'No Sun link' to climate change

[jayfish]

Source: BBC

A new scientific study concludes that changes in the Sun's output cannot be causing modern-day climate change.

It shows that for the last 20 years, the Sun's output has declined, yet temperatures on Earth have risen.

It also shows that modern temperatures are not determined by the Sun's effect on cosmic rays, as has been claimed.

Writing in the Royal Society's journal Proceedings A, the researchers say cosmic rays may have affected climate in the past, but not the present.

"This should settle the debate," said Mike Lockwood, from the UK's Rutherford-Appleton Laboratory, who carried out the new analysis together with Claus Froehlich from the World Radiation Center in Switzerland.

Read more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6290228.stm

---

Something tells me this won't end the debate though. The Flat-Earthers will come up with another reason why humans are not contributing to climate change.

Jay

[Drunken Irishman]

1. Of course it won't.

I bet Mike Lockwood is paid by the damn left-wing, tree hugging environmentalists. And the Ruther-Appleton Laboratory? Ran from the basement of Buckingham Palace under the supervision of that commie pinko Queen.

[jayfish]

3. I'm Gonna Go With...

Lunar radiation of sunlight. The moon does seem more shiny than I remember. :rofl:

Jay

[loser_user]

2. At least for now anyways

The sun goes in cycles doesn't it? So does that mean when it's output starts rising again we're screwed?

If I'm way off base here, could someone please explain it me?

[FogerRox]

15. Global warming effects the lower atmosphere, marginally the sun would heat the upper

atmosphere, IMHO.

To answer your question, I dont think so.

[drm604]

4. This won't settle the debate.

"This should settle the debate," said Mike Lockwood, from the UK's Rutherford-Appleton Laboratory, who carried out the new analysis together with Claus Froehlich from the World Radiation Center in Switzerland.

This won't settle the debate. There are too many special interests that don't want it settled. They weren't debating it based on science anyway, so new science won't shut them up.

[immoderate]

5. You're right about the debate...

I had this discussion with my friend's son-in-law, a devoted ditto-head. After I reviewed the science, the peer reviewed studies, the consensus of world climatologists, etc., he declared, "The point is moot, because I don't know." You see, in his mind, argument is suspended if he is shown to be ignorant on a subject. He once said to me, "It's not fair, you read books."

--IMM

[redqueen]

26. "It's not fair, you read books."

*sigh*

:banghead:

[fujiyama]

29. "It's not fair, you read books."

LOL, best line ever. Sounds like a dittohead alright.

[jayfish]

33. Just A Reminder That “Reality has a well-known liberal bias.” -NT-

Jay

[Orsino]

6. Must be the Moon, then.

Since Jesus says it can't be due to petroleum combustion.

[Benhurst]

7. Why does Mike Lockwood hate Jesus and the United States?

[progressoid]

8. Doesn't matter. Bortz told me it's because they measure the temperature wrong.

Sometimes they have the thermometer right next to an air conditioner. Really! So the data is all wrong. Bortz said so.

[Yavin4]

11. If People Are Stupid Enough To Believe Neil Bortz

Then I say fuck it and let the planet go. The earth is better off without us on it.

[RedEarth]

9. I'm sure Exxon has an answer to all this foolishness

[Dave From Canada]

10. I hate that anyone calls new and evolving science flat-earth. Seems close-minded.

Like this...

<a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/11/warm11.xml"
target="_blank">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/11/warm11.xml</a>

Or this...

<a href="http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=597d0677-2a05-47b4-b34f-b84068db11f4&p=4"
target="_blank">http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=597d0677-2a05-47b4-b34f-b84068db11f4&p=4</a>

In a way, you're acting just like the flat-earthers when you do that.

[Chulanowa]

12. "Cosmic Rays," huh?

Man those pesky things cause all sorts of trouble!

[unpossibles]

13. I agree. Yet they don't seem to grasp the irony of that either

how they're the ones defending outdated thinking based on pure nothing.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

17. Um, they didn't just call it flat-earth.

They debunked it in a new scientific paper. Aren't you a bit close-minded for calling this new science that debunks the idea "flat-earthers."

