Climate Change Occurring in Every Planet in Solar System

Originally posted by QuantriQueptidez

You speak of intelligence, yet reply with mere assumptions.

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

So, pretty much INSULTS are your proof...

I guess for some "insults" qualify as "an intelligent discussion"...

If you are not going to provide "facts" stay out of the discussion.

BTW, thanks for the insults, it shows how much of a religion this topic has become for a lot of people...

Originally posted by Phage

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?

What in the world are you now trying to imply?...

Originally posted by Phage
What? The Sun's activity stopped? Who said that?

It should read "stopped increasing"... Is that all you have as proof, that I didn't type one word?...

Not to mention that even in your next sentence you refer exactly to the point I was trying to make...

Originally posted by Phage
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...

edit on 6/25/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Yeah, that research doesn't take into consideration the research from Wilson who is the PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR of NASA's ACRIM experiments...

reply to post by ElectricUniverse

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.

Pardon me for asking but does Willson claim that an increase of TSI of 0.005% accounts for the rate of warming that has been seen?

We also do know that the sun's activity for the past 80-100 years had reached unprecedented levels,

Unprecedented? But the article you posted shows that Solar activity was about the same 8,000 years ago as it is now.

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.

But isn't the size of the heliosphere determined by Solar activity. If, as you say, we are at unprecedented levels of Solar activity in the past 80-100 years that means that the heliosphere was also at "unprecedented" levels of size (and according to you, strength). This means that our "shields" against interstellar radiation are stronger. BTW, do you have any evidence that there has been an increase of interstellar dust within the Solar System?

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?...

Not really. There is some speculation about it.

And it is not like we are seeing the other planets with different orbits, and distances also undergoing dramatic Climate Changes...right?

Right. We have not been able to closely observe other planets for long enough to proclaim that any of them are experiencing anything unusual.

Not even when it has been shown that the main scientists, and other prominent people, behind the AGW hoax have been caught lying, posting and publishing false data knowingly, and overall undermining real science in favor for the AGW hoax which has turned into a religion and a political tool...

No, it has not been shown that is the case.

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.

Yes, as seen in the AA index, while the global Kp index does not show such a change.


The second amendment would seem to be somewhat irrelevant.

Originally posted by Phage
Pardon me for asking but does Willson claim that an increase of TSI of 0.005% accounts for the rate of warming that has been seen?

First, it has been an increase of 0.05% per decade, not just 0.005%.

BTW, haven't I been mentioning that there are also OTHER factors that have contributed to the warming?...

Second, what he states is:

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

www.nasa.gov...

Originally posted by PhageUnprecedented? But the article you posted shows that Solar activity was about the same 8,000 years ago as it is now.

Within those 8,000 years? Yes...

Originally posted by Phage
But isn't the size of the heliosphere determined by Solar activity. If, as you say, we are at unprecedented levels of Solar activity in the past 80-100 years that means that the heliosphere was also at "unprecedented" levels of size (and according to you, strength). This means that our "shields" against interstellar radiation are stronger. BTW, do you have any evidence that there has been an increase of interstellar dust within the Solar System?

So, you still don't understand what fluctuations are? Let me help you with that.

fluc·tu·a·tion
[fluhk-choo-ey-shuhn] Show IPA

noun
1.
continual change from one point or condition to another.

2.
wavelike motion; undulation.

3.
Genetics. a body variation due to environmental factors and not inherited.

I am pretty sure to have mentioned "fluctuations" and "cycles", among other things...

Originally posted by Phage
Not really. There is some speculation about it.

Oh, I see, so the first law of energy ceases to exist when you say so. It's not like the Earth, and the other planets receive energy from outside sources like the Sun, or energy and matter from outside the Solar System... You seem to think that energy disappears...

Originally posted by Phage
Right. We have not been able to closely observe other planets for long enough to proclaim that any of them are experiencing anything unusual.

And despite the fact that all these planets and moons have different orbits, and distances, and despite the fact that we haven't detected any internal source, and the Sun doesn't give enough energy to some planets, and moons "some other energy" is/has been causing dramatic Climate Changes and dramatic weather events in at least 10 planets and moons with an atmosphere that we have studied. Not to mention that they are, or have been all undergoing changes similar to those we see in Earth's climate and weather...

Apparently the logic in Occam's razor also stops existing when some people want it to...

Originally posted by PhageNo, it has not been shown that is the case.

Riiiight... Let's just dismiss the evidence when Phage and a few others want to...

Some other members and myself have posted the evidence which shows how the AGW scientists, and other proponents as well as prominent people, have been lying, and knowingly publishing and posting false information among other devious tactics to try to stop the truth from coming out.

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.

Yes, as seen in the AA index, while the global Kp index does not show such a change.

Originally posted by Phage
The second amendment would seem to be somewhat irrelevant.

I mentioned it as an example of "certain people" wanting to twist what is being stated, not as proof that there are Climate Changes and dramatic weather changes occurring in planets and moons with an atmosphere we have been studying... I am pretty sure to have made clear why I mentioned the 2nd amendment...

BTW, if you are going to discuss the topic at hand at least read the information provided in the thread, thank you.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse

First, it has been an increase of 0.05% per decade, not just 0.005%.

I guess you haven't seen the latest report from Willson.

So, you still don't understand what fluctuations are? Let me help you with that.

I know what fluctuations are, thank you. You have said that Solar activity has been at unprecedented high levels. Fluctuations aside, that means that the heliosphere would be more robust.

Oh, I see, so the first law of energy ceases to exist when you say so. It's not like the Earth, and the other planets receive energy from outside sources like the Sun, or energy and matter from outside the Solar System... You seem to think that energy disappears...

You seem to really enjoy creating straw men. I didn't say that.

causing dramatic Climate Changes and dramatic weather events in at least 10 planets and moons with an atmosphere that we have looked at and they are, or have been all undergoing changes similar to those we see in Earth's climate and weather...

How do you know those changes are unusual for those planets? We have detailed climate records for Earth. We have no such records for other planets.
Why do you ignore the likelihood that what is observed on other planets are seasonal changes?
www.livescience.com...

BTW, if you are going to discuss the topic at hand at least read the information provided in the thread, thank you.

You've posted the same things many times. It doesn't make your interpretation of it any more correct. Your use of large fonts doesn't really help much either, btw.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by QuantriQueptidez

You speak of intelligence, yet reply with mere assumptions.

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

So, pretty much INSULTS are your proof...

No.

I guess for some "insults" qualify as "an intelligent discussion"...

I'm sure some find assumptions and cherry picking as "intelligent discussion" as well.

If you are not going to provide "facts" stay out of the discussion.

I did. You assume too much. That's a fact.

BTW, thanks for the insults, it shows how much of a religion this topic has become for a lot of people...

That you choose to take my remarks as an insult is your own prerogative, but in no way an indication of "how much of a religion this topic has become".

Interesting how emotionally charged you are. You seem clueless how much it clouds your perspective.

reply to post by Phage


Phage, remember that Science paper you posted to cast doubt on bow shock?

Well, one thing you omitted is that the side effect implication of that study is stronger magnetic role, in strength, and thus higher magnetic influence.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by redtic
Wow, that's a lot of information. So you claim "every planet" in your title - what about uranus, neptune, mercury, not to mention all the other moons in the solar system? Are they all warming, too?

I guess my real question is - why do you *not* believe that AGW is real? You've cherry-picked a nice bit of data here that probably really doesn't add up to much in a desperate attempt to "prove" that AGW is bogus, while a vast majority of scientists who've studied this far much more than you tell us that AGW is indeed real. Do you not believe in science?

Ok... First of all, you actually think that making such a generalized statement, based on lies and exaggerations, that you can just ignore, or dismiss the evidence provided?... Phew... I do guess that ignorance is indeed a blessing for some...

I will get to the other planets, but first let me address your last myopic argument, and question about "do you not believe in science"?...

First of all, every piece of information I have given in this thread comes from SCIENTISTS, and their scientific research.
.
.
.

I'm not ignoring the giant wall of pieced-together scientific data you're posting here - I realize that most of it comes from real scientists, but that's not really the point. My point is that you seem to have come to a conclusion and are now setting out to satisfy your belief in that conclusion by picking out pieces of data that you think support it. So, I'm just curious - which came first - did you first deny AGW and then set out to "prove" yourself right, or did you analyze all the data and then come to the conclusion that AGW is not scientifically validated? I guess you just seem to have an agenda with all this - there seems to be a lot of emotion in your posts, and you seem to be angry at anyone who believes AGW to be true (which is a lot of smart people).

Originally posted by Phage
I guess you haven't seen the latest report from Willson.

Maybe posting that report would help.

Originally posted by PhageI know what fluctuations are, thank you. You have said that Solar activity has been at unprecedented high levels. Fluctuations aside, that means that the heliosphere would be more robust.

