It wasn't the sun unless you can prove it

[PersianPaladin]

I didn't think that was quite what the experts were saying, though? I though they could correlate at least some of the warming to observed solar patterns, but it didn't account for all of it.

The majority of exponential warming derives from our wasteful societies and lifestyles.

[Essan]

This has to be an interesting area of research because if Mars is Warming without the aid of increased solar activity and no human activity it sggests something else is going on?

Dust storms affecting albedo coupled with small variations in orbit.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=07...;show_article=1

http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/mar...ml&edu=high

The only people who think that Mars is warming due to increased solar activity are the people who think Earth is warming due to increased solar activity

It's called circular reasoning.

I didn't think that was quite what the experts were saying, though? I though they could correlate at least some of the warming to observed solar patterns, but it didn't account for all of it.

Yes, contrary to what the Contrarians want to believe, no-one denies that some warming since the end of the LIA has been down to solar activity. Indeed, much of the 20th century warming has been shown to be a result of solar activity. The problem area is with the last 20-30 years - this most recent upsurge in warming does not match with solar nor, as yet, any other known cycles.

It may be partly down to an hitherto unnoticed correlation between different cycles. It's almost certainly not all down to just one thing (neither solar nor CO2 )

And before anyone tries it: no, just because some climate change can be caused by solar activity it does not follow that all climate change is caused by solar activity. Anymore than just because one human is a dumb-ass all humans are dumb-asses ...... :lol:

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Yes, contrary to what the Contrarians want to believe, no-one denies that some warming since the end of the LIA has been down to solar activity. Indeed, much of the 20th century warming has been shown to be a result of solar activity. The problem area is with the last 20-30 years - this most recent upsurge in warming does not match with solar nor, as yet, any other known cycles.

It may be partly down to an hitherto unnoticed correlation between different cycles. It's almost certainly not all down to just one thing (neither solar nor CO2 :lol: )

It does correlate with the perturbation cycle ie the El Nino/La Nina cycle or as SB put it the PDO.

Re the last sentence....I'll have some of that.

BFTP

[Devonian]

Well since were being fair lets be complete fair. Who funds "exxonsecrets.org?"

Domain ID 104380692-LROR

Domain Name:EXXONSECRETS.ORG

Created On:17-May-2004 13:33:34 UTC

Expiration Date:17-May-2005 13:33:34 UTC

Sponsoring Registrar:R11-LROR

Status:TRANSFER PROHIBITED

Registrant ID:tutrj6LB04ZhqpGy

Registrant Name:Justine Earthrowl

Registrant Organization:Greenpeace Ltd

Registrant Street1:Canonbury Villas

Registrant City:London

Well quelle surprise!

I've no problem with that. I'd suspect Greenpeace is involved - hell, I might even be a long term member!

Lets be honest here. I mistrust Exxon Mobil, clearly you mistrust Greenpeace.

It's clear there is lobbying on both sides. As ever I think it's best to forget things both sides do, the alternative being for us to pointlessly sling such obvious quality mud at each other?

[Guest Viking141]

I've no problem with that. I'd suspect Greenpeace is involved - hell, I might even be a long term member!

Lets be honest here. I mistrust Exxon Mobil, clearly you mistrust Greenpeace.

It's clear there is lobbying on both sides. As ever I think it's best to forget things both sides do, the alternative being for us to pointlessly sling such obvious quality mud at each other?

You started it. I think you'll find I don't go around questioning one side or the other based on who funds what, you, however, did. Dont come trying to seem the paragon of reason when it backfires on you.

[Devonian]

You started it. I think you'll find I don't go around questioning one side or the other based on who funds what, you, however, did. Dont come trying to seem the paragon of reason when it backfires on you.

Ouch!

To clarify, OON questioned the use of the word 'lobby' and responded to that by pointing out another lobby - Exxon Mobil. It's on both sides. OK?

Edited July 12, 2007 by Devonian

[Osbourne One-Nil]

Shall we all meet up in a pub car park tonight and have a fight?

[Hiya]

Shall we all meet up in a pub car park tonight and have a fight?

1. Can I watch?

2. Will there be money staked?

3. Swords or pistols?

[Iceberg]

Unless somebody can prove otherwise from 2000 to 2007 the globe has largely been in a neutral state (warming, cooling wise). Unless anybody can prove differently, This relates to PDO, Enso etc.

There is NO massive temp lag between this year and the previous solar cycle maximum , (at least this hasn't been so far in the last 100 years according to history etc, the 12 year solar cycle and it's effects on temperature's are pretty quick). Why should there be now...

[Iceberg]

http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proce...spa20071880.pdf

The Article in full.

Matt

[jethro]

Mmmm, the debate rages on....

http://www.space.dtu.dk/publications/scien...20Fr%C3%B6hlich

[parmenides3]

Mmmm, the debate rages on....

http://www.space.dtu.dk/publications/scien...20Fr%C3%B6hlich

Hi jethro. It isn't really a debate; it's mainly Svensmark, Friis-Christiansen & Shaviv, plus a couple of friends, with an outlier theory, versus just about everyone else. Note also that the 'cosmic ray' hypothesis isn't a serious 'alternative' to AGW as a theory, at best its a proposal for a potential mechanism which could, possibly, explain a small proportion of recent warming, if certain data is interpreted in a certain way. Trouble is, the data on which it is based is not accurate, so the theory doesn't currently work, even in this limited sense.

:)P

[jethro]

Hi jethro. It isn't really a debate; it's mainly Svensmark, Friis-Christiansen & Shaviv, plus a couple of friends, with an outlier theory, versus just about everyone else. Note also that the 'cosmic ray' hypothesis isn't a serious 'alternative' to AGW as a theory, at best its a proposal for a potential mechanism which could, possibly, explain a small proportion of recent warming, if certain data is interpreted in a certain way. Trouble is, the data on which it is based is not accurate, so the theory doesn't currently work, even in this limited sense.

:)P

No one is claiming it is an alternative to AGW, possibly part of the puzzle. The data about the Solar influence presented to counter this is not accurate, so their theory to counter the cosmic ray influence doesn't stand up either.

[parmenides3]

Did you check out the link in the other thread? It can be a problem when we discuss the same thing in two places. The evidence is against the Svensmark team. 'Possibly part of the puzzle' is about the best you can say about it.

:)P