That article is solely about Solar brightness. Are you aware of the magnitude of the Sun's many activities that force the Earth's climate? The Sun does a lot more than just shine. It gives off a wide variety of radiation than just light and heat. The Sun also emits powerful radio waves, ultraviolet rays, X-rays. A giant magnet, the Sun's immense magnetism stretches the length of the solar system and has very powerful effects on Earth which receives all its energy from the Sun.

http://www.john-daly.com/solar/solar.htm

You're conceding that the wavelength-integrated radiation flux from the sun is not the primary reason the earth is currently warming? Now we're making progress.

Same lame arguments that got your thread closed by the moderators on this forum:


http://www.geo-earth.com/forums/index.php?...5939&st=105


In fact you appear to have cut and pasted the same comments to this forum

Well, the Sun has many activities that directly impact the Earth, such as its electromagnetic radiation. We could talk about more advanced levels on atmospheric radiation, and radiative transfer, for instance. You have to remember that the majority of conventional science is still behind the times when it comes to much of the research that had been done on solar-forcing of the Earth's climate. Many conventional scientists, especially the careerists who dominate the IPCC have a vested interest in trying to "prove" man-made global warming.

Since 1988, the IPCC has not.

The only thing they've done is continue to issue press releases, and hold conferences on "how it might be done" but they have not proven that humanity is the cause of worldwide climate change, or, global warming. Current technology is proving otherwise ~ that yes, indeed, the Sun is the cause, and right now, the "debate," if you can call it that, is clouded by pop-culture myths that some, including some of the people who've posted on this thread, continue to push, despite the fact that they have not proven that man is the cause of global warming. The scientists who man the IPCC's committees certainly have not proven it in the least.

According to physicist Ronald B. Smith, "On occasion, it is useful to describe the total amount of radiation, without regard for its spectral distribution. An example of such a quantity is the Solar Constant; the total radiant energy, per unit time and area, received from the sun, at the position of the earth’s orbit. This quantity has a value of S=1380 Watts/m2. A spectrally resolved solar constant, describing how much each wavelength contributes to the sun’s radiant energy would have units of Watts/m2/micron."

"The term flux (or irradiance) refers to the angularly unresolved radiation; i.e. the total radiation reaching a surface without regard to the direction from which it comes. The human eye, with frosted glasses, would detect this quantity. Only a single brightness value at each wavelength is needed to describe the flux. The measurement or calculation of flux is always done with reference to an oriented surface.

Rays approaching a surface at right angles make a full contribution to the flux while slanting rays make a smaller contribution. This reduction in contribution is described by the cosine of the angle between the “surface normal vector” and the incoming ray. As an example, consider a horizontal section of the earth’s surface. The point directly above this surface, its “zenith point”, serves as reference for the “zenith angle” of the incoming radiation. If the sun’s beam has a zenith angle of 30 degrees (i.e. the sun is 30 degrees away from the zenith point) the flux striking the surface will be F=S*cos(zenith angle)=1380*cosine(30)= 1195 watts/m2. At sunrise and sunset, the solar zenith angle is 90 degrees and the flux hitting a horizontal surface is zero.

"For those of us who reside on planet earth, the absorptive property of the earth’s atmosphere is an important factor in remote sensing. Unfortunately, the earth’s atmosphere is opaque to large portions of the electromagnetic spectrum. Radiation reaching the observer in these wavelengths will have been absorbed and re-emitted by the atmosphere and will not contain information about the object we are trying to observe. Luckily, there are several discrete portions of the spectrum for which the atmosphere is transparent. We call these spectral segments “atmospheric windows” or just “windows”.

"The most important windows are:1) The visible/NIR window (0.4 to about 1 micron), 2) The IR window ( in the thermal IR between 8 and 12 microns) and 3) the microwave/radio window ( wavelengths longer than about 1 cm.). Almost all remote sensing of “objects” uses these windows. The non-window wavelengths are being used for remote sensing of the atmosphere itself (i.e. mapping out its temperature, density and chemical composition). The human eye has evolved to use the visible window. The location of the windows is determined by the gases existing in the atmosphere. For earth, these include the air (N2, O2 and Argon) and the greenhouse gases (H2O,CO2, O3, N2O, etc.)"

Here's a good link to MYSTIC that might help you to see how much we are learning about the Sun's impact on our atmosphere ~
http://www.bmayer.de/index.html?mystic.html&1

Yes, we do have impact on the environment, no doubt Graylady, however, it is not significant enough when considering the astrophysical causes of major, planet-wide climate change. Making the quantum leap from pollution to planetary climate change is not viable, and there's no data to support this whatsoever.

I agree with you that humans do pollute the atmosphere, yes, and the surface of the planet, yes, but not enough to cause the kind of global climate change that has been recorded many times before any industrial human pollution. Moreover, all the Earth's weather and climate begins first in space, and we as humans cannot control that in the slightest. All we can do is to improve long-range forecasting, and to adapt in advance to those climate changes ahead for the world.

Well, you know, the troublemakers out there spend more time trying to cause trouble rather than learning some basic science. It shows in their posts. Ignore them. They love the "blame game" because it keeps them from using their free library cards. Who knew?

As for the Sun: yes, the coming solar maxima will be historic. With the Sun's recycling of its magnetic waves, this one from the 1958 event, we are entering the fourth quarter of this particular global warming cycle that began in 1980. By the time it's over, we will have seen some incredible climate and weather events worldwide into the mid-2010s.

I don't understand. Why did you quote some supplement to an introductory physics course in response to my post? Particularly after downplaying the importance of luminosity (and pretending "wavelength-integrated" means someone is neglecting the sun's "powerful radio waves, ultraviolet rays, X-rays")--I assume you're familiar with the relationship between luminosity and flux.

To make sure I can follow your pretzel-like contortions--you're telling me now that the sun is the primary cause of the current climate change primarily via the solar magnetic field? Or am I misstating your position?

I'm not downplaying anything. And there's nothing "pretzel-like" in my comments. You want to debate, sure, but come to the debate with all 52 cards in your deck. What I am saying is that you are underestimating the Sun. Moreover, you chop the Sun up into these little singular pieces. You cite a single article on brightness as what? A reason to discount solar-forcing of the Earth's climate merely on brightness? You'll have to do much better than that Startraveler.

The Sun is basically a giant magnet, and a very powerful one at that. The whole universe is magnetic, and the forces of magnetism are everywhere ~ including right inside our heads, beside us, above us, and below us. The Sun emits a powerful magnetic solar wind from its corona and is made up of gases millions of degrees in temperature and that are ionized into a kind of plasma. The solar wind emits radially and rotates around the Sun. The Earth is flooded with this, and we live from the effects of this giant magnet called the Sun. The Earth's magnetic field shields against the magnetic solar winds and deflects much of it above the stratosphere at about 20 km. However, the Earth's shield is not always stable, or fixed, because the levels of interaction between the solar wind and Earth's magnetism fluctuates. We see this in the fluxes of the Interplanetary Magnetic Field (IMF).

