I often see people claiming how they want politics out of global warming but they always bring up Al Gore. We should keep this debate based on scientific facts & evidence on climate change, not the personal behavior of a politician. Save the bashing for another thread and let's get back on topic please.
Instead of saying "you're wrong" or "that's wrong", provide some evidence that supprts your claims. So far you haven't been able to do that once, Theodore.
Full Version: not buying this global warming
QUOTE(graylady2 @ Apr 12 2007, 07:09 AM) [snapback]1625239[/snapback]
I guess the same gullibility that poo-pooers express when they deny reality.
How do you know Gore's consumption is what you state? Did it come from the press?
How do you know Gore's consumption is what you state? Did it come from the press?
To the truly gullible: For a reality check contact Nashville Electric Service for confirmation on Algore's power consumption. Gore’s mansion, located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).
With NES being a public utility, it is subject to freedom-of-information requests
QUOTE(knott @ Apr 12 2007, 09:21 PM) [snapback]1625855[/snapback]
To the truly gullible: For a reality check contact Nashville Electric Service for confirmation on Algore's power consumption. Gore’s mansion, located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).
With NES being a public utility, it is subject to freedom-of-information requests
OH MY GOSH! That must mean global warming is fake! STOP THE PRESSES!
With NES being a public utility, it is subject to freedom-of-information requests
QUOTE(graylady2 @ Apr 12 2007, 07:05 AM) [snapback]1625234[/snapback]
A weatherman by any other name is still a weatherman...
Well Graylady, a "Weatherman" has to know the climate. I know climate science, and yes, I forecast the weather. I don't get your use of the word at all. Speaking of the weather ~ try seeing what is REALLY happening with the Weather ~
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/dsdt/sst_ani.htm
QUOTE(Theodore @ Apr 13 2007, 05:03 PM) [snapback]1627164[/snapback]
Well Graylady, a "Weatherman" has to know the climate. I know climate science, and yes, I forecast the weather. I don't get your use of the word at all. Speaking of the weather ~ try seeing what is REALLY happening with the Weather ~
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/dsdt/sst_ani.htm
What are you trying to conclude by posting that animation? You need to be more specific in your posts. Good find though, it is interesting and even shows warmer-than-usual temps at the poles.
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/dsdt/sst_ani.htm
QUOTE(Reincarnated @ Apr 12 2007, 03:47 PM) [snapback]1625966[/snapback]
OH MY GOSH! That must mean global warming is fake! STOP THE PRESSES!
It was in response to "How do you know Gore's consumption is what you state?" But leave it to the truly lost (liberal) to come up with that ridiculously sarcastic remark.
Global warming has been happening since the last ice age. It's just not human induced and there is nothing we can do about it.
QUOTE(knott @ Apr 14 2007, 07:55 PM) [snapback]1628974[/snapback]
Leave it to the truly lost to come up with that ridiculously sarcastic remark. Global warming has been happening since the last ice age. It's just not human induced and there is nothing we can do about it.
We were debating climate change with scientific evidence and you started posting about Al Gore's habits. Which has nothing to do with the discussion other than showing him as a hypocrite, which most politicians are.
QUOTE(Reincarnated @ Apr 14 2007, 12:41 PM) [snapback]1628956[/snapback]
What are you trying to conclude by posting that animation? You need to be more specific in your posts. Good find though, it is interesting and even shows warmer-than-usual temps at the poles.
What it shows is global warming ~ rises and falls in sea-surface temperatures ~ all caused by the Sun's activity since the 1980s, the 1990s, and into this century.
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/dsdt/sst_ani.htm
QUOTE(Theodore @ Apr 15 2007, 01:24 PM) [snapback]1629841[/snapback]
What it shows is global warming ~ rises and falls in sea-surface temperatures ~ all caused by the Sun's activity since the 1980s, the 1990s, and into this century.
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/dsdt/sst_ani.htm
Changes in sea-surface temperatures happen constantly, how do you think we have variations in weather patterns? It doesn't take a meteorologist to figured that one out. All you did was post a picture showing this natural process and some how you are trying to use it as proof that only the Sun is responsible for climate change? You need to do better than that!http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/dsdt/sst_ani.htm
Please show us where in the graph does it show only the Sun is responsible for climate change. It doesn't and it can't explain any sources for climate change. Next time you are going to use a graph, make sure it relates to your claims.
QUOTE(Theodore @ Apr 15 2007, 01:24 PM) [snapback]1629841[/snapback]
What it shows is global warming ~ rises and falls in sea-surface temperatures ~ all caused by the Sun's activity since the 1980s, the 1990s, and into this century.
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/dsdt/sst_ani.htm
No one is saying you are wrong about cosmic rays causing climate change but our current warming trend is from a combination of solar variability and the quality of our Ozone. You claim to be an expert on weather but you are hell bent on denying that it is possible for humans to alter our climate. Even after we have increased C02 levels by 35% since the industrial revolution from burning fossil fuels! If you were an expert, you should know how important greenhouse gases are in regulating our weather and a 35% increase in C02 can and will effect our climate.http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/dsdt/sst_ani.htm
In this graph, you will see how cosmic rays effect our temperatures. But what you will also notice is that around the 70's, even with the rays remaining stable, our temperatures kept rising. This right here proves that the Sun is not the only factor in climate change as the self-proclaimed expert, Theodore, would want you to believe.
NASA has provided a great explaination here.
QUOTE(IamsSon @ Apr 9 2007, 04:03 AM) [snapback]1619547[/snapback]
Common Sense adds another nail to the Coffin of the Ridiculous panic-generating idea of Global Warming
SOURCE
Here are some facts about that author and the article:SOURCE
QUOTE
At the bottom of the article, is this brief biographical sketch of the author:
Oh, but wait. That name ... Lindzen ... sure does sound familiar.
Yes! For the most part the industry has relied on a small band of skeptics - Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Dr. Pat Michaels, Dr. Robert Balling, Dr. Sherwood Idso, and Dr. S. Fred Singer, among others - who have proven extraordinarily adept at draining the issue of all sense of crisis.
Lindzen, for his part, charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled "Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus," was underwritten by OPEC.
But wait, it gets worse. The positions advocated by Richard Lindzen, the paid-by-OPEC opinion writer commenting in Newsweek - he's also written op-eds for a number of other publications including the Wall Street Journal - appear to be the diametric opposite of those held by Richard Lindzen, the serious meteorologist, when he's writing peer-reviewed scientific texts.
Specifically, Lindzen co-authored the 2001 National Academy of Science's report on climate change. It concluded that despite some scientific "uncertainties," there is "agreement that the observed warming is real and particularly strong within the past 20 years.
In other words, Richard Lindzen the meteorologist is part of the very scientific consensus on global warming that Richard Lindzen the opinion writer has called into question.
Whether Newsweek's editors were duped by Lindzen's admittedly impressive credentials or not is irrelevant - this info took me about 18 seconds on Google to unearth. There's no excuse for that stuff about how his research is all government-funded in that bio - it simply buries the rather clear appearance of a conflict-of-interest.
Source
Newsweek lied when they said he receives no funding from any energy companies. What a crock of bull!
"Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government. He receives no funding from any energy companies."Sounds like he's on the up-and-up, no? After all, the guy's not one of those scientists who denies global warming and then cashes nice checks from a bunch of big energy firms, right? Maybe those wing-nuts are right when they deny that there's a scientific consensus about human activities contributing to global warming.
Oh, but wait. That name ... Lindzen ... sure does sound familiar.
Yes! For the most part the industry has relied on a small band of skeptics - Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Dr. Pat Michaels, Dr. Robert Balling, Dr. Sherwood Idso, and Dr. S. Fred Singer, among others - who have proven extraordinarily adept at draining the issue of all sense of crisis.
Lindzen, for his part, charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled "Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus," was underwritten by OPEC.
But wait, it gets worse. The positions advocated by Richard Lindzen, the paid-by-OPEC opinion writer commenting in Newsweek - he's also written op-eds for a number of other publications including the Wall Street Journal - appear to be the diametric opposite of those held by Richard Lindzen, the serious meteorologist, when he's writing peer-reviewed scientific texts.
Specifically, Lindzen co-authored the 2001 National Academy of Science's report on climate change. It concluded that despite some scientific "uncertainties," there is "agreement that the observed warming is real and particularly strong within the past 20 years.
