Sunspot Numbers - Solar Max - Solar Min

It is there Google can be a persons friend.

From your post:

Sounds like you wanted to make a connection about the article in your magazine and climate change.

One the authors don't focus on.

And one you can only make by ignoring the 100+ years of research that 98% of the scientists in the field agree on.

Trends in Carbon Dioxide


Where did your 'information' come from?

A person can put up all the graphs and computer generated so called facts ya want. BUT:

Aug. 16, 2012 7:02 PM ET

PITTSBURGH (AP) — In a surprising turnaround, the amount of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere in the U.S. has fallen dramatically to its lowest level in 20 years, and government officials say the biggest reason is that cheap and plentiful natural gas has led many power plant operators to switch from dirtier-burning coal.
Many of the world's leading climate scientists didn't see the drop coming,

http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/3d28...f7fa1942d69e8d

Your claim was levels

Your cite is for emissions, as in the title "CO2 emissions"

You should get some kudos for actually attempting to support your claims, though. Thanks for that effort.

Wouldn't it be quite easy to copy paste those sources here, then?





So, so far all we have is a bunch of claims, some innuendo, nothing supported by any science.

Good to know.

Ummmm....guys? Generally speaking, there's no debate about whether the earth is warming. That part really isn't in the contention.


The argument is whether it's man-made or not.
But there's no question that it is indeed warming...

__________________
~*~Erin~*~
SAHM, ranch wife, sub and quilt shop proprietress
the Back Gate Country Quilt Shop

Interesting thing to say in a thread you are trying to derail with a completely different topic. Youve brought no evidence to suggest the study in the OP and many like it are in accurate. The sun is indeed doing things that our records indicate are directly tied to cold periods. If it keeps up, all indications are it will get cooler rather abruptly.

So where is your science suggesting this isnt true, and something to consider? So far all youve given us is innuendo and talk of entirely different topics.

__________________
I have a high desert arid mountainous climate. Working towards self sufficiency. The potentials of plant breeding and building micro climates amaze me. We must learn to ride the wave.

The earth has been much hotter, and colder. Percentages of all gases in the atmosphere have changed dramatically. Some changes have been precipitated by the sun, others by volcanic activity. The arrogance of the AGW people is astounding, given nature's ability to exterminate us at any time. To think mankind has it within it's power to overcome nature is giving ourselves way too much credit.

By the way roberte, what is the absolute best temperature? Surely your experts have declared it.

I apologize to all homesteadingtoday'ers for giving this drivel another forum for posting. Mods - please close this thread. it's getting frustrating that every post about the sun, the earth or in any way mentions warming or cooling gets highjacked by the Global Warming crowd as if telling us the same carp over and over again is going to make us believe them and make it true. I am soooo tired. Good Night..

Mods please close this thread and I promise not to post a post like this one again.

And ignore 100's of thousands of years of evidence that showed extreme climate shifts even BEFORE humans exisited?

LOL

__________________
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

We've been talking about triggers for prepping in another post. You did everyone a huge favor by posting the info from Monitoring Times.

Actually, if you go back in the thread a bit, you would notice that I linked to information about how we know CO2 is the main driver.

We also know there are significant differences between what we are now doing with the increasing dumping of Anthropogenic CO2 due to the profligate burning of fossil fuels and the much slower change involved in the natural early fluctuation.

Here is that information in case you are really interested:
The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth's Climate History


Also, Skeptical Science does a good job walking through the various denier arguments; well worth reviewing.

Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics and what the science really says

CO2 emissions in the US are trending down a bit because of the switch over from coal to NG in the US. But, total CO2 in the atmosphere continues to rise (just as the graph shows) its been steadily rising since the start of the industrial revolution and is still headed up due to increased emissions around the world.

There is a good Jim Hensen TED talk in which he mentions the sun activity and warming trends: James Hansen: Why I must speak out about climate change | Video on TED.com

Gary

Even ancient cultures understood the paramount influence the Sun has on us. We don't understand the interaction of all of the mechanisms that create our climate. The fear mongering done by the AGW crowd is obviously effective especially when they managed to combine it with true environmental issues. Seems a lot of folks forgot about Chicken Little folk tale.

Picking out CO2 as the culprit for mankind's headlong drive to a self-induced demise was masterful. Ignoring the inconvenient fact that the effect of CO2 is miniscule compared to water vapor is an obvious problem. The solution, of course, is allowing the government to control more aspects of our lives.

Why am I not surprised China and India aren't having any part of the scam? Why am I not surprised that some of the EPA's edicts have actually resulted in more pollution in this country, especially mercury in the Northwest, that's resulted from the lack of controls on industry we've exported to China?

Be careful what you wish for. The Law of Unintended Consequences will bite you in the butt every time.

As far as Hansen, samo, samo, still peddling his BS.

Actually, 'had' would be more accurate. The numbers basically point out that the amount of CO2 we have been dumping into our atmosphere through the profligate burning of CO2 has overpowered the forcing from solar influence.

Take a look at Fig. SMP 2 at Human and Natural Drivers of Climate Change - AR4 WGI Summary for Policymakers

Solar forcing is .12 CO2 is 1.66 Total net human influence is 1.6


"The values reflect the total forcing relative to the start of the industrial era (about 1750). The forcings for all greenhouse gas increases, which are the best understood of those due to human activities, are positive because each gas absorbs outgoing infrared radiation in the atmosphere. Among the greenhouse gases, CO2 increases have caused the largest forcing over this period."
FAQ 2.1 - AR4 WGI Chapter 2: Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing


Actually, 'don't know everything' is far more accurate than 'don't understand'. We have a hundred plus years of scientific research and in that time there has been no substantive data that points to anything other than Anthropogenic CO2 as the root cause of the changes we are observing in our climate.




Maybe you can cite some examples of "fear mongering" in the science.



In case you aren't aware - and the fact that you are attempting to equate forcing and feedback does imply a certain level of basic misunderstanding - the the water vapor feedback loop can take a one degree rise from CO2 forcings to a two to three degree rise.




IF you can explain why scientists from virtually every country in the world have the same political agenda, then you would go a long way toward actually making a point.

Well, as I discussed in a posting in a different, similar, thread, I saw "greenhouse effect" theories presented while in college in the 60's. Now over 40 years later, it's clear to me the intervening data... that global CO2 levels rising are are correlated with global temperature rise... have held up. Sure, people like the Koch brothers with their tens of millions pin money can publicize variant opinions and discussions, but ignore "their own" funded researcher who just did an about-face on the issue when it turned out he has real intellectual integrity in contrast to many of the others sucking up their publicity money. The Kochs aren't stupid fellows as far as I can tell, so perhaps they can still decide to re-invest oil funds into other technologies and stick their super-pac cattle prods into public opinion from at least somewhat different angles.

But, OK, here's a serious question. If you're arguing *science* you should be able to lay out results, information, data, that will, should they be observed within a reasonable time frame, *contradict* your claims and theories. So, WHAT would *human-caused-climate-change deniers* accept as clear indication that they are wrong-headed? Ten years of very low sunspots with NOAA, etc, measured global temperatures continuing to rise? What would it take to *prove* your claims? (You sure haven't come close so far.)

Frankly, I think it's simply that fossil fuel usage is so ingrained, that we're so addicted to it (liquid petroleum as vehicle fuel, especially), that there's really nothing at all that will shift opinions (held in place by true cognitive dissonance) fast enough to result in a *planned* change in humanity's headlong rush into much deeper agony, if not outright oblivion. There's just too much money being made by entrenched industries. Imo, we'll stutter and lurch into a collapse process, or continue the one we're already clearly embarked upon, until even internet debates like this are things of the mythical past. So it goes. So, also, pardon me if I pretty much scoff at the usefulness of any sort of "collect more data for several more decades" proposal to settle things to "deniers" satisfaction. Make it percent changes of CO2 (atmospheric, NOT US emissions... silly apples and oranges), increase or lack of methane positive feedback releases, further opening or re-closure of the NW Passage for several years, more dying or regeneration of coral reefs, stuff like that, and over the next five years, say, as data to prove things one way or the other. Not that *I* much care, the time frame will be too long to matter, and *I've* already looked at the theory over 40+ years that haven't contradicted it.

You need examples of fear mongering? How about the BS about polar bears? How about the tipping point BS? How about the people who point to ice shelf calving as a harbinger of the end of the world.

Do you honestly think ice shelves will continue to grow until they reach the equator? Simple physics explains why at a a certain point the strength of the ice is going to be exceeded by the forces acting on it. At that point a big chunk breaks off. The ice shelves are basically cantilevered beams. Add enough forces from tides and as the shelf extends farther and farther from the shore, they'll eventually break.

Then you have the inundation of islands and coast lines BS. FWIW, the seas have been rising since the end of the last ice age. Why do you think we've found prehistoric remains of human habitation under water in many areas of the world? It should be obvious that sea levels have been rising since way before the industrial age.

The media always goes for sensationalism so they print the stuff and tie it to AGW

The Sun's influence on cloud formation through particle interactions is an example of one of the factors that has implications for climate. That was shown at CERN. Don't tell me the amount of cloud cover doesn't affect climate.

Scientists are still discovering new inputs to climate or figuring out how to quantify ones that are known but the effect couldn't be calculated. We're nowhere close to having an accurate model.

As for a common factor, check the sources of the money that are funding the BS. Those that aren't already feeding at the cash trough of AGW are lined up with their application papers or should that be application studies for a pat on the head and funding.

The cash flow from cap and trade is potentially so enormous it's attracted vulture capitalists typical of those that scammed the markets with credit default swaps. In this case instead of appealing to greed they've attracted all of the misguided chicken littles and mentally challenged dogooders.

Omigod, we're all going to die! Yep! But it won't be from AGW.

Tell us .....

What kind of argument are you trying to make?

Data?




Ummmm, RATE of change.....




I won't.

But you could attempt to make a case by showing the research that show how much.

But there is probably a couple of reasons why you haven't.....

So, cite one. And show us the level of influence / forcing / feedback.



The general trend in the research is to narrow down the error bars.

There has been virtually no substantive work showing that the basic tenets of Anthropogenic Climate Change are incorrect.


It would be enlightening to see what informed your opinion on that.


Let us know when you have the data......

Doesn't the fact roberte and his cohorts have changed the panic cry from GLOBAL WARMING to CLIMATE CHANGE pretty much tell you all you really need to know?

My first post - Bull - was spot on.

I'm still waiting to see what the optimum temperature of the earth is. Come on roberte, you can come up with some scientific evidence for a number, can't you?