Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

New analysis counters claims that solar activity is linked to global warming
Guardian (England) ^ | July 11, 2007 | James Randerson

Posted on 07/11/2007 3:40:02 AM PDT by liberallarry

It has been one of the central claims of those who challenge the idea that human activities are to blame for global warming. The planet's climate has long fluctuated, say the climate sceptics, and current warming is just part of that natural cycle - the result of variation in the sun's output and not carbon dioxide emissions.

But a new analysis of data on the sun's output in the last 25 years of the 20th century has firmly put the notion to rest. The data shows that even though the sun's activity has been decreasing since 1985, global temperatures have continued to rise at an accelerating rate.

(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: agw; globalwarming
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 341-344 next last
To: liberallarry
There are also professional astrologers, professional thieves, professional phrenologists, and professional A-holes.

You forgot "climatologists".

APf

141 posted on 07/11/2007 5:42:06 AM PDT by APFel (Regnum Nostrum Crescit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: hocndoc
How can anyone deny that the sun has a role to play in climate change?

from the abstract

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 in the first half of the last century. Here we show that over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the Earth's climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures.

So what's your point? Who are you arguing with?

142 posted on 07/11/2007 5:42:49 AM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: olezip; liberallarry
It is a multidimensional phenomenon that requires systems analysis to sort out, IMO.

Hey! Don't try to confuse us with the FACTS, ole! ;-)

143 posted on 07/11/2007 5:43:48 AM PDT by an amused spectator (AGW: If you drag a hundred dollar bill through a research lab, you never know what you'll find)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: olezip

Yes, what weighting to give the various factors? If the best thing we have to answer the question is mere conjecture, then we are as well off saying we just plain don’t know. Otherwise we might as well BE professional astrologers, spending our whole lives repeating the horoscopes of the last twelve people we met.


144 posted on 07/11/2007 5:44:12 AM PDT by drlevy88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: drlevy88
And professional psychoanalysts

Of yes. The biggest criminals of all.

145 posted on 07/11/2007 5:44:48 AM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry

OK, I will bite ... Question, what ended the last ice age 18,000 years ago?


146 posted on 07/11/2007 5:45:36 AM PDT by Tarpon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: agere_contra; liberallarry
These guys are truly like unto Gods! They must already know why the temperature was so warm in 1000 AD, and why it just doesn't matter. I sure hope they get round to telling us.

The Medieval Warm Period never happened.
The Medieval Warm Period never happened.
The Medieval Warm Period never happened.
The Medieval Warm Period never happened.
The Medieval Warm Period never happened.

There. That should take care of any objections raised by those ignorant laymen...

147 posted on 07/11/2007 5:46:04 AM PDT by an amused spectator (AGW: If you drag a hundred dollar bill through a research lab, you never know what you'll find)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
Your confusing the reporting with the science.

I'm doing no such thing. If someone brings you a garbled message what credence do you give to the rest of his message especially if the message claims to have dispositive proof of a cosmological fact based upon 25 years "evidence".

The idea that the suns radiance does not affect the earths temperature is "per se" ridiculous.

148 posted on 07/11/2007 5:46:53 AM PDT by Timocrat (I Emanate on your Auras and Penumbras Mr Blackmun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: olezip
The "new" analysis only focuses on the Sun's magnetic field activity

The fact that they're hanging their entire theory on a proxy indicator of insolation, and not on insolation itself - that doesn't worry me. You see, these Climate Scientists are making a better world.

149 posted on 07/11/2007 5:47:00 AM PDT by agere_contra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry; hocndoc
from the abstract

As I've shown in an earlier post, the abstract can be ignored.

So whatcha got besides your dubious little "abstract", ll?

Got something we can all read and be assured that pieces of it aren't being changed behind the curtain? ;-)

150 posted on 07/11/2007 5:49:19 AM PDT by an amused spectator (AGW: If you drag a hundred dollar bill through a research lab, you never know what you'll find)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: an amused spectator
Professionals in an EXTREMELY subjective "scienific" discipline - global climate modeling.

There's far more to it than modeling. The study under discussion purports to show that certain contentions contradict observed facts.

151 posted on 07/11/2007 5:49:22 AM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry

Have they shown why the minuscule time scale doesn’t matter? Why we should not expect effects with much longer time constants to swamp this stuff out — especially the most new fangled measurements that were not even possible for most of the climatic history that we know? Great as journalism, horrid as science.


152 posted on 07/11/2007 5:50:55 AM PDT by drlevy88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: an amused spectator
As I've shown in an earlier post, the abstract can be ignored.

I'm sorry, I missed this. Point me to the correct post or repeat your argument. Thanks.

153 posted on 07/11/2007 5:51:17 AM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
The study under discussion purports to show that certain contentions contradict observed facts.

Post the whole study, or quit using it as a basis for a factual discussion.

There's far more to it than modeling.

These "professionals" are claiming that they basically are able to model the global climate with their "data". They're asking us to just say "Ave Maria" and have faith.

154 posted on 07/11/2007 5:52:59 AM PDT by an amused spectator (AGW: If you drag a hundred dollar bill through a research lab, you never know what you'll find)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry

No peer review. In fact, the ‘researchers’ seem to be saying that peer review isn’t even necessary. That’s not science, that’s propaganda.


155 posted on 07/11/2007 5:53:25 AM PDT by savedbygrace (SECURE THE BORDERS FIRST (I'M YELLING ON PURPOSE))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry; hocndoc
I'm sorry, I missed this. Point me to the correct post or repeat your argument.

It's the TimesSelect argument:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1864090/posts?page=101#101

156 posted on 07/11/2007 5:55:08 AM PDT by an amused spectator (AGW: If you drag a hundred dollar bill through a research lab, you never know what you'll find)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: drlevy88
Have they shown why the minuscule time scale doesn’t matter?

If you claim that X always increases when Y increases and someone shows you that X decreases when Y increases (during the period of the experiment) then either you're wrong (most likely), the experiment was poorly done (possible), or a miracle occured.

157 posted on 07/11/2007 5:55:18 AM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: an amused spectator

LL’s argument boils down to “Whom Do You Trust” and he’s in the temple of what for all we know are blind guides.


158 posted on 07/11/2007 5:55:38 AM PDT by drlevy88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: drlevy88
And we can't do a darned thing about this, unless we want to poison much of the world's vegetation and wildlife.

Environmentalists cause global warming.

159 posted on 07/11/2007 5:56:14 AM PDT by frithguild (The Freepers moved as a group, like a school of sharks sweeping toward an unaware and unarmed victim)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry

Black Sunday April 14, 1935. The dust storm that turned day into night. Many believed the world was coming to an end.


160 posted on 07/11/2007 5:56:51 AM PDT by Hot Tabasco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 341-344 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson