Daily Tech: NASA Study Acknowledges Solar Cycle,Not Man, Responsible for Past Warming

[Vicious]

ITT: People think that it can't happen to them.

[Larry]

This is what the anti-global warming crowd is left with. Taking a part of a study that says they were right for part of the century (that sun was a contributor to warming early in the industrial revolution, which nobody ever really denied), and claiming they are right for all of the century (that the sun is still contributing to warming), and the part of the study that says they are wrong (the sun is at least NOT the major driver of temp increases over the last 30 years or so) is wrong for some reason, which they can't/don't address.

Oh, no. It's even more humorous/tragic than that.

This entire thread is discussing an article, (which claims to be based on a NASA study), which admits, in the article, that the study doesn't say what they're claiming it says, and claims that's the study's fault.

Y'all are agreeing with an article which admits, in the article, that it's lying.

[karmacop]

Just to contribute to the chorus of people who are pointing out that the article linked to by the OP is complete and utter bunk, here's a well-thought out comment below the article taking the obviously biased author to task:

Way to let your personal bias on the issue ruin your ability to pay attention to the data they presented. What they said was that the difference in global temperatures between the solar maxima and the solar minima is 0.1 degrees. The "maxima" and "minima" refer to the solar cycle, which repeats itself roughly every 9-14 years. We're currently at a minima, and the next maxima is due in 2012, which means that if you compare the average global temperature in 2012 to the average global temperature in 2009, then you should expect to see 0.1 degree of warming attributable to the solar cycle. Any other warming observed during that timespan would be from other sources.

Essentially, if the solar cycle were the only influence on average global temperatures, then what we should see if we graph the average temperature is a sine wave. Even accounting for the increase in sunspot activity, where if you ignore the very inaccurate "best fit line" you can readily see that while the maxima has slightly increased, the minima has stayed about the same, all you would expect to see is a sine wave with slightly increasing amplitude towards the end when graphing average temperatures. What you will see if you actually do graph the data, however, is what appears to be roughly a sine-wave pattern that decided to start slanting upwards around 1920 or so. That sudden upward slant is inconsistent with the pattern generated by the solar cycle, and most likely is caused by other factors.

So no, the study and the data in no way imply that the solar cycle is somehow the primary culprit for the global warming trend. Even if you go ahead and ignore the fact that the best fit line is meaningless when plotted against a naturally periodical dataset like the number of sunspots, and pretend like the average number of sunspots has increased, it's still not sufficient to account for the kind of warming seen. The temperature delta between a minima and a maxima is 0.1 degrees, and the sunspot delta between the same is roughly 100. So the average would have to increase by 100 sunspots for every 0.1 degree of observed warming, for solar activity to be the primary culprit. However, global temperatures have risen about 0.9 degrees between 1920 and the present day, while the "average" number of sunspots has increased by only about 35. It should be clear to anyone who hasn't prejudged the issue that the meager increase in the average number of sunspots is wholly insufficient to account for the increase in temperatures seen. Clearly there must be other factors at work.

If you're going to post things that masquerade as legitimate news articles, then please show some semblance of journalistic integrity, and keep your personal biases in check.

The title you chose for your post is misleading as well. The study doesn't discount man as a possible culprit, nor does it assert that the solar cycle is the only culprit. All it says is that the solar cycle, among other things, contributes to the warming trend. And anyone who's not a complete zealot for one side or the other should have already known that. Global warming is a complicated process, and is not caused by any one single thing.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Complete and utter garbage. We have the ability, if we desire, to completely eliminate the ozone layer. That would kill essentially all life on the surface of the Earth. It is possible that some life would remain in the deep seas (certainly some bacteria, like those that live around and in thermal vents would survive).

Who cares about the Ozone layer though, really?

Maybe NASA should invent one of those ice volcanoes?

[Predicto]

These threads aloways follow the same pattern.

Person posts editorial or misleading blog entry denying man made climate change as though it were hard news (this one is particularly dishonest).

People who don't believe in global climate change jump in fast to chime in with how man made climate change is all a scam, without reading the article.

Other people actually examine the article and point out that it is a crock.

Silence.

[artmonkforHOF]

But no it's the carbon people the carbon that ruins our precious Earth! that's right, the most abundant element on the planet is the most harmful to the environment when combined to make a gaseous compound. And the fact that the sun is a big ball of fire with flare ups that cause spikes in temperature have absolutely nothing to do with global temperatures, Al Gore told me so.

I am so happy that NASA, a respected research entity, has put out this report so all the tree hugging thieves who think a cap and trade system is the way to go can not dismiss this study as easily as ones by other entities which the cap & traders say are biased.

