Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says

Of course, Mankind's contribution, to "global warming", is miniscule, if measurable. Remember what Sam Clements, said about lies-"There are THREE types of lies- 1.Lies., 2. Damn Lies, 3. Statistics"!!
Yes, any ststistic, can be manipulated to "manufacture" almost ANY result- hence, control the opinion, of the masses of uneducated.
Algore's "Hockey Stick", is a perfect example. Pull-back, and LOOK at a few THOUSAND years, and it dissapears, as STATIC!!!.
Remember this- Human civilisation, as we know it, CANNOT SURVIVE, an ICE AGE. It would lead to massive, world-wide wars, to control the narrow equatorial belt area. Human civilization, FLOURISHED during the last "mini" "warming period". It helped END the last Dark Age!
AFTER the "Four Horseman", eliminated 60% of humanity, the warming, allowed humans, to explosivly expand, and CREATED THE "MIDDLE CLASS"!! (Of course, TPTB, seem to have done a fine job, eliminating it, worldwide!). DENY IGNORANCE- live it!!!! Don't just say it!

Of course it's solar activity! Global warming is a racket, like everything else! Let's strap Al Gore's ass to a rocket and send him to Mars so's he can check it out personal like?

reply to post by Patriotgal


So basically, you don't believe in science / statistics, but cite one of Al Gore's graph as an example, probably believe it's just a natural cycle, and also that the NWO killed 60% of the population which allowed us to expand and create a middle class that the NWO will destroy anyways.



Alright. Quite a puzzling stance on the issue, but interesting to say the least.

reply to post by Klaatumagnum

Of course it's solar activity!

Originally posted by C0bzz

It looks as if there was some correlation between the sun and temperature especially in the years 1980 and 1985. But solar irradiance stays on the same old cycle, CO2 keeps rising, and temperatures keep rising. It is, therefore, only possible that CO2 is causing the warming, not the sun. PREDICTION: 2012, or 2013 will be the hottest year ever due to solar maximum and further increased CO2 concentrations.

This was answered several pages ago.

With one article in American Scientist magazine

AGW science destroyed the solar and water vapor theories in 1956:



www.americanscientist.org...

There's another angle to this that is just beginning to get sme attention. Check out this thread.

There is a correlation to what we're seeing on the planet but we may be looking down the wrong path.

Originally posted by Nathan-D

Nathan what the hell are you talking about? The second law means simply that any energy transferred is lost and can never be restored. A ball pushed only gets a fraction of the energy used to push it. It's implications on heat have no play here, in fact the scenario you talked about is illogical. In the matter of green house gases and their nature, they capture CO2 and keep it in the atmosphere longer. In thermodynamics it's not possible for heat to low from a cooler body to a warmer body without some kind of convention. That is where the green house gases come in to play. This has nothing to do with a cool climate affecting a warm planet. What are you even talking about?

The 2nd law of thermodynamics essentially states, in its most basic non-mathematical form, that heat flows from warm to cold, never the reverse. It is impossible to make heat flow from a cold object to a hot one. The Sun's heat for instance travels to the cooler Earth which ineluctably travels to a cooler space. A cooler atmosphere cannot heat a warmer planet.

Just to put it into perspective, the equivalent heat energy of the entire atmosphere is stored in just the top few meters of the oceans. The oceans absorb one thousand times more heat than the atmosphere and yet we're meant to believe the atmosphere is heating the oceans. I'm certainly no cognoscenti on this subject, but I know enough to know that isn't possible.

Also, CO2 is around one particle of 2500 spread evenly throughout the atmosphere. Unless the laws of physics have been temporarily suspended, you would have to heat that one particle of CO2 up to thousands, possibly millions of degrees, to generate enough energy transfer to measurably heat up the other 2499 particles around it.

Not only does the AGW theory violate thermodynamics, it also violates "cause and effect", because as everyone who has done the most rudimentary research into AGW knows, CO2 follows temperature as it declines and as it rises. I'm sure the AGW theory breaks a whole host of other laws, but I can't think of them right now.

And CO2 does warm

Sure, CO2 probably has a slight warming effect, and when I say 'slight', any positive number above 0.0000001 would qualify.

[edit on 9-8-2010 by Nathan-D]

Unfortunately your hypothesis is weak. The oceans are not boiling simply because they amass a large amount of cool. In certain parts of the ocean year long it is freezing (I'm not speaking primarily of the poles either) . The ocean temperature has risen however slightly, as well as it's size due to the melting of colder bodies.

" * Prior to the advent of the industrial age, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was about 280 ppm (parts per million).
* Today it’s over 360 ppm. That’s an increase of about 30% in less than 300 years." -actionbioscience.org

Originally posted by digby888
here is a thing i have been wondering about when did the people of this earth go to the other planets and set up big smoke bellowing factorys to start the global warming on them like mars

news.nationalgeographic.com...

and here is more

Global Warming on Mars, Pluto, Triton and Jupiter

seoblackhat.com...

so we must have some big ass factorys on these planets or could it be it is the sun that is causing all this heat i hear you say naw how can a big ball of fire cause heat.

Okay.
Then why aren't all the planets heating up?

Originally posted by Whyhi
reply to post by Patriotgal

 

So basically, you don't believe in science / statistics, but cite one of Al Gore's graph as an example, probably believe it's just a natural cycle, and also that the NWO killed 60% of the population which allowed us to expand and create a middle class that the NWO will destroy anyways.

Alright. Quite a puzzling stance on the issue, but interesting to say the least.

Are you familiar with the ice core data studies that were done which showed co2 and warming trends of a full 250,000 year periodt?

At first, because of the sheer length of time, it appeared that co2 coincided with global warming.

Then, in 2002 and 2003 it was discovered that the warming temperature of the earth preceded raises in co2.

EG when global warming occurs, co2 increases follow.

You are absurdly claiming that the data suggests that co2 increases come before 'warming' when in fact it is the other way around, warming comes before co2 increases.

If co2 has been increasing it's because we've been warming up not the other way around, at least according to the best source we have for this, the vostok and other ice caps.

arguing man made co2 is causal for global warming is like arguing that the reason people drive cars is because of car accidents.

Originally posted by sremmos
arguing man made co2 is causal for global warming is like arguing that the reason people drive cars is because of car accidents.

Bad analogy. For one, it is causal but not alone in it's endeavors, this does not then make it dis causal. Two, car accidents are created by people. Carbon dioxide is created by people, plants and anything that respires. Your analogy is more convincing of that which is contrary to your argument. In fact the argument of global warming is like arguing that the reason people get into accidents is because they drive cars, and in which case it is valid. People produce too much CO2 because of ignorant use of their environments and swallowing the tripe that everything is going to be OK so just keep buying they crap they sell you on television. Likewise, people get into car accidents because of ignorant use of their environments and "believing" that everything is going to be "OK" and it wasn't their "fault" because it was "An Accident" dismissing the flaw and allowing for propagation for further wrecks, further automobiles sold, further insurance companies staying legitimate. Do you really believe that we're not destroying this planet? Take a look at your home, most of you I'm sure have Pepsi cans just laying about in the backyard next to dog turds and old rubbish you don't need. Simply muddling the context of your analogy doesn't make your argument win, but it's tell-tale deliverance of the truth has proven relevant indeed. Thank you.

Unfortunately your hypothesis is weak. The oceans are not boiling simply because they amass a large amount of cool. In certain parts of the ocean year long it is freezing (I'm not speaking primarily of the poles either) . The ocean temperature has risen however slightly, as well as it's size due to the melting of colder bodies.

Yes, it's just like that. (Where's the 'rolls eyes' emoticon?). It's not a hypothesis and I never said the oceans were "boiling". The ocean and the surface of the planet have infinitely more heat capacity than the atmosphere, which means, according to the second law of thermodynamics, the (cooler) atmosphere (greenhouse effect) can't heat the (wamer) surface of the planet; since it cannot add work input. All it can do is slow the rate of cooling.

* Prior to the advent of the industrial age, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was about 280 ppm (parts per million).
* Today it’s over 360 ppm. That’s an increase of about 30% in less than 300 years." -actionbioscience.org

How much CO2 has risen since the industrial age has always been a bone of contention. There's good evidence to suggest that the average concentration of CO2 last century has fluctuated dramatically and has been higher. And besides, CO2 was over 3000ppm millions of years ago and the Earth regularly dropped into ice ages. Geologically speaking, we actually currently live in a carbon-deficient environment. Sremmos -- your thoughts echo mine. Here's an informative paper about CO2-concentration going back last century (see Beck 2007): www.biomind.de...

