http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6290228.stm

Quote :

"No sun link' to climate change By Richard Black BBC Environment Correspondent Scientists have been measuring the frequency of solar flares A new scientific study concludes that changes in the Sun's output cannot be causing modern-day climate change. It shows that for the last 20 years, the Sun's output has declined, yet temperatures on Earth have risen. It also shows that modern temperatures are not determined by the Sun's effect on cosmic rays, as has been claimed. Writing in the Royal Society's journal Proceedings A, the researchers say cosmic rays may have affected climate in the past, but not the present. "This should settle the debate," said Mike Lockwood from the UK's Rutherford-Appleton Laboratory, who carried out the new analysis together with Claus Froehlich from the World Radiation Center in Switzerland. Dr Lockwood initiated the study partially in response to the TV documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, broadcast on Britain's Channel Four earlier this year, which featured the cosmic ray hypothesis. "All the graphs they showed stopped in about 1980, and I knew why, because things diverged after that," he told the BBC News website. "You can't just ignore bits of data that you don't like," he said. Warming trend The scientists' main approach on this new analysis was simple; to look at solar output and cosmic ray intensity over the last 30-40 years, and compare those trends with the graph for global average surface temperature, which has risen by about 0.4C over the period. The Sun varies on a cycle of about 11 years between periods of high and low activity. But that cycle comes on top of longer-term trends; and most of the 20th Century saw a slight but steady increase in solar output. But in about 1985, that trend appears to have reversed, with solar output declining. Yet this period has seen temperatures rise as fast as, if not faster than, at any time during the previous 100 years. "This paper re-enforces the fact that the warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity," said Dr Piers Forster from Leeds University, a leading contributor to this year's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment of climate science. Cosmic relief The IPCC's February summary report concluded that greenhouse gases were about 13 times more responsible than solar changes for rising global temperatures. But the organisation was criticised in some quarters for not taking into account the cosmic ray hypothesis, developed among others by Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen of the Danish National Space Center. Their theory holds that cosmic rays help clouds to form by providing tiny particles around which water vapour can condense. Overall, clouds cool the Earth. During periods of active solar activity, cosmic rays are partially blocked by the Sun's more intense magnetic field. Cloud formation diminishes, and the Earth warms. Mike Lockwood's analysis appears to have put a large, probably fatal nail in this intriguing and elegant hypothesis. He said: "I do think there is a cosmic ray effect on cloud cover. It works in clean maritime air where there isn't much else for water vapour to condense around. "It might even have had a significant effect on pre-industrial climate. But you cannot apply it to what we're seeing now, because we're in a completely different ball game." Drs Svensmark and Friis-Christensen could not be reached for comment."

7/11/2007 12:22:51 AM

I think just looking at Mars is a good example on how its solar activity and not human...not saying that we should make significant changes to the way our society operates, but I don't believe we caused this

7/11/2007 12:35:28 AM

did you completely not read what I posted?

7/11/2007 12:36:49 AM

Yes, and I disagree with it.

7/11/2007 12:40:40 AM

so you are amazingly more versed in the subject of the sun tha world renowned astronomers who have spent their entire lives studying the sun?

7/11/2007 12:42:26 AM

There are other scientists, just as well versed, who believe that Sol has contributed to global warming. I agree with them

7/11/2007 12:44:17 AM

yet, if you look at those scientists, you'll find that Dr. Lockwood is one of them and is the lead researcher on this. I guess we should made you the head of one of the world largest and best funded observatories on the earth then.

7/11/2007 12:46:39 AM

One of them, not the only one. The job would be nice though, does it come with a stock options

7/11/2007 12:48:37 AM

Quote :

""All the graphs they showed stopped in about 1980, and I knew why, because things diverged after that," he told the BBC News website."

7/11/2007 12:51:18 AM

There's been a significant amount of warming on Pluto, Triton, and Jupiter which hasn't just stopped since 1980. And the quote is in reference to a tv program which, judging by the name of it, doesn't seem like it would be fairly well done.

