Skip to comments.
Study acquits sun of climate change, blames humans
REUTERS ^
| 09/14/2006
| Alister Doyle
Posted on 09/14/2006 1:34:00 PM PDT by SirLinksalot
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-47 next last
To: Froufrou
"Wait, did I read this correctly? Gore is wrong?"
For sure. Major & minor climate changes are due too three things. The variation in the sun output(minor to this stage), orbital mechanics(major and minor) and natural earth actions, such as volcanoes, plate tectonics, changes in currents, forest fires etc.(major).
Mankind's impact is very minor. Our impact works both ways, reduction in Forest fires(positive - at least until the envior wackos got involved with the spotted owl etc.) Shift from coal burning to oil(Positive). reduction in methane producing animals(killed off the Buffalo's positive) Of course more people, bringing more fossil fuels more concrete(very minor)
Global warming will make much more land arable, and is a good thing, planet will be wetter(major green house gas). It is global cooling or major ice age that is the scary one that could severely impact mankind.
So, buy the SUV, and barbecue like hell
21
posted on
09/14/2006 1:52:43 PM PDT
by
stubernx98
(cranky, but reasonable)
To: stubernx98
I did the math yesterday...
Average of 200W per square meter from the sun. There's 1 million square meters per square kilometer. So that's 200MW of solar energy per square kilometer. An increase of 0.07 percent would be 140 kW extra energy per square kilometer.
Here's where it gets fun - there's roughly 500,000,000 square kilometers on the earth. At any given time, half of those are illuminated by the sun. So that's an extra 35,000 GW of energy delivered to the earth - EVERY DAY.
About what the state of California uses every day.
Now ask your "it's all MAN'S FAULT!" moonbat if they'd like to remove the equivalent energy use of California to combat Global Warming and they'd be all over it...
See, it's hard to beat the energy output of the sun... When you get 200W per square meter that is a LOT of energy. Even small changes - a few ten-thousandths - adds up REALLY QUICK because of the size of the earth, and that much power radiated from the sun...
To: Cacique
23
posted on
09/14/2006 2:05:57 PM PDT
by
Cacique
(quos Deus vult perdere, prius dementat ( Islamia Delenda Est ))
To: SirLinksalot
"The solar contribution to warming over the past 30 years is negligible," Gosh, really? I kinda thought we got all of our warming from the sun. (Can you imagine how many SUVs it would take to heat the earth?) Seems to me that without the sun, well, we'd be rather cold.
Which is to suggest that any line of inquiry that doesn't look at the sun's energy first, especially sunspotswhich are known to increase the solar energy reaching the earthis silly.
To: SirLinksalot
http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/solar/temp_vs_spot_irradiance.gif
25
posted on
09/14/2006 2:09:30 PM PDT
by
Maelstrom
(To prevent misinterpretation or abuse of the Constitution:The Bill of Rights limits government power)
To: SirLinksalot
"They then checked more ancient evidence ...and also found no dramatic shifts in solar energy output for at least the past millennium"
A 1 degree shift in temperature over last century proves the other scientists theories that the sun itself may be the cause for solar energy output. Surely, 1 degree temperature change can't be considered 'dramatic', especially when measured against unreliable devices used back during the 17th through 19th centuries. We are talking back to Martin Luther time period here.
26
posted on
09/14/2006 2:13:51 PM PDT
by
moonman
(`)
To: EdmondsDan
I never thought that accountants and physicists would share the same desire to make the numbers say what they want them to say!
27
posted on
09/14/2006 2:14:01 PM PDT
by
bjc
(Check the data!!)
To: SirLinksalot
And global Ice Ages, like the last one which ended about 10,000 years ago, seem linked to cyclical shifts in the earth's orbit around the sun rather than to changes in solar output.I remain convinced that we are near the end of an Interglacial Period, in which case these enviro fart-chasers will be irrelevant, and cold.
28
posted on
09/14/2006 2:21:05 PM PDT
by
headsonpikes
(Genocide is the highest sacrament of socialism.)
To: Shermy
I suppose the Medieval Warming Period was caused by Vikings, Huns and Mongols burning village? Not only that, those villians were the direct ancestors to George Bush thus it is George Bushes's fault :)
29
posted on
09/14/2006 2:21:18 PM PDT
by
cpdiii
(Socialism is popular with the ruling class. It gives legitimacy to tyranny and despotism.)
To: Maelstrom
Here is a German chart --
![](http://www.intellicast.com/DrDewpoint/Library/1186/figure05-sm.gif)
Explanation of chart --
The red curve shows the solar cycle length. It has decreased from around 11.5 years to less than 10 years in the last 140 years. Within the same interval the Earth's average temperature as indicated by the blue curve has increased by approximately 0.7 degree C. Note how the increasing cycle length and decreased magnitude in the 1960s and 1970s was accompanied by a cooling and the subsequent active short cycles brought a warming. The current longer, quieter cycle could bring a reversal.
