It is also quite probable that global warming causes increased carbon dioxide levels. In fact it is quite probable.
It is possible that you have never seen data misrepresented to back an in-valid supposition, while I have seen data mistreated that way on a number of occasions. The Chrysler Corp Elecronic fuel metering project was one of them. The "method of selected data points" is another way that data is used to seemingly validate assertions that are incorrect.
And the answer is NO, I don't believe that older solar energy data is as accurate as the current data, and probably the solar energy data from a hundred years ago is probably less accurate than that. How could it be as accurate?
One other thing is that I forgot to mention how incredibly much profit a few individuals would reap if "cap and trade" ever gets into law.
Of course I am quite cynical about the whole thing, and I almost always consider a persons personal agenda when I listen to them making claims about almost anything. What I do trust most people to do is to cheat when they can and lie when they need to, in order to get what they want. Of course some have higher standards and some have lower standards, and just because somebody is a very elequant and persuasive speaker does not mean that they have a clue as to what they are talking about.
So you don't think that solar measurements were accurate enough? It's obvious that you haven't read any of the published scientific literature. Why post then, if you're not informed enough to know?
Thanks for providing an example of what I posit drives deniers, that they on't like the implications of global warming (that redistribution of wealth thing). The fact is that our behavior has affected the earth's system and is driving the equilibrium to a different point than we evolved in as well as other negative effects on the life that we share this planet with but choose to disregard as we satsify our desires.
It's important that you read up on this issue because we just had some of the hottest temperatures during a solar minimum (see 2009: Second Warmest Year on Record; End of Warmest Decade). The sun is the source of the energy that heats the planet with the oceans, atmosphere, and land holding that energy to varying degrees.
That you would claim that the global warming "movement" has discounted the possibility of natural causes indicates that you have not read the research. So, do yourself a favor and read the research before you start trying to discuss issues that are covered very well in that research.
Search for solar output and global warming and you'll find that yes, researchers have measured the sun's output and have taken that into account. There is alot out there such as this from NASA.
Now we're getting someplace interesting. I believe this only partially correct. Up until recently I believe solar activity had been at relatively high point, and ony recently has begun to decrease - something on the order of the past 5 years. If I recall correctly the last low point was Europe's "Little Ice Age", which was the 16th to 19th century.
I find this piece of the puzzle interesting - and concerning. The problem with the global warming movement, IMO, is that they discount any possibility of natural causes. I think that, by comparison, a minor hiccup for the sun is a major problem for us.
About anybody dying from carbon dioxide inhalation: That has to be a lie made up to back some fallacios argument. I see quite a few of those lies. And, a while back, I did an experiment just to see what the effect of breathing it would be. After two deep breathes of 90% carbon dioxide I found that I was panting as my body was working to get back to a more normal condition. Nobody could intentionally inhale enough to be damaging unless they had a tank and breathing mask, a setup unavailable to kids. So cross out that "urban legend" lie.
Next, it seems very unlikely that solar energy measurements were accurate enough even just fifty years ago for there to be any means to determine a change.
And about the equilibrium having been established, equilibrium is what you get when a system has stablized, which is what the earth has seen as the avarage temperature did not vary a lot over a whole bunch of years.
Besides all of that, those same people who started screaming so loud about global warming are the same ones who for years have been complainng about how much better some countries are living than other countries. They were also advocating the redistribution of wealth, by other names, of course, based on the thinking that if we are that much better off, we must somehow be moraly wrong. The fact is that while all people may be created equal, ( with equal rights, at least), does not in any way mean that they will stay equal in their standard of living. And that is not my fault, you see.
I attacked your grammar after I attacked your idiotic question (which is not the same thing as calling you an idiot--I am not doing that, so please don't get confused). All of your grade school teachers should have attacked any such misuse. The word "at" is redundant. Would you say "Where are my keys at"? Not a federal offense, of course, but it sounds funny and doesn't help your case to argue bad science and then write like a fourth-grader.
I believe there is a saying about arguing with people like you, so I will just end this with "good luck with all that".
Citing Evo1: "but at higher levels (CO2)it is in fact extremely toxic and does lead to several deaths every year, particularly in children..." with due respect, that kind of affirmation is plainly wrong. CO2 is NOT toxic per se, it is the displacement of O2 by excess CO2 that can produce Hipoxia in a closed, overcrowded room. but CO2 is NOT a poison as CO (Carbon Monoxide) that is the one that is poisonous because it causes hemoglobin to become unable to carry Oxygen.
Your assumption that "CO2 does lead to several deaths every year, particularly in children..." is completely false as there is absolutely no evidence of children deaths caused specifically by CO2 inhalation in ventilated spaces.
You would be extremely surprised to know that CO2 has even been purposefully used in the manufacture of Carbogen, a mixture of Oxygen AND CO2, because the CO2 causes the body to try to battle suffocation and stimulates the recovery when the individual has suffered poisoning by Carbon Monoxide. It is interesting that Carbogen mixtures for asphyxia treatment include a full 5% of CO" and 95% Oxygen, when the normal atmospheric content of CO2 is well under 400 parts per million, volume... go figure! Only in densely packed, closed, underventilated spaces, it can become suffocating, but not poisonous. (ten times the normal atmospheric concentration is commonly reached).
Those are the kind of false claims that cloud polemic subject discussion and prevent a clear understanding of the true phenomena (if it happens).
William K, all of those issues are well understood and your assertions are hilariously wrong. Where do you get that we've reached equilibrium? 0.01%?? More CO2 is needed???
Solar output is very well known and it has slightly decreased, not increased. The effect of adding 50% more CO2 (excess), which we've done since the start of the industrial age through the burning of fossil fuels (and also deforestation), is to upset the energy equilibrium by holding more solar radiation energy in the atmosphere, not the opposite.
Truchard will be presented the award at the 2014 Golden Mousetrap Awards ceremony during the co-located events Pacific Design & Manufacturing, MD&M West, WestPack, PLASTEC West, Electronics West, ATX West, and AeroCon.
In a bid to boost the viability of lithium-based electric car batteries, a team at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory has developed a chemistry that could possibly double an EV’s driving range while cutting its battery cost in half.
For industrial control applications, or even a simple assembly line, that machine can go almost 24/7 without a break. But what happens when the task is a little more complex? That’s where the “smart” machine would come in. The smart machine is one that has some simple (or complex in some cases) processing capability to be able to adapt to changing conditions. Such machines are suited for a host of applications, including automotive, aerospace, defense, medical, computers and electronics, telecommunications, consumer goods, and so on. This discussion will examine what’s possible with smart machines, and what tradeoffs need to be made to implement such a solution.