Thread: The Sun Has Lost Its Spots

I don't know why, but that title really scared me for a second (before I entered the thread.) To much Knowing, probably. "Aaaah! The Sun will kill our puppies!!!" Lol.

Originally Posted by Ryuinfinity

I don't know why, but that title really scared me for a second (before I entered the thread.) To much Knowing, probably. "Aaaah! The Sun will kill our puppies!!!" Lol.

ROFL.

Not to turn the thread the wrong way, but I've heard that the Sun is in part, if not completely responsible for what we call Global Warming. (no pun intended)

Originally Posted by The Invisible Man

Not to turn the thread the wrong way, but I've heard that the Sun is in part, if not completely responsible for what we call Global Warming. (no pun intended)

Humans are responsible for global warming on the sun. Mainly, Bush did it.

I love the Sun ;-;
Damn you, Bush, damn you to eternal damnation. Framing the Sun like that....

Originally Posted by The Invisible Man

Not to turn the thread the wrong way, but I've heard that the Sun is in part, if not completely responsible for what we call Global Warming. (no pun intended)

I'll grant 'in part', but to say it's completely responsible is naive given the amount of climate research done in just the last 20 years alone, not to mention work done all the way back to the 1960's.

They were predicting an ice age in the 60s. :l

Climate research is extremely politicised nowadays, you just have to do the research yourself. It's annoyingly hard to find much raw data on the web though, even for the most basic things.

We aren't the cause of global warming.
The earth is still heating back up from the last temperature drop, it's happening naturally.

Originally Posted by Xei

They were predicting an ice age in the 60s. :l

Climate research is extremely politicised nowadays, you just have to do the research yourself. It's annoyingly hard to find much raw data on the web though, even for the most basic things.

See now this is a prime example of mis-information, and belongs in the list of top ten biggest myths about science. Predictions of an imminent ice age (in less than a century) in the 70s were taken about as seriously back then as the Flat Earth society is taken today.

I can't find my original source material (it was a documentary I downloaded last year, the name escapes me), so the opening lines of the wiki entry will have to suffice for now:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia on Global Cooling

Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere along with a posited commencement of glaciation. This hypothesis never had significant scientific support, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of press reports that did not accurately reflect the scientific understanding of ice age cycles, and a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s. Today, General scientific opinion is that the Earth has not durably cooled, but undergone global warming throughout the 20th century.

There were several papers by climate scientists which hypothesised global cooling. That's hardly on a par with the flat Earth myth, is it now?

Don't try and counter mis-information with mis-information please. There were also papers predicting warming but to say that predictions of cooling were ridiculed is total bunk. And it's not wrong either, it may be a layman's view of things but we are 'due' for an ice age now.

One article in Newsweek is not equal to a global scientific consensus. A sensationalised reporting by the media is not on par with a 90%+ majority consensus of peer reviewed research. 7 papers out of 73 (in one year) is not consensus. It only gained any attention at all because rising aerosol concentrations in the atmosphere registered a slight fall in global temperatures at the time.

I'm not saying that articles on global cooling weren't taken seriously. Clearly they were or they wouldn't have been peer reviewed at all. But to say there was any significant support behind the theory IS total bunk. Climatology wasn't sufficiently advanced enough at the time to predict whether carbon dioxide was more potent at warming the Earth than aerosols were at cooling it, but even then the majority of the articles (90% or higher) were in the flavour of global warming or of the stance that the technology wasn't available to make an accurate prediction yet.

A few articles on the subject:
- Collection of all articles pertaining to 1970's cooling, by William Connelly
- Media Matters: NY Times mag profile of global warming skeptic uncritically repeats false comparison with '70s global cooling theory'
- RealClimate.org: The Global Cooling Myth
- American Meteorological Society: Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling consensus
- Skepticism Examiner.com
- USA Today: 'Study debunks 'global cooling' concern of '70s'
- Archived report prepared for the National Science Board in 1972 (yes, I did read it)
- Grist.org article in their 'How to talk to a Global Warming Skeptic' guide

Originally Posted by Xei

you just have to do the research yourself. It's annoyingly hard to find much raw data on the web though, even for the most basic things.

Did you even google it? I've got graphs coming out of my ears that stretch from 1890 (when recording began) to 2008.

Yes but that isn't raw data, is it..?

If you have raw data for the temperatures for the last 200 years sorted by location (I want to filter out all urban areas), and also some data for the greenhouse potency of common gases alongside their recorded atmospheric concentrations, I'd be very grateful.

And please stop using the word 'consensus'. The whole concept of consensus is anti-science.

I just finished a course on global climate change where we read a number of articles on the topic that provided evidence strongly suggesting that climate change is occurring. They are primary research papers discussing things like range shifting, population declines versus temperature changes (on local scales), etc. Let me know if you want them.

One thing to keep in mind is that sufficient global warming at the poles, warming and melting the icecap/glaciers in drastic enough amounts to change the global loop current, WOULD likely result in a mini ice-age... which could result in refreezing, which could result in wobbling ying yang effects that, over time, balance it all out again. Global warming is really an inaccurate term to use, 'climate change' is a bit more correct because it's not necessarily all going to warm up, and the hotter it DOES get in the poles, if it shuts down the currents, the colder it could get overall. I dunno just throwing that out there for another possible explanation for what you guys mentioned about scientists saying it would get colder.

It is hard to find actual data but there are a number of meteorological stations around the world that have been keeping track locally for over five decades now.

Has anyone watched the Great Global Warming Swindle? It has to do with this subject. It's a very controversial documentary, but it has some great arguments and other stuff I can't remember. Look it up

Originally Posted by Xei

Yes but that isn't raw data, is it..?

If you have raw data for the temperatures for the last 200 years sorted by location (I want to filter out all urban areas), and also some data for the greenhouse potency of common gases alongside their recorded atmospheric concentrations, I'd be very grateful.

Hi Xei,

I found this. I didn't investigate the specifics of the data, such as exactly how far it goes back, etc. Anyway, enjoy

Brilliant, thank you.

Wow, I just graphed the first set of data I chose to look at (Oxford UK Jan) and added a linear trend line... it literally rose by less than 0.05 degrees in the last 200 years, it's so small I can't even see the bloody thing.

teh apockerlips r heer!!!!!!!1

Originally Posted by ThreeLetterSyndrom

Has anyone watched the Great Global Warming Swindle? It has to do with this subject. It's a very controversial documentary, but it has some great arguments and other stuff I can't remember. Look it up

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_G...arming_Swindle

A great deal of intellectual dishonesty went into the production of this film.

Well this is exactly what I mean. There are people on both sides with this thing with strong agendas (the IPCC beauracracy / the oil companies) that you can't really listen to what either side says.

omg theres number 23 again... we should be very concerned...
DOOMSDAY!!!

Originally Posted by The Invisible Man

Not to turn the thread the wrong way, but I've heard that the Sun is in part, if not completely responsible for what we call Global Warming. (no pun intended)

If sun spots disappear the earth should get colder Sunspots show up when the sun is hotter, the added heat from the sun creates huge magnetic loops, the entry points are sun spots. More sunspots = more heat, less sun spots = less heat.

I know who's causing sun spots!



Bush bashing is fuuuuuuuunnnnnn!!!!

Bush thinks Sun spots are those things that show up in your eyes when you look into the sun too long.

Originally Posted by Desert Claw

omg theres number 23 again... we should be very concerned...
DOOMSDAY!!!

Indeed.