Thread: A question about polar ice caps

Originally Posted by arby

I was looking for some stuff about the guy who out-bet the MET office when I cam upon this.

Thank you for this post. I actually find it very interesting. I too believe the sun is part at fault, contrary to what you may have believed about me. But let's not miss some of the key points made in this article. I quote from your link:

He says that the increased solar brightness over the past 20 years has not been enough to cause the observed climate changes but believes that the impact of more intense sunshine on the ozone layer and on cloud cover could be affecting the climate more than the sunlight itself.

While the established view remains that the sun cannot be responsible for all the climate changes we have seen in the past 50 years or so, this study is certainly significant,

...the study also showed that over the past 20 years the number of sunspots had remained roughly constant, while the Earth's temperature had continued to increase.

This suggested that over the past 20 years, human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation had begun to dominate "the natural factors involved in climate change", he said.

The Sun's radiance may well have an impact on climate change but it needs to be looked at in conjunction with other factors such as greenhouse gases, sulphate aerosols and volcano activity

Originally Posted by arby

I couldn't have found anything that demonstrates my view on the whole issue and leaves me not much else to say. And thus I leave this topic (which is falling apart at the seams again) for a while.

I agree that there is a "falling apart at the seams" here, but I think that refers to your side of the argument rather than to the topic itself. I'm sorry you didn't feel up to rising to the challenge of defending Lindzen after my ExxonMobile reference. I thought you might have a little fight left in you.

So don't go. There's plenty more to discuss. I enjoy some healthy debate.

Hopefully we can all agree that an increase in CO2 will probably not cause a fall in temperature.

The issue is determining how much of an effect CO2 has, and how much of an effect natural factors have.

Critics often point out that CO2 isn't really the 'main greenhouse gas' at all, no matter how many times it's said in the media. In fact it's fairly minimal if not extremely minimal, and I think I'm right in saying that our contributions to the CO2 levels are also minimal compared to other natural causes which have been going on ever since the planet was born. I noticed how in Gore's lovely book, a very small percentage change in CO2 proportions was represented on the y axis by more than a double in height. That would be severely critisized by any statisticians who looked at it.

But that article really does highlight to me at this particular moment, more than anything else, how overwhelmingly stupid most of the scientists who get quoted in papers seem to be.

'I'm not certain if sun energy output would influence the temperature of the globe'...

Uh... I settle for no comment with that one. Okay, I'll just write 'utter morons' for gratification, but I'll refrain myself from cussing any further.

I've always supported the sun theory, just because it looks to me like there's more evidence. The CO2 causing significant greenhouse theory isn't solidly proved, but I think nobody would deny that the energy output of the sun influencing climate is a steadfast theory (except the kind of scientists who were mentioned in this article, I suppose).

And also, there's no room for misinterpreting the causal factor in correlations this time around, because clearly the Earth's temperature rise would not cause the sun to emit more energy.

I really think the sun theory has more qualitative evidence supporting it, and definitely enough to warrant further investigation.

Not that it looks like there's been any. We can all imagine which cause any funds were diverted to...

Seems I can't leave in peace and without you turning into a cocky arse -_-

the impact of more intense sunshine on the ozone layer and on cloud cover could be affecting the climate more than the sunlight itself.

You quoted it yourself.

The reason I like this article is because it claims both have an effect. Because theres not an exact co-relation for a 20-year time frame DOES NOT mean that global warming is the sole cause or even a cause at all.

The fact remains that the guy (don't care enough to find his name) was able to predict the weather better then the Met office with their billion dollar equipment.

oh, and way to miss the entire point of the article by using your selective reading on the lead up.

"Global warming - at least the modern nightmare version - is a myth," he said. "I am sure of it and so are a growing number of scientists. But what is really worrying is that the world's politicians and policy-makers are not.

"Instead, they have an unshakeable faith in what has, unfortunately, become one of the central credos of the environmental movement: humans burn fossil fuels, which release increased levels of carbon dioxide - the principal so-called greenhouse gas - into the atmosphere, causing the atmosphere to heat up. They say this is global warming: I say this is poppycock."

In part from Peregrinus
http://news.uns.purdue.edu/x/2007a/0...onResults.html

Was it mentioned too that the amount of ice (being white) reflects a great deal of the suns energy as well as the other factors stated?