Study acquits sun of climate change, blames humans

What this article does not discuss is the internal heat of the earth which is also capable of variation, and is not, of course, subject to anything that we might do (unless drawing out oil is causing global warming!)

Some scientists believe that El Nino, a heating of the surface temperature of currents originating in the SWPac are caused by volcanic forces.

...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.

I'd surely like to know exactly just what they were actually measuring in this study. I'm sorry, but "brightness" just doesn't cut it for describing scientifically what they were looking at. Visible light - or "brightness" is actually only a small part of the sun's total output-- or any star's for that matter.

Then there is this brilliant obfuscation-

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.

The earth's orbit around the sun is again only one small part of the overall motion through the cosmos that the planet Earth is subject to. How about the angle of the orbit in relation to all other motion, effects of axis tilt and precession [not just of the earth but of the sun's in relation to the galactic], or the motion of the sun itself through our galaxy, and through various different amounts of stellar dust, gases and other detritus that may or may not affect all of the solar system's bodies, not to mention the various magnetic and gravitational fields and their interactions- which these guys probably have zero knowledge of, because few of even the best physicists even admit to having a clue about all of that. Did their extensive study take any of these things into consideration in addition to sun spots and the sun's brightness??

Or are all these factors too much data sets for their computer models to handle - like clouds/water vapor are in their earth climate computer models?

Any scientist who makes claims and conclusions such as these yahus do certainly had better be able to show exactly all of the data set, parameters and interactions and how all of them are explicitly linked and interrelated before I'll believe a damn word they say.

Fer instance-- here are some interesting factual data about our solar system that these 'tards never even heard of probably:

Sun: More activity since 1940 than in previous 1150 years, combined

Mercury: Unexpected polar ice discovered, along with a surprisingly strong intrinsic magnetic field … for a supposedly “dead” planet

Venus: 2500% increase in auroral brightness, and substantive global atmospheric changes in less than 30 years

Earth: Substantial and obvious world-wide weather and geophysical changes

Mars: "Global Warming", huge storms, disappearance of polar icecaps

Jupiter: Over 200% increase in brightness of surrounding plasma clouds

Saturn: Major decrease in equatorial jet stream velocities in only ~20 years, accompanied by surprising surge of X-rays from equator

Uranus: “Really big, big changes” in brightness, increased global cloud activity

Neptune: 40% increase in atmospheric brightness

Pluto: 300% increase in atmospheric pressure, even as Pluto recedes farther from the Sun

In a past GW thread, FReeper Wuli also posted this general, factual information, quoting Rusty Humphries:

(1)From The Sun itself:

The Sun - 1 - Magnetic Field Since 1901, the sun's magnetic field has become 230% stronger.

The Sun - 2 - Energy Output - Since the 1970s the energy output of the sun has increased by 0.05% per decade, or 0.15% up to now. Of course, that's not saying how much it might have increased from prior centuries before it was measured in the 1970s.

The Sun - 3 - Sunspots - Sunspots are related to the Sun's magnetic field and their occurance rises and falls with the Sun's energy cycles. And, Solar scientists say there have been more sunspots since the 1940s than in the past 1150 years.

The Sun - 4 - Solar Flares - Solar flares are magnetic storms on the Sun. They are huge eruptions of vast amounts of very hot high-energy particles and gases (from 3.6 million to 24 million °F), ejected far into space. A solar flare on November 4 of 2003 was described by scientists as one that "will go into the history books as one of the most dramatic solar activity periods in modern times" and "there has been none like it" as far as we know.

The Sun - 5 - Coronal Mass Ejection - Another type of solar event is called a "coronal mass ejection" - a huge, balloon-shaped burst of solar plasma that moves along the Sun's magnetic field lines and release s up to 220 billion pounds (100 billion kg) of plasma at temperatures up to tens of millions of degrees Fahrenheit. Recent measurements have shown they now travel into space faster than before - possibly indicating a greater level of energy and force behind their ejection.

(2) From Pluto - Pluto has been heading (in its normal orbit) away from the sun since 1989. And yet, a funny thing is that its atmospheric pressure has increased 300% since 1989. In spite of very low temperatures at Pluto, so far in space from the Sun, its atmosphere is warming.

(3) From Neptune and Uranus - When the interstellar probe Voyager passed Neptune, it recorded Neptune's magnetic field was offset 50% on its axis, suggesting its poles had shifted in the last 100 years. Voyager also found that the magnetic field of Uranus was offset by 60%, suggesting another pole shift. Are those shifts unrelated to the increased intensity of the Sun's magnetic field? Measurements from 1996 to 2002 show Neptune is 40% brighter in the infrared wavelength and some cloud bands in its atmosphere are 100% brighter. Neptune's atmosphere seems to be changing greatly and quickly, in recent years.

(4) From Jupiter - In addition to the items noted in the report this thread began with; the magnetic field of Jupiter has increased 200%. Along with this change, a tube of plasma (highly energized particles) has formed between Jupiter and its moon Io, with a strength of 1 million amperes. There are no astronomical references to this observation until very recently.

(5) From Mars - In addition to the items noted in the report this thread began with; the density of the Martian atmosphere increased 200% between the 1970s and 1999; the ozone decreased (like Earth's?); there are more clouds (more land-locked water is vaporizing?) and some features on its ice caps have eroded 50% (since 1999). NASA scientists admit that "Mars may be in the midst of a profound climate change".[Should we ask if NASA helped General Motors set up a SUV test facility up there?]

(6) From The Moon - Since the 1960s, the moon has started to form an atmosphere of sodium and potassium compounds. Those compounds were probably always present in the Moon's crust, but something recent has caused changes (energy?) to release them into the low gravity around the Moon.

A recent team of German scientists took ice core samples in the Alps and found that in Hannibal's time (when he invaded the Roman Empire) the mountain glaciers in the Alps covered 50% less area than they do today.

I guess the Romans had been driving SUVs back and forth over the Alps for at least a century before Hannibal, raising the CO2 levels in the area and melting the glaciers. I'm sure ole Hannibal did not know that Roman technology had paved his way over the Alps.

Notice again in the above points#1, #3 and #4, the Sun's magnetic field is mentioned, not its "brightness". Were these global warming shills measuring the solar magnetic flux along with the "brightness"?? I don't think so...

When "scientists" come up with precise, hard fast conclusions in favor of global warming [or even against it], it's really time to tell them to pull their heads out of their collective a$$es and quit trying to con everybody out of more $$$$ to propagate their particular biased view. Respectability and scientific reputation is something that has to be built and earned, and when they make stupid, self-serving conclusions from imperfect and incomplete data, they are only assuring that they will acheive neither. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon or a brain scientist to see through their bias and lack of evidence.

"SUN NOT GUILTY"

...Why are you looking look at ME?!?

Right, and we didn't have global warming before the women got the right to vote, either.

LOLOL! Thank y'all for the pings!

Thanks for the post. Very informative.

Also, I like the line, "It doesn't take a rocket surgeon or a brain scientist to see through their bias and lack of evidence."

GW has increased another 10% since last week's alarmist rantings.

It seems there is an inverse relationship between lack of hysteria on the part of normal people and the increasing severity of "global warming". If this (fantasy) acceleration of temperatures continues at its current rate none of us will be around for the 08 elections anyway.

It is literally getting worse on a weekly basis.

They mention sunspots and brightness... but somehow overlook temperature and proximity. Interesting.