Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Study acquits sun of climate change, blames humans
Reuters ^ | Wed Sep 13, 2006 2:52pm ET135 | Alister Doyle, Environment Correspondent

Posted on 09/13/2006 2:01:24 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach

OSLO (Reuters) - The sun's energy output has barely varied over the past 1,000 years, raising chances that global warming has human rather than celestial causes, a study showed on Wednesday.

Researchers from Germany, Switzerland and the United States found that the sun's brightness varied by only 0.07 percent over 11-year sunspot cycles, far too little to account for the rise in temperatures since the Industrial Revolution.

"Our results imply that over the past century climate change due to human influences must far outweigh the effects of changes in the sun's brightness," said Tom Wigley of the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research.

Most experts say emissions of greenhouse gases, mainly from burning fossil fuels in power plants, factories and cars, are the main cause of a 0.6 Celsius (1.1 F) rise in temperatures over the past century.

A dwindling group of scientists says that the dominant cause of warming is a natural variation in the climate system, or a gradual rise in the sun's energy output.

"The solar contribution to warming over the past 30 years is negligible," the researchers wrote in the journal Nature of evidence about the sun from satellite observations since 1978.

They also found little sign of solar warming or cooling when they checked telescope observations of sunspots against temperature records going back to the 17th century.

They then checked more ancient evidence of rare isotopes and temperatures trapped in sea sediments and Greenland and Antarctic ice and also found no dramatic shifts in solar energy output for at least the past millennium.

SUN NOT GUILTY

"This basically rules out the sun as the cause of global warming," Henk Spruit, a co-author of the report from the Max Planck Institute in Germany, told Reuters.

Many scientists say greenhouse gases might push up world temperatures by perhaps another 3 Celsius by 2100, causing more droughts, floods, disease and rising global sea levels.

Spruit said a "Little Ice Age" around the 17th century, when London's Thames River froze, seemed limited mainly to western Europe and so was not a planet-wide cooling that might have implied a dimmer sun.

And global Ice Ages, like the last one which ended about 10,000 years ago, seem linked to cyclical shifts in the earth's orbit around the sun rather than to changes in solar output.

"Overall, we can find no evidence for solar luminosity variations of sufficient amplitude to drive significant climate variations on centennial, millennial or even million-year timescales," the report said.

Solar activity is now around a low on the 11-year cycle after a 2000 peak, when bright spots called faculae emit more heat and outweigh the heat-plugging effect of dark sunspots. Both faculae and dark sunspots are most common at the peaks.

Still, the report also said there could be other, more subtle solar effects on the climate, such as from cosmic rays or ultraviolet radiation. It said they would be hard to detect.



TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; News/Current Events; Technical
KEYWORDS: climatechange; globalwarminghoax
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-103 next last

1 posted on 09/13/2006 2:01:27 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

"Still, the report also said there could be other, more subtle solar effects on the climate, such as from cosmic rays or ultraviolet radiation. It said they would be hard to detect"


Oh man. buried at the bottom of the story you find the above.


2 posted on 09/13/2006 2:03:08 PM PDT by Names Ash Housewares
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

Could we have a careful cycle of measurement time choices....what about past cycles of warming and cooling?


3 posted on 09/13/2006 2:03:18 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach (History is soon Forgotten,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

The sun's energy output has barely varied over the past 1,000 years

Wow! Scientists have kept records for so long on solar energy. Who would have thunk it?

4 posted on 09/13/2006 2:03:25 PM PDT by george wythe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

If the earth's climate is not stable, i.e, it varies from one age to another, how can anyone declare with certainty that human activity is causing warming?

How can one sitting on a beach really know whether the next wave was natural or caused by a ship out at sea?


5 posted on 09/13/2006 2:04:53 PM PDT by Elpasser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
The sun's energy output has barely varied over the past 1,000 years,

And what about the previous thousands of years?

6 posted on 09/13/2006 2:05:27 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach (History is soon Forgotten,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Correction.

Chief Priests of the Church of Global Warming pronounce anathema on any data that does not validate their preconceived assumption.

7 posted on 09/13/2006 2:06:11 PM PDT by MNJohnnie (New Democrat Talking Point: Rove made us do it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

More likely changing ocean currents affect short and long term weather patterns.


8 posted on 09/13/2006 2:06:24 PM PDT by Zuben Elgenubi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Elpasser

I've sat on the beach and wondered about that.....saw some waves yesterday....and saw no ships....


