NASA Study Shows Sun Responsible for Planet Warming

By Bob Ellis on June 5th, 2009

(Credit: Robert A. Rohde)

Click to enlarge (Credit: Robert A. Rohde)

From DailyTech, we have still more evidence that any warming occurring on planet earth is coming from natural sources and is cyclic in nature–NOT from the evil capitalism that Al Gore, the UN politicians at the IPCC and other socialists love to blame.

From the article:

Now, a new research report from a surprising source may help to lay this skepticism to rest. A study from NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland looking at climate data over the past century has concluded that solar variation has made a significant impact on the Earth’s climate. The report concludes that evidence for climate changes based on solar radiation can be traced back as far as the Industrial Revolution.

Past research has shown that the sun goes through eleven year cycles. At the cycle’s peak, solar activity occurring near sunspots is particularly intense, basking the Earth in solar heat. According to Robert Cahalan, a climatologist at the Goddard Space Flight Center, “Right now, we are in between major ice ages, in a period that has been called the Holocene.”

If our media, culture and a large portion of the “scientific” community were really honest, it would be the worshippers of the religion of anthropogenic global warming who are called “skeptics,” wouldn’t it?

Because it is those pushing this silly theory that our puny SUVs and power plants are causing earth to warm up when the most obvious source of heat hangs over their head every single day.

AGW simply doesn’t pass the smell test. Nor does it line up with the objective data.

sunspot_numbers
Click to enlarge (Credit: Robert A. Rohde)

As this graph shows, solar activity has been cyclic in nature going back hundreds of years.  Solar activity is also increasing, and we are coming out of the “Little Ice Age” of just a few hundred years ago. Of course the planet is warming–we’re coming out of a cold spell! The Maunder Minimum period of diminished solar activity coincided with the Little Ice Age when Europe and North America experienced bitterly cold winters.

About 1,000 years ago, Greenland was warm enough for the Vikings to colonize and grow vineyards.  Today Greenland is almost entirely covered in ice.  Tell me: is the earth warmer today than it was 1,000 years ago?  Did they have SUVs and coal power plants in the days of the Vikings?  This isn’t tough to figure out, people.

The only thing tough about the global warming debate is trying to get the facts to match the socialist agenda of the AGW proponents.  Try as they might, they just can’t do it, and more and more people are starting to see that.

Things like cyclic solar data, warming occurring on other planets such as Mars and Jupiter just don’t line up with the suppositions of the AGW worshippers.  They craft all manner of complex calculations and “what ifs,” but in the end the best they can do is say things like, “Well, we can’t prove it now, but by the time we can, it’ll be too late.”

And we’re supposed to watch our electric bills go up 40% and see our economy devastated on what-ifs and a bunch of garbage that not only doesn’t match the evidence but doesn’t even pass the smell test?

I’m not as gullible as these shysters seem to think I am, and I don’t believe most of the American people are either.

Note: Reader comments are reviewed before publishing, and only salient comments that add to the topic will be published. Profanity is absolutely not allowed and will be summarily deleted. Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will also be deleted.

Powered By Wordpress Tabs Slides
  • Digg
  • Yahoo Buzz
  • Reddit
  • Yahoo Bookmarks
  • Delicious
  • StumbleUpon
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Windows Live Favorites
  • Technorati Favorites
  • NewsVine
  • Share/Bookmark

Categories: Commentary
Tags: ,

  • AntonioSosa
    No patriotic and informed American can support the global warming/cap and trade scam, more fraudulent than any Nigerian scam.

    Cap and trade represents huge taxes and cost increases, which will hurt mostly the poor and the middle class. Cap and trade will give dictatorial powers to Obama and will further enrich his billionaire friends (Gore, Soros, Goldman Sachs, Obama’s Chicago Climate Exchange friends, GE, etc.) -- all at our expense and at the expense of our children and grandchildren.

    Cap and Trade “would be the equivalent of an atomic bomb directed at the U.S. economy—all without any scientific justification,” said famed climatologist Dr. S. Fred Singer. It would significantly increase taxes and the cost of energy, forcing many companies to close, thus increasing unemployment, poverty and dependence.

    Those brainwashed to the point of wanting to destroy the economy to "prevent global warming" are behaving like the most primitive human beings who were duped into believing that human sacrifices would ensure them good weather. Human beings don't have the power to control climate! And killing the economy will not help the environment. Poor countries can’t protect the environment. Just look at Haiti!
  • Tom
    I don't get why you are ignoring the very TINY part the sun warming plays:

    http://img266.imageshack.us/i/ipcc2007radforc.jpg/

    If you are interested in the facts, why do you ignore the majority of them?
  • Yes, that star in the middle of our solar system burning at 11,000 degrees is only a tiny part of what warms teh earth. Until we invented SUVs and coal power plants, earth was a frozen ball of ice.

    You, Tom, are a great illustration of what a deluded human being looks like.
  • Heh. I'd hope that what Tom meant to say is that increased sunspots and solar activity doesn't seem to account for the recent rapid increase in global temperature, as a NASA rep was quoted as saying in the article that tipped off Michael Andrews (DailyTech) to this study:

    "For the last 20 to 30 years, we believe greenhouse gases have been the dominant influence on recent climate change," said Robert Cahalan, climatologist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md.

    He's not saying solar activity doesn't account for any increase in earth's temperature: the findings of this NASA study suggest it accounts for about 25% of that increase. If you disagree with that number as Michael Andrews probably would, this study is the wrong source to cite in an argument! Sure, it establishes that the solar cycle does impact Earth's global temperature, but we already knew that! Its significant findings (the exact amount by which increased solar activity impacts the global temperature) disagree with the claim that increased solar activity plays the largest role in global warming. Unfortunately, Andrews has misunderstood or misrepresented its findings.
  • Do you understand that CO2 levels have tracked with solar activity (following solar activity, not preceding it, I might add) going back long, long before the current industrial age? Do you understand what that means? Do you understand that if temperature fluctuated before the rise of power plants and SUVs, and if it tracked with solar activity, that the assertion that somehow the universe has changed and now we must believe, based on the flawed assumptions of some biased scientists with an over-active herd instinct, that what was happening before without influence from human activity is now happening because of human activity?

    Do you realize how incredibly silly that is? Especially since the planet has been much warmer in the past than it currently is? Without utter catastrophe?

    This theory is total BS, and if people would turn off their herd instinct and degree-worship and turn on their brains a few minutes, it would be abundantly clear.
  • But this post is about the NASA study, which we don't need to make any of those claims, and which neither supports nor contradicts them per se. The NASA study addresses the claim that solar activity is significantly responsible for the recent rapid increase in global temperatures, and seems to disagree with that claim.
  • Louis
    There is a nice "IPCC" logo stamp on the side of the graph. Government Propaganda not True Scientific Study wins the day if one where to learn from you my friend. Please may i have another cup of hope and change and put some more gore in it please.
  • anonymous coward
    Yeah, you can't trust government agencies, they're all in on it! It's a huge conspiracy!

    Oh, wait, NASA is a government agency...
  • While I am against the Global Warming propaganda, I dont think you read the actual report from Science Daily, you will find this section:

    "Over the past century, Earth's average temperature has increased by approximately 0.6 degrees Celsius (1.1 degrees Fahrenheit). Solar heating accounts for about 0.15 C, or 25 percent, of this change, according to computer modeling results published by NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies researcher David Rind in 2004. Earth's climate depends on the delicate balance between incoming solar radiation, outgoing thermal radiation and the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Even small changes in these parameters can affect climate. Around 30 percent of the solar energy that strikes Earth is reflected back into space. Clouds, atmospheric aerosols, snow, ice, sand, ocean surface and even rooftops play a role in deflecting the incoming rays. The remaining 70 percent of solar energy is absorbed by land, ocean, and atmosphere.

    "Greenhouse gases block about 40 percent of outgoing thermal radiation that emanates from Earth," Woods said. The resulting imbalance between incoming solar radiation and outgoing thermal radiation will likely cause Earth to heat up over the next century, accelerating the melting polar ice caps, causing sea levels to rise and increasing the probability of more violent global weather patterns."

    It appears that this study SUPPORTS global warming caused by carbon fuels. "Greenhouse gases block about 40 percent of outgoing thermal radiation that emanates from Earth"

    If you are going to talk about something, dont pick and choose the parts that support your view. Show both, and make a good argument.
  • I read this and was aware of it, Jeff. This is typical of global warming Koolaid drinkers. Even when they can bring themselves to actually admit the truth, they still have to couch it in subjective terms that makes them feel better in their delusion.

    Hopefully you didn't miss the glaringly obvious correlation between solar activity and temperature. That speaks loudly for itself, and only someone ideologically invested in the socialist propaganda that is AGW theory could ignore it.

    This silly theory doesn't even pass the smell test, much less the test of objective science.
  • carl
    So how are you any better than the people you are attacking? Your cherry picking the things you want out of another source without presenting any intelligent arguments other than disregarding what doesn't suit you with an off-handed comment.

    How about the fact that our telescope technology got better over the course of those hundreds of years allowing us to see more sunspots? So it's possible that, other than during the two minimums, sunspot activity might have been fairly consistent over that time span we just weren't able to see them. Also what about the last couple of years when there hasn't been any sunspots?

    But i guess you'll just brush off all this by calling me a Koolaid drinker........
  • Come on, Carl. "Our telescopes got better"? We don't track sunspot activity merely with telescopes.

    The information I have presented here could not be clearer. You either suffer from a predisposition to worship elitists and blindly consume everything they say, or you yourself suffer from the same socialist self-guilt which is behind their assumptions and suppositions.

