The Mediterranean diet


To your Health!

Health in your meal

The Mediterranean diet has long been considered one of the healthiest diets on the planet – and indeed it is ! There are myriad of research that proves that eating a diet rich in plant foods and healthy fat is good for us. Research also show that a Mediterranean diet protects individuals against cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, some types of cancer, Alzheimer’ s disease and also leads to a longer lifespan. The key to longer lifespan lie in the fact that this diet does not adopt modernized foods(that we in the US consume excessively) such as processed foods, deep-fried foods, tendency to eat more meat and fewer fruits and vegetables .

There is no single Mediterranean diet. Instead, each region across the world, from Spain to the Middle East , customizes the basic diet to take advantage of food availability and cultural preferences.So, if you considering adopting this new…

View original post 124 more words

Posted in FOODS, HEALTH, natural, organic | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

The controversy of conspiracy


Not really a controversy at all, they are practically all realities, not theories, except when they are of straw.

power of language blog: partnering with reality by JR Fibonacci

the controversy of conspiracy

The ideal condition of a herd is for the herd to maintain a state of moderate hysteria. Total panic is only favorable if there is a well-orchestrated strategy to contain and direct the momentum of the panic, which otherwise could lose coherence and dissolve in to a wild chaos.

There must be calming triggers installed, like sacred mantras of heroism and patriotism and morality and idealism. There must be agitation triggers installed as well, for a calm herd is vulnerable to a contagion of introspection and autonomy.

Every civil religion has sacred objects for ritual practices, such as colorful flags and constitutions made of shapes of ink on paper. These sacred objects can be used by those who are most skillful both to arouse and to calm the masses.
What is the best way to trigger a wave of social agitation? There must be an…

View original post 2,763 more words

Posted in Conspiracies, Human Behaviour, World Issues | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments

The Highest Authority in Science is the Data


 From JoanneNova.com.au

Joint Post David Evans and Jo Nova

“97 percent of climate experts say man-made global warming is a major threat

The correct response: “So? The satellites, ocean buoys, and weather balloons disagree.”

The alarmists may have “experts”, but the skeptics have the data.

How do you find the truth about some disputed point in science? You find the most authoritative source of information.  The vital thing that makes science different to a religion is that there are no “Gods” of science. There is no expert who is infallible. The highest authority in science is the measurements and observations. Here is the hierarchy of authority in climate science:

  1. Data (empirical evidence)
  2. Climate scientists
  3. Other scientists
  4. Lay people.

For most of the last few centuries, science has been supreme over politics for settling the truth in matters pertaining to the physical world—empirical evidence beats anyone’s say-so.

But the modern political approach is to ignore that top level. To most warmists and the public who “believe in climate change” (as they so misleading say), the hierarchy is:

  1. Climate scientists
  2. Other scientists
  3. Lay people.

The  way the climate scam works is for the like-minded western bureaucracies to be the only employers or funders of climate scientists—which eliminates most of the competition that would otherwise keep them scrupulously honest. While peer review (like the IPCC process) is treated as equivalent to the bible, it’s more like a report of a committee meeting (one that dissenters were not invited to). The government climate scientists use the peer review process to block criticism or alternative theories from being officially heard—as they were caught doing in the Climategate scandal.  The mainstream media go to the climate scientists as their ultimate source of authority, and propagate their opinions to the public. Very neat.

It is a loophole in the modern world. The process is called “science”, but works like a religion.  The media repeat what the experts say,  but are silent about much of the data, how it is collected, and what it means. The public wrongly assumes the conclusions were audited or checked by competing scientists and that journalists asked the scientists hard penetrating questions. It all gains the veneer of rigorous analysis. The public don’t complain when they are asked to pay for it all. An excellent con.

The warmist’s view is more like the hierarchy  in the days of the Pope v. Galileo, which, on pain of death by government, was:

  1. The Pope
  2. Papal scientists and theologians
  3. Lay people.

Of course, with the printing press and the subsequent reformation and enlightenment emerged the familiar hierarchy that brought great technological strides for mankind:

  1. Data (empirical evidence)
  2. Scientists
  3. Lay people.

But now the regulating class, the bureaucrats and the mainstream media, have lopped off that vital top layer and inserted their own layer of bought-and-paid-for scientists instead.

The way the climate change debate will eventually be resolved is that the traditional primacy of data will be re-asserted, if only because by the middle of the century people will have noticed that it isn’t several degrees warmer.

“It is a loophole in the modern world. The process is called “science”, but works like a religion.”

In the meantime, the mainstream media should be reminded that there is a higher authority than the government climate scientists—the data. If the investigative “journalists” were doing some investigating, they would go over the heads of the government climate scientists to the data itself. But the mainstream media have ignored the data to date, only showing the limited selection as interpreted and presented by the climate scientists, without questioning its source or the means by which it was obtained, or noting that it conflicts with the data that comes straight from the instruments.

Here is some relevant, high-quality data from our best instruments and impeccable sources showing that the climate models have failed all their major predictions. Publicly available too. Yet the mainstream media have not shown any of this data, ever, anywhere (as far as we know).

(That could be about to change in a small way. Joanne and I have minor roles on a reality tv show about climate where we insisted on showing some data on the Australian ABC.)

Example: Air temperature, aka “the temperature”. There are three sources of air temperature data: (1) UAH (satellite), (2) RSS (satellite), and (3) the records derived from the network of official land thermometers—GISS, NCDC, and HadCrut (over 90% of their raw data inputs are the same, they just process them in slightly different ways to arrive at slightly different results from each other).

The first two agree, say the warmest year was 1998, and that the warming trend stopped around 2000. The third source is quite different—it suggests  the warmest year was 2006 or 2010 (depending on who processes it) and the warming trend is continuing. But the land thermometers are obviously corrupt—for example, most of them are in artificially warming locations such as at airports, near air conditioning outlets, at sewage farms, or in urban areas where they get increasing heat from increased fuel use in buildings and cars and from all that concrete etc. Check out some photos for see for yourself.

Any temperature record that uses corrupted data is highly suspect, no matter how much the climate scientists process the raw data on their computers after the fact. (Did you know that they are still changing the temperature record for the 1970s, 30 years later, and always in the direction of making recent warming seem worse?)

But the climate scientists usually only present to the public the land thermometer records that include the corrupt land thermometers—and not even the raw data, but the data after they have very extensively adjusted and processed it. On the other hand, the satellites circle the earth 24/7, measuring the air temperature above broad swathes of land and ocean, covering all of the globe except near the poles, and are unbiased. Satellite measurements started in 1979; early problems with calibration have long since been resolved to everyone’s satisfaction.

The mainstream media, using the climate scientists as their highest authority, almost always present only the land thermometer records and ignore the satellite data. For this they are culpable, because data is the highest authority—they should be showing the satellite data and investigating problems with land thermometers. It’s not as if we public are too dumb to understand that a thermometer bathing in the hot air from an air conditioner outlet is not measuring global warming.

Read the whole article here.

Posted in AGW, carbon tax, climate change, ENVIRONMENT, Human Behaviour, Politics | Tagged , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

The Necessity of Disillusionment


A diagram of cognitive dissonance theory. Diss...

A diagram of cognitive dissonance theory. Dissonance reduction can be accomplished in various ways, broadly including the addition of more, consonant elements, or else changing the existing elements. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Again, from Sott.net. their own post by Timothy C.Trepanier.

Nothing is more sad than the death of an illusion. ~ Arthur Koestler

Our greatest illusion is to believe that we are what we think ourselves to be. ~ H.F. Amiel

If we only knew what Illusion is, we would then know the opposite: what Truth is. This Truth would liberate us from slavery. ~ Boris Mouravieff

This introduction and the following article are relevant to today’s world, particularly with regard to the previous post explaining the need for the public to awaken from their illusion that all is well with their own world and that the US government is concerned for their (the public) security and well-being, whilst killing and maiming and invading other countries on the pretext of doing good.

It is also relevant to another injustice, whereby the illusion of catastrophic global warming permits whole countries to submit to outside control without a whimper. Disillusionment in this case is going to seriously hit hard because so many of the public have their hearts and minds set on saving the world, when they are actually in the process of losing it, from their own “ownership”.