Unfortunately for the argument that global warming is caused by solar factors, many of those who support the claim are biased as hell. I think we need to control emissions better, use more fuel efficient vehicles, watch CO2 levels, etc. I support basically all the programs that someone who thinks Global Warming is man made does. I just believe that global warming is caused by sources other than man.

[Edited on July 11, 2007 at 1:00 AM. Reason : a]

7/11/2007 12:54:20 AM

Quote :

"I think just looking at Mars is a good example on how its solar activity and not human"

I don't understand that. Why would do so many people think other natural forces are not affecting Mars' climate change when satellite data shows that solar irradiance has not significantly changed in the past 30 years?

7/11/2007 1:13:38 AM

Quote :

"There's been a significant amount of warming on Pluto, Triton, and Jupiter which hasn't just stopped since 1980. And the quote is in reference to a tv program which, judging by the name of it, doesn't seem like it would be fairly well done. "

Haha, are you kidding? The reasons those planets are warming are due to either seasonal or internal forces, not because increased solar output that is warming Earth is also warming them in the same way.

Where did you get the idea that warming on certain other solar bodies (but not all) is related to warming on Earth?

7/11/2007 1:48:15 AM

Where do you get the idea that its not?

7/11/2007 7:38:44 AM

bbehe =

7/11/2007 8:20:56 AM

that looks more like an orc

7/11/2007 8:25:40 AM

n00b

7/11/2007 8:29:25 AM

Are you idiots going to have this debate for a 5th thread now?

7/11/2007 8:53:34 AM

Quote :

"And the quote is in reference to a tv program which, judging by the name of it, doesn't seem like it would be fairly well done."

Are you joking? I like your arguments, but you need to leave the ones like these in your brain, and not on the page.

7/11/2007 8:56:43 AM

Sunspots do cause SRAM latchup which is a bitch for IT departments worldwide.

7/11/2007 9:22:08 AM

Boone are you going to blast nutsmackr since his source is "some dumb Canadian scientist"? That seems to be your normal course of action

7/11/2007 10:21:34 AM

^^^ I was actually unfamiliar with that documentary but with familiar with a lot of the evidence presented in it. The name of it just sounded like some sensationalist piece of crap sponsored by an oil exec....I stand corrected.

[Edited on July 11, 2007 at 10:31 AM. Reason : a]

7/11/2007 10:31:04 AM

^^No, because this was researched by a team of scientists and published it in a peer reviewed scientific journal.


As apposed to analyzed by some dude and published on some dude's blog.

[Edited on July 11, 2007 at 10:52 AM. Reason : .]

7/11/2007 10:52:03 AM

how come none of those scientists are even listed in sourcewatch? they're probably not even real people

let alone how bad they contradict themselves

Quote :

""This paper re-enforces the fact that the warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity," said Dr Piers Forster from Leeds University, a leading contributor to this year's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment of climate science."

ok so they're asserting that warming in the last 20 to 40 years CAN'T have been caused by solar activity...yet

Quote :

"The IPCC's February summary report concluded that greenhouse gases were about 13 times more responsible than solar changes for rising global temperatures."

here they say that solar activity does influence global climate, just not as much as greenhouse gases...furthermore, any objective scientist who says

Quote :

"This should settle the debate"

is NOT an objective scientist

also apparently when pro anthro GW theory scientists are trying to fill in gaps of data as far as CO2 relating (or not relating) to temperatures, they like to suggest lags when their graph data doesn't exactly match up...how come they don't mention the possibilty of solar lags in graphs since the ONLY thing they studied was solar activity vs. time

i thought "You can't just ignore bits of data that you don't like"

7/11/2007 10:54:27 AM

I'm reinstating the use of Treetard after that one. You're just playing semantics.

didn't cause =/= didn't maybe contribute 1/13th worth.


You're just covering your ass for when someone gets bored enough to dig up all your "OMG MARS" crap.



