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.
Originally posted by Nickmare
All right, let's take a deep breath.
Originally posted by Nickmare
Do we know the temperature changes on all planets? We have the most information about Mars, and I would still say no when talking about it.
Originally posted by Nickmare
Talking about sun irradiance:
Are you sure Wilson was talking about irradiance, or was it sunspot activity?
Originally posted by Nickmare
The sun has probably not changed temperatures by more then 5% in the last billion or so years.
Originally posted by Nickmare
By the way, even if it was true the sun's sunspot activity is increasing, I haven't seen any correlations to warming, or any data showing a warming on any planet. I'll take a look for you when I get time though.
Surprise In Earth's Upper Atmosphere: Mode Of Energy Transfer From The Solar Wind
"Its like something else is heating the atmosphere besides the sun. This discovery is like finding it got hotter when the sun went down," said Larry Lyons, UCLA professor of atmospheric and oceanic sciences and a co-author of the research, which is in press in two companion papers in the Journal of Geophysical Research.
Space radiation hits record high
Now, the influx of galactic cosmic rays into our solar system has reached a record high. Measurements by NASA's Advanced Composition Explorer (ACE) spacecraft indicate that cosmic rays are 19 per cent more abundant than any previous level seen since space flight began a half century ago."The space era has so far experienced a time of relatively low cosmic ray activity," says Richard Mewaldt of Caltech, who is a member of the ACE team. "We may now be returning to levels typical of past centuries."
Secular increase of the astronomical unit and perihelion precessions as tests of the Dvali–Gabadadze–Porrati multi-dimensional braneworld scenario
Lorenzo Iorio JCAP09(2005)006 doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2005/09/006
Viale Unità di Italia 68, 70125, Bari, Italy
Abstract. An unexpected secular increase of the astronomical unit, the length scale of the Solar System, has recently been reported by three different research groups (Krasinsky and Brumberg, Pitjeva, Standish). The latest JPL measurements amount to 7 ± 2 m cy−1. At present, there are no explanations able to accommodate such an observed phenomenon, either in the realm of classical physics or in the usual four-dimensional framework of the Einsteinian general relativity. The Dvali–Gabadadze–Porrati braneworld scenario, which is a multi-dimensional model of gravity aimed at providing an explanation of the observed cosmic acceleration without dark energy, predicts, among other things, a perihelion secular shift, due to Lue and Starkman, of 5 × 10−4 arcsec cy−1 for all the planets of the Solar System. It yields a variation of about 6 m cy−1 for the Earth–Sun distance which is compatible with the observed rate of change for the astronomical unit. The recently measured corrections to the secular motions of the perihelia of the inner planets of the Solar System are in agreement with the predicted value of the Lue–Starkman effect for Mercury, Mars and, at a slightly worse level, the Earth.
Is the solar system entering a nearby interstellar cloud
Vidal-Madjar, A.; Laurent, C.; Bruston, P.; Audouze, J.
AA(CNRS, Laboratoire de Physique Stellaire et Planetaire, Verrieres-le-Buisson, Essonne, France), AB(CNRS, Laboratoire de Physique Stellaire et Planetaire, Verrieres-le-Buisson, Essonne, France), AC(CNRS, Laboratoire de Physique Stellaire et Planetaire, Verrieres-le-Buisson, Essonne, France), AD(Meudon Observatoire, Hauts-de-Seine; Paris XI, Universite, Orsay, Essonne, France)
Astrophysical Journal, Part 1, vol. 223, July 15, 1978, p. 589-600. (ApJ Homepage)
Observational arguments in favor of such a cloud are presented, and implications of the presence of a nearby cloud are discussed, including possible changes in terrestrial climate. It is suggested that the postulated interstellar cloud should encounter the solar system at some unspecified time in the near future and might have a drastic influence on terrestrial climate in the next 10,000 years.
ESA sees stardust storms heading for Solar System
Date Released: Monday, August 18, 2003
Source: Artemis Society
Until ten years ago, most astronomers did not believe stardust could enter our Solar System. Then ESA's Ulysses spaceprobe discovered minute stardust particles leaking through the Sun's magnetic shield, into the realm of Earth and the other planets. Now, the same spaceprobe has shown that a flood of dusty particles is heading our way.
