It's been proven that humans are causing global warming, not the sun. Now what?

Question

A new scientific study concludes that changes in the Sun's output cannot be causing modern-day climate change. It shows that for the last 20 years, the Sun's output has declined, yet temperatures on Earth have risen. It also shows that modern temperatures are not determined by the Sun's effect on cosmic rays, as has been claimed. I'm interested in hearing ways that we can help the environment in light of this evidence. Anyone have any suggestions?

Source:
'No Sun link' to climate change http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6290228.stm

"This paper re-enforces the fact that the warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity "

Dr Piers Forster

Attn: This study was released today. Please provide dates of release and links to your studies :) or they are considered unreliable.

Answer 1

Wow.

The cosmic ray theory was the last hope for global warming deniers. That was the one theory which gave me any doubt that humans are the primary cause of the global warming acceleration over the past 40-50 years. Now there's simply no explanation other than human influences.

I was actually considering asking a question along the lines of 'is Svensmark's cosmic ray theory the last hope for global warming deniers?' because every other theory had been debunked.

That's an incredibly important study - thanks for the link! There's now simply no denying that humans are to blame.

Answer 2

rwcrufler, what makes you think anyone would have anything to gain by funding research showing that we should be concerned about global warming? The big oil companies keep their profits high by saying there's no such thing, so I'd be far more suspicious of who's funding "research" that says greenhouse gases are not the cause of global warming.

Two factors influence the natural warming and cooling of the Earth, which has been going on throughout history. One is the output from the Sun and the other is slight variations in the distance of the Earth from the Sun. Since both of these have been shown to be in cooling trends, I don't think the possibility of our impact on global warming can be dismissed so lightly. Look at all of the links in Keith P's answer to the question at the link below. Even if you're still not convinced, you should at least be willing to admit you're not 100% sure we don't have anything to do with it.

As I keep saying, it doesn't matter to me whether we're causing global warming or not. We need to reduce emissions for other indisputable reasons, such as the high pollution advisories we often get here in the Phoenix area. We've had ozone advisories that warned even healthy active adults to limit their outdoor activities, and ozone comes mainly from vehicles. Isn't air that's hazardous to breathe a good enough reason to reduce emissions?

Dojoman, I looked at the climatepolice web site and it only shows one side. Yes, scientists are divided and not all are convinced that human activities are the cause of global warming, but many are convinced. I'm willing to acknowledge that further proof may be needed, but just because some activist with an agenda posts only articles that support his viewpoint, that doesn't prove that the other side is wrong. Even if we're only 10% or 20% responsible for global warming, I would rather err on the side of caution and do something than wait until it gets worse. Even if it could be proven conclusively that we have nothing to do with it, I would still say we need to reduce emissions due to the immediate health hazards noted above. Trying to debunk global warming is just making excuses for not doing anything to curb our life-endangering polluting habits.

Booman, what a lot of people seem to have forgotten or chosen to ignore is that the leading theory driving those ice age scares in the 50s through the 70s was that the melting of the ice caps would affect ocean currents in a way that would bring on a new ice age (see second link below). In other words, the concern was still about global warming and what its long-term results might be. The scientists haven't reversed themselves as often as you claim.

Answer 3

Amazing leaps forward in 6-9 months. A September 2006 article in Nature magazine concludes with "Apart from solar brightness, more subtle influences on climate from cosmic rays or the Sun's ultraviolet radiation cannot be excluded, say the authors. However, these influences cannot be confirmed, they add, because physical models for such effects are still too poorly developed."

Answer 4

Love these lies. "Proven? " dream on.
Some Simple Facts:
Yes, there is Global Warming. It has happened before and it will happen again. Example: Middle ages, the global warming was obviously caused by man then also.

The Ice caps have melted, on average, an insignificant amount, causing the sea level to rise an insignificant amount. I have heard claims that 40% of the ice caps are already gone. If that were true, the sea level would have risen 3 feet. Serious misinformation.

Man contributes only minimally to global warming. I have heard claims that 90% of Climate scientists say man outright caused the global warming. That is an outright lie. The figure is more like 10%. Maybe 90% percent believe that Man CONTRIBUTES BUT NOT CAUSES global warming. Misinformation.

Global warming is a political tool used to divert attention from Big Oils raping of America. It is the latest in a line of intentional distractions by politicians. As others have said the “flavor of the month”. What has your politician done about Big Oil. Probably nothing or misinformation.

Global warming is real but used by Alarmists by horrific exaggerations and careful misinformation. These Alarmists spout various facts and figures with little or no truth while denouncing anything that contradicts their views. I often think their actions remind me of psycho sports fans who freak out if you dare to say anything is wrong with their team.

There is good in the global warming debate. It will reduce pollution and increase energy efficiency. I don’t need lies and misinformation to get me to believe that.

Answer 5

I dunno. At first I thought it was people causing it. Then I thought that maybe the earth an the sun go through these cycles every so often and maybe we are in one of the cycle periods. Then I thought it was people again. But either way, the output of carbon dioxide can't be a good thing. So I say, PLANT MORE TREES! And buy hybrids. If not for the enviromenet, then to save yourself $$$ on gas

Answer 6

the debate is not whether global warming is caused from human intervention... it is. it's to what extent that it is.

from my link:

'Employing 80 computer simulations, scientists from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and other institutions concluded that there is only one answer: that the burning of fossil fuels, which warms the climate, is also heating the oceans.'

To the people who STILL don't believe: thousands of scientists worldwide DO NOT HAVE A PARTISAN AGENDA. People who still deny that humans have been a contributing factor to global warming are simply ignorant. This is 2007, past time to get a clue.

Answer 7

You are absolutely right about that article. Go to this site to learn more about saving the environment:

"ANSWER THE CALL!
Take 3 minutes to get your Live Impact score and create your ECP account and get started on creating your personal plan! Be part of the solution to the climate crisis!"

Answer 8

Not really, read this,
Since 1895, the media has alternated between global cooling and warming scares during four separate and sometimes overlapping time periods. From 1895 until the 1930's the media peddled a coming ice age. From the late 1920's until the 1960's they warned of global warming. From the 1950's until the 1970's they warned us again of a coming ice age. This makes modern global warming the fourth estate's fourth attempt to promote opposing climate change fears during the last 100 years.

The National Academy of Sciences report reaffirmed the existence of the Medieval Warm Period from about 900 AD to 1300 AD and the Little Ice Age from about 1500 to 1850. Both of these periods occurred long before the invention of the SUV or human industrial activity could have possibly impacted the Earth's climate. In fact, scientists believe the Earth was warmer than today during the Medieval Warm Period, when the Vikings grew crops in Greenland.

What the climate alarmists and their advocates in the media have continued to ignore is the fact that the Little Ice Age, which resulted in harsh winters which froze New York Harbor and caused untold deaths, ended about 1850. So trying to prove man-made global warming by comparing the well-known fact that today's temperatures are warmer than during the Little Ice Age is akin to comparing summer to winter to show a catastrophic temperature trend.

Something that the media almost never addresses are the holes in the theory that C02 has been the driving force in global warming. Alarmists fail to adequately explain why temperatures began warming at the end of the Little Ice Age in about 1850, long before man-made CO2 emissions could have impacted the climate. Then about 1940, just as man-made CO2 emissions rose sharply, the temperatures began a decline that lasted until the 1970's, prompting the media and many scientists to fear a coming ice age.

A letter sent to the Canadian Prime Minister on April 6, 2006 by 60 prominent scientists who question the basis for climate alarmism, clearly explains the current state of scientific knowledge on global warming. The 60 scientists wrote: "If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary." The letter also noted: "‘Climate change is real' is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes occur all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural ‘noise."

In 2006, the director of the International Arctic Research Center in Fairbanks Alaska, testified to Congress that highly publicized climate models showing a disappearing Arctic were nothing more than "science fiction."

"Geologists Think the World May be Frozen Up Again." That sentence appeared over 100 years ago in the February 24, 1895 edition of the New York Times.

A front page article in the October 7, 1912 New York Times, just a few months after the Titanic struck an iceberg and sank, declared that a prominent professor "Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age." The very same day in 1912, the Los Angeles Times ran an article warning that the "Human race will have to fight for its existence against cold." An August 10, 1923 Washington Post article declared: "Ice Age Coming Here."

By the 1930's, the media took a break from reporting on the coming ice age and instead switched gears to promoting global warming: "America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-year Rise" stated an article in the New York Times on March 27, 1933.

The media of yesteryear was also not above injecting large amounts of fear and alarmism into their climate articles. An August 9, 1923 front page article in the Chicago Tribune declared: "Scientist Says Arctic Ice Will Wipe Out Canada." The article quoted a Yale University professor who predicted that large parts of Europe and Asia would be "wiped out" and Switzerland would be "entirely obliterated."

A December 29, 1974 New York Times article on global cooling reported that climatologists believed "the facts of the present climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failure in a decade." The article also warned that unless government officials reacted to the coming catastrophe, "mass deaths by starvation and probably in anarchy and violence" would result. In 1975, the New York Times reported that "A major cooling [was] widely considered to be inevitable."

On February 19, 2006, CBS News's "60 Minutes" produced a segment on the North Pole. The segment was a completely one-sided report, alleging rapid and unprecedented melting at the polar cap. It even featured correspondent Scott Pelley claiming that the ice in Greenland was melting so fast, that he barely got off an ice-berg before it collapsed into the water. "60 Minutes" failed to inform its viewers that a 2005 study by a scientist named Ola Johannessen and his colleagues showing that the interior of Greenland is gaining ice and mass and that according to scientists, the Arctic was warmer in the 1930's than today.

According to data released on July 14, 2006 from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the January through June Alaska statewide average temperature was "0.55F (0.30C) cooler than the 1971-2000 average."

In August 2006, Khabibullo Abdusamatov, a scientist who heads the space research sector for the Russian Academy of Sciences, predicted long-term global cooling may be on the horizon due to a projected decrease in the sun's output.

Answer 9

yes it is all humans becouse what we r all making these days from all the smoke and everything else we r going to make an soon we r not going to be living here no more we r going to be living in outer space

Answer 10

It hasn't been proven! Not even close! Don't you realize that Global Warming is a myth. The Earth warms and cools - it's just a fact. Do your research and stop listening to these left-wing power hungry crooks.
www.globalwarminglies.com
www.friendsofscience.org