Climate Change Occurring in Every Planet in Solar System

Originally posted by purplemer

from you own post..

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.

A lots of if buts and maybes....that something might past our solar system in 10.000 years.

I think the thread would have been better titled Seasonal Climates in Every Planet in Solar System.

Again, you keep showing more and more that you are not reading the information being provided, or my responses.

It used to be thought that our Solar System would encounter this interstellar cloud within 10,000-50,000 years, but new evidence states that we might be well within the interstellar cloud within the next 100 years, that it is much closer than we thought years ago.

Ribbon at Edge of Our Solar System: Will the Sun Enter a Million-Degree Cloud of Interstellar Gas?
ScienceDaily (May 24, 2010) — Is the Sun going to enter a million-degree galactic cloud of interstellar gas soon?

Scientists from the Space Research Centre of the Polish Academy of Sciences, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Southwest Research Institute, and Boston University suggest that the ribbon of enhanced emissions of energetic neutral atoms, discovered last year by the NASA Small Explorer satellite IBEX, could be explained by a geometric effect coming up because of the approach of the Sun to the boundary between the Local Cloud of interstellar gas and another cloud of a very hot gas called the Local Bubble. If this hypothesis is correct, IBEX is catching matter from a hot neighboring interstellar cloud, which the Sun might enter in a hundred years.
...

www.sciencedaily.com...

BTW, the way you are responding it seems that you are implying that I am making up the fact that the Solar System has been getting more and more radiation from outside sources, that more and more interstellar dust has been entering not only the Solar System but Earth itself, or that we are noticing more meteors/meteorites are striking Jupiter than ever before, or that scientists have even noticed that comets are returning to the inner Solar System faster than they are supposed to, among other facts... I posted evidence of all of this yet you seem to imply that I am making all this up?

Originally posted by purplemer
I have used the sight most just to show the orbits of the planets. Is this something you disagree with too..

And the fact that all these planets and moons have different distances and different orbits should tell you that they shouldn't be undergoing similar changes unless there is a common outside energy source causing these changes at the same time.

Originally posted by purplemer
In regards to the information you have posted trying to mute skepticalscience.com... You have posted and compared two different studies. You did however fail to mention that NASAs own scientists where skepable of the results..

I am trying to mute them?... They have been muting themselves with all the lies they keep posting to this day...

As for your NASA source, read below.

"If these SIM measurements indicate real solar variations, then it would mean you could expect a warmer surface during periods of low solar activity, the opposite of what climate models currently assume," said Gavin Schmidt, a climate modeling specialist at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City.

It would also imply that the sun's contribution to climate change over the last century or so might be even smaller than currently thought, suggesting that the human contribution to climate change may in turn be even larger than current estimates.

However, the surprising SIM measurements correspond with a period of unusually long and quiescent solar minimum that extended over 2007 to 2009. It may not be representative of past or future solar cycles, solar scientists caution

www.nasa.gov...


You see, Gavin Schmidt alongside Hansen are two of the AGW scientists, and in these same forums it has been shown time and again that they have been trying to stop real scientists and their research about Climate Change from being published.

The following comes from another scientist, he is not the only one who would testify to this but it is just an example of what you obviously don't know.

[UPDATE 2 11/30: Here are several remarkable statements from climate scientists, one from the emails showing Kevin Trenberth calling for Chris Landsea to be fired for holding the wrong views and and a comment today from Gavin Schmidt justifying gatekeeping in climate science on political grounds. With comments like that, who needs emails?;-)]

rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com...


Roger Pielke Jr is a professor of Environmental studies.

Roger A. Pielke, Jr. (born November 2, 1968) is an American professor in the Environmental Studies Program and a Fellow of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) where he served as Director of the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder from 2001 to 2007. Pielke was a visiting scholar at Oxford University's James Martin Institute for Science and Civilization [1] in the Said Business School in the 2007-2008 academic year. His interests include understanding the politicization of science, decision making under uncertainty, and policy education for scientists in areas such as climate change, disaster mitigation, and world trade.
...

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by purplemer
You also failed to mention the title of your choosen paper..


NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE

Now there is a big difference between can and is..

I responded to this particular question in the post where I presented that particular research...

That particular research that Wilson made was for JUST 24 years, which is why he stated and I quote:

..."This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change," said Richard Willson,
...

www.nasa.gov...