You're whole argument strikes me as particularly ironic.

[PBS Poll-435]

28. Don't Preview the Posts, ...

It is just garbage old science.

Like matter can not be created nor destroyed....


<It has to go somewhere...right?>

[Yukari Yakumo]

14. What about precession? nt

[BadgerKid]

16. read these

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_ages

[Uncle Joe]

18. The way I understand it, Venus which has approximately the same

amount of carbon as the Earth, the difference being the Earth's is stored underground while Venus's carbon is in the atmosphere, and yet Venus is three times hotter than Mercury while Mercury is closer to the Sun. This seems to make a pretty strong case on carbon being the culprit to me.

[Sirveri]

19. This is bad. I actually thought that solar flux heated us a bit.

But if it's not doing anything... Then again they are doing a neutron count. I wonder what the gamma count is. It's curious, I wonder if we'll flash start an ice age, or if we'll simply boil to death. I am hoping for the ice age, I much prefer the cold to the heat.

[nam78_two]

20. K&R.nt

[Progressive_In_NC]

21. According to this article also from BBC solar activity does have some correlation

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3869753.stm


A new analysis shows that the Sun is more active now than it has been at anytime in the previous 1,000 years. Scientists based at the Institute for Astronomy in Zurich used ice cores from Greenland to construct a picture of our star's activity in the past.

They say that over the last century the number of sunspots rose at the same time that the Earth's climate became steadily warmer. The warming is being amplified by gases from fossil fuel burning, they argue.

......

In particular, it has been noted that between about 1645 and 1715, few sunspots were seen on the Sun's surface.

This period is called the Maunder Minimum after the English astronomer who studied it. It coincided with a spell of prolonged cold weather often referred to as the "Little Ice Age". Solar scientists strongly suspect there is a link between the two events - but the exact mechanism remains elusive.

Over the past few thousand years there is evidence of earlier Maunder-like coolings in the Earth's climate - indicated by tree-ring measurements that show slow growth due to prolonged cold.

[CGowen]

27. probably just a cock up, again n/t

[elocs]

22. Global dimming:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/

"New evidence that air pollution has masked the full impact of global warming suggests the world may soon face a heightened climate crisis."

A very interesting program on NOVA a year ago.

[Mojambo]

23. Alert! Alert! All Exxon hacks please report to your designated think tanks immediately. n/t

[WindRavenX]

24. Yikes. This REALLY makes global warming deniers look even more foolish.

If that's even possible, that is.

[CGowen]

25. If this hasn't something to do with Rothschild on Alex Jones

http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/090707_warming_jupiter_closer.html

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

30. humans are idiots.. all of us

like we need a reason to conserve

[Screwfly]

31. How do explain the recent warming of the planet Mars?

Here's an article from the National Geographic News about the warming of Mars.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

[jayfish]

32. Did You Read The Second Page Of Your Own Link?

"His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion," said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University.

"And they contradict the extensive evidence presented in the most recent IPCC report." (Related: "Global Warming 'Very Likely' Caused by Humans, World Climate Experts Say" .)

Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, added that "the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations."

Planets' Wobbles

The conventional theory is that climate changes on Mars can be explained primarily by small alterations in the planet's orbit and tilt, not by changes in the sun.

"Wobbles in the orbit of Mars are the main cause of its climate change in the current era," Oxford's Wilson explained. (Related: "Don't Blame Sun for Global Warming, Study Says" .)

All planets experience a few wobbles as they make their journey around the sun. Earth's wobbles are known as Milankovitch cycles and occur on time scales of between 20,000 and 100,000 years.

These fluctuations change the tilt of Earth's axis and its distance from the sun and are thought to be responsible for the waxing and waning of ice ages on Earth.

Mars and Earth wobble in different ways, and most scientists think it is pure coincidence that both planets are between ice ages right now.

"Mars has no moon, which makes its wobbles much larger, and hence the swings in climate are greater too," Wilson said.

Man, you guys are barely trying these days. I know it must be hard work.

Jay