Global warming debunked in 4 words

Originally posted by Essan
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 pray tell us who in the world is saying the Sun alone controls the climate on Earth?... Last I cheked it is only anthropogenists/AGW believers who think that one gas, when it is released by humans, is stronger than the sun, nature, the Solar System, the galaxy and the entire Universe...

Anyway, perhaps Essan is forgetting that Earth's greatest storage of heat are the oceans, which would release the energy they have trapped for hundreds and thousands of years when the Sun's activity is down.

Not only is Essan forgetting that, but he is forgetting that as the Sun's activity lowers more energy and matter from sources outside the Solar System enter the Solar System and these do affect the dynamics of the Solar System, and the climate of planets.

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...

For some years now some other members and myself have been pointing to this. There are more sources of energy which affect the entire Solar System, and hence the Earth, and which can cause changes, including Climate Changes, and these sources are other than the Sun, or even Earth's ghgs, in which WATER VAPOR is the main and most significant ghg, and not CO2.

Right now space radiation is at an all time high, and it is the highest it has been at least since we started monitoring space weather. This in turn affects the Earth, and it's climate.

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...

Meanwhile we think the Solar System will enter this interstellar cloud in 100 years, it doesn't mean we are not being affected by it already, since the evidence seems to prove it is affecting us already.

Also of note is the fact that about 10 years ago scientists thought the Solar System would encounter this interstellar cloud in 50,000 years, and 2 years ago we thought it would happen in 10,000 years, and now we think it would be within 100 years. The way it is going maybe we are already inside it.

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!

It's amazing how dumb these people are. THey think because the government are trying to turn a profit that the entire thing is made-up. Despite the scientific objective facts proving it to be a reality beyond any question.

How can anyone not see the damage we've done, do you all live in the clouds?

reply to post by syrinx high priest


Even if it human caused do you think a tax is the way to go? especially when the proceeds from that tax are given to the low income earners that will be hit more and the better off one get hammered again. That's what Australia is proposing as well.We have ideas to turn that methane from landfill into power hell we even have a process to turn every carbon based piece of rubbish into fuel and fertiliser but we won't see any of it. Why?

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Well I suppose we will see what happens now the sun has gone quiet on the sun spot front won't we?

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

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?

I did not mention anything about CO2. I said climate there is a difference, climate change has happened and has been caused by mankind's actions. Many small things eventually leads to big ones. Look at the research of weather systems of the southwest US. Since the growing population of residential areas with grass, water systems and swimming pools in an area that was once 99% desert has in turn introduced more moisture into the atmosphere, and causing increased rain and snowfall over an area that rarely sees that much precipitation. although localized to a smaller area, it is a climate change for that area. I am not arguing for global warming, just that small changes done by mankind effects the surroundings.

reply to post by littletheif203


Some Asian countries have now recieved hotter days due to chopping down all the trees and the cooling effect the trees used to offer has now been lost so it isn't just gases. But in Australia that's what they are focusing on instead of the norm of direct action plans to reverse damage like this to make a change.

Originally posted by NadaCambia

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!

It's amazing how dumb these people are. THey think because the government are trying to turn a profit that the entire thing is made-up. Despite the scientific objective facts proving it to be a reality beyond any question.

How can anyone not see the damage we've done, do you all live in the clouds?

Please, do tell me just one of these "facts" you speak about. Tell me one universally agreed upon and accepted fact supporting AGW?

Remember, AGW is just a theory, with no more factual evidence to support it than there is to prove aliens exist. For every graph, or paper, or article you link, someone can find an equally supported counter view.

I was going to say:

Carbon is not bad

But I actually like yours better

Originally posted by NTMofficial
The sun drives climate.

Venus.

There, I just debunked your debunk with 1 word.

reply to post by NTMofficial


Personally, people in denial that pollution, etc contribute in our worlds destruction are so short-sighted and ignorant.

Do other things play part? Of course they do. The Sun matters, the cosmos matter, but also humans (and cars and cutting rainforests, etc) matter.

I'm not even a "Hippie tree hugger" and I know that much.

Just because Al Gore is a douchebag doesn't mean that human population and waste doesn't affect the very world we live on.

There is plenty of science out there that proves it too. It's not shoddy science either. Some of the scientists went in with the idea that Humans do not play a part and left their studies absolutely freaked out that Man's activities changes the planet's ecosystem way more than anyone knew.

You folks need to wake up.

Originally posted by amaster

Originally posted by NadaCambia

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!

It's amazing how dumb these people are. THey think because the government are trying to turn a profit that the entire thing is made-up. Despite the scientific objective facts proving it to be a reality beyond any question.

How can anyone not see the damage we've done, do you all live in the clouds?

Please, do tell me just one of these "facts" you speak about. Tell me one universally agreed upon and accepted fact supporting AGW?

Remember, AGW is just a theory, with no more factual evidence to support it than there is to prove aliens exist. For every graph, or paper, or article you link, someone can find an equally supported counter view.

It's no longer a theory.

You sir have just been ingoring facts and scientific papers around the subject. You probably ignore them as "propaganda" and that is your own fault.

Think of the world as a living body. Dump a bunch of radiation and oil in it and what happens? Good things?

It's fact driven common sense.

1+1 = Donut in your world, I am assuming.

heres my 4
i like the warmth
or
dont beleive the media.
how about
i dont care anymore.
s+f

reply to post by syrinx high priest


Great link. Thanks. F&

So we're in a weak solar cycle that lowers Earth's temperature:

A weaker solar cycle is accompanied by a slightly dimmer sun, which changes the average temperature on Earth.

The exact role the flow plays in the solar cycle remains a matter of debate but research "demonstrates how the inner working of the sun, and variations in the plasma flow deep within our parent star can control its magnetic and energetic output, which in turn, determines the environment in space and affects climate on Earth," Nandy says.

Read more: www.upi.com...

To paraphrase your question, "What would it be like here if the Sun's activity was normal, and higher?"

Originally posted by mudbeed

Originally posted by amaster

Originally posted by NadaCambia

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!

It's amazing how dumb these people are. THey think because the government are trying to turn a profit that the entire thing is made-up. Despite the scientific objective facts proving it to be a reality beyond any question.

How can anyone not see the damage we've done, do you all live in the clouds?

Please, do tell me just one of these "facts" you speak about. Tell me one universally agreed upon and accepted fact supporting AGW?

Remember, AGW is just a theory, with no more factual evidence to support it than there is to prove aliens exist. For every graph, or paper, or article you link, someone can find an equally supported counter view.

It's no longer a theory.

You sir have just been ingoring facts and scientific papers around the subject. You probably ignore them as "propaganda" and that is your own fault.

Think of the world as a living body. Dump a bunch of radiation and oil in it and what happens? Good things?

It's fact driven common sense.

1+1 = Donut in your world, I am assuming.

edit on 11-7-2011 by mudbeed because: (no reason given)

When and by whom was this theory proven and accepted as a whole by the scientific community? I must have missed that or otherwise, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Yes, pollution is bad. We all know that. It kills life and ruins ecosystems. But the Earth heals, and life returns. Regardless, that is not the issue. The issue is whether or not human output of CO2 by industrial means has caused an increase in global temperatures to which there are no globally accepted facts. Multiple contributing factors play a role in maintaining global temperatures.

Again, rather than resorting to insults, show me one fact.

reply to post by amaster


Apparently MOST of the scientific community is not good enough for you?

Because there are some out there that claim to be scientists but they are working for big oil companies, coal industry etc to tell us that carbon is good for us in large amounts, etc.

So yeah not all scientists agree.

Then again I am sure there are a few scientists out there that claim that the sky is orange in color rather than blue therefore you can't use your own common sense to discern which one might be right based on the evidence?

EDIT:

I want to add that you are right, the earth heals itself. But it takes longer to heal than it does to destroy. Also I want you to know that I am not a tree hugger.

As far as articles, I want to point you to the most recent article done where scientists showed how destroying the rainforests have assisted in choking our oceans. Our oceans is one of the largest sponge for CO2. Trees play a tremendous part in soaking that up and converting it to oxygen. Unfortunately the more trees and plantlife that dies, the more CO2 ends up retained in the ocean. This helps create dead areas (pockets) where oxygen doesn't exist. It also contributes to Red Tide, which chokes the ocean even further. It's all very intertwined and yes Humans are not te only thing that "kills" vegitation.

There is a lot of proof that the folks on Easter Island and the Mayan's "choked" themselves out of resources. These are not on a global climate scale, but give you a small idea on how we affect and therefor are affected by our surroundings.

I also want to mention that yes I believe our Sun also plays a part. Can global warming happen without humans cause? Sure I believe it. But I do not think we are helping at all.

reply to post by mudbeed


Who is "most of the scientific community"? You're not providing me with any facts here. Just a blanket statement.

The finding that the recent hiatus in warming is driven largely by
natural factors does not contradict the hypothesis: “most of the
observed increase in global average temperature since the mid
20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic
greenhouse gas concentrations (14).”

PNAS Report from July 4th, 2011

Thats a very interesting hypothesis. It's very vague, as most are, but none-the-less, AGW is not an accepted, proven FACT!!

I believe the jury is still out on this one.

EDIT to your edit. - Again, I agree that our planet live in a delicate balance. Destroy one aspect and others will suffer. I also understand our need to protect and preserve our planet by any means to ensure the survival of all life here. As the dominant and highest of all species we are responsible for our actions. I will add, I am no tree hugger myself.

However, I do not agree with the political push behind the science and policies being enacted which force the public to pay monitory reparations as an attempt to resolve our situation. Nor do I agree with manipulation scientific evidence one way or another to fulfill an agenda and expand the pocketbook. This process blights the name of science and research.

Originally posted by amaster
reply to post by mudbeed

 

Who is "most of the scientific community"? You're not providing me with any facts here. Just a blanket statement.

The finding that the recent hiatus in warming is driven largely by
natural factors does not contradict the hypothesis: “most of the
observed increase in global average temperature since the mid
20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic
greenhouse gas concentrations (14).”

PNAS Report from July 4th, 2011

Thats a very interesting hypothesis. It's very vague, as most are, but none-the-less, AGW is not an accepted, proven FACT!!

I believe the jury is still out on this one.

Ok you are right, I will give you that a lot of it is hypothesis driven on facts. I will also agree that not everything is full accepted by all scientists and also agree that the jury is not in. All we can do is assume at a global scale.

I don't know if we will ever have the technology to build a planet from data and then destroy aspects of the ecosystem to prove anything and essentially dictate items as fact.

Maybe I assume too much, but you can't keep stripping away elements of an ecosystem without it affecting things in that ecosystem.

My common sense says we affect the world and hurt it more that help it.

Am I calling for strong legistlation and gree taxes etc? No.

I do wish that we would maybe usher in another manhatten type project to develop a better energy source though.

There are two groups out there. One that believes we need to change our ways to save the planet and another side that says we don't affect climate change. While both sides have a cause and possibly a motive for believing what they believe, which side says that Global Warming is a myth? What are their motives? Their motives seem to be that they want to do anything to prevent their Q4 profits from dipping.

Ok you are right, I will give you that a lot of it is hypothesis driven on facts. I will also agree that not everything is full accepted by all scientists and also agree that the jury is not in. All we can do is assume at a global scale.

I applaud your willingness to admit this. Most people here would not do so. Thank you.

I don't know if we will ever have the technology to build a planet from data and then destroy aspects of the ecosystem to prove anything and essentially dictate items as fact.

Actually I think we have both the technology and the facility to do just this now at the Montreal Biodome and Biosphere 2 in Arizona, but doing so would not only be costly, the result may not fit into certain agendas.

Maybe I assume too much, but you can't keep stripping away elements of an ecosystem without it affecting things in that ecosystem.

My common sense says we affect the world and hurt it more that help it.

That’s not assuming anymore than provable facts. Level rainforests, dump nuclear waste into oceans, pump the atmosphere with poison, and we will all suffer.

Am I calling for strong legislation and green taxes etc? No.

I do wish that we would maybe usher in another Manhattan type project to develop a better energy source though.

I think the technology is there for this as well, but again, it's not a part of the "plan"

There are two groups out there. One that believes we need to change our ways to save the planet and another side that says we don't affect climate change. While both sides have a cause and possibly a motive for believing what they believe, which side says that Global Warming is a myth? What are their motives? Their motives seem to be that they want to do anything to prevent their Q4 profits from dipping.

The problem is not the two sides, but what they have been lead to believe. One the one hand, those who believe full forced in AGW as it relates to CO2 think that it will destroy the world in a matter of years, and that’s just not true. On the other hand, those against it often fail to realize the importance of preserving our environment or our impact on it. Either way, both sides are influenced by those with something to gain.

We as a whole, as a species, need to understand our place on Earth and our impact on her. It is our responsibility to care for her so she will continue to care for us. We may never be able to control her, or predict her, but I don't think we should. She was here before us, and will be here long after we're gone.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

And pray tell us who in the world is saying the Sun alone controls the climate on Earth?... Last I cheked it is only anthropogenists/AGW believers who think that one gas, when it is released by humans, is stronger than the sun, nature, the Solar System, the galaxy and the entire Universe...

Actually, I think you'll find it's the so-called sceptics who claim that AGW adherents say that.

However, I was responding to the OP.

Whilst the sun is ultimately the largest overall driver of climate (without it there would be no climate!) over short times scales its effect is not as significant as other factor - orbital charges appear to be more important, for example. On on very short time scales, human activity very clearly also has an impact.

Denying that humans have any effect on climate is every bit as foolish as thinking ony human have any effect on climate.

Meanwhile we think the Solar System will enter this interstellar cloud in 100 years, it doesn't mean we are not being affected by it already, since the evidence seems to prove it is affecting us already.

Also of note is the fact that about 10 years ago scientists thought the Solar System would encounter this interstellar cloud in 50,000 years, and 2 years ago we thought it would happen in 10,000 years, and now we think it would be within 100 years. The way it is going maybe we are already inside it.

So is that why, despite a quiet sun, it's been so much hotter than it was last century?

How about these:

Climate Change is Natural!!!!!