are humans causing global warming?

[Notabull]

[lamont]

[lamont]

[lamont]

[rose-colored-coolaid]

[Big Mike 34]

[Notabull]

[rose-colored-coolaid]

[Notabull]

[lamont]

[Robroy]

http://www.dailytech.com/Sun+Makes+Hist ... e12823.htm
EOL

[rose-colored-coolaid]

[lamont]

we're in a solar minimum and its entirely likely that poisson statistics conspired to give us a month with zero sunspots (given the average number of sunspots per month during a solar minimum, what are the chances that you'd see a month without sunspots in any given century?)

on the other hand we've already seen the first sunspots with a different polarity on them earlier in the year indicating that we're entering the next solar cycle.

so, its still way too soon to call a new maunder minimum.

and here's a much more scientifically valid, mainstream and less speculative estimate of solar cycle 23:

http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml

and even if we do get another maunder minimum, that buys about -0.2C of a total forcing, which would help to counteract the effects so far of GHG warming in the past 20-30 years or so, but would not plunge the Earth into a new ice age. if we didn't squander that 20-30 years arguing about anthropogenic GHG effects that would buy us some valuable time.

the cosmic ray stuff is also scientific garbage:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... smic-rays/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... te-driver/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... or-a-spin/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... w-clothes/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... so-easily/

[deejayoh]

Ooooh. I love these threads! Can someone please post the editorial by the "founder of the weather channel" and also, the internet petition signed by 30,000 "scientists"?

And I love the "daily tech" link. Is that kind of like Scientific American, except for the interwebs?

[Robroy]