Quote:
Originally Posted by onwebcam
We can start here
World may not be warming, say scientists
Report indicates solar cycle has been impacting Earth since the Industrial Revolution
Some researchers believe that the solar cycle influences global climate changes. They attribute recent warming trends to cyclic variation. Skeptics, though, argue that there's little hard evidence of a solar hand in recent climate changes.
Now, a new research report from a surprising source may help to lay this skepticism to rest. A study from NASA?s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland looking at climate data over the past century has concluded that solar variation has made a significant impact on the Earth's climate. The report concludes that evidence for climate changes based on solar radiation can be traced back as far as the Industrial Revolution.
Past research has shown that the sun goes through eleven year cycles. At the cycle's peak, solar activity occurring near sunspots is particularly intense, basking the Earth in solar heat. According to Robert Cahalan, a climatologist at the Goddard Space Flight Center, "Right now, we are in between major ice ages, in a period that has been called the Holocene."
Thomas Woods, solar scientist at the University of Colorado in Boulder concludes, "The fluctuations in the solar cycle impacts Earth's global temperature by about 0.1 degree Celsius, slightly hotter during solar maximum and cooler during solar minimum. The sun is currently at its minimum, and the next solar maximum is expected in 2012."
According to the study, during periods of solar quiet, 1,361 watts per square meter of solar energy reaches Earth's outermost atmosphere. Periods of more intense activity brought 1.4 watts per square meter (0.1 percent) more energy.
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.
http://www.dailytech.com/NASA+Study+...ticle15310.htm |
First, let me say this - you have to stop trusting teh commercial media, and especially the B-gtade comercial media and blogosphere, to give you information. This is an article from a basically unknown site, I'm pretty familiar with the high traffic well regarded tech and science sites and I can't recall ever seeing thsi one mentioned in any of most reliable sources. That shoudl be your first clue - check the provenance of the source.
I'm not saying that it might not have validity, just pointing out the shaky provenance, and telling you you have to distrust the media more than you do.
Clearly, you have a preconceived notion that leads you to trust anti-AGW articles even from bad sources, and so far I have not seen you post a single source that has reasonable authprity, except, one might say, the negative authority of McIntyre, who, even tho he has sone soem questionable things, has also made some vailid arguments.
Okay, lets look at the actual information.
Your article refers to a sciencedaily article, Now, sciencedaily is actually a well regarded source, but like livescience it is still popular science media, it is NOT authoritative, but it is closely watche dby many people and is usually pretty reliable.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0512120523.htm here's the link, which I followed from your article. The article is from 2008.
Your dailytech blog article is titled: NASA Study Acknowledges Solar Cycle, Not Man, Responsible for Past Warming
The science daily article is titled: Solar Variability: Striking A Balance With Climate Change
Now lets see, does that article seem to say that a "NASA Study Acknowledges Solar Cycle, Not Man, Responsible for Past Warming". Reading. Reading.
No. No. Nowhere, as far as I can tell.
Let me reread your posted article, and see if that clarifies what they are saying.
Okay - now here's where the distorting of information by the commercial media occurs.
This guy's summary goes:
Quote:
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, acknowledge that the sun may play a significant role in future climate changes.
|
But he doesn't support it at all.
Of course the sun has caused variaility in the past, both by itself, and in combination with varios planetary amd atmosphereic events. So has greenhouse gasses, for example during the carboniferous era, and before that after the siberian volcanic extinction event. But the article doesn't say a thing that supports this guys conclusion. He is basically spinning out propaganda out of whole cloth without offering a single point to back up his claim.
This is the problem right here - you think you have offered me some kind of argument or evidence, but the actual evidence DOES NOT SAY what you think it says, and the media source you are trusting has ginned up his conclusion with no basis, saying something that is neither said nor implied in the source article.
AND, neither your article, NOR the sciencedaily article, is authoritative. Both of these are commercial media, making money off your page views and the ads. You have to stop trusting the media!