There is gloomy news not only for the Earth, but the rest of the solar system: Every thing is getting hotter.(Que the filmstrip of glacier shelves melting, a polar bear stranded on a single piece of ice, vast dry landscapes, and satellite images of hurricanes).

Not only has the earth gotten warming in the past 150 years, but so has Jupiter, Pluto, Mars, and even Neptune's Moon Triton.

Questions for debate:

1. Are these instances of warming of many other planets and moons in our solar system just coincidence to the warming taking place on Earth?

2. Why hasn't increased solar activity been introduced as a possible cause to our own global warming?

1. Are these instances of warming of many other planets and moons in our solar system just coincidence to the warming taking place on Earth?

Its possible that there is a coincidence. But it is just as likely that the chemical makeup of all the different planets produced these effects on their own. The gases and matter present on Jupiter, for example, is vastly different than we have here on Earth. We don't even have the knowledge necessary to measure the atmospheric changes that occur on our own planet...is it really reasonable to ask how things work on other planets?

2. Why hasn't increased solar activity been introduced as a possible cause to our own global warming?

The Earth is warming...few people will deny this fact. That's because the earth is always wamring and cooling. There has been NO constant temperature at any time throughout history. The only constant are upward/downward trends. The question lies on the human effect on warming and whether or not we could do anything about the rapidity of the warming. The earth will warm whether we cut down all emissions right now or if we do nothing. The only question is really how quickly the earth will warm.

The sun is one, if not the principle factor, in the warming of our planet. The more radiation given off from the sun, the hotter the earth will be. The truth is that we have no quantifiable way of measuring the Sun's true effect on the climate, just as we fail to take into account the effect of water vapor and finally carbon dioxide emisisons. Its not a perfect science and there is still so much we do not understand.

1. Are these instances of warming of many other planets and moons in our solar system just coincidence to the warming taking place on Earth?


I'm not sure that they are properly called "coincidences" since one of the articles was from 9 years ago. Do you know what is going on on Pluto today? The relevant fact is that whatever is happening on other planets almost certainly is a function of the individual orbit characteristics and natural weather cycles peculiar to each planet. Unless one can demonstrate some real increase in solar activity (the only thing the different planets share), bringing them up in a discussion of the well established pattern of global warming on earth is akin to "kicking sand in our faces."

With reference to the "data" about mars, Colby puts it like this:

See this Gristmill Article.



It has been widely discussed and dismissed as a major cause of warming both in the IPCC AR4 (see Attributions of Climate Change) and elsewhere. (See this RealClimate Article for instance.

Oh here is Neptune as well.

And are you saying we didn't start warming until after 9 years ago? Trying to discredit a fact in a report or research paper just because of it's age is laughable. Should the media still be announcing the invention of the light bulb to keep you happy, cause without a current report on it, it's just not credible.

Is May 8, 2007 recent enough for you Tedn5?

And the IPCC says it has dismissed the SOLE cause of our planets warmth? Excuse me while I take a ride on the carbon free lol-express.

No, they are not coincidences, they are just completely unrelated and all explained. I don't even need to go to some pro-global warming webpage to prove that, instead I'll just quote from the links YOU provided above.


Jupiter:

-There is no mention whatsoever in this article of the sun warming Jupiter, in fact there is no mention of global warming on Jupiter at ALL in your post.

The latest images could provide evidence that Jupiter is in the midst of a global change that can modify temperatures by as much as 10 degrees Fahrenheit on different parts of the globe. (...) This (storm) will create a big wall and stop the mixing of heat and airflow, the thinking goes. As a result, areas around the equator become warmer, while the poles can start to cool down.

Seems to be explained right in your article, and has nothing to do with general warming or the sun.

Pluto:

Unlike Juputer, Pluto actually is warming, according to your article. However does the article say that this is due to increased solar output, o anything of the kind? No, in fact it explains it as being a normal seasonal shift.

The increasing temperatures are more likely explained by two simple facts: Pluto's highly elliptical orbit significantly changes the planet's distance from the Sun during its long "year," which lasts 248 Earth years; and unlike most of the planets, Pluto's axis is nearly in line with the orbital plane, tipped 122 degrees. Earth's axis is tilted 23.5 degrees. (...) It takes time for materials to warm up and cool off, which is why the hottest part of the day on Earth is usually around 2 or 3 p.m. rather than local noon," Tholen said. "This warming trend on Pluto could easily last for another 13 years."

In fact, there is absolutely NO chance that Pluto's warming has to do with increased output from the Sun, as due to the enormous distance from the Sun (102 AU) if the sun heated up enough to increase overall temperatures on Pluto by 2 degrees, the earth would be flash-fried and rendered uninhabitable.


Triton:

Triton too has apparently heated up, though in fact temperatures on the planet are only inferred, not measured. None the less, does the article YOU posted say this has to do with increased solar output, or anything of the kind? Not at all. In fact it is (again) a normal periodic seasonal temperature variation.

The moon is approaching an extreme southern summer, a season that occurs every few hundred years. During this special time, the moon's southern hemisphere receives more direct sunlight.

I remind you again these are all quotes from the pages YOU provided.

Mars

Of all the examples you gave, Mars is the only one that presents any relation at all to the topic at hand, as all the others are very cerefully explained in the very articles you quoted. But even your article shows that the majority of the scientific community believes this has nothing to do with solar output or solar radiation.


But what is the killer, the clinching argument as to why the 'solar radiation' theory is pretty much universally dismissed by astronomers?

Simple: the sun isn't heating up. In fact for the past 17 years, the solar output from the sun has been DECREASING as part of a standard and unchanging solar cycle called the Schwabe cycle of increasing and decreasing output every 11 years. The only unsual thing about the sun is that the last supposed 'peak' of the Schwabe cycle, in 200 or so, was far LOWER than usual!

And as if that were not enough, there exists the irritating laws of thermodynamics: If solar output were increasing, then an increase of general temperature over the globe would be a tertiary effect, the main effect would be a massive increase in solar radiation and solar wind, which would impede electronics, satelite and power transmissions: yet these have actually been dropping for the last decade or so, not increasing.


In the end, the idea of the sun being responsible for Global warming simply doesn't hold up to basic science. There is no need to 'discredit' the articles you posted, the articles you osted simply don't say what you want them to say, in fact they do quite a good job of discrediting your premise themselves. Lord knows why people seem so desperate to disbelieve that the relatively recent addition of hundreds of millions of tons of artificial pollutants to the atmosphere just MIGHT have some deletirious effect...

I was just reading through the IPCC report linked by TedN5 and noticed something quite amusing, see if you can spot the trend.





Use the word likely much?

Anthropogenic global warming is not fact as much as the media would like you to believe. It's rather likely we are all being taken for a ride.

I have put my money where my mouth is. In defiance of what I believe will happen in the coming years I have purchased a home in Florida that will likely be underwater according to Al Gore's images on his documentary. It is rather unlikely that I will sell this home anytime soon, because I rather like it.

Your comments only illustrate your lack of understanding of the IPCC reporting process. Teams of scientists in each relevant area are assigned to review the body of scientific work done in that area and reach conclusions with appropriate probability levels of confidence assigned. When these conclusions are summarized for policy makers these confidence levels are verbalizes with the following meaning:

See Gristmill Article.

I suggest you read the whole article, you might learn even more.

You might also benefit from this discussion of the AR4 summary at RealClimate.

CO2 follows heating not the other way around ....


it is not soalr thermal output put an increase in the "Solar wind" that effects surface temperature by hindering cloud formation in the troposphere...


Global warming swindle

the very prominent scientists in this video are actually experts in the field of climatology. and explain it well

besides humans only account for about 2% of CO2 which account for only about 5% of all greenhouse gasses.

I watched a discorvery channel last night and it was about eath 4 billion years ago up till the dinosaurs. And in that period at one point the temp. got high enough to turn the earth to a big desert. I'm thinking 90% of all living things died out. Just in watching I realized 1 million years for the earth is like baby steps. So what I don't understand is why anyone would think the earth will always maintain the same temps. And if other planets are having the same trends would lead me to think the sun controls it all. And nothing we do will have any effect on it. Who knows the earth may just be headed for another wipe out and new life introduced to it. Its done that twice already so I guess the third times the charm.

Might I suggest you read post #5 above? Actually all the other planets are NOT having the same trends: at all.

And we know the earth doesn't always say the same temperature, nobody is saying that it does. In fact we have core sampless for tens of thousands of years in the past and we have seen the earth's temperature rise, and associated with that rise of a increased level of CO2 in the atmosphere. So why is it so hard for people to consider the fact that this time, just as every other time, if you artificailly raise the CO2 in the atmosphere, the temperature rises?

Let me ask another question, given what we know about the link between the rise in CO2 and the rise in global temperatures, which was a link measured every single time in the record... how could you POSSIBLY assume that the fact that Humans have dumped hundreds of millions of tons of CO2 and greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere at the same time as cutting down the main planetary CO2 sinks, would NOT have an effect on global temperature?

ummmmm the ocean is BY FAR the largest carbon sink. and the CO2 levels of the earths atmosphere were at times nearly 20 times what they are today and the climate did not "spiral out of control"

see this chart http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/1...arth/co2190.jpg

You didn't adress the point of my response at all, by the way.

Oh, and who is claiming the climate will 'spiral out of control'? Nobody is saying Global warming will make the earth somehow totally uninhabitable, just that it will damage the ecosystem and kill and AWFUL lot of people, infrastructure and elements of society. And that this result may be avoidable if we take steps to STOP spewing hundreds of millions of tons of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. How difficult is that to understand?


The issue of the thrad is the supposed increase in solar radiation and its hypothetical effect on the planets of the solar system. Except that the sun's solar raditiation ISN'T increasing, and it is having NO effect on the planets of the solar system. So if people want to just debate global warming in general, perhaps another thread would be in order? Or they could continue one of the dozen threads that already exist?

1. Are these instances of warming of many other planets and moons in our solar system just coincidence to the warming taking place on Earth?

2. Why hasn't increased solar activity been introduced as a possible cause to our own global warming?

Look, I appecriate you publishing this information. I'd heard about the sunspots/increased solar activity theory, but for those that don't know, this is vital information. And in a scientific context, I would say, as a layperson, that it appears to indicate a valid theoritical point of view.

But on what grounds do your questions consitute a debate?

What are we supposed to say "the liberal media has bought the global warming bait hook line and sinker"? Why not just ask if it has?

This is one of those all-too-common debates that is intended, not to open an interesting exchange of ideas, but to solicit a small range of answers and 'prove' a unsubstantiated point.

Frankly, I have heard of increased solar activity as a possible cause to our global warming. On several occasions. And, this being a political forum, I have no idea what answers you want from me regarding your first question.

Is it a coincidence?

Let me see, let me put my labcoat on and check my handbook of conservatism... yes, right here on page 153 it says that, yes indeed, increased solar activity is to blame for our present predicament. And that the liberal media is to blame.

Hoorayyy

Well I wasn't able to derive anything from the graph but I do have an article from RealClimate that touches on the relationship between higher CO2 and temperature in the distant past. Actually this article principally deals with the CO2 lag time business for those that are interested.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...n-temp-and-co2/

The sun is burning more brightly now than at any time in the last 1000+ years, like I said this increased solar activity prevents clouds which leaves water vapor in gaseous form ( as a greenhouse gas) and without clouds none of this more intense sunlight gets reflected back into space.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...7/18/wsun18.xml

It is probably a futile effort, but I will try once again to respond to the misinformation about the status of the science of climate change that is being cast about. After an extensive review of the scientific literature the IPCC in the recently published AR4 concluded with a 95% confidence level that greenhouse gases released by human civilization was the principal cause of the global warming observed over the last few decades. In their discussion of attribution they examined the literature for other potential contributors including variations in solar radiance which they rated as a minor if not negative contributor. (See the discussion on attribution and the graph that I linked in my first post in this thread).

The graph that GuardianAngel reproduced is from a report that Fredrick Seitz published in 1994 which was not peer reviewed. Seitz was a renowned scientist in his day and even served as the President of the National Academy of Science during much of the 60s. However, by the time this article was published he was a very old man with questionable objectivity having worked as a full time consultant for RJ Reynolds and having accepted large honoraria from Exxon. Before this article was published even RJ Reynolds had recognized the limitation of his age,

See this Wikki Article.

And, did I mention that Dr. Seitz lacks any credentials in climate studies? He was an expert on the Physics of solids.

The other thing to keep in mind is that you can "demonstrate" a correlation between almost any two things if you are careless with data or, worse, willing to distort it. That is one of the reasons why peer review is required before a paper can receive serious attention. Here are 2 examples of the misuse of graphs. The first is so gross that its easy to spot. The second is more complex and continues to contribute to the disinformation surrounding the solar radiance contribution to global warming.

Curve Manipulation

Strange Errors

Here is a graph without “tic marks”.

http://fathersforlife.org/REA/warming4.htm

“The solar constant isn't constant. The sun is a variable star.
The vast majority of climate scientists in the world seriously and objectively studies what it is that influences global climate changes. We don't hear as much from them in the media as we do from the far smaller but also far more vocal minority of climate scientists who make a living by publicizing alarmist and often outrageous claims about man's detrimental influence on the global climate.

Armed with the very real evidence of the global cooling trend during the first half of the 20th century, climate alarmists claimed in the 1970s that another ice age was imminent. Today they (including even some former proponents of a coming ice age, e. g.: Stephen Schneider), ride a wave of alarm about man-made catastrophic global warming, a wave of alarm they created and keep fueling .

Objective scientists find that the evidence supporting a man-made global warming trend is at best skimpy. However, it cannot and should not be denied that climate changes take place and that they have done so since long before man even made an appearance on Earth.

Based on many different indicators from widely varying sources, it has been found that our sun, a variable star, is a major and controlling influence on the extent and rate of long- and short-term climate changes affecting Earth. In a January 17, 2003 article, Science@NASA describes the extent of the fluctuations in solar radiation over time, how they are being measured, the instruments that are being used to measure them, how those instruments are being calibrated and what has been found by using them.[1] The following graph is from that article.”

The idea that everyone “agrees” with the IPCC is a fabrication and it is them that close out dissent.

Meanwhile we all suffer as dirty power plants pour out “real” pollution including heavy metals, So2, small particles etc. Millions contract asthma and other diseases for life because of this and now we are heading toward solving a problem that may not be one and allowing all the other issues to fester.

And 95% confidence on which scenario?? Which one (model) do you support.

I love that killer graph they start off with to prove the solar based warming theory. It's very up to date - 1976.

And that business of the scientists all believing in an impending ice age back in the 1970's. Really? How many climate scientist who have signed on on to recent IPCC warnings about man influenced global warming were arguing for a coming ice age back in the 1970's? A few maybe but not many. There wasn't anything like the general peer reviewed consensus there is now. And even then many were persuaded that the aerosol effect from dirty pollutants like the Sulfates were off setting the global warming effects of the carbon gas. Since then with the introduction of cleansing technology there have been proportionately less aerosol pollutants so the expectations are that temperature drops will be less radical and long lasting in the future. Remember, it was back in the 19th century that CO2 was shown to be a greenhouse gas, so that was a settled issue. Clearly then the burden was to show that additional carbon gas created by man was NOT an influence on temperature rise. When the ice core samples came in and the general upward trend of temperature was established that burden sky rocketed.

I think this quote from Ted's link goes to the heart of Global Warming denial because it cycles around in some form or another in most denialist writings at some point.



Man made global warming idea is part of a world wide socialist conspiracy to destroy capitalism. That's usually the bottom line from the denialists. And like religion this ideology is beyond argument with solid facts.

Ted, it's customary to enclose verbatim quotation using the quotation tool. At least you linked the quoted material. However, it proved to be an article published by a Canadian Rural Electric Association which linked its source to a paper published by a Dr. Landscheidt. His paper gave no indication that it was peer reviewed and was linked to global warming denialist sites. In addition, even if one accepts the analysis as valid (I don't), the report said next to nothing about the influence of solar variation on warming in recent decades. Consensus climate scientists do not deny the influence of changes in solar radiance on long term climate, only that there is insufficient change in recent data to attribute much of recent warming to such variation. They also point out that the pattern of warming matches what was predicted for greenhouse gas induced warming and contradicts that that would be associated with increased solar radiation. Recent warming has been characterized by a greater increase in night time temperatures than day time, more arctic warming than tropical warming, and surface and tropospheric warming with stratospheric cooling. At least two of these are the opposite of what an increase in solar radiance should produce. Once again I refer you to the discussion and graphs on pages 682 and 688 of the AR4.

Just checking now ... but i have to ask the question...

has there been a rise in mean global temperatures sine 1998?

much of the literature I am seeing shows a slight dip since '98....


February 1998 was the peak in deviation and it has come down slightly since.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jh...09/ixworld.html

It would appear that 1998 was the second highest when this chart was made.

http://geology.com/news/2006/01/global-war...ph-and-map.html

Apparently the more important point is that 1995-2006 we experienced 11 of 12 of our hottest annual mean temperatures since temperature recordings began. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

here is the actual tabular data ....


http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt



1881 .28 beats 2
1882 .08 beats 2
1900 .57 beats 3

1921 1.12 beats all but 2

1931 1.08 would much more be piling on?

1934 1.23 you get the idea...


1938 .85 all but 4 and ties 1
1939 .84 all but 4
1940 .03
1941 .62 beats 4
1942 .09


1954 .82 all but 4

I could continue but i don't think i will

nope you are wrong ... and the top 4 were el Nino years or preceding / declining years ... and measurement is MUCH more accurate now than it was in 1900

edited for typos

That's for the US not the world. I'll stick with my graph. And even in the US the trend is pretty unmistakeable. Using the 5 year mean from 1999 on nothing before is any higher than the lowest determined mean.

I love it – the definition of peer reviewed is if the IPCC crowd agrees with you. And since CO2 rise has followed most warm-ups I see no precedent for you statement above. Also since, as pointed out above, there has been little real “warming” in the pat few years the solar radiation could very well have played a part.


So being “linked” to anyone who does not agree gets you ignored and not “peer reviewed” – I see how it works.

The heating at night is the “heat island” effect and is basically warmer building concrete and humans (500 btu each).

As I have said lots of folks disagree and are thoroughly ignored:

http://www.cdispatch.com/articles/2007/05/...news/area01.txt

And do I have to say AGAIN that there is no way in hell under Kyoto we will make a dent in the CO2 increase. Meanwhile power plants, the worst real polluters, get away with killing millions.

And you refuse to pick a “model”- knowing how dramatically different they are. Come on tell us are you with Al??

not to mention the 17,100 scientists and academics who have signed this petition .... http://www.oism.org/pproject/a_sci.htm more than 2600 of them are Physicists, Geophysicists, Climatologists, Meteorologists, Oceanographers, and Evironmental Scientists.

the IPCC inflates their numbers by adding those who reviewed their report and other such things even if they had no input or disagreed with the IPCCs "findings"

and while the north pole is "wasting away" antartica is getting fatter ... at least that is what I have heard....

The number of scientific denialists who had specific expertise in the area of Global Warming and peer reviewed articles on the subject would certainly be worth something.

My understanding with the Antarctic is the icebergs on the ocean are melting, and the regional precipitation is increasing with the warming, causing the land based ice to thicken from the increased precipitation.

1. Are these instances of warming of many other planets and moons in our solar system just coincidence to the warming taking place on Earth?

2. Why hasn't increased solar activity been introduced as a possible cause to our own global warming?

I imagine the lack of atmosphere makes solid bodies in the solar system more sensitive to changes in solar radiation levels. Our atmosphere, thin as it is in relationship to the size of the Earth, regulates our temperatures so we don't go way hot in the daytime and way cold at night. This is also related to the age of the Earth and all kinds of other variables. One would think an ultra super-duper massively parallel computer would be needed to figure it out. And by gosh if that's not the case:

Nov. 2001 NCAR Computer Upgrade

NCAR is just one of many organizations involved in weather. I wonder what might be happeneing with grid computing, where the Internet allows even more parallelism. Point is that up or down on global warming isn't a very simple thing. One variable does not carry the argument.

Don't know if increased solar activity has not been considered. It very well may have been, but discarded as not important enough of a variable. I do know that solar storms cause all kinds of problems with electronic communications equipment. Our magnetic field has a big effect on how radiation moves around the planet, another thing to consider. Other planets and moons don't have the magnetic field. The solar wind must slam into them pretty darn hard.

I do see where the arguments against global warming lean heavily on conspiracy theory. I also see where people tend to grab a quick answer when there is no quick answer, probably a survival mechanism at work. Another survival mechanism is economics -- price of gas goes up, hybrid car sales go up. Just about every time I go out now, I see at least one Prius on the road. Just a year ago it was rare to see any.

Bottom line is that if there is a conspiracy at work here, I don't care. Let's get off fossil fuels just because it's a good idea.

1) who was standing in antartica in 1300 AD? and if someone was then how did they measure the temperature?

2) measurement instruments for measuring temperature have moved in the last 50 years from the fields ( to support agriculture) to the airports. The larger towns and cities tend to be hotter than suburbs and rural areas because their buildings tend to act like storage heaters, slowly releasing the heat at night, but I am sure you know and understand this.

3) can temperature be as accurately counted through ice core samples and geological isotopes as it can by weather satellite?

4) we are basing EVERYTHING on an idea that we have absolutlely no way of knowing... just in the US weather measuring technology has improved a thousand fold in just the last 50 years... i really doubt it is any less of an improvement for india, africa or the artic....

5) Anthropogenic CO2 counts for a tiny percentage ( about 2% ) of a gas that makes up a fraction of the remaining 5% along with methane and others. so man made co2 accounts for a fraction of a fraction of 1% of the greenhouse gas ..... but that insignificant amount is driving global warming....

6) Vikings were growing grapes in greenland and nova scotia 1000 years ago and the romans were growing vinyards in england during their time there... which up until recently it was too cold to do ( and PLEASE do not negate this by comparing agricultural techniques from today to those of 200 AD )

7) Scientific consensus IS NOT in... the debate has NOT ended THOUSANDS of scientists climatologists, meteorolgoists, physicist etc... disagree with the ideas that the IPCC ( a body made up more of politicians and NGOs than scientists) espouses.

8) CO2 lags behind warming in ice core samples.... even your boys at realclimate admit this.... if it lags behind warming how can it be the PRIMARY cause?

9) solar radiation and cloud seeding is never taken into account in the weather models (even though the sun has a HUGE impact on our weather) none of the models agree and vary greatly in their ranges.... different models show warming at 8 - 10X of others.... if the data is such a slam dunk why is there SO MUCH variability ?

10)if CO2 == warming why was 1998 the hotest year on record and only nearly matched by it's fellow el nino year last year.... why has there not been significant warming since ?

it is for these reasons and many others that i am SKEPTICAL about the causes of global warming and government making huge legislative and tax changes that will hurt alot of people.

I take the term "Global Warming Denialist" as both an insult and an Ad Hominem attack. I am not denying ANY science.... as a matter of fact there is some very cool research the recently started at CERN showing that cosmic radiation may be one of the principal forces at work ...

I do not want to make alarmist "Chicken Little" assesments when the science is not conclusive , results have been tampered with... and are politically motivated,

Is it possible that we are just returning to where we should have been anyway along a track that started 150 years ago when we came out of the little ice age only to be slowwed down by industrial polutants after the second world war?

is it possible that man has NOTHING to do with it? or at least very little....

sorry if i dont buy the line from politicians at the UN .... sorry if i dont eat up an assessment that appears flawed just because it fits my political agenda....

the IPCC report is not science.... they have no way of extrapolating the data they used accurately to the degree they claim... the difference between the lowest point in the last 100 years and today is less than 2 degrees fahrenheit.... and I wonder if that difference isnt in more accurate instruments today.


edited to add...
I wonder also you rail against "denialists" because they disagree with you but could it be that those scientists at the IPCC and those that follow "anthropogenic global warming" are after government funding and grants to find or create the data the government needs to make the changes they want...

No one, so what? Proxy records are studied to provide what evidence of temperature change in the Southern Hemisphere that exists.



The heat island phenomena has been filtered for in all climate data almost from the inception of climate science.



No, although until the last year of two satellites had their own issues. What is your point?



No, we are basing absolutely EVERYTHING on preceeding with business as usual in the face of overwhelming evidence that serious and perhaps catastrophic consequences will confront us if we don't address human release of greenhouse gases. A massive effort to convert our energy systems might well have many non global warming related benefits.



This sounds like a quote from somewhere but you left out the antecedents so its hard to decipher. If you mean that CO2 makes up a small faction of the atmoshere, that is true. Today its about 383 parts per million up from about 284.3 in 1832. So human civilization has raised its concentration by more than 1/4th (99/284th). Consequently, your 2% figure is incorrect or misleading. (Maybe the 2% refers to what is added each year?) CO2 is important because it traps infrared radiation from the surface and because it is long lived in the atmosphere. Yes, increases in methane are important too but methane is less longed lived and appears to have reached at least temporary equilibrium in the atmosphere. CO2 at current concentrations is calculated to contribute about twice the forcing as methane. And, yes, water vapor is an even more potent greenhouse gas but there is no way of adding it or taking it out of the atmosphere so it is considered to be a positive feedback from the increases in other ghgs.

To be continued

2. Why hasn't increased solar activity been introduced as a possible cause to our own global warming?

Because it is a complex subject and does not fit in with the current “we are to blame” mentality – so popular today. More study needs to be done but IMO with too many no focused on the unproven CO2 models as the cause we may never know.




No actually most countries are proceeding to work on CO2 reduction which will have no chance to succeed without China and India. Only the Bush plan has a chance since it would include these major CO2 producers. But imo there is little hope China will go along any time soon.


With or without the US Kyoto is doomed and nearly worthless. Let’s hope solar radiation really is the cause.

I am trying to figure out how it was that the vikings were able to colonize greenland and nova scotia and actually call nova scotia Vinland ( vine or wine land) eric the red and his son leif erickson probably built the colonies partially pictured here ... and here now there are some modern buildings amongst the rubble but you can see the foundations of the builings still



all of these facts are independantly verifiable ...the vikings in the begining depended on cerial crops and dairy animals for food.... something they could not have done in permafrost conditions.

In every front paged Global Warming thread I see I shall offer these two words:

Acid Rain

Most of us are old enough to remember that bit of Chicken Littlery. Is anyone still hawking that bit of Tom Foolery? In less than a decade we'll all be chortling about Al and his "warming thing."

I guess what I'll say about it is this, this planet has been heating up and cooling down forever. We just so happen to be in the throws of one of them heating up cycles.

If we had a big earthquake or a big volcano to burst open or God forbid an astroid come crashing down on us, I reckon we could see enough dirt cast up into the atmosphere to casue the whole temperature of the earth to drop a degree or two.

That being said, I ain't buyin' no land in Florida.

this is an interesting bit of reading on the subject as well...


http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st279/st279.pdf

apparently using long term proxies they were able to distinguish about a 1500 year (+ - 500 ) cycle for heating and cooling on the earth.

As in the case of your US temperature data you continue to confuse a regional temperature with an average world wide temperature. Do you have any data on what the temperature was in Tierra del Fuego during this Viking period and how that temperature compares with modern TdF temperature readings?



All these scientists from all over the world are in a conspiracy to cook the books to get government funding? Is there a conspiracy central that's coordinating all these folks that you could put me in touch with. The denialists don't just disagree with me, they disagree wtih the peer reviewed scientific consensus. A pattern seems to be established. A scientist casts doubt on human induced global warming. His peer reviewed colleagues dispose of his analysis with better analysis and data. A little time passes and then the same arguments are made, perhaps by another scientist, usually one that doesn't have expertise in the field of climate science, which then have to be refuted again.

The one on the thickening of the ice on Antartica seems to one of those bogus arguments that gets asserted and refuted as to its implications over and over again. It's getting to be like the 911 WTC inside job demolition folks. All their arguments get refuted and so they just ignore the facts and keep coming back with the same stuff from the same semi-experts with perhaps a new wrinkle thrown in to give the impression of new discoveries. One is left asking the question, what is their agenda? It certainly isn't getting at the truth of the matter or they wouldn't keep ignoring the relevant data and asserting the same arguments that have already been refuted.

2. Why hasn't increased solar activity been introduced as a possible cause to our own global warming?

Don't even have to read the studies to answer this question (although I will try to when I have time, they sound interesting).

