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

[Larry]

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

Dunno. But it certainly seems to be.

[haithman]

Ah I should have read the article more closely. I dont really have a side on the argument and the original post does not reflect my beliefs, just when I saw it the first thing I thought was, "ES debate!"

[LaxBuddy21]

Honestly I agree with others that it doesnt matter from more than an intellectual standpoint. We should treat our planet well regardless. If nothing else, we want to preserve our resources and have a nice place for our children to live. That being said, I am seriously sick and tired of Global Warming activists trying to tell me I am dooming my planet. Get a life hippie!

[artmonkforHOF]

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.

I didn't read the article, did I? wonder how I copy and pasted the text from the article in a later post....I guess global warming did it for me.

[artmonkforHOF]

1.)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?

2)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...

...is pure ignorance.

3) From the report:

:doh:

1) so that is why meteorologists in the late 1960's and early 1970's thought that excess carbon emissions would lead to a premature ice age. More recent studies suggest carbon emissions would cause an increase in global temperatures. This contradiction can be explained by where we were in the solar cycle at the time of the studies, a cooling period before the 1970's studies.

2) it is not a contracdiction on my part. cutting down a forest is a bad idea in the minds of company that wants to sell carbon credits by keeping the forest in tact, since those plants will absorb carbon emissions, yet no one has been able to figue out exactly how much CO2 a plant can actually absorb, yet they put a number to it anyway. But, if you allowed that forest to be cleared to plant palm oil trees, the land could be used over and over again to produce the palm oil which would be used for fuel and offset the amount of fossil fuels that would be burned in its place AND still be able to absorb CO2 emissions since the palm trees are still plant life (granted, not at the same rate a full forest). Taking down the forest and putting the palm oil feild in it's palce would actually do more to reduce carbon emissions long term, but the company that alledgedly wants to help save the planet by reducing carbon emissions is not interested in teh palm oil field since they will not be the profitting from the palm oil production, the farmers would. So the company that is promoting the image that it puts the environment first is actaully more concerned with it's profits than the actually helping the environment.

3) I have never once said that CO2 does not affect global temp at all, but is not the sole factor which some people make it out to be. this study proves that there is more to climate change that the amount of CO2 we put in the air.

[PeterMP]

1) so that is why meteorologists in the late 1960's and early 1970's thought that excess carbon emissions would lead to a premature ice age.

Can you find any link where anybody said that increase carbon emissions would cause a premature ice age?

**EDIT**

You might also find this interesting:

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2008-02-20-global-cooling_N.htm

[artmonkforHOF]

What questionable correlations?

Why are the correlations questionale?

Why are the modeling techniques inaccurate?

you'd have to ask the author of the article, but I could take a stab at the last one, i think we have done this before PeterMP, in another thread.

If you start a climate model with a warming trend at the start, and state that as factor "X" increases, global temperatures will increase as well. Now if you say that factor X is carbon emissions, then as carbon emissions rise so do temperatures, therefore carbon emissions alone are bad the sole cause of global warming, but this study proves that there is more to global warming than just carbon emissions, so factor "X" is no longer just CO2 levels, and therefore CO2 emissions do not have a DIRECT correlation to global temperatures since other factors need to be taken into account.

And not to mention that the entire idea of climate modeling is suspect in the first place. How can one be expected to take climate models that look 50, 100 or sometimes 1000 years into future with out a grain of salt? Why do we trust these models that are calculating temperatures to 0.1C accuracy, when the same climate models can not predict if it is going to rain on this coming Monday or get the temperature right to within 5C? A lot of faith has been put into these climate models which I am obviously skeptical of. Now these models might not be entirely wrong, I just don't believe we should legislation written based on the outcome of these models, more work needs to be done.

as for questionable correlations, the study was on the solar cycle, not CO2 emissions. Any decent scientist knows that you only base your conclusions on the evidence you provide in the body of your study, yet the NASA study ignored this golden rule and decided to link climate change to CO2 emissions because that has been the long standing believe.

This would be like 15th century scientist going out and getting information proving the world is not flat, putting it in a study and then say "well all past information tells me the world is flat, so they must be right"

[PeterMP]

you'd have to ask the author of the article, but I could take a stab at the last one, i think we have done this before PeterMP, in another thread.

If you start a climate model with a warming trend at the start, and state that as factor "X" increases, global temperatures will increase as well. Now if you say that factor X is carbon emissions, then as carbon emissions rise so do temperatures, therefore carbon emissions alone are bad the sole cause of global warming, but this study proves that there is more to global warming than just carbon emissions, so factor "X" is no longer just CO2 levels, and therefore CO2 emissions do not have a DIRECT correlation to global temperatures since other factors need to be taken into account.

And not to mention that the entire idea of climate modeling is suspect in the first place. How can one be expected to take climate models that look 50, 100 or sometimes 1000 years into future with out a grain of salt? Why do we trust these models that are calculating temperatures to 0.1C accuracy, when the same climate models can not predict if it is going to rain on this coming Monday or get the temperature right to within 5C? A lot of faith has been put into these climate models which I am obviously skeptical of. Now these models might not be entirely wrong, I just don't believe we should legislation written based on the outcome of these models, more work needs to be done.

as for questionable correlations, the study was on the solar cycle, not CO2 emissions. Any decent scientist knows that you only base your conclusions on the evidence you provide in the body of your study, yet the NASA study ignored this golden rule and decided to link climate change to CO2 emissions because that has been the long standing believe.

This would be like 15th century scientist going out and getting information proving the world is not flat, putting it in a study and then say "well all past information tells me the world is flat, so they must be right"

1. The idea that only green house gasses cause warming is a fraud. Nobody EVER claimed. To pretend like the pro-green house gas people have "won" something now because another study makes the point that previous studies has made is a fraud.

This is from 2003: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html

2. People say that greenhouse gases cause warming because we have basic science, independent of any models, that tell us so. Green house gases absorb solar energy that would have normally been reflected out into space and release the evergy by "vibrating" (or other motions) (keep in mind that temperature is a measure of kinetic energy). This is very old information going back over 100 years.

3. Predicting means is different than predicting exact information. As to why you trust them because any model goes through a validation. Data that already have is subset into two groups. A testing set and a validation set. The model is built on the testing set and then its performance is measured based on the validation set. People have done things like take geological based information going back 1,000s of years, and then shown with good accuracy they can predict the temperature over the last 50.

Why wouldn't you trust such a model?

4. You have no idea what they concluded with respect to green house gases. Your analogy is also wrong/bad. What they've shown is that there WAS a contribution to warming that was solar. Recently (being about the last 40 years), though that doesn't exsist. Temps are moving the opposite way one would expect from solar output (solar output is decreasing, but temps are going up).

They didn't even do any modeling. They just looked at data from the last 100 years or so. They didn't say that warming was caused by solar output, but now we think in the future it will be caused by green house gases. They said in the more distant pass (~19500-1950) solar output was increasing in a manner that it could have contributed (not been the sole driving force) of warming. In the last 40 years or so, the opposite is true.

It is EXACTLY the same correlations/associations that got them the first conclusion (that there WAS a role for solar output) that got them the second (that role has been gone for the last several decades). If you don't the correlations/associations (which seems ludicrious to me), then you have to throw out BOTH conclustions.

http://publishing.royalsociety.org/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf

[Mad Mike]

1)

2) it is not a contracdiction on my part. cutting down a forest is a bad idea in the minds of company that wants to sell carbon credits by keeping the forest in tact, since those plants will absorb carbon emissions, yet no one has been able to figue out exactly how much CO2 a plant can actually absorb, yet they put a number to it anyway. But, if you allowed that forest to be cleared to plant palm oil trees, the land could be used over and over again to produce the palm oil which would be used for fuel and offset the amount of fossil fuels that would be burned in its place AND still be able to absorb CO2 emissions since the palm trees are still plant life (granted, not at the same rate a full forest). Taking down the forest and putting the palm oil feild in it's palce would actually do more to reduce carbon emissions long term, but the company that alledgedly wants to help save the planet by reducing carbon emissions is not interested in teh palm oil field since they will not be the profitting from the palm oil production, the farmers would. So the company that is promoting the image that it puts the environment first is actaully more concerned with it's profits than the actually helping the environment.

Dude. You are talking pure gibberish. That number they put on it is real. Just like the voices in your head that give you your "facts". Your proposition and position on this subject are frankly one of the most insanely stupid things I have heard in my life. May god have mercy on your soul.