The truth about global warming - it's the Sun that's to blame

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.


I mentioned this in a thread last week, that global warming has to do with increased sun activity!
john

www.telegraph.co.uk.../news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml

Kudos on a good find. I've looked into global warming over the past few years and have come up with several variables thats are more likely to cause it than C02. You can check out a piece I wrote for my local paper 2 years ago in my blog. blogs.abovetopsecret.com...

Also, a good comprehensive study by the Havard Center for Astrophysics shows many other variables including the sun as the source for the minute amount of warming the earth is experiencing. I don't think we should worry too much about global warming as long as we geologically remain in an Ice Age which we are.

www.cfa.harvard.edu...


As well as some other good links to research.


hometown.aol.com...

www.oism.org...

www.sitewave.net...

www.worldnetdaily.com...

Note to self: This explains the reason for cloud obscuration on a sunny, clear day.

Nice find.

But is it also an answer on the strange weather there is lately?

Umm you guys do know that C02 isn't the only greenhouse gas that we are emmiting now. I forget the name but it is supposedly 10,000 times worse than C02(which isn't all that bad IMO) but this other substance is very worrieing. We should really err on the side of caution especially when it comes to unnatural emmissions(ie NOT C02 but manmade aerosols like HFCs) and we should not come to the conclusion that everything is all peechy just because a couple of reports come out to say that its the Suns fault because there is still about oh i dunno thousands of reasearch papers that say that we are affecting the Climate.

Another worrieing trend is we are Depleting the Oxigen level faster than the trees can replace the stuff, and I saw a report the other week that said we have already depleted about 10% of our total Oxigen reserves already. Combustion uses alot of Oxigen.

Here's a good graph that helps show the corrolation....




www.thenewamerican.com...

I don't know, astrocreep, that graph is pretty misleading. Notice that the axis of the yellow line is flipped and zoomed. I'm not saying that it is not true, but I would rather have a good graph, with normal unzoomed axises.

An example:
Look at the bit about double-exposure graphs on this page how deceptive graphs can be:


It seems like there is a correlation between SAT scores and education spendings.


Do you still think there is a correlation?

Sardion, I think you mean Methane, CH4.

Sardion, I think you mean Methane, CH4.

No it isn't Methane its a Synthetic Gas here is the chemical formula SF5 CF3 New Greenhouse Gas Identified, Potent and Rare (but Expanding)

Warming is very propably caused by many things... but it can't be denied that amount of CO2 in atmosphere has increased almost 50% after industrial revolution and that CO2 is greenhouse gas.

www.elmhurst.edu...


And about effect of volcanoes.

The initial carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of the young Earth was produced by volcanic activity; this was necessary for a warm and stable climate conducive to life. Volcanic activity now releases about 130-230 million metric tons (145-255 million short tons) of carbon dioxide each year. Volcanic releases are about 1% the amount which is released by human activities.

en.wikipedia.org...

www.iitap.iastate.edu... .html



If enough data is collected, anything may be proven by statistical methods

Originally posted by amantine
It seems like there is a correlation between SAT scores and education spendings.

Yeah, what it seems is that the socialistic indoctrination and propaganda that began in public schools in the 60s has cost more and produced poor results. Answer, throw more money at it. When it becomes more important to teach political correctness than acedemics, then maybe its time we changed the SATa to guage whats being taught. You can't beat lifestyle choices into a kid for 2 semesters and then quiz them on mathematics. Thanks for the confirmation.

Back to the topic at hand.

Figure 2: It is true that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has been increasing for more than a century (white line). But this increase could not have caused the slight warming that occurred during the same time period (yellow line, based on 11-year moving average). The presumed effect must come after the cause. Yet, as this Figure clearly shows, most of the temperature increase had occurred by 1940, before most of the CO2 increase had occurred



See. here we see perhaps one of the most important facts that is as big as the study itself but ignored by a great many "activists". The warm up preceeded the rise in C02. How could it have been the cause?

www.thenewamerican.com...

astrocreep, that website doesn't prove anything. Please try to find the peer reviewed research paper and post it because I have no idea whether The New American is a quality source or not. It seems like a bunch of Oil Propaganda to me so prove me wrong! I would sooo much like to be wrong on this one but I'm afraid that I am not(as well as the 1000s of scientist who have been screaming for ages now) And tell me what makes a Chemist qualified to judge the state of the warming trend? I would think a Climateologist would be able to do a much better job.

