It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
(visit the link for the full news article)
Professor Ian Plimer, a geologist from Adelaide University, argues that a recent rise in temperature around the world is caused by solar cycles and other "extra terrestrial" forces.
He said carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, widely blamed for global warming, is a natural phenomenon caused by volcanoes erupting.
We cannot stop carbon emissions because most of them come from volcanoes," he said. "It is a normal element cycled around in the earth and my science, which is looking back in time, is saying we have had a planet that has been a green, warm wet planet 80 per cent of the time.
Don't tell everyone or the PTB and the world government in current form will not be able to sell carbon credits... Cap and trade.
Originally posted by plumranch
Government LOVES global warming because it gives them a possible source of endless taxes!
Originally posted by plumranch
Climate change 'sceptic' Ian Plimer argues CO2 is not causing global warming
[edit on 12/11/09 by plumranch]
So when the Australian geologist Professor Ian Plimer challenged me to a face-to-face debate in July, I didn't exactly leap at the chance. His book Heaven and Earth, which purports to destroy the science of climate change, contains page after page of schoolboy errors and pseudoscientific gobble-degook. As the professor of astrophysics Michael Ashley wrote: "It is not 'merely' atmospheric scientists that would have to be wrong for Plimer to be right. It would require a rewriting of biology, geology, physics, oceanography, astronomy and statistics." But never, as far as I can determine, has Plimer responded to the devastating points made by his critics. He just keeps shifting his ground.
"The basic physics is that if carbon dioxide increases then the temperature goes up..." Correct but not when the carbon dioxide rises from 0.02% to only 0.04% of the atmosphere as it has on Earth over the last couple hundred years. And this level is still only 1/3 what it has reached in the pre-human past.
I'm a scientist, but not a specialist in climate. What I can never get answered is this: In my field we produce hypotheses all the time. For every hypothesis we must devise an experiment to 'prove' it. For climate scientists the hypothesis would be "I think the plant's temperature is correlated with CO2 concentration". Problem is, this hypothesis can't be tested directly because you can't do controlled experiments on a global scale. So they do small scale lab experiments and extrapolate that to global scale (and create global climate models etc). In my scientific mind this is simply a stretch too far. I don't classify myself as a believer or sceptic, just a frustrated scientist who wishes the limitations of our knowledge and experimental technique in this subject were better explained to the public.
It's great to see so many people know "climate change" is a scam. However, the problem is that intelligent, informed people are a minority and politicians know it. Politicians get away with so many ridiculous things because the majority of people are idiots and/or ignoramuses. They count on uncontrolled democracy where anyone can vote to get elected. If we had vested, intelligent democracies where the only people who can vote are taxpayers who fund government and who passed periodic intelligence and knowledge exams then politicians would behave much more honestly and rationally.
Originally posted by Zaphod58
..and solar radiation levels are at an all time high.
This is an issue that is often misunderstood in the public sphere and media, so it is worth spending some time to explain it and clarify it. At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000 years or so.
Does this prove that CO2 doesn’t cause global warming? The answer is no.
The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data.
Plus the government is not trying to scare us
because the average citizen is not smart enough to take care of a problem before it actually arises.
I live in the middle of the US and I could care less about what happens to the houses on the coast
What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming? RealClimate
So when the Australian geologist Professor Ian Plimer challenged me to a face-to-face debate in July, I didn't exactly leap at the chance.
Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Regenmacher
And yet an article from spacedaily.com talks about how radiation levels are higher than ever. We may be in a solar minimum, but I`ll take the word of an expert thanks.
...But is it supposed to be this quiet? In 2008, the sun set the following records:
A 50-year low in solar wind pressure: Measurements by the Ulysses spacecraft reveal a 20% drop in solar wind pressure since the mid-1990s—the lowest point since such measurements began in the 1960s. The solar wind helps keep galactic cosmic rays out of the inner solar system. With the solar wind flagging, more cosmic rays are permitted to enter, resulting in increased health hazards for astronauts. Weaker solar wind also means fewer geomagnetic storms and auroras on Earth.
A 12-year low in solar "irradiance": Careful measurements by several NASA spacecraft show that the sun's brightness has dropped by 0.02% at visible wavelengths and 6% at extreme UV wavelengths since the solar minimum of 1996....
A 55-year low in solar radio emissions: After World War II, astronomers began keeping records of the sun's brightness at radio wavelengths. Records of 10.7 cm flux extend back all the way to the early 1950s. Radio telescopes are now recording the dimmest "radio sun" since 1955: plot. Some researchers believe that the lessening of radio emissions is an indication of weakness in the sun's global magnetic field.
Cosmic rays and cloud formation
Cosmic rays and cloud formation CLOUD is an experiment that uses a cloud chamber to study the possible link between galactic cosmic rays and cloud formation. Based at the Proton Synchrotron at CERN, this is the first time a high-energy physics accelerator has been used to study atmospheric and climate science; the results could greatly modify our understanding of clouds and climate.
The influence of cosmic rays on terrestrial clouds and global warming
E. Palle Bago and C. J. Butler
Paper appeared in Astronomy & Geophysics, August 2000. Vol 41, Issue 4, pp 18-22.
We analyse the new ISCCP (International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project) D2 cloud data to ascertain whether or not a connection between cosmic ray flux and cloud cover exists. Despite a previous finding that total cloud factor and cosmic ray fluxes were correlated, our results indicate that only the low-level cloud follows solar activity over the full period, 1983-1994. Using several proxies for solar activity and the radiative forcing calculated by Ockert-Bell (1992) for the ISCCP cloud types, we estimate the possible impact that such a solar-terrestrial connection may have on climate. We conclude that, possibly excluding the most recent decades, much of the warming of the past century can be quantitatively accounted for by the direct and indirect effects of solar activity.