777236ER
Topic Author
Posts: 12213
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2001 7:10 am

Report: Solar Activity Not Causing Global Warming

Wed Jul 11, 2007 8:17 am

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6290228.stm

Another piece of evidence that suggests that global warming is man-made, and caused by man-made green house gas emissions. Those that bury their heads in the sand are fast running out of alternative 'theories' to support their denial.
Your bone's got a little machine
 
CupraIbiza
Posts: 547
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 1:55 pm

RE: Report: Solar Activity Not Causing Global Warming

Wed Jul 11, 2007 8:23 am

The thing is we will never really know for sure. The environmental zealots look to have won this war. Global green house gases will be reduced. But we wont know what would have happened if nothing was done. I recject the term head in the sand and instead use realist who has his eyes wide open. Just remeber planes were going to fall from the sky because of Y2K bug.....
Everyday is a gift…… but why does it have to be a pair of socks?
 
Coz
Posts: 411
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 8:29 am

RE: Report: Solar Activity Not Causing Global Warming

Wed Jul 11, 2007 8:49 am

Quoting CupraIbiza (Reply 1):
But we wont know what would have happened if nothing was done.

That's a bit like saying "I'm going to continue to smoke cigarettes because maybe the evidence about tobacco and cancer could be wrong."

Are you sure you really want to find out?

Quoting CupraIbiza (Reply 1):
Just remeber planes were going to fall from the sky because of Y2K bug.....

If one potential crises turns out to be relatively unfounded, they're all unfounded?

Wonderful logic.

Keep in mind, it took many years of preparation and hard work to prepare computer systems for the Y2K. If we had done nothing, it would have been a disaster. Climate change presents the same set of problems. These problems need to be addressed with the same urgency that society addressed the Y2K issue.
 
aloges
Posts: 14842
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 3:38 am

RE: Report: Solar Activity Not Causing Global Warm

Wed Jul 11, 2007 8:54 am

Just wait for the I-don't-want-to-be-inconvenienced crowd to show up!  Silly

Quoting CupraIbiza (Reply 1):
The environmental zealots look to have won this war.

"Zealots"? As you were saying, "I recject the term". And there was no war, that word is so over-used.

Quoting CupraIbiza (Reply 1):
Global green house gases will be reduced.

By the looks of it, there might be a chance that the production of green house gases will increase a little less quickly. That is very far from a sustainable solution.

Quoting CupraIbiza (Reply 1):
But we wont know what would have happened if nothing was done.

And do we want to? CO2 affects ecosystems around the planet in many not yet understood ways, such as reefs. It's not just about global warming, but about a host of issues that pop up because humankind still can't decide whether or not it's a good idea to release, i just a few decades, billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere that took millions of years to be filtered out of it.

Quoting CupraIbiza (Reply 1):
Just remeber planes were going to fall from the sky because of Y2K bug.....

You can impossibly be implying that these two are in any way, shape or form related.

[Edited 2007-07-11 01:56:27]
Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.
 
Coz
Posts: 411
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 8:29 am

RE: Report: Solar Activity Not Causing Global Warming

Wed Jul 11, 2007 9:00 am

Quoting Aloges (Reply 3):
You can impossibly be implying that these two are in any way, shape or form related.

I was thinking the same thing. The glide ratio of most aircraft is far from what I'd call "falling from the sky". And last time I checked, no aircraft I can think of requires a valid date to keep the engines running.  Silly

[Edited 2007-07-11 02:03:24]
 
CupraIbiza
Posts: 547
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 1:55 pm

RE: Report: Solar Activity Not Causing Global Warming

Wed Jul 11, 2007 9:02 am

Quoting Coz (Reply 2):
That's a bit like saying "I'm going to continue to smoke cigarettes because maybe the evidence about tobacco and cancer could be wrong."

Um no because I dont think anyone disputes this anymore (do they?)

Quoting Coz (Reply 2):
it would have been a disaster.

How do you know???????



Quoting Aloges (Reply 3):
You can impossibly be implying that these two are in any way, shape or form related.

Only in the way that the world community has blindlessly follwowed what we are told.

Let me clarify I am not saying that CO2 emissions are or are not harming the environment. I am saying lets keep the debate open. Lets not put our heads in the sand to quote the thread starter
Everyday is a gift…… but why does it have to be a pair of socks?
 
Coz
Posts: 411
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 8:29 am

RE: Report: Solar Activity Not Causing Global Warming

Wed Jul 11, 2007 9:08 am

Quoting CupraIbiza (Reply 5):
Um no because I dont think anyone disputes this anymore (do they?)

Yes, those people whose interests lie in the success of the tobacco industry tend to fund biased nicotine studies.

Quoting CupraIbiza (Reply 5):
How do you know???????

Because I've been writing software professionaly since before 2000.

[Edited 2007-07-11 02:18:38]
 
aloges
Posts: 14842
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 3:38 am

RE: Report: Solar Activity Not Causing Global Warming

Wed Jul 11, 2007 9:10 am

Quoting Coz (Reply 4):
I was thinking the same thing. The glide ratio of most aircraft is far from what I'd call "falling from the sky"

 rotfl  Good point!

Quoting CupraIbiza (Reply 5):
Only in the way that the world community has blindlessly follwowed what we are told.

I take it you mean "blindly"?

Are we talking about the same "world community"? I'm just asking because the one that I've been watching (and done my little bit of participating in) has all but blindly followed anything related to global warming; no, its alleged leaders have not even remotely been able to agree on something everyone else might be supposed to follow!

Quoting CupraIbiza (Reply 5):
I am saying lets keep the debate open.

Which debate? The one contesting that there is no global warming, the one contesting that man-made CO2 emissions contribute to it or the one about the size of their impact?
Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.
 
MDorBust
Posts: 4914
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:10 pm

RE: Report: Solar Activity Not Causing Global Warming

Wed Jul 11, 2007 9:16 am

Instant BS call.

The new study claims that solar output has been decreasing for the last 20 years.

Oh really?

Want to tell that to NASA and Columbia University who concluded exactly the opposite?

It's also a direct contradiction of the Federal Institute of Technology in Switzerland which in 2004 said the sun was generating it's highest output in the past 1000 years.

It's not coincidence is it that this report claiming low solar output just happens to come out at the bottom of the eleven year long sun spot cycle?

Let's play scientist



Mind pointing out for me the decrease in solar output?
"I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON" - Alex McIlveen
 
CupraIbiza
Posts: 547
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 1:55 pm

RE: Report: Solar Activity Not Causing Global Warming

Wed Jul 11, 2007 9:18 am

Quoting Coz (Reply 6):
How do you know???????

Because I've been professionaly writing software since before 2000.

Was it software that could see into the future?

Quoting Aloges (Reply 7):
Which debate? The one contesting that there is no global warming, the one contesting that man-made CO2 emissions contribute to it or the one about the size of their impact?

Yep keep all of the debates open. Global cooling was the problem in the 1970s.
Everyday is a gift…… but why does it have to be a pair of socks?
 
Halcyon
Posts: 1622
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2006 4:47 pm

RE: Report: Solar Activity Not Causing Global Warming

Wed Jul 11, 2007 9:35 am

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 8):
Instant BS call.

 checkmark 

And while we're throwing around articles, this one will hold interest to just about everyone I believe:

Nifty-do-Dah
 
777236ER
Topic Author
Posts: 12213
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2001 7:10 am

RE: Report: Solar Activity Not Causing Global Warming

Wed Jul 11, 2007 9:36 am

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 8):
Instant BS call.