In other words, Richard Lindzen the meteorologist is part of the very scientific consensus on global warming that Richard Lindzen the opinion writer has called into question.
Whether Newsweek's editors were duped by Lindzen's admittedly impressive credentials or not is irrelevant - this info took me about 18 seconds on Google to unearth. There's no excuse for that stuff about how his research is all government-funded in that bio - it simply buries the rather clear appearance of a conflict-of-interest.
Source
QUOTE(Reincarnated @ Apr 16 2007, 03:57 AM) [snapback]1630929[/snapback]
Here are some facts about that author and the article:Newsweek lied when they said he receives no funding from any energy companies. What a crock of bull!
Irregardless, you need to do your part and shut off your heater or a/c as required, Get a Bycycle, don't drive a combustion engine vehicle and don't use the lights at home! This is a world wide problem.
For your grandchildrens sake, don't contribute to global warming, if you don't do these things then you are just as guilty as the rest of us for bringing this catastrophe on the rest of the world.
You talk the talk, now walk the walk.
or do you just intend to flap your jaws?
I work 51 km (31 miles) away from my work there is no way I am riding a bicycle to work and back... and what is with the "do not use lights?) must I burn candles instead and give off more CO2? Also in a country where work is scarce there is no chance of me quitting my job and finding one closer to home...
Currently I drive an unleaded petrol car (simply because no viable other energy car is available) and use florescent lights. Unfortunately more than that I cannot do. Simply put if we are the problem to global warming then we are doomed because the radical reform needed will not happen in time to save us.
I am really hoping that it is not caused by us and that it is the normal fluctuations of the universe (to cover all aspects
) and that in time it will become lower again...
Star
Currently I drive an unleaded petrol car (simply because no viable other energy car is available) and use florescent lights. Unfortunately more than that I cannot do. Simply put if we are the problem to global warming then we are doomed because the radical reform needed will not happen in time to save us.
I am really hoping that it is not caused by us and that it is the normal fluctuations of the universe (to cover all aspects
) and that in time it will become lower again...Star
QUOTE(Reincarnated @ Apr 15 2007, 01:23 PM) [snapback]1630354[/snapback]
No one is saying you are wrong about cosmic rays causing climate change but our current warming trend is from a combination of solar variability and the quality of our Ozone. You claim to be an expert on weather but you are hell bent on denying that it is possible for humans to alter our climate. Even after we have increased C02 levels by 35% since the industrial revolution from burning fossil fuels! If you were an expert, you should know how important greenhouse gases are in regulating our weather and a 35% increase in C02 can and will effect our climate.
In this graph, you will see how cosmic rays effect our temperatures. But what you will also notice is that around the 70's, even with the rays remaining stable, our temperatures kept rising. This right here proves that the Sun is not the only factor in climate change as the self-proclaimed expert, Theodore, would want you to believe.
NASA has provided a great explaination here.
In this graph, you will see how cosmic rays effect our temperatures. But what you will also notice is that around the 70's, even with the rays remaining stable, our temperatures kept rising. This right here proves that the Sun is not the only factor in climate change as the self-proclaimed expert, Theodore, would want you to believe.
NASA has provided a great explaination here.
How many ways are you not getting this Reincarnated? The SUN is the reason for global warming. Not human activity.
As for your "cosmic rays" remaining stable, what are you talking about? The temperatures were cooling in the 1970s, not warming. The increased solar forcing of the Earth's climate began in earnest in 1980, and we did not see the global effects of the Sun's doubling of magnetic output until the late 1980s, although some climate scientists who monitor the Sun and the climate on Earth saw the reactions due to the radiation storms over the Earth ~ directly caused by the Sun's increased magnetic field activity.
Greenhouse gases that are man-made do not help, but they are NOT the reason for global warming. You cannot just "factor" in the Sun when you want to because the SUN is the major source of all energy for this planet and affects everything ~ including the Earth's entire atmosphere ~ and is the CAUSE of global warming, global cooling and everything in-between.
As for "self-proclaimed expert" ~ you ought to check that with yourself, because obviously, you have a lot to learn about the Sun, and the Earth's climate.
QUOTE(Theodore @ Apr 16 2007, 12:35 PM) [snapback]1631307[/snapback]
How many ways are you not getting this Reincarnated? The SUN is the reason for global warming. Not human activity.
As for your "cosmic rays" remaining stable, what is that? The temperatures were cooling in the 1970s, not warming. The increased solar forcing of the Earth's climate began in earnest in 1980, and we did not see the effects of global warming until the late 1980s, although some climate scientists who monitor the Sun and the climate on Earth saw the reactions from the radiation storms over the Earth from the Sun's increased magnetic field activity.
Greenhouse gases that are man-made do not help, but they are NOT the reason for global warming. You cannot just "factor" in the Sun when you want to because the SUN is the major source of all energy for this planet and affects everything ~ including the Earth's entire atmosphere ~ and is the CAUSE of global warming, global cooling and everything in-between.
As for "self-proclaimed expert" ~ you ought to check that with yourself, because obviously, you have a lot to learn about the Sun, and the Earth's climate.
Lets see some evidence to support your claims pal!
As for your "cosmic rays" remaining stable, what is that? The temperatures were cooling in the 1970s, not warming. The increased solar forcing of the Earth's climate began in earnest in 1980, and we did not see the effects of global warming until the late 1980s, although some climate scientists who monitor the Sun and the climate on Earth saw the reactions from the radiation storms over the Earth from the Sun's increased magnetic field activity.
Greenhouse gases that are man-made do not help, but they are NOT the reason for global warming. You cannot just "factor" in the Sun when you want to because the SUN is the major source of all energy for this planet and affects everything ~ including the Earth's entire atmosphere ~ and is the CAUSE of global warming, global cooling and everything in-between.
As for "self-proclaimed expert" ~ you ought to check that with yourself, because obviously, you have a lot to learn about the Sun, and the Earth's climate.
QUOTE(Reincarnated @ Apr 12 2007, 04:12 PM) [snapback]1625842[/snapback]
I often see people claiming how they want politics out of global warming but they always bring up Al Gore. We should keep this debate based on scientific facts & evidence on climate change, not the personal behavior of a politician. Save the bashing for another thread and let's get back on topic please.
Instead of saying "you're wrong" or "that's wrong", provide some evidence that supprts your claims. So far you haven't been able to do that once, Theodore.
Instead of saying "you're wrong" or "that's wrong", provide some evidence that supprts your claims. So far you haven't been able to do that once, Theodore.
What's the big deal if Al Gore is mentioned? He's done alot of research. It wasn't "An Inconvenient Truth" that got me thinking about the issue, Arctic elders did that. AIT isn't fiction.
Why is scientific fact more important than the stories from those experiencing their lifestyles being erroded? Science isn't always right...
QUOTE(Theodore @ Apr 12 2007, 03:53 PM) [snapback]1625812[/snapback]
If you notice in the weather across the country, we are seeing more anomalous cooling than warming. This is directly due to the Sun having reached its minima phase and translates directly into Earth's climate. The reasons for "glaciers melting, warmer oceans, and land disappearing from coastlines..." is the SUN. It is not man-made.
It seems to me that the U.S. isn't the only country to consider. How many died in Europe's heat wave a few years back?
QUOTE(knott @ Apr 12 2007, 04:21 PM) [snapback]1625855[/snapback]
< snip>
With NES being a public utility, it is subject to freedom-of-information requests
With NES being a public utility, it is subject to freedom-of-information requests
So, I guess copies of the utility bills are available for scrutiny... Do you have a link?
[quote name='Theodore' date='Apr 13 2007, 12:03 PM' post='1627164']
I don't get your use of the word at all. Speaking of the weather ~ try seeing what is REALLY happening with the Weather ~
I don't think weathermen are all that accurate...which I've mentioned to you in a previous post.
I don't get your use of the word at all. Speaking of the weather ~ try seeing what is REALLY happening with the Weather ~
I don't think weathermen are all that accurate...which I've mentioned to you in a previous post.
I think the issue is not whether the planet is heating up but rather the REASON for the heating. I am on the side that it is a naturally occurring event based on ice core data and solar variation data.
That said, I am also 100% in agreement that we should do everything reasonably possible to reduce the devastation we are inflicting on the planet. Chief amongst these are an alarming increase in population and the accompanting major deforestation that is ongoing. More people = more demand on resources = more pollution. More population = more demand for food = more clearing of forests for both agricultural use and paper/pulp.
