Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. The amount of dissenting scientists and their publications has nothing to do with what a senators opinions are. Implying The Senate Minority Report is skewed because a Senator said that is absurd.
Denialists. Stupid. Idiocy. [insert derogatory intellectual statement here because I disagree with you]. U mad bro?
I have been having a look at this report. It is good for a laugh. They name some of the 700 scientists. I looked in pub med. They do not appear to have authored many papers about climate change. Even more funny is this paragraph Remember that was written two years ago. No sign of cooler temperatures yet. If that is the best the climate change deniers can do then they do not have a good case.
The idiocy is coming from those who don't seem to understand that the Earth has been changing Climate since the begining of time, long before Man was even around. Now they seem to think it should just remain constant, simply because they want it to. And then these same idiots try to say others are being idiots for understanding that Climate Change just happens...
No, we think that the change should have a rational explanation and not rely on such witty replies as "Cos it does" Climate, like your underpants, does not change without cause Please supply a viable alternative explanation for what is causing the current climate change
Sure it does, it has been changing since the begining of time... Not my fault you can't understand something so simple. If you look at the evidence, it has cycles and we are currently in an upward trend of the current cycle, near the top.
For the most part, it seems to be mainly caused by Solar input. Hence the reason most Planets are heating right now as well. CO2 certainly is not a major cause because it "follows" these changes and does not proceed them. In the very "Effect" that CO2 shows it effects in, the GreenHouse Effect", Water Vapor plays a much more major a role in that "system" than does CO2. Again, if you look at ANY Graph of the long term temperatures, here on Earth, you see what are called "Cycles", they are the "wave" affect created on a graph by the up and down motion. They call these waves, but each wave can also be called a "cycle" and the Earth has been doing this since the begining of time. What one thing, in this "System" has been the force of changing amounts of energy, kind of like "pulsating" over all that time, in your mind? My mind says the Sun.
No it's not. If SSN were a first derivative of TSI, SSN would peak when TSI was on the upswing, and SSN would minimize when TSI peaked. It would be similar to the way cos(x) is the first derivative of sin(x). Also false. Using annual data 1880-2011, the correlation coefficient between GISS temp and TSI is .53, while the correlation between GISS temp and CO2 is .92. So you're not even close. Which in your case seems to be true ... The true measure of energy is to add up all the inflows and outflows, not just the Sun. That includes the effect of greenhouse gases.
There are over 100,000 scientists in the world. Are we supposed to be impressed by 700 of them, most with no expertise in climate? A list that includes, for example, economists and TV weathermen?
TSI goes up and down, so you can always find a positive or negative slope if you cherry pick your starting and ending points. The question is what (if anything) TSI has been doing during the current warming, that might cause the current warming. And since 1980, TSI has been going down overall.
Strawman. I have never said that solar activity is simply calculated from sunspots. From your own link, here's TSI from Wang et.al compared to GISS temperature and CO2. If TSI has increased since 1960, I sure don't see it. Which fits the blue datapoints better: the green line or the red line? (Hint: you don't have to guess. There's a way you can determine that mathematically.)
But *(for the umpteenth time)* nobody is saying the sun has no effect on climate. If you go back 400 or 500 years there were no fossil CO2 emissions, so back then obviously the Sun was the major driver of climate. That's not in dispute, and that's not the question. The question is, what is causing the current warmth? And clearly the Sun isn't responsible, because the Sun has been declining since the mid-20th century. Solar energy dissipates within a single year. Otherwise, we would never get winter.
OKAAAAY Listen before you post things that have been debunked more times that a drunken sailor in a hurricane - I would suggest you actually check things out. For a start the IS no "heating of the other planets". That furphy was started in about 2007 and since the other planets have universally failed to warm it has fallen out of favour for all except those who will not fact check As for the rest - FACT CHECK
You think the moon has too much CO2 as well? http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/16/extraterrestrial-global-warming/ After temperature sensors were planted on the moon, you see, they reported an upward trend year after year. Too much CO2 up there? Source: http://www.diviner.ucla.edu/docs/2650.pdf Apparently, man-made global warming has gotten so out of hand because of SUVs and coal-chugging global warming skeptics that even the biggest planet in our solar system Jupiter is being affected by our addiction to carbon pollution. And that follows the other solar effects of our dependence on fossil fuels, including Mars losing its polar ice cap (what will Martian polar bears do now?), Neptune changing its reflectivity, Neptunes moon Triton increasing in temperature by a whopping 5% due to the American energy-intensive lifestyle, and Plutos atmospheric pressure tripling due to higher temperatures because of Bu(*)(*)(*)(*)ler. From Yahoo! News via American Thinker: Jupiter Has Lost a Cloud Stripe, New Photos Reveal
Your alleged "upward trend year after year" ended after less than three years. This is clearly a case of sensor aging. Why not just post idiotic junk without a reference? We'll all find it much more believable that way. If you think Jupiter has global warming, then prove it. Otherwise you're just another lyin' conservative. After allowing for weather effects, Mars is not warming (Szwast et. al. 2006, Vincendon et. al. 2009). But not warming. No, Triton is warming because of seasonal effects. It's orbit around the Sun takes 165 years. Pluto is also warming because of seasonal effects.
Because of the Inverse Square Law (look it up), any change in sun's output is, at best, negligible or non-existent on planets farther from the sun than earth. As to Watts, the change in moon temps: Nowhere in that study does it state that the conclusions are evidence against AGW.
Watts is LYING Do you not think that if there WAS warming (and the article from Watts fails to prove that it extends beyond a couple of years - 1971 - 1975) don't you think we might have found something causing the warming - like an increase in Solar output?? The next bit of cobbled together information is off of a blog of the "spittle and spew" variety quoting rehashed crap from the summer of 2007, and in one case from 1998 - still no up to date information Watts gets away with lying by claiming he is only quoting someone else but if this were say, NOAA site - what would the outcry be?? To summarise Watts article Moon - warming between 1971 and 1975 Mars Southern Polar ice cap melting in Martian summer 2007 on a planet with highly variable albedo Neptune changed it's reflectivity in 2007 Triton - showed warming in 1998 Pluto data is from 2002 So, if the Earth has continued to trend upward with it's temperatures surely these other planets (and given the total number of planets, moons and asteroids in the solar system this represents only a minor sample) have also trended upward over time Have they?
We have... I have linked to the TSI which shows Solar input has been on the rise for hundreds of years. You are free to ignore the correlation all you like, but that doesn't mean it is not there. THe moon temps aren't done beyond that because the "thermometer" quit reporting. Why would you be so amazed that the one thing that supplies this Solar System with its energy would likely be the cause for temperature change?
You have linked to the Wang dataset, which shows no increase during the 1970-73 period of the lunar data. Please explain how the airless & waterless moon holds solar energy through its two-week-long nighttime, for hundreds of years. Because that's the nonsense you're proposing.
looks like a slight increase, to me, over the 4 year period. Rocks heat up, you tell me how the moon might heat that would also affect the Earth? Sounds like the Sun to me...
So explain the different time periods of those reports 1971-1974 1998 2002 2007 What is the TRENDED data for those bodies over that time and until the recent time period
TSI is not down. There are two sources of TSI measurement ACRIM and PMOD. The ACRIM measurement is generally regarded as the less reliable data set because of the ACRIM gap. A time frame between 1989 and 1991 as we switched from ACRIM-1 to ACRIM-2. Warmmongers like to use the less accurate ACRIM dataset because it makes a better case. They completely ignore that is is the least accurate dataset. This is much the case today with other data sets. We see it with the new CRU V.4 where the inaccurate surface station record is supposed to override the more accurate satellite records and claim 2010 warming than 1998.
