It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by syrinx high priest
the berkely project specifically states there is no correlation between the solar cycles and the rise in temps
and they did the math
funny thing is they were hired by the koch bros to debunk the science in front of congress. and they corroborated it. I wish I could have seen the koch bros faces that day
how does that sand taste ?
March 20, 2003 (date of web publication)
NASA Study Finds Increasing Solar Trend That Can Change Climate
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 a NASA funded study.
"This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change," said Richard Willson, a researcher affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University's Earth Institute, New York. He is the 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. If a trend, comparable to the one found in this study, persisted throughout the 20th century, it would have provided a significant component of the global warming the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports to have occurred over the past 100 years," he said.
NASA's Earth Science Enterprise funded this research as part of its mission to understand and protect our home planet by studying the primary causes of climate variability, including trends in solar radiation that may be a factor in global climate change.
In this study, Willson, who is also Principal Investigator of NASA's 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, he needed to bridge a two-year gap (1989 to 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. 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). This major finding may help climatologists to distinguish between solar and man-made influences on climate.
Sunspots reaching 1,000-year high
By Dr David Whitehouse
BBC News Online science editor
But the most striking feature, he says, is that looking at the past 1,150 years the Sun has never been as active as it has been during the past 60 years.
Over the past few hundred years, there has been a steady increase in the numbers of sunspots, a trend that has accelerated in the past century, just at the time when the Earth has been getting warmer.
Over the past 20 years, however, the number of sunspots has remained roughly constant, yet the average temperature of the Earth has continued to increase.
Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by Lil Drummerboy
Several years ago when climate science revealed this was going to be a problem the overwhelming naysayers beat down the warnings. And now that things are beginning to look real and the disasters are compiling, some are beginning to pay attention.. However, it is simply too late in my opinion.. I think its time for preparing
for the future of the next ice age.
First, the warmists outweigh the so called naysayers otherwise we would not have all the carbon tax etc. So that is score one wrong. If the warmists were beaten down explain the current situation where everything is based on climate change, whether correctly or not? If the naysayers had 'beaten down' the warmists we would not even be talking about it.
The climate scientists said we would not know what snow was like yet now you say we are heading for an ice age. Score two wrong. The models were changed when the climate scientists realised they were wrong.
Fiddled figures and general fraud and wrong doing, and whether global warming is real or not and is man made or not, just how does a carbon tax prevent emissions? It does not. It is so obvious that the whole carbon credit scheme is a scam set up to extract money and has absolutely nothing whatsoever do do with saving the planet.
IF these people had ANY intention of saving the planet they would make available technologies that would assist in that way and NOT simply raise taxes and profits.
edit on 18/11/2012 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)
LOL, the Warmists? All that "carbon tax"? What new carbon tax is beating up the poor coal and fossil fuel industries?
You morons keep talking about all the "profit" in promoting Global Warming -- what, like ONE DAY of the profits from Oil Companies? People didn't spend 16 years in higher education so they could waste their lives lying for a research grant -- I just don't believe that. These scientists could have made a lot more money on Wall Street being "job creators" and creating algorithms for programmed trades.
Talk to us again when we have another huge freak storm because oceans are warmer and the tide is higher.
Originally posted by syrinx high priest
feel better ?
it's very simple. the rise in temps is not the result of a rise is solar activity. the data simply does not support it.
volcanoes have more of a natural effect than any solar variation, that's a myth
you can use bold and caps, you're still wrong
Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
Nobody was proposing ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT to combat climate change. We had things like the "Kyoto Protocols" -- these are international agreements.
Democratising Global Governance:
The Challenges of the World Social Forum
This paper sums up the debate that took place during the two round tables organized by UNESCO within the first World Social Forum in Porto Alegre (25/30 January 2001). It starts with a discussion of national processes, by examining democracy and then governance at the national level. It first states a case for a "joint" governance based on a combination of stakeholder theory, which is derived from corporate governance, and of UNESCO's priorities in the field of governance. As an example, the paper investigates how governance can deviate from democracy in the East Asian model. Subsequently, the global dimension of the debate on democracy and governance is examined, first by identification of the characteristics and agents of democracy in the global setting, and then by allusion to the difficulties of transposing governance to the global level.
"Effective World Government Will Be Needed to Stave Off Climate Catastrophe."
So read Saturday's headline to Senior Editor Gary Stix's piece at one of the nation's most popular science magazines Scientific American:
A policy article authored by several dozen scientists appeared online March 15 in Science to acknowledge this point: “Human societies must now change course and steer away from critical tipping points in the Earth system that might lead to rapid and irreversible change. This requires fundamental reorientation and restructuring of national and international institutions toward more effective Earth system governance and planetary stewardship.” [...]
The authors called for a “constitutional moment” at the upcoming 2012 U.N. Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio in June to reform world politics and government. Among the proposals: a call to replace the largely ineffective U.N. Commission on Sustainable Development with a council that reports to the U.N. General Assembly, at attempt to better handle emerging issues related to water, climate, energy and food security. The report advocates a similar revamping of other international environmental institutions.
Unfortunately, far more is needed. To be effective, a new set of institutions would have to be imbued with heavy-handed, transnational enforcement powers...In principle, species-wide alteration in basic human behaviors would be a sine qua non, but that kind of pronouncement also profoundly strains credibility in the chaos of the political sphere.