The First MACJR'S Mini-Verse² Forum
Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
waltcesca

Avatar / Picture

Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 1,885
Reply with quote  #1 

06.25.2007

Sun's Shifts May Cause Global Warming

His studies show that natural variations in the sun plays a major role in global warming. So are humans off the hook? And if so, why does he use compact fluorescent lightbulbs?

by Marion Long

Most leading climate experts don’t agree with Henrik Svensmark, the 49-year-old director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at the Danish National Space Center in Copenhagen. In fact, he has taken a lot of blows for proposing that solar activity and cosmic rays are instrumental in determining the warming (and cooling) of Earth. His studies show that cosmic rays trigger cloud formation, suggesting that a high level of solar activity—which suppresses the flow of cosmic rays striking the atmosphere—could result in fewer clouds and a warmer planet. This, Svensmark contends, could account for most of the warming during the last century. Does this mean that carbon dioxide is less important than we’ve been led to believe? Yes, he says, but how much less is impossible to know because climate models are so limited.

There is probably no greater scientific heresy today than questioning the warming role of CO2, especially in the wake of the report issued by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). That report warned that nations must cut back on greenhouse gas emissions, and insisted that “unless drastic action is taken . . . millions of poor people will suffer from hunger, thirst, floods, and disease.” As astrophysicist ?Eugene Parker, the discoverer of solar wind, writes in the foreword to Svensmark’s new book, The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change, “Global warming has become a political issue both in government and in the scientific community. The scientific lines have been drawn by ‘eminent’ scientists, and an important new idea is an unwelcome intruder. It upsets the established orthodoxy.”

We talked with the unexpectedly modest and soft-spoken Henrik Svensmark about his work, the criticism it has received, and truth versus hype in climate science.

(story continue here) --->

http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jul/the-discover-interview-henrik-svensmark/article_view?b_start:int=0&-C=

__________________
I am what I am and that's ALL what I am!
MACJR

Avatar / Picture

Solar Power
Registered:
Posts: 1,904
Reply with quote  #2 

Well, Walt, according to this article, it looks like your views on global warming make you a minority. 

 

 

MACJR

 

 

 

Solar variations not behind global warming: study

Tue Jul 10, 2007 7:03pm ET

© Reuters 2007. All Rights Reserved.

 

By Ben Hirschler

 

LONDON (Reuters) - The sun's changing energy levels are not to blame for recent global warming and, if anything, solar variations over the past 20 years should have had a cooling effect, scientists said on Wednesday.

 

Their findings add to a growing body of evidence that human activity, not natural causes, lies behind rising average world temperatures, which are expected to reach their second highest level this year since records began in the 1860s.

 

There is little doubt that solar variability has influenced the Earth's climate in the past and may well have been a factor in the first half of the last century, but British and Swiss researchers said it could not explain recent warming.

 

"Over the past 20 years, all the trends in the sun that could have had an influence on Earth's climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures," they wrote in the Proceedings of the Royal Society.

 

Most scientists say emissions of greenhouse gases, mainly from burning fossil fuels in power plants, factories and cars, are the prime cause of the current warming trend.

 

A dwindling group pins the blame on natural variations in the climate system, or a gradual rise in the sun's energy output.

 

In order to unpick that possible link, Mike Lockwood of Britain's Rutherford Appleton Laboratory and Claus Froehlich of the World Radiation Centre in Davos, Switzerland, studied factors that could have forced climate change in recent decades, including variations in total solar irradiance and cosmic rays.

 

The data was smoothed to take account of the 11-year sunspot cycle, which affects the amount of heat the sun emits but does not impact the Earth's surface air temperature, due to the way the oceans absorb and retain heat.

 

They concluded that the rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen since the late 1980s could not be ascribed to solar variability, whatever mechanism was invoked.

 

Britain's Royal Society -- one of the world's oldest scientific academies, founded in 1660 -- said the new research was an important rebuff to climate change skeptics.

 

"At present there is a small minority which is seeking to deliberately confuse the public on the causes of climate change. They are often misrepresenting the science, when the reality is that the evidence is getting stronger every day," it said in a statement.

The 10 warmest years in the past 150 years have all been since 1990 and a United Nations climate panel, drawing on the work of 2,500 scientists, said this year it was "very likely" human activities were the main cause.

The panel gave a "best estimate" that temperatures would rise 1.8 to 4.0 degrees Celsius (3.2 to 7.8 Fahrenheit) this century.
 
© Reuters 2007. All Rights Reserved.

__________________
“They can shoot me dead but the moral high ground is mine!” The 10th Doctor
waltcesca

Avatar / Picture

Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 1,885
Reply with quote  #3 

HAAA! I am ALWAYS the 'minority'!!!!


__________________
I am what I am and that's ALL what I am!
waltcesca

Avatar / Picture

Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 1,885
Reply with quote  #4 

And, SINCE I don't know how many 2500 is in comparison to the whole community, that number means nothing to me. It is 'just' a number, afterall. How many scientist believed that Thalidomide would be a SAFE drug? How many scientist STILL believe it is alright to use DDT in the home (Well, that last query should be aimed towards the WHO (World Health Organization). Nope, I need a LARGER number than 2500, for all I know, that IS a VERY minority part of the scientists beliefs. If 2500 is a majority of scientists in the world, someone needs MORE colleges and universities world wide to figure this out!


__________________
I am what I am and that's ALL what I am!
waltcesca

Avatar / Picture

Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 1,885
Reply with quote  #5 
Oh, and by the way, Thalidomide has been approved for use in the treatment of Leprosy and some forms of cancer in THIS country. But still not prescribed for morning sickness OR to pregnant women.

Will they NEVER learn?

__________________
I am what I am and that's ALL what I am!
cybnetic

Avatar / Picture

White Dwarf
Registered:
Posts: 519
Reply with quote  #6 
interesting

__________________
13.0.0.0.0 1.618 (solstice)2012
Gematria,the true constant of the universe
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:


Create your own forum with Website Toolbox!

Back to Top Forum