There have been other research done in the past and all of it together shows that the Sun's activity has been increasing not only until 2002, I even posted the fact that solar magnetic storms have been increasing in strength until about 2006 to levels not seen before the 1900s.

Again, here are the graphs showing also the fact that total solar irradiance had been increasing.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5821619030e4.jpg[/atsimg]

The strength of solar magnetic storms were also increasing to levels not seen before the 1900s

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7c0bc3d5e611.jpg[/atsimg]

(the above graph was too big at first so I tried to make it smaller so we could see all of the graph. I have the link to that graph in another thread but will post it here once I find it.)

Originally posted by purplemer
I could go through all the planets you listed and give you explanations as to why we are seeing climatic / seasonal change occupying. I am sure you could as well if you wanted. You composed a good thread no probs..

thanks and sf/ purp

Please go ahead, so far you have only shown to not have read the information provided, and you show to have already made up your mind even when it is obvious you don't know what you are saying.

Again my main question to you is, why post in this thread if you are not properly reading the information provided first? It is obvious you are responding with your mind already made up and you don't want to even entertain the possibility that there is a common source for all the changes we are noticing in the other planets, the moons on the Solar System and the changes on Earth.

Another interesting fact, yes I have posted these already in this thread but the way the scientists are saying "something else is heating the Earth besides the Sun but this energy is being transferred by way of the Solar Wind" is similar to other effects we are seeing in other planets and moons.

Surprise In Earth's Upper Atmosphere: Mode Of Energy Transfer From The Solar Wind

www.sciencedaily.com

Sep. 11, 2009 — UCLA atmospheric scientists have discovered a previously unknown basic mode of energy transfer from the solar wind to the Earth's magnetosphere. The research, federally funded by the National Science Foundation, could improve the safety and reliability of spacecraft that operate in the upper atmosphere.

"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.

www.sciencedaily.com...

And then we have as a comparison.

"The models predicted that the equatorial region should be very dry and should not support cloud formation," said astronomer Henry Roe of Lowell Observatory in Arizona. "But this episode created clouds over both the equator and the south pole. We don't know what set off that sequence, but something gave a pretty good kick to the atmosphere."

Scientists suspect the storm's trigger may have been some kind of geologic activity on the moon's surface, such as a geyser or new mountain range forming. Atmospheric effects may also have set off the storm.

Whatever the cause, once the clouds were established they seem to have spread throughout Titan's atmosphere in waves.

The situation is a new wrinkle in the study of this complex moon.
...

www.space.com...


And then we have.

...
The reason for this is totally unclear. One may speculate that an unknown gravitational field within the Solar system slightly redirects the incoming cosmic microwave radiation (in the similar way as a motion with a certain velocity with respect to the rest frame of the cosmological background redirects the cosmic background radiation and leads to modifications of the dipole and quadrupole parts). Such a redirection should be more pronounced for low–l components of the radiation. It should be possible to calculate the gravitational field needed for such a redirection and then to compare that with the observational data of the Solar system and the other observed anomalies.
...

arxiv.org...

If we were seeing all these changes occurring at the same time throughout the Solar System and we couldn't detect any new energy source entering the Solar System, then we would have a real mystery. But the fact is we have been detecting the increased radiation/energy coming from outside the Solar System, the exponential increase in interstellar dust entering from outside the Solar System, the secular increase in the distance between the planets and the Sun which can't be explained, the fact that we are noticing that comets are returning faster than they should into the inner solar system, not to mention the fact that we are noticing more meteors/meteorites hitting Jupiter than have ever been observed, etc.

All that energy and matter which has been entering the Solar System, and Earth will change the dynamics, including the weather and climate, of not only Earth, but the other planets and moons with an atmosphere.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Thank you for your reply.

Again, you keep showing more and more that you are not reading the information being provided. It used to be thought that our Solar System would encounter this interstellar cloud within 10,000-50,000 years, but new evidence states that we might be well within the interstellar cloud within the next 100 years, that it is much closer than we thought years ago.

Regardless of how it is put we are not in the interstellar cloud by your own admission. It cannot be used as a factor causing solar climate change if we are not in it yet. Interestingly though the suns heliosphere has shrunk a lot in the last decade or so. Incase you did n ot know It is the giant electromagnetic bubble around the sun that keeps stuff away from us. Really it is the atmosphere of the solar system. Maybe that would be another avenue for you to explore.

