5 ms·

There's no evidence that Mars is exhibiting long term warming trends, and most bodies in the solar system are not warming. The sun is currently in a cooling cyc

There's no evidence that Mars is exhibiting long term warming trends, and most bodies in the solar system are not warming. The sun is currently in a cooling cycle, and all evidence indicates that solar forcing has a much lower impact on rising temperatures than increased greenhouse gases. Explained here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-other-planets-solar-system-intermediate.htm http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-other-planets... It took me about 10 seconds of googling to find the answer explained easily for the layperson as to why you were wrong- and yet, you've never so much as taken that basic step, let alone examine any of the scientific literature on the topic, and you immediately jumped to the conclusion that the overwhelming majority of scientists who study climate and Earth sciences worldwide are wrong. There have been hundreds of papers written on the topic, all by experts who reach conclusions that disagree with you, and you examined none of that research. It is the sheer arrogance of the climate change denier that is so startling to me.

AuLaVache 11y ago
>indicates that solar forcing has a much lower impact on rising temperatures than increased greenhouse gases. Could be. But I would argue that sites like SkS, which are fairly partisan in their views like to look only at TSI and ignore other solar factors. The Sun effects us in many unexpected ways. See for example here: http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/ http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08... And here: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/5/054022;jsessionid=F87A9539A4F89BEF6AA70596DC97E24D.c1 http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/5/054... The last link (looking at the UV part of the spectrum) could explain the warming of the Atlantic we have been experiencing, See this graph of the AMO (yes, not the same as the NOA outlined in the paper - but related) and NH temperatures: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-amo/from:1960/mean:30/plot/hadsst2nh/from:1960/mean:30/plot/hadcrut3nh/from:1960/mean:30 http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-amo/from:1960/mean:30/... The AMO does seems to be "externally forced" I.e. not related to CO2, but probably/possibly some solar related mechanism. http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140225/ncomms4323/full/ncomms4323.html http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140225/ncomms4323/full/nco... The whole thing is damn complicated. Different parts of the spectrum impact on different parts of atmospheric chemistry (e.g. ozone), and inter-relate with components like earth and solar magnetic fields, particles, GCRs, etc. Science is never settled (as SkS would have us believe) it's still in progress.

AuLaVache 11y ago

>indicates that solar forcing has a much lower impact on rising temperatures than increased greenhouse gases. Could be. But I would argue that sites like SkS, which are fairly partisan in their views like to look only at TSI and ignore other solar factors. The Sun effects us in many unexpected ways. See for example here: http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/ http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08... And here: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/5/054022;jsessionid=F87A9539A4F89BEF6AA70596DC97E24D.c1 http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/5/054... The last link (looking at the UV part of the spectrum) could explain the warming of the Atlantic we have been experiencing, See this graph of the AMO (yes, not the same as the NOA outlined in the paper - but related) and NH temperatures: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-amo/from:1960/mean:30/plot/hadsst2nh/from:1960/mean:30/plot/hadcrut3nh/from:1960/mean:30 http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-amo/from:1960/mean:30/... The AMO does seems to be "externally forced" I.e. not related to CO2, but probably/possibly some solar related mechanism. http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140225/ncomms4323/full/ncomms4323.html http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140225/ncomms4323/full/nco... The whole thing is damn complicated. Different parts of the spectrum impact on different parts of atmospheric chemistry (e.g. ozone), and inter-relate with components like earth and solar magnetic fields, particles, GCRs, etc. Science is never settled (as SkS would have us believe) it's still in progress.