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: 4
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 03:21 PM
link   
Actually, I'm doing my best to keep this thread on-topic. The topic is about the study with multiple measures of solar activity that all show a downward trend for the last 20 years or so.

If you want to discuss something else, there's a couple of threads in the fragile earth subfora with posts of mine that are still awaiting your response.

So, go and post it there, link it above and I'll answer. Hopefully you'll be decent enough to answer the outstanding stuff first. Cheers.

[edit on 13-7-2007 by melatonin]




posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 03:24 PM
link   
And actually, i am showing that the study is wrong, and just an attempt from a couple of researchers trying to get their 5 minutes of fame, but with some proper research it can be easily debunked...so i am staying on topic...

[edit on 13-7-2007 by Muaddib]



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 03:28 PM
link   
So you think babbling on about interstellar dust clouds and how global warming started in the 1500s is directly relevant to solar activity in the last few decades...

OK.



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
So you think babbling on about interstellar dust clouds and how global warming started in the 1500s is directly relevant to solar activity in the last few decades...

OK.


lol...interstellar clouds are more than just dust mate, they have charged particles, gases, large amounts of energy and depending on the interstellar cloud they can be as hot as the Sun....so would that have any effect on the Earth's climate, other planets with an atmosphere and the Sun itself?.... yes, it does...


[edit on 13-7-2007 by Muaddib]



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 03:35 PM
link   
I know what ISD clouds contain. I also know that they are linked to cooling of the earth's climate.

We are still off-topic.



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
I know what ISD clouds contain. I also know that they are linked to cooling of the earth's climate.

We are still off-topic.


...They are linked to drastic Climate Changes on Earth... btw the fact that the warming started in the 1500s and 1600s, meanwhile CO2 levels began to increase in the early 1860s alone shows the claims made by these two researchers, and yourself are nothing but "hot air".

In the meanwhile, and refuting the claims of melatonin, and these two researchers, the activity of the Sun has been increasing as several research work shows.




The magnetic field of the Earth is weakening, which also affects the climate on Earth.



Among some of the "natural factors" which have been occurring during the current Climate Change cycle which melatoning, and some people who shouldn't be called scientists keep trying to dismiss.

[edit on 13-7-2007 by Muaddib]



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 05:17 PM
link   
Let's not forget also we have had some of the strongest Solar Flares on record in the past few years, with the strongest happening in 2003. Which again is direct proof that the Sun's activity has not decreased since 1985...


The Most Powerful Solar Flares Ever Recorded
return to SpaceWeather.com


This list is based in part on "Large Solar Flares Since 1976" compiled by IPS Radio & Space Services. The two most recent entries (Dec. 5, 2006; Sept. 7, 2005) are highlighted in red.

----------------------------------------------
Ranking Day/Month/Year X-Ray Class
----------------------------------------------

1 04/11/03 X28+
2 02/04/01 X20.0
2 16/08/89 X20.0
3 28/10/03 X17.2
4 07/09/05 X17
5 06/03/89 X15.0
5 11/07/78 X15.0
6 15/04/01 X14.4
7 24/04/84 X13.0
7 19/10/89 X13.0
8 15/12/82 X12.9
9 06/06/82 X12.0
9 01/06/91 X12.0
9 04/06/91 X12.0
9 06/06/91 X12.0
9 11/06/91 X12.0
9 15/06/91 X12.0
10 17/12/82 X10.1
10 20/05/84 X10.1
11 29/10/03 X10
11 25/01/91 X10.0
11 09/06/91 X10.0
12 09/07/82 X 9.8
12 29/09/89 X 9.8
13 22/03/91 X 9.4
13 06/11/97 X 9.4
14 24/05/90 X 9.3
15 05/12/06 X 9.0
15 06/11/80 X 9.0
15 02/11/92 X 9.0


www.spaceweather.com...

And that's without counting this..


A New Kind of Solar Storm

Going to the Moon? Be careful. A new kind of solar storm can take you by surprise.

June 10, 2005: January 2005 was a stormy month--in space. With little warning, a giant spot materialized on the sun and started exploding. Between January 15th and 19th, sunspot 720 produced four powerful solar flares. When it exploded a fifth time on January 20th, onlookers were not surprised.

They should have been. Researchers realize now that the January 20th blast was something special. It has shaken the foundations of space weather theory and, possibly, changed the way astronauts are going to operate when they return to the Moon.

Sunspot 720 unleashed a new kind of solar storm.

Scant minutes after the January 20th flare, a swarm of high-speed protons surrounded Earth and the Moon. Thirty minutes later, the most intense proton storm in decades was underway.

"We've been hit by strong proton storms before, but [never so quickly]," says solar physicist Robert Lin of UC Berkeley. "Proton storms normally develop hours or even days after a flare." This one began in minutes.

science.nasa.gov...



[edit on 13-7-2007 by Muaddib]



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 05:19 PM
link   
Well, at least we're back on track, although I think we've seen those graphs before.

It's a bit difficult to tell much about the last few decades from them don't you think?

ABE: Do you know that is still Solanki's sunspot study? The one where he and Usoskin conclude that:


Although the rarity of the current episode of high average sunspot numbers may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual climate change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades.

www.ncdc.noaa.gov...

ABE: here's an more detailed view of the last few decades from ealier:





Maybe you could play spot the difference between the satellite composites. The top one is Willson's composite, the bottom Frohlich's. Which is most like the independent Greenwich sunspot data?

Particular attention should be paid to the minima.

[edit on 13-7-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 05:37 PM
link   
We have been through this before. We can keep at this all night, you present the data you want to trust, i present the data i trust.




posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 05:40 PM
link   
I doubt we know exactly what the sunspots will be in 2050, so we'll view that as some prediction into the future.

OK, my bad, eyes need testing. All that shows is that sunspots are active since last century, I already know that.

The issue is that the sunspot data you are presenting is from a study in which the authors conclude that solar activity would not be a significant influence on climate for the last few decades.

The data you presented does not support your position.

[edit on 13-7-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 05:47 PM
link   
BTW, i am very interested to see what sets of data they used to extrapolate their results, since you well know, and we have discussed this before that the different equipment used to extrapolate data have different calibration issues and give errors when extrapolated, which gives different results, and which begs to question why you didn't show an image such as this, which shows what equipment was used to get the data, and of course the extrapolated data looks exactly the same as the graphs you gave.




[edit on 13-7-2007 by Muaddib]



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 05:52 PM
link   
It was more a case that I used those graphs earlier, and seeing it is the sunspot data I was particularly trying to show in finer temporal resolution, rather than the TSI, but Willson's data was already attached (it's the same as you have above), I also posted Frohlich's.

Just think it's an interesting comparison. If you honestly look at the sunspot minima, it is much more consistent with Frohlich's PMOD composite. The PMOD composite is the same raw satellite data as the Willson composite, just analysed better. The reason I say better is because it is the most recent corrected version, and it is more consistent with the other indices of solar activity (which is the point of comparing to the greenwich sunspot data).

The greenwich sunspot data is from the Willson study report on the NASA page. And as they say, there should be close fit between sunspot data and TSI.

ABE:

Did this just for you, hope you appreciate it




From Frohlich (2006).

[edit on 13-7-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Jul, 15 2007 @ 01:00 AM
link   
That report is disinfo, they can't prove there is no link with the sun, they just know the sun explanation is the best and would shut people like gore down in a second if it was proven, I did my own research on the planet mars, and the northern polar cap seems to have melted somewhat in 30 years, I won't post the photos because I'm going to release this on my own site in the future, but the sun is the main source for global warming, the other explanation I like to consider is the cycle of the earth itself, it goes through ice ages and warm ages, and the gap in-between would require a thousand years of computer research which is why it couldn't possibly be proven in such a short amoount of time since we humans haven't been monitoring climate change long enough.

[edit on 15-7-2007 by Razimus]



posted on Jul, 15 2007 @ 01:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
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.


Well we do have robots on Mars, and other drones passing thru the solar system, but I'd say they're a tad short of millions of SUV's.



posted on Jul, 15 2007 @ 01:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thousand
(This post skirts the edge of going off-topic, I realize. But I feel it necessary in order to further "Deny Ignorance". I would hope the mods agree.)


You could have started a seperate thread and linked it in here. The OP is a very important issue.



posted on Jul, 15 2007 @ 01:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib


What is the source on that graph?



posted on Jul, 15 2007 @ 02:56 AM
link   
Complete bull. The sun needs to be getting heater because its going to go super nova. More heat need to grow before this, and hence, this is bull. contridicts logic.



posted on Jul, 15 2007 @ 03:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Originally posted by Muaddib


What is the source on that graph?


That graph has to be a fake, as mankind has not had adequate technology to monitor sunspots enough to count them back in 1650. lol. We could once in a while notice one, if the angle was perfect... but we couldnt count them.

And, not to mention, Sunspot readings from the Antarctic dating back to 850 !?!?!?! Come on now.


That chart is a complete fabrication. Where did you get it?

[edit on 15-7-2007 by johnsky]



posted on Jul, 15 2007 @ 06:20 AM
link   
Jeez, I'm defending you here muaddib, heh.



Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years
Nature, Vol. 431, No. 7012, pp. 1084 - 1087, 28 October 2004.

S.K. Solanki1, I. G. Usoskin2, B. Kromer3, M. Schüssler1, and J. Beer4

Direct observations of sunspot numbers are available for the past four centuries, but longer time series are required, for example, for the identification of a possible solar influence on climate and for testing models of the solar dynamo. Here we report a reconstruction of the sunspot number covering the past 11,400 years, based on dendrochronologically dated radiocarbon concentrations. We combine physics-based models for each of the processes connecting the radiocarbon concentration with sunspot number. According to our reconstruction, the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago. We find that during the past 11,400 years the Sun spent only of the order of 10% of the time at a similarly high level of magnetic activity and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode. Although the rarity of the current episode of high average sunspot numbers may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual climate change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades.

www.ncdc.noaa.gov...

According to Sami Solanki we have 400 years of direct sunspot measures, to go back further, proxies of solar activity are used (isotope data). These guys can go back 11,000 years.

I think the graph muaddib used is actually based on Solanki's data. Although it is important to note that the conclusion of the authors.



posted on Jul, 15 2007 @ 06:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555


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?


I am in absolute agreement with Blaine here - it's so obvious how much Western Governments are using/relying on this whole 'global warming' issue to implement new control/policy/money-making measures. I believe this is one of the biggest dupes on the public in history. We are being totally manipulated right now (certainly in the UK where I live) into guilt about our 'carbon footprint'.

The channel 4 programme was really hushed in the press over here in the UK - and it's not surprising!

I still believe that there are issues around pollution and poisoning the atmosphere and the Earth. If anything these real issues are getting neglected in terms of direct action because of this huge overplayed emphasis on GW.

The GW thing also serves as a perfect "we are listening to you, people" device. AVAAZ proclaimed a 'great victory' in their 'Climate Crisis' campaign when the G8 summit said they would act on their petition. So the peope in power get to carry on with their agenda AND look like they're listening to public opinion! - perfect!

(note: I have supported AVAAZ fully on some other petitions, but felt the climate crisis one was a little misguided and naive - it played right into the hands of mainstream world stage politics)

I'm still not fully clear about the GW debate , but so far the Sun activity explanation seems to be the most plausible for me at this time: both scientifically and intuitively.




top topics



 
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join