haha oh man look at this crap...does anybody believe this junk? i'll bet Rush and Hannity came up with this

Quote :

"Without the impact of solar radiation, the temperature on the earth would be about the same as the temperature of space, which is about -454 F"

btw

According the scientists, the Earth was in a period of global cooling 30 years ago...they clearly know everything and should be treated as the deities they are...they are also immune to any type of political or monetary pressure

7/11/2007 4:37:36 PM

The scientists do.

7/11/2007 4:42:18 PM

yes, and while we are at it, science = GW, its not like you can be scientifically minded and sceptical of some particular subfield with a politically charged controversial bent, nope science is a indivisible entity which you must either accept or be completely illogical. Thanks for clearing that up.

7/11/2007 4:51:50 PM

Quote :

"Thanks for clearing that up."

Your welcome.

(My welcome?)

7/11/2007 5:03:18 PM

I'm still confused, and I'm not about to go through this whole thread, but who's saying that the sun has NO effect on climate??????

7/11/2007 5:10:29 PM

well Boone asked me this

Quote :

"So please, Twista, explain how this study did not disprove the link between solar activity and climate change"

he apparently thinks that this study disproved the link between solar activity and climate change

aka he thinks there is no link between solar activity and climate change

7/11/2007 5:11:46 PM

Quote :

"but who's saying that the sun has NO effect on climate??????"

Science.

7/11/2007 5:13:23 PM

I think boone is obviously saying that the link is not there between the sun and the drastic climate change we're seeing. I haven't seen anywhere when he seems to have meant that there's no correlation. He has worded it badly in a few places, though, to make it easy to say he's saying that. He quite obviously isn't, though.

In other words, this

Quote :

"sun = can affect climate sun = not responsible for current climate change"

Should be this

Quote :

"sun = can affect climate sun = not responsible for most of current climate change"

to be pedantic, though, it should actually say

Quote :

"sun can affect climate sun is not responsible for most of current climate change"

That deal with the equals signs was getting on my nerves

[Edited on July 11, 2007 at 5:16 PM. Reason : kj]

7/11/2007 5:15:05 PM

Quote :

"drastic climate change we're seeing"

i'm not seeing any drastic changes

ps: according to that study

Quote :

"sun is not responsible for most of ANY OF current climate change"

which is why anyone with half a brain about science would be skeptical

7/11/2007 5:16:08 PM

There's obviously no point in arguing with you that there's a drastic change in climate going on.

However, that article does not say the sun is not responsible for any of the climate change. It says green house gasses are 13x more responsible. Quite clearly, actually.



[Edited on July 11, 2007 at 5:21 PM. Reason : .]

7/11/2007 5:18:12 PM

Quote :

"which is why anyone with half a brain about science would be skeptical"

Luckily for all of us, science is bullshit.

7/11/2007 5:19:04 PM

Quote :

"There's obviously no point in arguing with you that there's a drastic change in climate going on."

^^ a degree and a half in 100 years is drastic?

why dont you go back and actually read through the thread (its not long) so we'll be on the same page

if you read the thread you'd learn that:

- nobody is denying a rise in temperature
- the 13:1 ratio is from an earlier report and is simply quoted
- the article DOES say the sun is NOT Responsible for the last 20 years worth of increases

7/11/2007 5:21:27 PM

Damnit viper, my scientist are the real scientist, not the scientist in your camp.

7/11/2007 5:21:53 PM

I read the thread after I said I wasn't going to

Quote :

"modern temperatures are not determined by the Sun's effect on cosmic rays, as has been claimed"

Not that modern temperatures aren't determined by the sun.

Quote :

"changes in the Sun's output cannot be causing modern-day climate change"

Not that the sun doesn't affect the climate. It's very clearly worded.

[Edited on July 11, 2007 at 5:24 PM. Reason : .]

7/11/2007 5:23:07 PM

the jist of the article is saying the sun could not be responsible for the last 20 years of warming since solar radiation levels have decreased while temperatures have increased...that is the only thing in the study...they're essentially saying the sun is not a factor in global warming which seems intuitively false

Quote :

"changes in the Sun's output cannot be causing modern-day climate change"

i already brought up the questions of potential lag time which everyone dismissed, even though thats what anthro GW proponents like to use when their CO2/temp graphs dont completely correlate

7/11/2007 5:25:42 PM

Quote :

"the article DOES say the sun is NOT Responsible for the last 20 years worth of increases"

That's the point. It undermines the common argument of skeptics that it's all the Sun's fault.

7/11/2007 5:26:48 PM

i dont think anybody says its all the suns fault

however this article implies its all human emitted CO2's fault

ignoring such things as

"For millions of years, the earth has been subjected to successive waves of active warming and cooling. These cycles were not of human origin, and often reached temperatures much greater than those of the current period"

yet people get blasted if they are skeptical when a BBC story comes out titled "No sun link to climate change" sounds pretty misleading to me

7/11/2007 5:28:46 PM

It may SEEM intuitively false, but it isn't. You're just thinking about it incorrectly. The sun's output has varied as the temperature has risen. Therefore, it isn't (statistically speaking) a factor.

Also

Quote :

"a degree and a half in 100 years is drastic?"

Since ice ages involve the temperatures being 3-5 degrees cooler than currently, I'd imagine 1.5 degrees higher is a pretty big deal, yes

Anyway, this bbc article is badly written, as most science articles in newspapers are.

Here's the actual study

http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf

Quote :

"There is considerable evidence for solar influence on the Earth’s pre-industrial climate and the Sun may well have been a factor in post-industrial climate change in the first half of the last century. Here we show that over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the Earth’s climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures."

[Edited on July 11, 2007 at 5:31 PM. Reason : l]

7/11/2007 5:29:15 PM

i'll look at the actual study before i comment further

however another thing to note is that CO2 concentrations in the Earth's atmosphere have been relatively stable since about 1988...yet the temperature has increased...but we're supposed to believe its due to CO2

7/11/2007 5:32:41 PM

Quote :

"i dont think anybody says its all the suns fault"

Blaming the Sun is a common tactic for skeptics. Just watch Martin Durkin's film.

7/11/2007 5:35:10 PM

i dont watch films to get my views about the world

and again, "blaming the sun" != "its ALL the sun's fault"

thats almost as dumb as saying "its all CO2's fault"

but there are plenty of dumbasses saying that

7/11/2007 5:35:36 PM

Quote :

"CO2 concentrations in the Earth's atmosphere have been relatively stable since about 1988"

That is patently false.


http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/


http://zfacts.com/p/226.html

[Edited on July 11, 2007 at 5:37 PM. Reason : l]

7/11/2007 5:36:25 PM

pardon me

the INCREASE of CO2 and other greenhouse gas concentrations stopped in about 1988...yet we still continued to burn more fossil fuels

ie around 1988 we continued to emit CO2 but overall fossil fuel concentrations "leveled out"

[Edited on July 11, 2007 at 5:41 PM. Reason : .]

7/11/2007 5:39:03 PM

I don't think that's the case, but even if it was, how would keeping our co2 output acceleration at the same rate cause the temperatures to level out?

UPDATE: Nope, that's not true either

Quote :

"CO2 emissions from fossil-fuel burning and industrial processes have been accelerating at a global scale, with their growth rate increasing from 1.1% y-1 for 1990-1999 to >3% y-1 for 2000-2004. The emissions growth rate since 2000 was greater than for the most fossil-fuel intensive of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change emissions scenarios developed in the late 1990s."

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/short/0700609104v1

Even if it was, we're still increasing the amount of co2.

If your car's acceleration evens out, your speed still increases.


[Edited on July 11, 2007 at 5:46 PM. Reason : j]

7/11/2007 5:42:43 PM

no, we kept burning fossil fuels (and we still are) but the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases (co2, methane, water vapor, etc) "leveled out"

i dont know if its some type of balance/equilibrium but again i'm not claiming to know everything about a complex system...im just willing to be skeptical when an article is titled "No sun link' to climate change"...sounds to me like they're trying to keep convincing people that their CO2 emissions are the problem, not the sun, which has been heating and cooling our earth since it has existed

^i said we're still emitting, and emitting more...but the atmospherc concentrations havent increased...not the amount we're emitting, but the amount in the atmosphere

[Edited on July 11, 2007 at 5:46 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on July 11, 2007 at 5:47 PM. Reason : .]

7/11/2007 5:45:56 PM

whatever the bbc article was titled, it didn't say no sun link. Also, the study is titled

"Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature"

Which is exactly what the study explains.

Quote :

"the atmospherc concentrations havent increased"

I will redirect you to this graph which shows you're incorrect about that as well




[Edited on July 11, 2007 at 5:49 PM. Reason : j]

7/11/2007 5:47:22 PM

Quote :

"whatever the bbc article was titled, it didn't say no sun link"

when you re-read the thread, you must've missed the very first post...cause it is titled "No sun link' to climate change"

^and yes i understand how localized co2 concentration would increase at a volcano...thats fairly irrelevant here

7/11/2007 5:48:18 PM

fine, this one's not from a volcano



however

Quote :

"The Mauna Loa atmospheric CO2 measurements constitute the longest continuous record of atmospheric CO2 concentrations available in the world. The Mauna Loa site is considered one of the most favorable locations for measuring undisturbed air because possible local influences of vegetation or human activities on atmospheric CO2 concentrations are minimal and any influences from volcanic vents may be excluded from the records. The methods and equipment used to obtain these measurements have remained essentially unchanged during the 47-year monitoring program. Because of the favorable site location, continuous monitoring, and careful selection and scrutiny of the data, the Mauna Loa record is considered to be a precise record and a reliable indicator of the regional trend in the concentrations of atmospheric CO2 in the middle layers of the troposphere. The Mauna Loa record shows a 19.4% increase in the mean annual concentration, from 315.98 parts per million by volume (ppmv) of dry air in 1959 to 377.38 ppmv in 2004. The 1997-1998 increase in the annual growth rate of 2.87 ppmv represets the largest single yearly jump since the Mauna Loa record began in 1958. This represents an average annual increase of 1.4 ppmv per year. This is smaller than the average annual increase at the other stations because of the longer record and inclusion of earlier (smaller) annual increases. "

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-mlo.htm

[Edited on July 11, 2007 at 5:51 PM. Reason : l]

7/11/2007 5:50:10 PM

Quote :

"possible local influences of vegetation or human activities on atmospheric CO2 concentrations are minimal and any influences from volcanic vents may be excluded from the records"

how can they exclude volcanic co2? just wondering

also the first graph in your last post really looks convincing to the average person...at a glance it almost appears that CO2 levels are at an all time high...course the x-origin only goes back to the year 900 so you dont see all the other CO2 peaks in the past

i think something like this is much more appropriate



it certainly shows a correlation of CO2 and temperatures (with a lag too...funny, how come the BBC story didnt consider sun lag?) and it also doesnt mislead your average reader into believing that CO2 levels have never even approached current levels

7/11/2007 5:52:52 PM

I don't see anywhere where the levels have approached 380 ppm in the graph. Our current concentration level hasn't been matched since millions of years ago.

7/11/2007 6:17:27 PM

i'm not claiming that our co2 emissions dont play a role in the recent warming but based on that graph we've clearly had a number of warming and cooling periods on the planet with no human influence

7/11/2007 6:23:38 PM

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/news_press_release,176495.shtml

9/12/2007 12:25:34 PM

Quote :

"A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares"

dont let boonedocks hear this...to him, more than 500 scientists = "some crazy canadian guy"

Unfortunately people will still have their blinders on because of politics...its pathetic

9/12/2007 12:32:03 PM

i have not read every paper published and haven't analysed every chart, but i do think humans are causing global warming.

that said, i posted the link to make sure the info was out there. Faux Noos wishes they could be as fair and balanced as me

9/12/2007 3:52:07 PM

well plenty of people on TWW have been for YEARS saying that humans are definitely the cause or a huge accelerant to a natural cycle and their reasoning seems to be the scientific consensus, and more troubling that there aren't any credible scientists that don't buy into it...clearly there are hundreds of scientists who don't buy into it, yet that story will get looked over by aforementioned individuals

9/12/2007 4:46:43 PM

Quote :

"it certainly shows a correlation of CO2 and temperatures (with a lag too...funny, how come the BBC story didnt consider sun lag?) and it also doesnt mislead your average reader into believing that CO2 levels have never even approached current levels "

If you look on the bottom of that graph it says present=1950, and current co2 levels (and probably temps) are higher now by a decent amount (off the top of my head, i think somewhere in the neighborhood of at least 10-15% higher) than on the graph, which would put them at or above record levels.

Also, how are you determining a lag or lead there? The peaks are almost identical in time. You'd need the raw data to find a lag/lead.

Interestingly, a show on the discovery channel recently used the exact same graph to bolster concerns about global warming, show that there is a strong correlation between temperature and co2, and therefore we need to cut our co2 output.

Quote :

"i'm not claiming that our co2 emissions dont play a role in the recent warming but based on that graph we've clearly had a number of warming and cooling periods on the planet with no human influence "

If you believe that, then you should be concerned about global warming, because as has already been noted, humanity's emissions are a significant chunk of co2 being released in to the atmosphere now.

[Edited on September 12, 2007 at 6:55 PM. Reason : ]

9/12/2007 6:53:42 PM

Quote :

"A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares"

Hahah

1) The bias here is so blatant that I had to double-check to be sure this wasn't the Onion's doing.

2) Of course there are articles challenging "at least one element" of our current understanding of climate change. That's the whole point of science. If there weren't, then Tree's skepticism of climate science might actually be valid. I bet there's hundreds of articles each year challenging "at least one element" of zoology. Or any other discipline.

3) The fact that this was posted as news indicates that the author (Hoover Institute-- go figure) is either ignorant or intellectually corrupt.

9/13/2007 7:56:09 AM

boone still thinks that there are no credible skeptics...surprise surprise

Quote :

"The bias here is so blatant "

That should be your new user status name

9/13/2007 4:23:03 PM