It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What would it take for you to admit ManMade Global Warming is false??

page: 2
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 08:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by wiredamerican



What would it take for you to admit ManMade Global Warming is false??


It would take a leaked collection of documents from a leading climate research center with proof of manipulation of data!


just posted this link in similar thread, hope it's ok. here is a fresh and interering article on the subject:
Hackers Prove Global Warming Is A Scam
Saturday, November 21, 2009


Thanks to hackers (or an insider) who broke into The University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and downloaded 156 megaybytes of data including extremely damaging emails, we now know that data supporting the global warming thesis was completely fabricated....



[edit on 21-11-2009 by mushibrain]




posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by mushibrain
 


Actually, thanks the the hacker, we now know that there is no evidence to support past allegation of data manipulation
You should read the emails, not brief extracts posted out of context and disingenuous misinterpretated by desperate bloggers who have realised this stunt has seriously backfired on them ......


Anyway, what would convince me that mamade global warming is false?

Well, obvious it would require disproving the work of Fourier, Arrhenius, Tyndall etal. One would also have to show that temperature data from urban areas is wrong and this there is no urban heat island effect. Also, that no human actibity affects cloud cover in anyway, nor Earth's albedo.

In fact, one would have to show that if there had never been a human on the planet then, all else being equal, every single place on the planet would still be exactly the same temperature ....... Okay, in the absence of an identical earth from a parallel universe, we'd have to use a computer simulation. But maybe something for the deniers to consider?


Of course, climate change due to human activity isn't just down to temperature/global warming. So we'd then have to do the same again for rainfall ....... Show that every single place on the planet gets exactly the same rainfall today as it would had no human ever existed.

And that really is a toughy



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 09:42 AM
link   
MSM con firms that hacking is real:



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essan
.................
In fact, one would have to show that if there had never been a human on the planet then, all else being equal, every single place on the planet would still be exactly the same temperature ....... Okay, in the absence of an identical earth from a parallel universe, we'd have to use a computer simulation. But maybe something for the deniers to consider?
...............


Of course, now Essan claims that the urban heat island effect affects Global Temperatures?... i guess that must be why when you get out of cities the temperature drops....Yeah...that's why....


and don't start with the claim that surface temperatures aren't messed up because of urban heat island effect....we have had several threads about this, and including YOU have seen the pictures of most of the stations that take surface temperature....and MOST of them are inside cities, close to AC exhaust, barbecues, parking lots, etc, etc, which DOES exagerate the surface temperatures...

Then of course, and like always Essan ignores the fact that Arrhenius has been dead for over 80 years, and we have learned a lot more since then, and yes Arrhenius was wrong in some things, and right in SOME things...

He claimed that the increased CO2 would stop GLobal COOLING...and what has been happening?...


Let's read it directly form Wikepedia as to what Arrhenius claimed...


Arrhenius' high absorption values for CO2, however, met criticism by Knut Ångström in 1900, who published the first modern infrared spectrum of CO2 with two absorption bands. Arrhenius replied strongly in 1901 (Annalen der Physik), dismissing the critique altogether. He touched the subject briefly in a technical book titled Lehrbuch der kosmischen Physik (1903). He later wrote Världarnas utveckling (1906), German translation: Das Werden der Welten (1907), English translation: Worlds in the Making (1908) directed at a general audience, where he suggested that the human emission of CO2 would be strong enough to prevent the world from entering a new ice age, and that a warmer earth would be needed to feed the rapidly increasing population. He was the first person to predict that emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels and other combustion processes would cause global warming. Arrhenius clearly believed that a warmer world would be a positive change.

en.wikipedia.org...

Humm...so according to Arrhenius first of all a WARMER world is better, it would feed the world population, and CO2 would prevent a new Ice Age... Well he was right that a warmer world is better for manking, and more CO2 does help make the Earth greener, and feeds more people, but he was wrong in his claims that CO2 would stop a new Ice Age....we have been experiencing cooling also, so Arrhenius was wrong....

Arrhenius ALSO claimed...


Arrhenius estimated that halving of CO2 would decrease temperatures by 4 - 5 °C (Celsius) and a doubling of CO2 would cause a temperature rise of 5 - 6 °C

en.wikipedia.org...

That was around 1900...let's see what we can find...


First of all, the following is the "exagerated" graphs that environmentalists like to show to people to make them think how bad, and how fast CO2 has been increasing...



