"WRONG answer! Yet again, try reading up on a subject "before" you start talking."
Hey drmiller, Dr. Greene is prescribing a chill pill now; your quoted statments say...
"Sun's Output Increasing in Possible Trend Fueling Global Warming"
Not trend, or even definitive trend, possible trend. Well possible trend doesn't mean conclusive and that's the whole point, is could very well also mean possibly not a trend.
"NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE"
Here again, "CAN CHANGE" not is changing, or actively changing. Learn to read please, and back off the acusatory tone regarding reading up before I talk ok, you clearly either do not know the meaning of the words you have just posted, or are too busy defending the UNPROVEN argument that the is global warming debate to give a solid sh*t.
I stand by my statement that nothing in nature is stable increasing or decreasing all the time.
"That is unless you're now going to tell us that NASA doesn't have a clue?"
You know what, it's not that NASA doesn't have a clue, it's that they don't have enough clues, and neither does anyone else hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm k?
Even today you can't tell me with more then 50% accuracy what the weather is going to be in my city, 14 days from today, but you claim to be able to predict the weather on the planet in the next 30,50,100,1000 years, or as the other guy stated 150,000 years.
Yeah ok, assuming the world isn't hit by an asteroid, or we don't end up nuking ourselves, or we don't encounter what Donald Rumsfeld likes to call, unknown unknowns in the universe. Say there is some phoneomenon that we fly though on our solar systems interstellar orbit of the galaxy that wipes all life off the planet.
In order to accurately predict something and not be Nostradamus, you have to use something called the scientific method and derive conclusions from the observations. You also have to be able to replicate the experiment for it to be accepted by the whole of the scientific community. The bottom line is the global warming debate/evidence is still largely in the realm of politics and not science. The only real solution to this problem, if it even is a problem, right now that is still debatable, is going to be through science, not politics.
In order for science to even attempt to solve the problem, it has to be understood. What we know is pretty much this...
-The sun has been around for about 5 billion years,
-there are sun spots every 11 years,
-The Earth has been orbiting for about 4.5 billion of those years,
-The Earth has had ice ages,
-We also know the orbit of the earth was more eliptical at one time.
None of us have been recording history since the time of the last ice age or even speaking a language, we've been working on killing the local animals and eating and staying warm.
Now you are trying to tell me and the rest of us, clearly because you know it all, that 30-35 years or so of evidence one way or the other is sufficient to explain and offer solutions to this problem? That's ridicuolous.
Well I reject that, purely because there is insufficient data. If it were sufficient, and conclusive, we would not be discussing the issue, and the world economy as a whole would be moving much more rapidly towards alternative uses of energy.
In the 1960's they were warning us about the impending return to an ice age, I guess because we've willed it, and spun the Earth in a whole new direction now we have to worry about global warming. It had to get a lot hotter a lot more consistently longer for the argument to have any meaning and I mean beyond our lifetime.
Tell you what, why don't you read up on it, and tell me what my weather is going to be in Wisconsin December 11. If you can do that, that's something my 3 local weather guys can't do. Neither can NASA or anybody else more accurately then a coin flip.