Evidence? We Don't Need No Stinkin' Evidence

I stumbled across this article the other day dealing with the Sun's role in the heating of our planet. What I found intriguing about it is the fact that this article, written by a more liberal publication, really puts the man-made global warming crowd in a bad light. The article doesn't do so intentionally of course, but if you stop and think for a moment about what's being said you walk away with that impression. Let's break it down.

While evidence suggests fluctuations in solar activity can affect climate on Earth, and that it has done so in the past, the majority of climate scientists and astrophysicists agree that the sun is not to blame for the current and historically sudden uptick in global temperatures on Earth, which seems to be mostly a mess created by our own species.

Did you catch that? It went by pretty quick, so lets take it slow. "While evidence suggests" that the sun is the cause of the earth's heating, and has even been proven to have done so in the past, the "majority of climate scientists and astrophysicists agree that the sun is not to blame" for global warming. Folks, how can you call yourself a scientist if you refuse to accept the evidence. Frank Tipler in his book The Physics of Christianity says, "When any scientist rejects the implications of physical law, for any reason other than experiment, then he ceases to be a scientist. He becomes a philosopher, practicing a discipline in which he has no special expertise."

Moving on in the piece we are introduced to a Russian scientist named Habibullo Abdussamatov who has attributed the recent thawing in Mars' ice caps to the changes in the sun's intensity. However, the author points out that this theory has been challenged by other scientists, who attribute the heating on Mars to changes in its orbit and tilt. A phenomena known as Milankovitch cycles here on Earth.

“It’s believed that what drives climate change on Mars are orbital variations,” said Jeffrey Plaut, a project scientist for NASA’s Mars Odyssey mission. “The Earth also goes through orbital variations similar to that of Mars.”

Has anyone ever heard that changes in the Earth's orbit and tilt are the cause of our recent heating trend? Me either. What I find so interesting is these Milankovitch cycles can and are be ing used to explain why Mars is getting warmer, but it is completely preposterous to think that this could be why the Earth is warming. These cycles are a second natural phenomena that man has no control over. As such, it apparently isn't worth mentioning. Continuing on in the article...

As for Abdussamatov’s claim that solar fluctuations are causing Earth’s current global warming, Charles Long, a climate physicist at Pacific Northwest National Laboratories in Washington, says the idea is nonsense.

“That’s nuts,” Long said in a telephone interview. “It doesn’t make physical sense that that’s the case.”

Now maybe I'm stepping over my bounds here, but Mr Long, you are the one that appears "nuts" here. He says that solar fluctuations don't make sense. Well correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the sun physically heat things up? As a lay scientist let me offer up an experiment that I've witnessed on many occasions. Go get two thermometers. Place them 5 feet apart, but make sure that one is in the shade and one is in direct sunlight. Let them sit there for sixty minutes and come back. Does anyone have an idea what readings you will find on the two thermometers? Of course, the thermometer in the sun will have a higher reading than the thermometer in the shade. Or an even better example would be to put a thermometer next to a lightbulb. If the lightbulb was attatched to a dimmer switch you could turn the light through a wide range of intensities. The amount of heat dissipated by the bulb at 10% intensity will be much less than the heat dissipated when the bulb is at 100% intensity. A thermometer near the bulb would verify this. I, therefore, must conclude that the sun's intensity as well has something to do with our global temperatures. So in actuality Mr Long, it makes perfect physical sense that solar fluctuations could cause the Earth's current global warming trend.

But it only gets better. The next esteemed scientist we meet in the article is Benny Peiser, a social anthropologist at Liverpool John Moores University. He leaves us this gem.

“Global warming on Neptune's moon Triton as well as Jupiter and Pluto, and now Mars has some [scientists] scratching their heads over what could possibly be in common with the warming of all these planets ... Could there be something in common with all the planets in our solar system that might cause them all to warm at the same time?”

“I think it is an intriguing coincidence that warming trends have been observed on a number of very diverse planetary bodies in our solar system,” Peiser said in an email interview. “Perhaps this is just a fluke.”

Perhaps this is just a fluke he says. That's the best you can come up with? For crying out loud, you are a university professor! I'm not sure what John Moores University is paying this guy, but whatever it is its too much. This is a prime example of the simplest solution is most likely the best solution, otherwise known as Ockham's razor. The simple solution is that the increased solar activity is to blame. Rather than taking the easy route, scientists prefer the difficult one...

The warming on Triton, for example, could be the result of an extreme southern summer on the moon, a season that occurs every few hundred years, as well as possible changes in the makeup of surface ice that caused it to absorb more of the Sun’s heat.

Researchers credited Pluto’s warming to possible eruptive activity and a delayed thawing from its last close approach to the Sun in 1989.

And the recent storm activity on Jupiter is being blamed on a recurring climatic cycle that churns up material from the gas giant’s interior and lofts it to the surface, where it is heated by the Sun.

The article wraps things up by trying to scare us into believing that the sun has little to no effect our global temperatures. We are told how scientists have modeled the Maunder Minimum (which I've talked about in previous posts) and it was not responsible for the Little Ice Age in the middle and late 1600's. Note the words used here (emphasis added by me):

“The situation is pretty ambiguous,” said David Rind, a senior climate researcher at NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who has modeled the Maunder Minimum.

Based on current estimates, even if another Maunder Minimum were to occur, it might result in an average temperature decrease of about 2 degrees Fahrenheit, Rind said.

This would still not be enough to counteract warming of between 2 to 12 degrees Fahrenheit from greenhouse gases by 2100, as predicted by the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report.

There is not one hard morsel of fact in any of those last 3 paragraphs. The one verifiable fact that could actually be proven he got wrong. Let me explain. I like to fancy myself as a math guru. I'm no Einstein or Will Hunting, but I can hold my own. Let's assume these "estimates" and predicted numbers are accurate. If so then the Maunder Minimum could decrease the Earth's temperature by about 2 degrees (could be more). Rind then claims that would not be enough to counteract a 2 to 12 degree increase from greenhouse gases. Well, actually it would counteract it perfectly if it was at the low end of the "prediction." I agree it would not counteract anything near the high end, but a blanket statement like that is absolutely false.

I've got some research into the IPCC as well. I'll blog about that organization at another time.