posted January 28, 2007 03:44 PM            

The truth about global warming - it's the Sun that's to blame
By Michael Leidig and Roya Nikkhah
Last Updated: 11:15pm BST 17/07/2004

Global warming has finally been explained: the Earth is getting hotter because the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time during the past 1,000 years, according to new research.

A study by Swiss and German scientists suggests that increasing radiation from the sun is responsible for recent global climate changes.

Dr Sami Solanki, the director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany, who led the research, said: "The Sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures.

"The Sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was a few hundred years ago and this brightening started relatively recently - in the last 100 to 150 years."

Dr Solanki said that the brighter Sun and higher levels of "greenhouse gases", such as carbon dioxide, both contributed to the change in the Earth's temperature but it was impossible to say which had the greater impact.

Average global temperatures have increased by about 0.2 deg Celsius over the past 20 years and are widely believed to be responsible for new extremes in weather patterns. After pressure from environmentalists, politicians agreed the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, promising to limit greenhouse gas emissions between 2008 and 2012. Britain ratified the protocol in 2002 and said it would cut emissions by 12.5 per cent from 1990 levels.

Globally, 1997, 1998 and 2002 were the hottest years since worldwide weather records were first collated in 1860.

Most scientists agree that greenhouse gases from fossil fuels have contributed to the warming of the planet in the past few decades but have questioned whether a brighter Sun is also responsible for rising temperatures.

To determine the Sun's role in global warming, Dr Solanki's research team measured magnetic zones on the Sun's surface known as sunspots, which are believed to intensify the Sun's energy output.

The team studied sunspot data going back several hundred years. They found that a dearth of sunspots signalled a cold period - which could last up to 50 years - but that over the past century their numbers had increased as the Earth's climate grew steadily warmer. The scientists also compared data from ice samples collected during an expedition to Greenland in 1991. The most recent samples contained the lowest recorded levels of beryllium 10 for more than 1,000 years. Beryllium 10 is a particle created by cosmic rays that decreases in the Earth's atmosphere as the magnetic energy from the Sun increases. Scientists can currently trace beryllium 10 levels back 1,150 years.

Dr Solanki does not know what is causing the Sun to burn brighter now or how long this cycle would last.

He says that the increased solar brightness over the past 20 years has not been enough to cause the observed climate changes but believes that the impact of more intense sunshine on the ozone layer and on cloud cover could be affecting the climate more than the sunlight itself.

Dr Bill Burrows, a climatologist and a member of the Royal Meteorological Society, welcomed Dr Solanki's research. "While the established view remains that the sun cannot be responsible for all the climate changes we have seen in the past 50 years or so, this study is certainly significant," he said.

"It shows that there is enough happening on the solar front to merit further research. Perhaps we are devoting too many resources to correcting human effects on the climate without being sure that we are the major contributor."

Dr David Viner, the senior research scientist at the University of East Anglia's climatic research unit, said the research showed that the sun did have an effect on global warming.

He added, however, that the study also showed that over the past 20 years the number of sunspots had remained roughly constant, while the Earth's temperature had continued to increase.

This suggested that over the past 20 years, human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation had begun to dominate "the natural factors involved in climate change", he said.

Dr Gareth Jones, a climate researcher at the Met Office, said that Dr Solanki's findings were inconclusive because the study had not incorporated other potential climate change factors.

"The Sun's radiance may well have an impact on climate change but it needs to be looked at in conjunction with other factors such as greenhouse gases, sulphate aerosols and volcano activity," he said. The research adds weight to the views of David Bellamy, the conservationist. "Global warming - at least the modern nightmare version - is a myth," he said. "I am sure of it and so are a growing number of scientists. But what is really worrying is that the world's politicians and policy-makers are not.

"Instead, they have an unshakeable faith in what has, unfortunately, become one of the central credos of the environmental movement: humans burn fossil fuels, which release increased levels of carbon dioxide - the principal so-called greenhouse gas - into the atmosphere, causing the atmosphere to heat up. They say this is global warming: I say this is poppycock."

Information appearing on telegraph.co.uk is the copyright of Telegraph Media Group Limited and must not be reproduced in any medium without licence. For the full copyright statement see Copyright
link
__________________________________________________________

posted January 28, 2007 03:47 PM            

Now acoustic, I want you to think real, real, real hard...and then tell me what OTHER radiating body in the solar system radiates enough energy to heat planets out to the orbit of Pluto. Eh, acoustic.

Cause and effect acoustic and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to put increased radiation from the sun and system wide warming together.

Or, perhaps you believe the Martians, citizens of Jupiter and Pluto have cranked up their industrial revolution and are all driving CO2 belching SUVs?

Or, if you believe the UN, perhaps their cows have cranked up their methane production and are making a special effort to fart more often...one of the causes the UN now embraces for cow-made global warming.

posted January 28, 2007 03:54 PM            

I've been telling you and others here for a very long time the sun is putting out more radiant energy and that the sun is the primary climate change agent in the solar system....and always has been....as if anyone should even have to tell you that in the first place.

Now acoustic, your mission, if you choose to accept it, is to tell Jim Hansen and the other man-made global warming crackpots...who clearly haven't gotten the message yet.

posted January 28, 2007 05:06 PM            

Can I condense further?

First off, if you [Jwhop] want to go back to trying to bully in order to make yourself sound like an authority, then I'll pass. If you want to discuss things rationally, then I'll play.

Second, regarding planets and their heat being tied to the Sun. If you believe a planet's temperature is ONLY tied to radiation it receives from the Sun, then you need to look much further into how planets are heated. You could start with Earth, or you could start with Venus. Venus is the planet second closest to the Sun, yet it's much hotter than Mercury, which is the closest planet to the Sun.

posted January 28, 2007 05:12 PM            

Leftists always fall back on one rhetorical scheme or another when they're pressed to defend their...indefensible positions...or try to change the subject.

If you haven't seen the questions, that's proof you haven't read what's been said here prior to you jumping into the discussion.

posted January 28, 2007 06:31 PM            

I'll pass, because I don't need to be waste my time being mean to you. That's an altogether bad use of my time.

quote:

---

If you haven't seen the questions, that's proof you haven't read what's been said here prior to you jumping into the discussion.

---

I've posted on many of these pages as you should well know. You and I have already discussed Global Warming ad infinitum.

Whilst always attempting to go against science, your stance has changed quite a bit of the time I've known you. You used to outright deny global warming posting temperatures that you thought indicated that global warming wasn't happening. Now you've finally come around to the fact that global warming IS INDEED OCCURING. Now your argument is that there's no man-made component of global warming. You innocently believe the Sun is the only thing at play in a planet's warming. How naive is that?

Oh, see? There I've gone and done it. I've gone and belittled your understanding of things. Bad me.

Ok, I'll go in search of your questions (starting at page 11):

quote:

---

Who, besides Al Gore, would be surprised that Mars' ice caps are shrinking?

---

I don't know. Who?

quote:

---

Why is it I don't believe "greenhouse gases" are at fault?

---

quote:

---

Neptune has joined the discussion and wants to know if I'm a scientist? So, what's up with asking me?

---

Yes, that is correct. She, like so many around here, would like you to show some credentials when speaking as an authority on global warming or climate change. Too bad for her you don't possess any. (This, incidentally, is not a question I should ever have to answer.)

quote:

---

Now Neptune, do you actually have anything of merit to contribute to the discussion of global warming....or, is this just another example of someone being on a (one) side of an issue with nothing to back up their opinions...except hot air?

---

Not for me to answer.

quote:

---

Questions Neptune. If the sun is warming every planet in the solar system; why isn't the sun also responsible for increased warming on the Earth?

---

Well, this one is clearly for Neptune5, but I'll field it. You haven't shown even a trace of the Sun being responsible for warming up every single planet in the solar system. Why isn't the Sun also responsible for the increased warming on Earth? Well, it's certainly possible that the Sun is a component of our warming. However, our atmosphere is a partner in keeping this planet habitable, and cannot be extracted from the equation.

quote:

---

If CO2 represents only about 3% of the greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere and only a small percentage of that 3% is man made...and water vapor is a far more effective trapper of heat..ie, a greenhouse gas and water vapor represents more than 95% of all greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere...then Neptune, why isn't evaporation from ocean warming by the sun's increased radiation output..at a 300 year peak level..why isn't that additional water vapor in the atmosphere responsible for the warming we're experiencing?

---

This is not a "simple" question. The research required to adequately answer it would require some time, which I don't have to donate to you at the moment. Please publish your source, and I'll look into it.

quote:

---

Why was it hotter on earth in the Medival Warming period...about 1000-1400AD than it is now?

---

The idea of a global or hemispheric "Medieval Warm Period" that was warmer than today however, has turned out to be incorrect. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html

quote:

---

Why was the decade of the 1930's warmer than it is now?

---

quote:

---

Did you actually bother to read through this thread?

---

quote:

---

So are you just ignorant...or are you intellectually challenged?

---

That is a question posed to BR. This is exactly what I'm referring to when I talk about your bullying as a means of conveying some authority. You fool yourself into believing that you know the answers, when the fact of the matter is that you'd have to devote a much more significant amount of your time to this subject to even scratch the surface of having a better than superficial knowledge of this stuff.

quote:

---

equality of opportunity a myth acoustic?

---

I did answer that one.

quote:

---

No one could expect leftists to know the sun is a variable star...get that?

---

Already answered that one as well.
____________________________________________________________

So that leads us right back to where we started:

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

posted January 28, 2007 07:01 PM            

The Medieval Warming period is a fact and it's indisputable, as is the Little Ice Age...so conveniently modeled out so crackpot scientists could show their so called Hockey Stick graph to prove..they say that average temperatures had been flat for a thousand years...until the evil of man/SUVs, cow farts and other assorted evils visited the Earth.

You've provided nothing here to merit any serious discussion acoustic and attempting to use the words of crackpots on the fringe of climate science doesn't advance your cause..or theirs.

Greenland was farmed in the Medieval Warming period. Grape vineyards existed in Great Britain. All over the world, the temperatures were warmer than they are right now...and you cannot explain that away with some stock denial by a man made global warming nut.

Neither can you explain why the earth suddenly started to warm 25 thousand years ago or why the last Ice Age lasted about 100,000 thousand years, or why concentrations of CO2 were much higher than now during Ice Ages.

The one factor you and the nuts you drool over refuse to recognize is the variability of the sun's radiational output. To recognize that blows very large holes in the dinghy of man made global warming.

Even the report put out by the UN is phony acoustic. The UN removed the conclusions of the very scientists who did the climate study the UN relied on.

The theory is all wet and soon, the same hacks will be issuing a new report warning of Global Cooling...as they have in the near and far past going back to the late 19th Century.

One last thing acoustic. The temperature monitoring stations around the globe that exist now...didn't exist back then. Further, when the technology became available, it wasn't as reliable as now..in fact there are still many deficient monitoring stations around the world...further, as populations increased and cities spread, those monitoring stations were and are exposed to the heat coming off large cities..which is not conducive to accurate temperature measurements over time.

posted January 28, 2007 08:05 PM            

There's nothing responsible about shutting down the United States to satisfy the ravings of man made global warming nuts.

Nothing responsible about spending trillions of dollars on a problem which doesn't exist...and even if it did exist, the expenditure of those trillions of dollars would...at most...moderate the temperature only about 1/10th of the temperature rise the warming nuts are claiming.

Temperatures fluctuate daily all over the earth. Enjoy the warm climate while it's still here. If you're still here when the climate cools...and you may well be...you sure as hell aren't going to like it and you might not even survive it. Billions of people won't survive it.

posted January 29, 2007 03:53 PM            

When the non-thinkers of the Marxist set can tell me what those stone age people were doing 25,000 years ago to warm the earth and end the last ice age, when those non-thinkers can tell me what citizens of the world were doing about 1000AD to make the earth suddenly begin to warm again, when those non-thinkers can tell me what citizens of the world were doing about 1400AD to make the earth cool and bring on the Little Ice Age which lasted almost to the start of the 20th Century, when those non-thinkers can tell me why every other planet in our solar system is undergoing a WARMING cycle without the presence of a single human...then, and only then will I be prepared to listen to a word they have to say on the subject...maybe!

Can you tell me..for instance, acoustic why man made global warming crackpots had to falsify data to produce the "hockey stick" chart which eliminated facts of the historical climate of earth? Notice the chart immediately below the falsified "Hockey Stick chart. See the Medieval Warming period and the "Little Ice Age? These are both historical climate facts the crackpots had to get rid of to make their absurd statement that there had been a flat-line temperature for the last thousand years...until the evils of the Industrial Revolution, SUVs, jet aircraft and all the other evils of man started spewing CO2 into the atmosphere. Notice also, it was warmer in the Medieval Warming period than it is right now. I'm interested in facts, not hyped hysteria, not fabricated scenarios, not models carefully chosen to cover a time period...while excluding others which would blow holes in crackpot theories.

One last question acoustic.

Are you aware more than half of the entire warming of the 20th century occurred before 1940? In fact, the actual number is 2/3rds of all 20th Century warming occurred before 1940.

So how is it that during a period of relatively low CO2 emissions, the earth was rapidly warming....and during the last 60 years of the 20th Century...when CO2 emissions were at their peak...only 1/3 of all 20th Century warming occurred.....if and only IF you continue to insist and hew the crackpot scientists line that man made CO2 emissions are responsible for global warming.

posted January 29, 2007 04:01 PM            

THE MOVIE "An Inconvenient Truth," with which the indoctrinating centers in the Tri-Valley are propagandizing our children, comes across like this: We only have 10 years to return to a medieval lifestyle, to figure out how to get the sun to radiate more than 1.4 kW per square meter without melting the icecaps or to invent other "alternative" (what a ridiculous name) non-nuclear energy sources.

The Al Gore (or should I say Goebbels?) propaganda machine seeks to limit each person to 1 ton of carbon per year. The proposal is to create a system of carbon allowances that will be the rationing cards of the future.

The government would dole out what bureaucrats think we should have.

Kyoto targets, however, will not be met. Two facts about the futility of controlling emissions:

1) Uncontrolled fires in China's abandoned coal mines release as much carbon dioxide as the entire nation of Japan does from useful fuel consumption.

2) The oceans and land outgas 210 billion tons per year compared to 3 billion tons per year from human activity.

Ian Murray, a critic of Gore's "work," recently detailed 25 truths that Gore conveniently leaves out of the companion book to his video because they are inconvenient to his argument.

A few examples: The relationship between temperature and carbon dioxide is not linear; therefore the graph on pages 66-67 is seriously misleading.

The Peruvian glacier pictured on Page 53 probably disappeared during a climate change a few thousand years ago.

The only way to turn off the Gulf Stream is to turn off the wind system, stop the rotation of the Earth, or both.

Gore fails to mention that introducing coal-fired electrical power generation in Africa and South America would reduce the 30 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions from burning wood to cook substantially and save more than 1.6 million lives per year.

Perhaps the biggest lie of all is the assertion that a consensus exists on human-attributed catastrophic global warming when scientific agreement only exists on a narrower range of issues such as the increase in temperature between 1919 and 1940.

From irregular sequences such as climate observations almost any trend one desires can be obtained purely by choosing the starting point and the right ending point and turning the extrapolation crank.

The climate charlatans play up this process to the hilt. Global warmers select whichever data tend to support their preconceived notions. They never go back to 1855 or try to explain decreases instead of increases in temperature. And they keep their data and algorithms close to their chest lest someone check them and expose the fallacy of their arguments.

Stephen McIntyre, a minerals consultant, recently demonstrated that the global warmers' favorite graph is wrong. Their reconstruction of global temperatures over the past 1,000 years shows slight oscillations until a sharp upward swing (the "blade" of the hockey stick) in recent years. McIntyre showed that the method used by climatologist Michael Mann and colleagues generates hockey sticks even from random data. Global warming guru Mann then published a partial correction but he refuses to release his computer algorithm for further checking. Diehards such as Mann et al. continue to defend the climate icon. Others, however, are beginning to downplay the hockey stick graph.

Consider what you get from 1 ton of carbon: You could heat your house with a small electric stove (1 kilowatt) for six hours a day for 10 months of a year. Nothing would be left for cooking, lighting, hot water, refrigeration, vacuuming or washing. No travel would be possible except on foot or on bicycle. A 1-ton footprint would actually return you to a lifestyle that existed before our lifetime.

Answering your propagandized children (for the time being they are not yet recruited to report you to the thought police, but watch out anyway): Giving in to the global warming lobby when so much evidence indicates that it is a gigantic paper tiger is irresponsible, unscientific, immature and selfish.

Our children and grandchildren will ask us whether we believed the great hoax of global warming and I, for one, don't want to be telling them that I kept a chart of my carbon footprint. I love to take my SUV to Tahoe, ski at night on well-lit slopes, fly airplanes and do all the power-intensive activities within my reach.

posted January 30, 2007 01:44 PM            

This isn't science. It's manipulation and nothing more.

Now, you're getting ready to rely once again on the very same BS coming from the very same bullsh*tters who concocted a solution for a problem which doesn't exist.

Their new report isn't going to fly any further or any higher then their first report.

Of the 2500 so called scientists who contributed to the original report, about 80 had direct input. Of those 80, more than half disagreed with the published conclusions drawn by the UN....and they said so.

The UN censored their conclusions that..paraphrasing here...

1. There is no study which establishes a clear link between man made CO2 emissions and warming of the climate.

2. There is no study which clearly establishes that warming of the climate has a man made element.

posted January 30, 2007 05:24 PM            

What I'm not interested in doing is becoming an self-made expert on this like you believe yourself to be, only to find out that you're too closed minded to accept the truth. I already know that you hold tight to your own subjective truth regardless of what objective truth might dictate. For this reason, it would be a waste of my time and brainpower.

posted January 30, 2007 05:48 PM              

if you follow the Mindless(those that can't think for themselves)Herd...

you will find yourSelf delivered to the Slaughter...

there is no choice, but to go within, and take the spiritual, with the common sense and logic of this reality....

posted January 30, 2007 06:08 PM            

Nor can anyone who refuses to deal with reality be convinced of anything.

Nor can anyone who knowingly places their trust in those who have falsified, hyped, distorted and lied...and have admitted they did, Jim Hansen for one...people who place their trust in such people cannot be persuaded to abandon their folly.

Their beliefs have become a religion and their eyes and ears are closed to truth.

You probably thought I was trying to convince you man made global warming is baloney. Far from it acoustic.

I post the articles and belittle the twisted, distorted, falsified junk science of man made global warming here because there are others who read here who have not adopted man made global warming as a religion and have open minds to facts; so they can decide for themselves what to believe.

The press gives the crackpot, so called scientists, plenty of ink to peddle their poisonous hooey and attempt to censor all other information on the subject.

posted January 30, 2007 06:17 PM            

Common sense, logic and that little voice which whispers...there's nothing out of the normal range of climate variation going on here.

posted January 30, 2007 06:31 PM              

what we have done to the Earth, still must be fixed!

the bottom line is...

We all care for this Earth, it is our home,
and we need to take care of it..let's just be reasonable. ...

posted January 30, 2007 07:29 PM            

quote:

---

Actually acoustic, I don't have to convince you of anything.

---

You do if you want me to believe what you have to say.

quote:

---

Nor can anyone who refuses to deal with reality be convinced of anything.

---

I don't take issue with reality. Reality's fine by me. If it's a questionable reality, then it ought to be questioned. In this instance, your reality is quite a bit more questionable than mine.

quote:

---

Nor can anyone who knowingly places their trust in those who have falsified, hyped, distorted and lied...and have admitted they did, Jim Hansen for one...people who place their trust in such people cannot be persuaded to abandon their folly.

---

A quick search on Google doesn't point to Jim Hansen admitting to any of what you've said.

quote:

---

I post the articles and belittle the twisted, distorted, falsified junk science of man made global warming here because there are others who read here who have not adopted man made global warming as a religion and have open minds to facts; so they can decide for themselves what to believe.

---

posted January 30, 2007 07:41 PM              

Definition...
Global Warming is the OBsERVED increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere and oceans in RECENT DECADES and its projected continuation into the future.

wouldn't we have to observe this for more than a few decades?

posted February 01, 2007 12:51 PM            

Well looks like the debate has been setteled.

Warming 'very likely' due to man, report to say

Negotiators also tie bigger storms to warming; other details still debated

Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16922234/