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.
So…Is solar activity up or down!?!? There has to be a fact in here somewhere. I can’t see how if the sun is producing more heat that the earth is not affected, due to the ocean’s ability to absorb and retain heat. Would the ocean not work similarly for manmade global warming.
But isn’t Al Jezeera commenting on global warming kind of odd? This story isn’t good enough for the BBC or CNN?
I’m not taking an Al Jezeera story about an obsure Swiss-British thinktank as proof of anything. These are independent scientists making this statement, not the Royal Society, remember
This wasn’t reported anywhere else?
You don’t think this blog isn’t gonna attack the messenger?
It hardly matters if this is true or not. The debate isn’t gonna be about the subject.
[edited: duplicate – and under the wrong post] 🙂
#1
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6290228.stm
there, now please knock it off — the only reason people who refuse to acknowledge that human activity may be having a negative affect on earth’s climate is because they don’t want to be inconvenienced by the change in behavior we humans would need to undertake to reduce the output of CO2.
at least have the balls to admit that you don’t want to have to change over to more fuel-effiecient cars or horror of horrors, actually use solar power or what-have-you
i’m really sick of it, it’s not hyperbolic to suggest that no less than the fate of mankind on this planet is at risk.
will you feel comfortable explaining to your god that you ignored all the signs and failed to help save the world he gave you?
Yeah, wouldn’t that be a shocker….the mainstream media sucking up to the Kurrent Karl Regime by not reporting the truth. Imagine! This must be Michael Moore, paying off the Al Jazeera guys, or something.
NFW that there really COULD be global warming, attributable in part to Heart Attack Cheney’s secret energy cabal. Why won’t he release there names?
And also, I’m STILL waiting for some Dumbya acolyte to answer the question “wtf was that ‘rectangular object’ under his coat during the debates??”. Hmmmm?
Angus – the magic word is G-O-O-G-L-E. We can presume you’re too lame to research the topic in the first place. After all, it might interfere with building a house of cards from perspex instead of pasteboard.
Still – inputting “solar variation global warming” offers dozens of sources – some referencing the same report in the Royal Society Journal, others with more depth. So what? You won’t read the bloody reports anyway.
Oil companies know about viral marketing as well as anyone so it stands to reason they would pay people to post their position on blogs..
They still cannot get it right. This just proves that they have to manage the whole debate. If local warming were something we could do anything about we would have a formula. Instead we have the Cabala which is what Meteorology is in the New Religion of Science. We should all look to Madonna for advice. If we could drive around in Holy water cars we would make the world cooler that is 4 sure.. Anyway you can just look around and see that the CO2 in the air is thicker because the trees the poison ivy is greener and thicker and not just because it is rainy and cooler this summer here in South Carolina but becase the trees and plants have more CO2 which happens sometimes where we were here or not. just so happens that we release a lot of CO2 when we exist as a species which makes the plants that are left before we eat them or drink them or burn them or live in them happier. The weather will do what it wants even if we say we are sorry and give more of our money to snake oil salesmen like Al Gore.
I will not vote for any idiot who will make me pay extra for this crap. And I feel sick thinking that I will anyway. So I am determined to release as much CO2 and methane as I can by buying the new Coke with vitamins and eating beans with every meal. There is nothing nothing I can do or any of us can do to change the climate nothing nothing nothing nothing. Nothing that is going to work the way we think it will anyway….
Gee, Milo. How’d your Comment get ahead of the guy you were talking about?
Somebody please remind me. What SUVs were in use between 1300?-1600? that caused the ‘little ice age’ or the 1700s?
Or what caused the Warming of 800-1100 AD/CE/whatever??? Where the Vikings were able to farm in areas of Greenland????
So, as with any poly-tics..
Lets wait 20 years to figure out…WE ARE WRONG…
Look it up on your own, rog. Along with the winklepickers and anyone else who’d rather whine about their “common sense” being challenged by scientific research.
Don’t fall off the edge!
All I’m saying is that global warming is happening. But each side want to say it is ONLY solar activity, or it is ONLY human activity. As with a lot of things, I say that truth lies somewhere in the middle.
and #6, I did input “solar activity charts”, and “solar activity variation”. Way too many .orgs, and way too few .edu or .gov. It’s hard to find a simple chart covering say, 100 years. It’s all about “explaining” the numbers, rather than showing them. Even the stanford site that comes up say that there IS some effect by solar activity.
Real Facts – Cars Create Smog
Smog doesn’t travel that far up. SUV’s, like a Hummer, contribute 45x more than a Hybrid or PZEV.
When do you see people car pooling in SUV’s? Other than soccer moms, on the interstate, you see huge gas guzzling vehicles for no other reason than to show off.
Outside cities, sure they have SUV’s or monster pick-up’s (aka TheGlobalWarmer‘s Transportation Device). Where do you see smog in the country or small town?
Industrial Pollution – Rising to the Stratosphere
Causes greenhouse effects, and particulates effects (reflection).
The particulates don’t congregate at the poles !!!
Why more global warming effects in the last 25 years?
Industrial revolution in China and other countries.
Significantly less forests.
So everyone get off the Cars = Global Warming bit. I don’t believe it.
Get an intelligent car for your needs.
Bash unchecked / uncontrolled industrial pollution worldwide in favor of profits – which has been proven as being total bull crap.
Green products, sold more expensive, sell very well, with a higher profit margin. All the time.
In my mind, car pollution contributes max 5% to GW.
Land clearing & industrial pollution contributes 95%.
I drive a hybrid instead of an SUV for roughly the same monthly car payment. My choice.
I thumbs down SUV drivers, not index up.
Ah the hysteria! It’s remarkable how quicky people fall into their preconceived notions of truth. Sorry I’ll take the sceptical route and wait for facts. Here’s some…
Global Warming and Solar Radiation
Robin – That was an interesting read.
#20 – Then say that… Because you don’t get to invent the meanings of words to support your loonbat bent… and you are in the loonbat camp, which we know from how you intentionally misuse language.
15,
You are correct..
Also getting Scientists to SEe and agree is a Pain in the #$$#%…(see its not a 4 letter word)…
But even if the Sun is adding heat, we should be getting more Clouds on the western side of the states…Which is interesting also, as most of the weather Sci, tends to only cover the AREA of land around us, and not into the middle of the pacific…
Iv only found 1 Weather program that will let me Watch the pacific storms, I aint looked hard lately, but there seems to be a HOT area below Mexico bring up storms, up the west coast…With 2 Major storms hitting already.
For What It’s Worth – A Graphic
http://www.treehugger.com/economist-petrol2007-001.jpg
To #4 re: “they don’t want to be inconvenienced by the change in behavior we humans would need to undertake to reduce the output of CO2”
Uh — wrong. I hate bug gas guzzling vehicles and think that should be a crime but know that I myself am uncertain about a) whether or not global warming is occurring and b) if it is whether or not humans are causing it.
The ozone depletion with CFCs was a slam dunk.
Global warming isn’t a slam dunk, nor is a slam dunk that humans are causing it.
The global warming debate needs de-politicized and instead of Al Gore telling me if I don’t believe him I am wrong, I would prefer for someone to lay out the case with the scientific method.
The only thing I ever see is proganda and the iffy application of science.
[Duplicate post. – ed.]
http://icons.wunderground.com/data/images/sst_basin/gl_sst.png
Look at the sea temps…esp around Mexico.
#21 re: loonbat camp : Another child who can’t read.
Here is the non pseudoscientific consensus.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/review.pdf
Better check the references, no loonbats.
Here are 2660 Physicists, Geophysicists, Climatologists, Meteorologists, Oceanographers, and Evironmental Scientists who support the findings of this peer reviewed paper.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/a_sci.htm
#27 – I never said THEY were loonbats… I said YOU were a loonbat… But its okay… There is plenty of company for you here.
# 28 Does the name calling boost your ego? Do you really feel you must put other down to make yourself feel good. Tell me about your mother.
#27 The studies you cite are paid for by the George C Marshall Institute. http://tinyurl.com/26xkau George C. Marshall Institute has received $715000 from ExxonMobil since 1998!!
That does not sound like an impartial institute at all dude. In other words, everything you said in post #20, the exact opposite is true!
#29 – Awe man… If I had realized it hurt your feelings I’d have refrained from hurling so profane an insult as “loonbat” at you… Sorry man.
.
.
.
loonbat
#30, the merits for or against the article aside, your logic in discrediting a source through “guilt by association” is a bit on the flawed side of things.
#34 & 35
I have yet to find an actual scientific refutation of global warming that wasn’t funded by either an oil company or right wing political group.
The large number of studies supporting the global warming cojecture comes from well established scentific foundations, colleges, and government organizations who are staking their reputation on accuracy, and open their data to peer review.
#35 it is funny that you attack sourcewatch because of its liberal ties, and yet you do not attack the accuracy of the information. Who is the real spinmeister here?
#36 All one must do is read the sourcewatch article to know it’s bias. Due to their bias, and source of their money, they are not to be trusted. FYI the oil companies are behind the global warming hysteria, they’ll make a lot of money as a result.