The new study claims that solar output has been decreasing for the last 20 years.

Oh really?

Want to tell that to NASA and Columbia University who concluded exactly the opposite?

They don't.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 8):
Mind pointing out for me the decrease in solar output?

Yes, after 1980, which is where your graph stops and the data published by Lockwood is valid.

Have you even read the paper in Royal Soc. J. Proc. A? How can you claim it's bullshit without even reading it?
Your bone's got a little machine
 
CupraIbiza
Posts: 547
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 1:55 pm

RE: Report: Solar Activity Not Causing Global Warming

Wed Jul 11, 2007 9:40 am

So what major changes has everyone here made to reduce their CO2 emissions?
Everyday is a gift…… but why does it have to be a pair of socks?
 
MDorBust
Posts: 4914
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:10 pm

RE: Report: Solar Activity Not Causing Global Warming

Wed Jul 11, 2007 9:42 am

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 11):

They don't.

They don't what?

Are you saying that NASA and Columbia University didn't publish a report in 2003 concluding that solar output is and has been increasing? Now NASA and Columbia University disagree with you too.

Let's ask NASA

Quote:
The recent trend of a .05 percent per decade increase in Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) in watts per meter squared, or the amount of solar energy that falls upon a square meter outside the Earths atmosphere. The trend was measured between successive solar minima that occur approximately every 11 years. At the bottom, the timeline of the many different datasets that contributed to this finding, from 1978 to present.

Let's look at NASA's graph.



Quoting 777236ER (Reply 11):
Yes, after 1980, which is where your graph stops and the data published by Lockwood is valid.

The graph is incremented in fifty year divisions.

For people with poor math skills: 1950 + 50 = 2000... not 1980
"I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON" - Alex McIlveen
 
777236ER
Topic Author
Posts: 12213
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2001 7:10 am

RE: Report: Solar Activity Not Causing Global Warming

Wed Jul 11, 2007 9:46 am

Quoting Halcyon (Reply 10):
And while we're throwing around articles, this one will hold interest to just about everyone I believe:

Have YOU even read the Lockwood paper?

What is it with people not only determined to ignore the science, but to condemn it without even reading the numerous papers published in legitimate journals?!

Just in case you were in any doubt as to the credentials of the author, here they are:

Learned Societies: Fellow of the Royal Society of London (FRS)
Fellow, Institute of Physics (FInstP)
Chartered Physicist (CPhys)
Member, American Geophysical Union
Fellow, Royal Astronomical Society (FRAS)
International Awards: 1990 The Zel'dovich Award for Commission C (Ionospheric Physics). Awarded by COSPAR (The Committee on Space Research, of the International Council of Scientific Unions).
1990 The Issac Koga Gold Medal . Awarded by URSI (The International Union of Radio Science).
1998 The Chapman Medal . Awarded by the Royal Astronomical Society, London
2003 The Charles Chree Award and Prize . Awarded by the Institute of Physics, London.
2006 Elected as a Fellow of the Royal Society of London

Some of his papers you might like to read up on:

2002

205. M. Lockwood
An evaluation of the correlation between open solar flux and total solar irradiance
Astron and Astrophys., 382, 678-687, 2002

206. M. Lockwood
Long-term variations in the open solar flux and links to variations in Earths climate
In “From Solar Min to Max: Half a solar cycle with SoHO”, Proc. SoHO 11 Symposium, Davos, Switzerland, March 2002, ESA-SP-508, pp 507- 522, ESA Publications, Noordvijk, The Netherlands, 2002.

207. J. A. Davies, T. K. Yeoman, I. J. Rae, S. E. Milan, M. Lester, M. Lockwood and K. A. McWilliams
Ground-based observations of the auroral zone and polar cap ionospheric responses to dayside transient reconnection
Annales Geophys., 20, 781 – 794, 2002

208. D. H. Mackay, E. R. Priest, and M. Lockwood
The Evolution of the Sun's Open Magnetic Flux: I. A Single Bipole
Solar Physics, 207(2), 291-308, 2002

209. D. H. Mackay, and M. Lockwood
The Evolution of the Sun's Open magnetic Flux: II. Full solar cycle simulations
Solar Physics, 209(2), 287-309, 2002.

210. M. Lockwood
Foreword by the Chairman of the EISCAT Council
Annales Geophysicae, 20, 1261 – 1262, 2002

211. E. E. Woodfield, J. A. Davies, M. Lester, T. K. Yeoman, P. Eglitis, and M. Lockwood
Nightside studies of coherent HF Radar spectral width behaviour
Annales Geophysicae, 20, 1399 – 1413, 2002

212. M. Lockwood
Relationship between the near-Earth interplanetary field and the coronal source flux: Dependence on timescale
J. Geophys, Res., 107, doi. 10.1029/2001JA009062, 2002
2003

213. M. Lockwood
Twenty-three cycles of changing open solar flux
J. Geophys. Res., 108, doi 10.1029/2002/JA009431, 2003

214. M. Lockwood , B.S. Lanchester , H. Frey , K. Throp, S. Morley, S.E. Milan, and M.E. Lester,
IMF Control of Cusp Proton Emission Intensity and Dayside Convection: implications for component and anti-parallel reconnection,
Annales Geophys., 21, 955 – 982, 2003

215. S.E. Morley and M. Lockwood,
The effect of reconnection rate pulse height on cusp ion steps
Annales Geophys., 21, 947 – 953, 2003
2004

216. M. Lockwood, R.B. Forsyth, A. Balogh, and D. J. McComas
Open solar flux estimates from near-Earth measurements of the interplanetary magnetic field: comparison of the first two perihelion passes of the Ulysses spacecraft
Annales Geophys, 22, 1395-1405, 2004

217. T. J. Stubbs, M. Lockwood, P. Cargill, M. Grande, B. Kellett, and C.H. Perry
A comparison between ion characteristics observed by the POLAR and DMSP spacecraft in the high-latitude magnetosphere
Annales Geophys., 22, 1033-1046, 2004.

218. M. Lockwood and S.E. Morley,
A numerical model of the ionospheric signatures of time-varying magnetic reconnection: I. Ionospheric convection
Annales Geophys., 22, 73-91, 2004.

219. J. Moen, M. Lockwood, K. Oskavik, H.C. Carlson, W.F. Denig, A.P. van Eyken, and I.W. McCrea
The dynamics and relationships of precipitation, temperature and convection boundaries in the dayside auroral oval
Annales Geophys., 22, 1-15, 2004

220. M. Lockwood, Solar Outputs, their variations and their effects of Earth, in The Sun, Solar Analogs and the Climate,
Proc. Saas-Fee Advanced Course, 34 by J.D. Haigh, M.Lockwood and M.S. Giampapa, eds. I. Rüedi, M. Güdel, and W. Schmutz, pp107-304, Springer, ISBN: 3-540-23856-5, 2004

221. A. Rouillard and M. Lockwood,
Oscillations in the open solar magnetic flux with period 1.68 years: imprint on galactic cosmic rays and implications for heliospheric shielding
Annales, Geophys, 46, 22, 4381-4395, 2004

222. T. J. Stubbs, P. J. Cargill, M. Lockwood, M. Grande, B. J. Kellett, and C. H. Perry
Extended cusp-like regions and their dependence on the Polar orbit, seasonal variations, and interplanetary conditions
J. Geophys. Res., 109, A09210, doi:10.1029/2003JA010163, 2004
2005

223. H. Lee, I. Tosh, N. Morris, M. Lockwood and S-W. Kim,
The optomechanical design of Amon-Ra instrument,
Electronic Imaging and Multimedia Technology IV, Edited by C-S Li and M. M. Yeung,
Proc. S.P.I.E., 5638, 248-261, 2005.

