It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Does a Quieter Sun equate to a Colder Climate on Earth

page: 3
17
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 11:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: glend




Our earths heliosphere isn't able to protect us from solar or cosmic radiation as well as it has done in the past so smaller coronal mass ejections from the sun can have a greater effect on electric systems in orbit and on earth.

The Earth doesn't have a heliosphere. The Sun does though.

The Earth's magnetic field is plenty strong enough to deflect CMEs. And will continue to do so. You just displayed a very large level of ignorance however in claiming that a weakened magnetic field would result greater effect on electrical systems on the surface.


Oh really, I must email the ESA Swarn mission and tell them not to be concerned, Phage says all is well,




ESA Swarm.....
Today, there are concerns that the force that protects our planet is weakening and may even be on the verge of reversing polarity. Over the last 150 years, the magnetic field has lost about 15% of its strength.

South Atlantic Anomaly
For example, the South Atlantic Anomaly is an area where the magnetic field is particularly weak – in fact, it is only half as strong as in Europe. This is problematic for satellites orbiting Earth, and the majority of technical faults occur when they pass through this region.
link




posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 11:06 PM
link   
a reply to: glend




Oh really, I must email the ESA Swarn mission and tell them not to be concerned, Phage says all is well,

Yes. Please do. And you might inquire as to what effect the weakening may have on the strength of geomagnetic storms.

Yes, the SAA is problematic because the inner Van Allen belt dips to a lower altitude there. Remember? I mentioned the Van Allen belts? That's where captured charged particles get concentrated. Captured by what? The Earth's magnetic field. No magnetic field, no Van Allen belts, no SAA.
en.wikipedia.org...

edit on 12/30/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 11:24 PM
link   
a reply to: glend
This 'new study' is from April.

Other things have happened since that time.

In any event, there are only 'arbitrary units' to provide a sense of scale.

Pop quiz: what was the total solar irradiance in the past compared to today?



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 11:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven



Pop quiz: what was the total solar irradiance in the past compared to today?

42?



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 11:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage



What gives is this. Water vapor content in air is dependant upon temperature. The warmer it is, the more water vapor it can carry. When moist air cools, the water vapor condenses out of it


Water vapour absorption lines is important in understanding the potential of CO2 to warm the atmosphere. IPCC overestimates the potential for forcing by a large factor without providing the mathematics. . A breakdown of which is provided here




posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 11:42 PM
link   
a reply to: glend

Water vapour absorption lines is important in understanding the potential of CO2 to warm the atmosphere.
You should try to do so. CO2 warms the atmosphere. A warmer atmosphere can hold more water vapor. More water vapor further warms the atmosphere.




IPCC overestimates the potential for forcing by a large factor without providing the mathematics.

No they don't. And the math is in the models.
Who the hell is Peter Dietze?
edit on 12/30/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 11:47 PM
link   
a reply to: glend

CO2 forcing eh?

What a coincidence! I wrote a post about just that a little bit ago, give it a read.



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 11:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage




Who the hell is Peter Dietze?



Deitze is an electrical engineer. He is one of the signatories of the Leipzig Declaration a denialist petition.

He has never published any research in a peer-reviewed journal on the subject of climate change.



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 11:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi
Ok. Thanks.
I guess.

He's that Aussie guy?


edit on 12/30/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 12:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I think so. At some point he was a third reviewer for the IPCC. I am not sure what a third reviewer is though.



posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 12:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage



No they don't. And the math is in the models.


And we both know how wonderful the mathematics are in their models. Do you really think we headed for a greenhouse runaway affect aka venus. If that was a possibility it would have happened earth's past when CO2 levels were much higher.





Who the hell is Peter Dietze?


He is my phage killer. Unless you want correct his maths and return to hero status, I'm all ears.



posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 12:04 AM
link   
a reply to: glend

And we both know how wonderful the mathematics are in their models.
Yup. Pretty good. That chart is wrong, btw.



Do you really think we headed for a greenhouse runaway affect aka venus.
No.
But surface temperatures don't have to be hot enough to melt lead for things to be bad.


edit on 12/31/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 01:23 AM
link   
a reply to: glend

Will do! It was quite well done, and it's making me nuts that I can't locate the blasted thing.



posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 05:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: markosity1973
Gotta love climate change deniers.

Y'all the sort of people who would stand with your back to an exploding volcano and claim 'nothing to see here' because you're not looking directly at it.

