And the problem with your theory is that the majority consensus amongst scientists is that over the past 60 years sun spot activity has been at an all time low. At the same time temperatures have been rising. I hope your mind can comprehend what that does to your theory. So yes I guess National Geographic is BS, afterall it's American.Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
its still prediting that it'll cause DOOM.
thus its still a prediction.
im acutually anti pollution. by that i mean the real noxious stuff we humans spew out.
unfourntunatly this co2 fairy tale gets all the attention while we get posioned be the really toxic stuff.
Set em 'up and knock 'em down! Your making this to easy for me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
yeah its easy to resort to nationalistic insults when someone points out the bs coming from the gw crowd.
the only thing your knocking down is your image on this forum.
i guess its beyond your limited comprehension that i have no theory, im just pointing out the bs coming from gw loons.
now whos making it easy,, chortle,,, chortle. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Oh I really don't care what people think of me. I just like calling people out on BS.
Stop making sense Conan...good post.Originally posted by joeap:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CONAN_69GIAP:
...
Why not just be the best stewards we possibly can and start thinking about how we can deal with the inevitable consequences of GW? We have enough problems without making things worse than they are.</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yea Conan, you are making way too much sense..
I see renewable energy as a way to make energy cheaper and more available to the masses.. Properly applied greening up other industries has actually been profitable.
But, I don't think we should be looking at big government to be forcing things, as that will probably be bad for the environment, business and us.
![]()
I figured no argument on the forums would complete without some charts and graphs.
BSS_AIJO!
The most commonly cited study by skeptics as above is a study by scientists from Finland and Germany that finds the sun has been more active in the last 60 years than anytime in the past 1150 years (Usoskin 2005). They also found temperatures closely correlate to solar activity.
However, a crucial finding of the study was the correlation between solar activity and temperature ended around 1975. At that point, temperatures rose while solar activity stayed level. This led them to conclude "during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source."
You read that right. The study most quoted by skeptics actually concluded the sun can't be causing global warming. Ironically, the evidence that establishes the sun's close correlation with the Earth's temperature in the past also establishes it's blamelessness for global warming today.
This is confirmed by direct satellite measurements that find no rising trend since 1978, sunspot numbers which have leveled out since 1950, the Max Planck Institute reconstruction that shows irradience has been steady since 1950 and solar radio flux or flare activity which shows no rising trend over the past 30 years.
Other studies on solar influence on climate
This conclusion is confirmed by many studies quantifying the amount of solar influence in recent global warming:
Solanki 2008 reconstructs 11,400 years of sunspot numbers using radiocarbon concentrations, finding "solar
variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the
strong warming during the past three decades".
Ammann 2007: "Although solar and volcanic effects appear to dominate most of the slow climate variations within the past thousand years, the impacts of greenhouse gases have dominated since the second half of the last century."
Lockwood 2007 concludes "the observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanism is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified."
Foukal 2006 concludes "The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978 are too small to have contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30 years."
Scafetta 2006 says "since 1975 global warming has occurred much faster than could be reasonably expected from the sun alone."
Usoskin 2005 conclude "during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source."
Haigh 2003 says "Observational data suggest that the Sun has influenced temperatures on decadal, centennial and millennial time-scales, but radiative forcing considerations and the results of energy-balance models and general circulation models suggest that the warming during the latter part of the 20th century cannot be ascribed entirely to solar effects."
Stott 2003 increased climate model sensitivity to solar forcing and still found "most warming over the last 50 yr is likely to have been caused by increases in greenhouse gases."
Solanki 2003 concludes "the Sun has contributed less than 30% of the global warming since 1970".
Lean 1999 concludes "it is unlikely that Sun–climate relationships can account for much of the warming since 1970".
Waple 1999 finds "little evidence to suggest that changes in irradiance are having a large impact on the current warming trend."
Frolich 1998 concludes "solar radiative output trends contributed little of the 0.2°C increase in the global mean surface temperature in the past decade"
Heheh I love your chart, LOOOK charts I haz proofs! Problem is, is that its wrong.
![]()
Usoskin 2005 also found that over 1150 years, temperature lagged solar activity by 10 years. Due to ocean thermal inertia, it takes the climate a decade to catch up to long term changes in solar activity. This is exactly what's observed in the 20th century - in the early decades, solar activity rose sharply with temperature lagging a decade behind. When solar activity leveled out in the 40's, so too did global temperatures
Oh wait, guess ya better do a bit more research than looking at one source and saying WOW looks the scientists are so stupid they missed this obviously all the scientists studying global warming are part of some giant conspiracory that wants to screw you over, take your job, and turn you into communists. Me I don't really give a **** about global warming, humanity ****es me off enough that I really couldnt give a flying damn what happens.
Again to easy. Much much to easy. Your setting yourselves up here guys, think of something more creative.
Looks like the scientist the newspaper quoted for that figure now says they deliberately misrepresented his study:
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=13921
That's because when you know you are right and other folks are wrong its OK to lie to make people do the right thing.Originally posted by PolymerStew:
Looks like the scientist the newspaper quoted for that figure now says they deliberately misrepresented his study:
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=13921
Now, they just have to kill the kid with cancer to prove the dangers of second hand smoke.
BSS_AIJO!