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

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280281-300301-320 ... 341-344 next last
To: AaronInCarolina
Al Gore - as we all know - is not the greatest advocate for anything.

I'd have to say that polarization on any issue involving serious money and power is inevitable. But still, this Administration has done what it has done.

281 posted on 07/11/2007 12:08:34 PM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 279 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
The assertion is that global warming in the last 20 years is not due to changes in solar activity. 

The article said that the "new analysis is designed to counter the main alternative scientific argument put forward by the programme - that solar activity may be to blame for global warming."  This is political; we get the assertion first and then we get data to back up the assertion.   In science we look at the data first and then we look where the data points.

The supporting evidence is presented in the paper

That was the impression that I'd gotten too, but apparently it's neither been published nor been through the peer review.  All the links to date refer to a study that is "to be published".  Please let me know when it's available so you and I can review it together.

282 posted on 07/11/2007 12:11:40 PM PDT by expat_panama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry

Burnt by recent discoveries that global warming is caused in large part by the sun, the left scurried around frantically trying to find a scientist who would betray the ethics of his/her profession. Having found one, they rushed to plaster his statements all over their media.


283 posted on 07/11/2007 12:13:56 PM PDT by Leftism is Mentally Deranged
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: expat_panama
The article has been published - you just have to be a subscriber to see it in full. That's my impression. Will it be published more widely? I'm sure it will, if it withstands critical peer review, given its importance.

An experiment was designed to test a particular hypothesis and found that hypothesis wanting. As long as the methodology was good and the reporting honest that's a perfectly legitimate endeavor.

Consider Michaelson-Morley. It was thought at the time that an observer should see light traveling at different speeds depending on his, and the emitting source's, speed relative to the ether. The two scientists designed an experiment to test that...believing the hypothesis was correct. To their utter amazement they found it wasn't. They were so upset by the result they refused to accept it, repeating it over and over, always finding the same thing. They were honest and published what they'd found. It turned out their experiment was probably the most important in the history of science and resulted in the theory of relativity which overturned our most basic notions of space and time.

284 posted on 07/11/2007 12:44:51 PM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 282 | View Replies]

To: Leftism is Mentally Deranged

Your moniker has two words too many. Lose the first two.


285 posted on 07/11/2007 12:47:14 PM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 283 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
...you just have to be a subscriber to see it in full. That's my impression. Will it be published more widely? I'm sure it will...

The Royal Society's website shows a number of Lockwood's published papers and this one isn't there.  The Royal Society is not yet able or willing to sell me this particular paper at any price. 

Let's agree that the numbers have not been made public even if these are in fact Lockwood's conclusions.  Let's also agree that we would not be adhering to the scientific method if we were to accept the conclusions without seeing the data.

286 posted on 07/11/2007 1:15:46 PM PDT by expat_panama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 284 | View Replies]

To: Spiff
Actually, it's Mars and Neptune.

AND Pluto - I read a couple of weeks ago that they also think Uranus is warming up. (Please - no "it must have been the tamales you ate yesterday" jokes!)

287 posted on 07/11/2007 1:18:54 PM PDT by Tokra (I think I'll retire to Bedlam.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: expat_panama
The Royal Society's website shows a number of Lockwood's published papers and this one isn't there. The Royal Society is not yet able or willing to sell me this particular paper at any price.

Interesting...and very surprising. An abstract implies a complete paper, or so I've always thought.

Let's agree that the numbers have not been made public even if these are in fact Lockwood's conclusions. Let's also agree that we would not be adhering to the scientific method if we were to accept the conclusions without seeing the data

I'll go further. I, as a layman, won't accept the conclusions until I've seen a discussion among peers.

288 posted on 07/11/2007 1:23:01 PM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 286 | View Replies]

To: AaronInCarolina

“Yes.. and no. There will be immediate effects, but there will be delayed effects as well. Some of the sun’s short wave radiation hits the earth land surfaces, warms them, which in turn re-emits long wave (infrared) radiation back upward, exciting various types of molecules in the earth’s atmosphere, causing immediate warming effects. But most of the sun’s short wave radiation hit the oceans, directly warming them. This type of warming is stored for decades, and influence the magnitude of ocean oscillations. These oscillations release heat stored in the oceans, and contribute much later to the temperature in the atmosphere.”

So would it be logical to assume the reverse? That if the Sun`s radiation has been going down as the Guardian article states, that the effects of that decline on our climate would not be felt until much later?


289 posted on 07/11/2007 1:34:32 PM PDT by chessplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 276 | View Replies]

To: expat_panama
Surprise, surprise.

Go to post #30 and click on the first link. You'll be taken to a very interesting page which will allow you to download the complete article - free of charge. I think it's complete because it's 14 pages long (pdf). Haven't had a chance to review it yet.

I don't know how I missed this. I remember clicking on this link and getting an abstract. The link, in my browser, was red, indicating that I had indeed visited it before.

290 posted on 07/11/2007 1:35:53 PM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 282 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry

“does enron ring a bell?”

still mired condescension and an expert propagandist.


291 posted on 07/11/2007 2:19:57 PM PDT by ripley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: rock58seg

my apologies. i thought it might get back to the author and it did. thank you.


292 posted on 07/11/2007 2:21:31 PM PDT by ripley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 265 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry

“does enron ring a bell?”

mired in condescension and an expert propagandist. (the two definitely go hand in hand.)


293 posted on 07/11/2007 2:24:11 PM PDT by ripley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry; All
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.

Please provide evidence that supports this nonsense. You're accepting claims from charlatans with an agenda.

294 posted on 07/11/2007 2:29:00 PM PDT by SoldierDad (Proud Father of a 2nd BCT 10th Mountain Soldier fighting the terrorists in the Triangle of Death)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry

Not idiots? Most of them are. They are just liberal idiots that couldn’t find a real job so stayed in academia because of job security.

All they are doing now is keeping their grant money flowing. A lot of these are the same idiots that were drumming global cooling and the next ice age to us in the 1970’s.


295 posted on 07/11/2007 2:37:02 PM PDT by Fledermaus (Tagline currently under construction. We apologize for the inconvenience!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
What he doesn’t expect or understand is unreasonable insistence that wrong is right, up is down, black is white.

So why are Al Gore, Robert Kennedy and a host of international socialists doing just that? Why are they denying the evidence, denying a platform to their opponents, and insisting that 20 and 30 foot sea rises are coming - when even the worst case UN-led scenario allows only 30 inches of sea-level rise. In 100 years.

Suppose, just suppose that their wildest dreams come true - that they turn the US economy back to 1990-levels of energy usage (thus exceeding the damage the Great Depression did by turning 25% of Americans OUT OF WORK!) ...

So what? They would succeed in destroying the world’s economy for 1/2 of ONE DEGREE of temperature change. Now - what is your goal? 1/2 of ONE DEGREE? Or destroying the American economy (and the rest of the capitalistic world with it)?

296 posted on 07/11/2007 5:08:12 PM PDT by Robert A Cook PE (I can only donate monthly, but Hillary's ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 243 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry; cogitator
I read the paper (post 30). I don't see how the authors can be serious when looking at figure 4d showing the 10Be going down. That means less cosmic ray flux, fewer clouds, more warming. The authors argument seems to be that since there is no warming/cooling corresponding to the 11 year cycle, there must be no correlation at all. But clearly figure 4 shows there is a longer term correlation, whether it causal or not.

Also most serious AGW scientists say there is no change in cosmic ray flux, see here http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=42 for example.

Maybe I am missing something obvious in the paper cog?

297 posted on 07/11/2007 7:00:56 PM PDT by palmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 290 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry

“i, as a layman, won’t accept the conclusions until i’ve seen a discussion among peers.”

brilliant!!! absolutely brilliant!!! suitable material for membership in the democrat party comrades!!!


298 posted on 07/11/2007 7:06:34 PM PDT by ripley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 288 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
Does Enron ring a bell?

LOL. I remember them very well. They were among the leaders in pushing the Global Warming crap and spending millions in Washington pushing for a CO2 traiding system. (Very good for the Natural Gas market)

Oh. here's more here on how they spent million during Clinton to push the Kyoto BS And Here's why Enron really wanted Al Gore to be president

Just do a Google on Eneron + CO2. If nothing else, Enron was always VERY politically correct, and if their house of cards had not collapsed, they would have been Masters of the Universe with all of the BS we have going on now. Ken Lay would have been French kissing Madonna on the stage the other day.

299 posted on 07/11/2007 8:39:40 PM PDT by Ditto (Global Warming: The 21st Century's Snake Oil)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: docbnj
I opened the entire pdf of the article in Proceedings by clicking on it from the link in #30.
300 posted on 07/11/2007 8:47:10 PM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280281-300301-320 ... 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