Temperature rises 'not caused by sun' »
Posted by: capn_caveman 1 year, 1 month agoA new analysis, to be published in a Royal Society journal on Tuesday, shows that global warming since 1985 cannot have been caused by an increase in solar radiation or by a decrease in cosmic rays.
Read Full Story at environment.guardian.co.uk
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 88
-
-
-
100%
RickyDawkins1 year, 1 month ago
Evidence suggests that pirates are having an increasingly decreasing effect on climate change.
Reply
-
-
100%
ZippySpincycle1 year, 1 month ago
"Could it be...Oh, I don't know...SATAN!!!!!??"--The Church Lady
Reply -
71%
gamahuche1 year, 1 month ago
From the Guardian article:
With Claus Frohlich of the World Radiation Centre in Davos, Switzerland, he compared temperature and solar data for the past 100 years.
The records show that solar activity peaked between 1985 and 1987.
Since then, trends in sunshine, sunspot number and cosmic rays have all been in the opposite direction to that required to explain global warming - while temperatures at the Earth's surface rose steadily by more than 0.3C.
Reply-
0%
gamahuche1 year, 1 month ago
continued..
The two scientists conclude: "Our results show that the observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever mechanism is invoked."
In pre-industrial times, Prof Lockwood said, there was considerable evidence that the sun played a significant role in driving global climate, but he was concerned this genuine area of study had been done a "great disservice" by climate sceptics who were trying to confuse people about recent global warming.
He said: "I know we're attacking a bit of a strawman here because there is no serious scientific debate about recent warming, but those who disagree are very vocal. We wrote this up specifically to show they are wrong, and wrong in a dangerous way."
Reply
-
-
-
80%
gamahuche1 year, 1 month ago
Farting?
Well we know B does his share. C looks like he has a plug up his a** and the fumes ventilate upwards.
[I'd like to see B remembered as the farting president. OOPS! almost wrote "dismemembered"]
Even better if we didn't have to remember C at all. post-impeachment and hanging-dr...
Reply
-
-
100%
Goppy1 year, 1 month ago
I feels sorry for you capmn. Global warmins cause is clear enough for all.
Its caused by the burnin love we have for Goerge W. Bush and Dick Cheney and the Iraq way.
And since all you liberals keep tearin down the best presdient of this century, we have to stoke the fires of our love that much more.
So really, it s you liberals that are the casue of global warmin. If you dint criticise our fearless leaders, we woulndt have to heat the planet with our love.
I bet you aint buyin this are you?
Well, I thought bout blamin global warmin on our overheatin brains, but I figured you buy that one even less.
And just in case anybodys readin this, I aint admittin global warmin exists. After all, it aint in the Bible.
Course, TEd Haggert werent in the Bible either and I believed in him. Oh I just dont know who to believe anymore now that Jerry Falwells gone.
Reply -
100%
HateKoolAid1 year, 1 month ago
Would this be a good time to mention the term "greenhouse effect"?
Reply
-
-
100%
Aidenag1 year, 1 month ago
Ill blame Al Gore now, just to get it out of the way since someone will no doubt bring him up as the reason.
Reply -
50%
capn_caveman1 year, 1 month ago
The Guardian article submitted here is in reference to a article published in Nature which is available only to subscribers: http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070702/full/448...
However, I found a blog that has posted the news if anyone wants to read:
http://blog.petedecarlo.com/?p=41
Reply -
71%
sumptuousdigs1 year, 1 month ago
Everyone knows feelings on the topic of global warming are generally polarized along ideological lines.(Just prefacing). I was in Detroit last Easter holiday. It was cold and it was snowing. I'd lived there over thirty years and didn't find that unusual. Anyway an older(than me!) couple were sharing the coffee bar when the old man muttered: "Global warming, hhrrmph"! It was early, I was grumpy, I took that to mean 'humbug' and I snarled back..."Yeah, pretty focked up weather we're having, huh? I should've added though I'm no expert, I DID STAY AT A HOLIDAY INN LAST NIGHT!...Folks don't believe the experts, and don't want to hear it. Many expect glbl wrmg to be something they can witness right now, and feel under their bare feet. By then it will be way to late. These same people believed it when they read that Noah told his neighbors it was gonna rain...y'all know the rest.
Reply-
100%
capn_caveman1 year, 1 month ago
Yep, some people don't realize that moderate climate areas are going to be some the last places where you're going to see a major difference (although evidence suggests that global warming is also having a significant impact on moderate climates as well). But if you're someone living on the fringes of the polar ice boundaries, then global warming is actually old news to you. Lakes are disappearing. The ice is melting. The length of summer in those regions has already been extended by weeks. Rest assured, if current trends continue, then we'll be feeling very serious effects of warming in the US within a few decades.
