Sunspots reaching 1,000-year high

BBC News ^ | Tuesday, 6 July, 2004 | Dr David Whitehouse

[cogitator]

I don’t trust Al Gore, I trust the facts.

[Always Right]

I think that's a tad extreme. And also vague.

As oppose to for all the moronic fear-mongering from the global alarmists, I never see you call them out for being extreme. What hasn't been blamed on global warming by the alleged scientists?

[geopyg]

I would think that the stress of climate change (especially way back when) would offer some opportunites to take advantage of. The price of gold also shows some correlation to the sunspot number!?

[irishtenor]

Feelings, nothing more than feelings...
Come on, sing it with me. Feelings, nothing more than...
You’re not trying :>)

[cogitator]

Hey, a followup quick exercise; look at the second plot in point #4. Mentally remove the 1998 peak. What direction is the trend?

GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Global Temperature Trends: 2005 Summation

"The highest global surface temperature in more than a century of instrumental data was recorded in the 2005 calendar year in the GISS annual analysis. However, the error bar on the data implies that 2005 is practically in a dead heat with 1998, the warmest previous year. ... Record warmth in 2005 is notable, because global temperature has not received any boost from a tropical El Niño this year. The prior record year, 1998, on the contrary, was lifted 0.2°C above the trend line by the strongest El Niño of the past century."

[geopyg]

I think that they believe that this next peak sunspot cycle will be higher this next cycle (which is just about to begin) with a more rapid increase in the suspot numbers that has been observed before.

[JohnBovenmyer]

the Sun has never been as active as it has been during the past 60 years.

George W. Bush just happens to be 60 years old. So it must be his fault</sarcasm>.

[listenhillary]

“It’s too short-term to call it anything else”

So are 180 years of weather records in proving we are all gonna die because of anthropomorphic global warming.

[Lowcountry]

Plenty of people say it is not happening. Rush was reading an article last week that reported average temps of the atmosphere have not changed. What has heated up is the air in urban areas. Urban areas are basically heat islands because asphalt and concrete absorb heat from the sun whereas land does not. Temperatures in the rural areas have not changed.

[listenhillary]

Lindzen goes on to say...

“The earth is always warming or cooling by as much as a few tenths of a degree a year; periods of constant average temperatures are rare,” Lindzen says. “The current alarm rests on the false assumption not only that we live in a perfect world, temperaturewise, but also that our warming forecasts for the year 2040 are somehow more reliable than the weatherman’s forecast for next week.”

His most important point—after dissembling models that show seas rising—is that temperatures should have risen much more dramatically if global warming from CO2 was really the only mechanism at work. “Average temperatures rose only about 0.6 degrees since the beginning of the industrial era, and the change hasn’t been uniform—warming has largely occurred during the periods from 1919 to 1940 and from 1976 to 1998, with cooling in between. Researchers have been unable to explain this discrepancy,” he points out.

http://www.thecarconnection.com/blog/?p=571

[Ieatfrijoles]

The debate is over. No more posts on this thread.

[cogitator]

So are 180 years of weather records in proving we are all gonna die because of anthropomorphic global warming.

Hyperbolic statements are not useful.

[PhilDragoo]

the Sun has never been as active as it has been during the past 60 years.

George W. Bush just happens to be 60 years old.

Coincidence? I don't think so.

[cogitator]

Researchers have been unable to explain this discrepancy,” he points out.

Lindzen's statement is a gloss. Sulfate aerosol forcing explains the majority of the cooling. A small increase in solar output is cited for part of the warming (anthropogenic GHGs for the other part) for the early century warming.

[centurion316]

ping. Some great quotes accompany this article. Worth saving. Especially the one about Capitalism destroying the Earth.

[Always Right]

You really have no problems with IPCC ‘scientists’ telling the public that 130 million people in Asia will be displaced by 2050, with potentially catastrophic problems in Africa which includes wiping out their entire staple crops altogether and water shortages for between 75 to 250 million people? Predictions that floods, fires, droughts, heat waves, storms, hurricanes are are going to more frequent and more severe? You really believe that is what the science is telling us? I am 'extreme' for calling these scientists out as liars, but they are not extreme? They issue all these fear-mongering press releases as if they are virtual certainities and are actually upset that government officials made them tone down their outrageous rhetoric.

[cogitator]

I might have problems with some of those predictions... but this is what you said: "Any ‘scientist’ who says with high confidence that man-made emissions are responsible for Global Warming is a liar."

And I have problems with that, too. If Richard Lindzen says that there is a human contribution to global warming because of greenhouse gas emissions, then I ought to have problems with your statement, don't you think?

If you want to talk about the rest, then be more specific.

[Names Ash Housewares]

Might be helpful to put “news flashback” in the title, I get tricked with these old storys thinking it is another just released study.

[Always Right]

And I have problems with that, too. If Richard Lindzen says that there is a human contribution to global warming because of greenhouse gas emissions, then I ought to have problems with your statement, don't you think?

No. The real issue issue is how much. The IPCC is maintaining that they are 90 percent certain that man is responsible for the majority of warming. Just conceding there probably is a human component is different than placing some high confidence level on something that we really know little about. How did they calculate this confidence level? How do they know what amount is caused by human factors? The 'scientists' can't answer either of those questions, so they are liars in how they presented it. Their 90% confidence level is based on their feelings of consensus. Their assumption that most of the warming is caused by humans is based on their biases and not on facts that they have conclusively eliminated the other variables.

[AaronInCarolina]

It's too short-term to call it anything else, unless a definitive cause-and-effect mechanism can be identified. (And that might still be an aspect of natural variability.)

The evasive move of labelling evidences which call into question the AGW theory as short-term trends is a convenient refuge when it suits one's argument. That, however, did not prevent the IPCC in the AR4 SPM from selecting a 10-year short-term trend to conclude that sea-level rise increase in that 10-year period (1993-2003) was a new established rate of rise. The reference rise-rate (the basis rate that the new rate was compared to) was also conveniently chosen to be from 1961-2003, a range obviously chosen to produce a particularly lower basis rate. It seemed curious to me why they would pull the odd year of 1961 to establish a reference rate, until I examined their chart and I saw that if they had started the beginning of the range earlier, they would not have gotten as low a reference rate. Such subjective methods of drawing conclusions reveal, in my opinion, an agenda.