|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 07/11/2007 : 09:13:05
|
Solar activity 'not the cause of global warming':Mike Lockwood, of the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in Chilton, Oxfordshire, said: "In 1985, the Sun did a U-turn in every respect. It no longer went in the right direction to contribute to global warming. We think it's almost completely conclusive proof that the Sun does not account for the recent increases in global warming." I don't expect this will stop the denials, though.
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2007 : 18:58:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Solar activity 'not the cause of global warming':Mike Lockwood, of the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in Chilton, Oxfordshire, said: "In 1985, the Sun did a U-turn in every respect. It no longer went in the right direction to contribute to global warming. We think it's almost completely conclusive proof that the Sun does not account for the recent increases in global warming." I don't expect this will stop the denials, though.
|
How does this explain the other planets in the solar system heating up?
edit:spelling
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
| Edited by - JEROME DA GNOME on 07/11/2007 18:59:05 |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2007 : 19:10:03 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
How does this explain the other planets in the solar system heating up? |
Are they? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2007 : 19:42:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
How does this explain the other planets in the solar system heating up? |
Are they?
|
Yep.
| Global warming on Neptune's moon Triton as well as Jupiter and Pluto, and now Mars has some [scientists] scratching their heads over what could possibly be in common with the warming of all these planets ... Could there be something in common with all the planets in our solar system that might cause them all to warm at the same time? |
http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.html
 |
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2007 : 19:49:51 [Permalink]
|
| Okay, why should the finding that the Sun's activity is going the wrong way to warm the Earth explain warming on other planets? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2007 : 19:57:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Okay, why should the finding that the Sun's activity is going the wrong way to warm the Earth explain warming on other planets?
|
It is not.
Edit:formating
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
| Edited by - JEROME DA GNOME on 07/11/2007 19:59:24 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2007 : 20:46:59 [Permalink]
|
| That doesn't answer my question. If you want to argue with the article I posted, fine. But you wanted to argue something else, and so I asked you a question about your logic. Sure, you can choose not to answer it, but at least acknowledge that it was asked. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2007 : 20:50:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
That doesn't answer my question. If you want to argue with the article I posted, fine. But you wanted to argue something else, and so I asked you a question about your logic. Sure, you can choose not to answer it, but at least acknowledge that it was asked.
|
I did answer it. The person in the article is wrong. I presented data that contradicts what he is saying.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2007 : 21:59:08 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
You can see trends in that graph between 1985 and today?
|
Of course he can. Jerome can see canals on Mars, forgodssake, so seeing this should present no insurmountable problem.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 07/11/2007 21:59:24 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
 Posted - 07/11/2007 : 22:51:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by Dave W.
Solar activity 'not the cause of global warming':Mike Lockwood, of the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in Chilton, Oxfordshire, said: "In 1985, the Sun did a U-turn in every respect. It no longer went in the right direction to contribute to global warming. We think it's almost completely conclusive proof that the Sun does not account for the recent increases in global warming." I don't expect this will stop the denials, though.
|
How does this explain the other planets in the solar system heating up?
edit:spelling
|
For this hypothesis to be true, all of the planets and moons would have to be heating up. Only a very few are. So there has to be other reasons for the heating that is being observed. And the heating could be for a different reason in each case.
Also, we have already been though this. It's nonsense…
Edited to add:
Is global warming solar induced?
Phil Plait from his blog:
First off, I want to make a very big point here: the changes in the Earth due to global warming, while real, are somewhat subtle. Yet the Earth gets most of its heat from the Sun, so if the Sun were the cause, we'd expect the effects of warming to be much stronger on Earth than any outer planets. So any really strong signal of global warming on outer planets like Jupiter or especially Pluto, if real, are very unlikely to be due to the Sun.
Second, what I am seeing in these arguments is a very dangerous practice called "cherry picking"; selectively picking out data that support your argument and ignoring contrary evidence. It certainly looks interesting that Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Triton, and Pluto are warming, and if that's all you heard then it seems logical to think maybe the Sun is the cause. But they aren't the only objects in the solar system. What about Mercury, Venus, Saturn, Uranus… and if you include Triton to support your case, you'd better also take a good look at the nearly 100 other sizable moons in the solar system. Are they warming too?
I have heard nothing about them in these arguments, and I suspect it's because there's not much to say. If they are not warming, then deniers won't mention them, and scientists won't report it because there is nothing to report ("News flash: Phobos still the same temperature!" is unlikely to get into Planetary Science journals). However, I can't say that with conviction, because the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Any planetary scientists reading this blog entry, please contact me. I'm interested in hearing more.
Third, if you actually read the articles about the specific cases of planetary warming to which I linked above, you see that they all have separate explanations: |
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/13/2007 : 22:07:56 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Phil Plait from his blog:
First off, I want to make a very big point here: the changes in the Earth due to global warming, while real, are somewhat subtle. Yet the Earth gets most of its heat from the Sun,1. so if the Sun were the cause, we'd expect the effects of warming to be much stronger on Earth than any outer planets. So any really strong signal of global warming on outer planets like Jupiter or especially Pluto, if real, are very unlikely to be due to the Sun.
Second, what I am seeing in these arguments is a very dangerous practice called "cherry picking"; selectively picking out data that support your argument and ignoring contrary evidence. It certainly looks interesting that Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Triton, and Pluto are warming, and if that's all you heard then it seems logical to think maybe the Sun is the cause. But they aren't the only objects in the solar system.2. What about Mercury, Venus, Saturn, Uranus… and if you include Triton to support your case, you'd better also take a good look at the nearly 100 other sizable moons in the solar system. Are they warming too?
I have heard nothing about them in these arguments, and I suspect it's because there's not much to say. If they are not warming, then deniers won't mention them, and scientists won't report it because there is nothing to report ("News flash: Phobos still the same temperature!" is unlikely to get into Planetary Science journals). However, I can't say that with conviction, because the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Any planetary scientists reading this blog entry, please contact me. I'm interested in hearing more.
Third, if you actually read the articles about the specific cases of planetary warming to which I linked above,3. you see that they all have separate explanations: |
|
1. Yes; if all other factors are equal, which they are not , as such this argument is disseminated for the non thinking believers.
2. Yes; what about them. I can not seem to find current information about their temperature and none was provided in this attempt to obscure the information that is available.
3. They have separate hypothesis, not explanations.
This guy is short on fact and long on faith.
 |
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/13/2007 : 22:31:48 [Permalink]
|
And still, Jerome, you refuse to explain how you get data from 1985 to the present from the graph you presented, in order to show that the Sun is acting in a way which would cause warming here on Earth.
After all, your last link, above, says[Dr. Solanki] says that the increased solar brightness over the past 20 years has not been enough to cause the observed climate changes... At best, the article suggests that more research into the Sun's participation in warming is warranted. It certainly doesn't say that the Sun is to blame - a headline created by an editor, not a scientist or even a science journalist.
And the link before that is to an article ten years old.
But still, you presented that one graph as your evidence that the Sun has been behaving in the correct way for it to have contributed to global warming over the past 22 years. It's probably important that you explain how you arrived at such a conclusion by looking at that one graph. After all, you left that one graph as your best evidence for two days before finding a list of links...
...A list of links which doesn't even support your sarcasm about man's pollution affecting the entire solar system. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
 Posted - 07/13/2007 : 23:12:21 [Permalink]
|
Dave, your link presented no data.
Sunspot Activity at 8,000-Year High
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sunspot_record_041027.html
| Solanki's team calculates that, based on history, the chances of sunspot activity remaining at the currently high levels for another 50 years is 8 percent. Odds are just 1 percent the solar exuberance will last through the end of this century. |
| Previous studies have suggested cooler periods on Earth were related to long stretches with low sunspot counts. From the 1400s to the 1700s, for example, Europe and North America experienced a "Little Ice Age." For a period of about 50 years during that time, there were almost no sunspots. |
We have evidence that lack of sunspots corresponds with cooling.
We have evidence that currently the suns activity is high.
We know its warmer.
Based on these facts one can not claim a certainly that man is the cause of warming.
 |
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 07/13/2007 : 23:52:32 [Permalink]
|
Jerome:
This guy is short on fact and long on faith. |
Whatever Jerome. What can you learn from an actual astronomer?
Apparently nothing at all.
I won't debate you on this because it's just a stupid waste of my time.
Think what you like. It's no sweat of my ass…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Global warming news
