Global Warming? Think Again.

reply to post by Studenofhistory

The oceans are the key. Warm ocean water gives off CO2 while cold ocean water absorbs CO2. When temperatures rise, the average temperature of the oceans will slowly begin to rise as well and at a certain level, all the oceans become a net emitter of CO2. That accounts for the time lag. Similarly, when average ocean temperatures fall below that certain level, then the net impact on CO2 is absorption and CO2 levels fall.

I've done my homework. Have you?

Nice to see someone else has bothered to do their research.

You might like to look at A.J.Strata's info (He works for NASA) He shows how we have been scammed, as in "Statistics LIE" He is pretty good at leading novices through the math so they can understand what is actually happening.

What is funny is this isn't even a normal topic for him! Where Did All Our Tax Money Go?

Proof Why Global Warming Alarmists Are Mathematically Wrong

NASA GISS Admits Current Temps Not Historically Warmer

Stunning: NASA GISS Admits No Evidence of AGW In The US, Won’t Be For Decades!

It is amazing what you find when you pull back the PR spin from public facade of the AGW crowd and they become honest about the global warming canard. In my previous post I discovered Jim Hansen of NASA GISS noting the US temperature data is so noisy (yet it is the most accurate, most measured in the world) that you cannot pull any conclusions from it, and basically the 1930′s and 2000′s are statistically the same temperature!

I thought that was a pretty stunning admission. Until I read further into the email trail up and Judicial Watch (page 71 of 215) and discovered this....

reply to post by Studenofhistory

But I pride myself on having an open mind so how about this?
If you can find an article written by a climate scientist, that can explain why global temperatures started falling several times in the past, even as CO2 levels continued to rise for a minimum of 400 years, AND why that mechanism won't happen this time around too, then I'll seriously reconsider my position.

You don't need an article by a climate scientist - all you need to do is google Milankovitch Cycles for example. The reason they started falling is because of various factors like orbital changes or extended periods of intense volcanic activity. Just because CO2 is a driver of climate doesn't mean it's the only driver. It can certainly be overpowered by other factors, especially when those other factors act much more suddenly than the slow release of CO2.

Meanwhile CO2 continued to rise for another 400 years because it simply takes time to freeze things over.

But those other factors only explain why temperatures started falling, they don't explain why temperatures continued falling to the levels they did (-7C, etc).

So if you want papers by climate scientists, then look here:
Climate Forcing Data

That's the historical data we have on the Earth's orbital variations and changes in Solar insolation. Through that data scientists know that these changes alone are too weak to explain how ice ages and interglacial periods happen. This is explained in Lorius et al, (1990):

The orbital forcing is, however, relatively weak when considered on an annual globally averaged basis (the total insolation received by Earth has varied by < 0.7 W/m2 over the past 160 kyr).

(pg 141)

The missing piece that completes the puzzle is CO2 and methane feedbacks (which by the way drive and stabilize water vapour). This effect was speculated on over a hundred years ago as the cause of ice ages, and so it's precisely what led to the formulation of the AGW theory - and the prediction, again - over 100 years ago - that temperatures would rise with rising CO2 emissions.

Meanwhile Lorius et al tweaked this in 1990 to explain that while Milankovitch cycles initiate interglacials and ice ages, it is the subsequent release/sequestriation of greenhouse gases like CO2 and CH4 that explain how they get so much warmer/colder than they should on paper. They also explain how these effects are ultimately mediated across the entire globe - when orbital cycles only affect specific parts.

The discovery of significant changes in climate forcing linked with the composition of the atmosphere has led to the idea that changes in the CO2 and CH4 content have played a significant part in the glacial-interglacial climate changes by amplifying, together with the growth and decay of the Northern Hemisphere ice sheets, the relatively weak orbital forcing and by constituting a link between the Northern and Southern Hemisphere climates.

(pg 141)

So what this all adds up to is that Lorius et al didn't just explain the CO2 lag, they actually predicted it before it was fully verified in the ice-core record a decade later.


Thus the CO2 lag is actually one of the best historical pieces of proof there is for anthropogenic global warming, not against it.

Because it not only shows how all the pieces of the puzzle fit - it also explains another big mystery in science: how ice ages work.

reply to post by Movescamp

....While carbon taxation maybe a scam. The destruction of habitat is not. Nor is the impact of mining, drilling, and Refining recourses.....

You are making the usual assumptions.

Climate Skeptic = PRO pollution

WRONG!!!!

We live on this planet too. I and many of the rest of us were members of Greenpeace, WWF and Sierra Club. We just have the science and math background and the curiosity to look behind the curtain.

My biggest gripe with the "Global Warming" idiocy is that it has diverted much needed resources - money and brain power - AWAY from the real problems. Worse if a paper does not have the "get out of jail free card", linking the findings to Global Warming, it will not be published.

How much real progress have we lost because of the Banksters and oil companies propaganda. Yes the Oil companies ARE behind Global warming and have been from the beginning. Yes it leads right back to the Rockefellers as usual. If you bother to lift up a rock the Rothchilds and/or Rockefellers crawl out.

Think about it, if the USA had not abandoned thorium nuclear power we would still have our manufacturing thanks to cheap energy. It would be CLEAN manufacturing instead of the filthy dirty third world manufacturing that depends on virtual slave labor.

If new banking laws were not passed, leveraged buyouts would not have been allowed to occur and good solid American companies would not have been bought, dismantled and shipped overseas. Congress had the power to STOMP on the leveraged buyouts and did not. Given that leveraged buyouts lead to the 1929 economic crash you think they would have!

Oh and you can thank Clinton (1993-2001), a Democrat, for the loss of much of our manufacturing and the current economic crisis. He ratified the World Trade Organization and signed many of the new banking laws. You can look the laws up HERE The republicans are JUST as guilty but it is more spread out over time.

CHANGE.ORG: Thorium: Nuclear Energy's Clean Little Secret

...In the 1950s and 1960s, U.S. scientists turned their backs on thorium, a cleaner alternative to uranium-fueled nuclear energy, because uranium produces plutonium as a byproduct. And plutonium is the key ingredient in nuclear bombs necessary to blast the Russians to smithereens....

Let's review some of the key benefits of thorium. It's abundant (because we've never used any of it); it doesn't require the costly and time-intensive refining process important for uranium, and the waste it produces becomes inert in one hundred years as opposed to hundreds of thousands of years. It's nearly impossible for terrorists to manipulate for weapons production. There's more: the annual fuel cost for a one gigawatt thorium reactor is approximately six hundred times lower than that of a uranium reactor, which requires 250 times more of the raw element....

reply to post by crimvelvet


Well I agree with some of your statement. I already commented on the fact that global warming is a scam. It is global weirding. The complete decimation of habitats causes all kinds of unexpected results. I am a libertarian so Clinton is not a favorite of mine is it an assumption I am liberal? I fully think any government intervention other than pollution fines over private or public property is a scam.

However, to say we haven't effected climate is ridiculous. The apparent science you use to figure out co2 levels or heating of the climate is part of the game. It is much more complicated than that. You can bet not all scientists are on the take and the complex modeling software being created by scores of science teams from physicists to geologists are a bit better funded and equipt to do Ifthe research.

If truly you do look so deeply you will see we already have energy solutions. There are hundreds of inventions that use efficient energy if not zero point. Solar sterling engines, resonant static devices, torrid batteries, magnetic field bearings, and scores of renewables. Not to mention fission as done by the navy labs.

It is obviously a corruption problem and I have always said incentives and artifacts are the solution. We already have most if not all of the solutions. Heck Bucky Fuller had entire national renewable grids made in the 70's. The same banksters and oil barons running the global warming debate are the ones snuffing cheap clean power. Of course they can afford to pollute in the carbon tax system. All it does is squash their competitors.

The issue does not mean we have not effected climate by or utter greed and stupidity. Unless you have done years of labwork on currents, atmosphere conditions, habitat erasure, migration patterns, weather patterns, mating/breeding patterns, erosion,desertification, deforestation etc you are not looking at the whole picture.

reply to post by Studenofhistory
Great post. Here's a temperature and CO2-reconstruction graph from ice-core data in the Antarctic. It's very enlightening. See how temperature goes up without any changes in CO2: www.palisad.com...

Link: www.palisad.com... Go to "Power Point Presentation".

Ouch StudentOfHistory!
I side with you but you won't be able to have a discussion with AGW 'truthers' ever, they'll just snarl and snipe relentlessly. If you present any info, they'll take it apart, slander the author or their credentials and if they can't do that well they won't read it or comment on it. I'm still waiting for one of them to answer my questions from late November in this thread...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

They won't, I asked about 10 times, they just ignored it. Then I was asked a few questions about the Arctic ice cap and methane release, answered them and my answers were disregarded. So your'e wasting your time.
And as for mc's post, that's the first time I've noticed him offer anything to the discussion so fair play to him; I'll just have to try and adsorb it now.
Anyway, check this out. Posted here on ATS a while back but a bloody good critique about AGW.
rps3.com...
I'll be looking in!
Mez
Oh, to the poster who ranted on about the 'investigation' well if an institution investigates themselves and then gets their buddies to correlate the investigation then of course they're gonna come up smelling of roses.

The Difference between an Environmentalist and a Denier
You can easily tell if someone is a true environmentalist, i.e.
an advocate for a healthy planet - he is one who is happy to
hear the news that the arctic ice has returned. He is one who
celebrates when the recent climate data show the alarmist‟s
predictions of catastrophic warming might be wrong. The
denier, if he is an eco/political activist, always denies new data
that show the planet may be healthy after all. The Media
usually defines deniers as those who deny the scientist's
computer model predictions. However, denying the measured
climate data meets a better definition in the world of
science. Burt Rutan

reply to post by Mez353


Isn't that what climate change deniers do too? I think you are being tricked into a two sided debate. It's far more complex than both sides make it out to be. As we cycle through the next climate change (which happens every 10,000 or so years, are you sure the habitats we destroyed will rebirth life? How long do these chemicals from refining mining and drilling last? Will the natural weather changes be effected by us wiping out key forests throughout he world? What about ocean currents as we have these massive spills? It's not so simple as to do some math on atmospheric conditions. Each part of the earth effects the other from the core to the ionosphere has a purpose. An amazing machine. The real issue is perception. Most people don't comprehend or have the time for the amazing advancements of human kind. The greed and good old boys have us pinned and debating irrelevant bs like co2 and atmosphere. It's the refining of carbon based fuels and the drilling/mining that does the most damage and since there is no clean way to extract the stuff the co2 the least important part of the debate. Political, socioeconomic, and military force is the real debate.

reply to post by Movescamp


I agree whole heartedly. It's just that AGWers blame CO2 solely (usually) and my argument for that is that it is not true. I watched an amazing programme on Sunday evening that showed responsible exploitation of the Greenland Tin and Zinc reserves. Now to be honest, to extract these minerals is hard work but they couldn't have been any more responsible. No waste or pollution, nothing. These people were doing it right, pity big industry is run by complete crooks and has been for ever with complete disregard for anything except profit. Always puzzled me how the whole human race gets the blame for these actions condoned by a few though.

reply to post by Studenofhistory


This has been debunked so many times.
If it is indeed the sun warming up planets, then all the planets would be warming up, not just 3 of them. And if the sun is strong enough to warm up say, Uranus. Then the Earth would be experiencing more severe effects. If it is enough to warm up Pluto, then the Earth would be jerky.
The Sun is putting out less energy then it did millions of years ago. So then why would things be heating up?
And then the temperatures would follow the steady 11 year up and down cycle of the sun.. which they are not.

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by Studenofhistory

 

This has been debunked so many times.
If it is indeed the sun warming up planets, then all the planets would be warming up, not just 3 of them.

Ok, if we buy your argument, then please tell me what mankind is doing to heat up the other 2?

reply to post by Studenofhistory


Its actually that very reason that CO2 caused or ended the ice ages. Though they did not create or end them, they finished the effect. There was a lag of only a few hundred years between what was initiated, maybe by natural cycles, and then the CO2, as you explained, was released and or trapped by the oceans, causing a rise in temps. So while they did not create, the warming itself caused the release of CO2, that further raised temperatures to end the ice age. So if it wasn't for the carbon dioxide being released, the Earth might of never come out of the ice ages.

These trends last thousands of years. They should not be noticeable during only a few generations.

The highest peak of CO2 was 300 ppm. In the next ten years we will reach 400ppm. Hardly natural.

reply to post by Mez353


I understand your frustration. The trap is debating about co2. Climate change is so complex how can people make it sound so simple. As far as the blame you are right. But the use of force scares most people. Look at 911 the story they gave is a guy with a box cutter held up the whole plain. So what about a group of police, or a death threat, or prison? The corrupt captains of industry found there way into politics and
Wrote laws to benefit them. Now we all jump when they say jump or else you will loose your blackberry, or car, or house. Why do people try debating about global warming? It won't happen. We will have erratic unstable weather patterns not warming. The more ice that melts the more surface area of water, the more evaporation then more clouds than cooler weather. Without biodiversity the likely hood of the earth rebounding after an ice age goes down.

reply to post by nixie_nox

The highest peak of CO2 was 300 ppm. In the next ten years we will reach 400ppm. Hardly natural.

CO2 has only been steady at 300ppm for thousands of years in ice-core paleoclimatological data and they are ultimately uncheckable by direct observation. No-one was around to measure atmospheric CO2 thousands of years ago therefore the idea that CO2 has never been higher than 400ppm in 650,000 years as the IPCC assert is questionable. Paleoclimate data comes with so many uncertainties and ice-cores have been found to consistently underestimate atmospheric CO2 due to diffusion (which is when CO2 leaks out of the trapped air-bubbles within the ice very gradually giving the false appearance of stable CO2 concentrations over millennia). Compare ice-core proxies to Stomata-proxies, which show much more variability and you will see that current CO2 levels are not unprecedented or historically unusual.

Actually that very reason that CO2 caused or ended the ice ages.

There's still lots of controversy around this and what specifically shifted the climate between relatively warm and cool states (i.e. glacial and interglacials) and I would place my money on Milankovitch cycles being the significant factor. I think it's jumping ahead of the science slightly by saying that CO2 was definitely the main cause especially when atomic spectrometer observations show that CO2 is very weak greenhouse gas and can only absorb IR over three narrow frequencies which amounts to only 8% of the electromagnetic frequency in the IR-spectrum. The fact that temperature-changes precede corresponding CO2-changes I think effectively rules out the possibility that CO2 has ever controlled temperature and is unlikely to ever do so. Consider also, for a second, CO2's percentage in the atmosphere. It's 0.038% of the atmosphere. One percent of one percent. One molecule in every 2600. I don't know much about heat transfer but I imagine it would be very hard for one molecule to sufficiently heat up 2600 molecules spread evenly around it to cause significant heating.

Yup!! Anther post from somebody who believes the dis-info. I am 55 years old and know first hand the temperature here in n-wisconsin has warmed up quite a bit since i was a kid. Sure there is a cold spell going on , so what! Does that mean we throw all science away?? DONT YOU PEOPLE SEE THE CHEM-TRAILING PLANES CLOUDING AND HAZZING THE SKIES??? [ ignorance] The global dimming project has been going on here in upper wisconsin for over 15 years--WATCH the striping or checkerboard patterns they spread right over you heads??????. Wake the f*** up---THINK ABOUT THIS IGNORANT PEOPLE, if ya raise the temperature outside of our planet wouldnt the inside heat up?? Wouldnt it expand?? Wouldnt that expansion cause earthquakes and volcanoe eruptions??? wake up people!! theres a furnace inside our planet--ARE you sure ya want to add heat to the outside??? What would even 1 degree rise in the inside do as far as expansion?? And dont tell me that the scientists dont already know and would never let this out. Ignorance is deafening sometimes.. thumbs down on this post

reply to post by Movescamp

The issue does not mean we have not effected climate...

I will put a big question mark on mankind's effecting the climate. However if we do effect the climate it is from farming and irrigation not through CO2. The IPCC has been VERY careful to completely skirt the issue of H2O's effect on climate.

If I am correct we will be seeing a major change in our climate towards colder weather for several decades. Lets just hope the problem is not compounded by a major volcanic eruption or we may find out Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution was correct about an Abrupt Climate Change into Ice Age conditions within a decade!

My vote for the big three effecting the climate are:
1. The Sun - as in the Sun/earth relationship: Science paper, Temperature and precipitation history of the Arctic: Solar energy reached a summer maximum (9% higher than at present) ca 11 ka ago and has been decreasing since then, primarily in response to the precession of the equinoxes.

2. Volcanoes - as in the Science paper, Study of Dust in Ice Cores Shows Volcanic Eruptions Interfere with the Effect of Sunspots on Global Climate

The research, published in a paper in the May 15 issue of Geophysical Research Letters, provides striking evidence that sunspots -- blemishes on the sun's surface indicating strong solar activity -- do influence global climate change, but that explosive volcanic eruptions on Earth can completely reverse those influences.

It is the first time that volcanic eruptions have been identified as the atmospheric event responsible for the sudden and baffling reversals that scientists have seen in correlations between sunspots and climate.

3. Water in all its various forms:
Clouds

Preliminary results for the CERN CLOUD cosmic ray experiment

Changes in cloud cover and cloud types

70% of the Earth is ocean:
The oceans as a calorimeter

Argo Buoys measure the ocean temperatures at different depths GRAPH

A 2008 study – “Oceanic Influences on Recent Continental Warming”, by Compo, G.P., and P.D. Sardeshmukh, (Climate Diagnostics Center, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado, and Physical Sciences Division, Earth System Research Laboratory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), Climate Dynamics, 2008)

[www.cdc.noaa.gov...] states:

“Evidence is presented that the recent worldwide land warming has occurred largely in response to a worldwide warming of the oceans rather than as a direct response to increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) over land. Atmospheric model simulations of the last half-century with prescribed observed ocean temperature changes, but without prescribed GHG changes, account for most of the land warming. … Several recent studies suggest that the observed SST variability may be misrepresented in the coupled models used in preparing the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report, with substantial errors on interannual and decadal scales. There is a hint of an underestimation of simulated decadal SST variability even in the published IPCC Report.”

www.appinsys.com...

Does CO2 Drive the Earth’s Climate System? Comments on the Latest NASA GISS Paper October 16th, 2010 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. (NASA)

...After assuming clouds and water vapor are no more than feedbacks upon temperature, the Lacis et al. paper then uses a climate model experiment to ‘prove’ their paradigm that CO2 drives climate — by forcing the model with a CO2 change, resulting in a large temperature response!

Well, DUH. If they had forced the model with a water vapor change, it would have done the same thing. Or a cloud change. But they had already assumed water vapor and clouds cannot be climate drivers....

United States, particularly the Southern states is just *cough* small *cough* part of the world. Don't base your conclusions on just a small part of the world.

Trust me, I've been to Georgia, knew some of the locals there and also experienced record lows while in there(very long winter in 2008, particularly in northern states). But I've been also to other parts of the world and they are the opposite and experiencing record highs.

Polar researchers have always mentioned climbing temps in the polar regions. Based on my experience, and knowledge of the weather, what they say is very likely to be true.

Weather systems are driven by heat and temperature differences, but the major energy is heat. The storms are getting more, unpredictable and more relentless. Things are definitely getting hotter.

Finally, the reason why sub polar regions getting record cold is due to 'bottled cold air' in the polar region getting driven down by the new patterns of weather due to rising temps in the polar regions.

If CTer's want to be taken more seriously, they need to adapt critical thinking skills. Not only are anthropogenic climatic changes real, they really seem to be snowballing over the last decade or so.

It doesn't take that much gray matter to realize that the oil companies have a lot to lose from the truth of AGW, or that the issue is now a matter of "national security", heck it's a matter of ensuring the continuation of civilization as far as I'm concerned. This is when the thought of black-ops "chemtrails" as a means to counter our effects of greenhouse emissions starts to actually make some sense.

Just think it through, guys. There's a lot more going on than most people realize.

Originally posted by Studenofhistory
reply to post by nixie_nox

 

I'd be willing to bet that I know more about how climate works than you do. I've done my homework.

I'll take that bet. I'll put a nice 1k on nixie_nox thanks.

For example, the data on CO2 and temperature, that was used for those huge charts that Gore stood in front of, in his movie Inconvenient Truth, came from ice core samples from Greenland and the South Pole.

Yes, they took core samples from two places that are now MELTING quicker then before. That means, the place where we get hundreds of thousands of years of climate history is MELTING.
ring any alarm bells yet.
www.extremeicesurvey.org...

The scientist who actually analyzed those core samples and generated that data, wrote a report, which I found on the net (quite a while ago). In it, he states that over the last 600,000 years covered by the data, every single time the trend changed from up to down or from down to up, temperatures ALWAYS changed direction first and CO2 ALWAYS changed direction later.

What you are talking about is the CO2 lag.
What AGW(anthropogenic Global Warming relates to is the fact that CO2 is rising independently from Tempreature. So your correlation of Temperature driving CO2 is redundant and irrelevant.
But what is not redundant or irrelevant is the persevering relationship between CO2 and temperature. By that I mean CO2 will effect temperature. This is a fact. It is supported by physics. So, we have CO2 rises driven by humans, and not temperature BUT CO2 will effect temperature as per the laws of physics.
You do the math.

The lag in between the two points of trend change was an average of 1100 YEARS plus or minus 700 years. This means that there were periods of time, lasting a minimum of 400 years when global temperatures had already started to drop even though CO2 levels were still rising and vice versa. Now the laws of physics and chemistry haven't changed in the last 600,000 years and therefore since CO2 wasn't causing global warming in the past, it can't possibly be causing it now. What is happening now, is the same thing that happened in the past which is that rising temperatures eventually cause rising CO2 levels. How you ask?

How about asking how that happens when CO2 has rien at rates that precede temperature rises.
You have the equation backwards.
CO2 level are, and have been, and will continue to out pace tempersture rises and we now what is driving CO2 rises, US, and we know that this is independent of temperature but it will have an effect on temperature as per the laws of physics you mention that exist.

The oceans are the key. Warm ocean water gives off CO2 while cold ocean water absorbs CO2. When temperatures rise, the average temperature of the oceans will slowly begin to rise as well and at a certain level, all the oceans become a net emitter of CO2. That accounts for the time lag. Similarly, when average ocean temperatures fall below that certain level, then the net impact on CO2 is absorption and CO2 levels fall.

What you are describing is a feedback from temperature rises.
Dude, we are not seeing a lag between CO2 and temperature. We are seeing a rise in CO2, and then a rise in temperature. When you get that basic fact into your reasoning you'll comprehend the basic flaw in all the excuses you are offering.
It is a fact that CO2 rises have preceded temperature rises, the cause of that CO2 rise is US.
That is why people think we are effecting the climate.

I've done my homework. Have you?

Can I have my money now?

Farming and irrigation do come under AGW as Land Use Changes and that’s factored into the overall percentage, but again, this is estimated.

I see Atlasastro is at it again with his vivid comment ..
“What AGW(anthropogenic Global Warming relates to is the fact that CO2 is rising independently from Tempreature. So your correlation of Temperature driving CO2 is redundant and irrelevant.”

Does that even make any sense? Temperature driving CO2 is the other side of the argument. See what I said in my earlier post how AGWers dismiss anything that’s presented. Your argument is called irrelevant and redundant, just lovely.

And then this “By that I mean CO2 will effect temperature. This is a fact. It is supported by physics. So, we have CO2 rises driven by humans, and not temperature BUT CO2 will effect temperature as per the laws of physics.”
Complete disregard for the physical fact that temperature also affects the rate of CO2 release. Warmer fluid (think glass of lemonade) releases more CO2 more quickly than colder fluid. Isn’t this also a feedback loop?
Anyway, a projected 0.6 degree Centigrade rise from CO2 over 100 years is not enough to affect the planet significantly.

My theory as to why we are in a period of significant and noticeable change in climate compared to previous modern eras is that we are seeing a significant weakening of the magnet we live on, and the field is being disrupted by the flux we are travelling through and the erratic nature of the Sun’s output (delay of solar cycle 24 and then recent massive sudden increase in sun spots and CMEs for starters). Earth’s core is constantly changing as it radiates heat away from the core, thus the magnetic field of the earth weakens the older it gets as more heat is lost over time (less heat = less energised liquid iron = less magnetic field strength). The way that the magnetic field responds to solar bombardment is thus also affected, the resultant changes noticeable in the climate of earth. This has been proven by studying the changes in the magnetosphere and even more importantly the ionosphere which has shown a measurable reduction in elevation. The increase in movement of the magnetic poles recently proves that the core is undergoing a significant and noticeable change (now travelling towards Siberia at 40 km / year as opposed to 8 km/year 100 years ago). The projected flurry of solar activity for next year should also prove or disprove this point if we get it. The Sun is predicted to generate a very high number of sunspots and CMEs according to it’s 11 and 19 year cycles. The earth’s magnetic core reacts to these outbursts (anywhere between 8 seconds for high density particles and about 4 days for the weakest) resulting in Magnetospheric and Ionospheric fluctuations. As both of these layers act as filters for the sun’s radiation and are known to directly impact the local weather systems below them (see HAARP and how energising the ionosphere can cause rain locally – the UAE are doing this also to generate wet weather in their deserts) we should expect abrupt climate scenarios (heatwaves, monsoons out of season etc) here on earth and an increase in earthquakes and volcanic activity as the earth’s core is rattled by the sun’s ejections.

Some other planets are responding in a similar way too. Tellingly, these are the one’s with an atmosphere. The one’s that are not responding are already dead as DoDos as their liquid iron cores turned solid many moons ago so do not generate a significant magnetic field in any case, that’s why there’s no atmosphere on these planets. No magnetic field = no atmosphere = no insulating layer to affect.

There is an additional factor that undermines the argument, that rising temperatures cause rising CO2 levels which in turn, causes more rising temperatures, etc. ie. a positive feedback. As I said in a previous post, this notion implies a runaway vicious circle that excludes the possibility that temperatures would ever STOP rising. We know that in the past, temperatures have stopped rising more than once in spite of the fact that for periods of at least 400 years and in some cases as long as 1800 years, CO2 levels continued to rise even as temperatures were falling. So therefore either the impact of CO2 on temperature is marginal or there is NO causal relationship between CO2 and temperature at all.

The additional factor I referred to, is the fact that CO2's ability to hold in heat energy is logarythmic. If you have twice as much CO2, you don't get twice the impact on temperature. Experts have estimated that the first 20 ppm of CO2 accounts for half of the total impact on temperature while the remaining 368 ppm accounts for the rest. In order to double the impact on temperature once again, CO2 levels would have to rise to roughly 50,000 ppm. This strongly suggests that CO2's causal impact on changes in temperatures is marginal and given that the CO2 quantities that the oceans are able to either release or absorb, dwarfs what mankind generates by an order of magnitude, it's my opinion that nothing we do or don't do, will change the weather in any measurable way.