This really stinks IMO.

HAH I knew it read this...

The authority of the article is open to question as it has not undergone peer review.

Here is the source naturalscience.com...

So basically Dr. Arthur B. Robinson is nothing but a hack.

Never mind about finding the Article its in the link I provided...

[edit on 21-7-2004 by sardion2000]

Okay, then hows about this one from the links I posted above. Think they have any credibilty?

www.cfa.harvard.edu...

Oh and as for the hundreds of scientist screaming about global warming, try the thousands who now consider it junk science.

www.oism.org...


It takes but a mere look into the recent past to see the earth was once much warmer than it presently is and its fact that the current warming trend has preceeded the release of C02, a fact which makes sense botanically and biologically.

Look, I;ll be the first to say that it seems that more gases up there should trap more heat in the same way we are able to put a roof on a house hold in heat in the winter. However, I think what we don't realize is that C02 only makes up about .4% of the atmosphere and its the KEY gas that enables life on this planet so before you go calling it evil, you might read up a bit on what it actually is. From higher levels of C02, we could see a decrease in dessertification and deforestation. If we know one thing about earth its that it recycles life. An increase in C02 for earth's fauna is as important as O2 for humans.

That being said, it really makes little difference and likley has never made a difference how people view it. Its a cycle thats been going on long before us likely will long after. Its nice to think we could have an influence but mostly is arrogant to think we could change or control such a massive system. We're at the mercy of it, always have been and always will be. The earth will warm and cool whether we're here or not. So, if all you all need is a political tool for the short run, be my guest. Quote your computer models and ignore research and history. But for the record, C02 is not causing the earth to warm, the warming of the earth is causing the release of morem C02. Lets get our horse back in front of our cart.

I never disputed that global climate change is a natural phenomenon I just believe that we are changing the way Climate Change operates. Take a look at the link I posted above about that MAN MADE SYNTHETIC GREENHOUSE GAS that is extremely potent but very rare right now.

We are now at 350+ ppm of C02 yeah, so what you say? Add that with the amount of Methane being released from melting permafrost and mix in a bit of SF5 CF3 and we could be heading straight into another 100,000 year ice age. About 10,000 years ahead of schedule(at least according to new ice core samples take from lake vostok in antarctica). Now with that in mind, wouln't you want to delay the next ice age for as long as possible, because scientists know that ice ages are linked in some way to elevated levels of C02, I think it has somthing to do with the fresh water interfering with the Atlantic Current(which is already happening as we speak)

Yeah, that was a good movie..but in reality we have many more environmental problems to deal with without throwing our economy away over something that isn't happening. The global warming models show that by now the temp should have increased by a factor of 2. Why did they not? Because a mdel built on incorrect information is as flawed as it is. You're damn right, I don't want another little ice age. I'm so glad to live in the warm up period rather than 300 years ago.

Now, if only we could get some of those funds toward real environmental problems like chemical dumping, straight piped sewers and illegal trash dumps, I'd get behind it 100%. I just think this global warming thing has about ran its course. Too many inconsistencies in the theory but I am very glad it has been explored. In the beginning, I as well as many bought into it because it was a legit concern. If it was happening, we needed to know. But, since it has become a political weapon, the true scientific research is so flawed, how are we to believe anything we hear about it? I guess you just pick a side and use their data.

I reviewed the raw data and I've came to my decision. Its up to each to make theirs using whatever criteria they wish.