So I will let all the eco guilt trippers continue to throw their money away to the fraudsters who claim they can reduce your carbon footprint or make you carbon neutral while I sit back and relax knowing that common sense might prevail in the faux issue of global warming.

[NavyDave]

Complete and utter garbage. We have the ability, if we desire, to completely eliminate the ozone layer. That would kill essentially all life on the surface of the Earth. It is possible that some life would remain in the deep seas (certainly some bacteria, like those that live around and in thermal vents would survive).

The ozone layer does not have the ability to "heal" itself beyond all damage (at least not on any sort of time scale that we could destroy. I guess after we've gone and the equipment we built to create CFC's wasn't working you might get atmospheric conditions that slowly might recreate a ozone layer), and if we wanted, we could almost certainly overwhelm that ability, and we were doing it accidently and would have continued to if we had listened to industry.

http://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2008-04/recovery-ozone-hole-may-increase-antarctic-warming

The good news is that the ozone hole over Antarctica is slowly healing, thanks to controls on ozone-depleting substances that were once widely used in products such as refrigerators and aerosol cans. Stratospheric ozone protects us from harmful ultraviolet radiation that can cause problems such as skin cancer and crop damage.

Unfortunately, the recovery of the ozone hole has a dark side: The return of a thin, suspended blanket of stratospheric ozone will raise temperatures over the southern polar region, according to a new study by scientists at the University of Colorado at Boulder, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. The scientists, who relied on a NASA computer model for their predictions, also report that the healing of the hole will weaken winds that currently shield the Antarctic interior from warmer air masses to the north.

Antarctica may not be the only continent affected: The researchers also found that the changes in air circulation caused by ozone recovery could mean wetter conditions during late spring and early summer in southern South America, and warmer and drier weather in Australia—which is already suffering from a long drought.

While average temperatures in most places on the globe have been increasing, the interior of Antarctica has experienced cooler summers and autumns. "We may finally see the interior of Antarctica begin to warm with the rest of the world," says Judith Perlwitz, the lead author of the study, which will be published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters on April 26.

Yeah the USA will go on a suicide run and purposely wipe out itself and all life to prove that nature and God aren't as powerful as themselves.

Man has not killed off as many species, plant and animal, as nature has heck we are still discovering new species.

[artmonkforHOF]

Man, that is right on the money. I think it's naive to think that we have had all of this industrial growth in such a relatively short period of time and there would be no effects of it.

Debate on the issue is pointless. As usual it is all about assigning blame, and like Mike says, that can be so frustratingly childish. The "house burning down" analogy is perfect.

Regardless of the blame, we should strive to be more responsible to our home. We should try to be more efficient and cleaner as we progress. It only makes sense.

~Bang

But should we be pushing for things that "help" the environment when we are not even sure if those actions will actually help? why use a cap & trade system (which doesn't reduce emissions anyway) if carbon emissions do not cause global warming? should we not take the time to make sure that what we plan to do will work as planed instead of just hoping for positive results?

The main thing that has bothered me all along about this "green" movement is that the ideas being promoted are not the ones that are the best for the environment, but the ideas that can make the most money, like cap & trade, which is a manufactured market.

Remember way back when environmentalism first grabbed hold of the public conscience? It was with the 3 "R"'s campaign, reduce, reuse and recycle. The only one of those 3 "r"'s you don't hear about much now is "reuse", because nobody has figured out a way to make money of something when you have already sold it them, but there are countless companies who will charge you a fee to help you "reduce" your carbon footprint.

I think we would all be better served if we took the time to study what effects any environmental program might have on the environment, as oppose to throwing a whole bunch of money into a project that might not help the environment at all (like cap & trade) or a system that could actually harm the environment further (like refusing farmers the right to chop down forests where they would plant palm trees that would be used to produce palm oil, an environmentally friendly fuel, so those forests can count as "carbon stores" in the cap & trade system), solely because it is the only system being sold to us at this time. More research needs to be done, and not just on the environment itself, but the proposed systems put in place to protect the environment. Until that time, use common sense.

[Mad Mike]

http://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2008-04/recovery-ozone-hole-may-increase-antarctic-warming

The good news is that the ozone hole over Antarctica is slowly healing, thanks to controls on ozone-depleting substances that were once widely used in products such as refrigerators and aerosol cans. Stratospheric ozone protects us from harmful ultraviolet radiation that can cause problems such as skin cancer and crop damage.

Unfortunately, the recovery of the ozone hole has a dark side: The return of a thin, suspended blanket of stratospheric ozone will raise temperatures over the southern polar region, according to a new study by scientists at the University of Colorado at Boulder, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. The scientists, who relied on a NASA computer model for their predictions, also report that the healing of the hole will weaken winds that currently shield the Antarctic interior from warmer air masses to the north.

Antarctica may not be the only continent affected: The researchers also found that the changes in air circulation caused by ozone recovery could mean wetter conditions during late spring and early summer in southern South America, and warmer and drier weather in Australia—which is already suffering from a long drought.

While average temperatures in most places on the globe have been increasing, the interior of Antarctica has experienced cooler summers and autumns. "We may finally see the interior of Antarctica begin to warm with the rest of the world," says Judith Perlwitz, the lead author of the study, which will be published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters on April 26.

Yeah the USA will go on a suicide run and purposely wipe out itself and all life to prove that nature and God aren't as powerful as themselves.

Man has not killed off as many species, plant and animal, as nature has heck we are still discovering new species.

Way to contradict yourself there buddy. First make the outlandish claim that Man cant possibly effect nature to try to make one point. Then post an article about man effecting nature to try to prove another.

Your solution it seems is to continue dumping carbon which cant effect climate change and dump more chemicals that reduce the Ozone levels. Anything else you would like to dump into the atmosphere besides hot air?

Brilliant. :doh:

And BTW. It is possible to better environmental stewards of the earth without putting ourselves at an economic disadvantage. If you have an issue with a specific program or law (domestic or international) that's a fair complaint. But to dismiss efforts to be responsible stewards of the only planet we have capable of sustaining human life is just stupid.

[artmonkforHOF]

the two most important paragraphs in the article are noted below:

While the NASA study acknowledged the sun's influence on warming and cooling patterns, it then went badly off the tracks. Ignoring its own evidence, it returned to an argument that man had replaced the sun as the cause current warming patterns. Like many studies, this conclusion was based less on hard data and more on questionable correlations and inaccurate modeling techniques.

The inconvertible fact, here is that even NASA's own study acknowledges that solar variation has caused climate change in the past. And even the study's members, mostly ardent supports of AGW theory (Global Warming), acknowledge that the sun may play a significant role in future climate changes.

[Mad Mike]

But should we be pushing for things that "help" the environment when we are not even sure if those actions will actually help? why use a cap & trade system (which doesn't reduce emissions anyway) if carbon emissions do not cause global warming? should we not take the time to make sure that what we plan to do will work as planed instead of just hoping for positive results?

The main thing that has bothered me all along about this "green" movement is that the ideas being promoted are not the ones that are the best for the environment, but the ideas that can make the most money, like cap & trade, which is a manufactured market.

Remember way back when environmentalism first grabbed hold of the public conscience? It was with the 3 "R"'s campaign, reduce, reuse and recycle. The only one of those 3 "r"'s you don't hear about much now is "reuse", because nobody has figured out a way to make money of something when you have already sold it them, but there are countless companies who will charge you a fee to help you "reduce" your carbon footprint.

I think we would all be better served if we took the time to study what effects any environmental program might have on the environment, as oppose to throwing a whole bunch of money into a project that might not help the environment at all (like cap & trade) or a system that could actually harm the environment further (like refusing farmers the right to chop down forests where they would plant palm trees that would be used to produce palm oil, an environmentally friendly fuel, so those forests can count as "carbon stores" in the cap & trade system), solely because it is the only system being sold to us at this time. More research needs to be done, and not just on the environment itself, but the proposed systems put in place to protect the environment. Until that time, use common sense.

Carbon emission DO effect global temps. We not only have evidence that it does. We know how it does it.

Am I understanding this right?

or a system that could actually harm the environment further (like refusing farmers the right to chop down forests where they would plant palm trees that would be used to produce palm oil, an environmentally friendly fuel

Another wonderful contradiction. First you say, lets stop and think about what we are doing, then you advocate chopping down forests that could take hundreds of years to re-grow (in some cases thousands or never) so we can grow biofuel that couldn't replace 1/100th of the fuel we currently use.

And this...

IBut no it's the carbon people the carbon that ruins our precious Earth! that's right, the most abundant element on the planet is the most harmful to the environment when combined to make a gaseous compound. And the fact that the sun is a big ball of fire with flare ups that cause spikes in temperature have absolutely nothing to do with global temperatures, Al Gore told me so.

I am so happy that NASA, a respected research entity, has put out this report so all the tree hugging thieves who think a cap and trade system is the way to go can not dismiss this study as easily as ones by other entities which the cap & traders say are biased.

...is pure ignorance.

From the report:

ScienceDaily (May 12, 2008) — The sun has powered almost everything on Earth since life began, including its climate. The sun also delivers an annual and seasonal impact, changing the character of each hemisphere as Earth's orientation shifts through the year. Since the Industrial Revolution, however, new forces have begun to exert significant influence on Earth's climate.

"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.

:doh:

[karmacop]

These threads aloways follow the same pattern.

Person posts editorial or misleading blog entry denying man made climate change as though it were hard news (this one is particularly dishonest).

People who don't believe in global climate change jump in fast to chime in with how man made climate change is all a scam, without reading the article.

Other people actually examine the article and point out that it is a crock.

Silence.

As evidenced by these last few posts, you need add a new entry to this progression:

Ignore all posts conclusively showing what a biased hack-job the article it is, and continue to chime in with how man made climate change is all a scam. For good measure, continue to quote from said article as if it contains real facts and not slanted opinions.

[Predicto]

But no it's the carbon people the carbon that ruins our precious Earth! that's right, the most abundant element on the planet is the most harmful to the environment when combined to make a gaseous compound. And the fact that the sun is a big ball of fire with flare ups that cause spikes in temperature have absolutely nothing to do with global temperatures, Al Gore told me so.

I am so happy that NASA, a respected research entity, has put out this report so all the tree hugging thieves who think a cap and trade system is the way to go can not dismiss this study as easily as ones by other entities which the cap & traders say are biased.

So I will let all the eco guilt trippers continue to throw their money away to the fraudsters who claim they can reduce your carbon footprint or make you carbon neutral while I sit back and relax knowing that common sense might prevail in the faux issue of global warming.

See. Perfect example.

Didn't read the article, assumes that NASA said something it didn't, makes fun of Al Gore. It's all there in one tight package.

[Mad Mike]

the two most important paragraphs (if you want to twist facts to support your hairbrained conclusions) in the article are noted below:

Fixed that for you.

[Predicto]

As evidenced by these last few posts, you need add a new entry to this progression:

Ignore all posts conclusively showing what a biased hack-job the article it is, and continue to chime in with how man made climate change is all a scam. For good measure, continue to quote from said article as if it contains real facts and not slanted opinions.

To be honest, I am surprised that we still have one such poster chiming in. Of course, he is not reading anyone else's posts or responding to them, but it's still an improvement. The usual pattern is to pop in, make one pose about how fat Al Gore is, and then run away.

[Dictator]

I'm not using this as a method to hop on the argument one way or the other...

BUT, what happened with efforts to protect the rainforests? In the early 90's it was all the rage. To the best of my knowledge, acres upon acres are still being destroyed for farming.

[No Excuses]

The sun is currently at its minimum, and the next solar maximum is expected in 2012.

:paranoid:

[Mad Mike]

I'm not using this as a method to hop on the argument one way or the other...

BUT, what happened with efforts to protect the rainforests? In the early 90's it was all the rage. To the best of my knowledge, acres upon acres are still being destroyed for farming.

Don't worry, we're gonna use that land to make biofuel.

[Larry]

But no it's the carbon people the carbon that ruins our precious Earth! that's right, the most abundant element on the planet is the most harmful to the environment when combined to make a gaseous compound. And the fact that the sun is a big ball of fire with flare ups that cause spikes in temperature have absolutely nothing to do with global temperatures, Al Gore told me so.

I am so happy that NASA, a respected research entity, has put out this report so all the tree hugging thieves who think a cap and trade system is the way to go can not dismiss this study as easily as ones by other entities which the cap & traders say are biased.

So I will let all the eco guilt trippers continue to throw their money away to the fraudsters who claim they can reduce your carbon footprint or make you carbon neutral while I sit back and relax knowing that common sense might prevail in the faux issue of global warming.

Didn't read the article or the thread, did you?

[Larry]

the two most important paragraphs in the article are noted below:

While the NASA study acknowledged the sun's influence on warming and cooling patterns, it then went badly off the tracks. Ignoring its own evidence, it returned to an argument that man had replaced the sun as the cause current warming patterns. Like many studies, this conclusion was based less on hard data and more on questionable correlations and inaccurate modeling techniques.

The inconvertible fact, here is that even NASA's own study acknowledges that solar variation has caused climate change in the past. And even the study's members, mostly ardent supports of AGW theory (Global Warming), acknowledge that the sun may play a significant role in future climate changes.

Problem with your "most important paragraph" is that what it says is "The NASA study didn't say that "Solar Cycle,Not Man, Responsible for Past Warming", but we think it should have, therefore we're going to claim that the study says what we want it to say, while simultaneously criticizing it for not saying what we claim it says."

Even Michael Moore, when he lies about what Charlton Heston and George Bush said, doesn't have the balls to then, a few paragraphs later, chew them out for not saying what he claims they said.

[PeterMP]

I'm not using this as a method to hop on the argument one way or the other...

BUT, what happened with efforts to protect the rainforests? In the early 90's it was all the rage. To the best of my knowledge, acres upon acres are still being destroyed for farming.

http://www.rainforestfoundation.org/

http://www.heartofthehealer.org/about_us/home.php

http://www.worldwildlife.org/what/wherewework/amazon/index.html?sc=AWY0900WCG00&searchen=google&gclid=CLi62uPa85oCFQSPFQodOEgvdw

http://www.desmogblog.com/carbon-ranching-pushes-rainforest-preservation-in-global-warming-battle

"Carbon ranching pushes rainforest preservation in global-warming battle"

Just because it isn't in the press as much doesn't mean it isn't an issue, and the two things are in fact related.

Generally, when the economy is doing well things like enviromental issues get a lot of press and attention. When things aren't going well, less so. If people are worried about putting food on their table here or their sons/daughter dying in a war, they are going to be less concerned about forest in another part of the world being destroyed.

[BKSkinsFan]

Dude does this mean I can get me some cheap gas soon? This Skynrd concert is comin up and I wanna smoke a few doobies on the way in my Chevelle. She aint exactly street legal though.

Oh and Al Gore is fat. :silly

[PeterMP]

BI think we would all be better served if we took the time to study what effects any environmental program might have on the environment, as oppose to throwing a whole bunch of money into a project that might not help the environment at all (like cap & trade) or a system that could actually harm the environment further (like refusing farmers the right to chop down forests where they would plant palm trees that would be used to produce palm oil, an environmentally friendly fuel, so those forests can count as "carbon stores" in the cap & trade system), solely because it is the only system being sold to us at this time. More research needs to be done, and not just on the environment itself, but the proposed systems put in place to protect the environment. Until that time, use common sense.

1. Because they forests they are chopping down are highly biodiverse ones that are rare in the world and have contributed greatly to things like medical science.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/31/business/worldbusiness/31biofuel.html

"Rising demand for palm oil in Europe brought about the clearing of huge tracts of Southeast Asian rainforest and the overuse of chemical fertilizer there."

http://environment.about.com/od/healthenvironment/a/rainforest_drug.htm

"Tropical rainforests, which account for only seven percent of the world’s total land mass, harbor as much as half of all known varieties of plants."

"Rainforest Plants Produce Life-saving Medicines

Some 120 prescription drugs sold worldwide today are derived directly from rainforest plants. And according to the U.S. National Cancer Institute, more than two-thirds of all medicines found to have cancer-fighting properties come from rainforest plants."

2. Because they aren't just chopping down forest, but destroying other things that are even better sinks for green house gases.

"Worse still, the scientists said, space for the expanding palm plantations was often created by draining and burning peatland, which sent huge amounts of carbon emissions into the atmosphere. "

It is becoming appearant that biofuels that require extensive remodelling of the natural landscape aren't in fact enviromentally friendly. Biofuels make sense in two cases (with some issues still):

1. If the crop is going to be planted anyway using the rest of the bio-mass can be a good thing. An excellent example of this is ethanol production that is currently happening from sugar plants in La. The part to make sugar is used to make sugar. The rest of the plant is used to make ethanol. The plant was going to be grown because the sugar in of to itself is useful. Soon you will see this done with other crops, like corn (there are issues here, including soil erosion and lost nutrients, but they can be worked out (e.g. you only take the stalks from part of the field even if you take the corn ears from all of it)).

2. Things that are going to grow there naturally and need little to no pesticides/fertilizers. This is the attraction of switch grass.

Palm trees to create palm oil don't do either of these.

[PeterMP]

the two most important paragraphs in the article are noted below:

While the NASA study acknowledged the sun's influence on warming and cooling patterns, it then went badly off the tracks. Ignoring its own evidence, it returned to an argument that man had replaced the sun as the cause current warming patterns. Like many studies, this conclusion was based less on hard data and more on questionable correlations and inaccurate modeling techniques.

The inconvertible fact, here is that even NASA's own study acknowledges that solar variation has caused climate change in the past. And even the study's members, mostly ardent supports of AGW theory (Global Warming), acknowledge that the sun may play a significant role in future climate changes.

What questionable correlations?

Why are the correlations questionale?

Why are the modeling techniques inaccurate?

[Burgold]

Why is "and" such a difficult concept to understand?