A couple of recent commenters repeat the myth:
Heck, even conservative savior Fred Thompson repeats the myth.
Since the myth won’t die, progressives need to be armed with the facts. I am no Bishop or Priest, but here goes:
Mars does appear to be experiencing short-term regional warming, not long-term global warming, as the climate scientists of Realclimate.org have explained.
Jupiter is not experiencing global warming, but it is poised to experience regional climate change, “getting warmer near the equator and cooler at the poles,” as a U.C. Berkeley scientist noted last year.
As for Pluto, an MIT article explains “Pluto’s orbit is much more elliptical than that of the other planets, and its rotational axis is tipped by a large angle relative to its orbit. Both factors could contribute to drastic seasonal changes.”
One of the scientists involved in the research explained, Pluto’s warming was “likely not connected with that of the Earth. The major way they could be connected is if the warming was caused by a large increase in sunlight. But the solar constant–the amount of sunlight received each second–is carefully monitored by spacecraft, and we know the sun’s output is much too steady to be changing the temperature of Pluto.” And it is too steady to be changing the temperature of the Earth, for that matter: “The sunspot record and neutron monitor data,” as Realclimate.org explains, “show that solar activity has not increased since the 1950s and is therefore unlikely to be able to explain the recent warming.
This last point is key. The causal link between the Earth’s warming and the alleged warming of other planets would have to be solar activity. But a recent study has shown that solar activity, including cosmic rays, are not responsible for recent planetary warming. The study (subs. no longer req’d) concluded:
What is most sad to me is the ease with so many people believe the entire scientific community somehow failed to examine the contribution of the sun to recent global warming.
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga
Sad, indeed.
When you combine: Internet access and the implied ability to post your comments all over the planet, no real understanding of climate science (possibly through willful ignorance), and an overwhelming ideology that says Experts And All Government Actions are Evil, you get a bumper crop of deniers and their postings.
There is no hope in trying to make such people understand what’s going on with global warming or peak oil; the best we can hope for is to muster enough enlightened people to pass the needed legislation. If that means we have to save these people from their own warped beliefs, so be it.
What is the threshold between regional warming, short term warming and global warming? If over the next few years some areas of earth – say Antarctica or Australia – either showed cooling or no increased warming, could that be used as an argument against AGW? For example, the 1945 to 1975 cooling and the MWP are often cited by deniers to support their natural cycle position.
The Deniers would not be as effective if it wasn’t for the existence of a substantial percentage of the America public who just don’t want to be bothered – by government, by experts, by scientists, by challenges to their belief systems, by the implicit blame factor of human causation. We’ve gone through over 8 years of Bush now and as his credibility dwindles, we see the hardcore 30% who still hang with him (no pun intended). It’s curious that the Deniers still trot out their own “science” to make their case, even if it’s bogus science. Somehow, it seems that what the Deniers are offering is comfort as contrasted with urgency and a challenge. And many Americans are now attached to that comfort.
I know it seems like an eternity, Cliff, but really, I think you mean ‘over 6 years of Bush’ rather than ‘over 8 years of Bush’ .
I quote J.R.R. Tolkien:
(Prologue to The Fellowship Of The Ring)
Hear that? Global warming in Middle-Earth.
Now, you don’t see Gandalf tooting about in an old Ford, or Frodo humming along in a shiny new SUV, do you?
Besides the fact that it doesnt really matter who is to blame for the climate change while we can actually DO something about it, i do have to mention that the earth’s warming is, in fact, regional as well. It’s not like the earth is suddenly heating up like an iron ball inside a fire. The so called “global warming” on earth is more like a climate-shift, which doesn’t sound all too bad now but it has, in fact, very drastic consequences for the people living on it. The climate, shifting, is causing ice to melt, therefore causing sea-levels to rise, and causing cities, even entire coastal areas, to drown.
On the contrary, other locations will have almost no water available, causing draughts and devastation. Global Warming can, in fact, cause cooler periods in some areas. As glaciers and ice-bergs melt, massive amounts of cool freshwater are released into the main Gulf Stream, which usually acts as a conveyor belt, providing temperate areas with warm water. Cold water, in this stream, could cause many regions to cool down, and even freeze. This cooling will not cancel each other with global warming because of its uneven distribution. The details, facts, and examples, which would be too numerous to mention here, can be found here http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/special_report/1998/10/98/global_warming/202408.stm
and from numerous other official sources.
If NASA can’t get the temperature in the US right, when the US is 2% of the land surface, and when the US is the most heavily sampled region on the earth.
Why would you trust them to get the temperature on mars right?
Ah yes, because of their smashing success with challenger.
Go with throttle up dude
I am amazed. Why is it that liberals always argue the same way. First you try to insinuate that your opponent isn’t very bright because he doesn’t believe as you, then you immediately try to jump to the moral high ground and finally if someone starts to take apart your agruments, you change the subject.
To begin with, whether there is or isn’t global warming and whether man is causing it or not, has not been proved one way or the other. The simple fact that glaciers are melting is not proof – glaciers have been melting for 10,000 years. While co2 is a greenhouse gas, concentrations have been as high as 2000 parts per million in the past with no help from man. Still we should begin to reduce our emissions for a much more important reason – too much c02 in the ocean can change its acidity and adversely affect marine life.
The truth is we understand very little about climate and before we start making massive changes, we better be sure that what we do to correct the problem doesn’t cause more damage than what we’ve got already. History is littered with examples of envirmentalists making drastic changes that caused worse problems.
And please stop with the “denier” comments. I learned a long time ago that when people start calling names, that means they’re losing the argument.
Perhaps one or more of you could explain to me what caused the “little ice age”. what could cause the climate to rapidly change to the colder for 350 years and then rapidly change to the warmer again? Why is the sea level 300 feet higher than it was a few thousand years ago (land bridge to russia) and why the ice sheets melted before man possesed a car? How do we know that the same factors are not still playing out?
Frank:
You’ll find good answers to your questions here:
http://climateprogress.org/2007/06/27/26-climate-myths-debunked/
Others have already caught whiff of the manure. Mind if I pile on?
I enjoyed the first post by Lou Grinzo, and I agree completely. There’s no shortage to the bumper crop of idiots ready to expose their stupidity for the entire world to see. “If it means we have to save these people from their own warped beliefs, so be it.”
To that point, may I politely ask why your educated, informed opinion better actual research published by real live physicists and climatologists?
Oh yeah. Because you know we can just dismiss all that scientific study nonsense. Why? Because we’re enlightened enough to know the truth without having to rely upon any actual science. Everybody knows any real scientist worth his salt is absolutely convinced of anthropogenic global warming. You’d have to be a wingnut “denier” to be skeptical of mankind’s actual contribution, or to even consider other theories. No politics there.
The only answer you have is “vast right-wing conspiracy disinformation campaign,” and some talking points from the clowns the totally discredited RealClimate.org. Do you realize how silly that makes you you look?
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/avery070707.htm
http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2005/09/sunwarm.html
http://www.livescience.com/environment/050930_sun_effect.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml
If man is causing Global wamring isnt that better than the alterntive. Global Cooling? I mean.. i think even flat earthers believe warming is better than cooling. right?
To me the greatest proof that the AGW crowd is on the wrong side is that they use terms like Deniers and Flat-Earthers. Using terms like this is COMPLETELY unscientific and unreasonable. We are talking about computer modeling here and sorry, its not a hard science. RIght?
If, as the above article states, other solar planets are experiencing regional warming and the earth is experiencing regional warming, doesn’t that somehow seem like the beginning of an applicable equation?
Some Earth based regional warming + Some Other Planets’ Regional warming = Solar system planets regional warming.
Reduxing the reason for the regional warming to the Sun fails to take into consideration the circuit that the Sun is on and its ‘environmental’ effects on Sun and planets. If wide spread planetary warming is exhibited, you can not ridicule the observed and recorded data in order to promote an agenda.
Given the scientific evidence for many ice ages of some duration that yielded cooling off periods of increased temperatures (or we would be popscicles), and given the lack of reliable temperature information over the last hundred or so recorded years of temperature data, why hasn’t this culminated in producing more models to show us where we are in the ‘naturally occuring’ current ice age/global warming state.
Also, if these periodicities are natural and reoccuring, why are they not considered expected? If the oceans and seas have been distributed all over the planet due to climate changes (ergo trilobites in the Sahara), why are we questioning the ‘ongoingness’ of such.
Of course there is no excuse to pollute air to ‘China’ or ‘California’ smog levels nor is there any reason to promote water pollution. However, I question the ‘I blink, ergo I dam’ professorial mentality of many GW promoters who may just be in the current ‘publish and don’t perrish’ GW craze.
Also, I don’t like the politics associated with the ‘all or nothing’ perspective of GW promoters. Sociologically, I view this as an emerging class in society that is filling the vacuum created by a declining clergy. They are significantly more preachy and ten times more boring.
And lastly, computer modeling is responsible for the current economic melt down as derrivitives were applied to non market based asset models which were ‘scientifically/mathmatically’ programmed to value all real estate markets as being equal. Huge model data distortions………..big mistake !
Deb-o-rah !