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.
67—Bubba, are YOU telling ME I have to read, understand, and balance all the relevant facts in an issue before illegitimately posting to only part of an issue?
Damn, thats a high standard to meet before forming an opinion, much less arguing for a proposition.
Could it be that everything I know is wrong??
BTW—thanks.
As for solar warming: (PDF)
http://tinyurl.com/268gyp
J/P=?
#70, “are YOU telling ME I have to read, understand, and balance all the relevant facts in an issue before illegitimately posting to only part of an issue?”
No, that was not my intent at all. You must have misunderstood my post or my post wasn’t clear. I was actually agreeing with you. Not all here enjoy a pun.
72—This may be tedious, but your quote at 67 goes to the point that volcanoes emit CO2 and therefore contribute to GREATER earth warming, but that this is offset by the haze the volcanoes created which is an earth COOLER, with the net effect that volcanoes act to cool the earth?
Anyway, interesting to see how people misunderstand isolated facts and at some point in time form a conclusion and refuse to change their minds EVEN WHEN the facts they originally relied on have changed or been refuted.
Makes you wonder how science got off the ground and how it stays off the ground? Ooops. I see a glaring assumption there!
Thanks, Bubba.
#63 – yes, that is a pretty good site, Mr Ray. You should give some Googling tips to Stars and Bars. Of course, none of the sites (his included) provide any evidence for his ridiculous theory (whatever it is…volcanos? water vapor? farting cows?) that civilization-induced pollution has nothing to do with global warming. From your own fine site posting:
“Global warming has been evident since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Most scientists attribute global warming to the release of greenhouse gases through the burning of fossil fuels.”
In case it has escaped Stars and Bars’ notice, volcanos and water vapor have been around throughout all of earth’s history. Only since the INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION has the globe started to warm. Must be those damned left-wing commie scientists, getting bought off by the guys who discovered fire.
66 – JimR – “40 years of data is meaningless in relation to the time span required to determine the cause and effects of earth’s climate. It’s laughable.”
40 years of data is a long enough span to start a discussion on a factual basis. That’s not only not laughable, it’s far better than studies funded by an interested party like the Petroleum Institute or the usual industrialists.
Nobody claimed it was enough to understand all the second-order effects that influence global climate. In the case of the study in question, however, it’s enough to show that solar fluctuations do not track positively to global warming.
I like Eidard’s term “cul-de-sac research.” It was a test forced by those who substitute politics for data. Distorting it to claim those who accept it as data believe anybody knows everything about climate change is just silly.
>>Where did you read that??
You’re making the assumption that Stars and Bars can read.
Based on the “support” the few sites he lists give to his contention, I’d say that assumption may be erroneous.
Mike Lockwood and Claus Fröhlich’s paper submitted to the Royal Society claims that, There is considerable evidence for solar influence on the Earth’s pre-industrial climate and the Sun may well have been a factor in post-industrial climate change
Gee, what happened, did the sun stop being a factor? NO. The amount of radiation reaching the earth is about 1,368 watts per square meter. If not, the earth would be a dismal -455 below zero.
Carbon Dioxide comprises 0.035% of earth’s atmosphere. WOW, that’s impressive. BTW water vapor make up 4% of the atmosphere.
The simplicity of solar impact makes it public enemy #1 of the Gore-bots. I ask again, did you read the paper?
If they said it on Al Jazeera then it MUST to be true, huh?
Speaking of Al Jazeera, did I miss something? Did Gore promise the Gore-bots that they could have 72 virgins in the afterlife?
#77, S&B, Thanks for your support. Those links echo my fellow astronomers’ positions that the Sun is, indeed, a major part of the “global warming” phenomenon. [Ref post # 56]
Interestingly, looks we’re headed for a new Maunder minimum, and possibly another little ice age. Solar theory is currently undergoing some intriguing changes, with data from the STEREO satellites some of the best ever to date.
Info on Maunder minima here:
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml
This is a debate that will go on for some time. It will take some time to deterimine the impact that man has on the planet. Science will eventually show us what impact man has on the planet.
Polluting the planet’s resources like air, water and land is not a good thing even if it is not the primary cause of global warming. Balance is very important for a the planetary ecosystem. The planet’s resources are limited and must be effectively utilized. Many scientist argue that we must look to other planets and the universe for additional resources.
Interesting read, especially if you’re a Gore-bot.
Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm
Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification.
“the consensus was reached before the research had even begun.” Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.
Ladies and Gentlemen, while the theory that man-made pollution offset the suns effect is a possible hypothesis, it is also a possible hypothesis that the scientists understanding of the sun is so woefully incomplete that it lead to the wrong prediction. If they can’t predict the results of solar changes, which must be massive, how can they predict the effect of SUV’s which on a global scale are minute?
82–He doens’t state any facts, just conclusions. He is a singular person without portfolio. Any subject can find isolated sources on both sides of the subject. Peer reviewed respected organizations have concluded human caused global warming is here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_F._Ball
So, if human contribution of CO2 is negligible and doesn’t cause global warming, do you then logically advocate we stop restricting smoke stack emissions and just “let ‘er rip?” Ignore particulate matter, that should be removed as well or do you think lung disease, asthma, and acid rain are caused by Pine Trees?
Jesus H. Christ, Stars and Bars. You are rabid on this issue. Do you hate your Mother Earth so much that you’re willing to distort facts, post petroleum-industry-pimped lies, and stick your head up your heinie in a effort to deny what is evident to virtually all the world’s scientists (and to anyone with an IQ in the double digits), that global warming exists, that pollution is a great contributer to global warming, and just about anyone who “thinks” otherwise is benefitting somehow from the continued overuse of fossil fuels?
Gosh. You’re getting tiresome here. Give it up, dude. All your wisecracks about “Gore-bots” and postings from petroleum-sponsored sites (most of which don’t even support your claims) are pathetic. You must own a Hummer dealership or something.
since 1985 huh…. now that is a long range study if i have ever seen one… looks like they were studying the weather around planet hollywood if you ax me. and who the fsck is to say they no any more than anyone else on this… fact is when you mix politics with science as the dickwad poster here does all the time… then just as the dickwad poster here does… you are left to believe what ever you want.
Is there Global warming…yep.
Is it caused by human activity….not hardly.
Is the Sun involved…you betcha.
Is this study correct….hell no.
While Humans do account for approx. 20% of the carbon put into the atmosphere, they account for almost zero of Methane put into the atmosphere, and Methane is a far more important cause of global warming than carbon.
There are 2 Russian climatoligists, noted in the field who have done the math and they say it’s the Sun as number 1 suspect. And they aren’t being paid by any big oil company or non-educational funding.
I read this on BBC yesterday…..didn’t know al jazerra had it, but since it has become a subsiderary of the BBC, I’m not surprised. On Global Warming, the BBC, like the New York Times and the Washington Post, the L.A. Times are water boys for ANYONE who claims it’s Human causation.
All this back-and-forth about the research – I want to suggest backing away from the trees for a moment and taking a look at the forest.
The motives of the parties involved in the controversy can give very strong indication as to their relative sincerity.
Only one side stands to lose trillions of dollars if steps are taken to reduce whatever contribution human activities make to GW. That motive is strong justification for assuming a extremely high probability that industry’s denial that use of their products does not contribute to GW is self-serving and not credible.
If we do not reduce fossil fuel usage, then cui bono? Those are the ‘snake-oil salesmen.’
Bitch about Al Gore all you want, S&B – the man turned himself in to the EPA for toxic waste on his family’s property – and voluntarily paid something on the orfer of 16 million dollars, out of his own pocket, for cleanup.
The thought of someone like that vicious greedhead thug Cheney doing such a thing makes me bust a gut laughing…
Ok….this is the article I was looking for. #74….Mister Mustard……farting(and burping) cows happens to be a VERY big part of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming. I just read 2 articles this past couple weeks on efforts to devise a feed that will cut Methane from cows and sheep emissions. This is the one from the BBC Science page….it’s actually very informative.
http://tinyurl.com/2355cv
Keep in mind that the British are the only country in Europe that is really trying very hard to meet the Kyoto goals(not very successfully, but trying), so this isn’t BS(no pun intended)
#89….Lauren….Where did you get that story at? As of 2006, Gore still hadn’t cleaned up the toxic dump on his farm, and he sure as hell didn’t spend 16 million dollars of his own money to clean up something that hasn’t been cleaned up.
For one thing, Gore has never had 16 million dollars. And google the dump, you might be surprised to find out it still exisits.
Al Gore is a phony…he always has been and always will be. His excuse for everything is….**I buy carbon credits to offset my carbon footprint**….well LA DE FUCKING DA……yep…he buys them all right, from his own carbon offset company, which is a sham(like 98% of carbon offset companies). There are far to many REAL and HONEST enviromental crusaders out there to be scamed by a phony like Gore.
The coveted Fast Fourier Transform Award™ stays on the shelf, no takers by 05:00 CDT. (Hey, it’s not called Fast for no reason!) Another chance next week. 💡
If the implied solution to climate change was a technological one, akin to arranging a manned mars mission, I think the debate would be politically polarised in the opposite direction. Those of the red-blooded mindset would love the idea of a big machine to control the climate exactly how we want it, and those of the self-sacrificing disposition would hate it.
grog said:
“the only reason people 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.”
