New Study Explodes Human-Global Warming Story

The sun's electromagnetic output DOES vary, over a period of approximately 11 years, although the cycle can be a short as 9, or as long as 14 years.

However, the net effect on Earth's climate of the sun's output cycle is negligible. The only thing the solar maximum affects is communications satellites. The Earth does not get warmer as the sun approaches "solar max".

There is no scientifically accepted evidence that cosmic rays have any effect on clouds, the temperature of the atmosphere, etc... Cosmic rays are so energetic that they typically zip right through the atmosphere without any interaction at all. In fact, they can be detected deep underground. The atmosphere does not absorb them to any significant degree. Some of them pass straight through the Earth as if it wasn't there.

Cosmic rays do not come from the sun. They originate from supernovas, colliding galaxies, and other cataclysmic, high-energy events in deep space. Hence the term "cosmic".

I think this "research" is another fine product of the right-wing, anti-environmentalist, oil-greedy noise machine. It sounds like a load of snake oil to me, up there with "energized water" and other brands of Jesus Physics.

Assuming for a moment that global climate change is NOT the result of human CO2 emissions (which it UNDOUBTEDLY is), we still need to reduce our wasteful, profligate consumption of fossil fuels. They will run out eventually, and burning them releases many toxic pollutants other than CO2. We should not use questions about the accuracy of climate research as an excuse to keep driving our 10-mpg SUVs to the mall. We need to conserve energy and fossil fuels for any number of good reasons, not just global warming.

Many Americans seem to have this idea that wasteful, profligate energy consumption is some sort of God-given birthright. Get over it. Save money. Save the planet. Save yourselves and your grandchildren. Stick it to the Saudis and Iranians. Get rid of the Ford Extinction and buy an efficient car, for Christ's sake. I can't believe how often I see one of these massive, over-bloated vehicles with ONE person in it, commuting to work. What an obscene waste. If you want to appear macho and manly that badly, try stuffing a sock down your jeans.

Originally posted by leira7
The science doesn't lie. I am just amazed at how many people are wrong with what is going on.

I think science can be wrong, but I'm not sure wy you think what you said is anything new.

We already know that orbital variations result in large changes in climate, underpinning such things as ice-age cycles. OK. We know that.

You say that during these periods changes in CO2 are natural. Yeah, they are.

And?

Do you think that means that all changes in CO2 are natural? Do you think that burning twice the amount of carbon required to account for the yearly rise in CO2 is not sufficient to say that current changes in CO2 are human sourced?

Ask your geography dude whether CO2 is a GHG. Then ask him what GHGs do. Then put 2+2 together.

My take on Global warming.
ecuze!

excuse! - lol - my english..

lols..

IT'S TEH SUN !

It's pretty darn hot these days... Black Sun..
Didn't I read somwhere that the polars of Mars has also melted ...And the Moon - Europa near Jupiter - That was original an ice-moon - Now have oceans on it???

So... What is all this! Take care of earth - on about?
I think - there is also poison in all the stuff cars leave behind tem..them..
tem n00b teh suck...

Wroom wroom - car pollution - Coal pollution...Hey - What about all the birds getting killed in traffic..
I mean - So many birds get killed each year - hit by car...
Smack!!! bird falls to the paveroad and - The car drives on -
It's wings are broken - And yet - Another car comes and finishes the job - Bird dead = bad for environment.

Dead animals = bad for environment.
Dead forrest = bad for environment.

Who gives a sh"#% about dead animals?
When teddybears die... Who will die first - Humans or animals...
hmm....
I think we cannot live without knowing - hey - animals behave normally..
Fly south in the winter - Fly north Summer - Breed - spring - have offspring summer...

That is what global warming should be about...
Else people don't see the real problem.. We need all perspectives - to know what global warming does to animal life..Has it changed?
Do birds still fly south in the winter?


[edit on 14-12-2007 by Ram]

So for the none-believers that man has not contributed to global warming; I guess 100 trillion tons of pollution pumped into the atmosphere annually of over 100 years will definitely have a negative impact on the environment. This is happening on our watch and this so called natural cycle is accelerated and enhanced by our irresponsible attitudes.

Add the fact that humans are clear cutting 10,000+ sq miles of forest EVERY YEAR in South America alone. Adding North America and Asia probably doubles that figure.

Burn, rape, pollute the planet and now it’s time for payback. Technology is supposed to be the savior of our species, but we have over populated too fast for technology to keep up and the elite class is too greedy to help accelerate that progress. They are waiting in their bunkers for us to end this all when we are each others throats bickering over water, food and livable land. Extreme weather will only get worse and deserts/droughts will only expand.