[edit on 10-8-2010 by Nathan-D]

Originally posted by Patriotgal
Of course, Mankind's contribution, to "global warming", is miniscule, if measurable. Remember what Sam Clements, said about lies-"There are THREE types of lies- 1.Lies., 2. Damn Lies, 3. Statistics"!!
Yes, any ststistic, can be manipulated to "manufacture" almost ANY result- hence, control the opinion, of the masses of uneducated.
Algore's "Hockey Stick", is a perfect example. Pull-back, and LOOK at a few THOUSAND years, and it dissapears, as STATIC!!!.
Remember this- Human civilisation, as we know it, CANNOT SURVIVE, an ICE AGE. It would lead to massive, world-wide wars, to control the narrow equatorial belt area. Human civilization, FLOURISHED during the last "mini" "warming period". It helped END the last Dark Age!
AFTER the "Four Horseman", eliminated 60% of humanity, the warming, allowed humans, to explosivly expand, and CREATED THE "MIDDLE CLASS"!! (Of course, TPTB, seem to have done a fine job, eliminating it, worldwide!). DENY IGNORANCE- live it!!!! Don't just say it!

Actually the hockeystick was PROVEN to be ACCURATE with only VERY MINOR inaccuracies when analyzed by other scientists.

Please watch:

Originally posted by PuterMan

Originally posted by malcr

Oh no please don't don't ask the deniers to listen to facts collected , correlated, cross referenced by thousands of scientists who are all part of a global conspiracy!

The problem is that the "warmist" camp has a severe selective hearing problem. The so called "deniers" - actually a term as ridiculous as "warmist" - do not "deny" climate change (let's not call it global warming please - that was dropped some time ago in case it starts to cool)

The opposite camp is NOT about denying climate change it is about denying that mankind IS THE SOLE CAUSE.

When the "warmist" camp actually bother to LOOK at what the so called "deniers" (actually called "climate realists") are saying they just might see that we all agree there is climate change and we all agree that it is a problem.

What we do not agree on is that Government and big business should profit from scaremongering whilst doing nothing to address any problems.

You wanna talk about profit and fear-mongering?

MOST environmentalists are AGAINST cap-and-trade. It's just an insider cop-out that gives lax standards on emissions to industry. We all know that our government is bought and paid for by banking/corporate/wealthy special interests. There is AMPLE evidence that these special interests have PURPOSELY tried to create doubt about global warming, creating a false public/political debate when the SCIENTIFIC debate ended years and years ago (and there definitely WAS a scientific debate).

Please read these links:

www.greenpeace.org...

www.greenpeace.org...


Also, something worthy of mentioning- scientists do not claim that humans are the SOLE cause of global warming. According to NASA, the sun MIGHT cause UP TO one-fourth of the warming, however, as more data comes in, the sun is being minimized further as a cause. Also worth noting- solar irradiance has DECREASED over the past few decades while warming has INCREASED. Deforestation plays a role, as do naturally occurring positive feedback effects as a RESULT of increased CO2 and warming temps. It is a chain reaction to be sure, and human actions are by far the LARGEST cause of it. Consider the incredible magnitude of the industrial revolution... do you really think it had a minimal effect on climate/ecosystems? No... in fact, it's essentially causing the planet's 6th Great Extinction (aka- The Holocene Extinction Event). The truth may be hard to swallow and elites may be using it to their advantage, but our struggle SHOULD be to wrestle the truth back from them and MAKE them do OUR bidding with it rather than let them hijack the things we care about and the data scientists work so hard to gather, analyze and compile. Don't let the industry-backed "scientists" fool you... nearly EVERY climatologist and scientific organization publicly states/acknowledges that global warming is real, man-made, and presents serious problems both now and for the future.

Originally posted by sremmos

Originally posted by Whyhi
reply to post by Patriotgal

 

So basically, you don't believe in science / statistics, but cite one of Al Gore's graph as an example, probably believe it's just a natural cycle, and also that the NWO killed 60% of the population which allowed us to expand and create a middle class that the NWO will destroy anyways.

Alright. Quite a puzzling stance on the issue, but interesting to say the least.

Are you familiar with the ice core data studies that were done which showed co2 and warming trends of a full 250,000 year periodt?

At first, because of the sheer length of time, it appeared that co2 coincided with global warming.

Then, in 2002 and 2003 it was discovered that the warming temperature of the earth preceded raises in co2.

EG when global warming occurs, co2 increases follow.

You are absurdly claiming that the data suggests that co2 increases come before 'warming' when in fact it is the other way around, warming comes before co2 increases.

If co2 has been increasing it's because we've been warming up not the other way around, at least according to the best source we have for this, the vostok and other ice caps.

