What's Really Behind Global Warming?

Justin Higgins — Thu, 2007-08-09 23:06

BUMP: NASA fixes temperature data and it turns out that 1998 was not the warmest year in the millenium. In fact, the warmest year was prior to WW2.

ROTR- The Offically Endorsed Cause of Global Warming I don't know if anyone noticed lately, but a giant ball of fire, and by giant I mean 1,000,000x the size of the Earth, is burning relatively close to our planet. It's giving off more energy lately, and it's warmer. Many people would like us to believe that it's our fault. Bill Steigerwald nails it:

Going back 10,000 years, a 1998 study found that past periods of global warming coincided nicely with increased sunspot activity, which occur during increases in the sun's brightness and energy output. In 2004, a study by the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research said Earth was getting hotter because the sun was burning brighter than it had in 1,000 years.

We don't want to get into an ugly debate about the prime cause of global warming. But maybe all those sun-worshipping ancestors of ours were not such dummies after all.

Let's go ahead and weigh the options here. Are humanity's actions, which are relatively small in the grand scheme of things, destroying the planet, or is the giant ball of fire that's putting out more heat causing our temporary kick-up on the farenheit scale? I'm going to go with the second one. The sun, now the officially endorsed cause of global warming here on Right on the Right.

Justin Higgins's blog
Login or register to post comments

oh i did not know that.

dcop123 — Mon, 2009-10-12 07:26

oh i did not know that. thanks for sharing :)

industry logos | infinity logo design | Packaging Design

Justin Higgins: Tool

m.e.atbrain — Sat, 2007-08-11 10:46

BUMP: NASA fixes temperature data and it turns out that 1998 was not the warmest year in the millenium. In fact, the warmest year was prior to WW2.

Oh, my. Justin is determined to prove he is an even bigger tool than previously suspected.

The simple fact is that this change in the data is exceptionally minor, and absolutely meaningless in the analysis of global warming trends:

The net effect of the change was to reduce mean US anomalies by about 0.15 ºC for the years 2000-2006. There were some very minor knock on effects in earlier years due to the GISTEMP adjustments for rural vs. urban trends. In the global or hemispheric mean, the differences were imperceptible (since the US is only a small fraction of the global area).

There were however some very minor re-arrangements in the various rankings (see data). Specifically, where 1998 (1.24 ºC anomaly compared to 1951-1980) had previously just beaten out 1934 (1.23 ºC) for the top US year, it now just misses: 1934 1.25ºC vs. 1998 1.23ºC. None of these differences are statistically significant...

Sum total of this change? A couple of hundredths of degrees in the US rankings and no change in anything that could be considered climatically important (specifically long term trends).

Whoops. When one wants much ado about nothing, one can certainly count on Justin Higgins to deliver. What a good little tool he is.

I love how when you prove

Uncle G (not verified) — Fri, 2007-08-10 02:20

I love how when you prove him wrong he either just ignores you, deletes your post or resorts to childish name-calling. Oooohhh, I wonder which one it'll be this time...

I think this may be the

Uncle G (not verified) — Fri, 2007-08-10 02:18

I think this may be the dumbest post I have ever read on this site. And that's saying something if you follow the loonies that post here. Congrats, Dougie. You've got it all figured out.

Steigerwald is lying... and Justin helps spread the lies

m.e.atbrain — Wed, 2007-08-08 17:08

You're a denialist, Justin, and it's clear that you are only too happy to help spread the denialist propaganda. Had you bothered to actually investigate the facts, you would have found that Steigerwald is lying through his teeth.

In 2004, a study by the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research said Earth was getting hotter because the sun was burning brighter than it had in 1,000 years.

Steigerwald is actually conflating two papers here. The first, entitled "Millennium-Scale Sunspot Number Reconstruction: Evidence for an Unusually Active Sun since the 1940s" [PDF], does in fact present evidence that “the period of high solar activity during the last 60 years is unique throughout the past 1150 years”. But those authors assiduously avoid making any claim of causation between solar activity and climate change. In fact, they specifically state:

To clarify whether this similarity reﬂects a real physical connection requires a more detailed study of the various proposed mechanisms for a solar inﬂuence on climate.

And now we move on to the second paper, which actually does look at the influence of the sun on climate. This one is entitled "Solar Variability and Global Warming: A Statistical Comparison Since 1850" [PDF], and its authors come to a very different conclusion than you and Steigerwald would have us believe.

We assume that the Sun has been responsible for climate change prior to 1970 and that their inter-relation remained unchanged afterwards. Then, employing reconstructions and measured records of relevant solar quantities as well as of the cosmic-ray ﬂux, we estimate statistically which fraction of the dramatic temperature rise after that date could be due to the inﬂuence of the Sun. We show that at least in the most recent past (since about 1970) the solar inﬂuence on climate cannot have been signiﬁcant.

Oops.

These papers weren’t hard to find. A few minutes of Googling was all it took. But this was a few minutes too many for you. It's so much easier to just repeat someone else's lies, isn't it, Justin?

here's a question for you

Douglas V. Gibbs (not verified) — Tue, 2007-08-07 11:26

Is the Earth Warming to a temperature above normal? Or is the Earth returning to what is its ideal temperature? Have we actually been living in an age cooler than normal? The Earth is now cooler than it was during the days the Vikings landed on Greenland (which was once green) and is now cooler than the days Jesus walked the Earth. The slight rise of temperature is allowing for crops to be grown farther north, thus allowing us, if we take advantage of the opportunity, to grow more food for the larger population on this planet. Is the slight warming trend a curse? Or an opportunity?

yeah sure the sun.....

kender — Tue, 2007-08-07 11:10

...but the question is what is making the sun hotter?

George Bush of course.

http://wideawakesradio.com

lol

cao — Tue, 2007-08-07 04:52

A big ball of fire...lol you're too much