    I would encourage you to try separating the assumptions and suppositions from the actual facts and what those facts indicate. If you can manage this, I think you'll find that the only place the theory of anthropogenic global warming really fits is on one of those Saturday afternoon C-grade disaster movies on the Sci Fi Channel.
  • Louis
    If anyone picks and chooses it is those who design the "computer models" themselves.Research how many of these models have been junked because they were grossly inaccurate. Not to mention how many times numbers have been manipulated so that those crunching them can continue to receive those juicy Gobment grants. What caused the warming that occurred during the Renaissance period? They where making wine in England.
  • Jon
    Hey Jeff, that's a very good point, Almost. I have one word for you. VOLCANOES
  • Flem
    Well yeah, of course the Sun is a huge factor, it is the biggest source of "warm" we got. You also can't use this to bury the fact that our pollution at the very least is hurting ourselves which is reason enough to reduce it as much as possible.
  • We need proof before we scuttle our economy, raise our electric bills by 40% and destroy thousands of jobs, Flem. Only a suicidal culture would follow such an idiotic theory that doesn't even pass the smell test to the point of adopting policies that wreck their economy--as we're considering doing.

    The evidence for cyclic, natural climate change goes back thousands of years. Only a deluded fanatic could suspect that our little cars and power plants could have a significant effect over THE SUN. Other planets in our solar system are warming up (and the last I checked, there were no SUVs or capitalists of any kind on these planets), yet we are to believe that our evil vehicles and businesses are baking the planet here.

    There's no proof of anthropogenic global warming. It is about 90% assumption and supposition. Almost all the evidence points to natural causes of any warming. No rational, intelligent, objective person buys this AGW garbage. It's one of the silliest notions ever seen.

    If you want to live as they did in the early 19th Century, have at it. The rest of us rather enjoy our modern lifestyle and strongly object the socialist-manufactured propaganda that wants to force your brand of delusion on the rest of us.

    Sorry, we're not buying that kind of poison Koolaid here.
  • Ray
    Yes, pollution is certainly an issue that should be dealt with. Unfortunately. those that push the Global Warming agenda are responsible for all of the most damaging sources of pollution like the massive amounts of depleted uranium being used in international warfare. With a half-life of 4.5 Billion years, DU contamination literally poisons entire ecosystems not only where it is used, but is also spread via wind and water to many other areas. Basic industrial pollution is by no means remotely as devastating or long lasting. If these criminals were actually interested in protecting the environment, DU would be the easiest and most logical source to eliminate immediately.

    But this is yet another diversion ... the "pollution is bad" argument. CO2 is NOT pollution. And it is NOT responsible for GW. GW precedes the rise in CO2 levels, consequently, CO2 cannot also cause it. The facts are that the rise in CO2 levels are a result of flourishing life made possible by a warming of the planet

    Does agriculture prosper more in warm areas than in cold? The answer is obvious to anyone who has ever tried to grow a plant or garden. Does the increase in agriculture made possible by extended growing seasons lead to greater food supply for mammalian life thereby increasing the CO2 levels that in turn are utilized by plant life to grow in abundance? Again the answer is obvious.

    But if this is too complex to understand ... understand this. 1) It is a fact that hundreds ... even thousands of years ago the earth was warmer than it is today. This is unquestionable. So, please, if you cannot show evidence of a prior "industrialized" civilization that none of us are currently aware of, (ancient SUV's, power plants, etc.) then what caused the warmer climate then? The answer is the SUN, stupid.

    2) It is a fact that other planets in our solar system are experiencing global warming as discovered by NASA. Are little green men on Mars also using too much oil, driving SUV's and watching big screen TV's and running their Air Conditioners too much?

    The level of stupidity revolving around the myth of AGW is staggering.
  • jerrg
    There has been no overall warming for the past 111 years if you look at the rural site data in the US. Cities, however have been warming (Urban Heat Island Effect) and have shift all the averages. Here is a little video that explains so that a sixth grader can understand it.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcsvaCPYgcI

    Check out the data at GISS and look at the rural sites yourself.
  • tommy2tone
    Log onto http://www.wunderground.com/global/stations/890... and tell me if you still think all that ice is melting.
  • sue phi
    i read the actual Science Daily article. it says that about 25% of the warmup is due to solar activity, not all of it.
    your 'opinion' is based on the same type of psychological propoganda that you claim is the failing of the other side of the argument. you are opposames. until there is an actual attempt to use objective rather than coercive language in regards to this subject, everyone is just throwing self aggrandizing and self worshipping opinions around. this is a BOTH/AND situation. both sides refuse to create a personal foundation of belief that is based on truth and that the situation is complex. this is not a religious argument. this is not a political argument.
    this is supposed to be a scientific debate which is based on teh most objective truths possible.
    but all i see is self rightousness on both sides.
    does anyone think deeply and in a complex manner anymore or has modern society made us all lazy?
  • Ah, no, if you'll look at the data, it clearly shows a correlation between solar activity and temperature (which is actually a "Duh"-league conclusion).

