Global warming debunked in 4 words

This thread debunked in 3 graphs.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0943566b2fef.gif[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7745da43fdcd.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4b6f4da86d79.jpg[/atsimg]



*yawn*

You global warming deniers are the flat-earthers of the modern era. You seem to think that humans can do whatever we want without consequences. Wake up and face the facts people!

I believe it's actually cow BURPS that emit the most methane, a more significant factor to global whatevering than CO2.

I fully intend on having steak tomorrow to help save this planet of ours. # you cows!

fun fact. you have to DOUBLE the amount of co2 in the atmosphere to equal the amount of heat 1% extra cloud cover causes.

while we are witnessing slight warming, it isn't caused by humans. does climate gate need to be brought up? that such a lack of evidence forced global warming scientists to fraudulently manipulate data?

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
. does climate gate need to be brought up? that such a lack of evidence forced global warming scientists to fraudulently manipulate data?

Are you actually under the impression that is what the so-called 'climate gate' was about?

reply to post by NTMofficial


those 4 words are very true, however regardless they are in 4 words doing this:

Educate Public to Comply.

so the issue for me is how do we get a unbiased debate on a national level in each country, without it my 4 words is all that will happen and will be promoted by the media. regardless of anything else.

Originally posted by lifeform11


so the issue for me is how do we get a unbiased debate on a national level in each country,

Well, for starters, we need to stop allowing the mainstream media to pretend that those who deny decades of peer reviewed science have 'equal' scientific footing with actual science.

Originally posted by kimar
You global warming deniers are the flat-earthers of the modern era. You seem to think that humans can do whatever we want without consequences. Wake up and face the facts people!

untrue. i for one think we need to look after the planet and resources, it just makes sense.
however those things are unrelated to what is causing the warming.
that is where the issue is, so i for one do not think we can do what we want or treat the planet how we like.
however it would help in that department if those preaching to us about the planet actually stopped causing the problems. but they will not, they want us to change, while they carry on ripping up trees, spewing oil into the oceans and putting design flaws in products to ensure we have to use more and buy more, to maximise their profits.

say one thing do another.

reply to post by incrediblelousminds


hence why we need a unbiased debate, allow both sides to put their point across, rather than promoting one view and screaming and name calling at any opposing views. which is how it is being handled currently.

reply to post by incrediblelousminds


impression? i read many of the emails myself, and there are a myriad of videos with programmers dissecting the code of the models used, many of which are used to "hide the decline".

reply to post by NTMofficial


I mean really, do you think that mankind has not had any impact on earth at all? I personally think that both sides are right. Earth has it cycles and right now it is on a warmer cycle and soon it will to start a cooler one, but to say that mankind is not responsible for some part is is just ridiculous.

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
so sad

wanna know the fun part ?

the sun is actually currently in a weak or low cycle linky

should be fun when it starts to heat up !

see kids, with all the greenhouse gasses in the air, we are seeing undeniable warming on this planet AND THE SUN IS IN A WEAK CYCLE !!!!!

deny ignorance indeed

Yeah, perhaps you should deny ignorance indeed

Surprise In Earth's Upper Atmosphere: Mode Of Energy Transfer From The Solar Wind

www.sciencedaily.com
"Its like something else is heating the atmosphere besides the sun. This discovery is like finding it got hotter when the sun went down," said Larry Lyons, UCLA professor of atmospheric and oceanic sciences and a co-author of the research, which is in press in two companion papers in the Journal of Geophysical Research.

Further down on the article you can read the following

"We all have thought for our entire careers — I learned it as a graduate student — that this energy transfer rate is primarily controlled by the direction of the interplanetary magnetic field," Lyons said. "The closer to southward-pointing the magnetic field is, the stronger the energy transfer rate is, and the stronger the magnetic field is in that direction. If it is both southward and big, the energy transfer rate is even bigger."

However, Lyons, Kim and their colleagues analyzed radar data that measure the strength of the interaction by measuring flows in the ionosphere, the part of Earth's upper atmosphere ionized by solar radiation. The results surprised them.

"Any space physicist, including me, would have said a year ago there could not be substorms when the interplanetary magnetic field was staying northward, but that's wrong," Lyons said. "Generally, it's correct, but when you have a fluctuating interplanetary magnetic field, you can have substorms going off once per hour.

"Heejeong used detailed statistical analysis to prove this phenomenon is real. Convection in the magnetosphere and ionosphere can be strongly driven by these fluctuations, independent of the direction of the interplanetary magnetic field."

www.sciencedaily.com...

Space radiation hits record high

Now, the influx of galactic cosmic rays into our solar system has reached a record high. Measurements by NASA's Advanced Composition Explorer (ACE) spacecraft indicate that cosmic rays are 19 per cent more abundant than any previous level seen since space flight began a half century ago."The space era has so far experienced a time of relatively low cosmic ray activity," says Richard Mewaldt of Caltech, who is a member of the ACE team. "We may now be returning to levels typical of past centuries."

www.newscientist.com...

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: ASTRONOMICAL MODELS, DEUTERIUM, HYDROGEN ATOMS, INTERSTELLAR GAS, SOLAR SYSTEM, ABUNDANCE, EARLY STARS, GAS DENSITY, INTERSTELLAR EXTINCTION


Comment: A&AA ID. AAA021.131.209

DOI: 10.1086/156294

Bibliographic Code: 1978ApJ...223..589V


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...

It was at first believed that the time when the Earth would experience dramatic climate change due to this interstellar cloud would be 10,000 years, but more recent research states that within this century the Earth would experience such changes, but obviously we have already been experiencing the changes.

We have been SLOWLY feeling the effects. Supposedly within 100 years we will be inside this new interstellar cloud, but we are feeling right now it's effects.

Ribbon at Edge of Our Solar System: Will the Sun Enter a Million-Degree Cloud of Interstellar Gas?
ScienceDaily (May 24, 2010) — Is the Sun going to enter a million-degree galactic cloud of interstellar gas soon?

Scientists from the Space Research Centre of the Polish Academy of Sciences, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Southwest Research Institute, and Boston University suggest 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 coming up because of 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...

[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...

Read this from 1996 when they thought it was farther away.

Our solar system may be headed for an encounter with a dense cloud of interstellar matter
Our solar system may be headed for an encounter with a dense cloud of interstellar matter–gas and dust–that could have substantial implications for our solar systems interplanetary environment, according to University of Chicago astrophysicist Priscilla Frisch. The good news is that it probably won’t happen for 50,000 years. Frisch presented the results of her research Monday, June 10, at the meeting of the American Astronomical Society in Madison, Wisc.

Frisch has been investigating the interstellar gas in the local neighborhood of our solar system, which is called the Local Interstellar Medium (LISM). This interstellar gas is within 100 light years of the Sun. The Sun has a trajectory through space, and for most of the last five million years, said Frisch, it has been moving through a region of space between the spiral arms of the Milky Way galaxy that is almost devoid of matter. Only recently, within the last few thousand years, she estimates, the Sun has been traveling through a relatively low-density interstellar cloud.

“This cloud, although low density on average, has a tremendous amount of structure to it,” Frisch said. “And it is not inconsistent with our data that the Sun may eventually encounter a portion of the cloud that is a million times denser than what we’re in now.”

Frisch believes the interstellar cloud through which we’re traveling is a relatively narrow band of dust and gas that lies in a superbubble shell expanding outward from an active star-formation region called the Scorpius-Centaurus Association. “When this superbubble expanded around these stars, it expanded much farther into the region of our galaxy between the spiral arms, where our sun lies, because the density is very low,” Frisch said. “It didn’t expand very far in the direction parallel to the spiral arms because it ran into very dense molecular clouds.”
...

www-news.uchicago.edu...


But hey I guess you and that professor of yours still think humans are stronger than nature, the Sun, the Solar System, the entire galaxy and the Universe...

Deny ignorance indeed...which you haven't done...

Originally posted by littletheif203

I mean really, do you think that mankind has not had any impact on earth at all? I personally think that both sides are right. Earth has it cycles and right now it is on a warmer cycle and soon it will to start a cooler one, but to say that mankind is not responsible for some part is is just ridiculous.

Why is that?... Yes mankind has caused environmental problems, but that doesn't mean mankind can change the climate of this planet. There is not one iota of evidence to support the claim that CO2 causes the warming claimed by the anthropogenists, not one. If there was the main proponents of the AGW/Anthropogenic Global Warming scam wouldn't have been caught falsifying data, publishing false information which they knew was false, they wouldn't be trying to hide the truth about past Climate Changes, and they wouldn't have been caught doing other tactics to hide the truth, but they were caught, and if Mann, Jones, et al couldn't find any evidence to back their claim that CO2 causes tremendous warming, how could you?

Originally posted by mc_squared
This thread debunked in 3 graphs.

*yawn*

Oh boy... the mcsquared again with the same old lies?... When is he ever going to learn?....

Science 26 September 1997:
Vol. 277. no. 5334, pp. 1963 - 1965
DOI: 10.1126/science.277.5334.1963
Prev | Table of Contents | Next

Reports

Total Solar Irradiance Trend During Solar Cycles 21 and 22
Richard C. Willson

Results from Active Cavity Radiometer Irradiance Monitor (ACRIM) experiments show an upward trend in total solar irradiance of 0.036 percent per decade between the minima of solar cycles 21 and 22. The trend follows the increasing solar activity of recent decades and, if sustained, could raise global temperatures. Trends of total solar irradiance near this rate have been implicated as causal factors in climate change on century to millennial time scales.

www.sciencemag.org...

Here is a more recent research done by Wilson which shows the Sun's activity had been increasing at least until the end of his research in 2002.

Earth Institute News Archive

posted 03/20/03

Researcher Finds Solar Trend That Can Warm Climate
Ends debate over whether sun can play a role in climate change

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 the study. “This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change,” said Willson, a researcher affiliated with NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the Earth Institute at Columbia University, and 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,” says Willson. “If a trend comparable the one found in this study persisted during the 20th century it would have provided a significant component of the global warming that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report claims to have occurred over the last 100 years.”

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.

The solar cycle occurs approximately every 11 years when the sun undergoes a period of increased magnetic and sunspot activity called the "solar maximum," followed by a quiet period called the "solar minimum." A trend in the average solar radiation level over many solar magnetic cycles would contribute to climate change in a major way. Satellite observations of total solar irradiance have now obtained a long enough record (over 24 years) to begin looking for this effect.
......................

In order to investigate the possibility of a solar trend, Willson needed to put together a long-term dataset of the Sun’s total output. Six overlapping satellite experiments have monitored TSI since late 1978.The first record came from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Nimbus7 Earth Radiation Budget (ERB) experiment (1978-1993). Other records came from NASA’s Active Cavity Radiometer Irradiance Monitors: ACRIM1 on the Solar Maximum Mission (1980-1989), ACRIM2 on the Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite (1991-2001) and ACRIM3 on the ACRIMSAT satellite (2000 to present). Also, NASA launched its own Earth Radiation Budget Experiment on its Earth Radiation Budget Satellite (ERBS) in 1984. And, the European Space Agency’s (ESA) SOHO/VIRGO experiment also provided an independent data set during 1996-1998.

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.earthinstitute.columbia.edu...

Although not documented here, it is interesting to note that the overall level of magnetic disturbance from year to year has increased substantially from a low around 1900 Also, the level of mean yearly aa is now much higher so that a year of minimum magnetic disturbances now is typically more disturbed than years at maximum disturbance levels before 1900.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/548546048a1e.jpg[/atsimg]

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

www.ngdc.noaa.gov...

The increase in Solar magnetic storms do tells us that the Sun's activity had been increasing until at least the end of 2005-2006, which is the CONTRARY to what squared, and some others, keep trying to claim.

While you guys argue over a simple gas, Mr Gore is living the life in his Mac Manson which oddly enough has no solar panels, no solar water heating, and no windmills...lol shows how much he believes in his own theory.

reply to post by randomtangentsrme


Actually, cows belch, anyway, termites produce more methane than cows, also the methane locked up in the permafrost is now leaking out, plus the methane at the oceans depths (I did not want to type 'bottom') is now rising to the surface, rotting plants produce methane, its also mixed in all the crap volcanoes produce.
AS for CO2 in the atmosphere, its less than one percent, 393 parts per million to be exact (last time I Googled)
no on mentions water vapour much as well.

If the sun alone controls climate and the sun has been much less active of late than it was in the 1990s, shouldn't it now be colder than it was in the 1990s - rather than warmer than any year except 1998?

(and I make that statement based on UAH data as provided by Spencer & Christie )

Of course, the simple truth is that lots of different things affect climate to varying degrees. And you can more say that because the sun affects climate then humans do not than you can say that because cancer kills humans then bullets do not.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


very interesting reads! sadly your post will be ignored because that's what AGW scientists and supporters do. ignore the evidence.

I have always wondered, for those who say global warming is happening (which i dont doubt) but it is happening because of humans(as the sole/driving cause behind it) can someone explain to me why we have core samples from the Ice caps showing it has happened before, like prior to well humans/ industrial revolutions and all that jazz.

to understand ... i do not doubt it is happening or at least there is a massive change in climate... i do not doubt wehave helped that along with our chemicals and pollution etc. maybe a few thousand year... i do however doubt a few thousands year is more than a blink of an eye in the earths time line so i want too know if it soley down to our effects on earth how has it happened a few times in the earths past before humans... ??

if you agree with me we have only helped it along a few thousand years at best... why argue.. as it was always going to happen.

Mount St Helens put out more green house gases and pollutants then humans could in thousands of years. So according to the global warming crowd we should all be dead by now. But since then and especially in the last year we have had several more volcanoes go off and we are all just fine. Man is not the cause of climate change. That does not mean we should not take care of the planet however the idea we are causing any significant climate change is just not supported by the facts.