Sun activity linlk to Global warming killed for a fourth time....

[Toma]

I dunno if you follow this or not, for many years, there has been a group of complete morons saying it was solar activity that caused "global warming". The theory was killed years ago by American Researchers, then Russian Researchers, but the myth still manages to live among internet 'experts'.

Now UK researchers analyzing data 3 different ways kill the theory again....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7327393.stm

maybe now it will finally die.

[Eleanor]

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Gee you don't think those guys might be biased?

[rage2]

Originally posted by Toma
I dunno if you follow this or not, for many years, there has been a group of complete morons saying it was solar activity that caused "global warming". The theory was killed years ago by American Researchers, then Russian Researchers, but the myth still manages to live among internet 'experts'.

Now UK researchers analyzing data 3 different ways kill the theory again....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7327393.stm

maybe now it will finally die.

If you haven't noticed... the earth has been cooling for the past 8 years now (since the 1999 mean temperature peak). CO2 levels are continuing to go up... .

[Toma]

Originally posted by rage2

If you haven't noticed... the earth has been cooling for the past 8 years now (since the 1999 mean temperature peak). CO2 levels are continuing to go up... .

Where did you find that data? What I saw was that 2008 may be the first year cooler then the rest, but they say it will be due to El Nina....

The cooling thing if/when it occurs is actually predicted and well explained in the current models, and is no more a good sign then the rising C02 levels.... I'll see if I can dig up the video.

[Antonito]

Originally posted by Eleanor


Gee you don't think those guys might be biased?

How so?

[rage2]

Originally posted by Toma
Where did you find that data? What I saw was that 2008 may be the first year cooler then the rest, but they say it will be due to El Nina....

We discussed it quite a bit here:

http://forums.beyond.ca/st/210394/gl...l-cooling-now/

Includes graphs from several official temperature sources. Just search for global cooling on google news search and you'll find more and more mainstream media talking about it.

2007 was so cold we had record deaths due to the low temps. Hell, we saw snow in Iraq! They don't even have a word for snow lol.

[Toma]

I really have no desire to get into this again..... but your blogspot and charts from your first few posts are supposedly derived from the Hadley Research centre, then the authors dont tell you what Hadely said, but throw their own (bogus) opinions in....

Hadley, if you are not aware, was one of the research institutes in the UK, employing 1500 scientists that has in the past disproved the solar link....

Also. global temperatures are up and down, but the overall trend is up It's very jagged, talking one year and drawing conclusions based on it is not scientific...

2005 was the second warmest year on record..... the previous record was 1998, but was linked to El Nino....

Hadleys quote

2005 was also an unusually warm year, the second highest in the global record, but was not associated with El Niño conditions that boosted the warmth of 1998.

Another way of looking at the warming trend is that 1999 was a similar year to 2007 as far the cooling effects of La Niña are concerned. The 1999 global temperature was 0.26 °C above the 1961-90 average, whereas 2007 was 0.37 °C above this average, 0.11 °C warmer than 1999.

So, I was wrong.... Ell Nina started in 2007, so the crap news I read was misleading and a year off....

You cant take any one year as a trend, ignore other factors in short term trends etc....

Since they blooggers like to claim Hadley as a source of their evidence...

here is Hadleys chart.

and what Hadley scientists say about Global Warming

The rise in global surface temperature has averaged more than 0.15 °C per decade since the mid-1970s. Warming has been unprecedented in at least the last 50 years, and the 17 warmest years have all occurred in the last 20 years. This does not mean that next year will necessarily be warmer than last year, but the long-term trend is for rising temperatures.

A simple mathematical calculation of the temperature change over the latest decade (1998-2007) alone shows a continued warming of 0.1 °C per decade. The warming trend can be seen in the graph of observed global temperatures. The red bars show the global annual surface temperature, which exhibit year-to-year variability. The blue line clearly shows the upward trend, far greater than the uncertainties, which are shown as thin black bars. The recent slight slowing of the warming is due to a shift towards more-frequent La Niña conditions in the Pacific since 1998. These bring cool water up from the depths of the Pacific Ocean, cooling global temperatures.

[Eleanor]

Originally posted by Antonito


How so?

You honestly don't think that the scientists in The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change might be worried that if they come out and say that Global Warming is bunk, they might lose their jobs?

[Antonito]

Originally posted by Eleanor


You honestly don't think that the scientists in The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change might be worried that if they come out and say that Global Warming is bunk, they might lose their jobs?

Governments are still interested in not having to pay money for global warming, so I'd say the onus would be on proving it's bunk, if anything.

Paranoid suspision is a 2 way street.

[Eleanor]

Originally posted by Antonito


Governments are still interested in not having to pay money for global warming, so I'd say the onus would be on proving it's bunk, if anything.

Paranoid suspision is a 2 way street.

How are the governments having to pay for Global Warming? Everything that I've read is that the government will be making money hand over fist with carbon credit and gas guzzler taxes.

[forkdork]

Originally posted by rage2

If you haven't noticed... the earth has been cooling for the past 8 years now (since the 1999 mean temperature peak). CO2 levels are continuing to go up... .

Nice, using a 8 year time scale in a futile attempt to overrule the scientific community. Lets take a look at things on a longer time scale:






PS:
2005 was the 9th warmest year since 1880
2006 was the 5th warmest

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/...onitoring.html


Not that I expect any of this information is significant to someone who clearly doesn't understand the science behind it.

[Antonito]

Originally posted by Eleanor


How are the governments having to pay for Global Warming? Everything that I've read is that the government will be making money hand over fist with carbon credit and gas guzzler taxes.

I'm too lazy to read up on it, I always just assumed that governments don't get the lions share of the money, or else we'd have signed up for Kyoto long ago.

[cet]

The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine has a "Global Warming Petition" which has been signed by over 19,000 American Scientists.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/

"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

Some of the more interesting graphs:


Figure 1: Surface temperatures in the Sargasso Sea, a 2 million square mile region of the Atlantic Ocean, with time resolution of 50 to 100 years and ending in 1975, as determined by isotope ratios of marine organism remains in sediment at the bottom of the sea (3). The horizontal line is the average temperature for this 3,000-year period. The Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Optimum were naturally occurring, extended intervals of climate departures from the mean. A value of 0.25 °C, which is the change in Sargasso Sea temperature between 1975 and 2006, has been added to the 1975 data in order to provide a 2006 temperature value.


Figure 2: Average length of 169 glaciers from 1700 to 2000 (4). The principal source of melt energy is solar radiation. Variations in glacier mass and length are primarily due to temperature and precipitation (5,6). This melting trend lags the temperature increase by about 20 years, so it predates the 6-fold increase in hydrocarbon use (7) even more than shown in the figure. Hydrocarbon use could not have caused this shortening trend.


Figure 3: Arctic surface air temperature compared with total solar irradiance as measured by sunspot cycle amplitude, sunspot cycle length, solar equatorial rotation rate, fraction of penumbral spots, and decay rate of the 11-year sunspot cycle (8,9). Solar irradiance correlates well with Arctic temperature, while hydrocarbon use (7) does not correlate.


It is quite a long read but definatly intereting

[forkdork]

Originally posted by cet
The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine has a "Global Warming Petition" which has been signed by over 19,000 American Scientists.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/

Scientists? Of what discipline? Science is a pretty vague term hahaha

Actually, I just looked at what is required to sign the petition. A person with a BSc in Sociology could sign that and be regarded as a scientist. Maybe I should forward this to some of my physiology profs.... yeah.... their opinion would also be worthwhile in this subject. hahaha

[Hakkola]

Originally posted by cet
WIN

Haha, refute that, bitches!

People laugh about 2 year trends, and show ten year trends instead, when the earth is 4.5 billion years old. These graphs are a lot better, and show this global warming business to be a total sham.

Thanks!

[Toma]

^^^ CET.... that ORegon project is a Hoax more or less....

Repeated reviews of the signatories has found many duplicates, hoaxes and errors.... and as mentioned above. most often signed by people with no knowledge of the subject.

Not to mention their data has been shown numerous times by real climate scientists to be fraudulent and or full of errors.

[Toma]

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

and the actual wording signed by many scientist was

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.

So, many scientists interviewed (out of the ones that were not faked) that signed based on that wording, WOULD not sign it if they wording had stated "cause man made global warming"....

http://timlambert.org/2004/05/oregonpetition/

[canuckcarguy]

Ha. I can't believe how funny this is.

Forkdork: "Nice, using a 8 year time scale in a futile attempt to overrule the scientific community. Lets take a look at things on a longer time scale:" [whips out his 120 year chart and smirks triumphantly]

cet: hmmm. 120 years. Why don't you suck on this? [whips out 3000 year chart which completely refutes the previous argument]

I love how the warm-mongers always say that science is king, except of course when it isn't.

I totally respect that there are so many thinking people on this forum. It seems like a few years ago, everybody believed that global warming was a fact, but the word's finally getting out that it is very far from being proven.

And as for Kyoto... what a joke. Giant world aid scheme disguised as an environmental policy.

[forkdork]

Originally posted by canuckcarguy
Ha. I can't believe how funny this is.

Forkdork: "Nice, using a 8 year time scale in a futile attempt to overrule the scientific community. Lets take a look at things on a longer time scale:" [whips out his 120 year chart and smirks triumphantly]

cet: hmmm. 120 years. Why don't you suck on this? [whips out 3000 year chart which completely refutes the previous argument]

Right, because accurate temperature readings have been taken for the last 3000 years. Mine is based on empirical evidence. If you want to argue that a 120 year chart in this context is of the same relevance as a 8 year chart then go ahead (I'll just end up tearing you up).

Not that I expect anything better from an Edmontonian. You guys have yet to figure out what side of the highway you are supposed to drive on.

Back to studying for my geology final where the principle subject is *gasp* global warming and climate change. Yeah, I actually know what I am talking about unlike the half-wits who claim that burning billions of tonnes of fossil fuels at an unprecedented rate is not at all upsetting the equilibrium of the earth system.

[alloroc]

Some 08's have their shit together.

Nice post CET.

Rage .. give this guy a title!