Note that at 1900 atmospheric CO2 levels were around 296 ppm, now they are at 380 ppm. That is almost an increase of 100 ppm of CO2.... has the world seen an increase in temperatures of 2.5 C - 3 C ?.... Tell us Essan?.....

Note that in the above graph in order to deceive the public they start by showing temperatures from 290 ppm so you see an exagerated increase in atmospheric CO2.

Now let's take a look at a REAL graph of the atmospheric CO2 levels...



Look how different the graph looks if the graph starts from 0 - 460 ppm... Now you see a gradual increase in atmospheric CO2..

But then we ALSO have the fact that the Earth's magnetic Field has been weakening since 1840 which allows for more charged particles to enter the Earth, and for the Sun's activity to affect and heat the Earth more,.



We also know for a fact that during the 20th century, and at the beginning of the 21st century until the end of about 2005-2006 the Sun's activity was at the highest it has been for 60-100 years if not more...



Do note that the above graph also shows a prediction of future sunspot activity, which so far has been wrong, but it shows also observed sunspot activity, and overall activity of the Sun which had been at it's highest than at any time in 1,000 years...

and despite ALL of the above temperatures didn't increase 2.5 C - 3 C... So was Arrhenius wrong?.... Yes he was...

The following is a graph of borehole Global temperatures.



Did the Earth's temperature increase 2.5 C - 3 C like Arrhenius claimed?... Do tell us yourself Essan...and please no more "excuses"....


[edited for errors]




[edit on 21-11-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 04:15 PM
link   
Bah, forgot to include the following fact.



Earth Institute News Archive

posted 03/20/03

Researcher Finds Solar Trend That Can Warm Climate
Ends debate over whether sun can play a role in climate change

Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits during times of quiet sunspot activity has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade, according to the study. “This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change,” said Willson, a researcher affiliated with NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the Earth Institute at Columbia University, and lead author of the study recently published in Geophysical Research Letters.

Historical records of solar activity indicate that solar radiation has been increasing since the late 19th century,” says Willson. “If a trend comparable the one found in this study persisted during the 20th century it would have provided a significant component of the global warming that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report claims to have occurred over the last 100 years.”

Willson found errors in previous satellite data that had obscured the trend. The new analysis, Willson says, should put an end to a debate in the field over whether solar irradiance variability can play a significant role in climate change.

The solar cycle occurs approximately every 11 years when the sun undergoes a period of increased magnetic and sunspot activity called the "solar maximum," followed by a quiet period called the "solar minimum." A trend in the average solar radiation level over many solar magnetic cycles would contribute to climate change in a major way. Satellite observations of total solar irradiance have now obtained a long enough record (over 24 years) to begin looking for this effect.
......................

In order to investigate the possibility of a solar trend, Willson needed to put together a long-term dataset of the Sun’s total output. Six overlapping satellite experiments have monitored TSI since late 1978.The first record came from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Nimbus7 Earth Radiation Budget (ERB) experiment (1978-1993). Other records came from NASA’s Active Cavity Radiometer Irradiance Monitors: ACRIM1 on the Solar Maximum Mission (1980-1989), ACRIM2 on the Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite (1991-2001) and ACRIM3 on the ACRIMSAT satellite (2000 to present). Also, NASA launched its own Earth Radiation Budget Experiment on its Earth Radiation Budget Satellite (ERBS) in 1984. And, the European Space Agency’s (ESA) SOHO/VIRGO experiment also provided an independent data set during 1996-1998.

In this study, Willson, who is also Principal Investigator of the ACRIM experiments, compiled a TSI record of over 24 years by carefully piecing together the overlapping records. In order to construct a long-term dataset, Willson needed to bridge a two-year gap (1989-1991) between ACRIM1 and ACRIM2. Both the Nimbus7/ERB and ERBS measurements overlapped the ACRIM ‘gap.’ Using Nimbus7/ERB results produced a 0.05 percent per decade upward trend between solar minima, while ERBS results produced no trend. Until this study, the cause of this difference, and hence the validity of the TSI trend, was uncertain. Now, Willson has identified specific errors in the ERBS data responsible for the difference. The accurate long-term dataset therefore shows a significant positive trend (.05 percent per decade) in TSI between the solar minima of solar cycles 21 to 23 (1978 to present).

www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu...


