The Sun Fingered On Climate Change
z0nob
A clear solar signature in a number of climatic indicators
July 2 2009
A new paper in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics also
fingers the sun:
"In concluding, we find increasingly strong evidence of a clear solar
signature in a number of climatic indicators in Europe, strengthening the
earlier conclusions of a study that included stations from the United States
(Le Mou�l et al., 2008 ). With the recent downturn of both solar activity
and global temperatures, the debated correlations we suggested in Le Mou�l
et al. (2005), which appeared to stop in the 1980s, actually might extend to
the present. The role of the Sun in global and regional climate change
should be re-assessed and reasonable physical mechanisms are in sight."
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/sun_accused/
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
leona...@gmail.com
> On Jul 2, 10:54 pm, addinall <addin...@addinall.org> wrote:
> > On Jul 3, 12:54 pm, Roger Coppock <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:
> > > On Jul 1, 7:13 pm, richp <travelingman95...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Jul 1, 7:08 pm, "z0nob" <i...@j.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > A clear solar signature in a number of climatic indicators
> > > > > July 2 2009
> > > > > A new paper in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics also
> > > > > fingers the sun:
> > > > >http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VHB-4W9XBJ...
> > > > > "In concluding, we find increasingly strong evidence of a clear solar
> > > > > signature in a number of climatic indicators in Europe, strengthening the
> > > > > earlier conclusions of a study that included stations from the United States
> > > > > (Le Mouël et al., 2008 ). With the recent downturn of both solar activity
> > > > > and global temperatures, the debated correlations we suggested in Le Mouël
> > > > > et al. (2005), which appeared to stop in the 1980s, actually might extend to
> > > > > the present. The role of the Sun in global and regional climate change
> > > > > should be re-assessed and reasonable physical mechanisms are in sight."
>
> > > > >http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/com...
>
> > > > Hey Bozo if it's the sun then how come
> > > > 1. The nighttime temperatures are rising faster than the daylight
> > > > temperatures.
> > > > 2. The polar temperatures are rising faster than the tropical
> > > > temperatures.
> > > > 3. The higher elevation temperatures are rising faster than the lower
> > > > elevation temperatures.
> > > > 4. The winters are warming faster than the summers
> > > 5. The stratosphere is cooling,
> > > while the troposphere is warming.
> > Not any more it isn't.
> > > A warming Sun would warm both.
>
> > Rubbish.
>
> > > 6. Fourier spectrums of global mean surface
> > > temperatures have no significant 11-year
> > > component in the time domain, to match the
> > > 11-year sunspot cycle.
>
> > Show your work.
>
> > Mark Addinall.
>
> Mark you are rubbish you piece of crap
•• So where is YOUR work, you piece of crap???
- -
In real science the burden of proof is always on
the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
iota of valid data for global warming nor have
they provided data that climate change is being
effected by commerce and industry, and not by
natural phenomena.
leona...@gmail.com
> On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 13:29:14 -0700 (PDT), addinall
>
>
>
> <addin...@addinall.org> wrote:
> >On Jul 4, 2:12 am, richp <travelingman95...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Jul 2, 8:36 pm, addinall <addin...@addinall.org> wrote:
>
> >> > On Jul 3, 7:39 am, richp <travelingman95...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > > Mark Addinall.
>
> >> > > "None of that is true, well, on this planet. Which planet do you live
> >> > > on? "
>
> >> > > I got my info directly from the mouths at Westcarb.org. Where in the
> >> > > fuck to you get your information asshole???
>
> >> > My my, a brave little Watermelon of the keyboard warrior class.
> >> > What's the matter? Mummy forcing you to wash before meals?
>
> >> > None of the rather bizarre claims you made are true. Not on planet
> >> > Earth anyway.
>
> >> > Run along sonny.
>
> >> > Mark Addinall.
>
> >> F off Mark
>
> >> None of the below statements are false you asshole
>
> >> 1. The nighttime temperatures are rising faster than the daylight
> >> temperatures.
>
> >> 2. The polar temperatures are rising faster than the tropical
> >> temperatures.
>
> >> 3. The higher elevation temperatures are rising faster than the lower
> >> elevation temperatures.
>
>
> >And none of it true. Purest fiction.
>
> >Alan Carlin, Environmental Protection Agency, says:
>
> Once again. the discredited EPA economist, quoting the denialist
> website propaganda. Most of his work was lifted straight from the
> denialist web sites..
>
> Obviously, his work failed to meet EPA documentation standards and
> peer review. Additionally, his supervisor instructed him to drop
> this unauthorized work and to resume working on assigned projects.
•• You are so full of shit, Keating, that it is
pouring out of your every orfice.
z0n0b
"John M." <john_howa...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:90d197b0-bd73-4132...@k8g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 2, 7:59 am, addinall <addin...@addinall.org> wrote:
> On Jul 2, 11:13 am, richp <travelingman95...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 1, 7:08 pm, "z0nob" <i...@j.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > July 2 2009
>
> > > A new paper in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial
> > > Physics also
> > > fingers the sun:
>
>
> > > "In concluding, we find increasingly strong evidence of a clear solar
> > > signature in a number of climatic indicators in Europe, strengthening
> > > the
> > > earlier conclusions of a study that included stations from the United
> > > States
> > > (Le Mou�l et al., 2008 ). With the recent downturn of both solar
> > > activity
> > > and global temperatures, the debated correlations we suggested in Le
> > > Mou�l
> > > et al. (2005), which appeared to stop in the 1980s, actually might
> > > extend to
> > > the present. The role of the Sun in global and regional climate change
> > > should be re-assessed and reasonable physical mechanisms are in
> > > sight."
>
>
> > > Warmest Regards
>
> > > Bonzo
>
> > Hey Bozo if it's the sun then how come
>
> > temperatures.
>
> > 2. The polar temperatures are rising faster than the tropical
> > temperatures.
>
> > 3. The higher elevation temperatures are rising faster than the lower
> > elevation temperatures.
>
> > 4. The winters are warming faster than the summers
>
>
> None of that is true, well, on this planet. Which planet do you live
> on?
>
>
> 1. The big nuclear reactor in the sky (power setting)
> 2. The big nuclear reactor in the sky (distance from)
> 3. The big nuclear reactor in the sky (obstruction thereof)
> 4. The little nuclear reactor under your bum (leakage)
> 5. A really big battery called 'the oceans and seas'.
>
> AGW through production of CO2 is nonsense.
>
> And before you lot start 'sequestering' CO2, I would suggest you
> put it somewhere close and easy to get at. This planet has been short
> of CO2
> a few times. Time before last nearly ended everything. Earth
> turned into a big snowball with the tropics unde a mile of ice.
> Chance would have it, the whole of Siberia blew up and saved the day.
> On the whole, it was a pretty uncomfortable 50 million years or so.
> The last time we got short of CO2 it fucked up a lot of plants.
> Loads of C3 flowering fruits went the way of the Dodo and we got
> C4 lantana in return. Oh Joy.
Hmmm. Let's see... You say atmospheric CO2 is unimportant with regard
to climate. It's all down to the sun. Then you say the earth becomes a
snowball if you remove some CO2.
======================================
Here's your answer!
Ian Plimer
May 29, 2009
The first 50 ppm of CO2 operates as a powerful greenhouse gas.
After that, CO2 has done its job, which is why there has been no runaway
greenhouse in the past when CO2 was far higher.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25552775-5013479,00.html
======================================
> CO2 is GOOD for you.
> Lack of CO2 is a scary monster.
And 300 - 350 ppm in the earth's atmosphere is the sweet spot.
======================================
GARBAGE!!
Current CO2 Levels Are Way Too Low
March 9 2009
We are supposed to panic over carbon dioxide levels of a miniscule 380 parts
per million.
"Most life, plants and animals, probably developed with CO2 levels of about
1500 ppm - 400% above current levels.
This fact is well understood by greenhouse operators who burn gas to
increase CO2 levels to at least 1,000 ppm, 260% above current atmospheric
levels.
Inside populated buildings, CO2 levels of 3,000 ppm (770% above current
levels) have been measured in homes, schools and offices with no ill
effects.
Even most Health and Safety people consider 5,000 ppm (1,300% above current
levels) to be safe.
Medical gas given to people with respiratory problems typically contains
50,000 ppm CO2 (13,000% above current levels) and our lung sacs retain about
65,000 ppm (16,800 % above current levels).
Not until CO2 levels get to 100,000 ppm (260 times current levels) is there
any concern about human health.
"All plant life will also benefit from increased carbon dioxide, and much of
the extra food produced by the green revolution is the result of the warmer
and more carbon-rich atmosphere.
http://co2sceptics.com/news.php?id=2962
Warmest Regards
Bonzo