9 posted on 09/13/2006 2:06:44 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach (History is soon Forgotten,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Elpasser
Of course this little claim is a complete manufactured fraud. They don't have any data to base this claim on.

What WAS cut from this but is in another thread. The Chief author of this piece admitted they did NOT study the sun spot cycle at all.
10 posted on 09/13/2006 2:08:01 PM PDT by MNJohnnie (New Democrat Talking Point: Rove made us do it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Names Ash Housewares

Oh, yeah, THAT'S conclusive.

The earth is in a death spiral and there is no chance of escaping the approaching disaster.

Women and children will be hardest hit.


11 posted on 09/13/2006 2:08:01 PM PDT by alloysteel (Hollywood actors, like children, are best seen and not heard.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Researchers from Germany, Switzerland and the United States found that the sun's brightness varied by only 0.07 percent over 11-year sunspot cycles, far too little to account for the rise in temperatures since the Industrial Revolution.

So what does that tell us about solar output during the Lesser Dryas or the Little Ice Age?

Diddly-squat.

Meanwhile, we have documented observational records that there were very few sunspots during the Little Ice Age - so the sun DID behave differently during that time.

More bullshiite from the globaloney warming types.

12 posted on 09/13/2006 2:09:17 PM PDT by dirtboy (This tagline has been photoshopped)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

I wonder if humans, and not the sun, are responsible for the retreating snow pack on the southern pole of Mars, as tracked by the orbital surveyor since 1997.


13 posted on 09/13/2006 2:12:13 PM PDT by My2Cents (A pirate's life for me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

Further study aquits humans of climate change, blames Bush.


14 posted on 09/13/2006 2:13:22 PM PDT by beethovenfan (If Islam is the solution, the "problem" must be freedom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
"They also found little sign of solar warming or cooling when they checked telescope observations of sunspots against temperature records going back to the 17th century."

Oh really? They were making solar observations back then? There is a disconnect in this statement. And why not go back further through the records of tree rings? (Still waiting for these geniuses to explain past warm periods when MAN WASN'T AROUND)

"Most experts say emissions of greenhouse gases, mainly from burning fossil fuels in power plants, factories and cars, are the main cause of a 0.6 Celsius (1.1 F) rise in temperatures over the past century.

A dwindling group of scientists says that the dominant cause of warming is a natural variation in the climate system, or a gradual rise in the sun's energy output."

What experts? Where? Was a survey of scientists done to support these statements?

"And global Ice Ages, like the last one which ended about 10,000 years ago, seem linked to cyclical shifts in the earth's orbit around the sun rather than to changes in solar output."

But you don't know the reason why so how can you know now?


"Spruit said a "Little Ice Age" around the 17th century, when London's Thames River froze, seemed limited mainly to western Europe and so was not a planet-wide cooling that might have implied a dimmer sun."

Oh so you admit minor variations of weather patterns over a decade? So how do you know the present warm-up (debatable as well) won't end next year? Because of the hockey stick? You can't even predict the weather NEXT WEEK.
15 posted on 09/13/2006 2:14:12 PM PDT by samm1148 (Pennsylvania-They haven't taxed air--yet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

If you are looking for a question with a pre-conceived answer, you can find it almost every time.

They already decided it was humans creating the problem, now they have to make the research say the same thing they have said.


16 posted on 09/13/2006 2:15:28 PM PDT by sgtbono2002 (The fourth estate is a fifth column.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
I guess they found some cave scrawlings with average yearly solar output energy from 1K years ago. Scientists can't even agree on what a planet is let alone why temps vary.
17 posted on 09/13/2006 2:15:56 PM PDT by BallyBill (Serial Hit-N-Run poster)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

And what about the previous thousands of years?


Make that at least a few 100 1000 years as pertains to our species folks.....and then tell me the names of the "record keepers."...LOL.........


18 posted on 09/13/2006 2:17:32 PM PDT by litehaus (A memory tooooo long)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
The sun's energy output has barely varied over the past 1,000 years, raising chances that global warming has human rather than celestial causes, a study showed on Wednesday.

The authors used a blend of seven recent reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere temperature over the past millennium to test the effects of long-term changes in brightness.

So they manufactured a fraudulent series of models to prove their preconceived notions. That is a completely manufacture propaganda statement. They have NO data to back that claim up at all. More fraudulent Junk Science propaganda. They just went out and stated their political propaganda as "Science" these are not scientists at all.

