The Truth About Global Warming -- It's the Sun That's to Blame., page 1
Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 1 times
Topic started on 28-11-2007 @ 10:27 PM by SimiusDei

The Truth About Global Warming -- It's the Sun That's to Blame.


www.telegraph.co.uk
Global warming has finally been explained: the Earth is getting hotter because the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time during the past 1,000 years, according to new research.

A study by Swiss and German scientists suggests that increasing radiation from the sun is responsible for recent global climate changes.
(visit the link for the full news article)


reply posted on 28-11-2007 @ 11:34 PM by shoran
Originally posted by SimiusDei
Not that this will matter to any of you guys out there that are just dying for global warming to be our fault, but, here is another one of those situations where scientists are saying that man isn't entirely to blame.


There are several sources you can find online to contradict these statements. Even so, for those who claim there's no way to tell if man's involvement in global warming is certain, it's funny they instead can point to the sun with absolute certainty.


Personally, I will stand by my statements that global warming is nothing but a new version of "buy American", which we saw the 80s. What I mean by that is, it's just another BS political tool designed to make people feel like they are/can make a difference and to give them that warm fuzzy feeling when they pick up a piece of styrofoam or plastic off the ground.


People can make a difference if they care and pay attention. But, Americans are a pretty lazy and selfish bunch, and I don't expect many of them to change anything until they're forced to either by cost or imminent doom.

But, let me ask this. What's the drawback to reducing our energy usage, reducing dependence on foreign energy supplies, and reducing pollution? We're healthier? More self-sufficient? What's the drawback to ignoring the potential global warming problem and sitting on our asses? My opinion is to pick the former option and be happy with the outcome whether or not global warming pans out to be caused by humanity.


While I'm sure that man has contributed a VERY small bit to the increase in global temperatures, since the same trend is being seen on several planets, my common sense dictates that I must agree with the assessment that the sun is the main culprit.


Common sense dictates you need more information to make an accurate determination. If you're ready to conclude that global warming isn't worsened by humanity based on a news article that says "hey, other planets are warm too!", then you're not really looking at any of the evidence involved.

We know for a fact that greenhouse gases increase our planet's temperature. We also know for a fact that we're spewing out millions and millions of tons of the stuff each year. We can see from ice cores and other evidence that the levels of greenhouse gases seem to have risen dramatically during/following the industrial revolution, and that our temperature increases seem to coincide with the increase in temperature.

Now, with that said, if there's enough evidence to disprove the current global warming hypotheses so that we can say it's caused by the sun, I'm fine with that. But, since there are *other* problems that go along with human usage of fossil fuels, I don't see that as negating the need for the same changes we'd be making if the problem was global warming.


That being said, I am hereby declaring myself 110% opposed to the sun and I refuse to cast my vote for any candidate that is unwilling to make it's destruction a major part of their platform.


Ummm... you know, we kinda need the sun. (I know that was a joke)


reply posted on 29-11-2007 @ 12:59 AM by shoran
Originally posted by pepsi78
Yes he can, the whole solar sistem is warming up, mars also is recording temperature rise,also ultra violets are more dangerous than ever before, when I was a kid there was no danger to UV , now when I go to the beach I aways worry about it.
The truth is that it is the sun, this with green gass efect is just a bunch of crap, If I recall corectly NASA and others atempted to warm up a large area ermeticly closed from the outside with this kind of effect for the hope of implementing this on other places of the solar sistem where it's frosen cold.., guess what ..it failed, the place did not warm up at all.


I'd be interested in seeing information regarding the NASA study that disproves the greenhouse effect of greenhouse gases. Considering we call them greenhouse gases for a reason, this would certainly be earth-shattering (but not heating, right?) information.

As far as UV goes, we also didn't have the problems with the thinning ozone layer until the recent past (and present). In addition, more and more information has come out in the past few decades regarding different skin cancers, the effect of UV in causing those cancers, etc. I'd say it's now more commonly known what the risks are, rather than being ignorant of the problems and looking at tans as healthy.

Regarding the "heating up" of the solar system, I've seen where there's evidence that this is the case. The issue, though, is how much of an effect does it have? Are the temperatures increasing at the same rate on all bodies within the solar system? Does atmospheric composition have any effect on this? Couldn't it also be possible that the sun is causing increased warming, but the greenhouse gases present in Earth's atmosphere are exacerbating the problem?