    The AGW-fanatics assume the warming is caused or exacerbated by CO2 and other greenhouse gasses, but they don't know that. In fact, the data actually shows temperature increases preceding or coming before CO2 rises. So it is pretty clear that the so-called greenhouse gases are NOT causing warming.

    Like many people these days (http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/06/do-scientist...), you confuse assumptions about science and scientific evidence itself. Think about it: they are NOT the same.
  • I see that Al Gore's adoring disciples have come out of the woodwork, and unfortunately I simply don't have the time to debunk each individual dose of nonsense.

    The information contained in this article speaks quite clearly for itself. Only a devoted socialist, fanatic, moron, or other type of Koolaid drinker could (1) be presented with this information, then (b) fail to grasp what it clearly indicates, and then (c) rationally continue believe that the evil capitalists and their SUVs are causing the planet to warm up. There is simply no rationality involved in the faith in AGW once one is exposed to the facts.

    So since the mission of Dakota Voice is to be a voice of truth and dispel the malarkey passing itself off as reality in pop culture, and not a forum for continued perpetuation of that same nonsense, no more comments from AGW zombies will be accepted.
  • DanMingo
    I have long felt the climate change argument to be un winnable, and I oppose the expensive legislation being considered to address the 'problem'. That's not to say that the climate is not changing; the question is what can we do about it?
    What we can address is environmental degradation. This is undeniably occurring, is man-made, and has dire consequences for our future if not promptly addressed.
    If the oceans/rivers/streams/air are polluted, if rain forests disappear, all biological systems are altered. Our chemical and human waste stream can be addressed; in fact have been addressed, but more is needed and the climate change/global warming debate sucks needed energy away from these areas.
    Weaning us from our dependence on fossil fuels, the biggest polluters, is a good place to start. We can accomplish this without going through that carbon credit scam.
  • JPoitiers
    That is the argument that I have found that professional "Goracles" will not touch:

    Did all the problems of mercury, lead, pcbs etc. just go away? Why can't we focus entirely on the biggest enviromental problems now?

    Since they won't respond I can't begin to believe they are "enviromentalists" of they know nothing of the most harmful chemicals we dump in the enviroment.
  • Josh
    Yeah but don't you just want to jump on the bandwagon of whatever group of blank-faced, unquestioning zombies & travel around in 2lb hybrid cars made out of paper?
  • Darrel
    Good job Mr. Ellis,
    It`s refreshing to read an article that`s clear, factual and cuts to the point,
    I am totally convinced AGW is the biggest scam in the history of the world.
    Truth is, one can get to the bottom of about any controversial debate with only limited scientific facts or other data, by just simply following the money.
  • David
    Um... I may be off a little on the actual numbers, but doesn't water vapor account for approximately 96% of all greenhouse gasses? After deducting for all other naturally occurring sources, I believe that we are actually responsible for about one quarter of one percent of all greenhouse gas emissions - MAXIMUM, probably less. Lookout!!!! - the sky is falling!!!
  • Dierk
    CO2 makes up 0.035 % of the atmosphere, we are responsible of 0.15% of that amount in emissions. Rotting vegetation alone produces more than that.
  • Gavin
    Finallly some intelligent data.

    Mar's icecaps are also melting at the same rate as Earth's. Planets in our solar system are all heating up including the former Pluto. Even it is heating up.

    So:

    1) SUV's, Hummers and farting cows are on Mars and all other planets in our solar system
    2) The sun is emitting more energy and is cyclical in nature. Iceland used to be green and deserts used to be rainforests. Earth changes.
  • Jason
    Jeff you quote this as your response at the start of your second paragraph...."Over the past century, Earth's average temperature has increased by approximately 0.6 degrees Celsius (1.1 degrees Fahrenheit). Solar heating accounts for about 0.15 C, or 25 percent, of this change, according to computer modeling results published by NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies researcher David Rind in 2004" Ah computer models the warmist friend did you not know that these GCM's do not model cloud formation properly ? you do know water vapour is the top green house gas right? also these models treat earths atmosphere like its a green house in some ones garden unlike the dynamic body of gas and weather systems it is.

    Also the affect of cosmic radiation on cloud formation is little understood and discounted by most pro warming scientists however the little ice age and the up to recently the high solar activity do colate with warm and cold periods of recent times perhaps these should be studied by these biased scentists.

    Also there's the matter of this fact the globe has warmed by a average of 0.6C or 1.1 F since just before the industrial revolution CO2 has increased by over a third and yet only the above warming after all isn't it accepted by mainstream scientists that without CO2 this planets average temp would be -15C this suggests CO2 has a logarithmic effect on temperature and has less effect as it increases.

    I could say more about some of the science like how ice cores/tree rings might not be the evidence that the warmist make out or that Antarctica and greenland have currently record ice levels or that's there's no real evidence of a increase in sea level rise other than whats been happening for thousands of years.

    But its late and i want to sleep but i will say the science is far from settled as politicans, scientist's and the media would like you to believe.

    But still some of you still take Mann's hockey stick as gospel.
  • Bob--

    Please drop that frequent "kool-Aid" tag business you keep handing out. It is demeaning and not helpful to a decent dialogue. You obviously come from a lofty place that values science and (all of the?) data, so you really don't need to belittle folks contrary to your views, do you?
  • I'd really like to have a more intellectual and dignified discussion of this issue, but when such a large number of people make such deliberate and determined efforts to shove their fists into their eyes to ignore the obvious, I'm afraid that something along the lines of Koolaid-drinking zombies is about as polite as I can get. One can sympathize a little with ignorance (we've all been ignorant about something at some time or another), but obstinately ignoring common sense and the obvious is another matter altogether.

    Name-calling for the sake of it is never something to resort to, but when someone is deliberately refusing to open their mind even a little, well, there comes a time to quit pussy-footing around and simply call a spade a spade.
  • Lisa
    Dear Bob,

    It does seem that NASA is using this as a platform to appeal to people who know that global warming is a money-making, planet-destroying fraud by giving them a little truth, while thoroughly wrapping it in speculation to insist that emissions are the real problem. Given that NASA is quite mainstream, I doubt they would go against the backers of global warming. There are also larger solar cycles, such as the 5,000+ year one that ends in 2012 (I'm sure you know). Yes, emissions, tree cutting, and the like are serious threats, but it is apparent they aren't affecting the weather in the ways claimed. We are, indeed, cooling again in the last few years, and most of the Antarctic ice is increasing (though not the small section that is covered by mainstream media). When one notices how the politicians and corporations are recommending to correct global warming (like "clean coal," which is ludicrous, or cutting down natural vegetation to plant GMO corn for biofuel), one has to wonder about the possible validity of all the prominent scientists who think global warming is a scam.

    It's probably not so much the Koolaid, but that mercury-laden corn syrup soda, all those wonderful excitotoxins (MSG, natural flavor, etc) everyone loves to eat, and the ever-present neurotoxic "fragrances" people take for granted (they actually smell like pesticide, under their horrible perfumes). People aren't aware of how their environment affects them, and it's sad that most don't care if you try to tell them. Ignorance is basically a lack of knowledge and is not inherently of bad intent; but, like you implied, when indications that some of our beliefs may not be altogether correct are deliberately ignored, then people do become what is commonly referred to as "ignorant" - under-intelligent by choice ... and such is extremely harmful, especially in the long run. Anyone can choose to change that in him/herself at any time. Period.

    Thank you for posting this article, despite your knowledge that you knew it would draw this kind of response.

    Sincerely, Lisa
  • Michael
    Just notice where the graphs ends. If you check the whole diagram until 2009. The disparity is fantastic. It shows the sunspots declining while Be concentration radically increasing.
  • Gigas
    Don't miss out on the latest scare tactic, the earth atmosphere is reportedly being blown off by the sun. Al gore is an alien manifestation created to put a face on the gw lie in this fabricated reality of buffoonery illusion. The system is becoming top heavy and unsustainable as it compensates the equation to baffle the consciousness into beleiving the nonsense noise. It won't be long before it all topples down.

    Other BS system ilusive generated buffoonery: the universe is slowing down, the universe is speeding up, earth is warming, earth is cooling, water is lowering, water is rising, mars is dead, mars is full of life, the moon is dry, the moon has ice water, space probes are decelerating, space probes are excelerating, and the list of BS we are fed goes on and on.
  • H
    It's all Bush's fault!
  • Bob
    Global warming is a political agenda. It doesn't matter if the temperature goes up or down, it's global warming.

    Bottom line, they are going to grab every conceivable resource and environmentalism is the anvil on which our property rights will be smashed.

    I say we waterboard the lot of them until they fess up the truth.
  • Pat Donnelly
    Well said.
  • Phicrappazappa
    I’m not as gullible as these shysters seem to think I am, and I don’t believe most of the American people are either.
    Yes they are. They're dumber than tree stumps. We are where we are because they are. Put it on TV, especially in commercial format during copulating with the stars, "And you know, Martha, I think that's in the Bible somewhere!"
  • christ
    The global warming campagn is about control. Thats it period. The fact that the MSM carries ONLY the "stories" that back the AGW theory shows that. Here in Oz, the majority of people are willingly going to loose their quality of life and go back to the dark age for a religious belief founded by the most blood thirsty evil f###s the world has known. I hope you yanks wake up before your MSM brainwashes the masses.
  • Bob
    Not only are we not falling for the Global Warming scam....

