"Solar Effect" theory debunked

Karlin

Council Member
Jun 27, 2004
1,275
2
38
Direct satellite measurements of solar activity show it has been declining since the mid-1980s and cannot account for recent rises in global temperatures, according to new research.

The findings debunk an explanation for climate change that is often cited by people who are not convinced that greenhouse gas emissions from human activities are causing the Earth's climate to warm.

http://tinyurl.com/ynmkuq

Ok, so thats one more item we can cross off in the long list of distractions from reality from the global warming denial crowd. I see we have several of them in this forum - get bent eh!!

The deniers refuse to consider the TRIPLE-reason for reducing our fossil fuel use: global warming and POLLUTION and "additional heating". If you do not believe CO2 is warming the earth, then look at pollution that creates illnesses like cancer, and see that reductions in fossil fuel emissions are a good thing.

Also, if the sun, or anything else, really was causing the rise in temperatures on earth, then it means we have to reduce our CO2 emissions BECAUSE THEY ARE ADDING AT LEAST SOMETHING TO THE TEMPERATURE RISE.

Those two, besides the stand-out reason that CO2 emissions are causing global warming, are why we have to start getting away from using fossil fuels as our only energy supply. No more energy monopoly, we have to stop the "fossil fools".

Even a 10% replacement of fossil fuels with alternative energy sources would mean we are not allways running at capacity, where additional demand means firing up the dirtiest of electrical generation [coal]. We must replace at least those facilities!!
 

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,843
92
48
Make sure you read everything.

The truth is, we can't ignore the sun


By David Whitehouse

Last Updated: 12:01am BST 15/07/2007



Have your say
Read comments

According to the headlines last week, the sun is not to blame for recent global warming: mankind and fossil fuels are. So Al Gore is correct when he said, "the scientific data is in. There is no more debate."
Of that the evangelical BBC had no doubt. There was an air of triumphalism in its coverage of the report by the Royal Society.
It was perhaps a reaction to the BBC Trust's recent criticism of the Corporation's bias when reporting climate change: but sadly, it only proved the point made by the Trust.
The BBC was enthusiastically one-sided, sloppy and confused on its website, using concepts such as the sun's power, output and magnetic field incorrectly and interchangeably, as well as not including any criticism of the research.
But there is a deeper and more worrying issue. Last week's research is a simple piece of science and fundamentally flawed. Nobody looked beyond the hype; if they had, they would have reached a different conclusion.
The report argues that while the sun had a significant effect on climate during most of the 20th century, its influence is currently dwarfed by human effects. It says that all known solar influences since about 1990 are downward and because global temperature has increased since then, the sun is not responsible.
No. The research could prove the contrary. Using the global temperature data endorsed by the Inter-national Panel on Climate Change, one can reach a completely different conclusion.
Recently the United States' National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration said that 2006 was statistically indistinguishable from previous years.
Looking at annual global temperatures, it is apparent that the last decade shows no warming trend and recent successive annual global temperatures are well within each year's measurement errors. Statistically the world's temperature is flat.
The world certainly warmed between 1975 and 1998, but in the past 10 years it has not been increasing at the rate it did. No scientist could honestly look at global temperatures over the past decade and see a rising curve.
It is undisputed that the sun of the later part of the 20th century was behaving differently from that of the beginning. Its sunspot cycle is stronger and shorter and, technically speaking, its magnetic field leakage is weaker and its cosmic ray shielding effect stronger.
So we see that when the sun's activity was rising, the world warmed. When it peaked in activity in the late 1980s, within a few years global warming stalled. A coincid-ence, certainly: a connection, possibly.
My own view on the theory that greenhouse gases are driving climate change is that it is a good working hypothesis - but, because I have studied the sun, I am not completely convinced.
The sun is by far the single most powerful driving force on our climate, and the fact is we do not understand how it affects us as much as some think we do.
So look on the BBC and Al Gore with scepticism. A scientist's first allegiance should not be to computer models or political spin but to the data: that shows the science is not settled.
Dr David Whitehouse is an astronomer, former BBC science correspondent, and the author of The Sun: A Biography (John Wiley & Sons)
 

triedit

inimitable

Karlin

Council Member
Jun 27, 2004
1,275
2
38
Recently the United States' National Oceanographic and Atmospheric
Administration said that 2006 was statistically indistinguishable from previous years.
Looking at annual global temperatures, it is apparent that the last decade shows no warming trend and recent successive annual global temperatures are well within each year's measurement errors. Statistically the world's temperature is flat.