The experience of disillusionment is one that is common to all. It is safe to say that at some time or another, every human being has had the experience of believing in something that turned out not to be true. The initial shock that comes when one’s perception of the world is revealed to be at odds with the hard facts of reality can range anywhere from mild disappointment to a feeling of overwhelming psychological trauma.

Whatever the degree of deception, the realization that one has been believing in a lie is a painful experience, not only psychologically but physically as well. Like a punch to the stomach, it can feel like one’s breath has been taken away. And because our beliefs about the world are interconnected with other beliefs fixed in our brains, the destruction of one belief can often lead to a cascade of collapse of many others.

When a person is confronted with facts that contradict currently held belief systems, they have one of two choices. The first choice is to go into denial mode by rejecting the facts as being untrue in order to prop up their chosen belief system and continue living as before. The second choice is to accept the new data and try and reconstruct a new internal paradigm or map of reality that accommodates the new information, which may mean putting into question all other beliefs associated with the old model.

The second choice is difficult and takes a great deal of strength in order to let go of one’s preconceived ideas and accept the new and factual data. The first choice is easy because it requires no effort, pain, sadness, or reordering of one’s life or values. It is also more comfortable, and because humans generally prefer comfort over pain, the first choice is often the default option.

The exact moment when a person becomes aware of facts that go against what is believed to be true, they experience what psychologists call cognitive dissonance; it is that tense, uncomfortable sensation that what one sees is so out of sync with what one already believes to be true, that the mind instantly rejects it, even when the facts are plain and indisputable.

It is in this moment of experiencing cognitive dissonance (you can recognize it by the tension and discomfort that triggers a “knee-jerk” reaction) that the crucial battle for truth over fiction takes place. If a person can muster the awareness and strength of will to not give in and take the comfortable route by immediately dismissing the facts outright, and hold the conflicting information in their minds while consciously experiencing the negative feelings associated with cognitive dissonance, the resulting liberation can be transformational. It has to be experienced to be believed!

Read the whole article hereEven if you’re not in agreement with my examples of ‘illusions’, this article has a lot going for it. Hopefully you will find it a very interesting read, very educational!

Posted in HEALTH, Human Behaviour, Philosophy, World Issues | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Waking Up to Propaganda and Unplugging From the Matrix


From Sott.net, an article by Paul Craig Roberts, ‘Informationclearinghouse.com’, revealing more about the hidden government agendas, the lies, propaganda and deceptions and the methods being used.

When did things begin going wrong in America?

“From the beginning,” answer some. English colonists, themselves under the thumb of a king, exterminated American Indians and stole their lands, as did late 18th and 19th century Americans. Over the course of three centuries the native inhabitants of America were dispossessed, just as Israelis have been driving Palestinians off their lands since 1948.

Demonization always plays a role. The Indians were savages and the Palestinians are terrorists. Any country that can control the explanation can get away with evil.

I agree that there is a lot of evil in every country and civilization. In the struggle between good and evil, religion has at times been on the side of evil. However, the notion of moral progress cannot so easily be thrown out.

Consider, for example, slavery. In the 1800s, slavery still existed in countries that proclaimed equal rights. Even free women did not have equal rights. Today no Western country would openly tolerate the ownership of humans or the transfer of a woman’s property upon her marriage to her husband.

It is true that Western governments have ownership rights in the labor of their citizens through the income tax. This remains as a mitigated form of serfdom. So far, however, no government has claimed the right of ownership over the person himself.

Sometimes I hear from readers that my efforts are pointless, that elites are always dominant and that the only solution is to find one’s way into the small, connected clique of elites either through marriage or service to their interests.

This might sound like cynical advice, but it is not devoid of some truth. Indeed, it is the way Washington and New York work, and increasingly the way the entire country operates.

Washington serves powerful private interests, not the public interest. University faculties in their research increasingly serve private interests and decreasingly serve truth. In the US the media is no longer a voice and protection for the people. It is becoming increasingly impossible in America to get a good job without being connected to the system that serves the elites.

The problem I have with this “give up” attitude is that over the course of my life, and more broadly over the course of the 20th century, many positive changes occurred through reforms. It is impossible to have reforms without good will, so even the elites who accepted reforms that limited their powers were part of the moral progress.

Labor unions became a countervailing power to corporate management and Wall Street.

Working conditions were reformed. Civil rights were extended. People excluded by the system were brought into it. Anyone who grew up in the 20th century can add his own examples.

Progress was slow – unduly so from a reformer’s standpoint – and mistakes were made. Nevertheless, whether done properly or improperly there was a commitment to the expansion of civil liberty.

This commitment ended suddenly on September 11, 2001. In eleven years the Bush/Obama Regime repealed 800 years of human achievements that established law as a shield of the people and, instead, converted law into a weapon in the hands of the government. Today Americans and citizens of other countries can, on the will of the US executive branch alone, be confined to torture dungeons for the duration of their lives with no due process or evidence presented to any court, or they can be shot down in the streets or exterminated by drone missiles.

The power that the US government asserts over its subjects and also over the citizens of other countries is unlimited. Lenin described unlimited power as power “resting directly on force, not limited by anything, not restricted by any laws, nor any absolute rules.”

Washington claims that it is the indispensable government representing the exceptional people and thereby has the right to impose its will and “justice” on the rest of the world and that resistance to Washington constitutes terrorism to be exterminated by any possible means.

Thus, the American neoconservatives speak of nuking Iran for insisting on its independence from American hegemony and exercising its rights to nuclear energy under the non-proliferation treaty to which Iran is a signatory.

In other words, Washington’s will prevails over international treaties that have the force of law, treaties which Washington itself imposed on the world. According to the neoconservatives and Washington, Iran is not protected by the legal contract that Iran made with Washington when Iran signed the non-proliferation treaty.

Iran finds itself as just another 17th or 18th century American Indian tribe to be deprived of its rights and to be exterminated by the forces of evil that dominate Washington, D.C.

The vast majority of “superpower” americans plugged into the Matrix, where they are happy with the disinformation pumped into their brains by Washington and its presstitute media, would demur rather than face my facts.

This raises the question: how does one become unplugged and unplug others from the Matrix? Readers have asked, and I do not have a complete answer.

Read on here:

A couple of extracts:

This commitment [to the expansion of civil liberty]  ended suddenly on September 11, 2001. In eleven years the Bush/Obama Regime repealed 800 years of human achievements that established law as a shield of the people and, instead, converted law into a weapon in the hands of the government. Today Americans and citizens of other countries can, on the will of the US executive branch alone, be confined to torture dungeons for the duration of their lives with no due process or evidence presented to any court, or they can be shot down in the streets or exterminated by drone missiles.

The collapse of truth in the US and in its puppet states is a major challenge to my view that truth and good will are powers that can prevail over evil. It is possible that my perception that moral progress has occurred in various periods of Western civilization reflects a progressive unplugging from the Matrix. What I remember as reforms might be events experienced through the rose colored glasses of the Matrix.

Posted in 'WAR on(of) TERROR', AGENDA 21, Atrocities, Civil Liberties, Conspiracies, Human Behaviour, Inhumanity, Politics, united states, World Issues | Tagged , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

Memory Failure at the Pentagon (War is Hell!)


Sott.net has this post by Nick Turse, TomDispatch.com, providing more information on the horrors of war, the lack of coverage by the media and the lack of recognition of reality at the Pentagon.

Call it a mantra, a litany, or a to-don’t list, but the drip, drip, drip of Afghan disaster and the gross-out acts accompanying it have already resulted in one of those classic fill-you-in paragraphs that reporters hang onto for whenever the next little catastrophe rears its ugly head. Here’s how that list typically went after the Los Angeles Timesrevealed that troops from the 82nd Airborne had mugged for the camera with the corpses or body parts of Afghan enemies:The images also add to a troubling list of cases — including Marines videotaped urinating on Taliban bodies, the burning of Korans, and the massacre of villagers attributed to a lone Army sergeant — that have cast American soldiers in the harshest possible light before the Afghan public.”

That is, of course, only a partial list. Left out, for instance, was the American “kill team” that hunted Afghan civilians “for sport,” took body parts as trophies, and shot photos of their “kills,” not to speak of the sniper outfit that posed with an SS banner, or the U.S. base named “Combat Outpost Aryan.” (For Afghans, of course, it’s been so much worse. After all, what Americans even remember the obliterated wedding parties, eviscerated baby-naming ceremonies, blown away funerals, or even the eight shepherd boys “armed” with sticks recently slaughtered by helicopter, or any of the “thorough investigations” the U.S. military officially launched about which no one ever heard a peep, or the lack of command responsibility for any of this?)

When a war goes bad, you can be thousands of miles away and it still stinks like rotting cheese. Hence, the constant drop in those American polling numbers about whether we should ever have fought the Afghan War. Yes, war strain will be war strain and boys will be boys, but mistake after mistake, horror after horror, the rise of a historically rare phenomenon — Afghan soldiers and policemen repeatedly turning their guns on their American “allies” — all this adds up to a war effort increasingly on life support (even as the Obama administration negotiates to keep troops in the country through 2024).

In the Vietnam era, when a war went desperately wrong for desperately long, a U.S. draft army began to disintegrate into rebellion and chaos. In Afghanistan, an all-volunteer “professional” army may instead be slowly descending into indiscipline, stress-related trauma, drug use, and freak out. The simple fact is that defeat, however spun, affects everything in countless, often hard to quantify ways.

In war, as in everything else, there is, or should be, a learning curve. In the Afghan War, as TomDispatch Associate Editor Nick Turse points out, the U.S. high command, the Pentagon, and the White House remain stuck in a rut at least four decades old. There should be some command responsibility for that, too. Tom

Wars of Attrition
Green Zones of the Mind, Guerrillas, and a Technical Knockout in Afghanistan
By Nick Turse

Recently, after insurgents unleashed sophisticated, synchronized attacks across Afghanistan involving dozens of fighters armed with suicide vests, rocket-propelled grenades, and small arms, as well as car bombs, the Pentagon was quick to emphasize what hadn’t happened. “I’m not minimizing the seriousness of this, but this was in no way akin to the Tet Offensive,” said George Little, the Pentagon’s top spokesman. “We are looking at suicide bombers, RPG [rocket propelled grenade], mortar fire, etcetera. This was not a large-scale offensive sweeping into Kabul or other parts of the country.”

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta weighed in similarly. “There were,” he insisted, “no tactical gains here. These are isolated attacks that are done for symbolic purposes, and they have not regained any territory.” Such sentiments were echoed by many in the media, who emphasized that the attacks “didn’t accomplish much” or were “unsuccessful.”

Read on here.

Posted in 'WAR on(of) TERROR', afghanistan, Atrocities, MIDDLE EAST, Taliban, united states, War Crimes, World Issues | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

AGW – An example of science breaking away from politics.


I think this is pretty meaningful, (although you should read some of the contrary garbage in the associated comments).  Part of John Lovelock’s comments:
““The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened,” Lovelock said.

“The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time… it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising — carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that.””
He was wrong, is prepared to admit this on the basis of contradictory scientific evidence and is brave enough to do so in public.
Whilst other alarmists are seeking less honourable avenues and denying the obvious, James Lovelock should be praised for his honesty and realistic approach.

Posted in AGW, carbon tax, climate change, ENVIRONMENT, Human Behaviour, Politics, World Issues | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

NATO caused devestation in Libya, will do same in Syria


One day the people will realize the true story about the regime changes sponsored by the UN and implemented by NATO and other ungodly organizations. But it will be too late. Even if competent rule is re-established, the countries are ruined and the resources in the control of overseas corporations and NGO’s.

From the source article:

 

“Now though, with Syria next on the chopping block, many around the world are looking at the “progress” made in Libya to see if the UN and NATO’s proposal for military intervention is justified, warranted, or feasible. What they see is a patchwork of terrorist regimes butchering people systematically, infighting, making duplicitous, self-serving deals with foreign firms and otherwise running the nation into the ground.”

Posted in AGENDA 21, Atrocities, Human Behaviour, Libya, Politics, Syria, United Nations, World Issues | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Fukushima – Extreme Radiation danger – is this the truth?


This is the scary bit – and it could be true:
“Problem is, that’s not even the biggest problem. The biggest problem is what Senator Wyden is all bent out of shape about, even though independent researchers and nuke experts have been warning about this for a year.

And that is that the Reactor #4 building is on the verge of collapsing. Seismicity standards rate the building at a zero, meaning even a small earthquake could send it into a heap of rubble. And sitting at the top of the building, in a pool that is cracked, leaking, and precarious even without an earthquake, are 1565 fuel rods (give or take a few), some of them “fresh fuel” that was ready to go into the reactor on the morning of March 11th when the earthquake and tsunami hit.

If they are MOX fuel, containing 6% plutonium, one fuel rod has the potential to kill 2.89 billion people. If this pool collapses, as Senator Wyden is now saying too, we would face a mass extinction event from the release of radiation in those rods.”

Original source::  http://EndtheLie.com/2012/04/21/fukushima-is-falling-apart-are-you-ready/#ixzz1srqkoO5a

Posted in ENVIRONMENT, fukushima, HEALTH, nuclear, radiation | 4 Comments

AGW – How can this multi-dimensional, multi-parameter, multi-variate climate science be settled?


Hopefully I am not infringing ethics or copyrights here. In reading WUWT‘s post ‘Back-testing the Solar-Sea level Relationship’ http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/22/back-testing-the-solar-sea-level-relationship/#more-61827, there is an incredible amount of data and discussion on this climate ‘debate’.

Anyone who claims that the science is settled, as the ‘warmist’ scientists and their followers and supporters do, in fact claim, cannot reasonably be judged to be competent scientists or logical thinkers. There are simply too many variables, hardly any of them being scientifically quantifiable with any acceptable degree of certainty, to be assessed with any degree of confidence. Certainly insufficient real confidence to base the world-shattering carbon control and trading schemes being implemented by the authorities.

Critics of “skeptics” say that ‘we’ keep changing from one aspect to another, according to them to avoid the criticisms. In reality we are simply demonstrating that there are so many aspects the ‘warmists’ are simply ignoring, in their blinkered view of ‘CO2 causes global warming – we must control the emissions’.

In addition to the above-referenced post, I would venture to copy one of the reader comments from that post, as further support for the claim that “the science is not settled”.

rgbatduke says:

As Solanki noted in 2004, the Sun was more active in the second half of the 20th Century than at any time in the previous 8,000 years That was very likely not the case at all: http://www.leif.org/research/The%20long-term%20variation%20of%20solar%20activity.pdf

Your case for some fraction of the SSN increase being the result of alterations in the methods of counting is fairly compelling, although I would still worry about the error bars on your proposed corrections (and some of the inconsistencies that you acknowledge).  However, all of these corrections apply at most to the sunspot record, and really only to a relatively short century timescale of the sunspot record — over a longer timescale the sunspot records span multiple humans, methods, tools and are difficult to compare to contemporary records on a quantitative basis, are they not?

I’m curious, though, how you extend the conclusion that the 20th century was exceptional in solar activity back over the entire Holocene.  Isn’t most of that conclusion derived from completely independent proxies, in particular radioactive proxies?  Again, there is a lot of literature and having started to read my way through a lot of the older literature (and observing your name repeatedly as a cited reference:-) I’m certain that you are far more familiar with this literature than I, but the review by Ushokin (2008) has some radioactive proxy derived figures that — if they are reliable, which I am not equipped to judge — fairly unambiguously suggest that the 20th century was indeed exceptional over the Holocene.  See e.g. Figure 14 or Figure 17.  Is this junk science?  If so, how do we know — what is wrong with the reconstructions?

In any event, it is not clear what relevance a correction to the smoothed sunspot number in the 20th century has to the radioactive proxy record on a millennial scale.   Of course the 20th century itself is a serious problem in many ways.  As noted in the article, a variety of factors from extensive nuclear testing in the late 50s through early 70s (much of it atmospheric) to the release of C_14 depleted carbon into the atmospheric cycle from the burning of aged-out fossil fuels (Suess effect) which is itself confounded by the further release of aged out CO_2 from oceanic stores by global warming.  The Be record in that sense seems to be somewhat less easily confounded, but even there we don’t necessarily know what is going on.

Looking at Ushokin and your talk, I remain unconvinced that the level of solar activity in the late 20th century was not unusual over a millennial time scale, although you have certainly cast some doubt on the issue.   If nothing else, we live in “interesting times” (possibly in the sense of the Chinese curse).  Whether or not the late 20th century was a millennial-scale peak in solar activity in terms of any or all measures of solar activity (where SSN is just one, and as I think you note, not really the best one to use as a proxy in part because it is subject to a fair bit of quantitative or subjective interpretation and hence variation), solar activity is now far down from whatever kind of peak that it was, and promises to go down further still.  We are thus at a critical point in theories that attempt to connect solar activity to global climate in contrast to CO_2.  If global temperatures hold or decrease in the teeth of inexorably increasing CO_2, it will at the very least be yet another compelling coincidence between secular climate changes and secular changes in solar activity by any or all measures.

We need not be too concerned that such coincidences fail, in and of themselves, to be strongly predictive in either forecast or hindcast, because anybody who thinks that global climate can be explained by simple/logistic one-parameter models is so obviously mistaken that they shouldn’t at this point be taken seriously in the debate.  Climate variation is clearly multivariate in its functional form, with non-Markovian effects from a broad range of time scales.  So it is entirely plausible that climate is driven directly and indirectly by solar state but that the effect is only strong when other modulators are in the right state or phase (e.g. the decadal oscillations, oceanic state, whatever).

Climate is a hard problem.  I was reading the Google Books copy of Solar Variability, Weather and Climate (1982) and was struck by the fact that — 30 years after this review was written — almost nothing has changed.  Well, one thing has changed — the book as far as I can tell mentions “CO_2″ no more than two times in all of its pages as a possibly significant driver of global climate.  But in particular, all of the open questions it cites are still open questions.  There are compelling coincidences between solar state and climate, but few of them stand up over very long time scales and all of them are difficult to explain because the problem is multivariate with many negative feedbacks!

There was a lovely paragraph in one of the articles where it was pointed out that in many winters, a heavy snowfall can blanket a geologically signficant fraction of e.g. North America, greatly increasing its albedo.  Yet, instead of reflecting enough heat to trigger a return to ice age conditions, negative feedbacks almost instantly kick in, the snow melts, and things return to “normal”.  For better or worse, physics addresses the time scale of right now — the sun kicks out a CME and it affects things now (where “now” is on a timescale of hours, days).  Snow falls.  Hurricanes loom.  Magnetic fields shift.  Solar constant varies.  Albedo bounces up and down as clouds form an ice forms or melts.  All of the feedbacks tend to minimize these influences — they change things for a day, a week, but after a month or more the climate system has “forgotten” them due to damping.

Or has it?  Somehow there is long time scale modulation that influences climate, where tiny changes in some driver(s) in the multivariate system shifts the climate trajectory around.   Simple descriptions fail because the changes are nonlinear and coupled; it isn’t “this”, it is “this, and this, and that, and the other thing too”, and not just now but ten years ago, twenty years ago, fifty or five hundred years ago that contribute.

I continue to be baffled by the really long time scale variability in the Earth’s climate.  Is the current ice age (the one that started 3 million years ago) caused by real solar variability, the helium burning cycle that can drop solar output “suddenly” (by geological time standards) and then only slowly build it up again?   What causes the bistability between regression to warm phase behavior from the newly dominant cold phase?  (Not what MODULATES this bistability, what is its CAUSE.)

Many questions, few answers, and even modern physics aided with satellites and advanced instrumentation cannot overcome the curse of short baselines of truly accurate observations, decades to predict centuries and millennia and million year variations.

rgb

Posted in AGW, carbon tax, climate change, ENVIRONMENT, Human Behaviour, World Issues | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments