“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!” – Samuel Adams

NASA Study Shows Sun Responsible for Planet Warming

(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.


Try us out at the new location: American Clarion!


102 Responses to “NASA Study Shows Sun Responsible for Planet Warming”

  1. Dakota Voice? Last time I was in Dakota lets just say I wasn’t impressed with the level of intellect there. This type of “journalism” is hack journalism pure and simple. Wy don’t you check your sources and see what NASA scientists REALLY said instead of referencing a freakin’ blog??!
    See: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080512120523.htm

  2. No one seems to be addressing the more obvious facts of rampant poisoning of the environment instead of a rise of a few measly degrees in temperature. I prefer the planet to be a soupy prehistoric hot house! I want a global warm up so it’ll be a lot easier to find these crybaby little pussies and smash them in their own putrid sweat! Man has not been around long enough, in this incarnational phase of the race, to even know what the earth is capable of whipping out of her pretty little ethers. All you Al Gore ass kissers out there better pucker up for some real gas problems cuz’ there is sure to be more to come down the pipes.

  3. Ths is an article which is fully corrupt when you compare it with the original source. How can somebody do this? Terrible!

    From the NASA 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.”

    “The major change in Earth’s climate is now really dominated by human activity, which has never happened before.”

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080512120523.htm

  4. I actually hate SUVs, Mike. But I cherish the freedom to choose.

  5. 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!!!

  6. 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

  7. Bob Ellis,

    You are absolutely wrong! IN the PAST, carbon dioxide levels lagged behind temperature. That is correct. However, today, its is DIFFERENT, the carbon dioxide level is keeping pace, which means that it IS a main driver of temperature.

    The Global Warming skeptics used your same argument knowing full well that they LIED, and you are buying 100% into their lie.

    It is easy to prove that GW is real: Use a simple model of greenhouse gases and you will easily find that adding 80% more of these gases in the last century will increase temperature about 1 degree C, close to what has been observed.

  8. 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.

  9. http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseActi

    “More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims”

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. That’s a mature response to one of your readers there Bob, I’m glad to see the right still has little better than ad hominem attacks and biased research to fuel their ideology with.

  13. especially (since debunking is the intent) because the people in jonestown did not actually “drink” poison koolaid. most were held down and injected or shot. the kool-aid myth was created as a cover. most people dont know that about jonestown.

  14. Scientific data is one thing to report but extreme prejudice one way or another is yellow journalism

  15. 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.

  16. 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.

  17. 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.

  18. Don’t you get it they need a reason for oil addicts to get off their fix and paying middle eastern dictators for their supplies. Whats the alternative, raid your pristine wildlife areas like a junkie raiding his Moms purse.

    Your just exhibiting junkie talk, finding any reason not to get clean.

  19. Umm, yes, until we had satellites to monitor sun-spot and other solar activity telescopes were pretty much all astronomers had. So out of 400 years of observations, that’s only about 30-40 years of more sophisticated equipment gathering data.

  20. was wondering when we would get taxed for breathing

  21. Hey Jeff, that's a very good point, Almost. I have one word for you. VOLCANOES

  22. Hey Jeff, good analysis. Almost, i have one word for you, check it out you may need some educating on it’s synergistic effect on the temperature down here. You ready…. VOLCANOES.

  23. 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.

  24. 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.

  25. 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!

  26. Thanks, Bob, for your analysis and for your kind words. Best regards to you!

  27. 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.

  28. 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.

  29. To Bob Ellis

    You wish people to believe you are intelligent? First you assumption is base on a mere 400 years of data should be treated with respect ? Next you be telling us that world was created by god a mere 6000 years ago. If you want people to believe you are inteligent, then listen there is no way in hell that you can conclude any real level of accurracy in the 400 years of data, in fact you be lucky to rely on even the last 50 years of data with high degeee of accuracy, but certaintly you are not foolish enough to expect any intelligent person to believe you got right it is ONLY the sun that can cause GW.

    You just like most people you cannot think outside the box. First it takes the sun (our solar system) I understand about 120,000+ years to revolve once around our center of the milky way. Next it takes our sun (our solar system) about 65,000 years to cycle up and down vertically so to speak. Our mikly way is traveling at about 250 km per second and I understand that currently our sun is pulling our solar system to the edge of the milky way into the shock zone. And lets not forget we have a black hole at the center of the milk way. So you trying to tell us are littlle old sun is the ONLY reason the earth is warming? Who is the Koolaid drinker?

    So until you have SOLID data of one cycle of sun orbit around our galaxy, I think your conclusions are nothing more than babble. Sun spots come in 11 year cycle, right in 1989 we had large number, that would mean in 2000 if the sun followed the 11 year cycle, why were there not a large number of sun spots in 2000? Oh, right the sun was taking a break, right kooliad drinker, the sun follows a 11 year cycyle, give me a break, the best you can say is our VERY LIMITED data of 400 years (actually it probable more like 50 years as the previous 350 years of data can not be confirm to be accurate) would suggest there is recurring cycle of sun spots.

    Any intellignet person would give Al Gore credit, why? Think outside the box, he has practically single handed got more people to think about the earth climate than anyone else and that is a good thing. There is no doubt that pollution is bad, and whether it contributes to GW or not is not the point, we should look at ways of minimizing pollution, and understand how pollution could have an effect on our climate and above all we need to pay closer attention to our climate as it effects us all and whether GW is casued by nature or humans (humans bare some responsiblility) our survial depends on our ability to master it, and that is Al Gore’s message, hello koolaid drinker.

    Here one for you what makes more CO2 than anything currently on the planet earth, it is termintes, what makes more oxygen than anything currenlty on the planet earth at little ocean organism that is our ancientor not diatoms, though they are second. And volcanoes have likely caused more changes in our climate than anything. Weather may be debatable… but what is NOT debatable is that CO2 dissolved in the ocean creates acidity in the ocean. That’s very elementary and reliable chemistry. Zones of acidity are growing … and would be worse if we tried to shove the CO2 into the oceans even faster. Enough acidity… and the expression is “no more sushi.”

    You all know about the comet and the dinosaurs — but that was only one of the great extinction events, and not the greatest. The greatest extinction was the Permian event, when all vertebrates living on the land were killed off – and it took 100 million years before they re-evolved.

    Scientists have argued (based on lots of empirical data) that high levels ofCO2 released from ancient volcanos caused this extinction. More precisely — the CO2 caused a growth in low-oxygen regions of the ocean, which caused the proliferation of stinky “swamp gas” kinds of bacteria, which emitted enough H2S (the poison which makes rotten eggs smell stinky) to poison off every single species… we know that not a single species survived, despite their diversity. More precisely: the data indicate very strongly that H2S levels AND RADIATION (presumably due to a thinning of stratospheric ozone) were both enough to kill pratically everything.

    Scientists estimate that 1000 ppm of CO2 would be enough to do the same thing all over again — kill off every land vertebrate. That’s important, because we are really well on track right now to reach that level, if one accounts for the ongoing political and economic realities of this world.

    First, the “half life” of CO2 in the atmosphere is also thousands of years. So even if the fossil fuels run out in only a century or two, the effect probably would last long enough to poison all land life on the earth. (And no, folks, gas masks wouldn’t save your food supply…).

    So no matter if it is the sun, or more to point a number of things and not just the sun koolaid drinker Bob, we need to implement ways of controlling our climate or perish. The sun and only the sun causes GW, yeah right Bob, you maybe intelligent but you are sure not very well read, go back and read and listen and learn before you start making conclusions. The only koolaid drinker here as I see it is you Bob Ellis.

  30. You wish people to believe you are intelligent? You want use to believe from a mere 400 years of data that the sun and only the sun causes GW or is the major contributor? First of all, there is no way in hell the data can be relied on with high degree of accuracy, you be lucky if the last 50 years of data on sunspots could be relied on with a high degree of accuracy.

