20 new science papers find climate driven by solar changes

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Justoneman

Send those 20 scientific papers to AL GORE, so he'll quit begging the world for $15 Trillion to save ourselves. TIA.

Al's very lame position is definitely to ignore. There is a talk show host, Phil Valentine who is trying to get Al to get his best data and men to have a debate and Al is not going to have that. The MSM does a great job of keeping the facts from being debated and uses terms like "deniers". Orwellian speak is alive on this debate. The masses better believe the BS is the attitude I see. Debate Dr Gray please, the Hurricane expert has some good points to bring up.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: pheonix358

The other point to make is that many papers on climate change actually ignore the output variations of the Sun.

False. Solar output is critical to radiative forcing calculations and is closely studied.

Of course changes in climate would be driven by changes in solar output. That doesn't mean that changes in solar output are the only thing that affect climate (which a number of the articles cited in the OP make clear). The thing is, solar output has not changed much in the past 50 years (actually declining a bit) while global temperatures continue to rise.
lasp.colorado.edu...


Yes, the Sun affects climate. Of course. So, what has changed about the Sun to account for the warming trend we are seeing?

It just snowed in NM.

You're a lunatic if you think temps are rising..anywhere.

again. The thunderbolts project and Electric Universe theory has always said the sun is responsible for global warming and the Co2 pales in comparison.

a reply to: Justoneman

This really bothers me....

I do not really have an opinion regarding climate change, BUT

I think this whole debate is a conspiracy, to prevent anyone opening up the subject of pollution, i am sick and tired of breathing in small particles and metals that come from exhaust of vehicles and such, this is killing me and you every single cursed day.

originally posted by: solve
a reply to: Justoneman

This really bothers me....

I do not really have an opinion regarding climate change, BUT

I think this whole debate is a conspiracy, to prevent anyone opening up the subject of pollution, i am sick and tired of breathing in small particles and metals that come from exhaust of vehicles and such, this is killing me and you every single cursed day.

Sorry, but I literally am an Environmental Scientist and do truly believe in preserving the land and water for the future. My most important goal here is to put pollution into proper perspective. CO2 is not Pollution. Lead, Arsenic, Mercury Hydroflourocarbons (CFC's), and particulates from stacks ARE pollution. In my daily routine we concentrate on criteria pollution and concentrate on keeping dangerous chemicals and soot from our water and air. The CO2 witch hunt is a waste of our resources. The focus on CO2 is a distraction and is being whipped up by greedy people with an agenda and I have, hopefully, helped people to be able to see this for themselves in my OP.

The H2 car and the inherently safe nuclear reactor exists but no one is building them. Yet, we are getting carbon taxed in the western society. How should an environmental scientist react to those facts if not to expose the truth?

Here again are the details I know of personally that has proven Hydrogen power in a car is very possible.

www.youtube.com...

I believe that there is a political agenda that was intended to drive industry from western civilization to places that were poor compared to the US and Western Europe. BUT in Africa they won't allow fossil fuel or nuclear plants that would greatly enhance the lack of electricity and improve quality of their lives. I am calling a spade a spade. The powers that be don't care about pollution but we do.

We need to focus on the real problems.

a reply to: garbageface

Yeah make a bet like that during el Nino weather patterns. Nye the Science Guy has just been rolled out to give U.N. Agenda 2030 propagandized science.

a reply to: Justoneman

Wow, you completely skirted around your own statement, electrostatics and magnetics are not the same thing, and yet you are trying to suggest that they are equivalent, and that you are somehow an expert at all this despite getting that little part very very very wrong.

Firstly, yes there is gaseous water in a freezer, at any point inside the freezer that is at around zero C, you will have water vapour. This is physical chemistry, you might want to look up what is known as a phase diagram and what a triple point is. Now typically a freezer is around -10 to -20 depending on its grade, but, thanks to the Boltzmann nature of thermal physics, there will still be a bit of moisture, not much, but some. Oh yeah look up the Boltzmann function while you are looking in that 65th edition...

Secondly, you told him to redirect flow with an electrostatic object, its not the same as a magnet at all. I know i technically already said this, but its such a big problem i thought id mention it twice.

Thirdly, I did a little experiment with a comb, I can redirect the flow from the tap here at work... I cant with a hard drive magnet... but thats liquid... right, so I took said water and made a cup of tea. The volume above the liquid has lots of water vapour in it, so much that you can see it. I do not see a magical avoidance or attraction to my magnet, in fact it just gets wet like everything else does above the cup, water vapour passing up the sides of it.

Empirically (I am one of those unfortunate people who has a PhD in physics) this experiment is not exactly great, but id say that water has more electrostatic properties than magnetic, based on this really really simple experiment.

So whats this about the pole-shift causing global temperature change? the evidence you have is what exactly? your lack of understanding the difference between electrostatic and magnetic fields? Not sure that counts, id say zero points for you there.


Maybe need to go back to that physics bible and brush up a bit, you are clearly over stretching your understanding beyond the box of your own knowledge and simply applying confidence and assertiveness to try and convince people you know what you are talking about.

Anyone who has done physics likely has one of these big bible like books, I have three, they are very basic, but are able to get you started on pretty much any problem. Physics, Mathematics and Chemistry. I have a few others too, more advanced texts in particle physics but, not sure what books i have on the shelf here really attest to my understanding... or anyone else's... Sitting in a library does not make one smart.

You are right about one thing, Climate change is a difficult thing to predict and study, the number of variables are vast, BUT putting all eggs in one basket is not a good thing and to out right say that the sudden delta function like rise in CO2 levels has not done a single thing, is really quite ignorant... as ignorant as your standpoint that 20 papers compared to... probably thousands that state otherwise somehow are of significantly more importance. Saying that CO2 has been higher in the past is also not much of an argument as you seem to suggest that the dynamics of the weather and the climate was somehow like it is today but just with higher CO2... it was not, the amount of vegetation etc was completely different

Ever thought that when you are at the EPA people shy away from you because you are just difficult to talk and work with? Not because you are the holder of some great insight or knowledge, but because you have no concept of confirmation bias and try to lecture people about the world and constantly strike logical flaws?

Climate is affected by many variables, yes the sun is a major component but it isn't the only component. Also the sun's output in terms of radiant energy has been mostly constant throughout human history. The biggest problem is that the rate at which we release carbon is so high that nature cannot respond in the typical manner. Yes the earth thrived before with much Carbon in the atmosphere but that carbon was released over a much longer period of time.

a reply to: Justoneman

Walk a mile in my shoes, man.

Everyday, when i leave my house i have to walk right along busy roads, and in the infernal dust hell, that the traffic rises (20-50 trucks, public transport), one time i could not breathe for a good while, and ended up vomiting.

originally posted by: Justoneman

Sorry, but I literally am an Environmental Scientist

And I'm an astronaut!

originally posted by: SR1TX

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: pheonix358

The other point to make is that many papers on climate change actually ignore the output variations of the Sun.

False. Solar output is critical to radiative forcing calculations and is closely studied.

Of course changes in climate would be driven by changes in solar output. That doesn't mean that changes in solar output are the only thing that affect climate (which a number of the articles cited in the OP make clear). The thing is, solar output has not changed much in the past 50 years (actually declining a bit) while global temperatures continue to rise.
lasp.colorado.edu...


Yes, the Sun affects climate. Of course. So, what has changed about the Sun to account for the warming trend we are seeing?

It just snowed in NM.

You're a lunatic if you think temps are rising..anywhere.

I see you're one of those who doesn't grasp the difference between weather and climate.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Charlyboy

Possibly it hadn't but doesn't mean its not heading in that direction;

Well, it is a cycle after all. So yes, at some point it will reverse. But that doesn't mean global warming will.

the warming trend we are currently observing has happened before without dramatic peaks and troughs of CO2 and as an enquiring mind I want to know what processes drove this variability, that information would be vital in any model designed to predict climate change

That is precisely why efforts are made to understand what happened in the past and how that might apply to the present (and future).

We do know that, thanks to us, CO2 levels are higher than they have been in at least 800,000 years. Thanks to us, they have gotten there in a very short period of time. Thanks to the physics of radiative forcing, global temperatures are rising.

Bwhahahahahahahaha... even the nutjobs you shill for don't believe in "global warming" anymore... didn't you get the "cataclysmic climate change" memo... LOL...

originally posted by: Charlyboy
a reply to: Justoneman
I am a scientist and I was completely sold on the CO2 debate until about 8 years ago when I had a fascinating conversation with a professor of astrophysics, I suddenly realised how narrow our understanding of climate was and what the broader implications of space weather could be.

Isn't that the crux of the matter, though? So many people rail on and on about climate and how we are controlling and affecting it, when there is such a small percentage of the bigger climate picture actually understood that it's basically, like is often noted, become a belief system over an actual science.

We do not even have an elementary understanding (knowledge does not equate to an understanding) of the foundational drivers of changes in climate over past millennia, but we have people lecturing us on how the past 130 years of record keeping indicate that we're on a detrimental path that cannot be reversed, save for taxes, hyperbole, and alarmist claims and predictions meant to incite emotional responses where there should only be tolerated logical ones.

What we know about climate warming right now is tantamount to blaming an overheating engine on the fact that the rotator cap in a distributor transmits hot sparks because we haven't even understood the way an engine internally combusts, that timing matters, and that there is this thing called a fan and a radiator.

Until we make some major breakthroughs in understand the driving mechanisms of climate, not one thinking person can claim that there is a "consensus" amongst scientists as to the cause of things we're seeing over the past 130 years.

originally posted by: GetHypedI see you're one of those who doesn't grasp the difference between weather and climate.

Well, in the interest of full disclosure, 130 years of pumping out CO2 from fossil fuels into the atmosphere and then using that timespan to scream about CLIMATE change isn't exactly "climate" either--it's a relatively insignificant speck of data on the grander scale that DOES indicate climate.

So, whether the focus is on one day, or one century, they both equate to a statistical insignificance concerning what climate truly is, even if some places call climate something as short as a 30-year period (which is a ridiculously short period of time when we generally are talking on the scale of climate cycles that last over 10,000 years, which are parts of cycles that last over 100,000 years, which are parts of other cycles, and so on).

This page has some nice charts showing the cycles, starting at 9,000 years' of data all the way to the last chart showing 65M years of data. Show me where 130 years of measurements matters one bit in those charts.

a reply to: Justoneman

I make my living as an Environmental Scientist

May I ask what an why an environmental scientist is trying to debunk climate change through astrophysics?

NOAA is not SOHO, and yes while the sun can affect electronic devices, solar flares won't warm the Earth on the scale that we have seen since the beginning of the industrial revolution, in fact the moon has a greater affect as at it's perigree can encourage tectonic shifts once every 17 years (Los Angleles Earthquake 1994- Japan Eartquake 2011)

The sun will get hotter and expand over Millions of years after the invention of the combustion engine, unless the sun has a proxy AKA mankind.

I swear man made climate change deniers will scrape at the bottom of the barrel to debase man made climate change despite the evidence from various ice and soil samples that a "environmental scientist" should have taken and researched.

So as an environmental scientist, can you give us first hand evidence of what's going on instead of leading us to links?

20 new science papers find climate driven by solar changes

What's this good readers of ATS ?

You mean the church of the climate is out to git us has been full of hot air all along?

Gasp!

Blasphemy!

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie
a reply to: Justoneman

I make my living as an Environmental Scientist

May I ask what an why an environmental scientist is trying to debunk climate change through astrophysics?

A real scientist would recognize that a climatologist attempting to debunk astrophysics would be profoundly stupid, yet this supposed environmental scientist (who displays a stunning degree of scientific ignorance) believes that the musings of an astrophysicist somehow debunks an entire field outside of their specialty.

I'll let you join the dots...

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Weather =/= climate. Period.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Weather =/= climate. Period.

Thanks...I know that, at least not in the simple way that 99% of people on ATS use it.

a reply to: Phage

Here are some articles addressing that.

There is reason to believe Earth is not the only planet in the solar system undergoing climate change, meaning CO2 emissions are not the primary force responsible for the rise in global temperatures. Growth of the dark spots in Pluto, reports of auroras on Saturn, polar shifts in Uranus and changes in light intensity of Neptune suggests something very strange is happening in the solar system.

www.space.news...

Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory.

news.nationalgeographic.com...

Pluto is undergoing global warming, as evidenced by a three-fold increase in the planet's atmospheric pressure during the past 14 years

news.mit.edu...