Well it seems that NASA is a reader of The Aurora as well. I just wonder what took them so long to publish our studies aka common sense observations.
Now where the frick is our grant money.
This is just so ridiculous it just might make sense. The Sun, of all things might actually impact global temperature? Say it ain't so. I haven't heard of any scientific consensus regarding this theory on Good Morning America, Al Gore sure hasn't mentioned it, and in fact there are rumors that The Sun may have received funding from Exxon in the past.
The UN (and for that matter, darn near pretty much every scientific report you have read preaching the sky is falling) agrees; that is, that the Sun has no impact on global temperature, and that is why in every single one of their climate studies warning of imminent atmospheric doom, they have failed to account for its affect, and yet the sheep of the world still take them seriously.
That makes sense.
Reminds me of my favorite "research" discovery of all time....
"Happy people smile more than people that are not happy"
Then again maybe they just have gas.
Of course the sun impacts global warming
you frickin jackasses!
Do we have to spell out everything.
EE-Aw!
15 comments:
Now donkey, you just wait one minute here! Are you saying that the big orange thing in the sky affects (effects?) our weather? our temperature?
That's just crazy talk!
Are those crickets I hear?
I wonder why....
Obviously there is not one scientist in the entire world who has ever said the sun has no impact on global warming.
well i don't know gary, they don't mention the sun in these reports as a possible cause of warming? why is that?
What is even more bothersome to me is that when presented with the argument that the polar caps of Mars are melting as well, the gw alwarmists readily will concede that solar irradiance as well other natural occuring events are the cause, yet so easily dismiss it as a possible cause of the earth's current warming cycle.
It is disingeneuos at best but more likely intentionally and fraudulently deceptive.
Let's clear up a few things. You say there is no consensus. That is simply wrong. A consensus does not have to be unanimous. It is defined as "general agreement or accord." A majority of scientists accept the reality of manmade global warming. Several reviews of the scientific literature have put it as high as 90%. That is a consensus.
Now you believe the minority. Fine, I have already said that the minority could conceivably be right, although I think it is not at all likely.
You have dismissed global warming as "junk science." I think it is unlikely in the extreme that so many prominent scientists, Harvard climatologists, National Academy of Science, etc, would suddenly start practicing junk science and that peer reviewed scientific journals would suddenly start publishing so much junk science.
I cite a recent NASA study saying that the sun is in all likelihood the main culprit for the current as well as past warming cycles. You ignore that point and go back to your broken record rhetoric about consensus.
Then you accuse us of denying global warming, when we have done no such thing. We doubt that man is the main cause, if cause at all.
Address the point or pipe down.
Gary, it's not sudden. That shit's been going on for centuries. Again, the consensus was so strong in Galileo's time that they put him in jail for his views.
Also, the 90% number is bullshit and in fact i think that's one of those 4 out of 5 dentists kind of thing. They ask the scientists that they want to ask. Lately, since algore has been pushing this shit i have seen more and more scientists who have come out publicly to say it's not true.
More to the point, the climate has experienced extreme changes for centuries. Why is it that all of a sudden it's man made?
The temperature on Mars is rising and it's ice caps are melting. This wouldn't have happened if we just drove electric cars. Why hasn't Al Gore tried to help out all the poor people who will suffer on Mars as a result of gullible warming?
What NASA study are you referring to? This one?
'Smoking gun' on humans and global warming claimed
NASA-led scientists say ocean data ties manmade emissions to warmer Earth
Using ocean data collected by diving floats, U.S. climate scientists released a study Thursday that they said provides the "smoking gun" that ties manmade greenhouse gas emissions to global warming.
The researchers, some of them working for NASA and the Energy Department, went a step further, implicitly criticizing President Bush for not taking stronger action to curb emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases.
They said the findings confirm that computer models of climate change are on target and that global temperatures will rise 1 degree Fahrenheit this century, even if greenhouse gases are capped tomorrow.
If emissions instead continue to grow, as expected, things could spin “out of our control,” especially as ocean levels rise from melting Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, the NASA-led scientists said. "The climate system could reach a point where large sea level change is practically impossible to avoid."
The study, published Thursday in the journal Science, is the latest to report growing certainty about global warming projections.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7665636/
So in other words gary you're saying you have no answer for the nasa scientists that Donkey linked in his post so you found an article from some other nasa scientists that agree with your point of view.......... But it's settled right?............ no reason to question this thing anymore right?
Ok.... baaa baaa
Actually Gary I was talking about the article that isnt two years old but rather the one I linked that was just recently (science is ever evolving fyi) published in the Journal of Geophysical Research.
But, Ill humor you.
Then again maybe I wont.
You expect me to respect the validity of an article that within the first two paragraphs, not only expects me to believe that man is the cause for global warming, but more specifically, they go so far as to blame one man in particular, George Bush, who at the time of writing, had only been in power for five years.
You can not be serious.
Until you can tell me how .04% atmospheric carbon has more influence than solar radiance with a 100% positive temperature influence on our climate, do yourself a favor and pipe down, you are embarrassing yourself even more than usual.
I looked up the study you mentioned. From the Abstract:
We estimate that the sun contributed as much as 45–50% of the 1900–2000 global warming, and 25–35% of the 1980–2000 global warming. These results, while confirming that anthropogenic-added climate forcing might have progressively played a dominant role in climate change during the last century, also suggest that the solar impact on climate change during the same period is significantly stronger than what some theoretical models have predicted."
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2005GL025539.shtml
Of course global warming could have more than one cause.But which cause can we do something about?
As to your question as to how a mere .04% C02 in the atmosphere could cause global warming, let me answer you this way. I don't know because I am not a physicist or a climatologist. But let me ask you, do you think that all the Ph.Ds doing research on global warming, and publishing in scientific journals don't know that C02 is .04%?? If you went up to a Harvard Ph.D at a scientific conference, do you think that he would respond, "You don't say, well, disregard all my published studies on global warming! Never mind."
"Of course global warming could have more than one cause."
I respect that you are finally admitting that you were wrong, and are now willing to keep an open mind to other causes besides man's "carbon footprint".
Welcome aboard Gary, this is how science works.
"But which cause can we do something about?"
Heres the problem. It has become which cause can we make money from -- on all sides, but the ecos are looking to earn from destroying not producing.
"do you think that he would respond, "You don't say, well, disregard all my published studies on global warming! Never mind.""
I would expect them to cower, as most pseudo intellectuals hiding behind pieces of off white paper do when engaged in discussion face to face with me, knowing full well that their type could attempt to lie to me, but could not lie to themselves, as only they know the reason why this key factor is absent from their reports.
Now go read the the UN's IPCC and come back and tell me what the worlds governing body has to say about the sun. I believe the mention was one and the number was in the 1.2% ballpark
It would almost be comical, if I didnt think the potential for living on The Island was realistic.
Even the study you cite does not deny anthropogenic global warming but says that solar variance might also be a factor for "25–35% of the 1980–2000 global warming."
Dealing with global warming will require development of new technologies that will be good for the economy. We must get off the oil kick--oil is running out, causes pollution, and threatens our national security as most of it comes from the Middle East.
Post a Comment