And, I love this gif... with the more recent NASA studies having to do with aerosol measurements tending to confirm the hypothesis that solar + aerosols + clouds can account for nearly all the 20th century temperature changes...
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 ...
I don’t understand why people who are normally sane don’t understand that there are time lags built into almost every mechanical system (and most other systems they come into contact with, including personal and economic interactions.)
We’ve clearly got some huge lags built into climate/ temperature changes due to the thermal masses of various components of the Earth. I don’t understand why anyone would expect a solar change would be instantaneously seen on Earth in most cases.
I’ll confirm: Pluto’s albedo has changed and that is believed to be due to warming.
Virtually all (circa 98%) global CO2 comes from natural sources
=
YOu won’t hear that much.
Look up “Svensmark” and “cosmic rays”. Dr. Svensmark has done major work over the last two decades on this effect, and has done some experimental work. He’s now leading a team creating a huge experimental chamber at CERN to study it further.
Still some years away from full understanding, but it is critical work. The IPCC recognizes that clouds are among the least understood factors affecting the Earth’s climate, and though they don’t ever delineate this: it would take only on the order of a 1% change of cloud cover to account for ALL the warming we’ve seen in the 20th century.
Greenland was not named because it was ever green but because it pretty much wasn’t and Eric the Red wanted people to go there. So he called it Greenland.
25 years???!!! In terms of the cosmic clock even a 1000 years would barely register!
And, I love this gif... with the more recent NASA studies having to do with aerosol measurements tending to confirm the hypothesis that solar + aerosols + clouds can account for nearly all the 20th century temperature changes...
You make my point... but even when our planet’s average temp had risen by 9 degrees... the ice cap did not melt... and therfore gore’d’s claim that it will melt and cause sea levels to rise 20ft is just gore-BULL warming lies.
LLS
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/central_park_differences_global_versus_us_ncdc_data_bases/
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1798
Take a look at these two websites for a recent investigation and in depth discussion of the “corrections” to the temperature records. Quite revealing as to the way these climate “scientists” attempt to massage their data to gain more information than the instruments are actually capable of measuring.
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.
-—<>-—<>-—<>-—<>-—<>-—
Great post...
Thanks. I’ll have to look at those from home. Blocked at work.
There's plenty of other freepers here who love dusting it up like that, enjoy!. Don't get me wrong, butting heads has it's place, it's just that I'm not very good at it.
I'd bet that each of us values furthering the common good as much as the other; I find my best contribution seems to be in working with hard numbers and I let the people/convincing part to others.. Let me know when you find another good link like this one and thanks again.
That plot goes a long way in showing what this half-hearted attempt by Lockwood (post 313 ) didn't.
Thanks for the links! Will check them out. bttt
outstanding please ping or send me links to help fight the GlobalGoring we are getting these days, thanks.
I tried to locate Nir Shaviv's response to Lockwood. Couldn't do it...but if you google his name you'll find a lot of interesting stuff. He's the guy who came up with the relationship between cloud cover and cosmic rays (perhaps that's too strong, perhaps he was only one of those who elucidated it).
and Here's a beautiful article by Shaviv himself clearly outlining the situation. Note that Shaviv, a proponent of solar forcing and an opponent of Kyoto, does not deny anthropogenic influence and thinks it will increase dramatically in the coming years.
I doubt that even this will change minds. I find a huge similarity between liberal positions on competition and conservative positions on the evironment. Both are motivated by fear. The former fear that they will be labeled losers and the later fear for their livelihood, and both fear for their most basic ideologies.
Apparently, you don't know JACK about chickens
or cows, or pigs, or turkeys....
Exactly!!!!!!!!!!!
...or a million other things.
You, on the other hand, think you know a great deal about many things you actually know nothing about, beginning with manners.
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.