wrote in news:5328feb2-ad9a-432c-b740-
:

On Jan 6, 7:22*am, Jim Willemin wrote:

Just look at the data. *The world isn't going to end tomorrow, nor yet
next week. *Alarmism is stupid. *But I think it is equally silly to
ignore what appears to be a significant trend because alarmists
overstate the case, or because of a few outlier data points.

Looking at, and presenting, the data in the absence of scientific
understanding of surrounding factors is what got us into this mess in
the first place. There has been a warming trend with increased
sunspot activity, which is the primary driver of the increase of temps
and loss of ice. Sunspot activity is now at it's 11 year low cycle,
and we see an increase in ice formation. Many scientist have tried to
point this out, only to get shouted down by the alarmists.

But I can certainly see how looking at just one data point could lead
some to jump to a conclusion, especially when that conclusion is
driven by monetary or political factors.



As you say, considering raw data without an understanding of what else is
happening leads to misunderstanding, and the 11 year sunspot cycle does
affect the amount of solar energy reaching Earth. On the other hand, the
problem is not simple; for example, the sea ice data do not show much of an
11-year cycle. There were solar output minima in 1985, 1996, and 2007
(from the graph of solar irradiance at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation) and each of those years had a
slightly below-average sea ice cover (to well below-average, in the case of
2007) (from the graph on the UI cryosphere site), which is exactly opposite
to what one might expect. Indeed, looking at the graph on Wikipedia, the
solar output appears to vary by about a tenth of a percent from sunspot low
to sunspot high (that is, by a little over one watt/square meter) which
doesn't seem like a whole lot. It is indeed something of a conundrum,
which I suppose is why there is controversy.

wrote:
On Jan 5, 5:41 pm, BAR wrote:
wrote:
On Jan 5, 2:55 pm, John H wrote:
On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 11:12:46 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Jan 5, 2:02 pm, wrote:
On Jan 5, 1:32 pm, wrote:
On Jan 5, 12:27 pm, "CRM" wrote:
I remember the hysteria during the summer on how there would be no sea ice
this year due to global warming. I'm pretty sure it was Chuck G pushing this
BS here.
Chuck, can you relax now that the sea ice is now back to it's historical
levels?
http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834
Did you see the reason why?:
Why were predictions so wrong? Researchers had expected the newer sea
ice, which is thinner, to be less resilient and melt easier. Instead,
the thinner ice had less snow cover to insulate it from the bitterly
cold air, and therefore grew much faster than expected, according to
the National Snow and Ice Data Center.
Cyclical weather patterns have nothing to do with global warming. And
to be honest, the ice had less snow cover, which could quite possibly
be because of global warming.
Less snow is a cyclical weather patten itself, so by your definition,
it has nothing to do with GW. :-)- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Not so fast! IF the amount of snow is because of just a cyclical
weather pattern, then yes, it has nothing to do with global warming.
BUT, if the snow isn't a cyclical event then it very well COULD have
something to do with global warming.
Loogy, how would you define 'cyclical' when we're talking millions of
years. Hell, Gore's stuff was only for the past couple hundred. *That* is
cyclical in the big scheme of things. No?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Going up steadily corresponding to the industrial revolution isn't a
cycle.
No, it is coincidental.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Prove that to me.

You are looking at a 200 year period of time in a 4.5 billion year
period of time.