Global Warming?

[Gobalopper]

Sun in frenzy since 1940, Germans say

Wed Oct 29 2003 10:05:09 ET

German scientists who have created a 1,000-year-record of sunspots said Wednesday they discovered the Sun has been in a frenzy since 1940 and this may be a factor in global warming.

The research, based on the quantities of the isotope beryllium 10 found in ice bores from Greenland and the Antarctic, challenges the belief that carbon dioxide from cars and coal fires and other greenhouse gases are the only cause of recent warmer climates.

The team from the Max Planck Institute for Aeronomy in Germany and Finland's Oulu University discovered a past phase of elevated sunspot activity between 1100 and 1250, though there were far fewer sunspots then than today.

The earth was very warm at that time and Vikings were recorded as farming on Greenland.

A gas cloud from one of the largest flares ever seen on the Sun reached the Earth this week causing a magnetic storm that disrupted radio and radar systems, forcing safety authorities to space out airline traffic. More flares and disruption are expected.

The findings, which are to appear in the December issue of Physical Review Letters, chart sunspots back to the year 850. Sunspots were first observed in the early 17th century after the discovery of the telescope.

Astronomers have made on-again-off-again notes ever since of the spots, where the Sun's surface appears darker because magnetic fields disrupt the outflow of energy from the star's interior. Most of the surface is 5,800 degrees celsius, but a spot is 1,500 degrees colder.

The 11-year cycle of sunspots from strong to weak to strong again is well known to anyone using shortwave radio, but the long-term fluctation was not plain.

The team said the surge of spots and gas flares since 1940 was the greatest in the entire period checked. The activity was 2.5 times the long-term average. Solar activity matched average temperatures on the Earth, they added.

Radioactive beryllium 10 used for the readings comes from cosmic rays bombarding nitrogen and oxygen in the air. The element falls to the ground with rain and snow. Layers are preserved in the ice caps.

Sunspots block cosmic rays from reaching the Earth, meaning less beryllium and increased ultraviolet radiation.

The statement Wednesday noted a much-discussed Danish hypothesis suggesting cosmic radiation helps tiny particles to form in air, increasing cloud formation. Sunspots would thus mean fewer clouds.

Sami K. Solanki, director of the German institute, said the team had discovered a new climate influence, but still believed recent climate change was mainly the result of mankind using more and more fossil fuels.

``Even after our findings, I would say the sharp increase in global temperatures since 1980 can still be mainly attributed to the greenhouse effect arising from carbon dioxide,'' professor Solanki said.

[Atomic Mitten]

Strange coincidence that this is when the Nuclear bombs were being tested on Christmas Island etc, and the German Rocket technology was being introduced.

My mother says that after 1940 people could no longer predict their holidays, that they would have good weather in July/August,whereas before 1940 they could.

I think that the global warming is a man made phenomenem.

[SurlyPIG]

Hey! I forgot about this thread.

Any conclusive evidence to support that theory Mitten?

I've been saying what this article supports all along; average global temperature is proportional to solar activity. Just look:

[Edric O]

The article supports the idea that the Sun is a factor in global warming, Ace, not that it is the only factor (and that we can pump as much CO2 into the atmosphere as we want without causing any bad effects whatsoever, as you suggest).

The very notion that our massive CO2 emissions are totally harmless is quite ridiculous in itself, even without the evidence of global warming.

But in any case, we've already had this argument, and it was a HUGE one at that. If anyone wants to see it, they can just read through this page. I think we should stop now before we start another one - I really don't have the time to write any more of those extra-extra-long posts right now. ;)

[SurlyPIG]

On an atmospheric scale, the amount of man-made CO2 in the atmosphere is miniscule, as is the possible margin of warming it has caused. I'm not suggesting we go so far as to alter the overall composition of the atmosphere, but the notion that such tiny emissions have effected the global scale so quickly is not only paraniod, but pretty arrogant.

And other than depleting oxygen, there aren't any ways that CO2 is harmful. In fact, many scientists that that in the long run, depletion of CO2 will be the end of most life on Earth. Contrary to the 'numbers' in parts per million by volume, global trends in the changes of plant vegetation has shown a decrease in the amount of CO2. The trend has been away from trees (a high CO2 requirement) towards grasses (low CO2 requirement), which seems to contradict the idea the atmospheric level of CO2 is increasing at an alarming rate...

[Edric O]

Of course our CO2 emissions are tiny (well, actually, we're pumping millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year, but compared to the size of the atmosphere, it can be said to be a "tiny" quantity). But keep in mind that the quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere to start with was tiny. And if that tiny quantity of pre-existing CO2 is enough to raise global temperatures by over 20 degrees celsius, I'd say that our own tiny emissions are enough to make a serious difference.

Arrogant, Ace? Have you taken a look at the Earth lately? There's practically not a single place that hasn't been influenced in some way by human activity. And vast amounts of land have been completely transformed to serve our needs. It's not arrogant to say that we have the fate of the planet in our hands. It's the truth. If we wanted, we could exterminate all life on Earth in a matter of days and turn it into a radioactive wasteland. We have absolute power over our planet. We cannot afford to act like reckless children any more.

Since you deny the existence of the greenhouse effect, of course you don't see any way in which CO2 is harmful... ::)

And what I find really amusing is that your main argument against global warming is that there's not enough evidence or that it's based on wild assumptions, but at the same time you come and say things like "the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere must be decreasing because in the recent past we've seen grasslands taking the place of forests" (hmmm, maybe the Ice Ages might have had something to do with it?). So tell me, who's the one using half-truths and pseudo-science now?

[SurlyPIG]

Oh baloney. I've already shown you that temperature contorts the way we measure CO2 concentration, so obviously that would skew the actual concentration of CO2 upward when the temperature is doing the same. And since the sun is raising the global temperature, is it not logical that the temperature increase skews the concntration readings in exactly the same way it did for those polar ice sheet measurements?

Molecule-altering nuclear radiation is one thing, burning a little octane is another. The vegetation of entire regions have burned down at once and I havn't heard complaining about that.

Now there's something that doesn't add up here...

"The very notion that our massive CO2 emissions are totally harmless is quite ridiculous in itself, even without the evidence of global warming."

Here you seem to imply that CO2 somehow hurts us in ways other than being a possible greenhouse gas. But that seems to be contradicted by the following:

"Since you deny the existence of the greenhouse effect, of course you don't see any way in which CO2 is harmful..."

What does the ice age that happened tens of thousands of years ago have to do with the trends in vegetation of the last few centuries? And I didn't claim that the amount of CO2 was deceasing in the slightest. In fact I think it is increasing, slowly. What I'm saying is that clearly we can't even trust our own measurements of it, because we're only seeing a small picture of an atmosphere that's dozens of kilometres high and who knows how many litres in volume.

[Edric O]

Ace, you may notice that our previous debate in this topic ended with a really huge post of mine to which you never replied. Now I'm not saying that you should reply to it (since it's too damn long anyway, and I really don't want to continue that debate), but I am saying that most of what we're discussing now has already been discussed before. So let's just leave this topic in peace.

And to clear up the confusion about my statements: Yes, I think it's utterly ridiculous to assume that we can pump as much CO2 into the atmosphere as we want, with no adverse effects whatsoever. But I know you don't agree with this, so it's obvious that with the greenhouse effect out of the way, you do not see any other way in which CO2 is harmful.

[alchemi2]

Read the book THE LAST GASP by Trevor Hoyle work of fiction based on available facts.

it shows the other factors around golbal warming. mainly oxygen depletion it may just open your eyes or just reinforce the belief in fiction. ;)

[Wolf]

Well, there are some that argue that the trend towards global warming is just as much a natural phenomenon as it is a man-made phenomenon. They argue that the Earth is still coming out of an ice-age. I don't know if this is supported, I think it's probably not -- I think that humanity has done some vicious things to Earth.

Anyway, I'll respond more in-depth later once I read up on this topic. I don't have enough facts just yet to make a really informed statement.

/EDIT: Ralph Nader kicks ass.

[SurlyPIG]

Edric, it comes down to this: the moment-to-moment changes in Earth's climate are caused by the sun. Who gives a crap how hot Venus is, Venus isn't Earth. As the sun cycles grow longer, Earth cools (as does Venus, for that matter. Did you think it's surface stayed at exactly the same temperature or something?) That's all you need to know. You have absolutely 100% completely ignored the obvious fact that Earth's temperature trends are perfectly inversely proportional to the length of sun cycles. I've identified flaws in all the data you presented, and you rely on a whole bunch of non-sequitur coulds (maybe non-solid solid ice skews the CO2-Temp graph).

You have completely dodged my biggest point this entire thread (graph posted recently), saying nothing other than the sun is "a factor." Well no kidding. The data I've presented identifies it as the only significant factor. All of the strawmans and non-sequiturs in that huge post of yours didn't change that, and they're not going to.

[Edric O]

There is no Global Warming agent but the Sun, and Ace (Peace Be Upon Him) is His prophet. ::)

Your "infallible" graph is no more precise and flawless than any of my graphs. When I showed you a graph linking temperature with CO2 concentration in the air, you looked at it under a microscope and came to the conclusion that the temperature chages a short time beforethe CO2 concentration, so you dismissed it. But you didn't seem to notice that there are also portions on your graph where the temperature is the first one to change, and the solar cycle only mirrors that change a little bit later. Unless sunlight can somehow travel back in time, I don't see how you can explain that as being anything else than a simple coincidence.

Or maybe there is a certain degree of error (*shock* *gasp*) on all these graphs, and you are not meant to nitpick them. Ever thought about that?

Stop acting like some sort of fundamentalist and listen to reason. Rather than violently dismissing the very thought of man-made global warming and clinging to the ridiculous idea that CO2 is completely harmless, why don't you accept the fact that the most prudent and reasonable course of action is to limit our CO2 emissions? Pollution may or may not cause major harm, but I've never heard anyone suffering from a lack of pollution...

Also, I'm not aware of any human activity that produces PURE CO2 as its only waste product. There are hundreds of other polluting agents produced along with it, and their effects on the environment are undeniable even for you.

So we should lower our emissions even IF CO2 was totally innocent and harmless. Therefore, I don't really see your point.

[Wolf]

As Mark Twain once said, "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.".

[alchemi2]

Whether or not you agree with Global warming you cant possibly belive that POLLUTION cause no harm or detrimental impact on the enviroment.

That alone should be reason to reduce all emissions.

It is obvious to everyone that non renewable rersourse will eventually run out so why not search for pollution free replacements now aand stop the futile destruction of other spieces. ever hear of the ghia theory that all fauna and flora contribute to a planets stabilty tempreture wise the greater diversity of life the more stable and prolonged a planets tempreture remains stable.

[Acriku]

How does one distinguish between what that was caused by man, and what that would have been without?

[SurlyPIG]

Just call me Apollo, the bringer of truth. Have you seen the light? ;)

Edric, why can't you see the obvious in this matter. On your graph, the temperature changed before the CO2 concentraion for EVERY observable trend, small or large, up or down, not just some of them. This notion that the temperature is such a perfect match with atmospheric CO2 levels is absolutely preposterous given all the different things that can effect temperature.

Don't you think it's natural that there would be at least SOME variation in temperature from whatever the leading cause of, giving how erratic temperature can be? Don't you think it makes more sense that temperature follows the major factor's trend more like a hyper dog follows it's owner on a walk, rather than how a ducklings follow their mother?

On the graph I posted, sometimes the temperature went up before the sun cycle got shorter, but so what? It was after the sun an equal number of times.

Gotta love the irrelevant comments about pollutants. What's this thread about again?

I've said a number of times that I'm not some sadist that enjoys spraying old aerosol cans into the air for fun. I don't burn things to harm the environment. I just want the TRUTH to be known so humanity doesn't make stupid decisions based on grossly exaggerated paranoi eg Kyoto. At the very least you HAVE to agree that Kyoto isn't really about reducing emissions, although it will by some degree. It's about a bunch of liberal Eurpoean beurocrats who met in Japan and figured out the best way they could yank economic power from other countries by using bad science perpetuated into paranoia by media that doesn't give half a f*ck what's true as long at it makes them money. That's the harm in a "lack of pollution" as you call it.

If you want to reduce the emissions released when impurities are burned in fuel, reducing the amount of CO2 you can emit is NOT the way to go about it. If you really want to eliminate the "yucky" pollutants that comprise smog, aggrevates asthma and paints the air over LA brown, do the following; opt for natural gas power plants over coal, replacing the coal with things like wind and hyroelectric power, reduce the sheer number of vehicles with independant engines, replacing them with electric cars, and increase the purity standards for the reduced number of fuels you do use (trucks, buses etc will still need to burn fuel). Frankly I'd be happy to see all of these things done. I like my air clean and my infrastructure efficient, economical, and ergonomic as much as I like my pancakes with maple syrup.

Like I said before, I want the truth to be perpetuated, not paranoia. There's so much misinformation surrounding this issue it's appalling. Edric, I'd like you, as a self-proclaimed environmentalist, to answer a simple question about this subject. Can you name the worst greenhouse gas (in terms of how much infrared energy it absorbs per mole/molecule) without having to look it up?

[Wolf]

ACElethal; where did CO2 levels originate from? What is their effect on the environment?

Edric; is it possible that there are natural explanations for global warming in addition to human intervention? If so, what?

[Edric O]

Of course it's possible, Wolfwiz. I don't hold a position as dogmatic as Ace's. The atmosphere is a very complex system, and I don't think that something like Global Warming can be explained by a single simple cause. CO2 emissions and the Greenhouse Effect are the major contributors, but it's very possible that the Sun and other factors also play a role in it.

Ace, if I recall, you were the one shouting about how the Sun is the "only significant factor" in atmospheric temperature changes, so it's really funny to see you talking about "all the different things that can effect temperature" now...

I wouldn't expect temperature to follow the leading cause like ducklings follow their mother, but I also wouldn't expect it to magically anticipate changes in that leading cause and react to them before they happen... And the fact that it does this in almost half of the entire time period you're studying is quite enough to make the whole graph very suspicious.

But either way, Ace, I'm glad to see that we are ultimately on the same side. We both despise pollution and the destruction of the environment. You just refuse to accept the existence of one particular kind of pollution. But seeing how this particular kind is tied up with others that you are worried about, I don't see why it even matters. You say you care so much about it because you want THE TRUTH to be told. The trouble is that you're talking about your version of "the truth". Global Warming is still an issue of scientific debate, and, as you can see, we simply don't know the whole truth yet. I want the truth to be known just as much as you do. But I'm aware of the fact that so far we have only theories, and I don't hold the absolute truth in the matter.

Of course Kyoto was about money and economic superiority. But the "European liberals" that you despise so much wanted to make money and achieve economic superiority by reducing pollution and helping the Earth, while the American conservatives that you presumably love wanted to make money and achieve economic superiority by continuing to pollute and destroying even more of the environment. They're all capitalists, but they're not all equally bad.

Can I name the worst greenhouse gas without having to look it up? No, I can't. CO2 and water vapour are actually quite weak greenhouse gases - the only problem is that they are far more common than any others.

But what kind of question was that, anyway? I never claimed to have an entire encyclopedia of polluting substances in my head...

[SurlyPIG]

Of course I said that sun cycle length was the only significant factor in effecting the moment-to-moment changes of the Earth's temperature. There are many others, but are they significant? We can't even measure their effect on the global temperature. How much of a difference do they actually make? Well, obviously the sum of all other factors would have to account for the slight differences between the sun cycle length and the global temperature, but they're individually too small to be identified, measured, and rectified.

Suspicious? You find THAT suspicious and you don't find the fact that temperature predicts ALL changes of CO2 in your graph "suspicious?" If we're going to have a constructive discussion on what causes the advance changes in my graph, you'll at least have to admit that the same thing happens in yours, making it apparently illegitimate.

Atmospheric contaminants are NOT the same thing as carbon dioxide. I don't want it identified as that, and doing things to reduce CO2 emissions is a pretty ineffective way to reduce atmospheric pollution. I can think of several examples where optimizing for CO2 efficiency would actually increase the amount of guck being released into the air. As for whether it's a theory or not, you sound pretty convinced it's already fact. If there's legit evidence that we are effecting global temperature, only then will I hop on board that train. Look back to that last graph I posted: when the blue line (temp) starts going higher and higher, leaving the red line (sun) in it's dust, THEN we know that something else has become a major contributor to temperaure change, and THEN we do something drastic about it.

American conservatives didn't design the Kyoto Accord Edric. Beaurocrats did, most of them European, most of them liberal. In about fifteen minutes I could come up with a more fair, more effective plan for reducing CO2 emissions around the world - and that's assuming that CO2 is a significant greenhouse gas. The US, Australia, Japan etc knew they were getting screwed by the fundamental design of Kyoto, and that's why they didn't sign. If every country got screwed an equal amount by Kyoto then that's different, but several of the countries that signed on to Kyoto actually come out ahead in their emission levels, thus they are ahead in their carbon credits, thus they can sell them to countries that aren't, thus they make money and gain an economic advantage (eg Britain, France, Russia). Other countries get royally screwed in comparison.

Why do you think the designers of Kyoto chose only to focus only on CO2 (and to a small extent, methane)? Why did they completely ignore much more potent greenhouse gases? How come the most potent of all greenhouse gases, nitrogen tetraflouride, didn't get so much as a nod in Kyoto? Why did they choose to return to a given time of emission levels, rather than reducing current emission levles by a given percentage? Of all years, why did they choose to return to 1990 emission levels? Why didn't they account for the population changes in a country between 1990 and the present? Why didn't they account for the temperature of a country (that would require more energy to heat/cool)? Why didn't they account for the size of a country or it's population density (thus accounting for the amount of travelling that is necessary in that country)?

The reason I asked you what the most potent absorber of infrared energy is, is because I wanted to make a point of how much ignorance is being perpetuated about the subject and how much relevant information is actually being put forward. I guarantee you that almost nobody in the media is going to put forward the kind of information I did (that graph) even as a factor. I only read something about it in a newspaper a while back and did an internet search, ending up at the site mentioned earlier in this thread. I'm just trying to get you to question what you hear - I mean you've probably never even heard of NF4. Given that, how much can you really trust what your sources are telling you?