Al Gore did not invent climate change, he raised awareness of it.

Whether it's caused by human activity or a cyclic pattern is still debatable, but it is happening.

Nobody here is denying climate change.It's blatantly obvious.What we have a problem with is accepting carbon dioxide is the main driving factor and that the Sun plays no role.Also, how does paying a new "tax" to criminals help the climate?



posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 06:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: anonentity

originally posted by: Jonjonj
a reply to: smurfy

The Sun is clearly the most important influence on weather and temperature on this planet, to ignore that would be to ignore the whole concept of a sun-planet system.


Well obviously that's why it cools down at night . But the difference between now and the last little ice age, is food technology, the greenhouse to name but one . If you have ever flown over Holland its a well thought out country.


I have no idea what that means. I understand the words individually, but they are put together in such a way as to deny me any way of deciphering what you said.




posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 07:25 AM
link   
Well, I think a summary is in order, (interim of course....what else to do than to talk like scientists who deal with er, AGW, er, CC, er, GW, er, GD)

Perhaps something like this, Prof. David Keith, "I want big hairy o' planes to spray the skys with all sorts of things, so's we don't get our asses burnt off", and, BTW I'm the man to do it"



More than a decade ago Dr. David Viner, "By 2020 there'll be no snow, well, maybe a big dollop in 2030"

Gavin Schmidt Schmuck, GISS, "Look I've played with my models for years now, and the science is settled...'nuff said, STFU...I don't want to talk about it, except from me to you..OKAY"




While we have, my God!!, winter snowstorms through the USA, and in the UK, people are getting washed daily and going for a scwim, we know that the usual suspects will jostle for position to tell the media that this is just another signature of global warming, climate change, climate disruption and extreme weather caused by global warming.....sorry, apeman global warming, er, I think, and even if your staines fall off with the cold, you are all going to eventually, get your asses burnt off. Do yus'sss get it ?
Anyway, the seasons greetings and a happy El Nino.


Oh! and I'll let George Carlin finish the summary.


edit on 31-12-2015 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 12:25 PM
link   
a reply to: smurfy


Perhaps something like this, Prof. David Keith, "I want big hairy o' planes to spray the skys with all sorts of things, so's we don't get our asses burnt off", and, BTW I'm the man to do it"




More than a decade ago Dr. David Viner, "By 2020 there'll be no snow, well, maybe a big dollop in 2030"


You get a kick out misquoting people, don't you?



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 12:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

* David Viner said in 20 March 2000 interview, “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.".

He couldn't be more wrong. NASA recent results show between 1992 and 2001 that Antartica ice sheet has gained 112billion tons of ice per year. This rate slowed between 2003 and 2008 but still the ice sheet was gaining 82billion tons a year. Resulting in a reduction in sea level rise of about 0.23mm a year.
Link

But what do you say about quotes from those that were regarded by IPCC as experts.



IPCC experts against the IPCC

Dr Robert Balling: "The IPCC notes that "No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected." This did not appear in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers.

Dr Lucka Bogataj: "Rising levels of airborne carbon dioxide don't cause global temperatures to rise.... temperature changed first and some 700 years later a change in aerial content of carbon dioxide followed."

Dr John Christy: "Little known to the public is the fact that most of the scientists involved with the IPCC do not agree that global warming is occurring. Its findings have been consistently misrepresented and/or politicized with each succeeding report."

Dr Rosa Compagnucci: "Humans have only contributed a few tenths of a degree to warming on Earth. Solar activity is a key driver of climate."

Dr Richard Courtney: "The empirical evidence strongly indicates that the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is wrong."

Dr Judith Curry: "I'm not going to just spout off and endorse the IPCC because I don't have confidence in the process."

Dr Robert Davis: "Global temperatures have not been changing as state of the art climate models predicted they would. Not a single mention of satellite temperature observations appears in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers."

Dr Willem de Lange: "In 1996 the IPCC listed me as one of approximately 3000 "scientists" who agreed that there was a discernible human influence on climate. I didn't. There is no evidence to support the hypothesis that runaway catastrophic climate change is due to human activities."

Dr Chris de Freitas: "Government decision-makers should have heard by now that the basis for the longstanding claim that carbon dioxide is a major driver of global climate is being questioned; along with it the hitherto assumed need for costly measures to restrict carbon dioxide emissions. If they have not heard, it is because of the din of global warming hysteria that relies on the logical fallacy of 'argument from ignorance' and predictions of computer models."

Dr Oliver Frauenfeld: "Much more progress is necessary regarding our current understanding of climate and our abilities to model it."

Dr Peter Dietze: "Using a flawed eddy diffusion model, the IPCC has grossly underestimated the future oceanic carbon dioxide uptake."

Dr John Everett: "It is time for a reality check. The oceans and coastal zones have been far warmer and colder than is projected in the present scenarios of climate change. I have reviewed the IPCC and more recent scientific literature and believe that there is not a problem with increased acidification, even up to the unlikely levels in the most-used IPCC scenarios."

Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen: "The IPCC refused to consider the sun's effect on the Earth's climate as a topic worthy of investigation. The IPCC conceived its task only as investigating potential human causes of climate change."

Dr Lee Gerhard: "I never fully accepted or denied the anthropogenic global warming concept until the furore started after NASA's James Hansen's wild claims in the late 1980s. I went to the [scientific] literature to study the basis of the claim, starting with first principles. My studies then led me to believe that the claims were false."



edit on 1-1-2016 by glend because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 12:25 AM
link   
a reply to: glend

I particularly like this one ....



Dr Murray Salby: "I have an involuntary gag reflex whenever someone says the science is settled. Anyone who thinks the science is settled on this topic is in fantasia."


And these ,,,,



Dr Indur Goklany: "Climate change is unlikely to be the world's most important environmental problem of the 21st century. There is no signal in the mortality data to indicate increases in the overall frequencies or severities of extreme weather events, despite large increases in the population at risk."

Dr Vincent Gray: "The [IPCC] climate change statement is an orchestrated litany of lies."

Dr Mike Hulme: "Claims such as '2500 of the world's leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate' are disingenuous ... The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was only a few dozen."

Dr Kiminori Itoh: "There are many factors which cause climate change. Considering only greenhouse gases is nonsense and harmful."

Dr Yuri Izrael: "There is no proven link between human activity and global warming. I think the panic over global warming is totally unjustified. There is no serious threat to the climate."

Dr Steven Japar: "Temperature measurements show that the climate model-predicted mid-troposphere hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them."

Dr Georg Kaser: "This number [of receding glaciers reported by the IPCC] is not just a little bit wrong, it is far out by any order of magnitude ... It is so wrong that it is not even worth discussing."

Dr Aynsley Kellow: "I'm not holding my breath for criticism to be taken on board, which underscores a fault in the whole peer review process for the IPCC: there is no chance of a chapter [of the IPCC report] ever being rejected for publication, no matter how flawed it might be."

Dr Madhav Khandekar: "I have carefully analysed adverse impacts of climate change as projected by the IPCC and have discounted these claims as exaggerated and lacking any supporting evidence."

Dr Hans Labohm: "The alarmist passages in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers have been skewed through an elaborate and sophisticated process of spin-doctoring."

Dr Andrew Lacis: "There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary. The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department."

Dr Chris Landsea: "I cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound."

Dr Richard Lindzen: "The IPCC process is driven by politics rather than science. It uses summaries to misrepresent what scientists say and exploits public ignorance."

Dr Harry Lins: "Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now. The case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated."

Dr Philip Lloyd: "I am doing a detailed assessment of the IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science. I have found examples of a summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said."

Dr Martin Manning: "Some government delegates influencing the IPCC Summary for Policymakers misrepresent or contradict the lead authors."

Link

edit on 1-1-2016 by glend because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 05:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: glendWhat a coincidence! I wrote a post about just that a little bit ago, give it a read.

Even if that study is correct an increase of 0.2 W/sq.m per decade from CO2 isn't that much when compared to the increase in radiation from decreased cloud cover. Also the study you cited says in the abstract that the 0.2 W/sq.m of forcing is "attributable" to an increase in CO2 of 22 ppmv. So the IPCC's equation you cited would give us Ln(390/368)*5.35 = 0.31 W/sq.m whereas the study only finds an increase of 0.2 W.sq.m. Therefore the IPCC's equation overestimates the forcing from CO2 by a factor of 1.55 (so K should be closer to 3.45). Also that 1K temperature increase from 3.7 W/sq.m is the warming at 255K at the top-of-the-atmosphere. The warming at the surface where the temperature is 288K would be less. An increase of 0.2 W/sq.m only gives 0.037K/decade at the surface under the S-B law. They aren't going to scare anyone into accepting punitive green taxes with that, are they?
edit on 1-1-2016 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join