Study acquits sun of climate change

[Brittany]

Study acquits sun of climate change
POSTED: 11:39 a.m. EDT, September 15, 2006

OSLO, Norway (Reuters) -- The sun's energy output has barely varied over the past 1,000 years, raising chances that global warming has human rather than celestial causes, a study showed on Wednesday.

Researchers from Germany, Switzerland and the United States found that the sun's brightness varied by only 0.07 percent over 11-year sunspot cycles, far too little to account for the rise in temperatures since the Industrial Revolution.

"Our results imply that over the past century climate change due to human influences must far outweigh the effects of changes in the sun's brightness," said Tom Wigley of the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research.

Most experts say emissions of greenhouse gases, mainly from burning fossil fuels in power plants, factories and cars, are the main cause of a 0.6 Celsius (1.1 Fahrenheit) rise in temperatures over the past century.

A dwindling group of scientists says that the dominant cause of warming is a natural variation in the climate system, or a gradual rise in the sun's energy output.

"The solar contribution to warming over the past 30 years is negligible," the researchers wrote in the journal Nature of evidence about the sun from satellite observations since 1978.

They also found little sign of solar warming or cooling when they checked telescope observations of sunspots against temperature records going back to the 17th century.

They then checked more ancient evidence of rare isotopes and temperatures trapped in sea sediments and Greenland and Antarctic ice and also found no dramatic shifts in solar energy output for at least the past millennium.

"This basically rules out the sun as the cause of global warming," Henk Spruit, a co-author of the report from the Max Planck Institute in Germany, told Reuters.

Many scientists say greenhouse gases might push up world temperatures by perhaps another 3 Celsius by 2100, causing more droughts, floods, disease and rising global sea levels.

Spruit said a "Little Ice Age" around the 17th century, when London's Thames River froze, seemed limited mainly to western Europe and so was not a planet-wide cooling that might have implied a dimmer sun.

And global Ice Ages, like the last one which ended about 10,000 years ago, seem linked to cyclical shifts in the earth's orbit around the sun rather than to changes in solar output.

"Overall, we can find no evidence for solar luminosity variations of sufficient amplitude to drive significant climate variations on centennial, millennial or even million-year timescales," the report said.

Solar activity is now around a low on the 11-year cycle after a 2000 peak, when bright spots called faculae emit more heat and outweigh the heat-plugging effect of dark sunspots. Both faculae and dark sunspots are most common at the peaks.

Still, the report also said there could be other, more subtle solar effects on the climate, such as from cosmic rays or ultraviolet radiation. It said they would be hard to detect.

Copyright 2006 Reuters. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/09/15/global.warming.sun.reut/index.html

[Volitzer]

More Bilderberg disinfo.

They planned the whole Carbon-tax scheme back in the 1960s.

Do something real environmental like reducing mercury and aluminum toxins from coal burning plants.

That's real environmentalism.

[Brittany]

Wrong, and you got conspiracy drek on my science.

[Volitzer]

Liberals and science mix like oil and water.

That's why carbon taxes are being shunned.

[Space Traveller]

Scientists mostly are liberals, Volitzer, it is conservatives who don't know anything about science, mostly because they tend to get all their science from the Bible.

[Volitzer]

I lean moderate libertarian and even I know that CO2 is absorbed by plants along with water to make glucose and oxygen.

Planet temperatures on Mars are higher too and there are no fossil-fuel burning vehicles there.  This according to NASA data.

Ever hear of the universal gas constant R as in PV = nRT   P = pressure, V = volume, n = number of mols in the gas, R = universal gas constant and T = temperature.

According to this equation all gases expand uniformly and contract uniformly.  This is why global warming is happening on both Mars and Earth.  Earth with the N2O2 atmosphere and the Mars with its CO2.

But try explaining gas laws and chemistry to liberals.

[Brittany]

Bull ****.

Planet temperatures on Mars are higher too and there are no fossil-fuel burning vehicles there.  This according to NASA data.

You don't know what the temps are there cause we just have photos and rovers there. The position a planet is in relation to the sun also has a great deal to do with how hot it is there.

CO2 tends to "trap" heat and light in the atmosphere so it can't get out, thus making the planet warmer. 

[Volitzer]

You don't know what the temps are there cause we just have photos and rovers there.

