Page 1 of 2
Study proves global warming not caused by solar cycles
Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 11:08 pm
by Arlos
From the BBC:
The BBC wrote:'No sun link' to climate change
By Richard Black
BBC Environment Correspondent
A new scientific study concludes that changes in the Sun's output cannot be causing modern-day climate change.
It shows that for the last 20 years, the Sun's output has declined, yet temperatures on Earth have risen.
It also shows that modern temperatures are not determined by the Sun's effect on cosmic rays, as has been claimed.
Writing in the Royal Society's journal Proceedings A, the researchers say cosmic rays may have affected climate in the past, but not the present.
"This should settle the debate," said Mike Lockwood from the UK's Rutherford-Appleton Laboratory, who carried out the new analysis together with Claus Froehlich from the World Radiation Center in Switzerland.
Dr Lockwood initiated the study partially in response to the TV documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, broadcast on Britain's Channel Four earlier this year, which featured the cosmic ray hypothesis.
"All the graphs they showed stopped in about 1980, and I knew why, because things diverged after that," he told the BBC News website.
"You can't just ignore bits of data that you don't like," he said.
Warming trend
The scientists' main approach on this new analysis was simple; to look at solar output and cosmic ray intensity over the last 30-40 years, and compare those trends with the graph for global average surface temperature, which has risen by about 0.4C over the period.
The Sun varies on a cycle of about 11 years between periods of high and low activity.
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.
Yet this period has seen temperatures rise as fast as, if not faster than, at any time during the previous 100 years.
"This paper re-enforces the fact that the warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity," said Dr Piers Forster from Leeds University, a leading contributor to this year's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment of climate science.
Cosmic relief
The IPCC's February summary report concluded that greenhouse gases were about 13 times more responsible than solar changes for rising global temperatures.
But the organisation was criticised in some quarters for not taking into account the cosmic ray hypothesis, developed among others by Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen of the Danish National Space Center.
Their theory holds that cosmic rays help clouds to form by providing tiny particles around which water vapour can condense. Overall, clouds cool the Earth.
During periods of active solar activity, cosmic rays are partially blocked by the Sun's more intense magnetic field. Cloud formation diminishes, and the Earth warms.
Mike Lockwood's analysis appears to have put a large, probably fatal nail in this intriguing and elegant hypothesis.
He said: "I do think there is a cosmic ray effect on cloud cover. It works in clean maritime air where there isn't much else for water vapour to condense around.
"It might even have had a significant effect on pre-industrial climate. But you cannot apply it to what we're seeing now, because we're in a completely different ball game."
Drs Svensmark and Friis-Christensen could not be reached for comment.
OK, so, scientific study shows that if the global temperature was strictly caused by cycles of the sun, global temperatures would have been COOLING for the last 20 years, not warming. The ostrich-head-in-sand skeptics are running out of sand to bury their heads in....
-Arlos
Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 12:10 am
by Lueyen
And yet as time goes on more and more former proponents of man made global warming become critics. Proving that it is not sunspots does not prove that global warming is man made. Many former proponents turned skeptic haven't claimed the cause to be sun spots, but instead simply state that we do not yet know the cause.
Of course as is often the case when something "settles the debate" we hear from proponents but the dissenters "could not be reached for comment".
Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 12:36 am
by Arlos
And where do you get support for that opening assertion? Everything I hear, and I mean EVERYTHING, indicates that acceptance of it as fact is growing more and more widespread, where you claim the opposite. You aren't depending on fox news for your scientific facts, are you?
-Arlos
Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 1:02 am
by Lyion
No proof detected. Just wild assertions without the validity needed for this debate.
On par for the course.
Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 1:09 am
by Narrock
I just heard on the news YESTERDAY (on CNN radio) that core samples drilled a mile and a half deep in an ice sheet in Antarctica showed that through the DNA of plant and animal life the earth was 9 degrees warmer thousands of years ago, and that the current "global warming" shows that in the last 100 years, the earth has increased in temperature .5 degrees... yes, that's right... one half of one degree.
Global warming exists. That's an indisputable fact, but it is cyclical, and the 1/2 degree increase over the last 100 years has nothing to do with man polluting the atmosphere.
Al Gore and his cronies are making millions off the sheep who are buying into the global warming scam.
Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 1:27 am
by Lueyen
Lueyen wrote:And yet as time goes on more and more former proponents of man made global warming become critics.
Arlos wrote:And where do you get support for that opening assertion? Everything I hear, and I mean EVERYTHING, indicates that acceptance of it as fact is growing more and more widespread, where you claim the opposite. You aren't depending on fox news for your scientific facts, are you?
-Arlos
I wouldn't really classify scientists changing their views about the causes of global warming scientific fact... just fact, and no I don't think I've seen references to this on Fox or any other TV news station... but I don't watch a whole lot of television. Here's an EPW press release on the subject though:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=c5e16731-3c64-481c-9a36-d702baea2a42
Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 9:12 am
by Tikker
lyion wrote:No proof detected. Just wild assertions without the validity needed for this debate.
On par for the course.
sounds like religion
Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 9:24 am
by Lueyen
Tikker wrote:lyion wrote:No proof detected. Just wild assertions without the validity needed for this debate.
On par for the course.
sounds like religion
For some it pretty much is.
Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 9:31 am
by 10sun
Tikker wrote:lyion wrote:No proof detected. Just wild assertions without the validity needed for this debate.
On par for the course.
sounds like religion
I was just thinking of that and Pascal's Wager actually.
Lyion was the one who brought it up originally.
For arguments sake, lets say if we do try to reduce emissions it will increase the cost of living 100%. I think that would be fair to say.
and lets say if the globe does indeed warm, the human race will survive, but will only be able to inhabit the regions above the North 45th parallel & below the South 45th parallel. During the course of which, 95% of the world's population will die of starvation.
Possible Outcomes: (GW = Global Warming & ER = Emission Reductions)
.................GW False.................GW True.......
------------------------------------------------------
ER+ || Everything costs....|| Everything Costs
.......|| double..................|| Double & Disaster
.......||............................|| averted.
------------------------------------------------------
ER-..|| No problem!..........|| We live in Canada.
Which of those scenarios is the most horrendous to you?
Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 9:58 am
by Tikker
I'm horrified that more americans will immigrate to Canada =\
Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 10:05 am
by Hylissa
Tikker wrote:I'm horrified that more americans will immigrate to Canada =\
Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 11:47 am
by kinghooter00
do all the chicks paint there tits in Canada?
Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 11:52 am
by Narrock
Tikker wrote:I'm horrified that more americans will immigrate to Canada =\
That could be a very positive thing for Canadians though.
Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 11:53 am
by Tikker
well, we do need more people to work at gas stations and serve coffee at Tim Horton's
Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 11:54 am
by Narrock
Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 3:10 pm
by Lyion
Tikker wrote:I'm horrified that more americans will immigrate to Canada =\
Celine Dion. You lose.
Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 3:11 pm
by Naethyn
Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 3:21 pm
by 10sun
It is basic game theory.
Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 3:56 pm
by Tikker
lyion wrote:Tikker wrote:I'm horrified that more americans will immigrate to Canada =\
Celine Dion. You lose.
we'll take back Celine Dion, alannis morrissette and brian adams as long as you keep mindia
Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 4:07 pm
by Lyion
No way.
Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 4:26 pm
by Narrock
How about Avril Levigne and Shania Twain?
Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 4:29 pm
by Tikker
Narrock is against attractive chicks
I knew it~
Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 5:23 pm
by Lueyen
Tikker wrote:lyion wrote:Tikker wrote:I'm horrified that more americans will immigrate to Canada =\
Celine Dion. You lose.
we'll take back Celine Dion, alannis morrissette and brian adams as long as you keep mindia
Can we keep Alannis Morrissette please? I want to see her cast as God again.
Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 5:44 pm
by Gaazy
a million bucks AND we'll keep Mindia if you just pretend to be taking Alanis back, and have her accidently die...or lose her voice. One of the two.
Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 5:45 pm
by Tikker
Billy Ray Cyrus
USA loses