11 Aug 15
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2015/aug/07/new-sunspot-analysis-shows-rising-global-temperatures-not-linked-to-solar-activity
"...New sunspot analysis shows rising global temperatures not linked to solar activity
...
A recalibration of data describing the number of sunspots and groups of sunspots on the surface of the Sun shows that there is no significant long-term upward trend in solar activity since 1700, contrary to what was previously thought. Indeed, the corrected numbers now point towards a consistent history of solar activity over the past few centuries, according to an international team of researchers. Its results suggest that rising global temperatures since the industrial revolution cannot be attributed to increased solar activity.
..."
Apart for a few people that deny man made global warming, no surprises there!
13 Aug 15
Originally posted by humySaw that piece, and I agree, deniers are losing more and more ground each passing year.
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2015/aug/07/new-sunspot-analysis-shows-rising-global-temperatures-not-linked-to-solar-activity
"...New sunspot analysis shows rising global temperatures not linked to solar activity
...
A recalibration of data describing the number of sunspots and groups of sunspots on the surface of the Sun shows that there is no sig ...[text shortened]... ctivity.
..."
Apart for a few people that deny man made global warming, no surprises there!
19 Aug 15
Originally posted by humy"A recalibration of data describing the number of sunspots and groups of sunspots on the surface of the Sun shows that there is no significant long-term upward trend in solar activity since 1700"
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2015/aug/07/new-sunspot-analysis-shows-rising-global-temperatures-not-linked-to-solar-activity
"...New sunspot analysis shows rising global temperatures not linked to solar activity
...
A recalibration of data describing the number of sunspots and groups of sunspots on the surface of the Sun shows that there is no sig ...[text shortened]... ctivity.
..."
Apart for a few people that deny man made global warming, no surprises there!
Sunspots alone is a poor indicator of temperatures. Temperatures on earth do not go up and down just because of sunspot increases or decreases in a predictable way. The 1700s had no satellites so only mere observations exist which are not very reliable. Nobody knows how the sun's solar output was prior to the space age in an accurate way. Your link is not proof of anything and is merely more biased garbage that has nothing to do with physics. Physics requires something more than mere conjecture and that is all the article contains.
Only many more years of studying the sun will give us a decent understanding of how much it is a factor. Anybody who says they know it does not affect climate change very much is arrogant and stupid. That kind of hubris is pathetic!
Originally posted by Metal BrainWell done. So, unlike many man made global warming denies, here you actually admit there is no evidence that solar activity as measured by sun spot activity is the cause of current warming
Sunspots alone is a poor indicator of temperatures. Temperatures on earth do not go up and down just because of sunspot increases or decreases in a predictable way.
Nobody knows how the sun's solar output was prior to the space age in an accurate way.
So you now imply the opposite thus contradicting yourself? If not, why would sun spot activity be prior to that be relevant if you admit there is no evidence that it is link to current global warming?
Either way, you are being a complete moron as usual.
Originally posted by Duncan Clarkeyes, believers that man made global warming is just one vast absurd global conspiracy myth do that a lot. Of course, they always either take what a report says out of its proper context or use biased unscientific reports that obviously authored by yet more believers in the mass conspiracy theory -they have to; they know that if they didn't, they will learn that they are wrong; can't have that!
. The believers punting reports which strenghen their belief.
Originally posted by Metal BrainEr, telescopes had existed for 100 years or so in the 1700's and they had the means to put filters on them to see pretty good images of the sun and they DID have reliable means of seeing sunspot numbers back then.
"A recalibration of data describing the number of sunspots and groups of sunspots on the surface of the Sun shows that there is no significant long-term upward trend in solar activity since 1700"
Sunspots alone is a poor indicator of temperatures. Temperatures on earth do not go up and down just because of sunspot increases or decreases in a predictab ...[text shortened]... oes not affect climate change very much is arrogant and stupid. That kind of hubris is pathetic!
http://www.windows2universe.org/sun/activity/sunspot_history.html
Telescopes were used to view sunspots in fact as far back as 1600.
28 Aug 15
Originally posted by humyNo contradiction at all. You are making stuff up again as usual.
Well done. So, unlike many man made global warming denies, here you actually admit there is no evidence that solar activity as measured by sun spot activity is the cause of current warming
Nobody knows how the sun's solar output was prior to the space age in an accurate way.
So you now imply the opposite thus contradicting yourself? If ...[text shortened]... that it is link to current global warming?
Either way, you are being a complete moron as usual.
I am not a global warming denier. You are stating inaccurate terms again. I have always said the latest warming trend started 300 years ago and is natural. What denial?
Use correct terms like anthropogenic. Your careless use of terms is proof that you are contradicting yourself, just not intentionally. You are a careless person who dismisses evidence that man is not the primary cause of global warming. The Pliocene was a lot warmer than today and you still avoid giving estimates of when your foolish theory that heat capacity will result in out of control warming. Are you going to keep making that prediction for decades to come? Why so evasive?
28 Aug 15
Originally posted by humyYou believe in a vast absurd global conspiracy myth that renewable technologies are being suppressed. You are being absurd.
yes, believers that man made global warming is just one vast absurd global conspiracy myth do that a lot. Of course, they always either take what a report says out of its proper context or use biased unscientific reports that obviously authored by yet more believers in the mass conspiracy theory -they have to; they know that if they didn't, they will learn that they are wrong; can't have that!
28 Aug 15
Originally posted by sonhouseNot really. Only satellites are reliable. They don't sleep or forget to write things down. Pictures are important too. Photo technology has come a long way since then.
Er, telescopes had existed for 100 years or so in the 1700's and they had the means to put filters on them to see pretty good images of the sun and they DID have reliable means of seeing sunspot numbers back then.
http://www.windows2universe.org/sun/activity/sunspot_history.html
Telescopes were used to view sunspots in fact as far back as 1600.
31 Aug 15
4 edits
Originally posted by Metal Brainshow us exactly where I, just like you claim, asserted there IS a "vast" "global conspiracy"?
So you deny your own assertions? .
Apparently you cannot read. I clearly implied certain OTHER people believe this, NOT me.
I never asserted there IS a vast global conspiracy and I obviously don't believe there is.
04 Sep 15
Originally posted by humyRenewable technology suppression is something you embraced. That cannot be accomplished without a vast conspiracy that is global.
show us exactly where I, just like you claim, asserted there IS a "vast" "global conspiracy"?
Apparently you cannot read. I clearly implied certain OTHER people believe this, NOT me.
I never asserted there IS a vast global conspiracy and I obviously don't believe there is.
04 Sep 15
17 edits
Originally posted by Metal BrainI do not embrace a "suppression" of renewable technology i.e. I would not embrace policies against renewable technology. I take it you would. In fact, I would like to support, not suppress, research and development into it.
Renewable technology suppression is something you embraced
Did you idiotically mean "suppression from renewable technology..."?
If so;
What is that?
Are they now making solar panels with leg and arm constraints?