|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/20/2007 11:25:27 AM · #201 |
Originally posted by chip_k:
Originally posted by cloudsme:
Taking responsibility doesn't equate to cowtowing to every bit of science fiction brought forth by Hollywood politicians. |
CORRECT! To me, taking responsibility means taking the time to dig up the FACTS on your own and make your own conclusions. We're all making big mistakes if we rely on Michael Moore, Al Gore, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, George Bush and our Aunt Gertrude to provide us with information regarding climate change.
Beachfront property? On a hill hopefully? ;) |
East coast of Florida. Was there in August and there was a lot of beach. Hurricane Noel in October caused a lot of beach errosion, and there isn't much there now. If the ocean rose a foot, would be in trouble. I've seen the beach come and go many times in the last 30 years. |
|
|
|
11/20/2007 11:31:30 AM · #202 |
Originally posted by cloudsme:
East coast of Florida. Was there in August and there was a lot of beach. Hurricane Noel in October caused a lot of beach errosion, and there isn't much there now. If the ocean rose a foot, would be in trouble. I've seen the beach come and go many times in the last 30 years. |
Of course, the presence or absence of "beach" post-Noel has nothing to do with potential problems if the sea level rises. You could lay a few hundred feet of sand back out (and indeed, nature will do this on her own eventually) but that's not going to change how high above sea level the property is...
Where there IS a potential problem is in the erosion that may occur without the sand's protection. In other words, the coastline may very well move further inland as a result of beach erosion. But it doesn't have anything to do with sea level changes...
R.
|
|
|
|
11/20/2007 12:26:28 PM · #203 |
Originally posted by cloudsme:
Taking responsibility doesn't equate to cowtowing to every bit of science fiction brought forth by Hollywood politicians. |
The list of Nobel Prize winners who are warning us about climate change is long.
Here is one of them.
Of course, since 2007, there's also a Hollywood politican among them, but there's also Steve Chu (Physics 1997), Carlo Rubbia (Physics 1984), Hartmut Michel (Chemistry 1988), Amartya Sen (Economy 1998), Joseph Stiglitz (Economy 2001),.......
Of course, one can just discard the opinion of some of the most brilliant minds in the world. But don't you get the feeling that this might be slightly arrogant? |
|
|
|
11/20/2007 12:32:04 PM · #204 |
Originally posted by MAK:
Originally posted by chip_k:
The earth is flat, too. Really. |
AHA! I knew it! |
It IS flat. AND round. Like a pizza. As you can plainly see in this photo.
However, it is NOT spherical.
|
|
|
|
11/20/2007 12:41:51 PM · #205 |
Originally posted by chip_k:
RonB -
4. If that is so, then why did temperatures in the past DECLINE while levels of atmospheric CO2 continued increasing ( see above link )?
Again, there can be a lot of different causes for temperature change but if there were different reasons in the past, that doesn't meant that our CO2 production isn't the cause NOW. |
And it doesn't prove that CO2 IS the cause now either. If you don't know why the levels went up then, how can you say that the same cause isn't the issue now? Or a combination of the two? So what caused the high levels in the past to drop? Probably don't know that either, huh?
Should we humans reduce our CO2 emissions? Sure. Will that have much, if any, effect on global warming? I don't think anyone can be sure about that.
|
|
|
|
11/20/2007 01:20:18 PM · #206 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Here's the problem chip. After all that work and citing of sources, you won't hear from RonB again. He'll just disappear. OR, he'll pick up on one tiny little mistake you make and ignore the rebuttal for 99% of the rest of what he said and point out how you are wrong on this one point (and thus wrong on all the points).
I've been in enough internet debates to know the drill.
I appreciate your effort though. |
Cheeky. . .
Originally posted by DrAchoo on 11/18/2007 02:51:39 PM:
Business as usual. I'm out. |
That being said...,
Chip didn't rebut a single thing I said, let alone 99% of it, because 'I' didn't say anything. I supplied some links to data that seemed to offer evidence contrary to the statements he made ( I assumed that they were his statements, since he made them without attribution ) and merely asked him to explain the disparities between his statements and the linked data.
To his credit, he did some research and posted rebuttals to the data provided in the links, and that's fine. It was his prerogative to do so; or to not do so.
But apparently you, not Chip, have decided to hold me personally responsible for defending all of the linked articles against Chip's rebuttals, or be held in contempt for not doing so. I, on the other hand, fail to see why that should be the case. If I choose to not respond it could be because:
a) I think that his rebuttal offered a response that is worth considering OR
b) since I don't have access to the "primary sources" of both the articles he linked to and the data behind the articles I linked to, I can neither prove that "my" data trumps "his" data, nor vice-versa, OR
c) I don't have time at present to do the research necessary to effectively counter his rebuttals, OR
d) I choose to leave things as-is and let the reader decide which data seems to be more convincing, OR
e) I just don't feel obligated to speak on behalf of the authors when they seem to be perfectly capable of speaking for themselves.
Choice e) has merit at times, I think. Don't you?
Message edited by author 2007-11-20 16:50:04. |
|
|
|
11/20/2007 02:05:27 PM · #207 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Chip didn't rebut a single thing I said, let alone 99% of it, because 'I' didn't say anything. I supplied some links to data that seemed to offer evidence contrary to the statements he made ( I assumed that they were his statements, since he made them without attribution ) and merely asked him to explain the disparities between his statements and the linked data.
To his credit, he did some research and posted rebuttals to the data provided in the links, and that's fine. It was his prerogative to do so; or to not do so.
But apparently you, not Chip, have decided to hold me personally responsible for defending all of the linked articles against Chip's rebuttals, or be held in contempt for not doing so. I, on the other hand, fail to see why that should be the case. If I choose to not respond it could be because:
a) I think that his rebuttal offered a response that is worth considering OR
b) since I don't have access to the "primary sources" of both the articles he linked to and the data behind the articles I linked to, I can neither prove that "my" data trumps "his" data, nor vice-versa, OR
c) I don't have time at present to do the research necessary to effectively counter his rebuttals, OR
d) I choose to leave things as-is and let the reader decide which data seems to be more convincing, OR
e) I just don't feel obligated to speak on behalf of the authors when they seem to be perfectly capable of speaking for themselves.
Choice e) has merit at times, I think. Don't you? |
I guess I'm a little confused here. Are you participating in the discussion or are you just the mouthpiece for the links you posted? If it's the first, then I don't think your e) is valid and you should be able to back up the arguments you are making when they are rebutted. If it's the latter, then why bother chip by taking up his time? It would be similar to me coming in halfway through on an argument of the finer points of Law and The Torah and say, "I heard this once about Torah (link provided), but I don't really know anything about it since I'm not a Jew."
I'd think I'd be shown the door rather quickly. |
|
|
|
11/20/2007 02:42:13 PM · #208 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Chip didn't rebut a single thing I said, let alone 99% of it, because 'I' didn't say anything. |
Huh? I didn't REBUT anything because you didn't make any specific points disputing climate change. You asked vague questions to which I provided the best general answer I could. I'll find more specific answers after work. |
|
|
|
11/20/2007 03:03:42 PM · #209 |
Originally posted by chip_k:
Originally posted by RonB:
Chip didn't rebut a single thing I said, let alone 99% of it, because 'I' didn't say anything. |
Huh? I didn't REBUT anything because you didn't make any specific points disputing climate change. You asked vague questions to which I provided the best general answer I could. I'll find more specific answers after work. |
Perhaps I should have said, you RESPONDED, rather than REBUTTED. At any rate, it's up to you if you want to REBUT the linked articles ( btw, I fixed the broken link in my original post, my apologies for taking so long to do so ). |
|
|
|
11/20/2007 03:15:00 PM · #210 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by RonB:
Chip didn't rebut a single thing I said, let alone 99% of it, because 'I' didn't say anything. I supplied some links to data that seemed to offer evidence contrary to the statements he made ( I assumed that they were his statements, since he made them without attribution ) and merely asked him to explain the disparities between his statements and the linked data.
To his credit, he did some research and posted rebuttals to the data provided in the links, and that's fine. It was his prerogative to do so; or to not do so.
But apparently you, not Chip, have decided to hold me personally responsible for defending all of the linked articles against Chip's rebuttals, or be held in contempt for not doing so. I, on the other hand, fail to see why that should be the case. If I choose to not respond it could be because:
a) I think that his rebuttal offered a response that is worth considering OR
b) since I don't have access to the "primary sources" of both the articles he linked to and the data behind the articles I linked to, I can neither prove that "my" data trumps "his" data, nor vice-versa, OR
c) I don't have time at present to do the research necessary to effectively counter his rebuttals, OR
d) I choose to leave things as-is and let the reader decide which data seems to be more convincing, OR
e) I just don't feel obligated to speak on behalf of the authors when they seem to be perfectly capable of speaking for themselves.
Choice e) has merit at times, I think. Don't you? |
I guess I'm a little confused here. Are you participating in the discussion or are you just the mouthpiece for the links you posted? If it's the first, then I don't think your e) is valid and you should be able to back up the arguments you are making when they are rebutted. If it's the latter, then why bother chip by taking up his time? It would be similar to me coming in halfway through on an argument of the finer points of Law and The Torah and say, "I heard this once about Torah (link provided), but I don't really know anything about it since I'm not a Jew."
I'd think I'd be shown the door rather quickly. |
I'm participating by offering additional data for consideration so that people can judge for themselves, AND, inviting those who make direct, unattributed statements to defend their statements against such data. Debate doesn't require point, rebuttal, rebuttal, rebuttal, ad nauseam. Sometimes it's just point, rebuttal, and let the listener decide which was more convincing.
It would be more similar to you coming in to a discussion of the Law and the Torah by two non-Jewish lay people, and ask one to explain why they held a particular opinion, when, by their own admission, they had no formal training in the Torah or in the history, culture, etc of the Jewish people. In my opinion, if they DID show you the door, it would be because they didn't want to expose their own ignorance.
What really gets me though, is that earlier in this thread YOU pre-criticized people who didn't cite original journal articles:
Originally posted by DrAchoo on11/17/2007 02:21:50 PM:
I'm fairly confident the detractors of global warming will always point to somebody else who states an opinion and not be able to cite original journal articles. |
But it appears that when they ( I ) do, they ( I ) get criticized for not being able to back up the data, when it's ( obviously ) not our data to begin with. Don't you find that to be some kind of Catch-22? |
|
|
|
11/20/2007 03:20:44 PM · #211 |
Originally posted by RonB:
But it appears that when they ( I ) do, they ( I ) get criticized for not being able to back up the data, when it's ( obviously ) not our data to begin with. Don't you find that to be some kind of Catch-22? |
Yes Ron. My bad. I did not give you credit there and you deserve some. Your first link is one step away from primary literature, but it does cite references so I'll give it to you. The second is primary as well.
Let it be known I'm big enough to say I'm sorry when I wrong.
I'm not even going to go on with a "BUT" here... |
|
|
|
11/20/2007 05:00:01 PM · #212 |
BTW Ron, I liked the last line of your first link.
"The unstable nature of the Earth's climate history suggests that it may be liable to change suddenly in the future. By putting large quantities of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, humans are exerting pressure on the climate system which might produce a drastic change without much prior warning. As the geologist W.S. Broecker has said, "Climate is an angry beast, and we are poking it with sticks". " |
|
|
|
11/20/2007 07:54:48 PM · #213 |
Originally posted by RonB:
... I'm participating by offering additional data for consideration so that people can judge for themselves, AND, inviting those who make direct, unattributed statements to defend their statements against such data. Debate doesn't require point, rebuttal, rebuttal, rebuttal, ad nauseam. Sometimes it's just point, rebuttal, and let the listener decide which was more convincing....
But it appears that when they ( I ) do, they ( I ) get criticized for not being able to back up the data, when it's ( obviously ) not our data to begin with. Don't you find that to be some kind of Catch-22? |
I think that's well put and sums up my position and a great many others' probably.
---
Has anyone had their mind changed over the subject of climate change or are we really just gainsaying here? Are most people simply trying to find affirmation of their existing convictions?
I would very much like to find proof that climate change is not happening which really would put my mind at rest. Therefore, surely I ought to be easily swayed to being a skeptic, but I haven't been convinced yet. No skeptics seem to want to answer the question most people ask: if we have no influence on climate change then why do cities smell so bad and why is there so much visible pollution? What happens to it all then if everything is just dandy?â€Â¦
--
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
... They have a vested interested in perpetuating the lies.
And again, the majority of scientists dismiss claims of man-made global warming -- this has been cited in article after article so you can look it up yourself if you want to see the truth. |
What lies? What vested interest? And what majority?
Governments are themselves elected by majorities in democratic societies, so I'm keen to know what you think they have to gain as collective entities.
---
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Mother Earth will be just fine and life will go on. Humans, however, might not be so lucky.
Eventually, the carbon we've released will be stored again, even if she has to shake us off like a bad case of fleas.
Let's not pretend to be "good stewards" all the "green" stuff is purely self-serving.
A good read. |
Well I read that and a good laugh it was too. It is just so easy to write that stuff and it must have been very enjoyable to do so. The planet of course will be fine no matter what (well the lump of rock and water at least), but he's conveniently forgotten about its diverse life forms and why we should bother trying to protect them.
If we follow the argument 'what will be will be' and that we are here to follow a fateful route ordained by a higher power then we may as well not bother to exist at all and commit mass suicide to speed the process up. If you do nothing but exhaust your resources while you're here then all that proves is that you are a doomed organism speeding up your own demise, so what kind of person does that make you? Pointless, I suggest.
He moans about 'greens' not caring about the planet, but he cares only about himself and his aggressive comedy rather than performing any useful function, probably because it is beyond his willpower and ability to resist the path of least resistance. |
|
|
|
11/20/2007 09:11:01 PM · #214 |
Originally posted by chip_k:
Smoking Gun #1. AL Gore̢۪s chart shows that CO2 is almost 30% higher than any time before in the last 650,000 years, and yet temperatures aren't even at a peak of the last 1,000 years, and all major peaks are well above today's temperature as well.
If you turn your oven to 450 degrees, does it instantly go right to 450 or does it take time to warm up? We just turned the burners on recently, figuratively speaking ;) |
If I recall "An Inconvenient Truth" correctly, the charts referred to in Smoking Gun #1 were only used to demonstrate the mathematical CORRELATION of CO2 levels and Temperature, not the CAUSALITY. I also seem to remember that Gore was very specific about differentiating between the two in his presentation. The author of the smoking guns either didn't actually watch "An Inconvenient Truth" or didn't understand it. Are any skeptics up to the challenge of proving that CO2 and temperature levels are not mathematically correlated?
ETA: Actually I am not giving the author of the smoking guns enough credit. I'm sure he did watch "An Inconvenient Truth" and did understand it but is instead interested in promoting his own agenda and therefore twisting words, facts and ideas to do so.
Message edited by author 2007-11-20 21:17:20.
|
|
|
|
11/20/2007 10:32:58 PM · #215 |
Originally posted by sailracer_98:
ETA: Actually I am not giving the author of the smoking guns enough credit. I'm sure he did watch "An Inconvenient Truth" and did understand it but is instead interested in promoting his own agenda and therefore twisting words, facts and ideas to do so. |
How is that different from "An Inconvenient Truth"? |
|
|
|
11/20/2007 10:52:22 PM · #216 |
Originally posted by cloudsme:
Originally posted by sailracer_98:
ETA: Actually I am not giving the author of the smoking guns enough credit. I'm sure he did watch "An Inconvenient Truth" and did understand it but is instead interested in promoting his own agenda and therefore twisting words, facts and ideas to do so. |
How is that different from "An Inconvenient Truth"? |
Because the latter, inconveniently, is true? |
|
|
|
11/21/2007 12:39:34 AM · #217 |
Okay, I'm still working on my Master's Thesis, I mean my next post :p
Basically, here's the oversimplification of things because it's kind of like trying to explain how a car engine works in detail.
A large contributing factor (and primary instigator) for the cycle of roughly 100,000 years between Ice Ages and warm periods like what we're in is the Earth's orbit and rotation cycles (Milankovitch cycles). Without going into great detail, the "eccentricity" (ovalness) of Earth's orbit changes and the degrees of tilt on its rotational axis also changes slowly over time. As a result, there are peaks and valleys in the sun's radiation and where it falls on the Earth that "drive" the 100,000 year cycle.
Carbon-dioxide increases AFTER a warming period starts because it's not the initiator. It's released from the ice, oceans and thawing land as the Earth warms. It then ACCELERATES and plays a MAJOR part in sustaining the warming process.
As the ice sheets in the Arctic (and to a lesser extent the Antarctic) melt, warming is also accelerated/sustained by the fact that more solar radiation is ABSORBED by the ocean and dry land than is absorbed by ice. It reflects the suns rays back into space. And into your eyes when you're out side skiing and driving ;)
So, bacically, the above factors combined to make things warm during the Eemian interglacial period. And, right now, we're pumping much more CO2 into the atmosphere than the "thawing" phase of the Milankovich cycles.
So why is the sun's orbit not responsible NOW for warming? We're actually supposed to be in a downward trend. We're supposed to be SLOWLY heading toward the next ice age. But the rapid warming we've experienced is contrary to the "normal" order of events. Will this evetually mean cooler temps for the Earth? In about 30,000 years or so ;)
Essentially, there are 5 main forces that effect the Earth's climate. Earth's orbit, variations in the sun's output, Volcanic Aerosols (volcanic dust, etc.), Tropospheric Aerosols (atmospheric dust that reflects solar radiation and is a factor in cloud formation) and Greenouses Gases (Carbon dioxide, methane, and other gases that absorb infrared energy, resulting in greenhouse warming of the earth.)
I hope that explains why ut was so warm before and why CO2 is "linked" to warming trends yet "lags" in the beginning of a warm phase. If I feel up to it, maybe I'll take on the "Smoking Gun" article again tomorrow night, but I did a TON of research just to get the best science and information background for you here.
some sources:
Climate Forcing Data, NOAA
//www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/forcing.html
The Discovery of Global Warming, Spencer Weart,
//www.aip.org/history/climate/cycles.htm#L_1988
Milankovitch Cycles and Glaciation, unknown, Univ Montana
//www.homepage.montana.edu/~geol445/hyperglac/time1/milankov.htm
Astronomical Theory of Climate Change, NOAA
//www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/milankovitch.html
Paleo Slide Set: The Ice Ages, NOAA Paleoclimatology Program
//www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/slides/slideset/11/11_186_slide.html
//www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/slides/slideset/11/11_187_slide.html
//www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/slides/slideset/11/11_193_slide.html
Message edited by author 2007-11-21 00:40:22. |
|
|
|
11/21/2007 12:42:13 AM · #218 |
| Awesome job chip. You really should be commended for your effort, even if people disagree. |
|
|
|
11/21/2007 12:42:42 AM · #219 |
Another "fun" link for someone who wants help reaching better information sources than you'll ever find in the "media."
//www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/ |
|
|
|
11/21/2007 02:30:48 AM · #220 |
Originally posted by chip_k:
As the ice sheets in the Arctic (and to a lesser extent the Antarctic) melt, warming is also accelerated/sustained by the fact that more solar radiation is ABSORBED by the ocean and dry land than is absorbed by ice. It reflects the suns rays back into space. And into your eyes when you're out side skiing and driving ;) |
That's not quite true. Snow is a good reflector, but ice absorbs as much sunlight than water (depends on the type of ice, some glaciers look dark grey, then it's more). And that's one of the problems with the temperature rise. The snow layer which protects the ice melts away earlier in the summer and the glacier is exposed and melts away at a terrible speed.
This effect has been ignored or underestimated for a long time. Scientists have become attentive to it when they noticed that glaciers where melting away much faster than explained by the small temperature rise experienced in the last decade.
By the way, that leads to a scary thought. Everybody assumes that climate experts are pessimistic apocalyptic prophets. In this example, they were too optimistic for a long time. If you think that scientists are all morons, you should expect the worst from them, not the best...
Message edited by author 2007-11-21 03:01:00. |
|
|
|
11/21/2007 09:31:25 AM · #221 |
A question: What % of the CO2 output is man responsible for?
Also, I may be wrong, but I could swear I seen an EPA report a few years ago that showed our (the US) CO2 output is at the lowest point it has been since the industrial revolution. Is this true or am I confusing something?
|
|
|
|
11/21/2007 09:38:58 AM · #222 |
I read this paper once before. It is really interesting! Thanks for posting.
Originally posted by cloudsme:
Originally posted by eamurdock:
An uncited and authorless report hosted by the Heartland Institute? You can do better than that.
I guess I'm just done being polite and patient. I can't take the time to go through and point-by-point dissect that document (parts of it I have already hit in this thread, parts are just laughable, a few parts would require some thought, and might even be right in parts). Throw things at me one at a time and I'll respond. |
Looks like the author is bioed at the end of the article. Nice article, includes a lot of the reasons I have been a sceptic. |
|
|
|
|
11/21/2007 10:25:52 AM · #223 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
A question: What % of the CO2 output is man responsible for? |
According to NOAA:
"Global combustion of fossil fuels and other materials places almost 7 billion tons of carbon, in the form of CO2, into the atmosphere each year. On average, Earth's oceans, trees, plants and soils absorb about one-half of this carbon. The balance remains in the air and is responsible for the annual increase."
And, according to another study:
The concentration of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere has increased from 310 ppm in 1960 to 375 ppm in 2005. That's a 21% increase in 45 years.
NCAR has this really nifty little overview of the last 100 years of climate activity:
1. Solar activity contributed to a warming trend in global average temperature from the 1910s through 1930s.
2. As industrial activity increased following World War II, sun-blocking sulfates and other aerosol emissions helped lead to a slight global cooling from the 1940s to 1970s.
3. Since 1980, the rise in greenhouse gas emissions from human activity has overwhelmed the aerosol effect to produce overall global warming.
From: How Do We Know The Earth Is Warming Now?
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Also, I may be wrong, but I could swear I seen an EPA report a few years ago that showed our (the US) CO2 output is at the lowest point it has been since the industrial revolution. Is this true or am I confusing something? |
I'm sure what it was you're confusing it with something else ;)
Here's a nice article on CO2 emissions quotes from an EXXON EXECUTIVE. That damn big oil! Always trying to exaggerate the dangers of using too much of their product!
"Worldwide annual emissions of carbon dioxide ... are expected to increase by 3.5 billion tons, or 50 percent, by the year 2020, an executive for ExxonMobil Corp said."
//www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/11/20/climate.gas.reut/index.html
Message edited by author 2007-11-21 10:32:36. |
|
|
|
11/21/2007 10:36:25 AM · #224 |
Originally posted by cloudsme:
Originally posted by eamurdock:
An uncited and authorless report hosted by the Heartland Institute? You can do better than that.
I guess I'm just done being polite and patient. I can't take the time to go through and point-by-point dissect that document (parts of it I have already hit in this thread, parts are just laughable, a few parts would require some thought, and might even be right in parts). Throw things at me one at a time and I'll respond. |
Looks like the author is bioed at the end of the article. Nice article, includes a lot of the reasons I have been a sceptic. |
If you think the author is Naomi Oreskes (the bio at the end of the article) you need to read more about the climate change consensus. Oreskes is the author of "Beyond the ivory tower: the scientific consensus on climate change" (Science 3 December 2004:Vol. 306. no. 5702, p. 1686) in which she demonstrated the OVERWHELMING scientific consensus. Available here.
The "23 smoking guns" article is unreviewed, uncited, and has no author listed. It's from the Heritage Institute which has received $800,000 from Exxon-Mobile in the past 10 years.
Why no author? Because it's a viral campaign. The style of the writing, the layout, all done to have a "folksy" appeal. And the lack of attribution is so the document will get handed around and not be traced back to a think tank - people will think a kindly old grandpa wrote it in his basement.
It's a super slick hit job. You're being conned. |
|
|
|
11/21/2007 10:54:19 AM · #225 |
Originally posted by kenskid:
I read this paper once before. It is really interesting! |
Interesting isn't the same thing as accurate :)
Why Smoking Gun #5 is INaccurate:
The sun is getting hotter and its output has a higher correlation with temperatures than CO2.
First thing, if you take a close look at the chart they use to show this correlation, the last section of the solar radiation curve drops a bit. NOW, look at the DATES. The chart stops in 1992! Gee, you'd think that since this is 2007 and we're talking about rapid changes over the last 40 or 50 years, if they have a valid point they might use some data that COVERS THE LAST 15 YEARS! :)
Excerpts below are from: //gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/28/090/30666
According to PMOD at the World Radiation Center there has been no increase in solar irradiance since at least 1978, when satellite observations began. This means that for the last thirty years, while the temperature has been rising fastest, the sun has not changed.
According to the Max Planck Institute, ... there has been no increase in solar irradiance since around 1940.
More to come because I'm a glutton for punishment... :)
Message edited by author 2007-11-21 10:56:08. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/03/2025 05:25:28 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/03/2025 05:25:28 AM EDT.
|
