There is a vast body of peer reviewed science that amply demonstrates to anyone but the politically biased creationist type fundementlist "Greens" that the varience in the largest body with the most influence in the Solar System i.e. the Sun is the sole driver of climate change on Earth.
Natural well researched changes in the Sun control Global Climate change.
A few IPCC climate scientists have looked at changes related to Sun spot activity a cycle of approx 11 years and long-term changes in the Sun's brightness, which has a cycle that lasts for centuries.
Despite overwhelming evidence they unscientifically discounted the effect of both on the temperature increase over the last century by claiming they either happen over too short a timescale, or they claim they are too weak.
But because of political bias and because they operate in the wrong field of science they have omitted to take two other factors into account:
1.Changes in the amount of ultraviolet radiation from the Sun affect the ozone layer. This is a very important part of the atmosphere where lots of chemical reactions take place that govern the way the rest of the atmosphere works;
2.The Sun's magnetic field and solar wind - mainly in the form of electrons and protons coming out of the Sun - protects the entire Solar System by acting as a sort of shield from cosmic rays (very energetic particles and radiation from outer space).
This shield does not stop all the cosmic rays from getting though, and its effectiveness varies with the long-term changes in the activity of the Sun, which can rise and fall on a timescale of centuries.
Cloud cover
One of the effects that cosmic rays have is to influence how cloudy the Earth is.
So as the Sun undergoes long-term changes in activity, as it has been scientifically proven, the amount of cosmic rays reaching the Earth will also vary over the same timescale, and so will the planet's overall cloudiness.
The amount of cloud affects the amount of radiation from the Sun reaching the planet surface, which in turn affects the global temperature.
Data collected from satellites show that the amount of low clouds over the Earth closely follows the amount of cosmic rays reaching the Earth.
The resulting warming due to this effect over the last century could be comparable to the amount of warming people think has been due to the greenhouse effect.
Add to that the other effects due to the Sun, and greenhouse gases become less than 50% responsible for rising global temperatures.
The other side of this coin is that reducing man made greenhouse emissions will have little effect if at all, in halting rising temperatures,despite the what the fundmentalist Greens say.
Our continued use of fossil fuels could make little difference to the climate
The energy emitted from the Sun drives the climate system, and natural changes in its behaviour have a far greater effect than any man made C02.
Why bother worrying about greenhouse gases, and adding billions to the costs of industry to force them to cut emissions, when it is a pointless exercise?
Why currently create starvation in third world countries by diverting food crops for bio-fuels?
The Sun is indeed the main contributor to any climate change, the money should be spent providing clean air in cities and clean drinking water to the Third World.
Really? Could you show us some? A link, or even the name of the study would do.Originally Posted by carguy
Rather than just referring to "scientists" and "vast bod[ies] of peer reviewed science", why not just show us some?
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
For the same reason that I don't go to Presbyterian synods: the internal discussions of faith-based groups are of little interest to me.What are you talking about? Several things control climate change: one is solar irradiance, another is carbon emissions. Others include sulphates, ozone levels and the emissions of volcanos.Just like increasing carbon levels in the atmosphere doesn't explain the cooling earlier in the last century.
But I'm glad to see at least one green supporter accepting in principle that the faith of global warming may not be infallible after all.
How come you haven't responded to people on the "35 inconvenient truths" thread? Some people have been picking apart your posts about the Sun, and there's been no response.
Please sign the petition to establish a national day of celebration in honour of the vision of the United Irishmen!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
So its time to go back to the BOG1 that is, if the greens let us?
Too much Civil Service work consists of circulating information that isn't relevant about subjects that don't matter to people who aren't interested."
Nice straw man there. I can't think of a single climate scientist that will disagree with you on that one, yes, the big ball of fire we orbit around is the most important thing as far as our climate is concerned. But that doesn't mean that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas.
Climate science isn't an either/or field with opposing opinions. It's not politics, it's science.
As if the computer modelling could not get any worse because the IPCC have failed to take into account a multitude of variables!
Something else directly related to an increase in Europes temperature that the less hysterical Green Fundementalists might consider enjoy the article here:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/eur ... -2,00.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/eur ... 08,00.html
"Cleaner Air Means a Warmer Europe
By Volker Mrasek
Part 2: "Our Findings Contradict the IPCC"
"Sulfate particles not only minimize the transfer of solar radiation directly, they also encourage the accumulation of water droplets and clouds in the atmosphere -- which in turn creates a second, indirect form of radiation repellent, because the light-colored surface of clouds reflects sunlight. This is where it gets complicated, though. In the landmark report issued last year by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the United Nations organization stated that questions persist about the effect that sulfate aerosols have on the atmosphere.
"Our findings contradict the IPCC," said Rolf Philipona of MeteoSwiss, Switzerland's national weather service. He and his colleague Christian Ruckstuhl, who now works as a researcher in California, analyzed data from 25 weather stations in northern Germany and eight in Switzerland. "
And yes folks I am all for reducing air pollution unlike the Minister for the Enviroment who is encouraging it by promoting Diesel
Amazing use of an argument which runs against yours. Two things:
First off, sceptics often ask why there wasn't warming in the early 20th century. One of the reasons for this is the large industrial output of sulphates from that time. That reason is often rejected by climate change sceptics, yet you seem happy to take the cooling effects of sulphates here.
Secondly, the report does say something about climate change - that it's happening. There are, as had been said hundreds of times, a variety of ways in which the climate is affected. One is carbon in the atmosphere, others include sulphates and solar activity. What this report shows is that a lack of sulphates has led to a faster rate of warming in Europe than in other areas (which are also warming). This in no way impacts on the climate change theory, and you've failed to show how you think it does. (Incidentally, the report doesn't "contradict the IPCC" (that's a headline grabber). What the IPCC said was that there are serious questions about the impact of sulphates on climate. Those questions have now, to an extent, been answered. No contradiction.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"The sunspotprediction should now stand close to 100. instead it stands close to zero."
That statment is wrong. 2005-2008 is sun spot minimum for the sun under its 17 year solar cycle.
I am a soldier, convinced that I am acting on behalf of soldiers.
Siegfried Sassoon
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote