Explanation of climate change made easy

page: 2
2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 01:35 AM
link   
According to my update from climate depot dated 7/8/2013, 'unprecedented Arctic cold continues,"we are almost halfway through the Arctic melt season, and there has essentially been no melt north of 80N this year" '.
I get daily updates, makes fascinating reading.




posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 01:41 AM
link   
Just what is normal?

Do you all know we were in a mini ice age 200 years ago? If you look back at that time the Hudson river froze over every year and people would ice skate across it. So we been slowing coming out of that ice age that was going on for 500 to 800 years, caused by a number of closely timed eruptions.

So are we entering a normal stage or is the earth heating up beyond normal, who knows. One other thing to think about is that the mount Pinatubo eruption is said to have delayed any big changes for 30 years, so we really will not see what 1993 would have been like until 2023, so once again, who knows. One thing I do know is one volcano can totally remove any influence that man has on the planet very quickly.





edit on 10-7-2013 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 08:11 AM
link   
The climate changes. The climate has always changed. Brace yourself,........it will change again. Oh, and there is not such thing as chemtrails. Contrails are what you are seeing. clouds created by airplanes.

All is well, nothing to see here.



posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 08:15 AM
link   
Some people believe god more real than climate change.

Good Luck.



posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by CircleOfDust

Originally posted by pierregustavetoutant
Didnt CERN do a study on this and confirm that solar activity was the main culprit behind climate change (As it was for the many warming and cooling periods over human history, much less geological time)?
Funny how when the most respected scientific institution on the plant contradicts the alarmist mainstream, the media don't report on it. Why is that, I wonder?


Really? Haha, never heard about that, thanks. They give us little things here and there and the watchdog occasionally slips up, which is always fun.


You never heard about it because it didn't happen. What amazes me though is that you accepted that this study happened simply because a poster that supports your OP wondered if such a study happened, then alluded to it being covered up by the alarmist mainstream.

I had never heard about it either but instead of accepting or rejecting it outright, I searched it up. Something you might want to learn to do if you're going to make such a bold statement that you are able to offer an explanation of climate change so easy that anyone can understand it, something you're wrong about by the way but I'll explain that after showing what I found about the CERN study.


It sounds like a conspiracy theory: 'cosmic rays' from deep space might be creating clouds in Earth's atmosphere and changing the climate. Yet an experiment at CERN, Europe's high-energy physics laboratory near Geneva, Switzerland, is finding tentative evidence for just that.

The findings, published today in Nature1, are preliminary, but they are stoking a long-running argument over the role of radiation from distant stars in altering the climate.

For a century, scientists have known that charged particles from space constantly bombard Earth. Known as cosmic rays, the particles are mostly protons blasted out of supernovae. As the protons crash through the planet's atmosphere, they can ionize volatile compounds, causing them to condense into airborne droplets, or aerosols. Clouds might then build up around the droplets.



Kirkby hopes that the experiment will eventually answer the cosmic-ray question. In the coming years, he says, his group is planning experiments with larger particles in the chamber, and they hope eventually to generate artificial clouds for study. "There is a series of measurements that we will have to do that will take at least five years," he says. "But at the end of it, we want to settle it one way or the other."


So the study lead to nothing concrete but was enough to warrant further study, it's interesting and I look forward to learning the results of the next study. It would be kind of cool to know that the next time I get rained on I was getting some deep space particles in my hair.

Incidentally the theory relies on the sun, in weak moments, allowing more particles from deep space to hit earth. Sort of conflicts with your statement that the sun is responsible for our current climate change, so back to your statement...

To put it simply the sun is our climate. Without the sun we wouldn't exist, there would be no climate to debate about. Solar output (stronger or weaker) has had a hand in earths past climate changes (abstract), our position in orbit around the sun has also played it's part. In the past solar variation and/or our distance and axial tilt toward/away from the sun has lead to different climate periods (Holocene etc).

So the questions that you should already have answers for before claiming to have solved our current climate change are:

Is our current (prior to the industrial age through present) orbital procession and axial tilt indicative of a warmer climate?

Has solar output increased in the relative time frame?



posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by pasiphae
 


I can only respond to specific points, not derision.



posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by pikestaff
According to my update from climate depot dated 7/8/2013, 'unprecedented Arctic cold continues,"we are almost halfway through the Arctic melt season, and there has essentially been no melt north of 80N this year" '.
I get daily updates, makes fascinating reading.


I had a graphic on this but now I can't find it. But that's climate change, unpredictability and extreme variations in weather patterns now.



posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
Just what is normal?

Do you all know we were in a mini ice age 200 years ago? If you look back at that time the Hudson river froze over every year and people would ice skate across it. So we been slowing coming out of that ice age that was going on for 500 to 800 years, caused by a number of closely timed eruptions.

So are we entering a normal stage or is the earth heating up beyond normal, who knows. One other thing to think about is that the mount Pinatubo eruption is said to have delayed any big changes for 30 years, so we really will not see what 1993 would have been like until 2023, so once again, who knows. One thing I do know is one volcano can totally remove any influence that man has on the planet very quickly.





edit on 10-7-2013 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)


I have to agree primarily. To think that man can play a significant role in the natural climate changes on the Earth is utter nonsense. Right on with your volcano example.

Just don't neglect Earth's latest cyclical swing and the havoc that's being wrecked around her.



posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by network dude
The climate changes. The climate has always changed. Brace yourself,........it will change again. Oh, and there is not such thing as chemtrails. Contrails are what you are seeing. clouds created by airplanes.

All is well, nothing to see here.


Yes and then sometimes there are extinctions. Move on I guess.

Chemtrails are designed to help bolster our failing atmosphere from blocking out the sun's more damaging rays. Unfortunately this is just a band aid on the situation, but it buys them a bit more time to finish their preparations for only themselves. Bunker tombs in other words.



posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by luciddream
Some people believe god more real than climate change.

Good Luck.


Thanks, I'm just not sure how to parse your statement.



posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74

Originally posted by CircleOfDust

Originally posted by pierregustavetoutant
Didnt CERN do a study on this and confirm that solar activity was the main culprit behind climate change (As it was for the many warming and cooling periods over human history, much less geological time)?
Funny how when the most respected scientific institution on the plant contradicts the alarmist mainstream, the media don't report on it. Why is that, I wonder?


Really? Haha, never heard about that, thanks. They give us little things here and there and the watchdog occasionally slips up, which is always fun.


You never heard about it because it didn't happen. What amazes me though is that you accepted that this study happened simply because a poster that supports your OP wondered if such a study happened, then alluded to it being covered up by the alarmist mainstream.

I had never heard about it either but instead of accepting or rejecting it outright, I searched it up. Something you might want to learn to do if you're going to make such a bold statement that you are able to offer an explanation of climate change so easy that anyone can understand it, something you're wrong about by the way but I'll explain that after showing what I found about the CERN study.


It sounds like a conspiracy theory: 'cosmic rays' from deep space might be creating clouds in Earth's atmosphere and changing the climate. Yet an experiment at CERN, Europe's high-energy physics laboratory near Geneva, Switzerland, is finding tentative evidence for just that.

The findings, published today in Nature1, are preliminary, but they are stoking a long-running argument over the role of radiation from distant stars in altering the climate.

For a century, scientists have known that charged particles from space constantly bombard Earth. Known as cosmic rays, the particles are mostly protons blasted out of supernovae. As the protons crash through the planet's atmosphere, they can ionize volatile compounds, causing them to condense into airborne droplets, or aerosols. Clouds might then build up around the droplets.



Kirkby hopes that the experiment will eventually answer the cosmic-ray question. In the coming years, he says, his group is planning experiments with larger particles in the chamber, and they hope eventually to generate artificial clouds for study. "There is a series of measurements that we will have to do that will take at least five years," he says. "But at the end of it, we want to settle it one way or the other."


So the study lead to nothing concrete but was enough to warrant further study, it's interesting and I look forward to learning the results of the next study. It would be kind of cool to know that the next time I get rained on I was getting some deep space particles in my hair.

Incidentally the theory relies on the sun, in weak moments, allowing more particles from deep space to hit earth. Sort of conflicts with your statement that the sun is responsible for our current climate change, so back to your statement...

To put it simply the sun is our climate. Without the sun we wouldn't exist, there would be no climate to debate about. Solar output (stronger or weaker) has had a hand in earths past climate changes (abstract), our position in orbit around the sun has also played it's part. In the past solar variation and/or our distance and axial tilt toward/away from the sun has lead to different climate periods (Holocene etc).

So the questions that you should already have answers for before claiming to have solved our current climate change are:

Is our current (prior to the industrial age through present) orbital procession and axial tilt indicative of a warmer climate?

Has solar output increased in the relative time frame?


Maybe you can explain to me how an orbital procession and axial tilt could be indicative of a warmer climate. I'm not following.

And studies have already shown that solar output changes over time.

Here's one by a quick find. I've read others.

www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu...



posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by pierregustavetoutant
Didnt CERN do a study on this and confirm that solar activity was the main culprit behind climate change (As it was for the many warming and cooling periods over human history, much less geological time)?
Funny how when the most respected scientific institution on the plant contradicts the alarmist mainstream, the media don't report on it. Why is that, I wonder?


You are talking about the CLOUD project. It has been published. I created a thread about it.
CLOUD project



posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by CircleOfDust
 




Maybe you can explain to me how an orbital procession and axial tilt could be indicative of a warmer climate. I'm not following.


In other words you don't really understand how exactly the sun affects our climate. I'm not trying to be mean by saying that, I'm hoping to engage your critical thinking.

The earth doesn't orbit the sun in a perfect circle it's more like an oval (to be simplistic). If earth orbited in a perfect circle we could expect extremely small changes in climate from the sun that would be based solely on solar output (irradiance, wind). Our orbit around the sun causes us to be at different distances from it at different times, sometimes we are closer to the sun in winter and further in summer and sometimes we are closer in summer and further in winter, it's a cycle that changes over thousands of years.

This cycle is most likely responsible for warm periods and ice ages. Currently we are closer to the sun in winter and further away in summer, if we were to only factor that into the climate we would be in a relatively stable period without drastic warming or cooling but global mean temperature changes would go to the cooler side. The tilt of the earth also factors in, sometimes the north pole is pointed toward the sun and sometimes tilted away. Currently the north pole is tilted away from the sun in winter and toward in summer, another indication that we should be slightly (not significantly) cooling not warming.







And studies have already shown that solar output changes over time. Here's one by a quick find. I've read others. www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu...


Yes it does, it cycles about every 11 years between active and less active. We've been in an extended less active phase. These phases have very small effects on our climate, certainly not enough to cause an ice age nor a warming period. Solar output or decrease would have to be dramatically outside the norm for either.

The article you linked doesn't support your theory. From your link:


The most immediate cause of climate changes would be changes in the total irradiance of the Sun. This, however, would either imply unrealistically large variations in total solar irradiance or a higher climate sensitivity to radiative forcing than normally accepted. Therefore other mechanisms have to be invoked.



posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


Well it certainly seems you've got quite a bit of information there ready at your disposal, and you sound like you've had much practice putting it out there for others.

Interesting though, because I thought they always taught us in school that closeness to the sun doesn't account fr our change in weather. But that's not to say your data is wrong from that argument alone. I like unorthodox.

Yes, science usually speaks from both sides of their mouths. They have to in order to not be an outcast, just like Tesla was in his day. They'll admit that only the sun is responsible for our climate, but can't understand or acknowledge how the solar levels have changed drastically to account for the extreme weather patterns on earth.

More energy in a system, things become more energetic. Don't mean to talk to you like a child in my explanations, but the simple answers are usually the right ones. And this too should allow for better critical thought that's on the right path.



posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by VoidHawk



Explanation of climate change made easy

Climate change is BS.

There, my example is even simpler.


Ever hear of something called the "ice age"?
But no, that never happened. The Earth's climate doesn't change.



posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by trollz
 


Remind me to never argue with you haha that's great thanks.



posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by CircleOfDust
reply to post by VoidHawk
 


How someone can deny the obvious going on all around them is just beyond me.



Or how can someone say its something new when its been happening for as long as human history.



posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by CircleOfDust
 




Interesting though, because I thought they always taught us in school that closeness to the sun doesn't account fr our change in weather.


Not where I went to school and not where my son goes to school.



I like unorthodox.


It's not unorthodox it's mainstream science.



Yes, science usually speaks from both sides of their mouths.


No it doesn't.



They'll admit that only the sun is responsible for our climate


You aren't understanding what exactly science is saying. The sun isn't solely responsible for climate, even people who disagree with human caused warming don't say that.



but can't understand or acknowledge how the solar levels have changed drastically


Because they haven't drastically changed.



More energy in a system, things become more energetic.


This is true but you don't understand why there's more energy in our system. It isn't because there's more energy coming from the sun it's because the normal amount of energy from our sun isn't escaping our planet in the quantities that it used to.



Don't mean to talk to you like a child in my explanations, but the simple answers are usually the right ones. And this too should allow for better critical thought that's on the right path.


lol

There is a simple answer: The sun isn't different, our atmosphere is.

Can you please show us how solar output has increased?



posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


Yes unfortunately I've been kicking myself in the shins ever since I led to that popular belief on the web that it's only the atmosphere of earth that has changed. Yes it's true the atmosphere has changed, but it's because of the sun's influence.

Let's put it this way, if the sun stopped shining and the Earth just started floating out in space, it would have its own weather of its own?



posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by CircleOfDust
 





I think you might be the only one on the planet who today considers the sun yellow.


Funny thing I actually took the time to stay up as I work during the night to get some sun today as the skies were clear, and guess what colour the sun looked, yellow. I might the second, do I get the silver





Rainfall amounts are no where near normal.


Normal compared to what?

Compared to the great deluge of the bible yeah its not normal as we would be in a drought if compared to world wide flood.




the sound of thunder is much deeper than 10 years, 20 and 30 years ago.


And this is from your observational opinion or observational recordings and research?

If research and recordings then please supply.




More electricity in the air.


Please clarify what you mean and how you were able to conclude such.




If you look carefully at the holes in the leaves, they aren't made from insects. And they usually occur on the smaller leaves getting lots of direct sunlight.


Show show us something to look at other your words and opinions if you are meaning to do what your thread title says.





 
2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join