Study clears sun of global warming.

[Rogers]

Oh oh, climate skeptics take another kicking!

The sun's changing energy levels are not to blame for recent global warming and, if anything, solar variations over the past 20 years should have had a cooling effect, scientists say.

"Over the past 20 years, all the trends in the sun that could have had an influence on Earth's climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures," they write today in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society A.

"At present there is a small minority which is seeking to deliberately confuse the public on the causes of climate change. They are often misrepresenting the science, when the reality is that the evidence is getting stronger every day," it says.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/s...07/1975695.htm

[White_Male_Canada]

Yeah, the Sun plays no part in keeping us warm

Biggest load of bullshit science since the IPCC

Sunspot numbers and cosmic ray fluxes reconstructedfrom records of the cosmogenic isotopes 10Beand 14C, respectively, show correlations and anticorrelationswith a number of reconstructions of the terrestrial Northern
Hemisphere temperature, which cover a time span of up to1800 years. This indicates that periods of higher solaractivity and lower cosmic ray flux tend to be associatedwith warmer climate, and vice versa.
http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/2004ja010964.pdf

There appears to be a solar "fingerprint" that can be detected in climatic time series in other regions of the world, with each series having a unique lag time between the solar signal and the hydroclimatic response.
A progression of increasing lag times can be spatially linked to the ocean
conveyor belt, which may transport the solar signal over a time span of
several decades. The lag times for any one region vary slightly and may be linked to the fluctuations in the velocity of the ocean conveyor belt.

http://www.umweltluege.de/pdf/Gamma_...nd_Climate.pdf

This confirms observations and reports by others in many countries during the past 150 years.
It is also shown with a high degree of assurance that there is a synchronous linkage between the statistically significant, 21-year periodicity in these processes and the acceleration and deceleration of the sun as it moves through galactic space.
Despite a diligent search, no evidence could be found of trends in the data that could be attributed to human activities.

nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/alexander2707.pdf

The reconstructed Arctic SAT time series based on the inverse wavelet transform, which includes decadal (5-15 years) and multidecadal (40-80 years) variations and a longer-term trend, contains nonstationary but persistent features that are highly correlated with the Sun's intrinsic magnetic variability especially on multidecadal time scales.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/200...GL023429.shtml

Get back to us when you can discredit the Sun from warming the Earth

[Rogers]

*YAWN*

A poor attempt at oversimplifying things again, _Candy. Of course the Sun warms the Earth, you silly sissy.

"Over the past 20 years, all the trends in the sun that could have had an influence on Earth's climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures," they write today in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society A.

Most scientists say emissions of greenhouse gases, mainly from burning fossil fuels in power plants, factories and cars, are the prime cause of the current warming trend.

A small group pins the blame on natural variations in the climate system, or a gradual rise in the sun's energy output.

To unpick that possible link, Professor Mike Lockwood of the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory and Dr Claus Fröhlich of the World Radiation Centre in Switzerland, studied factors that could have forced climate change in recent decades, including variations in total solar irradiance and cosmic rays.

The data was smoothed to take account of the 11-year sunspot cycle, which affects the amount of heat the sun emits but does not affect the Earth's surface air temperature, due to the way the oceans absorb and retain heat.

They conclude that the rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen since the late 1980s could not be ascribed to solar variability, whatever mechanism is invoked.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/s...07/1975695.htm

[White_Male_Canada]

*YAWN*

A poor attempt at oversimplifying things again, . Of course the Sun warms the Earth

Naturally, when walking into a bowling alley one keeps it simple to reflect the level of intellect. So I`m using the K.I.S.S. principle for you lugheads.

Mike Lockwood - PhD Thesis and Saas Fee Book PhD Thesis: M. Lockwood The study of HF radio waves propagated over a long, sub-auroral path Exeter University, UK 1978

A dunce with a degree in radio waves is telling us the Sun isn`t doing anything!? ' Dr Lockwood initiated the study partially in response to the TV documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle' so we know there is no bias in intent there.

Is is a logical fallacy to rule out the Sun as a warming agent and then come to the conclusion it must be man-made CO2.

The facts are the solar max was reached in the year 2000 with a second peak in 2002. Any wonder temps have fallen, as I have stated over and over.

"Solar activity has apparently been going upward for a century or more...it would have provided a significant component of the global warming the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports to have occurred over the past 100 years...This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change."

Richard Willson, Columbia University/ NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

Shaviv identified six periods of earth's history (the entire Phanerozoic, the Cretaceous, the Eocene, the Last Glacial Maximum, the 20th century, and the eleven-year solar cycle as manifest over the last three centuries) for which he was able to derive reasonably sound estimates of different time-scale changes in radiative forcing, temperature and cosmic ray flux.

Shaviv's and Idso's analyses, which mesh well with real-world data of both the recent and distant past, suggest that only 15-20% (0.10°C/0.57°C) of the observed warming of the 20th-century can be attributed to the concomitant rise in the air's CO2 content.

Hoyt, D.V. and Schatten, K.H. 1993. A discussion of plausible solar irradiance variations, 1700-1992. Journal of Geophysical Research
Lean, J., Beer, J. and Bradley, R. 1995. Reconstruction of solar irradiance since 1610 - Implications for climate change. Geophysical Research Letters
Shaviv, N.J. 2005. On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget. Journal of Geophysical Research
Solanki, S.K. and Fligge, M. 1998. Solar irradiance since 1874 revisited. Geophysical Research Letters


Let me simplify it for you sport:

http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml

http://www.dxlc.com/solar/cyclcomp.html

http://www.physorg.com/news86010302.html

http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/sunspot.shtml

http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~soper/Sun/cycle.html

[trish]

WMC, your theory predicts that should we place a satellite at the Lagrange point between the Earth and the Sun and monitor the solar matter and energy flux, say for a period of over ten years, we should detect an increase of influx that would account for the terrestrial atmospheric and surface temperature increases. Actually there is a satellite there doing just that. It’s been there for more than ten years. It’s call the Solar Heliospheric Observatory. It reports a negative on your predicted energy swell. Bye-bye theory. Next time try another theory because we’ve debunked this one fifteen times over in sixty different ways. Except in your head, it’s DEAD.

[White_Male_Canada]

WMC, your theory predicts that should we place a satellite at the Lagrange point between the Earth and the Sun and monitor the solar matter and energy flux, say for a period of over ten years, we should detect an increase of influx that would account for the terrestrial atmospheric and surface temperature increases. Actually there is a satellite there doing just that. It’s been there for more than ten years. It’s call the Solar Heliospheric Observatory. It reports a negative on your predicted energy swell. Bye-bye theory. Next time try another theory because we’ve debunked this one fifteen times over in sixty different ways. Except in your head, it’s DEAD.

Gee thanks Trisha, I`ll visit the site. Whoops, never mind. Been there done that.Sucks when it`s not a theory but fact doesn`t it. But then holding the shitty end of the stick must really suck. You`re agw falls flat on it`s face, the runaway + feedback loop fails to materialize, CO2 never having driven temperature changes, flawed CGMs, flawed ice core proxy data.
But gotta hand it to all you agw religionists, you stick to your faith no matter what. But that`s what makes us laugh so hard and amuses us to no end.

[trish]

Sucks when it`s not a theory but fact doesn`t it.

That’s a remark quite revealing of your mindset WMC. I don’t give a fuck whether I’m proven wrong or not. I’d rather know the truth. But you’re different, you actually hate being corrected, even when you’re wrong. That makes you pretty pathetic. It’s in large part why you’re wrong most of the time.

[Rogers]

A dunce with a degree in radio waves is telling us the Sun isn`t doing anything!? ' Dr Lockwood initiated the study partially in response to the TV documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle' so we know there is no bias in intent there.

As usual, _Candy, gets her facts wrong:
Professor Mike Lockwood:
http://www.scitech.ac.uk/PMC/PRel/Ar.../20060519.aspx
http://www.scitech.ac.uk/PMC/PRel/Ar.../19990526.aspx

A real dunce, eh _Candy? And you're qualifications are what, precisely? Diplomas in being a redneck, an internet crank, and the World's biggest asshole only, no doubt.

Lockwood initiated the study partially in response to the TV documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, broadcast on Britain's Channel Four earlier this year, which featured the cosmic ray hypothesis.
"All the graphs they showed stopped in about 1980, and I knew why, because things diverged after that," he told the BBC News website.
"You can't just ignore bits of data that you don't like," he said.
Mike Lockwood's analysis appears to have put a large, probably fatal nail in this intriguing and elegant hypothesis.
Drs Svensmark and Friis-Christensen could not be reached for comment.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6290228.stm

You left out the bits in bold from your post, didn't you, _Candy. CHEAT!!! AGAIN!!!

I'm glad to see some scientists are countering that biased piece of crap documentary, done by a well known hack:
http://www.chase-it.com/climate/The_...A_Rebuttal.pdf
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...state&hl=en-CA

If Quinn is right, and I hope he is, you'll have more time for your boyfriends won't ya, _Candy? Kissy kissy, dollface. Quoting NYCe maybe wasn't such a smart move, eh numbnuts? And the left-wing kooks are in charge of the asylum now, eh? You see, _Candy, most of us here don't really care where you're at politically, only how you treat others.

http://www.hungangels.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=22692
http://www.hungangels.com/board/view...22619&start=20
http://www.hungangels.com/board/view...21782&start=90
http://www.hungangels.com/board/view...r=asc&start=90
http://www.hungangels.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=22650
http://www.hungangels.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=21959
http://www.hungangels.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=22529

Rogers = 7

_Candy = 0

Hey, guyone, come out to play-ee-ay!

[Rogers]

But that`s what makes us laugh so hard and amuses us to no end.