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.
and thinking bologna.They really lost all credibility with the whole issue but I'll let you decide.
Leading scientists
Leading scientists have dismissed studies which say that global warming is a natural phenomenon connected with sunspots, rather than the result of the man-made emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2).
Studies published in 1991 and 1998 claimed to establish a link between global temperatures and solar activity – sunspots – and continue to be cited by climate skeptics.
However, problems with the data used to establish the correlation have been identified by other experts and the flaws are now widely accepted by the scientific community, even though the studies continue to be used to support the idea that global warming is “natural”.
However, many scientists now believe both of these studies are seriously flawed, and that when errors introduced into the analysis are removed, the correlations disappear, with no link between sunspots and global warming.
The factual errors in this first graph are so profound I don't even know where to begin"
Originally posted by Bosko
reply to post by kenochs
With all due respect, what credentials do you have to be able to call it a "bunch of hooey"?
Do you personally know the two scientists cited in the article? Are you familiar with the research they have done on this topic?
The factual errors in this first graph are so profound I don't even know where to begin"
Please begin. I would absolutely love to hear the factual errors, as would many other people I'm sure.
For the record, I am a climate change skeptic, but it is posts like yours that really bother me. You admit to only reading one paragraph of the article, then spout out your opinion on the matter as if it is a fact and completely dismiss the article before knowing anything about it.
I hope everyone is skeptical of anything they read, but to completely dismiss anything that isn't in line with what you believe to be the truth before even doing a few minutes of research is pretty sad.
Originally posted by kenochs
reply to post by Bosko
Okay, to my chagrin I find myself apologizing for the umm 'strident' nature of my posts. There's something to be learned there, so consider me chastised.
But the article I believe is poorly written and just ends up confusing the issue from the first graph on.
I'm no scientist, but what is this article telling us... It's saying this, sunspots and global warming aren't related right? I agree with that.
But so what is causing global warming? The only other option were given is that it's either sunspots or CO2. And as we all know now, it's not that simple.
It's complex and confusing.
Dry air contains roughly (by volume):
78% nitrogen
21% oxygen
0.93% argon
0.038% carbon dioxide
and small amounts of other gases.
Air also contains a variable amount of water vapor, on average around 1%
*AHEM!*
Sunspots ARE related to climate change.
You know that Giant ball of fire in the sky?
The one that heats the earth?
Yeah... changes in its radiation intensity are related to the changes in the earths temperature.
In the exact same way that it gets warm during the day, and cold at night.
It's a BALL OF FIRE IN THE SKY!
Check out my previous links.
-Edrick