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

Sure is!

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

Consensus indeed!

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

The consensus is getting bigger:

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

More lockstep agreement:

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

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

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!

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:

Who ****ing cares? My left little finger is damaged beyond all recovery!

Where's the attorney buddies when you need them? sigh

LP (missing Ellen)

"Jeff" wrote in message
news:OWkUg.2010$fl.1759@dukeread08...

"Gilligan" wrote:

Who ****ing cares? My left little finger is damaged beyond all recovery!

Where's the attorney buddies when you need them? sigh

LP (missing Ellen)


How in the hell did that happen on my computer?

LP

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