Sun not to blame for climate change

[troutman]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science...eut/index.html

The sun's energy output has barely varied over the past 1,000 years, raising chances that global warming has human rather than celestial causes, a study showed on Wednesday.

Researchers from Germany, Switzerland and the United States found that the sun's brightness varied by only 0.07 percent over 11-year sunspot cycles, far too little to account for the rise in temperatures since the Industrial Revolution.

A dwindling group of scientists says that the dominant cause of warming is a natural variation in the climate system, or a gradual rise in the sun's energy output.

"The solar contribution to warming over the past 30 years is negligible," the researchers wrote in the journal Nature of evidence about the sun from satellite observations since 1978.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Well, colour me not very surprised. I just hope that we can realize that WE are causing this problem before it's too late to do anything about it.

[ken0042]

Oh yeah? I bet you if we were able to turn off the sun we'd see and end to global warming for sure!

[Mr.Coffee]

Global warming theories are interesting and all. But nobody seems too worried to inconvenience themselves to do anything about it.

Myself included I guess.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Global warming theories are interesting and all. But nobody seems too worried to inconvenience themselves to do anything about it.

Myself included I guess.

There was a related story yesterday, wherein some scientists thought we could reverse global warming by injecting aerosols into the atmosphere. I'll try to find a link to that one.

[J pold]

Al Gore to say the day!!

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by J pold

Al Gore to say the day!!

He might even save it too, while he's at it

[White Doors]

Remember the ozone layer? More energy from the sun is making it through now because of depleted ozone. This is causing skin cancer etc. The ozone is now replenishing itself however, but I wonder why the correlation between ozone depletion and the earth warming is never mentioned? (at least that I have seen)
When humans emit 0.014% of the total GHG's in the atmosphere I find it very difficult to believe that Global warming is human caused.

[evman150]

I could have told you the Sun's power is not increasing (appreciably).

It does increase, enough to make life (as we know it) pretty much impossible in a billion or two years, but definitely not in a time period six orders smaller than that, let alone eight.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by White Doors

When humans emit 0.014% of the total GHG's in the atmosphere I find it very difficult to believe that Global warming is human caused.

Do you have a source for that figure?

[MrMastodonFarm]

Here in Grand Prairie I am looking at some snow on the ground right now, so bring on global warming please.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by White Doors

Remember the ozone layer? More energy from the sun is making it through now because of depleted ozone. This is causing skin cancer etc. The ozone is now replenishing itself however, but I wonder why the correlation between ozone depletion and the earth warming is never mentioned? (at least that I have seen)

This is just wrong. In fact, Ozone is a greenhouse gas. It's also a naturally-occurring one and a beneficial one as long as it's in the stratosphere, but less ozone won't mean more warming. The depletion of the ozone layer just affects what kinds of radiation reach us on the planet surface. A serious environmental problem, but a different one. Here's the link: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alterna...ent/chap2.html

Ozone is a beneficial GHG in the stratosphere and a harmful pollutant in the troposphere. Ozone survives anywhere from a few hours to a few days in the upper troposphere and for only an hour in the stratosphere [38] (see Appendix B for a discussion of ozone's stability). Thinning the stratospheric ozone layer increases the amount of harmful UV-C radiation reaching the Earth's surface. This will not only increase UV-induced diseases, but also aid the production of ozone in the troposphere. It is beneficial when ozone stays in the stratosphere because ozone shields the Earth's surface from harmful ultraviolet rays of the Sun. Because of its oxidizing power, ozone is hazardous to health. Therefore, ozone is classified as a criteria pollutant in the troposphere. Throughout the atmosphere, however, ozone acts as a greenhouse gas.

Originally Posted by White Doors

When humans emit 0.014% of the total GHG's in the atmosphere I find it very difficult to believe that Global warming is human caused.

I can't find this stat anywhere. Does it include the emissions that result from deforestation and changes in land usage? Hard to know, since you don't provide a source. However, the term GHG's is probably misleading in this context. If there weren't some GHG's there would be no greenhouse effect, and therefore no life on earth. The greenhouse effect, within certain limits, is a good thing. But it's a delicate balance. What matters is not the percentage of GHG's that are anthropogenic. What matters is the EFFECT that those anthropogenic GHGs have on the climate. This from the Pew Center for Climate Change:

The current state of knowledge regarding 20th century temperature changes is clear. Temperatures, at least in the northern hemisphere, of recent decades are likely warmer than at any point during at least the previous millennium, and the probability that some as yet unidentified factor other than GHGs can account for this warming is low. Thus, despite the long-term natural variability of the climate system, current scientific evidence indicates there is a significant human influence on current climate trends. This human influence is projected to grow increasingly strong in future decades as human emissions of GHGs continue to alter the composition of the atmosphere.

