Comments on: Solar Variability Most Likely Not the Cause of Global Warming http://www.universetoday.com/12900/solar-variability-most-likely-not-the-cause-of-global-warming/ Space and astronomy news Wed, 23 May 2012 07:28:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Dan Tillmannshttp://www.universetoday.com/12900/solar-variability-most-likely-not-the-cause-of-global-warming/comment-page-2/#comment-64568 Dan Tillmanns Wed, 22 Apr 2009 08:50:24 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/2008/02/21/solar-variability-most-likely-not-the-cause-of-global-warming/#comment-64568 Just wait until the Yellowstone volcano lets go. Just wait until the Yellowstone volcano lets go.

]]> By: Paul F. Dietzhttp://www.universetoday.com/12900/solar-variability-most-likely-not-the-cause-of-global-warming/comment-page-2/#comment-15166 Paul F. Dietz Sat, 08 Mar 2008 20:05:49 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/2008/02/21/solar-variability-most-likely-not-the-cause-of-global-warming/#comment-15166 Wow, the faith-based delusions from the GW denialists sure is thick in this set of comments. Contrary to the nonsense you've filled your heads with, GW from anthropogenic gases is solidly based on physics and observational evidence. The contrary position is increasingly resembling other paranoid fringe pseudoscientific cults, like UFOs, ESP, creationism, and CFC/ozone hole denialism.. Wow, the faith-based delusions from the GW denialists sure is thick in this set of comments. Contrary to the nonsense you’ve filled your heads with, GW from anthropogenic gases is solidly based on physics and observational evidence. The contrary position is increasingly resembling other paranoid fringe pseudoscientific cults, like UFOs, ESP, creationism, and CFC/ozone hole denialism..

]]> By: Dark Gnathttp://www.universetoday.com/12900/solar-variability-most-likely-not-the-cause-of-global-warming/comment-page-2/#comment-14271 Dark Gnat Tue, 26 Feb 2008 22:00:58 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/2008/02/21/solar-variability-most-likely-not-the-cause-of-global-warming/#comment-14271 Let’s see...Climate change believers would gain: Cleaner air, less economic dependence from hostile nations, keeping our food supplies available, keeping air-producing rain forests available.Climate change detractors would gain: Continued economic dependence on hostile nations for oil (leading to more wars), automobile manufactures, and more profits to add to the billions already made by fossil fuel companies.Who is in the position to gain the most from the two sides? Big Businesses, and the governments they buy.I just don't see what the climate change advocates have to gain. I see no real reason for a “conspiracyâ€? to convince everyone to change their lifestyles.Are we going to also pretend that deforestation isn't happening, that smog doesn't exist, or that the ozone layer isn't deteriorating?Sure, natural events may be contributing to climate change, but man-made pollution must have an affect as well. It may be simply escalating the changes, but it is an indisputable fact that we have changed the world.If these changes are as rapid as so many reputable scientific associations say, then we need to do something. If we could just slow the climate changes back down to their natural levels, then fine.If we err, would it not be far better to err on the side of caution? Let’s see…

Climate change believers would gain: Cleaner air, less economic dependence from hostile nations, keeping our food supplies available, keeping air-producing rain forests available.

Climate change detractors would gain: Continued economic dependence on hostile nations for oil (leading to more wars), automobile manufactures, and more profits to add to the billions already made by fossil fuel companies.

Who is in the position to gain the most from the two sides? Big Businesses, and the governments they buy.

I just don’t see what the climate change advocates have to gain. I see no real reason for a “conspiracyâ€? to convince everyone to change their lifestyles.

Are we going to also pretend that deforestation isn’t happening, that smog doesn’t exist, or that the ozone layer isn’t deteriorating?

Sure, natural events may be contributing to climate change, but man-made pollution must have an affect as well. It may be simply escalating the changes, but it is an indisputable fact that we have changed the world.

If these changes are as rapid as so many reputable scientific associations say, then we need to do something. If we could just slow the climate changes back down to their natural levels, then fine.

If we err, would it not be far better to err on the side of caution?

]]> By: Fenringhttp://www.universetoday.com/12900/solar-variability-most-likely-not-the-cause-of-global-warming/comment-page-2/#comment-14084 Fenring Mon, 25 Feb 2008 14:36:04 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/2008/02/21/solar-variability-most-likely-not-the-cause-of-global-warming/#comment-14084 I don't understand what is this multi-gazillion dollar consensus that will rob us of our well earned money by spreadig false alarm about GW?How much money do you pay to combat the alleged GW? I know I pay zero.This part just doesn't make any sense to me at all. What is this GW conspiracy that everyone speaks of and who stands to profit from it? By what means? How does it compare to the profit of the oil companies and industry? I don’t understand what is this multi-gazillion dollar consensus that will rob us of our well earned money by spreadig false alarm about GW?

How much money do you pay to combat the alleged GW? I know I pay zero.

This part just doesn’t make any sense to me at all. What is this GW conspiracy that everyone speaks of and who stands to profit from it? By what means? How does it compare to the profit of the oil companies and industry?

]]> By: Tony Trenton`http://www.universetoday.com/12900/solar-variability-most-likely-not-the-cause-of-global-warming/comment-page-2/#comment-14079 Tony Trenton` Mon, 25 Feb 2008 14:19:33 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/2008/02/21/solar-variability-most-likely-not-the-cause-of-global-warming/#comment-14079 The butterfly effect & chaos are real but indefinable. So looking for "The Reason" is not reasonable.What is interesting, is the nature of the comments. Our intellect is only capable of conceiving thing in 2d. Either, or. This or that. When multiple factors greater than 2 are interwoven & chaos ensues. It is not yet possible to make predictions & may never be. But it is fun to speculate. The butterfly effect & chaos are real but indefinable. So looking for “The Reason” is not reasonable.

What is interesting, is the nature of the comments.
Our intellect is only capable of conceiving thing in 2d. Either, or. This or that.
When multiple factors greater than 2 are interwoven & chaos ensues. It is not yet possible to make predictions & may never be.
But it is fun to speculate.

]]> By: RedLIADA No. 407: InfoLIADA con “Ligados” por la Luna…y su eclipse… « Blog do Boockhttp://www.universetoday.com/12900/solar-variability-most-likely-not-the-cause-of-global-warming/comment-page-2/#comment-14052 RedLIADA No. 407: InfoLIADA con “Ligados” por la Luna…y su eclipse… « Blog do Boock Mon, 25 Feb 2008 12:21:55 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/2008/02/21/solar-variability-most-likely-not-the-cause-of-global-warming/#comment-14052 [...] CALENTAMIENTO GLOBAL NO ES CAUSADO POR LA VARIABILIDAD DEL SOL. 21 de febrero de 2008. El incremento gradual en las temperaturas globales se está haciendo más pronunciado, haciéndole difícil su explicación a los que buscan su causa en la variabilidad del Sol. Según mediciones realizadas por los científicos, el aporte que produce nuestro Sol en el clima es de alrededor de un décimo del 1%. En cambio, los patrones de calentamiento atmosférico se han ido elevando a partir de la década del 60 del siglo pasado, con el incremento de la actividad humana (industria, transporte, generación de potencia). Más información en: http://www.universetoday.com/2008/02/21/solar-variability-most-likely-not-the-cause-of-global-warmin... [...] [...] CALENTAMIENTO GLOBAL NO ES CAUSADO POR LA VARIABILIDAD DEL SOL. 21 de febrero de 2008. El incremento gradual en las temperaturas globales se está haciendo más pronunciado, haciéndole difícil su explicación a los que buscan su causa en la variabilidad del Sol. Según mediciones realizadas por los científicos, el aporte que produce nuestro Sol en el clima es de alrededor de un décimo del 1%. En cambio, los patrones de calentamiento atmosférico se han ido elevando a partir de la década del 60 del siglo pasado, con el incremento de la actividad humana (industria, transporte, generación de potencia). Más información en: http://www.universetoday.com/2008/02/21/solar-variability-most-likely-not-the-cause-of-global-warmin… [...]

]]> By: Frank Lansnerhttp://www.universetoday.com/12900/solar-variability-most-likely-not-the-cause-of-global-warming/comment-page-2/#comment-13982 Frank Lansner Sun, 24 Feb 2008 20:28:25 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/2008/02/21/solar-variability-most-likely-not-the-cause-of-global-warming/#comment-13982 Please everybody, read this article: http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/Solar_Arch_NY_Mar2_08.pdfIts, intelligent, relevant and very carefully made. I have read many scientific articles in my life, but this one is outstanding.K.R. Frank Please everybody, read this article:
http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/Solar_Arch_NY_Mar2_08.pdf

Its, intelligent, relevant and very carefully made. I have read many scientific articles in my life, but this one is outstanding.

K.R. Frank

]]> By: Cosmoshttp://www.universetoday.com/12900/solar-variability-most-likely-not-the-cause-of-global-warming/comment-page-2/#comment-13823 Cosmos Sat, 23 Feb 2008 16:33:04 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/2008/02/21/solar-variability-most-likely-not-the-cause-of-global-warming/#comment-13823 Everybody who is commneting on the global warming issue from either side should read the article at this link. http://wmbriggs.com:80/blog/category/climatology/ Everybody who is commneting on the global warming issue from either side should read the article at this link. http://wmbriggs.com:80/blog/category/climatology/

]]> By: Ken B.http://www.universetoday.com/12900/solar-variability-most-likely-not-the-cause-of-global-warming/comment-page-2/#comment-13661 Ken B. Fri, 22 Feb 2008 20:08:04 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/2008/02/21/solar-variability-most-likely-not-the-cause-of-global-warming/#comment-13661 I was going to leave a comment but I can't do any better than dbreit's comment. I agree completely with his sentiments.I will add that GW or climate change or whatever it's called now is more about a belief system than science. I have a kid in school in grade 4 and they are being indoctrinated in global warming belief system. Kids this age don't have the science education and background to understand what they are being told.Al Gore tells us the science is settled because he doesn't want people looking for themselves. The Canadian prophet of GW, David Suzuki, is advocating imprisoning politilical leaders who challenge man made global warming.Such nonsense. I was going to leave a comment but I can’t do any better than dbreit’s comment. I agree completely with his sentiments.

I will add that GW or climate change or whatever it’s called now is more about a belief system than science. I have a kid in school in grade 4 and they are being indoctrinated in global warming belief system. Kids this age don’t have the science education and background to understand what they are being told.

Al Gore tells us the science is settled because he doesn’t want people looking for themselves. The Canadian prophet of GW, David Suzuki, is advocating imprisoning politilical leaders who challenge man made global warming.

Such nonsense.

]]> By: Tareecehttp://www.universetoday.com/12900/solar-variability-most-likely-not-the-cause-of-global-warming/comment-page-2/#comment-13656 Tareece Fri, 22 Feb 2008 18:57:54 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/2008/02/21/solar-variability-most-likely-not-the-cause-of-global-warming/#comment-13656 Its amazing that we think we know what is exactly happening to this world , his solar system and this universe when we are, within the realm of galatic time scale, merely new borns. First thing we need to acknowledge is the limitations of our knowledge. We didn't know crap 50 yrs ago about just about everything related to moon travel, we didn't know jack 30 yrs ago about the effects of long term (a matter of weeks) space exposure until Skylab, and we don't know jack about what really happened to this earth over its history. Its educated guesses at best. Honest people recognize their limitations and to think we can categorically blame this entirely on humans is alarmist and ill-conceived. If memory serves the "Consensus" of scientists believed we were heading for an ice agein the 60's and 70's. Could the rapid turnaround of consensus actually be the result of eco-policies put in place in the 70's and 80's? And if you discount that then how do justify the assumption now of "historic" warming..WTH? what does "historic" mean anyway? Yeah, last yr several "historic" highs were based in the 1930's....Oh and why did the NASA climatic models get re-worked last yr to show that the hottest yrs were in the '30's? Science is as good as its data. If the data is faulty, the assumptions and consensus should be discarded as any other mistake. Oh, but this 'consensus'is now a multi-billion (trillion) industry....yeah, ain't nothing like "pure" science... The rebel is now the establishment...Sweet irony Its amazing that we think we know what is exactly happening to this world , his solar system and this universe when we are, within the realm of galatic time scale, merely new borns.
First thing we need to acknowledge is the limitations of our knowledge. We didn’t know crap 50 yrs ago about just about everything related to moon travel, we didn’t know jack 30 yrs ago about the effects of long term (a matter of weeks) space exposure until Skylab, and we don’t know jack about what really happened to this earth over its history. Its educated guesses at best.
Honest people recognize their limitations and to think we can categorically blame this entirely on humans is alarmist and ill-conceived. If memory serves the “Consensus” of scientists believed we were heading for an ice agein the 60′s and 70′s. Could the rapid turnaround of consensus actually be the result of eco-policies put in place in the 70′s and 80′s?
And if you discount that then how do justify the assumption now of “historic” warming..WTH? what does “historic” mean anyway? Yeah, last yr several “historic” highs were based in the 1930′s….Oh and why did the NASA climatic models get re-worked last yr to show that the hottest yrs were in the ’30′s? Science is as good as its data.
If the data is faulty, the assumptions and consensus should be discarded as any other mistake. Oh, but this ‘consensus’is now a multi-billion (trillion) industry….yeah, ain’t nothing like “pure” science… The rebel is now the establishment…Sweet irony

]]>