Originally posted by Maslo
So, since we seem to have many armchair climatologists here who seem to think they are infinitely wiser than real professional scientists, I feel a
All you have shown is to be ignorant of the facts. Every one of those claims you excerpted has been debunked by REAL scientists.
From the claim that "95% of scientists endorse the consensus" which is a lie.
I have proven in past threads that many scientific groups are just touting the AGW bandwagon just to get more funds.
The position written in the websites of scientific groups which claim are a consensus on AGW does not speak for the majority of the scientists which
are part of such groups....it only speaks about the opinions from the small groups of boards of directors which are more interested in getting more
grants than in true science when it comes to Climate Change.
For example, Rudy Baum, the editor in chief of the world's largest science group, the American Chemical Society (ACS) made an editorial in which he
claimed, like EVERY other scientific group looking to get more funds, that all, or most of their scientists agree with the consensus, instead most of
the responses he received from member/scientists was the opposite from what he expected to get.
Here is a link to the "op/ed" Rudy Baum made in June 2009. Link
Here is an excerpt from one of the member/scientists from the ACS, as well as a link to what most of the responses actually say which is the opposite
to the claims made by the ACS editor in chief that "the science is settled" and "all, or most scientists agree", both which are nothing more than
Update: Scientist Accuses American Chemical Society Editor of 'censoring of articles and letters' that reject man-made global warming claims!
'Many of the members have not only expressed their disgust, they are contemplating leaving the group'
By Marc Morano – Climate Depot
Climate Depot Exclusive
[Climate Depot Editor's Note: Longtime American Chemical Society (ACS) member and Environmental Chemist Steven J. Welcenbach, the President of the
Wisconsin based Alchemical Ventures, Inc., has released a portion of his private email exchange with American Chemical Society's editor in chief Rudy
Baum. Baum, now under pressure to be removed from his post, created a scientific firestorm with his June 22, 2009 editorial in Chemical and
Engineering News (C&E News) claiming that the global warming debate was settled. (See Climate Depot's Exclusive Report: Climate Revolt: World's
Largest Science Group 'Startled' By Outpouring of Scientists Rejecting Man-Made Climate Fears! Clamor for Editor to Be Removed! - July 29, 2009 )]
Text of longtime ACS member and Environmental Chemist Steven J. Welcenbach's note to Climate Depot and an Email exchange with ACS editor Rudy Baum.
Welcenbach has been an ACS member since 1986.
Hello Marc [Morano], (Executive Editor of Climate Depot)
Thank you for getting the word out with what is going on in American Chemical Society (ACS). A vast number of members are very upset with the lack of
complete and balanced coverage of the AGW issue and the continued censoring of articles and letters by Rudy Baum that do not support the theory of
catastrophic global warming caused by CO2 emissions from man's use of petroleum and coal. Many of the members I have spoken with have not only
expressed their disgust but either have left ACS or are contemplating leaving the group. Lots of us, however, have decided that we should take action
to return the group back to the scientific method and the initial purpose for which this group was formed and why we joined.
There are other examples which I have posted in the past and show how the people in charge of "scientific groups" have even resorted to not asking
their member scientist opinions on issues, but still they claim "all, or most scientists agree with us" when this is nothing more than a lie.
There have been scientists who have resigned from the IPCC, and others have been telling us that the IPCC, and the AGW/Global Warming claims are
nothing more than political tools to implement global policies and even a global government.
Here are excerpts from a letter that Chris Landsea wrote in 2005 as the reason for him to withdraw from the IPCC. Chris Landsea was a research
meteorologist with Hurricane Research Division of Atlantic Oceanographic & Meteorological Laboratory at NOAA, and now is the Science and Operations
Officer at the National Hurricane Center.
He was also one of the few researchers back in the day who had actually done any research on hurricanes.
After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from
participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to
view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns
to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.
With this open letter to the community, I wish to explain the basis for my
decision and bring awareness to what I view as a problem in the IPCC
process. The IPCC is a group of climate researchers from around the world that every few years summarize how climate is changing and how it may be
altered in the future due to manmade global warming. I had served both as an author for the Observations chapter and a Reviewer for the 2nd Assessment
Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, primarily on the topic of tropical cyclones (hurricanes and typhoons). My work on hurricanes,
and tropical cyclones more generally, has been widely cited by the IPCC. For the upcoming AR4, I was asked several weeks ago by the Observations
chapter Lead Author---Dr. Kevin Trenberth---to provide the writeup for Atlantic hurricanes. As I had in the past, I agreed to assist the IPCC in what
I thought was to be an important, and politically-neutral determination of what is happening with our climate.
Here is what another IPCC scientist has to say about the Climate Change, or as it was once known Global Warming debate.
The lead author of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Dr. John Christy, will be the keynote speaker at Directions
Media's Rocket City Geospatial Conference next week. The IPCC was awarded the Nobel Prize last Friday (Oct. 12), along with former U.S. Vice
President, Al Gore, for its work on bringing attention to climate change issues. Christy, a professor at the University of Alabama-Huntsville, is
skeptical of some of Gore's work on the issue. "Climate has evolved from a topic dealt with by a few bookish, pocket-protector scientists to a
multi-billion dollar industry that has begun to drive legislative policy on Capitol Hill, to embolden high-profile environmental activists...
and to create anxiety among the largest industries (and thus people) of the world."
Here is part of the statements made by Prof. Reiter as he testified to a U.K. parliamentary committee in 2005. Prof. Reiter also withdrew from the
IPCC for similar reasons that Chris Landsea withdrew.
Here is part of what he had to say about the section to which he was asked to be a contributer for the IPCC report.
As Prof. Reiter testified to a U.K. parliamentary committee in 2005, "The paucity of information was hardly surprising: Not one of the
lead authors had ever written a research paper on the subject! Moreover, two of the authors, both physicians, had spent their entire
career as environmental activists. One of these activists has published "professional" articles as an "expert" on 32 different
subjects, ranging from mercury poisoning to land mines, globalization to allergies and West Nile virus to AIDS.
"Among the contributing authors there was one professional entomologist, and a person who had written an obscure article on dengue and El
Nino, but whose principal interest was the effectiveness of motorcycle crash helmets (plus one paper on the health effects of
How do such people become numbered among the IPCC's famed "2,500 top scientists" from around the world? Prof. Reiter, wanting to know, wrote the IPCC
with a series of detailed questions about its decision-making process. It replied: "The brief answer to your question below is 'governments.' It is
the governments of the world who make up the IPCC, define its remit and direction. The way in which this is done is defined in the IPCC Principles and
Procedures, which have been agreed by governments." When Prof. Reiter checked out the "principles and procedures," he found "no mention of research
experience, bibliography, citation statistics or any other criteria that would define the quality of 'the world's top scientists.'"
A fact that many people are not aware of is that most of the 1,200 or so, so called "experts in Climate Change" are in fact not experts at all. Only
a few of the authors of the IPCC were really scientists which have studied Climate Change. Over 1,250+ of the contributors for the last IPCC report
were environmentalists, environmental activists, policymakers, and a myriad of other groups and government representatives who were only trying to to
force people to believe that we must act now by giving them billions of dollars if they were going to stop Climate Change.
The fact is Climate Change cannot be stopped, or mitigated, we can only be prepared for the changes that occur during such periods, and most of the
money being collected for Climate Change is not doing anything at all to prepare people.
Ocean sea levels have risen, and fell hundreds of times throughout the history of Earth, and they will continue to do so. The poles have been free of
ice several times also, and during the past 16,000 years or so, the Arctic ice has receeded more than it has during this time period.
Most of the money being squeezed to fight Global Warming is ending up in the pockets of the rich, and the elite, and with the new taxes which the
Obama administration, the UN, and the EU have been passing, and are trying to pass more money is going to be squeezed from people, and at the end they
would have done NOTHING to stop, or mitigate Climate Change.
When are people going to realize this is nothing more than the biggest scam in the history of the world?
Isn't it enough that about 13 TRILLION dollars were stolen by the elite from American taxpayers, and even the government, and president Obama dared to
state they didn't know what happened with that money and where it went?....
There is a lot more, and thousands upon thousands of REAL scientists disagree with the AGW claim, but for the sake of brevity the above should suffice
as evidence that your claims are wrong.
Also MANY times several members and myself have shown that the activity of the Sun was not cooling in the last 30 years like you are claiming.
In fact real research shows the opposite to what you claim.
Sun's Output Increasing in Possible Trend Fueling Global Warming
By Robert Roy Britt
Senior Science Writer
posted: 02:30 pm ET
20 March 2003
In what could be the simplest explanation for one component of global warming, a new study shows the Suns radiation has increased by .05
percent per decade since the late 1970s.
The increase would only be significant to Earth's climate if it has been going on for a century or more, said study leader Richard Willson, a Columbia
University researcher also affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
The Sun's increasing output has only been monitored with precision since satellite technology allowed necessary observations. Willson is not sure if
the trend extends further back in time, but other studies suggest it does.
"This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change," Willson said.
In a NASA-funded study recently published in Geophysical Research Letters, Willson and his colleagues speculate on the possible history of the trend
based on data collected in the pre-satellite era.
"Solar activity has apparently been going upward for a century or more," Willson told SPACE.com today.
That research made by Wilson was only from 1978 -2002, and the research showed that until the end of the research the sun's output HAD BEEN
INCREASING, and not decreasing like the AGW fans like to claim.
In fact we know that the way our Sun works, when for example there is an increasing trend in the Sun's magnetic fields it means that all other factors
of the Sun such as magnetic storms, CMEs, solar flares, solar wind, ect, ect, all increase or decrease at the same time. They are all connected, and
we know for a fact that until 2006 the overall activity of the Sun HAD BEEN INCREASING.
Originally posted by Maslo
Oh, come on.. The whole "Climategate" affair has been greatly exagerrated by the public. There is nothing in those emails that proves any tampering
with the data or significant mistakes.
BS, in fact new developments have proven that the whole "Climagate scandal" was not only true, but included the IPCC, and even NASA, among some
The first person to post this story was seattletruth in the BAN forum. Here is a link to his story
A BRITISH climate scientist at the centre of a controversy over leaked emails is facing fresh claims that he sought to hide problems in
temperature data on which his work was based.
An investigation of more than 2000 emails apparently hacked from the University of East Anglia's climatic research unit has found evidence that a
series of measurements from Chinese weather stations was seriously flawed.
Climate scientist Phil Jones and a collaborator have been accused of scientific fraud for attempting to suppress data that could cast doubt on a key
1990 study on the effect of cities on warming.
Dr Jones withheld the information requested under British freedom of information laws. Subsequently a senior colleague told him he feared that Dr
Jones' collaborator, Wei-chyung Wang of the University at Albany, had ''screwed up''.
The apparent attempts to cover up problems with temperature data from the Chinese weather stations provide the first link between the email scandal
and the UN's embattled climate science body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, as a paper based on the measurements was used to bolster
IPCC statements about rapid global warming in recent decades.
The IPCC has already been criticised for its use of information that had not been rigorously checked - in particular a false claim that all Himalayan
glaciers could melt by 2035.
Of 105 freedom of information requests to the University of East Anglia over the climatic research unit, which Dr Jones led until the end of December,
only 10 had been released in full.
In at least one of the emails they mention ways that they can use not to release information, and in one of the emails Jones himself jokes
....If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think Ill delete the file rather than send to
Yet more evidence is being found that Jones, one of the hoaxers and main proponents of the AGW lie has been using many ways, even illegal ways to hide
information, and they have been giving fraudulent information just to keep AGW, which sorry to say the evidence shows has become nothing more than a
religion based on lies, flawed assumptions and even fraud.
The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night
admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.
Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not
rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.
In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to
several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and
encourage them to take some concrete action.
‘It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.’
Dr Lal’s admission will only add to the mounting furore over the melting glaciers assertion, which the IPCC was last week forced to withdraw because
it has no scientific foundation.
According to the IPCC’s statement of principles, its role is ‘to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis, scientific,
technical and socio-economic information – IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy’.
BTW, be certain that the AGW believers will try to use any way to silence anyone, and everyone, including using the tactics their masters have used,
and keep using to try to silence anyone who dares to post research that refutes AGW....
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Alabama State Climatologist Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, served as a UN IPCC lead author in 2001 for the 3rd
assessment report and detailed how he personally witnessed UN scientists attempting to distort the science for political purposes.
“I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having lunch. And they were talking about their role as lead authors. And they were
talking about how they were trying to make the report so dramatic that the United States would just have to sign that Kyoto Protocol,”
Christy told CNN on May 2, 2007. – (For more on UN scientists turning on the UN years ago, see Climate Depot’s full report here.
Christy has since proposed major reforms and changes to the way the UN IPCC report is produced. Christy has rejected the UN approach that produces
“a document designed for uniformity and consensus.” Christy presented his views at a UN meeting in 2009. The IPCC needs “an alternative view
section written by well-credentialed climate scientists is needed,” Christy said. “If not, why not? What is there to fear? In a scientific area as
uncertain as climate, the opinions of all are required,” he added.
‘The reception to my comments was especially cold’
[The following is excerpted from Andrew Revkin's January 26, 2009 New York Times blog Dot Earth. For full article go here.]
Excerpt: Last March, more than 100 past [UN IPCC] lead authors of report chapters met in Hawaii to chart next steps for the panel’s inquiries. One
presenter there was John R. Christy, a climatologist at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, who has focused on using satellites to chart global
temperatures. He was a lead author of a section of the third climate report, in 2001, but is best known these days as a critic of the more heated
warnings that climate is already unraveling under the buildup of heat-trapping gases.
WASHINGTON - A United Nations climate change conference in Poland is about to get a surprise from 650 leading scientists who scoff at
doomsday reports of man-made global warming - labeling them variously a lie, a hoax and part of a new religion.
Later today, their voices will be heard in a U.S. Senate minority report quoting the scientists, many of whom are current and former members of the
U.N.'s own Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
About 250 of the scientists quoted in the report have joined the dissenting scientists in the last year alone.
In fact, the total number of scientists represented in the report is 12 times the number of U.N. scientists who authored the official IPCC 2007
Here are some choice excerpts from the report:
* "I am a skeptic ... . Global warming has become a new religion." -- Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.
* "Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly ... . As a scientist I
remain skeptical." -- Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology and formerly of NASA
who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called "among the most pre-eminent scientists of the last 100 years."
* Warming fears are the "worst scientific scandal in the history ... . When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel
deceived by science and scientists." -- U.N. IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning Ph.D. environmental physical chemist.
* "The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn't listen to others. It doesn't have open minds ... . I am really amazed that
the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists." -- Indian geologist Dr. Arun D.
Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the U.N.-supported International Year of the Planet.
* "The models and forecasts of the U.N. IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at
scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity." -- Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the
National Autonomous University of Mexico.
* "It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don't buy into anthropogenic
global warming." -- U.S. Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA, the National Oceanic and
* "Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapor and water condensed on
particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will." -- Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials
Engineering of the University of Auckland, New Zealand.
* "After reading [U.N. IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet." --
Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's
Probability and Statistics Committee and is an associate editor of Monthly Weather Review.
* "For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must
cooling go on?" -- Geologist Dr. David Gee, the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130
plus peer-reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.
* "Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp ... . Climate models
can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact." -- Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made
warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch U.N. IPCC committee.
* "Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional
careers ruined." -- Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh, Pa.
* "Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense ... . The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of
social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning." -- Environmental Scientist Professor
Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.
* "CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another ... . Every scientist knows this, but it doesn't pay to say so ... .
Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver's seat and developing nations walking barefoot." -- Dr. Takeda Kunihiko,
vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.
* "The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds." -- Award-winning
Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University
of La Plata.
The report also includes new peer-reviewed scientific studies and analyses refuting man-made warming fears and a climate developments that contradict
Originally posted by Maslo
Also, its not only about the absolute level of CO2. Its about the RATE of increase. Humans managed to raise the level by 38% in just 100 years, which
is absolutely unnatural. If we continue and burn all the fossil fuels depositing in millions of years in just 200 years, thus tripling the amount of
atmospheric CO2 in such a short time, do you honestly think the effects on climate would and sudden change of conditions for the biosphere would not
This is the problem with people like you.. You want to claim that mankind caused ALL the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels, but atmospheric CO2
levels have risen naturally many times in the past. Only a small percentage of that increase is anthropogenic, but again you people need to try to
"scare" those who are not informed.
For example the Earth's magnetic field, and the Sun's magnetic field have also been shown to affect the climate.
Climate determinism or Geomagnetic determinism?
Gallet, Y.; Genevey, A.; Le Goff, M.; Fluteau, F.; Courtillot, V.
AA(Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris, 4 Place Jussieu, Paris, 75005 France ; email@example.com), AB(Centre de Recherche et de Restauration
des Musees de France, Palais du Louvre, Porte des Lions 14 quai Francois Mitterrand, Paris, 75001 France ; firstname.lastname@example.org), AC(Institut
de Physique du Globe de Paris, 4 Place Jussieu, Paris, 75005 France ; email@example.com), AD(Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris, 4 Place
Jussieu, Paris, 75005 France ; firstname.lastname@example.org), AE(Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris, 4 Place Jussieu, Paris, 75005 France ;
American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2006, abstract #GP51A-0940
1503 Archeomagnetism, 1521 Paleointensity, 1605 Abrupt/rapid climate change (4901, 8408), 1616 Climate variability (1635, 3305, 3309, 4215, 4513)
(c) 2006: American Geophysical Union
A number of episodes of sharp geomagnetic field variations (in both intensity and direction), lasting on the order of a century, have been
identified in archeomagnetic records from Western Eurasia and have been called "archeomagnetic jerks". These seem to correlate well with multi-decadal
cooling episodes detected in the North Atlantic Ocean and Western Europe, suggesting a causal link between both phenomena. A possible mechanism
could be a geomagnetic modulation of the cosmic ray flux that would control the nucleation rate of clouds. We wish to underline the remarkable
coincidence between archeomagnetic jerks, cooling events in Western Europe and drought periods in tropical and sub-tropical regions of the northern
hemisphere. The latter two can be interpreted in terms of global teleconnections among regional climates. It has been suggested that these climatic
variations had caused major changes in the history of ancient civilizations, such as in Mesopotamia, which were critically dependent on water supply
and particularly vulnerable to lower rainfall amounts. This is one of the foundations of "climate determinism". Our studies, which suggest a
geomagnetic origin for at least some of the inferred climatic events, lead us to propose the idea of a geomagnetic determinism in the history
Possible impact of the Earths magnetic field on the history
of ancient civilizations
Yves Gallet a,⁎, Agnès Genevey b, Maxime Le Goff a, Frédéric Fluteau a,c,
Safar Ali Eshraghi d
a Equipe de Paléomagnétisme, Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris, 4 place Jussieu, 75252 Paris cedex 05, France
b Centre de Recherche et de Restauration des Musées de France, UMR CNRS 171, Palais du Louvre, Porte des Lions,
14 quai François Mitterrand, 75001 Paris, France
c UFR des Sciences Physiques de la Terre, Université Denis Diderot Paris 7, 2 Place Jussieu, 75251 Paris cedex 05, France
d Geological Survey of Iran, Azadi sq., Meraj blvd., PO Box 13185-1494 Tehran, Iran
Received 30 November 2005; received in revised form 3 April 2006; accepted 3 April 2006
Available online 19 May 2006
Editor: R.D. van der Hilst
We report new archeointensity results from Iranian and Syrian archeological excavations dated from the second millennium BC.
These high-temperature magnetization data were obtained using a laboratory-built triaxial vibrating sample magnetometer.
Together with our previously published archeointensity results from Mesopotamia, we constructed a rather detailed geomagnetic field intensity
variation curve for this region from 3000 BC to 0 BC. Four potential geomagnetic events (“archeomagnetic jerks”), marked by strong intensity
increases, are observed and appear to be synchronous with cooling episodes in the North Atlantic.
This temporal coincidence strengthens the recent suggestion that the geomagnetic field influences climate change over multi-decadal time scales,
possibly through the modulation of cosmic ray flux interacting with the atmosphere. Moreover, the cooling periods in the North Atlantic coincide with
episodes of enhanced aridity in the Middle East, when abrupt societal changes occurred in the eastern Mediterranean and Mesopotamia.
Although the coincidences discussed in this paper must be considered with caution, they lead to the possibility that the geomagnetic field impacted
the history of ancient civilizations through climatically driven environmental changes, triggering economic, social and political instability.
© 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
The Mayans: Climate Determinism or Geomagnetic Determinism?
Equipe de Paléomagnétisme, Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris, France
Centre de Recherche et de Restauration des Musées de France, Palais du Louvre, France
Climatic variations since the end of the last ice age have been large enough to influence the fate of ancient civilizations, and deciphering the exact
role of climate in the history of old societies is an active and challenging domain of research. This potential influence, which serves as the
foundation of ‘climate determinism,’ can be viewed as the response of natural-resource-dependent, agriculture-based communities to climatically
driven environmental changes. In some cases, these could have provoked major damage in economic and social organization of the societies, thus paving
the way for political disintegration.
Published 13 March 2007.
Index Terms: 1503 Geomagnetism and Paleomagnetism: Archeomagnetism; 1616 Global Change: Climate variability (1635, 3305, 3309, 4215, 4513).
In case you didn't know it is a known fact that the Earth's magnetic field has been decreasing since around 1840.
Ships shed light on geomagnetic field
May 11, 2006
Geophysicists in the UK have used a mathematical model based on old ships' logbooks to show that the observed decline in the strength of the Earth's
magnetic field may only be a recent phenomenon -- and not a fixed trend as commonly thought. David Gubbins and colleagues at Leeds University say that
our planet's magnetic field was stable until the mid-1800s and has been weakening steadily only since then. The decline is caused by magnetic flux
reversals in the Southern Hemisphere and could point to a geomagnetic flip of the Earth's poles sometime this millennium (Science 312 900).
Scientists now know that the Earth's magnetic field is currently decreasing at a rate of about 0.5% a decade. If this trend continues, the magnetic
field might reverse so that the North Pole becomes the South Pole and vice versa. Such geomagnetic flips are thought to occur once every 300,000 years
or so, with the actual reversal taking thousands of years to complete. However, it is not known whether a decline in the Earth's magnetic field
strength is inevitable.
We also know by other research that the Sun's overall activity had been increasing also before 1978, which is the year Wilson's research started.
Dr Solanki is presenting a paper on the reconstruction of past solar activity at Cool Stars, Stellar Systems And The Sun, a conference in Hamburg,
He says that the reconstruction shows the Maunder Minimum and the other minima that are known in the past thousand years.
But the most striking feature, he says, is that looking at the past 1,150 years the Sun has never been as active as it has been during the
past 60 years.
Over the past few hundred years, there has been a steady increase in the numbers of sunspots, a trend that has accelerated in the past century, just
at the time when the Earth has been getting warmer.
The data suggests that changing solar activity is influencing in some way the global climate causing the world to get warmer.
Solanki has claimed that the past 20 years, from 2004, the Sun's activity has remained constant, which is not true as demonstrated by the research
from Wilson which proved the contrary.
There are other things which have been occurring recently and show that not only the Sun, and "water vapor" are the main contributors of the ongoing
Surprise In Earth's Upper Atmosphere: Mode Of Energy Transfer From The Solar Wind
"Its like something else is heating the atmosphere besides the sun. This discovery is like finding it got hotter when the sun went
down," said Larry Lyons, UCLA professor of atmospheric and oceanic sciences and a co-author of the research, which is in press in two companion
papers in the Journal of Geophysical Research.
(visit the link for the full news article)
I have been saying something similar to this, that when the Sun's activity had been at it's lowest since 2006, the defenses of the entire Solar
System, including Earth and the Sun, goes down, and the entire Solar System is more susceptible to forces from outside the Solar system, which affect
the planets, but also the Sun.
During such quiet periods of solar activity there are still sunspots, but fewer than during times of high solar activity, but since the Earth's
defenses are down such activity by the Sun is much stronger, and affects the Earth more.
"We all have thought for our entire careers — I learned it as a graduate student — that this energy transfer rate is primarily controlled by
the direction of the interplanetary magnetic field," Lyons said. "The closer to southward-pointing the magnetic field is, the stronger the energy
transfer rate is, and the stronger the magnetic field is in that direction. If it is both southward and big, the energy transfer rate is even
However, Lyons, Kim and their colleagues analyzed radar data that measure the strength of the interaction by measuring flows in the ionosphere, the
part of Earth's upper atmosphere ionized by solar radiation. The results surprised them.
"Any space physicist, including me, would have said a year ago there could not be substorms when the interplanetary magnetic field was staying
northward, but that's wrong," Lyons said. "Generally, it's correct, but when you have a fluctuating interplanetary magnetic field, you can have
substorms going off once per hour.
"Heejeong used detailed statistical analysis to prove this phenomenon is real. Convection in the magnetosphere and ionosphere can be strongly driven
by these fluctuations, independent of the direction of the interplanetary magnetic field."
Science is not settled in stone, and every once in a while the Solar System, and in fact the entire galaxy and Universe surprises us and shows us that
what we once thought impossible is possible.
edit on 4-10-2010 by ElectricUniverse because: errors