19 posted on 09/13/2006 2:17:43 PM PDT by MNJohnnie (New Democrat Talking Point: Rove made us do it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach; texianyankee; JayB; ElkGroveDan; markman46; palmer; Bahbah; Paradox; FOG724; ..
(((GLOBAL WARMING PING)))



You have been pinged because of your interest in environmentalism, alarmist wackos, mainstream media doomsday hype, and other issues pertaining to global warming. Freep-mail me to get on or off.
Add me! / Remove me
Please ping me to all note-worthy threads on global warming.



Now see, here we go again. Another latest, greatest study about how the sun ain't responsible. How do we reconcile it with these?

Blocking sunshine with aerosol may help avoid global warming

Brighter sun adds to fears of climate change

Scientists blame sun for global warming

Sun's direct role in global warming may be underestimated, Duke physicists report

Sun's Output Increasing in Possible Trend Fueling Global Warming

Sun's warming influence 'under-estimated'

20 posted on 09/13/2006 2:21:04 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (Lord, help me to be the Christian conservative that liberals fear I am.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

Oh, Mr. Sun, Sun, Mr. Golden Sun,
Please shine down on me.

As far as global warmings concerned
You've got off "scott free"...


Oh, Mr. Sun, Sun, Mr. Golden Sun,
Please shine down on me.
Oh Mr. Sun, Sun, Mr. Golden Sun,
Hiding behind a tree
These little children are asking you
To please come out so we can play with you.
Oh Mr. Sun, Sun, Mr. Golden Sun,
Please shine down on,
please shine down on,
Please shine down on me.


21 posted on 09/13/2006 2:21:06 PM PDT by MD_Willington_1976
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: samm1148

.........(Still waiting for these geniuses to explain past warm periods when MAN WASN'T AROUND............

Dinosaurs farted alot!


22 posted on 09/13/2006 2:21:45 PM PDT by aShepard (Maybe the UN should donate UNICEF proceeds to the Gates Foundation, and fold!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

"The Empire Strikes Back"


23 posted on 09/13/2006 2:27:31 PM PDT by tarheelswamprat (You can kill all the orcs you want but ya gotta take the ring to Mordor to end it...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

Might be a good idea to google "maunder minimum".


24 posted on 09/13/2006 2:28:18 PM PDT by MainFrame65
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

"Overall, we can find no evidence for solar luminosity variations of sufficient amplitude to drive significant climate variations on centennial, millennial or even million-year timescales," the report said.

It isn't luminosity that is the variable to be concerned with. It is the variation in the Solar magnetic field causing variation in cosmic rays incident on the earth and affecting cloud density.

 

http://www.sciencebits.com/CosmicRaysClimate

 

Cosmic Rays and Climate

By: Nir J. Shaviv

Article originally appeared in PhysicaPlus.

***

Clouds have been observed from space since the beginning of the 1980's. By the mid 1990's, enough cloud data accumulated to provide empirical evidence for a solar/cloud-cover link. Without the satellite data, it hard or probably impossible to get statistically meaningful results because of the large systematic errors plaguing ground based observations. Using the satellite data, Henrik Svensmark of the Danish National Space Center in Copenhagen has shown that cloud cover varies in sync with the variable cosmic ray flux reaching the Earth. Over the relevant time scale, the largest variations arise from the 11-yr solar cycle, and indeed, this cloud cover seemed to follow the cycle and a half of cosmic ray flux modulation. Later, Henrik Svensmark and his colleague Nigel Marsh, have shown that the correlation is primarily with low altitude cloud cover. This can be seen in fig. 3.


Figure 3: The correlation between cosmic ray flux (orange) as measured in Neutron count monitors in low magnetic latitudes, and the low altitude cloud cover (blue) using ISCCP satellite data set, following Marsh & Svensmark, 2003.
The solar-activity – cosmic-ray-flux – cloud-cover correlation is quite apparent. It was in fact sought for by Henrik Svensmrk, based on theoretical considerations. However, by itself it cannot be used to prove the cosmic ray climate connection. The reason is that we cannot exclude the possibility that solar activity modulates the cosmic ray flux and independently climate, without any casual link between the latter two. There is however separate proof that a casual link exists between cosmic rays and climate, and independently that cosmic rays left a fingerprint in the observed cloud cover variations.

To begin with, climate variations appear to arise also from intrinsic cosmic ray flux variations, namely, from variations that have nothing to do with solar activity modulations. This removes any doubt that the observed solar activity cloud cover correlations are coincidental or without an actual causal connection. That is to say, it removes the possibility that solar activity modulates the cosmic ray flux and independently the climate, such that we think that the cosmic rays and climate are related, where in fact they are not. Specifically, cosmic ray flux variations also arise from the varying environment around the solar system, as it journeys around the Milky Way. These variations appear to have left a paleoclimatic imprint in the geological records.

Cosmic Rays, at least at energies lower than 1015eV, are accelerated by supernova remnants. In our galaxy, most supernovae are the result of the death of massive stars. In spiral galaxies like our own, most of the star formation takes place in the spiral arms. These are waves which revolve around the galaxy at a speed different than the stars. Each time the wave passes (or is passed through), interstellar gas is shocked and forms new stars. Massive stars that end their lives with a supernova explosion, live a relatively short life of at most 30 million years, thus, they die not far form the spiral arms where they were born. As a consequence, most cosmic rays are accelerated in the vicinity of spiral arms. The solar system, however, has a much longer life span such that it periodically crosses the spiral arms of the Milky Way. Each time it does so, it should witness an elevated level of cosmic rays. In fact, the cosmic ray flux variations arising from our galactic journey are ten times larger than the cosmic ray flux variations due to solar activity modulations, at the energies responsible for the tropospheric ionization (of order 10 GeV). If the latter is responsible for a 1°K effect, spiral arm passages should be responsible for a 10°K effect—more than enough to change the state of earth from a hothouse, with temperate climates extending to the polar regions, to an icehouse, with ice-caps on its poles, as Earth is today. In fact, it is expected to be the most dominant climate driver on the 108 to 109 yr time scale.

It was shown by the author (Shaviv 2002, 2003), that these intrinsic variation in the cosmic ray flux are clearly evident in the geological paleoclimate data. To within the determinations of the period and phase of the spiral-arm climate connection, the astronomical determinations of the relative velocity agree with the geological sedimentation record for when Earth was in a hothouse or icehouse conditions. Moreover, it was found that the cosmic ray flux can be independently reconstructed using the so called "exposure ages" of Iron meteorites. The signal, was found to agree with the astronomical predictions on one hand, and correlate well with the sedimentation record, all having a ~145 Myr period.


Figure 4: An Iron meteorite. A large sample of these meteorites can be used to reconstruct the past cosmic ray flux variations. The reconstructed signal reveals a 145 Myr periodicity. The one in the picture is part of the Sikhote Alin meteorite that fell over Siberia in the middle of the 20th century. The cosmic-ray exposure age of the meteorite implies that it broke off its parent body about 300 Million years ago.
In a later analysis, with Ján Veizer of the University of Ottawa and the Ruhr University of Bochum, it was found that the cosmic ray flux reconstruction agrees with a quantitative reconstruction of the tropical temperature (Shaviv & Veizer, 2003). In fact, the correlation is so well, it was shown that cosmic ray flux variations explain about two thirds of the variance in the reconstructed temperature signal. Thus, cosmic rays undoubtedly affect climate, and on geological time scales are the most dominant climate driver.


Figure 5: Correlation between the cosmic ray flux reconstruction (based on the exposure ages of Iron meteorites) and the geochemically reconstructed tropical temperature. The comparison between the two reconstructions reveals the dominant role of cosmic rays and the galactic "geography" as a climate driver over geological time scales. (Shaviv & Vezier 2003)
Figure 6: A summary of the 4 different signals revealing the cosmic ray flux climate link over geological time scales. Plotted are the period and phase (of expected peak coldness) of two extraterrestrial signals (astronomical determinations of the spiral arm pattern speed and cosmic ray flux reconstruction using Iron meteorites) and two paleoclimate reconstruction (based on sedimentation and geochemical records). All four signals are consistent with each other, demonstrating the robustness of the link. If any data set is excluded, a link should still exist.
Recently, it was also shown by Ilya Usoskin of the University of Oulu, Nigel Marsh of the Danish Space Research Center and their colleagues, that the variations in the amount of low altitude cloud cover follow the expectations from a cosmic-ray/cloud cover link (Usoskin et al., 2004). Specifically, it was found that the relative change in the low altitude cloud cover is proportional to the relative change in the solar-cycle induced atmospheric ionization at the given geomagnetic latitudes and at the altitude of low clouds (up to about 3 kms). Namely, at higher latitudes were the the ionization variations are about twice as large as those of low latitudes, the low altitude cloud variations are roughly twice as large as well.

