Solar Activity cannot account for recent warming trend

[SpidermanTUba]

Here is a snippet from a recent paper on how solar activity cannot account for the recent warming trend:






There are many interesting palaeoclimate studies that suggest that solar
variability had an influence on pre-industrial climate. There are also some
detection–attribution studies using global climate models that suggest there was
a detectable influence of solar variability in the first half of the twentieth century
and that the solar radiative forcing variations were amplified by some mechanism
that is, as yet, unknown. However, these findings are not relevant to any debates
about modern climate change. Our results show that the observed rapid rise in
global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability,
whichever of the mechanisms is invoked and no matter how much the solar
variation is amplified.



The entire paper can be found here:


http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf

[darin]

Except on Pluto:

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2002/pluto.html

(shrug).

Man-caused/made Global warming = Myth perpetuated by Big Industry to steal BILLIONS in tax and other dollars.

[darin]

More on Solar Activity Major Cause of Earth's warming:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/miller/miller21.html

[diuretic]

I am bereft of science knowledge but it seems to me that:

1. The Sun has been around for a while and (I don't know) it seems to me that it's been in a fairly stable state (give or take sunspot activity) for much of the time that life has been on Earth.

2. Given that (if it's correct of course) then the only variable of any consequence on Earth in terms of climate change has to be human activity as we are the only animals who have both adapted to various localised climates on Earth and have ourselves changed localised climates on Earth. Some primates might be able to start a fire to keep themselves warm but I've never heard of it.

3. If humans have been around for, say, a hundred thousand years and in that time haven't done much to contribute to climate change then that might be because we as a species were in insufficient numbers and we didn't have the technology to produce the factors that cause climate change.

4. But in years since the Industrial Revolution we have had the technology and we have used it.

5. If the signs of rapid climate change are detectable from about the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and show increased effect as we have industrialised around the globe then I reckon that's good enough for me.

[darin]

I am bereft of science knowledge but it seems to me that:

1. The Sun has been around for a while and (I don't know) it seems to me that it's been in a fairly stable state (give or take sunspot activity) for much of the time that life has been on Earth.

2. Given that (if it's correct of course) then the only variable of any consequence on Earth in terms of climate change has to be human activity as we are the only animals who have both adapted to various localised climates on Earth and have ourselves changed localised climates on Earth. Some primates might be able to start a fire to keep themselves warm but I've never heard of it.

3. If humans have been around for, say, a hundred thousand years and in that time haven't done much to contribute to climate change then that might be because we as a species were in insufficient numbers and we didn't have the technology to produce the factors that cause climate change.

4. But in years since the Industrial Revolution we have had the technology and we have used it.

5. If the signs of rapid climate change are detectable from about the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and show increased effect as we have industrialised around the globe then I reckon that's good enough for me.

Ya just can't cherry-pick facts like that.

[diuretic]

Ya just can't cherry-pick facts like that.

Cherry-picking? How is it cherry-picking?

It's just an outline of my thinking on the subject. By all means rebut it.

[SpidermanTUba]

More on Solar Activity Major Cause of Earth's warming:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/miller/miller21.html

":Donald W. Miller, Jr., MD" - I'm fairly certain that "MD" means medical doctor. I don't think they teach climatology in Medical School.

[SpidermanTUba]

Except on Pluto:

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2002/pluto.html

(shrug).

Man-caused/made Global warming = Myth perpetuated by Big Industry to steal BILLIONS in tax and other dollars.

That's an interesting claim but you haven't a shred of evidence to back it up.

[SpidermanTUba]

Ya just can't cherry-pick facts like that.

On the other hand, you could be like dmp, and not use facts.

[diuretic]

On the other hand, you could be like dmp, and not use facts.

:laugh2:

"Facts? Facts? We don't need....." ah, everyone knows how it goes :laugh2:

[darin]

That's an interesting claim but you haven't a shred of evidence to back it up.

I've got LOTS of evidence to back it up. Do you care?

[SpidermanTUba]

I've got LOTS of evidence to back it up. Do you care?

Yet you can't produce a single piece of it. Unless you expect me to believe that a medical doctor is somehow qualified as an expert in the fields of climatology or geology.

[darin]

Yet you can't produce a single piece of it. Unless you expect me to believe that a medical doctor is somehow qualified as an expert in the fields of climatology or geology.

But you won't question what the Medical Doctor wrote - you'll simply harp on his Degree eh?

lol :)

[diuretic]

But you won't question what the Medical Doctor wrote - you'll simply harp on his Degree eh?

lol :)

If the good doctor is outside of his discipline then what particular expertise can he claim? If you are making an appeal to authority best to make it to an authority in the discipline in question.

