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.

 

Sunspots don’t cause global warming (leading experts say)

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 08:04 AM
link   
Any body believe this?I just find myself seeing these words

Leading scientists
and thinking bologna.They really lost all credibility with the whole issue but I'll let you decide.
Maybe they should stop using terms like "leading scientist's" and "leading experts"


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.

article

It's a good read.

[edit on 15-12-2009 by genius/idoit]




posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 08:16 AM
link   
I don't know who wrote this article but it's a bunch of hooey...
Here's the first graph...

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).

The factual errors in this first graph are so profound I don't even know where to begin.

I know of no reputable scientist who would ever say that global warming isn't a natural phenomenon. It absolutely is, the earth goes through natural warming cycles, we're in one now. THE ISSUE IS: TO WHAT EXTENT HAVE HUMAN ACTIVITIES INFLUENCED THIS NATURAL WARMING CYCLE. Research indicates that human activities have both accelerated, and increased the natural level of warming. Also, CO2 is just one of the gases that contribute to global warming.

I don't even need to go beyone the first graph to call baloney on this entire article.



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 08:56 AM
link   
[edit on 15-12-2009 by genius/idoit]



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 09:24 AM
link   
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.



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 09:42 AM
link   
Yeah... no correlation at all...


www.oar.noaa.gov...

Note that this link is from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration.

Here is a correlation of Cosmic Rays and Tropical temperature variation
www.friendsofscience.org...

Here is a comparison of Cosmic Ray flux, Earth Temperature, and Neptunian Temperature (As observed by Infrared Radiation)
www.friendsofscience.org...


So... yeah.. Sunspot activity is linked to climate change.

It's a FACT.

-Edrick

[edit on 15-12-2009 by Edrick]



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 09:49 AM
link   

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.


Sweet I didnt know Ben Afleck posted here.

Since the Earth has gone through numerous warming cycles and the present cycle has been going now for about 18000 years I'd say the article is a bunch of hooey.

For a scientist to say that warming isnt natural when it started 17,500 years before man industrialized is hooey.

For a scientist to say that warming isnt natural when we have 5 or 6 of these warm periods recorded, one every 18000 years over the last 100k years, is hooey.

For scientists to continue to spout co2 crap when even al gores charts show co2 rising 800 years AFTER it started warming is hooey.

For you to post to someone else to provide facts while you posted none yourself is hooey.

Most of this "science" is learned by 5th grade. I now have proof that a majority of ATS members are in 4th grade or below.

Hooey.



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 09:52 AM
link   
And for you to say it shouldnt be called a bunch of hooey and that we should examine the so called facts when on their very face they are incredulous is a bunch of hooey.

Would you have to go check out the facts on the flying spaghetti monster before you run around saying it doesnt exist?



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 10:42 AM
link   
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.



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 10:50 AM
link   
Well to begin with do not ever tell any of your Russian friends that something is a load of Hooey.. I will leave it at that.
)

Now on to global warming insanity...

I am of the opinion that anyone who thinks man has any effect on Global weather is just as conceited and arrogant as anyone who is convinced that we are the lone intelligent life in the universe. We may be polluting things with chemicals and we may be making a mess...but our effect on global weather is just simply not even measurable.

Two primary things drive the weather on Earth, The Sun and Volcanos. The Sun is now in the process of making Al Gore and the warmists look like the fools they are.. hardly any Sunspots since early 2008..and the outlook for more is dim.

Buy blankets,.its gonna get really cold..



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 11:09 AM
link   
For me the problem is that I don't trust any public officials anymore.
The whole global warming argument didn't really resonate with me simply because if there was an ice age and the Ice melted.....the earth warmed .So to know say the warming is due to human activity is miss leading on it's face,and the "leading" experts are pushing an agenda for monetary reasons.



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 11:13 AM
link   

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.


*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



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by genius/idoit
 


Only two things that you need to know about for the whole "CO2" debate.

This picture (Atmospheric Gasses Absorption spectrum):
upload.wikimedia.org...

And the composition of the Atmosphere:
en.wikipedia.org...


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%


-Edrick



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 12:30 PM
link   
double post

[edit on 15-12-2009 by saabster5]



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 12:40 PM
link   
Originally posted by Edrick


*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


To even expound a little further about this nonsense of the sun having no effect on the climate. When the Earth starts it's cyclic "tilt" one pole has a higher exposure to the solar radiation...And from there I believe we get changes in seasons. Hmm, northern hemisphere will start to lose sunlight hours, causing a cooling of the 'hemisphe', while the southern hemisphere will gain sunlight, and start warming. And I believe this is all happening during some course of an eliptoid orbit around this aforementioned sun.

I think it's all man caused...Cavemen found the use of their "vocal chords" and instead of gesturing at their brethren, they started talking. Therefore more CO2 was released because at first it was lots of yelling and slowly subsided to grunting, then to talking. The amount of CO2 released because of this put the "Ice Age" to an end. Thank god for ancient humans, they and they alone made the climate what it is today.

edited to remove some grey...

[edit on 15-12-2009 by saabster5]



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 04:11 PM
link   
Sun spots are a by-product of an electric sun.

Electric cosmology predicts and explains sun spots.

They might not be entirely correlated to temperature, but they are correlated to the power input the Sun receives, which indirectly affects global temperatures.

As the power output of the sun varies, so do earths temperatures and local space plasma environment.



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 04:16 PM
link   
More on the electric sun model

A laymans overview of the model and the reasons behind it can be seen in this 8 minute video by Thornhill and Scott.

Electric Discharge as the Source of Solar Radiant Energy (Part I)
Ralph E. Juergens Kronos Vol. VIII No. 1 (Fall 1982)
Part 2

Cosmic Plasma
Hannes Alfven, academic book

More recent work:
A Solar Junction Transistor Mechanism
Scott, D.E, 17-22 June 2007, IEEE Pulsed Power Plasma Science, 10.1109/PPPS.2007.4346305

An electrically powered binary star?
Kinwah Wu (1,2), Mark Cropper (2), Gavin Ramsay (2), Kazuhiro Sekiguchi (3) ((1) Univ Sydney, (2) MSSL, (3) NAOJ Mon.Not.Roy.Astron.Soc. 331 (2002) 221



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join