What is surprising in this new Ulysses discovery is that the amount of stardust has continued to increase even after the solar activity calmed down and the magnetic field resumed its ordered shape in 2001.
Scientists believe that this is due to the way in which the polarity changed during solar maximum. Instead of reversing completely, flipping north to south, the Sun's magnetic poles have only rotated at halfway and are now more or less lying sideways along the Sun's equator. This weaker configuration of the magnetic shield is letting in two to three times more stardust than at the end of the 1990s. Moreover, this influx could increase by as much as ten times until the end of the current solar cycle in 2012.
Intresting turn of events, but why would the Oil companies make any 'winnings' on this ?
Soon and Baliunas are astrophysicists affiliated with the harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics who study solar variation (i.e., changes in the amount of energy emitted by the Sun). Solar variation is one of the many factors influencing Earth’s climate, although according to the IPCC it is one of the minor influences over the last century. In the mid-1990s, ExxonMobil-funded groups had already begun to spotlight the work of Soon and Baliunas to raise doubts about the human causes of global warming. To accomplish this, Baliunas was initially commissioned to write several articles for the Marshall Institute positing that solar activity might be responsible for global warming. With the Baliunas articles, the Marshall Institute skillfully amplified an issue of minor scientific importance and implied that it was a major driver of recent warming trends.
In 2003, Baliunas and Soon were catapulted into a higher profile debate when they published a controversial review article about global warming in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Writing in the journal Climate Research, the two contrarians reviewed the work of a number of previous scientists and alleged that the twentieth century was not the warmest century of the past 1,000 years and that the climate had not changed significantly over that period. The Soon-Baliunas paper was trumpeted widely by organizations and individuals funded by ExxonMobil. It was also seized upon by like-minded politicians, most notably James Inhofe (R-OK), chair (until January 2007) of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, who has repeatedly asserted that global warming is a hoax. Inhofe cited the Soon-Baliunas review as proof that natural variability, not human activity, was the “overwhelming factor” influencing climate change.
Less widely publicized was the fact that three of the editors of Climate Research—including incoming editor-in-chief hans von Storch—resigned in protest over the Soon-Baliunas paper. Storch stated that he suspected that “some of the skeptics had identified Climate Research as a journal where some editors were not as rigorous in the review process as is otherwise common” and described the manuscript as “flawed.” In addition, thirteen of the scientists cited in the paper published a rebuttal explaining that Soon and Baliunas had seriously misinterpreted their research.
Magnetic Field Weakening in Stages, Old Ships' Logs Suggest
for National Geographic News
May 11, 2006
Earth's magnetic field is weakening in staggered steps, a new analysis of centuries-old ships logs suggests.
The finding could help scientists better understand the way Earth's magnetic poles reverse.
The planet's magnetic field flips—north becomes south and vice versa—on average every 300,000 years. However, the actual time between reversals varies widely.
The field last flipped about 800,000 years ago, according to the geologic record.
Since 1840, when accurate measures of the intensity were first made, the field strength has declined by about 5 percent per century.
Earth Institute News Archive
Researcher Finds Solar Trend That Can Warm Climate
Ends debate over whether sun can play a role in climate change
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.”
Willson found errors in previous satellite data that had obscured the trend. The new analysis, Willson says, should put an end to a debate in the field over whether solar irradiance variability can play a significant role in climate change.
The solar cycle occurs approximately every 11 years when the sun undergoes a period of increased magnetic and sunspot activity called the "solar maximum," followed by a quiet period called the "solar minimum." A trend in the average solar radiation level over many solar magnetic cycles would contribute to climate change in a major way. Satellite observations of total solar irradiance have now obtained a long enough record (over 24 years) to begin looking for this effect.
In order to investigate the possibility of a solar trend, Willson needed to put together a long-term dataset of the Sun’s total output. Six overlapping satellite experiments have monitored TSI since late 1978.The first record came from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Nimbus7 Earth Radiation Budget (ERB) experiment (1978-1993). Other records came from NASA’s Active Cavity Radiometer Irradiance Monitors: ACRIM1 on the Solar Maximum Mission (1980-1989), ACRIM2 on the Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite (1991-2001) and ACRIM3 on the ACRIMSAT satellite (2000 to present). Also, NASA launched its own Earth Radiation Budget Experiment on its Earth Radiation Budget Satellite (ERBS) in 1984. And, the European Space Agency’s (ESA) SOHO/VIRGO experiment also provided an independent data set during 1996-1998.
In this study, Willson, who is also Principal Investigator of the ACRIM experiments, compiled a TSI record of over 24 years by carefully piecing together the overlapping records. In order to construct a long-term dataset, Willson needed to bridge a two-year gap (1989-1991) between ACRIM1 and ACRIM2. Both the Nimbus7/ERB and ERBS measurements overlapped the ACRIM ‘gap.’ Using Nimbus7/ERB results produced a 0.05 percent per decade upward trend between solar minima, while ERBS results produced no trend. Until this study, the cause of this difference, and hence the validity of the TSI trend, was uncertain. Now, Willson has identified specific errors in the ERBS data responsible for the difference. The accurate long-term dataset therefore shows a significant positive trend (.05 percent per decade) in TSI between the solar minima of solar cycles 21 to 23 (1978 to present).
Originally posted by reassor
There is no man made global warming , levels of co2 produced by our activities are a fraction of what earth it self produces by volcanos and stuff like that.
Originally posted by mc_squared
Because the oil companies are the ones who stand to lose the most money from lost revenue if Global Warming restrictions are put in place. Also, they and other big business industries are going to be the ones that get taxed the most, not you. If you really want to take a fair and balanced approach to this whole issue - you can't just automatically assume Global Warming is a hoax and then justify your reasoning by focusing only on who apparently makes the most money off of it.
Gore Admits Financial Stake In Advancing Global Warming Hysteria
By Noel Sheppard (Bio | Archive)
April 11, 2008 - 08:38 ET
For years, NewsBusters has reported on Al Gore's financial interests in advancing global warming hysteria around the world.
On March 1, while speaking at the TED Conference in Monterey, California, the Nobel Laureate admitted to having "a stake" in a number of green "investments" that he recommended attendees put money in rather than "sub-prime carbon assets" like "tar sands" and "shale oil."
This occurred as pictures of such products appeared on the screen with names of the companies involved (video available here, relevant section begins at minute 15:00, h/t NBer Sick-and-Tired):
There are a lot of great investments you can make. If you are investing in tar sands, or shale oil, then you have a portfolio that is crammed with sub-prime carbon assets. And it is based on an old model. Junkies find veins in their toes when the ones in their arms and their legs collapse. Developing tar sands and coal shale is the equivalent. Here are just a few of the investments I personally think make sense. I have a stake in these so I’ll have a disclaimer there. But geo-thermal concentrating solar, advanced photovoltaics, efficiency, and conservation.
As Gore spoke these words, pictures of electric cars, windmills and solar panels appeared in multiple slides on the screen with company names at the bottom such as Amyris (biofuels), Altra (biofuels), Bloom Energy (solid oxide fuel cells), Mascoma (cellulosic biofuels), GreatPoint Energy (catalytic gasification), Miasole (solar cells), Ausra (utility scale solar panels), GEM (battery operated cars), Smart (electric cars), and AltaRock Energy (geothermal power).
As such, like an investment advisor or stock broker giving a seminar to prospects and clients, Al Gore was actively recommending people put money in companies he already has a financial stake in.
And, as he tours the world demanding nations stop burning fossil fuels, he will financially benefit if they follow his advice and move to technologies that he has already invested in.
Originally posted by Animal
While there still is work to be done in researching the issue, and there still are those who disagree with the current paradigm, the majority of research spanning decades points to a human connection. To me this is reason enough to act now.
I think many of those opposed to taking any action do so at the behest of those they look to for guidance. In the case of those opposed to taking action against climate change it is the right-wing element of the nation. The party that is so very easily tied to the corporate elite.
U.S. EPA to move on emissions as Congress stalls
Mon Dec 7, 2009 11:50pm IST
By Timothy Gardner
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will formally declare that greenhouse gases endanger human health on Monday, allowing President Barack Obama to show his commitment to act as a major climate change summit opened in Copenhagen.
The ruling by the EPA, which was widely expected after it issued a preliminary finding earlier this year, will allow the agency to regulate planet-warming gases even without legislation in the U.S. Congress.
It will also inject some optimism into the two-week global meeting on controlling climate change in the Danish capital.
Business groups said the move, which could allow regulation of gases from vehicle tailpipes or smokestacks, would hurt the economy and jobs just as the country is emerging from a deep recession.
June 26, 2009 11:09 PM
EPA May Have Suppressed Report Skeptical Of Global Warming
The Environmental Protection Agency may have suppressed an internal report that was skeptical of claims about global warming, including whether carbon dioxide must be strictly regulated by the federal government, according to a series of newly disclosed e-mail messages.
Less than two weeks before the agency formally submitted its pro-regulation recommendation to the White House, an EPA center director quashed a 98-page report that warned against making hasty "decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data."
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Robert Reich Confirms Permanent Destruction of Jobs in America
Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich writes today:
The basic assumption that jobs will eventually return when the economy recovers is probably wrong. Some jobs will come back, of course. But the reality that no one wants to talk about is a structural change in the economy that's been going on for years but which the Great Recession has dramatically accelerated.
Under the pressure of this awful recession, many companies have found ways to cut their payrolls for good. They've discovered that new software and computer technologies have made workers in Asia and Latin America just about as productive as Americans, and that the Internet allows far more work to be efficiently outsourced abroad.
This means many Americans won't be rehired unless they're willing to settle for much lower wages and benefits. Today's official unemployment numbers hide the extent to which Americans are already on this path. Among those with jobs, a large and growing number have had to accept lower pay as a condition for keeping them. Or they've lost higher-paying jobs and are now in a new ones that pays less.
Yet reducing unemployment by cutting wages merely exchanges one problem for another. We'll get jobs back but have more people working for pay they consider inadequate, more working families at or near poverty, and widening inequality. The nation will also have a harder time restarting the economy because so many more Americans lack the money they need to buy all the goods and services the economy can produce.
Reich is only confirming what many others have said:
JPMorgan Chase’s Chief Economist Bruce Kasman told Bloomberg:
[We've had a] permanent destruction of hundreds of thousands of jobs in industries from housing to finance.
The chief economists for Wells Fargo Securities, John Silvia, says:
Companies “really have diminished their willingness to hire labor for any production level,” Silvia said. “It’s really a strategic change,” where companies will be keeping fewer employees for any particular level of sales, in good times and bad, he said.
And former Merrill Lynch chief economist David Rosenberg writes:
The number of people not on temporary layoff surged 220,000 in August and the level continues to reach new highs, now at 8.1 million. This accounts for 53.9% of the unemployed — again a record high — and this is a proxy for permanent job loss, in other words, these jobs are not coming back. Against that backdrop, the number of people who have been looking for a job for at least six months with no success rose a further half-percent in August, to stand at 5 million — the long-term unemployed now represent a record 33% of the total pool of joblessness.
This is a problem, no matter what the cause. To simply ignore it and "chalk it up to nature" is just plain stupid and irresponsible.
Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Those companies are in the bandwagon now of AGW because they are going to make millions, and any taxes imposed on companies will trickle down to the customers, which are ALL OF US....
Originally posted by audas
Why stop now ......seeings this is a conspiracy site and this is the only conspiracy that the conspiracy theorists have never latched onto - except to be utterly deceived by it ....
Anti-global warming theorists are like proponents of the official line on 9/11, the Lone Gunman Theory, or even believe that we went into Iraq NOT FOR THE OIL......I just don't see how towing the government / corporate agenda is somhow uncovering a conspiracy ??
Originally posted by mc_squared
But that's not the issue here - the issue here is that none of this means that Global Warming itself is a hoax, so stop propagating this LIE. If you want to take on the policies surrounding it then knock yourselves out, I might even agree with you on some of them.
But STOP perpetuating all these junk myths that attempt to undermine Global Warming issues only to serve corporate interests. Because they are ALL PROPAGANDA BULL****