NC Media Watch

A quest for reason and accuracy in letters to the editor, guest editorials and other issues of interest to the citizens of Western Nevada County.

Sunday, October 09, 2005

No one knows how sunlight interacts with the planet.

Scientist have been studying the sun’s impact on our global temperature. One of the big factors is how much sun is reflected back in to space, never reaching the ground. Recent studies have uncovered some errors in satellite solar activity data, showing that 10 to 30 percent of the global warming from 1980 to 2002 could be attribute to solar energy. Another study found a shift in the amount of reflected energy, with more sun light reaching the ground. But, no one knows what caused the shift, less cloud cover, less volcanic activity, reduction in pollutants? Yet, another study found more sunlight reflected in 2000-2004, by measuring the light reflected from the moon. But no one is sure if it was more reflection, or more output from the sun.

The bottom line, according to a group of experts not involved in any of these studies: Scientists don't know much about how sunlight interacts with our planet, and until they understand it, they can't accurately predict any possible effects of human activity on climate change. More here.

So, tell me again! Why are we making economic and social policy in California based on climate models that cannot account for the largest energy source impacting our weather and climate? You should know these policies are stealing money from your wallet.

Click here for a private e-mail comment. For public comment select comments below.

1 Comments:

Blogger Frederic Christie said...

The fact that scientists don't "know" scarcely reduces the very basic science behind greenhouse gasses. As I've described to you in other conversations, models do have complex questions to ask, such as the degree that clouds will be generated by warming, clouds being coolants as they're reflective. But change these things by substantial margins, the general picture does not change.

You're serious in your argument that, because 10-30% has to deal with more solar energy (which, of course, may or may not be retained thanks to anthropogenic warming), the other 70-90% just disappears and can't be anthropogenic? Please, Russ.

You also concede, over and over, that anti-global warming policies have independent economic and ecological justifications, including a blog post of mine on how regulation helps business, not to mention the broader economy.

Sun Oct 09, 10:19:00 PM PDT  

Post a Comment

<< Home