BTW, the way you are responding it seems that you are implying that I am making up the fact that the Solar System has been getting more and more radiation from outside sources, that more and more interstellar dust has been entering not only the Solar System but Earth itself, or that we are noticing more meteors/meteorites are striking Jupiter than ever before, or that scientists have even noticed that comets are returning to the inner Solar System faster than they are supposed to, among other facts... I posted evidence of all of this yet you seem to imply that I am making all this up

I sorry I was not trying to imply you are making this all up. I think that a lot of this information is easy to interpret wrong. I do not deny that the solar system is acting strange. We have ISON coming later this year. Predicted to be the brightest comet in the history of mankind. We have stuff come down in Russia and other strange behaviour before that. Strange comet behaviour indicates something may be adrift. That does not mean it is a cause of solar climate change.

BTW, the way you are responding it seems that you are implying that I am making up the fact that the Solar System has been getting more and more radiation from outside sources, that more and more interstellar dust has been entering not only the Solar System but Earth itself, or that we are noticing more meteors/meteorites are striking Jupiter than ever before, or that scientists have even noticed that comets are returning to the inner Solar System faster than they are supposed to, among other facts... I posted evidence of all of this yet you seem to imply that I am making all this up

Again I stand by my comment that we by far do not have enough data to say if planets experiencing climatic change. Some of there orbits are so slow we are yet to record a single seasonal year on them.

This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change

Regardless of how we dice the above quote. It simply says that if this trend continues over a period of decades. It could cause significant climate change. No where in the above quote does it say it causes climatic change.

Please go ahead, so far you have only shown to not have read the information provided, and you show to have already made up your mind even when it is obvious you don't know what you are saying.

My mind made up. I would not say so. I trained 5 years as an Environmental Scientist. Spent time in the field. I was taught that AGW was real. After a lot of reading I changed my mind. Since then I more sit on the fence. The reason I defend AGW is not because I am sure if it is real or not but because if it is real the effects it would have could be devastating to our home. When we really do not and the risks are high. We need to tread carefully..

gain my main question to you is, why post in this thread if you are not properly reading the information provided first? It is obvious you are responding with your mind already made up and don't want to even entertain the possibility that there is a common source for all the changes we are noticing in the other planets and moons on the Solar System.

As I said I have in the past entertained this idea and I have not written it off completely . However I do see fault in trying to base a theory on scant evidence. I like the thread and there is nothing wrong with trying new ideas. But you have not supplied evidence that the planets are experiencing climate change. As I said on earth a climatic change has to be seen over a minimum of 30 years.. Many of the planets we are watching we do not have data for a single year.

I am aware that there is exotic radiation entering our solar system. A lot of this is in the form of gamma which heats the surface. This is however a very small amount of energy compared to that of the sun...

Found the source. The first part, and graph are showing and making reference about the magnetic disturbance on Earth's magnetic field.

In another post in this same thread I also posted another graph showing how the Earth's magnetic field weakening fluctuations have been reaching levels of weakness not seen in over 400,000-700,000 years.

A NOAA National Geophysical Data Center website states “the overall level of magnetic disturbance from year to year has increased substantially from a low around 1900 Also, the level of mean yearly aa is now much higher so that a year of minimum magnetic disturbances now is typically more disturbed than years at maximum disturbance levels before 1900.” [bold emphasis in original] The following figure is from that website.
www.ngdc.noaa.gov...

www.appinsys.com...

That magnetic disturbance in Earth's magnetic field is a direct effect due to the strengthening of the sun's magnetic field which also indicates that the Sun's overall activity had been increasing.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse

magnetic disturbance in Earth's magnetic field is a direct effect due to the strengthening of the sun's magnetic field which also indicates that the Sun's overall activity had been increasing.

No. Your quote is talking about the AA index. That data is derived from only two observatories. The source says this:

Another reason for differences is that an index derived from magnetic perturbation values at only two observatories easily experiences larger extreme values if either input site is well situated to the overhead ionospheric and/or field aligned current systems producing the magnetic storm effects.

www.ngdc.noaa.gov...
If instead of the AA index, the Ap index (which is more representative of global activity) is used, the results are somewhat different.


