo] Re: WSJ - Op-Ed on Global Warming Skepticism > > Sometime back there was quite a literature about sunspot correlations with > economic activity So far as I recollect, its intent was to warn about > infering causality from correlation I used to ask my students whether the > clouds were hurrying by because the trees were tickling their tummies ? or > was it just that the trees were waving goodbye to the passing clouds ? > Sometimes they got the point > Peter > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ken Caldeira" <[email protected]> > To: "Margaret Leinen" <[email protected]> > Cc: <[email protected]>; "Mike MacCracken" <[email protected]>; "Ken > Caldeira" <[email protected]>; "Dan Whaley" > <[email protected]>; "Geoengineering" <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 7:11 PM > Subject: [geo] Re: WSJ - Op-Ed on Global Warming Skepticism > > > >> One out of every 20 time series show spurious correlation at the 95% >> significance level ( and even more if you let me choose how to adjust, >> smooth, truncate, or detrend the data). >> >> Causal mechanisms leading to successful prediction are the hallmark of >> science. >> >> Correlations are good motivators to look for causal explanation but >> correlation should not be confused for causality. >> >> Who would like to wager that the correlation that Eugene comes up with >> will not depend on detrending, smoothing, truncation of data, or some >> other manipulation to acheive it's purported statistical significance? >> >> Sent from a limited typing keyboard >> >> On Jun 29, 2009, at 4:56, Margaret Leinen >> <[email protected] >> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Eugene, Can you provide reference(s) for the sunspot work: "the >>> strong influence of sunspots has been clearly shown over the last 4 >>> warming/ cooling cycles, and there are thousands of similar cycles >>> shown in the proxy record but no sunspot data to go with it. So the >>> best data and perfect correlation for 4 events we have is sunspots." >>> -- especially for the perfect correlation. You may have done this in >>> earlier posts as I know that you have mentioned it before, but I have >>> not been able to find a reference in your earlier contributions. >>> Margaret >>> -- >>> Margaret Leinen, PhD. >>> Climate Response Fund >>> 119 S. Columbus Street >>> Alexandria, VA 22314 >>> 202-415-6545 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> From: "Eugene I. Gordon" <[email protected]> >>>> Reply-To: <[email protected]> >>>> Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 10:06:34 -0400 >>>> To: <[email protected]>, 'Ken Caldeira' >>>> <[email protected]>, 'Dan Whaley' >>>> <[email protected] >>>> >>>> Cc: 'Geoengineering' <[email protected]> >>>> Subject: [geo] Re: WSJ - Op-Ed on Global Warming Skepticism >>>> >>>> Mike, what do you plan to explain and teach? What is known for sure? >>>> Certainly CO2 is a greenhouse gas and it is causing some global >>>> warming based on reasonable hypothesis, BUT HOW MUCH? And if you >>>> produce a big number or high percentage then you are as bad as the >>>> deniers. The honest position is that everything we think we know >>>> about climate science, none of which has been subject to rigorous >>>> test, suggests that CO2 plays a role and is causing some of the >>>> warming but not all because the strong influence of sunspots has >>>> been clearly shown over the last 4 warming/cooling cycles, and there >>>> are thousands of similar cycles shown in the proxy record but no >>>> sunspot data to go with it. So the best data and perfect correlation >>>> for 4 events we have is sunspots. The best qualitative science we >>>> have is greenhouse effects, There are other cloud, ocean current >>>> effects, etc. etc. >>>> >>>> If you simply take the opposing position you are as bad as the >>>> deniers. Take the position that the science is not well established, >>>> it is qualitative, and we simply do not know enough to be >>>> quantitative. However the proxy record of 540 million years says it >>>> will get warmer and in the not too distant future we will need to >>>> control the temperature EVEN IF WE STOP INPUTTING ANTHROPOGENIC CO2 >>>> TOMORROW. >>>> >>>> Knee jerk reactions are not useful. >>>> >>>> -gene >>>> >>>> _____ >>>> >>>> From: [email protected] >>>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mike >>>> MacCracken >>>> Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2009 9:17 AM >>>> To: Ken Caldeira; Dan Whaley >>>> Cc: Geoengineering >>>> Subject: [geo] Re: WSJ - Op-Ed on Global Warming Skepticism >>>> >>>> >>>> Ken, et al.