I must dispute this. How about "the 10 warmest years have been in the last 14 years" part of Al Gore's movie? [referring to ~yr.2003 temps]

How/where/what does it mean when you say "the temperature has been flat" for the past decade when temperatures have been the HOTTEST, and each one breaking the previous years heat records? "With 2003 being the hottest of them all"]

Please show the referance, because this data you spew forth seems totally wrong, and not at all unlike the previous denials that have all been shown to be not only WRONG but paid for by Exxon. The sceince you refer to might be all lies, and if so then you are a minion [knowingly or not] of the oil industry.

The earth is getting warmer, are we back to that part of this again? If you fail to show what proof you have, then I must give up, you win if you intend to just keep telling lies, there is no way to defeat you, good for you, I cannot defeat your cabal of liars and deniers and global warming fools. Welcome to your own hell my friend, I do not intend to be there with you.
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
Karlin

There is nothing wrong with Al Gore's science or his math. Keep fightin' the good fight...;-)
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Global Warming Basics [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]What it is, how it's caused, and what needs to be done to stop it. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif][En Español][/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif][/FONT] [FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]

[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif] What causes global warming?[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif] Carbon dioxide and other air pollution that is collecting in the atmosphere like a thickening blanket, trapping the sun's heat and causing the planet to warm up. Coal-burning power plants are the largest U.S. source of carbon dioxide pollution -- they produce 2.5 billion tons every year. Automobiles, the second largest source, create nearly 1.5 billion tons of CO2 annually.

Here's the good news: technologies exist today to make cars that run cleaner and burn less gas, modernize power plants and generate electricity from nonpolluting sources, and cut our electricity use through energy efficiency. The challenge is to be sure these solutions are put to use.
[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif] Is the earth really getting hotter?[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Yes. Although local temperatures fluctuate naturally, over the past 50 years the average global temperature has increased at the fastest rate in recorded history. And experts think the trend is accelerating: the 10 hottest years on record have all occurred since 1990. Scientists say that unless we curb global warming emissions, average U.S. temperatures could be 3 to 9 degrees higher by the end of the century. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif] Are warmer temperatures causing bad things to happen?[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Global warming is already causing damage in many parts of the United States. In 2002, Colorado, Arizona and Oregon endured their worst wildfire seasons ever. The same year, drought created severe dust storms in Montana, Colorado and Kansas, and floods caused hundreds of millions of dollars in damage in Texas, Montana and North Dakota. Since the early 1950s, snow accumulation has declined 60 percent and winter seasons have shortened in some areas of the Cascade Range in Oregon and Washington.

Of course, the impacts of global warming are not limited to the United States. In 2003, extreme heat waves caused more than 20,000 deaths in Europe and more than 1,500 deaths in India. And in what scientists regard as an alarming sign of events to come, the area of the Arctic's perennial polar ice cap is declining at the rate of 9 percent per decade.
[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif] Is global warming making hurricanes worse?[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Global warming doesn't create hurricanes, but it does make them stronger and more dangerous. Because the ocean is getting warmer, tropical storms can pick up more energy and become more powerful. So global warming could turn, say, a category 3 storm into a much more dangerous category 4 storm. In fact, scientists have found that the destructive potential of hurricanes has greatly increased along with ocean temperature over the past 35 years. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif] Is there really cause for serious concern?[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Yes. Global warming is a complex phenomenon, and its full-scale impacts are hard to predict far in advance. But each year scientists learn more about how global warming is affecting the planet, and many agree that certain consequences are likely to occur if current trends continue. Among these:

[/FONT]
  • [FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]
    [*]Melting glaciers, early snowmelt and severe droughts will cause more dramatic water shortages in the American West.
    [*]Rising sea levels will lead to coastal flooding on the Eastern seaboard, in Florida, and in other areas, such as the Gulf of Mexico.
    [*]Warmer sea surface temperatures will fuel more intense hurricanes in the southeastern Atlantic and Gulf coasts.
    [*]Forests, farms and cities will face troublesome new pests and more mosquito-borne diseases.
    [*]Disruption of habitats such as coral reefs and alpine meadows could drive many plant and animal species to extinction.
    [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif] Could global warming trigger a sudden catastrophe?[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif] Recently, researchers -- and even the U.S. Defense Department -- have investigated the possibility of abrupt climate change, in which gradual global warming triggers a sudden shift in the earth's climate, causing parts of the world to dramatically heat up or cool down in the span of a few years.

In February 2004, consultants to the Pentagon released a report laying out the possible impacts of abrupt climate change on national security. In a worst-case scenario, the study concluded, global warming could make large areas of the world uninhabitable and cause massive food and water shortages, sparking widespread migrations and war.

While this prospect remains highly speculative, many of global warming's effects are already being observed -- and felt. And the idea that such extreme change is possible underscores the urgent need to start cutting global warming pollution.
[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif] What country is the largest source of global warming pollution?[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]The United States. Though Americans make up just 4 percent of the world's population, we produce 25 percent of the carbon dioxide pollution from fossil-fuel burning -- by far the largest share of any country. In fact, the United States emits more carbon dioxide than China, India and Japan, combined. Clearly America ought to take a leadership role in solving the problem. And as the world's top developer of new technologies, we are well positioned to do so -- we already have the know-how. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif] How can we cut global warming pollution?[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]It's simple: By reducing pollution from vehicles and power plants. Right away, we should put existing technologies for building cleaner cars and more modern electricity generators into widespread use. We can increase our reliance on renewable energy sources such as wind, sun and geothermal. And we can manufacture more efficient appliances and conserve energy. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif] Why aren't these technologies more commonplace now?[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Because, while the technologies exist, the corporate and political will to put them into widespread use does not. Many companies in the automobile and energy industries put pressure on the White House and Congress to halt or delay new laws or regulations -- or even to stop enforcing existing rules -- that would drive such changes. From requiring catalytic converters to improving gas mileage, car companies have fought even the smallest measure to protect public health and the environment. If progress is to be made, the American people will have to demand it. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif] Do we need new laws requiring industry to cut emissions of global warming pollution?[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Yes. The Bush administration has supported only voluntary reduction programs, but these have failed to stop the growth of emissions. Even leaders of major corporations, including companies such as DuPont, Alcoa and General Electric, agree that it's time for the federal government to create strong laws to cut global warming pollution. Public and political support for solutions has never been stronger. Congress is now considering fresh proposals to cap emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping pollutants from America's largest sources -- power plants, industrial facilities and transportation fuels.

Stricter efficiency requirements for electric appliances will also help reduce pollution. One example is the 30 percent tighter standard now in place for home central air conditioners and heat pumps, a Clinton-era achievement that will prevent the emission of 51 million metric tons of carbon -- the equivalent of taking 34 million cars off the road for one year. The new rule survived a Bush administration effort to weaken it when, in January 2004, a federal court sided with an NRDC-led coalition and reversed the administration's rollback.
[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif] Is it possible to cut power plant pollution and still have enough electricity?[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Yes. First, we must use more efficient appliances and equipment in our homes and offices to reduce our electricity needs. We can also phase out the decades-old, coal-burning power plants that generate most of our electricity and replace them with cleaner plants. And we can increase our use of renewable energy sources such as wind and sun. Some states are moving in this direction: California has required its largest utilities to get 20 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2017, and New York has pledged to compel power companies to provide 25 percent of the state's electricity from renewable sources by 2013. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif] How can we cut car pollution?[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Cost-effective technologies to reduce global warming pollution from cars and light trucks of all sizes are available now. There is no reason to wait and hope that hydrogen fuel cell vehicles will solve the problem in the future. Hybrid gas-electric engines can cut global warming pollution by one-third or more today; hybrid sedans, SUVs and trucks from several automakers are already on the market.

But automakers should be doing a lot more: They've used a legal loophole to make SUVs far less fuel efficient than they could be; the popularity of these vehicles has generated a 20 percent increase in transportation-related carbon dioxide pollution since the early 1990s. Closing this loophole and requiring SUVs, minivans and pick-up trucks to be as efficient as cars would cut 120 million tons of carbon dioxide pollution a year by 2010. If automakers used the technology they have right now to raise fuel economy standards for new cars and light trucks to a combined 40 m.p.g., carbon dioxide pollution would eventually drop by more than 650 million tons per year as these vehicles replaced older models.

For more information on hybrid vehicles, see NRDC's hybrid guide.
[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif] What can I do to help fight global warming?[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif] There are many simple steps you can take right now to cut global warming pollution. Make conserving energy a part of your daily routine. Each time you choose a compact fluorescent light bulb over an incandescent bulb, for example, you'll lower your energy bill and keep nearly 700 pounds of carbon dioxide out of the air over the bulb's lifetime. By opting for a refrigerator with the Energy Star label -- indicating it uses at least 15 percent less energy than the federal requirement -- over a less energy-efficient model, you can reduce carbon dioxide pollution by nearly a ton in total. Join NRDC in our campaign against global warming.[/FONT]
[/FONT]

http://tinyurl.com/p53d8
 

thomaska

Council Member
May 24, 2006
1,509
37
48
Great Satan
Lord knows, there's absolutely "zero" shady politics and "funny money" exchaging hands on the Glowbull warming proponent's side of the aisle...:roll:
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
Lord knows, there's absolutely "zero" shady politics and "funny money" exchaging hands on the Glowbull warming proponent's side of the aisle...:roll:

Did you find an error in my post? Please point it out. BTW, I am not a proponent of global warming. I am very much against it. Unfortunately, some use ignorance as a weapon.
You've generally made it clear that you don't believe what scientists are telling us. Unfortunately, that is your right, even if you are wrong.
 

Karlin

Council Member
Jun 27, 2004
1,275
2
38
Keep reading, Karlin. The truth will set you free.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597

you ass. I give up if you are still going to play the denial angle. That link is all about denial, muddying the climate change waters. Here is a bit of it:
To believe it requires that one ignore the truly inconvenient facts. To take the issue of rising sea levels, these include: that the Arctic was as warm or warmer in 1940; that icebergs have been known since time immemorial; that the evidence so far suggests that the Greenland ice sheet is actually growing on average. A likely result of all this is increased pressure pushing ice off the coastal perimeter of that country, which is depicted so ominously in Mr. Gore's movie. In the absence of factual context, these images are perhaps dire or alarming.

They are less so otherwise. Alpine glaciers have been retreating since the early 19th century, and were advancing for several centuries before that. Since about 1970, many of the glaciers have stopped retreating and some are now advancing again. And, frankly, we don't know why.
Ya, that exactly the denial I was talking about: AL GORE is WRONG the ice sheets are GROWING, glaciers are getting bigger, because there is no temperature rise.

Those are all pure, and plainly, LIES.

Plus, you are saying two opposing things: Al Gore is WRONG and Al Gore has his figures right.

What you are doing with confusion and denial can only slow action to reduce our fossil fuel emissions, and there are two [or three] good reasons to do that [health and GWcc].

So, Walter, maybe you are just goofin' around, sure, its fun. You cannot be serious, you just like to stir me up a bit. You oppose yourself and confuse us. Great stuff, hilarious. You got juan suggesting that GW scientists are taking money for their opinions, as if the money from oil is competing for the money for global warming debates, which is also hilarious.

If there is still denial then I give up, there is no use trying to control emissions because we will soon pass the tipping point. We do not have time for debate AND solutions.

You persist, so you win, which also means that the problem is for you to shoulder the blame for, should global warming turn out to be real. Have fun, you silly fox.
 
Last edited: