The sun’s changing energy levels are not to blame for recent global warming and, if anything, solar variations over the past 20 years should have had a cooling effect, scientists said on Wednesday.
They concluded that the rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen since the late 1980s could not be ascribed to solar variability, whatever mechanism was invoked.
Britain’s Royal Society — one of the world’s oldest scientific academies, founded in 1660 — said the new research was an important rebuff to climate change skeptics.
“At present there is a small minority which is seeking to deliberately confuse the public on the causes of climate change. They are often misrepresenting the science, when the reality is that the evidence is getting stronger every day,” it said in a statement.
Politics alone required this latest bit of cul-de-sac research. There were only a couple of scientists advancing the solar thesis; but, every wacko defender of the petroleum religion leapt upon the possibility as another divine revelation in the copout gospel.
And another one bites the dust.
Mr. Fusion, if you expect any sort of reasonable posts from S&B, you might as well just go have a piña colada.
He lost his mind trying to defend a point of view that has no scientific or rational support. Now he’s just posting random crap. I think it’s time for him to put on the tin foil hat.
#161 Mr. Fizzle, does this do it for ya?
Global Warming Zealots Are Stifling Scientific Debate
http://tinyurl.com/2daqgn
>>does this do it for ya?
Not sure about Mr. Fusion, but it doesn’t do it for me. Celebrity flake and denier par excellence Ian Plimer is pissing into the wind. He may get a lot of interviews Down Under for his wacky views, but the reputable scientifice press in Australia has this to say:
“The only problem for the sceptics is that the vast majority of scientists think they are the ones that are deluded. “There’s a better scientific consensus on this than on any issue I know – except maybe Newton’s second law of dynamics”, Dr James Baker, of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in the US, has said. ”
But hey. Those Newtonian laws are just theories, right? Gravity, Darwinism, global warming, acceleration….it’s just those damned scientists being bought off by the anti-gravity cabal.
Mustard, I’ll have to check on this greenhouse gases vs CO2. My understanding is that CO2 is the second most important greenhouse gas after water vapor, so I would find this surprising.
I’ll correct you on another point. You say Dumbya refused to sign the treaty, but Kyoto has already been signed by the US. The President just recognized the reality that the Senate will not ratify it, and has already passed resolution that was near unanimous that they would not ratify it. I’m not sure if Pres Bush unsigned the treaty.
I say greenhouse gases aren’t pollutants by definition. It would depend on the gas. Sulfur hexafluoride is a pollutant, and perhaps methane, but carbon dioxide is a natural part of the atmosphere, needed for trees to grow. It is not a pollutant. People are calling it a pollutant only because of the global warming theory, and are trying to redefine pollutant to suit their needs. By that logic, water vapor is a pollutant as it is the primary greenhouse gas. When I think of pollutant, I expect it to be something that actually pollutes the air.
Some of the language confusion may be because I have been posting these things several times, and I don’t think you were around for the previous posts.
You might want to check out this pdf which basically says the method of scientific forecasting used by the IPCC is unreliable. Apparently the authors are willing to bet money against global warming, though these bets tend to be unreliable.
MikeN….YOU are going to CORRECT ME “on another point”??? I must have missed the first several points. I can only recall you making factual errors.
And Dumbya did not “not sign” the Kyoto treaty, but only because he was not president at the time. As soon as he stole the office though, he immediately announced that the US would not support it.
If you’d like a citation that the US is the biggest producer of greenhouse gases, check the International Herald Tribune from May 31, 2007 (http://tinyurl.com/367a8x).
And while water vapor may be the “most important greenhouse gas”, the levels of water vapor in the atmosphere have not been increasing since the Industrial Revolution. Contrast that with the steady increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gases, which track nicely with the trend in global warming.
You anti-environmentalists are a piece of work. Nobody can tell if you’re saying global warming isn’t happening, it IS happening but it’s because of sunspots, or it’s happening because of civlilization-induced pollution, but it’s all the fault of China and India. I guess if you don’t have a coherent argument, it’s hard to debunk. Mission accomplished?
>>carbon dioxide is a natural part of the atmosphere
And so it is, in “natural” concentrations. However, when the concentrations skyrocket because of Dick Cheney’s Energy Cabal and Hummer drivers, then it becomes a “pollutant”. Methane and nitrous oxide are also a “natural part of the atmosphere”, but in excessive concentrations they too are pollutants.
I thought the main global warming theory is that higher CO2 leads to more water vapor leads to more warming. That’s why the ocean heat sink factor is so important.
>guess if you don’t have a coherent argument, it’s hard to debunk.
That’s because the science is incoherent. It could be all true or only partly true. Generally, I would say even if it is 90% true, it still wouldn’t be worth redoing all of society to combat global warming. The 20th century saw huge economic growth with about 1 degree of warming and a certain amount of extra CO2. That strikes me as a good deal. How much growth would you sacrifice to have kept the same temperatures as 1900?
>>it still wouldn’t be worth redoing all of society to
>>combat global warming.
Nobody is suggesting “redoing all of society”, Einstein. Reducing our fossil fuel emissions, using clean power, dumping the fucking Hummers, does that sound like “redoing all of society”? I guess if you’re a Hummer dealer, or a member of President Cheney’s Secret Energy Cabal, it might seem that way….
>>That’s because the science is incoherent.
Actually, it’s very coherent. And, with the exception of a few flakes like Celebrity Kook Tim Ball, and lackeys on the payroll of the Petroleum Industry, the entire scientific community is united on the causes of global warming. Sure, petroleum fuels and Hummer drivers are not the ONLY things keeping Earth above -470 degrees, but they are the major environmental shift since the Industrial Revolution, and are largely to blame for the constant increase in global temperature.
This is all so hilarious. Be sure to consult a real solar physicist before accepting any data that suggests the Sun is not a factor in global warming.
Here are two pieces of fluff that argue both sides, and neither site quotes any reputable authority. We might as well argue about how many morani it takes to fill up a blog.
“Cosmic rays — However, because the Sun’s magnetic field—which shields the Earth from these rays—doubled in intensity during the last century, there has been a reduction in cloudiness, a possible contributor to Earth’s warming.” [Oh, bulls**t]
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15391047/
“No Link Between Cosmic Rays and Global Warming” [Hahahaha]
http://tinyurl.com/2up368
Yeah, right. I stand with my fellow stellar researchers that the Sun is at least 40% -50% responsible. Watch out for that next Maunder minimum, Mr. Algore. You might be the only one that can afford the heating oil.
Wow, this post is so old, maybe I get the last word!! (But I’m not betting on it)
No such luck Mr. Ray.
So when you say (along with your fellow stellar researchers) that “the sun is at least 40-50% responsible” for global warming, are you really saying that the sun is responsible (40-50%) for the increase in the earth’s temperature starting with the Industrial Revolution? Has the sun been getting hotter all this time?
The science is coherent? You mean they agree on how much warming there will be? They agree on how much sea level rise? They don’t even agree on how much warming there has been, since there’s disputes over the measurements. As I’ve said, the models themselves are flawed, even if the science is right. To predict devastation and famine, they assume huge economic growth for the third world.
As for not remaking society, I’ve seen various environmentalist plans on smart growth and the like. I would call it remaking society.
You say dumping Hummers, but the reality is it leads to substantially smaller, lighter, and perhaps more expensive cars. This also leads to higher death tolls, as has already determined was the result of CAFE rules. We’ve already seen posters on this board insisting on different light bulbs, and I imagine they would insist on different bathroom fixtures too. So we have changes in computers, monitors, TVs, washing machines, bathrooms, houses, cars, streets, city and suburbs, public transportation, forests, highways, office buildings, etc.
Holy shit, MikeN. So what you’re saying is that we would have to be environmentally responsible. I can see why there’s this rabid opposition to the notion that we are, at least in part, responsible for the inexorable rise in global temperature.
As to what “was already determined as the result of CAFE rules”, I’m not aware of that determination. I have seen testimony before the House Energy and Commerce committee from AUTO COMPANY EXECUTIVES AND THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED AUTO WORKERS UNION claiming that development of energy efficient cars would lead to thousands of deaths on the highway, but wtf do you expect? Talk about having a vested financial interest!!! I haven’t heard any credible sources making the same claim. Sure, if you’re one lonely guy in a Geo Metro among a sea of Hummers and F350s, you’re going to come out on the short end of the stick in an accident, but that’s not the goal here, Einstein.
If you’re old enough, perhaps you remember the oil embargo of 1973, when all the gast stations with the mechanical pumps freaked out because they had to retrofit their pumps to charge more than $1, and you had to wait in line for 1/2 hour to get 5 gallons of gas. Everyone was saying “by the end the decade, all cars will get 100mpg!”. Well, the oil supply loosened up, and now cars get shittier gas mileage than they did then. Sound like progress to you? Obviously, whatever we have been doing isn’t working.
This comment is pending approval and won’t be displayed until it is approved.
Relax the planet is fine. The troposphere where the CO2 resides is not warming, only your streets and buildings made of tar and concrete. Put the research dollars, if you need to, toward an objective study of urban sprawl, tree planting and water use to grow plants that trap sunlight, convert CO2 into plant food, provide shade cooling and are the only source of oxygen we can find.
Science is not actually done by politicians and their interpretations are always suspect. There is no consensus, nor should there be a consensus.
I’d call it progress to not have to wait in long lines for gasoline.
I’m not sure if it’s a government study, but according to the National Academy of Sciences’ 2001 CAFE study, this downsizing contributes to between 1,000 and 3,000 additional fatalities per year.
>>I’d call it progress to not have to wait in long lines for gasoline.
Well, the local TV news here lists gas stations that are selling cheaper gas (5-10 cents below the average). You should see the lines at those places.
No progress. Just a warmer globe. And a couple of hundred billion more in Dick Cheney’s Halliburton account. Mission Accomplished! Hope you made out like a bandit, MikeN. If not, you’re a fool.
An interesting discussion about global warming you may want to see
http://climateprogress.org/2007/07/20/the-work-to-read-after-seeing-an-inconvenient-truth/
Hi, my sites:e553b184c7a61e4aac54d5ba9c0c2cb2
Great boys87b9d12bbe7240460f582c7e83fdea16