See ~ http://spaceweather.com/glossary/imf.html

The Earth, its climate, and all life on Earth are very sensitive to these magnetic fluctuations and it is the core reason why we are affected by astronomical celestial bodies and their angular relationships to the Earth, according to the principles of classical scientific astrology. In essense, mathematics. It is alive, and we all fall under its influences.

Are you familiar with long-range climate forecasting and the relationship between the Sun's torque relative to the Earth? If you want to know what solar-forcing is, then refer back to the first page of this thread. And, it would be helpful for you to perhaps re-read some introductory physics, yes, considering the fact that you cited a single article without even mentioning the many other activities of the Sun that impacts the Earth's climate. Like I said, you'll have to do better than that, and a review of introductory physics would be helpful, that's all. It's nothing personal, but going back to the basics is a good thing.

I've been under the false impression that this thread about the sun concerned variations in solar output (the solar contributions to climate considered by climatologists and interested astronomers). It's becoming increasingly clear that keithisco was correct and this thread is moving in a decidedly pseudoscientific direction.



Indeed. I'm interested in the pieces that generate appreciable climate forcings on the earth.



I'd be interested in seeing the empirical data you claim shows solar magnetism and torque are responsible for the current climate change.

Hey, that's your personal choice ~ what to believe, but they have no impact on the scientific facts. Your "impressions" are of your own making and control. No one is responsible for them but you. I suggest before you get anymore "interested" in the "pieces" that you might want to first consider and study the whole. This is a major problem you seem to have ~ looking at things in "pieces," before taking in the whole first.

I've posted a long list of technical references, scientific links, and scientific data on solar-forcing of the Earth's climate. This term that some of you use ~ "pseudoscience" ~ to me, is an excuse, or security blanket with which some use whenever their own predispositions are somehow upset. That is childish, and not scientific in the least. Usually, I've found, that those who use that term, "pseudoscience" are scared of something. What? Don't ask me. They seem to have these "ideas" in their heads about what "astrology" is, but when you try to get them to tell you, all you get back is more of the same ~ attacks, biases, and no clue about what they are talking about. Those who've used it, I've found, clearly are not informed about the topics with which they apply the term.

I forecast long-range climate and weather, and have done so for years using the principles of classical astrology's branch of meteorology, which it invented, along with astronomy (stellar cartography.) Today it is called astrometeroology, which is forecasting climate and weather via astronomical means. It's been around for centuries, and in its time, was called meteorology. Just where do you think meteors come from?

Just because you might not know anything about astrometeorology, etc., does not mean that it is a "pseudoscience." All it means is that you don't know anything about it. That's all. Want to learn? Ok, then, but that's up to you. There's enough data out there. I suggest you drop the pop-culture "astrology" outlook and get to the real thing which is nothing like what you may "think" is classical scientific astrology.

Some noted Astrometeorologists included Tycho Brahe, Johannes Kepler, Galileo, Benjamin Franklin. People who were serious scientists, and astrologers. There was nothing "pseudo" about them. These were astronomical forecasters. Those of the 20th century were known as mavericks, and challenged the conventional forecasters who could not (and still cannot) accurately forecast long-range climate and weather.

http://www.geocities.com/astro_weather/mavericks.htm

Here, I've posted this link several times on how basic astrometeorological forecasting is done. I'll post the link again ~

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

You can see my proof, conclusions, and etc., on global warming, what causes it, etc., etc., on this thread, especially the first page of the thread. I don't think having to constantly run around saying the same things to some of you here is viable when all you have to do is read. The empirical data is here, and there's tons more scientific data out there as well. However, there are limits to the attention spans of some who seem not to be able to read them considering their outlandish comments and foolish statements. You can see some of these silly comments posted by them on this thread for example. However, here are some links that should help you ~

http://www.john-daly.com/po.htm

http://www.john-daly.com/topevnts.htm

http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/percyseymour1.html

http://www.john-daly.com/solar/solar.htm

keithisco, this is a discussion forum, so of course you are free to disagree and debate any point you like, however what has happened on another forum is completely irrelevant here.

I would also draw your attention to this from the terms and conditions of this site:


Whilst not quite a one word post, it would certainly seem to me that the post I have quoted falls within the spirit of this rule.

Solar-forced climate change is not a "fairy tale" and it is people like me who are working to make things better ~ it's called planetary improvement, and there's no room in it for those interested only in "blaming." The only "myth" I see is in blaming humanity for global warming. It's never been true since the creation of the world. It isn't true now. And it never will be true. Only the Sun can warm the earth, and it has been doing so since the Earth came into being.

You've indeed provided an extensive bibliography in that first post. Let's examine what some of those papers contain. It's easier if we group them by subject matter:

Random physics



Luminosity and Solar Irradiance


There are probably a few more sources on luminosity but this is already getting tiresome. Yes, the variations in how bright the sun is affect how much energy is getting to the planet and, ultimately, climate. The relevant question is whether the current period of warming can be accounted for by this; one of your sources gives a rough estimate of it covering maybe 50% of the effect, though (as I already posted above) a more expansive review of the literature and careful look indicates that solar irradiance might not be all that big of a contributor to the current change.

Sun meets atmosphere/meteorology via magnetism


There are several more papers in your list that (if they touch on climate at all, unlike these ones) suggest that the climate could be affected by alterations in cloud cover due to the suggested mechanisms by which current density can impact condensation (there are also a few suggesting cosmic rays can have a similar impact). Interesting, possibly a contributor to what's happening now but to suggest that "the empirical data is here" in support of this idea is a stretch and certainly not supported by the resources you've provided.


This Landscheidt guy--the only references to torque


That's more than enough of this. If you've got the definitive data to support whatever it is you're suggesting, you haven't presented it yet.



Did you not just suggest to me in another thread the other day that cosmic magnetic fields determine the best time to do one's Christmas shopping? Why do you think the word "pseudoscience" would (charitably) be whipped out in regard to this kind of thinking?



And Kepler's aunt (and almost his mother) was burned at the stake as a witch. What am I supposed to take away from this? Should I remember the mysticism and supersitition that dominated a few centuries ago?

Burned at the stake as a witch? What should you "take away from this?" I don't know. Johannes Kepler discovered the laws of planetary motion. Maybe Kepler's astronomical laws of celestial mechanics don't mean anything since his "aunt" (and almost his mother) was burned at the stake as a witch, huh? Is that what you are implying? Jeez.

There were people like Kepler (and most likely some of his relatives) who maintained that the Earth was round, not flat, which most of the populace believed at the time, much like they do about the superstition of "man-made global warming" now. People who said the earth was round, and orbited the Sun, were considered "mad" and were called "witches" if they were females. As for your other weird comments, I'll leave them alone...

You would be very hard-pressed to even attempt to disprove the principles of astrometeorology, which has been well-tested for its accuracy over the centuries. I would suggest that you look at the educational links I provided and start there if you are serious about knowing more about astronomical climate and weather forecasting.

For instance, Jennifer Lawson writes this about one of the astrometeorologists I had to study when I was learning astronomical weather forecasting back in the late 1970s and early 1980s ~

"In the twentieth century there have been many notable long-range weather forecasters including Australia's Inigo Jones whose prediction (in the early 1940's) of a devastating drought that would hit Australia in the early 1980's, coincided with the severe El Nino of 1981-1982 and the worst drought experienced in Australia in over 100 years. Both Inigo Jones and his successor Lennox Walker have become household names throughout Australia.

Inigo Jones published his work in a book titled My Nephelo-Coccygia. Inigo Jones' research into Australian weather cycles extended a 66 year period. Jones began collecting rainfall data for Australia, soon after leaving school and settling on a farm in Queensland called Cromahurst - now known as Cromahurst Observatory.

Jones developed an interest in weather forecasting through his father, a civil engineer who was educated and trained in London and whose teachers included Faraday and Admiral Fitzroy. Faraday developed electromagnetism and Fitzroy devised the first system of weather stations, which led to the establishment of the British Weather Service.

Jones maintained that the seasons are governed by a series of cycles ruled by the actions of the magnetic fields of the four major planets (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune) acting on the corpuscular content of space which is itself an emanation from the stars, and that in this way are repeated, but in new combinations, the events as they were when the planets were similarly placed; and that these are further modified by the immediate sunspot changes which though associated with the same planetary cycles have yet a certain amount of variability which has to be watched as it develops but is still not entirely erratic though difficult.

Jones theorized that the whole solar system is simply a vast electromagnetic machine which is automatically controlled by the magnetic fields of the planets; this applies among other things, to the seasons, so that if we know what the conditions were when the same planets stood in the same relation, then we can know what conditions will arise now. It is simply a matter of having the complete data; and to give advice as best we may; hoping each year that advice must of needs become more useful and of greater national importance.

Jones began researching the work of a Professor Wilson, of Glasgow University, in 1777, who found that the sun moved through space toward a point in the heavens in the Northern sky near the bright star Vega, the brightest star of the constellation named the Lyre of Apollo that is towards the point of celestial longitude known as the Eighteenth Hour of Right Ascension.

Vega in Capricorn in very close to the galactic center at 28 degrees of Sagittarius ( near the clouds of Sagittarius) which Jones refers to as the Eighteenth Hour of Right Ascension or the Solar Apex. This point is also maximum north. Conversely, the Solar Vertex at the Sixth Hour of Right Ascension is near 28 Gemini or early Cancer degrees, which is the maximum south position .

Jones noted that sunspot minima occurred when Jupiter reached the Eighteenth Hour of Right Ascension, or 28 Sagittarius, which invariably coincided with more or less severe droughts in Eastern Australia. As droughts vary a great deal in duration and intensity, it was found that when a second planet was near this same line the drought was more severe. If a third planet was also crossing near this point it was worse still, while if the whole four were there its duration and intensity reached maximum. The four planets passed across this line in succession about 1820 and there was then apparently a long series of dry years which were so severe that when expeditions were made into the Australian inland, rivers were found to be dried up.

Dr. Karl Jansky of the Bell Telephone Lab in New York, informed Jones that he found a certain form of static that maintained its situation right throughout the year at the point of Eighteenth Hour of Right Ascension, which is the astronomical longitude of the point towards which the sun is moving.

Jones concluded therefore that this point and the crossings of Jupiter near it could be regarded as the datum point for the cycles and this made a prime definite point in his research. There were however, still some anomalies and the most difficult of these were the secondary droughts that came near sunspot maxima.

Jones explains how Sunspots directly affect weather patterns.

'The evidence connection between the variation in the sunspots in the intensities of the horizontal magnetic force which causes the variations in the direction of the compass as well as the constantly varying dip of the needle and the varying intensities of the polar aurorae - another magnetic affect - have long been well known. From all these we get a rational picture of a world controlled by this all-pervading magnetic action and on this basis it has been possible to make another definite advance and it has been recently been possible to show that the effects postulated from the stage of the work as shown, were not unique as had been frequently objected, but that these characters were found in general throughout the universe.'

From the general nature of the ozone and the fact that it is built up by the ultra-violet rays of the spectrum but disintegrated by a ray in another spectrum that is especially strong in the sunspots and that the minima occur when the sunspot zones and the earthly hemisphere concerned are more directly turned to each other, it is easily seen that it is the sunspots and the sunspots alone that are responsible. Had it been the general rays of the sun then there should be a general minimum in January or just after when the sun in nearest the earth, at perihelion, which occurs in the first week in January. However, the effect is opposite in opposite hemispheres and occurs in the autumn in each case. It also explains for the first time why the spring and autumn differ so materially and shows that the sunspots are the special vehicle for the conveyance of special and most important characters from the Sun to the Earth'.

Jones initially worked with the cycles of Jupiter and Saturn which were considered to be of greatest importance, but then added Uranus and Neptune making the cyclical theory even more complex.

When the discovery came that there was not only Jupiter but the four major planets concerned the problem took on another aspect altogether.

"It was clearly shown that in that case an exact repeat was not to be expected within historic experience let alone that of any living man as the repeat of Jupiter and Saturn to the same position would take about 800 years and in the case of Uranus and Neptune it would run into thousands. However, there was a sufficient likeness in the seasons to make an estimate, based on any of them timed from their critical position, sufficiently correct to be of distinct practical value."

He found that a a single cycle was not the answer, but that several cycles used together gave more accurate results in weather forecasting. Although the 22 year cycle worked with some modification, along with the Bruckner cycles of 35 and 36 year cycles (3 revolutions of Jupiter) where polarity reversed , it was the 71 year cycle (6 revolutions of Jupiter) where polarities were the same, that he found worked best.

Jones saw the Sun as part the star-field having a fairly constant magnetic field round the sun, noting that the cycles of spots waxed and waned and drew back to the suns waist-line in tune with the similar period that Jupiter takes to revolve around the sun itself.

When Jupiter crossed near the Solar Apex (28 Sag/early Cap) the spots were weakest and nearest sunspot minima. As Jupiter moved out of the line of advance, the spots again grew in number and power.

The influence became stronger when other great planets like Saturn tailed Jupiter, or moved in front of the suns forward passage through the star cluster.

Inigo Jones also deduced that major planets, especially Jupiter, tended to obstruct the magnetic stream from the star-field, and had a pronounced affect on weather and Australia's severe drought cycles. Planets revolving around the sun in large orbits, all dragged along in the suns huge northerly orbit, round an unknown center of gravity, somewhere in the star cluster, overtake and drop behind one another in orderly succession throughout the centuries. Only at intervals of thirty odd years do Jupiter and Saturn get into line to exert a combined Sunspot and Weather effect; and at much longer intervals Uranus and Neptune also get into line with them, singly and also all together.

