http://www.livescience.com/environme...th_bright.html

Sure is!

http://dukenews.duke.edu/2005/09/sunwarm.html

Gilligan wrote:

Sure is!

http://dukenews.duke.edu/2005/09/sunwarm.html

"At least 10 to 30 percent of global warming measured during the
past two decades may be due to increased solar output rather than
factors such as increased heat-absorbing carbon dioxide gas
released by various human activities, two Duke University
physicists report.

The physicists said that their findings indicate that climate
models of global warming need to be corrected for the effects
of changes in solar activity. However, they emphasized that
their findings do not argue against the basic theory that
significant global warming is occurring because of carbon
dioxide and other “greenhouse” gases."

So, what's your point?

//Walt

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

Sure is!

http://dukenews.duke.edu/2005/09/sunwarm.html

"At least 10 to 30 percent of global warming measured during the
past two decades may be due to increased solar output rather than
factors such as increased heat-absorbing carbon dioxide gas
released by various human activities, two Duke University
physicists report.

The physicists said that their findings indicate that climate
models of global warming need to be corrected for the effects
of changes in solar activity. However, they emphasized that
their findings do not argue against the basic theory that
significant global warming is occurring because of carbon
dioxide and other “greenhouse” gases."

So, what's your point?

//Walt

If 10 years ago scientists the consensus was that the sun's increased output
did not cause global warming, and one year ago it accounted for 30%, then
the trend is definitely that it will account for 100% in about 20 years. I'm
using the same predictive techniques as global warming models. Is there a
problem?

Consensus indeed!

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...-sunspots.html

Gilligan wrote:

Consensus indeed!

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...-sunspots.html


Do you even bother to read the links you post?

'Cause some of them don't support your case. Mostly the ones from real
sources like National Geographic.

So, a brief set of clues for you since you seem to be devoid of a ticket
on the clue train:

o There is overwhelming consensus that the earth is getting warmer.
o There is general consensus that human activity (mostly burning
fossil fuel) is responsible for some of that warming trend.
o There is a variety of opinion on how much of the warming trend is
due to naturally occuring processes and how much is due to human
activity. Few, if any, scientists claim that it's 100% due to
human activity. Likewise, few claim it to be 0%. Consensus is
that it's somewhere in the middle, but there is no consensus about
exactly where in the middle.
o The predictive models are all over the map. Like predicting the
weather, making accurate predictions about exactly what is going
to happen is far from an exact science. It's like trying to
predict the exact path of a superball bouncing down a stairwell -
you know it's overall path will be down, but predicting each and
every bounce is not possible. Don't expect unanimity here, because
you won't get it.

As you can see, the scientific community is still hashing out many of
the finer points. To point at some of these minor squabbles and say
"Look! There's no consensus!" is to entirely miss points one and two
above.


But I hope you had a good time last night doing the midnight Google
thing. You seem to have worked yourself up into quite a lather by the
fifth or sixth post. Hope you're happy. Do you ever sail anymore?

//Walt

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

Consensus indeed!

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...-sunspots.html


Do you even bother to read the links you post?

Absolutely


'Cause some of them don't support your case.


My case is that there is no consensus.

Unlike you, I'm willing to present both sides.

Unlike you, I'm not going to ad-hominen some paper's author because I may
disagree with him.

Unlike you, I'm going to look at all the evidence and analysis.

Mostly the ones from real
sources like National Geographic.

So, a brief set of clues for you since you seem to be devoid of a ticket
on the clue train:

o There is overwhelming consensus that the earth is getting warmer.

True. I also believe it is getting warmer in general.

o There is general consensus that human activity (mostly burning
fossil fuel) is responsible for some of that warming trend.

"general consensus" misuse of English. "some" is how much?

o There is a variety of opinion on how much of the warming trend is
due to naturally occuring processes and how much is due to human
activity. Few, if any, scientists claim that it's 100% due to
human activity. Likewise, few claim it to be 0%. Consensus is
that it's somewhere in the middle, but there is no consensus about
exactly where in the middle.

"No consensus"

o The predictive models are all over the map. Like predicting the
weather, making accurate predictions about exactly what is going
to happen is far from an exact science.

I've said this all along.


It's like trying to
predict the exact path of a superball bouncing down a stairwell -
you know it's overall path will be down, but predicting each and
every bounce is not possible. Don't expect unanimity here, because
you won't get it.

Exactly


As you can see, the scientific community is still hashing out many of the
finer points. To point at some of these minor squabbles and say "Look!
There's no consensus!" is to entirely miss points one and two above.


Just 5 years ago models did not include solar variability. Is that a "fine
point"?

Because the models can't even predict the past - Is that a "fine point"?

The squabbles are not minor or even "fine points". The squabbles are over
accuracy and precision. Since when is +/- 30% accurate or precise? Go drive
down the road with that kind of accuracy and report back to me what you
find, if you survive.


But I hope you had a good time last night doing the midnight Google thing.

Midnight, check again both the time and time span. It's a matter of record
and you will see that again your assertion is well off the mark.

You seem to have worked yourself up into quite a lather by the fifth or
sixth post.

That would be around midnight, right?


Hope you're happy.

How could you tell?

Do you ever sail anymore?

Did I ever sail? Sailing is a waste of time. It is for retirees with big
bellies who live in cities. Sailing is like scuba diving, no real physical
conditioning is required, it is "passive" fun requiring lots of money or
sweat equity. Bowling is as physically taxing as sailing, that is why old
people do it. If most were to train at an olympian level for sailing they
would die of a stroke. Their beer bellies would get in the way. How big is
your belly? (No disrespect to those here who run, cycle, skate etc)


//Walt


So what is the consensus? That the earth is warming.

Is there a consensus on the cause? No.

Is there a consensus that all the causes are NOT understood? Yes.

Is there a consensus that more research much be done to understand global
warming? Yes

Is there a consensus that the earth warmed considerably many times before
man existed? Yes

Is there a consensus that the earth cooled very rapidly after the warming?
Yes

Is there a consensus that man did not cause the warmings that occured
greater than 100 years ago? Yes

Is there a consensus that you have never refuted one thing I've said? Yes.

The warming experienced today is caused by the sun. Changes in the climate
are caused by the variability of the output of the sun. This cannot be
refuted.

Gilligan wrote:

Do you ever sail anymore?

Did I ever sail? Sailing is a waste of time. It is for retirees with big
bellies who live in cities. Sailing is like scuba diving, no real physical
conditioning is required, it is "passive" fun requiring lots of money or
sweat equity.


You are a funny one, Mr Milstead. Obviously, you have never raced
olympic class dinghys. Try racing a Laser in 20 knots someday and come
back and say that again.

It's just further proof that you are more than willing to run your mouth
about things you know nothing about.

//Walt

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

Do you ever sail anymore?

Did I ever sail? Sailing is a waste of time. It is for retirees with big
bellies who live in cities. Sailing is like scuba diving, no real
physical conditioning is required, it is "passive" fun requiring lots of
money or sweat equity.


You are a funny one, Mr Milstead. Obviously, you have never raced olympic
class dinghys. Try racing a Laser in 20 knots someday and come back and
say that again.

Go back and read what I wrote. I said that just even training for olympic
grade sailing would kill most of the people here. It's in writing! He

"Did I ever sail? Sailing is a waste of time. It is for retirees with big
bellies who live in cities. Sailing is like scuba diving, no real physical
conditioning is required, it is "passive" fun requiring lots of money or
sweat equity. Bowling is as physically taxing as sailing, that is why old
people do it. If most were to train at an olympian level for sailing they
-------------See it here!
would die of a stroke. Their beer bellies would get in the way. How big is
your belly? (No disrespect to those here who run, cycle, skate etc)"



It's just further proof that you are more than willing to run your mouth
about things you know nothing about.

Are you senile?

Maybe a bit wound up. Calm down, relax, read everything, think a bit. It can
make things more productive.





//Walt

The consensus is getting bigger:

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