Really, there's lots and lots and lots of credible, verifiable evidence in support of the hypothesis that global warming is being caused/worsened by humans releasing massive amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. The idea that the sun is responsible for all of it, and humans are off the hook, is a relatively new thing with little supporting evidence. Once more evidence is available, perhaps we'll have a better comparison of the competing theories. I'm betting my money/life on the former cause, though, because that's one I can work to change with better results overall, even if humans aren't responsible. The other option is to sit on your ass and do nothing, and that doesn't work out well in either scenario.


reply posted on 29-11-2007 @ 08:54 AM by melatonin
Heh, this is news? The newspaper article is from 2004, and so is the science.

Solanki actually accepts that human impacts are important. Instead of reading hack bias, read the actual scientific article. Here Sami Solanki et al. state:

Although the rarity of the current episode of high average sunspot numbers may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual climate change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades.

linky

So, solar activity was not likely to be the dominant cause for what we see now and in the recent past. Why does the news article suggest otherwise? Are they being disingenuous? The actual press release from the Max Planck society (for whom he works) goes further:

This means that the Sun is not the cause of the present global warming.

linky 2

Originally posted by SimiusDei
While I'm sure that man has contributed a VERY small bit to the increase in global temperatures


So, substitute 'solar activity' for 'man' and you are close to the scientific position.

Cheers.

[edit on 29-11-2007 by melatonin]


reply posted on 29-11-2007 @ 10:20 AM by kosmicjack
reply to post by Beachcoma



Well, this answer will likely get me flogged off of ATS but I think, in America, a "consumption" tax that replaces income tax would help.

First, I think that when I work for someone, I am trading my time for money which gives the net balance of zero. No income made so why should I have to pay an income tax?

Second, If I am taxed on my consumption - of whatever: food, water, energy, clothing, luxury items - I will probably think long and hard about my consumption of said items and will likely be less wasteful. A consumption tax would be fair across the board no matter the income. Food, clothing under a certain price and natural resources would be taxed at a minimum and luxury items would be taxed at a higher rate because they take more natural resources to produce.

Some may think this is regressive, but I disagee, if it is structured correctly, and I haven't read a better way.

[edit on 29/11/07 by kosmicjack]


reply posted on 29-11-2007 @ 11:51 AM by traderonwallst
reply to post by kosmicjack



Kosmic...my friend.....

Consumption taxes......brilliant.......Finally something we agree on.

By the way...ALL TAXES are regressive.


reply posted on 29-11-2007 @ 12:19 PM by Beachcoma
Originally posted by traderonwallst
Let me point something out to you about greenhouse gasses. They are natural. If we did not have the naturally occuring greenhouse gas effect on this planet......WE WOULD FREEZE. All the heat would escape, we could not grow food and we would all die....


Come on, Trader. You can do better than that. That's just baiting.

Of course greenhouse gasses are important. But like everything else in life, too much of a good thing can be really bad.

Venus inferno due to 'runaway greenhouse effect', say scientists

The tricky thing about the warming effect is that it can develop into a positive feedback loop... ocean warming releasing gas hydrates, permafrost melt releasing more CO2... it's complex.

Look, we've gone over this so many times -- it's not a simple issue. In this case KISS won't really help anything, except maybe allowing one to sleep better. Let's not muddy the issue. God knows there's already a tonne of global warming threads that don't really amount to anything other than petty bickering and *gasp* partisan debating.

reply to post by kosmicjack



That could work. I don't know if they do it there in America, but over here they have a system of charging water and electricity progressively higher in usage blocks. For example the first 100kW of electricity would cost so and so, the next 200 is charged higher and so on and so forth. Is that what you had in mind?

Trader, what's that system I described called?
Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>    ^^TOP^^



The Human Seismograph Says: Big Earthquake Eminent
  Posted 18 days ago with 90 member flags
An unusual tree called Jaboticaba
  Posted 5 days ago with 77 member flags
Strange Sounds (UK) published on youtube on 5/13/2012
  Posted 13 days ago with 53 member flags
Pole Shift Data You Shouldn\'t Ignore
  Posted 10 days ago with 45 member flags
Indian state says it\'s OK now to kill tiger poachers on sight
  Posted 2 days ago with 40 member flags