[Edited on July 11, 2007 at 11:16 AM. Reason : .]

7/11/2007 11:13:44 AM

I chopped that BBC story to bits and all you can do is say "I'm reinstating the use of Treetard"

I mean I certainly wouldn't expect you to comment on the content of what I said...at least not until one of your cronies has a chance to reply so you can find out the talking points you're supposed to use...I mean why would you personally address the objectivity issues or the lag issues?

at least future generations won't be as dumb as you...oh actually, you're teaching them...nevermind

7/11/2007 11:22:17 AM

We'll know by around 2015 if Sol has anything to do with the Earth's warming, according to many scientists who support the Solar radiation theory, the Sun will go into a period of cooling which will peak in about 2050.

Until then, we (society) should collect more evidence, but go ahead and take steps to control emission of greenhouse gases, more fuel efficient vehicles etc. I'm all for that, but its the sensationalism on both ends that both scares/annoys the fuck out of me. I mean I don't want people jumping on the ethanol bandwagon just because they watched An Inconvenient Truth, because ethanol is a horrible idea which will hurt us in more ways then it could possibly help. On the opposite end of the spectrum, I don't want people saying "fuck global warming, its not real" and continuing to buy 10 mpg SUVs

7/11/2007 11:30:19 AM

Quote :

"but go ahead and take steps to control emission of greenhouse gases, more fuel efficient vehicles etc. I'm all for that, but its the sensationalism on both ends that both scares/annoys the fuck out of me. I mean I don't want people jumping on the ethanol bandwagon just because they watched An Inconvenient Truth, because ethanol is a horrible idea which will hurt us in more ways then it could possibly help. On the opposite end of the spectrum, I don't want people saying "fuck global warming, its not real" and continuing to buy 10 mpg SUVs"

agreed

7/11/2007 11:32:37 AM

One, it definitely seems to be a little bit of confusion in the language used. But when I read this

Quote :

""This paper re-enforces the fact that the warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity," said Dr Piers Forster from Leeds University, a leading contributor to this year's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment of climate science.""

and this

Quote :

""The IPCC's February summary report concluded that greenhouse gases were about 13 times more responsible than solar changes for rising global temperatures.""

I don't count that as a contradiction. Not at all. Perhaps the first part might should have said "all the global warming", or something else. But you have to realize, the latter quote was made in February, before this newer study was done. The earlier report says greenhouse gases were 13 times more responsible than solar. So even in February, we can see that solar wasn't playing as big a role, at least by that study. Then, a new study comes out and says again, solar is not playing a role. If anything, they have slightly confused us by saying "solar is playing a tiny role", then saying "solar isn't playing any role", but given new information, I can't find any real fault in that, and certainly not a contradiction.

7/11/2007 11:34:58 AM

I'd also like for nutsmackr to explain why he chose this thread title considering nobody in their right mind ("pro" or "anti" global warming) would ever insinuate that sunspots cause global warming...considering sunspots are cooler than the rest of the sun

7/11/2007 11:36:32 AM

Its also very much possible that Stellar radiation from a star is causing Global Warming, but its source is not from our star.

7/11/2007 11:44:28 AM

well I for one am glad that solar output doesnt have any effect on global warming...that means this wont heat up the earth at all according to Dr. Lockwood

Quote :

"The Sun is abut 4.5 billion years old now. It is about 300 degrees hotter and abput 6% greater in radius than when it was first born. It will continue to increase,in temperature, luminosity and radius at about the same rate for about another 5 billion years. At that point the luminosity will be twice its present value and and will be 40% larger in radius. At this point there will be no more hydrogen in the core, forcing energy tot ake place in whatis called a hydrigen burning shell. The core wil starts to contract as the outer layes expand. Over the next 1.5 billion years the surface should enlarge to about 3.3 times its present size while the surface cools to 4,300 degrees Kelvin. Next the Sun will rapidly swell and become a red giant star. Within the next 250 million years it will expand to 100 times its present size and 500 times more luminous. When the core temparture reaches 100,000,000 degrees Kelvin, all the rest of the helium will fuse into carbon in one big bang, causing one third of the solar envelope to be thrown out into space. After this the Sun will become brighter and the outer layers will be blown out into space in the form of a a dense solar wind known as a planetary nebula. At that point all that will be left is a white dwarf."