Address there and I will be right alongside lending my support
That said, I am also 100% in agreement that we should do everything reasonably possible to reduce the devastation we are inflicting on the planet. Chief amongst these are an alarming increase in population and the accompanting major deforestation that is ongoing. More people = more demand on resources = more pollution. More population = more demand for food = more clearing of forests for both agricultural use and paper/pulp.
Address there and I will be right alongside lending my support
QUOTE(graylady2 @ Apr 16 2007, 07:10 AM) [snapback]1631414[/snapback]
I don't think weathermen are all that accurate...which I've mentioned to you in a previous post.
That depends on the skills and talents of the weather forecaster. Like anything else, any occupation.
QUOTE(Reincarnated @ Apr 16 2007, 05:36 AM) [snapback]1631308[/snapback]
Lets see some evidence to support your claims pal!
'I've already presented plenty of it... pal.
Listen, it just seems that you've prejudged the entire global climate situation without understanding any of the "evidence" yourself. Rather than pine on about how man created global warming, why don't you just look at the evidence to the contrary that points to the SUN.
All the data is there, and there's plenty of it. Your case for man-made global warming just doesn't make the grade ~ no matter how loud you want to say it, or how many times you say it.
QUOTE(Theodore @ Apr 16 2007, 11:21 PM) [snapback]1632269[/snapback]
I've already presented plenty of it... pal.
Not really. You have posted a few links here and there and have told us to look for information ourselves. You also can't even debate properly with me. You just keep repeating the same lines over and over without backing up yourself up. I have already showed you that our temps are rising without the help of cosmic rays and have proved you wrong multiple times. The best responses you can come up with "you are wrong", you can't even provide any legit information to back up anything you say. You are avoiding the facts I presented and you are playing immature games. Your BS tactics aren't going to work here.QUOTE(Theodore @ Apr 16 2007, 11:21 PM) [snapback]1632269[/snapback]
Listen, it just seems that you've prejudged the entire global climate situation without understanding any of the "evidence" yourself. Rather than pine on about how man created global warming, why don't you just look at the evidence to the contrary that points to the SUN.
I never said man created global warming, we are driving it.QUOTE(Reincarnated @ Apr 10 2007, 09:20 PM) [snapback]1622633[/snapback]
I will repeat myself; I believe the burning of fossil fuels by humans has greatly increased and worsened the effects of natural climate change. You are trying to be Mr. Hot Shot over there and assuming I'm a dumbwit who thinks C02 is the reason why climate change exists. I have done my research and plenty of it. I've been doing projects and writing papers on climate change since high school and into college. I have read and heard just about every theory out there. While solar forces may be the orgin of climate change, our C02 emissions are speeding up and worsening it's effects. That is where you are wrong and so far you haven't been able to prove otherwise.
But go ahead and keep ignoring my posts and playing your dumb little games. Show everyone how weak your argument is...QUOTE(Theodore @ Apr 16 2007, 11:21 PM) [snapback]1632269[/snapback]
All the data is there, and there's plenty of it. Your case for man-made global warming just doesn't make the grade ~ no matter how loud you want to say it, or how many times you say it.
You are the one constantly repeating the same two lines buddy. Don't try to blame me for your own immature little games.Please respond to this post:
QUOTE(Reincarnated @ Apr 15 2007, 08:23 PM) [snapback]1630354[/snapback]
No one is saying you are wrong about cosmic rays causing climate change but our current warming trend is from a combination of solar variability and the quality of our Ozone. You claim to be an expert on weather but you are hell bent on denying that it is possible for humans to alter our climate. Even after we have increased C02 levels by 35% since the industrial revolution from burning fossil fuels! If you were an expert, you should know how important greenhouse gases are in regulating our weather and a 35% increase in C02 can and will effect our climate.
In this graph, you will see how cosmic rays effect our temperatures. But what you will also notice is that around the 70's, even with the rays remaining stable, our temperatures kept rising. This right here proves that the Sun is not the only factor in climate change as the self-proclaimed expert, Theodore, would want you to believe.
NASA has provided a great explaination here.
In this graph, you will see how cosmic rays effect our temperatures. But what you will also notice is that around the 70's, even with the rays remaining stable, our temperatures kept rising. This right here proves that the Sun is not the only factor in climate change as the self-proclaimed expert, Theodore, would want you to believe.
NASA has provided a great explaination here.
QUOTE
Recent Warming But No Trend in Galactic Cosmic Rays
There is little evidence for a connection between solar activity (as inferred from trends in galactic cosmic rays) and recent global warming.
Since the paper by Friis-Christensen and Lassen (1991), there has been an enhanced controversy about the role of solar activity for earth's climate. Svensmark (1998) later proposed that changes in the inter-planetary magnetic fields (IMF) resulting from variations on the sun can affect the climate through galactic cosmic rays (GCR) by modulating earth's cloud cover. Svensmark and others have also argued that recent global warming has been a result of solar activity and reduced cloud cover. Damon and Laut have criticized their hypothesis and argue that the work by both Friis-Christensen and Lassen and Svensmark contain serious flaws. For one thing, it is clear that the GCR does not contain any clear and significant long-term trend (e.g. Fig. 1, but also in papers by Svensmark).
Svensmark's failure to comment on the lack of a clear and significant long-term downward GCR trend, and how changes in GCR can explain a global warming without containing such a trend, is one major weakness of his argument that GCR is responsible for recent global warming. This issue is discussed in detail in Benestad (2002). Moreover, the lack of trend in GCR is also consistent with little long-term change in other solar proxies, such as sunspot number and the solar cycle length, since the 1960s, when the most recent warming started.
The fact that there is little recent trend in the GCR and solar activity does not mean that solar activity is unimportant for earth's climate. There are a large number of recent peer-reviewed scientific publications demonstrating how solar activity can affect our climate (Benestad, 2002), such as how changes in the UV radiation following the solar activity affect the stratospheric ozone concentrations (1999) and how earth's temperatures respond to changes in the total solar irradiance (Meehl, 2003). Furthermore, the lack of trend in GCR does not falsify the mechanism proposed by Svensmark, i.e. that GCR act as a trigger for cloud condensation nuclei and are related to the amount of low clouds. As for this latter issue, the jury is still out.
Click to view attachment
FIGURE 1. GCR counts from Climax (red) and the aa-index (blue). The straight lines show the best linear-fit against time estimated through linear regression. The GCR measurements are shown in solid black line, from which a trend of -180 +/- 253 counts/decade is estimated, and this is associated with a p-value (the probability of this being different to the null-hypothesis: zero trend) of 0.477 (not statistically significant at the 5% level). The aa-index is represented by the blue line, and the corresponding trend of 1.5 +/- 0.4/decade is associated with a p-value of 0.0002 (highly statistically significant). A regression analysis points to a clear link between GCR and the aa-index, and the analysis of variance yields R2 = 0.1466 and the p-value= 0. The yellow line shows the global mean temperature from CRU for comparison. [Data source: http://ulysses.uchicago.edu/NeutronMonitor/neutron_mon.html , "http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/" and ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA].
References:
Benestad, R.E. (2002) Solar Activity and Earth's Climate, Praxis-Springer, Berlin and Heidelberg, 287pp, ISBN: 3-540-43302-3
Damon, P.E. and P. Laut (2004), Pattern of Strange Errors Plagues Solar Activity and Terrestrial Climate Data, Eos, vol 85, num 39, p. 370
Friis-Christensen, E. and K. Lassen (1991), Length of the solar cycle: an indicator of solar activity closely associated with climate, Science 254: 698-700
Meehl, G.A., W.M. Washington, T.M.L. wigley, J.M. Arblaster, A. Dai (2003): Solar and Greenhouse Gas Forcing and Climate Response in the Twentieth Century, J. Climate, 6: 426-444
Shindell, D., D. Rind, N. Balachandran, J. Lean and P. Lonergan (1999): Solar Cycle Variability, Ozone and Climate, Science, 284: 305-308
Svensmark, H. (1998), Influence of Cosmic Rays on Earth's Climate, Physical Review Letters, vol 81, num 22, 5027-5030
Source
Anyone can tell someone they a wrong. But how about showing me I'm wrong? Back your words up for once without your immature games.
There is little evidence for a connection between solar activity (as inferred from trends in galactic cosmic rays) and recent global warming.
Since the paper by Friis-Christensen and Lassen (1991), there has been an enhanced controversy about the role of solar activity for earth's climate. Svensmark (1998) later proposed that changes in the inter-planetary magnetic fields (IMF) resulting from variations on the sun can affect the climate through galactic cosmic rays (GCR) by modulating earth's cloud cover. Svensmark and others have also argued that recent global warming has been a result of solar activity and reduced cloud cover. Damon and Laut have criticized their hypothesis and argue that the work by both Friis-Christensen and Lassen and Svensmark contain serious flaws. For one thing, it is clear that the GCR does not contain any clear and significant long-term trend (e.g. Fig. 1, but also in papers by Svensmark).
Svensmark's failure to comment on the lack of a clear and significant long-term downward GCR trend, and how changes in GCR can explain a global warming without containing such a trend, is one major weakness of his argument that GCR is responsible for recent global warming. This issue is discussed in detail in Benestad (2002). Moreover, the lack of trend in GCR is also consistent with little long-term change in other solar proxies, such as sunspot number and the solar cycle length, since the 1960s, when the most recent warming started.
The fact that there is little recent trend in the GCR and solar activity does not mean that solar activity is unimportant for earth's climate. There are a large number of recent peer-reviewed scientific publications demonstrating how solar activity can affect our climate (Benestad, 2002), such as how changes in the UV radiation following the solar activity affect the stratospheric ozone concentrations (1999) and how earth's temperatures respond to changes in the total solar irradiance (Meehl, 2003). Furthermore, the lack of trend in GCR does not falsify the mechanism proposed by Svensmark, i.e. that GCR act as a trigger for cloud condensation nuclei and are related to the amount of low clouds. As for this latter issue, the jury is still out.
Click to view attachment
FIGURE 1. GCR counts from Climax (red) and the aa-index (blue). The straight lines show the best linear-fit against time estimated through linear regression. The GCR measurements are shown in solid black line, from which a trend of -180 +/- 253 counts/decade is estimated, and this is associated with a p-value (the probability of this being different to the null-hypothesis: zero trend) of 0.477 (not statistically significant at the 5% level). The aa-index is represented by the blue line, and the corresponding trend of 1.5 +/- 0.4/decade is associated with a p-value of 0.0002 (highly statistically significant). A regression analysis points to a clear link between GCR and the aa-index, and the analysis of variance yields R2 = 0.1466 and the p-value= 0. The yellow line shows the global mean temperature from CRU for comparison. [Data source: http://ulysses.uchicago.edu/NeutronMonitor/neutron_mon.html , "http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/" and ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA].
References:
Benestad, R.E. (2002) Solar Activity and Earth's Climate, Praxis-Springer, Berlin and Heidelberg, 287pp, ISBN: 3-540-43302-3
Damon, P.E. and P. Laut (2004), Pattern of Strange Errors Plagues Solar Activity and Terrestrial Climate Data, Eos, vol 85, num 39, p. 370
Friis-Christensen, E. and K. Lassen (1991), Length of the solar cycle: an indicator of solar activity closely associated with climate, Science 254: 698-700
Meehl, G.A., W.M. Washington, T.M.L. wigley, J.M. Arblaster, A. Dai (2003): Solar and Greenhouse Gas Forcing and Climate Response in the Twentieth Century, J. Climate, 6: 426-444
Shindell, D., D. Rind, N. Balachandran, J. Lean and P. Lonergan (1999): Solar Cycle Variability, Ozone and Climate, Science, 284: 305-308
Svensmark, H. (1998), Influence of Cosmic Rays on Earth's Climate, Physical Review Letters, vol 81, num 22, 5027-5030
Source
Global warming does exist, but it is not as human-based as people want to believe. It is a natural cycle that repeats ever hundred thousand of years or so. In fact all of the planets go through global warming (Mars' surface temp is rising three times faster than ours, and I do not see any hummers driving around on their soil).
QUOTE(Ahh An Atheist @ Apr 16 2007, 11:50 PM) [snapback]1632343[/snapback]
Global warming does exist, but it is not as human-based as people want to believe. It is a natural cycle that repeats ever hundred thousand of years or so. In fact all of the planets go through global warming (Mars' surface temp is rising three times faster than ours, and I do not see any hummers driving around on their soil).
QUOTE(Reincarnated @ Apr 15 2007, 08:01 PM) [snapback]1630335[/snapback]
QUOTE
Mars Warming Sure to Heat Up Political Debate
Republican climate change skeptics in Congress are bound to delight in the news that Mars is experiencing its own warming trend. Yes, by the bloodlust of Ares, our ruddy celestial neighbor heated up by 1 degree Fahrenheit from the 1970s to the 1990s, NASA scientists reported today. The scientists published their results in Nature this week and attributed the warming to dust storms that expose dark rock that absorbs more heat from the sun.
Because hotter temperatures create more dust storms, Mars will likely continue to warm up, which is dandy for Republicans like Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-California). In a hearing last week, Rohrabacher lamented the "arrogant" and "anti-scientific" dismissal of global warming research funded by oil and gas companies. Rohrabacher then proceeded to dismiss the overwhelming majority of scientists who believe global warming is real and caused by humans. He managed to smuggle in a Mars warming reference to back up his point.
And he's not alone. Here's Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Texas) in a hearing last month: "Apparently, Mars, too, is afflicted with global warming. Are humans responsible for that too?"
Burgess said this in as nice a way as possible, but more often than not, the Mars warming reference is dropped with a sneer. It has become one of the cynical weapons Republican skeptics have deployed recently to stall action in Congress on global warming. Problem is, the skeptics have always claimed that Mars is warming up because of solar activity, which, quite naturally, could be used to explain earth's warming and, quite naturally, could be used as a justification for inaction.
But the NASA researchers determined that Mars' warming has little to do with solar flares or sun spots and everything to do with dust that acts just like greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. Let the spinning begin.
Source
Republican climate change skeptics in Congress are bound to delight in the news that Mars is experiencing its own warming trend. Yes, by the bloodlust of Ares, our ruddy celestial neighbor heated up by 1 degree Fahrenheit from the 1970s to the 1990s, NASA scientists reported today. The scientists published their results in Nature this week and attributed the warming to dust storms that expose dark rock that absorbs more heat from the sun.
Because hotter temperatures create more dust storms, Mars will likely continue to warm up, which is dandy for Republicans like Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-California). In a hearing last week, Rohrabacher lamented the "arrogant" and "anti-scientific" dismissal of global warming research funded by oil and gas companies. Rohrabacher then proceeded to dismiss the overwhelming majority of scientists who believe global warming is real and caused by humans. He managed to smuggle in a Mars warming reference to back up his point.
And he's not alone. Here's Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Texas) in a hearing last month: "Apparently, Mars, too, is afflicted with global warming. Are humans responsible for that too?"
Burgess said this in as nice a way as possible, but more often than not, the Mars warming reference is dropped with a sneer. It has become one of the cynical weapons Republican skeptics have deployed recently to stall action in Congress on global warming. Problem is, the skeptics have always claimed that Mars is warming up because of solar activity, which, quite naturally, could be used to explain earth's warming and, quite naturally, could be used as a justification for inaction.
But the NASA researchers determined that Mars' warming has little to do with solar flares or sun spots and everything to do with dust that acts just like greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. Let the spinning begin.
Source
QUOTE
Dust blamed for warming on Mars
NewScientist.com news service
David L Chandler
Scientists have been puzzling over the cause of dramatic global warming on Mars, which has made parts of the south polar ice cap disappear in recent years. The answer, it seems, is blowing in the wind: the planet's famous reddish dust.
Using global circulation models similar to those used to analyse Earth's changing climate, a team led by Lori Fenton of NASA's Ames Research Center in California, US, found that Mars seems to have warmed by about 0.65° Celsius in the three decades since the Viking mission first provided detailed mapping of the whole planet.
That warming can be explained entirely by the scouring away of light-coloured dust from darker areas of the surface, causing an increase in the absorption of solar radiation.
This effect is greatly amplified by positive feedback: The warmer ground causes stronger winds, which in turn scour away more of the light dust and lead to greater warming.
Team member Paul Geissler, a planetary geologist at the US Geological Survey in Flagstaff, Arizona, says the mechanism can account for the rapid warming that has been seen in the disappearing polar caps, which are turning directly from solid to vapour at a rapid rate (watch an animation showing Mars's south polar cap change from 1999 to 2005).
