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

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)

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.

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.


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.


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.







J



www.telegraph.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

Yeah, I'm with you on this one, mars has been recording temerature rise also, it would be nice tho to clean up the planet , the truth is the air is not that fresh anymore, people in the city live shorter than the folks in the country side, the longest life span are for the people living in the mountain area, maybe global warmming is not a factor but we poluted the place we live in.

I think that the sun is a much more likely culprit and should be dealt with! Down with the sun!

I also think that we should try to stop polluting our planet though, regardless of the effect that the pollution has on the global temperature. I can't think of a way to get everyone on board for cutting back on pollution though. Perhaps we should come up with some sort of global catastrophe to tie it to, then everyone will be scared into cooperating.

A cleaner planet though fear and deception is a cleaner planet none the less.


Seriously though, I wish I knew of a real solution.

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)

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.

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.

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.

Oh *yawn*... another pointless one sided assertion. People who claim that the Sun is the sole cause of the warming we face now are just as deluded as those who think that humans are the sole cause. Those who contend that CO2 is the only greenhouse gas worth paying attention to are just as ignorant as those who outright deny that average temperatures as of this moment in history are higher than it was.

It's all too human to look for simple answers. After all, our lives are complex enough as it is...

shoran: nice to see another poster on the board who recognizes the whole thing is highly complex and requires more than a "one size fits all" platitude. Also good to know you share the sentiment in my sig --

Let's stop hastening the effects with our unsound environmental policies

[edit on 29-11-2007 by Beachcoma]

Thanks. I try! I still find it funny how many people will completely discount human involvement because there isn't enough information/evidence, but have no problem attributing the entire situation to the sun based on one or two articles.

Me? I just do my own part where I can. I'm not the world's most environmental/ecological geek, but I've made a lot of changes and endeavor to make more in the future. In the end things come out cheaper/better anyway, so it isn't like there's a disadvantage to being greener. It simply costs more upfront, but that's one thing Americans rarely seem to be able to justify. We're more interested in the short-term.

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]

Originally posted by pepsi78
Yes he can, the whole solar sistem is warming up

Tell that to uranus...

From two probes of the Uranian upper atmosphere in
November 6, 1998, we derive equivalent isothermal temperatures
of 116.7 +/- 7:9 K for immersion, and 124.8 +/- 15:5 K for
emersion, indicating that the warming trend observed between
1977 and 1983 has reversed. If interpreted as a purely temporal
change, the 1998 observations indicate a cooling rate of3K/yr.

linky


[edit on 29-11-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
Tell that to uranus...

Where the Sun don't shine!

Sorry I couldn't resist

I do think that C02 emissions are hurting our planet, as well as all of the trash that is generated by world-wide (but mostly American) over-consumption. We should definitely be better stewards of the Earth. However, I also think that the Earth is a closed system that goes through cycles - which are obviously affected by the sun's energy output.

That being said, I think a larger issue related to "Global Warming" is that it has co-opted natural resources (water, clean air, etc) as "commodities" to be traded or bought - i.e.: bottled water, carbon points. What crap. Worse yet, how will this be managed by potentially Fascist regimes in a world where corporations and governments are merging at break-neck speed? Hell, even George Bush is on board with the concept of "Global Warming". Why? Because there is big money in it.

All this will do is force middle and low income citizens of this planet to fork over more of their hard-earned money to corporations who will sell us resources that should be a birth right for every human being on Earth.

If you people to not see how this is Capitalism in its most vampire-ish form, well I just don't know how to convince you.

Originally posted by kosmicjack
All this will do is force middle and low income citizens of this planet to fork over more of their hard-earned money to corporations who will sell us resources that should be a birth right for every human being on Earth.

So what's the solution, then? What do we do? How to we return power back to the people?

I agree with everything else you said. Nice to know there's yet another 'climate change moderate'.

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]

Originally posted by shoran

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.

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....

Why does no one ever talk about the fact that one of the reasons life exists on this ball of rock is that fact ath we have a greenhouse effect to keep us nice and cozy!!!!!!!!!

reply to post by kosmicjack


Kosmic...my friend.....

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

By the way...ALL TAXES are regressive.

Other links on Global warming:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

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?

Beachcoma:

Not sure if there is a specific name for it. Sounds like an ordinary usage tax, not that different from a consumption tax, just designed differently that on outright consumptions by giving it tiers.

They do something like that in different areas of our country here. I know out in the Phoenix area they charge for electricity that way. I spent the Thanksgiving holiday there at my in-laws and was told about how they can only use certain appliances after certain times. They are garaunteed lower rates if they wait until after 9 pm to run the dishwasher, beyond peak hours. Not really a tax I guess, but if they offer lower rates, it seems like a tax on someone. If everyone is not paying the same...someone is getting the shaft.

Not sure if that helps ya or anything