Read the sunspots: NOW PREPARE FOR 'DANGEROUS GLOBAL COOLING'

[Francisco Montana]

Read the sunspots: NOW PREPARE FOR 'DANGEROUS GLOBAL COOLING'

The mud at the bottom of B.C. fjords reveals that solar output drives climate change - and that we should prepare now for dangerous global cooling

R. TIMOTHY PATTERSON, Financial Post
Published: Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Politicians and environmentalists these days convey the impression that climate-change research is an exceptionally dull field with little left to discover. We are assured by everyone from David Suzuki to Al Gore to Prime Minister Stephen Harper that "the science is settled." At the recent G8 summit, German Chancellor Angela Merkel even attempted to convince world leaders to play God by restricting carbon-dioxide emissions to a level that would magically limit the rise in world temperatures to 2C.

The fact that science is many years away from properly understanding global climate doesn't seem to bother our leaders at all. Inviting testimony only from those who don't question political orthodoxy on the issue, parliamentarians are charging ahead with the impossible and expensive goal of "stopping global climate change." Liberal MP Ralph Goodale's June 11 House of Commons assertion that Parliament should have "a real good discussion about the potential for carbon capture and sequestration in dealing with carbon dioxide, which has tremendous potential for improving the climate, not only here in Canada but around the world," would be humorous were he, and even the current government, not deadly serious about devoting vast resources to this hopeless crusade.

Full Article


And here I thought sunspots didn't effect Earth's temperatures. Well, that's what our self-proclaimed resident 'experts' on global warming here at TWC told us!

The longer I patiently wait, the more the scientific community swallows their words.

[Big War Bird]

Facts matter not.

[Curtana]

Solar output may drive climate change. Sun spots are a symptom of solar surface activity, and therefore output. If you make a direct link between sunspots and climate change then environmental types tend to heap on you a large spoonful of scorn. Unfairly.
Good sceptics blog: http://greenspin.blogspot.com/

[Gary88]

damn that angela merkel 'playing God' and trying to set policy, that *****. also who wrote this? it uses terms like 'hopeless crusade'

[Curtana]

damn that angela merkel 'playing God' and trying to set policy, that *****. also who wrote this? it uses terms like 'hopeless crusade'

<R. Timothy Patterson>
Journalists always use clich after clich after cliché. It is probably in their genetic programming. Old Angle Grinder Merkel is going to suffer the same fate as all politicians and liberal elites everywhere when this 'climate change' gag is blown. People won't trust them for toffee. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of people.
A scientific explanation of the solar activity view of climate change. (Very scientific, thinking caps required!)

[JP226]

The science, the science! Can't you see the Science is settled!!!!!!

[Kanaric]

So people are going to believe some financial editorial over scientific studies? You guys really are gullible.

Why dont you look up this actual study and then read more on global warming. the way you guys talk it seems as if you only listen to what a small number of corporations propaganda says instead of seeing for yourself.

CO2 emissions are directly linked to global warming, that is a fact. If you dont believe fact then you may as well believe some wall street stock broker over 100% of the reputable scientists.

The way curtana talks its almost as if hes living in a dreamy fantasy land.

Solar activity may have some part but CO2 emissions is already fact.

[Curtana]

So people are going to believe some financial editorial over scientific studies? You guys really are gullible.
CO2 emissions are directly linked to global warming, that is a fact. If you dont believe fact then you may as well believe some wall street stock broker over 100% of the reputable scientists.

No. The scientific paper (written by a reputable scientist) I referenced itself references 120 studies – from peer reviewed journals.
Here it is again since you obviously missed it the first time:
http://www.john-daly.com/solar/solar.htm

The way curtana talks its almost as if he's living in a dreamy fantasy land.

That's never been proven! I was released without charge!

Solar activity may have some part but CO2 emissions is already fact.

Good we're on firmer ground now. I am genuinely interested in an explanation of how CO₂ emissions trump solar activity as the main driving force of climate change. Just saying it is so does not make it true. The paper I referenced raises several valid concerns I would like to see addressed here (and by the IPCC, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), namely:

1) the close correlation between the 11 year sunspot cycle and climatic effects over hundreds of years.
2) the effect of the 90 year Gleissberg cycle of sunspot activity on climate change.
3) variations in the sun's ultraviolet radiation.
4) cosmic radiation, solar wind and global cloud coverage.
5) failure of climatic predictions by IPCC scientists.
6) cycles in the sun's oscillation possibly affecting sunspots and climate.
7) 36 year cycles in solar activity and climate.
8) cycles of “small fingers”: as a way to predict solar eruptions and climate.

Maybe some of the more scientifically literate people here would condescend (from the stratosphere) to defend the CO₂ emissions model?

[Wild Bill Kelso]

Full Article


And here I thought sunspots didn't effect Earth's temperatures. Well, that's what our self-proclaimed resident 'experts' on global warming here at TWC told us!

The longer I patiently wait, the more the scientific community swallows their words.

Wow, it is nice to see data contrary to the norm. But Gruffles, your fault is saying that one contray study disproves all other climate change studies . The general concensus among scientists is that climate change is occur, and that humans are probably the cause of it. I am not going to get into the debate yet again though. Please please do not totally dispute the side you don't agree with because you find one new article pointing out a contrary(but not peer reviewed) finding.

[Francisco Montana]

The last two posts ignore the main point of this thread. There are those, here at TWC, that have repeatedly said "the sun does not effect the Earth's temperature in any significant way." Furthermore, they have mocked anyone that might suggest that sunspots can (and do) effect the Earth's temperature.

one contray study disproves all other climate change studies

Where, in my post, did I say that? I simply said, "The longer I wait patiently the more the scientific community has to eat their words."

Surely, my statement implies that over time, after more and more studies (ie not just one) it would seem that all the hype was, well, just that: Hype.

[Zodiac]

I think we all already knew the Sun could effect the Earths Climate, but to what extent is the real question. (The Sun is afterall a Frickin Star thats sits next door to us showering us with it's Light and Radiation )

[Francisco Montana]

I think we all already knew the Sun could effect the Earths Climate, but to what extent is the real question. (The Sun is afterall a Frickin Star thats sits next door to us showering us with it's Light and Radiation )

I agree wholeheartedly. Those who mocked me for saying so, however, seem strangely absent from this thread. :hmmm:

[TheKwas]

The last two posts ignore the main point of this thread. There are those, here at TWC, that have repeatedly said "the sun does not effect the Earth's temperature in any significant way." Furthermore, they have mocked anyone that might suggest that sunspots can (and do) effect the Earth's temperature.

Exactly who are these people and exactly what did they say? If they did say that the sun does not effect the Earth's Temperature in any significant way, they are dead wrong and should really be considered part of the 'scientific community' (so I don't see why the scientific community should be eating their words).

It's fairly common knowledge that solar forcing has caused somewhere between 10-30% (Old estimates had the max at 40%, new estimates have the max at 20% but still controversy rages) of the warming of the past 250 years. Saying that the sun causes variations in temperature isn't groundbreaking at all, it is groundbreaking obvious. This, however, doesn't shed any light on the issue of greenhouse gas warming at all.

The paper I referenced raises several valid concerns I would like to see addressed here (and by the IPCC, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), namely:

1) the close correlation between the 11 year sunspot cycle and climatic effects over hundreds of years.
2) the effect of the 90 year Gleissberg cycle of sunspot activity on climate change.
3) variations in the sun's ultraviolet radiation.
4) cosmic radiation, solar wind and global cloud coverage.
5) failure of climatic predictions by IPCC scientists.
6) cycles in the sun's oscillation possibly affecting sunspots and climate.
7) 36 year cycles in solar activity and climate.
8) cycles of “small fingers”: as a way to predict solar eruptions and climate.

I don't see how any of these (and some, such as most of Friis-Christensen's concerning solar cycles is heavily doubted) are concerns that need to be addressed. Perhaps break them down to me and explain how they contradict the Co2 Models.

[Thanatos]

Thanks, m'lord Gruffles. I was waiting for something like this to finally happen.

At least you know I'm with you on the global warming issue.

[mrjesushat]

Political Science for Beginners:

Side one makes a statement. Inevitably, as side one is composed of human beings, said statement is largely without facts, understanding, contextual reasoning or even logic to support it.

Side two makes a counter-statement. This is also baseless.

The two sides commence an exchange of valueless nit-wittery, serving no purpose other than to give them something to prattle on about whilst measuring their penises and furtively eyeing the other side for signs of weakness.

The real trouble is of course that both sides reside on a planet in space. Life as we know it is not terribly common in this neighborhood, and it operates within a remarkably narrow set of parameters. Ergo, all manner of very serious threats to our survival as a species are operating right now, at the present moment.

The law of averages and the truths of probability make clear that eventually, humanity's luck will run out. When that happens, we have no way of knowing what will occur, or how it will occur, or how much we might be forced to suffer. But one thing is certain:

Side one and side two will still be rattling on about irrelevant things that will serve merely as counter-point to the howls of the dying.