224. S. K. Morley and M. Lockwood
A numerical model of the ionospheric signatures of time-varying magnetic reconnection: II. Measuring expansions in the ionospheric flow response
Annales Geophys. , 23, 2501-2510, 2005.

225. M. Lockwood, J. Moen, A. P. van Eyken, J.A. Davies, K. Oksavik, and I.W McCrea,
Motion of the dayside polar cap boundary during substorm cycles: I. Observations of pulses in the magnetopause reconnection rate
Annales Geophys, 23, 3495–3511, 2005.

226. M. Lockwood, J.A. Davies, J. Moen, A. P. van Eyken, K. Oksavik, I.W McCrea and M.E. Lester
Motion of the dayside polar cap boundary during substorm cycles: II. Generation of poleward-moving events and polar cap patches by pulses in the magnetopause reconnection rate
Annales Geophys, 23, 3513–3532, 2005.

227. K. Throp, M. Lockwood, B. S. Lanchester, S. K. Morley, and H. U. Frey
Modeling the observed proton aurora and ionospheric convection responses to changes in the IMF clock angle: 1. Persistence of cusp proton aurora,
J. Geophys. Res., 110, A12311, doi:10.1029/2003JA010306, 2005.

228. M.W. Dunlop, M.G.G. T. Taylor, J.A. Davies, C. J. Owen, F. Pitout, A. N. Fazakerley, Z. Pu, H. Laakso, Y. V. Bogdanova, Q.-G. Zong, C. Shen, K. Nykyri, B. Lavraud, S. E. Milan, T. D. Phan, H. Rème, C. P. Escoubet, C. M. Carr, P. Cargill, M. Lockwood, and B. Sonnerup
Coordinated Cluster/Double Star observations of dayside reconnection signatures.
Annales Geophys., 23, 2867–2875, 2005.

229. H. Lee, S.-W. Kim, A. Richards, I. Tosh, N. Morris, and M. Lockwood,
Stray-light analysis of Amon-Ra instrument
Optical Modeling and Performance Predictions II, Edited by M.A. Kahan,
Proc. S.P.I.E., 5678, 46-57, 2005.
2006

230. M. Lockwood, K. Throp, B.S. Lanchester, S.K. Morley, S.E. Milan, M. Lester, and H. U. Frey
Modelling the observed proton aurora and ionospheric convection responses to changes in the IMF field clock angle: 2. The persistence of ionospheric convection.
J. Geophys. Res., 111, A02306, doi:10.1029/2003JA010307, 2006.

231. S. K. Morley and M. Lockwood
A numerical model of the ionospheric signatures of time-varying magnetic reconnection: 3. Quasi-instantaneous convection responses in the Cowley-Lockwood paradigm
Annales Geophys., 24, 961–972, 2006.

232. M.Lockwood, A.P. Rouillard, I.D. Finch, and R. Stamper
Comment on The IDV index: its derivation and use in inferring long-term variations of the interplanetary magnetic field strength by Svalgaard and Cliver
J. Geophys. Res., 111, A09109, doi:10.1029/2006JA011640, 2006

233. M. Lockwood
What do cosmogenic isotopes tell us about past solar forcing of climate?
Space Sci. Rev., 125, 95-109, doi: 10.1007/s11214-006-9049-2, 2006

234. J.M. Sullivan, N. Ivchenko M.Lockwood, T.Grydeland, E.M. Blixt, and B.S. Lanchester
Phase calibration of the EISCAT Svalbard Radar interferometer using optical satellite signatures
Annales Geophys. Ann. Geophys., 24, 2419–2427, 2006
2007

235. I. Finch, and M. Lockwood
Solar wind-magnetosphere coupling functions on timescales of 1 day to 1 year
Annales Geophys., 25, 495-506, 2007

236. A.P. Rouillard, M. Lockwood, and I. Finch
Centennial changes in the solar wind speed and in the open solar flux
J. Geophys. Res., 112, A05103, doi:10.1029/2006JA012130, 2007
In press

237. M.W. Dunlop, M. G. G. T. Taylor, J. A. Davies, Z. Pu, A.N. Fazakerley, C.J. Owen, Y. V. Bogdanova, F. Pitout, H. Laakso, Q. -G. Zong, C. Shen, K. Nykyri, B. Lavraud, S. E. Milan, Z.-X. Liu, C. P. Escoubet, H. Rème, C. M. Carr, P. Cargill, T. D. Phan, M. Lockwood and B. Sonnerup,
Comparative Cluster/Double Star Observations of the High and Low Latitude Dayside Magnetopause
Proc. Cluster symposium, ESTEC, ESA Publications, Nordvijk, The Netherlands, in press, 2007

238. M. Lockwood
Century-Scale Variations in Total Solar Irradiance and Open Solar Magnetic Flux: Implications for Earth’s Climate
Living Reviews, to be published (on line), 2007

239. A.P. Rouillard, and M. Lockwood
Centennial changes in solar activity and the response of galactic cosmic rays
Adv. Space Res., in press, 2007

240. A.P. Rouillard, and M. Lockwood
The latitudinal effect of co-rotating interaction regions on galactic coamic rays
Solar Phys., in press, 2007

241. M. Lockwood, and C. Fröhlich
Recent changes in solar outputs and the global mean surface temperature
Proc. Roy. Soc. A, in press, 2007
Under Review

242. M. Lockwood , S.S. Foster and R. Stamper
What do cosmogenic isotopes tell us about past variations in solar irradiance?
Phys. Rev. Lett., submitted, 2006.

243. J.A. Davies, M.W. Dunlop, C.H. Perry, M. Lockwood, I. Alexeev, M.G.G.T. Taylor, A.N. Fazakerley, C.J. Owen, A. Marchaudon, R.H.W. Friedel, X.H. Deng, M. Grande, and P.W. Daly
Energetic Electron Signatures in an Active Magnetotail Plasma Sheet
Adv. Space Res., submitted, 2005

244. M.W. Dunlop, A. N. Fazakerley, R. Fear, M Hapgood, M Lockwood, J.A. Davies, C.H. Perry, C J Owen, and A. Balogh
The magnetopause transition parameter: Cluster observations
Annales Geophys., submitted, 2005

245. M.Lockwood and S.S. Foster
Reconstructing solar facular brightening from sunspot group data
Solar Physics, submitted, 2006

246. M. Lockwood, D. Whiter, B. Hancock, R. Henwood, T. Ulich, H.J. Linthe, and M.A. Clilverd
The long-term drift in geomagnetic activity: calibration of the aa index using data from a variety of magnetometer stations
Annales Geophys., submitted, 2006

247. M. Lockwood, A.P. Rouillard, I. Finch, and R. Stamper
How large was the rise in open solar flux during the 20th century? - Application of Bayesian Statistics
Annales Geophys., submitted, 2006

248. A.P. Rouillard, and M. Lockwood
The response of galactic cosmic rays tp propagating diffusive barriers: application of system identification analysis
Astron. and Astrophys., submitted, 2007

249. A.P. Rouillard, I. Finch, M. Lockwood and K. Mursula,
Solar wind speed semi-annual variations and polar coronal hole evolution
Geophys. Res. Lett., submitted, 2007

250. A.P. Rouillard, and M. Lockwood
Solar stream magnetism: analytic prediction of 3-dimensional heliospheric fields and flows
Astron. and Astrophys., submitted, 2007

251. I. Finch, A.P. Rouillard, and M. Lockwood
Solar wind speed as the source of the annual variation of geomagnetic activity
Geophys. Res. Lett., submitted, 2007

Only going back five years, to get you started.

Nearly all on solar flux, all accepted to noted journals, fellow of Royal Society, Institute of Physics and Royal Astronomical Society. What is it about this man that makes you condemn and shun his work without even reading it, whereas the rest of the scientific community accepts it as valid scientific research with wide-ranging consequences?

Ignoring people like Mike Lockwood is like ignoring a doctor who tells you you have cancer, or ignoring an engineer who tells you your machine is going to break, or ignoring a chemist who tells you nitroglycerin is explosive.
Your bone's got a little machine
 
Halcyon
Posts: 1622
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2006 4:47 pm

RE: Report: Solar Activity Not Causing Global Warm

Wed Jul 11, 2007 9:49 am

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 14):

Oh my, did I hit a nerve? Did YOU even read what I posted? Hmm?

Yes, I read the whole thing, 1980, divergence, etc. etc, and now I see you posting a ton of names. Now read MDs post and look at that. You're know for going off on tirades, and obviously I read your bloody article, otherwise what would I know to disagree with? I don't agree that the levels have decreased a lot, because many sources show otherwise.

Whoop-de-do.

EDIT: I DO think that humans impact global warming, but I don't find it reasonable to suggest that we're murdering ourselves. The whole thing is highly political and alarmist.

[Edited 2007-07-11 02:51:29]
 
connies4ever
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:54 pm

RE: Report: Solar Activity Not Causing Global Warming

Wed Jul 11, 2007 9:59 am

Quoting Coz (Reply 2):
Keep in mind, it took many years of preparation and hard work to prepare computer systems for the Y2K. If we had done nothing, it would have been a disaster. Climate change presents the same set of problems. These problems need to be addressed with the same urgency that society addressed the Y2K issue.



Quoting Coz (Reply 6):
Because I've been writing software professionaly since before 2000.

IMHO, Y2K was a colossal hoax. I worked on the so-called 'response' to the 'threat' of Y2K and in no case did I see a problem for our particular shop: we develop s/w that's used to design and license nuclear reactors. A fairly serious business (although we are allowed to laugh...). And I've been writing s/w professionally since 1975. Yes, there were computers then.

But to the point of global climate change, the environment is an enormously complex system to model. There are tons of feedback effects, influential parameters that we are still trying to quantify, and a basic lack of really accurate historical data. We have to infer much. Measuring isotopic ratios in ice core samples can give us some gross data, but I wouldn't want to bet the farm on it. How we cast the size of the cells used in any study has a real effect on the outcome, as well.

That's not to say that GHG-induced warming is not a real threat. And, if we do nothing and the GCC advocates are correct, it will soon be too late to do anything in a practical manner. Therefore a prudent approach is to try to limit GHG emissions as much as we can.

To do this in anything like a thoroughgoing manner, however, will require the active participation and cooperation of India and China, whose carbon-based energy use is accelerating like mad. As well, for once America will have to get by with less of the pie than has been the case: it already accounts for 1/4 of the world's energy consumption for 5% of the population, i.e. 5x per capita more than the average. In Canada we need to do our part as well, although since our population is so much smaller than the US the overall effect is less.

Options?
-- limit growth in CO2-emitting power generation facilities & industries (a big problem since there's lots of coal and it's relatively cheap);
-- promote nuclear & hydro where appropriate (may be constrained in nuclear by lack of capable staff);
-- wind is something I'm ambivalent about: there is a fair bit of energy out there, but it's unreliable and can cause grid
problems. I do not see it as a magic bullet;
-- tidal & solar power in select locations;
-- geothermal energy: there's huge amounts of it right below us, admittedly with many potential problems, but hey? who isn't up for a challenge.
-- fusion ? Well, when I started in this business 30+ years ago, the greybeards told me fusion was 20-25 years away. Now that I'm a greybeard, I tell the new kids that fusion is 50+ years away, if ever. I do not think ITER in Cadarrache will reoslve the problems.

But the coal lobby is strong, they will bend many politicians to their goals. Clean coal (so-called CCS technology) _may_ provide a viable path, but it has yet to be demonstrated. I understand there is a proof-of-concept plant being built near Long Beach, California. I hope it succeeds.

A bit long-winded, but my humble contribution.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
andessmf
Posts: 5689
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:53 am

RE: Report: Solar Activity Not Causing Global Warming

Wed Jul 11, 2007 10:07 am

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 14):
What is it with people not only determined to ignore the science, but to condemn it without even reading the numerous papers published in legitimate journals?!

Because science has often and consistently been wrong, and it is only thru our own folly to believe that they are not wrong now.

There are plenty of previous examples were the scientific cure for a problem was worse than the actual original problem.

And to answer, what is wrong with CO2? After all, it is what plants use in their energy cycle. Now if you are talking about other poisons, I am all for removing them from the environment. But plants take the O out of CO2 to give us the oxygen we breathe.
 
PPVRA
Posts: 7878
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: Report: Solar Activity Not Causing Global Warming

Wed Jul 11, 2007 10:18 am

By Richard Black
BBC Environment Correspondent


Yeah, reports someone with his job on the line. The solar "theory" was experimentally proven, we'll see what becomes of this.
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Report: Solar Activity Not Causing Global Warming

Wed Jul 11, 2007 10:20 am

Quoting CupraIbiza (Reply 12):
So what major changes has everyone here made to reduce their CO2 emissions?

I personally am trying to eat more beans to offset the paranoia. That reminds me we should be opening a new Taco Del Mar in town shortly....it's a new brand for this state.

[

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 14):

Learned Societies: Fellow of the Royal Society of London (FRS)

Never heard of it

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 14):
Fellow, Institute of Physics (FInstP)

Never heard of it

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 14):
Chartered Physicist (CPhys)

Just like a pilots rating.

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 14):
Member, American Geophysical Union

He joined a club

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 14):
Fellow, Royal Astronomical Society (FRAS)

He joined another club

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 14):
Fellow, Royal Astronomical Society (FRAS)

Another club....I hope he gets a newsletter.

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 14):
International Awards: 1990 The Zel'dovich Award for Commission C (Ionospheric Physics). Awarded by COSPAR (The Committee on Space Research, of the International Council of Scientific Unions).
1990 The Issac Koga Gold Medal . Awarded by URSI (The International Union of Radio Science).
1998 The Chapman Medal . Awarded by the Royal Astronomical Society, London
2003 The Charles Chree Award and Prize . Awarded by the Institute of Physics, London.
2006 Elected as a Fellow of the Royal Society of London

The boy scouts call those Merit Badges.

Sorry, If I am being a bit harsh on the guy, but I learned a long time ago listening to Art Bell introduce guests is that a lot of his experts have the same medals/licenses/memberships in the same groups. Just means he is supporting of what the group promotes.

Quoting Halcyon (Reply 15):
EDIT: I DO think that humans impact global warming, but I don't find it reasonable to suggest that we're murdering ourselves. The whole thing is highly political and alarmist.

Agreed, I can't allow myself to dismisss natural variences so easily, but it looks like the man is evil crowd can.