You do not know what neither fluctuations, nor cycles are... Fluctuations and the different cycles in the Sun, among other factors, affect the heliosphere strength and size. I did mention that there have been fluctuations in the Sun, and that the Sun undergoes cycles as well, you are dismissing entirely all of my statements and instead you claim I wrote something else...

Originally posted by Phage
You seem to really enjoy creating straw men. I didn't say that.

I am not the one creating straw men. More energy and interstellar dust has been entering the Solar System. Logic dictates that this increase in energy and matter would change the dynamics of the Solar System, not to mention that we are seen other planets and moons with an atmosphere undergoing changes similar to those happening on Earth.

I find it ironic how the AGW proponents want to assume that anthropogenic CO2 is to blame for the Climate Change on Earth when there is no real proof of this except flawed GCMs, and the lies and deception that the AGW scientists have been caught doing. Yet the same AGW proponents, even in this website, want to claim that changes in energy levels and matter entering the Solar System cannot affect the planets or the Sun when there is more evidence against their argument than there is proof anthropogenic CO2 is the cause for the Climate Changes happening on Earth.

Yes CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but that doesn't mean it causes the massive warming claimed by the AGW proponents, more so when there is evidence that shows increased levels of CO2 LAG behind temperature changes, as well as there is plenty evidence that other factors, not CO2, have affected and do affect the climate on Earth.

Then again there is also the fact that the AGW scientists like Jones, Mann, Schmidt, Hansen and others have been found lying, publishing false data and information, and even discussing amongst themselves tactics to try to stop real scientists from finding out the truth of AGW and Climate Change.

Originally posted by Phage
How do you know those changes are unusual for those planets? We have detailed climate records for Earth. We have no such records for other planets.
Why do you ignore the likelihood that what is observed on other planets are seasonal changes?
www.livescience.com...

Similar changes happening at the same time in all these planets and moons with an atmosphere is no coincidence. You might think they are but they are not. The energy to cause these changes has to come from somewhere. Many of the planets and moons are too far away from the Sun for the Sun to be the source of the energy, and we have not detected any internal energy source capable of causing such changes...

Since we do know as a fact that more energy and matter has exponentially been entering the Solar System, then logic would dictate that the source for the changes in the climate and dramatic weather events must be this increase in energy and matter entering the Solar System.

You've posted the same things many times. It doesn't make your interpretation of it any more correct. Your use of large fonts doesn't really help much either, btw.

Yet you obviously have never read any of them, not to mention that the forums are not solely for the viewing of Phage, there are many new members, and even old members that probably don't know all of this...

Not to mention that the large fonts and words in bold is to try to present the main point of those excerpt, which even though I put in bold and large fonts seems to escape certain people...

BTW, you claim, among many things, that the main AGW scientist proponents of the AGW hoax have not been caught lying, and publishing or posting false information knowingly, yet even in this thread there is proof that these people have been lying, posting and publishing false data, deleting raw data and even discussing amongst themselves tactics to cover their tracks, and to try to stop real scientists from not only verifying the data but to hide the truth behind AGW and Climate Change.

reply to post by redtic


Again another post with not one piece of evidence against the arguments presented except "claims and opinions" from AGW proponents.

How about you present evidence that the AGW scientists were not lying, which is impossible since their own emails written by them shows they have been lying and discussed tactics to try to stop real scientists from verifying raw/original data, and the truth behind AGW and Climate Change...

How about you present evidence, real evidence and not opinions and claims. GCMs are not evidence either btw.

reply to post by QuantriQueptidez


Interesting how you, like some others, continue to ignore the evidence provided, and instead of proving your point you keep trying to attack me... This is called an "ad hominem attack", you seem to be pretty good at it.

I also have to wonder, did you go through the process to create an account here just to attack the messenger instead of discussing the arguments being presented and backing your argument with proof?... Humm...

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


This caught my eye.. Not so long ago, I was thinking while listening to some nuts preach to me on a political stage somewhere or another on a air wave of some kind being transmitted into propaganda about how Me driving my v8 engine that is fed by gasoline is making the Earth get hotter somehow or another etc. etc. I have been listening to this bullcrap all my life from politicians, not one shred of proof besides federally funded research groups with biased opinions ranting and raving on how my car is destroying the ozone layer and we all need to be driving cars that cost 10 times more then my fossil fueled gasoline engine..

Its all a agenda. Iemme tell you I have worked with the new age hippy's and Learned how to install their 50,000 dollar PV panel arrays, that is suppose to save the world..

Anyhow my point is this, we don't know what the hell is making the planet get hotter, I think its a combo of both but more so the sun, us polluting the planet does not help anything but is not the root all for the changes in climate. In so many ways I want to smack people that think they know it all, yet when you really think about it, if your smart enough, then you will realize we don't know anything about the reality we live in. For instance why is the Sun, a star in the center of our solar system and why does our Planet, Earth and 8 or 7 for young people revolve around it? No one freaking knows, has no idea, all they can do is explain it, not why it is happening.. So if that is the case, then how the hell can we definitely say WE are the ones changing the climate of a planet in a solar system we do not understand why it is doing what it is doing?

Now I can promise you, with all my heart there is someone reading this wanting to argue with me about what I just said, yet without knowing why or what the hell it is we exist in we are in no damn position to say as a matter a fact why the damn earth is changing in climate.. In my opinion people that think climate change is because of MAN, all in itself are those back in the dark ages that thought the earth was flat, and was the center of the universe, same damn school of thought...

Also the Earth gets slammed by gamma rays roughly on a daily basis, our magnetic field gets hammered by things NASA, cannot even explain at times, how the hell, and who the hell do you people think you are trying to tell me I am making Earth get hotter.. As if the sun and things in the Universe we do not understand have nothing to do with it..

Before you point at me and call me an idiot, may want to reread what I just wrote...

reply to post by Bicent76


I understand what you are saying. The fact is AGW and even Climate Change have been turned into a religion, and a political tool.

Those in power do nothing but think on new ways to impose more unnecessary laws, and taxes, to get richer and gain more power.

If any of you don't think that AGW and Climate Change are being used mainly as a political tool for those in power, you have a blindfold over your eyes and don't want to remove it.

“The governments of Europe, the United States, and Japan are unlikely to negotiate a social-democratic pattern of globalization – unless their hands are forced by a popular movement or a catastrophe, such as another Great Depression or ecological disaster“

These governments would not accept a "social-democratic pattern of globalization" unless their hands are FORCED by a popular movement (Occupy and Anthropogenic Global Warming movements), another Great Depression (the current GLOBAL economic crisis), or an ecological disaster (Global Warming being blamed on humans)

Democratising Global Governance:

The Challenges of the World Social Forum

by

Francesca Beausang


ABSTRACT

This paper sums up the debate that took place during the two round tables organized by UNESCO within the first World Social Forum in Porto Alegre (25/30 January 2001). It starts with a discussion of national processes, by examining democracy and then governance at the national level. It first states a case for a "joint" governance based on a combination of stakeholder theory, which is derived from corporate governance, and of UNESCO's priorities in the field of governance. As an example, the paper investigates how governance can deviate from democracy in the East Asian model. Subsequently, the global dimension of the debate on democracy and governance is examined, first by identification of the characteristics and agents of democracy in the global setting, and then by allusion to the difficulties of transposing governance to the global level.

www.unesco.org...

Heck, that is not the only paper from the UN, and other global leaders and global groups that show their real intentions.

The Global Climate Change Regime
...
A second, parallel option would be to achieve greater energy efficiency by developing new technologies and modifying daily behavior so each person produces a smaller carbon footprint.
...

www.cfr.org...


The elites even admit the fact that they want more power and to control each individual person, and despite the fact that more and more proof keeps showing that the AGW scientists and other AGW proponents have been lying and hiding the truth, and despite the fact that the elites admit that they want "global governance to combat Climate Change", the lie that is AGW has been so ingrained in the minds of so many that it has become a religion, and no matter what proof you show to these people, they keep denying every piece of evidence that shows the truth of AGW and Climate Change.

Anyway, several times I have mentioned that we know that there are several natural factors affecting the Earth's temperature, and it is also a fact that GCMs do not account for many of these natural factors. Even when we know this as a fact, that GCMs do not account for many natural factors that affect the Earth's climate and weather, they are still widely used by the AGW proponents to back their claims that mankind is the main cause of Climate Change.

Here is another example of a correlation scientists found between the Sun's magnetic field, and the Earth's atmospheric temperatures due to the 22 year Hale cycle/Quasicycle.

Title:
Correlation between the 22-year Solar Magnetic Cycle and the 22-year Quasicycle in the Earth's Atmospheric Temperature
Authors:
Qu, Weizheng; Zhao, Jinping; Huang, Fei; Deng, Shenggui
Affiliation:
AA(College of Environment Oceanography, Ocean University of China, Qingdao 266100, China), AB(College of Environment Oceanography, Ocean University of China, Qingdao 266100, China), AC(College of Environment Oceanography, Ocean University of China, Qingdao 266100, China), AD(College of Environment Oceanography, Ocean University of China, Qingdao 266100, China)
Publication:
The Astronomical Journal, Volume 144, Issue 1, article id. 6, 7 pp. (2012). (AJ Homepage)
Publication Date:
07/2012
Origin:
IOP
Astronomy Keywords:
solar-terrestrial relations, Sun: activity, Sun: surface magnetism, sunspots
DOI:
10.1088/0004-6256/144/1/6
Bibliographic Code:
2012AJ....144....6Q

Abstract
According to the variation pattern of the solar magnetic field polarity and its relation to the relative sunspot number, we established the time series of the sunspot magnetic field polarity index and analyzed the strength and polarity cycle characteristics of the solar magnetic field. The analysis showed the existence of a cycle with about a 22-year periodicity in the strength and polarity of the solar magnetic field, which proved the Hale proposition that the 11-year sunspot cycle is one-half of the 22-year solar magnetic cycle. By analyzing the atmospheric temperature field, we found that the troposphere and the stratosphere in the middle latitude of both the northern and southern hemispheres exhibited a common 22-year quasicycle in the atmospheric temperature, which is believed to be attributable to the 22-year solar magnetic cycle.

adsabs.harvard.edu...

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


July the 28th 20010 was the date that the loop current in the Gulf of Mexico stalled. This meant that the temperature in the Gulf of Mexico got warmer, and the storm cells got more intense. The colder northern air masses hitting the now warmer air mass, would result in more powerfull storms. Since then the winters in western Europe have been getting worse is this coincidence, due to the lack of warm water which it was suggested caused milder winters, around the British isles.?
We've had The President state that Climate change is the biggest challenge to mankind, He should know, as the Bush administration back in 2001 were looking at a report that went into detail that the effects of a shutdown in the Gulf stream could cause. If the other planets in the solar system are heating up, along with ours, then we might be looking at a double whammy, as the melting of the Greenland glaciers drop the saline content of the north Atlantic, which makes the water lighter so it dosn't drop, down into the icy depths of the thermohaline, which in turn will leave it on the surface to do what freeze?, What is known is that Earth over time has spent more time in what we call ice age. Should we have started to panic by now?

reply to post by anonentity


Yep, that is part of my point. TPTB have been claiming that it is "mankind causing Climate Changes" on Earth, but the evidence says the contrary. Not to mention that if it was true that they thought, as we have been told for years, that Climate Change can be mitigated and stopped if we give TPTB more power and "accept their One World Government to combat Climate Change", then why have they been digging bunkers for years?

If there was any truth to the claim that anthropogenic CO2/mankind is to blame for Climate Change, why have the proponents of AGW and that "mankind is to blame" have had to lie, post and publish false data and information KNOWINGLY. Why did they have to delete raw temperature data like Roger Pielke Jr, professor of environmental sciences, found when he decided to ask himself for the data, and we even found in the hacked emails that the AGW scientists like Jones and Mann talked amongst themselves to delete data/emails to cover their tracks...

Again, some of the evidence showing some of the tactics used by the AGW scientists.

Here, a leaked email from Phil Jones:
“I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working on the IPCC 5th Assessment Report would be to delete all e-mails at the end of the process. Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden.

bishophill.squarespace.com...

[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...

These AGW scientists have been so bold as to publish false data and information. They excluded data and information "knowingly" simply to try to back their AGW claim when in fact the data has been showing the contrary to such claims as the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) report states that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.

I posted excerpts of this report in this same thread. Below is the link again to what the report states.
climateaudit.org...

That was not the only time when these, and other AGW scientists have used such devious tactics, among others, to try to stop the truth from coming out.

Yet my main question, and it is a puzzle to me, is that despite all this evidence that the AGW scientists have been in fact lying, and using all sorts of tactics to stop the truth about AGW and Climate Change from coming out; despite the fact that the evidence does not support the claim that anthropogenic CO2 causes the massive warming claimed by the AGW scientists/proponents, we still have many people who want to keep believing in AGW. Why keep believing on the unfounded claims made by scientists who have been caught lying time and again?

To me, the fact that so many people still want to believe in AGW/ "that mankind is the main reason for Climate Change", despite all evidence that shows the contrary, is clear evidence that AGW has become a religion for millions of people, and the elites are using this fixation on the part of so many people to blindly believe in AGW to gain more power and guarantee their goals of a One World Government.