If the Weatherman can't accurately predict tomorrow's weather, how can they predict Global Warming

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by melatonin
Can you outline this galactic stardust idea of yours...

Tell me why and how galactic dust will affect climate.

It is not "an idea of mine".... in fact there has been research on this subject for decades, and even more recent research which correlate the fact that intergalactic clouds affect the environmet of planets.

The idea that interstellar dust can effect climate isn't yours, I know that, I also know it has been around since the 60/70s with the likes of Fahr.

But the idea it can account for current warming is your suggestion.

If you don't know how intergalactic clouds can affect the Climate of planets, it only shows how much research you have really done in the factors that affect our climate...

I've done enough to know that cosmic rays can't account for current warming trends. You didn't seem to know this. I know there are suggestions interstellar dust clouds can affect climate.

Intergalactic clouds have excited particles, such as plasma, they have gases such as hydrogen and they do affect the climate on planets. Depending on the type of cloud, the climate on planets are changed by intergallactic clouds by cooling the planet, or warming the planet.

Cosmic rays also affect the Climate on planets, as they are nucleons, composed of protons and electrons, which when they hit the Earth's atmospheric molecules, they release heat, heating the atmosphere, but they also produce cloud cover, as recent research shows. Of note our particle accelerators cannot produce the amount of energy found in cosmic rays.

[edit on 16-2-2007 by Muaddib]

Sounds great. Tell me about interstellar particles and molecules, I'm not interested in cosmic rays (see graph above - no trend, inconsequential to the issue). Focus on the issue. Think of this as a PhD viva, your 'PhD' depends on defending the thesis that current climate change can be explained by interstellar dust.

According to current findings we have been entering a denser region of interstellar dust. Explain how this can account for the current warming trend.

So interstellar dust can contain various constituents, molecular and particular. How will entering a denser region of dust affect our climate? Will it cause warming or cooling, and how? What would mono-atomic hydrogen do to our atmosphere and climate (considering 75% of ISM is Hydrogen, it will be most important, the rest is mainly helium with traces of other elements)? What would molecular constituents do to our climate?

I would like details supported by research. You've done well so far, you're now producing peer-reviewed articles, although one was fairly naff (Soon & Baliunas, 2003).

[edit on 16-2-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
I would like details supported by research. You've done well so far, you're now producing peer-reviewed articles, although one was fairly naff (Soon & Baliunas, 2003).

I hope you dont mind that me or other people join in, you keep replying to my posts with the desire to talk to mauddib and its a bit off putting :p

Are you really asking him to provide peer reviewed papers on interstellar cloud effects on climates?

I provided from various sources, yes one from CNN the others from universities, that science is seriously looking into our climate and the solar system. In one source we must wait for probes to send us back data. This is a slow science because its a slow technology.

But I will take more time and look some more but I dont hold out much hope because if there were, you wouldnt be arguing eh.

What I dont understand is how people can believe that our climate is only a localised event, why is it so hard to understand that the region of space our solar system is traversing can effect our climate?

Originally posted by Dae
I hope you dont mind that me or other people join in, you keep replying to my posts with the desire to talk to mauddib and its a bit off putting :p

Are you really asking him to provide peer reviewed papers on interstellar cloud effects on climates?

I provided from various sources, yes one from CNN the others from universities, that science is seriously looking into our climate and the solar system. In one source we must wait for probes to send us back data. This is a slow science because its a slow technology.

But I will take more time and look some more but I dont hold out much hope because if there were, you wouldnt be arguing eh.

The problem is that Muaddib is making claims that I would like to test the robustness of. He says depending on the ISD cloud, we can have cooling or warming. I know ISD has been suggested to have effects on climate, I don't question that - the question is what effect?

He has a thread made on the basis of solar system wide warming which follows his line of thought here, local events that can't really be extrapolated to global - it doesn't hold when scrutinised. In the same thread he brought up ISD clouds as another variable, this is implicit support for his thesis. So is a warming earth due to increasing density of ISD?

It's a hypothesis that requires evidence.

So, lets see if his thesis can stand close examination

What I dont understand is how people can believe that our climate is only a localised event, why is it so hard to understand that the region of space our solar system is traversing can effect our climate?

I don't think anyone suggests climate change is always only due to earth-based processes. Solar variation is important, no-one questions that. But GCR and solar variation does not seem to account for the current trend in warming.

However, he completely disregards activity of organisms on earth, which includes humans. We already have evidence that the early atmosphere was actually changed by organisms such as cyanobacteria, we are part of a biosphere, our actions do have the ability to affect climate. This doesn't disregard other effects.

So, we are entering a denser part of an ISD. What might happen and why?

[edit on 16-2-2007 by melatonin]

Well it looks like the weathermen are chiming in on the subject now...

...don't get too worked up over it.

That was the consensus among five Northeast Ohio meteorologists at a panel discussion Tuesday at Landerhaven in Mayfield Heights.

Cleveland's weather wizards downplay global warming

Sorry guys. Worry about getting tomorrow's forcast right, then tell me not to worry about GW!

Originally posted by melatonin

You're starting to be disingenuous again.

If the articles don't present temperature estimates of course they are easy to refute. If you note, that is what I said.

And if you would have noted several of the excerpts to research I gave from half around the world were giving temperature estimates...it is you who is trying to dismiss all this data.

Originally posted by melatonin
Oh right, it must be yeah...

We changed the Climate this time around with all the cars, and factories but it appears that during the Roman period it was the Romans cutting down trees to build their roads.... Oh maybe the Medieval warming period was caused by all the deaths from the death plague after all when bodies decompose they release methane....for all we know we might as well just stop breathing and not live in the world since anything and everything we do "might change the climate"....

Originally posted by melatonin
And you talk about flaws in the Mann study and biased research, heh.

Mann with his graph and his claims was trying to make a dissapearing act of the Medieval warming period and the LIA, so yeah not only was his research flawed, he has been outright lying and trying to rewrite events which have been corraborated with the geological data from around the world...

Originally posted by melatonin
I would like you to tell me the methodology of Soon & Baliunas study, how did they determined a climate anomaly? It's in the paper. Read it.

I am not here to do "your bidding"...and yes I read the paper including the part where they say the data cannot be extrapolated to have a global measurement of temperatures, but they also say it does appear to have been global because the data from all 200+ proxies of past temperature trends show more or less the same trends in the same time periods....which is exactly what I am saying...

Perhaps you would love to leave it as a "coincidence" that the same temperature trends were happening at the same time periods in South Africa, in all research done in Europe, the Americas and China...

Originally posted by melatonin
Their methods, and the fact it passed peer-review, led to the resignation of half the editorial panel of the Journal it was published in. Authors of the studies they used produced a rebuttle of their findings and methods.

Are you basing your statements on Easterbrook and Muller's claims?.... because you should be knowing by now that their claims have been anwsered and shown to be nothing more than lies...

BTW...you call the lead authors and scientists who resigned or spoke against the claims of the IPCC reports as being nothing more than having a grudge for not being heard and now you are trying to claim that because "three people from the editorial panel of the journal resigned" shows that Soon & Baliunas work was flawed?....

Maybe I should anwser with the call by "environmentalists and other regular people who requested the resignation of the lead meteorologists from NOAA becuase they would not say that the storms we have been seeing lately have been caused by global warming"?....

Or how about the fact that the weather channel's Heidi Cullen has been advocating that" broadcast meteorologists be stripped of their scientific certification for questioning anthropogenic global warming"?.....

BTW...the editors that resigned were three.... I wonder why you don't mention the exact number....

Originally posted by melatonin
The study was a joke.

Mann's claims are the joke...

Originally posted by melatonin
............
I won't mention that most of the authors involved in the paper were funded by Exxon and are associated with oil-funded think-tanks, oh, I just did. Shouldn't matter really, the science is what counts, and this was, unsurprisingly, bad science.

OMG...wow everyone who disagrees with anthropogenic CO2 causing global warming must be working for Exxon... then everyone who claims anthropogenic CO2 is the cause for global warming are lying because they are being paid by "green environmentalists many of who have even called for the extermination of 90% of humanity to save the planet".....

Originally posted by melatonin
No other reconstruction validates this study, not one.

Sorry, but I gave several that do validate their study... i am starting to think that you are Mann...I thought for a while you were Regenmacher...but your writting style is more like Mann's...

Originally posted by melatonin
No you have isolated records from various areas of possible high temperatures during a 500 year period. The reconstructions, bar the Soon & Baliunas 'study', do generally show the same thing - 20th century warming is greater than anything seen in 1000 years.

Keep trying to come up with more lies, but the truth is quite the contrary...

Originally posted by melatonin
I didn't see any of the isolated and localised studies say that their results were indicative of global climate. Just local climate.

Wow...what a coincidence that the studies done in Europe, South Africa, America and china among others show that the temperature trends occurred in the same time periods... it must be coincidence that they all corroborate what for all intent and purposes seems to have been global events because they didn't just happen in some areas....

Originally posted by melatonin

You don't know how to read a graph then

Yes i do, he, or should I say you, tried to bury the Medieval Warming period and the LIA...

Originally posted by melatonin
He presented Scenario B as the most plausible outcome. It was very close to the reality.

It was nowhere close to "reality"... he was wrong, plain and simple...and more so when he, or you, tried to bury two past warming trends which have been corroborated as having happened all ove rthe globe and which puts in jeapordy the whole claim that anthropogenic CO2 is the cause for global warming...

[edit on 17-2-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib
And if you would have noted several of the excerpts to research I gave from half around the world were giving temperature estimates...it is you who is trying to dismiss all this data.

I accept they are localised estimates of temperature during those periods. I have said that numerous times and you are being disingenuous again by suggesting otherwise.

I'm not going to answer every single issue in your post because it will hide the refutation of the main issue you are perseverating on now.

Was the MWP warmer than now, if so, was it on on a large regional/spatial scale?



These 10 reconstructions from numerous researchers that use multiple high resolution temperature proxies from across larger scale regions (the northern hemisphere) suggest it was not warmer during the MWP, but it was warmer than the LIA.

Was it on a large scale at the same time during the MWP?

Nine Localised temperature proxies from Mann et al (2003)...



These are compared to zero mean for 1961-1990. Red above mean, blue below. This shows that temperature is very variable across regions and time during LIA and MWP periods but 20th century warming is common to most regions.


What can you present? A handful of localised data points from within a 500 year period that show those localised areas were warmer than now.

Science 10 February 2006:
Vol. 311. no. 5762, pp. 841 - 844
DOI: 10.1126/science.1120514
Prev | Table of Contents | Next

Reports
The Spatial Extent of 20th-Century Warmth in the Context of the Past 1200 Years

Timothy J. Osborn* and Keith R. Briffa

Periods of widespread warmth or cold are identified by positive or negative deviations that are synchronous across a number of temperature-sensitive proxy records drawn from the Northern Hemisphere. The most significant and longest duration feature during the last 1200 years is the geographical extent of warmth in the middle to late 20th century. Positive anomalies during 890 to 1170 and negative anomalies during 1580 to 1850 are consistent with the concepts of a Medieval Warm Period and a Little Ice Age, but comparison with instrumental temperatures shows the spatial extent of recent warmth to be of greater significance than that during the medieval period.

From the article...



This shows the fraction (number] of records during a particular timeframe that are above a threshold level of temperature, this uses 14 temperature proxies across the northern hemisphere. A wider region of warming is present during the late 20th then any time in the previous 1200 yrs.

ABE: From Bradley et al (2003)...

Science 17 October 2003:
Vol. 302. no. 5644, pp. 404 - 405
DOI: 10.1126/science.1090372

Perspectives
CLIMATE CHANGE:
Climate in Medieval Time
Raymond S. Bradley, Malcolm K. Hughes, Henry F. Diaz

Many papers have referred to a "Medieval Warm Period." But how well defined is climate in this period, and was it as warm as or warmer than it is today? In their Perspective, Bradley et al. review the evidence and conclude that although the High Medieval (1100 to 1200 A.D.) was warmer than subsequent centuries, it was not warmer than the late 20th century. Moreover, the warmest Medieval temperatures were not synchronous around the globe. Large changes in precipitation patterns are a particular characteristic of "High Medieval" time. The underlying mechanisms for such changes must be elucidated further to inform the ongoing debate on natural climate variability and anthropogenic climate change.

...

Large-scale reconstructions of mean annual or summer temperatures for the Northern Hemisphere show a decline in temperatures from 1000 A.D. to the late 19th century, followed by an abrupt rise in temperature (6). Such analyses, when scaled to the same base of reference, show that temperatures from 1000 to 1200 A.D. (or 1100 to 1200 A.D.) were almost the same (or 0.03ºC cooler) as from 1901 to 1970 A.D. (7, 8). The latter period was on average ~0.35ºC cooler than the last 30 years of the 20th century

/edit

Lets see what we find for the southern hemisphere...

The 'little ice age'...

From this cold interval, the SSTA reconstructions capture the 20th century warming until the 1980s, when the coral cores were collected. It is conspicuous that the period from the 1700s to the 1870s was consistently as warm as the early 1980s. The only other Pacific coral Sr/Ca record, from Rarotonga (Fig. 2D) (21), also reconstructs SSTs for the 18th and 19th centuries that are as warm as, or warmer than, the 20th century.

Hendy et al. (2002). Science, 295, 1511+

So, it was actually as warm around australia in the LIA as it was for the average 20th century.

What about the MWP...


Taken from Cobb et al. (2003) Nature, 472, 271+

Seems we find temperatures were relatively cooler in the tropical pacific during the MWP than the LIA. But, like your examples, these SH examples are a few localised temperature proxies that are not real indicative of the global position.

The emperor has no clothes - I'm quite sure most lurkers and readers can see the nakedness of your argument, no matter how you dress it up.



You can keep parroting a few isolated localised proxies but they mean little on large scales. You have no argument, the reconstructions provide multiple localised temperature proxies from across large areas over long periods of time. There are also a number of localised southern hemisphere proxies that refute the notion of global scale warming during MWP, and cooling during the LIA. Finally, we have Osborne & Briffa's analysis of 14 temperature proxies across the northern hemisphere that show a larger region was warmer in the 20th century than during the MWP.

Multiple temperature proxies across more global areas across multiple studies from multiple researchers.

I'll repeat my main point again, multiple temperature proxies across more global areas from multiple researchers.

You have no case for your argument.

I am not here to do "your bidding"...and yes I read the paper including the part where they say the data cannot be extrapolated to have a global measurement of temperatures, but they also say it does appear to have been global because the data from all 200+ proxies of past temperature trends show more or less the same trends in the same time periods....which is exactly what I am saying...

No, the point is that they also used proxies that are not highly correlated with temperature.

Anomaly is simply defined as a period of more than 50 yr of sustained warmth, wetness or dryness, within the stipulated interval of the Medieval Warm Period, or a 50 yr or longer period of cold, dryness or wetness within the stipulated Little Ice Age.

Soon & Baliunas, 2003

Soon & Baliunas assessed anything that was anomalous, that included proxy data that showed 'dry' and 'wet' periods as indicative of high or low temperatures, this is not highly correlated with temperature and not an appropriate method of measuring temperature trends. Anything that showed this for 50 years during a 500 year period was deemed a positive under their hypothesis. So, there was also little temporal resolution.

Osborne & Briffa (2006) did the same study properly, only temperature proxies with high temporal resolution.

If you want to know temperature trends, you use proxies that are highly correlated with temperature

BTW...the editors that resigned were three.... I wonder why you don't mention the exact number....

Major criticisms of the methodology and failures of peer-review was why five of the 10 editors on the journal board resigned.

Clare Goodess, Mitsuru Ando, Shardul Argawala, Andrew Comrie, and the editor-in-chief, Hans von Storch.

5 out of 10 is half

[edit on 17-2-2007 by melatonin]

[edit on 17-2-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by melatonin
He presented Scenario B as the most plausible outcome. It was very close to the reality.

It was nowhere close to "reality"... he was wrong, plain and simple....

Show me why. Here is the graph of his three scenarios, A, B, and C.



Hansen said B was the most probable.

So far, all you have is rhetoric, disinformation, intellectual dishonesty, and distortion. But no coherent or robust argument.

And you have the gall to call me a liar, heh.

And, no, I am not Michael Mann. I am not even a climatologist, my area of expertise lies elsewhere in science. Climate change science is more a long-term hobby.

[edit on 17-2-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by Dae
But I will take more time and look some more but I dont hold out much hope because if there were, you wouldnt be arguing eh.

What I dont understand is how people can believe that our climate is only a localised event, why is it so hard to understand that the region of space our solar system is traversing can effect our climate?

Hi Dae,

There is already research on how interstellar dust clouds could affect climate. If you check the paper you posted earlier (the pdf from Yeghikyan & Fahr, 2003), it does explain the possible outcomes in the introduction.

If you are interested in an open discussion, and not pure disinformation like some, we can discuss this further.

I don't think Muaddib has anything substantial to add on this. Heh, looks like he failed his virtual 'PhD viva'...

cheers.

ABE: sorry Dae, looks like were on the case...

[edit on 17-2-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin

The idea that interstellar dust can effect climate isn't yours, I know that, I also know it has been around since the 60/70s with the likes of Fahr.

But the idea it can account for current warming is your suggestion.

It is not... i already gave a research paper from 1978 in which scientists stated that whenever in the near future our solar system entered the denser area of the ISC, there would be drastic Climate Changes on Earth.... There have been several research papers after that one which also state the same thing.

Originally posted by melatonin
I've done enough to know that cosmic rays can't account for current warming trends. You didn't seem to know this. I know there are suggestions interstellar dust clouds can affect climate.

You haven't done enough research then for the simple fact that we do know as a matter of fact that during a normal day the electric field of Earth's atmosphere produces 100 volts per meter, but when the Earth is getting bombarded with Cosmic rays thunder showers form and the voltage of the electric field goes up by several thousand volts per meter... but I guess we have to believe you that Cosmic Rays don't do much....

www2.slac.stanford.edu...

Originally posted by melatonin
Sounds great. Tell me about interstellar particles and molecules, I'm not interested in cosmic rays (see graph above - no trend, inconsequential to the issue). Focus on the issue. Think of this as a PhD viva, your 'PhD' depends on defending the thesis that current climate change can be explained by interstellar dust.

Well, I think your knowledge on Cosmic Rays has been demonstrated to be zero. Appart from that, first, you are not a professor of mine, and I am not here to do your bidding as I have already stated before, and certainly i am not going to "provide you with a dissertation for a PhD"....

Anyways, first of all we do know that the denser parts of the Local Fluff cloud are very hot. We also know that ionised gas, or plasma is the dominant state of matter in the observable cosmos, and it is very abundant among the cloudlets that are part of the Local Fluff.

In fact the temperatures in parts of the cloud are 6,000-10,000 Kelvin, depending on who you ask, which will be a problem if the Earth's and Sun's magnetic field are weakened since more energized particles and hot gas will enter our system causing dynamic reactions in planets with atmosphere and our Sun.

Second of all, when our Solar system goes through a dense cloud, the magnetic field of the sun is compressed into the inner solar system, the denser the cloudlet, the more the heliosphere compresses allowing for more cosmic rays, and hot plasma to enter our solar system.

The fact that the Earth's magnetic field has weakened 10% since 1845 is not helping any...

The interplanetary environment at the orbit of the Earth
changes markedly, with the density of interstellar H0 increasing to D2 cm~3. The termination shock itself experiences periods where it disappears, reforms, and disappears again. Considerable mixing of the shocked solar wind and LISM occurs because of Rayleigh-TaylorÈlike instabilities at the nose, driven by ion-neutral friction. Implications of two anomalously high concentrations of 10Be found in Antarctic ice cores, corresponding to 33,000 and 60,000 yr ago, and the absence of prior similar events are discussed in terms of density enhancements in the surrounding interstellar cloud. The calculation presented here supports past speculation that the Galactic environment of the Sun moderates the interplanetary environment at the orbit of the Earth and possibly also the terrestrial climate.

www.journals.uchicago.edu...

Since 1999 the density of the cloudlet we are in has been increasing exponentially, and it will continue to increase until at least 2013.

[edit on 17-2-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib
[It is not... i already gave a research paper from 1978 in which scientists stated that whenever in the near future our solar system entered the denser area of the ISC, there would be drastic Climate Changes on Earth.... There have been several research papers after that one which also state the same thing.

So show me how these papers can explain the current trend in warming. You never answered the question really.

Increasing density of ISD - warming or cooling?

Well, I think your knowledge on Cosmic Rays has been demonstrated to be zero. Appart from that, first, you are not a professor of mine, and I am not here to do your bidding as I have already stated before, and certainly i am not going to "provide you with a dissertation for a PhD"....

Cosmic rays are not increasing. Even Svensmark's own studies show this, I know about his work.

Second of all, when our Solar system goes through a dense cloud, the magnetic field of the sun is compressed into the inner solar system, the denser the cloudlet, the more the heliosphere compresses allowing for more cosmic rays, and hot plasma to enter our solar system.

The fact that the Earth's magnetic field has weakened 10% since 1845 is not helping any...

I ignored all the 'muaddib fluff' that doesn't really answer the question.

Cosmic rays are not increasing, they are inconsequential to this discussion. We know next to nothing about how plasma variations would effect climate, to suggest otherwise is to be silly.

Nature 443, 161-166 (14 September 2006) | doi:10.1038/nature05072

Variations in solar luminosity and their effect on the Earth's climate
P. Foukal1, C. Fröhlich2, H. Spruit3 and T. M. L. Wigley4

Abstract

Variations in the Sun's total energy output (luminosity) are caused by changing dark (sunspot) and bright structures on the solar disk during the 11-year sunspot cycle. The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978 are too small to have contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30 years. In this Review, we show that detailed analysis of these small output variations has greatly advanced our understanding of solar luminosity change, and this new understanding indicates that brightening of the Sun is unlikely to have had a significant influence on global warming since the seventeenth century. Additional climate forcing by changes in the Sun's output of ultraviolet light, and of magnetized plasmas, cannot be ruled out. The suggested mechanisms are, however, too complex to evaluate meaningfully at present.

The calculation presented here supports past speculation that the Galactic environment of the Sun moderates the interplanetary environment at the orbit of the Earth and possibly also the terrestrial climate.

www.journals.uchicago.edu...

I already know this. You haven't answered the question.

What would entering a increasingly dense interstellar dust cloud do to climate? What are the current suggestions?

Would it cause warming? This is a simple question, a yes, no, don't know would do.

[edit on 17-2-2007 by melatonin]

The earth has been cooling for the past 4 billion years, the time spanning the spherical mass formation of earth, not counting any eccentricly offcentered mass. This means water has formed over the surface and tectonic plates have formed, changing the earth's surface to solid rock rather than amorphous and liquid rock.

The earth is cooling, the heat is disipating into the atmosphere, causing a rise in atmopheric temperature; better known as global warming.

Originally posted by melatonin
.........
Hansen said B was the most probable.

Hansen predicted an increase in average temperatures of 0.33 C, the increase we have had was 0.06C, he was way off.

Originally posted by melatonin
So far, all you have is rhetoric, disinformation, intellectual dishonesty, and distortion. But no coherent or robust argument.

intellectual dishonesty comes from you naturally... You claim Cosmic Rays have no influence whatsoever on the climate, and that you personally have proven this, which is apparently one of your many dellusions.

Yet the truth of the matter is quite differently. Not only do cosmic rays affect Earth's climate, but there is evidence to suggest that interstellar dust clouds have changed the climate of Earth in the past, and not only by bringing Ice Ages, but evidence seems to point to the fact that they have also brought warming to the Earth in the past.

Apparently melatonin, or regenmacher, seems to think that interstellar dust clouds are only made out of dust.... Which I am pretty certain he will try to claim next. But interstellar dust clouds are not composed only of dust, they have charged particles, plasma, gases such as hydrogen, CO etc.

Warming or cooling brought by these interstellar clouds, depend on the cloud type, it's density and the amoung of plasma and gases that pass through the solar system when the heliosphere is weakened.

Here is a research paper by Dr. Paul A. LaViolette

Evidence for a Global Warming at the Termination I Boundary
and Its Possible Cosmic Dust Cause
Paul A. LaViolette
The Starburst Foundation
6706 N. Chestnut Ave., #102
Fresno, CA 93710 USA
Abstract
A comparison of northern and southern hemispheric paleotemperature profiles suggests that the Bölling-Alleröd Interstadial, Younger Dryas stadial, and subsequent Preboreal warming which occurred at the end of the last ice age were characterized by temperatures that changed
synchronously in various parts of the world, implying that these climatic oscillations were produced by significant changes in the Earth's energy balance. These globally coordinated oscillations are not easily explained by ocean current mechanisms such as bistable flipping of ocean deep-water production or regional temperature changes involving the NW/SE migration of the North Atlantic polar front. They also are not accounted for by Earth orbital changes in seasonality or by increases in atmospheric CO2 or CH4. On the other hand, evidence of an elevated cosmic ray flux and of a major interstellar dust incursion around 15,800 years B.P.
suggest that a cosmic ray wind driven incursion of interstellar dust and gas may have played a key role through its activation of the Sun and alteration of light transmission through the interplanetary medium.

arxiv.org...

Here is an abstract of the above, which is in the Smithsonian/NASA archives.

Title:
Evidence for a Global Warming at the Termination I Boundary and Its Possible Cosmic Dust Cause
Authors:
LaViolette, Paul A.
Publication:
eprint arXiv:physics/0503158
Publication Date:
03/2005
Origin:
ARXIV
Keywords:
Physics - General Physics
Comment:
40 pages, 9 figures, 3 tables
Bibliographic Code:
2005physics...3158L

Abstract
A comparison of northern and southern hemispheric paleotemperature profiles suggests that the Bolling-Allerod Interstadial, Younger Dryas stadial, and subsequent Preboreal warming which occurred at the end of the last ice age were characterized by temperatures that changed synchronously in various parts of the world, implying that these climatic oscillations were produced by significant changes in the Earth's energy balance. These globally coordinated oscillations are not easily explained by ocean current mechanisms such as bistable flipping of ocean deep-water production or regional temperature changes involving the NW/SE migration of the North Atlantic polar front. They also are not accounted for by Earth orbital changes in seasonality or by increases in atmospheric CO-2 or CH-4. On the other hand, evidence of an elevated cosmic ray flux and of a major interstellar dust incursion around 15,800 years B.P. suggest that a cosmic ray wind driven incursion of interstellar dust and gas may have played a key role through its activation of the Sun and alteration of light transmission through the interplanetary medium.

adsabs.harvard.edu...

A list of his publicantions can be found here.
home.earthlink.net...

When excited particles enter our solar system, it produces dynamic changes in the Sun, and every planet with an atmosphere. We do know these changes are currently happening not only on Earth, but on the sun and every planet with an atmosphere, but people like melatonin/regenmacher would like everyone to believe these facts are just "coincidences"...

The whole claim that anthropogenic CO2 is the cause for global wamring is based on circumstantial evidence which does not stand to scrutiny, more so when we know from geological records that CO2 increase in the atmosphere lags temperature... When temperatures go up on Earth, CO2 levels go up.

[edit on 18-2-2007 by Muaddib]

intellectual dishonesty comes from you naturally... You claim Cosmic Rays have no influence whatsoever on the climate, and that you personally have proven this, which is apparently one of your many dellusions.

No, that is your distortion. I know what Svensmark's ideas are, I know he suggests they can affect climate. I know how he suggests they affect climate. And his work does not help your case.

Yet the truth of the matter is quite differently. Not only do cosmic rays affect Earth's climate, but there is evidence to suggest that interstellar dust clouds have changed the climate of Earth in the past, and not only by bringing Ice Ages, but evidence seems to point to the fact that they have also brought warming to the Earth in the past.

Finally, we get some idea of what ISD can do.

You say possibly warming possibly cooling. So we don't really know? There are various possible hypotheses? No-one is sure?

Apparently melatonin, or regenmacher, seems to think that interstellar dust clouds are only made out of dust.... Which I am pretty certain he will try to claim next. But interstellar dust clouds are not composed only of dust, they have charged particles, plasma, gases such as hydrogen, CO etc.

I am me. If Regenmacher has fisked you in the past, then good on him.

I asked you earlier what mono-atomic hydrogen would do to our atmosphere.

I know what ISM primarily consists of. It is mainly hydrogen and Helium.

Warming or cooling brought by these interstellar clouds, depend on the cloud type, it's density and the amoung of plasma and gases that pass through the solar system when the heliosphere is weakened.

Here is a research paper by Dr. Paul A. LaViolette

I know about LaViolette's work. You need to read it closely, most of his work is not widely accepted. He said back in 1986 he had disproved BB theory, he believes astrology is supported by quantum theory, and pulsars are of ET origin, heh. He seems to self-reference a lot as well. But, hey, like the oil-funding, it shouldn't matter, the actual science matters. Crazy theories shouldn't just be ignored, we should examine their claims, Einstein thought Bohr's quantum theory was crazy. So lets see what he has...

From his 2005 article, p390...

This dust mass concentration would have presented a column density between the Earth and Sun of about 1:35  106 g=cm2: Furthermore assuming that these invading dust grains had an average radius r ¼ 0:2 mm; a density of r ¼ 1; and an optical extinction efficiency of Qext  4; similar to porous silicates (Vaidya and Gupta, 1997), these grains would have presented an optical opacity of av ¼ 3 Qext=4rr ¼ 1:5  105 cm2=g: With this opacity, the above estimated interstellar dust column density would have presented an optical depth between the Earth and the Sun of t ¼ 0:2; indicating an 18% attenuation of the incident visible solar beam, which would reradiate in the infared.

Congestion of the solar system with such material could have had a serious impact on the Earth’s climate. In fact, the Byrd Station oxygen isotope profile shows that with the beginning of this acid deposition event and within the space of less than 100 years, dO18 became 1 per mil more negative, indicating a global cooling of about 1C; see upward spike in Fig. 1-A. The dO18 values shown here are plotted in 4m averages versus depth. The peakof this cold spike represents an average for depths 1284–1280 m, hence coincides with the period of elevated acidity. A similar cooling spike is seen in the northern hemisphere in the Summit, Greenland GISP2 ice core.

....

The initial cooling at the onset of the major event could have been caused by light scattering effects of the halogen enriched aerosol which maintained comparably high atmospheric concentrations during a series of episodes that extended over a total of seven decades. This atmospheric congestion would have lasted more than an order of magnitude longer than that of any known volcanic eruption.

LaVoilette (2005), Planetary and Space Science, 53, 385+

So, the initial effect of an influx of dust from a dense ISD would be cooling of around 1C.

Do we see this happening now? We are entering a more dense ISD, do we see cooling?

He then goes on to hypothesise about the subsequent warming trend that caused the end of the ice-age. He speculates that halides would have destroyed the ozone layer allowing UV to reach ground, possibly causing warming (this is not so accepted, ozone is also a GG, UV kills species that take up CO2 etc, overall cooling effect via atmospheric effects - it is not so simple). Back-scattering would cause luminous night skies, increasing solar constant (we don't see this now). Then that the dust would have increased solar luminosity (which we do not see now, solar variation has changed little since 1700s). Most of this is speculation, just like the speculation from Walker about how human effects during roman times resulted in warming.

He then presents evidence that most of the experimental findings surrounding the deglaciation showed very high solar luminosity, including lunar rock samples. This is well-established. But we see little change in recent times.

So, no real help there. He makes no extrapolation to our current state and we expect cooling to be the initial effect of a dense ISD in his hypothesis. He proposes that depending on the effects present (dust, luminosity, ozone etc), we could have cooling or warming. There are no significant solar variations presently.

You propose there will be warming from entering a denser ISD. This suggests not.

[edit on 18-2-2007 by melatonin]

So, the only scientist you present proposes a period of cooling of around 1C before a solar-induced warming trend that ended a previous ice-age.

Lets see what other scientists say about ISDs and climate...

The meteoroids and dust will, through orbital processes, tend to
concentrate in the invariable plane. As the earth passes through the invariable plane, accretion increases, and we speculate that glaciers grow, while recession of glaciers takes place during high inclinations when the earth’s orbit tips out of the invariable plane. We emphasize that this mechanism is speculative, and that there is no known meteoroid or dust band that satisfies all the properties that we require, although it is
possible that such a band could exist. We will offer some indirect evidence that accretion does vary with orbital inclination. Interplanetary dust accreting on the sun has previously been proposed as a driver of the ice ages (28, 29). Clube (30) discussed the possibility of accretion from a single large and unknown meteor stream affecting earth’s climate, but he did not draw any conclusions with respect to the periodicity of
glacial cycles.

Hoyle and Wickramasinghe (31) calculated the effect that accreting dust in the atmosphere could have on the greenhouse effect through the seeding of ice crystals, and speculated that such accretion could have been responsible for the Little Ice Age. At a meeting of the Royal Astronomical Society, reported by G. Manley (32), Hoyle discussed the possibility that accretion could remove enough atmospheric water vapor to reduce the greenhouse effect and cause cooling. Stratospheric dust could also be an effective scavenger of other greenhouse gases, including ozone, and possibly could affect the concentration of components such as chlorine that are thought to be responsible for the destruction of ozone.

The climatic effects of high-altitude dust and aerosols are known primarily from volcanic eruptions; global cooling of 0.5–1°C was estimated from the eruption of Krakatoa, and measurable climate changes have been attributed to El Chichon, Pinatubo, and other recent eruptions that injected
several megatons of material into the stratosphere.

Muller & McDonald, 1997, PNAS, 94, 8329+

So, according to Muller & McDonald, accretion of dust will initiate a period of cooling, also destroying the greenhouse gas, ozone.

The possibility of solar encounters with dense interstellar
clouds (IC) with particle concentrations about 10 − 1000 cm−3 and more, is of great interest in view of its possible effects upon the Earth. The question of whether dense IC would prevent the solar wind (SW) from reaching the Earth with the result of cloud material directly impacting the terrestrial atmosphere, as well as many other aspects of this complex problem were already discussed in the literature of the past (Fahr, 1968a, b; Talbot and Newman, 1977; Holzer, 1977; Fahr, 1980; Ripken and Fahr, 1981; Zank and Frisch, 1999; Scherer, 2000; Scherer et al. 2002, and references therein). Such a scenario is considered as possibly triggering
global glaciations, depositions of a prebiotic material on the primordial Earth, possible ecological repercussions for the Earth due to an accretion of the cloud’s matter, and of course, bio-mass extinction (Yabu#a and Allen, 1997). It should also be added that in fact the correlation between periods of glaciations and long-time variations in the accretion rate of interplanetary dust particles onto the Earth is revealed (Farley and Patterson, 1995).

Yeghikyan & Fahr (2003) Annales Geophysicae, 21, 1263+

Trigger of glaciations, accretion of clouds matter (see Muller & McDonald, 1997), mass biomass extinctions.

So, what about dense giant molecular clouds...

Title: Passing through a giant molecular cloud: "Snowball" glaciations produced by interstellar dust
Author(s): Pavlov AA, Toon OB, Pavlov AK, Bally J, Pollard D
Source: GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS 32 (3): Art. No. L03705 FEB 4 2005

Abstract: [1] In its motion through the Milky Way galaxy, the solar system encounters an average -density (greater than or equal to330 H atoms cm(-3)) giant molecular cloud (GMC) approximately every 10(8) years, a dense (similar to2 x 10(3) H atoms cm(-3)) GMC every similar to10(9) years and will inevitably encounter them in the future [Talbot and Newman, 1977]. However, there have been no studies linking such events with severe ( snowball) glaciations in Earth history. Here we show that dramatic climate change can be caused by interstellar dust accumulating in Earth's atmosphere during the solar system's immersion into a dense (similar to2 x 10(3) H atoms cm(-3)) GMC. The stratospheric dust layer from such interstellar particles could provide enough radiative forcing to trigger the runaway ice-albedo feedback that results in global snowball glaciations. We also demonstrate that more frequent collisions with less dense GMCs could cause moderate ice ages.

Global snowball glaciations. Less dense GMC, moderate ice-ages.


Thus far, we have a generally acceptance that ISD clouds, molecular and not, could result in cooling. Even your own reference (LaVoilette, 2005) agrees, the only difference is that he then speculates how this could add to a future warming trend via solar variations - this is no help as solar variations are suggested to be of little consequence for this current period of warming.

Cosmic Rays

Now we'll move on to cosmic rays, seeing as Muaddib likes them. What does Svensmark hypothesise about Cosmic rays? Decreasing cosmic rays could warm the planet. Increasing cosmic rays could cool the planet. See his work.

He hypothesises that decreasing cosmic rays allows less low-level cloud cover. This will result in change in radiative patterns and warmer temperatures. Low-level clouds are cooling.

Entering a denser ISD and increasing cosmic rays does not help you. According to Svensmark, this would cause the production of more low-level cloud and cooler temperatures.

Increase in cosmic rays doesn't support your account of the current warming trend. It should cause cooling.

Conclusion

Muaddib suggests that we are entering an increasingly dense interstellar dust cloud and that this can account for the current warming trend. This may cause increasing cosmic rays - according to Svensmark, this will result in cooling due to an increase in low-level cloud.

An increasingly dense dust cloud may also result in a period of cooling from other mechanisms, accretion of the dust matter will force cooling through mechanisms similar to volcano emissions. LaVoilette suggests this could subsequently result in a warming trend due to effects on solar luminosity. If we enter a dense molecular cloud, we could have a 'snowball earth' situation.

However, we see no significant trend in solar luminosity since the 1700s. Therefore it seems that we would expect cooling. (see P. Foukal, C. Fröhlich, H. Spruit and T. M. L. Wigley (2006) above for minimal solar variations)

The wild-card in all this is the effect of mono-atomic hydrogen on the atmosphere. Bzowski, Fahr, & Ruckinski (1996) suggest an influx of mono-atomic hydrogen may well result in ozone depletion. The effect of such depletion is complex. It is a greenhouse gas, removal would cause a degree of cooling by this mechanism. It would allow more UV to pass through the atmosphere, in this case, may cause a degree of warming of the troposphere rather than stratosphere. But the resultant cooler stratosphere would allow less long-wave radiation to reach the troposphere - this would be a cooling effect. The excess UV would affect the biosphere in other ways - possible biomass extinction. Algae in the ocean are a carbon sink, reducing these would cause increases in CO2.

[edit on 18-2-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by Muaddib
Hansen predicted an increase in average temperatures of 0.33 C, the increase we have had was 0.06C, he was way off.

No, you are wrong.

Disinformation, intellectual dishonesty, rhetoric.

He proposed Scenario B to be most likely of all the three models he developed.

Observed warming (Fig. 2) is comparable to that simulated for scenarios B and C, and smaller than that for scenario A. Following refs. 18 and 14, let us assess "predictions" by comparing simulated and observed temperature change from 1988 to the most recent year. Modeled 1988–2005 temperature changes are 0.59, 0.33, and 0.40°C, respectively, for scenarios A, B, and C. Observed temperature change is 0.32°C and 0.36°C for the land–ocean index and meteorological station analyses, respectively.

Warming rates in the model are 0.35, 0.19, and 0.24°C per decade for scenarios A, B. and C, and 0.19 and 0.21°C per decade for the observational analyses. Forcings in scenarios B and C are nearly the same up to 2000, so the different responses provide one measure of unforced variability in the model. Because of this chaotic variability, a 17-year period is too brief for precise assessment of model predictions, but distinction among scenarios and comparison with the real world will become clearer within a decade.

Close agreement of observed temperature change with simulations for the most realistic climate forcing (scenario B) is accidental, given the large unforced variability in both model and real world. Indeed, moderate overestimate of global warming is likely because the sensitivity of the model used (12), 4.2°C for doubled CO2, is larger than our current estimate for actual climate sensitivity, which is 3 ± 1°C for doubled CO2, based mainly on paleoclimate data (17). More complete analyses should include other climate forcings and cover longer periods. Nevertheless, it is apparent that the first transient climate simulations (12) proved to be quite accurate, certainly not "wrong by 300%" (14). The assertion of 300% error may have been based on an earlier arbitrary comparison of 1988–1997 observed temperature change with only scenario A (18). Observed warming was slight in that 9-year period, which is too brief for meaningful comparison.

Hansen et al. (2006), PNAS, 103, 14288+
www.pnas.org...

For 1988-2005, scenario B predicted 0.33C temperature change. The observed was 0.32C or 0.36C depending on source. Not 0.06C as you suggest. Warming rate for scenario B was 0.19C per decade, observed was 0.19C/0.21C depending on data.

He was very close. But he does admit it was actually fairly accidental. That is intellectual honesty. You should take a lesson from him.

[edit on 18-2-2007 by melatonin]

Ok...let's start by extrapolating the data from Hansen's predictions to the latest HadCRUT3 data from Phil Jones .



The observed temperatures for 2005 is 0.25C below scenario B that Hansen predicted. In fact the observed temperatures are below all of Hansen's predictions.

Source: www.climateaudit.org...

BTW... you are wrong when you claim there has been no increase in luminosity from the Sun.

New data indicate that the sun may contribute to global climate change, according to a new study by Richard Willson, a Columbia-affiliated researcher.

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

“Historical records of solar activity indicate that solar radiation has been increasing since the late 19th century,” says Willson. “If a trend comparable the one found in this study persisted during the 20th century it would have provided a significant component of the global warming that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report claims to have occurred over the last 100 years.”

www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu...

But that's not all, in fact there has been an increase in sunspots which are not being taken into account by the "it's all mankind's fault crowd".

SUN IS MORE ACTIVE NOW THAN IN THE PREVIOUS 1,000 YEARS
Scientists at the Zurich-based Institute for Astronomy have discovered that the frequency of sunspot activity coincides with global warming and cooling:

Between 1645 and 1715, there were few sunspots observed on the Sun's surface, during a period which coincided with cold weather event referred to as the "Little Ice Age."
During the past few hundred years, the number of sunspots has slowly increased, coinciding with a warming trend on the Earth.
The Sun has been more active in the last 60 years than it has over the past 1,150 years.
Dr. Sami Solanki and researchers have examined the concentrations of beryllium, an isotope, found in ice cores in Greenland. Beryllium is created by cosmic rays, and the rays are modulated by solar wind. Since the solar winds vary over sunspot cycles, scientists can examine the amount of Beryllium in the ice to help determine the presence of Sunspots.

www.ncpa.org...

There are research papers which have studied the influence of the Solar activity on the prices of wheat during the Middle Ages, and it shows that during times when the price of wheat went up, the Sun was at the minimum during the solar cycles, which shows that the sun is one of the main causes, if not the main cause for climate Change on Earth.

BTW, before melatonin comes up with another claim of his, the above is not the only research paper which proves what I am stating.

Influence of Solar Activity on State of Wheat Market in Medieval England
Authors: Lev A. Pustilnik, Gregory Yom Din
Comments: 17 pages, 9 figures, 1 appenix, Proceedings of International Cosmic Ray Conference 2003,SH,p.4131

The database of Prof. Rogers (1887), which includes wheat prices in England in the Middle Ages, was used to search for a possible influence of solar activity on the wheat market. We present a conceptual model of possible modes for sensitivity of wheat prices to weather conditions, caused by solar cycle variations, and compare expected price fluctuations with price variations recorded in medieval England.

We compared statistical properties of the intervals between wheat price bursts during years 1249-1703 with statistical properties of the intervals between minimums of solar cycles during years 1700-2000. We show that statistical properties of these two samples are similar, both for characteristics of the distributions and for histograms of the distributions. We analyze a direct link between wheat prices and solar activity in the 17th Century, for which wheat prices and solar activity data (derived from 10Be isotope) are available. We show that for all 10 time moments of the solar activity minimums the observed prices were higher than prices for the correspondent time moments of maximal solar activity (100% sign correlation, on a significance level < 0.2%). We consider these results as a direct evidence of the causal connection between wheat prices bursts and solar activity.

xxx.lanl.gov...

How "coincidental" that now that the Sun is more active than during the past 1,000 years that temperatures have gone up...

Since the solar system is recieving more "interstellar particles" which are not only "dust" but have charged particles, such as plasma, ions, and gases, and since according to what our knowledge about this event says that "there should be a Solar blizzard"...then why is it that every planet is undergoing warming?...instead of cooling?...

That's what the observable data is telling us, yet people like "melatonin" want's us to believe what is happening on Earth is unique and it is happening because of anthropogenic CO2. Yet he, alongside some others, don't want to accept that the claim that anthropogenic CO2 is the cause of global warming is based on the assumption that computer models can predict 100% what happens in Earth's atmosphere....and at the risk of repeating myself we can't even predict the weather for the next two weeks right, and as it has been proven the predictions made by Hansen are wrong....

As for the reason why the sun's activity has been increasing, or why every planet in the solar system is undergoing warming trends, well, the only thing that is different is that we are recieving more interstellar particles, such as plasma, ions, protons, electrons and including gases. So unless there is something else we don't know about, which is very possible, the most logical reason is that all these changes we are seeing not only on Earth but on the Sun and on every planet with an atmosphere is somehow being caused by the increase "interstellar particles" we are recieving.

Observations obtained by the NASA/ESA 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, its 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 Tritons 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.spacetelescope.org...

New Storm on Jupiter Hints at Climate Change
By Sara Goudarzi
Staff Writer
posted: 04 May 2006

A storm is brewing half a billion miles away and in a rare event, astronomers get to watch it closely.

Jupiter is growing a new red spot and the Hubble Space Telescope is photographing the scene. Backyard astronomers have been following the action, too.
...............
The latest images could provide evidence that Jupiter is in the midst of a global change that can modify temperatures by as much as 10 degrees Fahrenheit on different parts of the globe.

The study was led jointly by Imke de Pater and Philip Marcus of University of California, Berkeley.

www.space.com...

Puzzling Seasons and Signs of Wind Found on Pluto
By Robert Roy Britt
Senior Science Writer
posted: 01:45 pm ET
09 July 2003

Seasonal change on Pluto is causing the planet to warm up even as it moves away from the Sun, according to two studies that also detected the first firm signs of weather on the tiny planet.

In a deeper analysis of data first announced in October, researchers now say Pluto's atmospheric pressure doubled since 1988. They say the average global temperature must have climbed, too, by about 2 degrees Fahrenheit (1 degree Celsius).

www.space.com...

The same thing is found on every other planet with an atmosphere in the Solar System, they are undergoing warming trends, including Pluto which is getting farther and farther away from the sun yet it is warming instead of cooling.

Yet "melatonin" wants to believe "it's all mankind's fault.. even though his claims come from "theories which are still debatable by the scientific community, yet he doesn't want to admit this"...

BTW, just FYI.



Since nucleons hitting the Earth's atmosphere release heat, an increase in the amount of nucleons hitting Earth, and the rest of the planets, will "cause a warming trend"...

Nucleons have an energy ranging from 6 to 8 MeV. But I guess "melatonin" and the "mankind is at fault crowd" want to dismiss these facts... I guess more nucleons hitting Earth's atmosphere will not realease more heat right melatonin?...

The cosmic ray composition is roughly 89% protons and 10% helium, and the remaining 1% is in the form of heavier nuclei. In addition, 1% of cosmic rays are electrons.

helios.gsfc.nasa.gov...

[edit on 18-2-2007 by Muaddib]

Yes, it is true that recent research tells us that more interstellar dust "seems", keyword seems, to increase the amount of cloud cover. But why is it that thbose same scientists are not taking in consideration the fact that the more nucleons that hit Earth's atmosphere, the more heat is released into the atmosphere?

We don't understand all these processes, yet some want to claim we do know for certain and "it is all mankind's fault"?....

Well sorry to ruin your party but the facts show the oposite.


[edit on 18-2-2007 by Muaddib]

I saw the title of the thread and thought, "yeah If the Weathermen/women can't tell me what going to happen tomorrow, how could these scientists predict this warming trend.

Then I started to read,

Then I started to see words I didn't know

Then I grabbed my dictionary and looked up "mono-atomic hydrogen "

My dictionary said..... Go get a better dictionary


This battle of intellects is outstanding, (just wish I could understand this language)

Anyway I agree with mechang (especially as I was chipping up 4" of ice off my driveway in subfreezing temps, I kept saying to myself, "think global warming, think global warming")..

Don't mind me, just look at it as a short commercial break....

Now back to your regularly scheduled battle of the minds..

BTW very good debate, it's nice to see heavyweight fight every once in awhile.

Which one's Ali and which one's Frazier?

Oh, and btw, another little fact which i mention in the past but epople like melatonin don't want to take into consideration is that the current cloudlet our solar system is in has temperatures ranging from 6,000-10,000 Kelvin. That's the temperature on the core of the Sun.

Some scientists think we entered this cloudlet 2,000 years ago, while others say it was probably 10,000-18,000 years ago.

Journey of the Sun through SpaceOur improved understanding of the morphology and kinematics of nearby ISMin comparison to the space trajectory of the Sun permit a deeper understandingof the historical changes in the galactic environment of the Sun, and the effectthose changes have on the heliosphere. From Fig. 2, we see that within thepast ∼100,000–200,000 years the Sun emerged from the void of the surrounding interarm region and entered the LF complex of clouds. Within the past 10,000 years, and perhaps within the past 2,000 years, the Sun appears to have entered the cloud in which it is currently situated (Frisch 1997a).

Link

It is estimated that in 2,000 years we will enter another cloudlet which is cooler than the one we are in at this moment.

Since our sun's, and the Earth's magnetic field field are weakened, and this is allowing more plasma, ions, nucleons and gallactic dust to enter our Solar System, is it possible that some of that heat from the current cloudlet we are in is transfering more heat into our solar system?...

Such a process will take thousands of years, and the solar system has ben inside the current cloudlet for at least 2,000 years if not more.

[edit on 18-2-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib
Ok...let's start by extrapolating the data from Hansen's predictions to the latest HadCRUT3 data from Phil Jones.

The observed temperatures for 2005 is 0.25C below scenario B that Hansen predicted. In fact the observed temperatures are below all of Hansen's predictions.

No, lets not. That is not peer-reviewed work, muaddib. You're slacking again.

The data presented above from Hansen's article is.

Observed warming (Fig. 2) is comparable to that simulated for scenarios B and C, and smaller than that for scenario A. Following refs. 18 and 14, let us assess "predictions" by comparing simulated and observed temperature change from 1988 to the most recent year. Modeled 1988–2005 temperature changes are 0.59, 0.33, and 0.40°C, respectively, for scenarios A, B, and C. Observed temperature change is 0.32°C and 0.36°C for the land–ocean index and meteorological station analyses, respectively.

Warming rates in the model are 0.35, 0.19, and 0.24°C per decade for scenarios A, B. and C, and 0.19 and 0.21°C per decade for the observational analyses. Forcings in scenarios B and C are nearly the same up to 2000, so the different responses provide one measure of unforced variability in the model. Because of this chaotic variability, a 17-year period is too brief for precise assessment of model predictions, but distinction among scenarios and comparison with the real world will become clearer within a decade.

Hansen et al. 2006, PNAS.

BTW... you are wrong when you claim there has been no increase in luminosity from the Sun.

Yeah, it has changed in the past, that is not in question. The question is whether it can account for current warming.

Nature 443, 161-166 (14 September 2006) | doi:10.1038/nature05072

Variations in solar luminosity and their effect on the Earth's climate
P. Foukal1, C. Fröhlich2, H. Spruit3 and T. M. L. Wigley4

Abstract

Variations in the Sun's total energy output (luminosity) are caused by changing dark (sunspot) and bright structures on the solar disk during the 11-year sunspot cycle. The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978 are too small to have contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30 years. In this Review, we show that detailed analysis of these small output variations has greatly advanced our understanding of solar luminosity change, and this new understanding indicates that brightening of the Sun is unlikely to have had a significant influence on global warming since the seventeenth century. Additional climate forcing by changes in the Sun's output of ultraviolet light, and of magnetized plasmas, cannot be ruled out. The suggested mechanisms are, however, too complex to evaluate meaningfully at present.

There are research papers which have studied the influence of the Solar activity on the prices of wheat during the Middle Ages, and it shows that during times when the price of wheat went up, the Sun was at the minimum during the solar cycles, which shows that the sun is one of the main causes, if not the main cause for climate Change on Earth.

What the price of a wheat got to do with this? Is it cheaper now? Maybe it's due to better farming practices. Not a good example really, you must be getting desperate...

We know a maunder minmum occured during the LIA. If you want to discuss the LIA we can. There are other ideas as to what drove this period of climate change, not just solar effects.

How "coincidental" that now that the Sun is more active than during the past 1,000 years that temperatures have gone up...

It hasn't really changed enough to explain the current warming. It may account for a fair amount of warming in the early 20th, but it doesn't seem so important for the later period.

Since the solar system is recieving more "interstellar particles" which are not only "dust" but have charged particles, such as plasma, ions, and gases, and since according to what our knowledge about this event says that "there should be a Solar blizzard"...then why is it that every planet is undergoing warming?...instead of cooling?...

Every planet? The data does not support such a comment. Remember the difference between localised and global effects?

Muaddib, you're own suggestions do not add up. This is where you are now...


"I know it must be warming everywhere but no mechanisms are available therefore unexplained miracle"

As for the reason why the sun's activity has been increasing, or why every planet in the solar system is undergoing warming trends

Every planet? Where is this data? I don't see it anywhere. You have one area of mars (a pole), increased pressure on pluto, and storms that may cause warming on jupiter. Any more? ABE: oh, and triton now. Is neptune warming as well? How about mercury, venus, saturn, all the other moons?

All these planets are different, you can't extrapolate from earth to a gas giant, to a small ball of icy rock on the edge of the solar system. Even the mars data is what, 3 years worth? And you want to suggest long-term climate change, you are pushing that data pretty far...

well, the only thing that is different is that we are recieving more interstellar particles, such as plasma, ions, protons, electrons and including gases. So unless there is something else we don't know about, which is very possible, the most logical reason is that all these changes we are seeing not only on Earth but on the Sun and on every planet with an atmosphere is somehow being caused by the increase "interstellar particles" we are recieving.

I've just showed that increasing cosmic rays are suggested to cause cooling. Increasing dust is suggested to cause cooling. Reduction of ozone may well cause cooling. Any warming effect from other mechanisms would have to outweigh all these others and completely contradicts the current line of thought in this area of research.

You have no support for your ISD argument. Plasma effects cannot be meaningfully assessed. Even if cosmic rays could help your case, there is no trend.



[edit on 18-2-2007 by melatonin]