Gilligan wrote:

The consensus is getting bigger:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_ne...879862,00.html

From TFA:

"...the Earth will still be swamped by huge rises in global
temperatures, triggered by human activities, that will affect
the planet over the next few decades."

Where's the part about global warming not being real?

I really don't understand why you posted half a dozen links that all
refute your own argument.

//Walt

"Walt" wrote in message
...
Gilligan wrote:

The consensus is getting bigger:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_ne...879862,00.html

From TFA:

"...the Earth will still be swamped by huge rises in global
temperatures, triggered by human activities, that will affect
the planet over the next few decades."

Where's the part about global warming not being real?

I really don't understand why you posted half a dozen links that all
refute your own argument.


What is my argument?

Not one of any of the articles refute the fact that the sun warms the earth
and global warming is driven by the sun, climate change is driven by the
sun's output variability.

Are you aware that the greatest warming trend occured early in the last
century before greenhouse gas emissions greatly increased?

Are you aware that humans create less than 1% of all greenhouse gases, more
on the order of 0.28%, the same variability of the sun measured over the
last 17 years?


//Walt

More lockstep agreement:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...ixnewstop.html

The consensus grows and grows!!!!!!!!!

Gilligan wrote:

More lockstep agreement:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...ixnewstop.html

The consensus grows and grows!!!!!!!!!

From TFA:

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

Average global temperatures have increased by about 0.2 deg
Celsius over the past 20 years and are widely believed to be
responsible for new extremes in weather patterns."

Why do you think this article debunks global warming? It seems to state
quite plainly that it is a real phenomenon.

//Walt

"Walt" wrote in message
...
Gilligan wrote:

More lockstep agreement:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...ixnewstop.html

The consensus grows and grows!!!!!!!!!

From TFA:

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

Average global temperatures have increased by about 0.2 deg
Celsius over the past 20 years and are widely believed to be
responsible for new extremes in weather patterns."

Why do you think this article debunks global warming? It seems to state
quite plainly that it is a real phenomenon.

//Walt

With the right time scale one can show the earth is cooling. Or it depends
where the measurement is taken.

Oh those silly bloviators at NOAA!

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

Since our entire climate system is fundamentally driven by energy from the
sun, it stands to reason that if the sun's energy output were to change,
then so would the climate. Since the advent of space-borne measurements in
the late 1970s, solar output has indeed been shown to vary. There appears to
be confirmation of earlier suggestions of an 11 (and 22) year cycle of
irradiance. With only 20 years of reliable measurements however, it is
difficult to deduce a trend. But, from the short record we have so far, the
trend in solar irradiance is estimated at ~0.09 W/m2 compared to 0.4 W/m2
from well-mixed greenhouse gases. There are many indications that the sun
also has a longer-term variation which has potentially contributed to the
century-scale forcing to a greater degree. There is though, a great deal of
uncertainty in estimates of solar irradiance beyond what can be measured by
satellites, and still the contribution of direct solar irradiance forcing is
small compared to the greenhouse gas component. However, our understanding
of the indirect effects of changes in solar output and feedbacks in the
climate system is minimal. There is much need to refine our understanding of
key natural forcing mechanisms of the climate, including solar irradiance
changes, in order to reduce uncertainty in our projections of future climate
change.

In addition to changes in energy from the sun itself, the Earth's position
and orientation relative to the sun (our orbit) also varies slightly,
thereby bringing us closer and further away from the sun in predictable
cycles (called Milankovitch cycles). Variations in these cycles are believed
to be the cause of Earth's ice-ages (glacials). Particularly important for
the development of glacials is the radiation receipt at high northern
latitudes. Diminishing radiation at these latitudes during the summer months
would have enabled winter snow and ice cover to persist throughout the year,
eventually leading to a permanent snow- or icepack. While Milankovitch
cycles have tremendous value as a theory to explain ice-ages and long-term
changes in the climate, they are unlikely to have very much impact on the
decade-century timescale. Over several centuries, it may be possible to
observe the effect of these orbital parameters, however for the prediction
of climate change in the 21st century, these changes will be far less
important than radiative forcing from greenhouse gases.

Obviously oil company shills!!!!



If you don't agree with Walt you either:

a. Are a bloviator

b. Work for an oil company

c. Engage in pseudo science!

Gilligan wrote:

Oh those silly bloviators at NOAA!

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html


Again you post an article that undermines your argument:

"Is the climate warming? Yes. Global surface temperatures have
increased about 0.6°C (plus or minus 0.2°C) since the late-19th
century, and about 0.4°F (0.2 to 0.3°C) over the past 25 years
(the period with the most credible data). "

So, it very plainly states that global warming is happening. There is
no real debate about this.

Now, why is the climate getting warmer? The primary theory is forcing
due to increased concentration of greehouse gasses. Are greenhouse
gasses increasing due to human activity? Well, yes:

"Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse
gases in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of
coal, oil, and gas; plus a few other trace gases). There is no
scientific debate on this point. "


What about naturally occuring changes in solar radiation? Do that play
a part? Yes, but:

"...the contribution of direct solar irradiance forcing is small
compared to the greenhouse gas component. ...for the prediction of
climate change in the 21st century, these changes will be far less
important than radiative forcing from greenhouse gases."

It's a pretty good article. I'd recommend everyone reading it. Just
take off the partisan blinders before you do.

//Walt

Pseudoscience:

http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/2004ScienceMeeting/SORCE%20WORKSHOP%202004/SESSION_3/3_1_White.pdf#search=%22sun's%20output%20global%20 warming%22

Gilligan wrote:


http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/2004ScienceMeeting/SORCE%20WORKSHOP%202004/SESSION_3/3_1_White.pdf#search=%22sun's%20output%20global%20 warming%22

You really didn't read any of these links before you posted them, did
you. How much did you drink?

See slide # 10:

Conclusions

o Solar output cannot account for rapid increase in Global Warming

o Solar Cycle 23 is an important case study for both observation
and theory

o Promising results on magnetic field evolution in Cycle 23

//Walt

"Walt" wrote in message
...
Gilligan wrote:


http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/2004ScienceMeeting/SORCE%20WORKSHOP%202004/SESSION_3/3_1_White.pdf#search=%22sun's%20output%20global%20 warming%22

You really didn't read any of these links before you posted them, did you.

Go to my post on Faraday Paradox with Ganz. The reread the magnetic field
evolution in cycle 23.

You aren't catching on are you?

How much did you drink?


See slide # 10:

Conclusions

o Solar output cannot account for rapid increase in Global Warming

o Solar Cycle 23 is an important case study for both observation
and theory

o Promising results on magnetic field evolution in Cycle 23

//Walt

Name the components of solar output and relative energies.

How would a magnetic field on the sun affect the earth's climate?

Let's discuss the article.