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 ...
I'm pretty sure that this sentence is all f*ck*d up. Its the earth's magnetic field that shields it from the sun's cosmic rays. The earth doesn't produce cosmic rays. At least it didn't when I was in school which admitttedly was a long time ago. Is this a peer reviewed study and who were the peers ?
That's your idea of wit? No wonder your arguments are so poor. Are you really a Doctor? More likely a Doker (kudos to Mel Brooks).
The solubility of a gas in a liquid decreases with increased temperature. CO2 in the atmosphere follows warming events, just as in your warm Coke example.
How long after intensified solar heating does it take for the warmer upper layers of the oceans to mix and distribute their heat? Many seasons will pass before the cooler regions begin to release some of their CO2.
The oceans are a huge CO2 sink, and it is more complicated than simple solubility, because the oceans are buffered. Every clam traps CO2 as calcium carbonate.
This is a sensible explanation for the built in time delay.
The solar researchers cited have managed to flunk both Thermodynamics and Chemistry, but never mind that. They FEEL the right way, and the motives are noble.
The guardian is a commie rag. Anything that they say is automatically suspect.
Yet here it is on a discussion forum. Posted by... you. And now you claim, if you read you correctly, that we can't debate or debunk it because we can't actually read the article.
Take a hike, junior.
APf
Thanks for the links. Looks like they were only looking at solar radiation and not the solar magnetic field and related effects.
Do you spend all your time reading my mind?
I think they’re saying that both sun and earth magnetic fields would tend to shunt incoming heavy nuclei aka cosmic rays away from the earth. But in what experimental vessel did anybody ever verify this basic assertion about cosmic rays and clouds?
It was my understanding that the incident solar radiation striking and heating the Earth has increased recently. I recall a paper from the Max Plank Solar Institute. I fee uneasy about this article because of the lack of a reference.
Your confusing the reporting with the science.
MurryMom was also quite fond of jumping to huge conclusions in a single bound. She hasn’t been heard from in quite a long time. Give your mom a call!
I saw that, I can only assume it was typo, but you would certainly expect better since the topic seems to be closed to further study. You know the alternate theory being so firmly dispensed and all.
But the abstract is pretty good.
“I have seen dozens of pictures of those “weather monitor stations” that were placed next to air conditioner outputs, incinerators, asphalt pads, black top parking lots etc.” ~ LibLieSlayer
Here’s the link: http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/weather_stations/
What conclusions have I jumped to? Aren’t you confusing me with the reporter and the reporter with the scientists? Once again. Are you really a Doctor? I’d hate to think so since your ability to reason is so poor.
The Earth is warming. We need more rock concerts.Excellent. How succinctly you have expressed the Prime Idiocy of the 21st Century.
I can't work out what you're talking about. Is it your contention that solar insolation ISN'T the primary factor in global temperature?
In which case its time to EAT SOME GRAPHS!!! :0)
The following is a collection of temperature reconstructions. Note the sinusoidal variations in temperature over the last 1000 years. Note the high temperatures 1000 years ago. Perhaps the Guardian can explain how those evil Greenlanders managed to drive temperatures so high in 1000 AD. And why temperatures got so low in the 1600's?
the time frame’s too small, I think. Also, if the mass of the Earth were heated, it would release the heat when external cooling occurred. Just like the mass used to passively heat some homes.
But again, since when do scientists decide anything based on one study of such a small time frame? When they are politicians, not scientists.
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.