Truth About Global Warming

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

By Michael Leidig and Roya Nikkhah

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.

A study by Swiss and German scientists suggests that increasing radiation from the sun is responsible for recent global climate changes.

Dr Sami Solanki, the director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany, who led the research, said: "The Sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures.

“The Sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was a few hundred years ago and this brightening started relatively recently - in the last 100 to 150 years.”

Dr Solanki said that the brighter Sun and higher levels of “greenhouse gases”, such as carbon dioxide, both contributed to the change in the Earth’s temperature but it was impossible to say which had the greater impact.

Average global temperatures have increased by about 0.2 deg Celsius over the past 20 years and are widely believed to be responsible for new extremes in weather patterns. After pressure from environmentalists, politicians agreed the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, promising to limit greenhouse gas emissions between 2008 and 2012. Britain ratified the protocol in 2002 and said it would cut emissions by 12.5 per cent from 1990 levels.

Globally, 1997, 1998 and 2002 were the hottest years since worldwide weather records were first collated in 1860.

Most scientists agree that greenhouse gases from fossil fuels have contributed to the warming of the planet in the past few decades but have questioned whether a brighter Sun is also responsible for rising temperatures.

To determine the Sun’s role in global warming, Dr Solanki’s research team measured magnetic zones on the Sun’s surface known as sunspots, which are believed to intensify the Sun’s energy output.

The team studied sunspot data going back several hundred years. They found that a dearth of sunspots signalled a cold period - which could last up to 50 years - but that over the past century their numbers had increased as the Earth’s climate grew steadily warmer. The scientists also compared data from ice samples collected during an expedition to Greenland in 1991. The most recent samples contained the lowest recorded levels of beryllium 10 for more than 1,000 years. Beryllium 10 is a particle created by cosmic rays that decreases in the Earth’s atmosphere as the magnetic energy from the Sun increases. Scientists can currently trace beryllium 10 levels back 1,150 years.

Dr Solanki does not know what is causing the Sun to burn brighter now or how long this cycle would last.

He says that the increased solar brightness over the past 20 years has not been enough to cause the observed climate changes but believes that the impact of more intense sunshine on the ozone layer and on cloud cover could be affecting the climate more than the sunlight itself.

Dr Bill Burrows, a climatologist and a member of the Royal Meteorological Society, welcomed Dr Solanki’s research. “While the established view remains that the sun cannot be responsible for all the climate changes we have seen in the past 50 years or so, this study is certainly significant,” he said.

“It shows that there is enough happening on the solar front to merit further research. Perhaps we are devoting too many resources to correcting human effects on the climate without being sure that we are the major contributor.”

Dr David Viner, the senior research scientist at the University of East Anglia’s climatic research unit, said the research showed that the sun did have an effect on global warming.

He added, however, that the study also showed that over the past 20 years the number of sunspots had remained roughly constant, while the Earth’s temperature had continued to increase.

This suggested that over the past 20 years, human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation had begun to dominate “the natural factors involved in climate change”, he said.

Dr Gareth Jones, a climate researcher at the Met Office, said that Dr Solanki’s findings were inconclusive because the study had not incorporated other potential climate change factors.

“The Sun’s radiance may well have an impact on climate change but it needs to be looked at in conjunction with other factors such as greenhouse gases, sulphate aerosols and volcano activity,” he said. The research adds weight to the views of David Bellamy, the conservationist. “Global warming - at least the modern nightmare version - is a myth,” he said. "I am sure of it and so are a growing number of scientists. But what is really worrying is that the world’s politicians and policy-makers are not.

“Instead, they have an unshakeable faith in what has, unfortunately, become one of the central credos of the environmental movement: humans burn fossil fuels, which release increased levels of carbon dioxide - the principal so-called greenhouse gas - into the atmosphere, causing the atmosphere to heat up. They say this is global warming: I say this is poppycock.”

GLOBAL WARMING, IN MARS???
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36049

Global warming on Mars ? without SUVs!
Planet experiencing increased temperatures despite lack of humankind
? 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

Though not subject to pollutants of human habitation, Mars appears to be undergoing global warming, with new data suggesting the planet is possibly emerging from an ice age.

According to a report in Space.com, NASA’s Mars Odyssey orbiter has spotted seasonal changes, such as the advance and retreat of polar ice, but it also is gathering information pointing to long-term trends.

Is NASA rover to blame for global warming on Mars?

William Feldman of the Los Alamos National Laboratory tells the site the current climate conditions, including too much frozen water at low-latitude regions, suggests something is out of equilibrium on Mars.

“One explanation could be that Mars is just coming out of an ice age,” Feldman told Space.com. “In some low-latitude areas, the ice has already dissipated. In others, that process is slower and hasn’t reached an equilibrium yet. Those areas are like the patches of snow you sometimes see persisting in protected spots long after the last snowfall of the winter.”

According to the report, frozen water makes up as much as 10 percent of the top three feet of surface material in some regions close to the equator. Dust deposits may be covering and insulating the lingering ice, Feldman said.

Feldman is the scientist in charge of an Odyssey instrument that assesses water content indirectly through measurements of neutron emissions.

“Odyssey is giving us indications of recent global climate change on Mars,” Jeffrey Plaut, project scientist for the mission at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, is quoted as saying.

According to the report, other data from Odyssey is helping scientists figure out what is going on climatologically on the planet. The orbiter has been surveying the planet for nearly a full Martian year.

Thousands (millions?) of years ago the earth cooled down enough to cause several ice ages, each time warming up again far enough to melt all the ice, all without human intervention.

Given all the creationists out there who keep shouting “evolution is just a theory”, we need corresponding people to shout “human caused global warming is just a theory!”

Theory or not, human caused global warming is a possibility. A definite possibility. We have a chance to take actions now to minimize the consequences in the future, and I think it’s a great idea. By the time it’s proven it will be too late. Just don’t tell me we need to take action because it’s a proven fact. It’s not proven yet. It’s a possibility only and we need to moderate our reaction to it as such.

All right, I’m off the soap box now.

This is another case where politics are so deeply ingrained in the issue, I don’t know if we’ll ever find out the truth.
I definately don’t trust the climatologists and shit. They cannot predict the weather 10 days in advance, how the fuck can they use these same models to tell us what happened 100, 200, 300,…1000 year ago. They should be able to tell us the weather over the next couple of years with some accuracy, but I still find the Farmer’s Almanac more accurate for long term weahter and climate info. Remember the violent huricane season “they” predicted last year? Yea, never happened. These people don’t know what they are talking about.
Is it possible man made the earth warmer? Sure. Is it provable? Fuck no.

[quote]pat36 wrote:
Is it possible man made the earth warmer? Sure. Is it provable? Fuck no.[/quote]

Whether or not man made the earth hotter doesn’t really matter.

It IS getting hotter. And if we don’t do something about it we are all screwed.

Even if the sun is producing more radiation the CO2 buildup defiantly isn’t helping. If we used the excuse of increased radiation from the sun to avoid reforming laws about C02 emissions it would kinda be like continuing to smoke cigarettes just because you can’t do anything about the deadly e coli OH7157 in all the food that you eat.

Increased radiation from the sun is just another reason for people to get more involved in stopping the other causes of global warming.

Regardless, who gives a shit if we’re causing it or not.

Is pollution good? No.

Should we reduce it? Yes.

Whether or not it is causing global warming, I believe, is irrelevant.

The ignorance of some people on the board is astounding.

Saddam had WMDs. Evolutions is not a fact. Global warming has nothing to do with humanity polluting the earth.

This is as up to date and as factual and scientific as you can get.
Download the IPCC Report from the link
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

Its a religion. Since lots of folks don’t believe in God any longer, and humans have a wired in need to worship something, the environmentalist whackos have latched onto the Mother Earth concept. The Great Meltdown is the equivalent of the Apocalypse, with Hillary Clinton as the Whore of Babylon.

[quote]yorik wrote:
Thousands (millions?) of years ago the earth cooled down enough to cause several ice ages, each time warming up again far enough to melt all the ice, all without human intervention.

Given all the creationists out there who keep shouting “evolution is just a theory”, we need corresponding people to shout “human caused global warming is just a theory!”

Theory or not, human caused global warming is a possibility. A definite possibility. We have a chance to take actions now to minimize the consequences in the future, and I think it’s a great idea. By the time it’s proven it will be too late. Just don’t tell me we need to take action because it’s a proven fact. It’s not proven yet. It’s a possibility only and we need to moderate our reaction to it as such.

All right, I’m off the soap box now.[/quote]

WOW. Do you have scientific fact to back that up bro? Do you understand why the Earth’s temperature fluctuates every 10,000 years or so? And by the way, emphasis on the 10,000 years.

The temperature increase that has occurred in the last 10 or so years is almost equal to the temperature increase that occurred over a few 100,000 years during the transition into the Triassic period.

Even if you want to dispute that. Fine. But it is common sense to understand that removing massive amounts of carbon from the ground in a matter of year, transferring them to the atmosphere (atmosphere to ground back again transfer takes millions of years), has certain implications.

Natural processes that have taken millions of years to work on their own are being disrupted by human activity. To not think our activities are having an effect on this planet is not just ignorance, its stupidity.

“Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t a complete tool.” - Eric Cressey.

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
The ignorance of some people on the board is astounding.

Saddam had WMDs. Evolutions is not a fact. Global warming has nothing to do with humanity polluting the earth.

This is as up to date and as factual and scientific as you can get.
Download the IPCC Report from the link
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf[/quote]

Good God Thank You.

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Regardless, who gives a shit if we’re causing it or not.

Is pollution good? No.

Should we reduce it? Yes.

Whether or not it is causing global warming, I believe, is irrelevant.[/quote]

This is a sentiment that I can largely get down with. So many other concrete environmental problems - air, water, soil quality and so forth - but the environmentalists (well, some of them) want to make the case for the big, abstract, most difficult to prove reason to get greener as far as emissions.

I think it is backwards, if your goal is truly to change minds and therefore behavior.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Regardless, who gives a shit if we’re causing it or not.

Is pollution good? No.

Should we reduce it? Yes.

Whether or not it is causing global warming, I believe, is irrelevant.

This is a sentiment that I can largely get down with. So many other concrete environmental problems - air, water, soil quality and so forth - but the environmentalists (well, some of them) want to make the case for the big, abstract, most difficult to prove reason to get greener as far as emissions.

I think it is backwards, if your goal is truly to change minds and therefore behavior.[/quote]

So are you one of those people who can’t come up with anything better besides using particles to block out the sun to reduce heat?

http://www.newstarget.com/021544.html

If not change minds and behavior? Then change what? Propose something before I misunderstand what you’re saying.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Its a religion. Since lots of folks don’t believe in God any longer, and humans have a wired in need to worship something, the environmentalist whackos have latched onto the Mother Earth concept. The Great Meltdown is the equivalent of the Apocalypse, with Hillary Clinton as the Whore of Babylon.[/quote]

What the fuck are you babbling about now?

I’m afraid, as usual, you have it somewhat backwards. The “religion” is that we can do anything we like, as long as it is under freedom, for the pursuit of profit, and commit no wrong.

While there may certainly be enviro-whackos out there, perhaps they balance the money-whackos who believe more of everything is better?

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, if we are accelerating natural events greatly, then we are going to cause harm and stress to the environment (and ourselves). Now, you may or may not care, but there is certainly a lot of precedent for humans fucking things up by making what were assumed to be safe chemicals, processes and so forth.

So, the real question is, even if it is a natural warming period, are we accelerating it greatly? Shit, if you actually read the article above, even it certainly doesn’t support the view that humans aren’t heavily involved.

Like Beowolf said, pollution = bad. What else do we need to know? Unfortunately, the religions of greed and consumerism conflict with this issue, don’t they?

[quote]Shoebolt wrote:

So are you one of those people who can’t come up with anything better besides using particles to block out the sun to reduce heat?

http://www.newstarget.com/021544.html

If not change minds and behavior? Then change what? Propose something before I misunderstand what you’re saying.[/quote]

I believe that focusing on the more tangible aspects of air pollution - one whose remedy can also take care of warming issues - is a better way to get things moving rather than trying to sell the very abstract, politicized worry of ‘global warming’.

You want to produce less emissions into the air? If that be your ultimate goal, focus on educating people on the air they breathe, not some not-exactly-proved harm whose results we aren’t so sure about.

Oh, and spare me the junk media articles. Despite the left-wing histrionics, the U.S. response suggested modification of solar radiance “may be an important strategy if mitigation of emissions fails”. Now I have no idea to the merits of that idea in implementation, but scientists have estimated that reflecting less than 1% of sunlight back into space could compensate for all the warming since the Indisutrial Revolution. Good idea, bad idea? The IPCC said the ideas were speculative and uncosted - in other words, no shit. Sounds like a risky idea to me - but then the US only offered up as an idea in case ordinary mitigation techniques failed.

Now, do yourself a favor and break from the “Common Dreams” orthodoxy. On that note, isn’t it fascinatingly ironic that counterculture thinking has an orthodoxy all its own that demands strict fidelity to its dogmatic secular Gospel? Another thread, I guess.

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
The ignorance of some people on the board is astounding.

Saddam had WMDs. Evolutions is not a fact. Global warming has nothing to do with humanity polluting the earth.

This is as up to date and as factual and scientific as you can get.
Download the IPCC Report from the link
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf[/quote]

Once the ICPP altered the scientists report in 1996 they lost all credibility with me.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Schwarzfahrer wrote:
The ignorance of some people on the board is astounding.

Saddam had WMDs. Evolutions is not a fact. Global warming has nothing to do with humanity polluting the earth.

This is as up to date and as factual and scientific as you can get.
Download the IPCC Report from the link
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

Once the ICPP altered the scientists report in 1996 they lost all crdeiblity with me.[/quote]

exactly, while there is scientific evidence much of it is flawed and inconsistant, while i do believe that reducing emissions is a good idea, it is very naive to think of it in such black and white terms, the green has as much invested in the promotion of global warming as do the corporations who oppose it. heres a good article, although i havent read the rest of the series.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Shoebolt wrote:

So are you one of those people who can’t come up with anything better besides using particles to block out the sun to reduce heat?

http://www.newstarget.com/021544.html

If not change minds and behavior? Then change what? Propose something before I misunderstand what you’re saying.

I believe that focusing on the more tangible aspects of air pollution - one whose remedy can also take care of warming issues - is a better way to get things moving rather than trying to sell the very abstract, politicized worry of ‘global warming’.

You want to produce less emissions into the air? If that be your ultimate goal, focus on educating people on the air they breathe, not some not-exactly-proved harm whose results we aren’t so sure about.

Oh, and spare me the junk media articles. Despite the left-wing histrionics, the U.S. response suggested modification of solar radiance “may be an important strategy if mitigation of emissions fails”. Now I have no idea to the merits of that idea in implementation, but scientists have estimated that reflecting less than 1% of sunlight back into space could compensate for all the warming since the Indisutrial Revolution. Good idea, bad idea? The IPCC said the ideas were speculative and uncosted - in other words, no shit. Sounds like a risky idea to me - but then the US only offered up as an idea in case ordinary mitigation techniques failed.

Now, do yourself a favor and break from the “Common Dreams” orthodoxy. On that note, isn’t it fascinatingly ironic that counterculture thinking has an orthodoxy all its own that demands strict fidelity to its dogmatic secular Gospel? Another thread, I guess.[/quote]

Lol good post for your knowledge base I guess. But still not useful. Scientists demand the action that they do because they see the situation in a way that is more appropriate for the problem presented. Global warming is a scientific and humanitarian issue, not a political one (No body will give a rats ass about profits by energy companies when giant, violent storms start engulfing the Atlantic). Scientists see the long term effects and realize the need for a solution that builds on the so-called dreams you mention.

Although it seems intangible at the moment, it is absolutely crucial for such a process to be implemented. Emissions MUST be turned WAY down to repair the damages they have created. If not, non-scientific solutions to address the symptoms of the problem (and fix only the economical and political aspects of the problem) will only compound the issue and keep adding to the tally of symptoms we have of environmental abuse.

[quote]J.Boogie wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Schwarzfahrer wrote:
The ignorance of some people on the board is astounding.

Saddam had WMDs. Evolutions is not a fact. Global warming has nothing to do with humanity polluting the earth.

This is as up to date and as factual and scientific as you can get.
Download the IPCC Report from the link
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

Once the ICPP altered the scientists report in 1996 they lost all crdeiblity with me.

exactly, while there is scientific evidence much of it is flawed and inconsistant, while i do believe that reducing emissions is a good idea, it is very naive to think of it in such black and white terms, the green has as much invested in the promotion of global warming as do the corporations who oppose it. heres a good article, although i havent read the rest of the series.

[/quote]

Good article. In spite of the media and political organizations (IPCC is a UN group) reports the science is not clear. The facts are not in.

It appears to be more about politics and money.

I support higher gas mileage for vehicles. I support most other conservation methods.

If I were convinced in man made CO2 global warming I would change my life dramatically to eliminate the use of my automobile and take any number of painful steps to reduce my carbon foot print. As it stands I will continue to drive my car that gets 38 mpg and ride my motorcycle that gets 45 mpg.

I wonder how much CO2 Al Gore emits in a year?

[quote]Shoebolt wrote:

Lol good post for your knowledge base I guess. But still not useful. Scientists demand the action that they do because they see the situation in a way that is more appropriate for the problem presented. Global warming is a scientific and humanitarian issue, not a political one (No body will give a rats ass about profits by energy companies when giant, violent storms start engulfing the Atlantic). Scientists see the long term effects and realize the need for a solution that builds on the so-called dreams you mention.
[/quote]

You are missing the point. There is no scientific consensus. Due to political reasons the IPCC and the MSM are squashing and belittling the many scientists and meteorologists that don’t believe it.

If the global warming doom and gloom is correct we could eliminate all of our CO2 emissions and we would still be locked into 100 years of catastrophic global warming.

If they are right, it is too late. There is no fix.

Next article you read that does not point this out you should ask yourself why.

Al Gore implies he can make this problem go away when in reality there is nothing we can do.

[quote]Shoebolt wrote:

Lol good post for your knowledge base I guess. But still not useful. Scientists demand the action that they do because they see the situation in a way that is more appropriate for the problem presented. Global warming is a scientific and humanitarian issue, not a political one (No body will give a rats ass about profits by energy companies when giant, violent storms start engulfing the Atlantic). Scientists see the long term effects and realize the need for a solution that builds on the so-called dreams you mention. [/quote]

But you miss the point and demonstrate your naivete yet again. You can tell me it isn’t a political issue all you want, but you want a change in policy, so it has to be a political issue. We aren’t ruled by a panel of scientists who act as god-kings - if we want a change in policy, we must get consensus from a number of people who control policy and, don’t forget, the people who will live underneath it.

My point is that there are better ways to get the policy moving more quickly w/r/t environmental concerns. The objective truth of global warming has become about as real as a unicorn because the science cannot be de-politicized - and that goes for your supposedly above-politics scientists as much as oil company CEOs.

With that reality in mind - and your gullibility aside - we must find a way to advance the ball of our environmental goals given the trade-offs that we face. I urge that we can get a better environment by focusing on the substantial - let’s decrease emissions to cut air pollution for health reasons, etc. - rather than the abstract - let’s cut emissions because we semi-fear a global catastrophe that may or may not be a fantasy.