Global dust storm
The overall distribution of dark and light areas on Mars has clearly changed since Viking (watch an animation of the surface reflectivity changes over the entire planet). The new modelling shows that the heating produced by those changes is "the same order of magnitude" as that required for the rapid removal of the polar ice, Geissler says.
At some point, the model predicts the winds will build up so much they will trigger a global dust storm, redistributing the light dust over most of the surface and starting the process over again.
While the dust redistribution may be unique to Mars, Earth may have analogous feedback processes that can amplify changes in surface reflectivity – in this case, mostly based on changes in sea ice and snow cover.
But although some scientists argue that the global warming on Mars shows there must be some external cause to Earth's warming – such as a change in solar output rather than human-caused increases in greenhouse gases – Geissler says the new research undercuts that argument. "What our work shows is that the warming on Mars that we know has been going on for some time has a local cause [on Mars]," he told New Scientist.
The new work could have a significant impact on understanding past changes in the Martian climate. "This is the first attempt to quantify the impact of these surface changes," Geissler said. From now on, "when we study Mars' climate, we need to keep track of the surface [reflectivity] and its interaction with climate."
Source
It looks like the republicans will have to find a new defense. They are getting desperate but the truth will prevail.NewScientist.com news service
David L Chandler
Scientists have been puzzling over the cause of dramatic global warming on Mars, which has made parts of the south polar ice cap disappear in recent years. The answer, it seems, is blowing in the wind: the planet's famous reddish dust.
Using global circulation models similar to those used to analyse Earth's changing climate, a team led by Lori Fenton of NASA's Ames Research Center in California, US, found that Mars seems to have warmed by about 0.65° Celsius in the three decades since the Viking mission first provided detailed mapping of the whole planet.
That warming can be explained entirely by the scouring away of light-coloured dust from darker areas of the surface, causing an increase in the absorption of solar radiation.
This effect is greatly amplified by positive feedback: The warmer ground causes stronger winds, which in turn scour away more of the light dust and lead to greater warming.
Team member Paul Geissler, a planetary geologist at the US Geological Survey in Flagstaff, Arizona, says the mechanism can account for the rapid warming that has been seen in the disappearing polar caps, which are turning directly from solid to vapour at a rapid rate (watch an animation showing Mars's south polar cap change from 1999 to 2005).
Global dust storm
The overall distribution of dark and light areas on Mars has clearly changed since Viking (watch an animation of the surface reflectivity changes over the entire planet). The new modelling shows that the heating produced by those changes is "the same order of magnitude" as that required for the rapid removal of the polar ice, Geissler says.
At some point, the model predicts the winds will build up so much they will trigger a global dust storm, redistributing the light dust over most of the surface and starting the process over again.
While the dust redistribution may be unique to Mars, Earth may have analogous feedback processes that can amplify changes in surface reflectivity – in this case, mostly based on changes in sea ice and snow cover.
But although some scientists argue that the global warming on Mars shows there must be some external cause to Earth's warming – such as a change in solar output rather than human-caused increases in greenhouse gases – Geissler says the new research undercuts that argument. "What our work shows is that the warming on Mars that we know has been going on for some time has a local cause [on Mars]," he told New Scientist.
The new work could have a significant impact on understanding past changes in the Martian climate. "This is the first attempt to quantify the impact of these surface changes," Geissler said. From now on, "when we study Mars' climate, we need to keep track of the surface [reflectivity] and its interaction with climate."
Source
I don't know where these people are getting "man created climate change" because no one said that. We are accelerating it and worsening it's effects.
QUOTE(Reincarnated @ Apr 16 2007, 04:47 PM) [snapback]1632337[/snapback]
Not really. You have posted a few links here and there and have told us to look for information ourselves. You also can't even debate properly with me. You just keep repeating the same lines over and over without backing up yourself up. I have already showed you that our temps are rising without the help of cosmic rays and have proved you wrong multiple times. The best responses you can come up with "you are wrong", you can't even provide any legit information to back up anything you say. You are avoiding the facts I presented and you are playing immature games. Your BS tactics aren't going to work here.I never said man created global warming, we are driving it.But go ahead and keep ignoring my posts and playing your dumb little games. Show everyone how weak your argument is...You are the one constantly repeating the same two lines buddy. Don't try to blame me for your own immature little games.
Please respond to this post:
Anyone can tell someone they a wrong. But how about showing me I'm wrong? Back your words up for once without your immature games.
Please respond to this post:
Anyone can tell someone they a wrong. But how about showing me I'm wrong? Back your words up for once without your immature games.
Please. Quit with the projection onto others Reincarnated. You only need to go as far as your keyboard to access information, so what are you complaining about?
If anything, that's "immature." Listen, if you cannot make your argument for man-made global warming without resorting to name-calling, then your argument was no good in the first place. The only BS I read are the word games you are playing with "man-made." That's what is "weak." In nearly all of your posts, you blame global warming on man-made carbons, then you resort to now saying we are "driving" it... etc., etc. How can one "ignore" your posts when even you are not straight about what it is that you are saying?
Please.
The only "games" here are the ones you are playing Reincarnated. Let's stick to the climate science, and quit with the whining, the name-calling, and all the rest of the immaturity that you blame others for, but fail to see in your own comments. Get real, and stick to the science, ok?
QUOTE(Theodore @ Apr 17 2007, 04:34 AM) [snapback]1632743[/snapback]
Please. Quit with the projection onto others Reincarnated. You only need to go as far as your keyboard to access information, so what are you complaining about?
If anything, that's "immature." Listen, if you cannot make your argument for man-made global warming without resorting to name-calling, then your argument was no good in the first place. The only BS I read are the word games you are playing with "man-made." That's what is "weak." In nearly all of your posts, you blame global warming on man-made carbons, then you resort to now saying we are "driving" it... etc., etc. How can one "ignore" your posts when even you are not straight about what it is that you are saying?
Please.
The only "games" here are the ones you are playing Reincarnated. Let's stick to the climate science, and quit with the whining, the name-calling, and all the rest of the immaturity that you blame others for, but fail to see in your own comments. Get real, and stick to the science, ok?
Practice what you preach, Theodore! Stick to the science and stop avoiding debate. If anything, that's "immature." Listen, if you cannot make your argument for man-made global warming without resorting to name-calling, then your argument was no good in the first place. The only BS I read are the word games you are playing with "man-made." That's what is "weak." In nearly all of your posts, you blame global warming on man-made carbons, then you resort to now saying we are "driving" it... etc., etc. How can one "ignore" your posts when even you are not straight about what it is that you are saying?
Please.
The only "games" here are the ones you are playing Reincarnated. Let's stick to the climate science, and quit with the whining, the name-calling, and all the rest of the immaturity that you blame others for, but fail to see in your own comments. Get real, and stick to the science, ok?
Like I said before, it's easy to tell someone they are wrong. Back up your words with facts please. I want to see you try to prove NASA and all of these astrophysicists wrong. 
QUOTE(Theodore @ Apr 16 2007, 09:34 PM) [snapback]1632743[/snapback]
Please. Quit with the projection onto others Reincarnated. You only need to go as far as your keyboard to access information, so what are you complaining about?
If anything, that's "immature." Listen, if you cannot make your argument for man-made global warming without resorting to name-calling, then your argument was no good in the first place. The only BS I read are the word games you are playing with "man-made." That's what is "weak." In nearly all of your posts, you blame global warming on man-made carbons, then you resort to now saying we are "driving" it... etc., etc. How can one "ignore" your posts when even you are not straight about what it is that you are saying?
Please.
The only "games" here are the ones you are playing Reincarnated. Let's stick to the climate science, and quit with the whining, the name-calling, and all the rest of the immaturity that you blame others for, but fail to see in your own comments. Get real, and stick to the science, ok?
If anything, that's "immature." Listen, if you cannot make your argument for man-made global warming without resorting to name-calling, then your argument was no good in the first place. The only BS I read are the word games you are playing with "man-made." That's what is "weak." In nearly all of your posts, you blame global warming on man-made carbons, then you resort to now saying we are "driving" it... etc., etc. How can one "ignore" your posts when even you are not straight about what it is that you are saying?
Please.
The only "games" here are the ones you are playing Reincarnated. Let's stick to the climate science, and quit with the whining, the name-calling, and all the rest of the immaturity that you blame others for, but fail to see in your own comments. Get real, and stick to the science, ok?
I don't think you understand his claims. The graph he showed you sums it up nicely, though.
It shows trends of rays from the sun and how when they rise, temperature rises. But, at a certain point, the temperature keeps rising even after the rays stop. This shows that some of the warming is not caused by the sun, but rather CO2 levels after the industrial revolution.
I believe he is asking you for some explanation of this rise in temperature. Not just you simply saying "It's the SUN", but some sources that clearly show your point of view. Please don't just respond with "I already have" or something, just post them again so we don't have to search for them and so they are easier to respond to.
QUOTE(Goblin-5 @ Apr 16 2007, 09:39 AM) [snapback]1631448[/snapback]
[color=#0000FF]I think the issue is not whether the planet is heating up but rather the REASON for the heating. I am on the side that it is a naturally occurring event based on ice core data and solar variation data.
Well, if humanity cannot impact *global* warming - then how is it that the oil wells set afire in Kuwait altered weather patterns on a global basis? When volcanoes erupt their spewage change weather patterns too. So, if that toxic spewage can change patterns why can't humanity's spewage do the same?
QUOTE(Theodore @ Apr 16 2007, 06:17 PM) [snapback]1632259[/snapback]
That depends on the skills and talents of the weather forecaster. Like anything else, any occupation.
Even you've said you're wrong 15% of the time... That's not true accuracy, is it? I've watched more weather forecasters being wrong, than right. Unless, as stated, you live in a sun belt where the sun shines 300 days out of the year...
QUOTE(Reincarnated @ Apr 16 2007, 06:55 PM) [snapback]1632352[/snapback]
I don't know where these people are getting "man created climate change" because no one said that. We are accelerating it and worsening it's effects.
Exactly. This has been said before - yet it doesn't seem to stick.
QUOTE(Ahh An Atheist @ Apr 16 2007, 06:50 PM) [snapback]1632343[/snapback]
Global warming does exist, but it is not as human-based as people want to believe. It is a natural cycle that repeats ever hundred thousand of years or so. In fact all of the planets go through global warming (Mars' surface temp is rising three times faster than ours, and I do not see any hummers driving around on their soil).
OMG! we're impacting our own galaxy! How do you know Mars doesn't have subterraneon hummers? <j/k>
QUOTE(graylady2 @ Apr 18 2007, 01:48 PM) [snapback]1635054[/snapback]
Exactly. This has been said before - yet it doesn't seem to stick.
I guess it's just a defense mechanism for people who can't admit they are wrong. Just change someone's own statements to make yourself sound right. It seems to work well for Theodore.
What bugs me is that "industry" is always blamed....since the world's population has DOUBLED in the past 30 years, maybe that alone might play a role? Humans breath in O2 and exhale.....carbon dioxide!
Have a new years party (for those of you in cold locations)....10 people in your living room....now add 10 more...hmm...warmer in here isn't it?
Personally....I don't beleive the "data" we collect means a hill of beans in geological terms...weathermen can't predict TOMORROW's weather more than 50 % of the time, let alone 30 years down the road.
Have a new years party (for those of you in cold locations)....10 people in your living room....now add 10 more...hmm...warmer in here isn't it?
Personally....I don't beleive the "data" we collect means a hill of beans in geological terms...weathermen can't predict TOMORROW's weather more than 50 % of the time, let alone 30 years down the road.
QUOTE(The Mule @ Apr 18 2007, 05:55 PM) [snapback]1635427[/snapback]
What bugs me is that "industry" is always blamed....since the world's population has DOUBLED in the past 30 years, maybe that alone might play a role? Humans breath in O2 and exhale.....carbon dioxide!
Have a new years party (for those of you in cold locations)....10 people in your living room....now add 10 more...hmm...warmer in here isn't it?
Personally....I don't beleive the "data" we collect means a hill of beans in geological terms...weathermen can't predict TOMORROW's weather more than 50 % of the time, let alone 30 years down the road.
Have a new years party (for those of you in cold locations)....10 people in your living room....now add 10 more...hmm...warmer in here isn't it?
Personally....I don't beleive the "data" we collect means a hill of beans in geological terms...weathermen can't predict TOMORROW's weather more than 50 % of the time, let alone 30 years down the road.
You forget the simple fact that there is this source that we're consuming at a phenominal rate that takes the Carbon Dioxide and changes it back to O2. Trees and alges. We're currently putting out more CO2 and taking away more trees and destroying more forests and alge growths that it's becomming harder for the remaining "lungs" of the earth to cope with.
no I wasn't forgetting that SC....but thanks for pointing it out...it's kind of a chicken or the egg thing....having less trees wouldn't be a problem if there weren't so many people... 
QUOTE(Reincarnated @ Apr 18 2007, 10:37 AM) [snapback]1635402[/snapback]
I guess it's just a defense mechanism for people who can't admit they are wrong. Just change someone's own statements to make yourself sound right. It seems to work well for Theodore.
Sorry Reincarnated, but you've come nowhere even close to proving me "wrong." I really wish you would stop projecting what you've been doing onto others, and just stick to the climate science without the hype. That doesn't help ~ hype ~ and your argument is full of holes, and mis-statements concerning what is the cause of Earth's climate change. It is not about "right" and "wrong" as you state things morally.
It is about FACTS, and the astrophysical and geophysical facts clearly show that the Sun is the source of global warming. Always has been and always will be as long as the Sun is there.
QUOTE(Toxic Flood @ Apr 17 2007, 10:07 PM) [snapback]1634604[/snapback]
I don't think you understand his claims. The graph he showed you sums it up nicely, though.
It shows trends of rays from the sun and how when they rise, temperature rises. But, at a certain point, the temperature keeps rising even after the rays stop. This shows that some of the warming is not caused by the sun, but rather CO2 levels after the industrial revolution.
I believe he is asking you for some explanation of this rise in temperature. Not just you simply saying "It's the SUN", but some sources that clearly show your point of view. Please don't just respond with "I already have" or something, just post them again so we don't have to search for them and so they are easier to respond to.
It shows trends of rays from the sun and how when they rise, temperature rises. But, at a certain point, the temperature keeps rising even after the rays stop. This shows that some of the warming is not caused by the sun, but rather CO2 levels after the industrial revolution.
I believe he is asking you for some explanation of this rise in temperature. Not just you simply saying "It's the SUN", but some sources that clearly show your point of view. Please don't just respond with "I already have" or something, just post them again so we don't have to search for them and so they are easier to respond to.
The thread is long enough for the links and data posted to been easily accessed. I don't prescribe to the view that one has to constantly repost the same thing, when it has been done more than several times. What stops you from doing that from the comfort of your own keyboard? Please. Scroll up on the pages. It won't hurt. I promise.
QUOTE(graylady2 @ Apr 18 2007, 06:45 AM) [snapback]1635049[/snapback]
Even you've said you're wrong 15% of the time... That's not true accuracy, is it? I've watched more weather forecasters being wrong, than right. Unless, as stated, you live in a sun belt where the sun shines 300 days out of the year...
Hey, 85% ain't exactly sour apples graylady! Most of the time, I get even better results, but I've got a life to live and am not the NWS, but one guy, so, give me a break, ok? My batting average is just fine, and I worked very hard to get and maintain a healthy one at that. You've got a lot to learn about the weather in general before passing judgement on how to forecast, or what true "accuracy" really means. Give the moralistic applications a rest, why don't you? Learn what it is that you are talking about first. Thanks.
BTW - I don't live in a "sun belt."
QUOTE(Theodore @ Apr 19 2007, 12:39 PM) [snapback]1636761[/snapback]
It is about FACTS, and the astrophysical and geophysical facts clearly show that the Sun is the source of global warming. Always has been and always will be as long as the Sun is there.
Notice how Theodore still hasn't posted one shred of evidence to back himself up or to prove me wrong. Deny, deny, deny! He is afraid to answer my posts below and is still avoiding them, haha. Here you go again, Theodore.QUOTE(Reincarnated @ Apr 15 2007, 08:23 PM) [snapback]1630354[/snapback]
No one is saying you are wrong about cosmic rays causing climate change but our current warming trend is from a combination of solar variability and the quality of our Ozone. You claim to be an expert on weather but you are hell bent on denying that it is possible for humans to alter our climate. Even after we have increased C02 levels by 35% since the industrial revolution from burning fossil fuels! If you were an expert, you should know how important greenhouse gases are in regulating our weather and a 35% increase in C02 can and will effect our climate.
In this graph, you will see how cosmic rays effect our temperatures. But what you will also notice is that around the 70's, even with the rays remaining stable, our temperatures kept rising. This right here proves that the Sun is not the only factor in climate change as the self-proclaimed expert, Theodore, would want you to believe.
NASA has provided a great explaination here.
In this graph, you will see how cosmic rays effect our temperatures. But what you will also notice is that around the 70's, even with the rays remaining stable, our temperatures kept rising. This right here proves that the Sun is not the only factor in climate change as the self-proclaimed expert, Theodore, would want you to believe.
NASA has provided a great explaination here.
QUOTE
Recent Warming But No Trend in Galactic Cosmic Rays
There is little evidence for a connection between solar activity (as inferred from trends in galactic cosmic rays) and recent global warming.
Since the paper by Friis-Christensen and Lassen (1991), there has been an enhanced controversy about the role of solar activity for earth's climate. Svensmark (1998) later proposed that changes in the inter-planetary magnetic fields (IMF) resulting from variations on the sun can affect the climate through galactic cosmic rays (GCR) by modulating earth's cloud cover. Svensmark and others have also argued that recent global warming has been a result of solar activity and reduced cloud cover. Damon and Laut have criticized their hypothesis and argue that the work by both Friis-Christensen and Lassen and Svensmark contain serious flaws. For one thing, it is clear that the GCR does not contain any clear and significant long-term trend (e.g. Fig. 1, but also in papers by Svensmark).
Svensmark's failure to comment on the lack of a clear and significant long-term downward GCR trend, and how changes in GCR can explain a global warming without containing such a trend, is one major weakness of his argument that GCR is responsible for recent global warming. This issue is discussed in detail in Benestad (2002). Moreover, the lack of trend in GCR is also consistent with little long-term change in other solar proxies, such as sunspot number and the solar cycle length, since the 1960s, when the most recent warming started.
The fact that there is little recent trend in the GCR and solar activity does not mean that solar activity is unimportant for earth's climate. There are a large number of recent peer-reviewed scientific publications demonstrating how solar activity can affect our climate (Benestad, 2002), such as how changes in the UV radiation following the solar activity affect the stratospheric ozone concentrations (1999) and how earth's temperatures respond to changes in the total solar irradiance (Meehl, 2003). Furthermore, the lack of trend in GCR does not falsify the mechanism proposed by Svensmark, i.e. that GCR act as a trigger for cloud condensation nuclei and are related to the amount of low clouds. As for this latter issue, the jury is still out.
Click to view attachment
FIGURE 1. GCR counts from Climax (red) and the aa-index (blue). The straight lines show the best linear-fit against time estimated through linear regression. The GCR measurements are shown in solid black line, from which a trend of -180 +/- 253 counts/decade is estimated, and this is associated with a p-value (the probability of this being different to the null-hypothesis: zero trend) of 0.477 (not statistically significant at the 5% level). The aa-index is represented by the blue line, and the corresponding trend of 1.5 +/- 0.4/decade is associated with a p-value of 0.0002 (highly statistically significant). A regression analysis points to a clear link between GCR and the aa-index, and the analysis of variance yields R2 = 0.1466 and the p-value= 0. The yellow line shows the global mean temperature from CRU for comparison. [Data source: http://ulysses.uchicago.edu/NeutronMonitor/neutron_mon.html , "http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/" and ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA].
References:
Benestad, R.E. (2002) Solar Activity and Earth's Climate, Praxis-Springer, Berlin and Heidelberg, 287pp, ISBN: 3-540-43302-3
Damon, P.E. and P. Laut (2004), Pattern of Strange Errors Plagues Solar Activity and Terrestrial Climate Data, Eos, vol 85, num 39, p. 370
Friis-Christensen, E. and K. Lassen (1991), Length of the solar cycle: an indicator of solar activity closely associated with climate, Science 254: 698-700
Meehl, G.A., W.M. Washington, T.M.L. wigley, J.M. Arblaster, A. Dai (2003): Solar and Greenhouse Gas Forcing and Climate Response in the Twentieth Century, J. Climate, 6: 426-444
Shindell, D., D. Rind, N. Balachandran, J. Lean and P. Lonergan (1999): Solar Cycle Variability, Ozone and Climate, Science, 284: 305-308
Svensmark, H. (1998), Influence of Cosmic Rays on Earth's Climate, Physical Review Letters, vol 81, num 22, 5027-5030
Source
I'll stop posting this once I get a legit answer backed up with scientific evidence from Theodore.
There is little evidence for a connection between solar activity (as inferred from trends in galactic cosmic rays) and recent global warming.
Since the paper by Friis-Christensen and Lassen (1991), there has been an enhanced controversy about the role of solar activity for earth's climate. Svensmark (1998) later proposed that changes in the inter-planetary magnetic fields (IMF) resulting from variations on the sun can affect the climate through galactic cosmic rays (GCR) by modulating earth's cloud cover. Svensmark and others have also argued that recent global warming has been a result of solar activity and reduced cloud cover. Damon and Laut have criticized their hypothesis and argue that the work by both Friis-Christensen and Lassen and Svensmark contain serious flaws. For one thing, it is clear that the GCR does not contain any clear and significant long-term trend (e.g. Fig. 1, but also in papers by Svensmark).
Svensmark's failure to comment on the lack of a clear and significant long-term downward GCR trend, and how changes in GCR can explain a global warming without containing such a trend, is one major weakness of his argument that GCR is responsible for recent global warming. This issue is discussed in detail in Benestad (2002). Moreover, the lack of trend in GCR is also consistent with little long-term change in other solar proxies, such as sunspot number and the solar cycle length, since the 1960s, when the most recent warming started.
The fact that there is little recent trend in the GCR and solar activity does not mean that solar activity is unimportant for earth's climate. There are a large number of recent peer-reviewed scientific publications demonstrating how solar activity can affect our climate (Benestad, 2002), such as how changes in the UV radiation following the solar activity affect the stratospheric ozone concentrations (1999) and how earth's temperatures respond to changes in the total solar irradiance (Meehl, 2003). Furthermore, the lack of trend in GCR does not falsify the mechanism proposed by Svensmark, i.e. that GCR act as a trigger for cloud condensation nuclei and are related to the amount of low clouds. As for this latter issue, the jury is still out.
Click to view attachment
FIGURE 1. GCR counts from Climax (red) and the aa-index (blue). The straight lines show the best linear-fit against time estimated through linear regression. The GCR measurements are shown in solid black line, from which a trend of -180 +/- 253 counts/decade is estimated, and this is associated with a p-value (the probability of this being different to the null-hypothesis: zero trend) of 0.477 (not statistically significant at the 5% level). The aa-index is represented by the blue line, and the corresponding trend of 1.5 +/- 0.4/decade is associated with a p-value of 0.0002 (highly statistically significant). A regression analysis points to a clear link between GCR and the aa-index, and the analysis of variance yields R2 = 0.1466 and the p-value= 0. The yellow line shows the global mean temperature from CRU for comparison. [Data source: http://ulysses.uchicago.edu/NeutronMonitor/neutron_mon.html , "http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/" and ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA].
References:
Benestad, R.E. (2002) Solar Activity and Earth's Climate, Praxis-Springer, Berlin and Heidelberg, 287pp, ISBN: 3-540-43302-3
Damon, P.E. and P. Laut (2004), Pattern of Strange Errors Plagues Solar Activity and Terrestrial Climate Data, Eos, vol 85, num 39, p. 370
Friis-Christensen, E. and K. Lassen (1991), Length of the solar cycle: an indicator of solar activity closely associated with climate, Science 254: 698-700
Meehl, G.A., W.M. Washington, T.M.L. wigley, J.M. Arblaster, A. Dai (2003): Solar and Greenhouse Gas Forcing and Climate Response in the Twentieth Century, J. Climate, 6: 426-444
Shindell, D., D. Rind, N. Balachandran, J. Lean and P. Lonergan (1999): Solar Cycle Variability, Ozone and Climate, Science, 284: 305-308
Svensmark, H. (1998), Influence of Cosmic Rays on Earth's Climate, Physical Review Letters, vol 81, num 22, 5027-5030
Source
QUOTE(Theodore @ Apr 19 2007, 05:42 AM) [snapback]1636765[/snapback]
The thread is long enough for the links and data posted to been easily accessed. I don't prescribe to the view that one has to constantly repost the same thing, when it has been done more than several times. What stops you from doing that from the comfort of your own keyboard? Please. Scroll up on the pages. It won't hurt. I promise.
