This story is archived
Sunspots & Global Warming »
Posted by: RickyDawkins 2 years, 7 months ago"The solar increases do not have the ability to cause large global temperature increases...greenhouse gases are indeed playing the dominant role...solar variability certainly plays a minor role, but it looks like only a quarter of the recent variations can be attributed to the Sun. At most." --Stanford University
Read Full Story at solar-center.stanford.edu »
Submitted By:
RickyDawkins
Atheism can be either the rejection of theism, or the position that deities do not exist. In the broadest sense, it is the absence of ...
This Story is Archived and Commenting is Closed
Comments: 111
-
RickyDawkins
May 23, 2007, 12:28 p.m.Global warming -- a gradual increase in planet-wide temperatures -- is now well documented and accepted by scientists as fact. A panel convened by the U.S National Research Council, the nation's premier science policy body, in June 2006 voiced a "high level of confidence" that Earth is the hottest it has been in at least 400 years, and possibly even the last 2,000 years. Studies indicate that the average global surface temperature has increased by approximately 0.5-1.0°F (0.3-0.6°C) over the last century. This is the largest increase in surface temperature in the last 1,000 years and scientists are predicting an even greater increase over this century. This warming is largely attributed to the increase of greenhouse gases (primarily carbon dioxide and methane) in the Earth's upper atmosphere caused by human burning of fossil fuels, industrial, farming, and deforestation activities.
-
RickyDawkins
May 23, 2007, 12:31 p.m.Solar irradiance changes have been measured reliably by satellites for only 30 years. These precise observations show changes of a few tenths of a percent that depend on the level of activity in the 11-year solar cycle. Changes over longer periods must be inferred from other sources. Estimates of earlier variations are important for calibrating the climate models. While a component of recent global warming may have been caused by the increased solar activity of the last solar cycle, that component was very small compared to the effects of additional greenhouse gases. According to a NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) press release, "...the solar increases do not have the ability to cause large global temperature increases...greenhouse gases are indeed playing the dominant role..." The Sun is once again less bright as we approach solar minimum, yet global warming continues.
-
ETproductions
May 23, 2007, 12:45 p.m.Just look at the graph of CO2 emissions and atmospheric concentrations over the past 150 years. http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapt...
We KNOW that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We can look at the oven-like surface temperatures of Venus and see what greenhouse gases are capable of doing.
The "science" being funded by Exxon-Mobil et al needs to explain just WHY realeasing over 7 billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere (human contributiion only) is a really great idea.
-
Bkumm
May 23, 2007, 12:50 p.m.No sh!t. I've been saying this for years.
Now, ask this question: Why do the people (except for big oil) not think that global warming is really happening or at least furthered by human endeavors? Where does the opposition come from? It just makes sense that we're doing this to ourselves, but I just can't wrap my head around the fact that there are people out there who won't accept it and who are in opposition to it. I don't understand it.
-
Bkumm
May 23, 2007, 1:05 p.m.Right on, Ed. That is exactly right. And maybe that's what I don't get. I understand (to use a farm boy analogy) that if I pi$$ on an electric fence I'm going to get a shock in a particularly bad area. I just don't understand the people that keep pi$$ing on the fence and wondering why their junk hurts.
-
-
doppich
May 23, 2007, 3:43 p.m.I can see how some would wonder why they should worry about their small contribution when they see Air Force One carrying a handful of people to Crawford and back every weekend, or look at Al Gore's rather large carbon footprint. It's like those who believe in ZPG having their 2.1 children, only to see the illegals come in and pump out a dozen anchor babies.
But to deny the human contribution to climate change, and to actually believe what they say is something else.
-
el-jefe
May 23, 2007, 11:44 p.m.I don't have a problem with the notion that consumerist lifestyles could be having some impact. I can't even walk across my front lawn without having SOME impact on the environment. But it seems a little fishy to many that we've been burning fossil fuels to run our civilization for roughly 200 years, and that all of a sudden we're only noticing some impact NOW, and that we're being told that if we don't do something drastic (and Kyoto is drastic, and also not enough according to the "experts") in the next 20 years, the whole planet is going to be a hellish place to live.
I mean, my personal BS detector goes way, way up when I hear that.
Now add on to that phony climate date (BS detector needle inches a little farther to the right), disregard of historical climate data to the point that researchers say things like "we need to make the medieval warm period go away" (BS meter trips an alarm), and I'm somewhat less than convinced.
-
lfergie812
May 23, 2007, 1:10 p.m.The irony of global warming. On a History Channel segment called Mega Disasters: Mega Freeze, they showed where global warming may cause climate changes that will throw the northern hemisphere into a small ice age because of the shift in the Atlantic Ocean current flow and a long lasting El Nino from the Pacific Ocean's inability to cool. Those two factors could change the climate in the North American continent to cause the northern part including Canada to freeze for a longer period of the year and the cause the midwestern states to develop drought conditions similar if not worst than the dust bowl of the 1930's. The excess heat in the Atlantic would cause stronger and more frequent storms in the southern part of the US.
-
RickyDawkins
May 23, 2007, 4:13 p.m.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change
-
joeblowe
May 23, 2007, 5:05 p.m.Here's a little something direct from the IPCCs newest recently released report - Introduction to the TECHNICAL SUMMARY:
While this report provides new and important policy-
relevant information on the scientific understanding of
climate change, the complexity of the climate system
and the multiple interactions that determine its behaviour
impose limitations on our ability to understand fully the
future course of Earth's global climate. There is still an
incomplete physical understanding of many components
of the climate system and their role in climate change.