.

My Personal Opinion

once we use up this world we should all get aboard a pace vessel and go mine other planets of there resources and keep doing that until we evolve into super humans.

Global Crusade+Global Crisis=government intervention

this although it has not always been global, has been one of many a way to induce a population into fear and has been used through history many times to control a population.
I am not saying we dont have pollution problems we need to deal with, we do and I acknowledge that, but the world is going to end when the world is going to end. Scientists have said there have been Ice age after ice age, which must mean there are all the cycles in between. If scientists would have us beleive what they say then we should hold them to the logic that there are cycles. If these cycles of mother nature or God exterminate these generations of people than that is the way it is!

Originally posted by melatonin


I think science can be wrong, but I'm not sure wy you think what you said is anything new.

You're right, at times, science has been wrong. But there is currently a lot of hardcore evidence circling in the scientific world about earth's natural climatory cylces. Here is just one article. (I searched for earth sun geometry on google scholar).

Through study of sedimentary archives, it has become increasingly apparent that during much of the last 65 million years and beyond, Earth's climate system has experienced continuous change, drifting from extremes of expansive warmth with ice-free poles, to extremes of cold with massive continental ice-sheets and polar ice caps. Such change is not unexpected, because the primary forces that drive long-term climate, Earth's orbital geometry and plate tectonics, are also in perpetual motion. Much of the higher frequency change in climate (104 to 105 years) is generated by periodic and quasi-periodic oscillations in Earth's orbital parameters of eccentricity, obliquity, and precession that affect the distribution and amount of incident solar energy (Fig. 1) (1). Whereas eccentricity affects climate by modulating the amplitude of precession and thus influencing the total annual/seasonal solar energy budget, obliquity changes the latitudinal distribution of insolation. Because the orbital parameters vary with distinct tempos that remain stable for tens of millions of years (2), they provide a steady and, hence, predictable pacing of climate.

I'd like to point out that the abstract of this scientific research paper states that extreme climate change is not "unexpected" based on our planets history.

Originally posted by melatonin

We already know that orbital variations result in large changes in climate, underpinning such things as ice-age cycles. OK. We know that.

I honestly doubt that your average person knows about the orbital cycles of our planet and the earth. They are too busy believing one potential side of the global warming argument, the side that I believe has the least effect on our climate.

Originally posted by melatonin



You say that during these periods changes in CO2 are natural. Yeah, they are.

And?

Co2 emmisions are natural and it seems you understand that. But what I don't think you're getting is that they can mean the difference between a few thousand or more years of sunny days on the beach or a couple hundred thousand years of ice skating on that same beach.

Originally posted by melatonin
Ask your geography dude whether CO2 is a GHG. Then ask him what GHGs do. Then put 2+2 together.

I don't have to ask my geography teacher about green house gases, I think by now everyone and their dog has heard the same story over a million times. We can't escape that one idea that the media, schools, politicians and whoever else can get their bit in have implemented in our minds. I think that humans can help in speeding up the process and increasing the already exsting amount of GHG. We do effect our planet no doubt, but the question is, how much?

I often wonder if the elite do know this is coming. they know that the majority of us will die off. they know that after a period the planet will recalibrate its climate to become habitable once again, and finally they will have cleansed the world.

I have herd that part of the plan of the illuminati and the nwo is to reduce the worlds population to something like 500,000,000. what a great way to do it. it is the great flood all over again and just like the story from last time, those in power, the gods of men, the kings see this coming and keep quite. they have their plans laid, their escape mapped. when the flood comes they will escape to safety and the rest of us are left to die.

seems plausible.

I simply cannot understand why we continue to have this debate. if people can not see the impacts our species has had on the planet up to this point, they will not realize the truth until the time for action has passed.

the result? "it wont low up and disappear, it will just look ugly for 1000 years" (Frank Zappa - Dumb All Over). that and the fact that there is evidence that once we have had a impact of X degree on the planet it will rebound but when it does it will only do so to a point, creating a reduce carrying capacity thus reducing the number and [populations of species int he future.

it is a shame we are so self important that we refuse to see our interconnections to this planet. it is really too bad that we are so willing to ignore our place and our responsibly. talk about #ting where you eat...

facts mean so little so many of you, unless that is the facts are proof that we have no impact on the planet.

it must be nice to belive that the planet is infailable. it sure must make living your life much easier. the idea that you can do what ever you like and mother earth will clean up your mess for you.

as much as it angers me to have to see suffering for me and mine coming down the road and e capable of doing nothing to prevent it because the people around me are too busy defending their RIGHT and ABILITY to do what they like, i am use to it.

i find it hard to even engage in these threads anymore because it is all so pointless. the endless cycle of bickering. i dont think i can think of ever seeing new ground eing covered here. it is the same argument, with the same logic, the same conclusions, the same tension as every other GW thread.

the line is drawn and sides have been chosen. we stand here staring, some times offering banter - the back and forth disagreements that seems to lead to nothing.

good luck.

Is it that complicated?

Carbon dioxide, along all the other polluant gases we are emitting, is a green house effect gas. What does that mean?

It means that the more Co² there is in the atmosphere, the more heat the atmosphere will absorb, and the more serious climate change will be. Now this happens invariably of sun cycles causing the whole solar system to warm up.

If the sun is also behind it, THEN WE HAVE ANOTHER BIG REASON TO STOP BURNING OIL.

I also find it ironic that the scientists that publish these kind of pro-oil studies are american, the top polluter in the world.

[edit on 15-12-2007 by DarkSide]

Originally posted by leira7
I honestly doubt that your average person knows about the orbital cycles of our planet and the earth. They are too busy believing one potential side of the global warming argument, the side that I believe has the least effect on our climate.

Oh, yeah, that's without doubt true. But I was more focusing on scientific knowledge. You appeared to be suggesting that such things question the current explanations of climate change during this period.

Co2 emmisions are natural and it seems you understand that. But what I don't think you're getting is that they can mean the difference between a few thousand or more years of sunny days on the beach or a couple hundred thousand years of ice skating on that same beach.

But not always natural (i.e., now). And this is why emitting the amount of CO2 we are now will affect climate.

I don't have to ask my geography teacher about green house gases, I think by now everyone and their dog has heard the same story over a million times. We can't escape that one idea that the media, schools, politicians and whoever else can get their bit in have implemented in our minds.

And in science itself.

I think that humans can help in speeding up the process and increasing the already exsting amount of GHG. We do effect our planet no doubt, but the question is, how much?

I think that's about right. We know emitting GHGs will result in warming, knowing precisly how much is much more difficult.

But current understanding suggests it will be enough to likely result in detrimental effects (i.e., climate sensitivity of 2-4'C).

[edit on 15-12-2007 by melatonin]

reply to post by traderonwallst


Again, this is uneducation showing. There is a difference between local temperature and weather and global warming.

Global warming can wreak havoc on the local systems. Some will get MORE snow, some less. SOME too much rain, some not enough. Some hotter, some colder. Just like when people get fevers but break out into cold sweats. It is an indication that something is wrong.
The weather patterns both local and global are very complex systems.Lets say teh earth is heating over all. Causes more icebergs to break off, but then all the extra icebergs float around causing another area to get cooler then it normally is.

It is a system thrown out of whack, not a complete system launching the whole world into a tropical or desert climate.

A person who claims to get snow and uses that as an excuse against global warming is not armed enough to even be having this discussion.
Remember all the reports of blizzards in Colorado last January. Of course, who cares that is it snowing in Colorado? But they got excessive amounts of snow that was unusual for even them. And you can expect more stories like this to come out.

The fact is, if it were snowing in the Sonoran Desert right now, that is a sign of something seriously wrong.

[edit on 15-12-2007 by nixie_nox]

On Dec. 13th an interesting letter to U.N. President Ban Ki-moon was made public. The letter was in strong opposition to the carbon tax, the science behind CO2 based global warming, and the methods used to create the conclusions of the reports.

It was signed by 100 very prominent scientists from around the world.

The letter was signed by renowned scientists such as
Dr. Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists; Dr. Reid Bryson, dubbed the "Father of Meteorology"; Atmospheric pioneer Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, formerly of the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; Award winning physicist Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu of the International Arctic Research Center, who has twice named one of the "1000 Most Cited Scientists"; Award winning MIT atmospheric scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen; UN IPCC scientist Dr. Vincent Gray of New Zealand; French climatologist Dr. Marcel Leroux of the University Jean Moulin; World authority on sea level Dr. Nils-Axel Morner of Stockholm University; Physicist Dr. Freeman Dyson of Princeton University; Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, chairman of the Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Poland; Paleoclimatologist Dr. Robert M. Carter of Australia; Former UN IPCC reviewer Geologist/Geochemist Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, head of the Geological Museum in Norway; and Dr. Edward J. Wegman, of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.

Senate.Gov

I know that quote is hard to read. I posted because although only 100 scientists signed it, the list of who did is quite impressive. Thats reason enough to read and research their decision for opposing IMO.











[edit on 12/15/07 by makeitso]

Originally posted by makeitso
Isigned by 100 very prominent scientists[/url] from around the world.

Yes, and the 100 'prominent scientists' signed a letter that contained very misleading information, some might even say untruths...

One of them doesn't even have a PhD, but have said they do (e.g., Richard Courtney), many are not really scientists (e.g., Richard Courtney), many others are emeritus (i.e., are retired), many are not climatologists (e.g., Motl), others are the usual suspects (e.g., Bob Carter, Tim Ball - an ex-geography professor, not a climatologist).

What was very interesting was to see Wegman in there. This is the same 'impartial' statistician involved in the hearings about Michael Mann's study. Heh, not so impartial then...

[edit on 15-12-2007 by melatonin]

On the other hand

President of the World Federation of Scientists
Father of Meteorology
Atmospheric pioneer
etc. ect.

do have Phd's, impressive credentials, and the background that gives the letter credibility.

Enough to look into what their saying.



[edit on 12/15/07 by makeitso]

Originally posted by melatonin

But current understanding suggests it will be enough to likely result in detrimental effects (i.e., climate sensitivity of 2-4'C).

[edit on 15-12-2007 by melatonin]

Current: that is because the view changes every day. Studies produce different results, scientists change their models. BUT their answer remains the same.....global warming, global warming.

Suggests: means that what we say is only what we feel is right, science has not proved anything, just our gut feeling. BUT, we have the media behind us, so lets keep suggesting that we are killing the world, hence killing ourselves.

Likely: means, well,.....we might be right, we might be wrong......your just going to have to wait to see if we are right....BUT in the mean time we would like you to pay these taxes we have decided will save the planet. We would also like you to start walking to work, to school to your friends house. By the way, we would also like you to join our collective. The collective is all those people that committed to saving the world, despite it not needing to be saved.


These are code words for global warming fanatics. Just keep making sure it sounds scary. Make them think it exists, therefore it does exist. Don;t stop kidding yourself...we need you to bring in more people to the collective!!!!!!

Originally posted by nixie_nox

A person who claims to get snow and uses that as an excuse against global warming is not armed enough to even be having this discussion.
Remember all the reports of blizzards in Colorado last January. Of course, who cares that is it snowing in Colorado? But they got excessive amounts of snow that was unusual for even them. And you can expect more stories like this to come out.

The fact is, if it were snowing in the Sonoran Desert right now, that is a sign of something seriously wrong.

[edit on 15-12-2007 by nixie_nox]

What makes anything excessive? Have they NEVER had that much snow before? Who is to say that 100,000 years ago they did not have that much snow every year. NEVER say excessive, unless you know for sure that it HAS NEVER SNOWED that much before.

Please, thats just a poor response.

Oh....is it snowing in the Sonoran Desert????? I guess that means...there is NOTHING seriously wrong.

reply to post by makeitso


The problem is that these people are going to say they were paid for by Exxon. All evil scientists have been paid by Exxon, didn't you know that? Or they invested in Exxon at some time in their life or their third cousin once removed once dated someone who thought about investing in Exxon.

There is no convincing the people of the collective. The government is still rounding them up, they should be calling them home soon.

reply to post by melatonin


Only climatologists are allowed to comment on Global warming? what the hell is that all about?

Geologists are just as qualified to comment on what you perceive to be global warming. They study the earth!!!!!

Originally posted by traderonwallst


Suggests: means that what we say is only what we feel is right, science has not proved anything, just our gut feeling. BUT, we have the media behind us, so lets keep suggesting that we are killing the world, hence killing ourselves.

Likely: means, well,.....we might be right, we might be wrong......your just going to have to wait to see if we are right....BUT in the mean time we would like you to pay these taxes we have decided will save the planet. We would also like you to start walking to work, to school to your friends house. By the way, we would also like you to join our collective. The collective is all those people that committed to saving the world, despite it not needing to be saved.


These are code words for global warming fanatics. Just keep making sure it sounds scary. Make them think it exists, therefore it does exist. Don;t stop kidding yourself...we need you to bring in more people to the collective!!!!!!

are you serious? the media is helping those who believe in GW?

Please comment on this article:

BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER:
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

link

edit: please note the last sentence in he 6th paragraph.

[edit on 15-12-2007 by Animal]