7/11/2007 11:49:53 AM

Quote :

"Where do you get the idea that its not? "

If you actually read any reports on the issue, you'll notice that the warming on the other bodies is due to either seasonal changes, or geological factors. The sun is only a factor in that it relates to the seasons. You may not realize this, but other planets/moons don't share the same orbit as Earth.

7/11/2007 11:53:33 AM

link?

7/11/2007 11:56:18 AM

Quote :

"I chopped that BBC story to bits"

You cherry-picked two quotes and unsuccessfully attempted to make them contradict each other.

^ummm, how about the one at the top of this thread?

[Edited on July 11, 2007 at 11:57 AM. Reason : .]

7/11/2007 11:56:41 AM

^^^How much research has gone into determining exactly what seasonal or geological processes have affected temperatures on the moons of Jupiter and other planets? We don't even have reliable temperature data on Earth from more than 100 years ago (and many would argue that much of the early-mid 1900s temperature data is unreliable)...yet we now also understand all the planetary workings of a bunch of other celestial bodies?

^how come you continue to ignore my points about lag on the graphs not being mentioned and my very valid points about the lack of objectivity of any scientist saying "This should settle the debate"? Oh yeah because your cronies haven't indoctrinated you with the proper responses and talkin points yet

The better question is how do people get the idea that THE SUN doesn't play a role in TEMPERATURE? I mean seriously did you forget that when you learned it in Kindergarten?

7/11/2007 11:58:05 AM

^^^ Pick one: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=safari&rls=en&q=climate+change+other+planets&btnG=Search

^ Not as much that has been going in to Earth, but it's pretty easy to look at the orbits of the planets, or the rates of temperature changes and see they are obviously not related to the Earth's warming, or can't be warming for the same reasons.

7/11/2007 12:05:13 PM

A Martian year is about 700 days, if I remember correctly. Viking I and II stayed on Mars and reported back data (including temperature data) for more than one Martian year. (Viking I was about 3 Martian years and Viking II was 1 Martian Year). Now we take that data, and compare it to data we have collected from recent programs, which again, have been on site and collecting data for more than one Martian year. Low and behold, the temperature is significantly warmer.

7/11/2007 12:05:45 PM

Quote :

"how come you continue to ignore my points about lag on the graphs not being mentioned "

A) How can there be lag when there's no apparent correlation? Look at the two graphs? Where's the lag in any of the peaks and troughs? Nowhere.

B) Maybe you should email Dr. Lockwood. I'm sure his team of scientists and the journal's reviewers didn't think of this.

Quote :

"The better question is how do people get the idea that THE SUN doesn't play a role in TEMPERATURE? I mean seriously did you forget that when you learned it in Kindergarten?"

This is just dumb/dishonest (I've stopped trying to differentiate between the two with twista). Of course it plays a role. Apparently it's not causing this recent change in temperature, however.

7/11/2007 12:08:52 PM

After thinking about it more, I think Stellar Radiation from extrasolar sources is a plausible reason

7/11/2007 12:13:05 PM

^^^ It's more complex than that. You are neglecting the wobble in Mars' orbit, which apparently is a 55,000 year cycle:

http://www.uapress.arizona.edu/onlinebks/mars/chap13.htm

Quote :

" For a time it seemed that a major dust storm must develop every time Mars came to perihelion, but we now know that things are not so simple---indeed, there has not been a planet-encircling storm since 1982, although there have been regional obscurations. It is significant that in 1969, the residual carbon dioxide cap around the south pole seems to have disappeared completely, and large amounts of water vapor were detected during the southern hemisphere summer.12 These unusually warm conditions preceded the development of the great storms of 1971 and 1973. During the 1980s and 1990s, by contrast, Mars has apparently been much colder; the Hubble Space Telescope showed thin cirrus clouds over extensive areas of the planet in 1995, but virtually no dust. It may well be that the great storms of 1956 and 1971 were highly anomalous events, and that the usual Martian conditions are more like those seen in recent years.13 Mars's asymmetric polar caps and cycle of southern hemisphere spring and summer dust storms reflect the current position of its axis and the eccentricity of its orbit. At present, Mars's axial tilt, or obliquity---25.2° from the perpendicular---is very nearly the same as the Earth's (23.5°). The current agreement, however, is a sheer coincidence. Both Earth and Mars bulge slightly at the equator because of the centrifugal force of their rotation. The gravitational pull of the Sun on these equatorial bulges causes the axial tilts of both Earth and Mars to vary over time. Earth's axial tilt is largely stabilized by the presence of the Moon, and so ranges through only four degrees. Mars, which lacks a large and massive satellite, wobbles in a much more extreme fashion---at the current epoch, its axial tilt ranges between extremes of 15° and 35° over a period of 120,000 years, with the present value lying close to the mean.14 The spin axis also wobbles, or precesses, just like a top slowing down, with a period of 173,000 years (compared with 25,800 years for the Earth). This is the effect that on Earth gives rise to the well-known precession of the equinoxes. The planetary orbits themselves rotate slowly in space, resulting in a gradual shift in the position of the perihelion. As a combined effect of the precession of the spin axis and the advance of the perihelion, alternate poles of Mars tilt toward the Sun at perihelion every 25,500 years---that is, on a 51,000-year cycle. The orbits also change shape over time, and again the more extreme changes belong to Mars---its orbital eccentricity (now at 0.093) ranges between 0.00 and 0.13 over a period of 2 million years, while that of the Earth (now 0.017) never exceeds 0.05.15 Periodic oscillations in the obliquity of Earth's axis and the eccentricity and precession of its orbit give rise to the so-called Milankovitch cycles, named for the Serbian astronomer M. Milankovitch, who in 1938 proposed that such cycles may partly explain the Ice Ages. We know, for example, that during the past 3 million years, much of the Northern Hemisphere has been covered with ice, with the last glacial maximum occurring 18,000 years ago---indeed, we may not have fully emerged from it. There have been similar episodes throughout much of the Earth's history. Though other factors may also play a role---for instance, the drift of a continental mass over a pole seems to be a necessary precondition of extensive glaciation, and large impacts too may be important because they can raise large quantities of dust and thus reduce the incident solar radiation---it is generally agreed that the effects of the Milankovitch cycles on Earth's climate are far from negligible. On Mars, which lacks the moderating effect of oceans and suffers much more extreme variations in its axial tilt and orbital eccentricity, they may be even more decisive. On Mars, the most important cycle of climate change is the 51,000-year cycle caused by the combined effect of the precession of its axis and the advance of its perihelion. Although at present the southern hemisphere is tilted toward the Sun at perihelion, in 25,500 years it will be the northern hemisphere instead. The northern hemisphere will then have the short, hot summers, and since the occurrence of the major dust storms is clearly related to Mars's arrival at perihelion, dust storm activity will presumably shift mainly to the northern hemisphere's spring and summer. The large amounts of fine dust currently deposited in the northern hemisphere in regions such as Tharsis, Arabia, and Elysium will be redistributed to the southern hemisphere, and dust accumulation at the south polar cap will exceed that at the north. The asymmetry of the caps will be completely reversed, and the large seasonal carbon dioxide frost cap will form over the north pole instead of the south pole. "

^ That's extremely unlikely too. The Suns' output varies only .001 percent which is not enough to account for all the changes in temperature that we are experiencing. Extra solar sources would be drastically lower.

http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.html

Quote :

"The radiation output of the Sun does fluctuate over the course of its 11-year solar cycle. But the change is only about one-tenth of 1 percent-not substantial enough to affect Earth's climate in dramatic ways, and certainly not enough to be the sole culprit of our planet's current warming trend, scientists say."