Key uncertainties include aspects of the roles played by
clouds, the cryosphere, the oceans, land use and couplings
between climate and biogeochemical cycles. The areas of
science covered in this report continue to undergo rapid
progress and it should be recognised that the present
assessment reflects scientific understanding based on the
peer-reviewed literature available in mid-2006.
-
joeblowe
May 23, 2007, 5:45 p.m.Here's a little perspective: The concentration of CO2 they're measuring is measured in PARTS PER MILLION. It has apparently gone from a pre-industrial level of 280 ppm to a current level of 379 ppm. this is a CHANGE of: .000099 Now, when you write it out THAT way, it doesn't look too impressive, does it. I also notice that according to the IPCC charts, levels of NH4 (methane) and N2O (nitrous oxide) have risen and fallen in very close correspondence with CO2 levels. I haven't yet seen any explanation of that. They do not appear to have included data on OTHER atmospheric gases - like, oh, say Oxygen and Nitrogen - just for the sake of being thorough and accurate. Wonder why not? Doesn't have anything to do with the mandate of this POLITICAL panel perhaps?
-
usavet
May 23, 2007, 6:47 p.m.we have been going thru global warming since the ice age natural order of things but it gives certain groups more power to talk about it
-
Coatl
May 23, 2007, 7:34 p.m.Help me understand something, since I'm not from the US and not living there I just can't understand why the problem of Global Warming has so much political context for most of the people who post here. I know something is wrong with the weather latetly, I've seen the change in seasons during the latest 10 years. It is accepted in the most part of the globe that there is a lot of probabilty that those changes are due to the impact of our own polution. But since there are scientist (specially within the US) that suggest that maybe the global warming hasn't anything to do with us I ask, wouldn't be a good thing that wether GW is our fault or not, we stoped poluting the atmposphere?
-
-
capn_caveman
May 23, 2007, 10:34 p.m.Interesting link on the website:
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/F...
-
worldmaker
May 24, 2007, 3:54 a.m.The great global warming swindle continues?
http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/gr...
Due for release on DVD at the end of September 2007.
-
sixshot
May 24, 2007, 6:45 a.m.lets not forget that climate changers have to pour s**t on anyone that doesn't agree with them or there money will dry up and they will be out of a job.
-
walden3
May 24, 2007, 8:52 a.m.i still can't figure out why some people are so ideologically opposed to believing that 6,000,000,000 humans can have an impact on their environment.
it's like they got their talking points and they're sticking to it.
just open your eyes and look around you. things are diffrent now then when you were a kid.
-
crghss
May 24, 2007, 10:03 a.m.When did people start believing that the climate ever stopped changing. It was fourth or fifth grade that I learned that at one time the earth was covered with Ice and at another time it was cover with dinosaurs (no polar ice caps). I always assumed that things would just keep on evolving.
Why don't I ever hear about plants in this whole discussion? If fossil fuels burning is releasing the CO2 that plants captured in the first place, then wouldn't it make sense to increase the plant population to capture that CO2.
What does anyone think they can do to influence the actions of China and India. Like it or not they make up 1/3 of world population. Their economy is growing ever day. By leaps and bounds. Their air pollutions is huge. That's why I have to chuckle when GW's come out with their statistics. How do they have any idea what these 2 countries let other 3 world counties are dumping into the atmosphere?
The Kyoto treaty is a joke.
-
quackpot
May 24, 2007, 10:15 a.m.I wonder how much energy could be saved by modifying the western notion of "buisness attire"?
Why are supposedly intelegent buisness leaders walking around in 90 degree weather wearing a coat?
Why do we have to support the consequences of cooling buildings to 70-plus degrees so that these bozos can wear a coat in the summer?
It would be nice to see a requirement that federal buildings be cooled to no less than something like 80 degrees, and to see our goeverment leaders set an example by dressing accordingly. The rest of the buisness world might then follow.
-
FordTruck5Speed
May 24, 2007, 11:36 a.m.To reply to a previous post, it may be accepted by some that global warming is completely human-caused and that the trends are only to get warmer, but as someone already said, the guidance on future climate patterns is based on a faulty model that not only cannot account for moisture, but has problems handling heat, especially in the tropics. This is a good time to point out that exactly 30 years ago, people were screaming "ice age" for the same reasons people today are touting global warming.
I also recommend reading information put out by meterologists and climatologists like Dr. Bill Gray and Accuweather's Joe Bastardi. Dr. Gray makes a very compelling argument for the earth being at the peak of a warming trend that is likely to REVERSE big time in the next decade or two. Mr. Bastardi puts the realistic spin on the whole thing. Basically, let's not base our long-term assumptions on 30 years of data, and be sure to account for ALL factors that affect weather and climate.
-
FordTruck5Speed
May 24, 2007, 12:50 p.m.The desalination plant isn't a bad idea one way or the other, but I wouldn't get my hopes up for rising oceans. Temperatures in Antarctica would have to rise about 60 degrees to melt the ice there, and at the North Pole, it's all floating ice anyway. If it all melted tomorrow it wouldn't make the oceans rise.
-
schillinfl1
May 24, 2007, 1:47 p.m.What you convenientally left off.
"It likely was a bit warmer when he landed for the first time than it was when the last settlers starved due to a number of factors -- climate change, or at least some bad weather, a major one."
Climate change.....meaning it got COLDER.
People moved to Greenland because of its fertil land and starvaion in Europe.
Try not to take bits and pieces of facts that fit your agenda, while leaving out things that don't.
The first 110 comments are shown. Show all 111 comments »
Submit a Story
Advertisement