(download the pdf here: http://www.pewclimate.org/global-war...act_sheets.cfm

As I've said before, the jury is no longer out on this one. It's time to start looking at energy alternatives, and in a big way. At this point the only practical option is probably nuclear energy, but we have to start somewhere. Fossil fuels are not going to be a viable alternative in the future.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Do you have a source for that figure?

Can't find it right now, but I'll have a gander

Controversy!
http://www.physorg.com/news11710.html

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by White Doors

Can't find it right now, but I'll have a gander

Controversy!
http://www.physorg.com/news11710.html

Global warming is happening because of a meteor, eh? That's one of the more far-fetched explanations I've heard. I strongly suspect there's a reason this is being published in "Science First Hand"(anyone ever heard of that? Didn't think so) and not, say Science or Nature. If this were truly groundbreaking research, one of those journals would be bound to pick it up.

The gist of it is basically that water vapor is a greenhouse gas. This is well known. The rest is merely speculation--an attempt to find an alternate explanation for data that have been explained pretty well in other models. But there's always going to be a fringe, I guess. The problem is the same confusion you had in your first post--not a criticism at all--there's a lot of confusion over this issue in the media. SOME GHG's are necessary to support life--but when our emissions upset the balance, it can have far-reaching and unforeseen consequences.

If Tunguska had been the kind of event that this guy claims, it should have caused massive global cooling in the short term, because of the huge dust cloud. It didn't. It should also have caused a steady warming over the course of the century--but warming wasn't steady--it increased in rate as the rate of CO2 emissions increased. There comes a time when Ockham's razor needs to be applied to these problems. When there's dust on your kitchen floor, you don't wonder where it came from--you just sweep it up.

[Clarkey]

I thought oil was going to run out so the problem should solve itself in 5 years.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Clarkey

I thought oil was going to run out so the problem should solve itself in 5 years.

Come on now...

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Clarkey

I thought oil was going to run out so the problem should solve itself in 5 years.

Well if you think about it, oil is by definition a finite resource. I'm sure there are people who can tell you when that's likely to be (I'm not one of 'em) but pretty much everybody knows it's not 5 years from now. In fact, it probably won't run out soon enough, if we consider global climate change a problem. Not to mention that there are greenhouse gases created by changes in land use as well. I know you were being tongue-in-cheek, but I thought it merited a response nevertheless.

[pepper24]

Originally Posted by White Doors

Can't find it right now, but I'll have a gander

Controversy!
http://www.physorg.com/news11710.html

One article out of a few to go against the many that blame human based pollution on global warm. I am not convinced yet.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Global warming is happening because of a meteor, eh? That's one of the more far-fetched explanations I've heard. I strongly suspect there's a reason this is being published in "Science First Hand"(anyone ever heard of that? Didn't think so) and not, say Science or Nature. If this were truly groundbreaking research, one of those journals would be bound to pick it up.

The gist of it is basically that water vapor is a greenhouse gas. This is well known. The rest is merely speculation--an attempt to find an alternate explanation for data that have been explained pretty well in other models. But there's always going to be a fringe, I guess. The problem is the same confusion you had in your first post--not a criticism at all--there's a lot of confusion over this issue in the media. SOME GHG's are necessary to support life--but when our emissions upset the balance, it can have far-reaching and unforeseen consequences.

If Tunguska had been the kind of event that this guy claims, it should have caused massive global cooling in the short term, because of the huge dust cloud. It didn't. It should also have caused a steady warming over the course of the century--but warming wasn't steady--it increased in rate as the rate of CO2 emissions increased. There comes a time when Ockham's razor needs to be applied to these problems. When there's dust on your kitchen floor, you don't wonder where it came from--you just sweep it up.

But you are forgetting the fact that Tunguska wasn't a ground imapct event. It exploded before impact. For what reason, they aren't quite sure. If it was a ground impact, I would agree with you - but it wasn't.
You need a ground impact to creat a huge dust cloud. See major volcanic disruptions.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Well if you think about it, oil is by definition a finite resource. I'm sure there are people who can tell you when that's likely to be (I'm not one of 'em) but pretty much everybody knows it's not 5 years from now. In fact, it probably won't run out soon enough, if we consider global climate change a problem. Not to mention that there are greenhouse gases created by changes in land use as well. I know you were being tongue-in-cheek, but I thought it merited a response nevertheless.

The ironic part is that air pollution has decreased by 75% in 30 odd years..( in develped countries) it's a new 'worry' to worry about quite frankly. There are worries with new countries with huge populations developing, but they don't have to go through the growing pains that we had to.