7/11/2007 12:21:54 PM

Quote :

"This is just dumb/dishonest (I've stopped trying to differentiate between the two with twista). Of course it plays a role"

of course it plays a role? then do you know whats really dumb/dishonest? Saying this:

Quote :

"No sun link' to climate change"

sounds to me like the title says there is no link...and you juts admitted (of course) there is a link

Quote :

"it's pretty easy to look at the orbits of the planets, or the rates of temperature changes and see they are obviously not related to the Earth's warming"

no, no its not

7/11/2007 12:23:38 PM

Quote :

"^ That's extremely unlikely too. The Suns' output varies only .001 percent which is not enough to account for all the changes in temperature that we are experiencing. Extra solar sources would be drastically lower."

Supernova's emit neutrinos, Neutrinos in a high amount suck donkey balls. It is possible. btw, one the leading theories on why the Dinosaurs are no more....supernova.

7/11/2007 12:25:41 PM

The last ice age ended because of global warming.

7/11/2007 12:25:41 PM

^do you mean the ice age we are currently coming out of, or the last one not including the current one

7/11/2007 12:28:01 PM

^^^ Leading theories? Are you sure about that?

It sounds like an interesting theory, because supernovas are cool, but I don't know about leading theory.

And you DO realize that neutrinos are practically mass-less. It's extremely difficult for them to interact with other types of matter (trillions of them are constantly flying THROUGH the ENTIRE Earth). It's not possible for them to cause climate change, at least not with anything we currently know about neutrinos.

^^^^ Yes it is

[Edited on July 11, 2007 at 12:30 PM. Reason : ]

7/11/2007 12:30:07 PM

explain it then, if its so easy...explain how easy it is to look at temperature and orbit graphs/patterns of other planets and simply determine that "they are obviously not related to the Earth's warming"

7/11/2007 12:31:52 PM

Quote :

"sounds to me like the title says there is no link"

...to climate change

Quote :

"and you juts admitted (of course) there is a link "

...to overall temperature


I was responding directly to (I even quote-boxed it for you):

Quote :

"The better question is how do people get the idea that THE SUN doesn't play a role in TEMPERATURE?"

You realize there's a difference between climate and climate change, right?


Are you really this bad at reading comprehension? I mean, now would be a fantastic time to admit to everyone that you're not completely retarded.

7/11/2007 12:38:03 PM

lol at you claiming that I am playing semantics and then you come with that bullshit right there...I GUESS TEMPERATURE IS NOT A PART OF CLIMATE

Quote :

"You realize there's a difference between climate and climate change, right?"

YOU REALIZE THAT THE TEMPERATURE IS A PART OF THE CLIMATE, RIGHT

THEREFORE, IF SOMETHING AFFECTS TEMPERATURE, IT ALSO AFFECTS CLIMATE

rather than admit the obvious...that that story is onesided and misleading...you choose to ignore that because they are the BBC! hooray!

7/11/2007 12:40:38 PM

I tried to reduce this as much as possible for you.

sun = can affect climate

sun = not responsible for current climate change


^ You're still not getting it. Surprise.

[Edited on July 11, 2007 at 12:45 PM. Reason : .]

7/11/2007 12:44:26 PM

Quote :

" explain it then, if its so easy...explain how easy it is to look at temperature and orbit graphs/patterns of other planets and simply determine that "they are obviously not related to the Earth's warming"

There are lots of things you can look at, but the easiest one in the context of this thread is that the Sun's output has been decreasing, so the changes in the temperature of the other bodies necessarily would have to be due to something else.

In the case of Mars, it's tilt is changing its albedo, and it's also in a downward edge of its milankovich cycle.

7/11/2007 12:45:15 PM