Researching historical weather disasters, i.e floods, droughts, disasters and rainy years dating back several thousand years, Jones observed that these events were linked to planetary combinations, in front of the Suns forward path, and behind that path.

According to Rev Bousfield, Hon. consultant at Crohamurst Observatory "Jones Working Hypothesis" was founded upon the previous research done by Birkeland, an American scientist, who made experiments to determine the mechanism of the Sun that produces spots, which in turn control weather and atmospheric conditions, magnetic storms, aurora, rainfall and drought."

Kepler's work on the angular relationship of the Sun, Moon, and planets upon the Earth, its climate and weather has been constantly proven. For instance, Lawson also cites the work of the American astrophycist Dr. Charles Greely Abbott ~

"Astrophysicist and head of the Smithsonian Institute, Washington D.C. from 1928-1944, Dr. Greely Abbott was fascinated with the planetary / solar interaction on our weather patterns. In 1953 after years of research and compiled weather data, Dr. Abbott publicly announced that there was an 'indisputable connection between solar variations, certain angles of the planets and terrestrial weather.'

His findings were not well received by the American scientific community, who refused to even give him a fair hearing. Anything connected with planets was taboo. And so Dr. Abbott finally published his findings on astrometeorology in Europe, where scientific attitudes were not quite as biased as their American counterparts."

All these astrometeorologists, including Jones, followed in the tradition of past astrometeorologists and scientists like Johannes Kepler, whose "aunt" and maybe his "mother" where considered "witches." Despite if their empirical findings were considered "taboo" or not.

Besides, the profane said, how can anything to do with the "planets" have anything to do with us?

Well, duh, is the Earth not a planet too?

You see, Science is about exploration and discovery ~ not soothing the predispositions of the profane, who were called that in past times because they were unlearned in these matters, yet took others to task because it "upset" them. Have you not learned yet that if you had lived in those times, and expressed the things that you now know to be true (laws of celestial mechanics, the earth is round, orbits the Sun, basic laws of physics, etc., etc.) that you also might have been considered "taboo" and either led to the gallows or burned at the stake? Does that make any of these cosmic and scientific truths any less valid?

As for my references StarTraveler, I doubt you've actually read them, since you dismiss them as "non-definitive." You do say that you won''t "pretend" to have read them. Well, I have, and I suggest that if you want to "dismiss" them you could at least take the time to read them, don't you think?

All you do is state them as non-definitive. Under what authority, what expertise do you claim to be able to do so? I haven't heard it, much less seen you present anything to disprove solar-forcing of the Earth's climate. If you are a student as you say you are, then, as a former student, I would advise you to read and study before claiming to be able to "dismiss" something you're not qualified to dismiss. Be a student first, then learn to practice, and that will make you a pro, and then, later, with enough experience ~ a teacher. The least you could do is actually read the references, and the links I provided to discover what it is that you are "dismissing" based on your expertise?

Do me a favor StarTraveler: when you get serious about the science of climate change, we can talk, but with this Kepler's aunt business, and your other comments, I think I'll leave you, well... to your own "senses." Good night, and good luck. Cheers!

You can usually tell when a person's hand has been played by what they choose to respond to in a post. I had the courtesy to look over a sizable chunk of your reading list for you and all you can conjure is a response to a flippant comment about 16th century superstition? Give me a break.



Historically inaccurate and irrelevant.



The feeling is more than mutual, particularly since "your" list is ripped directly from one of Landscheidt's papers. I would hope that if you'd read them you'd have been able to make a cogent argument by this point in support of your thesis in the thread.



If you read them, you'll notice that most of the time the authors frankly admit to this. In the physical sciences, simply finding a fitted linear regression to be statistically significant doesn't say anything definitive about the physical relation between solar charge densities and atmospheric pressure gradients. More is always desired. I suppose one simply needs the ability to read a scientific paper and understand what it means. It's hardly a superpower.



That because you're either determined to keep propping up a strawman or simply don't understand the nature of the debate you claim to have closed. No one has ever denied that there are solar forcings to the earth's climate. I question the claim that the overwhelming majority of relevant forcings are direct solar forcings. As I wasted time trying to point out to you, much of the very reading list you stole doesn't actually support what you're saying. Acknowledging that the sun plays a role or is a significant factor doesn't prove your point. It doesn't even specifically support it, since everyone is in agreement on that point.



A former student of, what was it, history and journalism? Don't presume to lecture me on science.

Well, you just got lectured on science, and it's good for you too. I practice astrometeorology professionally, and forecast advance climate and weather. I also have taught it. The only "hand that has been played" is what you've put on the table, and it hasn't been much but a lot of hot air. It's not personal Startraveler, but the only one doing any "presuming" here on this matter is you. You ticked me off with that comment on Kepler's family (uncool) since I don't exactly see you burning up the airwaves with your intellect on these matters. Kepler isn't around to stick up for himself, so I'll help him out. What laws of celestial mechanics have you discovered recently Startraveler? For a student, you surely dismiss quite a bit, don't you?

I suggest you scroll back up and re-read my post to you, as you will discover much more about the "physical sciences" than your own posts indicate that you actually know. And you've been called on it too. So please cease with the assumptions, the weird comments (how do you steal a reading list?) and pretending you've read the references I cited (there are plenty more on solar-forcing and astrometeorology out there for you to read and learn from, and I've posted enough to get you started too) and all the scientific data.

Clearly, you've got your own "issues" but they don't belong in a scientific discussion, certainly not your comments on Kepler's family as "witches" ~ what was that about? Jeez. Why don't you stop taking things personally? Be a thinker, not a stinker. Cheers!

Perhaps you should take your own advice and not take things so personally. Kepler was a fine mathematician. His famed laws wow high school geometry classes even today. That doesn't validate his superstitions and the fact that you obviously believe it does is disturbing.



What have I dismissed? I didn't dismiss those papers, I simply pointed out that they don't say what you seem to think they say. I must say, I find this quote odd coming from someone who dismisses any geophysicist who disagrees with his preconceived notions as a political hack. "Many conventional scientists, especially the careerists who dominate the IPCC have a vested interest in trying to 'prove' man-made global warming. "



Honestly, you're very quickly becoming a parody of yourself.

Yeah, that's right. Why don't you spend less time making things up, with these weird comments, and do some serious reading, rather than commenting. Do you not know that that is the mandate of the IPCC? I was there when they formed it. When they stated that their mandate is to prove that humans are the cause of global warming. It's been 19 years, and they haven't proven it yet.

But, oh, ok... I see... Guess you're right StarTraveler... You've read all there is to know, and I should just dismiss it all because the great StarTraveler said Kepler's aunt and mom were "witches," and that makes Kepler "superstitious." And you call me a "parody?" Get real. Jeez.

Please dont attack us like this, its not worth it, and I think you should know it if you are a really intelligent person. I have realised that I have wasted my time in this thread, this thread is going no where it just hasnt advanced in any way since the first post. I still say theodore that the sun can't simply cause global warming, yes the sun does regulate and alters Earth's global climate but it simply cannot alter it in such a way to cause such an intense global warming. Thats why we say that we are at a suitable distance from the sun. Only a huge alteration like a huge amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere can alter Earth's global climate so much.

But you simply keep pushing this myth because it is a myth and I beleive it belongs in the myth forum but as I said before I and most of us have wasted my time in this thread, its hasn't advanced in any way. So I am gonna take a stroll and not post anymore here. Yes this topic has gotten big but not interesting since it doesnt advance, we keep disagreing. I really think it should end up closed because in the end is gonna flame up.


Cheers.

How is the fact that the Sun forces, yes, alters, and regulates the Earth's climate a "myth?" Last time I checked, all the energy we receive for life on our planet comes from the Sun ~ not people. The only "attacks" I read are from those who go on making comments that are out of line, and off-topic. If you feel that you've "wasted" your time, your previous posts surely don't show this. As for the "pick and choose" comments on the Sun, and solar-forcing of the Earth's climate ~ it is a fact, and there is nothing that can be done to change it ~ which is what astrophysical and geophyscial principles mean. Principles cannot be negotiated, nor changed with mere opinion, or they would not be principles. I may not like it ~ but who I am to deny the laws of physics exist?

The Sun is up there. I can't make it go away. I cannot halt or "reverse" global warming, or planetary climate change, and neither can anyone else on this Earth. All we can do is forecast the best we can in advance, adapt ourselves, live cleaner lives, and deal with present and future climate changes.

Like I've said, how can anyone "reverse" global warming when we haven't discovered how to stop it from merely raining? Don't you think that that is quite the quantum stretch ~ reverse global warming? How? Have we "reversed" drought? Have we "reversed" snowstorms? Hurricanes? Tropical storms? Have we "reversed" flooding? Can we "reverse" blistering hot temperatures? Or freezing temperatures of the climate? Can we reverse Tornados? On a local scale? A regional scale? On a planetary scale? No, we have not. And we are never going to either, much less "reverse" global warming. The world's weather reminds us that we are not fully in charge and of our place in the universe. I got that message a long, long time ago. And I can live with it too. I respect Mother Nature. Anyone, and I don't care who they are, who says that we can "reverse" global warming is not playing with a full deck. That dog just does not hunt.

The Sun is in space. The Earth is in space. The Sun provides all the energy for the Earth ~ all life on Earth would not exist without the Sun, and the Sun regulates the Earth's climate. Man-made global warming has always been what it was designed to be ~ a lie ~ untrue. It has not ever existed.

This is serious, because when a lie like this is used to deny undeveloped nations the right to develop, and is used to blame humans for something they've never done (cause global warming) has been repeated over and over and over and over and over and over and over ~ one has to counter it with astrophysical and geophysical truths ~ over and over and over and over and over and over again ~ until the truth beats the lie into the ground ~ for good.

Anyone that can discount the Sun regulating the Earth's climate, and uses that to deny billions of people the right to develop and to live like developed nations do is a criminal in my view. And the IPCC has been doing just that ~ for money, career progress, and greed ~ not to support scientific truths, or to enhance planetary improvement ~ but to deny those who want a better life the right to seek it pushing out a wide variety of lies that humans are the cause of global warming. It isn't true. And they know it too. Once you've lied about matters like these, you've chosen to attempt to kill science, effectively killing exploration and discovery.

The IPCC and their so-called "scientists" are trying to murder science with their careerist goals of stealing as much money as they can to line their own pockets at the expense of us all. They are the enemy and one fights the enemy with the only thing that can beat them ~ and that is with truth.

What's a so-called scientist?

Presumably anyone - regardless of standing, experience, knowledge or ability - who dares to not agree 100% with whatever you choose to believe?

If so, it rather sums you up I'm afraid Theodore

Or are you just jealous that you can't get research grants whereas someone else studying the effect on persistent contrails on climate can? Is that what this is all about? You do realise that there is no such thing as an IPCC scientist - and that anyone can contribute research papers to the IPCC reports? And also that you've just made a pretty nasty and libellous comments against most of the leading scientists of a whole range of Earth Sciences. Many of whom were working in their fields long before you ever heard of global warming.

A genuine person respects and accepts the research, opinions and beliefs of others - even when these are in disagreement with their own research, opinions and beliefs - and also acknowledges the possibility that he may be wrong* Your form of blind dogmatism (and I accept that it exists amongst the 'global warmers' too) is what we should really be fighting.


* I'm quite willing to accept I'm wrong - when someone can show that mass tropical deforestation, cahnges in cloud cover due to human activity, and changes in landuse and albedo have no effect whatsoever on climate

Sums me up? I don't think so. I do not just blindly accept anyone's research, opinions, or beliefs, and I don't expect anyone to accept mine either. I think for myself, and look at what is there, and I take the time to actually see the truths which are not my "opinions" nor my fantasies. I've also challenged my own findings, and re-check everything I calculate. My own findings cover nearly the entire span of this current global warming cycle (27 years) so I know what I am talking about, and yes, I've always been willing to accept being wrong.

As a forecaster, that is the basis of all climate science, and so are astrophysical and geophysical princips ~ which do not change because of opinions. Forecasters are able to test opinions in the real world, and therefore are better equipped to know what is happening if they are accurate; especially in long-range climate forecasting. I have been, and continue to be, based on my expertise and experience over the decades. I know for a fact that the Earth's climate is forced astronomically ~ by the Sun ~ and proved it with my advance climate and weather forecasts.

All opinions are not valid; moreover when opinions are applied to disrupt the lives of others, or to deny others the right to development, they are not geniune. Nothing exemplfies "dogma" more than the false and oft-repeated claims that human beings are responsible for global warming when the facts clearly show that we are not. And it is not my opinion. If we were the cause of global warming, I actually would be glad, because then we could actually stop it. But, we will not because we are not the cause, and there's no stopping the Sun from cooling or warming the Earth. Morover, has man stopped wars? Have we stopped poverty, hunger? These things are within our power to reverse. Has it happened? Not that I can see, so just how, if you could explain to me, are we able to "reverse" something like global warming? Something we never caused to begin with?

This claim is being used to destroy lives ~ not improve lives ~ and if anything is "blind dogmatism" it is that.

How would you know that " Many of whom were working in their fields long before you ever heard of global warming." ~ are you saying that I was born yesterday? I am older than you think, and heard of global warming long before it was in fashion.

As for the IPCC, I suggest you take the time to study them, as I was there when the IPCC was formed, and know exactly what they sought ~ which is to blame humanity for global warming. And no, I've never applied for a "grant" nor sought one. Among the careerists who are a part of the IPCC's teams from world governments are those who had previously denied that global warming even existed in the 1980s. All that changed when it became quite apparent that tens of millions of dollars was about to flow into climate change research. Scientific findings ~ opinions, if you want to call them that ~ which did not maintain that humans were responsible for global warming, were not admitted. And, when some papers did get through, they were "edited" to remove any mention of research that showed solar-forcing of the Earth's climate was the cause. Now, is that "geniune?"

These problems at the IPCC have been ongoing since its inception in 1988, and by the mid-1990s, when funding skyrocketed, the problems were exacerbated ~

"Ross Gelbspan, journalist and author, wrote a 1995 article in Harper's Magazine argues that the climate change sceptics "assert flatly that their science is untainted by funding. Nevertheless, in this persistent and well-funded campaign of global warming denial they have become interchangeable ornaments on the hood of a high-powered engine of disinformation. Their dissenting opinions are amplified beyond all proportion through the media while the concerns of the dominant majority of the world's scientific establishment are marginalized."

For more, see ~ http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title...change_sceptics

Pitting the two groups ~ those who say humans are the cause of global warming, and the other group (called skeptics, or those who "deny" global warming ~ has been part and parcel of the same problem, and they are both wrong.

Global warming is real. It does exist, and has existed since 1980. However, to blame humanity for it because of industrial pollution is incorrect. Why? Because there are records prior to ANY human industrial emissions of Co2 into the atmosphere, and proof that the earth has warmed globally many times over the previous centuries. How did human beings in previous centuries cause those periods of global warming? No one who maintains that human activity is the cause of global warming wants to tackle that question. Why?

The second group, often said to be in the employ of oil companies, are blamed for denying that global warming is real. While this did occur in the 1990s, what is often missed, is the fact that many of those of the first group of scientists whose work papers are published en masse via the IPCC, denied themselves the reality of global warming before it was fashionable to begin "research" as funding increased dramatically for this particular area of climate research into the causes of global warming.

Moreover, many of the groups of careerists who have and continue to receive huge amounts of funding by claiming human-caused global warming have done so under the guise of "science" and continue to work against inter-disciplinary science that is the basis for climate research. Interdisciplinary science is avoided in order to "create" the illusion that humans are the cause of global warming, and opposition to disciplinary boundries being crossed continues to take place at many of the academic institutions where many of the IPCC's scientists maintain their careers.

Scientists are people too, and subject to the same faults and designs to mislead purposefully in order to drive their own goals. Here are some interesting comments on the IPCC from other scientists who wrote to the late Dr. Theodor Landscheidt who are familar with the workings of the IPCC~

"Dear Theodor:

Thankyou for the fine list of references.

There is long record of IPCC representatives make the false claim that their oponents don't publish in peer-reviewed journals. Having said that, I think it important to note that on this occasion Keller was responding to my comment on your recent item published on Daly's web site, not in a peer-reviewed journal, and so I think his response to me was proper.

In my opinion, the real problem is not whether information has been published in the 'right way' or 'right place'. I think the real problem is that science is pervaded by biases in favour of particular theorems. Information should be used to support, amend or reject a theorem. In reality, information is often accepted when it fits a preferred theeory but ignored when it is inconvenient to the theory. IPCC is not alone in behaving like this; most of science is affected by this behaviour. And the peer-review system promotes such behaviour. All reviewers are human and, therefore, they are likely to be less strict when confronted with information that supports the theory they have used in the adhancement of their careers. The IPCC is especially prone to bias because it is an "Intergovernmental" organisation, and pure science is not likely to be acceptable to politicians who have their own agendas.

Your published work is not alone in being ignored by the IPCC. For example, in May 1990 I publicly challenged John Wakeham (now Lord Wakeham but then a UK government Minister) to explain how the 'global warming' hypothesis could be correct in light of the work by Kuo et al.. He replied that a report "by 250 leading scientists" was to be published later that year and would it explain. I responded that I was willing to bet the IPCC Report would not discuss the work of Kuo et al. and if it did not then Wakeham "could draw his own conclusions". Wakeham and I exchanged several letters on the matter prior to publication of IPCC 1990, and when it was published I wrote to him to point out that it did not mention Kuo et al.. He did not reply.

Another example is IPCC's treatment of Barrett's work. The mention of his work in the 1994 IPCC Report shows a clear misunderstanding of the process described by Barrett. At the Bonn Climate Conference, Barrett said the IPCC had not consulted him to explain the matter, and they did not ask me for comment although I have published peer-reviewed comment in support of Barrett's argument."
Richard

"Dear Richard:

Again, your remarks about peer review are to the point. Those up to three referees you are dealing with, when you try to publish a paper, may be considered a statistical sample of the population of schools in science. If you are lucky, you get someone who is open to ideas beyond the horizon of the school he adheres to. If not, your paper won't be published if you are not a member of the school she or he favours. Your statistical chances are especially bad when you stand against a main trend like the positive attitude towards global warming. You nearly always get a referee who does not appreciate your results running against the trend. This happens on all levels. George Zweig, who independently from Gell-Mann developed the concept of quarks, was literally called a "charlatan" by his peers and did not get the professorship in physics he wanted because of this negative "review".

And there is often someone who loads the dice: the editor of the journal. She or he knows very well which referee is in favour or against a special result and can thus influence the outcome of the review process.

Considering all this, I think it is not fair of the representatives of a majority to tell those in the minority that their results have not the same scientific weight because they have not got as many publications in peer reviewed journals."

Kind regards, Theodor

Dear Chick:

By coincidence, I this morning received a preprint of the paper by Soon et al. that is to appear in 'New Astronomy' and is titled "Variations of solar coronal hole area and terrestrial lower tropospheric air temperature from 1979 to mid-1998: astronomical forcings of change to the Earth's climate ?".

Its abstract says:

"The temperature of the terrestrial lower troposphere, inferred from the Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU) radiometers, is found to be inversely correlated with the the area of the Sun covered by coronal holes. The correlation between the monthly time series of global tropospheric temperature anomaly and total coronal hole area from January 1979 to April 1998 has a Pearson coefficient of -0.46, which is different from zero at the 95% confidence level. Physical reasonings for the explained and unexplained parts of the correlation are discussed. The coronal hole area is a physical proxy for both the global scale, 22-yr geometrical and shorter term, dynamical components of the cosmic ray modulation, as well as the corpuscular emission of the Sun. Other solar parameters that may indicate a solar radiative effect on climate are also evaluated. It is concluded that variable fluxes either of solar charged particles or cosmic rays modulated by the solar wind, or both, may influence the terrestrial tropospheric temperature on timescales of months or years."

Theodor's work indicates strong solar influence on climate, and you seem to be challenging it because it is 'not mainstream'. But the authors of the paper I cite are based at the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics, the Dept. of Physics and Mathematics at Long Island University, and the Dept. of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Nigeria. I put it to you that these are very mainstream and authoritative sources for findings that concur with Theodor's and supports the 'Svensmark hypothesis'.

I repeat my question that initiated this series of correspondence; i.e. When will IPCC proponents abandon their prejudice in favour of virtual reality and contribute to investigation of observed effects in the real world ?

All the best, Richard


Dear Theodor and Chick,

The normal peer-review system is in fact the best, but not a perfect way of separating junk from real science. But at the same time, many other ways of publishing science and discussing the reliability must be used. (Congress contributions, posters, Internet). Fortunately, some people like John Daly have done a great job to create Internet options.

All disciplines have their special clans or inner circles of "experts" who understand only reports written in a certain way, using certain therminology and referring to previos works written by the members of the clan. If you try to disturb this splendid harmony by entering from outside, you have no chance as you cannot communicate in a proper way. The history of science tells that many erroneous dogmas and famous failures have survived within these circles for very long time periods.

In my branch, chemical engineering science, this problem is obvious. A control engineer, using control engineering terms for describing chemical problems has no chance to get anything published for example in the journal "Chemical Engineering Science" The referees simply do not understand the text, or they do not care. He should publish in "Journal of Process Control" instead. But in reality, dynamic control theory is very useful when describing the kinetics of chemical processes.

There are no general experts of "climate change" either, and thats one reason for the existence of the IPCC. But according to some reason that I don't understand, IPCC is a failure. The TAR report is a sad story for a critically thinking scientist. The solar forcing research (for example Friis-Christensen) is not given a fair chance. The reliability of the balloon-satellite temperature records is heavily questioned, probably because they do not show the same tropospheric warming as obtained by the holy computer models. The surface records are critized too, but not as heavily. The TAR text gives the false impression that the global uptake mechanisms of carbon dioxide is today fairly well known and correctly modeled. These carbon dioxide people portion anthropogenic carbon dioxide here and there around the globe and do not seem to understand much of diffusional mass transfer theory.

In fact, mankind still does not understand much of the climate. Why is is it so difficult to admit that? Is it because oversimplified and probably erroneous visions have been fed to the public all these years ?

Jarl

The serious problems of scientific integrity regarding the IPCC has been going on for over a decade. I am not the only one who has observed this, for there are many other climate scientists and scientific groups and organizations who have as well ~

Lies, Damned Lies and Global Warming Theory

A recently published book(1996) by the European Science and Environment Forum challenges the scientific foundation of Global Warming predictions which are now reaching near hysteria levels, and casts doubt on the scientific integrity of many of the theory’s chief proponents.

If you aren’t concerned about the predictions of global environmental mayhem made by the supporters of the now widely-touted Global Warming Theory (GWT), here is a book that should give you serious cause to be so; particularly in respect of the true motives and aims of the individuals behind GWT’s wide, virtually unthinking, acceptance (in the face of an extremely substantial body of totally contrary scientific evidence that is receiving little or no media coverage).

Here are just some of the book’s frightening revelations:

The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change), the body behind the heavyweight promotion of GWT and the campaign for drastic preventive countermeasures now, is a shadowy body of virtually self-elected bureaucrats and pro-GWT environmentalists whose scientific reputations, and ultimately whose livelihoods, are utterly dependent on the worldwide acceptance of the GWT concept. Indeed, GWT is now essential to the worldwide Environmental Sciences movement to ensure a continuous flow of research funds. It is therefore hardly surprising that the IPCC predictions on the long-term effects of GWT are dire."

For more, see the link ~ http://www.abd.org.uk/gwarmdeb.htm

For even more about the lies of man-made global warming, see ~ http://www.warwickhughes.com/climate/

Firstly, as I keep trying to point out, CO2 is not the only cause of anthropogenic climate change.

Secondly, everyone knows that the climate has changed in the past without any help from man - and knows it will change again without any help from man. Although, as I'm sure you're well aware, the Ruddiman hypothesis suggests that humans have been affecting climate for the past 8,000 years .... and the data can be interpreted as supporting that hypothesis, although personally I'm not convinced it's the correct interpretation.

Thirdly, if human activity is not causing climate change then we have a really big question of: why not? How can massive deforestation of tropical rainforests have no effect on climate? Why do aerosols ejected into the atmosphere by volcanic eruptions have an observable effect on global temperature, but those produced by industry do not?

None of which excludes the possibility that solar activity is also involved. But it's not a simple either or argument. Which is why us sceptics have such a hard time of it - caught between those like yourself who are convinced humans have no impact and those who are equally convinced it's all down to human activity.



I have often argued in defence of those scientists and others whose research is funded - however indirectly - by oil companies. IMO the source of the funding is irrelevant. All that matters is the data. And the way that data is interpreted. Some of those scientists also contribute to the IPCC reports.



It may surprise you to learn I don't much disagree with that. But what has the motives and opinions of the IPCC got to do with the scientists from all disciplines and varying opinions on climate change who submit their work to the IPCC for inclusion in their reports? Although last I looked, the latest IPCC predictions of long term effects weren't especially dire


What concerns me most in the whole debate is the polarisation of opinions. Science is ignored. Reason and logic are ignored.

Blindly denying that humans have any impact on climate will not get people to accept the possibility of solar and other natural cycles which may be the prime movers behind recent climate change. Nor will making unfounded remarks about the scientists who research work is used by others to promote GWT (some of whom have been involved in such since the 1960s).

It saddens me that most of the time these days I find myself arguing and disagreeing with the 'sceptics' - those whom by their very nature one would have expected to be more open to the complexities of climate change and the fact that there's not one simple explanation but a whole host of complexly interacting factors, both natural and anthropogenic.

Of course, I may be wrong - maybe all climate change is down to one simple factor and nothing else has any effect at all. But I don't think the universe is that simple.

Sometimes the universe can be very simple ~ depending on how one looks at it. However, I agree with you that there are a host of complex factors, but as far as planetary climate change is concerned, it is forced astronomically, since this is where all climate conditions on Earth is first determined ~ in space. This is where global warming begins, and it ends up here, geophysically, on our planet in the form of weather.

I've got to agree with you on reason and logic being ignored. You're right, it is, and has been in this area, and in other areas of science as well. The polarization is bi-polar, from the looks of it with people taking "sides" as they circle the wagons around their own career interests, personal battles, dispositions, etc., all at the expense of those who really need the science to be clear, and as honest as it can be. The ramifications of the last 18-19 years of fluff from the IPCC, and the corruption of climate science for the sake of maintaining careers, raking in the dollars, and polishing academic reputations is sickening.

Global warming is real, but it is not caused by human beings. We've seen it before on this planet, and we're seeing it now, and will we see it again, including global cooling, and that is the next solar-forced phase ahead in the coming decades.

The latest findings by the IPCC have laid off the most "dire" outlooks, but their previous forecasts did not pan out, mainly because they didn't account for astronomical causes. Their computer models have been far off from accurate forecasting of the climate based on their human-induced warming models. Moreover, the pressure from climate scientists whose papers on their findings of solar-forced global warming over the past 10 years or so, has gained a wider acceptance after years of intense battles among climate and atmospheric scientists. There's still a long way to go; especially after all the media-hype on man-made global warming, and the general ignorance of the public as to the causes, but people are starting to listen and to look at the data reasonably. That is a good sign of potential progress for the future.

The question of if humans have any impacts on our environment is undeniable. We certainly do. But it is not right to then make the sudden leap to "we are the cause of climate change" ~ worldwide ~ that some state as easy as pie. I strongly disagree with that. These are two distinct areas when applied towards the cause of global climate change, hence, global warming.

The hijacking of planetary climate change by those who say humans are causing global warming is not supported by scientific evidence, but merely a IPCC mandate that then theorizes this as being the case, and then turned into being factual by many, especially some who should know better. It is very sad, and has corrupted science in these times.

if global warming is man made explain this

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6276576.stm

and the fact that during roman times lions, hipppos and even vine plants all survived in the southern UK??

The article you have linked to is talking about a time 450,000 to 800,000 years ago. No one is saying that there have not been periods in the past where the Earth's climate has changed naturally. Indeed the ice ages are proof of it, it is this current period of warming that must expert attribute to man.




I've got news for you, Lions and hippos have continued to survive in the Southern UK. There are several Zoos that keep these animals. The fact that these creatures survived in captivity in Roman times proves very little except that the Romans were fairly good zoo keepers. As for vines there are parts of Kent and Sussex which have been making passable wine for centuries.

However if you are talking about wild lions and hippos you have to go back a bit further than the Romans to find them in the UK, in the case of lions to about 18,000 years ago and for hippos to about 120,000 years ago.

If there is global warming (and remember pretty much every climatologist on the planet agrees there is... it's the cause that is being debated) how does this present any evidence as to what the cause is? How do lions and hippos tell us that global warming is natural or not?

Vines are able to grow in southern England because the area benefits from the Gulf Stream, giving it a warmer climate than would otherwise be expected (without the Gulf Stream London would be expected to have the sort of cold winters that New York suffers). Ironically one of the predictions of human caused global warming is the movement of the Gulf Stream to the south actually causing more sever winters for southern England.

Ahoy,
Wow, is this a hot topic….yes, pun intended. There is a whole lot of data and some seems to conflict with other data. We all know the Earth goes through cycles. Are we heading toward a “warm” cycle? I think so. Is it natural? I think that it is natural, but I also think we are helping to speed things up. As the Earth warms, the Arctic ice melts. As the ice melts, it cools the Gulf Steam. It also causes sea levels to rise which changes the flow of the Gulf Stream. Over time, the Gulf Stream will cool and the flow will cause it to move farther south. The Arctic will begin to cool again and the ice will begin to form again. The sea level will go down and, depending on continental drift, the Gulf Stream will begin to warm and move north again. Of course, all this warming and cooling affect the weather patterns. This is all natural. The problem is that we have put so much “junk” in the air that we are speeding up the cycle. That is my take, for what it is worth.

Seeing is believing. We're impacting the globe with pollution - which means we must be impacting the climate globally... Our destruction of wind hindering areas isn't isolated to the NA continent. It's happening worldwide. Twenty five % of coral reefs have been decimated by pollution and encroachment. How can this not cause impact to the weather globally if it's happening globally?



If weather begins in space - then how is it that our sewage and spewage can't make a difference? Like a hurricane - it can form off the coast of Africa as a storm - yet as it crosses the ocean the winds begin to intensify or decrease depending on oceanic temperatures. Wouldn't "space weather" do the same? As it forms 'out there' wouldn't our atmospheric conditions, like oceanic conditions, play an important role? Does space weather remain static?

Your 2 cents has added value to the thread...imo, as always. ; )

You know Theodore, not one proponent of whatever climate model they claim is in fact "THE ONE"- care to name one?, has tried to refute one of my posts. Instead they ignore me and are intent on converting you. Why is that?

I disagree.
THEODORE is making scientific claims in this thread, that he tried to make on a forum that totally discredited his claims. The forum members, and ultimately the Moderators of that Forum, said that he was not forwarding science but pseudoscience. He unwisely chose a forum littered with real climatologists. My complaint all along is that this thread is being forwarded as science when clearly it is not. It should be posted elsewhere where such pseudoscience has its adherents.
The other forum is actually just a repeat showing of the same unfounded arguments that he is proposing here.
The biggest problem there, as here, is that he is not willing to support his theories with hard science. In fact he does not answer questions that are of a truly scientific nature. Even simple questions about what drives Venus' runaway global warming are not answered, because Venus receives the same amount of "Solar forcing" that the earth does. His response is venus is not Earth. I respectfully suggest that in this he is correct, but he refuses to explain why their climates are so different.

I am watching him now libel the IPCC to such an extent that if they were an independent citizen would see him in court for defamation.

Neither was my response a "one - liner" it also contained a link for other posters here to be able to formulate a better opinion of his views, and his background.
His previously "published" forecasts are the nearest we can get to being able to peer review (from a scientific basis) his comments, and as such is perfectly proper and correct to post. That is why people publish, to set a benchmark for their studies. It is something that I do regularly, approximately 20 articles a year, so that when it comes to a conference my peers already know my background.

Any scientific arguments made against his theory either leads to the poster being "ignored" or being told that they have no idea about scientific method.

He has now simply adopted bullying here as his main response to people who will not blindly accept his own theory.

You may censure me, or ban me altogether, for making these comments. I have laid scientific principles here that have not been answered .

There are some twenty eight climate models used by IPCC, as of late. And, two used by the U.S. govt. for it's forward projections. These are selected as best case estimates. But, it seems there are always certain methods that require other models for comparison. Like bottom-up, inventory, inversion. We are being asked to possibly shut down half of the world's energy output, for what? To battel ENSO, the NAO, or sunspot cycles? It is one thing to model the climate, and another to essentially shut down coal (I've heard that is what many "greens" advocate).

They would be cutting their own necks. Their grant money would dry up. And their children would have no future. Coal gives the world the longest lasting energy.

Can someone post how shutting down coal and oil would de-force, or negative feedback, the atmosphere this century? What are the numbers?

And, what about removing all those aerosals? What then?

The majority of coal pollution in China comes from mom and pop cooking and heating in their dwellings. What do you plan to do about that?

And, do these proponents subscribe to Lovelock's school of thought? Speak up!