Scientists Blame Sun for Global Warming

[B. Max]

Why does he keep posting that same graph as if it means anything?

What's "UAH"? What's "MSU"?

How can you visually interpret that graph without applying some sort of averaging? It's impossible to determine any temperature trend in its current form.

I went to the Columbia icefield a couple of years ago with my dad, who remembers what that glacier was like in the 1970s. His reaction is all the evidence I need to know that climate change is taking place here in Alberta.

-k

That is natural for glaciers. If you went to one that is expanding like they are in other parts would that mean we have global cooling. Climate has always been changing. That is a fact. Most warming over the last hundred years took place before 1940 and since then there has actually been a cooling. Since 1998 the temperature has been basicly flat with no increase.

[B. Max]

you only have to look at the last 30 years on these graphs to wonder what the hell Bob Carter is going on about

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/resea...ded-temp-pg.gif

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

Lets look at the US historical records.

http://www.john-daly.com/usa-1999.gif

[jdobbin]

That is natural for glaciers. If you went to one that is expanding like they are in other parts would that mean we have global cooling. Climate has always been changing. That is a fact. Most warming over the last hundred years took place before 1940 and since then there has actually been a cooling. Since 1998 the temperature has been basicly flat with no increase.

False.

[jdobbin]

Better take a closer look.

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/NCDCanom.htm

Discredited.

[jdobbin]

Lets look at the US historical records.

http://www.john-daly.com/usa-1999.gif

Inaccurate.

[shoggoth]

MSU stands for Microwave Sounding Unit

http://ghrc.msfc.nasa.gov:5721/sensor_docu...instrument.html

They are built onto satellites and can be used to measure temperature at different height ranges in the atmosphere. The problem is that over the last 3 decades the measurements are spread across multiple satellites and these satellites drift which affects the data. So to compile actual 30-year satellite based temperture trends you have to splice together the seperate measurements, and adjust for the drifting.

UAH (university of alabama in huntsville) is the term given to one group that has done this to generate a satellite temperature trend. Another group who have compiled a trend from the data is Remote Sensing Systems (RSS). You can compare the trends each group has generated side by side here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Satelli...emperatures.png

You'll notice the RSS trend is higher. Junkscience on their site consistantly emphasizes the UAH trend. There is no good reason to favor one over the other. But perhaps you like me can imagine a reason junkscience might want to emphasize the lower trend...

You might also notice from the link above that the UAH graph trend does not match the junkscience.com one that B.Max posted. This is because the UAH graph on wikipedia is lower-troposphere (ie near surface) wheras the junkscience.com one is mid-troposphere.

In fact here again there was a choice for junkscience.com because there are actually two mid-troposphere trends from UAH. The basic one also includes part of the lower stratosphere which dampens the warming trend because the the stratosphere has an overall cooling trend (as expected by climate models).

The more complicated mid-troposphere trend from UAH attempts to remove the influence of the lower stratosphere in the data, to better represent actual mid-troposphere trends and therefore the trend shows more warming.

So that said, guess which mid-troposphere UAH trend junkscience.com decided to use in their graph.

[Canuck E Stan]

You only have to look at the last 30 years on these graphs to wonder what the hell Bob Carter is going on about

30 years?,100years,1000 years,1,000,000 years,10,000,000 years. What relevance does 30 years have on a place that is billions of years old and has changes it's appearance and temperature constantly?

North America was a tropical zone at one time for cryin' out loud. The critters that were then are no more. The earth changes with or without man, and another giant meteor hitting the earth will change it again.

Now tell me how the relevance of 30 years of temperature means anything and how it can change earth's evolution as it's going to change anyway.

[shoggoth]

you only have to look at the last 30 years on these graphs to wonder what the hell Bob Carter is going on about

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/resea...ded-temp-pg.gif

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

Lets look at the US historical records.

http://www.john-daly.com/usa-1999.gif

Why are you ignoring the global trends? It's called Global Warming not US Historical Warming

[shoggoth]

You only have to look at the last 30 years on these graphs to wonder what the hell Bob Carter is going on about

30 years?,100years,1000 years,1,000,000 years,10,000,000 years. What relevance does 30 years have on a place that is billions of years old and has changes it's appearance and temperature constantly?

That is offtopic from what I said. Bob Carter claimed there has been no warming since 1998. The graphs I posted refute that. The warming trend has never gone up year after year. There was a flat trend from 1987-1992 for example. But the fact that tempertures in the past few years have been about the same as 1998 temperatures when there was a very strong el nino that year, shows that tempeture has indeed gone up since 1998.

[B. Max]

That is natural for glaciers. If you went to one that is expanding like they are in other parts would that mean we have global cooling. Climate has always been changing. That is a fact. Most warming over the last hundred years took place before 1940 and since then there has actually been a cooling. Since 1998 the temperature has been basicly flat with no increase.

False.

It's not false.

[B. Max]

Better take a closer look.

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/NCDCanom.htm

Discredited.

How.

[shoggoth]

That is natural for glaciers. If you went to one that is expanding like they are in other parts would that mean we have global cooling.

The vast majority of glaciers are receeding, which reflects global warming.

Most warming over the last hundred years took place before 1940

More has occured since 1980 than 1900-1940

and since then there has actually been a cooling.

A cooling since 1940?

Since 1998 the temperature has been basicly flat with no increase.

The 5-year mean temperature trend has continued to rise after 1998. 1998 was exceptionally warm due to there being a very strong el nino. That's why it sticks out. Recent years have been just as warm without a strong el nino (in fact both NASA and NCDC put 2005 as hotter than 1998). There is no indication that the warming has stopped yet.

[B. Max]

you only have to look at the last 30 years on these graphs to wonder what the hell Bob Carter is going on about

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/resea...ded-temp-pg.gif

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

Lets look at the US historical records.

http://www.john-daly.com/usa-1999.gif

Why are you ignoring the global trends? It's called Global Warming not US Historical Warming

The US is part of the globe. The records you post are in dispute because of the heat island effect. US satellite data since 79 more closely refect the US surface temperature records.

[shoggoth]

you only have to look at the last 30 years on these graphs to wonder what the hell Bob Carter is going on about

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/resea...ded-temp-pg.gif

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

Lets look at the US historical records.

http://www.john-daly.com/usa-1999.gif

Why are you ignoring the global trends? It's called Global Warming not US Historical Warming

The US is part of the globe.

Part of a globe which is overall is warming.

The records you post are in dispute because of the heat island effect.

Not true. The consensus in the climate community after looking into that issue in detail is the trends are not affected significantly. With the heat island effect thought to contribute just 0.05C over the last century. Besides some of the areas warming most on the earth are the least inhabited.

US satellite data since 79 more closely refect the US surface temperature records.

More closely reflect than what? I haven't posted any US surface temperture records (you did that)

[B. Max]

You didn't answer my question B.Max:

Why do you deny the reality of Global Warming? Is there some financial concern to you, or do you find it unbelievable and overwhelming?

I have no more concern than do hundreds of thousands of other people do. Just in this country alone. If you ruin this countries economy and send untold numbers into poverty with no hope of ever turning it around you will have war. That one can be sure of. There is no proof of man made global warming, that is a fact.

[Canuck E Stan]

You only have to look at the last 30 years on these graphs to wonder what the hell Bob Carter is going on about

30 years?,100years,1000 years,1,000,000 years,10,000,000 years. What relevance does 30 years have on a place that is billions of years old and has changes it's appearance and temperature constantly?

That is offtopic from what I said....

The topic is Global warming and the Sun.

Stupid,frivilous arguments all about "I said,he said", "my facts are more right than your facts"

The question is,

How is the relevance of 30 years of temperature means anything one way or the other,over the history of the earth and the sun?

A place that is billions of years old.

Anybody got the gonads to answer?

[B. Max]

The US is part of the globe.

Part of a globe which is overall is warming.

The records you post are in dispute because of the heat island effect.

Not true. The consensus in the climate community after looking into that issue in detail is the trends are not affected significantly. With the heat island effect thought to contribute just 0.05C over the last century. Besides some of the areas warming most on the earth are the least inhabited.

US satellite data since 79 more closely refect the US surface temperature records.

More closely reflect than what? I haven't posted any US surface temperture records (you did that)

Not true, the heat island effect is huge. Just where I live it can be as much as two degrees.

US satellite data more closely refects US ground temperatures than it does the world temperature records.

http://www.john-daly.com/usa-1999.gif

http://www.john-daly.com/nasa.gif

[shoggoth]

The question is, How is the relevance of 30 years of temperature means anything one way or the other,over the history of the earth and the sun? A place that is billions of years old. Anybody got the gonads to answer?

The question is whether the warming will continue, and that can only be answered by understanding what has caused the past 30 years of temperature rise. If it is mainly caused by an enhanced greenhouse effect then that implies the temperature will continue to rise over the coming century (as greenhouse gases, notably co2, is going to continue rising regardless of any government policies). A rise of 2C over 100 years is therefore possible. That might not sound much, but the warming that led us out of the last ice age was 9C over 8,000 years. So the recent warming is very rapid compared to that. And rapid climate change leads to little time to adapt (that goes for humans as well as all life on earth), and that leads to problems.

[Canuck E Stan]

And rapid climate change leads to little time to adapt (that goes for humans as well as all life on earth), and that leads to problems.

Based on the age of the earth,how does anyone know the relevance of a short period of time in which man has kept records of temperature? Even 8,000 years is a short period of time.

A rapid climate change? Or just a blip in the Billions of years the earth has been around? This cycle has been here before,without man,why can't it happen again?

What do you think you can do about global warming if this is part of the evolution of the earth?

[shoggoth]

Not true, the heat island effect is huge. Just where I live it can be as much as two degrees.

Yes it is huge, but it's accounted for. Otherwise how come your US temperature chart doesn't show as much as two degrees of warming?

US satellite data more closely refects US ground temperatures than it does the world temperature records.

http://www.john-daly.com/usa-1999.gif

http://www.john-daly.com/nasa.gif

What do you mean by US satellite measurements. The graph is of global lower troposphere temperatures from satellites.

The satellite trends are not that different from the surface trends at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Satelli...emperatures.png

In fact the surface trend shows about +0.17C per decade. The UAH (which is the graph you posted) finds about +0.13C per decade. While RSS finds about 0.19C (using the SAME satellite data).

The global satellite trends don't match the US temperature trend graph you posted at all - because it's comparing apples and oranges. The US tempeture trends over the past century do not reflect the entire global trends.

[shoggoth]

Based on the age of the earth,how does anyone know the relevance of a short period of time in which man has kept records of temperature?

Temperature proxies, such as ice cores give an idea of temperature trends extending back hundreds of thousands of years further than man-kept records of temperature. Eg the vostok trends: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/vostok/g...s/tempplot5.gif

Even 8,000 years is a short period of time. A rapid climate change? Or just a blip in the Billions of years the earth has been around? This cycle has been here before,without man,why can't it happen again? What do you think you can do about global warming if this is part of the evolution of the earth?

Yes it could be a blip in which case there is nothing that can be done about it (personally even if it is man caused I dont think there is anything we can do about it). That's the point of the science now - to see what could explain the recent warming, and find out what has caused it - natural or not. Enhanced greenhouse effect just happens to be one of the better explainations, and if it is true it would imply tempertures will continue rising.

[B. Max]

The topic is Global warming and the Sun.

http://spacecenter.dk/cgi-bin/nyheder-m-m....gifunction=form

[jdobbin]

http://spacecenter.dk/cgi-bin/nyheder-m-m....gifunction=form

http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20061023/sc_...toglobalwarming

"This work does not mean that there is no human influence on climate, Svensmark told LiveScience. "But it might be necessary to reevaluate the climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide.""

[shoggoth]

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...ays-for-a-spin/

[bradco]

you only have to look at the last 30 years on these graphs to wonder what the hell Bob Carter is going on about

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/resea...ded-temp-pg.gif

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

Lets look at the US historical records.

http://www.john-daly.com/usa-1999.gif

do you have any understanding of global climate change?? Posting temperature records for one country is so incredibly irrelvant!