"Man-made global warming is junk science"

[Resolute 14]

Don't mind me, I just feel like stirring the pot. It's been days since we've had a thread on this topic.

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/...c97f8ae623&p=1

Don Easterbrook, a geologist at Western Washington University, says, "It's practically a slam dunk that we are in for about 30 years of global cooling," as the sun enters a particularly inactive phase. His examination of warming and cooling trends over the past four centuries shows an "almost exact correlation" between climate fluctuations and solar energy received on Earth, while showing almost "no correlation at all with CO2."

[Wookie]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Don't mind me, I just feel like stirring the pot. It's been days since we've had a thread on this topic.

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/...c97f8ae623&p=1

hmm, 59 by the time it starts to warm again. That'll work well with my retirement.

[LChoy]

ooo this should be good

[Canada 02]

Actually, it was more like a string of guest columns and long letters to the editor since it is hard for skeptical scientists to get published in the cabal of climate journals now controlled by the Great Sanhedrin of the environmental movement.

that is the most significant words from that article; the scientific community (whether it be environmental sciences, medical science etc) is skewed towards an agenda promoted by study section members of the EPA, USDA, CDC, NIH

good luck getting funded or published if you have a contarian, non-dogmatic view point or one that goes counter to their agenda

[You Need a Thneed]

Two years from now, I predict that nearly noone is going to be talking about manmade global warming.

[Azure]

I watched a National Geographic show about the sun a couple weeks ago, and they implied that the sun goes through phases every 10-15 years. And right now we're heading into a phase where the sun isn't as active anymore.

According to them, when the Vikings(IIRC)....originally settled in Greeceland, everything was green, and a few years later, due only to a decrease in the activity of the sun, everything was frozen and most of the people died off.

I haven't actually researched that to find out if its actually true, but usually National Geographic doesn't lie about stuff like that.

[driveway]

Regardless of the direction of movement, radical swings in the Earth's temperature are probably: a) bad, and b) exacerbated by human activity. Whether or not CO2 is the sole or major culprit it is without question ethically and economically advantageous for people and their governments to pursue policies that reduce human impact on the biosphere.

[MelBridgeman]

Is he peeeered reviewed!!!

[photon]

Originally Posted by Azure

I watched a National Geographic show about the sun a couple weeks ago, and they implied that the sun goes through phases every 10-15 years. And right now we're heading into a phase where the sun isn't as active anymore.

According to them, when the Vikings(IIRC)....originally settled in Greeceland, everything was green, and a few years later, due only to a decrease in the activity of the sun, everything was frozen and most of the people died off.

I haven't actually researched that to find out if its actually true, but usually National Geographic doesn't lie about stuff like that.

Something can be true without actually being meaningful or pertinent.



The variation is 1.3 W/m². The questions are is that enough to influence the climate, how constant has that variation been, is there a larger cycle of variation, and are there other factors in solar variation that we're not measuring that influence climate in ways we don't know about.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture05072.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation

[CaptainCrunch]

Hey all I know is that the solar winds are decreasing which reduces our protection against the extragalactic radiation that is far more powerfull and harmfull then the inter galactic radiation that our planet gets hit with. Thanks a lot Sun for taking your foot off the gas, now not only are my kids going to grow a third eye, but the solar barrier that protected us from those damn dirty aliens is going to be much weaker now.

Abandon ship, we're all screwed.

[Ronald Pagan]

Don Easterbrook, a geologist at Western Washington University, says, "It's practically a slam dunk that we are in for about 30 years of global cooling," as the sun enters a particularly inactive phase. His examination of warming and cooling trends over the past four centuries shows an "almost exact correlation" between climate fluctuations and solar energy received on Earth, while showing almost "no correlation at all with CO2."

Laugh. I love how you quote this passage of all passages as it's the one that has been the most thoroughly discredited by real science. Statistical evaluation of solar cycles have shown ZERO correlation with global temperatures. This argument isn't even on the map in the scientific community.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture05072.html

The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978 are too small to have contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30 years. In this Review, we show that detailed analysis of these small output variations has greatly advanced our understanding of solar luminosity change, and this new understanding indicates that brightening of the Sun is unlikely to have had a significant influence on global warming since the seventeenth century.

Regarding this argument:

An analytical chemist who works in spectroscopy and atmospheric sensing, Michael J. Myers of Hilton Head, S. C., declared, "Man-made global warming is junk science," explaining that worldwide manmade CO2 emission each year "equals about 0.0168% of the atmosphere's CO2 concentration ? This results in a 0.00064% increase in the absorption of the sun's radiation. This is an insignificantly small number."

Myers should stick to chemistry. The fact that he doesn't understand even the most basic idea of an equilibrium is scary.

http://environment.newscientist.com/...change/dn11638

So what's going on? It is true that human emissions of CO2 are small compared with natural sources. But the fact that CO2 levels have remained steady until very recently shows that natural emissions are usually balanced by natural absorptions. Now slightly more CO2 must be entering the atmosphere than is being soaked up by carbon "sinks".

The fact that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 has risen from 315ppm to 375ppm has consequences on the global climate. This argument is just frankly idiotic.

The one with the most substance is Loehle's evaluation of the MWP. The article is up for much debate but the fact that there was a MWP does not disprove anthropogenic climate change. There are some serious methodological questions with Loehle's framework and the fact that he chooses to omit some important data like tree rings.

In conclusion, if these are the most credible scientific arguments you can find disproving anthropogenic climate change then I think you should reconsider your bias.

[Resolute 14]

Hah!

Somehow I just knew this thread was going to draw out the arrogant side of Mr. Pagan.

[Ronald Pagan]

Lorne Gunter's ill-conceived ramblings tend to do it to me.

[Locke]

The real reason for Global Warming:

[llama64]

Most people tend to ignore the phrase "global warming". It's a misnomer.

Man made climate change on the other hand...

(don's flame protective suit)

[flip]

Hmm. That's weird because I just read this article in Scientific American yesterday at work.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=...-to-cool-earth

Seems that there is some disagreement about "global warming/climate change". I never knew that. I always thought the scientific community is in complete agreement.

[tussery]

Originally Posted by Locke

The real reason for Global Warming:

Exactly.

[old-fart]

I just made a little "man made climate change" here in my office.... It's not solar flares that are the problem, it's Uranus flares...

Now I have to leave and go get a cup of coffee or something while this thing dissipates.

[Bagor]

Actually, it was more like a string of guest columns and long letters to the editor since it is hard for skeptical scientists to get published in the cabal of climate journals now controlled by the Great Sanhedrin of the environmental movement.

Stopped reading there.

[llama64]

Originally Posted by old-fart

I just made a little "man made climate change" here in my office.... It's not solar flares that are the problem, it's Uranus flares...

Now I have to leave and go get a cup of coffee or something while this thing dissipates.

...

I just spit my coke EVERYWHERE.