Climate Change Occurring in Every Planet in Solar System

Also of note.

Weather On Mars Surprisingly Warm, Curiosity Rover Finds


by SPACE.com Staff

Date: 01 October 2012 Time: 07:00 AM ET

NASA's Mars rover Curiosity is enjoying some nice, warm weather on the Red Planet — and spring hasn't even come to its landing site yet.

Curiosity's onboard weather station, which is called the Remote Environment Monitoring Station (REMS), has measured air temperatures as high as 43 degrees Fahrenheit (6 degrees Celsius) in the afternoon. And temperatures have climbed above freezing during more than half of the Martian days, or sols, since REMS was turned on, scientists said.

These measurements are a bit unexpected, since it's still late winter at Gale Crater, the spot 4.5 degrees south of the Martian equator where Curiosity touched down on Aug. 5.
...

www.space.com...

Wow, that's a lot of information. So you claim "every planet" in your title - what about uranus, neptune, mercury, not to mention all the other moons in the solar system? Are they all warming, too?

I guess my real question is - why do you *not* believe that AGW is real? You've cherry-picked a nice bit of data here that probably really doesn't add up to much in a desperate attempt to "prove" that AGW is bogus, while a vast majority of scientists who've studied this far much more than you tell us that AGW is indeed real. Do you not believe in science?

Originally posted by redtic
Wow, that's a lot of information. So you claim "every planet" in your title - what about uranus, neptune, mercury, not to mention all the other moons in the solar system? Are they all warming, too?

I guess my real question is - why do you *not* believe that AGW is real? You've cherry-picked a nice bit of data here that probably really doesn't add up to much in a desperate attempt to "prove" that AGW is bogus, while a vast majority of scientists who've studied this far much more than you tell us that AGW is indeed real. Do you not believe in science?

Ok... First of all, you actually think that making such a generalized statement, based on lies and exaggerations, that you can just ignore, or dismiss the evidence provided?... Phew... I do guess that ignorance is indeed a blessing for some...

I will get to the other planets, but first let me address your last myopic argument, and question about "do you not believe in science"?...

First of all, every piece of information I have given in this thread comes from SCIENTISTS, and their scientific research.
Second, what science are you referring to that I must bow to?... The LIE that "a majority of scientists agree with AGW"?... This LIE has been debunked many times already. Scientists have come forward stating that AGW and Climate Change has become politicized and it's being used to push for agendas that have nothing to do with science.

An Open Letter to the Community from Chris Landsea.

Dear Colleagues,

After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.

With this open letter to the community, I wish to explain the basis for my decision and bring awareness to what I view as a problem in the IPCC process. The IPCC is a group of climate researchers from around the world that every few years summarize how climate is changing and how it may be altered in the future due to manmade global warming. I had served both as an author for the Observations chapter and a Reviewer for the 2nd Assessment Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, primarily on the topic of tropical cyclones (hurricanes and typhoons). My work on hurricanes, and tropical cyclones more generally, has been widely cited by the IPCC. For the upcoming AR4, I was asked several weeks ago by the Observations chapter Lead Author Dr. Kevin Trenberth to provide the writeup for Atlantic hurricanes. As I had in the past, I agreed to assist the IPCC in what I thought was to be an important and politically neutral determination of what is happening with our climate.
.............

www.tsaugust.org...


In other threads some other members and I have shown how so called "scientific groups who have jumped in the AGW bandwagon are doing so simply to get funding, and not because of "we know with 90%-99% certainty that AGW is real" like the AGW camp keep claiming even to this day.

You see, the claims from the "scientific groups" that have jumped in the AGW bandwagon have been found to be based on lies and exaggerations, as in reality they do not really ask in a concise manner a majority the real opinion on AGW and Climate Change from their scientist members.

I have posted examples how this is happening such as what happened to the world's largest scientific group, the American Chemical Society (ACS), when the group's editor-in-chief claimed that "the science of AGW is well established". The editor-in-chief got a backlash of emails from the scientists in his group, and a majority of them were clearly in disagreement.

In fact even when the directors/main representatives of scientific groups do make questions of their scientists these questions are often so generalized that it makes it seem a majority agree, but that is not true. Many scientists believe that Climate Change is natural, there are many others who say we don't have enough proof and we do not know the cause behind Climate Change, there are those that do believe humans have some effect, and there are those who believe humans are the main cause for Climate Change.

Let me give you another example on how these "scientific groups" and even regular people amongst the AGW camp generalize statements to make it seem a majority of scientists and people agree with them. You yourself made such a generalization.

There is only one main argument that the majority of scientists do agree with, and that is that Climate Change is happening, but sorry to rain in your parade such a claim does not mean they agree with AGW, they just say Climate Change is happening. Just because a majority of scientists agree that Climate Change is happening, it doesn't mean they agree with the AGW claim...

You see, the climate is ALWAYS changing naturally, but the AGW camp, even amongst the AGW scientists make labels of those who don't agree with them such as "they are climate denialists" or "they are science denialists", such generalized statements are meant to make people believe that those of us who disagree with the AGW claim just want to ignore science, but the truth is the opposite.

It has been proven, time and again in these forums that the claims from the AGW camp are based on exaggerations, erroneous data, flawed computer models, and even lies.

First, we have the hacked emails showing how AGW scientists were exchanging emails and clearly stating how they wanted to stop scientists from publishing research that disproves the AGW claim. Not only that but these scientists were also discussing how to not release information through the FOIA, and other tactics which have been meant to stop REAL SCIENCE and REAL SCIENTISTS from digging into the AGW claims.

I will post next another of the many examples on how AGW scientists have been knowingly posting false information and tampered data trying to hide the truth.

IEA: Hadley Center “probably tampered with Russian climate data”
...

An email from Jones to Mann in March 2004 stated:


Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either appears I will be very surprised, but you never know with GRL.

Yesterday’s report (RIA Novosti) from Russia said:


Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.

The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory.

Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports.

Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.

The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.

The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations.

On the whole, climatologists use the incomplete findings of meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete observations.

IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations.

The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass. The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.

Global-temperature data will have to be modified if similar climate-date procedures have been used from other national data because the calculations used by COP15 analysts, including financial calculations, are based on HadCRUT research.

RIA Novosti is not responsible for the content of outside sources.
...

climateaudit.org...

BTW, that's not the only time when AGW scientists have posted knowingly false information and tampered data to PUSH for their global agendas.

Another of such example is NASA's director James Hansen and his continuous attempts to publish erroneous data simply because it backed his AGW BELIEFS.

Blogger gets hot and bothered over Nasa's climate data error

· Amateur discovers 1934, not 1998, is hottest year
· Climatologists insist trend is still towards warming


Richard Luscombe in Miami

The Guardian, Wednesday 15 August 2007

An amateur meteorologist in Canada has embarrassed Nasa scientists into admitting that some of the data they used to show significant recent increases in global warming is flawed.

As a result of Stephen McIntyre's calculations, climatologists at the Goddard Institute of Space Science in New York now accept that 1934 was historically the United States' hottest year since records began, not 1998 as they had claimed. It also turns out that five of the 10 warmest years on record in the US occurred before 1939, and only one is from the 21st century, raising questions over the statistics used in Al Gore's environmental film An Inconvenient Truth to highlight the faster pace of climate change.

"They have managed it rather poorly," said Mr McIntyre, a prolific internet blogger from Toronto who pointed out the gaffe to Nasa in an email. He noticed that temperature deviation readings from numerous weather-recording stations around the US showed sudden and inexplicable leaps after 2000. He says the agency refused to share with him the complex methodology it uses to calculate trends from the data, then quietly changed statistics to rewrite history without explanation.
...

www.guardian.co.uk...

That was not the only time when Hansen has published false data, or that Gavin Schmidt among others have lied to push and FORCE their views...

There are other examples, such as...

The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.

Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.

In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.
‘It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.’

Dr Lal’s admission will only add to the mounting furore over the melting glaciers assertion, which the IPCC was last week forced to withdraw because it has no scientific foundation.

According to the IPCC’s statement of principles, its role is ‘to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis, scientific, technical and socio-economic information – IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy’.
.........

www.dailymail.co.uk...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

A BRITISH climate scientist at the centre of a controversy over leaked emails is facing fresh claims that he sought to hide problems in temperature data on which his work was based.

An investigation of more than 2000 emails apparently hacked from the University of East Anglia's climatic research unit has found evidence that a series of measurements from Chinese weather stations was seriously flawed.

Climate scientist Phil Jones and a collaborator have been accused of scientific fraud for attempting to suppress data that could cast doubt on a key 1990 study on the effect of cities on warming.

Dr Jones withheld the information requested under British freedom of information laws. Subsequently a senior colleague told him he feared that Dr Jones' collaborator, Wei-chyung Wang of the University at Albany, had ''screwed up''.

The apparent attempts to cover up problems with temperature data from the Chinese weather stations provide the first link between the email scandal and the UN's embattled climate science body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, as a paper based on the measurements was used to bolster IPCC statements about rapid global warming in recent decades.

The IPCC has already been criticised for its use of information that had not been rigorously checked - in particular a false claim that all Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035.

Of 105 freedom of information requests to the University of East Anglia over the climatic research unit, which Dr Jones led until the end of December, only 10 had been released in full.
..............

www.theage.com.au...

In at least one of the emails they mention ways that they can use not to release information, and in one of the emails Jones himself jokes saying...:

....If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think Ill delete the file rather than send to anyone."

www.cbsnews.com...

Not to mention the fact that CRU, and Jones had deleted their raw temperature data.

We Lost the Original Data

Steve McIntyre, of ClimateAudit, is a determined individual. While this may be no fun for those who fall under his focus and happen to have something to hide, more sunlight on climate science cannot be a bad thing.
...
Obviously, the ability to do good research depends upon good data with known provenance. At the time WMO Resolution 40 was widely hailed in the atmospheric sciences community as a major step forward in data sharing and availability in support of both operations and research.

Thus it is with some surprise to observe CRU going through bizarre contortions to avoid releasing its climate data to Steve McIntyre. They first told him that he couldn't have it because he was not an academic. I found this to be a petty reason for keeping data out of the hands of someone who clearly wants to examine it for scholarly purposes. So, wanting to test this theory I asked CRU for the data myself, being a "real" academic. I received a letter back from CRU stating that I couldn't have the data because "we do not hold the requested information."

I found that odd. How can they not hold the data when they are showing graphs of global temperatures on their webpage? However, it turns out that CRU has in response to requests for its data put up a new webpage with the following remarkable admission (emphasis added):

We are not in a position to supply data for a particular country not covered by the example agreements referred to earlier, as we have never had sufficient resources to keep track of the exact source of each individual monthly value. Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues.[b/ We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data.

Say what?! CRU has lost track of the original data that it uses to create its global temperature record!? Can this be serious? So not only is it now impossible to replicate or reevaluate homogeneity adjustments made in the past -- which might be important to do as new information is learned about the spatial representativeness of siting, land use effects, and so on -- but it is now also impossible to create a new temperature index from scratch. CRU is basically saying, "trust us." So much for settling questions and resolving debates with empirical information (i.e., science).
...

rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com...

reply to post by redtic


Oh, and btw, I find it ironic how AGW proponents such as you make such generalized claims based on nothing more than exaggerations and lies and you claim to be on the side of science... Hypocrisy at it's worse...

Anyway, back to the topic...

That's without mentioning the fact that the GCMs (Global Computer Models) that are used for the "predictions" of what will supposedly happen in the future are flawed. These GCMs don't even account natural factors, such as the Solar System moving into a new region of space, or even other more close at home factors which affect the climate and weather on Earth...

Orographic cloud in a GCM: the missing cirrus
Journal Climate Dynamics
Publisher Springer Berlin / Heidelberg
ISSN 0930-7575 (Print) 1432-0894 (Online)
Issue Volume 24, Numbers 7-8 / June, 2005
DOI 10.1007/s00382-005-0020-9
Pages 771-780
Subject Collection Earth and Environmental Science
SpringerLink Date Monday, May 02, 2005


PDF (702.7 KB)HTMLFree Preview

Orographic cloud in a GCM: the missing cirrus
S. M. Dean1 , B. N. Lawrence2, R. G. Grainger1 and D. N. Heuff3

(1) Atmospheric Oceanic and Planetary Physics, Clarendon Laboratory, University of Oxford, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK
(2) British Atmospheric Data Centre, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Chilton, Oxfordshire, UK
(3) Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand

Received: 13 September 2004 Accepted: 25 February 2005 Published online: 27 April 2005

Abstract Observations from the International Satellite Cloud Climatalogy Project (ISCCP) are used to demonstrate that the 19-level HadAM3 version of the United Kingdom Met Office Unified Model does not simulate sufficient high cloud over land. By using low-altitude winds, from the European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasting (ECMWF) Re-Analysis from 1979 to 1994 (ERA-15) to predict the areas of maximum likelihood of orographic wave generation, it is shown that much of the deficiency is likely to be due to the lack of a representation of the orographic cirrus generated by sub-grid scale orography. It is probable that this is a problem in most GCMs.

www.springerlink.com...


Another of the many flaws of GCMs..

The widely accepted (albeit unproven) theory that manmade global warming will accelerate itself by creating more heat-trapping clouds is challenged this month in new research from The University of Alabama in Huntsville.

Instead of creating more clouds, individual tropical warming cycles that served as proxies for global warming saw a decrease in the coverage of heat-trapping cirrus clouds, says Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist in UAHuntsville's Earth System Science Center.

That was not what he expected to find.

"All leading climate models forecast that as the atmosphere warms there should be an increase in high altitude cirrus clouds, which would amplify any warming caused by manmade greenhouse gases," he said. "That amplification is a positive feedback. What we found in month-to-month fluctuations of the tropical climate system was a strongly negative feedback. As the tropical atmosphere warms, cirrus clouds decrease. That allows more infrared heat to escape from the atmosphere to outer space."

The results of this research were published today in the American Geophysical Union's "Geophysical Research Letters" on-line edition. The paper was co-authored by UAHuntsville's Dr. John R. Christy and Dr. W. Danny Braswell, and Dr. Justin Hnilo of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA.

www.uah.edu...

Koutsoyiannis, D., A. Efstratiadis, N. Mamassis, and A. Christofides, On the credibility of climate predictions, Hydrological Sciences Journal, 53 (4), 671–684, 2008.

[doc_id=864]

[English]

Geographically distributed predictions of future climate, obtained through climate models, are widely used in hydrology and many other disciplines, typically without assessing their reliability. Here we compare the output of various models to temperature and precipitation observations from eight stations with long (over 100 years) records from around the globe. The results show that models perform poorly, even at a climatic (30-year) scale. Thus local model projections cannot be credible, whereas a common argument that models can perform better at larger spatial scales is unsupported.

www.itia.ntua.gr...


There is a lot more evidence that GCMs are flawed, and their models should not be seen as any sort of "prediction" simply because of these flaws which don't take in consideration many natural factors. As any computer program will do, if you make it "assume" a certain value for CO2, and tell the computer program that with more CO2 temperatures will increase more, that is exactly what the model will do, and more so, when you don't take into consideration all natural factors that affect the climate on Earth.

