New analysis counters claims that solar activity is linked to global warming

Guardian (England) ^ | July 11, 2007 | James Randerson

[liberallarry]

who are they?

Does Enron ring a bell?

are there any crooked scientists?

Of course. They make the news too.

[ripley]

“LOL! (show me your papers!)”

we might as well laugh while still able. no telling about the future.

(as always, Heil Hillary!!!)

[expat_panama]

I question your credentials. You should be presenting your evidence at...

Whoa, let's get clear on what's going on here.  If we were working with a scientific problem, then who ever made the assertion would have to back it up with supporting observations.  The assertion here is that manmade CO₂ is heating the earth.  No data were offered.  The issue should have died there because all that matters here is whether the article's thesis is based on observation.   My credentials are not relevant, neither are the numbers I offered showing the correlations between temps and solar activity being higher than with CO₂.   The burden of proof falls on the claimant.  

The bottom line here is that this issue is not based in science, it's a political issue.   We're arguing about it on this political forum because the loony liberal tax raisers are using this global warming hoax to raise taxes.   You haven't convinced me to vote for higher taxes.

[liberallarry]

(Thank you for ignoring my typo.)

I didn't even notice it.

Regarding GW. I would support actual, not agenda driven research. To disregard that the Sun and Earth go through cycles would be to deny history.

I think much of it already exists and that no serious scientist ignores such cycles.

On the rest you and I agree. If the change is slow we have a chance. If it is fast it will be brutal and very unpleasant.

[rock58seg]

“so, does that mean we should close the universities, that they have not value?” yes. “i can show you plenty of crooked business men.”

who are they? are there any crooked scientists?

Sorry... That is not my comment. I was answering it. Please follow the thread back to the original poster.

[AaronInCarolina]

Insolation (including the modulation of the Milankovith cycle) is the only theory that fits all the facts

I'm in agreement with you, but I think the recent climate has been indirectly driven by insolation changes through these changes' effects upon the great ocean oscillations: PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation) and AMO (Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation). These oscillations are accepted to be naturally driven and cyclical, but their magnitudes are impacted by decades of increased solar insolation during the 20th century. When the impacts of the PDO being in it's warm phase (which flipped to warm in 1979), and the the AMO being also in its warm phase (which flipped in 1995) are superimposed, the correlation with recent satellite-based temperature observations are almost exact.

The short-sightedness displayed by those who only look at solar insolation's immediate impacts upon the troposphere is staggering. The oceans and their oscillations are the 800 lb gorilla that they always ignore. Yes, there are short-term impacts upon our atmosphere by solar insolation, but there are also longer-term impacts which I believe are primarily ignored by those who seek to exploit a recent divergence between solar insolation levels and ground-based temperature observations. This divergence is easily explained partially by the fact that the temperature increases are exaggerated by poor siting and also by data manipulation techniques which always increase the observed temperatures, and also by the fact that when a heat source (which heats a heat sink) is reduced, there is not an immediate measurable reduction in the heat sink, and nearby elements that the heat sink influences will also not immediately feel the impact of the heat source reduction.

[liberallarry]

The assertion here is that manmade CO2 is heating the earth.

Not on this thread.

The assertion is that global warming in the last 20 years is not due to changes in solar activity. The supporting evidence is presented in the paper published in the proceedings of the Royal Society.

[liberallarry]

My apologies.

[KC Burke]

If it was a tract, I wouldn't insult you as a forum participant, who I have always treated fairly, with referring you to it.

No, it is an interesting read with some of the latest peer review scientific articles fully footnoted showing that yes, we do have unstopable global warming, but no it won't be a disaster and the warming that has been, and will be, occuring is part of a 1500 year cycle that has been going on repeatably since the last major ice age.

[Ditto]

James Hansen, a Nasa climate scientist who was once gagged by the Bush administration for speaking out on global warming...

That's a damn lie. Hansen was not "gaged" in any sense of the word. He was asked, as any other employee on the payroll in any organization is required to do when speaking for the organization, to submit his articles for review before publication. He refused to do so and should have had his ass fired on the spot.

Hansen is a publicity seaking hustler.

[liberallarry]

My apologies. I’ll try to find it. I wonder why it hasn’t seen more publicity?

[LiteKeeper]

Just maybe there is no global warming!

[liberallarry]

I don't think he is.

This administration has injected politics into areas of the scientific arena where it was not previously seen. Hansen is not the first to complain about it.

[Ditto]

This administration has injected politics into areas of the scientific arena where it was not previously seen. Hansen is not the first to complain about it.

LOL. You're standing on your head telling the rest of us we are upside down. Hansen is the guy playing politics.

[chessplayer]

“There appears to be a solar “fingerprint” that can be detected in climatic time
series in other regions of the world, with each series having a unique lag time
between the solar signal and the hydroclimatic response.
A progression of increasing lag times can be spatially linked to the ocean
conveyor belt, which may transport the solar signal over a time span of
several decades.”

http://www.umweltluege.de/pdf/Gamma_Rays_and_Climate.pdf

[AaronInCarolina]

If I understand this, if changes in the Sun happen today, it will not immediately change the Earth`s climate

Yes.. and no. There will be immediate effects, but there will be delayed effects as well. Some of the sun's short wave radiation hits the earth land surfaces, warms them, which in turn re-emits long wave (infrared) radiation back upward, exciting various types of molecules in the earth's atmosphere, causing immediate warming effects. But most of the sun's short wave radiation hit the oceans, directly warming them. This type of warming is stored for decades, and influence the magnitude of ocean oscillations. These oscillations release heat stored in the oceans, and contribute much later to the temperature in the atmosphere.

[liberallarry]

You're standing on your head telling the rest of us we are upside down

Am I really? What fun.

[KC Burke]

I've seen it at most Barnes and Noble in the new trade paper edition.

I am sure that, like many of the scientists that have gone ahead and published thoughtful doubter or alternative views to the current All-Is-Settled thinking that the book will be ignored by some of the media outlets.

Quite frankly, it isn't a simple read. While it isn't too technical to understand, the authors present their thesis issues by chapter and only about every four chapters to they try and take what they have presented and compare it to arguements being made by others.

Amazon Link

[AaronInCarolina]

his administration has injected politics into areas of the scientific arena where it was not previously seen.

Oh, and I guess Al Gore sat back quietly while he was a powerful senator in the '80s and while he was VP in the '90s. For crying out loud, it is precisely because he politicised the field of climatology by directing much federal funding that we are in the circus we are currently in. The result of all this when cooling begins in a decade or 2 is that the credibility of science in general will be severely damaged by a narrow field of science (climatology).

[liberallarry]

Thanks. I’ll definitely follow your link.