[SpidermanTUba]

But you won't question what the Medical Doctor wrote - you'll simply harp on his Degree eh?

lol :)


I didn't read what he wrote, he isn't qualified to make a expert opinion on the global climate. His opinion on the global climate is worth no more that yours is, or any schmo on the street.

[PostmodernProphet]

Christopher Monckton


I conclude that the Sun is very likely to have contributed rather more to the past century’s warm period than the UN has assumed, and that assumptions about the contribution of greenhouse gases to warming should be revised downward accordingly.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2006/11/05/warm-refs.pdf;jsessionid=FT0LBHDUHP50BQFIQMFSFGGAVCBQ0I V0


Syun-Ichi Akasofu, Director of the International Arctic Research Center


There seems to be a roughly linear increase of the temperature from about 1800, or even much earlier, to the present. This trend should be subtracted from the temperature data during the last 100 years. Thus, there is a possibility that only a fraction of the present warming trend may be attributed to the greenhouse effect resulting from human activities. One possible cause of the linear increase may be that the Earth is still recovering from the Little Ice Age.

http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/highlights/2007/akasofu_3_07/index.php#notes


Claude Allègre


With a wealth of data now in, Dr. Allegre has recanted his views. To his surprise, the many climate models and studies failed dismally in establishing a man-made cause of catastrophic global warming. Meanwhile, increasing evidence indicates that most of the warming comes of natural phenomena. Dr. Allegre now sees global warming as over-hyped and an environmental concern of second rank.

His break with what he now sees as environmental cant on climate change came in September, in an article entitled "The Snows of Kilimanjaro" in l' Express, the French weekly. His article cited evidence that Antarctica is gaining ice and that Kilimanjaro's retreating snow caps, among other global-warming concerns, come from natural causes. "The cause of this climate change is unknown," he states matter of factly. There is no basis for saying, as most do, that the "science is settled."

Dr. Allegre's skepticism is noteworthy in several respects. For one, he is an exalted member of France's political establishment, a friend of former Socialist president Lionel Jospin, and, from 1997 to 2000, his minister of education, research and technology, charged with improving the quality of government research through closer co-operation with France's educational institutions. For another, Dr. Allegre has the highest environmental credentials. The author of early environmental books, he fought successful battles to protect the ozone layer from CFCs and public health from lead pollution. His break with scientific dogma over global warming came at a personal cost: Colleagues in both the governmental and environmental spheres were aghast that he could publicly question the science behind climate change.


http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=2f4cc62e-5b0d-4b59-8705-fc28f14da388

[SpidermanTUba]

A) Monkcton is a journalist, so what does he have to do with anything?
B) Akasofu's paper hasn't been published, and he readily admits he's outside of his expertise.
C) Allegere's recant was published in l' Express, the French weekly - somehow I doubt that's a peer reviewed scientific journal.


Lets try and restrict this to published scientific literature.

[PostmodernProphet]

Lets try and restrict this to published scientific literature.


sorry, no....we miss too much that way.....

[LOki]

More LOLz at the chicken littles. (http://www.dailytech.com/Blogger+finds+Y2K+bug+in+NASA+Climate+Data/article8383.htm)
NASA has now silently released corrected figures, and the changes are truly astounding. The warmest year on record is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media as record-breaking) moves to second place. 1921 takes third. In fact, 5 of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur before World War II. Anthony Watts has put the new data in chart form, along with a more detailed summary of the events.

[82Marine89]

I didn't read what he wrote, he isn't qualified to make a expert opinion on the global climate. His opinion on the global climate is worth no more that yours is, or any schmo on the street.

Is that your expert opinion? What qualifies you to disregard what he has to say?

[JohnDoe]

I can remember reading in the Bible that God hates and destroys those who destroy the earth.....

So I did a google and found this article from someone religious, on the right side of the aisle politically and found this interview below.

Note, for those of you that are religious in any way, it does not say that God hates the Sun for destroying the Earth, He was speaking to us!


October 06, 2005
God will destroy those who destroy the earth
From Salon.com's interview with Richard Cizik:

Can you explain this term "creation care"? How does this differ from environmentalism?

It is simply our articulation of a biblical doctrine, which is that we are commissioned by God the Almighty to be stewards of the earth. It is rooted not in politics or ideology, but in the scriptures. Genesis 2:15 specifically calls us "to watch over and care for" the bounty of the earth and its creatures. Scripture not only affirms this role, but warns that the earth is not ours to abuse, own, or dominate. The Bible clearly says in Revelation 11:18 that "God will destroy those who destroy the earth."

Do you believe that polluters will literally be destroyed by God?

It's very difficult to comprehend the full ramifications of this Bible verse, but I can tell you it's a warning: Destroyers beware. Take heed. It was by and for Christ that this earth was made, which means it is sinfully wrong -- it is a tragedy of enormous proportions -- to destroy, degrade or despoil it. He who has ears, let him hear.