Quoting Connies4ever (Reply 16):
Options?
-- limit growth in CO2-emitting power generation facilities & industries (a big problem since there's lots of coal and it's relatively cheap);

Agreed, but keep in mind that oil, gas, and manufactured fuels such as biofuels all fit into this catagory. I don't think you can limit it with the current power increases.

Quoting Connies4ever (Reply 16):
-- promote nuclear & hydro where appropriate (may be constrained in nuclear by lack of capable staff);

Hydro is very enviromentally damaging, just look at the Bonneville project and it's effect on the Colombia river. Nuclear is probably the best option mainly because it's waste why long lasting and highly toxic can be localized in storage.

Quoting Connies4ever (Reply 16):
-- wind is something I'm ambivalent about: there is a fair bit of energy out there, but it's unreliable and can cause grid
problems. I do not see it as a magic bullet;

Hardly the wind isn't universal, Ted Kennedy won't let that plant be built off Martha's Vinyard because it will destroy his view, it isn't constant, and I can tell you from experience that there are some places where the wind conditions will destory the clutches in the fan in short order.

Quoting Connies4ever (Reply 16):
-- tidal & solar power in select locations

Tidal is hardly proved, and I wouldn't consider it even close to mature, more at about the point solar was in the 1960's. Also I have concerns about the effects on fish and marine mammels, not to mention sea patterns.

Solar is probably the best bet but frankly we are screwing up on how to do it. You don't go with the major project. If I had any money to spare I would love to invest in that company that is working on installing solar panels on 3-tab roofing shingles.

I see small homeowner based projects to be the way to go.

Quoting Connies4ever (Reply 16):
-- geothermal energy: there's huge amounts of it right below us, admittedly with many potential problems, but hey? who isn't up for a challenge

Actually there isn't that much for big projects, unless you happen to be in iceland. But I do see the "heat pump" systems are gaining in popularity for temperture regulations of homes. That is where the efficency will come from.

Quoting Connies4ever (Reply 16):
-- fusion ? Well, when I started in this business 30+ years ago, the greybeards told me fusion was 20-25 years away. Now that I'm a greybeard, I tell the new kids that fusion is 50+ years away, if ever. I do not think ITER in Cadarrache will reoslve the problems.

Mr. Scott would have had it up and running by now.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
Klaus
Posts: 20622
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Report: Solar Activity Not Causing Global Warm

Wed Jul 11, 2007 10:24 am

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 17):
Because science has often and consistently been wrong, and it is only thru our own folly to believe that they are not wrong now.

The computer on which you're typing that and the airplanes you're trusting your life to are products of what you believe to be "often and consistently wrong".

Fact is that science is a system for the finding, verification and optimization of knowledge about the world. And it is the only such system to have sustained success in yielding reliable results which you can (and do) trust your life to.

Okay, now on again with the "science is nonsense" propaganda show...!  crazy 
 
GuitrThree
Posts: 1940
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2004 12:54 pm

RE: Report: Solar Activity Not Causing Global Warming

Wed Jul 11, 2007 10:27 am

Quoting 777236ER (Thread starter):
Another piece of evidence that suggests that global warming is man-made, and caused by man-made green house gas emissions. Those that bury their heads in the sand are fast running out of alternative 'theories' to support their denial.

So you really believe that the Sun, the one and only source of all energy on the planet, has nothing to do with temperatures on the Earth. Ok. If you say so. You also probably still believe that 2 BILLION people watched Al Gore's concerts this weekend too...
As Seen On FlightRadar24! Radar ==> F-KBNA5
 
777236ER
Topic Author
Posts: 12213
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2001 7:10 am

RE: Report: Solar Activity Not Causing Global Warm

Wed Jul 11, 2007 10:31 am

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 17):
Because science has often and consistently been wrong, and it is only thru our own folly to believe that they are not wrong now.

That's a rather bizarre position to take. I hope that you don't use a computer, use electricity, use anything metal, plastic, rubber or fabric, fly a plane or ride a car, lest science be wrong and these things blow up!

Quoting Halcyon (Reply 15):
Whoop-de-do.



Quoting MDorBust (Reply 13):

They don't what?

Instead of flippant remarks, have you actually read the paper cited in the link in the thread opener...you know the very paper you're saying is bollocks?

Just for you, here are some of the relevent results from the Lockwood and Frohlich paper. [Note, these are fair use excerpt and come from M. Lockwood and C. Fröhlich Proc. R. Soc. A doi:10.1098/rspa.2007.1880; 2007]



These figures show monthly means of parameters taking since 1975. The first figure is the international sunspot number , R. The second figure shows the open solar flux, Fs. The third figure shows the neutrons generated by cosmic rays incident on the Earth's atmosphere as seen by Climax. The fourth figure shows the TSI (which is based on data including the data from your graph above). These parameters are used to measure the solar cycle The final figure shows the Earth's surface air temperature.

Data for the longer term is shown below:



The variation in R for 1890-2000 is shown in the first figure. The second figure shows the solar cycle length L for the same time period. The third figure shows the change in Fs. The fourth figure shows the abundence of the isotope 10Be which is a palaeoclimate indicator. 10Be is a product of galactic cosmic rays hitting atmospheric O, N and Ar atoms and thus is an indicator of solar activity. Finally, the last figure shows the Earth's surface air temperature.

It doesn't take a genius to see the loss in correlation between the solar activity and surface air temperature towards the end of the 20th century. This is hard data, using the data you've posted above, without bias or prejudiced, presented in a respected journal by a respected author. If you think the paper is bollocks, fine, but instead of just slating it because it disagrees with your view and you can't stand to be wrong, at least read it then give a reasoned scientific response. Saying it's bollocks and pulling the first thing you find from Google to condemn it isn't enough. This is hard science, the type that allows you to post on the internet in the first place.

Time for bed!

[Edited 2007-07-11 03:36:31]
Your bone's got a little machine
 
777236ER
Topic Author
Posts: 12213
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2001 7:10 am

RE: Report: Solar Activity Not Causing Global Warm

Wed Jul 11, 2007 10:35 am

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 21):
So you really believe that the Sun, the one and only source of all energy on the planet, has nothing to do with temperatures on the Earth. Ok. If you say so. You also probably still believe that 2 BILLION people watched Al Gore's concerts this weekend too...

Did I say that? No! All I said was paraphrased from the paper which you haven't read: the recent trend in global surface temperatures has diverged from solar activity.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 19):
Quoting 777236ER (Reply 14):

Learned Societies: Fellow of the Royal Society of London (FRS)

Never heard of it

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 14):
Fellow, Institute of Physics (FInstP)

Never heard of it

If you don't know what the Royal Society is then I'm amazed you went to school in a prosperous Western nation. I really am.

This isn't about which politician you side with, or even whether you should drive your 11mpg gas-guzzling car. This is about scientific evidence. The fact that people feel it's OK to ridicule science and applaud ignorance is frightning. And before one more person says it, you can't prove a scientific theory, for Christ's sake. Did you go to school?!

[Edited 2007-07-11 03:37:01]
Your bone's got a little machine
 
CupraIbiza
Posts: 547
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 1:55 pm

RE: Report: Solar Activity Not Causing Global Warming

Wed Jul 11, 2007 10:37 am

Quoting CupraIbiza (Reply 12):
So what major changes has everyone here made to reduce their CO2 emissions?

