Adjust text size:
Critics who say that global warming is not caused by man have just lost another of their “strong” arguments recently, when a new study has finally determined once and for all that the Sun plays no role in determining the climate change we are currently beginning to experience. The star does not influence ice caps, and does not cause glaciers around the world to melt, the report says. Human activity is the main factor that causes global warming, more specifically the billions of tons of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that we emit in the atmosphere every year. Those who say otherwise have no scientific background for their claims whatsoever.
Some scientists have argued that the changes the Sun is going through at this point may be one of the factors causing global warming. But a team of experts from the Carnegie Mellon University and the Dalhousie University, in Halifax, Canada, has recently developed a new model, which puts the controversial theory to the test. The hypothesis is widely used by oil company lobbyists, and other such individuals, to argue the established scientific fact that global warming is caused by greenhouse gases.
They say that more solar activity produces more solar rays, which, in turn, eliminate more clouds from our atmosphere. As a direct result, more solar rays fall on the surface of the Earth and heat the planet. Strangely enough, their explanations of global warming mention nothing of greenhouse gases, droughts, floods, and so on. Details of the recent model can be found published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, and mentioned in the May 1st issue of the journal Science.
“Until now, proponents of this hypothesis could assert that the sun may be causing global warming because no one had a computer model to really test the claims. The basic problem with the hypothesis is that solar variations probably change new particle formation rates by less than 30 percent in the atmosphere. Also, these particles are extremely small and need to grow before they can affect clouds. Most do not survive to do so,” Peter Adams explained. He is a Carnegie Mellon Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, and also one of the lead developers of the new model, ScienceDaily
“No computer simulation of something as complex as the atmosphere will ever be perfect. Proponents of the cosmic ray hypothesis will probably try to question these results, but the effect is so weak in our model that it is hard for us to see this basic result changing,” Adams added. Some people, indeed, try to force every small detail in solid scientific research, just to be able to say that something else is causing global warming. The interests behind these individuals are not hard to distinguish.
MUST-READ RELATED ARTICLES:
|Comment #1 by: Eric on 14 May 2009, 20:47 UTC|| reply to this comment|
It's shocking that there is even still a need to prove the basic causes behind global warming. It's sad that there are so many sheep in the world that refuse to accept solid scientific models in favor of those that better align with religious or political beliefs.
There are still a good amount of people out there that believe global warming is a farce. Hopefully evidence and studies like this will help convince the critics once and for all and unite more people in the quest to reverse global warming.
|Comment #2 by: JT Reynolds on 15 May 2009, 03:37 UTC|| reply to this comment|
All energy is from the sun. Man can only release stored energy from the sun.
Saying the sun does not cause warming when it is the only source of energy we have, simply does not make sense. Carbon Dioxide is the compound from which all life begins, and would not be possible without. Its elimination would mean the elimination of all life on earth.
|Comment #2.1 by: Marc on 04 Jun 2009, 02:23 GMT|
Saying "The Sun causes warming" is like saying food causes a fever. The energy which makes you a "warm-blooded" animal comes from the food you eat, but the fact that your temperature suddenly goes up to 103 is because of an infection and the accompanying immune response. ...And before you protest; no, I'm not saying CO2 is an "infection." it's called an analogy.
The bit about CO2 being a wonderful substance is irrelevant, since that doesn't automatically mean the more of it the better. Try drinking out of a firehose or sleeping under a ton of raw wool or taking megadoses of vitamin E to see what I mean.
|Comment #3 by: Tim B. on 17 May 2009, 12:50 UTC|| reply to this comment|
Your article showed clearlg your:
1) obvious bias
2) lack of any real knowledge of the scientific data behind the critics of the global warming scare
Your article did little more. Next time try getting a critic of the report to acually give you a list of reasons why they are critical. And then have the creators of the report respond. Just saying that critics will probably find faults the report, but just because they are desperate only shows your unwillingness to honestly evaluate arguments from both sides. This just makes for uninteresting propaganda.
|Comment #3.1 by: Tudor Vieru on 18 May 2009, 08:35 GMT|
If you thin that I am "obviously biased" because I accept solid facts, than I gladly agree with you. We are well beyond the point when those who do not believe in global warming can say that the phenomenon does not exist. All studies coming out, except those ordered by oil companies, prove that GW is real, and that we are behind it. So yes, call me bias, but I prefer doing something about the problem - such as raising awareness - rather than spend countless days and weeks arguing the source of GW, or if the Sun is to blame, and whatnot.
As for your second objection, throwing words around is something anyone can do easily, and the comment proves you're no different. I have evaluated arguments from both sides, and my "unwillingness" comes from the fact that most critics to GW make no sense whatsoever. And those who do, such as people who say that the ices in Antarctica are recovering, are only selecting pieces of data from studies, to fit their arguments. The ices are recovering on an yearly basis, but are dropping over the decades - so the trend is descending.
|Comment #4 by: cbrtxus on 31 May 2009, 15:26 UTC|| reply to this comment|
Climate models have to be based on how various climate elements are assumed to interact. Just how they interact is a matter of opinion--the modeler's opinion. If a model is based on opinion, can the model itself be something more than opinion?
Everyone is certainly entitled to their own opinion. But opinion should not be considered to be evidence. And what is really speculation should not be treated as though it is fact.
I noticed that there was no mention of the cooling trend that began sometime around 2004. Anyone can download the data via the Internet and plot it themselves. I think that HadCRUT is probably the best source for ground-based data. I prefer UAH for satellite based. The Hadley center is firmly in the global warming crisis camp. UAH is more skeptical. I use HadCRUT because it goes back to 1850 and it keeps someone from claiming that my data comes from a skeptical source. Both show the recent cooling. However, if if cooling is outside your zone of comfort, just smooth the data over around 11 years and you can make it go away. :)
|Comment #4.1 by: Marc on 04 Jun 2009, 02:41 GMT|
"How they interact is a matter of opinion"
No no no no no. Have you ever done data collection and analysis? Read a scientifc paper? Talked to a climatologist? The models would make absolutely no sense if they were based on "opinion." They're based on their ability to replicate what we see now, on their their ability to replicate historical events and trends, and on the data which can be incorporated into them. Only those which work, and which are as inclusive as our data gathering ability and computational resources can handle, are then used to make long-range climatological forecasts. And THEN, a dozen or so different models are compared, just to make sure they're getting similar answers.
Paragraph 2: with you 100%.
"anyone can download the data via the internet and plot it themselves." Yep, and get all chummy with the radiologist and they'll let you take a look at the scans of that lump in your thyroid. Thanks, but I'll let the radiologist -- the trained experts, like the career climatologists and geophysicists at the Hadley center -- do the analysis. I'm too busy with other things!
|Comment #5 by: Andrew T on 27 Jun 2009, 16:56 UTC|| reply to this comment|
I am deep concerned with all issue regardig the environment, however I have recently gained some reservations regarding climate warming.
Whilst the summers of the last few years have been very hot there some arguement I wish to put forward:
1) When the Romans invaded Britain 1500 years ago the most common tree was the Lime tree not the Oak, further the Romans in britain also had vineyards too. Conclusion Britain today is no warmer than Roman Britain.
2) Other planets in the solar system are waming up too, Mars no longer has any ice cap for any part of the year.
3) During the 1950's & 1960's people were worried by global cooling
4) A computer is only as good as the people who designed it.
5) Many of the people in the green lobby have very left wing agendas which may cloud their judgement or they may mere be using green issues to further their own political agenda
6) If it is true that global warming is man made then there is only two answer s: perfect nuclear fusion or instruct very adult in the world to have no more than one child
|Comment #6 by: Andrei on 14 Nov 2009, 18:06 UTC|| reply to this comment|
It is laughable that "a new study has finally determined once and for all that the Sun plays no role in determining the climate change we are currently beginning to experience" is being written about a computer model.
This is not real science. Has this model even predicted anything accurately?
Real science on this matter looks a little more like this: http://www.sciencebits.com/SkyResults and certainly prooves nothing
For any more real scientific evidence on this topic i am afraid we must wait till 2011 for the CLOUD project at CERN to produce REAL data.
|Comment #7 by: global warmer on 23 Dec 2009, 10:10 UTC|| reply to this comment|
This has to be at least one of the most biased closed-minded articles I've read in a while. The author should be ashamed.
"Critics who say that global warming is not caused by man have just lost another of their “strong” arguments recently, when a new study has finally determined once and for all that the Sun plays no role in determining the climate change we are currently beginning to experience." ... lol, are you kidding me??
"Human activity is the main factor that causes global warming, more specifically the billions of tons of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that we emit in the atmosphere every year. Those who say otherwise have no scientific background for their claims whatsoever." ... lol, don't be shy, go ahead and share your personal opinion!!
"The hypothesis is widely used by oil company lobbyists, and other such individuals, to argue the established scientific fact that global warming is caused by greenhouse gases." ... lol, and so on and so on ... pretty confident that your personal opinion is concrete fact eh bud!!?? pathetic article.
"It's shocking that there is even still a need to prove the basic causes behind global warming. It's sad that there are so many sheep in the world that refuse to accept solid scientific models in favor of those that better align with religious or political beliefs.
There are still a good amount of people out there that believe global warming is a farce. Hopefully evidence and studies like this will help convince the critics once and for all and unite more people in the quest to reverse global warming. "
... lol, almost as shocking as this brainwashed comment. Sheep you say? Well sheep are the ones who blindly follow the puppet mainstream media and the Al Gores of the world. At least get your terminology correct if you're going to lable people who don't swallow everything the media spews and choose to do their own research and make up their own mind. Ever heard of "Climategate"? There are your trusted solid scientific models ... your trusted scientists and their manipulated data! Religion and politics?? That's exactly what this whole global warming scam is all about ... along with greed, oppression, power, control, tyranny, removal of freedoms, carbon taxes, carbon trading schemes, cap & trade scams, global governance and removal of nations sovereignty, etc, etc.
There are so many meaningful things we could be doing to clean up this planet but the way it is headed it will be nothing more than the final transfer of the little remaining wealth from the lowly masses to the worlds richest and most powerful. It's all about power and control. You want to see Cap & Trade in action? Google "Cap and Trade in Practice. How to get paid for laying off workers". Just reeks of corruption.
This whole global warming agenda has been pre-planned and in the works for a decade and it's playing out just as scripted with the deceitful Al Gore at the helm profiting billions at your childrens and grandchildrens expense. Wait and see what this global tax scam does to developing nations and third world countries. Have we not learned anything from history? good luck! :)
|Comment #8 by: James on 17 Mar 2010, 07:26 UTC|| reply to this comment|
earth is repeating it self think people what happened before the last ice age you are all F**ked
Copyright © 2001-2013 Softpedia. Contact/Tip us at