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 ...
“has finally put the notion to rest.”
insufferable, totalitarian punks.
Quite so. The distribution of the temperature has to count for something as well. Otherwise we end up with absurdities like the claim that a guy standing in boiling water with his head encased in ice is, on the average, at a comfortable temperature.
BS from a hack.
Academia is full of marxist/socialist idealoges. If you want to find propaganda that would be a good place to start.
I’m old enough to remember the “Global cooling” and “Population Explosion” which the scientist where so sure would end the world before the year 2000.
The sun has no effect on the earth warming is absurd. The earth has been warming and cooling for millions of years before “carbon footprints” and “carbon credits” were ever conceived by left wing idealoges.
I with ya’ ...hence my tagline...
Global Warming is the new Eugenics...and Al Gore is the new Margaret Sanger
Lockwood & Fröhlich don’t consider the effect of the vast ocean heat sink on temperature variations.
Florida hotel owners know that if it was sunny two weeks ago but cold today, their open-air pools will be warm. And vice versa. That’s a small-scale version of the ocean heatsink at work.
The ocean heatsink effect is a real effect that buffers insolation change - it can’t be left out of any exploration of insolation forcing.
More pertinently perhaps: there is no way to explain the sinusoidal variance of global climate over (say) the last 2000 years without reference to insolation change. Insolation (including the modulation of the Milankovith cycle) is the only theory that fits all the facts
That seems to be a wise approach with all of this GW crap. It's a political game, and they try to impress you with their certitude.
The shakier the foundation, the more solidly they build the roof to make up for it.
I never thought of that! Good analogy.
Unfortunately, the whole article is not available on line without an expensive subscription — only the abstract is shown.
Some comments:
1. The authors of the article do not explain why the solar hypothesis worked in the past, but does not work now.
2. They do not explain why the solar hypothesis stopped working in the 1980s, long after the Industrial Revolution was under weigh.
3. The graph given on the BBC coverage does not give units for temperature. Presumably, the temperatures are in °C. A good high-school science teacher would tell them “Always use units with your data, or else it is all just numbers.”
4. Critics of the greenhouse model of anthropogenic global warming point our that the GW hypothesis predicts increasing temperatures of the upper troposphere. However, the graph shown on the BBC report is for surface temperatures, which are subject to many other variables.
5. The Royal Society site trumpets the new article with a headline, “The Truth about Global Warming.” That is rather unusual for the presentation of a scientific article. It is more bombastically propagandistic that scientific. It really makes one wonder what is going on here.
Milankovith = Milankovitch
Forget Mars and Pluto we got a dude that did an analysis! An analysis based on 25 years! So that firmly dispenses all that “the sun is hot” business.
Those stupid planets probably just got hit by a meteor or something like that. That’s probably what melted the Martian icecaps. Yes, the sun is hot, but it’s not too bad, not when compared to evil capitalists driving carbon-belching SUV’s.
C’mon the dude did an analysis and he used super-smart, scientific jargon and you ask, “what about Mars?” ManBearPig can only save one planet at a time, so chill! We got to like save the Earth and stuff first, cause that’s where I keep all my stuff, dude.......................lol :)
The Earth is warming. We need more rock concerts.
APf
Sure...and Einstein was wrong because he made a simple arithmetic error. Give it a rest.
Wooly Mammoth. They used go be around. Now they arent. It used to be cold and it got warmer.
It tends to get warmer until some volcano blows up or some asteroid hits the earth.
When did that volcanoe in the Phillipines blow up? I will bet that put the chill on things for a year or two.
Ok. Now that the sun is decreasing its power, I guess I will have to go back to the human treadmill to power the house. Solar just ain’t cuttin it. The boy and wife aren’t gonna like that.
With global warming, Greenland will get more open air rock concerts.
Son of MurryMom?
Yeah...which means detailed criticism cannot be made intelligently by those who haven't subscribed. Hmmm....
The lead author, however, is very, very adamant about the filmmakers who twisted his position (reminds one of Michael Moore, no?)
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.