Of course when you do this, either knowingly or unknowingly, you are attributing CO2 as the main cause, and this is exactly what GCMs will show. Since you are not properly attributing all the natural factors that affect the climate GCMs will assume that the cause is CO2, even when we know that water vapor is 10 times more potent than CO2 molecule by molecule, and water vapor exists at much higher levels in Earth's atmosphere than CO2... But for some reason CO2 is being attributed as the main cause of warming...

reply to post by redtic


Now, back to your question on whether or not this is happening to all the other planets and moons... First of all, it can't be proven that every moon is doing this, first because we are not exploring many of these moons...

Second of all, there is no need to prove that every single one of the planets and moons is undergoing Climate Change because if we see a majority of them undergoing such changes then it shows that they are reacting to some factor that is affecting their dynamics.

Third of all, you are showing a common trend among many AGW proponents, and that is the fact that you are completely oblivious that indeed EVERY planet and moon that has a thick enough atmosphere would indeed have Climate Change. Of course you are not going to understand this because of your BELIEF that "mankind is the one that causes Climate Change"... You see, the climate, and weather of planets and moons with a thick enough atmosphere are bound to be ALWAYS CHAGING...

Anyway, still, let me post more proof of what is happening to other planets and moons in our Solar System, and how it is mystifying scientists...

Suggestive correlations between the brightness of Neptune, solar variability, and Earth's temperature

H. B. Hammel1,
G. W. Lockwood2

Article first published online: 19 APR 2007

DOI: 10.1029/2006GL028764

Copyright 2007 by the American Geophysical Union.


Keywords:

Neptune;
solar variability;
photometric


[1] Long-term photometric measurements of Neptune show variations of brightness over half a century. Seasonal change in Neptune's atmosphere may partially explain a general rise in the long-term light curve, but cannot explain its detailed variations. This leads us to consider the possibility of solar-driven changes, i.e., changes incurred by innate solar variability perhaps coupled with changing seasonal insolation. Although correlations between Neptune's brightness and Earth's temperature anomaly—and between Neptune and two models of solar variability—are visually compelling, at this time they are not statistically significant due to the limited degrees of freedom of the various time series. Nevertheless, the striking similarity of the temporal patterns of variation should not be ignored simply because of low formal statistical significance. If changing brightnesses and temperatures of two different planets are correlated, then some planetary climate changes may be due to variations in the solar system environment.

onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

Do read that last part where it is said if similar reactions, brightness and temperatures of just 2 planets are occurring, then it must be due to variations in the solar system environment...

There have been unusual changes in the brightness of Neptune, and although they do state it should be studied more, the fact is that this is not just happening to one or two planets at the same time, it has been happening to most, if not all of them.

Uranus.

New Images: Scientists Puzzled By Uranus Weather Patterns

October 21, 2012

“We’re seeing some new things that before were buried in the noise [in the data],” Larry Sromovsky, a University of Wisconsin-Madison planetary scientist, said.

Circulating clouds, enormous hurricanes, and a never-before-seen scalloped wave pattern just south of the planet’s equator, were revealed by the new composite images. The braid-like scalloped pattern could be caused by wind shear or atmospheric instability, but the cause is unknown so far. The data also showed that hydrogen, helium and methane clouds race by in the atmosphere at 560 miles an hour.

The image revealed the bands around Uranus, highlighting an important quirk of the planet. Uranus is tilted almost completely on its side, with the cloud bands running up and down instead of side to side like those on Jupiter do. Uranus’ North Pole features unusual convective spots that may indicate the presence of an enormous polar hurricane.

It appears weather systems are fairly stable on Uranus, like the other giant planets in our solar system. The weather systems often remain at the same latitude for years at a time, with planet-wide storms that are much less intense than similar weather on Earth. The Sun drives weather and it is 900 times weaker in its effect on Uranus than on Earth. Sometimes, however, Uranian storms have bizarre changes in shape and size that seem to be more powerful than would be possible given the little amount of solar energy that arrives in the outer solar system.
...

www.redorbit.com...

Uranus doesn't have any detectable internal energy source that could drive these changes, so these scientists assume that it must be the Sun. But the Sun is too far away to provide the energy necessary to cause these changes. Not to mention that we have been seeing the same thing happening for example to Pluto, which had been orbiting farther and farther away from the Sun since 1989, and the farther away it got, the WARMER that Pluto became.

Not only that, but YOU and others like you want to dismiss the fact that we have been detecting more energy entering the Solar System, as well as interstellar dust, and other forms of energy and matter that apparently according to YOU shouldn't cause changes in the dynamics of the planets and moons with a thick enough atmosphere?...

Who is really just wanting to ignore science?... Certainly not I...

sandf
I guess now can crawl out of the debunkers now and breath again

eta:
as if that squigley graph from the ice cores showing major climate changes going back over hundreds of thousands of years wasn't enough...

reply to post by Danbones


Thanks for the response, and the sandf.

Let me show how the climate of another moon with a thick atmosphere is reacting to "something" that is still unknown.

Tropical Storm Spotted on Saturn's Moon Titan


by Clara Moskowitz, Staff Writer

Date: 12 August 2009 Time: 01:07 PM ET


A tropical storm was not what astronomers expected to see when they pointed their telescopes toward the equator of Saturn's moon Titan last summer.

But that's exactly what they found on this beguiling moon, home to a weather system both eerily familiar and perplexingly strange. The discovery was announced today.

In many ways Titan's climate resembles that of Earth, but instead of a water cycle, Titan has a methane cycle. Clouds, rain and lakes all exist on Titan, but they are all made of methane. In the moon's frigid climate, any water is frozen into rock-hard ice.


Shouldn't be there

Clouds of vaporized methane are not uncommon on Titan, though they have never before been observed in Titan's tropics. But in April 2008, astronomers using the Gemini North telescope and NASA's Infrared Telescope Facility in Hawaii spotted a severe storm covering 1.2 million square miles (3 million square kilometers) over the equator.
...

The following part is very important, as scientists state they are not sure what is causing these changes on Titan, but they do say "something did give a good kick to Titan's atmosphere...

"The models predicted that the equatorial region should be very dry and should not support cloud formation," said astronomer Henry Roe of Lowell Observatory in Arizona. "But this episode created clouds over both the equator and the south pole. We don't know what set off that sequence, but something gave a pretty good kick to the atmosphere."

Scientists suspect the storm's trigger may have been some kind of geologic activity on the moon's surface, such as a geyser or new mountain range forming. Atmospheric effects may also have set off the storm.

Whatever the cause, once the clouds were established they seem to have spread throughout Titan's atmosphere in waves.

The situation is a new wrinkle in the study of this complex moon.
...

www.space.com...

So far I have proven that even scientists are perplexed that strange, and similar changes that are happening on Earth are also happening to our Solar System neighbors, including moons with a thick enough atmosphere.


Let me post again the real interesting part.

...
"The models predicted that the equatorial region should be very dry and should not support cloud formation," said astronomer Henry Roe of Lowell Observatory in Arizona. "But this episode created clouds over both the equator and the south pole. We don't know what set off that sequence, but something gave a pretty good kick to the atmosphere."
...

Again, more and more evidence corroborates my argument and the fact that the Earth, and other planets and moons have been reacting to a new region of space our Solar system has been slowly encountering.

Our solar system will very probably be well within this new region of space, which is a million times hotter than the one we are in now, within about 100 years. We have only encountered small portions of this new region of the Local Fluff and it has been changing the climate and dynamics of the planets, and apparently the Sun itself.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse

which is exactly what we have been seen happening not only on Earth, but every planet in the Solar System.

Not all bodies in the solar system are being seen to warm up. Six is not the whole solar system. The sun is cooling down and so is Uranus. Neptune spins an orbit of 164 years. We have been watching 50 years or so. We do not know what the climate of the planet does in a single year yet. How can you use such data to extrapolate climate change is taking place in our solar system.