Previous work showed that the Solar activity had been at it's highest for 60 years until about the 1970s, and Wilson's data shows that since the 1970s until about 2002, which is when this particular research ended, the Sun's activity had continued to increase. So that's about 90 -100 years if not more that the Sun's activity had been increasing at 0.05 % per decade, which would put the increase of solar activity at about 0.5% which is a very substantial increase, and would account for a great part of the temperature increase on Earth.

Then we have the fact that during warming cycles water vapor and other ghgs increase NATURALLY, so at least part of the increase in atmospheric CO2 has ALSO been natural, and not only anthropogenic, and MOST of the rest of the temperature increase is because of WATER VAPOR, and not CO2.


[edit on 21-11-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 06:00 PM
link   
Well this thread sure got jumping. I'll keep it short and only respond to those who actually responded to any of my questions (where melatonin??)...


Originally posted by loner007
when human kind stops producing co2 altogether and if the changes continue then i know it wasnt humans....simple as that


So what you're really saying is that nothing could ever possibly get you to admit that global warming isnt man made, because if all humans were gone you wouldnt be able to admit anything as you'd be dead. Interesting. Thanks for commenting.


Originally posted by wiredamerican
It would take a leaked collection of documents from a leading climate research center with proof of manipulation of data!


Its funny you should say that as that very thing just happened over the past couple days
The amazing thing is reading responses to that crisis from alarmists who absolutely rejaect any and all notions of there being anything whatsoever worth batting an eye at in the emails. I'd expect this from the authors of said emails, but to see their minions scream the same nonsense is striking, although expected.

COINING NEW PHRASE (I think): Global Warming Hoax DENIERS


Originally posted by Essan
Anyway, what would convince me that mamade global warming is false?

Well, obvious it would require disproving the work of Fourier, Arrhenius, Tyndall etal. One would also have to show that temperature data from urban areas is wrong and this there is no urban heat island effect. Also, that no human actibity affects cloud cover in anyway, nor Earth's albedo.

In fact, one would have to show that if there had never been a human on the planet then, all else being equal, every single place on the planet would still be exactly the same temperature ....... Okay, in the absence of an identical earth from a parallel universe, we'd have to use a computer simulation. But maybe something for the deniers to consider?

Of course, climate change due to human activity isn't just down to temperature/global warming. So we'd then have to do the same again for rainfall ....... Show that every single place on the planet gets exactly the same rainfall today as it would had no human ever existed.


Ah, interesting twist, I guess I should have been more specific about greenhouse gases. Typically we see a complete rejection of or diversion from urban heat island effect in alarmist proaganda. So I suppose we could call you a more reasonable alarmist than most.

I would definetely call it a contributor, but still how meanial it must be compared to the overal picture.

But the thing is you MUST be aware of all of the unscientific NOAA weather record stations, especially the ones in urban centers. I did do a post many moons ago about this, and cant imagine it snt a regular topic around here since...
argh I just did a thorough search in ATS and my NOAA station location thread is missing entirely. I had permission to post the photos, and put a decent amount of effort into that. I cant even remeber the website that has all the temp station photos etc. I dont think I ever even posted it at my blog, and was thinking as I looked for it how I would like to now.

Anyways at the end there you ask for basically impossible data, which makes it pretty obvious you'll have global warming alarmist chiseled on your tombstone. Its amazing how seemingly intelligent people can become so hardwired into irrational convictions.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
where melatonin??


Here?

With a smirk and a glass of rioja.

The answer to your question 'what would it take blah blah' is: for physics to be overturned.

Good luck with that.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
 



I think the most damming piece is that the models used to predict future warming can't be used backwards to model warming in the past. Also the models haven't/didn't predict the actual results for the last decade.

To me that speaks of poor/inaccurate models. Add on top of that the recent leaks and it seems they actually "cooked" the models with some questionable data to reach the desired results.


[edit on 21-11-2009 by pavil]



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
Here?

With a smirk and a glass of rioja.

The answer to your question 'what would it take blah blah' is: for physics to be overturned.

Good luck with that.


No need, you and yours have "overturned physics" and made a mockery of it just fine, as well as making a mockery of science.


Good luck in making a mockery of science again...


[edit on 21-11-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


I provided many more questions to answer than just the thread title alone...

Surprised you're not smacking down all the denier comments thus far with your absolutist settled science...



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
 



Now now, let's play nice with each other. Otherwise this will just spiral downward.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 07:24 PM
link   
It wouldn't take anything for me to admit it. I've known it since day 1. I'm not going to hijack the thread and turn this into a religious conversation, but it takes a lot of cosmic-arrogance to believe that he have the power to destroy something God (or the Cosmos if you prefer created).

I've never believed in this hoax. I pity the people that do/did.

[edit on 21-11-2009 by itscoming]



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
I provided many more questions to answer than just the thread title alone...


Perhaps I'll bother sometime. Just harvesting lulz at the moment. I'm digging for the evidence to help you overturn physics, and I came across this:

Newtongate!


I wrote to you on Tuesday that the last leafe of the papers you sent me should be altered because it refers to a manuscript in my private custody & not yet upon record.

Newton to Keill, May 15 1674

Physics Hoax!

I'll keep you updated on what I uncover.

ABE: there's more!


Whiston begins his Astronomical Lectures, as Newton's deputy, receiving " the full profits of the place."


Follow the money!

ABE2: Damning evidence...


I desire only such observations as tend to perfecting the theory of the planets, in order to a second edition of my book.
Newton to Flamsteed (Baily, p. 138.)


The papers had come into Smith's possession on the death of Cotes, who was his cousin. In their original state they contained among other things, which were afterwards lost, about twenty or thirty letters, written by Newton to Cotes


We could be on to something here...


Surprised you're not smacking down all the denier comments thus far with your absolutist settled science...


Dunno, but ya purdy good at buildin' upa does strawmen.

[edit on 21-11-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by pavil
 



Yes, you are right. GCMs are flawed, even some climatologists have the guts to admit it, and peer reviewed research shows that GCMs are flawed to no end.



Koutsoyiannis, D., A. Efstratiadis, N. Mamassis, and A. Christofides, On the credibility of climate predictions, Hydrological Sciences Journal, 53 (4), 671–684, 2008.

[doc_id=864]

[English]

Geographically distributed predictions of future climate, obtained through climate models, are widely used in hydrology and many other disciplines, typically without assessing their reliability. Here we compare the output of various models to temperature and precipitation observations from eight stations with long (over 100 years) records from around the globe. The results show that models perform poorly, even at a climatic (30-year) scale. Thus local model projections cannot be credible, whereas a common argument that models can perform better at larger spatial scales is unsupported.

www.itia.ntua.gr...




The widely accepted (albeit unproven) theory that manmade global warming will accelerate itself by creating more heat-trapping clouds is challenged this month in new research from The University of Alabama in Huntsville.

Instead of creating more clouds, individual tropical warming cycles that served as proxies for global warming saw a decrease in the coverage of heat-trapping cirrus clouds, says Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist in UAHuntsville's Earth System Science Center.

That was not what he expected to find.

"All leading climate models forecast that as the atmosphere warms there should be an increase in high altitude cirrus clouds, which would amplify any warming caused by manmade greenhouse gases," he said. "That amplification is a positive feedback. What we found in month-to-month fluctuations of the tropical climate system was a strongly negative feedback. As the tropical atmosphere warms, cirrus clouds decrease. That allows more infrared heat to escape from the atmosphere to outer space."

The results of this research were published today in the American Geophysical Union's "Geophysical Research Letters" on-line edition. The paper was co-authored by UAHuntsville's Dr. John R. Christy and Dr. W. Danny Braswell, and Dr. Justin Hnilo of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA.

www.uah.edu...



Orographic cloud in a GCM: the missing cirrus
Journal Climate Dynamics
Publisher Springer Berlin / Heidelberg
ISSN 0930-7575 (Print) 1432-0894 (Online)
Issue Volume 24, Numbers 7-8 / June, 2005
DOI 10.1007/s00382-005-0020-9
Pages 771-780
Subject Collection Earth and Environmental Science
SpringerLink Date Monday, May 02, 2005


PDF (702.7 KB)HTMLFree Preview

Orographic cloud in a GCM: the missing cirrus
S. M. Dean1 , B. N. Lawrence2, R. G. Grainger1 and D. N. Heuff3

(1) Atmospheric Oceanic and Planetary Physics, Clarendon Laboratory, University of Oxford, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK
(2) British Atmospheric Data Centre, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Chilton, Oxfordshire, UK
(3) Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand

Received: 13 September 2004 Accepted: 25 February 2005 Published online: 27 April 2005

Abstract Observations from the International Satellite Cloud Climatalogy Project (ISCCP) are used to demonstrate that the 19-level HadAM3 version of the United Kingdom Met Office Unified Model does not simulate sufficient high cloud over land. By using low-altitude winds, from the European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasting (ECMWF) Re-Analysis from 1979 to 1994 (ERA-15) to predict the areas of maximum likelihood of orographic wave generation, it is shown that much of the deficiency is likely to be due to the lack of a representation of the orographic cirrus generated by sub-grid scale orography. It is probable that this is a problem in most GCMs.

www.springerlink.com...

And those are just three peer reviewed research papers that show the truth about GCMs.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 07:48 PM
link   
get serious.... al gore created manmade global warming and he is reaping the rewards



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 08:20 PM
link   
"Global Warming" is a farce.

One thing that is true though is that corporations in the ENTIRE WORLD need to be held responsible for the pollution they put out.

Doing so just in the U.S would give other countries an economic advantage, which is why I stress entire world.

Notice I say nothing about Global Warming...just the fact that the air in Los Angeles and in the mountains somewhere are two different things



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 09:19 PM
link   
How about a graph that shows "the world's average temperature(and not a local one) has not been increasing in the last century? Sunspots occur every 11 years correct? Therefore, we should not see any abnormal fluctuations in the past 50 years or so.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 09:23 PM
link   
en.wikipedia.org...

Look at the 4th graph down, how do people explain that steep rise by 2004?



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Bah, forgot to include the following fact.
Earth Institute News Archive

posted 03/20/03

Researcher Finds Solar Trend That Can Warm Climate
Ends debate over whether sun can play a role in climate change
Who was debating about the Sun effecting Climate. Of course it does, its the bloody Sun. The argument is regarding Anthropogenic causes increasing warming.


Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits during times of quiet sunspot activity has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade, according to the study. “This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change,” said Willson, a researcher affiliated with NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the Earth Institute at Columbia University, and lead author of the study recently published in Geophysical Research Letters.
I call your Earth Institute article and raise you with some other Earth Institute archives.


Stalled Economy or Not, Record Year for CO2 Emissions
People Still Consumed More Per Capita in 2008

Per capita CO2 emissions are rising despite global recession

Each person on the planet produced 1.3 tons of carbon last year—an all-time high--despite a global recession that slowed the growth of fossil fuel emissions for the first time this decade, according to a report published this week in the journal Nature Geoscience. Emissions grew 2 percent last year, to total 8.7 billion tons of carbon dioxide.
Is this having no effect? Are you prepared to ignore this as not contributing at all or having any effect at all. Is that science in action?www.earth.columbia.edu...


Oceans' Uptake of Manmade Carbon May be Slowing
First Year-by-Year Study, 1765-2008, Shows Proportion Declining

The oceans play a key role in regulating climate, absorbing more than a quarter of the carbon dioxide that humans put into the air. Now, the first year-by-year accounting of this mechanism during the industrial era suggests the oceans are struggling to keep up with rising emissions—a finding with potentially wide implications for future climate. The study appears in this week’s issue of the journal Nature, and is expanded upon in a separate website.
So here we have two articles. One showing the increase in Anthropogenic CO2 emissions and another study on Oceanic absorption of CO2 now in decline(as predicted) due to its inability to cope with CO2 emissions. If we agree that the Ocean is a climate regulator and that we agree that we are increasing the amount of CO2 in both the Ocean as well as the atmosphere, then can we not agree that this is Anthropogenic effect on a Climate Regulator, that being the Ocean. That we are effecting change via Anthropogenic activity on a system of climate regulation?
Nice and Simple link

Oceanic Influences and Interactions with Weather Systems
The world's oceans are the largest regulator of weather and climate systems. Covering more than 70% of the world, the temperatures, weather systems, and and circulation patterns over the ocean regulate the type of weather your local area will get. Find out how ENSO (The El Nino Southern Oscillation) could affect you. Will there be more hurricanes as a result? Find out now by exploring the subtopics below.

CSIRO

The CSIRO team analysed thousands of temperature and salinity data samples collected between 1950 and 2002 by research ships, robotic ocean monitors and satellites in the region between 60°S and the Equator. They identified linkages between these gyres to form a global-scale ‘supergyre’ that transfers water to all three ocean basins.
Mr Ridgway and co-author Mr Jeff Dunn say identification of the supergyre improves the ability of researchers to more accurately explain how the ocean governs global climate.



Historical records of solar activity indicate that solar radiation has been increasing since the late 19th century,” says Willson. “If a trend comparable the one found in this study persisted during the 20th century it would have provided a significant component of the global warming that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report claims to have occurred over the last 100 years.”
So here we have Wilson suggesting that IF the trend observed in the Late 19th century WAS comparable and persisted INTO the 20th THEN it would be significant. Which it would be and is, but that does not make 6 billion people vanish, does it? That does not make all the changes we have made insignificant, does it?
But anyway, this is an argument that has been raised before.
No one is ignoring the Sun, you are just Ignoring everything ELSE in favor of pointing at the SunMan argument you have built.


In other words the net radiation has remained about the same.
Chen et al (2002) suggest these changes in the tropics are related
to natural climate variability in the strength of the larger scale
Hadley and Walker circulations, variability that has long been
known about and is simply another periodic atmospheric pro-
cess (like El Niño, or the North Atlantic Oscillation).
To assess the impact of greenhouse gases on global warming,
one needs to consider the radiation over the entire globe, not
just the tropics. Greenhouse gases absorb long-wave radiation
from the surface at particular frequencies. Harries et al (2001)
showed that between 1970 and 1997 significant changes oc-
curred in the global radiation emitted to space at these frequen-
cies. This result is particularly important as it means that we are
directly observing more radiation absorbed by the increasing
amount of greenhouse gases. This alone is clear scientific evi-
dence for a significant human contribution to the observed
global warming.
www.csiro.au...



Willson found errors in previous satellite data that had obscured the trend. The new analysis, Willson says, should put an end to a debate in the field over whether solar irradiance variability can play a significant role in climate change.
Yes, we know the sun effects the climate. It is the Sun.
We also know we effect the climate.
When you are finished looking at the sun, perhaps you will not be too blinded to look at HUMANS and what we are doing, and how that might also exaggerate any increases solar activity with both effecting climate change.

Are you going to continue to ignore ALL the evidence in favor of only one explanation.

Claims that increased solar activity is the cause of global warming - rather than man-made greenhouse gases - have been comprehensively disproved by a detailed study of the Sun.

Scientists have delivered the final blow to the theory that recent global warming can be explained by variations in the natural cycles of the Sun - a favourite refuge for climate sceptics who dismiss the influence of greenhouse-gas emissions.
www.independent.co.uk...

Dr Lockwood and his colleague Claus Fröhlich, of the World Radiation Centre in Davos Dorf, Switzerland, have produced the most powerful counter argument to suggestions that current warming is part of the natural cycle of solar activities. "There is considerable evidence for solar influence on Earth's pre-industrial climate, and the Sun may well have been a factor in post-industrial change in the first half of the last century," they write.

However, since about 1940 there has been no evidence to suggest that increases in global average temperatures were caused by solar activity. "Our results show that the observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanisms is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified," the two scientists said.




I know you like your solar flares so here is one:

I will take the hint from Wilsons chums with their work at ACRIM

Monitoring TSI variability is clearly an important component of climate change research, particularly in the context of understanding the relative forcings of natural and anthropogenic processes.

OMG did they just say Anthropogenic Process.

So we need to be mindful of understanding Anthropogenic processes and not ignore them EU.



[edit on 21/11/09 by atlasastro]



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by np6888
 


I love these. Consider what you mean by 'steep'. We're talking about 1'. Half that, in the last century actually. I dont know about you, but I trust satellites for more than tree or ice cores. Satellites came in in 79-80, right about when the spike occurs and alarmism shifted from global cooling to warming. Also factor in seriously flawed land station records for the past 100 or so years as part of the 'math'.

Another issue is majority of the graphing done in that chart was done by pseudoscientists with proven absolutist kneejerk 'make the science fit the theory' obsession and political agendas. They've been exposed just this week in concerted data secrecy to keep the world from attempting to reproduce their work, which is the absolute opposite of what we'd call the scientific method.

The instant scientists abandon the scientific method and engage in conspiratorial secrecy they are no longer scientists. Would any alarmist out there disagree?

Read this thread in full to get an idea of who we're dealing with:
Hadley CRU hacked with release of hundreds of docs and emails

But if that still isnt enough to make you weary consider how much greenhouse gases humans actually contribute compared to nature. I believe we have a couple posts in this thread already dealing with that.

The legacy of this thread is for people to not actually answer my OP questions. Is an reasonable explaination to your talking point all you need in that regard??


[edit on 21-11-2009 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]




top topics



 
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join