Reply -
0%
Rhialto1 year, 1 month ago
Noah"s ark is a myth, and never happened. So what does that make of man made global warming? That's right, another myth. 30 years ago it was man made global cooling, again another myth, but some gullible people believed it with the same sincerity as the now global warming by mankind crowd. Why don't we see these scientists on TV debating instead of pundits who have an agenda.
Reply-
0%
gamahuche1 year, 1 month ago
>>>Noah"s ark is a myth, and never happened. So what does that make of man made global warming? That's right, another myth.
Rhialto: You might just as well say that Noah's Ark didn't exist and therefore the moon is made of blue cheese.
OR Noah's Ark didn't exist and therefore the moon is NOT made of blue cheese.
OR Noah's Ark didn't exist and therefore God does/doesn't exist.
OR any darn thing that you like.
Reply
-
-
100%
cushi1 year, 1 month ago
As I've said before, I think they're more like the scoffers and naysayers of Noah's day, who ridiculed him, like these modern day naysayers ridicule Al Gore, and didn't believe there was going to be a great flood to destroy all life on earth if they didn't change their ways...and just like those foolish people...when the sh*t hits the fan, it will be too late!
Reply-
100%
gamahuche1 year, 1 month ago
>>>As I've said before
Alas, you'll have to be prepared to say it many times again if you choose to hang out in this company. Best prepare a template - it can [SHOULD!] be as simple as possible. There's little variance in the denial approach.
A just G_D would simply deny them access to the boat apart from 1 breeding pair which would then be kept in a zoo in Lemuria or wherever we'll all finish up.
Reply
-
-
-
-
100%
sumptuousdigs1 year, 1 month ago
Hey, cpn.caveman,...GO BLUE..Seriously, the best football days of my life were the Thanksgiving Day showdowns between Woody and Bo!
Reply -
-
-
67%
tiredofwhiners1 year, 1 month ago
capn: Could it be that the man caused component of climate change has thwarted the coming ice age that was predicted in the 1970's? I would like to hear about more research into the percent of man made greenhouse gas that is driving the temperature increase vs. other contributors, and the effect of cutting down fossil fuel burning as much as possible per Al Gore and scientists. So if all proposed solutions are implemented, what will be the effect on global temperature and what will be the real cost to all? Of course weigh that against the cost of global warming (flooding of coastal cities, drought, etc.) and include benefits too. There must be some benefits to some parts of the world.
Reply
-
-
-
100%
slate1 year, 1 month ago
How many people use products made with pertrolem bases? How many here drive a car and turn on the heat in the winter and their AC in the summer? How many here support all the people that fly around the planet in private jets to tell us we are the problem? How many people eat meat and other things that somehow magically show up at their local store that was shipped via hydrocarbon buring vehicles to harvest and ship them? Who walks to work instead of taking a car bus or train? hmmmmmmmmmmmmm? Stop all that then talk to the rest of us about how WE are the problem.
Reply-
-
100%
tiredofwhiners1 year, 1 month ago
That's how you fix it. Concentrate on the worst offenders. You seemed to miss slate's point which is a good point to consider.
Reply
-
-
100%
CrazyRay1 year, 1 month ago
"How many people eat meat and other things that somehow magically show up at their local store that was shipped via hydrocarbon buring vehicles to harvest and ship them?"
Why do you have to rip on the meat industry? Crops use more "hydrocarbon buring vehicles" than cows, pigs, chickens...
Reply
-
-
69%
tiredofwhiners1 year, 1 month ago
I watched Al Gore interviewed by Larry King last night. He answered the question about his own contibution to global warming fairly well. "I am converting to solar power (at his mansion in Arkansas). And "I am installing a geothermal heating system" (what's that? - unless he lives in Hot Springs). Both are not affordable by the average person, but it is commendable he is doing something (only after much criticism). By the way Pres. Bush has had a environmentalists dream house in Texas for many years, but hasn't advertised it, don't know why. Everything imaginable and then some to be environmentally sound.
Then I heard Gore tell Larry that ethanol from corn DOES (admittedly) produce CO2 but does help us become independent of foreign oil. Good point. However he then went on to say "Besides the CO2 produced from that ethanol is recycled (re-absorbed) by the corn that is then grown. That is just plain wrong.
