I think what all scientists fail to see is the equillibrium of the atmosphere. Look at a NIGHTTIME map of anywhere and notice the light. Light and darkness do not mix!

Call it what you will, but scientists are not free from being non-objective when it comes to their careers. Nowhere is this seen more often than in the current generation of climate scientists, who do not have to have a "political agenda" when most often it is really about peers, and protecting their own careers.

However, no matter the views of those who state what they do on global warming, these cannot alter astrophysical and geophysical principles, which are clear for all who care to see them. The natural laws of the Earth and the cosmos cannot be altered with one's opinions, views, etc., whatsoever, and those who attempt to do so only reveal more clearly their own non-objective status and biases. In effect, the natural laws of the Earth and the cosmos care nothing for upset personal sensibilities, political fighting, careers, or opinions.

Perhaps you would like to explain how human influenced climate change breaks physical laws and principles?

Easy. It doesn't. Principles cannot be broken. That's why they are called principles.

So which principle states that humans can not alter their climate?

Alter? Now, it is "altered?" Does this mean that there is no longer the "man-made global warming" argument abounding? Of course humans can "alter" their climate. Air-conditioning is one way, heating is another, that is, within built structures. As for planetary climate change, that is, global cooling and global warming ~ only the SUN can do that, and the Sun has been doing it very, very well for a long, long time.

Of course scientists are people with personal political views and in their professional lives they exist in a certain field-specific culture. Yet I was responding to the statement (not made by you) that scientists who recognize an important anthropogenic component to climate change are a small minority and thus exist largely outside the culture of their field. This, of course, is the opposite of what you're implying by painting a picture of a "generation of climate scientists" trying to conform to earn the approval of their peers and advance their careers. It's interesting (to me, but I find all sorts of things interesting) that while reaching similiar conclusions, you and MID seem to have very different conceptions of the dominant culture in the climatology field.

By the way, you've sidestepped Reincarnated's question. Among people with some passing familiarity with the details of hard science, hand-waving and vague statements about scientific principles not allowing something don't quite cut it.

I feel that even if in fact it is the Sun who is the cause of global warming as you say, we have only caused the condition of such process to worsen and quicken out of selfishness of mankind to advance and not truly attempt to prevent global warming.... I can't be a hypocrite... as much as I probablly wsih that global warming wasn't an issue, I haven't really done anything to stop it, prevent it, or slow it down... i am not a scientist, but out of everyday commonsense, I know that most probably are in the same boat as myself... to those who are opposite, and are doing everything in their power to prevent the disasters of global warming, they may be rewarded at some point in their lifetime... this one or the next... and yet again, i see how important it is to state this is all IMO.

Ok, I'll rephrase my question;

How would human influenced climate change break astrophysical and geophysical principles?

Can you enlighten me with the principles you speak of? I don't want to be told "just because". You need to be way more specific.

Enlighten you? Reincarnated, can human beings stop it from raining? From snowing? Can we break windstorms? Can humans stop flooding? Can we halt Hurricanes and Tropical storms? Can we break droughts from the earth? Can we reverse the climate to stop these climate events?

Can we break the activities of the Sun that regulate and force the Earth's climate? No we cannot. These are astrophysical and geophysical principles. Can we stop global cooling from taking place? Can we stop global warming? We cannot stop the climate. We cannot stop the weather. We cannot stop the Sun.

Here, take a look. Now tell me, just how do you break, or stop the Sun? ~ http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060807.html

I find it completely silly to hear from so-called educated people who say that we "have to reverse global warming" when I've never seen one person ~ not one ~ "reverse" a heatwave or a cold snap locally from happening. Now, just how can we stop planetary wide global warming when no one can stop the temperature from rising or dropping over their own local city? Or stop it from raining, or snowing over their city? Just how is that possible?

We cannot "break" astrophysical and geophysical laws. Why? Because these are natural laws, natural principles that we all have to live with just as many others of past centuries have had to live with since time immemorial. To use the term "reverse global warming" is the mantra of the insane. Reverse the Earth's entire climate?

Reverse the weather? Stop it from raining, from snowing, stop the temperature from rising, from falling, stop planetary global cooling, global warming? Just with a snap of the finger? With opinions? With made-up computer models? With rubberstamp political spins? With a trillion trillion dollars?

No amount of opinion, nor any amount of millions, billions, or trillions or zillions will reverse anything regarding the climate and weather here on Earth ~ it won't stop it from raining, from snowing, and it will not stop global cooling, or global warming and will not change the activities of the Sun. Sorry, but those dogs just do not hunt when it comes to reversing the climate and weather from happening as God says it will happen. And it is God that set those mathematical astrophysical and geophysical laws as they are. These are principles and they cannot be broken by us mere humans.

Statements that say we have to reverse the climate? When and exactly where have you ever seen human beings break and stop geophysical events such as hurricanes, tropical storms, cyclones, droughts, heavy rains, hail, thunderstorms, tornados, bitter cold, blizzards, blistering heatwaves, El Ninos, La Ninas, etc., etc., etc., from happening? When have you ever seen anyone break the laws of the Sun that force the Earth's climate? I've never seen it. Never heard of it. Ever. So, can you enlighten me please?

My view is that all we can do is to forecast the climate and weather in advance the best that we can and adapt to the Earth's ever-changing climate and the weather.

Sorry if this reply is stupid, I havent had tiime to keep up with the thread but why are you talking of stopping the sun?!?! The sun is not the cause of global warming, the sun is a normal star, wich has its solar cycles but this solar cycles do not have to affect Earth. The Global warming is natural on the planet earth, it help trap part of the heat from the sun for it's own good ( greenhouse effect). But humans are making this more intense due to atmospheric pollution and heating up the planet. Is there a way to reverse this? Well... if we stop polluting the global tempeture will stop climbing and might start declining.

Please dont be so harsh if I am echoing another post, I havent had time to keep up with this thread.


Cheers.

What would happen if we suddenly lost our atmosphere? We would probably more than likely freeze. It is the atmosphere that keeps us warm. The NASA picture of the sun compared to the earth does not take into account the distance. But, that doesn't explain the period of volcanic activity on the earth. Supposedly at one time there were many volcanoes spewing out lava. Why? Something was drawing the lava from the center of the earth. What was it? Could have been that black hole that made the planets from the sun. On that NASA picture, what drew out that big tongue of fire? Was it the sun itself doing that? I don't know, but it could be the earth itself doing that. Watch this video and what I saw is it is the sun causing the heat, but we are protected by a magnetic sphere surrounding our earth.

http://www.space.com/php/video/player.php?video_id=sun_storm

It states in 1859 a huge solar flare struck the earth intensifying the light and causing a couple of buildings to burn down. I don't know that the heat from the sun caused that or the radiation of hot plasma from the sun interacting with the 'inductor' surrounding the earth.

Life on Earth as we know it would not be possible without the Sun. The solar energy from the Sun has supported and sustained terrestrial existence on Earth since the beginning of time. Plants utilize the Sun to aid in photosynthesis. Humans and other mammals require energy from the sun for visual light, heat, as well as for powering modern solar devices. The Sun is also directly responsible for determining and regulating the varying climates and weather cycles that occur on Earth.

Warming
'Disastrous Effects' of Global Warming Tipping Points Near, According to New Study
(Gilles Mingasson/ Getty Images) By BILL BLAKEMORE
May 29, 2007

Even "moderate additional" greenhouse emissions are likely to push Earth past "critical tipping points" with "dangerous consequences for the planet," according to research conducted by NASA and the Columbia University Earth Institute.

With just 10 more years of "business as usual" emissions from the burning of coal, oil and gas, says the NASA/Columbia paper, "it becomes impractical" to avoid "disastrous effects."

The forecast effects include "increasingly rapid sea-level rise, increased frequency of droughts and floods, and increased stress on wildlife and plants due to rapidly shifting climate zones," according to the NASA announcement.


Recent Climate Reports Underestimated How Soon
By heralding the new research paper, NASA is endorsing science that places considerably more urgency on the need to reduce emissions to avoid "disastrous effects" of global warming than was evident in the recent reports from the world's scientists coordinated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The new NASA release emphasizes the danger of "strong amplifying feedbacks" pushing Earth past "dangerous tipping points."

Scientists have been warning for several years that such tipping points are the greatest threat from manmade global warming — and what makes it potentially catastrophic for civilization.


'Potentially Uncontrollable' Feedback Loops

As the tipping points pass, "there is an acceleration, potentially uncontrollable, of emissions of vast natural stores of greenhouse gas," according to Hansen, who reviewed the study for ABC News today.

Hansen explains that dangerous feedback loops are being tracked in various regions of the planet.

Many studies have reported feedback loops already observed in thawing tundra, seabeds and drying forests.

Hansen also points out that dark — and therefore heat-absorbing — forests are now expanding toward the Arctic, replacing lighter-colored areas such as tundra and snow cover.


NASA: Danger Point Closer Than Thought From Warming
123Next

You are displaying a severe lack of perspective on this subject with your ignorant black and white statements. When reaching a conclusion on a subject such as global warming, one must look at the issue from all sides and consider the possibility that someone else's theory is the right one.

Those who believe humans are influencing climate change are not trying to stop the Sun. But you are failing to grasp that with your lack of perspective. We want to lower our greenhouse gas emissions so we can limit any driving forces aiding the already existing climate change. I don't know how many times we have to repeat it but you are refusing to accept the truth on our true thoughts.

Quit with the BS and immature games.

I am dissapointed in his lackluster responses. And to think he calls himself a professional.

It doesn't take much to "disappoint" you Reincarnated, considering you seem to think that humans can change the climate of this planet. I'm professional enough to be able to forecast advance climate and weather, and know tons more than you've shown that you do about how climate and weather happens on Earth.

Rather than proposing such silly "questions" about breaking astro and geophysical laws, I'd advise you to learn more than you've shown about your own planet rather than playing the blame game pushing this lie of "man-made global warming" ~ and it is a lie. It never was true and never will be true either. I also strongly suggest that you quit with projecting your own issues onto others, and check out your own "severe lack of perspective" on this subject.

Your comments basically come down to this ~ humans are the cause of global warming. And, to "back" this up, you then go to "theorize" that astrophysical and geophysical laws can be "broken" without giving any "detail" as to how this silliness (stopping it from raining, and snowing, etc.) can take place?

Are you for real?

Why don't you produce your own article on why you think humans are the cause of global warming and back up your talk with a walk? All I read from you are the insults, and "immature games" but you haven't put so much as a dent into the physical reality of the fact that the Sun forces the Earth's climate and causes not only global warming, but global cooling too, and everything in between at that. Change the weather? Reverse global warming? Yeah, right, and elephants are pink and can fly like birds.

Get real why don't you? And, while you are at it, try doing that without this "we" that you use constantly in your statements (see your post above). Who is this "we?" So you figure that you've got it all figured out? You are an expert in the field, are you? And just what "truth" are you talking about?

Any amount of greenhouse emissions from us humans is NOTHING compared to what the Sun does to the Earth's climate. Period. These are astrophysical and geophysical laws that no amount of yelling of mere opinions, or wild "theories" saying we can "reverse" these princips will change. You want to "reverse global warming?" Ok, then "reverse" the Sun. That would be a neat trick, but, you know, mankind isn't ever going do it because it is astrophysically impossible. Jeez. What egos out there to think they can "reverse" global warming? I haven't seen one person who says this stop it from raining or snowing over their own heads.

Accept it and live with it because have every single day of your life, and will continue to do as well. One cannot change the climate, nor the weather Reincarnated. When it rains, all you can do is live with it, and try to stay dry using items like an umbrella for instance. You are not going to stop it from raining buddy. Not in the least.

The MOST harmful way humans are affecting the climate, IMHO, is NOT in burning fossil fuels or any such INDUSTRIAL causes, but in the simple fact that theres too damn many of us. Hopefully global warming will rectify that...

gregg..

If we suddenly lost all out atmosphere, freezing would be the least of our problems.


However, whatever problems we would then have would be short-lived, because the entire population of the planet would be unconscious within about 15 seconds at most, and would be shortly thereafter, dead. And the COD would not have anything to do with freezing.

Yeah, *cough, cough*, you're right.

mmmm hmmm...but no cough to speak of...


Just a sudden decompression, sucking the air out of people's lungs (unless they held their breath, which would certainly damage their lungs severely (but no matter)), and causing O2 depletion and outgassing from the blood....and a quick pass-out, followed by death in a matter of minutes.


Sounds mighty attractive, eh?

Alright! I wonder if that is what they experienced in Hiroshima. I almost cried when I read a first person account of a survivor of that blast. My dad was in the Marine Corps during WW2 and he told me what it was the war was like. And if you ask me, the United States fullfilled Revelation in the bible so we do not have to worry about the sun for about a few more years at least.

There's a paper on arXiv today detailing some results that were presented at the 30th International Cosmic Ray Conference: Cosmic Rays and Global Warming. Since the contribution of cosmic rays to climate change has been brought up multiple times in this thread, it seems relevant. I'll just throw in the abstract:

It is true that the sun alters the Earth climate but I don't think it is enough to alter it so much to cause such a severe global warming.

Well, that's mainly the problem with the whole hype of "man-made global warming" ~ in that most take the star we call the Sun for granted, when it certainly is the cause of all things climate-wise to our Earth, and the other planets in this solar system. When people begin to become better educated about the Sun they often start to realize just how much they've been lied to about the causes of global warming, and, moreover, also realize that they've taken the Sun for granted.

However, think about it ~ any star that can blind you if you stare into it directly, or that can burn the skin if exposed to it too long, etc., etc., and that is 93 million miles away, is doing a lot more to the entire planet, and the Sun regulates all the energy the Earth receives, affecting both the inner and outer atmospheres of the Earth in a wide variety of ways.

The Sun is massive compared to the Earth, and directs everything connected to our climate and weather. In fact, we have one more round with the Sun's coming historic maxima in just a few short years that will be the last kick of global warming in this solar cycle that began in 1980, and ends around the year 2016. From that time onwards, the Earth will continue to reel from the effects of solar-caused and forced global warming, but will be headed towards global cooling, which will peak in the late 2020s, and into the mid-2030s.

No, gregg, I think Hiroshima, or something like that, would be a much different, and much more horrendous thing. I can certainly understand your reaction to reading a first person account of that event...

A nuclear blast has a bunch of varying effects, which range from instantaneous death and the vaporization of everything, including humans, in the areas immediately in and around ground zero, to effects that one might call lesser, but more horrendous, in that although lots of people get burned up rapidly, others perhaps will merely suffer massive burns that result in death slower, and others, may suffer massive burns that don't kill them, but render them in horrific shape for a long time.

And, there are of course other injuries that occur in such events...

Then of course, there are long term debilitations and radiation effects, which may eventually kill people.

All in all, it is a hell that is beyond description, I am sure.

With decompression, the effects are very swift, and merciful, relatively speaking.
Within a matter of seconds, the brain begins to shut down consciuousness. Remaining in that state will of course result in death within minutes. This is what occurred on the space shuttle Challenger, when the crew compartment became detached from the vehicle. Severing ties to life support, the cabin rapidly decompressed, being above 50,000 feet as it was at the time of the disaster. Within perhaps 12-15 seconds, consciousness was lost, and the cabin remained in the virtual vacuum above 50,000 feet for the best part of a minute before it's fall began to enter denser atmosphere. By that time, and with that exposure to decompression, regaining consciousness was a virtual impossibility for anyone in the short time it took the crew compartment to fall into the ocean.


This is of course all very attractive material to discuss, but as pertains to the Sun, no, I don't think you'll have to worry about it....even if a few more years. It's pretty much doing what it has always done.

It's obvious you're arguing for the sake of argument. You do know, don't you, that the synonym for hypothesis is *theory*? And here you are, correcting me... oookayyyy....

<lots of snippage>



So, then, one would think during a warming period that glaciers wouldn't be heavily impacted by melting. It would be a long, slow process. But, it's not...they're melting at a rate that is easily noticed and recorded in a few years, not eons.



Gee - farbeit from anyone to be angry that our life support system is being poisoned and destroyed for the benefit of making a few families rich. Who cares if our children's children’s children have a healthy environment to grow up in? After all, we won't be around to see it... Of course I'm angry that humanity is greedy enough to sacrifice our/their life support system for a lousy dollar or million. Apparently you don't care what the future holds for future generations. I do.



You need to do some research, obviously. Those "minority" companies are shipping toxic waste to 3rd world countries. Rather neighborly, don't you agree? Lots of people live on waterways...what do you think they're doing with bodily waste - which could be infected with disease?



You know nothing about my emotions… except what I wish to tell you.



In the U.S. they get a fine - and keep dumping the waste.... It's cheaper to pay the fine then clean up the toxic waste.You speak as if some dire sentence will be the outcome... What country are you talking about? Surely not the U.S. - where the dollar reigns supreme.
The president has no problem sullying the relative prisitine nature of conserved land in Alaska to drill for oil. He's a Texas oilman... Which means there's a conflict of interest pertaining to his job as president. The agenda is clear - the Bush regime wishes to retire with mega wealth...
<snip>



Our atmosphere's a limited space too... we spew millions of tonnes of pollution a day into it. It has the same impact as a smaller space - except it takes longer to see the effects of a poisoned atmosphere. We aren't dropping dead in a few hours - we're systematically poisoning ourselves - which, imo, is proven in the behaviors we exhibit and the amount of cancer which is becoming as ordinary as a cold. Only toxic things can live in a toxic environment. We've created a toxic atmosphere... It's rather simplistic, really. That is - if you're paying attention.


<snip>
Water impacts climate...so, why are you taking it out of the equation? Changes in water temperature will have an impact on weather.
<snip,snip,snip>


...and I'm of the opinion you never had any to stand on since the beginning of our exchange... We believe in different things. I will never agree that humanity isn't impacting global warming.

Global warming is a natural cause since the Earth is there, global warming existed even before man stepped the Earth, and all was due to the sun. The atmosphere traps part of the energy ( heat) that it receives from the sun helping the planet to be habitable for life, this is what we call the greenhouse effect BUT due to human activity ( Industry, manufacturing, ect..) this natural effect is loosing its balance and unbalancing the planets climate. This green house effect is good until it gets unbalanced........ because the planets just overheats or freezes.

I am correcting you because you are in error. There is a distinct difference scientifically between hypothesis and theory. They are not synonomous in science.

Okayyy?
Investigate it. I think you will find it a little more complex than you think.




There is absolutely no logic in the assumption that we shouldn't see some evidence of glacial melting during a period of warming.



Ah emotions...

Is that what you're angry about? I thought it was anger at me.
The assumptions in the paragraph are based on belief, not on empirical evidence.
On the surface, this sort of thing should make anyone angry, but the premise behind them is faulty, and deeply engrained in a mindset which does not understand the science behind global warming.


The benefit of making a few families rich? C'mon.
Who cares if our children have a healthy environment to grow up in?

Everyone, I should hope.
I think we should study all hypotheses...not jump to unsubstantiated conclusions about them, and ridiculous assumptions about empiricists and their cconcern, or lack thereof, for their environment and their planet (they tend, by-and-large, to appreciate and know more about it than the average non-scientific person).



Utter non-sense.
Alaskans want oil drilling in Alaska! They know full well what it will mean for their economy; they know full well that it can be done without sullying their environment; and they also know full well that they're not allowed at this time to do it because of environmentalist-influenced laws which have produced our dependency on foreign oil. The President can't do it either!



I know we shall never agree, at least not at this point in time. Thus, this argument, where you do all this innane <snip...snip...snip> stuff ( )--an obviously over-the-top emotional reaction to someone who logically challenges your beliefs--is pointless.

But you need to understand something. I don't believe in belief. I am an empiricist at heart. Belief is conjecture, and making all sorts of assertions from the foundations of belief is non-sense, and ineffectual. It doesn't speak to facts. It means nothing in the realm of science.

A scientist knows, or he doesn't. He or she doesn't believe.

You believe in man-made global warming.
The scientist knows that global earming exists. But, the scientist has no evidence to support the hypothesis that it is man-made.

MID is correct Graylady, and the fact that you've stated that you will never agree that humanity is not impacting global warming proves your predisposed bias on what is causing global climate change in the first place. It is the very reason why there is more myth to the cause rather than discovering the true cause of global warming to begin with. One's "opinions" does not make you correct, not even close, and, moreover, the way you talk about the Earth's climate in pieces, throwing in statements on pollution, etc., etc., to mean that humans are the cause of global warming just is not correct whatsoever.

The Sun regulates the Earth's climate, this means its atmosphere, and its oceans, and MID is not taking it "out of the equation" but rather he's been stating the same things that are astrophysically and geophysically true ~ FACTS ~ about the Earth's climate, what causes it, what directs it, and how it fluxes according to the cosmic laws of our system.

One of the problems you seem to be having is that you treat that which you disagree with as "seperate" and that which you agree with as "connected" ~ but your thought-process as shown by your comments don't follow the same theme when it comes to what is the cause of global warming ~ the Sun. When it comes to this, you flip, and then once again blame humanity by taking pollution (which is happening) and using that as the excuse for global warming when clearly it is not and has never been the reason for planetary climate change.

No one in this debate is against cleaning pollution. And humanity does and continues to pollute, no doubt at all about that. We have been, and are poisoning ourselves, you are correct. However, you cannot take this fact and tie it to planetary climate change, this is global warming, and global cooling, because there is no connection. All Earth's climate and weather begins in space, and ends up as effects on Earth in the climate and weather. If you want to know the causes of global warming ~ look up, into space, and you will see the Sun. That is where it all begins.

Once you start dealing with things on a global scale, you are dealing with astronomical causes, mainly the Earth in space, and the direct impact of the Sun on this planet, which is primary, and major in all ways when it comes to something as important as the world's climate, its atmosphere, and of course, global warming.

The Sun directs sea-surface temperatures, and the entire pattern flow of the Earth's oceans, which emit huge amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. The Earth's system is regulated, and since the creation of the Earth, the planet has been taken care of by the Sun, which is the CAUSE of global cooling, global warming and all that is in-between.

Oh yes you can. You apparently have never lived in a large city. These places have a climate all their own. They resist and create their own regional weather changes. No one disagrees that the Sun "begins" global weather. It does not "end" there. We disagree that man can affect it. It is well proven that man does affect the weather. And there has been good evidence that you disagree with that these affects can also be global. You may not like it but there it is.

IMO This thread is going no where and should be closed.

You call over 15,000 views, and over 400 posts a "thread that is going no where?" In your opinion? Considering that view, let's take a look at the rest of your comments above Ninjadude, shall we? ~

I was born and raised in a very large city. All regions of the world have their own micro-climates, however, that does not mean that they can resist and create their own climates. Anything that happens in climate and weather over any geographic region is either amplified or reduced, according to each particular region; however that does NOT mean that it stops raining, or snowing, or that the above or below normal temperatures are radically changed. You seem to think that the weather comes from below. No, my friend, all weather comes from above your head.

Man CANNOT affect the Sun. Man cannot change the weather and climate. We can only forecast and adapt to it. As for the Sun ~ yes, it begins there and ends up here, on the Earth, as climate and weather worldwide ~ despite your "opinion" which does not matter in the least to the Sun, or to geophysical and astrophysical laws. You may not like it, but you know, there that is.

It is true that many regions in the world have their own micro-climates but this regions are not alone, they are all stuffed up together in the spherical planet, the micro-climates together is what is producing climate change today because at the end they are all in the same planet and together they destroy the planet's global climate. Much pollution comes out from a city every day, all kinds of pollution but mostly atmospheric pollution, ok...... this city isn't gonna affect the greenhouse effect but then you must remember that there a more cities on the same planet wich keep emiting nocive gases into the atmosphere then you must add the industry, the factories, the manufacturieng and the planet's own atmospheric pollution ( ex Volcanoes), this all together affects the planet's climate and unbalances the natural global warming.

I'm not so sure there's not some wisdom in that last line...in a sense at least.

It seems apparent that the thread is stuck in the realm of people completely ignoring the facts that are known, and insisting on making unsubstantiated blanket statements to the contrary...such as,

"It is well proven that man does affect the weather."

No, it is not.

And we see the large city and it's rather typical pollution being brought up again...

It's already been discussed. The local environment can be changed by man, and in many places it is. The problem is concluding that such a local environmental change affects the globe. It is also highly problematic when one concludes that cities can resist weather and create their own climates. This is completely un-true, and has never been supportable in the least. Indeed, quite the contrary is true.

The obvious logical cause of global warming seems to be resisted for a weak hypothesis. This is a most distressing turn of events which is reflective of a rather general degradation in several areas of social endeavor over the past several decades.

I'm not sure that there's a point in continuing, based upon what we see here...

The astrophysical and geophysical facts of climate change are quite clear to those who are not bound to the popular culture farce of "man-made global warming" industry running wild at this time. It is usually the case that when this kind of major media-fed hype occurs that very often the facts of the matter are on the other side of the fence, and it is so in this case of what causes planetary climate change ~ which is the Sun.

You know, I have just finished going through this thead, and one thing, one thing only, stands out



Stated as ALMOST the only evidence for his "hypothesis" (and I use the term in its corectdefinition). He has patently ignored requests from Waspie to say why Venus is so remarkably hot, with such a dense atmosphere. Venus is a corollary for earth in ALL other respects, except the atmosphere. It receives, very nearly, identical amounts of "Sun-Influencing" radiation, yet its massively dense CO2 blanket, according to Theo, cannot POSSIBLY affect the global conditions on the planet

In all of this long, ponderous thread you "seem" to be claiming to be a "scientist". I have put that in quotes because you have yet to actually tell anyone the irrevocable "astrophysical and Geophysical" Laws. Please, for my own education, as a Geologist and curoiusly Aeronautical engineer, just WHAT ARE THESE LAWS?

You are being constantly asked to provide contra-evidence to the evidence given in argument yet your only response is:



Being somewhat knowledgeable in the area of Geophysics I would like you to explain these "Laws". Are they immutable? Can they be questioned? (certainly geophysics is constantly questioning it's own beliefs).

I think it is time to own up to your own perceived level of knowledge, because you certainly haven't shown even an inkling of understanding geophysics.

List these LAWS, or you have no credibility.

Great post keithisco. Venus is a very good example of this. Its huge amount of CO2 make the greenshouse effect to intense, this is what we are slowly doing to earth with the gas emisions of CO2. The Earth's greenhouse effect is getting slowly more intense due to the CO2 and other greenhouse gases. It has been proven scientifically that the greenshouse gases ( mainly CO2) intensify the greenhouse effect.

Theodore, I also dont believe what astropysical and geophysical laws you ar talking about, so it would be really grately appreciated if you told me too what this laws are and what they are about. Stop talking about the media and the press, I dont care about the media and the press, this has been proven scientifically and by VERY PROFESIONAL scientists.

While we argue, other act. There are such matters as contingency scenarios. The government plans for these. They hire experts, and lots of them, to analyze what to do if crops fail here, flourish there; floods or drought persist. How do we prepare?

We must consider it is not easy planning for, say the agriculture sector, in a climate scenario. Where do you begin?
You choose the two most plausible cases, albeit with different financial impacts, and be prepared to act in either case.

That is why there is so much debate among lay people, let alone specialists. Yet, I feel it makes sense to accept that seemingly opposite climate models are being espoused by the experts. In the midst of that, some efforts at a consensus have been made. The questions now are- how likely are the best case estimates, what will it require of our assets to prepare, and how does that translate into policy?

Thus, if you elect an adventurous Congress, you may stand to lose your job, if they over tax you or your business, or send large subsidies overseas to your competitor. Is it for the better? Or, is it failed policy?

Ultimately, the taxpayers will be called on to act. It is beginning, now. For better, or worse.

Try reading the first post on this thread. I cited my evidence for solar forcing, and included references as well. It is not my responsibility to provide "contra-evidence" when I do not see any in the first place. If you cannot understand the laws of nature (which basically says that all the world's energy comes from the Sun, which is rather obvious) then, why should I have to provide contra-evidence that it does not?

And, I've answered Waspie's question, several times, so, how is that "patently ignoring" anyone? Are you saying that if a person does not give the "answer" one wants to hear, but their own answer, that that is ignoring someone? I think not.

Venus is not a "corollary" for the Earth. There is no life on Venus, no living plants to consume Co2, nor to release O2. Venus' atmosphere does not allow it to condense water like that of the Earth. The surface pressure on Venus is much higher than that of the Earth. How is that a corollary to our planet?

Sure, you can "question" astrophysical and geophysical laws ~ and we've seen it all throughout the debate on global warming ~ but questioning it does not dispove it. Refer to the first post of mine on this thread as I gave plenty of evidence for the facts of solar-forced global warming.

Sorry, but it has not. The works of the IPCC are not agreed upon, and in this thread you can find all the data and news proving this as well. Saying to "stop talking about the media and the press" isn't exactly a cure either, since I've been a part of the media, and can talk about it all I want. It's a free world.

I also stated why these so-called "very professional scientists" who claim that man is causing global warming are not telling the truth of the matter. It is money. That is what is has been all about. The myth of "man-made global warming" has become an industry in and of itself, a market, and this market is doing nothing but distorting and lying about the truth of the causes of climate change. This is dangerous, because it has ramifications for the future, and prevents undeveloped nations from developing. There is a good reason why one of the founders of Greenpeace says that the mantra of "man-made global warming" is a lie. Global warming is caused by the Sun, not by humans.

I wrote ~ professionally ~ about global warming back in the late 1980s when there was little to no money to study planetary climate change, and when the world was only in the 8-9 year of solar-forced global warming. The majority of these professional scientists could care less about it ~ that is ~ until the tens of millions of dollars in federal funding starting flowing, and the IPCC itself stated that one of its own mandates was to say that humanity was the cause of global warming. That is not scientific, but political, and the media and press fueled it mainly because a politically-led group of scientists decided that making the big dollars was more important that conducting science.

Moreover, science is not a monolethic entity. Scientists are people too, and they can be wrong. It is dangerous to believe that scientisits cannot, or, to speak of them as one, or even, the voice of reason. Many scientists once said that humans could not withstand the speeds of train travel, or that human beings would never learn to navigate the skies and fly, or that humans could not transverse the seas in underwater vessels, and that the world was flat.

Man-made global warming has NOT be proven, and Venus is not the Earth. Last time I checked, there are no humans on Venus causing global warming, and certainly there are no humans on Earth causing global warming either. Only the Sun can accomplish this. The astrophysical and geophsyical laws of our system clearly show that the Sun regulates and forces the Earth's climate ~ causing everything from global cooling to global warming on a planetary scale. The Sun has done this before, and the data has been there to prove it.

The astrophysical law states that all astronomical bodies have effects on one another, by their orbits, and their mathematical relation to one another in our system. The entire solar system is connected. The Sun rules this system. It provides all the energy for the planets in our system, including the Earth, and by this cause, geophysically directs and regulates the Earth's entire climate. Just because one does not "believe" this does not change this cosmic law.

See my first post on solar-forcing for the proof of the cause of global warming, there are references, news items, and scientific data included that proves this. Man-made global warming has never happened. It is not happening. And never will happen. There's no need for me to repeat all the data when all you have to do read what I've already written.

People worldwide do not agree on man being the cause of global warming, despite what the IPCC says, See ~ http://www.lse.co.uk/ShowStory.asp?story=A...ural_occurrence

And, the global warming debate is now reigniting calls for more nuclear power plants, see ~ http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070701/ap_on_...ethinking_nukes

What many people who support this myth of "man-made global warming" did not account for is that politics has been the driving force of this myth, and that because of it, you now have other politicians, scientists, etc., thinking that because the media and some of the public "believe" in this myth of human carbon emissions, that nuclear power is the answer. See? Again, it is about money ~ and lots of it.

The best way to use energy is to adapt two major forces ~ that of the Sun, and that of water ~ and both are green. Forecasting climate change is best, and using the natural forces that regulate the Earth is best for the future.

However, to blame humanity for worldwide climate change just has things going nowhere, and with money being wasted on this farce of "reversing global warming" it will continue. Human beings can do nothing of the kind such as "reverse" planetary climate change. As I've written before, how is that even possible globally when human beings cannot stop it from raining, or snowing locally?

Unable to answer my post? No clear understanding of geophysical processes on Earth...Scratch your head awhile and see if you can come up withANOTHER source of energy on Earth that is not directly powered by any Solar Radiance... there is one you know. A very ancient source predating all life.

[quote]Venus is not a "corollary" for the Earth. There is no life on Venus, no living plants to consume Co2, nor to release O2. Venus' atmosphere does not allow it to condense water like that of the Earth. The surface pressure on Venus is much higher than that of the Earth. How is that a corollary to our planet?[/quote]

You really dont understand much about our solar system either do you? Venus is most definitely a corollary for Earth, near identical planets, near identical orbits. It was you who said that humans have no effect on Global temperature change.... OK, lets ignore the bamks of evidence, and look at this from a Global perspective...
Venus receives identical Solar Stimulus as the Earth, yet is completely different in Global Climate... Why? Because of Vulcanism (another thing you claim has only a local and short lived effect), but more than that, because of the amount of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere which is the "killer" of that Planet. There are no humans there, (which you state have almost no impact on anything), so lets take them out of the equation.
So... we have runaway Global Warming on Venus caused by Solar Cycles?? NO. Caused by CO2 from Vulcanism. NOT solar Radiance. Why is the pressure at the Venus so high?? Because these gases are continually being added to the atmosphere.
Back to Earth... Humans are continuing to increase the CO2 in the atmoshere at a much faster rate than any Vulcanism on Earth, therefore it seems entirely probable that we are altering the atmospheric balance in the same direction as Venus. We have not yet reached the Critical Mass required for Runaway Global Warming, but then we dont know what that critical Mass is.
Is it not prudent to stop this increase where we can??

You really need to start studying some things... your lack of relevant knowledge is blinding... CO2 is NOT CONSUMED BY ANYTHING!! Is is simply locked away for a time, plants die and release this CO2 during decomposition or it becomes locked into sediments, or the Oceans.

So, por fin, I ask you to describe these "Laws" again, you have not done so in this thread... you have mentioned these "Laws" several times now, but clearly have no grasp the their fundamentals.

I see no evidence in any of your posts to having been taught "Scientific Method", nor do I see any reason to presume you actually have any Scientific knowledge or Training.

Look carefully at this post, if you do not understand any of my questions then please ask me to clarify them, and perhaps re-state them in simpler language.

I'm quite able to answer your post, and no, I am not "scratching my head." I understand the laws of our solar system much better than you say that I do. As for your argument, I don't get it at all since the whole point of this thread is about the Sun, and you talk of "solar radiance" as if you are solely talking about something minor, something that is mere. As for the "ancient source" that would be the Ether, that which permeates all life, however, we are talking here about the Sun, and why it is the cause of global warming and why man-made global warming isn't real.

Are you unaware of the all the massive amounts and various kinds of energies that flow from the Sun, and that regulates our entire climate? If the Sun would disappear, I'd think you'd notice that in a major way, don't you?

Moreover, I don't see "questions," from you, but see plenty of comments. You pose what appears like questions and then immediately proceed to answer them. You also make presumptions about my "scientific training" when you don't know me whatsoever to even attempt to claim such a thing. You also don't want to see what it already there. I suggest you might want to look very carefully at your own post.

Listen, Venus is not like the Earth, and the Earth is not like Venus. There is no life on Venus. There is abundant life on Earth. Venus' atmosphere cannot condense water. The Earth's atmoshere is highly-fluid and allows for a great amount of condensation of water. Remember, the Earth is a water planet. Venus is not. Just how are they "identical?"

Also, I never "claimed" that Vulcunism has "a local and short-lived effect." I also never stated that humans have almost no impact on anything. I stated that human beings are NOT the cause of global warming. Rather than making things up, and turning what I say into something else, try reading what is there, and if you don't understand, then ask, but please do not assume, or ask me questions and then proceed to answer them in your very next sentence, all the while, misquoting me, or adding things I never said in the first place, and then, attempting to use that to attack me. That's not wise, nor cool, and furthermore, doesn't make for a clear discussion whatsoever.

If you want clarity ~ then be clear. Ask questions, and please wait for the person you ask to answer you rather than rudely answering it in your next sentence after your so-called "question" with additional comments that have nothing to do with the person (in this case, me) whatsoever.

Science is about exploration and discovery, not platitudes to upset personal sensibilities, careers, or popular culture myths, like the one about man-made global warming.

Now, back to global warming: You take the Sun out of the equation when it comes to Venus. How is that possible? Do you realize that Venus is a member of this solar system and would not exist without the Sun? Your entire premise is based on treating Venus as a "stand alone" planet, as you do the Earth when it comes to the solar sytem. The Sun regulates Venus as well, under its own planetary properties, and the Sun drives its atmosphere as well, as well as all the atmospheres of the planets under its regulation, including our Earth.

Moreover, do you not know that living plants take in Co2 and release O2? Try taking in a breath on the planet Venus. It would be your last one, and a burning hot one at that.
I suggest you study both planets to discover this truth and learn something yourself about the "scientific method" and plain fundamentals.

I'm going to let you in on a little secret as to why people keep bringing up Venus and things that aren't the Sun: the energy from the Sun doesn't regulate our climate, our climate is how we regulate the energy received from the Sun. And that's determined entirely by local factors. No one is arguing that the Sun isn't there or doesn't provide energy to the earth. Pretending that someone is suggesting that is a ridiculous strawman that makes you look like a lightweight, regardless of whatever scientific training you claim to have. The issue that you ignore, to the consternation of a number of posters in this thread, is what, if anything, is happening to those local factors here on earth that might be fueling the current climate change.

You've got a point about how the Earth's atmosphere handles the Sun's energy, but the Sun surely directs, and regulates the Earth's entire climate and provides ALL its energy. Scientific data for centuries continues to prove and reinforce this astrophysical fact, for without the Sun, there would be no climate on Earth to speak of, much less anything resembling life on Earth as we know it now. Why some people discount the Sun as if it is some kind of minor thing in the sky is beyond me, but much of that is due to a lack of education about the Sun in general and the Earth's climate in particular.

All climate and weather begins in space (causes) and ends up in climate changes and the weather here (effects) on Earth.

There's a ton of silliness out there about humanity being the cause of global climate change, and much of it has to do with the fact that some people just are not educated about their own very powerful local star, which is the reason for what we call life on this planet. When there is no more Sun ~ forget about life on this planet. It will get dark and very, very cold real fast and it will stay dark and very cold. Nothing grows and thrives without the Sun here on Earth. In effect, it's all over when that happens.

And no, I don't ignore. If I did, I would not answer anyone at all. To ignore someone is to pretend that they are not there. If that were so, then I would not even be answering anyone at all. Those who claim such a thing are claiming a childish thing because they falsely believe that if someone does not "tow their line" with their exact views that that is ignoring them? How is that possible? Those who have a problem with me, have a problem with my views on climate change. Hey, that's ok with me, and I feel comfortable with it. But to claim that I am "ignoring" a person because I do not agree with their premise of man-made global warming is dishonest, and untrue.

As a forecaster, I am very much aware of local geographical factors of climate and weather impacts, I have to be to be able to forecast advance climate and weather astronomically, which I've been doing for years. Climate changes are natural to the Earth and has been going on since the creation of this planet ~ all of it regulated by the activities of the Sun.

What is "fueling" climate change certainly is NOT mankind, not in the slightest. If you want to know what is doing that, just check out the Sun, because that is where all our weather comes from on Earth, and it has been this way since the very beginning, and continues to this very day. The world has warmed globally many times before any human industrial carbon emissions, and it is the SUN that is the cause.

As I've written before, we are currently in the 27th year of solar-caused global warming. This will continue, according to my own long-range forecast, until about the year 2016. From that year onwards, the world will continue to experience the effects of solar-forced global warming, with increased flooding, droughts, etc., but we see a new global cooling cycle start in the mid-2010s that will peak in the mid-2030s.

All this is due to natural astronomical cycles, which repeat themselves. When it comes to climate changes, this is most true. The world has warmed before, and started to do so back in 1980 because of the Sun. This global warming cycle will end by 2016, and we will see increasingly anomalous cooling events, with a decrease in El Ninos, and an increase in La Ninas.

This will continue into the 2020s, when in that decade, the cooling climate changes will pick up speed and peak in the 2030s. So, while we are currently still in the global warming cycle of the Sun, expect the Earth's climate to cool in the decades ahead, and prepare for it accordingly.

The only thing that is stopping Venus from being identical to Earth is it's atmosphere, Venus contains such a dense atmosphere that it does not let solar radiation touch the surface. The atmosphere of Venus is stuffed up with CO2, this CO2 is making the greenhouse effect to intense. I am sorry but Venus is a perfect example of what will happen to the Earth if man made global warming continues.

I read a study a few years ago, which supported the idea. However, a review came out that offered a strong opposite opinion. This will be an interesting read.

And, Theo-

While I might agree with you, I am curious why your model is any more reliable than, say, James Hansen's, the