Climate Change: It's the Sun, Stupid

[teapartysamurai]

However, a new force for change has arisen: humans. After the industrial revolution, humans introduced increasing amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and changed the surface of the landscape to an extent great enough to influence climate on local and global scales. By driving up carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere (by about 30 percent), humans have increased its capacity to trap warmth near the surface.

Guys, I hate to break it to you but the SUN is the reason this planet is warm.

Without it, this would be a dead planet.

The sun creates the very ozone that we depend on to sheild us from the sun's more dangerous rays.

Without the sun, we don't have oxygen, we don't have Co2, we don't have cloud, we don't water vapor.

The NASA guy is right.

Even whether we have summer or winter depends on whether we have direct sunlight or slanted rays.

It's all the sun people. Sure we el nino's and la ninas that effect weather. We have the jet stream, and on and on.

But NONE OF THAT HAPPENS WITHOUT THE SUN. Sun and sunspot activity is numero uno. To pretend otherwise you might as well claim . . .

Well AMC did a remake of "The Prisoner" last year (or was it the year before) and they had this great parody of global warming, where they told everyone in the village they had to buy a pig. Keeping a pig would keep more holes from opening up which was destroying their world.

And of course, keeping a pig had nothing to do with anything. It just made everyone "feel" like they were doing their "part."

Well, I'm sorry but we don't control the weather.

We can no more stop an ice age from coming, than we can a warmer earth.

It's in the hands of the Good Lord, and anybody on this planet who thinks he's that powerful has extreme delusions of gradeur.

First you say the NASA guy is Right, and then you contradict him!
Do you have even the slightest idea of what you are talking about?

And without the Sun this would be a cold planet, not a dead one. Water is the key to life, no matter how much Sun the Earth has, if there was no water there would be no life.

Oh Nice try, but you left out what came after that quote!

However, a new force for change has arisen: humans. After the industrial revolution, humans introduced increasing amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and changed the surface of the landscape to an extent great enough to influence climate on local and global scales. By driving up carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere (by about 30 percent), humans have increased its capacity to trap warmth near the surface.

Here is what you quote. HERE IS WHAT YOU LEFT OUT!

Other important forcings of Earth's climate system include such "variables" as clouds, airborne particulate matter, and surface brightness. Each of these varying features of Earth's environment has the capacity to exceed the warming influence of greenhouse gases and cause our world to cool.

For example, increased cloudiness would give more shade to the surface while reflecting more sunlight back to space. Increased airborne particles (or "aerosols") would scatter and reflect more sunlight back to space, thereby cooling the surface. Major volcanic eruptions (such as that of Mt. Pinatubo in 1992) can inject so much aerosol into the atmosphere that, as it spreads around the globe, it reduces sunlight and cause Earth to cool. Likewise, increasing the surface area of highly reflective surface types, such as ice sheets, reflects greater amounts of sunlight back to space and causes Earth to cool.

What are the primary forcings of the Earth system? - NASA Science

IN OTHER WORDS, NATURAL PHENOMENA, we have no control over, more than overcomes your dreaded "greenhouse gases."

Nice try leaving out the next paragraph. Did you really think that was going to work.

 

[Bern80]

Just another perspective void global warming thread. Amazing how powerful some people think us humans are.

 

[IanC]

Guys, I hate to break it to you but the SUN is the reason this planet is warm.

Without it, this would be a dead planet.

The sun creates the very ozone that we depend on to sheild us from the sun's more dangerous rays.

Without the sun, we don't have oxygen, we don't have Co2, we don't have cloud, we don't water vapor.

The NASA guy is right.

Even whether we have summer or winter depends on whether we have direct sunlight or slanted rays.

It's all the sun people. Sure we el nino's and la ninas that effect weather. We have the jet stream, and on and on.

But NONE OF THAT HAPPENS WITHOUT THE SUN. Sun and sunspot activity is numero uno. To pretend otherwise you might as well claim . . .

Well AMC did a remake of "The Prisoner" last year (or was it the year before) and they had this great parody of global warming, where they told everyone in the village they had to buy a pig. Keeping a pig would keep more holes from opening up which was destroying their world.

And of course, keeping a pig had nothing to do with anything. It just made everyone "feel" like they were doing their "part."

Well, I'm sorry but we don't control the weather.

We can no more stop an ice age from coming, than we can a warmer earth.

It's in the hands of the Good Lord, and anybody on this planet who thinks he's that powerful has extreme delusions of gradeur.

your OP specifically mentions climate change. while the sun is necessary for us to be here that does not mean that changes in the sun's output are the most important factor in climate change. billions of years ago the sun's output was 20 percent lower than today but there were still liquid oceans and a temperature close to the present. obviously there are other factors in play to stablize the climate.

If you have evidence for that, please present it.

google 'faint sun paradox'.

here is a reference to it by Lindzen-

It is again acknowledged that such processes are poorly handled in current models, and there is substantial evidence that the feedbacks may actually be negative rather than positive. Citing but one example, 2.5 billion years ago the sun’s brightness was 20 percent to 30 percent less than it is today (compared to the 2 percent change in energy balance associated with a doubling of carbon-dioxide levels) yet the oceans were unfrozen and the temperatures appear to have been similar to today’s.

This was referred to by Carl Sagan as the Early Faint Sun Paradox. For 30 years, there has been an unsuccessful search for a greenhouse gas resolution of the paradox, but it turns out that a modest negative feedback from clouds is entirely adequate. With the positive feedback in current models, the resolution would be essentially impossible.

Con: Earth is never in equilibrium -- GazetteXtra

 

[teapartysamurai]

your OP specifically mentions climate change. while the sun is necessary for us to be here that does not mean that changes in the sun's output are the most important factor in climate change. billions of years ago the sun's output was 20 percent lower than today but there were still liquid oceans and a temperature close to the present. obviously there are other factors in play to stablize the climate.

If you have evidence for that, please present it.

google 'faint sun paradox'.

here is a reference to it by Lindzen-

It is again acknowledged that such processes are poorly handled in current models, and there is substantial evidence that the feedbacks may actually be negative rather than positive. Citing but one example, 2.5 billion years ago the sun’s brightness was 20 percent to 30 percent less than it is today (compared to the 2 percent change in energy balance associated with a doubling of carbon-dioxide levels) yet the oceans were unfrozen and the temperatures appear to have been similar to today’s.

This was referred to by Carl Sagan as the Early Faint Sun Paradox. For 30 years, there has been an unsuccessful search for a greenhouse gas resolution of the paradox, but it turns out that a modest negative feedback from clouds is entirely adequate. With the positive feedback in current models, the resolution would be essentially impossible.

Con: Earth is never in equilibrium -- GazetteXtra

IN OTHER WORDS COMPUTER MODELS PROVE IT!

The same "models" that proved global warming.

I'm sorry but computer models are NOT evidence of anything but how scientists can rationalize anything, just like the hockey stick graph.

 

[IanC]

which computer models are you referring to? our understanding of lifespans of stars or the energy budget models of past conditions? and are you comparing them to the GCM predictions of the future?

and I don't think anyone said it was proven, just that GHGs are insufficient to have caused liquid water in the early faint sun era

 

[edthecynic]

However, a new force for change has arisen: humans. After the industrial revolution, humans introduced increasing amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and changed the surface of the landscape to an extent great enough to influence climate on local and global scales. By driving up carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere (by about 30 percent), humans have increased its capacity to trap warmth near the surface.

First you say the NASA guy is Right, and then you contradict him!
Do you have even the slightest idea of what you are talking about?

And without the Sun this would be a cold planet, not a dead one. Water is the key to life, no matter how much Sun the Earth has, if there was no water there would be no life.

Oh Nice try, but you left out what came after that quote!

However, a new force for change has arisen: humans. After the industrial revolution, humans introduced increasing amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and changed the surface of the landscape to an extent great enough to influence climate on local and global scales. By driving up carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere (by about 30 percent), humans have increased its capacity to trap warmth near the surface.

Here is what you quote. HERE IS WHAT YOU LEFT OUT!

Other important forcings of Earth's climate system include such "variables" as clouds, airborne particulate matter, and surface brightness. Each of these varying features of Earth's environment has the capacity to exceed the warming influence of greenhouse gases and cause our world to cool.

For example, increased cloudiness would give more shade to the surface while reflecting more sunlight back to space. Increased airborne particles (or "aerosols") would scatter and reflect more sunlight back to space, thereby cooling the surface. Major volcanic eruptions (such as that of Mt. Pinatubo in 1992) can inject so much aerosol into the atmosphere that, as it spreads around the globe, it reduces sunlight and cause Earth to cool. Likewise, increasing the surface area of highly reflective surface types, such as ice sheets, reflects greater amounts of sunlight back to space and causes Earth to cool.

What are the primary forcings of the Earth system? - NASA Science

IN OTHER WORDS, NATURAL PHENOMENA, we have no control over, more than overcomes your dreaded "greenhouse gases."

Nice try leaving out the next paragraph. Did you really think that was going to work.

Except those natural phenomena are only TEMPORARY!!!!!!!!! We haven't had perpetual cooling since the 1992 eruption, in fact 1998 set a record for warming!!!!!! All they do is temporarily stall the influence of GHGs, once their effect passes the warming from GHGs resumes.

 

[westwall]

One can only hope that you're wrong.

If this apparent global warming is entirely the doing of changes in the solar activity, then truly this modern society we have is hosed.

Why?

 

[westwall]

First you say the NASA guy is Right, and then you contradict him!
Do you have even the slightest idea of what you are talking about?

And without the Sun this would be a cold planet, not a dead one. Water is the key to life, no matter how much Sun the Earth has, if there was no water there would be no life.

Oh Nice try, but you left out what came after that quote!

Here is what you quote. HERE IS WHAT YOU LEFT OUT!

Other important forcings of Earth's climate system include such "variables" as clouds, airborne particulate matter, and surface brightness. Each of these varying features of Earth's environment has the capacity to exceed the warming influence of greenhouse gases and cause our world to cool.

For example, increased cloudiness would give more shade to the surface while reflecting more sunlight back to space. Increased airborne particles (or "aerosols") would scatter and reflect more sunlight back to space, thereby cooling the surface. Major volcanic eruptions (such as that of Mt. Pinatubo in 1992) can inject so much aerosol into the atmosphere that, as it spreads around the globe, it reduces sunlight and cause Earth to cool. Likewise, increasing the surface area of highly reflective surface types, such as ice sheets, reflects greater amounts of sunlight back to space and causes Earth to cool.

What are the primary forcings of the Earth system? - NASA Science

IN OTHER WORDS, NATURAL PHENOMENA, we have no control over, more than overcomes your dreaded "greenhouse gases."

Nice try leaving out the next paragraph. Did you really think that was going to work.

Except those natural phenomena are only TEMPORARY!!!!!!!!! We haven't had perpetual cooling since the 1992 eruption, in fact 1998 set a record for warming!!!!!! All they do is temporarily stall the influence of GHGs, once their effect passes the warming from GHGs resumes.

Your grasp of the physical sciences is quite...ummmm...lacking. And for the record the only reason why the temps are high is because of data manipulation. The link below has a very good write up of the fraud that is going on.

C3: NOAA & NCDC Pursue Goal of 'Warmest Year Ever' For 2010 - Release Newly Fabricated Global Temperatures

 

[edthecynic]

Oh Nice try, but you left out what came after that quote!

Here is what you quote. HERE IS WHAT YOU LEFT OUT!

What are the primary forcings of the Earth system? - NASA Science

IN OTHER WORDS, NATURAL PHENOMENA, we have no control over, more than overcomes your dreaded "greenhouse gases."

Nice try leaving out the next paragraph. Did you really think that was going to work.

Except those natural phenomena are only TEMPORARY!!!!!!!!! We haven't had perpetual cooling since the 1992 eruption, in fact 1998 set a record for warming!!!!!! All they do is temporarily stall the influence of GHGs, once their effect passes the warming from GHGs resumes.

Your grasp of the physical sciences is quite...ummmm...lacking. And for the record the only reason why the temps are high is because of data manipulation. The link below has a very good write up of the fraud that is going on.

C3: NOAA & NCDC Pursue Goal of 'Warmest Year Ever' For 2010 - Release Newly Fabricated Global Temperatures

Your grasp of the physical reality is quite...ummmm...lacking. And the only people who were caught red handed manipulating the data was deniers Christy and Spencer at UAH. Take your worthless link and shove it where the sun doesn't shine.

 

[skookerasbil]

Meh on all the k00k BS........doesnt matter. The skeptics win.............

 

[code1211]

One can only hope that you're wrong.

If this apparent global warming is entirely the doing of changes in the solar activity, then truly this modern society we have is hosed.

Don't be too depressed. The globe has warmed about 0.7 degrees in 2000 years.

It's actually cooled about 1 degree in the last 8000 years. In terms of climate change, compared to the last 10,000 years, we are about smack dab in the middle of the established range.

The solar influences seem to point to many, many generations of continued comparitive warmth for compared to the previous million or so years.

All things considered, we are in a climate sweet spot and it looks like we are going to remain here for eons. Go ahead and plant the tomatoes.

 

[code1211]

One can only hope that you're wrong.

If this apparent global warming is entirely the doing of changes in the solar activity, then truly this modern society we have is hosed.

That makes abolutely no sense. Would you try supporting that with evidence.

Okay I'll spell it out for you.

IF global warming is happening and IF it drives the earth's average temperature up 7 degrees this century?
There is no way in hell that mankind's societies are going to be able to cope with the enormous changes that will result of that.

Not that all of mankind will die, but most of it likely will.

Our economies, are way of life, everything that we have developed to sustain 6 billion people on the planet is based on the presumption that the climate is something we can expect NOT to drastically change in such a short time.

And why do I suggest that we'd better pray to GOD that most (or all) of this global warming is anthropogenic?

Because if it is anthropogenic, then we MIGHT be able to mitigate it.

If on the other hand this is just a natural occcurance?

Then there is nothing we can do to mitigate it, and all we can do is try to deal with the changes that such a drastic climate change would produce.

For example...most of mankind lives at or near sea level.

A 7 degree temperature increase would flood most of mankinds current areas of population.

For example, right now the earth's breadbaskets exist where they exist.

A 7 degree temperature change would certainly change those locations, but we have no reasonwhatever to expect that where the temperate zones will also be good place for farming.

I mean a temperature change that dramatic will be essantially impossible for most people to survive.

The dieoff of mankind will reach epic proportions if that prediction is true.

If Napoleon had a B-52 at the Battle of Waterloo, we'd all be able to speak French. "If" is not a viable place to start an argument like this.

I personally am looking forward to Global Warming. I just shoveled another 4 inches of Climate Change off my driveway today.