Wow.
QUOTE(Caesar @ Feb 19 2007, 01:49 AM) [snapback]1549091[/snapback]
I kinda agree, I do think its natural and not man made
And what la la land are you both living in.Do some more research!
A few years ago, I read two very good papers on effect of cosmic rays on cloud cover. They draw opposite conclusions. Naturally...
Audio- George Taylor & Lars Larson on Human 'caused' Warming
R-Click and Save 8 Mb-
http://www.larslarson.com/LinksNStuff/Lars...d=8098&fd=0
Audio- George Taylor & Lars Larson on Human 'caused' Warming
R-Click and Save 8 Mb-
http://www.larslarson.com/LinksNStuff/Lars...d=8098&fd=0
QUOTE(Reincarnated @ Apr 19 2007, 08:33 AM) [snapback]1636979[/snapback]
Notice how Theodore still hasn't posted one shred of evidence to back himself up or to prove me wrong. Deny, deny, deny! He is afraid to answer my posts below and is still avoiding them, haha. Here you go again, Theodore.
I'll stop posting this once I get a legit answer backed up with scientific evidence from Theodore.
Deny, deny, deny! He is afraid to answer my posts below and is still avoiding them, haha. Here you go again, Theodore.I'll stop posting this once I get a legit answer backed up with scientific evidence from Theodore.
Wrong once again Reincarnated. You can go back on the pages of this thread and find that I've posted lots of data, and links as evidence of solar forced climate change ~ and global warming forced by the Sun ~ on this thread. Not "one shred?" I don't think so pal. Good try, but that dog doesn't hunt.
The evidence I've posted you've ignored because you are allowing your own words to strike you deaf. That's your choice buddy, not mine. But don't confuse the plugging of your ears and the covering over of your eyes with no one posting "evidence." Just how on earth can you see any of that when you're not looking, not listening, not learning?
Listen, I've spent nearly 20 years on climate science, especially space weather science, and longer on astrometeorology. The fact is Reincarnated, that you are among some people out there who don't know much about space weather, nor astronomical climate and weather forecasting. If you did, you wouldn't be making the claims you do and these silly comments (deny, deny, deny!") and all the yick yack. Hey, that's just your cover for you not taking things seriously, and being up on the science while making comments like "here you go again Theodore... and yada yada yada.) What does any of that have to do with global warming?
Your own so-called "evidence" of global warming is confusing. We all know that for the past 27 years the Earth's climate has been warm. This has already been linked directly to the Sun's doubling of its magnetic activity since 1980. It is not man-made, and, despite your claims to the contrary, you have been pushing this argument Reincarnated in your posts despite you trying to back off of this now splitting hairs like you seem to enjoy doing so much.
Increased carbon output by humans is not the cause of global warming. It is not political, nor based on opinion, or hype. It is a astrophysical and geophysical fact that the SUN is the cause of major climate change ~ which is what GLOBAL WARMING is in the first place. Hence, the word "global" ~ meaning the ENTIRE planet.
You, and others have been blaming that on mankind.
You are clearly in error. That means wrong.
Man is NOT the reason for global warming.
Never Was.
Never Will be.
The Sun is the reason for Global Warming, and has been since 1980, and before that, throughout all of Earth's history. The Earth has warmed like this many times prior to the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries ~ long before ANY modern or post-modern industrial production or man-made carbon output into the atmosphere.
All geophysical effects have astrophysical causes. This can work in reverse as well under the right mathematical alignments. Why don't you come up to par on the field of astrophysical climate science and do some homework about what causes climate and weather in the first place?
The sky is open to all. I suggest you take the time to study it much more seriously than you've shown, and see just where the weather comes from in the first place. All the answers are there. Look up, into space, and you will find the causes of the Earth's climate ~ including global warming. Say you want a "legit answer?" You just heard it Reincarnated. That's my answer. If you don't like it, that's your choice, but that's my answer. Deal with it.
QUOTE(Theodore @ Apr 20 2007, 09:16 AM) [snapback]1638754[/snapback]
Long repetitive rant.
Your evidence was lame. All it proved was that the sun affects the Earth's climate, it doesn't change the face that CO2 does as well, and CO2 levels have been rising quickly since the industrial revolution.
You seem to be the one ignoring evidence.
QUOTE(Toxic Flood @ Apr 20 2007, 09:47 PM) [snapback]1639627[/snapback]
Your evidence was lame. All it proved was that the sun affects the Earth's climate, it doesn't change the face that CO2 does as well, and CO2 levels have been rising quickly since the industrial revolution.
You seem to be the one ignoring evidence.
You seem to be the one ignoring evidence.
I don't think so. I don't buy into the man-made global warming hype. That isn't evidence. Never was. The Sun does more than just "affect" the Earth's climate. The Sun DRIVES the Earth's climate. Man-made Co2 has nothing to do with global warming. Carbon is natural to the Earth, and the oceans, and mountains release more carbon in to the atmosphere than all of mankind ever has, and ever will. The only thing "lame" is that some of you out there putting out this hype don't have a clue as to how your own planet's climate system works in the first place.
QUOTE
Global warming, today and in the future is the result of neither simple arrogance nor neglect. It's source is world population growth and modern mans use of abundant energy resources. The demand for this new energy will be met in the largest part through the use burning of fossil fuels, the major source of CO2 emissions.
Additional large amounts of CO2 are released in the process of ordinary land use as CO2 bound in soils becomes freed upon disturbance. There is now a dramatic accumulation of CO2 globally as illustrated by the graphic below.
Global Atmospheric CO2 Levels Over 1000 Years
Global Atmospheric CO2 concentration and CO2 emissions over the last 250 years.
There can be little debate over the data that shows global CO2 levels increasing dramatically since the start of the industrial age. Samples of ancient air are available by taking core samples from the deep ice caps of Greenland and Antarctica. Within these ancient ice cores are air bubbles that provide the opportunity for accurate historical atmospheric analysis. Adding this historical atmospheric chemical record to modern air records clearly reveals 1000 years of data.
Source
I guess this is just another coincidence, right Theodore? Or maybe the Sun is responsible for Earths population growth too! Additional large amounts of CO2 are released in the process of ordinary land use as CO2 bound in soils becomes freed upon disturbance. There is now a dramatic accumulation of CO2 globally as illustrated by the graphic below.
Global Atmospheric CO2 Levels Over 1000 Years
Global Atmospheric CO2 concentration and CO2 emissions over the last 250 years.
There can be little debate over the data that shows global CO2 levels increasing dramatically since the start of the industrial age. Samples of ancient air are available by taking core samples from the deep ice caps of Greenland and Antarctica. Within these ancient ice cores are air bubbles that provide the opportunity for accurate historical atmospheric analysis. Adding this historical atmospheric chemical record to modern air records clearly reveals 1000 years of data.
Source
QUOTE(Reincarnated @ Apr 22 2007, 11:50 AM) [snapback]1641376[/snapback]
I guess this is just another coincidence, right Theodore? Or maybe the Sun is responsible for Earths population growth too!
No coincidence. Compare the sunspot activity of the decades 1970, 1980, 1990. Observe the pattern of peak energy bursts. Next one due in 2012. Listen to your heart feelings about this subject that is way too much Hollywood and policticians Hype. I am suspicious of "world leaders" wanting to lead the sheep into giving up basic human rights, while the Elite get to have it their way! It does not feel right.
QUOTE(Reincarnated @ Apr 22 2007, 12:50 PM) [snapback]1641376[/snapback]
I guess this is just another coincidence, right Theodore? Or maybe the Sun is responsible for Earths population growth too!
I'd give up on the non believers. I guess they don't care about the future generations!!!!
QUOTE(hoots @ Apr 22 2007, 10:05 AM) [snapback]1641396[/snapback]
No coincidence. Compare the sunspot activity of the decades 1970, 1980, 1990. Observe the pattern of peak energy bursts. Next one due in 2012. Listen to your heart feelings about this subject that is way too much Hollywood and policticians Hype. I am suspicious of "world leaders" wanting to lead the sheep into giving up basic human rights, while the Elite get to have it their way! It does not feel right.
Did you even look at his post? Did the Hollywood hype create CO2?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.