It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by melatonin
.............
Every planet? The data does not support such a comment. Remember the difference between localised and global effects?
Muaddib, you're own suggestions do not add up. This is where you are now....
Originally posted by Muaddib
Increased intergallatic "dust" seems to increase cloud cover, which does cool the Earth. But the more cosmic rays that hits Earth, the more nucleons that are present and release more heat.
You are trying to divide every natural factor. It is not only that the sun's activity has increased recently more than it has for 1,000 years.
The Earth's magnetic field has weakened since 1845, more than it has for the past 780,000 years.
....
Because the magnetic field of Earth and the sun are weaker, more of the interstellar particles which are present in the cloudlet we are in have been absorbed by the solar system; and we can see the changes that these, and probably other natural factors are causing not only on Earth, but other planets in our solar system including the Sun.
The solar system entered the cloudlet we are in 2,000-10,000 years ago, which has a temperature of at least 7,000 Kelvin.
You are trying to dismiss facts, and are instead puting your blind belief in computer models that can't predict the weather in the next two weeks, yet you want to claim some computer models can tell us what is causing these changes better than what the observation of events that are occurring in the solar system can tell us.
I am reaching my conclusions on the observable facts, not on "computer models which are flawed"...
Cosmic Ray
The high energy atomic radiation that bombards the earth from space. Cosmic ray particles are predominantly high energy protons and 4He nuclei (a-particles). Part of the cosmic ray flux originates at the sun, and is generated by solar flare events. The remainder comes from interstellar space. The mechanisms giving rise to the highest energy cosmic rays are not well understood. The impact of cosmic rays on the atmosphere gives rise to nuclear reactions, generating the cosmogenic nuclides such as 14C, 10Be and 26Al.
Originally posted by Muaddib
Remember that there is no such thing as "global warming all over Earth"?...
The southern hemisphere has not experienced the warming that the northern hemisphere on Earth has been experiencing. In fact the amount of ice in the southern hemisphere has increased...and the same can be said in parts of the nothern hemisphere...
Your suggestions that "mankind is at fault for global wamring" are based on "flawed data from flawed computer models"...
is based on the assumption that computer models can predict 100% what happens in Earth's atmosphere....and at the risk of repeating myself we can't even predict the weather for the next two weeks right
Add all of the above i mentioned, to the fact that we came out of an ice age and we have experienced more recently increases in the seismic and magmatic activity all over Earth, which are releasing large amounts of CO2 and methane gas. More than mankind can release...yet mankind is at fault for the current warming trends?..
Originally posted by melatonin
I'll wait for better data to assess whether we have global warming around the solar system.
Originally posted by melatonin
Just liked I waited for better data for anthropogenic global warming here on earth.
Originally posted by Muaddib
But that's not all, in fact there has been an increase in sunspots which are not being taken into account by the "it's all mankind's fault crowd".
Originally posted by carlwfbird
I don't see how "increased sunspot activity" mean anything to support your argument. The sunspots after all are cooler parts of the sun.
Originally posted by carlwfbird
This graph contradicts your argument.
Originally posted by carlwfbird
This if anything supports your argument. (somewhat)