20 new science papers find climate driven by solar changes

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: D8Tee
There's plenty of peer reviewed papers that say the science is far from settled.

No, honey.

If you say so....

a reply to: garbageface

Now tell us how you really feel about Trump... /sarc

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie
a reply to: Justoneman

I make my living as an Environmental Scientist

May I ask what an why an environmental scientist is trying to debunk climate change through astrophysics?

NOAA is not SOHO, and yes while the sun can affect electronic devices, solar flares won't warm the Earth on the scale that we have seen since the beginning of the industrial revolution, in fact the moon has a greater affect as at it's perigree can encourage tectonic shifts once every 17 years (Los Angleles Earthquake 1994- Japan Eartquake 2011)

The sun will get hotter and expand over Millions of years after the invention of the combustion engine, unless the sun has a proxy AKA mankind.

I swear man made climate change deniers will scrape at the bottom of the barrel to debase man made climate change despite the evidence from various ice and soil samples that a "environmental scientist" should have taken and researched.

So as an environmental scientist, can you give us first hand evidence of what's going on instead of leading us to links?

I am not debunking anything but the lies in the media. You misread what I am saying with that false data in your head. 1st time you realize the truth it changes you. Jacques Cousteau society member, professional environmentalist I go where the data is and those papers you aren't reading is how we obtain data for debates. Raw data is all over those papers and I deal in raw data. Believe what you want...

a reply to: Justoneman

www.nasa.gov...

NASA with their fancy toys determined The sun is only responsible for 25% of the warming. This information has been available for years.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Phage

I said there are other possible explanations beyond solar irradiance. And as far as short period of detailed observations, welcome to planet Earth.

Yes, my opinion is that some other explanations are right and one is magnetic cycles stirring the proverbial pot (not weed there ATS'ers).

originally posted by: 3danimator2014
I don't understand why you would believe these 20 papers but not the thousands that say that man is responsible. Selective belief on display. Typical.

Because their theory's have failed us miserably and did not make one accurate prediction. Dr Feynman would say if you're doing research and your theory fails you have to get a new one.

I think we'll see more and more published papers offering credible views on what drives global warming now that the priesthood is falling apart and you no longer seem to get hung drawn and quartered for suggesting that a few scientists are not actually 97% of scientists, and they might be wrong.

originally posted by: conscientiousobserver
a reply to: Justoneman

www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/solar_v

NASA with their fancy toys determined The sun is only responsible for 25% of the warming. This information has been available for years.

Linky no worky.

Here is something from England on the matter. That supports my theory on the lies.


www.telegraph.co.uk...

The Church of AGW is crumbling do to lousy predictions and bad data with greedy a holes cramming it down our throats and driving people to despise science. I can't let them get away with it and I am doing my part to say FOCUS ON THE REAL POLLUTION. Don't let the fools ruin science by claiming scientist against their BS are the ones hurting scientific studies. They are becoming the proverbial "duck" that is "quacking, walking and looking like a duck". I am calling out "SPADE" before these greedy morons destroy Science as we know it.

a reply to: UKTruth

You mean now that the oil companies are in charge again? The sun accounts for roughly 25% of our warming. The rest comes from a number of localized factors including air pollution.

a reply to: D8Tee

Fixed it

originally posted by: conscientiousobserver
a reply to: D8Tee

Fixed it

404 The cosmic object you are looking for has disappeared beyond the event horizon.

Try entering 'link' for the 'name field' box that pops up before the URL box?

originally posted by: conscientiousobserver
a reply to: UKTruth

You mean now that the oil companies are in charge again? The sun accounts for roughly 25% of our warming. The rest comes from a number of localized factors including air pollution.

I am going to guess you missed my OP with the H2 car example (25 years ago a University built one) and my discussion on inherently safe nuclear reactors that would replace oil?

Oil should be for lubricants and plastics....

originally posted by: conscientiousobserver
a reply to: UKTruth

You mean now that the oil companies are in charge again? The sun accounts for roughly 25% of our warming. The rest comes from a number of localized factors including air pollution.

Your Jedi mind tricks don't work on me.

a reply to: D8Tee

All good now.

a reply to: Justoneman

H2 car example (25 years ago a University built one)

No big trick to get an internal combustion engine to run on Hydrogen.

a reply to: Justoneman

I'll have to check it out, but my post was directed more at UK truth.

My only concern with hydrogen vehicles is the water vapor exhaust . If we had millions of them spewing out water vapor me thinks that might have an effect on local weather patterns. Otherwise I like what Honda is doing with hydrogen fuel cells.

What I would like to see is a mixture of safe nuclear using thorium(hopefully fusion within the next couple decades). coupled with solar shingles and a power wall provided by solar city. To power our homes, businesses, and full electric vehicles.

Lubricants and plastics can be made almost entirely from hemp and other bio materials. Not to mention electric vehicles do not require motor oil.

I've lurked forever, loving this site - UFOs are my thing, love the topic, whether one believes or not.

But, I just simply had to sign-in, finally, seeing the general consensus here that it simply must be the climate scientists and liberals that are forming the conspiracy to keep the truth from you. The truth has to be that it's all a hoax "trumped" up by enviros and greedy scientists wanting their funding (this is my fav fav fav).

Because the "conspiracy" and the "disinfo" simply cannot come from the oil companies that are much larger than most governments and are open books, that never would do something harmful on purpose, and who - unlike the scientists - are not greedy and in their industry for the money. Bwahahahahahahahaha.

The single richest, most powerful, largest economic sector in the world, with trillions of dollars riding on cuts in hydrocarbon use, can't possibly be the ones pumping out disinformation, and they are the ones that so many of "us" independent "thinkers" here must have their poor backs. Too funny. Keep fighting the good fight, guys! Those trillion dollar companies need your help!

a reply to: conscientiousobserver

Where you going to get your hydrogen from?