Thus, it now appears that empirical evidence for a cosmic-ray/cloud-cover link is abundant. However, is there a physical mechanism to explain it? The answer is that although there are indications for how the link may arise, no firm scenario, at least one which is based on solid experimental results, is yet present.

Although above 100% saturation, the preferred phase of water is liquid, it will not be able to condense unless it has a surface to do so on. Thus, to form cloud droplets the air must have cloud condensation nuclei—small dust particles or aerosols upon which the water can condense.  By changing the number density of these particles, the properties of the clouds can be varied, with more cloud condensation nuclei, the cloud droplets are more numerous but smaller, this tends to make whiter and longer living clouds. This effect was seen down stream of smoke stacks, down stream of cities, and in the oceans in the form of ship tracks in the marine cloud layer.

The suggested hypothesis, is that in regions devoid of dust (e.g., over the large ocean basins), the formation of cloud condensation nuclei takes place from the growth of small aerosol clusters, and that the formation of the latter is governed by the availability of charge, such that charged aerosol clusters are more stable and can grow while neutral clusters can more easily break apart. Several experimental results tend to support this hypothesis, but not yet prove it. For example, the group of Frank Arnold at the university of Heidelberg collected air in airborne missions and found that, as expected, charge clusters play an important role in the formation of small condensation nuclei. It is yet to be seen that the small condensation nuclei grow through accretion and not through scavenging by larger objects. If the former process is dominant, charge and therefore cosmic ray ionization would play an important role in the formation of cloud condensation nuclei.

One of the promising prospects for proving the "missing link", is the SKY experiment being conducted in the Danish National Space Center, where a real "cloud chamber" mimics the conditions in the atmosphere. This includes, for example, varying levels of background ionization and aerosols levels (sulpheric acid in particular). Within a few months, the experiment will hopefully shed light on the physical mechanics responsible for the apparent link between cloud cover and therefore climate in general, to cosmic rays, and through the solar wind, also to solar activity.

Figure 7: The Danish National Space Center SKY reaction chamber experiment. The experiment was built with the goal of pinning down the microphysics behind the cosmic ray/cloud cover link found through various empirical correlations. From left to right: Nigel Marsh, Jan Veizer, Henrik Svensmark. Behind the camera: the author. The implications of this link are far reaching. Not only does it imply that on various time scales were solar activity variations or changes in the galactic environment prominent, if not the dominent climate drivers, it offers an explanation to at least some of the climate variability witnessed over the past century and millennium. In particular, not all of the 20th century global warming should be attributed to anthropogenic sources, since increased solar activity explains through this link more than half of the warming.

More information can be found at:

  1. A general article on the cosmic ray climate link over geological time scales.
  2. Henrik Svensmark's web site, including various publications on the cosmic-ray/cloud link.
  3. The awaited results of the Danish SKY cloud experiment will be reported on their website within several months.

Notes and References:

* On solar activity /climate correlation:

  1. For the first suggestion that solar variability may be affecting climate, see: William Herschel, "Observations tending to investigate the nature of our sun, in order to find causes or symptoms of its variable emission of light and heat", Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. London, 91, 265 (1801). Note that Herschel suspected that it is variations in the total output which may be affecting the climate (and with it the price of wheat).
  2. Perhaps the most beautiful correlation between a solar activity and climate proxies can be found in the work of U. Neff et al., "Strong coherence between solar variability and the monsoon in Oman between 9 and 6 kyr ago", Nature 411, 290 (2001).
  3. Another beautiful correlation between solar activity and climate can be seen in the work of G. Bond et al., "Persistent Solar Influence on North Atlantic Climate During the Holocene", Science, 294, 2130-2136, (2001).

