20 new science papers find climate driven by solar changes

a reply to: Justoneman

If the poles move the water patterns follow it

No. I don't think so.

The magnets on my refrigerator are a hundred times (or more) stronger than the Earth's magnetic field. They don't make water move.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Justoneman

If the poles move the water patterns follow it

No. I don't think so.

The magnets on my refrigerator are a hundred times (or more) stronger than the Earth's magnetic field. They don't make water move.

Don't get ahead of yourself. There isn't gaseous water in your refrigerator.... LOL...

Seriously, to prove my point. Take a plastic/vinyl comb and comb your hair. Turn on the water and place the comb near the stream and watch the action. THAT is a magnetic affect.

a reply to: Phage

Possibly it hadn't but doesn't mean its not heading in that direction; www.reportingclimatescience.com...

the warming trend we are currently observing has happened before without dramatic peaks and troughs of CO2 and as an enquiring mind I want to know what processes drove this variability, that information would be vital in any model designed to predict climate change (not that I could do that, modelling really did seem like bad science to me, perhaps I am just old and out dated).

a reply to: Justoneman

THAT is a magnetic affect.

No. That is electrostatic attraction.

I'm am not a scientist... but what I can say is, climate change isn't the "End of the world". We will be fine.

originally posted by: Charlyboy
a reply to: Phage

Possibly it hadn't but doesn't mean its not heading in that direction; www.reportingclimatescience.com...

the warming trend we are currently observing has happened before without dramatic peaks and troughs of CO2 and as an enquiring mind I want to know what processes drove this variability, that information would be vital in any model designed to predict climate change (not that I could do that, modelling really did seem like bad science to me, perhaps I am just old and out dated).

Models, and I know this 1st hand, are only as good as the information input them and what they were programmed to do. In fact the models Al Gore's 97 % scientists agree fable makers use have not proved one point he predicted.

a reply to: Charlyboy

Possibly it hadn't but doesn't mean its not heading in that direction;

Well, it is a cycle after all. So yes, at some point it will reverse. But that doesn't mean global warming will.

the warming trend we are currently observing has happened before without dramatic peaks and troughs of CO2 and as an enquiring mind I want to know what processes drove this variability, that information would be vital in any model designed to predict climate change

That is precisely why efforts are made to understand what happened in the past and how that might apply to the present (and future).

We do know that, thanks to us, CO2 levels are higher than they have been in at least 800,000 years. Thanks to us, they have gotten there in a very short period of time. Thanks to the physics of radiative forcing, global temperatures are rising.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Justoneman

THAT is a magnetic affect.

No. That is electrostatic attraction.

Ok, well your electrostatic concept is related to magnetic attractions any way you wish to slice it Phage. Electrons are electrons no matter where they are and they are predictable. I studied this in college and electrons are negative and when we talk negative and positive some very predictable outcomes are set in motion. Apparently you could use to brush up on this if you want to get to the root of the issue with gaseous molecules like water. Something related to the Van der Waals affect occurs at the molecular level.

The electrons of water are available to attach to other molecules. The example i give you provides a means to see with your own eyes how water is repelled by the electrons on the comb. The earths magnetic field is definitely going to be relational for electron orientations. AND THAT is the basis for my theory.

a reply to: Justoneman

I studied this in college and electrons are negative and when we talk negative and positive some very predictable outcomes are set in motion.

Yes. Now hold a magnet next to that water stream.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Justoneman

I studied this in college and electrons are negative and when we talk negative and positive some very predictable outcomes are set in motion.

Yes. Now hold a magnet next to that water stream.

Still not gas Phage. Gaseous water bro, gaseous.


I will stick to molecules and how they interact. You probably know more about the solar system objects movements and interactions through gravity than I but it is definitely something that is on an atomic level and the handbook of Chemistry and Physics the CRC breaks down the various properties of atoms and molecules. They are different in their solid/gaseous states. It is called the bible of Chemistry and Physics. Mine is the 65th edition and it is still very useful for my ilk.

a reply to: Phage

Well, it is a cycle after all. So yes, at some point it will reverse. But that doesn't mean global warming will.

It doesn't mean it won't either....

We do know that, thanks to us, CO2 levels are higher than they have been in at least 800,000 years. Thanks to us, they have gotten there in a very short period of time. Thanks to the physics of radiative forcing, global temperatures are rising.

Yet temperatures are not??

I think its fair to say that, however the true impact of radiative forcing on the climate as a whole is based on models written with our current understanding of climate physics.

What we have here is a discussion about pollution and why we need to adjust our behaviour, its not just CO2, its deforestation, plastics, fertilisers, industrial farming etc. I find it difficult to understand why we have to wait until there is a perceived threat to our way of life to change these things. Even when there is a threat we argue about whether or not it's real when potentially that may be irrelevant.... Governments around the world dragged their feet on emissions for years, then they decided to create a business out of it. It is a shame that money has become more important than our environment and wellbeing.

originally posted by: Charlyboy
a reply to: Phage

Well, it is a cycle after all. So yes, at some point it will reverse. But that doesn't mean global warming will.

It doesn't mean it won't either....

We do know that, thanks to us, CO2 levels are higher than they have been in at least 800,000 years. Thanks to us, they have gotten there in a very short period of time. Thanks to the physics of radiative forcing, global temperatures are rising.

I think its fair to say that, however the true impact of radiative forcing on the climate as a whole is based on models written with our current understanding of climate physics.

What we have here is a discussion about pollution and why we need to adjust our behaviour, its not just CO2, its deforestation, plastics, fertilisers, industrial farming etc. I find it difficult to understand why we have to wait until there is a perceived threat to our way of life to change these things. Even when there is a threat we argue about whether or not it's real when potentially that may be irrelevant.... Governments around the world dragged their feet on emissions for years, then they decided to create a business out of it. It is a shame that money has become more important than our environment and wellbeing.

And as a Cousteau Society member , formerly at least, I am on board with reducing pollution. Calling CO2 pollution is wasting our time and making the public numb to the "eggheads" they are being pushed around by left and right side of this argument. We need logic like your post is. CO2 being THE THING plants eat to make the parts we animals eat, is needed a whole lot more to help put food on the table for the growing population.

a reply to: Justoneman

Well unfortunately logic always seems to play second fiddle to personal gain and belief systems..... I personally am not afraid of CO2 but I am afraid of bad science and politicians

originally posted by: Charlyboy
a reply to: Justoneman

Well unfortunately logic always seems to play second fiddle to personal gain and belief systems..... I personally am not afraid of CO2 but I am afraid of bad science and politicians

Amen, you are right too. The power grab is what the common man has picked up on. They need the reasoning now to understand they aren't wrong.

The sun does have an effect on climate, there is no doubt about that. The climate change scam is just a scam, some of it is relevant though, we cannot keep pumping all that smoke from factories making products we do not need or from factories making products that are made to fail within way to short of a time.

And quit dumping unnatural or concentrated natural chemistry into the environment. Lots of small farms are better than a few big farms. Spread out the natural chemistry all over instead of concentrating it in a few spots. Eliminate a lot of the unnatural chemistry being generated too.

I can't agree with giving high amounts of money to climate change organizations.

originally posted by: rickymouse
The sun does have an effect on climate, there is no doubt about that. The climate change scam is just a scam, some of it is relevant though, we cannot keep pumping all that smoke from factories making products we do not need or from factories making products that are made to fail within way to short of a time.

And quit dumping unnatural or concentrated natural chemistry into the environment. Lots of small farms are better than a few big farms. Spread out the natural chemistry all over instead of concentrating it in a few spots. Eliminate a lot of the unnatural chemistry being generated too.

I can't agree with giving high amounts of money to climate change organizations.

ON this I couldn't agree more.


Thanks to you all for adding to this discussion.......

a reply to: Charlyboy

I'm happy that you can admit your mistakes, learn and move on; however, imagine how much further along the human race would be if people like you used to be, wouldn't have been so arrogant to begin with?

a reply to: Justoneman

It's an important discussion to have, the climate science has raised some serious questions which go way beyond the climate.

a reply to: Voyaging

The arrogance is not something you start off with, its something you acquire after years of academic process and research. You have to have a certain arrogance about you to survive in the field, it is driven by the 'publish or perish' mentality. It ends up being an elitist thing and I am sorry to say its also a very human thing.

If you read the majority of the threads on ATS you will be reminded that arrogance is a human trait closely related to ego. Few people here manage to have civilised discussions without being jerks, it's not just a science thing, its a human thing. Science however is not emotional or judgemental its a discipline.

I worked in Genetics and environment and honestly the things they were doing with food and animals was pretty average and really poorly understood, yet arrogance and the desire to be published drove them onwards. Thats why I resigned.

a reply to: Justoneman

Send those 20 scientific papers to AL GORE, so he'll quit begging the world for $15 Trillion to save ourselves. TIA.