Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 183 guests, and 1 robot.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 203
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 203
Morgan wrote:
"Irrelevant. The site is not authoritative."

You have to be kidding me? Because a non-authoritative site posts somebody?s work, you're calling it irrelevant? I guess we can throw out any scientific work that Greenpeace has on their website. crazy

As far as the article goes - why don't you read the entire thing. Here's an important point

"But now Lassen and another colleague, Peter Thejll, an astrophysicist, have updated the research. They found that, while the solar cycle still accounts for about half the temperature rise since 1900, it fails to explain a rise of 0.4 degrees Celsius since 1980."

So 50% of the warming from the 1860-1980's was caused by solar activity. Half! Surely something as significant as this would be included in GCM's that everybody seems to have blind faith in? Oh, yeah - that's right..........they don't!

So climate modellers have left out a dominant warming process out of the models, which means they've either underestimated the effect of a cooling process, or overestimated the effect of a warming process. Either way, these GCMS aren't correct. If you don't understand the system, you can't project forward.

I think the last two paragraphs are particularly relevant, especially to this site.

"The authors recognise the controversial nature of the subject, and say they hope their findings will move climate researchers towards a more balanced view.

Peter Thejll said: "It became political. We're now seeing that the Sun plays a role, and something in addition to the Sun. Maybe that will help people see there is room for both."


This is something you need to learn Morgan - the world isn't either black or white, nor 1's and 0's. The earth's climate is a wonderfully complex thing, and to dumb it down to a linear relationship between CO2 and temperature is nothing more than intellectual laziness.

.
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
docT wrote:
"Once again you fail to come up with an intelligent critique of the mesage and must denigrate the source."

Next time try reading for comprehension. The link clearly states that the two Danes said the sun had, if any, a small (NOT MAJOR) influence.


DA Morgan
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 203
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 203
Originally Posted By: DA Morgan

Next time try reading for comprehension. The link clearly states that the two Danes said the sun had, if any, a small (NOT MAJOR) influence.


Sorry Morgan - perhaps you should try reading for comprehension. I would suggest that finding out solar activity was responsible for half of the warming from the 1860's-1980's would indicate that it's a very significant influence.

Page 2 of 2 1 2

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5