    I demand those who conspired to bring about this massive FRAUD be tried under RICO. I demand Al Gore stand trial, be convicted, be executed and have his entire family fortune subject to confiscation. I demand a similar fate to all the other scumbags who also knowingly participated in this fraud!
  • John
    There are silver mines in the Alps that have been rediscovered due to the snow melting, so mankind must have been up in those hights many, many years ago. Now that the snow is melting back to the stage where it was some milennia ago, we suddenly have a climate problem? I don't think so! The only thing that is a fraud is Al Gore!
  • Mike H
    Wow, you seem ready to fight to the death for SUVs and power plants! Do you own stock?
  • I actually hate SUVs, Mike. But I cherish the freedom to choose.
  • doug
    Global warming is a hoax,that is why its being slowly changed to "climate change",much more maneuverability as the climate does change.People should check out how much Gore stands to make of cap and trade.Ask yourself why a man like James Woolsey Former director of the CIA is involved in this fiasco.AL Gore said he invented the internet ,nuff said.
  • Ponter
    Let's be clear. What seems to be a "socialist" agenda by the AGW set is really another capitalist rip-off. Consider that Al Gore has major financial investments in several companies (e.g. Generation Investment
    Management) which stand to profit from any carbon reduction programs such as the cap-and-trade scam. Of note, Gore's co-founder of GIM is none other than Hank Paulson, about whom we all know too much. This is why, at the end of his Powerpoint lecture, he called for such modest behavioral changes as switching to CFLs and so on. He was setting us up for a major financial looting! Nothing to do with "saving the planet."
  • andy fox
    Very true! It may come as a surprise to some people that the it is the sun responsible for our climate, but lots of people seem to believe that it is our politicians!!!
  • Wes
    http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseActi...

    "More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims"
  • Gore Worshipper
    I wonder why every day seems to be warmer than every night...

    Must be because SUVs are driven more during the daytime. I hope the blessed Al Gore can explain this to me. Because it has nothing to do with the 1,380,000 km diameter nuclear reactor in the sky according to Him.
  • Gorebot-387
    How could you possibly believe that an object which produces 384 billion billion megawatts of energy per second could affect planetary temperatures? (Or 384,600,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 watts, if you prefer.)

    I mean, really! Anyone with a brain can see that the small saturation of a very limited band of EM absorption in a trace gas would completely obscure such a miniscule power source's reactions with things like water vapor, ocean water or even land. I bet you'll even try to convince us that oceans absorb heat directly from the sun's rays, instead of warming due to atmospheric temperature increases - and that in doing so it heats the atmosphere instead. You'll even make exaggerated claims of the ground heating up from direct absorption, rather than from the atmosphere's affects on it.

    Next you'll be trying to convince us that clouds play a fundamental role in temperature control through absorption of the sun's energy and precipitation.

    What an imagination you have! I'm sticking with 387 PPM of CO2 as the only cause for warming! It's the only thing that makes sense in all this.
  • Bob
    The majority of Americans are too busy making a living, raising a family, and taking care of responsibilities to spend the time necessary to uncover major scams such as the Al Gore swindle. Somehow the American public allowed him to capitalize on an outright lie, and his assertions border on insanity. The things he has said in public and the things he has insisted are true in his embarrassing movie "An Inconvenient Truth" would not merit a passing mark in any third grade class I know of.

    I don't want to tie him to liberals because most liberals with whom I have some sort of association are intelligent in general....just misinformed. I try not to judge them harshly simply because they believe fairy tales that long have been proved unworkable in the real world. But Al is a criminal, and he has intentionally misled people who trusted him. While I cannot understand why anyone would trust him in the first place (he is so pompous, so inauthentic, and generally dishonest and uninformed) I detest people like him who have the morals and ethics of gutter snakes. He cares little about people, as long as he can use them to make himself wealthy.

    Al Gore is a perfect symbol of everything that is wrong with America. When we can eliminate most of the Al Gores of this world we will have made a major step back toward what we once were. He is either stupid or a criminal. You decide. He may be both, but I doubt it. I think he is just a criminal.

    If any liberal takes anything I've said as a personal attack on liberals, then he or she needs to get a life. This has nothing to do with politics. This has everything to do with a man who has no principles, morals, or ethics. He cares little how he gets his money. That is neither liberal or conservative. That is criminal.
  • Jimbo
    Sunspots or the sun maybe causing global warming. I don't know I am not a scientist.. The only thing I can say for sure is that China has a very de-regulated environmental policy. I visited there in 2007 and the place stinks, worse then LA and New York on their worst days. If thats what it takes to save the economy then screw the economy, I would rather have clean air and hunt and fish in clean streams.
  • Karen
    Funny how everyone seems to have only 1 answer for the source of global warming. If there is one truism - of big, complicated problems - it's that there is rarely 1 source or 1 answer/solution.

    I have no doubt that the sun has an effect on us. There may be other natural things occuring as well, it would be suprising if that were not true - like global cycles. However, it is highly improbable, that we, ourselves, are not having an effect as well.

    As an example, of effects we have on climate, let me offer a local occurance. I live in the Inland Empire area of Southern California - about 30 miles east of Los Angeles. This area is naturally semi-arid. In the early 1900's when farmers came in and planted vast miles of vineyards and various types of orchards. the average temperature dropped and the percipitation went up measurably. Then in the 2nd half of the century, just about everything has been built over. Replacing hundreds of square miles of farming and semi-desert with hundreds of square miles of hardscape roofs, roads, parking lots, & freeways. The temperature has gone up again. No big suprise there. Now we are adding to the temperature, humidity as millions desperatly seek a lush, irrigated, environment in the middle of a desert.
  • Karen,

    The issue is not local climate change, but global warming (aka, climate change). Obviously, given the strong urban heat island (UHI) effect, human activity will have some influence locally. There is reason to believe that there is some (very small) impact from humans globally, but that isn't the point either. The issue is "catastrophic" global warming due to a tiny additional amount of CO2 (compared with naturally-produced CO2) from human activity when CO2 has little capacity for additional atmospheric warming (due to the logarithmic decline in CO2's warming effect as more is added to the atmosphere).

    The relatively small cadre of scientists who actually support AGW are almost universally on the take from the tens of billions of dollars that are being spent on "climate change" research. That is fundamentally a waste of resources when more pressing needs exist. Spend enough on planning for natural climate change and move on.

    Historically (looking back in the geologic record), current levels of atmospheric CO2 are dramatically low, not high. By approaching the topic myopically and looking back so conveniently a short period of Earth's history, an artificial record of CO2 is obtained, but even THEN, there is no cause-and-effect correlation between rising CO2 and rising temperature (unless you consider temperature the driver of CO2 change). And that apparent correlation is only valid over a suitable timeframe (too short, it's not there; too long, it's not there). Over the past 600 million years, CO2 has been far higher for most of the time, reaching levels of at least 7500 ppm and being in the 4500 ppm range during one of the coldest ice eras ever experienced.

    The AGW theory is pure and utter bunk science (BS).

    The so-called "greenhouse effect" is a grossly distorted concept applied to atmospheric warming by certain gases. High potency at very few narrow wavelengths of the IR are treated as dominant when, in fact, they ultimately play a trivial role in climate (forget the methane scare - its nonsense, just like the plant fertilizer ... CO2 ... scare).

    Regards,

    Bob Webster

    PS: Bob Ellis, you have a terrific site. Kudos! I'm linking to your fine site from my Climate page!
  • Thanks, Bob, for your analysis and for your kind words. Best regards to you!
  • was wondering when we would get taxed for breathing
  • Martin Smith
    there was a short news piece in local paper that said, in the 3 days the US airlines were unable to fly after 9 11 the day time temps rose on the average of 3 deg f , and the night time temps cooled by the same amount of around that 3 deg. now if this is just from airline vapor trails, it tells me, man does make a huge difference.
    when i visited the US i was stuck by how many vapor trails there were, they seam to create a high cloud source even on a clear day. when my American wife came to live in New Zealand, she was so taken by the different sky we have. so it would seem to me man does make a difference.
    look at LA, well that if you can see more 5 miles in any direction on a clear day.. maybe that is not the cause of global warming, but it sure is an unhealthy living condition.
  • If the earth is warm, we can grow food.
    If the earth freezes over we are all dead, at least about 90% of us.
    Our entire continent was solid ice for 20 thousand years.
    We should be thankful for global warming because our society would not exist without it.
    So, in case Al Gore is right, I think I'm going to take a quick drive around the block and put a little extra boost of co2 in the air, just to be safe.
  • Guest
    Ive disproved the Global warming theory so many times it hurts, but no one cares. People are concerned about the planet, and they should be. We pollute this earth so much one day we will not be able to live here anymore and we will die or leave. The earth will remain. No one wants to seek evidence or ask questions because the flickering lights of TV are way more fun. Thats why people love to eat chemicals instead of food. I definetly do not want to pay more money for everything "carbon" related (anybody remember Science class and the role of CO2 in PHOTOSYNTHESIS, you know, the basis of ALL life? no? didnt think so) but until people realize they are giving away their money to carbon tax and the various UN factions involved nothing will change. Don't support Globalism so refuge can be found by those who seek it.
  • Peter
    In my 6 Grade, ~ 30 years ago, lerned, the sun is growing. Side effect, sun heat us up and will be gone for ever. Hey, we are all gone, and?. I think some people has a proplem with the fact, human are just a part of the solar system and not special. PS: Basic teaching in Germany 1972
  • The effect of variations in solar radiation must be given sufficient consideration.
  • ED
    Question?
    What is your christian problem? Suvs' are NOT puny. You idiots are destroying the planet. I'm sorry for your typical "blind eyes & ears" attitudes about reality. You are wasting energy and ruining my sons' future!
  • Ruining your son's future for not buying into this hoax? Pull my other leg now.

    You really should take the time to read the U.S. Constitution sometime. If you did, you'd find that it--the highest law of our nation, the one which defines what government can and CANNOT do--gives no authority to anyone to tell anyone what they can and can't drive. Not Al Gore, not Barack Obama, not me and not you.

    Apparently you feel Americans need someone to run their lives for them...but the Constitution doesn't agree with you.
  • Stephen
    The ultimate anti-AGW resource: http://tinyurl.com/3yop6n
  • Scientist
    Global Warming can be easily proven. We know that an atmosphere with greenhouse gases (GHG) will warm up the atmosphere. That is why the earth is not 36 degrees C cooler. Now we add more greenhouse gases and the earth warms up. At today's level of GHG, the rate of warming is logarithmic. For an increase of CO2 from 280 ppm to 380 ppm, a simple estimate gives 1 degree c rise.

    Since we want more detailed calculations, institutions like MIT, Scripps , NASA, NOAA get many millions and have hundreds of scientists run huge computers models and they generally get around the same answer as the simple and intuitive estimate.

    The simple proof is a good counter to the anti-scientific critics of global warming. I have no problems if the critics are using data from science but usually I don' t see that. They say things like "See, sunspot numbers match the temperature changes, so obviously the sun is the cause of GW". That is not a scientific statement!

    One problem is that since MIT and Harvard are doing the studies, they are being accused of being" the elite imposing their leftist agenda on the rest of us". That again is not a scientific statement.

    The data and arguments on GW presented by mainstream scientists are perfectly good, although some modeling results can have large statistical deviations. That their models are not perfect should not enlist such emotional and hateful bile against the scientists. I suspect that there is a political and economic agenda promoted by certain groups and they totally muddle the science and facts to get the masses riled up against the "elite" scientists and green politicians.

    For example, the video "The Great Global Warming Swindle" was made by people who studied the GW data in detail, so they knew what they were doing. Yet, they deliberately took the correct fact that CO2 rose in ancient warming after a 400 year delay, to state a lie that GW cannot be possibly be caused by CO2 today. They state an unscientific statement and millions of people got conned by that video.

    Obviously, Rush Limbaugh , Senator Inhofe, the oil and energy industry, among others have done an outstanding job of muddling the issues and facts and getting the masses to emotional outrage.
  • Actually we DON'T know that. There is far more compelling evidence that temperature drives up CO2, not the other way around. In fact, the trend is pretty unmistakable.

    You're right that simple proof is the best counter, the best counter to the religion of global warming. The simplest proofs are that it is quite obvious that solar activity is the biggest dictator of climate change on earth; grade-school children can grasp that one. It's also pretty simple to figure out that if the planet was much warmer during ages past when there were no SUVs or power planets (which it was), that human activity isn't warming up the planet. It's also pretty simple to grasp that if other planets in the solar system (where there are no evil capitalists, or humans of any kind) are also warming, then that's a pretty good clue that warming here might also be related to the sun.

    You're right about that: the simplest information is best, and it blows the silly idea of anthropogenic global warming out of the water. Only someone with a strong ideological bias could ever buy into such nonsense.
  • Ken
    In 1976 I began work as an analyst for underground mine air in Rockhampton, Australia. Air in ventilated parts of coal mines is close to fresh air in composition so I used fresh air taken from outside the lab to help set up the Carle 311M gas chromatograph. That instrument was specially set up for mine air analysis and was easily capable of measuring CO2 down to the part per million level.

    We were on the eastern edge of the town and the breezes generally came from the east. Apart from a few farms, the next object of interest in that direction was the Pacific Ocean about 25 miles away. I soon found that the CO2 concentration in the air was higher than the literature value in a book published by the British National Coal Board in 1966. About 1978 I first heard of the possibility of global warming from increasing CO2 concentrations, that was long before I had heard of Al Gore. At the time, I thought the idea far-fetched.

    Over the next 13 years I saw CO2 increase steadily. I became concerned that I was getting some kind of error from the equipment and checked it all as much as I could. I also contacted the Baseline Monitoring Station at Cape Grim, Tasmania to ask if they were seeing the same sort of thing. They were. Their advice was that my results were accurate and that on average, CO2 in the air was increasing by about 1ppm per year. However it varies a little with latitude, season etc.

    My last analyses done in late September 1989 showed CO2 concentrations of 360ppm. I still thought the idea of global warming dubious but it clearly was not far-fetched. According to recent reports, CO2 in the air is now around 380 - 400ppm depending on latitude, season etc.

    There is simple and direct physical mechanism known for a century which shows absorption of long wavelength infra-red radiation by CO2 increases with concentrarion of CO2. This relation is so reliable that it is made the basis of some instruments intended to analyse gas mixtures for CO2. It is indisputable, the postman might not know about it but all chemists do.

    This story of contribution by the Sun has been around a while and there may be some truth in it. I am not qualified to comment. However I have heard that while the radiation from the Sun actually decreased a little in 1998, global temperatures continued to rise. But there is one thing for certain, CO2 is increasing, and increasing CO2 inevitably means more absorption of long wavelength infra-red radiation. Chemistry and physics work independently of politics.
blog comments powered by Disqus
« »