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.

 

Climate Change Denial, Anyone?

page: 16
37
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 15 2016 @ 11:37 PM
link   
Just curious about the last couple pages of discussion.

How do CO2 levels affect the magnetosphere of earth?




posted on May, 15 2016 @ 11:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage

That article was discussed a while back. It's very interesting but not really very conclusive as far as what you're claiming goes. www.abovetopsecret.com...


That article is not the only one discussing this correlation...


Article

Acta Geophysica

October 2011, Volume 59, Issue 5, pp 1044-1056

First online: 02 June 2011
Climate changes associated with high-amplitude Sq geomagnetic variations

Taha Rabeh , Joao Carvalho, Ahmed Khalil, Esmat A. El-Aal, Ibrahim El-Hemaly


Abstract

When the solar irradiance propagates between the outer magnetospheric regions and the ionosphere, dynamic processes of the magnetosphere-ionosphere-thermosphere system are affected at the lower end of their paths by the interaction of radiation with the neutral troposphere. The main target of this work is to investigate the relationship between the diurnal magnetic field variations resulting from solar activities and the variation in the troposphere temperature. Meteorological and geomagnetic data acquired from different observatories located in Egypt, Portugal and Slovakia in a long-term and daily-term scales were analyzed.

The long-term results show that there is a close relationship between the diurnal Sq magnetic field variations and the tropospheric temperature. The rate of temperature increase at mid-latitude areas is higher than at high-latitude. During the period of investigation, it is found that the troposphere temperature has increased by about 0.033 °C/year at Helwan, Egypt, 0.03 °C/year at Coimbra, Portugal, and 0.028 °C/year in Hurbanovo/Stará Lesná, Slovakia. The Sq geomagnetic variations depend on the intensity of the electric currents generated by the effect of solar radiation in the ionosphere.

link.springer.com...


Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics

Volume 60, Issue 2, January 1998, Pages 145–169

Geomagnetic forcing of changes in climate and in the atmospheric circulation

Václav Bucha, 1, , Václav Bucha Jr2

Abstract

Common features in records of solar and geomagnetic activity as well as of climatic parameters can be observed. High correlation coefficients were found between geomagnetic activity, the sea level atmospheric pressure and the surface air temperature, occurring with a positive sign in the middle and southern Europe, in the south-eastern part of North America and in the western Atlantic but with a negative sign in the northern Atlantic and Canada.
...

www.sciencedirect.com...

Small changes which have been occurring for a long time. Small temperature increases continuously occurring over time cause very dramatic temperature increases since our oceans continue to store heat which is later released in events like el Niño. Now there is a super El Niño which does cause global temperatures to increase. At the same time the Earth's magnetic field keeps weakening allowing more solar wing particles to enter Earth's atmosphere. An atmosphere charged with more energy causes changes in the upper atmosphere which if they continue happening eventually transfer energy to the lower layers of Earth's atmosphere as well and into the Troposphere.


March 2005> Stratosphere–Troposphere Coupling in the Southern Hemisphere

Stratosphere–Troposphere Coupling in the Southern Hemisphere
David W. J. Thompson
Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado Mark P. Baldwin
Northwest Research Associates, Bellevue, Washington Susan Solomon
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/Aeronomy Laboratory, Boulder, Colorado

Abstract

This study examines the temporal evolution of the tropospheric circulation following large-amplitude variations in the strength of the Southern Hemisphere (SH) stratospheric polar vortex in data from 1979 to 2001 and following the SH sudden stratospheric warming of 2002. In both cases, anomalies in the strength of the SH stratospheric polar vortex precede similarly signed anomalies in the tropospheric circulation that persist for more than 2 months. The SH tropospheric circulation anomalies reflect a bias in the polarity of the SH annular mode (SAM), a large-scale pattern of climate variability characterized by fluctuations in the strength of the SH circumpolar flow. Consistent with the climate impacts of the SAM, variations in the stratospheric polar vortex are also followed by coherent changes in surface temperatures throughout much of Antarctica. The results add to a growing body of evidence that suggests that stratospheric variability plays an important role in driving climate variability at Earths surface on a range of time scales.

Corresponding author address: David W. J. Thompson, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1371. Email: davet@atmos.colostate.edu

journals.ametsoc.org...



Nature 391, 471-474 (29 January 1998) | doi:10.1038/35112; Received 14 October 1996; Accepted 7 October 1997

A new perspective on the dynamical link between the stratosphere and troposphere

Dana E. Hartley1, Jose T. Villarin1, Robert X. Black1 & Christopher A. Davis2

Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia 30332-0340, USA
National Center for Atmospheric Research, P.O. Box 3000, Boulder, Colorado 80307, USA

Correspondence to: Dana E. Hartley1 Correspondence should be addressed to D.E.H. (e-mail: Email: hartley@eas.gatech.edu).

Top of page

Atmospheric processes of tropospheric origin can perturb the stratosphere, but direct feedback in the opposite direction is usually assumed to be negligible, despite the troposphere's sensitivity to changes in the release of wave activity into the stratosphere1, 2, 3. Here, however, we present evidence that such a feedback exists and can be significant. We find that if the wintertime Arctic polar stratospheric vortex is distorted, either by waves propagating upward from the troposphere4 or by eastward-travelling stratospheric waves5,6, then there is a concomitant redistribution of stratospheric potential vorticity which induces perturbations in keymeteorological fields in the upper troposphere. The feedback is large despite the much greater mass of the troposphere: it can account for up to half of the geopotential height anomaly at thetropopause. Although the relative strength of the feedback is partly due to a cancellation7 between contributions to these anomalies from lower altitudes, our results imply that stratospheric dynamics and its feedback on the troposphere are more significant for climate modelling and data assimilation than was previously assumed.

www.nature.com...



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 12:11 AM
link   
An out-of-season deluge caused landslides all over my country yesterday. A couple of villages were destroyed. Dozens or hundreds of people are homeless this morning. Several roads in the capital are blocked by fallen trees. Lots of property damage. I drove home in it last night -- it was shocking.

And another Pacific island drowned yesterday while you were arguing about your hockey sticks.



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 12:14 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

The long-term results show that there is a close relationship between the diurnal Sq magnetic field variations and the tropospheric temperature.
link.springer.com...
Big surprise. Do you know what diurnal means? Not sure what it has to do with the weakening of Earth's magnetic field.



Geomagnetic forcing of changes in climate and in the atmospheric circulation
www.sciencedirect.com...
Somewhat more interesting. I'll see if I can find the full article. Not sure what it has to do with the weakening of Earth's magnetic field.



Stratosphere–Troposphere Coupling in the Southern Hemisphere
Doesn't seem to do with the weakening of Earth's magnetic field.




A new perspective on the dynamical link between the stratosphere and troposphere
Doesn't seem to do with the weakening of Earth's magnetic field.
edit on 5/16/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 12:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage

Big surprise. Do you know what diurnal means? Not sure what it has to do with the weakening of Earth's magnetic field.


So, you can't even understand what "Climate changes associated with high-amplitude Sq geomagnetic variations" have to do with the Earth's magnetic field weakening ?...

That particular research was focused on diurnal magnetic field variations, but it points to the fact that changes in the Earth's magnetic field do affect temperatures in the Troposphere...


originally posted by: Phage

Geomagnetic forcing of changes in climate and in the atmospheric circulation
www.sciencedirect.com...
Somewhat more interesting. I'll see if I can find the full article. Not sure what it has to do with the weakening of Earth's magnetic field.


originally posted by: Phage

A correlation between geomagnetic forcing and changes in temperatures Phage... For crying out loud.


Stratosphere–Troposphere Coupling in the Southern Hemisphere
Doesn't seem to do with the weakening of Earth's magnetic field.

A new perspective on the dynamical link between the stratosphere and troposphere
Doesn't seem to do with the weakening of Earth's magnetic field.


It shows proof energy does transfer from the upper layers of Earth's atmosphere into the Troposphere and causes warming in the lower layers of Earth's atmosphere...



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 12:37 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

That particular research was focused on diurnal magnetic field variations, but it points to the fact that changes in the Earth's magnetic field do affect temperatures in the Troposphere...
What other diurnal variations might have that effect, I wonder?




It shows proof energy does transfer from the upper layers of Earth's atmosphere into the Troposphere and causes warming in the lower layers of Earth's atmosphere...

Proof? That's a pretty strong word when it comes to science. The abstract says "high correlation."
Did you buy the article? Or do you have a link to a free version I could have a look at?

edit on 5/16/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 12:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
What other diurnal variations might have that effect, I wonder?


For crying out loud they are talking about geomagnetic variations causing warming at night in the Troposphere Phage.


originally posted by: Phage
Proof? That's a pretty strong word when it comes to science. The abstract says "high correlation."
Did you buy the article? Or do you have a link to a free version I could have a look at?

...



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 12:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
Just curious about the last couple pages of discussion.

How do CO2 levels affect the magnetosphere of earth?

No one?

***crickets***



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 12:51 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse


For crying out loud they are talking about geomagnetic variations causing warming at night in the Troposphere Phage.
Do you have the full text available? The abstract does not say that.

The long-term results show that there is a close relationship between the diurnal Sq magnetic field variations and the tropospheric temperature.

edit on 5/16/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 12:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
Just curious about the last couple pages of discussion.

How do CO2 levels affect the magnetosphere of earth?


Little direct influence as far as I'm aware. The primary components are the magnetic field of the Earth (generated by internal dynamics inside the Earth's interior) and the solar wind and solar plasma weather.

Indirectly, increasing greenhouse gases cause cooling of the stratosphere and some compaction.



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 03:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
Do you have the full text available? The abstract does not say that.




...
In the hypothesis proposed here for explaining Sun-weather relations, downward winds following the geomagnetic storm onset are generated in the polar cap of the thermosphere and penetrate to the stratosphere and troposphere, where the atmospheric response can be observed as a sudden increase of pressure and temperature.
...

www.sciencedirect.com...



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 03:54 PM
link   
Again. Some of you put yourselves out there like you are Expert Climate Scientists. I'm not. So I refer to experts. I'm smart enough to get a second opinion as well. In fact with science I try to get like a thousand second opinions. They all tell me the same thing. Yet...some of you are smarter than all of them or all of them are lying to me.



In science, Occam's razor is used as a heuristic technique (discovery tool) to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models, rather than as an arbiter between published models.[1][2] In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result; the preference for simplicity in the scientific method is based on the falsifiability criterion. For each accepted explanation of a phenomenon, there may be an extremely large, perhaps even incomprehensible, number of possible and more complex alternatives, because one can always burden failing explanations with ad hoc hypotheses to prevent them from being falsified; therefore, simpler theories are preferable to more complex ones because they are more testable.

I would use Occam's Razor on these two questions then.

Is it more probable that most Climate Scientists and Scientific Organizations are lying to me about climate change or telling me the truth?

Is it more probable that most Climate Scientists and Scientific Organizations are Wrong but Electric Universe is correct?

I see an out there though...here's the new better question.

Is it more probable that the 200 Scientific Organizations listed on NASA's website are lying to me about climate change or telling me the truth?

Is it more probable that 200 Scientific Organizations listed on NASA's website are Wrong but Electric Universe is correct?


Thoughts?



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 04:02 PM
link   
If you don't want to accept one peer-reviewed paper there are several others.


International Journal of Physical Sciences Vol. 4 (1), pp. 044-046, January, 2009
Available online at www.academicjournals.org...
ISSN 1992 - 1950 © 2009 Academic Journals
Short Communication
The possible role of dynamic pressure from the
interplanetary magnetic field on global warming
Michael A. Persinger
Biophysics Section, Biomolecular Sciences Program, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ontario P3E 2C6. E-mail:
mpersinger@laurentian.ca. Fax: 01-705-671-3844.
Accepted 24 December, 2008

Quantitative analyses suggest that the increase in global warming by about 1°C over the last century is related to the increase in geomagnetic activity. Maintained small increases in dynamic pressure in the order of a nanoPascal from the solar wind due to the expansion of the solar magnetic corona may be sufficient to produce the energy that has resulted in the increase of surface temperatures on the Earth and Mars. A 1 nPa increase in dynamic pressure is equivalent to the increase of about 16 nT in aa (average antipodal index) values observed over the last 100 years. The results support the hypothesis of El-Borie and Al-Thoyaib that geomagnetic activity can partially predict global mean temperatures.
Key words:
Geomagnetic induction, solar corona expansion, global warming, solar wind, aa values.

www.academicjournals.org...

Remember that claim by the AGW camp that the Sun's activity stopped increasing in the 1950s or 1980s, take your pick? I have shown you how magnetic storms in the sun had been increasing in intensity, but you among some others kept claiming the graphs weren't showing that despite the fact that they did.


Nature 399, 437-439 (3 June 1999) | doi:10.1038/20867; Received 21 December 1998; Accepted 12 April 1999

A doubling of the Sun's coronal magnetic field during the past 100 years

M. Lockwood1, R. Stamper1 & M. N. Wild1

World Data Centre C-1 for STP, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Chilton, Didcot OX11 0QX, UK

Correspondence to: M. Lockwood1 Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to M.L. (e-mail: Email: m.lockwood@rl.ac.uk.)

Top of page
Abstract

The solar wind is an extended ionized gas of very high electrical conductivity, and therefore drags some magnetic flux out of the Sun to fill the heliosphere with a weak interplanetary magnetic field1,2. Magnetic reconnection—the merging of oppositely directed magnetic fields—between the interplanetary field and the Earth's magnetic field allows energy from the solar wind to enter the near-Earth environment. The Sun's properties, such as its luminosity, are related to its magnetic field, although the connections are still not well understood3,4. Moreover, changes in the heliospheric magnetic field have been linked with changes in total cloud cover over the Earth, which may influence global climate5. Here we show that measurements of the near-Earth interplanetary magnetic field reveal that the total magnetic flux leaving the Sun has risen by a factor of 1.4 since 1964: surrogate measurements of the interplanetary magnetic field indicate that the increase since 1901 has been by a factor of 2.3. This increase may be related to chaotic changes in the dynamo that generates the solar magnetic field. We do not yet know quantitatively how such changes will influence the global environment.

www.nature.com...

Yes, that research is from 1999 and it shows that back then scientists knew of this connection, it is not the only research from that time either.


International Journal of the Physical Sciences Vol.
7(4), pp.
660
-
663
, 23 January, 2012
Available online at www.academicjournals.org...
DOI: 10.5897/IJPS11.1194
ISSN 1992
-
1950 © 2012 Academic Journals
Full Length Research Paper

Correlations between ocean water temperature and related parameters from the Victoria experimental network under the sea (VENUS) and
geomagnetic activity: Implications for climate change

Noa Gang 1 and Michael A. Persinger1,2*
1 Department of Biology, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ontario,
P3E 2C6, Canada.
2 Biophysics Section, Biomolecular Sciences Program Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ontario, P3E 2C6. Canada.

Accepted 04 January, 2012

Factor analyses of sample daily variables of temperature, conductivity, density, oxygen concentration and salinity of sea water from the Victoria Experimental Network Under the Sea (VENUS) project reflected a single factor. Once temporal (serial) effects had been removed, the residuals for this factor were significantly and positively correlated (r=0.60) with the global geomagnetic activity during the days of and before and after the measurements, but not for the second and third days before or after the measurements. These results suggest that increased geomagnetic activity can influence the shared recondite sources of variance within sea water that affect temperature and associated basic parameters. The slope for the significant correlation between increased global geomagnetic activity and increased water temperature revealed changes that were consistent with the empirical measurements.

Key words: Geomagnetic activity, sea water, temperature , climate change, Victoria Experimental Network Under the Sea (VENUS) project.

www.academicjournals.org...

Earth's climate is a lot more complex than the AGW camp wants to believe.

edit on 16-5-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: correct excerpt.



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 04:15 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

the suns impact is negligible after 1956

berkley earth

summary of findings

press release


In its 2007 report the IPCC concluded only that “ most ” of the warming of the past 50 years could be attributed to humans. It was possible, according to the IPCC, that increased solar activity could have contributed to warming prior to 1956 . Berkeley Earth analyzed about 5 times more station records than were used in previous analyses, and this expanded data base along with its new statistical approach allowed Berkeley Earth to go about 100 years farther back in time than previous studies. By doing so, the Berkeley Earth team was able to conclude that over 25 0 years, the contribution of solar activity to global warming is negligible.



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 04:42 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I feel like you just post on these threads to flood it full of your anti established scientific claims. Literally everyone of your posts is full of excess quotes, overly wordy rants, and almost an authoritative tone.

I ask you, why do you think you got it right, while the scientific community from all over the world, most being independent researchers and NOT employed by a government agency, got it wrong?

We have observed a spike in CO2 levels, we also determined the extra CO2 is indeed coming from human activity yet so many on here refuse to accept this. Those who are 'forced' to accept this reality, then try to argue about how much heat CO2-really traps.

Why is the science so difficult for so many to accept? Why do posts full.of buzz words that attack good science often get more stars than well thought out posts that present good information?

That is what I'm constantly asking myself when I read a climate thread.
edit on 17-5-2016 by jrod because: swype err



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 05:16 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod




Why is the science so difficult for so many to accept? Why do posts full.of buzz words that attack good science often get more stars than well thought out posts that present good information?

Maybe because it hasn't yet been proven that the current human co2 emissions cause global warming, climate change or predicts a catastrophic future?



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 06:06 PM
link   
a reply to: intergalactic fire

But it has....you just want to cast doubt on the reality of the situation.

On this fragile earth forum the overwhelming evidence that tells us that we are indeed responsible for the rising CO2 levels has been posted many times on here.

Are you trying to suggest the concept of radiative forcing is a lie from the science community too?
edit on 17-5-2016 by jrod because: a



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 06:13 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod

support doesn't mean fact.

If it is true what you say, show me the peer-reviewed paper that says "human co2 emissions are the cause of global warming"



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 06:35 PM
link   
a reply to: intergalactic fire

You are being a troll and expecting a complete solution/answer to a difficult problem and I'm at a bar on a tropical island enjoying happy hour. There are a plethora of papers that suggest human activity is causing a warming effect.

Do you not believe CO2 contributes to a warming effect?



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 06:57 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod



You are being a troll and expecting a complete solution/answer to a difficult problem and I'm at a bar on a tropical island enjoying happy hour

Troll? really? again?
So you are busy, again, you must be having a blast right? otherwise you wouldn't be posting on ATS during happy-hour on some tropical island getting drunk in a bar


You haven't provided any useful or credible information in any of your posts.
The only thing you are repeating over and over, humans->co2 rise->global warming.
You are getting old news buddy.
I've posted dozens of peer reviewed papers showing why you should be skeptic when talking about the climate.
Did you even bother to read any of those? Probably not because the only answer you give is always the same and you are busy with other stuff.

So you are saying it's a complete solution/answer to a difficult problem eh?

The conclusion that the warming is due to humans is based simply on the close agreement between the shape of the observed temperature rise and the known greenhouse gas increase.

That was easy, maybe the climate isn't as complex as we think at least not the theory behind man-made global warming.



new topics

top topics



 
37
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join