Well I guess we're gonna agree to disaggree on this one. And by the way I havn't seen that movie yet and I don't plan on doing so in the near future. Let me clarify my statement. I do not believe that Ice Ages can hit with such suddeness as the Day After Tommarrow portrays but I do believe that our actions could speed up the natural process giving us say 60 years or 600 years instead of 10,000 years(according to new ice core sample mentioned above I'm still hunting for the link...) I just think we need to stave off the Ice Age as much as we can and releasing C02 into the atmosphere isn't one of those things thats gonna help.

One thing I do agree with you however is this statement you made.

Now, if only we could get some of those funds toward real environmental problems like chemical dumping, straight piped sewers and illegal trash dumps,

I would also add that buring anything releases other harmful stuff into the atmosphere that is not connected to Climate Change(I never call it Global Warming anymore because as you said it's become a political tool now) and is a direct threat to human health now. I know this because I suffer from Moderate Asthma and when its really Hot and Smoggy out(Like today) I can actually feel my airways closing as I inhale the toxic smog which has recently been proven to cause about 1300 deaths per year in Ontario alone. I literally have to take refuge in an air conditioned house or I'll be miserable and maybe even get sick...It ain't pretty.

Originally posted by astrocreep
An increase in C02 for earth's fauna is as important as O2 for humans.

Might be... to the certain point.
If oxygen level in atmosphere would rise significantly it would have serious consequenses, think about forest fires which could ignite magnitude easier and spread much faster.
I recall that it was in one science magazine that friction would ignite baseball player's clothes in dash if oxygen level would be above 30%.

Interesting article, it certainly shines a new light on the global warming theories.

Originally posted by sardion2000
I just think we need to stave off the Ice Age as much as we can and releasing C02 into the atmosphere isn't one of those things thats gonna help.

I know this because I suffer from Moderate Asthma and when its really Hot and Smoggy out(Like today) I can actually feel my airways closing as I inhale the toxic smog which has recently been proven to cause about 1300 deaths per year in Ontario alone. I literally have to take refuge in an air conditioned house or I'll be miserable and maybe even get sick...It ain't pretty.

I do sypathize with you for your asthma. As a child 30 years ago, I suffered with it and my son also did at an early age. I'm glad he had the benefit of bronchial inhalers and steroids that I did not. He's been free of an attack for over a year while barely out of the toddler stage. Mine continued with them until my early teens and I still get chest colds every spring. I think thats a different problem. The smog is usually termed "dust domes" in physical geography. They are an observable fact and usually form over major cities. Definetly a true problem. The haze, at least in my state, is high humidity which is really bad here in the southeast US. Although, this year, it hasn't been that bad. I guess we are benefitting locally from the change in climate. I agree that we have some affect on localized climates, my only argument is that C02 rise isn't changing the planet's climate globally.

I think the lead post was correct. I think solar activity and cosmic radiation have a far greater affect. I think we have proven the corrolation. That doesn't mean that I think poluuting is good or that it does no harm. I've locally began working with a local watershed project to try and get our local streams and rivers clean again. I think this is where we need to concentrate efforts. On tangible goals.

If we destroy our economy which is largely based upon carbon based fuels, how are we going to have the wealth to work on projects such as these?

I know I've quoted this on ATS before but I think it cuts right to the heart of the matter.


�The environmentalists try to inject guilt into people for consuming, as if consuming by itself causes destruction to the environment. There is no truth to that. You have the wealthiest countries on earth with the best looked-after environment. Poverty, not wealth, is one of the biggest threats to the Earth's ecological health. Look at the environmental destruction caused by poverty. They have no money left to reforest, they have no money left to prevent soil erosion, and there is no money to clean their water after they make it dirty. It's that kind of arrogance that is coming from a movement that is basically white upper-middle class and is saying that it's neat to have Africans with no electricity. They are mainly political activists with not very much actual science background who are using the rhetoric of environmentalism to push agendas that are more political than they are ecological.�

-Patrick Moore, head of the environmental advocacy group Greenspirit, and a former founding member of Greenpeace. Moore left Greenpeace in the 1980s after becoming disillusioned with what he considered the group's radical approach to environmental concerns.