OK Mr. Smartypants explain this

originally posted by: torok67
a reply to: Bluntone22

why not they are all planets orbiting the same sun.

If the Sun is doing something that would warm Pluto, it would be doing a hell of a lot more warming on Earth than it is.

Inverse square law.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Oh, goody. Another EU gish gallop.

Oh, goody. When Phage can't debate Phage must resort to ridiculing anyone who does not 'believe' in Phage's false religion...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I find it extremely ironic how the AGW crowd wants to blame atmospheric CO2 for increasing as the Earth was warming, and they want to claim correlation equals to causation.

The physics of how CO2 causes warming are known. The correlation supports the physics.

Even thou Earth began warming in the 1600s,

Well, the northern hemisphere did, for sure. At the end of the "Little Ice Age". But it kept right on warming at an increasing rate around the middle of the 19th century. When we starting burning coal.

such as the weakening of Earth's magnetic field which began ~1840s,

No. That's been happening for several hundred years.

or the increase in global earthquakes, the increase in geothermal and volcanic activity, etc.

Nope.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

When Phage can't debate Phage must resort to ridiculing anyone who does not 'believe' in Phage's false religion...

Saying that you use gish galloping is not ridicule. It is a fact.

originally posted by: Phage

If the Sun is doing something that would warm Pluto, it would be doing a hell of a lot more warming on Earth than it is.

Inverse square law.

Except that the sun itself has been acting strange, which of course you will want to deny like you always do, and Phage wants to ignore the fact that the Solar System is moving into a new region of the Local Fluff which could very well be the cause of all the changes Earth, and the entire Solar System have been going through.

Heck, scientists smarter than Phage back in 1978 were speculating that if we were to encounter this interstellar cloud it would "change the climate on Earth."

Title:
Is the solar system entering a nearby interstellar cloud
Authors:
Vidal-Madjar, A.; Laurent, C.; Bruston, P.; Audouze, J.
Affiliation:
AA(CNRS, Laboratoire de Physique Stellaire et Planetaire, Verrieres-le-Buisson, Essonne, France), AB(CNRS, Laboratoire de Physique Stellaire et Planetaire, Verrieres-le-Buisson, Essonne, France), AC(CNRS, Laboratoire de Physique Stellaire et Planetaire, Verrieres-le-Buisson, Essonne, France), AD(Meudon Observatoire, Hauts-de-Seine; Paris XI, Universite, Orsay, Essonne, France)
Publication:
Astrophysical Journal, Part 1, vol. 223, July 15, 1978, p. 589-600. (ApJ Homepage)
Publication Date:
07/1978
Category:
Astrophysics
Origin:
STI
NASA/STI Keywords:
....................
Abstract
....................
Observational arguments in favor of such a cloud are presented, and implications of the presence of a nearby cloud are discussed, including possible changes in terrestrial climate. 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.

adsabs.harvard.edu...

Of course, they were wrong on how close and how soon we would encounter this cloud.

Ribbon at edge of our solar system: Will the Sun enter a million-degree cloud of interstellar gas?

Date:
May 24, 2010
Source:
Space Research Centre, Polish Academy of Sciences
Summary:
Is the Sun going to enter a million-degree galactic cloud of interstellar gas soon? A U.S.-Polish team of scientists suggests that the ribbon of enhanced emissions of energetic neutral atoms, discovered last year by the NASA Small Explorer satellite IBEX, could be explained by a geometric effect due to the approach of the Sun to the boundary between the Local Cloud of interstellar gas and another cloud of a very hot gas called the Local Bubble. If this hypothesis is correct, IBEX is catching matter from a hot neighboring interstellar cloud, which the Sun might enter in a hundred years.
...

www.sciencedaily.com...

originally posted by: Phage

Saying that you use gish galloping is not ridicule. It is a fact.

Not really when your "belief' in AGW is "gish galloping." I can play that game too Phage, it doesn't change the fact that you are wrong. Yet like always you can never admit to being wrong.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: neo96

Humans are the cause of solar system warming.

Probably not. But we don't have as much data on the climate (past and current) of other planets as we do for Earth, so it's not really possible to say if the solar system is warming. We know the Sun isn't.

We do see some parallels with our planet and the others as several have correctly pointed out for us.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I find it extremely ironic how the AGW crowd wants to blame atmospheric CO2 for increasing as the Earth was warming, and they want to claim correlation equals to causation.

The physics of how CO2 causes warming are known. The correlation supports the physics.

Even thou Earth began warming in the 1600s,

Well, the northern hemisphere did, for sure. At the end of the "Little Ice Age". But it kept right on warming at an increasing rate around the middle of the 19th century. When we starting burning coal.

such as the weakening of Earth's magnetic field which began ~1840s,

No. That's been happening for several hundred years.

or the increase in global earthquakes, the increase in geothermal and volcanic activity, etc.

Nope.

Not so about the 'its settled Physics". It is always about the Sun and the weather. From Storm patterns to EQ's , we are being affected by the Sun. More than just the light waves with photons of energy are involved.

a reply to: Justoneman


If a nuclear confrontation took place in the northern hemisphere to the best of my memory , they said it could take up to five hundred years for the air from the north to mix with the south, and equalise the radiation. Well the same goes for CO2 why wouldn't it. So since the north are the main CO2 polluters, then the southern hemisphere should be showing very little of the effect as industrialisation as it has not been going long enough for it to mix. So how come the southern hemisphere is still suffering climate change if its due to CO2??

Why is everyone so focused on whether the temperature is going up or not?


The real question is: are we changing the composition of the atmosphere? The undisputed answer is that yes, of course we are.

The second question is : is it a good idea to change the composition of the atmosphere? I think most people would agree that it is not.


The question of whether this is leading to global warming is a just a big red herring. A misdirection. A conspiracy to distract the public's attention away from something we all know for certain is bad (and which we would unite in opposition to if we thought about it very long), and direct it toward something that nobody knows for sure.

The Earth might not be getting warmer. If it is, it might not be carbon's fault.

But ........we still need to stop carbon emissions.

originally posted by: Phage
The physics of how CO2 causes warming are known. The correlation supports the physics.

It has been known that CO2 in Earth's troposphere only accounts for 5% of the greenhouse effect. That's nowhere near to what is needed to cause the ongoing global warming, more so since, yet again, the Earth started warming over 250 years BEFORE CO2 levels increased dramatically at the height of the industrial revolution.

originally posted by: Phage
Well, the northern hemisphere did, for sure. At the end of the "Little Ice Age". But it kept right on warming at an increasing rate around the middle of the 19th century. When we starting burning coal.

You keep forgetting more and more facts which have been shown to you for years and you keep denying. Such as...

The Sun Is More Active Now Than Over The Last 8000 Years

Date:
November 1, 2004
Source:
Max Planck Society
Summary:
The activity of the Sun over the last 11,400 years, i.e., back to the end of the last ice age on Earth, has now for the first time been reconstructed quantitatively by an international group of researchers led by Sami K. Solanki from the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research (Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany). The scientists have analyzed the radioactive isotopes in trees that lived thousands of years ago.
...
As the scientists from Germany, Finland, and Switzerland report in the current issue of the science journal "Nature" from October 28, one needs to go back over 8,000 years in order to find a time when the Sun was, on average, as active as in the last 60 years.
...

www.sciencedaily.com...

Then there is the evidence found by Scaletta and Wilson which found that for the time period they studied, around 1978-2002, the TSI during Solar minimum had been increasing by 0.05% per decade, and that if this trend had been continuous for 100 years it could account for much of the warming.

NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE

As other studies had shown in fact the Sun had been warming for all of the 20th century, and even for some time into the 21st century.

originally posted by: Phage
No. That's been happening for several hundred years.

Since direct observations of our sun started around 1840s I am not going to "assume" what happened before then.

www.livescience.com...

originally posted by: Phage
Nope.

Yep...

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
...
But ........we still need to stop carbon emissions.

You might as well just claim "we need to kill all life on Earth." That's the only way you are going to stop releasing CO2 into the atmosphere...

Heck, even then what do you think happens when trillions and trillions of carbon based lifeforms die suddenly? All the carbon and gases that our bodies produced will be released. Trillions of decomposing bodies will be releasing methane, CO2, and carbon which won't disappear. Then there would be the biomass of plants also decomposing, which are also carbon based lifeforms.

If you are talking ONLY about anthropogenic emissions, you might as well just say "we better make sure to go back to the dark ages and stop using technology altogether." Unless we come up with another viable source of energy, "stopping anthropogenic CO2" is not going to be possible. As for "we are changing the composition of the atmosphere," our contribution of CO2 emissions are negligible compared to natural emissions.

Some of us have been saying this for years. Those of you who "believe" that anthropogenic CO2 is the cause of global warming, why don't you all move to caves and stop using all forms of technology?... If you are right, those of you, which number in the millions, should make enough of a dent to "slow climate change." But no, instead you all keep making the same claims meanwhile you live with technology all around you, and never stop using AC/heaters. Then you presume to demand for everyone else to "comply to the agendas of the left" all based on made up science and "your belief" that it is anthropogenic CO2 when natural observations tells us a different story.

originally posted by: 727Sky
Some believe it is the sun and its cycles that causes dramatic climate changes on earth..

You should stop right there because the ONLY reason we (the inhabitants of Earth) have a climate is due 100% to the fact we have the Sun as a heat source.

"Some believe" ? LOL...that literally is hilarious. You actually think the Earth heats up on it's own? So by your logic if we did not have the Sun then we would be just fine? Hilarious.

The atmosphere is a thin layer that can only be renewed through
natural means .
As we increasingly populate,pollute and deforest .,
the ability for nature to provide clean air is diminished
right up to the point where we all choke to death .

This will happen long before climate change would kill us .
So stop worrying , and evolve into an anaerobic life form .... !

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: Justoneman


If a nuclear confrontation took place in the northern hemisphere to the best of my memory , they said it could take up to five hundred years for the air from the north to mix with the south, and equalise the radiation. Well the same goes for CO2 why wouldn't it. So since the north are the main CO2 polluters, then the southern hemisphere should be showing very little of the effect as industrialisation as it has not been going long enough for it to mix. So how come the southern hemisphere is still suffering climate change if its due to CO2??

I don't know about all that but I do think that CO2 has many natural ways to be absorbed and recycled by Earth in several efficient ways.

There is a lot of Carbon on the Earth and someone is trying to make another dime off a thing that is part of the cycle of life. It is obvious that 'by any means necessary' is the playbook for the progressive/regressive class.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
Why is everyone so focused on whether the temperature is going up or not?


The real question is: are we changing the composition of the atmosphere? The undisputed answer is that yes, of course we are.

The second question is : is it a good idea to change the composition of the atmosphere? I think most people would agree that it is not.


The question of whether this is leading to global warming is a just a big red herring. A misdirection. A conspiracy to distract the public's attention away from something we all know for certain is bad (and which we would unite in opposition to if we thought about it very long), and direct it toward something that nobody knows for sure.

The Earth might not be getting warmer. If it is, it might not be carbon's fault.

But ........we still need to stop carbon emissions.

The real question should be if it is Pollution they are worried about or taxes? Because the people asking for the money are sure living the high life and feeling like they can. Meanwhile they rebuke the poor for trying to stay warm or pump water from a well. While ignoring the Human rights travesties in Africa, TPB are refusing to enhance African infrastructure where people have basic electricity and water needs met. That is a farce for one that needs to be called out while we clean out the cabal.

originally posted by: radarloveguy
The atmosphere is a thin layer that can only be renewed through
natural means .
As we increasingly populate,pollute and deforest .,
the ability for nature to provide clean air is diminished
right up to the point where we all choke to death .

This will happen long before climate change would kill us .
So stop worrying , and evolve into an anaerobic life form .... !

Funny thing about your logic. Man is natural as an elephant or microbe on this planet we call Earth. All our work is natural because nature/God , take your pick, have created us and we are to be stewards of the Earth. Clearly all we do will never leave a mark after 1000's of years from now if we suddenly die off. The Earth will swallow our buildings and recycle everything all naturally.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
...
But ........we still need to stop carbon emissions.

You might as well just claim "we need to kill all life on Earth." That's the only way you are going to stop releasing CO2 into the atmosphere...

Heck, even then what do you think happens when trillions and trillions of carbon based lifeforms die suddenly? All the carbon and gases that our bodies produced will be released. Trillions of decomposing bodies will be releasing methane, CO2, and carbon which won't disappear. Then there would be the biomass of plants also decomposing, which are also carbon based lifeforms.

It's good that you are asking the question that needs to be asked here : what is carbon emissions for the purposes of world atmospheric change. (We know the atmosphere is changing. But nobody can certainly predict with certainty the changes that will lead to for the weather.)

It's when a process releases more than it consumes.

What is reversal?

It's when a process consumes more than it releases.


Killing life forms would only achieve this if they don't rot. (Which is what caused fossil fuels to exist in the first place: a number of plants/animals died and didn't get the chance to rot.)

Forests, contrary to popular belief, do not reduce carbon in the air. They metabolize it, sure. But then the release it afterward.

If you are talking ONLY about anthropogenic emissions, you might as well just say "we better make sure to go back to the dark ages and stop using technology altogether." Unless we come up with another viable source of energy, "stopping anthropogenic CO2" is not going to be possible. As for "we are changing the composition of the atmosphere," our contribution of CO2 emissions are negligible compared to natural emissions.

Natural emissions are, for the most part, at equilibrium. That is to say, world wide the amount emitted is approximately equal to the amount consumed over time. (Not always, though, since there have been ice ages and such in the past over very long periods of time.)

And no our emissions are not negligible in comparison. Another earlier poster pointed out that even the eruption of Mount St. Helens was a lighter emission than that which was released by human activity in the same 9 hours.



When we burn a fossil fuel, carbon is released, but no carbon is captured to replace it. (Basically an animal/plant that previously died and didn't rot, is now being allowed to decompose.)

Some of us have been saying this for years. Those of you who "believe" that anthropogenic CO2 is the cause of global warming, why don't you all move to caves and stop using all forms of technology?... If you are right, those of you, which number in the millions, should make enough of a dent to "slow climate change." But no, instead you all keep making the same claims meanwhile you live with technology all around you, and never stop using AC/heaters. Then you presume to demand for everyone else to "comply to the agendas of the left" all based on made up science and "your belief" that it is anthropogenic CO2 when natural observations tells us a different story.

What we need is a smaller population. Or at least to stop growing it.

Right now we can't realistically feed everyone without consuming large amounts of electricity to manufacture synthetic fertilizer for our fields, and pumping fresh water to them. There is simply no hope of it.

But that is only because the number that need feeding is 7 billion. If that number sky rockets to 70 billion, even burning out all our fossil fuels won't be enough.


Does the population need to grow? No. Even the young to hold ratio isn't a strong argument, because we're having to put ever greater numbers of our young population on welfare as things stand, due to progress in electronics and robotics. We would do better to put a higher percentage on pension instead.

Is it so hard to keep it in our pants? Maybe wear a condom now and then?

Here: I found the quote for st. Helens

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TheOne7

Heh. Good point.

The eruption of Mt. St. Helen's put something like 10 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere over 9 hours. People produce that amount in 2.5 hours. Pinatubo did reach a higher rate of production though, for a few hours.

volcanoes.usgs.gov...

If people were less frightened of Nuclear power, we could probably use that as a substitute for fossil fuels for a while, to get the rest of the world educated and having access to proper birth control.

It creates nuclear waste, but doesn't really give off any carbon.(Not much, anyway.)

It's possible to create synthetic gasoline and diesel from CO2 from the air, and hydrogen taken from water, by adding electricity to it all.

Google "reverse water gas shift" reaction.

marspedia.org...

And then "Fischer Tropsch"

en.wikipedia.org...

Between those two, you can synthesize all the way up to gasoline. Burning it afterward would mean you were "carbon neutral" because the process of making it captured an amount of carbon exactly equal to the amount that was later released by burning it.

My point being: in a carbon neutral world, you wouldn't have to give up your car.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous


Here's a good one narrated by Spock. He remembers the winter of 77. They had a totally different spin on things back then, no global warming at all