Last week was the 20th annivesary of Global Warming?

[SUBMAN1]

I didn't know that! I missed it.

Here is a Wall Street Journal article on the subject - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1214...od=Global+View

-S

...Last week marked the 20th anniversary of the mass hysteria phenomenon known as global warming. Much of the science has since been discredited. Now it's time for political scientists, theologians and psychiatrists to weigh in....

[Frame57]

Many refer to it as the biggest hoax of the millenia. I tend to agree.

[Raptor1]

Couldn't they have made it Global Cooling instead?!?!?!

[August]

Originally Posted by Raptor1

Couldn't they have made it Global Cooling instead?!?!?!

That was back in the 1970's. Apparently cold weather didn't generate enough research cash so they had to switch to global warming.

[UnderseaLcpl]

I thought it was the 5,000,000,000 someing-ith anniversary of global warming.

[Mush Martin]

I thought that Edward G Robinson made the first public mention of global
warming in soylent green

doesnt that count? 1973

[STEED]

Originally Posted by Mush Martin

I thought that Edward G Robinson made the first public mention of global
warming in soylent green

doesnt that count? 1973

"I'm going home Sol."

[TDK1044]

If some of the gullible but well meaning protectors of the polar bears would look at the available data concerning sun flare activity over the last twenty years, and then compare the results to climatic changes here on Earth, they will strangely discover a direct correlation. That's what I call an inconvenient truth.

[NEON DEON]

Originally Posted by TDK1044

If some of the gullible but well meaning protectors of the polar bears would look at the available data concerning sun flare activity over the last twenty years, and then compare the results to climatic changes here on Earth, they will strangely discover a direct correlation. That's what I call an inconvenient truth.

Could you point out the correlation you speak of TDK.


http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2...inexplodes.htm

2005 seems to disagree with that theory a lot.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by NEON DEON

Could you point out the correlation you speak of TDK.


http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2...inexplodes.htm

2005 seems to disagree with that theory a lot.

Not if its only 3!

This is really missing the point though. Sunspots are the real guage. Solar flares are simply a result of more solar activity and sun spots. You can still have the occasional solar flare and no sun spots, which is what is happening now.

An Ice Age is looming because of no Sun Spot activity. That is the scary part right now.

-S

[mrbeast]

The theory that any solar activity is linked to climate change was laid to rest a while ago.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...climatechange1

Change in solar activity is one of the many factors that influence the climate but cannot, on its own, account for all the changes in global average temperature we have seen in the 20th Century

Claims that increased solar activity is the cause of global warming - rather than man-made greenhouse gases - have been comprehensively disproved by a detailed study of the Sun in Proceedings of the Royal Society A. The study shows there is no doubt that solar activity in the past 20 years has run in the opposite direction to global warming, and therefore cannot explain rises in average global temperatures. The Royal Society said yesterday: "There is a small minority which is seeking to confuse the public on the causes of climate change. They are often misrepresenting the science, when the reality is that the evidence is getting stronger every day

http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?tip=1&id=6233

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by mrbeast

The theory that any solar activity is linked to climate change was laid to rest a while ago.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...climatechange1

http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?tip=1&id=6233

Here is the problem with that theory - It is linked to the IPCC graphs of massive temp increases, and these graphs are hoaxes. The solar activity cannot account for those types of graphs which is why you see the above two articles.

However, if you look at the proper graphs - specifically the 3000 year graphs, they are in line as they should be. This has already been discussed here in some thread I believe.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Here is more up to date information from this month (June 9, 2008)- 2 years now without activity!!!

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0609124551.htm

This quote should give you an idea of where we are headed:

...Tsuneta said solar physicists aren't like weather forecasters; They can't predict the future. They do have the ability to observe, however, and they have observed a longer-than-normal period of solar inactivity. In the past, they observed that the sun once went 50 years without producing sunspots. That period, from approximately 1650 to 1700, occurred during the middle of a little ice age on Earth that lasted from as early as the mid-15th century to as late as the mid-19th century....

[mrbeast]

I wouldn't stock up on thermals just yet Subman.

In a conference last week at Montana State University, solar physicists discussed the possibility that the Sun could be facing a long period of calm, leading to the concern that there could be another Maunder Minimum. The Maunder Minimum (named after the late 19th Century solar astronomer Edward W. Maunder, who discovered the phenomenon) was a 17th Century, 30-year period when very few sunspots were observed on the disk of the Sun. It is thought by many scientists that this period contributed to what became known as the "Little Ice Age" here on Earth. As the Sun provides Earth with all its energy, during extended periods when the solar output is lower than average, it seems possible a lack of sunspots on the Sun (i.e. low activity) may be linked with periods of cold down here.

"It continues to be dead. That's a small concern, a very small concern." - Saku Tsuneta, National Astronomical Observatory of Japan and program manager for the Hinode solar mission.

However, solar physicists are not too worried about this possibility, after all, it's only been two years since solar minimum. Although activity has been low for the beginning of Cycle 24, sunspots have not been non-existent. In January of this year, a newborn spot was observed, as expected, in high latitude regions. More spots were seen in April. In March, sunspots from the previous solar cycle even made an appearance, putting on an unexpected show of flares and coronal mass ejections (CMEs).
As pointed out by David Hathaway, a solar physicist at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, the fact that sunspots have already been observed in this new cycle means that it is highly unlikely we face anything as extreme as another Maunder Minimum. Hathaway says there is nothing unusual about having a relatively understated solar cycle after several particularly active cycles. Solar Cycle 23 was a very active period for the Sun with a greater than average number of sunspots observed on the solar surface.

http://www.universetoday.com/2008/06...t-solar-cycle/