I think this part of the debate is always present, but usually only implicit, and it should be mentioned more – not in tones of moral condemnation; the significance of that inconvenience should be discussed – and the ideology that says accepting inconvenience into your life for the good of humanity is sensible should be brought into the light and inspected. Many, many goals to the benefit of humanity could be achieved through massive widespread inconvenience – if that were a good way to go about things.
Incidentally, “reducing output of CO2” is a pretty ineffectual thing to do, as well as being absurdly hard to arrange and involving large-scale coercion of individuals. (Yes, this is the “it’s already too late” argument. Except there must be *other* things we can do.)
Climate Expert Questions Gore’s Global Warming Campaign
http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-07-10-voa64.cfm
the IPCC has a political agenda and that skeptics are kept out of the discussion.
Some scientists from the global warming camp are now saying that debate should be allowed. As Gray and other skeptics have argued, science is advanced through constant questioning and testing of hypotheses, not by consensus.
The question is, “What is the IPCC’s political agenda?”
Answer: World Government
If world government is to be achieved by consent, the world must be sold on the idea of world government and its necessity.
State sovereignty must be altered in globalized era.
http://tinyurl.com/2t9ey5
[Please use TinyUrl.com for overly long URLs. – ed.]
In a report titled “The First Global Revolution” (1991) published by the Club of Rome, a globalist think tank, we find the following statement: “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill…. All these dangers are caused by human intervention… The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”
In the past, the Club of Rome has resorted to deceptive tactics in order to support their plans. In 1972, the Club of Rome, along with an MIT team released a report called “Limits to growth.” The report stated that we were to reach an environmental holocaust by the year 2000 due to overpopulation and other environmental problems. Support for their conclusions was gathered by results from a computer model. Aurelio Peccei, one of the founders of the Club of Rome, later confessed that the computer program had been written to give the desired results.
Joshua –
While Humans do account for approx. 20% of the carbon put into the atmosphere, they account for almost zero of Methane put into the atmosphere, and Methane is a far more important cause of global warming than carbon
I think you meant to say “carbon dioxide”, rather than “carbon”, as methane (CH4) contains carbon.
Stars & Bars –
Yeah, “Coming ice age”, “acid rain”, “ozone depletion”, “nuclear winter”. Yawn…
Well, I think what is interesting is that issues like this, scientific based rather than values based, allow us to learn how we make decisions.==Meaning each one of us individually can learn this about ourselves.
“How do you know what you know and how do you change your mind?” Learn from Global Warming. Note how and why you formed conclusions and what it took to change them ((if you ever do.)) Scientific consensus, recognized authority, last thing you heard, first thing you heard, radio, books, friends, quiet contemplation, etc.
I try to educate myself and keep an open mind until I decide I have learned enough. Methane has been fun to dip into. Wikiepedia has several good references as always. Yes, it is many times more heat retentive, but it breaks down in the atmosphere much more quickly, so the net effect is that it is not as significant a cause of global warming as is CO2–as best as I can understand it. Interestingly, it breaks down into water and CO2.
My mind is not made up on global warming other than it is very complex, multi-factorial, and interactive. I think man made CO2 ought to cause warming unless some mechanism is found to counterbalance it.
What conclusion you draw is not as important or interesting as the reason or rationale or facts you used to arrive at your conclusion. You can still learn alot from someone you disagree with, and conversely, disagree almost completely with someone who has reached the same conclusion you have.
#98, I think a lot of the semantical heartache people (like me) have is calling humans “the cause” instead of “contributors.” It’s one thing to contribute to something that is already happening, it’s another to be the reason it is.
Stars & Bars –
Why is “world government” presumed to be bad?
There is no doubt that CO2 can affect heat retention on earth, but there is lots of doubt that it is the sole cause or even a major cause. There are too many facets of climate and too many combinations of facets that are just beyond our current ability to solve. Even the measurements used to determine global warming are questionable. It seems that if a measurement is taken that doesn’t support global warming, it is discounted by the IPCC. That and the fact that a spokesman of the IPCC has lied to the public concerning hurricanes, makes me suspicious of their claims. The National Weather office of NOAA is not convinced that the sun isn’t for some part of the ‘apparent’ warming, and they use more data than a paltry 40 years.
The whole exercise is too political. MONEY is the driving force, be it as research grants or corporate profits.
But on that note I would challenge the ridiculous notion that oil companies are against global warming reduction efforts. Geez, just look at the price of oil. They set it to whatever they need to make the profit they want. When usage goes down, they will raise the price to maintain profits. Hybrid cars are becoming very popular, and look at the price of gas! They also will conserve their reserves and be in business longer. They win. If usage continues to rise, they will raise prices for perceived or real shortages. They win. You are looking at $6-7/gallon in a few years no matter what. So spare me the conspiracy crap.