    Bob, you suffer from the same thing most people do, you cannot think outside the box. Lets us be clear here, it takes our sun (solar system) about 120,000 years to go orbit the center of the milky way. It takes our sun (solar system) about 65,000 years to oscillate up and down vertically so to speak. The milky way is travelling about 250 km per second. Our sun is currently pulling us up into the shock wave (if you do not know what this read and research Bob). And lets not forget the black hole at the center of the milky way and the affects it has on our sun (solar system). But Bob wants us to believe our little old sun is the cause of global warming based on a mere 400 years of data (actually only the last 50 years can be used with any high degree of certainty). Who is the kool-aid drinker now Bob. In 1989 there was a large number of sun spots, so that would mean in 2000 there should been if the sun follows an 11 year cycle. I guess the sun was taking that year off for sunspots. The ONLY thing you can say is on the VERY limited data we have on sunspots there seems to be cycle, but to correlate it to GW that is a stretch. Until you have reliable data of one orbit of our sun around the milky way your conclusions are nothing but babble.

    Any intelligent person would give Al Gore credit why? He practically single handily got us all to think about the global climate and how it changes affects us, and that a good thing. Pollution is bad, and anything we can do to minimize pollution is a good thing, and understanding the affects pollution can have on our climate, and understanding climate change was Al Gore message, hello. Whether it is nature or humans (humans have had an affect no matter how you look at it) understanding climate change is very important.

    Here one for you, what produces more CO2 currently on the planet earth from O2 than anything else, it is terminates, what produce more O2 from CO2 than currently on the planet earth, it a little organism that lives in the ocean and is our ancestor (origin of vertebrates) not diatoms though they are second. And volcanoes have changed our climate more than anything.

    Weather may be debatable… but what is NOT debatable is that CO2 dissolved in the ocean creates acidity in the ocean. That’s very elementary and reliable chemistry. Zones of acidity are growing … and will get worse as CO2 rises, more CO2 will go into the oceans even faster. Enough acidity… and the expression is “no more sushi.”

    You all know about the comet and the dinosaurs — but that was only one of the great extinction events, and not the greatest. The greatest extinction was the Permian event, when all vertebrates living on the land were killed off – and it took 100 million years before they re-evolved.
    Scientists have argued (based on lots of empirical data more than a mere 400 years Bob) that high levels ofCO2 released from ancient volcanoes caused this extinction. More precisely — the CO2 caused a growth in low-oxygen regions of the ocean, which caused the proliferation of stinky “swamp gas” kinds of bacteria, which emitted enough H2S (the poison which makes rotten eggs smell stinky) to poison off every single species… we know that likely not a single species survived, despite their diversity. More precisely: the data indicate very strongly that H2S levels AND RADIATION (presumably due to a thinning of stratospheric ozone) were both enough to kill off practically everything.

    Scientists estimate that 1000 ppm of CO2 would be enough to do the same thing all over again — kill off every land vertebrate. That’s important, because we are really well on track right now to reach that level, if one accounts for the ongoing political and economic realities of this world.
    First, the “half life” of CO2 in the atmosphere is also thousands of years. So even if the fossil fuels run out in only a century or two, the effect probably would last long enough to poison all land life on the earth. (And no, folks, gas masks wouldn’t save your food supply…).

    So, whether it is the sun as near-sighted Bob would have you believe or more likely a number of things, including humans that is causing GW, it is important as Al Gore pointed out that we get a handle on controlling our climate or perish. Bob you maybe intelligent, but you not very well read. Go read, listen, and learn Bob before you start making grand conclusions. The only kool-aid drinker I see here is you Bob Ellis.

    The Wilk

  31. You wish people to believe you are intelligent? You want use to believe from a mere 400 years of data that the sun and only the sun causes GW or is the major contributor? First of all, there is no way in hell the data can be relied on with high degree of accuracy, you be lucky if the last 50 years of data on sunspots could be relied on with a high degree of accuracy.

    Bob, you suffer from the same thing most people do, you cannot think outside the box. Lets us be clear here, it takes our sun (solar system) about 120,000 years to go orbit the center of the milky way. It takes our sun (solar system) about 65,000 years to oscillate up and down vertically so to speak. The milky way is travelling about 250 km per second. Our sun is currently pulling us up into the shock wave (if you do not know what this is read and research Bob). And lets not forget the black hole at the center of the milky way and the affects it has on our sun (solar system). But Bob wants us to believe our little old sun is the major cause of global warming based on a mere 400 years of data (actually only the last 50 years can be used with any high degree of certainty). Who is the kool-aid drinker now Bob. In 1989 there was a large number of sun spots, so that would mean in 2000 there should been if the sun follows an 11 year cycle. I guess the sun was taking that year off for sunspots. The ONLY thing you can say is on the VERY limited data we have on sunspots there seems to be cycle, but to correlate it to GW that is a stretch. Until you have reliable data of one orbit of our sun around the milky way your conclusions are nothing but babble.

    Any intelligent person would give Al Gore credit why? He practically single handily got us all to think about the global climate and how it changes affects us, and that a good thing. Pollution is bad, and anything we can do to minimize pollution is a good thing, and understanding the affects pollution can have on our climate, and understanding climate change was Al Gore message, hello. Whether it is nature or humans (humans have had an affect no matter how you look at it) understanding climate change is very important.

    Here one for you, what produces more CO2 currently on the planet earth from O2 than anything else, it is terminates, what produce more O2 from CO2 than currently on the planet earth, it a little organism that lives in the ocean and is our ancestor (origin of vertebrates) not diatoms though they are second. And volcanoes have changed our climate more than anything.

    Weather may be debatable… but what is NOT debatable is that CO2 dissolved in the ocean creates acidity in the ocean. That’s very elementary and reliable chemistry. Zones of acidity are growing … and will get worse as CO2 rises, more CO2 will go into the oceans even faster. Enough acidity… and the expression is “no more sushi.”

    You all know about the comet and the dinosaurs — but that was only one of the great extinction events, and not the greatest. The greatest extinction was the Permian event, when all vertebrates living on the land were killed off – and it took 100 million years before they re-evolved.

    Scientists have argued (based on lots of empirical data more than a mere 400 years Bob) that high levels ofCO2 released from ancient volcanoes caused this extinction. More precisely — the CO2 caused a growth in low-oxygen regions of the ocean, which caused the proliferation of stinky “swamp gas” kinds of bacteria, which emitted enough H2S (the poison which makes rotten eggs smell stinky) to poison off every single species… we know that likely not a single species survived, despite their diversity. More precisely: the data indicate very strongly that H2S levels AND RADIATION (presumably due to a thinning of stratospheric ozone) were both enough to kill off practically everything.

    Scientists estimate that 1000 ppm of CO2 would be enough to do the same thing all over again — kill off every land vertebrate. That’s important, because we are really well on track right now to reach that level, if one accounts for the ongoing political and economic realities of this world.

    First, the “half life” of CO2 in the atmosphere is also thousands of years. So even if the fossil fuels run out in only a century or two, the effect probably would last long enough to poison all land life on the earth. (And no, folks, gas masks wouldn’t save your food supply…).

    So, whether it is the sun as near-sighted Bob would have you believe or more likely a number of things, including humans, it is important as Al Gore pointed out that we get a handle on controlling our climate or perish. Bob you maybe intelligent, but you not very well read. Go read, listen, and learn Bob before you start making grand conclusions. The only kool-aid drinker I see here is you Bob Ellis.

    The Wilk

  32. 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

  33. The effect of variations in solar radiation must be given sufficient consideration.

  34. 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!

  35. 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.

  36. The ultimate anti-AGW resource: http://tinyurl.com/3yop6n

  37. 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.

  38. 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.

  39. 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?

  40. 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…

  41. 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.

  42. 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.

  43. 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.

  44. 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.

  45. 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.