Friday, July 04, 2003

Another straw in the wind? "May" be so.
Love to see scientists come up with yet another theory of what causes global temperature changes. I especially grok the way so many scientists use "may" when they're talking about theories that have been used to enforce idiotic governmental regulations that cost business billions of dollars and millions of jobs:
Veizer remains concerned about the possible "use and abuse" of his latest work in the bitter international debate over the Kyoto accord. As he did in 2000, he emphasized that unprecedented CO2 emissions in modern times may eventually "overtake" cosmic rays as a chief factor in climate change and perhaps even justify "pre-emptive" measures to protect the environment.

I also wonder why he finds it necessary to insert the weasel word "potentially" in this statement:
More specifically, the authors assert that the long-term "warming effect of CO2" is "potentially lower" than generally thought. They say the carbon dioxide factor would appear to have a maximum impact of 1.9 C on sea temperatures rather than the 5.5 projected in certain worst-case scenarios.

Makes you wonder what the margin of error is in these findings, why it wasn't stated and whether the variability was within it. But, as Ayn Rand says, "blank out". At least he comes out with this fairly straightforward statement:
"Atmospheric levels of CO2 are commonly assumed to be a main driver of global climate," the authors state. "Independent empirical evidence suggests that the galactic cosmic ray flux (CRF) is linked to climate variability. We find that at least 66 per cent of the variance in the paleotemperature trend could be attributed to CRF variations likely due to solar system passages through the spiral arms of the galaxy."

Another oddity: these articles on "dissident" statements about climate theory both come from far-flung outposts of the Anglosphere: New Zealand and Saskatchewan. Where's Scientific American when news is breaking? Hugging its cherished lies?

Thursday, July 03, 2003

It's official - the Sun did it
As far as I'm concerned, I now have all the evidence I need that the sun is responsible for whatever global warming may have happened and global cooling, too, for that matter. I was especially impressed by this titbit:

More recently, the instrument record taken from ground-based weather stations over the past 140 years show two periods of warming from 1910 to 1940 and from 1980 to 1998.

I mean, there's no way at all that carbon dioxide production was causing global warming from 1910 to 1940, then stopped causing it from 1940 to 1980, then started again. Either this guy's totally wrong or the multi-billions of dollars and mountains of blather and guilt spread around about global warming are TOTALLY USELESS!

So, take that, Chicken Little! Not, I predict, that these facts will have any effect on the Gaia-hypothesis self-loathing productivity-fearing wussies out there.