20 new science papers find climate driven by solar changes

originally posted by: mersaultdies
a reply to: Justoneman

You earlier stated that the sun is causing climate change.

Later you stated that the magnetic poles are causing climate change.

Surely in a paragraph you can link several sentences together that explain how either is causing climate change and any link between the two. Without just saying 'look at the 20 papers'. You, yourself, briefly explain your logic. For once.

How many times do you need links to the Sun causes the Earths magnetic field and the rest of the solar system bodies to have energy affects, I just dont know? So many obtuse points from the few of you about the same thing over and over. You don't care to get it, I get that. Carry on with your belief system I will study the data.

Thanks to all sides for proving my point and thanks especially the flamers who brought their nasty game with no proof, it illustrates why I offered the data. There was more of that attack the messenger with little about the real data as seems to be the their normal response. Constantly acting like the data isn't in this thread. I missed seeing one flamer who normally tries to poke holes with a wet noodle.... Sorry, for those who wish to believe what i am convinced in my opinion are the lies. You will, one day, be faced with the reality that it was a false paradigm Al Gore and the IPP pushed as facts while flaming good research.

Does man pollute? You're darn tooting they do. Did CO2 destroy the planet in the past when the amount was so much more than we can hope to put in the atmosphere? Most of you can tell it didn't. My biggest concern is people hurting the Scientific Method and ultimately belief that Science is doing good for all by the masses who suffer from the confusion. The credible Scientist suffer for the misinformation greedy people pushing an agenda have offered in failed models that are "settled science". The great scientists and philosophers of the past be damned these IPP folks are pushing on.

a reply to: TheScale

But even that warming will not stave off the eventual return of huge glaciers, because ice ages last for millennia and fossil fuels will not.In about 300 years, all available fossil fuels may well have been consumed. Over the following centuries, excess carbon dioxide will naturally dissolve into the oceans or get trapped by the formation of carbonate minerals. Such processes won’t be offset by the industrial emissions we see today, and atmospheric carbon dioxide will slowly decline toward preindustrial levels. In about 2,000 years, when the types of planetary motions that can induce polar cooling start to coincide again, the current warming trend will be a distant memory.

This means that humanity will be hit by a one-two punch the likes of which we have never seen. Nature is as unforgiving to men as it was to dinosaurs; advanced civilization will not survive unless we develop energy sources that curb the carbon emissions heating the planet today and help us fend off the cold when the ice age comes. Solar, nuclear, and other non-fossil-­fuel energy sources need to be developed now, before carbon emissions get out of hand. MIT alumni could play a prominent part in discovering the technology needed to keep us all going. And there are fortunes to be made from the effort. It’s worth thinking about.

www.technologyreview.com...

In about 2000 years everything that has been built north of Kentucky and Tennessee will be in pushed into those areas in North America by Glaciers. This will also apply to Europe and Northern Asia.

As far as the Southern Hemisphere during such an event what fallows is possible...

Approximately 13,000 years ago, as the last ice age was winding down, Earth's Northern Hemisphere reverted to a near-glacial period called the Younger Dryas. Temperatures dropped by 15˚C, and giant ice sheets again advanced south from the Arctic. But things were much different in the Southern Hemisphere. New data reveal that the globe's bottom half continued to warm its way out of the ice age, even as the north temporarily plunged back into a another deep freeze.
Scientists blame the Younger Dryas on a disruption of ocean currents. As the ice age ended, melting glaciers poured huge volumes of cold freshwater—enough to fill all of the Great Lakes several times over—onto the surface of the North Atlantic Ocean. The freshwater killed off the Gulf Stream, which brings warm surface water up from the tropics to North America and Western Europe. Lacking that warmth, temperatures in the northern latitudes plunged.

www.sciencemag.org...

Q. Was there an ice age in the Southern Hemisphere?

A. Yes, the most recent ice age affected the Southern Hemisphere as well, said Joerg M. Schaefer, a climate scientist at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University. But there were big differences between hemispheres in this and other glacial periods.

The effects of ice ages in the Northern Hemisphere are more extensive because it is “land-dominated, with lots of continents, whereas the south is mostly ocean,” Dr. Schaefer said.

www.nytimes.com...

In reality the proverbial "ledge" is for global warming is about 150 years away.

In relation to a potential Ice age 1200 years from now if not prepared somehow?

We are in really deep #.

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: mersaultdies
a reply to: Justoneman

You earlier stated that the sun is causing climate change.

Later you stated that the magnetic poles are causing climate change.

Surely in a paragraph you can link several sentences together that explain how either is causing climate change and any link between the two. Without just saying 'look at the 20 papers'. You, yourself, briefly explain your logic. For once.

How many times do you need links to the Sun causes the Earths magnetic field and the rest of the solar system bodies to have energy affects, I just dont know? So many obtuse points from the few of you about the same thing over and over. You don't care to get it, I get that. Carry on with your belief system I will study the data.

Thanks to all sides for proving my point and thanks especially the flamers who brought their nasty game with no proof, it illustrates why I offered the data. There was more of that attack the messenger with little about the real data as seems to be the their normal response. Constantly acting like the data isn't in this thread. I missed seeing one flamer who normally tries to poke holes with a wet noodle.... Sorry, for those who wish to believe what i am convinced in my opinion are the lies. You will, one day, be faced with the reality that it was a false paradigm Al Gore and the IPP pushed as facts while flaming good research.

Does man pollute? You're darn tooting they do. Did CO2 destroy the planet in the past when the amount was so much more than we can hope to put in the atmosphere? Most of you can tell it didn't. My biggest concern is people hurting the Scientific Method and ultimately belief that Science is doing good for all by the masses who suffer from the confusion. The credible Scientist suffer for the misinformation greedy people pushing an agenda have offered in failed models that are "settled science". The great scientists and philosophers of the past be damned these IPP folks are pushing on.

The last time there was this much carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Earth's atmosphere, modern humans didn't exist. Megatoothed sharks prowled the oceans, the world's seas were up to 100 feet higher than they are today, and the global average surface temperature was up to 11°F warmer than it is now.

As we near the record for the highest CO2 concentration in human history — 400 parts per million — climate scientists worry about where we were then, and where we're rapidly headed now.

According to data gathered at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii, the 400 ppm mark may briefly be exceeded this month, when CO2 typically hits a seasonal peak in the Northern Hemisphere, although it is more likely to take a couple more years until it stays above that threshold, according to Ralph Keeling, a researcher at the Scripps Institute of Oceanography.

www.climatecentral.org...

a reply to: DJW001


Except for the fact that the Earth is not a closed system. Heck, let's put you inside a completely closed room and fill it to the top with water... If the water kills you, I guess, and according to your line of reasoning, water "must be a pollutant"...

But heck, to prove you that in an open system you can also die if there is too much of one element. Let's put you in the middle of the Atlantic ocean with nothing around you and see what happens... If you tire and drown, according to your line of reasoning, then water is a pollutant.
You better stop drinking water... Don't even take showers or bathe...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

As geochemist James Lawrence Powell continues to prove, the only people still debating whether or not climate change is “real,” and caused by human activity, are the ones who aren’t doing the actual research. In an update to his ongoing project of reviewing the literature on global warming, Powell went through every scientific study published in a peer-review journal during the calendar year 2013, finding 10,885 in total (more on his methodology here). Of those, a mere two rejected anthropogenic global warming. The consensus, as he defines it, looks like this:

www.salon.com...

Music break...

a reply to: Kashai


There is a huge difference between "climate change" and "anthropogenic global warming" aka AGW, also being called by the AGWers as anthropogenic climate change...

The only people not understanding the difference are those who seem to think that climate change only started occurring in the last 100 years or so...

Climate changes have been occurring on Earth for 3-4 billion years, and it is completely normal.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

The history of the scientific discovery of climate change began in the early 19th century when ice ages and other natural changes in paleoclimate were first suspected and the natural greenhouse effect first identified. In the late 19th century, scientists first argued that human emissions of greenhouse gases could change the climate. Many other theories of climate change were advanced, involving forces from volcanism to solar variation. In the 1960s, the warming effect of carbon dioxide gas became increasingly convincing. Some scientists also pointed out that human activities that generated atmospheric aerosols (e.g., "pollution") could have cooling effects as well. During the 1970s, scientific opinion increasingly favored the warming viewpoint. By the 1990s, as a result of improving fidelity of computer models and observational work confirming the Milankovitch theory of the ice ages, a consensus position formed: greenhouse gases were deeply involved in most climate changes and human caused emissions were bringing discernible global warming. Since the 1990s, scientific research on climate change has included multiple disciplines and has expanded. Research has expanded our understanding of causal relations, links with historic data and ability to model climate change numerically. Research during this period has been summarized in the Assessment Reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Climate change is a significant and lasting change in the statistical distribution of weather patterns over periods ranging from decades to millions of years. It may be a change in average weather conditions, or in the distribution of weather around the average conditions (such as more or fewer extreme weather events). Climate change is caused by factors that include oceanic processes (such as oceanic circulation), biotic processes, variations in solar radiation received by Earth, plate tectonics and volcanic eruptions, and human-induced alterations of the natural world. The latter effect is currently causing global warming, and "climate change" is often used to describe human-specific impacts.

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: Justoneman


Out of curiosity can you get real specific as to how to you reality is organized?

a reply to: Kashai


... Like I thought, it seems obvious you have no idea what the difference is... When people are skeptics, or denying AGW they are denying the claim that mankind is the cause of climate change... Climate change existed before you, or any of your family members have existed, and climate changes will continue to change long after you and your whole family, as well as mine, are nothing but dust.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse


Dust is information

Whatever it was since creation
is part of what it is in the present

Beyond that could be a picture

Role a dice and know everything
that could happen

Juan

a reply to: ElectricUniverse



What do you think the dust becomes after it results in a person?

And what about before it results in a person?

What do you think Dust is?

a reply to: Justoneman

Simply put. Our earth is s,lowly getting close to the sun. Minor changes to distance can create polar shifts which result in climates reversing or flipping in regions normally not effected. The earth has been going through these changes since day 1 of its existence. Nothing to do with our intervention, never has never will be. The life on this planet before human has contributed more gases then the entire human race, fact.

The government taxes people yet again for more revenue. To those buying electric cars, well done accepting your own fears. Paying more and more money, you tools.

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

As geochemist James Lawrence Powell continues to prove, the only people still debating whether or not climate change is “real,” and caused by human activity, are the ones who aren’t doing the actual research. In an update to his ongoing project of reviewing the literature on global warming, Powell went through every scientific study published in a peer-review journal during the calendar year 2013, finding 10,885 in total (more on his methodology here). Of those, a mere two rejected anthropogenic global warming. The consensus, as he defines it, looks like this:

www.salon.com...

OMG, seriously very funny. Hoax bin that one......

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Justoneman


Out of curiosity can you get real specific as to how to you reality is organized?

Not to your satisfaction I am certain......

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Justoneman


Out of curiosity can you get real specific as to how to you reality is organized?

Not to your satisfaction I am certain......

Have you at least learnt the difference between weather and climate yet?

a reply to: BlackProject

Made no sense... the Earths orbit is not a perfect circle, there is about 3 million miles difference between the closest and farthest points in the orbit in relation to the Sun. The Earth is also pretty stable in its orbit, some minor oscillation effects but isn't significantly moving away or towards the sun...

So basically... no... well done for a post being pretty much incorrect at a high level.

a reply to: Justoneman


Apparently we have agreed to disagree.

originally posted by: Justoneman

How many times do you need links to the Sun causes the Earths magnetic field and the rest of the solar system bodies to have energy affects, I just dont know? So many obtuse points from the few of you about the same thing over and over. You don't care to get it, I get that. Carry on with your belief system I will study the data.

Maybe should study the data a bit more...

Mercury has a weak magnetic field, closest planet to the sun
Venus does not have a strong magnetic field it is pretty much none existent.
Earth does
Mars' magnetic field is extremely weak, and is clustered around geological surface features, so... not really like Mercury or Earth's fields
Jupiter - Strongest other than the Sun
Saturn - Also strong and almost perfectly aligned with the axis of rotation
Uranus - Significantly off centre through the planet and off axis compared to rotation by a large amount. Evidence for multiple strong regional poles, really messed up in general
Neptune - Similar to Uranus

The general trend appears to be two factors - Probable material makeup and rotational period around its axis.

If the magnetic fields where to be interactions generated by the sun, you would expect to follow some kind of 1/r^2 rule, meaning Mercury should be strong and Neptune should be weak

This is not what we see... So maybe it is related to mass?

Again, Venus is the odd one out, being very close to Earth mass yet having no appreciable field.


So evidence would seem to not suggest your statement is correct... so again, please explain? or is it another conspiracy?

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Justoneman


Out of curiosity can you get real specific as to how to you reality is organized?

Not to your satisfaction I am certain......

Have you at least learnt the difference between weather and climate yet?

Weather models differ from climate models in that they have to work and are verified every hour of every day around the planet. If a weather model is broken, it becomes obvious immediately. By contrast, climate modelers have the advantage that they will be long since retired when their predictions don’t come to pass.