Because there's no political incentive to do so. This isn't a knock against 'environmentalists' -- NOTHING happens without any political or monetary incentive. However, the global warming issue is rife with political incentives motivating actions Were any non-environmentalists among the initial groups pushing global warming? No, of course not. If a group doesn't benefit from promoting a certain activity, what is their incentive for doing so? None. It is somewhat ironic that every group is quick to point out the political motivations of any action they disagree with while simultaneously refusing to admit their own agenda has any political basis at all. Human nature, I guess, but that doesn't reduce the irony, IMHO.

Sounds like an ideology trying to impose a conclusion. The solar evidence has been looked at very carefully and the conclusion reached is that in recent times it does not contribute to global warming to the same degree that man made factors do.

Frankly it would seem to me if you were just considering the matter in terms of economic inducement the argument against human caused global warming would be an elephant as compared with the mouse of benefits accruing to the pro global warming crowd. You have a whole energy industry along with an ideology of economic growth on one side and a few grants and perhaps regulatory groups and some windmill folks on the other. No contest.

I'm not really sure about solar, but insofar as man-made factors contribution to global warming, the father of scientific climatology begs to differ. He's another "tool of the energy industry" I suppose.

Check the second section of the article. His colleagues do a pretty reasonable job of refuting this 87 year old gentleman. Also what article on the matter has he written recently and was it peer reviewed?

Here from the latter part of the article.

Actually quite a few and 5 books ... excuse me ... your arrogance is showing ...

Over his long career as scientist and teacher, Reid Bryson has significantly advanced the understanding of climate, people, and the environment. He has written more than 200 articles and five books ranging over the fields of geology, limnology, meteorology, climatology, archeology, and geography.


His book, Climates of Hunger, co-authored with Thomas Murray, received the Banta Medal for Literary Achievement, one his articles, a mixture of poetry and science, was chosen as the "outstanding learned article of 1981" by the Educational Press Association, and two papers in Environmental Conservation were awarded prizes for "best paper of the year."


30th PhD in Meteorology in the history of American education.


Most cited climatologist in the world according to British Institute of Geographers article, 5th most cited physical geographer and 11th in list of all geographers.


Over 230 publications, 5 books


Dr. Reid Bryson's volcanic eruptions and aerosol optical depth data has been added to the World Data Center for Paleoclimatology in Boulder, Colorado. The data is available at

ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/climate_forcing/bryson1988.

The suggested citation for the data is:

Bryson, R.A., 2002, Bryson 1988 Volcanic Eruptions and Aerosol Optical Depth Data. IGBP PAGES/World Data Center for Paleoclimatology Data Contribution Series #2002-022. NOAA/NGDC Paleoclimatology Program, Boulder, CO, USA.

this is probably one of the most accomplished and learned men in the field ....

edited to add

http://ccr.meteor.wisc.edu/bryson/bryson.html

Nice answer to a question that wasn't asked. Let me try again.


The matter of course refers to global warming, recently does not refer to the 1980s and of course peer reviewed means published in a reputable scientific journal after having past a critical review of the evidence by scientists in the field.

One can be generally accomplished in an area of science and yet be woefully biased or just in error in a particular aspect of that field. History is cluttered with such examples. Perhaps the elder Bryson is like the general fighting the last war.

what about Dr. Ian Clark



He has written many artiles on the subject, authored at least 2 current textbooks on climatology, and as far as i know completely disagrees with Anthropogenic Global Warming...



He was a firm believer in AGW until he actually looked at the science behind it...

What are you talking about? The 1980s issue of Acid Rain is the PERFECT evidence supporting those who would act to stop global warming. This was no 'chicken littery' (nice turn of phrase), it was a serious threat that was wiping out huge stretches of Canadian forest and sterilising thousands of canadian lakes. Finally, despite the serious opposition of the conservatives who refused to believe it existed, environmental legislation was enacted curbing sulphur emissions which cause acid rain (Which most conservatives had opposed because it would 'bankrupt all industry and destroy the economy) which seriously curbed the creation of acid rain. Reagan claimed it was a natural phenomenon caused by cows and that 'costly' industrial measures would not help. Of course the conservatives were completely wrong.

Chicken littlery? This was a serious environmental problem which was threatening nature and causing enormous damage, conservatives opposed solving it and used most of the same arguments they are using now, and yet environmental emissions legislation helped reduce the threat. I can't think of a better argument as to why global warming skeptics should be politely tolerated at best.


Whenever I hear global warming skeptics, I always amusingly remember that those people who claim mankind has nothing to do with global warming are by and large the exact same people who believed there WAS NO global warming less than a decade ago...




And I'm trying to figure out how that is relevant. Yes the earth has heated and cooled at various times in the past. This is all dealt with in the IPCC report as well as the literally hundreds of other peer-reviewed global warming research reports that demonstrate the causality. Hey, lets play a game. Can anyone here post a link to one, just ONE independent research report from an academic or independent scholarly source that agrees with the global warming skeptics? Anyone?

The argument of 'well the earth warmed up before' is a bit silly. Yes it did, So? And as the IPCC shows there is always a link with CO2 in the atmosphere.

Species of animals went extinct before too, hundreds of thousands of them. Does that mean that mankind cannot be a contributing factor to current species extinctions?




Of all the various invented criticism of the majority scientific view on Global warming, this is one of the ones that irritates me the most. It is common, and yet it is 100% factually wrong, and only spoken by people who literally have no knowledge of the structures of research granting agencies. I mean no offense, those people who have no knowledge of these structures and agencies incorporates 99.9% of the population, as most normal people never use research grants. I however worked for Canada's largest research grant agency for years, and as an academic have also applied for (and received) several.

Research grants are few and far between, about 1 progect in 20 is actually funded, and in the sciences these grants tend to be infrastructure grants, funding machinery and equipment for capacity rather than specific projects. In cases where specific research grants ARE funded, the evaluation criteria do not involve the conclusions, in fact if you present conclusion you will be awarded nothing: they judge methodology and scientific principle, nothing else. Judges evaluate the soundness of your research methods and veracity of the means of testing, not the outcome. Lastly, academa as a whole has always preferred to challenge the orthodoxy, not to support it. Graduate students are told to go out there and oppose what people have thought, challenge conclusions and fight that belief of status quo. Nobody ever earned a distinction by agreeing with everything that has gone before. In summation, there is little or NO money in research on Global Warming for OR against. The money that is there is not allocated on the basis of outcomes, or which side you support, but rather on how you do your research, and lastly the entire culture of academic scientific research is to oppose, there is no current to blindly agree.

I loathe the argument parotted by some about how global warming research is 'all about grant money' because it is a complete invention, which ANYONE with ANY experience in academia would laugh at... created by skeptics to try and weasel there way around the inconvenient fact that the large majority of scientists agree with global warming, and that an almost unanimous selection of independent research done on the topic supports that thesis.

Can you show us the data here because I have read that the “coming out” temperature changes of past ice ages are far from certain. To have exact data on the transitions over geologically short time periods, like 100-250 years is very difficult.




I agree and you should know that the CO2 reduction push has little or nothing to do with reducing “real” pollutants like soot and heavy metals. This is my main problem with the whole idea. We want to reduce CO2 and ignore the real pollutants like SO2, small particles, heavy metals etc. The entire north east coast gets acid rain from OH power plants. We need to curb SO2 more and the others as well instead we waste time on CO2.

Here is a timely article on the effect of sunspots on global temperature. It's part of a series that the (Canadian) National Post runs on global warming "deniers" which make for pretty interesting reading. The links can be found on the page I linked. I found this one of interest because I just happened to be up in BC in the fjords, and what an amazing, amazing place.

Anyway, I find the fact that some scientists are again arguing that global cooling is going to be our biggest problem in 20 years ... disconcerting.

yeah... but it wasn't peer reviewed by "respectable scientists" or they are in the pockets of Big X or they are old and senile or some other such garbage ...

just be cause his confirmation bias is offended.

I agree and the thought of throwing away 400 billion year for CO2 reduction for nothing really drives me nuts.

The debate is far too much driven by the political agenda of numerous groups.

Thanks for finding the article.

Perhaps the best response to the article based on Timothy Patterson's work and referenced by carlitoswhey is to post a sincere open minded comment posted on Realclimate and Gavin Schmidt's reponse.

RealClimate

Whether there is an additional warming-effect that is occurring throughout the solar system is not particularly relevant to the political aspects of the climate-change debate, unless of course, it happened to coincide with atmospheric changes that began during the Industrial Revolution. It would be a remarkable coincidence if it did, but not necessarily an impossibility given the dictates of Murphy's Law. However, if anything just such an event would be cause for more alarm, not less, since we certainly would not want to synergize our own global warming with another occuring in the solar system.

Although I am not a solar astronomer, I suspect there are probably solar output readings that might span several decades, since I know the solar observatory at Kitt Peak has been in operation since the early 1960's. Although not covering a great amount of time, data from observatories like that might be able to test your concern much better than spotty and indirect planetary observations, which as mentioned before, may not even be related to warming at all, but other planetary issues. It would be extremely speculative just to look at that kind of data alone since we have trouble analyzing and predicting our own atmospheric destiny, much less that of other planets.

Seems imminently sensible and thoughtful but of course you are competing with 20 year down the road speculations by a geologist who has not one peer reviewed article disputing AGW and posters who are ravenous to believe, despite the evidence, that man caused global warming is a deep socialist conspiracy myth propagated to control all our lives. Kind of reminds me of the 911 conspiracy crowd who want to believe that the WTC tower collapses were a CIA engineered demolition job. Folks will believe what they want to believe if it suits their agenda. To heck with the evidence and common sense.