What you've failed to realize/study is that historically, sometimes CO2 leads temps, and sometimes it lags behind them. HOWEVER, CO2 has ALWAYS had a warming effect. In the historical instances that temps lagged CO2 levels, the CO2 absolutely had a positive effect on temperatures that only AMPLIFIED the warming further than it already was. Also, the CURRENT warming is directly/immediately linked to rises in CO2 and no other natural forcing can explain it anywhere near as well as emissions of GHGs. So... to recap- sometimes CO2 leads temps, sometimes temps lead CO2, and the current warming is being lead by CO2.

Your only valid point is that CO2 isn't always the main forcing in temp increase, and I agree, so do scientists. However your depth/conclusions are poorly made.

So CO2 makes everything hotter? What about the collapse of the thermosphere?

science.nasa.gov...

Let's make up our mind, either the CO2 is a coolant or making things hotter. Can we really have it both ways? Even NASA can't explain it ........yet

I already posted several links and info according to the Vostok ice core data. I guess no one cared to look. It's hard core data, facts.

Originally posted by sremmos

Originally posted by Whyhi
reply to post by Patriotgal

 

So basically, you don't believe in science / statistics, but cite one of Al Gore's graph as an example, probably believe it's just a natural cycle, and also that the NWO killed 60% of the population which allowed us to expand and create a middle class that the NWO will destroy anyways.

Alright. Quite a puzzling stance on the issue, but interesting to say the least.

Are you familiar with the ice core data studies that were done which showed co2 and warming trends of a full 250,000 year periodt?

At first, because of the sheer length of time, it appeared that co2 coincided with global warming.

Then, in 2002 and 2003 it was discovered that the warming temperature of the earth preceded raises in co2.

EG when global warming occurs, co2 increases follow.

You are absurdly claiming that the data suggests that co2 increases come before 'warming' when in fact it is the other way around, warming comes before co2 increases.

If co2 has been increasing it's because we've been warming up not the other way around, at least according to the best source we have for this, the vostok and other ice caps.

:

reply to post by Nathan-D

The atmosphere is not always colder than the sea surface. Nothing like a dip in the ocean to cool down on a hot day. Mostly it depends on currents. In some places warm currents prevail and in others cold currents.

The oceans are a wonderful heat sink and do a great job of moderating fluctuations in temperature but their temperatures are determined by infrared radiation from the Sun and air temperatures. In the long term, if infrared radiation is trapped in the atmosphere and atmospheric temperatures rise, sea surface temperatures will rise as well. Not enough heat from the Sun gets shed into space.

But there are things that could cause fairly rapid changes in how the oceans affect climate in some regions. Changes in salinity caused by melting sea and glacial ice or a very slight change in surface temperatures (see: ENSO) could very well disrupt established currents. The disruption of those currents could lead to disruptions of climate. Places that had cold currents may lose them and heat up. Places that had warm currents cold lose them and cool down. In fact, it it can have much more far reaching effects. 15,400 years ago there was a glacier on Mauna Kea in Hawaii. There is a strong indication that the slowdown of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation caused it to expand after it began to melt with the end of the last glaciation period.
wattsupwiththat.com...

Complicated.

[edit on 8/11/2010 by Phage]

reply to post by favouriteslave

Actually science explains it perfectly well. In the thermosphere, at the edge of space, CO2 has a different effect because of the extremely low density.

In the lower atmosphere CO2 absorbs infrared radiation and transfers that energy to other air molecules. In the upper (very upper), CO2 emits energy as infrared radiation because there are not enough other molecules to transfer the energy to. Unfortunately that cooling effect has no effect on the lower atmosphere where we live.


[edit on 8/10/2010 by Phage]

The atmosphere is not always colder than the sea surface.

*Sigh* The atmosphere cannot heat the oceans, because it does not have the required heat capacity in order to do so. As previously mentioned, the oceans have around one thousand times more heat capacity as the atmosphere does and practically all of the water below 100 meters is 4°C. The Antartic bottom water itself is close to 0°C - the equivalent heat energy of the entire atmosphere is stored in just the top few meters of the oceans. The atmosphere does not heat the oceans, the oceans are heated exothermically through geothermal processes.

In the long term, if infrared radiation is trapped in the atmosphere and atmospheric temperatures rise, sea surface temperatures will rise as well. Not enough heat from the Sun gets shed into space.

True, but CO2 only makes up 0.038% of the atmosphere. Are you seriously proposing that a gas which constitutes 0.038% of the atmosphere is currently driving planetary temperatures and heating the oceans? I mean... realistically?

AGW is nothing more than a scam - with one goal in mind: to set-up a quasi-socialistic system where bureaucracies determine what we can and can't do.

[edit on 11-8-2010 by Nathan-D]