Out of the remaining ones that have been noted to be heated. There are explanations. Pluto is an exception to this. It is suggested that what is occurring is simply a climatic change. We have been observing its climate for 14 years again with a 248 year orbit. It really is anyones guess. That is like watching the weather on planet earth for a day or so and saying that climate change is occurring. It is not possible. Your theory holds little water.

Around 6 planets or moons out of the more than 100 bodies in the solar system have been observed to be warming. On the other hand, Uranus is cooling (Young 2001).

skepticalscience.com...

Originally posted by purplemer


Not all bodies in the solar system are being seen to warm up. Six is not the whole solar system. The sun is cooling down and so is Uranus. Neptune spins an orbit of 164 years. We have been watching 50 years or so. We do not know what the climate of the planet does in a single year yet. How can you use such data to extrapolate climate change is taking place in our solar system.

First of all, the AGW crowd use dramatic COOLING changes also happening on Earth as proof that AGW is real... But you want to claim that dramatic Climate Changes in other planets in the form of cooling cannot be caused by a common factor?... Seriously?...

Second of all, planets like Neptune, and dwarf planets like Pluto do not receive enough energy from the Sun to make the changes we have seen. The energy has to come from SOMEWHERE, we haven't found any source from the planet that would cause these changes, so logic should tell you that the energy is coming from somewhere else...

That's without mentioning the fact that I have shown proof that space radiation has been increasing, there has been an exponential increase in interstellar dust entering the Solar System and Earth... Also, we are noticing that more meteors/meteorites are entering the Solar System and striking Jupiter... All this energy and matter entering the Solar System is bound to make changes to the dynamics of all planets... I have proven that scientists were already predicting CLIMATE CHANGE for encountering this different region of the Local Fluff.

We know all of the above yet people like you want to deny this energy and matter we are encountering would cause changes on Earth, yet people like YOU want us to believe that CO2, which exists in insignificant levels on Earth is the cause of the changes we are seeing?...

Originally posted by purplemer
Out of the remaining ones that have been noted to be heated. There are explanations. Pluto is an exception to this. It is suggested that what is occurring is simply a climatic change. We have been observing its climate for 14 years again with a 248 year orbit. It really is anyones guess. That is like watching the weather on planet earth for a day or so and saying that climate change is occurring. It is not possible. Your theory holds little water.

It's more than just 6 planets and moons... Let's see the list that I have found so far...

1. Mars
2. Earth
3. Pluto
4. Venus
5. Jupiter
6. Triton
7. Saturn
8. Neptune
9. Uranus
10. Titan

Those are the ones I have found so far.

BTW, do remember that the AGW claim USED to be called Global Warming, and now is being called "Climate Change" because Earth has seen dramatic COOLING changes, and many nations have been experiencing not only record warm, but also record COLD/winters...

BTW, I have shown in the past that "skepticalscience" are not only biased, but they lie, and do not present certain facts that destroy their "religious views" on Climate Change.

One of the many claims they continue to make is that the Sun's activity ceased to increase "35+ years ago", when the fact is the opposite...

www.skepticalscience.com...

March 20, 2003 - (date of web publication)

NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE

Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits, during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study.

"This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change," said Richard Willson, a researcher affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University's Earth Institute, New York. He is the lead author of the study recently published in Geophysical Research Letters.

"Historical records of solar activity indicate that solar radiation has been increasing since the late 19th century. If a trend, comparable to the one found in this study, persisted throughout the 20th century, it would have provided a significant component of the global warming the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports to have occurred over the past 100 years," he said.
...
Willson found errors in previous satellite data that had obscured the trend. The new analysis, Willson says, should put an end to a debate in the field over whether solar irradiance variability can play a significant role in climate change.
...
In this study, Willson, who is also Principal Investigator of the ACRIM experiments, compiled a TSI record of over 24 years by carefully piecing together the overlapping records. In order to construct a long-term dataset, Willson needed to bridge a two-year gap (1989-1991) between ACRIM1 and ACRIM2. Both the Nimbus7/ERB and ERBS measurements overlapped the ACRIM ‘gap.’ Using Nimbus7/ERB results produced a 0.05 percent per decade upward trend between solar minima, while ERBS results produced no trend. Until this study, the cause of this difference, and hence the validity of the TSI trend, was uncertain. Now, Willson has identified specific errors in the ERBS data responsible for the difference. The accurate long-term dataset therefore shows a significant positive trend (.05 percent per decade) in TSI between the solar minima of solar cycles 21 to 23 (1978 to present).
...

www.nasa.gov...

The above research was conducted for a period of 24 years, from 1978 until 2002. Prior research, in which the Sun's activity has been studied goes back for decades and such research has shown that the increase in solar activity has been consistent for at least about 80-100 years.

I have gone in other threads over everything they claim at the site "skepticalscience" as a "myth", and shown the facts are the opposite to what they claim...

For crying out loud these people from "skepticalscience even Claim Al Gore is right...

...
Al Gore book is quite accurate, and far more accurate than contrarian books.
...

www.skepticalscience.com...

Kind of sounds similar to what the AGW scientists in "RealClimate.Org" also claim... "RealClimate" has links to Al Gore through the founder of the site which provides hosting for RealClimate.org, not to mention that Mann, among others, who is a director of "RealClimate" is one of the many AGW scientists who have been caught through the leaked emails discussing tactics to try to stop scientists trying to debunk their AGW religion.

Not only that, but it has also been found, as I stated years back, that water vapor has a feedback effect. The warmer the atmosphere is, the more water vapor it can hold, which in turn causes more warming allowing the atmosphere to hold more water vapor...

It is a known fact that water vapor is 10 times more potent than CO2 molecule by molecule, and it is also found at much higher levels than CO2.

CO2 is a trace gas found on Earth's atmosphere at 0.039 per cent by volume. Water Vapor is also a trace gas but it exists on Earth's atmosphere at 1%-4% by volume.

That's without mentioning the FACT that we know, despite claims from the AGW crowd, that on the Troposphere, which is the atmospheric layer on Earth in which most weather events occur, water vapor accounts for at least (depending on whom you ask) 95% - 98% of the greenhouse effect, meanwhile CO2 accounts for maybe 2% - 5% of greenhouse effect, and these are only guesstimates.

Great post thank you.
read some of the old one too.

I still think the industrial age had some effect.
London's river theams use't to freeze over solid for one to two months.
look it up. and when it stop't.

I know we are going through this cloud, I read that we were starting to enter it about two years ago. S&F for getting some info on it, I couldn't find the article from a NASA researcher that I had read when someone challenged me before about a comment. This is a different article but it says the same thing. Small particles. The article I saw said that there would be nothing bigger than an occasional baketball size asteroid at most.

We can't keep poluting our earth though, dumping concentrated chemistry into the ecosystem will kill off the food that we eat. The smogs can kill the birds and bees also, we have to use common sense when living on this planet. None of this necessitates a tax. If humans are as intelligent as they say we are, we should be able to see this. Maybe people are eating too much lettuce that by nature contains a chemical similar to an opiate.

BTW, thank you to those who have been responding.

Let me show some more information I have posted before which shows how other factors do change the global climate on Earth such as.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Title:
Climate determinism or Geomagnetic determinism?
Authors:
Gallet, Y.; Genevey, A.; Le Goff, M.; Fluteau, F.; Courtillot, V.
Affiliation:
AA(Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris, 4 Place Jussieu, Paris, 75005 France ; [email protected]), AB(Centre de Recherche et de Restauration des Musees de France, Palais du Louvre, Porte des Lions 14 quai Francois Mitterrand, Paris, 75001 France ; [email protected]), AC(Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris, 4 Place Jussieu, Paris, 75005 France ; [email protected]), AD(Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris, 4 Place Jussieu, Paris, 75005 France ; [email protected]), AE(Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris, 4 Place Jussieu, Paris, 75005 France ; [email protected])
Publication:
American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2006, abstract #GP51A-0940
Publication Date:
12/2006
Origin:
AGU
AGU Keywords:
1503 Archeomagnetism, 1521 Paleointensity, 1605 Abrupt/rapid climate change (4901, 8408), 1616 Climate variability (1635, 3305, 3309, 4215, 4513)
Abstract Copyright:
(c) 2006: American Geophysical Union
Bibliographic Code:
2006AGUFMGP51A0940G

Abstract

A number of episodes of sharp geomagnetic field variations (in both intensity and direction), lasting on the order of a century, have been identified in archeomagnetic records from Western Eurasia and have been called "archeomagnetic jerks". These seem to correlate well with multi-decadal cooling episodes detected in the North Atlantic Ocean and Western Europe, suggesting a causal link between both phenomena. A possible mechanism could be a geomagnetic modulation of the cosmic ray flux that would control the nucleation rate of clouds. We wish to underline the remarkable coincidence between archeomagnetic jerks, cooling events in Western Europe and drought periods in tropical and sub-tropical regions of the northern hemisphere. The latter two can be interpreted in terms of global teleconnections among regional climates. It has been suggested that these climatic variations had caused major changes in the history of ancient civilizations, such as in Mesopotamia, which were critically dependent on water supply and particularly vulnerable to lower rainfall amounts. This is one of the foundations of "climate determinism". Our studies, which suggest a geomagnetic origin for at least some of the inferred climatic events, lead us to propose the idea of a geomagnetic determinism in the history of humanity.

adsabs.harvard.edu...

Possible impact of the Earths magnetic field on the history
of ancient civilizations

Yves Gallet a,⁎, Agnès Genevey b, Maxime Le Goff a, Frédéric Fluteau a,c,
Safar Ali Eshraghi d

a Equipe de Paléomagnétisme, Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris, 4 place Jussieu, 75252 Paris cedex 05, France

b Centre de Recherche et de Restauration des Musées de France, UMR CNRS 171, Palais du Louvre, Porte des Lions,
14 quai François Mitterrand, 75001 Paris, France

c UFR des Sciences Physiques de la Terre, Université Denis Diderot Paris 7, 2 Place Jussieu, 75251 Paris cedex 05, France

d Geological Survey of Iran, Azadi sq., Meraj blvd., PO Box 13185-1494 Tehran, Iran
Received 30 November 2005; received in revised form 3 April 2006; accepted 3 April 2006
Available online 19 May 2006
Editor: R.D. van der Hilst

Abstract
We report new archeointensity results from Iranian and Syrian archeological excavations dated from the second millennium BC.
These high-temperature magnetization data were obtained using a laboratory-built triaxial vibrating sample magnetometer.

Together with our previously published archeointensity results from Mesopotamia, we constructed a rather detailed geomagnetic field intensity variation curve for this region from 3000 BC to 0 BC. Four potential geomagnetic events (“archeomagnetic jerks”), marked by strong intensity increases, are observed and appear to be synchronous with cooling episodes in the North Atlantic.

This temporal coincidence strengthens the recent suggestion that the geomagnetic field influences climate change over multi-decadal time scales, possibly through the modulation of cosmic ray flux interacting with the atmosphere. Moreover, the cooling periods in the North Atlantic coincide with episodes of enhanced aridity in the Middle East, when abrupt societal changes occurred in the eastern Mediterranean and Mesopotamia.

Although the coincidences discussed in this paper must be considered with caution, they lead to the possibility that the geomagnetic field impacted the history of ancient civilizations through climatically driven environmental changes, triggering economic, social and political instability.
© 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

www.ipgp.fr...

Like a wounded Starship Enterprise, our solar system's natural shields are faltering, letting in a flood of cosmic rays. The sun's recent listlessness is resulting in record-high radiation levels that pose a hazard to both human and robotic space missions.

Galactic cosmic rays are speeding charged particles that include protons and heavier atomic nuclei. They come from outside the solar system, though their exact sources are still being debated.

www.newscientist.com...

We also know that since 1840 the Earth's own magnetiuc field has been fluctuating wildly, and weakening, and it is now weaker than it has been for many tens of thousands of years, which amplifies the effecs of the influx of charged particles, plasma, radiation, interstellar dust, etc.

Magnetic Field Weakening in Stages, Old Ships' Logs Suggest
John Roach
for National Geographic News

May 11, 2006

Earth's magnetic field is weakening in staggered steps, a new analysis of centuries-old ships logs suggests.

The finding could help scientists better understand the way Earth's magnetic poles reverse.

The planet's magnetic field flips—north becomes south and vice versa—on average every 300,000 years. However, the actual time between reversals varies widely.

The field last flipped about 800,000 years ago, according to the geologic record.

Since 1840, when accurate measures of the intensity were first made, the field strength has declined by about 5 percent per century.

news.nationalgeographic.com...


And then we have the anomalies in the Solar System which took another turn with the recently found secular variation of the AU, or distance between the Sun and the planets, which has increased and cannot be explained.

Which I first reported here.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Anomalies in the Solar System
Dittus, Hansjoerg
37th COSPAR Scientific Assembly. Held 13-20 July 2008, in Montréal, Canada., p.717
Several observations show unexplained phenomena in our solar system. These observations are e.g. the Pioneer Anomaly, an unexplained constant acceleration of the Pioneer 10 and 11 spacecraft, the Flyby Anomaly, an unexplained increase of the velocity of a series of spacecraft after Earth gravity assists, the recently reported increase of the Astronomical Unit defined by the distance of the planets from the Sun by approximately 10 m per century, the quadrupole and octupole anomaly which describes the correlation of the low l contributions of the Cosmic Microwave Background to the orientation of the Solar system. Lacking any explanation until now, these phenomena are still investigated intensively. In my talk I will discuss the present status of those investigations and the attempts to find reasonable explantions.

adsabs.harvard.edu...

Secular increase of the astronomical unit and perihelion precessions as tests of the Dvali–Gabadadze–Porrati multi-dimensional braneworld scenario
Lorenzo Iorio JCAP09(2005)006 doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2005/09/006


PDF (313 KB) | HTML | References | Articles citing this article



Lorenzo Iorio
Viale Unità di Italia 68, 70125, Bari, Italy
E-mail: [email protected]
Abstract. An unexpected secular increase of the astronomical unit, the length scale of the Solar System, has recently been reported by three different research groups (Krasinsky and Brumberg, Pitjeva, Standish). The latest JPL measurements amount to 7 ± 2 m cy−1. At present, there are no explanations able to accommodate such an observed phenomenon, either in the realm of classical physics or in the usual four-dimensional framework of the Einsteinian general relativity. The Dvali–Gabadadze–Porrati braneworld scenario, which is a multi-dimensional model of gravity aimed at providing an explanation of the observed cosmic acceleration without dark energy, predicts, among other things, a perihelion secular shift, due to Lue and Starkman, of 5 × 10−4 arcsec cy−1 for all the planets of the Solar System. It yields a variation of about 6 m cy−1 for the Earth–Sun distance which is compatible with the observed rate of change for the astronomical unit. The recently measured corrections to the secular motions of the perihelia of the inner planets of the Solar System are in agreement with the predicted value of the Lue–Starkman effect for Mercury, Mars and, at a slightly worse level, the Earth.

www.iop.org...


We know as a fact that the earth's magnetic field has been weakening since at least 1840.

Again, there is also the fact that total solar irradiance had been increasing.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5821619030e4.jpg[/atsimg]

The strength of solar magnetic storms were also increasing to levels not seen before the 1900s

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7c0bc3d5e611.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/63ffeeb144dd.jpg[/atsimg]

The Sun traveling through the Galaxy happens to cross at the present time a blob of gas about ten light-years across, with a temperature of 6-7 thousand degrees kelvin. This so-called Local Interstellar Cloud is immersed in a much larger expanse of a million-degree hot gas, named the Local Bubble. The energetic neutral atoms (ENA) are generated by charge exchange at the interface between the two gaseous media. ENA can be observed provided the Sun is close enough to the interface. The apparent Ribbon of ENA discovered by the IBEX satellite can be explained by a geometric effect: one observes many more ENA by looking along a line-of-sight almost tangent to the interface than by looking in the perpendicular direction. (Credit: SRC/Tentaris,ACh/Maciej Frolow)

www.sciencedaily.com...


I mean, it is not like the magnetic field of the Earth has been weakening since about the 1840s, and it is now weaker than it has been in over 400,000-700,000 years...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/750fc3934f0e.jpg[/atsimg]

The red points of data above, and to the left of the graph, are showing the strength in the weakening fluctuation the Earth's magnetic field has been experiencing.

The Earth's magnetic field is getting so weak that large breaches are opening up in ways scientists didn't think could happen

A Giant Breach in Earth's Magnetic Field
12.16.2008

Dec. 16, 2008: NASAs five THEMIS spacecraft have discovered a breach in Earths magnetic field ten times larger than anything previously thought to exist. Solar wind can flow in through the opening to "load up" the magnetosphere for powerful geomagnetic storms. But the breach itself is not the biggest surprise. Researchers are even more amazed at the strange and unexpected way it forms, overturning long-held ideas of space physics.

"At first I didn't believe it," says THEMIS project scientist David Sibeck of the Goddard Space Flight Center. "This finding fundamentally alters our understanding of the solar wind-magnetosphere interaction."
........

science.nasa.gov...

You see, I am a proponent of us taking better care of the environment, but I have been also saying that we should be preparing to ADAPT to these changes we cannot stop or mitigate.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse

Bravo for all your work, you have presented some pretty credible info here, but have you checked into the effect the volcanoes are having on the oceans warming and the arctic melting and the antarctic growing in ice? The weather has been so strange and the Jet Stream is not in its normal summer pattern. I look forward to your findings on this as I think they have a lot to do with what is going on too.

Originally posted by whatnext21
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

 

Bravo for all your work, you have presented some pretty credible info here, but have you checked into the effect the volcanoes are having on the oceans warming and the arctic melting and the antarctic growing in ice? The weather has been so strange and the Jet Stream is not in its normal summer pattern. I look forward to your findings on this as I think they have a lot to do with what is going on too.

Thank you, and yes in the past I have covered the topic that in our oceans we think there might be over 3 million underwater volcanoes. I have even shown graphs showing underwater volcanoes heating under Greenland and parts of the Arctic and even the Antarctic.

(Forgot to post evidence that we think there are over 3 million underwater volcanoes.)

Thousand of new volcanoes revealed beneath the waves
10:04 09 July 2007 by Catherine Brahic
For similar stories, visit the Mysteries of the Deep Sea Topic Guide

The true extent to which the ocean bed is dotted with volcanoes has been revealed by researchers who have counted 201,055 underwater cones. This is over 10 times more than have been found before.

The team estimates that in total there could be about 3 million submarine volcanoes, 39,000 of which rise more than 1000 metres over the sea bed.

"The distribution of underwater volcanoes tells us something about what is happening in the centre of the Earth," says John Hillier of the University of Cambridge in the UK. That is because they give information about the flows of hot rock in the mantle beneath. "But the problem is that we cannot see through the water to count them," he says.

Satellites can detect volcanoes that are more than 1500 m high because the mass of the submerged mountains causes gravity to pull the water in around them. This creates domes on the ocean's surface that can be several metres high and can be detected from space.
...

www.newscientist.com...

We all know how the Arctic has been warming up, although the evidence suggest this warming is occurring first in the oceans, not in the atmosphere, which would point to the fact that it is probably the Earth's core, with help from the Sun and other outside influences, that has been a factor in warming parts of the Arctic and other oceans, hence icebergs have been breaking up.

Oceanic Influences on Recent Continental Warming
GILBERT P. COMPO
PRASHANT D. SARDESHMUKH
Climate Diagnostics Center,
Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences,
University of Colorado, and
Physical Sciences Division, Earth System Research Laboratory,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
325 Broadway R/PSD1
Boulder CO 80305-3328
[email protected]
(303) 497-6115
(303) 497-6449

Citation:
Compo, G.P., and P.D. Sardeshmukh, 2008: Oceanic influences on recent continental warming. Climate
Dynamics, doi: 10.1007/s00382-008-0448-9.
This article is published by Springer-Verlag. This author-created version is distributed courtesy of Springer-Verlag.
The original publication is available from www.springerlink.com at
www.springerlink.com...

Abstract
Evidence is presented that the recent worldwide land warming has occurred largely in response to a worldwide warming of the oceans rather than as a direct response to increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) over land.

Atmospheric model simulations of the last half-century with prescribed observed ocean temperature changes, but without prescribed GHG changes, account for most of the land warming. The oceanic influence has occurred through hydrodynamic-radiative teleconnections, primarily by moistening and warming the air over land and increasing the downward longwave radiation at the surface. The oceans may themselves have warmed from a combination of natural and anthropogenic influences.

www.cdc.noaa.gov...


In the following link you will find some of the information some other members and I have shown in the past about underwater volcanoes also warming many parts of our oceans.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

My response with some more graphs showing the heating from underwater volcanoes can be found on the following page in that thread started by member snarky412.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Underwater volcanoes heating Antarctic waters

Newly discovered volcanoes almost two miles tall

11 Jul 2011 - Scientists from the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) have discovered previously unknown volcanoes in the ocean waters around the remote South Sandwich Islands.

Sea-floor mapping technology reveals volcanoes beneath the sea surface

Using ship-borne sea-floor mapping technology during research cruises onboard the RRS James Clark Ross, the scientists found 12 volcanoes beneath the sea surface — some up to 3km (1.86 miles) high. They found 5km (3 mile) diameter craters left by collapsing volcanoes and 7 active volcanoes visible above the sea as a chain of islands.

According to a press release from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS), "this sub-sea landscape, with its waters warmed by volcanic activity creates a rich habitat for many species of wildlife and adds valuable new insight about life on earth." (Italics added)

The research is also important for understanding what happens when volcanoes erupt or collapse underwater and their potential for creating serious hazards such as tsunamis

Speaking at the International Symposium on Antarctic Earth Sciences in Edinburgh Dr Phil Leat from British Antarctic Survey said,

“There is so much that we don’t understand about volcanic activity beneath the sea — it’s likely that volcanoes are erupting or collapsing all the time. The technologies that scientists can now use from ships not only give us an opportunity to piece together the story of the evolution of our earth, but they also help shed new light on the development of natural events that pose hazards for people living in more populated regions on the planet.”
...

www.antarctica.ac.uk...

some other members and I have been trying to say this for many years in these forums. There are MANY factors affecting the warming, and the Climate Changes we have been seeing. But the real evidence doesn't show CO2 to be one of those causes.

We know for a fact that changes in CO2 levels LAG temperature changes an average of 800 years. Sometimes the lag is more, sometimes less.

The ongoing Climate Changes, and warming, we have been seeing on Earth started at about the early 1600s as borehole temperature data has shown.

Here is a photo where you can see some of the underwater volcanoes at the edges of Antarctica.



The description calls them seamounts, but I got this picture by doing a search for "map of underwater volcanoes in Antarctica".


Seamounts are underwater volcanoes, here is a description.

Seamounts and hot spots

Seamounts are individual volcanoes on the ocean floor.
...

www.pmel.noaa.gov...

Also as I mentioned before borehole temperatures show that during the time when the Earth's surface was COOLING due to the LIA, temperatures from deep under the Earth show a constant INCREASE in temperatures even during the LIA...

This is clear indication that warming has been occurring from the processes of the Earth's core, probably reacting to something, processes that we do not know much about.

Worldwide borehole temperatures, temperatures taken from deep underground, have shown an increase in warming since the 1600s deep in the Earth's crust for the past 500 years.




www.earth.lsa.umich.edu...

Originally posted by buddha
Great post thank you.
read some of the old one too.

I still think the industrial age had some effect.
London's river theams use't to freeze over solid for one to two months.
look it up. and when it stop't.

Thank you for the response. I have always stated that we need to stop all these toxic chemicals being released into the oceans, and there are real toxic gases also being released into the atmosphere, but instead of trying to stop industries, and governments from releasing toxic chemicals and gases, the AGW proponents have been starting projects to sequester CO2, when CO2 does not cause the warming the AGW crowd claim. Not to mention that CO2 is neither a pollutant, nor toxic at the levels it exists on Earth's atmosphere.

BTW, as a refresher here is a small list of some of the scientists who have been trying to tell the people the truth behind AGW and Climate Change.

...
Here is a very small sampling of what current and former UN scientists have to say about the UNs claims and its scientific methods. (Presumably, these skeptical UN scientists did not get Trenberths memo on how to avoid being "poorly informed.")

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history...When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn't listen to others. It doesn't have open minds... I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

“Temperature measurements show that the [climate model-predicted mid-troposphere] hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them!”- UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Steven M. Japar, a PhD atmospheric chemist who was part of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) Second (1995) and Third (2001) Assessment Reports, and has authored 83 peer-reviewed publications and in the areas of climate change, atmospheric chemistry, air pollutions and vehicle emissions.

UN IPCC Scientist Kenneth P. Green Declares 'A Death Spiral for Climate Alarmism' - September 30, 2009 - 'We can expect climate crisis industry to grow increasingly shrill, and increasingly hostile toward anyone who questions their authority' - Dr. Kenneth Green was a Working Group 1 expert reviewer for the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2001

'The whole climate change issue is about to fall apart -- Heads will roll!' -South African UN Scientist Dr. Will Alexander, April 12, 2009 - Professor Alexander, is Emeritus of the Department of Civil and Biosystems Engineering at the University of Pretoria in South Africa, and a former member of the United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters.

"I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having lunch. And they were talking about their role as lead authors. And they were talking about how they were trying to make the report so dramatic that the United States would just have to sign that Kyoto Protocol," Christy told CNN on May 2, 2007. - Alabama State Climatologist Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, served as a UN IPCC lead author in 2001 for the 3rd assessment report and detailed how he personally witnessed UN scientists attempting to distort the science for political purposes.

“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp...Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

“The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil... I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.” - South African Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.

“The claims of the IPCC are dangerous unscientific nonsense” - declared IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Dr Vincent Gray, of New Zealand in 2007. Gray was an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990, author of more than 100 scientific publications. (LINK) & (LINK)

“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet.” - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.

UN IPCC Lead Author Tom Tripp Dissents on man-made warming: 'We're not scientifically there yet' - July 16, 2009

Trenberth's claim that the UN IPCC is an "very open" also needs examining. The IPCC summary for policymakers is used to scare politicians and goad the public into action. The UN is all about politics.

UN special climate envoy Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland declared "it's completely immoral, even, to question" the UN's alleged global warming "consensus," according to a May 10, 2007 article. Sounds scientific, doesn't it?

Dr. John Brignell, a UK Emeritus Engineering Professor at the University of Southampton who held the Chair in Industrial Instrumentation at Southampton, accused the UN of “censorship” on July 23, 2008. “Here was a purely political body posing as a scientific institution. Through the power of patronage it rapidly attracted acolytes. Peer review soon rapidly evolved from the old style refereeing to a much more sinister imposition of The Censorship. As Wegman demonstrated, new circles of like-minded propagandists formed, acting as judge and jury for each other. Above all, they acted in concert to keep out alien and hostile opinion. 'Peer review' developed into a mantra that was picked up by political activists who clearly had no idea of the procedures of science or its learned societies. It became an imprimatur of political acceptability, whose absence was equivalent to placement on the proscribed list,” Brignell wrote.

Research by Australian climate data analyst John McLean revealed that the IPCC's peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired. (LINK) (LINK) (LINK) & (LINK) McLean's research revealed that the UN IPCC peer-review process is "an illusion." McLean's study found that very few scientists are actively involved in the UN's peer-review process. The report contained devastating revelations to the central IPCC assertion that 'it is very highly likely that greenhouse gas forcing has been the dominant cause of the observed global warming over the last 50 years." The analysis by McLean states: "The IPCC leads us to believe that this statement is very much supported by the majority of reviewers. The reality is that there is surprisingly little explicit support for this key notion. Among the 23 independent reviewers just 4 explicitly endorsed the chapter with its hypothesis, and one other endorsed only a specific section. Moreover, only 62 of the IPCC's 308 reviewers commented on this chapter at all." Repeating: Only four UN scientists in the IPCC peer-review process explicitly endorsed the key chapter blaming mankind for warming the past 50 years, according to this recent analysis.

...

www.climatedepot.com... hority-The-IPCC-has-spoken

WASHINGTON - A United Nations climate change conference in Poland is about to get a surprise from 650 leading scientists who scoff at doomsday reports of man-made global warming - labeling them variously a lie, a hoax and part of a new religion.

Later today, their voices will be heard in a U.S. Senate minority report quoting the scientists, many of whom are current and former members of the U.N.'s own Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

About 250 of the scientists quoted in the report have joined the dissenting scientists in the last year alone.

In fact, the total number of scientists represented in the report is 12 times the number of U.N. scientists who authored the official IPCC 2007 report.

Here are some choice excerpts from the report:

* "I am a skeptic ... . Global warming has become a new religion." -- Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

* "Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly ... . As a scientist I remain skeptical." -- Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called "among the most pre-eminent scientists of the last 100 years."

* Warming fears are the "worst scientific scandal in the history ... . When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists." -- U.N. IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning Ph.D. environmental physical chemist.

* "The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn't listen to others. It doesn't have open minds ... . I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists." -- Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the U.N.-supported International Year of the Planet.

* "The models and forecasts of the U.N. IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity." -- Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico.

* "It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don't buy into anthropogenic global warming." -- U.S. Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

* "Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapor and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will." -- Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, New Zealand.

* "After reading [U.N. IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet." -- Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an associate editor of Monthly Weather Review.

* "For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" -- Geologist Dr. David Gee, the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer-reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

* "Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp ... . Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact." -- Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch U.N. IPCC committee.

* "Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined." -- Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh, Pa.

* "Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense ... . The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning." -- Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

* "CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another ... . Every scientist knows this, but it doesn't pay to say so ... . Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver's seat and developing nations walking barefoot." -- Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

* "The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds." -- Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.

The report also includes new peer-reviewed scientific studies and analyses refuting man-made warming fears and a climate developments that contradict the theory.

www.globalresearch.ca...


BTW, how are we to forget...

JSC Human Space Flight Vets Complain About NASA's Climate Change Position (Update)

By Keith Cowing on April 11, 2012 1:42 PM

"49 former NASA scientists and astronauts sent a letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden last week admonishing the agency for it's role in advocating a high degree of certainty that man-made CO2 is a major cause of climate change while neglecting empirical evidence that calls the theory into question. The group, which includes seven Apollo astronauts and two former directors of NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston, are dismayed over the failure of NASA, and specifically the Goddard Institute For Space Studies (GISS), to make an objective assessment of all available scientific data on climate change."
...
Dear Charlie,

We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.

The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.
...

thegwpf.org...

BTW, the following information was posted first by ATS member burntheships in the following thread he/she started.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It is about an article in which more evidence was released by the hacker who gave us the emails of the AGW scientists in which they discuss ways to stop REAL SCIENTISTS, and REAL SCIENCE from being published. (Alongside other tactics these AGW scientists discussed in using to stop real research on AGW and Climate Change.

Here is one of the many excerpts showing how Professor Jones, among other AGW scientists, discussed how to stop people, and REAL SCIENTISTS from discovering the truth.

Originally posted by burntheships
For the first time, the leaker aka as FOIA has published
his thoughts...why he was driven to leak the information,
the players, and the e-mails that he found.

Not suprisingly, deep corruption, thick lies;
one of the most compelling finds was
a booklet on how to play The Game, with the
title of The Rules Of The Game: Evidence Base
For The Climate Change Communications Strategy

From The Game ;
a few choice teasers...

“The Rules” teaches sophisticated behavior change tactics, including:
“Climate change must be ‘front of mind’ before persuasion works” …

“Link climate change mitigation to positive desires/aspirations” …

“Beware the impacts of cognitive dissonance” and “Use emotions and visuals”

Obviously, the tactics above are right out of a
propaganda playbook rather than sound and proven science.

Here, a leaked email from Phil Jones:

“I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all
those working on the IPCC 5th Assessment Report would be to delete all e-mails at the
end of the process. Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research
grants we get – and has to be well hidden.

Closing words from FOIA (the leaker)

That's right; no conspiracy, no paid hackers, no Big Oil.
The Republicans didn't plot this.USA politics is alien to me,
neither am I from the UK.There is life outside the
Anglo-American sphere.

bishophill.squarespace.com...

This evidence is consistent with the fact that the University of East Anglia, and it's scientists deleted the raw, original global temperature data, among the other tactics these AGW scientists have been using to try to stop the truth from coming out.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Why have you bought AGW. It is not something I mentioned in my post. But since the subject has come up I will say this. It amazes me that people dismiss all the data for climactic fluctuation on earth but are happy to embrace very scant non scientific data about our solar system

Your OP is about the solar system. In my first post I asked how long we have been measuring the climatic change on the planets. I went and checked myself and looked at the planet orbits. We do not have enough data.

The planets like the earth have seasonal climates. We have been watching the climate of pluto for 15 years. It takes 246 earth years for pluto to turn a year. We have not seen a fraction of a year go past.

Same with Neptune 164 years orbit. We have been watching the planet for a 1/3 of its year.


The IPCC definition of climate for Earth involves a 30 years period. Imagine you sat in a space ship and watched earth for a few months and decided that climate change was occurring because Europe per say got a covering of snow. It would be incorrect. Just as this is here.

I am aware the outer universe can have an influence on our sun and our planets. I am aware the sun and planets have an effect on earth. I am sorry to dish you thread but it does not hold. It is not scientifically possible to work out such results on such limited information..

Further the changes that are taking you are stating they are being caused by an outside influence..

That's without mentioning the fact that I have shown proof that space radiation has been increasing, there has been an exponential increase in interstellar dust entering the Solar System and Earth

from you own post..

It is suggested that the postulated interstellar cloud should encounter the solar system at some unspecified time in the near future and might have a drastic influence on terrestrial climate in the next 10,000 years.

A lots of if buts and maybes....that something might past our solar system in 10.000 years.

I think the thread would have been better titled Seasonal Climates in Every Planet in Solar System.

BTW, I have shown in the past that "skepticalscience" are not only biased, but they lie, and do not present certain facts that destroy their "religious views" on Climate Change.

I have used the sight most just to show the orbits of the planets. Is this something you disagree with too..

In regards to the information you have posted trying to mute skepticalscience.com... You have posted and compared two different studies. You did however fail to mention that NASAs own scientists where skepable of the results..

"If these SIM measurements indicate real solar variations, then it would mean you could expect a warmer surface during periods of low solar activity, the opposite of what climate models currently assume," said Gavin Schmidt, a climate modeling specialist at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City.

It would also imply that the sun's contribution to climate change over the last century or so might be even smaller than currently thought, suggesting that the human contribution to climate change may in turn be even larger than current estimates.

However, the surprising SIM measurements correspond with a period of unusually long and quiescent solar minimum that extended over 2007 to 2009. It may not be representative of past or future solar cycles, solar scientists caution

www.nasa.gov...

You also failed to mention the title of your choosen paper..


NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE

Now there is a big difference between can and is..

I could go through all the planets you listed and give you explanations as to why we are seeing climatic / seasonal change occupying. I am sure you could as well if you wanted. You composed a good thread no probs..

thanks and sf/ purp

Originally posted by purplemer

Why have you bought AGW. It is not something I mentioned in my post. But since the subject has come up I will say this. It amazes me that people dismiss all the data for climactic fluctuation on earth but are happy to embrace very scant non scientific data about our solar system

First of all, I have seen your other responses in other threads about AGW, or are you going to say now that you stopped believing in it? Something must be causing the Climate Changes that are still ongoing on Earth, and we keep finding more and more evidence that the AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) scientists keep lying time, and again, and again, and again, and have been using every tactic they can think of to stop the truth about AGW and Climate Change from coming out.

Second of all, even in this thread there is evidence showing that the AGW claim is the one that really holds no water whatsoever. If it was true then the AGW scientists wouldn't have to lie. They wouldn't have a need to publish false data and false information knowingly, and they wouldn't have a need to try to stop other scientists from publishing evidence against AGW, or trying to stop other scientists from verifying the raw data themselves. But instead the opposite is happening.

Originally posted by purplemer
Your OP is about the solar system. In my first post I asked how long we have been measuring the climatic change on the planets. I went and checked myself and looked at the planet orbits. We do not have enough data.

Yet despite the fact that all these planets are at different distances and have much different orbits, every time we study their atmosphere we see them undergoing similar changes that are happening on Earth also happening to them. This in itself shows these planets and moons are reacting at the same time to some outside influence.

It also seems that you are not reading the information provided. You are apparently just reading one sentence and then you respond.

Why are you responding to the thread if you are not even reading the information provided? It is obvious that you have your mind already made up, since you seem unwilling to read the information provided yet "you claim this evidence holds no water"...

I even posted how scientists themselves state that if similar changes are happening to 2 planets, then it must be to outside influences, yet we see several planets and moons undergoing similar changes, not just 2.

Originally posted by purplemer
The planets like the earth have seasonal climates. We have been watching the climate of pluto for 15 years. It takes 246 earth years for pluto to turn a year. We have not seen a fraction of a year go past.

Same with Neptune 164 years orbit. We have been watching the planet for a 1/3 of its year.

Again, due to the fact that the planets and moons all have different orbits, and different distances we shouldn't be seeing so many of them undergoing similar changes at the same time.

The energy to make these changes in all these planets and moons must come from somewhere, it can't just be some magical energy with no source.

I have already responded to these questions but you keep asking them. Pluto itself does not have a thick atmosphere that would allow it to get warmer the farther away it got from the Sun.

We have taken infrared images of Neptune and Uranus, among others, if there was an internal energy source such as large volcanic/magmatic activity causing these changes to the atmosphere of Neptune and the other planets and moons we should have seen that energy in the infrared images, but we don't.

Originally posted by purplemer
I am aware the outer universe can have an influence on our sun and our planets. I am aware the sun and planets have an effect on earth. I am sorry to dish you thread but it does not hold. It is not scientifically possible to work out such results on such limited information..

No, it is obvious you just want to dismiss this information out of hand just because it seems you don't want to even admit to the possibility that all these dramatic changes we are noticing in all these planets and moons are tied with the similar changes the Earth is undergoing.