Reply-
0%
tiredofwhiners1 year, 1 month ago
(cont'd)- If the corn isn't there, then other plants are, probably more absorbent of CO2 because they aren't as thinly planted as corn (i.e. just plain native weeds and trees) and are longer lived as a CO2 converter. Just shows he is a layman, not a scientist and can fall victim to fuzzy logic.
Then he said he flew commercial (not on private jet) to get there to the interview. Good thinking. He scores points with me on that.
My point is he should practice what he preaches first, not after all the criticism about his own contribution to CO2. I give him a plus for learning this and changing his ways though.
Reply-
60%
tiredofwhiners1 year, 1 month ago
I have always been neutral on this, but I tend to go towards the man caused global warming as a problem. As a scientist however I see the tremendous amount of politicizing from the lay crowd. It is very offensive and counter productive when people use the words "deniers" (as in holocaust deniers) instead of skeptics or doubters, and Repugnants (Republicans who often are conservationists as I am) "Bushies" and referring to Fundamentalist Christians in very negative ways, as if they were the problem in global warming. All name calling and political. A true scientist is always skeptical and never says "I am 100% right" or "it is settled". There's a huge scrap heap of theories throughout scientific history.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
tiredofwhiners1 year, 1 month ago
The biggest problem is TOO MANY HUMANS on this earth. Most of the third world countries ahve massively overpopulated and continue to do so. Man has cut down forests, plowed up the native soil and planted crops to feed themselves, often turning viable land to desert. China, India, Bangladesh, some of the Arab countries, most of Africa and South and central America have and continue to grow unchecked. The exception I can think of is China Due credit given), but its too late, they have nore than 1 billion people. All these people want or need things that contibute to global warming. Even the air they breath out has CO2. We need a Kyoto type population control conference.
Reply-
0%
tiredofwhiners1 year, 1 month ago
My country, the USA, would be at an even or negative population growth without all the third worlders who have come here. Same for most of Europe. The Mexican (born in Mexico) population here is the fastest growing segment by far and their home country is also experiencing a devastating growth rate that can't be supported there. STOP EXCESSIVE POPULATION GROWTH NOW!
Reply-
50%
sumptuousdigs1 year, 1 month ago
tiredofwhiners . Q./What country has ZERO population growth? . A./The Vatican. Doing a little profiling here, but it seems that most of our recent 'visitors' are influenced by the Holy See. Maybe the Vatican could issue an edict of some kind to help relieve the population crisis. A sort of "Do as I do, NOT as I say..." manifesto. Oh well, another argument for another time.
Reply
-
-
-
71%
RickyDawkins1 year, 1 month ago
This conflicts everything that I have learned from KingofTruth.
Reply -
0%
joeblowe1 year, 1 month ago
By following the links referred to in the article, we first come to a rehash of the IPCC data, then an article in a popular magazine. A couple of things I find interesting: They are running in circles throwing fits based on a temperature variance of 3 TENTHS of one degree. Which, I strongly suspect, may be BELOW the threshold of accuracy of the methods used to collect the data. Particularly the OLDER data. The other thing that seems QUITE interesting was the article just BELOW the one referenced in the popular magazine about a huge cosmic ray detector in Argentina that isn't quite finished yet. It's already producing results, so I think perhaps we should withhold judgment on THAT particular theory until we get more news from this group.
As an aside, anyone who thinks the sun isn't responsible for (practically) ALL the warming on earth apparently doesn't understand anything about physics and thermodynamics. An easy way to correct this: Imagine what would happen if the sun WENT OUT.
Reply-
80%
capn_caveman1 year, 1 month ago
joeblowe -
You seem to forget that this information has also been published in the peer-reviewed scientific journal known as the Proceedings of the Royal Society A. In the case of peer reviewed material, the study must be able to demonstrate that the data is within the accuracy of their instruments. As for the cosmic ray issue, this is the second study that has been published this WEEK that has concluded that there isn't any link between cosmic rays and global warming. And just so I state it: 3 TENTHS of one degree is VERY significant - particularly when all of the trends are showing that this will be a sustained increase.
As for the sun being responsible for practically all warming on Earth, well, yes - that's obvious. But this study concluded that the temperature INCREASE that is occurring now is not being driven by the sun. The increase is being driven by greenhouse gases.
Reply-
100%
joeblowe1 year, 1 month ago
I read the head line as "to BE published - meaning it hasn't been yet? Hasn't passed a peer review yet? And, I notice from the article that there are still those expert and reputable scientists that disagree with this pairs conclusions. Or at least are not YET convinced. Sorry, but I still doubt that .3 degree is within error limits. Have you a reference to something that would demonstrate clearly that it IS possible to make measurements that accurate on a world-wide basis? Further, even the graphs produced by the IPCC show a rather steep incline at the right side indicating the "sudden" temp. rise in the last short while. I don't think it's accurate to claim that there is a "trend" indicated when the data used to develop that trend analysis has occurred over such a relatively short time with respect to the entire graph. If it were to reverse suddenly in a couple of years, everyone would be claiming that it was just a blip within statistical error limits.
Reply
-
-
-
JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.2 Replies
-
-
100%
Charlson1 year, 1 month ago
Right and leave it to your children or children's children to suffer for it. What a fine legacy you want to leave. I thought true Americans wanted to make a better life for their children even if they had to make sacrifices. But apparently you like things the way they are and to hell with the future. We really need to grow out of the ME generation and into the US generation.
Reply -
100%
sumptuousdigs1 year, 1 month ago
superhercolbs . yeah,I'm with you. I don't like my kids that much anyway. And my grandkids? Brats! All of 'em.
Reply
-
-
80%
HateKoolAid1 year, 1 month ago
Typical reaction which does not help. Why should we worry about global warming, sounds like a problem for the great grandkids to solve.
Reply -
0%
aceofspades11 year, 1 month ago
The phenomenon of global warming is being caused by the degradation of all the bull crap coming from the deniers
Reply -
-
0%
sumptuousdigs1 year, 1 month ago
Ace . Wow! I was just checking out the Flat Earth Society. Man, they've got it down. The mission statement alone gave me a headache, but I'm gonna keep trying. Peace.
Reply
-
-
75%
MongoKahn1 year, 1 month ago
The heat generated by all of the friction between warring camps about the "cause of global warming" is enough to raise ocean heights a couple of inches per month. Seriously though, whatever the reason, earth has to cool down a bit and humans have to do what we are technologically able to do to bring this about. Picture a roadside accident. A mother lays on the pavement bleeding to death while bystanders argue about what caused the crash. All I'm saying is: "Time is of the essence. Let's call an ambulance and dissect the reason for the accident later. Presently, we don't have the leisure to dissect the crime scene . . . we have to survive it. That mother on the side of the road is not seperate from the bystanders. She is us. Her spurting blood, is our spurting blood. Research money spent on "why," should first be allocated to a patch job. Then the big "Why," and then the "FIX" instead of the "patch." http://thesignofthefool.com
Reply-
-
0%
RickyDawkins1 year, 1 month ago
Pretend your baby is in a burning crib... do you put out the flames or just waste time blaming Al Gore for making bad analogies?
Reply
-
-
-
-
100%
RickyDawkins1 year, 1 month ago
KingOfTruth Said:
"But short and long wave radiations are not the only things that heat the Earth from the sun.....there are dozens of different radiations, Gamma Rays, cosmic rays(including even some from other suns), CME's, Solar Flares, Solar Storms, Solar Winds, Magnetism, Angular Momentum and even gravitational variations from the sun and it's wobbles that combine to heat the earth....
Obviously Climate Change is always a Natural Phenomenon. Always has been. Always will be. And the dominant driver of climate change has always been the Sun. Although there were several times when volcanic activity has cooled the planet because of dust particles, it cooled because the dust particles blocked solar energy from reaching the earth.
Just use either the data I post or the data from even the IPCC which when read without their editing proves that the Sun is the dominant factor in Global Climate Change...."
Reply -
100%
sumptuousdigs1 year, 1 month ago
Yeah, the sun dominates, but if I can just kick it up a notch...BAM!...Flambe' . . (thanks Emeril)
Reply -
0%
sumptuousdigs1 year, 1 month ago
Shrillin' . Sorry I keep giving you negs (noogies), But you keep popping up. and I just can't stop myself......
Reply
Submitted By:
capn_caveman
I'm an engineer that loves 'anything' science. I'm interested in physics, astronomy, space exploration, Earth sciences, and mathematics to name just a few ...
Also submitted:
- 1.0 - NIST WTC 7 Investigation Finds Building Fires Caused Collapse
- 1.0 - Michael Phelps Returns To His Tank At Sea World
- 1.0 - Atmospheric homes of elves and sprites revealed
- 1.0 - Whopping Fish Declared New Species
Related Articles:
Why not submit a story?
Also Propping This Article
Groups Watching This
No groups are watching this story. Why not share it with your group?