The rovers there have thermometers and take readings that get transmitted to NASA computers.  So it is their data that we are using.

The position a planet is in relation to the sun also has a great deal to do with how hot it is there.

Uh no !!!  They have 80-90 F temperatures at the equator on planets such as Venus, Earth, Mars, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto, and Nibiru.

The asteroid belts act as a photon capacitor that re-emits the photons from 1 hertz to 1 x 10^25 hertz that go 1/r^2 to the Tiamat Belt then gets re-emited to Jupiter through Neptune then onto the Kuiper Belts which then go onto Pluto then Nibiru.

NASA took a reading in the Tiamat Belt back in 1992 with a temperature
reading hotter than the sun.

CO2 tends to "trap" heat and light in the atmosphere so it can't get out, thus making the planet warmer. 

The CO2 gets absorbed by plants and plankton which then produes oxygen.

It is the CO that remains static in the whole carbon-cycle which is bad.

So when are you guys going to try to ban di-hydrogen monoxide ??

[Brittany]

So you believe NASA as opposed to what the climatologists say?  Sure, that's because they are always so forthcoming with the truth about everything.

N(never)
A(a)
S(straight
A(answer)

[Ulric Lyons]

Unfortunately, the orthodoxy is barking up the wrong tree as per usual. What really matters as regards temperature change on earth, is the solar wind velocity, not TSI. Such that warmer North Hemisphere winters in recent years (not the last 2) are due to higher solar wind speed in those months;
http://www.solen.info/solar/coronal_holes.html
see all the months with high wind speed were hot.

More sunspots actually leeds to colder winters as they inhibit coronal holes;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/15/hey-dude-where%E2%80%99s-my-solar-ramp-up/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/05/suns-magnetics-coming-alive-again/

http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/2008/06/03/the-sunspot-cycle-and-c24/

http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/

   http://www.facebook.com/ulric.lyons

[Scorpio]

That's an interesting theory, but in this case, I would support the orthodoxy, most of whom say that industry has had the greater effect on the planet.

Out of curiosity, what is your background, Ulric?

[Ulric Lyons]

That's an interesting theory, but in this case, I would support the orthodoxy, most of whom say that industry has had the greater effect on the planet.

Out of curiosity, what is your background, Ulric?

You are quite entitled to stay on a sinking ship if you desire.

Me, I`m a Caulbearer and a Scion, and the son of a rocket scientist, my name goes down in history.

[Ulric Lyons]

That's an interesting theory, but in this case, I would support the orthodoxy, most of whom say that industry has had the greater effect on the planet.

Out of curiosity, what is your background, Ulric?

Ye Scorpio,

The thing with weather and climate, is that it has these big up and down bits, like the last two winters, and then blazing weather just three months later. That is the solar wind doing that;
http://www.solen.info/solar/coronal_holes.html
you don`t get a cold winter if the solar wind speed is higher.

Its like this, think about the orthodoxy as suffering from an obediant bewilderment, like at the Tower of Babel, where everyone was talking all mixed up. Thats how modern science is on most things that have not been explained. Runaway global warming is as likely as Big Bang theory. It kind of works better as a metaphor for their behaviour. I can explain natural variation, weekly, this year, any year, I will soon have flood/drought schedules mapped for every continent for the next few centuries. My middle name is not Alexander for nothing.

[Ulric Lyons]

So you believe NASA as opposed to what the climatologists say?  Sure, that's because they are always so forthcoming with the truth about everything.

N(never)
A(a)
S(straight
A(answer)

Climatology is in its infancy, there is no awareness among the mainstream as to the cause of natural variations, which are huge compared to even the largest estimates any recent AGW factor. So until it is widely known what is the cause of these natural shifts, they cannot really say to what extent the modern warming is anthropogenic or not. I have no political axe to grind, I am only interested in good science.
 
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/scientists-discover-surprise-in-101025.aspx

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/AGU-SABER.html

[Brittany]

No offense, Ulric, but if climate science is truly in its infancy, why should we take your word as truth as opposed to some of the more well known climatologists?

We play around discussing global warming all the time in the forums, and I have yet to see one skeptic actually put forward an alternate explanation as to why the earth is getting warmer, they just like to deny its happening (like Volitzer).