Right now we are experiencing the coldest April in 113 years.
http://www.agweb.com/get_article.aspx?pageid=135336&src=gennews
Actually, this recent cold spell may be proof that Global Warming isn't caused by carbod dioxide at all.
According to skeptics of the carbon dioxide/global warming theories, the main source of fluctuations in global temperatures is directly due to changes in the sun.
Interestingly we are currently having minimum sunspot activity in the solar cycle, which has particularly just bottomed out over the last week or two, with practically no sunspot activity at all. According to some theories, lack of sunspot activity can cause colder temperatures on Earth, and lots of sunspot activity can cause higher temperatures on Earth.
This is not something Al Gore and the "global warming alarmists" want you to know.
While sunspots cycles usually last about 11 years, they have been increasing overall. However right now, we are in the lowest point of the current cycle, and there have been almost no new sunspots for about 1.5 weeks (as of 4/12/07)
Source(s):
http://www.dxlc.com/solar/indices.html
http://www.dxlc.com/solar/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3869753.stm
2007-04-12 11:44:15
·
answer #1
·
answered by michdell 1
·
1⤊
0⤋
Well im not sure that global warming is being "caused by the sun" because in the last 30 years the sun hasnt gotten bigger or closer or anything like that to make a noticable difference. However, even if global warming is total crap (which I feel like the science says there should be global warming, but the physical evidence is lacking) it is still a great excuse to make cars that run on alternative fuels. Even if it isnt true, it is a great way to get people motivated to make that electric car, or fuel cells or anything that will make it so I dont have to pay $3.25 cents per gallon for gas!!
2007-04-11 18:32:05
·
answer #2
·
answered by Ray G 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
I sure would like to have a link to these massive databases that have real evidence of global warming! So far, all I've been able to come up with is the skimpy data provided by NOAA on both temperature and CO2 concentrations, and really massive databases that contain a lot of opinion, but no data. (Including the IPCC summary report of Feb 2007). A 2°F rise in temperature shown by an exponential trend curve in the last 114 years is not a very convincing reason for global panic. The CO2 data is suspect as well, having been collected on the slope of an active volcano with 4 other active volcanoes nearby.
2007-04-11 19:50:48
·
answer #3
·
answered by Helmut 7
·
2⤊
1⤋
well actually Global warming is caused mainly by human activites. We are the ones that liter, make wars, take soil from the earth, and take so much more from the earth. Garbage and pollution thickens the atmosphere. Because the atmoshpere is thickening sunlight is getting trapped in the atmosphere and since so much subnlight is being trapped all that sunlight melts lots of ice in antartica, greenland and more lands with ice bergs and basically ice. All that melted ice turns into water and that water goes into the oceans and sea level rises. Floods are cause and countries will soon sink. It's not true that global warming is caused by the sun its cause by the human activites. Hope this helped. :)
2007-04-12 13:02:27
·
answer #4
·
answered by MiSZ.LiZ 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
So you dont believe in global warming...
Ok so what about pollution? Have you ever been to a big city?
Basically you can tase it, smell it and even see it, so dont get hung up on "Global Warming" why not help us fight pollution.
I dont think there is any question that pollution was man made, is there?
The point is, why are we wasting so much time and energy trying to prove Al Gore wrong and create smear campaigns and hire scientist to try to prove GW as wrong.
Why not just use this as a chance to reflect on how you can live a more sustainable life and make a healthier atmousphere for your kids, friends and family. I mean you can save a ton of money by doing a few things around the house, which would also reduce your emissions, so why not do them?
2007-04-11 19:37:24
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
If you desire to obtain furnish cash for local weather study, do you suppose that you'll be able to get a cheque should you say," I want the furnish, as I suppose that I can end up that the figures that the present paradigm is situated upon are flawed" ? The excellent environmentalist, David Bellamy, has been silenced, and refused airtime. There remains to be no demonstrated causative hyperlink among the volume of Co2 within the surroundings, and an expand in international temperatures. The WWWF images of the polar bears swimming had been taken within the Arctic summer season; while the ice cap in part melts, as they could not rise up to photo within the wintry weather. The ice used to be too thick! The East-Anglian uni study figures. "Oh! The figures do not fit our expectancies. Oh good. Keep quiet. Because we all know that we're correct." When the notion, and the religion is extra most important than squarely dealing with the legit doubts of plenty of non furnish-supported scientists, technological know-how has been superceded by way of devout zealots. As Oliver Cromwell colourfully stated." I pray thee, within the bowels of Christ, bear in mind that thou mayest be flawed."
2016-09-05 10:43:38
·
answer #6
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Comes from having too many experts discussing their one degree seperated from the whole compass. The fella telling you about the hole in the ozone will never tell you about the 2000 more lightning displays any given minute around the world. I have smelled ozone after a ground strike. I wonder what those upper atmosphere electrical displays are doing.
2007-04-11 18:40:47
·
answer #7
·
answered by eks_spurt 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I find it funny when people bring up a 2 degree increase as little, don't any of you "conservatives" understand that the eco system is fragile and takes small changes and creates major problems...I don't really care what Al Gore says, not a main concern of my life or my children's future, but to put the needs of paper money for corporations over trying to create jobs by finding better ways to untilize our resources and not kill our enviroment seems like idiocrisy. And for all you "Christians" who have trouble with this, you're a bunch of hypocrites to think that god gave you this planet, maybe you should try to care for it while your here instead of wasting it for yourselves you selfish idiots.
2007-04-12 06:52:34
·
answer #8
·
answered by gunkinthedrain 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Actual data shows it's not the suns radiation that's the major cause of global warming on Earth, it's us. Solar radiation is carefully measured. Climatologists include it in their analysis.
The results are in the report below. Increased solar radiation is 0.12 watts per meter squared. Man's warming is 1.6 watts per meter squared, more than ten times as much.
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf
What scientists think. Not from the "liberal" media.
"While evidence suggests fluctuations in solar activity can affect climate on Earth, and that it has done so in the past, the majority of climate scientists and astrophysicists agree that the sun is not to blame for the current and historically sudden uptick in global temperatures on Earth, which seems to be mostly a mess created by our own species."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258342,00.html
Global cooling was a speculation by a few scientists with little data. It was more comparable to global warming skeptics than to today's huge database showing warming is real, and the resulting vast majority of scientists who believe it is. More here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94
2007-04-11 18:56:28
·
answer #9
·
answered by Bob 7
·
3⤊
3⤋
it's serious science.
your doctor 30 years ago would tell you smoking in moderation was safe according to tobacco studies.
your doctor today tells you to quit because you'll have a higher chance of cancer and other diseases. But he can't be sure what would happen.
what do you do? You keep smoking because the doctor has been wrong before, and even if he's right it might not be so bad, you might not even develop cancer
2007-04-11 18:36:09
·
answer #10
·
answered by d c 3
·
2⤊
3⤋