Geez I am wondering why other than L-188 (that was gold by the way) no one here has answered this question? Hmm I sense a severe case of hypocrisy
Everyday is a gift…… but why does it have to be a pair of socks?
 
Klaus
Posts: 20622
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Report: Solar Activity Not Causing Global Warming

Wed Jul 11, 2007 10:38 am

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 21):
So you really believe that the Sun, the one and only source of all energy on the planet, has nothing to do with temperatures on the Earth. Ok. If you say so.

Yeah, the pitfalls of oversimplification.

The sun provides most of the energy, but the amount of energy retained on earth apparently depends more on earth-local parameters than on the relatively small fluctuations in the sun's radiation.
 
MDorBust
Posts: 4914
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:10 pm

RE: Report: Solar Activity Not Causing Global Warming

Wed Jul 11, 2007 10:42 am

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 22):
Instead of flippant remarks, have you actually read the paper cited in the link in the thread opener...you know the very paper you're saying is bollocks?

I'm sure you would have no problems linking us to a copy of the paper, since you've got it at hand and all.

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 22):
Just for you, here are some of the relevent results from the Lockwood and Frohlich paper.

Okay... other than the expected eleven year solar cycle, where is the decline in solar output?

The only chart that shows any decrease is the one recording a byproduct, not solar activity itself. Correlation is not causation.

You seem to be solidly ignoring the fact that NASA and the Federal Institute of Technology found exactly the opposite. What's wrong, An Incovenient Truth?
"I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON" - Alex McIlveen
 
Klaus
Posts: 20622
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Report: Solar Activity Not Causing Global Warm

Wed Jul 11, 2007 10:45 am

Quoting CupraIbiza (Reply 24):
Geez I am wondering why other than L-188 (that was gold by the way) no one here has answered this question? Hmm I sense a severe case of hypocrisy

I drive relatively rarely. It's basically enough to keep the battery from self-discharging below the point where the car won't start on its own next time.

I've just switched my electricity supply to 100% renewable sources.

I'm avoiding waste wherever possible.

And a few other things.


And science still remains the only proven and reliable way to describe the physical world.

Nice attempt of a diversion, however...
 
Halcyon
Posts: 1622
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2006 4:47 pm

RE: Report: Solar Activity Not Causing Global Warming

Wed Jul 11, 2007 10:56 am

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 22):
Instead of flippant remarks, have you actually read the paper cited in the link in the thread opener...you know the very paper you're saying is bollocks?

Hey, I did, and flippantly showed that I did. Now you, on the other hand, don't bother to read my article. You're doing what you accuse me of doing...which I haven't done.  Yeah sure
 
GuitrThree
Posts: 1940
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2004 12:54 pm

RE: Report: Solar Activity Not Causing Global Warming

Wed Jul 11, 2007 10:59 am

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 23):
Did I say that? No! All I said was paraphrased from the paper which you haven't read: the recent trend in global surface temperatures has diverged from solar activity.



Quoting Klaus (Reply 25):
Yeah, the pitfalls of oversimplification.

The sun provides most of the energy, but the amount of energy retained on earth apparently depends more on earth-local parameters than on the relatively small fluctuations in the sun's radiation.

Then how do you explain that Mars and Venus temperature rises are relatively similar to Earths? Is that "oversimplification?"
As Seen On FlightRadar24! Radar ==> F-KBNA5
 
Coz
Posts: 411
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 8:29 am

RE: Report: Solar Activity Not Causing Global Warming

Wed Jul 11, 2007 11:04 am

Quoting CupraIbiza (Reply 24):
Geez I am wondering why other than L-188 (that was gold by the way) no one here has answered this question? Hmm I sense a severe case of hypocrisy

Because you had lost all credibility. Perhaps you didn't realize.

This thread is about the findings of new evidence regarding climate change and the science behind it. If you want to discuss what everyday people are doing to reduce carbon emissions, you should start another thread instead of attempting to change the subject matter of this one.

Why don't you put some effort into backing your argument instead of attempting personal attacks on those who don't share your opinion?

Do you have anything to say to support your argument?

[Edited 2007-07-11 04:14:08]
 
Klaus
Posts: 20622
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Report: Solar Activity Not Causing Global Warming

Wed Jul 11, 2007 11:29 am

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 29):
Then how do you explain that Mars and Venus temperature rises are relatively similar to Earths? Is that "oversimplification?"

Since the radiation intensity of the sun apparently didn't rise in the past few years, other mechanisms would seem more plausible. Either that or the measurements would have to be proven incorrect after all. But there doesn't seem to be much room for that left, with peer-reviewed and verified observations being the source.
 
Queso
Posts: 3109
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 12:28 pm

RE: Report: Solar Activity Not Causing Global Warming

Wed Jul 11, 2007 12:23 pm

I love global warming threads. Nobody can prove anything either way because any information presented can be easily disputed by the opposing viewpoint.


Here are some absolute, undisputable facts:

This planet has gone through many warming/cooling cycles, with the latest warming cycle beginning long before man could have influenced it.

I will continue to live as I have been living, and I will drive where I want to drive, in the vehicle I want to drive. I will use as much electricity, gasoline, or any other fuel, as I can afford without concern for how it is (not) changing the environment.

A lot more people in this world feel the same way I do than the tree-hugger view and you are not going to change their minds, nor will a feel-good group of sparsely attended concerts in several venues where large numbers of people hypocritically use tremendous amounts of energy to get to and from the concerts, running sound and lighting equipment, heating their hot dogs, etc.

You are not going to change my mind.
 
Klaus
Posts: 20622
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Report: Solar Activity Not Causing Global Warm

Wed Jul 11, 2007 12:54 pm

Quoting Queso (Reply 32):
I will continue to live as I have been living, and I will drive where I want to drive, in the vehicle I want to drive. I will use as much electricity, gasoline, or any other fuel, as I can afford without concern for how it is (not) changing the environment.

Sure. Conservation of precious resources is so obviously a stupid idea....  hypnotized 

Fact checking? Consistency? Verification? Nah. Much too troublesome.

Reality is a bitch - so why even bother when its stepsister delusion looks so much more attractive with its dummy boobs and its botox smile... I'm sure you two will live happily ever after... wasn't that it?  eyebrow 
 
CupraIbiza
Posts: 547
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 1:55 pm

RE: Report: Solar Activity Not Causing Global Warming

Wed Jul 11, 2007 1:07 pm

Quoting Coz (Reply 30):
Because you had lost all credibility. Perhaps you didn't realize.

This thread is about the findings of new evidence regarding climate change and the science behind it. If you want to discuss what everyday people are doing to reduce carbon emissions, you should start another thread instead of attempting to change the subject matter of this one.

Why don't you put some effort into backing your argument instead of attempting personal attacks on those who don't share your opinion?

Do you have anything to say to support your argument?

You accuse me of personal attacks? Read your post! I was merely trying to highlight that so many people are quick to preach about the environment and global warming but very slow to make the lifestyle changes they are preaching about. Excuse me for slightly deviating (very slightly) from the thread - that never happens here does it.
Everyday is a gift…… but why does it have to be a pair of socks?
 
Queso
Posts: 3109
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 12:28 pm

RE: Report: Solar Activity Not Causing Global Warming

Wed Jul 11, 2007 1:08 pm

Quoting Klaus (Reply 33):
Reality is a bitch - so why even bother when its stepsister delusion looks so much more attractive with its dummy boobs and its botox smile.

Glad to see you're finally coming around to understanding that this whole idea of man-made global warming is a sham, Klaus. Welcome to a new level of consciousness, one in which you are free to make your own assesment of what is real and what is a dream created by those who have but one agenda and propagated by those who choose to sell falsehoods to sheep who lack the intelligence to decide for themselves and blindly follow "An Inconvenient Lie".
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Report: Solar Activity Not Causing Global Warming

Wed Jul 11, 2007 1:15 pm

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 23):
If you don't know what the Royal Society is then I'm amazed you went to school in a prosperous Western nation

You know we quit the empire in 1776.

 talktothehand 

Seriously though, I have heard the term used but couldn't name any specific royal societies or their bylaws.

Quoting CupraIbiza (Reply 24):
Geez I am wondering why other than L-188 (that was gold by the way) no one here has answered this question? Hmm I sense a severe case of hypocrisy

Thanks, but seriously I just try and use what I need when I need it and am always looking for COST EFFECTIVE means of lowering my bills. Hybrid cars and forced "green" energy doesn't meet that threshold yet.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
andessmf
Posts: 5689
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:53 am

RE: Report: Solar Activity Not Causing Global Warming

Wed Jul 11, 2007 1:35 pm

Quoting Klaus (Reply 27):
And science still remains the only proven and reliable way to describe the physical world.

Umm...and how many theories have gone by the wayside in the last 100 years?

Pretty certain that those who believed science was behind them thought it was heresy when Galileo made his proposals. Or perhaps it was science that readily accepted black holes, or plate tectonics, etc. Let's not even talk about the implications that quantum physics bring to our realities of the physical world.

You must feel pretty smug, that seeing how science has progressed in the last centuries, we know that that right now they are correct.

Myself, on the other hand, while I realize that science has 'answered' and continues to ponder many questions, there are plenty of other questions out there that have no answer. I safely assume in my head, that why now we laugh at what scientists believed 50 years ago, there is a distinct possibility that 50 years from now, others will laugh at our current folly.

And still the question begs. Why is CO2, a requirement for plant life in this world, so dangerous now?
 
Klaus
Posts: 20622
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Report: Solar Activity Not Causing Global Warm

Wed Jul 11, 2007 1:36 pm

Quoting Queso (Reply 35):
Glad to see you're finally coming around to understanding that this whole idea of man-made global warming is a sham, Klaus.

I'd gladly do that if the verifiable evidence didn't consistently point into exactly the opposite direction.

Quoting Queso (Reply 35):
Welcome to a new level of consciousness, one in which you are free to make your own assesment of what is real and what is a dream created by those who have but one agenda and propagated by those who choose to sell falsehoods to sheep who lack the intelligence to decide for themselves and blindly follow "An Inconvenient Lie".

Well, the verifiable evidence doesn't seem to agree with your wishful thinking, I'm afraid.

Consistency with the entire body of verifiable evidence is the only criterion in science that ultimately counts. Which has long passed the point where human influence could still have been disputed as a major factor in climate change. Lobbyists understandably pretend that hasn't happened, but they've not been able to provide verifiable evidence to the contrary, so the verifiable evidence which actually exists has the stage.

Just making things up for yourself may satisfy much lower standards, but the kind of research which makes this conversation possible requires independently verifiable observations and peer review among researchers actually working in the respective field. Which tends to eliminate personal preferences relatively quickly, whether that's convenient or not.

So when asked whether to believe pressure groups with vested interests and no evidence to back them up or to believe experienced scientists who cross-verify their findings and are regularly vetting their latest theories against new observations - well, I'll go with the facts and the scientists against the lobbyists. Sorry.
 
Coz
Posts: 411
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 8:29 am

RE: Report: Solar Activity Not Causing Global Warming

Wed Jul 11, 2007 1:52 pm

Quoting CupraIbiza (Reply 34):
You accuse me of personal attacks? Read your post! I was merely trying to highlight that so many people are quick to preach about the environment and global warming but very slow to make the lifestyle changes they are preaching about. Excuse me for slightly deviating (very slightly) from the thread - that never happens here does it.

How dare you question me.  gnasher 
 
Klaus
Posts: 20622
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Report: Solar Activity Not Causing Global Warm

Wed Jul 11, 2007 1:56 pm

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 37):
Umm...and how many theories have gone by the wayside in the last 100 years?

Thousands. And every single one of them was either replaced by one which was more consistent with verifiable evidence or at least kicked out because it had been shown to be inconsistent with it.

The amount and complexity of the mass of evidence a theory is consistent with and successfully makes predictions about gives a good estimate about the solidity of the theory, albeit always still a provisional one.

And by that measure, the current model of climate change has already progressed past the point of being a vague idea, an untested proposal or even just a plausible possibility.

By now its range of consistency puts it on the level of highly probable explanation for the vast amount of empirical observations it is consistent with.

There will always remain some probability that it may still be false after all - but that probability has already shrunk below the point where it should prevent practical political measures from being taken.

The probable risk of complacency is clearly outweighing the foreseeable costs - especially since on top of everything else, most benefits of active CO2 reduction will be realized in any case, regardless of climate change or not.

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 37):
Myself, on the other hand, while I realize that science has 'answered' and continues to ponder many questions, there are plenty of other questions out there that have no answer. I safely assume in my head, that why now we laugh at what scientists believed 50 years ago, there is a distinct possibility that 50 years from now, others will laugh at our current folly.

The solidified and test-proof body of scientific theories has long outweighed the fringe of questionable or disproved theories by a large factor. And this is extremely unlikely to change in the future.

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 37):
And still the question begs. Why is CO2, a requirement for plant life in this world, so dangerous now?

Same reason why pure water will kill you if you drink a few liters of it: The dosage is the key.

Most plants will die in a pure CO2 atmosphere, as would we. And the greenhouse effect is understood well enough to know that CO2 is a strong contributor to climate changes; Only the exact amount is still under research.
 
andessmf
Posts: 5689
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:53 am

RE: Report: Solar Activity Not Causing Global Warming

Wed Jul 11, 2007 2:23 pm

Quoting Klaus (Reply 40):
By now its range of consistency puts it on the level of highly probable explanation for the vast amount of empirical observations it is consistent with.

And that doesn't apply to many other previous theories? I mean, it is well known and not disputed that the earth has warmed and cooled before, the only issue is cause. And science has found many causes for effects before, 'proven' them by all means, only to have the proofs discarded by later evidence.

So anyone who finds proof that the earth is warming is not doing something special, since we already knows the earth has warmed and cooled before.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 40):
The solidified and test-proof body of scientific theories has long outweighed the fringe of questionable or disproved theories by a large factor. And this is extremely unlikely to change in the future.

Oh, boy...

Flexibility, Klaus. The key word is 'open minded'. You are essentially stating that yours is closed.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 40):
Same reason why pure water will kill you if you drink a few liters of it: The dosage is the key.

Water kills when drank in excess by ONE person.

Remember that many proposed solutions for global warming was the planting of forests as carbon sinks. So if you have a little too much, you plant some more.

Of course, all this global warming talk is moot if we have a single large volcano erupt. And of course, a large volcano eruption is 'not a matter of if, but when'.
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Report: Solar Activity Not Causing Global Warming

Wed Jul 11, 2007 2:27 pm

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 41):
Remember that many proposed solutions for global warming was the planting of forests as carbon sinks. So if you have a little too much, you plant some more.

Which is the exact opposite answer for those in the arctic.