* On cosmic ray and cloud cover correlation:

  1. The paper by Henrik Svensmark, reports the correlation between cosmic ray flux variations and cloud cover changes: H. Svensmark, "Influence of Cosmic Rays on Earth's Climate", Physical Review Letters 81, 5027 (1998).
  2. The specific correlation with low altitude cloud cover is discussed in N. Marsh and H. Svensmark, "Low Cloud Properties Influenced by Cosmic Rays", Physical Review Letters 85, 5004 (2000).
  3. Further analysis including the relative role of CRF variations vs. el-niño can be found in: N. Marsh and H. Svensmark, "Galactic cosmic ray and El Niño-Southern Oscillation trends in International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project D2 low-cloud properties", J. of Geophys. Res., 108(D6), 6 (2003).
  4. The analysis showing the geographic signature of the cosmic ray flux variations in the low altitude cloud cover variations can be found it: I. Usoskin et al., "Latitudinal dependence of low cloud amount on cosmic ray induced ionization", Geophysical Research Letters 31, L16109 (2004).

* On cosmic ray climate correlations on Geological time scales:

  1. The suggestion that cosmic ray flux variations spiral arm passages could give rise to ice-age epochs is found at: N. Shaviv, "Cosmic Ray Diffusion from the Galactic Spiral Arms, Iron Meteorites, and a Possible Climatic Connection", Physical Review Letters 89, 051102, (2002).
  2. A highly detailed analysis, including the cosmic ray reconstruction using iron meteorites is found in: N. Shaviv, "The spiral structure of the Milky Way, cosmic rays, and ice age epochs on Earth", New Astronomy 8, 39 (2003).
  3. The analysis of Shaviv & Veizer demonstrates the primary importance of comic ray flux variations over geological time scales, and with it, place a limit on climate sensitivity: N. Shaviv & J. Veizer, "A Celestial driver of Phanerozoic Climate?", GSA Today 13, No. 7, 4, 2003.

25 posted on 09/13/2006 2:29:04 PM PDT by ancient_geezer (Don't reform it, Replace it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: george wythe
I thought it wasn't until the massive solar storm of 1859 that people noticed that the Sun had activity,
other than Sun spots.
26 posted on 09/13/2006 2:32:18 PM PDT by Calvin Locke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

The obvious solution is for all nations to tool up (or down) to an 18th century economy and lifestyle.


27 posted on 09/13/2006 2:34:48 PM PDT by scory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ancient_geezer

well....thanx....that just made my head explode


28 posted on 09/13/2006 2:34:54 PM PDT by stylin19a
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

As usual, today's scientists don't really know. They are eager to get recognition, and so they say what people want to hear.


29 posted on 09/13/2006 2:34:56 PM PDT by Leftism is Mentally Deranged (Leftist policies don't work. They hurt those they pretend to help.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie; DaveLoneRanger
Have you seen this one:

VIA Announces World's First Carbon Free Processor

*****************************

VIA Technologies, Inc, a leading innovator and developer of silicon chip technologies and PC platform solutions, today announced the VIA C7®-D processor for a new breed of PC desktop solutions. The VIA C7-D processor with a maximum power consumption of just 20W at 1.8GHz not only sets the benchmark for performance-per-watt operation, but enables further power savings through the use of smaller power supplies and cooling fans, with a side benefit of a quieter computing experience. The carbon dioxide produced from the operation of the processor over the lifetime of the PC is then offset through regional projects in energy conservation, reforestation, and alternative energy.

Posted by Steve 6:49 AM (CDT)

30 posted on 09/13/2006 2:35:58 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach (History is soon Forgotten,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: alloysteel
Oh, yeah, THAT'S conclusive.

"This basically rules out the sun as the cause of global warming,"

Hey dude, THEY have spoken.

I think we are supposed to shut up now.

31 posted on 09/13/2006 2:36:17 PM PDT by LasVegasMac (Islam........not fit for human consumption.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

Guess they only had enough money to write about two variables...


32 posted on 09/13/2006 2:38:14 PM PDT by P-40 (Al Qaeda was working in Iraq. They were just undocumented.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
The carbon dioxide produced from the operation of the processor over the lifetime of the PC

Should I even ask?

33 posted on 09/13/2006 2:40:36 PM PDT by VeniVidiVici (Rabid ethnicist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Oh sob!

WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!

34 posted on 09/13/2006 2:41:28 PM PDT by Ole Okie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
More on the Via Chip:

VIA Announces World's First Carbon Free Processor

The VIA C7®-D processor continues a path of power-efficient processor innovation, ideal for organizations looking to reduce their Carbon Footprint

****************************************

And we have a special company.....

*******************************************************

About Carbon Footprint Ltd.

