| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Julius
Joined: 27 Jul 2006
|
 Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 9:53 pm Post subject: Sun is not to blame for global warming:report |
 |
|
Sun is not to blame for global warming: study
AFP - Wednesday, July 11 10:25 amPARIS (AFP) - Scientists on Wednesday said that the rise in global temperatures that has been detected over the past two decades cannot be blamed on the Sun, a theory espoused by climate-change sceptics.
British and Swiss researchers looked at data for radiation from the Sun, levels of which can cool or warm our planet's atmosphere.
They factored in a cycle which solar radiation goes through peaks and troughs of activity over a period of about 11 years.
Writing in Proceedings of the Royal Society A, a journal of Britain's de-facto academy of sciences, the team said that the Sun had been less active since 1985, even though global temperatures have continued to rise.
"Over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the Earth's climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures," they write.
The study is co-authored by Mike Lockwood of Britain's Rutherford Appleton Laboratory and Claus Froehlich of the World Radiation Centre in Switzerland.
The overwhelming consensus among scientists is that human activity is to blame for the rise in global temperatures. In its latest report, issued this year, the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said that this warming is already affecting the climate system.
Since 1900, the mean global atmospheric temperature has risen by 0.8 C (1.44 F), and the sea level by 10-20 centimetres (four to eight inches).
Levels of carbon dioxide (CO2), the main greenhouse gas, have risen by around a third since the Industrial Revolution and are now at their highest in 650,000 years. Eleven of the past 12 years rank among the dozen warmest years on record.
In the past few years, glaciers and snow and ice cover have fallen back sharply in alpine regions, the edges of the Greenland icesheet and on the Antarctic peninsula have shrunk, Arctic summer sea ice has thinned and retreated and Siberian and Canadian permafrost have shown signs of thaw and fallback.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/afp/20070711/tsc-climate-warming-sun-c2ff8aa.html
If there are any human-caused global warming sceptics left, do raise your hand.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 10:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Human cause for the global rise in temperature on Mars will be determined tomorrow, please stand by. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 10:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cbclark4 wrote: |
| The Human cause for the global rise in temperature on Mars will be determined tomorrow, please stand by. |
Especially for you, cbclark4: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Julius
Joined: 27 Jul 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 10:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Battle of the links I see. What fun.
Cb clark..do you have any credible links though? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 1:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Wow CB those links didn't address the mars question at all. Anything to say on the arguments contained within GAJ's link.
| Quote: |
| Thus inferring global warming from a 3 Martian year regional trend is unwarranted. The observed regional changes in south polar ice cover are almost certainly due to a regional climate transition, not a global phenomenon, and are demonstrably unrelated to external forcing. There is a slight irony in people rushing to claim that the glacier changes on Mars are a sure sign of global warming, while not being swayed by the much more persuasive analogous phenomena here on Earth... |
I found this part the most interesting. A 3 yr regional trend wouldn't mean global warming on earth but on Mars when you need to support a weak argument..it does. Same old same old. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cwemory
Joined: 14 Jan 2006
Location: Gunpo, Korea
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 2:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| gang ah jee wrote: |
| cbclark4 wrote: |
| The Human cause for the global rise in temperature on Mars will be determined tomorrow, please stand by. |
Especially for you, cbclark4: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192 |
Great link! You should start posting more ...again.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The_Conservative
Joined: 15 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 2:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| JMO wrote: |
Wow CB those links didn't address the mars question at all. Anything to say on the arguments contained within GAJ's link.
| Quote: |
| Thus inferring global warming from a 3 Martian year regional trend is unwarranted. The observed regional changes in south polar ice cover are almost certainly due to a regional climate transition, not a global phenomenon, and are demonstrably unrelated to external forcing. There is a slight irony in people rushing to claim that the glacier changes on Mars are a sure sign of global warming, while not being swayed by the much more persuasive analogous phenomena here on Earth... |
I found this part the most interesting. A 3 yr regional trend wouldn't mean global warming on earth but on Mars when you need to support a weak argument..it does. Same old same old. |
He wasn't saying that a three year trend means global warming on Mars. He was merely stating that while the Earth has gotten warmer..so has Mars. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sundubuman
Joined: 04 Feb 2003
Location: seoul
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 3:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Mike Lockwood works for the CCLRC which gets its funding from the UK government and is charged with "de-carbonising" the UK economy.
If carbon release is not proven to be dreadfully harmful nor the cause of global warming, Lockwood's organization is out tens of millions of pounds of research funding.
Conflict of interest??
Why is it that to those on the left, conflicts of interest must always involve for-profit entities? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khyber
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Compunction Junction
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 3:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Why is it that to those on the left, conflicts of interest must always involve for-profit entities? |
Because "for profit" entities have their survival place as their #1 priorities while scientific organization desire to help human kind first and foremost. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 3:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cwemory wrote: |
| gang ah jee wrote: |
| cbclark4 wrote: |
| The Human cause for the global rise in temperature on Mars will be determined tomorrow, please stand by. |
Especially for you, cbclark4: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192 |
Great link! You should start posting more ...again. |
Seconded. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 4:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The_Conservative wrote: |
| JMO wrote: |
Wow CB those links didn't address the mars question at all. Anything to say on the arguments contained within GAJ's link.
| Quote: |
| Thus inferring global warming from a 3 Martian year regional trend is unwarranted. The observed regional changes in south polar ice cover are almost certainly due to a regional climate transition, not a global phenomenon, and are demonstrably unrelated to external forcing. There is a slight irony in people rushing to claim that the glacier changes on Mars are a sure sign of global warming, while not being swayed by the much more persuasive analogous phenomena here on Earth... |
I found this part the most interesting. A 3 yr regional trend wouldn't mean global warming on earth but on Mars when you need to support a weak argument..it does. Same old same old. |
He wasn't saying that a three year trend means global warming on Mars. He was merely stating that while the Earth has gotten warmer..so has Mars. |
Yea but the earth has been warming for more than 3 yrs. For that and many other reasons(most hit on in that article) there is no comparison between the earth and mars. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sundubuman
Joined: 04 Feb 2003
Location: seoul
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 10:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| khyber wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Why is it that to those on the left, conflicts of interest must always involve for-profit entities? |
Because "for profit" entities have their survival place as their #1 priorities while scientific organization desire to help human kind first and foremost. |
LMFA off!!!
So are you saying governments, the military, charities, social clubs, families, tribes, nations, fraternities, and say, PEOPLE have no interest in SURVIVAL???
Only companies have such interest (all non-profits are morally superior in this regard????).
You personify the idiocy of the left. Congratulations. The leftist establishment has successfully convinced you that ONLY corporations and evil capitalists are interested in surviving.
Scientific research organizations which employ thousands and survive on the taxpayer's/government TEATS have no interest in surviving then...do I understand you correctly???? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 11:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sundubuman wrote: |
Mike Lockwood works for the CCLRC which gets its funding from the UK government and is charged with "de-carbonising" the UK economy.
If carbon release is not proven to be dreadfully harmful nor the cause of global warming, Lockwood's organization is out tens of millions of pounds of research funding.
Conflict of interest??
Why is it that to those on the left, conflicts of interest must always involve for-profit entities? |
There is potential for conflict of interest but you would still have to prove he fabricated something. This is a published paper, if he isn't on the level than the peer review process will find it out. Looking at the article it should be pretty easy to duplicate their research and thus find out if it is valid.
| Quote: |
| The overwhelming consensus among scientists is that human activity is to blame for the rise in global temperatures. . |
Thats the important part. When a vast majority of experts in a field believe the evidence for something is overwhelming, they are normally right. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sundubuman
Joined: 04 Feb 2003
Location: seoul
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 12:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
""""When a vast majority of experts in a field believe the evidence for something is overwhelming, they are normally right.""""
Can you give me any statistics on the percentage of climatologists that are in concurrence with the global warming theory
Would love to know exactly WHAT PERCENTAGE of scientists are, beyond a shadow of a doubt, SURE of this theory of anthropomorphic global warming....
Read any statistics on this lately????
Seriously, what percentage of scientists are part of this ginormous vast majority
Please, enlighten me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
