The Whole Solar System is Undergoing Global Warming.

page: 4
36
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 22 2006 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Outland
The image below illustrates...
...

I hope you're all feeling really guilty now.


Outland

Thanks for the voodoo perspective on GHGs!


That's some profound scientific thinking there!


Ever happen to hear of the term GWP?

Here's to all things small!!!!

Cyanide cakes anyone?


[ats]http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:UXrEhxis3hNQQM:www.acmi.net.au...[/ats]

Go on! Try some... The amount of sprinkles is very...very...small.



[edit on 22-8-2006 by loam]




posted on Aug, 22 2006 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by loam
Go on! Try some... The amount of sprinkles is very...very...small.


Outland's graphical examples forget to mention that the isotopes of anthropogenic CO2 are different from the isotopes of naturally produced CO2, and that the climate took millions of years to achieve the precarious balance that supports life.


. The C12 isotope is the most abundant and is the only carbon isotope created by combusting fossil fuels, while the latter two are created by radiation in the biosphere. Given enough time, C13 and C14 will decay back into C12, but the large ratio of C12 to the other two isotopes indicates the great effect that fossil fuel use has on the transfer of stored carbon to atmospheric carbon.
www.iitap.iastate.edu...


Pass on those cupcakes, care for a plutonium twinkie?





posted on Aug, 22 2006 @ 06:09 PM
link   
Congratulations on excellent research and collation of material!

I have started a tribe on Tribe.net called "Global Warming - The Lie", and have posted alot of material there, but not quite as technical as you have here.

I also subscribe to the newletters from ECTV, which keep me up-to-date on the situation with solar flares and sunspots and much more. Have a look: www.earthchangestv.com...
Mitch Battros the author of "Solar Rain" which was published last year, is very wise on this subject. This is his equation: Equation: Sunspots => Solar Flares => Magnetic Field Shift => Shifting Ocean and Jet Stream Currents => Extreme Weather and Human Disruption (Mitch Battros - author of 'Solar Rain')
I recommend his book to all, which can be purchased via his website. It goes into great detail and has the interesting angles from the Maya and other groups.
He is warning about the new Sunspot Cycle 24 which is just beginning. NASA has stated that it will be 50% more powerful than the previous on. In Cycle 23 we experienced the largest Solar Flare ever recorded, at X45 (previously the largest was X9).
I believe his next book is to be called "Cosmic Rain"

I also had the recent honour to meet Peter Taylor, an oceanographic scientist and previously an advisor with Greenpeace. He is presenting the kind of information that you are showing and has a very convincing presentation to give on the subject. Greenpeace no longer want to know what he has to say! They don't like his 'inconvenient truth'.
Peter's website is: www.ethos-uk.com (for info and contact - but doesn't have much about solar changes etc)

I will refer to your information at my next presentation, and provide links for people to connect to.

Whatever is going on with the Sunspots and Flares, we humans must still clean up our act, and get to zero emissions, and total sustainability.

The Maya are saying that the new 'Age', beginning in 2012, will be ruled by the element of Ether and will have a very different quality from the previous 4 cycles. They are warning about the years to come and the potential of huge volcanic eruptions at Yellowstone and elsewhere. They are asking for more people to get conscious of the evolution of this planet and our Sun.

Keep up the good work!



posted on Aug, 22 2006 @ 07:50 PM
link   
It's great to see that someone has taken the time to put together the research on alternative views to global warming. Is it happening? No doubt!
Are humans to blame? Partly, but only for our reactions to the effects.
We pollute more in the universe with our ATTITUDES than with chemicals... Psychic pollution. Just my opinion on that though.

This idea that there is something much bigger and grander going on than what we humans are doing has been around for a while. I remember back in a "Science and Technology" seminar class in graduate school (in 1995) I suggested during a class discussion that perhaps the Sun was having a much greater impact on our climate change than man-made atmospheric chemicals. My professor (formerly a NASA scientist) laughed at me in front of the whole class. Needless to say, he didn't think much of my research paper on the topic, but oh well... I'm sorry to say that maybe I'll be having the last laugh on that one!


My perspective now? Time to tune in to the spiritual for matter is the illusion. The only way to change the world is to change yourself.

Peace,
~Jammer+



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 01:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komei
we're still responsible for one of the largest die-offs in history,
we ourselves ahve made many animals and plants extinct,
take for example the DoDo, we hunted the poor thing into extinction.

1.) If you're a Creationist, you're likely to believe that we've caused pretty much all the die offs. (Concept: if we were here from the begining of creation, and our sin caused the creation of both death and carnivores, then our sin caused the flood, and we still continued to kill some animals when they were endangered...well then, what species escaped all 3 of these?)


2.) If you roll out a list of all the animals on the extinct list 10 years ago, and note all the ones they've found to still be alive, you'll note discrepancies. Some never were extinct. And then, some have been hunted to extinction that we'll never prove lived recently or at all (okapi almost went this way). Just about all we're absolutely sure of is the Dodo is dead.


3.)It doesn't matter whether or not any human pollution causes global warming. We have enough proof that we are harmful towards the Earth. Go look at a yard that has had too much commercial fertilizer, and tell me how many years it takes fo rthe grass to grow back, without any help. Go drink the groundwater around most processing plants. Go eat raw cow brain. My point? Whether or not Global Warming due to Human Pollutants exists, we still make parts of this planet HELL to live on.



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 02:10 AM
link   
I am back. I have been gone on vacation, went to Miami Florida, it was raining every day btw :/, it might take me a bit to respond to everyone but I will get to it in time.

Anyways, I wanted to anwser to Regenmacher and loam first.

Regenmacher and loam, are you two trying to say that the Earth hasn't gone through Global Warming before industrialization and some of the climate changes seen in the past didn't happen within a decade? That there haven't been any natural periods of warming and cooling throughout the history of the Earth?

i could be wrong but that's part of what I think you two are trying to say.

Research done about past global warming trends come to a different conclusion than what you two appear to be saying.

The following list, with timeframes is an example of the changes that have happened on Earth's climate, and shows that Earth goes through these periods of warming and cooling, including rapid warming and cooling, without the help of humans.


large climate changes in Europe/Near East during the last 15,000 calendar years (note that these dates are in 'real' years not radiocarbon years).

14,500 y.a. - rapid warming and moistening of climates. Rapid deglaciation begins.

13,500 y.a. - climates about as warm and moist as today's

13,000 y.a. 'Older Dryas' cold phase (lasting about 200 years) before a partial return to warmer conditions.

12,800 y.a. (+/- 200 years)- rapid stepwise onset of the intensely cold Younger Dryas. Much drier than present over much of Europe and the Middle East, though wetter-than-present conditions at first prevailed in NW Europe.

11,500 y.a. (+/- 200 years) - Younger Dryas ends suddenly over a few decades, back to relative warmth and moist climates (Holocene, or Isotope Stage 1).

11,500 - 10,500 y.a. - climates possibly still slightly cooler than present-day.

9,000 y.a. - 8,200 y.a. - climates warmer and often moister than today's

about 8,200 y.a. - sudden cool phase lasting about 200 years, about half-way as severe as the Younger Dryas. Wetter-than-present conditions in NW Europe, but drier than present in eastern Turkey.

8,000-4,500 y.a. - climates generally slightly warmer and moister than today's.

(but; at 5,900 y.a. - a possible sudden and short-lived cold phase corresponding to the 'elm decline').

Since about 4,500 y.a. - climates fairly similar to the present

2,600 y.a. - relatively wet/cold event (of unknown duration) in many areas

(but; 1,400 y.a. {536-538 A.D.} wet cold event of reduced tree growth and famine across western Europe and possibly elsewhere).

(Followed by 'Little Ice Age' about 700-200 ya)

www.esd.ornl.gov...

And the above changes were seen within 15,000 years, we all know the Earth has been around a lot more than that.

The following is another example of the evidence that many so called scientists want to dismiss for whatever reasons.


Climate on earth is affected by two main influences: the amount of solar
energy which reaches the earth and the dynamics of the biosphere.
Theories concerning solar energy break further into two: how much energy
the sun actually emits (solar constant theory); and how much radiation
actually reaches the earth's surface at any given latitude (the astronomic
theory).
The radiation theory says that the radiation of energy from the sun is not
constant, but varies, with periodicities for the solar wind (a stream of ionized
particles emitted from the corona) of 2,100, 90 and 22 years. The
astronomic theory says that how much radiation reaches the earth's surface
at any given latitude is determined by systematic changes in the earth's
position and attitude relative to the sun, with periodicities of 100,000,
43,000, 24,000 and 19,000 years. Data from various sources such as cores
from ice sheets and deep sea sediments, ancient beaches, tree lines, glacial
moraines, and pollen and insect counts support the radiation and astronomic
theories. The models which have been used to forecast global warming due to
man made emissions of carbon dioxide have ignored the astronomic theory
until very recently and still ignore the radiation theory. This is despite the
fact that the statistical fits of the astronomic and radiation theories are
extremely good and lead to accurate forecasts, whereas the models
backcast historical climate very poorly, forecast no better and are not
statistically verified.
The models assume that carbon dioxide leads and temperature follows. Data
from ice and deep sea cores show the reverse. They suggest that the role of
carbon dioxide is to amplify the effects of the astronomic variables and solar
radiation. There has never been a historical period where CO2 rose
independently of natural drivers, such as variations in solar radiance and
astronomical cycles, which could provide an analogy for the modern period. It
is impossible to sort out from history the independent role of CO2 as too
many other things were going on at the same time, such as changes in the
water and methane content of the atmosphere, the quantity of energy
emitted from the sun and changes in the earth's orbit. It now seems clear
from the evidence of the past 100 years, and spectral calculations, that the
model builders' estimates of CO2 sensitivity are about four times too high.
This means that any changes in temperature due to anthropogenic CO2 will be
at most 0.5 degrees C over the next 100 years, a figure well within the range
of the Little Optimum warming of 900 to 1300 AD, a period of flourishing
agricultural civilizations.

Regarding biospheric dynamics, radiation from the sun heats up the
equatorial region more than the poles, which sets up convection currents in
the atmosphere and the oceans between the cooler poles and the hot
equator. When radiation changes in intensity and/or the position of the earth
relative to earth alters, the pattern of these currents changes, and with
them the patterns of temperature over the earth's surface and of
precipitation. All of these things affect how much biomass grows and where,
which in turn affects how much carbon is sequestered in growing things and
in the deep ocean and how much in the atmosphere. All of these patterns
affect how much water is in the atmosphere, which, depending on the altitude
at which it is found, can either warm the earth or cool it. Correlation
between the astronomic variables and volcanic tracers in ice cores and the
methane content of the atmosphere, suggest that those variables may also
affect currents in the earth's molten core, which in turn affect volcanic
activity, including earthquakes. Vulcanism and methane content of the
atmosphere correlate with ice volume and thus with climate on the 100,000
year cycle.
These biospheric dynamics can be non-linear and can shift between states.
For example, the air and ocean current patterns are quite different as
between ice ages and interglacials. They represent two different states in
which the rules are different. The sudden shifts which occur between these
two states are known as phase changes. They can be triggered by very small
changes in variables. For example, relatively small changes in the salinity of
surface waters in the North Atlantic can so perturb the circulation pattern
that earth can switch from warming to cooling in less than a decade.
What we think we know about climate has been changing rapidly over the past
three decades and has led to extreme changes in forecasts of future
climate. When deep sea core data in the early 1970s led to acceptance of
the astronomic theory, coincident with temperature data which showed a
cooling after 1967, climatologists leapt into print, forecasting a coming ice
age. Twenty years later, when the first General Circulation Models were built
and the modern rise in the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere was
discovered, concern switched to global warming and climatologists,
(prominent among whom was one who had earlier raised the alarm about an
ice age) leapt into print once again. Today, prominent climatologists and
oceanographers are warning of a sudden cooling due to fresh water
interrupting the flow of the ocean current system known as the Atlantic
Conveyor. An astrophysicist is predicting another Little Ice Age by 2030
based on a solar model. What this tells us is that climatology is a new
science in which the knowledge base is changing rapidly and opinion is seldom
settled for long. What is very troubling is the propensity of climatologists to
extrapolate apocalyptic forecasts on the basis of each new piece of
significant data.


www.thecis.ca...=%22less%20than%20a%20decade.%20In%20Greenland%2C%20air%20temperatures%20warmed%20by% 20about%20fifteen%20degrees%20centigrade%22

If you have a chance read the whole paper, is very interesting and shows that mostly climatologists but unfortunately other scientists are not taking in consideration the whole picture, they are concentrating, for whatever reason/reasons, only on the data which "seems" to back their argument.

I am not saying I have all the anwsers, but the facts seem to point to the conclusion that since global warming "happens on Earth periodically, and it has happened in the past, when there was no industrialization, and has caused extreme changes within a decade, and worse chances than the one we are going through, the most logical conclusion is that human activity is not the cause for the present global warming trend.

Astrophysicists and Astronomers are also seeing that the whole solar system is undergoing such a change. I see some people trying to claim that just because we have been monitoring the solar system in a short period of time, that this doesn't mean the whole solar system is undergoing a warming trend. (ran out of space)

[edit on 27-8-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 02:34 AM
link   
Muaddib, I have to say you do your research quite well,
and what you quoted/exert was interesting.

As being one of the people who said that we've only been
monitoring the solar system a short time, I think I should
restate what I was/am thinking.

I don't think we can know why all the parts of the system
are warming, atleast not with the relatively little info we
have managed to gather in the lasdt 40-50 years.

It may be that for the same or similiar reasons of that of
the Earth some other planets may be warming.
And it may be to that some of the planets are warming for
completely different reasons.


And with GlobWarming, I think really we shoould just try
and be safe rather than sorry.
That is, even if were not responsible, we should still stop
burning fossil fuels and putting foreign chemicals into the
atmosphere, just in case we are.

[edit on 8/27/2006 by iori_komei]



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 02:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komei
..............
As being one of the people who said that we've only been
monitoring the solar system a short time, I think I should
restate what I was/am thinking.
.............


This is not directed only at you, but at those people who say the changes seen in the solar system do not amount to any proof that there is a warming trend in the Solar System.

If the solar system has been monitored only for a short period, 3-4 decades, and the changes seen in recent years throughout the solar system are not to be taken as proof of warming in all planets with an atmosphere in the Solar System, then why is it that so many people, and environmentalists ony want to take into account the research done on Earth in the last 3-4 decades?, and why is it that this research proves that global warming is due to human activity?

Why is it that there are people who want to immediately dismiss the rapid changes the Earth's climate has gone through in the past, before there was any human activity, when there is ample of evidence to support not only that the Earth has gone through these changes before, but there have been times that the Earth has gone through worse, and much rapid changes than the one we are currently undergoing?

[edit on 27-8-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 03:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by forestlady
Great research, thanks. But don't blame the "environmentalists" because there are numerous scientists out there that are saying GW is definitely contributed to by humans.


and there are several other scientists who say humans are not the main contributors to global warming...and despite what some people want to claim, not everyone of those scientists works for "the oil companies or for oil interests".


Originally posted by forestlady
It may well be that our human actions are what is tipping the balance.
How can our planet not be influenced by 7 billion people living on it and all the fumes CO2 emitted from our cars, etc.? When you add the disappearing forests such as the Amazon, you've got far too much CO2 to say that what we humans do has nothing to do with GW. Everything is inter-related.


the balance has been tiped before plenty of times without any human interference. Human activity has an impact on parts of the environment, but to go from there and claim that because of this we are the reason for global wamring is too big of a jump when the evidence shows that these "global changes" have happened in the past without human intervention.


Originally posted by forestlady
Your research does not include the consideration that humans may at least be contributing greatly to GW and making it worse than it would normally be. Our solar system is a very complex thing with many variables in it.


i used to think that there was a possibility that human activity was making it worse and was at least contributing a bit on global warming, but the more research i have done the more i see that while human activity has changed the environment in many places on Earth, there are other larger events which appear to be the causes of these changes.

The magnetic field of the sun determines how much intergallatic dust and excited particles enter our solar system and affect the planets, and currently the sun's magnetic field is allowing more intergallactic dust and excited particles such as ions to enter not only the Solar System, but they are affecting every planet with an atmosphere.



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 04:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Can I just start off by noting that its amazing the peopel were arguing about whether the earth was warming for years, but now we're saying that we've been able to show that a handful of other planets are?


We can also say that it is amazing that some people want to claim that global warming on Earth is caused by human activity, and this is proven because of the research done in the past 3-4 decades, which ignores other resarch done in that same time and even before, yet some of these same people want to dismiss the changes found in the other planets of the solar systems, which are undergoing warming of their own as the research done in the past 3-4 decades shows.

BTW, you will find that since i have been a member of these forums I have said there are changes happening on Earth, but these changes are not happening only to Earth.


Originally posted by Nygdan
Who?
Who are you contending is covering up scientific evidence in order to protect the idea that earth's warming is because of increases in greenhouse gases?
Scientists?


i already anwsered this, it is the same people that only want to claim that humans are the cause of global warming. Some people might not know the research which disproves their claims, others want to dismiss it offhand.


Originally posted by Nygdan
This is a change in temperature as a result of atmospheric dynamics on jupiter. It has nothing to do with greenhouse gases on earth. It does not suggest an alternative solar system wide driver of the current terrestrial temperature increase.


I never said the changes on Jupiter have anything to do with greenhouse gases on Earth, that would be left for those people who say global warming is caused by mankind.

BTW, such changes are not only happening to Jupiter, but every planet with an atmosphere in the solar system.

This plus the fact that we know that the magnetic field of the sun influences how much excited particles, such as ions, and intergallactic dust enters the solar system, that we know these excited particles and intergallactic dust have chemical effects on the planets with atmosphere and even the sun, all of which are going through a warming trend/changes not seen for at least 1,000 years, and we know that at this moment the magnetic field of the sun is allowing more of this dust and excited particles to enter the solar system more than has happened in a while, and we are seeing this happening to the other planets in the solar system, suggest that the global warming that is happening to Earth is not because of human activity.



Originally posted by Nygdan
Because distance from the sun is not the only factor that affects the amount of heat absorbed from the sun. This is why winter isn't defined by distance from the sun.


Wait, i thought you were trying to say that not every planet responds in the same manner and have different reactions because of their atmosphere, which in a way you are correct. BTW, the warming trend in Pluto has been going on for over three years, ever since it was orbiting away from the Sun.


Originally posted by Nygdan

biocab.org...

Why are these guys being cited as authorities, and other researchers who are trained in climate related sciences and do research in it being ignored?


Do you have any facts to dismiss/debunk their research?

I can think of some people who were not considered scientists for a long while and held other jobs, such as a certain patent clerk, yet he became one of the most prominent scientists in the 20th century.

BTW, why dismiss the other evidence provided by other scientists which contradicts the theory that human activity is the cause of global warming?... I was proving that even scientists which are not part of the "system" are finding that there are other causes for global warming on Earth.


Originally posted by Nygdan
If they have a theory as to what is driving the current increase, then they should submit it to at least a moderately well respected research journal. If they have, and their paper was rejected because it was garbage, then I suppose that they'd have to put it up on a webpage.


They are not the only ones doing this. I gave links to other scientists who also state more or less what these people are saying.


Originally posted by Nygdan
There is both a warming trend and an increase in global atmospheric concentrations of CO2.


And there is also an increase of interallactic dust and excited particles entering the solar system, and Earth because the magnetic field of the sun did not flip as it should have.


Originally posted by Nygdan

instead, we can see a clear relation between Solar Activity (green undashed line) and Global Warming

I don't see it in that graph.


Well there are people who claim that mankind, or CO2 released because of human activity is the cause for global warming, and they usually show a graph in which you can see that both CO2 and a warming trend is increasing. Are you saying that a graph which shows a correlation is no proof of anything?


Originally posted by Nygdan

Is the solar system entering a nearby interstellar cloud

This is from a paper from 1978. There has been no more research on this possible cloud??


I gave several links, some from 2003-2006 which state the same thing. You want more links? I'll give them in the next post.


Originally posted by Nygdan

www.spaceref.com...
The stardust itself is very fine ? just one-hundredth of the width of a human hair. It is unlikely to have much effect on the planets


And several other scientists say those particles do influence the dynamics of the solar system, i gave other links also to prove this.


Originally posted by Nygdan
Based on a paper from 1978 and a couple of guys that explain biology to lay people??? I'm sorry, but the evidence presented does not support that the increase of greenhouse gas is not the cause of the increase in temperature.


I am sorry but i gave more evidence than just "a paper from 1978 and a link from "lay people"....

The link for the paper from 1978 was to prove that climatic changes were predicted back then, i gave several other links, but obviously you didn't see them.


Originally posted by Nygdan
You have not demostrated that there is a warming trend throughout the solar system either, nor that the warming on earth, mars, jupter, and pluto are caused by the same thing.


I didn't prove this, i gave several links from scientists who prove it.

Are you trying to claim that all planets with an atmosphere undergoing changes like Earth is going through is "just coincidence", please present proof that this is so.

Why is it that you want to accept that a "coincidence" ( I am reating it as a coincidence since you want to treat the trends presented in the links I provided as jsut coincidences) such as CO2 is raising and global temperatures are raising is prove that mankind is at fault, yet when similar patterns are shown to be happening on the whole solar system and other reasons are found to be the cause for these changes you just want to dismiss them?

[edit on 27-8-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 05:18 AM
link   

January 18, 2002: Every 11 years solar activity reaches a fever pitch: Solar flares erupt near sunspots on a daily basis. Coronal mass ejections, billion-ton clouds of magnetized gas, fly away from the Sun and buffet the planets. Even the Sun's awesome magnetic field -- as large as the solar system itself -- grows unstable and flips.

It's a turbulent time called Solar Max.


The most recent (and ongoing) Solar Max crested in mid-2000. Sunspot counts were higher than they had been in 10 years, and solar activity was intense. One remarkable eruption on July 14, 2000 -- the so-called "Bastille Day Event" -- sparked brilliant auroras as far south as Texas, caused electrical brown-outs, and temporarily disabled some satellites.


After that, sunspot counts slowly declined and the Sun was relatively quiet for month-long stretches. Solar Max was subsiding.







Resurgent Sun


The next Solar Max(2012) is guaranteed to be a scorcher!!!



Sun's Currents of Fire Slow to Record Low
By Tony Phillips
Science@NASA
posted: 10 May 2006
05:04 pm ET


The Sun's Great Conveyor Belt has slowed to a record-low crawl, according to research by NASA solar physicist David Hathaway. "It's off the bottom of the charts," he says. "This has important repercussions for future solar activity."

The Great Conveyor Belt is a massive circulating current of fire (hot plasma) within the Sun. It has two branches, north and south, each taking about 40 years to perform one complete circuit. Researchers believe the turning of the belt controls the sunspot cycle, and that's why the slowdown is important.

Spacecom




This will effect the Solar Max of 2022 and we could see a significant cooling effect world-wide.




I would rather face the fears of global warming than the potential destruction brought about by a BIG CHILL.


The Pentagon's Weather Nightmare The climate could change radically, and fast. That would be the mother of all national security issues.

By David Stipp
February 9, 2004
(FORTUNE Magazine) – Global warming may be bad news for future generations, but let's face it, most of us spend as little time worrying about it as we did about al Qaeda before 9/11. Like the terrorists, though, the seemingly remote climate risk may hit home sooner and harder than we ever imagined. In fact, the prospect has become so real that the Pentagon's strategic planners are grappling with it.

The threat that has riveted their attention is this: Global warming, rather than causing gradual, centuries-spanning change, may be pushing the climate to a tipping point. Growing evidence suggests the ocean-atmosphere system that controls the world's climate can lurch from one state to another in less than a decade--like a canoe that's gradually tilted until suddenly it flips over. Scientists don't know how close the system is to a critical threshold. But abrupt climate change may well occur in the not-too-distant future. If it does, the need to rapidly adapt may overwhelm many societies--thereby upsetting the geopolitical balance of power.

Though triggered by warming, such change would probably cause cooling in the Northern Hemisphere, leading to longer, harsher winters in much of the U.S. and Europe. Worse, it would cause massive droughts, turning farmland to dust bowls and forests to ashes. Picture last fall's California wildfires as a regular thing. Or imagine similar disasters destabilizing nuclear powers such as Pakistan or Russia--it's easy to see why the Pentagon has become interested in abrupt climate change.

Climate researchers began getting seriously concerned about it a decade ago, after studying temperature indicators embedded in ancient layers of Arctic ice. The data show that a number of dramatic shifts in average temperature took place in the past with shocking speed--in some cases, just a few years.

The case for angst was buttressed by a theory regarded as the most likely explanation for the abrupt changes. The eastern U.S. and northern Europe, it seems, are warmed by a huge Atlantic Ocean current that flows north from the tropics--that's why Britain, at Labrador's latitude, is relatively temperate. Pumping out warm, moist air, this "great conveyor" current gets cooler and denser as it moves north. That causes the current to sink in the North Atlantic, where it heads south again in the ocean depths. The sinking process draws more water from the south, keeping the roughly circular current on the go.

But when the climate warms, according to the theory, fresh water from melting Arctic glaciers flows into the North Atlantic, lowering the current's salinity--and its density and tendency to sink. A warmer climate also increases rainfall and runoff into the current, further lowering its saltiness. As a result, the conveyor loses its main motive force and can rapidly collapse, turning off the huge heat pump and altering the climate over much of the Northern Hemisphere.

Scientists aren't sure what caused the warming that triggered such collapses in the remote past. (Clearly it wasn't humans and their factories.) But the data from Arctic ice and other sources suggest the atmospheric changes that preceded earlier collapses were dismayingly similar to today's global warming. As the Ice Age began drawing to a close about 13,000 years ago, for example, temperatures in Greenland rose to levels near those of recent decades. Then they abruptly plunged as the conveyor apparently shut down, ushering in the "Younger Dryas" period, a 1,300-year reversion to ice-age conditions. (A dryas is an Arctic flower that flourished in Europe at the time.)
Fortune Magazine





PS: we once had a 7year supply of Grains in this country to guard against starvations, but the government has done away with this system in favor of little or no grain in reserve. Who will suffer? We will.









[edit on 8/27/2006 by bodebliss]



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 07:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

It is way too much of a coincidence, and even the sun is heating up more than it has in 1,000 years.

Please present the data that shows a correlation between solar output of the sun and increased earthly temperature.




www.sec.noaa.gov...

www.rawls.org...

It is not only the solar output which has an impact on the solar system, but the solar magnetic field influences how much intergallactic dust and excited particles such as ions, enter the solar system and interact with the planets.



Originally posted by Nygdan
And then, please explain why that correlation is supposed to be more beleiveable than the correlation between CO2 increase and temperature increase.
Whats more reasonable, that the sun is going nuts, and all of the climatologists are keeping quite about it, or that increases of global concentrations of greenhouse gases are causing it???


If the Earth is going through changes, and part of these changes are a warming trend, and if all the planets in the solar system with an atmosphere are also going through these changes and have a warming trend, then it is more reasonable to say that whatever is causing the rest of the solar system to warm up and change, is the cause of the warming up and changes on Earth.

Again, a lot of climatologists don't want to take into account what happens in the solar system, they just look at what happens on Earth and believe it is caused on Earth, but the evidence shows otherwise.


Originally posted by Nygdan

but this shows that even if we stop every single car, every single factory and if every single human stopped using AC global warming will continue at the same pace it is going.

It shows no such thing.


Again, are you telling us that global warming hasn't happened in the past on Earth faster and worse than is happening now and when there was no industrialization?


Originally posted by Nygdan

they found that for example in the middle ages there was also global warming

Those guys made no such discovery. Its called the Medeival Warm Period, it was known about long before those guys came along.


i didn't say they "discovered it". Now you are goig off a tangent.


Originally posted by Nygdan

The effects of warming, or the changes, will be felt more on planets with atmosphere, or astral bodies such as the Sun because their magnetic fields and atmospheres interact with the high energy region the solar system is going through as we speak.

Please first demonstrate that we are going through such a region.


I gave several links which state just what I said...and they were not all just "a link from 1978 and a link from lay people"....

Please read everything someone posts before you make claims they didn't provide evidence, thanks....


Originally posted by Nygdan
Claims that man-made pollution is causing "unprecedented" global warming have been seriously undermined by new research which shows that the Earth was warmer during the Middle Ages.

All that shows is that the people at the Telegraph are a few years behind on their climate science. Researchers have known for a long time that climate varies greatly and has varied in the historical period.

If you know this then why claim that human activity is behind global warming whern it has happened before and worse than what is happening now and faster despite the knowledge that there was no industrialization?....


Originally posted by Nygdan
There is no increase in the sun that explains the current warming trend.



NASA Study Finds Increasing Solar Trend That Can Change Climate
Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits, during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study.

"This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change," said Richard Willson, a researcher affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University's Earth Institute, New York. He is the lead author of the study recently published in Geophysical Research Letters.

www.sciencedaily.com...


Also, we know that the change in the magnetic field of the sun, which is allowing more intergallactic dust and excited particles to enter the solar system, creates chemical reactions in all planets, including Earth, which is exactly what is happening.



Originally posted by Nygdan
Please explain how. We have some other planets that have a short term warming trend being observed. Why are the scientists that note this trend correct, but the scientists that don't accept that this means there is a solar warming event count?


You are asking many rhetorical questions but you are not giving anything to refute that changes are happening not only on Earth, but all planets in the solar system with an atmosphere, changes are happening including in the Sun.

Could you explain what gives more credence to "global wamring is caused because of human activity" than knowing changes are happening in the entire solar system, including Earth, and those changes are not caused by "human activity" but an outside force which has nothing to do with mankind?


[edit on 27-8-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 03:09 PM
link   
We've been dugg.

digg.com...



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by SeekTruth
We've been dugg.

digg.com...


Could you specify what you mean with your statement?

and if you think the information provided is not accurate could you provide sources that back your argument?

Thanks.



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 07:33 PM
link   
Found another interesting article about an unusual hot spot in Saturn which has scientists perplexed, as it shouldn't be as hot as it is and it shouldn't have been that hot for as long as it has if it was because of seasonality on Saturn. This article is from 2005.


Saturn has strange hot spot
W. M. KECK OBSERVATORY NEWS RELEASE
Posted: February 4, 2005

Astronomers using the Keck I telescope in Hawaii are learning much more about a strange, thermal "hot spot" on Saturn that is located at the tip of the planet's south pole. In what the team is calling the sharpest thermal views of Saturn ever taken from the ground, the new set of infrared images suggest a warm polar vortex at Saturn's south pole -- the first to ever be discovered in the solar system. This warm polar cap is home to a distinct compact hot spot, believed to contain the highest measured temperatures on Saturn. A paper announcing the results appears in the Feb. 4th issue of "Science."

A "polar vortex" is a persistent, large-scale weather pattern, likened to a jet stream on Earth that occurs in the upper atmosphere. On Earth, the Arctic Polar Vortex is typically located over eastern North America in Canada and plunges cold artic air to the Northern Plains in the United States. Earth's Antarctic Polar Vortex, centered over Antarctica, is responsible for trapping air and creating unusual chemistry, such as the effects that create the "ozone hole." Polar vortices are found on Earth, Jupiter, Mars and Venus, and are colder than their surroundings. But new images from the W. M. Keck Observatory show the first evidence of a polar vortex at much warmer temperatures. And the warmer, compact region at the pole itself is quite unusual.

"There is nothing like this compact warm cap in the Earth's atmosphere," said Dr. Glenn S. Orton, of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena and lead author of the paper describing the results. "Meteorologists have detected sudden warming of the pole, but on Earth this effect is very short-term. This phenomenon on Saturn is longer-lived because we've been seeing hints of it in our data for at least two years."

The puzzle isn't that Saturn's south pole is warm; after all, it has been exposed to 15 years of continuous sunlight, having just reached its summer Solstice in late 2002. But both the distinct boundary of a warm polar vortex some 30 degrees latitude from the southern pole and a very hot "tip" right at the pole were completely unexpected.

"If the increased southern temperatures are solely the result of seasonality, then the temperature should increase gradually with increasing latitude, but it doesn't," added Dr. Orton. "We see that the temperature increases abruptly by several degrees near 70 degrees south and again at 87 degrees south."

The abrupt temperature changes may be caused by a concentration of sunlight-absorbing particulates in the upper atmosphere which trap in heat at the stratosphere. This theory explains why the hot spot appears dark in visible light and contains the highest measured temperatures on the planet.
However, this alone does not explain why the particles themselves are constrained to the general southern part of Saturn and particularly to a compact area near the tip of Saturn's south pole. Forced downwelling of relatively dry air would explain this effect, which is consistent with other observations taken of the tropospheric clouds, but more observations are needed.

www.spaceflightnow.com...

Scientists apparently believe that the increase of heat in the vortex could be because of a concentration of sunlight-absorbing particles. If this is true this could be a clear example of what the increase of intergalactic dust particles, which are not only dust but can contain gases, plasma, ions, and other excited particles, can do to a planet with an atmosphere.


[edit on 27-8-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 08:28 PM
link   
I have posted these links before, but I thought it best to keep these links in this thread too so we have as much information in here as possible as to what is happening in the Solar System.


Hubble space telescope helps find evidence that Neptune's largest moon is warming up
RELEASE: 98-110
Observations obtained by NASA's Hubble Space Telescope and ground-based instruments reveal that Neptune's largest moon, Triton, seems to have heated up significantly since the Voyager spacecraft visited it in 1989.

"Since 1989, at least, Triton has been undergoing a period of global warming -- percentage-wise, it's a very large increase," said James L. Elliot, an astronomer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Cambridge, MA. The warming trend is causing part of Triton's frozen nitrogen surface to turn into gas, thus making its thin atmosphere denser. Dr. Elliot and his colleagues from MIT, Lowell Observatory, and Williams College published their findings in the June 25 issue of the journal Nature.

www-old.astro.up.pt...


Mars Ski Report: Snow is Hard, Dense and Disappearing
By Robert Roy Britt
Senior Science Writer
posted: 02:00 pm ET
06 December 2001

Mars would make a lousy host for the Winter Olympics. Yes, there's the lack of air to consider. But more important, Martian snow turns out to be rock hard. Worse, it is melting away at an alarming rate.

In fact, Mars may be in the midst of a period of profound climate change, according to a new study that shows dramatic year-to-year losses of snow at the south pole.

It is not yet clear, though, if the evidence of a single year's change represents a trend. But the study provides a surprising new view of the nature of the southern ice cap, said Michael Caplinger of Malin Space Science Systems.

www.space.com...

The Martian ice caps melting at "an alarming rate". Where have we heard that before?


One of the most profound benefits of being able to continue photographing Mars in the Mars Global Surveyor (MGS) Extended Mission is the opportunity to go back and re-image a site that was seen in the previous martian year. New MGS Mars Orbiter Camera (MOC) images have provided a startling observation: The residual martian south polar cap is changing. The fact that it is changing suggests that Mars may have major, global climate changes that are occurring on the same time scales as Earth's most recent climate shifts, including the last Ice Age.

www.msss.com...

[edit on 27-8-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 11:47 PM
link   
Any chance of a Mod come along and be so nice and please fix this page?

I would if I could but I cant so I have to ask.

It would make reading that baby so much easier!

Thanks, LGM



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 01:50 AM
link   
Guys use some common sense, we live in a bubble. You fill the bubble up with crap for well over 100 years, it doesn't just vanish out into space. We can blame the 4.5 billion year old natural system that has sustained life here for eons, or we can maybe try to accept the fact that pumping tonnage in the trillions of crap into the air to make a buck just might have some adverse effects.
Maybe the sun is putting mercury in our tuna, dioxins in our water, or radioactive isotopes in our kids' milk teeth too.
It's gotta be the sun, cause it sure can't be Industry. You gotta be kidding me.
This 'new info' is nothing but a back handed political stunt, damage control for the political flack from snubbing our noses at the Kyoto Accords. They aren't going to bite the hand that feeds them, it's much cheaper to commission crap studies like this to mitigate their culpability than it is to try to reduce their emissions.



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 06:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy
Guys use some common sense, we live in a bubble. You fill the bubble up with crap for well over 100 years, it doesn't just vanish out into space. We can blame the 4.5 billion year old natural system that has sustained life here for eons, or we can maybe try to accept the fact that pumping tonnage in the trillions of crap into the air to make a buck just might have some adverse effects.


Of course dumping chemicals and gases in the atmosphere and oceans is bad, but that does not equate to those gases and chemicals producing global warming....


Originally posted by twitchy
Maybe the sun is putting mercury in our tuna, dioxins in our water, or radioactive isotopes in our kids' milk teeth too.
It's gotta be the sun, cause it sure can't be Industry. You gotta be kidding me.


And whoever said anything about the Sun doing all that?..... that's not even an argument... Yes dumping chemicals in the atmosphere and the oceans is bad, but that does not equate to them causing global warming... and it does not refute the facts shown in those links provided...



Originally posted by twitchy
This 'new info' is nothing but a back handed political stunt, damage control for the political flack from snubbing our noses at the Kyoto Accords. They aren't going to bite the hand that feeds them, it's much cheaper to commission crap studies like this to mitigate their culpability than it is to try to reduce their emissions.


Political stunt?..... well, if that is true then show proof that the planets and the sun in the solar system are not acting strangely and heating up.....show proof not just spout rethorical nonsense.... and btw, you agree with the Kyoto protocol?...you must be then a Chinese agent, trying to disseminate disinformation, because China will benefit from the Kyoto protocols, since they don't have to stop any emissions of harmful gases and chemicals, the same goes for India....

Anyways, unless you have some corroborating evidence that debunks the fact that there are climatic changes happening in all planets with atmosphere in the solar system, and including the sun, all you are doing is spout nothing but rethoric.

The question is are you going to show proof that debunks that information provided in the links I gave, or are you just going to spout more bs?



[edit on 28-8-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 01:16 PM
link   
Ok I have to agree with the fact that the entire solar system is being affected since to my knowledge no one has ever taken into account of the gravity wakes created in space/time by large bodies moving in and out of our solar system. Space/time fabric is not too disimilar from the surface of a lake in that if you move something on the surface of the lake ripples will form in accordance to certain physical laws and mathmatical calculations.

I started considering this a long time ago when I realized that this has happened on earth in the past and there were no CFC's and other wastes being pumped into the air. That is also when I started to devise an escape plan to get the heck outta here when all of it hits the fan in about another 6 years give or take. Gravity waves moving throught the universe affect everything they contact in a miniscule scale and so I do believe in a way that a butterfly flapping it's wings in Japan can cause a typhoone in California. Think about it. The Universe in all it's wonder is nothing more simple than ONE BIG CLOCK working on repetative cycles. The moon affects the tides so why would it be so hard to believe that comets passing in our solar system would not affect things as well. Have to run TTYL





new topics
top topics
 
36
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join