It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

'No Sun link' to climate change

page: 1
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 04:56 AM
link   

Sun NOT responible for global warming


news.bbc.co.uk

A new scientific study concludes that changes in the Sun's output cannot be causing modern-day climate change.
It shows that for the last 20 years, the Sun's output has declined, yet temperatures on Earth have risen.

It also shows that modern temperatures are not determined by the Sun's effect on cosmic rays, as has been claimed.
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 11-7-2007 by UM_Gazz]




posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 04:56 AM
link   
It's something I've seen discussed in various places on ATS over the last few months. I find the article a bit vague and simplistic - particularly with regard to the use of the words "warmth" and "output". But no doubt the actual report is more precise! It looks as though someone is at least looking at the possibility of the sun's part in our ongoing climate problems.

Anyone who saw the Channel 4 documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle" in Britain will know it was widely discredited by a global-warming-hungry media almost straight away (invariably without addressing any of the issues involved). This would appear at least to be a more considered verdict.

news.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 05:05 AM
link   
Bet that report is absolutely rubbish. The sun is responsible full stop.

Cannot understand how these geezers do these reports sometimes.



posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 05:32 AM
link   
I think the sun is responsible for global warming. No doubt the enviroment is in bad shape but its not from co2 its from pesticides, depleted uranium, toxic dumping, chemtrails, fluoride in the water and god know what else is poisoning us.

Global warming is intended to garner a world carbon tax and eventually 1 child policies because humans cause too much carbon and we must be stopped.

Read this little article from uk on how cows are hurting the earth.

www.thesun.co.uk...



posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 05:48 AM
link   
We don't even fully understand how the Sun, or many other cosmological objects work.. so to state with absolute certainty that the Sun is not responsible for "Global Warming" seems like a very big stretch, pushing on propaganda IMHO.

Im just going to go out on a limb and say what i always say... global warming is just a politcal arm of the NWO, no different from the war of terror, war on drugs.. etc...

Its based on bad "science" and "intelligence".



posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 07:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
We don't even fully understand how the Sun, or many other cosmological objects work.. so to state with absolute certainty that the Sun is not responsible for "Global Warming" seems like a very big stretch, pushing on propaganda IMHO.

Im just going to go out on a limb and say what i always say... global warming is just a politcal arm of the NWO, no different from the war of terror, war on drugs.. etc...

Its based on bad "science" and "intelligence".


Not being a believer in the NWO (largely because I reckon most of the New World would struggle to Order a pizza) I don't subscribe wholly to your point of view, though I respect it. I do agree with you that it's very difficult to say what effect the sun might have on us when we know so little of what it does. But I don't know that "bad science" is the best term for these reports - "limited science" would seem to me to be a better bet.

Essentially I'm saying I think we need to be a bit more careful about who we accuse of being deviantly motivated. There's no evidence that I can see in this story that those who made the report are wrong sorts....



posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 07:27 AM
link   
For those who are saying the sun is responsible.... How do you figure? Please back it up with something that actually defends your stance a little more than your opinion. Unless that is you're a climatologist or solar scientist. However, if you were, you'd probably back up your claims.



posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 07:34 AM
link   
Well, considering that "science" takes the Sun to be one giant nuclear reactor, i have no time to debate this articles science, because the Sun is NOT a nuclear reactor.

The Sun is responsible for the climate change we are seeing, on this planet, and the others in our system.

Even NASA has admitted that the solar cycle peaks in 2012.. go figure.


apc

posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 07:47 AM
link   
Well, we should be at or about a solar minimum.





But it is interesting to note the apparent upward trend.

What I find most damning to the humans-dun-it argument is the fact that there is apparent warming on Mars. Storm activity on Jupiter is becoming increasingly spectacular. Neptune's moons are warming. And even Pluto, which is currently moving away from the sun and should be getting colder, is warming up.

Now short of a giant hot spot in the galaxy that we could be currently passing through, I really only see one common element of all these observations... the sun.



posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 08:02 AM
link   
1- If the sun isn't a giant fusion reactor, then what is it?

2- Just because other planets in the solar system are undergoing global warming doesn't mean that the sun is the only common factor. And it doesn't mean that the events are connected either. And it certainly doesn't mean that the human influence on Earth isn't causing the Earths warming trend.


apc

posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 08:13 AM
link   
1. The sun is a mass of incandescent gas
A gigantic nuclear furnace
where hydrogen is built into helium
at a temperature of millions of degrees

Yo ho it's hot
The Sun is not
a place where we could live
but here on earth there'd be no life without the light it gives

We need it's light
We need it's heat
We need it's energy

Without the sun
Without a doubt
There'd be no you and me

2. No, it doesn't mean they're connected. But it sure is a really bizarre coincidence, doncha think?



posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 08:46 AM
link   
I am not a scientist, but it doesnt take one to realize where the heat is coming from IMO, so what about the other planets warming what is causing it?



posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
1- If the sun isn't a giant fusion reactor, then what is it?


It is more akin to a giant positive anode, releasing the energy it does by means of interaction with giant fields of energy that pervade the galaxy. Think of it as a ball of mass creating friction against a surface (field) as it moves through space.

The Sun is electric, not nuclear.



posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 09:46 AM
link   
I wonder how these researchers concluded that changes in the Sun are not causing any effects on Earth's climate when it has been proven that it does by several hundreds of other research.

The Sun's output has been increasing since at least the 1970s by 0.05%, and not only that but the sunspots numbers have been increasing as well as the magnetic field of the Sun, and the Earth, both have been changing. The Magnetic field of the Earth has been weakening since 1845.


March 20, 2003 - (date of web publication)

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.

www.space.com...

and the above is not taking into account the other changes, such as the increase in sunspots in recent decades and the changes in the magnetic intensity of the Sun and Earth.




New investigations of a tiny star in the constellation of Pegasus have provided a novel insight into the Sun and its potential impact on Earth.
An international team of astronomers[1] have developed a new understanding of how stars, including the Sun, generate their magnetic fields. The new finding may help develop further understanding of how changes in the magnetic field of the Sun impact on Earth's climate. The researchers from France, Scotland and the USA made a crucial discovery when studying a small ultra-cool star 20 light-years from the Sun. The researchers used new methods to make the first magnetic map of the star, and found that this ultra-cool star has a very simple magnetic field, much like that of the Earth.

They explained: "Studying magnetic fields of stars is a novel way of studying the magnetic field of our Sun. Although it always looks the same, the Sun is variable, and the changes in its magnetic field, although small, appear to affect the Earth's climate. Scientists think that a well-documented decrease in the Sun's magnetic activity is the most probable cause of the Little Ice Age, the cool period that prevailed on Earth from the 15th to the 18th century."

The star, named V374 Pegasi, lies about 20 light-years from the Sun, in the constellation of Pegasus. Although it is one of the Sun's closest stellar neighbours - much nearer to us than most of the stars visible in the night sky - V374 Peg is more than 100 times too faint to see with the unaided eye. It is an ultra-cool star, one-third of the size of the Sun, with a surface temperature of only 2900 C, in contrast to the Sun's 5500 C.

www.cfht.hawaii.edu...

BTW, during the Little Ice Age the Sun was going through a minimum known as the Maunder Minimum, which was a time when the Sun had almost no sunspots to talk about and it was during this time that the LIA was the coldest.


Little Ice Age
The Maunder Minimum coincided with the middle — and coldest part — of the so-called Little Ice Age, during which Europe and North America, and perhaps much of the rest of the world, were subjected to bitterly cold winters. Whether there is a causal connection between low sunspot activity and cold winters is the subject of ongoing debate (e.g. see Global Warming).

en.wikipedia.org...


BTW, any changes in the Sun's output, however small, will in turn affect the Earth's climate. Although the surface of the oceans on Earth respond basically fast to changes in the output of the Sun, in order for the entire oceans to store this increase output will take decades for the entire oceans to store this increase heat, which then in turn affects the climate on Earth.

There are several changes which the Sun is going through which does affect the climate on Earth, it is not just that it's output has increased 0.05% since the 1970s.

[edit on 11-7-2007 by Muaddib]



posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 09:47 AM
link   
Quote from the BBC article:

"This paper re-enforces the fact that the warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity," said Dr Piers Forster from Leeds University, a leading contributor to this year's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment of climate science."


I can't take this IPCC stuff anymore. The audacity of the IPCC to claim supreme knowledge of the climate is sick. They know hardly anything about the Sun. It has existed longer than anyone could even comprehend. It is a God comparative to us.

Assumption is the mother of all **** ups. Relatively speaking, studying 20 years of Sun activity from a far is not going to tell you how it has effected the climate on earth for the last 100 years, let alone the 1000-50,000+ years we should be looking into. Even with all their 'scientists' the IPCC still lacks the collective wisdom to comprehend anything. It goes to show, intelligence and wisdom don't go hand in hand.

Wisdom dictates that, take away the sun, the earth freezes; move the Sun closer, the Earth boils. Ergo increase/decrease the Suns temperature and the Earth will react relative to that temperature change. - 20 years minor decrease counts for little over the billions its been around.

I always find myself coming back to a Lyric from the Pink Floyd song 'Time':

'The sun is the same in the relative way, but youre older. Shorter of breath and one day closer to death.'


[edit on 11/7/07 by Chupa101]



posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 10:00 AM
link   
bbc video

Watch this video of what the bbc are putting out, he is saying it as fact that the sun is not repsonsible
.

You cannot tell me that video is telling me the truth, even the narrator does not sound convinced.



posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 10:33 AM
link   
How backwards have we become..

Humanity has ALWAYS worshipped the Sun. "Jesus" is the Sun, as are many other special figures (see zeitergiest movie)..

And now we think we know it all.. or at least the IPCC does.

We need a revolution..



posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by apc
1. The sun is a mass of incandescent gas
A gigantic nuclear furnace
where hydrogen is built into helium
at a temperature of millions of degrees

Yo ho it's hot
The Sun is not
a place where we could live
but here on earth there'd be no life without the light it gives

We need it's light
We need it's heat
We need it's energy

eWithout the sun
Without a doubt
There'd be no you and me



I know it's hot, and that it's no a place where we cold live, and here on Earth there'd be no life without the light it gives, but that doesn't mean it's not a fusion reactor.


And yes, it could be a huge coincidence, but those happen all the time in this vast universe.



posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 12:38 PM
link   


Dr Lockwood initiated the study partially in response to the TV documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, broadcast on Britain's Channel Four earlier this year, which featured the cosmic ray hypothesis.


So in response to a documentary that aired this year this study was undertaken? They ruled out the Sun's involvement in a few short months? Am I the only one who noticed this? Maybe this team could solve the riddle of Life, the Universe and Everything in a couple of months too? Give them a full year and imagine what they could do


These guys figured out this in a couple of months. Very unlikely. This is politically motivated and these folks have destroyed their own credibility for life. I wonder what they are getting in return to make them do this? This is being presented as fact without any peer review in an impossibly short time.

BULL! Before I read this my mind was open to everything. This article shows that the idea of the Sun causing warming hit a real nerve. That makes me think they know its the truth and are covering their collective political butts. Perhaps their future Government Grants were dependant on them refuting that idea?



posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 01:00 PM
link   
A geezer on c2c radio said it best a while ago. He said they tell people it is not the sun, becuase otherwise everyone will think nothhing can be done.

Thats the only reason this report came out.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join