Carbon Footprint Ltd is a UK based company dedicated to assisting consumers & business to recognize their affect on the environment. They provide a free on-line utility to calculate environmental impact, free advice on lifestyle strategies to reduce impact and a range of product & services to ‘offset' the effects of Global Warming.         A 'Carbon Footprint' is a measure of the impact human activities have on the environment in terms of the amount of green house gases produced, measured in units of carbon dioxide.  www.carbonfootprint.com

Contact: John Buckley
Phone: +44 (0)7941 732823
Email: john.buckley@carbonfootprint.com

35 posted on 09/13/2006 2:41:54 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach (History is soon Forgotten,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: ancient_geezer

You have the BEST Charts and Graphics.....thanks....


36 posted on 09/13/2006 2:42:40 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach (History is soon Forgotten,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: ancient_geezer
"Overall, we can find no evidence for solar luminosity variations of sufficient amplitude to drive significant climate variations on centennial, millennial or even million-year timescales," the report said.
It isn't luminosity that is the variable to be concerned with. It is the variation in the Solar magnetic field causing variation in cosmic rays incident on the earth and affecting cloud density.

Not to mention variation in ultraviolet radiation which would not affect luminosity at all but WOULD impact temperatures.

37 posted on 09/13/2006 2:44:34 PM PDT by VRWCmember
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

BFLR


38 posted on 09/13/2006 2:50:53 PM PDT by fishtank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: My2Cents
I wonder if humans, and not the sun, are responsible for the retreating snow pack on the southern pole of Mars, as tracked by the orbital surveyor since 1997.

Nope. It's from little green men driving around in their Martian SUV's.

39 posted on 09/13/2006 2:54:18 PM PDT by Dave Olson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Dave Olson
Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting
40 posted on 09/13/2006 2:57:25 PM PDT by My2Cents (A pirate's life for me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

I'm still waiting for the explanation of warming 1000 years ago and the little ice age that occured after that.

Horse exhaust?


41 posted on 09/13/2006 2:59:37 PM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

That surely explains why the Anisasi Indians left the Southwestern United States 900 years ago.


42 posted on 09/13/2006 3:11:10 PM PDT by GingisK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dave Olson

Mars is these researchers *Achilles' Heel* ; it's their fatal weakness.


43 posted on 09/13/2006 3:26:26 PM PDT by FreeRep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%
OK, perhaps my math is rusty, but... We have around 200W/m^2 delivered to our planet by the sun. Which is around 200 MW per square kilometer (1 million square meters per square kilometer).

They report a variance of 0.077%, which translates to a change of 154 kW per square kilometer.

The surface area of the earth is around half a billion square kilometers. Of course, only have of that is illuminated at a given time, so we have around a quarter billion square kilometers illuminated at any time. And of course it's illuminated for 24 hours (well, half of it is).

That means around 924,000 GWh of variation of power delivered to our planet. Which is around the 12% of the total energy consumption of the US.

I'd say that if the US is a contributor to climate change, then the sun very well is too! It's like adding a whole new California to the world; I'm sure the "global warming activists" would love to be able to eliminate a California-worth of energy use from the ecosystem. Well, the sun simply added that and there's nothing we can do...

I guess "doesn't contribute" is somewhat relative!

44 posted on 09/13/2006 3:28:51 PM PDT by EdmondsDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach; DaveLoneRanger
Parallel thread: Changes In Solar Brightness Too Weak To Explain Global Warming
45 posted on 09/13/2006 3:30:30 PM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: My2Cents
I wonder if humans, and not the sun, are responsible for the retreating snow pack on the southern pole of Mars, as tracked by the orbital surveyor since 1997.

Neither.

Global warming on Mars?

46 posted on 09/13/2006 3:32:52 PM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1700880/posts?page=55#55

There's always another side to the story, EATB.

47 posted on 09/13/2006 3:34:54 PM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: FreeRep
Mars is these researchers *Achilles' Heel* ; it's their fatal weakness.

Not really; see link in post 46.

48 posted on 09/13/2006 3:35:50 PM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: beethovenfan
Well after all, it really is Bush's Fault.


49 posted on 09/13/2006 3:36:18 PM PDT by COEXERJ145 (Free Republic is Currently Suffering a Pandemic of “Bush Derangement Syndrome.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

The Sun is deeply relieved and will now dedicate itself to finding the real global warmers on golf courses in Florida.


50 posted on 09/13/2006 3:36:58 PM PDT by xp38
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-103 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson