sunsettommy

Try these links about the well proved Suns increasing output. Link#1 March 20, 2003 - (date of web publication) NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/t...irradiance.html Link#2 Solar Irradiance Reconstruction ----------------------------------------------------------------------- World Data Center for Paleoclimatology, Boulder and NOAA Paleoclimatology Program http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/c..._irradiance.txt Link#3 Sun more active than for a millennium 09:00 02 November 2003 Exclusive from New Scientist Print Edition. Subscribe and get 4 free issues. Jenny Hogan http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4321 Plus this link: http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns...n4321-1_550.jpg Link#4 The Sun is More Active Now than Over the Last 8000 Years Then we have this showing evidence of the Suns INDIRECT effect on other cosmic influences that effect the earths atmosphere: Cosmic rays and Earth's climate JunkScience.com October, 2006 Summary: Almost ignored by the media the Royal Society has quietly published what may prove to be the most significant paper on Earth's climate in decades. Here we present background on the paper and explore some of its ramifications. http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/Cosm...and_climate.htm An international team of scientists has reconstructed the Sun's activity over the last 11 millennia and forecasts decreased activity within a few decades The activity of the Sun over the last 11,400 years, i.e., back to the end of the last ice age on Earth, has now for the first time been reconstructed quantitatively by an international group of researchers led by Sami K. Solanki from the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research (Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany). The scientists have analyzed the radioactive isotopes in trees that lived thousands of years ago. As the scientists from Germany, Finland, and Switzerland report in the current issue of the science journal "Nature" from October 28, one needs to go back over 8,000 years in order to find a time when the Sun was, on average, as active as in the last 60 years. Based on a statistical study of earlier periods of increased solar activity, the researchers predict that the current level of high solar activity will probably continue only for a few more decades. emphasis mine http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrationsDoc...elease20041028/ Then we have this: Cosmic rays and Earth's climate JunkScience.com October, 2006 Summary: Almost ignored by the media the Royal Society has quietly published what may prove to be the most significant paper on Earth's climate in decades. Here we present background on the paper and explore some of its ramifications. http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/Cosm...and_climate.htm

Please provide the information that Polar Bears are actually an at risk species.

LOL, Your own link clearly shows that from the 1930's the world warms up right along with the increase in the suns sunspot counts. Look at the second chart.The Sun was showing a long term increase that made the world also go into the VERY SAME LONG TERM TEMPERATURE INCREASE. Then we look at the Solar irradiance increases that also shows a very clear relationship of global warming.That would be the third chart. There is a relationship that chart #2 and # 3 show that when the sun is going in a specific increase or decrease trend.The worlds temperature responds right along with it.With some lag time shown. During the LIA there is good evidence of a distinct reduction of both sunspot numbers and solar radiance.The planet showed this by COOLING down.Then when the sunspot counts started going back up in the early 1800's the planet soon started warming up again. This was discussed for years during the 1960's and 1970's. It is amazing that todays scientists fail to see the whole picture.Have they forgotten the links of solar reduction to planet cooling in earlier historical periods? The surface temperatures as provided by CRU is for the land surface only.A small area of the planets surface that is spottily covered by a patchwork of reporting station of variable quality. What about the oceans? The Suns heating effect is actually most pronounced on the SURFACE of the planet and on the Oceans SURFACE not in the atmosphere. The Earths surfaces are the main absorbing medium of direct solar radiance.The planets surface absorbs and then reradiate them as LONGER WAVES that are then in part absorbed by the "greenhouse gases" and also reflected back towards the surface in part by clouds.The rest goes right back into space outside of the earths atmosphere. The oceans with about 78% of the surface where little temperature reporting stations are found.The surface is absorbing and reflecting INCOMING solar radiation. The land surface with about 21% of the surface where temperature reporting stations are placed in irregular locations and of variable quality.The surface is absorbing and reflecting INCOMING solar radiation. Here is a link to a chart that shows the dominant role of the sun.It is based on it: http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/Kieh...h-1997_Fig7.jpg Here is the simplified version: http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/Radiation_Budget.gif That is basically how the atmosphere get warmed up. Keep in mind that the sun shines over the ENTIRE world.The weather reporting stations as used by NASA and CRU irregularly covers just the land surface area.Then too the QUALITY of the temperature data is variable depending on the location,The Urban Heating effect of decades in the Urban areas and the lack of reporting centers worldwide. It would be nice if we had the ocean surface temperature data included from 1880's to greatly improve the charts plotting to a more accurate degree.There is a lag signal in the ones you showed me.If we had a lot more data and increased quality.We would have a better picture on the temperature lags when considering the suns sunspot and solar irradiance changes involved. Look I am glad you are doing what you are doing.You are an honest debator and make a good effort to marshall information. But you sometimes fail to see the whole picture.

B.Max in response to your post #73. The link you provided is terrible.It has no reference point and I could not see the numbers you claimed in it. Where did you get that link anyway.I have not been able to find it at Milloys website. I did find this that matched your copying: "NCDC Global Land Near-Surface Anomaly: November 2006: +0.77 °C Peak recorded anomaly: February, 2002: +1.62 °C Current relative to peak recorded: -0.85 °C Last update: December 18, 2006" But this part is not there: "1998 - 9.5977833 2001 - 9.2623833 - .3354 2002 - 9.365583 - .2322003" Where did you get them? However since you were using the NCDC data to make your claims.Lets take a good look at what they say year to year starting year 2000: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/resear...00/ann/ann.html Year 2001: It is a PDF.Go to page 4 and see that they say it is a very warm year.Well above the average. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/resear.../ann/annsum.pdf Year 2002: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/resear.../ann/ann02.html Year 2003: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/resear...ann/global.html Year 2004: Global Temperatures http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/resear...ann/global.html Year 2005: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/resear...ann/global.html You have no case since they specifically say it warmer than average EVERY SINGLE YEAR! Unless you can salvage your still unsupported claim in post # 73 and all other previous postings on this matter of a claimed cooling trend since 1998. I will begin to consider you delusional.

Justice for who, the mother or the child? Should the child suffer for it because it is the mother who screwed up instead of say, the next door neighbour they were hitching a ride with? It's an odd situation but the bottom line is, if the parents can't afford to pay, either the tax payer or an insurance company will have to, or the kid goes without the services it needs to live. Well if the mother just abort the unborn damaged child.Would that mean she stayed out of the money trough?

What if the mother just aborts the injured fetus? Abortion is legal is it not?

The UN only has as much power as its most powerful members allow it to have. Blaming the UN is easy, but it ignores the fact that its failures are our own. The Veto power?

So when is the United States pulling out of organizations like the U.N.? And why not? You'd had a right wing government for six years. Were they really lefties? No because they do NOT have the courage to do the right thing. Then too the headquarters is in New York. Diplomacy is not something easily trampled on even for a failed institution that the U.N. is. Meanwhile when will Canada pull out of the U.N. ?

Hmmm... What came first, the Palestinian rockets, or the Israeli helicopters? Seems to me that every time there has been a cease-fire, we have seen a lull in Palestinian violence, and a business-as-usual continuation of Israeli murder and mayhem. In fact this goes back to the start of the 2nd Intifada. Could it be that the Israelis are counting on the American propaganda machine to get them out of trouble? I breathlessly await the latest news from Anderson Cooper in his Atlanta condo Hmmmm...... When will you actually address Argus's point that the Resolutions are ONE SIDED! Then too you are willing to forget those kidnappings.........

That's definitely a valid point of view. However it is equivalent to saying that power structure of the UN must (continue to) be dominated by West. It's unlikely that any nation would willingly accept open and obvious domination. Hence, UNSC is destined for more and more stalemates. The only way to escape this destiny is to share the power with the world as it is, not as some want it to be. Gosh you forget that it was the "west" who created the U.N. in the first place. Then too they supply the headquarters and most of the money to run the agency. Third world countries have little to offer. So why share the "paper power" with tinpot dictators and similar idiots who runs their nation into the ground through ideology and/or ethnic cleansing?

A major mistake is the American led troops in clearing out terrorist camps in not SECURING those cleared out areas. The terrorists just come back into the same areas after the coalition troops leave.Thereby allowing a place to base in the city. If there were no more areas of the city for the terrorists to camp in.Then they would have to go into the desert and camp there.That would make it easier for the coalition troops to wipe them out with no civilians in the way. To me it is more a strategy of containment that is flawed.

Gosthacked: LOL, Still perpetuating that myth that the president was saying the war is over. He was actually referring to the Aircraft Carrier's deployment.The USS Lincoln's mission was ending and was near the home port when the President came on board. Look it up. The President said early on that the war on terror is a long one.He said that MAJOR COMBAT OPERATIONS were over. Not the war itself. Check again. Actually Hussein and his killers were of the Sunni MINORITY. This means he had to have a police state to maintain power in face of the determined MAJORITY of Shiites who did not really accept his dictatorship. There were no actual check and balances.It was a brural clampdown of the Majority Shiites. Now that his police state is removed.The long suffering Shiites are revenging the Sunni's crimes with murder.If unchecked long enough.The Sunni's will thin out and leave or be killed. Then too we have muslim fanatics who want to FORCE a Theocracy on the people who clearly showed they do not want that by electing a more democratic government with a constitution that is more in line with representation for the people. What ever gave you the idea there is anarchy? Chaos and anarchy claims is more a Media invention than reality.

I don't know. But it seems to me from reading about the NAO that it's considered an effect of climate being driven, and is not a driver itself. It certainly doesn't look like anyone is trying to explain global warming as being caused by the NAO, or any other such oscillation I've heard that argument, about the effect of ocean temps being anthropogenic, but that argument is weak, given the apparent random distribution of "blocking" and "non-blocking" series of years. They also existed before the alleged anthropogenic forcing could have made an impact. Consider the massive shift in the 1976 PDO event.Then little change after that.

Well this researcher wouldn't be convinced by that argument: http://www.esi-topics.com/gwarm/interviews...mesHurrell.html How come he left out the Sun? The sun has increased significantly in its output since the 1950's.Surely that would help warm the oceans. This is a common error most researchers make in excluding the sun and focusing on the "greenhouse gases".

Hasn't it been in a cool phase since 1998? Some researchers say it began in 1998 and others say it began in 2003. Either way it has been a weak and erratic shift. The 1976 shift was strong and distinct and clearly a warming trend. So at this time there is no strong trend to a full blown cooling phase.

Shoggoth, I was unable to get anything coherent from your link about data from 1998 to 2006. But the MSU chart that B.Max is so fond of is probably the "coolest" of the bunch and it still showed a small warming trend from 1998. I showed him ALL the month by month data from 1998 to 2006 in another thread.It showed a clear warming trend. He will not let go of his delusion despite the irrefutable data I posted for the chart he keeps posting he claims shows a cooling trend from 1998.

There is no upward trend in that graph, unless you are up side down. We are looking for the averages here. For the most part it is flat, but even Tim Ball agrees there is a slight cooling. http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Cor...14/2351620.html -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sunsettommy: Does Tim Ball actually provide evidence to back it up? Bob Carter never did and you swallowed his lies.

Because of this. Which clearly shows a slight cooling. Does it not? http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/NCDCanomLand.htm LOL. I gave you ALL the raw data for that graph from 1998 to 2006 in another thread. They show a clear warming trend. I also called Bob Carter a liar and proved it overwhelmingly by bringing up the source he mentioned that allegedly supported his preposterous idea that there has been a cooling trend since 1998.The source did not support his claim and what is more I gave you additional evidence that East Anglia's website has right on their front page the chart that shows straight across the board warming since 1998. So after I clobbered you in that thread.You recycle disproved claims in this thread again! Drop this insane cooling idea.It is demonstrably wrong.

But if we stopped emitting 27 billion tons of co2 into the atmosphere per year, how could co2 levels continue to rise about 15 billion tons per year? It's pretty much 100% conclusive A good question but a conclusive answer is evidently not coming from you.

The IPCC report you linked to says mankind's yearly contribution is 7.1 The 2001 IPCC report also says: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/097.htm#fig31 And mentions the 50% absorbed: And: Ie the oceans and land are a net absorber of co2, not a net emitter. But human activity is a net emitter as shown in data from this table - http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/097.htm#tab31 Contribution to atmospheric carbon during the 90s: Atmosphere increase = 3.2 ± 0.1 Emissons (fossil fuel, cement) = 6.3 ± 0.4 Ocean-atmosphere flux = -1.7 ± 0.5 Land atmsphere flux= -1.4±0.7 If you regard a 5.9 contribution as small, how small is the oceans contribution of minus 1.7 and the land's contribution of minus 1.4 compared to man's contribution of 6.3? And carbon is only increasing by 3.2 tons in the atmosphere, that's less than the amount of carbon we are putting into the atmosphere each year (which is why it is known that half is being absorbed and that nature is a net sink, not a net emitter) Nice work. But where did I dispute mankinds CO2 contribution?

You are stating a fact, a fact which I do not disagree with. But you are interpreting that fact to mean something it doesn't. Nature emits far more co2 than man does. But nature absorbs as much co2 as it emits. So the factor causing co2 levels to rise year on year in the atmosphere is not nature at all. You are getting closer to what I was getting at.Most people would have got it long ago however since I only talked about Emissions. Come on are you that dense? I talked about EMISSIONS. I agree that Nature absorbs just about what it emits.But that was never what I was talking about.I will not dispute you over it "The Ocean is adding 70.6 into the atmosphere.Far more than Man addition of a measely 5.9 into the atmosphere." "Hey at least you noticed that 55.5 of CO2 from plants and soil is emitted into the atmosphere! That is more than mans tiny contribution of 5.9" Nature 126.1 to Mankind 5.9 That is the emission story. That was all I was talking about. Do you finally understand? Shoggoth: That is the presumed story.But not 100% conclusive since CO2 coming from fossil fuels are the same as coming from the soil.

Then we have this from American Meteorological Society, Abstract View Volume 18, Issue 22 (November 2005) Journal of Climate Article: pp. 4824–4839 | Full Text | PDF (2.21M) The Significance of the 1976 Pacific Climate Shift in the Climatology of Alaska Brian Hartmann and Gerd Wendler Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Fairbanks, Alaska ABSTRACT The 1976 Pacific climate shift is examined, and its manifestations and significance in Alaskan climatology during the last half-century are demonstrated. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation index shifted in 1976 from dominantly negative values for the 25-yr time period 1951–75 to dominantly positive values for the period 1977–2001. Mean annual and seasonal temperatures for the positive phase were up to 3.1°C higher than for the negative phase. Likewise, mean cloudiness, wind speeds, and precipitation amounts increased, while mean sea level pressure and geopotential heights decreased. The pressure decrease resulted in a deepening of the Aleutian low in winter and spring. The intensification of the Aleutian low increased the advection of relatively warm and moist air to Alaska and storminess over the state during winter and spring. The regime shift is also examined for its effect on the long-term temperature trends throughout the state. The trends that have shown climatic warming are strongly biased by the sudden shift in 1976 from the cooler regime to a warmer regime. When analyzing the total time period from 1951 to 2001, warming is observed; however, the 25-yr period trend analyses before 1976 (1951–75) and thereafter (1977–2001) both display cooling, with a few exceptions. In this paper, emphasis is placed on the importance of taking into account the sudden changes that result from abrupt climatic shifts, persistent regimes, and the possibility of cyclic oscillations, such as the PDO, in the analysis of long-term climate change in Alaska. Manuscript received 20 April 2004, in final form 25 February 2005 DOI: 10.1175/JCLI3532.1 http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?reques...75%2FJCLI3532.1 There is a PDF for more.If you are a subscriber. This again shows how a cyclical warming affects Alaska and on into the polar region.

jbg: Referring to this? Increased Hurricanes And Increased Winter Snowfall – How They Are Related by Joe Daleo http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/2006...are-related-by/ The PDO phase maybe the main cause of warming in the artic. SNIP: WHAT IS BEHIND THIS SNOWFALL BLITZ? Snowfall here in the Northeast and across much of the Hemisphere relate to decadal scale cycles in the Pacific, Atlantic and Arctic. When the Pacific Decadal Oscillation flipped from its cold to warm mode in the Great Pacific Climate Shift in 1978, El Nino frequency increased. In the warm PDO mode, more El Ninos are favored (this cycle two to one) over La Ninas, and when they are weak to moderate this often translates into heavy snows in the eastern United States, especially when the Quasi-Biennial Oscillation (QBO) is west. CPC research by Livesey, Barnston and Halpert over a decade ago (Journal of Climate 1991) showed how a west QBO El Nino favors the positive PNA pattern with an eastern trough which predisposes the east to east coast storms. When the El Ninos are not strong, this means heavy snow for the east coast. Indeed 2/3rds of the top dozen heaviest snow years since the 1870s for Boston were weaker El Nino West QBO seasons. Also important to the snow increases has been a shift of two atmospheric oscillations which generally operate in tandem, the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) and Arctic Oscillations (AO). These oscillations have significant control over the weather pattern including winter storm tracks and temperatures in both Europe and the eastern United States. (look for the charts in the link that fallows this snipped section) http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/2006...are-related-by/

Another discredited article from Exxon paid Patrick Michaels? http://mediamatters.org/items/200405200001 What is a rebuttal?

By the way mankinds small 5.9 yearly contribution is nearly 50% absorbed as according to the IPCC. http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig3-1.htm