The Bible also says that humans have "dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing." Some in your community interpret this as a license to exploit natural resources.

That is a deeply flawed interpretation. Dominion does not mean domination. It implies responsibility -- to cultivate and care for the earth, not to sully it with bad environmental practices.

The Bible also teaches us that Jesus Christ is not only redeeming his people, but also restoring God's creation ... we show our love for Jesus Christ by reaching out to and healing the spiritually lost and by conserving and renewing creation. Christ's call to love nature is as simple as his call to love our neighbors as ourselves.

What specifically are you doing to get people involved in these issues?

We ask Christians to shape their personal lives in creation-friendly ways by practicing effective recycling, conserving resources, and experiencing the joy of contact with nature. We urge government to encourage fuel efficiency, reduce pollution, encourage sustainable use of natural resources, and provide for the proper care of wildlife and their natural habitats. There are still plenty who wonder, does advocating this agenda mean we have to become liberal weirdoes? And I say to them, certainly not. It's in the scripture. Read the Bible.

What is your opinion on the Bush administration's environmental track record?

I am a pro-Bush conservative, but I believe this isn't a conservative issue, a liberal issue, a Republican issue, a Democrat issue, a red issue, a blue issue, or a green issue. Has the Bush administration done what I think it should do in terms of reducing pollution and resource consumption? No. But I am modestly optimistic that there has been some momentum in the discussion in Washington and the public at large. I am confident that the administration can change its direction, and we can help them do that.

[manu1959]

I am bereft of science knowledge but it seems to me that:

1. The Sun has been around for a while and (I don't know) it seems to me that it's been in a fairly stable state (give or take sunspot activity) for much of the time that life has been on Earth.

2. Given that (if it's correct of course) then the only variable of any consequence on Earth in terms of climate change has to be human activity as we are the only animals who have both adapted to various localised climates on Earth and have ourselves changed localised climates on Earth. Some primates might be able to start a fire to keep themselves warm but I've never heard of it.

3. If humans have been around for, say, a hundred thousand years and in that time haven't done much to contribute to climate change then that might be because we as a species were in insufficient numbers and we didn't have the technology to produce the factors that cause climate change.

4. But in years since the Industrial Revolution we have had the technology and we have used it.

5. If the signs of rapid climate change are detectable from about the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and show increased effect as we have industrialised around the globe then I reckon that's good enough for me.

the world has gotten better at measuring things.....is it possible that we may just be more accurate at measuring things that were never measured before?

[red states rule]

Somehow the truth always seems to get out.......

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/aug/13/renewableenergy.energy

[PostmodernProphet]

Government officials have secretly briefed ministers that Britain has no hope of getting remotely near the new European Union renewable energy target that Tony Blair signed up to in the spring - and have suggested that they find ways of wriggling out of it.

lol, I think the Guardian just solved that problem for them.....now everyone knows it isn't going to happen.....of course, it won't really matter, since the rest of the EU isn't going to reach their target either.....

[red states rule]

lol, I think the Guardian just solved that problem for them.....now everyone knows it isn't going to happen.....of course, it won't really matter, since the rest of the EU isn't going to reach their target either.....

Why all the trouble? What problem are they trying to solve?

[medical 2933]

we as a species were in insufficient numbers and we didn't have the technology to produce the factors that cause climate change.

[red states rule]

we as a species were in insufficient numbers and we didn't have the technology to produce the factors that cause climate change.

global warming, global cooling, or climate change - it is all a scam and a hoax

[darin]

Yeah! a hoax.

[red states rule]

Yeah! a hoax.

and foolish people fork over money to buy "carbon offsets"

[darin]

All the while big-business (who is behind all this) gets richer.

[PostmodernProphet]

What problem are they trying to solve?

the problem of getting the secret out, Red....

[red states rule]

the problem of getting the secret out, Red....

that global warming is a bunch of BS?

Mission accomplished

[darin]

:popcorn:

[PostmodernProphet]

that global warming is a bunch of BS?


sheesh, I wouldn't have to explain this to you if you were a real conservative.....real conservatives studied hard in school and learned to read.....liberals were the ones taking naps in the corner, which you apparently have been doing since this thread started.....

their problem was how to explain to the public that there was no way they were going to meet their idiotic goals for reduction.....

[red states rule]

sheesh, I wouldn't have to explain this to you if you were a real conservative.....real conservatives studied hard in school and learned to read.....liberals were the ones taking naps in the corner, which you apparently have been doing since this thread started.....

their problem was how to explain to the public that there was no way they were going to meet their idiotic goals for reduction.....

goals to reduce emmissions to combat a non-existent problem