Do you think global warming is do to solar activity,...?

Question

this article says it can't be.http://www.naturalnews.com/022419.html

Answer 1

Nope.  The data proves otherwise.  See links below.

Answer 2

The Sun is the driving force behind all of our weather system.

Both 'Global Warming' and cooling trends are based on several factors, including volcanic activity(or lack of), orbital proximity of the earth to the sun during it's periods of increased activity, etc...

Many people can not distinguish between climate and weather(They think that they are the same!).They are NOT!

Climate is what happens over an extended period of time.

Weather is what you are currently experiencing.

If you look at the actual figures you would realize how insignificant mankind's impact could be on a global scale!

Even if CO2 were a so-called 'Greenhouse Gas'(which it is not), mankind's contribution is so small as to be completely discounted.

The obvious is constantly overlooked by this type of thinking also.

1)All life on this planet requires CO2 in order to survive!

2)All scientific evidence indicates that CO2 levels in the past occurred after periods of global increases in climatic temperatures, and never preceded those periods of time!

3)We have been in a general climatic warming trend for the last 15,000 years, (long before mankind could have had any impact on the environment)!

4)Computers only output what they are told to output!

Computers are incapable of thought processes, nor do they have the ability to predict the future!

It is so hilarious to me that these so-called scientists are boasting that their 'computer models' are now so 'sophisticated' that "now that they can predict the past, we are confident we have the ability to predict the future"!

Am I the only one who finds this type of statement completely insane?

How can you 'Predict the Past'? This is insanity!

However sensibility and science don't seem to matter with these people.

The article you are quoting is talking about cosmic ray activity which has no relevance as I see it. This is just another bandwagon that the AGW  lunatics have jumped on because they are 'clutching at straws' to try and prove their misguided  and arrogant beliefs.(Again proving that they don't even understand simple science, or what science really is all about)

Cosmic rays is a misnomer, they are not rays at all, and have nothing to due with solar radiation!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_rays

Many people may disagree with this, but it is something that I feel very strongly about.

I believe that if people actually took some time to look at the facts, and not just accept what they see on the TV or the internet, that they would realize how much they are being conned.

If you think that I am 'in the pocket' of the big oil companies you are completely mistaken!

I think that we have been being 'ripped off' by the big oil companies for long enough, and it is time to let someone else have the opportunity to 'rip us off!', because no matter who wins out in the future their only purpose will be to 'rip us off!'

Let us stop accepting things at 'face value' without bothering to learn some basic science.

Let us concentrate our efforts on things that we can actually improve(poverty, health and education, etc...

I don't have all of the answers(nor do I claim), to every problem, but I detest trying to convince people that a problem exists when it does NOT!

Arrogance and stupidity are our biggest threats to our civilization!

Answer 3

That's right. Global climate change is caused by humans use of fossil fuels. Now can the stupid deniers just shut up?

Answer 4

The actual article, real scientists have been saying for some time the Sun is trending down and has been since the 80's, the russian guy that is being quoted by the denier movement is way out of step with main stream science and the actual data.

Answer 5

Kk.. I'll just take the medias web site's word for it. Without any data. Thanks.

I'm not sure what to believe.

Answer 6

"On timescales that vary from millions of years through to the more familiar 11-year sunspot cycles, variations in the amount of solar energy reaching Earth have a huge influence on our atmosphere and climate. But the Sun is far from being the only player."

"How do we know? According to solar physicists, the sun emitted a third less energy about 4 billion years ago and has been steadily brightening ever since. Yet for most of this time, Earth has been even warmer than today, a phenomenon sometimes called the faint sun paradox. The reason: higher levels of greenhouse gases trapping more of the sun’s heat."

"Most studies suggest that before the industrial age, there was a good correlation between natural “forcings" – solar fluctuations and other factors such as the dust ejected by volcanoes – and average global temperatures. Solar forcing may have been largely responsible for warming in the late 19th and early 20th century, levelling off during the mid-century cooling."

"The 2007 IPCC report halved the maximum likely influence of solar forcing on warming over the past 250 years from 40% to 20%. This was based on a reanalysis of the likely changes in solar forcing since the 17th century. "

"But even if solar forcing in the past was more important than this estimate suggests, as some scientists think, there is no correlation between solar activity and the strong warming during the past 40 years. Claims that this is the case have not stood up to scrutiny."

"Direct measurements of solar output since 1978 show a steady rise and fall over the 11-year sunspot cycle, but no upwards or downward trend ."

"Similarly, there is no trend in direct measurements of the Sun's ultraviolet output and in cosmic rays. So for the period for which we have direct, reliable records, the Earth has warmed dramatically even though there has been no corresponding rise in any kind of solar activity."



http://environment.newscientist.com/chan...

There is much more on this at the link.

"There has been work done reconstructing the solar irradiance record over the last century, before satellites were available. According to the Max Planck Institute, where this work is being done, there has been no increase in solar irradiance since around 1940. This reconstruction does show an increase in the first part of the 20th century, which coincides with the warming from around 1900 until the 1940s. It's not enough to explain all the warming from those years, but it is responsible for a large portion. See this chart of observed temperature, modeled temperature, and variations in the major forcings that contributed to 20th century climate."

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12...

Skeptic's cosmic ray theory:

"The authors of The Chilling Stars would like you to believe that Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark's controversial view of climate change is the genuine article. But since Svensmark himself is the lead author of this hagiography – irritatingly written in the third person with journalist Nigel Calder – one might be wise to take this declaration with a pinch of salt."

"Henrik Svensmark has put forward this theory three times so far, and each time he was found to be guilty of data fraud."

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12...

http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/20/...

Skeptic argument: there is no consensus

"People that say this often have little or no grasp of the science and are using denial to avoid having to face a danger. Fix the denial mechanism by showing them this list of sustainable/green technologies. Then make them read this consensus and say the following quote out loud: "I don't know anything about science, so given the choice of trusting 99.9% or 0.1% of the experts, I'll go with the 0.1%". If still they don't think that sounds silly and they don't start to ask questions then you are wasting your time trying to educate them. This ratio is correct because there are 12,301-14,305 members of the AGU and who knows how many European experts on climate. As Eli Rabbet says "if you ain't a member of the AGU you ain't no d**n climate scientist in the US, just like the AMA". Also keep in mind that with the tens of thousand of climate change skeptics on the planet if only %1 of them are corrupted by the $10,000 payment (or bribe) currently being offered by Exxon through AEI then you will have at minimum 200 skeptics/deniers. So far 200 skeptics/deniers have not turned up."

http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_ar...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-w...

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/0... The Cold Truth about Global Warming by Joseph Romm

Answer 7

No.  And, for those who want to look at the DATA that's referred to in the article:

"Recent oppositely directed trends in solar

climate forcings and the global mean surface

air temperature", Lockwood and Frolich (2007), Proc. R. Soc. A

doi:10.1098/rspa.2007.1880

http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/pro...

Answer 8

To be honest, Kris - I think ever since "fast food" was invented the amount of methane that we f**t-out, has created this environmental catastophe.

Answer 9

No, as the article states, it can't be.

The article also documents that "The Great Global Warming Swindle," is apparently referring to itself as the swindle:

"All the graphs they showed stopped in 1980, and I knew why -- because things diverged after that," said researcher Mike Lockwood of the Rutherford-Appleton Laboratory in the United Kingdom. "[But] you can't just ignore bits of data that you don't like."

The professional deniers will stop at nothing to misrepresent the issue and mislead people in support of ExxonMobil's agenda.  The faster they can get us to burn through oil, the sooner they'll be able to dramatically raise prices (and make more money for less work).  I predict oil 2X higher in 5 years and 5-10X higher in 10 years.

Answer 10

That's DUE to. And yes, since geothermal and nuclear energy are trivial by comparison. I don't care HOW much CO2 is in the air, without the sun, it won't raise earth's temperature a tenth of a thousandth of a degree!

Edit- LMFAO!

So it isn't solar, it's cosmic rays! And of course, all those cosmic rays pouring out of our SUV's HAS to be the real problem, huh???

Answer 11

Clearly solar activity is NOT responsible for the recent warming.  Numerous studies have concluded that the sun likely contributed no more than about 10% of the warming.

Answer 12

No. Take a look at the graph in the middle of the page:

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/...

Answer 13

There is a difference between trends and levels.  While the sun's activity has a slightly downward trend the levels are still high.  

Suppose you have your thermostat in your house set to a certain level.  You turn your thermostat down a little and temperatures rise.  Your conclusion:  Since temperatures in my house rose, the central heating has played no role in heating up my house.

But that is in a close system.  In an open system you have a kettle on the stove.  You turn down the heat a little, but the water still boils, it will just take longer.  The sun heats up the oceans which heat up the earth.

That is why this NASA scientist says that increase in sun irradiance:

"This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change," said Richard Willson, a researcher affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University's Earth Institute, New York

Does that mean that greenhouse gases have not contributed a role in the current warming?  They may have.

But the greenhouse hypothesis is not what the temperatures is like today, but projections of what the temperatures will be like in 100 years.  In order to get those catastrophic temperature rises they have feed certain parameters in their computers.  These parameters  assume that the sun has played no role whatsoever in the current temperature rise.

Answer 14

nope,its because of our cars and machines!!!

And all the carbon dioxide...Cos its a greenhouse gas that traps heat and increases the temperature on earth.Blame the people.