From Intellicast Weather --
http://www.intellicast.com/DrDewpoint/Library/1186/
To: SirLinksalot
And global Ice Ages, like the last one which ended about 10,000 years ago, seem linked to cyclical shifts in the earth's orbit around the sun rather than to changes in solar output Just so. The current warming trend fits right in with the historical pattern, so it seems likely that it too is caused by "cyclical shifts in the earth's orbit". (Which is a poor description of the actual phenomena, but it'll do)
31
posted on
09/14/2006 2:42:22 PM PDT
by
El Gato
To: SirLinksalot
The study underlying this article was given a serious beat-down on an extended FR thread yesterday. Even those who believe that there are extraterrestrial climate forcings do not believe that variations in the sun's energy output is important. Instead, solar cycles affect cloud formation through their effect on the amount of ionizing radiation coming from space.
32
posted on
09/14/2006 2:46:36 PM PDT
by
financeprof
(Proud to be a climate change skeptic--skepticism is the hallmark of science)
To: moonman
A 1 degree shift in temperature over last century proves the other scientists theories that the sun itself may be the cause for solar energy output. Surely, 1 degree temperature change can't be considered 'dramatic', especially when measured against unreliable devices used back during the 17th through 19th centuries They don't use measurements from the period, they use "surrogates", things which are sensitive to temperature, and which leave a "fossil" record of those things.
33
posted on
09/14/2006 2:47:55 PM PDT
by
El Gato
To: SirLinksalot; xzins; blue-duncan; Alamo-Girl
"This basically rules out the sun as the cause of global warming," Henk Spruit, a co-author of the report from the Max Planck Institute in Germany, told Reuters.OK, lets put out the sun and see what happens.
BTW in the last 60 years industry has decreased its particulate emissions probably close to 90%. Therefore there is a lot more sunlight actually hitting the ground now than there was 100 years ago when everyone was burning unfiltered coal and driving on dirt roads and freely spewing all manner of particulate matter into the air.
Does anyone stop to think that maybe all these modern and very effective smog devices and paved roads are contributing to or causing global warming? We certainly didn't have all this global warming when the smog was so thick you could cut it with a knife.
34
posted on
09/14/2006 2:57:34 PM PDT
by
P-Marlowe
(((172 * 3.141592653589793238462) / 180) * 10 = 30.0196631)
To: P-Marlowe; SirLinksalot; xzins; Alamo-Girl
"We certainly didn't have all this global warming when the smog was so thick you could cut it with a knife."
Right, and we didn't have global warming before the women got the right to vote, either.
To: SirLinksalot
"Our results imply that over the past century climate change due to human influences must far outweigh the effects of changes in the sun's brightness," said Tom Wigley of the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research. I thought his study was on the sun, not human activity. Scientific objectiveness on parade again. Much like, "We've ruled out cancer as a cause of death, and that can only mean its murder."
To: SirLinksalot
Yet another group spewing the standard alarmist line. They must have a standard manual of lies.
37
posted on
09/14/2006 3:44:25 PM PDT
by
GOP_1900AD
(Stomping on "PC," destroying the Left, and smoking out faux "conservatives" - Take Back The GOP!)
To: Shermy
You're right, the reason the earth warmed is because the Vikings burned so many villages. The burning villages heated the clouds which caused rain to fall instead of snow, and soon the Vikings were growing grapes in Greenland.
With the warm weather, the Vikings found they could employ their slaves to grow grapes and other food. This left time for the Vikings to pursue other activities like counting their loot. Laying about while overseeing slaves, counting loot and ogling maidens was certainly a less dangerous line of work and more pleasurable.
The Vikings pursued this occupation for about 200 years. And since they werent burning villages anymore, the clouds didnt heat up. So the earth stopped warming, the snow returned, the Earth got hit with a 300 year mini-ice age and the marauding Vikings sailed off into history.
38
posted on
09/14/2006 4:02:42 PM PDT
by
sergeantdave
(Consider that nearly half the people you pass on the street meet Lenin's definition of useful idiot)
To: SirLinksalot
"Our results imply that over the past century climate change due to human influences must far outweigh the effects of changes in the sun's brightness," It would appear that even if this research is accurate and correct (which several posters have called into question) it still does not justify the delcaration of what human influences do or do not outweigh. At best they can say that changes due to the sun's brightness are negligible. How that translates in any way to anything about "human influences" is just poor logic.
To: SirLinksalot
Interesting they have chosen not to look at solar activity with reference to low altitude cloud cover.
Albedo (a measure of earth's reflectivity contolling solar insolation (incidence of sunlight with the surface) varies more more readily to variation in Solar activity effecting changes in the amount of sunlight reaching surface and hence temperature.
Variation of brightness of the sun is not the only variable related to solar activity at work here.
http://www.sciencebits.com/CosmicRaysClimate
![](http://www.sciencebits.com/files/pictures/climate/crcFig3.jpg)
Figure 3: The correlation between cosmic ray flux (orange) as measured in Neutron count monitors in low magnetic latitudes, and the low altitude cloud cover (blue) using ISCCP satellite data set, following Marsh & Svensmark, 2003.
The solar-activity cosmic-ray-flux cloud-cover correlation is quite apparent.
40
posted on
09/14/2006 5:58:35 PM PDT
by
ancient_geezer
(Don't reform it, Replace it.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-47 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson