backtop


Print 148 comment(s) - last by pvandyke.. on Jun 16 at 5:52 PM


Past studies have shown that sunspot numbers correspond to warming or cooling trends. The twentieth century has featured heightened activity, indicating a warming trend.  (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Solar activity has shown a major spike in the twentieth century, corresponding to global warming. This cyclic variation was acknowledged by a recent NASA study, which reviewed a great deal of past climate data.  (Source: Wikimedia Commons)
Report indicates solar cycle has been impacting Earth since the Industrial Revolution

Some researchers believe that the solar cycle influences global climate changes.  They attribute recent warming trends to cyclic variation.  Skeptics, though, argue that there's little hard evidence of a solar hand in recent climate changes.

Now, a new research report from a surprising source may help to lay this skepticism to rest.  A study from
NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland looking at climate data over the past century has concluded that solar variation has made a significant impact on the Earth's climate.  The report concludes that evidence for climate changes based on solar radiation can be traced back as far as the Industrial Revolution.

Past research has shown that the sun goes through eleven year cycles.  At the cycle's peak, solar activity occurring near sunspots is particularly intense, basking the Earth in solar heat.  According to Robert Cahalan, a climatologist at the Goddard Space Flight Center, "Right now, we are in between major ice ages, in a period that has been called the Holocene."

Thomas Woods, solar scientist at the University of Colorado in Boulder concludes, "The fluctuations in the solar cycle impacts Earth's global temperature by about 0.1 degree Celsius, slightly hotter during solar maximum and cooler during solar minimum.  The sun is currently at its minimum, and the next solar maximum is expected in 2012."

According to the study, during periods of solar quiet, 1,361 watts per square meter of solar energy reaches Earth's outermost atmosphere.  Periods of more intense activity brought 1.4 watts per square meter (0.1 percent) more energy.

While the NASA study acknowledged the sun's influence on warming and cooling patterns, it then went badly off the tracks.  Ignoring its own evidence, it returned to an argument that man had replaced the sun as the cause current warming patterns.  Like many studies, this conclusion was based less on hard data and more on questionable correlations and inaccurate modeling techniques.

The inconvertible fact, here is that even NASA's own study acknowledges that solar variation has caused climate change in the past.  And even the study's members, mostly ardent supports of AGW theory, acknowledge that the sun may play a significant role in future climate changes.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Math???
By docawolff on 6/4/2009 10:07:27 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Thomas Woods, solar scientist at the University of Colorado in Boulder concludes, "The fluctuations in the solar cycle impacts Earth's global temperature by about 0.1 degree Celsius, slightly hotter during solar maximum and cooler during solar minimum.


O.K., so that accounts for 0.1 degree Celsius. However, the global warming is 0.5 degrees Celsius (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Tem... So I don't understand where the report
quote:
...then went badly off the tracks. Ignoring its own evidence, ...
It sounds like they accounted for 20% of a global temperature rise with variable solar flux and the remaining 80% must come from other causes.

It appears this article's conclusion is not justified from the data. Perhaps, Mr. Andrews, you could add additional remarks to justify your conclusion?




RE: Math???
By Mitch101 on 6/4/2009 10:18:03 AM , Rating: 5
Maybe its not linear.

For instance if I give my wife $10.00 she manages to spend $50.00. But somehow she saved money.


RE: Math???
By Tsuwamono on 6/4/2009 12:04:27 PM , Rating: 1
I will give 100$ to anyone who can explain this one too me too...

I have the same problem. I told my wife she has 60$ to spend on groceries and she comes home with a bill of 78$ but she SAVED money. And I respond, well I'm not sure what kind of math you learnt in that catholic school but 78$ is 18$ MORE then 60$ not 18$ Less which is what I would consider saving money...


RE: Math???
By Cr0nJ0b on 6/4/2009 6:52:38 PM , Rating: 2
How's the couch holding up? I find that it really cramps my back up...


RE: Math???
By OrSin on 6/4/2009 7:54:30 PM , Rating: 4
The day I sleep on the couch is the day I set my bed on fire. You let a women kick you you out of bed then you got more issues then global warming. lol


RE: Math???
By quiksilvr on 6/6/2009 2:12:02 AM , Rating: 4
I wouldn't go as far as MURDER because of a fight, but I tend to agree. Just get a King sized bed and if you have a fight, make a wall of clothes between you.


RE: Math???
By Tsuwamono on 6/6/2009 2:15:52 AM , Rating: 1
As long as I'm the one paying the bills I will never be sleeping on the couch. If she has a problem with that well, she's welcome to find another place to stay while she is pissed off. :)

Be a man guys.. come on lol


RE: Math???
By dragunover on 6/8/2009 3:26:49 AM , Rating: 2
Is this before or after the registered customer and regular sales savings? There within might lay your issue. And 60 dollars? Seems a bit low, how many times do you and your wife go visit the grocery store.


RE: Math???
By overlandpark4me on 6/12/2009 8:25:46 PM , Rating: 2
Probably the same Cath school where the girls said they were virgins because they participated in only a certain kind of activity.


RE: Math???
By nstott on 6/4/09, Rating: 0
RE: Math???
By mandrews on 6/4/2009 10:33:15 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
O.K., so that accounts for 0.1 degree Celsius. However, the global warming is 0.5 degrees Celsius (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Tem... So I don't understand where the report


Your link is broken. As the study shows, past solar activity has led to approximately 0.1 degrees C variation. What the study fails to look at is the fact that solar activity increased dramatically over twentieth century. This increase could easily account for the larger variation.

The useful thing about the study is it establish a benchmark for past activity, which can be used to explain current activity.

Notably, this would explain the cooler spell we have been experiencing over the past couple years, as solar activity has dropped, somewhat. AGW theory, which the study falls back on, cannot explain such trends.


RE: Math???
By mandrews on 6/4/2009 10:49:39 AM , Rating: 4
By the way, this is an ongoing study, carried out with the help of the Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE) satellite program.

Here's a link to SORCE and its data.

http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/index.htm

Some more useful reading on the recent cooling trends:
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/so...
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2008_tem...


RE: Math???
By goz314 on 6/4/2009 1:05:57 PM , Rating: 5
Some of the data from that ongoing study by NASA seems to contradict the very general conclusion you offer in your article. For example, last year's solar minimum was the lowest in decades constituting a 50 year low in solar wind pressure, a 12 year low in solar irradiance, and a 55 year low in solar radio emissions, but the average global temperature for 2008 was the eighth warmest on record.

So, yes there is a very real correlation between solar activity and temperature - that statement is obvious. However, the same arguement can't be used to discount anthopegenic global warming theories. They are separate variables and phenomena altogether.

Here's a link to recent SOHO data about solar activity in 2008:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/01apr_deep...

... and here's a link to NOAA's report on average global temperature in 2008.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090113_...


RE: Math???
By omgwtf8888 on 6/8/2009 12:43:48 PM , Rating: 2
This tends to make sense of both the Solar and greenhouse variables. The increase of greenhouse gases would serve as a insulator which would tend maintain temperatures during solar dips. When we experience solar increases this would drive temperatures up. Strange thought is that we probably need to find out how to balance greenhouse/atmospheric conditions to reduce future ice ages from occuring. I think we need to get vanities out of the science and get more facts driving the research. Of course who get their hands on the world's thermostat will be an interesting question. I could see several countries that will be happy with a bit more sea lanes open in the north. While several countries might end up under water.


RE: Math???
By reader1 on 6/4/09, Rating: 0
RE: Math???
By JasonMick (blog) on 6/4/2009 11:59:02 AM , Rating: 1
One year doesn't prove anything. The general trend is that the earth is warming, like it or not, Mike.

Just because solar activity increased in the twentieth century doesn't mean that it increased enough to transform 0.1 degrees into 0.5 degrees.

Also, regardless of this ongoing study you use, there's been numerous studies by NASA in the last year taking the opposite stance:
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/asian_fi...
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/ozone_re...
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/warming_...
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/arctic_t...

To name just a few...


RE: Math???
By mandrews on 6/4/2009 12:06:51 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
One year doesn't prove anything. The general trend is that the earth is warming, like it or not, Mike.


But it does showcase a major flaw in AGW logic.

quote:

Also, regardless of this ongoing study you use, there's been numerous studies by NASA in the last year taking the opposite stance:


Come now, Jason, you and I both know that Goddard is notorious for publishing erroneous data and alarmist reports about disastrous affects of warming. Those reports you reference are largely bunk and tenuous conclusions.

Perhaps you should review the GISS's track record:
http://www.dailytech.com/Deja+Vu+All+Over+Again+Bl...
http://www.dailytech.com/Update+NASA+James+Hansen+...
http://www.dailytech.com/Blogger+Finds+Y2K+Bug+in+...


RE: Math???
By rs1 on 6/4/2009 3:17:38 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
But it does showcase a major flaw in AGW logic.


What are you talking about? Unless you're saying that "AGW logic" asserts that "humans are the only factor contributing to global warming", then the fact that solar activity accounts for minor fluctuations from one year to the next doesn't showcase a flaw in anything.

But yes, if there are really people out there who think that the warming trend is caused *only* by people, then they are being no more intelligent than the ones who would assert that global warming is caused *only* by changes in the solar cycle, or *only* by the will of god, or whatever. There are many factors all in play at the same time, and the fact that one thing influences global warming doesn't mean that other things don't, as well.


RE: Math???
By croc on 6/4/2009 9:15:03 PM , Rating: 2
"Come now, Jason, you and I both know that Goddard is notorious for publishing erroneous data and alarmist reports about disastrous affects of warming. Those reports you reference are largely bunk and tenuous conclusions."

Jason cites reports from Goddard. You pooh-pooh those reports, yet publish ANOTHER report from Goddard? What makes this report less 'bunk and tenous' than the previous? Is it the fact that YOU blogged on it?

Michael, you can call a leopard an elephant if you want, but you can't change it's spots.


RE: Math???
By tallcool1 on 6/4/2009 12:20:13 PM , Rating: 2
This would be a good topic for Michael Asher, I have not seen a post from him in a long time, what is his status?


RE: Math???
By deanx0r on 6/4/2009 12:43:28 PM , Rating: 3
I think that's him right here. He has the same writing style in blogs, articles or posts as Asher.


RE: Math???
By randomly on 6/4/2009 12:59:31 PM , Rating: 2
I miss Asher. He was always good for a reality check against bandwagon reporting and sensationalism. DailyTech has gotten too bland and one sided without him.


RE: Math???
By reader1 on 6/4/09, Rating: 0
RE: Math???
By slunkius on 6/5/2009 5:40:55 AM , Rating: 2
yeah, and how about his promise to "eat crow":
quote:
Better than that-- if a year goes by, and my predictions have turned out false, I'll eat crow and post a lengthy reversal

anybody seed him do that? or is his disappearance somehow connected to this?


RE: Math???
By BBeltrami on 6/4/2009 2:33:01 PM , Rating: 2
After the George Will fiasco in January? Federal witness and relocation program.


RE: Math???
By karkas on 6/5/09, Rating: 0
RE: Math???
By tastyratz on 6/4/2009 12:33:51 PM , Rating: 5
And chicken little is the mascott.

Just as there are articles for warming there are ones for cooling.
http://www.dailytech.com/Sea+Ice+Growing+at+Fastes...
http://www.dailytech.com/Arctic+Sees+Massive+Gain+...
even here.

Humans need to stop being so self important and think we matter enough to cause it. Every time I fart I don't release enough methane to kill a square foot of crops in Ethiopia, so I don't have to hold it.

The earth has done this for millions of years before us and will continue to do so for millions of years after were gone. We aren't a drop in the toilet for global warming and we cant do a damn thing about it.

Ground level pollutants will kill us long before we ever die from man induced "global warming"


RE: Math???
By knutjb on 6/5/09, Rating: 0
RE: Math???
By rs1 on 6/4/2009 3:11:38 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
s the study shows, past solar activity has led to approximately 0.1 degrees C variation. What the study fails to look at is the fact that solar activity increased dramatically over twentieth century. This increase could easily account for the larger variation.


Way to let your personal bias on the issue ruin your ability to pay attention to the data they presented. What they said was that the difference in global temperatures between the solar maxima and the solar minima is 0.1 degrees. The "maxima" and "minima" refer to the solar cycle, which repeats itself roughly every 9-14 years. We're currently at a minima, and the next maxima is due in 2012, which means that if you compare the average global temperature in 2012 to the average global temperature in 2009, then you should expect to see 0.1 degree of warming attributable to the solar cycle. Any other warming observed during that timespan would be from other sources.

Essentially, if the solar cycle were the only influence on average global temperatures, then what we should see if we graph the average temperature is a sine wave. Even accounting for the increase in sunspot activity, where if you ignore the very inaccurate "best fit line" you can readily see that while the maxima has slightly increased, the minima has stayed about the same, all you would expect to see is a sine wave with slightly increasing amplitude towards the end when graphing average temperatures. What you will see if you actually do graph the data, however, is what appears to be roughly a sine-wave pattern that decided to start slanting upwards around 1920 or so. That sudden upward slant is inconsistent with the pattern generated by the solar cycle, and most likely is caused by other factors.

So no, the study and the data in no way imply that the solar cycle is somehow the primary culprit for the global warming trend. Even if you go ahead and ignore the fact that the best fit line is meaningless when plotted against a naturally periodical dataset like the number of sunspots, and pretend like the average number of sunspots has increased, it's still not sufficient to account for the kind of warming seen. The temperature delta between a minima and a maxima is 0.1 degrees, and the sunspot delta between the same is roughly 100. So the average would have to increase by 100 sunspots for every 0.1 degree of observed warming, for solar activity to be the primary culprit. However, global temperatures have risen about 0.9 degrees between 1920 and the present day, while the "average" number of sunspots has increased by only about 35. It should be clear to anyone who hasn't prejudged the issue that the meager increase in the average number of sunspots is wholly insufficient to account for the increase in temperatures seen. Clearly there must be other factors at work.

If you're going to post things that masquerade as legitimate news articles, then please show some semblance of journalistic integrity, and keep your personal biases in check.

The title you chose for your post is misleading as well. The study doesn't discount man as a possible culprit, nor does it assert that the solar cycle is the only culprit. All it says is that the solar cycle, among other things, contributes to the warming trend. And anyone who's not a complete zealot for one side or the other should have already known that. Global warming is a complicated process, and is not caused by any one single thing.


RE: Math???
By msomeoneelsez on 6/5/2009 12:36:20 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
What you will see if you actually do graph the data, however, is what appears to be roughly a sine-wave pattern that decided to start slanting upwards around 1920 or so.


I think you are referring to the United States inflation rate... stop mixing up your graphs!


RE: Math???
By knutjb on 6/5/2009 7:24:31 PM , Rating: 1
Without satellites placed between the sun and earth its very hard to know exactly how much energy and where. I have heard astrophysicists theorize the melting on the north vs ice growth in the south is due to how the energy hits the planet. They were poo poo'd by the GW crowd as foolish and not able to understand the problem. Also averages can be misleading. The similar increase in temperature of nearby planets is a correlation that needs to be reconciled. And while there may a solar cycle how many many weathermen can predict the weather reliably? Same goes for predicting the Sun.

Those who believe there is a consensus that global warming is solely human caused have their heads buried deep in the sand.

As for the curious release of this information, I have read government accident reports that were written in such a way as to absolve a pilot of responsibility for a crash citing failure of equipment in the summary, the same equipment that was turned off by the pilot in flight causing the accident. This reads much like that with cherry picked numbers. The head of NASA's climate section is known for his GW drum beating. Scientist can be caught up in the data and become unable to see the forest through the trees, i.e. stuck on old conclusions as fact when newer data places doubt on or proves it's outright wrong. Global warming theory, is just that, a theory, it's not fact.

Be careful of those who mark the bulls eye over the data.


RE: Math???
By ironargonaut on 6/8/2009 3:21:15 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
all you would expect to see is a sine wave with slightly increasing amplitude towards the end when graphing average temperatures.


Using this logic the sun could never cause the global temperature to drop below 0.1C from a certain point. Since, the minima is almost always the same that means any change from one minima to the next must be from man, according to you. If that is the case how do you explain the Maunder Minimum. Using your theory the temperature should not have changed by more then 0.1C. Unless, somehow man was causing the cooling. The more likely scenario which you completely ignore is that the effect is cumalative. That is many low maxima cause eventual cooling trend and many high maxima cause a rising trend in surface energy. Temp is a piss poor measurement to begin with. Energy is the real measurement.

quote:
So the average would have to increase by 100 sunspots for every 0.1 degree of observed warming, for solar activity to be the primary culprit.


Why? Where is it written this must happen? You claim to comprehend that global warming is complex. Yet you take too sets of numbers that are purported cause and effect and since their relationship is not linear you claim one couldn't be the primary influence on the other.

It is you who is trying to BS people. I agree with the author that NASA AGW supporters acknowledging the relationship between sunspots and GW is significant. A sunspot is a visible manifestation of a solar phenomea. It is binary, while the phenomina is variable. Using sunspots is like a deaf man using a lightbulb to measure a radio stations effect. You know when it was on and for how long. But, you don't know what song was being broadcast and what the strength of the signal was. All you can measure is the overall increase in human energy when the bulb is on more frequently.


RE: Math???
By hlper on 6/4/2009 10:43:34 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
then went badly off the tracks. Ignoring its own evidence


I just cannot stand the number of unqualified people willing to judge these scientific papers. The fact is that this global climate change is so multifactorial that science is never going to prove anything is 100%. This means for opponents of doing anything about it that they can always say we just don't know and from a biased perspective they are partially correct.

However, pick up any of the issues of Science or Nature in the last year and it is very likely you will see more articles providing evidence that we have more evidence that we are very likely having a significant impact on the climate. As a graduate student, I read these regularly and haven't seen one article that says there is no human influence on the environment. Scientists who actually know the evidence know that it's good enough to make it a much higher probability that we are influencing climate than not. But why worry, we can just wait until we know for sure, right? I don't have kids, but if you do think about the possibility of getting this question wrong. Read the literature and make up your own mind.


RE: Math???
By stilltrying on 6/4/2009 10:51:17 AM , Rating: 3
Why does carbon levels increase after the temperature increases not vice versa. If it was vice versa you would have a great arguement for man made global warming but since temperature increases precede CO2 increases then that would indicate the sun is more likely the reason for temperature increase.

yutoob - The Great Global Warming Swindle


RE: Math???
By hlper on 6/4/2009 2:32:37 PM , Rating: 4
Honestly, I knew I was wading into dangerous territory with my post. However, it's an important discussion so I dove in anyhow.

I only advocate being an informed consumer of information on this subject. So, I felt the need to make the point that the people doing the actual climate science are almost unanimous on the fact that we are having some impact on our climate. My other point is that we will never be able to completely tease apart the specific contributions of man vs. nature in the environment. The problem is that everyone has taken such an ideological stance on it that you cannot discuss the issue based on probability (as science does), only on certainty, which no one has.

The only people opposed to accepting some human contribution to climate change are those who are politicians, and those who believe them. Believe me, there is a huge push from powerful, lobbying interests out there to discredit the science, but the information they are feeding the American people is wrong.


RE: Math???
By jimbojimbo on 6/5/09, Rating: 0
RE: Math???
By hlper on 6/4/2009 3:34:41 PM , Rating: 4
So, I checked out the video, and it is exactly an example of what I am talking about. What about CO2? It's fair to say that CO2 has become the poster child of evil greenhouse gasses, but it's not the only one. What about sulphur dioxide, or methane? What about deforestation, which increases ground temperatures, or paving growing areas of land. What about changes in plankton populatons which act as CO2 sinks in the oceans. We can all cherry pick the literature and say, see you can't prove humans are doing anything bad, but that's not critical thinking.

And really, a YouTube video as an arguement? Nice production, I wonder who paid for it and why?


RE: Math???
By clovell on 6/4/2009 4:36:55 PM , Rating: 2
Then regulate sulfur dioxide and not the air I breath.

Wonder who paid for Al Gore's movies...


RE: Math???
By hlper on 6/4/2009 5:21:39 PM , Rating: 3
Spin and missinformation on both sides keeps us all from knowing what the truth is, if there is a truth to know.

And, I don't know who paid for Gore's stuff, but I bet they have something to gain from it too. Oh and environmentalists who want us all to give up civilization and head for the woods ;-)


RE: Math???
By Spuke on 6/4/2009 6:27:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Oh and environmentalists who want us all to give up civilization and head for the woods and be ruled by them ;-)
Fixed that.


RE: Math???
By karkas on 6/5/2009 7:44:52 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Nice production, I wonder who paid for it and why?


I think it was the BBC or another Gov't funded TV channel.


RE: Math???
By William Gaatjes on 6/6/2009 3:35:52 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Why does carbon levels increase after the temperature increases not vice versa.


Well, my view is that there is a timedelay. It is a chain of events and co2 is part of that chain. Since these effects take time afcourse you will see some delay. It is even possible there is something like a 180 degrees shift between activity on the sun and some increase of the amount of a particular chemical here on earth. What i am saying is that if something happens on the sun, we do not notice it immidiatetly because a whole chain of events has to occur before we see the effects on co2 levels.

I personally do not believe we are responsible for global warming. But we are however responsible for the pollution of our planet. And that is something we have to address or the lives of future generations of humans and all other life on this planet will have a serious problem.

I will give you an example : when oil companies drill for oil they usually find gas too. Gasses like propane, methane, ethane. They sometimes use these gasses as fuel for local refine processes. But usually the oil companies just let the gas burn off. This is called flaring.

Why you ask the oil companies do this ? Because the oil companies find it to costly to process and sell it and the oil companies just let the gas burn off. The other reason is that there will be to much of this gas for sale on the market driving prices and profits down. While keeping the gasses scarse, the oil companies protect their income.
Now this is the kind of mind set that is just plain wrong.

We are talking about millions of cubic meters of gas that is just burned into the atmosphere. This gas can be used for various chemical processes to create plastics but we can also use it as fuel. There are many applications for these gasses. Now this is just NOT NORMAL !.

Unfortunately a real example of man made pollution.

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EX...


RE: Math???
By FITCamaro on 6/4/09, Rating: -1
RE: Math???
By erple2 on 6/4/2009 2:57:21 PM , Rating: 2
To be fair, the lions share of that debt your kids are saddled with started early in the previous administration's tenure.

quote:
And the fact is that we would probably arrive at commercially viable alternative energy for vehicles sooner and we WOULD have more, cleaner power if not for government interference


Is that a fact? Please cite credible references. Otherwise, it's just another blowhard opinion piece.

quote:
We get worse mileage due to ethanol and safety standards


Ethanol, I agree with. If ever there was a sham market that existed, it's the current method Ethanol is produced in this country. Maybe we could do better with non-food based Ethanol. Well, that and the Hydrogen Fuel Cell nonsense. Safety standards cost weight. If you're then equating heavier vehicles with worse mileage, then why do you complain about

quote:
All we can do is build tiny cars


Tiny cars weigh less, and all other things being equal, are more efficient. Therefore, one effective way to reduce gasoline consumption is to all drive smaller cars. It's that simple. Also, technically we can do the same with less if we buy the smallest automobiles that fit our needs (not our wants).


RE: Math???
By callmeroy on 6/4/2009 4:08:32 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
To be fair, the lions share of that debt your kids are saddled with started early in the previous administration's tenure.


I'd like to know your explaination for the quote above...

Some figures:

Obama as of 3/30/09 - has so far spent(*) 2.2 Trillion (*) = 1.2 t in bailouts , 800 b in TARP funds, 600 b budget allocations

The main thing people pin on Bush is the cost of the Iraq war --- I've heard people say that trillions been spent on the war....I'm not supporting the war or against it in this post -- that's not the point of this comment....but 860 billion was spent on the Iraq War up to this point in time (as of 4/09). A lot of money indeed but not HALF of what Obama has spent.

Now if you want to go back and show me that bush spent Trillions I'm sure the information is out there --- but remember.....Bush had 8 *YEARS* to be in office and spend.....Obama has passed 2 trillion in under 8 *MONTHS*.

Note: I really don't care who you blame....it doesn't change the fact that our kids will be saddled with the debt of today's bailouts.


RE: Math???
By callmeroy on 6/4/2009 4:10:36 PM , Rating: 2
Math error myself....makes it worse ---- Obama spent 2.6 not 2.2 trillion as of March.


RE: Math???
By OrSin on 6/4/2009 8:04:58 PM , Rating: 4
Yes huge math errors. Obama spend 37 billon of the tarp money bush spent 400 billion of it. Obama programs are set to spend .9 trillion but have only spent $110 billion so far. That means bush spend over $400 in his last 6 months and Obama has spend less then $150 in only 6 months. And have not even added in the Iraq war that is project to cost tax payers 3-5 trillion.

Damn people can really pervert numbers.


RE: Math???
By theapparition on 6/4/2009 8:16:51 PM , Rating: 2
If you really want to get technical, the president can't spend a dime.
However, you can point a finger square at Congress. And Congressional Democrats are to blame.


RE: Math???
By jimbojimbo on 6/5/2009 2:20:03 PM , Rating: 2
And all those suckers that voted all of them in.


RE: Math???
By Triple Omega on 6/4/2009 8:12:37 PM , Rating: 3
But your only comparing money spending now and not damages done. That's like complaining Guy A is spending so much on car-repairs while Guy B is the one who made all the dents and scratches. The money wasn't lost when Guy A spent it on repairs, but when Guy B drove into those trees.

Meaning, you can't blame Obama for the damage control he has to do. After all, he got dropped in the middle of it all and wasn't the cause of it. You can however question his optional spending on things like future technologies, but that isn't the bulk of his spending.


RE: Math???
By FITCamaro on 6/5/2009 6:24:02 AM , Rating: 1
I'm guessing you just watch CNN and MSLSD and drink it all in. Obama did not HAVE to support spending trillions. He wanted to. Our country would be far better off if absolutely nothing was done and the markets were just allowed to correct themselves over time naturally. That doesn't excuse Bush's actions either but one mistake does not mean another even larger one has to be made.


RE: Math???
By ironargonaut on 6/8/2009 12:58:40 PM , Rating: 2
Obama was a member of Congress. Obama supported Freddie Mae and Fannie Mac and the lax regulation thereof. If Obama is not the cause then neither is anyone else.

Using your analogy Guy A bought the drinks for Guy B and encouraged him to race but since Guy B was driving, Guy A holds no responsibility according to you.


RE: Math???
By William Gaatjes on 6/6/2009 4:18:49 AM , Rating: 2
Even if the numbers you use are true, do you really think that the aftermath from that war does not cost the US any money ? People always think that events in time have hard stops and new events take place with a fresh new start. Cause and effect, events fade into eachother...


RE: Math???
By theapparition on 6/4/2009 4:48:23 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Also, technically we can do the same with less if we buy the smallest automobiles that fit our needs (not our wants).

And who do you propose regulates our needs?


RE: Math???
By Spuke on 6/4/2009 6:32:15 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
And who do you propose regulates our needs?
Why good folks like erple who only have our best interests at heart, or course. Can someone please explain to me what exactly is a need when most of what we own or want to own is a luxury? Which, for all intents and purposes, is a want?


RE: Math???
By hlper on 6/4/2009 3:38:30 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with you on the debt thing whole heartedly. It's depressing to see the current administration keep digging holes that exceed the wildest spending of any previous adminstration. Am I far more worried about it? Let's just say I would rather play it a little safer on both environmental and economic issues. Sooner or later they both may catch up to us.


RE: Math???
By clovell on 6/4/2009 4:37:45 PM , Rating: 2
Economic will do it faster.


RE: Math???
By Suntan on 6/8/2009 3:37:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm far more worried with the massive debt any children I have will be saddled with due to the current administrations massive spending


I’d be fine to trade twice his current defect if he would just sop telling my son that it is ok to be lazy and expect others to solve your problems for you.

I’m trying to teach my son that he should take responsibility for his own actions. I’m just glad he is too young to realize that his President, and other law makers, are constantly on TV telling him that it is his right as an American to feel betrayed because someone or some group is not helping him out of the messes that he has made either by his actions or his inactions.

Further, I’m glad that it is going over his head that his President is indirectly inferring that his daddy is a “bad guy” just because he prefers to work hard, save that money and use it to better his future life instead of “wanting” to give it out to every deadbeat and “interest group” that have nothing to offer society other than votes on election day.

-Suntan


RE: Math???
By BikeDude on 6/9/2009 8:08:11 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
We get worse mileage due to ethanol and safety standards.


I read an interview last year of Mr Bergström who is the CEO of GM Powertrain Sweden.

He states that the current generation of engines sees an increase of 30% consumption when switching from regular to E85. But the next generation sees only a 15% increase.

Diesel engines OTOH will become less efficient to decrease the emission of small particles.

E85 burns clean, diesel (or regular gasoline) does not.

Putting the same requirements for all types of fuel will balance out the differences in mileage.

Personally I think particle emissions is a bad thing and should be eliminated. Like so many here, I care less and less about CO2 emissions.


RE: Math???
By SeeManRun on 6/4/2009 11:00:06 AM , Rating: 2
Not to mention the solar cycle is a cycle every 11 years. Can't have continuous climate change if the temp goes up by .1 degrees and then down .1 degrees. That isn't change, it is called a season (even if it is the sun, it is more like a season)


RE: Math???
By killerroach on 6/4/2009 11:41:08 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
The fact is that this global climate change is so multifactorial that science is never going to prove anything is 100%.


Bullseye.

In my own field (economics), apart from basic identities of the trade (i.e. how GDP is defined), many of the potential behavior models that are being investigated are so complex that being able to explain even 30% of the variability with a mathematical model is often considered an outstanding result.

And a lot of economic models primarily just deal with human activity. Climate science, in one form or another, has to take into account the near entirety of all forces in the universe that could act upon the Earth. Being able to directly explain even 20% of variability to one factor, barring massive structural change (which, in the case of the Earth, isn't really going to happen), is quite significant.


RE: Math???
By Suntan on 6/8/2009 3:28:05 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
As a graduate student, I read these regularly...


Wow. A grad student, living in academia, that thinks they know the solution to life based on reading journals. How novel….

Sorry, but color me unimpressed. Come back and talk to us when you have had a chance to live in the real world for a little bit.

As a person that has made his living by dealing with the fallout of bad government mandates based upon these types of journal publications, let me say that anyone claiming they know what is really happening is trying to get published, nothing more.

quote:
I don't have kids, but if you do think about the possibility of getting this question wrong.


Ah the old classic: “The results would be so bad that it is worth doing something about no matter what the odds are that it might happen…” amped up by adding the old: "Won’t somebody think about the children!" bit.

By that logic all of us that have children should house them in bunkers at least a mile underground… …you know, there’s always a chance that a meteorite could land on them.

-Suntan


RE: Math???
By abzillah on 6/4/2009 12:26:52 PM , Rating: 2
homas Woods, solar scientist at the University of Colorado in Boulder concludes, "The fluctuations in the solar cycle impacts Earth's global temperature by about 0.1 degree Celsius, slightly hotter during solar maximum and cooler during solar minimum.

That is the yearly cycle difference between the maximum and minimum. As the number of sun spots increase, the more solar energy reaches Earth and also blasts cosmic rays form reaching earth to form clouds. With less clouds the earth will warm up.


RE: Math???
By MatthiasF on 6/4/2009 5:08:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
O.K., so that accounts for 0.1 degree Celsius. However, the global warming is 0.5 degrees Celsius (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Tem... So I don't understand where the report


You're not looking at data over the same scales. The graphic you show only goes back to the 1800s. This study goes back to 1400s. Almost all studies blaming humanity for the change specifically start their data at the Dalton Minimum.

The anomaly data is generated by comparison with an average over a specific amount of time. Most studies will disclose this period, like in the following graphic.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/glob...

In this graphic, they've taken the average temperature over 100 years between 1901-2000 and generated anomalies for each year. An anomaly is the difference between that year's mean temperature (a modeled calculation in itself) across the entire planet and the long term average (all of the modeled means added together and divided by total years).

Now look at the same data from the UK's Climate Research Unit.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

Why doesn't the data match up? Because the second graph is using a mean of temperatures from 1961-90. Thirty years, instead of 100.

There are numerous ways to skew the data to your liking and almost all types have been used by the fear-mongers. The fact remains that humanity does not put out enough greenhouse gases when compared to what the planet does through it's normal processes. Some studies even blame elevated levels of gas given off by the planet on the increase in human releases, providing yet another irrational "chicken or the egg" argument over symptoms instead of clarifying the cause.


RE: Math???
By jonodsparks on 6/5/2009 1:29:03 AM , Rating: 1
If weather and climate cannot be predicted accurately on the micro scale, how can it be accurate on the macro scale.

I have a few family members that are meteorologists and I asked them why can't the weather for a single city be accurately predicted from one day to the next. The answer I received was "there are just too many variables to account for." That is for one small city of 50,000 people.

When going to a global level, there are variables atmospheric density and pressure changes, axis wobble, gravitational eddies from the moon and other sources, etc. Most of these things can vary on a day to day basis with no real decernable pattern. So, they guess, or estimate by looking a past evidence and hoping that hundreds of conditions are exactly the same to draw some conclusion.

However, at this point, there is so much marketing clout behind the "Green" movement, that no one cares that equations and formulae haven't been updated in decades. It is hip and cool. It has been said that human arrogance has caused global warming. Isn't it just as arrogant to assume we are the only cause or that we can do anything to change it?

Yes, the climate is changing. And, yes, we may have played a SMALL part of it. But this planet is far to vast to be influenced by a single sector of mammals.


RE: Math???
By HotFoot on 6/5/2009 1:28:13 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
If weather and climate cannot be predicted accurately on the micro scale, how can it be accurate on the macro scale.


That's like saying Quantum Mechanics should have needed to be completely understood before Newton could have ever come to F = m*a.

I don't mean for my statement to infer anything about the climate change debate.


RE: Math???
By Spuke on 6/5/2009 2:49:12 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I don't mean for my statement to infer anything about the climate change debate.
Then why bother posting it?


RE: Math???
By HotFoot on 6/8/2009 1:45:10 PM , Rating: 3
It's just an invalid kind of argument structure I've seen a few times now and I just wanted to point out the problem with it with the example I gave above. I don't feel the need to tag on my own opinions about climate change to make this point.


RE: Math???
By monkeyman1140 on 6/5/2009 4:35:11 PM , Rating: 2
Nobody has taken into account earth's own magnetic field, which reverses itself on an erratic schedule. During these reverses, weather changes occur due to a dramatic weakening of the protective magnetic envelope that surrounds the earth. Polar shifts can last take up to 150 years to occur and we are due for another one.


RE: Math???
By gcrough on 6/5/2009 9:09:26 PM , Rating: 2
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/06...
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/06...

Could not get your link to work. The links above (if they work) are graphs of the warming reported by the two satellite-based global temperature measuring sites (RSS & UAH). One says total warming is .09 degrees the other .04 degrees. Both RSS & UAH released the May data within the last 48 hours. Unless you have other information it looks to me like .1 is BIGGER that the actual warming.


RE: Math???
By PotownHero on 6/7/2009 8:54:07 PM , Rating: 2
The 0.1 degree variation he is alluding refers to the variations during 11 year cycle not a longer trend.

If man and his C02 production were responsible for the "significant warming" of the planet during the last part of last century, how is it that the planet has been cooling in the new century. What's changed?

Aren't global warming alarmist really Natural Cycle Deniers?


RE: Math???
By SonnoS on 6/8/2009 2:26:41 PM , Rating: 2
I haven't been following this for too long, about the past three years seriously and six years as a hobby.

The rabbit hole goes as follows:
The green house gas that affects the planet's warming cycle the most during hot periods of the sun's cylce is actually water in gas form (vapor). Water molecules in "vapor" groups act like "reflectors" or even "amplifiers" depending upon what frequency and angle of intersection of the ray in question is.

For the most part, there has been a considerable increase in the upper-atmospheric water vapor layers that act like a prism as the light enters seperating the full spectrum light into various seperate bands of frequencies which in turn releases more UV radiation onto the earth's surface. Since UV bounces off of most surfaces unlike that of pure full spectrum light it then heads back up to the vapor heavy atmosphere and a larger percentage of the UV is bounced back down towards the surface.

At 0.1 degree change over time could create a cascading warming cycle and coupled with the additional green house gases we are emitting we then can add additional warming elements to the earth as a whole.

So, it wouldn't amaze me to see NASA falling back to the increased radiation from the Sun as being a major contributor to the raise in global warming as it isn't new knowledge that the sun goes through cycles.

Some interesting topics regarding this concept fall into the following categories:
------------------------------------------------- ---------
Theory that our solar system is actuall a Bi-Solar System. In this model, as the second sun to the system "got relatively closer" it would then create a gravitational strain on our sun and would create more solar activity and emissions. This theory also claims this additional sun is the cause behind additional "wobble" found within the local/known planets within this system.

Theory that we are passing through the "center plane" of our galaxy and how that could affect solar activity as we approach the "zero point plane". This, from what I have seen and found so far, isn't going to happen for awhile. However, there are those who believe the contrary. I don't take sides on this issue as my math skills and knowledge is too limited to have an opinion.

Radical theory that there is an additional (Planet X) planet that passes through our system every "#" of years. The only historical evidence from this is said to be pulled from the Summerian texts as well as the additional "wobble" theory behind the yet to be discovered reason behind an additional influencing external force that is adding a "wobble" to all planets' orbits.

There is also evidence and a group of scientists that believe the Al Gore camp didn't look at the full data from the ice core samples and that the carbon dioxide emissions didn't lead (wasn't the cause) to the raise in temperature, but rather the opposite in which the temperature raised and carbon dioxide emissions increased (which is supported by the additional water vapor and water vapor reflective properties theory previously described).
------------------------------------------------- ---------

So, the bottom line is that the planet is changing, and most of us (or at least those who can make a difference) are more concerned about local political matters as opposed to possibly much more concerning matters as "what will happen to this planet in 3 years, 10 years, 20 years?".

Speculation is cool and I love checking out sites like these, however I believe (trying not to bring too much politics into this) that until we can all realize that we are all "the same" and on "the same boat" and come to a "peaceful means of existance" with each other on this planet... truthfully it doesn't matter if we find the answer to something good or bad. We will always be more focused on our microcosmic world and never focused enough to prepare for something bad or take full advantage of something truly fantastic.

Our earth has cycles, the sun has cycles, our system has cycles, the galaxy has cycles, and many theories revolve around the universe having cycles... so the fact that NASA finally has confirmed that the Sun is not a constant and does change in a cyclical fashion should not create speculation as to whether the current mathematical models work, but rather all of those of you who are brilliant with math and have probably way more knowledge than someone such as myself should possibly spend your free time not arguing what is possible based on what you learned in college, but perhaps spend time trying to figure out if it is even possible... and doing so by working outside the boundaries of what society has deemed "right and wrong".

Obviously, being and older person myself, the older folks on this planet don't know everything and many are stuck within their sociologically confined "boxes"...not to their own fault but more of a socially ingrained way of thinking.

So... yeah...I would say that our planet is receiving more radiation from the general direction of our sun relative to our planet's position... and yes it very well could, over time, create a cascading increase in total global temperature especially if we continue to add to the green house gas emissions...as all green house gas emissions at this point of the cycle of the sun will do nothing but help increase the global temperature which will only create more water vapor which, in turn, will continue to amplify raditation trapped within our atmosphere.


Theory
By Spivonious on 6/4/2009 9:55:59 AM , Rating: 5
Michael Andrews = Michael Asher?




RE: Theory
By acase on 6/4/2009 10:03:14 AM , Rating: 4
Yah, you are a couple days late on that one. Who are you, DailyTech?


RE: Theory
By arazok on 6/4/2009 10:11:58 AM , Rating: 2
Do we have an answer to the question? I haven’t seen anything from DT.


RE: Theory
By jskirwin on 6/4/2009 10:41:02 AM , Rating: 2
Hope so. I miss him... (sniff)


RE: Theory
By arazok on 6/4/2009 10:52:53 AM , Rating: 5
Seeing that MAndrews has posted follow-ups in this article since the question was raised, and the other articles with threads asking for clarification are still unanswered, I must conclude that DT doesn’t want to say.

I can’t fathom why. It’s kinda pissing me off. Are they just dicks? Is it too much to answer some basic questions about the people authoring this sites content?


RE: Theory
By kattanna on 6/4/2009 11:44:49 AM , Rating: 2
maybe cause they dont really want you to know that its just someone else posing as a masher type to bring in more page views.

LOL for all we know, its jason mick roleplaying someone who can do more then copy/paste and add inflammatory headline.


RE: Theory
By AssBall on 6/4/2009 11:53:35 AM , Rating: 1
Hahaha... Mick's roleplaying his own alter ego. Good stuff!


RE: Theory
By deanx0r on 6/4/2009 10:47:07 AM , Rating: 2
Do we have a definitive answer for Michael Asher? Maybe someone from DT staff can clear this for us. I really enjoyed his articles.


RE: Theory
By theflux on 6/4/2009 11:48:26 AM , Rating: 5
I sent messages to Michael Asher and Daily Tech regarding his status. I never got a reply. Maybe there was some kind of flap between them?

It is really irritating not knowing, he was my favorite Daily Tech poster.


RE: Theory
By GreenyMP on 6/4/2009 11:34:14 AM , Rating: 2
He got married and changed his name?


RE: Theory
By goz314 on 6/4/09, Rating: -1
Still not an excuse
By Fleeb on 6/4/2009 10:03:48 AM , Rating: 2
to continue wasting energy and wastefully utilize natural resources...




RE: Still not an excuse
By smackababy on 6/4/2009 10:04:19 AM , Rating: 5
Of course not. But we need something to shut Al Gore and those fanatical hippies up.


RE: Still not an excuse
By Iaiken on 6/4/2009 10:41:13 AM , Rating: 2
First of all, the articles linked to in this were released over a year ago.

This is hardly what I would call new and it hardly proves causality.

There are innumerous factors that play into the behavior of our climate from solar activity, orbital behavior, even plant coverage. It is as equally asinine to state that mankind is solely responsible for climate change as it is to say that we have no influence at all.


RE: Still not an excuse
By hlper on 6/4/2009 10:48:12 AM , Rating: 2
Thank you. You hit the nail on the head. No focused research paper is ever going to find the cause of a multifactorial problem, especially if it is as complex as global climate change.


RE: Still not an excuse
By clovell on 6/4/2009 4:33:39 PM , Rating: 2
No, it's not - because there won't be a single cause. there will be contributing factors, which, through modelling we will be able to quantify and interpret, and, if possible, change - if they are deemed as being significant enough to make a difference.

'It's Complicated!' is no reason to give up on science. We put a man on the moon, after all.


RE: Still not an excuse
By Iaiken on 6/4/2009 5:19:43 PM , Rating: 3
I wasn't saying that we should cease striving to understand climate change.

Merely that we do not, and that it is more complicated than direct causality. The problem lies in widespread misunderstanding and misinformation on the issue.

Hell, when asked people what the principle greenhouse gas was, the vast majority said CO2. The correct answer? Water vapor.


RE: Still not an excuse
By Hvordan on 6/4/2009 8:33:43 PM , Rating: 2
...but water vapor is a function of temperature.

CO2 up => temperature up => water vapor up

This would be positive feedback.


RE: Still not an excuse
By HotFoot on 6/9/2009 12:27:15 PM , Rating: 2
CO2 is also a function of temperature, as warm liquids can hold less dissolved gases than cool liquids. If the ocean warms up, it will release CO2.

The whole water cycle is a a cooling mechanism for the planet, as the high-altitude vapour radiates infra-red light into space as it cools before condensing and falling back to Earth. Does this negative feedback equal or surpass the positive feedback of water vapour acting as a GHG? This is the problem the simulators face.

In my mind it's a miracle the whole Earth isn't in a permanent ice age or just permanently clouded over like Venus.


RE: Still not an excuse
By jskirwin on 6/4/2009 10:49:28 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
to continue wasting energy and wastefully utilize natural resources...


The effort that global warming alarmists are asking for will require trillions of dollars in actual expenses and lost GNP. It will require the expenditure of massive amounts of "natural resources" from cement used in the concrete footings of wind turbines to the water used to make solar cells. Conservation is a small part of the proposed efforts.

I think we had better be certain beyond a reasonable doubt that the "disease" we are proposing to "cure" actually exists.


RE: Still not an excuse
By corduroygt on 6/4/2009 11:32:01 AM , Rating: 2
Depends on what you call wasting. I wouldn't leave my lights on unnecessarily or have the A/C or heat blowing when I'm not home, but I used to drive a V8, and now I drive a SUV which is really not much more efficient, because I like the power and comfort. I wouldn't be able to buy either if I lived in europe and be forced to have a civic or a similar vehicle, since they would be taxed up the ass. I don't want the US turning into another Europe.


DT -- wake up! You're posting idiotic articles!
By Basilisk on 6/4/2009 11:15:15 AM , Rating: 5
Let's ignore that this "news item" is based on a year-old article in Science Daily; that SD article is cogent and reflects current science. The real issue is (a) it massively miss-represents the tone of that article and (b) it's hard to believe many of the readers posting here have taken the time to read the SD article or they wouldn't have posted their idiocies.

"NASA Study Acknowledges Solar Cycle, Not Man, Responsible for Past Warming." True... and an insane misdirection: the SD article writes
quote:
The sun has powered almost everything on Earth since life began, including its climate. ... Since the Industrial Revolution, however, new forces have begun to exert significant influence on Earth's climate.

The SD article states, throughout, that climate variations until the Industrial Revolution were largely dictated by solar cycles [ignoring inconvenient asteroids and volcanic upheavals], but since then, greenhouse gases have been accumulating and causing the significant global warming we've seen and project. So... the SD article does assert the role of solar cycles in PAST climate variations, but NOT for its cause of the much larger current one. It does acknowledge that solar cycles will add a .1 to .2 degree oscillation on the greenhouse warming.

Continuing in the SD article:
quote:
Unless we find a way to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases we put into the atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning, the solar influence is not expected to dominate climate change .

The SD article makes the repeated point that accumulating greenhouse gases are the dominant cause of the current .6 degree C rise. Michael Andrews creative reinterpretation of that article is unfair to the SD authors, miss-leading to the [all too lazy and biased] DT readers, and reflects an unprofessional quality that is all too common in DT articles.

It has reached a point where it is no longer wise [sane?] to post responses to DT articles without reading the "source" articles: DT is too frequently posting half-considered, little proof-read ditherings.




RE: DT -- wake up! You're posting idiotic articles!
By lunker on 6/4/2009 2:38:29 PM , Rating: 1
Dead on.

How this trash passes as a news story is beyond me. At this point, I'm starting to wonder if Michael Andrews/Asher is actually some kind of clever parody. His "news stories" are presented with so much bias that no self-respecting editor could possibly allow them to be posted unaltered.

The best part is that he's attracted a loyal following of people who actually buy everything he says. I can understand rallying behind someone who supports your point of view, but even fanatics have to have some kind of standards.


RE: DT -- wake up! You're posting idiotic articles!
By Spuke on 6/4/2009 4:43:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
but even fanatics have to have some kind of standards.
I think it's funny how when one person supports your viewpoint no matter how ridiculous then it's ok, but the alternate viewpoints and their supporters are fanatics, hate mongerers, and etc. Classic human hypocrisy.


RE: DT -- wake up! You're posting idiotic articles!
By lunker on 6/4/2009 5:54:03 PM , Rating: 1
If you read my comment carefully, you will note that I never mention having a specific viewpoint on this issue. As a scientist, I would generally tend to believe the side with the most compelling evidence. At the moment, proponents of anthropogenic global warming have the overwhelming advantage in that respect. However, I am fully open to evidence from both sides. In any case, my criticism was not leveled at the idea, but rather at the style of writing, which is undeniably biased. An article like this has no place on a site like daily tech. I would expect to see writing of this caliber on a 911-truther or creationist website. This type of writing reeks of desperation and only the hardest of fanatics would not be able to see through it, hence my comment. Classic human illiteracy on your part.


RE: DT -- wake up! You're posting idiotic articles!
By Spuke on 6/5/2009 11:37:29 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The best part is that he's attracted a loyal following of people who actually buy everything he says. I can understand rallying behind someone who supports your point of view, but even fanatics have to have some kind of standards.
And this statement is not taking a side? BTW, you don't actually have to say "I take a side" in order to take a side. Those that manipulate are very good at this tactic. If you truly were in the middle you would be careful not to alienate anyone when discussing hot topics by using words like fanatic. No illiteracy here, just pointing out your bias and hypocrisy.


By lunker on 6/6/2009 3:36:36 AM , Rating: 2
Let me try one last time to get across my idea. My criticism is of Andrews/Asher's writing style and appropriateness for this website. In what is supposed to be a news post , he dug up a year old study and interpreted something quite different from its actual conclusion. If this were a blog post or an editorial, he could ramble all he wants, and I would not care. However, this is supposed to be a news post on a tech website and it is neither news nor tech. As for your accusations of bias or taking a side on my part, let me point out that I am not making a news post, I am posting my opinion of one. If you don't know the difference between being biased and expressing an opinion, and the appropriateness of each, please go educate yourself on the difference. Also, a quick look at every single post you made in this thread and at a scattering of your 2500+ posts on this website reveals a very clear bias on your part. Those with heads made of glass should not throw stones.

Since you haven't actually been able to defend Andrews/Asher, I'm going to assume that you agree with me and move on.


By Spuke on 6/4/2009 4:40:20 PM , Rating: 2
You missed a few important parts.

quote:
Earth's climate depends on the delicate balance between incoming solar radiation, outgoing thermal radiation and the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Even small changes in these parameters can affect climate. Around 30 percent of the solar energy that strikes Earth is reflected back into space. Clouds, atmospheric aerosols, snow, ice, sand, ocean surface and even rooftops play a role in deflecting the incoming rays. The remaining 70 percent of solar energy is absorbed by land, ocean, and atmosphere. "Greenhouse gases block about 40 percent of outgoing thermal radiation that emanates from Earth," Woods said. The resulting imbalance between incoming solar radiation and outgoing thermal radiation will likely cause Earth to heat up over the next century, accelerating the melting polar ice caps, causing sea levels to rise and increasing the probability of more violent global weather patterns.


Also,

quote:
Non-Human Influences on Climate Change Before the Industrial Age, the sun and volcanic eruptions were the major influences on Earth's climate change. Earth warmed and cooled in cycles. Major cool periods were ice ages, with the most recent ending about 11,000 years ago. "Right now, we are in between major ice ages, in a period that has been called the Holocene,” said Cahalan. “Over recent decades, however, we have moved into a human-dominated climate that some have termed the Anthropocene. The major change in Earth's climate is now really dominated by human activity, which has never happened before." The sun is relatively calm compared to other stars. "We don't know what the sun is going to do a hundred years from now," said Doug Rabin, a solar physicist at Goddard. "It could be considerably more active and therefore have more influence on Earth's climate." Or, it could be calmer, creating a cooler climate on Earth similar to what happened in the late 17th century. Almost no sunspots were observed on the sun's surface during the period from 1650 to 1715. This extended absence of solar activity may have been partly responsible for the Little Ice Age in Europe and may reflect cyclic or irregular changes in the sun's output over hundreds of years. During this period, winters in Europe were longer and colder by about 1 C than they are today. Since then, there seems to have been on average a slow increase in solar activity. Unless we find a way to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases we put into the atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning, the solar influence is not expected to dominate climate change. But the solar variations are expected to continue to modulate both warming and cooling trends at the level of 0.1 to 0.2 degrees Celsius (0.18 to 0.26 Fahrenheit) over many years.


Your quoting also leaves out important information.


New?????
By mattclary on 6/4/2009 10:26:17 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Now, a new research report from a surprising source may help to lay this skepticism to rest.


While you will rarely find a bigger AGW skeptic than myself, to refer to this as a "new" report is ridiculous. That article is from May of 2008 .




RE: New?????
By reader1 on 6/4/09, Rating: 0
RE: New?????
By General Disturbance on 6/4/2009 10:26:13 PM , Rating: 3
You are a pathetic, disgusting human being.

Base all your viewpoints upon someone else's without thinking for yourself much?


Did the author actually read the article?
By zixin on 6/4/2009 2:52:34 PM , Rating: 1
Did the author actually read the article that he is so freely quoting from? Here is a little quote from the very first two paragraphs.

"The sun has powered almost everything on Earth since life began, including its climate. The sun also delivers an annual and seasonal impact, changing the character of each hemisphere as Earth's orientation shifts through the year. Since the Industrial Revolution, however, new forces have begun to exert significant influence on Earth's climate.

"For the last 20 to 30 years, we believe greenhouse gases have been the dominant influence on recent climate change," said Robert Cahalan, climatologist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md."

And for those of you worry about the math,

"Over the past century, Earth's average temperature has increased by approximately 0.6 degrees Celsius (1.1 degrees Fahrenheit). Solar heating accounts for about 0.15 C, or 25 percent, of this change, according to computer modeling results published by NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies researcher David Rind in 2004"

This is blatant mis-representation of information.




RE: Did the author actually read the article?
By hydrata on 6/4/2009 3:43:27 PM , Rating: 3
I click on the DT global warming articles because I think I'm too classy for Jerry Springer, but I still enjoy watching adults squabble.


By HotFoot on 6/9/2009 1:49:05 PM , Rating: 3
Exactly. This is my soap-opera substitute.


By mdogs444 on 6/4/2009 9:45:20 AM , Rating: 1
How long till Obama and the IPCC petition to pull this study? This may start to hold ground against their socialistic Cap & Trade scheme...uh oh!




By ianken on 6/5/2009 3:56:08 PM , Rating: 2
Read the study newb. It in no way supports this articles outlandish claim that solar variance is solely responsible for climate change.

Science is hard. Particularly for wingnuts. I'm sure Jesus will fix it though. Right after he rides in on his dinosaur and makes more oil.


By lucasb on 6/13/2009 6:52:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Read the study newb. It in no way supports this articles outlandish claim that solar variance is solely responsible for climate change

This (specious cherry-picking) is a common feature of the denialosphere. Others are quote-mining, half-truths, bringing up irrelevant facts (e.g., CO2 is plant food, CO2 levels were way higher millions of years ago, etc), distortion of relevant facts, coming up with conspiracy theories (1) and other nonsense.
Some debunking of the ridiculous claims of this "article" (2, 3)
quote:
Science is hard. Particularly for wingnuts.

Couldn't agree more. The vast scientific illiteracy of Americans is exploited by unscrupulous pundits (i.e., shills) demanding "debate" and "fairness" to spew their carefully crafted talking points on mass media, sowing doubt on scientific findings (4, 5) Add hate radio spoon-feeding millions of people with soundbites based on scaremongering and you understand how the inherent uncertainty of science is leveraged by spin doctors acting as frontmen for powerful interests. So, if you don't come up with mathematical certainty (100% exactitude) you're accused of doing "junk science". Amazingly, when it comes to public health and the environment, you always find the contrarian talking points coming from the network of wingnuttery (6)

1- http://frankbi.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/agw-con...
2- http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/06/always_cli...
3- http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2009/06/05/oh-noe...
4- http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1978
5- http://www.defendingscience.org/Doubt_is_Their_Pro...
6- http://scienceblogs.com/framing-science/2008/06/ni...


OAH NO!
By FaceMaster on 6/4/09, Rating: 0
RE: OAH NO!
By acase on 6/4/2009 10:53:21 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
'And the Lord unleashed a plaque of locusts upon the land'


Eww gonna go brush my teeth now.


RE: OAH NO!
By FITCamaro on 6/4/2009 10:56:25 AM , Rating: 3
At least spell "stupid" right.


No no no
By drank12quartsstrohsbeer on 6/4/2009 10:07:41 AM , Rating: 2
I was taught in school that the sun will burn exactly the same for another 5 billion years. So this theory cannot be right. Therefore it must be due to man or some alien species who want to harvest us for food.




RE: No no no
By acase on 6/4/2009 10:10:49 AM , Rating: 2
that's a lot of Stroh's


climate, hibbyhorse
By mwnl on 6/4/2009 10:12:52 AM , Rating: 2
"Ignoring its own evidence, it returned to an argument that man had replaced the sun as the cause current warming patterns. Like many studies, this conclusion was based less on hard data and more on questionable correlations and inaccurate modeling techniques."

DT grasping at no climate change straws...tiresome hot air..




RE: climate, hibbyhorse
By djcameron on 6/4/2009 10:51:04 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think there's anyone here that doesn't believe we are going through some climate change. The debate is about whether or not humanity is responsible, and whether or not humanity can do anything about it.


C'mon, Anandtech
By donjuancarlos on 6/4/2009 10:26:24 AM , Rating: 2
I don't buy all the global warming mumbo jumbo, but even for me these articles are out-of-place and worded non-objectively. Let's keep the articles on computers, please.




RE: C'mon, Anandtech
By Darkk on 6/4/2009 10:30:38 AM , Rating: 2
Solor powered PCs?


Global Warming Eh?
By callmeroy on 6/5/2009 8:24:59 AM , Rating: 2
I have no elevator lift, no stage with a movie screen with fancy graphs --- I only have my life experience of where I live, work and play everyday. And based on that life experience --- I found it rather humorous with all the attention Global Warming gets these days to recount the last two summers around here (actually spring and summer) have been un-usually cool (some folks call it "mild"), do I mean cool like grab your jacket cool--- of course not stupid..I mean where its normally 95 in August, its in the upper 80's instead. You are still gonna break a sweat, still gonna feel "hot" --- but still its been cooler. Right now so far the end of May and the start of June around here -- averaging in the 60's...that's cool.

Yet, I'll state why , despite the humor it brings me, I do see some good in the global warming alarm --- it does make some folks conserve , recycle and clean up after themselves. I think you should do that automatically with no cause other then a sense of common decency but if global warming, however full of crap I think it is -- accomplishes that...then ok go Global Warming!




RE: Global Warming Eh?
By Spuke on 6/5/2009 11:30:01 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
it does make some folks conserve , recycle and clean up after themselves
If it was just that then I think most people would not care to be so passionate about the issue (either for or against). The problem is that government wants to tax US here and there because of this, whether you believe it or not. That's my problem and I think most others problems with it. We already have enough abused government bureaucracies that a ton of our money gets poured into. We don't want anymore!!!! Even Californians are fed up with their governments proposed extension and creation of yet more taxes was shot down by a significant margin.


magnetic fields ?
By William Gaatjes on 6/5/2009 1:16:46 PM , Rating: 2
If i understood correctly, every eleven years the magnetic field of the sun reverses polarity. How does this polarity reversel affect the magnetic field of the earth ? I would say if they where opposite or aligned in polarity some effect is bound to happen. Possible there is some electrical charge build up that changes as well. Since the weather system on our planet is highly affected by electrical charges would this not have some effect ? I wonder if there is research done about this. I am interested if anybody knows...




RE: magnetic fields ?
By William Gaatjes on 6/5/2009 1:23:19 PM , Rating: 2
I found something :

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/08110...

More information would be greatly appreciated tho...


Correction
By AnnihilatorX on 6/6/2009 7:16:38 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
1,361 watts per square meter of solar energy reaches Earth's outermost atmosphere. Periods of more intense activity brought 1.4 watts per square meter (0.1 percent) more energy.


1.4 Watts is 0.1% higher than 1361 Watts????




RE: Correction
By AnnihilatorX on 6/6/2009 8:00:32 AM , Rating: 2
oh my bad. I must have missed the "more"


"The Cloud Mystery" with Henrik Svensmark
By knutas on 6/7/2009 6:21:22 AM , Rating: 2
"The Cloud Mystery"

In this film, the UN climate consensus is seriously challenged - watch it, and judge for yourself. The duration of the documentary is 52 min. and is in 6 parts - called Cloud Mystery 1/6 - 6/6

Playlist:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKoUwttE0BA&feature...

( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKoUwttE0BA )

There is no man made global warming - wake up.




By William Gaatjes on 6/7/2009 9:12:28 AM , Rating: 2
Fascinating documentary, ever since i read an article about energetic cosmic rays and the finding that cosmic rays can penetrate nad pass through everything.

I also think that cosmic rays are responsible for sudden jumps in evolution. That and the findings that every 8 minutes somewhere on the planet a magnetic corridor is established between the sun and the earth opens up very interesting possibilities.

I am very interested in the experiment that scientist explained about a chamber with waterdroplets that show cosimic rays passing through.


who woulda thunk it?
By smackababy on 6/4/2009 9:49:52 AM , Rating: 3
So, basically, someone, somwhere has figured out that the global climate warms and cools on a cycle? Who would have thought that after a few ice ages (that aren't still going on) that the average temperatures rise and fall without regard to human interaction? Someone call Al Gore, this environment he invented is turning out to be stranger than expected.




Solar Unknowns
By pityme on 6/4/2009 10:23:42 AM , Rating: 3
I have always thought the variations in solar source was a major factor. Look at the unknowns:

1. Energy bursts are perpendicular to sun surface but it is a sphere and Earth is a tiny dot in the distance.
2. The Sun has vast energy differences over its surface.
3. Our space based measurements are a very small patch of a small planet in the solar system. I.e. what are the energy density differences throughout the viewing volume of earth.
4. Our space based measurements have occurred over a brief period of solar history.
5. Earth based measurements are the pan evaporation method which believes that photon effects greatly influence the evaporation rate of water. There are many thousands of "farmers/others" who contribute data over maybe 200 years tops. Obviously, many other "factors" account for evaporation but it is a simple test that has widespread and long usage.
6. Several "field" based solar measurements (solar cell over an area) have been run over years (primarily Isreal) but from an Earth perspective this is an insignificant surface area.
7. What a spectral energy affects? I.e. in additon to photon energy, there are many components to the solar energy outburts. While the earth magnetic field does shield many of these particles, the earth mag field is not stable and is in a decline and possible north south switch phase.

When you seriously look at all of the factors which go just into the "solar heating" portion of any global warming/cooling discussion, I am amazed that any rational person can make a pro/con comment on the topic of human induced global warming. Way too many unknowns.
Also, the energy released by us humans is insignificant compared to the solar energy striking the earth. I will not even go into geothermal heating affects which again swamp human energy releases.




The Sun
By Botia on 6/4/2009 11:04:28 AM , Rating: 3
So what we're being told is that some huge ball of fire in the sky that is spewing radiation at us has some sort of effect on the climate on our planet? How absurd is that? Just try and tell our politicians that a huge fusion/fission reactor some 300,000 times larger than our planet is affecting us more than our car's gas efficiency.

Note: size comparison of sun based roughly on estimated mass of the sun and the earth. The earth being 5.9742x10^24kg. The sun being 1.988435x10^30kg. See http://www59.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=earth+sun for more details.




Repossesed?
By Mitch101 on 6/4/2009 10:14:57 AM , Rating: 1
Can we repossess Al Gores Nobel prize? If not can I get one for incorrect theories and convincing a bunch of people it exists? If not I guess we have to give one to Scientology then.




RE: Repossesed?
By jimbojimbo on 6/5/2009 2:55:57 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah, the Nobel prize lost all credibility by giving this one out. And how come nobody mentions they gave it to the whole team of dummies that made the movie, not just Al?


Validity of 100 year old data
By lpotterusa on 6/4/2009 5:27:36 PM , Rating: 2
A half of a degree is pretty small to rely on equipment 100 years ago and the location probably changed.
How do you consistantly compare the average temperature?




We're causing the sun spots!
By jimbojimbo on 6/5/2009 2:53:46 PM , Rating: 2
Don't you know? Burning fossil fuels and greenhouse gasses are causing the sun to burn hotter! Humans are causing the sun's rising activity! We're to blame!!

5 years from now, some idiot, failed, hypocritcal politican will make a film about how what I just said is true.




LOL. Journalism FAIL.
By ianken on 6/5/2009 3:51:56 PM , Rating: 2
This should be marked as an editorial.

JPL finds solar variance a factor in climate change == OMG it's not our faults!!111111ONE!!11.

JPL emphasises study only accounts for a small fraction of climate change == OMG!!1one!!11 JPL is of the rails!

Pathetic. So this author thinks he has the science skillz to go head to head with the best at JPL? That explains why he writes poorly reasoned editorials disguised as journalism on the Internet.




The Sun is now COOLING the Earth.
By ayat101 on 6/5/2009 5:09:25 PM , Rating: 2
The Sun is now experiencing its strongest flux MINIMUM for a few hundred years... and yet the temperatures are RISING. If it was not for the accidental help we are getting from the Sun, Earth would be getting even hotter... but this "help" is not going to last!

So, the conclusion is that something else is overiding the smaller contribbutions from the variations in the Sun.

This is a MISLEADING article.

I MASHER back? Or has someone taken over his sceptic role? ... but judging by how badly this other person is doing the job and his style of selectively picking information and reaching a conclusion opposite to the one by the scientists who RESEARCHED this same information... I think it is either a VERY GOOD parody... or Masher is indeed back :)




By The Historian on 6/5/2009 8:16:06 PM , Rating: 2
With a few trillion dollars to be made out of trading in the gas that constitutes 0.035% of the atmosphere, CO2, don't expect a mass awakening in the environmental movement any time soon. http://www.openyoureyesnews.com/?tag=climate-chang...




By AnnihilatorX on 6/6/2009 7:23:26 AM , Rating: 2
I don't know how much heating CO2 and Methane contributes, if anyone can shed a light on a figure of Joules/Year it would be great.

I did a calculation using Wikipedia on world's energy usage a year, and compared that to annual yearly energy received from the sun incident on earth, it worked out that human energy consumption which would ultimately result as heat, is 1/8000 of the energy received by sun. Now this is excluding greenhouse gas contribution as this is solely based on heat liberation by man.

I still believes green house effect since it is a proven effect of heating. The only debatable issue is how much. I would like to know how to calculate the amo unt of heating caused by say 1 gram of CO2 shone by sunlight.




AGW + other factors squared = NWO
By Stunned on 6/6/2009 10:28:24 AM , Rating: 2
BLAH, BLAH, BLAH!

I am not a scientist - I am a libertarian seeking the truth so I got here by accident.

Every scientific theory is moot.

If every scientist and tinkerer were left to individual economic benefit alone we would have research that actually benefited mankind. Bill Gates, Albert Einstein and Nicola Tesla come to mind, (James Hansen does not, TANG being the possible exception)

Instead of all this research on AGW with the only proposed solution being freedom crushing "cap & trade", why don't all you smart guys stop wasting time doing useless government funded research (the product of such research being more useless government research) and blogging about it and figure out how to deliver "cheap" renewable alternative energy that would elevate the prosperity of the world?

For instance, why does energy created by wind and solar cost 3-8 times as much as coal but it is being crammed down our throats and treated as an answer to AGW theory? Why are we making it impossible for existing technology for cheap, SAFE, environmentally sensitive (spare me) nuclear power to be available for our mutual prosperity?

Without going into greater detail you are all pawns in a larger game of Marxist global subjection with the
quote:
Text
elitists like Al Gore triangulating for position at the top along with the wizards behind the curtain at the CFR, IMF and World Bank. This nonsense just diverts your eye from the real ball.

You should be a hell of a lot more concerned with why our Marxist-fascist government has taken over our education, banking, insurance, auto and railroad industries and plotting to take over our energy and helathcare industries next.

You should be a hell of a lot more eoncerned with why our private Federal Reserve bank has devalued our currency and our good faith and credit around the world, is the buyer of last resort for our own bonds and institutes monetary policy and engages in contracts with other banks and nations without congressional oversight or audit.

Marxism is here along with a planned end of American sovereignty and you should be vigilant against it.

Otherwise dissent (blogging) on such fine subjects as AGW will be programmed out of existence in the New World Order.

Good-bye comrade and good luck!




Numerical Models
By drilloil on 6/6/2009 12:36:38 PM , Rating: 2
Atmospheric Numerical Models

The prediction of catastrophic global warming is largely based upon the projections of extremely complicated atmospheric models attempting to model the entire planet with equations and data relationships that at best are only marginally understood.

Atmospheric models divide the entire earth into a 3 dimensional grid blocks and find numerical solutions to partial differential equations that are created by calculating the relationship and effects of one block to each block around it. This is further complicated by the relationship of the grid blocks that are next to “phase changes” for want of a better term. The gaseous atmosphere block’s relationship that is in contact with the ocean (liquid phase) or land mass (solid phase) or the edge of space (no phase?) is at best poorly understood. Since a minor error effects the entire calculation of the model then if one relationship on energy exchange is in error then the entire model becomes suspect. To date none of the models that laymen often use to support their conclusion has been able to history match actual results. When the models are taken back to 1900 and actual data is input virtually every model predicts that current temperatures should be 4-6 degrees centigrade higher than we currently experience. The models are then manipulated changing the equations and relationships to force a match that may or may not have scientific reality. In short one model may change the energy from the sun to a lower level in order to reduce temperature in order to get a history match, then use the model with this error to project forward leaving the greenhouse effects of carbon dioxide the same, while it may be more logical to reduce the effect of CO2 to make the model history match. There are a myriad of relationships of this nature that can be adjusted in the models from changing the effect of cloud cover both a heat retention blanket or as a sunlight reflective agent. Minor changes in the equations can have a dramatic effect on the models predictions. In short, one can make these models predict anything the modeler wants and yet still appear to be reasonable, because the models are so complicated and the relationships between cells particularly at the phase transition boundaries are largely unknown.

If this isn’t complicated enough, throw in non-linear discontinuous variables such as volcanic eruptions, sunspot cycle variations, deforestation, re-forestation, etc and the models even if reasonably able to predict a linear progression now have no chance of being any thing close to reality.

Nevertheless, these model results are currently being used to scare the world into economic chaos under the presumption that they are reliable predictors of things to come. The people that apparently believe the predictions constantly find data to support their conclusion and ignore anything that doesn’t support their conclusion whether it matches the model or not. Then the model creator as stated previously adjusts the model to fit the data that makes sure to predict catastrophe.




Skeptics.
By overlandpark4me on 6/12/2009 8:23:30 PM , Rating: 2
"Skeptics, though, argue that there's little hard evidence of a solar hand in recent climate changes."

Thanks for making my point, skeptics can't back up their position either because no one knows. It's all money and political driven because they have nothing else they can stand on except perceived racism and "global climate change". GCC covers both sides with the cooling of the past 10 years wiping out their Global Warming argument. When I was a kid in the disco seventies, network news and "scientist" trumpeted how we would go in to an ice age soon if we didn't do something to warm things up. Congrats, it worked. Algore is worth 100 million now, so I guess someone is doing well.




Wow.
By pvandyke on 6/16/2009 5:52:15 PM , Rating: 2
I missed this the first time around. But after reading that report, your analysis of it is such a gross oversimplification of the data that it's almost immoral for you to post it.




How interesting!
By DeepBlue1975 on 6/4/2009 12:48:39 PM , Rating: 1
As soon as I read the headline, I thought "this article is Masher's"...

Pretty big was my surprise when I saw another Michael posting an article in the same lines he would.
I feel cheated. I never guessed wrong about any article posted by Masher, so I'm angry and want a reimburse or else I'll sue dailytech because they mislead me to think that someone else wrote the article.

PS: I'm almost sure in these days someone could actually take an argument as stupid as the one I said above, all the way to the court.




Man + Nature = Fail
By gamerk2 on 6/4/09, Rating: -1
RE: Man + Nature = Fail
By deanx0r on 6/4/2009 1:57:40 PM , Rating: 4
As far as CO2 being a greenhouse gas, it pales in comparison to the dominant one: water vapor (up to 95%). You also have to take for account of the natural CO2 emissions which far outweight man made CO2 emissions before you can factor in its potential greenhouse effect.

There is a correlation between CO2 levels and temperature, but not the way you think. Taking a closer look at the data, you will notice that temperatures rise first then are followed by CO2 levels. CO2 levels actually lag by a few hundred years due to the simple fact that oceans act like a sink for CO2. As temperature rises, oceans release more CO2 in the atmosphere, and it's a process that takes hundred of years because of the vastness of our water mass.


RE: Man + Nature = Fail
By Hvordan on 6/4/2009 8:28:55 PM , Rating: 1
Historically CO2 levels lag. The AGW point is that the current warming does not follow this pattern.

Water vapor is a greenhouse gas, it is however a function of temperature and therefore not considered climate forcing (and yes, the models do take this into account).


RE: Man + Nature = Fail
By clovell on 6/4/2009 4:35:02 PM , Rating: 3
No, there have been periods with far higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere than now. This is widely accepted.


RE: Man + Nature = Fail
By Grabo on 6/12/2009 4:27:09 PM , Rating: 2
Yep, and the knowledge is shy of worthless.

Do we know how your civilization would be impacted by higher co2 leves? No. Do we know co2 is a greenhouse gas? Yes.

Do we know that because levels of atmospheric co2 were higher before we were around, they aren't dangerous to us now?
No? So why do you people pretend?

It's the same old regurgitated arguments, it's like we can't learn as a species. And isn't that one of the prime wisdoms we've formulated? 'History is bound to repeat itself'? Although ironically, as mentioned, right now is somewhat unique, so don't argue with levels of atmospheric co2 of seven million years ago. We don't know what died then, we don't know how it'd effect us today, we didn't contribute to it then.

I mean come on.


"It looks like the iPhone 4 might be their Vista, and I'm okay with that." -- Microsoft COO Kevin Turner

Related Articles
















botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki