Sorry, but your comments here have nothing to do with me. If you look at my answers above, you will see that I've answered them, not "dodged them."

Why even "ask" if you tell me right after that I "cannot answer?" If my thousands words are "inconsequential rubbish" then why would you even ask me questions, or pay any attention whatsoever to my "rubbish" as you call it?

As getting a "pass" grade ~ I've graduated school a long time ago, and passed quite well. I'm not taking any tests for you, ceterus paribus, etc., etc.

As for your comments on carbon, Venus, etc., I really think you should do more reading; especially about the oceans of the Earth and how they emit huge amoutns of carbon into the atmosphere.

You say, "what the heck is Ether?" ~

http://members.iimetro.com.au/~hubbca/ether.htm

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9033121/ether

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ether

I don't even know people at "Gyrphon" so how can they be "my friends?"

I practice the basics of astrometeorology more like this, and yes, the Moon does affect our atmosphere, don't you know that? ~

http://www.geocities.com/jussaymoe/tides/tides.htm

and I track things like this ~

http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/dsdt/sst_ani.htm

LOL, jeez you pretty much "owned" him, but on a serious point, I agree with 50% of your ideal, that is, the Sun plays one of the most critical roles in the whole Global Warming topic, although human contamination/pollution/damage/etc. seems to intervene the majority of the time. It seems people just do not pay attention to the basic facts of both Pollution & Sun/Radial damage, but to every agreement, there seemingly just has to be atleast one disagreement (maybe by an ignorant, or apathetic person), dont' you agree?

Yeah, sometimes I get that, people who say they are being "ignored" and when I answer them, they then "ignore" what is said, hearing only what they "want" to hear ~ not what is actually said. Lots of people already have their minds made up that man is the cause of global warming. You see, it's easier to be believe the popular culture myths rather than do any kind of real thinking for oneself.

I supposed you are right about that; however, one can choose to ignore the future, but they cannot avoid it, and that is what has been going on in the whole myth of man-made global warming. When the true cause (The Sun) is being ignored, that means that most of the world will not be ready for the next climate change ~ global cooling, which is just as serious as global warming.

The majority of the baby boom generation wants to look back, not forward, and that is dangerous for generations already living on the planet, and those just getting here. Global warming was ignored back in the 1980s when the earliest climate reports clearly indicated that the Earth was indeed warming. By the time the majority of climate scientists, politicians, etc., got to paying serious attention to what was happening, it was already too late to adapt and prepare in advance.

The way people in developed nations live their lives contributes greatly to pollution. But, you know, the same people who demand that we "reverse" global warming are also the people buying the products that pollute this planet, such as the millions of throw-away diapers that contaminate landfills in this country and around the world. These are the same people who demand that undeveloped countries remain undeveloped, while they contribute greatly towards polluting their own habitats by driving rather than using public transportation. The hypocrisy is just amazing.

They will do the same with the coming cycle of global cooling as well if the majority of people continue to believe the foolishness of man-made climate change, ignoring the astrophysical and geophysical facts that clearly show the Sun's cycles as the cause of planetary climate change.

Let me re-iterate for you...

LOTS of Waffle again. Evading the very DIRECT QUESTIONS that I posed:

Iterate these "LAWS" that you keep mentioning. THIS IS A DIRECT QUESTION, PLEASE ANSWER.

One question that you did get SERIOUSLY wrong: the very ancient source of energy, not dependent on Solar Radiance? You REALLY do not have a clue do you? What the heck is ETHER?
Geophysics 101, there you have a clue, of course as a self-proclaimed "scientist" you should now be able to answer it. THIS IS A QUESTION THAT YOU DID NOT ANSWER IN GEOPHYSICAL TERMS AS i NOW REQUEST

Oh, look, here's something else you got SERIOUSLY wrong:: You claim that oceans are releasing huge amounts of Carbon Dioxide.... Time to wake up, oceans are CARBON SINKS. THIS IS A DIRECT COUNTER CLAIM TO OME OF YOUR STATEMENTE. PLEASE ANSWER

Hey! And here is something else:Plants take in CO2 and release 02 - how inaccurate and poorly described. A "Scientist" really shouldnt make such innacurate, and incomplete, statements. Here is something from high school (Secondary School) Biology. Courtesy BBC GCSE Bitesize



[quote]Photosynthesis and respiration
To unlock the energy in the carbohydrate produced in photosynthesis, green plants need to respire, just as animals do. Respiration takes place in the plant's cells, using oxygen to produce energy and giving off carbon dioxide as a waste product. So in terms of the gas taken in and the gas given out, respiration is the opposite of photosynthesis.

The result is that during the day when the plant is both respiring and photosynthesising there is a two-way traffic of oxygen and carbon dioxide both into and out of the plant. During the night when the plant is respiring but not photosynthesising, oxygen is being taken in but not given out - and carbon dioxide is being given out but not taken in.

Luckily, plants use up more carbon dioxide in photosynthesis than they produce in respiration, and produce more oxygen while photosynthesising than they use up while respiring - otherwise there would not be enough oxygen in the atmosphere for us animals to breathe![/quote]

THIS IS A DIRECT COUNTER-CLAIM TO YOU SAYING PLANTS EMIT CARBON DIOXIDE. PLEASE ANSWER.

WHAT IS DRIVING VENUS' RUNAWAY GREENHOUSE EFFECT, IS IT RELATED ONLY TO SOLAR RADIANCE, OR ARE THERE OTHER FACTORS.PLEASE ANSWER

WHAT EFFECT DO OTHER PLANETARY BODIES HAVE ON OUR WEATHER. PLEASE ANSWER

This is a COMMENT...

Nobody here, myself included, disputes the enormous influence of solar radiance on warming / cooling cycles on the eath, but the overwhelming majority ARE disputing your claim that ONLY the sun has an effect. Your claims are based solely on an unprovable Mystic art relying heavily on plantary, and extra solar system, alignments. HOW can that affect our weather?

A1 ATHLETE... curiously I dont feel that THEODORE "Owned" me, I wonder why that is??

Rudeness and SHOUTING in your text isn't going to get your "questions" answered by me Keithisco. Shout once more in all caps, and I will ignore you. If you cannot hold a discussion without shouting, mocking and being rude, then take it someplace else please.

I suggest you actually read my earlier answers, and see the links I provided, such as those on astrometeorology.

Your own comments are odd, and confusing. You say Venus is identical to the Earth. There are no living plants on Venus that we know of. There are living plants on Earth in abundance. Venus' atmosphere does not allow for condensation. Earth's atmosphere does. How is that identical? It seems you like to pose questions yourself, but never answer any posed to you.

For instance, here you state ~ "Respiration takes place in the plant's cells, using oxygen to produce energy and giving off carbon dioxide as a waste product."

Then, you yell at me in all caps, this curious comment of yours, "THIS IS A DIRECT COUNTER-CLAIM TO YOU SAYING PLANTS EMIT CARBON DIOXIDE. PLEASE ANSWER."

ANSWER: Well, yes, they do. We know plants emit carbon dioxide. Plants combine glucose with oxygen in a variety of ways to make carbon dioxide and water to get the energy they need to live. Plants produce carbon dioxide and water vapor during cellular respiration, and during this respiration, when it is dark, plants release carbon dioxide. When it is light out, plants release oxygen ~ which is a by-product of photosynthesis. The result is symbotic for us humans, as plants use more carbon dioxide and produce more O2. But plants also do emit carbon.

How is that a direct counter-claim to plants emitting carbon dioxide?

What is your point? Talking about me learning some basic science? Jeez.

And, to learn more about how the Earth's oceans release carbon as well ~ http://science.hq.nasa.gov/oceans/system/carbon.html

The Sun is the cause of global warming. All the humans in the world ~ as a whole population of 6+ billion ~ cannot create the kind of global climate change ~ that is global warming ~ that the Sun causes on Earth. Period. We humans are imperfect, and we cause many problems, we pollute, we lie, steal, cheat, kill, and make a mess of things on our planet. We humans have a lot on our plate to get right rather than wrong ~ but we are not the cause of global warming. That's not on our plate. That title belongs to the Sun.

This thread is not about "owning" anybody, this is not a videogame, this is a very interesting adn getting heated up debate.



We mention Venus because Venus is a perfect example of what man is doing to Earth and how it is gonna end up.

1. At Venus, volcanic eruptions release CO2 to the atmosphere, on Earth humans are releasing CO2 into the atmosphere and another greenhouse gases in a huge amount.

2. The CO2 and other greenhouse gases intensify the greenhouse effect on both planets, producing on both planets and incredible peak in global temperature.

3. Venus's atmosphere is e perfect example of what Earth's atmosphere will become if the emision CO2 and other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere continues. Just look at the properties of Venus's atmosphere and you will see that it is mainly made of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, and other poisonous gases.




As I said before, global warming is a natural cause, but not de to the sun. Due to this kind of activites on Earth, this global warming was balanced because of caurse...... nature keeps everything balanced until of caurse humans intefere.



As I said before Global warming is a natural cause and htis natural and balanced global warming is what makes life on Earth posible, Venus's Global warming is to intense due to the emisions of CO2 into it's atmosphere by vulcanism.





It is like you are trying to push it in our heads telling it to us again with no reasonable explenations.

You, and anyone can believe anything you like. Read the scientific data that clearly shows that the Earth's climate is forced by the Sun. You can find it in my references and links in the first page of this thread, which explains it all.

Opinions, and popular myths do not change the fact that the Sun forces the Earth's climate. This is a long-held astrophysical fact that cannot be altered by anyone's opinions, no matter how many times one says that greenhouse gase emissions from man is the cause of global warming. It simply is not true. It never was.

Moreover, using Venus as an "example" of what could happen to the Earth is not viable, considering that there is no human industrial emission on Venus. And, we also have volconos on Earth, which erupt as well, yet, the Earth is not like the planet Venus. Venus lacks water, and the Earth is a water planet, and the world's oceans are regulated by the activities of the Sun, which forces the Earth's entire climate.

Greenhouse gases are natural to the Earth, and make our planet habitable. This is due to the Sun. If this were not, the Earth would be dark, very, very cold, and nothing would grow on this planet. In effect, the Earth would be dead. You take the Sun out of the equation and nothing else matters.

Global warming is not new to the Earth. Climate change like the one going on since 1980 has happened many times before throughout our planet's history and long before ANY industrial emissions of Co2 into the atmosphere. The current warming will peak in this last phase, and we will enter a new cycle leading to global cooling that peaks in the 2030s.

Every astronomical cycle of the Sun directs the climate and weather on Earth. All weather on this planet (and the other planets in our solar system) begins in space ~ and that is where the Sun is. It may be hard to face for those who believe that man is the cause of global warming; however, it is better to forecast in advance and to adapt to the climate changes our planet has always been subject to for many, many centuries, and will continue to undergo because of the activities of the Sun.

Whatever the sun may do, human activity may amplify it. Make it worse. I know that's hard to accept by those who think humans can do whatever they want with out fear of consequence. But it's a fact of life.

Meanwhile, no-one has yet explained how the sun burns down rainforests or covers the land in concrete, brick and tarmac ......

I dont believe anything I know and I am just telling you the truth.



Read the scientific date that shows how emisions of CO2 unbalance natural global warming.



I agree that the sun alters and shapes Earth's climate but not enough to produce such an intense global warming, natural global warming is also due to the sun but the sun CANNOT alter Earth's global temperature in such a high rate.



You really dont actually know much of the solar system do you? The volcanoes and the volcanic eruptions on venus equalize to the emisions of greenhouse gases by humans on earth because it is the same kind of gases and they are both happening just as frequent, YES Earth has volcanoes and volcanic eruption but they are not as frequent as the ones on Venus, you didnt have to tell me thatr I am not a 5 year old. It is true that Earth has oceans and the oceans regulate the tempeture but only on areas close to the oceans amazing but true, if not then why do coastal areas have diferent a climate than continental areas. One example is the mediteranean, Italy is a peninsula and most of it is sorrounded by water except one area, Italy has the so called mediteranean climate, now we take the Czec Republic, it has a totaly diferent climate because it is way further of the sea, it has the so called continental climate, what I tried to say here is that the oceans only influence the climate at areas close to it, the oceans act like a regulator but they do not help with global warming.



As I said before greenhouse gases DO make the planet habitable by natural global warming and YES it is thanks to the sun because it this the one that gives heat BUT this greenhouse gases in an unbalanced and huge amount intensify this global warming to much not letting the sun's heat bounce out of the Earth's atmosphere. In natural global warming the greenhouse gases are in a suitable amount to let the atmosphere just keep part of the suns heat and keep the planet HABITABLE.



I am not going to repeat againg what I said.



YES the sun does alter and regulate Earth's climate but it does NOT unbalance it, it does not unbalance the planets global temperature peak, thats why we say that the planet is at as SUITABLE distance from the sun to maintain life.

yeah i have seen pics from al over th eplace regarding this



I dont hope for the same thing. But its probably are certainty now.


For me I believe the sun has a great effect on us. But then i get confused with data showing that everything major (heating, melting icecaps etc) has just happened in the last 50 years. which i find intresting.
also global warming isnt just a thing for this day and age. I have been looking but im having trouble finding a comment AlanJones made on TV over two months ago now. Bascially he stated "RIsing seas" "melting Ice caps" etc are not just headlines of today. But these headlines appeared in papers from as early as 1890s. in other words people had some idea about global climate change as far back as 100 years ago.

Also i noticed a few comments about volcanoes and their effects on climate. Volcanoes have huge effects on the climate. I dont thing they warm the global but cool it as what happened in the 1880s due to krakatoa

Global climate

In the year following the eruption, average global temperatures fell by as much as 1.2 degrees Celsius.[1] Weather patterns continued to be chaotic for years, and temperatures did not return to normal until 1888.[1] The eruption injected an unusually large amount of sulfur dioxide (SO2) gas high into the stratosphere which was subsequently transported by high-level winds all over the planet. This led to a global increase in sulfuric acid (H2SO4) concentration in high-level cirrus cloud. The resulting increase in cloud reflectivity (or albedo) would reflect more incoming light from the sun than usual, and cool the entire planet until the suspended sulfur fell to the ground as acid precipitation. link

it is thought that either the same volcano or another just as great blew up during the middle ages around the "theoried time of king arthur" this volcano caused what was known as "three years of winter"

The Yellowstone "Super volcano" if it "did erupt" is theoried to cause a global temperature drop so dramatic that it could cause a "semi ice age" (personally i dont think a super volcano exists there but each to their own)

whatever the cause of climate change we need to put plans into place to help people adapt to it. We shouldnt be looking for someone or something to blame but solutions to the problems this mess will cause once we relise we cant stop it or for that matter reverse it.

“the Weather Channel” Mess

January 18, 2007, 5:45 pm | James Spann | Op/Ed, Global Warming

Well, well. Some “climate expert” on “The Weather Channel” wants to take away AMS certification from those of us who believe the recent “global warming” is a natural process. So much for “tolerance”, huh?

I have been in operational meteorology since 1978, and I know dozens and dozens of broadcast meteorologists all over the country. Our big job: look at a large volume of raw data and come up with a public weather forecast for the next seven days. I do not know of a single TV meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype. I know there must be a few out there, but I can’t find them. Here are the basic facts you need to know:

*Billions of dollars...

article-

http://www.jamesspann.com/wordpress/?p=650



I changed the post because the podcasts have some talk on gulf coast weather, and I was concerned about GW discussion- too much "local topic" talk on gulf coast storms.

They say we are not all going to die because of ^CO2 changes. "Greenland had far less ice 300 hundred years ago".

Interesting. I know quite a few UK meteorologists (Met Office, BBC, Meteogroup) and all believe that human activity is responsible for some if not most climate change and support efforts to reduce carbon emissions etc. Though I admit none subscribe to the more alarmist stuff that proliferates in the media.

I don't know of any professional meteorologist - apart from a chap called Piers Corbyn (not sure if he has professional qualifications or not?) - in the UK who believes climate change to be wholly or predominantly due to the sun.


Edit: reply posted before leadbelly went and deleted his post

It seems to me that *scientists* commented that Katrina devastated New Orleans due to the loss of wetlands - which slow hurricanes down. Being as the wetlands around N.O. are disappearing at an alarming rate - those scientists determined the hurricane's speed intensified before reaching landfall, rather than slowing, due to the wetlands disappearing. If that's not impacting weather...what is? Coral reefs act in the same manner wetlands do - they slow wind down.

You have ignored me long enough so it really doesn't make any difference to me that you cannot answer the SPECIFIC questions posed. I shall repeat them for the benefit of anybody else who thinks you should answer them:










You actually almost completed the other question about plant respiration and the fact that they give off BOTH CO2 and 02. The point I was making about your earlier comment was that it was incomplete stating only that plants release 02 (or did you say CO2... to be honest I really cant be bothered checking your statements again).


I am happy to go head-to-head with you in matters of Science (not pseudoscience such as Astrometeorology), and the scientific method. Choose a thread, I'll be happy to oblige you.

If you look at my posts then you will see that I did not say that Venus was IDENTICAL, it is a COROLLARY for Earth due to its size, mass, and distance from the sun.

How long before humans push enough additional CO2 into our atmosphere, and more dangerously, Methane, before our planets DO become identical. When is that critical mass achieved. When does the positive feedback in global warming bring us to that point? If we can do anything whatsoever to reduce that likelihood then I for one, and millions of others, would probably dig deep into our pockets to bring about a new age based on non-polluting, renewable energy sources that have no impact on our atmosphere. And wont you feel ashamed when the peak in solar radiance has passed and the Earth is still warming?
I actually hope to God that you are right, but I know you are wrong

Then prove that I am wrong. So far, Keithisco, you have not. Moreover, you're all over the map with your own comments, and failed to answer a single question I posed to you (though you constantly gripe that I'm not answering you when I have many times already in recent posts.) And, if you continue to say that I am "ignoring" you when I have not, then I will oblige you for real.

Good points Jesspy. Global warming has happened many times before in Earth's history, and this is matched to the activities of the Sun over the centuries. Warming of the planet, and cooling of the planet ~ climate change ~ is not new to our age and certainly is not caused by human activity.

Well, that's one of the major problems the field has in that careerists who say humans are the cause of global warming (at various levels of beliefs of this myth) usually make it a "us" against "them" mentality, when none of that matters when it comes to solar-forced climate change. What is so difficult to believe that the Sun causes global warming?

As for the climate scientists and mets who disagree with the premise of man-made global warming, there are many who do, see ~

http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/45...-REF30b.article

It's articles like that which make me stop and reconsider.


But, I'll tell you where all the real hoopla is. Is is not in the sky-is-falling crowd, or even the business as usual crowd. The fact is, no one can predict the future weather with certainty. Climate, generally speaking, is another matter with broader terms- longer timespan, and multiple growing seasons, for example.

Science has improved crop yields. There are costs involved in farming and ranching, but we manage to produce good quantities in the U.S. Yes, there are risks to every crop, every season. But, looking at the reports I've seen, there are no hard and fast facts on future growing conditions.

The NASA-Goddard studies, and Cambridge University studies I read lately are not simply alarmist. In general, they say if you get warmer temperatures, increased CO2, and more rain- you need to do less irrigating, and more harvesting. Since yields will improve.

On the other hand, warmer temperatures, more CO2, and less rain will decrease production, without irrigation.

Sound familiar?

Less drought, more CO2, and longer growing seasons will benefit cereal grains the most. Which are the world's main staple.

Potatos are a cool weather crop, so their production would move more to Canada, and decrease some percent in the U.S. Citrus will do vastly better with fewer hard freezes.

Sure, you could have a flood, or too much rain, some place. Or, perhaps not. As long as we try to adjust, the future of U.S. farming and ranching looks safe for the rest of the century, either way.

With lots more people, it is harder to keep up with their needs. But, as far as feeding billions more people, it's not the farmer's fault if there are more mouths to feed.

I think the U.S. economy has grown, while polluting less, all the while. If we keep at it, in a reasonable fashion, we can improve and pollute less, and spend less money on energy, relatively speaking.

I have answered all of your questions, when a direct one has been posed, very assiduously.... as you are well aware.
Getting an answer from you however is like talking to a child. You are not lucid, you have no understanding of the questions posed therefore... you just pretend they have not been asked hoping that they will go away. THEY WILL NOT JUST GO AWAY.

Again you act like a child "ignoring" a question, in my case, several questions, displays a level of ignorance that I find breath-taking. As the starter of this thread, and the proponent of your ludicrous pseudoscientific myths... it is your responsibility to answer direct questions put to you.

I for one am glad that, due to the real science behind my questions, you have chosen not to reply further to my questions. The debate on Global warming is far too important to be led by one man's attempts to push pseudoscience down other peoples throats at the expense of real debate.

Obvious Keithco, you're not serious, and no, you've not answered a single question. Go play elsewhere, as climate science is serious, and so am I. When you've learned that, then perhaps you'd learn that when you resort to name-calling, and insults, that you've already lost the debate. Until that time, consider yourself on "ignore" when it comes to me. Cheers.

Well, forecasting is getting better, and as space weather science advances, so will conventional forecasting, which is still quite young. However, global warming is a serious matter, and does affect the entire planet. For the past 27 years of this current global warming cycle, we've seen that in both hemispheres, as well as the results of the radiation storms set off by the Sun that blasted holes in the Earth's ozone layer in the 1980s and 1990s. The NASA-Goddard studies, and Cambridge University studies you mentioned are interesting, but we'll have to see how the climate forecasts pan out in the next several years.

I think that IS the point...We are talking Climate Science...YOU are talking Climate Myth.The debate has not yet begun because you have not been answering poster's questions. You have a Mantra "ONLY THE SUN, ONLY THE SUN" and that is the only "answer" you actually give.
WWW.Teletubbies.com is definitely where you should be posting. Your insults and name calling to , and of, me - for trying o get a straight answer from you is equally galling.



I strongly suspect that some oher serious posters, looking for answers from you would also welcome being on the "ignore list". Thankyou for this respite from idiocy

It is indeed difficult to believe that you actually said that...

"One man", being theodore...who happens to concur with the most reasonable and supportable hypothesis regarding the long term global warming trend (which by the way, is not a matter of debate, as it exists). This is not pseudoscience. Further, he is not one man in this. He is one of many (indeed, the majority of the scientific community) who rationally understand what is known and what is not.

One man pushing pseudoscience is Al Gore, for man made global warming, an hypothesis which is weak at best, has been advanced without the benefit of the scientific method into the a category somewhat beyond theory.

That is bad science.

I hope you enjoy "Live Earth"

Result of radiation storms? I am sorry , but I cannot allow you to spread astrometeorological nonsense where the destruction of the ozone layer is concerned.
If the Radiation storms caused this then it would have affected ALL of the ozone layer.

Courtesy of Wikipedia







AND OF COURSE TO THOROUGHLY DISCREDIT WHAT YOU ARE SAYIMG

You have NOT proved that you are right either, and yes you have been ignoring most of keithisco's questions wich I bilieve that you are unable to respond. You already TOTALY ignored my previous post............ why? Well...... I already know.



Son now all te scientists that dont agree with you are just telling myths? Do you think that is logical? Acutally I think that you are the one that is saying myths......... and abo****ly NO scientists or weather forecasters have said that the Sun is the cause of global warming, so dont tell us myths.




I can't disagree there.



Don't even bother keithisco, he will problably say wikipedia is a lie of the media..... wich is not, as I said before it has been PROVEN that the emision of greenhouse gases by human activity to the atmosphere and it has been proven by scientist and weather forecasters ten times more profesional then him............ sorry Theodore if I have doubted your profesion or what ever it is but you have done it before in this thread with other people because they simply dont agree with you.............



Well if theodore is gonna be like that then we just have to say IT'S NOT THE SUN IT'S NOT THE SUN, and lets see how this ends.

If you are lucky Ghost you will also be on his "ignore" list. ¡Viva España!

It's quite common for those who push this myth of "man-made global warming" on the public to attempt this MID; yet the arguments are weak, and do not make sense. To maintain that humanity is the cause of climate change on a global scale is an assualt on logic, and plain common sense.

Many in the scientific community know that the Sun is the cause, and furthermore, have shown the data that proves it. But, as with many things in the common popular culture, some go about stating things that not only defy the laws of natural astro and geophysics, but also maintain that those who claim the obvious are somehow not being reasonable?

How difficult can it be to see that the Sun is the cause of worldwide climate change?

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

There are those who have written to me who said they believe this myth, but have said that because of the data I presented, my own, and those of others, that they have re-considered their earlier belief that man was the cause, and now are seeing that the Sun indeed drives the Earth's climate. All it takes is a reasonable approach, looking at the data, and the facts that prove that this is so, for a person to come to the conclusion which obviously points directly to the Sun as the cause of global warming.

Agreed.
It is not that difficult to see the most plausible and logical explanation.

What is difficult is combating a media driven mythology, based on bad science, and being pushed on a public that is largely ignorant of science and its principals!

We have observed in some detail the temperature fluctuations over the past 100 years or so. We've never been able to observe in this detail before. We are concluding that a momentary spike in temperatures over the past couple decades is indicative of man's influence on the climate. The idea is ridiculous.

What this sort of reasoning is akin to is looking with a magnifying glass at a single letter on a page cotaining 600 words, and claiming to know the content of the page!

It is really that simple, and the idea is really that untenable, given what is actually known.

That is precisely the point. I often have to remind conventional weather forecasters of this, that in order to forecast in the long-range, one has to do so with a telescope, not a magnifying glass. Some people have only a short-range outlook, that they scan immediately on single points on a huge map without first taking in the entire scale of the map itself. This requires stepping back, and viewing the length, width, and scope of the Earth, for instance, and then, then the region where the Earth lives ~ which is in space. This is where all our climate and weather begins.

Study of solar science, one of my specialites in the forecasting work I conduct is fascinating. There is so much we've learned about the Sun already, and still, the Sun and its wide variety of astrophysical activities continues to amaze us.

Quote from MID re: Apollo Landings:



I think essentially you fail to grasp that Astrometeorology being based in Astrology is the REAL pseudoscience here.
As it only seems to be you and Theodore posting now, I see no point in trying to uphold any attempt at extracting any useful scientific info. Neither of you aare able to do so, so I shall say "Good day" to you both and look for a thread where real science is being debated.

What do you know of Astrometeorology to even state that, much less grasp it? Jeez. I'll take the words of astrometeorologists like Brahe, Kepler, and Franklin ~ real scientists ~ over yours anytime. Good day.

Keithisco wants a debate. There aren't too many scientists lurking here. And who else is really qualified? As for an open forum exchange between those who have formed opinions, that seems more to be what is going on. As for myself, I usually try to consult USG resources to confirm or cast doubt on somethings regarding climate.

I think Keith has some good points on what methods are used to arrive at conclusions.

Anyway, my whole take on the climate is that the wheels of governments everywhere are already in motion on this topic- CO2 abatement. We can sit here and argue, but the train has left the station. Carbon taxes in the U.S. are being considered, CO2 cap and trade policies are being formulated by both private and public groups, and even the oil industry is making hay on CO2 storage and recovery.

The rest is an academic exercise- except that policy will hinge on economic impacts, insofar as debate goes. That is how I see it.

As for Theo and MID, and their position to the contrary of AGW, I can see their reasoning. For example- Here and Here.


And this NASA article-

GREATER SOLAR ACTIVITY MAY BRING U.S. MORE GRAY DAYS


NASA-funded Earth Science researchers have discovered that during periods of increased solar activity much of the United States becomes cloudier, possibly because the jet stream in the troposphere moves northward causing changes to regional climate patterns.


The new study supports earlier findings by suggesting there is a relationship between increased cloud cover over the United States and the solar maximum, the most intense stage of activity on the Sun.

Previous studies have shown that during the solar maximum, the jet stream in the Northern Hemisphere moves northward. The jet stream guides storms and plays an important role in cloudiness, precipitation and storm formation in the United States.

Dr. Petra Udelhofen, a NASA-funded researcher at the Institute for Terrestrial and Planetary Atmospheres at the State University of New York at Stony Brook, is the lead author of a paper that discusses this topic, appearing in the July 1 issue of Geophysical Research Letters.

"Based on these results and because the location of the jet stream influences cloudiness," said Udelhofen, "we suggest that the jet stream plays an important role in linking solar variability and cloud cover."

The jet stream is a ribbon of fast-moving air in the upper troposphere that blows from west to east. Storms beneath the jet stream follow its path. A shift in the jet stream can alter the location of clouds and precipitation across the U.S.

The troposphere is the region of the atmosphere that extends from the Earth's surface out to about 50,000 feet and is the focus of local, regional and global weather research. The stratosphere extends above the troposphere to about 150,000 feet and is the region where the ozone layer is formed.

The Sun's energy output varies over an 11-year cycle, sending more ultraviolet radiation towards the Earth during times of increased activity. While the Sun's total energy output only varies by about one-tenth of one percent between periods of low and high solar activity, the ultraviolet radiation that affects ozone production in the stratosphere can change by more than 10 percent.

Ultraviolet radiation is absorbed in the Earth's stratosphere and creates the protective ozone layer. When the ozone absorbs ultraviolet radiation, it warms the stratosphere, which may affect movement of air in the troposphere where clouds form.

Solar cycle effects of ultraviolet radiation absorption by ozone in the stratosphere, its impact on atmospheric circulation and the location of storm tracks have been the subject of recent Earth Science research.

"Our results show that cloudiness varies on average by about two percent between years of solar maximum and minimum. In most parts of the U.S., cloud cover is slightly greater in years of solar maximum," noted Udelhofen.

Though more investigation is needed to better understand just how changes in the Sun's ultraviolet energy output is linked to atmospheric winds, the study helps people identify potential large-scale mechanisms that affect local and regional climates.

Scientists continue to investigate mechanisms that may link solar variability with weather. These new results support the idea of a link between stratospheric chemistry and meteorology, and support other recent theoretical studies associated with the impact of stratospheric chemistry on climate change and weather.

"It is important for future studies to identify and explain in detail the link between solar variability, ozone, the atmospheric circulation and cloud cover," Udelhofen said.

Of course, the subject of 21st Century climate change use models that project heating. That in turns bring on models that project both rain, and drought. The assertions are that increases in either one are possible, and that the status quo is not going to continue.

So, while one may argue that increased clouds are anti-thetical to global warming, they are in fact one of the results projected by AGW. The problem is that scientists produce reports that see possible solar activity (more or fewer faculae) as influencing rain and drought patterns.

The following graphic illustrates the point. It puts forth that-

A period of solar-irradiance increase creates a warm ocean anomaly in the Pacific Warm Pool.

Two years later, a solar-irradiance decrease creates a cool ocean water anomaly. By then, the 2-year-old WOW anomaly has moved northward and is causing a ridge and trough to form in the mean jetstream position. The atmospheric dynamics of the jetstream create dry conditions east of the ridge, and rainy conditions east of the trough.

5 years after the intial warming of the western tropical Pacific Ocean, the WOW anomaly and the trailing COW anomaly have resulted in a jetstream pattern that is producing excessive rains and flooding over the Mississippi River Basin. As the ocean anomalies continue to move eastward in the North Pacific Drift Current, drought conditions eventually would move into North America about 5 years after the COW formation.

not trying to get another debate going but i was wondering if the mayans new about climate change in association with the sun. I mean the guys worked out a suns cycle maybe they knew weather patterns and stuff

but yeah im still for the sun as the major cause

The only thing that doesnt make sense here is that the sun causes global warming, it is totaly absurd. You cannot say that many in the scientific comunity know that the Sun is the cause because it just isnt true, MANY is the scietific comunity know and have prooved that the emsions of greenhouuse gases are the cause for global warming. Again this laws that you are saying havent been stated here.



Its not dificult to see, I just directly know that it is not true because it is a complete nonesense, it makes no sense in any way-



The problem is that it simply isnt logical and it doesnt have any sense in anyway, it is totaly absurd that the sun is the cause of global warming, and it hasnt been prooved.

You dont have to know so much of Astrometeorology as you state here you "know" to simply proove and see that the sun is in NO way causing global warming but greenhouse gases.



You dont have to be a scientist in this thread to get just a simple idea, the Sun is NO WAY is causing global warming and it will never do. Greenhouse gases are the real cause and the way that they react with the atmosphere, it is very simpple quimics and fisics.

Jeez. Are you even aware of what it is that you are saying?

Correct Leadbelly. Excellent posts by the way. We are seeing this at present, with the heavy rains, and subsequent flooding taking place in Texas-Oklahoma, along with the drought conditions in the Southeastern U.S. I forecasted this two years ago in my "extremes of weather" long-range forecast for the U.S., when there was drought in Texas-Oklahoma, and the farmers were begging for rain. Now they are praying the rains and flooding will stop. We are seeing more extremes of climate, and weather in shorter spans of time. In 2005, the climate was dry as a bone in Texas, with very little precipitation and failing crops. Now look, heavy rains and floods.

We are currently in the 27th year of global warming with about 8 years left of this particular solar-forced global warming cycle before it ends. This pattern will continue, with drought conditions persisting in the SE, and heavy rains in the Mississippi River Basin, causing floods, through to about the year 2010, more or less, according to my read on solar and planetary flux models relating to climate events on Earth such as heavy rains, floods, and drought.

We will continue to witness these contrasts of drought and heavy precipitation, nearly side-by-side, happening at the same times throughout the world. It has been raining hard with floods in Europe as well, specifically England, and in other regions of the world, alongside expanding droughts. All of this is astronomically forced with the Sun as the main player.

Here's an interesting take on drought and astrometeorological forecasting ~

http://www.docweather.com/index.php?sec=2&...how&enid=14

If we're altering the oceans does it not follow we're altering weather patterns, thus climate, too? If storms are more forceful due to depletion, caused by us, of eco systems - then we're directly responsible for that climate change - do you agree or not? Or do you still believe we're too insignificant to alter the oceans, never mind climate?

This should've been directed to Theodore....

I am sorry but I am VERY aware of what I am saying, maybe you should read posts once in a while huh?

Sadly the world is gonna die due to people like you who only believe in fairy tales and not in the real stuff. I have always said that global warming is unstopable and this is one of the reasons why. You know......... UM got a myth forum.

Here are some stuff i've collected from various sources. I hope you will find it as interesting as i did.

The current rate of CO2 increase is some 30X higher than anything recorded in the ice cores, meaning that what took 1000 years in the past is happening in about 35 years now. When cows and other ruminants release methane, they are getting the carbon for the methane from grasses, which photosynthetically fixed the CO2 from the atmosphere (and the methane gets converted back to CO2 within a few decades in the atmosphere) - so it's a different proposition from using buried fossil fuels for transportation.The rise in CO2 is due to the burning of fossil fuels. Fossil-fuel carbon has a different isotopic composition than other sources; it's depleted in C-13 (because its origin is organic plant matter) and depleted in C-14 (because it's been buried underground for millions of years). The isotopic composition of carbon in atmospheric CO2 is changing in exactly the way we'd expect if the source is the burning of fossil fuels. The natural carbon dioxide is balanced by things like the respiration/photosynthesis cycle. We're adding extra that the system can't take out in a reasonable amount of time, and as a result, CO2 has increased 40% since the industrial revolution began. And the new CO2 is mostly from fossil fuels, not the biosphere, because it's deficient in carbon-14 (i.e., very old).

"You find it remarkable that CO2 is such a powerful warming agent and yet is such a small fraction of the atmosphere. You are not alone in finding this strange. Humanity is changing the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere too (we can even measure these changes) but these changes are tiny because there is so much oxygen. But we can and are changing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere profoundly.

The main point to realize here is that most of the atmosphere -- the nitrogen and oxygen molecules and the argon atom -- do not interact significantly with radiation at all. After these three, water vapor and carbon dioxide are the next in line. If you can accept this fact (which has been very well established for over a century), then it might be less strange to you that carbon dioxide and water vapor are the big players in setting the temperature of the Earth."



Some argue that CO2 is only a small part of the greenhouse gases and that water vapour is much more important.

" H2O is a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2 and is present in greater quantities. But the amount of water vapor in the air is set by the ambient temperature and the relative humidity, not by anything we do.

The average residence time of a molecule of water vapor in the atmosphere is 9 days; for carbon dioxide it's more like 200 years. We could double water vapor tomorrow and almost all the excess would have rained out in less than a month. Carbon dioxide, however, will stay up there a long, long time. "

CO2 is not the only thing that affects climate or Earth's temperature. It is also affected by other greenhouse gases, changes in solar luminosity, cloud cover, aerosols, and orbital changes, but more CO2 yields a hotter ground

Our oceans are always slightly alkaline. As the volume of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases so too does the amount dissolving in the sea. Lately, the ocean is taking more than it gives; the oceans are absorbing about half the CO2 emitted by humans, and are acidifying as a consequence. The effects of decreased calcification in microscopic algae and animals could impact marine food webs and, combined with other climatic changes in salinity, temperature, and upwelled nutrients, could substantially alter the biodiversity and productivity of the ocean.

As humans continue along the path of unintended CO2 sequestration in the surface oceans, the impacts on marine ecosystems will be direct and profound. The kind of plankton we have nowadays are pteropods, evolved in the last 200k years, relatively quite recently. They're more efficient at removing CO2 because they're global rather than restricted to shallow near-continental shelf waters, and because the shells sink. They're less efficient because they can't make shells once the pH of the ocean reaches where it's expected to be by 2100

And, about volcanoes:

"If volcanoes pumped out vast amounts of CO2, don't you think we'd see spikes in the CO2 record? But we dont"

This are some of the most important changes that i know of, one also have to remember that any changes that we make to CO2 will take about fifty to a hundred(?) years to show itself as a sinking temperature.

and last but not least : manmade changes to CO2 alone, aint the whole truth of our current weather, it´s more alike the catalyst that pivot the balance. The true problem as i see it is that we fast are running out of alternatives. And i agree with India when they answered the western community that India will not curb its greenhouse gas emissions as long as the West continues to treat it as a 'second class global citizen' with less right to pollute than the developed world.

"The prime minister [Dr Manmohan Singh] has said that while pursuing our policies of development and poverty alleviation, we will ensure that our per capita emissions will never exceed developing countries," Mr Ghosh added.

"This is our challenge to the West. 'You do the best you can, and we'll match it'. If the West thinks that India will subscribe to any long-term solution that is not based on per capita emissions then it is very misguided."

The whole idea of selling and buying rights to contaminate is just another example of short sided self interest from the industrialized world. And as long as we close our eyes the problem will only grow, and you know what

when we're forced to recognize it, it will probably be to late..

And if you're considering methane as the prime subject for global warming you can check what i wrote in this thread.

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...3562&st=570

But hey It's all one, right. We need to do something anyway.

Definition of Astrometeorlogy:

Courtesy "The Free Dictionary"


Courtesy "Astrology Weekly"