But of course you are aware that geomagnetic activity is not a direct measure of total solar activity since it depends on whether or not a CME encounters Earth's magnetosphere. Geogmagnetic activity is not really the best way to gauge Solar activity.

Originally posted by purplemer

Regardless of how it is put we are not in the interstellar cloud by your own admission. It cannot be used as a factor causing solar climate change if we are not in it yet.

You don't seem to understand that we have been already encountering sections of the new region of the Interstellar cloud, this is why space radiation has increased to levels not seen since we first started recording it. This is also the reason why there has been an increase in the interstellar dust/matter that has been entering the Solar System and Earth, etc.

We haven't entered completely the interstellar cloud, but we have been encountering parts of it for years.

Originally posted by purplemer
Interestingly though the suns heliosphere has shrunk a lot in the last decade or so. Incase you did n ot know It is the giant electromagnetic bubble around the sun that keeps stuff away from us. Really it is the atmosphere of the solar system. Maybe that would be another avenue for you to explore.

I know about the heliosphere. I have written extensively in these forums about it as well. Mentioning the fact that there is a heliosphere does not disprove in any way any of the evidence I have provided, so I don't get what point you are trying to make by making a reference to it.

Originally posted by purplemer
I sorry I was not trying to imply you are making this all up. I think that a lot of this information is easy to interpret wrong. I do not deny that the solar system is acting strange. We have ISON coming later this year. Predicted to be the brightest comet in the history of mankind. We have stuff come down in Russia and other strange behaviour before that. Strange comet behaviour indicates something may be adrift. That does not mean it is a cause of solar climate change.

First, if it not just strange comet behavior, more meteors/meteorites are also entering the Solar System apart from the increase in energy/radiation. What I have been pointing out in other threads, and this one is that not only are we entering this cloud, but there is an unknown source of a large gravitational field which is within the far reaches of the Solar System which seems to be the reason for the comets entering the inner Solar System earlier.

It also seems that this unknown gravitational field is either throwing more interstellar matter/dust, or is moving closer to the inner Solar System. I am not saying it will enter the inner Solar System, but it seems to be either getting closer, or the dust/matter that is coming in with the cloud is getting closer to this unknown gravitational field which in turn is throwing all this dust and meteors into the inner Solar System.

Originally posted by purplemer
Again I stand by my comment that we by far do not have enough data to say if planets experiencing climatic change. Some of there orbits are so slow we are yet to record a single seasonal year on them.

Ok, you can have whatever opinion you want, but it doesn't change the facts. For the exact reason that all these planets and moons have different orbits and different distances from the Sun, we shouldn't be seeing similar dramatic Climate Changes and dramatic weather patterns in every one of them we look at at the same time.

If we know for a fact, and we do, that more energy and matter is entering the Solar System, and the planets and moons with an atmosphere we have been observing are showing similar changes that we cannot explain because the Sun doesn't give them enough energy and there are no internal sources of energy that could cause these changes, then logic would dictate that the common source is this extra energy and matter that the Solar System has been encountering.

If you are really a scientist you should know about the principle of Occam's razor that the simplest available theory is usually the correct one.

If we are seeing all these dramatic changes occurring in the weather patterns, and climate of every planet and moon with a thick enough atmosphere we have been studying, and we can't find the source of energy causing these changes because the sun is too far away, and there is no detectable internal energy sources capable of causing these changes; but at the same time we know more energy and matter is entering the Solar System than we have seen since we started exploring space, then all these changes we are seeing in all these planets and moons are being caused by this increase in the energy and matter entering our Solar System.

Originally posted by Phage

No. Your quote is talking about the AA index. That data is derived from only two observatories. The source says this:

Another reason for differences is that an index derived from magnetic perturbation values at only two observatories easily experiences larger extreme values if either input site is well situated to the overhead ionospheric and/or field aligned current systems producing the magnetic storm effects.

www.ngdc.noaa.gov...
If instead of the AA index, the Ap index (which is more representative of global activity) is used, the results are somewhat different.

First of all, of course that if you use the Ap index it would seem that there was no increase in solar activity because it is an average of many stations showing the global activity.

All of the globe does not receive the same amount of geomagnetic activity, and although you partially mention this you fail to remember that on Earth we have also been seen ups and downs in temperatures. We have been seeing not only record high temperatures but also record low temperatures.

