Skip to comments.New analysis counters claims that solar activity is linked to global warming
Posted on 07/11/2007 3:40:02 AM PDT by liberallarry
It has been one of the central claims of those who challenge the idea that human activities are to blame for global warming. The planet's climate has long fluctuated, say the climate sceptics, and current warming is just part of that natural cycle - the result of variation in the sun's output and not carbon dioxide emissions.
But a new analysis of data on the sun's output in the last 25 years of the 20th century has firmly put the notion to rest. The data shows that even though the sun's activity has been decreasing since 1985, global temperatures have continued to rise at an accelerating rate.
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
How would you explain global warming on Mars and Pluto?
Corelation does not prove causation, and the inverse is also true.
Sorry, one study with such limited parameters isn’t all that convincing, despite the control freaks’ desperate attempts to establish a new reality in their favor.
“Activity” of what kind? Gross solar radiation? Flares that manage to roil the earth’s magnetosphere?
The certainty of this statement immediately makes me doubt the veracity of this report.
This isn’t completely a joke. There is Martian warming going on right now, as I understand it.
Why? No link to any study. Just news fabricators talking to a couple of their solid sources for GW.
My thoughts as I read were from a Horse instead, but the sentiment is the same.
The article doesn’t say which set of data he’s using. If he’s using the ground weather monitoring stations there’s a problem. The data obtained from those has been called into question. The temp data from satellites is more accurate.
I wouldn’t attempt it. Ask those who study climate.
Read the article more carefully. Solar activity was dismissed long ago as a cause of modern global warming by most of the scientific community. This study was designed to address a very specific objection...and it did.
Does either discuss the physical findings of evidence of periods of cooling and warming in the past in the absence of human activity.
Actually, it's Mars and Neptune. But, yes, how do they explain the warming on those planets without solar activity being a factor? Idiots...
Well, we could rule out human activity, can’t we? It would be somewhat difficult to blame Bush for global warming on Mars or Pluto, correct??
Don't you just love it when arrogant people proclaim, "The debate is over!"
Whenever I hear this, it means, they can no longer defend their positions, so they are hoping everyone now accepts whatever is said henceforth.
Sure, the part of the scientific community who has a vested interest in freaking people out for funding leverage.
Nope, not convincing. There’s too much job security to be gained by these people.
These scientists are not idiots (like the general public). They are aware of the weaknesses and strengths of the underlying data. That’s why they’re called professionals.
I doubt the Guardian's data. Variation in insolation (incident solar radiation) is the only factor that can explain the mediaeval warm period and the little ice age. The Guardian is printing nonsense.
Our sun is a variable star. Turn off the sun or block a portion of it’s output and tell me global warming has nothing to do with the sun.
Actually, it’s the opposition which is far more often motivated by ideology and monetary worries...and the Bush administration is dominated by such views.
Why is anyone even giving “The Guardian” the time of day?
GW is a multi-billion dollar gravy train for scietists that believe.
Your statement does nothing to answer the question as to where the data he used originated. I’m sure you’ll be distressed to discover that a great deal of the data proving global warming exists is obtained from the ground based stations. Guess the professionals didn’t get the word. As for your contention that the general public are idiots, I won’t dispute that since the majority accept the global warming claims of Al Gore et al at face value.
money can’t buy happiness, but its acute absence does tend to bring about misery
You mean monetary worries, like the destruction of Western Civilizations’ economy, PERHAPS in hopes of MAYBE effecting .7 degrees difference?
Yeah, I’d say that’s a fair trade off.
Poverty is the greatest polluter. This is historically documented and demonstrated daily.
With respect - and I'm on your side with this - doesn't most atmospheric CO2 come from oceanic outgassing? The oceans contains colossal amounts of CO2 some of which is released in an average ~ 800 yr lag after a period of high insolation. The famous Vostok Ice core data shows this lag:
Because NASA has extensive research proving that the SUN is raising temperatures across our entire Solar System. We have experienced INCREASED Solar bombardment on the ISS (trying to figure out how to keep our guys from frying on a trip to Mars).
It is in the 2017 to 2020 window that the Suns output is predicted to plummet and sink us into another ice age... Also New data out yesterday PROVES that the ICE SHELF in Greenland NEVER MELTED during the last WARMING PERIOD 100,000 years ago... WHEN IT WAS 9 degrees (F) higher average than today. It is ALL BS!
“has finally put the notion to rest.”
if you accept any ozzer point of view ve vill be forced to re-educate you.
There is NO global thermometer. No one is making anything but a wild guess as to any number that is a claimed to be a “global” temperature.
True...damn poor reporting by the Guardian.
Here's a better reference to it. Still not perfect (I didn't want to take the time to track it down completely) but at least you know where to look.
If it’s gore-BULL warming... it’s all BULLS***.
It said firmly..... how much more do you want /sarc
Studies reported in the Guardian. Whatever would lefties do without them.
“has finally put the notion to rest.”
insufferable, totalitarian punks.
Quite so. The distribution of the temperature has to count for something as well. Otherwise we end up with absurdities like the claim that a guy standing in boiling water with his head encased in ice is, on the average, at a comfortable temperature.
BS from a hack.
Academia is full of marxist/socialist idealoges. If you want to find propaganda that would be a good place to start.
I’m old enough to remember the “Global cooling” and “Population Explosion” which the scientist where so sure would end the world before the year 2000.
The sun has no effect on the earth warming is absurd. The earth has been warming and cooling for millions of years before “carbon footprints” and “carbon credits” were ever conceived by left wing idealoges.
I with ya’ ...hence my tagline...
Global Warming is the new Eugenics...and Al Gore is the new Margaret Sanger
Lockwood & Fröhlich don’t consider the effect of the vast ocean heat sink on temperature variations.
Florida hotel owners know that if it was sunny two weeks ago but cold today, their open-air pools will be warm. And vice versa. That’s a small-scale version of the ocean heatsink at work.
The ocean heatsink effect is a real effect that buffers insolation change - it can’t be left out of any exploration of insolation forcing.
More pertinently perhaps: there is no way to explain the sinusoidal variance of global climate over (say) the last 2000 years without reference to insolation change. Insolation (including the modulation of the Milankovith cycle) is the only theory that fits all the facts
That seems to be a wise approach with all of this GW crap. It's a political game, and they try to impress you with their certitude.
The shakier the foundation, the more solidly they build the roof to make up for it.
I never thought of that! Good analogy.
Unfortunately, the whole article is not available on line without an expensive subscription only the abstract is shown.
1. The authors of the article do not explain why the solar hypothesis worked in the past, but does not work now.
2. They do not explain why the solar hypothesis stopped working in the 1980s, long after the Industrial Revolution was under weigh.
3. The graph given on the BBC coverage does not give units for temperature. Presumably, the temperatures are in °C. A good high-school science teacher would tell them “Always use units with your data, or else it is all just numbers.”
4. Critics of the greenhouse model of anthropogenic global warming point our that the GW hypothesis predicts increasing temperatures of the upper troposphere. However, the graph shown on the BBC report is for surface temperatures, which are subject to many other variables.
5. The Royal Society site trumpets the new article with a headline, “The Truth about Global Warming.” That is rather unusual for the presentation of a scientific article. It is more bombastically propagandistic that scientific. It really makes one wonder what is going on here.
Milankovith = Milankovitch