I saw one web site which made a lot of assertions about how all of the planets have become much warmer over the last 25 years and that magnetic fields on the sun and several planets have risen sharply and kept their increases aside from minor fluctuations. The idea of a solar disaster which would wipe out everything seems more alarming than the possibility of global warming. At least the global warming could be corrected, a solar disaster would mean the earth could only wait for inevitable doom.

This is why constant monitoring of the Sun is critical. The fluxes of solar magnetic flow, and the wealth of cosmic rays from the Sun throughout the solar system changes climate conditions on all the planets, including the Earth. And, not only the Earth has been warming since 1980, when we entered the cycle of the Sun, and witnessed the Sun's doubling of its magnetic and cosmic ray strength, which matches global warming on Earth since 1980.

The Sun also recycles its magnetic waves. The powerful 1958 magnetic flux of the Sun is about to rise to the solar surface around the year 2010, and should bring about the last of the global warming here on Earth to about 2016, before the Sun quiets down again towards minimum. This means more rising sea-surface temperatures, increases in carbon output, powerful storms, and disruptions of the Earth's magnetic field in the years ahead from the rise in solar radiation.

Sorry Leonardo, but my answers are on this thread concerning my views on climate change. I'm not adverse to answering questions, however, you seem to have a penchant for asking them in a manner that either one has to constantly repeat themselves, or you ask them waiting to hear what you want to hear. I don't do that for anyone. You don't have to agree with my answers, nor like them, but my answers are my honest answers. I answer questions as I feel I can best answer them. Your "questions" moreover, are not posed as questions, but as interrogations, which I don't subscribe to whatsoever.

Side-tracked again.

Perhaps if you would stop chasing "white rabbits" you might just learn something about climate change ~ real global warming, how it is caused, when it started, and when it will end. In the near future, when the world begins to cool, will you blame mankind for that too? How's that for being side-tracked Reincarnated?

OK folks, that is enough of the insult trading. If people can't be civil then this topic will be closed.

Can't you come up with something new?

Reincarnated, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you were posting at the time I made the post above yours. Please read what I said and follow my advice. You won't be given another chance.

I won't respond to your first two sentences, but will to the rest of your comments ~ on the rainforests/ we certainly need them as we do all trees since they are the lungs and air-conditioners of this planet. I am all for saving trees and planting news ones. The more trees the better.

One of the problems with city centers is that they do not allow the natural flow of air currents to pass through them, and are built in a manner that works to trap heat, and cold, as well. Most of the roofs of city buildings are black. It would be better if they were fitted with plants. Hence, being more "green."

Dense city centers also disrupt natural micro-climates while creating man-made micro-climates that can adversely affect the weather patterns at certain locations within cities.

Countrysides are open, and natural with micro-climates according to the natural geography of the regions.

However, this does not affect planetary climate change, which is a much different matter. Only the Sun can change climate on a planetary scale. it has done so before. Is doing so now. And will continue to do so in the future.

All we can do regarding planetary climate change is to forecast better into the future, and to adapt to the climate changes here, and those on the way, like the global cooling ahead during the 2020s, and 2030s.

I don't feel like posting the same stuff over but just go back to page 1 & 2 and you will see sufficient evidence to support my assertions.

I'm not so absolutley sure the jury is in. That said, Theo is at least right about rooftop gardens, and so on.

I found some apparent co-relation at the USGS. They study drought, stream flows, lake levels, etc. I read about everything there, the last couple of years, I thought. Until I found this, last night.



Association Between Solar-Irradiance Variations and Hydroclimatology of Selected Regions of the USA


Solar-Irradiance Variations and Regional Precipitations in the Western United States


A Regression Model for Annual Streamflow in the Upper Mississippi River Basin Based on Solar Irradiance

Actually, plankton is more important that trees for oxygen production



I agree. Although some climate sceptics argue that Urban Heat Islands have skewed data meaning that warming is not occurring as much as claimed, it's not a major factor in global climate change. However, if you add all the UHIs, all the other changes in landuse which affect planetary albedo, add in soot in arctic regions, the impact of aircraft contrails (which alone could explain all the warming in the USA) and the global impacts that rainforest destruction has, then you begin to see the bigger picture of global climate change.

Or are all these scientists just imagining things?



http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID...mp;chanID=sa007



http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/t...t_rainfall.html



http://www-pm.larc.nasa.gov/sass/pub/journ...al.JClim.04.pdf


It's fine to believe that the sun may be contributing to climate change, although no scientific study has yet shown it to be the main cause. But one cannot ignore the undeniable fact that we humans are having a climatic impact on the planet.

I would say Sun 80%
Man 20%

I think the sun would have more of an effect. Yes i understand man has cutthis down built that up. we pollute etc. which is why we contribute locally and acutely. But the sun has been here longer and it has been proven that with out man the planet has cooled and heated on several occasions.

I like many other believe the is a cycle to climate I also believe man has helped quicken that cycle. Yes we are heating up but I think there will be apoint where it will stop anbd we will cool down again. But also think most of us will wind up dying before that happens.

As for planetary climate change, without a doubt, the Sun is the cause. Pollution is another matter, since there are many kinds of pollution. I can't say that we are quickening any cycle, since we cannot control the activities of the Sun, which is the prime reason for global warming and global cooling worldwide; however, we can adapt to climate changes using technologies and forecasting methods that can assist humanity in preparing in advance rather than always re-acting to events rather than pre-acting to them.

YES YES Theodore as said a hundred times the sun controls our climate we all know that !!!!!! What you refuse to answer or admit is that mankind now at over 6 billion in population can be contributing to it. Never has this planet had that kind of human influence so to dissmiss human contamination is very unwise. Take a look at this and tell me if you can punch a hole in this out come. This is the most logical way to look at this whole global warming thing. Please watch and tell me your thoughts.

http://www.break.com/index/tough-to-argue.html

Interesting video. Thanks for sharing that with me. However, I think the world is big enough for everyone. However, rarely can you get three people to agree on anything on this forum, so, I highly doubt that you will get more than that to agree on the causes of global warming. Therefore, we have to look at the physics of the matter, since these are principles, and principles cannot be broken regarding astrophysical to geophysical laws of the universe.

My problem with the premise of the video is obvious, considering what I do, and that is forecasting astronomically. This is the major problem, as his theory is premised on the lack of knowledge of astronomical transits. We know where the Sun, and the Moon, and the planets will be in the future, due to their orbits.

I do agree on his statement that we are caught up in debating climate change too much, but this has more effect on stifling the expansion of knowledge via argument. The risk of not acting, in my mind, relates to the limits of knowledge when it comes to understanding the Earth's place in the solar system. Too many people do not know where their own planet is orbiting, the position of the Moon, and the condition of the Sun to be anywhere near close to forecasting the future correctly. The only way to accomplish this is via astronomical means.

We cannot take action on climate change, which is the premise of the video, the scenarios he presents are limited in my view, due to this premise. The reason why we cannot take action is because we humans cannot control the orbits of planets, the Moon, nor can we alter in any way the Sun.

All we can do is to forecast into the future, and pre-act here on Earth, according to what we discover. This is why I am a classical astrologer. By using what we know from both conventional and unconventional means, we can extend our abilities to prepare in advance for climate change by this knowledge. Too many people re-act, and only guess on the future. That is not good enough, and often, because they are not applying astronomical means, they often fail.

The arguments for "reversing climate change" is moot. Why? Well, just how can one reverse the Sun? We cannot. And we never will either. All we can do is forecast, and then to prepare in advance. The further out we can forecast, the more time we have to prepare. This is why astronomical forecasting is critical to future survival, or we all may be in for horrible surprises in the future.

Human beings are natural to this planet. I just don't buy what some are selling ~ this "blame game" on humanity for planetary climate change. We humans are not to be at fault for that. Global warming and global cooling has existed on this planet long before any industrial pollution by nations and the causes are from the SUN.

I don't "dismiss" human pollution, but I do not make the instant connection to man-made global warming that others make because it is not accurate, nor true in the slightest. These arguments are politically and pop-culture-created mantras that have no basis in fact ~ no matter the amount of "science" that one can drum up making it so or how loud one can yell, or how many names one can call another. It just is not true that humanity is responsible for global warming, and THAT is the case that some have been making.

If you want to look "logically" ~ then look up. Into space. That is where all Earth's weather begins, and the Sun is the main player here ~ not humanity.

All climate change ~ major, planetary, climate change (and this includes global warming) is caused by the activities of the Sun. What the Earth has been experiencing with global warming it has experienced before in history many times before and it will again as well.

The problems with those pushing this myth of "man-made global warming" is that many just do not account for the Sun at all, and then, some, only a bit, as if the Sun is some sort of "minor player" here. The Sun is anything but "minor." Without it there would be no life on Earth, and there would be no global warming.

Remember that the Sun is the cause of all the Earth's energy, and the energy on the other planets in our solar system. It is the cause of climate change and always will be as long as the Sun exists.

It may well be that global warming is a natural occurrence caused by cyclic activity of the Sun and it may be that it has happened many times in the past but Earths natural response to it probably includes amongst others a compensating increase in plant activity to absorb increased emissions and lay down large amounts of carbon in the form of oil and coal bearing deposits.

So, what are we doing chopping and burning down trees and consuming coal, oil and gas like there was no tomorrow?


Is it natural for an 'advanced' species to contribute so much damage to its own environment?

Tomorrow doesn't look good either, I'll tell you that much. Is it natural for an "advanced" species to do so much damage to itself? Humans have been killing other humans for a long time, treating one another, and the animal, plant and mineral worlds just as bad. Doing so to the environment is no different. Until human beings learn to value and respect life itself the destruction will continue, sad to say.

I do not think that the astute person can but agree with this.

The case is indeed that many are claiming human responsibility for what is most certainly a natural, and cyclical warming trend.
Somehow, it gets confused that those of us who understand the Sun's obviuous influence...on every energetic process in our solar system, deny global warming.

We do not. It is a fact.
It has also been going on for many millenia, just as it has repeatedly in the past.

We argue that there is no scientific evidence for man's influence on anything but local environmental manifestations. Man cannot influence the global climate, and the current idiocy being spewed by certain people are just as Theodore says, "...politically and pop-culture motivated matras that have no basis in fact..."

A graph showing a rise in temperature that can not be explained by solar or seismic activity.

The Marine motto:

'Adapt and overcome'

Semper Fi!

very true its how we got here in the first place

cant we just blow the sun up lol?

Pollution is not "local environmental manifestations" - it's global. Hence, humanity can, and has, impacted the global environment/climate with our sewage and spewage.

This argument tends to go more than circular the farther we go.
It appears to be imploding right now.

Pollution is most certainly effective on a local level. It is "global" in respect to the fact that it exists in various concentrations around the world, but it has no global climatic effect that has ever been shown.

The conclusion that humanity has impacted the global environment/climate is derived from the premise that pollution is not a local environmental manifestation. That premise is utterly unfounded.

MID is right. Ultimately, we are talking about affecting ever greater climatic cycles. There is a local climate, and on up the ladder. There is occasional professional hype, like Carl Wunsch (MIT scientist of oceanography) referred to in that "Swindle" video. Like predicting global tipping points. Or, anthropogenic aimed assertions, when just predicting the weather is hard enough.

Yet, what about the ozone hole? We can have certain impacts on nature. The questions are ultimately, about a rapid (within our lifetimes) melt down. Now, I somehow doubt that will happen. I doubt both poles will melt profoundly. I doubt the north atlantic gulf stream is going to shut down profoundly. I doubt excessive rain will overtake certain areas, any more than today's levels. I doubt that drought will get worse, overall, without compensation, elsewhere.

That does not say that certain aspects of pollution are not worth controlling. Nor, does it say that energy conservatism should not be the norm.

Personally, and unlike you, I think there is a possibility that all of these concerns will begin to fade about 30 years from now. With large populations vying for oil and gas, the prices will skyrocket. After that, there will be fewer sources of air pollution.

Since climate change is somewhat obvious in the present, and certainly an historic fact, we have no argument there. The questions arise concerning computer simulations and models. The fear is that anthropogenic CO2 will raise the temperature enough to cause a variety of significant changes, namely for the worst. One aspect of increased temperatures is a shift in cloud activities.

I will try to comment on that, later. The rest of this post is about pollution-based haze and soot, over the arctic latitudes.

"Observational evidence of a change in radiative forcing due to the indirect aerosol effect. (Nature 427, 231-234 (15 January 2004)| doi:10.1038/nature02234)

"Anthropogenic aerosols enhance cloud reflectivity by increasing the number concentration of cloud droplets, leading to a cooling effect on climate known as the indirect aerosol effect. Observational support for this effect is based mainly on evidence that aerosol number concentrations are connected with droplet concentrations, but it has been difficult to determine the impact of these indirect effects on radiative forcing. Here we provide observational evidence for a substantial alteration of radiative fluxes due to the indirect aerosol effect. We examine the effect of aerosols on cloud optical properties using measurements of aerosol and cloud properties at two North American sites that span polluted and clean conditions- a continental site in Oklahoma with high aerosol concentrations, and an Arctic site in Alaska with low aerosol concentrations. We determine the cloud optical depth required to fit the observed shortwave downward surface radiation. We then use a cloud parcel model to simulate the cloud optical depth from observed aerosol properties due to the indirect aerosol effect. From the good agreement between the simulated indirect aerosol effect and observed surface radiation, we conclude that the indirect aerosol effect has a significant influence on radiative fluxes."

and

Anthropogenic Aerosols: A Clearer Understanding



As for data, there are polar satellites. And, there is radiometric data from the ground, along with other means of studying the atmosphere. One type of instrument collects information on longwaves, or IR.

Such as this reference to-

10 Years of AERI Data from the DOE ARM Southern Great Plains Site


or this reference to-

Downward longwave irradiance uncertainty under arctic atmospheres: Measurements and modeling


or this latest overview-

ARCPAC: Aerosol, Radiation and Cloud Processes affecting Arctic Climate
A NOAA Climate Forcing Program Project for the International Polar Year 2008


You may find together, they begin to spell out a possible link between an anthropogenic forcing of arctic climate, using field studies that have a collection of data, which onthe face of it, appears to make sense. But, of course, everyone will, and should review the models used to interpret the results. The issues are haze and soot.

Since 1979, arctic sea ice is declining more in the summer months, and moreso, recently. The NOAA publication says the source of soot and haze in the arctic is either Asia, or else northern Asia and Europe.

"Because most industrial sources in North America lie southward of the mean position of the Arctic front, and since advection from these sources to the Arctic involves transport through the meteorologically active North Atlantic region, North American sources are not believed to contribute more than occasionally to Arctic haze (Stohl, 2006). Koch and Hansen (2005) suggest a significant contribution to springtime Arctic soot loadings from industrialized regions of northeastern China, but Stohl (2006) found this source region to be only a small contributor to the Arctic soot budget.

The geographical source of the carbon soot that causes the observed optical absorption is in question. Koch and Hansen (2005) used a general circulation model to determine that industrial emissions and biofuel combustion in southern Asia are a major source of soot to the Arctic. This finding has been disputed by Stohl (2006), who used a particle dispersion and emission inventory model to identify Europe and northern Asia as the main source of Arctic soot in springtime, both at the surface and aloft. There are only a few Arctic sites at which regular measurements of aerosol absorption are made, with those at the Barrow observatory (Quinn et al., 2007) and the Canadian Arctic site of Alert (Sharma et al., 2004; 2005), having the longest records. To our knowledge there is no information in the Arctic on the soot mass absorption cross-section (MAC, absorption per unit mass of soot), which is necessary to relate modeled soot mass concentrations to optical absorption. The state of understanding of MAC is poor (Bond et al., 2006), and new measurement techniques need to be applied to determine its value and variability in the atmosphere."

"The warming of Arctic climate and decreases in sea ice thickness and extent observed over recent decades are believed to result from increased direct greenhouse gas forcing, changes in atmospheric dynamics having anthropogenic origin, and important positive reinforcements including ice-albedo and cloud-radiation feedbacks. The importance of cloud-radiation interactions is being investigated through advanced instrumentation deployed in the high Arctic since 1997. These studies have established that clouds, via the dominance of longwave radiation, exert a net warming on the Arctic climate system throughout most of the year, except briefly during the summer. The Arctic region also experiences significant periodic influxes of anthropogenic aerosols, which originate from the industrial regions in lower latitudes. Here we use multisensor radiometric data to show that enhanced aerosol concentrations alter the microphysical properties of Arctic clouds, in a process known as the 'first indirect' effect. Under frequently occurring cloud types we find that this leads to an increase of an average 3.4 watts per square metre in the surface longwave fluxes. This is comparable to a warming effect from established greenhouse gases and implies that the observed longwave enhancement is climatologically significant."

Aerosols Help Clouds Warm Up Arctic

Agreed.
I think a concerted effort to remedy the environmental situation that is primarily manifest in and around our major cities is sometrhing that we can do, and something that should indeed be done.

I also think you're absolutely correct in your last statement above.
Just as the hype over a global ice age that was supposed to have been in the cards 35 years ago faded, it's replacement (man-made global warming and imminnent disaster) will fade as well.

The ARCPAC link says on page 12

Clouds in the springtime lower Arctic troposphere are often optically thin and, in relatively pristine conditions, have low droplet number concentrations (<30 cm -3 , Garrett and Zhao, 2006).

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/...ature04636.html

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/...re04636_ft.html

which says, "Arctic climate is closely tied to cloud longwave emission, but feedback mechanisms in the system are complex and the actual climate response to the described sensitivity remains to be evaluated."

which is a major point, because this complex subject is always working with models, which are always being re-modeled. it is what they do best. they may help develop consensus, but are always subject to reanalysis.

Lawrence Livermore National Labs, which did work to support the IPCC

"The need for innovative analysis of general circulation models climate simulations is apparent, as increasingly more complex models are developed, while the disagreements among these simulations and relative to climate observations remain significant and poorly understood. The nature and causes of these disagreements must be accounted for in a systematic fashion in order to confidently use GCMs for simulation of putative global climate change. Our facilities support terrascale data sets from multiple coupled ocean-atmosphere GCM simulations of present-day climate as well as climate changes resulting from large transient increases in carbon dioxide."

Febuary, 2007

Systematic Errors in GCM Simulated Radiation Budgets Infered from Surface Observations

http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/wgne2007/abstrac...ay.php?uqid=111


Errors in Polar Clouds and Radiative Forcing in the Reanalysis Models

http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/wgne2007/abstrac...ay.php?uqid=140

There is some rhyme and reason to what the USG is doing about this, in terms of business. Does the National Science Foundation ever squawk about resources or priorities? Apparently, even they have a political role, at times.

Reincarnated has a one-two punch there. I'm going to have to check it out.

True. This is the main point here that those who are pushing this lie of "man-made global warming" on the world either don't get, or do not want to get. MID is correct when he says that "it has no global climatic effect that has ever been shown."

Thanks for acknowledging my proof. It's funny how it goes ignored when it proves without a doubt that I am correct. The deniers can't even debunk it or provide any evidence to support their claims. Their arguments are based on faith, not fact. Quite sad if you think about it.I REST MY CASE.

Thank you. Let it be rested then.

I believe Reincarnated is right...



Apparently accuracy depends on whether you're an astrometeorologist or just a regular weatherman... ; )

<snip>



We're not just polluting the air - we're polluting the *environment*. If humanity can impact the atmosphere, the bodies of water, and the soil we grow our food in - we certainly can have a negative impact on the weather. How can we not? The oceans impact weather. We're impacting the ocean. It can't possibly remain unchanged. The more spewage we create the hotter our atmosphere gets. The sun impacts the chemicals we release into the atmosphere - causing burning at a more rapid rate. A hotter atmosphere impacts weather.

A few have maintained the sun is the reason for global warming - and I agree with that...mostly. Humanity is impacting it too - because we're altering our *natural* habitat, by producing unnatural levels of gases and toxins in the atmosphere.

We've never had to deal with this amount of pollution before - we have no idea what we're doing and what the long term impact will be. We do know that when a volcano erupts the spewage alters weather patterns - which aren't just disrupted regionally. A huge eruption can impact on a global level. I maintain we are capable of the same thing over a longer period of time, rather than an instantaneous infusion from volcanic eruption. And, being as our sewage and spewage is ongoing we can't help but alter the weather...imo, as always.

Common sense needs to prevail over science sometimes. We can see and feel the negative changes...how can we deny our culpability?

I'd like our children's children’s children to have a healthy, stable planet to grow up on...I don't think our legacy to future generations will be such.

You don't get it that it's not a "lie". Honestly...some egos are just too huge for their own good.
This is likely where you'd say to someone - "get educated". There's a reflection there somewhere...

Hmmm, with what? A nuclear bomb?

It is a vast mis-interpretation, largely based upon an ignorance of scientific pricipals, not a lie, per-se. It comes under the heading of "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing". It has nothing to do with ego...it has to do with rational, scientifically oriented thought.



The principal that escapes you here is the matter of "degree".

We can, and are pollutting certain local environments. There is absolutely nothing to indicate that we humans have any global impact whatsoever. Just because the New Jersey shore is a human wasteland for a few months out of the year (like right now) doesn't mean that the planet is affected.
If Mt. St. Helens couldn't do it (and, it didn't), we puny humans certainly cannot.

You have to understand that humans are simply not that significant relative to the planet we live on. We are microscopic relative to this planet. Our sense of self-importance is what causes us to think we could ever affect this planet's environment on a large scale.




And we also know that the Earth corrects herself, even in the face of a massive volcanic eruption. We've seen it happen. 10-years of American automobile emissions didn't equal Mt. St. Helens output in pollution in one day. Yet, there are absolutely no effects from that massive eruptrion, which was a pimple, essentially on the face of the planet.


You really have to grap the scale to realize the inadequacy of the man-made global warming hypothesis.



We can see and feel nature at work.

Science is, in its purest form, common sense. There is no contradiction present.

See how the solar radiation stays the same? See how the temperature corresponds with the greenhouse gases?

Oh, and the volcano thing is ridiculous. You guys should really look this stuff up.

http://www.hawaiinews.com/archives/volcano...ch/000440.shtml

http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html



Please, don't ignore this post or tell me to look at earlier pages, it's really very silly.

Ego is mentioned re: Theodore as he does tell people to get educated about the cosmos, the sun in particular. That's his forté...not everyone's. Who is he to tell anyone to learn anything, especially something he's interested in?



That's your assumption...



Well, thing is, those "local environments" are global. There is not a country on this planet which does not pollute the land, air and waterways. So, if your definition of "local" means planetary - I'd agree.



Absolutely disagree.



Your vision is limited to NJ? How many shorelines do you suppose surround the land masses? How many lakes and rivers are there to be counted, globally? In case you've forgotten - water covers 75% of this planet.

Mt. St. Helens did have an impact on climate (not just locally) when it blew in 1980. How many trees (spewage scrubbers) cover Mt. St. Helens today? Twenty seven years later - is the area as it was before the eruption? The answer is a resounding *no*... How many volcanos are active on this planet? In how many countries? Again, is your vision limited to the U.S.?



Our poisoning of this planet is hardly microscopic... If we're so insignificant to this Earth - how is it there are mammals, like whales and dolphins, beaching themselves - only to be tested and have extremely high levels of toxicity? Some so toxic they're handled like hazardous waste. Marine life isn't toxifying itself. Humanity's earning that distinction. If we can impact the ocean to that degree - we can impact the atmosphere the same way too. Not only can we - we *are*, imo.
Why are Northern, indigenous people having a problem with high mercury levels in their systems? It's not from industry - it's from their diet. Which is mostly from the ocean....where toxic waste is dumped with no regard, whatsoever, to the danger that exists from those mindless acts.
The earth is in an enclosed environment...which is conducive to killing something if poisonous gas is introduced.



Volcanic eruptions are a natural event. Vehicle/industrial/medical/military spewage isn't. The earth can recycle its own spewage. Man made spewage isn't easily recycled without consequence, if at all.
<snip>


Science is theorizing/analyzing down to the molecular/atomic/cellular levels. The average person doesn't think in those terms. It's hardly *common* sense... Too - science isn't always right. Common sense seldom fails a person.

Consider your post unignored. What you deem silly is not necessarily silly to others. It's always best to add "imo" when stating such things...imo, as always. ; )

Science is about exploration and discovery Graylady. And... if "common sense seldom fails a person" then why is it so difficult for you to see that there is no common sense to the claims that humanity is the cause of global warming when obviously the Sun is the cause, as it has always been from the start of time?

^ Once again you ignore any proof and repeat the same sentence for the 100th time. Not to mention you have also failed to show any evidence that humans do not contribute to climate change. Stop being a troll and grow up, I don't know how you haven't been banned yet.

Who mentions solar radiation, or irradation as the only measure of the Sun? Do you realize that the Sun has many, many outputs (including electromagnetic) throughout the solar system that provide all the energy the planets require? And, there is NO WAY that you can have a graphic like the one cited about that has temperatures corresponding with greenhouse gases WITHOUT the Sun. How is that even possible when the Sun is the cause of temperature fluxes, rises and decreases of temperatures on Earth? This includes carbon rises, mainly from the oceans of the Earth, which is directed by the activity of the Sun itself. The graphic you use here as "proof" is nothing but another biased graph that seeks to claim that mankind is the cause of global climate change when this is impossible, according to the law of physics.

That graph shows nothing that proves humans are the cause of global warming. What is "silly" is that those who use these claims to attempt to take the Sun out of the equation think that those who study and monitor the Sun daily don't know what they are talking about when clearly those who create and use graphs like the one above are the ones who haven't a clue about the Sun and why it is the cause of global cooling and global warming on this planet, and all the other planets in this solar system. Stop blaming humanity for global warming, and climate change. It is a lie, untrue, and has no basis in the law of physics and geophysics whatsoever.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060807.html

Geez folks, enough already. Reincarnated, you of all people should not be judging when a person should be banned...

There has been enough arguing and namecalling already. Too much in fact, and I am tired of the same folks bickering back and forth repeatedly; it really is getting tiresome. We have been through this before; people are rude to Theodore...who is rude in return, who then gets called a name, who then calls someone else a name... Rather, rinse, repeat. Regardless of who did it first, there is only a handfull of people that keep perpetuating the bickering and neither side is innocent of rudeness and namecalling.

If you folks can't discuss the matter without getting rude, then simply stop. Each side is set in it's opinion, of that I am sure, and it is just futile to say the same thing 100 times in a row expecting a different answer; it just isn't going to happen. Give it up; no one is going to change anyone's opinion here and the head butting is just getting worse and leaving these two threads rather pointless; arguing to argue is not the point to a discussion and that is what I see going on here...

I disagree. It has nothing to do with "ego" but with astrophysical and geophysical laws. One cannot simply deny that the Sun is the cause of planetary climate change with mere opinion and biased "science" that is based on maintaining funding in the hundreds of millions of dollars (soon billions) and that has as its foundation the effort to prove and force on us all that humanity is responsible for global warming when nothing is further from the truth than that. If anything is "ego" it would be the false claim and "lie" that humans are the cause of climate change. We are not. Never were and we never will be either.

The proof is in the pudding and clearly the SUN is the cause of planetary climate change. It always has been. There are records going back centuries from ice core samples, and tree samples, and climate observations BEFORE the industrial revolution that clearly prove that climate changes of cooling and heating is due to the activity of the Sun.

Only in the 20th century, and the early 21st century do you have organizations and the groups within them who have a vested and common interest in blaming humanity for planetary climate change when nothing is furthest from the truth, and they know it too.

As I written at the start of this thread ~ when the funding dries up, and it will dry up, those touting this myth of "manmade global warming" will go away, and of course they will try to find something else to blame humanity for, that is, as long as there is major global funding for it, otherwise, let's forget taking on real issues, (like education, homelessness, poverty, hunger, etc.) which are issues that are seeing less funding than this so-called "man-made global warming" hype that they've got going.

Study the SUN, and know this ~ everything that has to do with climate change on a planetary level ~ everything ~ is due to the activities of our local star. Learn all you can about the Sun and see for yourself ~ http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060807.html

If this is correct then it follows that the atmospheric composition can play little or no role in the surface temperature of a planet. That being the case could you please explain how it is that Venus (mean distance from the Sun 0.723 AU) has a mean surface temperature of 480°C whilst Mercury nearly twice as close (mean distance from the Sun 0.387 AU) has a mean day time surface temperature of only 350°C? This is totally impossible if the only contributing factor to global warming on all planets in the solar system is the Sun.

The amount of heat energy falling on a given area of a planets surface diminishes with distance according to an inverse square law. In the case of Mercury and Venus this means that every square metre of Mercury receives 3.49 times more heat radiation than a square metre of Venus and yet Mercury is cooler. Why? The answer is simple greenhouse gases.

Whilst it is possible that you are correct that the Sun is the major cause of Earth's global warming, your dismissal of the possibility that the atmosphere could play a major role is based on incorrect scientific claims. It is your claims (proven beyond doubt to be false by Venus) that have no basis is the laws of physics. If greenhouse gases can raise the surface temperature of Venus why is not possible for it to happen on Earth? Please note: I am not asking for proof that CO₂ is not the cause of global warming, I am simply asking you to show why a process which has been demonstrated to occur on one planet is impossible on another.

No, it is not an assumption. "Degree" is highly relevant.





??? That is erroneous and obscure of you. Local means local. To think that New York City's local environment is "global" is well...off the wall.



You're kidding me , right?
The recovery has been remarkable. You perhaps expect it to be the same? This is a natural process, and the foliage is abundant and growing, as it always does in these types of events.

Volcanoes exist in at least 57 countries world wide. There are about 1500 active volcanoes in the world today, and countless inactives. And none of them have ever had a negative effect on the global climate. The climate always recovers from these massive events, as do the local environments affected. And they are a natural process, and result in rejuvenation.




No one said we aren't polluting. But in this example, you're talking about local environs...which is something we can and should fix...not global environs.



Yes, you're correct. Volcanic eruptions are a natural event...much more massive and concentrated than man's activities are. Man's activities are ALSO A NATURAL EVENT...think about that for a moment, deeply.

Many of the pollutants man generates are the same ones generated by volcanoes. The Earth knows how to take care of herself, and she does, often to man's chagrin...which is what causes man to inflate himself to the extent that he believes that the earth is reacting to him, and that his contribution is enough to influence her ! A ludicrous assumption.


We observe the local, as distressing as it is in many cases, and think that it's global?

We need to fix the local. There are adequate and important reasons to do so. That we can and should do, for our own best interests, and for those of the local wildlife that these concentrated areas effect.




Science is the epitome of common sense (by the way...it's also self-correcting. No scientist believes he is always right).

In the most expansive sense, science refers to any systematic methodology which attempts to collect accurate information about the observed reality and to model it in a way which can be used to make reliable, concrete and quantitative predictions about events, in line with hypotheses proven by experiment.

The operative line there is "hypothesis proven by experiment". Common sense. Observe, create an hypothesis about the observation, experiment and gather data to substantitate it, or not.


We're talking about man-made global warming, an hypothesis that has not in any way been shown to be anything but hypothesis. And, a weak one, politically motivated, which is almost enough to invalidate it completely. It has nothing to do with whales and local environs, which we should indeed be employing our resources to correct.

It is much more associated with natural forces...which the Sun , an infinitely more massive force than man will ever be, ands has a whole lot more control over than man will ever be able to muster, no matter how powerful he becomes.

Well, I never dismissed atmospheric conditions as playing a role, but the Sun directly affects Earth's atmosphere, as does the Moon, which lifts and lowers the Earth's atmospheric tides during its transits around the Earth. I don't see how my claims are proven false by the condition of Venus whatsoever, considering that the Sun directly controls the atmosphere of that planet as well. Venus' atmosphere is very thick. The most recent readings have the air pressure on Venus' surface equal to about 90 atmospheres. Plus, the amount of nitrogen in Venus's atmosphere is a bit more than that in Earth's atmosphere. However, the amount of oxygen there is much less than that of Earth, and the amount of carbon dioxide is much more. The Earth has more water and living things, or plants than Venus does, and we know plants help take out CO2 while creating O2 for us. Moreover, Venus is just way too hot for any water vapor to condense properly. Not a nice place to live, I'd rather live here on Earth.

Moreover, greenhouse gases are natural to the Earth, and this is one major reason why the Earth supports life. It is the fluxes of the Sun that raises carbon into the atmosphere of the Earth, which is a water planet.

Regarding Mercury, see ~ http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m120...v128/ai_3898126

Each of the planets maintain have their own planetary qualities and each planet has its own seasonal insolation since insolation varies in space ~ yet without the Sun, none of the planets (including the Earth) would exist since the Sun provides all the energy for the planets in our system. Moreover, the Earth is in orbit about the center of the Sun and the Sun is in orbit about the center of mass of the solar system, or what is called the barycenter.

According to scientists Dr. John C. Freeman and Jill F. Hasling, the "orbital motion of the Sun has an effect on the Sun. Keep in mind that the Sun is merely a ball of gas. If this orbital motion has effects on this ball of gas we call the Sun, then one could expect it to have similar effects on spherical shells of gas, such as Earth’s atmosphere. Therefore, the Sun-Earth orbital motion has effects on Earth just as it does on the Sun. The Earth does not react the same from this orbital motion as the Sun does. The Sun reacts with changes in Sunspots and other various phenomena. The Earth on the other hand reacts with changing weather and climate. The Earth shares the motion of the Sun moving through its 1.5 million-mile diameter, 178.7-year orbit about the center of gravity of the solar system. This is comparable to the way the Moon circles the Earth while the Earth revolves about the Sun. This Sun and Earth shared orbit is of tremendous importance to the science of geophysics. This orbit, called the helio-epoch for this research, furnishes the physical link between solar and terrestrial (Earth) phenomena – a link that geophysicists have been seeking for a century and a half."

For instance, Motte writes in his translation of "The Mathematic Principles of Natural Philosophy" that ~

"Solar systems are composed of planets, stars, moons, and other matter. The scientific community accepts Kepler’s Law that an orbit of a planet about a star is an ellipse with the star at one focus. The planet traces out the ellipse at a speed that decreases the farther is gets from the center of the star. The ellipse maintains the same orientation in space through a multitude of revolutions of the planet. If the planet is massive enough compared to the star then the planet and the star are both in orbit about the center of gravity of the solar system they are a part of. Isaac Newton discovered this last fact in the year 1666."

A good link on the inverse square law and tides ~ http://www.wbabin.net/mathis/mathis21.htm

Theodore, could you please actually answer the question asked for a change? It seems to be a tactic of yours to type a lot but without ever answering the question. When challenged you say that you have answered the question. If you don't know then I would respect that as an answer far more than the hand-waving tactics you currently employ.

This is exactly what you said:



As the atmosphere of Venus causes the surface temperature to be higher than would be the case if solar activity was the only influence then the statement that everything is due to the activities of the Sun is demonstrably false (unless, of course, you are employing some new meaning of the word everything that I wasn't previously aware of).

So I ask again, if the atmospheric composition of Venus can be responsible for a raised global surface temperature why is the same process impossible on Earth?



If the Motte you are referring to is Andrew Motte then the work is not his but Newton's. Motte was, of course, the translator of Newtons work: Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica from Latin into English.