To describe the sun's contribution to climate change since time immemorial as "a denialist's claim shot down by data" is an absurd statement, not worthy of a supposedly august forum like this one. Quite apart from Singer's publications and presentations, there is a huge body of literature, including peer-reviewed, on the correlation of the earth's climate system with continuously changing solar parameters. Some of the entry portals have already been mentioned in this thread and a simple Internet search will lead you in the right direction.
Remember, CO2 is a trace gas crucial for photosynthesis (and green houses are known to produce excellent crops at elevated CO2 concentrations); 1934 is the well-documented warmest year of the past 150; there has been slight cooling since 1998 (more pronounced since 2004 - see new satellite data), and much more. And yes, as everybody can check (below) after surviving an exceptionally harsh winter: Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area is ahead substantially from a year ago and close to the mean from 1979 - 2000, whereas Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice is considerably above the same mean... Example for North: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.jpg - Southern and global data are also there. As an aside: the colonization of Greenland by the Vikings and Alpine Glaciers that had receded much farther than currently are deniers' illusions? as are the Little Ice Age and the year without summer (1816), since Mann's careful and universally applicable data proved that these climate events could never have happened...? Are you willing to take credit for the likely global cooling of the near future, together with Al Gore? The particulate load from new not- so-clean coal plants may soon be rivalling well-documented volcanic contributions to the mitigation of solar inputs... All this does not mean that one should burn fossil fuels with unbridled abandon. But look at the emerging land use and food cost catastrophe built on an out-of-control biofuel craze! Isn't it time to move toward a differentiated approach to natural resource usage and conservation, to strive toward living in harmony with the constantly changing metabolism of Earth? Isn't it time to re-evaluate arrogant attitudes like "Save the Planet" and learn to understand what's truly going on? Isn't it time to step away from the polarizing debates between Hot Heads and to stop creating all that new Hot Air? Is it not time to check the data a bit more carefully, including the often sloppy practices of measuring and recording terrestrial temperatures? Please study other relevant blogs (such as Climate Science, Watt's up with that, ICECAP and others) with an objective mind before denouncing the solar information as denialist claptrap... respectfully, UL (my credentials: independent oceanographer specializing in deep-sea imaging, holding a broad US Patent on aquatic habitat health using biomonitoring methods) On Apr 6, 1:17 am, Eric Swanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > David wrote: > > On Apr 5, 3:16 pm, Eric Swanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >... > > > I haven't read Singer and Avery's book, but I would expect it to be > > > like the crap > > > Singer presented at the fake climate conference the Heartland > > > Institute put > > > on, the so-called "NOT IPCC" report. Please post some science next > > > time. > > >... > > > I don't think you appreciate the science behind the short > > Singer statement. Please consult the following link for > > the Svensmark effect - > > > Cosmic rays and Earth's climate > >http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/Cosmic_rays_and_climate.html > > > "Almost ignored by the media the Royal Society has quietly > > published what may prove to be the most significant paper > > on Earth's climate in decades." > > > Please consult the 3 published papers, the media release, > > and some pretty nice animations. > > [off topic comment deleted] > > > Now there seems also to be an increasing role for cosmic rays in the > > formation of cloud cover. > > > --- > > > David Chistainsen - meteorologist > > ------------------- > Your reference is from 2006. The Svensmark effect is unproven. > The latest research findings tend to disprove the claim that > cosmic rays have a major impact on climate. > > "3 April 2008 > BBC News > > 'No Sun link' to climate change > > By Richard Black > > Scientists have produced further compelling evidence showing that > modern-day climate change is not caused by changes in the Sun's > activity." > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/sci/tech/7327393.stm > > Looks like another denialist claim shot down with data. > > E. S. > --- --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of global environmental change. Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not gratuitously rude. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
