[calex59]

BS.

[ovrtaxt]

Corelation does not prove causation, and the inverse is also true.

Sorry, one study with such limited parameters isn’t all that convincing, despite the control freaks’ desperate attempts to establish a new reality in their favor.

[drlevy88]

“Activity” of what kind? Gross solar radiation? Flares that manage to roil the earth’s magnetosphere?

[rhombus]

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 certainty of this statement immediately makes me doubt the veracity of this report.

[saganite]

The article doesn’t say which set of data he’s using. If he’s using the ground weather monitoring stations there’s a problem. The data obtained from those has been called into question. The temp data from satellites is more accurate.

[lag along]

So we have different scientists looking at the same data and coming up with different analyses. One is into the man made global warming all analyzes of raw data can be made to fit ones theory, if you try hard enough.

Does either discuss the physical findings of evidence of periods of cooling and warming in the past in the absence of human activity.

[drlevy88]

Virtually all (circa 98%) global CO₂ comes from natural sources -- the biosphere and volcanic emissions. It isn't clear what kinds of cycles the biosphere, especially, is prone to. Warmer earth means more living flora and fauna which, up to a point, begets more CO₂. And we can't do a darned thing about this, unless we want to poison much of the world's vegetation and wildlife.

[moonman]

"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."

Don't you just love it when arrogant people proclaim, "The debate is over!"

Whenever I hear this, it means, they can no longer defend their positions, so they are hoping everyone now accepts whatever is said henceforth.

[agere_contra]

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.

I doubt the Guardian's data. Variation in insolation (incident solar radiation) is the only factor that can explain the mediaeval warm period and the little ice age. The Guardian is printing nonsense.

[SlowBoat407]

Why is anyone even giving “The Guardian” the time of day?

[ripley]

“has finally put the notion to rest.”

translation:
if you accept any ozzer point of view ve vill be forced to re-educate you.

[bvw]

There is NO global thermometer. No one is making anything but a wild guess as to any number that is a claimed to be a “global” temperature.

[xcamel]

FReepmail me to get on or off
Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown
Dr. John Ray's
GREENIE WATCH

---

[NaughtiusMaximus]

Studies reported in the Guardian. Whatever would lefties do without them.

[ripley]

“has finally put the notion to rest.”

insufferable, totalitarian punks.

[BuffaloJack]

BS from a hack.

[docbnj]

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.

[APFel]

The Earth is warming. We need more rock concerts.

APf

[Jonah Hex]

"This just in, the Guardian reports that man-made global warming is responsible for increases in the Sun's thermal output. Guardian publisher, Lord Bravery, stated 'I may not know much about climate change, but I know it's the American's fault'."

[Timocrat]

The sun's magnetic field shields the Earth from its high energy particles called cosmic rays. The rays help form clouds that reflect the sun's energy back into space and cool the planet

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 ?