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 CircleOfDust
Originally posted by pierregustavetoutant
Didnt CERN do a study on this and confirm that solar activity was the main culprit behind climate change (As it was for the many warming and cooling periods over human history, much less geological time)?
Funny how when the most respected scientific institution on the plant contradicts the alarmist mainstream, the media don't report on it. Why is that, I wonder?
Really? Haha, never heard about that, thanks. They give us little things here and there and the watchdog occasionally slips up, which is always fun.
It sounds like a conspiracy theory: 'cosmic rays' from deep space might be creating clouds in Earth's atmosphere and changing the climate. Yet an experiment at CERN, Europe's high-energy physics laboratory near Geneva, Switzerland, is finding tentative evidence for just that.
The findings, published today in Nature1, are preliminary, but they are stoking a long-running argument over the role of radiation from distant stars in altering the climate.
For a century, scientists have known that charged particles from space constantly bombard Earth. Known as cosmic rays, the particles are mostly protons blasted out of supernovae. As the protons crash through the planet's atmosphere, they can ionize volatile compounds, causing them to condense into airborne droplets, or aerosols. Clouds might then build up around the droplets.
Kirkby hopes that the experiment will eventually answer the cosmic-ray question. In the coming years, he says, his group is planning experiments with larger particles in the chamber, and they hope eventually to generate artificial clouds for study. "There is a series of measurements that we will have to do that will take at least five years," he says. "But at the end of it, we want to settle it one way or the other."
Originally posted by pikestaff
According to my update from climate depot dated 7/8/2013, 'unprecedented Arctic cold continues,"we are almost halfway through the Arctic melt season, and there has essentially been no melt north of 80N this year" '.
I get daily updates, makes fascinating reading.
Originally posted by Xtrozero
Just what is normal?
Do you all know we were in a mini ice age 200 years ago? If you look back at that time the Hudson river froze over every year and people would ice skate across it. So we been slowing coming out of that ice age that was going on for 500 to 800 years, caused by a number of closely timed eruptions.
So are we entering a normal stage or is the earth heating up beyond normal, who knows. One other thing to think about is that the mount Pinatubo eruption is said to have delayed any big changes for 30 years, so we really will not see what 1993 would have been like until 2023, so once again, who knows. One thing I do know is one volcano can totally remove any influence that man has on the planet very quickly.
edit on 10-7-2013 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by network dude
The climate changes. The climate has always changed. Brace yourself,........it will change again. Oh, and there is not such thing as chemtrails. Contrails are what you are seeing. clouds created by airplanes.
All is well, nothing to see here.
Originally posted by luciddream
Some people believe god more real than climate change.
Good Luck.
Originally posted by Kali74
Originally posted by CircleOfDust
Originally posted by pierregustavetoutant
Didnt CERN do a study on this and confirm that solar activity was the main culprit behind climate change (As it was for the many warming and cooling periods over human history, much less geological time)?
Funny how when the most respected scientific institution on the plant contradicts the alarmist mainstream, the media don't report on it. Why is that, I wonder?
Really? Haha, never heard about that, thanks. They give us little things here and there and the watchdog occasionally slips up, which is always fun.
You never heard about it because it didn't happen. What amazes me though is that you accepted that this study happened simply because a poster that supports your OP wondered if such a study happened, then alluded to it being covered up by the alarmist mainstream.
I had never heard about it either but instead of accepting or rejecting it outright, I searched it up. Something you might want to learn to do if you're going to make such a bold statement that you are able to offer an explanation of climate change so easy that anyone can understand it, something you're wrong about by the way but I'll explain that after showing what I found about the CERN study.
It sounds like a conspiracy theory: 'cosmic rays' from deep space might be creating clouds in Earth's atmosphere and changing the climate. Yet an experiment at CERN, Europe's high-energy physics laboratory near Geneva, Switzerland, is finding tentative evidence for just that.
The findings, published today in Nature1, are preliminary, but they are stoking a long-running argument over the role of radiation from distant stars in altering the climate.
For a century, scientists have known that charged particles from space constantly bombard Earth. Known as cosmic rays, the particles are mostly protons blasted out of supernovae. As the protons crash through the planet's atmosphere, they can ionize volatile compounds, causing them to condense into airborne droplets, or aerosols. Clouds might then build up around the droplets.
Kirkby hopes that the experiment will eventually answer the cosmic-ray question. In the coming years, he says, his group is planning experiments with larger particles in the chamber, and they hope eventually to generate artificial clouds for study. "There is a series of measurements that we will have to do that will take at least five years," he says. "But at the end of it, we want to settle it one way or the other."
So the study lead to nothing concrete but was enough to warrant further study, it's interesting and I look forward to learning the results of the next study. It would be kind of cool to know that the next time I get rained on I was getting some deep space particles in my hair.
Incidentally the theory relies on the sun, in weak moments, allowing more particles from deep space to hit earth. Sort of conflicts with your statement that the sun is responsible for our current climate change, so back to your statement...
To put it simply the sun is our climate. Without the sun we wouldn't exist, there would be no climate to debate about. Solar output (stronger or weaker) has had a hand in earths past climate changes (abstract), our position in orbit around the sun has also played it's part. In the past solar variation and/or our distance and axial tilt toward/away from the sun has lead to different climate periods (Holocene etc).
So the questions that you should already have answers for before claiming to have solved our current climate change are:
Is our current (prior to the industrial age through present) orbital procession and axial tilt indicative of a warmer climate?
Has solar output increased in the relative time frame?
Originally posted by pierregustavetoutant
Didnt CERN do a study on this and confirm that solar activity was the main culprit behind climate change (As it was for the many warming and cooling periods over human history, much less geological time)?
Funny how when the most respected scientific institution on the plant contradicts the alarmist mainstream, the media don't report on it. Why is that, I wonder?
Maybe you can explain to me how an orbital procession and axial tilt could be indicative of a warmer climate. I'm not following.
And studies have already shown that solar output changes over time. Here's one by a quick find. I've read others. www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu...
The most immediate cause of climate changes would be changes in the total irradiance of the Sun. This, however, would either imply unrealistically large variations in total solar irradiance or a higher climate sensitivity to radiative forcing than normally accepted. Therefore other mechanisms have to be invoked.
Originally posted by VoidHawk
Explanation of climate change made easy
Climate change is BS.
There, my example is even simpler.
Originally posted by CircleOfDust
reply to post by VoidHawk
How someone can deny the obvious going on all around them is just beyond me.
Interesting though, because I thought they always taught us in school that closeness to the sun doesn't account fr our change in weather.
I like unorthodox.
Yes, science usually speaks from both sides of their mouths.
They'll admit that only the sun is responsible for our climate
but can't understand or acknowledge how the solar levels have changed drastically
More energy in a system, things become more energetic.
Don't mean to talk to you like a child in my explanations, but the simple answers are usually the right ones. And this too should allow for better critical thought that's on the right path.
I think you might be the only one on the planet who today considers the sun yellow.
Rainfall amounts are no where near normal.
the sound of thunder is much deeper than 10 years, 20 and 30 years ago.
More electricity in the air.
If you look carefully at the holes in the leaves, they aren't made from insects. And they usually occur on the smaller leaves getting lots of direct sunlight.