Anyway, part of the increase in climate may be actual over the last century and part may be computer generated. Below is a link that will take you to a blink comparrison of the actual recorded data of Temperature in the USA and the adjust values. Below that is a link that takes you to a comparison of the raw data vs the adjusted data.

http://climate-skeptic.typepad.com/.a/6a00e54eeb9dc18834010535ef5d49970b-pi

Posted on December 18, 2008 at 11:48 AM in Climate Science Process | Permalink | Comments (18)

Global Warming Is Caused by Computers
In particular, a few computers at NASA's Goddard Institute seem to be having a disproportionate effect on global warming. Anthony Watt takes a cut at an analysis I have tried myself several times, comparing raw USHCN temperature data to the final adjusted values delivered from that data by the NASA computers. My attempt at this compared the USHCN adjusted to raw for the entire US:

http://climate-skeptic.typepad.com/.a/6a00e54eeb9dc1883401053656eddd970b-pi

Anthony Watt does this analysis from USHCN raw all the way through to the GISS adjusted number (the USHCN adjusts the number, and then the GISS adds their own adjustments on top of these adjustments). The result: 100%+ of the 20th century global warming signal comes from the adjustments. There is actually a cooling signal in the raw data:

 

[Old Rocks]

Anthony Watt is an undegreeded ex-TV weatherman with a habit of lying.

 

[IanC]

Anthony Watt is an undegreeded ex-TV weatherman with a habit of lying.

you keep calling Watts a liar but you never actually point out any of his 'lies'. is your definition of 'lies' = something Old Rocks doesnt agree with but can't refute.

its also funny that you think someone who spent their working life in studying weather and their retired life as an interested student of climate science is somehow incapable of understanding the issues. what are your qualifications again? oh yeah, you are willing to suck the dick of any climate scientist as long as they say "good boy for believing us"

 

[westwall]

Anthony Watt is an undegreeded ex-TV weatherman with a habit of lying.

So you keep saying and yet you can never point to a single example of where he has lied. Also his guest authors are fully degreed scientists so your continued sniveling about him having no degree is moot. He's not writing the articles, the scientists are.

BTW what exactly is undegreeded?

 

[daveman]

Obviously, world socialism is the only thing that will save us.

 

[Old Rocks]

2010 February Wott's Up With That?

 

[Old Rocks]

The video that Anthony Watts does not want you to see: The Climate Denial “Crock of the Week” Climate Progress

 

[Old Rocks]

Little Green Footballs - Anthony Watts: Disastrously Wrong Again

Anthony Watts: Disastrously Wrong Again
Charles Johnson
Environment • Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 10:07 am PST • Views: 26,575

Pseudo-scientist Anthony Watts of the “Watts Up With That” climate change denial blog posted a bold prediction earlier this year — he said this summer would decisively show that the polar ice cap had stopped declining. He guaranteed this, in fact.

Now the scientific measurements have been taken, and the results are in, and Watts’s prediction is revealed as the denialist propaganda it is; in fact, polar ice has declined to historically low levels, and this summer, both the Northwest Passage and the Northeast Passage were completely clear of ice for the first time in recorded history. Watts is a hack and a fraud, posing as a scientist to feed his right wing audience the soothing false claims they want to hear.

Environmentalist Peter Sinclair’s new video makes this very clear.

 

[Old Rocks]

Anthony Watts

Just Enough Information to Mislead
Tags: Alan Cheetham, Anthony Watts, Der Spiegel, Nature, Richard Littlemore, WUWT
You can't beat Anthony Watts' team at WUWT (either Watts Up With That or We Use Wishful Thinking, it's hard to tell) for the delicate selection and presentation of "evidence" to argue that climate isn't changing.

Here, for example, is a post that trumpets a Nature article on the climate effects of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. WUWT also credits the reputable German publication Der Spiegel as an intermediate source for this information and then posts the graph (left) as easy visual proof that what's happening in climate today is all part of a normal up and down.

But have a close look at that graph. First, it doesn't come from the Nature paper or from Der Spiegel. It was cobbled together on a denier site run by an engineer named Alan Cheetham. Second, the yellow lines showing a downward resumption on the right side are based on - well, actually, on no data points whatever. While Cheetham may have a crystal ball, a touching optimism or a cavalier disregard for objective presentation, he has no evidence at all.

But he has a fan in Anthony Watts. Watt does that tell you?