Third, you know full well that I have explained before how solar activity went to low levels not seen before since around 1932 starting back at the end of 2005-2006. Even in the response I gave here I clearly indicated that the solar activity HAD been increasing.

Overall solar activity lowered to a crawl at about the end of 2005 at a time when we experienced a lowering in temperature on Earth.

Notice also how the excerpt and link I gave specifically states, and again I quote:

Although not documented here, it is interesting to note that the overall level of magnetic disturbance from year to year has increased substantially from a low around 1900 Also, the level of mean yearly aa is now much higher so that a year of minimum magnetic disturbances now is typically more disturbed than years at maximum disturbance levels before 1900.

www.ngdc.noaa.gov...

That comes directly from the link.

Originally posted by Phage

But of course you are aware that geomagnetic activity is not a direct measure of total solar activity since it depends on whether or not a CME encounters Earth's magnetosphere. Geogmagnetic activity is not really the best way to gauge Solar activity.

But of course, you are aware that geomagnetic activity from the Sun is not confined to CMEs.

There is for example the hidden portals in Earth's magnetic field which connect the Earth and the Sun all the time, but with fluctuations, to the magnetic field of the Sun.

Hidden Portals in Earth's Magnetic Field
...
A favorite theme of science fiction is "the portal"--an extraordinary opening in space or time that connects travelers to distant realms. A good portal is a shortcut, a guide, a door into the unknown. If only they actually existed....

It turns out that they do, sort of, and a NASA-funded researcher at the University of Iowa has figured out how to find them.

"We call them X-points or electron diffusion regions," explains plasma physicist Jack Scudder of the University of Iowa. "They're places where the magnetic field of Earth connects to the magnetic field of the Sun, creating an uninterrupted path leading from our own planet to the sun's atmosphere 93 million miles away."

Observations by NASA's THEMIS spacecraft and Europe's Cluster probes suggest that these magnetic portals open and close dozens of times each day. They're typically located a few tens of thousands of kilometers from Earth where the geomagnetic field meets the onrushing solar wind. Most portals are small and short-lived; others are yawning, vast, and sustained. Tons of energetic particles can flow through the openings, heating Earth's upper atmosphere, sparking geomagnetic storms, and igniting bright polar auroras.
...

www.nasa.gov...

Not to mention that you should know that fluctuations in the activity of the sun, even in it's magnetic storms, does not mean it's overall activity HAD not been increasing. But of course you know this right?

reply to post by ElectricUniverse

First of all, of course that if you use the Ap index it would seem that there was no increase in solar activity because it is an average of many stations showing the global activity.

So you think looking at two specific locations gives a better idea of what is going on? Global averages are meaningless? But how else can you determine a global effect?

We have been seeing not only record high temperatures but also record low temperatures.

Yes, with an average global increase. That's why data from a limited number of locations is not the greatest when looking for trends.

Overall solar activity lowered to a crawl at about the end of 2005 at a time when we experienced a lowering in temperature on Earth.

Yes. It does that when Solar minimum is approaching, especially a deep minimum. But didn't you say that Solar activity is rising because of that cloud thingy?

Notice also how the excerpt and link I gave specifically states, and again I quote:

Yes, and that excerpt is from a paragraph comparing the AA index with the AP index.

Because of the difference in units of presentation, the values of AA* and Ap* are not the same so that different major magnetic storm onset and end threshold values are used for the two series. However their comparison for the years of overlapping coverage show that relative frequency of occurrence of major storms per year are similar. Another reason for differences is that an index derived from magnetic perturbation values at only two observatories easily experiences larger extreme values if either input site is well situated to the overhead ionospheric and.or field aligned current systems producing the magnetic storm effects. Although not documented here, it is interesting to note that the overall level of magnetic disturbance from year to year has increased substantially from a low around 1900 Also, the level of mean yearly aa is now much higher so that a year of minimum magnetic disturbances now is typically more disturbed than years at maximum disturbance levels before 1900.

The global (Kp) index shows no such trend because there is no such trend. But, as I said, using geomagnetic activity as an indication of solar activity is not really the best method.

Originally posted by Phage

So you think looking at two specific locations gives a better idea of what is going on? Global averages are meaningless? But how else can you determine a global effect?

Yes, with an average global increase. That's why data from a limited number of locations is not the greatest when looking for trends.

Ok, so are you saying that they are lying when they state and I quote, again.

Because of the difference in units of presentation, the values of AA* and Ap* are not the same so that different major magnetic storm onset and end threshold values are used for the two series. However their comparison for the years of overlapping coverage show that relative frequency of occurrence of major storms per year are similar. Another reason for differences is that an index derived from magnetic perturbation values at only two observatories easily experiences larger extreme values if either input site is well situated to the overhead ionospheric and.or field aligned current systems producing the magnetic storm effects. Although not documented here, it is interesting to note that the overall level of magnetic disturbance from year to year has increased substantially from a low around 1900 Also, the level of mean yearly aa is now much higher so that a year of minimum magnetic disturbances now is typically more disturbed than years at maximum disturbance levels before 1900.

www.ngdc.noaa.gov...

Even that link at NOAA THEY put in bold

the overall level of magnetic disturbance from year to year has increased substantially from a low around 1900

www.ngdc.noaa.gov...

And please, do not try to twist what they are saying. It can be understood clearly.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse

reply to post by ElectricUniverse

And please, do not try to twist what they are saying. It can be understood clearly.

Right. I quoted the whole paragraph and it makes it quite clear as stated. The AA index shows an increase. The Ap index does not. The Ap index is a global average. The AA index is specific to two locations.

Don't just ignore the data that contradicts your hypothesis.

Originally posted by Phage
Right. I quoted the whole paragraph and it makes it quite clear as stated. The AA index shows an increase. The Ap index does not. The Ap index is a global average. The AA index is specific to two locations.

No, you just continue not understanding that there are many factors, even in the Sun's activity, that affects the Earth's magnetic field, it's climate and other dynamics such as volcanic/magmatic activity, and it's plate tectonics.

Not only that, but you keep showing a lack of understanding on what they are stating in that excerpt, or for that matter other research that I have shown in the past about the Sun's influences on Earth's earthquakes, it's climate and other dynamics. Either you are completely oblivious to what they are stating, or you are knowingly trying to twist what they say.

The Sun's overall activity can, and has been masked by the fluctuations of the Sun's natural cycles. For example, the 11 year solar cycle. If we were to judge the sun's activity mainly by the ups and downs of it's solar cycles we could fall under the wrong assumption that many times it seems it's overall activity hadn't been increasing. But if we look at the activity of the Sun during times of quiet periods, the upward trend for the past 80-100 years(until about the end of 2005 to the beginning of 2006) is obvious, and this is part of what Wilson's research, alongside other research by the Plank institute shows. BTW, I have mentioned this many times before with evidence, Wilson has been NASA's Principal investigator of the ACRIM experiments.

Let's look again at the TSI (Total sun Irradiance)
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5821619030e4.jpg[/atsimg]

Notice above the quiet periods, represented by the waves at their lowest points which show the solar minimum. You can clearly see the upward trend during those cycles of solar minimum.

It also depends on what time periods we take our data points from to see whether or not the Sun's activity has been increasing. For example, if we were to set the data points for the past 10 years in a graph, it would seem that it's overall activity was decreasing, which it was but only during part of that time period.

BTW, do remember that I have shown with proof many times in the past that when the Sun's activity lowers the Solar System gets more energy, and even matter mostly in the form of interstellar dust, from outside the Solar System simply because when the Sun's activity lowers, the heliosphere (sun's magnetic shield) is weaker hence allowing more interstellar dust and energy to enter our Solar System. This in turn also affects the dynamics of all the planets with an atmosphere including Earth.

Coincidentally, the same thing happens with the Earth's temperatures because there are many factors involved that affect Earth's temperatures.

Let me try to show you again.

...
Although not documented here, it is interesting to note that the overall level of magnetic disturbance from year to year has increased substantially from a low around 1900 Also, the level of mean yearly aa is now much higher so that a year of minimum magnetic disturbances now is typically more disturbed than years at maximum disturbance levels before 1900.

www.ngdc.noaa.gov...

Notice that first of all they state that "although it is not documented there" the "overall level of magnetic disturbance (on Earth's magnetic field) from year to year has increased substantially from a low around 1900." THEN they say "ALSO the level of mean yearly aa is now much higher..."

So you see, the first sentence I excerpted above is not dependent of what they say next about the aa index... YOU are just trying to twist what they are actually stating...

Could you remind us what is the main factor that affect's the Earth's magnetic field?... Okay, I'll write it myself, it is mainly the SUN's magnetic field. So if the Earth's magnetic field disturbance has been reaching unprecedented levels by logic the Sun's magnetic field and it's magnetic storms would also have been reaching unprecedented levels.

Originally posted by Phage
Don't just ignore the data that contradicts your hypothesis.

I am not the one twisting what they are stating, you are. You have done the same thing about every scientific research paper I have posted for years in this forum and instead you have even posted your opinions, which are completely wrong, and posted them as fact.

Anyway, since we are in the subject of the obvious upward trend we have seen in the Sun's overall activity, let me post proof that other researchers in the past have also found that alongside Wilson's research show that until recently the sun's overall activity HAD reached unprecedented levels.

The Sun is More Active Now than Over the Last 8000 Years

An international team of scientists has reconstructed the Sun's activity over the last 11 millennia and forecasts decreased activity within a few decades

October 28, 2004

The activity of the Sun over the last 11,400 years, i.e., back to the end of the last ice age on Earth, has now for the first time been reconstructed quantitatively by an international group of researchers led by Sami K. Solanki from the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research (Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany). The scientists have analyzed the radioactive isotopes in trees that lived thousands of years ago. As the scientists from Germany, Finland, and Switzerland report in the current issue of the science journal "Nature" from October 28, one needs to go back over 8,000 years in order to find a time when the Sun was, on average, as active as in the last 60 years. Based on a statistical study of earlier periods of increased solar activity, the researchers predict that the current level of high solar activity will probably continue only for a few more decades.
...

www.mpg.de...

The above research was done without taking in consideration what Wilson's research found, and that is that the Sun's activity hadn't stopped in the 1950s, or 1980s as the AGW camp keep claiming. The overall activity of the Sun HAD been in fact increasing until about the end of 2005 to the beginning of 2006.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


How interesting to witness someone so passionate towards such a mess of erroneous connections you are presenting.

Quite the dangerous mindset by individuals placed in powerful positions.

Thankfully, you have very little here.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse

You can clearly see the upward trend during those cycles of solar minimum.

Yeah, we've been through this. The problem is, the data for that period is not complete and not everyone agrees with Willson's method of synthesis.

Data from these two missions were necessary to fill in some time gaps in the ACRIM record, but it is this splicing that makes the results so controversial.

earthobservatory.nasa.gov...

This in turn also affects the dynamics of all the planets with an atmosphere including Earth.

Cosmic ray levels increase during solar minima, yes. That is because of the contraction of the heliosphere. You didn't "prove" it, it's a well known phenomenon.
It has not been demonstrated that it has an effect on Earth, much less other planets.

THEN they say "ALSO the level of mean yearly aa is now much higher..."

Look at the title of that page:

Major Magnetic Storms 1868-2007
According to the AA* criteria

Yes. According to the AA index (based on 2 locations) geomagnetic activity is higher but the AP index (based on global readings) is not (since 1932). It's like saying that an increase in rainfall in Portland and San Francisco indicates that there is a global increase in rainfall.

So you see, the first sentence I excerpted above is not dependent of what they say next about the aa...

That's because it is discussing two different things; the overall amount of activity and the intensity. And both are talking about the AA index. And again, the Ap index does not show that.

Originally posted by QuantriQueptidez

How interesting to witness someone so passionate towards such a mess of erroneous connections you are presenting.

Quite the dangerous mindset by individuals placed in powerful positions.

Thankfully, you have very little here.

Could you actually present an intelligent argument instead of just denying what the information states?...

I understand that for AGW proponents all this information might be too much, which is why most of you don't even understand topics like this one...

If you are going to make such claims make sure you know what you are talking about, and make sure to provide EVIDENCE for your argument, none of which you have done...

reply to post by ElectricUniverse

Interesting the way the last glacial period ended around the time that Solar activity declined. Don't you think? Haven't you been saying that the Sun gets hotter and warms everything up when solar activity is higher?

The above research was done without taking in consideration what Wilson's research found, and that is that the Sun's activity hadn't stopped in the 1950s, or 1980s as the AGW camp keep claiming.

What? The Sun's activity stopped? Who said that?


From your link:

The researchers around Sami K. Solanki stress the fact that solar activity has remained on a roughly constant (high) level since about 1980 - apart from the variations due to the 11-year cycle - while the global temperature has experienced a strong further increase during that time.

www.mpg.de...

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


You speak of intelligence, yet reply with mere assumptions.

I'm not sure you're capable of qualifying an intelligent discussion.

Originally posted by Phage
Yeah, we've been through this. The problem is, the data for that period is not complete and not everyone agrees with Willson's method of synthesis.

Let's clarify your statement, because like always you love to twist what is being said. Those who buy the AGW hoax want to disagree with research like that of Wilson...

It is happening not only with his research, even in these forums we see everyday how many members just don't want to believe any of the evidence that contradicts their AGW religion, and a religion it is.

Data from these two missions were necessary to fill in some time gaps in the ACRIM record, but it is this splicing that makes the results so controversial.

earthobservatory.nasa.gov...

AGAIN, Wilson is NASA's principal investigator of the ACRIM experiments, not to mention that we know for a fact that the Earth's magnetic field and it's changes are connected to the Sun's magnetic field and it's changes.

We also do know that the sun's activity for the past 80-100 years had reached unprecedented levels, of course there are always fluctuations in this activity but the overall trend of the sun's activity was an increase in levels until recently.

Originally posted by Phage
Cosmic ray levels increase during solar minima, yes. That is because of the contraction of the heliosphere. You didn't "prove" it, it's a well known phenomenon.

First, I said that I have MENTIONED about the heliosphere, not that I PROVED it... Again, you show that you can't understand even simple sentences, that you want to twist what people state just because you want.

Second, not only does the heliosphere contracts, it also weakens allowing more energy and matter, in the form of interstellar dust, to enter from outside the Solar System.

Originally posted by Phage
It has not been demonstrated that it has an effect on Earth, much less other planets.

Really? it hasn't been demonstrated by scientists that moving into different regions of the galaxy, and the energies/matter we encounter will have an effect on Earth?...

So, you are one of those people who thinks physics just cease to exist when you want? You want to claim that entering a region of the Local Fluff with more energy and matter will have no effect on Earth, the other planets, moons or even the Sun itself?...

And it is not like we are seeing the other planets with different orbits, and distances also undergoing dramatic Climate Changes...right?... Oh wait, of course, there can't be a common cause simply because it would disprove the AGW religion...

The same thing is happening to every research that contradicts, or disproves the AGW hoax, it is being dismissed by people who have turned science into a religion and a political tool... Not even when it has been shown that the main scientists, and other prominent people, behind the AGW hoax have been caught lying, knowingly posting and publishing false data, and overall undermining real science in favor for the AGW hoax which has turned into a religion and a political tool...

Originally posted by Phage
Look at the title of that page:

Major Magnetic Storms 1868-2007
According to the AA* criteria

Yes. According to the AA index (based on 2 locations) geomagnetic activity is higher but the AP index (based on global readings) is not (since 1932). It's like saying that an increase in rainfall in Portland and San Francisco indicates that there is a global increase in rainfall.

And look again to what THEY state in that particular sentence.

Originally posted by Phage
That's because it is discussing two different things; the overall amount of activity and the intensity. And both are talking about the AA index. And again, the Ap index does not show that.

No, it is mentioning 2 different things, and they clearly indicate that the overall increase in magnetic disturbance has increased "although it is not documented in that particular article."

The common topic between that particular part of the sentence and the rest of the article is the "disturbance in the Earth's magnetic field", not the AA index as you claim.

That particular part of that sentence is in between commas.

Although not documented here, it is interesting to note that the overall level of magnetic disturbance from year to year has increased substantially from a low around 1900 Also,

They clearly state that the following information, in between the commas, is not documented in that particular article but shows an overall level of magnetic disturbance increasing.

I know for some this might be difficult to understand. Similar "misunderstandings" (more like trying to rewrite history and ignore facts) occur in other topics such as the second amendment in which people with certain beliefs, those who abhor firearms, claim that the second amendment only mentions the right to own and bear arms pertaining only to militias or armed forces, when in fact it mentions that it is also the right of the people...