Northwest Indiana Discussion

Sporkles the pious troll is just running off at the mouth.
He doesn't really know much about anything except how to troll.

It's really rather sad....

Keep the sleds handy as well.
With the decrease in solar activity, it's gonna get cold.

Really cold.

Canadian Climatologist Says Sun Causing Global Warming
By Dennis T. Avery, Hudson Institute

Saturday, July 7, 2007

Another scientist has added his voice to the Global Warming debate. Canadian climatologist Tim Patterson says the sun drives the earth's climate changes--and Earth's current global warming is a direct result of a long, moderate 1,500-year cycle in the sun's irradiance.

Patterson says he learned of the 1,500-year climate cycle while studying cycles in fish numbers on Canada's West Coast. Since the Canadian West had no long-term written fishery records, Patterson's research team drilled sediment cores in the deep local fjords to get 5,000-year climate profiles from the mud. The mud showed the past climate conditions: Warm summers left layers thick with one-celled fossils and fish scales. Cold, wet periods showed dark sediments, mostly dirt washed from the surrounding land.

Patterson's fishing profiles clearly revealed the sun's 87 and 210-year solar cycles--and the longer, 1500-year Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles found since the 1980s in ice cores, tree rings, and fossil pollen.

"Our finding of a direct correlation between variations in the brightness of the sun and earthly climate indicators is not unique," says the climatologist from Carleton University. "Hundreds of other studies, using proxies from tree rings in Russia's Kola Peninsula to water levels of the Nile, show exactly the same thing: The sun appears to drive climate change."

But there was a problem. By themselves, the variations in solar irradiation were too small to account for the big variations his research team found in the Canadian fish catches.

"Even though the sun is brighter now than at any time in the past 8,000 years, the increase in direct solar input is not calculated to be sufficient to cause the past century's modest warming on its own. There had to be an amplifier of some sort for the sun to be a primary driver of climate changes. Indeed, that is precisely what has been discovered," says Patterson.

"In a series of groundbreaking scientific papers starting in 2000, Vizer, Shaviv, Carslaw and most recently Svensmark et al., have collectively demonstrated that as the output of the sun varies . . . varying amounts of galactic cosmic rays from deep space are able to enter our solar system. . . . These cosmic rays enhance cloud formation, which, overall, has a cooling effect on the planet."

"When the sun is less bright, more cosmic rays are able to get through to Earth's atmosphere, more clouds form and the planet cools. . . . This is precisely what happened from the middle of the 17th century into the early 18th century, when the solar energy input to our atmosphere . . . was at a minimum and the planet was stuck in the Little Ice Age."

The Canadian expert concludes, "CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet's climate on long, medium and even short time scales." Instead, Earth's sea surface temperatures show a massive 95 percent lagged correlation with the sunspot index.

Patterson says climate change is the most complex field we've ever studied. He notes that a 2003 German poll of 530 scientists from 27 countries found two-thirds of the respondents doubted that "the current state of scientific knowledge is developed well enough to allow for a reasonable assessment of the effects of greenhouse gases."

http://canadafreepress.com/2007/avery070707.htm

Do I understand that you think the Sun has no impact on climate change?....

I believe this global warming is a natural occurrence, and I believe the changing of the animals is a natural happening as well. Check out this study done in 2007 by a man in Australia explaining the decline in krill (which feed on plankton) after the steep decline of whale populations after millions of whales were killed during the period of whaling that caused many species to be endangered. He states in his abstract conclusion:

In the context of our current understanding of krill physiology, predator-invoked behaviour may lead to increased population abundance and, without the predator, natural selection may favour behaviour that would lead to lower abundance. This reverses the predictions of mass balance ecosystem models.

http://www.iwcoffice.org/_documents/sci ... tion41.pdf

The world naturally balancing itself as a living organism makes a lot of sense. If the krill are declining because the creatures that feed on them are declining, it would makes sense that the plankton would follow suit.

USMoron seems to be having problems with basic reading comprehension. The article he just posted says the earth is becoming warmer,not colder.

aren't you the same whiner that posted this worthless crapola?





and this?




And this?




...remember you told us all your ''other board'' was '' awsome '' and that you'd never post here again...

yet here you are....

doesn't that make you a liar?...or were you banned from that one too and have no place left to go?...

Uh-oh......

I had a feeling there was something about the sun that made the earth hot and cold.

Looks like NASA agrees with me........


NASA Study Shows Sun Responsible for Planet Warming

By Bob Ellis on June 5th, 2009

From DailyTech, we have still more evidence that any warming occurring on planet earth is coming from natural sources and is cyclic in nature–NOT from the evil capitalism that Al Gore, the UN politicians at the IPCC and other socialists love to blame.

From the article:

Now, a new research report from a surprising source may help to lay this skepticism to rest. A study from NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland looking at climate data over the past century has concluded that solar variation has made a significant impact on the Earth’s climate. The report concludes that evidence for climate changes based on solar radiation can be traced back as far as the Industrial Revolution.

Past research has shown that the sun goes through eleven year cycles. At the cycle’s peak, solar activity occurring near sunspots is particularly intense, basking the Earth in solar heat. According to Robert Cahalan, a climatologist at the Goddard Space Flight Center, “Right now, we are in between major ice ages, in a period that has been called the Holocene.”

If our media, culture and a large portion of the “scientific” community were really honest, it would be the worshippers of the religion of anthropogenic global warming who are called “skeptics,” wouldn’t it?

Because it is those pushing this silly theory that our puny SUVs and power plants are causing earth to warm up when the most obvious source of heat hangs over their head every single day.

AGW simply doesn’t pass the smell test. Nor does it line up with the objective data.

About 1,000 years ago, Greenland was warm enough for the Vikings to colonize and grow vineyards. Today Greenland is almost entirely covered in ice. Tell me: is the earth warmer today than it was 1,000 years ago? Did they have SUVs and coal power plants in the days of the Vikings? This isn’t tough to figure out, people.

The only thing tough about the global warming debate is trying to get the facts to match the socialist agenda of the AGW proponents. Try as they might, they just can’t do it, and more and more people are starting to see that.

Things like cyclic solar data, warming occurring on other planets such as Mars and Jupiter just don’t line up with the suppositions of the AGW worshippers. They craft all manner of complex calculations and “what ifs,” but in the end the best they can do is say things like, “Well, we can’t prove it now, but by the time we can, it’ll be too late.”

And we’re supposed to watch our electric bills go up 40% and see our economy devastated on what-ifs and a bunch of garbage that not only doesn’t match the evidence but doesn’t even pass the smell test?

http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/06/nasa ... t-warming/

NASA Study Acknowledges Solar Cycle, Not Man, Responsible for Past Warming


Michael Andrews - June 4, 2009 9:37 AM



Past studies have shown that sunspot numbers correspond to warming or cooling trends. The twentieth century has featured heightened activity, indicating a warming trend. (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Solar activity has shown a major spike in the twentieth century, corresponding to global warming. This cyclic variation was acknowledged by a recent NASA study, which reviewed a great deal of past climate data. (Source: Wikimedia Commons)Report indicates solar cycle has been impacting Earth since the Industrial Revolution


Some researchers believe that the solar cycle influences global climate changes. They attribute recent warming trends to cyclic variation. Skeptics, though, argue that there's little hard evidence of a solar hand in recent climate changes.

Now, a new research report from a surprising source may help to lay this skepticism to rest. A study from NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland looking at climate data over the past century has concluded that solar variation has made a significant impact on the Earth's climate. The report concludes that evidence for climate changes based on solar radiation can be traced back as far as the Industrial Revolution.

Past research has shown that the sun goes through eleven year cycles. At the cycle's peak, solar activity occurring near sunspots is particularly intense, basking the Earth in solar heat. According to Robert Cahalan, a climatologist at the Goddard Space Flight Center, "Right now, we are in between major ice ages, in a period that has been called the Holocene."

Thomas Woods, solar scientist at the University of Colorado in Boulder concludes, "The fluctuations in the solar cycle impacts Earth's global temperature by about 0.1 degree Celsius, slightly hotter during solar maximum and cooler during solar minimum. The sun is currently at its minimum, and the next solar maximum is expected in 2012."

According to the study, during periods of solar quiet, 1,361 watts per square meter of solar energy reaches Earth's outermost atmosphere. Periods of more intense activity brought 1.4 watts per square meter (0.1 percent) more energy.

While the NASA study acknowledged the sun's influence on warming and cooling patterns, it then went badly off the tracks. Ignoring its own evidence, it returned to an argument that man had replaced the sun as the cause current warming patterns. Like many studies, this conclusion was based less on hard data and more on questionable correlations and inaccurate modeling techniques.

The inconvertible fact, here is that even NASA's own study acknowledges that solar variation has caused climate change in the past. And even the study's members, mostly ardent supports of AGW theory, acknowledge that the sun may play a significant role in future climate changes.

http://www.dailytech.com/NASA+Study+Ack ... e15310.htm




Past studies have shown that sunspot numbers correspond to warming or cooling trends. The twentieth century has featured heightened activity, indicating a warming trend.

I dropped in at the other bored for a moment and ran across this little gem.
This was too classic not to share with everyone.

Re: Our Children's Future
sparks Yesterday at 7:23 pm
We also know that if we don't start to take rapid action to lower the rate of AGW,the next generation will be more concerned about building boats to deal with worldwide flooding than the level of debt we leave them.

Kick back.....relax....enjoy the show....

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 4306331360

June 26, 2009
The Cap-and-Trade Bill Is an Economic Disaster
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/article ... 97284.html

June 25, 2009
Waxman-Markey Global Warming Bill: Economic Impact by Congressional District
by Karen Campbell, Ph.D. and David Kreutzer, Ph.D.
WebMemo #2504
It has become quite clear over the past several months that placing a cap on carbon emission--via rationing, taxing, and eliminating consumer choice--will have major implications for American families and the economy.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Energy ... wm2504.cfm

U.S. NEWS JUNE 26, 2009, 10:28 A.M. ET Energy Measure Up for House Vote

Two reports issued this week -- one from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and the other from the Environmental Protection Agency -- seemed to support that argument. They showed household energy costs likely would increase only modestly, with most of the increase erased by improvements in efficiency, energy rebates and pollution allowances to energy-intensive sectors of the economy.

The CBO analysis estimated that the bill would cost an average household $175 a year, while the EPA put it at between $80 and $110 a year. Republicans questioned the validity of the CBO study and noted that even that analysis showed actual energy production costs increasing $770 per household. Industry groups have cited other studies showing much higher cost to the economy and to individuals.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124602039232560485.html