---It takes a bit of patience, but we simply have to >>>> address these types of claims. I have offered comments on a couple >>>> of these. See: >>>> >>>> http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/maccracken_ >>>> critique >>>> _of_robinson_etal/ >>>> >>>> http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/maccracken_ >>>> on_lindz >>>> en/ >>>> >>>> MacCracken, M. C., E. Barron, D. Easterling, B. Felzer, and T. >>>> Karl, 2003: >>>> Climate change scenarios for the U. S. National Assessment, Bulletin >>>> of the American Meteorological Society, 84, 1711-1723. >>>> >>>> MacCracken, M. C., 2003: Uncertainties: How little do we really >>>> understand, pp. 63-70 in Bridging the Gap Between Science and >>>> Society: The Relationship Between Policy and Research in National >>>> Laboratories, Universities, Government, and Industry, November 1-2, >>>> 2003, Rice University, Houston TX, >>>> 287 pp. >>>> >>>> And realclimate.org does a lot of clearing up of things. Plus then >>>> there is the Santer et al. article on Douglass et al. and lost of >>>> others as well. It takes time (and time away from real research) and >>>> is frustrating at times, but simply has to be done. I am very >>>> surprised that there was now a response trying to address the >>>> concerns (especially with Tom Wigley and Barrie Pittock being in >>>> Australia and being real slayers of myths, etc.). >>>> >>>> But old criticisms keep popping up (and I mean really old ones, like >>>> that there can be no CO2 effect because the bands are saturated-a >>>> myth explained by Arrenihius and clearly demonstrated in Manabe's >>>> modeling of over 40 years ago-but up comes the myth again, and >>>> again, and again. >>>> >>>> We just have to keep explaining in clearer and clearer ways, not >>>> reverting to the authority or numbers doing the IPCC reports types >>>> of arguments. >>>> Explain, teach, explain. >>>> >>>> Mike >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 6/28/09 4:35 AM, "Ken Caldeira" >>>> <[email protected] >>>> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> That something like this would be published in The Wall Street >>>> Journal indicates the deterioration of a world that believes that it >>>> is what you believe that counts, not empirical confrontation with >>>> experience. >>>> >>>> Empiricism may have risen its little head for a few centuries, but >>>> is now drowning in a sea of medievalism. >>>> >>>> Reality has become just another special interest group. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 1:01 AM, Dan Whaley <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html#printMode >>>> >>>> The Climate Change Climate Change >>>> The number of skeptics is swelling everywhere. >>>> >>>> By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL >>>> >>>> Steve Fielding recently asked the Obama administration to reassure >>>> him on the science of man-made global warming. When the >>>> administration proved unhelpful, Mr. Fielding decided to vote >>>> against climate-change legislation. >>>> >>>> If you haven't heard of this politician, it's because he's a member >>>> of the Australian Senate. As the U.S. House of Representatives >>>> prepares to pass a climate-change bill, the Australian Parliament is >>>> preparing to kill its own country's carbon-emissions scheme. Why? A >>>> growing number of Australian politicians, scientists and citizens >>>> once again doubt the science of human-caused global warming. >>>> [POTOMAC WATCH] Associated Press >>>> >>>> Steve Fielding >>>> >>>> Among the many reasons President Barack Obama and the Democratic >>>> majority are so intent on quickly jamming a cap-and-trade system >>>> through Congress is because the global warming tide is again >>>> shifting. >>>> It turns out Al Gore and the United Nations (with an assist from the >>>> media), did a little too vociferous a job smearing anyone who >>>> disagreed with them as "deniers." The backlash has brought the >>>> scientific debate roaring back to life in Australia, Europe, Japan >>>> and even, if less reported, the U.S. >>>> >>>> In April, the Polish Academy of Sciences published a document >>>> challenging man-made global warming. In the Czech Republic, where >>>> President Vaclav Klaus remains a leading skeptic, today only 11% of >>>> the population believes humans play a role. In France, President >>>> Nicolas Sarkozy wants to tap Claude Allegre to lead the country's >>>> new ministry of industry and innovation. Twenty years ago Mr. >>>> Allegre was among the first to trill about man-made global warming, >>>> but the geochemist has since recanted. New Zealand last year elected >>>> a new government, which immediately suspended the country's >>>> weeks-old cap- and-trade program. >>>> >>>> The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma >>>> Sen. >>>> Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the >>>> U.N. -- 13 times the number who authored the U.N.'s 2007 climate >>>> summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world's first woman to >>>> receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement >>>> last year that she was finally free to speak "frankly" of her >>>> nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical >>>> chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made >>>> warming "the worst scientific scandal in history." Norway's Ivar >>>> Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the "new >>>> religion." A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton's Will >>>> Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its >>>> position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science >>>> magazines have refused to run the physicists' open letter.) >>>> >>>> The collapse of the "consensus" has been driven by reality. The >>>> inconvenient truth is that the earth's temperatures have flat-lined >>>> since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02. Peer-reviewed >>>> research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, >>>> hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans. A global financial >>>> crisis has politicians taking a harder look at the science that >>>> would require them to hamstring their economies to rein in carbon. >>>> >>>> Credit for Australia's own era of renewed enlightenment goes to Dr. >>>> Ian Plimer, a well-known Australian geologist. Earlier this year he >>>> published "Heaven and Earth," a damning critique of the "evidence" >>>> underpinning man-made global warming. The book is already in its >>>> fifth printing. So compelling is it that Paul Sheehan, a noted >>>> Australian columnist -- and ardent global warming believer -- in >>>> April humbly pronounced it "an evidence-based attack on conformity >>>> and orthodoxy, including my own, and a reminder to respect informed >>>> dissent and beware of ideology subverting evidence." Australian >>>> polls have shown a sharp uptick in public skepticism; the press is >>>> back to questioning scientific dogma; blogs are having a field day. >>>> >>>> The rise in skepticism also came as Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, >>>> elected like Mr. Obama on promises to combat global warming, was >>>> attempting his own emissions-reduction scheme. His administration >>>> was forced to delay the implementation of the program until at least >>>> 2011, just to get the legislation through Australia's House. The >>>> Senate was not so easily swayed. >>>> >>>> Mr. Fielding, a crucial vote on the bill, was so alarmed by the >>>> renewed science debate that he made a fact-finding trip to the U.S., >>>> attending the Heartland Institute's annual conference for climate >>>> skeptics. He also visited with Joseph Aldy, Mr. Obama's special >>>> assistant on energy and the environment, where he challenged the >>>> Obama team to address his doubts. They apparently didn't. >>>> >>>> This week Mr. Fielding issued a statement: He would not be voting >>>> for the bill. He would not risk job losses on "unconvincing green >>>> science." The bill is set to founder as the Australian parliament >>>> breaks for the winter. >>>> >>>> Republicans in the U.S. have, in recent years, turned ever more to >>>> the cost arguments against climate legislation. That's made sense in >>>> light of the economic crisis. If Speaker Nancy Pelosi fails to push >>>> through her bill, it will be because rural and Blue Dog Democrats >>>> fret about the economic ramifications. Yet if the rest of the world >>>> is any indication, now might be the time for U.S. politicians to >>>> re-engage on the science. One thing for sure: They won't be alone. >>>> >>>> Write to [email protected] >>>> >>>> >>>> ----- >>>> >>>> Much of the detail quoted in the article comes from a 250 page >>>> report posted by the senate minority... >>>> >>>> http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View >>>> <http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileSt >>>> ore_id=8 >>>> 3947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9> >>>> &FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---- > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.5.374 / Virus Database: 270.12.93/2205 - Release Date: 06/27/09 > 05:53:00 > > > > > > -- The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
