Science: Not much warming under the sun

[pthebutcher]

ScienceNOW -- Sign In

Very interesting article about a paper published in The Proceedings of the Royal Society A. Essentially debunks the argument that the recent warming trend is influenced by changes in solar output. It also points out that the sun had a greater influence during Pre-Industrial times (a time when we emitted much fewer greenhouse gases) which is no longer the case (now that we are emitting many greenhouse gases).

This finding is significant one two levels. One, real observed data was used compared to previous studies which used climate models. Two, the observed results backup what was already theorized by the models.

[SpokaneCY]

ScienceNOW -- Sign In

Very interesting article about a paper published in The Proceedings of the Royal Society A. Essentially debunks the argument that the recent warming trend is influenced by changes in solar output. It also points out that the sun had a greater influence during Pre-Industrial times (a time when we emitted much fewer greenhouse gases) which is no longer the case (now that we are emitting many greenhouse gases).

This finding is significant one two levels. One, real observed data was used compared to previous studies which used climate models. Two, the observed results backup what was already theorized by the models.

Whats troubling is none of the current models have predicted the LACK of warming - in fact COOLING - that has taken place for roughly the last decade. I trust science and physics for things like airplane lift and bullet velocity, but I'm not there yet with climate predictions.

[jdoggivjc]

ScienceNOW -- Sign In

Very interesting article about a paper published in The Proceedings of the Royal Society A. Essentially debunks the argument that the recent warming trend is influenced by changes in solar output. It also points out that the sun had a greater influence during Pre-Industrial times (a time when we emitted much fewer greenhouse gases) which is no longer the case (now that we are emitting many greenhouse gases).

This finding is significant one two levels. One, real observed data was used compared to previous studies which used climate models. Two, the observed results backup what was already theorized by the models.

And they were able to predict solar influence in pre-industrial times without the use of models HOW?

[Angie]

Let's see if we can keep this global warming thread from having to be moved to the Cave...

[pthebutcher]

And they were able to predict solar influence in pre-industrial times without the use of models HOW?

I should have clarified. The solar influence in pre-industrial times has been well documented in previous studies which relied on non-direct observations of solar influence.


I was referring to the current observation that changes in the suns output have no influence on the current warming trend. Normally this has been seen only in modelling studies, but this paper was the first to verify it with observations.

[everyyard]

Whats troubling is none of the current models have predicted the LACK of warming - in fact COOLING - that has taken place for roughly the last decade. I trust science and physics for things like airplane lift and bullet velocity, but I'm not there yet with climate predictions.

Who are you trusting for this? Politicians? Gut feelings? the Bible?

[ajk4st8]

Whats troubling is none of the current models have predicted the LACK of warming - in fact COOLING - that has taken place for roughly the last decade. I trust science and physics for things like airplane lift and bullet velocity, but I'm not there yet with climate predictions.

But what if that airplane was on a treadmill

[cmoneyr]

But what if that airplane was on a treadmill

I'm pretty sure it'd take off sideways and then go back in time.

[pthebutcher]

Whats troubling is none of the current models have predicted the LACK of warming - in fact COOLING - that has taken place for roughly the last decade. I trust science and physics for things like airplane lift and bullet velocity, but I'm not there yet with climate predictions.

This is inaccurate. The warming trend is still very much there. The reason many say this is because they decide to use 1998 as their starting pointing. However, 1998 was the warmest year on record! So of course points afterwards are cooler compared to it. If you arbitrarily choose your starting point you can make whatever trend you want. See the link to see the warming trend still exists.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...e1900-2004.jpg

[Cyclonepride]

If you arbitrarily choose your starting point you can make whatever trend you want.

Exactly......

[jdoggivjc]

This is inaccurate. The warming trend is still very much there. The reason many say this is because they decide to use 1998 as their starting pointing. However, 1998 was the warmest year on record! So of course points afterwards are cooler compared to it. If you arbitrarily choose your starting point you can make whatever trend you want. See the link to see the warming trend still exists.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...e1900-2004.jpg

Then why doesn't this very same argument hold for those advocates for global warming? After all, 10,000 years ago (or whenever the last ice age was) was considered some of the coldest years in this planet's history. Since we have no real data going back that far (as we have no real data going back to the beginning of the industrial age), isn't it safe to say that the Earth has been in a constant warming state?

[Cyclonepride]

Just in case we need more charts

[jdoggivjc]

Yep, Cyclonepride - just confuse the argument with facts again - shame on you...

[Knownothing]

Are you guys trying to debunk the great Al Gore and his stats. Even though he uses more energy at his house than a combined 15 other families?

Your all going to Hell. It should be colder than earth at that point.

[HILLCYD]

Can we just have a Global Warming forum that is buried forever and I don't have to see?