U.N. Admits On Global Warming - It's The Sun Stupid

Discussion in 'Politics' started by pspr, Feb 1, 2013.

  1. pspr



    The Earth has been getting warmer -- but how much of that heat is due to greenhouse gas emissions and how much is due to natural causes?

    A leaked report by a United Nations’ group dedicated to climate studies says that heat from the sun may play a larger role than previously thought.

    “[Results] do suggest the possibility of a much larger impact of solar variations on the stratosphere than previously thought, and some studies have suggested that this may lead to significant regional impacts on climate,” reads a draft copy of a major, upcoming report from the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

    The man who leaked the report, StopGreenSuicide blogger Alec Rawls, told FoxNews.com that the U.N.’s statements on solar activity were his main motivation for leaking the document.

    “The public needs to know now how the main premises and conclusions of the IPCC story line have been undercut by the IPCC itself,” Rawls wrote on his website in December, when he first leaked the report.

    Rawls blames the U.N. for burying its point about the effect of the sun in Chapter 11 of the report.

    “Even after the IPCC acknowledges extensive evidence for ... solar forcing beyond what they included in their models, they still make no attempt to account for this omission in their predictions. ... It's insane,” he told FoxNews.com.

    Some skeptical climatologists say that the statement in the U.N. draft report is important, but not game-changing.

    “The solar component is real but not of sufficient magnitude to have driven most of the warming of the late 20th century,” Pat Michaels, the former president of the American Association of State Climatologists, and current director of the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute, told FoxNews.com.

    The U.N. report also says that the effect of solar activity will be “much smaller than the warming expected from increases in [man-made] greenhouse gases.”

    An estimate from NASA said that solar variations caused 25 percent of the 1.1 degree Fahrenheit warming that has been observed over the past century.

    But Michaels said that if the U.N. increases its estimates about how much the sun affects Earth’s temperatures, it might help the U.N. get its prediction models back on track. While the Earth warmed over the last two decades, it did so more slowly than the U.N. had predicted.

    “Climate science has the problem of trying to explain why we are now in our 17th year without a significant warming trend. As a result, you are seeing many forecasts of warming for this century being ratcheted down,” he said.

    Others say that the focus on solar activity distracts from the big picture -- the fact that the Earth is warming.

    “I see climate contrarians try this trick almost every time a big new solar study comes out. They somehow tend to neglect mentioning that solar variation is smaller than the heat-trapping power of carbon dioxide,” Aaron Huertas of the Union of Concerned Scientists told FoxNews.com.

    To back that up, Huertas points to data that show that solar activity and temperature rose together from 1880 until 1960, but that then, solar activity stopped increasing -- even as temperatures continued going up.

    “The basic evidence is that solar activity has varied a bit while global temperature keeps going up,” Huertas said.

    But Rawls said that while solar activity has indeed stopped increasing, the important thing is that it remains at a historically high level.

    “The simplest way to put it is: If you put a pot on the stove at the maximum temperature, and leave it on at that temperature -- are you telling me that the pot won’t keep warming?”

    Rawls worries that if solar activity falls, the effects could be dire.

    “Unlike warming, cooling really is dangerous, regularly dropping the planet into hundred-thousand-year-long glacial periods.”

    NASA has said that there is evidence that the most recent “Little Ice Age” was caused by a dip in solar activity.

    “Almost no sunspots were observed on the sun's surface during the period from 1650 to 1715. This extended absence of solar activity may have been partly responsible for the Little Ice Age in Europe,” during which temperatures were colder by about 1.8 degrees F than they are today, he said.

    But Huertas said that’s not what we should worry about at a time when the effects of warming are already being felt.

    “Climate change is affecting weather all across the planet and when it comes to extreme weather, the strongest links are to coastal flooding [and] heat waves,” Huertas said.

    “While climate skeptics are arguing on the Internet about drafts of the report, states like New York and New Jersey are working to help people rebuild their homes in ways that have a better chance of surviving more destructive storms and flooding in the future,” he said.

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013...lay-significant-role-in-global/#ixzz2Ji7qxa6j
  2. LOL "The man who leaked the report, StopGreenSuicide blogger Alec Rawls, told FoxNews.com

    nuff said LOL
  3. pspr


  4. arctic air? why arctic air?

    However, the sun has shown little to no long term trend since the 1950's. This means that when modern global warming trend began in the 1970's, the correlation between sun and climate broke down. In fact, the long term trend for solar activity is that of cooling. Not only is the sun not contributing to global warming, it has had a slight, long term cooling effect.

    Figure 1: 11 year averages of Total Solar Irradiance (TSI, Max Planck Institute) and Global Temperature (GISS).

    This break down in correlation is the reason why so much peer reviewed research investigating the link between sun and climate has concluded that the sun is not a major factor in global warming. Ammann 2007, Lockwood 2007, Foukal 2006, Scafetta 2006, Usoskin 2005 and many other papers (here is a more comprehensive list) all find the sun has had a minimal impact on global warming over the past 30 years.

    whack a mole whack
  5. pspr


    Climate alarmists are fond of pointing to glacier ice loss as evidence of man made global warming, even as they often point to snowstorms as evidence! However, the glacier shortening phenomenon began long before man-made emissions of Carbon Dioxide started! Perhaps we should dub this argument ‘effect and cause’ rather than the widely accepted notion of ’cause and effect’!

    <img src=http://cafeconlecherepublicans.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Glacier-shortening1.png>

  6. ohhhhh gaaaaawwwwdddddddd! Everybody set your hair on fire and run in circles yelling "Global Warming!" Do it now before it's too late!!

  7. If we're going to assess the impact of carbon dioxide, we need to look at all the sources of carbon, including coal. In fact, before coal became widely mined, the Industrial Revolution was fueled by wood. Considering the small coal use before 1900, the wood contribution was probably very small.

    Considering the natural fluctuations in glacier length, which make it difficult to decide exactly where to define the start of glacier recession, the onset of glacier recession and the output of significant industrial carbon dioxide coincide closely. Putting a divide at the start of hydrocarbon production is a bit of sleight of hand, a subterfuge to distract from an actual close correlation.

    Why don't the slopes match more closely? There could be many causes, but the list would certainly include the 19th century clearing of farmland and deforestation of North America. Those both would contribute significantly to carbon dioxide output. Although, if we remove the trend line, the glacier curve is concave upward until 1900, just like the curve of coal usage, levels for a bit, and then becomes concave upward again as petroleum usage takes off. The curve actually tracks fossil fuel use much better than the trend line suggests.
  8. Given that CO2 has gone up about 35% over the last 150 years from the burning of fossil fuels and we know CO2 is a dominant greenhouse gas, how could it be that temps should NOT go up?

  9. pspr


  10. Looks to me like an increase in hurricanes since the seventies when GW really started taking off.

    Science says there is no doubt that the surplus CO2 in the atmosphere is from the burning of fossil fuels via isotope analysis and simple math. The levels jumped 35% when we started burning FFs. There is simply no question about it. It is A FACT.

    So I ask again. How can temps not rise?
    #10     Feb 2, 2013