We are looking at tree lines expanding north darkening the landscape and holding in the heat. One proposal is to do shrub removal and trimming at high lattitudes.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
RJdxer
Posts: 3523
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:14 am

RE: Report: Solar Activity Not Causing Global Warming

Wed Jul 11, 2007 3:15 pm

Hmmm, the first day of winter is December 21st, yet the coldest time of winter is always in January or February. Summer starts in June yet late July and early August are the hottest parts of the season, what does that tell you children?
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, and a road that goes forever. I'm going to Texas!
 
Mir
Posts: 19108
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: Report: Solar Activity Not Causing Global Warming

Wed Jul 11, 2007 3:38 pm

Quoting Connies4ever (Reply 16):
And, if we do nothing and the GCC advocates are correct, it will soon be too late to do anything in a practical manner. Therefore a prudent approach is to try to limit GHG emissions as much as we can.

 checkmark  Either we can do some minor things now, or seriously major things later. If we do the minor things now, and turn out to be wrong, then we're out money and convenience. But it we don't do anything, and global warming is the problem that some think it to be, we'll be hurt a lot more.

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 17):
And to answer, what is wrong with CO2?

It's a greenhouse gas, and if there's too much of it, all the plants in the world won't be able to deal with it.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 43):
Hmmm, the first day of winter is December 21st, yet the coldest time of winter is always in January or February. Summer starts in June yet late July and early August are the hottest parts of the season, what does that tell you children?

About as much as the fact that the very early morning just before sunrise, not midnight, is generally coldest, and that the mid-afternoon before sunset, not noon, is generally hottest. And all that is due to the ground changing temperature much more slowly than the air.

Not quite sure of the point you're trying to make.

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
RJdxer
Posts: 3523
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:14 am

RE: Report: Solar Activity Not Causing Global Warming

Wed Jul 11, 2007 3:48 pm

Quoting Mir (Reply 44):
Not quite sure of the point you're trying to make.

But that cycle comes on top of longer-term trends; and most of the 20th Century saw a slight but steady increase in solar output. But in about 1985, that trend appears to have reversed, with solar output declining. This paper re-enforces the fact That the warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity.
Yet this period has seen temperatures rise as fast as, if not faster than, at any time during the previous 100 years.


Quoting Mir (Reply 44):
About as much as the fact that the very early morning just before sunrise, not midnight, is generally coldest, and that the mid-afternoon before sunset, not noon, is generally hottest. And all that is due to the ground changing temperature much more slowly than the air.

You're on the right track. Now transfer that to decades of solar heating, before we knew about solar heating, and to things the size of the Earth and Sun.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, and a road that goes forever. I'm going to Texas!
 
Mir
Posts: 19108
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: Report: Solar Activity Not Causing Global Warming

Wed Jul 11, 2007 4:10 pm

Alright, I see what you're getting at. It's possible that there's bleedoff - I don't know how well that principle extends to longer periods of time. I'm not a scientist, so I'm not going to try and criticize conflicting reports without looking into them in a lot of depth.

But, as I said before, if we act now, it doesn't have to be expensive. If we fail to act now, and it turns out to be a major problem, we're in deep trouble. I'd rather be wrong on the safe side.

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
RJdxer
Posts: 3523
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:14 am

RE: Report: Solar Activity Not Causing Global Warming

Wed Jul 11, 2007 4:48 pm

Quoting Mir (Reply 46):
But, as I said before, if we act now, it doesn't have to be expensive. If we fail to act now, and it turns out to be a major problem, we're in deep trouble. I'd rather be wrong on the safe side.

When humans can quit thinking in terms of our life span and start thinking in terms of the planets, then a lot of these answers will be self evident. Until then it's a lot of panic over something we as a society can only deduce from a very small sample of history.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, and a road that goes forever. I'm going to Texas!
 
aloges
Posts: 14842
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 3:38 am

RE: Report: Solar Activity Not Causing Global Warming

Wed Jul 11, 2007 7:04 pm

Funny how these threads always end up in the gutter...  sarcastic 
Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.
 
777236ER
Topic Author
Posts: 12213
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2001 7:10 am

RE: Report: Solar Activity Not Causing Global Warm

Wed Jul 11, 2007 9:21 pm

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 26):

I'm sure you would have no problems linking us to a copy of the paper, since you've got it at hand and all.

This is the paper: M. Lockwood and C. Fröhlich Proc. R. Soc. A doi:10.1098/rspa.2007.1880; 2007

You'll need an Athens account or a subscription to Proc. Royal Soc. A to read it.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 26):
You seem to be solidly ignoring the fact that NASA and the Federal Institute of Technology found exactly the opposite. What's wrong,

Lockwood and Frohlich's paper used the NASA data.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 43):
Hmmm, the first day of winter is December 21st, yet the coldest time of winter is always in January or February. Summer starts in June yet late July and early August are the hottest parts of the season, what does that tell you children?

The lag has been considered - have you read any of Lockwood's papers?

Quoting L-188 (Reply 36):

Seriously though, I have heard the term used but couldn't name any specific royal societies or their bylaws.

Seriously, I really am amazed you haven't heard of the Royal Society. It's probably the most important organisation in the history of science and technology.

Quoting Queso (Reply 35):
Glad to see you're finally coming around to understanding that this whole idea of man-made global warming is a sham, Klaus

Global warming is happening. The temperature at the surface of the Earth is rising - no scientist believes that's not the case, the data is about as irrefutable as it can get! The debate is whether man-made greenhouse gas emissions are causing it. This paper is yet another example showing that the theory that they are causing it looks like the correct one.

Quoting Queso (Reply 32):
I will continue to live as I have been living, and I will drive where I want to drive, in the vehicle I want to drive. I will use as much electricity, gasoline, or any other fuel, as I can afford without concern for how it is (not) changing the environment.

It's OK to be arrogant and pig-headed when you've done some research to make sure you're right. But to be arrogant and pig-headed just to spite yourself is ridiculous. The people you'll be hearting are your own offspring. Imagine an idiot who's so determined that he doesn't live in a tornado zone that he ignores the data from meterologists, ignores tornado warnings, doesn't prepare for tornados and doesn't evacuate. Would you be surprised if his house was destroyed by a tornado and he was killed?

What about a doctor telling you you have a terrible disease that needs major surgery or you will die. If you felt OK would you stick your fingers in your ears, continue to do what you're doing, ignore him and not have the surgery, convinced of your own might over the professional? Would you be surprised if you keeled over?

What about an engineer telling you that your house is structurally unsafe. Would you continue to do what you're doing, ignore him, not make any improvements, not evacuate your family? Would you be surprised if the house collapsed?

To those who say humans aren't affecting the planet, look at the number of humans alive today in comparison with previously (fair use excerpt):

http://wilderdom.com/images/WorldPopulationGraph.jpg

Consider the fragility of the ecosystem and the instability of the climate. Consider that we're in the biggest extinction period since the dinosaurs (in millions of years this will be called a mass-extinction event). Consider that resources are already so finite that there is more aluminium in landfill in North America than there is in natural deposits. Consider that people are ignoring the scientific evidence - which they don't even refute - saying that we need to change our ways or suffer dire consequences.


As I expected, no one really gives any attempt to analyse the paper itself, rather use their own prejudices and sprouts off the first bit of irrelevent and frankly wrong psuedoscience they can find on Google. Why is this, and not tornados or cancer for example, so important for people to ignore and convince themselves isn't happening?
Your bone's got a little machine

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: akiss20, PacificBeach88 and 6 guests